Steele: Isn’t “Dismemberment” Just a Wee Bit Intrusive?

fetusI’ve always been a bit squeamish when the subject comes to abortion…

That’s one reason I’ll be avoiding Planned Parenthood‘s upcoming “Chili for Choice” chow down in Wichita. However a new bill being proposed in Kansas makes me more squeamish still.

Then again, that may be its purpose.

The bill by Kansans for Life would prohibit doctors from using a variety of medical instruments to “dismember” an unborn baby.

Language matters here.

r-ONLINE-PUPPY-MILLS-large570Who could possibly vote against a bill that prohibits the dismemberment of any living thing, let alone an embryonic human being? If anything, this bill will be harder to deny than the irresistible “puppy mill” bill in Missouri.

That said, many Kansas legislators likely will oppose the bill, especially those endorsed by Planned Parenthood. My guess, however, is that they will not exactly embrace the label “pro-dismemberment.”

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Kansas and Mid-Missouri have come out squarely against the bill. Said Laura McQuade, president and CEO of the group, “Planned Parenthood will expose this legislation for what it is: an intrusive, insulting measure that does nothing to improve the quality of women’s lives or health care.”

Harley?I’m not sure “intrusive” is the word Ms. McQuade really ought to have used here.

As a guy, my opinion may carry little weight, but it’s hard for me to imagine any act in any known universe any more “intrusive” than the dismemberment of a life force in one’s womb, even if one insists, as the Planned Parenthood crowd does, on calling that life a “fetus.”

Question to those wiser than I:

Does any mother-to-be, even one who is pro-choice, call the life in her womb a “fetus”?

Or is that term just reserved for other people’s babies?

Just askin’.

Rich Steele is a citizen journalist and head of the NSAAS (Non-Smokers Against Anti-Smoking).

http://www.mb-kc.com/
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Steele: Isn’t “Dismemberment” Just a Wee Bit Intrusive?

  1. hahhararley says:

    nice write steele. no I’ve never heard an expectant mother refer to her
    unborn as a fetus….its her baby.
    And lets get this straight for anti abortion enthusiasts….for women doing this
    it is a gut wrenching/horrible decision to make. still its abortion.
    I think the politicians want to make a show for the base….the use of
    instruments to dismember a body is awful….how much lower can they
    go. Don’t know what happens in that room but focus on the actual act
    instead of the after affects.
    Questions I’ve always had….how many anti abortion enthusiasts have
    adopted kids who might have had this procedure? I’m willing to
    bet its really low.
    focus on the problem….sex counseling/use of condoms etc./professional counseling for new potential parents/and less b.s. on both side.
    and maybe we can reduce those needing/wanting abortions.

    • MythVSFact says:

      hahaharley: You have fallen victim to a myth about adoption. As quoted from the non-partisan (but probably liberal) NPR.

      “The demand for healthy babies is extremely high among American and European parents, who are willing to spend upwards of $25,000 to $50,000 in fees and travel costs.”

      There is a SHORTAGE of babies to adopt in America. There is actually a waiting list. Now, if we are talking about children age 5 or older who have been taken from their home by family services, then you are right, there is a glut of those children in our system. But a child taken from the hospital to the orphanage will not be left in a orphanage for long. It will only be there long enough to find the best match, but a match WILL be made, and in short order.

      From The Guardian (I don’t understand why some of the best news on America like Snowden comes from the UK but thats another topic)

      “There are very few babies available for adoption, and many of those who are have severe disabilities. It’s much lower than in the 1970s owing to the increase in abortions, decrease in stigma of being a single mom and rise in understanding of the role of long-term fostering and other permanent solutions (living with family members, for example). Most children who need adopting are older or part of sibling groups, and of course there are fewer people who want to adopt these children.”

  2. the dude says:

    Conservative wingnuts are all about outlawing abortion until it comes to actually ponying up when these mothers have those children and need welfare assistance to care for the child they never intended to have. Then they want to bitch about all these welfare mothers out there sucking on the government teet when if they would have had access to real family planning they could avoid an unintended bundle of misery.

    • FromExperience says:

      the dude,

      Disclaimer: It is hard to quantify many of the claims you make in your post. I cannot refute it, just as you cannot affirm it. What I can do is share my story from a different viewpoint of yours. So….

      I was a spoiled child. I didn’t value work or a dollar. I got into a relationship with a lady a few years my junior. We had unprotected sex after about six months into our relationship, and continued for over a year. Then she got into a car accident. At the hospital they gave her a sonogram. Apparently this is standard procedure. To our astonishment the doctor came in and informed us she was pregnant. The doctor and nurse left to give us sometime to chat.

      She immediately brought up the abortion topic. And, I won’t lie I was seriously considering it. I told her lets sleep on it for a bit and talk to some people we love. I knew she had previously had an abortion. I decided that I couldn’t be a party to ending a child’s life, and told her as such. She finally agreed, (though throughout the pregnancy she had doubts). We had our child, and it was a beauty.

      I was a college dropout and she was a high school dropout. We were very young, and unmarried. We split up within a year of the baby’s birth. So, we were your ideal candidates for falling into the welfare system. But contrary to the picture you paint, having a child motiviated us. She went back to get her GED and went on to get a technical degree. I worked to support the child (even though we werent together) so she could do this. After a couple of years of not being able to see my child because I had to work so many hours at a low wage job, I decided enough was enough. Now that she was on solid footing, I decided to find a way to succeed myself. So I taught myself the skills necessary and went on to start my own business.

      Neither of us are millionaires, but we aren’t welfare folks either. Since we aren’t together we have to support two households, and we do it. I can’t tell you what would have happened had we not had our child. I suspect I would have continued to be a leech on my family and my state, and as a high school dropout I suspect she would have continued the same. What I can tell you for certainty is this:

      Two times a year I get a sobbing phone call from the mother of my child. She calls to thank me for insisting on having our child. These two days are our child’s birthday, and the anniversary of her abortion. I’m no hero, I’m just a person.

      People react to adversity different ways, so you can’t make the claim that because someone has a child as a poor single person, that they will certainly become welfare recipients. It depends on the person and their will. If I had to do it over again I’d make the same choice, and I am quite confident in saying the mother of my child would too. I am also confident in telling you that she will tell you that what haunts her dreams the most was her decision to terminate the life of the child she was carrying.

      • the dude says:

        It is good to hear everything worked out for you in the end but that is not the case for a lot of people. Taking away that right limits people’s options and not everyone is as fortunate as you were. State funded family planning should be available for all regardless- it just makes financial sense from a practical viewpoint.

        • FromExperience says:

          the dude, this is a very tough topic. I am pro-life but I don’t shame women at abortion clinics or anything like that. In the end I “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Its not my job to judge, and I take that very seriously.

          I would just say that there are alot of parents who want to adopt, but can’t because there are no babies to adopt. Thats why they go to Russia, China and Africa. Plenty of teens to adopt, and you could argue its sad these people only want to adopt infants, but that is what we are dealing with in abortions so its relevant.

        • FromExperience says:

          Oh, and thank you. I know that we are fortunate to pull ourselves up, and not everyone is that lucky. And, yes, luck is part of it. You don’t have as much margin for error when you are teetering on homelessness and poverty. We should all feel compassion for the children in these situations. I would even agree that sometimes Repulicans (not always conservatives because you have to remember they include the Christian right that provide a large amount of charity) seem to not always have this compassion.

          Anyways, I wish we could solve this issue here on KCC, but I’m not to optimistic 😛

          • Stomper says:

            From Experience; Powerful story and thanks for sharing. Maybe you don’t consider yourself a hero and it is not a label to be applied easily but you should be proud of yourself. I don’t know you but I’m proud of you and the world is just a little better because of you.

            I’m more in step with dude’s point of view but I appreciate your open mind.

    • The Word says:

      Women shouldn’t be sleeping with SIMPS and Madden Kings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *