Justice for Jane

A pregnant illegal immigrant in Texas successfully obtained an abortion at U.S. taxpayer expense yesterday. According to Vogue, she released a “powerful statement” (that someone else obviously wrote) which said:

My name is not Jane Doe, but I am a Jane Doe. I’m a 17 year old girl that came to this country to make a better life for myself. My journey wasn’t easy, but I came here with hope in my heart to build a life I can be proud of. I dream about studying, becoming a nurse, and one day working with the elderly.

“Jane” was sixteen weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion. The carefully crafted statement was clearly worded to earn her public sympathy. Publications such as The Daily Beast, that support very liberal political policies in regard to abortion rights, obscenely accused “pro-life zealots” of prolonging the pregnant girl’s suffering.

That was an extraordinarily poor choice of words, at least from my perspective. And extremely offensive. She hasn’t suffered pain, or more than minor discomfort that is normal with pregnancies. She might have been mildly inconvenienced, at best. Her unborn child likely experienced brutal, agonizing pain before dying, on the other hand.

Jane Doe’s pregnancy had advanced far enough that the callous, brutal abortion method known as dilation and extraction might have become the fate of Jane Doe’s unborn child. It’s tough to watch, but everyone who believes a woman should have the right to choose to abort a child for the sake of convenience needs to watch, and learn.

Gianna was very lucky because the abortion doctor wasn’t there when she was born. One ugly but little-known truth about abortions are the many documented cases of babies accidentally born alive during botched abortions but immediately murdered by the incompetent attending doctor.

And if that isn’t appalling enough to know, Planned Parenthood has advocated for that doctor to be exempt from prosecution for the crime of infanticide, and failing to honor his or her Hippocratic oath to first, do no harm.

When Salon recently claimed writer Patrick Tomlinson had allegedly “shut down” the anti-abortion argument with a thought experiment, I encouraged him to consider an alternate perspective (mine) on the argument with an appropriate consideration for human life, but was told that my opinions were not welcome in the conversation. Fine.

The argument will continue, with or without Mr. Tomlinson. Besides, he didn’t seem to have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion, other than hot air.

“Remember, we are talking about a child here,” Judge Patricia Millett wrote as part of her opinion that paved the way for Jane Doe’s abortion. With all due respect, Judge Millett, I’m pretty sure we’re actually talking about killing an unborn baby merely for the sake of convenience for Jane Doe.

The girl was old enough to get pregnant by consensual sex, but decided she didn’t want to be burdened with a child of her own after the fact. With the help of five other liberal colleagues on the court appointed by Democrat politicians, Judge Millett allowed her terminate her pregnancy, and forced taxpayers like me to pay for it. Supporters of abortion rights  can pretend the debate is over by trying to ignore what their intellectual opposition has to say, but as long as there is breath in my body, I will not be quiet.

I’ll always listen to the other side of the conversation, but not to a lecture from some mental midget who doesn’t even know that science has clearly defined conception as the beginning of human life. Reasonable people ought to be able to reach some sort of fair compromise in regard to the most popularly cited examples of why abortions are believed to be necessary: rape and incest, the primary reasons given for having an abortion in only one percent of all cases.

Conversely, the inconvenience of having a child (expense, responsibility, lack of maturity) is the reason most frequently provided. “Reasonable” people must be willing to listen to reason.

Many abortion procedures that are currently legal are barbaric, and even medieval. They kill the child, but also may endanger the life of the mother. Perhaps compromise might include very early term medical procedures, or the “morning after” pill. There have to be some options that are negotiable, or the only alternative will be to oppose every abortion under any circumstance, even if the life of the mother is at risk. Even though a fallopian tube pregnancy will be fatal for both the mother and child, if only given the two extreme choices of every abortion being legal  (including partial-birth and post-birth) or none, in order to sleep at night I must vote that none would be legal.

There are other options besides infanticide that are available. Adoption is one of several other options that don’t involve dismemberment inside the womb — if the same thing had been done to a puppy, public outrage would likely be demanding the death penalty for the people responsible. Oddly enough, people seem to care a great deal more when the pregnant bitch is canine.

Abortion should not be treated just another form of birth control, no different than a condom or a pill. When the “fetus” has grown to the point of having arms, legs, and a head, it’s no longer debatable whether or not the fetus is a child. And it shouldn’t be debatable at that point as to whether or not it should be legal to kill it.

When “pro-choice” advocates say that a pro-life people aren’t part of the conversation about abortion, that doesn’t count as victory in the debate. It simply demonstrates how some people aren’t willing to listen. Perhaps the pro-abortion advocates understand that at the core their argument is indefensible — that an unborn child in the womb doesn’t remotely resemble a tumor or a lump of fat. By the time a child has developed for 16 weeks in the womb physically looks virtually indistinguishable from what like it will 20 weeks later, when the baby is finally ready to be born. It may not be ready for birth at 16 weeks, but it has a body, two arms, two legs, a head…and most significantly, a heartbeat.

It really doesn’t matter if some like Mr. Tomlinson refuses to speak with me. The conversation will continue with or without him.

Some feminists like to make bold and aggressive claims that are intended to bully and intimidate weak-minded men into submission. Men are often told they have no right to have an opinion about what a woman may or may not do with her own body.

However, regardless of what that feminist might think, it doesn’t matter when my money is being used to torture and kill the unborn child inside her body. I do have every right to express my opinion on this subject, whether liberals and feminists like it or not.

These critics will also complain that “…you don’t know what it’s like” or might exclaim something like “you don’t have a uterus, so you don’t have a say,” or some such nonsense, yet often those people apparently know even less about abortion than I do.  A claim does not become true simply because someone wants it to be. As long my heart continues to beat, I’ll have a say: it’s called a vote. Everyone has one, but many are too lazy or unmotivated to use it. I vote virtually every time an election is held.

Jane Doe got her abortion. She only needs to be given one last gift from the American taxpayer — a plane ticket home. It’s time to permanently deport her.


About the author

John Leonard

John lives in the northern suburbs of Atlanta, GA with his wife Lisa, two dogs and an antisocial cat.

His detective novels are published under the pseudonym Rocky Leonard, while his nonfiction writings may be found here at The Resurgent, or his personal website, depending on the subject.

View all posts