CONTENTS of the uterus?!

8/26/2009

sooo I was looking through the most recent issue of Newsweek the other night (the baseball game was going pretty slow so I was bored...) and there was a section all about the proposed Obama healthcare plan. I was intrigued and figured there might be something about abortion in there, and low and behold there was a huge article titled "The Abortion Evangelist".

I knew I should have stopped reading right there because this was going to make me upset, but I was curious. As predicted, I got more and more upset as I continued to read the article. It chronicled the life of this abortion doctor, and how he is portrayed as a hero amongst pro-choicers because he continues to provide late-term abortions up to 24 weeks where the baby has up to a 50% chance of survival outside of the womb. at 22 weeks, it is under 10%. but what about that 10-50% that survive? why give your baby a 0% chance to survive when he or she can have at least a slight chance? to me, that's not being pro-choice because you're not giving the baby the option to survive when he/she has a chance. every human should have the right to at least have a choice to survive, and that baby has no choice, not even a fighting chance. He is quoted as saying he is "proud of what he does"- proud to deny a basic human right to dozens of babies a day?

one story really stood out to me. he talks about a woman in her third trimester who got pregnant as a result of rape, and how she was suicidal because every time she felt the baby kick she thought back to the rape. he decided to perform her abortion, because "if a woman is going to kill herself, then I think you have to look at it for her health." this is a tough case, but what I don't understand is why he would decide to cause that woman even more psychological and emotional harm by performing the abortion. instead, if he cared so much for this woman's health, why didn't he put her into therapy and try to help her solve the root of the problem? while having an abortion might have helped her short-term in dealing with the rape, she most likely still felt depressed and violated after the abortion. in fact, she might have felt even more depressed after the abortion because she thought it would solve all of her problems, and when it didn't she could have felt even more despair. the majority of evidence proves that women incur psychological trauma from having an abortion, even though many times they don't feel it until later in life. why cause this woman even more trauma, instead of lovingly help her come to terms with what happened to her? in my mind, that would be looking out for her "health" more than having an abortion would.

the thing that upset me the most, however, was when the article described how "regular", or first-trimester abortions, are performed: "In a suction D&C procedure, the cervix is dilated with rod-shaped instruments and the contents of the uterus removed with a tube connected to a suction device.".... contents of the uterus?!?! so now the word fetus isn't dehumanized enough, we have to use contents. i'm sorry, but a human life, whether or not you believe in God, should be worth more than the term "contents".

let's re-phrase this, shall we? how does it sound now: "...and the baby in the uterus is ripped apart and sucked through a tube piece by piece." it doesn't have the nice sound to it anymore huh? but unfortunately it's the reality. abortionists throw out sentences like the previous one to make it seem less traumatic and have us rest easy. and we as a society eat it up like candy.

however, the way to stop abortion (especially late term ones) is not by killing abortionists like the doctor's fellow abortionist friend. if you're against killing babies, then you're sure being hypocritical by killing the person who kills the babies. instead, we need to work together and educate through reasoning and understanding or else nothing is going to change.