Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: McCain flip flops on GOP abortion plank in platform Previous entry: Hillaryism

Right wing smears and lies

Update: Jill Stanek admits that she’s, um, “mistaken” about Obama’s voting record.  Perhaps it was driven home to her that the sane people she’s trying to cater favor with don’t believe for a moment that anyone is pro-infanticide, much less Barack Obama.  I maintain that this could have been met at the pass by pointing out that anti-choicers like Stanek are disinterested in introducing legislation unless they’re convinced that it’s a way to undermine women’s rights.  Knowing this about them, the automatic vote on any legislation they offer should be “no”.  Anything suggested by Stanek should be treated like it was as toxic as legislation promoted by a white supremacist organization.

The mainstream media is jumping up and correcting the misinformation being promoted by right wing crazies on the confusing series of committee and floor votes Obama made on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  What’s happened is that right wing crazies have exploited the confusing nature of the various votes on this to create the misimpression that Obama voted no a bill that protects newborns from infanticide, but in fact he did no such thing, but voted down a bill that was a direct attack on the right to abortion, specifically to therapeutic abortions done to save the life or the health of pregnant women.  Unfortunately, the Obama campaign fumbled the response to this whole blow-up and came across as waffling.  The proper response was to say just what I did—-that the bill was redundant with pre-existing murder laws, that the people who introduced it are gunning for women’s right not just to abortion but to use contraception, and as such, the bill should be considered an attack on women’s rights and treated with the contempt it deserves.  I’m entirely unsure why it’s assumed that the default vote on any bill—-even those introduced by the far right that have ill intentions towards women written all over them—-is yes unless you can come up with a compelling reason to say no.  Why not make the baseline a no that has to be turned into a yes?

Like I said before, the right wingers pushing this BAIPA thing are objectively freaky people, so put the spotlight on them and turn that unsavory shit around.  Jill Stanek is continuing to push the idea that the “comfort room” at the hospital she worked out was made so that babies could be left to die in an environment that makes people feel better about it. All sane people can see that it’s there to comfort people who’ve lost wanted pregnancies and babies, but in her mind, the fact that comfort is offered to grieving parents is an admission of some kind of guilt.  Because, in the anti-choice mind, doctors aren’t providing care to women, they’re man-handling their bodies for pay, and women only consent to it because they’ve been poisoned by feminist ideas.  In that worldview, it’s impossible for a hospital that provides abortion care to women to act out of compassion to women, and provide something like a comfort room.  It has to be some kind of plot so they can get away with something. 

That’s the sort of crazy you can take to the bank.  To make it worse, Stanek posted pictures of the boxes containing the remains of the fetuses that are in the comfort room so the parents can say goodbye.  She simply doesn’t allow that people who have to go through the trauma of late term abortions are human beings, and so she stomps all over their feelings without regard for them.


The campaign “for” McCain is shaping up mostly to be against Obama, which might work, of course, so we shouldn’t get all relaxed about it.  That said, I’m beginning to wonder how the whisper campaign is going over with the mushy middle.  Most of it seems to go straight past believable whispers and right towards patently absurd claims, such as the claim that he’s okay with infanticide.  Salon has a really good article today on the whisper campaign, based around analyzing two of the many emails out there that try to scare the readers about Obama’s fictional religion and actual race.  One of them is more dangerous than the other, because it exploits a confusion that even smart, well-meaning people can have about racism, namely that talking about race=racism, because it makes people uncomfortable.  But what about the other one, that is nothing but paranoid ranting?  Will that affect any but the 25%-ers, the ones who worry about fluoride in the drinking water and still hold a grudge about Chappaquiddick? 

I remain convinced that the only way to keep this kind of paranoia from spreading from the right and infecting the middle is for Obama to come out swinging.  Waffling, as the BAIPA debacle has shown, only puts doubt in people’s minds.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 05:48 PM • (196) Comments

The campaign “for” McCain is shaping up mostly to be against Obama, which might work, of course, so we shouldn’t get all relaxed about it.

“Anybody But Bush!” was a real winner in 2004, so I can’t imagine why it would fail when the Republicans try it.

I remain convinced that the only way to keep this kind of paranoia from spreading from the right and infecting the middle is for Obama to come out swinging.  Waffling, as the BAIPA debacle has shown, only puts doubt in people’s minds.

I can’t argue with the bit on waffling.  One of Obama’s bigger strengths in this campaign is his ability to stay on message.  He’s done an admirable job of keeping issues on the table when the media dives off every “ZOMG!  Something-Gate!” cliff it can find.  He screwed up here, and it cost him, but he can consolidate and come back strong.

I don’t know if “coming out swinging” is the best analogy for what Obama’s campaign needs to do.  If he acts belligerent or petty, he’ll only hurt himself.  The best move his campaign ever made was introducing the term “Silly Season” into the public discourse.  Obama needs to keep the debate serious, and he needs to paint his opponents as ridiculous and illogical as we know them to be.  Blitzing the airwaves with intelligent and rational alternatives to GOoPer Jesus-fits-all demagoguery will win the independent voter block and shift that Overtone Window back towards the mainstream.

But there’s no doubt he should come through strong and substantive and speak with as much authority at his back as he can muster.  No point in backing down on the abortion debate, as its really the least of the hot button issues he is eventually going to face.  It’ll be a nice place to refine his technique as October rolls around.

Comment #1: Zifnab25  on  08/20  at  06:08 PM

I remain convinced that the only way to keep this kind of paranoia from spreading from the right and infecting the middle is for Obama to come out swinging.

Not only Obama, but all of us. Back in primary season, when I was still in the Edwards camp, I was forwarded an anti-Obama e-mail from a very well-meaning Dem who kinda-sorta supported Hillary. I did a reply-to-all immediately, pointing out little things like the racist dog-whistles and the complete lack of supporting evidence and relevance to real issues (in hindsight it was probably written by one of those PUMA nuts). I concluded by saying that we, as liberals and progressives who know one-another, are better than that.

The responses came flooding back, all agreeing with me. The original sender apologised sincerely to everyone, and hasn’t forwarded that kind of e-mail since.

The only way to deal with these whisper campaigns, whether via e-mail or during cocktail-party chat, is to roll over them immediately with facts and logic. Be polite if you want, but don’t be frightened to respond or call people on this kind of BS.

Comment #2: Gracchus  on  08/20  at  06:09 PM

Did he vote against the act or not?

Comment #3: Sharon  on  08/20  at  07:23 PM

Did he vote against the act or not?

Is there some part of “voted down a bill that was a direct attack on the right to abortion, specifically to therapeutic abortions done to save the life or the health of pregnant women,” that you don’t understand?

Comment #4: rea  on  08/20  at  07:26 PM

“Did he vote against the act or not?”

Amanda said:
“What’s happened is that right wing crazies have exploited the confusing nature of the various votes on this to create the misimpression that Obama voted no a bill that protects newborns from infanticide, but in fact he did no such thing, but voted down a bill that was a direct attack on the right to abortion, specifically to therapeutic abortions done to save the life or the health of pregnant women.”

Was this portion confusing in some way?

Comment #5: witless chum  on  08/20  at  07:27 PM

He voted against it, sharon, b/c any infant ‘born alive’ is protected b/c it’s been born.  He voted against it b/c it was a sham set up by forced-gestationists to accuse politicians of being ‘for’ infanticide—which SURPRISE—is exactly what they are doing.

I really really hate you fuckers.  If you or any one you knew ever had a much wanted baby die in utero, you wouldn’t dare say these things.  It’s funny how most of you back down when faced with a real-worl example.

Or maybe you would still say these things.  Maybe you all are really just that heartless and evil.

Comment #6: caren  on  08/20  at  07:32 PM

“voted down a bill that was a direct attack on the right to abortion, specifically to therapeutic abortions done to save the life or the health of pregnant women” just doesn’t fit into a sound bite, so Sharon can’t understand it.

Comment #7: Jasmine  on  08/20  at  07:45 PM

god, the people who exploit parents at that point in their lives are less than scum. My best friend’s mother had three miscarriages between her two children (and had been told to stop trying when my friend managed to come along…) and because of her treatment (she was never allowed to see the children, they were taken away for burial immediately) she’s spent 30 years advocating for women who miscarry and has quilted thousands of small flannel baby quilts that the babies can be swaddled in and shown to the mother (and then buried in). To give others the sense of comfort that she was not allowed to have.

Exploiting families who are greiving is repugnant and should be called out whenever it happens (so, thanks for this post!)

Comment #8: kodiak  on  08/20  at  07:47 PM

I’d like to hear the spin Sharon and her ilk would put on some of the stories I’ve heard from women over the years.  I worked in an abortion clinic as a patient educator/counselor.  That experience made me more pro-choice than anything else in my life.  Women make the decision to terminate a pregnancy for a whole lot of reasons and they’re doing the best they can in a crappy situation. I never met one woman who took the decision lightly and decided to terminate out of “convenience”.  Not one.  And even she had, it would have been her fucking right to do so.

When I was diagnosed with cancer and started going to a support group, I’ve heard more stories from women about the horrible choices they’d had to make between continuing a pregnancy and being treated for cancer.  I know women who’ve chosen to end their (late term) pregnancies so they could have treatment and I know women who put off treatment until after giving birth.  Some of these women are still alive.  Some are not.  Apparently Sharon think she’s more qualified to make these decisions than the women themselves.  That’s some fucking ego you’ve got there, Sharon.

Comment #9: BadKitty  on  08/20  at  07:51 PM

Do newborns even need to be “protected from infanticide”? I mean call me crazy, but I was under the assumption that murder (infanticide, matricide, regicide, etc.) was already against the law. How else can they be protected? Encasing them in lucite? Decreeing that nobody named “Medea” gets to give birth??

Comment #10: Sarah  on  08/20  at  07:52 PM

Do newborns even need to be “protected from infanticide”? I mean call me crazy, but I was under the assumption that murder (infanticide, matricide, regicide, etc.) was already against the law. How else can they be protected? Encasing them in lucite? Decreeing that nobody named “Medea” gets to give birth??

I just assumed we were going to post guards outside of every vagina in America in the name of national security.

Comment #11: Zifnab25  on  08/20  at  07:57 PM

>>>To make it worse, Stanek posted pictures of the boxes containing the remains of the fetuses that are in the comfort room so the parents can say goodbye.

Why on earth would this even be made an option to those who’ve undergone an abortion?

It reminds me of the 19th century practice of photographing dead children, sometimes posed alongside their still-living siblings.

It’s ghoulish as hell.

Comment #12: CHV  on  08/20  at  08:01 PM

Did any other democrats voted against the bill?

Comment #13: Steve  on  08/20  at  08:13 PM

Why on earth would this even be made an option to those who’ve undergone an abortion? ... It’s ghoulish as hell.

Ghoulish to some.  Helpful to others.  At the clinic where I worked, we offered women the option of seeing the products of their abortion afterwards.  A lot of women thought this was the most disgusting thing they’d ever heard and only around 10% of the patients I saw chose to do that.  Their reasons varied.  Some women wanted to know the truth.  They wanted to see what had actually been developing inside their bodies so they could never be lied to or manipulated by pro-lifers.  Some women were just curious. Some wanted to make damn sure the pregnancy was actually gone.  And others needed a chance to say goodbye, to let go, to offer a prayer, whatever. 

The pro-lifers are always talking about how abortion clinics lie to women and trick them into having abortions.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Our whole mission was to give women all the information they needed to make informed decisions for themselves.  But I guess Stanek wouldn’t know anything about that kind of thinking.

Comment #14: BadKitty  on  08/20  at  08:21 PM

Which part is ghoulish? I can’t tell from your post, CHV. Posting photos of other people’s dead children to score a cheap political point is ghoulish. But I don’t think wanting to say good-bye to a child that you wanted but couldn’t bring to term, for whatever reason, is ghoulish. One of the benefits of the much-derided “partial-birth abortion” procedure is that it produced a relatively intact body that a parent could hold and say good-bye to. Different people will have different ways of doing things, different practices that will help them feel closure. Even in your 19th century example, it’s not that ghoulish. They might not have had a picture of their child living. If you held your child in your arms while they died at home, you wouldn’t, upon the instant of death, recoil from the body as if it were a piece of meat. When I was in a rural part of South America in the Peace Corps, I was regularly asked to take pictures of people’s dead relatives. I’ll admit it freaked me out at first, but I actually think we’re the weird ones, having separated death from life so thoroughly.

Comment #15: chingona  on  08/20  at  08:26 PM

I just assumed we were going to post guards outside of every vagina in America in the name of national security.

Zifnab wins the internets today.

Comment #16: Entomologista  on  08/20  at  08:29 PM

Why on earth would this even be made an option to those who’ve undergone an abortion?

It reminds me of the 19th century practice of photographing dead children, sometimes posed alongside their still-living siblings.

CHV, it’s an option b/c women sometimes have to choose to terminate a pregnancy of a much wanted baby.  When a a woman has a termination because the fetus died in utero or to save her health, or b/c the fetus has a condition incompatible with life, some people find comfort in being able to hold the body or even have a body to bury.

Ghoulish?  Sure.  Any woman who chooses to terminate late is in a ghoulish state of circumstances.  That’s why no one else should be allowed to force a choice on her.

And, yes, Steve, other Democrats voted against the bill.  The bill was defeated.  When it was “passed” later, it was only after language was inserted that made it clear that nothing in this bill could be used to expand or contract abortion rights—which again, made it’s utter redundancy clear. 

You cannot legally murder someone.  You can decide to terminate extreme life-prolonging procedures that are doing nothing but prolonging suffering—a la Terri Schiavo.  In the rare occurences when a pregnancy is terminated and the baby survives, there is nothing that can be done to save them.  If you don’t have a brain or a heart, nothing will keep you alive.

Comment #17: caren  on  08/20  at  08:29 PM

<blockquote>If you don

Comment #18: Auguste  on  08/20  at  09:20 PM

It reminds me of the 19th century practice of photographing dead children, sometimes posed alongside their still-living siblings.

It was not only a custom to do such photos of dead children, but the many adults who passed away as well since photos prior to ~1910 before gel film came common required the subject to stand still for several seconds to minutes.  The younger the deceased, the more likely the photo would be taken. 

Recently dead people not only made good subjects, but you could easily intimidate the surviving children or siblings into actually behaving for 5 minutes with the creepy, scary cadaver.  One of my great-grandparents remembered his parents discussing doing this after his brother or sister died in the 1918 pandemic in rural Iowa.  Scared the crap out of him for life even though it never happened.

Comment #19: idiosynchronic  on  08/20  at  09:26 PM

I was once in the house of someone who had, on their living-room wall, photographs (dressed, in crib and so on) of what was pretty obviously a dead baby or late-term fetus; I suspect it was a late miscarriage/stillbirth.  Not something I would do, but people mourn differently.

Comment #20: Ledasmom  on  08/20  at  09:55 PM

Our precious, and very much wanted little girl - her pictures are on the walls.  We’ve been through 3 miscarriages and our little little girl Audrey was stillborn - she had died in uetero and I was induced.  I have 27 pictures of my daughter, a blanket, 2 bears (1 of which came with her casket), and a beaded bracelet that my husband converted to a necklace charm for me.  I am grateful that the hospital gave me that much.

I am lucky to have that much, I know women who never got to hold their babies. 

Sharon & this Jill chick should go to hell. They have never been through it, they don’t get it, they are scumbags.  I actually think worse of them, but I’m trying to be nice lately.  I just hope I am NEVER in a hospital suffering through another wanted pregnancy coming to an end and come across a woman like that.  I will not be liable for what I do to them at that time.  Women like them are why I have so much anger and hatred in my heart sometimes. 

If you’ve never been through it, you have no right to judge the way we grieve.  We each grieve differently in whatever ways work for us.

Comment #21: LaRu  on  08/20  at  10:18 PM

It should also be remembered that this was popular at a time when photography was rare and childhood death was common.  Commissioning a photo of your dead child might be your only chance of having a photograph of them.

It’s not as if, nowadays, people destroy all photographic evidence of people once they die.  Happening upon a photo of a dead relative (when they were still alive) nowadays isn’t considered creepy.

Comment #22: The Opoponax  on  08/20  at  10:23 PM

My grandmother has a picture of her dead older brother as a baby, all dressed up in a white gown.  He died at six months or thereabouts of pneumonia and her parents had a picture made.  It’s just what was done at the time.

Comment #23: ks  on  08/20  at  10:56 PM

We have pictures of my son who died after early induction. I’ll admit, I was very drugged when I had him so I can’t place the time all of them were taken, but I think half were taken while he was alive and half were taken after he passed. We also have a plaster cast of his footprints, the blanket I held him with, the measuring tape for his head, the outfit he wore, and a teddy bear that contains his ashes. I share his pictures only with people who I know will be kind and understanding, and I never share them without warning that they make people uncomfortable, although he just looks like he is sleeping in many of them. I thought it was weird until I was there, but having those mementos is really nice when I’m having a hard time or really missing him. Not mind you that I have a right to miss him or grieve for him because I’m an evil child murdering monster, but you know….

Comment #24: Julie  on  08/20  at  11:15 PM

“The proper response was to say just what I did—-that the bill was redundant with pre-existing murder laws”

There was a loophole in the existing law, also why did Obama say he would’ve supported it (as it was, but he lied) if it was the same as the federal bill?

Comment #25: Stacy L  on  08/20  at  11:17 PM

Take it easy on Sharon, folks.  All she did was ask a question because she was confused by the post.  Don’t go presuming ill intentions, it will only alienate people who meant no harm.

Comment #26: Dr. Psycho  on  08/20  at  11:20 PM

The Obama campaign now admits he voted as state senator against the very same legislation passed overwhelmingly on the federal level to stop infanticide

The Obama campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law.

While the Obama campaign finally admitted Obama has misrepresented his Born Alive vote all these years, it had the audacity to offer a ludicrous excuse, an excuse Obama himself contradicted only 24 hours ago, as he has for years, that “I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported.”

Comment #27: Stacy L  on  08/20  at  11:23 PM

“Did any other democrats voted against the bill? “

The bill passed 98-0 in the US senate. Obama voted against the identical bill in the Illinios state senate (as admitted by his campaign)

Comment #28: Stacy L  on  08/20  at  11:25 PM

If you want to see an HONEST argument against a candidate, check out the new ad from the iowa democrats talking about EQUAL PAY.

Women’s Issues DO matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKrqzyKw0gk

Comment #29: Marty  on  08/20  at  11:25 PM

“Not mind you that I have a right to miss him or grieve for him because I’m an evil child murdering monster, but you know…. “

No you’re not Julie, but what about down sydrome babies who are aborted alive? should they be left to die? Or given treament like a “wanted” premie would get?

Comment #30: Stacy L  on  08/20  at  11:29 PM

“...people who have to go through the trauma of late term abortions are human beings…”
What about the trauma that the aborted baby has to go through?  How would you answer Rick Warren’s question “At what point does a baby get human rights?”

Comment #31: direwolf  on  08/20  at  11:35 PM

“At what point does a baby get human rights?” - Upon taking the first breath. And then the rights are not absolute, because the parents have considerable say about medical and other treatment options. If the infant is severely compromised, for example, a micro-premie, a Potter’s syndrome (no kidneys) kid, etc.,  the parents ought to be able to choose to treat or not treat.

Comment #32: NancyP  on  08/20  at  11:54 PM

Stacy, there’s no federal abortion law.  Ergo, Obama would have voted for the federal version on the federal level as he said.

There is a state abortion law in Illinois.  Obama would have voted for a version that included the federal language and language protecting existing Illinois law, as he said.  He was never presented with a version that protected rights as they were guaranteed under Illinois law, and therefore voted against both versions of the bill he was presented.

If you need it more simply, we can photoshop it into some Day by Day cartoons.

Comment #33: Jesse Taylor  on  08/20  at  11:56 PM

What about the trauma that the aborted baby has to go through?  How would you answer Rick Warren’s question “At what point does a baby get human rights?”

I hate to rehash the painful situation that another poster discussed in a previous thread, but here goes:

I would probably have had a late term abortion, if the ultrasound people had read my baby’s 5 month scan accurately.  It would have been better than watching her struggle for 2 months. The lower half of her face was not there, no upper palate, screaming in pain when we fed her through a naso gastric tube.  She had no frontal lobe and they told me she probably knew nothing, but who knows what a newborn knows anyway.  It would have been better than watching her stop breathing for up to a minute at a time and then start again, looking terrified, and blue.  I’ve been in therapy on and off for 4 years and have had another child, am being treated for PTSD.

The question Rick Warren should be asking is at what point will we start treating people with at least as much consideration as we treat our pets?

Another question Rick Warren should be asking is why so much money is being spent on anti-abortion PR when there are so many sick babies *alive* out there who aren’t getting the best medical treatment possible simply because their parents can’t afford it?

Comment #34: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  12:04 AM

Jesse,

were not talking abortion laws, were talking about BAIPA, google it.

“There is a state abortion law in Illinois.  Obama would have voted for a version that included the federal language “

He said he would have but he didn’t (the 2003 bill was identical to the federal version). He killed the bill in Illinois. You’re not up to spped on the issue.

http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/

Comment #35: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  12:11 AM

No, I’m apparently ahead of you on the issue. 

I just gave you the reasons why Obama did what he did, and why the 2005 version (which followed the 2001 and 2003 versions which failed to pass the legislature) passed when the other two didn’t.

The 2003 version inserted the federal language…and still lacked the specific protections necessary under Illinois law, because the federal language would have no say on the specific edicts of Illinois as it related to reproductive rights.

Comment #36: Jesse Taylor  on  08/21  at  12:15 AM

“I hate to rehash the painful situation that another poster discussed in a previous thread, but here goes”


Thats one case, what about downs babies or clef lips and other non-serious illnesses they are aborted for?...and the care would not be extradinary..but it should be more than being left to die in soiled utility rooms

“The question Rick Warren should be asking is at what point will we start treating people with at least as much consideration as we treat our pets? “

we do, we killed “unwanted” pets and babies…

“Another question Rick Warren should be asking is why so much money is being spent on anti-abortion PR when there are so many sick babies *alive* out there who aren’t getting the best medical treatment possible simply because their parents can’t afford it? “

*alive* ? unborn chidren are not alive?  do you mean born?

we’ll, it’s legal to kill unborn children but illegal to kill born children (thanks to BAIPA and Jill Stanek).

Let’s stop the murdering of the unborn first…then discuss medical care next..

Comment #37: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  12:21 AM

Let’s stop the murdering of the unborn first…then discuss medical care next..

Talk about misplaced priorities.

Sounds more like a an extortion threat.

Comment #38: gwangung  on  08/21  at  12:27 AM

“The 2003 version inserted the federal language…and still lacked the specific protections necessary under Illinois law”

No, there’s no truth to that. It’s a cop-out.  Plus, Obama said himself (for 4 years) that he would have voted for if it was identical to the federal version. Here is the video.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/obama_continues.html#trackbacks

then he addmitted he was wrong after calling pro-lifers liars…

Plus, the 2003 version would not effect any existing abortion laws on the books…

as in the federal version (which passed 98-0).

Obama is a radical pro-abort who is unfit to be President.

Comment #39: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  12:34 AM

No, there’s no truth to that. It’s a cop-out.

Then why did it not pass the Illinois legislature the other two times it was up for a vote?

Comment #40: Jesse Taylor  on  08/21  at  12:40 AM

So you’re honestly suggesting that the Illinois legislature went from being in favor of killing babies in 2001 and 2003 to suddenly not wanting to kill babies in 2005. And they did this for absolutely no reason, since apparently the language in the bill was already perfect.

How can you find this logical?

Comment #41: stormhit  on  08/21  at  12:43 AM

“Then why did it not pass the Illinois legislature the other two times it was up for a vote?”

Obama was the head of the commitee and he lead the fight to kill it(he was worried about Roe). In the 2003 version, he actually pased the “nuetrality clause” then voted against the bill.

Look, I don’t believe Obama wants to kill babies, but God, the baby at this point is separated from the mother, she has what you refer to as “boldily autonomy” at this point. How far is Obama going to push this? Now, born babies don’t have rights?


Obama should read his own book, Audacity of Hope:

... [T]he essential idea behind the Declaration - that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will - is one that every American understands.

Comment #42: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  12:58 AM

Um, guys, I think I smell a troll… have we been feeding it?

As for the comment “Let’s stop the murdering of the unborn first…then discuss medical care next.”—you mean that, until this cultural war comes to an end and it’s been decided who is officially a person and who is officially not a person, it’s not worth discussing health care for anyone else?  REALLY?  SERIOUSLY? 

That’s all the troll kibble I’ll dispense.

Comment #43: misskate7511  on  08/21  at  01:07 AM

Dr. Psycho, sharon is a known troll, an infrequent annoyance who likes to hang out with other trolls who visit here.  If your statement was made without knowledge of this, it’s excusable, but still wrong.  If you’re also trolling, I’d suggest you follow her out.

Stacy, kindly shut up while the adults talk.  Your psychotic rambling is annoying and unwelcome, and Jill Stanek is a shrieking, amoral, lying, misogynistic shit, just like you.

More to the topic that the non-douchebags here are discussing, my sister had a rather unusual pregnancy recently: She had twins, except one formed acranial.  When that one naturally miscarried, it seemed like the other might not, which would have been a medical first.  That, unfortunately, didn’t happen.  I received an envelope some several months hence containing two pictures: a recent photo of my niece, and a picture of the miscarried twin (the otherwise-normal one).  I was more than a bit put off by this - certainly, were I in a similar situation, I wouldn’t have done so without a letter or a phone call first - but I understood.  I don’t question what my family does, or what anyone does, in this situation, for the simple fact that I, for lack of a better term, get it.

Comment #44: Damian  on  08/21  at  01:09 AM

Obama was the head of the commitee and he lead the fight to kill it(he was worried about Roe). In the 2003 version, he actually pased the “nuetrality clause” then voted against the bill.

Didn’t pass in 2001, didn’t pass in 2003, Obama left and was replaced by another Democrat.  Did he have that iron of a grip on the Illinois State Legislature that he could make his committee vote for murder?

Or could there have been a problem with the language of the bill?

Comment #45: Jesse Taylor  on  08/21  at  01:09 AM

why is stacy still spewing this crap?

i will, this one time and because i am protected by a ton of oxycodone because of this latest surgery, attempt to rectify this situation and educate the troll.

stacy: 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, according to many many many OBs. abortion is another name for “forced miscarriage”, and has been practiced for AT LEAST 3 thousand years. there is documentation for this. roman coins, pre AD, often had the imprint of an herb on them - this herb was a common antiabortificant used by roman matrons. there is NOTHING immoral or unethical in removing a tapeworm from your body. no matter the DNA. and if you feel that its WRONG to equate a human fetus to a parasite, please take a moment and THINK about the cold, hard facts. a fetus is a parasite. in my specific case, its a parasite that will kill. in many cases it will kill. or maim. or threaten health. the sad fact is that pregnancy is one of the most dangerous things a woman can attempt. and every woman deserves the RIGHT to DECIDE for HERSELF if she is willing to take that risk. everyday, she has the right to decide. if you REALLY want to change this, than get some scientists together and find a way to gestate babies outside of a female human body. i recommend science fiction, especially Louis Bujold, for your inspiration. in the meantime, quit attacking people who value the dignity and integrity of BORN ADULT women over the POSSIBILITY of baby - who is still a parasite, and makes life that much more difficult when wanted, let alone when it isn’t wanted.

Comment #46: denelian  on  08/21  at  01:15 AM

No Jesse, there was nothing wrong with the 2003 bill. Obama said it himself (Naral was not against it).

Here is the video:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/cbn_expose_on_o.html#trackbacks


“Stacy, kindly shut up while the adults talk.  Your psychotic rambling is annoying and unwelcome, and Jill Stanek is a shrieking, amoral, lying, misogynistic shit, just like you.”

Sounds like you’re on the losing end. Plus your rambling is incoherant.

Comment #47: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  01:17 AM

“a fetus is a parasite”

Denelian,

I want to thank you for telling us your true feelings about the unborn and how pro-aborts think.

The Nazis thought the same about the Jews. Congrats.

Comment #48: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  01:24 AM

Aw, Stacy, you just had to go and try the reductio ad Hitlerum approach.  I think you just lost this one.

Comment #49: misskate7511  on  08/21  at  01:42 AM

NARAL wasn’t in opposition to the federal bill.  NARAL didn’t, as far as anyone’s said, weigh in on the specific considerations of the Illinois bill.

Comment #50: Jesse Taylor  on  08/21  at  01:44 AM

Oh, this is gonna be sweeeeet:

Thats one case, what about downs babies or clef lips and other non-serious illnesses they are aborted for?...and the care would not be extradinary..but it should be more than being left to die in soiled utility rooms

Setting aside for a moment the statistical unlikelihood of an aborted fetus being born alive and viable enough to save, let’s talk about Down’s Syndrome – specifically about the heart problems often associated with that condition, and about the special educational, vocational, and residential requirements of many people thus affected.

Erik had an AVSD (atrio-ventricular septal defect) and had open-heart surgery to correct this condition when he was six months old. Although the surgery went very well and he recovered very quickly, it was a very traumatic experience for us, as it meant leaving our daughters for ten days while travelling out of town for the surgery.
With that part behind us, we now faced the other part of the diagnosis: Down Syndrome. The knowledge I had of it was very limited. The information I received was outdated and mostly discouraging. I often wondered: would I be strong enough to deal with this, to raise a handicapped child?
(http://www3.sympatico.ca/terry.edwards/Shelby.html)

That story is basically the archetype for how parents react to the discovery their child will be or has been born with Down’s Syndrome. They have two main concerns, both of which are valid: that they’ll be unable to care properly for the child, and that they’ll be unable to afford the costs. 

If you so-called “pro-lifers” were really interested in saving children as opposed to merely controlling women, you would address the underlying reasons for abortion rather than obsessing over the act itself.

Just making abortion illegal wouldn’t necessary protect a child with Down’s Syndrome. The fetus might end up at the business end of a coat hanger in an illegal abortion, or it might end up abandoned or even killed after birth by parents who still don’t have the necessary information or the proper health coverage to care properly for a child with disabilities.

I think it’s a fucking tragedy that fetuses with Down’s Syndrome are aborted by people who would have kept them but for the presence of good information and steady support. 

You guys don’t give a shit about making life better for the people already here, or even really about preventing abortion. If you were concerned about the former, you’d be investing your considerable resources in fighting for better health coverage; and if you were concerned for the latter, your anti-choice platform would be encouraging the use of contraceptives.

we do, we killed “unwanted” pets and babies…

Oh no; you want keep suffering or vegetative people alive, not because you personally care about their plight but simply because you want to make a political point. And once the cameras are gone, those people are returned to the underfunded, poorly-staffed facilities where you found them. 

Suffering pets that can’t be cured or at least treated effectively for pain are euthanized by people who aren’t complete assholes.

Let’s stop the murdering of the unborn first…then discuss medical care next..

You want to stop the “murder of the unborn”? Really? Then cut funding for abstinence “education” and start handing out condoms and birth control pills.

You’re so concerned about preserving life that you and your ilk are forever hindering or blocking things like condom-distribution initiatives in areas hit by HIV, and HPV vaccination that can prevent cervical cancer.

Comment #51: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  01:50 AM

Obama is a radical pro-abort who is unfit to be President.

Yet he has managed to be the father of two children.  Kind of uncharacteristic behavior for a radical pro-abort (whatever that is) don’t you think?

Comment #52: Donna  on  08/21  at  01:50 AM

When asked about abortion he replied that “it was above his paygrade”, yet when asked about embryonic stem cell research and federal funding, he said that embryos should NOT be produced specifically for research, but that existing ones could be used that way…

Well, why the heck not? Why is it above his paygrade to make a moral statement about when life begins on the abortion issue, but suddenly get all moral on embryonic stem cells. Why would it matter where the embryos came from? If it IS taking a human life, then NO, NO, NO embryos should be killed, and if it isn’t taking human life then ALL embryos should be up for grabs.

If it is taking human life, then so is abortion.

Can’t have your cake and eat it two.

How can you be against abortion and for it? Against killing embryos, yet for it?

Look at it this way: Suppose you have a front yard with a fence on it. The gate has a “WELCOME” sign on it. Along comes a woman with Alzheimers…She has no way of reasoning out that the welcome sign is not meant for her…thus making her innocent…the way a newly conceived child has no way of stopping it’s conception…

She wanders through your gate and onto the front porch. You argue that you can club her to death with a baseball bat because she is infringing on your property rights. We argue that you can’t, considering she is innocent of any real crime, given that she isn’t capable of reason and rational thought.

You say you aren’t forcing US to club her to death, but just want the right to club her to death yourself.

We say, you had a WELCOME sign on your gate…If you were so freaked out by her coming on your porch (especially since it had happened many times to your neighbors before) then you should have put a lock on your gate, or removed the WELCOME sign. You are the one that is capable of making “choices”, not her (not the baby). The responsibility falls on YOUR shoulders.

The government, by saying that you do indeed have the right to clobber her, is forcing US to accept your behavior, even if it means that the woman will be killed in cold blood.

You say you are not forcing us to have abortions, and we shouldn’t force you not to.

You say you are not forcing US to beat the old lady with a bat, and that we shouldn’t stop you.

But who is protecting/speaking up for the old lady?

You’re argument that it is your porch/body and you have the right to do with it what you want, falls apart because there IS, IS, IS a third party involved. And it is that third parties rights that we are fighting for. You keep focusing on the woman’s rights, but we are focusing on the bystanders rights. If you argue it from your point, of course we have no where to go…but how convenient to simply dismiss the old lady.

The government doesn’t have any right to interfere. On that you are correct. By saying that you have the right to kill your child, they ARE interfering, not with your rights, but with the childs.

Comment #53: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  01:53 AM

“If you so-called “pro-lifers” were really interested in saving children as opposed to merely controlling women, you would address the underlying reasons for abortion rather than obsessing over the act itself.”

Devil,

If we addessed all the underlying issues would you still be for legalized abortion?

(btw: there will always be so-called “underlying issues”, and other excuses for terminating unborn children)

“You guys don’t give a shit about making life better for the people already here, or even really about preventing abortion. If you were concerned about the former, you’d be investing your considerable resources in fighting for better health coverage”

who do you think runs the free Crisis Pregnancy Centers?  ..we don’t get 350 million per year like Planned Parenthood either, it’s all by donation.

Comment #54: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  02:08 AM

If we addessed all the underlying issues would you still be for legalized abortion? (btw: there will always be so-called “underlying issues”, and other excuses for terminating unborn children)

If you’d asked me that question a year and a half ago, I would have said ‘no.’ But now that I’ve seen what the organized pro-life movement has to offer in the way of alternatives to legal abortion, I have to say ‘yes.’

There is no way to successfully legislate morality. If prohibition and the drug war have taught us anything, it’s that making something illegal only serves to drive it underground where it can’t be regulated at all. The number of abortions would not go down; people would still have them for a perceived lack of alternatives.

Ultimately, a truly pro-life position would be one where you offer the best information and the best options and the most compassion you can, trusting that your position will stand on its own merits without the need for lies or legislation.

who do you think runs the free Crisis Pregnancy Centers?  ..we don’t get 350 million per year like Planned Parenthood either, it’s all by donation.

Oh, you mean those fake pregnancy counseling centers where people go to get lied to about their options and given a bag of baby clothes before being pushed out the door?

Ever since I read the Waxman Report -http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20060717101140-30092.pdf – I’ve made my own study of crisis pregnancy centers, reading their online literature, testimonials of those who’ve used their services, and reports on their effectiveness.

You guys might want to change your policies before trying to assume the moral high-ground, because guess what? You don’t do shit.

Comment #55: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  02:21 AM

“There is no way to successfully legislate morality. If prohibition and the drug war have taught us anything, it’s that making something illegal only serves to drive it underground where it can’t be regulated at all. “

Well let’s legalize stealing, assault and murder too… this way we can regulate it..I mean, people are going to it anyways…

*shakes head*


“You guys might want to change your policies before trying to assume the moral high-ground, because guess what? You don’t do shit.”

Henry Waxman?  LOL…
Ok Devil, whatever you say.

Comment #56: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  02:34 AM

” But now that I’ve seen what the organized pro-life movement has to offer in the way of alternatives to legal abortion, I have to say ‘yes.’ “

Thank you for proving my point.

Comment #57: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  02:36 AM

We say, you had a WELCOME sign on your gate…If you were so freaked out by her coming on your porch (especially since it had happened many times to your neighbors before) then you should have put a lock on your gate, or removed the WELCOME sign. You are the one that is capable of making “choices”, not her (not the baby). The responsibility falls on YOUR shoulders

IOW, slut shaming.  Bite me, Stacy.

Comment #58: Donna  on  08/21  at  02:47 AM

Well let’s legalize stealing, assault and murder too… this way we can regulate it..I mean, people are going to it anyways…

Stealing, assault, and murder are illegal because they have an adverse affect on individuals and on society at large. It has less to do with raw morality than with the practical considerations of running an ordered society.

Abortion is a gray area because no one knows, or ever will know for sure, when life begins; and so no one can say with any degree of certainty when (or even if) a woman’s right to agency and bodily autonomy starts to compete with the right of a fetus to legal protection.

Birth is an arbitrary line, but it’s the best, clearest, surest line we’ll ever have. Drawing the line there serves to protect pregnant woman from undo government interference concerning what they eat, how they exercise, how much caffeine they drink, etc. It also serves to protect them from police investigations following miscarriage.

Abortion is a matter of individual conscience, between a woman and her doctor. Either trust that the woman will make the right decision for herself, making resources available that will help her if she needs it, or butt out.

Henry Waxman?  LOL…

If you have a problem with the Waxman report, and with my subsequent observations, the next step would be to provide some facts that prove me wrong – if there are any.

Comment #59: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  02:49 AM

Thank you for proving my point.

You had a point? Oh, do tell.

Comment #60: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  02:50 AM

were not talking abortion laws, were talking about BAIPA, google it.

“There is a state abortion law in Illinois.  Obama would have voted for a version that included the federal language “

He said he would have but he didn’t (the 2003 bill was identical to the federal version). He killed the bill in Illinois.

Unsurprisingly perhaps, Stacy L lied. No bill introduced in the 2003-2004 Ill. Senate session contained this doctor-protecting language, as did the 2005 state law (and the federal law):

(d) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion.
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to alter   generally accepted medical standards.

http://www.ilga.gov/search/LISGSApage.asp?target=born+alive&submit1=Go&scope=leg93

Comment #61: Hector B.  on  08/21  at  03:12 AM

Yet another misogynist troll, yet another unhinged screed, yet another reason why these people should never, NEVER be allowed any say.

Comment #62: Damian  on  08/21  at  03:19 AM

Heh, I agree with Damian, to the point of wanting to know what that download for Mozilla is that allows me to killfile the trolls? Because it is making me physically ill to see them respond to women explaining firsthand about how pregnancy would kill them, or how they grieved for a stillborn, or several other heartbreaking anecdotes with the blind accusation of murder.

They would murder grown women to keep ectopic pregnancies from being removed before they burst. And yet they make us out to be the monsters.

Comment #63: Samantha Vimes  on  08/21  at  05:45 AM

Because it is making me physically ill to see them respond to women explaining firsthand about how pregnancy would kill them, or how they grieved for a stillborn, or several other heartbreaking anecdotes with the blind accusation of murder.

Blind is right. You’ll notice the trolls won’t actually engage any of the points being discussed, instead choosing to substitute bumper-sticker rhetoric for reasoned rebuttal.

For example, Stacy responds to a post about Down’s Syndrome with this handy little dodge:

(btw: there will always be so-called “underlying issues”, and other excuses for terminating unborn children)

“Excuse” – the anti-choice dog whistle: Stacy clearly believes people get abortions just for shits and giggles, thus necessitating that they make up excuses to substitute for their lack of valid reasons. Ectopic pregnancy? Trisomy 13? Withered little organs growing too-slowly outside the body of the fetus? Dead fetus that could poison the mother? Fear of being unable to provide life-sustaining care to a child after it’s born? 13-year-old rape victim?

Pshaw!

In Stacy’s world, those are all just cover stories for this: “I’m bored today. I think I’ll run out and get an abortion to go with that handbag I bought last week.”

I’m sorry I ever threw in with these anti-choice tools. Pro-life, my ass.

Comment #64: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  07:54 AM

Y’know, the only places where homeowners get away with killing innocent visitors on the grounds of “protecting their property” (like, say, Texas or Louisiana, home of a couple of notorious cases) are in the very same areas with weak gun control, strong Religious Right presence, and lots of “pro-life” influence who keep women from having abortions.  I live in evil, gay-loving, “pro-abort” Massachusetts and I have NEVER heard of such nonsense here.

Bad example, Stacy.  Now go away and do something useful, like volunteer at a home for severely disabled children.

Comment #65: Ellid  on  08/21  at  08:12 AM

Bad example, Stacy.  Now go away and do something useful, like volunteer at a home for severely disabled children.

Do we really want Stacy working with disabled kids? She seems the type to tell them that they’re disabled because they sinned against God…

Comment #66: Scott  on  08/21  at  09:04 AM

“Stacy, there’s no federal abortion law.  Ergo, Obama would have voted for the federal version on the federal level as he said. “


This simply is not true.  Roe and its progeny are decisional authority which are, in fact, federal law, it’s just not statutory or regulatory law, but law nonetheless.  By virtue of the Supremacy Clause, anything the Supreme Court can shoehorn into the language of Constitutional Rights becomes the outline of the right for all 57 states.  There is no need for a “neutrality clause” because any law that is anything other than accomodating of Roe and other decisional authorities is a legal nullity, to be confirmed by facial challange to the Constitutionality of the statute if necessary. 

Existing murder laws (I believe Illinois is MPC) are inadequate because the law generally does not impose a positive duty to act;  viz, leaving a child born during an attempted late-term abortion to die, without treatment, is a legally ambiguous situation.

I think we should just be honest and admit that Senator Obama needed then to establish his feminist bona fides in anticipation of his future political career.

Comment #67: Pink Dinkins, QC  on  08/21  at  09:14 AM

Samantha,

If you have the Grease Monkey extension installed in Firefox, then google “Grease Monkey killfile” and it should be the first entry.  I’ve been using it for the past few months and it makes reading these threads much more pleasant when I don’t have to see trolls like Sharon or Stacy.

Comment #68: Steve (in Peoria)  on  08/21  at  09:42 AM

How can you be against abortion and for it? Against killing embryos, yet for it?

John McCain thinks that life begins at conception but supports stem-cell research.  He’s against abortion but for human experimentation since he thinks that embryos are full human beings.  How do you reconcile your vote for McCain with his view that it’s A-OK to experiment on humans?

She wanders through your gate and onto the front porch. You argue that you can club her to death with a baseball bat because she is infringing on your property rights. We argue that you can’t, considering she is innocent of any real crime, given that she isn’t capable of reason and rational thought.

I’m not sure what country you live in, but in the United States you are allowed to kill intruders even if they’re innocent.  Unless you’re trying to argue that Rodney Peairs should have been convicted of murder for shooting the exchange student that he was afraid was trying to break into his house.

People are mistakenly shot and killed all of the time in this country.  Should we change the law to say that anyone who kills someone who breaks into their house should be convicted of murder even if they genuinely thought that person was going to harm them?  If you wake up in the middle of the night and accidentally kill your teenager who was sneaking in after curfew, should you get the death sentence?  You’d better start advocating to change the laws, because right now the answer is no, because most people understand that a person has an interest in preserving their own life even if it comes at the expense of another person’s.

Comment #69: Mnemosyne  on  08/21  at  09:53 AM

Existing murder laws (I believe Illinois is MPC) are inadequate because the law generally does not impose a positive duty to act; viz, leaving a child born during an attempted late-term abortion to die, without treatment, is a legally ambiguous situation.

Please detail the life-saving treatment that should be performed on a child born with no brain or born with its organs outside of its body.  I’m sure that all of the mothers who have posted here will be astounded to know that their doctors withheld your absolute knowledge that their child with no brain could have been saved and lived a normal life.

Seriously, what is the problem with people who don’t seem to understand that <i>not every pregnancy ends well</a>.  My cousin’s baby was born with severe birth defects and, even though they and their doctors did everything they could, she died at two months.  It’s easy for assholes on the internet to stand around and talk about what a horrible person she is because her baby died, but there’s a reason they don’t say these things in public—they know that everyone else will realize what assholes they really are if they can’t even have compassion for someone whose wanted baby died.

Comment #70: Mnemosyne  on  08/21  at  09:58 AM

Obama is a radical pro-abort who is unfit to be President.

My god, weren’t we just talking with a bunch of PUMA-trolls who were telling us that Obama had sold out to the religious right on this issue?

Comment #71: rea  on  08/21  at  10:21 AM

Did he vote against the act or not?

Here’s a better question: Why do anti-choicers create bills that say they’re for one thing, but are actually intended for another?

In other words, the real question is, “Why are anti-choicers lying like motherfuckers about this?  What are they hiding?”

Comment #72: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/21  at  11:05 AM

My God, I can’t believe I’m engaging this argument in good faith, but here goes:

She wanders through your gate and onto the front porch. You argue that you can club her to death with a baseball bat because she is infringing on your property rights. We argue that you can’t, considering she is innocent of any real crime, given that she isn’t capable of reason and rational thought.

WRONG.  We don’t argue that we can club her to death.  We argue that we have the right to remove her.  If she dies as a result, that’s an unfortunate side effect.

And what’s really infuriating is that your side would normally be all in favor of removing trespassers from my property, even if they die as a result.  Oh, I forgot—Republicans are in favor of requiring homeowners to open up their spare bedrooms to the homeless.

Wait, what? 

You people—who would normally be in favor of our right to do whatever the hell we want with our own property, and indeed of our right to kill an intruder on our property, say that not only can we not kill her, we can’t even remove her, even if she starts shooting a gun at the house and being a mortal danger to the property owner.

Your side would applaud us for defending our own property in any manner we chose.  Even if we put out a “Welcome” mat, as many people do.  But when it comes to women’s bodies?  Those aren’t our property, sez you.  Then whose property are they, pray?

Comment #73: elmo  on  08/21  at  11:20 AM

Oops, elmo—you opened the door to the obvious retort, “GOD’s property/temple of course.”  Really, there’s no use in arguing with the Stacy’s of the world as long as they truly believe that fetus = same as people.  I’ve tried cracking that nut before, but it’s the entire foundation of their belief systems.  They can’t let one go.

Comment #74: Dr. Locrian  on  08/21  at  11:32 AM

Samantha, First, Supreme Court precedent cannot be overturned by a federal ban.  That whole supremacy thing you mentioned.  (It is an interpretation of the Constitution.)  Federal statutory law does not create the confines within which that right can be exercised that apply NATIONWIDE.  They would only apply within FEDERAL territories (i.e., D.C.).  The reason Barack Obama or anyone principled would not vote for the BAIPA without the clauses mentioned by Hector B. in his 2:12 comment is because those clauses were left out in order to create litigation.  (As Amanda gets at in her 10:05.)  Because they conflict with existing law. 

Can you please explain why parents of children, whether induced early or born on time, should be forced to provide medical care to them that will prolong their lives and suffering, but not mean that they can live any longer than the hours, days, or in some cases, months that their condition?  If I got into a really bad car accident, and I was brain dead, my husband could choose to have them only give me palliative care, and to let me go.  Why shouldn’t parents of just born children, whether they are induced early or not, have the same choice?  Esp. because “brain dead” people have (very) occasionally come out of it, but children without frontal lobes, kidneys, or without anything but a brain stem have not.

Comment #75: Ismone  on  08/21  at  11:36 AM

Wow, Amanda, there is an ad running on your front page right now that says “stop abortion on demand” “sign our petition now” and demonizes Clinton.  (Sigh).  Gotta love whatever algorithm decides to place these ads on your site.

Comment #76: Ismone  on  08/21  at  11:39 AM

SSHHHHH !

I think the troll is gone.  Don’t feed it any more or it might come back.

People like Stacy remind me why I hate anti-choicers.  I don’t like hating, but really, what’s the alternative?  Constructive dialogue is clearly pointless.

Comment #77: ummeli  on  08/21  at  11:51 AM

“:WRONG. We don’t argue that we can club her to death.  We argue that we have the right to remove her. If she dies as a result, that’s an unfortunate side effect. “

heartless. godless. Ann Coulter was right.

“In Stacy’s world, those are all just cover stories for this: “I’m bored today. I think I’ll run out and get an abortion to go with that handbag I bought last week.”

98% of abortions are for elective. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Comment #78: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  12:04 PM

The genesis of the death wish is rooted in the fall of man that we see in the Book of Genesis. The substance of the fall is wrapped up in Lucifer’s pride, transferred to Adam and Eve - “You can be like gods, knowing good and evil.” The unholy, yet inevitable, consequence of that pride is disobedience - eating the forbidden fruit. The ultimate end is death, as God said it would be. That’s the way it was in the beginning. That’s the way it is now. That’s the way it will be until time breathes forth its last moment.
The prototypical sin is pride, the pride that seeks to exalt the creature above the Creator: “I can be like God.” Then, subjectively and arbitrarily, man tries to assert himself, imagining that he knows what’s good and evil for himself without reference to God and God’s law. This was the fall of the angels and the fall of man. The attempt by creatures to usurp what is only the province of God. Only God knows what is good for His creation.

In recent years it took the form of a self-inflicted heart wound when some dissident Catholics rejected the teaching of the Church, a teaching that clearly held that artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. Then, as Pope Paul VI had warned, it metastasized into abortion. From abortion it degenerated even further into partial-birth abortion. It was then a short and easy step to infanticide.

The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that now there is yet another candidate for the office of president of the United States who has in an extraordinary way done everything possible to breathe life into all of the barbaric elements of the death wish. He and his party make no apologies for their support of abortion, partial-birth abortion, and even infanticide. It’s hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point that we’ll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born alive.

The judges and politicians that support such barbaric practices are truly guilty of genocide: genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, racial, religious, national, or social group. “What is the group so targeted?” you might ask. The group is unwanted, unborn children - tens of millions of them.

May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Comment #79: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  12:08 PM

No thanks, just had a hookah bowl full of apple-spiced fetus an hour ago.  Still buzzing.

Comment #80: Dr. Locrian  on  08/21  at  12:09 PM

Stacy,

So you support a person who thinks it’s ok for terrorists to attack news buildings and who thinks women shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

Comment #81: Sundown  on  08/21  at  12:14 PM

Sorry for feeding the troll even more, but I just can’t resist…

Stacy, aside from all the anti-woman crap you’ve been spewing, which is completely wrongheaded and evil and you know it, we do have a little something in this country called “separation of church and state”.  Meaning, get your religious stuff our of the government, you can’t use religion as a basis for law. 

And there’s a really good reason for that, aside from the founding fathers’ justified paranoia about setting up an official state religion:  not all US citizens are Christian or even the same flavor of Christian and not all of us are even in any way, shape, or form religious.  Now you can think that my atheist ass is completely immoral and evil all you want, but you can’t legislate it.  And you can’t legislate that my body doesn’t belong to me and that I have to do what God says, because I don’t happen to believe in your God or any other and you can’t use that as a basis for law that applies to all citizens.  Because last I checked, this is still the United States and (for now, until Bush and the republicans get done trashing it) we do still have that pesky little document called the Constitution as the basis for our form of government.

Comment #82: ks  on  08/21  at  12:18 PM

Someone doesn’t know what elective means.

Comment #83: hanna jörgel  on  08/21  at  12:21 PM

May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Oh.

Oh, my.

Sorry, everybody, I knew I was probably feeding the troll, but I didn’t realize…  Contraception = infanticide?  Woo.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great!
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate!

Wowzers.

Comment #84: elmo  on  08/21  at  12:23 PM

Stacy,

See my 10:36. 

Why is it that if I was involved in a car crash and brain dead, my husband could let me die, but parents cannot permit their children with fatal defects to die peacefully?  Why do pro-lifers want to extend non-viable life with medical techniques that DID NOT exist during biblical times and WILL NOT prevent the child from dying, soon and in pain?  Isn’t that just torture?

And why are you so willing to believe that humans are evil, instead of doing the best they can in morally tough and psychologically challenging situations?

As to abortions being elective, did you know that more than half of women who get abortions already have children and do so in order to be able to support their born children?

Condoms are not, by any definition of the word, abortifacient, and yet the church bans them.  Yes, I am familiar with the theological argument about the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, but I really don’t see how abstention during the fertile period fails to sever those two aspects and yet condoms do.  Married, chaste women are dying in Africa because the Church is focusing more of its energy on banning condoms than on getting it through men’s skulls that sleeping around on your wife is ADULTERY.  Which is the greater sin?

Comment #85: Ismone  on  08/21  at  12:23 PM

98% of abortions are for elective. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You keep saying that.  What do you mean by elective?  Do you mean any woman whose life isn’t in immediate danger?  What about women who will survive, but whose health will be damaged by a continued pregnancy?  You really need to define your terms.

Point 2: That 2% represents thousands of women.  Why do you want them to die?

Point 3: Even if this statistic isn’t an outright lie, it’s not the knockout punch you seem to expect it to be.  Maybe it’s shocking and horrifying in the circles you usually move in, but women freely making choices about their health isn’t something that we’re ashamed of here.

Comment #86: Seraph  on  08/21  at  12:40 PM

Then, subjectively and arbitrarily, man tries to assert himself, imagining that he knows what’s good and evil for himself without reference to God and God’s law. This was the fall of the angels and the fall of man.

Actually, before they ate the Fruit, Adam and Eve literally had no knowledge of good and evil.  They had no way of knowing that obey God was good, or that listening to the Serpent was bad.  They knew that they would die if they ate the Fruit (800 or so years later), but how could they know that death was undesirable? 

The story of the Fall works much better as an allegory about humanity achieving sentience and gaining the ability to make moral choices (thus gaining the ability to sin) than it does as a literal story.  If you take it literally and you think about it even a little bit, God gave these two creatures curiosity, but no knowledge of right and wrong, and then told them not to touch something.  And when they did, He punished not only them, but all of their descendants unto the last generation, not to mention all the rest of nature.  That makes God either: 1) a rather stupid and abusive parent, who hands out a grossly disproportionate punishment for something that wasn’t really the kids’ fault, or 2) a much more calculating abuser, who deliberately set Adam and Eve up so He could convince them that they deserved the suffering He fully intended to inflict on them from the get-go.

Comment #87: Seraph  on  08/21  at  12:57 PM

“Why do pro-lifers want to extend non-viable life with medical techniques”

non-viable?

we don’t, but let’s say it’s a down baby (in the case of Jill Stanek) and it is breathing, it should be given a shot at life and reasonable medical care ( as a “wanted” child) would get. Are you saying that if an abortion fails and the baby is outside the mother and breathing, you still want to put it to death?

a premie at 22 weeks has a good chance of surviving these days….now you want to extend Roe to outside the womb? 

“You keep saying that.  What do you mean by elective? “

for convienance.

Comment #88: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  01:00 PM

Implicit in pro-lifers’ ‘culture of death’ rhetoric (the last month or so, I’ve seen it couched more in ‘new age of barbarism’ terms, but it’s the same old idea) is the delusion that, once upon a time, there was a magical place where all children were regarded much-wanted gifts from god.

This place was as real as Brigadoon.

Comment #89: LynstHolin  on  08/21  at  01:01 PM

“Point 2: That 2% represents thousands of women.  Why do you want them to die? “

We don’t. Precaustions can be taken to preserve the life of the Mother and the baby. If a Mother has to give birth early to save her life, thats fine, induce labor and try to save the baby too. A good alternative to PBA where the childs head is punctered and it’s brains sucked out…wouldn’t you say??? perhaps you wouldn’t agree….

Comment #90: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  01:05 PM

that we’ll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born alive.

The criteria for “born alive” fall tragically short of viability. A few twitches of the umbilical cord are sufficient to trigger mandatory heroic “life-saving” measures:  an infant, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles

Comment #91: Hector B.  on  08/21  at  01:12 PM

Are you saying that if an abortion fails and the baby is outside the mother and breathing, you still want to put it to death?

For Pete’s sake, nobody is saying that.  What they are saying, if you’d maybe learn to read and pay attention instead of trying to fit everything into your pre-conceived notions, is that if an abortion fails and the baby is outside the mother and breathing (or at least, not dead) and if said baby has some horrible condition that is incompatible with life (meaning that there is no possible medical way to save it or significantly prolong said life and also that if said medical intervention were to occur the only outcome would be tortuous pain and suffering and it would die anyway, except maybe a couple of months down the road instead of hours or days) then we say that it should be left up to the parents to decide whether or not to provide said medical intervention or to just try to keep it as pain free as possible and let it die a natural death. 

So, they’re saying that said baby should be treated roughly the same way as my husband’s uncle, who has incurable, untreatable, highly aggressive cancer.  He’s been given the choice of continuing aggressive treatment that is very unlikely to work and that will cause unnecessary pain and suffering or to be sent home and given copious amounts of pain medication and allowed to die naturally, surrounded by family and friends.  Which honestly, most people would say that is the most humane way to deal with these things.

Comment #92: ks  on  08/21  at  01:13 PM

where did my posts go?

Comment #93: casp  on  08/21  at  01:20 PM

I can’t tell if my comment was swallowed whole because of a link to a dictionary site… is there any trigger you can flip to say when a comment is in the mod-queue?

Comment #94: kodiak  on  08/21  at  01:21 PM

were not talking abortion laws, were talking about BAIPA, google it.

But you are talking about abortion laws. 
You’re talking about nothing but abortion laws.
The only purpose for any of the bills promoted by “Right to Life” groups is as a stalking horse to outlaw abortion

Comment #95: Jeff452  on  08/21  at  01:28 PM

I really don’t know of any cases where preterm inductions have been used to let downs’ babies die.  Source?  The babies people are talking about are those with anencephaly, non-functional internal organs, no frontal lobe, etc.  *Trigger warning, graphic details to follow*:  Also, wrt the graphic procedure you described, the legal late-term procedure now requires that the fetus be dismembered.  So mom and dad can still get an abortion, they just don’t have a body to say goodbye to.  This includes women who are getting lifesaving abortions, because even though intact D&X;is lower risk, less likely to cause uterine perforations and complications, I think there are few if any cases where the mother will die from a D&E;(the dismembering kind) but live if she has an intact D&X;.  So this law, and the supreme court decision permitting the banning of intact D&X;, keeps women from being able to choose a less dangerous procedure, and from having a body to photograph and say goodbye to.  KEEP IN MIND, under Casey, states are allowed to place limitations, and even ban, ANY abortion past viability, BUT they must have an exception for the mother’s life and health.

Interesting how you skip all my other points, specifically the one about how my husband would be legally permitted to let me go if I were in the state that an anencephalic baby, a baby with no frontal lobe, a baby with only a brain stem, or a baby missing essential functioning organs is.  If my husband, or a living will I draft, could do those things for me, why could I not do them for my child?  How are just-born children different than other patients?

Comment #96: Ismone  on  08/21  at  01:30 PM

for convienance

That doesn’t help.  That’s like Creationists trying to define a “kind” of creature: “I know one when I see one.”

How do you define “convenience”?  Is any abortion that isn’t immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman for “convenience”?  What about situations where a woman won’t die if she carries the pregnancy to term, but her health will be seriously impacted?  A rape victim?  A woman fleeing an abusive boyfriend - one who deliberately sabotaged or denied her birth control so she’d be inextricably bound to him?  A teenage girl afraid she’ll be thrown out of her house?  A woman who can just barely support the two children she has, but can’t support a third? 

You need to define your terms.

“Point 2: That 2% represents thousands of women.  Why do you want them to die? “

We don’t.

You just want to outlaw the medical procedures that they and their doctors believe are necessary to save their lives.

Thanks.  Important distinction.

Precaustions can be taken to preserve the life of the Mother and the baby. If a Mother has to give birth early to save her life, thats fine, induce labor and try to save the baby too.

You know, you really should read the replies people are posting.  When you don’t, it makes you look like an utter idiot.  People keep posting stories - actual cases, not hypothetical scenarios - where saving the baby is impossible.  Organs formed outside the body, or didn’t form at all; unclosed spinal cords; heads that are nothing but huge bubbles filled with fluid - these are things that it’s just impossible for a human to survive.  That doesn’t change because you think people should be forced to pretend it’s not so. 

A good alternative to PBA where the childs head is punctered and it’s brains sucked out…wouldn’t you say???

Assuming it has a brain (see above in re. head = bubble filled with fluid), that depends.  Alternative one: baby is born at great risk to mother and lives a brief life of hopeless agony.  God’s will is obeyed.  Alternative two: abortion.  Woman keeps life, health, and fertility, perhaps has other children who never would have been born otherwise.  Fetus’s suffering ends.

I know which I choose.

BTW, if you’re trying to shock and horrify me with the description of Intact Dilation and Extraction…keep trying.  They cut my mother-in-law’s chest open and pried her ribcage apart, then cut into her heart.  It’s called a quadruple bypass, and it saved her life.  All surgery is gross.

Comment #97: Seraph  on  08/21  at  01:46 PM

Come on, people. An elective abortion is one that the woman decides to have herself, rather than being told to by her husband. Because husbands know best.

Comment #98: pepito  on  08/21  at  02:03 PM

If we addessed all the underlying issues would you still be for legalized abortion? (btw: there will always be so-called “underlying issues”, and other excuses for terminating unborn children)

Speaking for myself, the answer would be “Of Course, I would still be for legalized abortion”
I want anyone who wants an abortion to be able to get one
(never liked “Safe, Legal, and rare”. “On demand and without apology” fits my views better)

I don’t care whether the number of abortions preformed goes up, down, or stays the same so long as anybody that wants one can get one so increased to me increased childcare supports, contraception, etc are things that I support because they are good in and of themselves, not because they would reduce abortion

But your view is different
You want to reduce abortions. Oh sure, you want to reduce the number to zero, but you do support laws that only prevent a small percentage of them (parental notification, “partial birth” abortion bans, gag orders, no abortions on military bases, stopping convicts from getting abortions, etc)

So you just ducked the issue

The Devils Advocate’s point still holds
You want to stop the “murder of the unborn”? Really? Then cut funding for abstinence “education” and start handing out condoms and birth control pills.
You’re so concerned about preserving life that you and your ilk are forever hindering or blocking things like condom-distribution initiatives in areas hit by HIV, and HPV vaccination that can prevent cervical cancer

Comment #99: Jeff452  on  08/21  at  02:08 PM

Downs Syndrome is discovered at the beginning of the 2nd trimester. People don’t have late-term abortions because their child has an extra chromosome. They have second-trimester abortions.

Women and married couples know what they are capable of. To say “give that child a chance at life!” completely ignores the financial, emotional, and physical restrictions of the couple who would have to rear that child. This happened to a friend of the family—they discovered that they were going to have a child with a severe genetic disorder, but due to pressure from friends, family, and a doctor who downplayed the nature of the disorder, they did not abort. These same friends and family did nothing to step in to help pay off the medical bills which drove the family to bankruptcy. They did not offer to help care for the child so that the couple could spend extra time caring for their other children (often, siblings of special needs children feel abandoned and neglected), or even just offer to care for all the kids so that the parents could go out and have a night together. In short, the birth of the child destroyed the family.

Caring for a special needs child requires more than just “love.” It requires a lot of money, it requires community support, it requires extra time that a couple may not have. Those things don’t just magically appear the moment that the extra chromosome is discovered.

A lot of people get the news that their child will have special physical, mental, or emotional needs, and they weigh the decision and decide to “go for it anyway.” All these years of legalized abortion has not changed that. But it has also allowed people who know that they would not be able to give a special needs child the level of care it would require to avoid having their families bankrupted and otherwise destroyed.

Comment #100: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/21  at  02:31 PM

98% of abortions are for elective. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Yes, which is why they’re performed long before the zygote or embryo or fetus resembles a baby.  You don’t get it both ways.  You either get to exploit late term abortions for the horror and accept that they’re medically necessary, or you admit that the vast majority of abortions are not morally problematic, because they’re eliminating a fetus that’s far from being a baby.  But you can’t have both. 

Oh wait, unless you hate women and want them to suffer.  Then you have both.

Comment #101: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/21  at  02:43 PM

still hold a grudge about Chappaquiddick

They never held a grudge about that.  They just like using it to try to shut up the opposition.

Comment #102: keshmeshi  on  08/21  at  03:39 PM

Women and married couples know what they are capable of. To say “give that child a chance at life!” completely ignores the financial, emotional, and physical restrictions of the couple who would have to rear that child.

Which is why Everett Coop was one of the few pro-life people that I had a fair amount of respect for.  He adopted children who were abandoned at his hospital due to their extensive disabilities.

He also advocated more and better birth control as a means of preventing abortion.

StacyL - explain why your religion trumps my rights to my body?  Under the current US Constitution?  Otherwise, why don’t you just join the Taliban, who agree with you in many more ways than even our country’s founders?

Comment #103: Ms Kate  on  08/21  at  03:41 PM

..first, in the 70’s the argument was that the fetus wasn’t really living, then the argument changed to “bodily autonomy”, then they argue about diseases the baby might have. Now, if the baby happens to survives abortion, the people who carried out the abortion still want to be able kill the child.

the 98% stat and (1.3 million abortions per year) proves that abortion is being used as another form of contraception. In NY state, they had 58 programs that handed out condoms and birth control pills and it’s still the abortion capital. What was naral’s response? more condoms and birth control.

It’s not about womens rights ( 50% of abortees are girls), it’s about power, power, power. Looks china and India were they are aborting girls in record numbers, now their is a gender imbalence, you don’t hear a peep from the feminists….no, of course not. They want the almighty power to kill their offspring, the liars.  It has never been about womens rights. As devil’s adovacte admitted, even with all the programs were avialable to support Mothers and children, he would still be pro-choice.

Comment #104: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  04:02 PM

“98% of abortions are for elective”

Yeah, feeding the troll again, but I have to ask:  Stacy, you use the above statistic and others like it, but how about some research links to back them up?  How many Down Syndrome children are aborted for the chromosome issue only, not because of incompatible-with-life health issues?  Where do your numbers come from?  And no, not “Well, they said on Fox News…”.  Real, documented medical numbers, please.

And thank you, Mighty Ponygirl, for your comments on what a special needs child requires.  My niece is a beautiful 8-year-old with Down Syndrome.  Her parents wouldn’t trade her for all the tea in China, but I’ve seen what a toll it’s taken on their lives and marriage.

Comment #105: NobleExperiments  on  08/21  at  04:02 PM

No person of faith in God would suggest life begins at conception.

Those who make such claims are surely in the grips of Satan, on the path of the Great Deciever, worshipping false prophets, bound by the chains of Satan and granting power to Satan by seeking to remove faith in God.  If you have faith in God, then you are certain that life has no beginning and no end.  It always was and always will be, through the glory of God. Claiming life has a beginning and an end denies the glory of God and rejects the faith that life is eternal, everlasting, enduring through all time and outside the boundaries of time.  This is the promise of the Kingdom of Heaven and the faith that John McCain and those like him, through the command of Satan, seek to undermine with their pathetic mewlings.  It is unfortunate that so many want to continue to bring Satan to power through the government and spread the works of Satan through the actions of the war-lover John McCain, like his predecessor George Bush. 

Rick Warren is just so awful mocking God like he did and tempting people with the words of Satan.  This is why I avoid organized religion.  It too often interferes in the relationship with God.  It too often leads God’s sheep astray by replacing God’s will with the will of Satan through the removal of faith in the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is too often an arm of Satan, constantly sowing doubt in the minds of the weak and granting power to those who seek to interfere in God’s will and plan for others.

Anyhow, I would pray for Stacey and Jill Stanek and even Rick Warren, but that would be praying for Satan’s minions, and they’ll have to step away from their own confusion and come to their own senses and drop to their own knees and beg forgiveness for doubting God and turning to Satan for comfort. Until then, I can only save myself by casting my eyes away from their hateful words and toward the glory of God.  Life is eternal.  Have faith in that!

I apologize for the post being too much like preaching, but I read the stories of grief and felt moved to comfort those in sorrow, as Christ called upon His followers to do.  He did not call on His followers to mock and judge those in sorrow, so you know those people who have done that and continue to do so are overcome with the hatred of Satan.

Comment #106: JB  on  08/21  at  04:05 PM

It has never been about womens rights. As devil’s adovacte admitted, even with all the programs were avialable to support Mothers and children, he would still be pro-choice.

UH, YES. Because he supports WOMEN HAVING THE RIGHT TO THEIR OWN BODIES. Or did you miss the “women” part of “women’s rights”?

I’m having one of those “elective abortions” this month. And every hate-filled, dripping-with-self-loathing comment from Stacy’s keyboard makes me happier about it.

No innocent child should have to endure sharing oxygen with such a repugnant, loathsomely stupid, hateful creature as Stacy.

Comment #107: Well, what?  on  08/21  at  04:11 PM

Umm, Stacy L., if you think that feminists don’t care about sex-selective abortions, you know nothing.  Try googling.  Every feminist website I know has come out against it.

And I notice that you still haven’t explained how a child born without a functioning brain is any different than a brain-dead adult.

Comment #108: Ismone  on  08/21  at  04:13 PM

..first, in the 70’s the argument was that the fetus wasn’t really living, then the argument changed to “bodily autonomy”, then they argue about diseases the baby might have. Now, if the baby happens to survives abortion, the people who carried out the abortion still want to be able kill the child.

Stacey, do you realize that you’re stating the above as if it is obvious and apparent that the above arguments are false, evil and disproved? In order;

the argument that a fetus is not a seperate living being is easily made up until the (murky) point that the fetus would be viable outside the womb.

women are entitled to their bodily autonomy and you have yet to put forth an argument that challenges this rationally.

as medical science progresses we are able to spot at earlier stages medical difficulties for both the woman and the fetus, thereby introducing such concerns at an earlier stage. In the past there was no way of determining which children might be born with life ending genetic defects. This is no longer the case, so the family has hard decisions to make when they learn of such a complication.

and if, after reading the totality of this thread, you still don’t understand what we’re talking about when we talk about children born horridly deformed, in pain, and not physically capable of sustaining their own lives, well you’re just unreachable.

So if you are planning on throwing around more veiled condemnations, please make sure that they say what you think they do. You aren’t talking to your usual echo chamber here. You’re dealing in the real world…

Comment #109: kodiak  on  08/21  at  04:14 PM

How are just-born children different than other patients?

They’re pwecious BAYBEEZ, duh. And moronically more important than any single other consideration on the entire planet.

Comment #110: Well, what?  on  08/21  at  04:17 PM

“I’m having one of those “elective abortions” this month.”

have fun killing your own flesh and blood, because of your own irresponsibility.
Amanda,

nice smokescreen by that piece of dog-shit -Eric Zorn (update) in this thread. It means nothing.

The 2003 bill had the neutrality clause.

Comment #111: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  04:18 PM

I consider it a merciful rescue, that nobody will have to endure miserable shits like you, or at least not if I can help it.

Anyway, the thing attached to my uterine wall is certainly “my flesh and blood.” But if I had a tumor, I’d remove that, too. Carrying a child to term would probably not kill me, but it would cause permanent nerve damage and generally make the rest of my life hellish. Moreover, I’m on drugs that I would have to stop taking…The kind that make me ***not kill myself***. So, the alternatives are as follows:

1) abort
2) carry to term, but probably kill myself within a couple months (Hey! Maybe they could harvest the fetus and let it suffer for a few months before it dies!)
3) carry to term, have myself institutionalized to avoid suicide, then live with debilitating pain for decades. Oh, and the kid could languish for 18 years in foster care. (I’m nonwhite with a crap history, who’d adopt it?)

Hrmmm…yeah, why don’t I feel bad about this again? Oh! That’s right, because it’s the right thing to do under the circumstances.

Comment #112: Well, what?  on  08/21  at  04:29 PM

the 98% stat

...is meaningless until you define “elective” and “convenience”, and give us a link to your source for that statistic. 

Sorry, but unlike your usual stomping grounds, you can’t prove something here by repeating it over and over.

Comment #113: Seraph  on  08/21  at  04:30 PM

May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Stacy, based on this comment, I assume you believe the Bible supports your view that life begins at conception and abortion is the equivalent of murder.

If my assumption is correct, would you please provide the scripture references that support your position?

Comment #114: ummeli  on  08/21  at  04:36 PM

“...is meaningless until you define “elective” and “convenience”, and give us a link to your source for that statistic.  ‘

google is your friend:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

“Stacy, based on this comment, I assume you believe the Bible supports your view that life begins at conception and abortion is the equivalent of murder. “

The second passage is Psalms 139:13-16:
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”


would Jesus be anti-abortion or pro-abortion?

Comment #115: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  04:45 PM

If my assumption is correct, would you please provide the scripture references that support your position?

Right.  And also, could you please explain to us why whatever scripture references you supply override this passage, which very clearly illustrates that abortion is not equivalent to murder:

“And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Exodus 21:22-25

Note that in this passage, the adult woman is a full human being, and any injury to her is repaid “eye for eye, tooth for tooth”.  The ending of a (let’s assume wanted) pregnancy, however, is merely a civil matter.  Would there be any penalty at all for the non-accidental ending of an unwanted pregnancy?

Comment #116: Seraph  on  08/21  at  04:45 PM

Stacy, you’re really not good at this whole googling thing, again.  And even though you’re ignoring my posts, here is a link showing that the 2003 bill, as proposed, did not include sections (d) and (e).

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&LegID=3910&SpecSess;=&Session;=

Here is a link showing the bill passed into law in 2005, which does contain (d) and (e).

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=000500700K1.36

This is the amendment that Barack blocked, and I think any intelligent person can see why it is problematic:

“(c) Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm,  deny,  expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section.”

In other words, it was still requiring parents who induced children who COULD NOT SURVIVE to engage in “lifesaving measures” that would only put off death, not permit a cure or recovery.  There is NO SUCH LAW when dealing with adults without brain or essential organ functions, there is NO REASON to pass it for preterm children who are delivered so they can be held and said goodbye to, instead of dying in utero, or, if they are born full-term, being well-developed enough to TAKE LONGER TO SUFFER AND DIE.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=09300SB1082sam001&GA=93&SessionId=3&DocTypeId=SB&LegID=3910&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&Session;=

You really don’t understand your own movement’s tactics.  They are trying to come up with more and more “sympathetic” legislation that conflicts with existing laws, in order to create test cases.  And they are doing it at the expense of real people with real suffering who just want to be with their child when it inevitably dies, and save it pain, or, in the case of intact D&X;, want to hold a body that looks like a baby, instead of a dismembered connection of limbs.

WAKE UP.

Comment #117: Ismone  on  08/21  at  04:48 PM

would Jesus be anti-abortion or pro-choice?

Comment #118: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  04:48 PM

Pssst!  Stacey!  Your sanctimony just fell off!  Hurry up and hide, that hideous personality of yours is showing!

Comment #119: mustelid  on  08/21  at  04:50 PM

Actually, Stacy, what does the part about being created in the earth mean?  I’m not getting it.

Also, did you know that the Catholic Church’s position, for more than a millenium, was that abortion was not murder, because fetuses became ensouled at quickening, not before?  One of the proponets of this was St. Augustine.  Being Christian does not mean turning off your brain and accepting doctrine blindly.

Comment #120: Ismone  on  08/21  at  04:52 PM

Apparently Obama hasn’t heard of abortionist William Waddell, who strangled a born alive survivor of one of his attempted abortions with his bare hands.

http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2006/11/history-william-waddill-and-killing-of.html

...you pro-choicers are real tough, beating up on little babies.. verbally and physically…

..you would have made great Nazis…Adolf would have been so proud.

Comment #121: Stacy L  on  08/21  at  04:54 PM

Stacy,

Even if I believed Jesus to be opposed to abortion, do YOU think that the majority religion should be able to dictate laws based on when they think ensoulment happens?  What about all of those people who do not believe in souls?  Who believe that human life should be protected when it is capable of life outside of the womb and of higher brain function?

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s, remember?  Why did the Church Fathers not oppose abortion?

Comment #122: Ismone  on  08/21  at  04:55 PM

Jesus died for our sins, so the question of what Jesus would do is obvious to those who have faith in God.  Jesus would die for our sins.  That’s about as pro-choice as it gets.

Comment #123: JB  on  08/21  at  04:58 PM

“...is meaningless until you define “elective” and “convenience”, and give us a link to your source for that statistic.  ‘

google is your friend:

There now!  Was that so hard?  Of course, now we can see that your source is extremely biased in his own right. 

The second passage is Psalms 139:13-16:
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Psalms is, and always was, sacred poetry.  This is an ancient poet (traditionally King David, I know) praising God for His omniscience and His great works (specifically his - David’s - own creation).  There’s nothing in here to be taken as God’s pronouncement on anything.

would Jesus be anti-abortion or pro-abortion?

Hard to say, seeing as how HE NEVER SAID A SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT!

Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous of you to assume that your god just happens to share your prejudices?

Comment #124: Seraph  on  08/21  at  05:00 PM

..you would have made great Nazis…Adolf would have been so proud.

Actually, Hitler was anti-abortion, at least for the Master Race.  Need more soldiers for the Fatherland, you know.

Comment #125: Seraph  on  08/21  at  05:02 PM

Stacy, if that really happened, it would be murder.  Life begins at birth, at common law.  One reason I doubt the account is because it claims that a delivered baby, separate from the mother, turned blue when the doctor put pressure on the umbilical cord.  Delivered babies get their oxygen through breathing, and at this stage, if the baby was in another room from the mother, could not have been getting its oxygen through the placenta.  Doctors can let fatally ill humans die, whether adult or pre-term or full-term, but they cannot use active methods to kill humans.  That is the law.

I can tell you about Catholics who murdered.  In fact, Hitler, since we’re talking about him, was one of them. 

But we don’t need new laws to stop those murdering Catholics, or that alleged murderer William Waddell.  Existing laws do just fine.  In fact, aside from that blog, a google search for “William Waddell” & abortion turned up no evidence that he even exists.

Comment #126: Ismone  on  08/21  at  05:03 PM

stacey:
since you ignore everything i wrote, except what you found personally useful (*I* think a fetus is a parasite, because biologically it IS, and because at ten weeks pregnant i was dying, dying - an emergency abortion is all that saved my life. literally. i have porphyria. that means IF i live long enough to give birth, and the BABY lives long enough to be given birth too, that baby will be born with ACTIVE porphyria, probably even worse than mine - and i live on fentanyl patches because of extreme chronic pain. and, the chance of all of that happening and a baby living out of it? LESS THAN 5%!!! but it’s just an “elective surgery”)
i have to ask, why did you totally ignore the one major thing i brought up, that no one else did? it drives me batty that no one ever talks about “artificial wombs”, or whatever you want to call them. it should be a cinch bet for right wingers like yourself - if someone doesn’t want their baybee! they can give it over to be artificially gestated and then adopted, thereby saving the woman, if nothing else, the pain and dangers and expense of pregnancy while STILL hoeing to the line you right wingers have set. isn’t that better for everyone?
but, considering you ALSO ignored my point about how dangerous pregnancy (in general!) is, i think that you aren’t one of those who actually cares about baybees! because a life is a life, and that means the baybee! isn’t MORE important than the mother, no? no, you aren’t concerned about the life of the baybee! you just care about controling the mother. otherwise, you would have responded to the - literally dozens, not just mine! - points about mothers health, fetal health, the poor baybees born without brains, the impossibility for some to care for a heavily disabled child, what it means to siblings, etc, etc. you are arguing under false pretenses, here - all you want is to get out your message, and so you are not even RECOGNIZING points that fall off of your diatrabe. you won’t even back up YOUR points with documentation. so, until and unless you are willing to discuss in good faith, fuck off. most of us are too emotionally invested in this painful and heatwrenching topic to continue to play nice with a dishonest, incompetent rabble rouser.

Comment #127: denelian  on  08/21  at  05:11 PM

Actually, you misspelled Waddill’s name.  He was tried for murder, and the jury voted 11-1 for acquittal.  (That is a hung jury, with only one guilty vote.)  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919649-1,00.html

Death, in that case, was defined as the cessation of brain functioning.  Which apparently confused the jury.

But do you see how he was tried for MURDER and the redefinitions you refer to are unneccessary?

Comment #128: Ismone  on  08/21  at  05:13 PM

Waddill also claimed that the pregnant teen lied about the stage of gestation, which is why he performed a saline abortion.  Same Time article.

Comment #129: Ismone  on  08/21  at  05:14 PM

thanks for the correction Ismone—I was wondering what the founder of the Pony Express (my official sponsor!) had to do with abortion.

Comment #130: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/21  at  05:18 PM

erm, in that i forgot to mention that, so far as i know, my calling “baybees” parasites is something that i, alone, do. it is not a “feminist” movement or anything of the sort. its a phrase i started using when i was hospitalized all those years ago, dying because my fucktard boyfriend poked holes in the condoms. i have never heard another person refer to a fetus as a parasite. i have almost been kicked out of a couple different biology classes for trying to get the teacher/professor to “admit” that a fetus is a parasite. i you want to run off to other places and say “this person DENELIAN says that poor innocent unborn baybees are parasites”, thats fine and cool. I said that. but you don’t get to run off and say “FEMINISTS say that poor unnocen unborn baybees are parasites!” because FEMINISTS do not say that; just me.

Comment #131: denelian  on  08/21  at  05:20 PM

In response to Ismone’s legal links, I wanted to clarify (correct me if I’m wrong) that this was the problematic text that Obama opposed:

(c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

The rest of your comment is spot-on.

You really don’t understand your own movement’s tactics.  They are trying to come up with more and more “sympathetic” legislation that conflicts with existing laws, in order to create test cases.  And they are doing it at the expense of real people with real suffering who just want to be with their child when it inevitably dies, and save it pain, or, in the case of intact D&X;, want to hold a body that looks like a baby, instead of a dismembered connection of limbs.

Comment #132: Nicole  on  08/21  at  05:25 PM

God, denelian, that’s rough.  So many fuckers in the world.  So many.  Sigh.  Yeah, Stacy has broken my streak of only being ignored by/having to shame MEN on blogs in order to get a response.  Congratulations Stacy, you act like you have male privilege.

In the way of clarification, I make cracks about Catholics who murder because I am Catholic.  (Well, I think so.  The pope might disagree.)

Mighty Ponygirl,  I love the Pony Express!  On a slightly related note, have your read “Telegraph Days” by Larry McMurtry?  Kickass female heroine in the center of it all in the old west, and the pony express comes up for a while.

Comment #133: Ismone  on  08/21  at  05:25 PM

so Waddill was tried for strangling a born infant, right? he insisted that said infant could never have lived, and that he was trying to check its vitals. and, according to california law, it WAS NOT alive? is all that correct?

does the right wing have anything besides straw baybees and red fetusherrings?

Comment #134: denelian  on  08/21  at  05:26 PM

(My comment was regarding the BAIPA bill, obviously, not all this Waddill nonsense.)

Comment #135: Nicole  on  08/21  at  05:27 PM

Nicole,

Yes, he opposed that in the 2003 bill, but I wanted to mention the amendment he opposed, because Stacy seemed to think that had something to do with “neutrality” when it was functionally indistinguishable from the original section (c) that you quote.  But I think you’re clarification is a good idea and also correct.

-Ismone

Comment #136: Ismone  on  08/21  at  05:28 PM

Okay, got it now.

Comment #137: Nicole  on  08/21  at  05:30 PM

Isome:
thank you. it was years ago, and i am mostly ok now. even then, i was mostly upset at this PROOF i would never share my genes (not that i should want too). i think i need to ignore Stacey now, though, before i do something unfortunate to my furniture smile

also, why would the pope not think you are catholic? they think my mother is, because she was baptised in a catholic church, even if she hasn’t stepped foot in one since. you might be a heretic, but i think that would be fun. not that i know anything, according to the catholic church i am a heathen :D

Comment #138: denelian  on  08/21  at  05:30 PM

(shrug)—the fetus is parasitic in nature—it removes nutrients from the host’s body in order to survive and develop. There’s nothing shocking there. Whether or not someone perceives the fetus as a parasite is entirely a matter of circumstance. If you happen to want a child, you’re not going to mind the fact that it’s stripmining your uterine wall and gets first dibs on all of the stuff your body needs to survive. It’s still parasitic, it’s just a wanted parasite. If you happen to not want the child, then there’s nothing there to gloss over the parasitic aspects.

Comment #139: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/21  at  05:31 PM

stripmining! ohohoh!!! i love it!!! can i use that, please?
i think i love you, Mighty Ponygirl!

Comment #140: denelian  on  08/21  at  05:33 PM

Lists of reasons pope might think I was not Catholic:

1)  I am pro-choice
2)  I am pro-contraception
3)  I think women should be allowed to be priests
4)  I am pro-gay marriage
5)  I don’t think belief in God is necessary for salvation
6)  My atheist husband suspects that the pope wouldn’t consider me Catholic
7)  My very Catholic aunt thinks that my rejection of the above-listed doctrines without going through a very specific theological process means that I am not Catholic

Maybe I’ll stick with heretic or deist.  They sound cooler.

Comment #141: Ismone  on  08/21  at  05:34 PM

heh—well, it’s not my saying… I’m pretty sure I read it here a while back—but ... sure!

Comment #142: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/21  at  05:41 PM

wow. and yet…

i dunno. i’m a heathen. so your list, to me, just means that you are an “EXTRA cool Catholic”. IF i understand Catholiscm correctly, points 1 and 2 are less than a century old and aren’t accepted by everyone anyway and weren’t made under papal infallability, so you should be okay there. women can already be clergy, if they follow the rest of the rules of being a priest… also, Pope Joan, anyone? point 4, well, i think the Catholic Church could win a LOT of points if they would quit being stupid about it, and again, was it an edict made under papal infallability? point 5, isn’t that what “good works” are about? do those still happen? the “buying your way into heaven” thing?  6 and 7 i won’t touch.
the biggest point is that this is the USA, you can be whatever you want smile but, you are totally right, “heretic” sounds cooler than “sorta catholic”, while still getting across that “sorta catholic”.

you and Might Ponygirl are tied for the internets for today. i really can’t decide which of you has been cooler…
yay for pain meds! you both win!

Comment #143: denelian  on  08/21  at  05:51 PM

Dang it.  I go to a meeting for a couple hours, come back and find out Seraph stole all my best lines.

wink

There’s another argument as to why a literal reading of the Bible can only lead one to the conclusion that a fetus is NOT a fully human being, on an equal plain with adults and children, but you have to know some Hebrew.

According the the Bible, the life-force in every living thing is nephesh, a word typically translated into English as soul.  Peruse the Bible and you will see that it is said to reside chiefly in two places.  The first is the blood.  That is why kosher meat must have all blood drained from it (I think - I’m not too knowledgeable on kosher laws so don’t hold me to that) and why Jehovah Witnesses will not give blood or undergo transfusions.

The second place it resides is in the breath.  Look at Genesis where God creates Eve out of Adam’s rib.  God brings her to life by blowing nephesh - breath - into her lungs.

This is also illustrated in the story of the Valley of the Dry Bones in Ezekiel.  God causes all the bones to come together and be convered by sinews, muscles, etc.  But they don’t come alive until the wind comes along and blows nephesh - breath - into them.

Thus, by a literal reading of the Bible, there are two preconditions for a fetus/baby to be a fully living human being complete with soul and legal rights: circulation and respiration.

Circulation, as everybody knows, begins in the fetus early in the pregnancy.  Respiration, however, does not begin until after the fetus has emerged from the birth canal.  That is when the baby becomes a living person.

Of course, I don’t believe any of this, because I know the Bible cannot and was never intended to be read literally.  (Even if I did, I would never impose my religious views on others.)

Those people who do read it literally, however, have a hard time getting around these scripture passages.

Your response, Stacy?

Comment #144: ummeli  on  08/21  at  05:55 PM

Erm, the author of the Tribune piece had this to say about RH’s inaccurate portrayal of the situation.

“Just to clarify this—Jill admitted to me, though she didn’t have to admit it since it was there in plain English on her blog and WorldNet daily column, that she erred earlier this year in characterizing/describing Obama’s actions in a committee proceeding in 2003. In short, she said he refused to allow an amendment to be attached to the bill (when, in fact, he joined in the unanimous committee vote to accept the amendment) and that he refused to allow a vote on the bill (when, in fact, the bill was voted on and six Democrats voted no, beating out four Republicans).
This particular error is NOT now part of the debate on this issue; I brought it up mostly to help illustrate how complex and convoluted this subject really is; how the foremost champion of “born alive” legislation in Illinois got so turned around in the thickets that she passed along significantly erroneous information to her readers at one point.

Submitted by Eric Zorn on August 21, 2008 - 3:48pm.”


You really should update your post to reflect this.

Comment #145: Lauren  on  08/21  at  06:23 PM

would Jesus be anti-abortion or pro-abortion?

Depends on his views on religious freedom. Since he was murdered because he didn’t have it, I’m guessing that he’s pro-1st amendment.  Which means pro-choice, because it’s against the law to impose your religious dogma on those who don’t share it.

Comment #146: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/21  at  06:24 PM

would Jesus be anti-abortion or pro-abortion?

I really don’t give a shit. 

And you keep refering to Jill Stanek, as if she is a great font of wisdom.  Is this the same Jill Stanek who thinks the Chinese serve fetus in their restaurants?  You are as batshit crazy as she is.

Comment #147: Kristen from MA  on  08/21  at  06:41 PM

heartless. godless. Ann Coulter was right.

Oh, leave that secret-imprisonment-and-torture apologist out of this – especially if you’re going to invoke the Nazis whenever you’re cornered.

“What is the group so targeted?” you might ask. The group is unwanted, unborn children - tens of millions of them.

Hollow rhetoric. You haven’t proposed, let along found, a way to help the millions of unwanted, born children yet – nor do you care to, because this isn’t about the preservation of life to you.

May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God.

Oh, I’m game! Let’s talk about this future of yours. In your view, what would such a world look like?

My version wouldn’t include torture, HIV, cervical cancer, or millions of unwanted kids rotting away in Romania-style orphanages.  But I’ll give you a clue as to what my version of such a world would include.

Read again, Stacy, what MPG says:

Caring for a special needs child requires more than just “love.” It requires a lot of money, it requires community support, it requires extra time that a couple may not have. Those things don’t just magically appear the moment that the extra chromosome is discovered.

I don’t think disability should be a bar to having a full life, Stacy, so my world would include solid funding and support for parents who face the birth of a child with a disabling condition.

You, on the other hand, want to worry about these matters only after your own self-serving agenda has been filled; to prioritize ending abortion over providing medical care for fragile newborns – except, of course, for those politically useful ones that “survive abortion.”

a premie at 22 weeks has a good chance of surviving these days

How good a chance? Cite, please!

It has never been about womens rights. As devil’s adovacte admitted, even with all the programs were avialable to support Mothers and children, he would still be pro-choice.

You mean, “she would still be pro-choice.” I’m a woman. And you conveniently forgot to mention why I’d still be pro-choice: because the anti-abortion position has nothing of value to offer either women or babies.

But then, you conveniently forget to mention a lot of things. Your position wouldn’t hold together at all if not for omissions, misdirections, and outright lies.

Beyond ending abortion, there’s no substance at all to your claim of being “pro-life.” This is evidenced by the fact you and your peeps don’t do anything to make life better, or even just to preserve it, for those who’ve already been born. In fact, you guys oppose measures that would save existing life because such measures clash with your personally-chosen morality. You believe, in essence, that people should be punished with disease and death for failing to follow your dictates.

Comment #148: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  07:05 PM

“You keep saying that.  What do you mean by elective? “

for convienance.

That is NOT what elective means, no matter how many times you use it that way in a sentence. Elective surgery is non-emergency surgery, but that does not mean that it is not necessary for the health and well-being of the patient. Angioplasty is often an elective procedure—are you going to try to tell me people have heart surgery for “convenience”? Seriously? Or is elective surgery only “convenient” as far as you are concerned if it happens to involve a woman’s uterus?

Comment #149: Ugirl  on  08/21  at  07:13 PM

You believe, in essence, that people should be punished with disease and death for failing to follow your dictates.

And, I might add…as much as you claim to love Him, lady, you ain’t no Christ risen. He, in fact, would probably find it a challenge to extend his famous mercy to a pitiless, cudgel-wielding, lying petty tyrant like you. (But I’m sure, to my chagrin, that He would manage.)

Comment #150: Well, what?  on  08/21  at  07:15 PM

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Meh.  I don’t see any prohibition on abortion there.  Just the usual, “God is great, everything He creates is great, He is the Past, Present, Future,” blah, blah, blah kind of stuff.  But no actual prohibition on abortion.  And frankly, if your God were so powerful and sooo against abortion, it seems He’d just Poof, Alakazam, Abracadabra abortion away.

would Jesus be anti-abortion or pro-choice?

Well, I don’t know, since Jesus never said anything about abortion.  (Or the Gays for that matter, but that’s a point for some other thread.)  Jesus, however, tolerated slavery, or at least never bothered to speak out against it.  So does that make Jesus pro-slavery?

Jesus was a vast improvement over the sadistic, Old Testament God, but I wouldn’t rely on his teachings entirely for morality.

Comment #151: AdobeDragon  on  08/21  at  07:33 PM

Actually, AdobeDragon, there’s some evidence that Jesus tacitly approved of homosexuality, or at least was neutral about it. 

And, no, batshit crazy fundamentalist, I’m not referring to Secret Mark.

Comment #152: ummeli  on  08/21  at  07:53 PM

Ummeli,

Do tell about the tacit approval thingy.

-Iz

Comment #153: Ismone  on  08/21  at  07:55 PM

“shrug)—the fetus is parasitic in nature—it removes nutrients from the host’s body in order to survive and develop. There’s nothing shocking there. Whether or not someone perceives the fetus as a parasite is entirely a matter of circumstance. If you happen to want a child, you’re not going to mind the fact that it’s stripmining your uterine wall and gets first dibs on all of the stuff your body needs to survive. It’s still parasitic, it’s just a wanted parasite. If you happen to not want the child, then there’s nothing there to gloss over the parasitic aspects. “


wow ..you cant be serious. And I find it curious that supposedly feminists have “come out” against aborting for gender?. Is that true? Could I get a link? I find it hard to believe. If a woman as absolute power to abort at will…what the hell difference is it if she uses it as a form of gender control. How is that any different then aborting because you think that having a kid is a “drag”.

Comment #154: Casp  on  08/21  at  07:56 PM

And please….enough of the back and forth about the obama voting against protecting still alive aborted babies. It is an ABSOLUTE FACT that he did. And if it is his position..why hide from it. The bill he voted against could NOT be used against ROE. And Im talking about the 2003 bill which was EXACTLY like the fed bill. Stop the nonsense.

Comment #155: Casp  on  08/21  at  08:01 PM

Casp,

You’re missing a few things.  He was willing to vote for it once the equivalent of subsections (d) and (e) (see my second link from my 3:48 post) was included.  Please explain to me why those sections are bad.  See all the commentary upthread about how the bill could have been used to force doctors to extend the lives of children who were induced so that their parents could hold them while they were alive, and let them die in peace, as opposed to waiting for an in utero death, and the eventual delivery of a corpse, or full-term live birth, and more extensive suffering.

Here are the links you asked for regarding feminism and sex-selective abortions:

One of Amanda’s co-bloggers at RHRealityCheck:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/08/20/abortion-denial-india-highlights-limitations-law

Feminist Philosophers: 

http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/?s=sex+selection

Jill at Feministe:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/15/bits-and-pieces/

Samhita at Feministing:

http://www.feministing.com/archives/007712.html

Or you could just google yourself.

Comment #156: Ismone  on  08/21  at  08:38 PM

I think he was absolutely correct in voting against it without sections (d) and (e).  Voting for amended section (c) was apparently problematic in the context of existing STATE law, and there has been no contention that the federal act would be problematic in the context of existing FEDERAL law.

Comment #157: Ismone  on  08/21  at  09:02 PM

thanks for the links. My point is this. I think that zealotry on EITHER side of this issue is problematic. On the right, believing that NO abortion should EVER take place, and the left believing that a woman has the absolute right to abort whenever she feels like it. I believe that good, moral people can have an honest difference of opinion on Abortion. Im pro life but could never ask woman to have a baby as the product of a rape…so am i truly pro-life? And I believe that anyone who supports a late term abortion is wrong as well. there would never be any reason to Abort the baby that late to save the mother…the baby could be delivered..its just a lie made up by the left to support the abortion on demand argument.  And that feminists disagree with aborting for gender seems to chip away at their Abortion on demand belief…because WHO CARES WHY she wants to abort….its her decision. It just cheapens the whole thing. I just think that these issues need to be debated and legislated on…not letting 9 bozos on the courts decide what is best for us.

Comment #158: Casp  on  08/21  at  09:07 PM

Hey Casp, where did you do your residency?

Which hospital?

Wha?  Not a doctor?  Gee, then maybe that’s why you think there is no reason to do the procedure which is safest and fastest when a mother’s life hangs in the balance.

Comment #159: Ms Kate  on  08/21  at  09:21 PM

Im pro life but could never ask woman to have a baby as the product of a rape…so am i truly pro-life?

If you believe abortion is murder, than you’ll be against an exception in the case of rape. It’s more likely that you believe abortion represents the destruction of potential.

You’re pro-life if you place an emphasis on education and on the celebration of potential in all its forms; if you believe an attitude of respect for life should be modeled, and that it includes a natural regard for personal privacy, autonomy, and choice.

(This support for education coupled with a respect for women’s rights would, in itself, serve to lower the number of sex-selection abortions.)

But if you’re for negative legislation that bans abortion, abusing woman through coercion and fraud, you’re merely anti-choice. And if you bundle that ban with an anti-contraceptive campaign, and with a neo-con attitude towards the provision of social services such as proper health care for the disabled, you’re anti-life as well.

Comment #160: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/21  at  09:39 PM

Find me a doctor that will swear under oath that a LATE term ABORTION is safer and faster than simply delivering it. Its already been debated and…..guess what… They couldnt produce a case. And besides the fact that your whole argument does not make any sense. Im assuming that a woman wants to take the baby to term and has some unforseen medicial condition causing her to get the baby out of her or die. Why the hell would she choose to abort it as opposed to deliver it and hope for the best. So the whole “life of the mother” crap is just that….crap. Its just cover for a woman wanting to end the pregancy late. Who the hell would, faced with a choice like that would say…“ok abort the baby” to save me. In a case of an emergency it would never be faster, or safer to abort the baby….its just a load of crap. lets be honest. There are major risks and trauma involved in an emergency- c- section as well as an Abortion..its not like pushing a button

Comment #161: Casp  on  08/21  at  09:40 PM

Ismore,

Shoot, I knew somebody was going to ask me for chapter and verse on the Jesus and homosexuality thing.  I don’t have my Bible handy and I hate using Internet “Bibles,” which are about as reliable as wikipedia.

I think some other Pandagonian posted on this a few months ago.  I certainly didn’t think of this myself.

It comes from the story when the centurion approaches Jesus and asks him to heal his sick slave.  Jesus agrees, and asks where the centurion’s house is.  The centurion says they don’t need to go to his house, he knows Jesus only has to say the word, and the slave will be healed.  Jesus says the centurion’s has greater faith than everybody else he’s met, etc., and instructs the centurion to go home where he will find his slave healed.

The Greek word for the centurion’s slave (which I can’t remember off the top of my head) is literally translated as “body servant.”  A Roman soldier’s body servant was more than just the soldier’s valet and porter; he provided all sorts of services, including invariably, sexual services.

If Jesus had strong feelings about same sex relationships, we could expect him to have said so here.  He certainly wasn’t shy about expressing his feelings are other matters. 

Rather than condemn the centurion, however, he sent him home to his healed slave.  At the very least this indicates a general ambivalence towards homosexuality, if not tacit acceptance. 

Odds are this story was invented after Jesus’ death because by having Jesus say the centurion has great faith, it expresses a general approval of Romans (represented by the centurion) over against “the Jews,” who killed Jesus, and opinion not generally associated with Jesus but definitely held by many of his followers in the first 100-200 years after his death.

Regardless of whether you believe the story came direct from Jesus or was invented by the earlier Jesus Movement, it still refects an attitude of general acceptance of homosexuality.

Comment #162: ummeli  on  08/21  at  09:50 PM

Casp,

You really need to go read what has been written upthread if you don’t understand why a mother would want to have a late term abortion (or an early induction with palliative care) instead of a full-term birth.  See also the thread on the next page.

But to sum it up:

1)  To have a body to hold that looks like a baby.  The fetus may die inside of the mother, in the case of severe defects (which is dangerous for mom!  late term spontaneous miscarriages are not a cakewalk, for one thing, the head is big, and having a rotting corpse inside of you, also not good).
2)  Because it is extremely psychologically painful for women to continue carrying pregnancies when they know their child could die at any time and they won’t know when it happens.

Oh, and about women dying from continuing a pregnancy:  If the baby cannot live long past birth, or is functionally not alive (no frontal lobe, no brain except a brain stem, no brain at all—anencephaly) AND the mother develops pre-eclampsia, there is NO REASON to continue the pregnancy.  The mother could die, and pre-eclampsia is the leading cause of maternal death.  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E6D71038F933A25754C0A9679C8B63

So a late term abortion is always safer for the mother than delivery if she develops pre-eclampsia.

Comment #163: Ismone  on  08/21  at  09:55 PM

Also, Casp, just because it freaks you out that the fetus is parasitic in nature doesn’t make it not true. You can’t have something that lives and grows off of the living system of another without the label parasitic.

Deal with it and grow a little.

Comment #164: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/21  at  10:19 PM

“Existing murder laws (I believe Illinois is MPC) are inadequate because the law generally does not impose a positive duty to act; viz, leaving a child born during an attempted late-term abortion to die, without treatment, is a legally ambiguous situation.

Please detail the life-saving treatment that should be performed on a child born with no brain or born with its organs outside of its body.  I’m sure that all of the mothers who have posted here will be astounded to know that their doctors withheld your absolute knowledge that their child with no brain could have been saved and lived a normal life.”


I’m not certain you could find the point with a GPS device.  Also, you more or less acquiesced to the point at issue.  Good day.

Comment #165: Pink Dinkins, QC  on  08/21  at  10:46 PM

She hasn’t conceded the point, because these procedures are only used when the child has a fatal defect.  If you could come up with a case where a child was permitted to starve or the like who did not have a fatal condition, you would have a point.

Once it is born, failing to give a child food or adequate medical care is at best criminally negligent homicide.  So you really do not have a point.

Comment #166: Ismone  on  08/21  at  11:00 PM

Stacy:“a premie at 22 weeks has a good chance of surviving these days….now you want to extend Roe to outside the womb?”

Check out this article from the British Medical Journal, published earlier this year:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.39555.670718.BEv1

From the article:

Conclusions: Survival of infants born at 24 and 25 weeks of gestation has significantly increased. Although over half the cohort of infants born at 23 weeks was admitted to neonatal intensive care, there was no improvement in survival at this gestation. Care for infants born at 22 weeks remained unsuccessful.

Comment #167: Echolalia  on  08/21  at  11:04 PM

Casp,

they’re just trying to put up a smokescreen for Obama, muddy the waters and confuse the electorate. These people have no morals… the next ‘right’ they’ll want is to put toddlers to death that cry too much…

Comment #168: Stacy L  on  08/22  at  12:46 AM

stacey went bye-bye. or changed her name to casp, i suppose, but the tone is different.

and why have none of them addressed the babies born without a frontal lobe, or kidneys, etc?

Comment #169: denelian  on  08/22  at  12:50 AM

Echolalia, the BMJ has a well-known pro-science bias, you simply can’t believe a word they say.

Comment #170: Auguste  on  08/22  at  01:14 AM

Stacy, shut your hole.  You’ve done nothing but lie.  You have voluntarily relinqusihed your right to speak here.  You will be silent, NOW.

Comment #171: Damian  on  08/22  at  02:08 AM

No, no, no.  Don’t shut your hole yet, Stacy.  Please respond to my post about when the Bible says a fetus becomes a full person.  Then shut your hole.

(Dear god I’m responding to a troll at 3:30 in the morning.  I think may need professional help.)

Comment #172: ummeli  on  08/22  at  04:38 AM

they’re just trying to put up a smokescreen for Obama, muddy the waters and confuse the electorate. These people have no morals… the next ‘right’ they’ll want is to put toddlers to death that cry too much…

Another lie from Stacy, the moralist. Did you pick up some sort of disease from Jill Stanek that makes it impossible for you to address others’ points in an honest fashion, or merely to tell the truth about anything?

Comment #173: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/22  at  08:52 AM

I want the electorate to be CRYSTAL CLEAR on why women make good choices when they choose late-term abortions.  I want them to KNOW that some families want a body to hold and say goodbye too, which is made impossible in many cases by the intact D&X;ban.

I want them to know the facts about fetal development, lack of brain activity in even normal fetuses, and the fact that all this first- and second- term fetal pain in bullshit.

I want them to KNOW the truth about contraception, conscience clauses, human sexuality, and laws that are only meant to create test cases, not solve real problems.  I want them to KNOW that existing homicide and child neglect laws protect all born children, even if the are preterm, but I also want them to KNOW that letting a fatally ill pre-term baby die peacefully is every bit as kind and lawful as it would be if my husband (or a living will) instructed the docs. to turn off life-support once MY brain activity ceased.

You guys spread lies and misinformation, and you say we’re throwing up smoke screens?  You ignore the pain of real people faced with real choices, and say stupid things like no mother would want to abort instead of carrying to term?  Read the stories of women on this thread and others!  Really read and think about them.

Your compassion is broken, and it’s showing.

Comment #174: Ismone  on  08/22  at  11:17 AM

Amanda,

if you have any decency, you should clear up the lie you posted by Scott Swenson from reality check.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/08/rh_reality_unch.html#comments

the mistake that Jill admitted: she was wrong about the bill being “held” (as in “held-up” in committee) when in fact the bill was actually amended and voted upon with the identical language of the federal BAIPA.  Which Obama voted against it regardless.

Eric Zorn admitted Scott misrepresented the facts…

Comment #175: Stacy L  on  08/22  at  11:26 AM

Stacy, if you had any decency, you would answer the questions we’ve put to you directly on this thread.

Oh, but you don’t have any decency. That’s right!

Silly me.

Comment #176: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/22  at  11:36 AM

Stacy, if you had any decency, you would answer the questions we’ve put to you directly on this thread.

Quite right.

You’ve come here as a representative of your “side” in all this. Quit posting your little jabs and snipes, and start providing real answers to the concerns we’ve raised.

Comment #177: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/22  at  12:24 PM

Devil and the rest,

Pro-lifers are NOT against saving the life of the mother if her life is in danger in anyway!!

If labor has to be induced to save the Mother, then so be it.

Abortions are being performed on 24/25 weeks for elective reasons….

if a baby should survive the violent act of abortion, they should recieve basic medical care, as a wanted baby would get.

get a heart.

Comment #178: Stacy L  on  08/22  at  12:41 PM

Stacy L.: BAIPA lumps non-viable fetuses with viable fetuses. Find one example of a woman who had a late-term abortion of a viable fetus (post 22 weeks or pre 22 weeks) for “convenience.”

Comment #179: Hector B.  on  08/22  at  02:26 PM

Pro-lifers are NOT against saving the life of the mother, they just want to wait until her life is in danger and her chances of surviving the procedure are that much slimmer.

The “elective” abortions at 24/25 weeks are “ok, this dead fetus inside of you isn’t threatening your health, but it will once it starts to break down and you go into sepsis.” They’re not “oh, yuck, I’m sick of these stretch marks, take this thing out!”

The fact that you think women will get abortions at 24/25 weeks for non-life or health related reasons just proves what a complete misogynist tool you are.

Comment #180: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/22  at  02:34 PM

Stacy,

You’ve failed to show how a viable child wouldn’t get basic medical care under EXISTING laws, and completely ignored repeated statements from myself and others that (1) abortions CAN be legally banned at viability, which would be 24/25 weeks, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother and MANY STATES DO BAN abortion in that context; (2) a wanted grownup, like me, can be permitted to die and just given palliative care if we are brain-dead or non-viable, a wanted baby should be treated exactly the same; (3) in certain cases, D&X;is safer than inducing labor or going full term (e.g., preeclampsia, or for another example, if due to a fatal defect, the child’s head is too large to safely pass through the cervix during either an induced or full-term delivery); AND (4) in certain cases, the fetus is likely to die before it reaches full term, and induction is contraindicated, so intact D&X;is the only way for the parents to have a body to hold.

WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE STORIES OF REAL PEOPLE WITH WANTED PREGNANCIES WHO MADE THIS TRAGIC CHOICE?  The only example you gave of someone killing a viable child, was tried TWICE for homicide.  Existing laws are good enough, and you’re entirely to dull to realize the purpose of these laws that your people are trying to pass.

Say it with me:  banning D&X;means that women who choose a late term abortion, even to save their health or life or when faced with a child with a fatal birth defect, CANNOT hold a body in their arms that looks like a baby.  It means a GREATER risk of uterine perforation, which can lead to severe uterine bleeding, problems with fertility, and in severe cases, death.  Yes, there is only a marginal risk increase, but it is still there.

And if you don’t think that pro-life people are not against saving the lives of pregnant women, how do you explain away the deaths of women in Latin American when doctors REFUSE, under “pro-life” laws to end their ectopic pregnancies, and the women either die from botched abortions or ruptured fallopian tubes.  Maybe you should know the names of these women who went public before they died.  They are Olga Reyes, who was 22 and just married with a very wanted pregnancy, and Maria de Jesus Gonzalez, who left behind her four young children.

They are dead, because of your politics, not mine.

Comment #181: Ismone  on  08/22  at  02:41 PM

(1) abortions CAN be legally banned at viability, which would be 24/25 weeks, with exceptions for the life and health of the mother and MANY STATES DO BAN abortion in that context;

babies have survived as early as 22 weeks. The health exception is can be anything the mother chooses, even Obama himself pointed that out, it’s a fraud. Here is the insanity of the law.:A women at let’s say 24 weeks can walk into a chop-shop and have her baby killed, that same women could walk across the street to hospital and give birth to that same baby. So, the babies life is dependant on his/her “wantedness”. this is insane.


(3) in certain cases, D&X;is safer than inducing labor or going full term (e.g., preeclampsia, or for another example, if due to a fatal defect, the child’s head is too large to safely pass through the cervix during either an induced or full-term delivery);

You keep on bring up these medical conditions…don’t you realize a mother can kill her child for any reason?  This is insane, have some compassion for the babies that are getting their limbs ripped off or decapitated.


“(4) in certain cases, the fetus is likely to die before it reaches full term, and induction is contraindicated, so intact D&X;is the only way for the parents to have a body to hold.”

You’re nuts. A monster.

Comment #182: Stacy L  on  08/22  at  03:14 PM

In a 1995 speech, Tiller admitted that not all the abortions he does are for fetal abnormalities.

“We have some experience with late terminations: about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years.”

a speech given by George R. Tiller at the National Abortion Federation Annual Meeting on April 2-4, 1995 in New Orleans, LA

http://www.dr-tiller.com/elective.htm

Comment #183: Stacy L  on  08/22  at  03:18 PM

I’m a monster but my politics don’t lead to women dying because they’re denied late-term abortions.  Interesting.  Your politics let Olga and Maria die, and yet I don’t call you a monster.  Perhaps that is because name-calling is a logical fallacy, not a solid debate tactic.  Perhaps because I was raised to be a Christian, and do not think such things are appropriate.

(1)  See link upthread re: non-viability of 22 week premies in most circumstances.  Casey draws the line at viability, so if they are viable, the state can step in.  Babies born at 24 weeks are extremely premature, and like I said, those abortions can be (and often are) banned under state law unless the mother’s health or life is in danger.  Look up Casey and read it.

(2)  You still refuse to explain why the rules should be different for a pre-term or full-term baby with fatal defects, and an adult like me with fatal defects.

(3)  I keep bringing up medical conditions to show you that the procedure your political allies have banned prevents women with dangerous pregnancies from having a body to say goodbye to.  Since we are discussing late-term abortions and the BAIPA here.  You want to talk about pre-viable abortions, find another thread, and I’ll indulge you.

(4)  So you don’t understand why a woman who HAS to get an abortion TO SAVE HER LIFE would prefer an intact body to say goodbye to rather than a pile of dismembered limbs.  Maybe talk to some women, non-judgmentally (remember that bible passage about “judge not, lest ye be judged”), and listen to their stories and you would understand.

And regarding your Tiller quote, Stacy, he’s saying that there are 10,000 abortions done between the 24th and 36th weeks, and 800 due to fetal anomalies REALLY late, from the 26th to the 36th weeks.  He is not saying that the 9,200 abortions done between the 24th to the 26th weeks are NOT due to fetal anomalies, he’s just being more specific about the really late term abortions.  Perhaps it is because the earlier term abortions also include those done to save the mother’s health or life.

Epic fail.

Comment #184: Ismone  on  08/22  at  04:19 PM

Stacy,

Ismone is correct, you really haven’t answered peoples’ points above, including my own about the status of fetuses in the Bible. 

Calling people names isn’t helping this conversation in the least.  Could you please respond directly to our arguments?  Otherwise you really have no credibility here at all.

Comment #185: ummeli  on  08/22  at  04:28 PM

I installed Greasemonkey and the killfile GM script solely to get rid of Stacy Liar’s comments.  She wants to throw her tantrums, ignore facts, and generally prove she’s just another pants-pissing troll?  She can do it from my killfile.

Comment #186: Damian  on  08/22  at  05:00 PM

You all have been pwning Stacy L better than I could, so I won’t step in here, but I’m surprised no one pointd this out:

Obama should read his own book, Audacity of Hope:

... [T]he essential idea behind the Declaration - that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will - is one that every American understands.

But how about if you highlight it here:

... [T]he essential idea behind the Declaration - that we are born into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that can’t be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will - is one that every American understands.

Idiot.

Comment #187: Rebecca  on  08/22  at  06:08 PM

Rebecca,

I respect your pwnage.  But I give up trying to have a fair convo. with Stacy.

Comment #188: Ismone  on  08/22  at  07:33 PM

The Bundle of Rights concept is, to be frank, too subtle and complex an idea for this forum, at least while people like Stacy are part of the conversation.  It finds contemporary expression in U.S. Constitutional law, so no surprise to see Obama articulating it.

I think the bundle of rights concept works very well for this issue.  Metaphorically, think of it as a bundle of sticks.  A fetus has certain rights from the beginning of pregnancy (whether from conception or implantation doesn’t really matter).  At the earliest stage of pregnancy, the bundle is small, with only a couple of sticks.  As pregnancy advances more sticks are added, until the bundle becomes as big as everybody else’s when the baby is born.

The question of abortion, by this way of thinking, is really about weighing the rights of the fetus versus the rights of the pregnant woman.  The further along in pregnancy the fetus progresses, the bigger its bundle is, i.e. the more rights it has in comparison to the mother. 

This is similar to the approach J. Blackmun took in Roe in that the trimester framework essentially says the mother’s bundle of sticks/rights is always bigger than the fetus’s through the second trimester (what Blackmun took to be viability).  At some point, according to Roe, the fetus’s bundle of sticks becomes as large as the pregnant woman’s, at which point the state is justified in limiting her right to infringe the fetus’s rights by terminating the pregnancy.

As I am pro-choice, I believe the fetus’s bundle of sticks/rights is almost always smaller than the pregnant woman’s until it is born.  I am willing to acknowledge the possibility that the calculus may change somewhat depending on the particular circumstances (are you reading this Stacy?), although as a practical matter I really can’t think of any examples when the fetus’s bundle is larger to the woman’s prior to birth.

Comment #189: ummeli  on  08/22  at  10:16 PM

if a baby should survive the violent act of abortion, they should recieve basic medical care, as a wanted baby would get. get a heart.

For fuck’s sake, Stacy, have you not read a word we’ve written? Denying basic necessities to an infant is already illegal. And I don’t know that anyone here is advocating infanticide either actively or passively.

Most babies borne of early induction, and those very few who survive late-term abortion, are fated to die: they have conditions incompatible with life. The most that can be done for them is to provide palliative care, as opposed to taking heroic measures that would only serve to prolong their suffering and that of their parents.

The reason I’m not up-in-arms about Stanek’s claims concerning babies in utility rooms or whatever is because I simply do not believe her. I think she is an ideologue, a simpleton, and a liar.

Not only do I disbelieve Stanek, but I also disbelieve anyone who claims that most abortions which take place at 25+ weeks are for “convenience.”

Why don’t I believe that? Because abortions that take place before 20 weeks are easier to perform than those that take place after 20 weeks. Cheaper, too. Those hypothetical hordes of shameless sluts you believe are getting abortions just for the fun of it – most of them sure as hell wouldn’t be interested in waiting ‘til late in their terms for an abortion when earlier is easier. You keep on talking about “convenience.” What the hell is so convenient about late-term abortion?

Contrary to what you seem to believe, most people aren’t monsters. They aren’t going around snuffing out potential lives “just because.” Provide the resources that parents need to be successful, and let them come to you. Stop butting into their personal business with your version of morality.

Comment #190: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/22  at  11:13 PM

babies have survived as early as 22 weeks.

And again I ask you, cite please! Someone way up the thread seems to have disproved this claim already.

You’re nuts. A monster.

If I’m a monster, it’s not because of this.

Comment #191: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/22  at  11:31 PM

“Ismone is correct, you really haven’t answered peoples’ points above, including my own about the status of fetuses in the Bible. “

thy shall not murder…


it’s in the 10 commandments and throughout the bible.

“For fuck’s sake, Stacy, have you not read a word we’ve written? Denying basic necessities to an infant is already illegal.”

no it was not, why did BAIPA pass 98-0 in the US senate?

The Illinois law the Obama speaks of had a loophole, Jill Stanek investigated this extensively, thus the need for BAIPA.


“Contrary to what you seem to believe, most people aren’t monsters. They aren’t going around snuffing out potential lives “just because.”

Potential lives?  No Devil these ARE already lives.

“Not only do I disbelieve Stanek, but I also disbelieve anyone who claims that most abortions which take place at 25+ weeks are for “convenience.”

Good Devil, then you should have problem banning late-term abortions other than the Mother’s life or fatal fetal diseases…  ?  Not just “health”

I mean, there are all kinds of non-threatening reasons why it’s done. Google Amy Richards (feminist) who killed one her twins in utero.

“Not only do I disbelieve Stanek, but I also disbelieve anyone who claims that most abortions which take place at 25+ weeks are for “convenience.””

I never said ‘most’.

Hey Rebecca,

At the saddleback debate he couldn’t even say when babies have rights…did you watch it his reponse?

uhh,ddaa,umm well…...

Comment #192: Stacy L  on  08/23  at  11:42 AM

Ok, you got me.  I really believed “Stacy L” was a real anti-choice zealot.  But this is the give-away:

“Ismone is correct, you really haven’t answered peoples’ points above, including my own about the status of fetuses in the Bible. “

thy shall not murder…

Nobody is that stupid.

Who is “Stacy” really?  Amanda?  Jesse?  Pam?

I’ll bet it’s Auguste fucking with out minds.

Good one.  I admit, I bought it hook line and sinker.

Comment #193: ummeli  on  08/23  at  07:10 PM

no it was not, why did BAIPA pass 98-0 in the US senate?

So, infanticide was not illegal before the redundant BAIPA bill?

Potential lives?  No Devil these ARE already lives.

Your only reason for defining them thus is religion. And guess what – not everyone is interested in your very selective version of morality?

Good Devil, then you should have problem banning late-term abortions other than the Mother’s life or fatal fetal diseases… ?  Not just “health”

You haven’t earned the right to be so condescending, Stacy.

Since late-term abortions are already hard to get, and rare, I would assume that the doctors are in the best position to determine whether or not “health” is a good enough reason to carry out such a procedure. Not lawmakers. Not you. And certainly not panty-sniffers like Jill Stanek.

I mean, there are all kinds of non-threatening reasons why it’s done. Google Amy Richards (feminist) who killed one her twins in utero.

I just did. Everything I read suggests she had the abortions before 20 weeks gestation. Not late term. Not germane to this discussion. And even if I don’t agree with her decision on a personal level, my point still stands. Read all that other stuff I typed above.

Comment #194: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/23  at  08:58 PM

Devil,

stop forgetting about earlier abortions…:

look at this heart-breaking story:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/04/baby_rowan.html


“Your only reason for defining them thus is religion.”

this is basic science devil, life starts at conception.

Comment #195: Stacy L  on  08/24  at  01:47 AM

stop forgetting about earlier abortions…

I’m not. Late-term abortion is the over-arching subject of this thread. Quit it with this shell game.

look at this heart-breaking story:

Done and done!

I decided to seek out an alternate opinion on what occurred, and found an interesting article at…of all places….WorldNetDaily.com. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44052)

The article read, in part:

Certainly, what the clinic did was repulsive. Their non-response to her pleas for help is not just inexcusable; it is also illegal . But Angele cannot hide behind their inaction, callous hearts and criminal acts. She is responsible for her choice and no amount of finger pointing will change that.

Emphasis mine. Ignoring her pleas for help was illegal – or it would have been, had the fetus been born alive.

Angela claims her baby lived for 11 minutes, but the coroner ruled it had never drawn breath. No air was found in its lungs.

Kelly Hollowell, author of the WorldNetDaily article, took the position Angela was responsible for her own actions. Jill Stanek took the position that Angela, already a mother of two, and admittedly seeking a late-term abortion when she could have had one earlier, was somehow an innocent and naïve victim of the “abortion industry.”

My question: How long a prison sentence do you, as a pro-lifer, believe Angela should serve for murder?

this is basic science devil, life starts at conception.

Science says that a lot of fertilized eggs – maybe most of them, but there’s no way to tell – are flushed in the monthly menses. Obviously conception isn’t a good place to set the marker for life beginning – unless you’re willing to claim that a free-floating bundle of cells with less structure of sentience than a baby chick should somehow take primacy over the wishes of a woman.

You’d have an easier time saying life begins at implantation, which means BTW that the morning-after pill is not an abortifacient.

If life begins at implantation, then each miscarriage would have to be investigated for potential criminal intent, and women would be legally restricted in what they could eat or do while pregnant. (If life begins at conception, it means that all woman of child-bearing age would be subject to these restrictions regardless of whether pregnancy has been detected or not.)

And leaving a viable baby to die, whether it is a product of abortion or labor, is already illegal.

Comment #196: The Devil's Advocate  on  08/24  at  03:16 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.