Video: Someone yells “[It’s a] baby killer” at Stupak about the healthcare bill
UPDATE, 3/22, 5:54p: Lol, “baby killer” is an “anti-choice slur”…
UPDATE, 3/22, 1:19p: And the “baby killer” utterer is… Republican TX Rep. Randy Neugebauer. His statement…
“Last night was the climax of weeks and months of debate on a health care bill that my constituents fear and do not support,” Neugebauer said in a statement. “In the heat and emotion of the debate, I exclaimed the phrase ‘it’s a baby killer’ in reference to the agreement reached by the Democratic leadership. While I remain heartbroken over the passage of this bill and the tragic consequences it will have for the unborn, I deeply regret that my actions were mistakenly interpreted as a direct reference to Congressman Stupak himself….
“I have apologized to Mr. Stupak and also apologize to my colleagues for the manner in which I expressed my disappointment about the bill. The House Chamber is a place of decorum and respect. The timing and tone of my comment last night was inappropriate.”
UPDATE, 3/21, 11:25p: From Politico, the hunt is on…
Reporters in the House chamber said the “baby killer” shout seemed to come from a group of lawmakers that included Rep. John Campbell (R-CA), but he said it wasn’t him. “I don’t think it’s appropriate at all,” Campbell told Politico.
Campbell said the voice came from the floor – from someone who was behind him and to the left. “Some people know who it is but won’t say,” he added.
Later, he told reporters that he thought the voice belonged to one of the Texans seated behind him. “The people who know won’t give it up,” he told reporters. “I’m not casting dispersions on that state.”…
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI), who was in the chair at the time, said he saw a Republican lawmaker shout out “baby killer” – but he wouldn’t say who it was.
“I think members have a right to make an idiot of themselves once without being exposed,” he said.
Republican Reps. Michele Bachmann and Tom Price said they believed the voice came from the gallery and not from a lawmaker. Price declined to say whether the comment was inappropriate.
UPDATE, 3/21, 11:10p: Here is MSNBC’s report on the incident. Watch to the end. You think the talking heads have moved on to a different topic, but they circle back…
3/21, 10:59p: Move over, “You lie!” and “Not true.”
I can’t believe a House Member yelled this. Gotta think it came from the gallery. We’ll know. The media will hunt this person down. Sounds like he yelled it more than once…
Until I find a video of the entire scene, here’s another video of Stupak right before the incident. You can’t hear “baby killer” as well in this video as the one above, but you see what’s going on leading up it…
Although I think Bart Stupak indeed became a baby killing advocate today, and this sort of epithet is what he traded pro-abort epithets for (i.e., I think his wife should continue to keep those phones unplugged for awhile), this was bad form.

Didn’t watch the video, but YIKES! Bart Stupak made a HUGE mistake….but he doesn’t deserve to be called a “Baby killer”. I think I’ll pray for him tonight before I turn my light off. Anyone else that believes in prayer can join me…..
the pro “abortion as the ONLY choice”ers call pro lifers anti choice and anti women.
Am I agreeing with calling Bart Stupak a baby killer? NO, I am NOT.
Bart Stupak made a HUGE mistake….but he doesn’t deserve to be called a “Baby killer”.
You should not buy the lies. He didn’t make a mistake. He made a wicked choice with every intention of making that wicked choice. He chose to kill babies in order to have his health care bill. Maybe he would have preferred not to kill babies, but he still stated back in the Fall that he would ultimately vote for the bill whether it killed babies or not.
Thus, he is a baby killer.
Why was my comment deleted? It was on-topic, not obscene, and made a point. I put a name to it, and followed the rules. Why, then, am I not allowed to post?
“Am I agreeing with calling Bart Stupak a baby killer? NO, I am NOT.”
I am and I hope that it becomes a trend. I regret that it was only a single member but I’ll gladly donate to that person’s campaign if the congressperson is identified. Whatever minor annoyance that traitor may have felt is nothing compared to the incredible suffering he has brought to countless numbers of the unborn. The man is worse than Pelosi. At least she never pretended to have any pro-life principals. Being stabbed in the back by someone you regarded as an ally is a thousand times worse than your known rival attacking you directly. Is there truly no integrity left in politics at all?
Jacqueline, that’s your interpretation. God’s a baby killer too, to wit, Sodom and Gomorrah. But, God can be a baby killer, right?
You people are just amazing.
Reminds folks on this thread as well, if you ignore the demons, they will simply sniff you and scamper away.
Wait, let me get this straight. Abortion funding is removed from the bill by executive order from President Obama. Stupak makes it clear that he wants health care to pass then fights to make certain that abortion is not in the bill. Abortion was becoming a hang up- President Obama wants the bill to pass so he orders that abortion not be included. NOW is pissed.
Why exactly is Stupak evil? He’s done everything that he said he’d do.
I don’t mean to sound rude- I genuinely want to know what people are furious about. Pro-choice and pro-life are pissed- pro-choice advocates are mad because they say that it isn’t funded; pro-life advocates are mad because they say that it is funded.
Who’s right?
Vegtx,
It was more than one, I hard at least two people pior to the louder one. And this was planned from the start by Stupak and the Dumbocatic party. Stupak is a baby killer to the nth degree cause he chose to be in that position and betrayed the cause. I have Zero sympathy for him.
A demon, eh? All I pointed out, last post, was that there seems to be an awful lot of name calling around here. A point that you just proved, thank you very much. Of course, you’ve made no pretenses of not vilifying Stupak, so it isn’t particularly hypocritical.
I fail, however, to see how making a point such as that is “demonic.” Unless you’re implying that, as someone who is pro-choice, I am automatically demonic, and I don’t have much to say to that.
I was thinking, earlier, that this place, and my occasional visits here, are the only “Christian” contact I have in life, generally. None of my friends are Christian, my family only vaguely so, anymore. It’s an interesting situation, needless to say.
Actually, in this emotionally charged atmosphere it is not surprising that something like this would happen. Anyone who has ever been involved in intense disputes, such as at the bargaining table or in the courtroom can confirm that outbursts will occur. As long as it does not escalate to violence it is not the worse thing in the world and most often it is over as quickly as it started. Was it only those against this legislation that added to the emotion? Wasn’t our young president out there whipping up the crowds at every stop?
What Stupak did was create false hopes among those who believed he was a man of his word. The result of his betrayal is twofold: First, that he will now be known as someone who cannot be trusted in anything he says from this day forward, (he is toast this November) and second, that because of him and those who pretended along with him that their pro-life convictions were more important than party politics but who in the end caved the ultimate result may be that access to abortion will increase and even more babies will be killed. In this respect the shouter was not wrong.
Well, at least this puts to rest any notion that democrats in the upcoming fall elections will split the pro-life vote.
Actually, in this emotionally charged atmosphere it is not surprising that something like this would happen. Anyone who has ever been involved in intense disputes, such as at the bargaining table or in courtroom can confirm that outbursts will occur. As long as it does not escalate to violence it it not the worse thing in the world and most often is as over quickly as it started. Was it only those against this legislation that added to the emotion? Wasn’t our young president out there whipping up the crowds at every stop?
What Stupak did was create false hopes among those who believed he was a man of his word. The result of his betrayal is twofold: First, that he will now be known as someone who cannot be trusted in anything he says from this day forward, (he is toast this November) and second, that because of him and those who pretended along with him that their pro-life convictions were more important than party politics but who in the end caved the ultimate result may be that access to abortion will increase and even more babies will be killed. In this respect the shouter was not wrong.
Well, at least this puts to rest any notion that democrats in the upcoming fall elections will split the pro-life vote.
Vannah-
Clearly you don’t understand that that Executive Order isn’t worth the paper its printed on. Even if it were, it’s a promise to pro-lifers from a committed pro-abort who has made opposite offers to Planned Parenthood. It’s a joke. Read any pro-life analyst of your choosing’s explanation. Basically, it was a way for Stupak to save face whilst voting as he pleased. It’s a show, and had Stupak not frauded everyone (see the video taking in October when he said he was voting for it, abortions or not), we wouldn’t have Obamacare. And Obamacare isn’t jut gonna kill the babies, but other vulnerable populations.
Thank GOD for the courageous men and women who passed this bill tonight. Thanks to them, thousands of lives will be saved. This is truly a wonderful and blessed day.
Thank GOD the hateful and heartless are on the losing side of history, once again. Jesus didn’t turn away the sick for being poor, and now neither will the USA.
Dear Jacque:
I wish you could have been here tonight to throw marshmellows at the TV with me. Stupak deserved one right on the top of his head!
Less,
I think that Jacqueline was referring to morgan who is either ignorant or possed by a demon or jus an idiot looking to rile up true belivers by mocking God.
Less,
I wasn’t referring to you, but those that seem to just want to blaspheme and incense. Those that invoke God simply to mock believers or the Catholic Church, i.e. “God is a killer” stuff. Not constructive, but juvenile and yes, absolutely demonic.
But to answer your question, supporting a mother killing her own baby for any reason is clearly from the devil. In spite of reasons to justify the killing of babies, even the most deceived find something disgusting about a mother, just the word mother incites images of love and nuturing- a mother paying to have her baby torn limb from limb with forceps or a suction machine. There is something fundamentally assaulting about the murder of the most innocent and defenseless people by the person who is expected to protect them and love them the most.
Thanks, Truthseeker. Yes, Morgan and his many monikers are either a demonically-possessed person or a bored high-schooler who had pot brownies for dinner.
Hmmm Jesus never told us to give our coats to the government so that they could sit on them for a year and half, strip them of their lining, and then hand them out to a man in the middle of Hawaii in July.
Yet, that’s exactly what this bill intends to do. Worse, it will somehow turn the coat into a weapon to attack the most vulnerable. I’m pretty sure Jesus never said to do that.
Lauren, we need one of those marshmellow guns with a scope to put red dots right in the middle of Stupak’s head.
By the way, I’m coming to your house in November.
hmmmmm,
Let me guess…you are unemployed and your Dadddy Obama has been extending your benefits since he yook office and now hes gonna give you free Obamacare. Makes your life a lot easier….Obama is your hero. Now you can walk away from all your responsibilities including providing for yourself or your children. I don’t hate people like you…I just dislike you a whole lot cause I think you are destroying the fabric of America. We are a country of rugged individuals who don;t like handouts or politicians who buy votes by stealing the money of people who work in order to give it to freeloaders like you.
We can make some, Lauren!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCwrOpmx3Sg
Vannah, what you don’t understand is the separation of powers that prevents Obama’s EO from having any legal effect. He cannot do with an EO what he is claiming to do, and Stupak is no idiot… he knows that. He just wants cover for his yes vote.
Even worse, he’s voting yes on the PROMISE of an EO…. Obama doesn’t even have to go through the charade if he changes his mind (and that’s all it would be).
I’ll tell you it the Democrats who are out of order.
It is because of them that God and prayer was removed from our schools.
It is because of them that abortion was made legal.
It is them who promote the gay agenda.
It is them who want to redefine the God-ordained institution of marriage.
It is them who has made all of us dependent on them rather than on God.
How much longer will we stand by and let them do this to us, how much longer?
@ Truthseeker: I’m unemployed, not by choice. I don’t have insurance, and have a pre-existing condition that would make it difficult to get on my own. Am I trying to find a job? Absolutely. I can’t get insurance any other way. Am I “destroying the fabric of America” because I can’t get a job, can’t get insurance, and am ECSTATIC at this chance for the latter, if not the former? You bet.
@ Jacqueline: Perhaps Morgan likes to get a reaction. That being said, I’m sure not here to debate abortion: I”m as pro-choice as possible, and after several years of occasional “debate” here, that stance has only solidified. I’ve been reading coverage of the health care debate with interest from all sources, and occasionally comment on other posts as I see fit, but I have no desire to debate with someone who thinks my opinions are demonic.
Regardless, I’m no fan of Stupak, but attacking him verbally really doesn’t help anyone’s cause. Poor choice on whoever said it’s part.
Less, my comment was directed at the person who posted as “hmmmmmm” and not you.
Anyway, Do you know when you get to see a doctor under Obamacare? No offense but I just wouldn’t have given it to you under Obamacare cause Obama is using people like you to advance his pro-abort agenda. The Dumbocrats made it sound like people with preexisting conditions like you would get care the day the bill is signed into law? But the devil is in the details and you may soon find that out.
I’ll take a possibility over nothing, Truthseeker. Additionally, I’m pro-choice and a Dem myself, so neither of those arguments are particularly effective. I wish the EO hadn’t needed to be signed at all, frankly.
I don’t want to fund abortions- I want universal healthcare, yes, but abortion isn’t health care (Off topic, but, for the record, is healthcare one word or two? Or is it like some British versus American English thing?). From everything that I’ve read, what was being debated was the Stupak Amendment, which would ban private insurance over abortion. Public insurance wouldn’t have covered abortion. Obama is simply giving his word, and it makes me happy, and, yes I trust Obama’s word because he has not given me reason to call him a liar (deliberate swipe at George “Weapons of Mass Destruction” Bush).
But I have to add before I hop off to bed, people don’t have insurance, Truthseeker, because they’re lazy freeloaders. That’s woefully unaware of the true situation. People who don’t have insurance are people like single mothers who are working around the clock at three jobs and can’t afford to get their children to the dentist.
But let’s say that the reality is that the parents are freeloaders who use their benefit money to buy beer. Be frank: most of these people who, according to you, sit around eating tv dinners and watching college football all day long are not visiting the doctor anyway and why would you punish their children for their crappy work ethic? Why should the children have to suffer?
Less, are you a Christian?
I’ll take a possibility over nothing, Truthseeker.
Posted by: less at March 22, 2010 1:43 AM
All I can say is Ugh! You probably take lies and empty promisies over nothing too then.. Another blissfully ignorant Dumbocratic drone
Wow, with such hostility, how are you not all winning converts? Regardless, no, I’m not Christian; I wrote that in an above comment. As the individuals here are the only Christians I interact with even semi-regularly, or the only particularly enthusiastic Christians I interact with at all, I thought that spoke for itself.
yes I trust Obama’s word because he has not given me reason to call him a liar
Posted by: Vannah at March 22, 2010 1:42 AM
Earth to Vannah. Come in Vannah.
Since the topic is health care debates…what happened to transparency and CSPAN like Obama promised. Wasn’t that a lie? What about him insisting that premiums would go down under Obamacare, wasn’t that a lie? Help me out here Vannah, how many lies and backroom deals will it take before you realize he is a Chicago thug of a politician and a liar?
Less:
Very pitiable.
It was the church who created the hospital and university system. And we gave them over to the dark side.
In the past, people like you would have turned to the church for mercy and comfort and in doing so would see God at work and possibly would have been converted to His Son. Christ healed people of physical infirmities to witness to the truth that He was God’s Son, not to simply heal them. For did not all these people eventually die and face heaven or hell…some with Christ and some without? What do you think God is more concerned about?
Instead, knowingly or unknowingly, you now worship and are thankful toward the beast for helping you. A mindless, uncaring, matrix of abomination which usurps God and His Sovereign nature. Have you ever turned to Him for help?
It’s diabolical.
Lsss,
Do you think government should fund the killing of the babies of poor mother’s who can’t afford to hire a killer themselves?
Hisman, you and I have spoken before, several times, though I doubt if you remember it. I have no interest in renewing that dialogue. Frankly, your behavior on this blog was one of the many reasons why I left the church and have absolutely no interest in returning. As your primary mode of speaking is in Bible verses, I suggest perhaps your attentions would more profitably be turned elsewhere.
TSer, I was thinking the same thing.
Vannah, there’s one sure way to know when Obama is lying: his lips are moving.
Seriously, it would take a VERY long post here to catalog all of the lies that this man has told. TSer pointed out some obvious ones. Why on earth would you believe what this man has said?
Has nothing that anyone has said here about the fact that socialized healthcare does not work and has never worked in any country who has ever tried it without eventually causing increased costs and decreased liberties gotten through to you?
Remember the phrase: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
TS, does the phrase “response bias” mean anything to you?
No Les, does that mean you are taking the 5th on the grounds you may expose/incriminate yourself?
Response Bias: This may occur if the questioner is obviously angling for a particular answer (as in push polling) or if the respondent wishes to please the questioner by answering what appears to be the “morally right” answer.
I’m not going to answer questions couched in the dialect of a movement I’m not a part of. Additionally, I’m not going to be drawn into a debate about the “moral rightness” of abortion: I believe it to be so, you do not. My opinion is not going to change, and I will give you the minimal respect of assuming yours will likewise not change.
As I stated above, I came to the site because I was interested in the healthcare debate; this topic, in particular, was interesting. That is all.
As I stated above, I came to the site because I was interested in the healthcare debate; this topic, in particular, was interesting. That is all.
Posted by: less at March 22, 2010 2:19
less, while I agree that aborion is not health care, due to the fact that abortion services were left in this health care bill, abortion is a large part of the debate. The Dumbocrats like to try and make abortion a non-issue but those days are over now. You will have to crawl back under your rock and hide to miss us now. You will see more pro-life activity in the next year then you have ever seen in your life. So why don’t you just answer the question and be honest about it.
Do you think government should fund the killing of the babies of poor mother’s who can’t afford to hire a killer themselves?
a
s
Just out ith it less…perhaps you agree with your fearless leader Barack who wouldn’t want a poor woman to be punished with a baby and it is economical to kill the baby in utero. Don’t be shy. Speak what is on your mind.
TS, I’ll not be playing your game.
Actually, I believe abortion IS a part of health care; it’s a legitimate medical procedure that shouldn’t have been excluded. It isn’t a big deal; it shouldn’t be treated as such. So, while I did expect there would be debate over it, I wasn’t sure the tenor the debate would take. Hence, my reading here.
less,
Anybody in the pro-choice crowd who enjoyed having abortion be a “private” decision just lost big time. You want my money to fund your killing, then I get to be part of your decision too. You liked pretending it was a non-issue in the past, well those days are gone for good. To borrow a phrase from Barack Obama…on this issue of using my dollars to fund your baby killing I will not yield. You just invited every citizen in America into your womb and your most personal decisions. And I will be vocal and I will be ever-present till the day my dollars are no longer mandated. Don’t think you can kill babies on my dollar and not have me be a part of your decision.
Yes, yes, I read that already on one of your other comments. Don’t copy/paste something in an attempt to make it be addressed to me; that’s rude.
As medicare/Medicaid have been covering abortion for some time already, your comment is essentially irrelevant.
And if you won’t respond to my questions your not worth my time. Go ahead and visit here and “watch for the tenor of the debate”. Maybe next time you visit a Planned Parenthood abortuary as a deathscort we will run into one another.
Thanks for your permission, I suppose? Regardless, I doubt you’d recognize me, or I, you, for that matter. Probably for the best. Thank goodness for the faceless internet.
Anyway, the lateness of the hour has led me to, perhaps, be snippier than I otherwise would be. Sleep, I think, would do everyone good.
Actually both are very relevant. Then Medicaid violates the Hyde amendment. Lets fix that problem shall we?
It is pathetic and sociopathic to call the killing of the future of the human race a “legitimate medical procedure” and not a “big deal”.
How do you derive the conclusion from natural law that killing all human beings in the first nine months of life and depriving each one of us of our entire human lifespans does not violate our rights and is not therefore a crime?
Are you willing to conclude that since our entire lifespans can be taken from each one of us that we do not have a right to those lifespans? That therefore we can be killed at any time throughout our lives? Logically, abortionists must accept these conclusions, given their premises (they don’t because they lack intellectual honesty).
The problem is that opponents of unborn human rights are more than willing to support unlimited killing of human beings in the unborn stage, an objective crime, because it is in their self interest. They just do not have an incentive to care about the unborn and therefore do not.
I agree with Jill: The insult was bad form, even if it has an uncomfortable ring of truth to it.
Look, this health-care debacle was pro-life Dems’ chance to stand up and be taken seriously for their convictions. And they failed. Utterly. As their self-proclaimed leader, Stupak deserves the majority of the blame for their craven betrayal of the unborn.
Sigh … Democrats for Life are cheering for the bill on their website:
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
Never vote for a Democrat. Ever.
I think much of the nature of politics is ugly and this is one more example. I can’t be too upset that someone was so upset that they yelled that. After the bill was passed the Democrats broke out into chanting the mantra, “Yes WE Can!” and that is very offensive to me. One yelled comment from apparently a Republican in a crowd that had to endure this whole process and lose to that pro-abortion crowd? Hard for me to get even a little upset.
If the shoe fits…
Eileen wrote:
I think much of the nature of politics is ugly and this is one more example.
After the health-care debacle, I’m no longer shy about the ugliness of politics. Our government has decided that they don’t need the consent of the governed anymore. That’s the first step on the road to tyranny, and that’s about as ugly as it gets.
Personally, I hope the GOP shuts down the Senate until the November elections. No more legislation. No more compromise. No more “bipartisan” sellouts to a pack of fiends who have betrayed our Republic.
No. More.
It’s disgusting the way anti-choicers call pro-choicers or any one who is not anti-choice enough for them “baby-killers”, as if they are actually responsible for abortions, and as if if being opposed to them prevents women from having them.
If anything, pro-choicers could very well call
anti-choicers “baby-killers” because if they got their way and had abortion outlawed again in America, the number of abortions would actually increase !
And not only that, the number of women dying from illegal abortions would skyrocket.
Maybe pro-choicers should also call anti-choicers” women killers”!
Remember, pro-choicers aren’t trying to force any woman to have an abortion, and they have absolutely no control over whether they happen anyway. Women will always find a way to have them,legal or not.
“abortion outlawed again in America, the number of abortions would actually increase !
And not only that, the number of women dying from illegal abortions would skyrocket.”
Any evidence for your baseless claims, Robert?
What can I say? Seems like everyone is disappointed, angry, etc., — just hold on to that passion in November and VOTE ‘EM ALL OUT!
Also, we keep on hearing that “abortion is something that women don’t take lightly,” and then Less says it’s “not a big deal” and just another “legitimate medical procedure???”
Robert,
All I can say is I’m praying for you today.
I think we need to pray for Bart Stupak – he sure messed things up, BIG TIME. Lord have mercy on us all.
Lauren wrote:
Any evidence for your baseless claims, Robert?
Pssst … don’t feed the troll…. :)
Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure: It’s performed for a medical reason on a human being. That’s all I meant by the statement. It exists, and is a medical procedure. I don’t believe it to be morally wrong, and would utilize it if I was ever in a situation where I would need it. Yes, of course it’s elective—it’s a choice to make, and thus elective.
As I don’t believe in any sort of objective morality, Joe, I don’t see your point, and really have no desire to argue with you over it. We disagree, and can leave it at that, shall we?
What medical reason necessitates 4,000 abortions a day, Less?
Less says ” don’t believe in any sort of objective morality, Joe.”
It doesn’t matter what you “believe” objective morality exists. Ethical Relativism is a debunked system that does not stand up to logical enquary.
Pregnancy. Late term death of the fetus. Severely crippled fetus. All of these are medical conditions. There is an elective medical procedure that will remove said conditions. I’m not commenting here on the “rightness” of said procedure, though I obviously don’t believe it to be wrong. Simply it’s existence.
Less, killing a child due to being “severely crippled” is not a legitimate medical procedure. Nor is it within the bounds of Roe or any of the later cases. The child’s extra chromosome does not impact the mother’s privacy in any way. The child could simply be delivered early and given medical care.
If he has already died, the procedure is obviously not an abortion either.
The only time an abortion is medically necessary is if a condition is discovered pre-viability that can only be corrected if the pregnancy is ended. Bascially, if the the pregnancy is ectopic or the mother has a preexisting condition that makes pregnancy life threatening.
Abortion was never illegal in either of these cases. Thus, there is no legitimate medical reason for legalized abortion on demand.
Jill:
As a Christian it is very difficult to come to your site and see the level of utter depravity our country has sunk to and much as a result of the direct legislative efforts of the Democrat Party.
Having said that, we must not bury our heads in the sand as so many Christians have done by not speaking against the holocaust of abortion.
The Bible says that Satan is in control of the world powers and it is evident for those of us who have “eyes to see” how he works through Democrats to do his bidding of lying, stealing and destroying.
For you pro-deathers out there, may you be forgiven for your ignorance, however, for those of you who willingly and continually embrace abortion knowing that it is a direct affront to the Creator of the Universe, there will be no mercy.
I’m not sure if you’re willfully misunderstanding, or I’m being unclear. Pregnancy is a medical condition. Abortion ends pregnancy. Therefore, abortion removes a medical condition, via a medical procedure. Legitimate, in this statement, refers only to the existence of the procedure: abortion exists. It does not comment on the morality of the action. You can hardly deny that abortion is used to remove the condition of pregnancy.
It’s like having an oddly shaped freckle on you somewhere. The doctor says there’s a possibility it could become pre-cancerous, at which point it would have to be removed. The doctor can remove it preemptively, or leave it be. Taking the former course of action is elective. (I should mention that I’m not comparing pregnancy to cancer, and I’m aware that the analogy isn’t the best, but further cups of coffee will be necessary for better.)
As for objective v. relative morality, it’s an intellectual exercise to imagine a fully relativistic society. However, there is a sliding scale of objective versus relative morality, and I slide more toward the latter than the former. There are very few things I believe to be “always” wrong.
Reading my previous comments, I believe at this point I was being unclear. My apologies for that–refer to the above post and the coffee situation.
“As I don’t believe in any sort of objective morality…”
————–
Ahhhh..Moral Relativism at it’s finest. Pls continue, Less, and enlighten us how somebody murdering an innocent life is not considered “wrong”.
What if it was YOUR life, Less, and you didn’t do anything to deserve it?
On another perspective, what if you did something to deserve it, is it still right or wrong?
As I said above to Joe, I suspect there can be no agreement here, and it would be far more likely that my words would do nothing by provoke. Therefore, let us agree to disagree. I am, however, enjoying the debate about whether or not abortion can be considered health care/whether or not it should be included.
I really see both sides of this one, and feel for the pro-lifers here. I understand not wanting to pay taxes for something you feel is morally wrong. I disagree, for example, with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan; I sincerely wish my taxes wouldn’t go to that. I feel that government support of religious institutions is morally wrong, and wish my taxes would not go to overtly religious organizations. I wish I didn’t have to pay for abstinence only education. There are sure times, when I see an ill-behaved child in public, that I wish my taxes wouldn’t go to schools, though that is at best a momentary irritation and not a sincere desire.
Heck, I disagreed with almost everything Bush did. And yet, my taxes went to fund his programs.
I have no solution here; grin and bear it seems inadequate and unfair to your situation. But each individual in the US cannot chose how his/her tax money is spent; that would be anarchy. There SHOULD be a middle ground, but I don’t know where it is.
Posted by: hmmmm at March 22, 2010 12:16 AM
Carla,
Can you chech the IP address of this poster? Looks and sounds like Asitis.
If the Body of Christ had stood up and shouted ‘babykillers’ more than we have thus far, abortion would already be illegal. DON’T apologize for calling sin sin. Complaceny is what keeps abortion legal, and caving in order to appear politically correct is what got this debacle of a bill passed. Speak the truth in love, but speak it. Nothing else but the truth of God matters.
First we called Stupak a pro-life hero, now we vilify him. As if Stupak was the point of all of this. Another spineless, lying politician. The point is, NO health care plan would ever be constitutional. Also, guess what, abortion is not “legal” in America! It is only being allowed because we are too ignorant to understand our form of government and to act upon it. Just like President Jackson with the national bank, or 22 states with the Dred Scott case, we can choose to ignore an unGodly, unconstitutional COURT OPINION (i.e. Roe v. Wade) and prosecute for abortions. Any state, any governor, any attorney general, etc, could end abortion on demand in their state TODAY. It’s called the doctrine of interposition. It was once widely understood, but now forgotten. Although I do hear rumblings of states that are putting forth legislation that will “interpose” themselves between the federal government’s health care plan and the people of their state. Or the legislation in Wyoming that promises jail time and a fine to any federal agent that tries to enforce federal gun control “laws” in the State of Wyoming. That’s interposition in action! Why not interpose on behalf of the unborn? If we can’t get it right on life, then there is no point talking about liberty. http://www.ignoreroe.com
“He to rescue me from danger, INTERPOSED His precious blood” from the hymn Come Thou Fount.
As a “deathscort,” I’ve been called a “baby killer,” along with “whore” and “lesbian.” (I’m not; but the sidewalk “counselors” seem to think that women escorts are – go figure!) The Jewish escorts(pro choice as are the majority of American conservative and reformed Jews) say that it wasn’t that long ago that their people were called “Christ killers” and now some of them are being labelled “baby killers.” Several Episcoplian priests (men and women) and other pro-choice clergy, who are escorts, are also labelled “baby killers.” It’s rude but something we deal with. I’m sure the anti-choice side would be upset if we yelled, “pedophile,” at the Catholic priests who protest at clinics. I’m glad that Rep. Neugebarger apologized to Stupak as that was the gentlemanly thing to do.
And regarding “reasons” for abortion. That’s irrelevent. Do we ask men why they want vascectomies? It’s a personal decision about a legal, medical procedure – just like abortion.
At least with the new law, women, who have had C-sections to have their baby, won’t be penalized by having that designated as a “pre-condition.” The same obtains for domestic violence. Mr. Stupak did what he felt was right. He deserves some credit for that. Sadly, he is being vilified. Can’t win em all.
@ Artemis–You’re a brave soul; I dunno how you do it. Kudos.
Just found out that the new law will, immediately, return the health insurance I so recently lost. I am very, very grateful.
Another victory for our side.
“The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a Massachusetts law that creates a protest-free zone around the entrances and driveways of abortion clinics”
Artemis, when a man getting a vascectomy kills another human being you’ll have a point. Right now your comparing apples to grenades.
Also, I’ve had 2 c-sections, but I’d gladly pay any additional costs for delivery than pay a penny for another woman to kill her child.
Of course, thanks to Obamacare I’ll be paying for a lot more than just extra costs. My insurance company is small and offers only limited plans. There will be a race between them and my husband’s company to see who can offload us the quickest. Thanks, Obama!
Criminal deathscorts ARE “baby killers” within the logical definition of “baby killer”.
If you define a “baby” as “any member of the human species from conception until the second birthday” (which is the proper definition of “baby” and therefore how we define the word), then an unborn child is indeed a “baby”.
Since criminal abortionists DO kill unborn children, they therefore kill “babies”. Thus, they qualify as “baby killers”.
Since criminal deathscorts aid and abet on a frequent basis the killing of these “babies”, they also under logic qualify as “baby killers”.
This is so very simple that only a member of the anti unborn human rights (abortionist) movement, with their well-established irrationality, could fail to grasp it.
And politicians who aid and abet in ANY way the killing of “babies”, whether born or unborn, also qualify as “baby killers”.
Gerard, you’re close. It’s actually our old friend, “reality.” Not sure why he/she didn’t use his/her old moniker.
It’s a personal decision about a legal, medical procedure – just like abortion.
Posted by: Artemis at March 22, 2010 2:19 PM
“I’m sure the anti-choice side would be upset if we yelled, “pedophile,” at the Catholic priests who protest at clinics”
————————————————
Why? That’s the consequnce of what they did, right?
BUT, if you brand ALL priests as pedophiles, THEN we’ll be upset since only a very small percentage of priests are guilty.
AND guess what, these pedophile priests are homosexuals, too…but you have nothing against them, right???
Artemis,
How about all pro-lifers get a tax refund in the mount assessed to cover abortions, and all of you pro-aborts pick up the tab?
Artemis:
Yes, ignorance is bliss.
Artemis,
How about all pro-lifers get a tax refund in the mount assessed to cover abortions, and all of you pro-aborts pick up the tab?
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at March 22, 2010 3:42 PM
How bout all those who are opposed to war, get a tax refund and you “pro-lifers” pick up the tab?
How bout all those of us who oppose Crispy Cremes, McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken, cigarettes, sodas with high fructose corn syrup get a tax refund. Those things eventually “kill” people and it costs me money in health care premiums.
AND guess what, these pedophile priests are homosexuals, too…but you have nothing against them, right???
Posted by: RSD at March 22, 2010 3:20 PM
No, they’re pedophiles. Just like the nice heterosexual daddies that I used to deal with when I worked child protective services – the heterosexual daddies who had sex with their daughters. But your conflation of homosexuality with child abuse is noted. Thing is – most sexual abuse is committed by those who have heterosexual orientations. But it doesn’t matter – pedophilia (sexual attraction towards children) is a disorder all its own. Your homophobia is duly noted.
And for all of you who equate abortion with “killing” – there is still no philosophical, religious, and legal consensus about that. Sorry.
And one more thing. France has abortion on demand with its “socialist” health care – which ranks far superior to that of the US in outcome. Despite the availablity of abortion, they’re abortion rate is very low. Go figure.
And if life begins at conception – can I change my birth certificate to allow me to get social security earlier?
**Pregnancy. Late term death of the fetus. Severely crippled fetus. All of these are medical conditions**
Um, pregnancy is a reason for abortion? Are you serious?? Late term death of a fetus {read: baby} – um, that would be called either a miscarriage or stillborn – *NOT* abortion. Severely crippled fetus. Ok, now we’re just making judgment calls on who gets to live and die based on “quality of life” – aka koolaid society feeds to its members.
None of those are justifiable or medical reasons to abort a child. Maybe in your mind you have convinced yourself otherwise, but I don’t think it counts for much in this discussion.
Maybe in your mind you have convinced yourself otherwise, but I don’t think it counts for much in this discussion.
Posted by: Martina at March 22, 2010 5:46 PM
Actually, the law states that, within the legal parameters, you can abort your pregnancy without stating a reason. Obviously I’m beyond child bearing years; but if I weren’t, you would have NO RIGHT to tell ME that I should either carry or abort my fetus. If a woman can’t deal with a medically compromised fetus, then it’s her RIGHT under the LAW of the United States of America to abort. To force a woman to bear a child against her will is as barbaric as forcing her to abort. N’est-ce pas?
I’m talking about the objective reasons people abort, Martina, not making moral judgements upon those reasons. Pregnancy is the only reason for abortion–it isn’t as though people are going to go around getting abortions when they’re not pregnant.
Death of the fetus doesn’t always result in a miscarriage. If it doesn’t, the tissue needs to be removed, lest the woman suffer from an infection.
“Those things eventually “kill” people and it costs me money in health care premiums.”
No, they don’t kill or even “kill” people. Last I checked, a BigMac didn’t come up to you and rip you apart limb for limb.
“And for all of you who equate abortion with “killing” – there is still no philosophical, religious, and legal consensus about that. Sorry”
Um, yeah there is. It’s self evident that a human being is killed during an abortion. It may not be legally defined as murder, but it is most certainly killing a human being.
Less, if a child dies in utero the resulting procedure is not considered an induced abortion.
Get real! It’s ok to kill babies but it’s not ok to call a bill that supports pthat a baby killer??!?!
Yes, because forcing employers to spend their money paying for health insurance will certainly inspire them to hire more people, instead of cutting back on employees and firing a bunch of people to try and gain back some of the money they’re now going to have to spend on healthcare. /sarcasm
Less, your name would be highly appropriate if referring to the amount of brain power you possess.
I was unaware of that, Lauren, and would like to see some citations. In many cases, women whose fetus dies in the last trimester are unable to find a place in their home states to remove the tissue. They would go to to Tiller and others who were willing to preform late-term procedures.
Women I know who have had this happen to them have always referred to it as a late-term abortion, and said their doctors have done the same.
Xalisae, I’ve attempted to keep the dialogue here to a minimum of mutual respect and lack of name-calling. Perhaps you should attempt to do the same.
I have no respect for someone who thinks it should be legal for a mother to pay a hitman in a labcoat to kill her own child in the womb. Sorry.
Good luck with the job hunt.
Why on earth would he apologize?
For once I would like to see someone stick to what they say and not cow to pressure.
Look at the atrocious audacity of Pelosi. She never apologizes for her inappropriate comments or actions.
“In many cases, women whose fetus dies in the last trimester are unable to find a place in their home states to remove the tissue. They would go to to Tiller and others who were willing to preform late-term procedures.”
This is just a lie. Any hospital will perform an induction following a prenatal death. This is the medical term. In fact, fetal demise is specifically defined by lack of induced termination. “National Center for Health Statistics defines fetal death as “death prior to the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of human conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy and which is not an induced termination of pregnancy.”
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/259165-overview
No doctor would send a woman anywhere but the closest hospital following a fetal death.
Less, I am a nurse. It is a complete fallacy that women went to Tiller to have fetal demises removed from their uterus. Fetal demises are treated medically in all parts of this country, even in Catholic hospitals because they are NOT abortions. The child has already died of natural causes.
If you honestly believe that women going to Tiller were having fetal demises removed you are, unfortunately, deceived.
I worked antepartum and labor and delivery before I worked peds… and I did it at a Catholic hospital. There is never, has never been, and will never be a reason to NOT remove a child that has ALREADY DIED. That is not abortion.
In both cases, I have been told FIRST HAND by these women that their local hospitals would not perform the procedure due to abortion laws. First hand. I would direct you to their blogs with these stories on them, however, I am hesitant to violate their privacy in this instance.
Both women were also accosted by “sidewalk counselors” on the way to and from the abortion clinics. Guess how traumatizing that was, for a woman whose child was already dead?
So, the “baby killer” comment was not directed at Stupak personally. Well, someone needs to inform CNN American Morning anchor Kiran Chetry of that. On her twitter page, she asks, in bold font, about who the Rep. was that called Stupak a “baby killer”. Here’s the link to Chetry’s twitter page-
http://twitter.com/kiranchetrycnn
Well then you were lied to FIRST HAND.
There are no abortion laws that restrict induction following fetal demise. No pro-lifer in the country would object to the practice, and even the most pro-life doctor would perform the procedure.
My husband’s cousin (who is very pro-life) lost one of her children a few years ago to prenatal death. Her doctors gave her a few days to get things in order and then scheduled an induction at her local hospital. The same hospital that delivered all 4 of her other children. The same pro-life, Christian doctor performed the induction and monitored her the entire time.
It jsut doesn’t make sense to send a woman to a freestanding clinic for an induction. Inductions following fetal demise often take longer than if birth occured naturally, and the woman needs to be in the hospital setting to make sure she is healthy. No doctor would send a woman halfway across the country in order to undergo a 3 day procedure, most of which is spent alone in a hospital room.
Sorry, I don’t believe your friends. I think that either they are lying or you are.
Less,
Just another example of the ignorance of so many Americans about what constitutes abortion. If they understood, they wouldn’t favor it’s legality.
Lauren, in both cases, the hospitals didn’t have the facilities, and the local abortion clinics worked closely with the hospitals in these cases. I’m not particularly concerned with whether you believe me or not; that’s not my worry.
As I said, I could site it, however, I do not want to violate these ladies’ privacy.
“didn’t have the facilities” Bullsh*t.
ANY hospital would have the facilities. All they need is a labor/delivery room and medicine used on a daily basis.
You don’t have to link to their blogs, you could just post a paraphrase of their stories. What you are saying right now makes absolutely no sense.
In both cases, D&C was required, and the states had VERY strict laws and restrictions placed upon where/how abortions could be provided. I’m looking for a way to cite this without violating privacies. No luck thus far.
“….and the local abortion clinics worked closely with the hospitals in these cases.”
Less @ 8:20
Lauren,
I agree – Less’s stories make no sense. There’s no reason I can see that a local abortion clinic would be involved in a case of fetal demise, refer a woman to a hospital, who would then refer a woman to a late-term abortionist. (Unless the abortionist was willing to take her as a patient for the money$$$.)
All hospitals/OB’s have the ability to do D&Cs. The procedure is not just for abortion, but also used to treat interuterine polyps, bleeding, placental removal after birth, and to remove IUDs.
Of course, it is also used following miscarriage and for induced abortion.
Also, no state has such strict abortion laws that a D&C could not be performed in a hospital setting. Which state were they in and what year?
Less,
If the stories are on a blog in the public domain, why can’t you reveal the blog?
* * * * *
Lauren,
I wonder if abortionists give kickbacks to hospitals for referrals. What do you think?
Janet, that would be quite the tangled web!
Lauren, I’m with you. Less’s story is absolute CRAP. The fact of the matter is, abortion clinics are the ones who do not have the appropriate facilities to provide such services. I have been involved in assisting with fetal demises at the Catholic hospital I worked at many, many times.
Any operating room in a hospital can perform the service. It doesn’t even have to be a specific labor and delivery operating room. There is NO way that any hospital would refer a woman to an abortuary for this procedure.
Less, you are either lying or you were lied to. End of story.
Backing you up Elizabeth and Lauren. I worked labor and delivery and ob/gyn in a hospital that did NOT do abortions. We had a few fetal demises deliveries, never sent them anywhere, stayed in L&D until delivered, put a leaf sign on the door so staff knew fetal demise and would not assume they were anticipating a live birth. Tried to treat family with extra TLC and offer bereavement care. Lock of hair, footprints, holding their baby and pictures taken even if they did not want them. No one mistook their care for an elective abortion because there was no “elective” involved in their care. PP lies to you, but then again pro-aborts lie a lot.
I was unaware of that, Lauren, and would like to see some citations. In many cases, women whose fetus dies in the last trimester are unable to find a place in their home states to remove the tissue. They would go to to Tiller and others who were willing to preform late-term procedures.
Posted by: Less at March 22, 2010 6:57 PM
Less,
You are still here posting your BS. I can tell you first hand that I lost a baby at 23 weeks and we ent to a local hospital for a D&C and it wasn’t considred an abortion and we claimed the babys body and buried him in a cemetery. If Tiller came anywhere near my pregnat wife at the time Scott Roeder might be free.
Less, D&Cs for a miscarriage/fetal demise are standard OBGYN care. Elective abortion is not. Hospitals have the facilities to induce labor, and certainly for a child who has died in utero. My husband’s cousin recently miscarried at 18 weeks, and she had an induction. At a HOSPITAL.
And I thought you said these women had “late-term abortions.” A D&C would not be used for anything “late term.” One cannot scrape a child of that size and development out of the uterus with a curettage.
As I stated, I was told this first hand. If you don’t believe me, fine, I’m not asking you to. I can’t cite it, so, go for it. Believe it or not, women who have had abortions often don’t come to pro-life sites where those who have had abortions are often characterized as “demons” or worse. I did, however, find a site of women telling stories about their abortions, all performed by Dr. Tiller, given when their child had a serious deformity (death before birth or shortly thereafter), each illegal in the home state.
http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasdelays.html
The one I linked to is the clearest, I believe.
I find it amusing that I tell a first hand anecdote without citation, and receive such a welcome. The majority of you, however, expect pro-choice individuals to believe any sort of religious tripe you spout, with much less citation than what’s been given.
Less: “religious tripe”
What about civil rights is religious exactly? Last time I checked, it is also a secular idea that nobody deserves to be wrongly killed. Logic helps to clarify why abortion is in most cases such a kind of killing. Religious is not directly necessary to make this point. Then again, what should I expect from your kind? You know. Idiots.
Pardon me, I meant to type “curette.”
When you say “late-term” I assume you mean third trimester. Is that not correct?
Also, Less, it sounds to me like YOU are the one who is confusing things…”I did, however, find a site of women telling stories about their abortions, all performed by Dr. Tiller, given when their child had a serious deformity (death before birth or shortly thereafter), each illegal in the home state.”
When their child had a serious deformity and the PROGNOSIS OF DEATH BEFORE BIRTH OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER is completely different from proven fetal demise in utero. These women went to Tiller to abort their babies BEFORE they died their natural deaths.
From your article, Less.
” although she offered fetal procedures to increase his chances of survival, she also informed us that PUV is often detected early in the pregnancy and most mothers choose to terminate because of the many, severe complications”
See, the fetus was alive. In fact, there were procedures that could possibly increase the chances of survival. This person’s abortion is NOT an example of “necessity” as you have bemoaned, and is NOT an example of, as you put it earlier, a “child [that] was already dead.”
So what the hell ARE you talking about? Would you have sympathy for a mother who killed her child suffering from a terminal illness, especially when there were options to aid survival?
More importantly, what does this example have to do with the bullcrap you made up earlier about hospitals not having the means or the rights to remove a DEAD baby from a mother’s uterus?
surely you read the article right? Surely you are not THAT stupid to believe this confirms your previous statements, right? Please help me believe there is some kind of hope of reasoning with you.
Kelli, you are correct. I wasn’t able to secure citations for women who went to Dr. Tiller for third trimester because of fetal demise. The provided link is for a different situation, unfortunately.
Oliver, when you’re able to comment without name-calling, I will respond to those comment. I demand the same respect I have, I feel, thus far given to those on the other side.
Less: “much less citation than what’s been given.”
How can you give less citation than no citation? Do you mean to imply the existance of such a thing as negative citation?
When you can cite a single example of a mother with an actual dead fetus prohibited by law from having an induced labor and/or D&C, maybe you can claim the lack of citation.
How about this. Why don’t you tell us in which state this occurred, and during what time period, so I can give a few medical proffesionals a call to figure out this mess?
What citation can be possible for religious experiences? None.
As I said, I will not betray confidences. Therefore this matter is impossible to prove, and I withdraw it from discussion.
Less: “Oliver, when you’re able to comment without name-calling, I will respond to those comment.”
To be fair, you started it with your “religious tripe” comment. I’m not sure how exactly “tripe” is a respectful comment. Care to elaborate?
I may call people out for what they are, but at least I don’t pretend like I don’t.
By the way, my comment at 11:39 had no insults. So feel free to respond to it.
Less: “As I said, I will not betray confidences.”
How does naming a state and time period betray any confidence?
Less: “Therefore this matter is impossible to prove, and I withdraw it from discussion.”
What was that thing you said about citation again? From my point of view, you are still sitting at zero. How can there be less citation than zero, Less?
I did respond to the comment: As I said, I will not betray confidences. Therefore this matter is impossible to prove, and I withdraw it from discussion.
Keeping those confidences is far more important than providing citations or discussing this argument any further.
What would you have preferred I said, other than tripe? Untruths? Irrelevancies? Lies?
Abortion is NOT Health care just like Breast enlargement is NOT Health Care!!!
Less: “What would you have preferred I said, other than tripe? Untruths? Irrelevancies? Lies?”
What would you have preferred I said other than idiot? Ill-reasoned? Uninformed? Confused?
Oliver, that was an honest question. What would you have preferred I said? Religious quotes are tossed around here constantly without any sort of citation. They’re unfounded, unproved, and I, for one, don’t believe a word of them. Care to sum that up in a word?
I still don’t see how revealing the state and the time period betrays confidences.
Maybe I should just call a health provider from the strictest states and see what they have to say about the procedure for removing an ALREADY DEAD baby. My bet, no one turns this scenario away, and they never have.
It’s information the individuals in question would rather keep private–or, at least, off of a pro-life blog. It’s a fair request, I believe.
My question was legitimate as well, Less. You are the one who has thrown out an un-cited claim. You have also not used reason. You actually posted a source that was tangential to your argument. Why should I not consider you an idiot?
As far as describing the religious views that you claim have been used against you, tripe is by no means a good description. The word holds the conotation of worthlessness, not inaccuracy. Maybe you should have used “unprovable?”
So what should I call you, someone who has made bold claims, defended them, and then been utterly unable to provide even a basic source for them, and in fact has provided an unrelated source with the claim that it WAS related? I guess maybe “utterly confused” is best?
Ah, I, however, posted some time ago that the information should be withdrawn from discussion, as I could not prove it. Would you do the same with your religious beliefs?
As an aside, your religious claims ARE worthless to me, as is any claim, including my own, that cannot be proven.
Less: “It’s a fair request, I believe.”
To not mention the state within which this occurred?
Considering your last “source” proved to be a deception, I am calling BS here. No reasonable person would wish to withold something so trivial. Obviously this person didn’t care that you revealed her country, or at least you didn’t care to uphold her wishes to keep it quite. Why is she suddenly concerned about the specific state?
Hell, you could give me the county and I couldn’t figure out who this person is, even if I had some need to find out. No, like last time, this is just you covering your tracks. I mean, really, what kind of hospital refuses to induce labor on a dead baby? It is absolutely ridiculous to even consider!
I’m not sure what last “source” you’re referring to, here. Again, this is a place where women are demonized for having abortions–TS threatened Tiller, not halfway up the page, and in the majority of comments, the vitriol is palpable. I wouldn’t want any of you to know the state I live in, let alone the country, and I’ve never had an abortion.
Less:”Would you do the same with your religious beliefs?”
Less:”your religious claims ARE worthless to me”
Care to point to my religious claims Less? Go ahead, I am curious as to where I made them. Maybe I was drunk when I was posting or something.
You see, I understand that claims that cannot be verified by tangible fact are of no use in a secular debate. That is why I do not bring my “religious beliefs” into the fray. Why then have you brought your baseless claims into the fray?
Less: “I wouldn’t want any of you to know the state I live in, let alone the country, and I’ve never had an abortion.”
You have already shown your friend to live in the USA, so I don’t get your point. But I digress. You are clearly throwing lies around. How on earth could anyone track someone just knowing the state? It is absurd. What again should I call you? You never answered. I think idiot makes more and more sense as you post, but I’ll wait for your alternative, as I gave you mine for the relgious beliefs.
Less:”I’m not sure what last “source” you’re referring to, here.”
Did you already forget what you posted? You claimed that some hospitals in the USA turn away mothers with dead babies in their uteruses so that they must use abortion clinics to find health service. You then claimed that the link you posted supported this notion. It clearly did not.
General you, actually. I’ve not seen you throw around much more than petty insults.
Again, I retracted my claims, as there was no evidence. Why do you continue beating a dead horse? Nothing better to say?
As I stated upthread, I wouldn’t want any of you to know why I live either, and I can understand why the individual in question would. Additionally, my claim was that the hospitals REFERRED mothers to abortion clinics–not turned away. There is a significant amount of difference. Of course, that lacks ANY relevancy towards the debate, as it cannot be proven and I’ve retracted the claim.
Be careful, Oliver–I told you once, I wouldn’t respond to posts that included insults.
First you say….
Less: “In many cases, women whose fetus dies in the last trimester are unable to find a place in their home states to remove the tissue.”
Less: “I have been told FIRST HAND by these women that their local hospitals would not perform the procedure due to abortion laws.”
The you say…
Less: “Additionally, my claim was that the hospitals REFERRED mothers to abortion clinics–not turned away.”
I am confused. See I would think “would no perform the procedure” and “unable to find a place to remove the tissue” are very similar to being “turned away” and not very similar to a referral.
So care to explain what your comments meant?
These women lived where there are particularly strict abortion laws, and were late in their pregnancy. The hospitals could not perform the treatment, and were referred to out of state clinics.
Perhaps I wasn’t making myself clear.
So what exactly do you consider being “turned away” if not refusing to “perform the treatment”?
Less: “Would you do the same with your religious beliefs?”
By the way, this is not how you use the “general” you. You cannot ask me directly in response to my criticsm if I would do something, and then spin it to mean other posters. If you meant to use it this way, you may want to reconsider in the future. It only serves to breed confusion.
Hm, I will take that under advisement, regarding the general you. I’ve never had complaints before, but I’ll look into it. Wouldn’t want to clutter the debate even further.
Turned away, I would imagine, is refusing to perform the services as well as refusing to refer to another place that can.
Oliver,
I did enjoy you beating up on Less in that discussion but you are beating a handicapped child there. Less is a self professed Dumbocrat and has proven to be a “troll”.
Less: “Turned away, I would imagine, is refusing to perform the services as well as refusing to refer to another place that can.”
That is a rather bizarre concept of “turn away.” I would think most people would interpret the phrase to mean “refuse service” alone. Regardless, it is pointless, because hospitals do not do this. It is routine procedure to perform such operations in the hospital itself, as opposed to in the clinic. In fact, in my limited experience, the doctor is more likely to specifically refuse refferal to a clinic for a patient.
TS,
I know what Less is. I don’t point out her “inaccuracies” for her benefit.
By the way, I read every story on your Kansas website and not a single one had an example of an already dead baby. What a bunch of crock.
Maybe you shouldn’t take your blog “friends” at face value. Do a little research of your own, Less, and see what you come up with.
The funny part about all of this is that Less feels the need to pretend that abortion is about anything other than killing a human organism. Where is her intellectual honesty? Heck, where is her integrity?
If you support abortion, make the argument that killing the human organism inside the mother’s womb is justified, even at viability. Don’t shy away from the un-popular position, if you support it. Abortion should be allowed if a mother just doesn’t want to be pregnant, by Less’s view. That is all she needs to say.
Of course abortion is killing a human organism. I don’t care. Bodily integrity is paramount. I’ve never claimed otherwise, only said I don’t wish to discuss my position on the morality of abortion, as I”m aware you all will disagree with it. As I said to TS earlier, none of you will change my mind, and I will give each of you the modicum of respect that I could not change any of your minds. I accept this, and am interest in arguing about the place of abortion in the health care bill, specifically whether Stupak sold out.
As for TS, a troll is someone who does not contribute to the debate. As I have, I am not a troll, and perhaps you need to look up the word in a dictionary.
Oliver, my research has turned up personal stories, and little else. In the majority of the cases, it is true, hospitals easily perform the D&C, which is to be expected. In the Kansas web site, the women had fetuses that were exceptionally disfigured or had serious complication–not dead. I never stated otherwise. However, I’m not sure why you continue to beat a dead horse when I’ve already stated that, due to lack of citation, I withdraw the point. Is there nothing else in ANY of my posts you have any comment on?
In both cases, I have been told FIRST HAND by these women that their local hospitals would not perform the procedure due to abortion laws. First hand. I would direct you to their blogs with these stories on them, however, I am hesitant to violate their privacy in this instance.
Both women were also accosted by “sidewalk counselors” on the way to and from the abortion clinics. Guess how traumatizing that was, for a woman whose child was already dead?
Posted by: Less at March 22, 2010 7:49 PM
YOU said “whose child was already dead”. Liar.
Troll-
Spend entire night wasting peoples time with drivel about their inability to answer questions. You did the same thing to me last night. I can’t believe I am saying this but what we don’t need around here is Less trolling.
TOP SECRET:
CONFIDENTIAL:
NOT TO BE DISSEMINATED:
2010 Obam Trolling Manual:
Here we outline the diferent tactics that can be used when trolling.
1) It is usually best NOT to answer questions cause it just makes us look bad and they catch us lying.
2) Attacking God is usually able to get a rise out them and can be useful to redirect if you are cornered.
3)Be evasive and redirect – for example watch my video when I was asked “at what point does a baby get human rights?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uI0aGlV_1Q
4) You can also answer tough questions by blather nonsensical drivel that doesn’t really answer the question anyway. Here is Hillary doing a great job of showing us how to speak drivel on and on without really saying anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0YxdV3J4Jw
Less: “I never stated otherwise.”
You really are quick to say this without checking what you did, actually, state. Here is what you said about the Kansas website specifically, Less.
Less on the Kansas website: “I did, however, find a site of women telling stories about their abortions, all performed by Dr. Tiller, given when their child had a serious deformity (*death before birth* or shortly thereafter), each illegal in the home state.”
The emphasis is mine. Why would you lie about what you said Less? You did say that you found examples of women with children that had died before birth that could not have them removed, per your description of the website. Why lie?
Now, in regards to your other posts, your whole point has been that abortion done in a clinic is sometimes a legitimate procedure, specifically in the case of partial birth abortion. This is why I have been on you about your “dead before birth” claim. That is a legitimate procedure, which is why is it not done in clinic. What is NOT a legitimate procedure is the killing of a child because of deformity. We don’t kill born children because of deformity, why would we kill children just prior to birth for deformity?
I’ll get to your “bodily integrity” argument probably late tonight.
Oliver. Have you not read anything I’ve written? The deformities would cause death before birth or shortly after. Hence the parenthesis, used to hold clarifying statements. The phrase “legitimate medical procedure,” as I stated NUMEROUS times, was simply used to point out that abortion was a medical procedure that existed–not to reflect upon the morality on said procedure. Severe deformity is a reason why women get abortion. That is a point that cannot be argued. Whether you find it to be moral or not is irrelevant: women can, and do, use abortion, a medical procedure, to terminate a pregnancy that results in a child with severe deformity.
Additionally, I’m not interested in your arguments about bodily integrity. Again, I’m not here to argue the morality of abortion. We will not agree on this point, and further discussion will waste both our times; I will not respond to it. Again, I give you the modicum of respect that I will not change your mind on the topic, and neither will you change mine. You asked for my stance on the matter, and I gladly gave it, but as that stance will not change, attempting to do so is wasting time, and I suggest your energies might more profitably be spent elsewhere.
TS, I spent the majority of the night reiterating that the statement, because I could not find evidence, didn’t seem to be relevant for the discussion. Oliver, however, insisted upon discussing it anyway. Why, I’m not sure, but this was Oliver’s doing–not mine. You have, however, shown me that perhaps I ought to choose an internet handle that has less possibility for puns.
It’s an established fact. Whenever a nation’s government outlaws abortion, the abortion rate has
increased markedly. As well as the number of women dying from botched illegal abortions.
Just check statistics.
Brazil is the world’s largest Catholic nation, and abortion is officially illegal there. But every year, far more abortion occur than in the US.
The Brazilian government doesn’t even pretend to enforce the law, because it can’t !
It’s also illegal in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, yet every year millions happen there.
The Netherlands, which conservatives love to pour scorn on as an appallingly permissive and licentious country, has the world’s LOWEST abortion rate.
Let’s face it; laws against abortion are not only totally futile but extremely counterproductive.
If abortion is illegal in these countries, where do these statistics come from, Robert? What is a good methodology for estimating the amount of times an illegal activity is done? If you have links to papers, actual papers which describe their methodology as opposed to newspaper articles and other non-scholarly sources, than I would be happy to read it. I would love to know how they come up with these numbers and share their methodology with everyone here to see if we think it is sound.
Otherwise, please refrain from citing evidence for your claims as “It’s an established fact… check the statistics.” You made a claim. The burden of proof is on you to provide a source which can be critiqued if you wish to provide any sort of justification for that claim.
In fact, I remember trying to pin down this “Brazil” statistic last year and having an extremely hard time doing so. I was not able to find it. It may have been in some esoteric book or it wasn’t even clear where they got the number from. Either way, when these wild claims are throw around, they don’t make it easy to find the source.
Less,
So basically, what you said earlier is that abortions happen. That was your point? Why even make this point? Are you so unsure about your position that you have to produced obvious, unsubstantial statements such as “abortions occur?”
Couldn’t I make the same argument?
“Hey look, late term abortion is illegal in lots of places. It is not a legitimate medical procedure in those places.”
What use is that?
I’m not sure I understand why you are even here if that is what you bring to the table.
The bottom line is that late term abortion is illegal in many states BECAUSE it used only for the non-life threatening destruction of a developed, yet deformed, human organism. Since we do not ever justify killing other deformed human organisms, the procedure is illegal. If there is an immediate threat to the mother’s life, a doctor in a hospital will intervene.
Late term abortion is no more a legitimate medical procedure than is any mild plastic surgery. If your argument about medical procedures is on that level, again, why even make the argument?
Robert,
Your argument is a little flawed. You make the point that outlawing abortion INCREASES the abortion rate, yet you only refer to countries with (pressumed) HIGHER rates than other countries. You haven’t pointed to an INCREASE. It could be that those countries would have even higher abortion rates should abortion be made legal.
Take the USA for example. When abortion was illegal, there were far fewer abortions, even given the most liberal estimates, than today. We may have more abortions than the Netherlands, but that is not to say that the legalization of abortion DECREASED OUR abortion rate. I bet the Netherlands would have even fewer abortions.
Take Ireland for another example. Abortion is illegal there, but they have far fewer abortions than the Netherlands, something like 300 a year.
But then again, why do I even talk to you? You never respond to anyone’s point, because you are incapable of refuting any of our arguments.
Oliver, just playing devil’s advocate here . . . many Irish women go to England for abortions.
I’m sure, but the point is that statistics viewed in a vacuum are meaningless. The abortions aren’t in any way accelerated by making abortion illegal, which is an absurd notion when you really think about it anyways.
Oliver, the statement was part of an argument that federally-funded abortions SHOULD be a part of health care. Because they’re a medical procedure, and they happen, and therefore they ought to be covered. Establishing first that they happen, and that they are in response to another medical condition (pregnancy), were key to that argument.
Crossing state lines to receive abortions for various reasons is actually common enough that there are laws against it: http://cara.typepad.com/reproductive_rights_blog/2005/04/minors_crossing.html. (This is not an unbiased source, of course, and I’m not using it for the content of the bill, merely that it exists.)
Ireland is actually particularly interesting when discussed in terms of its attitude towards abortion. However, as this is primarily, I believe, a US blog, I hesitate to bring it up. The culture is incredibly different there from here.
I’m going to try that next time I’m in a debate…Make a bunch of wild claims which are easily proved wrong, and then when asked for proof, say that I can’t find it, so NAO WE MAY NEVAR SPEAK OF THAT TOPIC AGAIN!!!!, even if someone finds proof that I was lying and compares that proof to my former statement which definitively shows that I was lying.
For some reason, I don’t think the pro-abortion side will be quite so forgiving.
Xalisae: Forgiving, hm? Seems the definition has changed a bit since I last used the word. However, in a debate, when you can’t make a definitive claim with citation, you retract the statement politely, which is what I’ve done. Believe I”m lying if you will; I’m not asking you to believe me, as I realize I can’t cite it. Confidences and trust are far more important than winning the argument.
Unless, of course, you think otherwise.
The crux of your argument was that abortions were a needed medical procedure due to fetal demise, and should be covered!! You were adequately proven wrong/shown to be lying, and yet here you are…
“Confidence”? I have confidence that those who support “BABY-KILLING” (yes, I would stand and say that to the face of any abortion supporter in congress without apology) will lie just as easily as they draw a breath because if they see no problem with a mother paying someone to kill her child, they certainly won’t care about some little trifle like lying. I “trust” that will be the case, always.
So I guess winning the argument is all I really have now, isn’t it? And I think the fact that literally thousands of innocent lives hang on everyone here on my side “winning the argument” is plenty of reason for me to want to win that argument.
No, the crux of my argument was that abortion is a medical procedure relating to a medical condition (pregnancy). It’s irrelevant why the woman has the abortion. An abortion, whether because the pregnancy is unplanned, the fetus is malformed, or the pregnancy would be detrimental to the mother’s health, is a medical procedure, and ought to be treated as such–in every circumstance. As such, it ought to be included in health care.
Does that clear up the “crux of my argument?” The fetal demise example was a side point that has ceased to be relevant.
Lying breaks an honor code, and lying during a debate is unconscionable. Hence, I told HisMan that I would not convert and further debate would be useless, and Oliver that any sort of argument against bodily integrity would be wasted. To do otherwise would be a lie of omission–these people have lives outside of the computer, and I wouldn’t want them to waste their time, thinking they would make a difference with me. It’s unfair to both of us.
I believe abortion to be a moral and justifiable action, one I would undertake myself should it become necessary. Melodrama won’t change that.
(I meant to add this to the last post, but I hit post before I meant to!)
With regards to the yelling on the floor, I think both sides of the party line really flubbed this one. The chants after the bill was passed were inappropriate, just as the yelling “It’s a baby killer” was inappropriate. I’m behind the bill 100%, even with the EO, but celebrations should have been saved until after it was all said and done.
Yes…all the scientific evidence of the living humanity of the unborn, and the philosophical implications of that humanity…nothing but “melodrama”.
Some developing human beings need to just buck up and deal with getting dismembered/killed already! Sheesh!
I’m not going to give you the luxury of simply not being presented with our argument. This is a PRO-LIFE blog, so get ready for the entire PRO-LIFE argument.
And once again, anyone that advocates the legality of a human life being ended by his/her own mother has no honor to begin with, so you’re not really losing anything to speak of, right?
Xalisae, of course the fetus is human, and living in the scientific sense of the term. I stated above that that is irrelevant to me.
I disagree with your assessment of “honor,” but tend to think arguing our connotations of the word would be tangential to the debate, at best.
I’ve been at this blog for years–I remember when Bethany first joined, for some sense of how long. I post only sporadically, visit about as often as I post, but the health care debate was interesting to me. I’ve heard the anti-abortion argument before; I’m not interested in hearing it again. Feel free to type it–I won’t respond to it. I’ve been pro-choice my whole life, and that will not change. You’re wasting your time and energy.
Summation of Less’s comments:
I have no reason to be here other than to rub it in your faces that I got my way, neener neener neener.
Hi Less.
I’m a little confused about something… you are NOT the same person who has posted under the name “les” before, right? (with only one s) Just so you know I don’t have a one-typo-time in mind, in the past couple on months, this les was thinking about becoming pro-life and returning to the Catholic Church. This is not you?
Also, did you ever used to post under a different name? The one I am thinking of in particular has the initials H.A. (but I don’t want to use the whole name just in case you don’t want people knowing).
The only reason I ask these questions is because I try and know who everyone is and how they think. I have no ulterior motive to try and trap you or anything like that.
I’m the person you’re thinking of, Bobby, who was thiking of returning to the Catholic Church. I do not comment here often, but I do ofen follow the dialogue.
Oh, it’s leN! Good grief am I a fool… Sorry, I knew that, but don’t know why I thought it was les… okay, done being a bum for the day…
Heck, I wouldn’t hesitate to call a child molester a child molester. I’m sure he’ll get over it. Oh, and hahahaha to anyone who really believes it’s a “win” for “their side”…..what about your eternal salvation? Cheering on any law to destroy babies will guarantee that your soul will burn for eternity!!! There is no victory here. Pro-deatheres just want to ease their own guilt, but abortion has always been murder! Life is only a vapor, and once I’m dead, I really don’t want to burn! Repenting is really your only big win pro-choicers! Nobody is envious of your utter confusion!
Xalisae, I’m REALLY not here to rub it in your faces. As I’m sure Jill checks the IP address of visitors, that would prove it: I was here before the bill was voted into place, and it was an absolute shock to me that it got voted in. I was ambivalent about the bill itself, and that’s why I’m here–I like collecting information from as many different sources as possible. As to why I commented, this topic in particular was interesting to me, as it touches on the nature of debate with regards to a particularly inflaming topic.
Bobby, I posted under the name Less initially, then went to a different name (you conjectured correctly. =) ) because I wanted to try out a new internet handle. I was going through the process of changing e-mails and everything! But it just didn’t work, for myriad reasons.
In general, though, this community interests me because a) as I’ve stated, I don’t know many (1-3, not sure) Christians in “real life,” nor do I know any pro-lifers.
Less, you say that you are here to learn information, yet you insist that you won’t debate anything of substance. That’s absurd.
Lauren, as I said. I’m pro-choice, and will remain that way. In my time debating this subject, I’ve only become more pro-choice. I don’t want to waste time debating that stance, as I’d imagine you all have better things to do. Discussing topics like the most effective way to debate (not including religious beliefs/not calling out or insulting religious beliefs, that sort of thing), learning how to define terminology most effectively, determining which subjects can be agreed upon (decorum on both sides, mutual respect, etc) are interesting and useful to me.
I’d love to see a point at which the country at large can debate the morality. However, a greater national dialogue cannot and should not take place until the level of the debate can be heightened. THAT is ultimately my goal.
Less, that’s a bunch of crap and you know it. (Oops, lack of decorum!)
There comes a point when semantics and “mutual respect” do nothing but cover autrocity. We are at that point. The issues and ethics are what need to be debated, not the rules of debate themselves.
There is absolutely no logical, consistent reason to support legalized abortion. The fact that you continue to do so after much debate shows only that you are still not looking at the issue logically. Instead, you’re burying your head in the sand while beratting us for not following your rules.
You are defending killing children, Less. We’re not discussing the best type of tea to have with brunch. Essentially, you seem intent on measuring the drapes while the Titanic sinks. There are bigger issues than someone saying something that hurts your feelings. I’m sure the 4000 American children who died today thanks to legalized abortion would agree.
And see, Lauren, that’s what I’m talking about. It isn’t a bunch of crap. No one will listen to your side while you’re using emotionally-heightened rhetoric and threats of damnation and hellfire to support your points. You persuade no one. I’ve debated this issue since I was a teen, and never seen argument that even gave me pause in my stance. I’ve seen the videos, heard the stories, and I remain pro-choice.
I suppose part of it is speaking on two different levels: “killing children” versus “maintaing bodily autonomy.” The latter is absolutely paramount to me; one’s possession of one’s own body is one of my most-cherished values, perhaps my most cherished value. It literally touches every aspect of my life, from my lack of religious belief to how I look at crime and punishment. I cannot think of something more important than one’s ownership of one’s own body, (excepting good of the many versus good of the one situations) and I do not expect that to change.
All this is speaking personally, and I’m not inviting anyone to try and change my mind. I’m simply pointing out where I”m coming from. As there are, apparently, two different levels of belief here, “killing babies” versus “bodily autonomy,” perhaps further debate is useless, and I’m being idealistic. I would like, however, to imagine that at some point, emotional rhetoric can be put aside and a logical, reasoned debate can proceed. Maybe not, though.
Less says “I cannot think of something more important than one’s ownership of one’s own body”
I can. Being alive. It’s hard to have ownership of your own body when you’re a corpse.
You seem to equate “polite” language with logic and “mean” language as emotional. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I can be harsh and abrasive and remain completely logical and well reasoned. Hell, I’m a bit biased because my he’s my husband, but Oliver is one of the most well reasoned posters on this site and very rarely gets emotional. He does, however, call a spade a spade.
You are not being idealistic, you’re being willfully ignorant and presenting a false dichotomy. It’s also absurd for you to claim that you’re trying to point out where you’re coming from when you refuse to actually debate the central issue. Even if we lived in a world of perfect internet decorum, it would be meaningless if we didn’t actually debate anything of substance.
Oh, and excuse me if I don’t take “tips” on how to win converts from someone who says in the next breath that nothing I say will change her mind.
I would disagree with your assessment of Oliver as well-reasoned. He spent all of last night discussing an item I retracted because I could not find citations for, as is the polite and logical thing to do in a debate. I respect that you think differently, but he isn’t calling a spade a spade–he uses intimidating and inflammatory language while avoiding the central discussion. Not that I did not say I was intimidated, but calling someone an idiot right off the bat is bad debate form.
I find debating about how best to get through to both sides a valuable thing, and very substantial. The initial post, which should remain the topic of these comments, is something to debate substantially. I find outbursts on both side of the party line to be unseemly, and have said as much. However, the focus thus far has been on a statement I retracted because I could not prove, as is the proper procedure, not on any topic of merit.
Logical language is logical, emotional language is useless. You’re right, however, that I have no desire to debate the morality of abortion. I’m much more interested in learning how best to foster respect between the two sides, or at least courtesy, as is exemplified by the blog post under which we are currently posting. Calling Stupak a “baby killer,” or referring to the bill as a “baby killer,” is next to useless, debate-wise. Asking Stupak harsh questions afterward, however, is useful, and, I believe, should be encouraged. If Neugebauer had, instead, done that, I would have much more respect for him.
“while avoiding the central discussion”
He was’t avoiding the central discussion, he was pointing out that your sole piece of evidence supporting your claim was flawed as was your rational for refusing to honestly reflect on how that information affected your arguement.
You may disagree with calling the bill a “baby killer” but that is exactly what it is. It does no one any good to hide that fact behind flowerly language.
The central discussion was that abortion is a medical procedure. It exists as such, and women use it to deal with a medical condition–pregnancy. Therefore, as a medical procedure, it ought to be covered under health insurance. The anecdote I presented was tangential to this.
You’re point was that it was a *legitmate* medical procedure. The points you made were to strengthen your point that it was,indeed, legitmate.
If we are covering all medical procedures regardless of legitimacy, we should also cover Brazilian butt lifts and boob jobs.
I already explained, Lauren, that legitimate in this case means lawful and existent. Abortion is both a lawful and existent medical procedure in response to pregnancy. Therefore, it should be covered. I do NOT mean legitimate as in justified, or acceptable.
I can provide citation for the definition if you’d like, but I assure you that both are accepted meanings of the word.
So you believe that we should use public funds to pay for Brazilian butt lifts and boob jobs, right?
Cosmetic procedures do not deal with a medical condition. A flat chest or funny-shaped nose are not medical issues. I mean, I’d be willing to give leeway to reconstructive surgery in case of cancer or an accident, but whereas abortion deals with a specific medical condition (pregnancy), cosmetic procedures generally do not.
Pregnancy is not a disease. It’s a natural state of being without which, no mammal would be here.
What difference does that make? Both abortion and cosmetic surgery are elective procedures. One does not “need” either. Pregnancy,as a medical condition, is self-terminating.
I didn’t say it was a disease. It is a medical condition, however, in that medical professionals “treat” it/observe it. Does that make more sense?
It makes a significant difference, Lauren. If there’s not a medical condition necessitating some action, the action can truly be considered elective. If one’s nose is funny-shaped, they truly have the option of doing nothing at all about it. If one is pregnant, however, a choice must be made one way or another, terminate or not, and either option (ideally) needs medical attention.
Does that make it more clear?
Less… if one is pregnant a choice MUST be made one way or another? Seriously? You seriously think that ALL pregnant women need to make abortion a consideration???
And, btw, the anecdotes you presented were lies. That has been clearly proven.
If you have a funny shaped nose, you still have to make the decision of if you’ll have it fixed or not.
Perhaps a better example would be having a breast lift after nursing. Your never going to look the same as you did at 20 if you do nothing, but you still have to make the decions if you should do nothing or get them ‘fixed.”
Likewise, after you’re pregnant, you’re never going to go back to life pre-pregnancy.
In both cases, surgery to “fix” the problem is elective. There’s no medical reason for either procedure. The only difference is that the pregnancy is self terminating, while gravity is never going to fix your figure.
There is no difference that makes one more deserving of another’s money.
Not at all, Elisabeth–just that pregnancy necessitates action on the pregnant woman’s part. You can’t ignore it and hope it’ll go away.
I think it’s flippant to compare something fixing one’s figure or appearance to a decision made about pregnancy, Lauren. Pregnancy demands some sort of decision–you cannot ignore it; it will not disappear on its own, like a bad cold or a headache. A funny-shaped nose, you can ignore.
Not at all, Elisabeth–just that pregnancy necessitates action on the pregnant woman’s part. You can’t ignore it and hope it’ll go away.
Posted by: Less at March 23, 2010 8:47 PM
Not true. Pregnancy will progress without action on her part. Once set in motion, pregnancy itself is self-sustaining and eventually, self-terminating (in live birth). For some women, other medical conditions may present during that time frame or threaten that progress… but pregnancy, in and of itself, progresses on its own UNLESS there is interference.
I think it’s flippant to compare something fixing one’s figure or appearance to a decision made about pregnancy, Lauren. Pregnancy demands some sort of decision–you cannot ignore it; it will not disappear on its own, like a bad cold or a headache. A funny-shaped nose, you can ignore.
Posted by: Less at March 23, 2010 8:53 PM
Not true, as evidenced by many teen moms who hide the pregnancy and give birth on their own (not an ideal situation, to be sure, but illustrates the point).
Pregnancy continues and ends ON ITS OWN unless there is other interference.
I find it funny how Less slowly backs off of her unsubstantiated claims until she ultimately asserts nothing. I am curious as to how she will back off from this one.
Something like…”what I meant when I said pregancy requires medical attention is that it often does require medical attention”
True, Elisabeth, but you cannot ignore pregnancy. Even when it self-terminates, you’re going to notice it. Hopefully.
Less,
What does the ability to ignore something have to do with anything?
It is really very simple. When abortion is an elective method to deal with non-medical consequences of pregnancy, it should not be funded. When abortion is directly connected with the survival of the mother, and is therefore medically necessary for the mother, it should be funded.
How is this a complex idea? Elective surgeries are not, and should not be covered.
Oliver, pregnancy is a medical issue. A funny nose is not. There is a significant difference. Pregnancy affects the whole of a woman’s body, requires medical intervention, is “treated” by doctors.
If a woman has breast cancer, should her reconstructive surgery be covered? It’s elective.
Pregnancy affects the whole of a woman’s body, requires medical intervention, is “treated” by doctors.
Posted by: Less at March 23, 2010 9:30 PM
Are you listening? I am a nurse. I have given birth SEVEN times. Pregnancy, in and of itself, does NOT “require” medical intrevention!!
A deviated septum is a medical condition as well, yet we do not cover elective surgery to repair the septum unless it is in some way causing serious medical complications.
Heck, a hitch-hikers thumb is a medical condition. Does it mean we should cover elective surgery to repair it?
I assume you got ultrasounds, went to a doctor to confirm the condition? Even those who do unassisted homebirths have hospitals on call. A woman can die if a pregnancy goes awry. No one dies if your nose is funny shaped or your chest isn’t the shape you’d like.
You could die from a deviated septum, if it were severe enough. Should we also cover repairs of a deviated septum that are not in any way life threatening, and are only targeted towards elective, cosmetic alteration?
I’d say so, if it could ever become life threatening.
I *chose* to go to doctors and have ultrasounds. Millions of women all over the world for centuries have given birth without doctors and ultrasounds because, barring complications… pregnancy maintains itself. It is the normal consequence of sexual activity and requires nothing further to continue.
It is abortion that is the unnatural act.
So you only believe abortion should be funded under the presumption that the pregnancy could reasonably become life threatening?
Under this theory, you wouldn’t support the funding of 99% of abortions past 16 weeks, as studies show that abortion is more dangerous than induced labor past viability. The abortion is not medically necessary for life preservation.
You would also only support funding abortion in the case of ectopic pregnancies, which I fully agree with, pre 16 weeks, as this is the only reasonable life threatening aspect of early pregnancy.
Even if there are some other random, ultra-rare complications that can occur in the loop hole periods, it is likely that these complications can be watched and acted upon only as the symptoms appear. There is likely no need for preemptive abortion.
Think of it this way. In theory, you could develop breast cancer as a function of having certain tissue in your breasts. You could, in theory, remove your breasts as a preemptive strike against breast cancer. You also could remove your breasts as a cosmetic preference. Do you believe that funding is required for the removal of these breasts in either case?
(Keep in mind, few women have abortions for fear of dying. Most women have abortions for the elective decision to not bring humans into the world for which they are responsible or to do without the physical trials of pregnancy as a function of bodily integrity.)
Actually, at this point, many insurance companies pay for genetic testing for breast cancer. Some women, if they are determined to have the gene, will have preemptive mastectomies. The insurance companies pay for these, and rightfully so.
Contraception is paid for by insurance companies. By your rational, that would not be paid for. Neither would Viagra, which all insurance companies cover.
I would like to see these studies that you speak of. Abortion past 23 weeks is dangerous for the mother, and only used in the case of danger to the mother. I would like to have citations, please, that this is different.
Less: “Some women, if they are determined to have the gene, will have preemptive mastectomies. The insurance companies pay for these, and rightfully so.”
Are you suggesting that abortion is then only to be funded if it is LIKELY to endanger the mother’s life? I’m actually on board with that reasoning.
Less: “Neither would Viagra, which all insurance companies cover.”
Hmm, that’s odd. My insurance does not cover Viagra. What was it you said about all insurance companies again? A little bold there. Our insurance does not cover any elective procedure, and nor should it, unless I choose to pay for a more expensive plan with that express purpose. The government should not cover elective procedures.
Less: “I would like to have citations, please, that this is different.”
I’ll let Lauren pull the stats up. She’s good at that.
Here is the study I was referencing.
emedicine.medscape.com/article/795001-overview
“Mortality and morbidity depend on gestational age at the time of miscarriage or abortion. In the United States, mortality rates per 100,000 abortions are as follows: fewer than 8 weeks, 0.5%; 11-12 weeks, 2.2%; 16-20 weeks, 14%; and more than 21 weeks, 18%.”
I am having a harder time finding a general morbidity/mortality rate for pregnancy for the year 2010, but the morbidity/mortality rates for C-section in the 1980’s was right around 10%.
Lauren will keep looking tomorrow.
No, I am suggesting that, given xyz set of conditions (pregnancy), an individual has a and b set of responses (abortion or continue the pregnancy). Similarly, given xyz set of conditions (detecting a breast cancer gene) an individual has a and b set of choices (monitoring the situation or removing the breast tissue). Each of those choices should be covered.
Cosmetic procedures are different. Given xyz set of conditions (a funny-shaped nose), an individual has a and b set of responses, to fix or to ignore. Elective procedures are truly elective because of the possibility of ignoring.
Does that make more sense?
Less, you keep changing the “point” of your argument because you HAVE no point and no logical argument supporting abortion as “medical care”.
You have been proven to lie about (or blindly believe the lies of others) how hospitals manage fetal demises.
I’m done arguing semantics of pregnancy with you. Suffice it to say, there is no medical reason to require federal funding of abortion.
Elisabeth, I’m sorry you feel that way. I’ve not changed my point; I’ve clarified it for the benefit of yourself and others.
I disagree with your statement, but perhaps this is an argument that will waste time on both sides.