An unintended occurrence is something that is unplanned, accidental, or even a fluke. While none of these words should define the existence of a child prior to birth, we have heard them used over and over again because, we are told, the unintended pregnancy is a problem.
The Centers for Disease Control defines an “unintended” pregnancy as a pregnancy that is either unwanted—such as one that occurred when no children or no more children were desired—or the pregnancy is mistimed, such as one that occurred earlier than desired.
Note that these words move the reader away from the fact that there is a baby involved and toward the idea that, like a bad case of acne, such a pregnancy can be cured. How? Well, abortion of course.
But the story of fetal development makes it clear that pregnancy involves the stages of development of a human being, not a disease.
There are not some pregnancies that result in babies and others that do not. So we are left asking a very basic question about allegedly pro-life laws that suggest that some abortions will be banned but not others. Such is the case with the latest Idaho law.
To be clear, the Idaho law is not the only abortion regulation law posing as a ban, but it does provide a window into the thinking of those who may not intend to permit some killings while working to outlaw others. One report on the Idaho law states: “Hoping for a victory for life, lawmakers in Idaho and many other states have filed legislation this year to protect unborn babies by banning abortions, and more pro-life bills are expected in the near future.”
One unintended consequence of using words like “banning” and “pro-life” is that many average citizens believe what they are reading. They think abortion is now banned in Idaho when that is very far from the truth. So why the verbal gymnastics?
Planned Parenthood, for one, never compromises, as it is always all in for aborting children. In Idaho, PP is suing with the goal of reversing the new law. It claims the law is “wreaking havoc on this state’s constitutional norms and the lives of its citizens.” But the truth is that Planned Parenthood’s goal is to protect every single act of abortion. And it clearly has the funding to file lawsuits on a whim, tying up any proposal, including those that have become law.
And there it is—another unintended consequence of seeking half a loaf in efforts to stem the number of abortions while the proponents of the killings go for the whole loaf every time.
But the most glaring problem confronting the pro-life community is that even though they claim victory in the banning of abortions after a baby’s heartbeat is detectable at six weeks, anyone who reviews the statistics realizes immediately that the majority of babies killed by abortion are long dead before the six-week mark is ever reached. Is that the unintended fact that becomes the elephant in the pro-life living room?
Not only that, but by six weeks of age the preborn has long ago implanted herself in his mother’s womb. And as the excellent video Baby Olivia teaches, by six weeks her muscles are developing, her arms and legs are beginning to show, and she is well on her way toward the development required for her to be born.
Science teaches these facts about fetal development. So it seems to me that when we argue that ending abortion after a certain age of development is a pro-life effort, we are lying to ourselves and betraying hundreds of thousands of babies.
I cannot point a finger at any political strategist and pretend that he or she is ignoring these basic facts, but I can say without apology that to be pragmatic when it comes to child slaughter is an unintended consequence that kills not only babies but consciences too.
Let us all intend to defend every baby, as not a one should face an unintended death that could be avoided.