October 21, 2016

Who — Trump or Hillary — was confused or dishonest about abortion at the last debate?

I'm reading "Fact-Checking the Debate Fact-Checkers on Abortion" by Ramesh Ponnuru at The National Review.
Many news outlets accused Trump of misrepresenting Clinton’s position by bringing up the possibility of killing “the baby on the ninth month on the final day.” This does not happen, said the fact-checkers. But go back and read the transcript: What Trump said (in two iterations) was that “if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.” That is the logic of her position on late-term abortion, which is that an abortionist should be free to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy if there is a health reason for it, including a reason of emotional health. Some journalists were touting this criticism of Trump’s comments and defense of Clinton’s position, which ends up saying that abortions at the very end of pregnancy never happen but should still be legal because of the principle of the thing. Trump grasps that logic and says he objects to it. “Now you can say that that’s okay and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me.” You can agree with Trump or you can agree with Clinton, but you can’t truthfully say that there’s no difference between their stated positions.
The link at "this criticism" goes to a blog post by Dr. Jen Gunter, "Donald Trump confuses birth with abortion and no, there are no ninth month abortions." I'm reading that now. She quotes Trump's "I think it’s terrible if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby." Her first objection is is: "we don’t rip anything in OB/GYN." They use sharp instruments and make neat cuts.
Perhaps we can forgive Donald Trump for not knowing this as it is hard to believe that a man who bragged that he doesn’t change diapers and said he wouldn’t have had a baby if his wife had wanted him to actually physically participate in its care would have attended the birth of his own children. It’s certainly not for the faint of heart as there is, after all, lots of blood coming out the “wherever.”
That's amusingly written — if you're in the mood to be amused on this subject — but it's willfully ignoring Trump's motivation to use inflammatory rhetoric. He's not purporting to accurately describe a medical procedure but to dramatize the perspective of the baby who is getting killed. To be fair, it probably feels better to get killed with sharp instruments than to be ripped apart. And yet "partial-birth" abortion is illegal under federal law and the Supreme Court upheld that ban precisely because there is another method of late-term abortion, and that method — if I may believe Justice Kennedy's opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart does involve ripping:
The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed....
That grabbing and ripping is the the method that remained legal after the "partial-birth" abortion ban. (Gunter eventually describes this procedure: "The fetus is essentially taken apart with a D and E to fit through the dilated cervix." But, she says, this is not "ripping," but "simply surgical technique.")

Gunter says:
Trump’s statement, as incorrect as it may be, supports the fallacy of the due-date abortion. 
Supports the fallacy. In other words, he didn't say doctors were agreeing to perform abortions as late as the due date, but he caused people to picture this nonexistent event. His words, as Ponnuru observes, are about Hillary's philosophical principles: Hillary sees no role for the law to do anything in the hypothetical situation. Hillary, for her part, doesn't defend herself by saying we don't need laws about things that are not happening in the real world. She rests on the belief in the woman's autonomy. (As I would put it: The woman has sovereignty over the interior of her own body and the only legitimate law is her law.)

Back to Dr. Gunter:
Talking about abortion from a medical perspective is challenging when you are not a health care provider. Even someone familiar with the laws can get confused. For example, Mrs. Clinton made an error speaking about late-term abortion when she said it was a health of the mother issue. Typically it is not (it’s almost always fetal anomalies).... I don’t know where Mrs. Clinton got this “bad news at the end” of the pregnancy being about maternal health.... [N]o one is performing health of the mother abortions at 38 or 39 weeks we just do deliveries. It’s called obstetrics.
Was Clinton confused? It might be a political choice not to talk about destroying a defective child.

Gunter proceeds to school us in birth defects, which, she says, are the reason for 80% of abortions that take place after 21 weeks. The defects, she says, "could range from Down syndrome to anomalies incompatible with life." Gunter shifts quickly to abortions that take place after 24 weeks, considered the point of viability, after which the woman no longer has a constitutional right to have an abortion for any reason. She writes:
After 24 weeks birth defects that lead to abortion are very severe and typically considered incompatible with life. 
Typically. What's hidden behind that word? Are we still destroying children with disabilities that do not mean that they'll die before birth or soon after? After 24 weeks, Gunter tells us, the doctor can either induce labor (after killing the fetus with an injection so that the "partial-birth" approach to removing the fetus won't violate the federal law) or use the ripping (it's not ripping!) method described above (which is called "dilation and extraction").
I’ve never heard of a dilation and extraction for any other reason than severe birth defects and often it is for a woman who has had two or three c-sections for whom inducing labor might pose other health hazards, like uterine rupture. Are we to force women to have c-sections for a pregnancy that is not compatible with life?
A good question. I've had 2 c-sections myself, and the second one was recommended because, after the first one, there was a danger of uterine rupture. But what I don't understand here is why wouldn't waiting for a natural birth be the alternative to a c-section? It is natural birth, not abortion, that is parallel to a c-section, since it is intended to keep the baby alive. Gunter doesn't even seem to notice the ethical question why would we accept the deliberate destruction of the fetus at this point? Is it euthanasia (because the fetus is suffering)? Is it for the mental peace of the woman once she knows that this pregnancy is not going to result in a healthy baby? Does it matter whether the disability is fatal? Remember Gunter wrote of birth defects that are "typically considered incompatible with life." So some but not all of these babies would, if not actively killed, go on to die a natural death.

Gunter tells us that some women "might think they can make it to term and then at 34 weeks cave and ask to be delivered because they just can’t bear one more person asking them about their baby":
Do they just smile and walk away or say, “Well, actually, my baby has no brain and will die at birth?” Some women go to term and others can’t. To judge these women for requesting an early delivery is cruel on so many levels. I wrote more about it here if you are interested.  Regardless, terminations for birth defects isn’t ripping “the baby out of the womb in the ninth month.” At 38 or 39 weeks it’s always an induction and is simply called a delivery.
Notice the language glitch: It's "isn't ripping" because it's "called a delivery." Of course, the official terminology avoids the ugly word "ripping." But calling it "delivery" aligns with calling it "partial-birth," which is what horrified people more than the dilation and extraction method and produced the federal law that the Supreme Court upheld in Carhart. Gunter has talked about both methods, above, but she switched to speaking only of the delivery method (with isn't illegal when the body is already dead because of the injection). But Gunter has shifted to talking about abortions after 38 or 39 weeks and now she's telling us there is no longer a choice between the 2 methods. So in that sense, there is no "ripping."

But Trump's use of "ripping" wasn't technical. It was dramatic rhetoric expressing how horrible it is to deliberately kill a human being who is this far along in development. Dr. Gunter is interested in presenting medical practitioners as expert and ethical, but she's not very attuned to the way clinical terminology can sound heartless or deceptive. I'm not convinced by her effort to skewer Trump on his use of the word "rip." Her better argument has to do with how unlikely it is that any baby is killed on the last day of a full term pregnancy, but Ponnuru deals with that argument well: Trump is testing Clinton's principle. Nevertheless, Trump is making people think about the reality, not merely a hypothetical. He's distracting us if he's alarming us about things that aren't happening. I'd like to see the candidates concentrate on the matters that genuinely will occupy their attention if they get into office.

Clinton was also confused or dishonest, as Gunter explains. I suspect that she doesn't want to delve into the ethical questions surrounding the disabled, especially if we're talking about anomalies that begin with Down syndrome.



I suspect that Hillary Clinton feels most comfortable and most politically effective talking about the feelings of women and seeming to empathize with their struggles, referenced abstractly, before scrambling to the high ground of individual autonomy.

179 comments:

Adamsunderground said...

What fuels these mortals be

Todd said...

For example, Mrs. Clinton made an error speaking about late-term abortion when she said it was a health of the mother issue. Typically it is not (it’s almost always fetal anomalies).... don’t know where Mrs. Clinton got this “bad news at the end” of the pregnancy being about maternal health.... [N]o one is performing health of the mother abortions at 38 or 39 weeks we just do deliveries. It’s called obstetrics.

Easy, Mrs. Clinton does not care. She is for any abortion, at any time. In the womb? Abortion OK. Girl power!

Unknown said...

The left's position on abortion is abominable. More and more are coming out for "post birth" abortions, i.e. murder. If the baby just happened to not be wanted then it's morally acceptable to kill it because hey, no difference.

It is the modern day worship of Moloch, is what the whole thing is.

The woman's right to choose is exercised when she chooses to have sex. Don't want to get pregnant? Don't have sex. Same for the guy: don't want a child support payment? Don't get a girl pregnant. That's where the right to choose should be celebrated. Once that choice is made, you've chosen the possible consequences too.

But what about rape and incest and viability of the fetus and mother's life in danger? Well, what about them? Those situations are vanishingly small. Even then, it should be a hard choice to deliberately kill your baby.

Real rape cases, and real life of the mother? Sure, we should have an exception for abortion. But those cases should be small, not girls saying 'If I claim rape I can kill this baby from that drunken party? He raped me!" And no "My mental health of gosh, now I have to be responsible, and that's too much, so let's kill my baby!" that happens all the time now.

--Vance

Susan said...

They have to get them out of there somehow if mom doesn't want them. They aren't going to come willingly, babies being immune to reason.

Maybe they could bribe them with offers of rides in Laslo's van. He's got candy I bet.

It would be better than ripping them or cutting them out.

Or, maybe the same.

Too bad we can't ask the kids if they'd rather be cut skillfully or ripped apart.

Mac McConnell said...

"Easy, Mrs. Clinton does not care. She is for any abortion, at any time. In the womb? Abortion OK. Girl power!"

That and abortion factories have the same standards as veterinary clinics.

Gahrie said...

before scrambling to the high ground of individual autonomy.

But it's not individual autonomy. The woman is making decisions that will have a drastic effect on the lives of two other people, the father and the child.

mockturtle said...

There is no way in which the extraction procedure used in late-term abortions can be dressed up as humane or acceptable. Find some medical websites that explain it in detail and that show diagrams.

jimbino said...

In the absence of episiotomy, there is often ripping. As the mayo clinic website says:

Your health care provider might recommend an episiotomy if:

Extensive vaginal tearing appears likely
Your baby is in an abnormal position
Your baby is large (fetal macrosomia)
Your baby needs to be delivered quickly

buwaya puti said...

The modern world is the devils playground. There is no end of willing people to possess.

mockturtle said...

Hillary would rather nip these babies in the bud than risk their becoming gun-toting toddlers.

Rick said...

So Trump limited his objections to procedures pretty much everyone agrees are wrong but abortion advocates are so inexorably antagonistic they still claim he's wrong even while purporting to agree with him.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Remember Gunter wrote of birth defects that are "typically considered incompatible with life."

Most abortions occur due to babies that are considered incompatible with lifestyle.

Qwinn said...

For a long time (as early as Jocelyn Elders under Clinton), liberals have been celebrating abortion precisely because it has dropped live births of Down Syndrome children by 90% since Roe v Wade.

90. Percent.

Eugenics is alive and well in the Democrat party. And yeah, there's a whole hell of a lot wrong with that.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I did read these "fact"-checks of Trump's statements. Another case of taking him literally, but not seriously.

holdfast said...

The point of that part of the debate is not what is the law in the various states (and some of the more "restrictive" laws are probably due to be struck down under Roe). The point was, does HRC believe that very late term abortions should be allowed, and if so, what restrictions, if any, should there be on such abortions? HRC's stated public position, essentially copied from Planned Parenthood, is that there should be none but as long as there is an exception for the "health of the mother" it's ok. Not "life" but "health" - which might sound reasonable but in reality is meaningless, since a doctor committed to performing late term abortions can always cite to the mother's mental health, including a risk of post-partum depression. Which of course is a risk in ALL pregnancies.

Trump then went on to describe in rather gruesome detail what happens during a late-term D&E. Which is accurate, because it is gruesome. Partial birth abortions are also gruesome, but in a different way.

This was VERY smart (or lucky) on Trump's part, because instead of discussing abortion generally, where Americans are muddled or conflicted, he narrowed the topic to the most gruesome, and least publicly accepted, portion. Which was smart (or lucky) tactics, and also totally legit since his opponent is in fact an abortion absolutist/extremist. He tried to (and somewhat succeeded in) making her attempt to defend the indefensible. His best work that night.

Darrell said...

There are ninth month abortions. That nurse involved in the abortion debate regarding Obama's abortion bill in Illinois stated that she was sent to an unheated utility room with babies after birth to allow them to die, because they had been diagnosed with some disorder or another and the mothers didn't secure an abortion in time. Nurses around the country said they had witnessed similar things.

Qwinn said...

I'll post a link about Elders actively endorsing abortion because it's done such a great job eliminating kids with DS when I get home. There was a great article on National Review about it back when it happened.

Michael said...

They offered life in sacrifice so others could go on.
'-Cortez, the Killer

mockturtle said...

When I was 18 I became pregnant. My mother wanted me to fly to Japan [abortion was not legal here] and have an abortion. I cried and begged and was finally allowed to marry the father and have my beautiful, delightful older daughter. The idea that she might have been suctioned out and discarded makes me sick. Really sick

Ignorance is Bliss said...

mockturtle said...

My mother wanted me to fly to Japan [abortion was not legal here] and have an abortion.

She just didn't want you to be punished with a baby.

holdfast said...

The Downs thing is a can of worms. First, there are good tests out there that can confirm or deny long before "viability". We actually had a bit of a "scare" on this - had essentially a "maybe" on the first test and had to confirm with a second, more invasive test.

I don't pretend to be a good enough person to know what the answer is in that situation - I'm happy we didn't have to figure it out. And we have accesses to resources and support that other parents might not have when faced with a similar choice. At the same time, I remember knowing a few Downs kids growing up - once kids are old enough to understand that they aren't being "weird" or "creepy" on purpose, they tend to be accepted as the loving, gentle souls that they are. Most of the Downs folks I've met tend to be happy, and many are able to find some fulfillment through work. Maybe the parents won't get to see that kid graduate from Princeton - but really, how many kids out of all the kids in America graduate from Princeton anyway?

Big Mike said...

Wasn't Kermit Gosnell performing very late term abortions? I think the trick here is that the lefty commentators want to make the discussion about abortions on or after the nine month point. Trump is clearly about very late term terminations of healthy and viable fetuses that do not involve the physical health of the mother.

It has not escaped my notice that Hillary argues for "common sense"restrictions on gun ownership (which are anything but sensible) but opposes any restrictions on abortion, no matter how much common sense is involved.

SJ said...

If the abortion happens after 12 weeks of gestation, then abortion is stopping a beating heart.

Is Hillary willing to be part of the Party of Science, and admit that abortion usually stops a beating heart?

mockturtle said...

Having volunteered with Downs kids' sports, I can testify that they are, on the whole, happier than most kids. They seem to enjoy life more in spite of--or maybe because of--their limitations.

eric said...

My cousin Laura got pregnant and her baby had cancer. The doctors tried to force her to kill it because her insurance was terrible. She had just returned from several years on a missions trip to Guatemala. She delivered her baby girl and for the first few months of her life she lived in the hospital. She is now 3 hears old and cancer free. We all thought she was a goner for sure, the way the doctors talk. But my cousin doesn't believe in killing children, inside or outside of the womb.

Be aware of these arguments though.

If it's Ok to kill a child inside the womb because of down syndrome, how long before it becomes Ok to kill a child, or adult, outside the womb because of down syndrome?

If you don't think that's where this is headed, you're not paying attention.

holdfast said...

If you have the time, please read this article - especially if you doubt the idea of a "slippery slope".

. . . At the time of the 1990 amendments to the 1967 Abortion Act, my fellow lawyer John Keown and I wrote a one-page circular for members of Parliament which foretold just such a horrible scenario, in which an otherwise healthy foetus of more than six months could be legally aborted for having "a hare lip or a cleft palate".

The response of several vocal MPs, seemingly supported by many others, was one of outrage - not at such a possibility, but at us, for pointing it out. "I deplore the circular ... a gross calumny on the medical profession ... I find such things totally discreditable," said Sir David, now Lord, Steel. Harriet Harman said we should be reported to the Law Society or the Bar Council. . . .

. . . . Those who supported the 1990 amendments apparently all agreed with Joanna Jepson that a mendable cleft palate should not be an acceptable reason for a late abortion. Some of the doctors who carry out the abortions, however, seem to have a different view. We warned that the law as amended would allow abortion for "serious handicap" to be performed as late as the 40th week, and that in the opinion of some doctors a cleft palate, or even a hare lip, is such a handicap. Our concerns have been borne out. Joanna Jepson has brought that into the light of day.

Moreover, when assuring themselves that they were placing high hurdles to late abortions for handicap, many parliamentarians in the 1990 debates seemed to forget that, for an abortion to be lawful under the Abortion Act, none of the conditions in the Act's enumerated criteria for abortion - including "substantial risk" of being "seriously handicapped" - need actually exist. It is enough that one of the conditions be thought to exist in the opinion (in "good faith") of two doctors, even if most other doctors would consider that opinion unsound.

. . . Members of each House hastened to dismiss our objections as fanciful; Frank Doran, then the Labour MP for Aberdeen Central, called our point about cleft palate "pure scaremongering". In the Upper House, Lord Brightman seemed to speak for all the supporters of the new provisions when he said that "it would be unthinkable" for a doctor who was carrying out a termination to preserve the mother's life or health to "gratuitously terminate the life of the child". Sir David Steel's charge, in the Commons, that we had grossly calumniated the medical profession gave way to Lord Brightman's comforting assurance in the Lords that: "A doctor does not need an Act of Parliament to teach him that elementary duty.".


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3599848/We-warned-them-they-mocked-us-now-weve-been-proved-right.html

Gusty Winds said...

Hmmmm...if you abort all the handicap fetuses then Trump won't be able to make fun of them.

So there.

Darrell said...

Except Trump didn't make fun of any handicapped people. He imitates everyone the same way--arms flailing.

Birches said...

In all of these cases, the mother can deliver as normal and let nature take its course if in fact the child will not be able to survive. Doing it that way is probably better for the grieving process, as parents are able to acknowledge the reality of their child.

I'm not sure how a d and e somehow makes things easier. It's awful.

walter said...

Even after birth, well into infancy and even early childhood, predicting the adult level of disability can be pretty inaccurate.
I used to work for a company that makes products mostly for people with developmental disabilities. One of my co-workers there by way of Supported Employment was diagnosed very early with severe retardation and physical disabilities and was presumed not to ever walk. Turns out he'd invite me to his Special Olympics games of basketball and bowling. With his crazy sense of humor and unpredictability, we'd go to a food court after work sometimes and have a great time. Now I know there's at least one guy out there who buys a burger and shake..and puts some of the shake inside the hamburger ;)

Laslo Spatula said...

I am LaManza, The Abortion Whisperer.

Little One in the Womb, you have come so far, and you have come so very close: the beauty of the World Outside was almost yours to behold: light to greet your eyes, air to fill your lungs.

I know this must be hard for you to understand, but many people think there is nothing different from what you are now, heart beating, and what you will be after Dilation and Sharp Curettage. I cannot change them; I can only assist you in the solace of knowing that you were, briefly, here. Almost.

I wish you had would have been given the years to be able to tell how grateful you were to feel the warmth of the sun on your face; I am saddened that the only touch you will ever feel from this world is the touch of sharp cool metal in the dark.

You will have all the Time in the Universe to contemplate your shortened journey, and to try and understand how such decisions could ever be made; there are so many there like you -- so many -- who share the same question.

This said, i whisper to you to Go Quietly: I hope the warmth of Eternity comes before you feel too cold.

I am Laslo.

traditionalguy said...

This post is not a good topic for conversation. Take my word for it. But it is very well written.

buwaya said...

"We actually had a bit of a "scare" on this - had essentially a "maybe" on the first test "

Us too.

Lydia said...

If it's Ok to kill a child inside the womb because of down syndrome, how long before it becomes Ok to kill a child, or adult, outside the womb because of down syndrome?

If you don't think that's where this is headed, you're not paying attention.


We're getting closer and closer -- from a 2012 article, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

"Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal child’. But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.

Nonetheless, to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible."

Paul Snively said...

mockturtle: When I was 18 I became pregnant. My mother wanted me to fly to Japan [abortion was not legal here] and have an abortion. I cried and begged and was finally allowed to marry the father and have my beautiful, delightful older daughter. The idea that she might have been suctioned out and discarded makes me sick. Really sick

When my birth mother was 18, she became pregnant, too. I don't honestly know what pressure she was put under, but whatever it was, what she actually did was talk to an agency called Lutherwood at the time, in Terre Haute, Indiana. Four days after she had me, my parents arrived to pick me up.

Decades later, my birth mother and half sisters found me. Our mother had cancer, and was in its last stages. Thankfully, I got to meet them all, and so I got to do the one thing I told my parents would ever possibly motivate me to find her.

I got to say "Thank you."

mockturtle said...

Thank you again, Laslo!

Laslo Spatula said...

A previous LaManza, The Abortion Whisperer.

I am Laslo.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

We as a society once thought this was an inhumane and unimaginable crime. Now killing of the handicapped is common place. They are just murdered before they have any Constitutional rights.

"THE MURDER OF THE HANDICAPPED

Wartime, Adolf Hitler suggested, "was the best time for the elimination of the incurably ill." Many Germans did not want to be reminded of individuals who did not measure up to their concept of a "master race." The physically and mentally handicapped were viewed as "useless" to society, a threat to Aryan genetic purity, and, ultimately, unworthy of life. At the beginning of World War II, individuals who were mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or mentally ill were targeted for murder in what the Nazis called the "T-4," or "euthanasia," program.

The "euthanasia" program required the cooperation of many German doctors, who reviewed the medical files of patients in institutions to determine which handicapped or mentally ill individuals should be killed. The doctors also supervised the actual killings."

mockturtle said...

Paul, thank you! The world would be a poorer place had you been destroyed in the womb! Thank God your birth mother was unselfish enough to give you life.

David Begley said...

The Carehart case is straight out of Nebraska. Judge Richard Kopf decided it. He has recused himself from all future abortion cases per a very long statement on the court's website.

mccullough said...

MacDuff was from his mother's womb, untimely ripped

Gilbert Pinfold said...

National Review, not The National Review. Small nit, but it is there just the same. Sorry not to do the html for italics, but hey...

AprilApple said...

Clinton is Gosnellian. Women who decide late they don't want the baby - go to the Gosnell type clinics.

Gosnell happened to get caught. How many more gruesome places are there to get a late term abortion?

n.n said...

In civilized societies, individual autonomy does not grant the right to abort a human life for causes of wealth, pleasure, leisure, and narcissistic indulgence. It's unfortunate that people are clinging to the fantasy of spontaneous conception (e.g. anthropomorphized evolutionary process) in order to rationalize and justify an unparalleled human rights violation. Not only tolerance (i.e. "good Americans"), but actual advocacy for the final solution (and "planned" parenthood).

James L. Salmon said...

I thought Trump missed an opportunity a little later in the debate when Hillary accused him of ripping families of illegal immigrants apart. He should have retorted, "Hillary doesn't want to rip the families of illegal immigrants apart, but she's happy to rip a baby apart in the womb." He also should have graphically described the gruesome process of stabbing the emerging head of the baby in the base of the skull with a pair of surgical scissors to create an opening for the vacuum that sucks the babies brains out and collapses the skull so the child is born dead instead of alive. Abortion is an horrific act and I find it unsurprising that the harridan Hillary Clinton supports ripping babies apart in the woudn even though she opposes "ripping the families of illegal immigrants apart." Of course, if Democrats hadn't spent almost forty years aborting their potential voters in Florida Al Gore would have won in 2008.

AprilApple said...

Trump missed an opportunity

Yes, over and over.

mockturtle said...

He misses every ripe opportunity. But the fact that we all see those opportunities gives me hope that no one is fooled by Hillary. She has her feminazi followers but isn't likely to pick up any undecideds.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

James L. Salmon said...

Trump missed an opportunity...

To paraphrase someone about someone else, Trump never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Bob Ellison said...

If you haven't loved someone with Down Syndrome, you may have missed the opportunity to encounter true love.

Sebastian said...

"Clinton was also confused or dishonest, as Gunter explains" Hmm, I didn't watch the debate, but apart from some nitpick details here and there, the excerpts suggest she was entirely clear and straightforward in stating the progressive position. She is not confused and any dishonesty on this topic is simply built into progressivism.

Sebastian said...

"Trump never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

Let's check to see if he has Palestinian ancestry.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Sebastian said...

She is not confused and any dishonesty on this topic is simply built into progressivism.

She was entirely dishonest about her previously stated desire for open borders.

Merny11 said...

Laslo you make me cry ....
Our grandson was given a 15% chance of survival when our daughter was 5 months pregnant. She willingly carried him to term, spending the last 4 weeks at Ronald McDonald house to be near the Children's Hospital. He was A beautiful 9# boy - he was baptized, and cuddled and loved by us all until he passed away at 27 hours old. His sister and brother got to meet him .... tell me how you would explain to those children had they opted to abort him? He had a name, we have photos of him , and that few hours with him were worth it.
Shame on Hillary and the rest of her like minded people. They deserve nothing less than to go straight to hell.

Sebastian said...

Apologies for the multiple comments. I just wanted to say thanks for the fisking.

Apart from showing that somewhere someone is capable of making more sense than the nonsense that passes for public discourse, it's also superfluous: the entire text being fisked is one phony prog rationalization. No argument or evidence will deter the true believers.

Dr Weevil said...

David Begley (3:07pm):
So the judge who decided Carhart, striking down a Nebraska ban on late-term abortions, is named Richard Kopf? 'Kopf' is German for 'head', which makes him a real Dick Head.

clarice said...

Good fisking, Ann.

Birches said...

There's a discussion on Twitter about someone having to explain abortion to his oldest children and their very real, painful reactions.

The fact that children know it is inherently evil tells you all you need to know.

Roughcoat said...

The modern world is the devils playground.

The world has always been the devil's playground, buwaya. Since the beginning of time and even before, when Christ "saw Lucifer fall like lightning from heaven."

sunsong said...

Interesting topic! But as you say a distraction from more important issues. Since bigotry is stupid, chauvinists do not grasp that it is not their call, but they don't let something like that stop them because: 'of what value are most women's body's to them'? Like Trump,to them women's bodies are to be evaluated and rated.

n.n said...

The Pro-Choice quasi-religious/moral philosophy (i.e. selective and opportunistic, unprincipled and unpredictable) has created a progressive slope that may have originated with denying the evolution of human life (and human rights) then followed with [class] diversity (i.e. institutional racism, sexism) or, to paraphrase King: judged by the "color of their skin", rather than by the content of their character.

Johnny Lanctot said...

I had an employee with MS. He is sincerely afraid there are many doctors and liberals who would like to withhold life saving treatment for him if he gets sick or has an accident, and he sincerely fears there are those who would like to 'put him down' now. I think he is right.

buwaya said...

"But as you say a distraction from more important issues"

There really isn't a more important issue. This gets at rather fundamental matters.
Existence, survival, life and death.

"to them women's bodies are to be evaluated and rated."

Men also have their market value to women. Women rate men. Ugly, poor, socially awkward, powerless men do very badly in the mating games. Biology exists.

What I have found women tend to do is creatively ignore their own decision-making processes. Its way more simple and open with men, generally. Women tend to hide it, even to themselves, come to a conclusion and do not think very realistically about HOW they came to a conclusion. And they are far less likely to own up to embarrassing faults.

buwaya said...

"The world has always been the devil's playground, buwaya."

Rarely so much as today. There is little faith left as a bulwark.

War and disaster, famine and plague could kill people, but not their spirit, unlike in this comfortable time.

damikesc said...

"Ninth month abortions never occur" --- yet I remember a lot of furor when Republicans tried to ban ninth-month abortions...

That and abortion factories have the same standards as veterinary clinics.

My vet's office is WAY cleaner than an abortion mill.

Interesting topic! But as you say a distraction from more important issues. Since bigotry is stupid, chauvinists do not grasp that it is not their call

If a man is legally obligated to pay child support, it should absolutely be partially his call.

Tina848 said...

I lost 4 babies to miscarriages at various parts of my pregnancy. The latest one being 17 weeks. I know all the prcedures because at the baby dies in the womb, the use either D&E or D&C to remove it. You are put under general anesthesia and it is done at a hospital, not an abortion clinic. As with any medical pregnancy issue, it is managed by physicians in a hospital setting....not a clinic.

Also, what about the 20+ percent of late term abortions which have nothing to do with the health of the mother or baby? I live in Philly, Gosnell had others working with him. They shut down a second place in Delaware and a third in Atlantic City. Elective late term abortion may be more common that the press would have us believe.

I was able to carry my fifth and last pregnancy to term....I have a lovely healthy five year old.

Rick said...

sunsong said...
Interesting topic! But as you say a distraction from more important issues. Since bigotry is stupid,


Believing a preborn baby is worthy of protection as human isn't bigotry. Pretty much everyone agrees killing a baby a day before birth would be outrageous yet for some reason it's bigotry for men to have an opinion? Sunsong's opinion is more bigoted.

Once again sunsong demonstrates her comments are formed not from coherent thoughts but merely as an effort to repeat her insults. Sad and pathetic, clearly not someone who understands love.

SukieTawdry said...

She rests on the belief in the woman's autonomy. (As I would put it: The woman has sovereignty over the interior of her own body and the only legitimate law is her law.)

This has always been my stumbling point. Is there any other law that's solely based on an individual's autonomy? Everything rests on how a woman regards her pregnancy. If she wants the child, we call her a mother-to-be and the fetus a baby and do whatever we can to protect both of them during the gestation period. But if she doesn't want the child, there's no "mother" and the fetus is a clump of cells to be disposed of at the woman's will.

There's a federal law referred to as "Laci and Conner's Law" that makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. It hearkens back to the California case of Scott Peterson who murdered his pregnant wife, Laci, and the fetus, or in this case, the baby, who was to be named Conner. Peterson was charged with two counts of murder because California has fetal protection laws.

But what if the circumstances had been different and Scott had murdered Laci in an abortion clinic where she was intending to have the pregnancy terminated? Should that second count of murder still apply? Why should taking the life of a fetus be considered murder in the one case and legal and legitimate in the other?

buwaya said...

"I was able to carry my fifth and last pregnancy to term....I have a lovely healthy five year old."

Good! And very good for you, you seem to have gone through a terrible ordeal.

Birches said...

Congratulations Tina and I am so sorry for your losses.

buwaya said...

On women and men - I have supervised (a lot) of both.

One main diff - If a man has blundered, he will almost always own up. Usually unprompted.
A flat "I screwed up", "its my fault", "I did this".
A woman, no, not so easily.

AprilApple said...

How hard would it be to simply say that "Late Term abortions do exist, and Hillary supports them."

If only Trump had a brain.

Qwinn said...

Here's the link I promised earlier. The article was on NRO, but as it's from 2003 the only place I found it preserved was on Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1018548/posts

Here's the quote about Elders. She was bragging about 64% of Down kids being aborted, but I have heard from various other sources that since 2003 it's gone up to 90%.

"Abortion is not only widely deployed against children with Down Syndrome. It is expected, and praised. Jocelyn Elders, just prior to being named Bill Clinton's surgeon general, famously proclaimed that abortion "has had an important and positive public-health effect" because it reduced "the number of children afflicted with severe defects." She pointed out that "the number of Down Syndrome infants in Washington state in 1976 was 64 percent lower than it would have been without legal abortion." Elders, known by some as a leading pom-pom girl for the Culture of Death, was simply stating a commonplace perspective. "

SukieTawdry said...

Lazlo, Merny11 and Paul Snively, you all three make me cry.

Bill said...

That is lovely, @PaulSnively.

n.n said...

I lost 4 babies to miscarriages at various parts of my pregnancy

We do what we can, we strive, but the natural order may still prevail.

I was able to carry my fifth and last pregnancy to term....I have a lovely healthy five year old.

Good choice, for your child, for you and the father, for humanity.

walter said...

Blogger SukieTawdry said...
There's a federal law referred to as "Laci and Conner's Law" that makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman.
<
But what if the circumstances had been different and Scott had murdered Laci in an abortion clinic where she was intending to have the pregnancy terminated? Should that second count of murder still apply?
--
I think that one goes to sunsong.

Owen said...

Spina bifida is a common reason to abort. Yet my niece is a wonderful human being and has enormous prospects to enjoy and bless the world, never mind the braces she may need. And if her parents had not fought for her in pregnancy, against the simplistic gloomy guessed-at prognosis that doctors and insurance companies call Standard of Care? She would be one more dweller in oblivion.

Another friend of mine, a funny and brilliant man, had spina bifida. He used a wheelchair but he drove a modified Buick and was a keen scuba diver. You can imagine why. He said it was lonely to have his condition, because so many like him had been aborted by their would-be parents.

SukieTawdry said...

We're getting closer and closer -- from a 2012 article, "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", in the Journal of Medical Ethics:

I remember that article well. The authors actually argue that after-birth abortion is permissible until such time that a "potential person" becomes an "actual person," i.e. someone capable of self-awareness and able to formulate life "aims." Until that time, the needs and desires of "actual persons" (parents and society) take precedence because only "actual persons" can suffer harm and therefore you can't harm a "potential person" by not allowing it to reach its potential. Unbelievable. What a furor it caused.

mockturtle said...

Psalm 139:13: "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.…"

sunsong said...

Actually Rick,
Here is what the bigotry is about:

“For women, politics gets complicated when people try to place ownership on what a woman can and can’t do with her body,” she said. “It does reassure me to have a woman in office who understands what it’s like to be a woman.”

link

Guildofcannonballs said...

Cruel as nuetral sucks but it's better than I can do, although not fathom.

Did I just fathom, proving that most damned of points, the point that is all I can do?

Owen said...

Sukie Tawdry @ 6:31: I skimmed the first part of that article. It said that a certain non-lethal genetic abnormality was grounds for aborting a fetus, and also for killing the newborn. I then researched the condition: which is indeed non-lethal and appears to vary from severely deforming the facial bones, to a harelip. The child's mental abilities and general functioning seem to be fine.

But according to these "ethical philosophers," even a baby can be killed if others decide it's just too much trouble or if the baby's quantum of suffering is judged to be excessive.

May these writers be the first sent to the camps.

Guildofcannonballs said...

2
: to penetrate and come to understand


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fathom

Guildofcannonballs said...

"He's come, to take his children home."

"Uncle John's Band"

Grateful Dead

Michael K said...

The most appalling thing I have ever read in the NY Times was a column by a writer, maybe the magazine, about his girlfriend's abortion.

One part of the sickening story was when they were having dinner the night before the abortion was to be done, she declined to have wine, "Because it might be bad for the baby."

I am prochoice up to 20 weeks but that piece was in such bad taste, I could hardly believe they published it.

"Wasn't Kermit Gosnell performing very late term abortions? "

Who ? That name has never appeared in a major newspaper, you know. It was "only a local story."

Owen said...

The condition described in the 2012 BMJ article cited above is "Treacher Collins Syndrome." Not a walk in the park but a long way from fatal. Why did the authors choose it as a test case? Because it's "ethically ambiguous" --neither conveniently fatal, nor trivial? In that middle zone where some will be tempted to say, "Such a nuisance and so unfair! Away with this useless and suffering eater."

Michael K said...

"Spina bifida is a common reason to abort. "

That is getting close to treatable in utero.

Neurological test on the neonates and subsequent morphological studies indicated that the in utero treated animals developed normally. In contrast, 3 control animals, which had the induced spinal dysraphism but were left untreated, showed severe spina-bifida-like abnormalities, including paraplegia, incontinence and somatosensory loss.

It's coming fast.

Big Mike said...

@Owen, sounds like a return to Sparta. If the newborn is imperfect then toss it off a cliff. Worked for them.

richard mcenroe said...

Wisconsin progressivism at its finest! http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=366444

cubanbob said...

sunsong said...
Actually Rick,
Here is what the bigotry is about:

“For women, politics gets complicated when people try to place ownership on what a woman can and can’t do with her body,” she said. “It does reassure me to have a woman in office who understands what it’s like to be a woman.”

Here is a hint: you cannot sell one of your organs, nor prostitute yourself nor self yourself into slavery. See if you can figure it out.

epador said...

I was confused about abortion, until as a medical student, I took a woman friend (not sexual partner) to her abortion at The Pennsylvania Hospital. She cried and said "goodbye baby" before she went in. My heart stopped.

I was absolutely horrified that I had driven her to this procedure, and her choice was so approved and protected by the evil forces of liberalism. I am not sure I have ever forgiven myself, though she could have easily taken a taxi instead.

PWS said...

cubanbob: I don't think you can get paid to have an abortion either--but you can donate your organs, you can have sex with pretty much whoever you want (for free) and you can volunteer your labor.

sinz52 said...

Now that pregnant women are deciding to abort babies with Down's Syndrome, it amounts to a kind of do-it-yourself personal eugenics.

Society having had disastrous experience with official eugenics programs in the 20th century, it's a lot cleaner to let women do their own eugenics. It works out the same way though: No woman prefers to have a baby with Down's Syndrome.

Owen said...

Michael K @ 7:27 "It's coming fast"

Hasten the day! Thanks.

Michael K said...

In utero surgery is one of the most exciting areas of medicine. Autism is another. I got one of my students interested in autism research a few years ago.

In utero surgery crosses some specialty borders and may need a lot of support. IT is hugely exciting to an old fart like me.

n.n said...

Eugenics... capital punishment, really, before birth. Eugenics after birth. The "final solution" for unwanted and inconvenient human lives. Class diversity (e.g. institutional racism, sexism) throughout.

Evolution is a chaotic process (e.g. climate change, human life) that is unpredictable outside of a limited frame of reference. I wonder how many people actually believe the Church's tales of spontaneous conception and feel comforted by the twilight fantasy.

So, when does a human life acquire, and by whose choice does she retain, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

mockturtle said...

Per Michael K:Autism is another. I got one of my students interested in autism research a few years ago.

So what is your theory on the increased prevalence of autism?

Mark said...

Yes, Hillary and others like her are EVIL in all caps in infinite font size.

And what about the rest of us? This country is awash in an ocean of blood. And what have we done about it? We say, "Oh wow, that's awful," and then go about our business. One chopped up dead baby is a disturbing atrocity -- maybe -- but 60 million?? Meh. No one is even fazed to read the sentence before last much less moved to do something about.

cubanbob said...

PWS said...
cubanbob: I don't think you can get paid to have an abortion either--but you can donate your organs, you can have sex with pretty much whoever you want (for free) and you can volunteer your labor."

Like sunsong you are missing the point. You do not have complete autonomy over your body as in the examples I mentioned so the argument of complete autonomy, "my body, my choice" with respects to abortion is a false one.

narciso said...

yes, she wants to avoid the consequences of the act, ramesh finds a way to let her ride the squirrel, now trump is a little new to these debates,

n.n said...

Selective-child is not one-child. It is a doctrine of the State-established Church and reflects the moral values of, presumably, or is tolerated by, a majority of the population, not just the minority regime. The selective and opportunistic, unprincipled and unpredictable, Pro-Choice Church represents a hard problem that everyone hopes can be changed peacefully and voluntarily by the People and their [unplanned] Posterity. That said, whether by choice or force, there will be a reconciliation of moral, natural, and personal imperatives. There must be an alternative to Obama and Clinton's reset.

Iapetus said...

To the same extent that Hillary insists upon limiting our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, she should insist upon limiting a pregnant woman's doctor the unfettered access to the tools of the abortionist. Because logic.

EDH said...

"Who — Trump or Hillary — was confused or dishonest about abortion at the last debate?"

As long as Althouse doesn't call it "fact-checking," I'm fine with it.

Gahrie said...

"my body, my choice" with respects to abortion is a false one.

Abortions effect two bodies and three people.

Ann Althouse said...

"Lazlo, Merny11 and Paul Snively, you all three make me cry."

Me too.

Paul said...

The arguments for abortion mirror the arguments for drugs.

"It don't hurt anyone but the user". And that argument is false.

Even if you ignore the morality of the action, it hurts the person directly. It hurts many people around that person. It hurts societies that have to PAY for it.

Rape? Incest? The child did not have any say in that, and you are killing the child for actions of others.

And that is just a few reasons why abortion is wrong.

walter said...

I know an extremely liberal woman who (at least before she had the 2 she has now) would get together with her closest gal pals on the anniversary of her abortion. It was not celebratory..and a bit telling.

Theranter said...

Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Lazlo, Merny11 and Paul Snively, you all three make me cry."

Me too."

Me three. After I read Snively's I was sobbing.

Theranter said...

Related article http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/horror-look-how-many-late-term-abortions-each-year

wwww said...

After 24 weeks birth defects that lead to abortion are very severe and typically considered incompatible with life.
Typically. What's hidden behind that word? Are we still destroying children with disabilities that do not mean that they'll die before birth or soon after?


Medically things have changed in how quickly chromosomal abnormalities can be identified in early pregnancy.

There's a non-invasive blood test for common chromosomal disabilities as early as 9 weeks. NIPT tests were developed in the last couple of years and are now common.

It's not an amnio and it's done in the 1st trimester. Simple blood test for the mother. Down syndrome is one of the conditions identified by the test.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Laslo: that's the best thing you've ever posted.

PaulSnively, I am glad you are here.

Mark said...

The "euthanasia" program required the cooperation of many German doctors

The German euthanasia programs did not require the cooperation of doctors -- the doctors were the instigators and proponents of it. Notice I said "German euthanasia programs," not "Nazi euthanasia programs." Years before the Nazis even existed, elements of the German medical community, following the lead of American and British physicians, were pushing for approval of eliminating "life unworthy of life."

It was the doctors -- not the SS or other Nazi monsters -- who created the infamous gas shower rooms that were used first at the Hadamar hospital, which were so successful that they helped inspire the final solution to that Jewish problem, with the Hadamar apparatus moved to Auschwitz.

The arguments they voiced then are the same arguments being made today.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Merny11, thank you also.

The great driver behind abortion in the overwhelming majority of cases is that it is inconvenient and onerous to carry a child for 9 months. I've heard more than one woman say "I could never give a child up for adoption." Ah yes, it's much easier to just kill the baby then. Giving birth to a child with severe health problems is painful. It's harder to parent a DS child.

And we don't like pain, and we don't like difficult and so it's much easier to spent a few hours in a clinic and make it all go away. Except a friend who has called me at 3 am to cry about her abortion - now 20 years in the past - has found it really hasn't gone away, nor has she been spared pain.

M Jordan said...

I am late to this post and probably no one will read this but I feel compelled to defend atrump on the charge above that he missed opportunity after opportunity to hit this issue and others on Hillary. I thought his debate performance was masterful. This from him was pitch perfect IMHO.

"Trump: Well I think it is terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that is okay and Hillary can say that that is okay, but it's not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she's going and where she's been, you can take baby and rip the baby out of the womb. In the ninth month. On the final day. And that's not acceptable."

Michael K said...

"So what is your theory on the increased prevalence of autism?"

Some of it is redefinition with expanded criteria.

Some is the possibility of real increase. The "10,000 Year Explosion" postulates that environmental pressure on Jews in the Middle Ages raised IQ but increased Tay Sachs and other diseases that are genetic and related to intelligence.

What if the pressure to have children who have two parents of high IQ leads to a higher incidence of Asbergers and Autism spectrum?

Maybe high IQ homozygous leads to anomalies?

Pure speculation but mongrels are healthier than purebred dogs,.

Bruce Hayden said...

One theory about the increase in autism, or at least autism diagnoses, is that some of it, at least, may be the result of assortative mating. It seems esp. prevalent among couples where both are engineers or the like. In an earlier time, there wasn't nearly as much assortative mating, because we didn't have a worldwide market for mates (except for rare situations like Ashkenazi Jews - thanks Dr. K for the link). This is from Simon Baron-Cohen, the Director of the University's Autism Research Centre, and a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, who has also suggested that autism (and other ASDs) may be an extreme form of male brain systemizing. Another issue, of course, is that we are much better today, esp. at a national level, at diagnosing autism (and other ASDs).

Jane the Actuary said...

For as much as Hillary claims that late term abortion is always for deeply tragic reasons, that's simply not the case. I dug into this a while ago: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/janetheactuary/2016/02/f-a-q-on-late-term-abortion.html

But even for these "tragic" reasons, well, there seem to be two types: the babies who are predicted to die shortly after birth, and those who would live, but be disabled.

In the first case, yes, I get it, the mother is horrified and creeped out by the idea of carrying a "doomed" baby.

In some of the accounts you read, the women describe it almost as if they think of themselves as carrying some kind of subhuman creature, either by the nature of the deformities or because the child's doom means they no longer think of that child as human. It's as if they think of their situation in science fiction terms, as if the alien invaders had teleported their child and replaced it -- or I suppose they think of it in almost medieval terms, that their unborn child has become a changeling.

And they need to get the abortion as fast as they can because of the horror of their situation -- though I would guess they might have settled into their situation and gotten past the shock if they hadn't done so.

Of course, at the same time, I could fully understand being induced prior to going full term. If the child really is doomed, then some degree of prematurity would be reasonable -- but you hardly need to directly kill the child, any more than you would kill an infant diagnosed shortly after birth, even if you may indeed not take heroic measures.

In the second case, there are all manner of stories women tell: "sure, I wanted to be a mother, but I didn't want to be the mother of a disabled child." And then there are the cases where the fetus's true condition is unknown, and the abortion is as much about making sure that the child doesn't survive as anything else. In some cases, it seems like the abortion is necessary precisely to avoid the worst-case scenario of the baby not dying after all.

This is euthanasia, and eugenics.

Of course, there's a third "type of late term abortion" which isn't really, even -- when women rush to defend the need for late-term abortion but then tell stories of stillborn children who are delivered after they have already died in the womb. Someone who thinks this is an abortion really just doesn't get it.

walter said...

"defend the need for late-term abortion but then tell stories of stillborn children who are delivered after they have already died in the womb. Someone who thinks this is an abortion really just doesn't get it."

You mean they view them as the same?
As in dying of natural cause is similar to being shot?
Well..both dead..but..

Bruce Hayden said...

Tying our posts together - the link I mentioned just now was to "10,000 Year Explosion" that Dr. K suggested when I mentioned assortative mating several weeks ago. And, the story there about the Ashkenazi Jews is fascinating. Probably the brainiest bunch of people on the planet, but also with an extremely high incidence of Tay Sachs and other inherited diseases. The theory is that both their high IQs, esp. in mathematically related areas, and their hereditary diseases are a result of assortative mating, resulting from intentional interbreeding, and being forced into banking and being merchants as a result of discrimination by the Christian majorities they lived within.

Theranter said...

Walter @11:29, I have the same questions for Jane.

Jane the Actuary said...

Walter/Theranter -- what I mean is exactly that the people who defend late-term abortion by talking about removing a stillborn baby from the womb, truly do not seem to understand that in the one case the child is already dead and in the other the child is being actively killed -- in the same manner as supporters of assisted suicide don't recognize the difference between dying of an illness and suicide.

wwww said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

A friend of mine had a baby diagnosed with anencephaly fairly early in her pregnancy. They put it in God's hands and prayed for peace and comfort. Labor began naturally at 24 weeks and the wee girl was welcomed into a loving family who understood that her time on earth would be short. She was wrapped in soft blankets and was awake and held and cuddled by her parents and three older siblings until she passed peacefully at 17 minutes old. She had a funeral and has a grave to visit and was a real person who was welcomed and loved and honored. I won't hear of anyone saying this is not the best way to do it.

Theranter said...

Thx Jane, I was pretty sure that's what you meant, but wasn't sure.

mockturtle said...

A friend of mine had a baby diagnosed with anencephaly fairly early in her pregnancy. They put it in God's hands and prayed for peace and comfort. Labor began naturally at 24 weeks and the wee girl was welcomed into a loving family who understood that her time on earth would be short. She was wrapped in soft blankets and was awake and held and cuddled by her parents and three older siblings until she passed peacefully at 17 minutes old. She had a funeral and has a grave to visit and was a real person who was welcomed and loved and honored. I won't hear of anyone saying this is not the best way to do it.

What a precious testimony! Thank you for sharing it.

Theranter said...

Mrs. Pants, I know two families w/ similar beautiful stories. It is the best way to do it.
Another positive often overlooked is when it is done this way, a woman's body goes through the natural normal hormonal processes, before during and after delivery, versus the abrupt unnatural changes from an abortion, which some researchers are starting to find may be a factor in breast cancer development.

walter said...

Hey..as long as they employ cutting as opposed to ripping...

It comes up here and there in the broader context of value of of life..but..I have witnessed some bizarre umm..coarsening..regarding the elderly once in a precarious balance of life vs death. Nursing staff seemingly protesting the doctor following the decisions arrived at with health care POA. It can be chilling..especially with night interns steeped in whatever calculus they are taught.
I think N.N. knows of what I speak..

walter said...

Theranter..yes gathering evidence behind that over a number of years..yet largely unknown.

Terry said...

Hasn't Wikileaks exposed the high level at which Hillary's interviews and public speeches are scripted? Like an email says she has to mention her mother more often, and when you look back at the interviews she did after the email, she tells stories (possibly fabricated) about her mother?
OTOH, Trump is notorious for throwing the script out the car window on the way to the interview. Trump really seems to believe that his genuineness is his best feature, while Hillary does everything possible to avoid showing the genuine Hillary.

chickelit said...

Terry writes: Trump really seems to believe that his genuineness is his best feature, while Hillary does everything possible to avoid showing the genuine Hillary.

What could she be afraid of showing?

traditionalguy said...

The kid from Queens showed his fearlessness in promising us pro life Justices.

What do the forces of evil do with a fearless man? They fear him.

Terry said...

Blogger chickelit said...
. . .
What could she be afraid of showing?

Bill could tell you what Hillary is afraid of showing with 100% certainty. But he won't. Unless she divorces him. If I had to guess, I would say it is that she isn't interested in people. Doesn't care for them at all, doesn't want to know them.
Trump, I believe, is very interested in people. He wants to know you. That doesn't mean that he is sympathetic. The better he knows you, the more he knows what makes you tick, and how you may be of use to him.
But people say that Trump's private persona is different than his public persona. An improvement. Warmer, no bluster, so who knows. I've never heard anyone say anything about Hillary's private persona, other than 'bitchy and demanding.'
Again, I am guessing, but I bet the decision to have only one child was Hillary's, and not Bill's.

walter said...

Tradguy,
I suppose getting away from a single issue litmus test approach doesn't suit ya?
It takes a lot more balls to suggest the court is there to interpret/uphold the constitution as opposed to handing out rulings per "promising"

cubanbob said...

Gahrie said...
"my body, my choice" with respects to abortion is a false one.

Abortions effect two bodies and three people."

Yes indeed and in that instance one is more equal than than either of the other two.

Fen said...

Sunsong: "when people try to place ownership on what a woman can and can’t do with her body"

I'm really tried of this false argument.

You know that intercourse carries a risk of pregnancy, yet you CHOOSE to accept that risk.
You also know that birth control is not 100% effective, yet you CHOOSE to accept that risk.

And you get pregnant, ANOTHER body is now on the table. And you have the audacity to whine about what you can do with your own body?

As for bigotry, if women want to be accepted as equals, they need to start taking responsibility for the choices they make. Your argument infantilizes them, makes them less accountable for their actions than men are.

Because if a male says he doesn't want the kid, society tells him too bad. He's on the hook financially to raise the kid. If he refuses, society scorns him as a Deadbeat Dad and shuns him. And then we throw him in jail.

So no more of this "my body" sophistry. Its bullshit.

Terry said...

So I've watched the exchange. Trump was clearly speaking from the heart. Trump being Trump, that doesn't mean he won't take a different position a month from now, but if he does, he will speak of his new position from the heart as well.
Does anyone believe Hillary's words were from the heart? She always goes down a mental checklist. When she doesn't the scorn comes through, like when she went off on the deplorables. Irredeemable. No hope for the deplorables.
When she brought up toddlers as the reason behind DC's draconian gun laws, I'm sure that was a scripted moment. She had probably been told that it focus grouped well, especially with women, if she always put the safety of children against second amendment rights. Women, by and large, don't like guns, but like babies. You can keep your children safe or you can have a right to bear arms, but not both.

EsoxLucius said...

I come to this board to laugh at twilighters shuffling off this mortal coil, and you give me the extra bonus of how legal minds think. As a scientist, I have no problem calling a fetus human and not human. An acorn is and is not an oak, blueprints are and are not the house. You all seem unable to process that fact. And while I'll sacrifice my life to enable you to hold your beliefs, I will do the same for someone who thinks differently. When you decide to not get an abortion, I'm on your side through a difficult choice, but when you deny others that option, I fight. Is this really so hard to understand? Ladyfingers used the most gory, horrific, implausible scenario to make his case not to rile up the hoi polloi on Nov 8, but to kick off his news channel on Nov 9. That naked lack of compassion is what disqualifies him from the presidency for me.

Laslo Spatula said...

"An acorn is and is not an oak..."

Or, upon conception, the tree has started growing.

No longer an acorn.

"Ladyfingers used the most gory, horrific, implausible scenario..."

He should've just described Gosnell and his practices.

I am Laslo.

Laslo Spatula said...

I believe this post of Althouse's is Cruel Neutrality at its best.

I mean this as high compliment.

I am Laslo.

rhhardin said...

Help with the words:

An embryo is human as opposed to wolf. It is not a human.

You can say it's a human in embryo.

Ordinary usage, which reflects ordinary interests and concerns.

It doesn't quite suit dogma though, and the words are flexible. You can shout them to suggest that what they are not deserves the same feeling as what they are.

Shouting makes clear that you want the words to move and the other guy had better agree that they did.

Terry said...

"I have no problem calling a fetus human and not human"
You mean a human fetus is both human and not human? A human fetus is a human in the fetal stage of development and not a human in the fetal stage of development? Are all humans persons? Are human fetuses both persons and non-persons?
Scientists usually pride themselves on being able to make close distinctions and precise definitions. Except for social scientists.

rhhardin said...

Radio Derb Mrs Clinton is the Who We Are candidate. She told us we can't deport illegal aliens because that's not Who We Are; guys can't speak disrespectfully about women to other guys in private because that's not Who We Are; we shouldn't applaud security guards who throw troublemakers out of political rallies because that's not Who We Are.

Perhaps Mrs Clinton's party should just rename itself the Who We Are Party. Personally I wish politicians would spend less time lecturing us about Who We Are and more time addressing the issue of Who We Are Becoming through uncontrolled mass immigration and fiscal recklessness.


Abortion is just a War on Women squirrel.

rhhardin said...

An unsquirrel, from Mark Steyn, to analyze.

Corrupt everything and spin it as cotton candy.

via Derb.

EsoxLucius said...

Terry:
"Scientists usually pride themselves on being able to make close distinctions and precise definitions. Except for social scientists."
Quantum scientists pride themselves on being able to make close distinctions between what they know and what is unknowable. I know what an acorn is and I know what a oak is; in between I don't know. And, more to the point, as a man, I wouldn't presume to tell a lady what it is. When libertarianism stops at the vagina and Christians can't be silenced by the glorious unknown of life, women are no more than chattel.

Oso Negro said...

I wonder what correlation there may be between women who choose to abort and measures of selfishness.

Terry said...

EsoLucius said:
"I know what an acorn is and I know what a oak is; in between I don't know"
The words "acorn" "oak" are symbols for different stages of development of a single organism. Acorns do not become elms. No oak was once a tadpole. A child was never his mother or his father. An acorn before it falls from the branch is not an oak tree. It is not Christians who make a fetus a human being, it is nature (whether or not that human being is a person is another matter). If a fetus is a human being, women do not become chattel. If a fetus is not a human being, however, it is (literally) the chattel of the women who carries it.

Sydney said...

I know what an acorn is and I know what a oak is; in between I don't know. And, more to the point, as a man, I wouldn't presume to tell a lady what it is.

Why not? Do ladies have special knowledge you don't have?

CStanley said...

@EsoLucius- it is good for scientists to accept some things as unknowable (that which is in the domain of philosophy) rather than unknown, if they do this in good faith.

But your analogy provides a smokescreen to avoid the real philosophical issue at hand. Trees aren't endowed with rights, but even more to the point, the acorn doesn't subsist within the body of the oak that 'bore' it. The blueprint analogy also falls flat because blueprints don't spontaneously develop into houses.

So none of that really helps answer the questions, does it? It seems more like a rationalization to show that you've given this some thought and done your due diligence, so now you can throw up your hands and say it's not your problem.

As Terry pointed out, if humans becoming chattel is the moral problem we're seeking to avoid, there is no better way to do this than to protect the lives of all unborn rather than leaving such protection to the whims of the mothers.

CStanley said...

The best I can tell, Professor Althouse's view of abortion as a legal issue rests on the idea that individual autonomy trumps any other considerations. What I'd like to know is why this should be the case...aren't there hundreds of examples of our legal system using a different hierarchy? if that principle were consistently applied, for instance, how could military draft be constitutional?

CStanley said...

And to tie this in with the contract post above, once you sign a contract you have ceded some of your autonomy. The way prolifers see this, having sex is an implicit contract, and only biology dictates the terms which are different for men and women. A woman implicit consents to a possible pregnancy while the man implicitly consents to the financial obligation that comes with that possibility.

I've always regarded the feminist case for abortion rights as an appeal to government to even out the biological playmg field (or as many point out, to tilt it instead in their favor since abortion rights as currently understood do not require paternal consent but financial obligations persist regardless of the father's opinion.) This appeal for the state to override the natural order is illogical and I can't see any reading of the Constitution that supports it.

Meade said...

Back in the fifties, abortion was possible but it wasn't really very safe or legal. My own mother tried to pre-birth abort me when I was a fetus 4 or 5 months old. But I rolled with the punches and held on until the day of my birth. After birth, I'm dead certain that there were several times she wished to abort me but by then it was too late -- she couldn't catch me.

Meade said...

"I wonder what correlation there may be between women who choose to abort and measures of selfishness."

Selfishness of women? Men? Fetuses? Or all three?

Besides, you use the word selfishness as if that's a bad thing.

Terry said...

There is one thing and one thing only that women can do that men cannot, and that is to conceive and bear a child. It seems wicked, to me, to teach women that the ability to conceive and bear a child is not what makes them feminine, it is their capacity to choose whether or not to bear a child to term that is the ultimate mark of their femininity, and that capacity to choose can only be achieved politically.

Achilles said...

This entire thread is a testament to why the government, at least the federal government, should not be involved with abortion in any way shape or form. The government is absolutely horrible at dealing with moral issues and should be restricted to only the simplest and most obvious.

Rusty said...

EsoxLucius said...
"I come to this board to laugh at twilighters shuffling off this mortal coil, and you give me the extra bonus of how legal minds think. As a scientist, I have no problem calling a fetus human and not human. An acorn is and is not an oak, blueprints are and are not the house. You all seem unable to process that fact. And while I'll sacrifice my life to enable you to hold your beliefs, I will do the same for someone who thinks differently. When you decide to not get an abortion, I'm on your side through a difficult choice, but when you deny others that option, I fight. Is this really so hard to understand? Ladyfingers used the most gory, horrific, implausible scenario to make his case not to rile up the hoi polloi on Nov 8, but to kick off his news channel on Nov 9. That naked lack of compassion is what disqualifies him from the presidency for me."

So it boils down to your emotional response to Trump.

Paul Snively said...

Thanks for the kind words, everyone. It's true that I have been uniquely blessed, more times over than I know how to count.

CStanley said...

@Meade - wow that is a powerful story (along with others here, which also brought me to tears.)

It used to be possible to believe that the fight for legal abortion regulated by the medical profession was about protection of women, and I have no doubt that many rank and file voters still see it that way. But Gosnell and the fight against "Born Alive" legislation made it clear that the Democratic party's priority is the weaponization of doctors to ensure that feti don't defy the choice made by others to kill them.

walter said...

Blogger EsoxLucius said...
I come to this board to laugh at twilighters shuffling off this mortal coil,
--
Nice. At least you get that life is on a continuum..though you too will soon experience twilight.

walter said...

Sukie, I don't think sunsong's going to answer your question. But it's a good one.

n.n said...

Scientific mystics deny the evolutionary process and have anthropomorphized the physical process in order to rationalize and justify denial of capital punishment of an unwanted or inconvenient (i.e. "final solution"), wholly innocent human life its birthright to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Debasement of human life in liberal societies is a progressive condition. Abortion rites in their proper place are a second choice in an act of self-defense, not for trivial causes.

Kirk Parker said...


"There's a discussion on Twitter..."

Sorry, doesn't pass the plausibility test.

Kirk Parker said...

Sukie,

I'm as anti-abortion as they come, but still "Laci and Conner's Law" is a bad law.

How do I know? Easy, it voilates Kirk's First Law:

"Any law named for a victim, for its sponsor(s), or whose name forms a cutesy acronym is virtually certain to be a bad law."

NB my First Law doesn't state that such naming is the reason it's a bad law, merely that it's an observable sign. However, the correlation is so strong that the statistically-impaired often confuse it for causation. And in the case of Lacy and Connor, we find both that (a) there's little constitional warrant for such a law--ordinary criminal law is generally left to the states, and (b) unnecessary to its namesake case, since California already had such a law.



Owen,

"May these writers be the first sent to the camps."

Camps? Whatever for? A brief trial followed (upon a guilty verdict) by a firing squad was good enough for the Ceaușescus who--especially in the case of Elena--probably never actually pulled the trigger against any of their victims, why wouldn't that be good enough for these hostis humani generis?

jr565 said...

That's the gotcha on trump? We don't rip out babies - We slice them out with surgical precision? Well, as long as they aren't ripped out.

jr565 said...

"Althouse's view of abortion as a legal issue rests on the idea that individual autonomy trumps any other considerations. "
She doesn't agree with this view when it comes to dad's who had no say over whether a mother gives birth but have to pay for HER choice.
Even if thst dad had his spermicide stolen and the woman impregnates herself using subterfuge.
Even though, a woman can decide she doesn't want to be a mother,even after having a kid and simply drop it off t a hospital. NO questions asked.
That's woman's privilege.

Meade said...

"Even if thst dad had his spermicide stolen and the woman impregnates herself using subterfuge. "

Grave New World

Ann Althouse said...

"She doesn't agree with this view when it comes to dad's who had no say over whether a mother gives birth but have to pay for HER choice."

My position is that each individual has sovereignty over the territory of the inside of her/his body.

The man has the same scope of sovereignty. He rules the interior of his body and no one else's law should intrude there. His rule doesn't extend into any woman's body and her rule doesn't extend into the man's body.

Get it?

Ann Althouse said...

So let the man keep his "spermicide" in his body where he has total autonomy.

Ann Althouse said...

If a child comes into the world, that child is also a human being, and the question has to do with relationships to that child.

The only reason the woman had the right to kill it was because it was, prior to birth, living inside her body, over which she rules and has the last word. If she doesn't exercise her power to destroy it, while it is a citizen of the interior, then it's an individual subject to the rule of law of the state. That law concerns itself with the welfare of children and conserving the government's money.

Rusty said...

Ann Althouse said...
"She doesn't agree with this view when it comes to dad's who had no say over whether a mother gives birth but have to pay for HER choice."

My position is that each individual has sovereignty over the territory of the inside of her/his body.

The man has the same scope of sovereignty. He rules the interior of his body and no one else's law should intrude there. His rule doesn't extend into any woman's body and her rule doesn't extend into the man's body.

Get it?

Well. Except when the males rigid territory invades the womans damp fecund territory and a new territory is created.

chickelit said...

Rusty wrote: Well. Except when the males rigid territory invades the womans damp fecund territory and a new territory is created.

That is a peninsular situation, while an embryo is an island inside the woman. An invading man still has his territorial rights despite being inside the woman only because of the shape of the invading member and its attachment.

Althouse wrote: My position is that each individual has sovereignty over the territory of the inside of her/his body.

It's the existence of late-term abortion which questions this logic. That a woman can maintain life or death control up to and including the last moment of birth is in question. Hillary foolishly believes or wants you to believe that Roe v. Wade grants women the right to choose up until the moment of birth. It gives cover for Gosnellian atrocities. That is a goulish lie and you know it. Other Americans certainly know it.

By your simple-minded territorial thinking, any person could swallow anything of value belonging to another person and thereby own it or at least prevent that other person from getting it back. That's childlike thinking.

Rusty said...

"What isa?"
"Isa a baby."
"Ia claim disa new land fora Spain!"

CStanley said...

The man has the same scope of sovereignty. He rules the interior of his body and no one else's law should intrude there. His rule doesn't extend into any woman's body and her rule doesn't extend into the man's body.

Get it?


This is the first time I've read your reasoning on this topic. My first reaction is that it's a rather absurd way to frame the issue because the act of conception takes place within the woman's body, therefore she will hold all the power with regard to choices in procreation.

My second reaction is that this is intentional: the choice to frame the issue around the biological location of the gametes at the moment of conception will lead to women having all the power.

CStanley said...

If we accept the sovereignty basis for the reasoning, does the woman not have any responsibility for protecting her borders? Inviting the sperm in, with the known potential consequence of pregnancy that she might want to avoid, still should have consequence, should it not? Why should her failure to keep the "foreign invader" out (and not just passively, but actively inviting the invader in) give her the right to kill the new human being that is conceived as a result?



chickelit said...

My first reaction is that it's a rather absurd way to frame the issue because the act of conception takes place within the woman's body, therefore she will hold all the power with regard to choices in procreation.

This could raise an interesting exception for in vitro fertilization.

EsoxLucius said...

I like where this conversation is going. I'm sorry I brought Trump into it. The topic of abortion is like the blind men and the elephant, with each insisting it is another thing. Only by hashing it out can the breadth of the issue be seen. I'll admit to being white, male, and affluent enough that our two kids were a price we could bear. Others have alternate views. When I stated that scientists respect the unknown, I was thinking Heisenberg and deviation and not philosophy. I agree that framing is key, but that's another way of highlighting the male-female dichotomy. As Gloria Steinem said, if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Please continue commenting, I enjoy the give and take.

CStanley said...

EsoxLucius
I agree about the value of this type of discussion. I've come to think that analogies used in discussions of abortion are always inadequate and one of the most useful processes is figuring out why each analogy falls short (thus my response to your oak and acorn comment up thread.)

The reality is that human abortion is completely unique. It is definitely not like a tonsillectomy or tumor removal as some would have it, and it's not quite infanticide in most cases (I find it much too close to that, but can respect the opinion of those who feel it's not so during the early stages of pregnancy.)

I also find it untenable to hold the belief that abortion is morally wrong but should be legal, because that fails to define when the state has a responsibility to protect life. If we as a society were to choose to define that protection only after birth (which seems to be Althouse's position) then unborn babies really are being treated as the property of the mothers.

Unfortunately I won't be around much today but may try to check back later if you care to continue.

EsoxLucius said...

CStanley: I agree with all the things in your first paragraph, but you loose me in the second. I, for example, consider drone warfare morally wrong (as well as unproductive), but pay taxes to support it and would consider a law banning it unenforceable. I do write my congressperson often to express my displeasure, and if you conversely spoke to pregnant women about alternatives to abortion or worked to lessen the many costs of bearing a child, I would totally support you. A more moderate analogy might be speeding, which we all are aware of the dire consequences of but still do. Morally wrong, but everyone does it. And maybe that's my point; when everyone is affected, the law appears just. But everyone doesn't equally pay the price of childbirth, and this inequity increases with social condition and race. Writing about the separation of religion from law, Jefferson wrote "I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

EsoxLucius said...

CStanley: I agree with all the things in your first paragraph, but you loose me in the second. I, for example, consider drone warfare morally wrong (as well as unproductive), but pay taxes to support it and would consider a law banning it unenforceable. I do write my congressperson often to express my displeasure, and if you conversely spoke to pregnant women about alternatives to abortion or worked to lessen the many costs of bearing a child, I would totally support you. A more moderate analogy might be speeding, which we all are aware of the dire consequences of but still do. Morally wrong, but everyone does it. And maybe that's my point; when everyone is affected, the law appears just. But everyone doesn't equally pay the price of childbirth, and this inequity increases with social condition and race. Writing about the separation of religion from law, Jefferson wrote "I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

C Stanley said...

I find your drone analogy somewhat compelling but I would argue that no law is perfectly enforceable and in many cases we have to accept that but it doesn't lead to the general support for legalization. Your speeding analogy actually proves my point- we all break the speeding laws, yet there isn't a clamor to repeal them.

So I guess you've now convinced me that both abortion AND drone warfare should be prohibited. ;-)

I do like the analogy of writing to Congressional reps and working to change minds and give support to prevent abortion- I agree these are things we can and should do which don't require changes to the law. But the law has the effect of normalizing things and tgat has a pernicious effect on culture, so I don't think we stop at just preventing specific acts.