I did not intend to blog on abortion today, but an amazing article surfaced on Facebook this morning that I just had to share with you. After all, it’s not every day that a powerful article on abortion is written from the point of view of a feminist!
May of 1972, something happened that altered the course of history for me.
My mother conceived me. A student at the state University and unmarried, it presented a bit of a crisis. Her mother never quite got over the fact and never approved of my father. I believe the extended family always considered my mother (the baby of her family) to be a little irresponsible and this (obviously) didn’t help matters any. As often happened pre Roe v Wade, the pressure was on for my parents to get married. They did a few months later and I was born within wedlock early in 1973. My parents went on to have several more children and miraculously, are still together to this day.
Had I been conceived in 1973, maybe it would have been a different story – or perhaps, there would have been no story at all. Pressures from all sides would have looked something like this:
- “You have to finish college! You can’t do that with a baby – get rid of it, you can have another later – when it is more convenient.”
- “How will you survive? You’re both just students! You will be poor and you know how that impacts the lives of children. Best to have an abortion and try again when you can afford a baby.”
- “You hardly know each other, how do you know a marriage would work anyway? He would probably just leave you. Best to be done with it. If you stay together, you can always have one when you’re more sure of your relationship.”
- “You will bring shame upon our family – just get rid of it.”
I like to think that my parents are strong enough people that they would have rejected this rhetoric, but maybe not…
I, for one, am thankful that Roe v Wade had not been decided in 1972.
It’s not just a lump of cells
To me, having had six kids of my own, I cannot fathom being able to justify this after “quickening” – when you can feel that baby moving around. How can you justify it not being a person? Yet, everyone who has argued for third-trimester abortion is doing just that! When babies born at 24 weeks have a decent chance of survival – and the youngest survivor was just a day short of 22 weeks in gestation – how can we even fathom killing a baby after this stage?
The following clip is astounding and heart-wrenching. You’ll have to forgive the computerized voice, but it’s an excellent clip anyway.
But science tells us that babies are “people” well before this… I’m quoting from the article I read this morning…
“The usual justification for abortion is that the unborn is not a “person.” It’s said that “Nobody knows when life begins.” But that’s not true; everybody knows when life — a new individual human life — gets started. It’s when the sperm dissolves in the egg. That new single cell has a brand-new DNA, never before seen in the world. If you examined through a microscope three cells lined up — the newly fertilized ovum, a cell from the father, and a cell from the mother — you would say that, judging from the DNA, the cells came from three different people.”
(Please read more of this EXCELLENT article!)
The loss of life is staggering
When I was in high school, I remember reading an article in a newspaper or something talking about how few teenagers there were at the time… That our generation was relatively small. Even then, the fact that Roe v Wade probably had something to do with it was prominent in my mind. Many of my classmates had simply been aborted.
The number quoted in today’s (actually, it was Sunday’s) article was 59 MILLION lives lost through abortion. That’s more than the population of England and Scotland combined. Or the states of California and Florida (or New York) combined. That’s a lot of people lost…
Of course, this is the US alone. Abortion plagues the entire “developed” world.
In the UK, it is now figured that abortion counts for 27 percent of all deaths – and have hovered right around 200,000 per year since 2004. This is a medium-sized city every year. Interestingly, when abortion first became available in the late 1950s, there were less than 200 illegal abortions annually, but the year after the law changed, the number of legal abortions were nearly 10 times the number of previous abortions, so the argument that inaccessibility to abortion leads to illegals ones simply doesn’t hold water. By 1962 there were 14,000 abortions and the number has only increased ever since.
In China, since 1979, over 400 million lives have been lost (and the resultant population is more and more selfish and conceited as children grow up being spoilt by well-intentioned parents giving everything to this one precious offspring.
Myth of overpopulation
Pro-choice advocates will then say that this loss of life is actually a good thing – after all, we are an overcrowded planet. This argument sounds great when you’re stuck in the middle of a huge city – or when you see all the problems created, not by too many people, but by too many SELFISH people! I remember reading a National Geographic article years ago (early 2000s, probably) about the overpopulation crisis and then the same article said how all the people in the world could fit inside the state of Texas with 1500 square feet each. (That’s ground space… you haven’t built up yet.)
Another site at the time talked about how one person in the west occupied the same environmental footprint of 26 people in Africa! Again, it’s selfish, extravagant people who are ruining the world, NOT the numbers of people.
Hunger in the third world is, by and large, due to bad government and bad agriculture, not lack of food. I won’t go into this topic too much again, I’ll write on this more in depth on another day, but the point is that it’s a faulty argument on the side of the Pro-choice lobby who would like us to think that abortion is actually a good thing; a blessing in disguise.
Fitting into a man’s world
I thought this was a very good observation by… Frederica Mathewes-Green
“Essentially, we’ve agreed to surgically alter women so that they can get along in a man’s world. And then expect them to be grateful for it.”
Why do we feel the need to “get along in a man’s world?”
Can we, as a society, not find a way to have women able to work AND have children – withOUT feeling the need to put them into day care? Women have the amazing ability to multitask, why can’t we put that to good use and let mothers be mothers AND workers at the same time – while at home?
If we, as a society, can learn, but one thing…
That LIFE IS SACRED!
we may just have a chance to save our sinking ship of a civilization.
(Here is a story of a baby who survived abortion.)