Thursday, January 23, 2003

ABORTION LINKAGE: Say, I wonder what actual medical doctor Sydney Smith thinks of all this? Lessee:

The thirty years since Roe v. Wade has seen a revolution in neonatal technology. Premature babies that would have died at birth thirty years ago are thriving and living today. Heck, now we even have a speciality devoted to maternal-fetal medicine, that specifically views the fetus as a patient. We perform corrective surgeries (warning:graphic photos in both cases) on fetuses while they’re still in the womb. It’s much harder now than it was thirty years ago for physicians to deny the humanity of the fetus.

I can understand why abortion advocates deny rights to the fetus, despite all of the advances in fetal medicine. They either don’t consider it fully human, or they consider the mother’s rights more important. But I don’t understand why they can’t respect the right of full grown physicians and medical students to defer from doing something they find morally reprehensible.

This in response to the news that fewer doctors are performing abortions. Sydney also points out this bit of nonsense:

But for Roe v. Wade, millions more children would have been born into poverty, where they would be greeted by Congress and the state legislators who failed to provide money for day care, health care, education or job training.

Millions more would have joined the ranks of welfare recipients and the homeless, the populations of prisons, prostitutes and drug addicts.

All that, simply to pander to the religious beliefs of a minority who persist in claiming that a collection of cells, without reason or awareness, is human life with something called a soul.

Kee-rickey. This from the "co-counsel in Roe v. Wade." Sydney adds, "Margaret Sanger would have been proud." Hey, so would Peter Singer. But not Steven Pinker. I always get those two confused.

No comments: