Tiny unborn hand grasps the hands of a surgeon.
Is that a helping hand or the hand of the destroyer of life???
Editor - Andrew Bahn
I was adopted at the age of 6 weeks and have been studying the issue of abortion for quite a few years. Married with 3 boys, I am active in the studies of the pro-choice argument. I also volunteer at local adoption agencies to help with counseling. Email Andrew Bahn
Through the years, pro-abortionists have relied on misconceptions and lies in order to justify killing unborn children. Many of these arguments may appear sound -- that is, until you discover the underlying truth. The following are some of the more popular arguments.
A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of it’s body; the unborn’s genetic code differs entirely from the mother’s. Being "inside something" is not the same as being part of something. A car is not part of a garage because it is parked there. Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their "place of residence."
The unborn is an embryo or a fetus – just a simple blob of tissue -- not a baby. Abortion is simply terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.
Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to non-humans, but humans in a particular stage of development. Fetus is a Latin word meaning "young one" or "little child." Is stage of development related to a person’s worth? Is a two-year old worth less than a 6-year-old, etc?
From the moment of conception the unborn is not simple, but very complex. The newly fertilized egg contains a staggering genetic information, sufficient to control the individual’s growth and development for an entire lifetime.
Prior to the earliest first-trimester abortions, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have. At 18 days, after conception, the heart is forming and the eyes start to develop. By 30 days, she has multiplied in size ten thousand times. She has a brain and blood flows through her veins. By 42 days, the skeleton is formed and the brain is controlling the movement of the muscles and organs. After the first trimester, nothing new develops or begins functioning. The child only grows and matures.
Even though this argument is hardly used by the majority of pro-choice anymore, there are still a few who think it is a relevant argument. Bottom line is the question can be answered one of three ways. One could answer it in a religious theory; however, not everyone is of the same religion and some just plain don't believe in religion. So answering the question of when does human life begin in a religious theory makes it open to much debate. Another way the question could be answered is in a philosophic theory. Again not everyone's philosophy on a subject is the same and again the theory is left open to much debate. There is finally another theory which can answer the question of when does life begin. It is the biological theory. Biological human life is defined by studying the scientific facts of human development. This field of study has no disagreements and no controversy. Bottom line is that there is truly only one set of facts. The more knowledge that has been learned about human development, the more science confirms that life, biologically speaking, begins at conception. This means that at conception there is a human who is very much alive, human, complete and growing.
The biological fact is not a spiritual belief, nor is it a philosophical theory. The biological fact is not debatable, not questionable. It is a universally accepted scientific fact. See also "When Do Human Beings Begin."
The unborn isn’t a person with a meaningful life. It’s only inches in size, can’t think, and is less advanced than an animal.
A living being’s designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development, but by the sum total of its biological characteristics – which are genetically determined. If we say that a fetus is not human, then we must state that it is a member of another species – an impossibility. What makes a human "human" is that he/she came from humans. A dog is a dog because he came from dogs – both the mother and father were dogs.
Does size determine personhood? Is an NBA basketball player more of a person than someone half his size? If you lose ¼ of your bodyweight through a diet, do you lose ¼ of your personhood? If personhood is determined by one’s current capacities, then someone who is unconscious or sick could be killed immediately because he/she is not demonstrating superior intellect or skills. Age, size, IQ or stage development are simply differences in degree, not kind.
The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one. It’s like the blueprint, not a house, and acorn and not an oak tree.
Something non-human does not become human by getting older and bigger -- whatever is human must be human from the beginning.
When the egg and sperm are joined, a new, dynamic, and genetically distinct human life begins. This life is neither sperm nor egg, nor a simple combination of both. It is independent, with a life of its own, on a rapid pace of self-directed development.
Viability (the point when an unborn baby could survive outside of the womb) is an arbitrary concept. Why isn’t personhood associated with heartbeat (begins just 21 days after conception), or brainwaves (43 days after conception), or something else? The actual point of viability constantly changes because it depends on technology, not on the unborn baby.
Based on the same viability logic, many "born" people are not viable because they cannot survive on their own without the aid of others. Should we abort them too?
The right to life doesn’t increase with age and size; otherwise toddlers and adolescents would have less of a right to live than adults.
What is really at stake is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life. No one has an absolute unconditional right to a lifestyle. It is always governed by its effects on others. There are 1,000’s of restrictions on us including no-smoking provisions, noise and zoning ordinances, etc. Finally, is it reasonable for society to expect an adult to live with a temporary inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child?
Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting abortion.
All civilize societies restrict individual freedoms when that "choice" would harm an innocent person. Do men have the freedom of choice to rape a woman if that is his choice? After all, it’s his body, why do we have a right to tell him what to do with it? Why do we have a right to impose our morals on him? By emphasizing a rapist’s right to choose, we clearly are completely ignoring the rights of the woman.
We have laws that restrict false advertising, and others that protect us from tainted foods or bad products. We have laws against discrimination and violence. When other’s rights are at stake – particularly when their lives are at stake – society is expected to, and must restrict the individual’s freedoms of choice. The fact is that people who are pro-choice about abortion, are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake.
Throughout history, nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose, e.g. "you don’t have to own slaves if you don’t want to, but don’t tell us we can’t choose to. It’s our right." The civil rights movement fought to take away this "slavery choice," while the woman’s movement fought to take away an employer’s free choice to discriminate against women. The pro-choice position always overlooks the victim’s right to choose. Women don’t choose rape. African Americans didn’t choose slavery. The Jews didn’t choose to be killed in ovens….and babies don’t choose abortion.
Abortion insures that 750,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies. Why? Because they’re killed. About ½ of the total babies aborted each year in the United States are female – killed before they are even born, not even able to enjoy the basic right to life.
We don’t have absolute control over our bodies. A man is not permitted to expose himself in public. In most areas of the country, women are not allowed to sell their bodies through prostitution. We’re also not permitted to take illegal drugs.
Too often, the "right to control my life," becomes a right to hurt an oppress others. Whites used blacks to enhance their own quality of life, but did so at the expense of blacks. Men have often used women to live their lives as they wanted, but at the expense of women.
The founding feminists were prolife, not prochoice. Susan B. Anthony, referred to abortion as "child murder" and viewed it as a means of exploiting both women and children.
Another leading (founding) feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, said "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we wish."
What happened? Abortion rights activists tied abortion to "women’s rights" in the 1960’s as a profit motive. To find out more, see "Feminism and Abortion." Further many of today’s active feminists still oppose abortion. Feminists for Life was started in the early 1970’s to counter the misdirected mainstream feminist movement's change to pro-abortion.
To be prochoice about abortion is to be pro-abortion. Suppose drug dealing were legalized and you heard this argument:
"I’m personally not in favor of someone dealing drugs at schools, but that’s a matter to decide between the drug dealer and his attorney. We don’t want to go back to the days when drug dealing was illegal, and people died in back alleys from bad cocaine. I personally wouldn’t buy drugs, so I’m not pro-drugs. I’m just pro-choice about drug dealing."
Basically, being personally against abortion but favoring another’s right to abortion is self-contradictory and morally baffling. It’s exactly like saying, "We’re personally against child abuse, but we defend our neighbor’s right to abuse his child if that is his choice."
Someone who is prochoice about rape might argue that it’s not the same as being pro-rape. What’s the difference, since being prochoice about rape allows and promotes the legitimacy of rape? Those who were prochoice about slavery believed their moral position was sound since they personally didn’t own slaves. Similarly, most people in Germany did not favor the killing of Jews, but did nothing to stop the killing.
Some people have an illusion that being personally opposed to abortion while believing others should be free to choose it is some kind of compromise between pro-abortion and prolife positions. It isn’t. Pro-choice people vote the same as pro-abortion people. Both oppose legal protection for the unborn, and both are willing for children to die – even if they do not directly participate in the killings.
The government has a
reputation as a protector, although closer examination reveals that this is
an inconsistent position. Anything "legal" is actually a defacto endorsement
from our government. Abortion is legal, so many women go blindly through the
process believing that "if the government says its OK, then it must be
fine." Countless women who have abortions are shocked at the realities
of the experience -- both physically and mentally -- wondering, "why
wasn't I warned?"
Finally, what is legal is not always right. Law doesn’t reflect morality – rather the law should reflect a morality that is independent of the law. Case in point: was abortion immoral on January 21, 1973 and moral on January 23, 1973? In the 1940’s a German doctor could kill Jews legally, while in America he would have been prosecuted for murder. In the 1970’s and American doctor could kill unborn babies legally, while in Germany he would have been prosecuted for murder. Laws change. Truth and justice don’t.
There’s a major difference between and unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child. Every child is wanted by someone. There are currently 200,000 couples in the US desperately seeking to adopt, yet less than 25,000 babies available each year. Demand is so great, that couples are forced to adopt in China and Russia, often spending more than $20,000 to do so.
Not just "normal" babies are wanted – many people request babies with Down’s Syndrome and there have been lists of over a hundred couples waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida.
Slave owners argued that slavery was in the best interest of blacks, since they couldn’t make it on their own. Exploiting people and stripping them of their rights is always easier when we tell ourselves we’re doing it for their good rather than our own.
In the first 10 years after abortion was legalize, child abuse increased by over 500%. Is it any wonder? Isn’t it easy to conclude that "if it’s OK to abuse our unwanted children by killing them, then why not our "born" children?" Studies also have shown that child abuse is more frequent among mothers who have previously had an abortion.
Further, most abused children were wanted by their parents. A study conducted by professor Edward Lenoski of the University of California concluded that 91% of abused children were from planned pregnancies. In society, 64% of pregnancies are planned – concluding that among abused children, a significantly higher percentage were wanted children compared to the percentage of wanted children in society at large.
The current birth rate in America is less than what is needed to maintain our population level. In 1957, the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7 children. Taking into account all causes of death and the increases in average life span, zero population growth requires that the average woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972, the average in America has been 1.8 children – a figure that is below zero population growth. In fact, any increases since 1972 have been due to immigration.
What about elsewhere? There are now 6 billion people on Earth. The planet's population will most likely continue to climb until 2050, when it will peak at 9 billion. Other predictions have the world's population peaking at 7.5 billion in 2040. In either case, it will then go into a sharp decline. With fertility rates low and anti-foreigner sentiment rising in Europe, the United Nations recently released a study that suggests Europe will need mass migration from the Third World to populate it. The report, written by the United Nations Population Division, states that South Korea, Japan, Europe and Russia are facing population crunches. If Japan continues its current abortion policies and fails to raise its average birth rate of 1.4 children per married couple, will have fewer than 500 people by the year 3000 (see "The Overpopulation Lie"). By 2050, the population of Russia will reduce to 150 million. In the 1970s, Russia's population rivaled America's, at more than 225 million people.
Finally, the entire population of the world could be placed in one gigantic city within the borders of the state of Texas (with a population density less than many cities around the world).
If abortion were made illegal, there would still be many abortions.
There are laws against rape, burglary, armed robbery and illegal drug dealing, yet every one of these crimes continues to happen in our society. Does the fact that these crimes still happen inspire us to make them legal? Clearly not, as laws should exist to discourage bad things from happening. Laws concerning abortion have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. In one survey, 72 percent said they would definitely not have sought an abortion if having one were illegal.
If abortion is made illegal, thousands of women will die from back alley and clothes hanger abortions.
This is a favorite myth put forth by pro-abortionists. Prior to legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys. Further, women still suffer and die from "legal" abortions in America (see "Abortions Gone Wrong").
Abortion is not safer than full term pregnancy and childbirth. Less than one in 10,000 pregnancies results in the mother’s death. Government statistics indicate the chances of death by abortion are even less – however, deaths from childbirth are accurately reported, while many deaths by legal abortion are not – completely skewing the statistics. Abortion actually increases the chance of maternal death in later pregnancies. Women face injuries to the uterus, cervix, urinary tract, infection, hemorrhage, heart failure, embolism, sterilizations, ruptured intestines & bowels, coma, and even death. In addition, there are countless cases of abortionists sexually abusing their clients while under anesthesia. In fact, you're four times more likely to die in the year following your abortion (see report). Further, woman who have abortions suffer mental health declines, while those who deliver their child actually have improved mental health (see report).
American Life League's (www.all.org) medical advisors say the answer is a simple, unequivocal "no"— and any claim to the contrary is bogus. And many other doctors across the country agree. American Life League circulated a statement (3/00) concerning this position to a select number of doctors around the country. More than 100 physicians have signed the statement — including former abortionists Bernard Nathanson and Beverly McMillan. The statement reads, "I agree that there is never a situation in the law or in the ethical practice of medicine where a preborn [unborn] child's life need be intentionally destroyed by procured abortion for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. A physician must do everything possible to save the lives of both of his patients, mother and child. He must never intend the death of either." See "Life of Mother Exception?"
While he was the United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said that the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a "smoke screen."
Less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest. Furthermore, since conception doesn’t occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in nearly all rape cases by medical treatments including the morning after pill (MAP).
Nearly all the women
interviewed in a recent survey said they regretted aborting the babies
conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90
percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from
having an abortion (see
Roe v. Wade did not
reduce the rate of illegitimacy, which is widely believed to contribute to
crime. Indeed, illegitimacy shot upwards in a straight line from 5% in 1962
to 33% of babies born today. The legalization of abortion had no visible
affect whatsoever on this disastrous trend. Only in the more conservative
cultural climate of the late Nineties did the illegitimacy rate start to
plateau - and at the same time the number of abortions dipped as well.
What about black male
youths alone? Levitt and Donohue's theory suggests that their behavior should
have "benefited" more that whites' behavior from abortion. Instead,
their murder rate grew an apocalyptic 5.1 times
It is most ironic that abortion for the sake of the “health of the mother” is almost always done for reasons other than the heath of the mother extending to broad topics of convenience and mental stress. But, euthanizing one's handicapped child is not the solution to maintaining mental health, nor do handicapped babies normally spread voodoo vibes to make their mothers sick.
What about the physical and mental complications of abortion?
Even fatally ill babies, left to develop until term, give their mothers the gift of lowering their risk of breast cancer. Contrarily, mothers who abort dramatically increase their risk.
Aborting mothers also stand a much greater chance of ending up in hospital high-risk maternity departments next time they get pregnant. Their forcibly stretched cervixes will have difficulty keeping subsequent babies inside until full term.
National Review Online April
17, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
By Anne Morse
National Review Online April 17, 2003, 10:00 a.m.
A young woman, six months pregnant, suddenly begins to hemorrhage. Rushed to a hospital, her doctor performs the only medical procedure that will save her: He amputates her left foot.
You may well wonder: Under what possible circumstances could chopping off a woman's foot save her from a life-threatening pregnancy complication?
The answer, of course, is: none.
Keep this illustration in mind the next time you hear someone claim we need to carve out a "health of the mother" exception to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate on March 13, and which the House of Representatives will likely take up in May. Abortion advocates claim that a "health" exception is needed because partial-birth abortion is sometimes the safest option for a pregnant woman in crisis. Whenever I hear this, I want to scream — like the wife of Miracle Max in The Princess Bride: "Lie-yuh! Lie-yuh! Lie-yuh!" The truth is, there are no possible circumstances under which crushing the skull of an infant who is mostly dangling outside his mother's body protects her health, anymore than chopping off her foot would. Dr. Martin Haskell, who perfected this procedure, says he routinely uses it on healthy mothers of healthy fetuses simply because it's quicker than other methods; claims that partial-birth abortion are performed to preserve maternal health were concocted later by the abortion lobby — which is why the new ban includes 16 pages of findings from prestigious physicians' groups calling the procedure "bad medicine" and warning that partial-birth abortion is even riskier to the mother's health than other abortion methods.
The abortion lobby knows all this, of course. But it also knows that abortion politics have turned health into a shape-shifting, silly-putty term that abortionists can fashion to fit any definition they, or their patients, want it to fit — including "emotional distress" over having to endure another day carrying a child a week shy of his due date. A "health" exception would gut the ban; abortionists would continue performing thousands of partial-birth abortions each year, every single one of them for the mother's "health."
Federal judges are in on this legal fraud: They've shot down nearly 30 state statutes outlawing partial-birth abortion, offering such absurd and contradictory reasons that one can't help wondering if they've had their own brains vacuumed out. Some judges repeated the medical myth that a "health" exception is needed. Others claimed that straightforward language describing the procedure intended to be outlawed is so vague that doctors will unwittingly perform partial-birth abortions — reasoning that implies, says moral philosopher Hadley Arkes, that graduates of America's top medical and law schools are too dumb to understand the difference between vacuuming out the brains of an intact baby that is 70 percent born, and dismembering one limb by limb while he's still in the womb (Dilation and Extraction, or D&E abortion.)
When the battle over Nebraska's partial-birth-abortion law reached the Supreme Court in 2000 (Stenberg v. Carhart), the Supremes also played dumb: A majority claimed that the law did not clearly distinguish between partial-birth abortions and D&E abortions, and that it prevented abortionists from choosing partial-birth abortion if they thought it was the "healthiest" method.
If the Supreme Court — in defiance of medical facts, judicial ethics, and the will of 70 percent of the American people — strikes down the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, our legislators (the real ones) should pass it again and again and again, until the Court either relents or undergoes . . . regime change.
If the Supreme Court upholds the ban, pro-lifers will have reason to cheer: The decision, coming 30 years after Roe, would represent what Princeton legal philosopher Robert P. George calls a "values Grenada." Remember the Breshnev Doctrine — the belief that where Communism had seized territory, it could never be retrieved? For years, Western leaders reluctantly accepted this Communist canon, attempting only to contain the spread. And then, George says, "President Reagan found a little outpost on the edge of the Communist empire, the weakest, least defensible, most vulnerable outpost of Communism. He undid a Communist government in Grenada, and he put the lie to the Breshnev Doctrine," proving that Communist territory could indeed be retrieved, and Communism itself unraveled.
"Partial-birth abortion is a values Grenada," George explains. "It's the weakest, least defensible, most vulnerable outpost of the abortion power. By striking there, we can begin to unravel the logic of abortion — what could be called the Blackmun Doctrine — that abortion can never be pushed back."
George is right. Pro-life sentiment is on the rise in America, in large part because the lies and the fearful logic that undergird the abortion regime are finally being exposed. Gruesome (but accurate) pictures and graphic (but truthful) testimony helped win the partial-birth abortion battle. Pro-lifers must build on this victory, urging Americans to begin questioning the morality of other forms of abortions, performed on other innocents, thousands of times every day.
To make that happen, those who value life at all stages must hold the abortion lobby accountable, and insist that its friends on the courts stop pretending they attended Law School for Dummies — trying to defend what is legally and morally indefensible.
— Anne Morse is a senior writer for the Wilberforce Forum in Reston, Va.
The same procedure President Bill Clinton vetoed. One should ask why no one in this country sees a photo like this on the news. If this child had died in a war in a foreign country, his picture would be on all the major networks and on the front page of major newspapers.
1. Possible infection can harm the women.
2. Incompetent Cervix can be a long term problem, making it difficult for the women to have children in the future.
The complications to the women during the procedure are life threatening in of itself and are very real. The uterus can be perforated, causing hemorrhaging, amniotic fluid embolism, life long mental anguish are only but a few. Ask your self, is this a truly life saving procedure, or is it just another means of abortion.
In the real world, when a mother's life becomes endangered during pregnancy, a C-section or induced labor are performed.
The timing is crucial — and cruel ...
The torture of partial-birth abortion is usually used on babies around 4-1/2 months following conception, when the baby is typically at least 7 inches long. But the procedure is also used much later on many babies — even up to full term. At this point, the child could live outside the mother’s body — if only she were allowed to be born!
Says Douglas Johnson in the Washington Post (7/16/95): “There are 13,000 abortions annually after 4-1/2 months, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, whose estimate should be regarded as conservative. There is really no way to know how many doctors are using the partial birth abortion method, or how many partial-birth abortions are performed.”
Don’t doctors endorse the procedure?
No! The American Medical Association’s Council on Legislation voted unanimously to support a ban on partial birth abortion. The council reportedly designated the procedure “basically repulsive.” “is fully capable of experiencing pain,” according to Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine’s Professor Robert White, who directs the Neurosurgery & Brain Research Lab. “Without question, all of this is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure.”
From someone who has been there ...
Registered nurse Brenda Pratt Shafer, once admittedly pro-abortion, now works against partial-birth abortion. The change in her perspective began when she personally attended three partial-birth abortions. Her description of the death of a baby, age 6 months: “The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus. The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a ‘startle’ reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out until the head collapsed after which the rest of dead baby’s body was delivered.
The United States Supreme Court has said ...
Justice Antonin Scalia said in his biting dissent last summer in Stenberg v. Carhart, this “method of killing a human child ... is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.” Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his dissent, declared that states ought to be free to “forbid a procedure many decent and civilized people find abhorrent.” And Justice Clarence Thomas called the majority’s ruling “indefensible”; it amounts to an endorsement of “infanticide,” he said. Is partial-birth a “widely accepted routine medical procedure”? “Nothing could be further from the truth,” Justice Thomas stated. In fact, it’s “so gruesome that its use can be traumatic even for the physicians and medical staff who perform it,” he pointed out. “And the
particular procedure at issue in this case, ‘partial birth abortion,’ so closely borders on infanticide that 30 States have attempted to ban it.”
So NARAL doesn’t want to be associated with terrorists. Well let’s see. We lost some 3000 souls on Sept 11. How many innocent souls were lost last year at the hands of the abortionists?
Indeed the same censorship and sanitization of reality our news reporters applied to 9/11 (presumably for good taste) has been also applied to the millions of unborn who's silent screams were muffled and their butchered bodied hidden from view.
Indeed the abortionist’s only defense is the strident offence. Yet their offence is about as compelling as seeing Hitler standing over the mass graves of dead Jews and saying, "Indeed, it is because we value life and human dignity that we support [the people’s] right to choice."
The fact is, almost every abortion performed since Roe was done for non-medical reasons. The statistics are very clear on this. The woman simply did not want the child, nor was she willing to give the child to adoptive parents - so she hired an abortionist to kill it;
Human dignity indeed.
I hope we might develop a quick beachhead of common ground on at least the extreme positions of the abortion spectrum. Many folks I have spoken to did not have a real understanding of this ongoing atrocity and so countenanced what reasonable and feeling individuals would have otherwise abhorred. Perhaps after a clearer explanation, you might yet agree that in this extreme matter the line of humanity has been crossed. There was a good reason the Supreme court drew a distinction about viability (~24 weeks.) The matter is one of extraordinary brutality and I cannot do justice to the light of truth with careful mollified language, so if you wish to proceed, understand that the language is necessarily harsh.
Roe v Wade basically says that prior to viability, a woman can kill her unborn for any health reason. (In practice, “health” has largely meant, “mentally put out”) After that, the decision allows state legislatures to make restrictions. Subsequently, the saga has weaved a windy path as lawmakers and court cases tangled over late term abortion. There is no amendment or specific constitutional injunction that addresses this topic. The entire debate in fact extends from the concept of a general right of privacy which was extrapolated by the court from such broad language as “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” However, once the unborn child has matured to a point of viability, the courts have acknowledged the states interest in protecting the life of the child against arbitrary destruction, yet granting the mother self preservation from physical harm or death.
So, legislatures are able to address the life of the viable unborn child as long as the life of the mother is included in the formula.
Let’s be clear about what we are talking about: There are 3 classes of abortion practices for killing these larger and viable unborn children. Only the latter two are actually addressed by the new Partial Birth abortion law.
1) 1) 4-51/2 months: after wedging a dilation over 3 days, toothed tongs are used to reach in and tear the unborn child limb from limb. In New York one baby actually survived after having her arm torn off and was born a few days later. The child, missing a limb is healthy, but the abortionist was jailed for violating the 24-month limit imposed by Ro v Wade decision. If he had succeeded in the operation, the child would have simply been another silent statistic.
2) 2) 41/4–9 months: saline solution is injected to the amniotic sac or child to attempt to cause death. Delivery is induced. The child is delivered, but sometimes the child is not dead. This creates a dilemma for the one trying to kill the child as they now have a live viable breathing child in their hands. Those hands have placed the child on a cold table – naked and allowed him or her to die unattended from exposure and complications due to the often but not always pre-mature birth. This murder by neglect is now being investigated as such as the accounts from sickened nurses have started to come to light. (Live birth Abortion)
3) 3) 41/4 –9 months: after wedging a dilation over 3 days, tongs are used to reach in and grab the legs to force a breech birth. The body is delivered leaving only the head jammed against the cervix. Using one hand, the abortionist supports and holds the body of the child from wiggling. With the other, using Scissors, he stabs the back of the skull creating a gaping hole to the child’s brain. He then inserts a tube and proceeds to suck out the brains. The skull collapses and the dead child is delivered. (Partial birth Abortion)
If for some reason, statistics of how many children so killed makes a difference to you – from the numbers provided by those actually doing this work of death it works out to about 500 Columbine’s worth of butchered children each year. That’s just a mental note I made to myself when I was reading. I’ll see if I can include the articles.
The abortion providers have admitted in congressional testimony that almost all of these abortions were performed on healthy women carrying healthy unborn children
Furthermore, even the AMA says there are NO cases EVER reported nor conceivable where the health or life of the “mother” would be in jeopardy by simply allowing the live delivery of the child. Even so, the Laws passed by congress and signed by our President do in fact have a provision for the Life (read physical health) of the mother.
When 200,000 would be adoptive parents have to scrap over only 25,000 live adoptees each year, this obscene death culture is just so disheartening and nothing short of sickening. I can’t think about it too often, but I do not expunge their silent cries nor their gruesome demise entirely.
I can except there will be reasoned differences and arguments about early abortion, morning after pill etc, but this other extreme is in a class by itself. I have included a few salient references which bare similar info from others which I have drawn my facts and understanding. I hope they help.
Do we have a beachhead?
There are many detailed resources, but here are a few google popped up