Quote: "A Lesser of Two Evils" - Partial Birth Abortion

Of all the available abortion methods, the aforementioned is the most dreadfully unbelievable. Indeed, wordy descriptions cannot accurately do this procedure justice, for it seems to be the absolute pinnacle of wickedness ever conceived of through the twisted workings of the mind of the natural man. An stone-cold and utter disregard for the beauty and sanctity of human life is deeply rooted in the practice, for who, in good conscience could procure or carry out such a deadly dealing and call it, "A lesser of two evils."  

Throughout my several months of research I've stumbled upon many a good sermon on the subject of abortion. In this author's opinion, no one pastor seems to be so aware and concerned about the practice and the ugly, sinful stain it has left on our world as Dr. John Piper. He devotes one Sunday a year to preaching the realities of abortion in light of the truth of Scripture, and I'm sure many more in seeking its speedy end. The term, "A lesser of two evils," causes me to reflect upon one of his sermons, although I'm not now entirely certain which of the many it came from. However I do know this, I was devastated and awestruck by the account of a conversation that Pastor Piper had with an abortionist. He was said to have begun the conversation with a solid attempt to convince the abortionist that what lay inside the womb was precious and deemed worthy of the title, "Human." Midway through his oration the Doctor stopped Pastor Piper short, saying something to the effect of, "John, you need not try and convince me that the womb holds a living creature. I am thoroughly convinced that the fetus is a human being. But don't you see? Abortion is a lesser of two evils and a necessary one. To deny a woman the right to do what she deems necessary with her body would be a much greater evil then the practice of abortion itself." So in the name of deadly goddess Choice, we are justifying the slaughter of thousands daily and millions yearly upon the alter of Free Rights. 

Now to a description of the method itself. The practice of infanticide does not originate with Partial Birth Abortion, but has cast its ugly shadow over human history for many centuries past. However, it has only recently become both medically and legally acceptable. One day, not too long ago, I had the opportunity to present this information to an older generation, my grandparents. The world was a very different place in their hay-day. It was a world where homosexuality was taboo, and families were raised under the mantle of the Church. Abortion was virtually unheard of and a gravely disproved of when contemplated - not to mention illegal. After presenting such information to my grandparents, two people who live without a computer and possess a somewhat sheltered frame of mind - depending only on the news to construct a view of the world, they were utterly horrified, exclaiming, "That's murder." It doesn't take a lot of information or a long acquaintance with the subject to create a solid conclusion. 

Partial Birth Abortion is defined well by its name. It is a procedure where a larger baby, one often able to live outside the womb with medical aid, is pulled out of the womb backwards by the abortionist and killed by the removal of his or her brain with a suction catheter. To offer further explanation, here is MD William Mudd Martin Haskell:

"Dilation and extraction takes over three days. In a nutshell, D&X (also referred to as Partial Birth Abortion) can be described as follows: dilation; more dilation; real-time ultrasound visualization; intact extraction; fetal skull decompression; removal; clean-up; recovery." 

As to the procedure itself:

"The cervix is scrubbed, anesthetized and grasped with a tenaculum. The membranes are ruptured, if they are not already. The surgical assistant places an ultrasound probe on the patient's abdomen and scans the fetus, locating the lower extremities. The scan provides the surgeon information about he orientation of the fetus and the approximate location of the lower extremities. The trasnducer is then held in position over the lower extremities. The surgeon introduces a large grasping forcep, such as a Bierer of Hern, through the vaginal and cervical canals into the corpus of the uterus. Based upon his knowledge of fetal orientation, he moves the tip to the instrument carefully towards the lower extremities. When the instrument appears on the sonogram screen, the surgeon is able to open and close its jaws firmly and reliably grasp the lower extremity. The surgeon then applies firm traction to the instrument causing a version of the fetus (if necessary) and pulls the extremity to the vagina. By observing the movement of the lower extremity and version of the fetus on the ultrasound screen, the surgeon is assured that his instrument has not inappropriately grasped the maternal structure. WIth a lower extremity in the vagina, the surgeon uses his fingers to deliver the opposite lower extremity, then the torso, the shoulders and the upper extremities. The skull lodges at the internal cervical os. Usually there is not enough dilation for it to pass through. The fetus is oriented dorsum or spine up. At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left hand along the back of the fetus and "hooks" the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). Next he slides the tip of the middle finger along the spine towards the skull while applying traction to the shoulders and lower extremities. The middle finger lifts and pushes the anterior cervical lip out of the way. While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.  Reassessing proper placement of the closed scissor tip and save elevation of the cervix, the surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient. The surgeon finally removes the placenta with forceps and scrapes the uterine wall with a large Evans and 14 mm suction curette. The procedure ends."

I felt immediately numb after reading the above for the first time. How the abortionist could, "safely enter the skull," of a baby in order to put an end to its life is completely beyond me. Think carefully about this procedure - the doctor removes the baby in a breach position, but is careful to leave the head of the baby inside the mother. Consider what would happen if the baby's head were to suddenly emerge from the birth canal. The baby would be considered medically viable. For an abortion to be completed after such a turn of events would be legally deemed as murder. What transpires in the body of the baby during the period of time that he or she moves down the birth canal and into the outside world? Does this passage into the light of day create some change in the chemical make-up of the baby that causes it to become

"human?" No change, save a difference in location, can be noted. But does location determine person-hood? I am currently situated my living room as I write this paper. Now, is it logical to state that if I pass from the boundary of my living room and move into the kitchen I am no longer human? Such a notion would be deemed a foolish conjecture. Therefore, what role does location play in determining the person-hood of the baby? None whatsoever. 

Such is the plight of Partial Birth Abortion. The baby, dehumanized to the level of  "fetus," is removed from the mother as if it were nothing more then a tumor or parasite. The description offered by MD Haskell is coldly matter of fact, as if the doctor were describing a routine surgery. But instead of promoting and increasing longevity as doctors and surgery ought to do, abortion puts a brutal end to something that is supposed to be essentially beautiful. Oh, the magnitude of evils that mankind will be forced to make an account for on Judgement day! 

When things start to spiral downwards a little, self doubt occasionally follows swiftly behind. My first efforts in respects to making abortion unthinkable were crafted together into a Facebook group called, "A Review of Abortion - The Reality Behind the Term." The other evening, while checking my account, I stumbled upon a notice stating that some of my pictures had been deleted due to inapropriate content. I hunted around my personal profile for a time, trying to recall anything "offensive" that I might have posted. Suddenly it occurred to me that it must have been something from my group. I scanned my photos and quickly realized that a good deal of them were absent. Nineteen to be exact; all illustrating the results of abortion. Thus, I began thinking to myself: "Am I disgracing my God and the title, "Christian" through the posting of these pictures?" 

It brings me no surprise when the world calls my actions offensive. I was indeed, surprised that Facebook allowed me to post those pictures at all. The very fact that they remained untouched for so long was an unforeseen blessing! But when people who know me best (many of them being warm Christian acquaintances) begin to inquire as to why I'm posting such offensive images, I begin to wonder at myself. I question my motives, an action most worth my while. For I understand that when I wish to accomplish a good deed, sin is always intertwined and follows closely behind me. Indeed, the pictures are graphic. There is no doubt about it. But the historic pictures of the men and women who died under the siege of Nazi "discipline" are also graphic. Death by unnatural means brings many horrors along with it. But does it stand to say that because something is unpleasant, because the truth is unpleasant, we ought to turn a blind eye and shade ourselves from its view? Even though I question my own motives, I am not convinced that ignorance is called for in the situation of abortion.

Darkness should never be coveted, and ignorance has never served mankind well. Think back to the holocaust. All Germans were not Nazis. During this historical time frame many of them lead normal lives. They busied themselves with normal tasks. Picture the scene with me: "A German woman is outside gardening; her hands busy in the soil and her mind attentive to her work. Her daughter steps from the house with a basket of clean linens under her arm. She begins pegging them out on the line to dry, crisp and clean, in the sun. Suddenly, amidst the cheery sunshine of the day, a cloud of ash begins to float silently down upon the two workers. A redolent and putrid wave follows swiftly behind it; the smell of death fills the air. The women look up silently, well aware of this unwelcome cloudy visitor, then continue silently with their work." I am a poor orator, but the moral behind this simple illustration cannot be missed. The narrative is mere speculation, but it is based on historical fact. Many of the concentration camps lay a stones throw away from major cities. The occupants were well, but silently aware of what was transpiring mere miles from their doorsteps. Observe the testimony of concentration camp commandant, Rudolf HoB:

"We were required to carry these exterminations in secrecy but of

 course the foul and nauseating stench from the continuous burning of bodies permeated the entire area and all of the people living in the surrounding communities knew that exterminations were going on at Auschwitz." 

As I searched the internet in hopes of finding historical testimony to verify the simple narrative recorded above, my eye fell upon many weathered photographs painting the grim reality of Hitler's "Final Solution." Once again I stare - horrified by the pictures that accompany the lectures and information I find. There's something so striking about a picture, something that words alone cannot sufficiently express. It has been said that, "A picture is worth a thousand words." I strongly concur. Therefore, I must make it my personal occupation to ensure that all who are in my acquaintance see and understand (if they are so inclined) the reality of what abortion accomplishes. 

I write this not only to convince myself that these pictures are needed, but to shed some light on why I feel them to be essential. If my posting of said pictures have personally offended you then I must confess that I have mixed feelings about the "offense" that I cause. In a way, it is very good to be offended. I know that I am deeply offended by this pictorial evidence. One would have to be made of stone to remain untouched by the images that I lay open before your view. I post the pictures, not mainly to offend, but as a call to action. We must DO something about them, and relay the truth to our world that abortion kills a living being - not a mass of tissue or a simple lump of cells. 

We must take a cue from history and remember that the Nazis viewed the Jewish people as lowly and "inhuman." Because of that simple and destructive ideology the world found itself spectator to one of the most inhumane acts of all time; the slaughter of millions. And now we're privy to a similar holocaust. Only this time, we're killing the silent among us, the helpless among us; our own children. Every morning, we wake up, some of us enjoy breakfast, and then it's off to work. Know this: while we are going about our daily tasks 115,000 children are taken from within the safety of their mothers and discarded like trash. This holocaust might be occurring behind the closed and sanitary doors of clinics and hospitals but it is very real nonetheless. How are we going to react? Are we looking up in ignorance? Are we turning a blind eye? Are we guilty of "plugging our noses and ignoring the ash?"