A Selfless Life-Affirming Choice: Adoption

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision upholding the ban on partial birth abortion, proponents of abortion have reacted as if the sky were falling. Abortion proponents have grimly announced that a “woman’s right to choose” is in peril. Of course, they speak about the “right to choose” only in the abstract; they are careful not to identify the choice they have in view. The morality of any “choice” under consideration, however, cannot be divorced from the thing that is being chosen. Choices are not mere abstractions. They are concrete, and they have consequences. Let’s not kid ourselves about what is at stake in the “choice” debate. When abortion advocates talk about the “right to choose”, they are not talking about the right to choose between chocolate and vanilla. They are talking about the right to choose to kill an innocent unborn child. The fact that a mother would contemplate killing her child, and that there are those who zealously advocate such a “choice”, is evidence that something has gone very, very wrong in our society. As the Feminists for Life slogan puts it, “women deserve better than abortion.” Indeed they do, and so do their children. Adoption is an option that is not discussed nearly enough in the public debate about “choice”. Rarely is the case for adoption made with the same vigor as the case for abortion. Part of the zeal for abortion is fueled by money. We should never forget that abortion is a multi-million dollar industry. With that kind of money at stake, it is easy to see why abortion proponents get so pumped...

Abortion Ban Ruling Ignores Evidence on Pain Babies Feel in Abortion (6/04)

In ruling the ban on partial-birth abortions unconstitutional, U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton said the fact that unborn children feel intense pain during the gruesome abortion procedure is “irrelevant.” “There is no consensus of medical opinion on the issue,” Judge Hamilton wrote in her ruling. “However, it appears to be irrelevant to the question of whether [partial-birth abortion] should be banned.” In fact, Hamilton said the issue of fetal pain is also not germane because unborn children may feel greater pain in other abortion procedures such as “disarticulation abortions” — where the baby is dismembered. “Although Congress justified the ban in part on its finding that the partial-birth abortion method would cause excruciating pain to the partly born infant, Judge Hamilton dismissed this factor,” the National Right to Life Committee said in a statement. Several doctors told Hamilton, a Clinton appointee, that the Congressional findings were accurate. Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a pain specialist, said that unborn children feel enormous pain during an abortion and show increased heart rate, blood flow, and hormone levels in response to pain. Hamilton ruled the ban on partial-birth abortion, which President Bush signed into law last fall, is unconstitutional. “The act poses an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose an abortion,” U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton wrote in her decision. Scores of medical experts, and the AMA, have repeatedly noted that PBA, more accurately recognized as infanticide, is never necessary to preserve the life of the mother.[1June04, San Francisco; LifeNews.com, 2June04,...