NRO: Ramesh Ponnuru gets it right on Obama spin

From National Review Online, August 20:

Thumbnail image for ramesh.jpg

Bereft of an argument, the Obama campaign is pounding the table.

The recent attacks on Senator Obama that allege he would allow babies born alive to die are outrageous lies. The suggestion that Obama - the proud father of two little girls - and others who opposed these bills supported infanticide is deeply offensive and insulting.* There is no room for these kinds of distortions and lies in this campaign.

Note, first, that Obama's comment about lies over the weekend referred to the National Right to Life Committee. Yet the campaign has not made a single specific allegation that any of the NRLC's statements are inaccurate, let alone dishonest. The campaign claims only that the NRLC has left out some context that exonerates Obama....

The main supposed omission: "What Senator Obama's attackers don't tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions."

The reason the NRLC didn't include that information is that it is incorrect. Illinois law has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.

Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

Obama did not want the gap filled. He did not want pre-viable fetuses/infants to have any legal protection. In the Illinois legislature, he argued that providing them with legal protection would both be unconstitutional in itself - a violation of the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence - and undermine the right to abortion.

Obama was wrong about these points. The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence treats the location of the young human organism, not its stage of development, as the key factor in whether it can be legally protected. But that's the ground on which he stood, at the time. In recent years, however, he has had very little to say about the importance of denying legal protection to this class of human beings. He knows that's a losing argument politically. So he has instead been emitting a thick cloud of smoke.

Only yesterday has the Obama campaign finally, in desperation, gotten close to telling the truth about Obama's position. In its latest apologia, the campaign isolates the language it found so objectionable in the Illinois bill. "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." The campaign calls this "Language Clearly Threatening Roe."

So far, only the conservative blogosphere has been calling Obama on his misrepresentations of his record on the Born-Alive Bill, and on his reckless accusations against his critics. Reporters should stop carrying his water. As for his defenders in the liberal blogosphere, if they want to take up for him again I would advise them to wait a while. The campaign doesn't yet have its story straight, and it has no room for the truth.

*Incidentally, as a logical matter it makes no sense to say that because Obama is a "proud father" of former infants he therefore could not have supported a legal right to commit infanticide. Those daughters are also, after all, former fetuses.


Comments:

"What Senator Obama's attackers don't tell you is that existing Illinois law already requires doctors to provide medical care in the very rare case that babies are born alive during abortions."

The reason the NRLC didn't include that information is that it is incorrect. Illinois law
has rules - loophole-ridden rules, but rules - requiring treatment of babies who have "sustainable survivability." If an attempted abortion of a pre-viable fetus results in a live birth, the law did not protect the infant.


Okay, so this is not really about "killing babies" but about how much effort is made to relieve suffering.
......


Nurse Jill Stanek said that at her hospital "abortions" were repeatedly performed by inducing the live birth of a pre-viable fetus and then leaving it to die. When she made her report, the attorney general said that no law had been broken. That's why legislators proposed a bill to fill the gap.

I'm amazed by this, and until now had not realized that that was exactly what was happening. I've heard of various abortion procedures many times over the years, but Jill or anybody else - a woman goes in for an abortion, and delivery is induced, as simple as that?


Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 7:48 AM


Welcome to reality Doug. We've been trying to tell you that all of your misguided sympathy for the women has been misplaced. Abortion is a cold, cruel, heartless procedure no matter what the chosen method.

It is a business, pure and simple. A very profitable business. And you have been duped into believing that it is a moral good...that's what comes of subjective morality...!

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 7:51 AM


Doug,

What the heck did you think partial birth abortion was? It was inducing a viable fetus, then stabbing it in the head to remove it's brains, so that it was dead before delivery. Pure and simple.

The reason they fought banning this is that they have no way of controlling how fast the cervix dilates and could not therefore be sure that they would be able to suck the childs brains out BEFORE it was delivered. They changed the placement of the baby in the birth canal, not leaving enough time to be sure it would be killed before it was delivered, rendering the procedure too risky!

A baby can come fast, and it used to be they had until the head came out that it was considered not a person, but then that changed and it was a different point on the body (I forget if it was the navel or knees or something) and it was no longer possible to kill it in time...

Imagine arguing over whether it was a baby at the navel or the neck! INSANITY!

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 7:56 AM


Welcome to reality Doug. We've been trying to tell you that all of your misguided sympathy for the women has been misplaced. Abortion is a cold, cruel, heartless procedure no matter what the chosen method.

It is a business, pure and simple. A very profitable business. And you have been duped into believing that it is a moral good...that's what comes of subjective morality...!

MK, that's not what we were talking about. These were babies that weren't going to live, and the issue is how much care they got.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 8:03 AM


Doug,

You stated that you were unaware that labor was induced and that that was the particular method of abortion chosen. I'm just telling you that that is what partial birth is. Nothing is done, except to induce labor. The baby that Jill found was a baby that was delivered too fast. They didn't have a chance to stab it in the neck.

But the child wasn't shot with a heart stopping med, it wasn't dismembered first...the abortion procedure, pure and simple, was to, and only to, induce labor. A little seaweed in the cervix and mother nature takes her course.

The born alive infants that we are talking about, mostly resulted from these types of abortions, except the delivery happened so fast, that rather than stabbing it in the head, a born child resulted. And then was left to die.

The idea that birthing a child and leaving it to die upsets you, but that the same child, on the same day, during the same procedure having it's brains sucked out does NOT upset you, upsets me.

What kind of people rationally discuss whether or not it is okay to leave a child to die in a utility closet or stab it in the brain? Why is one perfectly acceptable, and the other horrifying?

It's the whole Obama/SoMG thing. Either you don't care or you do. But to care about one and not the other is just nuts!

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 8:15 AM


Doug,

These were babies that weren't going to live, and the issue is how much care they got.

How do you know they weren't going to live? There are children walking around today that are the result of failed abortions. Gianna Jessen is one of them.

George Tiller routinely kills viable children.

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 8:17 AM


What the heck did you think partial birth abortion was? It was inducing a viable fetus, then stabbing it in the head to remove it's brains, so that it was dead before delivery. Pure and simple.

MK, most times, no, D & X was used as early as 14 or 15 weeks, and most of the time the fetus wasn't viable yet. Not that it was impossible that it would be (obviously) but there were just a lot more D & X abortions prior to viability than afterward.
......

The reason they fought banning this is that they have no way of controlling how fast the cervix dilates and could not therefore be sure that they would be able to suck the childs brains out BEFORE it was delivered. They changed the placement of the baby in the birth canal, not leaving enough time to be sure it would be killed before it was delivered, rendering the procedure too risky!

A baby can come fast, and it used to be they had until the head came out that it was considered not a person, but then that changed and it was a different point on the body (I forget if it was the navel or knees or something) and it was no longer possible to kill it in time...

Imagine arguing over whether it was a baby at the navel or the neck! INSANITY!

Did we have a lot of coffee this morning? ; )

The argument over "baby" or not isn't much at all. I'm fine with saying "baby."

I had not heard that a point on the baby's body being out of the womb (other than completely born) made for it being considered a person, in our society in modern times. I think the old Hebrews went with halfway out, and for some places it was the head, but really - in the US in the recent past, before the "PBA" ban, was it the navel, etc.? That's another thing I just had not heard of.

There are situations where D & X presents less risk to the woman than other procedures, and that's why some medical societies and legislators objected to the ban.

Also, why would people not want a ban on the procedure because sometimes the baby came out too fast? If so, that's a problem with the procedure, not an argument for it, not a reason why a ban would be objected to.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 8:21 AM


How do you know they weren't going to live?

MK, it said, "pre-viable."
.....

I had not thought of inducing labor, with the baby coming all the way out, as a method of abortion. That is not "PBA," though.


The idea that birthing a child and leaving it to die upsets you, but that the same child, on the same day, during the same procedure having it's brains sucked out does NOT upset you, upsets me.

It's two different cases. I'm for abortion being legal to viability. Once the baby is born, then the woman's rights are no longer an issue, and I see no good reason to not relieve suffering on the part of the baby. You and I can certainly agree on caring for the baby after birth, whether it will live or not. You and I disagree on whether abortion should be legal in most situations, though.
.....


What kind of people rationally discuss whether or not it is okay to leave a child to die in a utility closet or stab it in the brain? Why is one perfectly acceptable, and the other horrifying?

If one is for women having the rights they do now, then one is pro-choice. But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 8:33 AM


For the pro-aborts, there's a need to make sure the kid dies, after she or he is born.

Understand that at a good NICU, we can keep one pounders alive, but it costs a lot. In the UK, they do a lot of these live birth abortions because they can't afford the expense of keeping a preemie alive. They also can't afford the cost of fixing minor birth defects, so those kids need to be eliminated.

Cost containment, you know,...... Socialized medicine requires more of it than our hybrid system does.

Not going to spend a good deal of time with a prochoicer pretending that there's any excuse at all for this infanticide. Pretending to know when the kid is "viable" is beyond most people's pay grade....... so don't bother with uneducated guesstimates of viability as excuse for the infanticides. Akso, don't bother to tell us about the instances in which a D and X with breech delivery is safer than a regular delivery. There are plenty of people who know better.

Posted by: KB at August 20, 2008 9:16 AM


Doug,

If one is for women having the rights they do now, then one is pro-choice. But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?

You tell me.

And then tell me why they would perform an abortion and kill a viable baby when they could just as easily deliver it alive.

And then tell me why this whole this surprises you. You're living in a fantasy world if you really believe abortion is all about relieving the suffering of women.

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 9:19 AM


KB,

Amen.

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 9:22 AM


Yah, MK.

Abortion is the main reason we sell so many antidepressants to women.

Posted by: KB at August 20, 2008 9:46 AM


"If one is for women having the rights they do now, then one is pro-choice. But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?"

MK: You tell me.

That's just it - they don't.
.....


And then tell me why they would perform an abortion and kill a viable baby when they could just as easily deliver it alive.

If that's all there is to it, then the state restrictions are designed to prevent that.

That is also largely inapplicable to the abortion debate as a whole, since such would be very, very rare. There are around 1,000 abortions per year at 24 weeks and later, and of those many are where the baby is not viable.

In the remaining cases, I'd be fine with not allowing abortions past viability due to "mental health" issues on the woman's part - I'd say induce delivery at that point.
......


And then tell me why this whole this surprises you. You're living in a fantasy world if you really believe abortion is all about relieving the suffering of women.

No, that's not what surprises me. I just hadn't heard that delivery was induced as a method of ending the pregnancy, period, (for no reason related to the health of the woman) since after birth the baby would be protected by the Constitution.

The fantasy world would be where people think that abortion isn't the best choice for some women, and that it doesn't relieve their suffering.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 10:47 AM


The fantasy world is the nightmare in which people attempt to relieve their suffering by choosing death.

To live apart from God is death.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 11:06 AM


And to die apart from God is eternal death.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 11:08 AM


Of course, the Church has had much disagreement over the destination of children who die in infancy or within the womb of their mother.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 11:11 AM


Doug,

I just hadn't heard that delivery was induced as a method of ending the pregnancy, period, (for no reason related to the health of the woman) since after birth the baby would be protected by the Constitution.

What did you think partial birth abortion was?

How did you think they got the baby out of the mother if not be inducing labor?

What is the difference between stabbing a baby that is 99% born and leaving it to die in a utility room. That 1% makes that much difference to you?

And why do you consider 1000 a year rare? That 32,000 since roe v wade. And no one knows which babies are viable, until they live or don't.

Allowing the abortionist to be the one to determine their viability is insane! He WANTS them dead.

As for NO PRO CHOICER wants live babies to die, then why did Obama vote that way? He may not actively wish them to die, but he had an opportunity to protect them and he didn't. Every doctor that delivered a live baby and allowed it to die wanted live babies to be dead. Every nurse that knew what was going on also wanted them to die...

They weren't whisked away by gremlins. People, doctors, senators, nurses, PEOPLE, let those babies die. So please don't tell me that pro choicers don't want dead babies. Cuz that is the true FANTASY!

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 11:21 AM


If one is for women having the rights they do now, then one is pro-choice. But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?

Its mother didn't want it. Ask SoMG. It's a parasite. Unasked, it invaded her life.

Aside from the depravity and inhumanity, what a stupid argument! Then infant children are parasites too. In fact, we are all somewhat parasitical because we need each other.

And we need God, who has reached out in grace. To live apart from God is death.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 11:22 AM


If that's all there is to it, then the state restrictions are designed to prevent that.

NO! They don't. See Jaspers link!

But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?"

YOU TELL ME! The answer is obvious. A dead baby was the goal of the abortion! Period. And a dead baby would be had. period.

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 11:24 AM


Doug,

The answer is always MONEY!!!! Always. The baby wasn't wanted by the mother. It lives. The mother never wanted to "fund" it's life. Do you honestly think that the hospital now wants to fund it? It would take tons of money to care for a 24 week old fetus. Why would they spend that money on a child that WAS NOT WANTED to begin with, and will not be wanted afterwards. Why would you save the life of a child that was already written off as dead! Who is going to foot that bill????????

Posted by: mk at August 20, 2008 11:27 AM


What did you think partial birth abortion was?

MK, I know what D & X is, but that does not end up with a born, living baby. I'm just saying I had not heard of babies being delivered with the intent of letting them die outside the womb.
.....


How did you think they got the baby out of the mother if not be inducing labor?

Again, no argument on abortion procedures. I hadn't thought of an "abortion" as ending up with the baby living outside the womb, that's all.
.....


What is the difference between stabbing a baby that is 99% born and leaving it to die in a utility room. That 1% makes that much difference to you?

From one point of view, no difference at all, and I understand where you're coming from. I don't know about that "99%" but I would have thought that born = rights.
.....


And why do you consider 1000 a year rare? That 32,000 since roe v wade. And no one knows which babies are viable, until they live or don't.

The 1000 abortions would be roughly .08%, which is pretty "rare." And most of those post-24 week abortions are for such severe fetal deficiencies that it's a different debate, i.e. those babies aren't viable. For the ones that remain, whether it's 25 or 100 or 200 such abortions, we're still only up to .016% and that's mighty rare. Tell you what - I have no problems with such abortions being outlawed.
......


As for NO PRO CHOICER wants live babies to die, then why did Obama vote that way? He may not actively wish them to die, but he had an opportunity to protect them and he didn't. Every doctor that delivered a live baby and allowed it to die wanted live babies to be dead. Every nurse that knew what was going on also wanted them to die...

I disagree - some babies are born alive but are destined to die. I am all for them being cared for, but it's not like the docs and nurses "want" them to die. The question is do they suffer or not, are they cared for, etc.?

I'd like to know why Obama and the 5 others voted that way. There's been a lot of demonizing him simply since he's Pro-Choice, and if it was a BS political issue then that's very plausible to me.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 11:39 AM


"If one is for women having the rights they do now, then one is pro-choice. But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?"

Jon: Its mother didn't want it. Ask SoMG. It's a parasite. Unasked, it invaded her life.

No, Jon, Pro-Choicers aren't saying it's the mother's call once the baby is born.

On "parasite," some definitions wouldn't include the unborn, and some do, but I think most of that is people trying to push Pro-Lifers' buttons.

Pretty much the same for "invading her life." That sounds like buzzwordism or an emotional argument (and a poor one, IMO).

Pro-Choicers are "blaming" the baby nor saying it's "guilty." There's no capacity for guilt in the first place. Pro-Choicers, prior to birth and - prior to viability, for me and certainly for most of us - are just leaving it up to the woman to decide.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 11:43 AM


Doug 11:43, Go back and read some of the stuff that SoMG has written. He's pro-abortion, and some people talk to him as if he's an abortionist.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 11:49 AM


I think most of that is people trying to push Pro-Lifers' buttons.

Only people who don't care would say such things. And if they don't care they might as well be pro-abortion. They certainly aren't pro-life.

Anybody who believes that marriage doesn't change "personhood" shouldn't believe that birth changes "personhood." Abortionists know that birth doesn't change personhood, so they are often just as contemptuous with a baby after it's born as with the baby before it's born. Abortionists don't like to make mistakes. An abortion survivor is a mistake.

Posted by: Anonymous at August 20, 2008 12:06 PM


I was Anonymous 12:06.

I'd like to know why Obama and the 5 others voted that way. There's been a lot of demonizing him simply since he's Pro-Choice, and if it was a BS political issue then that's very plausible to me.

Mr. Obama's already given the reason that he voted as he did. He said there was not the protection of Roe-Wade in the Illinois bill that there was in the federal bill. The only problem is that the two bills were identical in their protection of both born babies and murderers of unborn babies.

As far as I am concerned, convenience is as much as a demon as Molech. If Obama supports abortion or infanticide or "choice," then he is being taught by demons. He is certainly not on that critical topic listening to the Word of God.

To so nuance Obama's decision as to consider contextual BS is to strain out a germ and swallow a baby.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 12:27 PM


The element of truth that we find in the justification of slavery is the same element that we find in the justification of induced abortion.

Parents have authority over their children just as employers have authority over their employees. The authority is not absolute because the civil government has the authority to mete punishment for physical violence.

Slavery results when employers are given absolute authority over their employees. The employees become slaves, mere property. Induced abortion results when parents are given absolute authority over their pre-born children. The children become the mother's body, mere property.

Slave-traders didn't kill slaves because a dead slave wasn't worth very much to them. Abortionists don't sell human fetuses because a live fetus isn't worth very much to them.

The main difference between slavery and induced abortion is globalization. Induced abortion wasn't acceptable in a colonial world. Slavery isn't acceptable in a global village.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 12:46 PM


In order to understand Obama's stance on the Born Alive legislation while an IL senator one has to understand IL politics. In Illinois one gets rewarded with accolades and tons of cash from the left when one supports far left positions. It is not enough to merely be a democrat. In order to gain support from the left one has to be more leftist than moderates.

As the bloggers here know, being strongly pro-abortion will automatically open a conduit of editorial (MSM) and monetary support from entrenched leftists. Obama, ever readng the tea leaves, knew what he had to do in order to curry favor with his support base. This has now comeback to bite him.

Posted by: Jerry at August 20, 2008 2:10 PM


"I think most of that is people trying to push Pro-Lifers' buttons."

Only people who don't care would say such things. And if they don't care they might as well be pro-abortion. They certainly aren't pro-life.

Jon, they may not care about good debating, then, same as for many pro-lifers.

But there's no necessarily being "pro-abortion" if not pro-life, since they're probably pro-choice.
.....


Anybody who believes that marriage doesn't change "personhood" shouldn't believe that birth changes "personhood." Abortionists know that birth doesn't change personhood, so they are often just as contemptuous with a baby after it's born as with the baby before it's born. Abortionists don't like to make mistakes. An abortion survivor is a mistake.

Birth = rights. I know you wish things were different. Of course marriage doesn't change personhood, since it's already been attributed. Agreed that doctors (in general) don't like to make mistakes, but still, birth = rights, with or without BAIPA.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:15 PM


"I'd like to know why Obama and the 5 others voted that way. There's been a lot of demonizing him simply since he's Pro-Choice, and if it was a BS political issue then that's very plausible to me."

Jon: Mr. Obama's already given the reason that he voted as he did. He said there was not the protection of Roe-Wade in the Illinois bill that there was in the federal bill. The only problem is that the two bills were identical in their protection of both born babies and murderers of unborn babies.

Then is it like "the boy who cried wolf"? There had been multiple bills for multiple years, and prior to the bill in question, there were things that could be construed as trying to curtail abortion rights, etc.

Jon, if Obama was confused, that is one thing. But I don't think all 6 people that votged against it would say that. I also don't think they voted "no" because they are in favor of not giving care to born babies. Come on.

So, was it a political thing? I'd like to hear what they have to say. I see most politicians as parasitic (whoa, there's that word again) leeches on society anyway, so I'm not defending that vote - such baloney happens all the time in legislatures.
......


As far as I am concerned, convenience is as much as a demon as Molech. If Obama supports abortion or infanticide or "choice," then he is being taught by demons. He is certainly not on that critical topic listening to the Word of God.

Oh please.
.....


To so nuance Obama's decision as to consider contextual BS is to strain out a germ and swallow a baby.

Well, I do think there is some "BS" in there somewhere.

They didn't want the bill without the amendment, the "neutrality" clause/ the protection for abortion rights. Then they got that. So then, why vote against it?

I think it's ludicrous to say that it's because "they wanted the babies to go uncared for." So, was it backroom political gamesmanship? Was it because of infighting within the Illinois Senate? This stuff occurs constantly in legislatures, conservative and liberal and Republican and Democrat alike.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:24 PM


Go back and read some of the stuff that SoMG has written. He's pro-abortion, and some people talk to him as if he's an abortionist.

Jon, I haven't seen SoMG sound "pro-abortion." He's for the choice of the woman, but not "for abortion" beyond that, is he?

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:31 PM


"If that's all there is to it, then the state restrictions are designed to prevent that."

MK: NO! They don't. See Jaspers link!

What link? I don't see anything from Jasper in this thread.

Yeah, they really are, per the Roe decision - where it says that the states, if they want to, can choose to protect the unborn life after viability. I realize there are objections to the "health" of the woman including mental/emotional issues, and that laws and enforcement are not perfect but that is what they're designed to prevent.
.....


"But what reason would pro-choicers have for not wanting the baby to be cared for, versus being put in a utility closet?"

YOU TELL ME! The answer is obvious. A dead baby was the goal of the abortion! Period. And a dead baby would be had. period.

That's not true, MK. Pro-Choicers don't want a born baby to die. Pro-Choicers want the woman to be able to continue or end the pregnancy, but they are not saying that born babies should not be cared for.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:40 PM


Obama, ever readng the tea leaves, knew what he had to do in order to curry favor with his support base. This has now comeback to bite him.

Jerry, this really wasn't about abortion, then, but what you say does make sense. Perhaps it was just resentment or "revenge" on the bill's sponsor and/or supporters - something like that?

I do think that he wishes he had voted yes, at this point. I'd really like to hear what the other five people would say was the reason for that vote.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:45 PM


Jon: The element of truth that we find in the justification of slavery is the same element that we find in the justification of induced abortion.

Jon, the slavemasters felt justified in having the will of the slaves subverted to their own will.

You want the will of pregnant women subverted to your own.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:50 PM


The answer is always MONEY!!!! Always. The baby wasn't wanted by the mother. It lives. The mother never wanted to "fund" it's life. Do you honestly think that the hospital now wants to fund it? It would take tons of money to care for a 24 week old fetus. Why would they spend that money on a child that WAS NOT WANTED to begin with, and will not be wanted afterwards. Why would you save the life of a child that was already written off as dead! Who is going to foot that bill????????

Dang, MK, what'd you do on vacation, rest up, and now you're back with loads of exclamation points and question marks? Yee Haa.

I gotta say again - it's more than one thing.

Sure, a hospital can't fund all patients, etc., but still, doesn't being born mean that rights are there? In some places people cannot legally be turned away from care, as with emergency rooms, even if they are unable to pay.

Aside from that, it's a good question - if delivery is induced and the mother isn't going to pay, then who supports the baby? In the end it'd be the state, wouldn't it, if nobody adopts it?

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:58 PM


Go back and read some of the stuff that SoMG has written. He's pro-abortion, and some people talk to him as if he's an abortionist.

Jon, I haven't seen SoMG sound "pro-abortion." He's for the choice of the woman, but not "for abortion" beyond that, is he?

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 4:31 PM

What planet are you on today?

Posted by: Janet at August 20, 2008 5:37 PM


Planet Claire?

Janet, all I'm saying is that I haven't seen SoMG really advocate abortions, except when the woman wants one.

I'm not saying he hasn't done it, just haven't seen him post that way. Has he?

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 6:50 PM


He's an abortionist. He does it part time.

Posted by: Carla at August 20, 2008 7:02 PM


"Jon, I haven't seen SoMG sound "pro-abortion." He's for the choice of the woman, but not "for abortion" beyond that, is he?"

Doug, I'm not sure I follow you -- if someone is pro-choice then it logically follows that the same person would be for abortion. If someone supports choice for women and then if women choose abortion, then they must be for abortion.

Posted by: Eileen at August 20, 2008 7:23 PM


Eileen, there is a difference between being "for abortion" and just wanting abortion legal so that if the woman wants to end a pregnancy, she can.

How about "pro-legal abortion" or "pro-abortion rights"?

Or, heh, how about "abortionados"? I even had one woman on another board who for some reason kept saying "parborts."

Seriously, I wouldn't mind there being no abortions at all, if no woman wanted one. Just fine with me. If somebody is actually "for abortion" then they wouldn't feel that way.

Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 8:55 PM


Doug, I have a hard time to believe that you are being ingenuous. Aside from the fact that Jill has personally witnessed the kind of care--none--that an abortionist will give to an unwanted baby, what logically would be his motive for doing so (except the threat of law)? The mother didn't want the baby, he made a mistake, what's he going to do? If he's like SoMG, he'll kill it. Why not?

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 10:31 PM


He'll kill it by neglecting it.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 10:34 PM


Eileen, there is a difference between being "for Dougicide" and just wanting Dougicide legal so that if a person wants to end Doug, he can.

How about "pro-legal Dougicide" or "pro-Dougicide rights"?

Or, heh, how about "Dougicidos"? I even had one woman on another board who for some reason kept saying "parDougicists."

Seriously, I wouldn't mind there being no Dougicides at all, if no person wanted one. Just fine with me. If somebody is actually "for Dougicide" then they wouldn't feel that way.

Posted by: Jon at August 20, 2008 10:39 PM


What planet are you on today?
Posted by: Janet at August 20, 2008 5:37 PM

Planet Claire?
Posted by: Doug at August 20, 2008 6:50 PM

Planet what?

Posted by: Janet at August 21, 2008 1:01 AM


Jon: Doug, I have a hard time to believe that you are being ingenuous. Aside from the fact that Jill has personally witnessed the kind of care--none--that an abortionist will give to an unwanted baby, what logically would be his motive for doing so (except the threat of law)? The mother didn't want the baby, he made a mistake, what's he going to do?

Jon, specific to such a case as you mention - I agree that you have a point. I still think the 14th Amendment protection, etc., would apply, with or without such a law as you postulate, but if it makes a difference then I don't have a problem with it.
......

Seriously, I wouldn't mind there being no Dougicides at all, if no person wanted one. Just fine with me. If somebody is actually "for Dougicide" then they wouldn't feel that way.

Jon, can't argue with that.
.....


Eileen, there is a difference between being "for Dougicide" and just wanting Dougicide legal so that if a person wants to end Doug, he can.

How about "pro-legal Dougicide" or "pro-Dougicide rights"?

Sure, the principle is the same.

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 10:34 AM


"Planet Claire?"

Janet: Planet what?

Girl, don't you know you some B-52's?


http://tinyurl.com/5pgerv

Hey, should I have said, "Janet Planet"? (uproarious laughter)


Seriously, Van Morrison's first wife was Janet Planet.

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 10:41 AM


Okay, who wants some scrambled eggs? Let me just clean up my face here...

http://tinyurl.com/yvxayv

Posted by: Doug at August 21, 2008 10:45 AM