20 Responses for "Giuliani Would Nominate Anti-Roe Judges"

1. Joseph T McCarthy May 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pm 1

   We need a Republican Senate or we’ll never have these judges appointed, no matter who becomes president.

2. Mike May 14th, 2007 at 5:27 am 2

   The problem is that those 20 other issues Rudy refers to are issues such as privacy, federalism and the 2nd Amendment. All issues that he is on the wrong side of. I shudder to think of Giuliani having any say in the nomination of a supreme court justice.

3. Langley May 14th, 2007 at 7:37 am 3

   Why am I not surprised that Mike was up at 5:30 AM…

   I agree here, Roe is not the only issue that Guiliani is bad on. In fact I’m more concerned with him being a Bush-like “big government conservative” and appointing cronies to everything and especially infringing on the 2nd amendment than I am about Roe v. Wade.

4. Jack May 14th, 2007 at 1:24 pm 4

   Your post should be titled, Giuliani perhaps “wouldn’t rule out the possibility” of nominating anti-Roe judges.

   And this statement makes Giuliani a bloody hack: “If I thought that on 20 other issues they would be terrific, I might be able to, sure,’’ Giuliani said. “I don’t consider it a litmus test. If you don’t consider it a litmus test, you don’t consider it a litmus test either way.’’

   He’s saying that he will nominate judges based on the way they’ll vote, not on their dedication to the text and tradition of the Constitution. That is the definition of a “litmus test”, not that there’s anythign wrong to have a litmust test.

   Actually, one of my litmus tests is to not vote for politicians who think it’s OK to dismember a baby at 9 months of gestation for any reason.

   Attention everyone: Abortion is still legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for essentially any reason. The Partial-birth abortion ban made a spatial, not a temporal, restriction on killing children: You can still crush the skull of a baby girl at 9 months so long as she not been delivered past the navel.

   Lastly, I am a little baffled by this statement of yours Sam: “Giuliani’s position on abortion is no secret and I respect him for not running away from it.”

   Is this just the residue of drinking too much anti-Kerry Kool Aid in 2004? Yeah, being a flip-flopper shows political expediency (i.e. like When Giuliani flipped from pro-life to pro-abortion in 1989, or Thompson sometime since 1994, or Romney in 2002…even Brownback had a weak position on abortion in 1994, I believe).

   Couldn’t you equally say: “Giuliani’s position on parents drowning or decapitating their children is no secret and I respect him for not running away from it.” Huh? Is there no greater sin in politics than changing your mind on an issue?

5. Alan May 15th, 2007 at 12:35 am 5

   Giuliani will never appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. Last month, he said abortion is “a constitutional right.” Don’t believe me? Follow this link:

6. Alan May 15th, 2007 at 12:35 am 6

   Okay, link didn’t seem to print. It’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZe1j4csMq8

7. Becky May 15th, 2007 at 12:36 am 7

   Jack, you’re clearly attacking a strawman (or woman) with this issue. Only .08% of abortions in the U.S. are done at/after 24 weeks (6 months) gestation. Many states prohibit abortions or make them very difficult to get at/ after 6 months. Very few– heck, I’ll go so far as to say no — late term abortions are done on a whim. If you think a woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy and one morning wake up and say “hey, I’m tired of being pregnant. I think I’ll get an abortion for kicks!”, then you clearly don’t know women very well, and/or are projecting some sort of half-baked misogynistic assumptions upon them. And in combination, good luck finding a doctor who would feel comfortable with performing an abortion on a viable, 9 month fetus. I don’t understand the tone of your post, considering that many women who get late term abortions do so in order to save their own lives and health, and surely agonize over losing a wanted pregnancy. But most of us realize that it’s better to allow a woman to save her life if she, you know, wants to continue to live, than force her into martyrdom.

8. rink6670 May 15th, 2007 at 8:23 am 8

   Rudy will appoint pro-life judges? Yeah, right. I’m not buying for one second the entire “I’m one of you” facade. This from the same guy who relished his endorsement by the Liberal Party of New York when he was Mayor.

9. Jack May 15th, 2007 at 2:09 pm 9

   Only .08% of abortions in the U.S. are done at/after 24 weeks (6 months) gestation.

   Yes, that’s correct. One could just as easily translate that .08% to write that every year in the United States 14,000 children are crushed, poisoned, or otherwise slaughtered in the third trimester. But if you want to write .08% to try to trivilialize their deaths, then go right ahead. The other 99.2%–1.4 million–are killed in the first 6 months of pregnancy.

   “Many states prohibit abortions or make them very difficult to get at/ after 6 months.”

   Which states, Becky? You see Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in case of a woman’s health, and defined health as “health” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

   Very few– heck, I’ll go so far as to say no — late term abortions are done on a whim. If you think a woman would go through 9 months of pregnancy and one morning wake up and say “hey, I’m tired of being pregnant. I think I’ll get an abortion for kicks!”, then you clearly don’t know women very well, and/or are projecting some sort of half-baked misogynistic assumptions upon them.

   Did I say they were done on a whim? Most children aborted in the third trimester have Down Syndrome, or Spina Bifida, or the easily curable cosmetic Cleft Palate I fully believe that these are emotionally agonizing situations for women.

   I know mothers of children with Down Syndrome who were told by multiple doctors to abort. I know these children aren’t being killed on a whim or out of hatred, or bigotry or racism. They’re being killed out of fear, and sometimes an unwillingness to be selfless. But just because the motivations are not Hitlerian, does not make the killing of an innocent child OK. I truly believe that women who have drowned their children in bathtubs weren’t acting on a whim–they were terrified of raising a child, terrified of what their parents, boyfriends, society would do or say or think.

   But the law is there to say that fears and emotions do not have more rights than the life of a child. This is what I believe Becky; you are the one projecting half-baked misognistic thoughts on me.

   Furthermore, even if no one is having an abortion because they don’t like the gender of their child, it does not mean that should be legal. Stephen A. Douglas once argued that slavery should be legal in Kansas and Nebraska, because no one was going to take slaves there anyway. Even if no one in America was going to own a slave today, we would still want the law to prohibit slavery.

   And in combination, good luck finding a doctor who would feel comfortable with performing an abortion on a viable, 9 month fetus.

   His name is George Tiller, Becks.

   “I don’t understand the tone of your post, considering that many women who get late term abortions do so in order to save their own lives and health, and surely agonize over losing a wanted pregnancy.But most of us realize that it’s better to allow a woman to save her life if she, you know, wants to continue to live, than force her into martyrdom. “

   Martyrdom? Talk about a strawman argument Becky. No one wants to criminalize abortion when the woman will actually physically die. Not even the Catholic Church says a woman can’t get an abortion to save her physical life (Yes, Catholics, I know the Church only allows abortion as a double effect, i.e. the goal is to cure the disease and the secondary effect is the death of an innocent child, but I don’t think explaining the nuances of Summa Theologia is going to play well in the public sphere.)

   And lastly, I don’t see what was so awful about the tone of my post. You’re the one who insinuated that I am a “misogynist”; I did not insinuate that you are a Nazi or that you hate babies. How about you stop smearing me, and ask me why I think what I think?

   I know a number of women, some of them my relatives, who have had abortions. I had a friend crying on my shoulder in the fall when she found out her sister had an abortion. I don’t hate women, Becky. I want to protect the lives of innocent children, and help women through an emotionally distressing time.

   If you give me the benefit of the doubt, then I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you don’t hate disabled babies.

10. Gary May 15th, 2007 at 4:27 pm 10

    Becky, what are you talking about? We had 3 people die of Ecoli poisoning last year and there was a nationwide outcry. The .08% you talk about are 14,000 babies. That’s more than 3 times the amount killed in Iraq in the past 6 years combined.

    And you talk about straw man issues? Pre-mature birth babies are now living as soon as 5 1/2 months! What about the thousands and thousands of them after this point that are slaughtered every year?

    You want to find the low-life “doctors” that will perform these abortions? Well just go look up the 1995 article printed in the Bergen Record of NJ that documents 5,000 partial birth abortions alone.

    This is why we cannot let a Guiliani get the nomination!

11. Becky May 15th, 2007 at 11:30 pm 11

    Jack:

    Which states, Becky? You see Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton made abortion legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy in case of a woman’s health, and defined health as “health” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

    Allow me to point you to Wikipedia, in the interest of a short summary:

    As of April 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions that were not facially unconstitutional (i.e. banning all abortions) or enjoined by court order.[17] In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart ruled that Congress may ban certain late-term abortion techniques, “both previability and postviability”.

    Some of the 36 state bans are believed by pro-choice organizations to be unconstituational.[18] [19]The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman’s life, physical health, and mental health, but four states allow late-term abortions only when the woman’s life is at risk; four allow them when the woman’s life or physical health is at risk, but use a definition of health that pro-choice organizations believe is impermissibly narrow.[17] Assuming that one of these state bans is constitutionally flawed, then that does not necessarily mean that the entire ban would be struck down: “invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.”[20]

    Also, 13 states prohibit abortion after a certain number of weeks’ gestation (usually 24 weeks).[17] …Ten states require a second physician to approve.[17] The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement of “confirmation by two other physicians” (rather than one other physician) because “acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on the physician’s right to practice”.[22] Pro-choice organizations such as the Guttmacher Institute therefore interpret some of these state laws to be unconstitutional, based on these and other Supreme Court rulings, at least to the extent that these state laws require approval of a second or third physician.[17]

    So no, it’s not a walk in the park to get an abortion after 6 months gestation. There are (gasp!) legal barriers after viability, not to mention the more complicated laws state by state. And the recent ban on certain types of procedures (regardless of the fact that in many cases a D&X could save a woman’s future fertility). And you include the broader definitions of a woman’s health as if they somehow aren’t as important?

    They’re being killed out of fear, and sometimes an unwillingness to be selfless.

    And since when does the state need to get involved in order to make women feel more “selfless”?

    But the law is there to say that fears and emotions do not have more rights than the life of a child.

    How, exactly, are a woman’s fears/reasons for not wanting to carry a fetus for 9 months and give birth categorically different from people who choose not to donate blood/bone marrow/extra kidneys to those who won’t otherwise live? Both cases, something isn’t going to live, both cases, someone is being asked to use their body for another’s life, in only one case do anti-choicers feel that they need to legislate life and death morality.

    As to the slavery analogy: I think it’s what logicians would call a false analogy. The differences are more compelling than the similarities.

    Martyrdom? Talk about a strawman argument Becky. No one wants to criminalize abortion when the woman will actually physically die.

    You just proved that it’s not a strawman argument. So “physically dying” is the only case in which you’re willing to let a woman get an abortion? Tell me how that doesn’t translate into martyring women into forced pregnancies. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, the state shouldn’t have a right to compel her to be so. The woman in Poland who is legally blind after being denied a therapeutic abortion. The women who carry and deliver (you know, hours of painful labor) dead/dying fetuses to satisfy some sort of social ignorance/indifference masquerading as morality. Pregnant rape victims. Women who had a contraception failure. Etc.

    I want to protect the lives of innocent children, and help women through an emotionally distressing time.

    This frankly sounds condescending to me. If I had an unwanted pregnancy, I wouldn’t want help, I’d want medical attention (as early as possible).

    Gary:

    The .08% you talk about are 14,000 babies. That’s more than 3 times the amount killed in Iraq in the past 6 years combined.

    You do realize that those “14,000 babies” include fetuses that weren’t viable, had severe birth defects, or were going to seriously maim/injure the women carrying them? And that many women who have abortions plan on having only a certain number of children, so that they later give birth to children that would otherwise never be born?

    You want to find the low-life “doctors” that will perform these abortions? Well just go look up the 1995 article printed in the Bergen Record of NJ that documents 5,000 partial birth abortions alone.

    Why the scare quotes? These doctors also save thousands of women’s lives. Why do you seem to care more about a fetus than the woman carrying it? If we didn’t have doctors who could perform abortions, pregnancy would be even less safe for women. If something goes wrong, we should be able to save our lives, and those of our wives, sisters, mothers, daughters.

    Oh, and the proper term for that procedure would be a D&X abortion. Which are usually performed to save a woman’s health or to terminate a doomed pregnancy. Do you really *want* women to carry a dead fetus around until they get seriously ill? And then spend 2 days in pain to deliver a dead fetus? Because that’s what “anti-choice” policies can lead to. Read some first hand accounts of women who have had to resort to “partial birth abortions.” It might give you some more perspective.

12. Jack May 16th, 2007 at 2:15 pm 12

    Becky:

    Despite the authority of a Wikipedia article, I cited a Supreme Court court case, Doe v. Bolton, which was Roe v. Wade’s companion case, and defined what was considered to be the “health” exception which may be invoked at any stage of pregnancy. It defines “health” as “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”

    So, all of those laws against third trimester abortions are meaningless, because an abortionist simply has to agree that a woman’s “emotional health” would be damaged by giving birth to a child. Can you think of a single instance in which this loophole could not be applied, making abortion effectively legal throughout all 9 months for any reason?

    How, exactly, are a woman’s fears/reasons for not wanting to carry a fetus for 9 months and give birth categorically different from people who choose not to donate blood/bone marrow/extra kidneys to those who won’t otherwise live?

    Becky, there’s a categorical distinction between basic care and extraordinary care: Parents are required to provide their children with food and shelter–You cannot leave a year old baby in a room alone to die. You are required by law to feed that baby and give it other basic life sustaining care. A child in the fetal stage of development can only survive in his or her mother’s womb prior to 5 months of gestation. This is basic care, which ought to be required by law.

    Requiring someone to donate an organ would be extraordinary care, which would not be required legally.

    Furthermore, a child is not some alien or stranger on the street demanding bone marrow–a child in the fetal stage of development is needing of a different degree but not kind of care than a child in the infant stage of development. In neither case, can one justly deny her own child that care–or to be more accurate, dismember said child because she do not want to give him or her basic care.

    By willfully engaging in sex, a woman consents to be responsible for providing basic care for a child which is creating through that process. Why should your child be killed because a condom broke, or birth control failed? Is that his or her fault? Furthermore, the child may be given to someone else who can provide that care upon birth. The fetus/infant is going to be removed from a woman in one way or another. The question is not whether she delivers a child, but whether that child is dead or alive.

    Your argument approaches abortion from a radically individualistic philosophy which justifies actively killing those who require greater dependency. This philosophy is false, as I have shown, because human fetuses, infants, toddlers, and children all are dependent to a certain degree and require a certain level of basic care because they are all unique human beings and have the natural right to life. It can be no one’s liberty to take another’s life.

    You just proved that it’s not a strawman argument. So “physically dying” is the only case in which you’re willing to let a woman get an abortion? Tell me how that doesn’t translate into martyring women into forced pregnancies. If a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, the state shouldn’t have a right to compel her to be so. The woman in Poland who is legally blind after being denied a therapeutic abortion. The women who carry and deliver (you know, hours of painful labor) dead/dying fetuses to satisfy some sort of social ignorance/indifference masquerading as morality. Pregnant rape victims. Women who had a contraception failure. Etc.

    At the end of the day all of your “tough cases” amount to no more than 7% of all abortions in America, but let me address them.

    1. Your “dead” fetus situation is absurd. I wouldn’t object to aborting a dead unborn child because it wouldn’t be taking the innocent life of a human being.

    2. The state can’t “compel” a woman to be pregnant because a state cannot impregnate a woman. The state can require that once a new life has been created that the child has a right not to be dismembered. A woman can choose not to have sex, or use birth control effectively.

    3. Please provide a link to the woman in Poland who went blind from her pregnancy. How did this happen? I’m curious.

    4. I believe that abortion is only morally permissible to save a woman’s life. I would permit abortion legally in greater circumstances, however, because we live in a democracy and I know that a majority will probably never, for instance, be convinced that a child conceived in rape has a right to live. This is called compromise and moderation Becky, something which pro-abortion people, who voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, do not understand.

    I used to think that abortion in the case of rape was morally justified, because I approached the issue from a libertarian perspective, reasoning that the woman had not willfully engaged in an activity for which the natural end is a child living in the womb could not be held legally responsible for providing basic care for said child. I now believe this is faulty reasoning, however, even from a libertarian perspective because individuals don’t have a right to actively kill a trespasser.

    Again, from a strictly libertarian position, this argument is tricky, but I think that there are other arguments, such as the sanctity of human life being greater than one’s emotions/personal autonomy which make aborting a child conceived in rape immoral.

    My position on abortion stems from my belief that there is/ought to be a categorical imperative against intentionally taking the live of an innocent human being. This belief was well articulated by Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, etc. and philosophers like Aristotle, Seneca, Kant, etc.

    Do you know how you reached your own position on abortion? Do you think that it is always wrong to kill innocent human beings?

13. Becky May 16th, 2007 at 10:30 pm 13

    So, all of those laws against third trimester abortions are meaningless, because an abortionist simply has to agree that a woman’s “emotional health” would be damaged by giving birth to a child. Can you think of a single instance in which this loophole could not be applied, making abortion effectively legal throughout all 9 months for any reason?

    If you want to talk about “exception” cases, here you go. Do you *really* think that women/doctors abuse this emotional health exception? Do you know of a single case in which it was used at 9 months for a less than kosher reason? And who are you to decide for a pregnant woman what would be dangerous to her health?

    Becky, there’s a categorical distinction between basic care and extraordinary care: Parents are required to provide their children with food and shelter–You cannot leave a year old baby in a room alone to die. You are required by law to feed that baby and give it other basic life sustaining care. A child in the fetal stage of development can only survive in his or her mother’s womb prior to 5 months of gestation. This is basic care, which ought to be required by law.

    Um, I’d say that loaning my body to a fetus for 9 months is pretty extraordinary care. Just because another person can only live because of my body, doesn’t compel me to use my body to keep them alive. Again, in *no other case* would we require one person to give this care to another person to keep him/her alive (and I’m talking about actual viable human beings here). So why should women be compelled to do so?

    Requiring someone to donate an organ would be extraordinary care, which would not be required legally.

    Again, one organ is extraordinary care? Then what do you call loaning my entire body for a fetus’s development?

    Furthermore, a child is not some alien or stranger on the street demanding bone marrow–a child in the fetal stage of development is needing of a different degree but not kind of care than a child in the infant stage of development.

    Again, I’d argue that yes, this *is* a different “kind” of care. This is the *only* kind of care that can’t be done by another adult human being. You can’t compel one person to take care of an infant if he/she doesn’t want to (In fact, we have services to take the child out of those situations). You can’t compel a son or daughter to personally care for his/her aging parent. So why should the state be able to compel an indvidual woman to loan her body out for a fetus for 9 months?

    In neither case, can one justly deny her own child that care–or to be more accurate, dismember said child because she do not want to give him or her basic care.

    This makes no sense to me. The state can’t force a woman to raise a child: that’s what adoption/ family services are for. Nor should the state be able to force pregnancy/labor on a woman.

    By willfully engaging in sex, a woman consents to be responsible for providing basic care for a child which is creating through that process.

    Did I miss some sort of basic contract that I was supposed to sign upon engaging in sexual activity? Because I’ve never consented to this agreement.

    Why should your child be killed because a condom broke, or birth control failed? Is that his or her fault?

    Because I don’t want to grow a child in my body? That’s a good enough reason for me. Here’s an analogy, since you bring up trespassing later in your post: Imagine I’m invited into someone’s house. And let’s say I innocently overstay my welcome. Does that mean the person who invited me can’t forcibly take me off their property if I then refuse to leave? Or, let’s say an innocent but crazy person attacks me. Can’t I defend myself, even if the person knows not what he/she does?

    Your argument approaches abortion from a radically individualistic philosophy which justifies actively killing those who require greater dependency.

    Individualistic, yes. Justifies killing those with greater dependency, no. I’m saying that the dependency of an infant is different in kind (not just degree) from that of a nonviable fetus. And I’m saying that the state shouldn’t have the power to compel any one individual to use his/her body to sustain another’s life — even if that life is “innocent.”

    It can be no one’s liberty to take another’s life.

    Is it another’s life if it’s not viable without my body, though? I don’t see how a fetus has more rights to my body than I have.

    1. Your “dead” fetus situation is absurd. I wouldn’t object to aborting a dead unborn child because it wouldn’t be taking the innocent life of a human being.

    I appreciate that you think it’s absurd, but did you stop to think, while celebrating the ban on D &X procedures, that some women with dead fetuses won’t be able to use this procedure to safely extract the fetus?

    2. The state can’t “compel” a woman to be pregnant because a state cannot impregnate a woman. The state can require that once a new life has been created that the child has a right not to be dismembered. A woman can choose not to have sex, or use birth control effectively.

    First of all: what about rape/incest exceptions. Secondly, I don’t see how a fetus has more rights to my womb than I have. If I want to evict it, is it my fault it’s not able to sustain itself yet? Thirdly, it’s not a woman’s fault if her boyfriend refuses to wear a condom, or if her contraception fails (and yes, failure rates happen, even with correct usage). And “choosing not to have sex”? Now *that* seems radical to me. Call me crazy, but I think sex has more purpose than just procreation. I’m pro-choice and sex-positive in large part because I think that sex is a natural part of being human.

    3. Please provide a link to the woman in Poland who went blind from her pregnancy. How did this happen? I’m curious.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6470403.stm

    This is called compromise and moderation Becky, something which pro-abortion people, who voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, do not understand.

    I’ll compromise as soon as you don’t ask me to compromise my right to my own body. If anti-choice groups were as interested in preventing abortions as they claim, then they’d get on board with comprehensive sex ed. and wide availability of contraception. Oh, and they wouldn’t have blocked for months the FDA’s approval of Plan B for OTC sales. Because Plan B can drastically cut our abortion rate by preventing ovulation.

    I’m interested in cutting the abortion rate via preventing unplanned/unwanted pregnancies. Not through forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies.

    because individuals don’t have a right to actively kill a trespasser.

    Actually, there are compelling similarities between a trespasser and a fetus. And self-defense analogies are also apt, in my opinion. Especially considering the pain/suffering involved in pregnancy and delivery.

    Again, from a strictly libertarian position, this argument is tricky, but I think that there are other arguments, such as the sanctity of human life being greater than one’s emotions/personal autonomy which make aborting a child conceived in rape immoral.

    I’m completely confused as to how one can be a libertarian and anti-choice. Isn’t the whole point that individuals have personal autonomy and liberty? Seems to me like you’d have to work very hard to empathize exclusively with the fetus, and ignore the sanctity of the *woman’s* life. Which it sounds like you’re well on your way to doing.

    My position on abortion stems from my belief that there is/ought to be a categorical imperative against intentionally taking the live of an innocent human being. This belief was well articulated by Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, etc. and philosophers like Aristotle, Seneca, Kant, etc.

    I think the “innocence” factor is as non sequitur, myself. I *don’t* think it’s always wrong to kill an innocent human being. Someone might be innocent and also causing me great pain or injury. There are also many cases in which we do take innocent lives for the greater good (war, for example).

    And in response: I have thought about my position on abortion, quite a lot. From the age of 15 to the present. And I haven’t yet read a compelling counterargument to convince me that a framework of personal autonomy/liberty should be applicable in our society at large, *except* when it comes to women’s bodies. If we believe in personal rights to our own bodies and resources, then I don’t see how we can justify outlawing abortions. Also, considering that our world population is in excess of 6 billion people, I think it’s sinful to bring unwanted life into the world. (Obviously I’m as much against forced abortions as I am against forced pregnancies, but in my utopian vision, all pregnancies would be wanted and planned.)

14. Jack O'Reilly May 17th, 2007 at 4:25 pm 14

    Here I go, in no particular order.

    I appreciate that you think it’s absurd, but did you stop to think, while celebrating the ban on D &X procedures,that some women with dead fetuses won’t be able to use this procedure to safely extract the fetus?

    Becky, this is very sloppy. Here is the wording of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act. It defines a Partial Birth Abortion as:

    An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

    Living fetus. Living.

    If you want to talk about “exception” cases, here you go. Do you *really* think that women/doctors abuse this emotional health exception? Do you know of a single case in which it was used at 9 months for a less than kosher reason? And who are you to decide for a pregnant woman what would be dangerous to her health?

    How about a cleft palate? This is a purely cosmetic ailment that is easily curable, but it has been used to justify killing unborn children in the third trimester both in America and the UK.

    To try and crack the extraordinary vs. basic care argument, I’m not going to quote each of your points. But here’s my rebuttal. You write:

    And I’m saying that the state shouldn’t have the power to compel any one individual to use his/her body to sustain another’s life — even if that life is “innocent.”

    You contend that the that absolute personal autonomy of the mother has a superior claim than the life of the child. Is this correct? Then, if a newborn child can only survive with his or her mother’s breastmilk during the first three months of life outside the womb, can the state compel the mother to provide milk for the child?

    In your example of adoption and social services, the mother is responsible for placing a child in the custody of those who are willing–and there are so so many loving couples wanting to adopt that are willing–to provide basic life sustaining care. A mother cannot chop up her unwanted child or abandon her child for dead if she does not want to provide this care, but must care for that child, by law, until she finds someone who will. And again, this isn’t some random child off the street–it is a woman’s own offspring–a mother’s own son or daughter. There is a natural obligation to provide for one’s own offspring basic life sustaining care. You make pregnancy sound like some alien intruder, when it is the natural process through which every single human being went in order to be alive today.

    You may not have signed a legal document when you willfully engaged in sex, but you know that there is a possibility that a new human life will be dependent on you for basic care based upon your actions. The whole trespasser argument is thus confined strictly and narrowly to the case of rape.

    Furthermore, your analogy to the unborn child being an attacker is inaccurate. It is not just to relieve the “suffering and pain” of a pregnancy (i.e. morning sickness, stretch marks, frequency of urination) by taking the life of an innocent child. Again, under the principle of double effect, it would be licit to remove a cancerous uterus and the secondary effect would be the death of the innocent child. This is because cancer is life threatening whereas the natural ailments of pregnancy are not and relatively minor compared to death.

    I *don’t* think it’s always wrong to kill an innocent human being. Someone might be innocent and also causing me great pain or injury. There are also many cases in which we do take innocent lives for the greater good (war, for example).

    This is where your argument comes off the rails. In war, it is not morally justified to intentionally kill innocent civilians. A soldier cannot rape people to end a war. A soldier cannot go shoot up noncombatant women and children because he thinks it will end the war more quickly. A soldier must target combatants. Civilians may not be intentionally killed, but in war the killing of innocents does happen and is licit under the principle of double effect.

    For example, a soldier may target a car with Osama bin Laden inside, but an unintentional consquence might be the death of innocent children in the vehicle. In an ectopic pregnancy, a doctor may remove a diseased fallopian tube to save the life of the mother, and the secondary effect is the death of the innocent child.

    Again, this categorical imperative against intentionally killing innocent human beings is a bedrock moral principle, and if we stray from it to some crass utilitarianism or radical individualism the consequences are only too well known for any student of history.

    Becky May 17th, 2007 at 10:25 pm 15

    As for delivering living/barely living fetuses in the 9th month: I’m wondering, first of all, if doctors would know how to do a D &X in a post-ban U.S., and if so, are they allowed to perform it on a fetus that is living thus far, but isn’t expected to live after delivery? The murkiness of many situations makes it important, in my opinion, for doctors to make these decisions, rather than those in Congress.

    You contend that the that absolute personal autonomy of the mother has a superior claim than the life of the child. Is this correct? Then, if a newborn child can only survive with his or her mother’s breastmilk during the first three months of life outside the womb, can the state compel the mother to provide milk for the child?

    No. We can’t compel parents to donate blood or tissue or organs to their living children, so why would breastmilk be any different? Obviously most people would *choose* to do so, but we don’t write it into law. We rely upon people to make their own moral decisions, rather than have the state step in.

    In your example of adoption and social services, the mother is responsible for placing a child in the custody of those who are willing–and there are so so many loving couples wanting to adopt that are willing–to provide basic life sustaining care. A mother cannot chop up her unwanted child or abandon her child for dead if she does not want to provide this care, but must care for that child, by law, until she finds someone who will.

    First off: there are plenty of unwanted children already in this world. Unfortunately, most people adopting want a baby (rather than an older child), and want a baby of a certain race/ethnicity.

    Secondly: I find this situation completely different in kind from pregnancy. A woman can pay someone to look after the child until adoption takes place. Or can actively seek someone who is willing to take care of the child. A pregnant woman, however, can’t remove herself from the position of caretaker.

    You make pregnancy sound like some alien intruder, when it is the natural process through which every single human being went in order to be alive today.

    Well, it is kind of an alien intruder. A fetus is a sort of parasite — perfectly natural, sure, but natural doesn’t always translate into meaning “good” or “easy”. That’s why the separate blood type of the fetus can become problematic. I was recently reading about how pregnancy really becomes a competition between the mother’s body and the fetus for resources, which isn’t surprising, but our cultural stereotypes and narratives around pregnancy are resistant to thinking about the process in that way.

    Furthermore, your analogy to the unborn child being an attacker is inaccurate. It is not just to relieve the “suffering and pain” of a pregnancy (i.e. morning sickness, stretch marks, frequency of urination) by taking the life of an innocent child. Again, under the principle of double effect, it would be licit to remove a cancerous uterus and the secondary effect would be the death of the innocent child. This is because cancer is life threatening whereas the natural ailments of pregnancy are not and relatively minor compared to death.

    I still think the trespasser/attacker analogies are useful. I wish I knew more about contract theory — but I suspect that one can change one’s mind in situations “similar” to pregnancy, even after initially offering consent.

    Also, have you ever been pregnant? I haven’t, but from what I hear, those aren’t the least of the pain/suffering. In any other circumstances in life, if someone was threatening to tear a grapefruit through one’s body, we’d consider that something we could defend ourselves against. I don’t understand why a woman couldn’t defend herself against going through labor by having an abortion (as early as possible, of course).

    Not to get into a debate between Kantian & Utilitarian systems, with Aquinas thrown in for good measure, but I don’t understand your distinctions between various scenarios in which innocents are killed (regarding war in particular). Reminded me of the philosophy 101 debate: do you shoot down the plane before it hits the WTC? (I feel like somehow we got into a Kantian vs. utilitarian question.) But this did make me question the way in which I’m thinking about intentions & abortion. In pregnancy, the threat to my health/life (because it’s not foolproof, after all) *is* the fetus. Or another way I’m thinking about this, is that one’s intent isn’t to kill the fetus, but to “evict” it (so the “unintended” side effect is that the fetus dies since we don’t have artificial wombs as yet). Just some further thoughts.

    Jack May 25th, 2007 at 3:11 pm 16

    Becky, sorry for not responding. I’ve had a very busy week, and my little niece was just born 8 months and 1 week into pregnancy. She’s a very cute little girl, and kind of puts a context around this whole abstract debate.

    I would highly suggest you go and hold a little baby sometime soon and really contemplate that you think it’s OK to crush that baby’s skull when she was living in her mother’s womb because a woman feels her “emotional” life is being “threatened” by an “attacker.”

    Alan May 26th, 2007 at 4:44 pm 17

    Why does it matter whether or not you’ve ever been pregnant? Abortion either should be legal or should be illegal or should be legal in certain circumstancs, but whether it’s right or wrong to ban abortion in some or all circumstances has nothing to do with whether or not one has ever been pregnant.

    Gary May 28th, 2007 at 12:11 pm 18

    Becky,

    You are completely misinformed about the 14,000 babies being killed by “doctors” because of gross fetal abnormalities or threats to the mothers’ health.

    You may remember Dr. George Tiller that was performing partial birth abortions in Kansas and testified before Congress against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.

    From July 1998, when reporting began, until December 1998, Tiller performed 227 abortions after 22 weeks. 91 of these abortions were performed after the baby had reached viability. For each abortion, he was asked to indicate whether the abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother. In each case, his answer was no.

    During the same period, Tiller performed 58 “partial birth” abortions. All of these abortions were done on babies that had reached viability. Tiller was again asked to indicate, for each “partial birth” abortion (PBA), whether the procedure was done to preserve the physical health or the mental health of his patient. As expected, the answer given every time was mental health. Not one of his “partial birth” abortions was done for physical health reasons.

    So now are you seriously going to argue that “mental health” (ie. shame of being pregnant, stress, etc.) is a justifiable reason to kill a healthy baby?

    Gary May 28th, 2007 at 12:18 pm 19

    The eviction argument doesn’t hold water except if you want to try to apply it to rape and incest.

    The reason that the eviction argument of an alien intruder doesn’t hold water is that the person (fetus) has been invited in. Whether the fetus is wanted or not is irrelevant. Whenever anyone has sex with someone of the opposite sex, they know that the risk (no matter how much protection is used) exists to “invite” a fetus in. You cannot argue that the fetus was not welcomed in when the door was swung open to the fetus through the act of sex to begin with.

    You cannot for instance offer your home as a foster parent, get the kid in the house and then because the kid you got wasn’t what you were expecting then turn around and bash the kid’s skull in. Apply the same thinking to abortion.

    Katherine June 18th, 2007 at 7:51 pm 20

    Becky…Thank you.