Hillary is abortion’s biggest cheerleader. She’ll brag about that fact.
She did what even most Liberals will shy from doing. She launched into full-throated defence of what we often call ‘partial birth abortion’.
As Christy Lee Parker of Mad World News points out: The logic in the ‘case’ she presented has some … flaws. (Following block quotes are from that original piece.)
“The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have, toward the end of their pregnancy, get the worst news one could get that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term …”
First, late-term abortions are sometimes referred to as post-viability abortions. That’s important because viability means the fetus is able to live outside the womb. So, at any time after 24 weeks gestation, which is considered the “point of viability,” a baby can be delivered to save the mother while also allowing the child a chance to live. During a late-term abortion, the child is still delivered, only it’s delivered dead rather than alive after the infant has been killed.
As a nurse, I want to be absolutely clear: If a mother’s life is in danger at any time after 24 weeks, let alone in the 9th month, the infant can be delivered via c-section to save the mother. The infant is given a chance at life. It does not need to be killed to save the mother. Never in the 9th month would that ever be a thought for most healthcare professionals. That’s not healthcare. That’s murder. But, there’s more.
As though that wouldn’t be enough to discount her argument for partial-birth abortion by itself.
In fact, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is delivered breech, which is difficult, painful, and puts the mother’s life at risk. So, when you hear that liberal talking point, where they like to ask, “What if the mother finds out that she could die during childbirth?” it’s important to know that a post-viability abortion isn’t going to prevent birth. In fact, birth is in the name — partial birth abortion. Only a c-section would prevent a vaginal birth, and the child doesn’t have to die for that. The child doesn’t have to die at all, and one look at the steps involved in the late-term abortion procedure clearly indicates this.
Did you catch that? Partial birth abortions are RISKIER than c-sections.
Why would anyone choose a riskier procedure that results in a dead fetus rather than a safer one that preserves the lives of both?
Isn’t it obvious? The GOAL is not the safety or health of the mother. It’s the ending of a life.
Besides any of these things, there’s the obvious corollary: You really don’t need special laws allowing abortion if your ‘real’ goal is the SAVING of lives.
Do you need special laws governing conjoined twins? If the medical team can save both, they will. If only one life can be preserved, they don’t call it euthanasia, even if one life is forfeit. Becuase the real goal is MAXIMIZING the number of lives saved. There are no laws preventing the saving of maximum numbers of lives. Nor should there be.
Likewise with abortion. If the real goal is to save the MOST lives possible, you never need a law to protect you. If only one life (the child or the mother) can be saved, you still operate under the priniciple of doing the Maximum Good. Saving the MOST lives possible. This does not fall under same moral categories as a voluntariy cessation of life.
If you are voluntarily ending a life (as with partial birth abortion) you are NOT saving the most lives possible. It is, in the truest and darkest sense, executing a choice.
Both choice, and executing are intentionally chosen. They are both present.
If the goal were anything short of deliberate ending of human life, C-section would be the obvious default. But “life” is NOT the goal in view here.
So you can stop dressing partial birth abortion up as either ‘hard’ or ‘virtuous’. We see it for what it really is: the deliberate choice of someone’s death.