Whoopie Would Rather See Babies Dead Than Adopted

The interchange between Whoopie Goldberg and Elizabeth Hasslebeck on The View Tuesday highlighted many of the smarmy, cynical reasons selfish women give for aborting their children.

I would like to start off by saying that neither Hasslebeck nor I advocate completely outlawing abortion. But Goldberg was arguing AGAINST the new law in Oklahoma (now temporarily blocked) urging women to look at an ultrasound of their unborn baby before undergoing the procedure. It makes my blood boil to hear it, but seeing her words spelled out gives me the opportunity to refute misconceptions spread by the pro-abortion left. The photo on the right is an ultrasound of my own youngest dumpling at about 12 weeks gestation.

After Hasselbeck posed, "Are you going in there with all the knowledge of what's actually going on inside of you at 16 weeks?" Goldberg responded: "But what difference does it make if you can't have the baby? What difference does it make if you're going to bring a baby in and you can't feed it and you can't take care of it and then people end up killing their kids? I hate it!"

Um. Whoopie. Did you ever hear of adoption? Killing unborn babies and killing babies are not the only options out there. Oh, you DID hear of adoption. Here is what Whoopie has to say about adoption:

"I'm for the best possible life that you can give your child. And if you end up having to give your child away, which many people do, you know, the guilt of knowing that that kid is out there, or what some people have resorted to doing when they discover they actually can't deal with it, they do terrible things to their kids."

OK. So adoption often works out well, and sometimes does not. And on the off chance the adoption would turn out badly, kill the kid quickly NOW! Does that make sense? Or is it the immature, selfish justification of someone who does not want to "know the kid is out there". Yes, it is painful to be a birth mother and not know how your child is growing and developing. A mature woman understands, though, that this is not about them. It is about what is best for the child. And saying that a dead fetus is better than an adopted baby is highly presumptuous and plain wrong.

Then, of course, Goldberg brings up the ubiquitous coathanger argument. Hasslebeck agrees that coathanger abortions are not the way to go. But that is not even part of the issue here. The issue is whether or not women should have to submit to an ultrasound of their fetus before an abortion procedure. So they can see the little wiggler with their own eyes. And even so, doctors are required to provide patients with a copy of the ultrasound, but the patient is under no obligation to watch it. They can avert their eyes during the procedure if they wish.

The whole idea behind this law is to counter the fallacy that aborted babies are not babies, but a "bunch of cells". Why should the women not be educated about their babies before making a life and death decision. Because this might cause temporary trauma to the woman? What about the permanent trauma caused to the baby. What about the trauma to the woman when she finally *does* figure out exactly how developed her child was at the time of death. How can we save her from emotional pain then. Truly, this is one situation where the truth is important. Hiding a baby's heartbeat and kicks and wiggles from its mother, just to market abortion procedures, is a crime against the baby and a crime against humanity.

Hat Tip and many thanks to Newsbusters for this thought-provoking article.