The stance is, of course, preposterous. The solution to lessening poverty of course lies in providing more resources for development rather than encouraging abortion.
Similarly, some people justify the abortion of babies with disabilities on compassionate grounds. This reasoning is an extension of the now thoroughly discredited pseudo-science of eugenics that promoted the weeding out of the mentally retarded and feeble-minded populations. There is no 'compassion' involved in the killing of the most vulnerable sections of our population and the unborn child is quite obviously the most vulnerable. In fact, it is one of the cruelest acts imaginable. It is also misleading to suggest that such unborn babies with disabilities are 'unwanted.' The readiness of families to adopt such disabled children disproves the contention.
The most controversial legal issue facing the U.S. courts and the administration...
The U.S. Congress passed the "partial-Birth ban Acts" in 1996 and 1997 but was vetoed by President Clinton. Eventually President Bush signed the Act into
law in 2003. On appeal, the courts in
California, Nebraska, and New York ruled that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional and a violation of the 1973 U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. The Act now heads to the U.S. Court of Appeals and is expected to eventually end up in the U.S. Supreme Court for a decision. New appointment of judges to the U.S. Supreme Court by the
Bush administration in the coming days is, therefore, crucial to the decision on this issue and would be eagerly awaited by all those who support the right of life for the unborn babies.
Even the earliest abortions, such as the RU 486 abortions cannot be done until after six weeks of pregnancy
Abortion
