Misleading and Wrong
This piece, in today's LA Times op/ed section, may be heartfelt, but at base, it's misleading and wrong.
It details the author's experience with abortion -- known, in his circumstance, as "selective reduction." It occurs when, either naturally or as a result of assisted reproduction, a woman is carrying "too many" babies. The agonizing part of the decision comes from the fact that attempting to carry all of the babies to term might well result in the deaths of all of them.
We have friends who have confronted "choices" like this -- and contrary to what the author implies -- these are hardly the kind of circumstances that pro-lifers would equate with what the author terms "recreational abortion." Perhaps that moniker is best reserved for those who have multiple abortions as a result of a failure to use birth control -- and yes, that circumstance does occur (any honest OB/GYN will concede as much).
But such a terrible circumstance likewise fails to justify partial birth abortion -- the prohibition of which does nothing to stop selective reductions; rather, it simply forbids a certain method of performing them. Note that the author's wife didn't require a partial birth abortion; their doctor used the more usual potassium chloride technique. Even so, he argues that the Court is trying to limit mid-term abortions generally. Perhaps his passion would be better directed at ensuring there are exceptions for circumstances where a woman's life -- or that of all the other babies -- is in danger.
If anything, one would expect that the author's experience with fatherhood would heighten his opposition to a barbaric procedure of "terminating a pregnancy" -- after all, if -- God absolutely forbid -- one decided there was no choice but selective reduction, wouldn't a parent want that terrible procedure performed in the way least likely to cause his/her never-to-be-born child the least agony?
Finally, it's worth pointing out that, like so many abortion defenders, this author seems to go over the top. "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed," he proclaims. Nor should he -- he and his wife did the best they could to play the awful hand they were dealt. But doesn't he even feel a little bit sad? How could one not experience some sense of loss, knowing that they chose which of their children would live, and which would die?
Such articles -- even ones as misleading and over-the-top as this one -- elicit first and foremost a deep sense of sympathy. May God grant the rest of us the blessing of never having to confront such decisions.
It details the author's experience with abortion -- known, in his circumstance, as "selective reduction." It occurs when, either naturally or as a result of assisted reproduction, a woman is carrying "too many" babies. The agonizing part of the decision comes from the fact that attempting to carry all of the babies to term might well result in the deaths of all of them.
We have friends who have confronted "choices" like this -- and contrary to what the author implies -- these are hardly the kind of circumstances that pro-lifers would equate with what the author terms "recreational abortion." Perhaps that moniker is best reserved for those who have multiple abortions as a result of a failure to use birth control -- and yes, that circumstance does occur (any honest OB/GYN will concede as much).
But such a terrible circumstance likewise fails to justify partial birth abortion -- the prohibition of which does nothing to stop selective reductions; rather, it simply forbids a certain method of performing them. Note that the author's wife didn't require a partial birth abortion; their doctor used the more usual potassium chloride technique. Even so, he argues that the Court is trying to limit mid-term abortions generally. Perhaps his passion would be better directed at ensuring there are exceptions for circumstances where a woman's life -- or that of all the other babies -- is in danger.
If anything, one would expect that the author's experience with fatherhood would heighten his opposition to a barbaric procedure of "terminating a pregnancy" -- after all, if -- God absolutely forbid -- one decided there was no choice but selective reduction, wouldn't a parent want that terrible procedure performed in the way least likely to cause his/her never-to-be-born child the least agony?
Finally, it's worth pointing out that, like so many abortion defenders, this author seems to go over the top. "We don't feel guilty. We don't feel ashamed," he proclaims. Nor should he -- he and his wife did the best they could to play the awful hand they were dealt. But doesn't he even feel a little bit sad? How could one not experience some sense of loss, knowing that they chose which of their children would live, and which would die?
Such articles -- even ones as misleading and over-the-top as this one -- elicit first and foremost a deep sense of sympathy. May God grant the rest of us the blessing of never having to confront such decisions.
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:09 AM
1 Comments:
Does this condition even occur naturally? It is just one more reason that I reject artificial forms such as in-vitro. Their own pride, arrogance and selfishness is what lead to their predicament. They obviously were aware of the possibility of such a situation and went ahead anyway, most likely confident the odds were with them, and likely unperturbed about the choice they might have to make. Thus, they were as wrong as the other 99% of those who've had abortions. Shame on them for their cavalier attitude regarding their circumstance.
Post a Comment
<< Home