Guide to Informed Choices
Yüklə 4,63 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
gust of air? And Adam probably didn‘t move before God breathed into him, but the fetus moves and acts as a baby even with facial expressions, long before he takes his first breath. It‘s a nice idea but it just doesn‘t cut it.
Up to birth Not many people like the idea of abortion up to birth. It‘s so easy to see abortion as infanticide at that age. We‘ve all seen premature babies on the news and we know that the process of being born doesn‘t instantaneously turn a blob of mom‘s tissue into a cute baby. We‘ve seen the ultrasounds of them smiling or sucking their thumb in the womb. We know it‘s a baby.
It is true that we celebrate birthdays not conception days, yet that may be because a)
conception; b)
b) birthdays are the day we get to finally
meet our baby.
When the baby comes home from the hospital Please, you tax my brain. Only sensible reasons will be debated here.
Conclusion t doesn‘t make sense to say that abortions should be allowed when a baby is implanted, intelligent, born or I
61
any other point we‘ve discussed. These vary for each baby. Besides, they‘re random development points we have picked! One pro-choice source compares various time limits for abortion, but admits that such figures are based not on ―logic‖ but are ―arbitrary‖ and simply an offerings to the ―savage dogs of conscience.‖ 176
Strong imagery. Another pro-choice source admits:
Most
physicians considered abortion a crime because of the inherent difficulties of determining any point at which a steadily developing embryo became somehow more alive than it had been the moment before. 177
As we just saw, pro-choice sources admit there is no one moment when a fetus turns into a baby. However, there is one point where it all starts — conception.
Reason #13 ―There is no moment when a fetus suddenly turns into a baby‖ Reason #14 isn‘t viable yet?
An introduction eing viable means a fetus can potentially live outside the womb, with technology if needed. 178
Before we start debating viability, I want to share a picture of a non-viable fetus.
It‘s October 31, 2006 and an 18-year-old is having an abortion performed at A Gyn Diagnostics Center located in Florida. The abortion goes smoothly until staff members begin screaming that the baby is still alive. According to an insider who tipped off police, the owner of the clinic promptly cut the umbilical cord and dumped the 22 week old baby into a biohazard bag, along with some used surgical gauze. After the tip-off, police searched the building but did not initially find the bag, due to it being stashed on the roof of the facility. The Medical Examiner found that the fetus died of prematurity, but Operation Rescue notes that, even if there is zero chance of survival, that child deserves all the help and respect it can get. The abortion clinic‘s comment was that B
62
a normal abortion had been performed and that there had been no complications. 179
In that sense they‘re right. Abortion always kills children — we just don‘t always think of non-viable fetuses as babies. The only failure on the part of the clinic was to not thoroughly kill the fetus before it was outside of the mother‘s body. I think the real reason viability is so popular as a moral cut-off point for abortion is that we like to see things before we believe them, and this marks the time when a fetus can be born. Once we can see him, we have no doubt as to who and what he is.
What in the world is so significant about lung development? A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. 180
—FAQ, Abortion is prolife.com
any people, perhaps yourself, believe that until a fetus is viable he can be aborted because he has no rights. Yet what we are judging is the development of the fetus‘ lungs! 181 We
aren‘t judging whether or not this is a human being, a child of God; we aren‘t judging whether or not she is alive or moving — hey, we‘re not even judging brain development! It used to be quickening, now it‘s viability. But why pick the organ for respiration as the new moral guide stick for abortion? How more or less human — or a child of God — is a fetus before and after her lungs are fully matured?
Now, if you‘re thinking, this is nothing to do with the fetus; it‘s all about a woman's body, turn to Reason #25
where we take up that topic right away. Being viable = meaningful life? f you believe viability is the point where abortion becomes immoral, you are not alone. The Supreme Court also believes this, but they don‘t make much sense.
In decriminalizing abortion the
Supreme Court said, and I paraphrase:
We can‘t resolve the ‗difficult‘ question of when life begins.
Since we don‘t know when life begins, the 14
th Amendment which would protect a fetus must not apply because it mentions ‗persons‘.
possible at viability.
Therefore at viability the State may M I
63
have an interest in protecting the fetus (i.e., limiting abortion).
Having decided that unborn children were not protected and that we didn‘t know when ‗life begins,‘ the Supreme Court said viability would be a time when the Court
could interfere with the
‗fundamental right‘ of abortion and set limits. Why did they choose that time? The answer is clear as mud — and I quote the Honorable Justice, ―This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother‘s womb.‖ 182
The Court failed utterly to make clear what developed lungs have to do with ―meaningful life‖ or the morality of abortion. They did not explain:
If ―meaningful life‖ meant meaningful to the fetus, the mother or adopting parents?
someone‘s opinion
on meaningfulness can determine the worth of someone else‘s life?
How we can prove that a fetus‘ life is not meaningful to him?
why a potentially un-meaningful life should not deserve protection?
much ‗meaning‘ in their life tomorrow as the same Honorable Justices find in their lives today?
Why viability is the age at which a fetus becomes a rights-bearing human?
viability?
Why ‗meaningful life‘ should be any more meaningful than simply ―life‖?
Is your argument any clearer than the Supreme Court‘s?
Viability is based on a doctor‘s opinion and changing technology Here‘s the proof: ―We are able to perform elective abortions to the time in the pregnancy when the fetus is viable. Viability is not a set point in time. Viability is determined by the
attending physician… Please call so that we can discuss admission criteria with you.‖ 183
—Women‘s Health Care Services
―There is no uniform agreement as to the point in pregnancy at which a fetus ought to be considered viable or capable of living outside the uterus.‖ 184
—Benjamin Surgical Services International
64
iability is legally decided by the doctor. Consider the neutrality of that. The abortionist, who will get paid for his services, can determine whether or not he will take on the job (i.e., If the baby is viable) — and no one else will ever question his opinion…after all, he‘s the doctor. 185
It used to be that a baby would not survive at 30 weeks in 1950. 186
In 1973 the Supreme Court decreed that 28 (or possible 24) weeks was the legal point. Now the recommendation to hospitals is that babies as young as 23 weeks can be resuscitated. 187
Just recently two babies have survived at 21 and 22 weeks. That‘s incredible — almost halfway through pregnancy! Here are their stories: On October 24, 2006 at the Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, Florida a little girl named Amillia Sonia Taylor was born. What was remarkable was that she was just 21 weeks 6 days old. That‘s just half-way through a normal full term pregnancy! She holds the record for being the youngest known baby to survive. At 9.5 inches long, Amillia was also half the length she should have been. It‘s hard to imagine how much like a doll she must have looked, compared to the babies born at regular 37-42 weeks. After spending 4 months in the hospital, Amillia has now gone home healthy and thriving, thanks to her strong constitution and the good hospital care she received. 188
Manchester, Britain another baby was born exactly a week older. Millie McDonagh was born at 22 weeks and six days. At 11 inches and fitting in the palm of her father‘s hand, she was incredibly small. Millie has been allowed to go home after 4 months in hospital. Although she still needed oxygen the when she went home, doctors expect that she will have no lasting side effects from her premature birth. 189
week babies are surviving, we are aborting babies older than that – after all, the Supreme Court said it could be 28 weeks. Take these recent abortion clinic quotes, for example:
The Washington Surgi-Clinic provides legal, safe surgical and non-surgical abortions from the very earliest pregnancies up to 26 weeks… 190
—Washington Surgi-Clinic
You will find a team of professionals who have specialized in middle and late second trimester pregnancy terminations (16 to 25 weeks) both elective and fetal anomaly…
191
—Texas Abortion Information In the last few years medical technology has advanced to the point where babies born at 24 weeks of gestation are being V
65
saved, while on the other hand, unwanted babies are being terminated at 24 weeks.
Surely even ardent pro-choicers can see a contradiction in that! One of the flaws with viability is that it is not fixed. It‘s changeable.
It‘s variable. With the latest medical technology we are supporting babies at earlier and earlier stages of prematurity. The line is continually being pushed back. Does ―right and wrong‖ or ―meaningful life‖ get restructured, along with our modern technology? What about if you were born in a poor country? Your age of ‗survivability‘ and therefore ‗abortability‘ is going to be different if you have limited or no medical services. But that does mean the rightness of killing a fetus depends on the medical services at their hospital!
Neither the fetus nor we are truly independent he pro-choice argument says that being able to live independently of a woman‘s body means gaining the right to live, yet we ourselves aren‘t totally independent. The difference is, today we rely on many people instead of just one person. Indeed, as a fetus we‘ve already been there, done that. Our needs today are different from when we were unborn, but they are still needs. For example, we rely on some people financially (parents maybe),
intellectually (work colleagues), socially (friends perhaps), spiritually (possibly a pastor) and so on. On a more physical level, although many of us could make do, others could not survive, for example, without the workers at the electrical power stations, the farmer who grows the food we put on the table, the workforce who keeps clean water flowing to our tap, or our poor Chinese sisters who make virtually all the clothing and shoes we wear. Consider, also, that others beside the fetus need us as well. Our grandparents, our children, our friends, our colleagues, our customers also need us to be there in different ways. The older, younger and sicker members of our community need extra human assistance. We were once that young baby and will one day become that old person in need of help also. Theoretically, even if we ourselves were never dependent on others in any way, shape or form, how does that make it right to cancel out a fetus‘ right to life? Isn‘t that what protecting the weak and vulnerable is all about?
The strong have a duty to defend the weak f abortion is okay up until the time a baby is viable, which as we‘ve seen, is a changing point, what precedent does T I
66
this set? In other words, if we say we can abort until the baby can live independently outside the mother, what does that tell you about our duty to the helpless? It says we don‘t have any duty or responsibility to help our brother or sister in need. It says that it‘s about our body and our choice and me, me, me. It says that a life that is dependent on someone elses is under their thumb. If we follow this logic we must also agree with infanticide, because newborns are totally helpless without their mothers to feed and change them, and see that they are kept warm and keep them from danger. There is no coherent reason as to why a child who is dependent on you is less alive or less worthy of life. Author Randy Alcorn summarizes my thoughts here: A helpless person deserves help precisely because she is helpless. It is a sad commentary on society when a child‘s helplessness and dependence on another is used as an argument against her right to live. 192
Reason #14 ―Becoming viable does nothing to change the baby‘s identity‖ Reason #15 Abortion is not an act of love
One of the questions the November Gang clinics sometimes ask patients is, Can you see your abortion as a ―loving act‖ toward your children and yourself? 193
—Allegheny Reproductive Health Center
ome women say they abort out of love for their child. Many want to be a good parent, and they plan to get married and have children one day, but right now is just not a good time. Is that you? You‘ve just started a new job and you‘re dead broke. Or perhaps you haven‘t got a job. Maybe the relationship with the baby‘s father isn‘t going so hot — or perhaps there was never a relationship at all. Whatever the situation, there is a loving solution. I‘m sure many sincere people fall into the trap of thinking that it would be the most loving thing not to become a parent right now. Like this one girl quoted in a pro-choice newsletter: My primary reason for aborting the fetus was that one has to be selfless in order to be a parent. Having a child at such a young age would have robbed me of my S
67
freedom as a young adult. I knew I would resent having to be responsible for another person‘s life and also resent or even hate the child. I did and do not want that kind of responsibility. 194
work to be a parent and doesn‘t want children now. At the same time she fails to recognize that being pregnant means you are already carrying life within you. In other words, an abortion doesn‘t make you ―unpregnant‖; it just makes you the mother of a dead baby. If she would truly resent the responsibility of raising a child, she could spare his life for another family who would truly cherish and care for him. If she was just considering having a child and had not conceived him or her, her argument would make sense…maybe it‘s not the best time. However, when you become pregnant, your unborn child is ALREADY
in the forming stage. He or she is already existent. That means un-inviting him, which equals killing him. Abortion does not save a child from a bad life — it kills him in order to prevent him from having any life. Loving your child enough to choose the ‗right‘ time later means ending his
life now. How can that be loving?
Still believe abortion only removes ‗a potential person‘? Turn to Reason #10: Your baby exists now, not in the future . Abortion a loving choice for ―fetal malformations‖? A Choice for Women
abortion clinic brazenly suggests that disabled children should be aborted for their own good — and for that of ―her family‖: ―Many patients are referred to our office because there is something wrong with the fetus and terminating is in the best interest for her and her family.‖ 195
Yet as former Surgeon General Everett Koop wrote, ―I have a sense of satisfaction in my career, best indicated perhaps by the fact that no family has ever come to me and said: ―Why did you work so hard to save the life of my child?‖ And no grown child has ever come back to ask me why, either.‖ 196
The Hope Clinic for Women describes the ―comforting features‖ they offer for women who abort because of an imperfection with their child:
―help with contacting clergy‖ (so you can arrange baptism or a funeral service for your baby‘s unfortunate death);
―an ultrasound picture‖ (so you can remember forever the
life you
shortened) and ―an imprint of the baby‘s foot‖ (after they‘ve killed him). Yüklə 4,63 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|