Quote:
|
Originally Posted by archetypal fool
As for the difference, I think things are very strange. The D&E procedure basically consists of the abortionist cutting the fetus into pieces and removing them one by one. IDX is creating an incision in the fetus's skull and suctioning out the brain. To be frank, the former sounds much more barbaric than the latter, yet all this controversy is around IDX. I don't understand  . |
As I see it, it's pretty much an aesthetic or semantic difference: the baby's already partially out of the mother's body, so how could anyone argue that the mother should still be able to treat it like property?
THAT is the part which grabs everyone's attention, while the situation of choosing one dead life over two dead lives - an arguably ethical choice even if you consider the mere zygote to be a human being - just isn't as noticeable.
When both pro-lifers and pro-choicers denounce pba vehemently, they're more likely thinking of a hypothetical elective usage of the procedure. And, indeed, I see it as difficult to argue that the mother
shouldn't be forced to give birth when only hours - and not any significant health risks - stand in the way. But that goes for ANY late-term abortion procedure, in my mind, not just the one that we can see with the naked eye.
I don't see a good point to prohibiting the pba procedure and not the other, or to prohibiting the health reason, but not the life reason. With the latter, moderate health concerns could possibly - often? - turn to life-threatening concerns. I see analog's post, but unless I'm misunderstanding the health/life distinction, it still doesn't strike me as impossible that this bill could prove harmful. And yet, I doubt that it will save a single life. I say this as a pro-lifer who would like to see all medically unnecessary abortions criminalized.