Thursday, April 17, 2008

Gov. Henry veto

Oklahoma is passing a bill that would require anyone having an abortion to also have an ultrasound prior to the procedure. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed the bill (Okla. legislature later overrode Henry’s veto) because, Henry says, “By forcing the victims of such horrific acts (i.e. cases of rape and incest) to undergo and view ultrasounds after they have made such a difficult and heartbreaking decision, the state victimizes the victim for a second time. It would be unconscionable to subject victims of rape and incest to such treatment. Because of this critical flaw, I cannot in good conscience sign this legislation.”

Looking at the message boards for this story, it is clear that a lot of abortion supporters are strongly opposed to this bill. I believe abortion is wrong. Humans beget humans, not blobs. The fetus is a human even though it might not look human. Historically, Americans have struggled with this. For much of American history blacks were considered less than human—chattel property—because they looked different than whites (Stand to Reason resources alerted me to this connection). If the unborn baby is human, then to take its life is to kill a human. That seems pretty straightforward. (For a concise, lucid pro-life appeal, read Sherif Girgis' letter to Barack Obama).

Putting these convictions aside for a moment, the opposition to this bill seems suspicious. Why would
abortion advocates oppose a bill giving pregnant women all the information possible? Always be wary of one who seeks to hide information from you. That is what many abortion proponents wish to do by opposing this bill. It reminds me of fast food places wanting to resist divulging their nutritional information to the public. Why? Because if we knew the inordinate amount of calories and heart attack-inducing cholesterol contained in just one bite of their burgers we’d probably avoid them.

I do not want to be blithe about the trauma that accompanies women considering abortion. We, Christians, would do well to apply the same zeal we have for the unborn to their hurting mothers. Amidst this turmoil, however, I believe the answer is not destruction but redemption. It seems odd that either side of the debate would oppose a bill helping one understand the reality of the situation more clearly.

No comments: