Posted on 01/12/2015 7:28:14 PM PST by Morgana
Were pro-choice, not pro-abortion, abortion defenders endlessly insist. They assure us that a dead baby is not the objective of aborting a pregnancy, but an unavoidable side-effect of women exercising necessary control over their health and lives (that is, when they even admit that a death takes place at all).
But every now and then, the mask slips. And rarely do pro-aborts show their true colors more grotesquely than they have in response to a recent paper (hat tip to the Stanek Report) by Quinnipiac Law Professor Stephen Giles, which asks whether the right to elective abortion include[s] the right to ensure the death of the fetus, and explores the potential of artificial wombs to defuse the abortion debate by terminating womens pregnancies without killing their babies.
Obviously, with such technology largely speculative, its impossible to predict whether Giless vision would pan out. We cant know all the technical complications and social ramifications the final product might have. We can, however, see that a fetus-friendly option to spare abortion-minded women pregnancy and delivery in addition to parenthood would have enormous promise to save lives. A win-win for both sides, right?
In a sane world, perhaps. Alas, sanity rarely makes an appearance in the land of abortionism. Rather than embrace the goal of a non-lethal right to choose, pro-choicers are recoiling with disgust at Giless proposal.
Raw Storys Travis Gettys characterizes the proposal as bringing about dystopian techno fetus farms, and worryingly notes that this would entail a woman relinquishing her parental rights (never mind that rejecting parenthood is the whole point of abortion). The leftist feminist group FUSE responded with a terse well this is horrifying, after which their Facebook pages admin even upvoted a readers call to shoot this [expletive] dead.
A thread at Democratic Underground sneers, This is why it is so hard to write satire, with little in the way of actual rebuttal. On an Atheist Forum thread charmingly titled This [Expletive] Has Fetuses on the Brain, users took it as more proof that pro-lifers think we own womens uteri, figured basically the guy is advocating to infringe upon human rights, were reminded sickeningly of Brave New World, and were disgusted by the mere idea because any child a woman gives up is still her child in a very fundamental way maybe they mistook I brought you into this world, I can take you out for more than a punchline.
At RH Reality Check, senior legal analyst Jessica Mason Pieklo offers a lengthier critique, complaining that the very idea of the state stepping in and rescuing fetuses as early as conception completely erases womens reproductive privacy rights:
Giles argument presumes without question that once a person is pregnant they somehow owe the state a live birth. This is a presumption with immediately dangerous consequences playing out in places like Tennessee, Alabama, Wisconsin, and Indiana, where prosecutors and judges are incarcerating women for being a perceived threat to their developing pregnancy.
It would be easy to write off Giles fetal rescue program as the stuff of theocratic sci-fi fantasy. To do so, however, would dangerously underestimate the political willpower of the anti-abortion movement, which has made significant gains peddling abortion restrictionssuch as informed consent requirements and parental involvement lawsdressed up as solutions to the problem of patients struggling with the decision to end a pregnancy.
To be clear, advances in reproductive technology like the artificial womb have tremendous promise in improving the lives of many. But when scholars like Giles argue there is a problem with women having full autonomy over their reproductive selves, and that the legal solution is for the state to leverage that technology to remove that autonomy in the name of expanding choices for women, its imperative for reproductive rights advocates to take that argument seriously and head-on, lest we risk losing those rights altogether.
Translation: even if we can terminate a pregnancy whenever we want, our rights are still being violated if we cant terminate the baby, too. That sound you hear in the distance is a narrative imploding.
A senior legal analyst, of all people, should understand that its not about owing the state a birth quite the opposite. Its that the state owes us protection from being killed. All of us owe each other, at the very least, the simple decency of letting one another live. And though it illicitly ruled that the unborn dont count, Roe v. Wade still affirms that underlying duty: If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants case, of course, collapses, for the fetus right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment. All this should be obvious, but then again, someone who cant grasp the First Amendment isnt likely to excel at the rest of the Constitution.
This isnt the first time pro-aborts have balked at the notion of artificial wombs. In August, the Daily Beasts Samantha Allen claimed to fear that while it would undoubtedly improve the lives of some women, it would also place additional distance [ ] between a woman and her child, giving the anti-feminist Right terrifying new points of leverage at a crucial moment in feminist history. University of North Carolina professor Rosemarie Tong worries that it could lead to a commodification of the whole process of pregnancy [ ] To the extent that we externalize an experience like pregnancy, it may lead to a view of the growing child as a thing.'
Hate to break it to you, ladies, but abortion already did thatwith your approval. You cant put much more distance between mother and child than having the former see the latter as disposable at best, a parasitic enemy at worst. The right to destroy what Tong calls the growing child for whatever reason one wishes quite literally reduces him or her to a thing, a commodity to be thrown away if it isnt to ones liking or comes at a bad time.
Its difficult to fathom a charitable interpretation of Pieklo and companys hostility. When a woman decides to have an abortion, whatever else she may or may not believe about her pregnancy, she is choosing to get rid of whatever it is thats growing within her. She has decided that when its over, there will not be a new baby in her life, and she will not be a parent to him or her.
Granted, we dont know precisely how the mechanics of removing an embryo or fetus to transplant him or her into an artificial womb would work, but the abortion she is consenting to is typically at least somewhat invasive as well (and besides, being hypothetical anyway, the thought experiment still stands if we assume the process isnt invasive).
Either way, the woman gets exactly what she wanted. The only variable is that in Giless scenario, the baby survives, ready to be placed with a willing family (as to concerns that babies in artificial wombs would go unwanted, note that the number of married couples struggling with infertility in 2014 was 1.5 million, higher than our annual abortion rate of about 1.1 million).
Why is it so important that the baby die? Its hard to be sure, but somewhere along the line, celebrating abortions ostensible purpose became inseparable from glorifying abortion itself.
Thus, today we have murder weapons turned into jewelry, viral videos about the special memories a victims sonogram evokes, and poetry romanticizing your childrens involuntary sacrifice as martyrdom. Whatever the cause, its abundantly clear that today it is pro-abortion, not pro-choice. With every passing day, what might have once been merely a tragically mistaken political cause looks more and more like an outright death cult.
It’s purpose is to cull the undesirables.
Demons cannot remain angels of light. They may appear beautific but they are at their core and root evil. The struggle between good and evil will not here but the victory of life over death for the unborn will be a fundamental shift in the human eperience.
...will not end here...
Abortion has always been about killing. Its fundamental purpose is to teach women in the most fundamental way possible that human life is worthless, and that the highest ideal is to serve the purpose of society. A woman who accepts the premise that she has the “right” to kill her baby because of convenience also accepts the premise that her life is equally forfeit if she becomes inconvenient.
Someone who cannot or will not contribute to society has no right to live. That is the abortion bottom line.
In a very dark way, this is fascinating.
Abortion really has always about ending a life, not about ending a pregnancy. Abortionists just simply prefer to keep their head in the sand.
There is a huge disconnect between the pro abortion movement and how most women feel about abortion. Many women have deep regrets and guilt about an abortion, whereas the movement insists it is as easy as taking out the trash.
THEY are really evil
I bet half the women would select the artificial womb over abortion. This would really start to marginalize the act of abortion even more. Who knows...perhaps in 50 years something like this may be reality.
They don’t like the idea of taking the human sacrifice out of their rituals.
With God as my witness, I will see the left’s pro-abort movement in the ground before I leave this world.
Might surprise you to know, most pro-abortion nutjobs have never had one, the women are typically so ugly that no one would impregnate them anyway.
"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Pro-aborts are demonically anti-human much like their father Satan.
The darkness of the devaluing of human life in general, in the US, is one of the obvious results of the “all abortion all the time” demand of NARAL, NOW and the rest of the modern Murder, Inc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.