My Views on Partial-Birth Abortion
I thought that I should further explain why I am against the new partial-birth abortion legislation in more detail, in light of a recent comment on that thread.
No one supports partial birth abortions, or any abortions for that matter - they're a horrible thing. But take this situation for instance: a mother finds 6+ months into the pregnancy that the baby is developing without a brain (which is often the earliest this can be discovered). Taking the pregnancy to term and giving birth to a stillborn child is probably one of the most emotionally difficult things that a person can do. Under this new law, use of partial birth abortion (which is the only recourse in this situation) is prohibitted. Also, let's say that there is some sort of problem with the uterus or with the baby's placement in it (something that only happens late in the pregnancy) and the mother and child are likely to die if it's brought to term. Surely partial birth abortion is justified here, but even in situations where it could save the mother's life, it's outlawed. That just strikes me as wrong. If it allowed for certain exceptions, I would have no problem with this law: I think partial birth abortions are terrible, though sometimes necessary procedures. But I think that having both the mother and the child die when the mother could be saved because of some religious moral idea is absurd to the point of being sickening.
We also have to take into account, that partial-birth abortions really aren't that common. They occur in rare instances where this medical procedure is absolutely necessary. This bs about an "epidemic" of partial-birth abortions is just propaganda.
Fair Enough, apparently there are some useful applications for partial birth abortions. I do however think there is need for strict regulation. Allowing a brainless child to be aborted could easily be stretched into aborting a mentally retarted unborn child. This is unethical; mental retardation and other genetic defects can often still allow for a fulfilling life. Trying to throw religous beliefs into this seems like an artificial argument. In my opinion it is not only religion that dictates murder as wrong, it is also United States law. Is murder wrong, are morals based on religion, is our law on murder based on religion?? These are questions that I cannot answer. However, I am sure no matter what religion I belonged to, I would not condone murder!
Some important points: one, there is no way to determine mental retardation prior to birth, so there is no possibility of partial-birth abortions being used for that purpose. Already, it's becoming more and more difficult to get abortions, as many hospitals don't allow them because of death-threats from pro-lifers. Also, it's expensive and most insurance companies, including medicaid, won't cover it. As Ashley said, partial-birth abortions are rare and used almost exclusively when the mother's life is in danger. I would support legislation that made this exception (sadly, the current legislation doesn't). Also, I made the mention about religion because the truth of the matter is that this bill came to pass as the result of lobbying by, among other groups, the Christian right. You're equating of murder with abortion is sketchy. Though I agree that in the very late stages of pregnancy it seems that the fetus is living, when a fertilized egg has no brain and no heart of it's own after 2 months, it's presumptuous to refer to this as murder. The truth is, it seems, much more complicated (and hence debatable).
3 comments