Friday, July 04, 2014

"Extreme and Disrespectful"

The HuffPo is being a bit chirked up after the Hobby Lobby ruling by the news that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has vetoed what he calls an "extreme and disrespectful" bill requiring women to take responsibility for their abortions.

The law would have done two things:
  1. Increase the pre-abortion waiting period from 24 hours to 72 hours
  2. Require the abortionist to show the woman her unborn baby on ultrasound, and play the baby's heartbeat for her
It is not "extreme and disrespectful" to hold a woman to an adult's level of responsibility. When a judge sentences a convicted murderer to death, he looks the prisoner right in the eye and reads the sentence, and then he signs it. And there's no pussyfooting around. The method of execution is spelled out clearly.

An abortion is not merely ending a pregnancy. It is ending the life of another human being. It is extreme and disrespectful toward that human being to try to pretend she doesn't even exist, that she's nothing more than an unwanted growth.

But even more, it's disrespectful of women to presume that they're not adults capable of squarely facing up to what their choices are. A decision to have an abortion, as I said before, is not a decision merely to end a pregnancy. It is a decision that a particular unique and irreplaceable human being must die at your request. And if you're unable to square up to that, you have no business having an abortion in the first place.

The idea that it's somehow putting an undue emotional burden on the woman is condescending. Frankly, I think she should have to face up to the reality of what she's doing much more squarely. She should have to see the baby and hear his heartbeat, yes. But she should go through a counseling session during which she is presented with all the information about how she could resolve her problems without resorting to the death of another human being. She should then have to first read aloud and then sign a document enumerating the non-violent alternatives that were offered to her and has rejected them in favor of the death of her child. The death warrant should also clearly state the means of execution, and not in some roundabout way like "via a termination of pregnancy procedure." The exact cause of the death should be spelled out -- lethal injection into the heart or brain, dismemberment, withholding of nutrition via chemical means. And she should have to both read out loud and sign a statement very clearly saying that this is indeed what she is freely choosing.

If women are going to take on the decision to end the life of another human being, they should do it honestly and in a straightforward manner. And I think it's time the prolife movement started drafting legislation mandating that women clearly and honestly state that they want their baby to die before they're allowed to have it killed. If she can't stomach that reality, she can't stomach the abortion.


Chandler Klebs said...

I highly agree. Only when someone knows what they are choosing is it truly a choice. This should be standard practice.

L. said...

Okay, if we can stomach the reality and we still want our babies dead, then how about sticking to 24 hours instead of ridiculously prolonging it to 72?

Ladybug said...

In what other invasive elective surgerical procedure (& I'm talking about surgical abortions here), does a woman have surgery on the same day as her first appointment at the doctor's office? And I think it's reasonable to even have a 24 hour waiting period. This is a serious, irreversible decision, not to be taken lightly.

Ladybug said...

I ment to say, "And I think it's reasonable to have a 24 hour waiting period for medical abortions as well..."