In all of our recent exchanges over the issue of abortion, my interlocutors and I have overlooked one rather central point: the abortion process itself. Sometimes, in the abstract realm of theoretical and philosophical points and counterpoints, we forget what actually happens when a ”pregnancy is terminated.”

I must say that the pro-choice side is rather hypocritical on this point. The same people who demand to know the facts about everything our government is doing to terrorist suspects, who place such a premium on disclosure, honesty, and knowing the truth, are very reluctant to apply the same standard to abortion.

In order to bring the issue back down to earth, then, and in response to the recent decision of the Supreme Court to hear arguments on the partial birth abortion bill, let me inject some realism and facts into the discussion.

What is partial birth abortion? In one of the many findings of facts which have taken place in the legislative and judicial processes, one doctor described how those who perform this procedure “delivered the fetus intact until the head was still trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head.” This procedure is 100 percent legal in every state for any reason due to recent appeals courts rulings, which overturned the 2002 federal law banning the gruesome procedure.

The argument was that there needed to be an exception for the health of the mother in order for the law to stand. However, Congress, in its fact finding mission, never found a single case where such a situation arose.

The courts decided that absence of evidence wasn’t sufficient reason to uphold the ban, and instead deferred to physicians and activists who claimed someday there might be a case where the mother’s health was threatened. That was enough for the courts to overturn the law.

One physician explained her opposition based on the fact that it was not her intent to kill the fetus. Rather, she was simply trying ”to empty the womb in the safest way possible.”

Interesting. So, it’s okay to partially deliver a child in the third trimester and crush its head as long as your intent is only to evacuate the womb.

That’s akin to the Nazis saying that they weren’t really trying to kill 6 million Jews, they were just trying to evacuate them from all of Europe (the killing was just a nasty side effect).

Another doctor was asked if he saw the child’s fingers moving while performing partial birth abortions. He admitted he hadn’t bothered to look, but had noticed some movement of the feet.

Let us be clear: we live in a country that sanctions this procedure for any and all reasons. There has never been a medically provable case where a mother’s health or life were threatened.

Can’t all of us at least agree that this particularly barbaric and incredibly selfish act should be banned? I cringe at the thought that I live In a country where even a tiny minority of people would say “no” to this question.

Trey Hoffman
Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments