"Real meaning of life...stuff" - Daniel Jackson
Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Pro-life forces are trumpeting their victory.  The Supreme Court has ruled, sustaining a ban on a procedure that is reportedly performed 10 times per day in the US (estimated).

I was recently involved in an internet discussion on a blog, and was surprised that the "partial-birth abortions" that I had heard so much about were the pro-lifer's name for the D & X procedure.

People go on and on about the "Partial Birth Abortions", but their descriptions of it were so outlandish that I thought they were making it up.  Turns out, they kind of were...as the descriptions of PBA that I was told (admittedly by rank-and-file pro-lifers) bear only a passing resemblance to the reality of D&X.

Apparently, the procedure is primarily used to remove babies from the mother's womb after fetal death in-utero, to remove fetus' from the womb who are so deformed that they cannot live outside the mother's womb, or when a continued pregnancy would endanger the mother's life, or vital bodily functions.

I've just really started looking into this, but it does not appear that this decision will actually prevent any abortions, as there is another procedure that is still legal which can be used if a late-term abortion is necessary for the woman's health, so it is unlikely that this ruling by itself will prevent any abortions.

The main reason why I question if this is a victory for anybody is just what I've learned from reading up on this subject over the last day or so.

From what I can tell, the situations under which women find themselves considering a late-term abortion are situations that leave a word like "choice" sounding hollow and meaningless.  The "choice" to abort the baby you wanted to save or prolong your own life, the "choice" to forgo a treatment that the doctors can't give you if you are pregnant, the "Choice" to try to live as long as you can with your pregnancy, but very likely not survive?  Some "choice".

And what about "life"?  The situations described seem to offer very little in the way of "life" for either the mother or the fetus.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to inject themselves or their politics into the kinds of decisions these women and their families have to face, or why anyone would call gaining public involvement into a terrible and private decision like this a "victory".

Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:40:16 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00) | Comments [14] |  |  | #
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 7:38:21 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Alook at the numbers that have this procedure may show that the choruses of “Hallelujah” and emotive wailing at the striking down of a Constitutional Right are a bit premature. Every year in the United States approximately 1.3 million abortions are performed, but between 3,000 to 5,000 use the D and X method common in partial birth abortions. While both sides may clamor about the seriousness of this ruling, the limited scope, and the narrowness of the 5-4 ruling make this decision notable, but not titanic.

The decision is "very" limited, and allows for doctors a great deal of discretion.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:29:55 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
You might read ,Slate's Supreme Court watcher, take on this.

http://www.slate.com/id/2164512

Just depressing.

Yet again framing trumps fact. The "Indecisive Mother" vs the foolish facts produced by statisical analysis and the American Psychological Association bathed in a pool of "medical uncertainty."

*sigh*
Thursday, April 19, 2007 6:03:36 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I went and viewed the slate article, and I'm just disgusted at this protrayal of women facing the choices that women face when they come to a decision about a D&X, can be made equivilant to "buyer's remorse" by what are supposed to be the most diliberative and wise people in our country.

All I can say to that is that I hope Justice Kennedy never has to watch a granddaughter's cancer go untreated for months while she waits for the end of her pregnancy.

There IS another procedure that can be used to end pregnancies in the event of danger to the mother...but I've alread heard THAT procedure described as "more barbaric than Partial Birth Abortion".

Seriously. I wish nobody was ever in a position like that, but most especially, I hope Justice Kennedy never has occasion to regret HIS decision to denigrate and demean women who find themselves in a terrible situation which most anyone would find unbearable.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 7:28:58 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I was just in a discussion on American Conservative Daily on this topic. Yes, I'm a conservative, but on this issue I strongly disagree with my "brethren". I could not fight the foaming at the mouth emotional ramblings of the other posters with intelligence and reason. I could not get *any* of them to focus on the mother and her health - or very young rape victims.

I tell you I have no political home. Liberals want too much socialism and conservatives want to inject religion into everything. Where oh where has common sense gone?
Mark
Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:44:04 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

I think that the picture of "liberal socialists" is greatly exaggerated, since so many of the things that are now defined as "socialism" exsisted before socialism did.

Kind of like how there are now more "obese" people because they lowered the weight at which one becomes "obese", for instance.

It's just a change of definition, maybe it's something to be a little concerned about on some level, but you change the definition and suddenly it's an epidemic.

So if "socialism" is defined as anyone to the left of Stalin, that's one extreme, but if "socialism" is a bunch of hockey parents who want to sell pull tabs to raise money for a community wiffleball league that's another. Where on the spectrum you decide to sound the alarm is up to you. I figure if an idea was around and discussed before Marx, it can't be blamed on Marx.

But I think that it's good that we can at least agree on some things, and fight our own battles where we don't.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:57:19 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Mark,

Oh, and you don't need to agree with me to have a "political home" here. I mean...I go "home" a couple of times a year to a house full of Repulicans I don't agree with at all...

...of course, we DO argue a lot.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:07:06 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Yeah we have "discussions" at my family events, too. But these are fun! We don't name call and keep the arguments on an intellectual level. You know, civil.

I know they have lowered the weight at which someone is defined as being obese, but I must say that I notice many more "fatties" these days... And I don't think it's because I'm just paying more attention.
Mark
Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:12:08 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
I think it's because of clothing styles. I swear, they couldn't accentuate the fat deposits more if they tried!

I've decided I'm not buing any more slacks or jeans until they return to the natural waistline.

Sweats and Kung Fu pants for me all the way from now until then, baby!

Or men's pants.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 4:11:22 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Hi Mark,

I know some conservatives may want to inject religion into everything, but when I debate abortion issues on blogs I only focus on the secular arguments. I feel like I have plenty of facts and reasoning without the Bible. It isn't that the Bible doesn't have a lot to say on life issues, it is just that I don't expect everyone to find it to be authoritative. I save the Biblical reasoning for pro-choice Christians.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:17:29 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Neil,

Hi Neil, welcome to my blog. It's good to see you here.

Wasn't it St. Paul that said to be all things to all people?
Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:25:59 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Hi Teresa - Thanks for having me!

Yep - you do know your Bible verses!
Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:45:56 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
My religious education was very ... thorough.

I won a trophy for memorizing over 300 Bible verses (over the course of two-and-a-half years). It was my duty as a Christian, or when the communists came to take us over, and took away my Bible, I wouldn't have it anymore.

Maybe you have heard of the Timothy Award? It's an award from AWANAs

Of course, I can't quote them all scripture and verse anymore...but I can find them when I need them. :-)
Friday, April 20, 2007 3:57:56 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Teresa, I think we are going different directions, verse-wise! When I was in my mid-20's - after going to church countless times - I couldn't have told you who the Apostle Paul was. Let's just say I wasn't paying very close attention the first 28 years or so of my life.
Friday, April 20, 2007 4:07:21 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)
Neil,

Hmmm...sounds like your parents should have made you more afraid of the Communists! LOL! :-)

Well, I certainly hope that you find what you are looking for in them.

I think that the church where I attended AWANA's certainly fit Thomas Paine's description of Christians as idolators...with their idol being the Bible.

I think if Jesus had showed up and told them something in it was wrong, they'd have crucified him all over again.
Comments are closed.
Search
Archive
Links
Categories
Admin Login
Sign In
Blogroll
Themes
Pick a theme: