To provide a little "rubber meets the road" context regarding today's Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion, this editorial from National Review Online does nicely:
The liberal dissenters have not merely made a minor logical error here. Take their argument seriously for a moment. They claim that it is conceivable that in some cases, partial-birth abortion is the safest method of abortion, and therefore it has to be allowed. (And it has to be allowed whether or not the pregnancy itself threatens the mother’s health.) They further claim that it should make no difference to anyone where the child’s feet are positioned when he is aborted.
Let’s apply this argument to infanticide. It is conceivable that in some cases removing the child from the womb completely before killing it is the safest option. And surely it should make no difference to any rational person whether the infant was fully within the womb, partly inside it, or all the way out when his skull is crushed? Four justices on the Supreme Court have accepted all the premises for a constitutional right to infanticide. They lack only the nerve to take their reasoning to its logical conclusion.
In case you aren't aware of just what a partial birth abortion is, go here or here.
Normally, a breech birth (where the feet come out before the head) is the LAST thing you want, because it's very dangerous. Yet in partial birth abortion, they FORCE the baby to come out this way. So how can this extra-dangerous method possibly be necessary to save the life of the mother?
0 comments:
Post a Comment