The Moral Insanity of Abortion

There’s a big news story today about the Supreme Court upholding a ban on “partial birth” abortion. In case anyone is unaware, this is a method of abortion in which a doctor takes an unborn child by the feet, pulls his or her body (except for the head) out of the womb, then crushes the back of the baby’s skull and destroys the brains.

See the illustration on the National Right to Life website: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/

Though it’s a great thing the ban was upheld—it’s always nice when the laws of our country prevent adults from crushing the skulls of babies—what so raises my ire is the fact that it was only a 5 to 4 vote. This means four of the highest ranking judges in the United States believe that a woman should have the right to dispose of a baby in this way.

In the high school history class I teach we study Frederick Douglass. I and many of my students are disgusted at his accounts of slave life in Narrative of the Life of an American Slave. We watch a documentary in which pictures of towns from the old South are shown. In one scene there is a photograph of a business from some city street showing a large sign over the entrance that says, “Negroes for Auction and Sale,” as if it were a hardware store. I come away from this asking myself, “How could a whole society of seemingly mentally healthy, otherwise morally sensitive people have no problems with the practice of selling and owning other human beings like barnyard animals?” (Thank God—literally—for people like Frederick Douglass and William Wilberforce). And this is exactly the way I feel now about those many adults who think adults should have the right to do this to children. I would feel not a bit less outrage and disgust at this than if I were to see a business next to my local grocery story with a sign that says, “Blacks and Hispanics for sale.”

It’s also important to understand that the Supreme Court Justices who want people to have a right to partial birth abortions are people of great prestige and high authority, people who hold Ph Ds, the types who are invited as keynote speakers at Ivy League graduations. And yet these same people believe every woman should have the right to have her child’s head crushed after being pulled from her womb. Justice Breyer says about a ban on partial birth abortions that it “imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to make an abortion decision.” Justice Ginsburg said the decision to uphold the ban "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists." Have no illusions; if a woman has the right to do this to a child, then there is no acceptable argument to say the lone gunman did not have the right to do what he did to the people at Virginia Tech. Maybe all those he shot were, like many unplanned children, “inconveniences” to him.

It also occurs to me that abortion is one of the very few “litmus test” issues that show whether or not a person believes in God. If one believes there is any kind of God and that we are in any way morally accountable to Him, then it’s as obvious as the sun that it’s God and not us who gets to “choose” whether or not a person lives or dies, be it before birth or after. Many controversial issues like this are not so clear. This one is.

Also, the fact that any sane (or seemingly sane) adult would be in favor of partial birth abortion shows with neon colors how pathetically driven by emotion so many people can be. Such a practice can only be considered because it can’t be seen and heard. Seeing and hearing evoke feelings, and feelings often have more power to move people than plain reason. If you doubt me on this, consider the following two scenarios in a state or country where partial birth abortions are legalized.

A woman 7 month pregnant goes to an abortion doctor, goes into a procedure room, and assumes the position. The doctor grabs the baby’s feet, pulls him or her out of the womb, leaving the head inside, then crushes the back of the baby’s skull and disposes of the brains.

A woman 7 months pregnant goes into premature labor. She is taken to the hospital where she delivers the baby. Both mother and child survive, but the little one is put into the intensive care unit because of the typical complications that come with premature birth. The next day the mother decides for some reason that she does not want the child. She goes into the NICU, asks one of the doctors on call if he would reach into the incubator, crush the back of child’s skull and vacuum its brains out.Does scenario 2 seem worse than number 1? If so, why? The same even occurs in each case. Maybe Ginsburg or Breyer would see both of these as well within the rights of the mother. What a travesty that we are asked to address such people with the word “Justice” before their names.

MM