Baptist Press released an article yesterday detailing how British abortion practices are actually killing babies born alive.
According to the article, “One in 30 babies aborted because of severe handicaps survives, according to a new study in Great Britain.”
“The study, which was published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, analyzed nearly 3,200 abortions performed between 1995 and 2004 on children with such impairments as Down syndrome and heart defects. The research found 102 of these babies were born alive.”
Sunday evening I watched a brief portion of Larry King’s interview with former President, Bill Clinton, as Clinton explained how the recent Supreme Court decision limiting partial birth abortion was not a victory for the pro-life movement. He noted how when he vetoed the bill twice in his administration, he brought around him pro-life supporters who had actually had the partial birth procedure in order to save the life of the mother or in cases where the baby was so infirm that death was inevitable. He made it seem that the only time such abortions were conducted were in extreme cases. This is merely his political maneuvering. The British report is more evidence of the reality behind abortion. Not only is it a means of convenience, it is obviously not a primary means of protecting life or bringing to a conclusion the inevitable. It is a means of immediate convenience, but long-term tragedy.
President Clinton tried to point out the inconsistencies with the pro-life movement and the recent Supreme Court decision, saying that the pro-lifers know that this recent decision is morally inconsistent, while politically expedient. By holding doctors responsible and not mothers, the pro-life movement admits that they do not want to criminalize abortion. It was disgustingly ironic to hear the former president accuse anyone of being morally inconsistent and politically expedient. In my view the Supreme Court decision is a step in the right direction and a great victory for the culture of life. Holding a mother criminally responsible for abortion is indeed an emotionally difficult discussion, given the way it is politically used. However, the first and foundational question is not whether we should hold a mother criminally responsible, but whether the procedure is a moral means of taking a life. But again, that difficult conversation cannot be politically exploited as easily.
