Wednesday, February 07, 2007

…And Then You Can Kill the Baby

What is urgently needed and must pass the U.S. Congress is the Life at Conception Act. All other bills that incrementally try to limit or restrict abortions, as well-intentioned as they might be, still fall short of preserving life. I had heard a Pro-Life leader in Colorado declare that we should take no solace in passing such laws as:

· Parental Notification Laws

· Mandatory Waiting Period Before Having an Abortion

· Requiring Certain Information be Provided to Anyone Seeking an Abortion

· Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act

In Life Decisions International’s The Caleb Report (November – December 2006) they discuss the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, which Pro-Life U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, R-Kansas introduced last year. The article states, “The bill, S. 51, would require those who take the lives of preborn children who are at least 20 weeks old to tell the mother seeking the death of her child that the “fetus” feels pain. This would be communicated both verbally and through a brochure developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The bill would also require that the mother be asked if she would like anesthesia to be given to the fetus.

“In a statement to the media, LDI President Douglas R. Scott, Jr., expressed “mixed feelings” about the legislation, “I have no doubt that preborn children can feel pain. In fact, I believe our brothers and sisters who reside in the womb feel pain long before 20 weeks gestation,” he said, “I also believe a mother should be given as much information as possible regarding the method(s) used to kill her child and that true nature of the preborn life.””

Why should we not take comfort in the presentation and even in the passage of such laws? Because the outcome of all of these laws still is:do this (wait, inform, anesthetize, etc) and then you can kill the baby. It may ease the conscience of some. However, all such laws are inadequate; it still usually ends with a death sentence for the preborn baby. Only the Life at Conception Act adequately addresses the abortion issue. Urge you representatives to cosponsor and support this vital life-preserving bill.

5 comments:

  1. These bills have brought the abortion rate down 50%. So off the high horse. Why not just lash out as Oskar Schindler because he only saved a couple thousand Jews and didn't instead "stand on principle" and let his workers be killed as well because he couldn't save them all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Say Gran,

    Thanks for your comment, however, some of the laws I mentioned have not even passed Congress such as the Brownback’s Pain Awareness Act. I believe that abortions have been declining, in part do to the effort of pro-lifers. However, I would have to dispute your figure of 50% reduction. There are 4000 babies being killed daily and I think that has been consistent over some time, declining yes, but not nearly to the extent that you contend.

    I think the main point I was trying to make is that until we have a Life at Conception bill passed by both Houses of Congress and is signed by the President, we are fooling ourselves; we are stillkilling too many babies. We should take no comfort in the fact that we are saving a few. Our American Holocaust is far greater than that of Nazi Germany, where too few also contested the murder of innocents.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:32 PM

    So let me see if I've got this straight: Until we can save all unborn humans, we shouldn't try to save some?

    Sorry, but you need to do your research before saying silly things like incremental legislation doesn't save lives.

    See link below, for example:
    http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda07-01.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  4. The issue of incremental legislation is tough one. There may be some cases where it is the right thing to do. But be careful! The recent federal partial birth abortion bill that Bush signed into law clearly says that "personhood" begins during the delivery of a child. No real pro-lifer could support a bill which declares that unborn babies are persons under the law.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry I meant to say, "No real pro-lifer could support a bill which declares that unborn babies are NOT persons under the law."

    ReplyDelete