To the Editor:
In the opinion piece, "Abortion limits increase likelihood of late-term procedure" (TNT, 3-24), Sara Eckel proposes a partial-birth abortion compromise: Ban the procedure, but eliminate other restrictions so that abortions are not delayed into the last trimester. The proposal is based on the curious idea that there is something fundamentally different between a baby that hasn't developed very far and one that has.
If the baby shows "eyes and ear,"she writes, she begins to feel queasy about abortion. I'm not sure I understand what eyes and ears have to do with it. Why not at the appearance of a fingerprint, or the ability to feel pain, or some other arbitrary point?
The position taken by Ms. Eckel and others like her is illogical and ultimately self-serving. If such folk actually believe what they say, they maintain that a baby attains human status when you "feel" like it should. If viability is your thing, then you pick the date on that basis, even though viability varies according to the individual and changes with technology. If you think eyes and ears are cute, then you go with that.
Before this arbitrary breakpoint, a baby has the status of cancerous tissue; cut it out and throw it away. Afterwards, suddenly, as if by magic, he achieves human status. But given our current understanding of genetics and fetal development, there is really no excuse for such ambiguity. We know, beyond any argument, that no change takes place in a baby from the moment of conception through birth, except for continuing development.
Humanity, if it begins at all, clearly begins at conception. Only in the area of abortion is such ambiguity allowed to set public policy. Pro-abortion opinion makers must be challenged to argue logically and honestly, or to at least explain on what other basis they proceed.
PHILIP W. NOSS
Puyallup
Reprinted with permission.
Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abortion