Second video shows Planned Parenthood clinic advising on how to get a sex-selective abortion; Update: WH opposes sex-selective abortion ban bill

posted at 11:21 am on May 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, Planned Parenthood responded to an undercover video showing a staffer in its Austin, Texas clinic providing assistance for a sex-selective abortion by firing the staffer, requiring retraining for the entire clinic, and insisting that they do not support gender-based abortions.  Looks like they’ll need to break out the pink slips again.  Live Action released another undercover video this morning that shows a New York City clinic not only advising on how to determine the gender of a pregnancy, but the best way to make the determination in time to get an abortion — complete with referral to a practitioner to assist in the service:

Despite PP’s protestations this week, the staffer in the Margaret Sanger clinic in New York City says, “I can tell  you that, you know, here at Planned Parenthood we believe that it’s not up to us to decide what is a good or bad reason for somebody to decide to terminate a pregnancy.”  The video does include PP’s insistence that “Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for … Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias.”  Looks like the staffers haven’t gotten that memo from corporate yet, huh?

Let’s muse on Planned Parenthood’s statement just a bit, though.  They condemn “sex selection motivated by gender bias.”  On what other basis would “sex selection” take place other than gender bias?  Why would two girls be so much less desirable than a boy and a girl that one has to take the drastic step of an abortion unless one is applying a gender bias?  What other possible explanation could there be?  And let’s face it — while the selection cuts both ways on occasion, the cultural biases in play would tend to greatly disfavor girls rather than boys in this equation, which is what we see worldwide when abortion is used in sex selection.

I’d guess that Planned Parenthood will stop short of firing another staffer, especially since Live Action hints that they have a few more of these videos on the way.

Update: I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this, especially from a President that once opposed a version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois:

The White House got back to me this evening to say the president opposes the bill.

White House deputy press secretary Jamie Smith says in a statement: “The Administration opposes gender discrimination in all forms, but the end result of this legislation would be to subject doctors to criminal prosecution if they fail to determine the motivations behind a very personal and private decision.   The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.”

LifeNews explains the vote taking place today in the House on the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA):

The bill would make it a federal offense to knowingly do any one of the following four things: (1) perform an abortion, at any time in pregnancy, “knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex or gender of the child”; (2) use “force or threat of force. . . for the purpose of coercing a sex-selection abortion”; (3) solicit or accept funds to perform a sex-selection abortion; or (4) transport a woman into the U.S. or across state lines for this purpose. However, “A woman upon whom a sex-selection abortion is performed may not be prosecuted or held civilly liable for any violation . . .”

The bill also specifically states, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require that a healthcare provider has an affirmative duty to inquire as to the motivation for the abortion, absent the healthcare provider having knowledge or information that the abortion is being sought based on the sex or gender of the child.”

Unbelievable.  This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right?  Well, here’s a fight in which females are taking real casualties, and … nothing.


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

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Of course, it just becomes a time when the lib runs out of logic, runs out of even their skewed logic, and they just move on, rather than state “you are right”…better for them to run, than have to finally admit their logic is failed.
I have yet to see any lib, for the past 6 years, when confronted with facts, admit they were wrong…it just doesn’t happen, they just move on to another thread. That is what I was referring to, it’s a tipping point when they just fade away…away…away…

right2bright on May 31, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I’m not sure I understand the usefullness of this law. Is gender-selective abortion really that widespread in the US? So widespread it has to have a legislation all its own? I find that hard to believe. Seems like a bass-ackward way to fight abortion.

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The sad part, to me, is that there is not a lefty alive that this will make one iota of difference to, when they get in the booth. They would pull the Obama lever if he openly endorsed gendercide…bank it.

You can expose the hypocrisy of the totally bullshit “War on Women” meme right to their faces…and they just don’t care.
That’s sad.

a5minmajor on May 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Now that you mention it, that is exactly what happened each of the last two times [s]he engaged me on a subject… that pesky socratic method, bringing discussions to specific points and all…

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 1:59 PM

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 1:59 PM

You know the drill, when logic fails, divert and name call.

kringeesmom on May 31, 2012 at 2:03 PM

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 1:56 PM

I hear you, but I think the primary usefulness is to point out that it does happen, even if rarely.

(Kind of like the “life/health of the mother” argument that is usually used to justify opposing any restrictions on abortion whatsoever).

And, it highlights the left’s hypocrisy pretty clearly. “We stand with women- they should get equal treatment! except in the womb…

cs89 on May 31, 2012 at 2:07 PM

He’s all for genocide, his remarks about the death camps highlighted that, and this proves it. It’s also more on the democrat war on women…since the gender selection would prove fatal for more girl babies than anything else.

Still want to consider voting for obumbo ladies? He hates you with a passion you know, even more so if you’re a black female apparently.

Wolfmoon on May 31, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Breaking… Bill fails in the house… 7 GOP’rs voted against, including Ron Paul.

kringeesmom on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

cs89 on May 31, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I see your point, just wonder if it hurts the cause more than it helps when there is so much focus on what might be a non-issue. I say might because I really don’t know, just hadn’t heard about this actually happening.

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I hate the fact that I agree with our president on something. I try to take comfort in the fact that he likely has some arbitrary or gratuitously self-serving reason for his position, which of course is no reason at all but, in the end being on the same side with him on this leaves me feeling a bit like Benedict Arnold.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM

The PP employee uses the term “sex of the pregnancy” rather than “sex of the baby” Very telling. This little baby girl is viewed as just a lump of cells.

Just wait until mothers-to-be will be able to determine if their “pregnancy” is gay or in the case of a mixed racial relationship, the darkness of the “pregnancy’s skin.” Just imagine the outrage.

Thankfully, it would be a stretch in technology that would allow an expectant mother to determine the future political bias of their “pregnancy.” If and when that was to happen, we would be in a whole lot of trouble.

BabysCatz on May 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Breaking… Bill fails in the house… 7 GOP’rs voted against, including Ron Paul.

kringeesmom on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I don’t agree with that, but think I know where he’s coming from: “all-or-nothing” is how this mess started and that’s how it must be repealed.

MelonCollie on May 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Unbelievable. This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right?

Why has no one ever asked the President how many abortions has he been a party to in some way. How else do you make any rationale for such obstinate, unwavering support for unrestricted abortion unless he has, in some way, been personally connected to some woman in his life obtaining one? Could it be that he had a girlfriend (or even his wife) that he got pregnant and subsequently paid for the abortion? This is an obvious question that needs to be asked and he needs to answer.

lonestarleeroy on May 31, 2012 at 3:17 PM

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 2:59 PM

You agree with our president that it’s okay to select which babies can be aborted based on their sex?

Honestly, I think your position is more consistent with abortion overall. I mean, if someone’s choice is to kill their unborn child it really doesn’t matter what gender, race, hair color, likelihood for autism, etc, does it?

If we accept the premise that choice reigns supreme all the other details really don’t matter.

Gender killing is consistent with the pro-choice abortion premise.

shick on May 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Obama is the most pro-abortion president in our history so it doesn’t shock me at all to find out he’s against this bill.

54,559,615 abortions have taken place since that terrible day in 1973..just think about that..that’s more than the population of Texas and New York COMBINED…this country is going to have a lot to answer for..God’s wrath will be come upon us one day for this American Holocaust

sadsushi on May 31, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Gender abortions killing is consistent with the pro-choice abortion premise.

shick on May 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

yeah. so? Oh, I get it. So, right, I should also hate that i agree with him on that too. No way i’ll ever agree with him on partial-birth stuff. No such thing as partial-birth plus he’s just plain wrong on that one.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM


Just wait until mothers-to-be will be able to determine if their “pregnancy” is gay or in the case of a mixed racial relationship, the darkness of the “pregnancy’s skin.” Just imagine the outrage.

BabysCatz on May 31, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Is that sarcasm? Can’t tell. There should be outrage but even that would likely go unnoticed as long as women had their choice to kill their baby women, blacks, whites (reverse racism), homosexuals.

shick on May 31, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No way i’ll ever agree with him on partial-birth stuff. No such thing as partial-birth plus he’s just plain wrong on that one.

“partial-birth” is a colloquialism. Intact dilation and extraction is a real clinical procedure. Inventing a false argument about “no such thing” based on a ridiculous semantic argument belongs in the comic stylings of George Carlin – ranting against terms like “pre-heated” or “get on the plane” – and not in a serious discussion about what is literally a life-or-death issue.

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 3:39 PM

yeah. so? Oh, I get it. So, right, I should also hate that i agree with him on that too. No way i’ll ever agree with him on partial-birth stuff. No such thing as partial-birth plus he’s just plain wrong on that one.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

That too? I’m talking about the same thing.

Sorry to hear that you are so far gone to believe that gendercide is okay. That too is just plain wrong. At this point there isn’t much I can probably say to convince you otherwise.

I’ll say this. You might as well go-all-in and realize the inconsistency in supporting gendercide while denouncing partial-birth.

Choice reigns supreme in partial-birth too. The mother doesn’t want the child. Enough said. (sarcasm)

shick on May 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM

yeah. so? Oh, I get it. So, right, I should also hate that i agree with him on that too. No way i’ll ever agree with him on partial-birth stuff. No such thing as partial-birth plus he’s just plain wrong on that one.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 3:31 PM

That too? I’m talking about the same thing.

Sorry to hear that you are so far gone to believe that gendercide is okay. That too is just plain wrong. At this point there isn’t much I can probably say to convince you otherwise.

I’ll say this. You might as well go-all-in and realize the inconsistency in supporting gendercide while denouncing partial-birth.

Choice reigns supreme in partial-birth too. The mother doesn’t want the child. Enough said. (sarcasm)

shick on May 31, 2012 at 3:46 PM

If I remember correctly, beselfish didn’t even understand what a partial birth abortion was when he was commenting on the first PP video.

AllahsNippleHair on May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM

spiritof61 on May 29, 2012 at 3:07 PM

All i did was ask a simple question and you want to tie me to some lady named Sanger. I doubt she sees this thing the same way I do. From what I heard she’s all about controlling population with abortion or something. That is a view NOT based on reality or the individual.

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Here we go. The definition of “is”.

AllahsNippleHair on May 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM

If I remember correctly, beselfish didn’t even understand what a partial birth abortion was when he was commenting on the first PP video.

AllahsNippleHair on May 31, 2012 at 3:55 PM

That’s interesting.

Unrelated: AllahsNippleHair? Yuck. The visual is so …. also just plain wrong.

You are a very bad person.(sarcasm kinda)

shick on May 31, 2012 at 4:01 PM

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Here we go. The definition of “is”.

AllahsNippleHair on May 31, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Good point. beselfish clearly shows here that he doesn’t know about the procedure.

I’ll add that the personal definition of ethics is at the root of the downfall of our country. Those suffering from delusions of grandeur scream, “I choose what is right for me.” It is a great lie.

shick on May 31, 2012 at 4:09 PM

I’m not sure I understand the usefullness of this law. Is gender-selective abortion really that widespread in the US? So widespread it has to have a legislation all its own? I find that hard to believe. Seems like a bass-ackward way to fight abortion.

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 1:56 PM

2 reasons, which are political, not policy-oriented, in nature:

1.) By tying it to gender, it disrupts the left’s “war on women” meme
2.) To whip up enthusiasm among pro-life GOPers

Stoic Patriot on May 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM

I don’t see how its possible to be “partially” born. There is a birth or there isn’t a birth. My view is that if the baby is born then hands off. very simple.

beselfish on May 29, 2012 at 3:14 PM

In a partial-birth abortion, all of the baby is outside the birth canal except for the head. In effect, all of the baby has, at that point, been born except for the head.

With the head still inside the birth canal, the abortionist “decompresses” the skull. He puts two fingers at the back of the baby’s neck, at the base of the skull, and punctures the skull with scissors.

Some brain tissue comes out. The abortionist may widen the hole with the scissors. Then a suction tube is inserted, and the brain is sucked out. The skull collapses.

In some cases, a large pair of forceps is used to go in and grab the baby’s skull, in order to crush it.

One abortionist testified that he sometimes would “use my finger to disrupt the contents of the cranial cavity, to thereby collapse the skull…” He used his finger to scoop out the chunks of brain, rather than sucking them out.

What a grisly business.

KyMouse on May 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM

This is it? Why can’t you nanny state right wingers stay the heck out of people’s bedrooms?

Uppereastside on May 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM

I can’t wait for the bill that will make it criminal for all women seeking any kind of abortion. That will definitely put this war on women meme to bed for good.

Uppereastside on May 31, 2012 at 4:35 PM

This is it? Why can’t you nanny state right wingers stay the heck out of people’s bedrooms?

Uppereastside on May 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Ah, another idiot heard from.

AllahsNippleHair on May 31, 2012 at 4:37 PM

By the way, during a partial-birth abortion, the baby is usually alive, with fingers opening and closing.

An abortionist testified, “Feet could be moving.”

Abortionists usually “reassure” the mothers that anesthesia they are given will cross the placenta and give the baby some relief. Babies can feel pain by about 20 weeks, and even abortionists have testified that the babies “withdraw” when a needle is inserted into the abdomen for amniocentesis.

When, in one hearing, the Court asked an abortionist, “if you had any care or concern for the fetus whose head you were crushing,” the abortionist said simply,

“No.”

KyMouse on May 31, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I substantiate my position on this every step of the way. I was hoping I’d get more than just schtic from schik and a mouthful of NippleHair.

Thank you, KyMouse for the explanation. I was trying to avoid presuming too much out of respect for this blog.

Seems to me one can be against “partial birth” and an advocate of pro-choice (my position) w/out contradiction. I’ll leave at that or else I may get another mouthful of nipplehair for my trouble.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Seems to me one can be against “partial birth” and an advocate of pro-choice (my position) w/out contradiction. I’ll leave at that or else I may get another mouthful of nipplehair for my trouble.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM

It was my understanding that, since there is “no such thing” as partial birth, that a D&X was no birth, and therefore kosher.

Did I understand incorrectly?

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 4:58 PM

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM

If you’re repulsed at the idea of killing a baby who’s kicking, but not at an earlier stage of development, remember that all the child needed to get to that point from conception was time, nutrition and safety.

INC on May 31, 2012 at 4:58 PM

liberals have no souls

kirkill on May 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

Breaking… Bill fails in the house… 7 GOP’rs voted against, including Ron Paul.

kringeesmom on May 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Silvestre Reyes, (El Paso, Texas) actually voted FOR the bill! Unbelievable, I think this is the first time I’ve agreed with this man on anything, despite his being my representative. (BTW, he was defeated by a younger Lib on Tues. night, after a 16 year reign of idiocy).

As for those Representatives that voted against the bill; Do they even have a conscience?

Go here to see Dems that voted FOR the bill, and Repubs that voted AGAINST the bill:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2889971/posts

Susanboo on May 31, 2012 at 5:19 PM

People are not independent and privatized from EACH OTHER.

The family?

libfreeordie on May 31, 2012 at 5:20 PM

This is it? Why can’t you nanny state right wingers stay the heck out of people’s bedrooms?

Uppereastside on May 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM

.
Why do perverts constantly flaunt their perversion in the general public?

We didn’t invade anyone’s bedroom.

listens2glenn on May 31, 2012 at 5:55 PM

I’m not sure I understand the usefullness of this law. Is gender-selective abortion really that widespread in the US? So widespread it has to have a legislation all its own? I find that hard to believe. Seems like a bass-ackward way to fight abortion.

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 1:56 PM

2 reasons, which are political, not policy-oriented, in nature:

1.) By tying it to gender, it disrupts the left’s “war on women” meme
2.) To whip up enthusiasm among pro-life GOPers

Stoic Patriot on May 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Well I’m pretty conservative and it doesn’t whip me up at all. If we are in the right why not appeal to morality and conscience, and leave the cheap political tricks and non-controversies to the left? I don’t see this getting the pro-life cause anywhere, it just makes us look bad in my opinion.

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 6:37 PM

This is it? Why can’t you nanny state right wingers stay the heck out of people’s bedrooms?

Uppereastside on May 31, 2012 at 4:33 PM

What does any of this have to do with the bedroom? You new york anal-entertainers like to pretend that you’re fighting against some infringement on freedom. Every issue revolves around some assault on your ability to shove something in an orifice.

jdkchem on May 31, 2012 at 6:40 PM

I have absolutely no problem with giving life time gift certificates at PP to Progs like Allidunce, preferably, for sterilisation.

Honestly (but you don’t have to answer), if your amnio could tell you the sex of your baby and the fact that he would grow up to be a flaming Progressive, what would you do?

Resist We Much on May 31, 2012 at 6:44 PM

I find abortion abhorrent. It is, however, legal. You cannot start arguing like a liberal, with nothing but emotion, and just ignore logic and the rule of law. How can you outlaw something for nothing more tangible than thoughts. The thought police? Really?

First of all it’s like saying you want to outlaw certain fantasies during sex. You can’t possibly know what’s in someone’s head. It’s simply unenforceable.

I totally get the horror of killing an unborn child based on it’s gender. But the sin is the same whether you do it because you don’t want to be tied down, the timing is bad, etc. Morally there is no difference. And if you respect the rule of law you have to step back far enough to slam the Libs for the REAL war on women without trying to pass a law.

Nana on May 31, 2012 at 6:51 PM

These pigs will show you who they are every time.

From the walking turds at PP to the one currently occupying the White House.

avgjo on May 31, 2012 at 8:02 PM

And let’s face it — while the selection cuts both ways on occasion, the cultural biases in play would tend to greatly disfavor girls rather than boys in this equation, which is what we see worldwide when abortion is used in sex selection.

There’s an unsubstantiated (and backwards) statement.

Maybe you never heard about the feminist, lesbian, man-hating core of the pro-abortion activist movement?

You are comparing developed North American abortioners with impoverished, 3rd world, crowded, high growth abortioners.

Daikokuco on May 31, 2012 at 8:03 PM

jdkchem 6:40

Exactly. These freaks are all worried about being able to have unbridled sex with whomever they want, whenever they want, consequences be damned. But they’re content with a freakshow mayor who wants to control what you eat and drink.

As I said before, if I were in charge of the pop culture, every idiot, ignoramus and backwater inbreeder would have a New Yuck accent.

avgjo on May 31, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I substantiate my position on this every step of the way.

What steps are you talking about? I saw you say nothing of the kind on this post.

I was hoping I’d get more than just schtic from schik and a mouthful of NippleHair.

Oh! Very creative with the play of words there! It just enhanced the level of your argument.

Seems to me one can be against “partial birth” and an advocate of pro-choice (my position) w/out contradiction.

Your perspective doesn’t make a difference of whether it is a contradiction or not. Well given arguments are only capable of disproving apparent contradictions. Why not try one.

I’ll leave at that or else I may get another mouthful of nipplehair for my trouble.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM

No, you’ll leave it at that because you don’t have an argument.

shick on May 31, 2012 at 8:10 PM

Well I’m pretty conservative and it doesn’t whip me up at all. If we are in the right why not appeal to morality and conscience, and leave the cheap political tricks and non-controversies to the left? I don’t see this getting the pro-life cause anywhere, it just makes us look bad in my opinion.

kg598301 on May 31, 2012 at 6:37 PM

I agree with you on the cheap tricks bit. I rather they would have just passed it by simple majority — which if they wanted to pass it, was all they needed.

Stoic Patriot on May 31, 2012 at 9:03 PM

This is JUST the type of legislation that the GOP controlled House should pass for the simple purpose of showing the country how evil and extreme the Prog/Statist Left is going into November.

I can now use this against anybody in political discussion to point out Obama wanting to REALLY MAKE WAR on women.

Oh, and wait till they discover the genetic signs of same-sex attraction….Goodbye Gays forever.

Sick Sick Sick Progs.

KirknBurker on May 31, 2012 at 9:15 PM

“partial-birth” is a colloquialism. Intact dilation and extraction is a real clinical procedure. Inventing a false argument about “no such thing” based on a ridiculous semantic argument belongs in the comic stylings of George Carlin
The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Schaef, chafe much? easy tiger. I didn’t invent a false argument, the guy who came up with the term “partial-birth” did that. Probably to mask or soften, for the crazy Libs, the reality of the procedure you point out. I realize there exists an actual procedure even if I didn’t know the exact name before you mentioned it.

anyhoot, definitely wrong.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 10:22 PM

It was my understanding that, since there is “no such thing” as partial birth, that a D&X was no birth, and therefore kosher.

Did I understand incorrectly?

The Schaef on May 31, 2012 at 4:58 PM

just in case you haven’t already figured out, given my last post, the answer to your question is, yes. You understood incorrectly.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Unbelievable. This is the same administration that’s spent the last few months crying about a “war on women,” right? Well, here’s a fight in which females are taking real casualties, and … nothing.

You’re asking the wrong question.

Ask if this is a Kinetic Military Action on Women…

I’m not sure what “war” means now in the liberal dictionary.

gekkobear on May 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM

just in case you haven’t already figured out, given my last post, the answer to your question is, yes. You understood incorrectly.

beselfish on May 31, 2012 at 10:37 PM

So given that you think some trying to cheat a human life due to the child being six inches on the wrong side of the birth canal, by what measure do you consider that life any less human for no other reason than being 18 inches further up the canal?

The Schaef on June 1, 2012 at 12:05 AM

So given that you think some trying to cheat a human life due to the child being six inches on the wrong side of the birth canal, by what measure do you consider that life any less human for no other reason than being 18 inches further up the canal?

The Schaef on June 1, 2012 at 12:05 AM

While I realize that I may be making a mistake in trying to understand the “logic” of beselfish, unless I have misunderstood him/her, I believe the “reasoning” is:

1. Full term infant still completely in womb — killing it and then removing it = okay

2. Full term infant partially outside the womb is “born” — killing it = wrong

For some odd reason I don’t understand the “distinction” either.

JannyMae on June 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM

So given that you think some trying to cheat a human life due to the child being six inches on the wrong side of the birth canal, by what measure do you consider that life any less human for no other reason than being 18 inches further up the canal?

The Schaef on June 1, 2012 at 12:05 AM

While I realize that I may be making a mistake in trying to understand the “logic” of beselfish, unless I have misunderstood him/her, I believe the “reasoning” is:

1. Full term infant still completely in womb — killing it and then removing it = okay

2. Full term infant partially outside the womb is “born” — killing it = wrong

For some odd reason I don’t understand the “distinction” either.

JannyMae on June 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM

Listen, Shaef (or should I call you “chafe”) and Janny, it’s really quiet simple.

It “seems” to beselfish that his position is non-contradictory.

shick on June 1, 2012 at 1:05 PM

As someone with a concentration in Obstetrics/Gynecology, both in academic setting and having experienced a pregnancy myself (resulting in my now 5 year old daughter), I have to believe that the only logical reason to have an abortion is because one does not want to be pregnant. Having been through a pregnancy, I know it can be hard and it is a significant alteration to a woman, physically and mentally. Although I personally don’t agree with abortion at any point in pregnancy, if a woman wants to make the choice to not abdicate her body to the use of another being she should make that choice ASAP. However, abortion past the first trimester is neither safe, physically or mentally, or needed unless the pregnancy is posing significant threat to the mother or the fetus has some sort of horrible disease that will cause it to die upon birth (i.e. ancephaly).

What I don’t understand is how the liberal far left is willing to stand up for abortion on demand, at any point, for any reason. It no longer becomes about women’s health but more about promoting an agenda that most of the mainstream is out of touch with. Outlawing abortion in the first trimester would be near impossible, as many pregnancies naturally terminate during this time and it would be impossible to determine whether a physician was performing a D&C on a deceased or live fetus/embryo. Yet, after the first trimester the choice has been made whether or not to continue a pregnancy and abortions should only be performed with documented medical evidence of either a severe fetal defect or an irreversible health effect to the mother.

Suffice it to say I do believe that LiveAction is misleading in saying that sex-selective abortion is a “significant” problem in the US. Where’s the data for this claim? While it very well may occur, perhaps even under-reportedly, to claim that the US is similar to China and India in their sex-selective abortion rates is quite a stretch, especially given that our sex ratios do not even come close to China. Is sex selective abortion sickening? Yes. Would restricting it reduce abortions? Probably not much, since most abortions occur within the first trimester when people are unaware of the sex of the child. Still find it sickening that Planned Parenthood would schedule an abortion knowing that is purely done due to the sex of the child.

epimom on June 1, 2012 at 7:50 PM

The government should not intrude in medical decisions or private family matters in this way.

Uh huh. But the government can intrude in a lot of other ways that lib-facists “approve” of.

yhxqqsn on June 2, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3