It is not at all surprising that public support for Roe v. Wade is typically rooted in a lack of knowledge.
Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term “September 11th” almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who chose to callously sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, January 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history — Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom “right” for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously “choose” to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
It’s not at all surprising that what public support there is for Roe v. Wade is typically rooted in a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is bliss, and blissful ignorance relative to Roe is by design. It’s intentionally fueled through obfuscation and disinformation, fostered by pro-abortion activists and other like-minded leftists. Polls show conclusively that the more people learn about Roe v. Wade, the less likely they are to support it.
And so, in an effort to help educate the public about Roe, members from a coalition of pro-family organizations are asking America the following question: “Do you really know Roe?”
Concerned Women for America (CWA), Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund and the Family Research Council have designed a website with a brief online questionnaire to test your knowledge about Roe v. Wade. It’s a Roe IQ test, and it can be taken in a few short minutes at RoeIQTest.com.
We’ve all heard the Biblical admonition, “A man reaps what he sows.” With Roe, we have reaped a culture of death. The human toll Roe has taken is unfathomable and will only increase until people take the time to learn the truth about this convoluted and lethal ruling.
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war — the war for our culture — it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battle field, buried — unceremoniously — in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood.
Although we think of 1973 — the year Roe was decided — as relatively recent, there remained, even then, a raging debate over when life begins. To abortion proponents, the pre-born child was merely a “lifeless blob” or a “nonviable mass of tissue” that could be done away with at any time prior to birth without moral or legal implications.
To the pro-life side, human life begins at the moment of conception with all the associated legal and civil rights of personhood attached.
The Roe Court sided with the pro-abortionists.
But since that time, science and technology have proven pro-lifers right and the Roe Court wrong. Addressing that reality, CWA President Wendy Wright noted, “Technology and testimonies have splintered support for abortion, paving the way for more protection for women and unborn children.
“Advances in technology, particularly 3D and 4D ultrasound, provide a window into the womb, a picture that this is indeed a human being, not — as many abortion clinics tell unsuspecting women — a ‘blob of tissue.’ Whereas Roe claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth.”
History has a way of repeating itself. The Roe decision was not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has so disgraced our nation. Roe v. Wade represents the twin bookend to the Court’s shameful 1857 Dred Scott decision. In Dred Scott the Court absurdly held that African-American slaves, even if emancipated, were not fully persons and therefore could never be considered U.S. citizens. Likewise, Roe ruled that children in gestation are not fully persons and are therefore not entitled to their most basic civil right . . . life.
As with Dred Scott, Roe’s fate is inevitable. It’s just a matter of time. History will eventually judge Roe v. Wade every bit as harshly as it judged Dred Scott. But until that time, innocent children continue to die on a daily basis.
Knowledge is power, and as more people gain knowledge about Roe v. Wade, the less power the multi-billion dollar abortion industry maintains. Make no mistake — they’ll do anything and everything to keep that from happening.
But their ghoulish zeal betrays their true agenda. By any reasonable measure the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is nothing to celebrate. It is a national day of mourning. The post-Roe highway is awash with the blood of countless innocents. And those who have lead these little lambs to the slaughter are responsible.
Even so, this will not stop the mainstream media, radical feminists and other pro-abortion Kool-Aid guzzlers on the Left from celebrating the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. They’ll break out the streamers and party hats and dance gleefully around the golden calf of euphemistic “choice.”
But power is there for the taking.
Please visit RoeIQTest.com before January 22 and answer the question, “Do you really know Roe,” for yourself. Then, when you see the Left celebrating Roe v. Wade and the culture of death it has spawned, you can rest assured that you refused to stay in the dark. You refused to remain powerless.
After all . . . isn’t it your choice?
jmattbarber@comcast.net
http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
Read more articles by J. Matt Barber
“It is not at all surprising that public support for Roe v. Wade is typically rooted in a lack of knowledge.”
And the people won’t gain that knowledge and end it until they actually see abortion.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries
Comment by sedonaman | December 17, 2007
The government doesn't morally have the right to deny anyone the rights to their own body, it's the one thing that someone can never lose ownership of. No sane woman wants to get an abortion, it's done as a last resort. Repealing Roe v. Wade would eventually make it illegal for woman carrying a baby conceived by rape and incest and lead to many deaths where the mother requires an abortion to save her own life. While killing developing babies is never good, it's better than killing fully developed adults that have people that depend on them by denying them the treatment that they need. However even though I'm pro-choice, I'm still against 3rd trimester pregnancy terminations any time where it's not to save the life of the mother, the decision could have been made earlier. Roe v. Wade offers a good middle ground in providing the rights of women to their bodies and lives, while at least restricting the widely accepted inhumane 3rd trimester abortions.
Comment by Negibozu | December 17, 2007
This is America's greatest sin. What would our country be like today with these children?
Comment by hvance | December 17, 2007
Negibozu,
You are parroting feminist propaganda. Repealing Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal, it merely overturns the illegality of letting courts decide something that should have been decided by state legislatures. At the time of Roe, several legislatures had already passed some kind of provision allowing limited abortion, and more were inclining toward it.
Even pro-abortion legal experts tell us Roe is not good constitutional law:
Roe v. Wade is "a very bad decision … because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." - John Hart Ely, Yale Law School professor
"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible … [It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era." - Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Blackmun (who authored Roe)
"Since its inception Roe has had a deep legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as a legal opinion." - Benjamin Wittes, Washington Post legal affairs editorial writer
"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." - Laurence Tribe, very liberal Harvard Law School professor
Supreme Court justices critical of Roe v. Wade.
"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment" in Roe v. Wade. - Justice Byron White
"This Court's abortion decisions have already worked a major distortion in the Court's constitutional jurisprudence…no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by this Court … in a case involving state regulation of abortion." - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
Roe v. Wade "destroyed the compromises of the past, [and] rendered compromise impossible for the future… To portray Roe as the statesmanlike 'settlement' of a divisive issue…is nothing less than Orwellian." - Justice Antonin Scalia
"Roe v. Wade…ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action." -Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Also, the number of deaths due to 'self-inflicted' and 'back-alley' abortions are grossly exaggerated. A case has even been made that the number of deaths of the mother, as a percentage, has risen since Roe.
Comment by Bob Stapler | December 17, 2007
The problem here is that you're arguing United States law when nearly every person that is pro-life bases their arguments on what they feel is morally right. Roe v. Wade made it so the states couldn't deny the rights of women to get a potentially life-saving abortion. Without this case, it would be left up to state laws, and certain states would outlaw such an important procedure. The courts can pretty much do *ANYTHING* to ensure the wellbeing of the people, 9th and 14th amendment. The constitution is over 200 years old, you can not possibly expect such an old document to be able to solve all of our problems today, that is why we have the judicial branch to ensure that laws passed follow the constitution. Any law that takes away a woman's right to her own body can easily be seen as a horrible law except when people are blinded by their moral arguments. I fail to see why some conservatives have the need to take away the rights of others, especially when it doesn't even affect themselves. There are just as many if not more legal scholars that can see how important Roe v. Wade was, the only mistake that they made was going even further and splitting it up into trimesters and not declaring that no states were able to make any laws prohibiting pregnancy terminations.
Comment by Negibozu | December 17, 2007
negibozu:
Go ahead, murder a baby so the woman has the right to her body. What are more important, her "feelings" or the baby's life. You have made your choice, too bad the baby didn't have a choice.
Comment by hvance | December 17, 2007
Because things without brains are great at making decisions, right? Most women aren't happy about getting abortions, it's often done out of necessity. I myself would never think about recommending an abortion other than to save the woman's life, but I believe that people still deserve to not have that right stripped from them. The government has no right to people's bodies, how would you feel if ticks became a protected species, and if you were to remove it from your arm you would be a criminal?
Comment by Negibozu | December 17, 2007
negibozu:
I see you completely ignore the life of the baby, such tactics at debates are typically used by those who know that they are supporting a losing position.
Comment by hvance | December 17, 2007
You can't go around trying to protect every cell around you, there's more dead skin cells on you than the first stages of "a baby" and you aren't crying over those are you? In an ideal world we wouldn't need abortion, just like we wouldn't need guns. The benefit of saving already established lives greatly outweighs the moral dilemma of halting the growth of a mass of cells.
Comment by Negibozu | December 17, 2007
“The government doesn’t morally have the right to deny anyone the rights to their own body, it’s the one thing that someone can never lose ownership of.”
*** Suicide is illegal. Prostitution is illegal in most states. Non-prescription narcotics are illegal. Driving your body faster than the speed limit is illegal. Not putting your body in school under the age of 18 is illegal. The government — with the consent of the governed — routinely denies people the right to do anything they want with their own body.
“No sane woman wants to get an abortion, it’s done as a last resort.”
*** Exactly how do you know this to be true? If a woman is taught that a developing baby is just a tissue mass, it’s no more “insane” to remove it than a tumor. Society has sanctioned abortion by stripping the developing child of its humanity. Abortion is not a question of mental stability.
“Repealing Roe v. Wade would eventually make it illegal for woman carrying a baby conceived by rape and incest and lead to many deaths where the mother requires an abortion to save her own life.”
*** As Stapler pointed out, you have no idea what you are talking about here. A repeal of Roe V. Wade would simply return the matter to the 50 states.
“While killing developing babies is never good, …”
*** If you can recognize that what you are killing is a baby, and killing babies is “never good”, then there’s no “but” after this statement. The sentence ends here.
“ … it’s better than killing fully developed adults that have people that depend on them by denying them the treatment that they need.”
*** A complete non sequitur: If killing trees is bad, it’s better than not fertilizing your lawn. If you want to talk about adult health care talk about adult health care. The fact that the government does or doesn’t subsidize my medicine has nothing to do with whether we should kill a developing baby.
“However even though I’m pro-choice, I’m still against 3rd trimester pregnancy terminations any time where it’s not to save the life of the mother, the decision could have been made earlier. Roe v. Wade offers a good middle ground in providing the rights of women to their bodies and lives, while at least restricting the widely accepted inhumane 3rd trimester abortions.”
*** I guess it’s more humane to kill a child when it’s completely defenseless rather then when it’s almost fully mature. And exactly why is this?
"I believe that people still deserve to not have that right stripped from them."
*** You acknowledged that babies are being aborted, not just tissue masses. What about the right of an innocent human life to not have that life arbitrarily destroyed?
And by the way, a baby is not a tick or a parasite. It's an innocent human being. I can support that argument, as I did in “What kind of car would Jesus drive to take his girlfriend to an abortion clinic?" in the IC archives
The problem many people have with looking at human life is that they focus on the surface issues only. It must meet certain subjective criteria before they will feel comfortable admitting (or become convinced, or be forced to concede) that it is indeed a human child. It must survive on its own outside the womb. It must have a brain instead of a brain stem. Its heart must be beating. It must pass through the birth canal. And so on, and so on. This is the same subjective nonsense that allowed people to look at the color of a man’s skin and say that “it” did not fit the definition of a “human.” Or make the same judgment based on religion, or national origin, or intelligence, or its expected or actual quality of life, or any other characteristic. It’s all nonsense. Rationalization disguised as objective analysis
When I look at a newborn baby girl I don’t see anything that resembles a thirty-year old woman. The head and limbs are not in the same size or proportion, and its body shape is completely different. It doesn’t communicate the same way, or have any appreciation at all for its surroundings. I’d be just as justified calling it “proto-Mary” as I would be to call the adult woman “Mary” if I based my criteria on the same distorted logic that abortionists use to distinguish between a 19- and 20-week old fetus.
“Creating human life” is just that. Creation does not mean that life can’t develop, and that in developing life cannot change appearance, often radically. A caterpillar bears no resemblance at all to a butterfly, but still represents the same life — just at a different stage in development. As 30-year old Mary continues to age (or “develop”) her external features and internal organs will change too. Change is what defines life. Without it we’re dead. So why should change be used to deny life to a developing human being, instead of indicate absolute proof of it?
You can take a trillion human sperm and a thousand human eggs and place them in two separate containers. As long as they do not mix, human life is impossible.4 But allow a single sperm and a single egg to unite inside a woman’s body, and human life has begun. One sentence, identifying the precise moment in time when the status of each constituent element fundamentally changes, is all that is needed to supplement this statement with the logic to support it. Find me the same parsimony in words to justify an elective abortion at week 19, 30, 22, 15, or any point in between, and I’ll support the wisdom of that choice instead of labeling it what it really is, a rationalization disguised as a thoughtful choice to advance a political agenda.
In the United States, 20 weeks represents the “magic” date that human life is assigned to the developing child. Why does 24 hours make such a difference either way in granting “human” status? Or even 4 hours? I can tell you exactly why one second matters in the view that life begins at the moment of conception.
But for the sake of some dubious interpretation of a Constitutional provision that never once mentions the words “separation of church and state,” moral Relativists, Feminists, and other deep thinkers will ignore the logic of any opposing view and impose an arbitrary cut off date instead. Even though believing that life begins at conception requires no illogical compromises, arbitrary definitions, or any political tradeoffs to reach that conclusion, it must be summarily rejected because of its religious implications, ignoring the fact that God’s name was invoked to justify our rebellion against England.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 17, 2007
"Roe v. Wade offers a good middle ground in providing the rights of women to their bodies and lives, while at least restricting the widely accepted inhumane 3rd trimester abortions." Negibozu, why is it ok for 1st and 2nd trimester abortions and not 3rd?
I want you to specifically point out the distinctions that makes one wrong and the other right.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 17, 2007
I personally feel that by the 3rd trimester the baby has formed quite a bit and is actually open to fair debate as to if it can be considered a real baby and abortion considered an inhumane act. However legally people shouldn't be restricted at all, but I personally am against it. As for the distinctions, have you seen the difference in a 2nd and 3rd trimester baby? Once again, I'm not an advocate of women going out and getting abortions, the government just doesn't have the right to restrict people from doing it.
And Vance, you've resorted to name calling and accusations, you're not making pro-life people look very caring.
Comment by Negibozu | December 17, 2007
No names were called, just implied. As for "how you feel about the 3rd trimester", please explain how how the baby can feel. As for my caring about making pro-life people look very caring in your eyes I couldn't care less. And by the way, thanks for acknowledging that my "people" are pro-life and the other crowd, by implication, is anti-life.
Comment by hvance | December 17, 2007
Comment 2. No sane woman wants to get an abortion, it’s done as a last resort. Repealing Roe v. Wade would eventually make it illegal for woman carrying a baby conceived by rape and incest and lead to many deaths where the mother requires an abortion to save her own life.
That really is a poor argument. How many women have abortions due to rape, incest, or that their life depended on it?
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) has run several studies to see the reasons why women have abortions, with figures cross referenced against health agencies in several states. An analysis is here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
In the United States, 98% of abortions are elective. Kill an inconvenience to a desired lifestyle?
How is this defendable?
Comment by Leigh | December 18, 2007
It seems that folks like Negibozu are the reason why the author's website put together this abortion IQ test in the first place. Maybe they should put up a "Constitutional law" IQ test as well. That could also be of some benefit to people who seem to believe that the Constitution has a provision for the Supreme Court to add or remove content at its whim, or believe that the right to due process somehow constitutes a right to privacy that translates into a right to kill your baby (or fetus, if you prefer - if you makes you feel better to pretend that a child is somehow less developed, apparently to the point of not having a brain, between the time when its head is in the birth canal and when the placenta is severed) at any time during your pregnancy, for any reason. They used to teach that kind of thing in junior high school civics. You have to either be completely ignorant, or a highly trained legal scholar, to so flagranty distort and disregard the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 18, 2007
I can see that negibozu et al have not looked at the pictures in the link I posted so they can make a more informed “choice.” Here it is again for their convenience http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm#galleries .
Phil’s comparison between slavery and abortion is apropos. Both require distortions of logic (rationalization) to justify; both treat human beings as property; and both use compromise to attempted to settle the issue.
Poster hvance, on another article, asked why Scott Peterson was convicted of murdering two human beings after he killed his pregnant wife, while abortionists are not legally guilty of anything. How do negibozu et al reconcile that?
Comment by sedonaman | December 18, 2007
"…personally feel that by the 3rd trimester the baby has formed quite a bit and is actually open to fair debate as to if it can be considered a real baby and abortion considered an inhumane act. However legally people shouldn’t be restricted at all, but I personally am against it. As for the distinctions, have you seen the difference in a 2nd and 3rd trimester baby?"
Negibozu, you didn't answer the question. I want the LOGICAL distinction that allows you to accept the killing of a pre-born baby at 3 months gestation, but not at 7 months.
Also, you have said that you are personally uncomfortable with abortion. Why? Specifically.
As you can see by the responses to you in this thread, you cannot make a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions without backing them up with the rationale that you used. Throwing out glib leftist talking points about abortion or any other subject simply doesn't fly. You have to explain yourself, and be logically consistent when you do.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 18, 2007
#10 by PEJ
PEJ writes his response eloquently with substantive facts (note how easy it is when one is right). I, being of the non PC crowd, call it what it is, sanctioned murder. The abortionists know this too, but through greed of life stlye or money try to defend the defenseless position.
Comment by hvance | December 18, 2007
Negibozu:
Your points get progressively weaker.
Comment by hvance | December 18, 2007
Roe v. Wade is its own IQ Test. When someone tells me what they think about "abortion on demand" I can very quickly and accurately assess whether they have any kind of moral compass or whether they can increment their way to just about any atrocity under the sun using the "lesser of two evils" school of logic. Negibozu fails miserably, not just in her answer, but in her utter inability to provide any semblance of rational defense for her beliefs. But then again, there is no rational defense for those beliefs so perhaps I'm asking too much of her.
Apparently, as long as one wrings their hands and "feels bad" about making a "tough choice," this somehow absolves them. That's the state-of-art defense of late from Hillary when she shrilly states that "nobody is pro-abortion" and then adopts that suitably somber visage as she intones about the difficulty of making "a choice."
Brilliant. Perhaps we can tee that one up for the next politcially correct TV crime drama. "I'm not pro murder, your Honor. I agonized long and hard over whether to end my 2-year-old daughter's life, but ultimately concluded that it was the lesser of two evils given her birth defect, her abusive father, and my financial destitution."
Here's one for you Negibozu: A mother "feels bad" about drowning her 2-hour-old newborn in the tub, but after careful consideration realized that with her as a crack addict, the child's father as a pimp, siblings as gang members, and life in the projects, the deck was hopelessly stacked against the child and the most merciful thing she could do was end the baby's life now rather than allowing it to grow up unloved, abused, and unwanted. Isn't that 2-hour old baby just as much an imposition on her life as when she was pregant…indeed MORE of an imposition now that it has to be fed, clothed, changed, nurtured, etc? Why was it a "choice" precisely 2 hours ago and murder 2 hours later? Why was it "her body" 2 hours ago and "someone else's body" 2 hours later?
Those in favor of abortion have only two choices:
1. To admit that it is killing a human life, but to justify it as "the lesser of two evils."
2. To deny that it is killing a human life
Negibozu has at least argued correctly that abortion is the taking of life. However, as Phil points out, her "but" opens a Pandora's Box. There is no "but" that can be morally justified. The sentence should end before the comma, not after.
Comment by Steve Sabin | December 18, 2007
Three victims arrive at every abortion clinic, the baby, the mother and the Constitution. The evils are evident and need no elaboration, but what of the founding document of our country? Just where does the Constitution give the national government the power to control this state matter? Changing meanings in our primary source of law deprives the Constitution of any solid basis. It becomes whatever the latest court wants it to be.
Comment by Ian | December 18, 2007
"And by the way, thanks for acknowledging that my “people” are pro-life and the other crowd, by implication, is anti-life."
Your side is pro-life, but the other side isn't exact opposite, instead of protecting every baby, they'd be killing *every* baby. I haven't seen many pro-death/anti-life groups around, just a lot of pro-choice groups that support the rights of people.
"That really is a poor argument. How many women have abortions due to rape, incest, or that their life depended on it?"
There's still are some that need the abortions, why would you strip that right from them? If it's the people that get elective abortions that you have the problem with, then why not target your efforts to change the law towards them, it would be a lot more reasonable.
"people who seem to believe that the Constitution has a provision for the Supreme Court to add or remove content at its whim, or believe that the right to due process somehow constitutes a right to privacy that translates into a right to kill your baby"
No state may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Passing a law that prevents a life saving abortion deprives the mother of her life. Passing a law that prevents all abortions may deprive families of liberty and property, you're legally required to raise the kid if you don't put it up for abortion.
"Negibozu, you didn’t answer the question. I want the LOGICAL distinction that allows you to accept the killing of a pre-born baby at 3 months gestation, but not at 7 months."
There is no LOGICAL distinction that anyone that's not a psychology major is going to understand, it's not instinctive to terminate the pregnancy, it's instinctive to leave it to die, but we're better than that right? So we do the more humane thing and never let it be born. There's no LOGICAL reason to be a good Christian, it's just something people believe in.
"The abortionists know this too, but through greed of life stlye or money try to defend the defenseless position."
Greed? They're defending their job and most know that they are helping people through abortions.
"Your points get progressively weaker."
No need to respond strongly to weak points.
"Negibozu fails miserably, not just in her answer, but in her utter inability to provide any semblance of rational defense for her beliefs."
I was almost tempted to stop reading your posts because you've made the blind assumption that I'm a woman. As for a rational defense? Everything about pro-life is irrational from trying to populate the earth as much as possible with unwanted babies to protesting saving lives.
As for Steve, great situation. The problem lies in that a living, breathing baby is considered a human being by most of society, not a split opinion like unborn babies. The definition of homicide does not extend to unborn babies while (obviously) by law, extends to ones that are already born. And if you want to go into legal rights, the fetus has none, you don't become a citizen until you are born. But for the answer to your question, it's just like euthanasia, a necessary evil. Yes it's terrible that that 2-hour old baby would have to die, but it's for its own benefit. The only problem is that the law (and society) wouldn't be on the mother's side. If it wasn't illegal it would eventually become slightly accepted into society and it would be a not-too-common occurrence.
"Changing meanings in our primary source of law deprives the Constitution of any solid basis. It becomes whatever the latest court wants it to be."
The constitution written over 200 years ago could not provide solutions to the problems of today, that is why the framers left it open to change (amendments) and gave congress powers not listed in the constitution (necessary and proper clauses). While it provided a great basis for the country, it has needed change a lot over the years. However if you think we should just stick to a 200 year document, enjoy your slaves.
I'd like at least a few honest answers to this situation:
You're a 35 year old man married to a 33 year old woman and you both have two children, ages 7 and 9. You and your wife decide to expand your family a bit more. She successfully becomes pregnant, everyone's happy. 8 months into the pregnancy your wife finds out that there is an 80% chance of her dying if she continues with the birth. She does not wish to die and wishes to have an abortion so she can continue to raise her two kids. Her life can easily be saved with a partial birth abortion, do you support her decision or tell her not to and just take the chance of most-likely dying?
And for the record, I'm not a woman.
Comment by Negibozu | December 18, 2007
Let me take another pass at this, since Negibozu will not respond to what I wrote earlier.
“Passing a law that prevents a life saving abortion deprives the mother of her life.”
** Absolutely no one who is pro-life believes this. If the life of the mother is at stake, she has a right to chose to go to term or not. The problem arises when pro-choicers try to substitute the word “health” for “life”, and then talk about non-life threatening issues as determining factors.
“Passing a law that prevents all abortions may deprive families of liberty and property, you’re legally required to raise the kid if you don’t put it up for abortion.”
** First of all, a human child is not “property”. We outlawed slavery quite a while ago. Second, there’s this little thing called “putting the child up for adoption” that’s an alternative to killing it.
“[Abortionists] are defending their job and most know that they are helping people through abortions.”
*** 50 million dead human babies might disagree.
“Everything about pro-life is irrational from trying to populate the earth as much as possible with unwanted babies to protesting saving lives.”
*** There are couples flying thousands of miles to foreign countries trying to adopt these “unwanted” babies. You are just making up your so-called evidence. You betray your true position by talking about abortion being a way to prevent over-populating the earth. Human beings are not vermin to be exterminated so you can increase your standard of living, or promote your pet politically-correct theory.
“You’re a 35 year old man married to a 33 year old woman and you both have two children, ages 7 and 9. You and your wife decide to expand your family a bit more. She successfully becomes pregnant, everyone’s happy. 8 months into the pregnancy your wife finds out that there is an 80% chance of her dying if she continues with the birth. She does not wish to die and wishes to have an abortion so she can continue to raise her two kids. Her life can easily be saved with a partial birth abortion, do you support her decision or tell her not to and just take the chance of most-likely dying?”
*** Medical science does not give exact odds about this kind of thing. Moreover your reasoning fails on another point. If there was in fact a preponderant chance that a pregnancy would actually kill the woman, she’d know this before the third trimester.
However, to try to answer a question where the issue of the life of the mother is at stake, OF COURSE it’s her decision. Pregnancy does not require one to die, and every religion and/or moral human being understands this. The subject is elective abortions when the life (not “health”) of the mother is at stake, a subject you continue to avoid addressing.
– continued –
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 18, 2007
Negibozu:
I see you are still avoiding the pictures of aborted babies.
“The constitution written over 200 years ago could not provide solutions to the problems of today…”
Can’t provide solutions to the problems for today? Since when is an unwanted pregnancy a modern-day “problem”, as you put it? Even Hammurabi (1810 BC – 1750 BC) thought there were some laws so basic as to be beyond the ability of even a king to change. That’s why he carved them into stone. His Code has penalties for someone killing a woman’s unborn baby. Apparently, we have judges who are so arrogant they think they are better than a king.
“… that is why the framers left it open to change (amendments) and gave congress powers not listed in the constitution (necessary and proper clauses).”
What powers not listed in the constitution did the constitution give to congress? How can it do this? The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
“While it provided a great basis for the country, it has needed change a lot over the years.”
Twenty-seven amendments over a period of 230 years is “a lot”?
“However if you think we should just stick to a 200 year document, enjoy your slaves.”
Yes, the framers left the constitution open to amendment, but it is a process BY THE PEOPLE through their representatives, NOT the courts. BTW, the slaves were freed by the 13th Amendment, passed by Congress January 31, 1865, ratified by the states, December 6, 1865, not by the courts.
"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false." – Historian Paul Johnson
Comment by sedonaman | December 18, 2007
Part 2 —
“The constitution written over 200 years ago could not provide solutions to the problems of today, that is why the framers left it open to change (amendments) and gave congress powers not listed in the constitution (necessary and proper clauses). While it provided a great basis for the country, it has needed change a lot over the years. However if you think we should just stick to a 200 year document, enjoy your slaves.”
*** You have virtually no understanding of or appreciation for the Constitution and how it is amended. There is no constitutional amendment dealing with abortion, just an inferred right to privacy which has been further inferred to allow abortions. As I explained in excruciating detail in the essay I cited previously:
We know that in-utero infanticide (pardon me, I mean the exercise of “a Woman’s Right to Choose”) is a universal truth enshrined somewhere in The Constitution. Just don’t look too hard for the actual words, because they’re bundled inside the Constitutional Right to Privacy, which, er, is also a little difficult to point directly to. But that shouldn’t be too much of a worry. After all privacy, by it’s very nature, likes to keep the shades drawn and hide from the limelight, so we’ll just all have to accept the fact that it’s really there, even though no one can actually see it. Like the proverbial little old lady who triple locks her door and only opens it a crack to let the local Meals on Wheels volunteer slip her a daily hot meal, we know that she really exists because, well, why would we be delivering food to her door if she didn’t? So too it is with the Right to Abortion, which derives from the Right to Privacy, which comes to us from our basic Constitutional Rights.
That’s three “Rights,” so it must be a pretty compelling argument. Compelling, that is, until we ask what is the foundation of these rights? Yeah sure the Constitution was built on Judeo-Christian values, but in recent years the Supreme Court and our friendly neighborhood Liberals have made it pretty clear that The Declaration of Independence, which speaks about some kind of Creator who bestows God-given rights, is not The Constitution, which expressly insists on the separation of Church and State. Well, it doesn’t “expressly forbid” that, because like the Right to Privacy, you won’t really find those words anyplace inside it. But the government can’t establish an official religion, and a lot of you folks keep talking about Jesus, so that automatically means God does not exist in so far as the U.S. government is concerned. His name may be on our currency, and the Ten Commandments may be etched into the walls of the High Court itself, but those are just cultural manifestations not religious edicts. God doesn’t make the laws of the United States or have anything to do with that process. That’s “settled law,” as Chuck Schumer would say, and not subject to debate.
Okay then. The Right to Choose is a man-made right, and has absolutely nothing to do with morality. It draws no strength from any connection to an intrinsic notion of “right” vs. “wrong,” but instead finds its grounding in the concept of privacy and fairness. But privacy and fairness have meant different things to different people throughout time and throughout the world. These differences are neutral in terms of any discussion of morality or justice, unless they specifically impinge upon a basic issue of morality or justice. “Fairness,” like “privacy,” is a culturally-based, temporally-ephemeral concept. Morality isn’t.
So let’s do the math and evaluate how a man-made “Right to Choose” holds up against a God-given foundation of morality. Specifically, we need to ask the question: “by what justification does an individual have the right to take another individual’s life without the state first making that decision through due process, a trial, appeals, and then an order of execution signed by the proper legal authorities?”
The first thing that strikes me about the abortion debate is the proposition that a state-created “Woman’s Right to Choose” automatically trumps the God-given human rights of a healthy, living twenty-week old fetus attached to her womb. I will admit that the idea of another life form growing inside you is kind of creepy when you think about it, like some scene out of the movie Alien where this foreign creature attaches itself to the host and distends its body. That is, until you realize that nine months later what comes out of a pregnant woman’s body isn’t a tentacle-waving monster with sharp fangs and acid coursing through its veins, but a little human being.
But hey, the child-bearer has rights too. I’m sure not every woman asked to get pregnant, or can afford to have another kid and still pay the rent, not to mention what it might do to her career prospects while she carries the little booger for nine months and then has to care for it after it’s born. Besides, a lot of people think this world is so crummy that no one in their right mind would want to be born into it, even though as current residents of planet Earth they aren’t thinking about putting a gun barrel in their own mouth and pulling the trigger to hasten their own departure.
Even so, the reasoning goes, we need to do what’s in the best interest of all parties; that is, mother and undifferentiated tissue mass. So, we kill the kid (I mean, “choose” option A instead of option B). There’s no need to agonize over this decision, since that thing — whatever it is — isn’t really human . . . yet. A seed isn’t a tree, just like a zygote isn’t a little boy or girl. Perfect analogy. Perfect justification.
Perfect crap.
It’s this pseudo-moralistic legerdemain that I find the most repulsive. Except for permitting abortion, I can’t think of a single case in history where society has sanctioned an individual, not the state, with the right to arbitrarily end another individual’s life. No trial or due process, not even a stated “reason” is needed, just a quick trip to the Planned Parenthood clinic and a stitch or two here and there, and then let the nurses dump the residue in a biohazard container. The right to defend yourself in your own home isn’t even a universal right within this country. And where such laws exist, a variety of different rules exist. In some states you must use non-violent resistance first, or attempt to run away. In others you must meet different standards of threat before deadly force can be used. In Texas, if someone enters your house uninvited you’re limited to reloading twice if it’s a fully automatic weapon, or using nothing larger than a shoulder-fired rocket launcher if your 7.62 mm GAU gatling gun jams before you run out of ammunition. (It’s a joke for those of you who prefer only 9 Bill of Rights instead of the full 10. But it does explain why Texas and some other Southern states have relatively few home invasions and car jackings compared to more "progressive" states.)
But try as they might to render any discussion of God irrelevant in the making of moral laws, and deny that a higher morality trumps their man-bestowed permission to take a human life, it is clear by their actions that abortion proponents don’t actually believe their own rhetoric. Even those who deny the existence of God all together, as opposed to those who merely say He’s irrelevant to this conversation, feel the need to justify their actions on the basis of universally-accepted moral values.
So how do they get around the dilemma of acting morally while killing innocent human life? Easy.
They simply announce that contrary to common sense, it’s not really a human life after all.
The undifferentiated tissue mass may have grown in a few weeks to resemble a human being, but it can’t live life on its own. So ipso facto and whatever other appropriate legal lingo they need to produce, it’s not really a child . . . yet. (Note to file: Update my living will so the grandkids don’t automatically ship me off to the organ-donor farm if I’m temporarily unconscious and can’t feed myself, or need a respirator to breathe because I have a serious case of pneumonia. Killing me off may be logically seen as a post-natal abortion because I can’t eat or breathe on my own, but I may not be quite ready to go yet.)
But what if that little booger growing inside her tummy survives for 7-8 months, and she discovers at this point that she needs an abortion for health reasons? (Note to file, this time from abortion advocates: Make sure that no one substitutes the phrase “save her life” for “health,” because as we all know a healthy mental attitude about yourself is just as important as your physical health. The fact that you may not die if you have the child shouldn’t prohibit you from killing it if your mental state needs a boost. It would be too traumatic to give your child (or whatever that thing is inside you) up for adoption. You’d go crazy wondering where it was and how it was doing. Better to kill it now so you’ll have closure, and you can get on with your life.)
Which leads us to the most despicable logic of all.
Assuming that a woman exercises her [wo]man-given right to end her pregnancy just before the twentieth week, what happens if once the thing comes out of her it starts breathing on its own when it’s not supposed to? Some people might actually think that aborted fetus is a baby! This poor woman would certainly get in trouble if she had her doctor kill it, like happened a few years back. She came into the clinic for an abortion, not eighteen-plus years of raising a child or a lifetime of personal misery after giving it up for adoption. That thing is supposed to be dead, not wiggling around like some little human being.
Which explains why partial-birth abortion is so necessary to preserving the “right to choose.” And why it is fought for so hard by abortion advocates when a less draconian procedure would still abort the fetus.
No brain. No breathing. No bother.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 18, 2007
"Your side is pro-life, but the other side isn’t exact opposite, instead of protecting every baby, they’d be killing *every* baby."
You mean they'd be trying to kill every baby - and they do kill every baby they can. To do otherwise would not fit their business plan. ("they" being Planned Parenthood and its beneficiaries, and the useful idiots they dupe into parroting their propaganda)
Comment by GriffithLea | December 18, 2007
I like how you failed to address any of the substantive points made, and instead rely purely on relativistic judgments and procedural law for the basis of your argument. I'm just a lowly business major myself, so I can't pretend to have the transcendent qualifications for interpreting the constitution and evaluating arguments that are imparted upon those who study psychology, but in the critical thinking classes I had to take we referred to that as a logical fallacy. This one's my favorite:
"The constitution written over 200 years ago could not provide solutions to the problems of today, that is why the framers left it open to change (amendments) and gave congress powers not listed in the constitution (necessary and proper clauses). While it provided a great basis for the country, it has needed change a lot over the years. However if you think we should just stick to a 200 year document, enjoy your slaves."
Remind me again which constitutional amendment was passed legalizing abortion? Or what legislation was drafted by Congress legalizing abortion? The answer is that neither has occurred. However, slavery WAS indeed constitutionally outlawed using the established procedure for amending the constitution. So much for that oh-so intellectually challenging, witty slavery retort. For a document you seem to feel is so woefully archaic and decrepit, it amazes me that only 17 amendments (excluding the Bill of Rights, as those amendments were ratified simultaneously with the constitution itself) have had to be made to it in the last 230 years. I guess not enough of our political leaders have taken those psychology courses…
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | December 18, 2007
To the people who keep getting on me about saying that repealing Roe v. Wade would lead to the outlaw of abortion, that case is the only thing holding some states back from banning it. To put it simple; the case goes, abortion goes.
"“Passing a law that prevents a life saving abortion deprives the mother of her life.”
** Absolutely no one who is pro-life believes this. "
Thanks for the good laugh. That is exactly why people are pro-life, they can't understand something as simple as that.
“Passing a law that prevents all abortions may deprive families of liberty and property, you’re legally required to raise the kid if you don’t put it up for abortion.”
** First of all, a human child is not “property”. We outlawed slavery quite a while ago. Second, there’s this little thing called “putting the child up for adoption” that’s an alternative to killing it.
My last line should have read "put it up for adoption", simple typo.
"*** 50 million dead human babies might disagree."
50 million babies also lack the ability to disagree.
"*** There are couples flying thousands of miles to foreign countries trying to adopt these “unwanted” babies."
Because it's so difficult to adopt here apparently? If there was a need for more babies to be adopted, there wouldn't be orphanages.
"The subject is elective abortions when the life (not “health”) of the mother is at stake, a subject you continue to avoid addressing."
Post #7 "I myself would never think about recommending an abortion other than to save the woman’s life, but I believe that people still deserve to not have that right stripped from them.'
"I see you are still avoiding the pictures of aborted babies."
The pictures weren't even worth commenting on
"Apparently, we have judges who are so arrogant they think they are better than a king"
Apparently we have pro-lifers who think Hammurabi is an adequate example of justice. The only significance was that it was set, written down law.
It seems I'm dealing with a bunch of stubborn (as always) conservatives, no way I'm going to make the slightest difference to any of you. Christians are known to die for their beliefs, I'm sure they'd at least argue for a few months about them too. As for the people that whined about me not responding to every little comment that they've made, some of them were just that bad, either wrong or had no factual or logical basis. I've laughed quite a bit at some of the things people have said here, and probably will laugh a few more times at the follow up posts. Phillip, if I just took your points alone I'd think you were somewhat of an idiot, but you write far too well to be a complete moron.
As for the whole "killing babies to raise your standards of living", I guess that's why all the poor states are conservative?
Comment by Negibozu | December 18, 2007
Negibozu,
Holy cow, where to start? You say there's no explanation for you being in favor of abortion at two months, but against it at seven months? So what's left, your FEELINGS? Your emotional state? Vague uneasiness? Heartburn?
The reason some people assumed you were a woman is because your explanations are straight-and-narrow pro-choice talking points. When asked to explain, you can't. It's the way you FEEL, as if that's settles it. Sorry, your feelings aren't enough.
"I haven’t seen many pro-death/anti-life groups around, just a lot of pro-choice groups that support the rights of people." If this were true, Planned Parenthood would hire pro-life counselors so that every choice would be made available. Abortion clinics would invite pro-life demonstrators inside to present other choices to their clientele.
If it really was an issue of choice, there would be no disputes, would there? Pro-choicers wouldn't be suing to prevent pro-lifers from getting too close to the clinic. If choice really was the issue, all choices would be celebrated, wouldn't they?
"Everything about pro-life is irrational from trying to populate the earth as much as possible with unwanted babies to protesting saving lives." Another pro-choice talking point. Where's your proof of this vapid, bizarre statement? And why are unwanted babies so bad so that we should kill them?
You really think that death is preferable option to living in less-than-excellent circumstances? Preferable to whom? If this is true, the mother should choose to die herself, and get herself out of those intolerable circumstances. At least she actually gets the opportunity to really choose. The baby has no such luck.
You mention that there is a split opinion about whether an unborn baby is human. So the status of human-ness is a popularity contest? One wonders who might be deemed not human tomorrow.
The majority opinion decides who is human and who is not?
That must mean that slavery would have been ok with you when it was going on 150 years ago. After all, the majority viewed it as constitutional, and the Supreme court ruled it as such.
Oh, and that reminds me. Blacks make up about 13% of the population, but 35% of the abortions. Abortion clinics are invariably located in poor minority communities. It seems to me that to be pro-choice is to be anti-black.
Ok, last thing. As mentioned by other posters, almost all abortions are elective. So very few of them are to legitimately save the mother from dying as to be statistically zero. Which means your little example almost never happens. But you want to use the rare exception to establish a non-rare principle, which is logically inconsistent.
This is akin to saying that we need to ban swimming in the ocean because 15 people were bit by sharks at the beach. That would be irrational. So, by this measure you want 1.6 million abortions each year so that a few mothers hypothetically won't die from their pregnancy.
It appears that you are person of some intelligence, but your posts are completely empty of logic, reason, and substance. I'm inviting you to try one more time to answer our questions. I'm still hopeful you can do it.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 18, 2007
"However, slavery WAS indeed constitutionally outlawed using the established procedure for amending the constitution."
So where in the constitution does it outlaw abortion? That was left up to the states and look where that got us. States should not be able to pass any laws restricting abortions in cases where it may deprive the mother of her life.
For people that type so much, you've failed to influence me at all. Even a group of high school students was able to convince me that elective abortions were morally wrong.
Comment by Negibozu | December 18, 2007
The Bible says "Life is in the blood", so if one believes the Bible, then one must believe that life begins when the fetus is infused with blood.
I don't remember exactly at what point during the pregnancy this occurs, but I do remember that it occurs quite early.
Cyberian
Comment by Cyberian | December 18, 2007
"Sorry, your feelings aren’t enough."
That's all pro-life arguments are based on, their "feelings" for the unborn.
"Abortion clinics would invite pro-life demonstrators inside to present other choices to their clientele. "
At which point to they detonate their bomb?
"Planned Parenthood would hire pro-life counselors so that every choice would be made available."
That is a good idea, they should do that. People should know about what they're about to do.
"And why are unwanted babies so bad so that we should kill them?"
Because if we didn't kill them, they'd just be left and die slowly. I've seen far too many news stories about babies left in trash cans to die. There isn't really an alternative, our adoption system has become too wrapped up in the bureaucracy that people that want babies often can't even get them (instead of aborting a baby, give it to a homosexual, oh wait, you're all against that too).
"The majority opinion decides who is human and who is not?
That must mean that slavery would have been ok with you when it was going on 150 years ago."
Majority opinion creates what is acceptable in society and is pretty much the basis of legitimate democracies. A large majority of people did not own slaves and were against it. However it was too deeply rooted in the southern economy that stopping such a profitable practice would make them even poorer. The South's economy is finally starting to slightly recover from slavery being so abruptly stopped. It's not really the South's fault it's so poor, a lot of it traces back to being screwed over by the North throughout history.
"Blacks make up about 13% of the population, but 35% of the abortions. Abortion clinics are invariably located in poor minority communities. It seems to me that to be pro-choice is to be anti-black."
Correlation does not prove causation. Poorer people are more likely to get an abortion because they are poor, black people are not more likely to get an abortion because they are black.
"As mentioned by other posters, almost all abortions are elective. So very few of them are to legitimately save the mother from dying as to be statistically zero. Which means your little example almost never happens. But you want to use the rare exception to establish a non-rare principle, which is logically inconsistent."
There's really two issues here:
1. Is it ok for the government to restrict abortion at all
2. Is is ok for the government to restrict abortion except for select cases.
People that are trying to ban all forms of abortion are completely foolish. However if they want to ban ALL forms of abortion (which some posters have admitted to not wanting to do, good for them), then they at least have some sort of legitimate argument if they're able to keep the religious aspect out of it.
However families that have children and are not ready often have problems raising that child, a 17 year old girl is not going to be as good of a mother as she should be at 25 after completing college. A poorer family is going to need more tax payer's money, my money that I would wish to go to different funds.
"The Bible says"
I sure hope you follow every single thing that book says. Most Christians today just pick and choose whatever fits their argument, it's a powerful tool when logic, reasoning, and science are against them. It's for that reason that I have such higher respect for evangelicals (although I am not one myself).
I think we can all admit that there are benefits and consequences for abortions, of course my rendition of this chart will be somewhat biased, so feel free to add onto it.
Pros:
-Saves a woman's life
-Stops the birth of an incestuous or rape baby
-Has slight economic benefits
-The woman doesn't have to carry around what could be considered a parasite for 9 months.
Cons:
-?
Comment by Negibozu | December 18, 2007
"It seems I’m dealing with a bunch of stubborn (as always) conservatives, no way I’m going to make the slightest difference to any of you."
If you would answer an argument or refute a point or put up some evidence rather than your feelings, then you might have a chance, if not to pursuade, at least to engage in a debate. But not only do you refuse to do so, you denigrate those of us who are requesting this of you. And then in total irony, you accuse us of lacking intellect.
We have treated you with respect and tried to elicit responses from you that go beyond the emotional level. Your response to the challenge is to call us names.
Phillip, Mr. Mulligan, sedonaman, and others, we have erred again in assuming it was possible to have a civil conversation with a leftist. Devoid of substantive ideas, the best that Negibozu can do is to spout slogans and sterotype those with whom he disagrees. I suggest we leave him to his warm, fuzzy feelings.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 18, 2007
[Neg]“Passing a law that prevents a life saving abortion deprives the mother of her life.” [Jackson] ** Absolutely no one who is pro-life believes this. ” [Neg] Thanks for the good laugh. That is exactly why people are pro-life, they can’t understand something as simple as that.”
*** And so, we get into the basic dishonesty of your position. No one has ever, or is now, on a national or state level, proposing legislation that would prohibit medically-necessary abortions. The issue is whether the alleged mental and emotional health of the mother qualifies as a medical necessity. This is an entirely subjective state, which is why it is being resisted by the pro-lifers. You refuse to acknowledge any of this by continually putting up straw men arguments.
“[Jackson]*** 50 million dead human babies might disagree.” [Neg]“50 million babies also lack the ability to disagree.”
*** That’s because they are dead, which for you entirely misses the point. But for everyone else, is exactly the point we are making.
“I see you are still avoiding the pictures of aborted babies.” [Neg] “The pictures weren’t even worth commenting on”
*** The amorality of this statement speaks volumes. You recognize them as dead babies, but they are not worth your time to comment.
“I’ve laughed quite a bit at some of the things people have said here, and probably will laugh a few more times at the follow up posts. Phillip, if I just took your points alone I’d think you were somewhat of an idiot, but you write far too well to be a complete moron.”
** Here’s an example of what you consider to be moronic reasoning: “You can take a trillion human sperm and a thousand human eggs and place them in two separate containers. As long as they do not mix, human life is impossible. But allow a single sperm and a single egg to unite inside a woman’s body, and human life has begun. One sentence, identifying the precise moment in time when the status of each constituent element fundamentally changes, is all that is needed to supplement this statement with the logic to support it. Find me the same parsimony in words to justify an elective abortion at week 19, 30, 22, 15, or any point in between, and I’ll support the wisdom of that choice instead of labeling it what it really is, a rationalization disguised as a thoughtful choice to advance a political agenda. In the United States, 20 weeks represents the “magic” date that human life is assigned to the developing child. Why does 24 hours make such a difference either way in granting “human” status? Or even 4 hours? I can tell you exactly why one second matters in the view that life begins at the moment of conception.”
You have no answer for any of these challenges. You have no answer because you have a political agenda that does not assign any value to a human life that you, personally, don’t want to consider “human”, based solely on your own selective criteria.
You have no understanding of the constitutional process that surrounds the abortion issue, yet you make emphatic statements about your beliefs — as if simply believing something was all you need to make it true.
Once again, when a person who supports abortion is afforded the opportunity to make their case, their reasoning is nothing more than a political calculation (“As for the whole ‘killing babies to raise your standards of living’, I guess that’s why all the poor states are conservative?)
The only consolation in this whole sad exchange is that you’ve once again exposed why people like you believe what you do.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 18, 2007
Mountain Man: You can't debate someone who equates all elective abortions with medically-necessary abortions to save the life of a woman, and whose response to anything you offer to support your point of view is "is not".
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 18, 2007
Negibouzou, notice how your hypothetical was answered? In the land of hypotheticals, it was met with a shrug, "well, it's statistically improbable, so we'll just ignore it."
It makes you really wonder if these people have ever thought out the practical considerations of drawing a legal line though the womb of a human being - not to mention 50% of the population - in this day and age. I can tell you thought out your example because it included the important 'married couple who really wants children' and therefore avoided the ever-lurking final message of these folk:
Don't have sex.
If Roe v Wade were repealed, states that make a woman's choice illegal will find themselves in the un-envialable position of pregnancy-arbitors. We will find out just how 'statistically insignificant' medical pregnancies are, as every women who has any medical concerns will certainly be forced to go to court - or perhaps chruch? - to clear her termination. I'm sure all the conservatives will love paying for "Pregnancy Court." Maybe we could just televise it and make money off the re-runs.
Perhaps we should just issue permits for sex, register all pregnancies, and stamp a Social Security number on every-one at birth? That sure sounds American, not to mention Christion, to me.
Comment by Chasm | December 18, 2007
“Negibouzou, notice how your hypothetical was answered? In the land of hypotheticals, it was met with a shrug, “’well, it’s statistically improbable, so we’ll just ignore it.’”
*** Chasm. It’s okay to disagree. It’s not okay to lie about was said, particularly when it’s so easy to check. Here’s my answer from Comment 23: “Medical science does not give exact odds about this kind of thing. Moreover your reasoning fails on another point. If there was in fact a preponderant chance that a pregnancy would actually kill the woman, she’d know this before the third trimester. However, to try to answer a question where the issue of the life of the mother is at stake, OF COURSE it’s her decision. Pregnancy does not require one to die, and every religion and/or moral human being understands this. The subject is elective abortions when the life (not “health”) of the mother is [not] at stake, a subject you continue to avoid addressing.” [The "not" was missing from the original, but it should have been understood in context].
When two lives are at risk of death, there is nothing in any moral or religious code that would require a woman to die. She may choose to carry the child to term, but if so it’s her decision, or she may chose to terminate that pregnancy. But when the issue isn’t life, but the all encompassing mental/emotional “health”, or convenience, or desire for a certain standard of living in which the baby interfers, etc., then the issue is something different all together.
Those who advocate abortion on demand want to conflate medical with elective abortions, and talk only about a mother’s life. It’s a dishonest sleight of hand that avoids the real issue that a human life is being electively ended without a contravening life-threatening medical reason.
If Roe v. Wade was repealed, the issue of abortion would be returned to the states where the people of the United States would actually decide the issue as the Constitution intended. 50% of this population includes women, who the pro-abortionists insist are overwhelmingly pro-life. And yet, they fear the public making this decision, because they think these pro-choice women would nevertheless join with all the men (who in their view universally want to outlaw abortion to keep women in chattel slavery) to outlaw abortion.
Their fears about the people deciding this issue put a lie to all the bluster about the overwhelming desire of the American people to continue this despicable practice. They know, like we do, that elective abortion cannot be morally justified, and that given the opportunity to express themselves, the American people in most states would outlaw this barbaric practice of killing human life.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 19, 2007
Chasm,
Negibozu's hypothetical WAS answered, and the answer was quite different than the way you characterized it. No one suggested we ignore it. Maybe if you actually read it.
The rest of your post was equally ridiculous. No one has suggested anywhere at any time that there should be pregnancy arbitors or sex permits. Absolutely vapid.
You pro-choicers are in the unenviable position of defending the indefensible: the killing of pre-born children for any and all reasons. And you do it by telling us that
1) they are less than human (parasites),
2) they are better off dead than living in poverty,
3) that choice is only good if it results in abortion,
4) that all unwanted babies are going to be left to die in a trash can anyway (actually, what's wrong with that? The baby ends up dead, which ought to make you happy with the same net result), and
5) omigod, it's going to cost you more in tax money because unaborted babies are all going to be on the dole. By the way, since when have you leftists objected to paying more in taxes?
So we really need more abortion. If you're a consistent leftist, then you probably also believe that humans are destroying the planet. Abortion is the answer. Yes, kill us all. Death to humans. How you leftists love death.
Oh, except for death row inmates, I forgot. You'll do everything possible to keep one of them alive. The reason? Well, to be on death row, you have to be a murderer. Murders are good, more death. Yes, death.
Comment by Mountain Man | December 19, 2007
Negibozu:
Your logic or lack thereof is transparent. Please go take a good look at some children and if that doesn't change your mind, you will continue to live a life without joy or meaning. I resign from these comments and you can have the last word by a rebuttal, but it will ring hollow.
Comment by hvance | December 19, 2007
"1) they are less than human (parasites),"
The only reason homicide on a social level is that it has a negative impact of society. People that can contribute to the lives of others are important for survival. People that contribute nothing and never have contributed anything are completely worthless to the community, state, country, and world, they just consume resources. If a productive member of society is killed, everyone loses out. If an unborn baby is killed, no one loses out, especially since there is no shortage of babies.
"2) they are better off dead than living in poverty,"
All feelings set aside, they are. It's very different to kill a poor person against their will than to stop the developing life of a fetus.
"3) that choice is only good if it results in abortion,"
Other alternatives aren't efficient anymore. It would be *great* if we could find a home for every child put up for adoption past and present, that's just not going to happen. Giuliani did a great job increasing adoption levels as an alternative to abortion.
"4) that all unwanted babies are going to be left to die in a trash can anyway (actually, what’s wrong with that? The baby ends up dead, which ought to make you happy with the same net result), and"
Would you rather die quick and painlessly or slow and painfully? Unless you just love pain, you're not going to want to suffer until the end.
"5) omigod, it’s going to cost you more in tax money because unaborted babies are all going to be on the dole. By the way, since when have you leftists objected to paying more in taxes?"
Paying more taxes is less efficient than adequate control of the taxes we pay now. There is so much wasted money in the budget, we don't need more drains. Liberals don't LIKE paying taxes, they realize that it is a necessity.
"So we really need more abortion. If you’re a consistent leftist, then you probably also believe that humans are destroying the planet. Abortion is the answer. Yes, kill us all. Death to humans. How you leftists love death."
Overpopulation and inadequate distribution of resources is. Population control would work wonders. Humans are destroying the planet, and even if you don't care about the environment, everyone needs to realize it's going to affect us directly. Environmental factors cause countless health problems, why would anyone be against prevention methods to prevent these?
"Oh, except for death row inmates, I forgot. You’ll do everything possible to keep one of them alive. The reason? Well, to be on death row, you have to be a murderer. Murders are good, more death. Yes, death."
Once again, an established, productive member of society is a loss to us all, especially if they have people that care about them. Their death can cause great social, emotional, and economic damages.
Thanks again for the laugh Phillip:
"— as if simply believing something was all you need to make it true."
I guess that means faith means nothing? Every "Christion" has "faith", faith is believing in something that you don't know to be true.
As for pro-life groups permitting medically necessary abortions, I guess I was mistaken. I was convinced that they wanted to outlaw *all* forms of abortion, not just elective. That position could actually work if you could find something to do with all those babies that doesn't negatively affect the country. You all treat those who wish to get elective abortions as terrible people, do you really want THEM raising children?
Comment by Negibozu | December 19, 2007
Dr J -
the phrase "Medical science does not give exact odds about this kind of thing. Moreover your reasoning fails on another point…" indicates you dismissed his hypothetical on the grounds that it was improbable. Moreover, your 'other point' was exactly my point: women with health problems will probably know, or at least fear, that the pregnancy MAY complicate their health. So is every women with potential pregnancy- or life-threatening medical problems supposed to go to court to get a 'pre-abortion clearance' from a judge, just in case something goes wrong later in the pregnancy? How EXACTLY are we, as a society, supposed to deal with determining who is elligible for a medical abortion and who is 'faking it?' As I said, get ready for "Fetus Court."
I know a person who suffers from chronic pain. She must take pain medication constantly to (barely) manage it. She would love to get pregnant and have a child, but were she to actually get pregnant, she would have to stop all medication. Now, she's mostly otherwise healthy, and the pregnancy itself wouldn't be a probelm, but nine months without pain medication would probably kill her from stress (but might not, it might just be agony-to-eleven). Do you really believe this woman should have to go to COURT, and present her medical records to a JUDGE before she is entitled to end a pregnancy? In America???
Answering, "she shouldn't have sex" is a total cop-out, and you know it. It isn't about her, it's about the millions of American woman who will have these kinds of problems. Statistically insignificant as you think they may be, even .5% of the female population of the US is over 150,000 people.
MM - don't mischaracterize. I have tussled with y'all before. Even were I to concede that abortion were 'immoral' (I won't concede this, but even if I did) I would still believe that it shouldn't be criminalized, for yes, the exact same reason the death penalty shouldn't be used - no, not because I love murderers - but because the State has no business in it.
I dont' need the government to tell me what is moral, thank you very much, and I don't want to live in a country where the government goes out of it's way to police morality. That is the most Un-American thing I can think of. If you like that sort of thing, move to Iran.
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
People like Negibozu deliberately avoid answering the question “is it human life”? To do so would render their positions indefensible, and expose it for the relativistic garbage it is.
They want abortion because it fits their particular political ideology, and/or accepting our points will limit their ability to do whatever they want when they want. These people have elevated man-made notions of personal freedom above our God-given innate understanding of right and wrong.
As long as they suppress the true question of whether the thing they aborted is an innocent human life, they can keep their position. And keeping their position allows them maximum flexibility without condemnation. Therefore, they argue about peripherals instead of the fundamental issues.
Negibozo speaks about "faith" not to support a belief system he holds, but to equate faith with opinions, and then assign equal value to all opinions. God gave us all free will, which means that some people will choose to ignore the truth so they can do what pleases or benefits them personally. In a free society like we have, morality cannot be imposed on others. For those who refuse to access their God-given universal moral code, or whose minds have been poisoned by relativistic thought to dodge moral questions, it falls on us to continue speaking out. Like the demise of slavery in America, abortion will one day disappear when – through “education” — people come to recognize it for what it truly is.
The value in these discussion is therefore to expose their duplicity and shallowness for what it is. In doing this we help strip away their relativistic justifications for continuing the practice.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 19, 2007
"No one has suggested anywhere at any time that there should be pregnancy arbitors or sex permits."
Well, I did suggest that, even if I was being provocative. So what is your solution? The point is you all talk about outlawing abortions, but you seem to never have thought through what that actually means. Who's going to do the reporting paperwork when a doctor performs an abortion? Is someone from the DA's office going to review each one (as the AG from some state, Kansas again?, did last year) to make sure it was medically necessary? If they find a questionable abortion, are they going to arrest and charge the woman, the doctor, or both? If just the doctor, will the woman be forced to testify against him? If a women needs a medically necessary abortion, how does she go about getting one? Does she have to go to court first to get a judge's permission or does she just get it done and hope the DA's paperwork review turns up nothing 'unusual'? - because obviously most DA's aren't going to trust the woman and her doctor to do the right thing.
Oh, and what if a woman crosses state lines to get an abortion? Is it a federal crime then? Do we arrest her as she returns home? How will we know? Oop, better start registering pregnancies….
There are slippery slopes upon slippery slopes, once you start abridging the rights of women to make their own choices in life. You all talk a real good game when it comes to declaring the 'immorality' of it all, but I have yet to see any one of you - even the esteemed Dr J - deal with practical implementation. I can tell you, the 'statistically insignificant' will be quite the line-up at the courthouse.
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
Negibozu,
I'm jumping in here now to address your tripe,
"The only reason homicide on a social level is that it has a negative impact of society. People that can contribute to the lives of others are important for survival. People that contribute nothing and never have contributed anything are completely worthless to the community, state, country, and world, they just consume resources. If a productive member of society is killed, everyone loses out. If an unborn baby is killed, no one loses out, especially since there is no shortage of babies."
It is not up to you to decide "value" of human worth. If it was simply a matter of productivity, we wouldn't investigate the murder of hookers, drug dealers, transiants and those who don't work yet.
In short, you try and create an imaginary bubble gum clause in the law, where a human life only matters if it is productive. That's neither the way that the law works, or the logic behind WHY it works that way. You're jumping into the way you want things to be…not the way they are.
"All feelings set aside, they are. It’s very different to kill a poor person against their will than to stop the developing life of a fetus."
Why? You said it yourself, it's only important to stop murder of the productive. The poor aren't terribly productive. By your own argument, there's not much reason to protect them. Indeed, many poor people are to society what babies are to their mothers. They take resources and offer little in return.
"Other alternatives aren’t efficient anymore. It would be *great* if we could find a home for every child put up for adoption past and present, that’s just not going to happen. Giuliani did a great job increasing adoption levels as an alternative to abortion."
Actually, the market for babies is spectacular. Everybody wants to adopt a baby. Where we have problems is finding homes for those who have been taken out of abusive homes who have behavioral problems. And even with many children in foster care, they have famly who want them who the courts are turning down on the issue of custody.
"Would you rather die quick and painlessly or slow and painfully? Unless you just love pain, you’re not going to want to suffer until the end."
The amount of suffering doesn't mean anything. If I come up to you and shoot you dead instantly, I'm still going to go to jail just as surely as if I shoot you in the gut and you die slowly. Again, stop trying to change the issue.
"Paying more taxes is less efficient than adequate control of the taxes we pay now. There is so much wasted money in the budget, we don’t need more drains. Liberals don’t LIKE paying taxes, they realize that it is a necessity."
Liberals are constantly talking about the need to create more drains on society…just look at the expansion of SCHIP. You can't have it both ways: If society is supposed to take care of those who can't afford it, than abortion on a monetary level is indefensible. If the "lack of money" is reason to deny life, than the state has no interest in helping the poor. You have no money…just go die somewhere.
Pick one.
"Overpopulation and inadequate distribution of resources is. Population control would work wonders. Humans are destroying the planet, and even if you don’t care about the environment, everyone needs to realize it’s going to affect us directly. Environmental factors cause countless health problems, why would anyone be against prevention methods to prevent these?"
Innocent baby>tree.
Sorry, this argument falls on deaf ears. If humanity is destroying the Earth, then it makes more sense to destroy living humans like yourself, who are consuming electricity to argue with strangers on the net…than a baby who has next to no needs. Indeed, your very argument fails you on this.
"Once again, an established, productive member of society is a loss to us all, especially if they have people that care about them. Their death can cause great social, emotional, and economic damages."
If Bill Gates dies tomorrow, I will not be affected. Society will go on. Someone will take his place. Microsoft will continue on. Once again, your argument fails. You simply can't have it both ways. You're trying to play up the value of humanity on one hand, while simultaneously trying to downplay it on the other. By your own argument, you are of less value than someone who is more productive, and that your death would be less important than say…Gates. If someone injures or kills you, is it truly your argument that we should not investigate until we deal with more important people?
Pretty elitist.
"As for pro-life groups permitting medically necessary abortions, I guess I was mistaken. I was convinced that they wanted to outlaw *all* forms of abortion, not just elective. That position could actually work if you could find something to do with all those babies that doesn’t negatively affect the country. You all treat those who wish to get elective abortions as terrible people, do you really want THEM raising children? "
What kind of retarded argument is that? Number one, there's plenty of things these kids could do. I'm sure you have a job, maybe have a family. So you're at least being somewhat productive. We found something for you to do…why not these kids.
Furthermore, these people don't want to raise these kids. If the option of abortion goes away, the kids will probably be put up for adoption.
This comes back to the "every child a wanted child" argument that was shot down when we found that the incidence of child abuse has increased since Roe.
Your arguments fail on every conceivable level.
Comment by WolvenBear | December 19, 2007
Negibozu:
You wrote: “People that contribute nothing and never have contributed anything are completely worthless to the community, state, country, and world, they just consume resources. If a productive member of society is killed, everyone loses out. If an unborn baby is killed, no one loses out, especially since there is no shortage of babies.”
Not all babies are the same. Some will have more abilities than others. No one will ever know how many babies who were aborted could have cured diseases or solved any one of the other serious problems with society. When you look at a baby, all you see is a mouth; but you forget he also has a brain. Besides, is the worth of a human being measured solely by his economic output?
“… they are better off dead than living in poverty.”
Just who do you think you are that entitles you to make this kind of judgement for others? God? You talk about those who are productive members of society and those who are “worthless”, as you put it. You left out a whole class of others who have a negative impact on society, whom I will call “society-destroyers”. Suppose I have the lungpower to ram a legal interpretation through the courts that said society would be better off if “society-destroyers” (i.e., liberal Leftists) are dead? Could you support such a law?
It appears that you are still avoiding the pictures of aborted babies. If I’m wrong, and you are making the shocking statements that you are after you have looked at them, you should compare them to photos of the Holocaust (http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/blpictures.htm ). If you don’t see a similarity, I submit you are the one who is not human, not the innocent babies you are condemning to a meat grinder because you think they are inconvenient. You should run, not walk, to the nearest psychiatrist (to put it politely).
Mountain Man said, “How you leftists love death.”
Not long ago, I posted what you liberal Leftists support, and I re-post it (in alphabetical order) here to back up Mountain Man, Phil, Mr. Mulligan, and for your benefit since you just joined our happy group:
Abortion
Abolition of private property
Abolition of tradition
Adultery
Affirmative Action
Aid and comfort for America’s enemies
"Alternative lifestyles"
Anti-Americanism
Anti-democracy
Anti conservative speech
Anti school-choice
Anti-subsidiarity
Appeasement of America’s enemies
Assisted suicide
Bondage and sado-masochism workshops in universities
Citizenship for known terrorists
Coddling of Criminals
Death taxes
Defeat for the U.S. (Priority #1)
Defiance of legitimate authority
Distribution of condoms in K-12
Diversity (except viewpoint)
Euthanasia
Female masturbation workshops in universities
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery
Godless Marxism
Gun Control
"Hate” crimes laws
Hate for the Christian religion
Hate for those of faith (except Islamics and Islamic bombers)
Homosexual special rights
Intolerance of the good
Isolationism
K-12 Indoctrination into Godless Marxism
K-12 Indoctrination into homosexuality
K-12 sex education
Lack of moral clarity
Moral equivalency
Moral Relativism
Multi-culturalism
Nietzscheism
Obliteration of God from the public square
Parole of vicious criminals
Pedophilia (except by Catholic priests and Republicans)
Polylogism
Pro-Europeanism
Racial quotas
Radical egalitarianism
Redistribution of OTHER peoples’ money
Revisionism
Release of known terrorists
Same-sex "marriage"
Sodomy
Speech codes
The individual human will (will to power)
Tolerance of evil
Tolerance Über Alles
UN one-world government
Unlimited government
Unlimited taxation
"Victimless” crimes
Voting rights for aliens (legal or otherwise)
Voting rights for felons
A poster on another site wrote: "It is the liberal Leftist obsession with death and communism that is the prime mover of such dementia."
Never saw it put any better.
Comment by sedonaman | December 19, 2007
Chasm:
We’ve been through this issue of truth telling a number of times before. Disputing “exact odds” does not translate into “it is improbable”. If I wanted to say that it is improbable that a woman could ever die from childbirth, I would have said it’s improbable that a woman could ever die from childbirth. As it turns out my sister in law was in just such a situation. I know exactly how medical science evaluated her, and none of her doctors ever said “you have an X% chance of dying”. Instead, they spent a long time discussing intelligently the risk factors so she could decide whether to risk her life or not by carrying her child to term. [And by the way, this risk didn’t just suddenly appear in the third trimester.]
In any event, I directly answered the question that you stated flatly “was met with a shrug”. I said “However, to try to answer a question where the issue of the life of the mother is at stake, OF COURSE it’s her decision. Pregnancy does not require one to die, and every religion and/or moral human being understands this. The subject is elective abortions when the life (not “health”) of the mother is [not] at stake, a subject you continue to avoid addressing.” [The “not” was missing from the original, but it should have been understood in context].”
You can dispute this with counter evidence should such evidence exist, though I believe you will be hard pressed to find endless references to pro-lifers wanting women to die in childbirth should their pregnancy become life threatening. But you cannot say that I refused to answer the question, or dismissed it out of hand.
If you weren’t lying, you were grossly mischaracterizing my point deliberately, or accidentally because you never actually read what I wrote. So admit it instead of trying to dodge the issue of having written something that was patently false. If it’s any consolation, everyone who can read knows what you did, but as the person whose position you distorted, it’s my prerogative to ask you to admit what you did before continuing any dialogue. If you can’t honestly represent what is patently obvious to everyone, then there’s no point in reacting to anything else you say.
The subject is the taking of a human life through abortion, not which team you want to win the Superbowl. Treat it with the dignity and seriousness it deserves, or end up being treated like Negibozu who has no real interest in supporting his position because all he wants to do is spout off about his personal beliefs, and is treated accordingly.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | December 19, 2007
All:
Another point that was made by Negibozu or one of our other “pro-choice” advocates here needs to be addressed. He said that abortion should be available to women with severely deformed fetuses. I offer the following “Statement of Brenda Pratt Shafer, R.N.” before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives hearing on The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (HR 1833), March 21, 1996:
“Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the Judiciary Committee, I am Brenda Pratt Shafer. I am here before you, at the request of the Committee, to relate to you my experience as an eyewitness to what is now known as the partial-birth abortion procedure.
“I am a registered nurse, licensed in the State of Ohio, with 14 years of experience. In 1993, I was employed by Kimberly Quality Care, a nursing agency in Dayton, Ohio. In September, 1993, Kimberly Quality Care asked me to accept assignment at the Women’s Medical Center, which is operated by Dr. Martin Haskell. I readily accepted the assignment because I was at that time very pro-choice.
“So, because of the strong pro-choice views that I held at that time, I thought this assignment would be no problem for me.
“But I was wrong. I stood at a doctor’s side as he performed the partial-birth abortion procedure – and what I saw is branded forever on my mind.
“I worked as an assistant nurse at Dr. Haskell’s clinic for three days – September 28, 29, and 30, 1993.
On the first day, we assisted in some first-trimester abortions, which is all I’d expected to be involved in. (I remember that one of the patients was a 15-year-old-girl who was having her third abortion.)
“On the second day, I saw Dr. Haskell do a second-trimester procedure that is called a D & E (dilation and evacuation). He used ultrasound to examine the fetus. Then he used forceps to pull apart the baby inside the uterus, bringing it out piece by piece and piece, throwing the pieces in a pan.
“Also on the first two days, we inserted laminaria to dilate the cervixes of women who were being prepared for the partial-birth abortions – those who were past the 20 weeks point, or 4 ½ months. (Dr. Haskell called this procedure ‘D & X’, for dilation and extraction.) There were six or seven of these women.
“On the third day, Dr. Haskell asked me to observe as he performed several of the procedures that are the subject of this hearing. Although I was in that clinic on assignment of the agency, Dr. Haskell was interested in hiring me full time, and I was being given orientation in the entire range of procedures provided at that facility.
“I was present for three of these partial-birth procedures. It is the first one that I will describe to you in detail.
“The mother was six months pregnant (26 ½ weeks). A doctor told her that the baby had Down Syndrome and she decided to have an abortion. She came in the first two days to have the laminaria inserted and changed, and she cried the whole time. On the third day she came in to receive the partial-birth procedure.
“Dr. Haskell brought the ultrasound in and hooked it up so that he could see the baby. On the ultrasound screen, I could see the heart beating. As Dr. Haskell watched the baby on the ultrasound screen, the baby’s heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.
“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms – everything but the head. The doctor kept the baby’s head just inside the uterus.
“The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall.
“The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I was really completely unprepared for what I was seeing. I almost threw up as I watched the doctor do these things.
“Mr. Chairman, I read in the paper that President Clinton says that he is going to veto this bill. If President Clinton had been standing where I was standing at that moment, he would not veto this bill.
“Dr. Haskell delivered the baby’s head. He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw that baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he’d used. I saw the baby move in the pan. I asked another nurse and she said it was just ‘reflexes.’
“I have been a nurse for a long time and I have seen a lot of death – people maimed in auto accidents, gunshot wounds, you name it. I have seen surgical procedures of every sort. But in all my professional years, I had never witnessed anything like this.
“The woman wanted to see her baby, so they cleaned up the baby and put it in a blanket and handed the baby to her. She cried the whole time, and she kept saying, ‘I’m so sorry, please forgive me!’ I was crying too. I couldn’t take it. That baby boy had the most perfect angelic face I have ever seen. [He supposedly had Down Syndrome.]
“I was present in the room during two more such procedures that day, but I was really in shock. I tried to pretend that I was somewhere else, to not think about what was happening. I just couldn’t wait to get out of there. After I left that day, I never went back. These last two procedures, by the way, involved healthy mothers with healthy babies.
“I was very much affected by what I had seen. For a long time, sometimes still, I had nightmares about what I saw in that clinic that day.
“Mr. Chairman, these people who say I didn’t see what I saw – I wish they were right. I wish I hadn’t seen it. But I did see it, and I will never be able to forget it. That baby boy was only inches, seconds away from being entirely born, when he was killed. What I saw done to that little boy, and to those other babies, should not be allowed in this country.
“Thank you.”
Comment by sedonaman | December 19, 2007
I wonder how many "leftists" support sedonaman's list he posted above. I can't imagine people think in such simplistic terms…left/right/good/bad/right wrong. It's so easy to build straw men.
Sedonman is right. He never a description of leftists' beliefs put any better. What he doesn't realize is that virtually nobody believes everything on his frightening list of leftists beliefs.
Sedonman has been duped by propaganda. He's duped, branded and controlled by a political party. Sedonman is a Republican sheep.
As long as either party can count on its sheep, we'll continue to have substandard representation in Washington. The sheep also happen to be the motivated voters. It's a sad state of affairs folks.
For Roe v. Wade it should be overturned. It's states issue.
GreginNY
Comment by GreginNY | December 19, 2007
What would be far more interesting, Sedonman, would be a list of everything the 'right' considers immoral. It might look something like this:
Allowing women to make their own medical choices regarding conception and pregnancy without a court order
The Commonweal
The 20th Century
Sex for pleasure.
Publicly funded education
Criticism of America
Criticism of America's Republican Leaders
Criticism of Christians
Criticism of Christianity
Criticism of the President (if Republican)
Criticism of Corporations who give allot of money to Christian or Republican leaders
Any family that consists of anything but One Man, One Woman who conjoin physically for the sole purpose of having children
Criticism of Conservative Speech
Allowing terminally ill patients to choose not to be billed for the long, slow, painful agonizing path to eternity that our modern medical machinery is happy to provide (and extend indefinitely, provided the checks keep clearing)
Sex involving any device not already attached to the human body (how's that dildo Ban workin out for you, Missouri?)
Sado-Masochism (repeat viewings of "Passion of the Christ" excepted)
Condoms
Engaging in any foreign policy that doesn't involve blowing things up and hunting 'terr'ists.'
People with assets over 5MillionUS ever having to pay any taxes of any kind again, ever.
The Common Good
Mentioning the word or concept of human procreation to a person under the age of 21 in any other context than negative. And only mentioning it to those over 21 if you are married to them. And only if you have to.
Female Masturbation
Fornication
Glorification of debauchery (including, presumably, depictions or suggestions of sex and sexual attraction in popular entertainment and advertising)
The regulation of weaponry among the citizenry (except, of course, for 'terrorists' whose weaponry should somehow be magically traced, allowing for their incarceration).
Using the legal system to prosecute victims of random violence.
Atheism
Atheists
Science
Homosexuality
Habeas Corpus
Any religion or world view that doesn't begin with the letter 'C' and end with the letter 'n' and have the letters 'hristia' in between.
etc etc. ad nausium.
Which is all fine, because, ya know this is America and they have a right…. blah blah blah. It's funny tho, cuz I don't remember Jesus really talking about corporations much, but perhaps I should re-read. The important thing is that whether or not you or I or anyone agree's or disagre's that this list is 'moral' or 'immoral,' THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER is that a liberal (and in former days, actual conservatives) believes the CONSTITUTION says the government can't interfere with peoples right to make the above decisions for themselves, while the Cristionists here at IC would very much like to see everything discussed here made ILLEGAL. Indeed, they seem pretty darn eager to start drawing up lists and casting stones already! I don't even want to hear denials that total regulation of practically every medical decision, including and especially with regards to sex, birth and death is not the ultimate goal of most of the commenter's here. Heck, if MM were elected governor of MoutanManTopia he'd make sure outlawing condoms, adultery and women's pants was made part of his oath of office.
What I DON'T understand is, how does all of this jibe with your profession to 'smaller, less intrusive' government? My point above has remained un-addressed, as y'all much prefer to argue and grandstand about what 'is' and what 'is not' 'moral.' The Kansas AG made quite clear the kinds of issues that are going to start cropping up on a day-to-day basis if RvW is overturned - State attorneys are going to start combing medical records looking for 'unusual' abortions. Given the technology of today, and the apparent willingness of our 'conservatives' to support the use of warrant-less searches, is it not out of the ballpark to suggest that in the future, some enterprising DA or AG might start 'sifting' electronic medical records, looking for evidence of an abortions he might prosecute?
If abortion is illegal in any sense, then that means every abortion that is performed must be recorded, and those records scrutinized for propriety. What doctor will even be allowed to perform the procedure by the HMO that owns him without the required legal pre-clearance? The real-world is not "ER," where people in emergencies are rushed in and the doctors know just what to do. A well-insured woman with a long medical history of dangerous pre-conditions might be an easy call for an HMO lawyer to give the OK for a doctor in his hospital group to perform a needed abortion, but what happens when that lawyer, or even that accountant, at that HMO decides to say "no."? "Go to court, get a judge to declare your case legal and we'll perform the abortion." Times that by 50,000 and where will we be?
I've seen no real discussion of what your society would look like, or how it is supposed to deal legally with the gray areas should your great wish be granted.
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
Phil, point taken that you 'answered' his question, in your fashion. The point is that the question was purposely designed as a thought experiment to sidestep the usual obsessions with "intent" and "wanting the baby." And instead of really thinking about his question, you assured yourself that the doctors would know what to do and, "of course no woman's life should be jeopardized." But tell me, my friend, if your sister-in-laws' doctors couldn't give a % change of dying, how are they supposed to give a % chance of legality to the hospital lawyers?
If there are no abortion clinics, and no doctors performing them as a matter of profession, only hospital surgeons and OBGYN's in genuine medical emergencies will be allowed to perform them. With threat of prosecution, not just of the doctors, but of the HMO's and hospitals that employ them (not to mention the need for special 'prosecution insurance' covering any doctor allowed anywhere near a fetus), you don't believe that every potential pregnancy complication with be scrutinized both medically and LEGALLY before any kind of action is allowed? Would you really want the question of legality be one more thing the doctors who were caring for your sister-in-law have to worry about?
Comment by Chasm | December 19, 2007
Chasm:
First to respond to a general point you made, and then to respond to your comments directed to me.
“What I DON’T understand is, how does all of this jibe with your profession to ’smaller, less intrusive’ government?”
*** It is the legitimate role of the government to help provide for the safety and security of its people. This is why we have armies to defend against foreign invasion, and police forces to protect us internally. Protecting innocent human life in the womb from arbitrary elective abortion is a logical extension of this.
However, just as having a police force doesn’t permit the police to arbitrarily enter your home, and forces the courts to follow established rules of evidence when prosecuting law breakers, the Constitution does not permit the federal government to force women to give birth. We are not advocating a federal law against abortion. We are advocating that the bogus justification for allowing federal action regarding abortion be overturned, and this matter be returned to the states for 50 individual decisions. This is where the abortion decision belongs.
If the nation ever adopted a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, then federal action would be permitted. Adopting this amendment would require a significant national consensus that doesn’t exist today. In the mean time, the decision to electively abort children should be returned to its proper venue where the people of this country, not the courts, decide the issue.
“But tell me, my friend, if your sister-in-laws’ doctors couldn’t give a % change of dying, how are they supposed to give a % chance of legality to the hospital lawyers?”
*** Life is infinitely more complicated than telling a woman you have a 73.2% chance of dying. There are medicines that have certain positive and negative effects. There are routines that can benefit the woman (complete bed rest, transfusions, etc.). There is constant monitoring of a variety of critical indicators (blood pressure, heart rate, etc.) for both her and her developing child.
My sister in law weighed all these ongoing factors — which couldn’t all be precisely quantified — and chose to go through with the pregnancy. Medically, legally and morally she could have aborted at any time following her 10th week, when the condition began to manifest itself. She didn’t do the morally correct thing by giving birth in this situation, any more than it would have been immoral to terminate in this situation. At best this is a morally neutral situation. When two lives are at risk of death, we can’t assign more value to one than another. It’s the woman’s right to choose her life. But this isn’t the case with the overwhelming majority of elective abortions. It isn’t a decision between two human lives at risk. The aborted baby poses no life/death risk to the woman. Aborting it because it’s unwanted, inconvenient, the woman couldn’t bear to put it up for adoption, etc, is immoral. An innocent human life is being taken arbitrarily and capriciously. Wanting an abortion to feel better mentally is not on par with needing an abortion to save one’s life.
As far as the lawyers go, looking at statistical probabilities to assign culpability in a court of law is not the issue. John Edwards built his career on convincing juries that certain medical practices lead to childhood autism. His claims — though supported with “statistics” — have proven to be bogus. I would hope that when deciding whether to kill a helpless, innocent human being or not we would do more than crunch a bunch of numbers, assign a percentage variable to the outcome, and kill everyone who falls below the cut off line. That’s the kind of mentality one usually assigns to Nazi medical practices.
“If there are no abortion clinics, and no doctors performing them as a matter of profession, only hospital surgeons and OBGYN’s in genuine medical emergencies will be allowed to perform them.”
*** You speak in absolutes. If RvW is overturned, the decision will return to the 50 states. As much as I wish it were otherwise, some states will undoubtedly permit abortion. So abortionists who want to practice their trade will find an outlet, even though they may have to relocate.
But in all seriousness, to suggest that we need to keep abortion active in all 50 states and kill 50 million-plus babies to date (and counting) so that physicians can practice their techniques for the rare medical emergency is kind of silly. If we can teach anatomy by dissecting virtual frogs so as not to upset the animal rights people, then surely we can find a way to adequately prepare our doctors without slaughtering millions of innocent human beings as “practice”.
“you don’t believe that every potential pregnancy complication with be scrutinized both medically and LEGALLY before any kind of action is allowed? Would you really want the question of legality be one more thing the doctors who were caring for your sister-in-law have to worry about?”
*** I believe that this WILL indeed be the case, and it’s a good thing. I believe that this will force the medical community to create specific objective standards for life-saving abortions, and not allow subjective (“I think her mental health will be better if we abort”) standards. These same objective standards exist for all emergency room decisions where a patient’s life is judged at risk. Our doctors (and lawyers) have no trouble deciding whether to amputate a limb of an unconscious person to save their life, remove the spleen of a gunshot victim to save their life, and the courts even require certain religious fundamentalists to allow their children to be operated on. If the courts can require a Jehovah’s Witness to give their child a life saving blood transfusion against their will, we can, as a society, figure out how to determine whether the life of a mother is truly at risk during pregnancy.
These aren’t puppies we’re euthanizing, or cancerous tumors we’re removing. They are human children developing inside the womb. Again, to repeat a point I made earlier, the issue is whether that “thing” being aborted is human or not. The problem many people have with looking at human life is that they focus on the surface issues only. It must meet certain subjective criteria before they will feel comfortable admitting (or become convinced, or be forced to concede) tha