During the 3rd presidential debate, Hillary
Clinton accused Donald Trump1 of using scare tactics when describing a late
term abortion. I took issue with her
claim on social media and stated that Trump’s words were not scare tactics, but
an accurate description of the process.
I claimed that the process is “brutal and barbaric” and I stand by that
description.2
After reading my comments, a thoughtful reader shared the
following comment that I thought was worth responding to:3
“I saw a true story on the news today about a condition
where the amniotic fluid of a baby enters the mothers blood stream and the
mother had to make a choice... her life or her baby's life. I think Hillary's
point was that late term abortions are not always easy... as someone who
sits here 38 weeks pregnant, it terrifies me to think that I would ever be in
the situation to decide between saving my unborn baby's life or leaving [my
child] motherless... it brings tears to my eyes to even type it now.... I'm not
sure what I would do, but should government make the decision for me? What a
hard subject abortion is ... I really can see the hardships on both sides…”
I believe the comment is instructive. Notice that it communicates a genuine struggle
over an important issue. Absent is the
typical rhetoric that often times enters into the pro-life vs. pro-abortion
choice debate.
As this comment demonstrates, the abortion debate is often
an emotional one. However, in my response
to these thoughtful points, I will strive to say what I think about the points, not how I feel about them. This should
not be interpreted as cold or callous, but as my attempt to offer a sound and
objective response that is factually based.
These situations are indeed tragic and those who have
suffered through such a horrific event need to be shown the love of
Christ. They need our love and
compassion, not our condemnation.
However, it important to note how extremely rare these cases
actually are. According to Dr. C. Everett,
who was US surgeon general and a pediatric surgeon for 36 years:
"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.
If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation.
Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger."4
"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.
If, toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, he will take the child by inducing labor or performing a Caesarean section. His intention is still to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby will be premature and perhaps immature depending on the length of gestation.
Because it has suddenly been taken out of the protective womb, it may encounter threats to its survival. The baby is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger."4
Moreover, Dr. Landrum Shettles, pioneer in infertility
treatment and called “the father of in vitro fertilization,” claimed that less
than 1% of all abortions were performed to save the mother’s life.5
And if one is still in doubt, even Alan F. Guttmacher, the “father of Planned Parenthood” conceded:
So, contrary to the claims of pro-abortion choice advocates such as Hillary Clinton7, we can confidently conclude that late-term abortions are almost never necessary to save the life of the mother.
Furthermore, when the life of the baby is lost as the result of an operation, this is not considered an abortion. Consider the tragic case of ectopic pregnancy, a condition that pro-choice advocates state is “the most frequently presented example of a case in which the mother’s life may be in danger if an abortion is not performed…”8
A child has very little hope of surviving such a surgery and
the surgery may be necessary to save the mother. However, this is not the intentional killing
of an innocent person who could otherwise survive. The surgeon’s purpose wasn’t to kill the child
but to save the mother. As Randy Alcorn explains:
“The death of the child was a tragic side-effect of
lifesaving efforts. This was a
consistently pro-life act, since to be pro-life does not mean being pro-life
only about babies. It also means being
pro-life about women.”9
Finally, as others have pointed out, in regard to the extremely rare cases such as the one shared, advocates of the pro-life position favor legislation that would allow for life-saving measures on behalf of the mother.
Finally, as others have pointed out, in regard to the extremely rare cases such as the one shared, advocates of the pro-life position favor legislation that would allow for life-saving measures on behalf of the mother.
Courage and Godspeed,
Chad
Related Posts
Footnotes:
1. FYI- I am not a Donald Trump supporter, nor am I a Hillary Clinton supporter. Neither have earned my vote this election season. In my humble opinion, both are morally unacceptable candidates.
2. For those who disagree, I challenge you to view this animated video of the process or consider the words of former abortionist turned pro-life advocate Dr. Anthony Levatino when describing the procedure:
2. For those who disagree, I challenge you to view this animated video of the process or consider the words of former abortionist turned pro-life advocate Dr. Anthony Levatino when describing the procedure:
3. For the record, the reader kindly gave me permission to respond to her comment via the blog.
4. Randy Alcorn, Why-Pro-Life?, p. 79.
5. Virginia Kruta, "Even Democrats were Cringing When Hillary gave 'Late Term Abortion' Answers," Oct. 2016.
6. Alan Guttmacher, “Abortion Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley: Diablo Books, 1967), 9.
7. Further, it should be noted that research doesn’t support Hillary Clinton’s claim that late-term abortions are performed for ‘life and health of the mother.’ See here.
4. Randy Alcorn, Why-Pro-Life?, p. 79.
5. Virginia Kruta, "Even Democrats were Cringing When Hillary gave 'Late Term Abortion' Answers," Oct. 2016.
6. Alan Guttmacher, “Abortion Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow,” The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley: Diablo Books, 1967), 9.
7. Further, it should be noted that research doesn’t support Hillary Clinton’s claim that late-term abortions are performed for ‘life and health of the mother.’ See here.
8. Bill Fortenberry, “Ectopic Personhood,” The Personhood Initiative, Dec. 20, 2011 as quoted by Randy Alcorn, Why Pro-Life?, p. 81
9. Randy Alcorn, Ibid., p. 80-81.
9. Randy Alcorn, Ibid., p. 80-81.
Comments