Science will end the abortion question

It’s an absolute delight to know that when a lefty lib flubs his argument in writing on this page and is hammered with logic as a consequence, the alert editors at the JG will allow the writer, who couldn’t make a reasoned argument the first time around, a second bite at the apple as Bill Bruening was allowed in his April 9, 2019 letter, “Compassion vital in abortion debate.”   

Here’s the bottom line on the abortion question.  Science is closing in on the ghouls advocating for snuffing out babies.  Ultrasound now produces pictures at earlier and earlier stages that prove that what we’re dealing with in an abortion is a baby.  As science advances so does the life expectancies in uterine children. 

Science has already advanced to the point that only the most obtuse people or rabid abortionist can deny that what we’re dealing with after the first trimester is undeniably a baby with a heartbeat, a face, capable of feeling pain and most importantly possessing a human soul.

No mindless argument Bruening or others advocating for killing babies can make refute those indisputable truths. Notice Bruening and other abortionist never advocate for adoption as a solution to an unwanted pregnancy.  I wonder why that is?

Maybe what the JG editors needs to do is bring in another out of state ringer to make the argument for Ft. Wayne’s flummoxed libs who are incapable of making convincing case no matter how many chances they given on this page. I’d offer up the raging racist and popular advocate for infanticide Virginia Governor and Democrat in good standing Ralph “Coonman” Northam.

    

Compassion vital in abortion debate

Now that the dust has settled regarding my Feb. 13 letter suggesting a truce might be helpful in discussing abortion, I will try for the last time to address that issue. I have been accused of condoning infanticide and of being a racist in responses to my original letter. Of course, I do not condone infanticide and I do not condone racism.

My best guess about the infanticide charge is that there are times when aggressive treatment for some newborns does not make medical sense. In the literature about such cases, the word used is “futile.” There has been a long history about withholding or withdrawing of extraordinary means to save a life, and it is not restricted to newborns. Even a cursory reading of Indiana statutes will make it obvious such decisions are permitted by law.

The racism charge makes no sense to me. It you are “racist” about all human beings, then you are a misanthrope. If you kill newborns who are otherwise not in a life-threatening condition, you are a murderer – or some other term that fits the Indiana statutes. If you decide not to use so-called “extraordinary” means to save someone's life – newborn or otherwise – you are not committing infanticide nor are you a racist.

The gut-wrenching decision to end an ectopic pregnancy is what some people call an indirect abortion. You need to make some sense of the principle of double effect. If that distinction does not work, then indirect abortion is more than problematic for the pro-life position. Logically speaking, there is no way to decide to end the pregnancy or let it continue. If you let it continue, then both the mother and the unborn die.

I suggest both sides of the debate stop acting self-righteously. I suggest we all use more compassion and less condemning. Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone. And we should forgive at least 7x70 times those who make choices we think are wrong (Matthew 18-22).

Bill Bruening

Fort Wayne