Friday, February 24, 2006
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban & The Fact the Libs are Leaving Out: The Truth
It did get me thinking.
Though I am as pro-life as they come, it did seem odd – the way that Slate framed the debate - that Congress could make a finding that partial-birth abortion was NEVER necessary to “preserve the mother’s health,” if only because of the questions it raises about an incident where it actually was. (e.g. Would a woman about to die have time to reach the Supreme Court regarding whether or not the procedure is necessary?) This is not to say that I don’t believe the science that it is not ever necessary, but Slate – for a moment – made me question my certainty.
Slate - for those of you who aren’t familiar with it - is a webmag (web-rag?) I now believe I read only to aggravate myself once daily. Its analysis is often entertaining and sometimes a bit convincing – until you hold it up to the truth.
After reading numerous articles – all in liberal rags – that take issue with the language in the Act Congress passed against partial-birth abortion, I decided it was time to do what no journalist had seemingly done before: read the Act.
CHAPTER 74 -- PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
§1531. Partial-birth abortions prohibited
(a) Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day after the date of enactment of this chapter.
Now, a cold reading of any article in today’s newspaper, webmag, web-rag or what-have-you, would have you believe that the libs really don’t like partial-birth abortion either, that this is just about saving the life of the mother. The argument that they are REALLY hiding behind is not the life of the mother, per se, but – more broadly – “woman’s health” – meaning, if it is better for her health to have this kind of abortion it should be permissible. If it makes her more comfortable, why not deliver all but the head of a fully developed child that is able to feel pain and puncture it’s skull with scissors and suck its brain out with a vacuum?! This isn’t an issue over an innocent child – Slate is right! It has nothing to do whatsoever with whether or not you oppose abortion – this is an issue of WOMEN’S HEALTH.
This is just another attempt to rally women who fear the government “controlling their bodies” and create unmerited hysteria. The problem isn’t that women are too well-informed of these so-called rights.
It’s that they don’t read enough.
You are right, these things need to be read, and discussed without the rhetoric. You'd think this is what being 'liberal and progressive' is all about, but that's not the reality.
If the majority of people want abortion in some form, it should be legal. The idea of court imposition was incorrect. Seems that better education is warranted. Some of the nut cases that are pro-life are just as wacko as some of the libs. I often wonder if debating on these type of issues is worth it at times. For politicians, no matter what they say, they lose 50% of the people.
I'm not a huge advocate of the gov. legislating morality, but at the same time, I understand abortion to be the taking of a life. Take the Laci Peterson case... Scott was convicted of double murder for killing his baby (who was not yet born). Did the fact that she wanted the baby make is a baby, or is life just valuable?
I do have sympathy for those women who make such a horrible choice... but at the same time what about the babies? Who speaks for them?
I think that as science advances the debate will be clarified a lot. Until then, the states should have the power in excercising their will...
For a condition to be so dangerous that the child MUST be removed to save the woman's life doctors have always turned to cesarian sections to remove the child . . . alive. They have also used the alternative of induced labor. The inly difference between induced labor and partial birth abortion is that in one the child is delivered alive, head first, and in the other the doctor turns the baby feet first, aids delivery by pulling on the child's legs, then murders the child as soon as he sees the base of the skull.
Partial birth abortion is NEVER neccessary.
I can't see any potential danger to the mother's life at that point, either.
Ya know what, rick? I'll just bet debating those issues is worth a whole lot to the partially born aborted human beings who won't grow up to pursue, much less achieve, whatever purpose they might have fulfilled if they had been allowed to live. Until we have compelling evidence to the contrary, and we certainly don't have it yet, there is always the possibility that God really does create every human being with a unique purpose in life.
From your photo, I'd say you're at least my age  or better, so I know good and well that you've already met some of the medical realities attached to the thrill of senior citizenry. For that matter, you might even have caught on by now, in a very real and personal way, that sooner or later one of those realities is going to take you down, and the trip down will most likely be a painful one.
The next time you wake up with creaking joints, an incontinent bladder and/or bowels, maybe a memory lapse that turns out to be Alzheimer's disease, I'm going to suggest that you momentarily consider the fact that one of the millions and millions of children aborted in America alone might very well have been the one destined to conquer the medical condition that ultimately puts you in your grave.
Of course, the day could come when the majority of people think old pharts with aches and pains should be 'aborted' instead of waiting out their death ... by the logic you applied to the legality of abortion, euthanasia should also be made legal if it has popular support. We've already taken the first tentative steps down that deadly road, so maybe you won't have to worry about dealing with the vicissitudes of old age, after all.
Second, late-term abortions are not performed on demand. They are performed only in times of medical necessity, often in cases of fetal encephalitis, where the fetus is non-viable but unable to safely exit via the birth canal. Further, dialation and extraction procedures are much safer to the woman than a C-section. Any doctor will tell you that.
Finally, women demanding the right to make their own decisions about carrying a child is definitely an issue of freedom. You ask who is looking out for the best interests of the unborn child? Answer: the child's mother, who is best able to make those decisions. Not the government, not the church and certainly not a bunch of conservative busybodies who think pregnancy should be the rightful punishment for sex.
Abortion rights should not be left up to the majority for two reasons:
The first is that the "majority" isn't going to carry the fetus for 9 months, give birth to it, raise it or do anything else for it. The subset of women able to get pregnant will always be a minority, which means the one groups most impacted by abortion rights gets a lesser say in the legality of them.
The second is that our country is founded on individual liberty, not tyranny of the majority. If everything were left to the majority, we wouldn't need the Bill of Rights.
The "partial-birth abortion ban" is nothing but a sop to religious conservatives. It's a completely unnecessary bit of conservative nosiness that was rightly struck down. A woman's medical decisions should be between she and her doctor, not the religious fundamentalists in the Cult of Unborn Life.
In what way can abortion at any prenatal stage be legitimately characterized as being in the best interest of the unborn child? Even children who are born with severe birth defects find loving adoptive homes if they are allowed to live long enough to be born.
In Russia a the average women has 14 abortions in her lifetime. They use it as a form of contraception. People like Sam are apparently happy for us to head in this direction and are apparently happy to build a society with these values and morality.
I, on the other hand do not want a society where we value a womans right to abort her baby (on a whim like the Russian women) above preserving the amazing miracle of human reproduction.
I was thinking the same thing.
But I don't believe abortion is wrong because it is a life. It is wrong because it is a soul. There is life in fish, in chicken, in turkey, and I partake in eating each of these wonderful animals. The difference between "us and them" is that humans have souls. That's part of the reason I don't like movies like "All Dog's Go to Heaven." But my views are not everyone's views.
Personally, I think both sides of teh abortion issue get things wrong. I listen to their arguements, and I am discusted. But this is an arguement of the heart, not of the head. Trouble is, we need to be using our heads with the government, heart with our personal beliefs.
Should abortion be legal? I don't know. I know it is immoral, but not should it be illegal? I'll leave that up to others.
And I would not want to live in a society where a woman becomes a slave and a breeding mare as soon as a fertilized egg implants in her uterus. People like you belong in the Third World with the rest of the tyrants and totalitarians. You make me sick.
Links to this post: