"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
4th Circuit: Baby Murder Is OK
By Greg L | 20 May 2008 | Virginia Politics, Crime | 69 Comments
WTOP is reporting that the 4th Circuit upheld a 2005 ruling that stuck down the Commonwealth’s law banning partial-birth abortions. How anyone could think that aborting full-term unborn children is anything other than a barbaric outrage is utterly beyond comprehension. This is murder by physician, pure and simple.
This is definitely going to be an inspiration for legislation in the next session of the General Assembly.
UPDATE: The Washington Times has more on this.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
69 Comments
Views: 1371
Loading ...
What do you expect from libs? They want to kill future American workers, but then want to import illegals by the millions by claiming there are not enough Americans to do those jobs. Libs are just a bunch of self loathing Anti-Americans who want nothing but to destroy this great Nation because of what it stands for.
Obama says a baby is a punishment so his kind are just punishing the babies first. …their logic, not mine.
Liberals are good at two things raising taxes and killing babies. Then they provide weak arguments to justify both. They are absolutely sickening.
Here’s hoping the Supreme Court overrules.
Red Dawn,
I don’t give money to the homeless as a general rule, I don’t get “fat stacks” on the corner with drugs don’t smoke the finest green and I don’t stand in front of abortion clinics calling the customers whores or killers or sinners. The fact is we are all sinners and all sins are equal in the eyes of God. There are just some sins that are so unconscionable to my human mind I can not fathom how anybody could justify them. Killing babies is murder especially partial birth abortion. If you get that far into the pregnancy it seems to me putting the baby up for adoption would be a much more reasonable option.
sahdman,
THANK YOU! I AGREE, this is what I argue, ( i.e.Bob Marshall)
Which came first the chicken or the egg ( no pun intended)
SOME people think that CONTRECEPTION is just as EQUALLY bad.
This is my point. Now, what is it that we argue WITHOUT walking in someone else’s shoes ( an oz of prevention )
Side note:
I do give my money to the homeless- I always have, I was taught by my mother and father to APPRECIATE and NOT judge why someone may be in their situation…kept my ego in check
It sure sounds like some of you all hate those who you perceive as liberals.
Now here is what I don’t understand: ” Killing babies is murder especially partial birth abortion. ” Why does the method matter? I hope everyone realizes that is a political term, not a medical term. Why is a ‘partial birth abortion’ worse than any other kind?
Murder is illegal killing. A legal procedure, by definition, is not murder. It might be unacceptable behavior in the eyes of some.
How odd that in this country there are still people who fight birth control just as hard as they fight legal abortion.
I cannot believe the above three comments! I have NEVER read such ugly and hateful statements as these.
“They want to kill future American workers… “self loathing Anti-Americans who want nothing but to destroy this great Nation….
“Obama says a baby is a punishment so his kind are just punishing the babies first, ..their logic, not mine.”
“Liberals are good at two things raising taxes and killing babies… They are absolutely sickening.”
Who ARE you, CitizenofManassas, Dr Hfuhruhurr, and sahdman?
How can your minds come up with thoughts like these? There must be a cancer in your system that’s destroying any reason that might have once existed in your brains.
Krutis said on 20 May 2008 at 11:58 pm:
Why is a ‘partial birth abortion’ worse than any other kind?
Because of the simple fact that the baby is far enough along to survive outside of the uterus in most cases. The baby is pulled feet first out so that only the head remains in the mother. After this, the skull is pierced and a vacuum pump sucks out the brain of the child. This is how a nurse described the procedure on a baby that was old enough to survive on its own:
“Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse from Dayton, Ohio, assisted Dr. Haskell in a Partial Birth Abortion on a 26-1/2 week (over 6 months) pre-born baby boy. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee (on 11/17/95) about what she witnessed. According to nurse Shafer, the baby was alive and moving as the abortionist “delivered the baby’s body and 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, 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 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.”
If this does not disgust you then you are simply not a human being. This is not a mothers right to choose, it is plain and simple murder in the eyes of God.
My wife can not carry a child and to think that so many would throw away precious life, life that so many couples would give anything for, throw it away like garbage just makes me sick.
Correction: Dolph said the above comment, not Krustis.
Abortion is a personal choice between a woman and her doctor - at any stage of pregnancy. If you are opposed to abortion - at any stage of the pregnancy - then don’t do it!
How many times have we read - on this forum and others - that the government needs to govern the country and stay out of personal lives? Yet, this is exactly what this thread is saying.
I’m a fence sitter on this. Until the government (and churches) recognize a fetus as a living, breathing human being entitled to the same rights under the law as an out-of-womb baby (including a social security number), abortion is not murder. It is a legal medical procedure. Just as any other legal medical procedure, government should not intrude on these personal decisions.
Churches do not even recognize the fetus of a spontaneous abortion (mis-carriage) as a “baby,” entitled to full funeral rites.
The turning point in my life was about 10 years ago when a friend had to make a heart wrenching and life altering decision.
She was pregnant - she and her husband were delighted. About 5 months into the pregnancy she learned she had ovarian cancer. She had to make a choice - she could terminate the pregnancy and treat the cancer or continue the pregnancy and risk metastases and die during the pregnancy or shortly thereafter.
She made the choice to abort. At the Clinic, the “protesters” spit on her, shouted at her, tried to give her literature about adoption …… no one even bothered to ask WHY she was having an abortion.
Unfortunately, she died 3 months later - after the abortion, it was learned the cancer was alredy in an advanced stage and did not respond to the cancer treatment.
In the end, it’s no one’s damn business why a woman has an abortion. Over the years, I’ve learned that the ones how are so adamantly opposed to someone else’s abortion (sticking their noses into others’ personal lives) are the very same people who want the government to stay out of theirs.
It can’t be both ways.
There are those that see intentional and deliberate killing of an innocent child, rather than the euphemism applied by abortion proponents as being a medical decision with no other impacts. This is particularly true in the case of “second trimester” abortions, where medical science can regularly ensure that a baby born this prematurely can not only survive if delivered this early, but thrive.
The murder of any innocent person is very much my “damned business”, despite these steadfast refusals by some to recognize a human life as anything other than an inconvenient mass of human tissue to be treated with the same regard one might have for a surgically removed wart.
The murder of any innocent person is very much my “damned business”, despite these steadfast refusals by some to recognize a human life as anything other than an inconvenient mass of human tissue to be treated with the same regard one might have for a surgically removed wart.
Greg, this only becomes your “damned business” when you commit to be involved in the lives of those you feel you have the “right” to control - right down to their reproductive choices.
When the government allows pregnant women to declare their “viable fetus” as a tax deduction, then I will recognize the fetus’ rights under the Constitution.
WHEN that happens, it becomes everyone’s “damned business.”
Sorry folks, I forgot I cleared my Internet Options and didn’t log in before posting.
Junes_Reston,
You said it!! Last time I checked it was the woman’s body and not the government’s, and certainly not the business of the voters(males especially). Government does not belong in the bedrooms’ of America.
Thanks for a great post!!
Legally, abortion may not be murder, but some of us think it is anyway and will continue to do so. It doesn’t matter whether it’s my business or not. From what I’ve seen happen to acquaintances and relatives who have had convenience abortions, karma has usually succeeded where the law has failed. There are many people who want to adopt so I see the procedure, unless the mother is in danger from the pregnancy, as an unnecessary and dangerous option. And this will probably piss you off more–I don’t see the logic behind punishing the baby just because it was conceived by rape or incest, either. There you go, deal with it.
I question the priorities in a country where pets receive medical treatment on par with celebrity hospitals and hold an honored position in our homes, but a baby that can survive outside the womb is discarded as an “inconvenience.”
A mother.
Dr H,
That’s YOUR opinion and you’re entitled to it. It’s not your “right” to tell a rape victim they should have to carry a baby from such a crime. And in the case of incest, that’s just simply SICK that you think a female should have to carry a baby as a result of the sick twisted crime.
Comments from narrow-minded people such as yourself don’t piss me off. It actually makes me sorry for those with such thinking.
Have a nice day!
It is not only my business, but it’s “society’s business” if my neighbor kills or hires someone to kill his wife….for ANY reason….even if it is a love-based mercy killing to end excrutiating pain associated with terminal illness.
Correspondingly, why is it “personal choice,” and NOT society’s business if my neighbor hires someone to terminate/abort/kill a fetus which may be inconveniently timed, but has never committed sin and has the struggle for survival as its sole mission.
Anonymous says, “In the end, it’s no one’s damn business why a woman has an abortion. Over the years, I’ve learned that the ones how are so adamantly opposed to someone else’s abortion (sticking their noses into others’ personal lives) are the very same people who want the government to stay out of theirs. It can’t be both ways.”
I guess what it boils down to is that if the human life is too young to have committed sin and is too young to give consent, then it’s ok to hire someone to “snuff it”… What kind of sick, crazy logic is that?
Do you pro-lifers think if the 10year old raped on the first thread had gotten pregnant she should be forced to carry a baby from such a crime? Do you have any idea what giving birth to a child at age 10? Would you “men” want your 10 year old daughter or granddaughter to give birth in her first of year of a double digit age?
Resort to whatever personal attacks you wish, but if abortion was a referendum, I would vote against it and we would all just live with whatever the result was. I don’t harass, try to persuade, or have a desire to force my will on anyone about this. I am entitled to my opinion and will vote that way if given the chance. I have no opinion regarding the raped 10-year-old if she becomes pregnant as I, and you, are not aware of all of the circumstances surrounding that situation. Again, regardless of the legalities, everyone gets their’s if it’s deserved. I’ll leave that to my “superstitions”. Be thankful that for now the legal system is the way it is for your personal convenience choices that harm others.
Do you pro-abortionists believe in the death penalty? What if someone was on death row for the raping/killing/other of a child?
It amazes me how some on the pro-abortion side will fight tooth and nail for the second chance of a prisoner, but have no qualms about aborting a fetus because it’s “Not the right time.”
Sorry, I am NOT a liberal, and I believe in the death penalty!
I say fry the rapist.
BTW-No one is pro-abortion. It’s a personal choice.
Dr. H,
Yes, you have the right to your opinion and to vote on the matter. Isn’t America great?
Of course pregnancy is very preventable. However, birthcontrol is not always used, and of course that burden too lies on the women for the most. How about more real men get their sack snipped, and maybe wouldn’t be having this discussion.
No1Uknow said on 21 May 2008 at 7:46 am:
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Double standard at it’s best (worst)
‘Partial birth abortion’ is actually a D & X procedure rarely used in late 2nd and early third trimester pregnancies. Most people who choose abortion at this stage of pregnancy do so for compelling medical reasons. Not all, but most. It is also a very expensive procedure.
The grisly description reported by Brenda Prat Shafer was obviously written for shock effect. I would not take that as a medical report or first hand experience.
Lafayette and June are both correct, in my opinion. Furthermore, men can stomp, trumpet and chest-beat all they want. Abortion will always be the decision of women as it has been throughout history.
And no, think what you want, but it really isn’t any of your damn business and unless it directly involves me, it isn’t any of mine either.
abortion has been around since the dawn of time, it’s the womans choice regardless of their reasons however repugnant they may seem to “outsiders” it’s still their choice. you cannot legislate personal choice in that regard, it’s been tried. Would people rather have women killing themselves in back-alleys with coat-hangers or conducting the procedure in a clean environment legally? I bring you to Roe V. Wade….
It’s honestly really simple, whenever you start legislating a persons personal choice you run into issues. Would I rather a person not have an abortion, shure. I think there are other methods (such as birth control, adoption, etc..) however the choice is always there and if a woman decides to exercise her option to do so then I will support it. I also support the death penalty and I dont think it’s hippocritical of me to do so. a person who kills another and is proven to do so in a court of law should be punished and that punishment should fit the crime.
so I support the choice, not that act itself. In the case of a rape victim, I think it would be a good choice as would be the case of a person who is carrying a child that would be a danger to herself.
There must be a balance between government and personal freedoms, that’s what makes this country great. whenever you tip the scale and start bringing government into the home regulating your body then you start running into problems. Keep the balance, giving the woman a choice (however distasteful) is a part of that balance.
And once again, science, law, and popular consensus smacks down the deluded ravings of the theocratic minority who won’t be happy until they saddle this country with the Christian equivalent of sharia law.
It’s really quite simple: get your noses out of affairs that don’t concern you. It’s the woman’s body and the woman’s choice. You’re more than welcome to oppress yourselves with your archaic, outdated, completely discredited notions, but quit trying to force your nonsense on the rest of us.
Lafayette,
It seems that if your name starts with a J and you are male, you are right on the money today. Great posts, J-men.
Dolph,
Shh…Don’t mess up a good thing some “J-man” might come out of there cave and prove otherwise.
Josh & Jeff,
Thank you for posts. They are both on the money.
all I know is that when I enter my house, it’s “my” house. no one elses. I like to think the decisions in “my house” are mine alone as long as I follow the law it should be no ones business what those decisions are. Not everyone is christian, nor are everyone muslim, etc. You cannot saddle everyone with religious ideology. The crusades tried that already.
if you look back on history you’ll see that people are happiest when balances are struck between law, order and availability of personal choice. Swing the pendulum too far in any direction and the public is off-center and problems occur. I’m all for a balanced approach and I’m against anything that threatens a balanced society, no matter what the party or candidate.
For those that have never read Roe v. Wade, I am posting these somewhat lengthy excepts from the majority opinion so that people can actually talk with facts rather than their own view of history– sorry for the length but it is necessary to understand what the Supreme Court actually ruled–
“We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”
“Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.”
“The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus.”
“As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.”
“As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.”
“For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.”
“For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
“The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.”
Dolph said on 20 May 2008 at 11:00 pm:
It sure sounds like some of you all hate those who you perceive as liberals.
Now here is what I don’t understand: ” Killing babies is murder especially partial birth abortion. ” Why does the method matter? I hope everyone realizes that is a political term, not a medical term. Why is a ‘partial birth abortion’ worse than any other kind?
Because the murder of that innocent baby is done in full view of anyone in the room. It’s not like taking an abortion pill. It’s a crime where the weapon is a sissors and a suction tube instead of a gun.
Lafayette said on 21 May 2008 at 6:33 am:
Junes_Reston,
You said it!! Last time I checked it was the woman’s body and not the government’s, and certainly not the business of the voters(males especially).
Why is suicide illegal since it’s your body? Can’t have it both ways!
There is never a reason for “partial birth abortion”. When viewed logically, if the entire body has cleared the birth canal and exited the mother, except the head, all issues have been decided. Therefore, when the brains are sucked out and the skull collapsed it is in fact (if not in law) murder.
Anonymous,
This is almost too ridiculous to respond too. I honestly do not see what full view has to do with what I perceive as a moral/ethical/medical question.
I do not think that you understand this procedure. I cannot imagine why anyone who had an ethical problem with legal abortion would work in this branch of medicine. I guess I have missed your point.
You do understand that people are pro-choice and not necessarily liberals?
I don’t think suicide should be illegal either. You don’t know what I think on suicide. I’ve never written or spoken about it until now. Why hide behind Anonymous if you believe so much in YOUR beliefs? You believe what you want, and I and others will do the same. Life would be very boring if we all thought, walked, talked, and acted a like.
Lafayette,
This is a very rare procedure. I am not going to waste any more of my day on it arguing with people who I will never agree with. It is a waste of my time and theirs. People believe what they believe and that’s it. I have seen a great deal of emotionism here and of course, that is the political intent.
There are more urgent things to concern one’s self with like making sure contraception is available to all sexually active people who do not wish to conceive.
independent,
good excerpts from roe v. wade, I read this many of time during school (when I was paying attention:) one of my professors said it best, you should be able to summarise the key points in a case in less than two sentences. basically in a nutshell, the government cannot outright outlaw abortion, but they can regulate it, so what they do is essentially attach caveats.
Red dawn,
I don’t give money to homeless because if they truly want help there are charities that can help them. I prefer to give to a charity that will help them. That is my personal preference.
Dr. H,
I agree and it seems to me that cases where the life of the mother is in danger are so rare that it wouldn’t be a political issue.
I agree, Josh. But my reading of the decision says that, although during the first trimester, a woman’s right to privacy is controlling (subject to reasonable regulation for her safety common in the medical field) and, as a pregnancy goes on, the balance can shift more and more to the state’s narrow and tailored interest in the “potentiality of human life” (fetus) “may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe” (prohibit) abortion, except when necessary to protect the life and health of the mother. (parentheticals mine)
I can also recall the discussions at the time of the decision and shortly thereafter that the justices believed that the use of the abortion procedure would be rare and should not be used as a ordinary substitute for birth control.
Dolph said on 21 May 2008 at 11:11 am:
Lafayette,
This is a very rare procedure. ………….
The latest statistics for late-term abortions are 2003 - 1,032 late term abortions were performed in that year. Late-term abortions are not taken lightly and there is generally a good reason for this difficult procedure.
A friend and I were talking about this today. She said she doesn’t agree with abortion and would never have one herself, but no one dubbed her Goddess and gave her the right to legislate her definition of morality on others.
If you feel abortion …at any stage of pregnancy … is murder, then don’t do it. But, until the laws change, abortions will continue whether you like it or not. Pray for those who don’t see things with your same sense of morality if that makes you feel better.
As for the death penalty - my only concern about the death penalty is criminals are allowed to spend years on appeals, while we the tax payers pay ~ $18,000 a year to maintain them. Those found guilty by their peers, without a shadow of a doubt, should be put to death within 3-5 years. To be quite honest, I could care less if the needle hurts or the “cocktail” causes discomfort.
The death penalty may not be a deterrent to others, but for those executed, they certainly won’t be committing any more crimes.
Junes_Reston,
I believe you and I are in total agreement on this issue. It really boils down to who decides as far as abortion is concerned. The individual or the government.
As for the death penalty…I am all for it. I would expand it even further as far as what qualifies. I am more comfortable with it now DNA testing has been refined.
Dolph and AWC, you may not believe it, but I knew the 19th amendment was a mistake from the git-go!!
Published in the New York times (of all places) in 1996:
Why Defend Partial-Birth Abortion?
By C. EVERETT KOOP
Published: September 26, 1996
The debate in Congress about the procedure known as partial-birth abortion reveals deep national uneasiness about abortion 23 years after the Supreme Court legalized it. As usual, each side in the debate shades the statistics and distorts the facts. But in this case, it is the abortion-rights advocates who seem inflexible and rigid.
The Senate is expected to vote today on whether to join the House in overriding President Clinton’s veto of a bill last April banning partial-birth abortion. In this procedure, a doctor pulls out the baby’s feet first, until the baby’s head is lodged in the birth canal. Then, the doctor forces scissors through the base of the baby’s skull, suctions out the brain, and crushes the skull to make extraction easier. Even some pro-choice advocates wince at this, as when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan termed it ”close to infanticide.”
The anti-abortion forces often imply that this procedure is usually performed late in the third trimester on fully developed babies. Actually, most partial-birth abortions are performed late in the second trimester, around 26 weeks. Some of these would be viable babies.
But the misinformation campaign conducted by the advocates of partial-birth abortion is much more misleading. At first, abortion-rights activists claimed this procedure hardly ever took place. When pressed for figures, several pro-abortion groups came up with 500 a year, but later investigations revealed that in New Jersey alone 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year. Obviously, the national annual figure is much higher.
The primary reason given for this procedure — that it is often medically necessary to save the mother’s life — is a false claim, though many people, including President Clinton, were misled into believing this. With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure’s impact on a woman’s cervix can put future pregnancies at risk. Recent reports have concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are elective, involving a healthy woman and normal fetus.
I’ll admit to a personal bias: In my 30 years as a pediatric surgeon, I operated on newborns as tiny as some of these aborted babies, and we corrected congenital defects so they could live long and productive lives.
In their strident effort to protect partial-birth abortion, the pro-choice people remind me of the gun lobby. The gun lobby is so afraid of any effort to limit any guns that it opposes even a ban on assault weapons, though most gun owners think such a ban is justified.
In the same way, the pro-abortion people are so afraid of any limit on abortion that they have twisted the truth to protect partial-birth abortion, even though many pro-choice Americans find it reasonable to ban the procedure. Neither AK-47’s nor partial-birth abortions have a place in civil society.
Both sides in the controversy need to straighten out their stance. The pro-life forces have done little to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, even though that is why most abortions are performed. They have also done little to provide for pregnant women in need.
On the other side, the pro-choice forces talk about medical necessity and under-represent abortion’s prevalence: each year about 1.5 million babies have been aborted, very few of them for ”medical necessity.” The current and necessarily graphic debate about partial-birth abortion should remind all of us that what some call a choice, others call a child.
The Supreme court many times upheld slavery and segregation. Did that make that view right? The Supreme court is not the end all, and they did in fact uphold the partial birth abortion ban.
As far as medical issues? You sill have a choice. My wife lost her 1st cousin in 1997 because she refused to abort her baby even though the pregnancy did eventually kill her. My own mother refused to abort me (The reason I have strong feelings about this) and allowed me to be born. She was clinically dead for 10 minutes (that is another story) but is still alive today over 35 years later. My wife’s mother found out about 10 years ago that she was the product of incest. She has been a productive citizen for 60 years. Don’t any of you dare to preach to me your right to play God and decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. An innocent child is an innocent child. No court approval will change what you are if you are complicit or participate: a murderer.
And for you Dolph: I am sure that the Jews were comforted by those who had the same “It doesn’t affect me so it is not my business” attitude. Maybe if people had more backbone some of the injustices in this world would not be allowed to happen.
From the New York times of all places:
Why Defend Partial-Birth Abortion?
By C. EVERETT KOOP
Published: September 26, 1996
The debate in Congress about the procedure known as partial-birth abortion reveals deep national uneasiness about abortion 23 years after the Supreme Court legalized it. As usual, each side in the debate shades the statistics and distorts the facts. But in this case, it is the abortion-rights advocates who seem inflexible and rigid.
The Senate is expected to vote today on whether to join the House in overriding President Clinton’s veto of a bill last April banning partial-birth abortion. In this procedure, a doctor pulls out the baby’s feet first, until the baby’s head is lodged in the birth canal. Then, the doctor forces scissors through the base of the baby’s skull, suctions out the brain, and crushes the skull to make extraction easier. Even some pro-choice advocates wince at this, as when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan termed it ”close to infanticide.”
The anti-abortion forces often imply that this procedure is usually performed late in the third trimester on fully developed babies. Actually, most partial-birth abortions are performed late in the second trimester, around 26 weeks. Some of these would be viable babies.
But the misinformation campaign conducted by the advocates of partial-birth abortion is much more misleading. At first, abortion-rights activists claimed this procedure hardly ever took place. When pressed for figures, several pro-abortion groups came up with 500 a year, but later investigations revealed that in New Jersey alone 1,500 partial-birth abortions are performed each year. Obviously, the national annual figure is much higher.
The primary reason given for this procedure — that it is often medically necessary to save the mother’s life — is a false claim, though many people, including President Clinton, were misled into believing this. With all that modern medicine has to offer, partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother, and the procedure’s impact on a woman’s cervix can put future pregnancies at risk. Recent reports have concluded that a majority of partial-birth abortions are elective, involving a healthy woman and normal fetus.
I’ll admit to a personal bias: In my 30 years as a pediatric surgeon, I operated on newborns as tiny as some of these aborted babies, and we corrected congenital defects so they could live long and productive lives.
In their strident effort to protect partial-birth abortion, the pro-choice people remind me of the gun lobby. The gun lobby is so afraid of any effort to limit any guns that it opposes even a ban on assault weapons, though most gun owners think such a ban is justified.
In the same way, the pro-abortion people are so afraid of any limit on abortion that they have twisted the truth to protect partial-birth abortion, even though many pro-choice Americans find it reasonable to ban the procedure. Neither AK-47’s nor partial-birth abortions have a place in civil society.
Both sides in the controversy need to straighten out their stance. The pro-life forces have done little to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, even though that is why most abortions are performed. They have also done little to provide for pregnant women in need.
On the other side, the pro-choice forces talk about medical necessity and under-represent abortion’s prevalence: each year about 1.5 million babies have been aborted, very few of them for ”medical necessity.” The current and necessarily graphic debate about partial-birth abortion should remind all of us that what some call a choice, others call a child.
Freedom,
Oh yes, I would believe it. First off, why are you dragging AWC into all this? I haven’t heard her comment. I am sure she would be all in favor of women having the right to vote. Are you saying you were around back in the day when the 19th amendment was passed?
Fortunately women no longer have to stay barefoot and pregnant. Some of them can even run for president.
Anonymous, come out from behind that veil and choose a name. I am all in favor of you feeling any way about abortion you like. I do not give you the right to make that choice for me. That is where your rights stop and mine begin. As for Jews, most of the Jewish people I know are pro-choice. That is an extremely poor analogy.
Big smiles to Dolph….:)
As a registered nurse myself, I can confirm that the way the partial-birth abortion procedure was described by the Ohio nurse is entirely accurate. Why on earth would a woman have to wait until a fetus is nearly–or fully–viable–and then destroy it? Because she didn’t realize until that point that she was pregnant? Please. There is no excuse for that sort of needless torture at that point in a pregnancy. I that the procedure at that point is sickening murder. The fetus is a fully sentient human being at that point that is being savagely mutilated in the name of “choice.”
It is perfectly legal to “choose” earlier in a pregnancy. Partial-birth abortion is all about pushing the envelope. What next, antepartum abortion at 40 weeks? When is enough enough?
I want to know what the scriptural passages are that describe partial birth abortion as a “sin”. I do not see them, and I have looked.
I know that the only unforgivable sin is a “failure to believe”. I know it is frowned on to kill anything, including animals, or to kill a mother of a child in childbirth, or a child in childbirth, but not frowned on to kill a soldier, but I do not believe it is an “unforgivable” sin.
What I see is a scripture from the old testament that says “thou shall not kill”.
That scripture applies equally to killing soldiers, criminals, innocent people, old people, young people, people of other religions, and babies.
I do not see a scripture that says “thou shall not kill egg cells, stem cells, or partial-term fetus’s that are neither born, nor prevent the death of a mother in a life threatening situation, nor to prevent the taking of a non-born fetus to save a mother’s life.
I think God addresses each on the merit each situation warrents, but will prevent no-one from getting into heaven for either decision made.
I agree with Lafeyette, it is not a religious group’s decision to make. It is a decision each woman, or man who has a direct entitlement to the decision to make it each according to their need, and their personal relationship with God.
I firmly believe God gives permission to some and not to others. Who is anyone to say what that personal permission is. I side with the rights of the individual to not be oppressed by other, even religious opression in this case.
I do not believe God prevents killing when deemed necessary, nor encourages it when it is not. The old testament simply states “thou shall not kill”. It is applied to everything equally. God and God alone dtermine entry into heaven based entirely on his one “unforgivable” rule. The rest he leave up to each indovidual to discern what they should or should not do. The individual is the only one in that personal relationship with God who can determine the consequence and reasons for making the decision one way or the other.
God himself does not prevent death, nor murder, nor justified killing of soldiers, nor mis-carriages at any part of the birth term.
I believe he leaves it up to personal and individual choice based on that person’s need and level of misery.
A fetus is not a fully “sentient” human being. Sentience and “intelligence”, and self-awareness are brain development milestones and have nothing to do with the date of birth or phase of birth, only with the level of development of the brain (varies with each individual and DNA). When a brain becomes “self-aware” is unknown still according to the limited research I have done on this topic. Adult squirels are smarter and more aware, and more social than babies at birth, and certainly before birth. They just rapidly overtake them somewhere around age 3-5.
Apparently some people, like hunters and presidents, don’t mind killing soldiers and squirrels either, even thou the old testament states “thou shall not kill”
The spiritual consequence is up to each individual and God alone to punish if we are looking at this entirely from a religious perspective. As I said before, and some of you may not believe this, God will not prevent entry into heaven for either decision, only for a decision to not believe in him or to fail to have a personal relationship with him.
Now if you want to discuss “man-made” doctrine that is a different ethics entirely and changes with social advocacy opinion, or what “man-made” church doctrine or period of history you belong to.
Micheal,
Well said! And coming from a man…very impressive. Well three cheers to the three MEN (josh, Jeff, and Micheal).
Michael, interesting way of looking at this eternal debate. You make some interesting points from a unique perspective. I will have to think on this one.
Meanwhile, I am going to stick to my mantra which simply is the refusal to give government the right to make deeply personal and religious decisions for me. That is not to say I wouldn’t arrive at the same conclusion, but it would be MY conclusion. Interesting that some of the people who do not trust the government with other decisions like immigration want to empower the government even further with personal decisions. Go figure.
I agree, Lafayette. Three cheers to Josh, Jeff, and Michael on this one.
How convenient. So it would be OK to kill a partially-born baby at 40 weeks (full term)? That is a deeply personal decision? Where do you draw the line here? How far along does the pregnancy have to be, or can we kill full-term babies before feet come out of the birth canal? Or does the line depend on your own personal convenience?
I would be interested to hear what your stands are on the death penalty. There is often a good deal of hypocrisy there among the “pro-choice” crowd–can’t kill a serial killer, but ok to kill a human that has all of its parts by 26 weeks in utero.
“A fetus is not a fully “sentient” human being. Sentience and “intelligence”, and self-awareness are brain development milestones and have nothing to do with the date of birth or phase of birth, only with the level of development of the brain (varies with each individual and DNA).”
How would you determine when that self-awareness occurs, Michael? I have a nephew who was born prematurely on March 10 and was kept in the hospital until July…when he would have normally been born (come to term). Today he is a brilliant student, believed to have a photographic memory, quite an adequate soccer player, and under YOUR rules he would not have been considered a human being and should have been thrown in the trashcan.
I happen to be personally opposed to abortion at any time (under no circumstances would I want a single one of MY tax dollars used to abort a child), but FIRMLY believe that the government has no business in the debate, either for or against it. The issue is a personal, religious, and ethical matter, HOWEVER, abortion in the third trimester is blatant murder in my opinion. It’s a fact (and you can check it out with medical experts) that a preemie born in the seventh month (even at the beginning of it) has a greater chance of survival than one born in the eighth month (it actually has to do with the ability of the heart and lungs to sustain the child at its smaller size in the 7th month). Partial birth abortions in the third trimester SHOULD be banned in a civilized society…it’s murder.
Colonial83,
You need to go back and reread!! I said it earlier in the post and so did Dolph. We are pro-choice, and pro-death penalty!!!
Just because one is pro-choice does NOT mean it is there personal decision to have an abortion. I don’t feel it’s my place or the government’s to be in ANYONES bedroom.
***
What about when the woman’s life is at risk? Should the woman die to let the unborn child live, and leave her already born children motherless? Think about that one.
*********************
Dolph, I agree that the government has no place in my bedroom but I think you are simplifying things too much. To some of us, the destruction of a human life that is viable, at the least, and others of us that for moral reasons believe it takes place much earlier–it is murder. It is the same for which you say you are for the death penalty. Even the Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, saw that there was a governmental role in protecting viable life and said that it could be banned, except to protect the health and life of the woman. In other words, “choice” ends after the first trimester and after that point, it not just a moral decision between a woman and her doctor unless there are acceptable reasons to protect someone else. (See my quotations above).
To view this simply as a moral choice means that you must also agree that murder should not be against the law but a moral one that the person will only answer to God. Do you believe it also of robbery or other crimes? It is a moral choice if someone murders, or steals so government has no role? To me that is suggestive of anarchy.
Lafayette, there are always going to be extenuating circumstances, and they can be used endlessly to justify killing innocent, viable life. As I said, the partial-birth abortion issue is all about pushing the envelope. There are very few circumstances in which a woman would have to wait to the third trimester to have an abortion. It is a safe, legal procedure to have EARLY on in pregnancy.
Some of the frat boys here need to accept the natural sequelae of sexual activity. Devaluing human life in the very late stage of pregnancy makes it awfully convenient to do what feels good and never have to feel any sort of responsibility, especially if you don’t consider that the fetus is a human being at ANY stage of pregnancy. With that attitude, perhaps it would serve society best to do everything possible to keep onself out of the gene pool entirely.
An Independent,
I don’t disagree with a you. I am not defending ‘partial birth abortion’ which is a political word, not a medical one. It is usually used to describe D & X procedure. I just believe it is disingenuous to quarrel or debate this issue.
I think most folks are very ill at ease, if not down right repulsed by late term abortions. However, I am realist enough to accept that there are times that they are medically necessary either because of maternal health or severe fetal anomaly. These situations should be rare.
I believe in safe-guards for those times when this procedure, or those that achieve the same end result, are medically necessary. I do not like using emotional terms to make a case for or against abortion based on this procedure. To do so is disingenuous at best and really doesn’t address the issues that bother most people anyway.
I am politically comfortable with the schematics and time tables used in the Roe v Wade decision. My politics and my personal choices are not necessarily simpatico.
Colonial83 said on 25 May 2008 at 6:55 pm:
I certainly hope the abortions happening late are for life saving measures. I think they are rare. A big thing for me is by abortion being legal, there’s a safe way to have it done. I don’t want women to be going in “back alleys” if you will.
I do consider a well developed fetus a human, FYI. I am looking at the mother’s health and life first. I want these procedures to be kept at a minimum.
“Frat Boys” my goodness, you aren’t Bob Marshall are you? lol
I think birth control is not always used properly if at all. This is the key to preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Ladies, lock up those “love canals”.
Men, consider taking control of birth control, and your body snipped at. It takes two to tango.
Lafayette, as a healthcare provider, I agree that I never want to see women get “back-alley abortions,” either. Why not just deliver these late-term babies, if the mother’s life/health are at stake, and hope they survive? A great many do survive with the technology available today. What’s the point in just killing it, when the baby could have a chance for a normal, productive life?
It just seems to me that there are many in the “pro-choice” crowd who want abortion available at any stage, so they will deny the existence of human life at any stage of pregnancy in order to have the whole pie.
No, I am not Bob Marshall
Amen to the birth control. Keep it zipped up in the first place, and fewer people will have to face these heartbreaking decisions down the road.
Dolph, I would like to believe that the use of this procedure would be rare but it doesn’t sound like it. I am no doctor but I am concerned that it would take so long to determine that maternal health would be in danger or that there is a severe fetal anomaly to make this procedure acceptable. I would like to hear from medical professionals that can say unequivically that it is not used for birth control but solely for protection of life. Although the Supreme Court said that there are remedies when a doctor violates good medical judgement there are existing recourses, I can hear an attorney in a court and a judge rule that action taken against a doctor has a “chilling effect” on a woman’s rights. The Supreme Court has actually struck down use of panels of peers to oversee a doctor’s decision but I am not sure if it applies to late term abortions or if it is just during the first trimester.
It might have helped the debate if the Supreme Court accepted medical panels such as those used for transplants as a safeguard when determine medical necessity.
Colonial83,
I agree that far along and no risk to the mother. Late term babies would certainly loved by those who are wanting to adopt. I do accept the human factor. I am far from heartless and understanding of others views and needs.
I don’t think our opinions vary too much. I sure not approve of being called Godless by the pro-lifers because I am pro-choice. I guess they all just have perfect lives and have never had to face some of things others have. Then have no compassion for someone who may have to make the choice of abortion. That’s not very Christian like.IMHO. See we are able to have civilized discussion without agreeing a 100%. I don’t see that same civility when this comes up for debate. I believe in respecting others, even those with varying opinions. We are individuals afterall.
C83,
I forgot to add this.
I don’t see that same civility when this comes up for debate by the pro-life crowd. I am not saying all, I am saying most. I do not believe in making such blanket statements. There are “bad eggs” in every group of all kinds.
Lafayette, I tend to approach this issue from a more “pro-human” standpoint than a religious one, although I do have strong religious faith. I cannot stand extremes on either end of the spectrum. When I see pious folks condemning others for their mistakes, I think, “there but for the grace of God.” Anyone who would call someone “Godless” has a few holes where their soul ought to be, as far as I’m concerned. I’m just too flawed an individual myself to be able to condemn anyone on religious grounds. I just know that medically a 26-week-old fetus is a fully human, often viable individual who may have many gifts to offer society.
I have much more respect for people involved in organizations that help pregnant women, or who provide counseling and services to women who might suffer from the emotional consequences of abortion–healing them rather than condemning them. That is much more Christian, IMHO.
Hope you had a pleasant holiday.
Colonial,
Amen!
I had a good holiday, and I hope you did the same.
Thanks for open-minded exchanges.
Compassion is lacking often when some can’t put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Oh, I have my flaws too. I just don’t feel the need to banter about religion.
I agree. Caring for these women is far more Chrisitan like.
Thanks again.
Layfayette, I don’t feel the need to banter about religion either…however, I do believe that stakeholders need to be able to participate in the discussion and have their position heard. I think you share that feeling as well.
However, when the issue comes to pro-life or pro-choice, I guess I’d have to say that the fetus is a fairly significant stakeholder in the argument…but like a deaf-mute on trial, has no voice in the issue whatsoever.
There are all kinds of arguments on the issue…rape, incest, and life of the mother being a few…those are the grey areas that need to be discussed separately. The fact remains though, for the vast majority of those wishing not to become parents, there are plenty of real, inexpensive, and viable options to prevent contraception. Should all of those fail, there are plenty of inexpensive and viable options to “mothering.”
For the totally dependent fetus however, there are no choices; they rely entirely upon the decision of others. In a land of law and order, where we strive so hard to guarantee the individual rights of everyone, not one fetus has granted proxy for that decision.
Freedom,
Of course I believe all stakeholders have a say. It’s just some become so vicious over the topic. Pro-lifers don’t seem to understand extenuating circumstances. That’s somewhat troublesome to me. There is a grey area in most thoughts and beliefs with individuals, I believe(or at least would like to, anyways).
Unwanted pregnancies are very preventable at minimal or no cost at all to females/males a like.
I can see your concern for the fetus. I think for those who are concerned about that issue greatly. They should work on getting laws for the fetus.
The bottom line is things are not always cut and dry. Clearly, I think you see this. Again, there are many that say NO, and that’s their final answer. Not taking the woman into consideration of what she may have been through seems cold and heartless to me.
Thanks for thought provoking post.