Nearly Three Decades Later........

John A. Quayle blueoval at SGI.NET
Mon Jan 24 14:51:14 MST 2000


Vanguard of the Revolution http://www.theVanguard.org

TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS AND COUNTING
by Rod D.  Martin,
22 January 2000

        It's been a generation since Americans started killing their young.
        True, we had abortions before Roe v.  Wade. But we didn't have the
explosion, to one and a half million a year, all U.S.-approved. We didn't
have the casual disregard of life we have today, either: feminists used to
call abortion "child murder"; and middle-aged doctors promoting abortion
and euthanasia today studied textbooks which demanded swift punishment for
anyone who performed such beastly acts.

        We also didn't have the arrogant government dictum that "it's only a life
if we say it is," frighteningly reminiscent of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's
Germany. If one group of humans may be killed because they're
"inconvenient", what's to stop your group from being next? This is an
increasingly urgent question for America's elderly.

        Post-Roe America isn't pretty. Forty million dead children, not counting
the recent spate of teenagers giving birth in motels and at proms and then
killing their offspring, applying the not-so-demented legal theory of
"other than cost, what's the difference?" The promotion of cloning as a
means to harvest organs, or at least tissue or specific cells, from the
fully-human victim. A Constitutional theory that debases life, guts the
Declaration of Independence ("inalienable rights" and all that) and
destroys federalism.

        Millions of mothers who have to deal with the guilt, if not the shame.

        Some respond that this is all nonsense, because the fetus (ironically,
Latin for "baby") isn't even human. Presumably these people think that the
child in the womb at least has the potential to be born a fish or a chimp;
their position is ludicrous on its face.

        Others claim that life only begins at birth. This, of course, is news to
the abortionist:  no one needs to abort a baby that's already dead.

        Some modern feminists claim, in opposition to their own pro-life heritage,
that the baby is merely a parasite: it is just a lump of tissue, part of
the mother's body much like a cancer, and she may do with it whatever she
pleases. They don't like to be reminded that this "lump" has it's own DNA,
half of which came from elsewhere, and it often has it's own blood type
even in the womb. And in that womb today, medical technology will show you
that "lump" sucking its thumb.

        The Supreme Court invented the issue of "viability" out of thin air, and
it has provided a lot of cover for the pro-abort crowd; but it's a red
herring. Certainly a week old fetus would not live long outside the nurture
of its mother's womb (at least until medical science advances just a tad
more, as it always does), but see how long the same baby two years after
birth will live if its mother abandons it in the woods.  For that matter,
see how long I would live if you abandoned me in the woods (I was a
terrible Boy Scout).

        "Viability" is just a cover: we are all dependent on others to some
degree. The fact that a tiny baby is more dependent is a reason to protect
and cherish it, not to kill it.

        In short, science has laid to rest all the abortionists' claims:  it is
human babies they kill. And not only that, but it is a very ugly, slippery
slope down which the left treads: will the logic which gave us Roe next
accept a woman's right to kill her two-year old? There's nothing
far-fetched about it: the two-year old is not viable if left totally on her
own, may well be a reminder of an unpleasant relationship, and is much more
likely to cause economic hardship after birth than before. This is
certainly the logic behind the move for euthanasia.

        And what may the woman abort next? Her teenager (a parasite if there ever
were one)? Her husband? (Well, he lost his job, so he just wasn't viable
anymore.  .  .  .) What liberal is prepared to say that it should be "a
woman's right to choose" to murder whoever is financially inconvenient to
her (her banker?), whoever causes her embarrassment at an inopportune time
(her ex-boyfriend?), whoever gets in her way? No one is prepared to say
this. But the logic is exactly the same, and makes just as much sense.

        The fact is that the American left has aligned itself with the butchers of
history in saying "we will kill whomever we please." Inconvenient children
are first in line because they can't fight back. But as the darkness falls,
don't expect them to be the only ones in line. It's never worked that way,
and it never will.


Copyright: Rod D.  Martin, 22 January 2000.



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list