Found this bit today and apparently got carried away in my attempt to write a pithy, two-sentence Facebook post:
Uh huh. This is no surprise whatsoever. The Florida legislature is trying to expand in their state the federal Born Alive law which requires medical care to be given to babies surviving failed abortions that occur in a hospital. They want to require the same care to be given to children surviving abortions in abortion clinics as well.
A Planned Parenthood rep. showed up to oppose this bill, and the video shows the legislators trying to figure out why in the world PP would oppose giving medical care to a newborn who is clearly sitting there alive on a table and what Planned Parenthood’s normal response is in this situation. They get lots of stonewalling and diversion techniques that don’t answer the questions at all, but the upshot seems to be that PP’s position is that the decision of what to do with a live child should be left up to the mother and the doctor (the ones who just tried and failed to kill the child in the first place).
Again, none of this is surprising. The end result of thinking it’s okay to kill helpless people inside the womb is thinking it’s okay to kill helpless people period. Babies who survive abortion? Fine. Babies that you decide you don’t actually want after they are born but you were too busy to abort before they were born? Fine. (Journal of Medical Ethics article supporting this http://bit.ly/xblOPD). Old people who have low quality of life, children with birth defects or autism? Already happening in the Netherlands (http://bit.ly/Nzr5A0).
Make no mistake. What you believe matters. Deciding that killing one small, helpless person is acceptable spreads in your brain. It becomes part of who you are. Once you decide that is okay, it seems only logical to you that other reasons to kill helpless people are also okay. And then what? You find that you are now an advocate for killing the weak simply because they are weak and in the way of someone else’s plans for their life. Are not the weak the very people we should be most vigilantly protecting? Those preyed upon by others? Those who cannot protect themselves? Is that not one of the prime functions of our laws? To protect the weaker people?
I am 5’2" and not very large (happily, I yell extremely loud and am very feisty). Does this mean that since I’m small, some large man should be allowed to rape me just because he wants to and I am clearly weaker? Hell, no! Zero circumstance occur under the law in the United States in which that is legal (alas, not the case elsewhere). Mr. Large Man cannot say, "I can’t get laid, so I’m allowed to get sex however I want." He can give no reasons which will excuse him from physically imposing his will as the stronger party onto me as the weaker one. Does this type of situation always get accurate justice? No. But no situations legally allow this. The law protects me and provides for prosecution and conviction if it does happen. Why? Because the law exists to prevent the stronger from abusing the weaker. It protects.
Except in the case of abortion. In this case, the stronger party is allowed to physically impose their absolute will upon the weaker party to the very end of taking the weaker life. And instead of no reasons providing for or excusing this, absolutely any reason the aggressor (in this case the Mom) can give allows it. If you support abortion, you have become someone who thinks the oppression and killing of the very weakest of the weak is acceptable for any reason whatsoever. Is this who you thought you would become when you said, “yes, I support women’s rights”? Is this who you want to be now? Because this is who you are. This is what acceptance of abortion means.