We've all heard the tired rhetoric of the butchered wombs of woman 'forced' to get back alley abortions, or disowned by their families because they got pregnant out of wedlock, or a host of other tearfully, passionately, (dare I say shriekingly) proffered arguments for abortion. How can you favor the rights of a blob of cells over the real, often dire situation of a woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy? "Where's the compassion for the woman?" we are constantly asked, or "Every child a wanted child!" "No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body." -- Margaret Sanger.
There is an expression those of us who like legal dramas have become acquainted with: Fruit of the Poison Tree. It regards illegal search and seizure. If a search was not legal and proper, any evidence found in the search, or discovered because of the illegal search, is invalid and may not be used.
This is about another kind of fruit on another kind of tree. This tree is poison as well, but it looks very appealing, and so people often mistake it for a "Tree of Life." Its fruit, at the first bite, seems palatable, but soon its true flavor comes through, belying the enticing appearance of the fruit, and its poison begins to act upon their bodies, sickening and weakening them, until they are retching, and still they gorge themselves on the fruit, which by now is hanging heavily and gangrenous from the branches of the poison tree. The poison tree I'm talking about is immorality disguised as human rights and justified with mal-informed compassion. In this case, the particular variety of poison tree is abortion, and the fruit ... well, the fruit is ... not what we thought had been planted in our garden.
The story of the barbarous murder of a premature infant born alive in an abortion clinic in Hialeah, Florida reveals the rotten core of this particular fruit. A young woman came in for a second trimester abortion. The initial portion of the procedure was begun, a procedure designed to dilate the cervix, and she was sent home, with instructions to return the next day to complete the abortion. When she arrived, she complained she did not feel well. They put her in a recovery room to await the arrival of the doctor, who never answered his page and never came into the clinic. In the early afternoon, the woman delivered a live premature infant. The owner of the clinic, according to the witness who reported the incident to police, put the gasping child into a biohazard bag and threw it into the trash. When the police came to investigate, the biohazard bag was tossed onto the clinic roof until the police had left, then retrieved and thrown back into the garbage bin. Following a tip, the police returned and found the biohazard bag with the decomposing body of the infant inside. To date, no murder charges have been filed in this case, despite a federal "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" specifically designed to ensure that infants born alive during botched abortions be given the full protection of personhood.
According to Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, the state attorneys seem to be reticent to press charges, questioning whether the baby was viable at 23 weeks and so charges may not be pressed against the clinic owner or the administrator who assisted her in the "disposal" of the infant. (There they go again, twisting the law to mean something different than it means ... ) The baby was born, she was moving, she was breathing ... What part of alive are you confused about? Viability is totally irrelevant. As Jill Stanek, writing for World Net Daily stated, "In no other area do homicide investigators wonder before prosecuting how long victims might have lived on their own had they not been murdered." Most of us wouldn't put a live fish in the toilet to dispose of it. We wouldn't drown kittens--how barbaric! But this woman and her associate put a live infant human being in a bag, zipped it up, and threw it in the trash to die. And it is frightfully ominous that someone should even question whether these people should be prosecuted. Have we forgotten how to be outraged, or have we reached the point that our expression of outrage is nothing more than an impotent tantrum lost among the cacophony of braying, ranting and chattering voices our modern life assails us with on a daily basis? The bloated, bureaucratic behemoth does not fear us. It does not fear truth. It does not fear justice. Most of all, it does not fear God.
While we have been wringing our hands in compassion for promiscuous women who use abortion as birth control, there's a brutal epidemic of coerced abortions going on in America as well. Woman have been dragged into abortion clinics by their boyfriends, arms sometimes twisted behind their backs or other brutal measures to compel them to enter, and the clinics apparently perform the abortions despite the obvious reticence of the women (they are, after all, in the baby-killing business, not the baby-saving business). A recent case involved a couple in Maine that kidnapped their 19-year-old daughter and tried to get her to New York to have an abortion because they learned the baby's father was black. Another case in Georgia involved a mother and two cousins of a 16-year-old girl who compelled her twice to drink turpentine in an effort to induce an abortion.
Even more shocking was the woman who was forcibly detained at an abortion clinic after she changed her mind and decided she didn't want the abortion. The same initial procedure had been done on her that was done on the Hialeah woman (the insertion of laminaria, a seaweed substance that causes the dilation process for a late term abortion), but decided in the meantime that she didn't want the procedure, and asked to have the laminaria removed. According to a Christian Newswire report, the woman was told that if she did not go through with the abortion, the baby would be deformed and retarded, and that she herself would die. She was also physically restrained and told if she didn't allow the abortion to be completed, the police would be called and she would be detained and put on suicide watch. They did eventually release her, and she later gave birth to a healthy child under the care of a real doctor.
On the other side of the coin is violence perpetrated by participants in the pro-abortion movement that belies their pretense of compassion still further. The few incidents of Pro-Lifers committing violent acts are paraded constantly on the news and at every public opportunity as though they represent all of Christendom. The "American Taliban" hates women, wants to take away her rights, her CHOICE; they are a terrorist organization who will burn and kill to enslave women.
The truth is, the numbers of violent incidents perpetrated by the pro-abortion crowd far exceeds the few incidents perpetrated by a few fanatical pro-lifers. A new website by Human Life International (www.ProchoiceViolence.com) shows just how great the disparity truly is, both in terms of numbers, and of kind. Brian Clowes, Ph. D., Senior Analyst for HLI states, "This website exposes the pro-choice movement as the most violent political movement in United States history. In fact, we have documented over 7000 acts of violence and illegal activities by those who support or practice abortion ... this violence is escalating at a very disturbing rate." He goes on to say that "since 2000, there have been 269 homicides and other killings committed by the pro-abortion movement." This illustrates just how perverse the behavior is of those who will countenance (or at least turn a blind eye) to anything to preserve the sacred right to commit maternal infanticide under the illusion that it is an absolute necessity to preserve women's freedom. But once again, the determination with which they pursue the death of the infant reveals a much deeper malignancy than a perverted idea of women's freedom. There's a malice there that is truly ferocious, and very frightening.
A new bill soon to be introduced in Congress by Lincoln Davis (D-TN) is touted as being designed to reduce the abortion rate in the US by 95 per cent over the next ten years. The bill is a gigantic welfare bill essentially, (part of what got us into this mess in the first place) that will supposedly encourage women to keep their babies (or have them and give them for adoption) instead of aborting them. All the while, of course, abortion will still be legal, sex education will still go on, the sexualization of children will continue under the guise of teaching them to 'protect' themselves from pregnancy and disease, kids and adults will still be bombarded with messages of easy gratification of desire without consequence, and unwed pregnancies will continue to wreak havoc on the social and legal landscape of our country. And now poor women will get a free college education if they keep their baby. Need I remind you of the numbers of women who had babies out of wedlock specifically to go on welfare? Do we want to revisit that situation? Out of the frying pan, into the fire. Of course, if abortion were outlawed, or at least returned to the states to decide, it would accomplish the desired goal without the taxpayer expense, and the further erosion of the nuclear family.
A large number of respectable people and organizations have supported this bill, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. All I can think of is this is not going to prevent many abortions, any more than the welfare system prevented them, but it will be good for political capital. One of the biggest charges against conservatives who push for the abolition of abortion is a lack of compassion for the circumstances of the woman and, admittedly, some women have said they would not have done it if there had been anyone standing by them to help them during their pregnancy. I do not believe another giant, expensive, welfare package is going to solve the problem. It lacks the personal touch. In addition, the 'inconvenience' of the pregnancy will only be compounded by the 'inconvenience' of having to deal with overburdened federal facilities to get the benefits.
There are presently alternative clinics (crisis pregnancy centers) available for women who need help and don't want to have an abortion. It would be far less costly (and far more beneficial to the expectant mother, given the direct, personal nature of the assistance) if women were encouraged to seek assistance at one of these clinics, which exist out of the compassion for mother and baby both, and offer genuine human understanding and assistance. There are already welfare programs in place to help unwed mothers if they need it. I suspect, however, that the overwhelming number of women seeking abortions are not looking for a means to avoid it, but just want to sweep it away. The toxic fruit poisons the conscience most of all.
The fact that these politicians make the preposterous claim that this package will reduce abortions by 95 per cent over the next ten years tells me they are selling a bill of goods in an election season. It's a trap to snare conservatives, making them either endorse another gigantic spending bill against their own political and social principles, or appear totally lacking in compassion for the woman, just as the liberals have always said. Liberals are not going to abandon their social ideology. They are just going to expand it. But like all the rest of liberal 'compassion', it's as phony as it can be. They are planting another poison tree, and the fruit will be as toxic as the rest of the fruit in the devil's garden.
There really is only one solution: Abortion is an outrage against nature and nature's God. You can't get good fruit from a poison tree. Why do we keep trying to find ways to compromise with evil? Abortion must end.
Alisa Craddock is free-lance columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at email@example.com.
Read the entire article on the Enter Stage Right website (new window will open). Reprinted with permission of the author.