I've always wondered if what I've been taught about PBA, generally from biased, religious sources, was accurate. Apparently, it is. I do deplore abortion (yet concede its moral and legal necessity when the mother's life is in question), but the realist in me has been one to favor taking a realistic stand against it. Namely, I've heard of quite Machiavellian tactics employed by agencies such as PP, but I honestly don't know how much they're used. I think it's pretty manifest that unless the life of the mother is in danger, PBA is an embarrassment and failure of modern society.
On abortion in general, I think what's necessary involves:
-Psychological profiling and counseling of the woman in question by an agent not involved directly in the procedure itself,
-A renovation of the organs market involved with abortions. Neither the performing agency nor the woman should be fiscally rewarded for the abortion by the scientific community--those samples BELONG to science, science shouldn't have to pay, to the last of my knowledge of years ago, $1200 for a fetal brain. Handling fees should be the only exchange of money between the lab and the abortion administrators.
-There should be a separation from organizations such as PP who advocate abortion and the procedure themselves. There shouldn't be "abortion clinics"... if it wants to be perceived as a typical medical procedure, it should act like one. Abortions should be performed by agencies with nothing to gain from them. Apropos to my last point, according to
http://www.fumento.com/fetal.html the abortion industry nets $175 for each abortion. This is a flagrant conflict of interest, IMO.
Hybrid Mode
