‘Obama’ and ‘infanticide’ are being matched in the latest venom eruption on hate-monger sites. For the record, Senator Obama did NOT vote for infanticide while in the Illinois State legislature.
At issue is his vote on a bill entitled, ‘Born Alive Infants Protection Act’ – BAIPA, for short — which was first introduced into the Illinois legislature in 2001. I have read the exact wording of the bill and the term ‘infanticide’ does not appear anywhere. Fear-mongering with this word is, at the least, a stretch; and, at the worst, a lie. It is a concern for Catholic America because some of the verbal terrorism comes with a Catholic label.
The legislation would have required the state to provide health care to children born alive after an abortion. Now, existing Illinois law already covered all children. But the BAIPA was intended to create a special status for the survivors of abortion – mostly late-term abortion. The BAIPA clarified that these survivors were ‘children.’ If that was all the law intended, I think it should have been passed and Obama’s self-identified faith should have led him to vote for it.
But things are not always as they seem. Although phrased in legalese, there were three additional and problematic provisions. First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. Catholic teaching always protects the rights of parents against big government. Moreover, I have enough of my Barry Goldwater vote left in me to be wary of lining the pockets of trial lawyers.
Some might conclude that the BAIPA is part of the old politics of poison-pill legislation. The intention is to antagonize voters in the cultural wars.
It should show you how much on the fringe the anti-choice element is that they have to dig up and distort this issue. Of course, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the noise machine have received their talking points and are trying desperately to tie Sen. Obama into this issue.
Of course it would just be crazy to look at what Sen. Obama’s actual position is, right?
Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy:
Barack Obama is an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.
I am sick of Republicans using manufactured nightmare terms that do not exist like “partial birth” and “Born alive abortion”.
There is a criminal law on the books that covers this “born alive infant protection act” its called “First Degree Murder.”
Republicans should talk among themselves about their fantasies of doctors delivering babies and deliberately killing them because their were suppose to be abortions.
Please spare the world of this ridiculous nonsense. Give us one example when this happened, a born alive infant was murdered so that the authorities can press murder charges. There is no statue of limitations on murder.
Are you trying to argue that Obama didn’t misrepresent why he opposed the Illinios bill regarding the “neutrality clause”?
It clear cut that the reason he gave repeatedly for opposing the state bill was false. They both had the same protection against undermining Roe.
This “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” is stupid. Every woman who does not have healthcare should register for an abortion a few days before delivering their child to claim benefits from this act.
If you think this is just in “civilized” Britain you are mistaken. Besides, there are more limits there than there are here. Some healthy, some not. The next time you see a person w/a heart defect or Down’s syndrome, you can think that they weren’t worthy of life. Or you can bury your head in the sand and pretend it isn’t grotesque.
Most libs care more about rare fish, birds and baby seals than baby humans.
Gianna Jessen: Born after a failed abortion
One baby in 30 left alive after medical termination
Last updated at 23:52pm on 19.04.07
They lived for an average of 80 minutes – although in some cases foetuses survived for over six hours.
Most of the babies were born between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, but some had been in the womb for as little as 17 weeks.
The figures, based on a study of West Midlands hospitals, has reignited the abortion debate, with pro-life campaigners demanding the time limit for terminations be cut.
Researchers looked at the outcome of 3,189 abortions performed on seriously handicapped foetuses at 20 hospitals between 1995 and 2004.
It showed that 102 – or around one in 30 – aborted for reasons such as Down’s Syndrome and heart defects, were born alive.
Abortions are allowed to be carried out if the pregnancy is shown to have an adverse effect on the mental health and wellbeing of the mother up until the 24th week of pregnancy.
Beyond this point, the procedure is only sanctioned if the baby has a severe disability or if the mother’s life is at risk.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393315-details/One baby in 30 left alive after medical termination/article.do
Forgot link
Most libs care more about rare fish, birds and baby seals than baby humans.
And dogs. Don’t forget dogs that are choking to death. Much more important than humans.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/stanekbakercongress.htm
Portion of congressional testimony from a nurse who witnessed these babies dying in the soiled laundry room….
Other co-workers have told me many upsetting stories about live aborted babies whom they have cared for. I was told about an aborted baby who was supposed to have Spina bifida but was delivered with an intact spine. Another nurse is haunted by the memory of an aborted baby who came out weighing much more than expected ~ almost two pounds. She is haunted because she doesn’t know if she made a mistake by not getting that baby medical help. A Support Associate told me about a live aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.
I was recently told about a situation by a nurse who said, “I can’t stop thinking about it.” She had a patient who was 23 weeks pregnant, and it did not look as if her baby would be able to continue to live inside of her. The baby was healthy and had up to a 39% chance of survival, according to national statistics. But the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and my co-worker. After delivery the baby, who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died 2-1/2 hours later.
Something is very wrong with a legal system that says doctors are mandated to pronounce babies dead but are not mandated to assess babies for life and chances of survival. In other words, our laws currently say that babies have no rights to medical oversight until they are dead. We look the other way and pretend that these babies aren’t human while they’re alive but human only after they are dead. We issue these babies both birth and death certificates, but it is really only the death certificate that matters. No other children in America are medically abandoned like this.
>> “Pro-Life” leader Jill Stanek shows her racist colors again
Jill Stanek thinks Chinese people eat fetuses.
Yes, that’s clearly someone we should pay attention to about women’s access to medical procedures.
Obama thinks the abortion rate isn’t dropping. Clearly someone we should pay attention to when it comes to the issue…
Wow, what will Obama hate next?!?! First Christians, America, The Troops, and now The Unborn and Infants!!!!!!! No wonder some people think he’s the Antichrist!!!!!!!
Well, we already know Obama hates the truth about his own comments and his own votes.
So, even if it happens in the UK, I presume that it doesn’t happen here? What a joke. Typical Obamabot…call the messenger a racist. The UK article doesn’t
Hey Oliver – Didn’t anyone tell you the race card is worn out from overuse? If not, let me be the first.
Obama was the one “talking down to black people” according to Jesse Jackson.
You and Jesse can ignore the poverty rates for black children, most of whom don’t have their fathers in the home. (Like one of Jesse’s!) Facts aren’t racist. Obama must be a racist too. Must be his white mama speaking.
JWG, Aug 19th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Are you trying to argue that Obama didn’t misrepresent why he opposed the Illinios bill regarding the “neutrality clause”?
Actually, I think most are arguing that Republican’ts are misrepresenting Obama’s position by saying he wants to murder live babies (or commit infanticide) because he thinks it’s okay for women to make their own choices. Sort of similar to pronouncements from foreign conservatives that Most libs care more about rare fish, birds and baby seals than baby humans.
Funny how those who do not share the belief systems of progressives / liberals are so very quick to try and define them, what they support, and what they believe. And their portraits of those whose philosophy is diametrically opposed to conservative beliefs seem to always paint libs as baby eating commie pinko fag junkies. And then wonder why their insights into the liberal state of mind are not universally accepted and embraced by those they are demonizing.
about women’s access to medical procedures.
Why are liberals so afraid to say the word ABORTION?
And give me a break with the “access to medical procedures” nonsense. You know as well as I do that opposition to abortion is based upon the belief that there is another human life involved.
And SaveFarris’s link isn’t working, but he’s right. Obama’s claim that abortion rates have not decreased while Bush has been in office is bogus.
Here’s a simple question for you anti-woman folks out there (Jay et. al.)
If a woman has an abortion, should she be arrested for murder 1? Would a miscarriage be involuntary manslaughter? Can a pregnant woman drive in the HOV lane? Would cops have to carry pregnancy tests for these cases? Should I be able to write of a tank of frozen embryos as dependents on my tax return?
Jay, Aug 20th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Why are liberals so afraid to say the word ABORTION?
Why are conservatives so quick to use ABORTION as the only word to describe a whole bunch of women’s services (couseling, contraception, and helping women to get an abortion if they so choose)? Why do they fail to consider anything else but their crackpot beliefs about womb babies and zygote = fully functional human being?
And give me a break with the “access to medical procedures” nonsense. You know as well as I do that opposition to abortion is based upon the belief that there is another human life involved.
As soon as you give me a break, and admit that opposition to abortion is based upon the belief that men are entitled to make decisions about women and control every phase of their lives?
Tom, do you have anything to say or you just going to retort with more logical fallacies?
Here’s a simple question for you anti-woman folks out there
Hilarious. You call people names and then you expect answers to your stupid questions? Since we can embed images now, here’s one for you:
Let’s try that again:
Oh well. I couldn’t get the middle finger image to show. But that’s good enough.
I don’t reply to idiots who equate being pro-life with being “anti-woman.” That’s just beyond stupid.
Looks like Jay runs away with his tail between his legs. How pathetic.
I don’t reply to idiots who equate being pro-life with being “anti-woman.” That’s just beyond stupid.
*cough*
I have always found it odd that the majority of people who are “pro-life” are also pro-death penalty and cheerleaders for the Iraq war.
Just saying.
Perhaps “anti-woman” is a little harsh. Certainly anti-choice. I just wish we could frame this debate the way it should be framed. The issue has never been about whether abortion is right or wrong. Not even the most die-hard pro-choice person could argue that abortions are good things. No, the issue is whether abortions should be safe or dangerous. Outlawing abortions would not mean that the practice would end forever. It would just mean more women would die as a result. Then where’s your Pro-Life stand?
Personally, I think the lefty position of “kill the innocent child but by all means save the life of a homicidal rapist” has more logical flaws. But that’s just me.
“kill the innocent child
By child, do you mean fetus?
but by all means save the life of a homicidal rapist”
Just want more money funneled to socialized vengeance, right Kira?
Looks like Jay runs away with his tail between his legs. How pathetic.
Right. And if I had started off with:
I have a simple question for the fuckwit leftist baby killers (Zython et al):
Would you really have answered? I doubt it. When you’re ready to debate an issue like an adult, let me know.
I have always found it odd that the majority of people who are “pro-life” are also pro-death penalty and cheerleaders for the Iraq war.
There’s nothing inconsistent between those positions. That’s a famous red herring in the entire debate.
Perhaps “anti-woman” is a little harsh.
No, it’s not a “little harsh.” It’s fucking stupid as all hell.
As to the rest of your point, I don’t stand with those who support a human life amendment or a total outright ban on abortions. I look at the issue as one that is more societal than legal. And despite the lack of any real restrictions, the number of abortions in this country have been steadily declining since 1990.
The problem I have with the modern Democratic party is that as a whole, they are opposed to ANY type of restrictions for any reason or any time. When they claim to support a restriction, they only do so with some sort of exceptions that are so broad as to make the restrictions pointless. That’s why I don’t think Oliver has to worry about Obama choosing Evan Bayh as his running mate. Bayh is essentially persona non grata with the NARAL and NOW people who still have lots of clout in the party because of 1-2 votes that went outside the edict of those groups.
Speaking from a strictly logical point of view you may have an argument, but it is religion and the belief in a soul and the evils of murder – and not the strictly innocent nature of the child – that drives most anti-abortion legislation.
You may see logical issues in an atheist or agnostic’s decision to oppose the death penalty but retain a right to choose, but you’ll find only hypocrisy in Christians who split moral hairs to find reasons to kill some and crusade to save others. The Gospels give no exception cases for killing folk.
Actually, Zython, the bill dealt with entities that were no longer within the mother’s body, but alive and independent of the mother. Under the existing law, they were left, untreated and unprotected, until they died.
Last time I checked, “fetus” status ended once the entity in question left the mother’s body, so “child” seems like the valid term here.
As I understand it, the measure was purely to address those cases where, after the abortion procedure is complete, the fetus/child is still alive and viable.
The whole point of the abortion, I thought, was to make the woman no longer pregnant. Well, in these cases, mission accomplished. She’s free to go. What’s the problem with saying “hey, the baby’s still alive, and can be adopted and given a good home?” Why is it so damned important that the pregnancy not only be ended, but any evidence that it ever happened be erased? Why is it so goddamned important that the fetus/baby be destroyed/die?
Say what you want, that’s what it boils down to. And I speak as someone who finds himself uncomfortably close to Duros’ position on abortion.
J.
No, it’s not a “little harsh.” It’s fucking stupid as all hell.
I already stated my argument on this.
I have a simple question for the fuckwit leftist baby killers (Zython et al):
A. You’re acting like you don’t already do this.
B. I would chastise you, then proceed to rip apart your arguments until they were confetti.
I don’t stand with those who support a human life amendment
So a fetus is a human life, except when it isn’t?
That’s why I don’t think Oliver has to worry about Obama choosing Evan Bayh as his running mate. Bayh is essentially persona non grata with the NARAL and NOW people who still have lots of clout in the party because of 1-2 votes that went outside the edict of those groups.
That sentence could NOT make any less sense.
Jay, Aug 20th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Tom, do you have anything to say or you just going to retort with more logical fallacies?
Funny thing, Jay – I have pretty much the same opinion about your bilgewater bullsh!t: logical fallacies, outright lies, and defamations of those who dare to disagree with your infinite wisdom. And not just on the anti-choice topic brought up here.
Where is the logical fallacy in what I’ve said? Or do you have nothing but meaningless cheap retorts in response? You got anything besides that religiously insane crap you’re trying to peddle here?
I usually don’t respond to pagan occult superstitionists who say things like you know as well as I do that opposition to abortion is based upon the belief that there is another human life involved when I certainly don’t agree with that position. But, since you felt it was okay to cavalierly dismiss every single pro-choice argument that you encounter here with one convenient catch-all, I thought you might be interested in finding out how it feels to be on the other side of that kind of attitude.
IMHO there has never been any way to rationally discuss these things with Reich wing trolls who enjoy polluting liberal blogs’ comments sections with Republican’t hypocrisy. I continually wonder if there could be any other reason for this sort of behavior other than to try and harass those whose points of view you disagree with. And occasionally I make a reactionary comment parodying the crap Republican’ts spew. It’s quite illuminating to see how the trolls either (i) ignore, (ii) belittle, or (iii) dismiss those comments, and then get their knickers in a twist when their claptrap gets ignored, belittled, and/or dismissed in return. Almost like they can;’t stand to be called out when they don’t play by their own rules. Funny, that…
I’m in favor of certain restrictions. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disallow abortion after the 2nd trimester. I think 6 months is long enough to decide one way or another.
But again, for me, it’s more about the safety of the women than it is the protection of a fetus.
And I speak as someone who finds himself uncomfortably close to Duros’ position on abortion.
Take your shoes off, you’ll be more comfortable.
As soon as you give me a break, and admit that opposition to abortion is based upon the belief that men are entitled to make decisions about women and control every phase of their lives?
We’re not talking about every phase of women’s lives. Just the phase pertaining to pregnancy.
And with respect to that phase…Why shouldn’t men have a say? Takes two to get pregnant. If there isn’t a health issue involved, why shouldn’t the non-carrier have a say in whether the kid is born or not?
@Parthenon I believe you are making an unfair conflation of two uses of the word “men” here. Certainly the father should have a say in the future of his child, from conception onward. The point being made is that a group of men disconnected from the actual situation are making decisions which largely affect women.
And it does largely affect women. Many of the women who would get abortions are in situations where the specific man – the father – has little to no interest in the child and the mother will be left with the full responsibility. It’s not simply that the man is a non-carrier. It’s that he can be gone moments after conception and never have another worry. The woman, even if giving the baby up for adoption, has had her life changed for no less than the next 9 months.
<i.A. You’re acting like you don’t already do this.
Give me an example of where I have done this. Just one.
B. I would chastise you, then proceed to rip apart your arguments until they were confetti.
Yeah. Anyway…
So a fetus is a human life, except when it isn’t?
Uh, no dummy. It just means that I don’t support the human life amendment.
That sentence could NOT make any less sense.
It makes perfect sense. Bayh voted for the bill to ban partial birth abortions and voted for the bill that would require parental notification for girls under the age of 18 to seek abortions outside of their state. That’s too “anti-choice” for the likes of NARAL and their ilk.
I usually don’t respond to pagan occult superstitionists
Actually, the pro-choice movement is losing ground in the scientific arena. Medical technology is making easier each day for very premature babies to survive outside the womb making it more difficult for pro-choice advocates to convince people it’s nothing but a blob until they’re born.
But, since you felt it was okay to cavalierly dismiss every single pro-choice argument that you encounter here with one convenient catch-all
Actually, I said that in counter to the absurd notion that it’s about blocking “access to medical procedures” for women as if they’re having their tonsils removed.
IMHO there has never been any way to rationally discuss these things with Reich wing trolls who enjoy polluting liberal blogs’ comments sections with Republican’t hypocrisy.
Translation: I WANT AN ECHO CHAMBER!
And of course, as I have said before, once the “troll” accusations fly, then you know they have nothing left.
Medical technology is making easier each day for very premature babies to survive outside the womb making it more difficult for pro-choice advocates to convince people it’s nothing but a blob until they’re born.
All well and good, for premature babies who are delivered early. Just because premature infants can survive before they would otherwise be viable doesn’t necessarily mean they should. I mean, where is the line? Does it get to the point where a 6 week old fetus can be made viable? Will they be removed from the “host” via court order if she even considers abortion?
@Jay One thing: Very premature babies, and embryos within the first trimester are very, very different things. And that’s when something like 90% of abortions take place.
I’m very much pro-choice, but I’m open to limits on abortion past the first trimester. Prior to that it is basically is – and I’m only using the term because you did, so please don’t jump me on a technicality – a blob. Health of the mother not withstanding, it does get harder to defend the lack of sustainable life later and later in the pregnancy.
But here’s one counterargument against late terms abortion laws, and politicians who are hesitant to support bills that, on the surface, only ban “infanticide.” These bills are rarely fair-minded things, typically containing politically charged, legally questionable language meant to use this as the beginning of a larger campaign against all abortions.
In other words: can we please, please separate late term abortions, and the moral issues contained therein, from abortions within the first trimester? Biologically they are completely different situations, and we’ll never have a fair discussion as long as people on both sides continue to treat them as the same thing.
I agree, Eric. Life doesn’t begin at conception. Cell division does. Not the same.
Moving on.
Actually, the pro-choice movement is losing ground in the scientific arena. Medical technology is making easier each day for very premature babies to survive outside the womb making it more difficult for pro-choice advocates to convince people it’s nothing but a blob until they’re born.
Actually, I’m not arguing for aborting viable fetuses that are forced to come out prematurely. Or advocating that it’s nothing but a blob until it’s born. But, then again, if you actually listened to what I was actually saying, you might have noticed that I’m not in favor of all abortions right up until delivery. That might have not met your straw man needs in this particular debate.
For the record: I am in favor of letting women have the ability to choose whether they bring a child to fruition. If they choose to abort when a fetus is not yet viable outside the womb, then they have the choice – but after that, deliver the child and put it up for adoption. Before that, whatever they choose is up to them – it’s their choice, they’ll have to live with it. Which means educated choices about the whole situation (one of those other things you dismissed outright which Planned Parenthood does and the current junta doesn’t want women to know about), ready and available contraception if that’s the choice of the woman, and, yes, abortion (within the currently legally defined parameters that you’ve dishonestly said aren’t there) until independent viability. I don’t agree with your beliefs about fertilized ova being equivalent to a fully independent human, and I don’t think anyone should be legally required to consider them as anything but beliefs.
Actually, I said that in counter to the absurd notion that it’s about blocking “access to medical procedures” for women as if they’re having their tonsils removed.
And you are misrepresenting the pro-choice point of view (in particular my pro-choice point of view), once again, with this statement. You think that this type of decision is equivalent to having your tonsils out for women? How many women do you know who have actually had an abortion? Have any of them said they approached the decision to carry a child to term in the same way as they decided whether to have their tonsils taken out? Because that is very insulting to women.
Also, your translation device is sadly malfunctioning. I’d prefer civil discourse and rational debate, but that’s kinda hard on the tilted playing field we have today where liberal hunting licenses are really funny jokes, but saying McClueless is old is insulting his time as a POW. Maybe you could save the Republican’t rhetoric for conservative blogs’ comment sections (if you could find one)?
Actual translation: why do Republican’ts feel entitled to act like motherCheneying iceholes when they’re visiting virtual liberal living rooms?
And it does largely affect women. Many of the women who would get abortions are in situations where the specific man – the father – has little to no interest in the child and the mother will be left with the full responsibility. It’s not simply that the man is a non-carrier. It’s that he can be gone moments after conception and never have another worry. The woman, even if giving the baby up for adoption, has had her life changed for no less than the next 9 months.
That’s a fair point Eric. But should the prospective father desire a role in the child’s life, and not be a ‘gone moments after conception’ kind of chap, then he deserves it as much as the mother does. Seems to me that if the abortion decision ought to be a mutual one – i.e. both must want it before it can be done.
Biologically they are completely different situations, and we’ll never have a fair discussion as long as people on both sides continue to treat them as the same thing.
With such a religously charged issue, we’re not really discussing biology. You could prove beyond doubt that a fetus ‘feels’ beyond four months, and mainstream Christianity would still find the one-to-three month abortions reprehensible, I suspect.
Prior to that it is basically is – and I’m only using the term because you did, so please don’t jump me on a technicality – a blob.
Sorry Eric, but that is not correct. A baby’s heart starts to beat at 3 weeks along with development of the central nervous system. By the 5th week the nose and lips are forming and the brain has formed. By the 8th week, major organs have formed. Hands and feet can been seen and the baby is now reactive to its environment. This is all within 2 months of conception. That’s no blob.
But, then again, if you actually listened to what I was actually saying, you might have noticed that I’m not in favor of all abortions right up until delivery.
And if you’d stop to listen to what I have to say, you’d learn I’m not some right wing religious fanatic that says to pass a constitutional amendment banning all abortions for any reason at any time. So I declare a cease fire.
I don’t agree with your beliefs about fertilized ova being equivalent to a fully independent human, and I don’t think anyone should be legally required to consider them as anything but beliefs.
Well, as I said earlier, I see it more as a societal issue than a legal one. But if education is going to be part of the process, then these women should also be educated about what it is they’re going to be terminating. They should be informed of the fetus’s development and what stage it is (like I pointed out to Eric above) and that it is something that is alive. Sorry, but I still think as a society, we’re still far too cavalier about our attitudes towards abortion.
And you are misrepresenting the pro-choice point of view (in particular my pro-choice point of view), once again, with this statement. You think that this type of decision is equivalent to having your tonsils out for women?
No, what I am saying is that if you’re going to have the debate, frame it in honest terminology. If the issue is abortion say “abortion” not “medical procedure.” In addition, stop framing it as some kind of absurd issue where men just want to “control women” because that’s a load of crap.
@Jay You know, I honestly wanted to give you the benefit of the rhetorical doubt on this issue. You seemed to be debating in good faith from the cursory glance I had given your posts. Then you proceeded to go after the “blob” thing, a word I almost didn’t use at all and made sure to qualify as only being used because you had used it.
Rather than debate the real issue I was addressing, you attached to a moment of frivolous word usage. My larger point – the one you have conveniently avoided by focusing a paragraph on a word I requested be ignored – was that there is a vast sea of difference between premature babies that survive and the embryo that exists in the first trimester and any baby that has every survived after being born prematurely. The youngest being about 21 weeks old; nearly a full trimester older than the embryos of which we speak.
But since you seem compelled to give me a science lesson about when arms and lips form, let me offer a correction of my own: through the majority of the first trimester it is not a fetus, but an embryo. There is a scientific distinction between the first trimester and the remaining pregnancy. And that is the distinction which was relevant to my point, not my use of the word “blob.”
@Parthenon I completely agree, regarding the father being present in the decision. Though I’d argue that if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn’t, that some sort of legal requirement for the father to become the legal guardian would not be out of line. Still, we’re getting into bureaucratic legal madness at this point, so I’ll just concede the larger point. All reasonable effort should be made to include the father in the decision.
As for the religious vs. biological argument, you’re absolutely correct, and in a way is exactly the distinction I’m trying to make. Too often the case against abortion revolves around treating 2 month old embryos as tiny babies, which is just not true.
The reasons for this are that, as our current separation of church of state stands, you can’t legislate against abortion because a majority believe an embryo has a soul. The best legal case is to act as if a baby is biologically similar through its entire development, and thus prove that life began somewhere close to the moment of fertilization.
My point is this (and is general; the “you” is not Partnenon): If your reasons for abhorring abortion are spiritual in nature, I respect that. But please stand by that reasoning and not make an unfair link between a premature baby that survives and the embryo in the mother to try and convince people who don’t share your spiritual beliefs that there’s a scientific basis for what’s being said. In return, I promise not to dismiss the moral component of your points simply because I don’t think they form the basis of sound legislation.
Thanks for the good postback, Parthenon.
Eric Sipple
Seems to me that if the abortion decision ought to be a mutual one – i.e. both must want it before it can be done.
That can be tough when you’re dealing with kids who can’t make up their mind about a Wii or a PS3.
Rather than debate the real issue I was addressing, you attached to a moment of frivolous word usage. My larger point – the one you have conveniently avoided by focusing a paragraph on a word I requested be ignored – was that there is a vast sea of difference between premature babies that survive and the embryo that exists in the first trimester and any baby that has every survived after being born prematurely. The youngest being about 21 weeks old; nearly a full trimester older than the embryos of which we speak.
Eric, I addressed your point specifically. Yes, I first used the word ‘blob’ and you merely used it instead of another term. Fine. I’m not concerned with the frivolous term, but instead your viewpoint that that there is this large chasm between development at the 12 week (first trimester) and that of the 14 week (second trimester).
And your correction is incorrect. It is really only in the first month of pregnancy that it is an embryo. Starting in the second month, it becomes a fetus.
If people want to rely on the scientific evidence, then don’t dismiss it when it doesn’t support your viewpoint. If viability is your standard, then you have to accept that banning abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy is perfect acceptable because scientifically, that is a baby and medically, it can survive outside the womb.
Once again you have mischaracterized my point to your own ends, which is fine. It’s a common tactic to overstate someone else’s case to make your own point, so I don’t begrudge your using it.
I will leave this debate alone from this point. But let me leave you with this: “The end of the eighth week marks the end of the “embryonic period” and the beginning of the “fetal period”.”
Note that 8 weeks is 2 months and not 1. I said “through the majority of the first trimester it is not a fetus, but an embryo.” I believe 2 out of 3 is a majority, but if you’d like to correct me on simple mathematics, I encourage you to do so.
That’s from MedlinePlus, in case you need my source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Man is a twit, Oliver that is. Maybe he’s a kryptonite rock.
The Supreme Court decided several years ago when John Ashcroft was governor of Missouri that his decision to make all attempts to have babies born alive after an abortion should be kept alive was constitutional. I have a friend who believes that only after the heart is formed is a fetus alive. I keep telling him that if there weren’t living cells, the heart wouldn’t form. He even had the nerve to say that Jesus was dead in the womb of Mary for two months until after his heart formed. According to the Bible, he only died once and that was on the cross.
After conception, the cells come to life and maintain the functions of living cells. To say they are dead is like saying we need to keep a watch on cemeteries for two months after a burial in case the dead come back to life and will need help getting out of the grave. Ask yourself: WAS I DEAD OR ALIVE AFTER CONCEPTION? If you say dead, they you will have to explain how you exist since something dead doesn’t come to life on its own. That’s called spontaneous generation. The Greeks believed in it. But scientists disproved it centuries ago.
Most females choose to go through the actions required to make them pregnant. They can’t say it’s a accident. They did everything required to make them pregnant since they most likely acted purposely. If they choose to have an abortion, they are going against the choice they made of becoming pregnant. Technically they could be called ANTI-CHOICE. An abortion is the taking of a life. That is a scientific fact. As I write so often, just because you don’t like the facts doesn’t mean the facts are wrong.
I see a lot of guys arguing over a subject that has nothing to do with this article. Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this content and where you stand on pre-birth abortion, even late term is moot.
The article deals with fetuses (late term abortions) who, by all rights, should have been destroyed in utero. For whatever reason they were not, and were subsequently born, meaning a separate entity from the mother, breathing on his or her own.
The question here is whether it is okay to simply allow that baby (now born) to die, or does that baby deserve the rights afforded all Americans under the constitution.
It begs the question, would it be okay for a woman to decide that her full term baby would create a hardship, so it would be okay to allow it to die? What about your dependent children? If it is okay to allow one to die, why not all? Why can’t we subject healthy full-term babies to “live birth” abortion? it is a slippery slope and it is not okay to allow a baby to die without attempting to save it.
This isn’t even about a mother choosing a DNR for her baby. This is about babies with heartbeats, functioning brains, and breathing on their own being neglected to death within hours of birth, and no matter where you stand on abortion, this practice is wrong.
[...] is lying about Obama and the ‘Born Alive’ Illinois legislation. You can get the real truth here and here Turns out that existing law already provided for the health care of any fetus that was still alive [...]
[...] is from the ultra right, but again you have no problem with their bias. Just to play along: Obama And The
Infants who survive abortion in IL ALREADY are required to receive medical attention.
Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion.” Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony.
The law Obama voted against would have required the state to take immediate custody of any surviving infants without a hearing and would have charged the taxpayers for extremely expensive intensive care for any premature fetus regardless of whether a doctor thought it had any chance of survival. It also would have classified a fetus as viable if it had a heartbeat, regardless of size or gestation time, which would have made many more abortions illegal.