Tuesday, May 14, 1996
Facts present procedure in true light for first timeBy Edmond
Goubran
I am just writing to say OOORAAAAHHH to Elizabeth Rich for her
column on a heinous procedure called the partial-birth abortion
("Examining partial-birth abortion," May 13). It was something that
needed to be brought to light among all the rhetoric of the
pro-abortion movement (really pro-death euphemistically termed
pro-choice). It is one of the few times I have seen a Viewpoint
column use facts that anyone can check out for themselves if they
truly seek the truth. It is a very solid column.
Unfortunately, although this column quoted the very doctor
(Martin Haskell) who proposed this method, and outlined his words
for the technical procedure, I have been surprised to see that
there are those who still manage to overlook this and revert to the
usual pro-abortion rhetoric.
What is more amazing is that these individuals use arguments
that were already shot down in the column, like "the mother’s life"
argument. Well, may I reiterate that there are far better
procedures for saving a mother’s life, AND saving the child’s life;
of course, that would defeat the purpose of most abortions in the
first place, which is to terminate the life of the child so as to
not have to bear the responsibility of a child.
The rhetoric used by pro-abortionists would have us believe that
convenience abortions are really rare to nonexistent, and that they
are really trying to save the mother; after all, doctors haven’t
found other ways than this heinous procedure.
If the sketch presented of this procedure makes one feel sick,
then there is hope that human decency is not yet dead. If one is
able to dismiss it as just emotion-grabbing rhetoric (although the
diagrams are "accurate ‘from a technical point of view’"), then it
is obvious that pro-abortion rhetoric and hypocrisy have set in
(remember the women in blood pools "emotion-grabbing"
verbiage).
Just remember this: The choice of life or death affects the
unborn baby 100 percent of the time; it affects the mother FAR less
than that.
The issue is not only about a mother, but about a small human
being who has no voice in the matter. This is just fact. One can
rationalize when the child is human all they want  it doesn’t
change the fact that even as a single cell (smallest unit of life),
the cell can be identified as human. In the case of this procedure,
the child fully looks like a human being and is awaiting arrival.
The big question is, "Are a few inches of the birth canal really
the difference between legal abortion and MURDER?"
You decide, but the procedure Rich took the time to research and
present to you is taken right from Dr. Haskell’s mouth, and you can
look it up yourself; that is, if you can handle the truth!
Once again, I would like to applaud the efforts of Rich for her
column. I am happy a noble woman brought this subject relating to
women up, so that the usual "you are not a woman, you don’t
understand" excuse could be dealt with. Thanks to the Daily Bruin
for printing Rich’s column, and for holding up the banner of true
pluralism.
Goubran is a third-year physiological science student.
One can rationalize when the child is human all they want Â
… even as a single cell (smallest unit of life), the cell can be
identified as human.