Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on a heinous act euphemistically called partial birth abortion, which LBC readers know as infanticide or more precisely, murder.
In response, pro child-killing politicians went into action. They drafted a bill called the Freedom of Choice Act, which would nullify federal and state limitations on abortions. Read more about it at the National Right to Life Committee.
Partial birth abortion is a procedure in which “doctors” pull the baby down the birth canal, partially delivering him to avoid murder charges, and inserting a probe or scissors into his skull, killing him. (Update: Forgot to mention this. The “doctor” suctions out the dead baby’s brain to collapse the skull and make it easier for him to pull out the dead baby.)
I’ve said it before, and I’ll keep saying and blogging it until people are ready to run in the opposite direction, screaming with their ears covered. I just don’t see how someone who claims to follow Christ can believe women have the right to choose to kill their unborn babies. I just don’t get it. Listen to this guy, this Christ-professing man:
To fan-girl applause, Barack Obama, who voted for the Freedom of Choice Act last year, says the first thing he’ll do when he takes office is sign the bill into law.
“On this issue, I will not yield.”
In contrast, John McCain, a man I’ll reluctantly, with a strenuous effort, vote for in November, said this about partial birth abortion:
“I will do everything in my power to ban that horrible procedure.”
Now, it doesn’t matter to me whether McCain is a Christian or not. At the very least, he’s against so-called partial birth abortion, and that’s good enough for me. When it comes to unborn life, I will not yield. Any Obama supporter who claims to be a Christian ought to be ashamed. I hate it, man. But I’m not your judge, so what I say or think about you won’t really matter, will it?
(Hat tip: Dawn Eden)
Also see Pat Buchanan’s A Catholic Case Against Barack and also Obama Woos Abortion Foes With Platform Embracing Motherhood. Clever political move, eh?
Later…Oh brother. I think I’ll sleep Election Day away.
Related posts:
{ 75 comments }
← Previous Comments
Question: IF one believes that abortion is an acceptable behavior, then why frame it as an issue of choice? Obviously, one doesn’t need the freedom to do something that is right.
The same goes for the red herring called privacy. NO ONE advocates choice to molest a young child EVEN in the privacy of the bedroom. In fact, there are any number of choices that are prohibited in the privacy of the bedroom.[eg. child porn or plotting insurrection]. In short, the deciding factor must be the behavior and it is quite obvious that privacy does not trump illegality.
Next…why are those who support abortion squeamish about being called pro-abortion? If one feels abortion is an acceptable activity in society, then one is pro-abortion.
Lastly, while religion has much to say about the sanctity of life, the issue of abortion is a civil rights issue concerning the right to life of a fellow human being.
JB, you are playing semantic games. I have donated money to NARAL, so what difference does it make that I use the precise term you think I should use? Afterall, are you really “pro-life” if you support executions or wars, both of which cause death? This is what I mean when I say we all draw lines in the sand.
Also, slavery, child molestation, or insurrection plotting are all red herrings, to borrow from you.
Abortion is a medical procedure. If your personal health isn’t a private matter, nothing is.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Coming from the same person who says this…
you are playing semantic games
Unreal. Is this what you tell yourself so that you can sleep at night?
Abortion is a “medical procedure” which results in the mutilation of an unborn human.
You claim to be a Christian. Fine. Then I challenge you to prayerfully seek God regarding this. Read His word. Read books from Christian thinkers who write about this issue and what the proper biblically based view should be.
And for God’s sakes, quit giving money to organizations which perpetuate this atrocity. It is one thing to be a Christian who “wouldn’t personally get an abortion, but doesn’t feel like they can impose their will on others”, but it is an entirely different game to be an enabler of the practice. You sir should not be proud of giving money to NARAL.
Yes, I am pro-life as I believe that the taking of life can ONLY be justified in defense of life.
Most of the time, abortion is a fiscal matter…at least, according to the women who have abortions.
And, as far as NARAL goes, I once attended a conference by NARAL founder Bernanrd Nathanson who described the rhetorical manipulation that he and his cohorts indulged themselves in. He described their cacophany of glee as they realized how susceptible the average American woman was to buzz words like freedom of choice and so on. He also notes that he was sickened to the depths of his soul by The Silent Scream.
At the end of the day, no one has produced even mildly conclusive evidence that the child in the womb is not a life. I once asked a famous doctor in Holland when she thought that life began. She snickered and noted that the beginning of life had NEVER been up for debate among scientists as ALL acknowledge that life begins at conception. Rather, she said, the debate was about what stage of life do we agree to protect ……And, when ultrasounds became widely available, most Americans were shocked to see globs of tissue sucking their thumbs, responding to music, and frantically trying to avoid suction devices that were tearing them apart.
I am not playing any game with semantics. I am simply asking for the discussion to revolve around the truth of taking a human life.
Now, if YOU think it is OK to take a life for reasons other than defense of life, feel free to say so.
Just because you wouldn’t refer to it as a medical procedure, the fact that only a licensed physical can legally perform it means it is a medical procedure.
I suppose we are at the end of the line for this discussion, at the same point where we started: “real christians” are against abortion rights, and anyone for abortion rights is not really a christian.
I’m laying down my arms.
licensed physical = licensed physician
Correct:
Until euthanasia becomes the norm, what other medical procedure is the intentional killing of a human life?
Why won’t the hospital on whose board I serve provide abortions? And why won’t any of the hospitals in my state provide abortions? Why do we have abortion clinics in strip malls who provide only one type “service”? (Don’t show up there to get your broken arm set.)
A great majority of doctors and nurses take their oaths very seriously. I don’t expect to see an abortion clinic at Sears or Wal-Mart any time soon.
anyone for abortion rights is not really a christian
At the very best, they are clinging to a sinful opinion that needs to be repented from. To willfully cling to an opinion which the vast majority of Christian theological scholarship says doesn’t comport with scripture…
As I said in my earlier example, can someone who professes Christ go around living a gratuitously erotic lifestyle while thinking that there is nothing wrong with said lifestyle? Can that “Christian” simply say that “God loves me just as I am” and be done with it, continuing in their amorous ways?
I suppose we are at the end of the line for this discussion, at the same point where we started: “real christians” are against abortion rights, and anyone for abortion rights is not really a christian.[comment by GusB]
You could not be more wrong. I never waste my time deciding who is and who is not a christian as it has never struck me as a fruitful line of discourse. Further, I never approach this issue as merely a religious one.As I noted, while religion has much to say about the sanctity of life, the issue of abortion is a civil rights issue concerning the right to life of a fellow human being.
Trying to turn it into the silly “your-religious-beliefs-are-different-from-mine” rather than a reasoned discussion about why you think it is acceptable to destroy a human life is little more than a clever distraction.
Linking “liberal” and “Christian” usually ends up in a strange place.
A 2008 political liberal in the United States who is comfortable in calling himself a Christian has got a lot of things to work out among his fellow Christians. Obviously, life in the womb is one of them.
Personally, I can survive a Presidential race in which neither side makes abortion an issue. I accept that our “diverse” and “pluralistic” society has a significant number of people who will fight to keep abortion clinics available.
However, when a 2008 political liberal wants me to change my basic Christian beliefs and understandings to convenience the political liberal agenda, I refuse to play.
This business of knowing the Mind of God and facing Judgment as a “private” matter between the person and God is an escape clause that will never go away for those who depend upon it.
I recently sat stunned as a bishop in the Episcopal church explained to me why can believe the resurrection “story” or not as it is more of a symbolic statement than a fact.
If one takes that road, then church is a comfortable social place where people are friendly, the music is nice, the flowers are lovely and the coffee hour is a bonus. And, heck, as long as you are already awake and dressed, church is a good take off point for loading up on chlorestoral at the Groaning Board Buffet.
In the final analysis, I would rather have a political liberal scrapping with Christian values from within the arena than running around throwing stones at religion in general.
Finally everyone needs to have a good conversation with himself over what constitutes “privacy.” It is an amorphous concept that defies consistent definition. It is also the first resort for obscuring responsibility for a questionable act.
Helio, what does your hospital do in the extremely rare instance that the mother’s life is in danger and an abortion is one of the options to save her life?
The privacy issue strikes me as ludicrous. The list of legally criminal actions that one cannot commit in the PRIVACY of their own home/bedroom is as long as the list of crimes that can be committed in a bedroom.
Privacy has never trumped legality.
Ergo, either the action is deemed permissable or it is deemed impermissable. Privacy is simply a fluff screen. The weird part of it is that the folks using the term already think that abortion is an acceptable activity for society. Therefore, there is no need to rationalize a behavior that one finds acceptable.
I always find it curious that folks use “privacy” to shield abortion, but would never use it to shield rape of an eight year old [For those who persistently misconstrue my words,I wouldn't use it for either and I do not condone mistreating any human being.] Obviously, it is the act itself that determines whether it should be protected.
At the end of the day, for me, I cannot get past the fact that abortion takes the life of a human being.
BTW, I heard yesterday that Obama voted three times to allow [or refuse to prohibit] the murder of babies born alive following abortion procedures. I am trying to figure out how killing an infant born alive would accrue to the health of the mother. Even the great obfuscator, BO, would have difficulty twisting himself in enough pretzels to explain this one.
I remember reading over a decade ago about an equisite little girl named Rosa Anna. Her mother sought a late term abortion for financial reasons. While the doctor thought he had successfully killed the infant, he had merely managed to rip her arm off. I watched the mother give an interview on television when little Rosa Anna was three. The interviewer asked her how she would explain the missing arm to Rosa Anna. The mother said that she would advise Rosa that if she ever needed an abortion to FIND A BETTER DOCTOR. No one batted an eye.
GusB, you called the slavery example I gave a red herring, yet gave no indication why the analogy doesn’t work. In either case, the primary question is whether you believe an unborn child is an individual human being. At this point, I’m quite curious.
The real red herring here is this health-of-the-mother argument. If the mother is put in mortal danger by her pregnancy, at that point we’re talking about triage – the long tradition of medical professionals deciding which of two or more patients is the most likely to survive. Most people understand that, sometimes, one person must die that another can live. But as you said, it’s a rare condition. And as an exception, is hardly proves the rule you are advocating.
jb,
That reminds me of a story I heard about a young lady with severe handicaps who was brought before congress to tell her story. She told about her struggles and her great triumphs, overcoming her obstacles in order to become quite successful. She received a standing ovation by everyone. And once the applause died down, she went on to explain that she was an abortion survivor who’s handicaps were the direct result of the attempt. Not surprising, the previously delighted pro-abortion lawmakers were extremely angry.
You guys need to quit trying to ascribe to me all these arguments I am not making. Helio said his hospital and every hospital in his state does not perform abortions, but I’m sure once every blue moon, a mother is in a situation, so I was just curious if they farm the work out to a traditional abortion clinic or the actually perform the abortion.
This swarm is fascinating. You guys should go to the various pro-abortion blogs where people are willing to enter the octogon and have a death-match with you.
GusB
It never occurred to me that I was responding to anything you said or did not say. It is interesting how often folks infer stuff that simply isn’t there. Kudos for a great imagination!
In reality, my post was strictly in response to Helio’s musings about privacy. His comments are always worth reading.
The only reason I responded to you previously was that you had misread a statement I made.
JB, calm down. If you weren’t hit, don’t holler.
GusB,
Our hospital, to my knowledge, has not had the case you offer. However, when the mother’s life is at issue, the case is fairly clear. She can accept our best medical judgment to save her life or refuse treatment and die and her baby will die with her. If she is not able to make the choice, then we move to the living will or state law.
We do have experience with a mother who was kept on life support while the fetus developed to a point of safe delivery. The ACLU tried to intervene, but they gave in fairly quickly. After the delivery, she was allowed to die. It was not the hospital board that set that course of action, however. We do not make decisions of that nature for people.
Abortion is not specifically taught in medical schools. You might ask your own doctor if she or he knows the protocols for aborting babies at different points of development. Abortionists have produced their own literature, techniques and machinery.
Gabe is right about the triage aspect of your question. In ethics, when you are faced with two rotten choices, the preference is to opt for the lesser of the two evils.
I am on the board to keep track of medical ethics. I know of cases where mothers chose to die and take their otherwise viable fetus with them. That is a tough one, whether you are a Christian or an atheist.
I will try to ask other collegues next week about whether other hospitals have been confronted with this unique problem. I have read statistics that completely obliterate the “life of the mother” and “partial birth abortion” argument. That procedure is not a walk in the park and it would be some amazing set of circumstances that would prompt an operating room to be used for a woman in physical trauma to go through partial birth abortion. Partial birth abortions are scheduled and carried out like a tooth extraction. The life and death scenario is focused entirely on the infant.
Statistically, if partial birth abortion were a life or death matter for the mother, we would have cases of mothers who died in the process. I have not found any in the literature at hand.
Do you know of doctors and nurses who work part time in general practice and part time doing abortion work? I don’t. Do most abortionists consider their trade a natural extension of gynecology or obstetrics? I wonder what response you would get if you asked the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists about education, standards and policing of abortionists.
For my money, the state is correct to police abortion clinics for safety and cleanliness. If the state is going to permit the procedure, it has health and safety issues it must attend to. But of all the doctors I have met and attended meetings with, I never met one who specializes in abortion. I may have been behind one at the Wendy’s drive through, but I didn’t know it.
When the mother is in full blown eclampsia, I know that hospitals will deliver a precariously premature infant in order to save the life of the mother. Obviously, the life of the infant is at stake in such a medical situation, as well, However, hospitals do not consider this the same as aborting the infant, even if there is virtually no chance that the baby will survive. This may have a lot to do with the fact that the goal of the procedure is not a dead infant.
Interestingly, in 1992 in Ireland, the debate over abortion to save the life of the mother was raging. During the government hearings, the pro-abortion crowd was not able to find one doctor in the entire country who had actually encountered a case in which they had to make a decision about aborting an infant to save the life of the mother.
You guys should go to the various pro-abortion blogs where people are willing to enter the octogon and have a death-match with you.
“Pro-abortion” … “death match” … sounds redundant to me.
The subject of “the life of the mother” is a red herring, as pointed out in this thread. In these type of situations, you would deliver the baby and make every effort to keep both alive. Of that, there is no question what the “right” thing to do is. No change in the laws is necessary. Bad situation, doctor does what he is sworn to do, hopefully both live, but sometimes people die. That’s life, fitting and proper.
The more insidious lie that is often floated is “the health of the mother”. This can justify killing the baby, neat, clean and no pesky requirement that you try to save that life.
Those physicians who are fulfilling their proper and moral mandate, it’s another life and death decision. Those who seek to act immorally need to be prosecuted. Yup… It’s that clear. Roe v. Wade was wrong and it’s high time that we reverse the sinful choice. Before we find ourselves in the gate at Lachish.
I have a question. If abortion is not legal, then what do you we to reduce the number of abortions performed in the country? Wouldn’t be better to use birth control than using abortion as birth control? Also, what are going to do for these women who decide to have the baby? Do we provide them with adoption options, excellent pre-natal care that may not be able to afford because they may not have health insurance coverage? Unfortunately, if she decided to purchase health insurance on her own, she would be turned down because she has a pre-existing condition.
I can huff and puff about being for or against abortion, there are other some issues to consider. Partial-birth abortion is done in special cases where there is great medical risk other than that I do not see the point in the procedure. Sometimes it’s done when that child is still-born already dead. Should the mother continue to carry a still-born child to term? I think one should ask tough questions. It’s beyond our personal belief system quiet frankly and unfortunately life is not black and white. It’s not about how we think the ought to be, but how it is. Is anyone willing to adopt a child a woman is considering to abort?
Well, Medbob brings the second important word for the pro-choice crowd into play: “health”.
“Health” and “privacy” are catchall elastic words. If you push the issue just a little, you soon learn that “health of the mother” covers her mental composure, financial state, standing in the community, swimsuit size, childless status, wrong sex of the fetus, new love interest, morning sickness, etc.
I am aware that abortion decisions are not all trivial in nature. But the pro-choice crowd has painted itself into having to protect a lot of indefensible junk “medicine” while pretending to stand up for the greater cause of protecting privacy.
I marvel that pro-choice advocates will waffle about when life begins, toss sentience into the mix, and attempt to make “viability” an issue. They know darn well that abortion kills a human life.
They need the escape hatch of “privacy” and “health of the mother” to allow them to have a sense of noble cause about it all.
Obama clearly supports abortion as a cure for an “accidental” pregnancy. If one of his daughters had gotten pregnant in the 1950’s, he would have sent her off to “live with an aunt” for a year. She would have returned without a child, but not childless. Now he can just have the fetus that is “punishing” her sucked into pieces and flushed. It is so much more convenient for everyone.
Nova Healthcare now approximates a hospital and offers surgical abortions as part of its gynecological services. They will also prescribe Mifepristone or Mifeprex and send the mother home to start her miscarriage. This is purely a profit center for them and their services are not cheap. But Planned Parenthood will shop around and help fund abortions.
Here is the Nova Healthcare ad copy: “Our medical staff understands the sensitive nature of our patient’s needs. And because of the controversial nature of abortion, we understand that besides the very personal decision, there are external pressures that make the decision even more stressful. The goal of our staff is to respect our patient’s choice and privacy and to support our patient through a very personal event in their lives with dignity, confidentiality, compassion and care.”
If you want to have your left foot amputated because you are mad at it, I suggest Nova Healthcare. They will respect your choice and privacy with dignity, confidentiality, compassion and care. (Did you want to take the foot home with you or do want us to discard it?)
Have a nice day.
Here is the Nova Healthcare ad copy: “Our medical staff understands the sensitive nature of our patient’s needs. [comment by heliotrope]
Nova Healthcare pablum reflects the axis of the problem. They write “patient’s needs” which should more accurately be stated as “patients’ needs.” There are TWO individuals involved.
Once again, I am left with a question: Why is this such a monumental event in the life of a woman if the unborn is nothing more than a piece of tissue and not a life?
Last night at the Saddleback forum, Obama claimed that abortions had not gone down in the last eight years under a pro-life president. Hmmmmm, yet another lie/faux pas/mistake goes unchallenged by the msm.
The truth is that the number of abortions has gone down dramatically. Much of this, I think, is due to the blogosphere. When Americans finally began to realize that Roe v Eade/Doe v Bolton allowed abortion at any time for virtually any reason, they were shocked. They never heard this is their newspapers or their network news shows.
They were even more shocked to discover the barbarous procedure called partial birth abortion. Years ago, when I first read about Martin Haskell MD, inventor of the D & X procedure, people thought I was making it up. After all, they never read about this in their papers or heard it on their network news shows.
And, most are still having trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that a man running for president refused to prohibit infanticide. Of course, his votes will never be tallied in their newspapers or their network news shows.
To me, the framing of the abortion debate stands as one of the most clear examples of biased gate-keeping ever known to man.
http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/08/17/obamas_infanticide_disgrace
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 7 trackbacks }