Here’s a serious issue to address before we begin our weekend. I have recently been posting positions Sam Brownback has proclaimed in support of life. I have tried to focus on those issues which receive support from both sides of the aisle. One I haven’t really addressed, however, is the contentious issue of abortion.
A common criticism of the pro-life movement and its supporters is that many of them appear to be hypocritical about it. “They support the fetus and not the child” is a common criticism. Others point to those who are pro-life yet strongly support the imposition of the death penalty.
A similar criticism can be applied to the other side. Many who oppose the death penalty have no qualms whatsoever about their pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) stance. And they seem to be immune to the facts about this repulsive practice.
Sam Brownback has stated his concerns about the death penalty; how its imposition conflicts with his pro-life views. (See Senator Brownback questions death penalty and culture of life.) He is also concerned about the other form of the death penalty: abortion. I found an interesting article from the Catholic News, Moral Aspects of Pain, that mentions Sam Brownback and his reintroduction of proposed legislation to address the issue of fetal pain:
However, there will be an opportunity for U.S. senators and U.S. representatives to reconsider the issue of foetal pain in the current 110th Congress. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., reintroduced the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act on Jan 22. He said, “It’s a scientific, medical fact that unborn children feel pain. We know that unborn children can experience pain based upon anatomical, functional, psychological and behavioural indicators that are correlated with pain in children and adults. Mothers seeking an abortion have the right to know that their unborn children can feel pain.”
A similar law failed to pass just last year:
…on Dec 6, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act died in the House of Representatives when it failed to receive the two-thirds majority needed to break a procedural impasse. The legislation would have required that women undergoing an abortion 20 weeks into their pregnancy be informed that an abortion causes pain to the unborn child. The bill also would have given women the option of choosing anesthesia for their unborn child to lessen his or her pain during the abortion.
While ending the barbaric practice of abortion is sadly not going to happen anytime soon, the least that can be done is to ensure that those forced to endure this procedure will not suffer pain. Why is this so hard for the pro-abortion crowd to understand?
And why did I bring up the death penalty in the first place?
In mid-December, death penalty opponents cheered the decision of a California judge who put a moratorium on executions in the state while the issue of execution protocols – whether pain was caused to the person undergoing execution – was resolved. Also, a judge in Maryland and the governor of Florida stopped pending executions in those states because of humanitarian concerns related to death by lethal injection. In California, U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel asked whether those executed suffered “unconscionable pain and suffering”.
How can we as a society suspend the death penalty due to pain concerns yet do nothing about the innocents slaughtered in the womb who also are known to experience pain during an abortion? We cannot if we have a heart; we cannot if we have a moral soul.
If women can choose to terminate their pregnancies via abortion should they not be given the information about what the consequences of that choice are? Should they not have the option to ensure that the innocent victim of that procedure suffers no pain? At least Senator Brownback is principled enough to be asking that question. As a nation what should our collective answer be?
Have a great weekend, everybody, from the entire Blogs 4 Brownback team.