During a town hall Q & A session at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, Democratic presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke, informed a voter that his mother still had the right to abort him one day before the voter’s birth. The former Texas congressman has openly expressed his support for abortion in the past, possessing a 100-percent pro-abortion record.
O’Rourke has euphemized abortion by insisting that it is a decision for a woman to make, and he trusts her to make it. But the actual procedure becomes rather difficult to defend when the euphemisms have been discarded, and the argument O’Rourke is making in favor of abortion merely implies that the baby’s temporary location inside of his mother’s womb determines his value.
Disagreeing with O’Rourke on abortion, a 29-year-old audience member asked the presidential candidate to clarify the support he had expressed for late-term abortions when campaigning in Cleveland, Ohio.
“Someone asked you specifically, specifically about third trimester abortions, and you said that’s a decision left up to the mother. So, my question is this: I was born Sept. 8, 1989, and I want to know if you think on Sept. 7, 1989, my life had no value.”
O’Rourke insisted that the young man had value, even going so far as to say that he was glad that the voter was there, but that his stance on abortion remained the same. Attempting to have it both ways with his response, O’Rourke told the constituent that abortion “is a decision that neither you, nor I, nor the United States government should be making. That’s a decision for the woman to make.”
This means that in an effort to appease his voting base, O’Rourke is willing to say that a child should still be able to be aborted exactly one day before delivery.
While the crowd cheered at O’Rourke’s response, he understandably did not go into detail about what a third trimester abortion entails. If he had, then his position would have been more difficult to defend.
Performed 25 weeks to term, the unborn baby is almost fully developed and viable during a third trimester abortion, and it could survive outside of the womb if delivered prematurely. In fact, The New York Times reported in 2015 on studies that found babies born as early as 22 weeks have the potential to survive.
Using a needle to inject digoxin, the abortionist induces cardiac arrest, ending the baby’s life. Laminaria is then used to open the woman’s cervix and, within two to four days, she will deliver a dead baby. If she cannot make it back to the clinic, then the woman may deliver her baby in a bathroom toilet. But if she does deliver at the clinic and the child does not come out whole, then a dilation and evacuation procedure will be performed to dismember the baby and remove it.
According to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, O’Rourke’s support for abortions up until the point of birth is a view that is shared by only 6 percent of Americans, and only 8 percent of Americans believe it should be allowed during the third trimester. Now, O’Rourke has also argued that the government has no right to pass legislation that restricts abortion, but this should lead us to question what the function of government is supposed to be. The most commonly accepted duties of government are to preserve the right to life, the exercise of liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens. If the government passes regulations on abortion, it would not be suppressing the rights of the people, but acting upon its responsibility to protect the right to life.
O’Rourke’s statement that the government has no right to interfere with the well-being of unborn life becomes stranger since he has yet to voice an objection to laws such as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. If an unborn child is killed or subjected to bodily injury, then they are recognized as a legal victim under this act. The only difference between the children O’Rourke believes can be aborted and the ones who were protected by this law is that the lives of the former were not wanted during the time they were in utero.
If we truly fear a government overstepping its bounds by acting beyond the scope of its duties, then should we be in favor of a government that says it’s okay to terminate the life of another if their life is seen as undesirable? Should we not expect our government to guard the lives of its most vulnerable citizens?
The views expressed in this article are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Lone Conservative staff.