PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION IS INFANTICIDE by Gary L. Morella
5/22/97
Dear Mr. President:
The arguments put forth by the supporters of the hideous procedure known as
partial birth abortion which is infanticide have been shown to be completely
fallacious in light of the most recent information concerning the lies
propagated to the effect that PBA are rare and necessary to save the life of
the mother. Moreover, testimony has shown that the mother's health, a
paramount concern of yours, is endangered by PBA. This begs the
question, just what are the supporters of PBA standing on? Not the truth,
surely! This fact is becoming increasingly obvious to an overwhelming majority
of the electorate on both sides of the aisle per recent polls. Unbelievers
recognize the insidious nature of these lies, let alone people of faith.
Senator Santorum deserves the heartfelt thanks of the senate for having the
courage of his convictions as a Roman Catholic politician, convictions born of
direct experience in the loss of a child, to tell the truth in the face of the
lies of the status quo.
I really don't think there is much honest disagreement about abortion. It's
killing. Its target is the inconvenient human being in the womb. You can
understand confusion and uncertainty over the tiniest embryos, but I
always assumed that advocates of abortion would draw the
line at practices that obviously destroy well-formed children and, in the
process, inflicting agony on them. Draining out the brains, so that the skull
can be crushed, so that the child can be killed without violating the law
hardly requires theological indoctrination to recoil from such cruelty.
Yet there are still people who profess to see nothing wrong with abortion, even
at this stage. And by pretending that what they do or endorse is consistent
with their own consciences, they escape the charge of barbarity. At least
they're "sincere"! Are they? Then why don't they frankly call what they
approve of "killing"? We kill germs and cockroaches and cute little lambs,
and we don't shrink from saying so, because we regard it as our right to kill
them. So if a "fetus" has no human worth, what's wrong with killing it, and
saying it's killing? This is not the case because the new hyprocrisy knows
perfectly well that abortion is wrong, but finds it expedient to pretend
otherwise. And the rest of us support this hyprocrisy by presuming its
sincerity.
You don't do an evil to perform a greater good. That's Niccolo Machiavelli,
not a country founded "under God". E.M. Robinson in All About Issues, 1991,
points out that restrictions against abortion, both moral and legal, are
written in such away that sometimes a faulty reason is offered, or at least
presumed, for the exception to save the life of the mother. In some instances
the child is looked upon as an unjust aggressor. In other cases the child's
right to life is considered to be inferior to the mother's right to life. A
further problem arises in the assumption that there are medically
warranted situations in which the mother's life can be saved only by a
direct attack upon the child-to kill the child 'in order to save the
mother's life.'
"The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated
exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example
of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which
allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive
organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of
abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.
"It is true that early medical terminology speaks of natural miscarriage as
abortion, but it does not refer to the above examples by the name of
abortion. In the case of the uterus, the usual name hysterectomy would be
used, and the pregnancy would be noted in the pathology report. Both
medically and legally, for the purposes of discussion, abortion is a
direct and fatal attack upon the life of an unborn offspring of human
parentage.
"It becomes necessary now to see why a medical procedure, such as the
excision of a cancerous, pregnant uterus, is sometimes ethically
permissible and should not be called an abortion.
"What is involved here are two individuals, the mother and her child,
having equal, inalienable rights to continue living. If it can be
established that the mother's life demands the removal of the diseased
uterus, she has a right to this necessary means of preserving her own
life. The surgical removal is not a direct attack upon the child, either
by intention or by the nature of the procedure. Therefore, it should not
be called an abortion.
"The ethical principle governing this, and similar cases, is a
long-standing one called the principle of double-effect. It is explained
in this way: an action which terminates in two effects, one good and one
evil, may be undertaken if the action, by its nature, is not evil, and if
the good end is primarily intended and the first to be executed, and if
the good effect is at least equal to the evil effect, and if the action is
necessary and is the least harmful means for attaining the good effect.
The excision of the diseased uterus is immediately necessary and is the
minimum that is required to save the life of the mother. The good and evil
effects are equal in magnitude, since both mother and child, as human
beings, have identical rights to life. In such instances there is said to
be a conflict of rights, but not a denial of the rights of either party.
"One faulty assumption which is sometimes intended by the so-called
exception to the prohibition of abortion claims that the child is an
unjust aggressor and to kill the child would be a matter of justifiable
self- defense. There is no sense in which the child can be called unjust,
since this is a moral concept and requires evil intention on the part of
the actor. As for being an aggressor, the child is not responsible for
being in the uterus and is not, either by his or her presence or activity,
injuring the mother. In the previous case, for example, it is not because
of the pregnancy that the uterus is being removed.
"In the present state of obstetrics there is no justification for a direct
attack on the child's life as a means of saving the mother's. It is true
that pregnancy may aggravate certain conditions of maternal ill-health and
even be the cause of other physiological upsets in the mother. Yet,
through adequate management by the obstetrician, especially in suitable
health care facilities, the pregnancy need not be an unsurmountable
obstacle to the mother's continued living and eventual survival. But, even
if this were not so, the child may never be killed on the pretext of
saving the mother's life. The human dignity of each individual does not
permit that one human being may be sacrificed even to save the life of
another.
"In another faulty assumption, the child's right to life is said to be
inferior to that of his or her mother's. From the viewpoint of
existentialism, which seems to be the basis of this assumption, the
greatest good is experience. The mother, experienced from many years of
living, is 'worth' more than the inexperienced child. But, even here, it
is not the value of human rights which is being compared, but something
extraneous to the right to life. Certainly, experience gained by living is
something to be treasured, but it cannot be equated in value with the
right to continue living!
"The enactment of laws prohibiting abortion should be carefully formulated
whenever the law provides the clause: 'except in order to save the life of
the mother.' If abortion were understood in the sense stated above, there
would be no need to use the exception clause. Moral and medical prudence
would be sufficient, as it has been in past centuries, to guide the doctor
in the performance of his duties. The pro-life people who do not accept
the use of that clause could be heartened in their moral stance when the
clause is used, if it clearly states that it includes only the so-called
'indirect abortion,' meaning, of course, cases similar to those considered
above, which are conformable with the ethical principle of double-effect.
These persons are correct in fearing that the 'exception to save the life of
the mother' clause could be used to justify a direct attack upon the
life of the child as a supposedly valid means of saving the mother's life.
In this day of presumed 'options,' additional care must be taken to insure
the complete and accurate legal recognition of each individual human
being's right to life. In phrasing the prohibition against abortion, it
would be wise to define abortion as the direct and willful killing of an
unborn offspring of human parentage from the time of fertilization. To
this should be added that the prohibition does not include necessary
surgical procedure on the mother's body whose primary and direct purpose
is to prevent her death."
In regard to abortion issues, we as citizens of a country founded under God
(ref. the Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance)
must bow to a Higher Authority, Who made the consequences of killing babies
very clear on Mount Sinai. You may recall from the New Testament that His Son
came to fulfill the old law, not to abolish it. We might all ponder whether
God would JUST "have grave reservations about the killing of 1.5
million unborn children each year". The image of God the Judge in the
Basilica of the Immaculate Conception, a reflection of the consequences of
what awaits the unrepentent sinner as described many times in Sacred Scripture
would indicate otherwise.
When does human life begin? Is the human embryo a person? Is there such a
thing as "pre-embryo" to be experimented with and discarded? These questions
were answered in the statement "Status of the Human Embryo," given at a
plenary assembly of biologists, physicians, philosophers, theologians and
jurists from around the world in Rome, 14-16 February 1997. They worked
together on the issue of the identity and status of the human embryo, which
has arisen now that it is possible to manipulate the human embryo through
artificial conception and scientific research. The following basic truths from
the assembly require our support and protection if the tenets upon which our
country was founded are worth the paper that they're written on.
"From a biological standpoint, the formation and development of the
human embryo appears as a continuous, coordinated and gradual process
from the time of fertilization, at which time a new human organism is
endowed with the intrinsic capacity to develop by himself into a human
adult. The most recent contributions of the biomedical sciences offer
further valuable empirical evidence for substantiating the
individually and developmental continuity of the embryo. To speak of a
pre-embryo thus is an incorrect interpretation of the biological
data."
Simply put, the human embryo is not potentially a new human being, but
a new human being full of potential. Everything needed for the adult
person is already biologically present with the formation of the first
cell.
"The theological perspective, beginning with the light which
Revelation sheds on the meaning of a human life and on the dignity of
the person, supports and sustains human reason in regard to these
conclusions, without in any way diminishing the validity of
contributions based on rational evidence. Therefore the duty of
respecting the human embryo as a human person derives from the reality
of the matter and from the force of rational argumentation, and not
exclusively from a position of faith."
"From the juridical point of view, the core of the debate on the
protection of the human embryo...consist in the recognition of
fundamental human rights by virtue of the presence of a human being.
The right to life and to physical integrity from the first moment of
existence, must be respected."
In this great challenge of defending the life and dignity of the human
embryo, special commitment is needed on the part of families...as well
as that of the scientific community. The woman is the first person
called to welcome and nourish the human being ...conceived in her
womb. The irreplaceable role of a guardian of human life entrusted
to...motherhood must be encouraged and actively supported in civil
society."
"The Assembly hopes that its own contribution will serve as an
occasion for reflection and dialogue with all those who understand
that the expanding frontiers of civilization and the authentic
progress of society rest on the unconditional defense of human life."
I have shared these documents with you to clear any confusion as to why the
sanctity of human life is so important. I pray that, in the light of the
information which I've provided, you will see that compromise is being proposed
where none is possible. We're talking the holocaust of all holocausts, Mr.
President. We're talking life and death. Those who would compromise with such
grave issues have been dealt with severely in the judgment of History. I
would not want to be in the shoes of same at the judgment of the Almighty.
Many want this issue to go away. It should start becoming clear to politicians
in Washington that it will not go away until we stop making generations of
Americans "go away." We are getting a badly needed wake-up call - the cost of
abortion.
The negative effects abortion already has had on American society and what
effects it is likely to have in the future must be considered. The total
number of abortions which occurred in the U.S. from 1973 to 1992 (28,511,160
according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute), is higher than any source has
counted because the statistics do not include abortions caused by mechanical
(intrauterine devices), and chemically induced (oral contraceptives and the
"morning after" pill) means. Pharmaceutical research indicates that the
number of U.S. abortions induced by all methods is between 9.6 to 13.4 million
per year.
The decline in U.S. population growth which began in the early 1970s, just
after abortion was legalized will eventually lead to a shrinking population.
Italy, where abortion was legalized in 1978, is an example of what may be in
store for the United States. Recent studies show Italy's birth rate at 1.21
births per woman which is very low when compared to a sustainable population
requirement of 2.1 . At this rate, within 100 years, Italy's population of 57
million will shrink to 15 million with half over 60 years of age.
The declining population consequence of abortion is already evident in the U.S.
with sharp drops in student enrollment and job opportunities in education,
fewer consumers for products such as toys, food, school books, clothes, a
decline in men and women available to serve in the military, and fewer
producers, summer workers and affordable part time labor. The older segment
of a shrinking, graying population will increase the retirement tax (Social
Security) burden on the younger segment and stunt economic growth. Based on
the data available, even if all abortions ended today, the cumulative
effects of over 20 years of abortion would be felt for many decades to come.
Statistical analysis clearly demonstrates the cost of abortion in terms of its
serious social and economic consequences. This is a badly needed wake-up call
to those who support the legalized killing of unborn babies - America's
greatest natural resource.
To make a long story short, we wouldn't have to worry about our social security
system if we hadn't aborted a generation of our children. Can that be the
reason why physician assisted suicide and euthanasia look so attractive to
governments who have a "problem" with their elderly? Welcome to the Brave New
World Order.
God cares about all of us, Mr. President, in the same measure that he does
for all of those babies whose cries will never be heard. He cares enough about
you to make the truth crystal clear. The handwriting on the wall can no longer
be denied. There are no excuses as much more is at stake here than the
support of earthly constituencies. Believers and nonbelievers alike who
recognize the inviolability of the inalienable right to life guaranteed to
all Americans as defined by our founding fathers see this truth. To whom much
is given, much is expected. Accordingly, I strongly urge you to stand up for
the innocent, to realize that the life of the child is "equal" to the life of
the mother and not a "choice" which can be easily made like channel surfing.
In particular, I ask that you realize that you have been lied to in regard to
partial birth abortion being a "needed and rare" procedure - a fact most
recently verified by the American Medical Association in conjunction with some
of the most prominent physicians in the country to include former Surgeon
General Koop. And at the very least, you should sign this bill which would
outlaw a practice barbaric in the extreme, not worthy of a civilized society.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Morella
Associate, Fellowship of Catholic Scholars