As part 2 of this series, I would like to draw your attention to the Conservative Life post "Opening of the Baby Human Hunt". However, I must warn you, it is not for the faint of heart (or stomach). Graphic images are displayed, so proceed with caution. If you don't want to take a look though, I have to ask you why not? Those tiny babies went through a lot of trauma and pain before they died. Surely you can suffer through an uncomfortable glance for a moment.
Anyway, Ferret has made some excellent points in his comment section. You may have to wade through some rough language to get there, but it's worth the read.
Some more salient points: "If you murder a one week old baby that was born two weeks prematurely it is murder. If you murder 40 week old fetus that is technically older than the one that was born before being killed than it is acceptable. THAT IS INSANE."
Just think about that one for a while. To me it defeats that whole 'when is the fetus a person?' argument.
After I complimented Ferret for having the courage to write this he said, "It really doesn't take any courage to do this. Being critical of muslims takes courage because you might lose your head. Being hit with stupid comments from liberals who don't understand the absurdity of their stance is par for the course. I have a steady stream of idiot liberals who come here to showcase their ignorance. Good work getting your letter published in the National Post!"
The latter is a reference to my letter drawing a similar comparison to the seal hunt debate, which I included in an earlier post, (Live and Let Die). The whole thing drew some great comments.
Now, what I've been building up to here is a possible solution, as presented by a Post reader (Letters, March 30, "With a Viable Fetus, Rights Change". The writer is actually Margaret Somerville from the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal.
She feels that the whole issue shifts once a fetus is viable, i.e. could be kept alive as a premie if allowed to live. At this point, isn't it murder to kill the baby once he would be theoretically able to be kept alive using modern technology?
Ms. Somerville further argues:
"Abortion is based on respect for a woman's right to control her body, including to not use it to gestate a fetus against her wishes. That right can be honoured by recognizing her right to evacuate her uterus. It is a further, separate question whether a woman also has a right to have the fetus killed when that is avoidable.
Late-term abortions are usually carried out by a lethal injection of potassium chloride into the heart of the fetus, which is then delivered dead. In Canada, no law prevents doing that to any fetus. If the same fetus were born alive and killed, the crime would be murder. The Princeton philosopher Peter Singer recognizes the inconsistency in this approach and, therefore, argues for the legalization of infanticide as well as abortion. The alternative path to consistency is to ban late-term abortions, unless they are required to protect the woman's life or health. Or we could just ban killing a viable fetus, but allow its delivery."
I'm not going to copy any more of the letter here, because you should have been subscribing to the Post all along, right? (See, I'm not totally against MSM).
So, in the case of late stage unwanted pregnancies, let's rid the poor woman of her horrible burden, and still allow that human being an opportunity to live and be loved in a good home with parents who are desperate to have children.
Or else it should be legal to snuff out anyone's life when they cause us some inconvenience.
Update: Just discovered two more great links to debate on this subject:
Try Celestial Junk, "The Debate Nobody Wants", and The War Room, "Partial Birth Abortion".
Obviously, democracy still rules in the blogosphere.