•10:07 PM
I read a great article by Dennis Byrne tonight on abortion. This article is not politically charged - just informative about current debate on the issue. It's full text can be found here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0826byrneaug26,0,4780984.story
I quote from that article:
"Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.
"How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted."
"But an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.
"Jill Stanek, a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, described in 2001 during congressional testimony how it happens: In a "live-birth abortion," doctors "do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward." Medication stimulates the cervix to open, allowing the baby to emerge, sometimes alive. "It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one . . . lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." Some actually are born healthy because they are aborted to preserve the "health" of the mother, or because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. At best, they are left in a "comfort room," complete with a camera (for pictures of the aborted baby) "baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, footprinting equipment and baby bracelets for mementos and a rocking chair," where they are rocked to death. "Before the comfort room was established," Stanek said, "babies were taken to the soiled utility room to die."
"Yes, there ought to be a law against this, and Congress passed one unanimously. It declares that a person is defined as "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Born alive means any human being that after "expulsion or extraction" from the mother "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Caesarean section, or induced abortion.
"Pretty simple, right?
"Well, not really. Some people fear that this fundamental protection, ensuring to all the first of the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," is in reality a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. To prevent this "Trojan horse," they insisted, and got, in the federal law a guarantee against construing the law to "affirm, deny or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'. . ." This mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean that abortions can't be restricted...
"Such logic is breathtaking. It says that even after birth, a mother's right to rid herself of the baby supersedes any right that a child, now independent of the mother's body and domain, has a right to live. Where America stands on this issue truly is a measure of its sense of justice and compassion..."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-oped0826byrneaug26,0,4780984.story
I quote from that article:
"Can we just listen to ourselves? We're debating whether some babies born alive have a right to medical attention.
"How have we come to this? Can't we all agree that everyone whose heart beats, brain functions and lungs respire at birth should have a chance to live? If we're a compassionate, rational and just society, we would say, "Of course, every infant has a right to lifesaving medical attention. Even if it's not wanted."
"But an unthinkable debate is raging as a part of the presidential campaign, centering on how Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted while he was an Illinois state senator on legislation designed to protect the lives and health of all newborns. The debate over Obama's voting record has grown so arcane that we've lost sight of why this question ever came up: Some infants that survive abortion are denied medical assistance. They are left to die.
"Jill Stanek, a former nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, described in 2001 during congressional testimony how it happens: In a "live-birth abortion," doctors "do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward." Medication stimulates the cervix to open, allowing the baby to emerge, sometimes alive. "It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one . . . lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift." Some actually are born healthy because they are aborted to preserve the "health" of the mother, or because the pregnancy was due to rape or incest. At best, they are left in a "comfort room," complete with a camera (for pictures of the aborted baby) "baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, footprinting equipment and baby bracelets for mementos and a rocking chair," where they are rocked to death. "Before the comfort room was established," Stanek said, "babies were taken to the soiled utility room to die."
"Yes, there ought to be a law against this, and Congress passed one unanimously. It declares that a person is defined as "every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development." Born alive means any human being that after "expulsion or extraction" from the mother "breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, Caesarean section, or induced abortion.
"Pretty simple, right?
"Well, not really. Some people fear that this fundamental protection, ensuring to all the first of the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," is in reality a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose an abortion. To prevent this "Trojan horse," they insisted, and got, in the federal law a guarantee against construing the law to "affirm, deny or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive'. . ." This mumbo jumbo is supposed to mean that abortions can't be restricted...
"Such logic is breathtaking. It says that even after birth, a mother's right to rid herself of the baby supersedes any right that a child, now independent of the mother's body and domain, has a right to live. Where America stands on this issue truly is a measure of its sense of justice and compassion..."
2 comments:
It is astounding to me that some people can treat life so casually. Is this really where we're headed with abortion and "a woman's right to choose"? It makes me sick. I know the battle against needless abortion still needs to be fought politically and judicially. I still maintain, however, that most of the gains, if any, won't be won there. They will only be won by individuals influencing individuals to act so abortion is never needed or to seek alternatives if there is a pregnancy.
(See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20060827/ai_n16696990)
This may seem obvious. If so, it begs the question why so many conservatives are bound and determined to militantly focus only on reversing Roe v. Wade.
Ethan,
Great comments and great article. I think one of the fundamental issues with Roe v Wade is that it created into the consitution a right that it doesn't contain. It makes constitutional something that should not be - unless we the people determine it should be a part of the constitution.
I, like you, believe that the best solution for this, as well as all of societies other problems, remains love. The Master said that the two greatest commandments were to love God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourselves. This kind of love will guide people in their actions more than law and constitutional ammendments.
The fundamental problem with abortion is that the love of man has waxed cold. I can understand the need for abortions in cases of rape, incest or true danger to the life of the mother, but I cannot accept abortion as the proper choice when a mother doesn't want to carry a child because they don't want it - even when they don't want it for very legitimate reasons which I can understand and empathize with. However, the child should not be killed for that reason. The child should be allowed to be born and to be adopted or raised by the family and given the same opportunities as you and I. The rights of liberty and property mean absolutely nothing without the right to life and life means nothing without love. We have sacrified both love and life for liberty. I don't believe it was worth the cost. There are 800,000 unborn americans annually who, if allowed to express their opinions, would perhaps agree with me.
Thank you for commenting Ethan. I always enjoy your posts.