Consent For What?

June 5, 2006 09:00 AM

I think I have read enough about what informed consent (or the lack thereof) means when dealing with the expectant mother who is trying to decide whether or not she will be the mother of a living child or a dead child.

We are told in Uninformed Consent: Abortion and Mental Health Consequences that "women" should be told all about the "risks" involved in abortion prior to actually getting their abortion. And, not surprisingly, we are told that those mothers who do abort their children experience mental health problems that other mothers who chose life do not.

But what boggles my mind is this: everybody knows that an act of abortion is being considered for one reason only: there is a baby growing inside his mother. Everybody also knows that the baby is a human being, though some abortion supporters suggest it is a "life" that should not be considered as equivalent to that of his mother.

My point is this: what exactly are we informing the mother about? Her risks? Well, how about the truth for a change. Sure she may experience depression or become suicidal, both of which are very sad indeed. She may even become infertile, and then when she decides she "wants" to have a baby, be unable to do so.

But her baby is definitely going to experience death. Can't we inform her of that and then proceed to tell her that nobody should be paid to murder another person? hat's why the pro-life movement should be focused on ending abortion rather than making sure a mother has been fully informed before her "choice."

Personhood please.

Back to news