Editor, Times-Union:

The Indiana General Assembly must act soon to abolish abortion, without exceptions, in Indiana, and the governor must sign the bill. Also, there should never be physician-assisted suicide in Indiana.

But, what about in cases “to save  the life of the mother?” Words matter, so allow me to comment. An “abortion” has, as its primary end point, the killing of a baby. However, a “maternal-fetal separation” operation has as its end point the saving of two lives, the mother and the baby. That is a massive difference in surgical technique and intent.

Medicine is a constantly evolving field. What colonial midwife could have imagined the techniques of obstetrics in 1973? What Hoosier in 1973 could have imagined neonatology in 2022? And, what technology will be present in 5, 10, 50 years from now? There will be someday an “artificial uterus” to support unborn babies until independent viability.

Sadly, even with all of our current science and surgical techniques, not all babies will survive. But physicians must try and keep trying, until all babies are saved. We demand “Operation Warp Speed” for some medical conditions, so why not for neonatology, which will save many more lives than some questionable anti-viral gene therapy?

Founder James Otis, Jr. often opined, in 1761, that those who oppose liberty do so for one or more of three basic reasons (I paraphrase): Pragmatism, Malice or Ignorance. Hoosiers, what is the motivation of your legislator and governor?

Abortion is killing, and should be abolished without exception. A maternal-fetal separation is a potential dual life saving surgical procedure, and research and technique development should be encouraged. Both the born and the unborn are created in the image of God, and all are equally worthy of life.

Christopher Magiera, M.D.

Warsaw, via email