The Pre-Birth Civil Rights Movement

A Perspective …Maybe because it’s my ‘Birth’ Day in 2 days, I’m thinking about this!

In my travels to many other parts of the world I have the opportunity to interact with a lot of different people and cultures. At times, the topic of abortion comes up. I remember talking to a person in europe one day and I mention that in our nation, it is possible to have an abortion right up to the moment of delivery. At first, they thought I was joking and then when I made it clear that I was not joking at all, the response was shock and disbelief. ‘No, that can’t be true’ is how they would respond to me. In all honesty, I was a little shocked that they were shocked since I viewed their culture as more liberal than ours in many other respects. So, I’ve mentioned this fact to a number of different people around the world from Asia to South America and the response has pretty much been the same. My experience is that people around the world can’t believe it’s true!?

I understand abortion remains a controversial topic in America and in the world today but more and more in America, as science advances and truth is heard and seen of actual abortion methods, the consensus is changing even if the laws are not reflecting that reality now. It seems hard to understand why it is okay for a child in the womb not to have any constitutional right or civil rights in our modern society. There are no laws that have been upheld in America that speaks to the humane treatment of an unborn child. Literally, and grossly, an unborn child safely in its mother’s womb can be cut up and dismembered alive, vacuumed out and discarded as a waste product. We would be horrified if this was happening on a daily basis to puppies. Are we so calloused and polarized in our stances that this does move us at all?

I am the proud father of three children and seven grandchildren. I’ve had the opportunity to be at all of their births and now with modern technology to see my unborn grandchildren with 3D and 4D sonogram imagery. When they are birthed, they look and act outside the womb just like they were inside the womb. They move, yawn, raise their arms, kick their feet, open their eyes, suck their thumbs and listen to the sounds of their environment. They think with their brain, their heart beats and we know by scientific studies that they listen and are affected by the things they hear and experience in the womb. At or before 20 weeks they can feel, cry and scream from pain. And because this baby is not born, can we say it is not alive? Can we so easily totally dismiss the child’s humanity, by using the term ‘fetus’? Does that justify the tortuous death of an unborn child in a health clinic? Where is the human dignity and compassion in that approach? Especially, when you interject the concept of viability. Viability is the fact that this child can and could easily live outside of the mother’s womb. According to our current laws and morals, one second after birth, to tortuously cut up and dismember this child and throw it away would be considered an heinous crime worthy of the severe penalties of murder and yet a second before, in the safety of its mothers womb this same action is deemed okay. Where is the logic in that? Who is denying science now? There might’ve been a day when we did not know as much about child development in the womb scientifically but that is not today. In fact, that day is long gone. We know specifically what is viable and what is the reality of a child’s life in the womb. We are without excuse and must deny our eyes, our conscience and science to believe what is going on today is okay. Christian, atheist or humanist alike would be united that this is not logical, tenable or justifiable. Should we protect the unborn or should we torture, maim and kill them? Should we protect the most innocent and helpless among us or hurt them? Isn’t life, liberty and the pursuit of a happy life the most basic right we espouse? Is every life precious or not? Should the government be involved in protecting this most basic right to life in our nation or not? It is involved in 196 other nations around the world restricting abortion.

Most young men and women who say they are pro choice in their belief system have a strong tendency to change their stance when given the opportunity to see the reality of an abortion procedure on a fully formed ‘fetus’/child. Why is that? It is because your eyes do not lie, it is human and it is a helpless child. ‘What about the rights of the mother and her body?’ many might exclaim as the highest priority. I thought the helpless were the ones who needed the most protection in our society. I understand the agony that must go on with unplanned pregnancies. Of course, we do have the means to prevent most of these things today, but even at that, an unplanned pregnancy can occur. This can be an inconvenience and a physical, emotional, mental and financial hardship. There is a truth to that circumstance, but the question is what is right to do if that circumstance arises? Someone might be able to make an argument for a early term abortion, that’s not something I subscribe to at all in my belief system but what I don’t understand is the argument for a late term abortion. ‘The life of the mother is at stake’, you say. Are you saying that a late term abortion is less of a health threat that a C section that could be performed and give the child a chance to live? I believe that would be a very rare circumstance since C-sections are performed 1000’s of times without complications every day in our nation and around the world. Is partial birth abortion less of a threat than a live birth? Again, that would be a rare case and thus would make late term abortions rare, instead of one taking place every hour in America, over 10,000 a year.

Most Americas are now pro life to one extent or another, especially, in regards to late term abortions. Even many liberals are beginning to agree.

Only 4 countries in the all the nations of the world have unrestricted abortion laws.

Kristen Powers:

‘The United States is only one of four countries in the entire world which allows abortions to be performed so late, and for any reason. You read that right. We are one of four out of 196 countries in this world. As Kirsten Powers pointed out in her piece, “I Don’t Stand with Wendy Davis,” which has been referenced by Live Action before:
One can assume I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent “women’s rights” in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent. In many European countries, you can’t get an abortion past 12 weeks, except in narrow circumstances.’

It was Bill Clinton in 1996 that vetoed the law passed by Congress banning the practice of partial birth abortion (which Hillary supported as well) citing the health of the mother, but really, how can a partial birth abortion (where the baby is 80 % born before killing it) be any safer or less threatening to a woman’s life that a C-section or live birth? And it is the platform of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton that stands for no restrictions on abortions at all. She has called laws that would restrict late term abortions (after 20 weeks) as ‘Extreme and Unacceptable’. She said recently that a ‘fetus’ has no constitutional rights at all’. Their goal is to keep in place ‘Abortion on Demand’, unfettered abortions in America right up to moments before birth or in the case of partial birth, moments after birth. These forces have even withstood laws that would have put into place stronger health standards and preventative measures at abortion clinics. Who and what are they really protecting? The some $1.1 billion a year abortion industry? Abortion has become a dogma to the left. God forbid a mother would have to see the reality of what is formed inside of her before she decides to kill it.

Hillary says that unrestricted abortion is a fundamental right for women. She staunchly and vehemently supports Planned Parenthood and yet we’ve seen the videos of how they conduct their business. 51% of Planned Parenthood’s budget goes toward abortion services and 40% of the abortions performed in America are done through their organization. Big Business!

Of course, it is a well documented fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood did so with the intent of limiting the births of minority children in America. She said of these children, “They are…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

In “Pivot of Civilization,” Sanger penned her thoughts regarding immigrants, the poor, and the error of philanthropy. Sanger’s ideology of racial and social hygiene bleeds through her writings on breeding an ideal human race:
They are…’human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born. She went on to say ‘Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.’

She promoted “Birth control is nothing more or less than…weeding out the unfit.” Sanger famously coined the term “birth control” with the intention of eliminating the reproduction of human beings who were considered “less fit.” In her writings from “Morality and Birth Control” and “Birth Control and the New Race,” the Planned Parenthood founder noted that the chief aim of the practice of birth control is to produce a “cleaner race.” Sanger’s vision for birth control was to prevent the birth of individuals whom she believed were unfit for mankind:
Her words are hard to listen to…
‘Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.’
‘Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.’

Her approach was that these are “Human beings who never should have been born at all.”
In “The Pivot of Civilization” and “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger describes the eugenic value of eliminating persons – minorities, the sick, and the disabled – through sterilization or segregation:

Every one of the Republican candidates that started off the field this year for the Presidential race, stated their position as Pro Life, protecting the lives of the unborn, as is the position on the Platform of the of the National Republican Party in 2016, as well, as it’s been for years. When you are voting, you are not just voting for an individual person but for the protection of many lives yet to be born with the hope and promise of life they possess.

In a recent Gallup Poll it was reported in 2016 that 69% of Americans believe that abortion should either be illegal or only legal under certain circumstances and only 29% believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstance and 2% were undecided.

What about the financial ramifications? If you do not want the responsibility or have the capability or financial ability to raise your child, there are people waiting on adoption lists around the country and around the world looking for an opportunity to adopt a child. For those impoverished, there is medical financial aid for the care of you and your baby that has been made available. These are the realities of our modern world. How is it that we still turn to the most barbaric optionof ripping apart an unborn child in order to try and solve these problems? We seem to have a movement for every right and protection possible in our world today, especially turtle eggs, eagles nests and animal life we feel is worthy of preservation. Is it so out of the question that we would seek to have the pre born humans of our world be given some dignity, humane treatment and civil rights. That’s right! Pre-Born Civil and Human Rights. A right to safety in the womb and the right to be given a chance in life and be born.

Yes, a woman has rights and she has a choice. But does that right override the right to life that an unborn child should be afforded as the most helpless among us, especially when it is viable. Is a fetus just a mass of muscle, bone and brain cells and tissue that just happens to look and act just like a human and is the essence of the life that will be realized if it has a chance to live? No, obviously and logically, it is human life. Why can’t we protect that life. In most cases we chose to have this child or to perform the actions that conceived it, don’t we then have an obligation to protect it?

I understand that this is very controversial for some but as a Christian and a member of a civil and advanced society, in actuality, I don’t understand?