Many are fierce advocates for the Pro-Life position. Some suggest abortion under any circumstance must be condemned. Others are Pro-Life but admit exceptions being willing to accept that a woman raped need not give birth to the rapist’s child and she may have an abortion even though it is taking the life of the innocent unborn; others would suggest that if the woman’s life will be lost by giving birth then too the life of the unborn may be taken. Then there’s the question of time. Does life begin at conception, or when brain activity is detected, or when the fetus is capable of living outside the mother.
I remember being taught that when there is a question of whether the woman’s life may be lost in giving birth and it came to a choice between the woman and her child such a choice could not be made. The doctor must remain neutral doing her best to save both. I was never comfortable with that teaching especially if the mother already had other children at home. I wondered wouldn’t it be better to save the mother so she could raise her other kids rather than having them grow up without her warmth and care. I suppose it was I thought of it while a young man and I could conceive of nothing more horrible or tragic than to lose my mother( or father). Marriage and children confirmed in me the most important and critical role a mother plays in the upbringing of a child.
It was then then the question of abortion was widened for me beyond the unborn child into the question of what is life itself. Are some lives more valuable than others? How is that to be determined? While we should concern ourselves with the unborn shouldn’t we also concern ourselves with those already born, especially those in their early years who need guidance through life.
Here’s the conundrum.
Those most protective of the unborn seem to have little real concern for the born. You would think that having demanded the child be born they would place no restriction on making sure the born child received the best care and that new mothers in need never go without. Yet in as much as the Pro-Life is a mostly a conservative movement it frowns on many programs that help new mothers and new born children including toddlers.
This is poignantly shown by a recent incident involving a television comic and a former Republic Congressman. The comic, Jimmy Kimmel, in an emotional talk told how his first child, a son, was born with severe heart problems. He told how fortunate he was that on the day of his birth there was a highly skilled doctor who could operate on him and how the operation was a success. (As time goes on the boy will need more operations.) He showed photos of the baby as he was prepped for the operation and a later photo showing the cutest smile you would ever see on a baby (above). He told how fortunate he is. He suggested every new born baby should have the same chance as his son.
Who could disagree? Who could tell a new father or mother that because they are poor and their child has a heart defect nothing can be done to help them?
Along comes ex- Congressman Joe Walsh an ardent Pro-Life advocate. He believes abortion should not be available to any woman under any circumstances — not even to save her life. He believes allowing women to terminate pregnancies when their lives are at risk isn’t necessary, because thanks to “advances in science and technology,” it’s physically impossible for a pregnancy to kill a woman. (Somehow despite it being impossible up to a half-women die each year due to complications during pregnancy.)
He heard of Jimmy Kimmel’s situation. You would expect he’d be happy a baby was born and saved. Isn’t that what being Pro-Life is about? Not Walsh. Here’s what he said: “Sorry Jimmy Kimmel: your sad story doesn’t obligate me or anybody else to pay for somebody else’s health care.”
So it’s all right for Pro-Life Walsh to insist a baby be born but if it is born with serious health conditions don’t bother him about it. How is that being Pro-Life? Is it Walsh’s belief that caring about life ends upon birth? I really don’t get it!
Matt:
The Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana declared in 5-4 decision that the death penalty for child rape was unconstitutional “despite the horrendous nature of the crime.” You were right that prior to this 2006 decision 6 states had the death penalty for child rape.
But note this comment which may result eventually in K v. L being overturned:
“Opponents have criticized the decision, noting an admission by the Justice Department that they had failed to note that the US Congress had made child rape a capital offence under military law as recently as 2006, which has been noted as contradicting the ‘evolving standards of decency’ justification for the decision.”
An adult who rapes a child under 12 should be subject to the death penalty. Life imprisonment for the forcible rape of young teenagers.
Massachusetts has a minimum ten year sentence if the victim is 12 and under and the perpetrator is 5 years older or if the victim is between 12 and 16 and the perpetrator is 10 years older. I’d make sure the maximums were life in prison.
We know the arguments on all sides, including that imposing the death penalty for rape will ensure more rape victims will be killed. I don’t think so, but I don’t know for sure.
Bill C…I have read all of your posts on this matter. I’m guessing you are middle-age/old white guy that seems to be obsessed with abortion, fetuses, and very specific methods of birth control. You are a certifiable loon for giving this much thought to or caring that much about this subject. It is people like you who cause so much pain and problems to women in these circumstances. So much that when a person goes to Planned Parenthood for let’s say a birth control prescription, they need to walk through a metal detector because of the danger some lunatic will shoot up the place. I would suggest your time would be better served by taking up a hobby that does not pondering the moral and societal consequences of young females engaging premarital sex. Good day sir.
Matt:
You spoke of helping the poor. It is Big Government’s Great Society (LBJ’s Dream turned Nightmare) that destroyed many families, created an 80% illigitimacy rate, drove fathers from homes, and deepened poverty and dependency in America.
Yes, government has a role. And the less role it plays the better. Socialized medicine and socialism are not the way!
In my humble opinion . . .
Dan says,
“Bill, Since you are not a women, there’s nothing on the line for you”. But, Dan, what if my girlfriend is pregnant? What if a young relative or friend is asking me what to do about an unplanned pregnancy. Can’t I share my ideas? What Dan means, I guess, is that no men should talk about abortion. Spoken like a true liberal. Too bad the 7 men on the Supreme Court who gave us Roe v Wade didn’t heed Dan’s advice.
But Dan, since I’m not a soldier, I guess I should shut up about war; and since I’m not a judge, I shouldn’t criticize courts . . . you get the drift!
Rather than making ad hominem attacks, it’s better to attack ideas with ideas, wrestle with the issues.
All of us lack many human attributes: all of us are free to speak on any issue!
Oh, by the way, Matt: we don’t execute men who rape women! The pro-abortion terminology is “Why force a woman to carry the rapist’s child?” Notice the difference in the pro-life terminology: “Why kill the innocent child?”
Sorry, Bill. You lost me. You support the rhythm method and what other forms of contraception? It also sounds like you’re OK with the use of birth control pills. If I’m right on that one, we’ve taken a big step forward.
And as for ad hominem attacks, please! Sounds like you’re accusing me (and others) of aiding and abetting murder. You could also take a crack at putting women in a more positive Light. Prostitution? Heroin-taking? How about caring and nurturing (not to mention highly intelligent.)
Dan:
Your guess is partly correct. I support contraceptives that don’t interfere with implantation of the blastocyst, the early stages of an individual human life. Individual human life begins at conception with the zygote, fertilized egg: a biologic, scientific fact, confirmable by the 46 unique chromosomes of an individual human being.
Abortifacient contraceptives prevent implantation. So, the widespread use of abortifacient contraceptives are increasing, not decreasing abortions, to many in the pro-life community. There are contraceptives that prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization and only thirdly thin the endometrium, so they’re acceptable to many in the pro-life community. The intent is not to abort. What I think you meant to describe is that the widespread use of contraceptives are decreasing the incidence of “surgical” abortions.
2 Dan: Your notion that a women has the moral right to control her own body is patently false: She has no right to engage in prostitution, no right to take heroin. The elemental fact of pregnancy is another human being’s body grows inside a human mother’s womb. There are two human lives to consider not one. There are two human bodies to consider, not one.
An old axiom in the law is: Your right to flail your arms ends at another person’s nose.
The fetus has a nose, fingers, toes, heart, brain, liver, etc. its own body and its own unique 46 chromosomes. Biologic facts.
The use of all our bodies is limited by law. A mother has a right to carry her child in her arms. She doesn’t have the right to on her whim suddenly flail her arms and drop her child on its head. The law would remove her child for negligence, child abuse.
Historically, before Roe, every state restricted abortions to varying degrees (several had become more liberal; true); but all states recognized and acted in the interest of protecting unborn human beings.
Twenty years before Roe, all states prohibited abortions generally speaking except to save the life of the mother or when serious risks to health ensued.
“pro-choice” folks should simply acknowledge that the unborn are human beings, too. Once you accept that fact, you’ll move closer to the pro-life position, which acknowledges that an individual human life begins at conception. You may never accept the moral values or moral reasoning which flows from that fact, but at least you’ll understand that when two human lives are involved, the equations shift.
Correction above: 800 deaths in 4 million is 20 deaths in 100,000. But, still, if you massage the data: Mortality associated with pregnancy is calculated for 9 months plus the post-birth 44 days ( although you could subtract the first few months when mortality is very low) but then add 24 hours a day while you are pregnant – – – but work is for only 8 hours a day . . . anyway the mortality statistics are close. Being pregnant is as dangerous as being at work! In other words, it’s relatively safe!!!!!
If the average life expectancy is 70 years, then on average each year more than 1 percent of us die. Living is risky!
Here’s some other statistics from a learned journal:
“We estimated mortality rates associated with live births and legal induced abortions in the United States in 1998-2005. We used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, birth certificates, and Guttmacher Institute surveys. In addition, we searched for population-based data comparing the morbidity of abortion and childbirth.
RESULTS:
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions.”
Assume Four Million live births a year, you’d have 4 million children (excluding twins etc) and 4 million living women (mothers.) However, minus deaths: 8.8 per 100,000 or 88 per million or 354 deaths for 4 million, and assuming half of those deaths occurred during pregnancy, perhaps 180 unborn would be lost, but 180 unborn saved. So, the total is 4 million-plus 180 children (not including twins, etc) plus 4 million mothers.
Now, assume 1.3 million abortions a year. That means 7 woman died (0.6 x 100,000 x 1.3)and all the children (unborn) died.
Summation: Final total for those who did not abort 8 million living human beings, @ half mothers, half children.
Final total for those who did abort: no children, 1.3 million women.
Sorry statistics: About 2% of American women abort each year; nearly 40% of American women will abort sometimes during their lives. The good news: 60% of American women never choose abortion, and the incidence of abortion is slowly decreasing.
The decline in abortions has been at least partly driven by the more widespread use of contraceptives. So I’m guessing Bill must be a big fan of contraceptives? Right Bill?
DanC: It was you, not I, who posted the idiotic article about abortion reducing the crime rate.
Matt, you know I understand Medicine. I don’t oppose abortion when there are ectopic pregnancies, nor when the fetus has no head, nor no brain, nor is otherwise dead, nor so severely disabled that life is impossible. I do oppose abortion of those who might be disabled – – – at risk for cerebral palsy, e.g.; mentally retarded, etc. I understand some disabilities are incompatible with life.
What I don’t hear from you and DanC and other pro-abortionists is any opposition to abortion when both mother and the unborn child (or fetus) are healthy, which statistically is at least 85% to 90% of the cases. Rather than citing extreme examples, please answer clearly and unequivocally whether you support or oppose abortions on healthy women carrying healthy fetuses.
Matt:
I gave you the statistics on mortality rates from HHS. Look them up. I gave you other death rates so you’ll appreciate that all activities in life—working, driving a car, swimming—-carry inherent risks.
You continue to defend and promote the butchery of the unborn, of millions of innocent children, who threaten no one’s life or health. I continue to condemn the routine practice of abortion in America.
You defend abortion by citing the most extreme situation- – – O.K, then write to oppose it in all other situations.
Some of your statements are preposterous. Claiming that liberals support the unborn as much as conservatives. Claiming that Walsh and inferrentially other conservatives want to take away “medical care from the poor.”
Where do you get such false notions? From the liberal MSM?
Claiming that repealing Obamacare and returning insurance to individuals and the states is “taking away health insurance from 20 million” is just liberal jabberwockian claptrap. (If there is such a word as jabberwockian – – – you get my drift.)
You give one false hypothetical about both the mother’s and child’s life being at risk and extrapolate from that apparently to defend abortion on demand. I extrapolate to say every measure should be taken to save both lives. You say, “kill one”! I say, “try to save both!”
How about the mother that is terminally ill that chooses to carry her child to term knowing that she’ll shorten her life. Women have made that choice. I applaud their courage.
I know doctors have to make difficult decisions. Do you condemn all those abortions where it is possible to save both lives?
U.S. abortions have fallen, you say: they have, but there still are over 1.3 million abortions a year, mostly done on healthy women carrying healthy unborn human beings.
There is no “rational” to kill innocent human beings who threaten no one’s life or health, in my morality. Others say we can’t impose “burdens” but the State imposes an 18 year burden on every parent to raise its child. Others say what about economic factors, emotional factors, mental health, physical health – – – if someone threatens my life, I can kill them, but if they give me stress, bad headaches, or severe economic setbacks I can’t. In my book. You need powerful reasons to kill: Self defense, just wars!
I’ve pondered the hypothetical of a mentally disabled 10 year old pushing a carriage holding three toddlers toward the brink of a cliff. Could a policeman shoot to kill the 10 year old to save three toddlers from certain death? Maybe so, maybe not!
Should societies do everything in their power to save unborn human beings from abortion. I say, “Yes”!
Even if it means placing extraordinary burdens on pregnant women?
Remember, even Roe v. Wade says, if the unborn reaches “viability” (@24-26 weeks) then the state can force women to carry for another 16 weeks (term generally being 40 weeks)( except when the life/health is threatened). So, even Roe imposes burdens on women when carrying the unborn is the toughest (the last trimester.) Yes, a compassionate state could impose that burden in the first two trimesters when the burden is less.
In the interest of protecting human life, we should aspire to that goal. The Catholic Church has it right in condemning as evil “every procured abortion.” Obviously, the Church would not oppose aborting “dead fetuses or embryos” or procedures to terminate ectopic pregnancies. (As far as I know.)
DanC says I’m a hypocrite because I don’t adopt! At least I favor adoption over abortion.
One more point on the statistics: I re-read a Scientific American article from 2015. It stated that there were 700 to 800 deaths a year “during pregnancy or shortly thereafter.” I’m sure it was referring to the statistics that count pregnancy-related deaths as those due to complications of pregnancy occurring during pregnancy or within 44 days thereafter.
Today, there are about 4 million births. So the death rate would be less than one in one thousand, closer to one in 5,000. (800 deaths, 4 million births.) Safer than going to work for a year.
Consider this too: 40 weeks term is 280 days plus 44 days thereafter is 324 days. The average worker is at work 5 days for 48 weeks (minus holidays, vacation days) which is 240 days. So, the risk previously cited risk of working of 3 deaths per 100,000 workers would be close to the 5 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.
There is a small percentage of deaths per abortion. I’ll post it below.
I’ll give you some more statistics:
Poor Bill. This is pretty close to raving. Since you’re not a woman, there’s really nothing on the line for you. Then again, if pregnancy is so safe and easy, why not try it yourself? Please report back on how much you enjoyed it .
Bill:
Walsh himself said he did not want to pay for someone else’s medical treatment. Read his quote.
You say “save both” you don’t answer the question what if you can’t. What if one has to die. Who do you choose?
You talk about killing is all right on a “just war.’ Who determines the justness?
Pro-life people are concerned only with abortions. A better definition of them is anti-abortion or “right to life” rather than Pro-Life. After birth as we see in the new legislation there is little concern for life. Putting control of medical funding back in the hands of the state is a recipe for depriving people of proper medical care. Why should an American not get equal access no matter where he lives. We don’t let the states decide whether they will comply with a draft law.
If you don’t see the absurdity of reducing taxes significantly on people making more than 200,000 and saying premiums will come down what can I say.
You do know that over 90% of the nations in the world allow abortions for rape or when a women’s life is in danger. Are they all pro-abortionate and anti-life. Russia has one of the highest abortion rates of all countries. You want to become friends with it.
You do admit that not all lives stand equally. In a “just war” the lives of those on the other side are of less value than those on the “just” side. Is there really anything like a “just war” or is that just gobbledegook to not be seen as opposing government decisions? Isn’t the use of that term just a way to pretend the commandment against killing had loopholes in it? Why not apply the “just” exception to some pregnancies?
Isn’t terminating the life of a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy the killing of an innocent life? A woman in England gave birth it a healthy child with one recently.
Don’t we always make decisions that some lives are more valuable than others. Is saying that when a ship is sinking that women and children must be saved first not killing the innocent men when there’s not enough life boats for all. Would you say “save all?”
DanC:
As for your “abortion reduces crime” article: It’s absurd! But hey, think of how far the adult crime rate would fall if we killed 50% of the juvenile delinquents. Maybe killing is the answer!
Bill: I’m surprised to see how quickly you’ ve turned to killing as the answer to our problems. And the logic is absurd. If there were no people on Earth, the crime rate would be zero. Come to think of it, the crime rate on the moon is zero. Same for Mars, Venus and the Sun.
In a 1987 comprehensive survey the reasons given for an abortion were:
A. health related reasons (mother’s health, fetal health, rape/incest) 6%
B. social economic reasons (not ready, is single, can’t afford a baby, “has enough children”, “concerned baby would change her life”) 86%
C. other 8%
It seems in the B cases, providing ready adoption services would mitigate the need for 86% of the abortions.
Think of the all the human lives we could save!
We don’t kill the rapist. Why kill the innocent fetus?
Moreover, if a woman is raped and immediately seeks medical attention, pregnancy can be averted with virtual certainty. It takes about 36 hours, as I recall, for the sperm to fertilize the egg.
Matt’s position is that in the rarest of circumstances a difficult medical situation arises, so therefore, he “seems” to say, all abortions are justified.
Even in liberal Denmark all abortions are prohibited after 12 weeks of pregnancy except where there is a threat to the woman’s life or health. If applied in America, this would spare the lives of at least 15% of the unborn.
Come on Matt and DanC: Raise your voices to save human beings!
Bill:
In some states there is the death penalty for the rape of a child. I suggest a woman who has been raped has suffered unimaginable damage to her body and her soul. I have difficulty telling her that for the next nine months of her life on every day and at every minute she has to be reminded of that horror and to top it off has to bring into the world the child of the rapist and, for all we know, end up having to have further contact with him for in this court system if she wanted to raise the child the courts would probably want to give the father equal access and input into the child’s care.
For some reason you want to mischaracterize my positions. I have never said anything close to suggesting that “all abortions are justified.” When you do things like that suggesting that there can never be any consideration of the unique circumstances a woman who is pregnant faces and easily throw around the term “pro-abortionists” and suggest one believes “all abortions are justified” you do a disservice to rational discussion. You, like Congressman Walsh, are opposed to all abortions even I assume when there is an ectopic pregnancy.
It is easy to take that position since neither you or Congressman Walsh will never be pregnant. But in real life dealings things are not always black and white. I remember having two very Catholic parents who were very pro-life come to me to ask how they could get their daughter an abortion. They believed the district attorney’s office would have some input into the matter because their daughter who was mentally ill and confined to an institution in our country had been raped and the rapist was being prosecuted in our county. In their world the issue was black and white until it came home to them.Then they recognized the horror it would cause their daughter already very ill to be in that position.
Bill C…I have read all of your posts on this matter. I’m guessing you are middle-age/old white guy that seems to be obsessed with abortion, fetuses, and very specific methods of birth control. You are a certifiable loon for giving this much thought to or caring that much about this subject. It is people like you who cause so much pain and problems to women in these circumstances. So much that when a person goes to Planned Parenthood for let’s say a birth control prescription, they need to walk through a metal detector because of the danger some lunatic will shoot up the place. I would suggest your time would be better served by taking up a hobby that does not pondering the moral and societal consequences of young females engaging premarital sex. Good day sir.
Hard cases make bad law. It is a shrewd maxim. Laws are not made for outlier situations. Laws are general rules for society’s conduct. The enforcement should not be porous.
Example, allowing a woman who has been raped to have an internal cleansing for health purposes immediately after the event qualifies to many as an abortion. However, it can be justified on grounds are than a right to slaughter an unborn. But a woman who discovers and reports a rape in the seventh month of pregnancy should be considered a lying loophole seeker. She will have no trouble finding a very sleazy attorney to plead the case. You can see how words can be twisted to fit an agenda.
The pros and cons of the law on abortion should be argued as to its effects on society as a whole. The tragic and rare circumstances of this or that woman have no place in a rational discussion. No law can be contrived to fit every possibility. It should not be attempted. The law should be clear and it should be uniformly enforced with the caveat that justice should ever be tempered with mercy.
Tadzio:
Well said. I agree fully.
Matt: I agree 100 percent. The holier-than-thou anti-abortion forces take the first train out of town once the child is born. One consequence of their busy-bodied interference with a woman’s right to choose has been a higher crime rate. Unwanted children are not good candidates to succeed in our competitive society. Some criminals do come from good homes, but you’re much more likely to find poverty and dysfunction in their childhood. Have a look at this story: http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/
DanC:
What bunk! Pro-abortionists profess concern about life—-except when it’s little, powerless, inconvenient and easy to kill with impunity!
I’ve never seen you or Matt jot one word in defense of innocent human life in the womb!
Sorry, Bill, but you’ve stumbled into the No Bunk Zone. Women should have the right to choose without the interference of sanctimonious citizens who only make things worse, much, much worse. And come to think of it, I’ve never heard a single word from you about your adoption of a child that the anti-abortionists claim to have nobly saved.
Bill:
What’s with this “pro-abortionist” label. Is it all people who think there might be gray areas in the abortion areas and that in some situations a woman may terminate a pregnancy one becomes a pro=abortionist. Ed wrote about ectopic pregnancies. Are doctor’s who perform those “pro-abortionists.”
The Pro-Life movement is primarily a religious one. The idea of separation of church and state does not exist to the zealots who wish to legislate their religious beliefs onto others. The ardent pro-lifers are essentially the American Taliban. I’ll lump in the anti-gay conservatives as well because they love to wrap their bigotry in the cloak of “religious freedom,” like Trump’s latest abortion of an executive order (see what I did there?), and push their beliefs onto others.
These are the same people who claim they believe in liberty and freedom, “the Constitution,” and yet would force a raped woman be stuck with a rapists child, or a single young female who had ( I’m simultaneously clutching my pearls while typing this) a condom break while having sex and be forced to bear a child that she is not emotionally, financially, or mentally prepared to raise in a successful manner.
The hypocrisy of conservatives on this issue is ridiculous. “Get the government out of my personal business, but those gay people and single sexually active women must be legislated against to protect traditional American values!” Not to mention the love of dropping bombs on others’ children in far away lands.
If you are going to be a super religious weirdo, at least only impose your weirdness on yourself and your family. Do not get people who have no connection to you whatsoever so wrapped up in your zealotry that it ruins their lives.
Dan:
By pointing out the tendency of those who want all pregnancies to result in children even if one involves a rape or the woman has to die makes us members of the club of pro-abortionists. How people like to throw out labels when someone has a position that differs from theirs. And, those who are unaffected by the matter such as a pregnancy can be so very much concerned for life but when affected, as having to reach in their pocket and support the life that is born, then they suggest not their money.
I’m not sure of the connection between women having children they do not want and a higher crime rate. I had assumed any woman who did not want a child in this country had the chance not to do so since abortions are not allowed. I’m also not sure that “unwanted children” are not good candidates to succeed in our society. I’m sure there were many who did quite well; and others, both wanted and unwanted who became criminals or drags on the society by not contributing.
Obviously the child from a stable good home has a better chance at life from one from a poor dysfunctioning home. Statistics show young single mothers will do a worse job raising their child in general than an older woman living with her husband. Bringing up kids is tough and demands one’s full attention. Even then there is no guarantee things will work out well. Young kids who get pregnant have yet to lived their lives. They see the baby interfering with their freedom and try to push the kid off on a relative so they can do what their contemporaries are doing. It is understandable. So too are the outcomes predictable. The wanted child in a family that holds together will suffer less trauma than any other.
Read the following and think about the implications:
http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancy-complications/ectopic-pregnancy/
Ed:
Thanks for that. It lead me to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2008476/The-mother-risked-ectopic-baby.html
Matt:
You write: “The most protective of the unborn seem to have little real concern for the born.” It only “seems” that way to “pro-abortionists”. What drivel! Typical leftist cant! Commentary like that merits no response. But, I’ll offer some thoughts.
Newborns needing heart surgery are not discriminated against by hospitals in America.Emergency medical care is not denied to the poor in America.
A separate issue is how to pay for it, and some sympathetic to Jimmy Kimmel’s obviously heart-wrenching story saw a subtle pitch to keep Obamacare. Obamacare is failing. It needs a substantial re-write or complete replacement.
2. We all want appropriate care for children. We all debate how to pay for it.
3. Here’s what distinguishes conservatives from liberal democrats. Most liberal Democrats care nothing about the life of the pre-born, the unborn human being, and support the unfettered right to kill the unborn at the mother’s whim. In fact, if you read Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton, (Roe says both cases must be read together) you see that even in the last month of pregnancy abortion is permitted if a woman’s “health” is “threatened” and Doe v. Bolton defines health to embrace physical, mental, emotional and even “economic” well being. Hillary has argued in favor of abortions at 9 months when the mother’s “health” not “life” is threatened. So, even when both lives can be saved in the third trimester, Roe v. Wade allows one life to be killed and Hillary and many Dems favor this.
4. You know, fireman try to save every life, and sometimes have to choose to save one or another in a burning building or sinking vehicle; Doctors, too, should be required to try to save every human life, and when not possible, can and should make the choice to save one. Ethicists argue these rare hypothetical situations. (A life boat can only hold six; one must be jettisoned; who goes? Three are drowning in a car, two are teenagers, one is seventy, who to save?)
5. As for when life begins: biologically, scientifically, it’s indisputable: at conception, when a new human being with its unique genetic code, 46 unique chromosomes, is formed. Life seamlessly evolves from conception to implantation to embryonic stage, fetal stage, and birth.
6. Brain electrical activity is observable at 8 weeks. Brain waves not till @ 24 weeks. But even the brain waves of a newborn up til about 5 months demonstrate no “consciousness.” Should we allow mothers to kill their newborns because they are not “conscious” not fully human. If you used brain waves “the eeg” they are not fully normal until several years old.
Moreover, “viability” the Roe v. Wade standard is a misnomer. Roe put viability at 24-26 weeks. Today, we know that @25% of those born at 22 weeks with appropriate care will survive. (NEJM study.) Moreover, no newborn, is “viable” without intensive support from adults. To survive on its own, a child would have to be about four or five years of age. (Stories of children lost in the woods.) Should we allow the killing of toddlers because they are totally dependent on adults and their brain waves are not like adults?
7. Abortion is rampant because America has lost its respect for human life.
8. Catholic Charities, Focus on the Family, pro-life Christian churches and Christian organisations are the primary constant providers of services to young families, pregnant women, newborns, and underprivileged children, and the primary sponsors of pro-family life saving legislation for the born and unborn.
9. Those most concerned about saving the lives of the unborn are most concerned about saving the lives of women and children.
10. Why don’t you and I give away 90% of our wealth to help children in Ecuador and Somalia get needed heart surgery and the same level of medical care we get in the USA? Why doesn’t America give away half its wealth to help children around the world get needed heart surgery? As a world, we have trouble feeding all the children, never mind providing top notch medical care to 7 billion people. As you have a duty first to your family, we have a duty first to our country: to feed, clothe, house, treat, educate, protect. At home, in the good old USA, we are doing the best we can to provide for all our children. We can’t provide for all the children of the world the same level of medical care we have in America. Sad, but true. A hard cold fact. But Christian Charities throughout the world try very hard!
11. We all could do more. We can begin by respecting human life.
12. You can always try to protect human life. In the rarest of rarest conditions, it’s impossible to “save” both lives. Then and only then, do we entrust the doctor or fireman or other “lifesaver” to decide.
13. The death rate for pregnant women is about one in one thousand. HHS counts maternal death rate due to pregnancy if it occurs due to a complication of pregnancy during pregnancy or within 44 days post-partum. (as I recall, in 2010 there were about 8 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies and in 2012 about 12 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies.) The death rate from scuba diving is about 16 in 100,000 (from one study); the work-related death rate from working full time on a job is about 3 per 100,000.
Bill:
I pointed that out because of what the former Congressman Walsh said which is a perfect example of being pro-life but then getting upset because the government has to pay for preserving that life. Let me answer some of your points.
1. What is a pro-abortionist? Anyone who admits that a raped woman should have the option whether to have a rapists child live in her body for nine months or a woman who may die during the pregnancy being told tough it out. It is easy to throw terms like “pro-abortionist” around when you are not affected by the decision. That is why for a guy like Congressman Walsh to insist even if a woman dies because of her pregnancy that is her tough luck and for him then to say if she give birth she better not expect someone else to pay for it. In the first instance he has no skin in the game; in the latter he does.
2. As for Obamacare failing in the richest country in the world and providing a remedy for that by taking away insurance from twenty million people and putting in conditions on covering pre-existing conditions sort of goes along with the Congressman Walsh idea – let the poor do without medical care.We all don’t want appropriate care for children. Congressman Walsh doesn’t because he does not want to pay for anyone else.
3. Nice simple world you want to make equating liberal democrat with evil and conservatives with good. Most liberal democrats care as much about the life of the unborn as conservatives and do not believe in the unfettered right to abort a fetus. A fringe group do believe that just like a fringe group of the conservatives believe that what Hitler did deserves to be replicated in the United States. Hillary’s position is at the extreme end as you will not I wrote about the other day. Most believe that third trimester abortions should be illegal. Not many go for the “health” over “life” distinction.
4. Nice examples but with a pregnancy it is one life against the other. In my book as I said it is better to save the mother especially if she has other children than to save the child which if saved will kill the mother.
‘5. It may be indisputable to you because of your definition of life beginning; others may have different interpretations.
‘6. See number 5.
‘7. You sound like J. Edgar Hoover writing abortions are rampant. Here’s a recent headline I read: U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade.
‘8 True the Catholic Charities and others do their best to help mothers but for me not only should they be doing it but the government should also be doing it. We should not do less than what is done in the country that provides the most for mothers of young children.
‘9 I don’t know where you get that. I have never read anything close to what you say that pro-life people are “most concerned about saving the lives of women and children. I pointed out in the article how Congressman Walsh did not want his money to go to those without. Since you say most pro-life are conservative it seems to me that is a typical conservative position that we keep other people from having our money. We see that in the Trump new medical plan and the idea behind giving the wealthy more money by reducing their taxes.
’10 I wrote nothing about other countries. As I said it would be nice if our government was as active as the Christian charities in helping others. Who said America had to give away its wealth helping those in other countries? We are stingy with our money when it comes to helping Americans (again the repeal of Obamacare) so suggesting what you did makes little sense.
’11 Sure we could do more but now we seem to be doing less.
’12 Agree but I’d hope their decision was on the one who could add more to the value of other lives especially if a mother of young children was involved. Don’t we as a society recognize the lives of women and children are to be considered over those of men? I thought that was the code of the sea.
’13 I don’t know what the death rate from pregnancy is. I read it was half a million. I just pointed out that Congressman Walsh said it did not happen. Why are you writing about other death rates.