"I think this is too close to infanticide," said Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "[W]hat on earth is this procedure?"
The procedure that the pro-choice Democratic Senator from New York found so abhorrent was "intact dilation and extraction", commonly referred to as "partial-birth abortion." The late Senator Moynihan first voted to outlaw the barbaric practice in 1997. Ten years later, the ban on partial birth abortion has finally been affirmed by the Supreme Court and will soon be illegal.
Surprisingly, some abortion advocates are still claiming that this particular practice should not be forbidden. I find it unimaginable that anyone with a working moral compass could defend the blatant killing of human infant. Therefore, I assume that they are simply unaware of what partial-birth abortion entails. In order to help correct that deficiency in understanding, I've selected some passages from Family Research Council's pamphlet "Partial Birth Abortion on Trial" (PDF).
[Warning: The following contains a graphic description of the partial-birth abortion procedure.]
Dr. Stephen Chasen, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, is one of the plaintiffs against the Act. On cross-examination, counsel for the Government inquired into each element of a partial-birth abortion:
Q. You wrap a small sterile towel around the fetus, because it is slippery, and after the legs are out you pull on the sacrum, or the lower portion of the spine, to continue to remove the fetus, right?
A. Right.
Q. When the fetus is out to the level of the breech, you place another, larger towel around the first small towel, right?
A. Right.
Q. You gently pull downward on the sacrum until the shoulder blades appear, right?
A. Right.
Q. Then, with your hand on the fetus’s back, holding it with the towel, you twist in a clockwise or counterclockwise motion to rotate the shoulder, right?
A. Right.
Q. The shoulder in front or the arm in front is swept out with your fingers, and then you rotate the other side of the fetus to sweep out the other arm, right?
A. Right.
Q. Then the fetus is at a point where only the head remains in the cervix, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That is when you make the decision based on gestational age and the amount of cervical dilation, whether the head will fit out intact, whether you can tuck the head of the fetus to its chest, or whether you have to decompress the skull to remove the fetus’s head, right?
A. It is based on the size of the fetal head and the cervical dilation. I don’t directly consider the gestational age.
Q. If you are able to deliver the head by flexing the chin against the fetal chest – and you have been able to do this several times … Doctor?
A. There have been a few occasions, yes.
Q. Then you remove the fetus with the towel, you put it on the table, and you turn back to the woman to deal with the placenta, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. If you can’t do that, you know you are going to have to crush the head, and so you take a clamp and you grasp the cervix to elevate it, and then your assistant there in the operating room will pull down on the fetus’s legs or back, gently lowering the fetus’s head toward the opening of the vagina, right?
A. Right.
Q. That is when you put two fingers at the back of the fetus’s neck at the base of the skull where you can feel the base of the skull, and then you puncture the skull with the scissors, right?
A. I can usually see it as well as feel it. But yes.
Q. At that point you see some brain tissue come out, and you are 100 percent certain that you are in the brain, so you open the scissors to expand the hole, remove the scissors, and put the suction device in the skull, right?
A. Correct.
Q. You turn on the suction, and typically the fetus comes right out with the suction device still in its skull, right?
A. Right.
Dr. Timothy Johnson, chair of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School, testified from his own experience about performing dismemberment abortions, and gave his opinion about the partial-birth abortions he had observed. Dr. Johnson described observing how doctors who did partial-birth abortions “used a crushing instrument to deliver the head.” This provoked further questions from Judge Casey.
The Court: Can you explain to me what that means?
The Witness: What they did was they delivered the fetus intact until the head was still trapped behind the cervix, and then they reached up and crushed the head in order to deliver it through the cervix.
The Court: What did they utilize to crush the head?
The Witness: An instrument, a large pair of forceps that have a round, serrated edge at the
end of it, so that they were able to bring them together and crush the head between the ends of the instrument.
The Court: Like the cracker they use to crack a lobster shell, serrated edge?
The Witness: No.
The Court: Describe it for me.
The Witness: It would be like the end of tongs that are combined that you use to pick up a salad. So they would be articulated in the center and you could move one end, and there would be a branch at the center. The instruments are thick enough and heavy enough that you can actually grasp and crush with those instruments as if you were picking up salad or picking up anything with—
The Court: Except here you are crushing the head of a baby.
The Witness: Correct.
[…]
The Court: An affidavit I saw earlier said sometimes, I take it, the fetus is alive when they crush the skull?
The Witness: That’s correct, yes, sir.
The Court: In one affidavit I saw attached earlier in this proceeding, were the fingers of the baby opening and closing?
The Witness: It would depend where the hands were and whether or not you could see them.
The Court: Were they in some instances?
The Witness: Not that I remember. I don’t think I have ever looked at the hands.
The Court: Were the feet moving?
The Witness: Feet could be moving, yes.
The judge in the case asked to what extent abortion doctors inform their patients about the details of the abortion procedures they will perform. The following is an exchange between Judge Casey and Dr. Westhoff:
The Court: I want to know whether that woman knows that you are going to take a pair of scissors and insert them into the base of the skull of her baby, or her fetus. Do you tell her?
The Witness: I do not usually tell patients specific details of the operative approach. I’m
completely—
The Court: Do you tell her that you are going to then, ultimately, suck the brain out of the skull?
The Witness: In all of our D&Es the head is collapsed or crushed and the brains are definitely out of the skull but those are—
The Court: Do you tell them that?
The Witness: Those are details that would be distressing to my patients and would not—
information about that is not directly relevant to their safety.
The Court: Don’t—whether it’s relative to their safety or not—don’t you think it’s since they’re giving authorization to you to do this act that they should know precisely what you’re going to do?
The Witness: That’s actually not the practice I have of discussing surgical cases with the patients.
The Court: I didn’t ask you that. I said don’t you think they ought to know?
The Witness: No, sir, I don’t.
Of course they don't want women to know. What women would be willing to have the brain of her unborn child crushed and his brains vacuumed out? They would come to the same realization that occurred to Sen. Moynihan. In a "Meet the Press" television appearance he said that he was wrong when he said the procedure was "close to infanticide." "[PBA] is infanticide," said Moynihan, "and one would be too many."
See also: Part II -- Responding to Objections to the PBA Ban
Thank God for George W. Bush and his supreme court nominees and thank the Lord Almighty for the Republican Congress and Senate we had in place to get them onto the Supreme Court.
Baggi,
Maybe you should ask the Iraqis if they think we have president who deeply and sincerely cares about preserving and protecting all human life.
John
Baggi,
Maybe you should ask the Iraqis if they think we have a godly president who deeply and sincerely cares about preserving and protecting all human life.
John
Maybe you should ask the Iraqis if they think we have president who deeply and sincerely cares about preserving and protecting all human life.
John, maybe you need to ask yourself if your obsession with Bush is healthy. As a Christian, you should know that hatred is bad for the soul.
Love the sinner, hate the sin, my brother.
And Whoa unto them that call good, evil and evil, good.
OK so we have two abortion threads in play, would it be useful if we tried to informally agree to discuss this on one or the other thread so we are not constantly shuttling back and forth? I made a few points on the Part II thread if anyone's interested...
Love the sinner, hate the sin, my brother.
I am pretty sure that doesn't mean to shout your hate from the rooftops, while keeping your love hidden in a dark closet.
And Whoa unto them that call good, evil and evil, good.
I'd be more concerned about that if I were you than, but since I'm not, not so much. You might want to remember Matthew 7:3.
Uncenfeger,
Your preaching doesn't have much credibility with me.
Your preaching doesn't have much credibility with me.
And that's almost as big a problem as your delusional Bush hatred. Your life would be much happier if you just agreed with me.
John wrote;
Maybe you should ask the Iraqis if they think we have president who deeply and sincerely cares about preserving and protecting all human life.
They'd probably say the same thing I would. That President Bush doesn't care about protecting all human life. For instance, murderers. He, like I, believe murderers deserve the death penalty.
Of course, we're not talking about those who have commited crimes deserving of death. We're talking about innocent children.
Certainly then we can agree on this, right John? That the unborn children are worthy of our protection?
Baggi,
What I am specifically talking about hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, ordinary people like you and me, who have had loved ones killed, injured, and torture, as a result of our nation's invasion and occupation of Iraq. And not forget the 2 million Iraqi people who have had to leave their homes too.
Followers of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, should not continue to support this sort of thing.
Two points:
1. I was wondering how many voted for the ban for political purposes, but hoped that the Supreme Court would cover their rear ends. I have since learned that Harry Reed voted for the ban and then lamented at the SC decision. I know there are others too, which not only paints most Democrats as disingenuous, but also proves that Americans don't want this to be legal; and also that the Democrat party, yea those same guys that are so concerned for the Iraqis, could give a rip about children 1/2 second before they clear the birth canal. In fact, truth be known, the only reason they are concerned about those Iraq's is because they realize that what bodes ill for Iraq bodes ill for Bush, never mind that what bodes ill for Bush bodes ill for America.
2. Am I the only one that saw the Newsweek photo of the Iraqi mother baby lying dead in the street after being gassed by Iraqis from an airplane? I can understand those that hate Bush not caring about the dead baby, but what about the poor mother? Really, what about that mother?
If partial birth abortion were the safest way to protect the life of your beloved wife in a pregnancy that could kill her, and there are such cases, would you want it to be legal? If you say no, then are you willing to see both wife and child die because the procedure that could save one of them is "icky"?
Um, Roberta? Just what life and death situations involve delivering the baby up to the head, and then require killing the baby rather than finishing the delivery? That's right, they don't exist.
The murder of little children is more than "icky" - its abhorrent and inexcusable.
What about malnourished and suffering Iraqi children? I'd like to see some outrage about this.
JohnW, you never answered the question though. Are the millions of children killed by abortion in this country no concern at all to you? This is what this particular thread is about.
"Thank God for George W. Bush and his supreme court nominees and thank the Lord Almighty for the Republican Congress and Senate we had in place to get them onto the Supreme Court."
Did God vote in the 2004 election? Is God a U.S. citizen? Did God switch parties in 2006? Will you thank God if the Democrats take the White House in 2008 and appoint the next couple of justices who will swing the court back to the left?
Just curious.
Wow Rob - I guess you've totally dismantled the Christian theology of providence with your stellar logic. You're an inspiration to us all.
what life and death situations involve delivering the baby up to the head, and then require killing the baby rather than finishing the delivery? That's right, they don't exist.
I would imagine any situation where dilating a woman's cervix would be very dangerous. The cases I heard about involve a rare condition where a baby's brain grows outside its head (such babies die upon birth) or where a baby has an enlarged head but no brain at all (which raises the question of whether such babies are actually living human beings since they lack a functioning brain and can only survive inside the womb).
As for how life threatening these conditions are I don't know. I also don't know if these conditions are threatening how much safer partial birth abortion would be compared to other types.
Wonders,
I don't support abortion and I am a christian. However, I think it is amazing that people would get on their self righteous high horse about abortion and at the same time continue to support the occupation of Iraq.
Every single day for the past 4 years in Iraq, there has been death and devastation on the scale of 4 or 5 times that of the recent Virginia Tech shootings. Watch the news coverage, listen to the evangelical leaders, and even your local pastors. They'll be bemoaning this shooting for weeks. You'll hear little concern for the violence in Iraq. The next time someone talks about how terrible and tragic the Virginia Tech shooting were (and obviously they were), remember this-that was a slow day in Iraq and they have been putting up with this for the past four years.
To me it seems very creepy and surreal when I hear Christians saying they thank God for George W. Bush because he stands up for the culture of life.
As usual, Wikipedia seems a good place to start. Below is a list of reasons it gives for women to have IDE. The last one would appear to be likely to cause a situation where you may have a situation where a woman's health is in jeopardy.
I would imagine it would require two relatively unusual things to happen together. Something like a serious hydrocephalus combined with an unusually fragile woman (say because of a heart condition?). Perhaps others here have more medical knowledge they could apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_birth_abortion#Circumstances_in_which_the_procedure_is_performed
* The woman does not have to experience labor.
* The woman does not have to undergo abdominal surgery.
* The procedure results in a largely intact body over which the parents may grieve.[8]
* Sharp instruments are inserted into the uterus fewer times than in a D&E abortion.
* The fetus may have hydrocephalus, where the head may expand to a radius of up to 250% of a normal skull at birth, making it impossible for it to pass through the cervix. If live birth is desired, the physician may drain the excess fluid in utero using a syringe, or a caesarian section with a larger than usual incision can be used. If abortion is desired, D&X may be the simplest procedure.
But surely, John, you understand that the majority of the violence at the moment is done by insurgents against their fellow Iraqis - insurgents that we are trying to assist them in defeating? I'm not condoning the war - but the sort of statements you are making are rather simplistic. I could say that what is happening in Iraq is child's play compared to the death and destruction in France and Germany after Normandy. Does that make FDR even more horrific than Bush? Would you decry WWII, and get angered at the hypocrisy of Christians who supported that war while opposing the Nazi death camps?
My point is simply that you can't blame us for both our actions and that of our enemies, while ignoring the actions of Saddam which would have continued if we had done nothing, and ignore how much worse things would be if we left the current Iraqi government with no support. Again, I'm certainly open to being convinced that we were wrong to go to war - I'm open to any suggestions for current action that don't simply say "let's make it someone else's problem". But I can't for the life of me see how this has the same degree of moral CLARITY that abortion does.
Are you accusing our soldiers of killing all the Iraqis you seem so concerned about? If not, who do you attribute the killing to? Why do you overlook the fact that fewer people are dying now than there were while Sadam was in power?
Wonders,
I'll try to clarify my thoughts by listing them.
1. I don't think Americans generally are aware of the scope of the devastation in Iraq these last four years.
2. The war was not necessary.
3. Our military is not responsible for the majority of the violence, however we failed to bring security to the country. We did not adequately plan to secure the country.
4. And this is my biggest one. Christians are guilty of not taking the time to educate themselves about what is going on in Iraq-the vast majority still support the occupation of Iraq despite all the information that has come out in the last few years.
Smmtheory,
It's actually debatable that fewer people are dying now than there were while Sadam was in power.
smm and wonders:
Do not look for anything like reason from JohnW on this topic. First of all, I don't know if you've noticed but this was a thread about abortion. JohnW sees everything through the lens of Iraq and hatred for George Bush. His answer for almost every challenge is What Would Jesus Do? It's a good reminder, but it's not exactly an original or probing question. It also assumes that WE HAVEN'T ALREADY ASKED OURSELVES!! Ironically, if he were posting anywhere but here, on any topic other than Bush-bashing, he would be labeled a religious nut.
Second, I hope you realize that JohnW believes the absolutely ridiculous notion that Americans are responsible for 600,000 innocent Iraqi deaths. Therefore, he sees Bush and the Americans as just as bad as Saddam and abortionists. I've asked him to clarify that 600,000 number because it's been stuck on about "600,000 innocent Iraqis" for about a year now. Certainly, at the rate we were killing Iraqis, it's time to bump that number up to around 800,000.
Do you get the feeling that JohnW is obsessed?
1. I don't think Americans generally are aware of the scope of the devastation in Iraq these last four years.
How do you know? How much time have you spent in Iraq either pre or post-Saddam? Do you have access to some secret information that hasn't been released to the public?
2. The war was not necessary.
There are always alternatives to war, but they aren't always better.
3. Our military is not responsible for the majority of the violence, however we failed to bring security to the country. We did not adequately plan to secure the country.
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who don't understand the concept of trade-offs. The plan going in was to operate with a "light military footprint", so as to reduce the impression that we intended to occupy Iraq. It turns out that this was probably the wrong plan, but that doesn't mean that there weren't legitimate reasons for attempting it. In war, things rarely go according to plan.
4. And this is my biggest one. Christians are guilty of not taking the time to educate themselves about what is going on in Iraq-the vast majority still support the occupation of Iraq despite all the information that has come out in the last few years.
John, you seem to be under the impression that all the information coming out of Iraq supports your position; it does not. Is US occupation of Iraq an ideal situation? No, but the alternatives are much worse. The Council on Foreign Relations (no neo-con group here) recently reported that Al Queada is gaining strength in Iraq and may have up to 65,000 soldiers (www.cfr.org/publication/12988/
alqaeda_in_iraq_gains_strength.html). Given that, how would our leaving improve prospects for the Iraqis?
Daggone it, you have gone and got me off topic, you hate-filled little man. Something good has happened (the outlawing of the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion), George Bush has played a part in it and you can't bear to give him a little credit. So much for love the sinner, eh?
Read the Lancet Study for yourself and make up your own minds. An overview can be found at www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf.
You could read it too, JD. Perhaps read it with an open mind and not assume it's part of a satanic plot to undermine George W. Bush and God's favorite nation, the United States of America.
Calling a spade a spade is not hatred. Recognizing evil and speaking out against it is not obsession.
Then by all means, let's call a spade a spade, and get off the topic of Iraq and back onto the topic of Partial Birth Murder. How's that for recognizing evil and speaking out against it? I call it Murder instead of Abortion because it should not be confused with miscarriages that also go by the clinical term of spontaneous abortion. Also, when you call it by the right name (calling a spade a spade) it becomes even more apparent that it is such a poverty to decide to kill a baby so that the pregnancy regretting woman or man (I add man here because some women are pressured by the men making them pregnant to murder the child, or sometimes their fathers) may live free of responsibility to a child.
JohnW,
I'm glad to hear that you are a pro-lifer.
I'm sorry to hear that you cannot see the difference between innocent life and murderers who deserve to be killed.
As an illustration, since you brought it up:
Had I been at Virginia Tech during the shooting, and armed, I would have tried to kill the person doing the shooting.
It's possible in my attempt to kill the person doing the shooting, I may have injured or killed an innocent bystander.
I'm sure you would say I have no respect for life if I had done this, I would say I did it out of my respect for life.
Hopefully someday you will understand and end your constant attempts to derail every thread Joe creates that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
May God continue to Bless President Bush.
So we are not going to actually talk about abortion then? No problem, just wanted to check and make sure.
Don't try to put me in with the satanic plot crowd, you hateful little man. The Lancet Study is not part of a satanic plot, it has simply been debunked. It is the only place where such outrageous numbers have ever been posted. The United Nations' own numbers are less than 100,000.
Sorry, I got everyone flustered.
If you are going to speak out to save the lives of the unborn, atleast be consistent. Speak out and show concern for those who have been born. I actually wish abortion would be made illegal-that way the cynical neo-cons wouldn't be able to use the issue to manipulate christians to vote for them. Ofcourse, the homosexual issue would still be there...
Baggi and everyone else-I am not a pacifist. Someone should have jumped on that deranged shooter at Virginia Tech and stopped him before he shot so many people. It was a tragic waste of life there.
JD, I know it's hard for you to accept the massive scale of the loss of life in Iraq, but that doesn't change the truth.
I pray that George W. Bush will repent of his war crimes and trampling on our constitutuional rights.....
Boonton, I followed your link and found you left something rather important out:
"Although prominent defenders of the method asserted during 1995 and 1996 that it was used only or mostly in acute medical circumstances, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (a trade association of abortion providers), told the New York Times (Feb. 26, 1997): "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."[16] Some prominent pro-choice advocates quickly defended the accuracy of Fitzsimmons' statements.
I pray that George W. Bush will repent of his war crimes and trampling on our constitutuional rights.....
John, which of your Constitutional rights has George Bush trampled on? Are you typing this from a concentration camp? Have you been threatened by government officials for your anti-government agitation?
What crimes, let alone war crimes has Bush been convicted of? The is a War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague; have they even brought charges against him? Have they even attempted to? War crimes are pretty serious charges, Bubba; if you've got some evidence put it up, and before you ask, no, Bruce Fein's or Ron Paul's opinion isn't evidence.
You know John, reading your posts reminds me of this old backwoods church a college buddy of mine attended as a child (fortunately for him, he stopped as a teen). They believed that only 144,000 people were going to Heaven and that anybody who disagreed with their interpretation of the Bible wasn't one of the 144,000. You seem to be of the same mind; only folks that agree with you can be Christian, everybody else is working for the dark side.
ucfengr
Boonton, I followed your link and found you left something rather important out:
I didn't mean to leave it out, the assertion was raised that there are no health reasons for a woman to have a PBA. The article did cite what appear to be valid health reasons. In that regard it isn't relevant whether or not a majority are done for health reasons. A ban with a health exemption would therefore serve the purpose of stopping the majority of such abortions.
I can point out something that Joe and most pro-lifers here leave out (at least those who aren't wrapped up in Iraq on an abortion thread). All this hoopla is about banning a particular abortion procedure...not abortion itself. Basically we are hearing it is of utmost imporance to ban PBA type abortions while other types of late term abortions are ok. Kind of like making a big deal about banning murders with serrated knifes but not regular ones.
Absolutely - outlaw murders with serrated knives! And outlaw this horrible practice.
Not quite, this is a debate that is great on soundbites until you actually dig thru the surface. Essentially the argument here is "abortion is ok unless it happens to be an icky procedure". That's the logic of the ruling and the arguments in support of it.
A ban on late term abortions would be a more coherent argument (with an out when life or health is at stake). There is nothing about PBA's which are really 'ickier' than any other late term abortion. The only difference is, I suppose, the fact that the baby is 'almost' delievered makes pro-lifers feel if you went that far why not just deliever the whole baby and let it be.
This, though, goes back to our limited list of reasons why PBA's are done at all. Getting that head out can be a problem in some circumstances. Other than that it is fundamentally the same thing.
What we got though is an incoherent decision based not on logic but emotion. From the commentary I'm reading about the decision it seems a lot worse than any of the criticisms of Roe.v.Wade. I have a feeling when this is done the right wing is going to end up being worse judicial activists than the left ever was.
I can point out something that Joe and most pro-lifers here leave out (at least those who aren't wrapped up in Iraq on an abortion thread). All this hoopla is about banning a particular abortion procedure...not abortion itself. Basically we are hearing it is of utmost imporance to ban PBA type abortions while other types of late term abortions are ok. Kind of like making a big deal about banning murders with serrated knifes but not regular ones.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. For the pro-life camp, we have had so few victories that even a small one is worth celebrating. This may be our Battle of Trenton.
Except your 'small step' play isn't going to work. I think the expected strategy is "we got people to think A is 'too icky' to keep legal, we'll just make the same argument for B, C, D and so on" then boom just about all abortion will be gone. Likewise pro-choicers adopt this 'all or nothing' approach..."let the camel's nose into the tent and next thing you know it is all over!"
First of all, this is not how it plays out in most democratic countries. In general populations do not go to extremes on any issue. You'll get some gun control but never as much as the activists want. Likewise the NRA will never remove all barriers to guns. There can be some infringement on pro-choice territory but it doesn't change the fact that it is the fringe. Whether the number of late term abortions is 2,000 or 5,000 or even 10,000 it remains the fringe. Plenty of countries have adopted restrictions there without doing anything to the core of abortion freedom which is early trimester abortion.
Second, while you're celebrating your small victories you are giving away your credibility. Already the whole 'the states should decide' argument has been unveiled to be a ruse (or actually a lie) on the pro-lifers part. Here Congress is deciding and the states get zero say. The arguments in this decision are so convoluted, emotional rather than logical and yes incoherent that no you are not going to carry them through to anything.
For example, one of the big arguments about PBA was what I call the 'almost argument'. The baby's 'almost out' so why kill it, just deliever it! Of course there are some cases where there's more to it than that. This argument has nothing to do with pro-life philosophy, though. Whether or not it is 'almost out' doesn't make it a human beign but hey you go with whatever argument you think will work today to make your 'small victory'.
Of course, the 'almost out' argument won't work against all the other types of late term abortion where the baby is destroyed when it is 'fully in'. But of course you think you can ditch the 'almost out' argument just like the 'state's rights' argument was ditched when a better short term argument came along. People will see, though, that you're just being an opportunist here and at some point they will conclude there is no reason to give any of your arguments credibility.
At the end of the day, though, credibility will be the only weapon that will do you any good since 'icky' and 'it looks human' doesn't work when you get the core of most abortions that happen early on in pregnancy. That is the point where your philosophical argument, "it's a human person even if it doesn't seem like it and abortion seems clean and easy" will be the only thing that can give you what you want.
Now if you had pressed a late term abortion ban with a health exemption you could have had a small victory but with credibility.
John, which of your Constitutional rights has George Bush trampled on? Are you typing this from a concentration camp? Have you been threatened by government officials for your anti-government agitation?
I was somewhat neutral in the conversation up to this point, but John is absolutely right on this one (regardless of his motivations...there are liberals out there who will latch onto this line of thinking but deep down in their hearts love the Brave New World the Neocons are creating, it's just that they would have preferred it to happen in 2009 so that Queen Hillary could get credit).
Anyway, the Neocons have been one of the worst things ever to happen to the Constitution, and GW Bush, as the Dear Leader, gets the credit. Sure, your garden variety left wingers could have done worse if they had been in power, but Neocons made left-liberalism palatable to a country that's still fairly split between liberal and conservative. Sound insane or oxymoronic? If you think so, perhaps you...
- Haven't been to an airport lately? I've never seen a better program for desensitizing the public to oppressive government.
- Haven't read the Patriot Act?
- Haven't noticed how Bush has neglected his duty to secure our borders? (Explain this one if you really believe Dear Leader wants to protect us from terrorists).
- Haven't noticed how large government grew under Neocon rule? (Size of government is inversely proportional to freedom)
Those are just examples. A left wing government can only realize its goals in America if the government is large, oppressive, and the Constitution no longer means what its framers meant. The Neocons have gone a long way toward setting the stage for just such government.
Well said, JJ.
Actually, they like to paint me with the liberal left-wing moonbat brush here, but I am actually a moderate who would support true conservatives, like Barry Goldwater.
Check out the Liberty Coalition website, you'll find some intelligent conservative viewpoints about civil liberties and democracy.
I don't get it. How does a post about abortion turn into a righteousness test for the president? The president didn't decree that PBA be illegal, nor could he. It was outlawed in the same manner that it was legalized; which is by decree from the bench. Again this confirms my suspicions that Abortion is the alter at which Bush Haters worship, even though he had no more to do with Partial Birth Abortion being outlawed than Harry Reed did in having it legalized.
Could I expect that there would be not a peep if the holy and righteous Bill Clinton were in office when this took place? Somehow I doubt it.
The president didn't decree that PBA be illegal, nor could he. It was outlawed in the same manner that it was legalized; which is by decree from the bench
He did sign the law that Congress passed without an exemption for life or health, one that Clinton vetoed because Republicans refused to add such an exemption. Whether you think that is good or bad it's a little silly to pretend Bush has nothing to do with this.
- Haven't been to an airport lately? I've never seen a better program for desensitizing the public to oppressive government.
Actually I fly quite a lot. In fact I flew out of National Airport on 9/10/01. If I remember, I had to drive home, but I can't recall why. Apparently, neither can you.
- Haven't read the Patriot Act?
I have read it, but maybe not as closely as you. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the specific portions that are unconstitutional.
- Haven't noticed how Bush has neglected his duty to secure our borders?
Securing our borders from poor Mexicans who simply want to work? I may not agree with Bush on immigration, but there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 2001, so it is hard to argue that he isn't securing our borders from our enemies.
- Haven't noticed how large government grew under Neocon rule?
I don't know how much you can blame this on neo-cons. Have you read "The Weekly Standard"? They have been very critical of Bush on spending. Neo-cons differ from paleo-cons, etc. mainly in areas of foreign policy, not size of government, except maybe defense.
A left wing government can only realize its goals in America if the government is large, oppressive, and the Constitution no longer means what its framers meant.
OK, I'll bite, what exactly are these left wing goals that first require 8 years of set up by the Bush administration?
OK, I'll bite, what exactly are these left wing goals that first require 8 years of set up by the Bush administration?
You don't know? Man, I was going to ask you.
I don't know, I mean like if you raise the min wage why would you first need the FBI to have the power to look at your library records without a warrant?
I don't know, I mean like if you raise the min wage why would you first need the FBI to have the power to look at your library records without a warrant?
Yeah, I mean what right does the government have to know about a book you borrowed from the government-run public library? That's just crazy.
If the FBI has a library then I'll grant that it has the right to know what books I borrowed from it.
If the government has a library then I'll grant that it has the right to know what books I borrowed from it.
Same thing.
Actually no it isn't.
There was a time during the Clinton Administration where there was a wall built up between government agencies so that they would not communicate with each other. Jamie Gorelick is pretty familiar with that wall.
Unfortunately for the terrorists, President Bush and the Republican Congress took that wall down and so the federal libraries and the federal bureau of investigation are indeed the same government.
But I can understand your denial, Boonton, wanting to go back to the Clinton government where they weren't, pre-9/11 and all that.
Baggi, I agree with your point about libraries. If you don't want the government to know what books your are reading, get them from Borders or Amazon.com, not the government run libraries. That said, libraries are generally state run, not federally run, though they may be partially federally funded, so the "wall" really doesn't apply.
Baggi, I agree with your point about libraries. If you don't want the government to know what books your are reading, get them from Borders or Amazon.com, not the government run libraries.
Actually Internet activity can also be examined (as can credit card transactions etc.) without a warrant as well. I have no idea where you're getting 'Federal libraries' from. I was only be sarcastic when I mentioned visitng an FBI run library. I was talking about locally run libraries and there is this little idea around called Federalism which you might have heard of....it basically says that here in the US we actually have several governments. Your county government or state government is NOT simply a local branch of the Federal gov't.
Boonton, I think you may have misread my post. I agree that libraries are state or county run, not federally, though they may receive some federal funding. But I think that, generally speaking, if you are using public facilities, especially where private alternatives are available you have less of an expectation of privacy.
Actually Internet activity can also be examined (as can credit card transactions etc.) without a warrant as well.
If you are using a public library computer to make credit card transactions, the government snooping is probably the least of your problems.
ucfengr,
Actually if you're really paranoid public libraries (nowadays at least) are pretty good to do credit card transactions. With good administrators who keep various spyware programs off of the computers & do an excellent job of erasing the previous patron's history you're probably marginally safer putting your card in there than on your home computer. (You really trust your spouse and kids and even yourself not to have downloaded anything that isn't emailing every number you type in to some guy in Russia?)
But this isn't the point at all. You clearly do have an expectation of privacy in your library borrowing. That comes from the gov't itself which keeps borrowing records private (go ahead, walk into the library and ask them to see if your wife borrowed any books recently on the subject of "How to get a divorce without a lawyer"...see what they tell you).
Your privacy can be violated by the gov't. The Constitution says clearly it can but it sets up checks and balances on that. It can be violated only with just reasonable cause and there's a host of judicial checks that can be utilized should the gov't violate your privacy without just cause. And yes this administration does appear to have a lot of contempt for that basic concept. What I'm thinking of here are the letters presented to some libraries informing them they are to turn over certain records and they cannot discuss the demand with anyone, EVEN THEIR OWN LAWYERS!
I lost track of that story but I believe the policy was thankfully modified after several court challanges but it does illustrate an unnecessary contempt for the very ideas of limited gov't and freedom.
ucfengr, though, seems to be thinking that I'm talking about some type of absolute privacy. Such a thing is not guaranteed in the Constitution and I agree if you really want it you'd probably have to devise a very harsh 'off the grid' lifestyle.
Roberta and others:
If partial birth abortion were the safest way to protect the life of your beloved wife in a pregnancy that could kill her, and there are such cases, would you want it to be legal? If you say no, then are you willing to see both wife and child die because the procedure that could save one of them is "icky"?
Please, please read the necessary background information when discussing an issue. For example, when discussing a law, it might be fruitful to read the law itself. That's just my crazy opinion, I guess.
In this case, if Roberta did read the law, she would know that while the Partial Birth Abortion Act does not contain a generalized health exception for "feeling nervous and afraid" or "slightly weird" or another vague appeal to an undefined-and-therefore-abused conception of "emotional health," the Act does contain a specific health exception for when the life of the mother is in danger:
This subsection [prohibiting partial-birth abortions] does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself. (http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s3.html)
So please... stop talking and listen/read.
Thanks.
Now that pro life groups have this federal legislative notch on their belts, when are your fellow Republicans going to tackle the US infant mortality rate?
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
Mississippi residents could really use help. Their infant mortality rate in 2005 was 11.7, followed closely by Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, North and South Carolina.
To put that in context, 481 babies died in Mississipi in 2005, and increase of 65 from the year before.
Giggling,
You are correct that the law contains that above language but the law also includes a 'finding' by Congress that declares PBA is never necessary for the health of the mother.
This creates a really problematic legal zone. Who decides if a PBA was needed, the doctor or Congress? If a doctor did have a patient where it seemed a PBA would be likely to save her life he would almost certainly be very reluctant to do it since it sounds like the matter would have to be settled by a jury.
And that would be where it would go. When you have complicated medical situations it is very common for there to be no textbook answer. In that zone a doctor is more like an artist using his personal judgement and experience...which of course means that two different doctors may come to two different decisions even though they are both very good doctors.
Even worse, the decision simply punted on this issue saying if such a situation did arise then the woman could file suit! This is laughable because even if the courts expediated such a case it would almost certainly take longer than 9 months to reach a decision (that's assuming, of course, that the woman becomes aware of the situation at the beginning of pregnancy rather than well along the way).
Freakanomics author Steve Levitt's blog had a story about a Texas state senator that wanted to give women who show up at a clinic but change their minds and later give their babies up for adoption $500. An interesting idea, why not simply offer a more substantial amount (say $2,500) to any unmarried woman between 15-25 who has a baby (ok, 25 or under)) and at the same time have the state automatically pick up childbirth expenses for any woman?
I suspect most abortion decisions are made at the margin. It wouldn't take much to sway many women to go in the other direction. At the same time if pro-lifers feel that the law should mandate that women give birth isn't this essentially an 'unfunded mandate' by the gov't? If they feel the gov't can impose such a burden on women then it is pretty hard to argue the minor imposition on taxpayers is unbearable.
Needless to say, this would improve the adoption industry which has plenty of people waiting in line but are not rich and famous enough like Madonna to jet off to another country to snag a baby.
Bene Now that pro life groups have this federal legislative notch on their belts, when are your fellow Republicans going to tackle the US infant mortality rate?
You have a point. The rate of infant morality in Mississippi is almost as high as some Canadian provinces (Yukon Territory 11%; Nunavut 16.1%).
Mississippi residents could really use help.
Since you're from Canada you probably aren't familiar with how our government works. The reason infant mortality is high in some states and low in other states is because that issue is determined on the state, not the federal, level.
You also can't really blame this one on Republicans since the Democrats have controlled both houses of the MS state legislature since after the Civil War ended. Infant mortality is highly affected by poverty and high poverty is closely correlated with having the Democrats in control over a state government.
Boonton:
This creates a really problematic legal zone. Who decides if a PBA was needed, the doctor or Congress? If a doctor did have a patient where it seemed a PBA would be likely to save her life he would almost certainly be very reluctant to do it since it sounds like the matter would have to be settled by a jury.
And that would be where it would go. When you have complicated medical situations it is very common for there to be no textbook answer.
Can you describe concrete examples of these complicated medical situations where it is very common for there to be no textbook answer on whether PBA will save the life of a mother or not?
As for fears of malpractice lawsuits, the need for doctors to be able to defend their treatment choices is inevitable for (theoretical) complicated situations, and they'll always be under pressure from potential lawsuits.
Why then should this surgical procedure be exempt from legal scrutiny when others are not?
Lawsuits are a known risk for doctors but not criminal prosecution which is what we are talking about here. There's no insurance you can buy to ensure that you don't have to do the jail time.
Can I describe such a situation with a PBA? No, I cannot. I can tell you that I've had relatives with complicated medical problems where surgery was required and yes doctors do not see things the same way. So yea a doctor who feels he saved a woman's life or health by doing a PBA cannot be assured the state won't find other doctors who will disagree.
Why then should this surgical procedure be exempt from legal scrutiny when others are not?
What procedure is exempt from legal scrutiny?
This whole debate has never been about the life of the mother; it's rather about the convenience of the mother. Abortions to save the mother's life are a small percentage of procedures performed.
You won't see Boonton come up with any valid examples of PBA being needed to save the life of the mother. This is a perfect example of Christ's words: "You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." The choicers have us arguing about those procedures that save the life of the mother while 99% of abortions continue.
The pro-choicers have controlled the language of the debate. Choice is a nicer word than abortion. Pro-choice is easier to sell than pro-abortion. Ironically, these people live and die to keep abortion legal by fighting for choice, when they have only added ONE choice. It was keep or adopt. Now it's keep, adopt or turn a living mass into a dead one. Thank God for those protectors of women's freedom to choose.
Your privacy can be violated by the gov't. The Constitution says clearly it can but it sets up checks and balances on that. It can be violated only with just reasonable cause and there's a host of judicial checks that can be utilized should the gov't violate your privacy without just cause.
We are getting pretty far afield here, but the standards under which the government can "violate your privacy" varies by circumstance. For example it is much easier to monitor wireless transmissions than it is to actually go into your house and inspect your hard drive or closet. In a car, the standard is even lower. I don't know of any court cases addressing expectation of privacy when using a public computer, but I expect it is pretty low.
You won't see Boonton come up with any valid examples of PBA being needed to save the life of the mother.
In that case a life of the mother exemption would not be a problem for pro-lifers as it would never apply. I did, however, cite several possible situations where it might be an issue. I suggest you look at the previous posts on this list or its companion.
The pro-choicers have controlled the language of the debate. Choice is a nicer word than abortion. Pro-choice is easier to sell than pro-abortion.
Yawn, not another round of "why 'pro' is a nice prefix and 'anti' is a bad prefix therefore 'pro-choicers' have and advantage over people called 'anti-abortion'" whining. This lame excuse was played out by 1986.
We are getting pretty far afield here, but the standards under which the government can "violate your privacy" varies by circumstance. For example it is much easier to monitor wireless transmissions than it is to actually go into your house and inspect your hard drive or closet. In a car, the standard is even lower. I don't know of any court cases addressing expectation of privacy when using a public computer, but I expect it is pretty low.
I think your mixing up how easy or hard something is technologically with legal barriers. It is easy to listen to conversations going on in your house if someone is parked outside with the right equipment but it would be almost impossible to admit such evidence unless it was obtained with a warrant. If you're standing on the street corner yelling 'crack for sale' there's zero privacy protection.
It may be easy to 'bug' a public computer but legally it opens up a can of worms. It's like bugging a pay phone and listening into every conversation. As far as probable cause goes it probably easier to get permission to bug a person's personal phone.
You're almost certainly wrong about public computers and the law. If you go and check your bank account on a 'public computer' it would be illegal for the library staff to, say, log your username and pin & then utilize it.
As I said before, if you're the paranoid type the public library may very well be a safer place to do your banking. I have more faith in the ability of their full time IT people to keep the computers clean than I have in my skills. On the other hand I have little to use. I don't move millions around, if someone got my credit card number I'd be out a few bucks at most.
Speaking of controlling the language
Abortions to save the mother's life are a small percentage of procedures performed.
The test is a mother's health, not life. There are plenty of serious physical threats that one cannot prove absolutely will kill. The doctrine of self-defense, though, requires only serious harm to be the standard of threat. If, for example, a deranged psychopath was trying to inject you with a chemical that would leave you sterile (but not kill you) it would be legal to use deadly force to stop his attack.
The test is a mother's health, not life. There are plenty of serious physical threats that one cannot prove absolutely will kill.
Boonton, you make a distinction without a difference. My point still stands; Abortions to save the mother's life (or health) are a small percentage of procedures performed.
jd, I don't think I ever made an argument that there were a large portion of abortions done for health reasons....although I suspect that as far as late term abortions go health reasons are far more common but no one seems to have any good numbers or inclination to discuss it.
The doctrine of self-defense? It is the height of deceit to portray the unborn child as an aggressor. It is the mother's own body that is betraying her if giving birth to a child is going to cause her harm. Self-defense my butt. If the baby won't fit through the birth canal, it calls for a c-section. If the c-section is going to be harmful to the mother, it's not the unborn child's fault.
smmtheory,
'Fault' isn't relevant here. In my previous example I used the image of a deranged person attacking you. That person isn't at fault either (deranged means he is insane and not responsible for his actions).
Self-defense applies even when the person who is the threat is doing so unintentionally. So while we agree it's not the unborn baby's fault if he is a threat to the mother but that hardly means the mother can be required to forfeit her body by state edict.
Okay, you still don't get it. Let me try rephrasing it... The unborn child is not the CAUSE of the harm. In other words, it's like me playing around with live 220 volt power lines and you getting the electric chair to save me. That's not self-defense. It would be ludicrous to consider it self-defense, just like it is ludicrous to consider abortion self-defense. The baby is not the threat! If anything, the mother is the real threat - to both herself and the baby.
I think your mixing up how easy or hard something is technologically with legal barriers.
No, I am not. From a legal perspective (I am not a lawyer, so I grant I could be wrong), the standard for what constitutes a legal search varies with circumstances.
You're almost certainly wrong about public computers and the law. If you go and check your bank account on a 'public computer' it would be illegal for the library staff to, say, log your username and pin & then utilize it.
True, but my understanding is that we don't give library personnel the authority to conduct evidence searches. What I am talking about is the standard for what qualifies as a legal search. Again, I am not a lawyer, but I think that the standard for acquiring evidence from a public computer is much lower than the standard for obtaining evidence from a private computer. I imagine, it would be quite legal and prudent for the government to monitor these "government-owned" computers to make that they are not being used for illegal activities (i.e. viewing kiddie p**n or making drug deals or planning terrorist attacks) without a warrant.
The baby is not the threat! If anything, the mother is the real threat - to both herself and the baby.
I think smmtheory has talked himself into having the baby kill the mother in self-defense!
I imagine, it would be quite legal and prudent for the government to monitor these "government-owned" computers to make that they are not being used for illegal activities (i.e. viewing kiddie p**n or making drug deals or planning terrorist attacks) without a warrant.
I think the extent of the monitoring might be the library staff periodically strolling by to see if something like that pops up on the screen. I still think a warrant would be required before a general bug could be done even on a public computer. Imagine a public payphone, the gov't just doesn't monitor them because they are public (I know, phones have special laws making the analogy inexact)...
There was a time that I didn't think anything could get more absurd than using the doctrine of self-defense to justify murdering a person with a demonstrable lack of intent or even negligence much less any offensive actions real (such as existence) or imagined. Now, you have proven that theory wrong. Congratulations.
smmtheory,
Here you simply don't know what you're talking about. You don't have to show negligance or intent for self-defense to apply. Look at that guy in VA Tech who killed all those people. If one of his victims had a weapon he would have been justified in using it against the shooter in self-defense.
If it was shown that the killer had such a severe mental illness that he had no responsibility for his actions it wouldn't impact the doctrine of self-defense even though the shooter would have lacked negligance and intent.
Imagine a public payphone, the gov't just doesn't monitor them because they are public (I know, phones have special laws making the analogy inexact)...
The government also doesn't own public phones, unlike the computers in a public library, making the analogy even less exact.
Actually the computers would be owned by the library which is governened by a charter and a board. Even though it is 'the gov't' it cannot suddenly decide to become an arm of law enforcement.
Boontoon,
If you insist on holding to the doctrine of self-defense, then you must carry through with the rest of the logic surrounding the doctrine of self-defense.
That means that the doctrine of self-defense is an excuse to justify committing murder. And since you are trying to excuse murder, then you must acknowledge that the unborn child is a person, because you can only murder people. The catch-22 in using the doctrine of self-defense is that if the "attacker" (and only for the sake of this argument will I allow that an unborn child can be imagined to be an "attacker", otherwise I do not in the slightest agree that it is possible for an unborn child to be an "attacker") is rendered defenseless then the doctrine no longer applies. If you don't believe me, ask any ethical lawyer that practices criminal law. Or better yet, ask any judge that presides in a criminal court. You can't get much more defenseless than an unborn child. Any further action to kill the defenseless "attacker" is not justifiable murder.
Boonton:
Lawsuits are a known risk for doctors but not criminal prosecution which is what we are talking about here. There's no insurance you can buy to ensure that you don't have to do the jail time.
Why does it matter at all whether the doctor can buy insurance for his crime or not? The doctor knows the risk, and therefore should be able to justify his treatment choice. That's not difficult. One can measure the size of the remains of the head and measure the diameter of the dilation, or otherwise document the conditions that provide cause for the treatment decision. A doctor should be doing that anyway.
Sure, doctors can disagree in a trial. Does that make all medical evidence useless for cases where some experts disagree? Of course not. That's how the legal system works to keep criminals accountable.
What procedure is exempt from legal scrutiny?
Aren't you arguing that partial birth abortion shouldn't be subject to federal regulation by law?
That means that the doctrine of self-defense is an excuse to justify committing murder. And since you are trying to excuse murder, then you must acknowledge that the unborn child is a person, because you can only murder people.
Actually self-defense is a defense against the charge of murder. If it is raised and established (reasonable doubt) the person is not guilty of murder.
It is not a philosophical tool for determining whether or not a fetus is a human beign since it applies to non-humans (should an endangered species of bear attack you in the woods you can kill it in self-defense...that doesn't make it human nor does it prove for an animal rights activist that the bear is equal to humans).
he catch-22 in using the doctrine of self-defense is that if the "attacker" (and only for the sake of this argument will I allow that an unborn child can be imagined to be an "attacker", otherwise I do not in the slightest agree that it is possible for an unborn child to be an "attacker") is rendered defenseless then the doctrine no longer applies.
In other words if the attacker no longer poses a danger to you the defense no longer applies. This would only be relevant if there was some way to cure the woman of whatever conditioned put her at risk. Again you bizaarly insist on trying to void the defense by showing the attacker is innocent. No one argues that the unborn baby is purposely 'attacking' its mother but where do you get the notion that has anything to do with self-defense. The bear in the woods is equally innocent because it is an animal and attacks you out of instinct and not malice. Are you telling us the law obigates a person to lay down their life in such situations? That is absurd.
giggling
Why does it matter at all whether the doctor can buy insurance for his crime or not? The doctor knows the risk, and therefore should be able to justify his treatment choice.
You asked why PBA should be 'exempt' from legislation. Before the ban it was no less exempt than any other medical procedure....even in criminal law. The decision, though, bizaarly makes one procedure subject to extra scrutiny for no other reason than it is 'icky'.
Aren't you arguing that partial birth abortion shouldn't be subject to federal regulation by law?
Is your working assumption that everything is subject to Federal regulation unless proven otherwise?
Let's compare how self-defense works in smm's world and the real world:
You are approached by a man who appears insane waving what looks to be a gun. He is screaming that the voices in his head are telling him to kill everyone. You happen to have a knife on you. Here's how it plays out in smm's world:
1. You must determine if he is suffering from a "demonstrable lack of intent or even negligence". If he cannot control the voices he hears and cannot resist then he cannot truely intend you harm as he has no real control over his actions. Likewise he would seem to lack negligence. Before taking action you must determine if this is the case, in that case you cannot defend yourself with any form of violence.
2. If you find he does have intent and negligence only then can you throw the knife at him in hopes of stopping him before he shoots you.
3. Finally you must determine if he is 'defenseless'. Are the voices so distracting to him that he couldn't even try to duck out of the way if you throw the knife at him? Are they so distracting that he wouldn't have a chance to shoot you if he sees you preparing to throw? If so then you cannot defend yourself because smm's second test is to see if the threat to you is 'defenseless' or not. If it is then you have no right to self defense.
Here's how it plays out in the real world:
1. Does the man pose an immediate danger to you? Yes because he is armed with a gun and waving it at you.
2. Is there any way you can retreat or get out without using violence? (some states do not have this 'requirement to retreat if possible' test). No, then it is permissible to throw the knife at him even though it may kill or seriously harm him. That the man may be innocent is of no relevance here.
Now a Christian or Buddhist monk might say the more noble course of action is to 'turn the other cheek' and not take a life even if it is threatening yours. I have no objection to that stand and would admire anyone with the courage to risk so much for the principle of non-violence but I cannot see the gov't requiring it of people. The decision to forgoe self-defense is the individuals and never the state's to make.
Boonton, you appear to be getting rather agitated about my challenging your delusion. Look at how you try to analogize an unborn child with a gun-toting sociopath! That is really going to extremes. And it's another reason why your use of the doctrine of self-defense to justify murder of unborn children is absurd. You do a lot of twisting and spinning for the sake of avoidance of the issue that the mother is suppose to be the defender of the unborn, not defending herself against the unborn.
Look at how you try to analogize an unborn child with a gun-toting sociopath! That is really going to extremes.
Hmmmm, look at Mr. Pro-Life here dehumanizing someone suffering from a mental illness. As I have pointed out several times the 'gun-toting sociopath' in this hypothetical is no less innocent than your unborn baby. He is a danger to you only because you were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Here the burden is on you to justify this new addition you would make to the idea of self-defense where the person must first figure out the moral guilt or innocence of the attacker.
You do a lot of twisting and spinning for the sake...
On the contrary, you seem to be twisting and spinning. You want to equate an unborn child with a human beign except when it doesn't suit your purposes. Explain to me why the adult human beign who is innocent but suffering from a severe mental illness is entitled to less protection than an unborn baby? I thought pro-lifers argued that all humans are fully equal from conception to natural death?
At least you would be consistent if you argued the adult human who posed a threat to you deserved all the tests I described in post 84 before self-defense could be justified.
of avoidance of the issue that the mother is suppose to be the defender of the unborn, not defending herself against the unborn.
On the contrary, I suggest you read the last paragraph of 84. I didn't deny that religion or nature or simple compassion may not require that a mother choose the risk rather than harm her unborn child...I pointed out that this is a decision the state cannot make.
To use a slightly different example, suppose a mother of a child who is 5 years old needs a kidney transplant. The mother is compatitable but there's a risk the operation may kill her. We would all admire the woman if she choose to undergo the risk to save her child yet at the same time the state cannot and should not force the woman or anyone to do so against their will.
Look at you trying to divert the topic again. The only burden on me is to shine the light on the absurdity of using the doctrine of self-defense to justify murdering a defenseless unborn child. When you make assertions that I am trying to introduce determination of morality into the doctrine of self-defense, you should quote my actual statements that do so.
You had better back that up by quoting my actual statements that you think or imagine stipulate the exception.
And now you are trying to analogize kidney transplant with murder. Give it up man!
I wasn't 'blaming' Republicans, they are one of two parties that make legislative decisions, I assumed who ever is in power have the ability to legislate reform.
Okay, health care is a state responsibility, it's the Democrats fault, Republicans have nothing to do with infant mortality rates climbing.
You are correct about Canadian infant mortality rates in the terrorities. Measuring infant mortality rates is an indicator of a countries health development.
Canada falls just behind Japan in the deline of infant mortality rates over 35 years. (1960 - 1996)
However, I don't think we have anything to be proud of.
The Canadian rates are high in perinatal period and congenital anomalies.
Health care is universal, (federally and provincially funded with federal transfer payments) getting basic care to residents in Nunavut and the Yukon remains a huge problem.
Nunavut is 1.9 million sq kil with a population of 29 thousand, population density is 0.06 per 1/kil(2). Geography, language, culture, and weather are key factors in health care delivery.
The 26 Nunavut communities are not accessible by road or rail.The territory is funded by the federal government.
Most mothers to be have to leave the territory to obtain prenatal and delivery care. (A medflight costs 8 thousand one way from Iqaluit to Ottawa hospitals)
There is a long way to go.
One hospital, 26 outposts, no medical specialists, 1 nurse for 305 people who doesn't speak the languages. Basic care delivery inaccessible or none existant, what is available is essentially crisis driven.
The Yukon has a population of about 31 thousand, and is self governing with better transportation, facilities and communication.
Remote communities also rely on medflights for mothers, who often remain out of their community for care and delivery. Similar problems of access, mistrust, transportation, language and outpost staffing are involved.
Health funding for the territories is inadequate, badly managed, communication difficult, health care worker burnout rates exceptionally high.
We cannot blame poverty on such disgraceful service and lack of care.
Health care in Nunavut and the Yukon presents unique challenges.
There are no excuses, all citizens care is our responsibility, we are neglecting and failing vulnerable Canadians.
When you make assertions that I am trying to introduce determination of morality into the doctrine of self-defense, you should quote my actual statements that do so.
Again your own words were that self defense could not apply because an unborn child has ""demonstrable lack of intent or even negligence". Again this sounds like a determination of morality to me, if it isn't then what is it? Again if I wasn't wrong in assuming you consider humans to be equally entitled to life at all phases of development this 'non-morality' test should be applied to the adult as well as the unborn child.
And now you are trying to analogize kidney transplant with murder. Give it up man!
Actually you accused me of avoiding "the issue that the mother is suppose to be the defender of the unborn, not defending herself against the unborn."
I addressed that point blank in the last paragraph of post 84 which you ignored:
Since you couldn't comprehend that I attempted to provide you with another example to explore the issue of whether the gov't has the right to deny an individual the right to self-defense....even conceding that sometimes giving up the right to self-defense is the right thing to do. In both I stated my position clearly, I do not believe the gov't has such a right. You, however, have choosen to ignore the question and instead try to score cheap points with word games. This isn't the first thread on which you have made a name for yourself in avoiding rather than confronting the arguments presented to you.
If this is because you just don't have much skill putting your thoughts into words let me apologize in advance but this dodging is beginning to become rude.
No, it is not a moral determination. A moral determination would be judging whether or not intent was good or bad. You are overlooking what is necessary for intent that is missing in unborn children that exists only after a certain age... the capacity to reason; the capacity to make decisions. There is no room for debate on that. There is nothing to do with innocence or guilt in recognizing that lack of capacity in unborn children.
We don't need to explore whether or not the government has the right to deny an individual the right to self-defense, they certainly don't and I never said they did. The challenge is whether or not abortion (the murdering of unborn children) is self-defense. I deny that it is, and you appear to be unable to demonstrate that it is. That's not a lack of verbalizing skill on my part.