Thursday, April 19, 2007

The impartial birth abortion decision, by Dan Holman, MTP-Iowa

Dear friends,

By now, most of you have heard about the Supreme Court upholding the "partial birth abortion ban." Before prolifers get all warm and fuzzy, here is a letter to the editor which was written by Dan Holman from Missionaries to the Preborn, Iowa

The impartial birth abortion decision

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban is “feel good” legislation for the pro-life movement. The ban does nothing for the babies slated (for) abortion. The abortionist is still permitted to do this procedure if he first kills the baby in the womb.

The Supreme Court decision is bad law on bad law; there is no right way to kill a baby. What should be at issue is the humanity of the pre-born, not what is the most humane way of killing him.

In 1856 the Supreme Court decided it was OK to own a slave, the court did not recognize the humanity of black people. They were wrong then and they are wrong today when they merely outlaw an abortion procedure instead of outlawing abortion on demand.

When passing through the birth canal, nothing magical happens which changes a “fetus” into a “person”. There is no rational legal doctrine behind either legalizing abortion, or outlawing a procedure. I(f) the pre-born child is a person, he is entitled to equal protection under the law; if he is chattel, it makes no difference how he is killed.

It is interesting that this decision was decided at a time when George Bush’s ratings are in the basement. Is it possible that the courts can be influenced to make political decisions to pacify disgruntled supporters?

Thank you,

Dan Holman
Missionaries to the Pre-born Iowa
P.O. Box 135
Keokuk , Iowa 52632