Thursday, April 19, 2007

Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Much gnashing of teeth ensued after the Supreme Court decision upholding the law to ban partial birth abortion. For the libertarians the fear ranged from personal rights infringement to intrusion on a method for a livelihood. For the leftists and feminists, all manner of fear and anger was expressed at a woman's rights being taken away.

In all this, I read nary an article about the barbarity of partial birth abortion and why we, as a civilized society, should find the "procedure" abhorrent.

Most people, given the opportunity to watch this procedure would find it abhorrent and do. Will the Left take this issue to the legislators or will they concede this issue in face of the public will?


Paul said...

The "left" the "right" - the politicization of thought, imo, short circuits the thinking process. Instead of debate it's essentially name calling.

I'd need to know more about what happens to women who need this type of abortion to preserve their health. I would think these situations would vary from one situation to another. To have the inflexibility of law imposed on the decision-making of the doctor who's there on site, so that the decision on what's medically best is effectively prejudged by non medical people with no knowledge of the specific case - I don't see how that makes sense. It's like saying "prenatal life is necessarily more valuable that maternal life."

It's just bad thinking.

If it's going to be decided on the basis of exposing people to gruesomeness, let's see some juicy descriptions and full color photos of women dying for lack of the procedure.

Melissa Clouthier said...


I disagree with your premise. No doctor will deny a woman a life saving procedure--even one who is anti-abortion.

Having given birth to a 24 weeker, seen him respond to pain at birth, it is unthinkable that a civilized society would even consider doing this to another living being. The only reason the child's skull is broken with the brains sucked out is to make sure the child is dead before leaving the mother's body--that way it's not murder.

Of course, it's only not murder in the barest of legal senses. As Californians voted post-Scott Peterson, society tends to view viable fetuses and who would be on the receiving end of a D&E, as human babies. Thus, the double murder charge.

What society wants is less of these disgusting procedures. No one wants a mom to die, but that circumstance is so rare, it's a red herring. Doctors have other methods--C-section, induction, etc. to save a mother's life.

Another life needs to be considered.

Christy're said...

There is a difference between killing someone "for a mother's health" and forfeiting one life to save another.

My daughter is certainly impairing my health--I waddle, I've got stretch marks, and my breathing is getting shallow at times. I couldn't run five miles if I wanted to and on Monday I fell down the stairs through sheer clutziness--and being so darn front-heavy.

Would any of this justify killing her? Absolutely not--my life is not in danger.

"Health" is such a grey term but a life-or-death decision isn't.

Anonymous said...

(法新社a倫敦二B十WE四日電) 「情色二零零七」情趣產品大產自二十三日起在倫敦的肯辛頓奧林匹亞展覽館舉行,倫敦人擺脫對性的保守態度踴躍參觀成人影片,許多穿皮衣與塑膠緊身衣的好色之徒擠進這項世界規模最大的成人生活展,估計三天展期可吸引八a片下載萬多好奇民眾參觀。