MICHAEL D. HOUST
"Prevention of the births of defective children will reduce the load on Medicare and Medicaid."

`At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,' said the gentleman, taking up a pen, `it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'

`Are there no prisons?' asked Scrooge.

`Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

`And the Union workhouses?' demanded Scrooge. `Are they still in operation?'

`They are. Still,' returned the gentleman, `I wish I could say they were not.'

`The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?' said Scrooge.

`Both very busy, sir.'

`Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,' said Scrooge. `I'm very glad to hear it.'

`Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,' returned the gentleman, `a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink. and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?'

`Nothing!' Scrooge replied.

`You wish to be anonymous?'

`I wish to be left alone,' said Scrooge. `Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

`Many can't go there; and many would rather die.'

`If they would rather die,' said Scrooge, `THEY HAD BETTER DO IT AND DECREASE THE SURPLUS POPULATION. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that.'

"Save your zeal for children that are wanted. Unless you are able and willing to raise someone else's child and take the risks for delivering it, stay the heck out of other women's uterus's."

What a convincing argument and appeal to extreme selfishness you make Mr. Houst!

"the test of a civilization or nation or society is what it does for its weakest members or children."

The real test is at what point does a civilization, nation, or society grant or acknowledge a member as worthy of inclusion?

I have absolutely no problem with pregnant women who do not desire a child to obtain an abortion. Nor do I have any problem with a couple choosing to abort a defective fetus. The risks of carrying a child to term still outweigh the risks of an early abortion. To put it in simple economic terms, carrying an unwanted child to term is a poor investment.

It is in the greater interest of a nation to promote the raising of healthy children in a healthy environment. The majority of our dysfunctional, criminal members of our society are products of broken families, families where the child is a by product, not the desired and valued continuation of the family. Our national health care system (if you can call it that) is floundering. Prevention of the births of defective children will reduce the load on Medicare and Medicaid.

Save your zeal for children that are wanted. Unless you are able and willing to raise someone else's child and take the risks for delivering it, stay the heck out of other women's uterus's.

I am quite late to this discussion so this comment may be moot but here goes:

I was surprised after reading all the posts that no one mentions the type of abortions being done at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, IL which makes this BAIPA legislation necessary. Jill Stanek was a labor and delivery nurse who “blew the whistle” on the practice, that some have called “live birth abortion.”

Here is part of her testimony:
“But what was most distressing was to learn of the method Christ Hospital uses to abort, called induced labor abortion, now also known as "live birth abortion." In this particular abortion procedure doctors do not attempt to kill the baby in the uterus. The goal is simply to prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.
To commit induced labor abortion, a doctor or resident inserts a medication into the mother’s birth canal close to the cervix. The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant and ready to deliver. This medication irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. When this occurs, the small second or third trimester pre-term, fully formed baby falls out of the uterus, sometimes alive. By law, if an aborted baby is born alive, both birth and death certificates must be issued. Ironically, at Christ Hospital the cause of death often listed for live aborted babies is "extreme prematurity," an acknowledgement by doctors that they have caused this death.
It is not uncommon for a live aborted baby to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital one of these babies lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Some of the babies aborted are healthy, because Christ Hospital will also abort for life or "health" of the mother, and also for rape or incest.
In the event that an aborted baby is born alive, she or he receives "comfort care," defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until s/he dies. Parents may hold the baby if they wish. If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, a staff member cares for the baby until s/he dies. If staff did does not have the time or desire to hold the baby, s/he is taken to Christ Hospital’s new Comfort Room, which is complete with a First Foto machine if parents want professional pictures of their aborted baby, baptismal supplies, gowns, and certificates, foot printing equipment and baby bracelets for mementos, and a rocking chair. Before the Comfort Room was established, babies were taken to the Soiled Utility Room to die.”
Updates:
On August 5, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act into law. It recognizes that babies born after failed abortions are citizens and have all rights provided under our Constitution and laws. Jill Stanek was invited and was present at the signing ceremony in Pittsburg, PA. The U.S. Senate passed this bill by unanimous consent on July 18, 2002. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill in March, 2002. It is still unclear how Christ Hospital will respond to the new law.
In 2002, Senator Patrick O'Malley introduced Born Alive Infants Protection legislation. Two of three bills were passed by the Illinois Senate, but these bills were killed in the Illinois House Health Care Committee. Even though many strong abortion supporters in the U.S. Senate approved of this legislation, it was denied a vote in the Illinois House.
In 2001, the Born Alive Infants Protection legislation introduced by Senator Patrick O'Malley was passed by the Illiinois Senate, but all three bills were rejected by the Illinois House Judiciary Committee so the bills never got to a vote by the entire House.
Jill Stanek was fired by Christ Hospital on August 31, 2001. Since that time she has continued speaking about the live birth abortion procedures used at Christ Hospital. She ran for state legislator in the March, 2002 primary, but lost to the incumbent.
Read more:
http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/newpage36.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/testimony/jillstanektestimony.htm

Brave New World is not a commentary on this subject- let alone the best one.
We are not discussing cloning, nor social gnetic engineering to the point where the state supercedes motherhood and banishes the concept from social mores.
George Carlin's mother almost aborted George.
Monty Python, and Every Sperm is Sacred, is also not about abortion, but a comment about contraception.
It seems, Calif, like you've read only 2 books in your life, and are trying to find a way to shove them into the conversation.

The best commentary on this subject and the subject of the promotion of the maternal-medical-industrial complex and dehumanization of us all, can be found on the pages of books by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World; Fredrick Douglas, who described the means so-called christian slaveholders utilized to multiply their holdings; and George Carlin, on why pro-life is anti-woman.
Monty Python has some relevant points as well.

Posts 146-148 deleted. Why?

Fr Thomas Reese SJ on abortion ---

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/thomas_j_reese/2008/01/who_will_this_convince_1.html

This was Ryan's question-

"So how are they different, the fetus and the arm, that she may dispose of one, but not the other?"

Respectfully, if you don't want your question to be bypassed, maybe you could answer to keep the flow more logical and egalitarian.

I'll contend that we haven't necessarily established that a woman's body is not outside of the laws of society- and there are instances where society steps in when a woman's judgement is deemed harmful to herself or others.

(As in the instance of her arm.)

And I stated before that a mutually responsive anwer must contain a recognition of both parties involved-
acknowledgement of the value of baby and woman (and father which gets sidelines completely)

Nobody, so far, has suggested that the woman doesn't exist, nor that she has no rights.

The real question that is unanswered seems to be that the fetus, or partialy birth outside of the womb baby exist, and is valid.

Again, one either concedes that society has something to say as a whole- (as in the definition of a fetus not being a human being- accepted and cited) but ignoring the other relevant questions-

If we accept society's right to define life as such- we must also consistently accept that society has some right to decide the matter of abortion, which affects more than just the woman- and her decision isnot an autonomous one affecting only herself.

Ryan Haber,

First, regarding genetic engineering, if women's bodies are to be hijacked for ten months, I would submit that test-tube babies, which I would be loathe to see, would provide us with a viable alternative (pun intended).

For a definition of "false analogy," I provide you with a link to the great font of cyber knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Now, I'd like to ask you a question, if I may. What rationale can you provide for the state's requiring that women carry to term?

As you see, the question concerns women. I'm assuming you will reply in good faith and not bypass the woman or the body that is hers.

Our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973), My Several Worlds [1954].

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a 1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life

The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill Federer

"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope John Paul II

Actually there are many instances where a woman's body is not hers to do with as she chooses. If this were a universal rule of thumb, prostitution would be an accepted and respected choice of employment.
Clearly, that is not the case, and the prisons and jails are filled with women who did what they wanted with their own bodies.

When a person is held involuntarily for observation in a psych unit, the criteria to hold them (against their will)is that they are a danger to themselves, or others.

There are women who perfom self mutilation, which is analogous to cutting off ones arm- cutting and slicing ones arm repeatedly, cutting off ones arm altogether- see the similarity?

When ones behavior and judgement are called into question, through self destructive or violent actions against another- society steps in.

So we are not actually autonomous self directed beings- but social creatures part of the larger web of society- and as such- have some degree of repsonsibility to act in a way that is cognizant of other people and their rights.

As long as we're healthy, and financially flush- we can deride our need of society- but as soon as those conditions are changed- suddenly society has a life of it's own- becomes an entity that shares in a collective responsibility.

When that health, wealth, or security is threatened in any way- it is society as a whole that we look to provide solutions.


But another gaping hole in the "I'll do what I want with my body" philosophy is that, as pointed out before- a fetus does not technically belong only to the woman- she is a co-creator in that life-

And the rights of the father are never even touched upon. Of course, when it comes time to pay child support, suddenly his input is recognized.

Maybe Robyn, and other pro-abortionists have the luxury of having an education, a decent job and housing- access to clean water and food and the variety of advantages of modern life in America- and so, in their relative comfort- have time and energy to decide for others, and indeed all of society that the individual is capable of taking care of their own needs- and that their rights take precedence over the needs of the whole society-

But that is an increasingly minority view- and a statistical hiearchy most do not enjoy.

Most of us are interdependent upon each other to get through our lives- so that the needs or rights of the individual, in some instances- are subordinated to the greater good of society at large-

We have laws that protect even animals from abuse- and to kill one makes one subject to prosecution.

The same voices that deny the validity of the rights of the body of society to be healthy- are the first to point out that society has decided to define that a fetus is not a human life- so can be deprived of any attendant rights reserved for humans.

I think a more balanced approach and recognition of both views is necessary- To say only one is valuable- (rights of individual vs. rights of society) is an imbalance.

I see many anti-abortionists here concede that the individual woman has rights- and take that into account in their reasonings.

But I am not seeing an equivalent acknowledgement towards the rights of society from pro-abortionists.
And the question of morality never seems to enter the conversation at all.

Robyn,

"Sorry if I was confusing. I don't support genetic engineering. What I was trying to say is that if the right to an abortion is overturned genetic engineering may be the only alternative."

Right. I understood the grammar of what you wrote. A lot of frequent contributors here use atrocious grammar, spelling, etc. Yours is refreshing.

I didn't, and still don't, understand how the logic holds. How is genetic engineering an alternative to abortion on demand? How are they related? Why does the absence of one, in your mind, lead to a need for the other? That's what I don't get.

"The bit about the arm is a false analogy."

Ok, so please explain why it is false. Remember, an analogy is a comparison between two things that at in some way alike, and in some way unlike. You said that the woman has the right to do with her body whatever she will, and therefore the right to an abortion. The presumed missing link in that logic is that the fetus is part of her body, and that an abortion severs it. So I asked, has she also the right to sever her arm? Or course, I understand that a fetus is not an arm - else the scenarios would be identical. As it is, they are only analogous. Both parts of her body, you say, that she may dispose with as she pleases.

So how are they different, the fetus and the arm, that she may dispose of one, but not the other?

I'm not even interested in arguing, as much as intrigued to see where you go with this line of thinking.

Folks,
Anonymous writes:

"[W]hat Robyn means is that a woman has a right to her OWN ARM, but the fetus has no right to its OWN LIFE as long as it is in the mother's uterus."

Hmmm...so how was that woman endowed with the right to her arm? Apparently, in the minds of people like Anonymous, not by her Creator but by her mother. In effect, a person is endowed by his/her mother with the inalienable right to life only if his/her mother allows the person to pass through the birth canal without trying to kill him/her. Of course, if the mother tries to kill the person on the way out but her agent, the abortionist, botches the job, the person still has no right to life so long as the abortionist or mother wants to finish the job. In effect, the abortion mill remains a free-fire zone.

I condemn Obama for wanting to kill so many innocent lives. This man should be locked away for murder instead of being supported for President.
There is no justification for killing innocent lives.

Ryan Haber, a woman is not physically hurt by an abortion because the fetus has merely embedded itself in her uterus for its growth. As long as the mother tells herself the fetus is not a human being in development until it leaves her body of its own accord capable of independent life, she can escape feeling guilty about an abortion. The logic is quite simple.

Ryan Haber, what Robyn means is that a woman has a right to her OWN ARM, but the fetus has no right to its OWN LIFE as long as it is in the mother's uterus.

Ryan Haber:

Sorry if I was confusing. I don't support genetic engineering. What I was trying to say is that if the right to an abortion is overturned genetic engineering may be the only alternative. The bit about the arm is a false analogy.

Robyn,

I don't understand why you support genetic engineering of humans in the event that pro-life advocates refuse to stop advancing their cause. I am a bit obtuse, so perhaps you will indulge me.

I would also like to address the other main point of your post, that a woman's body is her own, and that therefore she may do with it as she wishes. Do you believe that is the case with severing her own arm off? I mean, do you believe that a woman has the right to sever her arm off in her own home, using a household meat cleaver? It is her body, still - right? I am not being facetious, but really very serious. I wonder if, in your thinking, any other questions enter into the equation or if your belief really as simple as you've phrased it at first.

Kind regards.

To the very first post "Robyn". Your sever Feminism is displayed like a neon sign, and offensive in what should be a more accepting culture.
Neither pro-life or pro-choice are correct in assuming they hold the keys to the best choice, or truth of thiese matters.

Your attitude displays a self-centered feminism/liberalism, To which the solution for, or response to is...

Your Body is your own, do with it what you like, the choice is yours.
But the responsiblity for what you do and thus create is also yours to care for.
Abortion...in this century is a self centered way of expressing, " I can't be bothered to take the proper precations even though birth control methods are abundently available."
Perhaps simpler instrution should be given for this century..."If you aren't interested in parenthood, and don't feel like using birth control...then keep your panties on, and say NO!"

However pro lifers may want to twist it, distort it, and turn it in the wind, a woman's body belongs to her, and it's up to her what to do with it.

Any infant born alive has the right to life, obviously.

Many, many years ago, Watson and Crick were asked to testify before Congress on funding for "genetic engineering." That is, manufacturing human beings. One, I forget which, supported it, the other passionately opposed. Now, we actually have nations in which female fetuses are being aborted in favor of male, in other words, sex selection. The result is a dangerous sexual imbalance.

However, unless pro lifers can see their way clear to keeping their hands off women's bodies, I would urge my fellow pro-choicers to advocate for the genetic manufacture of humans, now possible. Of course, this would eliminate the wonderful diversity we now have, preclude all sorts of unimaginable but glorious possibilities, and pave the way for all kinds of nightmares.

BUT, no one, no one has the right to control a woman's body other than the woman herself. If pro lifers can't get this, "genetic engineering" may be our only alternative.

TS, you’ve missed my point about the morality of spontaneous miscarriages. There is no morality involved in spontaneous miscarriages because it is natural. There is no morality in nature. It makes no sense to speak of an earthquake or a tiger as having committed an injustice or done a great evil. In human acts, on the other hand, there is morality because we have free will to choose among options that are right or wrong. In speaking of free will I was clearly not speaking about the free will of the aborted child, but of those considering killing it.

“Here’s where we differ: My view is that the earth is seriously overpopulated – and set to get much worse.”

The earth isn’t overpopulated. As you said, it is being seriously battered, which is to say, it is being wasted. There’s a difference and I’ll explain.

There are about 45 million sq. miles of solid land on earth that is not inside the Arctic/Antarctic circles, and not above the tree line – and thus is fully inhabitable. Six billion, or lets say ten billion, people in that area gives us an average of 133 to 222 persons per square mile. That’s about as densely packed as Georgia, North Carolina, or Virginia. Those states are hardly overcrowded, and that’s the average situation globally. Lots of countryside, small towns, and occasional big cities.

Put another way, if all the people in the world lived in an area as densely populated as Chicago (12500 / sq. mi – not a very dense city), that city would be 480,000 – 800,000 sq. miles. 480,000 sq. miles is about the size of Texas, New Mexico, and Oklahoma combined. Double that, and you will see about the space taken up by all the world’s people if they lived as tightly packed as Chicagoans. The rest of the world would be empty of human life. Silent. Unexplored. Free for habitation.

The idea that we don’t produce enough food right now is also unfounded. Only 28% of the arable land in Africa is under a plow. The percentage is vastly lower in Asia. In the US, Canada, and Europe, while much of our farmable land is currently farmed, its productivity is deliberately kept low, as a matter of public policy, to enable farmers to keep prices high enough to support themselves. Moreover, better and better technologies develop every year for heartier, healthier, and more compact growing.

Now, you’re right that our environment is a mess, and getting messier. The problem isn’t that we are too many people, but that too many people (mostly Westerners) are being too wasteful. We cannot be bothered to wash a dish or recycle a plastic spoon to save our lives. We just keep throwing out crap that won’t go away. We make very efficient production processes to keep this lifestyle of laziness and greed possible, and we don’t worry about the environmental degradation involved in those processes because doing so would raise costs and prices, and thus force us to slow our consumption. Those cheap things are produced with cheap labor in poorer countries, making their countries daily look more like great wastelands while ours are being continually beautified with our wealth, to keep us feeling like we live in gardens.

The problem isn’t too many people, but people who are too wasteful. Killing babies hardly solves that problem.

“TS replies to RYAN: The reason why our common law legal system is suited to handle these cases is precisely because the fetus has NOT been accorded the status of HUMAN!!!!”

That’s hardly the point of how our common law system manages. It manages case-by-case using investigation to determine matters of fact and statute and precedent to determine matters of law. I never said that Columbian women in the US would have cause to sue, but were happily not to be permitted. I simply said something to the extent that, living outside to the US, they would not have access to American courts to sue the American government for fumigating them. Of course morality doesn’t apply only to Americans; your question was about our legal system being overwhelmed in American courts by litigations over accidental and spontaneous miscarriages. I was only attempting to show that wouldn’t be a very difficult problem.

TS, if a human fetus is not a human, then what is? Where do humans come from, TS?

One of the ways to prevent infanticide is to build many orphanages with a baby "letter" boxes, where unwanted babies can be "posted." The young mother can "post" her baby and ring the bell of the orphanage to ensure immediate collection of the baby "letter." That will protect babies from mothers who hide them in wardrobes and go to school or dump them in the garbage can before rushing off to continue dancing with their date for the evening, or suffocate the infant to death in order to prevent anyone from hearing its cries etc.

Actually, I stand corrected. Obama's fact-checking website says that he voted against the bill for two reasons. One was that the language in it would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade, which he doesn't want to do. The other is that there was already a 20-year-old law in Illinois that covered this situation. So, this "Born Alive" bill was simply a trap to get lawmakers to vote on a highly controversial item so that it could be used against them later. And, in retrospect, I guess it worked.

California mega-church pastor Rick Warren says Christians should not be reticent to work with Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, and even atheists to cure societal problems.

In conjunction with the presidential forum he is hosting next month at Saddleback Church, Pastor Rick Warren will convene an interfaith meeting for 30 Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders "to discuss cooperation for the common good of all Americans."

Warren's global P.E.A.C.E. plan is an effort to mobilize churches around the world to combat what he calls the five "global giants" of spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease and illiteracy. But he says he has no desire for interfaith dialogue; rather he is interested in interfaith cooperation "on things that involve all humans regardless of what we believe."

"When Jesus sent his disciples out [Matthew10]...he said, 'When you go into a village, you find the man of peace,' and he said, 'If he accepts, and he's open, and he's receptive and he's willing to work with you, you start your ministry there,'" says Warren. "[But Jesus] said, 'If you don’t find the man of peace, you dust the dust off your shoes and you go to the next village [be]cause you can always find someone that's willing to work with you," he continues.

Warren notes he was recently part of a group at Georgetown University that brought together three leading Catholic priests, three Muslim imams, three Jewish rabbis, and three evangelical pastors to discuss what they could do together to stop AIDS.

Janet refers to a woman as an oven who produces a child who is no more than a cake.

Janet does not consider the reproductive cycle of a woman as a part of normal physiology.

Janet does not accept that a woman is responsible for her sex life and its consequences.

To Janet a woman is a human being with rights over her body whereas a living fetus is neither a human being in development nor has any right to its life.

To Janet the whole society is responsible for any disease in any of its members and every member of the society rightly ought to be made legally obliged to donate blood, bone marrow, kidneys etc to anyone who is ill.

To Janet there is no difference between disease and pregnancy. She considers the consequences of pregnancy on a woman's body no different from the consequence of donating bone marrow, kidney etc on the body of the donor.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Read all of Janet's posts on the two threads discussing abortion.

testing again unable to post

testing

Anonymous:

Victoria:

It's nice that you help people with AIDs. Your criticisms of Janet's post suggest you've neither read about sex nor had any experience with it.

As usual, you write hysterically. Your lunacy combined with your illiteracy make your posts difficult to read.

I've got to say I'm pro-life, but I'd rather read Janet's posts any day than yours. They're so damned stupid. Pro-lifers have enough problems being taken seriously. Do us all a favor and don't help us.

July 27, 2008 3:47 PM |

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are pro-life,
You have read about sex,
You have had sex.
You call Victoria hysterical,
You call her a lunatic who is illiterate,
You call her damn stupid.
AND you find Janet's posts more sensible than Victoria's.

Wow, now that is one case of perverse logic, if ever there was one.

Victoria:

It's nice that you help people with AIDs. Your criticisms of Janet's post suggest you've neither read about sex nor had any experience with it.

As usual, you write hysterically. Your lunacy combined with your illiteracy make your posts difficult to read.

I've got to say I'm pro-life, but I'd rather read Janet's posts any day than yours. They're so damned stupid. Pro-lifers have enough problems being taken seriously. Do us all a favor and don't help us.

i think sime very good points were made here-
thanks grandma for posting the actual information being contested-

bruce brought up an interesting point about language- and i notice people use this to their own advantage-
calling pro-lifers anti-choice- or pro-choice anti-life- really is just pitting one against the other-
pro-choicers proritize the rights of the mother-
pro-lifers prioritize the life of the baby and mother-

ideologically i am on the side of the pro-lifers- but politically i concede that i don't trust the government to decide for a woman- (woman- which doesn't include children or minors)

the most honest expression would be, as suggested by bruce- pro-abortion or anti-abortion-
as it is abortion, and not the overall rights of women or babies being addressed.

with such honest language- it does change the flaovr of the conversation- changing it from an abstract conversation about civil rights- and reminding us of the very real act we are discussing-

points made about the symbiotic relationship of the baby to the mother are peripheral to this conversation, as it is clearly about babies(as they are legally defined) outside of and beyond the scope of this relationship-

janet some of your arguments are so hyberbolic-

"Women often do get pregnant by accident."

are you going to suggest that people have sexual intercourse by accident also?

ive volunteered for over 20 years with pwa's(people with aids)
i have not yet ever had one pwa confess that they had accidental sex- not one propose that they had no responsibility in the accident that caused their illness-

the same, in a very real way- applies to prengancy.

and i find the example given of the couple whose husband was being downsized somewhat morally repulsive.

if murder can be justified by financial need- that is a whole other dilemna i don't even want to touch on these boards-

kudos to ryan for sharing his own volunteer work, with humility and to make a good point.

ideological arguments really become quite pale when confronted with those whose consciences motivate them to take real action and give of themselves in a selfless manner for the betterment of society and community.

the difference i see in the arguments is one of individual or selfish needs- against those of society as a whole-

a point completely sidestepped by pro-abortionists-

by attempting to dimninish the value of the potential human life, and not acknowledging that value- you make half an argument that will always be only half- and can never progress beyond that point.

there has to be some recognition of the value of both lives involved-
otherwise it will just be two opposite extremes, never acknowledging nor respecting the others views- trying to force one intransigent view upon another intransigent view.

anti-abortionists need to recognize the autonomy and value of the rights of the woman (tennagers not included)
pro-abortionists need to admit that there is life involved- and the potential for the right to fulfillment of that very basic fact- life itself.

i also find it very strange that pro-abortionists also seem to be in the camp of genetic social engineering-

i guess that's another issue- but if we'd had people contending that those with debilitating diseases be precluded from his planet- we wouldn't have a stephen hawkings-

there will always be risks, accidents, and possibel negative potentials in any human life-
but there are also sublime and wonderful accidents and potentials for greatness-

imagine a world without geroge carlin! i've been edified by his presence on this planet- and he was almost an abortion-

but there is no way to prove a negative- spo we have no idea of what kinds of lives have been carelessly and selfisly snuffed out because someone's husband was being downsized-

Anon,

As I've told you before, ad hominems don't cut it. What they attest to is desperation, the weakness, even indefensibility, of a position.

Assuming you're rational, I would think that your incapacity to summon counter-arguments would suggest to you that you need to rethink your stance.

hey,

you can't call mccain the warmonger anymore... now obama says we must win the war in afganistan... does this make him a warmonger? seems so, according to the logic used by mccain haters.

and yes, obama, by not voting to protect infants born alive after a botched abortion, has given the green light to infanticide. you proaborts have always declared once a 'fetus' crosses the birth canal, 'personhood' ensues. you can't have it both ways.

Janet maybe you don't realize what is so obvious to anyone reading your comments, in your desperation to defend your staunch pro-choice position (while completely ignoring what others are trying to tell you about the right of life regarding the fetus and the moral responsibility of a mother) you have used a ludicrous analogy and when called on its inappropriateness you dig yourself even deeper into it making it sound even more ludicrous.

Janet I suggest you leave medical opinions to medical doctors. You already confirmed you are not one.

Whoops!

In my previous post (July 26, 2008 4:12 PM),I should have written "disease," is a red herring, not "responsibility." "Actually" should have been "actual."

Anon: "But in a normal pregnancy, which is a normal part of a woman's life, the woman does not get pregnant by accident. She does have control over her sex life and her body. The fetus does not get into her uterus unbidden"

Janet: Pregnancy is not a normal part of a woman's life. Some women get pregnant; others don't.

Women often do get pregnant by accident. I don't know how knowledgeable you are, but I will give you a scenario and actually "case history." The couple decides to use condoms. The man goes ahead and ejaculates without putting one on. Alternatively, the condom slips partially or entirely.

Here is a case, not my own, thankfully, that despite every conceivable effort wound up in pregnancy. The woman, for medical reasons could not take birth control pills. For awhile she used a coil, but then that had to be removed. Then she switched to a diaphragm with spermicidal jelly, while her husband used a condom.

Both wanted children, but were, in no way, financially ready for them. To make matters worse, the husband's company was downsizing, and he feared for his job. When her period was late, she panicked. She'd never been late before, and had the strong feeling, for whatever reason, that she was pregnant. She was. The following three weeks were hell on earth for her, her husband, and us, their closest friends.

In the end, they had an abortion. That was about twelve years ago. They now have two children. She still thinks about the abortion, that fetus that might have gone to term and become a child. No woman I have ever known has forgetten about an abortion.

Anon: Nobody is personally responsible for the disease in another person.

Janet: Responsibility is a red herring. If you are saying that a pregnant woman's body is to be held accountable for the life of a fetus that may not come to term, then certainly every person's body is to be held accountable for the survival of another if it can be arranged. An ex uterine homo sapiens has long been known as a human being.
To my knowledge, except for the Catholic church, no religious group attaches more importance to the life of a fetus than to that of a pregnant woman, i.e., a human being.

Anon: Pregnancy is a natural biological phenomena which causes the mother no biological harm. Bone marrow transplants, kidney transplants etc are medical procedures which does cause harm to the person offering their bone marrow or kidney to another.

Janet: Pregnancy often causes life-long harm. It can result in lifelong back problems, bladder problems, heart problems, kidney problems, varicose veins, etc. It can and does result in death, even when the mother has been given adequate obstectric care.

A healthy person is rarely harmed by a bone marrow transplant. Further, it doesn't take ten months, limit the person's mobility, etc. The recovery period is very short.

Similarly, a healthy person with healthy kidneys is not harmed by donating a kidney.

Blood donation is a nothing matter.

-If women's bodies are to become the property of the state in cases of pregnancy, then all bodies must become the property of the state in cases of need by developed human beings, from birth onwards.

ATHENA

You wrote, " As for those rare occaisions when a fetus survives, I don't know. I don't know what I would do in that situation."

I don't remember where but a while back I read an article that was written by a woman that I think was in her 20's or 30's that survived an abortion, I believe it was a saline solution abortion, maybe you could ask her opinion on what one should do.

Also, I am wondering how you can call a child outside of a woman's womb a "fetus", are you a "fetus"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The previous post was addressed to Janet. Pro-choice Janet has a rationalization that will never be easily shaken. The fetus as a living, developing human being does not seem to enter the equation in a hardened pro-choice attitude at all.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The discussion has been extensive enough and needs no more input from me.

Janet:

The pregnant woman and fetus are in a biologically symbiotic relationship. So long as this is the case, you cannot speak of a woman as if she were a mechanical object, with no rights. If we follow your line of reasoning, then any living person requiring a bone marrow transplant, blood transfusion, or kidney may have yours, providing that the relevant procedures do not harm you.

This analogy, imperfect though it is, would hold if and only if, you subscribe to the view that abortions should be permitted when there are serious risks to the woman's life and/or health.

The imperfections of the analogy go to the fact that none of the procedures I mentioned take ten months, none pose the risks of pregnancy, etc.

Are you willing to legislate along the lines I mention in my analogy? If not, are you not participating in passive murder?

July 26, 2008 4:23 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Janet, you state correctly that the fetus and the pregnant woman, the woman who happens to be the mother of the child, are in a biologically symbiotic relationship. While you are willing to admit that the woman is not a mechanical object with rights of her own, you are not willing to admit that the fetus is NOT a mechanical object and does have right to its life.

Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is a normal part of a woman's reproductive life. Only very very rarely do pregnancies pose a risk to the life and health of a mother. In such cases a medical doctor is competent to help the woman, including advising an abortion to save her life if her life should be at risk due to the pregnancy.

But in a normal pregnancy, which is a normal part of a woman's life, the woman does not get pregnant by accident. She does have control over her sex life and her body. The fetus does not get into her uterus unbidden. So she has a responsibility towards the life that was created in her womb with her consent and knowledge. The fetus in her womb is not a mechanical object. It is a developing human being.

You compare a pregnancy to a disease needing bone marrow, blood, kidney transplant etc. Why is the analogy inappropriate?

---Pregnancy is a normal biological function; a disease is a disease.

---A woman is responsible for her pregnancy because it is the result of sexual activity which she chooses freely and she has control over her body and her sexual activity. Nobody is personally responsible for the disease in another person.

---Pregnancy is a natural biological phenomena which causes the mother no biological harm. Bone marrow transplants, kidney transplants etc are medical procedures which does cause harm to the person offering their bone marrow or kidney to another.

---When a pregnant woman takes responsibility for the child in her uterus she is taking responsibility for her own flesh and blood which she created with her sexual activity. Except in sexually transmitted diseases, no other person is responsible for the disease in another.

---In pregnancy the mother alone can provide life to the fetus in her womb. Her rejection of the fetus means instant death to the fetus. The mother is not harmed in anyway by carrying her own child to term. No diseased person is in a biologically symbiotic relationship with another human being on whom their life is directly dependent.

Janet:

Indeed! There have been articles by doctors and nurses about letting some infants die, as well as about letting terminally ill patients, suffering in agony, die.

What could motivate such behavior? An infant born deaf, dumb, blind, legless, armless, barely responsive, drug addicted, etc.

NOW, in the few articles I've read by doctors and nurses, these decisions were not made lightly, and did not leave those who made them unscathed.
Nevertheless, I, too, ask, "What about the oath?" I also ask if this continues to occur, where will it lead? And it has been going on for a long, long time.

Again, my point in raising the issue is:

"Although, as Prof. Stevens-Arroyo implies, the word "infant" should cover all viable births, whatever seems gray in these discussions does get grayer when these births result from late-term abortions, regardless of whether or not we think it should. (IMO, it should not.)"

July 25, 2008 1:31 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Janet:

Anon, as far as I know, we have no record of Hippocrates' thoughts on abortion.

Even if we did (and we don't), the morality of august ancients is not necessarily consistent with that of today. Many consider Plato the "architect" of Western thought. He believed it was better for men to be intimate with young boys since men and boys were more alike than men and girls. Thus argued Plato.

July 26, 2008 2:12 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anon, I meant to right appeals to to authority, which constitute a logical fallacy. The Hippocratic oath was sworn to the Apollo, et al. My question about your ancient Greek religious affiliation goes to that.

By personal speculation, I was referring to your questions about my profession.

July 26, 2008 4:23 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your post of 25 July had me wondering if you were a nurse who was familiar with abortions because you mentioned reading articles written by doctors and nurses and about mangled fetuses which escaped abortion attempts which the doctors then were forced to let die. It came across to me as if you were speaking from personal experience of seeing mangled fetuses which escaped abortion attempts.

Your lack of information regarding the Hippocratic oath told me you could not be a medical doctor, which you have confirmed. So a discussion about what you refer to as the logical fallacy of the Oath is redundant.

The speculation about your profession was only because we are discussing abortion and reproductive biology in relation to it. It makes a big difference to know whether you are coming from a professional viewpoint or the viewpoint of a lay person who happens to be pro-choice.

Anon, I meant to right appeals to to authority, which constitute a logical fallacy. The Hippocratic oath was sworn to the Apollo, et al. My question about your ancient Greek religious affiliation goes to that.

By personal speculation, I was referring to your questions about my profession.

The pregnant woman and fetus are in a biologically symbiotic relationship. So long as this is the case, you cannot speak of a woman as if she were a mechanical object, with no rights. If we follow your line of reasoning, then any living person requiring a bone marrow transplant, blood transfusion, or kidney may have yours, providing that the relevant procedures do not harm you.

This analogy, imperfect though it is, would hold if and only if, you subscribe to the view that abortions should be permitted when there are serious risks to the woman's life and/or health.

The imperfections of the analogy go to the fact that none of the procedures I mentioned take ten months, none pose the risks of pregnancy, etc.

Are you willing to legislate along the lines I mention in my analogy? If not, are you not participating in passive murder?

Janet please clarify this ---

"I stand corrected on the Hippocratic oath and look forward to your instruction on ancient Greek religion. (Are you a worshiper of Apollo? That was one complicated god, talk about doing no harm. I suggest you consider the perils of arguments from authority, that we table ad hominems and personal speculation. They tend to close off options for intelligent discussion, no?)"

And this ---

"Realize that I do not take the matter of abortion lightly as I have said before. Emphatically, I do not believe that abortion is a substitute for birth control. I know no one who has had an abortion and quite recovered from it. However, neither the seriousness of abortion nor its psychological consequences have any bearing on a women's ownership of her body. A woman is a human being, not an oven in which a cake rises."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Instruction on Greek religion?

Perils of arguments from authority like the Hippocratic oath, reproductive biology?

What constituted ad hominem? personal speculation? Mentioning the Hippocratic oath?

Is having a child equal to baking a cake? Is a child a cake, a fetus merely a lump of dough?

To continue after your clarification...

Anon:

I am neither a physician nor an "abortion nurse," simply one of tens of millions of Americans who are pro-choice. I stand corrected on the Hippocratic oath and look forward to your instruction on ancient Greek religion. (Are you a worshiper of Apollo? That was one complicated god, talk about doing no harm. I suggest you consider the perils of arguments from authority, that we table ad hominems and personal speculation. They tend to close off options for intelligent discussion, no?)

From the Hippocratic oath:

“I swear by Apollo the healer, by Asclepius, by Health, by Panacea and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses that I will carry out to the best of my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant (horkos kai syngraphe)…”

Realize that I do not take the matter of abortion lightly as I have said before. Emphatically, I do not believe that abortion is a substitute for birth control. I know no one who has had an abortion and quite recovered from it. However, neither the seriousness of abortion nor its psychological consequences have any bearing on a women's ownership of her body. A woman is a human being, not an oven in which a cake rises.

Janet so you are not a medical doctor. Are you a nurse, an abortion nurse perhaps?

Human anatomy and human reproductive biology has not changed since the time of Hippocrates. Since science has not discovered a human fetus is not a developing human being, it can be said with some certainty that abortion is still wrong. Abortion is about right to life of a fetus.

"Thou shalt not kill" was a commandment given to Moses four thousand years ago. It is still valid. If there is no doubt about its validity today why should there be a doubt about its application to a fetus. Although definitions of the right of a fetus has been pushed into a gray area, there is no question whether a fetus is a developing human being or not.

The Hippocratic Oath

The Hippocratic Oath (OrkoV) is perhaps the most widely known of Greek medical texts. It requires a new physician to swear upon a number of healing gods that he will uphold a number of professional ethical standards. One of the best known prohibitions is, "to do no harm" (epi dhlhsei de kai adikihi eirxein)

Little is known about who wrote it or first used it, but it appears to be more strongly influenced by followers of Pythagoras than Hippocrates and is often estimated to have been written in the 4th century B.C.E.

Over the centuries, it has been rewritten often in order to suit the values of different cultures influenced by Greek medicine. Contrary to popular belief, the Hippocratic Oath is not required by most modern medical schools.

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan;

**********************************************

and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

***********************************************

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

************************************************

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

**********************************************

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

Anon:

"A constitutional right to abort when Hippocrates, the founder of Western medicine, says NO to abortion?"

Anon, as far as I know, we have no record of Hippocrates' thoughts on abortion.

Even if we did (and we don't), the morality of august ancients is not necessarily consistent with that of today. Many consider Plato the "architect" of Western thought. He believed it was better for men to be intimate with young boys since men and boys were more alike than men and girls. Thus argued Plato.

A constitutional right to abort when Hippocrates, the founder of Western medicine, says NO to abortion?

If anything modern medicine has only proved how early the fetus develops all the characteristics of a child and how early it responds to its environment both in the uterus and outside. Some parents spoil their child silly by talking to it, playing music to it while still in the womb and the children acquire an intra-uterine taste for their parents' choice of music which is manifest when they are born. Children move about in the womb in response to mother's emotions, and the child expresses its own emotions by its movement within the womb.

Constitutional right for abortion under the light of such science? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeee!!!!!

It is not that only a viable fetus is a human being in development. The only difference is that a viable fetus is able to survive outside the uterus of the mother, in other words is capable of being a totally independent human being outside the mother's uterus. The fetus does not suddenly become a human being on the day it is deemed viable. It is always a human being in development, it merely becomes capable of independent life at a particular stage. An infant similarly goes through different stages of development until it is termed an adult in legal terms at age 18.

I am 100% pro-choice. That said, I do oppose late-term abortions and always have. As matters stand, late-term abortions are prohibited under federal law (whenever interstate activity is involved is involved, of course).

The simplest solution to this and other problems would be to take abortion out of the hands of the states and put it under federal jurisdiction. This should come under the provisions of a Constitutional amendment since it is doubtful that a Supreme Court ruling will ever be sufficient to guarantee women the right to an abortion in perpetuity. With a Constitutional amendment, late-term abortions could be excluded, except when there are extenuating circumstances such as the mother's survival, health, etc.

I said I think a Constitutional amendment would be the "simplest solution." That doesn't mean I think it would be "simple" to bring it about. We have already witnessed the defeat of a Women's Civil Rights Amendment. However, I see no other way to guarantee both the rights of the living woman and the rights of what could be the equivalent of a premature birth, or, more simply, a premature birth.

The US is the only super power; it is the richest country in the world; it spends billions on weapons and wars. It should build as many orphanages as required to house those children who were meant to be sacrificed by their mothers through abortions at the stage of a viable fetus.

The physical, emotional and mental health of women of mothers who opt for abortion of viable fetuses need to be examined, their morality and ethics need to be challenged if necessary. The women need to be offered alternatives to carry their child to term and give it up for adoption immediately after birth.

It is the law that permits abortion of viable fetuses that needs to be challenged by the public.

You got it wrong. Attention was being called to Senator Obama's position that medical doctors, not the law should be allowed to decide what happens to a fetus that escapes the abortion attempt. Keeping a mangled fetus, not worthy of human dignity and life, after a botched abortion attempt, is not an act of mercy to the infant. If abortion is illegal we are dealing with a completely different situation. The mother and doctor can be charged with murder. As long as abortion of a viable fetus is legal, a botched abortion leaving a fetus unworthy of human dignity is not an act of mercy to the innocent human being.

Folks,
An apologist for Obama writes:

"In such circumstances Senator Obama is of the opinion medical doctors must be trusted to make the right professional decision with regard to a fetus that has escaped an abortion attempt. Following a law blindly to keep the fetus alive could be counter productive if such keeping the fetus alive for the sake of keeping it alive means no more than torture to that fetus. "

So Obama would give the torturer of the escaped fetus a free fire zone on the baby even after it has escaped the attempt to destroy it. It is said that doctors get to bury their mistakes; Obama apparently wants to be sure that that works for abortionists too, even though the abortionist's mistake was in allowing the baby to escape the womb so that it is now a separate life in being, entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

According to the Obama position, the botched killer gets as many extra chances as he needs to murder the now live, defenseless human being. That callous position makes Obama a moral leper.

No one has the right to compare death due to natural miscarriage, death due to illness, collateral death in wars, death penalty to a criminal who has become a danger to the life and health of other members of the society (death penalty has been abolished in most countries, it is opposed by the Catholic Church)to the death of an innocent fetus, a developing child, by abortion.

Abortion is a conscious decision made by the mother of an innocent child in development to kill it by artificial means. Natural miscarriage is not a conscious decision by the mother. Illness is a natural part of life which led to many deaths in the past. Medical advances saves lives which would otherwise be lost to diseases. In war the innocent civilians are not targeted. In abortion an innocent child in its development stage is targeted for killing by its own mother. The means used are artificial.

The Catholic Church opposes war.
The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty.
The Catholic Church opposes abortions.

I don't understand how Obama or any other abortion supporter can be so cavalier about the procedure when they hear how mangled children survive the procedure and then they say they must be put out of their misery. There would not have been any misery had the child simply been allowed to be born. I understand how the mother might be inconvenienced by the child, but there is always adoption. How terrible it is that mothers kill their own children. And how terrible it is that society condones such a thing. Killing a child is an evil choice in every circumstance. There is no love involved, only selfishness. So what if its inconvenient, even painful. This is your child we are talking about.

And I believe that the doctors that perform this procedure are equally at fault. How can they justify their actions. More than the mothers, they know that a unborn child is still a child, often viable at the time of abortion and yet they are willing to kill it. How can they justify their actions?

Finally, those that support abortion out of political expediency are they most loathsome of all. They are willing to sacrifice lives to further their careers or political interest. And don't kid yourself, the fact that abortion is legal makes it seem to some that its okay. Well, legal or not, its not okay..

Every fetus that is aborted is an innocent life that is sacrificed for the sake of its mother. Every fetus is like Jesus Christ, offering itself up so that its mother may have the life she chooses.

"Aborting a fetus at a stage when it could survive with or without medical assistance outside the uterus of the mother is a serious ethical issue that requires serious public debate."

Wrong; it is the murder of a human being - nothing more, nothing less.

Obama does not want the infant classified as "human" and, therefore, rejected the language of the bill.

PS - I am not voting for McWar, so this is not a partisan issue. Just telling the truth....

Athena thanks for providing the link to Senator Obama's website with further information on the bill mentioned in this essay.

Note:

Abortion is legal, so a mother who opts for it and a doctor who performs it are both acting fully within their legal rights.

The moral and ethical choice is made by the mother, not the doctor who performs the abortion procedure.

The medical doctor who performs the abortion is faced with a difficult ethical choice when a fetus escapes the abortion attempt. If the fetus is not old enough to survive outside the uterus, keeping the remaining parts of the fetus that has escaped the abortion attempt makes no sense. It is merely prolonging the agony of the fetus which is sure to die anyway. What about the fetus which is old enough to survive outside the uterus but is so badly damaged in the process of abortion that it does not have a body worthy of a human being? Janet described a badly wounded fetus. Maybe the fetus has its legs and hands cut, eyes gauged out perhaps and most of its body damaged to such an extent that keeping it alive in such a state and prolonging its agony amounts to torture. That is when the medical opinion of a doctor must prevail and ending that life becomes an act of mercy for the child. Janet explained that no medical doctor makes such a decision with callousness.

In such circumstances Senator Obama is of the opinion medical doctors must be trusted to make the right professional decision with regard to a fetus that has escaped an abortion attempt. Following a law blindly to keep the fetus alive could be counter productive if such keeping the fetus alive for the sake of keeping it alive means no more than torture to that fetus.

Aborting a fetus at a stage when it could survive with or without medical assistance outside the uterus of the mother is a serious ethical issue that requires serious public debate.

"The pope does get higher marks here! His problem was being shy (or was it sickly/aged)."

I agree; however, the real reason that the pope's opposition was not magnified was due to the American media - Wapo, NYTs etc. - who were accomplices to the administration in selling this war to the public and suppressing dissent.

The medium is the message...

TS: "And my hat off to you for helping the ill. My issue is more strategic: As I read the science and nature magazines, it is obvious that we must (i) reduce the number of people AND (ii) our collective footprint on the earth (i.e. live a simplistic lifestyle)

For the former, unfortunately people are not responsible enough to plan their children. Stopping an unwanted fetus from forming a human brain, is not much different from not impregnating a human egg to begin with. We should also have planned parenthood classes, etc to supplement this."

How very Malthusian and supercilious of you...

The development of alternative energies, recycling and waste management will render your claims moot and will show your anti-human motives for exactly what they are....just as happened to the elitist, Malthus.

PS - your lack of ethics regarding the use/abuse of the human beings is very telling:

"Stopping an unwanted fetus from forming a human brain, is not much different from not impregnating a human egg to begin with."

Sounds like you have personally experienced a procedure that prevented the formation of your heart.

Scientific materialism is a dangerous joke (ask the Russians, Chinese etc about the results of such thinking)

TS says: I did not notice you said you were leaving for a while Ryan.

Reply later or perhaps someone can reply for you.

Yours. TS

" Catholics (and the Vatican) opposed BOTH wars against Iraq."

YES: The pope opposed both wars. Unfortunately he disapproved of Bush, but kept this very low key -- instead of denouncing it loudly in public. I know Catholics who were unaware their pope was against the Iraq War!

It was the Evangelical Protestants who were for Bush and all out pro war. Where was the Holy Ghost they are supposed to be praying to?

The pope does get higher marks here! His problem was being shy (or was it sickly/aged).

RYAN wrote: “My guess is that most such cases won't appear in court because the interested parties will be able to resolve them on their own (e.g., the couple who fumigate their house), or will not have access to a US court (e.g., the Columbians). Our common law legal system is excellently suited to handle just such cases using its normal manner of proceding: case-by-case, considering the actual facts of each case, if/when someone decides to press criminal charges or file a civil lawsuit.”

TS: The above was written in response to:
"I have a theory that pro-lifers have not thought through their views against abortion.

If there were a law declaring all abortions a illegal this would create many new lawsuits in our judicial system. Has everyone really thought through all the ramifications?

Examples:

#1 I knew a pregnant woman who had a miscarriage -- coinciding the weekend her husband fumigated their house for insects. Was it murder? It wasn't intentional (They wanted that baby!) – Should the charge be reduced to Manslaughter?

#2 I read during the Oklahoma City bombing that a group of rednecks terrorized some Arab families immediately afterwards and a pregnant woman among them had a miscarriage (she stated from being scared to death) the next day. This one perhaps has more merit for Manslaughter charges?

#3 I know a woman whose sister imposed great stress on her during her pregnancy and she is convinced it was the cause of her subsequent miscarriage. Does she have a case to charge her sister with murder if she can prove the stress was likely the cause?

#4 When the US fumigated Columbia to kill off their coca crop (ie raw material of cocaine), it was said this caused miscarriages in the area. Think they can/should sue the US for this? "

TS replies to RYAN: The reason why our common law legal system is suited to handle these cases is precisely because the fetus has NOT been accorded the status of HUMAN!!!!

Not to mention your reply is filled with contradictions. You seem to agree that the Columbian women who had miscarriages because of the fumigation of the US have “cause” to sue, but seem "happy" they are disallowed because they are not American. So your morality only applies to… Americans? Please show me why this logic is not your intent (assuming you disagree.)

Yours. TS.

RYAN SAYS: "Which begs the question: If the fertilized egg is so sacrosanct, can the Pro-Life groups explain exactly why NATURE KILLS so many of them?" in nature, every single human being dies eventually. Does that justify killing you or your uncle? Hardly.

TS says: Of course that’s a false dichotomy – meaning changed the topic because we were not talking about human beings. My point was that if you believe there is a SPIRITUAL component to a human fertilized cell, then you must logically find it immoral when the majority of them die from natural causes.

The fertilized egg is not a human being. Just as an oak seed is not an oak tree.

RYAN says: Nature operates on mechanical principles, whereas human beings make decisions that they might have made otherwise. The moral question isn't "What can we do?" but rather "What is good to do? What must we do? What must we not do?"

TS says: My philosophy is how to make the world a better place for the next generation(s).
We live in an very overpopulated world, where half of the population is hungry or starving. Ever been to India? Having too many humans means a ticking time bomb on the environment – on the natural wildlife, the oceans, and even the climate.

The best place to start with an overpopulated planet is not to ADD to the problem by adding UNWANTED fetuses (defined as the development of a human-like mind, probably formed in the second trimester)

RYAN says:: We are talking about making rational decisions by engaging our free will. Most analogies from nature don't work, because natural phenomena don't have free will to make intellectual decisions.

TS says: The free will moral argument does not work when babies (say under 1 1/2 years) die of natural or unnatural causes Indeed. Their brains have not matured yet to know the difference, so there was no test for them..

The free will moral argument also did not apply to the billions/zillions of fetuses that died through natural miscarriage.

Since we are talking NATURE (not abortion) how do you answer this morally? If you believe these are spiritually recycled, the SAME would apply to aborted fetuses.

RYAN says: "Do you mean, that Jesus never mentions abortion or when life begins? That's fine. We Catholics don't base our objection to abortion on religious grounds at all, but on purely secular ones."

TS says: Thanks for being honest by not pretending it is based on religious grounds. I would also argue you have no scientific basis for your argument (because no human brain has formed until late.)

"Much easier than trying to help the poor and protect the earth against polluters and global warming right???"

RYAN: That's a false dichotomy, don't you think. Isn't it possible that there are pro-life people who try to conserve natural resources, and care for the poor? I do. I try to minimize trashing or recycling anything I can reasonably reuse; try to avoid trashing anything that can be recycled. I drive a fuel efficient car. I don't leave the lights on. Starting at the end of August, I'll be riding the Metro into the city 3 days a week, rather than driving at all.
TS: That’s fair. (And I do the same for the record. Including I drive a hybrid – when I’m NOT taking public transportation nor walking that is.)

Here’s where we differ: My view is that the earth is seriously overpopulated – and set to get much worse. Have you read science articles on how badly the environment is already seriously battered. The oceans are being seriously overfished, the coral reef is endangered. Global warming has been virtually proven by the scientific community. If we don’t start with unwanted fetuses (BEFORE they become human) we will be faced with catastrophes for many people – through more hunger/poverty, leading to starvation and wars (to fight over the available food.

RYAN: As for helping the poor, I mentioned to Athena, below, that I spend my Friday nights at an HIV/AIDS hospice caring for the men there by folding laundry, giving out their medications, changing their bedpans, and cleaning them and their soiled sheets and clothing. I know lots of wacky pro-life nuts that do stuff like that too. In fact, at the hospice where I volunteer (it is run entirely by volunteers) I rather suspect most of the workers are wacky pro-life nuts.
TS: Glad to hear you are not one of those fundies who proclaim AIDS to just punishment from God. (And yes, I have debated people who took that position.)

And my hat off to you for helping the ill. My issue is more strategic: As I read the science and nature magazines, it is obvious that we must (i) reduce the number of people AND (ii) our collective footprint on the earth (i.e. live a simplistic lifestyle)

For the former, unfortunately people are not responsible enough to plan their children. Stopping an unwanted fetus from forming a human brain, is not much different from not impregnating a human egg to begin with. We should also have planned parenthood classes, etc to supplement this.

I also agree that we should reduce the vast resources this generation is utilizing for itself – ie to lead a more simplistic lifestyle by recycling and helping others. I give you high marks here. (I also became a vegetarian for that reason, recycle, etc)

It will take both methods ultimately to make our planet bearable for the majority of future generations.

Yours, TS.

Pro-lifers pretty much don't think about the issue beyond their pornographic pictures of bloody medical waste.
How would they enforce a ban on abortion?
Would the prosecute doctors or mothers, or both?
How would you determine if an abortion occured? There is currently no way for the government to determine if women are pregnant and suddenly not pregnant - would we have a new "Office of Checking 100 of the fertile woman on a monthly basis"? Would public schools administer pregnancy tests on all the female students? As 1/3 of pregnancies self terminate, how could we determine which aborted pregnancies were natural and which were induced? Would every miscarriage start a criminal investigation and prosecution? How would the government stop women from ending their own pregnancies? In Latin America where abortion is illegal, sex education non-existant, and birth control difficult to get (if it's legal at all) women have many more abortions than they do here where birth control and abortion are legal. If abortion is illegal, won't the pro-lifers go after birth control next?
Why is this an issue anyway - the pro-life movement's leadership has no interest in ending abortion. For decades they have supported Republicans who pay lip service to the pro-life movement and do nothing when they achieve power. They laugh at the pro-lifers, who give them money and time and get NOTHING in return.

Pro-lifers, you've been played for fools. You need to figure out what policies will lower the number of abortions (like support for poor women and their kids) and support candidates who would promote those policies.

Last question - why did the Bush administration stop having the government count the number of abortions? Is it because they feared their policies would increase the number of abortions?

Anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq was for killing babies, period. How many children, pregnant women and babies have been killed by our bombs and the religious violence we have unleashed?
Anyone who supports the continued occupation of Iraq supports the killing of babies, period, and be prepared to explain why it isn't bad to God if and when you get a chance to meet him.

Ryan,

AIDS touches us all, regardless of creed or ideology. One of the queer Pagan groups in DC, the Radical Faeries, have done a lot of work for AIDS charities, but I'm pretty sure it's with Whitman-Walker. I'll have to do some asking around. (I don't live in DC. I'm in the 'burbs.)

My best friend is stauchly pro-life. She and I agree on one thing - the need to reduce the number of abortions. To me, that means by educating women, access to contraception, and revising adoption laws to encourage adoption. As for late-term abortions, I believe that they should only be done in the rarest of circumstances. As for those rare occaisions when a fetus survives, I don't know. I don't know what I would do in that situation. As for Sen. Obama's position, I invite everyone to visit http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/06/30/washington_times_wrong_on_obam.php to see for themselves.

Roy,

I was QUOTING Athena. Maybe you'll read, or do a word-search on, the blog and see that previous to yours, it only appeared when she called herself (presumably I, or some other Christian was supposed to be doing the calling - she was apparently surmising) a "baby-killing Satan worshipper."

I never called her that.

One looks foolish when jumping into a conversation midstream without first understanding its content and general flow.

Ok, so I'm leaving the office for the weekend in a few minutes, and will be hiking with my godchildren. If anyone has any questions they'd like me (personally, rather than anybody) to answer, please feel free to email me, and I'll write back when I get into the office. That way nobody has to labor under the delusion that pro-Life people have never thought about the legal implications of criminalizing abortion, who doesn't want to.

Also, if you'd like to volunteer at the Missionaries of Charity "Gift of Peace HIV/AIDS Hospice" please feel free to email me and I will help you connect with the sister volunteer coordinator.

My email address is withouthavingseen at gmail dot com. Have a great weekend, y'all.

"...baby-killing Satan worshippers." No verbal terrorism with a Catholic label here - no, sir.

..."some of the verbal terrorism comes with a Catholic label."??? But some of the verbal terrorism comes with labels from other religions, too, so that makes it OK. Just ask O'Reilly or Hannity. They'll tell you the truth.

ANTHONY STEVENS-ARROYO

You wrote, " I have read the exact wording of the bill and the term “infanticide” does not appear anywhere.", I would like to know, what kind of statement is this?

You also wrote, " But the BAIPA was intended to create a special status for the survivors of abortion – mostly late-term abortion.", I would say that a survivor of abortion is already a special status maybe the BAIPA was only confirming was should be obvious.

Then you wrote, "But things are not always as they seem. Although phrased in legalese, there were three additional and problematic provisions.", maybe if the people supposedly writing the law would not hide behind "legalese" and write it in plain language and not attach it to other provisions, maybe just maybe they might start talking straight rather than giving round answers to questions asked.

Then you wrote, "Or the historical case from the 1920s that “Opposing Prohibition is a vote for drunkenness and immorality!” ", pretty poor analogy, don't you think?

Then you wrote, "The logic simply doesn’t stand. If Obama is guilty of infanticide for opposing mandated health care in the relatively few cases of abortion survivors,", I beg to differ with your phraseology but these "RELATIVELY FEW CASES OF ABORTION SURVIVORS" are not some kind of dry statistic but are living human beings, are they not?

Then you wrote, "A single issue approach distorts the seamless web of life which we are bound to defend.", we are talking about reality here and everyone of the issues that you brought up, broken into parts is a single issue, we are not talking theroretical nor theological here, we are talking about the real world not some classroom discussion, are we not?

Then you wrote, "Inflated rhetoric and flawed logic may not be against the civil law of libel, but God’s commandments have always made it a sin to lie.", does hiding behind "legalese" or obscuring the truth enter into this commandment?

Remember, Jesus said, "Love one another as I have loved you."

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"I",

I've only just now seen your post, in its re-post form. Thanks for re-posting it.

"Which begs the question: If the fertilized egg is so sacrosanct, can the Pro-Life groups explain exactly why NATURE KILLS so many of them?"

In nature, every single human being dies eventually. Does that justify killing you or your uncle? Hardly.

Nature operates on mechanical principles, whereas human beings make decisions that they might have made otherwise. The moral question isn't "What can we do?" but rather "What is good to do? What must we do? What must we not do?"

We are talking about making rational decisions by engaging our free will. Most analogies from nature don't work, because natural phenomena don't have free will to make intellectual decisions.

"Can no one refute the biblical citations I provided??"

Do you mean, that Jesus never mentions abortion or when life begins? That's fine. We Catholics don't base our objection to abortion on religious grounds at all, but on purely secular ones.

"Much easier than trying to help the poor and protect the earth against polluters and global warming right???"

That's a false dichotomy, don't you think. Isn't it possible that there are pro-life people who try to conserve natural resources, and care for the poor? I do. I try to minimize trashing or recycling anything I can reasonably reuse; try to avoid trashing anything that can be recycled. I drive a fuel efficient car. I don't leave the lights on. Starting at the end of August, I'll be riding the Metro into the city 3 days a week, rather than driving at all.

As for helping the poor, I mentioned to Athena, below, that I spend my Friday nights at an HIV/AIDS hospice caring for the men there by folding laundry, giving out their medications, changing their bedpans, and cleaning them and their soiled sheets and clothing. I know lots of wacky pro-life nuts that do stuff like that too. In fact, at the hospice where I volunteer (it is run entirely by volunteers) I rather suspect most of the workers are wacky pro-life nuts.

If you'd like to help out this evening, or really whenever, you can email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com.

Unless you make other sorts of plans to help the poor on Friday nights, which I would quite understand.

Anyone-thought-through-these-LEGAL-questions, you present what is essentially a series of variations on the same basic case - unintentionally induced miscarriage/abortion. Your question really isn't that complicated.

My guess is that most such cases won't appear in court because the interested parties will be able to resolve them on their own (e.g., the couple who fumigate their house), or will not have access to a US court (e.g., the Columbians). Our common law legal system is excellently suited to handle just such cases using its normal manner of proceding: case-by-case, considering the actual facts of each case, if/when someone decides to press criminal charges or file a civil lawsuit.

I have to hand it to you, while your argument/question isn't terribly complicated, it is novel - at least to me. I've been in abortion debates for 15 years now, and I never heard that one before.

I have a theory that pro-lifers have not thought through their views against abortion.

If there were a law declaring all abortions a illegal this would create many new lawsuits in our judicial system. Has everyone really thought through all the ramifications?

Examples:

#1 I knew a pregnant woman who had a miscarriage -- coinciding the weekend her husband fumigated their house for insects. Was it murder? It wasn't intentional (They wanted that baby!) – Should the charge be reduced to Manslaughter?

#2 I read during the Oklahoma City bombing that a group of rednecks terrorized some Arab families immediately afterwards and a pregnant woman among them had a miscarriage (she stated from being scared to death) the next day. This one perhaps has more merit for Manslaughter charges?

#3 I know a woman whose sister imposed great stress on her during her pregnancy and she is convinced it was the cause of her subsequent miscarriage. Does she have a case to charge her sister with murder if she can prove the stress was likely the cause?

#4 When the US fumigated Columbia to kill off their coca crop (ie raw material of cocaine), it was said this caused miscarriages in the area. Think they can/should sue the US for this?

I await the responses....

Just logged back into see if anyone responded to my earlier post noting

** About half of fertilized eggs die of natural causes-- Indeed it has been estimated a third to a half fail to implant inside the uterus and die naturally; and that the remaining 25% of these die naturally in miscarriage.
Which begs the question: If the fertilized egg is so sacrosanct, can the Pro-Life groups explain exactly why NATURE KILLS so many of them?

** On the good book: Jesus **never** discusses when human life begins nor declares abortion a sin. He never even hints at the topic.*

Can no one refute the biblical citations I provided??

Guess it's easier to proclaim one has 'divine guidance' on such matters....

Much easier than trying to help the poor and protect the earth against polluters and global warming right??? Smoke up that room.

Athena,

Not at all! I'm fairly sure that I never called you a "baby-killing Satan worshipper," if that's what you meant to imply. I try to avoid ad hominems - they only escalate the blood pressure, not the caliber of discussion. But whatever you are, if you would like to come help whatever night, the sisters ALWAYS need help at nighttime. During the daytime, there is more help available, although it more can often be used.

I don't want to speak for the woman in charge, but if I understand correctly, they can use up to about 5-6 people during the day; at night, they need 1-2 men to tend the men, and 1-2 women to tend the women. For the sake of the patients' and volunteers' modesty, men don't go on the women's floor, and vice-versa. It's an amazingly beautiful (and earthy!) experience - whether folding laundry, tending the grounds, or cleaning the infirm patients.

It's funny, Athena. I had posted my comment about my service not to brag - a lot of people do a lot more, and most of my life is still pretty heavily self-centered - but to try to confront the myth of the pro-Life person as ranting, uncaring ideologue. It hadn't initially intended to recruit online for the AIDS hospice. But if you and any friends would like to help, I don't imagine the sisters would turn down the help.

Email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com if you would seriously like to bring a group of people sometime.

I commend you for your volunteer work. Unfortunately, I will be unable to join you because of a prior commitment. Would you be interested in having a bunch of Pagans come and help? Because the Pagan group that I am associated with is always looking for opportunties to volunteer with the community.

Unless, of course, you don't want the help of a bunch of baby-killing Satan worshippers.

DCP:

Don't be surprised. Whenever an issue at all touches Obama, Stevens-Arroyo will say the most outlandish things to rationalize the most immoral positions.

He usually does a lot of equivocating, as in this post: playing on double-meanings, euphemisms, and other ways of glossing over truth and reality. Of course you are right, DCP: if a mother tried to stangle her baby, her parental rights, in law, would be terminating thereby in pretty much any state. But if she pays someone to suck its brains out, and he somehow screws it up, Obama/Stevens-Arroyo seriously expect us to believe that she should get to resume those parental rights?

Coincidentally, and whenever this issue is mentioned, it must be described. Botched 3rd-trimester abortions are not that rare, because the procedures aren't easy. If they were that uncommon, this wouldn't be an issue. In partial birth abortions, the baby is entirely removed EXCEPT for the head, so it is technically not yet fully born, and then, while holding the squirmy baby's head in the birth canal, the doctor uses his free hand to puncture its skull with scissors, and then putting down the scissors, to use a vacuum aspirator to suck out its brains - can you imagine how slippery all that blood is! Shifting tools from hand to hand, while holding three, four, five or even six pounds of very aggitated child, with just one hand! If the baby slips out, voila! She's a born alive infant... and, by the way, is the child that Obama doesn't want protected.

So if the doctor screws it up - somehow the mother intent on the destruction of the fetus/child should somehow retain/regain parental rights? Didn't she express the desire to terminate those (to say nothing of the child) by going to the abortionist in the first place? What does she want the "parental rights" for? So they can do a better job killing the child? Finish up what they botched the first time? If at first you don't succeed, try, try again?

Madness.

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo, coincidentally, I have to say that as touched as I am by your concern for parents' rights to their children, this argument has to be one of your most disingenuous. It actually falls to the level of sleezy, unless I am just missing something - Unless, of course, there are other parental rights that you/Obama were concerned with protecting, other than the right to try a second time to murder the little baby now inadvertently born?

Incomprehensible.

I do have to say, that I am glad that Prof. Stevens-Arroyo seems to have ceased referring to himself as a theologian. His sociological credentials are enviable, to be sure. His theological ones - especially in moral theology - well, neither his online bio's nor his writing evince any.

But he sure makes one heck of an Obamapologist.

ZZIM wrote: Therefore, I also think that if the abortionist tries to kill an un-born baby and that baby is born alive by accident, then the abortionist should be allowed to finish the job. Just because the baby has escaped the womb alive doesn't make a difference to me. If it's okay to kill it in the womb, it's okay to kill it outside the womb.

These are the kind of people on the pro-choice side. Here we have Stevens-Arroyo's argument said in plain, truthful language. Thank you, ZZIM for illuminating the naked truth about pro-choice America and the condition of your crippled consciences. And some people are afraid of Christians having too much say in society. Don't be afraid of Deaconess Mary Sue Beth; it's these people who need to be marginalized.

Athena,

"I am a 43-year old married woman. If I got pregnant now, I would have a 50% shot at having a Down's Syndrome child. Especially because I am on two medications that could severely harm the child. I would think long and hard about whether I wanted to carry a child to term."

---> I'm really not sure what is so complicated here. If you don't want to get pregnant, DON'T. Both you and your husband can undergo operations that would make it an IMPOSSIBILITY to get pregnant. Your argument is weak, selfish, and unbelievably disingenuous. If you truly were concerned for the well being of a possible future child, you would take the responsible actions necessary to remove such risks.

Athena:

> "If you really cared about babies, you would be
> working with the March of Dimes and other
> organizations to end birth defects and infant
> mortality."

I've heard this sort of argument so many times, and it's just silly. It really boils down to an ad hominem against a whole class of people. How do you know that pro-Life people don't work at the March of Dimes? Have you polled the people at the March of Dimes, or a read a poll, regarding their views on abortion?

> "Did you know that the US has the highest
> infant mortality rate in the developed world?
> Our infant mortality rate is worse than Peru's!"

Athena, that's not true. Both the UN Factbook and the CIA Factbook disagree with you, in any event. The UN Factbook, for instance, ranks Peru as having the 99th highest infant mortality rate, and the USA as having the 163rd highest infant mortality rate - considerably better than Peru's. True enough, all the Western European countries beat us (there are other developed countries, though) - but we are talking a difference of 6.3 (in the USA) and 4.8 deaths (in Canada or the UK) per 1000 live births. Hardly seems a stunning statistical difference, especially considering that most of Africa seems to be in the upper 90s and 100s per 1000 live births.

> "Anti-choice people aren't out there
> participating in charities for spina bifida,
> cerebral palsy, or other birth-defects... Face
> facts - you don't give a rat's hind end about
> babies after they're born."

Lol. This anti-choice fanatic does. In fact, on Friday evenings I go and spend the night at a local hospice for patience with HIV/AIDS and other chronic/fatal conditions to empty their give them their meds, play dominoes with them, empty their chamber pots and clean them and their soiled sheets. As far as I know, most of the others who work there - its entirely run by unpaid volunteers - are also anti-choice fanatics. Would you like to join us? Gift of Peace House, 2800 Otis St. NE, Washington DC, 20018. I'll be there by about 7 p.m.

I also tutor young men, mostly hispanic, with an eye toward college entrance exams. Right now, I don't any regular volunteer work with little babies, that's true. Do hispanics count, Athena? Oh, maybe I can vindicate myself from the dreaded "anti-choice fanatic" label by telling you that I USED to work at a women's halfway house, for women and their children who had been abused, homeless, etc. But I guess that the children weren't actually fetuses, anymore. Mostly five or six years old.

But then, wait... did you know that "fetus" is a Latin word for... child?

So maybe those little kids weren't so same from abortionists after all. After all, it seems they are fetuses.

"You just want to control women's bodies."

Lol. I cannot think of anything I find less interesting than trying to control a woman or her body.

"Start caring for fetuses after they're born, and then you'll get my respect."

Lolol. Join me at Gift of Peace this evening, and you'll get my respect. Lolol. If you don't live near DC, but would still like to help with such work, Athena, you can email me at withouthavingseen at gmail dot com, and I'll help you find a hospice run by the Missionaries of Charity in a metropolitan area near you. Those anti-choice fanatics run such places in virtually every major city around the world.

God bless.

Who's this guy? Stevens-Arroyo? He's not writing as a Catholic is he? About Catholic America? Can't be. No Catholic would say something so stupid on abortion. #1- The rights of parents? You mean the right not to nurture the LIVING baby? Granted. Fine. The rest of humane society will take care of unwanted LIVING baby. #2- It's not fine for the rest of society to take custody of the baby? We can't use tax dollars? Why not? You just argued that we should use tax dollars to cover the 46 million uninsured in this country. We should exclude this LIVING baby. #3- Trial lawyers? This is entirely superfluous. I won't even entertain this one.

Your article lacks logic and humanity. So much for the argument that the baby can't live on its own and it's all about the mother's body. So the baby escapes one death sentence. Let's see how well he does if we JUST DON'T FEED HIM!!! No, that's not infanticide. Not at all. I don't know what people are thinking.

Jesus Christ became Incarnate in the womb of the Holy Virgin. Almighty God was a fetus, sanctifying the creation of man. There is something important to be learned from that.

People who are anti-abortion have no moral standing in my book unless they are equally anti-capital punishment and anti-war. In answer to those who like to spout the slogan, "You cannot be pro-choice and Catholic", I answer, "You cannot be anti-abortion and in favor of capital punishment or the War in Iraq". The Jesuit priest, Daniel Berrigan, is at least morally consistent - a pacifist since the Vietnam War, a steadfast opponent of capital punishment in all instances (as is the Pope, by the way), and against abortion.

Point out the policy in public record that tells people to abort their Down's Syndrome kids, and then I will admit that it's eugenics.

I am a 43-year old married woman. If I got pregnant now, I would have a 50% shot at having a Down's Syndrome child. Especially because I am on two medications that could severely harm the child. I would think long and hard about whether I wanted to carry a child to term.

I was raised Catholic, so I know a bit about how Catholics care for kids, and I respect that. However, I believe that the ultimate decision to bear a child should lie with the mother, not the Government.

You still haven't answered my question as to what the criminal punishment would be for a woman having an abortion, or the doctor performing the abortion. Nor have you told us how the government will monitor all pregnant women to make sure that there are no abortions. (Because someone can do it themselves) Who is going to be the pregnancy police? You also haven't told me how public and non-profit agencies will handle the influx of people, especially those with profound birth defects.

Right wing propaganda and smear campaigns, same old story.

To MarkF:

If federalized health care is socialized medicine, it is also the Catholic position according to the Ordinary Magisterium of the US Catholic Bishops.

People DIE from lack of health care. They have souls and are just as valuable in God's eyes as partial birth children. How can you side with McCain and dismiss a policy that has produced the highest infant morality rates in the developed world?

I am tired of the old saw that pro-life folks fail to work in any cause but protesting abortion. Consider the following:

The Archdiocese of Washington's Catholic provides more that $50 dollars annually providing a full range a service support the human person from conception to natural death. These programs are multiplied by Catholic Charities throughout the US.

The majority of US Catholic bishops have a standing program that discreetly offers complete financial, medical, and emotional support for any woman who needs that assistance to carry her child to full term.

I was adopted after I was born with cerebral palsy arising from a crisis pregnancy. I have dedicated much of my professional career and volunteer efforts in organizations that directly assist children and adults living with disabilities.

Perhaps each one should focus on what he or she is doing to alleviate the suffering in the world vs. trying to eliminate such difficulties by causing the death of the innocent.

** An oak seed is not a tree and a fetus is not a fully formed baby!

** About half of fertilized eggs die of natural causes-- Indeed it has been estimated a third to a half fail to implant inside the uterus and die naturally; and that the remaining 25% of these die naturally in miscarriage.

Which begs the question: If the fertilized egg is so sacrosanct, can the Pro-Life groups explain exactly why NATURE KILLS so many of them?

** In the good book: Jesus **never** discusses when human life begins nor declares abortion a sin. He never even hints at the topic!

Of course Jesus has a LOT to say about helping the poor and sick.

Therefore, if posters here want to start invoking the “What Would Jesus do”, Obama’s campaign would follow Jesus’ dictates ** far far ** more than warmonger McCain’s platform.

CONCLUSION: **Obama walks the talk, not McCain! **

===========================================================================
References:

* There is no direct injunction against abortion in the Old Testament. However the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is frequently interpreted by the Far Right to apply to abortion.

Looking closer there is little basis for this!

(1) The commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” does not apply to all life. The context of the OT stories clearly shows the Hebrews did kill (with no objections from God)

--in self defense/wars
-- those who broke the laws (including for working on the Sabbath)
--animals, plus executed those who broke their laws.
-- and as will be shown in (3), fetuses.

(2) Some of the neighbors of the ancient Hebrews (such as the Assyrians) did have an explicit law outlawing abortion. But no such law or commandment citing abortion appears in the Old Testament either. Considering the Hebrew culture’s emphasis on virginity at marriage, clearly there would be efforts of abortion to try and conceal a pregnancy.

(3) There are two stories in the Old Testament that reference a dead fetus that gives clues to how the ancient Hebrews viewed the topic of abortion. In both cases where a fetus has died, it was not accorded the “status” of a human; Nor was there even a hint of a view that the fetus might be a human. Here are the citations:

-- In Numbers 5:11-13, a pregnant woman was charged with carrying another man’s child. To test her fidelity, she was forced to drink a "bitter water", which would not harm her if innocent; but would cause a guilty wife great pain and miscarriage-- "Her womb will be easily fertilized, but she shall have miscarriages…”

Analysis: The woman was condemned to have miscarriages if found guilty of adultery. This shows the Hebrews did not view the fetus as a human yet, and ending its life through a forced miscarriage was not murder.

(2) In Exodus 21:22-25, a pregnant woman had a miscarriage AFTER being caught in a fight between her husband and another man. If the woman was hurt, then the penalty was “a life for a life, eye for an eye…”, but if the woman was not hurt there was a fine.

Analysis: Again, the “eye for an eye” statute did not apply if the woman miscarried, but was otherwise unharmed.

Based on citations from the Exodus verse above, etc, Jewish rabbinic tradition has concluded that a fetus was not yet human and therefore Jewish women may have abortions.

What do Pro-lifers say of the above? They ignore it of course. Instead, Pro-lifers like to point to other OT verses where God describes “knowing” an individual in the womb and then “interpret” this from their own personal views. Closer examination however will show that these citations are poetic references implying an awareness by God (not the fetus).

The verses do not state if God watches over every fertilized egg, or whether a fetus is “human” at all stages. (Again, pro-lifers will generally be happy to fill in these unaddressed areas with their own interpretations.)

There is a verse -- Genesis 2:7-- which indicates human life begins with the act of breathing. (God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living being.") Indeed, the Hebrew word for a human is "nephesh", which means breathing. This is consistent with the view that a fertilized egg does not become human until a later phase—and the scientific view of roughly “when” a fetus is viable and a human-like brain has begun forming.

I am going to repost this information that Mr. Stevens-Arroyo may not have read, the bill Mr. Obama found so intolerable that he couldn't support it on behalf of the most vulnerable humans, be they many or few.

Just because there are other injustices and needs in the world does not mean we should care less about neonate humans than about dogs in puppy mills. And many of us who hate abortion as the ultimate violence that can be done to one human by another also support care of the poor and ill and elderly and the rest of the beset world's population. I am sick of pro-abortion-choice people insisting that I don't care about those injustices - I have fought them for a long lifetime.

Here's the info:

The Text of Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act

This is the wording of the Illinois version of the BAIPA:

Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately.

SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 1.
Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

http://lauraechevarria.blogspot.com/2008/07/text-of-illinois-born-alive-infant.html

"ANONYMOUS:
Here is another quote from Sanger; she is definitely looking to help the poor and meek:

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind." "

Thanks for the quote - it's also worth noting that several of Sanger's sympathetic biographers have documented her admiration of and meeting with Adolf Hitler.

But she and early heads of the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood stated that they could never support abortion.

Well, that went well.

It's shameful to kill people to solve problems, whether social or financial. But it's especially shameful that we won't settle for a woman's right to end her pregnancy, and insist that she be allowed to end the life of a child once that pregnancy has ended. Where will it stop? A woman kills a two year old, and claims that she had intended to end her pregnancy but couldn't get to the clinic in time? A middle-aged daughter kills an inconvenient elderly parent, and claims that she would have done it when she was ten and couldn't have been tried as an adult but ran out of time before she was strong enough?

The columnist ought to check out current Catholic teaching, which condemns abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. The idea is that, because we are only sure a person can be killed once, they ought not to be killed to solve problems.

And if he would check further, he would see that this same moral theology insists that we must give "not of our surplus, but of our substance" to serve the human rights of the vulnerable who are in need.

Even I, a lapsed and merely cultural Catholic, understand this from my undergraduate theology courses - why does the WaPo insist on having people who are ignorant about or hostile to religion parsing these issues as though they speak on behalf of faith?

Excuse me, but abortion IS infanticide. So Obama, one of the most liberal senators in the senate when it comes to the issue of abortion, DOES support infanticide.

As for Catholics not focusing on only "one issue" -- does Catholicism teach that homosexuality is not a sin? Obama's okay with it.

And as for "unjust war" -- do you remember the real beginnings of this war? Do you remember Saddam Hussein refusing to allow inspections to prove or disprove that he was hiding weapons? Do you remember he refused? Do you remember he had already proven to be a mass murderer of his own people? Do you remember how the Iraqis celebrated in the streets when Americans came to their rescue? What was unjust about that? Everyone needs to remember the true history of what happened in Iraq -- not the Democrats' made-up version.

Folks,
Anonymous's 7-25 1:14 AM post, which contains the text of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act and its web link should be read by all. Sen. Obama's refusal to support that provision shows that he will play politics with the most basic life and death issues.

By refusing to support that bill, Obama has shown a willingness to look the other way so that a privileged set of people (voters, btw) get the ability to do whatever they want to another weaker and more fragile person (a non-voter)--even when the weaker one has already been born alive and exists outside the mother's womb. Here there can be no quibble about whether that baby is human or not. It is a living, breathing baby whose life has been made more difficult because of the botched attempt by the mother to kill the baby while he/she was in the womb.

Yet the fact remains that the baby survived the attempt on his/her nascent life. Thus, Obama's refusal to support the bill is a blatant denial of the equal protection of the laws to that very needful, at risk child and it shows the callousness that lies underneath Obama's rhetoric.

Janet thank you for clarifying. This I understand...

you wrote, "There have been articles by doctors and nurses about letting some infants die, as well as about letting terminally ill patients, suffering in agony, die.

What could motivate such behavior? An infant born deaf, dumb, blind, legless, armless, barely responsive, drug addicted, etc.

NOW, in the few articles I've read by doctors and nurses, these decisions were not made lightly,..."

Anon:

"So there is no need to "fear" any fetus that escapes the abortion attempt is going to escape the abortionist."

Anon,

You have either misread my post or not read it in its entirety. Here it is again:

"However, once surviving in the extra-uterine environment, IMHO, a fetus is an infant, no longer in a biologically symbiotic relation with the mother's body, with rights. To end its life does amount to killing it. Moreover, although pre-mature births are the greatest cause of infant mortality, a great deal of progress has been made: indeed, there are two Canadians living normally, who were born at 21 weeks."

You write:

"Janet what was the Hippocratic oath again?"

Indeed! There have been articles by doctors and nurses about letting some infants die, as well as about letting terminally ill patients, suffering in agony, die.

What could motivate such behavior? An infant born deaf, dumb, blind, legless, armless, barely responsive, drug addicted, etc.

NOW, in the few articles I've read by doctors and nurses, these decisions were not made lightly, and did not leave those who made them unscathed.
Nevertheless, I, too, ask, "What about the oath?" I also ask if this continues to occur, where will it lead? And it has been going on for a long, long time.

Again, my point in raising the issue is:

"Although, as Prof. Stevens-Arroyo implies, the word "infant" should cover all viable births, whatever seems gray in these discussions does get grayer when these births result from late-term abortions, regardless of whether or not we think it should. (IMO, it should not.)"

July 25, 2008 1:31 AM

In raising the issue of viable births from late-term abortions, we open a can of worms that badly needs to be opened.

For the first time, I saw Dr. Phil on TV.
The show I watched concerned the only family with triplets who were deaf, dumb, and blind. They are now children, not infants. They cannot distinguish day from night. When the parents awake, their room is always filled with feces. The three cannot communicate at all. The mother and father are deeply loving and are doing their best under impossible circumstances.

Dr. Phil raised a great deal of money for them, and in thanking him, the mother ssid, "Now, I'll have three Helen Kellers!"

NOw, these three were not so damaged as the infants I mentioned earlier, of course. But where was taxpayer help all these years for these three girls?

When we get to the degree of incapacity of the infants I mentioned above, the same problems arise. Parents are left alone to cope. They must have financial help and services, but they often don't. Then, too, the mother may be a drug addict, etc.

As for the doctors and nurses I mention, I want to make clear that we are talking about their taking action with human beings who would have suffered for God knows how long and experienced only agony, little, if anything, else. I don't condone letting them die. I'm merely trying to point out, again, that when we speak of the actions of these doctors and nurses, we are not speaking of wanton murderers.

When I read the articles by these women and men, I confess I had a very, very hard time dealing with them. Frankly, I am still made queasy by the problem. If we continue to turn a blind eye to these goings on, are we acting in a principaled way? I don't think so. I raise questions, Anon. To raise questions, is not to take sides. Again, we need prolonged, substantive, public discussion of these issues.

Janet what was the Hippocratic oath again?

Janet:

I would like to elaborate on a point I made in my earlier post. Doctors have passively and actively ended the lives of births regardless of whether or not they resulted from late-term abortions, and the issues are complex. We are not speaking of wanton murderers here...

July 25, 2008 1:31 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So there is no need to "fear" any fetus that escapes the abortion attempt is going to escape the abortionist.

I would like to elaborate on a point I made in my earlier post. Doctors have passively and actively ended the lives of births regardless of whether or not they resulted from late-term abortions, and the issues are complex. We are not speaking of wanton murderers here.

Although, as Prof. Stevens-Arroyo implies, the word "infant" should cover all viable births, whatever seems gray in these discussions does get grayer when these births result from late-term abortions, regardless of whether or not we think it should. (IMO, it should not.)

The whole matter of late-term abortions requires reasoned, substantive public discussion.

Friday, July 4, 2008
The Text of Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act

This is the wording of the Illinois version of the BAIPA:

Defines "born-alive infant" to include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. Defines "born alive" to mean the complete expulsion or extraction from the mother of an infant, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. Effective immediately.

SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 1.
Provides that a live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.

http://lauraechevarria.blogspot.com/2008/07/text-of-illinois-born-alive-infant.html

I am pro-choice, without reservation. I've always been and will always be. However, once surviving in the extra-uterine environment, IMHO, a fetus is an infant, no longer in a biologically symbiotic relation with the mother's body, with rights. To end its life does amount to killing it. Moreover, although pre-mature births are the greatest cause of infant mortality, a great deal of progress has been made: indeed, there are two Canadians living normally, who were born at 21 weeks.

The bill, as it stood, was clearly problematic, but could have been amended and re-introduced, not an unusual legislative path. Further, the issues this raises are in no way specific to Catholicism or even to "faith."

Again, I am 100% pro-choice, but I have always believed the matter of late-term abortions is a serious one and warrants ongoing, substantive public discussion.

I am pro-choice, without reservation. I've always been and will always be. However, once surviving in the extra-uterine environment, IMHO, a fetus is an infant, no longer in a biologically symbiotic relation with the mother's body, with rights. To end its life does amount to killing it. Moreover, although pre-mature births are the greatest cause of infant mortality, a great deal of progress has been made: indeed, there are two Canadians living normally, who were born at 21 weeks.

The bill, as it stood, was clearly problematic, but could have been amended and re-introduced, not an unusual legislative path. Further, the issues this raises are in no way specific to Catholicism or even to "faith."

Again, I am 100% pro-choice, but I have always believed the matter of late-term abortions is a serious one and warrants ongoing, substantive public discussion.

There is an extremely simple way to prevent late term abortions. If a woman is having sex and she misses her period, she should do a pregnancy test as quickly as possible.

http://www.ovulation-calculator.com/pregnancy-tests/pregnancy-tests.htm

Here is another quote from Sanger; she is definitely looking to help the poor and meek:

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."

Folks,
In support of Sen. Obama's position opposing the bill to protect survivors of abortion, Prof. Stevens Arroyo notes the following supposed shortcomings:

"First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. "

WRONG. Those are some of the best aspects of the bill. Remember, the biological mother was just trying to kill the baby, so it just makes sense to get the baby as far from her (and the abortionist), as quickly as possible.

While she may have had the constitutional right to kill the child so long as it remained in her womb, once out and alive, the baby is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. To trust the abortionist to take care of the baby whose killing he/she had just botched, also would not make much sense.

And, of course, taxpayer funds are going to be needed for the same reason: the mother, whom the law otherwise would expect to protect the child, just tried to have the baby killed. What is more, trial lawyers will be necessary to vindicate the rights of the child because he/she had just been the victim of a botched killing by the mother and her abortionist agent.

If Sen. Obama did not understand these realities, he is definitely not ready to take on the duties of the Oval Office.

Folks,
In support of Sen. Obama's position opposing the bill to protect survivors of abortion, Prof. Stevens Arroyo notes the following supposed shortcomings:

"First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. "

WRONG. Those are some of the best aspects of the bill. Remember, the biological mother was just trying to kill the baby, so it just makes sense to get the baby as far from her (and the abortionist), as quickly as possible.

While she may have had the constitutional right to kill the child so long as it remained in her womb, once out and alive, the baby is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. To trust the abortionist to take care of the baby whose killing he/she had just botched, also would not make much sense.

And, of course, taxpayer funds are going to be needed for the same reason: the mother, whom the law otherwise would expect to protect the child, just tried to have the baby killed. What is more, trial lawyers will be necessary to vindicate the rights of the child because he/she had just been the victim of a botched killing by the mother and her abortionist agent.

If Sen. Obama did not understand these realities, he is definitely not ready to take on the duties of the Oval Office.

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

If this is your idea of mercy or of "helping" poor people (by encouraging them to kill their infants) then you really need to rethink your value system.

She was concerned with CONTROLLING the population of the poor (as elitists are known to do) and in purifying the population, NOT helping them.

Try to obfuscate all you like, nothing will change the nature of this founder of Planned Parenthood.

Furthermore, do you know the context in which Margaret Sanger was saying those things? She was a birth control and abortion advocate because poor women were having baby after baby and literally breeding themselves to death. She was trying to HELP women by teaching them how to control their fertility. She was also, ironically, against abortion. She felt that contraception was a better way of dealing with the issue of women's fertility.

Athena: "Anti-choice people aren't out there participating in charities for spina bifida, cerebral palsy, or other birth-defects. It would take up valuable time in front of clinics, terrorizing young women."

Start caring for fetuses after they're born, and then you'll get my respect."

Enough with the hyperbole, Athena.

I know it is easier to vilify/stereotype people with whom you disagree than look at your personal support for what is a brutal, illiberal and dehumanizing practice.

As for Sanger, her statements speak for themselves and many anti abortion proponents DO support the charities you mention.

"Planned Parenthood" kills children on demand for profit, therefore, we have every right to oppose government funding and support.

Here is a parting quote from Sanger:

"Our objective is unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children"

Do you think this bit of wisdom from her is outdated?

Would you not call the killing of virtually all downs syndrome babies a dehumanizing form of eugenics?

Stevens-Arroyo: First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process. Second, the act would have mandated taxpayer funds be used for the health care as long as the needy child was alive, administered by still another government bureaucracy. Third, it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. Catholic teaching always protects the rights of parents against big government.

The word "Infanticide" not used - no brainer. A fetus is not termed an infant. The word should have been "viable fetus" - a fetus that could survive with medical care outside the uterus. If the fetus is not viable medical care would not save it anyway.

Parents who have opted for abortion have usurped their rights anyway. Only a perverse logic would justify returning it to them.

Only a viable fetus could be saved with intense medical care. Viable fetuses come into the picture only in late stage abortions.

Only a tiny minority of medical doctors choose gynecology - obstetrics as their specialty. Perhaps only a minority among them would do routine abortions. If an obstetrician chooses to perform abortions it is highly unlikely that they would want their professional reputation to be put at risk with botched abortions, which to them remains a medical procedure to be done with the greatest efficiency.

So in the final analysis how many botched abortions of viable fetuses are in question, that any government funding would have to pay for? Only a handful at most. How long would a fetus actually live after an abortion attempt that has failed? Not very long.

Does Catholic teaching prevent offering medical help to viable fetuses which have escaped an abortion attempt, after all abortion is legal and parents can't be sued for opting for abortion. Can an obstetrician be sued for a botched abortion, for refusal to kill after the fetus has escaped the abortion attempt?

Professor you wrote politics in this essay not Catholicism or even a fair discussion of abortion.

100 years ago, eugenics was practiced by more than just Margaret Sanger. Who do you think put into place the laws forcing retarded women to be sterilized against their will? The US Government, which was controlled by conservatives at the time. Just because something was in vogue 100 years ago does not mean that it is applicable now.

If you really cared about babies, you would be working with the March of Dimes and other organizations to end birth defects and infant mortality. Did you know that the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world? Our infant mortality rate is worse than Peru's! But no. Anti-choice people aren't out there participating in charities for spina bifida, cerebral palsy, or other birth-defects. It would take up valuable time in front of clinics, terrorizing young women.

Face facts - you don't give a rat's hind end about babies after they're born. You just want to control women's bodies. Start caring for fetuses after they're born, and then you'll get my respect.

Andrea,

OK, wrong disease; however, it is the correct analysis on the eugenic nature of abortion.

Children diagnosed Down Syndrome are killed at 90% via abortion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

Thanks for clarifying that point, Andrea.

SPEED 123:
"You do not call the killing of 80% of autistic children eugenics?"

This is a completely inaccurate statement. Autism doesn't even appear until well after a child is born. You are trying to tell me that thousands of parents are murdering their three-year olds? I think not.

It would raise the level of debate here just a bit if we could all check our statistics before we spew them out. Thanks.

Athena: "As for the "population control" and "eugenics" arguments, they are racist straw men."

No, I respectfully disagree, they are not "straw men" - it is the reality of procedure.

You do not call the killing of 80% of autistic children eugenics? And, who is next, all disabled children? Anyone considered an inconvenience?

The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a proud eugenicist:

"Give dysgenic groups (people with bad genes) in our population their choice of segregation or (compulsory) sterilization."

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Wake up; this is an evil practice no matter how much of a "rights" or logistics spin you put on it.

Somebody's Mother has it exactly right.

This fella Stevens-Arroyo has given no evidence that he knows what it means to be a Roman Catholic. He can call himself whatever he wants but his writings do Not express the 2000 year old teachings of the Church.

I am Catholic and anti-abortion. I think pro-choice and pro-life are euphanisms we use to obfuscate the issue and make it more difficult for us to see the real situation.
That said, I cant for the life of me see how this bill should be categorized as pro or anti-abortion. It mandates a specific type of response toward a child who survives an abortion. Thats all. There are many other approaches some of which have been mentioned such as adoption, orphanage etc. All of those would be an acceptable Catholic response.
I think the bill does amount to the state usurping powers which do not rightly belong within its purview. But that doesnt make it pro or anti abortion.

I am no expert on abortion or pregnancy, but I do know that late term abortions are only done in rare cases. Very few women are going to go through 6 months of pregnancy then suddenly turn around and want an abortion. The only ones that I can think of would be young girls who didn't know that they were pregnant in the first place or were too afraid to tell their parents until it was too late. Other than that, the only circumstances that I know of are for profound fetal abnormality or possibility of maternal death. Whether or not I consider a fetus at 6-9 months of developmen a child is irrelevant. It is the mother's decision to make, not the Government's.

Sen Obama has stated on his website that the reason he voted against the amendment was because it would allow for lawsuits against medical practioners, which would drive up insurance rates. I think that we can all appreciate that, given the fact that so many doctors are being driven out of business by excessive insurance rates!

As for the "population control" and "eugenics" arguments, they are racist straw men. There are over six billion people on this planet, which is more than it can sustain. The reason that European countries and Japan have negative population growth is that their standards of living, education, and health care are high enough that women are choosing to only have one or two children. These countries do not have a history of allowing immigration the way that the US and Canada do. The main reason that the US continues to have population growth is because of our influx of Hispanic immigrants (who are coming here because of overpopulation in their own countries!) The main ways of controlling population are educating women and birth control. The Catholic and evangelical Churches are against birth control also.

You never answered my question on how we were going to guarantee that women were not illegally aborting their babies, who would be the "pregnancy police", and what punishments would be acceptable for women who have abortions.

Seriously - you want to allow the same people who attempted to end the life of a child while s/he was in utero to decide whether or not, once "accidentally" delivered alive, the same child should be given medical care?

Well, it might be plausible if they had shown sufficient interest in the child's well-being to have had it anesthetized before the subjected it to abortion.

To suggest that Catholic moral theology would give such parents precedence over the rights of the individual child is one of the most bizarre attempts to square abortion as medical treatment that I've heard in my adult life.

The woman's right over that child ends when she aims to eliminate it - once these children have left the maternal body, they should have a guardian ad litem appointed if they are born alive.

It's not even sporting, to allow people who failed in poisoning, flaying, or dismembering a fetus to have a second chance at shooting the same fish once it's outside the barrel.

It's about civil and human rights, not about state and federal budgets - and most certainly not about the rights of an abusive parent.

Athena: "If abortion is murder, as you are claiming, would the punishment be the death penalty?"

No, orthodox Catholics are also against the death penalty and the war - i.e. consistent on all aspects of the promotion of life.

As for public policy, I am no wonk; however, I do not think that these are insurmountable issues by any means. not to mention the fact that populations in Western countries are barely at replacement levels and are actually neg. in Japan, Korean, the European Union etc.

"Population control" has become a canard for those who promote eugenics and anti-human policy. A balance can be found, but not through abortion.

Finally the article is about late-term abortion and the protection of the children who survive this atrocious procedure.

Do you not consider these children at 6-9 months? Do you not support their right to life?

Getting into the business of classifying who is "human" and who is not is a slippery slope - and one historians can attest to.

I'm not talking about Catholic Charities, or organizations that take in unwed mothers and their babies. Because they certainly can't take in all comers, especially if abortion is outlawed. They will be overwhelmed. I'm talking about the Federal, State, and Local governments that have to offer services to these women and infants - many of whom will have profound birth defects. Orphanages? Yeah, right. Gimme a break!

I'm not saying that *I* am unwilling to have my taxes raised to support government sponsored pre-natal health care, SCHIP, adoption and family services, etc. It's that the people who are screaming the loudest about abortion being "killing children" are the ones who are also screaming about how high their taxes are.

Taking the "rights" and religious question out of it, does the State and/or Federal government have an interest in every conceived pregnancy going to term? What are the pros and cons of it? What will be impacted by the increase in population? How will we make sure that a fetus is carried to term, and not aborted by extra-legal means? Will we have the pregnancy police? Monitoring of all pregnant women by the State? How will we determine if a miscarriage is an accident or intended? What will the criminal punishments be for women who seek abortions, or for people that perform them? If abortion is murder, as you are claiming, would the punishment be the death penalty?

Answer these questions, please.

"I've asked this several times - how many of you people who are anti-abortion are willing to have your taxes raised to support all of these former fetuses that you are supposedly saving?"

Ever hear of Catholic Charities? Orphanages? Adoption?

This is not about money, this is about the definition and protection of life.

Funny how the leftists suddenly get tight-fisted and oppose spending when it the legislature tries to protect the lives and rights of children targeted by their favorite cause: i.e. abortion/eugenics.

PS - when was the last time you heard a democrat rail against lawyers? Or mandated health care?

Arroyo is a hypocrite.

I've asked this several times - how many of you people who are anti-abortion are willing to have your taxes raised to support all of these former fetuses that you are supposedly saving? If you outlaw abortion, you're going to have to build more schools, provide more AFDC and WIC programs, SCHIP (although in McSame's world, this will go away), foster care for those women who abandon their children, etc. Let's hear it, pro-lifers! Pony up the money! Put up or shut up!

Speed123 says: "First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process."

What of the rights of the child? You know, the one the parents attempted to kill with a late term abortion!!!!!!

The reason that Obama opposed this was due to the fact that it recognized the procedure for what it was - attempted murder of a child.
============================================

You're both right. Currently a mother has the right to decide to kill her unborn child. "Parents" is incorrect - some mothers may consult with the baby's father, but he has not right to be consulted. Anyway, the bill was intended to take this right away from her. Obama opposes this realignment of legal rights.

Your other point is correct, the bill was designed to threaten abortion rights by pushing back the fuzzy mental boundary many Americans have betweem "clump of cells" and "person". Part of the reason abortion remains legal is because Americans turn a blind eye to the fuzziness of this boundary. If abortion opponents can force people to consider the issue, they win.

I think all the pro-choice, anti-choice, pro-abortion, anti-abortion people are nuts.

The solution is so simple I can't believe no one has thought about it yet. Outlaw abortions in hospitals. The only legal abortion should be done in the back of a McDonalds! Feed the hungry, it's what Jesus would want!

Tom M: Thanks for a wonderful post.

I am pro-choice and I am surprised that people even want to contest the fact that abortion is a personal decision.

"First, the BAIPA would have immediately usurped the rights of the parents without any hearing or legal process."

What of the rights of the child? You know, the one the parents attempted to kill with a late term abortion!!!!!!

The reason that Obama opposed this was due to the fact that it recognized the procedure for what it was - attempted murder of a child.

Obama has no issue with mandated health care; he does have an issue with any legislation that would grant rights of person hood to children slaughtered (sucessfully or otherwise) via abortion.

Arroyo is a leftist patsy and a dupe if he cannot see the reasons that Obama rejected the bill - trial lawyers, mandated health care and the rights of parents have nothing to do with it!

Read Obama's statement after Pres. Bush signed the law banning partial birth abortion, if you have any doubts he thinks infanticide is a moral issue--a moral issue where he sides AGAINST the baby being murdered.

"it gave a green light to trial lawyers to sue just about everybody on two legs. Catholic teaching always protects the rights of parents against big government."

Say what?

Who cares about the trial lawyers....what about the surviving baby that is about to be executed.

"Catholic America" is a joke, just like the On Faith site in general...

From the time we are born, we a given things. Birthdays, Christmas gifts, all our posesions. It is ingrained in us this (It's mine) mentalilty. We forget we do not own the lifes we are able to creat with our bodies. If the Doctors with all there marvels are unable to save the Mother and child Because of some unseen complication, then the choice is made at that time to save the Mother, because if she is lost, both are lost. If the mother thinks that it is her body therfore her choice to end a life. Let her kill herself, because that is the only life she owns. Example, if the baby dies, does it kill ther mother! No, she still lives. When our children grow up they leave home and start new lives. Yes i will pay the taxes to raise the unwanted children of spoiled selvish parents, or parent that refused to be burdened with a child.

I am conservative and pro choice. If I ever have to make that choice, I honestly don't know what I would choose, but I would want the option of choosing what is best for her, me, and ultimately the baby. Of course, being a male, my choice doesn't get much weight.

Passing judgment on others for having abortions is tough for me, because what someone else does to thier own body, with something of their creation, is not anyone's decision but thier own.

Being pro-choice doesn’t make me a "baby killer" or guilty of “infanticide”. I think being pro choice is about keeping the government out of my personal life. Using inflammatory labels like "baby killer" or "infanticide" to cast those that hold different convictions from their own in a bad light does not help anyone's argument. If it does anything, it works against them.

Any medical procedure, even an abortion, is supposed to be between the patient and the doctor. The patient has the right to disclose it to anyone they wish, but the doctor is bound by a code of ethics to maintain confidentiality. If the patient doesn't say a word and the doctor can't, if outlawed, how would a ban on abortions be enforced? Cameras in doctor's offices? Lie detectors? Creating legislation or precedent that would encroach so deeply into a person's morality and private life is a slippery slope.
Its an individual liberty thing. It is about not enacting a law to give a doctor or government official the power to tell someone what they can or can not do with their body. If abortions were outlawed, those that sought one and were "caught" would become criminals. Then what? You throw the pregnant lady in jail, let the state pay for her care, incarceration and mandate she carry the baby to term? Then what after that if she decides to keep the baby? You can't have a baby in jail. The child becomes a ward of the state? Once released from prison, being convicted of a felony, how realistic is it that that mother will be able to succeed in life and provide for her child?

When you try to legislate morality and personal choices the outcome is typically the same. That is, that people will still do it anyway and the government will turn a whole class of people, who in their mind aren't doing anything wrong, into criminals. Not to mention the large, untaxed, highly profitable and dangerous underground economy that develops to supply the prohibited product. (See also: Alcohol Prohibition, Drug Prohibition)

I am generally well meaning and would have a hard time consenting to my partner having an abortion, because ultimately it is her choice after all (Everyone takes this into account, right?), but I want the choice to do so. The government gets enough from me, I'm not going to give them my freedom of choice.

Is this Arroyo guy really Catholic?

He can't see the difference between letting the survivor of an abortion die and McCain not supporting socialized medicine? One is murder, the other is a political position that may or may not be right. Who knows? Maybe socialized medicine it great, maybe it's bad. The Church cannot state infallibly which is correct. But the Church can and does know that it's murder to kill an unborn child.

Only someone who's so poorly catechized cannot see that. Mr. Arroyo is no Catholic, no matter what he calls himself. The Post should be ashamed of itself to let this man speak for the Church on here.

Oh, Yeah, you clearly cannot read. It says Obama did NOT vote for that law, which Republicans no doubt concocted to get an emotional vote out of people.

You are, however, clearly looking for places to vent your dislike of Obama (like you ever considered voting for him). Good for you; now let the adults converse about the actual topic.

Dwight, I reject your assertion that the "blood of all abortion" is on me because I think abortion should be legal.

Sorry, but there has to be a disconnect between morality and good government. Good government is necessarily Utilitarian - "The greatest good for the greatest number". Unfortunately, allowing women to request (and doctors to perform) infanticides within the first 6 months of conception is good government policy.

It is. Sometime "rendering unto Ceaser" in a democracy requires us to go along with what the majority wants government policy to be, rather than what we think is right. It doesn't mean we have to actively support it. And it doesn't mean we can't speak our minds about it. But supporting a government that has a particular immoral policy (like legalized abortion) doesn't make us all baby-killers.

True conservatives are pro-choice.

Abortion, abhorrent though it may be, is not "killing babies." They are called fetuses, or even zygotes if early enough, until they can physically leave the womb and still live.

Don't like it, fine, but don't mix it all up to make people believe you're killing little Susie in her pink outfit and bonnet.

And yes, PGR88, that's really how we on the left feel. We just love abortions and wish everyone could experience the miracle (sound of me retching).

How about, we on the left just don't think it should be banned so that children who've been raped by their family members or other trusted people have to actually go through a pregnancy. Is that what _you_ want? Because that happens in this country, too, and the bottom line is I just don't think sexual abuse victims need to go through the additional torment of having a baby when they themselves are children.

Forget the adult women who screw up; the point of choice is that it protects everyone. Society doesn't have an answer for those who've been raped (religious people certainly don't), so abortion is one venue of help.

Oh, and where's God on that one? Right, not paying attention or it wouldn't happen.

Just like Obama... Wanting to socialize everything....

If the baby survives the abortion, then the person who had it should be responsible, not the state.

What is happening to America’s ability to take responsibly for their actions!?! This is getting to be ridiculous!

Well….. If you want a socialistic/Marxist order in this country… You know who to vote for this November! Personally I will continue to make my own choices and take responsibility for my life by not voting for him…

You can now change my status from independent to republican for this voting cycle…I have had enough of his platform… but I would recommend him coming back for another try after he gets some real experience under his belt that can show he is something other than a Nanny of the US…

to the women, her abortion is on her...
to the doctor, all his abortions he performs is on him...
to the people that support abortion, the blood of all abortions is on them...

Anthony seems to have come up with a reasonable argument, even though to me it is somewhat disingenuous. However, the comments here reinforce the reason I gave up on the Catholic church many years ago. They seem to be riddled with fanatics fixing on one issue. Can we please remember the tenets I was taught at school and home - love, respect, caring - regardless of one's viewpoint on reproduction issues.

The fact that the bill doesn't have the word "infanticide" in it has nothing to do with whether Obama voted for infanticide. HE DID. Regardless of the bill's usurping parental rights (rights to what - kill their baby?), making lawsuits possible and making gov't pay for hte baby's care, the purpose of the bill was to prevent people from killing babies that already survived the first murder attempt. How do you justify that? I don't care if it costs me and you a million dollars in taxes for each baby, it's only logical that a baby gets life and care after birth, no matter its age.

By the way, there is already a federal law that demands the same action to save the baby's life. Stevens-Arroyo is no Catholic and the COMpost needs to stop allowing him to write as if he speaks from a Catholic viewpoint. It's disgusting. He is obviously an Obama supporter and his articles are simple Obama propoganda, not Catholic insight.

you cannot be pro choice and be Catholic...

obama didn't vote to stop partial birth abortion...thats why he is for partial birth abortion o genocide...and thats the truth...

I am not for abortion of any type at any time. My opinion is not muddy. Kill or not to Kill? The question is not a muddy one. Don't make any attempt to muddy it up please. I simply choose not to kill.

Hey Tom3, Anthony's article isn't a "Repuke smearjob". It's actually PRO-Obama propaganda, not ANTI-Obama propaganda. Please read the article before you comment on it.

As for your comment directed at me, nowhere in the text of my post did I mention "torture" or "treason".

Some days it's just too easy.

Spin this any way you like. Obama is absolutely for abortion (killing babies) up to, and in some cases even beyond, the time they leave the womb.

For the left, this is something to be proud of, isn't it?

Of course, he could change what he says he actually said about it or give us more clarifications.....

This article is unbelieveable. Just another apologist for killing babies.

"in the latest venom eruption on hate-monger sites."

I should have stopped reading right there. TO oppose Obama or to bring this up is now hate mongering? Sad!!

This is just another Repuke smearjob and it is a LIE.

And ZZIM, you're an idiot Repuke who supports torture and treason. Your opinion is worthless.

Anthony, you big fat Sophist. You searched the text of the bill and didn't see the word "infanticide" in it anywhere, so Obama must not have voted for infanticide? That's your argument? That is pathetic. Killing babies is infanticide. So if Obama voted for allowing people to kill babies, then that's infanticide. The actual specific word "infanticide" does not need to be in the legislation.

Re-diculous. Are you trying to gather the "easily fooled" vote for Obama? Jeepers.

By the way, just because I think your argument is stupid doesn't mean I'm taking sides against your view on abortion. My personal position is that abortion is also "infanticide" and I also think it should be legal. Therefore, I also think that if the abortionist tries to kill an un-born baby and that baby is born alive by accident, then the abortionist should be allowed to finish the job. Just because the baby has escaped the womb alive doesn't make a difference to me. If it's okay to kill it in the womb, it's okay to kill it outside the womb.

Yeah, I'm heartless. I'd rather be that than a Sophistry-spouting fool trying to trick people into voting for Obama.