Thursday, November 22, 2007

Planned Parenthood Survey Doesn't Jive

About ten years ago, a study was published titled, "Why Women Have Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries.

Planned Parenthood is the "parent organization" for the group who sponsored the study and reported its findings -- International Family Planning Perspectives.

You know as well as I do that Planned Parenthood stands as a proponent for Roe vs. Wade and makes abortions possible for many women each year. What I find fascinating is that, while Planned Parenthood makes every effort to explain that abortion is necessary mainly for the health of the mother, their own findings show that only 4% of women from those 27 countries who had abortions say that it was to preserve their health (another 2% said that it was because the child would have had a birth defect).

What shocks me even further is that the vast majority of the nearly 65,000 women surveyed said the main reason for their abortions was because they didn't want anymore children. So they're using abortion as birth control? Are there no other alternatives for unwanted children besides killing them?

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) [otherwise known as Laci's Bill] was passed into law and recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Yet in the same piece of legislation expressly excludes protection from abortions.

Now, law is well beyond my area of expertise but I am a thinker. How can abortion, as a legal practice, be allowed to coexist with this federal law that protects children in utero from violent crimes which cause injury and death?

Furthermore, how can the government recognize a fetus as "a child in utero" in one instance, yet stand by and allow its destruction because "it isn't life"?

Heck, even John Kerry doesn't get it.

"I have serious concerns about this legislation {Laci's Bill}
because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and
protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

Therefore, it is my position that abortion is against the Constitution which seeks to protect life...a term that federal law now includes children in utero.

I do, however, see only one way to appease both sides of this polarizing issue. Legislation will have to be put in place that makes abortion illegal unless the mother would certainly die without it. I stand in opposition to any and all abortions but would accept this move as a victory for life as well as liberty.

Editor's Note: At a later date, I'd like to go deeper into the science of life and go point-by-point to try to define children in the womb as not only "alive" but "Human Life".


Blogger template 'CoolingFall' by 2008