Nothing 'extreme' about valuing life
This article appeared in the Visalia Times Delta.
Just like when they over-used “chilling effect,” and “gravitas” in the past, the media in partnership with President Barack Obama’s campaign, has now latched onto the phrase “extreme views” (alternately presented as “extreme positions”) as their latest mantra. They use it when describing Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, House Republicans and certainly pro-lifers. In general, these “extreme views” apply to anyone who has an opinion on any topic that does not match their own.
I do not seek to enter into the political realm, but I can speak to the issue of extremism as it applies to the abortion issue. Just who are the extremists in this arena?
Pro-lifers believe that all humans are created equal and that it should not be legal for a larger or stronger person to kill another smaller, defenseless, innocent human being, no matter what the socially acceptable reason.
The life of the unborn and the life of the mother are both equally valuable and worthy of protection. Where does that register on your “extreme-monitor”?
Pro-lifers believe scientific evidence. Science tells us, through DNA-testing, that an unborn child is a member of the human race from the moment of conception. Medical technology shows us that the unborn heart is beating by 18 days after conception and that there are brain waves in the unborn at 45 days after conception. Intrauterine photography allows us to view a fully formed immature human being by nine weeks after conception.
At that age, we see a child who has eyelashes and fingernails, who can suck her thumb, feel pain and respond to touch, grasp an instrument in her palm and whose own unique fingerprints are already forming.
In fact, ultrasound also allows us to attend an abortion from the vantage point of the aborted and watch as she flees the instruments of the abortionist, inevitably losing her life to his persistent attacks.
Pro-lifers believe that the lives of a mother and her unborn child are inextricably linked and that whatever hurts one also hurts the other.
Therefore, tearing the life of her unborn child out of a woman’s body is not a beneficial procedure for her and not in her best interests. Is it extreme to want to protect a woman from physical and emotional harm and to help her rise to the occasion and choose what’s best for her and her child?
Obama and his dedicated supporters at Planned Parenthood believe that it is OK to destroy an unborn child of any age by any barbaric method — to suck her out of the womb with a vacuum, to scrape her off the side of the womb with a curette, to tear her limb from limb with forceps, to starve and kill her with chemicals, to pull her 7/8 out of the womb and then end her life by piercing the base of her skull with a pair of Metzenbaum scissors before suctioning out her brains.
In fact, while in the Illinois Senate, then-Senator Obama even voted against protecting a newborn child’s life once it had been delivered alive after a botched abortion. Check your “extreme-monitor” on that!
And Obama and his pro-abortion supporters currently force you and I to pay for the destruction of these unborn children (more than 55 million to date) with our tax dollars and want to increase that funding through the health-care mandate.
Please tell me, just who are the extremists here?