When Obama Voted “No”


Gobs of ink have been spilled over Barack Obama's "present" votes on choice issues during his time in the Illinois State Senate. Yes, Obama voted "present" instead of "no" on seven bills that would have limited women's reproductive rights. And yes, Planned Parenthood of Illinois has defended Obama, saying he was acting out a rehearsed strategy for preserving pro-choice seats in the legislature. But while the Democratic campaigns and women's organizations quibbled over which 100 percent pro-choice Senator, Obama or Hillary Clinton, would be the better president for reproductive health, many choice advocates missed what was percolating under the radar: The beginnings of a conservative smear campaign against Obama's very real history of support for reproductive freedom.

The anti-choice anti-Obama strategy is based on Obama's clear "no" votes on the "Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act," or BAIPA. Leading anti-choice blogger Jill Stanek, who testified in the Illinois state Senate on behalf of the bill, has played a key role in disseminating this anti-Obama argument in the right-wing blogosphere. Taking the bait, former presidential candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, in a fundraising email to supporters of his political action committee last month, excoriated Obama for opposing BAIPA. And in a Feb. 26 editorial, the National Catholic Register fumed, "Obama wouldn't even protect children born alive by mistake during abortion attempts."

But BAIPA isn't really about protecting infants; it is anti-abortion rights legislation crafted by the hard right. BAIPA targets the abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction, which anti-choicers have so successfully re-branded as "partial birth abortion." Dilation and extraction accounts for less than one-fifth of one percent of all American abortions, and is used most often to end wanted pregnancies in which expectant parents learn their baby will not be viable outside of the womb. During the operation, the fetus' skull is capsized inside of the woman, after which labor is induced and she delivers the fetus. It is a wrenching process, but one that allows a woman or couple to grieve and bring closure to a pregnancy by holding the intact fetus. It also decreases scarring, bleeding, and pain inside of a woman's uterus and vagina.

The antis want to redefine these fetuses as "born alive" and require that doctors provide "resuscitation." As a state senator, Obama saw BAIPA for what it was: an ideologically-motivated ploy to vilify women and doctors who choose abortion. On the state Senate floor on April 4, 2002, he explained, "This issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if there are children being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after."

Of course, the idea that otherwise viable babies are regularly "born alive" during abortions is an invention of the anti-choice movement. Ninety percent of abortions are performed within the first 16 weeks of pregnancy through a procedure called aspiration, in which a surgical vacuum is used to empty out a woman's uterus. The second most common abortion procedure is dilation and evacuation, which takes place in rare cases after 16 weeks of pregnancy, often when a woman's health or life is at risk. Under that procedure, the aspiration process is sometimes preceded by an injection into the abdomen that ensures fetal demise.

So the only abortion procedure that could ever result in an intact fetus outside the uterus is the extremely rare dilation and extraction. The fact that just a few doctors perform just a handful of these procedures in the United States annually hasn't stopped the anti-choice movement from creating an entire lexicon, imagery, and legislative strategy around the symbol of these aborted fetuses. The vocabulary has trickled up into national politics. On the campaign trail, both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee spoke about aborted fetuses "crying" in pain as doctors cast them aside into a heap. Suffice to say, such scenes are absent from the annals of medical literature. Dilation and extraction is such a rare operation that most hospitals won't perform one in a year, let alone conduct more than one in a day. Such rhetoric is not only divorced from reality, but deeply disrespectful to the many caring medical professionals who perform abortions because they are committed to serving women.

It is to Barack Obama's credit that, as an Illinois state senator, he voted against BAIPA twice, and then, as chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, prevented it from advancing to the floor. It would be naïve to believe that a few "present" votes will make social conservatives forget Obama's pro-choice advocacy on this issue. Indeed, they plan to peel moderate and Republican support away from Obama by painting him as a heartless politician who closed his ears to the cries of "abortion survivors." Let it serve as a reminder that supporters of reproductive rights have bigger fish to fry than one another.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • invalid-0

    I’m glad to have found this article; thus far, all the talking points on this issue, and Sen. Obama’s position regarding it, have come from the evangelical right.

    I am a staunch pro-choice supporter, but I must admit I felt Sen. Obama came down on the wrong side of this legislation. However, that was based primarily on the testimony of Jill Stanek, who claims to have personally held an infant that survived abortion for 45 minutes until it died and also at least implies that surviving an abortion is a common enough process that the hospital she worked at had a facility especially for holding the infants until they die.

    So, I have to ask: is this woman lying? Or, in fact–no matter how rare–is it the case that abortions resulting in a live infant are handled by letting the infant die without attempts to sustain it? If so, are these infants that would normally be expected to survive with normal intervention provided to any other premature baby?

    I’ve always felt that life begins once the fetus no longer requires the support of the mother’s body to survive–even if that means substituting the use of modern medical technology for the mother. Given that definition, I’ve struggled greatly with this issue; but with my general distrust of the arrogant and dogmatic evangelical right I’m left wondering what truths they’ve conveniently ignored or distorted. It’s certainly not lost on me that they’d take any opportunity to sully Sen. Obama, but I would like to know the truth on the situation, and in particular how much of Jill Stanek’s testimony is false or exaggerated.

  • invalid-0

    The argument has gone on for a very long time: Where does life begin? As the title suggests, I’m very much against abortion. However, this reply is not meant to continue on that debate.

    Politically speaking, most Republicans pander to pro-lifers much like Democrats pander to minorities. I look at it like this. It’s been how many years since Roe v. Wade? And how many Republican presidents have done to overturn that decision? Exactly. Now I believe there to be absolutely no legal founding in Roe vs. Wade. And the premise of the case is lost amongst people of today (the fact that she falsified that she was raped, etc). Or the fact that Jane Roe is now, in fact, pro-life. But I digress.

    As for Ron Paul, however, you neglect that he is a certified OB/GYN and delivered thousands of babies. He is against it moralistically and scientifically. But even through all of that bias, he has remain steadfast in his ideals, that abortion is a matter of states, not the federal government and certainly not the supreme court.

  • invalid-0

    I am asking my ob/gyn friend as to the verity of Ms. Stanek’s testimony. She may be conveniently omitting some details in her testimony. I am pretty sure that the head is crushed, and thus you canNOT resuscitate this.

    As stated above, these procedures are NOT done unless the life/health of the mother is in danger or the fetus would not be viable such as cri du chat syndrome, etc. With these syndromes most fetuses would not be viable that is they would die within 3-7 days of birth. So, whether something dies after an abortion or after birth+7 days, it doesn’t make much difference to the thing that dies. What matters is the life/health of the woman, who often has other children or plans to have other children after and the abnormal pregnancy could risk her future fertility.

    A good book to read is “Protect and Defend” it goes through a case of late term abortion and parental notification. It’s fiction but well-researched.

    Also, very interesting that the 2 posters above are men. and the anti-abortion person above is a male who won’t reveal his name.

    Abortion should be a personal decision by a woman in consultation with her doctor and her religious leader and family as she sees fit.

  • invalid-0

    Here’s the relevant part of the text of the bill:

    8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
    9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
    10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
    11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
    12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
    13 stage of development.
    14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
    15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
    16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
    17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
    18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
    19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
    20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
    21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
    22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
    23 section, or induced abortion.
    24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
    25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
    26 protection under the law.

    Your assertion that … the only abortion procedure that could ever result in an intact fetus outside the uterus is the extremely rare dilation and extraction is incorrect. There are some who survived saline abortions, and some who survived chemical abortions. One of the former is Gianna Jessen, now a 28-year-old woman. One of the latter is now a two years old boy in England. According to the Daily Mail in the UK alone, 50 babies are born alive each year after abortion. I guess it’s okay with Senator Obama for these babies born alive to be shoved struggling into a biohazard bag full of bleach, like the little girl born in the Miramar clinic in Hialeah. They are about the only ones which would have been affected by the law.

  • invalid-0

    The idea that Christ Hospital “created a room just for BAI’s, because there are so many of them” is the type of illogical, biased and cruel spin Stanek and her ilk would like to see disseminated.

    The hospital created a room for non-viables – whether they be very early expelled preemies, or full term delivered infants whose parents have opted to “let the child go” without often painful and futile heroic interventions. Perhaps parents/families of stillborns may also find some solace in this room.

    Personally, I think it is a bit macabre to cuddle a corpse, but if it brings disappointed, greiving parents a sense of closure, all for the best.

  • amanda-marcotte

    So, I have to ask: is this woman lying?

     

    I usually hate to accuse people of lying, but Jill Stanek has a very poor relationship with the truth.  And I have to admit, you are very concern trollish, so I'm unconvinced you're as pro-choice as you say you are. 

     

    Stanek has promoted, in my dealings with her, lies about how pro-choicers are trying to wipe out black people, lies about how birth control causes abortion, and has opposed the HPV vaccine, which would save many thousands of lives, even though she claims to be "pro-life", which appears to be another lie.  One of her favorite tactics is to put up pictures of women she considers slutty, and then when she's called on it, she lies.  When I called her out on some nonsense or another, she put up a picture of me wearing a red sweater, with insinuations about my willingness to wear red.  When we made fun of her for actually going the red=harlot route, she pretended that it had something to do with the color of blood, which makes no sense at all.  She regularly puts up pictures of women going into George Tiller's clinic to titillate her readers—these women are all getting abortions for medically necessary reasons.  When called on it, her supporters claimed that Tiller performs "convenience" late term abortions, but that's also a lie.  If he ever colored outside the lines once, the hyper-conservative Kansas government would have him in jail already.  She is posting pictures of women who are in desperate circumstances, many women who are suffering the loss of wanted pregnancies, and using deceit to cover her ass.

     

    She claims that abortion doctors eat fetuses.

     

    If you're putting your trust in her, I don't trust that you're a pro-choicer on any level at all.

  • amanda-marcotte

    That abortion "survivors" are largely from when abortion was criminal, don't you think?  The techniques you describe are not the ones used by legal medical professionals. 

  • harry834

    please, we need the clarity.

    humor me

  • invalid-0

    I had heard of Jill Stanek before, but all I knew about was her completely insane blog, which is exactly as divorced from reality as what Amanda Marcotte described.
    < /br>
    Having read a few excerpts off that blog, I’m horrified that such a person is actually out there being taken seriously!

  • invalid-0

    I’ve read about Gianna Jessen before, and huge parts of her story made absolutely no sense at all. The story just didn’t add up, and it sounded like a cheap scare tactic. Honestly, it sounded to me like the girl was lied to all her life about her birth.
    < br/>
    I seem to have a memory as to what the Daily Mail site is, too… Aren’t they an uber right-wing news source? And haven’t they posted innacuracies about abortion before?

  • invalid-0

    Sayna,

    You should visit Jill Stanek’s blog and get educated on the Born-alive issue. These babies have been aborted alive, they are outside of the mother and living. Do they not deserve care? are they not people?

  • invalid-0

    Hey Sayna:

    I wouldn’t bother visiting the Stanek site – even though it’s only a cyber visit, it smacks a bit of Bedlam touring – you know visiting the asylum just to be amused by the inmates – among whom Jasper enjoys a special place under Jill’s skirts since he’s a m-o-d-e-r-a-t-o-r – happy to delete offending posts at whim.

    As for being taken seriously, not much – usually same old posters round and round – so that they digress into sharing recipes and pet stories and whose religion is best – last time I checked, I think the fundies were up by two over the RCC – that little priestly pedophilia incident does tend to be a bother when arguing that one really only wants to protect children.

  • harry834

    I'd advise anyone researching Gianna Jessen to study which parts of the story might have been "making no sense".

    I've heard that story too, and it is very consequential. Learning more and more about the story is in our interests.

  • invalid-0

    I appreciate your insight into Ms. Stanek from your personal experience. As I stated, I have a basic distrust in the methods and reasoning capacity of the evangelical right, so I wanted to get some input from what I consider more objective sources on the case she makes. I certainly wasn’t going to start a thread questioning her veracity on a right-wing blog, since they were holding her out as the basis of revealing the issue and, thus, their opinions on her credibility weren’t in doubt.

    I was, though, surprised at your suspicions. I am precisely as pro-choice as I stated, so you have all the information which you need to evaluate whether I’m a “pro-choicer at any level” by your standards. It’s disheartening to try to begin a dialogue over an issue of genuine personal concern and be accused of trolling, but I guess that’s the blogging reality in which we live.

  • invalid-0
  • invalid-0

    What this bill targets is children born after a procedure known as Elective Induction for Fetuses with Anomalies Incompatible with Life. Far from being shoved aside and left to die, most of these children are held by their parents until they pass away (if they are born alive, many of them are not). To require life sustaining measures in the case of a child that IS GOING TO DIE anyway is simply cruel, in my opinion. I say this as a woman who has received the news that the fetus she was carrying was going to die- there was not one thing that could be done, he had no kidneys and a host of other problems. I was just a little more than halfway through my pregnancy when I received the news and after weeks of agonizing, chose to end my pregnancy through early elective induction. I held my son when he was born alive and kept him with my husband and I until he died peacefully in my arms. Nobody had the right to force life sustaining measures on him which would’ve meant he died in a bassinet with wires strapped to him and oxygen and a feeding tube instead of peacefully wrapped in the arms of his parents. I am eternally grateful that there are pro-choice senators willing to look through the rhetoric and see this bill for what it is.

  • http://www.jillstanek.com invalid-0

    Dana,

    The procedure which sometimes results in babies being aborted alive is not D&X (partial birth abortion), as you described.

    The procedure in induced labor abortion. Late-term abortionist Tiller describes it on his site:

    http://www.drtiller.com/procedure.html

    A mother’s cervix is dilated using either prostaglandins (like cytotec) or laminaria (seaweed sticks). At a certain point, the fully formed but preterm baby essentially falls out of the uterus. My experience was about 1/4 lived through it, sometimes a few minutes but once almost as long as an 8-hour shift. Christ Hospital admitted in the press to 10-20% surviving for a time Chicago Sun-Times, March 31, 2001, “Bill proposes care for fetus after abortion.”)

    Abortionists like Tiller inject a heart-stopping drug into the baby’s heart before delivery, but hospital physicians committing the procedure usually don’t.

    Was I lying? I have testified 9x now on the state and federal level and Christ Hospital has never sued for defamation. It can’t.

    Are some of these babies viable? I saw babies aborted between 19-28 weeks at Christ. A few were completely healthy; one of those was 23 weeks and weighed a pound. She should have been assessed but wasn’t.

    Was my experience unique? No. You’ll hear incidences popping up now and then:

    http://cbs4.com/topstories/Abortion.Abortion.Clinic.2.398369.html

    http://www.local6.com/news/4432128/detail.html

    As state senator, Obama was the sole vocal opponent to the IL Born Alive Act 2 years in a row. He did vote “present” before voting “no,” you are correct. Here is a link to all his votes and speechs on Born Alive:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html

    You’re right, Dana. Obama’s position on Born Alive is a real problem for him.

    In closing, bid Amanda Marcotte best wishes from this troll.

    Regards,

    Jill

  • amanda-marcotte

    Is someone who pretends to be on your side but isn't, and shows up in comments at a blog pretending to be "concerned" about your tactics.  Say, if I wanted to concern troll someone, I'd go to Jill Stanek's blog and pretend to be an anti-choicer, but say things like, "I'm concerned that our vile hatred for women is something of a problem for us."

  • invalid-0

    you’re one doctor I’d never want to have touch me or my children. I am also a woman.

  • invalid-0

    Ms. Goldstein criticizes pro-lifers for appealing to dilation and extraction on the grounds that these account for less than 1% of abortions. Yet one of the most common tactics by pro-choicers is to appeal to cases of rape and incest, even though these similarly account for only about 1% of all abortions. So her criticism is offensively hypocritical and one-sided.

  • invalid-0

    Thanks to people like you who “believe” that life begins after birth, abortion will continue to be alive and well.

    Before you go online typing and farting off your views, or should I say opinions-which everyone is entitled to…..get the facts.

    First and foremost, SHAME ON YOU for calling Jill Stanek a liar. There are TONS of horrible, ILLEGAL things that go on behind closed doors @ abortion clinics-and she just happens to be one of those individuals that’s brave enough to blow the whistle on these clinics.

    At 25 days old, the BABY has a heartbeat. Do you want to argue a scientific fact now? Knock yourself out.

    LIFE BEGINS @ CONCEPTION.

    It’s such a shame that all of you Non-Christians go around preaching how it’s okay to kill unborn babies and that it’s the “woman’s right”. God says that that’s a sin.

    By the way-aren’t you glad that you’re mother didn’t choose to abort you?…….YAY PRO-LIFE. (Just something for you to ponder).

    • invalid-0

      If you “believe” personhood of embryos (non-viable and unwanted) is more important or valuable than personhood of girls (frequently raped or incested by the charming male members of their families as in the court case of the 13 year-old! who was incested by her father) or women ( who then have less value in this sick society than a bloody lump of tissue that may or may not even come to term naturally) who may not be able to afford to raise a resultant child, or who were raped, or who actually think they have a right to their own bodies…… then you are a poor example of a so-called “Christian” .
      As for “God says that’s a sin” —- if you are having personal conversations with “God” you need psychiatric help.
      The Bible was written by men, for men, about men who ‘begat and begat, and begat …..” . There’s a lot missing from the current versions of the Bible, left out by men who did not like hearing about women who stood up to them. And who then called these women, ‘demons’ or pagans, or whores. Mary Magdalene was one , close to Christ, and even Peter asked, “why do you love her more than you love me?” showing how jealous men turned her into a “prostitute”. Why would any intelligent woman listen to men on the subject of women????

  • harry834

    My vocabulary is expanded today. Thank you :)

  • harry834

    then are women who get abortions murderers? If so,how should the law punish them for this murder?

    Also, an egg often gets fertilized but washes out in a woman's period. Some figures posit this happens 50 percent of the time. Could it be 30%? We can pretend for argument's sake.

    With fertilized eggs – or human babies as you call them – washing out so much, is it not a moral imperative to examine every woman's tampon under a microscope to see if the substance was a fertilized egg. Perhaps something can be done ot revive it, implant it in another uterus, or save it for another mother? If its dead, do we owe the substance-on-tampon a funeral worthy of a child who died?

    We do give funerals for babies that die of natural causes like SIDS. Why not for a menstruation?

    Another possibility: is it possible you don't think the embryo is a really a baby at conception? Maybe you really believe its a baby some time afterwards. If so when? Where is the dividing line? How would you mark it in an objectively measurable, and recordable way?

     

  • invalid-0

    It seems to me after reading many persons opinions on the rights and wrongs of abortion that there are many sincere and honorable people on both sides of the issue. Most of them are good people who have a genuine desire to communicate their feelings and opinions to others in the hopes of persuading others to agree with their point of view. Exaggeration and sometimes harse words, are used to color the discussion, often leading to heated arguments.

    Perhaps it would be best to leave such a subject to the family and the medical profession, as in the writer who stated that the decision to have an abortion should be taken by the mother, the father, the doctor and perhaps several other family members, spiritual advisors, etc.

    I don’t think we will ever find a political solution to this discussion – at least not as long as we are a democracy and a republic. If we ever become a theocracy or a dictatorship, that is another issue entirely. Please stop the rancor and let people live their own lives in peace and privacy and pray that the decision to have an abortion will be the last thing a family ever has to face.

  • invalid-0

    I’m Pro-life, and I say that we (the Pro-life people) are trying to convince the pro-choice people to see our views because we believe it is not just about the women. We believe we speak for the infants in the womb who can’t speak for themselves. They are the ones being killed. We are also concerned for the women having abortions because there are so many awful side effects to it, such as depression and flashbacks to the abortion. here’s a pro-life link so you can read about it:
    http://www.nrlc.org/
    I hope this helped.
    P.S. I apologize for any nasty things that the Pro-Lifers have said.

  • invalid-0

    Replying to “Dr. Sophia” … you said, “I am pretty sure that the head is crushed, and thus you canNOT resuscitate this.”

    The infants who were aborted alive in Christ Hospital where Jill Staneck worked were not “crushed” in a D&E abortion procedure. These were labor-induction abortions, meaning the women are given drugs to induce labor at a point in the pregnancy when the baby is unlikly to live without medical intervention, around 20-26weeks or so. Then medical intervention is withheld in order for the baby to die, which completes the “abortion”. In some cases the babies will die during the labor/delivery process and will therefore be stillborn.

    You also said: “As stated above, these procedures are NOT done unless the life/health of the mother is in danger or the fetus would not be viable such as cri du chat syndrome, etc. With these syndromes most fetuses would not be viable that is they would die within 3-7 days of birth.”

    AGAIN… not true. These procedures are commonly done for babies diagnosed as possibly having Down’s Sydrome, which we all know is not a fatal condition. In fact, the infant which Mrs. Staneck held for 45minutes until he died was aborted for Down’s.

    You really ought to read Jill Staneck’s full story before you assume any further. This is a transcript of her Congressional testimony which explain how these procedures are done, etc: http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm

  • invalid-0

    Amanda, you know full well that saline and prostiglandin abortions were widely performed well after 1973 when abortion became “safe and legal”.

    Stop trying to pretend that these types of procedures were only used in illegal back-alley abortions. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

    They are almost never used now, in 2008, since newer and “better” techniques have replaced those procedures, but to brand them as “not the techniques used by legal medical professionals” is just LYING!!!!!!!

    lies, lies, lies, lies, lies …. when will the abortion advocates finally start to tell the TRUTH?????

  • harry834

    "We are also concerned for the women having abortions because there are so many awful side effects to it, such as depression and flashbacks"

     

    and others do not: http://www.imnotsorry.net/newstories16.htm

  • harry834

    more obligated to the people we can look face to face with, rather than a fetus. One of these women needing abortion could be your sister, friend, or mother.

    How would you respond if your friend told you she had an abortion, and was not sorry? like these women:

    http://www.imnotsorry.net/newstories16.htm

  • invalid-0

    Wow, Dana, you sure do have your “facts” way backwards! I would expect an abortion activist to be a little more knowledgeable on abortion procedures and legislation.

    Are you truly that un-educated on the issue or are you intentionally spouting out false information in order to confuse people?

    You said, “BAIPA targets the abortion procedure known as dilation and extraction”

    Umm…. NO IT DOESN’T. Honestly, have you never heard of induced-labor abortion? Has you ever even READ Jill’s congressional testimony for the BAIPA? If you had you would already know that her experience as a nurse was with infants born alive and shelved to die through induced-labor abortion.

    You also said, “So the only abortion procedure that could ever result in an intact fetus outside the uterus is the extremely rare dilation and extraction.”

    Again …. NO. In a D&X procedure (now illegal), a hole is sliced in the back of the infant’s neck and a suction cannula inserted into the skull to suction out the contents of the head just before complete delivery. So it’s safe to say that none of those infants are born alive.

    Infants ARE being born alive during induced-labor abortions, as well as ocassionally in the process of D&E abortions — where laminaria is inserted to dilate the cervix which can unintentionally induce labor and cause a woman to give birth before the extraction is performed on the second or third day of the procedure. This was the case with the little baby girl born alive in florida and shoved into a biohazard bag full of bleach as mentioned by a previous poster. Some doctors have started injecting a lethal chemical into the baby’s heart to cause “fetal demise” before the D&E begins, like you mentioned, to avoid this pesky complication from occurring. But not all doctors do this, and therefore some women continue to “accidentially” deliver living infants.

    So again, Dana, I ask you, are you truly that uneducated on this issue or are you intentionally spouting out false information in order to confuse people?

  • invalid-0

    above comment was submitted by me, for some reason it put me as “Anonymous”

    I’m Kristi by the way, nice to meet you.

  • invalid-0

    (Heh. Looks like Stanek’s people are here to back her up.)
    < br/>
    Have you got a less biased source for this information? I’ve found that “right to life” sites are generally very medically-inaccurate. I dunno what the deal with that is. I guess they think that their cause justifies lying to people, even frightened, vulnerable women in desperate need of the facts.
    < br/>
    As the saying goes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Everything you’ve just said contradicts everything I’ve ever read about modern late-term abortion procedures, but the source you provided doesn’t do much to convince me that all the experts are wrong.

  • harry834

    I'm happy to learn more on these alleged "horrors". I guess fertilized eggs are off the table for now

    I prefer boiled eggs anyway.

    May the discussion go forth!

  • invalid-0

    Many pro-life sites use unbiased-sounding and professional-sounding names to make themselves look like unbiased, professional sites and then fill them with inaccurate information. Pro-choicers on the web already know about these sites, and we know that abortion”facts”.com is one of them.
    < br/>
    The following links are very useful for those who have trouble telling the difference:
    How To Search For Pro-Choice Websites
    Pro or Anti? How To Tell The Difference

  • invalid-0

    Just to let you know, pro-choicemomof3, Jill Stanek has quoted you on her blog. I just hope she had your permission!

  • invalid-0

    Sayna,

    You assert that abortionfacts.com is filled with inaccurate information. Prove it.

  • invalid-0

    The fetuses at issue in the Born Alive Infant Protection Act WERE ones that could be looked at face to face, since the fetuses at issue were ones that were born alive. So by your reasoning above, Obama was obligated to them.

  • http://jivinjehoshaphat.blogspot.com invalid-0

    It’s amazing that Goldstein could write this post without apparently ever reading Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Middle school children do more research on papers than Goldstein did here.

    It’s almost doubly amazing that Amanda Marcotte could believe that every one of Tiller’s late-term abortion patients are there for medically necessary reasons without a hint of evidence besides her lame reasoning that the hyper-conservatives in Kansas (you know with their Democratic governor and Democratic attorney general) would throw him in jail.

    She also apparently doesn’t even know what a lie is. Just for clarification, a lie isn’t something someone says which isn’t true. A lie is something someone says which they know isn’t true. If a lie is something someone says which isn’t true then Goldstein’s column would be an obvious lie since it is quite obvious that Illinois’ BAIPA had nothing to do with partial-birth abortion.

    Every time I read something Marcotte writes, I’m taken aback by how stupid John Edwards and his staff must have been to hire her.

  • invalid-0

    you said, “Have you got a less biased source for this information? I’ve found that “right to life” sites are generally very medically-inaccurate”

    Apparently you did not READ the link I posted. It does not contain any “medical information” at all….. it is simply a TRANSCRIPT (word for word copy) of the TESTIMONY of Nurse Stanek from the US Congressional Hearings on the Born-Alive-Infant Protection Act (remember …. that was the subject of this entire piece written by Dana Goldstein). I was linking you to the congressional testimony to show that the posters here like Dana and “Dr. Sophia” are wrong when they claim that BAIPA was targeting D&X procedures, that heads are crushed and can not be resuscitated, and that these abortions are performed only for the life/health of the mother or for fetal anomolies incompatable with life. All of those assertions are flat WRONG.

    Again, I will say slowly so that you guys can get it this time: INFANTS ARE BEING BORN ALIVE IN A PROCEDURE CALLED INDUCED-LABOR ABORTION. Not D&X / “Partial Birth” aborion. Labor is induced and the babies are born vaginally, just like a “normal” birth, except the babies are too young to survive without medical intervention. Some die during delivery and are therefore stillborn; others survive delivery and are therefore born alive. These procedures are not just done for fatal conditions, they are commonly done for Down’s Syndrome, which is not fatal.

    I invite you to get your head out of the sand and READ the transcript from the Congressional testimony that I linked to you …. you would see that I am right about this and you would understand this issue more fully.

    Yes, I realize that the website who published the transcript is a right-to-life organization and therefore a pro-life source, that is because my quick google search revealed that the only sites publishing the congressional transcript are pro-life sources. Why do you suppose the pro-choice websites refuse to publish Nurse Stanek’s congressional testimony????

    I’m sure you could look it up somewhere else if you know where to go (I don’t), but it is a matter of public record so the exact copy of the transcript should be in other places as well.

  • invalid-0

    That’s sad that those women never had any regrets about what they had done. But, no matter how you feel after you get an abortion, it’s still wrong. There’s one baby that will never get to see the light of day or his mother’s face.
    There are other choices to having an abortion, such as adoption. Abortion should never be an option.

  • harry834

    If people like yourself express such negativity of women who have no regrets, you have to wonder how some women do become regretful. It sounds like the depression and guilt is pushed on them by people like you, rather than the abortion itself.

    The pro-choice movement doesn't insist on any required emotions after the abortion. You can debate that – and so can I – but what is undebateable is that the pro-life movement always says "you should feel bad about your abortion, and you will live to regret it".

    So we ask again, is it necessarilly the abortion itself that causes terrible feelings in some women, or is it the "pro-life" people around them with the instruction of guilt?

    While you might justify the instruction of guilt, it does leave doubts on what or who is really causing these women to feel guilty – the abortion, or their pro-life "support group".

  • invalid-0

    but this thread has become quite hostile. I’m tired of the allegations of “LIAR!” being tossed about like verbal hand grenades too. In short,I totally agree with you Sandra. All I can do is put my trust in medically and scientifically accurate sites like AGI,ACOG,and Medical News Today while the rest scream their lungs out at each other.

  • invalid-0

    So we ask again, is it necessarilly the abortion itself that causes terrible feelings in some women, or is it the “pro-life” people around them with the instruction of guilt?

    They don’t trust the women to make the choice. Which explains why they want the government to step in and do it as proxy for the pro life/anti-abortion movement.

    As a pro-choicer,I have implicit trust in the intelligence of all women faced with the abortion-adoption-parenting decision.

  • invalid-0

    Adoption is a cruel and exploitive practice that turns economically powerless pregnant women into breeding animals for economically stable people who feel entitled to take their children. “Open” adoption typically turns into a lie, because adopters are not legally bound to keep any of the promises they make to the mothers of their children.

  • harry834

    of adoption, we wish every choice available.

    Though I would prefer to see fewer kids languishing in adoption centers, we need to keep all options available for women.

    the full decision of adoption-abortion-parenting, as ruthless pointed out.

  • http://www.tsfiles.wordpress.com invalid-0

    As other comments here have made clear, Dana Goldstein is either a terribly uninformed person, or she is a leftist zealot intent on spreading lies and misinformation. Either way, she should not be writing on this topic.

    Like most uninformed people, or those who which to deceive, she employs euphemisms often. Such words are never substitutes for knowledge or truth, but they come in handy when you don’t know what you’re writing about or trying to lie to readers.

    Her article smears pro-lifers as “anti-choice” 6 times. Pro-lifers are hardly against choice and the term is ridiculous. Pro-lifers do, however, distinguish between choices which affect the actor and choices which affect an innocent 3rd party (i.e., the unborn). It’s not a difficult observation to make for rational and honest people.

    Other politically charged euphemisms Goldstein employs:

    “reproductive health” used twice;

    “reproductive freedom” used once;

    “reproductive rights” used once;

    “fetal demise” used once.

    (Normal people say “dead baby” but that might make Goldstein feel uncomfortable, assuming she has a functioning conscience.)

    Clearly, Goldstein’s refusal to call a spade a spade speaks volumes about her blindness and inability to describe what she defends. Prior and during the civil war, the South and the Democrat party made use of all sorts of terminology to defend the indefensible: “states rights” was common. Much like the supporters of infanticide do today do with the unborn, the humanity of black people was regularly minimized, denied, or mocked.

    Fact: during a partial-birth abortion, a baby’s body is extracted while alive; only the head remains within the mother.

    Fact: A sharp object, scissors usually, is forced into the back of the skill of the baby and his/her brains are vacuumed out.

    Fact: The body is then thrown into a garbage can.

    As for Barack Obama, he voted against a bill which would simply force doctors to care for a baby born alive during an abortion. His vote was nothing less than ideology totally disconnected from basic humanity and decency.

    You defend a medical procedure which is pure savagery so it ought not surprise anyone that you support a politician who cannot even bring himself to defend an infant born alive. You hide behind weasel words because you refuse to acknowledge reality. And just like slavery and those who defended it, you and your opinions will surely fall into the ash heap of history along with the 45 million dead babies forever gone thanks to the unconstitutional Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

  • invalid-0

    OK, some clarity – BAIPA – Born ALive Infant Protection Act
    and an unintentional (or at least irrational) effect of same:
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/116/4/e576

    Then PBAB Partial Birth Abortion Ban
    which ends up contradicting itself regarding the woman’s health.

    Everybody do some reading, then discuss. Yes, Dana does need to address the errors in the original post.

    And Sisyphus, fetal demise is correct. It is a pregnancy that is terminated, a fetus that is removed or has viability denied (embryo if earlier) fertilized egg if not implanted. Only the born can die. The terminology is correct, just not to your liking.

  • invalid-0

    ” I was linking you to the congressional testimony to show that the posters here like Dana and “Dr. Sophia” are wrong when they claim that BAIPA was targeting D&X procedures, that heads are crushed and can not be resuscitated, and that these abortions are performed only for the life/health of the mother or for fetal anomolies incompatable with life. All of those assertions are flat WRONG.”

    I fail to see how Stanek’s testimony will prove any of that. Her testimony is not the entire case, nor is it the text of the law. In fact, it’s not even credible as Stanek has frequently said many unscrupulous things, made unsupported claims and even flat-out lied to her readers in the past. I’ve got no reason to beleive her.

    Why do you suppose the pro-choice websites refuse to publish Nurse Stanek’s congressional testimony????

    Gee, I dunno, could it be because A: We’re interested in the law itself and not what Stanek had to say about it or B: She’s already revealed herself to be an unreliable source of information?

    Or, consider option C: Stanek has already proudly distanced herself away from even the thought of having an intelligent, calm, rational discussion with the pro-choice side. I cite her own words as proof:

    I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.

    I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.

    Source:
    “Abortion Leaders Concede?” at World Net Daily

    Why should we listen to someone who has made it so abundantly clear that she will [i]never[/i] listen to us? She wouldn’t even use neutral, respectful language. Instead, she opted to name-call! Why should we even try to have a conversation seeking middle ground with a person who has already stated that there is no middle ground and that she doesn’t want a conversation with us?

    Until Stanek becomes a rational, cool-headed, honest, accurate person, I won’t consider her a vaild authority on anything. Except, perhaps, spewing out spiteful right-wing propaganda.

  • invalid-0

    One side’s euphemism is another side’s proper or preferred terminology.
    < br/>
    Both sides of this debate use euphemisms. If we didn’t, we would be something like “Pro-Legal-Abortion” and “Pro-Illegalizing-Abortion” instead of “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life”.
    < br/>
    As a pro-choicer, I have a difficult time calling my opposition “pro-life” because I believe the term is inaccurate. Which side has killed doctors? Which side has bombed clinics? Which side has more supporters of the Iraq war and the death penalty? The “pro-life” side. I often use the term “anti choice”, because any way you slice it, you guys are against my right to choose what I think is right for me in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. I think “pro-life” is a euphemism and a weasel word!
    < br/>

  • invalid-0

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp#But%20isn’t%20abortion%20safer%20than%20childbirth?
    < br/>
    Entire page claims that illegal abortion was either never existed, was never a widespread problem or was not as dangerous as people think.
    < br/>
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_928YC.asp
    Incorrect information about the affects of abortion on future pregnancies.

    …(4) Your next baby will be twice as likely to die in the first few months of life.

    (5) Your next baby will be three to four times as likely to die in the last months of his first year of life.

    (6) Your next baby may have a low birth weight.

    (7) Your next baby is more likely to be born prematurely with all the dangerous and costly problems that entails.

    Same page:

    Post-Abortion Syndrome

    Frequently after an abortion, women suffer a range of mental and psychological problems. These may include recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse. These problems may occur days to years later.

    “Post-Abortion Syndrome” is not recognized mental illness. They also try to make it seem like these symptoms are common, when in fact few women report such symptoms.
    < br/>
    Scare Tactics Against Planned Parenthood:
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_917pp.asp
    This page claims that Planned Parenthood is “all about abortion” and does not address the fact that they provide contraception, STD testing and treatment, prenatal care, etc. They claim it is “All about the money” and use scare-mongering. This page also reveals the site’s outright hysteria about premarital sex and their anti-sex-ed bias.
    < br/>
    Anti-Condom:
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_35.asp
    < br/>
    Anti-Contraception:
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_1.asp#Contraception:
    < br/>
    Claim that being pro-choice is part of the “religion” of secular humanism, and that said beleif system is being forced on U.S. citizens because we are not specifically a Christian theocracy:
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_30.asp#impose
    < br/>
    Most importantly, Obvious Pro-Life Bias:
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_30.asp#impose
    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_3.asp
    < br/>
    My problem with sites like these is not that they seek to educate people about the pro-life position. The problem I have with them is that they intentionally present themselves as unbiased resources to pregnant women when in reality they contain many inaccuracies and are obviously promoting an agenda (much like the crisis pregnancy centers that the site has numerous links to).

  • http://realchoice.blogspot.com invalid-0

    The baby’s head is capsized? To capsize means to flip a vessel over in the water. Though there is amniotic fluid in the uterus, there’s hardly enough to sail on, much less capsize anything.

    How accurate can any of your other information be? Not very, as it turns out, since you claim that the BAIPA applies to babies who have had their brains suctioned out. There’s a medical term for these babies: DEAD. The Born ALIVE Infants Protection Act doesn’t apply to dead babies.

    You also claim that babies born alive after abortions are never ever killed or left to die, because abortion doctors are just such nice people that they’d never do such a thing. If what you claim is true, then a law against it couldn’t possibly be worth the effort of fighting, could it? The only reason to fight the bill is because you KNOW it’s happening, and you don’t want people you like to get in trouble for it.

  • invalid-0

    Sayna, thanks for the reply! It would have helped had abortionfacts.com been much clearer about the effects of abortion on future pregnancies, for example. What specifio studies have shown these findings, which it numbers, as though one might easily find the references at the page bottom. Wrong! This really is frustrating and insulting!

    As for Post-Abortion Syndrome, does it matter that the APA doesn’t classify it as a mental disorder or illness in the DSM-IV? What matters is that some women do in fact experience the symptoms as detailed, and they do indeed relate them to their abortion experiences. It troubles me that more women DON’T report such symptoms. This suggests that a certain hardness and/or indifference to life has become the norm, owing in no small measure to the virtually unlimited abortion license that the Burger Court imposed on the country, its declaration that unwanted unborn human life is, as a matter of constitutional law, living garbage, fit for disposal by any and all means.

    I agree that Planned Parenthood isn’t all about abortion. It is mostly about abortion and ridding the world of “human weeds,” to quote Margaret Sanger, PP’s foundress and eugenicist who inspired the Nazis.

    Is there a website that you would recommend that would give the best presentation of the pro-life position?

  • invalid-0

    I would be quite incensed by the comment below:

    We believe we speak for the infants in the womb who can’t speak for themselves

    I would be HUGELY insulted by the insinuation I am not good enough to “speak” for my fetus. So a group of complete strangers deem themselves more qualified to be fetus mouthpieces.

  • invalid-0

    Some pro lifers still get a lot of traction out of attacking her, to judge by the falsehoods still being spouted about the now VERY dead woman. Or the claim PP is MOSTLY about abortion. What an odd thing to say as only a fraction of all the PPs in America perform abortions. I checked the websites of a few of the PP offices and they mostly provide birth control,family planning(The PP of Golden Gate has an info sheet on NFP even), primary care (such as routine physical exams,or immunizations),gynecological exams,screenings for breast & cervical cancer,STD testing and treatment,counseling and testing for HIV/AIDS,pregnancy testing and counseling,UTI (urinary tract infections) testing,adoption referrals, prenatal care,emergency contraception,colposcopy or cryotherapy,midlife services,men’s health services,et al.

    Depending on which clinic you check, it may or may not provide abortion services.
    Sources:
    http://www.pphouston.org/site/PageServer?pagename=hsmain
    http://www.ppgg.org/site/c.esJMKZPKJtH/b.1162691/k.FFDF/Planned_Parenthood_Golden_Gate_Site_Map/apps/sitemap/sitemap.asp

  • invalid-0

    It troubles me that more women DON’T report such symptoms. This suggests that a certain hardness and/or indifference to life has become the norm, owing in no small measure to the virtually unlimited abortion license that the Burger Court imposed on the country, its declaration that unwanted unborn human life is, as a matter of constitutional law, living garbage, fit for disposal by any and all means

    < br/>
    Psst! Your agenda is showing!
    < br/>
    It’s obvious now: You’re upset when women don’t feel horrible, depressed and worthless after they have an abortion. You think that they should feel horrible, that they deserve to feel horrible, and probably that they are horrible. Nice. I’m just in awe of the pro-life compassion and the respect for women.
    < br/>
    When a few women do feel like scum because of their abortion, is it any wonder? With shaming, woman-hating fnatics like you around, I’m not suprised.
    < br/>
    I’ve got a webpage that shows the pro-life position pretty well. Perhaps it’s not what it really means to be pro-life, and perhaps these quotes don’t exactly sum up the views of the vast majority of pro-lifers. Hey, maybe they’ve even fought fire with fire by quote-mining, like the pro-life side does to Sanger. Anyway, here it is:
    Pro-Lifers In Their Own Words

  • invalid-0

    I’ve never been pregnant and I’m insulted by it. It’s an absolute insult to me as a woman that these people care about whether or not a fetus gets born than what I have to say, or what happens to me. Even those who aren’t female should be offended because they’re trying to take away the rights of over half the population so that they can give more rights to non-sentient fetuses.

  • invalid-0

    Sayna, have YOU ever had an abortion? Did YOU feel just great about it? Do you suppose that I don’t feel the anguish of my SISTERS who have had abortions, who told me how bitterly they regretted being forced into making a “choice” that was nowhere close to being free? Who the hell are you, anyway, to tell me what I think, and that I hate women? Has anyone ever called you a sexist sow? Well, allow me to do just that.

    I checked out your wretched webpage. Try again.

  • invalid-0

    …is that force goes both ways. And it’s not right in either direction.
    < br/>
    I’m pro-choice for a reason: because the decision of what to do in the case of an unwanted pregnancy is complicated, personal and often extremely difficult to make. That reason is just one of many that I am pro-choice, but it’s one of the most important ones. I fight for the right of the individual woman to make the choice that is best for her.
    < br/>
    It is absolutely horrid that your sisters were forced to have abortions. But forcing someone to carry to term is equally horrid, and that is exactly what laws targeting at restricting abortion hope to accomplish. The pro-choice side is doing nothing in the way to force women to have abortions, and it is an atrocity to us that anyone would attempt to. Somewhere in the world, there are women who feel just as anguished, bitter, and regretful as your sisters because they were forced to not have abortions.
    < br/>
    What makes you a misogynist (which means “harmful” toward women as well as “hurtful”) are the assumptions you make about women. You may not hate women, but your assumption that they couldn’t possibly choose to have an abortion themselves in insulting. Same goes for your strange assertion that more women should feel intense shame and depression after abortion, and that anything less implies that they are “indifferent” or hard-hearted.

  • invalid-0

    the epithet “anti choice” for those who against all abortions for any reason, all contraception, and any comphrehensive sex ed. If a pro lifer asks nicely for me to refer to her or him as “pro-life” on a discussion board,I have no trouble doing it. Unless that person then begins (or continues) to use words like “pro-abortion”, “bort”, “pro-death” or any other cutesy term. Then all bets are off.

  • invalid-0

    Jeez. If it’s born (see this word? know the difference) alive or dead its not an abortion. An abortion is a fetus/blastocyst/embryo being terminated IN UTERO.

  • invalid-0

    Didn’t I say that we care for the women too? Don’t you think women also get effected by abortion? And since when have the rights of one person been over another? Can a mother choose death for her child? Does she have the RIGHT to do that?
    Yes, women would have a complete right to terminate the baby if he weren’t alive. But he IS alive and completely seperate from the mother, and so he has his own rights too, especially the right to live. A mother doesn’t rule over her child and decide whether or not he’s fit to live.

    Also, I doubt a women’s depression after her abortion has anything to do with Pro-Lifers. If what the woman did was right, she wouldn’t be hurt by people saying “What you did was wrong!” especially to the point of depression. You gave me a webpage of women who didn’t regret their abortions. Now I’m giving you a webpage of women who did, and the baby’s fathers, and celebrities. I read the webpage you gave me, now I ask you to read mine.
    http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.html

  • harry834

    "choosing death for a child" is not comparable when the entity exists inside the woman's body. The choice whether or not to be pregnant lies with her not you, or your people.

  • invalid-0

    without intending it, you make my point. I am well aware that women do in fact freely choose to have abortions, sometimes repeatedly, and may feel nothing but relief about their choices to terminate their pregnancies, no matter how advanced they may be. THIS is what troubles me, that the self-directed lethal violence that abortion IS does not lead to more negative outcomes than are reported as such. I expect that many women self medicate or develop other coping strategies which may or may not be successful.

    This is not to say that I think women are incapable of making thoughtful, even prayerful decisions to terminate pregancies that they cannot continue for whatever reason, but that the question remains for all who would abort: what inherent value does the unborn life possess? Why is its life always expendable, even if it is possible to save both mother and child?

    This is only slightly off topic, but Geert Wilders short anti-Islam movie Fitna begins with a jet flying into the WTC. Does the brutality of it still shock the senses? Haven’t we all been somewhat desensitized to the violence that saturates this culture, in ALL of its forms?

  • janine

    The real question is why so many willing to protect life over a persons body only when it’s a fetus and only when it’s a woman’s body that is used… an innocent existing child should not be less protected or more expendable when its right to life is at stake and conflicts with a parents right to their own body.

  • mellankelly1

    I am well aware that women do in fact freely choose to have abortions, sometimes repeatedly, and may feel nothing but relief about their choices to terminate their pregnancies, no matter how advanced they may be. THIS is what troubles me, that the self-directed lethal violence that abortion IS does not lead to more negative outcomes than are reported as such. I expect that many women self medicate or develop other coping strategies which may or may not be successful.

    I must first state that what you "expect" that many women do after an abortion is not relevant.  Actual studies have been done  and have consistantly proven that if a woman suffers from depression prior to becoming pregnant chances are she will suffer from depression afterward regardless of whether she terminates or gestates her pregnancy.  These same studies have consistantly proven that there is no link between feelings that follow an abortion and a psychological condition in need of medical care.  The fact that women are relieved after they've ended their pregnancies troubles you?  I find that statement really odd.  Perhaps it bothers you that these women do not put the same value on their embryo/fetus as you do.  Why on earth should a woman have any interest in what a third party (with no stake in the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy) thinks or feels about her embryo/fetus?

    what inherent value does the unborn life possess?

    The value of a zygote/embryo/fetus is whatever the woman in who's uterus it resides gives to it. 

    Why is its life always expendable, even if it is possible to save both mother and child?

    Okay… first I'll state (for the record) that there is no "child" (there is a zygote/embryo/fetus depending on the length of pregnancy) and, unless the pregnant woman has previously given birth, there is no "mother" (I was an "expectant mother" prior to the birth of my first child).  I only state those facts because it appears as if you're using emotional words in an attempt to make your point.  Also… how is it possible to "save" the z/e/f once it is outside of the womans uterus?  I mean, if a woman doesn't wish to remain pregnant because she doesn't want to gestate and give birth to a child your question would be irrelevant.

  • invalid-0

    If it isn’t alive because it exists inside the mother, when does it start to live? If everything but the foot of the baby was delivered from the mother,would it be acceptable to kill it?

    http://www.studentorg.umd.edu/sfl/embryoscopy.html

  • harry834

    the vast majority of abortions take place much earlier than that stage you are describing.

    • invalid-0

      “The baby’s heart has been beating since about 21 days after conception. The brain has been functioning since about 42 days.

      By seven weeks, the lips are sensitive to touch. The baby’s mother is about to miss her second period.”

      I think that a lot abortions take place after this.

      How could you say that even though the fetus is alive, it is not a person? How do you define ‘person’, then? As I asked before, when do you think life begins, if it doesn’t begin in the womb?

      Only in cases of when the woman is going to die unless she has an abortion should abortion be legal. A woman’s rights are not predominant over the child’s rights. The child has a right to choose too, whether he is allowed to live. We should recognise that right, especially the mother. The mother and the baby both have the right to choose, they both have the right to choose what is best for them. But no person has a choice to decide whether or not a human being should live!

      Let’s say the fetus is dead. That it is not a person yet. Doesn’t it bother you that a mother has just terminated a person who was GOING to be a human? Who was going to be a son, or a daughter, or a mother or a father, who may find the cure for cancer, be the president, etc.? A thing who was going to grow up to be another person, who has the same rights that you do?

  • janine

    and, by definition, a fetus prior to viability is incapable of life.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, women would have a complete right to terminate the baby if he weren’t alive.

    How can something already dead be terminated?

    But he IS alive and completely seperate from the mother

    No, the fetus is totally dependent on the mother’s body until viability. And it hasn’t the right to force the woman to continue carrying to term if she doesn’t want to. She’s not a brood mare.

    Not trusting them to make the best decision for themselves is a funny way to show you “care”. Setting up fake “health clinics” to scare women with misinformation is a funny way to show you “care”.

    The woman has EVERY right to decide when to have a child. If she didn’t, who has this right? The government? The father? The fetus certainly doesn’t. The right to life mentioned in the constitution is extended only to born people,not fetuses.

  • invalid-0

    Hmm, actual studies. A brief search found this. Here’s an excerpt:

    Dr. David Reardon, who directs a post-abortion research and education organization known as the Elliot Institute, sees this association with prior depression as evidence of the need for abortion providers to provide better screening and counseling. “Clearly, this study shows that abortionists should be screening for a history of depression,” he said. “It also confirms a large body of earlier research that shows that prior psychological problems are more likely to be made worse by abortion, not better.”

    Reardon says that Major’s study has merit, but he insists that it is inappropriate to conclude that abortion is a benign experience for most women. “The biggest shortcomings of this study are the high dropout and refusal rates,” he said.

    “The value of a zygote/embryo/fetus is whatever the woman in who’s uterus it resides gives to it,” you wrote. Yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus as property that she may destroy, but not sell, that being against the law. You oppose this stricture?

    For the record, a child, according to the online Free Dictionary,here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/child, is

    1. A person between birth and puberty.
    2.a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
    b. An infant; a baby.
    3. One who is childish or immature.
    4. A son or daughter; an offspring.

    Answers.com here: http://www.answers.com/topic/mother defines a mother as

    A female person who is pregnant with or gives birth to a child.
    A female person whose egg unites with a sperm, resulting in the conception of a child.
    A woman who adopts a child.
    A woman who raises a child.

    I use emotional words like “mother” and “child” to make a point, do I, as though they have no objective factual reality to them, while you use of z/e/f acronym so as to dehumanize the targets of your will to destroy. Has it NEVER occurred to you that “saving” the life of, say, a viable unborn “child” for its own sake should be given some positive consideration, or should it always and everywhere be the case that no matter how advanced the pregnancy, if the “mother” wants her “child” dead, then die it must, even post-delivery?

    • invalid-0

      Dr. David Reardon, who directs a post-abortion research and education organization known as the Elliot Institute,

      The Elliot Institute is a pro-life front group that hides behind a scientific sounding mission statement. But it just dresses the same old anti-abortion dog-and-pony show in a white coat. Some of their work concerns proving the existence of the phony “post abortion stress syndrome”(PASS). A syndrome which the American Psychiatric Association says does not exist.

      I use emotional words like “mother” and “child” to make a point, do I, as though they have no objective factual reality to them, while you use of z/e/f acronym so as to dehumanize the targets of your will to destroy. Has it

      Seriously. Lets talk semantics. You prefer to appeal to emotion,we prefer to make our appeals to reason.
      Our medically correct terminology is just propganda or rhetoric to you. Now we’ve established your attitude, I wonder where you get the idea we want to “dehumanize” the fetus? I can’t tell you how many times some pro-lifers on discussion boards or in chat rooms have accused pro-choicers of “dehumanizing”, or even “hating” zefs. (My favorite is the woman who was convinced of the existence of “anti-embryo bigotry”).

  • mellankelly1

    I love the study of linguistic semantics and the philosophical questions raised by linguistics as a science, it fascinates me, but I digress.

    Dr. David Reardon, who directs a post-abortion research and education organization known as the Elliot Institute

    Please do me a small favor.  Please research Dr. Reardon and his "education organization known as the Elliot Institute".  A more extensive search found this:

    • President Reagan asked the U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Kooop (who just happened to be an evangelical Christian and might I mention a HUGE abortion opponent) to issue a report on the negative health effects of abortion.  Know what he discovered?  ''The data do not support the premise that abortion does nor does not cause or contribute to psychological problems" (from his lips).  Later, he testified before congress that "… there is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material" and that the quality of the existing evidence  "could not withstand scientific and statistical scrutiny."
    • Jump ahead a few years and we have the American Psychological Association conducted studies (and reviewed Koop's documentation) and found  "The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress."
    • Jump ahead a few more years and we have the Vice President of the American Psychiatric Association write in the Journal of the American Medical Association that "there is no evidence of an abortion-trauma syndrome" and in a review article she wrote ""Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae.

    Now, there are many other doctors, researchers, professors, etc. who have done studies which support the APA and JAMA studies but I'm going to single out these two for obvious reasons:

    • Sarah Schmiege and Nancy Russo went a step further than Reardon when they conducted a study comparing the rate of depression following an unwanted pregnancy carried to term and an unwanted pregnancy that was terminated and found ""under present conditions of legal access to abortion, there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy." which directly disputed Reardons claims.  They also added this li'l nugget "Our results provide no support for the claim by Reardon and Cougle that terminating an unwanted first pregnancy contributes to risk of subsequent depression. Instead, our finding that the group that delivered before 1980 had a significantly higher risk of depression than all other groups directly contradicts the claim that terminating an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression, particularly for younger women."

    And thats that then.

  • mellankelly1

    For the record, a child, according to the online Free Dictionary,here:

    Sorry… I prefer medical dictionaries when speaking about medical procedures (call me crazy).  From the American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2007):

    child (chld)

    n.
    1. A person who has not yet reached puberty.
    2. A son or daughter; an offspring.
    3. A person not of legal age; a minor
    Regarding the medical definition of mother, which is:
    moth·er (mr) n
    n.
    1. A woman who conceives, gives birth to, or raises and nurtures a child.
    2. A female parent of an animal.
    3. A structure, such as a mother cell, from which other similar bodies are formed.

    I'm inclined to argue that given where the "or" is placed that the woman must concieve and give birth "or"… but that is just my nature and alas, dear Buford, I will concede that there is a possibilty that I am incorrect.

    while you use of z/e/f acronym so as to dehumanize the targets of your will to destroy

    Youch Buf… you think that you can speak for me?  Where are your manners?  I use medically correct terms and I am well within my rights to do so… use of those terms "dehumanizes" no one. And although the "targets of [my] will to destroy" sounds deliciously evil I think you went a tad overboard.

    And regarding this nonsense:

    Has it NEVER occurred to you that "saving" the life of, say, a viable unborn "child" for its own sake should be given some positive consideration, or should it always and everywhere be the case that no matter how advanced the pregnancy, if the "mother" wants her "child" dead, then die it must, even post-delivery?

    In those situations (mostly very much wanted pregnancies) the decisions should be made by the pregnant woman, her family and her doctor.  Period.  Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you or I be able to make that decision for her.

  • invalid-0

    Yes, a fetus prior to viabilty is incapable of life outside the uterus.
    < br/>
    I’m sure that you’re well-aware of that, it’s just important to be specific in this debate.
    < br/>
    Anonymous seems to either be misinformed about the pro-choice argument, or he or she is trying to make a strawman of us.
    < br/>

    If it isn’t alive because it exists inside the mother…

    No one has made (or should make!) a statement like this. We are all welll aware that a fetus is alive. (Unless, obviously, it’s a dead one.)

    …when does it start to live?

    A fetus starts to live whenever it starts to be a fetus. However, it was alive when it was an embryo, a zygote, a blastocist, and the sperm and egg that made it were alive. Just because something is alive and human does not make it a person. Even if it were, this would not be enough to ensure it protection from being aborted. Why? All persons have a right to bodily domain: being the sole ruler of their body and what is done to it. We have the right to defend this using lethal force, if neccessary, which is why killing an attempted murderer or rapist is not considered murder.

    If everything but the foot of the baby was delivered from the mother,would it be acceptable to kill it?

    Using only bodily domain as an argument? Probably not. Lethal force is not neccessary in order to separate it from her. (But that question was a completely irrelevent appeal to emotion, anyway.)

  • invalid-0

    Didn’t I say that we care for the women too? Don’t you think women also get effected [sic] by abortion?

    “Caring” about women is not a valid excuse to take away their rights. You may care deeply about women, but that does not give you the right to decide for them what they should do with their bodies or what risks they are allowed to take. If you’re opposed to abortion because you’re concerned about fetuses, stick to that. Claiming that you want to outlaw or restricat abortion rights to “protect” women from their own choices, their ability to make mistakes, is absolutely insulting. It assumes that women are childlike and incapable of making important decisions. And frankly, it’s not your job to protect people from making mistakes.

    And since when have the rights of one person been over another?

    I’m glad you asked!
    < br/>
    Inside one human body, there is only room for one human being to have full rights. As awful as it is, you can’t have it both ways. It’s either woman or fetus. If one has full rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it will automatically interfere with the other’s rights.
    < br/>
    Pro-choice people do not beleive in taking away a woman’s rights and giving them to her fetus. We think that the rights should go to the sentient being who owns the body, not the unconscious living being that is in there against her will.

    Yes, women would have a complete right to terminate the baby if he weren’t alive. But he IS alive and completely seperate from the mother, and so he has his own rights too, especially the right to live.

    What you’re advocating is taking away a woman’s right to bodily domain. Or, more specifically, the right to defend it using any force necessary.
    < br/>
    Contrary to what you’ve just said, the fetus (odd that you assume it’s male), is not “completely sepetate from the mother.” If it was, we wouldn’t be having this debate!
    < br/>
    As I’ve explained, it’s not possible for two living things to have the same rights to one body. To argue that the fetus has an absolute right to use this body without the woman’s consent is to give it a right that no born human being has.

    A mother doesn’t rule over her child and decide whether or not he’s fit to live.

    As already explained, the situations are not comparable.

    Also, I doubt a women’s depression after her abortion has anything to do with Pro-Lifers. If what the woman did was right, she wouldn’t be hurt by people saying “What you did was wrong!” especially to the point of depression.

    You severely underestimate the extent to which other people’s responses to a person determine their self-esteem. I’m appalled that you’d try to argue that constant harrassment, hatred, exclusion and shaming don’t damage people’s feelings. Do you honestly beleive that? Does that mean that when a kid gets bullied on the playground, it’s his fault that he feels bad? I mean, clearly if the kid wasn’t a loser and a failure and a nerd, he wouldn’t feel so bad!
    < br/>
    It’s disgusting that you’d try to defend harrassment of women by denying that it has any affect on them. If you’re trying to claim the moral high-ground, here’s a novel idea: how about sticking up for your side and saying that you don’t support harrassing women who have had abortions? Or, perhaps: actually doing that in the first place!

  • invalid-0

    not even the “post-delivery” scenario, should an American Heritage Medical Dictionary (AHMD) defined “child” be allowed to continue living if its AHMD defined “mother” wants it dead?

  • janine

    Hi Sayna,

     

    Yes, I agree but I'll add that the uterus is part of the woman, not the fetus – as I'm guessing you'd probably agree. The life capability of the uterus that exists is hers, due to her life alone. If she dies then it dies – and prior to viability she's keeping the fetus alive in spite of its own physical incapability for life without her life. I think its devaluing to women when po-lifers refer to the uterus as if these float outside of women, are some sort of disembodied organ not belonging to the woman, or not directly kept by alive her life- if my uterus with a non-viable fetus were removed together then both my uterus and the fetus would die from their own incapacity for life.

     

    I'd agree too that sperm and egg are alive and human – I'm with you – life is continuous.

  • mellankelly1

    not even the "post-delivery" scenario, should an American Heritage Medical Dictionary (AHMD) defined "child" be allowed to continue living if its AHMD defined "mother" wants it dead?

    Abortion is a moot point once a baby is born so I'm not understanding your "post delivery" scenario.  If you're talking about taking drastic measures to keep a terminally ill neonate alive then I will reiterate that

    the decisions regarding a terminal neonate should be made by its mother, her family and her doctor.  Period.  Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you or I be able to make that decision.

    • invalid-0

      I have in mind any abortion surviving neonate, who, absent immediate medical intervention, including the medically nebulous “drastic measures” that you have in mind, will die, and may die in any case, not because he/she is “terminally ill,” but because of injuries sustained from having been aborted.

      Should an abortive mother, in such instances, retain a veto over the potentially life saving medical care that her baby/child/neonate could receive, FOR ITS OWN SAKE?

  • invalid-0

    The abortions at issue with regard to Obama’s vote (which are the ones discussed in the article) are ones in which the “entity” is NOT inside the woman’s body anymore. In that case, the issue of whether or not to sustain the “entity” is not about the mother’s body anymore.

    I have seen other replies from you in this thread in which you have made that error.

  • invalid-0

    “If she dies then it dies”

    That’s not the case with regard to the abortions at issue in Obama’s vote, Janine. In those cases, “it” is ALREADY outside the mother, and therefore could be sustained quite apart from the mother. So your reply doesn’t address the abortions at issue.

    • janine

      You are very selective at reading – contrary to YOUR misunderstanding – my reply does indeed directly address Sayna's comment and the points within – as it was intended.

      • mellankelly1

        Isn't that a song by the Evil Baby Killers (EBK)?

  • invalid-0

    “All persons have a right to bodily domain: being the sole ruler of their body and what is done to it.”

    In the abortions at issue with regard to Obama’s vote (which is what the article was about), the fetus is already OUTSIDE the domain of the mother’s body. So in the cases at issue, your appeal to the mother’s bodily domain doesn’t work. It doesn’t address the issue of the article.

  • invalid-0

    “All persons have a right to bodily domain: being the sole ruler of their body and what is done to it.”

    In the abortions at issue with regard to Obama’s vote (which is what the article was about), the fetus is already OUTSIDE the domain of the mother’s body. So in the cases at issue, your appeal to the mother’s bodily domain doesn’t work. It doesn’t address the issue of the article.

    • invalid-0

      As you have apparantly failed to notice, this thread has gotten considerably off-topic. I was responding to a post about the abortion debate in general regarding the abortion debate in general. Not the article itself.
      < br/>
      Sorry for having confused you. I’ll make sure to simplify it next time.

  • invalid-0

    “And it hasn’t the right to force the woman to continue carrying to term if she doesn’t want to.”

    In the cases at issue in Obama’s vote, the woman is NO LONGER carrying. There is already complete separation. So your argument doesn’t address the cases at issue.

    • invalid-0

      but about a woman’s reproductive rights in general.

  • invalid-0

    “it’s not possible for two living things to have the same rights to one body. To argue that the fetus has an absolute right to use this body without the woman’s consent is to give it a right that no born human being has.”

    Sayna, in the cases at issue, there is already complete separation from the mother, so we’re not talking about “one” body anymore. So your reply doesn’t justify Obama’s vote at all.

    • invalid-0

      You seem to have misread my post. I was not talking about Obama’s vote, but abortion-rights in general.
      < br/>
      Thank you for your fanatical dedication to keeping everyone on-topic. I trust that in the future, you’ll spend time addressing every pro-life post that is off-topic as well. It really would be handy to have someone around to remind them not to derail the thread.

  • invalid-0

    “I often use the term “anti choice”, because any way you slice it, you guys are against my right to choose what I think is right for me in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.”

    In the cases at issue in Obama’s vote, the woman is no longer pregnant, since there is already complete separation. So your criticism doesn’t at all apply to the case at hand in Dana’s article.

    • invalid-0

      Your criticism of my post is irrelevant, as I was not completely on-topic at the time.
      < br/>
      Thanks, though, for spending so much of your precious time telling us all to stay on-topic.

  • invalid-0

    “The real question is why so many willing to protect life over a persons body only when it’s a fetus”

    Janine, in the cases at issue in Dana’s article, it’s not about the fetus vs. the mother’s body, since there is already complete separation between the two. So your reply misses the point.

  • invalid-0

    “If you’re talking about taking drastic measures to keep a terminally ill neonate alive then I will reiterate that the decisions regarding a terminal neonate should be made by its mother, her family and her doctor. Period. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you or I be able to make that decision.”

    First of all, not all these cases are “terminally ill,” so you’re bringing up a straw man. Now, in the case of a full nine-month term delivery in which the baby is not “terminally ill” but nevertheless needs some medical sustaining for a while for some reason, would you EVER think that the mother should be allowed to discontinue that medical sustaining if it’s not “terminally ill”? If not, then why would you permit it for the non-terminally-ill cases at issue in Dana’s article?

  • mellankelly1

    In the abortions at issue with regard to Obama's vote (which is what the article was about), the fetus is already OUTSIDE the domain of the mother's body. So in the cases at issue, your appeal to the mother's bodily domain doesn't work. It doesn't address the issue of the article

    it will not change the fact that when a Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy (which involves managing the pregnancy by the premature delivery of a stillborn) is performed (the majority of which are for fetal anomolies on women with very much wanted pregnancies), an injection of a medication is made into the fetus to assure that it will be stillborn.  Bottom line is that BAIPA is anti-abortion rights legislation (much like the Partial Truth Abortion Ban) and its main goal is to "chip away" at abortion rights which is the anti-abortion movements latest tactic.

    Further, if it's late term abortion, in general, that you take issue with, perhaps these women would be better suited to explain why it needs to remain safe and legal:

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/abortion_veto_4-10.html

    they all underwent the procedure and all testified before congress (against the so-called "Partial Birth" abortion ban) as to why IDX should remain a safe and legal option.  This excerpt is a bit lengthy but please read if you have the attention span:

    MRS. LINE:  My name is Mary Dorothy Line.  My husband,
    Bill, and I are honored to be here today to speak for the many women and families who have also come forward to tell their stories in opposition to this terrible legislation. 

         Last April we were overjoyed to find out that I was
    pregnant with our first child.  Nineteen weeks into my pregnancy, an ultrasound indicated that there was something wrong with our baby.  The doctor diagnosed a condition called hydrocephalus.  Every person's head contains fluid to protect and cushion the brain.  But if there is too much fluid, the brain cannot develop. 

         As practicing Catholics, when we have problems and
    worries, we turn to prayer.  As we waited to find our more from the doctors, our whole family prayed together.  My husband and I were very scared, but we are strong people and believe that God would not give us a problem if we couldn't handle it.  This was our baby.  Everything would be fine.  We never thought about abortion.

          But the diagnosis was as bad as it could be.  Our little
    boy had a very advanced textbook case of hydrocephaly.  All the
    doctors told us there was no hope.  We asked about in utero surgery, about shunts to remove the fluid, but there was absolutely nothing we could do.  I cannot express the pain we still feel.  This was our precious little baby, and he was being taken from us before we even had him.

         This was not our choice, for not only was our son going
    to die, but the complications of the pregnancy put my health in
    danger, as well.  If I carried to term, he might die in utero, and
    the resulting toxins could cause a hemorrhage and possibly a
    hysterectomy.  The hydrocephaly also meant that a natural labor risked rupturing my cervix and my uterus. 
        
         Several specialists recommended that we terminate the
    pregnancy.  I thank God every day that I had this safe medical option available to me, especially now that I am pregnant again and expecting a baby in September. 

         I pray every day, I really do, that this will never
    happen to anyone else.  But it will.  Those of us unfortunate enough to have to live this nightmare need a procedure that will give us hope for the future.

  • mellankelly1

    First of all, not all these cases are "terminally ill," so you're bringing up a straw man.

    The majority of late term abortions are done due to fetal anomaly or fetal demise so no, there was no "straw man" in my comment.  Of course, if you have proof to the contrary I would be most interested.

    Now, in the case of a full nine-month term delivery in which the baby is not "terminally ill" but nevertheless needs some medical sustaining for a while for some reason, would you EVER think that the mother should be allowed to discontinue that medical sustaining if it's not "terminally ill"?

    Straw man: A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.  Just what does your "for instance" have to do with the matter at hand?  Come on "not terminally ill but nevertheless needs some medical sustaining for a while for some reason".  Really?   If you want to discuss the cases at hand in Dana's article, perhaps you should read that article very slowly and carefully as it has nothing to do with your abovementioned "for instance".

  • janine

    "Janine, in the cases at issue in Dana's article, it's not about the fetus vs. the mother's body, since there is already complete separation between the two. So your reply misses the point."

     

    My reply is under Bufords response to Sayna – which does reference the instance of abortion/termination of pregnancy itself specifically and multiple times. I didn't reply to Dana's article directly with this comment – if I had, it wouldn't be embedded under Buford/Sayna's ongoing discussion as it correctly appears – as you can see.

  • invalid-0

    “My reply is under Bufords response to Sayna – which does reference the instance of abortion/termination of pregnancy itself specifically and multiple times. I didn’t reply to Dana’s article directly with this comment – if I had, it wouldn’t be embedded under Buford/Sayna’s ongoing discussion as it correctly appears – as you can see.”

    Janine, the fact that you are defending Sayna in this comment section under Dana’s article evidences that you would defend Obama’s vote concerning the type of procedure at issue in the article, in which delivery has already occurred. If I am incorrect about your position on that, please correct me. Otherwise, my previous reply stands.

    • janine

      If you actually take the time to read this commenting thread – the majority of it that starts with "Answer" talks about abortion, how women feel about abortion – back and forth, etc. Since when can someone not comment about a comment?…for your information – that's what the reply function IS for on comments – the one that you are using that embeds subsequent replies.

       

      Yes, your missing my point – I commented in reply to an abortion comment. If you have a problem with my post being about abortion and not specifically addressing Dana's arguments, why do you only start with a middle comment and choose to miss the point with other comments in the same thread that discuss abortion – and also don't mention Obama's vote about where "delivery has already occurred"? Very selective reading, Anonymous.

      • invalid-0

        “If you have a problem with my post being about abortion and not specifically addressing Dana’s arguments, why do you only start with a middle comment and choose to miss the point with other comments in the same thread that discuss abortion – and also don’t mention Obama’s vote about where “delivery has already occurred”?”
        >>>>
        Your reply is like someone seeking to escape a charge due to a technicality. The fact that you would even reply to a pro-life post in the comments section of this article is a de facto endorsement of Obama’s vote. No one who thought that Obama’s vote was too extreme would associate themselves with an article defending it. That’s my point. It’s pretty clear that you support far more than just abortion rights. You support leaving the neonates in question to die even after delivery has already occurred.

        That overall context of this article far overshadows the partiular thread you were pursuing.

  • invalid-0

    “The majority of late term abortions are done due to fetal anomaly or fetal demise so no, there was no “straw man” in my comment. Of course, if you have proof to the contrary I would be most interested.”
    >>>
    Kelly (I assume that’s your first name), the fact that a MAJORITY of late term abortions are due to fetal anomaly or demise is irrelevant, because I specifically referenced those cases in which there is no terminal illness. As for argument by “majority,” pro-choicers have no problem appealing to cases of rape and incest to defend abortion in general, even though those abortions comprise only 1% of the total. That’s also the problem with Dana’s argument in the article. So argument by “authority” hardly helps your case.
    >>>
    “Come on “not terminally ill but nevertheless needs some medical sustaining for a while for some reason”. Really? If you want to discuss the cases at hand in Dana’s article, perhaps you should read that article very slowly and carefully as it has nothing to do with your abovementioned “for instance”.”
    >>>
    It’s an argument by analogy, Kelly. If you really do study philosophy (I teach it at the university level), you would know that. It is a direct analogy to the case of a non-terminally-ill delivery of the kind at issue in Dana’s article. Your avoidance of an answer to my question is therefore completely telling.

    • mellankelly1

      Anonymous (if that is even your real name), I would like to clarify for you my position on abortion – I 100% support Roe v. Wade – I 100% support a womans right to terminate her pregnancy until viability for whatever reason she wants – I 100% support abortion post viability due to fetal anomaly or maternal health. 

      pro-choicers have no problem appealing to cases of rape and incest to defend abortion in general, even though those abortions comprise only 1% of the total.

      Ew.  This is disgusting… shameful even.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman is raped every 2 minutes.  The sheer number of rapes that go unreported (the F.B.I estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police, the Justice Department stats are even lower with only 26% of all rapes being reported to law inforcement ) is a travesty. The adult pregnancy rate associated with rape is estimated to be 4.7%. This information, in conjunction with estimates based on the U.S. Census, suggest that there may be 32,101 annual  rape-related pregnancies among American women over the age of 18.  Your trivialization of rape (and pregancy as a result of rape) and your attempt to belittle the instance of rape related pregnancy in order to further push your agenda is, in my opinion, vile.

      If you really do study philosophy (I teach it at the university level), you would know that.

      Oh, I weep for future American Academia…

      Your avoidance of an answer to my question is therefore completely telling.

      Simply because you do not like the answers that I give to your questions does not mean that I haven't answered them.

  • invalid-0

    Kelly, thanks for the article. I did have the attention span to read it, considering that I must deal with over 90 university philosophy students every day, many of whom present arguments far more coherent and intellectually advanced than yours. For example:
    <<<<
    “when a Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy (which involves managing the pregnancy by the premature delivery of a stillborn) is performed (the majority of which are for fetal anomolies on women with very much wanted pregnancies), an injection of a medication is made into the fetus to assure that it will be stillborn.”
    <<<<
    Since the bill was not about stillborn births, your reply is completely irrelevant. Would you agree that in cases of non-stillborn births, the survivor must be sustained? That was what the bill stated. So would you agree with THAT case, or not? Or will you avoid answering again?

  • invalid-0

    Here’s the complete reply:
    Kelly, thanks for the article. I did have the attention span to read it, considering that I must deal with over 90 university philosophy students every day, many of whom present arguments far more coherent and intellectually advanced than yours. For example: “when a Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy (which involves managing the pregnancy by the premature delivery of a stillborn) is performed (the majority of which are for fetal anomolies on women with very much wanted pregnancies), an injection of a medication is made into the fetus to assure that it will be stillborn.”
    <<<<
    Since the bill was not about stillborn births, your reply is completely irrelevant. Would you agree that in cases of non-stillborn births, the survivor must be sustained? That was what the bill stated. So would you agree with THAT case, or not? Or will you avoid answering again?

  • invalid-0

    Not sure what went wrong, but here’s the complete reply again:
    Kelly, thanks for the article. I did have the attention span to read it, considering that I must deal with over 90 university philosophy students every day, many of whom present arguments far more coherent and intellectually advanced than yours. For example: “when a Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy (which involves managing the pregnancy by the premature delivery of a stillborn) is performed (the majority of which are for fetal anomolies on women with very much wanted pregnancies), an injection of a medication is made into the fetus to assure that it will be stillborn.”
    >>
    Since the bill was not about stillborn births, your reply is completely irrelevant. Would you agree that in cases of non-stillborn births, the survivor must be sustained? That was what the bill stated. So would you agree with THAT case, or not? Or will you avoid answering again?

    • mellankelly1

      Talking in all those circles?  Regarding the article and BAIPA, I agree with the NRP Steering Committee's opinion that "at the time of delivery… the medical condition and prognosis of the newly born infant should be assessed.  At that point decisions about withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile may be considered by… providers in conjunction with the parents acting in the best interest of their child."  Which is what I've consistantly said, time and again… these decisions should be between the woman, her family and her doctor.  Now, please stop being obtuse. 

  • invalid-0

    The point, Janine, that no one who thought Obama’s vote was too extreme would associate themselves with an article defending it. That’s precisely what you’ve done by even defending the pro-choice position in this comments thread. That overall extreme position on your part far overshadows the particular point you were making.

  • janine

    I didn't miss 'the point' – you simply have a different one –  you only have a problem when pro-choicers discuss abortion but not pro-lifers.  Your assumptions about how I feel about anything else that I did not comment or why I didn't are just that – simply your assumptions.  Assume away, it doesn't mean anything.

  • janine

    I stand by "my" points as made in my comments and threads.  Thats your decision to not comment at all in the type of an article in your example…that doesn't mean this criteria applies one way or another to all others.  Have fun heaping these assumptions on top of the other assumptions you've already made.

    I believe were on the 4th or 5th time you've missed my points.

  • invalid-0

    “Thats your decision to not comment at all in the type of an article in your example…that doesn’t mean this criteria applies one way or another to all others. Have fun heaping these assumptions on top of the other assumptions you’ve already made.”
    >>>>
    You are having the same problem as Dana. Dana is incredibly hypocritical in her article for appealing to the fact that the procedures in question comprise only a tiny percentage of all abortions, since pro-choicers regularly appeal to cases of rape and incest to make a general point about abortion even though those cases among to only about 1% of all abortions. Similarly, it is extremely hypocritical to pretend that the context of her article doesn’t reflect on the pro-choicers who comment here, when pro-choicers would have no hesitation whatsoever painting pro-lifers with a broad brush that includes abortion clinic bombers. Sorry, but your excuse is hardly sufficient to get you off the hook.

  • janine

    In your mind it might be "hardly sufficient" – but believe me – I won't loose any sleep over your opinion. Gotta love it, '…intellectual deficiency' – resorting to insulting remarks reflects more on the person making them.

  • invalid-0

    “In your mind it might be “hardly sufficient” – but believe me – I won’t loose any sleep over your opinion. Gotta love it, ‘…intellectual deficiency’ – resorting to insulting remarks reflects more on the person making them.”
    >>>
    I apologize if those words were personally insulting to you, Janine. I intended them to be simply factual observations, based on your line of argument so far. Wouldn’t you agree that it would be deficient for a pro-lifer to post in the comments section of an article defending an abortion clinic bomber, and not expect that to reflect on them? I myself would consider any pro-lifer who didn’t realize that to be deficient intellectually.

    That’s all I meant.

  • janine

    Your opinion is not factual observation….and yet underhandedly try the same again in the below statement.

    "Wouldn't you agree that it would be deficient for a pro-lifer to post in the comments section of an article defending an abortion clinic bomber, and not expect that to reflect on them? I myself would consider any pro-lifer who didn't realize that to be deficient intellectually." —- I've already commented this opinion of yours in a prior post – re-read if you've forgotten.

     

    Where's your reference to Obama's vote here!??! You've violated your own rules! Didn't you know you should only be commenting on Dana's original post and not solely in response to other comments in the thread?

  • invalid-0

    Regarding the intellectual deficiency of a pro-lifer who posted a simple defense of the pro-life position in the comments section of an article defending an abortion clinic bomber, you wrote:
    >>>>
    “I’ve already commented this opinion of yours in a prior post – re-read if you’ve forgotten.”
    >>>>
    This is was what you said to my last reference to that argument:
    >>>>
    “I stand by “my” points as made in my comments and threads. Thats your decision to not comment at all in the type of an article in your example…that doesn’t mean this criteria applies one way or another to all others.”
    >>>>
    So as you can see, Janine, you didn’t actually address the argument at all, but simply commented on your right to post about things other than the article. Do you see that that was your reply, Janine? A necessary condition of reasoned argument is recognizing when you did and did not actually address an argument, and not mistaking one for the other. I hope you will not continue to repeat this mistake.

    Where’s your reference to Obama’s vote here!??! You’ve violated your own rules! Didn’t you know you should only be commenting on Dana’s original post and not solely in response to other comments in the thread?

  • janine

    Its addressed, you just don't want to read.

     

    • invalid-0

      Oooh. Sounds like a grindcore band to me. They could go on a triple bill with the “Godless Puppy Kickers” and the “Wife Swappin’ Bastards.” What sonic possibilities.

  • mellankelly1

    I have in mind any abortion surviving neonate, who, absent immediate medical intervention, including the medically nebulous "drastic measures" that you have in mind, will die, and may die in any case, not because he/she is "terminally ill," but because of injuries sustained from having been aborted.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: The decision is between the woman, her family and her doctor.  As stated by the NRP Steering Committee regarding BAIPA "at the time of delivery… the medical condition and prognosis of the newly born infant should be assessed.  At that point decisions about withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile may be considered by… providers in conjunction with the parents acting in the best interest of their child."  I concur, regardless of what the circumstances of the birth were.

    • invalid-0

      I’m having trouble imagining the Bizarro world abortion-as-child-care scenario where “parents acting in the best interest of their child” who somehow survives being aborted, must then decide about “withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile,” as though the child is not writhing in its death throes for no other reason than that it has been ABORTED, as though its parents no longer want it dead since it survived the first attempt on its life. This is madness.

      No wonder you concur with the NRP Steering Committee, “regardless of what the circumstances of the birth were.”

      I also note that you make no mention of medical treatment that is NOT considered futile and may in fact save the aborted neonate’s life, if promptly administered. Why the omission?

      Incidentally, the American Academy of Pediatrics is ostensibly “Dedicated to the Health of All Children.” Presumably, this dedication even covers those children whose early deaths are facilitated for their own good, of course.

      • invalid-0

        Stop trying to catch her saying something so that you can take it out of context and make her look evil. It’s not going to happen, and it makes you look absolutely childish and unstable to be so obsessive.
        < br/>

        I also note that you make no mention of medical treatment that is NOT considered futile and may in fact save the aborted neonate’s life, if promptly administered. Why the omission?

        < br/>
        Because your question has been answered. You aren’t satisified because you can’t make her answer look bad, but it’s been answered.
        < br/>
        Your attempt to imply that late-term abortions are done for non-medical reasons is dishonest and has already been refuted. It’s a transparent, weak strategy. Give up.

      • mellankelly1

        I LOVED that movie (thank the Lord for linear films, no?).  I'm sorry that you have trouble imagining a "Bizarro world abortion-as-child-care scenario" although I emphathize as I'm having difficulty even following whatever that could mean.  Your questions are very odd indeed and in lieu of actual medical facts supporting your "post delivery" scenario you appear to be attempting, at least, to pry an answer out of me that would satisfy your need to pit myself and others that support abortion as "evil baby killers".  I am terribly sorry to deny you this very lofty goal.  For the record, I agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics dedication to "the health of all children" and do not see how this could even be compared to abortion as there are no children involved in the termination of a pregnancy… but you go on and keep reaching.  You may not believe this, but it actually helps.

        Oh, for the record… in my opinion, Sanya did a lovely job of answering your previous post and as this is a public site she was well within her rights to do so.  That it bothers you is completely irrelevant.

      • invalid-0

        you not only welcome, but you WANT government intrusion into a private matter.

        Bizarro world abortion-as-child-care scenario where “parents acting in the best interest of their child” who somehow survives being aborted, must then decide about “withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile,”

        This must be the Bizarro World of the pro-lifers where every decision which doesn’t jibe with pro-life philosophy must be second-guessed and legislated against with the upmost vigor.

  • invalid-0

    Let Mellankelly1 answer for herself, please, or has she delegated this responsibility to you?

    BTW, Google “For what reasons are late-term abortions usually performed?” and you’ll find this.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    “In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), an affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), collected questionnaires from 1,900 women who were at abortion clinics procuring abortions. Of the 1,900, “420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks.” These 420 women were asked to choose among a menu of reasons why they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. Only two percent (2%) said “a fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy,” compared to 71% who responded “did not recognize that she was pregnant or misjudged gestation,” 48% who said “found it hard to make arrangements,” and 33% who said “was afraid to tell her partner or parents.” The report did not indicate that any of the 420 late abortions were performed because of maternal health problems. [“Why Do Women Have Abortions?,” Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988.]

    But of course, any and all given reasons for a late-term abortions qualify as “medical,” don’t they, Sayna?

  • mellankelly1

    But of course, any and all given reasons for a late-term abortions qualify as "medical," don't they, Sayna?

    Yes, I would say that when there is a threat to the womans health or life that would qualify as "medical".  And since most women site several reasons for mid to late term abortions, including maternal health I would say that does qualify as medical".

    BTW, Google "For what reasons are late-term abortions usually performed?" and you'll find this. Heres an exerpt:

    You pulled this off of a nrlc org site (http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/pbafact.html) so obviously, with their limited agenda they did not include the complete story from the AGI. The AGI released this http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ib14.html in reference to the above statistics regarding the Limitations of U.S. Statistics on Abortion.

    Some further info: 

    The survey deliberately oversampled women having abortions beyond 15 weeks of gestation, although the number was still relatively small (420).  Also this:

    Most of the women reported that more than one factor contributed to their decision, with the average number of reaso ns being four.

    But without misinformation or partial information and pseudoscience, these people would have nothing.  If you want a thorough reasearch you can goto JAMA but it will cost you.  Another great source of information is the CDC (where AGI generally obtains their information).  You are including mid term abortion with late term abortions, but you probably already knew that.  If you want to stick with your original issue, that being a "viable" fetus, than you need to stick with women who have terminated past 21 weeks (clearly, a fetus isn't "viable" at 16 weeks).

     

  • janine

    She can add another related level of prejudice called "anti-tampon-embryo bigotry"…poor little tampon babies, not even pro-lifers care to protect and fully recognize them as babies.

  • invalid-0

    because, while RH Reality Check, encourages debate and dialogue on these issues we do not condone or encourage comments that insult our writers or devalue their contributions through name-calling.

  • invalid-0

    The baby’s heart has been beating since about 21 days after conception. The brain has been functioning since about 42 days.

    By seven weeks, the lips are sensitive to touch. The baby’s mother is about to miss her second period.”

    So what? That doesn’t magically give the fetus rights that superedes the mother’s

    I think that a lot abortions take place after this.

    You THINK? Just guessing isn’t good enough.

    Only in cases of when the woman is going to die unless she has an abortion should abortion be legal.

    Good thing your opinion isn’t the law of the land then.

    A woman’s rights are not predominant over the child’s rights. The child has a right to choose too, whether he is allowed to live. We should recognise that right, especially the mother.

    Yes,her right to bodily integrity is paramount.The fetus has no right to be born. And while I’m at it,how is a non-sentient human able to “choose”, hm? Again,how fortunate your opinion isn’t the law of the land.

    The mother and the baby both have the right to choose, they both have the right to choose what is best for them. But no person has a choice to decide whether or not a human being should live!

    The woman is sentient and she has the right to make her own decision,but the fetus isn’t and it cannot choose. The woman,who has the right of bodily integrity,can and should be able to without government interference.

    Let’s say the fetus is dead. That it is not a person yet. Doesn’t it bother you that a mother has just terminated a person who was GOING to be a human? Who was going to be a son, or a daughter, or a mother or a father, who may find the cure for cancer, be the president, etc.? A thing who was going to grow up to be another person, who has the same rights that you do?

    What if,shoulda,coulda,woulda. That fetus could have been the next Hitler, the next Pol Pot, the next Kim Jong Ill, the next G.W. Bush,et al. Speculation and pie-in-the-sky fantasizing is useless. GOING to be a human? Anon,the fetus already is human-it’s just not a person with full citizenship rights.

  • invalid-0

    A baby doesn’t have the voice to choose, because it doesn’t yet know how to reason. Neither can the severely handicapped, or the people in comas choose, but that doesn’t give us the right to make the choice for them to die.
    I’m pretty amazed that you told me the fetus has no right to live. Read this, and tell me what you think:
    http://www.gargaro.com/abortion.html

    You say the fetus is human, and not a person; ok, so why is the fetus not a person? Last I checked, human and person were the same thing.
    So a preborn baby at 3 months is somewhat of a human being, but a newborn is more of a human being.
    “So — is a 10-year-old boy or girl more a human being than a 1-year-old? Is a politician or athlete more a human being than a wheelchair-bound paraplegic? Can we really stratify intrinsic human dignity and worth? Is human equality a myth? This sort of thinking forms the basis for demeaning entire classes of people. Ultimately, it denies them their humanity. The 20th century gave ample evidence of the depravity of such thinking.
    It is not “potential to become a person” that entitles a human embryo to legal and moral status. It is part of the fabric of natural and biological law that the human embryo’s actuality of being human entitles him or her to legal and moral status.”

  • invalid-0

    Kelly, thanks for the article. I did have the attention span to read it, considering that I must deal with over 90 university philosophy students every day, many of whom present arguments far more coherent and intellectually advanced than yours. For example:
    <<<<
    “when a Fetal Indication Termination of Pregnancy (which involves managing the pregnancy by the premature delivery of a stillborn) is performed (the majority of which are for fetal anomolies on women with very much wanted pregnancies), an injection of a medication is made into the fetus to assure that it will be stillborn.”
    <<<<
    Since the bill was not about stillborn births, your reply is completely irrelevant. Would you agree that in cases of non-stillborn births, the survivor must be sustained? That was what the bill stated. So would you agree with THAT case, or not? Or will you avoid answering again?

  • invalid-0

    Thank you for the clarification about your general position on abortion, Kelly. Now could you clarify your position on the specific case of a non-stillborn case of the procedure at issue in Dana’s article, which are the cases that the bill dealt with? Do you agree with the bill that in those cases, in which a non-stillborn delivery occurred after such a procedure, the neonate must be sustained?

    Or will you again mistake a non-answer for an answer that I don’t like?

    As for weeping for Academia, perhaps if you achieved an advanced degree, you would have the perspective to judge on that issue.

  • invalid-0

    “I didn’t miss ‘the point’ – you simply have a different one – you only have a problem when pro-choicers discuss abortion but not pro-lifers.”
    >>>>
    Janine, you must stay focused if you are to follow the intricacies of the point. What you are doing is equivalent to a pro-lifer posting a simple defense of the pro-life position in the comments section of an article that defended an abortion clinic bomber. That context would reflect on the pro-life poster, even if the content of the specific post did not defend anything like abortion clinic bombings. As a pro-lifer myself, I would never even associate myself with such an article by posting in its comments section, precisely because doing so (without explicitly distancing myself from it, which you have not done with regard to Dana’s article) would reflect on me. So you are quite incorrect to conclude that my inferences about your support for Obama’s vote are just assumptions. They are inferences gathered reasonably from the context, as well as your continued (and conspicuous) lack of explicit repudiation of Obama’s vote.

  • mellankelly1

    I have three children and one of them happens to be 15 so I'm very used to the type of commenting that you've supplied us all with.  While it can be, at times, "mildly amusing" it is for the most part just plain tiresome.  You can continue to count the ways in which myself and others on this thread have presumably let you down with our inferior intellect but I have a feeling that nobody here is buyin' whatchyer sellin'.  And yes… I weep, I weep for Academia.  Keep fightin' the good fight "Anonymous".

  • mellankelly1

    I know you're trying to tell me something, but alas, what is it… what is it?  And why on earth did you post it twice?  You're a strange bird, Anonymous, PhD.