They Will Always Tell You What They Are Afraid Of

I may not be alive to see the day, but there will be a day, when Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside Dred Scott v. Sandford as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst decisions. The Dred Scott decision held that, among other things, persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Constitution.

Africans therefore became un-citizens.

The taxpayer-financed abortion lobby would have people believe that the Supreme Court essentially said the same thing in Roe. The modern progressive holds that the unborn are un-citizens. But that's not what the Court said. The Court held that a woman's legal right to an abortion must be balanced against the state's legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

In other words, a woman has a legal right to abortion until viability.

Therefore, it is hard for me to understand why abortion activists are such absolutists about "abortion rights," even past the point of viability. And it's even harder to understand, and impossible for me to accept, that 177 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted against HR 3504 this week. HR 3504, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, may be redundant because of existing law. Voting for it may be a purely symbolic act. Then so is voting against it!

Is someone like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, an abortion absolutist, an abortionista? Or is he just a prostitute addicted to the power of his office and dependent on the blood money of the 501 C(3) abortion lobby? He voted against the bill, offering, "I recognize of course that there are those who hold the religious conviction that one-celled organization – one cell, two cells – is a fully formed human being, [but] they are not entitled to impose that religious conviction on all of the women of this country."

Nobody has the "religious conviction" that "two cells" is a "fully formed human being." And most pro-life people would cede the abortion ground in the area of blastocysts anyway. Whether I cede that ground or not is a different essay. Pure reason dictates the futility of trying to regulate something a woman can remedy with a pill acquired from anywhere.

It also stands to reason why any Democrat would deny life-saving measures to any infant that survives an abortion. The head of the party himself, Barack Obama, voted against Illinois SB 1095 when he was still a state senator.

In Obama's floor speech against the bill, Obama stated his key concern was that doctors would be forced to care for pre-viable fetuses, and he couldn't stomach the idea of extending equal protection to a pre-viable fetus. Though the bill does contain the language "at any stage of development," caring for pre-viable fetuses was never the intent. It just afforded legal protections to babies that survive abortion, and obligated clinicians not to withhold life-saving measures.

Because I think the whole point of abortion should be the termination of pregnancy, not ending the life of the child. The woman seeking an abortion just wants the fetus removed. What if the fetus could be removed, and still be carried to term?

A gestation robot, or artificial uterus, is still only a theoretical possibility. But it won't always be that way. At some stage of human development, it is conceivable that a child will be gestated to term using entirely artificial means. And it is imaginable that such a device may be desirable, perhaps in the case of some parasite or disease that prevents natural pregnancy. Author PD James imagined a world rendered infertile. So can I.

I can also imagine a world where a woman seeking an abortion has her fetus removed, uterus and all, at any stage of development, and placed into a device. It's for the children.