Abortion: Legality and Morality

2006-12-07
By

The abortion debate has, to a large extent, become frozen. This writer would like to carve out a position that supports the legality of abortion while arguing that the morally best solution to an unwanted pregnancy is to have the baby and relinquish her or him for adoption.

Pro-choicers frequently find themselves tied up in knots in seeking to deny the life and/or the humanity of the fetus right up to the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. This can lead us to trip ourselves up in absurd ways as when Sen. Barbara Mikulski seemed to say human life begins when “you take your baby home.”

While pro-choicers often seem obtuse regarding the humanity of the unborn, pro-lifers often talk about them as if they grow inside vases, ignoring the ordeal that they demand of females. Pregnancy has an enormous impact upon a girl or woman’s life. The intimacy and constancy of this ordeal has no parallel in human experience.

Thus, conceding human life to the unborn does not end the abortion debate. For under no other circumstance do we entitle one person to make use of another’s body. A human being is not legally entitled to a kidney or bone marrow transplant from another person even if not getting such a donation means that the first person will die. Indeed, one is not even entitled to a pint of someone else’s blood and having that amount of blood extracted pales in comparison to the demands of pregnancy and childbirth.

Of course, the analogy of carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term with giving up a body part so someone else can live is imperfect since the latter requires that one person actively make a sacrifice. The continuation of a pregnancy to birth requires only that the pregnant female do nothing. There is no perfect analogy with pregnancy because it is unique.

However, granting some validity to the organ transplant analogy, allows us to see aspects of the abortion controversy more clearly. As Donald P. Judges points out in his thoughtful book, Hard Choices, Lost Voices, many pro-lifers emphasize the weakest part of their case in arguing that abortion should be outlawed to protect pregnant females from its negative consequences. Studies of the psychological effects of abortion usually conclude that females who have had them suffer no more than those whose unplanned pregnancies were carried to term. While someone who has terminated a pregnancy will surely feel a certain amount of regret, as will a person who has refused to make a life-saving organ donation to a person who has died, both people have avoided an ordeal. The primary human reaction to a tribulation bypassed is relief.

While the organ transplant analogy leads us to support the legalized abortion, it also supports a moral conclusion that appears to make some pro-choicers uneasy. For that conclusion is that having the baby of an unwanted pregnancy is the most courageous and generous decision even as giving up the kidney or bone marrow is.

The trial of carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term is especially acute when the child is given up for adoption. During pregnancy, an emotional bond is normally formed in the pregnant female’s psyche as her body is prepared to deliver and nurse the young. It can be devastating to relinquish the infant. Thus, it ought to surprise no one that when abortion can be legally obtained – and having the baby and giving it up for adoption is culturally presented as just a choice with no particular moral resonance — few with unplanned pregnancies select this option.

However, if pro-choicers are both intellectually honest and morally sensitive, they should applaud efforts designed to persuade, rather than coerce, unhappily pregnant females to endure the tribulation. Bumper stickers like “Choose Life” and commercials applauding those who decided to “tough it out,” ending “Life – What A Beautiful Choice” are completely appropriate.

As is so often the case, the choices facing someone with an unplanned pregnancy are morally praiseworthy in inverse correlation to their ease. It is ethically better to have the baby that to abort it and ethically better to give it up for adoption that attempt to raise it if the mother is unprepared to do so.

It is not realistic to expect every female with a problem pregnancy to carry it to term. It is also unrealistic to expect every girl or woman who has such a baby to give it up for adoption. However, if we are to want a large group of such females to make this most difficult of choices, we must recognize that it is in fact the most moral.

58 views

  • chas

    While still a teenager my grandmother was well on her way to having nine children and thought it was wonderful. They were always dirt poor. She raised them in a marriage that lasted sixty years. I really don’t think there was ever any of this hand wringing, this anxiety, this over analysis, about whether they were ready or not. They were expected to have lot of children and they were honored for doing it. They matured into adulthood by doing it. How have we been reduced to this level of reproductive weakness?

  • chas

    While still a teenager my grandmother was well on her way to having nine children and thought it was wonderful. They were always dirt poor. She raised them in a marriage that lasted sixty years. I really don’t think there was ever any of this hand wringing, this anxiety, this over analysis, about whether they were ready or not. They were expected to have lot of children and they were honored for doing it. They matured into adulthood by doing it. How have we been reduced to this level of reproductive weakness?

  • chas

    While still a teenager my grandmother was well on her way to having nine children and thought it was wonderful. They were always dirt poor. She raised them in a marriage that lasted sixty years. I really don’t think there was ever any of this hand wringing, this anxiety, this over analysis, about whether they were ready or not. They were expected to have lot of children and they were honored for doing it. They matured into adulthood by doing it. How have we been reduced to this level of reproductive weakness?

  • conservativation

    Denise, I’ve no illusion that I can change you mind on this matter, because your analogies and points in general here are so easily dissected and dismissed that I conclude your pro-choice beliefs are as irrational yet deep seated in your make up that only severe emotional experience or trauma could change them.

    The organ transplant analogy is not weak Denise, its not even an analogy it’s SO weak. I do not use the argument that emotional trauma of the woman who aborts is a pro-life argument. She made the decision, the baby did not, the issue is the baby, not the “choices” of the “unprepared for kids” woman. If she suffers grief after the abortion, it means she has a normal emotional make-up, and grieving the loss of a loved one is very common.

    Do you not see the folly of the point that a mother develops an emotional bond and has trouble adopting away the baby? Sorry, but D’oh!!! That’s the point Denise, when does that bond develope? After 3 months, 6 months? Can she bond with a mass of cells or must there be arms and legs? Who gets to decide?

    What do you call a “problem pregnancy”? Its an important term since you say its unrealistic to see her carry those to term.

    Define for me “moral”. Do you use an objective or subjective basis for morality? Its absurd to say that something can be moral for some and immoral for others. Morality loses all meaning then. I suggest choosing another word besides moral if you care to advance this notion.

    One place we do agree, I prefer the positive pro life messages much more then the shock and awe pro life militant types.

  • conservativation

    Denise, I’ve no illusion that I can change you mind on this matter, because your analogies and points in general here are so easily dissected and dismissed that I conclude your pro-choice beliefs are as irrational yet deep seated in your make up that only severe emotional experience or trauma could change them.

    The organ transplant analogy is not weak Denise, its not even an analogy it’s SO weak. I do not use the argument that emotional trauma of the woman who aborts is a pro-life argument. She made the decision, the baby did not, the issue is the baby, not the “choices” of the “unprepared for kids” woman. If she suffers grief after the abortion, it means she has a normal emotional make-up, and grieving the loss of a loved one is very common.

    Do you not see the folly of the point that a mother develops an emotional bond and has trouble adopting away the baby? Sorry, but D’oh!!! That’s the point Denise, when does that bond develope? After 3 months, 6 months? Can she bond with a mass of cells or must there be arms and legs? Who gets to decide?

    What do you call a “problem pregnancy”? Its an important term since you say its unrealistic to see her carry those to term.

    Define for me “moral”. Do you use an objective or subjective basis for morality? Its absurd to say that something can be moral for some and immoral for others. Morality loses all meaning then. I suggest choosing another word besides moral if you care to advance this notion.

    One place we do agree, I prefer the positive pro life messages much more then the shock and awe pro life militant types.

  • conservativation

    Denise, I’ve no illusion that I can change you mind on this matter, because your analogies and points in general here are so easily dissected and dismissed that I conclude your pro-choice beliefs are as irrational yet deep seated in your make up that only severe emotional experience or trauma could change them.

    The organ transplant analogy is not weak Denise, its not even an analogy it’s SO weak. I do not use the argument that emotional trauma of the woman who aborts is a pro-life argument. She made the decision, the baby did not, the issue is the baby, not the “choices” of the “unprepared for kids” woman. If she suffers grief after the abortion, it means she has a normal emotional make-up, and grieving the loss of a loved one is very common.

    Do you not see the folly of the point that a mother develops an emotional bond and has trouble adopting away the baby? Sorry, but D’oh!!! That’s the point Denise, when does that bond develope? After 3 months, 6 months? Can she bond with a mass of cells or must there be arms and legs? Who gets to decide?

    What do you call a “problem pregnancy”? Its an important term since you say its unrealistic to see her carry those to term.

    Define for me “moral”. Do you use an objective or subjective basis for morality? Its absurd to say that something can be moral for some and immoral for others. Morality loses all meaning then. I suggest choosing another word besides moral if you care to advance this notion.

    One place we do agree, I prefer the positive pro life messages much more then the shock and awe pro life militant types.

  • roger

    Once again, it’s all about HER.
    It is NOT about the baby, and it is certainly NOT about the father.

    Yet another birth control “choice” has been placed on the market for women, and is available FOR FREE….and yet, the bastardy rates will continue to rise.

    Add this ‘plan b’ to
    abortion
    adoption
    abandonment

    Why is it that a woman can legally abandon child, but a father, who has no say in any of these decisions, cannot?

  • roger

    Once again, it’s all about HER.
    It is NOT about the baby, and it is certainly NOT about the father.

    Yet another birth control “choice” has been placed on the market for women, and is available FOR FREE….and yet, the bastardy rates will continue to rise.

    Add this ‘plan b’ to
    abortion
    adoption
    abandonment

    Why is it that a woman can legally abandon child, but a father, who has no say in any of these decisions, cannot?

  • roger

    Once again, it’s all about HER.
    It is NOT about the baby, and it is certainly NOT about the father.

    Yet another birth control “choice” has been placed on the market for women, and is available FOR FREE….and yet, the bastardy rates will continue to rise.

    Add this ‘plan b’ to
    abortion
    adoption
    abandonment

    Why is it that a woman can legally abandon child, but a father, who has no say in any of these decisions, cannot?

  • thurston861

    A whole bunch of words completely lost to time.

    If states can incarcerate a person for causing a miscarraige then the matter is settled, the unborn is distinct human life, with blood, dna, fingerprints, etc. which all lend to human identity and life.

    The conflict comes where individuals think that their RGHT to their body is absolute. Roe made it so.

    Yet. Roe ignores the fact that such a belief is WRONG under American Jurisprudence.

    Case in point, the government can control your words and punish you for words spoken or written, which by controlling expression then controls thought ultimately (thoughts cannot be know to actually exist to be exercised unless they can be spoken or written).

    This is proved by the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, in that the government can control any of our words if our speaking them can lead to an imminent lawless act.

    The mouth like the womb is a part of ones own body, and the courts have already claimed jurisdiction over action, even controlling who can have a child Buck v. Bell (used by the NAZI’s to support their eugenics program).

    A woman has no right to decide anything about her body if the decision would lead to an imminent lawless act, the killing of an unborn human being.

    The fact that the human’s existence is difficult, inconvenient, causes problems, is not any sort of defense because of the standards of our laws which dictate when termination of a human life can be sanctioned by our society, and none of those laws condone the taking of the lives of innocent people.

    Like Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, Evans V. Gore. the Kelo case, Roe is a place where courts departed from OUR wisdom and standards, even from its own standards which were to bind the Court.

    The abortion issue will not end until the pro-choicers are thrown from their high pseudo-intellectual position through expoure of the hypocrisy of not recognizing the individual human life and kneeling to Brandenburg v. Ohio.

  • thurston861

    A whole bunch of words completely lost to time.

    If states can incarcerate a person for causing a miscarraige then the matter is settled, the unborn is distinct human life, with blood, dna, fingerprints, etc. which all lend to human identity and life.

    The conflict comes where individuals think that their RGHT to their body is absolute. Roe made it so.

    Yet. Roe ignores the fact that such a belief is WRONG under American Jurisprudence.

    Case in point, the government can control your words and punish you for words spoken or written, which by controlling expression then controls thought ultimately (thoughts cannot be know to actually exist to be exercised unless they can be spoken or written).

    This is proved by the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, in that the government can control any of our words if our speaking them can lead to an imminent lawless act.

    The mouth like the womb is a part of ones own body, and the courts have already claimed jurisdiction over action, even controlling who can have a child Buck v. Bell (used by the NAZI’s to support their eugenics program).

    A woman has no right to decide anything about her body if the decision would lead to an imminent lawless act, the killing of an unborn human being.

    The fact that the human’s existence is difficult, inconvenient, causes problems, is not any sort of defense because of the standards of our laws which dictate when termination of a human life can be sanctioned by our society, and none of those laws condone the taking of the lives of innocent people.

    Like Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, Evans V. Gore. the Kelo case, Roe is a place where courts departed from OUR wisdom and standards, even from its own standards which were to bind the Court.

    The abortion issue will not end until the pro-choicers are thrown from their high pseudo-intellectual position through expoure of the hypocrisy of not recognizing the individual human life and kneeling to Brandenburg v. Ohio.

  • thurston861

    A whole bunch of words completely lost to time.

    If states can incarcerate a person for causing a miscarraige then the matter is settled, the unborn is distinct human life, with blood, dna, fingerprints, etc. which all lend to human identity and life.

    The conflict comes where individuals think that their RGHT to their body is absolute. Roe made it so.

    Yet. Roe ignores the fact that such a belief is WRONG under American Jurisprudence.

    Case in point, the government can control your words and punish you for words spoken or written, which by controlling expression then controls thought ultimately (thoughts cannot be know to actually exist to be exercised unless they can be spoken or written).

    This is proved by the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, in that the government can control any of our words if our speaking them can lead to an imminent lawless act.

    The mouth like the womb is a part of ones own body, and the courts have already claimed jurisdiction over action, even controlling who can have a child Buck v. Bell (used by the NAZI’s to support their eugenics program).

    A woman has no right to decide anything about her body if the decision would lead to an imminent lawless act, the killing of an unborn human being.

    The fact that the human’s existence is difficult, inconvenient, causes problems, is not any sort of defense because of the standards of our laws which dictate when termination of a human life can be sanctioned by our society, and none of those laws condone the taking of the lives of innocent people.

    Like Dred Scott, Buck v. Bell, Evans V. Gore. the Kelo case, Roe is a place where courts departed from OUR wisdom and standards, even from its own standards which were to bind the Court.

    The abortion issue will not end until the pro-choicers are thrown from their high pseudo-intellectual position through expoure of the hypocrisy of not recognizing the individual human life and kneeling to Brandenburg v. Ohio.

  • christianj

    It’s still the same old argument that feminists have been lying about for years, decades..

    And it is all about her (see Chris Rock on Youtube).

    Pregnancy has become legal blackmail to use against any male in her vision. As previously stated, it’s a bag of cells while it’s inside which can be destroyed at the whim of the female as usual, but it’s a bag of gold when it is exposed to oxygen and that’s exactly how it’s treated by governments in the western world.

    This overrated argument is another attempt at “women are such victims, really” that it is really becoming boring and is really a non-issue.

    This is a plethora of issues that women agonize over but only they are entitled to dismiss.

    Women use to go out into the forest and drop the bundle on the snow in the way of giving birth, the wimps now need every modern and expensive amount of technology to do it including drugs and surgery.

    We know now why it’s such a major angst ridden decision for women, it will financially affect her whole life and it’s a decision made exempt of the Father.

  • christianj

    It’s still the same old argument that feminists have been lying about for years, decades..

    And it is all about her (see Chris Rock on Youtube).

    Pregnancy has become legal blackmail to use against any male in her vision. As previously stated, it’s a bag of cells while it’s inside which can be destroyed at the whim of the female as usual, but it’s a bag of gold when it is exposed to oxygen and that’s exactly how it’s treated by governments in the western world.

    This overrated argument is another attempt at “women are such victims, really” that it is really becoming boring and is really a non-issue.

    This is a plethora of issues that women agonize over but only they are entitled to dismiss.

    Women use to go out into the forest and drop the bundle on the snow in the way of giving birth, the wimps now need every modern and expensive amount of technology to do it including drugs and surgery.

    We know now why it’s such a major angst ridden decision for women, it will financially affect her whole life and it’s a decision made exempt of the Father.

  • christianj

    It’s still the same old argument that feminists have been lying about for years, decades..

    And it is all about her (see Chris Rock on Youtube).

    Pregnancy has become legal blackmail to use against any male in her vision. As previously stated, it’s a bag of cells while it’s inside which can be destroyed at the whim of the female as usual, but it’s a bag of gold when it is exposed to oxygen and that’s exactly how it’s treated by governments in the western world.

    This overrated argument is another attempt at “women are such victims, really” that it is really becoming boring and is really a non-issue.

    This is a plethora of issues that women agonize over but only they are entitled to dismiss.

    Women use to go out into the forest and drop the bundle on the snow in the way of giving birth, the wimps now need every modern and expensive amount of technology to do it including drugs and surgery.

    We know now why it’s such a major angst ridden decision for women, it will financially affect her whole life and it’s a decision made exempt of the Father.

  • mazza

    According to Denise, it is ALL about her. A woman’s choice matters more than the sun, the moon and the stars.

    If by horrible fate a woman finds herself pregnant, the best outcome is a quick and easy abortion. If not, (again, according to Denise) is for “swains in bow ties” to propose to knocked up trashy women even though they aren’t the fathers.

    Any other ideas Denise? Oh, that’s right. She wants to set up a brothel where men will pay to have sex with corpses.

    Why does anyone even bother commenting on Denise? It’s all provocation, nothing more. She doesn’t mean a thing she says.

  • mazza

    According to Denise, it is ALL about her. A woman’s choice matters more than the sun, the moon and the stars.

    If by horrible fate a woman finds herself pregnant, the best outcome is a quick and easy abortion. If not, (again, according to Denise) is for “swains in bow ties” to propose to knocked up trashy women even though they aren’t the fathers.

    Any other ideas Denise? Oh, that’s right. She wants to set up a brothel where men will pay to have sex with corpses.

    Why does anyone even bother commenting on Denise? It’s all provocation, nothing more. She doesn’t mean a thing she says.

  • mazza

    According to Denise, it is ALL about her. A woman’s choice matters more than the sun, the moon and the stars.

    If by horrible fate a woman finds herself pregnant, the best outcome is a quick and easy abortion. If not, (again, according to Denise) is for “swains in bow ties” to propose to knocked up trashy women even though they aren’t the fathers.

    Any other ideas Denise? Oh, that’s right. She wants to set up a brothel where men will pay to have sex with corpses.

    Why does anyone even bother commenting on Denise? It’s all provocation, nothing more. She doesn’t mean a thing she says.

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

    A human being is not legally entitled to a kidney or bone marrow transplant from another person even if not getting such a donation means that the first person will die.

    Interesting that you say that. Whenever a fertilized egg is destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells for research, a human being has died. And yet this is legal, and even funded at the state level (as well as privately funded). No one has yet found a way to extract cells from a human being at the embryonic stage without killing the embryo.

    Pro-choicers frequently find themselves tied up in knots in seeking to deny the life and/or the humanity of the fetus right up to the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. This can lead us to trip ourselves up in absurd ways as when Sen. Barbara Mikulski seemed to say human life begins when “you take your baby home.”

    According to the companion case for Roe v. Wade, known as Doe v. Bolton, the health of the mother is defined broadly to include emotional health considerations. This means that even the last trimester of pregnancy is legally free ground to perform abortions, on the assumption that to deny a woman this choice would cause her emotional harm. The doctor (abortionist) makes this determination, so you can bet that when a woman wants an abortion, she can have it, all the way up to the moment before the baby exits the womb.

    The Supreme Court heard arguments only a few weeks ago in which they debated the constitutionality of laws that restrict abortions in which the baby is partially out of the womb. It’s not like football, where you can score by getting part of your body across the goal line. For a baby to have the legal right to live, it must be ALL the way out of the womb. I sat there listening to the pro-abortion Supreme Court members try to justify the legality (i.e. constitutionality) of partial birth abortion, mincing words about just how far outside the womb the baby must be in order to count as human. How barbaric and cold can someone be to take that position, and yet occupy a constitutional office with all its pomp and grandeur?

    And just yesterday, when the Congress tried to pass a law requiring abortionists to offer to administer pain killers to the fetus prior to aborting it, the legislation failed to pass (it failed to obtain the required a 2/3 majority under rules that would have prohibited amendments, although a simple majority was achieved). Although the typical suspects opposed the legislation promoting relief of fetal pain, an exception was the very pro-abortion NARAL, which took no position. Even without the browbeating of NARAL, pro-abortion members of Congress could not bring themselves to require abortionists to simply offer women the option of providing pain relief to their unborn babies. But psychologically, I suppose this is to be expected (especially of the mother, who must suspend or suppress all inner moral conflict in order to get through the procedure without changing her mind).

    Denise, you are right to point out the indefensibility of abortion in the later stages, and the moral quandary pro-abortion people face in such cases when they sweepingly oppose ANY regulation of abortion.

    One thing about your essay that got my attention was this: how can you believe that abortion is such an intense, wrenching personal decision if you don’t accept the notion that abortion causes emotional damage after the fact?

    John Dias

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

    A human being is not legally entitled to a kidney or bone marrow transplant from another person even if not getting such a donation means that the first person will die.

    Interesting that you say that. Whenever a fertilized egg is destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells for research, a human being has died. And yet this is legal, and even funded at the state level (as well as privately funded). No one has yet found a way to extract cells from a human being at the embryonic stage without killing the embryo.

    Pro-choicers frequently find themselves tied up in knots in seeking to deny the life and/or the humanity of the fetus right up to the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. This can lead us to trip ourselves up in absurd ways as when Sen. Barbara Mikulski seemed to say human life begins when “you take your baby home.”

    According to the companion case for Roe v. Wade, known as Doe v. Bolton, the health of the mother is defined broadly to include emotional health considerations. This means that even the last trimester of pregnancy is legally free ground to perform abortions, on the assumption that to deny a woman this choice would cause her emotional harm. The doctor (abortionist) makes this determination, so you can bet that when a woman wants an abortion, she can have it, all the way up to the moment before the baby exits the womb.

    The Supreme Court heard arguments only a few weeks ago in which they debated the constitutionality of laws that restrict abortions in which the baby is partially out of the womb. It’s not like football, where you can score by getting part of your body across the goal line. For a baby to have the legal right to live, it must be ALL the way out of the womb. I sat there listening to the pro-abortion Supreme Court members try to justify the legality (i.e. constitutionality) of partial birth abortion, mincing words about just how far outside the womb the baby must be in order to count as human. How barbaric and cold can someone be to take that position, and yet occupy a constitutional office with all its pomp and grandeur?

    And just yesterday, when the Congress tried to pass a law requiring abortionists to offer to administer pain killers to the fetus prior to aborting it, the legislation failed to pass (it failed to obtain the required a 2/3 majority under rules that would have prohibited amendments, although a simple majority was achieved). Although the typical suspects opposed the legislation promoting relief of fetal pain, an exception was the very pro-abortion NARAL, which took no position. Even without the browbeating of NARAL, pro-abortion members of Congress could not bring themselves to require abortionists to simply offer women the option of providing pain relief to their unborn babies. But psychologically, I suppose this is to be expected (especially of the mother, who must suspend or suppress all inner moral conflict in order to get through the procedure without changing her mind).

    Denise, you are right to point out the indefensibility of abortion in the later stages, and the moral quandary pro-abortion people face in such cases when they sweepingly oppose ANY regulation of abortion.

    One thing about your essay that got my attention was this: how can you believe that abortion is such an intense, wrenching personal decision if you don’t accept the notion that abortion causes emotional damage after the fact?

    John Dias

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

    A human being is not legally entitled to a kidney or bone marrow transplant from another person even if not getting such a donation means that the first person will die.

    Interesting that you say that. Whenever a fertilized egg is destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells for research, a human being has died. And yet this is legal, and even funded at the state level (as well as privately funded). No one has yet found a way to extract cells from a human being at the embryonic stage without killing the embryo.

    Pro-choicers frequently find themselves tied up in knots in seeking to deny the life and/or the humanity of the fetus right up to the end of the sixth month of pregnancy. This can lead us to trip ourselves up in absurd ways as when Sen. Barbara Mikulski seemed to say human life begins when “you take your baby home.”

    According to the companion case for Roe v. Wade, known as Doe v. Bolton, the health of the mother is defined broadly to include emotional health considerations. This means that even the last trimester of pregnancy is legally free ground to perform abortions, on the assumption that to deny a woman this choice would cause her emotional harm. The doctor (abortionist) makes this determination, so you can bet that when a woman wants an abortion, she can have it, all the way up to the moment before the baby exits the womb.

    The Supreme Court heard arguments only a few weeks ago in which they debated the constitutionality of laws that restrict abortions in which the baby is partially out of the womb. It’s not like football, where you can score by getting part of your body across the goal line. For a baby to have the legal right to live, it must be ALL the way out of the womb. I sat there listening to the pro-abortion Supreme Court members try to justify the legality (i.e. constitutionality) of partial birth abortion, mincing words about just how far outside the womb the baby must be in order to count as human. How barbaric and cold can someone be to take that position, and yet occupy a constitutional office with all its pomp and grandeur?

    And just yesterday, when the Congress tried to pass a law requiring abortionists to offer to administer pain killers to the fetus prior to aborting it, the legislation failed to pass (it failed to obtain the required a 2/3 majority under rules that would have prohibited amendments, although a simple majority was achieved). Although the typical suspects opposed the legislation promoting relief of fetal pain, an exception was the very pro-abortion NARAL, which took no position. Even without the browbeating of NARAL, pro-abortion members of Congress could not bring themselves to require abortionists to simply offer women the option of providing pain relief to their unborn babies. But psychologically, I suppose this is to be expected (especially of the mother, who must suspend or suppress all inner moral conflict in order to get through the procedure without changing her mind).

    Denise, you are right to point out the indefensibility of abortion in the later stages, and the moral quandary pro-abortion people face in such cases when they sweepingly oppose ANY regulation of abortion.

    One thing about your essay that got my attention was this: how can you believe that abortion is such an intense, wrenching personal decision if you don’t accept the notion that abortion causes emotional damage after the fact?

    John Dias






Search