America, We Need To Talk

"Mr. Vice-President, Do you favor passage of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, or do you believe, as your supporters at the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) do that a woman who seeks an abortion has an indefeasible right to a dead baby, no matter what?"
George Will question posed to then VP Al Gore

The abortion issue has progressed beyond the slippery slope in just the 3 short years since that question was asked of Al Gore. Those who can justify the abortion of a child just seconds prior to its birth, have no problem in supporting the abortion of a child after its birth. This is evidenced by the growing number of young teens who deliver a viable baby at home and shove it inside a plastic garbage bag or wrap it in a towel and toss it under the bed to die. Why stop there? There are already murmurings in certain European countries that would allow a mother to destroy her child up to 3 months after birth.

If society deems it okay to terminate the life of its most defenseless babies, then surely it is okay to extinguish the life of the elderly or the incapacitated or the handicapped. This is like a snowball rolling down a mountain.

In the year 2000, Jill Stanek, a nurse who practiced at Chicago's Oak Lawn Hospital, appeared on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor last Friday and described the practice.

"Many times an infant enters the world alive, only to be left to die--without any medical assistance or intervention in this abortion procedure."

The measure passed in the midst of this election year 380-15. The fifteen who voted against recognizing infants who are born alive during abortion procedures included 13 Democrats, (Representatives Julia [IN] Carson, John Dingell [MI] Chaka Fattah, [PA], Charles Gonzalez [TX], Alcee Hastings [Fl], Jesse L. Jackson [IL], Sheila Jackson-Lee [TX], Nita Lowey [NY], Carolyn Maloney [NY], Cynthia McKinney [GA], Nydia Valazquez [NY], Maxine Waters [CA], and Melvin Watt, [NC]) and two Republicans, Nancy Johnson [CT] and Benjamin Gilman [NY]. However, that vote apparently does not reflect the real strength of the vote of those who believe babies inadvertently born alive during an abortion procedure. New York's Jerry Nadler said during the debate on the bill:

"Speaker, I believe the only real purpose of this bill is to trap the pro-choice Members into voting against it so that they can slander us and slander the pro-choice movement as being in favor of infanticide. That is why I voted for the bill in the committee. Mr. Speaker, that is why I voted in the committee in favor of the bill. That is why I will vote again and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill so we do not step into this trap."

In effect Roe v Wade made unborn babies the property of their mothers. Whether or not the mother disposed of the unborn child was totally up to her discretion. When the partial-birth abortion procedure was made known five years ago, there was an obvious reason why it developed in America and NOWHERE else. It was devised not as a medical procedure, but as a political procedure to get around Roe v Wade. The original Roe v Wade decision in 1973, using pages of discussion on the issue of when life begins, and the point in pregnancy when the unborn is "viable" created three "classes" of unborn:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

"During the Oct. 20, 1999, debate Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, joined the caucus:

"Santorum: 'You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?'

"Boxer: 'I think when you bring your baby home...'

"She said more. What she would not say was 'yes.'"

We have now reached a point in our culture where one can be arrested for plowing up an endangered species - a wild morning glory or a kangaroo rat, but can be applauded for one's wisdom in killing one's own unborn child, and even one's newborn - especially if that child is designated as "handicapped" and a possible burden.

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.