Sunday, August 12, 2007

Shooting themselves in the foot?

Abortionists are lamenting that the recently-upheld ban on The Procedure Formerly Known As Prince is "forcing" them to execute the fetus via lethal injection before beginning abortions.

Some prolifers are all in a tizzy about this, as if it's a bad thing. But we knew up front that the PBA ban wouldn't directly prevent any abortions -- that the preventitive effect would be purely in terms of getting people talking more about exactly how abortions are performed and what they do to the fetus, thus increasing moral revulsion and leading people to reject abortions altogether. And here the abortionists are, whining to the MSM that they're being forced to kill fetuses in a manner that they find unacceptable.

Folks, they are publically admitting that they're killing a fetus. They're not hiding behind the "all we do is remove a blob of unwanted tissue" any more. This is progress. Look at this:

The banned method involves partially delivering a live fetus, then intentionally causing its death. Even before it was banned, the procedure was exceedingly rare, accounting for a fraction of 1 percent of all abortions.

Instead, doctors typically cause the fetus's death surgically while it is still inside the womb and then remove it.

This is in The Boston Globe, people, not National Right to Life News. Ordinary rank and file citizens are being presented with the fact that people who are supposed to be practicing medicine had been partially delivering live fetuses, then killing them during the delivery process. And that your typical abortion involves "caus[ing] the fetus's death surgically while it is still inside the womb".

People who get their panties in a twist about how cruel it is to use lethal injection on a serial killer are now being put in the position of having to assess if it's cruel to do it to an unborn baby. Look at this from the article: "Medical staff inject either the heart drug digoxin or potassium chloride, a potentially poisonous salt also used in state executions." The Boston Globe, people, drawing a parallel all on their own about what is being done to fetuses during abortions and what is done to convicts during executions. And the death penalty foes who support abortion will also be forced to think about whether "caus[ing] the fetus's death surgically" is such a merciful thing. They're going to have to reassess how they think about abortion.

Not to mention that the fetus will now get the same kind of execution as a convicted mass murderer, which is an improvement over the old days when they were being dismembered alive.

We now also have abortion practitioners admitting pretty openly to abortions at 18, 20 weeks and beyond -- something they tried to sweep under the rug before. And they've tried to act as if these abortions were exceedingly rare. But if they're having to change a routine to do them differently, they're admitting that such abortions, far from being rare, are routine.

They're also admitting that lethal injection in abortion is not new: "San Francisco's Darney and colleagues have studied both chemicals, long used in late-term abortions that involve simply inducing labor." Tiller and Pendergraft, among others, have been doing it for about a decade now. And only now is the National Abortion Federation that they belong to training abortionists in how to do this procedure!

And here's an interesting little tidbit:

Medical students and nursing students are no longer invited to watch later-term abortions, for fear one might misinterpret the procedure and lodge a criminal complaint.

Does that strike anybody else as fishy?

And let's consider this:

[I[n another common response to the ban, the clinic has changed its counseling and informed consent procedure for later abortions, to spell out more clearly to patients that the fetus is dead before it is removed from the uterus.

They're now actually discussing with the mother the fact that this abortion does not just end her pregnany. It will kill her fetus. She's going to be presented up-front, when she still can back out, with the thought of how and when the fetus in question will die. How many women, presented with this reality, will break out of their denial and opt out of the abortion altogether? (Yes, I know that quite a few of them are going into it with a prenatal diagnosis that they don't want to deal with, and these women do know that the abortion is all about killing the fetus in question, but even late in the pregnancy these women are still the minority.)

Bringing what had been done into the dark into the light is a good thing. The reaction of the abortion lobby and the abortion business to the PBA ban can well have the effect on the general public that the Fugitive Slave Act did: it can force them to confront an ugly reality that they'd previously been able to ignore.

If people have consciences, this can only be a good thing.

No comments: