Kurly’s Kommentary: Enough already: America needs new dialogue & a scientific fix to abortion issue
April 4, 2013 Leave a comment
By Steven Kurlander
Like the predictability of the change of seasons, social conservative GOP representatives in various State Legislatures have proposed a number of bills in their latest legislative sessions that would restrict, hamper, and even ban outright abortions in their states.
Those same “conservatives” that seek to keep government small and as non-intrusive as possible in the business community’s affairs are on a seemingly duplicitous holy crusade, seeking to have Big Brother deny women a choice to abort a fetus and to punish and restrict the freedoms of doctors, social workers, and others who participate in the practice.
This everlasting struggle between pro-life and pro-choice forces continues unabated-there’s no cease fire in this bloody war. It’s a debate that never ends and tears apart the social fabric of our nation.
Lately, anti-abortionist politicians have been successful recently in enacting legislation to wear away at protections afforded by Roe v. Wade, including requiring mandatory ultrasounds, redefining life at the moment of conception, mandating restrictive regulation of abortion clinics, and implementing restrictive regulations that in fact establish defacto restrictions on abortions.
And the epicenter of this acrimonious abortion debate always seems to be Tallahassee. The Florida Legislature is awash with the dripping righteousness of religious social conservatives in both parties who have been always hell-bent in making it as difficult as possible to obtain an abortion in the Sunshine State.
At that hearing on the bill, it came down to a debate of choice vs. dictum.
Rep. Jim Boyd: “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?”
Snow: “We [Planned Parenthood] believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.
Pigman argued that the state should be the sole arbiter in protecting the unborn child’s existence in such a situation: “In the circumstance of an infant born alive from an abortion, there is at least suspicion that the biological mother may not have the better interest of that born-alive infant in mind.”
What if you could allow an American woman the continued right to make that decision, and at the same time preserve the life of the fetus? The abortion debate would be over. It’s time for the development of an artificial womb that would allow a woman to terminate her pregnancy, but would ensure the continued development and life of the fetus until it could be “born.” As it stands, medical technology and techniques continue to bring down the number of weeks that a premature baby can survive. Unlike 40 years ago when Roe v Wade was decided, it’s doable these days.