Infantacide: Third and Forth trimester abortions cannot be defended



Virginia Governor discusses abortion

Thade George

All views and opinions expressed in outside op-eds are those of the author and do not reflect the beliefs of Etched in Stone or its staff. If you would like to respond or continue the discussion, we invite you to submit your own op-ed here.


Content Warning: The following article discusses sexual assault, and may be difficult to read for some individuals. 



If you watched the State of the Union address you might have remembered the part where president Trump talked about abortions and late term ones to be exact. With the current political climate americans are incredibly divided, so most republicans blindly say democrat policies are bad and most democrats blindly say republican policies are bad, but a recent bill has come up in multiple states that allow third trimester abortions, and some are even pushing for fourth trimester abortions for perfectly viable alive babies. This is not a right or a left problem, this is a human rights problem and it could be argued as a form of genocide.

As you probably know, humans take 9 months after conception to fully form into a child and then it is born. Each trimester is 3 months. First and second trimester abortions are quite common, and though I think they are wrong, I am not going to argue against them in this OP-ED. A third trimester baby would be close to fully developed, and they can feel pain and even have emotions around the 20 week mark, which would be late in the second trimester. Babies can now feel pain, have emotions, and they are not removed from the womb humanely. There is a video of a congress hearing where a former abortion doctor talks about how a abortion works, but warning it shows nothing but it is graphic when he talks about it.

Now multiple states want to allow third and even fourth trimester abortions. These would be where the surgeons dissect the baby alive and remove them piece by piece out of the womb. This is not about women’s rights, this is murder. Would it be different if the baby was born? Would be considered alive then by pro abortionist? Apparently not, because multiple states such as Virginia and New York want to push fourth trimester abortions, also known as killing the baby after birth. The baby would be born then there would be a discussion with the parents if they want to kill it or not.

This is murder. It is exactly like your parents saying they should legally be allowed to kill you. A lot of people bring up the “what if the mother’s life was at risk?”  or “what if she was raped?” question, but I don’t think that should be able to change the answer. If the mother’s life was at risk, the father and the mother should decide to abort or not and it should be allowed. If the woman was raped, then there are plenty of families wanting to adopt. But the Virginia and New York governor want to allow these abortions A. after birth and B. for a perfectly viable child that the mother or father might not want to take care of.

The left’s message for a long time was protecting those who don’t have a voice, those who are marginalized, those who are oppressed, but if anyone doesn’t have a voice, it is those babies. What has america come to allow babies who can feel pain die? This is not right vs left, democrat vs republican, or pro choice vs pro life. This is pro infanticide or anti infanticide. It’s not complicated, this right vs wrong.