Posted by
William D. Dannenmaier on Saturday, June 19, 2010 10:51:39 AM
A friend who disagrees with me on most, or at least many, political thoughts wrote an answer to a question that she knew I would ask, “Why she would vote for a specific candidate.” She was right. I intended to write and ask “why,” because she is an intelligent lady and I attend to her ideas. Her argument ensured that I would vote against her favorite if given the opportunity.
She said she supported him because he favored abortion rights, that she believed the “right” to an abortion should be between the woman and her doctor. To a certain extent, I agree with her. If the woman’s condition makes it physically or economically dangerous for her to have a child, I have no objection to her having an abortion following a discussion with her doctor. Similarly, if ultrasound taken early in the pregnancy - and they are given early in pregnancies - indicates a seriously deformed child, again I have no objections. Otherwise I do have objections.
First and foremost, I object to late term abortions. I object to a child, in the process of birth, having a doctor insert a needle into its brain and kill it. To me, that is a living child and that is murder of an innocent. They say it is painless. If it is so “painless,” as abortionists declare, why don’t we execute murderers that way?
Second, I object to using my money to pay for the consequences of the frivolous sexual freedom which results in pregnancies. When I was teaching college, students would confide their adventures and problems to me. I knew more than one girl who, from unprotected sex, got pregnant, went and got an abortion through “Planned Parenthood,” and finally, a year later got pregnant again through more unprotected sex and returned to “Planned Parenthood” for another abortion.
“Planned Parenthood” makes a lot of money off of such people, but not from them. Most of the multi-million dollar profits enjoyed by “Planned Parenthood” come from the federal government, from taxpayers whether they approve of such irresponsible promiscuity or not. Incidentally, I place “Planned Parenthood” in quotes because it is the name of the organization, which should be “Abortions on Request.”
There is another element that I have against abortions. During the twenty-five years I spent as a licensed psychologist, both teaching and practicing, I met young married women who, to their sorrow, found that an earlier, legal, abortion had left them sterile, unable to have the children they now craved. People expound on the danger of “back alley” abortions, but main street abortions are just as dangerous, however no one documents this.
The belief in the right of women and men, to control their own children is nothing new. Two hundred or so years ago, people could do anything they wished with their children: abuse them, maim them, even kill them. After all, they were their children. If I recall correctly, the first parents convicted of child abuse were in New York City, but not as a result of any law protecting children. There were no laws protecting children. There were animal abuse laws; protecting horses, cows and dogs. A couple who were seriously abusing their own children were brought to court, and punished, under these humane society laws.
Women who are pregnant typically know that within two months of impregnation. At that time “infants” are simply human masses of cells. Ultrasound can establish, certainly well before the first six months the health of that to-be-child and I have no serious objections to abortions at such time (provided I don’t have to pay for them). I even approve of abortions of deformed fetuses, having known couples unable to have other children because of the cost of supporting a deformed child. But by seven months, that fetus is no longer simply a mass of cells: it is a child with eyes, arms, legs, fingers and toes - capable of living beyond the womb. Ultrasound pictures of babies aborted at such times show infants desperately trying to avoid the forceps that are being used to pull off their arms and legs and pull them from the womb. That is murder. Vicious murder. And that is what these candidates who support “women’s rights to abortions” are so casually supporting.
The question of abortion requires more than a simple “I’m for it” or “I’m against it” answer. Sorry, but I don’t trust a candidate who gives a simple answer to abortion.