3 July 2005
Join Email List to receive notification of new Spingola articles
I made a statement in a previousarticle as follows: "I wonder – what if the media covered a live abortion and allowed the viewers to witness the grisly, bloody dismemberment of a tiny defenseless baby. Think of the mass support for the repeal of abortion that those images would garner."
I received a lengthy response from an obviously angry abortion proponent which I will not quote in its entirety due to length. I conclude that she is angry by her implications that the pro-life group is stupid. Name calling is a predictable response to an opponent’s statements when one’s perspective lacks substance.
For the remainder of the article I will refer to the person who responded as "the proponent" as I attempt to address the issues that she raises. Her words are italicized and in an alternative font.
"And I wonder, Ms. Spingola, what would happen if you placed the images you suggest next to these: (The Case for the Morality of Legal Abortion) this is the picture of Gerri who died alone on a motel room floor in 1964 the way most women died pre-Roe, from self-induced abortion."
…"The number of abortions would be virtually the same if it were illegal again."…
"Ms. Spingola, given the choice between illegal abortion - which maims
and kills women and doesn't save babies - and legal abortion and reducing
unintended pregnancies guess which the American people will choose? If we
show them your pictures and mine - guess which public policy approach they
First – some clarification about the word fetus. Fetus is the Latin word for offspring. So let’s call an offspring what it is – a baby, an individual, a human being. By relegating the definition of a human being to a foreign word that few interpret correctly somehow implies that he/she is less than human. This is egregious and reminiscent of the Nazi tactic of portraying their targeted people as inferior by using de-humanizing caricatures. To ease possible participant guilt and minimize abortion, proponents have always maintained that abortion is not murder but merely the termination of fetal tissue, even to the extent of permitting late term abortion.
An abortion is much more than a medical procedure for an unintended pregnancy. It is not merely the removal of the patient’s tonsils or appendix. It is also much more than the removal of an infant. It is the removal of a living, moving, feeling infant, during which the infant is cruelly killed. This may be done in a variety of different methods, all cruel, inhumane and horrific. I do not believe that most people understand the brutality with which abortion is perpetrated upon the only real victim in any abortion – the innocent infant.
The implications are that somehow women are victimized if they are not able to obtain an abortion. Typically we think of a victim as someone who has suffered at the hands of another. "The proponent’s" example of Gerri is sad indeed. She died alone in a hotel room after she and her boyfriend attempted to kill their unborn infant. The referred web site provides more details about Gerri who evidently was estranged from an abusive spouse and thereafter had an affair with a Clyde Dixon with whom she got pregnant. The web site gives the following details:
"Gerri was 6 ˝ months pregnant in June 1964. Gerri's boyfriend obtained a medical book and borrowed some surgical equipment. They went to a motel where Dixon tried to perform the abortion. When the attempt failed, when it all went terribly wrong, Dixon fled the scene, leaving her there to die, alone, in this cold impersonal hotel room. She was bleeding profusely and tried with towels to stop it but she couldn't. How frightened she must have been, knowing she was going to die." (1)
It is sad that Gerri died. But, help me out here – how does this make Gerri the victim? A responsible person accepts the consequences for their behavior – even their irresponsible behavior. Gerri decided to engage in sex. She apparently decided not to use protection. She decided that she did not want to raise this unintended baby. She decided not to allow her unborn infant to be placed for adoption. The article indicates that she was afraid her estranged husband would kill her. Sounds like another upstanding guy in her life. It appears that Gerri is a victim of her own poor choices. So, because of her choices, her innocent unborn child must suffer the deadly consequences????
One does not suddenly awake one morning with pregnancy. It is not like an unwelcome case of the flu or a cold, caused by a virus. Unintended pregnancies only occur under certain circumstances. Pregnancy is a condition that one invites by the choices they make. Since Gerri already had two daughters, she obviously knew she was capable of conceiving when she elected to engage in sex with Clyde, not a real upstanding guy considering he left her bleeding profusely in that motel room.
Women chose possible pregnancy when they engage in sex. Now I recognize that not all women who engage in sex do so willingly. However, the percentage of women who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest is extremely low.
"A survey of women seeking abortions indicated that only 7% of women cited typical "hard cases" (rape, incest, or some health concern with either the baby or the mother) as the primary reason they were seeking abortion."(2) That means that 93% of all those who had abortions did so for reasons other than rape, incest or some health concern of the mother or baby.
It is amazing to me that human females demand the "right" to kill their offspring. There are other options. Why would a woman prefer abortion to adoption? If the pregnancy is unintended why compound that "mistake" with the more grievous act of killing another human being? What possible set of circumstances would make a female prefer the death of her infant – is it embarrassment, convenience? We live in a "me first world" – how utterly contemptible to inflict death on another human being for one’s own convenience. Very few females in the animal kingdom kill their young. However, they frequently die while in the process of protecting their offspring. At what point in time did children become so expendable? At what point in time did women deem it their "right" to inflict death upon the fruit of their womb? A child that God has given is not the woman’s right to take. Life for everyone becomes less meaningful when the life of a child is deemed worthy of the dumpster.
The media would have us believe that most citizens endorse abortion, which is not true. "A June, 1999 Wirthlin Poll found that 62% of respondents support legal abortion in only three or fewer circumstances: when the pregnancy results from rape or incest, or when it threatens the life of the mother." (3) Once a woman has an abortion it is emotionally easier to have another abortion. "Nearly half of all abortions are obtained by women who have already had at least one abortion. In 1994 and 1995, women who had already had 3 or more abortions obtained 7%, or nearly 100,000, abortions each year." (4) So, it appears that abortion functions as a sacrificial, selfish birth control method.
Women can only be considered victims in one sense of the word. They have been conned by others, often strident, angry self-serving women, into thinking that they have a "right" to abortion. They have been deceived into thinking that there are no psychological, spiritual or emotional consequences. Abortion has been available since the "not so Supreme Court" decided the 1973 case of Roe versus Wade. Because the federal government intervened in a state rights issue they established a precedent. This bloody blight on our society is so long entrenched that our youth have grown up assuming abortion is an inherent American legal right. And since it is legal it is also acceptable.
From a religious viewpoint, do we, in fact, own our bodies? Abortion proponents would have women believe that they own their own bodies. But remember Christ has bought us with His blood. We are His. Our bodies are merely on loan as a gift. Abortion proponents would have us believe that somehow the choice that a woman makes about her body has more worth than the life of her infant. Abortion proponents can spin and endorse new terminology but one cannot change the consequences of an action by calling it termination of pregnancy. The results are still the same: there is a dead, innocent infant. Children are viewed as a blessing in a God fearing society but often as an inconvenient curse in a materialistic world.
One may rationalize any perverse or immoral behavior and find selective scriptures to support their position. One can dissect the scriptures to support anything, including abortion. This endeavor creates a bottom-up attempt to instruct God. We become our own God when we reject His counsel in favor of our own.
"The proponent" makes a good medical, secular case for legal abortion. Abortion in America is a big business. Ironically, it is one of the few businesses that are not being outsourced or affected by the faux trade agreements. What a pitiful commentary on America!!! "At an average cost of $372, the abortion business is a $400 million a year industry." The government has made it legal.
However, legal is not always moral. Our government is literally a group of individuals that we have hired (voted for). They are supposed to abide by the constitutional law of this Republic (We are not a democracy!). We give the government the authority to collectively do what one individual also has the right to do. An individual does not have the right to go to her neighbor and request an abortion. The government does not justifiably have the collective authority. If it is immoral for one person to kill another then it is also immoral for our government officials to give it blanket legalization. However, governments do have the responsibility to punish crime which is just. In fact, it is their obligation to punish the guilty, including errant elected officials, and protect the innocent.
Should our government assume the authority to legislate morality or promote immorality? Our government, with or without our complicity, sanctioned and continues to support the 22 January 1973 Supreme Court decision which set the precedent for mass infanticide. We might compare this to other tyrannical empires, such as Hitler or Hussein, who have slaughtered large segments of their population. Undoubtedly, there was sufficient rationalization for their actions. How are we any different than them? When brought to judgment, will we reply that we were just following orders? Or will we reply that it was legal?
"The proponent" states that there has always been abortion. That is true. Her rationale is that there will always be abortion so why not make it legal and safer. There will also always be murder, rape, child and spouse abuse, theft, burglary, embezzling, kidnapping, car theft, child pornography, illegal drugs, hijacking, and on and on. Why don’t we make these all legal? We don’t legalize crime as it would be the downfall of society as we know it. It would be lawless chaos. Perhaps our abortion mentality gave impetus to the other prevalent evils in our society?
Our love would grow cold and we would lose everything that we call humanity. "The proponent" accuses the pro-life group of having half a brain. I would prefer to have half a brain and an intact heart than the other way around. Legalized abortion, coupled with media brutality decreases our sensitivities and compassion for others. Instead of lowering the bar to the very depths of depravity we need to raise the bar and then stretch ourselves to it. Lower standards for a few decrease them for everyone. If "Little Johnny" can’t read, get a tutor and allow growth and self satisfaction for effort. Don’t lower the bar for the entire class – that reeks of communism!!! This is applicable to the abortion issue. Yes, there will always be abortion and there will always be unwanted pregnancy often promoted by sex education classes that arouse curiosity without teaching restraint and self discipline. Arbitrarily handing out birth control supplies in schools promotes sexual activity and immorality.
I believe there are many who would chose adoption over abortion were abortion not so readily available and legal. I also believe that it does make an easier option for those who do not want to risk the embarrassment of an out of wedlock pregnancy. Legalizing sin alleviates or eliminates the personal guilt that accompanies any kind of sin – major or minor.
This issue is not just about numbers – the number of babies saved. It is about a standard of behavior and moral consequences. When individuals participate in risky behavior there are consequences. Sex is a risky behavior – not just because of possible pregnancy.
We live in a society of so-called victims and others who prefer to have a nanny state take care of their problems rather than make responsible decisions based on sound moral principles and values. We are each endowed with agency and the ability to make decisions based on our moral conscience. People should take responsibility for their choices. The slaughtering of the innocent is the very worst of all poor choices.
Case for the Morality of Legal Abortion
© Deanna Spingola 2005 - All rights reserved
Deanna Spingola's articles
are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the
person or organization must not
charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and
full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included.