[Today's guest post by Rachel Cox is part of our paid blogging program.]
[WARNING: As the title implies, this blog post is highly disturbing. You should not read it if you have a weak stomach.]
Most people who see nothing wrong with abortion have that belief because they don’t think an unborn baby is a person. They don’t even like the term “unborn baby” because it lends to the idea that what’s in the womb is a person. They usually stick with the term “fetus” because the emotional response generated from discussion of killing a fetus is more palatable than that of killing a baby. But even if they were right about the absence of humanity in a fetus, it doesn’t change the fact that aborting a fetus is a horrific, senseless tragedy.
Just for the sake of the argument, let’s use the term “fetus” and disregard that a quick overview of basic human embryology tells us fetuses are people. But before we can move on, we need to classify fetuses as something else if they aren’t people. So if a fetus is not a person, what is it? Fetuses are alive, no one can deny that. They’re obviously not plants, insects, or bacteria, so the only possibility left is that fetuses are animals.
So, let’s pretend a fetus is a non-human animal. Now that it's settled, allow me use an example to demonstrate why killing a non-human animal in a similar fashion as one used in a human abortion is still deplorable.
Let’s say I have a puppy but I can’t afford one at this stage in my life (lack of money is a common reason for wanting to abort). What do I do with this puppy?
Since it's still small, I'm going to cram it in a blender while conscious and liquefy it to a bloody soup, disposing of the concoction in the trash.
That might work for a small puppy, but what about an older dog? It won't fit in a blender.
How about this then: Without using anesthesia, I'm going to chop each of the dogs legs off, one by one, with a pair of bolt cutters. But the dog is still alive at this point, so the job isn’t over yet. Now, I’m going to pick up a giant rock, slam it down on the dog’s head to crush it, and then throw the dog’s mangled body in a bio hazard bag.
Do you think the methods of getting rid of the dog were disturbing? Who wouldn’t?
If I got caught getting rid of just one dog with either of the two described methods, not only would I be jailed because it’s illegal, my mug shot would be all over the internet accompanied by hateful epithets demanding my torturous death. In my defense, I could argue that it was my right and choice to kill my dog. I could say what I did to the dog was none of the government’s business. I could say the dog was better off dead than leading a less-than-ideal life. However, not one of those excuses would sway a single person.
But unfortunately, those two methods are basically the same used to kill thousands of fetuses every day. Sound familiar? The first procedure I described was very similar to an aspiration abortion, commonly performed in the first trimester of pregnancy. Don’t believe me? See the diagram:
The second method I described was akin to a "dilation and evacuation" abortion used in the second trimester:
There are other methods of abortion besides these. Not one of them could be described as non-violent, and they all obviously result in death.
Now let’s bring ourselves back to reality where fetuses are people, and virtually no one actually kills pets like that. However, it’s still true that abortion is not much different than the way I described it.
If doing what I described to animals is so bad, why is it legally acceptable to do it to a fetus? Most people’s pets are treated better and have more legal protection than fetuses. Considering how terribly violent abortion is, it should still shock a society’s conscience even if the life being taken is demoted to a non-human status. It’s a sad state of affairs when the status of a human being isn’t even equal to that of a dog.