By Tom Quiner
This happens more often than you think: a baby survives an abortion attempt.
What do you do about it? There are two choices:
1. Do nothing. Let the baby die. It has absolutely no right to life, right?
2. Provide immediate medical care to save the life of the child, since, having made it out of the womb, he or she is now considered a person.
Quiner’s Diner has written about this dilemma several times. If you recall, then-State Senator, Barack Obama, refused to vote for an Illinois law that would require medical care for babies that survived an abortion.
The president’s moral compass told him that the mother’s desire to end the life of her child trumped the child’s right to life, even after surviving an abortion.
Interestingly, the nation’s Congress disagreed, and in a rare unanimous vote, passed Born Alive legislation.
Planned Parenthood’s ethics are in tune with Mr. Obama’s regarding the issue of what to do with a baby who escapes the abortionist’s clutches.
Florida is attempting to pass their own version of Born Alive legislation. Planned Parenthood is fighting them.
Alisa LaPolt Snow is a lobbyist who represents the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates. She testified before legislators on behalf of PP and said whether or not to kill an infant who survived an abortion should be left up to the mom and her abortionist.
A stunned legislator, Jim Boyd, stammered back:
“So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
What would be the compassionate answer? Why to try to save the life of the baby. That approach does not align with PP’s ethics, as Ms. Snow clarified:
“We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”
Rep. Daniel Davis posed this question:
“What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
Ms. Snow again demonstrated PP’s lack of compassion for the child:
“I do not have that information. I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
If Ms. Snow was driving down the road and saw a two year old child lying on the side of the road, and the child was struggling for breath, would she drive by since she is not a physician? No. She would call for emergency medical care.
What is the difference between the 2 year old and the newborn other than one was wanted, and the other wasn’t?
Let’s say the 2 year old lying beside the road was discarded there by parents who didn’t want her anymore, would that change anything?
Of course not.
If you’ve read this blog over the last few years or followed the abortion debate, you’ve heard a variety of views from my readers on when human personhood begins:
√ Some say it begins at birth.
√ Some say it begins with the first heartbeat.
√ Some say it begins when the child feels pain (about 20 weeks or so).
√ Some say it begins in the second trimester.
√ Some say 25 weeks.
√ Some say it begins at birth.
√ Now Planned Parenthood says that’s still not enough, that the life of the child that survives a “botched” abortion is STILL conditional.
Should human life ever be conditional on the whims of the more powerful?
Barack Obama says yes.
Planned Parenthood says yes, compassion be damned.
Their ethics, their moral compass, puts the interest of the powerful, Planned Parenthood, ahead of the human being fighting for life.
There is one clear, consistent, and logical standard to mark the beginning of personhood, and that is at conception.