Monday, January 21, 2008

Legalized abortion continued

First, I apologize for not posting the very next day as promised, but the tasks and errands that I had planned ended up taking more of my time than I expected, and I didn't just want to post in haste. And now, onwards.


Last time I had attempted to define when the unborn becomes human to the extent that it is considered murder to end its existence. So far I think that most of us would say that this point is birth. Once a baby is born, then it's human. However, I also pointed out complications to this definition. I refer you to the previous blog entry for that discussion. Now, however, I wish to add a further complication to this definition.

There have been cases in which, during an abortion, a child somehow emerges out of the womb before the abortionist has a chance to - ahem - "terminate the pregnancy". That means that the now-born child is still alive, despite the abortionist's attempt to prevent this very occurance. What we have, then, is the technical definition of a birth - a child that has emerged from the womb alive. Under the "human at birth" definition, this child is now human. So now what? Some abortionists have reasoned that, since this child was an intended abortion, they'll proceed to kill it anyway.

No doubt some of you have heard the term "partial-birth abortion". I'm about to describe this procedure in some graphic language, so be warned. A partial-birth abortion is what happens when an abortionist partially removes the unborn from the mother's body until just the head remains in her womb. At this point, the abortionist inserts a tube into the base of the unborn's skull to suction out its brains so that the head will collapse, at which point the abortionist removes the unborn from the mother's body to complete the abortion procedure.

A partial-birth abortion takes full advantage of the fact that the unborn is not "fully born". This means that he (or she, as there are female abortionists) abides by the "human at birth" definition right up to the very last moment before the unborn emerges fully from the mother's body. So how does this work into "terminating a pregnancy" after a child manages to emerge alive anyway? Apparently, there's a variation of the "five second rule" involved here. And truly, for an abortionist, there is very little difference between "terminating a pregnancy" with just the head of the unborn still in the mother's body, and ending the life of the now-born in the few seconds after it accidently emerges before he or she can complete the "termination".

In 2002, a bill titled "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" was passed to protect children that were accidently born during an abortion. One current candidate for president had opposed it in his home state, and he opposed it at other times as well. His name is Barack Obama.

As Americans, we have a tradition for fairness and equal protection under the law. And yet, no other group of Americans have their humanity so arbitrarily defined as the unborn. Imagine the humanity of any other people having their humanity so arbitrarily defined, and see the outrage that would emerge.

Coming up later this week, I will conclude this discussion.

No comments: