President Obama, infanticide happens; Update: Physician license suspended
posted at 8:32 am on February 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
President Barack Obama in 2003 insisted that abortion clinics don’t commit infanticide because … well, because they’re doctors:
[T]he only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made the assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and in fact this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical procedures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.
Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation[.]
Eighteen and pregnant, Sycloria Williams went to an abortion clinic outside Miami and paid $1,200 for Dr. Pierre Jean-Jacque Renelique to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
Three days later, she sat in a reclining chair, medicated to dilate her cervix and otherwise get her ready for the procedure.
Only Renelique didn’t arrive in time. According to Williams and the Florida Department of Health, she went into labor and delivered a live baby girl.
What Williams and the Health Department say happened next has shocked people on both sides of the abortion debate: One of the clinic’s owners, who has no medical license, cut the infant’s umbilical cord. Williams says the woman placed the baby in a plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Police recovered the decomposing remains in a cardboard box a week later after getting anonymous tips.
Obama tried denying that this practice occurs in order to suck up to the abortion industry and help them avoid responsibility for killing live infants. Jill Stanek had already testified that she personally had witnessed this practice as a nurse at Christ Hospital in Chicago, which was affiliated with Obama’s own church, Trinity United Church of Christ. The Illinois legislature heard further testimony that as many as 40% of late-term abortions resulted in a live birth, whom staff would abandon until death rather than provide the necessary medical care to save the infants’ lives.
But Obama, in thrall of Planned Parenthood and Big Abortion, continued to deny it.
The story actually gets a little worse:
The complaint says one of the clinic owners, Belkis Gonzalez came in and cut the umbilical cord with scissors, then placed the baby in a plastic bag, and the bag in a trash can.
Williams’ lawsuit offers a cruder account: She says Gonzalez knocked the baby off the recliner chair where she had given birth, onto the floor. The baby’s umbilical cord was not clamped, allowing her to bleed out. Gonzalez scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag and threw it out.
Apparently this was preferable to “punishing” Williams with a child. At least that’s what Barack Obama thought in 2001-3, when he had an opportunity to defend innocent life and stop this practice.
Update: Jill Stanek notes that the physician’s license to practice has been suspended as a result of the investigation:
The Florida Board of Medicine has revoked the license of a doctor following a badly botched abortion the doctor never showed up to. …
The Board of Medicine revoked [his] license to practice medicine, at a hearing in Tampa. Neither Renelique nor his attorney would answer questions from ABC Action News.com.
Jill also catches an interesting quote from another link, which appears to be down:
Renelique’s attorney, Joseph Harrison, told the medical board, “His record of a lifetime of practicing medicine does not warrant revocation.”
The patient, Harrison said, “came in for an abortion. This patient came in to have the fetus rendered and terminated.”
The defense of this action is that “the patient wanted a baby killed, and that’s what she got”? Either that, or “What’s a little infanticide between colleagues”? Got it.
Also, the original Buffalo News report appears to have been cleansed. The Kid from Brooklyn send the link from the Boston Herald, which remains in its original form.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Oops. My link didn’t work. My link is genuinegopmom.blogspot.com
Thanks.
Lisa Graas
gocatholic on February 6, 2009 at 4:17 PM
That presumes people have a sense of responsibility, you give them too much credit. People make mistakes, that’s why pencils have erasers, why lawyers exist, why we have auto-repair shops and so on.
Adoption brings in the thorny issue of having a child and abandoning it. Is it fair to bring a child into the world and let it grow up wondering who its real parents are? Aborting a fetus may cause a little pain and suffering, but its nothing compared to a whole lifetime of it.
While sex for procreation may be true for animals, it isn’t for humans-we do it primarily for enjoyment and bonding with others. To avoid the consequences of sex (baby/stds) we use contraception.
We are not going back to world where these things didn’t exist and we already have enough of a population problem in the world.
Its great that you were happy to have your baby but it might not be right for others-so abortion becomes a necessity.
If there were a bunch of human embryos (potential babies) in a dish kept in a fridge at a doctors office and you were there with your son/daughter and a fire broke out, would you save the dish of embryos, or your child? Its obvious you’d save your child. But if the embryo is in the womb people make a big fuss over it.
I commend you on avoiding the use of religious dogmas in your argument. However being ‘responsible’ doesn’t mean one should be forced to live with the consequences for 20 years of their life.
That is like a prison sentence and think of the effect it’d have on the unwanted child when the mother sees him as a mistake and her punishment. Children are difficult to raise and they should only be brought into a loving home that wants them.
In fact I support licensing for having children because there are people who are financially, mentally or emotionally unfit to raise children. The upbringing of a child is not inconsequential-you could have a Mozart or a Hitler depending on how its raised (and its genes too).
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Under reasons for abortion (data is from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group), it says that rape or incest account for one percent, health of the mother account for 2.8 percent. Call it 4 percent total.
The CBS poll (the updated version from September, not the one on the WP page from 2006) on the question of legality (not personal opinion) shows that it is a statistical tie as to whether the remaining 96% should be legal. It is not a majority as earlier I had read the data erroneously. However, I have seen several other polls, including one from Gallup, that put the number in favor of banning that 96% in the solid majority.
With all due respect, this is a pinata of asininity. You can hit it from several angles and something foolish will fall out.
1) The citations on which I was commenting are from respected organizations of medical professionals, who are a hell of a lot more informed on the matter than the American population as a whole.
2) I have not once in this thread advanced a single religious argument against abortion.
3) If you have a problem with morality-based lawmaking, you are either spectacularly inconsistent or an anarchist. There isn’t a single law on the books that isn’t based on someone’s idea of what is right and what is wrong.
The developmental distinction between a fetus and a baby is no different than the distinction between a child and an adult. You are arguing semantics and location, not science.
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Isn’t the use of birth control or sex by infertile people evidence that beyond merely its biological function sex can serve many purposes in a relationship?
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Just as there are many today that are fighting the good fight against abortion. But your original statement was that not as many people today seem too upset about 50 million dead children as there were people upset about the killings during WWII.
Once again, the answer to that is because everyone not concerned with abortion has already been born. It’s a lot different when people are being sent to death camps and they lose sleep worrying about that midnight knock at the door.
Maxx on February 6, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Yes, it does. Maybe more, depending on what they’re being responsible for. We make choices, and we need to live with the consequences of those choices. I get high on crack, kill my neighbor. I go to prison, do rehabilitation, get out… I still have to live with that. I have sex, get pregnant, I have to follow through with the consequences and the responsibility that I have for that person inside me.
A woman should not have to think of that pregnancy as a punishment – if she does, she should seek counciling. It’s a natural consequence of sex (even if that sex was for pleasure, sex is still meant for reproduction). If she is not ready/able to raise the child, she can let someone else who can do it. Open adoptions are becoming quite popular, and there is little reason for that child to grow up not knowing. Even if the biological parents are not present, that child will grow up with full knowledge of who their parents are: the people raising him/her. You do not know that that child will suffer. It is not abandonment to give your child to capable adults to raise – it is abandonment to dump the baby in a garbage can, or to leave the poor thing on the park bench.
As to the fire in the doctor’s office – I have three kids. My hands would be full with my own, I don’t know how I’d have time to save anyone else. Would I save a petri dish of embryos? I wouldn’t have embryos of my own to save (I have no need for IVF, nor would I ever use it), and I have to admit I’d be more concerned with my own children than those of another, whether they were 16 years or 16 minutes. We’re in grey areas here – when an embryo is in the womb, something natural is going on. It is unnatural (to me) for embryos to be chilling in a petri dish. I do think this is a separate subject from abortion, related, but not the same.
As to licensing – if they were required, I would not have been able to have my children, any of them. My first was conceived when I was 19, single, and very immature, despite being in the military. My twins were conceived when my husband was stationed 3000 miles away (yes, they’re his), and at 5 months I was discharged from the Navy, leaving us with one income and two kids on the way. Things were tight. Not to mention the nearly two years of PPD that followed their births, where I was most definately mentally unfit. Despite things being less than perfect, my kids seem to be turning out fine. My daughter is 6, a wonderful artist, and is learning Mandarin “because it’s fun.” My elder twin was built to play football, and is fiercely protective of his younger and bigger brother – who’s a budding engineer and swimmer. They’re 3. You cannot predict how children are going to turn out based on preconcieved notions of how “fit” their parents are, especially when you don’t know them (or are the government).
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Didn’t say it was the only function, only the primary. In infertile couples, I suspect the drive to procreate is still there (else, why do some resort to artifical methods to reproduce). Won’t argue it’s bonding, but how many women who seek abortions are really, honestly bonding with their sexual partner?
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Also, about birth control – using it actually suggests that the original biological function of sex is to make babies, and that one must actively stop that function.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM
The newborn possesses a functioning brain that is aware. Human organisms that consist of a few cells do not. More than just location differentiates the two.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I did not say that there was no difference between a newborn and a fetus.
I said there are differences between the two just as there are between an adult and a child.
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Some women make decisions to not have children but still have a desire for sex and to bond with a man. Birth control serves the purpose of allowing them to physically love a man without becoming a mother.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
It sounds like you define “fetus” as a “human organism that consist of a few cells” is that correct?
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I know that, I’m not opposed to that. Still, what you’re saying backs me up. I never said that procreation is the only funtion of sex, but that it’s the primary (even if we’re not aware of that at the time). One can also show physical love without sex.
Anna on February 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Like the adult, a child possesses a functioning brain and an ability to feel pain. A zygote potentially will possess these qualities.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Infantacide happens?
Impeachment happens, too, “George”.
Curious.
seejanemom on February 6, 2009 at 4:57 PM
That would be INFANTiCIDE.
When I am on a tear…spelling is OVah….sorry.
seejanemom on February 6, 2009 at 4:58 PM
No. They are different classifications. Upthread the distinction was being blurred over. Though if someone has a position that life begins at conception or has the position that abortion should be legally permissible until birth, then the distinction isn’t important.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM
He did get money off of her if you recall.
1. Brain damage doesn’t mean brain dead.
2. MSNBC? Really? Try Michelle Malkin’s take http://michellemalkin.com/2005/06/16/the-schiavo-autopsy-a-sober-look/
I was being factitious.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Agree. The distinction is not important to my possition on thee issue. However more often than not I hear pro choicers refer to the fetus as a “clump of tissue” or a “few cells”. I think this is an incorrect, if not dishonest, way of referring to it, because a 4 month fetus is a lot more than a clump of tissue, and it does have a functional brain and the ability to feel pain, these functions do not spontaneously develop when the baby is born.
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Yes, the fetus gradually develops these capabilities. Yet, the dialog often seems to be between positions arguing either for near-infanticide or for full legal recognition of fertilized eggs that haven’t implanted. I think there are a lot of people in the country who are in between.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 5:33 PM
The doctor was already practicing on a restricted license (he could only perform abortions if another doctor was supervising). He was in violation of those rules, so I can’t see how taking his license away does anything.
The doctor apparently didn’t do a thing (other than not be there to assure that the baby was uniquely and completely) — it was the owner of the clinic who killed the “fetus” by knocking it off the table, trash-bagging it, and finally hiding the decomposing remains in a closet at the clinic.
It’s the owner who needs be brought to justice.
unclesmrgol on February 6, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Interestingly, the California state law governing murder makes no distinction as to the number of cells a human must possess to be human. It does specify an exemption to murder for the mother and her abortionist, regardless of the number of cells (or even the ability to think) possessed by the fetus.
unclesmrgol on February 6, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Agree. I just think that it would be helpful to the discussion if we agreed on the language that we use to describe the same thing, and to be intellectually consistent and honest when discussing what abortion is. It is usually not just removing a clump of cells and it is not infanticide, it is however, destroying a developing human life. The question is at what point in its development should the rights of that life begin.
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM
How can a person like this sleep at night? I can only imagine the haunting that abortionists deal with in general, but this woman is evil, and she has to know it.
RightWinged on February 6, 2009 at 6:09 PM
How? Try the callousness that this country has developed to the lives of babies over that last 40 years.
Jamson64 on February 6, 2009 at 6:50 PM
DING DING
You are correct. But conception cannot be the point. Only about 18% of the population really think that fringe position is acceptable. Live birth has always been a bright dividing line, but those who believe conception want to chip away at the birth line of demarcation. First the say, “well there is no difference between a viable fetus in the womb and a new born, so lets move the line back to viability.” Moderates on the issue say, “that sounds reasonable, I’ll go along with that.” Then we get into an issue of actual viability and viability with assistance of medical technology, then we get into various other developmental issues. Its a slippery slope and the pro-choice people do not want to go down that road, because they know the arguments are just being advanced disingenuously by abortion nutz that do not really believe in viability (or any other developmental level) but really believe in life at conception which is their ultimate goal. The abortion nutz are zealots that will never quit until the long arm of the government controls what goes on in every woman’s womb.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Very sad for minds such as yours.
RalphyBoy on February 6, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Come come now, we all know the rules.
We can’t call attention to acts like this, because we’re asserting our ka-raaazy Christian dogma on everyone.
Because only an insane prudish homophobic racist evil Christian who wants to control your bedroom should have a problem with this.
Normal people? No big deal.
/sarc tag. Just in case it wasn’t obvious enough.
Hawkins1701 on February 6, 2009 at 8:58 PM
Oh, and just for the record.
From now on, I will ask every pregnant woman I see how her non-human fetus is doing.
And just for good measure, whether she intends to keep it, or get rid of the “encumbrance” so she won’t be “punished with a baby.”
I encourage all of you to go to a Babies R’ Us and try it for yourselves.
Hawkins1701 on February 6, 2009 at 9:11 PM
It isn’t the number of cells, but whether some of them form vital organs. The state assumes people have brain activity and may declare them dead if they don’t.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Look at it from The One’s limited perspective, an abortion clinic allows committing fetuscide. This may seem like splitting hairs but in order to commit infanticide, you need an infant to be the one that is killed. No infant – no infanticide.
ericdijon on February 6, 2009 at 9:44 PM
There are indeed a couple of differences;
1) It took a lot longer for the public as a whole to see slavery as wrong then it has to see abortion as wrong. You realize slavery in the Americas predates the Missouri Compromise right?
2) The Pro-abortion, excuse me, pro-slavery side of the debate decided to take up arms instead of fighting an endless regard action to preserve their right to choose in the courts.
18-1 on February 6, 2009 at 10:08 PM
Not really. Sure there were a handful of abolitionists, the “religious right” of their day fighting to end slavery. Most people were more concerned about trade policy, taxes, and their own private concerns.
Eventually the majority of the public did come to oppose slavery, after well over a hundred years of it, but even so they were willing to let their elected officials compromise on the issue indefinitely.
Lincoln is a sterling example of just this – see the Corwin Amendment as an example.
18-1 on February 6, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Only a severely decayed thought process could refer to an effort to save more and more unborn children as a “slippery slope”. Tommylotto, it’s the glib rationalizations you and many others offer in this thread that have sent our culture sliding down the REAL slippery slope and right past your so-called “bright line” of live birth.
If you can pretend it’s not murder to chop a baby up in the womb and hoover it out, then you can pretend it’s not murder to pull it’s feet out of the birth canal and ram scissors into it’s skull then hoover it’s brains out, and you can pretend it’s not murder to flop a live-born baby on the floor and let it bleed out through it’s severed umbilical.
Hey, if it’s convenience we’re looking for let’s just pretend it’s not murder to off a 2 year old when they piss us off.
The Ritz on February 6, 2009 at 10:34 PM
I saw something about that in Article 1 of the Constitution. I used the Missouri Compromise as date that was nearly as far from the Civil War as Roe is from today and also a point at which the issue of abolition began to weigh on almost every major decision in DC.
Before the Civil War slavery was decided at the state level, with half the states on either side. If Roe were overturned today few if any states would outlaw it from the point of conception.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Religious people were a powerful force in the abolition movement, though they were often opposed by religious people on the other side of the issue. The abolitionists may be thought of as the religious right, but they were also Northerners who favored an expansion of federal power to force Southern states to make a significant change to their societal order.
dedalus on February 6, 2009 at 10:43 PM
Thinkagain and Tommy need to be “aborted” from HotAir…they just clog up the drain with their sewage of moral relativistic thinking.
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 10:50 PM
You are wrong. Here is an example of a conviction, in California, for the murder of a male fetus between the ages of 11 and 13 weeks. Per the opinion of the California Supreme Court in the case:
In the above case, the pregnancy was not externally visible, and was only found as a result of autopsy.
Here is a pictoral example of an 11-week old fetus. At 11 weeks, brain formation is still occurring, but heart is beating.
Note again that the opinion of the Court does not put any conditions on the development of the fetus, other than it exist.
unclesmrgol on February 7, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Why do leftists come here and argue for abortion? Reading their stuff reminds me of all the reasons why nihilism is so evil. It would be one thing to argue that abortion is unfortunate and terrible, but unavoidable. To actually argue FOR abortion is just plain sick.
The bit about requiring a license to have children was the worst though. These people don’t even realize when they are contradicting themselves. Get pregnant and wanna kill the kid cause its too much of a hassle? The Government should not be able to stop you, and in fact it should pay for the kid to be killed. If, on the other hand you are interested in having children? Well you’d better ask mommy and daddy nanny-state permission because you might not fit their criteria for what it takes to be a parent. I’ve heard this bit about licenses for parents from other leftists before. I thought that it was just a personal quirk of the leftists in question, but now I suspect it is part and parcel of their death cult dogma. After all, if only the “right” kind of people get to have kids, ridding the world of liberty is all but assured.
Stuff like this is a sobering reminder of why it is important to practice your rights under the 1st and 2nd amendments. Make no mistake, these people dream of a day when they can lord themselves over you and make you into a serf. Future generations are depending upon us to not let that happen.
leereyno on February 7, 2009 at 5:45 AM
So was Sycloria Williams’ life in danger? Doesnt sound like it.
abcurtis on February 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Thinkagain – Yeah, now that I think of it in your terms, it is much better to soak the child in saline solution, cut it up limb by limb and flush it down a garbage disposal. Yeah, what’s a little pain compared to a lifetime of wondering who your real parents are? And what makes you think the mom doesnt have a lifetime of pain and suffering? Know any women who have had abortions? I do, and they live with the pain and wondering what their children would be like every single day. There is no such thing as a safe abortion, either for the mom or the child. Only for the abortionist who makes money off of it.
I’ve seen some pure rubbish on this site, but yours takes the cake.
abcurtis on February 7, 2009 at 8:59 AM
Nice! Finally a supreme authority offers us confirmation of proper morality. Thank you for sharing your Cliff Notes about the players bent on debating abortion and those that morally cannot consider it.
Why do you think you are equipped to present a case for being neutral? There is no room for a moderator or some intellectual cafone peeling back the layers of this onion by suggesting when life begins is a valid argument. People that lead moral lives have no “ultimate goal” to suggest when life begins; they know when it begins and it isn’t anything that any neutralist or pro-choicer cares to face. The ultimate goal for people with morals is to educate the lost and wandering, the poor and unwashed that creating life happens long before you roll over or pull your pants back up.
I don’t need a fact-book or to waste my time researching it, but I would suggest to you that there are far more people that have seceded from positions of neutrality and pro-choice to promote pro-life. I dare someone to prove me wrong.
ericdijon on February 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Thanks. I didn’t know the law regarding fetal homicide and that similar laws exist in over 30+ states. It isn’t logically consistent with abortion rights. From the standpoint of the fetus being killed by the mother or murdered by a third party doesn’t make a difference.
dedalus on February 7, 2009 at 10:17 AM
FIFY
I’m touched that you commended Anna.
Using contraception is the epitome of irresponsibility. Okay, maybe I should say using a condom is like taking a shower with a raincoat on. With the raincoat on we can bond with many others. Did you ever see the Verizon commercial? Didn’t someone make a condom commercial suggesting that without a condom you have that network – or are possibly having sex with as many people?
I want to ask you [thinkagain] directly, why do pro-choicers and neutralists base their thinly veiled arguments upon separating love from life? They way your post reads, you present yourself as a sage authority. I’m sitting at your feet waiting for you to explain. I’m confused because I have the sense that a condom is the absolute separation of love from life. I have the understanding that a birth control pill is actually an abortive method that will destroy a fertilized egg (a life) as well as accomplishing the separation of love from life.
How thin one’s bond must be if one or both partners are bonding with others for enjoyment. Or, is multiple bonding equal to hedonism? If it is hedonism, then why advocate condoms, birth control, adoption or licensing? If instead you wrote “…primarily for enjoyment and bonding with a spouse” then you might be interesting rather than seemingly immoral and ill-informed. Natural family planning (NFP) involves no contraception and provides a bond of life and love.
FIFY
ericdijon on February 7, 2009 at 10:57 AM
There’s nothing very logical in the law, but it is consistant with abortion rights. Consider the following line of reasoning. PP mantra: Every child a wanted child. Under reproductive rights as defined in Roe V. Wade, the mother is the only one who can determine whether a child is wanted or not, and is free to act on that determination to the detriment of the child, up until birth (and beyond, in some states such as Illinois).
An unwanted child is not considered human. A wanted child (or one whose wantedness cannot be determined by questioning the mother) is considered human. That, in a nutshell, describes the California law on this topic. Hence, a person’s humanity in this one regard is determined solely by the intent of another person to humanize them.
It’s why I equate abortion with its handsister slavery, since, under slavery, the humanity accorded one person (the slave), up to and including death, is determined by another person (the slaveowner).
unclesmrgol on February 7, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Meanwhile several nurses who cared for Schiavo testified to the opposite. One nurse whom I watched said that Terri would lift her butt and scoot forward for her when a bedpan was placed under. That is not vegetative.
A post mortem can show horrendous damage yet in England a number of hydrocephalus children with the center of their brains displaced by fluid so they had one inch of less of brain layer on the inside skull were tracked and some ended up as teachers, while the brain evidence showed vegetable. Scientists studying these people could not explain their functionality
Terri was a devout Catholic and attended Mass every weekend with her aunt (not her husband). Her family is equally devout and within their beliefs euthanesia does not compute. Her husband speaking for her was a biased witness, especially with the conflicts the two had before she collapsed
The juge sum of money received in lawsuit was to care for her (alive) and instead was spent on the death lawyers including the final lawyer who previously had sat on the board of the nursing home and who was obsessed with euthanesia (he claimed he could hear through his brain the voice of mute comatose patients begging him to end it all). Money granted for her care went to the killers
Hardly heroic
entagor on February 7, 2009 at 1:05 PM
I agree that defining personhood as a function of whether you are wanted is nonsense. Many adults wouldn’t currently qualify.
Slaves were a function also of their race, which is an inherent quality. A terrible criteria, but the “wantedness” criteria is even less defensible.
dedalus on February 7, 2009 at 1:16 PM
RENDERED????? Isn’t that what they do to hogs?
TimothyJ on February 7, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Do you want HotAir to become the right-wing version of fringe lunatic sites like DailyKos or Huffpo? You and your kin do not hold a monopoly here and while there may be numerous pro-lifers posting, in reality your group is actually a small minority in this country.
Over 77% of the population supports abortion (is pro-choice), so don’t have any delusions about who the real majority is here-most of the population shares my perspective, not yours.
Its interesting that you do support ‘abortion’…for those who disagree with you. Clearly you’re a ‘moral’ individual, one who shares the morality of fascists. Unlike you I support your (and everyone’s) right to free speech even though we disagree on this issue.
We should treat this right with the utmost respect since its presently in real danger of being eliminated by Islamofascists. Once that goes so too will our other freedoms followed by our secular democratic civilization.
Lastly you should look up terms you don’t understand before using them inappropriately. If I was a moral relativist, I wouldn’t take a position in this discussion.
thinkagain on February 8, 2009 at 2:40 AM
Your response was obscure. Please clarify what you mean about this 96% supporting banning and provide reliable sources. This is the second time you’re repeating this baseless and weird claim without evidence.
Exactly what were you trying to prove in this rant??
You’re a pro-life Christian right? Where else do you get your morals from?
Lol-you’re stating the obvious here but what we define as ‘moral’ or good differs greatly as the division over abortion and euthanasia demonstrate.
To make such an absurd statement demonstrates you have no understanding of what a fetus actually is. It also shows the pro-life position to be one based largely on the argument from ignorance (specifically ‘personal incredulity’) fallacy.
I’d like you to prove how a zygote or fetus is physically identical to a fully formed baby/child or adult. And no, a “potential” person does not make a clump of cells an actual person. Just like us being potential killers does not make us actual killers. It may seem like a subtle distinction but only to a coarse unsophisticated mind, since there is a world of difference between the two.
Tell me also why the rights/decisions a woman has/makes over her own body are eliminated and superseded by the alleged “rights” of a clump of cells or fetus that she’s carrying? And spare me your ‘a fetus is defenseless’ cry-baby appeals, that’s insufficient.
In a pro-lifer’s paradise the moment a woman becomes pregnant her womb becomes their sole property. Her rights are immediately suspended, she is muzzled and abortion is strictly forbidden. Her views don’t matter, the only concern is that she gives birth, dutifully and without question or face their wrath, which is moralistic and well-meaning and divinely sanctioned.
Anyone that disagrees with the pro-life mafia is clearly evil, worse than the Nazis and must be pressured, demonized, threatened and bullied into submission and silence. Jesus would approve.
thinkagain on February 8, 2009 at 4:11 AM
The “clump of cells” argument is specious. By the time pregnancy can be detected, the embryo is past “clump of cells” stage. While the developing human embryo may not look much different than the embryo of another creature, you may be sure, that the embryo devloping in the human womb is damn well human. And you can be tripley damn sure that a 23-week human fetus is not only human, it is a viable life. Those on this thread trying to equate this particular incident with the ‘woman’s right to choooooose’ and ‘clump of cells’ mantra are, yes, evil.
Oh, and “thinkagain”? You might try doing that just once, and also research “Godwin law”.
NTXLass on February 8, 2009 at 5:55 AM
Un-freaking-believable.
I’m sure you think my two-year-old adopted son would be better off rotting in a landfill somewhere.
If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant.
Squiggy on February 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Stop hyperventilating you frigging retard. Its people like you that give your movement its well-deserved reputation of being a bunch of confused, small-minded raging hicks and troglodytes who are unable to distinguish between a fertilized egg cell, a fetus or a baby.
Though some of you have a slightly larger vocabulary and are able to articulate your ignorance better.
Here’s your 2 day old ‘child’ and first trimester. 99.9% of all abortions are performed within this stage or within an additional week (20 wks).
Here’s another shot of the fetus…bet you wouldn’t have known its a cat embryo if I didn’t tell you. Point being that in its early stages the human embryo is not much different that some other animals, hence your argument that its child is obviously ridiculous.
So the pro-lifers deranged nightmare of abortion clinics being infanticide factories slaughtering 9 month old babies like cattle is their own sick delusion borne out of misinformation and brainwashing.
thinkagain on February 8, 2009 at 12:15 PM
A human fetus is human? You have a rare gift for redundancy, don’t let that talent go to waste. See the pics in my post above, a 23 week old fetus is barely human looking let alone viable-you don’t even know what you’re talking about.
What else would you call it when you deny a person their innate right to determine what happens to their own body? The Nazi-reference is completely appropriate and fitting.I’m well aware of Goodwin’s law and it does not apply in this case.
The pro-life movement/mafia is a veiled form of fascism that attacks a woman’s freedom, will and control over her own body. I have yet to see some spark of brilliance from your camp that shows why an embryo’s (a cluster of cells) concerns outweigh/eliminate the rights of a grown adult, thinking woman making independent decisions and that would justify such barbarian measures.
thinkagain on February 8, 2009 at 1:16 PM
And that means what? It doesn’t change the fact that a human embryo is a person, however young. A cat embryo is still a cat, no matter whether you call it a “fetus” or a kitten. And you call me the “frigging retard”.
You need to get over your hatred of people who have learning disabilities. You might want to get to know some of those “retards”. They’re people too. And they like having been allowed to live too (just like you I bet).
And by the way hatemonger, what is my “movement”? I’m not in a “movement”. (You don’t have to be part of a “protest group” to believe killing children is bad.) I took offense to your intimation that my son would be better off if his birth mother had murdered him. Maybe you would be better off if your mother had had an abortion, but my boy is happy and healthy, and his grown sisters love him. We’re blessed, and you call that “being a bunch of confused, small-minded raging hicks and troglodytes”. I pity you.
If you think the world has too many people, then get your tubes tied. Or, even better (from your people-hating point of view) if you were to jump off a building then you wouldn’t be contributing to the destruction of the planet at all. Great idea, huh? I bet someone, somewhere will shed a tear.
I’m going to make a guess – you either live in Berkley or you’re in some “women’s studies” class somewhere. Those are the only places where someone of your hatred and ignorance could come to the conclusion that she’s the smartest person in the room. Outside of (maybe) the KKK or Islamo-fascist groups, those are the places where the worlds biggest idiots congregate.
Squiggy on February 8, 2009 at 6:52 PM
You used the term “potential babies” to describe human embryos.
They are “potential babies” in the same way they are “potential children,” and “potential teenagers,” and “potential adults,” and so on.
They are NOT, however, potential human beings.
As a human embryo, they are already a member of the human race and a human being, a living human organism, merely involved in their earliest stage of life, their earliest stage of development, that of the human embryo, which, for reference, in in vivo, sexual reproduction, begins upon the man’s sperm’s penetration of the zona pellucida of the female’s oocyte, and continues until the end of the eighth post ovulatory week, and is followed by the fetal stage, which continues from the post ovulary ninth week, till term or birth.
Human life s a series of overlapping developmental stages which continue into adulthood, they don’t end at birth.
Also, the fetal stage is expected to take approximately 40 weeks, but it often is accomplished in less, such as 34 weeks, 36 weeks, and even earlier. Therefore, that is only a reference point. While baby is inside the womb, she is referred to as an embryo – from meeting of sperm and oocyte in normal sexual reproduction, till the end of the eight week, and as a fetus, from the ninth week, till term or birth, approximately 40 weeks. However, if one baby is still inside the womb at 39 weeks, while that baby’s mother’s friend’s baby is born at 39 weeks, the fetal stage ends for that born baby merely because she is born, not because she is any different from the baby who is the same age but has yet to be born. Both are members of the human race, both are clinically referred to as fetuses at that stage (39 weeks), but the only difference is one has left the womb during that stage, making them a neonate (clinical term) while the other is still a fetus, in the prenatal stage.
Bottom line, the embryo is not a potential human, but an actual human, and baby is a general term which is applied to the baby as embryo, as fetus, as neonate (infant), and even by adults and physicians for toddlers, and even by sweethearts for their lover.
William2006 on February 8, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Excuse me for my lack of politically correctness I think you prefer to be called ‘mentally challenged’ instead of ‘retard’. Either way your impaired ability to reason is self-evident.
You remind me of one of the crazies on the street who walks up to strangers accusing them of killing their wife or burning down their house. I made no such comment and took offense at your libelous smear, which you’re continuing to reiterate without any evidence. I’ve been defending the pro-choice position here and nothing more-don’t read into things that are not there.
The rest of your rant really doesn’t merit any response so I won’t bother. I’m sure you’re one of those generic pro-life dingbats who’s never picked up a philosophy book in his life…so I won’t waste any more of my precious time on you.
thinkagain on February 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM
That’d be like saying an 6 year old child is not a potential adult but an adult by virtue of being human. You can generalize anything until it becomes meaningless which is essentially what you did in your post. At least you’re cognizant of the fact that the embryo does develop through various stages but don’t tell me a zygote is identical to a fetus and a 2 year old because it is human.
Those stages do matter a great deal-otherwise you could say a raw egg is the same as hard-boiled one because they’re both eggs. They are fundamentally different states and have gone through physical and chemical changes, just as a zygote divides from a single cell into billions of specialized cells that form all the tissues and organs in the body.
The fact that its a human cell doesn’t make it any more special than other cells in our body (like blood, hair etc). Though it could develop into a fetus and eventually a baby, doesn’t mean that we should now be ascribing the same rights and privileges we give to fully grown adults-by the way at the complete expense of the mother’s rights who is carrying it.
I noticed you made absolutely no reference to women and the right to determine what happens to their own bodies. Because of course to a pro-lifer’s world, such issues are irrelevant trifles and don’t factor into their equation that demands every fertilized egg leads to a newborn and to hell with all other considerations.
Life must be difficult for you noble fetus-warriors with all those pesky trouble-making, free-thinking women wanting abortions and demanding their rights be recognized, getting in the way. If only they could realize their proper role is to be baby-making machines with the goal to flood the country with unwanted children (to counter-balance those illegal aliens). I mean its so logical, why can’t they understand?
thinkagain on February 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM
You said abortion was better than being unwanted. She gave you a specific example where you were wrong. For this, you call her a “retard,” a “generic pro-life dingbat who’s never picked up a philosophy book in his life,” a “crazy,” and say she has an “inability to reason.”
All while you seem incapable of grasping that the issue is not whether a zygote can be termed fully human, but rather that the unborn can be deprived of life at any point right up until birth with no consequence.
Don’t waste time arguing about how human a zygote is, when you’re perfectly willing to destroy a baby at 38 weeks of development — long past the zygote stage.
How incredibly ignorant is it to declare that a baby with its own heartbeat, fingerprints, brainwaves, internal organs, and sex is nothing more special than say, skin cells or a tumor?
tom on February 9, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Really? You might want to try reading your own rantings every now and then.
And I quote:
Ergo, you lie. Either that, or your attention span is so short you can’t keep track of your own words.
Okay – here you go – The life of the mother far outweighs the life of the “fetus”. If having the baby will physically harm the mother, it’s “bye bye baby”. Happy now?
Having said that, the life of the “fetus” far outweighs the mothers right to fit in a size two dress for the prom. It is not just “a lump of tissue”. It is a tiny little human being, and anyone who seriously argues different is insane. You can rant and scream “PRO-CHOICE” all you want, but if you have to use idiotic lies then your argument is indefensible.
One final thought before I write you off forever – your attitude (and the attitude of your angry sisters) is one of total self. Nothing and no one matters to you except you. You can do anything at all and it’s fine. Up to and including paying someone to rip your child to pieces with a vacuum cleaner – and then suing the “clinic” when the child is accidentally born alive (luckily, the fetus was humanely placed into a trashbag and allowed to bleed to
deathum, termination).Enjoy your insanity (and don’t forget the tubal ligation).
Squiggy on February 9, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Wrong about what? So if some adoptions work out well that means abortions should be banned? What if the mother decides she does not wish to give her potential child an uncertain future?
She made an egregious accusation and assumption:
“I’m sure you think my two-year-old adopted son would be better off rotting in a landfill somewhere”-Squiggy
When I neither said nor inferred any such thing. I took offense to that comment and I have little respect or patience for people that slander me in such ways-as would you or anyone else so don’t try to get sanctimonious with me.
Do note I am pro-choice, I am not trying to stop any woman from making independent decisions, whether she wants abortion, adoption or to keep the child.
Pro-lifers want to deny a woman’s right to choose and would force her to have a child against her will. So if you had to choose, who’s world would you rather live in, one that offers you individual freedoms (mine) or another that dictates what you must do with your own body?
*slow clap* Bravo, way to re-phrase the same argument at the crux of this debate. Well if we can call a zygote ‘fully human’ then we cannot “deprive it of life” (terminate it), since its no longer a thing, a clump of cells, a non-entity, n’est-ce pas?
I support abortion not infanticide-another one of you people making assumptions about my views without asking first. The present rules/regulations governing abortion are satisfactory for me.
How ignorant and devious is it to twist my words until they’re unrecognizable? I said a zygote-a fertilized egg cell is not any more special than other cells. But I see in the warped pro-lifer’s mind, a single cell is identical to a baby. lol Yup its just one cell that was always the fully formed baby that gets bigger like a balloon. God help us if you people ever get to dictate our biology curriculum.
thinkagain on February 9, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Uh, yes you did say that. Your faux self-righteousness comes across as childish.
And just for your edification,
appears to destroy all of your arguments. I notice you didn’t respond to him (her?) this time. Is it because you can’t? If you do – try reasoned arguments instead of unhinged rants.
drunkenmaster on February 10, 2009 at 5:31 AM
Good lord, you on a mission from god or something? I didn’t respond because I’m busy and frankly got bored of the subject.
Maybe if I get time I might come back but don’t go declaring victory because someone just walked away from the argument. *rolls eyes*
thinkagain on February 10, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Walked away. Forfeited. Admitted defeat. A distinction without a difference.
Besides, you Daily Kos types can always find time to scream. It’s what you do.
drunkenmaster on February 10, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Your side’s claim to victory is the same as Hamas’ claim that Israel lost because they didn’t wipe them out completely and walked away.
While I’ve never been on the DailyKos site, I well aware of their reputation-you pro-lifers are the right version of liberal extremists. Point fingers all you want, you know in your heart I’m right. :)
This thread is dead so this is my last post here-so you get to declare victory again as the final word.
thinkagain on February 11, 2009 at 9:21 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4