Abortion
Monday, September 8, 2008
by Bobby Grow
Gross Immorality: Christians, Candidates, and Abortion
We are back in the political season once again, and of course we are faced with a set of questions relative to the presidential candidate that we think should govern our country for the next four years. I think one of the deciding questions that one must have answered about the candidate is how he or she views the issue of abortion. For the Christian abortion does not just represent one among many questions that need to be answered, rather given the Christian tradition on the sanctity of life, how a particular candidate stands on this issue must be determinative of how the Christian will vote for a particular candidate.
I digress, what I really want to do in this post is simply describe a few of the methods used to abort babies. I think people in general, and Christian people in particular have become desensitized to the horrors represented by the methodology of abortion. I will let the Fienberg brothers describe a few methods of abortion, and maybe at a later date have them describe a few more for us.
Here we go:
Several different methods are used in performing abortions. One is dilation and curettage (D. & C.). This is one of the two preferred methods for aborting a fetus during the first trimester of pregnancy. The mother's cervix is dilated, and the surgeon inserts an instrument to scrape the wall of the uterus, cutting the baby's body to pieces and removing the placenta from its place in the uterine wall.
Suction is the other preferred method of abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. According to some estimates, it is used in 80% of these abortions. It is often used in conjunction with D. & C. The cervix is dilated, and a suction tube is inserted into the womb. The suction tears both the baby and his or her placenta from the uterus, sucking them into a jar. The force of the suction is 28 times stronger than a normal vacuum cleaner. With both methods mentioned so far, it is possible to identify human arms, hands and legs.
Saline injection is the most commonly practiced method of abortion during the second trimester. Neither D. & C. nor suction can be practiced during the second trimester because of the danger of hemorrhaging. By the fourth month of pregnancy the water bag or placenta has developed. A long needle is inserted through the mother's abdomen into this sac surrounding the baby, and some of the fluid is removed and replaced with a solution of concentrated salt. The baby breathes in and swallows the salt, and is poisoned by it. Often the outer layer of skin is burned off. With saline injection there are osmotic pressure changes in the fetus, causing brain hemorrhages. It takes about an hour for the solution to slowly kill the baby. About a day later the mother goes into labor and delivers a dead, shriveled baby. (John S. Fienberg and Paul D. Fienberg, "Ethics for a Brave New World," 51- 2)
By describing a few methods of abortion I am hoping to rattle some of those Christians out there who seem to think that this issue, or at least to focus on this issue alone as determinative for choosing a presidential candidate, is too narrow minded; should think again.If there was a presidential candidate who supported the killing, in the manners described above, of infants and babes outside of the womb; it would be a no-brainer, no one in their right mind would support such a candidate. It is incumbent upon any Christian who believes that voting for a pro-abortion presidential candidate is a viable option, to demonstrate that there is any moral difference between infanticide and abortion.
Posted by Bobby Grow at 2:21 AM
posted by mark pierson at 8:35 AM
8 Comments:
I think it is incumbant upon any HUMAN BEING to consider that brutal killing of such a small member of the HUMAN community is utterly barbaric. It doesn't make sense that we allow this.
"I trust women to -make these decisions" is what Barak Obama says. He "trusts women" to let doctors kill the smallest of us. And he wants to be the leader of the rest of us.
Something is wrong with that picture.
September 18, 2008 8:47 AM
Rose,
Wayne and I need your fire over here during these next few weeks before the election. Please consider posting here on these type of issues.
Mark
September 18, 2008 8:52 AM
Mark,
I agree. I even heard where McCain is not too far behind in N.Y.
Unbelievably I heard some pro-abortion woman criticizing Palin because she hunted and killed animals. The secular humanists have no foundation or moral compass to guide them. Hunting animals - bad. Killing babies - O.K.
September 18, 2008 8:37 PM
Well put Jazzycat. Save the Whales.
September 19, 2008 9:15 AM
Mark,
I'm with you on this one.
Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight."
In Christ,
Ten Cent
September 19, 2008 1:38 PM
I agree that abortion is a dreadful thing that ought to be avoided at all costs (for example by proper family planning).
However, I do consider that there are some circumstances, for example the obvious examples of rape, incest, abuse etc., where the mother should have the freedom to choose.
It can be a very emotive subject, obviously. I notice that the poster here uses the term "foetus" in one line and "baby" in another.
You cannot describe an aggregation of a few cells as a "baby" without sounding emotive (as in "the baby cut to pieces"). Where the boundary between the "foetus" and "baby" lies I am not certain, I would trust the gynaecologists on this. However if the foetus is not capable of sustained independent life outside the womb, then it can scarcely be truly a "baby".
However, I am generally in cautious agreement with you.
Of course one of Bush's biggest gaffs was to confuse "foetus" and "faeces" in a public speech.
September 20, 2008 8:07 AM
Rose, thank you. I don't think I would go so far as to say abortion should never be allowed. It is often hard to predict what circumstances may arise that we haven't thought about. I am a firm believer in attempting to avoid circumstances in which it might ever be contemplated.
> They are human. If not, what are they?
A question for the philosophers. I would proffer "potentially human".
> Left alone, they *will* grow into birth-able babies
I agree. However until such time as they are "birthable" (i.e. capable of independent life outside the uterus)they are not babies and I would advocate avoiding the use of emotive and sentimental (even manipulate) language.
We are not poles apart on this.
September 20, 2008 11:51 AM
You're welcome, Maalie.
I have some further thoughts on your comments regarding fetuses.
I asked:
They are human. If not, what are they?
You answered:
A question for the philosophers. I would proffer "potentially human".
I hope you don't mind if I comment on your answer.
Firstly, I don't think it is a philosophical question at all. I think it has a basic, scientific answer. Let's think about this together.
1. Is the fetus human?
2. Is the fetus alive?
1. I don't think I have ever heard the abortion advocates use the phrase "potentially human" - they say it is a "potential life." It can't be argued that a fetus is not human any more that arguing that your index finger is not human... or that a piece of your brain is not human. Fetuses are human.
2. Fetuses are alive. They kick, they grasp, they grow. But then one might argue that sperm are human... and they are alive... they "swim" for pity's sake. However, sperm are not alive in the same sense as a fetus because sperm do not grow and they do not have the correct number of chromosones to be called a person. Without changing form completely by joining with an egg, they cannot ever be a human being, they are not complete - they are properly called "cells" of the father - just as an egg is "cells" of the mother. (I would say they both have a lot of potential, though!)
Back to fetuses: they don't breathe. Which brings me to consider your next comment:
However until such time as they are "birthable" (i.e. capable of independent life outside the uterus) they are not babies
I note that you use the word "independant life" - does this include independence from breathing apparatuses? (sp)
I have a real problem with your "independant life" stipulation to consider them babies. What of all the people who are dependant on medical measures to live - they are not capable of "independent life" either.
Try a thought experiment: Think of a mother on the birthing table at full term, normal pregnancy. Is that a baby in the birth canal? You know it is. Now go back a week. Is it still a baby? Carry this on for a while. Where does it become not a baby? How far back in the development of the nine months do we go to declare it is not a baby? I have heard doctors of OB/Gyn who have become anti-abortion, changing their mind from pro-abortion, and they say that this thought experiment is what brought them to be against abortion. They know that development of the human fetus is a smooth continuum. There isn't a "bar mitzvah" in the womb - no great change from one thing to another - it is all very gradual - and so impossible to pinpoint a day, or week, that the fetus changes into a human being, into that baby in the birth canal and the day and week before birth etc.... The "big bang" days are conception and birth.
We have to pick one of those:
1. conception or
2. birth
to answer the question of 'when life begins' if we want to be reasonably logical.
If we say that 2. birth is when this thing becomes a person, then it is totally logical that abortion should be allowed during all nine months of pregnancy and it should be without moral trepidation. The people that advocate that partial-birth abortion is OK are actually being consistent with their belief that BIRTH makes someone a person.
On the other hand, if we say that 1. conception is when life begins, then that brings obvious implications with it and a drain on the idea that abortion is OK and without moral consequence.
Now, if you hold that birth is when the fetus becomes human or a person, why do you say that abortion is thing that ought to be avoided at all costs? You are not being consistent, Maalie. :~)
I am not trying to pick a bone with you, just trying to think it through with you.
One more thing: You said calling this a baby is: emotive and sentimental (even manipulate) language.
When I was pregnant with our fourth child a couple of years ago and my other kids were 6, 8 and 10, they looked at the 20 week ultrasound and they said it was a "baby." It is common to call what comes out of the womb a "baby". I don't think this is emotive language. It is consistent with the view that life begins sometime before birth.
I think calling using the word "fetus" in lay discussions evolved in these last decades to avoid guilt over the fact that people knew that the mother on the delivery table (in my thought experiment) is delivering a "baby." My opinion.
Nice talking to you. :~)
September 21, 2008 2:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home