An unborn child should not be aborted “out of love for the unborn child”

Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other similarly situated women should not have made the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality through late-term abortion, even if they claim that they had an abortion “out of love for the unborn baby” or to “spare the unborn child of pain or suffering,” because the choice to abort an unborn child “out of love” or “to spare the unborn child of pain or suffering” still involves the choice to intentionally cause the death of the unborn child and as such violates the right to life of the unborn children that they have chosen to abort. In addition to causing the death of their unborn child, these women have put their own health at risk by choosing to undergo an abortion “out of love of the unborn child,” even if they are lucky to have escaped major complications of their decision to have an abortion. Furthermore, the government has legitimate reasons to prohibit late-term abortion, even under the circumstances under which Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and similarly situated women sought a late-term abortion.

One of the biggest problems with the decision to abort an unborn child who was diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, even when it is claimed to have been done “out of love” for the unborn child who is being aborted, is that it is not loving to intentionally choose to end the life of an unborn child through an abortion, even if the unborn child would naturally die from a congenital defect if he or she is born alive. The choice to intentionally end the life of a child through abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, or murder is not truly loving because a mother who truly loves her child would respect her child’s right to life while her child is still alive and would not make choices that violate her child’s right to life. Besides not being truly loving, the choice to undergo an late-term abortion would still be morally wrong when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality because late-term abortion is inherently ordered towards causing the death of an unborn baby.

Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other similarly situated women have probably been misguided and might not have even sought a late-term abortion if they were not misguided. These women have likely been influenced into having a late-term abortion by the availability of legal late-term abortion and by the influences of pro-abortion physicians, pro-abortion politicians, pro-abortion professional counselors, abortion providers, and abortion rights organizations. Furthermore, they might not even be fully aware of the gruesome reality of late-term abortion because late-term abortions often involve either poisoning the unborn child or dismembering the unborn child and because late-term abortion might be very painful for the unborn child who is being aborted. If these women were actually fully aware of the gruesome reality of late-term abortion, they might have chosen life instead of late-term abortion for their children, even after their children were diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality.

Christy Zink had claimed that she chose to abort her son who was diagnosed with “agenesis of the corpus callosum” in order “to spare [her] son’s pain and suffering” and that her son “would have experienced near-constant pain” if the son that she aborted were born alive, and that her abortion is “basic medical care.” However, her unborn son’s death through a late-term abortion might actually have been more painful than if he were born alive and died naturally. Additionally, Christy Zink’s son who was aborted could have been given strong painkillers to relieve the “near-constant pain” if he were born alive. Moreover, her abortion was not “basic medical care” because her abortion was sought primarily for the purposes of ending the life of her unborn son. Furthermore, Christy Zink could have sought counseling from a pro-life professional counselor, prenatal medical care from a pro-life physician, and palliative care for her son through a perinatal hospice instead of choosing to end the life of her son through a late-term abortion.

Although Wendy Davis, Christy Zink, and other women want late-term abortion to remain legal, late-term abortion should become illegal, even in cases where the unborn child has been diagnosed with a serious fetal abnormality, for several reasons. First, the unborn child always has an universal right to life under the natural moral law, regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy and whether or not the unborn child is wanted by his or her mother. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of the unborn child since the moment of conception, even when the unborn child is unwanted by his or her mother and even when the unborn child has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. Third, there is the risk that the diagnosis of a severe fetal abnormality of an unborn child is wrong, and there is also the risk that a healthy unborn child who had been wrongfully diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality would be killed if a late-term abortion is performed. Finally, there are options other than late-term abortion for pregnant women who are faced with the diagnosis of a severe fetal abnormality, including pro-life professional counseling, prenatal medical care from pro-life physicians, perinatal hospice, and palliative care.

Advertisements

Why abortion should become illegal in the United States and why babies with severe fetal abnormalities should not be aborted

Some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks oppose the 20-week bans being proposed in Congress and in some of the state legislatures because these women felt that they needed to have an abortion after 20 weeks. However, not all of the women who choose to have abortions after 20 weeks choose to do so out of mere convenience to the mother, and the major reasons why women choose to have abortions after 20 weeks include severe fetal abnormalities, severe complications of pregnancy, changes in economic situations in the middle of a pregnancy, and pregnancies discovered after the first trimester. In addition, some of the abortions that are performed after 20 weeks involve pregnancies and aborted babies that were previously wanted by their mothers, and many of these abortions involve babies that were diagnosed with severe fetal abnormalities that could not be detected until after the 17th week of pregnancy.

Although it is understandable why some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks chose to have an abortion after 20 weeks and why some of these women would be opposed to a 20-week-ban on abortion, there are good reasons why abortion should become illegal in the United States. First and foremost, abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being and always violates a right to life that should not have been taken away from unborn human beings. Second, a pregnant woman who decides to undergo an abortion is usually aware that an abortion will result in the death of an unborn human being. Third, the fact that a pregnancy will normally result in the birth of a child if it is not aborted is usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Fourth, the majority of women who undergo abortions choose to do so with the intention of causing the death of their unborn child. Finally, the government has legitimate governmental interests that justify the prohibition of abortion.

While it is understandable that some of the women who are pregnant with an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality do not want their children to suffer from these defects and even though it is understandable why some of these women would want to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, the abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality cannot be morally justified because such an abortion is normally done with the intention of causing the death of the unborn child, because such an abortion is always inherently ordered by its very nature towards causing the death of the unborn child, and because such an abortion is always an intrinsically evil act that is always contrary to natural law and the law of God.

In addition to being morally wrong and morally unjustifiable, there are other major issues with the decision to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. First, there is the possibility that an healthy unborn child will be killed as a result of such an abortion. Second, such an abortion might involve the risk of serious complications to the mother. Third, the decision to abort an unborn child that is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality can still be emotionally painful for the mother. Fourth, an abortion might be very painful for an unborn child who is being aborted, but the natural death of an child who is born with a severe fetal abnormality is not always painful to the child. Fifth, any physical pain that might be felt in children who are born with a severe fetal abnormality might be able to be effectively managed through the use of painkillers. Furthermore, the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality sends the message that the child is not unconditionally loved by his or her mother, even though the mother of such a child might believe that it is a compassionate or loving choice. Finally, the choice to have a baby who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality born alive sends the positive message that the child is unconditionally loved by his or her parents, despite a severe fetal abnormality.

While that there are some individuals who believe that abortion-on-demand should remain legal and that women should continue to have a right to an abortion, there are legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion, and abortion should become illegal again in the United States. First and foremost, the government has “legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and these legitimate interests have already been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn child who might be born alive as a result of a failed abortion against any irreversible harm that might result from such an attempt. Third, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children against any pain that might be experienced during an abortion procedure. Fourth, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” are compelling enough to justify banning abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Furthermore, an unborn child already has a right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother under fetal homicide laws that exist in 38 states. Finally, unborn children should have a legally protected right to life that should never have been taken away from unborn children in the first place.