Fr. Charles Irvin, Diocese of Lansing at 402-A E. Madison Street, DeWitt, MI 48820 US - Partial Birth Abortion

Proponents of partial-birth abortions and opponents to the Legal Birth Definition Act like to base their arguments on the notion that the termination of a baby’s life as it is being born is a “safe medical procedure” to which women have a legal and constitutional right. To term it a “medical procedure” is akin to calling capital punishment by lethal injection a “medical procedure.” Additionally we are told that partial-birth abortions are necessary in order to protect the health of the mother. We have yet to hear, however, precisely what medical threats to the health of the mother are likely (or even possible for that matter) as the infant comes out of the birth canal. When an infant is emerging from the birth canal the length of time involved is only a few, very few, minutes. Precisely what medical threat to the health of the mother does the baby pose as it emerges? You never hear a word about that, do you! That’s because the real issue is not about the health of the mother. The real issue is about a woman’s freedom of choice and her so-called constitutional right to terminate the life of her baby even when it is essentially delivered from its her body. Why not call it for what it truly is, namely infanticide? Why not focus on the real issue, namely the point at which a woman’s right to choose becomes no longer absolute but limited? Feminist radicals would have us believe that a woman’s right to choose is without limit, omnipotent and untrammeled. Obfuscating that real issue with talk about “safe medical procedures” diverts us from clear thinking. A fertilized egg that is nurtured and protected will grow to become eighty to ninety years of age. That isn’t a religious belief or a statement of faith, it’s a medical fact. To say that a fetus is not a living human life is to fly in the face of medical science. To claim that a being-born infant is not entitled to constitutional protection or legal status is a matter of politics and law, not faith. We are not “imposing our religion” on anyone. We are arguing a legal and public policy position just as we did when it was claimed that Blacks were not human persons and had no legal or constitutional rights. Charles E. Irvin

(Back)