The measure would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. The ban after 20 weeks is based on the idea that a fetus can feel pain at that point in its development, something that remains a matter of fierce debate....
Opposing the bill, Planned Parenthood argued that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, but are sometimes necessary for medical reasons, like if the baby has a lethal disease that would cause them to die shortly after birth....
२२ सप्टेंबर, २०१५
"Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked a Republican bill that would ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy."
"The measure failed to advance in a 54-42 vote, falling short of the 60-vote threshold needed."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७२ टिप्पण्या:
but are sometimes necessary for medical reasons, like if the baby has a lethal disease that would cause them to die shortly after birth.
So we are no long killing babies for the health of the mother, but for the health of the baby.
Makes perfect sense.
When Planned Parenthood tells you that such an abortion is "rare", are they referring to the frequency that it happens, or describing the color and texture of the meat as they cut it up to reach the saleable organs? Hard to tell these days.
I don't know the bill's details, but let's assume it has the reasonable carveouts (exception where life or health of the mother is at stake) and can be broadly popular among the general public. Why has the GOP not made a PR blitz on this, to put pressure on purple state Democrats? And why not suspend the filibuster--or at least require the Dems to do a real filibuster, meaning an actual speaking marathon--to get this thing passed and on Obama's desk? Clearly the GOP just wanted to toss this one up there, and hope to use it as a campaign issue later, but the voters on the right are ever more justified in not trusting their party's leadership to actually accomplish anything.
The Dems seem to have little trouble ending filibusters or using budget reconciliation or massive PR blitzes when their goals are on the line. The GOP is clearly a defeatest party.
"So we are no long killing babies for the health of the mother, but for the health of the baby."
I have to agree with that though--if a child is certainly going to suffer and die shortly after birth, I could never fault a mother for not wanting to go through that. It'd be different if we were simply talking about a disabled child.
The Reps are too chicken to use the nuclear option like Harry Reid did.
The Dims are losing the PR battalion PP and they know it.
I am prochoice but the "heath of the mother" has always been a hole the size of Delaware in the Roe v Wade thing.
"Life of the Mother" is OK but would no doubt be abused.
The word is getting out and PP is in trouble.
The argument that the procedures are "rare" is unconvincing--if it's "rare" then what's the problem with banning it? Presidential assassinations are rare, but I still think they should be illegal (my brave stance for the day).
"The Reps are too chicken to use the nuclear option like Harry Reid did."
Had they been less chicken Miguel Estrada would be on the Circuit Court and possibly the Supreme Court by now.
Opposing the bill, Planned Parenthood argued that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, but are sometimes necessary for medical reasons,
Medical reasons like PP needs the money and has contracts (for baby parts) to fill...
The argument that the procedures are "rare" is unconvincing--if it's "rare" then what's the problem with banning it? Presidential assassinations are rare, but I still think they should be illegal (my brave stance for the day).
They're saying it's justified in those "rare" instances.
Opposing the bill, Planned Parenthood argued that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, but are sometimes necessary for medical reasons, like if the baby has a lethal disease that would cause them to die shortly after birth....
Or, maybe the baby's organs have already been sold, and they need to deliver.
Harsh, but PP deserves it. The whole thing is political - the Republicans were never going to get enough votes for cloture, and clearly not enough to override a veto. But the pro-abortion forces are on the defensive now for the first time I can remember. This is partly a result of the videos, and partly a result of politicians (etc) who have been able to take the fight to the enemy, as Fiorina did this week to Clintinista/"journalist" George Stephenopolis. I loved it as he claimed that some unnamed experts claimed the videos were out of context, and she essentially called him out for not having seen the videos (why bother, apparently, when you can have those unnamed experts do it for you). Expect more of this, since the left leaning political operatives with bylines aren't going to watch the videos, and at least Fiorina, but I expect many of her competitors to follow suit, since it leaves the MSM looking like they are sticking their heads in the sand pretending that PP wasn't caught with its collective pants down, as they conducted late term (and even post term) abortions to harvest the organs for profit.
It's the Republican suicide wish.
"As you can see, you won't want to vote for us."
I have to agree with that though--if a child is certainly going to suffer and die shortly after birth, I could never fault a mother for not wanting to go through that. It'd be different if we were simply talking about a disabled child.
Once upon a time, I would take that case. But time has shown that it is impossible to give these people what appears to be a reasonable inch without them taking the mile.
Most of it is crap. "Incest" for example, is padding to air out the number of 'legitimate' reasons for an abortion, cause who wants to be pro-incest?
Except... if it's a case where it's a father banging a twelve-year old daughter... that would fall under 'rape'. Which is already an abortion protected-class. But ask a pro-abortionist where they stand on two consenting adults having sex - you think they're drawing an incest 'nogo' line to that question? Or that they would come out and condemn the rate of cousin marriages that Islam fosters? Not on your life!
So even though it is covered already by another of their points, and in the other cases they wouldn't oppose the act... they make sure to throw it in there, like a lazy highschool student who needs to pad up the bullet points for his class presentation.
Republicans obviously don't care about babies so you have to wonder where these bizarre jihads originate from.
Introduce a bill for 39 weeks and force the Democrats to filibuster that.
Face it...Planned parenthood needs late term babies...they make more money that way...EVIL!!! Democrats have baby blood on their hands.....We are a moral-less country....no better than Nazi Germany.
Historically a "health of the mother" exception renders the restriction meaningless. Health includes mental health. Mental health includes depression. Depression includes post-partum depression. Mother might get post-partum depression if she carries to term. Lefty docs signs off on the abortion.
"Republicans obviously don't care about babies so you have to wonder where these bizarre jihads originate from."
Garage you should do standup comedy,
"Historically a "health of the mother" exception renders the restriction meaningless. Health includes mental health. Mental health includes depression. Depression includes post-partum depression. Mother might get post-partum depression if she carries to term. Lefty docs signs off on the abortion."
That's the problem--most people can envision a scenario where carrying the child to term would have an effect on the mother's health just short of death that could justify the abortion (maybe not "depression" which can be misdiagnosed and cover a broad range, but say "permanent paralysis" would be something else). Such an exception would have to be clearly defined, and at any rate even the "risk the life of the mother" exception can be greatly abused since it can't be hard to find a sympathetic doctor who can say in his opinion that childbirth has a (albeit small) risk of killing the mother.
Anyone serious about an abortion ban should consider what exceptions should apply and how to protect against abuse. In the meantime it looks like just a lot of signalling--the GOP trying to tell pro-lifers they're still on their side, and trying real hard, but they can't defeat the fillibuster which is a sacred part of the Senate tradition except when Harry Reid needs some judges approved.
I don't think I want a posturing blowhard like Ted Cruz running the Senate, but the current gang is ineffectual.
I'm so glad the Republicans won the House and Senate, because now a lot will get done...
Just make a law, that if a woman has an abortion after 20 weeks, she has to take the fetus home with her.
Alexander,
"So we are no long killing babies for the health of the mother, but for the health of the baby."
They have to kill the baby to save it.
"Opposing the bill, Planned Parenthood argued that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, but are sometimes necessary for medical reasons,..."
Left unsaid: "...and are sometimes done for no reason whatsoever..." or "the client had every chance to do it sooner but just didn't get around to it".
garage mahal said...
Republicans obviously don't care about babies ...
Ah yes that old chestnut. Conservatives only care about babies before they're born. Once you're born, you're on your own.
Except that after you're born, conservative still believe that it is not okay to kill you. (Unless you grow up and commit a capital crime as an adult)
Yes, conservative pro-lifers are "obsessed with the well-being of fetuses" if your bar for that is "oppose killing them"; this is quite a low bar to apply the label of obsession.
I have to agree with that though--if a child is certainly going to suffer and die shortly after birth, I could never fault a mother for not wanting to go through that.
This situation strikes me as comparable to removing life support - if the patient can get better (continue developing and be born), then of course, you can't remove something like a breathing machine or feeding tube. But if the patient will surely die when you remove it, now or later, it is morally acceptable to remove it.
I can't imagine the horror of carrying the baby for months knowing that he or she would not survive. Not sure what I would do (there but for the grace of God go I. . .).
I don't know why there aren't ads all over the place showing 20 week fetuses and asking hard questions about their value.
I've long said that the Republican Leadership does not want anti-abortion donations to go away.
But here, have a bill that won't pass. They tried, see? Keep those donations flowing. One day it'll work.
I don't think I want a posturing blowhard like Ted Cruz running the Senate, but the current gang is ineffectual.
The GOP should BEG Cruz to run the Senate. The Republicans always have a reason why we can't do something. If they win the WH...well, it's not a filibuster-proof majority.
They've had control of Congress, for the most part, for about 20 years. And what, exactly, has been to increase conservatism? A one time aberration of a "balanced budget" (yet with the debt increasing --- also, has the debt count moved yet? It didn't move for MONTHS as of a few weeks ago)?
It's why I'd vote for Trump but not Rubio. I don't BELIEVE what Rubio says about his policies. I KNOW he's lying to me. And Rand Paul has neutered himself as McConnell's "boy" for a while.
"I don't know why there aren't ads all over the place showing 20 week fetuses and asking hard questions about their value. "
-- PP already knows their value; they have a price sheet for it.
It's progressives like George Bernard Shaw who call for people, once born, to "justify their existence."
Here's a hint for libtards: When it comes to human beings, their existence is self-justifying.
The Democrats, without sounding too hysterical, are comfortable with baby killing. They are extremists on the issue. Their world view is that saddling a woman with a baby to raise is like shackling her to either a man or the State for decades. It interferes with her ability to work and compete with men. It is also unfair because men can't get pregnant. It is to be avoided. To do this, they have to devalue the life of babies, which they have done, even though, it runs counter to their naturally-occurring motherly instincts.
Thank you, Leftists, for the bizarro world in which we live.
Twenty weeks. TWENTY FUCKING WEEKS?????
That is 4.5 months.
Look, I am pro-choice. But this abortion rights thing is a TWO WAY street.
We give women the right. It is then the woman's responsibility to make a FUCKING DECISION in a reasonable length of time.
On the other hand...if it does take a woman that long to make a decision, we probably don't want her DNA mucking up the gene pool anyhow. Why increase the stupid in the population?
We give women the right
No. The government takes rights away. It doesn't grant them.
#1 It's not a baby. #2 you can't kill a fetus.
So by saying "baby killer" you sound like an political imbecile, and yes, that's worse than a moron, but better than an idiot (who obviously can't write).
Now, ask me if it's right to terminate a 20 week fetus, and I have to say no. But by saying that I don't imply that any government should control it, unless it is being done against peoples will, as in Nazi experiments, or FDR experiments in Japanese Concentration camps.
I don't think the Government should be involved in any health decision.
If it's all right for the government to regulate abortion, could appendix surgery be next? How about removing anything from the body that "God gave it". Would male and female circumcision be a crime as well?
If people knew more about Tay-Sachs they'd be more sympathetic to PP's position. Or perhaps folks don't care because the disease only affects Ashkenazic Jews.
Birkel said...
Introduce a bill for 39 weeks and force the Democrats to filibuster that.
Genius.
I'm 21 weeks pregnant right now. I've been feeling the baby move for at least three weeks.
I have to agree with that though--if a child is certainly going to suffer and die shortly after birth, I could never fault a mother for not wanting to go through that. It'd be different if we were simply talking about a disabled child.
These children generally do not suffer. I know a family that had a baby born with trisomy 13. The child was born, was named and died a few hours after birth. The family was allowed to grieve for their child, not pretend like it never happened. I think most women approaching 20 weeks of pregnancy would do well to acknowledge the real existence of their child.
"The GOP should BEG Cruz to run the Senate. The Republicans always have a reason why we can't do something. If they win the WH...well, it's not a filibuster-proof majority."
Not defending the GOP leadership, but Cruz is only about Cruz. He doesn't lead anyone, and makes enemies not just with those of other ideologies but even the right wingers who he should be working with. The only person I see him close to is Donald Trump, and that's just so he can position himself to pick up Trump's supporters if he nosedives. The GOP needs new leadership, but not that guy.
"They've had control of Congress, for the most part, for about 20 years. And what, exactly, has been to increase conservatism? A one time aberration of a "balanced budget" (yet with the debt increasing --- also, has the debt count moved yet? It didn't move for MONTHS as of a few weeks ago)?"
There's a lot of reasons for that--but it mostly boils down to poor leadership. They need to be able to attract widespread support for their stances to bring pressure on the moderates so they can actually pass some of these policies. And they need to be able to risk electoral loss if it means getting something useful done, like entitlement reform. But it wouldn't be quite so risky if they figured out how to sell it.
"It's why I'd vote for Trump but not Rubio. I don't BELIEVE what Rubio says about his policies. I KNOW he's lying to me. And Rand Paul has neutered himself as McConnell's "boy" for a while."
I'll have to agree to disagree--I just don't see how anyone could take a close look at Trump and trust him. Rubio I still have the jury out on.
Democrats are for Gosnellian abortion.
This issue is going to push fiorina to the top tier. If it continues the democrats will have to decide if their pp slushfund is worth supporting this kind of disgusting inhumanity. Hillary is not a good enough politician to slide past it.
I should've checked wiki first -- turns out Tay-Sachs also impacts Louisiana Cajuns and French Canadians. If you knew of a real case of Tay-Sachs then you'd understand what "better off dead" really means.
If people knew more about Tay-Sachs they'd be more sympathetic to PP's position. Or perhaps folks don't care because the disease only affects Ashkenazic Jews.
I'll say one thing for Hitler: Nobody did more to fight Tay-Sachs disease than he did.
"I don't know why there aren't ads all over the place showing 20 week fetuses and asking hard questions about their value."
Pro-lifers could be better served with PR. When push comes to shove most Americans fall somewhere in the middle--not wanting outright bans, but considering abortions wrong and favoring some restrictions on them. More education about late term abortions could get measures like these passed, and be used with effect in the upcoming election to put the Dems on the spot. Instead, we see the GOP candidates getting grilled over their own extremism, when someone like Hillary should be put in the hot seat over where she stands.
"I'll have to agree to disagree--I just don't see how anyone could take a close look at Trump and trust him. Rubio I still have the jury out on."
Rubio is in the betrayer category. He gets the nomination then the GOP might as well put on some wigs and start marching into the history books.
Look at it this way - the democrats can now be painted as cold-hearted.
If you cannot decide to have an abortion before 20 weeks, there is something wrong with you.
#1 It's not a baby.
Whether and at what point a fetus becomes an entity unto itself with a right to live is an open question. There is no final, objectively provable answer to that question because it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.
You are free to state your opinion, considered or not, as to the answer; but it is not authoritative, and others may disagree.
Others, for instance may notice that nearly 100% of expecting mothers will refer to a fetus as a baby, presuming it's wanted. The word fetus is usually used in the context of explaining why you have a right to destroy it. The fetus is an unperson. It is not merely a necessary evil to kill it under some circumstances (which is true even of adult human beings) but there is literally no reason why it should not be killed, if it is not wanted.
Or if specific body parts are in high demand and there's a shortage.
Democrats never ever concede even one inch on their far left policies. That means they will often refuse to do the moral and right thing.
"Coupe said...
#1 It's not a baby. #2 you can't kill a fetus.
So by saying "baby killer" you sound like an political imbecile, and yes, that's worse than a moron, but better than an idiot (who obviously can't write)."
You call others morons and imbeciles after you write "#2 you can't kill a fetus." LOL So I should a pregnant woman through the abdomen and the bullet passes through the fetus head, but the mother survives. Attempte murder on the mother. Any other charge Corky?
"Now, ask me if it's right to terminate a 20 week fetus, and I have to say no." WHy, it's not a baby. It's not even "life". Why, Mr. Genius?
"But by saying that I don't imply that any government should control it, unless it is being done against peoples will, as in Nazi experiments, or FDR experiments in Japanese Concentration camps.
I don't think the Government should be involved in any health decision." LOL
If it's all right for the government to regulate abortion, could appendix surgery be next? How about removing anything from the body that "God gave it". Would male and female circumcision be a crime as well?
This is an area where Democrats never compare the US to Europe.
You know they do genetic testing for Tay-Sachs now, right? That testing happens WAY before 20 weeks.
"...if the baby has a lethal disease that would cause them to die shortly after birth."
Or the old dude has a disease that will cause him to die soon after wasting all that precious health care cash.
MadisonMan:
No. The government takes rights away. It doesn't grant them.
*******
Touche.
That testing happens WAY before 20 weeks
Ideally, yes. Amniocentesis is generally not done before 4 months though. (IIRC)
Clearly, obstructionist Democrats are the problem in American politics.
Democrats in following their pro-choice religious/moral doctrine uphold sacrificial rites and the indiscriminate killing of wholly innocent human lives in a captive environment. Their sincerely held faith in the spontaneous conception of human life and our arbitrary value has been demonstrated and preserved. Their ulterior motives and material bribes are open to public scrutiny.
"If you knew of a real case of Tay-Sachs then you'd understand what "better off dead" really means."
Would you please explain what this has to do with 20 weeks ?
Abortions after 20 weeks are illegal in Europe ! for crissakes.
The Dems get all the correct support
@Birches, yes but some couples calculate that the risk of fetal injury is greater than the risk of a genetic defect.
While the Republican Party is right in principle, it is clear that a significant minority share the Democrat faith that denies the science of human evolution and the religious/moral philosophy (i.e. pro-choice doctrine) that indiscriminately denies our unalienable Rights, notably the Right to Life.
if a child is certainly going to suffer and die shortly after birth
There is no certainty, only prophecy. Science is not the proper domain to predict the path of an evolutionary process (i.e. chaotic process).
"If people knew more about Tay-Sachs they'd be more sympathetic to PP's position. Or perhaps folks don't care because the disease only affects Ashkenazic Jews."
Diagnosis can be done as early as 11 weeks for Tay-Sachs. So what does this have to do with a 20 week restriction?
The test can be done later, but if you plan to abort if the test comes back positive, why would you wait?
why there aren't ads all over the place showing 20 week fetuses and asking hard questions about their value
The graphic depiction and consequences of legal genocide would harden people's hearts and close their minds.
A liberal society promotes the ideals of wealth, pleasure, and leisure. The feminist revolution was directed to creating a perception of capturing these ideals for women. If men and women are willing to sacrifice their own children in pursuit of these material returns, then they are likely a lost cause. If other men and women are willing to support or tolerate their sacrifice, then they will likely erect mental barriers to preserve their sanity.
That said, I should probably tone down my rhetoric.
If there are over one million abortions a year and 1.4% are after 21 weeks (CDC statistic) then how rare is late term abortion?
14,000 a year
Is 14,000 a year really rare?
270 a week. Is that really rare?
38 a day. Is that really rare?
The press isn't even looking into such facts - why their real name should the The Suppress.
The early test CVS has a risk of causing miscarriage of 1-2%, if both parents are carriers, the risk of the disease is 25%, so the math isn't hard. Further, the later test, amniocentesis isn't much safer and it too can be done before week 20.
If people knew more about XYZ genetic disorder...
Genetic Disorders
Harvest, abort, and traffic them all.
The abortion industry, Planned Parenthood, and client businesses offer a forward estimate for progressive corporate profits.
McConnell and company are a bunch of pantywaists--or worse--on this issue. Why let the Dems say it takes 60 votes to pass this bill?
Here and in so many other clashes, you can see the filibuster on its way to disappearing as a Senate tradition. As an aspect of legislative process, it can only work in an era of two parties sharply divided on almost everything if both sides invoke the filibuster with restraint and are willing to compromise to resolve disputes like this. But restraint was the first thing to go, quickly followed by any inclination to compromise. Neither the Rep nor the Dem team, when in the majority, can maintain the loyalty of their respective bases if they accept being stymied by the routine invocation of the filibuster. McConnell (and even Boehner) are already in trouble because they aren't fully on board with the 'take no prisoners' approach.
Reid took the first step in getting rid of the filibuster. Just a matter of time before it's gone for good. My guess is that it will go for good the next time the Dems have the majority -- they seem to be better at playing hard ball.
MayBee,
This is an area where Democrats never compare the US to Europe.
Indeed not. Abortion after the first trimester (=12-13 weeks) is very heavily restricted in most European countries. As in, you need to go in front of a medical panel and make your case first. And you don't always win.
yes but some couples calculate that the risk of fetal injury is greater than the risk of a genetic defect.
We're not talking amniocentesis; we're talking about blood tests. Trust me, I've heard all the doctor's spiels five times now.
This sounds like a good law for a state to pass. No proper understanding of the scope of Congress' power permits them to legislate in this area.
Stipulated: Tay-Sachs is really, really nasty. Were I bearing a child I knew to be Tay-Sachs, I might want it dead sooner rather than later, for its benefit and mine.
But Planned Parenthood can't pretend that Tay-Sachs cases make up more than an infinitesimal fraction of its half million abortions a year, and they must be even a smaller fraction of second-trimester abortions, because people at risk for Tay-Sachs know about it. So give us something else, PP. Something to explain the rest of those 14K/year second-trimester fetuses. Procrastination, maybe?
except in cases of rape
How can a fetus rape anybody?
Oh.
Opposing the bill, Planned Parenthood argued that abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare
1.2% of abortions take place after 21 weeks, according to Guttmacher.
(The actual number may be higher, since the Guttmacher Institute is a pro-abortion outfit created by Planned Parenthood, and named for the eugenicist Alan Guttmacher).
Regardless, that tiny percentage works out to some very high numbers. The total number of abortions since Roe v. Wade is over 57 million. 1.2% of that number means that over 600,000 babies have been killed in this "rare" event.
It's over 16,000 every year.
No proper understanding of the scope of Congress' power permits them to legislate in this area.
Congress has explicit authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. I believe our federal authorities should stop talking about the commerce clause and start talking about official dehumanization of human infants, which is illegal in our country.
I can understand empathy for parents who might learn about a serious, life threatening problem late in the pregnancy, but I really don't see the difference between allowing the killing at that stage and permitting euthanasia later. Well, I see the difference- it's less traumatic for the parents to make the decision to do it before a bond is formed at birth-- but morally I don't see why one is ok but the other is not.
That said, naturally I'm grateful that my prolife beliefs haven't been tested to that extent and I find it hard to even think of being in that circumstance.
Congress could and should pass a law making any baby who breaches the cervix a citizen of the United States. If drafted correctly, a doctor performing a D&E abortion might be charged with murder. (The D&E procedure is described here).
Congress also has the authority to naturalize unborn children and make them citizens as well.
Even most of Europe bans abortion after twenty weeks....
1.2% of abortions take place
We've just overturned the will of the people and changed a thousands of years old definition of marriage for about 2% of the population.
You should get to know your body, Althouse. Once you do, you'll stop assuming that all pregnancies are perfect and you'll stop using it to throw red meat to your mostly male, ignorant commenters as they expound upon their rage over the fact that they never realized that, either.
We've just overturned the will of the people and changed a thousands of years old definition of marriage for about 2% of the population.
For an entirely different reason. But then, not all people are blessed with the gift of seeing everything according to a hyper-partisan perspective as you are, Gahrie.
1.2% of that number means that over 600,000 babies have been killed in this "rare" event.
It's over 16,000 every year.
Then you'd better talk to your god pretty quick St. Croix and help make sure that he stops making lethal and life-threatening pregnancies like that happen. Tell him that 16,000 isn't rare enough for you. You are, after all, a saint. He is just god.
Blogger MayBee said...
Birkel said...
Introduce a bill for 39 weeks and force the Democrats to filibuster that.
Genius.
I have long proposed they make it 30 weeks. No debate then over fetal pain or viability. But they continuously stick to 20, which is borderline/debatable for both pain and viability, thus giving easy ammo to the D's, thus leading me to conclude that there is some truth to the current uneasiness over the real mission of many pro lifers--do they really want anything to change?
I will say it is ghoulish that Obama would veto the born alive bill, I mean come on, hand the baby to CPS and the NICU--mom has still accomplished her goal--baby is gone, so what is the problem? (No parts revenue?)
Re: Infant Health problems---
Except people aren't doing this just for "Kid will die at or near birth."
They're doing it for Downs Syndrome-- Where the kid will probably live to be 50 or so.
They're doing it for Spina Bifida--- which we can now surgically correct before birth.
They're doing it for Cleft Palate, which is a fairly minor surgery.
They're not doing it for 'life of the mother' because the diseases 'cured' by termination are also 'cured' by delivering the baby and popping him in the NICU.
People are killing these kids because they just don't want them, because they're not the 'perfect specimen' they ordered.
Meanwhile , the wait to adopt a baby, even one with severe disabilities? Like 4 or 5 years.
We live in a screwed up world. It's ancient Rome again, except now the Mothers have absolute power over whether the child lives or dies instead of the fathers.
"Then you'd better talk to your god pretty quick St. Croix and help make sure that he stops making lethal and life-threatening pregnancies like that happen."
Oh please. A high number of the abortions occurring that late are because a very fallible test shows the child *might* have Down's Syndrome (and many of them have turned out to *not* have Down's after the abortion). We have high level Democrats, including Jocelyn Elders, Clinton's Surgeon General, on the record actually *bragging* about how their abortion policies have lowered Down's Syndrome rates.
Great article about it from National Review from 2003 preserved at Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1018548/posts
"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. "
Sorry I called it "Down's", I know that's incorrect, just a habit I can't seem to break.
Everything's good, as long as they put them into the proper recycling bin.
I wonder what the Pope thinks about this. The Pope has the same views on gay marriage and abortion as Kim Davis. Hillary will pardon Gosnell if she's elected President. Spread the word.
You commenters all realize Althouse thinks you're all hillbillies for your views on abortion and gay marriage, don't you?
Waiting for the liberals to reaffirm their outrage over the use of the filibuster to keep Congress from doing anything.
Michelle (and others similarly):
"Indeed not. Abortion after the first trimester (=12-13 weeks) is very heavily restricted in most European countries. As in, you need to go in front of a medical panel and make your case first. And you don't always win. "
So..when will any of the geniuses of the GOP work that angle?
Same goes with illegal immigration...anchor babies etc.
I think there may be a sizable portion of the voting populace that views Europe as the standard bearer
When it comes time to debate these issues in the general, I'd love to see that angle played out.
..precisely to counter what ndspinelli references...
@April Apple thanks for the link. It will never make national TV, but it is really close to the bone. Carly seems to get it.
Dierdre Mundy,
Well, exactly. The vast majority of these children will live, birth-defected or otherwise. Of course, that's usually the problem; parent(s) don't want imperfect kids, be it Down Syndrome or cleft palate. Best throw out the unwanted "tissue" and start over.
And then there's what we might call post-partum abortion. You know, the Gosnell kind. The kind that Obama has already voted for once, when he opposed an Illinois bill banning killing infants born alive. Look, I don't care if you were trying to kill it; the moment it's out of the womb and on the table, it's a human infant and an American citizen, and your first and only duty is to keep it safe and alive.
walter:
Elective abortion is indiscriminate killing. It is the premeditated termination of a human life in a captive environment.
The ruling to normalize transgender marriage established a legal right to arbitrarily discriminate against unfavored orientations and behaviors, including relationships without sexual/transsexual congress.
There is really nothing to argue. Every man and woman has the right to choose their religious/moral philosophy, including a pro-choice doctrine that allows them to adopt selective and variable (i.e. opportunistic) principles.
Birches, good luck, and thank you for what you're doing.
walter,
I think you'll find that US opinion already approaches European. Absent Roe, most Americans would confine abortion to the first trimester. The reason they don't is that Roe looms so large, and they figure that if it goes, then all abortion will be banned everywhere. The idea that if Roe goes, there will be no abortion law at all doesn't occur to them. I imagine that the prior abortion laws of all 50 states are void for desuetude.
Ritmo is instructing us.
"You are, after all, a saint. He is just god."
No, just a normal human who recoils at murder. I am prochoice and have done abortions, unlike you. There should be no abortions after 20 weeks except the life of the mother. I have such a case described in my second book. She refused abortion
Michelle Dulak Thomson, true that.
Roe stripped some women in America of their pretense of morality.
All I know is I've seen the 20 week ultrasounds on all 5 of my grandchildren, soon to be 6, something I wasn't able to see when my wife was pregnant. I now know who is certainly going to go to hell. Guess that's why there's a highway to hell and only a stairway to heaven.
Michelle Dulak Thomson:
Yes, but that opinion is secondary to other considerations for the majority. Democrats want to reduce the environmental and personal (e.g. financial) impact of excessive and unwanted births, especially in their urban ghettos. The Republican establishment and minority of the Party lean libertarian with similar motives to their Democrat counterparts. Most people are either preoccupied or hope to avoid a confrontation, conflict, violence, etc.
From a practical perspective, what difference does willful ignorance of science and premeditated killing make under a State-established pseudo religion? Cult, really.
The logical conclusion is that it will corrupt science and degrade it as a useful philosophy, method, and tool. And that normalization of premeditated killing as a solution to reduce environmental disruption will debase human life.
Perhaps it doesn't matter. Abortionists will abort. Murderers will murder. The rest of humanity will remain unaffected, except for the occasional collateral damage and social degradation.
Most of the babies who are killed at 20 weeks or later are perfectly healthy.
You commenters all realize Althouse thinks you're all hillbillies for your views on abortion and gay marriage, don't you?
We might just be. There was a time when we held intellectuals like law professors in high regard, before Althouse opened our eyes...
What ever happened to 2002's "Infants Born Alive Act", signed into law. My "cliff notes" version says all infants born alive are due the same care whether premature or an abortion "survivor". So, would seem this is a reason why PP fights to overturn laws requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at the closest hospital as well as laws requiring abortion providers to maintain the same standard as any out patient surgical center.
Would seem PP is actively killing them, whether in or out of the womb, for organ sale. Additionally, mother authorization or not, PP is not legally able to change the abortion procedure to harvest organs. The videos show without a doubt PP does engage in that practice. To paraphrase my favorite candidate, to date, if this is who/what we are as a Nation all hope is lost!
Native Savages, Africans, Babies.
Things that are sub-human and can be treated as property.
ndspinelli said...
"You commenters all realize Althouse thinks you're all hillbillies for your views on abortion and gay marriage, don't you?"
If by "hillbilly" you mean proud of your ignorance and vanity, I do realize she thinks that about you, nd. But it has little to do with your views on abortion and gay marriage. More to do with your vanity, pride, and ignorance.
St. Croix, how does that link support your assertion?
On vanity, pride and ignorance, Meade, your wife has no stones to throw.
Unless she's taken yours.
Meade said...
ndspinelli said...
"You commenters all realize Althouse thinks you're all hillbillies for your views on abortion and gay marriage, don't you?"
"If by "hillbilly" you mean proud of your ignorance and vanity, I do realize she thinks that about you, nd. But it has little to do with your views on abortion and gay marriage. More to do with your vanity, pride, and ignorance."
If only this comment had a mirror for everyone reading it.
I don't remember Althouse ever stating her views on abortion.
If ndspinelli refers to uneducated white people as "hillbillies", I wonder what he calls uneducated Black people?
The thing that I find especially appalling is all the people who cheer for abortion after 24 weeks--- when at that point, any NICU would take the baby, and when the kid hit 5 lbs she could go home with a couple who would love and cherish her.
Even if you're OK declaring pre-viable babies "Fine to kill"---how can you be OK with post-viable ones? How is killing them in utero any different from wandering through the NICU smothering preemies for kicks?Well, other than smothering being less painful and cruel, I mean.
On the subject of Hillbillies: St. Augustine Florida advertises it's Living History "Cracker farm."
And they celebrate "Cracker Day" : http://augustine.com/event/cracker-day-celebration
On the subject of Hillbillies: St. Augustine Florida advertises it's Living History "Cracker farm."
And they celebrate "Cracker Day" : http://augustine.com/event/cracker-day-celebration
LOL! Struck a nerve w/ the dog molester. Mrs and Mr. Althouse think they're better than all you Republicans. They think your views on religion, gay marriage, abortion, are detestable. They sit around and laugh @ all you, considering you rubes. They have no respect for commenters unless you kiss their asses. For Chrissake, you must know that by now!
I don't hang here much but Terry is obviously a sycophant. They'll shit on you too, Terry. Always be wary of friendless people.
Deidre, Great comment. It's funny. Those who worship science have come to detest it, as babies become more viable earlier and earlier every year. Have there been any posts about the Planned Parenthood videos?
Brando said:
That's the problem--most people can envision a scenario where carrying the child to term would have an effect on the mother's health just short of death that could justify the abortion (maybe not "depression" which can be misdiagnosed and cover a broad range, but say "permanent paralysis" would be something else). Such an exception would have to be clearly defined, and at any rate even the "risk the life of the mother" exception can be greatly abused since it can't be hard to find a sympathetic doctor who can say in his opinion that childbirth has a (albeit small) risk of killing the mother.
There are no "life of the mother" scenarios that necessitate the killing of the baby. Whether it comes out alive or dead makes no difference to the health of the mother.
Saint Croix:
From the article: "An Abortion Rights Advocate Says He Lied About Procedure"
But he is now convinced, he said, that the issue of whether the procedure remains legal, like the overall debate about abortion, must be based on the truth.
You would think that the truth would end the debate.
One of the facts of abortion, he said, is that women enter abortion clinics to kill their fetuses. ''It is a form of killing,'' he said. ''You're ending a life.''
And while he said that troubled him, Mr. Fitzsimmons said he continued to support this procedure and abortion rights in general.
The pro-choice [religious] doctrine prevails. There really is no other way to reconcile the moral principles and the premeditated outcome. Elective abortion is retained as a wicked solution to a "wicked problem", which the evidence suggests is a change in religious/moral perspective (e.g. progressive or relative morality, the corruption of behavioral standards in a pseudo-scientific society).
Saint Croix said...Most of the "babies" who are "killed" at 20 weeks or later are perfectly healthy.
An unfertilized egg is perfectly healthy. Ejaculated sperm is perfectly healthy.
How far back should we go before the government has no priority of rights?
Should menstruating women be labeled killers? Should men who ejaculate outside of the vagina be labeled killers? Should we put them in prison? Should there be a specialized area of law set aside for fertilization murder?
I hope that army of straw men just unleashed stages a military coup on Coupe.
Blogger Terry said...
I don't remember Althouse ever stating her views on abortion.
I believe she has. Not a quote, but it's something along the lines of, yes, it's a human life and yes, the mother ought to be able to kill it.
Blogger Deirdre Mundy said...
Meanwhile , the wait to adopt a baby, even one with severe disabilities? Like 4 or 5 years.
I've found this very surprising. In recent years I've started to believe the BS spewed by ignorant Democrats and Liberals. As I've been very clear about my opposition to abortion, many leftists, liberals, progressives and Democrats have told me that Republicans care about infants in the womb, but once they are out of the womb, we don't care anymore.
My wife and I decided we needed to do more. So we decided to become Foster parents. Took us almost a year just to get licensed. It's cost us quite a bit of money to make all the changes to our home so that we could have foster children. It's cost us money in medical expenses as well, and in getting certain training.
Throughout this whole process though, it's been more about us than the foster kids. It's as though they just don't need more foster parents. So they put us through this long series of rituals and red tape and don't care how long it takes.
We're also thinking about adoption, but man, going there is ten times the effort it is for foster kids.
And yet, somehow, we're told we don't care about the children once they are outside the womb.
I'm starting to think Democrats are just liars who tell themselves these lies to make themselves feel better.
I wonder if anyone has ever done a comprehensive study on foster parents and adoptive parents. How many are Democrats vs Republicans?
My guess is, many single women who are foster mom's are Democrats and the foster parents that are married are Republicans.
Or to put it another way, poor women who are foster parents and making a living off of it are probably Democrats, and couples who are employed and don't need money are Republicans.
Just a guess.
Eric,
I have a brother who adopted a black male foster child with disabilities with his first deceased wife.re-married to a woman who adopted a white girl with cognitive/behavioral disabilities.
They continue together fostering various babies..exposing themselves and their families to various family dynamics inherent to the most available foster children...and that ain't always pretty.
Both conservative white evangelical Repubs.
Hey Coupe,
Two pregnant women in crosswalk, hit and killed by car. One was heading to
OB/Gyn for ultrasound checkup, the other to abortion appointment. Is it a double, triple or quadruple manslaughter?
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/is_killing_a_fetus_murder/
Let's not forget...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTzLVIc-O5E
"They've had control of Congress, for the most part, for about 20 years. And what, exactly, has been to increase conservatism? A one time aberration of a "balanced budget" (yet with the debt increasing --- also, has the debt count moved yet? It didn't move for MONTHS as of a few weeks ago)?"
Republicans have controlled both houses 12 years since 1995. Most of that time has been with Democrat presidents. And with the Rinos in the senate, might as well have had Democrat control in the 108th.
"They sit around and laugh @ all you, considering you rubes."
Gosh! That makes me feel . . . nothing. Hell must be a place where you are panicked at the thought of people you have never met laughing at your opinions.
"Hell must be a place where you are panicked at the thought of people you have never met laughing at your opinions"
Its is for the Virtue Signalers. They're like the girls at school who think spreading their legs will make them popular. Its all about conformity for them. They have no principles or integrity, they just go along with whatever the Cool Kids are doing that day.
Deirdre Mundy said...
The thing that I find especially appalling is all the people who cheer for abortion after 24 weeks--- when at that point, any NICU would take the baby, and when the kid hit 5 lbs she could go home with a couple who would love and cherish her."
"Hello, emergency services . . . What! You've spontaneously given birth six months after conception? We'll have the EMT's there in a few minutes . . . so you say you don't want the EMT's, you want to abort? They don't do that. Do you have something you could use to smash it before the EMT's get there? A rock, or maybe a brick? Yeah, a baseball bat would work. Or you could pour gas on it and set it on fire."
"How far back should we go before the government has no priority of rights?"
10,000 BC ?
It has nothing to do with abortion, by the way. I am pro-choice up to 20 weeks and have done abortions back in my training days when it was first legal and nobody wanted to do it. When I was on GYN as a surgery resident, the residents did them and hated it, Then the County found some people who didn't mind doing it for money and that was that.
dspinelli said...
"You commenters all realize Althouse thinks you're all hillbillies for your views on abortion and gay marriage, don't you?"
Honestly?
I don't care what Althouse thinks of me or my opinions. I don't care what you think of me or my opinions.
This is the internet.
The sole purpose of which is to inform and entertain.
But mostly entertain.
Coupe - Don't be stupid. The controversy has nothing to do with sperm and eggs.
We are discussing the democrat's desire to allow for the killing of viable babies, and help PP sell the parts.
So we have a GOP that cannot pass a law even with a majority simply because of the fillibuster which the last Democratic Senate saw no problem in brushing aside when it was inconvenient for them, and this same GOP is planning to shut down the government in an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, even though every other shutdown they've tried in the past 20 years has achieved absolutely nothing.
Whatever your position on abortion, you have to admit this is some weapons-grade strategic incompetence by the Stupid Party. At this rate it'll take some miracle for the Republicans to not get destroyed next year.
Rusty, I can abide you're not caring what Mrs. and Mr. Althouse think of you. I simply want people to have that knowledge. I obviously don't care what they think of me. I wear their scorn as a badge of honor. But, I think it's important for folks to know the dynamic. "Knowledge is power."
AprilApple said...We are discussing the democrat's desire to allow for the killing of viable babies, and help PP sell the parts.
I thought it was the government exercising its right to determine what health care is right for you. That "we the people" are wards of the state.
The "great white---- black father", telling the natives to squat when he says squat.
Coupe said...
Saint Croix said...Most of the "babies" who are "killed" at 20 weeks or later are perfectly healthy.
An unfertilized egg is perfectly healthy. Ejaculated sperm is perfectly healthy.
How far back should we go before the government has no priority of rights?
Should menstruating women be labeled killers? Should men who ejaculate outside of the vagina be labeled killers? Should we put them in prison? Should there be a specialized area of law set aside for fertilization murder?
9/22/15, 11:00 PM
There are some individuals that to think that "spilling the seed" is a sin and is to be avoided but on their own eggs and sperm can never grow up enough to be self sufficient. A baby does have that possibility. Let us take that your position in the opposite direction. If it is OK to abort at any time, even after 20 weeks, what is the "end" date? Why restrict removing the burden of a baby's life at 25 weeks, 30, day after removed from the womb, 1 year after removed, 10 years after removed, 60 years after removed? Why have any laws against murder at all? If it is perfectly OK for a mother to end the life of a defenseless baby at 30 weeks, why should she not also have that "right" at 10 years or 20? If carrying a baby is too much of a burden, raising a teenager has to be even more so.
Where do you personally draw the line and why there? I really do want to know.
Oh, one other point that gets lost in the adoption/abortion/foster care debate---
The 'unadoptable kids languishing in foster care?" They're often unadoptable because one or both parents refuse to relinquish parental rights and they're hoping to get the kids back.
But too messed up to care for them.
So..... it's not a 'surplus unloved kid' problem. It's an adults in a kid's life failing them problem.
If you let that 24 week old be born alive, put in the NICU, and relinquish parental rights? Their new adoring family will be there in about 2 hours, thrilled to meet them and stay with them and love them forever.
"Where do you personally draw the line and why there? I really do want to know."
That's the key question for everyone--from conception to birth (though I have yet to meet anyone who seriously thinks a "post birth abortion" should be allowed, but then I've never been to a meeting of the editorial staff at Jezebel) where do we draw the line? The plurality opinion in this country puts it somewhere in the middle of the second trimester, which is why late term abortion bans are generally popular but total abortion bans are not.
Personally, I probably fit in with that plurality--but I'm conflicted on a lot of things around this issue.
"The 'unadoptable kids languishing in foster care?" They're often unadoptable because one or both parents refuse to relinquish parental rights and they're hoping to get the kids back."
I think the biggest problem here is we have laws that protect parental rights of people who quite frankly have no business being parents. There should be a swift but fair process to determine if someone is a danger to their child, and immediately and permanently sever all their parental rights so the kid has a chance. The fact that we coddle these creeps and let them ruin their kids' lives is a crime.
Leave it to the left to define killing a baby after 20 weeks as "health care for you."
Brando said...
That's the key question for everyone--from conception to birth (though I have yet to meet anyone who seriously thinks a "post birth abortion" should be allowed, but then I've never been to a meeting of the editorial staff at Jezebel) where do we draw the line?
9/23/15, 11:26 AM
Senator Boxer said “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.”
So the baby is still a fetus until you get it home and you know what Democrats/progressives think about fetuses...
The line is conception. It's a pretty obvious, concrete, unambiguous line. That is when a distinct human life comes into existence. The only reason people resist drawing the line there is that it is inconvenient to the leftist narrative, and to consequence free sex.
And incidentally, I'm agnostic. I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a soul, but if there is one, it seems way more likely that it is created at conception than the leftist version which is the Magical Vaginal Canal of Ensoulment. Kids born by C-Section apparently have no souls.
At any rate, the principle of, when in doubt, "Do Least Harm" is obviously operative here. If you answer the question "when does life begin" one way, and base your laws on that, mothers are inconvenienced and might have to buy a bigger jar of mayonnaise at Sam's Club. If you answer it the other way, millions of human lives are extinguished. It's really not even close.
Look at it as a form of Pascal's Wager, if the true nature of a fetus is considered to be an unknown:
IF Pro-Life Laws AND Fetuses are human, the laws reflect reality and millions of humans are saved.
IF Pro-Life Laws AND Fetuses are not human, pregnant women are required to carry to term, resulting in a human being anyway.
IF Pro-Choice Laws AND Fetuses are not human, people get to keep having consequence free sex, and one less human being will exist.
IF Pro-Choice Laws AND Fetuses are human, you create a holocaust worse than World War II.
There is no religious belief required to know which side to come down on with a wager like that. Unless you simply hate human beings. Which is what I actually think drives a lot of this.
The lawyers and politicians are fighting about the legal rights of the mother, against the legal rights of the state.
The fetus has nothing to do with it.
The state treats its citizens as wards, in the way the Pope treats his church followers. It is the religion of the state that the Democrats are fighting for. The Republicans think the state religion is too much power to give to people who think they should be the Pope.
Should we be electing State Popes, or their State Cardinals and State Bishops?
Certainly sucking out and burning a fetus from the uterus is a terrible way to execute birth control, but black people think this is normal, and why should white people interfere? Are we the Pope?
Qwinn said...Unless you simply hate human beings.
It's not about hate, it is about freedom.
I can see that we need laws to regulate things in life which make us safe. I give-up my freedom for building a home, by allowing it to be inspected for huge sums of money, so my community will feel safe that it won't kill them.
You can see where freedoms need to be sacrificed for the public good.
So now, a woman and her uterus goes into a doctors clinic and has an abortion. It is something she has decided to do, and her doctor provides the procedure.
Where should the State and Community enter into her decision?
Is she a free person, or is she a ward of the state in perpetuity?
If she is not free, none of us are free, so this is no longer "the land of the free."
Not defending the GOP leadership, but Cruz is only about Cruz. He doesn't lead anyone, and makes enemies not just with those of other ideologies but even the right wingers who he should be working with. The only person I see him close to is Donald Trump, and that's just so he can position himself to pick up Trump's supporters if he nosedives. The GOP needs new leadership, but not that guy.
Is that any different than the current crop? McConnell is all about keeping his Majority Leader position, no matter what. Reid may have been a dick, but the man was effective.
I'd rather have an effective dick than a milquetoast little shit like Mitch...or McCain...or Graham.
They need to be able to attract widespread support for their stances to bring pressure on the moderates so they can actually pass some of these policies. And they need to be able to risk electoral loss if it means getting something useful done, like entitlement reform. But it wouldn't be quite so risky if they figured out how to sell it.
They don't even have to sell it most of the time. They ALREADY have popular support for their position.
Shut down Obama's illegal immigration policy? Majority of voters approve that.
Defund Planned Parenthood? Not a ton of dissent there.
Stop Iran deal? They'd be applauded.
Instead, they always say "Well, we won't shut the government down" and are blown away that the Dems won't negotiate --- and then make them do whatever the Dems want.
I'll have to agree to disagree--I just don't see how anyone could take a close look at Trump and trust him. Rubio I still have the jury out on.
Trump is saying he'll shut down the border. I fully believe he will stop the problem we have. 100%? That's unlikely. But a massive reduction? Yeah, he can. He recognizes the sheer profitability of being an ex-President. You can get some serious cash there for less work than running companies.
For me, immigration is THE issue. I get why Dems want to import 30M Democratic voters. I don't see why Republicans want to play along.
Here and in so many other clashes, you can see the filibuster on its way to disappearing as a Senate tradition. As an aspect of legislative process, it can only work in an era of two parties sharply divided on almost everything if both sides invoke the filibuster with restraint and are willing to compromise to resolve disputes like this. But restraint was the first thing to go, quickly followed by any inclination to compromise. Neither the Rep nor the Dem team, when in the majority, can maintain the loyalty of their respective bases if they accept being stymied by the routine invocation of the filibuster. McConnell (and even Boehner) are already in trouble because they aren't fully on board with the 'take no prisoners' approach.
One of our biggest mistakes was making Senators elected by the public and not the state legislatures. Huge fucking disaster.
I think you'll find that US opinion already approaches European. Absent Roe, most Americans would confine abortion to the first trimester. The reason they don't is that Roe looms so large, and they figure that if it goes, then all abortion will be banned everywhere. The idea that if Roe goes, there will be no abortion law at all doesn't occur to them. I imagine that the prior abortion laws of all 50 states are void for desuetude.
I knew kids back in college stunned to learn that abortion was legal in several states BEFORE Roe was decided. I've always said overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal --- it'll give states the option to regulate it properly. Don't know why progressives are so opposed to regulating a procedure that involves "doctors" rooting around inside women's vaginas and have a habit of being filthy and getting the women sick.
So now, a woman and her uterus goes into a doctors clinic and has an abortion. It is something she has decided to do, and her doctor provides the procedure.
Where should the State and Community enter into her decision?
Is she a free person, or is she a ward of the state in perpetuity?
The child, I notice, has no rights still in your eyes.
When do children get rights, in your eyes? When they emerge from the birth canal?
Coupe said...
Qwinn said...Unless you simply hate human beings.
It's not about hate, it is about freedom.
In your opinion, when does the fetus become human and therefore equally entitled to "freedom."?
Because, you see, once that egg starts to divide it has all the genetic material it needs to be a complete human being. It ain't a giraffe in there. After a couple of weeks there's a little head, little hands and arms and feet and everything. It is, in short, alive and growing. When in this natural process does this virtual human become an inheritor of the right to life?
damikesc said...When do children get rights, in your eyes?
I think there is an onerous on licensed medical professionals. The license boards should have very strict rules about who can say they are a doctor.
I think if a fetus removed from the uterus can be saved, say in an incubator, then the doctor should perform the procedure where it can be saved. My nephew was born at 24 weeks and survived. I mean he has a lot of health issues, but he can drive a car and vote. He has all the rights allowed by the state.
I think a doctor who performs abortions from say 20 weeks on, is pushing his credentials, and the license board should act.
When the license board is given a law to follow that is purely a cultural definition, then they are no longer in control. Doctors are just wards of the state themselves, no matter how much research and practice they have, why even have licenses?
A young Democrat elected fresh off the street, pounding his fist, would be telling an old doctor that his career was worthless, and his knowledge is immaterial.
If abortions after 20 weeks are extremely rare, why would you oppose restricting them?Since they rarely ever occur anyway.
Also, why is there a stipulation about rape in there. Do people not realize they are rape victims 20 weeks into pregnancy? Do they have a sudden realization about their rape at week 20? If they are raped and not carrying it to term is an issue they will or should decide pretty early on that they can't carry it to term. If they wait till a baby is viable to decide on an abortion and say its because of rape, maybe they waited too long. Should have decided that before the baby became viable.
"So now, a woman and her uterus goes into a doctors clinic and has an abortion. It is something she has decided to do, and her doctor provides the procedure.
Where should the State and Community enter into her decision?"
Because the decision involves the death of a third party who has no say in its execution.
deirdre mundy wrote:
Oh, one other point that gets lost in the adoption/abortion/foster care debate---
The 'unadoptable kids languishing in foster care?" They're often unadoptable because one or both parents refuse to relinquish parental rights and they're hoping to get the kids back.
the other problem is that this argument turns adoption into a moral evil. My mom who is pro choice made the argument "abortion should be illegal when every child up for adoption is adopted". If you are going to make the argument that adoption is bad because of all the kids raped or neglected in the foster care system, then you are really arguing that its not moral to put kids up for adoption. So maybe we should have bans on adoption and instead increase the number of abortions?
Rusty said...In your opinion, when does the fetus become human and therefore equally entitled to "freedom."?
I think the medical profession has declared that 24 weeks is the line.
Before 24 weeks it is a miscarriage, after 24 weeks it is a stillbirth if it has no brainwaves or the heart is not functioning.
In my opinion, no one should be allowed to call themselves a doctor if they perform abortions after 20 weeks. The doctors peers should have a say in his licensed procedures.
Maybe the real argument is that the medical license boards are no longer relevant? Maybe they have become dirty and the state needs to step in. If the state steps in, then the license boards should be closed down, and doctors just join a Union.
"Where should the State and Community enter into her decision?
Is she a free person, or is she a ward of the state in perpetuity?"
See, this is every bit as obnoxious and false as the claim that you can only object to abortion on religious grounds.
What you're attempting to do is describe pro-choice as the default *Libertarian* position. Bullshit. Libertarianism has absolutely nothing to do with it, not even the slightest shred of relevance. It's still completely dependent upon whether or not you classify the unborn as having rights of their own. If you don't believe the unborn have rights, then sure, the default Libertarian position would be pro-choice. But if you *do* believe the unborn have rights, then the default Libertarian position would be pro-life.
"I think the medical profession has declared that 24 weeks is the line."
"The American Association of Pediatrics indicates that babies born at less than 23 weeks of age and 400g in weight are not considered viable."
And yet... from 2007...
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0220/85950-baby/
And then in 2011... 21 weeks and 5 days...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html
You have to ask yourself why you are against abortion.
I mean I know a lot of people who are against war, and then I saw them jump up and down like at a football game when America invaded Iraq.
When the bodies started coming home, and they had to be hidden from view so as to not upset these slobs, they just went on with their lives.
I think the people who are against abortion are two faced about life. They don't really care about Iraqi's and they don't really care about any aborted fetus.
They just like to pump their pom-poms and drive their polluting Kraut diesels to Walmart to buy Chicom goods, while the Mexican invade and take over their neighborhoods.
"Because the decision involves the death of a third party who has no say in its execution"
I went to my Congressman and he said quote: "I'd like to help you, son, but you're too young to vote.
Qwinn said...And then in 2011... 21 weeks and 5 days...
Don't be fooled that everything is all and well. Premature babies cost a fortune, and that fortune comes out of the nations treasury.
But hell, it's better than sending it to Israel, or Germany, or Japan.
I mean I know a lot of people who are against war, and then I saw them jump up and down like at a football game when America invaded Iraq.
When the bodies started coming home, and they had to be hidden from view so as to not upset these slobs, they just went on with their lives.
B.S Coupe. Red States are the ones who saw the dead come home in droves. It was their sons, after all.
Coupe said...
I think the people who are against abortion are two faced about life. They don't really care about Iraqi's and they don't really care about any aborted fetus.
9/23/15, 2:35 PM
I care about the innocent. That is why I am against most abortions and for capital punishment and support most wars. Protecting the innocent is hard work. There are many cases where there is a clear right and a clear wrong. Feeding innocents into wood chippers is wrong. Aborting 7 month old babies is wrong. Mutilating little girls is wrong. Letting someone that murders people out of prison is wrong.
You can be against "needless" war but still understand that sometimes you have to oppose evil. Would the world be a better, safer, freer place today if the US never entered WWII and no one was able to stop Germany and Japan?
What are you willing to do to protect an innocent life?
Coupe wrote:
You have to ask yourself why you are against abortion.
I mean I know a lot of people who are against war, and then I saw them jump up and down like at a football game when America invaded Iraq.
When the bodies started coming home, and they had to be hidden from view so as to not upset these slobs, they just went on with their lives.
War and abortion are not equivalent. But if you want to play that game I know a lot of people who were anti the Iraq war but are pro abortion. If they are equivalent, then aren't the people who go about their lives when hearing about a million abortions a year similar hypocrites?
Delayna wrote:
I went to my Congressman and he said quote: "I'd like to help you, son, but you're too young to vote.
And if we were talking about a baby who was killed one hour after being born (and thus we are discussing infancticide) they'd still be too young to vote, and we'd have laws in place that would punish people who took their lives.
"Consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.” — P.J. O’Rourke
This really is a remarkable and very significant observation.
Being for abortion and capital punishment, or against both, can both easily be justified as at least internally consistent depending on one principle or the other.
And you can easily justify being against abortion and for capital punishment on the basis of innocents deserving protection and the guilty deserving punishment.
But how the *hell* do you arrive at the opposite conclusion, that the guilty should be protected and innocents freely killed, which is the standard liberal position? It's baffling to me.
Coupe is a sick man. He may deserve pity, and certainly needs help.
Is Coupe still viable?
Coupe said...
I think the people who are against abortion are two faced about life. They don't really care about Iraqi's and they don't really care about any aborted fetus.
No really. You are ignoring first principals. You have the right to fuck whomever you please. Once you do you are responsible for the result. You. Not the state. It is you who are two faced. If you weren't you wouldn't so sanguine about abortion being the birth control of choice for a certain segment of our population. The most hideous aspect of the pro abortion crowd is the idea that there are no consequences for behavior.
I think there is an onerous on licensed medical professionals. The license boards should have very strict rules about who can say they are a doctor.
That's avoiding the question. At any point after conception abortion is killing something living. That living thing is a new human being. It's a fetus of a human. It's not a thing. Abortion is taking something that is alive and killing it. I'll never understand the squeamishness of the pro abortion crowd about calling something by its rightful name. Homicide.
They don't really care about Iraqi's
On the contrary. Iraqis, as is every person on the planet, are inheritors of the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of their own best interests as you are. I think the Iraqi elections proved that. To stand aside as Obama did during the Iran "Green Revolution" without a word of encouragement was probably the most cynical thing I've ever seen an American politician do. It's generally the left that reserves the blessings of liberty solely for themselves.
What people who are against abortion at any level don't understand, is that humans are evil fucking bastards, and they will do whatever they want, no matter who's in control of the government.
Fix that and you can rule the world.
Coupe said...
What people who are against abortion at any level don't understand, is that humans are evil fucking bastards, and they will do whatever they want, no matter who's in control of the government.
Fix that and you can rule the world.
Easy. Don't use my tax money to support it.
Rusty said...Don't use my tax money to support it.
It's a lose-lose thing. If you make a law against it, you have to build prisons, courts, and police forces to make sure no ones cheating. Sort of like the 60's.
You can see how that worked out with drug and speeding laws.
It would probably cost more taxes to go after abortion Madams just in Harlem, let alone Atlanta. For every mole you whack, two more pop-up.
Besides, your taxes only pay for interest on the debt, everything else is debt.
"What people who are against abortion at any level don't understand, is that humans are evil fucking bastards, and they will do whatever they want, no matter who's in control of the government."
Wow..you have outdone yourself. And that's not easy.
Whether and at what point a fetus becomes an entity unto itself with a right to live is an open question. There is no final, objectively provable answer to that question...
When it comes to PPM of heavy metals, nucular waste or Alar, Liberals always err on the side of caution. Why not here?
But how the *hell* do you arrive at the opposite conclusion, that the guilty should be protected and innocents freely killed, which is the standard liberal position?
That's easy. Primitive pagans always offer up either virgins or infants to their bloodthirsty gods.
I said: "Unless you simply hate human beings."
Coupe quoted that and said: "It's not about hate, it is about freedom."
Then he says: "Humans are evil fucking bastards, and they will do whatever they want, no matter who's in control of the government."
I rest my case.
Act of evil fucking bastards?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3248159/1-1-2-pound-baby-born-cruise-ship-beats-odds-survive.html
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा