Ohio House Bans Abortion… in a heartbeat!

posted at 9:15 am on July 2, 2011 by Kevin McCullough

Is Ohio becoming the most pro-life state in the union?

According to this report it seems darned certain to be trying. Reuters reports that the ban goes into place once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

Fetal heartbeats have been detected as early as five weeks into a pregnancy, though most are consistently screened for at six weeks. In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.” (In essence infanticide caused by neglect. You know babies dying in soiled utility closets and all…)

Compare the pro-life environment (all stemming from Ohio’s legislature actions) as opposed to the Planned Parenthood issues of Indiana and it might just be the new mid-west capital and champion for the lives of unborn children.

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

And that always leaves me scratching my head wondering, who does protect the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us?

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

 

I’m Kevin McCullough, and that’s how I “Binge Think.”

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3

What about this case?

Karen [Santorum] was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

It takes two people to make a baby.

In cases where two people agree to have sex and she becomes pregnant, and the mother wants to abort a baby because having a child would be inconvenient for them, I don’t support abortion.

But if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape which is forcible sex without consent and the child was created against her will and forced upon her by the rapist, then abortion is acceptable if the victim chooses to have one.

Conservative Samizdat on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

I don’t have a problem with having no “escape” clause for rape and incest because while emotionally tramatic women survive those. However in valid instances where it’s either terminate the pregnancy or lose the mother IMO the woman has first claim to the body. Perhaps these instances need a review to confirm that it is a life or death issue but the pro-life crowd has to accept that having no “life of the mother” instance makes their position a loser for many people. While I’m against abortion I would not support a bill that forces a woman to carry a baby at the cost of her own life.

katiejane on July 2, 2011 at 11:16 AM

I think everyone here will agree with that assumption. No one wants a mother to carry a child if it endangers her life. It’s the argument if a woman’s health is at risk that provides the slippery slope.

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Ok riddle me this: there’s an explosion in an office bldg, and I am blown through a window on the second floor. I land on you and kill you but I live. Am I to be charged with murder?

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM

No, but neither should you if you dodge out of the way and I die as a result, which is closer to the actual question of abortion.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:25 AM

What about this case?

Karen [Santorum] was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

No one here would argue that if a woman’s life is at risk she should carry a child to term.

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM

No one here would argue that if a woman’s life is at risk she should carry a child to term.

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:26 AM

Isn’t that what McCullough is suggesting?

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM

But of course we should execute murderers left and right, because those people are no longer people, while the people who may be people in utero are definitely people. What hypocrisy! There’s no possible way to morally justify capital punishment and oppose abortion. Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials… pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Of course, because the murderer is not innocent like the baby. Boy that was easy.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM

But of course we should execute murderers left and right, because those people are no longer people, while the people who may be people in utero are definitely people. What hypocrisy! There’s no possible way to morally justify capital punishment and oppose abortion. Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

If you’re looking for moral justification of the death penalty; look in the Bible. Personally, I would rather bring back the chain gangs than execute someone.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:28 AM

What about this case?

Karen [Santorum] was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

The baby wasnt aborted, but rather induced.

As far as rape, the mother could just go get the morning after pill (which when woman report the rape, they are given).

But as noted already, the percentages of women getting abortions because of incest and rape is very, very low.

akerralls on July 2, 2011 at 11:28 AM

But of course we should execute murderers left and right, because those people are no longer people, while the people who may be people in utero are definitely people. What hypocrisy! There’s no possible way to morally justify capital punishment and oppose abortion. Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials…
pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

You need to read your bible.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:29 AM

In cases where two people agree to have sex and she becomes pregnant, and the mother wants to abort a baby because having a child would be inconvenient for them, I don’t support abortion.

But if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape which is forcible sex without consent and the child was created against her will and forced upon her by the rapist, then abortion is acceptable if the victim chooses to have one.

Conservative Samizdat on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Note that what you are saying is that it isn’t the child’s rights that is important, but the mother’s culpability.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:29 AM

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Of course the baby died. It was aborted 1 month before viability. Also, your quote fails to mention what medical condition Ms. Santorum suffered from that caused her to have to abort her child. I’m calling BS on this one.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:30 AM

Fetuses are people too:)

What about this case?

Karen [Santorum] was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

If, in attempts to save the life of the mother, a baby dies, it is not the same as an abortion that has the sole purpose of ending the life of the baby.

Jvette on July 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Ok riddle me this: there’s an explosion in an office bldg, and I am blown through a window on the second floor. I land on you and kill you but I live. Am I to be charged with murder? Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:14 AM

No, but neither should you if you dodge out of the way and I die as a result, which is closer to the actual question of abortion. Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:25 AM

What? I’m flying thru the air after an explosion, totally helpless and innocent of wrong doing – like a fetus.

How do I “dodge out of the way”??!?!

What’s the analogy I’m missing here, that dodging out of the way is like a fetus? How would my dodging out of the way result in your death?

E gads.

Loosertarian arguments are often just fine, but when they replace morality with their skewed version of logic, they make ridiculous statements like you just did.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM

But apparently, neither the Ohio legislature or McCullough gives a sh*t about the woman’s life. Sickening.

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Yes, almost as sickening as the untold millions of mothers murdering their own children every year.

Liberal’s compassion is amazingly selective.

29Victor on July 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM

But if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape which is forcible sex without consent and the child was created against her will and forced upon her by the rapist, then abortion is acceptable if the victim chooses to have one.

Conservative Samizdat on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Ever heard of adoption? How about the morning after pill hat can be given right after a rape? Whew, that was easy.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM

But if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape which is forcible sex without consent and the child was created against her will and forced upon her by the rapist, then abortion is acceptable if the victim chooses to have one.
Conservative Samizdat on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

No it’s not. It’s not the babies fault the mother was raped. Sickens me that people are willing to murder an unborn child because of an inhumane act perpetrated by another. It’s a sad curcumstance but it’s not the babies fault.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 11:34 AM

If, in attempts to save the life of the mother, a baby dies, it is not the same as an abortion that has the sole purpose of ending the life of the baby.

Jvette on July 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Which will get interesting when an artificial womb is invented that can bring such a child to term.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Re rape, the morning-after pill should eliminate any abortions based on the claim of rape.

Just another weak reason to continue to justify abortion.

slickwillie2001 on July 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Which will get interesting when an artificial womb is invented that can bring such a child to term.
Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Loosertarian science fiction employed in a debate!

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Does this mean PBHO has lost Ohio in 2012?

Khun Joe on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

What? I’m flying thru the air after an explosion, totally helpless and innocent of wrong doing – like a fetus.

How do I “dodge out of the way”??!?!

What’s the analogy I’m missing here, that dodging out of the way is like a fetus? How would my dodging out of the way result in your death?

E gads.

Loosertarian arguments are often just fine, but when they replace morality with their skewed version of logic, they make ridiculous statements like you just did.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Oops. Got the you and me reversed.
If I step out of the way and you die by crashing into a wall that I would have protected you from hitting, I should not be charged with a crime.
Didn’t you figure that out from the phrasing?

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Isn’t that what McCullough is suggesting?

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Here is a quotation from the bill, right from the Ohio Legislation website:

“Provides that a person is not in violation of the above prohibition if that person performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or, in that personʹs reasonable medical judgment, to preserve the life of the pregnant woman.”

From the bill, if a woman’s life is in danger, as the case of Karen Santorum you posted, she would be able to have an abortion to save your life.

Reuters is reporting that the bill provides no out if the woman’s life is in danger. However, if you read the bill, they do.

Reuters reporters need to learn to read.

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Here is the actual bill, in its last form, the one passed by the Ohio House:

http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/analyses129/h0125-rh-129.pdf

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:39 AM

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The life, not “health”, of the mother is the only exception I would make. As a Christian, I believe that God wants us to live and take actions to save our lives if we can. If a fetus is truly killing the mother, I honestly believe that she has a God-given right to defend her life. I simply can’t believe she will be condemned by God for doing so. I just don’t believe that every tragedy is God’s will, even if He knows about it. If that were the case, why bother giving us free will.

SKYFOX on July 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Didn’t you figure that out from the phrasing?
Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Sorry, my artificial brain that reads your mind to determine what you mean vs what you say hasn’t been invented yet, so I will have to depend on what you say rather than what I might imagine you mean.

Please force the same limitation on yourself – until artificial wombs and brains are invented and all.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM

If, in attempts to save the life of the mother, a baby dies, it is not the same as an abortion that has the sole purpose of ending the life of the baby.

Jvette on July 2, 2011 at 11:32 AM

I agree with you but Mr. McCullough seems to think the life of the mother doesn’t matter. In her case, the fetus was literally killing her.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM

What about this case?
 

Karen [Santorum] was going to die if her pregnancy was not ended, if the fetus was not removed from her body. So, at 20 weeks, one month before what doctors consider ‘viability’, labor was artificially induced and the infected fetus was delivered. It died shortly thereafter.

 
SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

 
That baby was born, not aborted. It didn’t survive because it wasn’t viable.
 
I bet it’s mother and father got to hold it and smile and cry before the “shortly after”, too.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

If I step out of the way and you die by crashing into a wall that I would have protected you from hitting, I should not be charged with a crime.
Didn’t you figure that out from the phrasing?

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Why would you be charged with a crime unless you’re the one who cause the explosion in the first place?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Reuters reporters need to impartially report the news learn to read.
itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

FIFY. Hope you don’t mind.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Re rape, the morning-after pill should eliminate any abortions based on the claim of rape.
 
Just another weak reason to continue to justify abortion.
 
slickwillie2001 on July 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM

 
Great point.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Reuters reporters need to impartially report the news learn to read.
itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:38 AM

FIFY. Hope you don’t mind.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Not at all. You said it better than I could. :)

itsspideyman on July 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Loosertarian science fiction employed in a debate!

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:36 AM

Seriously, I have no truck with Libertarians.
And you don’t find the idea interesting that instead of abortions, someday religious organizations may be able to pay to support such children until they become viable?

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

I agree with you but Mr. McCullough seems to think the life of the mother doesn’t matter. In her case, the fetus was literally killing her.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Link please. I want to know what medical condition she suffered from.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

In cases where two people agree to have sex and she becomes pregnant, and the mother wants to abort a baby because having a child would be inconvenient for them, I don’t support abortion.

But if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape which is forcible sex without consent and the child was created against her will and forced upon her by the rapist, then abortion is acceptable if the victim chooses to have one.

Conservative Samizdat on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

FANTASTIC! And of course, the law should require that the man responsible be CONVICTED of rape or else the abortion is not allowed, right?

fossten on July 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM

That baby was born, not aborted. It didn’t survive because it wasn’t viable.

I bet it’s mother and father got to hold it and smile and cry before the “shortly after”, too.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

It was induced before it was viable, giving it no chance to survive. Are you saying the difference here is that it died outside of the womb instead of inside? The end result is the same: it didn’t have a chance.

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM

FANTASTIC! And of course, the law should require that the man responsible be CONVICTED of rape or else the abortion is not allowed, right?

fossten on July 2, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Sounds good to me.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Why would you be charged with a crime unless you’re the one who cause the explosion in the first place? mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

At the Maryland Loosertarian Convention in 1988 I was on a panel discussing abortion. The pro-aborts used nothing but this kind of logic, including, “What if I had to hold an elevator button for nine months to keep the doors open or you would die? If I let go to eat would that be murder?”

Honest.

On the pro-life side with me was a gal from Atheists for Life, BTW.

When I moved to DE I went to the DE Loosertarian Party’s web site, and emblazoned across the header was, “All men are created equal, and endowed with certain unalienable rights.”

Notice anything missing?

That’s Loosertarianism for you. That’s why, among other things, I quit the party.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Why would you be charged with a crime unless you’re the one who cause the explosion in the first place?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Well, in that case you would be charged for setting the explosion, not anything you did afterward.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Link please. I want to know what medical condition she suffered from.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:45 AM

In 1996, their son Gabriel Michael was born prematurely and lived for only two hours (a sonogram taken before Gabriel was born revealed that his posterior urethral valve was closed and that the prognosis for his survival was therefore poor). According to Karen Santorum’s book, Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum, she later developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant and allowed doctors to give her Oxytocin to end the pregnancy.

The Believer

SnarkVader on July 2, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Seriously, I have no truck with Libertarians.

Well you ought to, you deserve one another.

And you don’t find the idea interesting that instead of abortions, someday religious organizations may be able to pay to support such children until they become viable? Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Oh sure, when I rent a video, but not when arguing for murdering fetuses.

And note my post above – on he abortion panel with me was a gal from Atheists for Life. This is not just a religious issue. Was it only religious people who harbored Jews in the basements in WWII Germany? Maybe mostly, but it was also people who were in possession of simple concern for the wellbeing of the innocent.

Note above the “compassion” for death row inmates expressed by a pro-abort.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Shouldn’t there be a Hot Air “PAID ADVERTISEMENT” disclaimer in the footer of this snippet of a post, as well? Or was it… gratis?

sheesh.

FlatFoot on July 2, 2011 at 11:59 AM

And note my post above – on he abortion panel with me was a gal from Atheists for Life. This is not just a religious issue. Was it only religious people who harbored Jews in the basements in WWII Germany? Maybe mostly, but it was also people who were in possession of simple concern for the wellbeing of the innocent.

Note above the “compassion” for death row inmates expressed by a pro-abort.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Of course it doesn’t have to be a religious organization. I just thought you would relate to it better.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

This is what an embryo at 6 weeks looks like. It’s about 4mm long.

It hasn’t developed a central nervous system yet. Not only can it not think, it can’t even feel. It will become a human being — more accurately, it might become a human being. It is not yet an individual with a free will and rights. I think it would be heartless to ignore the human potential in that embryo, but I think it would be more heartless to ignore the pain of its mother. In the case of rape, “mother” isn’t even the right word. If people like Mr. McCullough have their way, maybe “prisoner” fits better.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Of course it doesn’t have to be a religious organization. I just thought you would relate to it better.
Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Oh please continue to talk down to my level so’s I’ll understand you.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

A fetus is a human being, and you are a moral imbecile.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 12:04 PM

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

I don’t see why the two should be incompatible? Murder is murder, period. We already put people away for offing co-workers, spouses, the guy at the bar that flipped them off after one too many drinks . . .

Ryan Anthony on July 2, 2011 at 12:04 PM

hasn’t developed a central nervous system yet. Not only can it not think, it can’t even fee.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Bulls***. Our midwife detected my babies heartbeat at 6 weeks. Without a nervous system there is no signal to tell the heart to beat.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 12:08 PM

I think that I am about as pro-life as one can be. I believe that a unique, human life exists from the time of conception. This means that even a “morning after” pill is an abortifacient, killing that life.

I applaud the Ohio House for this work and distain the media for misrepresenting it (with the lie of no exceptinop for the life of the mother).

I do not believe abortion should be allowed for cases of forced sex (i.e., rape.) The child was not the guilty party and should not suffer the death penalty because of the actions of the father. I know of someone who, because of the bravery of the mother, was allowed to live even though born from a rape. He is my brother.

I do not believe in abortion for the sake of convenience, even when the mother is young, poor, etc. ad nauseum. Again, is this the fault of the child? No. Let them be born and adopted into a loving family. I was.

What some are seeking in this thread is an example of where a viable unborn child actually threatens the physical life of the mother if allowed to continue development, and where an inducement of labor is not possible. There is one of which I know. It is called an ectopic pregnancy. The common term is a “tubal” pregnancy. In such a case, the child is attached, not to the inside of the mother’s womb, which is the proper nuturing environment, but rather the child is “stuck” in a Fallopian tube and attached there.

The consequence of such a pregnancy is twofold: 1) the child will not live. Eventually, as the child grows, the Fallopian tube will stretch to the point of breaking. Not only is this environment unable to sustain the continued growth of the child, but (in addition to pain) the stretching, and eventual breaking, of the Fallopian tube can cause death of the mother due to massive hemmoraging.

Does the above case then provide a rationale for aborting the child? At this point, I believe so, regrettably. If and when our technology is sophisticated enough to go in, remove the child from the Fallopian tube, and re-implant into the womb, so that both child and mother can live, then we have the moral imperative to do just that. Until such a time, we must choose between the baby dying and the mother incurring significant suffering and odds also of dying, or of saving the mother while sadly having to remove the child.

The above is the only situation of which I know where the life of the mother actually is threatened significantly and the child, although possibly healthy, has no chance of survivability, at least at this time. Why I am aware of such a case is because my sister had just such a pregnancy, and she did not know it. Her Fallopian tube burst and she almost bled to death. She survived only because she was a very physically strong individual with a very strong will to live, and, of course, received the proper emergency care in a timely fashion.

I have know since high school, prior to Roe vs. Wade, that the unborn child is a living human, who should have the same right to life as all of us. It is clear when one looks at the physical evidence as to when life begins. And we chould seek to preserve every such life, even perhaps to the point of an “artificial womb” (as someone indicated earlier) if possible. At that point, I do not see how anyone could refute the humanity of a child from conception to “birth”, although I am sure some would try.

IrishEyes on July 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM

In 1996, their son Gabriel Michael was born prematurely and lived for only two hours (a sonogram taken before Gabriel was born revealed that his posterior urethral valve was closed and that the prognosis for his survival was therefore poor). According to Karen Santorum’s book, Letters to Gabriel: The True Story of Gabriel Michael Santorum, she later developed a life-threatening intrauterine infection and a fever that reached nearly 105 degrees. She went into labor when she was 20 weeks pregnant and allowed doctors to give her Oxytocin to end the pregnancy.

Very complicated condition. Sounds like there was some doctor error involved for her to contract an infection.

Fetal intervention for posterior urethral valves carries a considerable risk to the fetus, with a fetal mortality rate of 43%. The long-term outcomes indicate that intervention does not seem to change the prognosis of renal function despite the presence of favorable ultrasound findings and urinary electrolytes. Although favorable urinary electrolytes were present, this did not seem to have any implication postnatally. The history of fetal surgery has improved in terms of the morbidity experienced by the mother and the fetus. Fetal surgery, (vesicoamniotic shunting and endoscopic techniques) for posterior urethral valves is performed only for the carefully selected patient who has normal-appearing kidneys and normal urinary electrolytes with severe oligohydramnios. When counseling families about fetal intervention, efforts should be focused on that intervention could assist in delivering the fetus to term. The renal sequelae of posterior urethral valves may not be prevented by our various procedures. We must not give families unrealistic expectations that fetal surgery is the cure for obstructive uropathy or that the child will not need extensive follow-up after delivery.

Although the present study does not support the use of prenatal intervention for the preservation of renal function in patients with posterior urethral valves, with technological advances in minimally invasive surgery and improved tocolytic agents, it may be possible for optimism in the future. Although renal function may be predetermined, prenatal treatment to improve bladder function, thus decreasing the morbidity of incontinence and infection, may be possible. We strongly advocate that future efforts to care for the unborn child with obstructive uropathy be performed only at centers with extensive experience and in a controlled manner.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Bulls***. Our midwife detected my babies heartbeat at 6 weeks. Without a nervous system there is no signal to tell the heart to beat.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The embryo has something called a “neural tube” which is a precursor to a CNS. That’s probably what causes the heart to beat. I’m not just giving you my opinion. It’s a medical fact that embryos can’t feel pain or think at that point in their development.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:19 PM

The same people who say rape is no justification because “they could just take the morning after pill”…. according to a lot of those same people, that pill is an abortion pill and should be illegal!
that is confusing. Unless this is two different camps of pro-lifers: the ones who think the morning after pill is murder and there should be no allowance of abortion EVER, and the group that thinks the morning after pill is ok. ?

CambellBrown on July 2, 2011 at 12:22 PM

So what’s the point?

Raisedbywolves on July 2, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Life.

bridgetown on July 2, 2011 at 9:52 AM

This bill is an empty statement to rally the base. Every Ohio representative who voted for it, every member of their staffs, even their staffs kids friends uncles-twice-removed know that this has no chance of being the law a year or two from now.

I guarantee this bill has less than 40% public support once all its provisions are publicized. Its an example of Republicans doing what the Democrats have done in the federal government. Cram unpopular legislation down people’s throats. It doesn’t work, the backlash wipes out all the progress you think you made. Incremental progress while less sexy is the better path to take.

Raisedbywolves on July 2, 2011 at 12:22 PM

And it should be obvious that a piece of legislation that prompts debate at HotAir as to whether it is too conservative has no chance of garnering the support of the general public.

Raisedbywolves on July 2, 2011 at 12:25 PM

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Thanks!

surrounded on July 2, 2011 at 12:26 PM

The embryo has something called a “neural tube” which is a precursor to a CNS. That’s probably what causes the heart to beat. I’m not just giving you my opinion. It’s a medical fact that embryos can’t feel pain or think at that point in their development.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Either way your argument is still bs. The human fetus IS a human being. You have been brainwashed by the likes of Planned Parenthood and their ilk. Once that heart starts to beat, it is no longer just a “clump of cells” or “goop” as Planned Parenthood likes to call it. I would even go one step further and argue that once the sperm fertilizes the egg it becomes a human being.

Sick you have the handle “RightOfLife” yet you fail to see the human fetus, the most defenseless life on this earth has it’s own right of life.

He/she said it best…

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

A fetus is a human being, and you are a moral imbecile.

Akzed on July 2, 2011 at 12:04 PM

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 12:28 PM

The same people who say rape is no justification because “they could just take the morning after pill”…. according to a lot of those same people, that pill is an abortion pill and should be illegal!
 
CambellBrown on July 2, 2011 at 12:22 PM

 
Since there are “lots”, please give one single name and then we’ll discuss the rest of your post.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 12:29 PM

But… murdering the unborn reduces the crime rate. I saw it in Freakonomics.

Kenosha Kid on July 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM

The same people who say rape is no justification because “they could just take the morning after pill”…. according to a lot of those same people, that pill is an abortion pill and should be illegal!
that is confusing. Unless this is two different camps of pro-lifers: the ones who think the morning after pill is murder and there should be no allowance of abortion EVER, and the group that thinks the morning after pill is ok. ?

CambellBrown on July 2, 2011 at 12:22 PM

I don’t believe the morning after pill is a legitimate either but if were are just discussing this law, than I guess it is. The morning after pill is designed to stop fertilization, not kill a fetus. Once the egg is fertilized, the morning after pill is useless.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 12:31 PM

ugh, typos, I need coffee.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

This looks like government at its worst. Rather than crafting effective legislation, Ohio has passed something along party lines that seems so certain to be overturned in court that the Right to Life organization doesn’t support it.

dedalus on July 2, 2011 at 12:36 PM

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 12:28 PM

“Left” not “life” and, like Akzed, you did nothing to address the substance of my argument.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Sorry I flipped out earlier — I’m better now.

Isn’t that “protect them” demanding additional (higher?) government/law intrusion regarding a state decision?

Good point. I meant they should exempt legit “life of the mother” cases from the legislation in the first place. Exclusion, not intervention.

Regardless, thanks for the reply, and I appreciate your statement. Really, this scenario might be exactly what you want. You don’t have to move to Ohio, or, if you already do, you can move/pay taxes somewhere else more in line with your sensibilities.

That’s the beauty of states’ rights and a truly representative republic.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 11:01 AM

OK you’ve got me on the state’s rights thing. I defiantly don’t want the feds to tell the states their business. I would rather see something like this be handled through a ballot initiative by the people of the state.

But, as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Ohio law apparently does allow for the life of the mother. So I guess I should read first, rant later…

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Thanks!

surrounded on July 2, 2011 at 12:26 PM

You’re welcome.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 12:40 PM

The human fetus IS a human being.

jkm-

Your say-so isn’t enough to establish that fact. I’ve told you why I don’t think an embryo is a human being. “BS, is too” doesn’t in any way rebut that opinion. I’d like to hear why you think an embryo is a human being, with the same rights as a would-be mother. I already know that you do think it.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM

But if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape which is forcible sex without consent and the child was created against her will and forced upon her by the rapist, then abortion is acceptable if the victim chooses to have one.

Conservative Samizdat on July 2, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Ever heard of adoption? How about the morning after pill hat can be given right after a rape? Whew, that was easy.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Am I understanding this right? You’re opposed to abortion but in favor of the morning after pill? That’s some cognitive dissonance.

Goldenavatar on July 2, 2011 at 12:48 PM

It seems good to subject an excited pro-life writer on Hot Air to the same standard of well-written prose as the other writers.

Kralizec on July 2, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I do not believe abortion should be allowed for cases of forced sex (i.e., rape.) The child was not the guilty party and should not suffer the death penalty because of the actions of the father. I know of someone who, because of the bravery of the mother, was allowed to live even though born from a rape. He is my brother.

IrishEyes on July 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Your mother is awesome!

Vince on July 2, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Sorry, life of the mother comes first. Abortion legislation should not touch actual medical decisions between a physician and their patient.

stefanite on July 2, 2011 at 9:55 AM

False dilemma. If it’s truly a case of mother’s life against child, a C-section is about as quick as an abortion. At any rate, all a doctor can do is try to give each the best possible chance to survive. Unless he sets out to kill the baby, he’s not going to be prosecuted.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 2, 2011 at 1:00 PM

But of course we should execute murderers left and right, because those people are no longer people, while the people who may be people in utero are definitely people. What hypocrisy! There’s no possible way to morally justify capital punishment and oppose abortion. Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I would submit that not taking the life of a murderer is precisely what cheapens the value of life. Yes, I understand that seems outrageous and especially hypocritical.

Very few anti death penalty positioned people are absolute. I haven’t met or spoken to one yet, but I do assume they exist. I don’t know if it would be possible for me to even entertain this moral idiocy as a valid engagement. So I won’t address that in this post.

What is prevalent in the anti death penalty crowd, however is there is at some point a threshold. Take your Hitlers, your Maos, Stalins, Pol Pots, etc. and they usually are comfortable with punishment on the capital level. So now the issue is no longer the principle but the number of innocents they murder. Maybe they have an actual number. Maybe it differs from one to the next. But what it does say is that, at minimum, one innocent life doesn’t rise to the value they place on whatever their number should be.

anuts on July 2, 2011 at 1:01 PM

If A woman is sexually assaulted, she will immediately take measures to terminate any pregnancy. You don’t wait 4 or 5 months to do this, it makes zero sense. This is only spouted by pro-abortion idiots looking grasping for straws for their argument.

There is the morning-after abortion pill that will resolve this non-issue of pro-abortion proponents. I can’t imagine ANY woman who has been assaulted, who would NOT do this immediately.

tx2654 on July 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM

And why shouldn’t there be consistency throughout our laws? If the legal and clinical definition of death involves a heart that no longer beats then why wouldn’t it logically follow that the beginning of life is when the heart starts beating?

anuts on July 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM

The human fetus IS a human being.

jkm-

Your say-so isn’t enough to establish that fact. I’ve told you why I don’t think an embryo is a human being. “BS, is too” doesn’t in any way rebut that opinion. I’d like to hear why you think an embryo is a human being, with the same rights as a would-be mother. I already know that you do think it.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM

I’ve got some questions. First: can we agree that if a creature is indeed human, then that human is entitled to all the rights inherent to humanity. That is, no human possesses more rights than any other human. All humans possess the same rights. Those rights are not endowed by men but are divinely endowed. And one of those rights certainly is that we cannot be denied life, liberty, or property without due process of law. That’s what I believe. Can we all agree on that? Because if we can’t agree on that, then we cannot agree on anything past that.
Secondly, I am wondering about something else. You write that you do not believe an embryo is human. So do you believe that a non-human entity can become human? You must believe that. Do you believe the same for other creatures? Can a non-whale become a whale? Can a non-cow become a cow? Can it go the other direction? Can a tiger become a non-tiger? Can a person become a non-person? If not, why not? If so, then can a person who then becomes a non-person be executed without due process? If a non-person can become a person, can it become other creatures? Obviously not. A human embryo can only become a human. An in utero entity is either a human or it is not, by excluded middle. So if an embryo is not human, there must then be a first moment when it becomes human. When is that moment? You mention you have your reasons why you don’t believe an embryo is human. I apologize I haven’t read that post yet. I’ll look for it. But in case I don’t see it, do your reasons include the standards a biologist might use to determine humanity? Do you know what the means are a biologist might use?

Just some questions.

Goldenavatar on July 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Mostof whom were convicted unjustly? Name 2 people on death row that haven’t been judged guilty by a jury and explain why they are innocent.

Vince on July 2, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Am I understanding this right? You’re opposed to abortion but in favor of the morning after pill? That’s some cognitive dissonance.

Goldenavatar on July 2, 2011 at 12:48 PM

I’m not against contraceptives since I’ve used them myself. In cases of a rape I have no problem with a woman opting to use the morning after pill. There is no cognitive dissonance involved since it’s not an abortion pill but a contraceptive.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Let’s save the poor innocent babies, but gleefully kill the hundreds of people on Death Row, most of whom were convicted in hopelessly unjust trials…
 
pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 11:23 AM

 
I’m very anti death penalty IF we’d stop providing cable TV, libraries, heat and AC beyond 60 in the winter and 90 in the summer, lights other than natural lighting, and any other entertainment that involves more than “1-2-3-4 I declare a thumb war”. Let extreme boredom/contemplation be part of their sentence.
 
Oh, and no fried food. A vegetarian lifestyle (but cheap canned or almost out-of-date veggies, not fresh) and daily forced exercise so they’ll live a healthy, long life.
 
Sit. Think. Wait. Think. Sleep. Wake. Repeat.

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The prolife movement loses me here. Why should the woman, already traumatized from the abortion, be forced to carry the child for 9 months after and give birth to it? It’s not the baby’s fault, but the baby isn’t the only person in play here.

lorien1973 on July 2, 2011 at 1:21 PM

already traumatized from the abortion

from the rape.

lorien1973 on July 2, 2011 at 1:21 PM

rogerb on July 2, 2011 at 1:19 PM

The Cool Hand Luke lifestyle for those death row inmates. That’s what I’m talking about.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:22 PM

The prolife movement loses me here. Why should the woman, already traumatized from the abortion, be forced to carry the child for 9 months after and give birth to it? It’s not the baby’s fault, but the baby isn’t the only person in play here.

lorien1973 on July 2, 2011 at 1:21 PM

So a rape victim would feel better if she became a murderer?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:24 PM

What to do when what happens? If the woman dies; bury her. If she has a medical complication; treat her to save her life and her child’s life. How hard is that?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 10:07 AM

Your missing the case in question, which is when the only treatment is aborting the baby.

Count to 10 on July 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM

If the pregnancy itself is killing the mother, then a C-section takes care of it, and gives the baby at least a chance at living.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 2, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Very complicated condition. Sounds like there was some doctor error involved for her to contract an infection.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Thanks, but we already know that you don’t know wtf you are blabbing about.

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

The prolife movement loses me here. Why should the woman, already traumatized from the abortion, be forced to carry the child for 9 months after and give birth to it? It’s not the baby’s fault, but the baby isn’t the only person in play here.

lorien1973 on July 2, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Suppose you think the child (at some point–even in the womb) is a wholly separate person would the above still matter?

anuts on July 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Thanks, but we already know that you don’t know wtf you are blabbing about.

Blake on July 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Who is this “we” you’re referring to? Do you have a frog in your pocket? I’ve yet to see you contribute anything but snark to this conversation so you’re one to talk.

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM

lorien: Mental trauma is less ethically wrong than murder. Exacting punishment on an innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the lowest form of injustice.

If you agree with the first statement, then you must agree that carrying a baby to term after a rape is better than aborting the child. (Even if you consider ‘trauma’ as punishment on the innocent, murder is still worse.)

If you do not agree with the first statement, then, ethically, you apparently believe someone can be murdered for causing you ‘mental trauma’.

On a more general note, the abortion ‘debate’ has always centered on the humanity, or lack thereof, of the preborn. Some here apparently believe that you must think and feel in order to be human. This is an incredibly slippery slope, and actually rather subjective. Genetically, any preborn fetus has human DNA, and unique DNA. To use any other basis for humanity allows for the removal of humanity from those already born as well as those not yet born.

Scott H on July 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Obviously, if one considers the fetus a viable, living, independent human being, then abortion is murder. But the fact is that most Americans do NOT consider it as such, and no amount of spleen or grandstanding will change that view. It’s just an endless shouting match between two groups of people who will never agree. Waving a Bible isn’t gonna help anyone see the light…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM

lorien: Mental trauma is less ethically wrong than murder. Exacting punishment on an innocent for the crimes of the guilty is the lowest form of injustice.
If you agree with the first statement, then you must agree that carrying a baby to term after a rape is better than aborting the child. (Even if you consider ‘trauma’ as punishment on the innocent, murder is still worse.)
If you do not agree with the first statement, then, ethically, you apparently believe someone can be murdered for causing you ‘mental trauma’.
On a more general note, the abortion ‘debate’ has always centered on the humanity, or lack thereof, of the preborn. Some here apparently believe that you must think and feel in order to be human. This is an incredibly slippery slope, and actually rather subjective. Genetically, any preborn fetus has human DNA, and unique DNA. To use any other basis for humanity allows for the removal of humanity from those already born as well as those not yet born.
Scott H on July 2, 2011 at 1:31 PM

+1

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Obviously, if one considers the fetus a viable, living, independent human being, then abortion is murder. But the fact is that most Americans do NOT consider it as such, and no amount of spleen or grandstanding will change that view. It’s just an endless shouting match between two groups of people who will never agree. Waving a Bible isn’t gonna help anyone see the light…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM

So I guess we pro-life folks need to give up then; eh?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:37 PM

pm: It need not be independent. Independence is not required for the rights of human beings.

I submit that a newborn cannot independently survive. And yet, if I kill him or her for any reason, I am guilty of manslaughter at the least. Therefore, you cannot use independence as a requirement.

A fetus is also perfectly alive, and viable in its environment. One can argue that if you take it outside of its environment, it will die, but that is also true of any human being not adapted to a general environment.

Is a fetus a human being? Genetically, yes, it is. That is the only objective test for humanity. If you suggest any other test, it can apply to those already born. If an organism is human, it should be accorded basic human rights. The primary human right is that of life.

Scott H on July 2, 2011 at 1:40 PM

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Maybe prayer will work then because you are one confused individual for comparing convicted killers on deathrow with unborn innocent babies.

If you can’t comprehend the difference between the two, you need help.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Wow. Just like that, I became a lifelong Buckeyes fan.

And I’m a Michigan grad. Go figure. Go Bucks.

God bless Ohio.

———-

As someone about to have his first baby … it baffles me endlessly and saddens me infinitely that ANYBODY who has seen an ultrasound, who knows ANYTHING about unborn children … can ever support any kind of abortion.

I will never understand it.

Ever.

It is inhuman and non-human. It is impossible. But it happens.

Losing a child to miscarriage was unimaginably painful. Knowing that people do this on purpose … after SEEING that baby?

Impossible. And yet it happens.

I’ll never understand.

And I’m really I can’t.

Professor Blather on July 2, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Blather: As an OSU alumnus, I must admit to some degree of amazement.

That’s not easy to do.

Abortion really is the sacrament of the liberal faith. What else perfectly encapsulates the mentality of sacrificing the future for the present?

Scott H on July 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Goldenavatar on July 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM

I don’t believe rights are divinely endowed, but I don’t see how that prevents us from agreeing on many other issues regarding rights. We disagree on the question of provenance, but I think we agree on everything else you asked about.

I’m going to skip some of your questions that are obviously rhetorical, but I’ll do my best to explain my position for you.

Can a non-cow become a cow?

I think you’re equivocating without realizing it. The word “human” can have subtly different, buy overlapping, meanings in different contexts. “Human” in the context of human rights means something different than “human” in the context of classifying species. Is there such a thing as cow’s rights? Sort of (even if you’re not a member of PETA). I think most people expect cattle to be humanely slaughter. That expectation isn’t likely to applied to cow embryos, however.

Can it go the other direction?

Sure. Everything dies. Your body contains much of the material from various dead animals, but that doesn’t make you a cow, pig, chicken, or lamb. I think that answers your some of your follow-ups, also.

So if an embryo is not human, there must then be a first moment when it becomes human. When is that moment?

I don’t believe there’s a simple, objective answer to the exact moment when a fetus gains personhood. I also think that a fetus should receive protection before that moment arrives. Regardless of the answer to your question, in a case like rape or incest, I think it can be objectively decided who suffers actual harm from any given outcome, and the answer is unequivocal: the mother and not the embryo.

Do you know what the means are a biologist might use?

Again, this is equivocating with the word human.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 1:45 PM

So, where does your rights come from?

mizflame98 on July 2, 2011 at 1:47 PM

Ok, jawkneemusic. Thanks. I’ll seek help right away. Sheesh. And you wonder why no one listens to you except in echo chambers like this web site…

pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 1:50 PM

This is what an embryo at 6 weeks looks like. It’s about 4mm long.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM

On the other end of the pregnancy, I’d link to a picture of fetuses at the last age where they can be legally aborted …. but you’ve seen babies before…

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 2, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Ok, jawkneemusic. Thanks. I’ll seek help right away. Sheesh. And you wonder why no one listens to you except in echo chambers like this web site…
pm123 on July 2, 2011 at 1:50 PM

You’re obviously paying attention.

jawkneemusic on July 2, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Good blog. I’m glad that I read it. ;o)

DannoJyd on July 2, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Ectopic pregnancies will often kill the mother if not terminated, usually from internal bleeding when the fetus grows large enough to rupture the fallopian tube. And at that point the fetus dies too. But that is about the only circumstance I can think of a true abortion, not just an induced delivery before the point of viability, is necessary.

And since it turns out the bill protects exactly those sorts of procedures, it’s really a moot point isn’t it?

LibraryGryffon on July 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Goldenavatar-

This isn’t in response to any of your questions, but I think it relates to the discussion in general. The paradox of the heap goes something like this:

I have a heap of sand. If I remove one grain, is it still a heap? If I remove another, is it still a heap? If yes, then I can keep removing grains until I have one left, and that single grain must also be a heap. But clearly a single grain of sand isn’t a heap.

You could apply similar reasoning to fetal development to conclude that life begins at conception (or even earlier), but it doesn’t make it any less illogical.

RightOFLeft on July 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3