By Dave Andrusko

Part Two talks about the walls closing in on pro-abortionists. Part Three is a press release from West Virginians for Life about their ultrasound legislation. Please send your thoughts on any or all three parts to daveandrusko@gmail.com.

"I'm live tweeting my abortion on Twitter--not for some publicity stunt or for attention or to justify this to myself, I am at peace with my decision. I'm doing this to demystify abortion. I'm doing this so that other women know, 'Hey, it's not nearly as terrifying as I had myself worked up thinking it was.  It's just not that bad. …I hope everybody on You Tube has a great and godless day. Peace."
     -- Blogger Angie Jackson, from an uploaded You Tube video where she talks about using RU486 to abort her unborn child.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, so much for abortion being a "private" decision. Yes, in case you hadn't heard (I hadn't, until this morning), Angie Jackson (whose blog goes by the name Angie the anti-Theist) ingested RU486. In addition to ridding herself of her 5-week-old unwanted child, she used the opportunity to "demystify" abortion. How?

Angie Jackson, from her You Tube entry

Having taken the RU486, she "started the cameras rolling, creating a YouTube video that was recorded during the abortion itself and included a justification of her decision," according to a post on the Huffingtonpost.com site. The purpose of the lengthy series of 140-character play-by-play "tweets" was to prove that "It's not that bad, it's not that scary, it's basically like a miscarriage."

Obviously none of us know if the assorted rationales she offered--a traumatic first pregnancy and "failure" of contraception--are true. What matters is what this unseemly and callous behavior may or may not tell us.

There is a unmistakable exhibitionist compulsion among some pro-abortionists, and it is growing. While this is typically masked as a demonstration of how "courageous" it is to decide to abort, only the willfully self-deceiving buy into such self-serving prattle.

Alas, it only serves the purposes of the Angie Jacksons of this world, if somebody responds (or is alleged to have responded) in a disapproving matter.  This is offered as "proof" both that it took guts to kill their kid in the first place and that opponents are crazed Bible-thumpers. All in all announcing to the world what they are doing in real-time is "liberating."

Jackson one-upped Penelope Trunk who last November live-tweeted her own miscarriage. Trunk wrote at the time, "I'm in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a ….ed-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin." (Because of the "delay," she was planning to go to Chicago to have her third abortion.)

It didn't bother Trunk that many might find live-tweeting a miscarriage highly distasteful, even some who were "personally pro-choice." In fact, just the contrary.

"It seems like everyone in the whole world would prefer a miscarriage over an abortion--even the Pope," as she later boasted to CNN. To Trunk, "It's no different to me saying what I had for lunch." (See http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Nov09/nv110909part2.html.)

What's next? The logic would be to live-tweet a surgical abortion, video-cam the slaughter, and put it up on You Tube (or at least attempt to).

You think not? If you read the responses on Jackson's twitter account, you can't miss that many would applaud. If the objective is to "demystify"-- code for desensitization times ten--why wouldn't they?

The closer you come to actually showing the physical annihilation of an unborn child, the closer you come to realizing the goal that the late Rev. Richard John Neuhaus so vigorously opposed and so famously described: "guid[ing] the unthinkable on its passage through the debatable on its way to becoming the justifiable, until it is finally established as the unexceptional."

Part Two
Part Three