Thursday, November 09, 2006

Partial birth abortion

The Supreme Court is now hearing arguments regarding the procedure known as partial birth abortion in which a baby is partially removed from the womb. The baby's head is then either crushed, or punctured.

Proponents of partial birth abortion argue that the mother's safety is the issue. If the mother's safety is really the issue, wouldn't it be safer just to remove the baby entirely and then kill it, rather than inserting a sharp instrument into the woman's vagina for the purpose of puncturing the baby's head?
Oh, but we can't do that. That would be infanticide and most people would agree that infanticide is wrong. But really, what is the difference between partial birth abortion and infanticide? Aren't we really just playing legal games? If we leave the head inside the vaginal passage we can call the procedure abortion. If we remove the head, it is infanticide. How can anyone seriously argue that it is a mother's right to kill a partially born baby?


robert said...

Partial Birth abortion is one of those few topics I take a very hard-line stance on. It's a barbaric practice and I desire its abolition.

It's amazing to me that our society is so concerned about the rights of people, yet allows a massacre to happen right under our nose. In the instance where an abortion must be performed to save the mother’s life, I understand it. Tough decisions are often made in the medical community where one must die to save another. However, in all other cases, it seems as though we’re punishing the child for someone else’s sins. It seems to me that we don’t have that right.

Not that long ago in human history, certain classes of humanity didn’t have any rights. Oppressed peoples could be bought, sold, murdered, and treated like animals with little or no repercussion to the oppressor. Today, we’re extremely conciliatory about these sins of our fathers. Yet, we fail to see the parallel to abortion today. We’re again oppressing others in a most insidious way. We are denying the unborn personhood so that we can continue perform tasks which are morally objectionable.

I’ve heard people tell me that these processes need to remain legal “for the better good.” Whose better good? Ours? Because it certainly doesn’t seem like it’s for the better good of the infant. Besides, who gives us the authority to decide which people are better off dead? If we have such authority, why is its boundary set at the womb?

Today we have the most bizarre form of granting rights to people. If you’re fully removed from the womb at any time, you’re granted full personhood. If one murders a newborn preemie in their incubator, you’re a horrendous in-human monster. However, if they’re only partially removed, they’re not human and can be killed and tossed away as medical waste. No one sees the disconnect here?

So, perhaps this doesn’t bother people that medical care has gotten good enough to help babies survive who are born as early as 23 weeks. But why let such troubling facts get in the way of our infanticide. It’s for the betterment of society that we allow such late term abortions to continue.

Kevin said...

Outstanding post Dennis and Robert.

john said...

I agree with you guys on this one. Good points.

St.Lee said...

Those who would protect the "right" to partial birth abortion surely must see the slippery slope outlawing this barbaric practice might lead to. After all, if a baby with only the head still in the womb is admitted to be a person, then what next? What if the government decides that a fully developed baby only a week from full term is a person with human rights? What about a month from full term? Slippery slope indeed! If partial birth abortion is banned then won't the government at some point be forced to take a stand on just when a baby in the womb becomes a person with a right to life? To be consistant wouldn't all forms of abortion (including some forms of birth control) have to be banned? Or maybe parents should be able to kill their babies up until, oh, lets say age 13(parents with teenagers may lobby to have that raised to 18). At what point does one become a human being?

robert said...

St. Lee,

Careful, that line of thinking might lead to concluding that life and rights start at conception!