Taking their leave a little slow

© 2019 Jim Spence -  There are many people who think any discussion about abortion is purely political. Is this topic really an all-or-none issue that should be taboo? Radical feminists hope so. Others say there are some real ethical and moral lines that nobody should cross. They believe political opinion on this issue has morphed into advocacy of murder. Let's examine.
Many people tend to take a "moderate view" towards the idea of terminating a pregnancy. It goes something like this: Consider the woman who for whatever reason, especially given all the information out there about how to keep from getting pregnant, gets pregnant anyway. Five weeks later, she realizes she is “late,” and the in-home test result a few days later tells her a process is underway. She is pregnant.
Not in any position to care for a child eight months later, she heads off to a clinic and she terminates a fetus about the size of a sweet pea. Anyone objecting to this "choice" she makes is told to stay out of her uterus. It is easy to see how reasonable people could support the woman’s right to choose under these circumstances. No more commentary is required, since respect for both the pro-choice and pro-life views seem appropriate at this stage.
However, the problem with suggesting ALL abortion discussions are no more complicated than the scenario outlined above, is that aborting becomes much more complicated as time passes. The best estimate for a human fetus becoming "viable" is about 24 weeks, or just under six months. Discussing the topic of "when" abortion should be legal, becomes a very tricky endeavor at this point and beyond. It is insufficient to to suggest a right to choose is limitless with no debate.
We already have laws to deal with this issue. It may be discomforting to discuss, but abortionists who perform late-term abortions, must do so by killing babies inside the womb, in the birth canal, or even on the table after they are born alive. Late-term babies can sometimes be hard to kill on the first try. It is for this reason that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 became federal law. Here is an excerpt of the law:
"Partial birth abortion is an act in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus."
The point here is simple. The law suggests that once there are two viable lives involved, the pregnant woman’s right to terminate the other life ceases. Why?
Rightfully, the statute says a partial birth abortion is: "...a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited."
To suggest that people who would like to throw out this law are simply making a "political" argument is an amazing stretch of fundamental decency. Many Democrats have done some rather appalling stretching. Just ten years ago Democrats like Hillary Clinton made statements saying, “Abortions should be legal and rare.” Today, virtually every Democrat running for president is either vocally or quietly advocating late-term abortions, even taxpayer-funded late-term abortions. They want the actions taken by abortionist turned serial killer Kermit Gosnell, to be made retroactively legal.
How far will some Democrats go? A freshman legislator named Jennifer Jermaine in Arizona co-sponsored House Bill 2696 that would make it acceptable to leave babies born alive alone to die unattended without life-saving medical care if so directed by the mother. Apparently, Ms. Jermaine thinks if nobody actually actively kills the baby, it should not be considered murder if the mother directs all medical people to neglect the baby until it dies.
In the end, it does not matter how many radical feminists resent the idea that nature created two sexes in our species, and the human females are the ones that carry the fertilized eggs. And it doesn’t matter if they think there is NO difference between a woman terminating a fetus the size of a sweet pea and directing an abortionist to terminate a viable baby inside their womb, in the birth canal, or alive on the table. There is a BIG difference. Advocating the legalizing of late term abortions is NOT a political stance, it is advocating murder.
Author Larry McMurty wrote the novel Lonesome Dove. The story had a segment that applies to this situation quite well. It involves former Texas Ranger Jake Spoon. In the story, Spoon takes up with three outlaw brothers. These three outlaws go on to kill five men while Spoon is riding with them. When his cohorts finally catch up with Spoon and the killers, Spoon suggests he did nothing wrong, since he didn’t pull the trigger and was going to leave the outlaws the first chance he got. Spoon's argument is mindful of the pro-choice types who do not personally like abortions but are not opposed to Democrat's efforts to legalize late-term abortions. The dialogue in Lonesome Dove is worth reviewing as Spoon is about to be hung with the other three killers:
Jake Spoon:
Hell, I ain't killed anybody. I just fell in with these boys to get me through the territory; hell I was gonna leave 'em first chance I got.
Gus McCrae:
I wish you'd taken that chance a little earlier, Jake; a man who'll go along with five killin's, takin' his leave a little slow.
Jake Spoon:
Gus, I ain't no criminal; now you know that. It was Dan that killed them two sod-busters. Hell I didn't kill nobody.
Gus McCrae:
You know how it works, Jake: you ride with an outlaw, you die with an outlaw. I'm sorry you crossed the line
Jake Spoon:
I didn't see no line, Gus. I was just tryin' to get through the territory, without gettin' scalped; that's all
Gus McCrae:
I'm sure that's true, Jake 
This is precisely where the radical feminists have taken Democrats. They are wanting their voters to become Jake Spoon. The Democrat's presidential candidates are just trying to get through the presidential primary territories without getting scalped by the pro-choice crowd.
Still, looking the other way on tens of thousands of late-term baby killings is wrong, even if Democrats want to be able to claim it is not appropriate to draw any lines on the abortion issue.
This subject is covered here because it should NOT be taboo. The lines are there. They are plain for everyone with a moral compass to see. And for those voters who think baby killing is wrong, this is not their first chance to leave those who don't.
Should those willing to go along with late-term abortions be hung like Jake Spoon? Only God can answer that question. Everyone will face due-process on this crime someday.