With the attention in the partial-birth abortion ban turning to the
congressional override vote, I thought it was finally time to add my
voice to the discussion.
For those of you who don't know the details of this procedure, it's
pretty grisly. A late-term baby is breech delivered (feet first)
until everything is out but the head. At this point, the "doctor"
jabs scissors into the base of the baby's skull and sucks his brains
out. Result: a dead baby. Of course, if the baby's head were all the
way out, he would no longer be a "fetus" but a "person," and our
doctor would be up on manslaughter charges. Amazing what a difference
a few inches makes in an American court of law.
What's more, there is absolutely no medical reason to perform this
procedure , except to kill the baby legally. Babies at this point are
viable. If the pregnancy is jeopardizing the mother's health, the
baby could easily be taken out by caesarian section , a procedure
much less dangerous to her health than attempting a breech vaginal
delivery with a brain-sucking finale. But in a caesarean, you have a
living baby at the end , and some people aren't interested in that.
All of that being said, I'm not particularly interested in writing
another "Isn't Partial-Birth Abortion Terrible?" or "Isn't Bill
Clinton Terrible for Vetoing the Ban?" article. All of that is true
and important, of course, but those articles have all been written.
Rather, I'd like to spend a few minutes making some observations on
the tone of this whole debate, and what it means for the pro-life
movement.
It bothers me a little when I hear people, especially pro-life
people, saying "all abortion is bad, but this is really bad."
Partial-birth abortion is horrid and evil, to be sure, but it is no
worse than any other abortion. What is the difference between sucking
the brains out of an 8-month baby and dismembering an 8-week baby
with a curette or a suction machine? Either procedure cruelly takes a
human life.
Why would we say partial-birth abortion is worse than other forms of
abortion? Because the baby is bigger? Because we can see the baby?
Because the baby is viable? Is this baby more "real" because he is
three-quarters of the way out of the birth canal? Be careful. If we
start to believe that a baby is more human or more valuable because
she is visible or viable, we have entered the zone of the abortion
mindset. They're the ones who try to determine her value based on her
size or place of residence. We're supposed to remind people that all
human life has value.
I say this not because I believe we should cease trying to outlaw
partial-birth abortion. On the contrary, I believe we should redouble
our efforts. Bringing this procedure to the attention of the American
public has been a very good thing, for one simple reason , it shows
the true nature of all abortions. The reality of the abortion
procedure has been hidden in the privacy of the womb for so long ,
giving people the luxury of rationalizing it away. Partial-birth
abortion brings that reality into the cold, hard light of day. People
need to see that, in order to understand what all abortions do.
My greatest fear is that the 80 percent of Americans who live in the
"mushy middle," undecided about abortion and sick of the debate, will
see this issue as an opportunity for "compromise" , a way to settle
the issue once and for all. They will support outlawing this
grossest, most visible type of abortion, and in exchange expect us to
quietly capitulate to 1,490,000 other legally sanctioned intrauterine
executions every year. We can't let this happen.
Work to outlaw partial-birth abortion. Show anyone and everyone what
a hideous, gruesome procedure it is. But don't stop there. Don't
waste this opportunity. Use it to show people that any abortion is,
in its own way, equally gruesome. Each abortion tries to solve the
problems of the mother by killing her child.
And that is wrong, no matter how it's done.
Bonacci is a frequent lecturer of chastity and author of We're on A
Mission From God from Ignatius Press.
