Back in the day, a woman pregnant out of wedlock got sent “to her sister’s.” Being pregnant and not married was considered disgraceful and wrong. It was a strike against you.
The babies were born but given up for adoption, abandoned at churches or orphanages or raised by someone else. The child was a socially awkward item, an inconvenience or a mistake that could ruin a life or a reputation because of a single indiscretion or moment of weakness.
It was never called a threat to the mother’s health.
Later, technology enabled the elimination of the threat to reputations and futures and, wonderfully, it could be done before anyone knew the woman was pregnant. The new-fangled “get-out-of-jail-free” card was called “abortion” and people traveled across state lines and visited back alley abortion providers to avoid damage to their futures and to re-acquire their reputations.
Enter strike two. Now, not only did women have to confess to having “fallen,” but in addition, everyone understood exactly what happened at the doctor’s office; two people went in but only one came out. We could save our reputations but the cost was doubling our guilt.
Abortion kills people. And who wants to justify killing someone because they are an embarrassment? Necessity being the mother of invention, an acceptable justification for the horror visited on the most defenseless among us was found in an appeal to a woman’s health.
Strike three. A woman made bad choices, chose death for another over dishonor for herself and could escape consequences by claiming it was necessary for her health. Is it any wonder there are documented emotional and spiritual traumas associated with abortion?
But the tactic worked. We all knew the truth was otherwise of course, but we allowed the struggling their self deceptive rationale. Pregnancy was always understood to carry risk, as do most actions, but never so much that it was to be avoided. Despite any “danger,” couples still intentionally got pregnant.
Still, for the majority of the 40 years since Roe v Wade the mantra has been “for the health of the mother!” Only recently has the narrative changed. Of late, the emphasis has switched to rights; specifically, reproductive rights. The pretense of concern for women’s health is discarded. Under the veneer, the truth that was always there is found. It’s a matter of convenience for the adult woman with no thought to the woman in the womb.
I thought it would take longer for the next logical, yet horrific, step. I really do hate it when I’m wrong.
Today, no less august a body than the US House of Representatives voted there did not need to be a danger to the mother’s physical or mental health. There need be no danger of a child born into poverty or with a disability which might impact its quality of life. The murder of a human being was justified simply because the mother learned she was carrying a girl when what she really wanted was a boy. This ain’t your mother’s abortion, girl! Abortion is just another sex-selection tool.
LifeNews.com reports,
With a 246-168 vote, the bill did not obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to pass. Republicans voted for the bill [the ban] on a 226-7 margin while Democrats opposed banning sex-selection abortions on 161-20 vote margin.
Tennessee conservatives like Marsha Blackburn stood for Life and common sense. Unsurprisingly, President Obama sided with Democrats.
This is the ultimate in selfish “to each according to his need” philosophy and principle put into policy and legislative form. May God have mercy on us …

#1 by LadyImpactOhio on 05/31/2012 - 14:11
I grew up under Roe v. Wade and got suckered it at the time. But once I became pregnant and felt that baby move I knew there was never any way I could believe abortion was not murder. My mother however feels the opposite, and believes it is a woman’s right to choose abortion. “What about all those babies who are born in nasty environments, ” she wails. I tell her there are plenty of people looking for children to adopt.
We can’t have a civil conversation about this, so I just don’t bring it up any more.
God help us, yes Ken. I’ve had tears over this, especially since I’ve been to China.
#2 by John on 05/31/2012 - 14:14
Excellent piece, Ken. I think you nailed the mindset of the Leftists regarding abortion and their never ending effort to justify their anti-human, anti-liberty, anti-freedom and ultimately anti-American ideology. They are indeed Fascists of the worst order.
#3 by Mark Rogers on 05/31/2012 - 21:40
Ken,
A couple of points need to be made here.
First, a defense of gender selection abortions does not fit the concept of ‘a woman having control over her own body,’ the oldest feminist argument for abortion. In the cases of gender selection abortions the issue is not whether the woman has to carry the child to term but rather whether she wants to carry a particular baby to term. If the baby is male, she will deliver and if it is a female, she won’t. That is a woman not controlling her body but controlling the body of a child.
Second, the defenders of gender selection abortions are taking the position that legislation to prevent the practice is racially motivated. Already Asian Pacific women’s groups are opposing the bill on the grounds that it stigmatizes women of these ethnicities. If fact race has nothing to do with this practice. Rather it is all about cultural values.
Some Asian societies value male children so much that infant girls are often killed. At one point the biggest market for sophisticated sonogram machines was India since those were able to detect gender at the earliest date and allow for abortions as soon as possible.
The issue of cultural values ought not play a role in the abortion debate. It is one thing to argue that a woman has the right to an abortion as opposed to giving birth for reasons of health and the right to an abortion only if the fetus is a girl.
Even most pro-choice advocates ought to support an end to gender selection abortions. The difficult question would be how to ensure that legislation would do so and not be overturned by the Courts. Short of a law that prohibited parents from finding out the gender of a fetus, I cannot think of a way to do it.
#4 by Eric Holcombe on 06/01/2012 - 11:28
And so Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” continues…
Even the original Hippocratic Oath, which appeals to false gods, stated “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion”.
Even a “heathen” culture recognizes murder (or theft, adultery, etc), because God’s law is written on our hearts.
“And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” – The Great Physician
#5 by Blue Collar Muse on 06/01/2012 - 13:45
Eric -
I thought about Sanger and her connection to Eugenics, forced sterilization and other methods of, not birth control – but population control – when I first heard the news.
I am horrified that Americans of any party would be connected at all with the notion that it is acceptable in any way to murder a baby simply because it’s male or female.
Sadly, the Left is providing even more evidence of its commitment to all that is horrific in this world. I cannot forget the millions starved, shot, hung, electrocuted, buried alive, gassed, beaten to death and all the other brutal means of inflicting fatal injury on others that are entries in the ledgers of Communism, Socialism and the various other Progressive ideologies.
The Left are not tolerant people. They are totalitarians. And, as Lord Acton noted, absolute power corrupts absolutely. These are craven and cruel men and women who reign through fear. There is little good than can be said of them.
Lovers of darkness committed to evil deeds, indeed!
Thanks for the comment.
K
#6 by Deborah on 06/01/2012 - 11:32
I imagine the Chen Guangcheng is realizing that by coming to America, he may have jumped out of the frying pan and into the fire. May his voice against the horrors of sex-selection abortion ring loudly in our public streets and the halls of law makers!
#7 by Chris Fleming on 06/02/2012 - 05:43
As a pre-Roe adopted child I thank God every day for the Baptist Children’s home that offered a solution to my birth mother’s problem.