Prosecute the torture.

August 17, 2008

Just in case you were wondering...

Last night at the presidential candidate forum at Saddleback Church, Republican presidential nominee John McCain made it clear where he standa on choice -- firmly against it:


But it isn't just abortion that he's against. Here's his record on preventing unwanted pregnancies:
McCain's Record on Voting on Preventing Unintended Pregnancy

  • Voted to terminate the Title X family planning-program, which provides millions of women with health-care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.46

  • Voted against funding teen-pregnancy-prevention programs and ensuring that "abstinence-only" programs are medically accurate.47

  • Voted for the domestic gag rule, which would have prohibited federally funded family-planning clinics from providing women with access to full information about their reproductive-health options.48

  • Voted to uphold the global gag rule, a policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving U.S. family-planning aid if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services, give referrals, or even take a public pro-choice position.49

  • Voted to de-fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that provides family-planning services -- not abortion -- for the world's poorest women.50

  • Voted to earmark one-third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funds for ineffective, unproven, and dangerous "abstinence-unless-married" programs.51

  • Voted to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to establish a new "abstinence-only" program that censors information about birth control.52

  • Voted to impose a federal parental-consent law on teens seeking birth control.53

  • Declined to help reduce the need for abortion and improve maternal health by opposing effort to require insurance coverage for prescription birth control, improve access to emergency contraception, and provide more women with prenatal health care.54

  • Voted against legislation that would have prevented unintended pregnancy by investing in insurance coverage for prescription birth control, promoting family planning services, implementing teen-pregnancy-prevention programs, and developing programs to increase awareness about emergency contraception.55
  • What a maverick!

    Say it with me: Rethuglicans aren't "pro life" they are
    pro forced birth.

    46 Weicker motion to table Helms amendment to FY'89 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, H.R.4783, 7/25/88; motion to invoke cloture on Family Planning Amendments Act, S.110, 9/26/90.
    47 Lautenberg/Menendez amendment to Child Custody Protection Act, S.403, 7/25/06.
    48 Durenberger amendment to Family Planning Amendments Act, S.323, 7/16/91; FY'92 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, H.R.2707, 11/7/91; vote to override veto of Family Planning Amendments Act, S.323, 10/1/92.
    49 Dole motion to table Wirth amendment to FY'91 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.5114, 10/19/90; Leahy motion to strike House language in FY'96 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.1868, 11/1/95; Hatfield motion to table House language in FY'96 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.1868, 11/15/95; FY'99 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, H.R.1757, 4/28/98; Lugar motion to table Boxer amendment to FY'04-05 Foreign Relations authorization bill, S.925, 7/9/03; Boxer amendment to FY06-07 Foreign Relations authorization bill, S.600, 4/5/05.
    50 Mikulski motion to table Kasten amendment to FY'90 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.2939, 9/20/89; Leahy motion to disagree with House amendment to FY'90 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.2939, 11/15/89; Helms amendment to FY'96 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.1868, 9/21/95; FY'99 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, H.R.1757, 4/28/98; Lugar motion to table Boxer amendment to FY'04-05
    Foreign Relations authorization bill, S.925, 7/9/03; Boxer amendment to FY'06-07 Foreign Relations authorization bill, S.600, 4/5/05.
    51 Feinstein amendment to United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, H.R.1298, 5/15/03; Feinstein amendment to FY'04 Foreign Operations appropriations bill, H.R.2800, 10/30/03.
    52 Domenici motion to waive Budget Act with respect to Exon point of order in FY'97 budget reconciliation, S.1956, 7/23/96.
    53 Waxman motion to suspend rules and pass Family Planning Programs authorization bill, H.R.2369, 6/18/85; Chiles motion to table Helms amendment to FY'89 Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill, H.R.4783, 7/25/88.
    54 Murray motion to waive Budget Act to allow vote on Murray/Reid prevention-package-amendment to "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban Act, S.3, 3/11/03.
    55 Clinton/Reid amendment to FY'06 Budget Resolution, S.Con.Res.18, 3/17/05.
    .

    48 comments:

    John K. said...

    John K: Pro forced birth?  Is that the latest line from the left?  Yah wouldn't want a birth. According to Hussein Obama that is a mistake he would not want anyone saddled with.

    John K. said...

    John K: Remember left wing kooks, Hussein Obama voted to authorize abortin for children born live.  Yep, right after they are born.  Is that a forced birth?  Odd view of life among the left.  Forced birth? 

    Eric W said...

    So progressives will fight for an end to the death penalty (a fight I agree with), which promotes mercy and humane treatment for convicted criminals, but they won't fight for an end to the murder of innocent unborn children. What happened to support for society's most vulnerable members?

    Forced birth? If after birth a child were left to die of neglect or actively murdered, we'd hold the parents accountable for their crime. Likewise, if a hospitalized child were removed from life support for any reason other than brain death or euthanasia, public outcry would demand justice. Yet if a child is killed in the womb or removed from it prematurely (for non-medical reasons), we call it a right. WTF?

    We can debate the personhood of a first trimester baby and quibble over phrases like "lump of cells", but I fail to see how anyone can justify abortion well into the second or third trimester. Why must elective (as opposed to medically necessary) abortion be legally available for the full term of gestation?

    I hope by now my fellow commenters know I'm no "Rethuglican", so I'd appreciate it if responders avoid that and similar ad hominem arguments.

    Grace said...

    Make no mistake; the ‘pro-life’ community wanting to outlaw abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. Birth control is not abortion, but the republicans want to reclassify the pill as abortion.
    The debate here is not when human life begins. The debate is really how can we go back to a time when men controlled women and ‘life was simpler’.

    There are reasons why abortion must remain safe and legal. Expanded birth control availability and education are desperately needed to improve the lives of women and would drastically reduce the number of abortions.

    Why is it that today’s ‘pro-life’ movement does not want an exclusion for rape, incest, or the life of the mother? The pro-lifers used to include those 3 exceptions.

    Gewurztraminer said...

    Well said Eric.....
    END OF THREAD

    Eric W said...

    "Why is it that today’s ‘pro-life’ movement does not want an exclusion for rape, incest, or the life of the mother?"

    All pro-lifers I know would make an exception for the life of the mother. In cases of rape and incest, the abuser is guilty of a heinous crime, not the baby. Why should the child be executed because of someone else's crime? Why respond to one destructive act with another?

    Allow me to turn your question around: Why is it that today's 'pro-choice' movement insists on trotting out these three rare scenarios any time someone even hints at limiting access to 40 weeks of elective abortion? The vast majority of abortions are performed for reasons other than those. For all the talk of "safe, legal, and rare", I don't see much action on the "rare" front. Championing contraception doesn't count. It does nothing to promote healthy and responsible sexual attitudes. It only teaches people to avoid the primary consequence of sex, i.e., conception. Regardless of the merits of abstinence-only education (or lack thereof), so-called "comprehensive" sex education treats abstinence as a laughable proposition, if it considers it at all. You don't get safer sex than none at all, so why not teach at least restraint and moderation in sexual activity? Nanny-state advocates will go to great legislative lengths to fight one of gluttony's consequences, obesity, but efforts to curb lust are apparently beyond the pale. What gives?

    Eric W said...

    "Birth control is not abortion"

    Actually, some forms of chemical birth control are abortifacient. Arbitrarily redefining pregnancy to begin at implantation (rather than conception) was a legal/political decision, not a scientific one. Just because doctors can't pinpoint the time of conception (yet) doesn't mean a woman isn't pregnant from the time of conception. Yes, a lot of pre-implantation embryos are lost to miscarriage (aka spontaneous or natural abortion). That doesn't make intentional or tacitly approved interference with implantation is any less an abortion.

    "The debate is really how can we go back to a time when men controlled women and ‘life was simpler’."

    Can you smell what you're shoveling? Heaven forbid you give those with opposing viewpoints benefit of the doubt and assume they aren't complete asshats. None of the pro-lifers with whom I associate, and they are legion, are chauvinists or misogynists. They all sincerely and deeply care for the unborn. Please check out Feminists for Life before maligning all pro-lifers as sexist men longing for "the good old days".

    m dachshund said...

    McCain dualistic wordview and hubristic conception of his ability to eliminate evil set him up to be the greatest "culture of death" president in our country's history

    Even George Will has told us that a vote for McCain is an attempt to guarantee a war with Iraq, and all political realists--from those of the Carter to Bush 41 administrations--know that an invasion of Iran a la McCain would be the commencement of WWIV.

    BTW, it is funny and noteworthy to pro-life Democrats how the incidence of abortion is actually GREATER under Rethuglican administrations.

    John K. said...

    John K: Note to the left:  The DNC is giving Sen. Casey a speaking spot at the convention.  Sen. Casey is pro-life.  The attempt it is to reach out to pro-life and catholic voters.  Which is being used to soften the harsh stand on abortion taken by Hussein Obama and his ardent supporters.  So do you think Sen. Casey will endorse the term forced birth?

    John K. said...

    John K: Sen. Casey is pro-life.  Next time I see him I will ask him if his pro-life stand is being used by him to control women.

    Bram Reichbaum said...

    Eric W -- You're making assumptions.

    "What happened to support for society's most vulnerable members?"

    Fetuses are not part of society. You are free to hold the sentimental position that fetuses are individual lives that are deserving of individual rights -- but I see no reason why I am free not to believe that. More importantly, I see no reason why a pregnant citizen should be compelled to believe that. Your insistence that we must regard an unborn fetus as an individual life is tantamount to the establishment of a state religion.

    You may feel you are justified in your beliefs because they are moral -- but nowhere in the governing documents of the United States of America will you find any resort to morality, because we are all free to make our own moral value judgments. The United States deals in constitutionality and legality. There is nothing in the constitution that automatically confers rights or responsibilities of any sort upon zebras, birds, moles, cancers, or unborn fetuses. The only value of these lies in that which the female sustaining them, responsible for them, chooses to accord to them. It's like property rights. I do see something about "all men are created equal", but I see nothing about men that have not yet been created.

    Let's try it this way: if a woman dies in childbirth, do you prosecute the baby for murder?

    Frankly I think the left has granted way way way WAY too much to the right as far as "safe, legal and rare" for political reasons. We did not outlaw murder in this country because it is "immoral". We outlawed murder because civilization cannot get off the ground or be productive without it. But once again, fetuses are not a "vulnerable" part of what can credibly be called our society. When you try to justify a ban against abortion as necessary for a good society, you inevitably resort to arguments that rely on magick.

    Eric W, you seem like a straight shooter and not a troll. Why can't you just agree not to commit abortion, and agree to attempt to persuade others not to commit abortions, and let it go? That's what you do if you find something "immoral" -- you don't try to compel obedience like some kind of Pharoah who knows everything about the universe.

    jaywillie said...

    You're lying, John.

    John K. said...

    John K: I am lying. LOL LOL LOL LOL Sen. Casey gets a spot to speak at the convention in an effort to pull in catholics and people who don't necessarily view abortion as a central issue.  After the convention, I will accept an apology from Jaywillie simply for being so stupid as to not know what his own party is doing.  Liberals. LMAO LMAO LMAOAnd for not knowing his own Senator is pro-life as was his dad.

    Grace said...

    Eric W: “All pro-lifers I know would make an exception for the life of the mother.”
    Anti-abortion proposed legislation and anti-abortion groups no longer make these exceptions – they haven’t for a long time.

    Eric W: “In cases of rape and incest, the abuser is guilty of a heinous crime, not the baby. Why should the child be executed because of someone else's crime? Why respond to one destructive act with another?”
    Yes Eric rape and incest are heinous crimes. Why would you make the victim be traumatized again by having the rapist’s baby? Would the rapist then have father’s rights over the victim’s baby? Seriously, do you have a wife, daughter, sister, or female friend that you would put through having the rapist’s baby?

    Eric W: “Championing contraception doesn't count. It does nothing to promote healthy and responsible sexual attitudes. It only teaches people to avoid the primary consequence of sex, i.e., conception.”
    My husband and I think the 4children we already have are enough for us to handle. Are we not supposed to enjoy our married life unless ‘possible conception’ is a part of every act of lovemaking?

    Eric W: “Regardless of the merits of abstinence-only education (or lack thereof), so-called "comprehensive" sex education treats abstinence as a laughable proposition, if it considers it at all. You don't get safer sex than none at all, so why not teach at least restraint and moderation in sexual activity?”
    So when we taught our daughters about adult moral choices, sex education, and birth control at home (because they no longer teach it in the schools) were we wrong? Was it wrong to arm them with values and information so they can decide when to have children?

    jaywillie said...

    No, John, I'm referring to what you said about Sen. Obama. It's a lie. It's an outright lie. It's as a big a lie as can be told.

    To tell you the truth, John, I didn't see the other posts you made. I really wasn't going to bother with any other bullshit from you when confronted with the completely falsh smear you made against Sen. Obama right at the top.

    And just to clarify, you daft twat, Sen. Casey will not be speaking on Tuesday 26 Aug. about abortion; he will, as are the other speakers, address economic matters as that night is dedicated to economic issues.

    Here's the thing about Sen. Casey, John, something you wingers lack. Yes, Sen. Casey is pro-life. And he is perfectly welcome in my Democratic party. But Sen. Casey isn't so blind as to think that matters of morality and ethics end when a child his born - he believes in funding programs like Head Start, that workers should make a decent wage, that support for education should be increased, that health care shouldn't be a luxury for millionaires like John McCain.

    Unlike conservative swine such as yourself, Sen. Casey doesn't exploit the unborn for political gain.

    Eric W said...

    "When you try to justify a ban against abortion as necessary for a good society, you inevitably resort to arguments that rely on magick."

    Really? What I see as "magick" is the philosophical contortion necessary to argue that a child is only a human person with inherent rights after it leaves the uterus (and sometimes not even then; c.f. partial-birth abortion). Peter Singer has a sick sense of morality and argues for selective infanticide, but at least he has the intellectual honesty to admit that late-term abortion is really no different.

    It's worth noting that the argument is always framed by the Left as a matter of women's rights, usually with examples of dire circumstances given as reasons to terminate pregnancies early on. I've yet to read a cogent argument for second or third trimester abortion, though. I can agree to disagree about first term abortions since the personhood of the fetus, and thus its right to life is in question. However, as medical science makes pre-term birth survivable at earlier and earlier stages, I fail to see how one can deny personhood, and therefore inalienable rights, to a baby more than halfway to term. This isn't just a moral matter, in the "murder is wrong" or "life is sacred" sense. It's also a matter of protecting the rights of vulnerable children. Keeping in mind modern life-support technologies, I'm curious to read folks definitions of personhood that would justify and permit the killing of potentially viable premies.

    Eric W said...

    "Anti-abortion proposed legislation and anti-abortion groups no longer make these exceptions – they haven’t for a long time."

    I can't speak for politicians, but Catholic bioethicists justify medically necessary abortions as double effect. That is, the end of the pregnancy is not the intended end of the procedure, but an unavoidable consequence.

    "Why would you make the victim be traumatized again by having the rapist’s baby?"

    Why would you take an innocent life to provide psychological comfort to the mother? How is that a fair trade?

    "Would the rapist then have father’s rights over the victim’s baby?"

    No. The crime itself caused that right to be forfeited.

    "Seriously, do you have a wife, daughter, sister, or female friend that you would put through having the rapist’s baby?"

    Yes. The ends do not justify the means. Nobody ought to die just because living would cause someone else emotional trauma. Furthermore, I do not believe that any good is done for a woman to kill her child as a perverted act of "justice" n response to the evil way it was conceived. If a woman's husband were injured by someone and forced to live on life support for 9 months, would she be justified in pulling the plug on him to end the emotional trauma and economic hardship the guilty party brought into her life? I'm not talking about vegetative state. Just imagine severe injuries that require hospitalization and constant care. Does the husband deserve to die?

    Eric W said...

    Again, I ask: Why will pro-choicers not compromise and ban abortions past the point of potential viability (as defined by current medical technology)? As a pr-lifer, I'd be ecstatic to reduce abortions by even that much. I'm not an all-or-nothing pro-lifer. I'd rather see some babies saved than none. Why don't pro-choicers see the other side similarly? Why is early-term abortion not enough? Why must second and third term abortion be legally available on demand, even when it's not medically necessary? It's that attitude of inflexibility that earns some pro-choicers the label "pro-abortion". It's treated like an inviolable sacrament? Why is that?

    jaywillie said...

    I think maybe it's time for some perspective on late-term abortions. They are simply not the widespread holocaust that people make it out to be.

    The vast majority of abortions in the United States occur at under 8 weeks. Over 20 weeks accounts for 1.5%, 16-20 weeks about 4% and 13-15 weeks about 6%.

    Just looking at that data, it's pretty easy to assume that most late-term abortions are not "abortion on demand" but more likely a result of medical reasons. If that's the case, then that decision is entirely between the woman and her doctor.

    Eric W said...

    Just looking at that data, it's pretty easy to assume that most late-term abortions are not "abortion on demand" but more likely a result of medical reasons.

    It may be easy to argue that the vast majority of abortions are performed prior to 20 wks, but I fail to see how your stats say anything whatsoever about the reasons for abortions past 20 wks. Raw counts would help, especially in comparison to miscarriages, pre-term births, full-term gestations, and other outcomes. Even counts, though, wouldn't answer "why". We'd need a thorough breakdown of the data in the post-20wk abortion group.

    Comparison: The vast majority of murders are singleton. 11.5% of all murderers kill more than once. 1.5% of all murders are serial killers. Just looking at that data, it's pretty easy to assume that serial killers don't like Frosted Flakes.

    I made the conclusion absurd for a reason. It shows that the relative incidence rate of a sub-type of a phenomenon tells you nothing about why the sub-type happens, at least not without additional data.

    P.S. Just because an act is rare doesn't make it right. The odds of being the victim of a serial killer are low, but I don't see legislators rushing to make serial murder legal. That said, as gruesome as partial-birth abortion is, I think the ban was meant to score political points and throw a bone to the pro-life base of the GOP. That doesn't make medically unnecessary infanticide any less deserving of a ban, though. Sometimes the right thing can be done for the wrong reasons.

    lkjrb16 said...

    L.K. here.

    WOW!!!!

    Eric- you ROCK. Who ARE you, anyway??

    (The only thing- I think- that I disagreed with you on was the "life of the mother" info. I DO believe that abortion is also heinous in those cases... and I have a real life example of someone who made the sacrificial decision that her baby should live and she would be willing to die.)

    But what interesting comments! And what a great thought, when you shared that pro-abortion folks do not seem to be satisfied with "some" abortion. It does seem to be all or nothing for them, does it not?

    Anyway, thank you for some very thought-provoking (and provocative) posts!

    Bram Reichbaum said...

    Eric W., because rights are in fact inviolable and non-negotiable. At least the rights of fully formed, walking-around-people are, whether you believe that to be a kind of chauvinism or not.

    Your opinions as to where and when life begins and when to start valuing it do not compare to our rights under the 14th and 9th amendments to mind our own business, and you should not be asking for a "compromise."

    Our system has justice -- everyone is FREE to make these complicated determinations for themselves. Your system is not -- you have decreed that after three months of development, a woman's fetus (which is implanted in her, wholly dependent upon her, and in some ways indistinguishable from her) is suddenly imbued with all the rights of an independent member of society, despite the lack of any support for this status either in the constitution or elsewhere in the law.

    I don't feel like I would have the power to "compromise" away another person's right to make his or her own untestable spiritual assertions, even if I wanted to. From what do you derive your own confidence?

    There's also the very practical matter of what women will do to themselves if the state has the gall to deny them the right to seek safe and professionally administered abortions. You think you are making abortions more rare, but you are really only making botched procedures much more commonplace.

    Eric W said...

    "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)." (source)

    Even in pro-lifers conceded rape, incest, and life of the mother, as Grace would like, there'd still be 93% to account for. I don't think the Left is prepared to give that up. How about we make a compromise. Let's ban all abortions after the 20th week, except for cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother? Seems reasonable to me. I bet NOW, NARAL, PP, ACLU, etc. would have a cow, though, if legislation like were proposed.

    Eric W said...

    "...suddenly imbued with all the rights of an independent member of society, despite the lack of any support for this status either in the constitution or elsewhere in the law."

    The Constitution is not the provider of rights, it is merely a protector. The Declaration of Independence rightly states that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. I am not presuming to grant rights to unborn human persons. You are presuming to infringe upon their right to life.

    BTW, do you believe that folks who can't survive without life-support machines, who perhaps cannot walk around and may be deformed, have inviolable rights?

    With that, I am off to bed. G'night all. :)

    Maria said...

    "Let's ban all abortions after the 20th week, except for cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother? Seems reasonable to me."

    Yes, because health, for example, is not important. You know before it gets to "life" there is a point where it's a health issue. But health not being a satisfactory reason, Eric would want to make sure a woman is on death's door before he could in all good conscious allow that a woman could take some agency. THANK YOU for your generosity! (But, woe to the poor doctor who jumps the gun! I know she's hemorrhaging like a stuck pig Doctor, but has she lost enough blood to make Eric feel OK with it? Or a court?)

    L.K. on the other hand would prefer the woman just shut up and die. Sure hope she doesn't have other kids who would be left motherless, but who gives a damn about that anyway.

    This is the way it was pre Roe V. Wade.

    Hell, that's the way it was to even get a medically-necessary hysterectomy in a Catholic hospital not so many years ago.

    Eric W said...

    "The only thing- I think- that I disagreed with you on was the 'life of the mother' info. I DO believe that abortion is also heinous in those cases"

    When only the mother or the baby can live, but not both, the mother cannot be obliged to give up her life for that of her child. To lay down one's life for another is a noble act, but it must be voluntary one. It is the kind of sacrifice that should never be compelled by law.

    "But, woe to the poor doctor who jumps the gun! I know she's hemorrhaging like a stuck pig Doctor, but has she lost enough blood to make Eric feel OK with it? Or a court?"

    Melodramatic much? For those persons walking around and fully formed, medical malpractice and homicide laws already cover the careless or deliberate causing of death by doctors, nurses, and the like. Why would it be so hard, or so awful, to apply similar standards to the unborn?

    cathcatz said...

    the right is always so much better at framing the language in this debate. we need to fix that!

    it's not pro-life. it's anti-choice!

    it's not partial birth abortion. it's late-term abortion.

    it may seem like a small thing, but these terms are used to unvoke extreme emotion.

    and i don't know what kind of clinics eric is familiar with, but i don't know of any who will terminate a pg after 12 weeks.

    most women make that decision very early on! VERY early on.

    John K. said...

    John K: Its not....Its change the term to fool them liberal speak.  Hello, if you abort one baby, it might not matter to you but it does matter to that aborted baby.  So don't use the term baby in any of this.  Brings it too close to home eh?

    EdHeath said...

    Let me insert two thoughts into this debate. First, I believe a thin majority of Americans support the general notion that abortion should be available for women, with a larger majority supporting it if you include phrases "where the health of the woman is threatened, or in cases of incest and rape". Apparently a majority of Americans support a woman's right to choose in the abstract. At the same time I think a majority of Americans, perhaps thin, support the restrictions that have shown up recently, such as parental notification and banning partial birth abortions, because we think children should talk to their parents, and abortions should not be done when the fetus is viable, both a bit of old time paternalism. There ate arguments about those two specifics which I will leave to others.

    Second, I think the phrase making abortions "safe, legal and rare" should also include the phrase "available". Some states have only one facility willing to provide abortions. For poor women that is essentially a ban on abortions. Now, I think if you talk to one hundred liberals, 99 will agree that making abortions rare is a very desirable goal (most will then say contraception education needs to be increased). But in some of the plains states, abortions are a six hour round trip (maybe worse), which is why some women will wait longer than they should, or never go.

    Eric W said...

    "it's not pro-life. it's anti-choice!"

    In the sense that deliberate homicide is a choice that should not be legal, yeah. We're not crusading to make subservient and choiceless. Our goal is to save innocent lives. You may not see them as human lives worth protecting, but we do. Can't you respect that? "Anti-choice" is as derogatory and inaccurate "pro-abortion" or "pro-death". If you can't respect me enough to take my word that I want to protect life, not limit freedom, then forget you. Obviously civil discourse is beyond your capabilities.

    cathcatz said...

    If you can't respect me enough to take my word that I want to protect life, not limit freedom, then forget you. eric w

    so, this boils down to respect? really? so i'm supposed to respect your right, as a man, to tell me what i am allowed to choose to do if i find myself carrying an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy??? really?

    by making that very personal decision for any other person, you are most certainly limiting freedom.

    put that in your libertarian pipe and shove it.

    Eric W said...

    "so, this boils down to respect? really? so i'm supposed to respect your right, as a man, to tell me what i am allowed to choose to do if i find myself carrying an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy??? really?"

    "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Theresa

    Seriously, are you really that shallow? Let's put aside the 1% of abortions that are performed for rape or incest and the 6% for medical reasons. Let's also put aside those done due to poverty. What does that leave? As far as I can tell, abortion as last-chance birth control. There's a better option, though. Don't have sex if you're not ready to be a mom.

    "by making that very personal decision for any other person, you are most certainly limiting freedom."

    Libertarians for Life would disagree.

    "put that in your libertarian pipe and shove it."

    Your apoplectic fit apparently interfered with correctly typing either, "Stick that in your libertarian pipe and smoke it" or, "Shove that up your libertarian ass".

    Eric W said...

    The L4L argument against abortion is based on the non-aggression principle. There is no right to aggress against the life of someone else, so there is no right infringed by protecting people's right to life.

    cathcatz said...

    no kind of fit...i just liked the mixed metaphor.

    and dear, contraceptives can, and often do, fail.

    i take it you are celibate then? you and LK would likely make a good couple.

    Eric W said...

    Celibate? Nope. First child due Aug 25. Natural family planning aka fertility awareness method. Even when we're not trying to get pregnant, we'd willingly and lovingly accept children.

    cathcatz said...

    well, congratulations! and try to get some extra sleep this week, you'll need it!

    and good luck with that natural planning / fertility awareness thing. we tried that, along with a vasectomy. like i said... some methods fail.

    i love being a parent. my daughter is the absolute light of my life. she was planned.

    lkjrb16 said...

    Go Eric! This is great.

    As for your "voluntary sacrifice" comment, of course-- I totally agree. That is an act of love, which cannot be forced.

    As for Cathcatz-- you're hilarious. I am a happily married parent, and we also welcome more children.

    And as for Maria... I'm not sure how to say this gently, but I will try. You are reacting with such anger. I am saddened by this. I'm sorry that you have been hurt by who knows what-- but please try and remain calm and rational with those of us who may differ in ideology from you.

    No, women should not "shut up and die." But should they VOLUNTARILY opt to save the life of someone else rather than their own, who can argue with that kind of loving act?

    Let us all respond peaceably....

    Maria said...

    LKjrb16,

    You wrote to Eric:
    "The only thing- I think- that I disagreed with you on was the "life of the mother" info. I DO believe that abortion is also heinous in those cases..."

    So that means that you believe that a woman saving her own life -- even to take care of children she already has -- is being "grossly wicked or reprehensible; abominable, acting disgracefully and grossly offensive"

    Sorry, you're the one with a problem, not me.

    There was nothing "peaceful" in your characterization of women who get an abortion to save their own lives.

    Maria said...

    Eric,

    "Melodramatic much? For those persons walking around and fully formed, medical malpractice and homicide laws already cover the careless or deliberate causing of death by doctors, nurses, and the like. Why would it be so hard, or so awful, to apply similar standards to the unborn?"

    Yes, it is melodramatic when doctors are afraid of even removing a dead fetus because they might run afoul of overly broad state laws and a woman is forced to carry that dead fetus the entire nine months.

    Yes, it is melodramatic when you want a women to risk her health or her future fertility to carry a pregnancy to term when the fetus has a brain growing outside its head and cannot survive more than a day.

    Yes, it is melodramatic when a woman and a doctor have to wait until a health issue becomes an actual matter of life or death to satisfy a law. That is what you are insuring when you do not include an exemption for health.

    But, it's not just melodramatic -- it's ugly, stupid and cruel and medieval to the woman (and her family).

    Grace said...

    Funny thing about being an adult about to be a parent for the first time in a week or so….those of us who have been through this know that you are too busy preparing for the birth of your child to spend night and day insulting people on the internet.
    Eric Williams - based on your blog information you are a 29 year old married grad student. Are you independently wealthy? Is your wife the one with the job? If you do have a job and you spend half of the work day wasting time on the internet you might end up fired. Then who will take care of your family?
    Shouldn’t you be too full of joy at the upcoming birth of your child to be trolling for women to insult on the internet? Last night while you commented on this blog past 10 pm – was your pregnant wife alone and wishing you would pay attention to her instead of sticking your nose into other people’s lives?
    It’s misogynists like you that make me realize how lucky I am to have an honest, secure, loving husband.

    Gewurztraminer said...

    WOW Grace that was WAAAY outa line. You throw the insults around too freely.
    I'm sorry that you can't understand what Eric was trying to say.

    Eric W said...

    "Funny thing about being an adult about to be a parent for the first time in a week or so….those of us who have been through this know that you are too busy preparing for the birth of your child to spend night and day insulting people on the internet."

    Um..ok...Does anyone else feel that way about my comments?

    "Eric Williams - based on your blog information you are a 29 year old married grad student."

    I need to update that. I'm now 31.

    "Are you independently wealthy? Is your wife the one with the job? If you do have a job and you spend half of the work day wasting time on the internet you might end up fired. Then who will take care of your family?"

    Gee. It takes soooo much time out of my day to comment on this blog. Um...not really. I check back on threads I'm involved in whenever my stat software is busy churning data for me. For better or worse, I never take more than a couple minutes to think out a response.

    "Shouldn’t you be too full of joy at the upcoming birth of your child to be trolling for women to insult on the internet?"

    Who's the troll? I'm contributing substantive arguments in a mostly diplomatic manner (nobody's perfect). You're just ranting and getting personal.

    "Last night while you commented on this blog past 10 pm – was your pregnant wife alone and wishing you would pay attention to her instead of sticking your nose into other people’s lives?"

    My pregnant wife has hobbies of her own, like reading, which she was doing until 11 last night. Anyhow, who's lives did I stick my nose in? Last I checked we were discussing public policy.

    "It’s misogynists like you that make me realize how lucky I am to have an honest, secure, loving husband."

    When my wife's maternity leave is over, she's going back to work and I'm staying home to care for the kid and working from home. How's that for misogynist?

    What makes you think you know me enough to say I'm not honest, secure, or loving? Like Gewurztraminer said, waaay out of line. In fact, I'd call it troll-like.

    Eric W said...

    BTW, Grace, does it make you feel good to use my personal life to insult me from a private Blogger profile?

    jaywillie said...

    I make that assumption Eric as one who has grown up around the medical industry.

    And the one thing that data doesn't suggest to me is that there is a rampant trend of abortions-on-demand. If there were, especially late-term abortions, I would expect higher percentages. Being that they are relatively small in comparison, that tells me that it is rare and likely, from my experience with doctors and their reluctance to perform medically unnecessary procedures, for a purpose far beyond simple "social convenience."

    I have one major problem with your "serial killer" analogy, namely because there is no need to outlaw serial killing since it's murder and murder is already illegal.

    Now, you are correct that just because something is rare that doesn't make it right. But it also means that perhaps you shouldn't go around impugning the reasons women have late-term abortions without knowing those reasons.

    In other words, it's their decision to make and live with.

    jaywillie said...

    Eric,

    I would also disagree strongly with this statement:

    relative incidence rate of a sub-type of a phenomenon tells you nothing about why the sub-type happens

    In fact, while you might not be able to nail down specifics or anything with certainty, it is most definitely possible to make inferences from the above and, with a little reason, not inaccurate with regards to the general phenomenon in question.

    Eric W said...

    "In fact, while you might not be able to nail down specifics or anything with certainty, it is most definitely possible to make inferences from the above and, with a little reason, not inaccurate with regards to the general phenomenon in question."

    Think of it in terms of conditional probabilities. Given that a woman has had an abortion prior to x weeks, what is the probability that she did so for reason y?

    P(Y = y|X < x)=P(X < x and Y = y)/P(X < x)

    Statistically speaking, knowing why women have abortions prior to a certain number of weeks isn't guaranteed to tell us anything about why women abort after that stage. That is, the distribution of reasons may be completely different at different gestation durations. For comparison, think about how the reasons for seeing your primary care physician change with age.

    Though unlikely, it is statistically possible that 100% of post-20wk abortions are done for reasons other than rape, incest, life/health, or poverty. I'd need the complete breakdown of reasons and durations to crunch the numbers, though.

    cathcatz said...

    i can't believe that this is still going on, but seriously eric... if a woman decides to have an abortion, that decision is made very early in the pg. more often than not, in the first 5-7 weeks, once the pg is apparent. if a woman hesitates, there is more likely the chance that she is going to keep the baby and not decide at 20 weeks, oh, i made a mistake, better get this thing out now. it's just crazy bullshit. it's scare tactics. it's fear mongering.

    Eric W said...

    I wasn't trying to drag out discussion of late-term abortions. I was just rebutting Jaywillie's abuse of statististics.

    "it's just crazy bullshit. it's scare tactics. it's fear mongering."

    That's how I feel about excessive emphasis on rape, incest, and life of the mother, which account for only 7% of abortions.