Abortion. Why is the very word not associated with child abuse? Culturally across the globe we separate the two. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a pre-born child as a result of various extenuating circumstances of the mother and father and is deemed allowable. Child abuse on the other hand is deemed horrendous. Even the most stoic of visages take on a look of shock, rage or sadness when they hear of abuse at the hands of parents, caregivers or authorities, present or past. It is rooted out, but there is always more. More stories, more sadness, more reparations that really don’t repair.
Why is there not the same level of shock, rage or sadness when it comes to abortion? These are our kids. What happens to them? They are denied a first breath and banished to an unknown grave of medical waste. Should we not be looking out for the smallest and weakest among us? These children are innocent, beyond reproach and yet time and time again over the years they have been let down by governmental systems, treated cruelly and preyed upon. Just because we can’t see them doesn’t mean they aren’t there, that they aren’t worth our time. Just because they can’t speak doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have a voice as part of their generation. How can pro-choice politicians rail against all forms of violence, and then acquiesce when it comes to abortion? Do they not see it as a violent form of death? Do they not believe that a newly created life is worthy of dignity and respect? Do they not understand that killing a child is not necessary to save the mother in a medical emergency. Science and medicine have offered other options. They don’t even apologize for it any more. No more do they pronounce abortion should be safe, legal and rare. “And rare” was dropped from their vernacular as they capitulated to their political donors and voter base. The pro-choice argument that these children are not “real” until they emerge from the birth canal is old, tired and washed up. Science has proven each child has her own DNA from conception and a beating heart within the sixth week of the pregnancy.
Should not those in authority be striving diligently political party against political party to limit the cruelty – or eradicating it – instead of celebrating the expansion of it? By codifying Roe vs Wade we risk losing the state-level limitations that have been put in place to curb the abuse of these children. This could lead to unrestricted abortions throughout the full term of a pregnancy; it may allow for abortion centers to not be regulated as medical facilities; and it will allow for a young girl on her own, with no parental or guardian knowledge, to make a decision she may not fully comprehend, later regret and carry with her throughout her life – yet another form of child abuse.
We cannot and should not allow abortion to be hidden behind the euphemism of reproductive health care. Why do candidates who support abortion on demand never mouth the words in public? Because it makes constituents with a conscience recoil ever so slightly, even if they agree with the premise. Women’s health care has a positive tone to it. Abortion invites only an image of a child broken into pieces or washed away in a vacuum. Who wants their fan base carrying that image away from a rally or when casting their vote?
We have to stop this, right? Who is looking out for these kids? These are the questions that always arise in discussions of child abuse. We don’t turn our heads away then and say it’s none of our business. Why are these same questions not raised for a child in the womb?