I don’t need to say much more. These men were heroic in their decision. Infanticide still continues every day but hopefully this will lead to more regulations on the murder industry. Hey Planned Parenthood, you can still legally dismember the fetus in the womb. You just can’t deliver 3/4 of the baby backwards leaving the head inside, cut a hole in the baby’s head with scissors, and suck the baby’s brain out any more. Sorry about that.
Just the fact that anyone would defend such a practice makes me question the sustainability of our nation or the human race as a whole.
29 responses so far ↓
1 Travis Seitler // Apr 19, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“These men were heroic in their decision…. Hey Planned Parenthood, you can still legally dismember the fetus in the womb.”
Sounds like it was a pretty easy ruling to make, then. Doesn’t seem like it’ll really have much of an impact on the babykillers’ business. It’s about as monumental as saying you can eat pizza, but it’s against the law to use a fork to do it. :/
2 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Upheld; So What? by Travis Seitler (secondmouse) // Apr 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm
[...] And then the Supreme Court upholds a partial-birth abortion ban (just barely: it was a 5–4 decision), and the pro-life community acts as if it’s some sort of major victory… but it’s not: Hey Planned Parenthood, you can still legally dismember the fetus in the womb. You just can’t deliver 3/4 of the baby backwards leaving the head inside, cut a hole in the baby’s head with scissors, and suck the baby’s brain out any more. (The Harford Republican — Heroes) [...]
3 independent // Apr 21, 2007 at 9:51 am
As I understand it, that type of abortion is rarely done and ONLY in cases where the health of the mother is in extreme jeopardy. That said, the ruling will still allow an abortion to be done- but only with a highly dangerous procedure that puts the mother’s life at greater risk. So this ruling does not actually protect the fetus, but rather places no value on the well being of the woman. How is that ” pro-life” ?
My discussions with folks of all persuasions on this subject have always had a majority bottom line: abortion can be acceptable in cases when the mother’s life is at risk…. This ruling has no exception for the life of the mother.
4 GOPerative // Apr 21, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Independent,
How is the mother’s life in danger when 3/4 of the baby is already delivered? The baby is literally 3 inches from receiving the same protections you and I receive.
How many mothers died in childbirth last year? About 3%. (Using these statistics: 4.1 Million babies born in US, 1 in 3,700 mothers die in childbirth in US, approx. 1,100 mothers died last year in childbirth = 2.7% of all mothers).
The other methods used in late term abortions cause more bleeding and partial-birth is a way to keep it a little bit cleaner.
Who said killing another human being was supposed to be clean anyways?
Until the pro-aborts present statistics that show your opinion to be true (ex. How many woman died from the dismembering procedure?) then we and our courts are forced to believe that partially delivering a human and killing it before it takes a breath is illegal.
5 independent // Apr 21, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Perhaps the reason for your statistics has been the availability of abortion procedures. What were the prior stats on women dying in childbirth? I would hope that none of us would devalue the death of even 1100 women- especially if they could have been saved.
I believe that there are cases when the continuation of a pregnancy can cause the death of a woman. IF the pregnancy must be terminated to prevent the death of the mother there are several options: let the mother-and probably the child- die; dismemberment of the fetus with increased possibility death of the mother; or collapsing of the skull of the fetus to most safely remove the pregnancy.
I personally believe that IF the fetus is viable and can be delivered without jeopardizing the life of the mother- then of course this procedure should be disallowed. But I am not a physician and cannot make that determination. I just think that there must be something in any such law that protects the life of the mother in the safest way possible. There may be other children who desperately need that woman in their lives. Why would her life be less valuable than the life of an unborn, inviable life?
I personally find the decision to abort abhorrent. But I have been around this world long enough to know that sometimes circmstances require a choice between evils. A Doctor and a family have to make such a painful decision…
6 GOPerative // Apr 22, 2007 at 7:55 am
Independent,
The reality is that most of the time this “abhorrent” procedure is performed as birth control.
The percentage of at-risk pregnancies as a whole is very low. The only ones being devalued are the humans that are chopped up and put down the drain. How much more can one devalue life?
Unfortunately many times we don’t know if a woman’s life is really in danger until it is too late.
I know a few doctors and even they say OB’s will perform a c-section at a drop of a hat. What keeps them from pushing the abort button too?
I would say that in close to 100% of the babies killed by partial-birth abortion would survive the extra 3 inches and so would 100% of the women. This is an unnecessary procedure that is barbaric and needed to be stopped even if that meant leaving out a woman’s health exception.
Another part of me says our Supreme Court is not full of idiots (for the most part) They probably looked at the procedure the same way I do. The baby is 3/4 delivered. If the woman’s life is in such danger she should not have delivered all but a few inches.
In one of the dissenting opinions in Roe v. Wade (I forget the Justice) it is argued that science will soon allow babies to survive outside of the womb at an earlier age to the point where viability is so low that the life of the baby outweighs the woman’s “right” to carry the baby to term or not.
This was a practice that had to be stopped.
7 Travis Seitler // Apr 23, 2007 at 10:08 am
@ GOPerative: I know it’s unrelated, but I wanted to say the new look is pretty sharp (and I like the decrease in ads—it makes it easier to actually read around here)!
8 hmmmm // Apr 23, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I recently read an advertisement entitled: “End the Abortion Wars” and I have to say it made a very good point. Their solution, provide free birth control to all, provide all pregnant mothers with health care, provide all children with health care, and then outlaw abortion. I think this is a fair compromise. I am against universal healthcare, but I am more against abortion and I think that with a solution such as this, where you make it possible on a health care cost basis for expectant parents, you could really do a lot of good.
9 GOPerative // Apr 23, 2007 at 1:11 pm
hmmm,
Provide a link to that ad if you can find it again. I found this article “Why abortion wars won’t end.” I would say that close to 50% of the American voters vote on this issue alone. We say we are not one issue voters but we are. I have trouble voting for a person that does not value the life of an unborn human being. If a person is pro-choice it usually reveals other things about them that I do not find favorable. If we could remove this issue from the “War Zone” then I would be more free to vote for people that I feel would do a better job (and that may include some democrats).
10 BullElephant // Apr 25, 2007 at 9:40 am
Here we go telling someone else what to do with their life! I am disappointed that in this world today we can tell someone else what to do with their life! I’m glad to see we all know whats best for the mother when it comes to health issues. Maybe the justices should be M.D’s also. Don’t give me a bunch of stats. One mother dying because a law won’t allow a doctor to perform a procedure to save her life is too much.
Where are our freedom’s going anyway? Please someone tell me. Yes adoption is a wonderful alternative versus abortion. There are many loving couples out there who want to adopt but unfortunately they all want a white male infant but hey thats another story. Anyway I am damn I sure don’t want to tell someone what to do with their life. Is it right or is it wrong? Its not for me to decide. Heros my ***. Call me a liberal but this issue I have strong feelings about, as does everyone in the U.S.
Lastly I’ll leave you all with this; has anyone on this blog been through such a decision? I’m sure if it were your wife, girlfriend, whatever you might change your mind about what choice they have to make.
Flame away if you chose.
P.S. GOP nice look for the site.
11 GOPerative // Apr 25, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Bull Elephant,
We tell people what they can do with their lives all the time. You can’t sell drugs. You can’t drink and drive. You can’t kill someone. You have to go to school until age 16. You can’t get your ears pierced if you are a minor. In most cases no one forced the woman to have ***. Pregnancy happens as a result of ***. Simple cause and effect. If I make a mistake I have to face the “consequences.”
I personally know 3 people who have had abortions. They all say it was the worst decision of their lives and they made it because of pressure from the male or from society (teenage pregnancy). How is that liberating a woman? Most women have a guilt that they live with for the rest of their lives. I am willing to tell a woman that she cannot kill her baby to make up for a mistake. Killing a human is not an option. I am asking her to carry the baby for 9 months and then give it up for adoption. You said, “I am damn I[f] sure don’t want to tell someone what to do with their life.” It’s not her whole life but only a few months. Remember, she chose to have ***. If she nor her partner want the baby then the baby is put up for adoption.
I know for a fact that I would adopt. Red, Yellow, Black, or White.
12 Travis Seitler // Apr 25, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I doubt 48 million women’s lives have been saved by abortion procedures in this country over the past thirty-odd years. (That is, of course, the number of babies murdered since the Roe v. Wade ruling.)
13 hmmmm // Apr 25, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Does anybody know whether Maryland has a safe harbor law? It allows a mother to “abandon” her baby at any hospital within 72 hours of birth without fear for criminal action.
14 BullElephant // Apr 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Yes there are laws for a reason but I don’t compare abortions with drugs, drinking and driving or the helmet and seatbelt laws. Those are used for social control, to prevent mass chaos and attempt to preserve an orderly society. I don’t dispute that an abortion shouldn’t be used as “out” for casual unprotected ***. What concerns me is the option women now have when they don’t have a choice such as where their life is endanged because of the baby. What if it was your daughter or wife? She should be allowed that option? I know the women in my family want that option. They are scared that there are people out there who hold the decision over their bodies and that this will trancend further. I too know several people in these type positions and they have been thankful they had the chance to do what they did legally.
Also here is something to think about. What about the death penalty then? How do the pro-lifers feel on this end of the spectrum?
15 independent // Apr 25, 2007 at 4:56 pm
“I would say that in close to 100% of the babies killed by partial-birth abortion would survive the extra 3 inches and so would 100% of the women”. Gop- I would like to see where you got this “fact”. I have to believe as Bull states:
“One mother dying because a law won’t allow a doctor to perform a procedure to save her life is too much.”
I know that there are convenience abortions out there- but I also know of people who have gone there for very serious reasons and I just believe that an individual and her Dr. have to have options.
Do I think we need to seriously promote/provide supportive alternatives for those who have less than a dire reason for such a decision? You betcha.
16 GOPerative // Apr 25, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Independent,
Would you say c-sections are safe? Every single OB on the planet would say so. Which is safer, cesarean section or undergoing total anesthesia while delivering a baby backwards? Anesthetizing people has its own set of risks. It’s probably a toss up. The question is, Why discard the life inside? The answer is simple. The baby is not wanted and is viewed as trash. Get rid of the trash. The National Right to Life had a great summary of partial birth abortion. It was an inhuman practice.
[quote comment="6347"]“I would say that in close to 100% of the babies killed by partial-birth abortion would survive the extra 3 inches and so would 100% of the women”[/quote]
I don’t think I need facts to support my claim. Reason supports this. The women is totally knocked out. The baby is 3 inches from breathing. How many woman would die in that last push. Zero. I would support Bull’s statement too. Deliver the baby by c-section and no one dies! Why not error on the side of trying to save life? If the mother dies in the c-section we could save the baby. If the mother dies in the partial birth abortion procedure we have two deaths.
17 GOPerative // Apr 25, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Bull,
[quote post="268"]What if it was your daughter or wife? She should be allowed that option?[/quote]
Short answer, no. I just don’t believe in abortion. Even if it was the only option to save her life. She feels the same way. We would do everything possible to save everyone even if that meant delivering early.
In situations involving the death penalty we are dealing with people who broke the law and need to be punished. The unborn baby never killed anyone. You cannot compare the two. To do so is intellectually dishonest. This is common rhetoric used by the left. How someone could compare a mass murderer to an unborn baby is beyond me. I am for life in cases of abortion and for death in cases of capital crimes. There is no contradiction whatsoever.
18 BullElephant // Apr 25, 2007 at 9:02 pm
GOP I too am concerned about your statement
It sounds like your speculating. That is a broad statement full of suppositions. You also said the woman is “knocked out”. You might want to check on that also. Thats not necessarily always true.
Look the point I am trying to make is that it is the womans CHOICE. It is also often a family CHOICE between man and woman. Why others feel the need to mettle in private matters is what disturbs me. Why someone wants to abort is not for me to ask. As I said before I don’t think the procedure of abortion should be used as an alternative to birth control but there are other circumstances that need to look at. If the government feels the need to get involved work on bettering the adoption laws and process or, as Hmmmm said, the Safe Harbor Law.
19 GOPerative // Apr 26, 2007 at 5:04 am
Bull,
This goes back to my other post. I don’t think we should allow people an option that kills someone else. I view it as murder. The baby will live in a majority of the cases as will the mother. Abortion is used as birth control. We just disagree on this one.
The biggest contradiction is found when a pregnant mother is murdered. State’s have in the past charged the person with double homicide. Homo=Human; Cide=Kill. The baby is considered a human when it is wanted. It is only considered a choice when it is unwanted.
So I say let’s make adoption easier and cheaper and significantly limit access to abortions. I can’t get Oxycotton for my stubbed toe. Why throw an atom bomb at a nine month “ailment.” There are few if any reasons for elective abortions.
20 Travis Seitler // Apr 26, 2007 at 9:37 am
Is it a private matter when a child is physically abused?
Again, as has been stated here among these comments already… the debate hinges on how you determine personhood. If a fetus in the 20th week is considered just as much of a person as a child in its 2nd week postpartum, then there’s no argument.
Abortion hinges on denying that an unborn human is a person. That’s it. If agreement can be reached on the personhood of the unborn (agreement either way, frankly) then the “abortion debate” would be over.
So let’s stop wasting time on smokescreens like “womens’ choice” and “cases of rap and incest.” We’ll all agree on what to do in those cases if we first settle when a homo sapiens becomes a person.
21 Brian Bittner // Apr 26, 2007 at 11:07 am
“I don’t think we should allow people an option that kills someone else. I view it as murder.” That’s a simple statement with no qualifications. Later you’ll say that murder is okay if we’re murdering a serial killer (which is the extreme example that happens almost exclusively on television).
“So I say let’s make adoption easier and cheaper and significantly limit access to abortions.”
This is backwards. We have to think about the world we live in now, not the one we want to. Until adoptions are so easy and cheap that they happen every time they need to, abortion of a not-yet-living fetus is the best option. You say that a pregnancy followed by an adoption is not a burden, but that doesn’t address the reality of what happens for the next 18 years. The people who are most likely to have unprotected *** and not have support for their pregnancy from their *** partner or family nor the economic means for medical care are the same who are most likely not to go through difficult adoption procedures and most likely to raise an unwanted child in harsh conditions of poverty and abuse. Resulting in more crime, more suffering, more need for welfare and handouts, and more social injustice.
Research supports this idea. In ‘Freakonomics’ by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, the authors show the correlation between decreases in violent crime from the mid-70s to the present day (defying all predictions of a wave of young “super-predators”) and the legalization of abortion by Roe v. Wade. Many of the unwanted children who would have contributed to an epidemic of violence after a life of abuse were not forced in to such a situation. If you don’t want to have to execute a person who has no respect for justice, don’t force them to live a unjust life.
22 GOPerative // Apr 26, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Brian,
[quote post="268"]That’s a simple statement with no qualifications[/quote]
What are you talking about? How do you want me to qualify this? I view the fetus as a full blown human being from conception. To kill a human is homicide. Murder.
[quote post="268"]This is backwards. We have to think about the world we live in now, not the one we want to.[/quote]
Nothing would ever change if we operated this way. Slavery would not have ended when it did if we waited for the farmers to find a new source of labor. Car companies are not just going to start making cars that pollute less. We make the laws first and then require them to meet the expectations. That is how it is done. Your statement shows a lack of forward thinking. I seek change. We don’t change a thing by waiting for the perfect world to show up.
I have read Freakonomics. He makes interesting points but by no means am I ready to base my morals on what a “rogue economist” has to say. I rely mostly on another book. That book lays out a perfect plan for life. Marriage, then *** and children in a loving family and community. If we stray from that we put our entire lineage in jeopardy.
You write as if people who break the law had no choice. We have been over this before. I will never support your belief that it would have been better if those people had been aborted. It is better that they see the error of their parent’s ways and change. However, if they fail to see their error we have laws that protect us from them. If they willingly murder, the punishment will cost them their life (not in Maryland though).
23 Brian Bittner // Apr 26, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“To kill a human is homicide. Murder.”
I’m just setting my death-penalty debate trap.
“Nothing would ever change if we operated this way. Slavery would not have ended when it did if we waited for the farmers to find a new source of labor. Car companies are not just going to start making cars that pollute less. We make the laws first and then require them to meet the expectations. That is how it is done. Your statement shows a lack of forward thinking. I seek change. We don’t change a thing by waiting for the perfect world to show up.”
You are incorrect. Car companies are making cars that pollute less, even though they are no under legal obligation to do so. (Maryland’s clean cars law doesn’t go into force until 2011, for example, and there are no national standards.) They are starting to do so because consumers are demanding it. There were massive social forces opposing slavery before it was outlawed. The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery advocates. These movements weren’t created by laws, the laws were the end result of social movements. I don’t wait for the perfect world to magically appear – I work for it every day. I don’t believe that all children will be loved and cared for and live in nice communities and have health care and be able to afford college and get a good job because their parents were commanded to provide them these things. I believe that we have to work for a society in which these things happen, and then no one will have a reason to have an abortion. (Unless, of course, they were raped by a stranger or a family member.)
“I rely mostly on another book. That book lays out a perfect plan for life. Marriage, then *** and children in a loving family and community. If we stray from that we put our entire lineage in jeopardy.”
So, I am encouraging people to stray from the biblical vision of perfect community that exists right now? Where is it? Fallston?
“You write as if people who break the law had no choice. We have been over this before. I will never support your belief that it would have been better if those people had been aborted. It is better that they see the error of their parent’s ways and change. However, if they fail to see their error we have laws that protect us from them. If they willingly murder, the punishment will cost them their life (not in Maryland though).”
‘To kill a human is homicide. Murder.’ Trap sprung!
24 Travis Seitler // Apr 26, 2007 at 1:13 pm
That’s not true. Murder is the killing of a person when either/both:
(a) the killed has committed no crime worthy of death
(b) the killer has no authority to punish for such crimes
So you’re both wrong. :p
25 GOPerative // Apr 26, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Brian,
I guess I need to clarify. Killing an innocent human is homicide. I don’t view the systematic killing of a violent human being who has no respect for the laws we must live by as murder. Then again, call it murder. You just have to distinguish between justified and unjustified.
Car companies are making cars more fuel efficient because of the price of gas. It has little to do with demand for cars that pollute less. Cars pollute less because they are more efficient (burn less fuel). The cheaper they are to run, the easier to sell.
I didn’t say you were encouraging people to stray from the Biblical vision. I was just saying that I choose my morals from that book over Freakonomics.
[quote post="268"]I believe that we have to work for a society in which these things happen, and then no one will have a reason to have an abortion[/quote]
Can you tell me a political party that is doing this? I can’t think of one.
I still believe that laws are used to stop undesirable behavior or to encourage desirable behavior. If we want to stop abortion, we can. We just need to make it illegal and the adoption / foster care legislation will quickly follow. I bet the left would oppose making adoption easier and we all know why.
Thanks for the debate. I see where you are coming from and that helps me understand your side better. I wouldn’t vote for you if you were the last person on the planet but that’s ok. I’d still buy you a beer.
26 BullElephant // Apr 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm
GOP who are we going to make adoption easier for? The white male child? What about the black female baby from the crack addicted mother? Does the suburbia Griswold family want to adopt this child? Do they want to go through hours of sleepless days and nights dealing with the withdraw issues and the extensive medical issues that follow. How does any law get past these problems? There is alot of work to do on the issue of adoption. It could work but the system needs help. Maybe then we could keep people from traveling across half the world to adopt a child.
Also Travis you said:
Ask some radnom women you meet next time if they consider their choice as a “smokescreen” or the violation of THEIR bodies in rape and incest as a “smokescreen”. That seems pretty harsh to me.
27 Brian Bittner // Apr 26, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“Can you tell me a political party that is doing this? I can’t think of one.”
My party.
http://www.harfordcountygreenparty.com
http://www.mdgreens.org
http://www.gp.org
28 independent // Apr 26, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Just to chime in and open another can of worms for this lively discussion: how about the value of the “collateral damage” deaths of innocent civilians – foreseen and accepted as necessary by those who supported and continue to support the war? Is that not murder? In the context defined here?
And, just a note on the capital punishment debate- quite a few people on death row have been found to be innocent recently(google the Innocence Project). Should we not err on the side of caution so that we as a society will not be complicit in those potential murders? I think that there needs to be consistancy in our morality.
29 Travis Seitler // Apr 27, 2007 at 11:53 am
BullElephant: Again, you’re just trying to distract. IF we’re talking about ending the life of a person, THEN those issues don’t justify the termination of that person’s life.
Context.
Unless and until we can agree on what it means to be a “person,” then none of those other issues matter in determining whether abortion is ever justifiable. And if and when the personhood issue is resolved, those issues will bear their proper weight in the abortion debate.
Leave a Comment