Posted on 01/23/2015 7:59:58 AM PST by wagglebee
In 2013, pro-abortion writer, Mary Elizabeth Williams penned an article titled, “So What if Abortion Ends Life?” Honestly, her article is probably the most outrageous piece of abortion propaganda I’ve every read. However, it was surprisingly refreshing because I don’t think I’ve ever heard an abortion advocate blatantly admit, “Yes, babies in the womb are human beings, but so what.”
Williams starts by explaining that one of the most clever moves pro-lifers have ever pulled was our so-called “co-opting of the word “life.’” She writes, “Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of us have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.”
Did you hear that? Apparently, “life” is a big-ticket word compared to words like “choice.” Well, she’s definitely correct about that. In fact, I would go so far to say that pro-abortion advocates should drop “choice” language all together because it’s really difficult for that solitary word to compete with biology, which proves that a babies heart beat starts beating 18 days after conception. Moreover, these days “choice” doesn’t hold a candle to scientific findings which prove that babies in the womb can feel pain or ultrasound technology displaying unborn babies yawning, stretching, sucking their thumb— even smiling in the womb.
Next, William’s acknowledges that the baby in utero is a human person but that fact doesn’t change her opinion on abortion. She says, “Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers.”
All right, now we’re all expecting her to layout a few plausible reasons that could justify her statement that unborn life isn’t equal to the rest of us. If you’re anything like me, you’re probably thinking she’s going to say what most abortion advocates say, which is that abortion should be legal because of reasons like health of the mother or rape. Well, Williams’ reason is much better. Are you ready for it?
She says, “Fetus’ can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.”
There you have it— since “she’s the boss,” abortion should be legal. In other words, for Williams, that’s a sufficient reason for abortionists to dismember babies limb from limb or kill them in a saline abortion, which involves injecting salt solution into the amniotic fluid surrounding the unborn baby and burning their inner organs and outer skin.
So let’s do a little recap before we move onto her conclusion. Williams believes that unborn babies in the womb are human beings; that all life is not equal; and since women are “the boss” we should be able to legally kill unborn babies. In what universe does that not sound like the most discriminatory and horrific thing you’ve ever heard?
Unfortunately, Williams doesn’t end there. She elaborates further, “My belief that life begins at conception is mine to cling to. And if you believe that it begins at birth, or somewhere around the second trimester, or when the kid finally goes to college, that’s a conversation we can have, one that I hope would be respectful and empathetic and fearless. We can’t have it if those of us who believe that human life exists in utero are afraid we’re somehow going to flub it for the cause.”
She ends with a bang by explaining that abortion actually saves lives because it gives more opportunities to women’s families. I’ll leave you with her last line to contemplate. If anything, it should remind us of the ideology we’re up against. She concludes, “I would put the life of a mother over the life of a fetus every single time — even if I still need to acknowledge my conviction that the fetus is indeed a life. A life worth sacrificing.”
And yet they become enraged when we talk about death panels.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The women is a brazen Nazi espousing indifference to life.
Mary Elizabeth Williams
I see this article in a different light. The abortionists have to change their language because they see the tide is changing because their arguments are being rebuffed left and right. I see this as a very hopeful sign.
Do I come to the same conclusion as MEW? No. In fact, I come to the exact opposite conclusion. However, MEW does us a favor by spelling out what “pro-choice” really means.
We should circulate pieces like MEW’s because they tell the TRUTH about abortion. Another piece every freeper should google is “We Do Abortions Here: a Nurse's Story” by Sallie Tisdale. Read the truth; tell the truth; spread the truth.
(I emphasize that I do NOT support MEW or Sallie Tisdale’s conclusions about the morality or legality of abortion! I simply am pleased they don't dodge the reality of the fetus/baby's existence and the “termination” of such.)
babies, old people, inconvenient spouses, bosses, neighbors, or anyone that is annoying you at the time.
She is still holding onto the LIE that it's always about saving the life of the Mother.
“heart beat starts beating 18 days after conception”
Learn something new everyday..
Might want to check out the 13th amendment on that one.....I don't think anyone gets to trump the rights of another any more.
There are exceedingly few cases where the life of the mother is at risk AND the baby is actually viable. Most cases where the mother is at risk are ectopic pregnancies where there is no chance of the baby living.
When abortionists speak of "the life of the mother" they actually are referring to a woman's DESIRE to not be pregnant. They think that having a baby can negatively impact "the life of the mother" in much the same way as they believe having the wrong hairstyle or wearing the wrong clothes will.
She will never have to worry about needing an abortion.
When I was in college 20 years ago this argument was already lost by the left (as to whether or not babies in the womb were human beings); they knew science clearly sided with the pro-life movement on that point. That didn’t change the argument, though; a female “professor” used an example where you wake up with a somebody connected to you with tubes, etc. keeping them alive - she then asked if you had any responsibility towards them. The idea of babies resulting from sexual intercourse played no part in the discussion.
Any time my school calls for donations I direct them to ask Professor xxx for the money instead. These are evil people who have no misconceptions about what they are doing. Race plays a major factor in the opinion of any white person I know who supports the legal infanticide of abortion.
She ended up with the face she deserves. Ugly murderess.
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.