E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiIn essence the court held that while a physician has an obligation to inform a patient about the known (agreed-upon) risks from a particular medical procedure or drug regimen, that same doctor has no obligation to tell a person considering abortion that the “thing” that is to be aborted is a preborn human being, in this case a baby with a beating heart and a functioning brain. The court’s reasoning in this assertion is that there is a lack of agreement over the nature of the pregnancy itself within society.
In applauding the ruling the ACLU said the case was an “underhanded attempt to turn doctors into ideological mouthpieces and subject women to non-medical moral judgments.”
Why are pro-abortion groups afraid to let an unsuspecting woman know that the “thing” growing within her is a human life? Even with that information, under current law the woman would still have the “right” (wrong though it may be) to have that life flushed out of her system.
Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and other members of this cult of death don’t want women to know this is a human life we are talking about. It is not only a truth revealed in Scripture (Psalm 139; Jeremiah 1:5); it is a fact agreed upon by most in the medical community.
It is a fact that the plaintiff in this case consented in writing to this procedure. (Although it is her contention that she did not fully comprehend its ramifications.) It is difficult to fathom that any woman would not understand that what was growing within her is a child —particularly if this was the woman’s third child (as it was for Acuna).
Nonetheless, we cannot make such assumptions about the population.
That is why the paper cup you are handed at your local coffee shop has a warning imprinted upon it to tell you that the coffee in the cup is hot and may burn you if you pour it on yourself.
And it is why there is a label on hair dryers that warns that you if you want to dry your hair immediately after washing it you should step out of the shower spray before you take hold of the dryer.
This case rises to a much higher level because a human life faced immediate and deadly risk.
The ACLU said the court’s decision is a message that citizens of New Jersey will not “tolerate backdoor efforts to curtail reproductive rights or free speech.”
It is easy to perch haughtily on the right to freedom of speech embedded in our Constitution’s First Amendment, but is there not at least a moral obligation for that speech to be truthful and complete?
Should a patient not expect her physician to tell her everything about a pending medical procedure? The law, in fact, requires as much. Yet the law in New Jersey does not recognize the unborn child—the target of the abortion—as a patient (or a victim). So the doctor has no obligation to inform the baby’s legal guardian of the risks of the procedure.
While those who value human life—born and preborn—may be disgusted by the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling, we should be more disgusted with a society that contends that an unborn human baby is just a mass of tissue until some subjective, magical time in-utero when the tissue is transformed into a human being. Continue »
