It’s important to note, though, that analyzing the morality associated with late-term abortion isn’t predicated upon finding dirty and murderous clinics that put women’s lives at risk. While these rogue institutions should be located and shuttered and their leaders prosecuted, there are deeper and more profound issues that deserve discussion and scrutiny.[That pro-choice groups won't address!]See, feminists would be totally offended at the fact the man raised the question.
Obviously, most rational human beings would admit that snipping the spines of babies born alive during abortions is a horrific and murderous action. This is what many pro-choice advocates and groups have, themselves, admitted in the wake of Gosnell’s guilty verdict.
Yet these same leaders and institutions virtually never speak out about viable babies that are terminated in utero – children that are, with the help of medical advances, able to live on their own outside of the mother’s body, if afforded the chance. In fact, some of these groups give the impression that they want unfettered access to abortion, regardless of the time-frame.
...
I left the courtroom that day considering the cognitive dissonance that some in the pro-choice lobby regularly tout and that our society willingly tolerates. Consider that it’s difficult to condemn, on moral grounds, terminating a viable baby outside of the mother’s womb if one supports the right to do so in utero. This is more rooted in logic than it is opinion.
After all, the difference between the two is merely the tactic used to ensure death, isn’t it?
Because they would sarcastically say well there's only the mere little fact that women actually carry the baby. Like that is of no consequence.
That fact is what they use to justify killing unborn children.
But here's the deal.
The suffering that women go through from pregnancy or from having the baby is not a greater evil than killing the baby.
Repeat: women's suffering is not worth a baby's death.
A human life is worth more than human suffering.
It's not a question o the baby being worth more than the mom.
It's a question of human life being worth more than human suffering. It doesn't whose life it is or whose suffering it is.
To average people, this is common sense.
To average people, killing human beings is wrong.
Abortion was legalized based on the premise that the fetus was not a real human being. And the truth is becoming more clear every day: fetuses are human beings.
What I find dumb is that feminists have to advance the notion that they have the right to do what they want with their bodies.
Virtually nobody disputes that, in general.
What they don't come out and say is that even if the fetus is a human being, women still have the right to have him killed.
Few feminists regularly come out and say that out in the open.
Because if they did, it would unmask how cruel their ideology is.
I keep saying it: their attitude is: if a baby has to suffer and die in the name of choice, so what? That is their attitude down to the last one.
When is it no longer a woman's right to choose? When the choice is death.
