Partial Birth Assassination
by Bud Malmsten

The US House of Representatives has again taken up the matter of a ban on "Partial Birth Abortions."  The rhetoric was passionate and predictable.  What fascinated me this time was the vast area of agreement emanating from the two sides.

Example:  Nearly everyone who spoke commented on the horror of the procedure.  There was virtually no disagreement.  Those opposed to the ban criticized their opponents a for having the bad taste to even describe it.  Perhaps they don't make the connection here;  if it is unacceptable to describe something, how can it be OK to do it?

Example:  Nearly everyone who spoke was concerned about the trauma of a pregnant woman and the thought of abortion.  The difference here is that one side is concerned about the problem of the pregnancy itself for which abortion  is proclaimed as the solution.  The other side concerns itself more with the traumatic after-effects of the abortion.  Both sides truly want to spare the woman the trauma.

Example:  Nearly everyone seemed acutely aware of the "Crack-in-the-Door" philosophy and the "Slippery Slope" syndrome.  In this case opponents of the ban see this bill as merely the first stage in an overall plan to ban all abortions.  That is not surprising. It is the same tactic they used so successfully in the original Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court legislation.

As in all matters of controversy, whoever controls the vocabulary, wins the debate.  If one side can define the words and even determine which words will be used, that side has an overwhelming advantage.

In the present discussion one group recoils at the use of the phrase, "Partial Birth Abortion."  They prefer the medical expression "Dilation and Extraction," shortened to "D& X."  They do have a point.  The use of the two words birth and abortion in the same phrase is an oxymoron.  However, the more accurate Partial Birth Assassination just makes them madder.

There is something clinical and almost painless in "D&X."  Even using the whole words sort of reminds one of a trip to the dentist to get rid of an infected tooth.

We can all agree that this narrow debate on this relatively rare procedure will not end the discussion of abortion.  Those opposed to the ban know that the presidential veto will not forever make abortion OK to the rest of us.  Those favoring the ban know that overriding the veto will not end the efforts to further restrict abortions.

So is there any solution that we can all agree about?  Probably not.  But perhaps we could come much closer than we are if we all were not so involved in intentionally misunderstanding each other.

Could those of us who generally oppose abortion agree that there could possibly be a circumstance where it is appropriate?  Could those who favor abortion agree not to "drive a truck through that crack in the door?"  The track record on that side is not promising in view of the million and a half abortions per year that have slipped through the Roe vs. Wade crack.  Remember their promise that abortion would never be used as a method of birth control or family planning?  Oh?

How about another look at a compromise that has been regularly rejected out of hand.  First a simple reminder that the thorniest issue in the controversy always seems to be, "At precisely what point in the pregnancy does human life begin?"

The Pro-Life, Anti-Abortion folks have argued that whenever life begins, the option of abortion ends.  The Pro-Choice, Pro Abortion people have argued that it is uncertain when life actually begins, so it is OK to terminate whatever it is that is in there.

The logical solution to this dilemma is to pass the amendment to the US Constitution declaring that Human Life begins with conception.

"WAIT A MINUTE!" you shout. " You said something about a compromise.  This is all one-sided."

No.  That is where we have been so wrong.  Think about it.  What does the constitution guarantee you and me?  Not unconditional rights, but rather due process.  If there is a conflict between two human beings, our system assures that the aggressor will be reined in and the victim vindicated.

Is there any real question about whether that "product of conception,"  that "blob of protoplasm" is human or not?  If not human, then what?  All the science here agrees that it is a new life with its own genetic code, its own blood type, its own fingerprints, its own brain, its own heartbeat, even its own developing personality.

The proponents of abortion have successfully somehow inserted a "right" into our culture by avoiding the basic question.  Let me try an analogy here.  If a father beats or otherwise abuses his child, that child will be rescued rom that home and protected.  If a child pulls a knife on his father and threatens to kill him, that father will be protected by the law.

Why should it be different if the child has not yet been born, and the unborn child is attacking the mother.  The law should be neutral here.  The victim should be protected from the aggressor.

The Human Life amendment puts the whole question in perspective.  It eliminates the "abortion of convenience," while protecting the very things they said Roe vs. Wade was all about.

What if we would stop dancing around the edges of the main issue?  I believe the vast majority of the American people are smart enough to make the right choice if we can only stop the intentional misunderstanding!

Home | About Us | Archives | Forums | Links | Resources | Submissions | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer