Assassination Justification

or, Now We Know How To Get Around Executive Order 12333

Photo by Ashwini Chaudhary on Unsplash

This past Wednesday, I had a revealing debate in a popular restaurant of all places. Two nights before, all but three Democrats in Senate voted to keep debating whether a child born alive after an abortion attempt was worth the same protection that any other child is granted. Because this vote was not necessarily in the news heavily, but being discussed by many anyway, I was naturally asked for my opinion. I say naturally, because this is a place I go to regularly, and many of the staff and frequent patrons know me. 

When I was asked my opinion, I simply stated that it was a damn shame that some children are considered to be worth less than others; at least, in the minds of forty-three Democrats and one so-called Independent. I stated that Senators Casey, Jones and Manchin deserved a standing ovation for separating from their party (Democrat) and agreeing that all children should be protected. I also said that I believed that day was perhaps the darkest day this nation has seen since the state of New York passed the "Reproductive Health Care Act" (RHA). That law, contrary to statements by supporters, uses such broad language that a child could potentially be killed without consequence even at the point of birth. Lastly, I added that this seemed like the first step in a larger attempt to decriminalize murder, possibly leading to mandated euthanasia or worse.

The woman I was talking to; and who had asked my opinion on the matter; agreed with me. She said that when New York passed the RHA, she read an article that had a statement she couldn't believe. The writer of that article had said that we could only believe that medical professionals would risk their licensing and careers to perform frivolous abortions if we showed similar distrust of doctors performing other procedures. The conclusion was that anyone who didn't trust a medical professional to do an abortion was simply unreasonable and out of their minds. The woman I was talking to then said that as recently a week before, she had seen another news report of a misbehaving doctor. 

As I agreed, a gentleman who is there on occasion decided to interject. This is an account of that discussion.

+++

"The danger of that particular bill was that it could have been used to impede a woman's right to choose," he began. "You, as a man, do not have the right to impose your will upon a woman or her body."

"I'm standing next to a woman who agrees with me," I observed dryly. 

"That's beside the point," he responded. "You do not have a voice in this matter, so your opinion is not only unwanted, it is also worthless since it relies heavily on the slippery slope fallacy."

"That's interesting," I said, feeling myself getting a little heated, "Considering that you're also a man, yet your opinion is apparently gold."

"I'm just speaking the truth," he said with a shrug. "You're the one with such a high and lofty opinion of yourself." He glanced at his phone briefly and added, "Which, I suppose, is typical for someone supporting President Frump."

Something in my mind snapped at this point. "Okay, so let's go ahead and go on record here. The lady here wanted my opinion, and quite frankly, you've made it very clear that yours is more valuable than mine. You say that the bill could be used to impede a woman's right to choose, right? Do you realize that the language of the bill explicitly sheltered any woman who gave birth after an abortion attempt? Under that law, she could not be charged with anything? How does that impede her right to choice?"

"Oh, it wasn't the law itself," he said with a chuckle. "It was the fact that it penalized doctors and medical personnel who failed to take measures to save any infant that was born alive. Doctors would stop offering abortions and women would once more begin dying from back alley procedures."

"Really? Who's making the slippery slope arguments now? From 1972 to 1979, twenty-four women died from post-abortive hemorrhaging, which is still recognized to this day by the CDC as only the third most frequent cause of death associated with abortion. They rarely talk about the first and second causes, infection and embolism. What they don't mention is that while the overall mortality rate has gone down for women who get abortions since that time, the rates of hemorrhaging and infection have risen." I raised an eyebrow. "Worse still, prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion related deaths were being reported because it was illegal to perform abortions. Now, fewer deaths are being reported, yet it is pretty clear that doesn't mean there are fewer fatalities. In fact, approximately three out of four maternal deaths related to legal abortion aren't even identified. The idea that more women are going to die if abortion is made illegal doesn't stand under the weight of the statistics. Not to mention that we're not even discussing abortion as a whole. We're talking about partial birth and after birth abortion. Murder, in my eyes." 

His posture straightened and he seemed more resolute now. "Abortion, whether it is at one day or nine months, is still the prerogative of the woman. It is not your place to say what is and is not allowed, and neither can the damn Republicans."

I leveled my eyes on him, looking for any sign of flinching as I asked, "So you're saying that a woman should be able, even at the point of birth, to decide she does not want a child?"

He didn't pause for a second. "Absolutely."

I wasn't so surprised by his response at this point, but I could tell the lady was. Her eyes widened and her mouth opened just a little. When she didn't say anything, I took the opportunity to challenge his way of thinking.

"Should a man who assaults a pregnant woman be charged with assault and murder if the child dies?"

He didn't bat an eye. "Certainly, if the state law allows for it. That's a different matter entirely."

"Fair enough," I said, appreciating his viewpoint. "But you're saying that if that same woman decides she doesn't want a child after all, even as she's giving birth, the child should die? And, of course, because it's a completely different circumstance, it is not murder. Am I understanding you correctly?"

He nodded. "Yes, and yes."

"Huh." I thought for a moment, then asked, "So by that logic, your mother could choose to terminate your life, and because it's a different circumstance, it's not murder." 

He laughed. "Of course that would be murder. Although my mother is saint, and very religious, so she wouldn't even consider it."

The woman I had initially been talking to interjected, "How fortunate for you."

If he picked up on her sarcasm, he gave no sign that he had. "I think so. I rather enjoy my life."

I held up my hand. "I just want to make certain that I have a clear picture of your stance, if I may."

He nodded again. "Certainly."

"Okay," I began, "Let us assume that the woman in this situation is in no danger of losing her life by giving birth, or by carrying a child to term."

"So assumed," he confirmed. 

"So this woman gets to her due date, and maybe a few days past it, and goes in to the hospital to have her child. somewhere along the line she panics and decides she can't raise a child. She should be allowed to kill the child without it being defined as murder?"

"Correct."

"If that woman had initially decided to have a third trimester abortion, but it didn't work, and she delivers early as a result, she should still be allowed to authorize the death of that child, without anyone being guilty of murder?"

"Absolutely. It's her right to choose."

"And if the same woman actually gives birth to the child, but has a change of heart before they cut the cord, that child can be killed, and it is not murder?"

"I would use the term 'terminated' in all cases," he corrected me smoothly, "but essentially yes."

"And just so I don't get caught up on any other minor details," I said by way of preface, "You are aware that in the last two cases, the child is now breathing air on his or her own?"

"On it's own, but yes."

"It's own. Terminated. Got it," I said, repeating the terminology for his benefit. "Okay. So basically according to your view, personhood is defined by an individual's choice. Regardless of when that choice takes place. It could be at eighteen days, or it could be eighteen minutes after birth."

He paused for a moment, looked at the ceiling, and then looked back at me. "You could say that, yes."

"So by your logic, the determining factor between undesirable and desirable," I stopped and rephrased, "Rather, the determining factor between priceless and worthless is the choice of a single individual?"

"Correct."

"Wow." I said. "I can see it all so clearly now. That means, that I could decide you are worthless, kill you, and not be charged with murder. I was only making an arbitrary choice, and preventing something worthless from taking away from our planet's valuable resources by termination. Not murder."

He smirked at me. "That's not how it works."

"Right, because I'm not a woman."

He nodded, the smirk still there. "Because you're not my mother."

"Ah, I see." I said. "So if your mother, then, tired of your viewpoint on this issue, she could choose to deem you worthless and terminate your life without being charged with murder."

"No," he said, now finally appearing flustered. "Again, that's not how this works."

"But that's what you said. A woman, even after the point of birth, can choose to terminate her child. I mean, it's either murder, or it isn't. If innocence is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between the death penalty and murder is understandable. But if a mother's choice is the deciding factor between whether the ending of a life is acceptable or not, then the difference between post-birth or partial-birth abortion and drowning her child doesn't make sense. It must be murder, or it must not be. There is no room for it to go both ways."

The smirk was gone. There was a vein visible in his forehead that I had not noticed before. As he walked away, he said, "You're a closed-minded bigot."

+++

As the woman I had begun the conversation with walked to the register to settle the man's tab, she suggested to me that perhaps if I had gender reassignment my opinion would be valid. I laughed at that, because the thought had not occurred to me. When she returned, she informed me that the man had overheard her comment, and stated that it still wouldn't make a difference, because I would still be biologically a man.

+++

So there you have it. This account is as accurate as I can recall. There may have been some things left out, but I have added nothing. 

Killing Children

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.