The partial-birth abortion debate was the major issue that made me pro-life. It was startling to realize that a woman could have an abortion at the same age that my son was born (38 weeks). The L.A. Times actually had an honest assessment of the impact of the law and how many abortions are done after 20 weeks:
Only 1% to 2% of abortions take place after the 20th week of pregnancy.
Of these, about 3,000 to 5,000 per year are done with D&X. Doctors say only a small percentage of those are done because of medical complications or fetal deformity.
That means that most are done for reasons that most people would probably find objectionable (such as sex selection).
I think for most pro-choicers, the question is not about the baby but about the woman. Why should anyone be able to tell a woman she must have a child she doesn't want? For pro-lifers, the question is different: why should anyone be allowed to kill their child unless there are extraordinary circumstances, such as life-threatening ones or rape or incest, involved? The answers given present much food for thought.
I see you didn't link to the LA Times article, and therefore ignored the point that where the choice is between D and E or D and X (the latter is what pro-lifers have dubbed "partial birth extraction") the issue for doctors is which one is safer for the woman. The issue for legislators is usually the "Yuck factor" - they don't like the idea of D and X, and don't care if banning it means endangering women's health.
ReplyDeleteThis is - or ought to be - a completely separate argument from the pro-life position, which is that women ought not to be allowed to have abortions at all.
Given that women are legally allowed to have abortions, and given that pro-lifers work hard to try to make abortions as late as possible, it is indicative of your anti-woman stance that you prefer doctors shouldn't be allowed to choose the safest method for a late abortion.