Confounded Logic

Over the last month I've come across a number of stories and articles related to the issue of abortion. All of them made me scratch my head a little bit regarding the logic of our culture (especially the "pro-choice" political position). I thought I'd mention each article and then make some of my own comments.

In January I learned of Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his filthy, disgusting, horrific abortion operation that he had been running in Philadelphia since 1979.

Also last month a Christian friend of mine linked to some of his top blog posts of 2010. His #1 post of the year had to do with his views on abortion. While my friend considers himself "pro-life," he believes that the practice of abortion should remain legal. In reference to Roe v. Wade he writes, "...we have forgotten that one of the primary reasons for legalizing abortion was to put an end to the then common and extremely dangerous practice of 'back-ally' abortions. In other words, abortion was legalized so that it could be closely and safely regulated. In effect, legalizing abortion did not create the practice but instead served to wrangle it in."

A few days ago I read of a pregnant woman here in Colorado who was given an incorrect prescription from her pharmacist - an abortion pill - by mistake. Last I'd heard, the devastated woman didn't yet know whether the fetus inside her was still alive or not. If it is, it will likely have severe birth defects that will almost certainly take its life shortly after birth.

Yesterday I read of a survey that was done in which babies with the disease spina bifida were surgically treated. In some cases, the surgery was performed on fetuses in utero (between 19-26 weeks old), and for other babies, the operation took place shortly after birth. The study found that the surgeries performed on the unborn fetuses were more effective than those on the already-born babies. In other words, having the operation done before birth made it more likely that the child would be able to walk, and have fewer neurological problems.

Everyone (regardless of political persuasion) seems to agree that Dr. Gosnell (from the first story) is a disgusting creep. I don't quite understand, however, why "pro-choice" people are at all outraged. Is it because his clinic was dirtier than others? It certainly can't be the fact that he killed babies - that's the very foundation of their position! Maybe it's that he used scissors. Barbaric? Perhaps. But if I were given the choice between being murdered by a scissors-wielding doctor and being murdered by a doctor with a giant vacuum that would crush me to death, it wouldn't really matter which one I chose, would it?

The last two stories I mentioned (the incorrect prescription to the pregnant woman, and the study about fetal surgery) are discussed well in THIS blog post by Joel Lindsey. Joel points out the "moral schizophrenia" of America's response to these stories. We're outraged because a pregnant woman has (most likely) lost her baby, but the only difference between her baby and the million that are legally aborted each year is that she wants hers. Similarly, in the story about fetal surgery 19-week old fetuses are treated as patients, given the very best of medical care... but again, the only difference between these fetuses and those that are aborted is that the mothers want them.

So we come to my friend's view on abortion, which frankly has so much wrong with it I don't even know where to begin. I guess first of all I'll point out that facts are facts. Estimates are that perhaps 50-60,000 abortions took place the year before Roe. Since the practice became legal, the numbers have climbed dramatically to more than a million per year today. If my friend is "pro-life" as he claims, I take that to mean that he believes abortion is the killing of an innocent life. How can you possibly believe that the killing of one million lives is preferable to the killing of 60,000? I'll agree that 60,000 is still a shocking and horrific number, but it's 94% better than a million, right? Or is it because the 60,000 were killed in private homes and not culturally- and government-sanctioned medical centers (like the lovely one run by Dr. Gosnell in Philadelphia)? That's quite a job the government seems to have done "wrangling in" the "dangerous" practice of abortion. The words "safely regulated," when used in reference to a practice that is, by definition, murder, sound pretty silly to me. That's like saying we ought to make genocide safely regulated. A lot of good that will do, I'm sure.

"Back-ally" or not, abortion is every bit as dangerous to the fetus today as it was then. Now there's just a whole lot more of it.