The topic of abortion – particularly late-term abortion – came up at the final US Presidential debate. When the question was posed to Hillary Clinton regarding her support for late-term abortion, she appealed to heartbreaking instances of children who won’t survive outside the womb.
Since then I’ve been thinking about how Candidate ACTS Apologist would have replied. Can we come up with something which responds politically, ethically, and compassionately? Let’s give it a shot:
Moderator: Candidate ACTS Apologist, two minutes for your response:
Candidate ACTS Apologist: Imagine, for a moment, that the NRA proposed a law which would grant Americans the unrestricted ability to purchase any weapon they desire… even surface to air missiles. When asked to defend this extreme proposal, they appeal to an instance of a woman defending her house with a pistol.
Now, any sensible person would say, "OK… but there is a huge difference between THAT and what you’re really advocating." In the same way, Secretary Clinton defends her support for late-term abortion by appealing to exceptional and emotional circumstances. But that does not capture the truth of what she is defending.
If someone wants to stake out a moderate position, then you can have a law which bans abortion after viability – when the child could be delivered alive - but makes exceptions for the circumstances Mrs. Clinton appeals to.
But no… her actual position is that there should be no restrictions - whatsoever - on access to abortion. One can do it for any reason or no reason at all, until the moment of birth. Plus, she wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, that means she wants you to foot the bill.
That my fellow Americans, is an extreme position held by almost no other Americans. Again; No restrictions. All nine months. At taxpayer expense. That’s – to put it bluntly- is crazy.
Moderator: Candidate ACTS Apologist, but it is no secret you also hold an extreme position yourself. What would you say to parents placed in the circumstances Secretary Clinton described?
Candidate ACTS Apologist: First, I don’t envy anyone placed in that situation. And it is difficult to talk about this because of how emotionally charged it becomes. Still, we must think it through carefully and consistently.
Imagine there was a three-week old baby who was suffering from a terminal illness. What do we do for that child?
I’ll spare you the gory details of what happens to a child during a late term abortion… but if a doctor suggested doing to the 3-week old child what happens to a baby in a late term abortion, the parents would be horrified. They’d want the doctor fired.
No, they would want to hold their child for what little time they had. Goodbyes would be said. Tears would be shed. But in the end, we recognize that violently ending the child’s life child would be off-limits - and true compassion calls us to comfort the child till the end.
So how is the child in the womb any different? Why does being in the womb entitle that baby to less care?
Late term abortion does not spare the child from suffering. Again, you can look up what actually happens to the baby. No, all it means is the adults don't have to witness it. I cannot blame parents for not wanting to witness it. Who would?
But true compassion would have us ask, "Would the child rather die alone, being dismembered in the dark, or in the parents’ arms?" If compassion means we ‘suffer with’, then by all means - let the child at least know what human touch feels like.
No comments:
Post a Comment