Chris Matthews: Obama two-faced to Pope on abortion; may be health care deal breaker

Last week Time magazine ran the headline, "Could abortion coverage sink health-care reform?" This seems to be a growing consensus - among liberals.

By pro-abortion dday at the Hullabaloo blog, July 14:

hardball logo.jpg

For the second day in a row, Chris Matthews [of MSNBC's Hardball] ranted about the prospect of a potential public health insurance option covering abortion services, and his lineup of talking heads agreed that this was "the last thing Obama needed" and that Obama was a hypocrite because he met the Pope last week....

Matthews: What do you make of the 19 House Democrats who said there can't be any abortion funding in this bill? There can't be any national health insurance payments for abortion. What do you make of that choice? And by the way, [Democrat] Bob Casey of PA today voted, yesterday voted with the Republicans to ban any money from this bill that's supposed to be for national health to go for abortions?

Navarette: It's the last thing Obama needs. The issue's complicated and divisive and controversial enough without bringing abortion into it. The American people are giving mixed signals. They say they don't want to pay for the program but they do want to cut costs, and they want to pay for some kind of reform, but don't get in the way of my doctor and the tests he might order. So they're all over the map. Clearly, politicians are trying to be responsive to that. It's a tough enough issue without trying to bring abortion into it. Obama's in a tough spot, I don't think he gets this though.

chris matthews.jpg

Matthews: Well, I think he did, I think he will, but he's gonna deal with this thing. What do you think, Roger, because this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Because when I see it coming, it came from nowhere. I started reading about it this weekend in the Weekly Standard, and I watched [Republican Sen. Orrin] Hatch [UT] last night on this show stating that he pushed to ban it. The law [Hyde Amendment] says, it has said since the 70s, under a Democratic Congress, no federal money pays for abortions. It has been the law of the land, and now they're trying to change it.

Simon: Whatever the merits are, as Ruben said, as you are saying just now, this is just a fight that President Obama does not need. There are other problems with the health care bill. First of all, what is it going to look like, are you going to have a true public option, how are you going to pay for this trillion dollar program. You don't need to add in a hot-button issue like abortion. To most Americans, abortion is a settled issue.

Matthews: You mean the right to an abortion. But not payment for it.

obama pope 7.jpg

Simon: That's right. Safe, legal and rare, and don't bother us about it.

Matthews: By the way, the night he tells the Pope, he goes over to see the Pope and says they're going to reduce the number of abortions, and then that same week he pushes to subsidize abortion? You can't do that!

Simon: I think last week is a week the White House would like to have back.

I should mention Matthews is a liberal, pro-abortion Catholic. Even he is incensed that Obama is saying one thing to the Pope on abortion and doing another.


Comments:

The President only gave lip service to the Pope on the issue. The Vatican knew he'd do just that.
The trouble with Bennedict is that he's too much of a teddybear and not enough like a lion!

Posted by: Mike Hassett at July 15, 2009 7:30 AM


I wouldn't underestimate Pope Benedict. I think he is more subtle, but profound. Maybe he planted a seed with the Obama's. At least I'd like to think he did.
I can't believe Matthews, who gets a tingly feeling running down his leg when Obama speaks, has a problem with his visit with the Pope.
Maybe the charismatic spellbound powers of Obama, with the rabidly, pro-abort liberals are wearing thin?

Posted by: muriel at July 15, 2009 7:46 AM


What's incredible is that I'm not hearing talk radio focusing on this aspect of the bill at all. They have an obsession about the cost and lack of personal liberty, but I've yet to hear my favorite talkers go off on this potential monkey wretch.

And if it does prove to be the bombshell like I hope it will, wouldn't that be just sweet irony?

Those nasty, useless, unborn children!

Posted by: carder at July 15, 2009 8:03 AM



Classic sociopath.

Oh and Chris, you still getting those leg tingles?

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 8:09 AM


The Pope did give the Obamas a copy of Dignatas Personae encyclical, a bioethics document.
Maybe The Obama's read it on the plane ride home?
Can the Vatican please send an additional copy to "Catholic" Chris Matthews, who is calling Obama a hypocrite? And maybe one to Pelosi, and Biden too. Hmmm, many endless teaching moment possibilities...

Posted by: muriel at July 15, 2009 8:32 AM


Mike, 7:30a, you should read Deal Hudson's article, "Vatican obstructs pro-Obama spin on Papal visit," http://is.gd/1zIZb. Quoting from the piece:

Immediately after the meeting, the Vatican issued a statement making it clear that abortion and bioethics were the first things the pope discussed with the president.

As if to add an exclamation point to that discussion, Benedict XVI gave Obama a "unannounced"gift, a copy of the 2008 bioethics document, "Dignitas Personae," which bears the opening line:

"The dignity of the human person must be recognized in every human being from conception to natural death."

These gestures made it impossible for Obama supporters to put overly-enthusiastic spin on the meeting. The White House found out the Vatican has its own resources when it comes to handling the media, in spite of all its recent snafus in that department.

Someone made sure the Vatican controlled the message and, as a result, all of the coverage I have seen has been quite balanced and reasonable.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 15, 2009 8:45 AM


Hey Muriel. I hate to be a pedantic jerk, but Dignitas Personae is actually a document put out by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), not an encyclical letter.

But everything else that you said I completely agree with! God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 15, 2009 8:48 AM


"Even" Chris Matthews? I don't know. This isn't exactly a shocker to me. Matthews, while liberal in his politics, doesn't strike me as at all a strong women's rights guy. Not at all.

Also, I don't see a contradiction between wanting to reduce the number of abortions and wanting to subsidize abortion. (I would support both goals. I don't want women to face an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But if a woman is facing an unwanted pregnancy and chooses abortion, it should be funded to the same extent as other medical procedures.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 9:10 AM


(I would support both goals. I don't want women to face an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But if a woman is facing an unwanted pregnancy and chooses abortion, it should be funded to the same extent as other medical procedures.)

Prochoicer,
The premise for Roe v Wade was the right to privacy, in other words,her private choice. So why should citizens that object to the procedure be forced to pay for it? I
It is NOT like other medical procedures to help cure or heal an ill. It is a procedure that kills life. The doctors part in abortion goes against the Hippocratic oath of ethics...to do no harm.

Posted by: muriel at July 15, 2009 10:04 AM


My take on the Chris Mathews bit is that it is a farce. We all know he is totally in the tank for Obama, even to the point of a sexual attraction with the whole "thrill up the leg" bit.

He also has said that his job is to make this presidency succeed.

I think he pointed out the contradiction to send a message to Obama, to try and help him out.

He's saying, "Hey Obama, I'm your guy and I'm trying to help you out here. Change your message a little bit so that we can get this thing going again..."

He's not getting tired of the crazy things Obama is doing, he loves it. He just wants it to be perfect.

Posted by: Andrew at July 15, 2009 10:31 AM


PC, 9:10am

Would you see a contradiction between wanting to subsidize cosmetic surgery, yet at the same time wanting to reduce the number of people having cosmetic surgery?

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 10:46 AM


Andrew 10:31am

You have a point. We have a state run media that makes no secret of being in the tank for Obama. I never thought I would miss Sam Donaldson. Say what you will about the man, he was nobody's lapdog.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 10:50 AM


Muriel, any medical procedure is protected by the right of privacy. A patient's choice whether to undergo chemo or not is also protected. It is just not as controversial.

Our tax dollars go towards a lot of things a lot of people find objectionable. For example, a lot of people find military force morally objectionable, but their tax money goes to fund it anyway. (Some of these people refuse to pay their taxes and are rightfully prosecuted.)

I am not here to defend the President's healthcare plan, but it seems to me, if there is going to be such a health care plan, abortion ought to be included.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 10:54 AM


So, PC thinks abortion should be funded to the same extent as other medical procedures.

Which medical procedures?

Can I propose that abortion receive the same amount of funding that should be allotted for elective caesarians (I choose NOT to go through labour- so tax payers should foot the bill for a riskier and far more expensive mode of delivering my baby) and tattoo removal (I made a bad choice in a moment of weakness and don't want to be punished the rest of my life - so let tax payers fix it for me)?

What you're ultimately saying, PC, is that you feel our tax dollars should be paying for other people's unwillingness to accept the natural consequences of their own choices . Gotcha. Sounds like a plan. What's next? Free liposuction?

Posted by: Michelle at July 15, 2009 10:55 AM


Mary,


I actually do think it would be appropriate to subsidize cosmetic surgery that serves to reverse an unwanted impact on one's body -- such as scarring from a dog bite, disfigurement in a fire, mutilation in a car crash. That kind of cosmetic surgery is similar to a abortion, which also reverses an unwanted impact on one's body.

I would not support subsidizing someone who wants cosmetic surgery simply to improve on the looks he or she is born with (a nose job, a boob job, etc.), unless it includes some kind of birth defect that hampers functioning, like a cleft palate. Similarly, I would be less inclined to support government subsidies for people who want to undergo IVF etc., i.e. people who are seeking out a change in their bodies, rather than trying to reverse an unwanted change.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 11:07 AM


PC 11:07am

The procedures you mention are already covered by insurance. I would hardly compare pregnancy to disfigurement from a car accident or a person scarred by fire.

By cosmetic I mean facelifts, breast implants, liposuction,etc. Not medically necessary, as the vast majority of abortions are not.

Why wouldn't you support subsidizing these procedures? They're medical procedures, it isn't fair only people with the financial means can afford them, and people might think they are indeed truly necessary to improve their lives.

Also, would you see a contradiction wanting to subsidize these procedures and wanting to reduce the number of people having them?

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 11:16 AM


NO kind of cosmetic surgery is 'similar to an abortion'! Cosmetic surgery does not murder a human being.'Unwanted impact on one's body'? How about having your internal organs and skin burned by saline solution? Or having your arms and legs ripped off, and your head crushed? Unwanted impact on one's body...honestly, PC..your 'reasoning' BAFFLES me!

Posted by: Pamela at July 15, 2009 11:48 AM


Pamela,

A good point about unwanted impact on one's body. I wonder how Ana Rosa Rodriguez felt about growing up without her arm, which was torn off in a failed abortion attempt. Talk about an unwanted impact on your body.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 11:54 AM


Mary,

You asked: "Also, would you see a contradiction wanting to subsidize these procedures and wanting to reduce the number of people having them?"

I am not sure why anyone would want to subsidize boob and nose jobs, but I will address that in my next comment.

That having been said, it is not contradictory to say, "I want to reduce boob-and-nose jobs, but also subsidize them for people who want them." I suppose a person could say that I want to encourage people to stop basing their self-esteem on whether they have perfect bodies or perfect faces, but if someone wants it done anyway, we should subsidize it. That's not the position I am taking, but you asked whether there is a contradiction. There is not.

Similarly, we all want to reduce abortions, at least in the sense of reducing unwanted pregnancy. But that is not inconsistent with wanting to help women have access to abortion when she becomes pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. We all want to reduce heart surgery by encouraging people to eat right and exercise, but we still want people to have access to heart surgery.

Again, I don't want to subsidize boob jobs, but I am answering the question whether there is a contradiction.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 12:03 PM


Pamela, that's problem with analogies. Obviously, pregnancy and abortion are not the same as either boob jobs or facial reconstruction. But these examples can be useful -- in a limited way -- for comparison purposes. That's why the "pro-lifers" on this thread brought up cosmetic surgery in the first place. I didn't bring it up. I think one problem with the abortion debate, though, is that there are NO perfect analogies to the unique phenomena of pregnancy and abortion.

Mary, it seems like you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you say, "I would hardly compare pregnancy to disfigurement from a car accident or a person scarred by fire." But then you DO want to compare abortion to liposuction. But those two things are quite different as well.

Urban myths aside, women don't generally choose abortion because they want to "look better." Pregnancy has a major impact on a woman's body and life -- not to mention the pain of childbirth. If a woman doesn't want to go through it, that is a quite different thing than a woman saying, "I wish my boobs were perkier."

P.S. Sorry for saying "boobs" and "boob job" so much. I just think it is a funny expression!

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 12:13 PM


Pro-choicer, no a desire to not have stretch marks is pretty much on par with a desire for bigger boobs.

Yes, women have abortions to avoid stretch marks.

Pro-choicers like to paint all abortive women as empowered young ladies who are making a well thought out decision so that they can be the best they can be.

Pro-lifers paint abortive women as women who were lied to or otherwise pushed into abortion.

While there are women who certainly fit in both of these boxes, there are a lot of other women who are completly vapid and who have abortions because they don't like birth control and they don't want to get fat.

The point is that an abortion is very, very rarely necessary to save or even protect a woman's life. Thus it is much more similar to a boob job than a skin graft.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2009 12:18 PM


PC,

I'm pointing out a fact. The vast majority of abortions have no medical justification. The cosmetic procedures I mention also have no medical justification.
A person may feel that a cosmetic procedure, let's say on an unsightly feature, may indeed enhance their life or markedly improve self confidence.
Its all in the point of view. You may view pregnancy as major life altering, a person with an unsightly feature may feel the same way about what they perceive as a physical defect..
So why should abortion be subsidized and not cosmetic surgery?

Also, kindly address my question. Is there a contradiction between supporting the subsidizing of cosmetic surgery and wanting to reduce the incidence of it?

I'll tell you now. When cosmetic surgery is subsidized I'll be the first in line!

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 12:26 PM


I am sorry but pregnancy has a far greater impact on a woman's body than stretch marks. It entails appetite changes, mood changes, significant weight gain, vomiting, swelling, back pain, impediments to movement and athletic activity, fatigue, and significant pain during childbirth. And that's just for a relatively easy pregnancy! There are also major medical risks in undergoing pregnancy. As I have mentioned before, I have friends who have had to spend weeks and weeks on bedrest, and another who was rushed to the hospital for an emergency life-threatening situation resulting from her pregnancy. So, no, being pregnant is not like having slightly more thigh fat than one would wish.

Mary asks: "Also, kindly address my question. Is there a contradiction between supporting the subsidizing of cosmetic surgery and wanting to reduce the incidence of it?"

I did answer it at 12:03 p.m. The answer is no contradiction! Doesn't mean I support subsidizing all cosmetic surgery (though I would support reconstructive surgery following an accident).

Similarly, you can acknowledge that there is no contradiction between wanting to reduce abortion and subsidizing it. Doesn't mean you have to support subsidization though. Just means you understand how those 2 positions are compatible. (I think the confusion comes in because people say "reduce abortions" when they really mean "reduce those situations, i.e. unwanted pregnancy, in which women choose abortion.")

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 1:04 PM


Can the Vatican please send an additional copy to "Catholic" Chris Matthews, who is calling Obama a hypocrite? And maybe one to Pelosi, and Biden too. Hmmm, many endless teaching moment possibilities...

Posted by: muriel at July 15, 2009 8:32 AM

Or...excommunication? Please? If I was ever to return to Catholicism, there are quite a few people who would have to go, first.

-------

I wonder how Ana Rosa Rodriguez felt about growing up without her arm, which was torn off in a failed abortion attempt. Talk about an unwanted impact on your body.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 11:54 AM

Why don't you address that comment, PC'er? Wouldn't you say losing an arm is an unwanted impact on your body...for the baby? Or because she wasn't a baby technically at the time, it wasn't her body? Really now, how exactly can you justify this in regards to "unwanted impact on your body"?

Posted by: xalisae at July 15, 2009 1:25 PM


I highly doubt the Pope will change Obama's position at all. When the Vatican came out against the First Amendment it hardly changed my opinion on it. It just made me mad. When people believe in something strongly(as Obama does legalized abortion) a few documents wont change anything.

Posted by: libertarian at July 15, 2009 1:33 PM


"When the Vatican came out against the First Amendment..."

What document did they do this in again?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 15, 2009 1:49 PM


A cardinal representing the Vatican said it should be illegal mock or satirize religions, which is clearly protected under The First Amendment. I can't imgaine how many years the creators of South Park would be in jail if it weren't.

http://www.catholic.org/international_story.php?id-18582

Posted by: libertarian at July 15, 2009 2:14 PM


Xalisae,

The comment about Ms. Rodriguez (whose case I am not familiar with) seemed a bit of non-sequitur in a discussion about subsidized health care. Obviously, any subsidized health care plan ought to include care for Ms. Rodriguez's injuries too.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 2:42 PM


Google is my friend. It appears that Ana Rodriguez was the victim of an illegal third trimester abortion. The doctor who performed it was indicted. I don't think anyone is advocating illegal third trimester abortions.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 2:48 PM


It was a Cardinal who spoke for the Vatican:
http://www.catholic.org/international_story.php?id-18582

Posted by: libertaian at July 15, 2009 2:57 PM


Nice dodge, PC.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 15, 2009 3:22 PM


Prochoicer wrote:

Google is my friend. It appears that Ana Rodriguez was the victim of an illegal third trimester abortion. The doctor who performed it was indicted. I don't think anyone is advocating illegal third trimester abortions.

Well, no... not technically; you're right, there. What the Obama Administration (and any like-minded individual) is advocating is "legal" third trimester abortions (and fourth-trimester abortions, in the case of Obama, himself). They don't advocate illegal ones, to be sure; but if all abortions are legalized, that little problem would evaporate nicely, I suppose... and Ana Rodriguez's "doctor" wouldn't have needed to face any of those nasty criminal charges (to say nothing of indictments).

As a friend of mine says, "For so-called 'pro-choice' people, it's all about the killing."

Posted by: Paladin at July 15, 2009 3:33 PM


PC,

Let me get this straight.
You agree that you would discourage cosmetic surgery but yes it could be subsidized and there would be no contradiction.
PC, can you honestly say that you would try to lower the incidence of cosmetic surgery by having it subsidized and readily available?

This begs the question, why do you want to see the incidence of abortion reduced? What's wrong with it? I see nothing wrong with cosmetic surgery and could care less if the incidence increases or decreases.

Also, like abortion, I do not feel it should be subsidized.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 3:59 PM


PC,

My comment about Ana Rosa concerned the issue of bodily impact.

Research the hack, a member of the National Abortion Federation, that cut off her arm and you'll find he had been operating under the noses of NY authorities who continued to overlook his abuses, so obviously he was seen as operating in the confines of the law. Its likely Ana Rosa's case only got any scrutiny at all because of the media, not the strict standards of care and inspection NY officials obviously didn't bother with. Or the National Abortion Federation either for that matter.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 4:11 PM


What about Gianna Jessen, or other victims of perfectly legal abortions? Legal abortion victims like having their bodies crippled for life?

Posted by: xalisae at July 15, 2009 4:26 PM


PC, yes, we all know pregnancy does all sorts of fun things to a woman's body. That doesn't mean that the child she created can be killed.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2009 5:20 PM


Mary,

This begs the question, why do you want to see the incidence of abortion reduced? What's wrong with it?

For the same reason I would like to see heart surgery reduced. I am glad heart surgery is an option for people who need it, but I would rather see fewer people need it.

I am glad abortion is an option for women facing unwanted pregnancy, but it would be better if women weren't in that painful situation in the first place!

I have been asked this question before on this blog. I don't mean to be snarky but I honestly don't get why this is so difficult to understand.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 5:39 PM


In other words, abortion is a painful, invasive procedure. No woman would want to undergo it if she could simply not be pregnant in the first place. Thus, the best result is to reduce unwanted pregnancy via education, contraception access, and feminist consciousness (inculcating enough of a feminist sensibility among our youth that girls and women have the confidence to insist on saying no to sex without contraception, and that young men respect it; also ideally, that men are equally committed to avoided unwanted pregnancy.)

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 5:43 PM


There are definitely womnen who use abortion as their birth control of choice.

I can't understand it for the life of me, but they exist.

We've had chemical birth control for 50 years, and abortion has done nothing but sky rocket. The solution to abortion isn't as simple as throwing a bunch of pills at women.

It's so much deeper than that.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2009 5:46 PM


No dodge, Carla. I don't think you can say I ever dodge anything. But this idea of abortion survivors was injected into a conversation about subsidized abortion for no particular reason. Or at least the reason wasn't articulated.

What is it that you want me to respond to exactly? Obviously, the harm suffered by a born child due to a botched abortion is appalling. This risk is one of the reasons we allow restrictions on late term abortions. Late term abortions are dicier because there is greater potential to affect an actual baby that will be born.

I suspect many more of these botched abortions occurred when abortion was not legal. In any case, I hope victims are able to sue the doctors involved for malpractice.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 5:48 PM


Lauren,

But birth control is not equally available to everyone. It requires knowledge and money. It also requires the social power to (a) be able to use it without embarrassment or shame, and (b) insist on not having sex without it.

Posted by: Prochoicer at July 15, 2009 5:55 PM


PC 5:43PM

There have been close to 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade. Do you really believe people are this appalling ignorant of birth control and human reproduction? Or do you think people just don't bother since abortion is so available? Maybe men don't bother with being responsible since their obligations seem to begin and end with an offer to pay for an abortion.


Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 6:14 PM


PC 5:39PM

Yes I would like to see a reduction in heart surgery and trauma and am thankful help is available to victims.

But I have no qualms about calling myself a supporter of heart surgery and trauma care. I am pro heart surgery and pro trauma care.

Why do you and others insist on being called pro-choice if there's nothing wrong with abortion? Why not just say you are pro-abortion?
BTW I remember when supporters of abortion were call that. The "pro-choice" happened when abortion was becoming a little less acceptable by the general public.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 6:20 PM


Are you kidding me, pro-choicer? Birth control is easier to get than anything. You walk into one of the 17 health clinics that dot a city and say you want it. You don't even have to pay for it, as it is typically given on a sliding scale basis.

Or you can walk into any gas station or drugstore and pick up a pack of condoms. Hell, you can get them out of a vending machine!

School nurses have baskets full of them for the taking.

Posted by: Lauren at July 15, 2009 6:22 PM


PC 5L48PM

These later term botch jobs began when abortion became legal. A prison sentence awaited any "doctor" who did them otherwise. Tiller could only conduct his business when abortion was legal.
Legal abortion only enabled a lot of hacks, like the one who tore off Ana Rosa's arm, to hang a shingle and conduct business.

Posted by: Mary at July 15, 2009 6:25 PM


Pro-choicer,
Your desire to reduce abortion comes from false compassion for women with unwanted pregnancy. I'd recommend you read the excerpt from Hadley Arkes' article discussing empathy and apathy on the Jivin-J's thread, June, 15, 2009. The issue of abortion doesn't need to be as controversial as people make it out to be if they focus on the right thing.

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2009 10:16 PM


"The issue of abortion doesn't need to be as controversial as people make it out to be if they focus on the right thing."

What I meant by that - elective abortion shouldn't exist, period. Doctors should never allow the death of a fetus be the focus of their care. Legal abortion is not necessary. End of controversy.

Posted by: Janet at July 15, 2009 10:31 PM


"No dodge, Carla. I don't think you can say I ever dodge anything. But this idea of abortion survivors was injected into a conversation about subsidized abortion for no particular reason. Or at least the reason wasn't articulated."

This is what started this exchange (your words, not ours):

"I actually do think it would be appropriate to subsidize cosmetic surgery that serves to reverse an unwanted impact on one's body -- such as scarring from a dog bite, disfigurement in a fire, mutilation in a car crash. That kind of cosmetic surgery is similar to a abortion, which also reverses an unwanted impact on one's body."

You mischaracterizing abortion as a benign operation simply to reverse an unwanted impact on one's body. You were not considering the other body included in the process of abortion. We were bringing this to your attention using examples of the targets of the abortion procedure who were lucky (or unlucky, depending on your perspective) enough to have lived through it, since apparently to you, only UNSUCCESSFUL abortions are terrible enough to warrant your scorn. Personally, I think ALL abortion victims are equally tortured and their deaths and maiming are ALL dispicable, disgusting, and AVOIDABLE occurances. Tell me, please...why are you outraged only by the cases in which the babies SURVIVE abortion? HUH?

Posted by: xalisae at July 15, 2009 10:52 PM


PCer,
I agree with Xalisae. Seems like you opened up the conversation about the impact of abortion on one's body.

Abortion survivors provide concrete evidence about who is destroyed in an abortion. Its really sad that some people still cling to the pre-sonogram world to avoid this.

If you are disgusted at late-term abortions, I guess we've found some hallowed common ground in this whole struggle.

Posted by: Mary Ann, Singing Mum at July 16, 2009 1:18 AM


Still waiting for that answer.

Posted by: xalisae at July 16, 2009 2:53 PM


xalisae 10:52PM

An outstanding post. Thank you.

Posted by: Mary at July 16, 2009 3:36 PM


Ah, yes, I was away from my computer and didn't come back to check this until now. I don't have anything to say that I haven't said on other threads, but here goes anyway:

Mary at 6:20 p.m. asks why I don't just say I am pro-abortion if there is nothing wrong with abortion. Well, first, let me clarify that I am pro-abortion, but only for the women who choose it! Thus, CHOICE is the key component of my philiosophy and "pro-choice" is a more accurate term. If I used the "pro-abortion" label I would be lumping myself in with the pro-abortion Chinese government, yet I am totally opposed to their coercive policies because they do not care about CHOICE.

"Pro-abortion" would also imply that I think there are many other women who OUGHT to have abortions. In truth, I have no opinion on what other women ought or ought not to do when it comes to their reproductive decision making. I am just as in favor of childbirth as I am in favor of abortion-- as long as it is the woman's CHOICE.

The other reason for the term "pro-choice" is that the "pro-choice" community is a big tent. There are pro-choicers who DO think there is something wrong with abortion, but do not believe the law should intervene. The "pro-choice" label applies to them, whereas the "pro-abortion" label does not.

Xalisae, A fetus is using another individual's body to survive. I don't think any entity has the right to do that against the other individual's will, even if innocently. But any one who is born ought to have a healthy, whole, pain free life. Someone born without an arm due a doctor's botched abortion attempt ought to have redress. You may not agree with me, but I don't think this is a hard concept. (I would also note we are talking about THIRD trimester abortions here.)

As for the availability of birth control and ability to use it effectively depends on who you are, how old you are, where you live, your religious background, your socialization, whether you have had abstinence-only education, and a lot of other factors. I don't think women are too dumb to use birth control -- but I do think many women lack accurate birth control, access to birth control, and the social ability to seek it out and insist on using it. There are people (invariably on the "pro-life" side of the debate) who are actively working to reduce girl's and women's knowledge of, access to, and comfort with birth control.


Posted by: Prochoicer at July 16, 2009 5:20 PM


PC,

To say you are proabortion means only that you see nothing morally wrong with abortion and support it. It doesn't mean you advocate anyone being forced to have one or support those that do.

Though I must admit you are more honest than those who insist they oppose abortion but support a woman's right to have one. That's like arguing that one can oppose domestic violence but still support a man's right to choose to beat his wife.

Also, if you believe an entity has no right to live inside the body of another unwanted, why would you have any issue with abortions right up until the time of birth? I get the impression you did not approve of the attempt on Ana Rosa's life. Why not? She was living inside someone who did not want her. The abortionist just didn't kill her. He tore off her arm, but so what? That can happen when you live where you're not wanted.

Again, there have been close to 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade. Do you really believe this many people were so appallingly ignorant of human reproduction and birth control? Or does the possiblity exist that people just didn't bother since they always had an "out"?

Posted by: Mary at July 16, 2009 6:44 PM


I wish an abortion survivercould post something on here!

Posted by: RJ Sandefur at July 16, 2009 7:00 PM


"A fetus is using another individual's body to survive. I don't think any entity has the right to do that against the other individual's will, even if innocently."

Wrong. There is no "innocent" or "guilty" about it, since the fetal human is there without intention-placed there by the willful actions of either mother, father, or a joint effort. This happens through no fault of the offspring itself. There is no such thing as "accidental sex". I don't find myself walking down the street, trip over a rock, and WHOOPS! pregnant again! Shucks. If a fetal human is in a postion that makes it require the nutrients and protection of its mother, that is the result of a concerted effort on the part of SOMEONE. And any effort THAT intensive (I don't know about your sex life, but for me it requires at least a bit of effort to accomplish) implies a willful act. It's neither my fault nor the fault of a fetal human that some people seem to find themselves completely ignorant of the results of the act of sex after the fact, and neither of us should be allowed to be killed legally as a consequence.

"But any one who is born ought to have a healthy, whole, pain free life."

Why only born humans? Please tell me what happens at birth that makes a human THAT MUCH MORE SPECIAL than one a few days, weeks, or months younger. I thought you were opposed to partial birth abortion? Why, if you think that only born humans have this right to a healthy, whole, pain-free life?

To me, you seem to be contradicting yourself, but I guess that's why I'm pro-life. So much less dancing around facts and arbitrary line-drawing to rationalize things.

Posted by: xalisae at July 16, 2009 10:33 PM


Oh, I forgot to address the most asinine portion of your statement:

Someone born without an arm due a doctor's botched abortion attempt ought to have redress.

Ummm...that'd be like requesting a physician to operate on your kidney, then becoming irate with them when they go to make the opening incision complaining that you "didn't realize that they'd have to cut me open to operate!!!" I mean, ripping off limbs and at least moderately damaging the fetal human is kind of an understood requirement when one is attempting to kill said fetal human. The birthing process is kind of expected when you're talking about the termination of a pregnancy. I mean, getting pregnant without expecting to birth a human being-living or dead-is like having sex without expecting to get preg-oooooooh. NOW I get it.

Unfortunately (for you), your wants, beliefs, desires, or political affiliation have no bearing whatsoever upon biology or the natural biological processes our bodies go through. Even the abortion procedure ends with birth, it's just the birth of a dead baby rather than a live one (most of the time). I don't really see how you can justify wanting to prosecute or somehow penalize a doctor for an unsuccessful abortion...would you also hold a doctor who unsuccessfully operates on a tumor (failing to be able to retrieve the entire mass) to the same punishment?

Posted by: xalisae at July 17, 2009 2:01 AM