In the debate over a bill that would ban abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy, the Democrats brought forth a witness who told this story (to a panel comprised entirely of men):
“I would have had to carry to term and give birth to a baby whom the doctors concurred had no chance of a life and would have experienced near-constant pain,” Zink said. “If he had survived the pregnancy — which was not certain — he might never have left the hospital. My daughter’s life, too, would have been irrevocably hurt by an almost always-absent parent.”
It would seem like halting the development of that fetus before it every reaches the point where it can experience its own existence, and the pain that would dominate it, would be the obviously humane choice. But not to Texas Republican Louie Gohmert.
He did this while citing his own great sympathy and empathy. I only assume he meant toward the collection of cells that cannot experience pain, not to the woman who would have to go through the pain of carrying a brain dead child to term and then delivering, not to mention the psychological anguish of, at best, having to see a brain dead child after all of that and, at worst, to watch a child live in agony that she could have prevented.
To quote Gohmert: “these are ethical issues, these are moral issues.” Yes, they are. And Louie Gohmert and his cohorts are on the wrong side of compassion and morality on them. That Gohmert can entertain the idea of doing that to the mother or of insisting that a child be born to suffer reveals that adherence to static, arbitrary rules is Gohmert’s concern, no anything resembling sympathy.