Can the Unborn Save
Future Generations?
by Mychal Massie
Thirty-three years after Roe
v. Wade legalized abortion, "Jane Roe" (whose real
name is Norma McCorvey) is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear
her case because she claims she was lied to about the safety
of the procedure. But suppose it is not her struggle that ends
the barbaric murder of the unborn?
Suppose it is not the efforts
of Heartbeat International, CareNet, the Pro-Life Union of Southeastern
Pennsylvania, Blackgenocide.org or the Elliot Institute that
rein in the heathen cash cow of the abortion industry?
Suppose it is the very ones
who are at risk of being killed by vacuum cleaner-like devices
and lethal chemicals who end this paganistic period of our history?
From the beginning of this
perverse pageant of deplorable debauchery, women have been assiduously
accepting that what they carry is not an unborn child but a fetus.
A general dictionary definition
of a fetus is "an unborn or unhatched vertebrate; especially
after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically
a developing human form usually three months after conception
to birth."
A medical dictionary defines
a fetus as "a term for an unborn baby from the end of the
8th week of conception until birth."
This crime of intentional mendacity
reduces an unborn child from visions of a little person needing
nurturing and love to a substance or a foreign body.
Carol Everett, the former owner
of two abortion clinics and director of four others, explains
the deception:
Every woman has [the] same...
questions: First, "Is it a baby?" "No,"
the counselor assures her. "It is a product of conception
(or a blood clot, or a piece of tissue)." Even though these
counselors see six-week babies daily, with arms, legs and eyes
that are closed like newborn puppies, they lie to the women.
How many women would have an abortion, if [counselors] told
them the truth?
Then consider some recent headlines:
* Scott Peterson was found
guilty of murdering his wife and nearly full-term unborn child
(already named Conner).
* A Chicago woman delivered
a baby prematurely after a pregnancy of only 25-weeks and six
days. Despite a birth weight of only 8.6 ounces (just over half
of a pound), the baby is doing well. She's the world's tiniest
baby, exceeding the old record by 1.3 ounces.
* Newborn Victoria Jo Stinnett
was literally ripped from her dead mother's womb prematurely
without the benefit of sterilized surroundings or pre-natal care.
For the next 24 hours, she was paraded around in public by the
alleged murderer and charged kidnapper.
* Clifford Beene Watkins
was charged with murdering his girlfriend's 18-week-old unborn
child by kicking her in the stomach.
My point is this: Mothers with
no reason other than "I don't want it" can murder children
such as these legally at any time during their pregnancies.
If it is not permissible for a father to murder his unborn child
by beating the pregnant mother, then how can it be permissible
for the mother - with perhaps less provocation (sarcasm intended)
- to do the same?
NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned
Parenthood and the entire abortion industry continues to oppose
legislation such as the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act"
(renamed "Laci and Conner's Law") when unborn children
are presented as unambiguous proofs contradicting their positions.
For the record, NARAL president
Kate Michelman considers the renaming of this particular bill
"an exploiting [of] the tragic case." Michelman opined,
"It's so crass, so offensive." But, as Newsweek pointed
out, "If unborn children gain any rights whatsoever, Michelman
and her cohorts fear the whole basis for abortion rights may
begin to crumble."
With unborn children surviving
earlier and earlier, it is the infants themselves who offer the
most tangible proofs against such a barbaric industry and those
who profit from its genocidal fortunes.
It also seems logical that
there must be an enterprising lawyer willing to take on this
murderous industry when it is apparent that mothers such as McCorvey
were lied to about the unborn babies they were encouraged to
destroy.
After all, attorneys successfully
went after the tobacco industry and now want to sue fast-food
chains.
Heck, since Ramsey Clark seemingly
is symbolically thumbing his nose at the children of those who
perished during 9/11, Americans lost in battles in Iraq and Afghanistan
and the families of those Saddam Hussein interred in mass graves
by proudly defending the former Iraqi tyrant, there must be lawyers
with enough moxie to defend a deceived mother.
###
Mychal S. Massie, a member
of the black leadership network Project 21, is an op-ed columnist
with WorldNetDaily.com and talk-radio host on Rightalk.com. Comments
may be sent to [email protected].
Published by The National Center for Public Policy Research.
Reprints permitted provided source is credited. New Visions Commentaries
reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those
of Project 21.
Donate
| Subscribe
| Search | About
Project 21 | What's
New | Blog | Project
21 | NCPPR
