The L.A. Times front page, as it is prone to do, yesterday offered some pro-abortion propaganda that once again clearly exposes the position for what it is. The first three paragraphs are really all you need to read:
Fourth-year medical student Megan Lederer recently helped deliver a
premature baby at barely six months gestation. The newborn was tiny,
unimaginably fragile, but she survived.
Caught up in the moment, Lederer didn’t think about the implication for
her chosen career. Later, though, she wondered: Could I have aborted
She could have, she decided. She would have felt an obligation.
Because most abortion supporters have not yet openly embraced infanticide, the supporting argument for their position, as it is popularly presented, can be boiled down to this: the being that inhabits a pregnant woman is not something that needs to be given the protection against destruction that we give the being that comes out of the woman at the end of her pregnancy, so abortion is OK.
This is why abortion supporters always avoid the term "baby" to describe the being that is destroyed while growing inside its mother. They talk about the procedure as "ending a pregnancy" or "getting rid of tissue" or perhaps "ejecting the fetus." It is an attempt to make a value distinction between the being inside a woman and that being outside of a woman, which everyone refers to as a baby (and most people don’t want to see killed.) "Abortion doesn’t kill a baby," say advocates who use this argument, "so it is OK."
However, this is simply a lie, and everyone knows it. They know a baby is killed, and they simply don’t care. That the word-play is just a smokescreen is apparent in the article.
In the first paragraph, after six months of pregnancy, a woman gave birth to a being the author described as a "newborn" and a "baby." It would be hard to argue with her choice of words as they accurately describe the facts. The woman who was pregnant is now a mother of a child that we all recognize to be deserving of protection against death.
The we read that the medical student who assisted with the delivery thought about whether she could have "aborted that pregnancy." She decided that she could have.Now, it is simply impossible in the context of this story to interpret the term "aborted that pregnancy" to mean other than "killed that baby." The medical student clearly knows that the being she is willing to abort is a baby that is viable outside of the womb. And she doesn’t care.
It is no longer realistic to view the continued eradication of millions of pre-born human beings as a matter of scientific or philosophical debate. It is a moral issue. More to the point, it is simply evil.