 |
 |
|
|
In his letter in the August 1 issue, Dr. Samuel Greenberg faults Dr. Hugo Van Dooren for wanting to have it both ways since Dr. Van Dooren, in an earlier Viewpoints column, had advocated that APA take no position on abortion while at the same time urging APA to support the ban against partial birth abortion.
I cannot speak for Dr. Van Dooren, but I suspect that he, like me, regards partial birth abortion more as infanticide than abortion. Even those who favor the right to have an abortion must admit that, in the case of partial birth abortion, the line between the two starts to blur. I assume, or at least hope, that if the same procedure used in partial birth abortion, namely, aspiration of brain tissue to cause the collapse of the skull and death of the partially born infant, were to be carried out after that infant was completely delivered, we in the medical profession would find it morally objectionable. But, then again, perhaps it is only a matter of time before the majority attitude toward infanticide changes, as we continue our descent down the slippery slope.
It appears clear to me that the opposing sides on the abortion issue will never agree. The question now should be whether we wish to continue to polarize APA’s membership over this matter or to stop this discord by rescinding the APA position paper on abortion and adopting a position of true neutrality.
Robert E. Campion, M.D.
New York, N.Y.