President Obama, infanticide happens; Update: Physician license suspended
posted at 8:32 am on February 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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 Next »
I find it somewhat ironic that people who would have preferred the baby mutilated in the womb or partially delivered and having its brains sucked out through the back of its head after delivering a sharp piercing blow are shocked, SHOCKED I say at someone simply dropping the baby and putting it in a bag to suffocate.
HAHAHA OH WOW on February 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I don’t understand the argument that a women can do what she wants with her body…then destroys another body.
Giving birth doesn’t destroy a women, inconvenience, maybe heart-ache, embarrassment, a financial burden, many negative things, but it doesn’t “destroy” you…yet they are willing to destroy someone who never will have a chance to make those decisions about their body.
The reasoning just escapes me…destroying a life, murdering a living being, how callus can the left get?
right2bright on February 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
This is just a distraction,we should be talking about the wolves that EEEEEEEEEEEEEvil Sara Palin is killing.
I posted earlier on this subject because the ignorance of the “smart ones” like judd to sit there and whine about thinning the wolf population while she supports these types of policies shows the depth of hypocrisy and outright lack of moral character exhibited by liberals:
I just don’t get these people and how they can justify telling everybody how “peaceful and loving and anti-violent” they are when they support this type of butchery.Nobody has killed more children and advocated going to war more than the democrats.
And stating that there is some type of moral equivalence in killing defenseless infants that have no choice in the matter to killing a jihadist that just blew up a restaurant is pathetically ignorant even by liberal standards.
Baxter Greene on February 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM
I would have taken that baby in, in a heartbeat with no stings attached. This makes me sick.
Brat4life on February 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM
I think I’m going to throw up.
ghintx on February 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM
I hate to try and decide what’s true in the NOW lady’s heart, but having been in that culture enough, I’m pretty sure this is just a public face.
There’s no point in even paying attention to what she says. There’s no point in bringing up logic or morality to members of NOW.
Bah. I think I’d better avoid these posts for the rest of my pregnancy.
herrevery on February 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
People that support abortion are morally bankrupt.
docdave on February 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
I remember when the High Priest of liberalism Al Gore said to Dan Quayle in the vice presidential debate in his condescending tone of voice “can you repeat after me, I support a woman’s right to choose”? I was screaming at the TV when Quayle gave some lame ass answer but I would have said YES I DO, I I SUPPORT A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO HAVE SEX OR NOT, ONCE SHE HAS SEX AND GETS PREGNANT, THE CHOICES ARE: KEEP THE BABY OR GIVE IT UP FOR ABORTION!!! Sorry, I was screaming again. This is the point, as it is with all other liberal dogma, we live in the age of no accountability, 0, zilch, nada. You are a homosexual? don’t worry you were born that way, you want an abortion, don’t worry it is fine and oh by the way we’ll have other people’s money pay for it whether they want it or not. IT IS SICKENING!!!
TitleofLiberty on February 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Very sad.
4shoes on February 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM
This despecable act is no different from back woods abortions, only now it is legal to kill your child in the womb at any time. Sickening!
txstar on February 6, 2009 at 9:53 AM
speechless
Maxx on February 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
I am sick to my stomach.
Youngs98 on February 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM
It was in learning about Obama’s actions in Ill regarding the Born Alive legislative effort that my opinion of him solidified. I am staunchly pro-life, but have not always been. Only by reflecting upon the incongruity of abortion, inalienable rights and faith did I conclude that abortion must not be tolerated in a free society. It is very plain that his cold, clinical dismissal of the plight of the unborn is emblematic as to his entire world view. How can he reconcile his views on abortion and look at his daughters without a hint of remorse? What he advocates for others is what he would allow for his two beautiful children. When the least of us is denied our basic inalienable rights none of our rights are safe.
turfmann on February 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM
I don’t think this sick society will be around much longer. No society that permits things like this can survive.
-Dave
Dave R. on February 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Not all life forms, only the most innocent human life, and conservatives.
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 10:01 AM
YES I DO, I I SUPPORT A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO HAVE SEX OR NOT, ONCE SHE HAS SEX AND GETS PREGNANT, THE CHOICES ARE: KEEP THE BABY OR GIVE IT UP FOR
ABORTION!!! ADOPTION is what I meant, sorryTitleofLiberty on February 6, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I’m sure you didn’t try to equate being gay to aborting a bbaby, although that’s kind of how it sounds.
jewells45 on February 6, 2009 at 10:06 AM
This case is pure and simple murder.
You can’t use the excuse he’s a Doctor, because he was the owner of the clinic, and NOT a Doctor.
Child took its first breath… by the current legal definition that means its a person.
Owner of the clinic should be in Jail, Doctor should be in Jail right next to him for Criminal Negligance.
Romeo13 on February 6, 2009 at 10:07 AM
I’m so furious right now I can’t stand it!!!
This is on Obama as much as that POS murdering doctor!!!
We need to recall this son of a bitch…now!
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Saving baby lives is above his pay scale…
right2bright on February 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Why does this story of a botched abortion horrify you guy so much…
And these stories get no attention from you guys.
Both stories are placed to garner attention from a political faction.
Buffalo News = Mission Accomplished
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Ah yes…. Quick… change the arguement… we’re not doing well…
Romeo13 on February 6, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Troll.
long_cat on February 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Did that fool really ask that????? It’s not the botched abortion part that is upsetting so much as it is the killing of the baby afterwards. Fool.
bloggless on February 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Well, if it is about the life of the child, then rape or insest should make no difference–they have no baring on whether the child has the right to live. If you pause over that, then you are getting stuck in the mentality that pregnacy is a just punishment for the unchaist, but an unfair punishment for victoms.
When it comes down to it, you have a desision tree of sorts that needs to be addressed for each time and circomestance:
Does the fetus, at this time, have the right to live? (Don’t look to science for this one, it can’t tell you beyond considerations of viability. It is a values question)
If the fetus has that right, then an abortion is homicide. Do circumstances make that homicide justified? (Self deffence can come in to play, here)
If it is justifialbe homicide, is it something that society wishes to suport? (The funding question)
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Throw these pieces of garbage in jail right now!!!
And after that we need to recall that son of a b*tch president and put him on trial for voting to allow this.
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 10:23 AM
In case you’re still out there, Tommy, look up the word “Strawman” while you’re still surfing.
Gun control is a different argument with absolutely no relation to the topic at hand. Idiot.
connertown on February 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM
No. No one is saying this should happen. In fact, it sounds like there is an on going investigation to see if something illegal occurred. But you guys are trying to generalize this sad story (if it is even true) as a condemnation of the entire pro-choice movement. What does this story have to do with women who choose to have an abortion in the first trimester — NOTHING. (To me it sounds like the woman who is making this claim was disturbed already.) But you guys will take this isolated incident and wave the dead fetus in our faces like the Green Helmet Guy from Hamas. You guys are sick. And your killing the party and damaging fiscal conservatism. I thank you fanatics for Obama.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 10:24 AM
Obama is a murdering piece of garbage.
dinkyjackson on February 6, 2009 at 10:28 AM
The party and fiscal conservatism are not going to be my thirty pieces of silver.
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Why is it you only care about rights the Court had to go out of its way to create and not the ones our Founders put in place?
I know the feeling.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Accidental death vs. intentional murder.
Not the same thing.
Next.
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 10:31 AM
It is not a straw man argument. A straw man argument is based upon a false construction of your opponents position. I did not attribute a false position on abortion to you. Politically, those who are militantly pro-life also tend to be against handgun control. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of calling undue attention to this isolated incident (if it is true), and ignoring all the infants killed by handguns. One supports your politics, one does not. Thus the attention.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 10:32 AM
You’re correct.
It’s a red herring.
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I wonder where you would have been in the civil rights fight if you thought that advocating abolition of slavery would hurt the party of fiscal conservatism, we know where you are on this one.
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 10:32 AM
“toddler handgun accident”
Tragic accident vrs intentional murder. They are not in any way morally equivalent. You must have drank too much of the Kool aid. Now go bone up on ethics and logic and come back when your de-tox is over.
darcee on February 6, 2009 at 10:33 AM
The new face of Black Genocide is Barack Obama.
http://blackgenocide.org/home.html
Bicyea on February 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Despicable. But with a pro-abortion stance carried out to its logical end, all is permissible. Say a prayer for baby, mom, and doctor.
GoodSamaritan on February 6, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Remember that Idiot “Christian” group who was protesting at military funerals?
EVERY Christian out there condemned their behaviour… loudly… whenever the subject came up.
Here we have an analogous situation… extreme behaviour, but the Majority of Abortion supporters are NOT condemning this barbarity.
Its like the Moslems who won’t condemn violence in the name of their relgion…. they are, by their silence, complicit in the actions.
Romeo13 on February 6, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Ok tommylotto,
I will go a round with you-children and guns dont mix. I have 4 teens at this time 2 are over 18. My home has always had weaponry of some sort. We purchased gun locks and store the guns and ammo separately. We also have had every one of our children to classes and hunter/gun safety training courses and with the permission of parents we also helped to get other children trained in gun safety programs.
The laws for gun safety are in place. The negligence of the parents in protecting their children/children they are responsible for is in question.
The laws are not in place to protect the unborn. Putting it simply strawman-your argument has no credence in comparison.
canditaylor68 on February 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Well I will answer that for most us in here Tommy…go F yourself and the horse you rode in on. You can generalize this away but and you can make ridiculous comparisons but to normal average Americans this is a horror and a crime plain & simple, and you might as well be holding the knife for giving cover to these people.
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Watching live babies be thrown away with the garbage can have that effect on a woman.
So, we’re sick, because we want to call attention to the 40% of babies who are born alive and left for dead like trash? Surely this isn’t the first time you’ve seen Ed post on this. He’s brought up several stories to prove his 40% number and not just this one isolated incident.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 10:39 AM
we live in a sick sick world.
kirkill on February 6, 2009 at 10:39 AM
You life at conception nutz are at best 10% to 15% of the population. The vast majority of the population wants the responsible use of abortion in certain circumstances (obviously not in the circumstances demonstrated in this story — if its true). We can all join hands together to fight against the circumstances of this story happening again (if it ever happened to begin with). That we are agreed.
Where we part ways is when you wave this story in the face of anyone who supports a woman’s exercise in a reasonable fashion of her right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester. That is when you guys are acting like the Green Helmet Guy from Hamas — shamelessly waiving a fetus in our face for propaganda purposes.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Do you even realize what the heck you are saying here?
You are saying that the only reason we fight to protect the sanctity of life is for propaganda? That we wave a baby in your face to coerse you to protect life?
canditaylor68 on February 6, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Tommy, various polling shows that a solid majority (between 55 and 75 percent, depending on the poll) of the population would like to see 96% of abortions outlawed.
But yours is a stupid argument anyway. There was no public consensus for outlawing slavery in the early 1800’s. Guess those abolitionists should have just shut their mouths and worked together to make slavery “safe, legal, and rare,” right?
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 10:46 AM
You are a responsible gun owner. Using these horrible stories of tragic gun accidents caused by negligent gun owners as propaganda to take away the rights of responsible gun owners is like …
Using the story of a tragic incident of a botched abortion committed by a disturbed woman and a negligent doctor as propaganda to take away the right to choose from responsible women and doctors.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Obviously not as you cannot even bring yourself to admit that it happened and that it happens.
No one’s doing that here. Ed’s merely pointing out what Obama stands for and what he let happen, naively ignoring the truth as you are here.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 10:47 AM
This coming from the liberals who called everyone who dared say Obama’s middle name Hussein a bigot and islamophobe after 8 years of calling President Bush a liar,war monger,murderer,and Hitler.
You are the last person who should be whining about blowing things out of proportion.
Just to help your fact challenged accusations a little bit,this is not an isolated incident:
Does 40% look like isolated to you genius.
This incident is so “isolated” that Obama had to address it as a Senator, in which he chose to kill the baby.
You know,in the spirit of choice.
Apparently the fact the child has no choice does not bother
the “anti-violent smart ones”:
Obama actually shot down a bill that was introduced to stop doctors from killing infants when they were “accidentally”
born:
Team Obama acknowledges infanticide lie
posted at 8:00 am on August 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/18/team-obama-acknowledges-infanticide-lie/
Killing children who have no choice,no problems for liberals.
But they draw the line at the savagery of killing a few wolves .
Nothing like getting a big lecture on how much somebody cherishes life from people that treat infants like garbage.
How Progressive!!!!
Baxter Greene on February 6, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Oxymoron in the case of women who couldn’t properly use contraception in the first place.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Does life magically begin at birth?
To believe abortion is OK is to believe that life magically begins at birth. BUT… this proves that these people know their killing living babies and they all should receive capital punishment for doing so.
ironmonk on February 6, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Easiest argument against abortion- the founders declared ALL Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that these particular rights could NEVER be taken away from govt, because they did not come from govt, but rather from God.
Abortion violates all 3 of these sacred rights.
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM
First, We’re not waving anything at you. This is an actual confirmed news story, not made up garbage by terrorists.
Second, it was a live baby, get that!!! LIVE BABY…you dumba*s!!!
There is ZERO room for moral relativism to justify this. WHY…no HOW can you even start to defend this?!?
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The Constitution says this is not a right when it says all humans have a right to life. No way on earth any sane person can argue the founders would ever allow this- they would be horrified and they would turn their backs on this nation with this.
Sick judges gave women this “right”- a “right” that violates the letter and spirit of the law of the land carved out by the founding fathers.
And let’s stop using code words- it’s not about the right to “choose,” it’s about the right to murder your baby. The only choice being argued is the death one…the natural, have your baby, choice is and has always been legal.
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Here is where you make your mistake(IMHO)or where you and I differ on opinions. A responsible woman wouldnt be there to get an abortion anyways,unless she was raped or had a life threatening medical issue.
Her responsibility ended when she chose to have sex unprotected She furthered exasperated her lack of responsibility by getting rid of her responsibility(the abortion is the easy,secret, quick way out).
canditaylor68 on February 6, 2009 at 10:56 AM
It’s coming. Just wait for it.
tommylotto-I’m sure you’re not here now. Perhaps you have cut & run.
These children involved in gun accidents have stupid parents & no common sense.
I have over 15 rifles & several pistols in my home in an unlocked gun cabinet. I live way out in the stix.
I know who’s in my house & when.
I know where my kids are & what time they’re coming home.
When my kids were toddlers, they were not left alone for any amount of time.
At that time they were being taught not to touch things. At that time the guns were locked up,just like my cabinets filled with cleaning agents & chemicals. Now they aren’t. They are teenagers & college aged.
No gun accidents in my home.
They’ve all had hunter safety.
We go hunting every year.
These kids who die & kill through gun ‘accidents’ would likely die in some other ‘accident’-like running out into traffic.
Women have a duty bcs of their reproductive status to protect life.
I can safely say if I was raped I would give birth to any child produced. I may not keep it, but that kid would be 1/2 ME. I am killing ME when I abort a child!
Women also have a duty to pick the right man to have kids with. So many women pick losers & feel they have no other options.
I agree with Bishop-If every young woman & man were educated on how abortions are REALLY performed, shown REAL footage of such things, they would overwhelmingly be against it.
Badger40 on February 6, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Well you better put your democratic leadership in this category genius,
Obama votes “present” on it.
super smart Biden says “live begins at conception”.
Obam’s stance on when life begins comes across in the usual no leadership ability way of voting present:
How noble and intelligent.
But he does say this about life:
But your super smart VP by your estimation,is one of those
:”nutz”
As a Matter of Faith, Biden Says Life Begins at Conception
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Baxter Greene on February 6, 2009 at 11:00 AM
hoosiermama on February 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM
According to science, at conception, the (soon to be full blown) baby IS alive.
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 11:04 AM
tommylotto – Don’t you understand that gun rights, like the fight against abortion, are PRO-LIFE movements? All truly free men are armed, to protect the INNOCENT lives of themselves and those they love from the predations of the two-legged wolves of this world and from their own government when it becomes tyrannical and oppressive and governs its citizens like serfs or subjects, rather than free people as intended by our Constitution. All the genocides of history were preceded by the disarming of the victim population.
And since when was the popularity of abortion ever the final arbiter of whether it is morally right or wrong? Moral principles never change; something you leftists will never understand.
sigdoc on February 6, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I once volunteered in a hospice. One day, a brain cancer patient became psychotic and violent. That same day, the patient’s morphine drip was increased to the point that the patient was barely breathing. That night, the patient died.
I am ashamed to admit that I did not report this to any authorities, but I did give notice and stop volunteering there.
What’s the difference between girls being “punished” with babies and adults being “punished” with disabled, elderly, or psychotic relatives who cannot care for themselves?
What’s the difference between a “botched abortion” and euthanasia?
Regardless of how well-meaning the intent is to reduce suffering or to reduce the “punishment” of others, these actions are murders.
Loxodonta on February 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM
So, you support a woman’s right to choose under circumstances of rape an incest? Watch out, some posters here think you are a murderer.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Every pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that I’ve heard stems from one of four things: 1) dependency, 2) development, 3) location, and 4) self-awareness.
Dependency: Should a person have the choice to kill a 4-year-old or an insulin-dependent person?
Development: A 2-month-old is not as developed as an 8-year-old or a 15-year-old. Should we, therefore, have the option of terminating the life of the 2-month-old?
Location: Does a person’s value change from one location to the next? From the store to the car to the workplace? Why then would we apply this standard here?
Self-awareness: Do we value a 25-year-old moreover an 8-year-old because the older is more self-aware?
Send_Me on February 6, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Actually, that poster said that unless the pregnant woman were in one of those circumstances, then she is being irresponsible, not that it’s OK to terminate a pregnancy because of who the father is; two separate things.
Besides, I believe most people here would be grateful if we could at least reduce the abortions to just those cases, unless the abortion is being used to cover up rape and incest, which is something else Ed has shown happens way too often.
Esthier on February 6, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Is it the baby’s fault that his/her dad is a rapist and an a-hole? The child is innocent. Why punish it? Now you are just grasping at straws…
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Once again you and I differ on “Choice”. A woman does not choose to be raped,if you think that you are an idiot. A woman does not choose to get a life threatening illness,again if you think that you are an idiot. I am not calling you an idiot,I am simply saying that if you truly believe what you say,or if you believe that others feel the way you have stated then you are sadly misinformed.
canditaylor68 on February 6, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Wow look at these bleeding-heart conservatives who care so much about forcing women against their will, to have babies they don’t want, can’t afford and who’ll end up living tragic lives being bounced around foster-home to foster-home.
Of course once christian conservatives have guilted, threatened, frightened, coerced and bullied vulnerable women into having these unwanted babies, they’re nowhere to be found, much like muslim rioters who disappear once their demands are met or feel we’ve been sufficiently cowed.
The ’sanctity of life’ argument is bogus since it derives from absurd primitive man-made fairytale texts (like the bible). Its time we adapt to modernity and shed our iron age mentality. We often deride liberals for being ideologues here with good reason, but its hypocritical of Conservatives to do the same.
There are very pragmatic, valid reasons why people are pro-choice and conservatives need to grow up and acknowledge them instead of acting like whiny little cry-babies with their fake compassion for fetuses because you’ve been commanded to do so by your great imaginary Skyman.
Anyone that’s read my posts here knows I dislike Obama as much as anyone else where however he’s on the right on issues like stem-cell research, universal health care, and abortion. He’s wrong on practically everything else, like energy, GWOT/Islam, economy and so forth.
Take my post as a healthy alternate perspective to the echo-chamber that this board sometimes becomes.
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Thank you. =)
canditaylor68 on February 6, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Conception is not much less arbitrary than birth. Both zigotes are just as alive before they merge to become a single embrio as the embrio is after. Science isn’t going to tell you where “life begins” because there is no point in the reproductive cycle where it ends.
Its alive all the way down.
Not to mention more embrios have died by failing to implant than have ever been aborted.
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 11:22 AM
What the biggest irony will be is when feminazis who en masse voted for the ‘abortion on demand’ Obama are trotted off to concentration camps for refusing to wear a veil and follow Sharia law and being detained by Islamic guards hired by the Messiah to keep these uppity women in line.
I have never understood the mentality of these women. Is it more important to ensure you can get an abortion than to prevent the Islamic terrorists from taking over America and sending women’s rights back to the Stone Age?
technopeasant on February 6, 2009 at 11:23 AM
While I take your point, you are talking as if abortion didn’t exist before Roe vs. Wade. It is a choice, and abortion laws have legalized choosing death for the unborn. Abortion is one of those words that allows people to avoid thinking about the consequences of what they are doing. Let’s call it what it is – state-sanctioned murder, like executions.
ProfessorMiao on February 6, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Poor women having sex of their own free will, then having their poor lifestyles hampered by a baby.
I’ve always loved this argument- I’d rather a dead baby than a baby in a single parent home (like Barack Obama!) or in foster homes (like Steve Jobs or Willie Nelson). Great argument. Maybe we should kill all kids born if we see they’re going to have a rough life?
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM
“Better dead than unhappy”?
Or is it “better dead than imperfect”?
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM
This is one of the weakest arguments I’ve ever heard. There is a difference between a zygote and an embryo. In the absence of conception, a zygote is like any other living cell in the body. It is conception that turns it into an embryo. Whether conception is “arbitrary” or not is irrelevant, it is the first step in the creation of new life.
And what does the fact that some embryos fail to implant have to do with anything? The comparison to inducing the birth of a 23-week old fetus – and then leaving a viable baby out of the uterus do die in a plastic bag, drowning in the placenta – is beyond absurd.
ProfessorMiao on February 6, 2009 at 11:31 AM
So I take it you’re against contraception too-like the Pope? Sex is only for reproduction, anything else is just being selfish and irresponsible?
What about in the event of rape? What if you were raped (and were a woman)? Would you have your rapist’s baby?
If you think abortion is acceptable in this case then you advocate baby-killing and why would it be ok to abort this unwanted pregnancy and not others?
That’s pretty arrogance to make a decision over a woman’s body and not allowing her to have over what is done with it. I am defending a woman’s right to choose what she does with a fetus and take a biology course so you know the difference between a baby and a zygote or a fetus.
So in your view its preferable to force a woman against her will to have a child she doesn’t want and have that child be raised by strangers so your conscience is satisfied? How magnanimous of you, but its not your damn business what a woman does with her own body now is it?
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 11:39 AM
Looks like there’s another gorilla in the room (no not an elephant). Your statement is an abject lie. Where is your proof to go along with these accusations?
Personally, I see alot of “Christians” with babys that don’t match their skin color, loving on them just as if they were their own flesh and blood…
So take you pre-conceived notions and shove em where the sun don’t shine!
MechEng5by5 on February 6, 2009 at 11:40 AM
If it looks like murder and walks like murder….it’s murder.
One of my super pro-abortion associates was very upset that Scott Peterson was being charged with two murders and not just that of his wife’s. I just don’t understand how these peple think.
jukin on February 6, 2009 at 11:41 AM
By all means, tommylotto, feel free to leave the Republican party if we prolifers are bringing you down. We will not sell out our beliefs for political expediency.
However, I do think pro-lifers need to be more welcoming of those of various pro-life viewpoints. Not all of us are Roman catholics that believe a zygote is equivalent to a newborn. And as far as when a developing fetus gains a soul we can’t know that and each religion will vary on the subject.
But there are things we can agree on that can also be confirmed by science. We know for example that the heart beats and the brain is active in the 1st trimester. I think reasonable people can agree that the fetus is alive at this point & is a human life. We also know that babies feel pain and dream during later stages of pregnancy. The more we use science and education as a tool, the more we can persuade our fellow citizens of the rightness of our cause. The law always lags behind science.
We should choose our battles carefully. Banning partial birth abortion is an important first step. There’s no point in arguing with strident pro-choicers. They are in denial as to what is and isn’t moral. We need to reach out the average citizen and we don’t help by rejecting those who don’t have the exact same viewpoint as us.
I think this may been the point tommylotto was trying to make, but he sounded like he wantsrather to get rid of abortion as part of the Republican platform. That’s not going to happen.
drflykilla on February 6, 2009 at 11:41 AM
How can people be outraged by hunters killing animals … And not be outraged about abortion?
My God … We’re told not to “judge” women who choose to have an abortion – simply because a child might complicate their life. But these same liberals are all hot to trot to “judge” hunters – who kill and grill their own food.
They value animal life over human life. And … Well many will say that a fetus “isn’t life” … But they can’t know that for sure. Our Chief Executive says he doesn’t know when life really begins and that the question is “above his paygrade”. Well if he doesn’t know when life begins – then he’s admitting that it COULD begin at conception. Yet he’s willing to TERMINATE that potential life at virtually any point in the pregnancy. How ridiculous is this?
HondaV65 on February 6, 2009 at 11:42 AM
My response above was to:
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Well, by your logic, since we are all nothing more than evolved dirt, what’s to stop, in terms of morality, someone from killing you? Why should others respect your life?
Such as?
Send_Me on February 6, 2009 at 11:43 AM
I don’t oppose contraception. I don’t think the catholic church opposes all forms of it- but I’m not Catholic.
Murdering a baby is murdering a baby. When cells unite in conception- a baby results. I don’t buy the argument that cells are alive all the way down the line- I’m not horrified when I scratch my scalp and live cells are killed in the process. Conception is another matter altogether…
I don’t support abortion with rape. A baby born of a rape is a baby as any other baby is a baby. When children are born of rape- do we attack them as children and tell them they’re somehow worth less than all their peers at school? Do we tell them they would be better off killed? If a child born from rape is somehow more expendable, why don’t we kill them when they’re 2 yrs old? 3yrs old? If they’re so worthless being born of rape, why should their age matter (in the womb/out of the womb).
A woman can do what she wants with her body- that’s why we allow idiots to cover their bodies in tattoos. Abortion isn’t just them doing stuff to their own bodies…it’s them killing a life of another. We don’t argue that women own their babies and can sell them if they wanted, so why do you guys argue that women, as long as their living baby is still in the womb, can treat the baby anyway they want as if they do own them?
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Don’t get me wrong–I wasn’t attempting a comparison of that sort at all. I was merely pointing out a few potential weak points in focusing on conseption.
There is a big difference, of course, between actively aborting and being unable to prevent a failure to implant.
But, and cut off point is still arbitrary. You can just as easily say that the zigotes are actually the first step in the creation of new life.
Heck, you could probably draw up a chart of how likely this or that is to end up with a live birth, and, at some point you are going to have to draw a line at some likelyhood. Granted, conception makes the probablility jump strongly, but only to something like 25%. Implantation takes you up to somewhere around 75%, and getting passed the first trimester takes you most of the rest of the way (all of this not counting abortion, which would skew the odds in non-guasian ways).
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM
So, your argument is basically that life isn’t sacred and that it’s pretty much pointless? Glad to see an atheist admitting that, without God, there is no ultimate purpose to anything, let alone being alive.
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Please enlighten us and tell us the biological difference between a fetus and a baby. When does the fetus become a baby? What is the specific development that turns a fetus into a baby?
This is very exciting, now that we know this we don’t have to use the logically indefensible concept of “viability” anymore. I am sure once you unveil the mystery of the magic moment with it’s associated biological facts you will be a shoe-in for a Nobel price.
You are truly a genius.
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Inside it’s a choice, outside it’s a crime?
Something doesn’t make sense.
29Victor on February 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Less than 1% of all abortions.
It’s also pretty arrogant to state that a child who will have to live in a foster home would be better off dead.
It is people of your ilk that are desperately in need of a biology course. Your lame semantics are no substitute. Baby, fetus, toddler, teenager, child, adult. They’re all unique human beings and that biology class that you must have skipped would have told you so.
Unless you’re willing to agree that I shouldn’t be punished for shooting someone who causes me inconvenience, this argument is inane. Don’t cause me inconvenience just to satisfy your conscience that it would be wrong to kill someone.
No it isn’t. But it also isn’t her damn business to kill someone in order to satisfy that end.
CDeb on February 6, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Oops, looks like my swiss cheeze memory has caught up with me again. I mistook “zygote” for the haploid sex cells, when it is actually the firtalized cell after conception. My mistake.
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Like I said, science isn’t going to give us the answere on this one. All cut offs are going to be arbitrary, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make one.
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 11:58 AM
There’s nothing stopping anyone from killing me, except the law and the possibility of my friends/relatives taking revenge on my behalf.
However I exist independently unlike a fetus which is entirely dependent on the mother to develop and form into a baby, but it doesn’t end there-its another good 18 years till that baby can be fully on their own, but that’s beside the point.
The key here is that since a fetus grows inside the mother it is the mother’s decision whether she wants it or not. Abortions won’t stop if the doctors refuse to perform them, people will revert to barbaric methods (coat-hangers and back-alleys) to eliminate the fetus which will end up seriously injuring or killing the woman.
If your viewpoint was valid and rational, then there wouldn’t be any debate since we’d all agree. However controversy exists precisely because theistic conservatives fail to understand or accept there is an opposing view that is grounded in reason. It is your side’s inability to understand why about half the country (if not more) favors abortion rights.
Its also a major reason people are turned off by Conservative ideology. Personally I like a lot of right-wing views, except where religion sticks its ugly and medieval head into human affairs.
I’ve already mentioned them, like women who can’t afford it (it costs about $200k to raise a child to 18 yrs old), or if they were raped or the condom broke, etc.
thinkagain on February 6, 2009 at 11:59 AM
We are not a civilized society………….
Seven Percent Solution on February 6, 2009 at 12:01 PM
You get to kill your baby, because it costs too much?!! That’s pure insanity. No, it’s worse- it’s evil. The logic makes no sense- a woman can do anything to any living being as long as the being as inside her womb? The baby is an independent being in the sense that it will, very soon, have its own mind, its own will, etc. The fact that a baby depends on the mother for nutrients and such for 9 months is a reason to allow the mother just to kill it for any reason she deems necessary? That’s sick.
The fact is- there are no sane reasons to support the slaughter of millions of babies every year. Outside of the health of the woman…any other reason treats babies as worthless meat simply allowed to stay alive because the mother allows it.
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 12:04 PM
A key point: I don’t think people quite get that contraception only reduces the probability of pregnacy, it doesn’t eliminate it. But people want that 100%, so they look to abortion to insure they get the life they were planning on. I am starting to think that that is the real root of the problem. Planned out, fairy tail lives, with no appreciation for random events or the probabilistic nature of reality.
And I don’t think abortion is the only issue where it shows up.
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Just love your logic (almost as much as you biology expertise)
neuquenguy on February 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I do worry about women who are shocked, demanding they cannot be pregnant because they used birth control.
With a tiny amt of planning- pregnancy is fairly easy to avoid. There are only (on avg) 2 days every month when a woman can even become pregnant. If you use several birth control methods and you refrain from certain activities at certain times of the month, it’s not only easy to prevent pregnancy, it’s actually difficult TO BECOME pregnant.
TheBlueSite on February 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Actually, with nearly a quarter of pregnancies in the US ending in abortion, I don’t think a black market would be able to keep up.
Count to 10 on February 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM
That is an oxymoron, moron.
ExcessivelyDiverted on February 6, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Technically murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent. Intent can be assumed by doctor and woman. However, under our current laws, abortion is not unlawful so it cannot be murder. But you also have the question of what is a human being. You will claim that a human being comes into existence at the moment of conception. But the term human being is not a scientific term susceptible to a scientific determination (so leave you discussions of multiplying cells, chromosomes and DNA at the door). A human being is what our society says it is, and overwhelmingly our society says that life does not begin at conception. Rather it develops sometime after that, no later that birth. Calling me a Nazi and a baby killer will not change the public perception on this issue. Also, look at these numbers. I’m sure that you will find some numbers to manipulate for your purposes, but over the course of the 30 years of this dispute the numbers have changed very little. Look at the Gallup numbers. The life at conception crowd consistently polls in the mid teens to low twenties. Except for minor variations over time, public opinion on this issue has remained constant. And now that Obama is in office the old liberal justices that have been hanging on can safely retire. Obama (like what Bush did with Roberts and Alito) will appoint brilliant activist liberal justices that are YOUNG who will be on the court for a very long time. Roe will not be overturned anytime soon, and the longer it is the law of the land the more precedent value it garners. I am afraid that it will always be the law of the land. That is why you abortion nutz need to stop using this issue as a litmus test. If an experience competent fiscal conservative candidate presents himself, do not reject hims merely because he recognizes that people of good faith could have differing opinons as to when a fetus develops into a human being. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.
tommylotto on February 6, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »