When I read op-eds opposing the decision of the American Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion, like this one, I notice something:
There isn't a single word about what is done to the baby, and how much pain he must feel.
Like pro-lifers are doing this just to be mean to women.
Voss wrote about her discovery during her second trimester that the baby she and her husband already loved would never live a full life and might not live at all. They made the heart-wrenching choice to terminate the pregnancy.
So that justifies half-delivering the baby, then sucking his brain out? Or even worse, decapitating him?
She thinks that's a humane thing to do?
That's the whole crux of the debate, and supporters don't address that. If they did, the general public would think they are absolutely heartless. They are trying to frame the debate and make it about women's health, but they constantly ignore that one little inconvenient fact in that PBA's make innocent babies suffer. The fact that the baby has a malformation is going to die doesn't justify making him suffer.
What did women do before the advent of PBA in the 1990's? Did women die? Apparently not, because we would have heard about it from the feminists.
No matter how quiet we are, though, I don't expect to hear any of them thanking Congress or the Supreme Court for adding to their already unbearable burden.
Their unbearable burden does not justify imposing an even more unbearable burden to a child.
Really, has our ability to reason morally been so darkened that we can't even see that?
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
