July 16, 2018
Pro-abortion writer laments the power of “cutting edge science” to aid the pro-life cause
I often wonder if pro-abortionists actually listen to what they say or read what they write?
Jessica Glenza writes for the London-based pro-abortion Guardian newspaper and has a post today under the curious title, “How anti-abortion activists use cutting edge science to justify ever stricter laws.”
I know nothing about Dr. Edward Bell, a neonatologist who “treats the tiniest babies at University of Iowa,” other than what Glenza quotes him as saying. If we accept her characterization, Dr. Bell is not happy that pro-lifers want to know about younger and younger preemies who’ve survived.
While the doctor said he considers attention from anti-abortion campaigners a distraction from his work with premature children, he also acknowledged viability is “a moving target.”
“It’s gotten to the point where in many places you can have a legal abortion in one part of the hospital of a baby who can be a patient in the neonatal unit in another part of the hospital, and have a good chance of survival. And that’s unacceptable to some people,” Bell said, explaining how medical advances and abortion restrictions converge.
Consider his amazing conclusion. It’s “unacceptable to some people” that in one wing of a hospital, doctors and nurses are doing everything to save a baby while in another wing of the same hospital an abortionist is about to kill a baby of the exact same age.
That ought to be “unacceptable” to every morally sentient human being.
Click here for more from NRL News Today.