Jivin J’s Life Links 7-27-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Joe Carter asks abortion moderates what the relative value of the unborn is:
Is the relative value of abortion worth the equivalent cost in lives lost to homicides? If not, then what equivalent number would be acceptable? What is the relative value of a fetus? That is a question that pro-choice moderates need to answer. They often walk up to the line, admitting that abortion is “tragic” and should be “rare.” But when pressed to quantify “rare” by putting an actual number to the abstract value, will they balk? It’s time we found out.
It’s time we started asking them to directly answer: When it comes to abortions, what number is acceptable?
- David Prentice discusses Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision to dismiss a federal lawsuit against President Obama’s embryonic stem cell funding policy:
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth has dismissed a federal lawsuit challenging current NIH guidelines that allow taxpayer funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Judge Lamberth had originally ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Dr. James Sherley and Dr. Theresa Deisher, in a preliminary injunction in August 2010. That preliminary injunction temporarily shut down federal funding, until an Appeals Court placed a temporary hold on the injunction in September 2010. The Appeals Court eventually vacated the preliminary injunction in April 2010 in a 2-1 split decision. Supplemental briefings were filed in the case in June 2010.
In today’s opinion by Judge Lamberth, he noted that the April split decision by the Appeals Court tied his hands in terms of ruling on the main lawsuit.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Joe Carter’s problem is that he’s making an unjustified assumption about the motivations of people who call abortion “tragic” and claim that it should be “rare”. Saying these things does not necessarily imply a moral valuation of the fetus at all; it may implicate, instead, a judgment of circumstantial factors–financial (in)security, level of access to effective contraception, education–using abortion, i.e. the final result of the failure of those things, as a proxy. I might say that indulgence in an illicit (if not illegal) substance, even one without serious long-term health implications, is tragic and should be rare, simply because it reflects the failure of society to be able to reach the user and show them a better way to live their life.
Moderators, Hi! This link is off topic but I wasn’t sure where else to post it. It’s msnbc’s story about babies in China. “rescued” by the government they say, yea right. The human trafficking is horrible, but these poor babies may have gone from the frying pan to the fire.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43906187/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/?gt1=43001
Saying these things does not necessarily imply a moral valuation of the fetus at all; it may implicate, instead, a judgment of circumstantial factors–financial (in)security, level of access to effective contraception, education–using abortion, i.e. the final result of the failure of those things, as a proxy.
That seems like a cop out to me. How would you know any of that based on the number of abortions one has?
Of course saying ‘rare’ didn’t mean anything. It was just another pro-abortion lie. So in a way, I finally agree with Joan on something.
You can’t quantify ‘rare’. “quantify “rare” by putting an actual number to the abstract value,” speaks for itself.
Most of you would answer ‘zero’ whilst I would answer ‘as few as can be needed by ensuring preventative measures such as good sex education and ever-improving contraception can deliver’.
non-sequitur alert
“Spiritual leader: President Obama meets with His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama in the Map Room of the White House on July 16, 2011”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018932/US-debt-ceiling-crisis-talks-White-House-release-latest-scenes-photos.html#ixzz1TLu1g95X
That was a caption under an ‘unguarded’ snapshot of the interloper-in-cheif.
If this photo had been published in the New York Times the caption would have read:
Spiritual Leader: The Dalai Lama meets with HIS Holiness in the map room of the White House
Reality: But “needed” is utterly discretionary.
I think it’s question-begging to speak of actual need — as if survival depended on every abortion ever performed. The idea that no abortions are unnecessary seems counter-intuitive, and is at least far from obvious.
Yes it is discretionary rasqual and that’s the beauty of a diverse society. Otherwise we might as well all move to Stepford.
It’s not counter-intuitive, it’s a personal decision based on what each person finds necessary.
joan says: July 27, 2011 at 1:53 pm
“I might say that indulgence in an illicit (if not illegal) substance, even one without serious long-term health implications, is tragic and should be rare, simply because it reflects the failure of society to be able to reach the user and show them a better way to live their life.”
=====================================================================
Or one could also say:
Her mother’s foolish indulgence to cotinue her pregancy while the joan was yet an human embryo/fetus in her uterus, even if it were not without long term serious consequences, was tragic simply because it reflects the failure of humanism/feminism to be able to reach her and show her the more responsible choice for a dead baby.
Is the relative value of abortion worth the equivalent cost in lives lost to homicides? If not, then what equivalent number would be acceptable?
What is the world is this? “Cost”? It’s widely acknowledged that some homicides – wartime, self-defense, etc., are okay because there is a good enough reason for the killing. In no way is there one given “cost” to homicide. It is not a matter of the number of lives, but of the situation.
What would be the “cost” if we were not free to defend ourselves as with self-defense? And of course I’m not saying that choosing to end an unwanted pregnancy is the same thing. Yet if we go with the notion – what I see in what Joe Carter said – that we are to compare illegal homicides with abortion, then one given homicide can involve more suffering and more regret than hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of abortions.
____
What is the relative value of a fetus?
That one is answered by the pregnant woman, most of all.
If self-defense is not homicide, and a developing human (such as an embryo) is defenseless and cannot possibly be on the offensive, then we must agree that abortion is not self defense. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, both humans (mom n child) are innocently caught up in a medical emergency. Therefore, it can only be lawful that abortion is an attack on the child directly, and not self defense and is murder. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy, or cancer, or other disease affecting both parties can only be done without directly attacking the developing child.
Abortion is murder.
…whilst I would answer ‘as few as can be needed by ensuring preventative measures such as good sex education and ever-improving contraception can deliver’.
And how many abortions are needed?
Actually, forget about answering the question. You could have done without the obfuscation and typed “As few (or many) as the women who obtain them want”. I mean, that’s what it essentially boils down to.
People who believe abortion should be legal see legal abortion as the lesser of two evils. The simple fact is: the pregnant female can easily live without the embryo or fetus while the embryo or fetus is doomed outside the womb. Thus, if a pregnant female dies in the first 5 or 6 months of pregnancy, the unborn automatically dies with her. OTOH, take the unborn out of the pregnant female and she is quite healthy.
When abortion was a crime, girls and women who wanted to abort their pregnancies had abortions under “back-alley” conditions that sometimes killed or maimed them. The figures of those who did this is a matter of great dispute but there is no disputing that it did occur. Some females even committed suicide because they could not stand to carry their pregnancies to term. I read an anonymous article that was published in the pre-Roe era in which a small town doctor talked about how he became an illegal abortionist. A young woman came to him for an abortion. He reminded her that abortion was illegal and told her to take care of herself during the pregnancy. The next day, he read in the newspaper that she had committed suicide.
The legalization people see that both unborn and pregnant female can die if abortion is illegal. They think that at least one of them — the pregnant female — would be alive if abortion is legal.
OTOH, the criminalization side believes that many more unborn are killed if abortion is legal. The “back-alley” horrors scare off those females who don’t want to be pregnant but are not genuinely desperate and completely averse to carrying to term. When abortion is a crime, such females simply accept the “surprise” and a family starts or grows. They know that some females will commit suicide or be killed in horrible conditions — automatically taking the unborn with them — but see this as a tragic cost that should be paid so that many more unborn will make it to being born.
The legalizers want to diminish the number of abortions because they know that the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Denise Noe,
Before Roe V Wade abortions were done in dr. offices. Not “back alleys.” When abortion became legal every hack dr opened up shop and Gosnell, Haskell, Pendergraft, Carhart and Tiller etc. became the “back alley.” Killing and maiming women legally.
Please do some research. Read anything by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz says GOP seeks ‘dictatorship … spark panic’
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60080.html#ixzz1TOqUpjEQ
The chair [of the Democrat National Committee] telephoned POLITICO to express “significant disappointment in where … Republicans have allowed this debate to degenerate.”
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), [the wo-man who put the ‘duh’ in Florida] chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Wednesday that House Republicans are trying to impose “dictatorship” through their tactics in the debt-ceiling negotiations. She said the GOP rhetoric could “spark panic and chaos,” which she called “potentially devastating” to the economy.
Chairman of Democrat Caucus urges b o to usurp the authority of Congress, rule by fiat and issue presidential edict
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60038.html#ixzz1TOowIbEI
?
“We’re getting down to decision time,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic caucus. “We have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States.”
Rep. James Clyburn and a group of House Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling if Congress can’t come up with a satisfactory plan before the Tuesday deadline.
He [b o] should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.” The Associated Press reported that he [Clyburn] was applauded when he suggested the idea at a caucus meeting earlier in the day.
?
The democrat leadership should take the time to read the constitution and consult a dictionary.
Article 1, Section 7
“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.”
Section 8. [The enumerated powers/responsibilities of Congress. The first two:]
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Section 9
“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Article 2, Section 1
“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows”…
[The president executes the bills which Congress has passed and he, or previous presidents, have signed or allowed to become ‘law’. The president has only those powers which are delegated to him by the Constitution. But truth and the Constitution are only minor inconvienences to democrats and they prefer to disregard either or both when the dynamic duo conflicts with their schemes and scams.
?
But democrats hold them both aloft and appeal to them with the evangelistic zeal of a bible thumpin evangelist when they are useful in furthuring their frauds.]
?
?
?
Carla says:
July 28, 2011 at 7:50 am
Denise Noe,
Before Roe V Wade abortions were done in dr. offices. Not “back alleys.” When abortion became legal every hack dr opened up shop and Gosnell, Haskell, Pendergraft, Carhart and Tiller etc. became the “back alley.” Killing and maiming women legally.
Please do some research. Read anything by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a former abortionist.
(Denise) I am aware of Dr. Nathanson. I know that he states in his books that he and other people trying to get abortion legalized deliberately exaggerated the figures of girls and women killed in illegal abortions. Getting precise data on illegal activity is really impossible but some of the figures they bandied about like 10,000 females per year dying in illegal abortions, were just plain preposterous.
However, the main thrust of the legalization people was that legalizing wouldn’t make the number of abortions grow. What would happen would be that females who simply couldn’t tolerate carrying to term and would have aborted no matter what, would abort with fewer of the females themselves getting maimed or killed. It was supposed to prevent suicides and butchery without increasing the numbers of abortions.
However, this argument is not strong. At least SOME abortions are prevented when it is unlawful — without the pregnant female committing suicide. Females who are borderline, would prefer not to have a baby at the present times, might get abortions when it is legal. If it is illegal, they will accept the surprise and carry to term. The process of carrying to term leads them to love their baby and a family just starts or grows.
Again, I’m not the enemy. I acknowledge that the law can prevent at least SOME abortions.
Ninek: If self-defense is not homicide, and a developing human (such as an embryo) is defenseless and cannot possibly be on the offensive, then we must agree that abortion is not self defense. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, both humans (mom n child) are innocently caught up in a medical emergency. Therefore, it can only be lawful that abortion is an attack on the child directly, and not self defense and is murder. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy, or cancer, or other disease affecting both parties can only be done without directly attacking the developing child.
Abortion is murder.
Well, no, not murder – you may not like that people have abortions, but in no way does that make it “murder.”
Self-defense killings *are* homicides, but are often considered justified – there was a good enough reason for it. Agreed that having an abortion is not self-defense.
Ectopic pregnancies – I’d rather see multiple abortions versus one ectopic pregnancy when it’s wanted.
Denise: I am aware of Dr. Nathanson. I know that he states in his books that he and other people trying to get abortion legalized deliberately exaggerated the figures of girls and women killed in illegal abortions. Getting precise data on illegal activity is really impossible but some of the figures they bandied about like 10,000 females per year dying in illegal abortions, were just plain preposterous.
What, really, does the exact number matter there? Abortion was legalized on the basis of the state not having a good enough reason to curtail the woman’s liberty – at least to a point in gestation. Nathanson was heck on propaganda all along – and granted that he may have had a hand in some falsehoods along the way. But so what? At the most, it’s only a tangential observation. It’s like going back in time and finding a false thing said by a member of a political party, or a false thing held for a time as a part of the party’s “platform” and attempting to impugn the party as a whole because of that, even without regard to the time frames involved.
Abortion is murder. To say it’s not is just kidding yourself. Maybe it makes you feel better. It doesn’t change the fact that attacking a baby is murder. A business who takes money for killing babies inside healthy women is a business of murder for hire.
Nathanson didn’t make up some “tangential” lie: the lie of the number of deaths from illegal abortion WAS the lie being used to legalize it. It was THE BIG LIE. Cecile Richards would be doing something else for a living had it not been for that lie.
Some of us remember firsthand and no amount of euphemism or deflection from abortion advocates can change what we know to be true.
ninek says:
July 28, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Abortion is murder. To say it’s not is just kidding yourself. Maybe it makes you feel better. It doesn’t change the fact that attacking a baby is murder. A business who takes money for killing babies inside healthy women is a business of murder for hire.
Nathanson didn’t make up some “tangential” lie: the lie of the number of deaths from illegal abortion WAS the lie being used to legalize it. It was THE BIG LIE. Cecile Richards would be doing something else for a living had it not been for that lie.
Some of us remember firsthand and no amount of euphemism or deflection from abortion advocates can change what we know to be true.
(Denise) When abortion was illegal, was it prosecuted as murder? Were girls and women executed or sent to prison for life for having abortions? Were abortionists punished identically with those who were convicted of murder?
What do you want? A senior dissertation on the history of abortion? Plenty of books and articles have been written. Yes, there were some prosecutions. No, unlike Bill Clinton used to say while he was campaigning, no, most of us in the pro-life movement are not looking to put all post-abortive mothers in jail. But if it would make abortion advocates feel better, I volunteer to go to jail myself for my part in my child’s murder.
ninek says:
July 28, 2011 at 2:32 pm
What do you want? A senior dissertation on the history of abortion? Plenty of books and articles have been written. Yes, there were some prosecutions. No, unlike Bill Clinton used to say while he was campaigning, no, most of us in the pro-life movement are not looking to put all post-abortive mothers in jail. But if it would make abortion advocates feel better, I volunteer to go to jail myself for my part in my child’s murder.
(Denise) My point is that when abortion was illegal, it was not prosecuted as murder. It was in its own distinct category of abortion.
A while back, I put together an article entitled, “Debunking the Coat-Hanger Myth”
In the article, I compiled data and statistics on illegal abortions from men and women of various disciplines of obstetrics, psychiatry, public health, sociology, forensic medicine, and law and demography. I suggest reading it.
Wait, are people really talking about prosecuting women who have had abortions? No, just no.
JackBorsch says:
July 28, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Wait, are people really talking about prosecuting women who have had abortions? No, just no
(Denise) The point I’m making is that while so many people call abortion “murder,” it has not been prosecuted as murder. It has always been prosecuted in its own particular category as “abortion.” Sometimes abortionists were incarcerated but for relatively brief periods. They did not serve anything like the sentences for people convicted of murder. Generally speaking, the female who aborted was not prosecuted at all.
Reality, do you even try to understand English, counting on grammar and syntax?
Seriously…
JackBorsch says
Wait, are people really talking about prosecuting women who have had abortions? No, just no
I’m generally concerned as to why you don’t think women and abortionist should be tried for murder when having/administering an abortion. I am being serious here, if abortion is murder shouldn’t abortion be illegal and women sentenced to 25-life for having one. If it is really gruesome abortion shouldn’t she be eligible for the death penalty?
Perhaps one of the reasons you don’t think they should be culpable is because many women don’t understand what they are doing, but I am talking about women who understand fetal development and fetal pain, why shouldn’t women like carla and ninek be in jail for at least 10 years?
I don;t think abortion is really murder, I recognize it is something ‘different’ and this is why I don’t think a woman needs punitive punishment and a felony conviction if she has one, but you disagree, it seems inconsistent to say abortion is murder but not want to ascribe appropriate punishment 25-life for the murderer, that seems genuinely bizarre
Have you ever seen me personally call anyone a murderer? Everyone has different opinions.
Hi Shannon,
I did not have informed consent with my abortion. Remember that? Did we not already have this discussion?
I will gladly go to jail for 10 years if that is the sentence others would like to hand down to me. I mean my four children will be fine right? And oh let’s not forget that silly little thing called “forgiven!” Oh and the fact that abortion is legal, however heinous it is.
I want my cell next to Ninek’s!
Hi Carla,
i said women like Carla, meaning women who had abortions, but of course I was talking about if abortion was legal. If abortion becomes illegal because it is murder shouldn’t we try women who have them ( as well as abortionists who perform them as murderers? shouldn’t they get 25-life or some lofty jail sentence? If not why not.
“I did not have informed consent with my abortion. Remember that? Did we not already have this discussion?”
What difference does this make? You have ( or others who are vehemently pro-life) have compared abortion to the holocaust or other genocides. Nazi’s were told the jews were cockroaches not human beings that they were killing, but they were still guilty of murder, or do you not agree? do you think this lack of informed consent absolved their crime?
“And oh let’s not forget that silly little thing called “forgiven!”
Carla is abortion murder or isn’t it. I think we can both agree that a murderer being ‘forgiven’ should have no bearing on whether or not they go to jail regardless if the effect it will have on their children ( that is irrelevant and you know it)
But my question still isn’t about you, its about women like you who do the same thing you did when abortion is illegal. If the life of the unborn fetus is equal to the life of a born person how can we not give these murderers hard time?
“If abortion becomes illegal because it is murder shouldn’t we try women who have them ( as well as abortionists who perform them as murderers? shouldn’t they get 25-life or some lofty jail sentence?”
Shannon, the answer to your question is: it depends. Like all acts of killing, it depends on the circumstances, the knowledge of the individual, culpability, the situation, and a whole host of other factors. Like any instance where we find out that someone kills someone else, it must be judged on a case by case basis with the competent people looking into teh facts and details of teh matter. Certainly the abortionist is a priori much more guilty than the woman procuring an abortion. But if abortion is made illegal, there would indeed be consequences for obtaining an abortion. However, just like any other crime, there are many many circumstances to be taken into consideration. We don’t just say “oh you had an abortion? 30 years in prison.” We have lived in nearly forty years of legal abortion which would be taken into consideration. Many women have been lied to and said that it is a blob of tissue or whatever. Those things would be taken into account. If it were made illegal tomorrow, there would be so much confusion that would ensue on the part of someone looking to obtain an abortion. So what is the punishment? Like any crime, it depends. It depends on a ton of factors, and it is much more complicated than probably any other crime at this point in time in the United States.
But the question is- if killing a zygote is indeed killing a person, what is wrong with saying that if one engages in that action, then there will be a penalty under the law? Is the argument really that “it is an absurdity to think that women can be punished for obtaining an abortion and hence, abortion cannot be made illegal?”
Hi Shannon,
What Bobby said. :)
Just finished up a week of VBS with 400 children and tonight I am going out for my anniversary.
Some other time.
One question though.
Did women who sought abortions prior to 1973 do hard time?