Additional Titles








Judges Who Break the Law - Judges Who Steal

Blame The Oregon
Supreme Court For The P.E.R.S. Problem

'Vote By Mail' A
Formula For Fraud

When Your Signature Doesn't Count

The Curse Of regional Governments










By Bill Sizemore

December 20, 2006

It happened again recently. Another seemingly intelligent, thoughtful woman told me point blank that I could not understand the issue of abortion, because I am not a woman. I begged to differ with her and after exchanging a few polite emails ended the discussion knowing that neither had changed the other�s mind. Like many men, I resent the claim that abortion is exclusively a �woman�s issue.�

It is quite illuminating that even though I asked the lady the same question more than once, she always ignored it. I assume she ignored my question, because there is no answer that one with her perspective could articulate and not forfeit the �debate.�

This is the essence of her position: Abortion is a woman�s decision to make, and after all, the thing being aborted is merely a blob of tissue, unrecognizable as human. That is precisely what she told me.

Here was my question to her: How can an intelligent, educated woman in 2006 honestly believe that? The science refuting her statement is indisputable.

Ponder this: Very early in gestation, before most women even discover that they are pregnant, that so-called blob of tissue, though small, has its own heartbeat, its own measurable brainwaves, its own DNA, and its own blood separate and distinct from its mother�s.

In fact, what abortion defenders refer to as a shapeless �blob of tissue� is in reality so clearly human that the truth must be carefully withheld from potential abortion customers or abortion providers would go out of business overnight. The reality of fetal development is so shocking that when a woman or young girl gets an honest glimpse of that which is forming in her womb, she shrinks back in horror at the thought of killing what she suddenly see as �her baby.�

Abortion for most women is only an option as long as they are ignorant of what it is they are aborting.

There is perhaps no better way to persuade a pregnant female (historically known as an expectant mother) not to undergo an abortion than to let her see her baby on an ultra-sound. For many, what they see on that screen is a shocking wake-up call. What the monitor reveals as anything but a blob of tissue. With one glimpse at the truth, powerful instincts are awakened in most women, transforming the nondescript �fetus� into �her baby.�

Yes, it is interesting that women routinely refer to the one in their womb as a fetus, if they are considering destroying it, but call it a baby right from the beginning, if they want it or plan to keep it. In the final analysis, that is what really determines whether it is a baby or a blob of tissue, whether it is wanted by its mother.

Don�t think the �other side� is not aware of this distinction. Feminists and the Planned Parenthood types place a high value on ignorance and strongly oppose any effort to educate women or young girls regarding fetal development. They know their vulnerabilities. Their �blob of tissue� argument is utterly destroyed by what a woman sees on that ultra-sound monitor.

That�s why abortion providers never say, �Hey, before we do this, we have an ultrasound right here, let�s see what it is we are aborting today� They really would be out of business overnight. The survival of their business depends on keeping women and girls ignorant of the truth. (By the way, this is often true for guys, too. Ultrasounds and heart monitors can be a real wake-up call for fathers, too.)

That brings me back to the central question regarding abortion. Can the discussion really be about choice, if the object of that choice is a real, living human baby? Except in the rare case of pregnancy by rape, the choice was made weeks or months ago, the choice to engage in sex. Once we get past that, there remains only one question: Is the �thing� being terminated human? If it�s human, then notwithstanding the opinion of any judge or court, there is no right, constitutional or otherwise, to kill it.

If it is a baby, then it is no longer a woman�s right to do with it as she wishes. She can do what she wishes with her own body, but not with another human, no matter where it resides.

I would not argue with a woman�s right to do what she wishes with her own body, but if that thing she wants to destroy has its own blood separate from its mothers, has its own DNA, has a heartbeat and measurable brainwaves, then how in the world could any honest person consider it merely part of the woman�s body? It lives in her body, but it is not the same as her. It is scientifically not the same as her.

The question of viability is often thrown into the mix as some kind of subjective basis for determining whether it is alright to terminate the unborn child. In reality, viability is meaningless. A baby can�t survive on its own outside the womb, whether it is three months into gestation or three months old. Such is the nature of human beings. God made us among the slowest developing of all creatures on earth and our babies need nurturing, whether they are in the womb or out.

I know of no other issue that so clearly illustrates the decline of western civilization than our wholesale, irrational, even fanatical embracing of abortion. The numbers, now exceeding 45 million babies, are staggering. But, why do we do it? Why do we pretend that what our own science tells us is not true? Why do we avoid dealing with the facts? The answers are several and rather indicting.

Outlawing abortion would reattach meaning to sex. Outlawing abortion would make marriage no longer an obsolete concept. Outlawing abortion would dispel the myth that sex is not the most value-laden act in which two people can engage, an act with powerful consequences intentionally attached to it. Outlawing abortion would all but end the sexual revolution, which is so close to the heart of liberalism today. Sexual activity would have to be viewed as serious behavior with possibly eternal consequences, not something we humans do just for fun.

In today�s world, the alleged right to have sex without consequences trumps everything else, including logic, science, morality, and any sense of sound jurisprudence. The political left apparently is willing to do almost anything to preserve a woman�s alleged right to terminate her pregnancy. In fact, abortion rights is so much a litmus test that it is impossible now for a candidate to receive the Democrat Party�s nomination for president, unless he or she enthusiastically embraces unrestricted abortion rights.

Today, the acts some among us defend in the name of choice are more barbaric than anything practiced by any society in human history. We say we are civilized, but what civilized people would do such things to their own children? If you think I am overstating my case, try spending ten minutes reading about the various abortion procedures commonly employed today. Look at the pictures, then email me and tell me we are not barbarians.

I fear the judgment of history will be harsh for this generation. Ignorance as willful as ours is all too transparent to be excusable.

The following illustration demonstrates just how willful our ignorance is: If there were no bald eagles left in the world. If they were all gone and all that was left was one nest full of eggs. How do you think the world would react, if someone took a club to those impregnated eggs and smashed them all? Would we accept the argument that the eggs were not hatched yet, and thus the things developing inside the shells were not really eagles? Before passing judgment on the one who smashed the eggs, would we even ask how developed the eggs were? Would we ask if the �not yet hatched� eagles were capable of surviving outside the shell?

Of course not. We would all mark the day those eggs were destroyed as the day the species known as bald eagles truly became extinct. Before that day, there was hope for the species. Real hope. Eagles were not extinct, because inside those eggs were real bald eagles and soon they would hatch and Americans could once again see our nation symbol soaring majestically through the skies.

The truth of that illustration is so obvious that none can miss it. The �egg smasher� would be the villain of the century. In fact, the reality of the egg smasher�s dastardly deed would be so upsetting that some would call for the death penalty. He would not be known as the egg smasher, but the man who caused the extinction of bald eagles.

So, why then are we so willing to close our eyes and pretend that aborting a fetus is not killing a human? The answer must be that we are believing what we want to believe, and letting the facts be damned. The ignorance must be willful.

It is hard to imagine this love affair with abortion getting much worse. What could be worse than partial birth abortion, or dare I ask? What could be more anti-liberty than denying parents the legal right to know that their child is pregnant and considering an abortion? In embracing such a position, we have intentionally undermined the role of parents in the family and replaced their counsel with that of school officials and government social workers. We have said in effect, when it comes to abortion, they are not your children.

And sometimes, of course, it is just about money. Abortion today is a billion dollar industry. The abortion �doctors� and their clinics make big bucks. Almost as calloused as the professional abortionist, however, is the fiscal conservative who prefers that the children of the poor be aborted, rather than placed on the welfare roles as a burden on the taxpayers.

Abortion on demand has so cheapened human life that we no longer look with disdain on the man who would rather terminate his unborn baby�s life than have to provide for it. We now acknowledge that as a rational, morally acceptable choice.

I will close by acknowledging that I know some pretty decent folks, who profess to believe that abortion is perhaps the best route when the child is not wanted or might be born into a family where it might suffer abuse. Some of my friends have told me that in such a case the child would be better off not being born.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!

Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Frankly, I do not understand how anyone can believe a child is better off being killed than being born and given a chance to rise above its circumstances, as so many millions of us have done. As one friend of mine told me recently, �If it�s born, it at least has a chance.�

� 2006 Bill Sizemore - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Bill Sizemore is a registered Independent who works as executive director of the Oregon Taxpayers Union, a statewide taxpayer organization. Bill was the Republican candidate for governor in 1998. He and his wife Cindy have four children, ages eight to thirteen, and live on 36 acres in Beavercreek, just southeast of Oregon City, Oregon.

Bill Sizemore is considered one of the foremost experts on the initiative process in the nation, having placed dozens of measures on the statewide ballot. Bill was raised in the logging communities of the Olympic Peninsula of Washington state, and moved to Portland in 1972. He is a graduate of Portland Bible College, where he taught for two years. A regular contributing writer to

E-Mail: [email protected]

Bill's Web site:








Abortion on demand has so cheapened human life that we no longer look with disdain on the man who would rather terminate his unborn baby�s life than have to provide for it. We now acknowledge that as a rational, morally acceptable choice.