01 Jan 2005 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.