Co-Opting of Jewish History and Faith Hits All Time Low in Planning of Wichita Anti-Choice Memorial


It is safe to say that the anti-choice movement is a right-wing conservative, often fanatical Christian movement. In fact, its leaders often hold a great disdain and in some cases a deep abiding hatred for other established faiths. 

Pastor Mark Holick illustrates this well. Holick is one of the key backers of the “pro-life memorial” being planned for Wichita, Kansas. He makes no bones about the fact that he really hates Muslims. He even thinks President Obama is a Muslim:

In fact, Mark Holick was arrested at and then banned from the Islamic Society of Wichita. Holick makes the following statement from the pulpit of his church in this video:

This thing called Islam?  Straight from hell.  They do not believe Jesus was raised from the dead and they do not believe he is God.

Thing is… a number of religious traditions do not hold that Jesus was raised from the dead and that Jesus is not God, including Judaism. That hasn’t stopped Holick and his fellow pro-life memorial planners from including an “exact replica in his plans for a “pro-life” memorial of the Wailing Wall at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.” In an interview with RH Reality Check, Kansas City Rabbi, Douglas Alpert, called the planned memorial and replica ”morally repugnant.” Rabbit Alpert went on to say, “Their co-opting of an important Jewish symbol is insulting.” 

Wichita’s “pro-life memorial” will also include 60 crosses “symbolizing 60 million abortions” and will be a part of the same memorial as the Jewish Wailing Wall replica. There is an obvious disconnect within their symbolism, and when asked directly by a local reporter if this was a Christian or an interfaith effort, the memorial organizers stated, quite definitively that it was a Christian memorial. It seems like the organizers don’t want to be welcoming to Jews, but are just fine stealing their faith’s sacred symbols from and using their historical suffering toward anti-choice political ends. 

The radical anti-choice movement has long incorporated a “holocaust theme” within its rhetoric and lore. It is offensive to many people within the Jewish community. The use of the holocaust theme in the anti-choice film “180” prompted the following statement from a Holocaust survivor:

The film is a perverse attempt to make a case against abortion in America through the cynical abuse of the memory of those killed in the Holocaust,” said ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman, a Holocaust survivor. “Not only does the film try to assert a moral equivalency between the Holocaust and abortion, but it also brings Jews and Jewish history into the discussion and then calls on its viewers to repent and accept Jesus as their savior.

In an interview with RH Reality Check one pro-choice Jewish woman stated, “The Jewish faith is by and large pro-choice and the continuous use of the holocaust in the promotion of their terrorism is despicable. The termination of a pregnancy, representing the “unborn” is not the same as the slaughter of millions of living people.”

Thus the builders of the “memorial” are taking their movement’s holocaust theme to an all-new level of offensiveness by using the Holocaust to promote an agenda that runs counter to the teachings of Judaism on many levels. This disconnect was articulated just this week by Michigan’s Representative Lisa Brown, who spoke about her faith, religious freedom, and women’s health.

The following is transcribed from a the video of a Michigan House debate that took place this week surrounding a sweeping anti-choice bill, that bans all abortions after 20 weeks with no exception for the health of the woman. 

“Yesterday we heard the Representative from Holland speak about religious freedom, I’m Jewish.   Judaism believes that therapeutic abortions, abortions performed to save the life of the mother are not only permissible, but mandatory the stage of pregnancy does not matter.  Whenever there is a question of the life of the mother or that of the unborn child Jewish law rules in favor of preserving the life of the mother.  The status of the fetus as human life does not equal that of the mother.  I have not asked you to adhere to my religious beliefs, why are you asking me to adopt yours?”

Rabbi Alpert agreed wholeheartedly with Rep Brown’s statement. He went on to say:

Any legislation that fails to make an exception for the health of the mother is clearly in opposition to Jewish law. I would never deny Catholics or any other religion the basis of their faith, but I don’t want anyone to force their perspectives onto me.  That is where the ultimate obstacle toward agreement will never be overcome. 

There is a lot of talk of religious freedom in national Affordable Care Act contraception debate and in red state political debate, but the complete disregard for non-Christian faiths is often disparagingly apparent in the political world. 

One example of Christian political pandering was exhibited this year during a Kansas state capitol ceremony held on the “National Day of Prayer.” Non-Christian groups were not included in this ceremony, but Jewish tradition and symbols were appropriated for the purposes of the event. From the Topeka Capitol-Journal…

At one point, the Rev. Earl Pickard, the director of the Campus Crusade for Christ Ministry Prayerworks, blew into a shofar — a ram’s horn used for Jewish religious purposes — before offering a prayer for Israel in both Hebrew and English.  “For Zion’s sake, we will not be quiet,” he said. “For Jerusalem, we will not be silent.”

He concluded the prayer in the name of “the Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Rabbi Debbie Stiel, of Temple Beth Sholom in Topeka, said her synagogue wasn’t invited to participate in Thursday’s event, which fits an ongoing pattern at the Capitol.

“It’s frustrating to us as a Jewish community that things that are done at our Statehouse are often not very interfaith,” she said. “The prayers offered in the chambers are often clearly done in a Christian perspective. The Day of Prayer should be something everyone can participate in.” Stiel said legislators should make more efforts to “build bridges” between people of different faiths.

The hijacking of Jewish monuments, symbolism and history would indicate that bridge burning is more the style of the anti-choice movement in Kansas. 

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

Follow Kari Ann Rinker on twitter: @karivelvet

  • fivehole

    The Jewish faith IS Christianity’s history.  Jesus Christ was a real live Jewish man.  The Christian faith is an extension of Judiasm.  It is impossible for Christians to hijack their own history.

     

    Please research your religions better before you write articles.  Thanks.

     

  • crowepps

    While it is true that the roots of the Christian faith were Jewish, and that Jesus was Jewish, the Christian faith as it is currently practiced excludes the most important signifiers of Judaism, its matrilineal inheritance, circumcision, and purity laws, and therefore would be more accurately described not as an ‘extension’ but as a heresy.

  • fivehole

    Thanks for confirming that the roots of Christianity ARE Jewish.   You mistakenly said ‘were’ and there is no way this historical FACT can ever be changed.   

     

    As I said, it is impossible for Christians to hijack what is already ours. 

  • jenadamo

    What are you saying?

    Are you simply arguing semantics or do you contend that since Christianity is rooted in Judaism, it’s OK to disregard or disrespect the tenets of the faith as they choose to STILL interpret and practice it?

    Should Jews not be insulted by this …. mucking with… the symbols and icons of Judaism?

  • fivehole

    If Christians are not offended that Jews don’t believe Christ is the Son of God, you have no reason to be offended that Christians use symbols and icons that represent the history of their faith.

  • jennifer-starr

    I find it offensive when anti-choicers compare abortion to the Holocaust, yes I do. It’s demeaning to the actual holocaust.  And groups that call themselves ‘Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust’ merely because they were born after a certain year–not because they actually survived anything–are very offensive. 

  • colleen

    As I said, it is impossible for Christians to hijack what is already ours.

    The Wailing Wall does not belong to right wing Christian theocrats. Neither do the bodies and persons  of women. This display is disgusting and offensive. Right in there with the Mormons baptising holocaust victims as Mormons again and again and again.

  • colleen

    If Christians are not offended that Jews don’t believe Christ is the Son of God

    The majority of people on the planet don’t believe this and for good reason.  Christians have been offended by this fact for 2,000 years and have often responded by killing those people who do not believe what they believe. The history of Christianity is written with the blood of those who do not believe that your Jesus was the son of God.

     

     

     

  • maiac

    How on earth is not sharing one’s beliefs the same as (or even analgous to) using the symbols and icons of one’s faith in a way that is contrary to that faith?

     

    I mean, I could understand if your point was something along the lines of pointing out that Jews have appropriated Christian symbols, so it’s all hunky-dorey. But in this case, you seem to believe that co-option and non-participation are the same thing. 

     

    Words have meanings, my friend… words have meanings.

  • crowepps

    The roots of Christianity as originally established by Jesus were indeed Jewish.  The connection with those roots was severed at the point where Paul of Tarsus started worrying about being able to ‘sell’ the faith to others and how it couldn’t become ‘popular’ including Jewish practices.  At that point, he severed the Jewish roots of the faith, and Paul initiated the first campaign to demonize and exterminate Jews who wouldn’t give up their original practices.

    The pseudo-christian evangelicals in existence today not only are continuing their attempts to conflate themselves with the Jewish faith in order to give their recently established ‘Born-Again’ cult an honored ‘history’, they are continuing the traditional attempt to wipe out Jews, though conversion this time, in order to obliterate the evidence.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    Ineresting how RH takes offence at this … but is only too willing to give platform to Catholics for Choice.

  • jennifer-starr

    Since Catholics for choice is actually Catholic, I fail to see the analogy here. 

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    Per Catholic Canon Law:

     

    “The Church encourages the Christian faithful to promote or sustain a variety of apostolic undertakings but, nevertheless, prohibits any such undertaking from claiming the name Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority (see canon 216 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law).”

     

    Catholics for Choice can not claim to be a valid Catholic organization without the consent of the Church, no more than “Planned Parenthood Employees against Abortion and Contraception” could be a valid voice for PP without its consent. The Catholic Church preaches X. Since Catholics for Choice campaigns against X, I think they’ve excluded themselves from what could be considered Catholic (in name or form).

     

    The analogy is that RH claims Jewish symbolism is being hijacked. Catholics for Choice hijacks the name of the Catholic Church to spread their views. They are not a Catholic organization, yet RH gives them a platform to fly their false colors.

     

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/06/catholics-for-choice.html

  • prochoiceferret

    Per Catholic Canon Law:

     

    Says who? The same Church officials who allowed children to be abused by priests?

     

    Catholics for Choice can not claim to be a valid Catholic organization without the consent of the Church,

     

    Well now, that’s pretty convenient for the Church, isn’t it? Makes you wonder why Republicans don’t pass a law that prohibits Democrats from holding office without the consent of the RNC.

     

    no more than “Planned Parenthood Employees against Abortion and Contraception” could be a valid voice for PP without its consent.

     

    I think they would have a hard time staying employees long enough for that group to be formed in the first place.

     

    The Catholic Church preaches X. Since Catholics for Choice campaigns against X, I think they’ve excluded themselves from what could be considered Catholic (in name or form).

     

    No, I think it’s the Church hierarchy that’s excluded themselves from the teachings of Christ. It’s pretty obvious, if you compare what Christ taught to what they spout.

     

    Catholics for Choice hijacks the name of the Catholic Church to spread their views. They are not a Catholic organization, yet RH gives them a platform to fly their false colors.

     

    They may not represent the same kind of Catholicism as those currently residing in a certain neighborhood of Rome. But then, I would think that the impostors would be identifiable by their teachings not aligning with Christ’s, as opposed to their mailing address.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    Ah, we are starting off in fine form with an Ad hominem!

     

    “No, I think it’s the Church hierarchy that’s excluded themselves from the teachings of Christ. It’s pretty obvious, if you compare what Christ taught to what they spout.”

    “They may not represent the same kind of Catholicism as those currently residing in a certain neighborhood of Rome. But then, I would think that the impostors would be identifiable by their teachings not aligning with Christ’s, as opposed to their mailing address.”

     

    Now that’s a whole different arguement. I didn’t make claims about the truth of the Church (though I would argue for it if that was the topic, which you can’t seem to stay on), but rather that it has a distinct corperate identitiy. If another entity preaches against the most important doctrines held by the Church, I don’t think it shares that corperate identity. Let’s change my analogy to “Planned Parenthood Suporters against Contraception.” At the point where it goes against what is most important to PP, it ceases to relate to the corperate identity of PP. Same with Catholics for Choice. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, and though some of its suporters may choose the moniker ‘Catholic’, they have perforce distanced themselves from the corperate identity of the Church. It makes no sense for there to even be a Catholics for Choice. It is not a valid organization – but simply an attempt to create confusion. And that is dishonest.

  • prochoiceferret

    Ah, we are starting off in fine form with an Ad hominem!

     

    Actually, I’m a Mustela putorius furo,  not a Homo adminum.

     

    Now that’s a whole different arguement. I didn’t make claims about the truth of the Church (though I would argue for it if that was the topic, which you can’t seem to stay on), but rather that it has a distinct corperate identitiy. If another entity preaches against the most important doctrines held by the Church, I don’t think it shares that corperate identity.

     

    So you’re saying this is basically just a case of trademark infringement?

     

    Let’s change my analogy to “Planned Parenthood Suporters against Contraception.” At the point where it goes against what is most important to PP, it ceases to relate to the corperate identity of PP.

     

    Why would someone who is opposed to contraception claim to be a supporter of Planned Parenthood? That is, why would such an organization exist in the first place?

     

    Same with Catholics for Choice. It has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church, and though some of its suporters may choose the moniker ‘Catholic’, they have perforce distanced themselves from the corperate identity of the Church.

     

    I suppose if the important thing for you is “the corperate identity of the Church” and not Christ’s actual teachings and the Church that was founded on same, then you might not be so keen on what Catholics for Choice represents.

     

    It is not a valid organization – but simply an attempt to create confusion. And that is dishonest.

     

    That’s how a lot of Catholics feel about the hierarchy in Rome. Which, curiously enough, has the track record to prove it.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    “So you’re saying this is basically just a case of trademark infringement?”

    Yes, that too, but most importantly they are misrepresenting Church teaching. Pro-choice ideas are simply not compatable with the philosophy of the Church. Likewise, you can’t be a Catholic and worship Athena. Catholics for Choice is promoting a philosophy that is fundamentally removed from that of Catholicism, and creating great scandal in doing so.

     

    “Why would someone who is opposed to contraception claim to be a supporter of Planned Parenthood? That is, why would such an organization exist in the first place?”

    Precisely! Why would someone who is in favor of contraception and abortion want to be a Catholic? That is, why would such an organization as Catholics for Choice exist in the first place?

     

    “I suppose if the important thing for you is “the corperate identity of the Church” and not Christ’s actual teachings and the Church that was founded on same, then you might not be so keen on what Catholics for Choice represents.”

     

    Non-sequitur, but I’ll bite. What do you take issue with – the Eucharist? Confession? Our statues of statues praying to Mary?

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Yes, that too, but most importantly they are misrepresenting Church teaching. Pro-choice ideas are simply not compatable with the philosophy of the Church. Likewise, you can’t be a Catholic and worship Athena. Catholics for Choice is promoting a philosophy that is fundamentally removed from that of Catholicism, and creating great scandal in doing so.

     

    Replace “pro-choice” with “anti-woman” and “Catholics for Choice” with “the pope,” and you’ll have a much more accurate picture of the current situation. If you were to somehow replace Herr Ratzinger with Jeffrey Dahmer, would official Church teaching then include that you should eat those whom you kill? Or do you think that what defines the Church is something more than who holds title to an exclusive Italian neighborhood?

     

    Precisely! Why would someone who is in favor of contraception and abortion want to be a Catholic? That is, why would such an organization as Catholics for Choice exist in the first place?

     

    Because maybe they represent real Catholicism, unlike the official Church?

     

    Non-sequitur, but I’ll bite. What do you take issue with – the Eucharist? Confession? Our statues of statues praying to Mary?

     

    The whole part about causing and aggravating human suffering rather than reducing it. But then, I suppose that’s a non-sequin for you too.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    *

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    ‘ Replace “pro-choice” with “anti-woman”‘

    As you wish. Anti-woman ideas are simply not compatable with the philosophy of the Church. And we consider pro-choice ideas to be inherently anti-woman and anti-life. The logical end of pro-choice philosophy looks something like this. As much as I’m sure you would argue that abortion isn’t “aggravating human suffering”, the philosphy underlying it comes with tremendous baggage.

  • prochoiceferret

    As you wish. Anti-woman ideas are simply not compatable with the philosophy of the Church.

     

    Which is one reason why the Church hierarchy in Rome has lost its claim to represent the continued presence of Christ on this earth.

     

    And we consider pro-choice ideas to be inherently anti-woman and anti-life.

     

    I suppose you might, if you disregard the real-world women and lives that have been saved and enhanced by policies that respect their reproductive rights, and stick to your preconceived notions of what they need and want.

     

    The logical end of pro-choice philosophy looks something like this.

     

    You don’t know very much about pro-choice philosophy, do you? And since when have conservatives been advocates for the disabled community, anyway?

     

    As much as I’m sure you would argue that abortion isn’t “aggravating human suffering”, the philosphy underlying it comes with tremendous baggage.

     

    Yes, like feminism, gender equality, and respect for human rights. Which the (false) Church has ardently fought against for a long, long time.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you are willing to ignore the fact that abortion justifies infanticide, or after-birth abortion as the article terms it. I don’t see how infanticide constitutes “respect for human rights.”

  • jennifer-starr

    This doesn’t even begin to make sense. 

  • prochoiceferret

    Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you are willing to ignore the fact that abortion justifies infanticide, or after-birth abortion as the article terms it.

     

    Yes, I also ignore the “fact” that the earth is only six thousand years old, and that we did not evolve from a common ancestor with primates. That is to say, things that are not facts, but are treated as such by the wishful thinking of a small, vocal, and rather reality-challenged group.

     

     I don’t see how infanticide constitutes “respect for human rights.”


    None of us here do either, which is why we don’t condone, let alone advocate for it.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    Per the original article:

    “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.”

    “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

    “On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

    Thus, the authors of the article skillfully use the pro-choice movement’s own logic to show how infanticide is justifiable. I think this summary ties it up nicely.

  • prochoiceferret

    Thus, the authors of the article skillfully use the pro-choice movement’s own logic to show how infanticide is justifiable.


    Many pro-choicers argue in favor of abortion rights in part based on a lack of personhood of the fetus. And that’s all fine and good when you’re talking about an embryo/blastocyst/fetus not developed enough to live outside the uterus, oftentimes even with extensive medical assistance.


    Obviously, things become fuzzy as you get closer and closer to birth, because the fetus becomes viable at a certain point, and then it might possibly be delivered early instead of being aborted. So personhood isn’t such a great argument then.


    The real basis of women having the right to an abortion, however, is the fact that a pregnancy makes use of their bodies in no small manner, and it has to be with their consent and their consent alone that they allow their bodies to be used in this way. A person owns their body; their body is for their own benefit, and is not subject to the prerogative of anyone else absent one’s consent. That’s why organ donation (especially living organ donation) is voluntary, and why a world where it isn’t would be really REALLY scary.


    And it’s also why talking about “abortion” after birth makes no sense at all. It’s like saying the right to lethal self-defense gives you the right to shoot a burglar dead in his living room, after he’s gone back home. You’ve focused so much on the “killing” part, that you’ve lost sight of why that right to “kill” exists in the first place, and where it ends.


    In other words, you’ve become the abortion-debate equivalent of folks who argue against same-sex marriage by raising the specter of people marrying trees.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    “In other words, you’ve become the abortion-debate equivalent of folks who argue against same-sex marriage by raising the specter of people marrying trees.”

    That would be true, except that in the “fuzzy zone” you speak of, they’ve already married their trees. There are a very few doctors in this country who will perform abortion well after viability, when, as you said, “it might possibly be delivered early instead of being aborted.” Unecessary late term abortions can be obtained weeks after viability. This article mentions abortions at 29 weeks, when viability is reached at 21 (and survival is notable by 23 weeks). This seems to corroberate what the authors of the paper said, which is that “the moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual”, as unecessary abortion is allowed on the fetus that is at the same age of preemies. The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at state beyond viability because (per the AAPLOG article) “termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby”, so ‘choice’ is not at issue.

     

    With ‘choice’ out of the way, it’s truly a very small leap to conclude that aborting a fetus at 29 weeks is morally equivalent to euthanizing a preemie at the same stage of development. The only difference I find between a preemie a late term fetus is location, which suggests that there is nothing inherrently wrong with destroying the neonate.

  • prochoiceferret

    That would be true, except that in the “fuzzy zone” you speak of, they’ve already married their trees.

     

    Is that a roundabout way of saying that accredited doctors, following established medical guidelines, have committed infanticide? Because that would be news to me.

     

    There are a very few doctors in this country who will perform abortion well after viability, when, as you said, “it might possibly be delivered early instead of being aborted.” Unecessary late term abortions can be obtained weeks after viability. This article mentions abortions at 29 weeks, when viability is reached at 21 (and survival is notable by 23 weeks).

     

    Yes, women sometimes need late-term abortions, which occur after viability. You are aware that pregnancies don’t always go as planned, right?

     

    This seems to corroberate what the authors of the paper said, which is that “the moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual”, as unecessary abortion is allowed on the fetus that is at the same age of preemies.

     

    The whole reason that abortion is permissible is because the fetus is inside the woman’s body, affecting her health and well-being. If it’s outside of her body, the whole point of having an abortion is rendered moot. It has nothing to do with how developed or not the fetus is—it could be playing Mozart inside her uterus and she would still have her right to abort.

     

    The woman’s bodily autonomy is no longer at state beyond viability because (per the AAPLOG article) “termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby”, so ‘choice’ is not at issue.

     

    Inducing labor and/or performing a Caesarian section are procedures that present their own risks. Sometimes, a woman’s doctor will determine that it is safer for her to have an abortion instead—and it is the woman’s right to choose what is safest for her.

     

    With ‘choice’ out of the way, it’s truly a very small leap to conclude that aborting a fetus at 29 weeks is morally equivalent to euthanizing a preemie at the same stage of development. The only difference I find between a preemie a late term fetus is location, which suggests that there is nothing inherrently wrong with destroying the neonate.

     

    No, it suggests that you’ve completely taken the pregnant woman out of the equation. Try telling your mother someday that your birth was no big deal, because hey, it was just a small change in your location.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    *

     

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    “Is that a roundabout way of saying that accredited doctors, following established medical guidelines, have committed infanticide? Because that would be news to me.”

    If you took a survey of human attrocities, you might find some particularly famous ones were done under the auspices of “established guidelines”. Truly, you would do well to avoid at least the extremely well known logical fallacies. This one is called Appeal to Authority.

     

    “Yes, women sometimes need late-term abortions, which occur after viability. You are aware that pregnancies don’t always go as planned, right?”

    Absolutely. We might find out that the fetus has Down Syndrome at 29 weeks. Ehhh, gross, kill it.

     

    “The whole reason that abortion is permissible is because the fetus is inside the woman’s body, affecting her health and well-being. If it’s outside of her body, the whole point of having an abortion is rendered moot. It has nothing to do with how developed or not the fetus is”

    Exactly. But after viability there are two options, and one does not involve killing someone. When the outcome is the same for the mother, I would argue delivery is an obligation. Both options approach 0% mortality, so by default, delivering the infant is proper thing to do.

     

    “Inducing labor and/or performing a Caesarian section are procedures that present their own risks. Sometimes, a woman’s doctor will determine that it is safer for her to have an abortion instead—and it is the woman’s right to choose what is safest for her.”

    C-section mortality is increadibly low, about 2×10^-5 percent (0.00002%), and risk from natural birth is about a third of that. I am not aware of any conditions where C-section poses a great risk. Though I’m sure you can find many few annecdotal testimonials about how “late term abortion saved my life”, I would love to see hard numbers showing poorer outcomes for C-sections compared to late-term abortion.

     

    “No, it suggests that you’ve completely taken the pregnant woman out of the equation. Try telling your mother someday that your birth was no big deal, because hey, it was just a small change in your location.”

    I never said birth wasn’t a big deal – I think birth is a very big deal. What I did say is that it doesn’t change the moral status of the fetus/infant. The fetus at 25 weeks of development has the same inherent qualities as the preemie born at 25 weeks. The only difference between them is location.

  • prochoiceferret

    If you took a survey of human attrocities, you might find some particularly famous ones were done under the auspices of “established guidelines”. Truly, you would do well to avoid at least the extremely well known logical fallacies. This one is called Appeal to Authority.

     

    Well, if you ever need to go in for major surgery, you can feel free to dismiss the need for your surgeon to be a licensed medical professional. No sir, no appealing to authorities or conforming to established guidelines for you!

     

    Absolutely. We might find out that the fetus has Down Syndrome at 29 weeks. Ehhh, gross, kill it.

     

    No, instead, you’ll say, “No, don’t kill it! I’ll pay all the associated medical and home care expenses for you, and take on all the resulting emotional, social and familial trauma!”

     

    Exactly. But after viability there are two options, and one does not involve killing someone. When the outcome is the same for the mother, I would argue delivery is an obligation. Both options approach 0% mortality, so by default, delivering the infant is proper thing to do.

     

    You really don’t know how obstetrics works, do you? Here, let me sprinkle some accuracy into your statement:

     

    Exactly. But after viability there may be two options, and one of them may or may not be an induced abortion. If the mother is willing to do it, I would argue delivery is an option. Both options present their own risks, so by default, respecting the woman’s wishes is proper thing to do.

     

    There, that’s better.

     

    C-section mortality is increadibly low, about 2×10^-5 percent (0.00002%), and risk from natural birth is about a third of that. I am not aware of any conditions where C-section poses a great risk.

     

    You do realize, death is not the only potential complication that women have a right to choose to avoid, yes?

     

    Though I’m sure you can find many few annecdotal testimonials about how “late term abortion saved my life”, I would love to see hard numbers showing poorer outcomes for C-sections compared to late-term abortion.

     

    Why is that? It’s not like any combination of numbers would convince you that abortion should be permissible anyway.

     

    I never said birth wasn’t a big deal – I think birth is a very big deal. What I did say is that it doesn’t change the moral status of the fetus/infant. The fetus at 25 weeks of development has the same inherent qualities as the preemie born at 25 weeks. The only difference between them is location.

     

    And, funnily enough, the right of a woman to have an abortion has a lot more to do with the location of the fetus than its so-called “moral status.”

  • crowepps

    To be fair, it’s my understanding that the Church believes Choice is a dangerous activity for *everybody*, and that it’s a good idea to check with the priest and make sure *anything* one might want to do has been tested and approved by *authority*.  After all, allowing people to look at the evidence and make up their own minds leads to nothing but disaster.  People aren’t supposed to think, they are supposed to OBEY.

  • thomas-cincaid-brannigan

    “Exactly. But after viability there may be two options, and one of them may or may not be an induced abortion. If the mother is willing to do it, I would argue delivery is an option. Both options present their own risks, so by default, respecting the woman’s wishes is proper thing to do.”

    So hypothetically speaking, if both options were availible, and the sucess of maternal outcomes were statistically equal, wouldn’t it then be ok to require live delivery over abortion? In the case where both these options have an equal effect on the mother, I think this would be reasonable.

  • prochoiceferret

    So hypothetically speaking, if both options were availible, and the sucess of maternal outcomes were statistically equal, wouldn’t it then be ok to require live delivery over abortion?

     

    Hypothetically, no. Because a woman is entitled to make the choice that is best for her particular circumstances, regardless of what’s up with most other women. Or did you forget that statistical likelihood is not the same thing as an iron-clad guarantee?

     

    In the case where both these options have an equal effect on the mother, I think this would be reasonable.

     

    Except for the fact that not even a doctor who is fully familiar with the patient’s case history can say for sure that “both these options [would] have an equal effect on the mother.” That’s not how medicine works.

     

    But it sure is funny to see you argue in favor of ham-handedly regulating medical procedures, when you don’t even understand what would be regulated in the first place.