GOOD LUCK
REDSKINS
liberalfirstlongoriginal
Sunday
April 21st, 2019

earl watt mugL&T Publisher Earl Watt

 

With science no longer on their side and with more and more people realizing that a human being is developing inside a mother’s womb, not a cancerous clump of cells, the pro-abortion crowd has completely abandoned the notion of rare and in cases when the life of the mother is in danger to whenever and however the mother wants, even up to nine months and even when the mother is in the process of giving birth.

Miraculously, the bill in Virginia did not pass, but abortion rights were extended into the ninth month in New York to thunderous applause from those who claim to be advocates for women’s rights.

Just not conservative women, or women who believe in free enterprise, or women who oppose abortion. Not those women.

Pro-abortion women have dared speak for all women, and if you read the posts on Facebook that will surely follow this column, they will attack me for even discussing abortion since I am a man.

As science and technology have advanced, women can now hear the tiny heartbeat of their children earlier and earlier. The clarity in the sonogram images show a developing baby, and science has proven that these cells are a new individual with unique DNA that shows the new person is related to the mother and father, but has a unique pattern all its own.

Even Roe vs. Wade did not go this far.

In that case, the barbaric practice of abortion as a form of birth control could re regulated in the third trimester. Even in 1973 they determined that what was developing had the “potentiality” for life.

That phrase was later changed to viability in 1992.

As we all know, babies are being born premature and surviving at younger and younger ages.

Children born even in the fifth month of pregnancy are surviving with regularity.

This means they are viable midway through the second trimester.

So for the moment, we can put aside the traditional arguments of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is in danger.

That wasn’t what was discussed last week.

What was discussed is the absolute control of the mother to determine, even in the ninth month of pregnancy, even when she is in the process of giving birth, to decide she no longer wants to be a mother and requests an abortion.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam was ready to sign a bill that would loosen third trimester restrictions from three doctors concurring that an abortion was needed to one, and also allowing the mother’s mental health to be a factor in the decision.

So, if the mother claimed that becoming a mothers would cause her stress, and one doctor agreed, they could perform an abortion after the child was viable.

Governor Northam commented that should the procedure result in a live birth, which with the brutality involved would be difficult but possible, the doctor would simply put the baby aside to be “comfortable” while discussions would determine what would happen next to the child.

The bill did not make it out of committee with the five republicans voting no and the three Democrats voting yes.

Republicans hold a razor-thin margin of 51-48 in the Virginia Assembly, and an equally thin majority of 21-19 in the Virginia Senate.

If that were not the case, this bill would have been signed in to law.

A recent Marist poll indicated that 81 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be highly restricted in the third trimester, and that included 66 percent of those who identify as pro-abortion.

Six in 10 Americans believe abortion is morally wrong at any time.

Despite science and a vast majority against them, these far-left politicians believe that the public will reflect their votes rather than their votes reflecting the will of the public.

We must continue to push for scientific advancement that will make our youngest and most vulnerable viable at a younger age.

As these enhancements continue, public opinion is turning away from the barbaric act of terminating life for convenience.

More and more states are asking the mother to look at the sonogram or listen to the heartbeat, and then make the decision.

But not in liberal states like New York and even the boisterous Democrats in Virginia. They believe in their intellectually superiority and have supported these bills for which there are no second chances.

For them, the question remains, why would a mother’s dominion over the life of her children end at birth? Could she abort the life before the child’s first birthday? Or second? Or third?

When does a woman realize she is a mother when she becomes pregnant, not when a child is born?

Why would we think it is a time to celebrate when what should be a rare and horrific decision to perform an abortion must be made?

A few months ago I watched an online video of a man in Saudi Arabia beheading his wife in the street with police officers watching because the couple’s 11-year-old daughter dies, and the husband blamed the wife.

We can see how inhumane the killing of one person by another can be, and yet, are we so different?

This latest move by the far left has caused a reaction I didn’t expect. Women are speaking up against these proposals.

Women also agree that while they should be involved in tough decisions early in pregnancy, those discussions are over by the third trimester.

And they are speaking out. The Marist poll found that 82 percent of women believe abortion should be limited to the first trimester.

And that debate should continue, but these proposals that allow for late-term abortions should be rejected by any American that values life of any color or creed. If we believe lives matter, let’s all agree to mutually protect the youngest first.

Pick your language/Elige su idioma