By Judie Brown
Exposing the death peddlers becomes more challenging as our fellow humans grow more insensitive by the day. We live in the age of me, which precludes many from having an iota of concern for others.
A recent headline on the ever anti-life Ms. magazine website celebrates this fact, stating, “The Next Phase in the Abortion Wars: Targeting Pills, Helpers and Patients.” The article bemoans the perceived progress of our side by claiming that rather than striving to ban abortion, some lawmakers are interested in pursuing criminal penalties for women who seek abortion while states allegedly cut off the last vestiges of abortion “care” availability.
The article is a hysterical attempt to conjure more support for child killing, but the tactic will backfire, as they always do. Such language may sate the concerns pro-abortion people have about small steps toward lackluster pro-life victories, but beneath it all is the obvious thirst for abortion on demand.
Pro-life expert Jill Stanek sees right through it. She once wrote about efforts among pro-abortion organizations to appear to be “sensitive about abortion and to focus less on that and more on contraception.” She said, “Pro-life groups and churches must take greater responsibility for abstinence training and not leave that up to the pregnancy help centers. . . . We must also continue to dialogue about the issue of contraception and make up our minds not let the other side divide us on that.”
But there is a fly in the ointment because, as science has shown, most contraceptives abort babies at the faster rate than surgical and chemical abortions ever could. This is so because the simple contraceptive pill has properties that can cause an early abortion.
Writer Stephanie Hauer examined this question, saying:
Are all of these pills abortion-inducing drugs? Yes, but not every time. Clearly the abortion pill is an abortifacient; that is its only intended purpose. As for the morning-after pill and the birth control pill, since one of their methods of operation is preventing implantation of an already created human being, then yes, they are abortion-inducing drugs. If, however, these pills successfully delay or prevent ovulation so that the egg and sperm never meet, then no abortion can occur. Fertilization has not happened, so abortion is not possible. But, if the sperm and egg do meet, then a unique human being is created. Purposely preventing the implantation of that fragile person, thus expelling him from the body, results in an early chemical abortion.
The cornerstone of any honest discussion about abortion begins with the facts, based on science and not on politics. The fundamental question is always the same: Does a human being exist at fertilization/conception? The answer is yes, and therefore we must expose and oppose any chemical, medical, or surgical intervention that takes the life of that person.
While the media is loaded with disinformation on this subject, those who are driven to dig deeper will see through the ruthless, decadent penchant of some who want to mask the truth with the women have the right to choose sop. Any female who has a choice to make and a brain with which to consider all the facts would never choose to pay to have her baby killed.
The problem is that most of these women do not think of babies because the story goes that pregnancy is a condition and abortion is a cure.
As the Ms. article assures readers, if contraception and fertility treatments are not the target of curtailing legislation, there is hope for the pro-abortion movement. But peeling away the positivity exposes the same misguided philosophy that has driven the culture of death for years. Namely, pregnancy is no different than a hangnail or a pimple; eliminating it is the best option!
One might become disheartened in the flood of deception that sweeps across the airwaves and into the textbooks and then spews forth from the rhetoric of some. But into the vacuum flows a simple, logical retort: If there is no baby present during a pregnancy, why is pregnancy a target of so much ruthless and decadent rhetoric?