AP Chooses P.C. Over Facts in Describing Obama’s Views on Partial-Birth Abortion
The Associated Press “reports”:
Last year, after the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on late-term abortions, Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with the ruling because it “dramatically departs form [sic] previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.”
Could somebody remind me when the Supreme Court upheld “a federal ban on late-term abortions”? I must have missed that one.
These reporters are so damn politically correct that they would rather say something factually false, rather than repeat a phrase they have been told is ideologically loaded.
I’ll tell you what the AP won’t: the Supreme Court did not uphold “a federal ban on late-term abortions” last year. It upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortions.
Of course, the AP doesn’t want to use the term “partial-birth abortion” because it is a misleading, contentious, and highly charged phrase that doesn’t accurately reflect what happens, which is an abortion after a partial birth.
So they’ll just tell you that there was a federal ban on late-term abortions — making it sound as though there is no longer any such thing as a late-term abortion, because, you know, there is a federal ban on them.
So Obama wasn’t against a ban on all late-term abortions. He was against a ban on partial-birth abortion, in which a doctor delivers a part of the baby, sticks a pair of scissors in the back of the baby’s head, and sucks out the baby’s brain matter using a suction catheter.
That would be the procedure that Obama wants to remain available.
Just so we’re clear.
UPDATE: More on Obama’s incredible hypocrisy on this issue here.
Hey, it hasn’t taken a breath yet, so it isn’t actually a helpless living creature deserving of our utmost efforts in support and defense. Who ever heard of something so foolish as “women and children first”?
{/NARAL moonbat}
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:54 amObama also is against required medical care for those INFANTS that survive abortion. We’re talking a living baby, and he doesn’t think it deserves medical care because someone was attempting to abort it, but deserves to be killed, essentially. That’s about as Christian (as he claims to be) as his mentor’s views of racial issues are.
yourlilsis (e155f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:54 amThe AMA and pro-abortion medical associations call that Dilatation and Extraction, or D&X, as opposed to D&C, the standard abortion (also used for other purposes like biopsy of the uterus). There is no medical justification for it and most medical associations are fighting a battle to avoid forcing the doctor to be the policemen of abortion legality. In fact, medical associations long ago stopped polling the membership about abortion views because the results are about 50-50 and tend to stir up the opposition. You wouldn’t know it from what the staff and the lobbyists say. There is simply no health justification for D&X. It is also illegal in Europe.
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:56 amActually, “partial-birth abortion” is the PC phrase. It should be called “infanticide.”
I have utterly no issue with D&C up to the first 4 or 5 months. Sorry, not a child. But at 8 or 9 months, to delivery any part of a human child from the womb and THEN kill it, can only be called infanticide.
IMHO, at that point any method is wrong unless there is clear and present risk of the mother’s death. Not health, death. Because at 8 months we have two humans, not one.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:09 pmI would have to agree with this.
Without the most rudimentary of nervous systems (which doesn’t develop until the middle of the second trimester), there is no “there” there. But once a fetus can survive outside the womb (a date that is coming earlier and earlier all the time), any attempt to end its existence is murder, plain and simple.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:25 pmBut the socialists are worried about the health and welfare of terrorists who might have been subjected to panties on head or fake menstrual blood. Oh, and god forbid we ever execute someone duly convicted and sentenced to die at hands of the state. Die, babies, die! Free Mumia abu Jamal now! and all the oppressed blacks incarcerated unjustly by the man.
Those fetuses/babies have the right to die hideously according to O!bama.
madmax333 (8a8bcc) — 7/4/2008 @ 12:37 pmHere’s an article describing Obama’s position on the state version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act when it was pending in the Illinois Senate.
capitano (03e5ec) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:22 pmIt would be clear to anyone taking even the slightest interest in such things that Obama’s mama would have aborted the pregnancy that resulted in Barack. That, judging by her willingness to abandon baby Barack to pursue her education. Is it too late for a doctor to plunge the scissors into Barack’s head and suck out his brain?
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (4df562) — 7/4/2008 @ 1:29 pmTo Drumwaster and Kevin Murphy,
Please do a web search for photographs (not ultrasounds — actual photos) of 4 and 5 month old fetuses.
Take a good long detailed look. . . .
How’s that ‘out of sight out of mind’ philosophy (the real justification behind ‘It hasn’t developed enough to be human yet’) holding up?
Icy Truth (614178) — 7/4/2008 @ 3:15 pmI wasn’t talking about the shape. I’m talking about the lack of a brain and nervous system until that point.
I oppose abortion in its entirety, and if it came up for a vote, I would probably vote against it, but if some kind of compromise needs to be reached (and it does), that seems a logical one.
Let me reiterate. Up until that halfway point, there is no brain. No nervous system. Nothing to detect external input and nothing to process it.
A house under construction shows the shape of a house to even the most inexperienced of lay people the moment the frame goes up, showing the size, shape, design, and even if there are any “congenital” issues in the way it is coming together. An experienced contractor can tell all of that with a glance, and an exceptionally skilled builder can correct any problems without damaging the main design.
But no one can say it is actually a house until it has an almost complete structure and the utilities are hooked up.
Analogies are always suspect, but even Jesus used parables…
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 3:32 pmSupreme Court Upholds Late-Term Abortion Ban
Neo (cba5df) — 7/4/2008 @ 8:22 pmMy mom works with kids that have little or no higher brain function. Some are solely using their brain stems. Their families love them, care for them, and send them to school. Does their lack of a higher brain make them not human? By 2 months, embryos have a “reptilian” brain. They may not be able to survive outside of the mother’s womb, but a quadriplegic on a ventilator cannot survive without their oxygen source, either.
About your house- when my house was being built. It was my HOUSE. Never did I think it was less than a house, it was just not quite finished.
yourlilsis (e155f7) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:09 pmI’m happy for them. I’m not trying to make light of their condition, but even that brain stem had to develop at some point. Before then, there is no conceivable way for them to survive, extraordinary medical support or no.
You are against abortion at any point. You claim that it is alive. I would agree with you to an extent that I get a vote.
However.
I’m trying to point out that since there must almost certainly be some sort of compromise, the development of a nervous system would be a reasonable one.
Not true. You can accurately claim “that will be my house someday”, but just try living in a frame with no walls, no insulation, no electrical, no plumbing and only half of a roof. Its shape is unmistakable, and with much effort, a little more time and many kilos of the very best material, it may actually be a home someday, but just because you have a mailbox out front doesn’t mean you can actually live there.
At some point during the construction phase, you may actually see the final appearance coming together, and it may be able to provide shelter and partial utilities under hardship conditions, with additional professional help while the last stages finish up. There are many parts that are purely cosmetic rather than functional (whether the floor is raw plywood or carpet, whether the walls are painted, or whether the molding has been installed), but the analogy still holds.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:35 pmhttp://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html
Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.
Unless someone is trying very, very hard to get pregant and is checking daily, most women don’t know they’re preggers by this point.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/4/2008 @ 9:39 pm#10 – Drumwaster
I wasn’t talking about the shape. I’m talking about the lack of a brain and nervous system until that point.
— I know. Hence my point: many people who accept abortion do so because, subconsciously at least, they rationalize the procedure by ‘out of sight out of mind’ as a means of relieving the guilt from their narcissism; they don’t have to think of the fetus as a human child because they can’t/don’t see it or hold it in their hands. The opinion that a fetus is not yet a human being depending on the particular stage of development is an intellectualized attempt to justify the internal ‘out of sight’ rationale to external foes of the procedure, and maybe to themselves as well.
80.4% of non-aborted human fetuses experience live birth. Why is it acceptable to allow for the deliberate termination of a living being that has a 4 out of 5 chance to become a baby? just because it has no thoughts and feels no pain as of yet? because in the early stages it is only a pre-baby that shouldn’t be called ‘human’ until more of its human physiology develops? because it can’t survive outside the womb? Who says those should be the criteria we use to determine whether or not it’s acceptable?
It’s moral equivalence. The fetus that has yet to develop a nervous system is no different than an animal being hunted for sport. The procedure that terminates its life is no more cruel and unusual than lethal injection is for murderers . . . except that the only crime an aborted child committed was the crime of existing — innocently.
Icy Truth (72d779) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:29 pmI can only think of one acceptable reason – to protect the life of the mother.
That date is moving earlier and earlier in the pregnancy every year as the medical science progresses. But a point exists at which there is NO chance of survival outside the womb, simply because there is just not enough “infrastructure” (if I may use such a crude term) to support the necessary operations of oxygen processing and fuel intake and waste disposal. The lungs have not developed enough to perform the necessary osmotic functions. The intestinal system is not mature enough to even handle mother’s milk. The skin is thinner than tissue paper. The eyelids are still sealed, but transparent. It’s still too early to even tell boy or girl…
Outside the womb, its life span would be measured in seconds, not minutes.
If a bright line needs to be drawn, I would have to admit that this point (and earlier) would be a legitimate compromise.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/4/2008 @ 11:42 pmMaybe a more fundamental question when attempting to determine viability and/or the acceptableness to some to abort, is instead of when the nervous system develops or brainwaves are detectable, how about when does the soul begin to exist?
And what defines cruel and unusual punishment anyway because apparently its something even far worse than scissors to the back of the head of a small living being with absolutely no ability to defend itself and outrageously had the will to live? And it must a very cruel and unusual person with no regard for the intrinsic value of human life who can excuse it, and even support this heinous practice -no matter what terms he couches it in.
Am I the only who has noticed that none of the usual Obama supporters have spoken in support of Obama in this? I guess they were too busy saluting Old Glory and watching the fireworks…
Dana (416b2c) — 7/5/2008 @ 12:22 amYou left out the best part: the “partial birth” part actually means that the baby is pulled out of the mother just far enough so as not to be considered a legal entity and subject to all the protections any individual enjoys. The baby is most likely biologically viable, but the “doctor” kills the baby before he/she passes the magic point wherein he/she becomes a person, and the doctor subject to murder charges for infanticide.
Why are liberals so invested in their abortion enthusiasm that they cannot be satisfied with having the ability to get one legally in the first trimester?
Dimsdale (3f4c93) — 7/5/2008 @ 7:30 amI don’t think you’ll see many rabid Obamessiah supporters round these parts to speak in favor of his latest position.
steve miller (724340) — 7/5/2008 @ 7:38 amDana-
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 8:21 amPersonally, I take the “It’s a homo sapien, it’s a person” approach–but I don’t explain that very often, because I’ve had to give too many remedial biology classes. -.-
From what I have seen, that doesn’t begin until the baby (not the fetus) is about 6-8 weeks old. Before then, their parts could be played by something out of the robot labs at Disney – it cries, it poops, it eats. It does not interact, any more than the Lincoln robot does at “Hall of the Presidents” (or whatever the hell it was called). Its eyes can’t even effectively track, much less manage a gestalt of the world around them.
Besides, some people on this very thread (and others) are working hard to prove they don’t have one, even as full grown adult.
How does one test for a soul? And where does it reside? My personal POV – the ‘me’ that types this – rests just behind and between the eyes, rather than (say) my right foot or lower intestine. Maybe that’s a psychological phenomenon having to do with the importance of sight as a data-gathering tool (better than 90% of the information you collect from the world around is done through the eyes), but it is true nevertheless.
Does that mean that it is true for every person?
What about animals? Do they have souls? If so, how big does the animal (or brain) have to be to count? Dogs? Cats? Birds? Fish? (I remember this rooster once… but never mind.)
When you get into metaphysical questions like this, you open up a HUGE can of worms.
A physical process can be verified as to whether it happened or not. A metaphysical one cannot.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 9:07 amDrumwaster-
For that matter, define “soul.”
Is it a characteristic of humans? Of persons? (I favor the latter–but that may be an effect of sci fi and fantasy, where all humans are persons, but not all persons are humans.)
Is it, for lack of a better word, the life-force of living things? (sometimes folks elaborate with soul as the personality carrier and the spirit as the breath of life)
Is the soul non-physical or not? If it’s non-physical but associated with the body, that could explain your experience of your POV being in your head– that’s the “window” that it interacts through. (and if the window is broken, making it so the soul can not express itself…you end up with the Schiavo debate)
…
Gotta love the internet.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 9:15 amDrumwaster,
I’ll admit that we don’t know for sure when life begins, but IMHO it is better to err on the side of life than to be mistaken. I agree that if the pregnancy is a serious risk to the mother’s life (not just a nuisance or a minor risk) that the decision to save the mother should be allowed. But, truthfully, how often is abortion used to save the mother vs to terminate a pregnancy that is just an inconvenience or discomfort? I don’t know the answer to that, but would guess the ratio is pretty heavily loaded toward the inconvenience factor.
And when it comes to late-term or partial birth…why would it be any less convenient for the baby to be saved and allowed to live with an adoptive family? There are so many families hoping and praying for a child…it is extremely selfish to end the child’s life for the convenience of the mom, rather than to give the child life-saving medical care. Hearing that these things happen in modern day America make me sick to my stomach.
yourlilsis (e155f7) — 7/5/2008 @ 10:01 amA little less than 1% and 99+%, respectively. I agree that abortion as a method of birth control should be immediately outlawed.
My mother told me about one incident when she was working in the admin office of the local County Hospital. Her work occasioned a trip to the obstetrics clinic (where they were now required, by court order, to perform abortions, thanks to some liberal judge celebrating Roe v Wade), and she was stopped by some young lady (about 15 or 16, by her estimation).
Said young lady demanded to know why the abortion clinic no longer offered free cookies and kool-aid.
(I wonder if any liberals can guess why that would have been so offensive.)
High five to Foxy, btw. I’ve known a few computers that had a sense of humor, and one suitcase that could NOT be closed without pinching my finger.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 10:26 am“From what I have seen, that doesn’t begin until the baby (not the fetus) is about 6-8 weeks old. Before then, their parts could be played by something out of the robot labs at Disney – it cries, it poops, it eats. It does not interact, any more than the Lincoln robot does at “Hall of the Presidents” (or whatever the hell it was called). Its eyes can’t even effectively track, much less manage a gestalt of the world around them.”
Isn’t it a risky business, this assigning a time frame to the soul’s existence? Four weeks and 6 days, no, but five weeks, yes…. I’m with #23, err on the side of life.
“… (and if the window is broken, making it so the soul can not express itself…you end up with the Schiavo debate)…”
…and you also end up with an entirely new debate!
“I don’t think you’ll see many rabid Obamessiah supporters round these parts to speak in favor of his latest position.”
And why not? Could they also, like most people, feel this goes beyond the pale and is unacceptable in their Hope&Change guy? If not, how do they rationalize it? I ask because so much fierce defense of Obama has taken place on all posts (involving the candidates) but now with this heinous subject, just silence.
Dana (416b2c) — 7/5/2008 @ 10:45 amThis is called “begging the question”. First I would need to see your method of testing to determine the existence and location of a ‘soul’. Second, I would need to see your evidence of when it arrives in the body (assuming that it does, and doesn’t just develop as the baby ages, like the flower is inherent in the seed).
If the soul exists and is specific to an individual (rather than flitting from body to body), there has to be an infrastructure to support it. Couldn’t the period before the development of that infrastructure be a reasonable dividing point?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 10:56 amIf one is going to make a determination as you did re the soul’s coming into existence (6-8 week baby, not fetus), then the question must be begged.
My argument is less scientific, more subjective, I realize, but as viable since neither can be proven in a labratory. As a mother I say the soul is within that baby long before 6-8 weeks – and I’ll even say that perhaps that inherent knowledge comes with having given birth.
Psalms says,
“For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thous didst weave me in my mother’s womb.”
I leave it at that. Straight-up. No time table, still the mystery. Who am I to play God?
Dana (416b2c) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:16 amThe verse is inadmissible in court as it has not been authenticated. If you can get God to show up and state that He actually said this, then we can use it as an expert opinion in crafting the legislation. Otherwise, you are trying to legislate your religion’s morality into civil/criminal law, in violation of the First Amendment.
(Personally, I agree with you, but we are talking about whether or not to criminalize an action based on religious beliefs, itself based on pure faith.)
Seriously, who are we to tell others what they can and cannot do? If God gave them free will, why not let them live with the eternal consequences of their acts, rather than preventing it here on Earth?
“The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think.” — H. L. Mencken
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:24 amDrumwaster-
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:38 amThe existence of a soul is also inadmissible in court, let alone the possible lack thereof.
Seriously, who are we to tell others what they can and cannot do? If God gave them free will, why not let them live with the eternal consequences of their acts, rather than preventing it here on Earth?
Well, as the sort of person who finds a republic desirable, we are the people who will be affected by their choices; being stronger at the moment but possibly weaker in the future, it is our interest to form a culture where their effects on the weaker can be muted, if not removed.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:41 am“(Personally, I agree with you, but we are talking about whether or not to criminalize an action based on religious beliefs, itself based on pure faith.)”
Drumwaster, my point is this: it cannot be proven either way in a court of law. There is an absurdity to this entire matter that evidences the corruption of our morality and culture. That we even have to secure a legal ban on the practice and then act further to protect babies born alive (Born Alive Protection Act of 2005) is so shocking and unthinkable that it can only speak to how shameless we’ve become.
Obama is attempting to beome the next POTUS and has evidenced such an extreme radical point of view in his brazen disregard for life that it brings a whole new level of satire to our politics.
How could he himself have missed the literally staggering audacity of hope when shown the photos of those suriving babies?
Dana (416b2c) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:49 amBut those choices would only affect you to the point where they caused you a definable harm. If they do not cause you a specific harm with their choices, you have no right to insist that the government ban their actions.
“My right to swing my fist ends at your nose.” — Stuff Jefferson Said, Vol. 2
Yes, that means that I think that the government does not have the right to criminalize drug use, because as long as they do no harm to you in such use, you have no right to outlaw that behavior.
If they start committing crimes to get money for that drug use, then we can confine and punish them. Not because of their drug use, but because of the harmful acts they have committed.
(Try reading the Model Penal Code for more examples – it defines the difference between crimes based on intent. The only intent of the drug use was self-entertainment, but the intent of the criminal act was to harm another. One should be legal, the other punished.)
How are you harmed by someone else having an abortion? Their acts do not burden your wallet with taxes nor your soul with sin.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:53 amAnd I would gladly see him shunned from polite society for this. He has done nothing in my estimation to deserve my vote to be the guy who sweeps up after the elephants at the local zoo, much less the most powerful position on the planet.
But we are still trying to legislate to the other swing of that particular pendulum by using one particular variation of religion.
I imagine most Hindus wouldn’t have a religious position on abortion, since they believe in reincarnation, and an abortion would be nothing more than an extremely abbreviated karmic round trip with no effect on the soul. Why shouldn’t their opinions count, especially since there are as many Hindus as Christians on the planet (not to mention Muslims)?
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 11:59 amDrumwaster –
I’m in a bit of a hurry, so pardon if too short, but basically:
abortion goes hand-in-hand with euthanasia and/or the “responsibility to die”– although I’m past the risk of being aborted, I’m not past the possibility that I may be expected to kill myself for the good.
Illegal drug use is a drain on society for several reasons, not the least of which is that the society I explained will try to take care of folks who destroy themselves– in addition, the people selling those drugs are causing harm. Double that if I sell you rat poison and tell you it’s Spanish Fly.
Hm…. I may have to do a blog post on this some time, stop using Patterico’s bandwidth….
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 12:09 pmWhy? Why on earth should The People try to stop individuals from self-destructive behavior? If someone has decided to take him- or herself out of the gene pool, I will try calm persuasion to change their mind, but if that doesn’t work, then — let them go.
But NO safety net. If their family wants to cover any costs, fine, but not so much as a dime of tax money for either prevention or rehabilitation.
The State has no business telling me what I can or cannot do, so long as my actions cause no provable harm to anyone else.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 12:21 pmWhy on earth should The People try to stop individuals from self-destructive behavior?
As I mentioned above, the most successful societies protect the weak among them– so it is in their interest to prevent people making themselves weak, and to prevent people from harming others in a way that makes them physically dependent on a substance. Alcohol can’t be outlawed, because it is far too easy to produce and the effect isn’t constant enough– MJ is much harder to produce and has a clearly bad effect. (If in doubt, go hang out with potheads for a while. Induced stupidity.)
This is ignoring the other harms people do under the influence of drugs– a former shipmate was a drug dealer, and more than once he had people bring in their kids’ Christmas presents to get a hit.
The State has no business telling me what I can or cannot do, so long as my actions cause no provable harm to anyone else.
Debatable; car insurance, for example, is utterly illogical– you pay far more for the insurance than you would if you just put the money away and had it on hand for accidents. Because of human nature, though, car insurance is a good thing– and the gov’t is right to require it, since there is a high probability that you will cause harm where the car insurance will be needed.
You can’t have total freedom in a functional society any more than you can have total restriction– you have to balance between the rights of the person and the rights of the whole.
Going back to the origin of this argument, when you come down to the life of one person and the inconvenience of another for less than a year, it’s pretty clear that life SHOULD be a higher level.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 3:56 pmThe weak, not the deliberately self-destructive.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 4:02 pmThere’s a difference between jumping off a cliff and not wearing a seatbelt.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 5:47 pmThere’s a lot of difference between an adult choosing not to wear a seat belt and a child not knowing what a seat belt is, much less how to buckle one. I think abortions should be outlawed except in the instances of a medically verifiable threat to the mother’s life, incest or rape (the latter two of which would also involve the police).
But until my wishes become law, I will work towards limiting it as much as possible. Banning partial-birth abortion is a good start.
I understand the difference between ignorance and stupidity. I also understand the difference between weakness and apathy.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 5:53 pmI think abortions should be outlawed except in the instances of a medically verifiable threat to the mother’s life, incest or rape (the latter two of which would also involve the police).
So, why exactly is it alright to kill a child because of who their father is?
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 8:05 pmIt’s an issue of consent. Would you consent to be snatched off the street and forcibly impregnated against your will? How about having your father or brother impregnate you or your daughter?
I’m down with outlawing abortion-as-birth-control, because those women are just trying to avoid the consequences of their own foolish choices. But those exceptions strike me as fair and proper.
Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 7/5/2008 @ 8:14 pmDrumwaster –
I wouldn’t kill the child for the sins of the father.
One of my best friends in the Navy was a product of rape; I have cousins who found out they were incestuous after the fact.
You seem to view the pregnancy as a “result”–I view them as people.
Removing results, when I can, I will do–situation willing, etc.
Foxfier (15ac79) — 7/5/2008 @ 8:52 pmRemoving people? Not if it can be avoided.