This is not a subject that I would categorize as a favorite of mine about which to write. I would far rather spend my writing hours on subjects that carry much less weight. It should be noted that, in writing this essay, I do not purpose to incite “trouble” on my blog, or to make anyone feel small about whatever choices they may be facing at present. That being said, this is indeed a troublesome subject; Nevertheless, one that you and I might do good to consider slowly, and with much patience. Before we begin, allow me to note that if you happen to be someone who is dealing with the question of whether or not to end your pregnancy via abortion, and you would like someone to talk to, I will certainly make myself available through my “comments” option below. I may do no good at all, but I will certainly not be judgmental, and I myself know what it is like to need to talk to someone. Now, I’ll begin my essay.
Let’s consider the origin of the word, “aspiration”. Noah Webster had a very clear definition of this term. In one of Webster’s original dictionaries from 1828, he defines the term aspiration as, “The act of aspiring or of ardently desiring what is noble or spiritual”. How odd, then, that one presently accepted definition of the word aspiration is, “To suck puss”. This is an egregious adaptation indeed, but perhaps there is more Devil’s work taking place here than simple etymological evolution. Should someone be held accountable for this cynical degeneration of what was once a beautiful term into something so morbid? What was the bleeding void suddenly formed in our language which could only be remedied through the augmentation of the term aspire into such filth? Perhaps there was no void. Perhaps the absence of a void in our language is where the Devil’s work is manifested.
The most common type of abortion procedure is one that was developed in 1958, but was not introduced into the United States until close to fifty years later. Performance of this procedure involves a tiny vacuum which is inserted through the woman’s cervix, into the uterus, and directly up to the baby. The vacuum is then used for the purpose of dismembering the baby and tearing it into tiny pieces as it is sucked into the vacuum’s small opening. The method of abortion which I’ve just described is called the “Aspiration Procedure”. Doctors favor this type of abortion procedure because it is non-surgical and can be performed with very little dilation of the cervix. It takes approximately five minutes to “suck the puss”, and the woman is able to leave the clinic feeling normal as she resumes her previous activities. No follow up visit is necessary. Come on in girls, for an Aspiration! Incredible isn’t it, the power of a seemingly insignificant play on words.
There are two pictures below. The object depicted in the picture on the left may frighten you. Scientists along with our president are confused as to exactly what it is. Even though it continuously wiggles its toes, suckles at its mothers breast and sneezes, scientists have assured us that it is certainly not alive. The other picture – the one on the right – is of my beautiful daughter taken just days after she was born. I took the liberty of placing the picture of my daughter just to the right of the image of the hideous, lifeless form to better demonstrate the distinction between the two. According to science, one is a baby; the other is puss.
I suppos we all know, or can assume, that the image on the right is that of a small child. But what of the other image? The one on the left. What exactly do you suppose it is? The picture portrays an object so baffling that even our president claims it would be above his pay scale to attempt to determine whether or not it is alive, let alone what species it may be. Allow me to enlighten you; The picture on the left is of what scientists and Planned Parenthood call “puss”. At least that is what it would be called if it were still inside its mother’s uterus like it was just moments before this picture was taken. According to scientists, just moments ago while still in utero, this was a lifeless 24-week-old fetus. Moments ago, inside its mother, it was not a baby, it was not a life, it was a clump of puss aspiring to be human but at risk of being aspired. Now that it is born and its parents actually want to keep it, scientists are baffled, along with our president. They feel strongly that these parents should be locked up and put away. Imagine the audacity of such parents wanting to take a dead fetus, or clump of puss, out of the hospital and home with them. After all, it will still be several weeks before the thing develops life and becomes a baby.
Please understand that I have utmost respect for life and I understand that this is a baby that I’m calling puss. Really, I’m only mimicking the philosophy of Planned Parenthood and scientists around the globe. It is they who refer to the picture above as a clump of puss. Perhaps in their minds the picture below depicts a more appropriate demise for something so repulsive. Before you turn your eyes away, let me make you aware that the baby below was 22 weeks old and was not considered human nor was it considered to be alive before it was killed. On the other hand, the baby above was born at 24 weeks to loving parents, and survived.
Readers, it’s time we started holding our scientists and our politicians accountable for their research, and their actions. The same scientists who say that life began because of fairies riding in to earth on magic crystals, and the same scientists who claim that we evolved from monkeys – While offering no follow up explanation as to why the species that supposedly evolved into humans still exists – are allowed to determine what life is, and who has a right to it. When will we take the reins back and say to the scientist, “Your Research is faulty, and your conclusions lack evidence. For too long you’ve used the name of science as if the word itself possessed some divine power rather than the simple promise of sound, laborious experimentation. We demand research based science rather than politically based agendas”?
Perhaps it is too much to ask.
Thank you.
Nathan Gray
