Our letters
section and your opportunity to weigh in and be heard. Send
us your thoughts and profundities. You can contact us here.
Outraged by abortion
Dear Editors:
The partial-birth abortion bill claims to ban a procedure that,
by the definition and exceptions in the bill, will not ban anything
and probably will not stop one abortion. The bill bans a specific
procedure but allows abortionists to use other procedures, not
included in the definition, to continue the killings. Thus,
it doesn’t actually ban the abortion of a viable fetus
at all.
In forming the bill, liberals included a standard abortion
loophole – that the procedure is banned “except
when the life of the mother is at risk.”
Besides the fact that abortion doctors have no compulsion against
falsifying such a declaration, it does not follow, logically,
that the two are related. For instance, if the near-term pregnancy
is “at risk to the mother” and is solved by performing
a Ceasarean section and delivery of a live fetus, why does the
baby have to be killed outside the womb after the delivery?
Why not put it in an ICU and let it live? Obviously, the killing
of the baby AFTER it has been delivered, which means AFTER it
is BORN means the purpose of the final killing procedure is
not connected at all with the supposed saving of the mother’s
life.
