In the Case of the Mother's Life

Posted by canterdv

Posted: November 11, 2008 - 11:02 am

Only in the case of the mother’s life

As contrarily argued in abortion advocacy, the life of the mother is never at question in the process of Partial Birth Abortion; or Post Partum Abortion as it could aptly be called. There is an argument out there that seems to anchor the abortion industry in its place. That argument is: that in cases where the mother’s life is jeopardized if she delivers the child through the birth canal, she should “abort” the pregnancy for her safety. One of the flaws with this argument is that the child in the womb can be removed by cesarean section as a premature child and given intensive care to gain strength. This solves that problem. It would be safer for the mother, and definitely safer for the child.
But to move on to post partum abortion, known as partial birth abortion, this method is simply recognized as the safest way for a mother to have an abortion. Post partum abortion is much safer on the mother than killing the child within the womb. In the partial birth abortion process, the mother passes the child through the birth canal, and then the abortion technician kills the child as it is birthed into this world. If the normal birthing process is deemed dangerous to the mother’s life, then killing this child as it births into this world is completely unnecessary. If this argument is want to be used, then, it must be qualified by the explanation of how the post partum/partial birth abortion process preserves the mother’s life by killing the child as it exits the womb into the hands of the awaiting abortion technician.
I realize that this whole partial birth/post partum abortion argument of safety for the mother may be a ruse for the abortion industry to keep its wheels turning. It is, no doubt, safer for the mother to commit an abortion of the child she carries using the post partum/partial birth method than any in-the-womb destruction of the child process. But are we justifying the method of abortion, or are we justifying the practice of abortion? Since partial birth abortion actually requires the woman to give birth to the child in order for the technician to kill it, it is no safer for the woman to have the child killed as it exits the womb than to not have it killed at all. So, it appears the argument for post partum/partial birth abortion rests solely on the successful destruction of the child, while not harming the mother; instead of the safety of the mother who is trying to birth her child safely. This is only an important clarification of the argument if the pondering mother is under the impression that killing her child upon birth will somehow save her (the post partum mother’s) life. It will not, and this should be extremely obvious. But, if the goal is simply to kill the child, then post partum abortion is the medically safest way for the mother to end the child’s life. The intellectual repose afforded by post partum abortion is that it gives the mother a chance to see and hold her mostly intact, dead child, while reflecting on the meaning of life.

In the Case of the Mother's Life

Comments