 |
| Unborn Baby At 19 Weeks |
"This is a historic and celebratory moment for those who work to protect mothers and unborn children. This is the first time in history that a law recognizing fetal pain has been enacted. This new law represents the next wave of momentum for the pro-life movement and is a major step toward a post-Roe future."
There are two basic arguments I have against the fetal pain bills. First, according to statistics only two to eight percent of all abortions occur after 20 weeks. On the face of it, thousands of lives will still be saved with the new bills even though over 90% of all abortions occur before the unborn can feel pain. But in reality, I believe that women usually do not just, out of the blue, decide to have an abortion after being pregnant for five months. I assume that if one is going to have an abortion after the 20-week time frame then they have thought about it earlier in their pregnancy. If they know that there is a 20-week cutoff for abortions, doesn't logic state that they will just have the abortion earlier when it's legal. The amount of babies saved will probably be minuscule compared to the amount that are aborted before 20 weeks. Don't get me wrong - I believe one baby saved is awesome, but we shouldn't think that it's the next step to overturning Roe v. Wade.
This leads to my main objection. By inference, supporters of these bills are claiming that the unborn that are less than 20-weeks old are of less value than those that are older. I can't see any way that an argument can be made by proponents of the bills that would state otherwise. They are basically saying that we found a way to save the post 20-week old babies but you guys that are younger than that, well, tough luck. It also is evidence for the whole world to see that backers of these laws aren't truly pro-life for every unborn but just for some.
The fetal pain argument is similar to the one that many "pro-choicers" make when justifying abortion. They will often claim that the unborn child is just so undeveloped, appearing as a clump of cells, or it just isn't developed enough to live outside the womb. The fetal pain bills say that those less than 20 weeks of age are not developed enough to deserve protection. Even though their human nature is the same as it was at conception and are otherwise developing usually as they should, well, by golly, they just can't feel pain so let the abortionist have at it.
Supporters of the fetal pain bills and other pieces of pro-life legislation often state that incrementalism is the most appropriate method to get anything passed. This is almost always true because most legislation in any area is a product of compromise with neither side getting everything they want. The idea is that the incrementalism approach will be applied later to the same law, and the second time around the legislation will be even more effective in the goal of reducing abortions. I don't see it, unless all of sudden there's a groundswell of support for proclaiming that fetal pain begins at 15 or whatever weeks. Even if we use the incrementalism approach and attempt to pass laws in other areas of the abortion issue, the fetal pain law would still be discriminatory. The fact remains that even if we had a national fetal pain law close to a million unborn babies will be killed every year because this law does not apply to them.
6 comments:
I just don't think you're thinking clearly. For us to protect those unborn children we can is clearly not to sanction the killing of those we cannot, as you suggest. It is wisdom and prudence to utilize the public's empathy toward those in pain to save some, rather than to not utilize those feelings and save none. "All or something" is a better strategy than "all or nothing."
The fetal pain laws are valuable educationally, as they focus attention on the humanity of the unborn and what abortion does to her, and also valuable because some lives can be saved by the laws themselves. Legally and politically, they are a very significant step in the right direction.
Thanks PS. Incrementalism has been a big debate topic lately concerning pro-life legislation in Texas and pro-life bills in general. I actually supported your view for a long time, but I changed my mind when I felt it was conflicting to support a bill for only certain unborn babies. Also, pro-life laws are wrong if they have exceptions for rape or incest for the same reason - you're excluding certain unborn from the law. We're just looking at this issue from two opposing perspectives. Thanks for your viewpoint.
If all unborn children could be protected right now, it would be wrong for us to try to enact a discriminatory law that only protects some. But the political reality is that only some can be protected now, and it seems wrong for us to not at least try to protect those we can. The intentions of those advocating the laws are not discriminatory – rather, we are committed to human equality, and it is because of that commitment that we want to save everyone we can from unjust killing, rather than to let some die simply because we cannot save all.
A legal regime that permits killing some unborn children is indeed unjust, but it is less unjust than a legal regime that permits killing all unborn children. Right now we have a choice between those two options. The right choice seems obvious to me.
If I was president in 1858, and Congress passed a bill to free the slaves of three different states, I would sign that bill into law even though slavery would still exist in other states. It seems irresponsible to let slavery continue in those three states when we are able to abolish it.
Bless you, Monte, for your stand, and for trying to educate other pro-lifers on this important point!
Here was my take on WorldNetDaily in 2006, similar to what you've also discovered: http://bit.ly/loJBdd
@PS fetal pain laws don't educate about the Right to Life -- they do just the opposite -- they teach there is a limited "right to choose" and that within those limits (which may protect babies who can feel pain, or have a heartbeat, etc.) these laws teach the public that the remaining abortions are more humane and therefore acceptable.
Regulations such as these are "gaming for stalemate" not "gaming for checkmate" -- regulations undermine the concept of an inviolable Right to Life.
Your assumption that women who have later abortions have been thinking about it longer is mistaken. The Alan Guttmacher Institute's research has found that for the most part, later abortions are done for pretty much the same reasons as earlier abortions, but done LATE for the following reasons:
1. She didn't realize she was pregnant.
2. She just ignored the pregnancy, magically hoping the whole situation would go away somehow.
3. She was hiding the pregnancy, until somebody who wanted her to abort found out about it and turned up the heat.
4. She was so ambivalent about the situation that it took her forever to make up her mind.
NONE of these situations involves the woman/young girl being hell bent on abortion and unlikely to be swayed by the fact that her baby could feel pain.
Thanks Christina. Good points. I believe she would have the abortion earlier not because the baby could feel pain, but the fact that there was a law in place that said she couldn't have an abortion after 20 weeks.
Post a Comment