/* News Ticker Head info ------------------------------------------------ */

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Sometimes I Just Have to Comment


Sometimes I get pressed to explain my anti-abortion philosophy. We live in a culture where some form of abortion is seen as inevitable, and in an effort to make it more "safe" (if you are the mother) we legitimize abortion as a medical industry. (On a side note, it is odd to me that our culture has not yet legalized drug use, prostitution, stealing on a large scale, all of which are "inevitable" parts of our society...yet, we legalize the destruction of a human in the womb, which to my mind should be the last thing we would willingly endorse, but I digress...)

This article from "This Is London" does a good job of demonstrating my unease with abortion as a secularly ordained rite. As we take in these words, let us remember we are considering a 18 to 20 week old human fetus. These are the "second trimester" abortions, early in the second trimester actually. Often, abortions are carried out much later in the development process than this, up to and including the partial birth procedure many politicians feel compelled to protect as a "right":

"Pregnancy expert Professor Stuart Campbell has demanded rules should be tightened after it was revealed that at least nine babies are known to have survived terminations in recent years."

One of the first things I notice is that rather than being affected by the live births of children who they believed had been "terminated", the "expert" is upset that the rules aren't tighter so that no babies could ever survive the "termination." The more I read accounts like this, the less likely I am to buy the line that most abortion advocates "think abortion is an awful thing, but is sometimes necessary." In fact, the more I read, the more I am struck by the cold, calculated, in-human way that abortion providers continue to look for ways to expedite the abortion process. There is a conscious effort to insulate the act of abortion from all feeling, thought, and consideration until after the act is completed and the patient is on her own.

"Professor Campbell said that all abortions carried out after 18 weeks of pregnancy should include an injection, followed by drugs, to induce labour and a stillborn child. Some consultants only give the injection in abortions after 22 weeks. Others, he claims, do not use it at all."

What is the injection designed to do? Why, chemically kill the child, who without the injection might live through the induced labor and show additional signs of life once delivered. The child would then have to die more slowly, from lack of oxygen I presume.

Imagine if a doctor said this: That fetus is coming out of the mother, because she no longer wants it. We have to ask ourselves what is the best way to accomplish this. It is much more humane to kill the child with chemicals than it is to allow the child to die of exposure and underdevelopment.

And yet, this is exactly what I read in this article.

"It is really unfair on the nurses and the parents to see the baby making some sort of movement after birth."

Not to mention how unfair it is to the child.

"If after 18 weeks you just induce labor (without an injection first) a large number would be born with a heartbeat and most of them will survive with a heartbeat and will make movements."

Notice here that he doesn't say, "some" or "a few". "Most of them" will be born in a way which really drives home the magnitude of the act committed. A moving human, with a heartbeat, will slowly die as those who were entrusted with such a gift stand by and watch. This certainly is unfair to have to consider, especially when the right chemicals could ensure that the product of the procedure more genuinely looks like the un-human tissue blob everyone wants to pretend that it is.

“One baby with Down's Syndrome was to be aborted at a hospital in the home counties but lived. It was transferred to St George's Hospital, where it received neonatal intensive care and survived. It is believed to have been adopted.”

This paragraph says so much about who we are as a “civilization”.

“He said that if a baby were to be born alive and viable then it must be given medical help but there was a "grey area" where babies born in this manner at 22 or 23 weeks were on the cusp of being able to survive. Only 17 per cent of babies born normally at 23 weeks survive.”

“Professor Thornton, of City Hospital, Nottingham, said: ‘Once it is born, you can't kill the baby but the law doesn't say anything about to what degree you resuscitate it.’”

" ‘The way it is dealt with is by sensible doctors and sensible nurses keeping it under their hat and allowing the baby to pass away peacefully.’ "

I cannot imagine the guilt, pain, and suffering these “professional” suffer under, whether the acknowledge it or not.

“Professor Campbell does not believe that a baby born in this way should be kept alive at all costs.”

Well, of course he doesn’t. He didn’t want the baby alive to begin with.

"What paediatricians do is spend resources keeping a baby that is going to die, alive. It is absolute nonsense. It does show that is up to us (obstetricians) to make sure the baby is not moving."

Why waste resources on an unwanted tissue blob that just happens to have a beating heart and is obviously alive. No one wants it. It is only valuable if it is wanted. Just like you, Doctor?

Much of the radical feminist movement spends a great deal of time telling young girls that they shouldn't feel pressure to conform and be "pretty" and "act like a girl" because they shouldn't find their value in being desired by men. While certain aspects of such logic are, in fact, healthy for young girls, it is difficult to take such comments at face value when at the very core of their "pro-choice" rhetoric is the idea that a fetus is only valuable when it is deemed valuable by the mother.

Signs that read, "Too bad the Pope's mother didn't have a Choice" or "I wish Barbara Bush had had a choice" and comments that echo that sentiment, such as, "I wish your mother had aborted YOU" betray the reality of the anti-life movement. It isn't about rights, or freedom, or safety, but it is about control.


Post a Comment

<< Home