"Bureaucratic inertia is not exactly news. We understand that," [says the grand jury report]. "But we think this was something more. We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion."...That's Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic, challenging the news media to explain their noncoverage.
Is it even conceivable that an optometrist who attended to his white patients in a clean office while an intern took care of the black patients in a filthy room wouldn't make national headlines?
But it isn't even solely a story of a rogue clinic that's awful in all sorts of sensational ways either. Multiple local and state agencies are implicated in an oversight failure that is epic in proportions! If I were a city editor for any Philadelphia newspaper the grand jury report would suggest a dozen major investigative projects I could undertake if I had the staff to support them....
১২ এপ্রিল, ২০১৩
"Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story."
"The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy."
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৫২৫টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 525 এর 201 – থেকে 400 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»Not as long as you are aiming your fire at an imaginary enemy.
Worse than your obvious lack of intelligence though are your values.
That, more or less, is a matter of choice and reflects character or, more accurately, lack of it.
And spare me your "can't we just work together" lecture. Pro-lifers have been busting our butts trying to do something for 40 years, and it hasn't been libertarians thwarting us at every turn.
"Would you be willing to work in opposition to those in the prochoice movement who fight against regulation of abortion in any form, inga"
4/12/13, 10:37 PM
Yes I've made that clear C Stanley.
BUt the libertarian philosophy is HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT. Get it?
Well, we get that you're pretty well confused about what "the libertarian philosophy" is.
Your description applies to anarchists, not libertarians. "Baby murder should be illegal and punished" is something libertarians unanimously agree on. :)
Inga, you hijack the libertarian thread to talk about abortion and hijack the abortion thread to talk about libertarians. You hijacker!
This "libertarian" thing is mostly goofy nonsense. To me, the world seems to be divided up thusly:
1. People who think they know how to fix things that have trouble people for thousands of years. This is "liberal."
2. People who figure things are best left alone to work themselves out.
Now, people tend to label #2 as "conservative," but that's pretty much bullshit because the people in #2 are just a grab bag of everybody left over after you account for #1.
So, I belong to #2, but the label seems like bullshit.
Roe v. Wade failed precisely because it sought to "fix a problem," in lieu of the old way of muddling through.
Now, liberals have phoned up a nightmare past about abortion, just as they did when it about women and gays that justifies ever more goofball fixes.
Leaving things alone never suffices. And each fix makes things worse and demands another repair.
and since this thread is reduced to name calling it is time to go to bed. At the end of the day, however, would someone please explain to me why Gosnell should not be convicted of murder?
Pro-lifers have been busting our butts trying to do something for 40 years, and it hasn't been libertarians thwarting us at every turn.
Admittedly this is partly because we haven't got enough political mojo to thwart our way out of a wet paper bag.
Shana, talk to St. Croix, he isn't the absolutist you appear to be.
You all have to correct me if I'm wrong.
I think the reason why this Gosnell story did not receive wide media coverage was that abortion is legal; it's constitutional.
Horrific as it is especially because of the sheer number of babies aborted, still, abortion is legal and the Gosnell story is just another doctor malpractice case or breach of duty of care case.
Sorry St. Croix, I'm trying to stop that runway train. :)
Revenant said...
BUt the libertarian philosophy is HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT. Get it?
Well, we get that you're pretty well confused about what "the libertarian philosophy" is.
Your description applies to anarchists, not libertarians. "Baby murder should be illegal and punished" is something libertarians unanimously agree on. :)
Careful there. She can only absorb so much information at once - hope you don't expect her to recall the distinction between anarchists and libertarians.
And, even if she could, to the degree it conflicts with her talking points, it will be ignored.
Inga, would what went on in that clinic have been OK if the place was clean and tidy enough to satisfy state inspectors? If the scissors which snipped the babies spines were perfectly sterile?
According to our president and Planned Parenthood, it's completely acceptable to leave babies on tables to die.
Libertarians have very little political influence. The liberals own this one - which, of course, is why it has received very little coverage.
Horrific as it is especially because of the sheer number of babies aborted, still, abortion is legal and the Gosnell story is just another doctor malpractice case or breach of duty of care case.
Or, maybe it's the tip of the iceberg about a practice that has gone mad.
Saint Croix said...
"Inga, you hijack the libertarian thread to talk about abortion and hijack the abortion thread to talk about libertarians. You hijacker!"
Wants to take the plane to Cuba, no doubt...
I am perfectly willing to tackle abortion incrementallly, Inga. Remember the Partial Birth Abortion ban, etc.? I will even work with moderate pro-choivers, sure. But don't try to feed me a line of bullshit as to who the immovable object is. Feminist ideology makes abortion an untouchable sacrament. Hence the religious fervor.
Shouting Thomas @10:41, you are expressing what Wm F Buckley meant when he said that conservatism isn't an ideology, it is the lack of an ideology.
Nini, Gosnell supposedly delivered babies live and then killed them. That's infanticide, not medical malpractice.
The disgusting state of his clinic isn't really the issue, although since it has a certain horror-movie tabloid appeal it is what most people have chosen to focus on. But this is about him stabbing babies to death, not about him violating health codes.
Feminist ideology makes abortion an untouchable sacrament. Hence the religious fervor.
Feminism and gay activism is a religion! In every sense of the word.
When you abort a viable fetus, aka a baby, you are a considerable distance down an extremely slippery , and you are gathering speed. I would expect even pro choice advocates to be very uneasy about this case . I think it's fair to observe that heavy coverage of this trial will not encourage other abortionists to run filthy clinics. This is in contra distinction to mass murderers who avidly read about other mass murderers. The press should cover mass killers with the same muted discretion that they cover this abortion doctor,
exiledonmainst said...
"Inga, would what went on in that clinic have been OK if the place was clean and tidy enough to satisfy state inspectors? If the scissors which snipped the babies spines were perfectly sterile?"
That seems to be her point, right?
Health inspections?
Because you only send police to a crime scene.
Health inspectors are necessary to ensure sloppy abortions killing unborn and newborn babies are done in a hygienic environment because, don't you know, that's where the public's interest lies.
Exiled it wouldn't have been OK with me. When there is neural activity in that babies brain, at what 8 weeks or so, it's too late. I was willing to say 1st trimester, but if we have Life Statutes, shouldn't life be defined as brain activity? Same as death statutes?
It would appear that Inga's position is, Dachau and Auschwitz would have been A-OK as long as the health inspectors signed off on hygienic death camps.
Because murder isn't murder when it's done by a "doctor" in a clinic.
That's just a constitutional right to privacy, dontcha know?
But this is about him stabbing babies to death, not about him violating health codes.
He's also charged with killing at least one woman, and in part it was because of his extremely sub-par medical practice.
The original rationale for legal abortion was the old "rusty coat hanger" argument.
I'm pretty confident that the rusty coat hanger thing is occurring with even greater frequency under legal abortion.
Fix purported problem. Fix creates a mess. Even more radical fix for the mess.
And on and on.
Is that what I've been saying Tim? Yes, you are as stupid as a box of rocks.
@Tim: Also, she'd have blamed libertarians for it all, cuz they're opposed to OSHA or something.
Health inspectors?
That's your answer?
You aren't smart enough to cast aspersions on the intelligence of a box of rocks.
At what point do we tell women...
You've got enough! You don't get any more!
You don't get to dispose of your babies like garbage. You don't have the right to murder your boyfriend because you think he abused you.
We're not going to create any more government featherbedding jobs to employ you because you've got a worthless liberal arts degree and $50,000 in student debt.
Do we ever put our foot down?
You're beginning to see why patriarchy is the correct and moral method of social organization.
If we don't like to have to decide whether to abort or not, then we should gear up our mental capacity to refrain from sexual unions. Simple enough, I think.
Inga the prochoice movement's response to the proposition that 2nd or 3rd trimester pregnancies should be prohibited would be that some women don't find out they are pregnant until late in first trimester or even later, and they don't have adequate time to make a decision, procure funding, etc. or there are women who find out about fetal health issues later. Or there needs to be a health exception broad enough to include mental duress, which is signed off on by clinic doctors for women whomsay they are stressed by the unplanned pregnancy.
How would you counter these arguments?
Who the hell do you think inspects hospitals? Do you see such conditions in hospitals?
My answer is probably the same as St. Croix's Tim, I'll let you fight with him, I'm done.
The simple facts are, Inga, this is a crime of murder.
Mass murder.
It stems from the gross, willful abuse of abortion laws.
It was allowed to go on because of the obscene protection given abortion, and abortion laws.
Liberals like you made it possible, and Liberals like you allowed it to go on.
In the name of "abortion rights," live babies died at the scissoring of their necks.
Over and over again.
Own it.
It's yours.
Your laws made it possible.
Your laws allowed it go on.
Your politics protected it.
No one but Liberals made this happen.
It is the natural, logical result of abortion laws and abortion politics in the US.
If you can't see that, you're dumber than I previously thought.
Which would make you pretty damned dumb.
@C Stanley
The real argument "pro-choice" women are making is that they should have anything they want.
We've bereft of any ability to say no to liberal women about anything.
That's the cost of the destruction of patriarchy.
Women were raised, mostly, by doting daddies who told them that they were perfect dolls who should get anything they want.
Women believe this.
And, no murder is not murder when it is done to provide women with something they want.
The fact that abortion is something that women want, coupled with the fact that women are precious princesses who should have anything they want means...
That anything they want could not be a bad thing.
"I'm pretty confident that the rusty coat hanger thing is occurring with even greater frequency under legal abortion."
The OB/GYNs I know have told me abortionists are considered to be at the bottom of the barrel of their profession. Abortionists were not the brightest ones in medical school. They go into it because most abortions are pretty simple procedures. And doctors who do it full-time have regular hours. No 2 a.m. calls from the hospital. Also the risk of malpractice suits is low, particularly if you're practicing at an inner-city clinic like Gosnell was.
It's a nice gig for the lazy and unprincipled.
If you're lazy
St Croix, another time. You've influenced me, a pro choicer, you can do a lot of good, I want to see your book on the best seller list.
The second amendment doesn't cover nuclear weapons, and a woman's right to choose does not include infanticide. The fact that such a place as Gosnell's clinic even exists is an argument against abortion. If the pro choice people want Gosnell treated as an outlier they should treat him as an outlier and not as a non event.
Hospitals are not in the business of murdering people.
People who die in hospitals do so because it was their time, or a medical error.
Abortion clinics are in the business of killing people.
People die there because they are taken there to be killed.
Health inspectors aren't going to stop that.
And it is sheer idiocy to think they will.
He's also charged with killing at least one woman, and in part it was because of his extremely sub-par medical practice.
In a sense; he (allegedly) killed her with an overdose of painkillers. Not really a health-code issue, except in the sense that the health inspector might trip over the woman's corpse while checking his clipboard.
Who the hell do you think inspects hospitals? Do you see such conditions in hospitals?
I don't want to leap to any conclusions, but "hospital horror stories" returns 30 million hits.
Then by all means Rev, don't go to a hospital when your appendix bursts:)
Yes, you are as stupid as a box of rocks.
At least he's not as stupid as Inga.
You too Dad. Stay out of hospitals.
Then by all means Rev, don't go to a hospital when your appendix bursts
The judges have awarded Inga an average score of 8.7 for her nimble leap from "government hospital inspections are ineffective" to "hospitals aren't worth going to".
She would have gotten a 9.5, but the Russian judge lowballed his score.
In The Ghetto
Nurses hate libertarians, lots and lots of liberal nurses, you know. Keep that in mind.
Chicklet, if you get that song stuck in my head I am going to kick SO MUCH ASS...
All the sudden concern for the plight of inner city black single mothers is I'm sure, very, very heartfelt from the resident conservatives. Just think, it they could have just hung on for just little longer they could have earned the distinction of being labeled parasitic, welfare sucking takers who is ruining our society.
Oops forgot the smiley:)
Yeah Garage I thought of that, but I didn't want to derail the thread even more.
I think the lack of health inspections is a very big deal. From the grand jury report...
"There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets.”
“All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff – long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic – and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration dates.”
“Investigators found the clinic grossly unsuitable as a surgical facility. The two surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary – Agent Dougherty described them as resembling ‘a bad gas station restroom.’ Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed. There was no functioning resuscitation or even monitoring equipment, except for a single blood pressure cuff in the recovery room.”
“The search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly stored throughout the clinic – in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a refrigerator, others were frozen. Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent of the fetuses were probably older than 24 weeks in gestation...In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls.”
“The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered at the clinic that evening and turned over to the Philadelphia medical examiner, who confirmed that at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable."
I do not think this was libertarianism run amuck, nor do I think this is a typical failure of the socialist welfare state. I think Shana is right. This is abortion politics. They avoided regulating this abortion clinic for the same reason many in the media avoid discussing this crime.
One bit from the grand jury report really grabbed me: "Gosnell wouldn't call an ambulance, and wouldn't let the woman's companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance."
So, did he hold the companion at gunpoint, or otherwise use force? That's kidnapping right there, isn't it? So how come nobody complained? Is it that they knew they were seeking an illegal abortion, and thus afraid to go to law enforcement with their complaint?
Another quote: "Pennsylvania is not a third-world country.". The hell it's not. Or is it just Philadelphia, and that city dominates the state the way Chicago does Illinois?
In a sense; he (allegedly) killed her with an overdose of painkillers. Not really a health-code issue
He hired non-doctors to give the sedatives. I kinda think a little oversight might have helped, Rev.
Nurses hate libertarians, lots and lots of liberal nurses, you know.
Speaking of hospitalization, I think I just threw my back out trying to care about the politics of nurses. :)
Rev,
Ask Shouting Thomas to lend you his Filipina girlfriend, to walk on your back. She'll make it better.:)
Just think, it they could have just hung on for just little longer they could have earned the distinction of being labeled parasitic, welfare sucking takers who is ruining our society.
Garage, did you happen to click on that link to Blackmun's opinion in Beal v. Doe? He's calling the poor a "cancer" and wants to provide free abortions to make their children disappear. Do you have thoughts on that, or are you just going to skip it?
He hired non-doctors to give the sedatives. I kinda think a little oversight might have helped, Rev.
Only if he was dumb enough to have the people administer sedatives while the inspector was around to witness it. This kind of thing doesn't get caught by inspections, it gets caught either because someone blows the whistle or because one of the victims does to the authorities. The health code violations -- those are the kind of things you can catch with inspections.
Gosnell obviously isn't the brightest man in America, but "don't do illegal shit directly in front of the government agent" is the kind of thing all but the very dumbest of criminals can manage. :)
Saint Croix
No I didn't click on the link. I've haven't even read all the details of the Gosnell clinic case. Too depressing.
Elvis was a hero to most but he never meant shit to me you see, straight up racist that sucker was, simple and plain, mother fuck him and John Wayne.
How dare you repeat that slander of Elvis, sir.
Revenant: I did penance
"All the sudden concern for the plight of inner city black single mothers is I'm sure, very, very heartfelt from the resident conservatives"
Let's flip that around. Let's examine the complete indifference on the part of garage to the plight of inner city black single mothers. Let's look at how interested garage (who, like all liberals, claims to care so much for "the children")is when children have their spinal cords cut and their feet cut off as trophies by the American Left's very own version of Dr. Mengele.
Notice garage has not expressed any horror or disgust over what Gosnell did - his only concern is "How does this hurt my team?"
Oh and "look, squirrel!"
Compassionate and caring, my ass.
"No I didn't click on the link. I've haven't even read all the details of the Gosnell clinic case"
Of course not.
It doesn't fit The Narrative. It's much better to stay ignorant and snark at conservatives for drawing attention to this story.
You would have been such a good little German, garage.
his only concern is "How does this hurt my team?
Liberals are the only group I know of that even talk about the dangers of illegal back alley abortions. So I don't know how this hurts "my team". Which is funny too, I hate Democrats.
Facts depress Garage Mahal?
What an admission!
No I didn't click on the link. I've haven't even read all the details of the Gosnell clinic case. Too depressing.
Are you pro-life? You sound like it sometimes. I wish there were more pro-life liberals. (And here's the atheist version)
"Nurses hate libertarians, lots and lots of liberal nurses, you know."
Not the ones I know.
chickelit,
"I missed the rationale for Inga's most recent obsession with libertarians. Somebody please give the executive summary."
Here's the executive summary--an admirably brief one: It's Inga.
Why any of you engage with her is beyond me... her despicable carryings on are beneath contempt. Example: sure, in some hypothetical place, a lack of abortion-clinic inspections might be the fault of tiny-government libertarian enthusiasm. But in Pennsylvania? In 100%-Democrat-voting-precinct f'n Philadelphia???? If it weren't such a life-and-death matter, the suggestion would be merely laughable, but in the context it's disgusting, contemptible, ghoulish, hellish.
Please please can we just ignore this troll once and for all now?
Facts depress Garage Mahal?
I didn't read every grisly detail, no. I don't want to.
@Saint Croix
I'm squishy pro-choice, for lack of better term.
" Inga the prochoice movement's response to the proposition that 2nd or 3rd trimester pregnancies should be prohibited would be that some women don't find out they are pregnant until late in first trimester or even later, and they don't have adequate time to make a decision, procure funding, etc. or there are women who find out about fetal health issues later. Or there needs to be a health exception broad enough to include mental duress, which is signed off on by clinic doctors for women whomsay they are stressed by the unplanned pregnancy.
How would you counter these arguments?"
4/12/13, 10:59 PM
Sorry CStanley I didn't see this comment in the flurry of name calling. With the advent of very early accurate pregnancy testing, it is possible to know you're pregnant before even a missed period and and if a woman chooses an abortion before the 8th week, it would fall in a Life Statute ( if one existed) that would define life as beginning at neural activity. IF pro choicers such as myself and pro lifers, who were not absolutists, could agree on it.
"Liberals are the only group I know of that even talk about the dangers of illegal back alley abortions. So I don't know how this hurts "my team"."
Pro-choice groups - liberals- were the ones fighting against closer monitoring of abortion clinics, fool.
That's one reason why this story has not been covered by the media.
You know, when I know little about a subject -when Althouse posts on legal matters, for instance - I refrain from posting.
Would that you would do the same. You're completely ignorant of the facts of this case and you seem to enjoy displaying your ignorance and callousness. Why is that?
"Nurses hate libertarians, lots and lots of liberal nurses, you know."
---------------
"Not the ones I know."
Exiled, I was just being evil ;)
Pro-choice groups - liberals- were the ones fighting against closer monitoring of abortion clinics, fool.
Really. Cite for that?
Kirk Parker, you always come to a discussion at the end and drop a turd, don't you have anything to add but shit? If not go away and stay away.
Saint Croix said...
"I think the lack of health inspections is a very big deal. From the grand jury report..."
I have no data on this, but I would not be surprised if the rate of licensing inspections for general acute care hospitals were significantly higher than for abortion clinics.
And, if that is true, the reason for it wouldn't be shortage of inspectors (since, after all, the inspectors are paid for from licensing fees, at least in California, and presumably everywhere else), but rather a failure of political will.
Abortions, and their attendant risks, have been politicized and minimized to the point where there is legislation in California to allow NPs and PAs to perform surgical, aspiration abortions without physicians oversight.
There probably was no shortage of inspectors to inspect Gosnell's abattoir for infants; there was probably all kinds of bureaucratic and political reasons why inspectors were not sent.
And, even at that, hoping inspectors catch murderers committing murder is unreasonable.
Gosnell, no doubt, could have run a cleaner operation that would have passed any on-site inspection; had he done so, he prospectively could have murdered until he retired or died.
Idiot Inga now thinks she's the thread police.
Tomorrow she'll be a jet fighter pilot...
We'll all know she's gone 'round the bend when she thinks she's Tim Tebow.
And Tim thinks he's smart.
Keep the helmet on, you can't spare any grey matter.
All the sudden concern for the plight of inner city black single mothers is I'm sure, very, very heartfelt from the resident conservatives. Just think, it they could have just hung on for just little longer they could have earned the distinction of being labeled parasitic, welfare sucking takers who is ruining our society.
Why not take Singer and Sanger to their logical conclusion and admit they aren't viable either.
Inga, dummy, it's an avatar.
Like, for example, do you think you're Lady of Liberty putting your tongue down justice's throat, or are you justice feeling up Lady Liberty's clitoris?
Take your time answering, dummy.
And then, next time, try harder.
Really.
Long past time to up your game.
There's no union to protect the weak link here.
It's in the Grand Jury report, garage. Google it, if you really want to know.
I don't think you do.
Nite Timmy. I got yer goat, didn't I ?:)
Garage.....pro-life people in several states have been trying to pass legislation require abortion mills to have licensed health care providers on site. Democrats have blocked them.
Really. Cite for that?
Liberals abandon liberalism for abortion all the time. For instance, read this. Or this.
Inga quits.
She should have done so six hours ago.
After all, idiots prove out quickly.
60% of all African-Americans in NYC die due to abortion. Inga and Garage support this holocaust.
Chuck66 said...
"Garage.....pro-life people in several states have been trying to pass legislation require abortion mills to have licensed health care providers on site. Democrats have blocked them."
Yes. This is true. In many cases, as with Gosnell, the effect is to bring the "back alley" indoors.
With a better, taxpayer-funded revenue stream.
And on the opposite side....in Chicago and New York, Democrats are working on legislation to ban crises pregency centers that have professional licensed health care professionals on site.
Chuck66, don't forget to add Althouse.
And, no murder is not murder when it is done to provide women with something they want.
The fact that abortion is something that women want, coupled with the fact that women are precious princesses who should have anything they want means...
That anything they want could not be a bad thing.
ST if republicans were clever bastards they would push to eliminate child support for men who did not consent to be fathers. If only the woman has the choice to stay pregnant why not give the man the choice in whether or not to pay support? If child support became voluntary along with no welfare for single mothers by choice abortion would become illegal.
One of my best friends is an OB/GYN. She is very strongly pro-life. She told me recently that she had had more patients than she can count break down and sob about past abortions during their initial visit, when she is asking them about their previous histories. She refers them to an organization called Rachel's Vineyard, which is a support group for women haunted by the "choice" they made.
That's another place the Left does not ever want to go. They barely acknowledge that women who have abortions often experience regret and serious depression. They want to have us believe that having one is no different than clipping your toenails.
You know what? Absolutists and pro life extremists will only make pro choicers dig in deeper. Types like Tim and Shana and Chuck won't ever get pro choicers to work for change. And it wont happen without us. You need to follow St. Croix's lead..
cuban....actually there are those that have proposed that (most likely just to make a point). But it does have some standing.....if a woman can decide unilaterally to dispose of her child, but the man doesn't have the same civil rights, why should he then have to pay child support?
Why does anyone here think inga, the bug-eyed drunken loon has any credibility on this issue, much less any other issue. She's used toilet paper and that's about the extent of her knowledge on any subject at any time.
Inga, if abortion truley was rare, those of us prolifers (there are 7 adoptions in my family, including my father) wouldn't make such a big deal about it.
But its 1,500,000 a year. And New York and Washington state have legislation working through their state houses that will require all insurance to pay for infantcide.
Do you think that is good? If I run a business in Seattle, I would be required to pay for the killing of my employees children.
Methadras the dry drunk enters, now it's truly time for bed. I'll leave this loon to you pro lifers.
"Absolutists and pro life extremists will only make pro choicers dig in deeper"
So the facts have nothing to do with it? Your position on abortion is solely predicated on how Althouse commenters address you? If they're not nice enough, nothing else matters?
I never notice pro-choicers deciding they have to treat anti-abortion people with kid gloves. No, it's alright to call us every name in the book.
Pro-choicers are anti-science. They say that the "mass of cells" inside the mother DOES NOT have a different DNA and different blood type than the mother.
NO, Exiled, it's not myself I'm referring to. I've made up my mind about when life begins, I'm not much of a pro choicer anymore, but I know how they think.
mentilsoup: there are limits to ghoulishness among journalists...
Yes, they'll draw the line AFTER photos of soldiers' caskets arriving at Dover AFB.
I have to go to bed, but to show the biasness in MSM.....Owasso Michigan. The same week the abortion doctor was murdered in Wichita Kansas....a pro-choice activist walked up to a pro-life protestor in Owasoo. Prochoicer but a bullet in the pro-lifers head, killing him. He said "I hate prolife people".
Does anyone recall hearing about this in MSM? No. I didn't think so.
A Little Less Conservation
Oh man, I just now got an idea. Apologies, it's unrelated to your 'who is worse about abortion' battle.
The oldest fellow I know is suffering a spell I would not wish on anyone. I mentioned him before, out there in Phoenix, a horrible sequence of events and now he has to deal with the heart-wrenching emptiness of disposing of two homes properly, mostly by himself. So here is my idea, among other things, a card:
1) If only there were an award for humanity
2) I'd like to pin it on you.
BLAM pop-up humanity award.
There are awards for humanity. Just nick one, enlarge it, and make it twist up and out and present itself to the viewer or away to display the second sentence, a very simple thing with no other message, just a shot from the blue. You know, so that it is reaffirmed from afar that people are for him and on his side.
Apologies, carry on.
CDC estimates 50 million abortions in the US since 1973.
That's 30 million more murdered than by the Nazis, and 44 million less murdered than by the Communist.
Nice work there, pro-choicers, nice work.
"That's another place the Left does not ever want to go. They barely acknowledge that women who have abortions often experience regret and serious depression. They want to have us believe that having one is no different than clipping your toenails."
I've heard those stories, and believe them true.
I also know, from a former girlfriend, whose roommate had three abortions in one calendar year. For her, abortion was like clipping toenails.
Another girlfriend, who later became my wife, had a roommate who had two abortions in one calendar year. For her, it was probably more like brushing her teeth.
Inga said...
Methadras the dry drunk enters, now it's truly time for bed. I'll leave this loon to you pro lifers.
Dry drunk? Is that best you have, you inebriated imbecile? The only loon in here is you thinking you even believe the bullshit you peddle. You washed up dish rag of a human being.
Shhhhh.... I just tip toed in here to say, Meth is a sociopath, ok nite nite..... Shhhhh let him rant to himself.......
"I also know, from a former girlfriend, whose roommate had three abortions in one calendar year. For her, abortion was like clipping toenails."
Oh, I know. I knew a woman once who told me, very matter-of-factly, that she had had 7 abortions.
"I'm just not very good at birth control, I guess."
They are some who suffer horribly after having one and some who feel nothing after having 3 o 6 or 8.
But the ones who feel guilt - well, gee, that's just a hangover from Judeo-Christianity. Properly enlightened pagans feel no such qualms.
Tim:
It's an elective genocide sponsored by the state and various minorities within the population.
The reason they hesitate to report on it, is the same reason they don't support universal rights (e.g. marriage or unions). The Left's ideology is based on denigration of individual dignity and devaluation of human life. Since they are a minority in the population, they cannot force their will. So instead they pursue progressive change designed to overcome decent men and women's resistance. They cannot afford a revolution. At least not in America.
It's interesting to note that they support progressive involuntary exploitation before and after birth. Most telling is that they support premeditated murder before birth, and marginal care after birth. They are not the saviors of the poor. They exploit vulnerability and prejudice to advance their own political, economic, and social standing. They are fundamentally corrupt.
"No I didn't click on the link. I've haven't even read all the details of the Gosnell clinic case. Too depressing."
-- The heart of the problem. You have no idea of the details, yet feel fine accusing Republicans of racism involving the case. Stop being lazy and dickish.
"Liberals are the only group I know of that even talk about the dangers of illegal back alley abortions."
-- Which has no bearing on these abortions that were performed at a clinic that the state looked-the-other-way for and ignored health code violations for, I think, years. This has nothing to do with illegal back alley abortions, but rather, murder disguised as legal abortions.
Actually, I think the clinic went over a decade without an inspection. But, please. Let's pretend this is a story about racist Republicans suddenly caring about stopping illegal, back-alley abortions.
“After 1993, even that pro forma effort [to inspect Gosnell's clinic and report its failings] came to an end. Not because of administrative ennui, although there had been plenty. Instead, the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions.”Quoted here.
Pro-choice group aware of terrible things going on, refuses to report (per the Grand Jury report, quoted here): "o too with the National Abortion Federation. NAF is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell, bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar's death. Despite his various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell's application. She just never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen."
But, please. Keep talking about this like it has anything at all to do with conservatives.
Mind you, I'm actually OK with abortions to some extent. I don't like them; I think in an ideal world, no one would ever need to have one.
But, the Gosnell case makes it clear that many places in the country have been too soft in ignoring the fact that abortion is a serious medical procedure and needs to, on a medical and legal front, be treated like one.
If the babies were born already dead, why did they have to cut the spinal cord?
SJL: He kept severed feet as trophies. It is entirely possible he's just a gruesome monster, which might be the only real defense he has.
Another problem with covering the story is the fact that women willingly went to him and paid him to do what he did. A lot of Democrats try to circumvent the need to have any laws restricting abortion by pretending no one wants to have an abortion, or pretending abortion is always a heart-rending decision, or pretending late term abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.
But a lot of these women are monsters who used Gosnell to get exactly what they wanted.
Hitler would have been proud.
Of course he is ghoulish. Who chooses to make a living killing perfectly healthy babies just days before they could be born?
Conor Friedersdorf was unaware of this story until Wednesday (presumably April 10). But the story has been (for example) on Drudge for weeks. This is an excellent example of why Rush, et al., refer to "main stream media" -- the "establishment" thinkers, writers, and commentators, read only each other, not even reaching so far out of their comfort zone as Drudge. This really is a serious indictment of the journalism establishment.
Molly is right, it has been on Drudge. I have a hard time believing any reporter pretending not to have checked Drudge for the last several months.
That's another place the Left does not ever want to go. They barely acknowledge that women who have abortions often experience regret and serious depression. They want to have us believe that having one is no different than clipping your toenails.
This is exactly right. The stories at afterabortion are incredibly sad. And yet the medical establishment denies even the possibility of depression after an abortion. It's insane! And entirely political. Doctors recognize post-partum depression, after all. Some people get depressed after giving birth to a baby. And, it seems obvious, some people are going to be depressed after an abortion. And yet doctors will admit that childbirth might have adverse effects on women, but refuse to admit that abortion might have adverse effects on women.
This is blatant partisan politics masquerading as medical practice.
Which we see in journalism, too!
And law!
There's just so much repression and denial over this issue. From the media to the medical establishment to the government. It's both a denial of the humanity of the baby, but also a denial of our own feelings.
CDC estimates 50 million abortions in the US since 1973.
That's 30 million more murdered than by the Nazis, and 44 million less murdered than by the Communist.
Actually the Communist death total does not include abortions, which are quite common in Communist countries. I read in school that the average woman in the Soviet Union had 11 abortions in her lifetime.
I would suggest that the cover up aspect would be a great place for soft prochoicers to focus.
Call out the prochoice lobby for covering up the negative aftereffects of abortion. For dehumanizing fetal humans. For pretending the procedure is no more serious than a wart removal. For rejecting (and actively fighting) attempts to provide oversight. For making limitations meaningless by hiding behind privacy (making abortion on demand the de facto law of the land because there can be no review of the reasons for abortions.) For responding to term restrictions which would require use of ultrasound by equating this procedure with rape. For insisting that infants born after botched abortions should not be given medical care.
During the nineties, many moderate prochoicers were touting the safe, legal, but rare line. Then they did nothing, and the radical abortion rights agenda prevailed.
Prolifers have frequently been told that we must denounce radicals, and we do. It is time for prochoicers to Rein in the ghouls on your side.
We now have a president who voted against legal protection for infants born alive after botched abortions. Why isn't anyone asking him about this? We know that Gosnell was acting outside the law, but we also have testimony from nurses in legal abortion clinics that babies are sometimes born and left to die. Because treating them would require us to admit that they are human, and the legal underpinning for abortion would disintegrate.
At this point, it simply is not acceptable to speak of this as a personal decision that should be made by individuals and their doctors. There is ample evidence that these individuals are making barbaric decisions that a decent society should not tolerate.
CStanley said: " We now have a president who voted against legal protection for infants born alive after botched abortions. Why isn't anyone asking him about this?"
Indeed. You have touched the thing with a needle, methinks.
I would like people to start making distinctions between abortions. There is a moral difference between an IUD that accidentally terminates a microscopic zygote and murdering a baby outside the birth canal.
An abortion five weeks after last menstrual period is not a homicide under our death statutes. Homicide is a serious charge. Be serious when you make it. Pro-life people do not win arguments when they insist every abortion is a homicide. You lose credibility.
And it's not necessary. If pro-lifers are 1% right and 99% wrong, then all that means is that the Supreme Court has killed 600,000 innocent babies. That's enough mass murder to prove our point and overturn Roe v. Wade.
If you kill six people, you're Jack the Ripper. Gosnell has killed thousands of babies, as an abortion doctor, in his abortion clinic. We should not conflate what he did with every abortion.
But on the other hand, we should not look away and avoid the subject.
Pro-choice people need to stop saying shit like, "I support Roe v. Wade except I don't support late-term abortion." Why don't you support late-term abortion? What's wrong with late-term abortion? Finish the thought.
You don't like it because you think it's a homicide. So say that! Admit it!
"I support Roe v. Wade, except for those 600,000 or so viable babies who have been killed since 1973."
Once you flip it around, you stop supporting Roe v. Wade. 600,000 murdered infants is unacceptable. 10 murdered babies is unacceptable.
Calling Inga a Nazi might be self-righteous fun. But it's idiotic, too. Remember that Washington, Jefferson, Madison were all slave-owners. Good and moral people can be on the wrong side of serious moral issues.
Inga, how do you propose enforcing an 8 week limit, given that the requirement of women undergoing a transvaginal ultrasound is equated with rape?
Not to mention the "undue burden" your requirement will place on women who do not menstryuate on a regular schedule. Such women would have to take a pregnancy test every 30 days if they are sexually active in order to catch a pregnancy in time to have an opportunity to abort. Remember, this is all about "ACCESS!" which cannot be denied to any woman.
St. Croix, I completely agree with you about Nazi epithets and other poo flinging.
I disagree about making a major distinction between early and late term abortion because there is no line that would adequately separate the two. Even when applying some objective criteria (Inga uses neural activity), I don't think that is useful in practice. I guess viability might come clse to being enforceable as long as we acknowledge that it will be a moving target as technology progresses. I could probably, reluctantly, accede to that as a legal standard even though I reject it morally.
CStanley,
A law, a "Life Statute". How are we dealing with brain death?
And forget the stupid transvaginal ultrasound. It isn't necessary and it's intrusive.
How do you read the long list of government failures in this case - and not only the result of inert layers of calcified bureaucracy but of following a deliberate policy not to inspect these clinics at all - and conclude that Libertarian skepticism of government would only make it worse?
It makes as much sense to rant against space aliens over this. "Oh yes, this is bad alright. But if those space aliens had their way imagine the havoc those anal probes would cause. Thank god for government. We only need to do a better job but at least we don't have space aliens to worry about."
CStanley,
A law, a "Life Statute". How are we dealing with brain death?
And forget the stupid transvaginal ultrasound. It isn't necessary and it's intrusive.
4/13/13, 8:38 AM
Huh? How else does one determine the gestational age of the fetus?
And we deal with brain death with EEG measurements, which obviously isn't feasible for a fetus. So gestational age determination would be the only way to do this.
A transvaginal ultrasound isn't necessary to determine gestational age after 5 weeks or so
Give them a choice.
I agree, St. Croix, that pro-lifers need to focus on the big E on the eyechart at this time. Don't sneer at an incremental victory, people.
I disagree about making a major distinction between early and late term abortion because there is no line that would adequately separate the two. Even when applying some objective criteria (Inga uses neural activity), I don't think that is useful in practice.
Brain activity is a very bright line. It happens at six weeks after conception, eight weeks after last menstrual period. And you can measure it.
The life or death issue is actually settled law. We have death statutes in all 50 states, and they all say the same thing--total brain death in cerebral cortex and brain stem.
It's just a matter of recognizing the baby's humanity and protecting her with our death and homicide statutes.
I guess viability might come clse to being enforceable
Viability is survivability. It's a guess, a hypothesis. Abortion clinics have no neonatal intensive care units and they never place a baby inside one.
If liberals were serious about viability, late-term abortions would be done in hospitals, and the babies would be placed in NICUs, and given up for adoption.
But NICUs are expensive, and our government would rather terminate unwanted children in unregulated and unlicensded "clinics" on the dark side of town.
Viability is a pagan standard that measures the baby's weakness and vulnerability. "She can't survive on her own, so we have a right to kill her." That's viability.
We would never apply the viability standard to cancer patients, or to any other human being. It only gets applied to the unborn, because the state has defined them as sub-human property.
Brain activity is a very bright line. It happens at six weeks after conception, eight weeks after last menstrual period. And you can measure it.
How?
Inga all that says is that TAU is NOT reliable before 6 weeks. It doesn't logically follow that it IS reliable n all, or even most cases after 6 weeks. If I'm not mistaken, most OB- GYNs don't use TAU until around 12 weeks.
Host for Nightline has just tweeted: "Kermit Gosnell is probably the most successful serial killer in the history of the world."
But will Nightline cover the story?
Inga said...
Shana, you're being dishonest. I didn't say libertarians prevented inspections. BUt the libertarian philosophy is HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT. Get it?
Hey stupid shit:
The "pro-choice" policies of the Gov of PA led to this. (the state didn't want to be "putting a barrier up to women" who wanted abortions)
It had nothing to do with libertarians.
You are a fucking embarrassment.
PS: When are you going to claim Kermit Gosnell as one of your own?
CStanley, there is a gestational age formula that is used, did you read the page I linked?
Inga said...
And forget the stupid transvaginal ultrasound. It isn't necessary and it's intrusive.
"intrusive"!!!
But abortion is totally like not intrusive.
Oh, and:
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”
You're a fucking idiot beyond belief.
Ah a member of The Stupid Party has arrived. When are you folks going to claim him as your own?
did you read the page I linked?
Why would anyone besides you think that a "pro choice" Web site is credible?
Jay you are too incredibly STUPID to understand a thing about what that page discusses, it s way above your head.
C Stanley, you're going to have to ask Inga or Pogo the medical questions. As far as I know, medical science can detect whether a baby has brain activity or not.
What I want to stress is that I'm not picking a point out of thin air. We have laws on the books in regard to when people die. And it's the same law in all 50 states, and Washington D.C.
So apply our rules to the abortion controversy! Apply the rules we use for you and me to babies as well.
And the Hippocratic Oath should apply. "First do no harm." If you think you might be killing a baby, don't do the act. That seems rather obvious. So if it's medically difficult to determine if the baby is alive or not, you should attempt to protect her life, not kill her.
Inky is worried about abortions before an abortion.
Doctors do ultrasounds (sometimes multiple times) before abortions.
Many abortion providers do an ultrasound before the procedure anyway, some doctors said, because it's the most accurate way to verify the developmental stage of the fetus -- a necessary step to make sure that the procedure is being performed within the legal timeframe.
"It's pretty much common practice," Dr. Willie Parker, who performs abortion near Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, told the Washington Post.
Inky be dumb.
I'm going back to bed, I cannot stomach such utter imbecilic stupidity. I'll leave Jay to you, it's too early.
Inga I read it and suggest that you reread it. The formulas are discussed in a generic way, not specific to either TVU or TAU (the few times in that section where they specify the method,mit's TVU.)
The only reference they make to the reliability of TAU, it's what I stated above...NOT reliable beofre 6 weeks, which does not mean that at that point forward it becomes universally reliable.
Inga said...
Jay you are too incredibly STUPID to understand a thing about what that page discusses
I'm not the one here screeching about ultrasounds being "invasive" while supporting abortion.
Idiot.
Inga said...
I cannot stomach such utter imbecilic stupidity.
After blaming the lack of abortion inspections on libertarian philosophy is HANDS OFF GOVERNMENT, no less.
Moron.
Twenty states regulate some aspect of ultrasound exams, including requiring abortion providers to give women the option to view the image or listen to the fetal heartbeat if an ultrasound is performed.
Eleven other states have legislation pending.
Inky can't bother to ask herself why this may be.
Inky be stupid.
St. Croix- a law has to be enforceable though and I don't think there is any practical manner in which fetal brain activity could be detected at bedside. The only feasible way would be to pick a gestational age at whoch it's known to begin and then yours still stuck with the problem I'm discussing with Inga- that the only reliable diagnostic tool to determine gestational age that early is TVU.
If you guys want to start advocating for that, fine by me but I believe you will feel the swift heel of abortion rights advocates.
Your final paragraph is why I think that right to life begins at conception. I believe it for religious reasons but can easily see the secular libertarian rationale of doing no harm as well
Fetal Brain Activity detection
This was from 10 years ago, I'll try to find more later today.
If you guys want to start advocating for that [transvaginal ultrasound requirement to enforce legal cutoff at 8 weeks] fine by me but I believe you will feel the swift heel of abortion rights advocates.
Of course i think you will face fierce blowback for any meaningful restriction on abortion, so you probably might just as well pick that hill to die on if you are convicted about brain development.
"It's just a matter of recognizing the baby's humanity and protecting her with our death and homicide statutes."
You might think so, but not really.
It's much more a matter of allowing mothers to kill their children by fostering a legal illusion the child is not human, thereby allowing Mom to kill without conscience.
Because gestation, beginning with conception, arcs toward birth of a live human, aggressively looking for biological markers allowing one to kill without conscience ignores the reality that if simply left alone, the child will most very likely be born live.
"We have death statutes in all 50 states, and they all say the same thing--total brain death in cerebral cortex and brain stem." This is illogical, because in a developing child, the absence of the cerebral cortex and brain stem does not at all mean the child is dead - it simply means the child has not yet developed what most assuredly will develop. This is critically distinct from total brain death in a previously live human, as there is no chance of that person coming alive again, yet most (many?, some?, a few?) of us realize the developing child will develop the cerebral cortex, brain stem and all the rest, in due time, necessary for life.
That is, if mom does not choose to kill her child first.
From Inga's link:
Also, SARA is still too expensive for widespread use.
"This stuff is very expensive right now because it is still experimental -- it's in the two (million-dollar) range," Lowery said. "It will have to drop way down to get it into the patient's room -- down to $50,000 to $150,000 price range."
i'm sure that won't be a problem, right? Even though abortion clinics are currently claiming that they can't afford to even upgrade facilities to widen doorways so that guerneys can fit in and out in case of emergency?
St. Croix- a law has to be enforceable though and I don't think there is any practical manner in which fetal brain activity could be detected at bedside.
Okay, you're missing the forest for the trees. Brain death is our rule for when people die. If a baby has brain activity, and you rip into her with a knife, you are killing her.
If you're prosecuting an illegal abortionist for killing a baby, you just have to prove that the baby was alive. You put up your medical expert, and he testifies from the cadaver's size and weight whether in his expert opinion the baby was alive when the doctor killed her.
OK, st. Croix. Now go find a few OB GYNs and ask them if they would be willing to risk their licenses and jail time by performing an abortion under those laws without first geting TVU confirmation of gestational age.
More here
If it's not feasible because of cost to do such brain activity measurements, then the Gestational Age Formula I spoke of can be used.
Gosnell's clinic not inspected for 17 yrs, my goodness I wish we could regulate guns like we regulate abortions.
BTW, I think you made excellent points about viability above when I mentioned that possible cutoff. All I'm doing is applying the same real world thinking to your preferred cut off line.
And yes the measurements taken were for older unborn babies, but simple brain activity might be able to be measured imuch much younger.
This is illogical, because in a developing child, the absence of the cerebral cortex and brain stem does not at all mean the child is dead
I'm not arguing that the embryo is dead. Embryos are alive. Sperm is alive. The point is that you have to have certain biological criteria, or markers, to qualify as a live human being. Under our law, the relevant criteria is brain activity. We die when our brain ceases function. Thus you have to have brain activity to be alive.
it simply means the child has not yet developed what most assuredly will develop.
Now you are predicting the future, that the baby's brain "will develop." And I grant you that the baby's future life is an important moral consideration. In fact, for me, I think even very early abortions are still horrible for that reason.
But are they homicides? Under our law, no. Death statutes are very specific. And we need specificity, because doctors want to avoid criminal prosecution.
"Okay, you're missing the forest for the trees. Brain death is our rule for when people die. If a baby has brain activity, and you rip into her with a knife, you are killing her."
This is a good place to start, but my concern (and yes, I realize you aren't writing too or in response to me, but I'm still going to react) is that it shores up the illusion that before the existence of the brain, the child is not living, and is therefore fair game for mom to kill.
Switching gears a bit, would either of you (Inga and St. Croix) make exceptions for later abortions? What would they be, and how would you propose enforcement without violating privacy?
Tim I agree with your last post but I'm willing to make a distinction between morality and legality, if we could at least get to that point.
"Now you are predicting the future, that the baby's brain "will develop." And I grant you that the baby's future life is an important moral consideration. In fact, for me, I think even very early abortions are still horrible for that reason."
Of course I am, but with reasonable certitude, right? Most conceived babies not aborted are born. Also, I did qualify the absence of complete certitude by writing "most assuredly will develop."
"But are they homicides? Under our law, no. Death statutes are very specific. And we need specificity, because doctors want to avoid criminal prosecution."
Agreed, and agreed - no argument there. My underlying concern, obviously, is with the practice, and it's morality. And, as practical, pragmatic matter, to significantly reduce and limit the number of abortions, I would agree with you that once brain activity is detected, abortion would generally (I haven't read all the near 400 posts on this thread, so I do not know what exceptions or qualifications you offer) prohibited.
But would never change my conviction that once conceived, life had begun.
C Stanley said...
"Tim I agree with your last post but I'm willing to make a distinction between morality and legality, if we could at least get to that point."
Concur. Fully. No argument there.
Here's an ethical dilemma hypothetical for you guys too, based on the idea that killing a fetus before brain activity is analogous to pulling the plug on an adultmwho shows no brain activity....
If there was a medical condition that was known to produce a flat line EEG temporarily, in which patients routinely reverted to adequate brain function after a certain period, would it be ethically necessary for doctors and families to wait it out to see if the patient recovers? If so, how is it different then when we know that most 6 week fetuses will very soon meet the legal threshold for personhood and right to life?
Isn't it funny that the white liberal media are ignoring this story given that:
Like if a girl -- the black population was -- African population was big here. So he didn't mind you medicating your African American girls, your Indian girl, but if you had a white girl from the suburbs, oh, you better not medicate her. You better wait until he go in and talk to her first
Oh, they have no problem with black & brown babies being aborted.
Never mind.
C Stanley said...
"Switching gears a bit, would either of you (Inga and St. Croix) make exceptions for later abortions? What would they be, and how would you propose enforcement without violating privacy?"
I think you have to forego the privacy protections, given the possibility of the late-term abortion being a crime. Criminal suspects lose all sorts of practical privacy protections (albeit not statutory or constitutionally protected ones) during investigations.
You'd also have to shift the burden of proof to the woman wanting to terminate.
As for what would be acceptable, I think a bright-line would be necessary, and the one I think most people could agree upon with obvious, known risk to the mother's life (not health, generally, and certainly not to the Clintonian "mental health" exceptions).
After that, it gets harder.
Brain Waves in unborn babies
MUCH information here. Pro choice, but has many many links to studies.
All I'm doing is applying the same real world thinking to your preferred cut off line.
I do not have a "preferred cut off line." My preference is that our Supreme Court recognizes that
1) a person is a live human being
2) the death of a human being is defined by statute
After that, it's up to the states to define when people die, and to enforce our laws as best we can.
My basic point is that defining the unborn as property, as sub-human, is not working at all. We need to recognize the humanity of the unborn.
I believe the Supreme Court has failed to do so, out of a mistaken belief that recognizing an unborn baby as a person would require them to outlaw all abortions.
No. It would simply require them to outlaw abortions that qualify as homicides under state law.
"If there was a medical condition that was known to produce a flat line EEG temporarily, in which patients routinely reverted to adequate brain function after a certain period, would it be ethically necessary for doctors and families to wait it out to see if the patient recovers? If so, how is it different then when we know that most 6 week fetuses will very soon meet the legal threshold for personhood and right to life?"
Yes.
In my mind, it isn't different at all.
But, as a pragmatic tool to significantly reduce and limit the number of abortions, I would cut that deal.
It isn't a principled response, other than to say, "many fewer abortions is better than allowing the number of abortions currently happening (an estimated 50 million in the US alone since 1973 - CDC)."
Shana said...
And once again, name one abortion clinic that hasn't been inspected because a libertarian prevented it.
One reason I am a political cynic is this
:
Pennsylvania's health department stopped routine inspections of abortion facilities in the state after Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, became governor in 1995.
[snip]
In 1999, high-level Pennsylvania officials met to consider starting up regular inspections again but decided not to, state lawyer Kenneth Brody testified, according to the grand jury report. He told the grand jury that officials were concerns that abortion clinics wouldn't meet inspection standards and then there "would be less abortion facilities."
To reflect the popular theme of today vis a vis loss of lives..."what difference does it make now?"
Oh, look....SQUIRREL...it's Beyonce and Jay-Z in Cuba, over here, it's really important, pay attention.
OMG!! Obamas paid 18% income tax when the average for rich people is 20.5%.
Excuse me while I puke.
But would never change my conviction that once conceived, life had begun.
Think of it in terms of life or death. Conception is when our body starts to exist. So the opposite of that would be utter non-existence. If conception is when life begins, then when our last atom disappears is when we die.
But that's not what we say. We say "total brain death." Thus, even though the body is still there, we say the person has passed on. The person is gone, her life is gone.
Thus brain activity is critical. So that means the start of brain activity is critical.
And these points may be wrong. Maybe heartbeat is actually better. I'm not insisting that brain activity is the best point. What I am insisting is that whatever our life-and-death point is, we apply it to all people, including the unborn. Equal protection.
I happen to like total brain death, though. And it is the rule in all 50 states.
And once again, name one abortion clinic that hasn't been inspected because a libertarian prevented it.
Inga apparently thinks PA is some big libertarian hotbed.
Why, it is almost as if she can't understand that abortion clinics are "special" and the party of government, the party she votes for, treats abortion clinics with kid gloves, or something.
Tom Ridge the governor who stopped inspections of abortion clinics in PA, self describes as a libertarian Republican.
!
Jay in terms of the partisanship, it is important to note that GOP Gov Ridge does not seem to have clean hands here. Maybe that is why beltway type conservatives haven't been pushing the story too much.
But, as a pragmatic tool to significantly reduce and limit the number of abortions, I would cut that deal.
It's not just pragmatism. I think it's vital that we recognize the humanity of the unborn. And the Supreme Court needs to do this.
But saying that our Constitution, as written, forbids all abortion is ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as saying that our Constitution, as written, requires abortion.
But Scalia's point, that our Constitution has nothing to say about abortion, is also ridiculous!
Our Constitution says that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Scalia, and the rest of the Court, have dehumanized babies and tried to "resolve" abortion without thinking about the life-or-death issue. It's been an utter clusterfuck of a disaster.
Thus, the Court needs to figure out a way to
1) recognize the humanity of the unborn
without
2) outlawing every single abortion
And the way you do that is by
1) allowing states to resolve the legality of abortion
without
2) allowing babies to be murdered
And that is resolved by forcing the states to follow their own laws in regard to when people die. Equal protection actually helps us reason through these issues.
In other words, if Pennsylvania said it was legal for Gosnell to do what he did, that would violate the Constitutional rights of the babies that he murdered.
"Tom Ridge is a Moderate Libertarian Conservative."
From his page I linked, scroll to bottom of page.
"Maybe that is why beltway type conservatives haven't been pushing the story too much."
I have no insight into "why beltway type conservatives haven't been pushing the story too much," other than to note many such types have no love lost for Tom Ridge, and those actively worked against his being McCain's running mate in '08.
So, to me, it must be some other reason; it could be as simple (and as stupid) as a gross over-reaction to the liberal response to Akin and Mourdock.
I admire your logic, St Croix, but the personhood of preborn humans really is complex. I don't think the laws regarding end of life are directly applicable. For one thing, there is the distiction of the fetus requiring the maternal life support. There is a real issue with bodily autonomy there.
Personally I think it can still be resolved by statute and fair judicial revue. But it has to include a weighing of the various interests.
"It's not just pragmatism. I think it's vital that we recognize the humanity of the unborn. And the Supreme Court needs to do this."
No, you are right - just isn't pragmatism - and I do agree, firmly, "that we recognize the humanity of the unborn. And the Supreme Court needs to do this" - it's just my principle reaction is that your bright-line, which significantly improves the situation - still excluded many I consider human and living.
So I would cut the deal mostly for pragmatic reasons, realizing it has some principled virtues too, but still falling significantly short of my principled position.
"...but the personhood of preborn humans really is complex."
Morally?
Not complex, at all.
From a legal or law-writing perspective?
Yes. Agreed.
Inga, Ridge's libertarian leanings may well have caused him to be reflexively sympathetic to the demands of the prochoice lobby but that's as far as it goes. The people doing the pressuring are not "libertarian leaning conservatives."
Tim @ 10:57- agreed.
I agree CStanley.
Principles be damned, says Tom Ridge.
Actually I'd say more likely the opposite, Inga...that he was probably acting on abstract principle instead of bending for reality (the recognition of when regulation and oversight are needed.)
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন