Abortion crashes the party
These crude abortion creeps keep popping up at the damnedest times, right in the middle of the progressives’ hoity-toity soirees.
Around the room they go, these creeps, tipping over the trays of hors d’oeuvres and spilling the Chablis.
The fashionable liberals in attendance can only grimace and avert their eyes.
What else can they do? These crude abortion creeps are, after all, as everybody knows, major players.
First, there was Dr. Kermit Gosnell. Now there’s Dr. Ulrich “George” Klopfer.
As you may recall, their unfastidious ways of handling terminated human fetuses left big, embarrassing messes behind.
Embarrassing, because among the progressive set a woman’s unlimited, unrestricted “right” to abortion is sacrosanct. And it remains so right up to the moment of birth — maybe even a few minutes beyond birth.
If you listen to the Democratic presidential candidates in all their glorious, grand proliferation, no “right” is more sacrosanct. It’s labeled — in perhaps the most Orwellian Orwellianism ever uttered — a right to “reproductive health care.”
Dr. Gosnell long attended to such “rights” in a marginal neighborhood of Philadelphia, until his slipshod clinical practices became so gross they finally could be ignored no longer.
In Gosnell’s fetid — but licensed! — clinic authorities found, amid the splatters of blood here and there, plastic bags and bottles filled with, um, baby parts. These included, bizarrely, 30 jars of tiny baby feet. “Fetal matter,” a fussy Planned Parenthood no doubt would prefer to say.
The case was later proved against Gosnell that he had illegally performed hundreds and hundreds of late-term abortions, snipping the spinal columns of infants as they emerged from the womb.
One clinic employee testified that the doctor chortled, as he snipped the spine of an unusually large infant, “This baby’s gonna walk me home.” (Note that even Gosnell used the word “baby.”)
Gosnell’s dispatched fetuses were mostly African-American. Which fact surprised nobody. According to the prochoice Guttmacher Institute, the abortion rate for blacks is nearly triple the rate for whites — 27.1 per 1,000 for blacks vs. 10 per 1,000 for whites.
Usually, such “racially disparate statistical impacts” cause progressives great, worrisome consternation. Not here, however. Not when the disparate impact concerns abortion. Ho hum, say the progressives, let’s change the subject, let’s move on, this is uncomfortable.
Gosnell now serves life in prison. But by all accounts he remains without a trace of remorse — indeed, he sees himself as a martyr who heroically fulfilled those sacred “reproductive rights” for females (actually, of course, non-reproductive rights.)
And now, in the midst of the Democratic presidential soiree, along comes the gauche Doc Klopfer, follow-up act to Doc Gosnell.
Klopfer once presided over a clinic in South Bend, Ind., that processed abortions with the brisk zap, zap, zap of one of those electronic bug traps disposing of mosquitos.
South Bend — thankfully propped up by the presence of Notre Dame — happens to be the tottering town where candidate Pete Buttigieg serves as mayor.
“Saint Pete,” as he’s come to be known owing to the excess of self-righteousness he’s inclined to ooze, is perhaps the most laissez-faire “pro-choice” candidate of the whole Democratic bunch.
As to Doc Klopfer, his South Bend abortion-processing plant ran into difficulties with the Indiana legal and health authorities. The doc lost his abortion license in 2016.
The authorities cited his sloppy recordkeeping and his failure to exercise due to medical care in withholding certain pharmaceuticals from his clients. His liberal supporters dismissed the matter as political harassment by crazed Christian right-wingers — you know, those deplorable boobs who are inclined to cling to their guns and bibles.
Klopfer moved to Illinois, and when he died recently his relatives, upon sorting through his property, happened upon 2,246 jars of human fetal parts. The matter is being investigated. (News stories have not specified the racial contents of those jars. Anybody wanna hazard a wild guess?)
But it’s not just crude abortion doctors whose antics keep causing great discomfort among the progressive milieu. Dicey legal and scientific issues keep emerging, proving to be as inconvenient as, um, well, unwanted babies.
Vice President Mike Pence, when he was Indiana governor, signed a law barring fetal remains from being disposed of along with medical waste. Such remains must be separately interred or cremated. Among the pro-choice community, this is sneered at as kinda weird.
In any event, the pro-choice fetal-zapping community couldn’t allow the law to go unchallenged. The law implied, after all, that human fetuses have human qualities, that they shouldn’t just be thrown out with the trash.
Couldn’t let that notion stand. So pro-abortion activists challenged the law, taking the position that aborted fetuses are indeed merely trash and ought to be discarded as such. To treat them otherwise would, it was argued, erode women’s constitutional abortion rights as bequeathed by the iconic Roe vs. Wade decree.
But the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the measure that Pence signed into law. And now the high court is poised, pending possible additional appellate cases, to consider another provision Pence signed as Indiana governor.
That provision bars what’s called “discriminatory abortions” — i.e., abortions based on the gender or race of the fetus.
Yes, such measures present practically insurmountable enforcement difficulties. But they also raise, for liberals, discomforting human-rights issues.
Pro-choice fetal-zapping activists and their progressive allies have evolved such rigid dogma regarding abortion that they can no longer tolerate any restrictions on abortion, any whatsoever.
It’s fascinating speculation to wonder how liberals would react if science develops, as it well might, the means to detect the sexual orientation of a fetus, in the way science can now detect the gender.
Would it then be okay with liberals for a woman to opt to
zap a fetus solely because it is destined to be a gay person?
Would such a “right to choose” be widely exercised?
And where would Saint Pete then come down on the matter?
Would left-leaning women’s activist groups be content to let the zapping of female fetuses run its course, should such a trend develop as it notoriously did in China?
Progressives never cease yammering about the sanctity of science and the reverence it is due, especially when the topic under discussion is climate change.
But in their adamant denial of humanity to a human fetus, at any stage of gestation, whether the first week or 36th, they are treading on squishy scientific ground.
Saint Pete cites, of all things, the Bible. (Rightwingers who do so are subjected to merciless mocking.) He notes passages therein suggesting that life doesn’t start until the first breath.
He seems determined, as do other Democrats, not to accept, even as a remote possibility, the proposition that life might be involved before that moment.
Certainly it is a debatable issue — complicated by science, religion and philosophy, not to mention economic and social factors — at just what stage,
or moment, life does begin.
The debate, however, seems to be putting Democrats who embrace unrestricted, unlimited abortion at arguable odds with the science they’re constantly, loudly advocating.
Even as early as the sixth week of pregnancy, the fetus begins to take on the outline of unmistakable human features, including a detectable heartbeat. It’s a matter of empirical observation, something science has always relied on.
At 10 weeks, the fetus has a head, eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hands, fingers, feet, toes. Is it then preposterous, ridiculous, absurd, silly, to view this outline as human life taking shape?
Are pro-lifers the unlettered,
unsophisticated booboisie that progressives tend to portray them to be for thinking, “Gosh, if it looks like a human, then it must be a human”?
In what sense is it “liberal” — i.e., tolerant, civil and fair — to portray those who hold such views — and who do so passionately — as cruel reactionaries, as people of bad faith whose only real motive is to oppress women?
Is the haughty, wrinkled-nose nastiness of “liberal” pro-choice advocates toward those on the other side of the issue some kind of psychological cover for what the prochoice sense, deep down, is a shaky case?
If the anti-abortion, pro-life activists are often overwrought in the righteous certainty of their
rhetoric, do they not at least have the excuse of sincere belief that nothing less than life itself is at stake in the issue?
This much is, scientifically speaking, beyond dispute: A fetus has its own self-contained circulatory and neural systems, its own brain waves, and at conception it’s own unique DNA blueprint for
life.
All of this is to be brushed aside as mere “biological material,” as mere “uterine contents”?
You’re entitled to make that case. But when you do, you’re sailing against not only strong moral winds but against strengthening scientific winds as well.