Comments on: An Unborn Baby Is Human Only If You Want “It”

By: Mountain Musings

Mountain Musings — Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:18:52 +0000

What’s Wrong with this Picture?
Apparently, in Illinois, life begins at conception…but only if the mother wants the human embryo.

By: mj

mj — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 03:55:42 +0000

LaShawn–I just emailed you a press release about an abortion-related case being filed in the Supreme Court.

By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:26:51 +0000

Roe is on its way out, but whether in a year or a decade, I don’t know. Sooner if we keep noting it.

Here’s a woman fired from the NY Post for being pro-life. Dawn Eden.
nyobserver. com/pages/frontpage6. asp

(Not quite a link?) La Shawn, I think you should consider contacting her.
Interesting the difference between her, quickly fired, and Eason Jordan.
Leftist Media Bias.

By: Deb S.

Deb S. — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 05:49:52 +0000

The thing is, despite the law on the books against killing an unborn baby here in Illinois… so long as that umbilical cord has not been cut the mother will NOT be prosecuted for killing her own baby. The laws are horseshit here in Illinois.

By: Tom Blogical

Tom Blogical — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 04:20:46 +0000

This line gives me the creeps: “but the one fertilized egg the couple created was thrown out â€œin errorâ€ by a clinic worker.” Human life is now nothing more than a disposable commodity, and we’re all just whistling in the dark.

The clinic worker should be forced to watch one specific part of the movie “The Matrix” 1,000 times as partial punishment: the explanation of what the Matrix is.

By: Dave in AZ

Dave in AZ — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 01:36:14 +0000

LaShawn,
I visit your blog almost daily but haven’t “felt” any noteworthy comments for awhile (been trying to grow deeper spiritually – I sense you can relate).

By: The Political Teen

The Political Teen — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 00:32:30 +0000

Blogosphere 2/9
Slowplay: Man turns in bag worth $850,000 Slant Point reports that a close election in NY has turned out a Republican win. Wizbang: How to Create A Third Party for Dummies Say Anything wants to know what is up with…

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:37:38 +0000

I agree with FL Mom. Andrew, if the US operated in a vacuum, then yes your counterpoint would have more weight. The best way forward is a strategy of decrementalism. After all, this is how we got to where we are today, incrementalism on the part of pro child-killers.

The bottomline is if we can change culture as a whole, even if the law remained on the books, demand would go down and eventually, service providers would be few and far between. Furthermore, the funds to invest in R&D for improving the child-killing processes and methodology would wither away as the ROI losses mount.

On the otherhand, making it illegal across the land would not realistically remove the desire/demand for the service.

3 possible negative outcomes:
1) You have a bunch of PO’d women, upset at our govt dictating what they can do with their bodies. (newsflash, the govt already tells us what men, women & children can do w/their bodies on a daily basis and enforces it) As an actof defiance, they will violently seek out and “support” the black market.

2) Even leaving the back alley scenario aside, people would causually arrange an Abortion Holiday or a Haitian Kibosh with their travel agent. Ad pitch: “Life stressing you out, maan? Come to Jamaica, ah-hahaaa! And feel alright! Lot’s of surf & sun and you can leave your woes behind, ah-hahaa.”

3) Much like the fate of the Prohibition, we’d risk having a blowback, where over a period of few years or so, activists (whether judicially or legislatively) would determine that we overreached and need to overturn the anti-child-killing laws. Why? Because the law did nothing to change the heart.

By: Dory

Dory — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:27:59 +0000

This case is all about parents’ rights and nothing about the child’s rights. These parents probably had other embryoes destroyed that did not appear to be as “promising” as the one in question.

But the legal confusion this case illustrates is caused by the tension between parents’ rights and abortion ‘rights.’ (I posted on this on my sitea couple days ago.)Parents who lose unborn children want legal recognition and justice for their unborn children. Abortionists want no such recognition, because it interferes with their death business. We can resolve the tension by finally deciding one way or another whether the unborn have the legal right to life. If we do not decide the question one way or another, we are forced, as La Shawn suggested, to recognize two kinds of unborn people: the wanted and the unwanted, and to assign them rights according to that criterion. They will become the only class of people whose rights are endowed by their mommies.

By: Sonetka

Sonetka — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 23:04:38 +0000

Frank, I think you’re being a bit sweeping. You don’t know that this couple would have wilfully destroyed ANY of their embryos; a lot of people don’t. I’ve seen a fair amount of IVF paperwork myself and while a lot of people do check the “destroy excess embryos” box, quite a few choose to freeze all of them, and either thaw them out and transfer them to the uterus later or else donate them to another couple so that they (the embryos) have a chance to grow, albeit not in their genetic mother’s body. It’s a little unfair to say flat-out that “this couple would have destroyed embryos” when we haven’t gotten a look at their paperwork. Just saying.

And DLE – unfortunately, it is not yet possible to survive at 18 weeks (do you mean 18 weeks gestational age or eighteen weeks the way doctors count it? Because if the latter, then the baby would have been alive for only sixteen weeks and far too small to live outside). The earliest a baby can live outside the womb now is when it is at twenty-two weeks’ gestation. It’s true that they have managed to save babies younger and younger; hopefully eighteen weeks, and earlier, will be manageable someday. It just isn’t now.

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:35:17 +0000

Dave! Where have you been? Welcome back.

By: Dave in AZ

Dave in AZ — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:23:01 +0000

God almighty has an eternal plan for “all” that He and He alone has created. His unborn creation is just that, His (no matter what mankind chooses to call “it”). He also has an eternal judgement for those who destroy innocent life in the womb. His holy word, the Bible, prescribes it.

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:15:47 +0000

Thanks for commenting, everybody. I’ve been busy all day with no time to blog, and it’s good to come here see my regulars hanging out.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 20:54:13 +0000

I know, feeding the troll, but:
Wow, if economic theory was accurate, youâ€™d think that the last few years of increasingly restricted access to abortion would have led to fewer abortions. Astounding how that hasnâ€™t worked out.
The overall # of abortions (and unwanted pregnancies) are down, Cody. And it has more to do with the changes in peoples attitudes about abortion, adoption, birth control and related issues than any changes to the level of access. Which legislation has had very little to do with (access).

By: Andrew P. Connors

Andrew P. Connors — Wed, 09 Feb 2005 19:55:00 +0000

I don’t see how that jives at all. The legislative branch has been trying to curtail and/or bar abortion. The only thing standing in its path is the ACTIVIST decision in Roe v. Wade.

If both Roe and the opposite opinion are activist, then what exactly is activism?

I was under the impression that judicial activism occurred when judges tried to make law, especially law contrary to the will of the legislature.

If this judge’s opinion is activism, then I guess taking back something that is stolen from you is stealing.