There is a considerable amount of ink being spilled in the conservative press about the Irish vote to allow universal abortion in that country. Many see it as a rebuke to Catholic conservatism, and yet the Catholic Church stands for nothing if it doesn't stand for Biblical truth. To say many were either surprised or disappointed would be an understatement.
Tom Trinko today at the American Thinker today somewhat absolves the Irish because they have been lied to about abortion, in the same way as the American public has been continuously lied to by pro-abortionists. Trinko's article can be found at The Abortion Big Lie.
Trinko lists several lies that are told to the public to make them more sympathetic to the "plight" of women caught up in an unplanned pregnancy:
1) The Left claims that the fetus is not actually a human being, but a clump of cells. Indeed, in some cases the Left has made the claim that the child can be killed even after its birth, as William Satetan states in his article at Slate.com entitled After Birth Abortion: The Pro-Choice Case for Infantacide. So let's be clear for a moment. At any time, from conception onward, if allowed to take its normal course, the fetus will become in due time a human baby, which again if given the normal care given to babies, will grow up to become just like us. Therefore, to deliberately abort the child is to commit murder. Worse, it is murder of the most innocent among us. The child is so helpless that it can not feed itself, or wipe its own rear end. How can it possibly justify a claim of self defense?
2) And yet, that is what they pro abortionists are claiming when they say they need abortion to be legal for the "health of the mother." Even in their wildest imaginings, the pro abortionists only claim that 12% of abortions are done for the sake of the mother's health. That leaves 88% done for convenience. Yet, it is worse that these numbers claim, for a folded into the "health of the mother" argument is a lot of depression. Now, most cases of depression do not constitute a mortal risk to the mother, justifying aborting the pregnancy. Indeed, if we only consider mortal risk to the mother, we are down to 1% of abortions. I think most people would be sympathetic to allowing abortions in the case that a mother's is in danger of death if she carries the child to full term. But this is not the case for the great majority of abortions.
3) Then there is the case of rape and incest. Naturally, this case scares a lot of women, and it made more frightening be the push to claim a "rape culture" exists on college campuses. Of course, there is no "rape culture" on campuses. And, in fact, it turns out that less than 1% of abortions are done because of rape or incest.
In the United States, universal abortion on demand was imposed on the people by the Supreme Court in 1973 in the case of Rowe v. Wade in an egregious case of judicial activism. Once established as a precedent (in other words, they got away with it) they have maintained it by turning aside any attempt to limit abortion on demand by the states. Our Congress has gotten in the act by providing funding to Planned Parenthood, which while they theoretically can not be used to fund abortions, since money is fungible, effectively we who are against on demand have to pay for abortions against our religious beliefs.
In light of the fact that we have been unable to get rid of this odious and illegal ruling, I propose that we instead establish an adversarial process in which the pregnant woman must appear in court and present her case to a judge that she must receive an abortion. An advocate for the child would also appear, rather as a prosecutor, to argue the child's case for why it should be allowed to live. If the process follows U. S. law, the burden would be on the woman to prove the necessity of an abortion, since our founding documents state that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are each person's right. If it is found that the woman does indeed deserve an abortion, the judge would have to declare the sentence, which becomes a matter of public record. How many judges, standing for re-election, would want too many abortions on their record?
Summary of the Cliff Notes version.
3 hours ago