Susan Estrich’s commentary in the recent Advocate contains many phrases or terms that are worth debating, including the termination of a life as a “medical procedure.” I will focus only on the last word in the article, in which she laments how “cruel” it is for any restrictions at all to stand in the way of any abortion, any time, any place.
Would Ms. Estrich use the same word to describe methods of abortion such as partial birth (puncture an infant’s skull and vacuum its brains out), salt poisoning (baby ingests deadly saline solution), or dilation and cutterage (infant chopped to pieces by a small hooked knife)? I suppose she would not, as it’s far easier to dehumanize a fetus and just call it a choice. Death row prisoners do not face such treatments, which would surely be labeled and banned as cruel and unusual punishment. Animals receive more protection than the unborn in this nation.
The Roe v. Wade decision was the beginning of a cheapening of life in this country that has only gathered momentum in the past 40 years, as witnessed by euthanasia/assisted suicide, arguments ending in deadly shootings amongst teens (recent episode in Baker), gang violence, you name it.
Perhaps what it all comes down to is whether what’s being debated is indeed a medical procedure/decision or a human life. To me it’s clearly the latter, and since an innocent unborn child is completely helpless, and unable to fight for its own life, it’s up to us who consider abortion to be a deadly stain on our nation’s moral character to fight for them ourselves.
Tired of fighting for a legal decision made over 40 years ago? Join the club — the 2nd amendment has been part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights for well over 200 years, and court battles over this right are fought every year. Some things, especially the precious life of a child, are well worth fighting for.
senior technical engineer