Patterico's Pontifications

7/15/2007

Louisiana Bans Some Type of Abortion Procedure, the Details of Which Are Unclear to Us at the Moment . . .

Filed under: Abortion,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 12:45 pm



From the June 14 L.A. Times comes this mealy-mouthed report:

A type of late abortion is restricted

From Times Wire Reports
July 14, 2007

Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco signed legislation in Baton Rouge that penalizes doctors who perform a late-term abortion procedure, making the state the first to restrict the surgery since a similar federal ban was upheld this year.

The new law allows the procedure only when the pregnant woman’s life would be endangered without it. It would be a crime in all other cases, including when the pregnancy is expected to cause health problems for the woman.

What type of late-term abortion procedure was criminalized? I think you know, but you have to read between the lines to figure it out:

The statute mirrors one that President Bush signed into law in 2003. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Under the Louisiana legislation, doctors face fines up to $10,000 and jail terms of up to 10 years.

I love the way they dance around this topic. While the rest of us are calling a spade a spade, the L.A. Times is calling a spade a type of digging tool.

70 Responses to “Louisiana Bans Some Type of Abortion Procedure, the Details of Which Are Unclear to Us at the Moment . . .”

  1. For once, we are not last in the nation in something…and something worthwhile….

    reff (f3109d)

  2. Well, give Blanco credit where it’s due. She signed the legislation. As far as the Dog Trainer not calling something most people, pro-abortionists in my experience included, find hideous when it’s explained to them, by name, what can one say?

    I hold to my “liberals are evil” theory… the ones who would tacitly support this unnamed (because it’s only a newspaper… I mean, surely it’s not their responsibility to accurately tell their readers what they’re talking about, is it?) procedure.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  3. Christoph,

    Which option do you prefer?

    1. Let the usually doomed newborn suffer a rather horrible few minutes of existence before it dies of natural causes.

    2. Spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars in an attempt to help it survive?

    As for claims that you had to “read between the lines” to see what the actual procedure in question was,

    “In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Under the Louisiana legislation, doctors face fines up to $10,000 and jail terms of up to 10 years.”

    only if you have a huge reading comprehension problem.

    alphie (015011)

  4. I got a reading comprehension quiz for ya, alphie.

    Does the article say what the law does? Or just strongly imply it?

    Now, is that what newspapers are *supposed* to do?

    Patterico (fd7419)

  5. Be of good cheer, Patterico. alphie just agreed with you that the newspaper is in the wrong.

    That’s how he admits that one of his heroes is in the wrong and can’t be defended. He changes the subject.

    Regards,
    Ric

    Ric Locke (ffd6e1)

  6. Alphie,

    Sorry, I am confused about something with regards to the later-term abortion procedures and how they apply to the choice you gave Christoph.

    1. I assume this is to the induced labor option. I can’t find explaination elsewhere on how life is extinguished, so I am guessing this is what is referenced.

    2. This is an elective abortion (in most cases). Why would taxpayer money be spent keeping the baby alive?

    I think your point is that D&E, D&X, or whatever the hell procedure, is more humane than the others because the fetus dies in due to brain-death versus whatever. Is that right?

    pwr (8656ff)

  7. Alphie,

    Ich liebe deinen denken. Wir musst alle untermenschen umbringen.

    nk (channeling Adolph Hitler) (9c9223)

  8. The essense of liberalism is that it turns a blind eye to evil, and refuses to call evil by its name; sometimes even calls evil ‘good’.

    Jack (d6dc09)

  9. Nice try, Ric.

    What percentage of readers would not understand from the Times’ brief article that the bill concerns partial-birth abortions?

    1 in 1000, maybe?

    And pwr,

    While I don’t agree with the religous right’s stand on abortion, I can at least understand it.

    But not in this case.

    Partial-birth abortions are not performed on a whim, they are done for one or both of two reasons:

    1. The pregnancy is causing serious health problems in the mother.

    2. The fetus has succmbed to a fatal genetic anonomly (i.e, it has developed without lungs, a heart or even a brain).

    This bill is a political victory for the religious right.

    It is not a moral victory.

    Quite the opposite.

    alphie (015011)

  10. alphie sez:

    Partial-birth abortions are not performed on a whim, they are done for one or both of two reasons:

    1. The pregnancy is causing serious health problems in the mother.

    2. The fetus has succmbed to a fatal genetic ano[ma]ly (i.e, it has developed without lungs, a heart or even a brain.

    Not so.

    The predictable ignorance of this view has been addressed on this site before, but it may be worth another stand-alone post.

    Patterico (61e7fb)

  11. alphie

    Partial-birth abortions are not performed on a whim, they are done for one or both of two reasons:

    They are also performed for CONVENIENCE.

    Usually of the doctor who is loathe to have a botched late-term saline abortion where the “mass of tissue” is born alive.

    Those “masses of tissues” have actually testified before Congress (with Dem women representatives refusing to attend out of craveness, cowardice or both)

    Long ago the LA Times ran a piece in its old Sunday Magazine about the “inventor” of partial-birth..and he was blunt about it reasoning

    … to make sure the “mass of tissue” was dead before complete delivery…

    Sucking out the brains of a viable fetus will do that you know…

    Darleen (187edc)

  12. I’ll even give you a head start, alphie. The link I’ll be relying on is here.

    Now go arm-wrestle Franklin Foer and let me know how it turns out.

    Patterico (e68c9f)

  13. The post where you write:

    It is difficult to find reliable information on this topic, because there are no reliable sources of statistics.

    Hardly a persuasive argument that I’m wrong, Patterico.

    alphie (015011)

  14. alphie, I’m not interested in debating you. I think you are evil scum.

    Jack is right.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  15. I don’t know if he’s evil, but he just revealed himself to be a dishonest cherry-picker. More fodder for my post.

    Here’s from lefty Franklin Foer, quoted in the post I linked:

    Last fall, both the Washington Post and the Bergen Record ran front-page stories asserting that pro-choice groups underestimate the number of “intact dilation and extraction” (IDE) procedures, to use the medical term, that are performed. [Note: the Washington Post piece is the one discussed earlier in this post.] . . . After interviewing doctors who perform the procedure, both papers concluded that only in very few instances was the IDE actually necessary to protect the woman’s health. Most of them were performed on poor women who could not muster the money to pay for abortions earlier in their pregnancies.

    alphie sorta overlooked that phrase. I’m sure it was an *honest* mistake . . .

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  16. Cough cough HACK cough

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  17. Of course you do, Christoph.

    I imagine you also think that the 77% of Americans who are now opposed to the Iraq war are “evil” too.

    Looking over what I think is the actual Louisiana law(.pdf):

    http://tinyurl.com/2hrdr4

    I found this curious line:

    …to provide for the prohibition of the performance of partial birth abortions by a physician or any other person except where necessary to preserve the life of the mother

    Why put that in if you felt these procedures are just done by lazy doctors on indifferent mothers?

    alphie (015011)

  18. Why put that in if you felt these procedures are just done by lazy doctors on indifferent mothers?

    amazing

    Darleen (187edc)

  19. Against my better judgment…


    I imagine you also think that the 77% of Americans who are now opposed to the Iraq war are “evil” too.

    No.

    Why put that in if you felt these procedures are just [emphasis mine] done by lazy doctors on indifferent mothers?

    No one said that.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  20. Well, Christoph,

    Then I guess the next question is:

    Do you feel partial birth abortions should be allowed when the mother is suffering from very serious, but not necessarily fatal, symptoms from the pregnancy, or in the case where the fetus would be born with fatal or extremely severe birth defects?

    alphie (015011)

  21. alphie, that is not the next question after you find yourself called on your wild exageration.

    The question is, why don’t you have the moral scruples to look yourself in the mirror, hate yourself, and buy a rope?

    Christoph (8741c8)

  22. Why Christoph, how moral of you.

    Is it a question you’re uncomfortable answering?

    And Pattrico, speaking of hacks,

    Yesterday you quoted the Peace Prize winner saying, “Right now I could kill George Bush, no problem.[laughs] No, I don’t mean that.”

    But somehow, you only managed to quoted the “right now, I could kill George Bush” part.

    alphie (015011)

  23. Nor did I point out that about a year ago, she said: “Right now, I would love to kill George Bush.”

    So according to you, I downplayed her non-violence. According to me, I downplayed her violent talk.

    None of which has anything to do with the utter hackery you are showing, which you are trying to avoid by changing the subject.

    Not gonna work, hack.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  24. I believe the original topic was your claim that people would read this paragraph:

    The statute mirrors one that President Bush signed into law in 2003. In April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Under the Louisiana legislation, doctors face fines up to $10,000 and jail terms of up to 10 years.

    …and somehow not know that Louisiana was criminalizing partial-birth abortions.

    Still stand by that claim?

    alphie (015011)

  25. I believe that was not my original claim.

    Now quit dodging your hackery, my hackish friend.

    The issue is why women get partial-birth abortions. You made a claim. I provided evidence to demolish it. You have been tap-dancing ever since.

    Put up or shut up look even stupider than you do already.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  26. I mean, there’s nothing wrong in getting your facts wrong. But this weaselly way you have of pretending that you haven’t been shown up is really not doing you any credit.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  27. As Patterico makes clear in his original in his original unedited post, he believes readers can figure out the topic of the L.A. Times article from reading it:

    “What type of late-term abortion procedure was criminalized? I think you know, but you have to read between the lines to figure it out:”

    And that’s certainly true. Patterico was pointing out how the L.A. Times didn’t directly name the procedure to add clarity and avoid ambiguity.

    You on the other hand get pointed out to be in wild exaggeration or just plain wrong mode all the time and shift the topic.

    Now, calm people like Patterico wait in vain for you to admit you’re wrong when it is proven over and over again.

    Less calm people like myself just hate your guts.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  28. Patterico,

    Here are the lines you wrote in your original post:

    1. From the June 14 L.A. Times comes this mealy-mouthed report:

    2. What type of late-term abortion procedure was criminalized? I think you know, but you have to read between the lines to figure it out:

    3. I love the way they dance around this topic. While the rest of us are calling a spade a spade, the L.A. Times is calling a spade a type of digging tool.

    I mean, come on.

    Who is doing the tap-dancing here?

    And I’m flattered that you consider one of my comments as the true topic of this thread, but…

    The only “evidence” you have to back up your counter-claim is a third-hand, anecdotal quote from a ten year old Salon post.

    I’d say “I provided evidence to demolish it” is a slight exaggeration.

    alphie (015011)

  29. alphie my friend — my cherry-picking dishonest hack of a friend,

    You’re forcing me to pull an AF and reprint a whole freaking post. Luckily it’s not copyright infringement, since it’s mine. Anyone who reads this and concludes that my proof consists of a single Salon post is, like you, an utterly dishonest hack.

    You sorta forgot the Washington Post, you lying sack of my good friend.

    Here’s the old post:

    Newspaper editorial writers could learn something from bloggers.

    Blogging etiquette generally requires that bloggers “show their work” by providing links to their sources (or, if no Web link is available, to explain where readers can go to find the source).

    Editorial writers, by contrast, usually throw out “facts” with no attribution. Often, their failure to provide sources for their assertions helps them to obscure the fact that they are relying on blatantly partisan and unreliable sources for their information.

    Yesterday, I showed you how New York Times editors swallowed whole some Democrat talking points regarding judicial filibusters. Today, I’d like to provide another example of an editorial blindly repeating baseless assertions made by special interest groups. Today’s example comes courtesy of the leftist editors at the Los Angeles Times.

    The editorial in question ran yesterday, and was titled Chipping Away at Roe vs. Wade. The main point of the editorial is exceptionally silly, and is torn apart with great skill by Xrlq in this post. Xrlq shows how the Dog Trainer editors seem to believe there is a more expansive right to abortion than to any other Constitutional right, including that of freedom of speech.

    I want to focus on a different aspect of the editorial. The editors make the following claim — without providing a source:

    Later-stage abortions most often result from fears for the woman’s health or fetal anomalies.

    My question is: what is the source for this statement? And my guess is: the abortion lobby. Because I am aware of no credible support for this assertion in neutral sources.

    It is difficult to find reliable information on this topic, because there are no reliable sources of statistics. But in researching the issue, I have found dispassionate analyses in two generally liberal publications that directly contradict the assertion made by L.A. Times editors.

    For example, the liberal Washington Post reported on September 17, 1996 (link unavailable on the Web, accessible via Nexis):

    Opponents of the [partial-birth abortion] ban, including President Clinton, have used patients and data drawn chiefly from the practice of one abortion doctor to portray the procedure as an extremely rare one, used almost exclusively in cases where a woman discovers that her pregnancy threatens her own life or that the fetus is severely deformed. They also have implied that in some cases, it is the only abortion technique that can safely be used.

    Interviews with physicians, as well as information gleaned from published documents and congressional testimony, paint a different picture of these late-term abortions.

    It is possible — and maybe even likely — that the majority of these abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy. In virtually all cases, there are alternative ways to perform the abortion safely, though perhaps not as safely as when intact D&E is used.

    Instead, the “typical” patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical. Only in the small subgroup of women whose abortions are done extremely late — in the last one-third of gestation — are most of the fetuses malformed, and most of the pregnancies initially desired.

    The Post article is certainly not a one-sided screed against abortion. It goes on to argue that abortion opponents have also made misleading arguments about partial-birth abortion (by falsely suggesting that the procedure is regularly performed in the eighth or ninth month, when it is generally done before the 24th week of pregnancy).

    A piece by Franklin Foer came to similar conclusions. Foer is a senior editor for the leftist The New Republic, who has written pieces with titles like “The Case Against George W. Bush, Part I — Closing of the Presidential Mind.” Does he sound like a conservative to you? Foer addressed the topic of late-term abortions in Slate, another generally liberal media outlet. According to Foer:

    Last fall, both the Washington Post and the Bergen Record ran front-page stories asserting that pro-choice groups underestimate the number of “intact dilation and extraction” (IDE) procedures, to use the medical term, that are performed. [Note: the Washington Post piece is the one discussed earlier in this post.] . . . After interviewing doctors who perform the procedure, both papers concluded that only in very few instances was the IDE actually necessary to protect the woman’s health. Most of them were performed on poor women who could not muster the money to pay for abortions earlier in their pregnancies.

    Again, Foer’s piece can hardly be considered biased in favor of abortion opponents. The main point of his piece is to question the credibility and significance of statements made by “apostate” Ron Fitzsimmons — statements that had been repeated to great effect by opponents of abortion.

    (By the way, while the above observations relate specifically to partial-birth abortions, or “IDEs,” there is no logical reason that they would not hold true for late-term abortions generally. Partial-birth abortion is simply one technique used to perform late-term abortions; the other principal method is dismemberment within the womb. There is no reason to believe that the motivations of women having late-term abortions bears any relationship to which of these two methods is used to accomplish the abortion. If articles tend to concentrate on the motivations of women having partial-birth abortions, that is only because the visibly grisly nature of the procedure makes it more controversial than the equally gruesome but less visible procedure of ripping a child open within the womb.)

    Foer concludes:

    There is little doubt about the pro-choice media’s unquestioning acceptance of the faulty pro-choice statistics. Editorial boards at the Washington Post and the New York Times took the position that a ban on late-term abortions is bad because it affects only women carrying badly deformed babies who have no other alternative.

    Well, Mr. Foer, you can add the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times [and now alphie — Ed.] to the list of overly credulous pontificators on this issue. In light of the evidence I have presented, it seems highly unlikely that the editors had a solid and unbiased source for their claim that late-term abortions “most often result from fears for the woman’s health or fetal anomalies.” If they had one, they probably would have provided it.

    My guess is that, if the offending editor were forced to reveal the source for his assertion, it would prove to be either: 1) “the abortion lobby” or 2) “my ass.”

    And I’m afraid that neither one constitutes a very impressive source.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  30. Yes, alphie, you have been pwn3d.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  31. Alphie – Have you provided a shred of evidence to back up your position?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  32. alphie doesn’t “do” evidence. He does massive shifts in direction to make others work to disprove him, then, when they do, he hopes to waste more of their time with more irrational statements and intellectually dishonest arguments.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  33. Alphie – Have you provided a shred of evidence to back up your position?

    Here’s a hint: smug LAT and NYT editorials don’t count. Nor do the assertions — however confident — of your liberal pals at the water cooler.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  34. Pat, why do you continue to humor this less than worthless piece of scum whose only attraction is that he shares a name with Michael Caine’s most famous character. Be done with him.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  35. It is possible — and maybe even likely

    Hmmmm.

    Not an inspiring start to a statement that we can’t fact-check. let’s see how it ends:

    that the majority of these abortions are performed on normal fetuses, not on fetuses suffering genetic or developmental abnormalities. Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy

    Even allowing that this statemnet may be true, it could very well mean that all but a small number of partial-birth abortions are performed either because the health of the mother was at risk, or the fetus was suffering genetic or developmental abnormalities.

    Do the math (see:set theory).

    alphie (015011)

  36. Alphie – Where are your experts to back up your assertions? Is your opinion mere gasbaggery as usual or is it actually informed by something?

    daleyrocks (906622)

  37. alphie, you can cherry-pick all you like, but it’s now all there for everyone to see. For example: “the ‘typical’ patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical.”

    Meanwhile, you got nothing. It’s crystal clear.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  38. haha,

    Give me a break.

    I’m reading through Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzalez v. Carhart.

    Would it kill you law talkin’ guys to use plain English?

    alphie (015011)

  39. Alphie reading through Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzalez v. Carhart.

    Basically confirming he’s got nothing. Maybe he’s a robot programmed to spew talking points.

    Alf meanwhile, relies primarily on the cut and paste to present the opinions of others. It’s unclear if this is because Alf has few opinions of his own. It is painfully clear, however, on the rare occasions that Alf decides to advance his own opinions they are shaped by shoddy reasoning, false information and ultimately indefensible by normal thinking people.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  40. Well, daley,

    True research is a slow process.

    I first tried to find the Washington Post article cited in Patterico’s 2004 post (It’s called “Harsh Details Shift Tenor of Abortion Fight” by Barbara Vobejda and David Brown, btw).

    A search for it linked to the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which I read. That led me to the two Supreme Court rulings.

    I’ll get to stats on partial-birth abortions soon.

    I will say this, though…it is very strange.

    There are two main procedures used to abort 20 week plus fetuses:

    1. The doctor carefully maneuvers the fetus and then kills it it with one swift jab to the base of the skull, then removes it.

    2. The doctor reaches into the uterus with foreceps and literally rips the fetus limb-from-limb and removes each piece in turn. This procedure can takes up to 15 rips.

    Guess which procedure got banned?

    Shall we talk about morals some more?

    alphie (015011)

  41. You forgot the part about sucking out the baby’s brains with a suction catheter, alphie.

    But Christoph isn’t the one who wants to keep it legal to rip the fetus apart with surgical instruments.

    That would be you.

    Patterico (dc72fc)

  42. True,

    But in the meantime, the “anatomical landmarks” imposed on abortion doctors in Louisiana by the religious right have now made getting ripped apart, piece by piece, the the main way fetuses will be aborted there.

    I’m not sure what’s been gained.

    Unless the plan is to next try to criminalize the regular D & E procedure to try to get around Roe’s “health of the mother” provision?

    alphie (015011)

  43. Alphie – At this point you have basically admitted you were shooting off your mouth about partial birth abortion being used primarily for the mother’s health or because of an abnormality with the fetus without any information to back up your opinion.

    Did you make up your point of view or just swallow someone’s talking points whole without question, sort of like the Iraq War bad, U.N. unending negotiations good democratic solution.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  44. A nice try to hoist the tattered “Mission Accomplished” banner over yet another thread (with a “talking points” device, no less!), daley.

    While the Washington Post article is out of reach, the Congressional testimony it mentions should be available on the web.

    The lower court rulings in the two Supreme Court rulings seem to back up my claim…I’ll get to those, too.

    alphie (015011)

  45. … Christoph isn’t the one who wants to keep it legal to rip the fetus apart with surgical instruments.

    That would be you.

    Comment by Patterico — 7/15/2007 @ 11:37 pm

    True…

    Comment by alphie — 7/15/2007 @ 11:51 pm

    … people like myself just hate your guts.

    Comment by Christoph — 7/15/2007 @ 8:28 pm

    Christoph (8741c8)

  46. Alfie will now be leading the charge AGAINST THE RIPPING OF A FETUS LIMB-FROM-LIMB AND REMOVING EACH PIECE IN TURN….Right???

    Isn’t it amazing what a person who is for abortion will write to try to make a point???

    reff (f3109d)

  47. “1. The doctor carefully maneuvers the fetus and then kills it it with one swift jab to the base of the skull, then removes it.

    2. The doctor reaches into the uterus with foreceps and literally rips the fetus limb-from-limb and removes each piece in turn. This procedure can takes up to 15 rips.”

    And you don’t have a serious moral-ethical problem with both of these atrocities???

    What is wrong with you?

    Dana (5b81c5)

  48. But in the meantime, the “anatomical landmarks” imposed on abortion doctors in Louisiana by the religious right have now made getting ripped apart, piece by piece, the the main way fetuses will be aborted there.

    I’m not sure what’s been gained.

    Why make stabbing people to death illegal if they can still be shot in the head? What has been gained?

    You know what you’re arguing for there, alphie?

    Pablo (99243e)

  49. If you can’t convince a proponent of abortion that a fetus is a human being, than statements like

    “Why make stabbing people to death illegal if they can still be shot in the head? What has been gained?”

    are disingenuous (at least in the eyes of said proponents). They are false analogies, and do nothing to advance your argument.

    Which means that, ultimately, the abortion debate isn’t going to go anywhere. Since there is no way to get everyone to agree to an objective measurement of humanity, the pro-abortion crowd will always insist that a fetus isn’t a human being. Rather, they will continue to consider a fetus something along the lines of an appendix – useless, to be removed if it poses a threat to the health of the walking, talking mother.

    Leviticus (a33534)

  50. A common-sense comment, Leviticus. That is in fact the core problem.

    For most reasonable people, however, and this seems to include Governor Blanco, there is agreement a fully viable 8.75 month fetus is a human being.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  51. “That is in fact the core problem.”

    -Christoph

    I know. That was most of the point.

    “For most reasonable people… there is agreement a fully viable 8.75 month fetus is a human being.”

    -Christoph

    The rest of the point was that assumptions like this are WRONG. There are plenty of intelligent, highly educated people who would disagree with your claim that an 8.75 month old fetus is a human being (for reasons that I can’t fathom, which is beside the point).

    The rest of the point is that there is no way to convince said reasonable people that they are, in fact, wrong. There is no objective standard of humanity to apply to a fetus. It comes down to individual belief.

    Someone mentioned Robert A. Heinlein yesterday (in Patterico’s “If I could push a button and make anyone in the world president” post). I had a class that talked about the whole issue of judging what’s human and what isn’t in relation to “I Will Fear No Evil”, as well as Arthur C. Clarke’s “Childhood’s End”. It’s a more or less impossible question.

    It comes down to faith.

    Leviticus (a33534)

  52. “For most reasonable people… there is agreement a fully viable 8.75 month fetus is a human being.”

    That statement stands on its merits, but you are correct, as I acknowledged, that the question of whether this is true or not is the core issue.

    And majority opinion doesn’t determine right or wrong on this, although it probably should determine the law (and not 5 unelected Supreme Court justices imagining things that are clearly not written in the constitution to be there).

    It doesn’t necessarily come down to faith. I know atheists who despise abortion.

    It comes down to do you like babies or not? Do you like them enough not to kill them when they’re inconvenient?

    Christoph (8741c8)

  53. Just wait the ACLU will file suit to have it over turned becuase the ACLU belives noone should die but the elderly,ternamly ill or the unborn

    krazy kagu (d7018c)

  54. “It doesn’t necessarily come down to faith. I know atheists who despise abortion.”

    -Christoph

    “Faith” doesn’t necessarily have to be put in a god.

    “It comes down to do you like babies or not? Do you like them enough not to kill them when they’re inconvenient?”

    -Christoph

    No, no, NO. You keep missing the point. These are not “babies” in the eyes of many in the pro-abortion crowd. If its not a baby, it’s not murder. If it’s not murder, then they’ve done nothing wrong. Do you see?

    Leviticus (b8489f)

  55. leviticus

    I consider myself (as most Americans do) a “reluctant pro-choice”.

    I find the majority of abortions immoral, but I believe some abortions should remain legal.

    I don’t believe the argument is whether or not a fetus is human…it obviously IS.

    The argument is over the moral worth of the fetus and how/when we balance its rights with those of its mother.

    Darleen (187edc)

  56. “I don’t believe the argument is whether or not a fetus is human…it obviously IS.”

    -Darleen

    Fine…feel free to fail to elaborate that belief to the millions of Americans who don’t see a fetus as a human child.

    Leviticus (6903e8)

  57. I do agree with you about the difficulty in balancing the rights of the fetus with the rights of the mother, though…

    Leviticus (6903e8)

  58. “It comes down to do you like babies or not?”

    God, you’re kidding, right?

    If you take an evolutionary view of man and we came from some goo way back when, then it wouldn’t be a big deal to abort at one month or nine months because we’re not created in any image, we would have no more intrinsic value than a rock and aborting at any time and feeling okay about the rationalization would be consistent with this. Honest, no. But consistent.

    The question seems to be what is the causation for valuing human life in the first place? 20 people in a room can give you 20 different opinions about when its viable but who is the magic person who can arbitrarily decide on 8 mos or 8.752 months? Its the standard of measurement that is in question, and what or who the standard bearer is and says.

    Dana (657845)

  59. Exactly.

    Leviticus (e92874)

  60. The question seems to be what is the causation for valuing human life in the first place?

    Well, for a lot of gangbangers, shooting a person for wearing the wrong sports jersey or looking at them “disrespectful” demonstrates their disregard for the value of human life.

    Pro-abortionists are morally equivalent to gangbangers?

    the “magic person”, btw, is a society that implicitly and explicity sets forth its values through law and custom, with the consent of the majority of its members.

    Darleen (187edc)

  61. “the “magic person”, btw, is a society that implicitly and explicity sets forth its values through law and custom, with the consent of the majority of its members.”

    The question remains – where do those values originate from? Why do you believe murder is wrong? Why is rape wrong? If man is setting the standard through law and custom, who originally decided that these were to be the measure and thus, law?

    Dana (657845)

  62. “It comes down to do you like babies or not?”

    God, you’re kidding, right?

    If you take an evolutionary view of man and we came from some goo way back when, then it wouldn’t be a big deal to abort at one month or nine months because we’re not created in any image, we would have no more intrinsic value than a rock and aborting at any time and feeling okay about the rationalization would be consistent with this. Honest, no. But consistent.

    The question seems to be what is the causation for valuing human life in the first place? 20 people in a room can give you 20 different opinions about when its viable but who is the magic person who can arbitrarily decide on 8 mos or 8.752 months? Its the standard of measurement that is in question, and what or who the standard bearer is and says.

    Comment by Dana — 7/16/2007 @ 1:25 pm

    Wrong.

    You’re assuming all morality descends from Christianity or other religion.

    It doesn’t.

    I believe in intrinsic human rights. It’s on that basis I support a babies right to live.

    Why is rape wrong? It’s a personal choice. I despise rapists. I don’t need “God” to tell me it’s wrong.

    In the Old Testament there’s a story a about Abraham being ordered by God to kill his son Isaac.

    Abraham proceeded to try doing just that.

    God stayed his hand and this is told as an example of beautiful fealty to God, why, someone who loves Him so much he was about to murder his own son.

    Lovely.

    It’s crap like this that prevents me from being a Christian. A good powerful force does not order a weaker one to commit evil acts to test loyalty. That sounds more like gang initiation.

    I wouldn’t kill my son under these circumstances (I might under others like say I came face-to-face with a 22-year old son on a murderous rampage, but one hopes this is not going to happen) because I love my son and, even in the unlikely event I didn’t, my son has an intrinsic right to exist.

    “God” doesn’t have to tell me.

    If God had told me to kill my son, I’d have told him to fu— himself.

    I would have demonstrated my love by doing the right thing, even against a powerful force that could utterly destroy me and in nasty painful ways.

    I take an evolutionary view of man. I also believe men have chosen and developed certain ideals that are better than others, among them, human rights, not to assault others, and not to commit murder.

    I believe there may well be a creator, but am a bit fuzzy on the details. I certainly don’t worship the entity that ordered Abraham to kill his son.

    Never have, never will. My morality in this case comes from within because it’s the right thing to do.

    It doesn’t come because that God set rules for me to follow.

    Why is a child a child even in the whom?

    Simple genetics. It is the only distinct logical point where a human being could become a distinct entity… anything else is arbitrary… well, unless you thought the uterus/vagina had magical powers, in which case, I guess it’s immediately upon the baby’s exit.

    Which is what supporters of later term abortion would have you believe.

    Christoph (8741c8)

  63. No, no, NO. You keep missing the point. These are not “babies” in the eyes of many in the pro-abortion crowd. If its not a baby, it’s not murder. If it’s not murder, then they’ve done nothing wrong. Do you see?

    Scott Peterson would be interested to hear about that. And Bobby Cutts Jr. could really use you right about now.

    Pablo (99243e)

  64. womb

    Christoph (8741c8)

  65. Of course, Dana, to carry your belief that all values descend from Christianity or other religion, then if you’re not religious, you have to believe any action, including rape, murder, child molestation, tax fraud, writing positive reviews for Windows Vista, are all acceptable.

    And many atheists oppose all or some of these things. And many religious people are willing to commit murder against the innocent including, as I’ve demonstrated above, at the behest of God.

    ∴ moral values come from elsewhere

    Christoph (8741c8)

  66. “Scott Peterson would be interested to hear about that. And Bobby Cutts Jr. could really use you right about now.”

    -Pablo

    I don’t believe that argument, Pablo, but a lot of people in the pro-abortion crowd do. How else can they sleep at night? They’re not baby-killers, in their eyes; they’re… surgeons.

    Leviticus (6ad648)

  67. Gotcha, Leviticus. And next time you’re talking to one of them, you can offer that argument, free of charge.

    Pablo (99243e)

  68. I see we’re still waiting for alphie’s “facts.” Why does the reality-based community have such trouble producing documentation for their conventional wisdom? Bush lied, Joe Wilson told the truth, the constitution is in shreds, global warming is a crisis, Plame was covert, war for oil, its all the same. I guess it gets repeated enough times they feel documentation is not necessary.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  69. “next time you’re talking to one of them, you can offer that argument, free of charge.”

    -Pablo

    I will… because you told me to, and I love you too much to let you down.

    Leviticus (95f89a)

  70. ‘Moral values come from elsewhere’.

    Yeah. Right. Good luck with that.

    Dana (48f4da)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1000 secs.