Video: Preemie born at 9.5 oz finally goes home

posted at 10:00 am on January 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday was the 39th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, so it was a little surprising to The Morning Spew to see ABC feature this heartwarming story of the survival of the third-smallest preemie ever, which the network aired on Saturday. Did ABC connect the dots on this story, which emphasizes life, or was it just a coincidence of programming?

When I saw this video, my mind flashed back to an evening in October, when I attended an event by Pro-Life Action Ministries in which former Planned Parenthood manager-turned-pro-life convert Abby Johnson spoke. Her speech lasted well over a half-hour, but I put together a few short highlights about her painfully honest recollection of her work at PP. Her description of the sterile Newspeak about the outcomes of abortions was especially chilling — and even more so when considering the child who just went home with her parents:

As a grandparent of two girls myself, the first revelation took my breath away, but the second was more instructive. Planned Parenthood wants to pose abortion as an antiseptic tissue removal service, but Johnson’s explanation of the “POC” (products of conception) work is just ghastly. It’s an explanation that exposes the lie that abortions only expel a lump of tissue, and it should be heard more often in the discussion over abortion. (Interestingly, it’s difficult to find links to “POC technician” in the US, but here’s a want ad in India that explains exactly what is involved.)

The “miracle baby” was a product of conception, too. Kudos to ABC for airing this segment on the weekend when pro-abortion advocates celebrate the disposal of millions of “products of conception” over the last 39 years.


Related Posts:

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 4

First…and God bless that kid. Hope he grows up to do good in the world.

MooCowBang on January 23, 2012 at 10:02 AM

WOW. Good luck to the child and parents. It is highly likely the child will have severe health problems in the near future.

CorporatePiggy on January 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM

The survival of any life in this day and age is a miracle in and of itself.

Spliff Menendez on January 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Is the world ready for another Tebow??!!!!

Deano1952 on January 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM

Dear Leader would have left her in a linen closet to die, lest the attending physician be sued for malpractice.

CurtZHP on January 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM

It’s amazing what medical technology can do.

closetgop on January 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM

“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries” is such a cogent and winning argument…

Akzed on January 23, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Great post for today. Thanks. There is nothing more schizophrenic than the fact that huge amounts of money were rightly spent to save the life of this tiny preemie, while others just like her are thrown in the trash every day.

cheetah2 on January 23, 2012 at 10:09 AM

cheetah2 on January 23, 2012 at 10:09 AM

+10000

mankai on January 23, 2012 at 10:09 AM

God Bless this baby girl and her parents!

D-fusit on January 23, 2012 at 10:10 AM

It’s amazing what life can do when given the opportunity.

redmama on January 23, 2012 at 10:11 AM

There is too much medical intervention in our society, both at the beginning and end of life. We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive as reproduce, and striving to put death off unnecessarily generally. This is weakening our genome across the board. We ought to give natural selection a chance.

I hope this baby goes on to have a good life, but if it doesn’t, it will be largely our fault.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I suspect that ABC’s staff could justify covering it because the baby was a) born, b) survived, and c) the parents wanted the child.

While such early premmies surviving are still rare or at least highly uncommon, our continuing medical and technological advances are making such early births more and more viable.

Such early live births – and more so survival – continue to knock holes in the contradictory, relativistic framework that legally allows abortion yet does not consider legal personhood – read, humanity – until the unborn is fully born.

Depending upon the state, that child could have been aborted at any further stage, had it stayed in utero, and wouldn’t have legally been considered a person. Goes to show the utter ludicrousness of the law sometimes.

The pro-choice movement is morally bankrupt and logically contradictory to sound reasoning.

Logus on January 23, 2012 at 10:18 AM

CorporatePiggy on January 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM

Maybe not.

If I’m not mistaken…the smallest baby was born in the Chicago area…20 years ago. They did a story on her in the Chi papers a few years back-when she was in high school. Other than being extremely short (something like 4’9) she was problem free.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 10:20 AM

I hope this baby goes on to have a good life, but if it doesn’t, it will be largely our fault. Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I think you should lead by example and drastically limit your own participation in the gene pool.

Akzed on January 23, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Had this happened in Europe where health care is “free” and run by the govt, this baby would be in the incinerator right now.

angryed on January 23, 2012 at 10:22 AM

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 10:20 AM

What resides in some people’s heads is amazing isn’t it?

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 10:22 AM

We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive…

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Yes, we are. Including morally defective and mentally disordered people like you.

psrch on January 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Awesome story. The one you gave too, ALT.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 10:23 AM

God bless this precious baby girl. What a miracle!

curious1 on January 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Is this considered ‘dancing to one’s DNA?’

tom daschle concerned on January 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Ed, I hope you got a screenshot of the “POC technician” want ad, because they’ve already removed it, just 24 minutes after your post!

http://www.clickindia.com/detail.php?id=8719371

ITguy on January 23, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I understand your general premise, and while on one level I agree, on another I think it behooves us to seek life, to promote life and to save life whenever and wherever possible.

It’s one thing to look at the elderly and aged infirm and ask them to reconsider spending tremendous sums of money to maybe give them another month or maybe a year (I am in no way calling for “death panels”). But it is something else entirely to not use resources we have available to give the innocent preborn, newborn and very young every opportunity at survival, no matter what the possible future health concerns.

We have this one life given to us and it is far more valuable then money.

My wife and I would willingly go bankrupt if it meant doing everything we could to save the life/lives of our child(ren).

Logus on January 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Morality based on human convenience rather than those rights with which we were “endowed by our Creator” is tyranny. And it’s a rare tyrant who doesn’t engage in genocide.

Knott Buyinit on January 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM

WOW. Good luck to the child and parents. It is highly likely the child will have severe health problems in the near future.

CorporatePiggy on January 23, 2012 at 10:04 AM

There is never a parade upon which Peggy cannot drop rain.

unclesmrgol on January 23, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

one of the likely cause for my autism is that I was born…a preemie.
In 1970, being born 4-6 weeks early was a HUGE thing.
I have-more or less-successfully managed the challenges that I was born with.

You’ll always be an azz.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Dear Leader would have left her in a linen closet to die, lest the attending physician be sued for malpractice.

CurtZHP on January 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You forgot the scissors. He’d have used the scissors first.

unclesmrgol on January 23, 2012 at 10:30 AM

That’s the sweetest story, God bless the baby and her family.

Cindy Munford on January 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM

We ought to give natural selection a chance.

I hope this baby goes on to have a good life, but if it doesn’t, it will be largely our fault.

Random

Natural Selection? That train left the human station a long time before modern medical science. You could look it up, but you won’t have to brush your pelt or clean your fangs before you head to the library….

Knott Buyinit on January 23, 2012 at 10:33 AM

I’ll never forget watching that video you took, Ed.

Thanks for posting that again.

Abortion is truly an abhorrent practice. Anyone who finds it to be morally acceptable is pathetic.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Randon, I’m going to echo Logus’s comment here. I share some of your concern. But …

We were staring at a hugh sum needed for my daughter and we started saving and moving assets. The majority of it ended up being covered, but my wife and I managed to put 180K aside for the sole purpose of paying for a live donor kidney transplant for my daughter. When you actually have a kid that has medical needs like that, you would pay almost anything.

When I see my kid having a pretty normal life, it’s amazing. And this story is amazing.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Amazing, just amazing.
Two years ago, my step-grandaughter was born and weighed in at 2lbs, 2 ounces, and it was a miracle she survived. At 9.2 ounces, what the hell are abortionists thinking – especially the late-term doctors of infanticide?
So why is euthanasia still illegal and eugenicist Margaret Sanger still idolized?
Head-shakingly ludicrous on so many levels. Shaking babies can kill them.
Whatever

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Karl Magnus on January 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Amazing Karl.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Jesus. Abortion has never been a major factor in my voting decisions, but seeing Planned Parenthood refer to “products of conception” is like listening to Jame Gumb say “It places the lotion in the basket.”

Caiwyn on January 23, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Unviable mass of tissue!!!

/pro-death people

SouthernGent on January 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Is the world ready for another Tebow??!!!!

Deano1952 on January 23, 2012 at 10:05 AM

In answer to your question…….YES, in fact this world NEEDS more TEBOWS!

SgtRed on January 23, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Great story. The likes of ABC are comfortable running it because the little girl was wanted, which of course, is the key difference between a human being and some fleshy tissue.

The Count on January 23, 2012 at 10:45 AM

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Karl Magnus on January 23, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Hawk, I couldn’t agree more. Anything price is worth life.

Karl, Bless you and your step-grandaughter.

Random, I’ve got nothing good for you so I’ll take momma’s advise here.

D-fusit on January 23, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The pro-choice movement doesn’t have anything negative to say about this story or any other miraculous example of a preemie surviving. Our argument is simply this, if a woman becomes pregnant and she believes she is not equipped to properly care for her child, that she is unprepared to be a mother and that she does not want to put her body through pregnancy, that she can choose to terminate her pregnancy legally.

That is all. We don’t hate life, we don’t hate babies (many of us reproduce ourselves). We believe that a woman has the right to choose when and where she becomes a mother, and we don’t believe that women should have to go entirely abstinent until that moment. I believe it is the later concern that gets social conservatives hackles up. This belief that women should simply choose not to have sex. And frankly, I agree. I would like for a woman to choose to engage in non-procreative sex acts. There’s a large buffet of things two adults can do that will never lead to a baby that can lead to orgasm and the emotional intimacy that often comes from sexual activity.

But pro-lifers tend to be even more grossed out by discussion of those kinds of sex acts than they are by the idea that women use abortion as a form of birth control. I would be more pro-life if pro-lifers were not so sex negative. If they quit trying to eliminate sex education in public schools, so kids can be educated about what is procreative sex and what isn’t. But that is really the rub, its all about an anti-sex attitude.

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:48 AM

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Aborted Fetus unavailable to comment.

D-fusit on January 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I would be more pro-life if pro-lifers were not so sex negative. If they quit trying to eliminate sex education in public schools, so kids can be educated about what is procreative sex and what isn’t. But that is really the rub, its all about an anti-sex attitude.

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:48 AM

If your basis for supporting life is based on how other people view sex, then you aren’t capable of being pro-life at all.

Doesn’t matter how others view sexual acts.

You either find the annihilation of life to be abhorrent, or you don’t.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM

I’m glad your daughter has an enjoyable life, hawkdriver.

One of my serious concerns is that as we use advanced technology in dysgenic ways, we will be allowing more and more people to live with in many cases, a lower quality of life compared to what te healthy around them have.

At a minimum, if a person finds their life not worth living as a result of these dysgenic behaviors generally and high-tech medical interventions specifically, I believe we as a society should support them having the right and access to comfortable, humane methods of suicide, without moral condemnation, but with love or at least acceptance.

We will be able to create whole generations of people with various defects, such far I personally would not want to live. I don’t find this as “loving” as some life-in-all-case ideologues do. I find it the opposite. I find it selfishness on our parts that we can’t let the elderly die when try wish, the mentally or otherwise I’ll end their suffering, or understand why kids with massive disabilities would not want to live with them.

In short, I think death has advantages, and if not letting people die, then at least respecting — yes, respecting — their right to a comfortable, effective suicide.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Hawk, I couldn’t agree more. Anything price is worth life.

What if the price for reducing abortions was allowing sex ed back into schools?

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Various typos in my last comment. Trying to do this on an iPhone.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:51 AM

What if the price for reducing abortions was allowing sex ed back into schools?

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Sex education doesn’t work.

All MTV does is talk about safe sex, STD prevention, and condoms, but many people still decide not to pay attention.

It’s a strawman to put forth the idea that we’re in the Stone Age and kids don’t have information to those sorts of things, or that kids aren’t introduced to that information.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I’m confused by this story. A few threads ago I seem to remember some folks telling me that at 22 weeks the “baby” my description not theirs, was little more then a “fetus”their description, not mine. So am I to understand that somewhere between 22 and 24 weeks life changes from fetus to baby magically. This baby is obviously a baby, yes? Congradulations to the little baby for making it this far. One tip to you little one, it doesn’t get any easier from here. Oh and all you folks who told me 22 weeks wasn’t a baby, come on over here and have a look at this fetus, adorable isn’t it ? It, their description, not mine.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM

You either find the annihilation of life to be abhorrent, or you don’t.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:49 AM

That goes both ways. If pro-lifers believe any reduction in abortion is a good thing because abortion is so abhorrent, then why is compromising on sex ed not acceptable. The lives of babies is worse less than overcoming Victorian squeamish-ness?

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM

This very heartfelt and outrageous at the same time. Ron Paul is the only candidate that will stop Gov subsides on abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. Bush continue the funding and the other candidates will do the same because it’s a wedge issue.

Capitalist75 on January 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Hawk, I couldn’t agree more. Anything price is worth life.

Life is not infinitely valuable. And even if it is, you can’t keep it.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM

It’s just like smoking. People are CONTINUALLY told how bad smoking is for their health, yet they do it. Young people continue to start smoking.

Young people are told over and over the dangers of texting and driving, or drinking and driving, yet they continue to do it.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:53 AM

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Because “sex-ed” proponents always want to scrub out abstinence as an option.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:53 AM

It should be noted she was “24 weeks” and the reported said one of 3 worldwide to survive, or the “world’s third smallest”.

Seems like when there’s a preemie storie here on HotAir there’s a rash of people knowing or having know for a fact 20-22 weekers who survived when born. They don’t. (and before someone asks….NO I don’t do abortions)

Marcus on January 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Everyone Against Abortion Please Raise Your Hand

timberline on January 23, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Marcus on January 23, 2012 at 10:54 AM

We must be reading entirely different threads.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 10:56 AM

What if the price for reducing abortions was allowing sex ed back into schools?

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Not reducing abortions, total elimination (medical exemptions for rape & mothers health ?).

D-fusit on January 23, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Sex education doesn’t work.

Is the standard perfection and MTV (which is a TV channel, not a classroom)? Well, fine, it doesn’t then. But lets rejoin the real world and figure out how abstinence only education in public schools fares against comprehensive sex education in public schools. When we look at actual data we see that federal government expenditures on abstinence only education led to the first increase in teen pregnancy in over a decade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/us/27teen.html

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Abstinence-only education doesn’t work. Countries like Canada don’t teach that nonsense, yet they have lower teen pregnancy rates.

Sex ed per se is helpful.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

My daughter didn’t suffer from a birth defect. People contract disease also. She didn’t exhibit the initial symptoms until she was early teens while we were overseas. Unless I misunderstood you, did you make an argument that saving her from dialysis (or worse) was bad somehow for society in general?

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Wrong.

It’s about whether a “POC” is a mass of tissue or a life.

People have the right to engage in various acts within their lives. They don’t have the right to end another life.

The “pro-choice” argument is inherently illogical- I want to engage in acts which, by design or evolutionary process, normally result in pregnancy with some regularity. However, I also want the freedom to kill the natural product of said activity, when it happens due to careless disregard of using contraception or the failure of those options.

Abortion has basically devolved into delayed contraception in most cases.

Completely irrational argument.

cs89 on January 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Blatantblue, smoking rates now versus smoking rates in the 1950s demonstrate that education can significantly reduce smoking rates. Again, you all seem to act like unless education totally eliminates a negative behavior then it is a failure. Huh? No one is denying that people will make whatever decision they make. But, if there’s evidence that sex ed reduces teen pregnancy (there is) and evidence that abstinence only education increases teen pregnancy (there is) then how can pro-lifers be in favor of abstinence only education? Unless their goal is more teen pregnancy?

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Abstinence-only education doesn’t work. Countries like Canada don’t teach that nonsense,yet they have lower teen pregnancy rates.

Sex ed per se is helpful.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

That’s great especially since not one single person here has argued for abstinence only sex ed…

tom daschle concerned on January 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM

There was going to be a baby shower for two of our pregnant friends. On the way to the shower one of them felt something wasn’t right and called her doctor. She ended up giving birth that day at 26 weeks.

Almost three months later she came home from the hospital the same week the other baby was born. That little girl is now a beautiful 13 year old with no medical problems.

We still quietly marvel at her and what my friends went through to see it happen.

DanMan on January 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:56 AM

You’re linking me to a study that has a ONE YEAR increase of THREE percent in girls 15-19 to backup your assertions?

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

There is too much medical intervention in our society, both at the beginning and end of life. We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive as reproduce, and striving to put death off unnecessarily generally. This is weakening our genome across the board. We ought to give natural selection a chance.

I hope this baby goes on to have a good life, but if it doesn’t, it will be largely our fault.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Thank you very much for your comments.

Since I was born over a month and a half early and weighed a little over three pounds, my twin sister weighed even less and I had to be a respirator for the first week of my life, your comments really strike home with me.

Thank God that my parents saw their two “weakling” daughters as two lives worth saving. I myself am a healthy college student along with my sister planning to graduate in May but hey, I guess I’m also a “weakling” that is “weakening the genome” since the doctors and nurses at the hospital fought to keep me alive. Maybe they should have given natural selection a chance right? I’m not contributing to society at all right?

Before you decide who lives and dies, why don’t you think for possibly 2 seconds?

NerwenAldarion on January 23, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Abstinence-only education doesn’t work. Countries like Canada don’t teach that nonsense, yet they have lower teen pregnancy rates.

Sex ed per se is helpful.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Never once said it was the only way to go, but I was trying to enlighten Libfreeordie that more people would be open to sexual education if the left wasn’t constantly trying to eradicate the concept of abstinence.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 11:02 AM

We really have to walk some people through basic logic, don’t we?

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM

DanMan on January 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Again, amazing. That will to live is amazing.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM

You misunderstood me, hawkdriver, and that may well have been my fault in how I phrased it.

I said I’m glad your daughter is doing well. However, in some cases, it will no be so. Soni think we should take the future quality of life into account when deciding whether to use extreme medical interventions into nature’s natural doings.

I also said that, out of (selfish?) love, there remains the possibility of helping people to survive who, on balance, feel their lives aren’t worth the pain, suffering, relative disability compared to others, etc. and in those cases, which are becoming more common in all stages of life, particularly near the beginning as end did to medical interventions, we should — out of caring and compassion and love and humanity AND basic ethics — allow and respect effective, comfortable suicide as a valid choice.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The law is not the problem here. Roe v Wade denies equal protection to a subset of life (which was understood at the time of the signing to be all life wherever found) without a finding of necessity to achieve equality. The litmus test that shows the flaw most clearly is that the only common characteristic of unborn children is their location. This makes them a suspect group unable to help themselves achieve equality without assistance. Such a group is to be protected, not exterminated.

The Fourteenth Amendment is sitting there waiting for attorneys to use it to protect unborn babies. BTW, we do not need a definition of personhood – life is bestowed by our Creator, not our legislators. We have a right to life and it has been abbreviated for convenience.

And while the attorneys sit there with their abhorent worship of the Supreme Court, another impossible conflict in the law is allowed to exist without a whimper – DNA identification. We use DNA to identify a criminal as the only human who could have been a specific unknown person. That principle cannot stand if it doesn’t apply everywhere that it can.

So how can paternity tests be accepted but personhood be absent? The grant of immunity from common law homicide liability is unconstitutional no matter what the Supreme Court has said about privacy. Unless you have a right to kill someone in the privacy of your home, you don’t have right to kill someone in another location.

We have an abortion problem in this country because 50 states lack the backbone to outlaw it. Roe v Wade does not legalize abortion no matter what anyone says but that will never be known until a challenge is made.

platypus on January 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Before you decide who lives and dies, why don’t you think for possibly 2 seconds?

NerwenAldarion on January 23, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Seems our society is filled with weakling stories. :-)

Bless you and your sis.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

We are letting every weakling with a congenital disorder survive as reproduce, and striving to put death off unnecessarily generally.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Heinrich Himmler, Reichsführerschule SS, had the same outlook on life. He was serious about enforcing this bizarre theory. Are you?

timberline on January 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

*particularly near the beginning and end due to ….

(iPhone difficulties)

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

What if the price for reducing abortions was allowing sex ed back into schools?

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Sex ed is in schools. Have we reduced abortions?

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Anyway, back to my original point with libfreeordie…..

If you’re willingness to support life rests on the prejudices, customs, and views on sex of other people, then you can’t be pro life at all.

Supporting life isn’t subject to the beliefs of others. Either you find life to be worth preserving, or you don’t.

blatantblue on January 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

There are two kinds of people in this world. The ones that can justify killing innocent people and the ones that cannot. This isn’t life vs choice it is good vs evil.

sirmyth on January 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:03 AM

hawkdriver, nice job the other night on the QOTD thread. You sir are the most patient fellow on HA. I just sat back and marveled. Again nicely done.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Random, et al.,

If you think that preventing the birth of babies with defects results in the limitation or elimination of those defects from the gene pool, then you really don’t understand evolution at all. What you are attempting to describe is selective breeding – eugenics, essentially. That scientific theory has been thoroughly disproven, even though “progressives” like yourself (and Peter Singer at Princeton University) keep bringing it up. It’s ironic that some of the people who claim to believe in evolution and want “natural selection” to take its course have so little understanding of modern evolutionary science.

studentofhistory on January 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

While I consider myself “pro-choice” in the legal sense, I am very much pro-life personally. The pro-choice movement is so militant and unrepentant of their views. From a strategy standpoint I understand this as they would lose a lot of ground if they conceded on some issues but they suffer from a major lack of common sense.

I am “pro-choice” but I have:
- Convinced two women to choose life (one was an adoption) over abortion. If a woman/couple comes to me seeking counsel I would NEVER recommend abortion as a solution.
- I have given to pro-life charities (NPLA, Pro-Life Across America, etc.) and have not given one red cent to organizations Planned Parenthood or NOW (even beyond other political issues). These pro-life organizations have ways to help women/couples choose life.
- I realize I am truly pro-choice, while most pro-choice supporters are really pro-abortion. This is not a snotty remark but it is true. The pro-choice movement doesn’t want women to give them reasons why they should choose life.
- I am a father. One of my greatest joys is my daughters are in my life every day and almost all the days are good days. If they had an issue with unplanned pregnancy I would be concerned about the fact they would be “punished with a baby” as our President would of his daughters. They would learn to raise this child or give it to a family who would raise it with a lot of love. A child deserves a chance at life.
- I know a woman who had an abortion 25 years ago. A few years ago she discussed and still had tears well up in her eyes. It is a painful process that is filled with a lot of regrets. John Kerry once spoke that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”. But the left’s actions say otherwise and never acknowledge steps that would actually make abortion safe, legal and rare.

Some of you may wonder why I consider myself “pro-choice”. Well, that is where the libertarian comes out in me on the side of freedom. Even though I do think it should be legal it should have serious restrictions on it. I wrestle with this like I do the death penalty. I know a lot of moderate conservatives/libertarians get lambasted because we may be pro-choice. But I promise you, most of us are most likely my kind of pro-choice, fighting the good fight for the choice of life.

closetgop on January 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Abstinence-only education doesn’t work. Countries like Canada don’t teach that nonsense, yet they have lower teen pregnancy rates.

Sex ed per se is helpful.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:58 AM

The demographic differences between the U.S. and Canada are huge.
(in ways that if i were to mentioned them, my post would be deleted)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

I understand. I disagree about making suicide a societal option as therapy, but I understand your point.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

I also said that, out of (selfish?) love, there remains the possibility of helping people to survive who, on balance, feel their lives aren’t worth the pain, suffering, relative disability compared to others, etc. and in those cases, which are becoming more common in all stages of life, particularly near the beginning as end did to medical interventions, we should — out of caring and compassion and love and humanity AND basic ethics — allow and respect effective, comfortable suicide as a valid choice.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:04 AM

If you really felt that way, you would be against abortion since it DEPRIVES a human from choosing whether to live or die. Trying to describe abortion as “allow and respect effective, comfortable suicide as a valid choice” is absolutely disgusting.

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:08 AM

There are two kinds of people in this world. The ones that can justify killing innocent people and the ones that cannot. This isn’t life vs choice it is good vs evil.

sirmyth on January 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

THIS deserves repeating. Excellent point!

dominigan on January 23, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Random,et al.,

I also find it ironic that people like you often think that religion, especially Christian religion, has brought no moral progression to Western Civilization. Yet, one item I think we (except you and your fellow progressives) are glad to be rid of was the common practice in ancient societies (read Greek, Roman, Carthaginian, Hittite, Assyrian, Egyptian, etc.) was “exposure” – the act of leaving an infant thought to be “infirm” exposed to the elements or simply left in a sewer. The Christian community found the practice abhorent (which most of us would agree), and instead practiced “charity.” But, I see that you and your fellow progressives are just one hair short of returning us to those enlightened days.

studentofhistory on January 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

You’re completely wrong, studentofhistory.

Obviously someone dying doesn’t eliminate te genes they have from te gene pool. But it reduces their frequency. This is basic.

I’m not going to debate with a PC moron. Of course eugenics done properly can “work” in the sense that you can increase or decrease certain traits. I’m not arguing here for strong eugenics per se, it am pointing out that allowing people, by way of extreme medical interventions, who would otherwise fail to survive and reproduce to do both has to increase their traits in future generations.

I’m not interested in your comeback, because it is going to be stupid.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I’m glad your daughter has an enjoyable life, hawkdriver.

One of my serious concerns is that as we use advanced technology in dysgenic ways, we will be allowing more and more people to live with in many cases, a lower quality of life compared to what te healthy around them have.

At a minimum, if a person finds their life not worth living as a result of these dysgenic behaviors generally and high-tech medical interventions specifically, I believe we as a society should support them having the right and access to comfortable, humane methods of suicide, without moral condemnation, but with love or at least acceptance.

We will be able to create whole generations of people with various defects, such far I personally would not want to live. I don’t find this as “loving” as some life-in-all-case ideologues do. I find it the opposite. I find it selfishness on our parts that we can’t let the elderly die when try wish, the mentally or otherwise I’ll end their suffering, or understand why kids with massive disabilities would not want to live with them.

In short, I think death has advantages, and if not letting people die, then at least respecting — yes, respecting — their right to a comfortable, effective suicide.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 10:50 AM

You obviously don’t know many/any kids with massive disabilities. I do. I work with them all day long. I don’t know any who struggle as much as you seem to suppose. They are among the happiest people I know. You also don’t know anything about their quality of life. The ones that I know, personally, who have had lots of medical intervention on their behalf are greatful for the opportunity to have medical care and get a chance to do all they can in this world. They may not ever be Tim Tebow or Pam Prom Queen, but then again, most people without disabilities don’t rise up and do great things either. Most people are just regular folks and you don’t need to be perfect to be a regular guy or gal.

The epidemic of suicide among teens and young adults in this country is NOT running rampant through the disabled community. It is the so-called normal kids who feel that they and their lives are not perfect enough. Those are the kids to really feel sorry for. They have their health, they have all the advantages that life offers, and still they don’t see it.

They can thank you and your fellow eugenicists for that. And the idea that anything less than perfection should be killed.

Lily on January 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

But lets rejoin the real world and figure out how abstinence only education in public schools fares against comprehensive sex education in public schools.

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Yes, lets stay in the real world.

What exactly is taught in sex ed classes? What is it that young people don’t know about how to engage in sex? The “Why” of having sex seems to be shoved out the “Education” for some reason and replaced with a ..here’s how to do it safely approach. How about we stay in the real work and learn from the mistakes of the past..stop bitterly clinging to the religion of the 60′s/70′s. Educate the kids! *lalalala..teaching your children well…the fathers hell*..etc.etc.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Seems our society is filled with weakling stories. :-)

Bless you and your sis.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Thank you. I don’t usually let comments like that get to me but this struck too close to home. I’ve had to listen to stories about how me and my sister could fit in our father’s hand all my life. My mother had a heart condition and was told that she really shouldn’t have any more children after my brother was born (it was very difficult for her, he was born a couple weeks early himself but was only a little underweight, not really premature)

Well my parents decided that they wanted to have one more child but God spoke and they found out they were going to have twins. They were told that this would be dangerous and it would be best for my mom if they aborted one of the babies but my parents were firm, they were going to have both of us.

My mom was in the hospital for almost 3 months until we were born via c-section over six weeks early. That’s early enough for any baby, but for twins? That was even more dangerous. I had to be a respirator but I weighed more than my sister so in some ways it evened out. My parents stayed in the hospital, coming every day to check up on us until they were finally able to take us home. We were so small my grandmother was scared to touch us.

But you know what happened? We gained weight, we grew up and now the only way you can tell that we were premature was through the stories our family tells. I guess this is why I work for March of Dimes and why advocate ProLife so hard on my campus, I was one of those babies and it’s by the grace of God and my loving parents that I am alive and well today.

NerwenAldarion on January 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM

hawkdriver, nice job the other night on the QOTD thread. You sir are the most patient fellow on HA. I just sat back and marveled. Again nicely done.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I’m not sure I’d deserve that, but thanks. Your comments are proving to be some of the more reasoned themselves.

But off here folks for vacation Honey-Do chores.

Before I go I’ll just say that stories like ALTs, NerwenAldarion’s and Karl’s are always great to read here. I hope we never feel so uncomfortable as to not share stuff like that.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I also find it ironic that people like you often think that religion, especially Christian religion, has brought no moral progression to Western Civilization.

I didn’t say that. Once again you build this massive straw man. I’m totally uninterested in talking to you.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM

But for what it’s worth, studentofhistory, selective infanticide makes a lot sense than blanket abortion.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Thanks, its been a pleasure, good luck with the never ending Honey-Do’s

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I’m not arguing here for strong eugenics per se, it am pointing out that allowing people, by way of extreme medical interventions, who would otherwise fail to survive and reproduce to do both has to increase their traits in future generations.

I’m not interested in your comeback, because it is going to be stupid.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Actually you are.
State your boundaries. Who would you see fit to live and what medical procedures would you deem not cost effective? Should there be a panel to make these decisions?

That said, if you follow your reasoning on the thread topic, you seem to be saying that life..the baby in question..is somehow a “genetic mistake” or a disease that should be eliminated.

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

But for what it’s worth, studentofhistory, selective infanticide makes a lot sense than blanket abortion.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Couldn’t help but see this on the way out. If this were the case, I wouldn’t be here.

That’s an incredible statement.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

The demographic differences between the U.S. and Canada are huge.
(in ways that if i were to mentioned them, my post would be deleted)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM

Why is that?

What exactly is taught in sex ed classes? What is it that young people don’t know about how to engage in sex? The “Why” of having sex seems to be shoved out the “Education” for some reason and replaced with a ..here’s how to do it safely approach.

Because they are little hormone bombs who tend to make bad decisions on a whole host of issues, not only sex. Sex ed isn’t going to stop those kids who are convinced that the only way to express their love, be cool is to have vaginal intercourse. But it may redirect 20% of those kids into doing something else, and 30% into doing nothing at all. And that’s a victory.

But you are right. Sex ed classes should be sex segregated and they should really be classes around self esteem and peer pressure. They should focus on the importance of knowing who you are, before you make the decision to get intimate. They should emphasize the importance of being sober when you engage in sexual activity for the first time and to remember that they have their whole lives to have sex, its not going to expire like a carton of milk.

But for those students for whom none of that will work, then its time to show them how not to get pregnant.

libfreeordie on January 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Random,

I really don’t care if you are interested in the comeback, because more than just you read these posts – which is the point to us really typing these out, isn’t it? I mean, did I really think that I was going to change the mind of the eugenicist? No.

However, you are still incorrect and do NOT understand gene traits or gene pools. Most of our malfunctioning gene traits are passed whether they result in actual physical malfunction or not. For instance, if someone has a family history of a gene abnormality, there is a probability that the actual physical abnormality may appear, but this is not guaranteed. However, the perfectly normaly baby and resulting adult would still carry the gene trait with them and potentially pass it on to future generations. So, you would have to essentially slaughter an entire genetic line to rid the gene pool of the trait.

The reason your solution gives the impression of a solution but not the solution you claim is that you have simply decreased the number of people who, as a result of the gene trait, actually show the physical abnormality – not because you are eliminating it from the pool.

As for those gene traits which are environmental – well that just speaks for itself doesn’t it. Oh, by the way, we aren’t sure in all of our medical cases of genetic abnormality, whether the cause is entirely hereditary or caused by environmental conditions – would you recommend that we just keep killing the “weak” among us to be safe?

studentofhistory on January 23, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Ave Maria!

May God be with this child and with those who march today for the most important cause of all… the cause of life!

Greek Fire on January 23, 2012 at 11:25 AM

But for what it’s worth, studentofhistory, selective infanticide makes a lot sense than blanket abortion.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM

That’s an incredibley stupid statement.

hawkdriver on January 23, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Sorry for this, but I couldn’t resist tweeking it, don’t worry I’ll stick around to tend to the tweek.

Bmore on January 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Hawkdriver, you could totally and completely oppose selective infanticide as morally repugnant and still see it as (perhaps only marginally) “better” than blanket abortion.

1. Abortion kills far more people, so there’s that.
2. Abortion kills healthy people, and even supranormally healthy
3. Infanticide can be seen as, to a point, done out of kindness so as not to burden unfit people with a life they’re ill-equipped for. This is less true now when life (survival) is so easy, but it was a real concern in the heyday of infanticide.

So on shear numbers alone, one could say one is worse than the other, even of one thought both were horridically bad.

Which was a worse war? The invasion of Grenada, or World War 1?

It isn’t a difficult question to answer, if or can just use reason.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:31 AM

But for what it’s worth, studentofhistory, selective infanticide makes a lot sense than blanket abortion.

Random on January 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Whats that mean? Who makes the decision?
Can you define the terms of your thoughts..what constitutes “selective infanticide” and “blanket abortion’?

(that said..I have a suspicion that you are not really serious, based on the word selection of “Infanticide” in a suposedly positive role”…sounds like bait.)

Mimzey on January 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4