Something to celebrate: Partial-birth abortion ban has stopped 11,000 abortions

posted at 3:06 pm on April 20, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Remember when Congress debated the partial-birth abortion ban and abortion advocates insisted that the procedure was necessary for women’s health? Remember when they challenged the constitutionality of the law in Gonzalez v. Carhart? The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional even without a specific non-life-endangering health exception (the law already offered a life-endangerment exception). Five years later, no specific, personal stories have emerged of women whose health has been negatively impacted by the unavailability of the partial-birth abortion procedure — but more than 11,000 lives have been saved. Alliance Defense Fund attorney Casey Mattox reports:

The Court didn’t have to decide that a health exception was always unnecessary as a factual matter, deferring to Congress’s judgment on the matter. It simply refused to declare the whole law unconstitutional because of the theoretical possibility that a woman might need an abortion for a non-life-threatening health reason. But importantly, the Court held that abortionists could bring future challenges to the law on behalf of actual women who needed a partial-birth abortion for true health reasons.

Hours after the decision, Planned Parenthood was still warning of its imminent negative impact on women’s health. The battle seemingly joined, Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion, citing the ACOG/Kagan language, specifically invited as-applied challenges on behalf of the alleged thousands of women who needed the partial-birth abortion procedure for health reasons: “One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.”

Over five years later, Justice Ginsburg and the nation still wait. Although women’s health was allegedly immediately harmed by the decision, we have not yet seen an as-applied challenge on behalf of one of these women, nor have we seen even one documented story of a woman whose health was impacted by the unavailability of a partial-birth abortion. If we accept Guttmacher’s figure of approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions per year, then the decision in Gonzales – upholding the law and lifting the injunction against it – has prevented 11,000 partial-birth abortions from occurring.

Pro-life activists understand that the abortion battle is, first and foremost, a battle for the hearts and minds of pregnant women — and also a battle for the hearts and minds of women who could become pregnant. While change is effected on a case-by-case, person-to-person basis, though, it’s important not to forget that legal measures do make a significant difference. Roe v. Wade might not be overturned in my lifetime or in the lifetimes of my future children, but that’s not a reason to not fight for it or for the partial measures — like the ban on partial-birth abortion — that quite literally save lives.


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

It should be up to the mother, noone should force anyone what to do with their body.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM

And yet an abortion is forcing a baby to die. Ironical…

NotCoach on April 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I bet there are more than on person named Jesus back then. He didnt exist.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:07 PM

ROFL

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I parent should have a right to kill their kid till they are 18 since they are responsible for them.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM

O_O

JPeterman on April 20, 2012 at 4:15 PM

NotCoach on April 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM

The baby is not born yet. It is part of the mother, and the mother should decide.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I bet there are were more than on person named Jesus back then. He didnt exist.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Why yes, I’m sure there were thousands of men named Jesus. And I’m sure there were countless hordes of men named Jesus who were crucified in Judea by the Romans for supposedly inciting rebellion among the Jews right around 33 A.D. during the Passover celecbrations.

I can see where the non-Christian historians would be confused by all those Jesus’s put to death that year by the Romans. I’m sure the Romans were killing guys named Jesus on every street corner. I hear it was a popular Roman game.

I certainly won’t fault you for not believing he was the ‘son of god”, since I don’t believe in that either. But the fact that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified in Judea around 33 A.D. is a matter of historical fact.

I thought you liberals liked scientific fact…

gravityman on April 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM

And the 1/2 that do not will need assistance from the government, but that probably will not be around if Republicans get their way, and then they will die from no medical coverage and no food.

So their lives will be more torture.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM

So, let me try and understand this “logic” of yours. All 11,000 of these children should have been aborted, because half of them will grow up to be dependent on government?

Please show me where ANY Republican advocates taking away food and medical care from any Americans. Do you think dependence on government programs is a positive thing, and if there are no children to grow up and work, who is going to continue to foot the bill for all these government freebies?

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Exactly. Leave religiousness out of it.
IT’S JUST WRONG. Morals, people.
Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 3:58 PM

And where does our standard of morality come from? You know the answer. 

Partial birth abortion?!! C’mon mang. You either are born or your not. Cant the braniacs of the worlld and the self rightous pro lifers define what “born” is? How is this a serious debate if either side evades a basic understanding of the issue at band?
If your born, abortion bad if not abortion not so bad. Partial birth? WHAT IS THAT?!!
beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Conservatives have made it quite clear. Life begins and conception. It’s murder no matter how you try and rationalize it.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:18 PM

I parent should have a right to kill their kid till they are 18 since they are responsible for them.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Come on, you can’t really believe that.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:18 PM

The baby is not born yet. It is part of the mother, and the mother should decide.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

I parent should have a right to kill their kid till they are 18 since they are responsible for them.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Apparently for you developmental stage does not matter.

A baby sucked from a mother’s womb is still a person whether born or not. How many abortion doctors have ever asked the unborn child if they wanted to be murdered before being murdered?

NotCoach on April 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I know people on the welfare system.

$200.00 a month in food money is not enough to eat all month. Noone can on that.

A mother and a child is $367.00 a month in benefits.

Do you even know what formula costs these days? You can not feed a 2 people on that.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Yep, I know what formula cost. Part of the reason my kids were breastfed. When I started out 20 years ago I was making so little that I qualified for food stamps. I chose not to apply. I managed on $5/week groceries. These people you know, do they have cable TV? A cell phone? A car? It’s all about priorities. And when your money comes from another source(taxpayers) that source has every right to question how much and how you are spending the money they are giving you. As an aside, I donate regularly to my local food bank which supplements people who think they don’t have enough food stamp money.
Killing babies should not be the alternative to potential poverty.

hopeful on April 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:17 PM

A U.S. congressional panel approved about $33 billion in cuts over 10 years from food assistance programs in a partisan vote t h at signaled Republican members’ preference to trim social programs instead of farm programs or defense spending this year.

ANd it is not 11K CHildren, hyped up number as usual, there is no proof of that.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

The baby is not born yet. It is part of the mother, and the mother should decide.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Better yet, keep the umbilical cord attached until the mother can decide whether she really wants the little thing or not. Give it a few hours for her to change her mind, just in case.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Anyone using the ‘we can’t feed the people we already have’ canard is displaying blatant ignorance.

The FAO reports that we already produce enough food to feed 12 billion people. (www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-5.doc)

I heard Dr. Tim Ball, who has more credibility than most of the ‘overpopulation’ hacks, say that we actually produce enough food to feed 26 billion people.

People starve because of corruption and social engineering, often social engineering by idiots who buy into overpopulation etc.

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Let’s also celebrate and embrace the opportunity to help millions of poor, including children, from hunger and third-world malnutrition in these difficult economic times. Many unwanted children, including those born to parents seeking an abortion, end up in very challenging environment. You can’t claim the moral high ground on abortions and then abandon it with the argument of “personal responsibility” as soon as money is involved.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2012-04-17/catholic-bishops-paul-ryan-budget/54361480/1

bayam on April 20, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Where were you in condemning the state of Illinois when the Catholic Charities were forced to shut down their Foster care and Adoption Services, because they refuse to place children with “gay” “couples?”

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM

hopeful on April 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM

No they do not have cable or a TV for that matter, one of them lives in a studio apartment, and can not afford diapers. I give them supplies bi-weekly to help them out.

You can not live on $5.00 a week food anymore. Milk alone almost costs that.

I donate as well, as much as I can give.

It is not enough, and the food bank does not get enough to donate.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Images are going to explain what partial birth is? My question was rhetorical. U get that right? There is no such tbing, is what i hope you mean to show me in your photos.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Umm, yes. As the father of five children, that I can tell YOU that I know exactly what partial birth is.

Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

Yes and if someone can not pay for their food, they throw it away. Just because you prodice it does not mean it is getting to people that are in need.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I agree so much with your post. Republicans liked to use the Church when it came to an agenda they could support. Then when the church tells them they are wrong, they go against it.

Hypocrites.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Excuse me? I’m not Catholic, however, unlike you and Bayam, I’m not too stupid to realize that the Catholic Church has done a lot of good for a lot of people through their Hospitals and their programs for helping the poor. I’m not a hypocrite because I disagree with the Catholics about Ryan’s budget.

If anyone is a hypocrite, it’s Bayam, because he has no use for the Catholic church unless they happen to agree with HIM.

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I’m not a fan of abortion, but in certain circumstances where there are critical birth defects (e.g. the baby is not going to survive outside the womb) I think it can be an act of mercy and I think the parents should be able to chose how to handle it on their own terms. I read the story of the parents of such a child being forced to carry the baby for an additional 20 weeks against their will, when that child’s death was inevitable, and likely to be painful. Is that contained within the “exceptions” clause?

In other words, I’m curious if there are any statistics regarding the reasons that women chose to do a partial-birth abortion. A pro-choice friend was arguing with me that most second-trimester abortions are due to such medical complications, because the average woman would not want to go through the discomfort of the 1st trimester of pregnancy if they didn’t intend to keep the baby in the first place. I wonder how of these abortions are for serious medical complications, how many are due to finding out that the child may have special needs, and how many are just people “changing their minds”.

Violina23 on April 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM

So, born, conception, same thing? Dont think so. At birth there is an ACTUAL individual. At conception, at best you have a potential individual. Not the same at all.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM

It should be up to the mother, noone should force anyone what to do with their body.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Wrong. There are two bodies involved, not just one. Even the father of the child has no say. There is no difference in a woman having a mid-term abortion, and a woman who has her 8 month old baby ripped apart and vacuumed up because she’s just not ready to raise a child or she might be poor.

JetBoy on April 20, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Wow, damian, you’re quick!

That’s what I said. ‘Corruption‘ and social engineering.

for those of us who don’t believe you should murder babies in the womb, ‘corruption’ has a broader meaning, including immorality. Immorality includes throwing food away when people are hungry.

Prices have gone through the roof thanks to ethanol. Ethanol is part of the global warming agenda. The global warming agenda is linked, arm-in-arm with overpopulation movement.

Again, as I said…

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:26 PM

So, born, conception, same thing? Dont think so. At birth there is an ACTUAL individual. At conception, at best you have a potential individual. Not the same at all.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM

When does the individual become actual, is there a blood test or saliva swab or something?

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM

And where does our standard of morality come from? You know the answer.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Yes I do.

Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM

It’s so simple and so complicated. Do not have intercourse unless you are willing to raise a child. Do not think that if you slip up, you are not responsible for your actions. Killing a child is not an antidote for being careless or stupid.

moonlighter on April 20, 2012 at 4:28 PM

Ugly, ease up, tiger. You are not the onlt dad in the room. Besides how is that relevant? Just define birth and stop with the bluster.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I’m not a fan of abortion…

Violina23 on April 20, 2012 at 4:24 PM

I seriously want to vomit when I read/hear those words.

Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

I parent should have a right to kill their kid till they are 18 since they are responsible for them.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Uh huh. But Trayvon Martin was a poor, innocent little lamb who was murdered by George Zimmerman, right? You have some very interesting priorities.

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

moonlight 4:28

We have a winner!

THAT’S why so many people want abortion. So they can live out their teenage dreams and have no accountability after the fact.

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM

herm2416 on April 20, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Thats all right wing talk, there are still many poor people out there that can not feed their family.

Stop listening to Michael Graham

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM

I don’t know who Michael Graham is.
Right wing talk? Really? I live within my means, I was taught that by my parents. If I can’t afford it, I don’t buy it. I have one credit card, it is paid in full each month. We are raising our children the same way. You know…responsibly and with accountability. There will always be people who can’t afford things–legitimately; just as there will always be people who cry poor when the government doesn’t give them enough, because subsidized housing, cellphone, gas, electric, welfare, food stamps, education, medical, etc. just isn’t enough for them.

ABO2012

herm2416 on April 20, 2012 at 4:30 PM

just define birth and stop with the bluster.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:29 PM

How’s about you define birth? As for bluster, I think I have a leg up on you, son.

Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM

So, born, conception, same thing? Dont think so. At birth there is an ACTUAL individual. At conception, at best you have a potential individual. Not the same at all.
beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:25 PM

So when a mother is 8 months pregnant and the baby and feel and hear and even understand, it’s still not a human until its cord is cut?

At 2 weeks the fetus has a spine and a brain. At 4 to 5 weeks it has a heart beat. At 6 to 7 weeks it has a mouth and a tongue. At 9 weeks other organs are developed like the liver, gallbadder etc.

Now you’re going to tell me that even at 5 weeks this is not a human being that can’t feel pain? I believe it’s a human at conception but I’ll relent at least 5 for the sale of arguement.

Sick the lengths you people will go to to justify murdering children out of shear convenience to the mother.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Bishop, read my post again. AT BIRTH. Ugly is working up a definition of birth for us. Maybe then we’ll all get some clarity on this partial birth nonsense.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

ANd it is not 11K CHildren, hyped up number as usual, there is no proof of that.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM

How many full term babies would it be okay to murder, while they are still “part of the mother?” Is there any limit?

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

11,000 more people in the country that people can not afford, and the right wing wants to cut off from being fed.

Makes sense.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 3:24 PM

This comment makes 0 sense. 0 ! I suspect you to be a shallow thinker. That is me thinking the best of you at this point.

Bmore on April 20, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Nevermind, damian1967 , you’re a troll. I have sworn off walking you to the door.

Bmore on April 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Bishop, read my post again. AT BIRTH. Ugly is working up a definition of birth for us. Maybe then we’ll all get some clarity on this partial birth nonsense.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

So abortion is okay up until the child is born? It’s not a “person” until it’s outside the womb?

JannyMae on April 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Jawknee, i have only said that at birth there is an actual individual. Ive laid no claim on when birth IS except that its obvious baby is born when out of the womb. Does birth happen at some other time? Ugly seems to think so. He’s working that up for us.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Bishop, read my post again. AT BIRTH. Ugly is working up a definition of birth for us. Maybe then we’ll all get some clarity on this partial birth nonsense.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Incorrect.

Look, if you don’t know what birth is, you aren’t a woman or you’ve never witnessed it (for 36 hours at stretch).

I know what birth is. It’s a miracle.

Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Nevermind, damian1967 , you’re a troll. I have sworn off walking you to the door.

Bmore on April 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

+1

I seldom react to trolls, Bmore, but demon just irked me.

herm2416 on April 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Bmore on April 20, 2012 at 4:36 PM

:)

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

herm2416 on April 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The truth hurts, does it not?

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I’m curious, beselfish,

how exactly did you come to the determination that individuality starts at birth?

You seem fond of definitions. Would you define individual for us, please? Thank you.

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Child sacrifice is necessary in a godless, pagan society.

tom daschle concerned on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM

They are not an individual yet, they are still attached to the mother, they for the most part (few exceptions) can not survive with out the mother, that does not make them an individual.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

tom daschle concerned on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

agree

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

GOP should track down every one of them and tell them how they came to be. And how close they almost came to not being.

platypus on April 20, 2012 at 3:16 PM

It’s all politics with you isn’t?

Uppereastside on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Liberalism perverts everything…even the life of an innocent child.

crosshugger on April 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM

crosshugger on April 20, 2012 at 4:42 PM

It is not a chile till it is born. Stop trying to re-invent everything for your political gains

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:43 PM

how exactly did you come to the determination that individuality starts at birth?

You seem fond of definitions. Would you define individual for us, please? Thank you.

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

I like that question…

Ugly on April 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Does this “Unprotected child”, “Innocent child” have a name? Social Security? Bithday? thinking capability yet?

No.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Damian feels that it is better to apply a perminent solution (abortion) to a temporary problem (poverty).

uncommon sense on April 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Mixed feelings on this.

On the one hand, it stops what has to be a horrifying procedure for the child.

On the other hand, it subjects an innocent child who has never made a decision to live to all the other horrors and suffering in life, including a horrible death some time down the road.

The solution, ideally, would be not to conceive in the first place.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

agree

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Proof positive this is a 4chan idiot that should be ignored.

tom daschle concerned on April 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

in·di·vid·u·al (nd-vj-l)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.
b. By or for one person: individual work; an individual portion.
2. Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.

SInce it is not seperate yet, it is not an individual

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:46 PM

uncommon sense on April 20, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Poverty in a lot of cases is not temporary. Yes at times it is, but many times it is not.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Wow, damian, that’s some deep think there!

So according to you, individuality is imposed by legalities, like names, ss numbers and birthdays.

Interesting…

Then I suppose by that reasoning, a regime could pass a law requiring ‘fetuses’ to be given names and ss numbers at the moment conception is recognized, and make that day the replacement for a birthday, and all this would now make the ‘fetus’ a person? Oh, wait, you mentioned thinking capability.

Be careful with that one, bubba. You might not be considered living, either, based on what I’ve seen here.

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

On the other hand, it subjects an innocent child who has never made a decision to live to all the other horrors and suffering in life, including a horrible death some time down the road.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Where do I sign up for one of your motivational seminars?

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

SInce [sic] it is not seperate [sic] yet, it is not an individual

That’s a specious argument. It has distinct DNA — hardly a minor consideration dividing one person from another.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Jawknee, i have only said that at birth there is an actual individual. Ive laid no claim on when birth IS except that its obvious baby is born when out of the womb. Does birth happen at some other time? Ugly seems to think so. He’s working that up for us.
beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:38 PM

So it’s a matter of residency to you? It’s not a human until the cord is cut? Besides, your point is moot. It’s not about being born. It’s about conception. Do you really have no idea what partial birth abortion is?

Simply put, it’s when the “Doctor” enduces labor then kills the baby. The baby is murdered in the process of birth that the “doctor” enduced. Sometimes the baby is killed by taking a sharp object and jamming into the base of the babies skull. Other times it’s tortured to death by injecting a type of saline. Killing it. Then it’s vacuumed out like its a piece of garbage. Is that clear enough for you? Maybe you should sit in on one of these abortions as an intern to see just how gruesome and barbaric this method of baby killing is.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

I agree, but the government does not want to allow woman to get contraceptives either. Then they dont want you to get an abortion, and then they do not want to make sure your child can be fed.

A lot of problems here.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Where do I sign up for one of your motivational seminars?

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I think optimism, which forms a key part of most belief systems, is a huge part of the problem. It isn’t reality based, and leads us to do irrational things, all so we can perpetuate our DNA-molecules. It’s a cognitive bias, a delusion derived from natural selection.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:45 PM

We already know where you stand. Where your fellow pro baby killer Nathor?

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Everything has distinct DNA, that doesnt make it a individual life yet.

And Apple has distinct DNA, should that be protected?

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Damian

at least you know how to use a dictionary. Impressive!

So your reasoning (such that it is)is that since the ‘fetus’ is not separate physically from its mother, it’s not an individual? So physical separation of the fetus from another life is the hallmark of individuality?

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

SInce [sic] it is not seperate [sic] yet, it is not an individual

By your same (specious) argument, the mother — because she got pregnant — is also not an individual.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:50 PM

a. Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human: individual consciousness.

A newborn doesn’t have its own consciousness? Huh.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:50 PM

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Abosolutely. If it can not survive on it’s own, then it is not an individual.

Thus a baby till it can survive on it’s own should be a right to the mothers decision.

If it can survive on it’s own, then remove it if the mother wants out, and let it survive on it’s own.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM

avjgo, great question!

inherent in the concept “individual” is a separate entity. That is most relevant in our discussion here.

Of course an individual human is defined by volitional consciousness with his primary virtue being reason but none of those aspects of the definition are at issue here.

beselfish on April 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Yeah, I’m getting your vibe, which is why I asked you earlier if you ever wonder why no one invites you to parties.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:50 PM

Nice attempt at a spin, the mother was already an individual, the baby is part of that individual, the mother has a choice, and she has every right to make it.

Remove the fetus or keep it. It is HER decision, and noone should be making that decision for her.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:53 PM

Bishop 4:50

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there some Naziesque ‘scientists’ now promulgating the idea that we should be able to ‘abort’ children even a few years after birth because they don’t have ‘consciousness’ and therefore aren’t individuals?

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Where do I sign up for one of your motivational seminars?
Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Don’t do it. The guy will having you standing in his Kool-Aid line to commit mass suicide due to not being able to “maximize pleasure” in life.

I agree, but the government does not want to allow woman to get contraceptives either. Then they dont want you to get an abortion, and then they do not want to make sure your child can be fed.
A lot of problems here.
damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM

What a load of bullcrap! You know as well as everyone else that not forcing others to pay for other woman’s birth control methods is not the same as denying their access to it. You’re as dishonest as you are twisted and sick.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

I’m for that, till they are 18

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Well, the reason I asked, damian, is then by your definition , certain siamese twins are not individuals. There are a fair number who cannot survive independently.

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

A Condom is much cheaper than an abortion or giving birth.

Good Business decision!

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Everything has distinct DNA, that doesnt [sic] make it a individual life yet.

Again, that means the pregnant woman is also not an individual, by your specious argument. It isn’t that I think your conclusion was necessarily wrong. But that’s a bad argument, and you should abandon it.

And Apple has distinct DNA, should that be protected?

I’m an anti-natalist. If you want some good arguments opposed to abortion, try this. Ideally, I’d like to see the DNA molecule eradicated. It’s beyond our power to do this, however. So I think we should focus on relieving suffering where possible.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM

Abosolutely. If it can not survive on it’s own, then it is not an individual.

Thus a baby till it can survive on it’s own should be a right to the mothers decision.

If it can survive on it’s own, then remove it if the mother wants out, and let it survive on it’s own.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM

You better get started on putting down all those children with birth defects, such as that little girl who just won the writing award even though she was born without hands.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Damian,
So you are saying, in the US anyway, that people don’t have a choice in overcoming poverty?

uncommon sense on April 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM

I agree, and what happens? They usually leave one to die to keep the stronger of the two.

But thats ok, because it is not abortion!

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Abosolutely. If it can not survive on it’s own, then it is not an individual.
Thus a baby till it can survive on it’s own should be a right to the mothers decision.
If it can survive on it’s own, then remove it if the mother wants out, and let it survive on it’s own.
damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Many elderly people cannot survive on their own. Should we murder them too?

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

*Re: “opposed to abortion,”

“in favor of abortion”, I meant to say

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

uncommon sense on April 20, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Yes, In some cases I am definately saying that. Look at the economy right now and the amount of epople that can not find a job.

Do they have a choice? No, there is no work for them.

And the work that is out there pays less without benefits, so welfare is a better option for them to manage.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there some Naziesque ‘scientists’ now promulgating the idea that we should be able to ‘abort’ children even a few years after birth because they don’t have ‘consciousness’ and therefore aren’t individuals?

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

Yah, in Britain, I believe. But you don’t have to go that far to find such people, damien here would make a fine replacement, or another poster named keep_the_change.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Nursing homes already do that for us.

And many of them want a right to die, but the government does not want to give them that option.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM

The good news is that Tina is wrong. Banning intact dilation and extraction probably didn’t stop a single abortion. The abortion provider was just forced to use a different method to perform the abortion.

In the big picture, I object to banning partial birth abortion at the federal. States that want to ban should be allowed to ban it, but we need to get the federal government out of legislating on what should be a state issue. In this way, even though I am pro-abortion, I wouldn’t mind see Roe v Wade overturned.

thuja on April 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM

So you are saying, in the US anyway, that people don’t have a choice in overcoming poverty?

He may not be, but I will. No one has a choice. Not a real one, as you mean it.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Do they have a choice? No, there is no work for them.

And the work that is out there pays less without benefits, so welfare is a better option for them to manage.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

But what of their hungry children, the ones with no hope? If only parents could put their kids down in such circumstances to end the little one’s suffering.

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 5:02 PM

herm2416 on April 20, 2012 at 4:39 PM

The truth hurts, does it not?

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM

?

herm2416 on April 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Nursing homes already do that for us.
And many of them want a right to die, but the government does not want to give them that option.
damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM

My grandfather spent the last 10 years of his life in a nursing home. He had Parkinson’s and prostate cancer. He wanted to live and the nursing home happily oblidged because they understand human life is precious no matter if your old, young or disabled. But according to you it’s only precious when you say so or when the mother says so.

Judgement day is coming my friend. I’ll pray for you.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Woo-hoo. 11,000 more babies born to single mothers and welfare queens. Because, if there is one thing America needs, and the democrat party in particular, it’s more of those. And those 11,000 will breed and become 33,000. And so on. Geometric expansion. Thanks social cons. Without you, the left would have been extinct long ago.

keep the change on April 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Yah, in Britain, I believe. But you don’t have to go that far to find such people, damien here would make a fine replacement, or another poster named keep_the_change.
Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 4:58 PM

The dude posted on this thread already that the mother should be allowed to murder her child until he/she is 18 years old.

Somehow, I don’t think Hitler would disagree. Unless you had blond hair and blue eyes of course.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 5:08 PM

I agree, but the government does not want to allow woman to get contraceptives either. Then they dont want you to get an abortion, and then they do not want to make sure your child can be fed.

A lot of problems here.

damian1967 on April 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM

I’m so sorry that the women in your life are too stupid to get their own birth control. Fact is, free contraception is already available, and so is cheap contraception. That was supposed to prevent the need for abortion, according to liberals. Liars and dummies; liberals.

Lightswitch on April 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM

But what of their hungry children, the ones with no hope? If only parents could put their kids down in such circumstances to end the little one’s suffering.

Sometimes it’s necessary, at least in extreme circumstances. Mao’s cultural revolution famine, for example, and all the cannibalism under it. Same with famines in the middle ages. Awful stuff.

From The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History, by David Hackett Fischer:

Then, inconceivably, torrential rains came again in 1316. The grain crop failed a third year in a row. Europe began to experience the worst famine in its history. When other sources of food ran out, people began to eat one another. Peasant families consumed the bodies of the dead. Corpses were dug up from their burying grounds and eaten. In jail the convicts ceased to be fed; we are told that starving inmates “ferociously attacked new prisoners and devoured them half alive.” Condemned criminals were cut down from the gallows, butchered, and eaten. Parents killed their children for food, and children murdered their parents.

From Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine, by Jasper Becker:

There are enough reports from different parts of the country to make it clear that the practice of cannibalism was not restricted to any one region, class or nationality. Peasants not only ate the flesh of the dead, they also sold it, and they killed and ate children, both their own and those of others. Given the dimensions of the famine, it is quite conceivable that cannibalism was practised on a scale unprecedented in the history of the twentieth century.

From the report of the United States Congress Commission on the Ukrainian Famine, reported in Becker, above:

Very frequent is the phenomenon of hallucination in which people see their children only as animals, kill them and eat them. Later, some, having recuperated with proper food, do not remember wanting to eat their children and deny even being able to think of such a thing. The phenomenon in question is the result of a lack of vitamins and would prove to be a very interesting study, alas one which is banned even from consideration from a scientific point of view.

Mitchell Heisman on April 20, 2012 at 5:10 PM

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 5:08 PM

He’s not the only humanitarian here:

BTW, our humanity does not come to us even at birth. What we are is the subtotal of our life experiences; our goals, our successes, our loses, our joys and pains. As we get older, we accumulate more of what makes us human. A fetus, of course, has none of those. It is just only the beginning phase of what will become a human being at far later date.

keep the change on February 1, 2011 at 10:02 PM

Bishop on April 20, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Woo-hoo. 11,000 more babies born to single mothers and welfare queens. Because, if there is one thing America needs, and the democrat party in particular, it’s more of those. And those 11,000 will breed and become 33,000. And so on. Geometric expansion. Thanks social cons. Without you, the left would have been extinct long ago.
keep the change on April 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM

If getting rid of the potential left is your goal, why not just take up arms and go after them yourself?

Oh right, because it’s only murder if you kill an adult. Also you would probably rather let someone else do your dirty work.

jawkneemusic on April 20, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t there some Naziesque ‘scientists’ now promulgating the idea that we should be able to ‘abort’ children even a few years after birth because they don’t have ‘consciousness’ and therefore aren’t individuals?

avgjo on April 20, 2012 at 4:54 PM

No, quite a ethicists have made good arguments for the infanticide of newborns, but there hasn’t been any mainstream philosophical discussion about allowing the killing of two year olds. Why is it that pro-lifers so often approach this issue from their personal fantasy world rather the honest facts? Hey, why don’t you also tell us about how abortion causes breast cancer, which has also been known to be lie for fifteen years?

thuja on April 20, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Woo-hoo. 11,000 more babies born to single mothers and welfare queens. Because, if there is one thing America needs, and the democrat party in particular, it’s more of those. And those 11,000 will breed and become 33,000. And so on. Geometric expansion. Thanks social cons. Without you, the left would have been extinct long ago.

keep the change on April 20, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Yeah, let’s kill ‘em all. / Idiot.

Lightswitch on April 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I’m glad that my philosophy so bothers the master of trolls that he remembers it. Not such a smartass troll now, are you?

keep the change on April 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM

I’m glad that my philosophy so bothers the master of trolls that he remembers it. Not such a smartass troll now, are you?

keep the change on April 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM

Your ‘philosophy’ is incredibly base…and stupid.

Congrats!

tom daschle concerned on April 20, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3