Who Are You Going to Believe, Me or Your Lying Eyes?
If you’ve spent any time in the Catholic blogosphere during the past year, you’ve probably heard about Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama’s opposition to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, a bill that would have recognized premature abortion survivors as “persons” entitled to protection under the law. In 2001, Obama was the only Senator to speak against the bill, though he ultimately voted “present” on the bill passage according to an agreement worked out with Planned Parenthood. In 2003, Obama voted to kill the bill, which was then before the Illinois State Senate Committee of which he was chairman. A similar bill passed the U.S. Senate unanimously in 2002.
Senator Obama has always claimed that his opposition to the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Act was based on differences between it and the federal bill. The Illinois bill, Obama claimed, did not contain a provision present in the federal bill that ensuring that it would not upset the right to abortion. Last week, however, the National Right to Life Committee produced documents showing that the bill Obama voted against in 2003 did include a “neutrality” provision identically to the one in the federal bill.
Asked about the issue this weekend, Senator Obama offered a response that can only be described as bordering on pure chutzpa: He accused the NRLC of lying:
I hate to say that people are lying, but here’s a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say –that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level.
The problem with this strategy, of course, was that the NRLC actually had documentation to back up their claims, whereas the Senator had only his own say-so. By Monday, the campaign had backtracked:
Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported “was not the bill that was presented at the state level.”
His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate, and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.
As someone who taught constitutional law for several years, the idea that Senator Obama thought the Born-Alive bill would have “undermined existing Illinois abortion law” even absent the neutrality provision is somewhat laughable. The Illinois legislature lacks the power to overturn Supreme Court decisions. But his new justification for voting against the bill is not only implausible; it is contrary to the justification he has given for voting against the bill for the past several years.
A philosopher in ancient Greece was once asked whether he thought it wrong to lie about having committed adultery. He responded that if one was willing to commit adultery he should scruple at telling a lie. That Candidate Obama, who is after all a politician, might lie about his record is hardly surprising. Obama’s dissembling about the Born-Alive bill may have turned into a mini-scandal, but the fact that he hasn’t been honest about his opposition to the bill pales in comparison to his opposition to the bill itself.
(HT: Southern Appeal)
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Exactly what happened, and whether Obama is recounting it correctly I don’t pretend to know. But anyone who isn’t suspicious of “born alive infant protection” laws simply has to be naive. In 1983 the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of a Missouri law that required a second doctor to be present for any abortion performed after the twelfth week of pregnancy to attend to the needs of the fetus should it be born alive. Anyone who truly cared about infants born alive as the result of abortion would seek to pass a law along those lines, or simply pass a law specifically mandating appropriate care for any infant born alive, not redefine in one feel swoop the word person in every existing law and regulation. Certainly many in the pro-life movement would approve of the ulterior motive behind “born alive” and “fetal rights” legislation. But honest people have to admit that there are ulterior motives.
If Obama had voted against a law directly mandating appropriate care for any infant born alive, then the “infanticide” charges would be more plausible. But voting against (or killing) a bill that changes the definition of person is definitely not the same as voting against care for infants born alive.
“If Obama had voted against a law directly mandating appropriate care for any infant born alive, then the “infanticide” charges would be more plausible. But voting against (or killing) a bill that changes the definition of person is definitely not the same as voting against care for infants born alive.”
So a “child ” that is born breathing on his own is not a human now?
I should say “person”
Your reference to ‘lying eyes’ is very interesting…one of the things stated long ago about Obama was the difference in hearing him speak and reading his speeches. The difference is affect.
I was able to view some of the interview done at Saddleback on Youtube and the affect of the candidates as they answered questions is interesting…
So a “child ” that is born breathing on his own is not a human now?
Setting aside any religious or philosophical questions, under American law, any child that has come completely out of the mother’s body and is breathing or has a beating heart counts as a live birth and consequently is a person. If there had been any doubt about that at all in Illinois, they could have passed a law that said that. I am pretty sure you are objecting to what I said, but I don’t know what the objection is.
Exactly what happened, and whether Obama is recounting it correctly I don’t pretend to know.
Then follow the paper trail. The time-line has been established with appropriate paperwork.
As far as Obama “recounting it correctly”, I thought McCain was supposed to be the one who might have “memory problems”.
Anyone who truly cared about infants born alive as the result of abortion would seek to pass a law along those lines, or simply pass a law specifically mandating appropriate care for any infant born alive, not redefine in one feel swoop the word person in every existing law and regulation.
The reason for the terminology was the slippery definitions used by abortionists, like “fetus”, “product of pregnancy”, etc. You have to define who is covered before you can define the coverage.
Setting aside any religious or philosophical questions, under American law, any child that has come completely out of the mother’s body and is breathing or has a beating heart counts as a live birth and consequently is a person. If there had been any doubt about that at all in Illinois, they could have passed a law that said that. I am pretty sure you are objecting to what I said, but I don’t know what the objection is.
Taking this to be the case, it’s interesting that the reason that both Obama and the medical association gave for opposing the bill at the time was they both expressed concern that doctors would be prosecuted under the law. That would suggest that they knew that doctors were at least occasionally refusing to provide medical care to children born alive in precisely those circumstances. (Which is, after all, what the nurse who was one of the spokespersons for the bill had testified to have happened on several occasions.)
If it never happened and/or existing laws were being enforced, there could be no cause for fearing that doctors would be prosecuted.
Setting aside any religious or philosophical questions, under American law, any child that has come completely out of the mother’s body and is breathing or has a beating heart counts as a live birth and consequently is a person. If there had been any doubt about that at all in Illinois, they could have passed a law that said that.
They could have, if Obama hadn’t killed the bill.
“Obama lied, little babies died.”
Makes for a good/bad bumper sticker.
They could have, if Obama hadn’t killed the bill.
Of course, as I know you know, the bill itself didn’t mandate any care for babies born alive during botched abortions. It is not even clear to me that it changed anything at all.
I would be interested to know what laws, after the Illinois bill was passed in 2005, were thought to be applicable to the objectionable situations that hadn’t been before. And why those laws weren’t either amended individually, or at least mentioned in the born-alive bill is beyond me.
Actually, I suspect the bill is only now serving its real intended purpose: to make anybody who opposed it look bad.
David Nickol writes : “under American law, any child that has come completely out of the mother’s body and is breathing or has a beating heart counts as a live birth and consequently is a person. If there had been any doubt about that at all in Illinois, they could have passed a law that said that.”
Not true. A Hysterotomy abortion is the same procedure as a cesarean section. The baby is removed from the mothers womb alive and killed afterward.
In the past, they were allowed to be experimented on while living but that was outlawed back in the 70s. Afterward they were all simply killed by drowning. Or being fed into a meat grinder as done at the Mayflower Clinic in Colorado, although they don’t grind up as much as they used to because harvested baby body parts has become a rather lucrative sideline business.
And as is common with those who are older and likewise still very much alive, body parts are more fresh and better for harvesting from the living than from the dead.
Further, baby doe of Indiana, and baby Jane Doe of New York set the precedence in the late 70s and early 80s for killing babies after they are born.
Actually, I suspect the bill is only now serving its real intended purpose: to make anybody who opposed it look bad.
If the bill’s purpose was simply to make opponents look bad, then it was poorly designed. After all, the bill unanimously passed the U.S. Senate, and it’s only sheer happenstance that the current Democratic nominee for President was the one guy who spoke against the bill as an Illinois state senator seven years ago.
To understand how the bill came about, I would recommend you read the testimony of JIll Stanek in Congress.
Further, baby doe of Indiana, and baby Jane Doe of New York set the precedence in the late 70s and early 80s for killing babies after they are born.
love the girls,
Is deciding against life-prolonging surgery in cases where babies are born with severe disabilities your idea of murder?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1651662
The Stanek testimony is very heart rendering, especially her accounts of children that survived abortion.
May God have mercy on our souls.
“f there had been any doubt about that at all in Illinois, they could have passed a law that said that.”
That is exactly what this law would have done. Obama opposed it.
Obama supports infantacide. Those who support Obama support a man who supports infantacide. But it’s okay for Catholics to do that, because he also wants to fix the wetlands and save some endangered sea slug.
And “BELIEVE AGAIN” showing a glowing Obama is not using religious imagery at all.
And besides, any questioning of Obama is racist. Why are so many here being racist and questioning Obama?
Pass the Obama kool-aid please.
David Nichols writes : “Is deciding against life-prolonging surgery in cases where babies are born with severe disabilities your idea of murder?”
Interesting question. I suppose it depends on how one defines “life prolonging” I would contend that the surgery in question is not “life prolonging’ in the sense of prolonging a terminal and expected death, but life prolonging in the same way as surgery on a ruptured kidney is life prolonging.
But far more interesting: Why did you include “born with severe disabilities” in your question? Why did you qualify your question?
_____________
But leave Baby Jane Doe aside. Baby Doe of Indiana was starved to death. And as I pointed out, a hysterotomy abortion disproves your assertion, which all I intended to do.
Obama’s version of events is bad enough — essentially that Roe v. Wade comes before babies who survive abortion in what must be protected.
JohnMcG
Most people (including “conservatives”) say the “laws of the land” transcend religion and must be followed, even if they are wrong (abortion, death penalty, immigration rights, torture, et. al.).
Henry,
Source that. I call shenanigans. Morality trumps law.
LCB
Many of us have been saying that in here, and have been frustrated when so-called Catholic justices have found excuses to support “the law of the land” instead of morality. Look to how the “Catholics” supported torture!
Can someone explain how the Illinois bill provided protections not already in law yet the Right to Life establishment has not made such laws a priority in other states? Is infanticide legal coast to coast (save Illinois and a few others) while pro-lifers fiddle like Nero?
Kurt,
The bill arose out of specific occurrences in Illinois. If similar things were or are happening in other states, there is, as yet, no evidence for it.
Henry,
You wrote, “Most people…”
Show me hard evidence of “most people” believing what you claim they do.
It is difficult to find anything close to an unbiased analysis of what Obama did and did not support. At last I have found a reasonably unbiased account in The Chicago Tribune. Here is a key passage:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion-obama_20aug20,0,1470841.story
So at best the law Obama voted against was deemed necessary to assure better treatment for babies that had no chance of survival. Now, assuring what is called “comfort care” for nonviable fetuses born alive and surviving for a few hours is something I support unequivocally, but even the very disturbing treatment Jill Stanek described for nonviable fetuses can’t reasonably be called infanticide. It is quite another matter if they are developed enough so that they have a chance to survive. But they were already protected by the 1975 law.
The infanticide charge is basically a lie.
If you support allowing doctors to kill post-birth babies you are pro-infanticide.
The infanticide charge is factual, by the definition of the word.
Many of us have been saying that in here, and have been frustrated when so-called Catholic justices have found excuses to support “the law of the land” instead of morality. Look to how the “Catholics” supported torture!
Henry is apparently buying MM’s misrepresentation that Catholic Justices “supported torture.” There has been no Supreme Court case involving torture.
If you support allowing doctors to kill post-birth babies you are pro-infanticide.
The infanticide charge is factual, by the definition of the word.
Allowing a dying baby with no chance of survival to die comfortably is not infanticide. It is the same thing that is done with any terminal patient with no hope of survival. It is what happens in hospices all the time.
Actively killing a terminal patient already near death would be another matter, but it seems clear to me babies in Illinois with a chance of survival were protected under the 1975 law.
Since the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act only change the definition of person in all other existing laws and regulations, in an of itself, it did not mandate any kind of care for infants born alive. Consequently, there must have been other laws that were deemed deficient, and that as amended by the Act, covered the alleged abuses. Can anyone come up with any of those laws? What changed in Illinois after the passage of the Act?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=
Quote:
The attorney general disagrees with the Trib, and authoritatively so.
Let’s repeat for the sake of clarity: Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies. They had passed the bright line of birth that had effectively limited the right to life since the Roe v. Wade decision, but under the law they were non-persons.
Allowing a dying baby with no chance of survival to die comfortably is not infanticide.
Die comfortably?
Another fine article on the matter:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBkYTYzZDNjNDgyMWJmMzMxYzljYjYxNmEwMTdhYWE
Obama is pro-infanticide.
David Nichols writes : “So at best the law Obama voted against was deemed necessary to assure better treatment for babies that had no chance of survival.”
Not True.
Since since a hysterotomy abortion is the same procedure as a cesarean section where the baby is removed from the mothers womb alive and killed afterward, and since the procedure is allowed all the way up to full term birth, and in fact is a birth, then it follows that the babies would have the same survival rate as premature babies, and the same survival rate as babies born at full term.
There is nothing unusual about promoting infanticide as a good. Fr. Marx the founder of Human Life International, reported on it back in the late 70s in his book The Death Peddlers where he reports that it was advocated that personhood should not be granted till six (6) months after birth so that the parents could have sufficient time to observe their child before deciding to keep it or kill it.
Henry,
If Obama was acting a a Supreme Court Justice revriewing the law, “following the law of the land” would be an acceptable position.
But Obama was acting a a legislator, in effect making the law of the land.
Some might say he was honoring his oath to protect and defend the Constitution (I’m not sure if state legislators take such an oath, but let’s stipulate that they do). I don’t think that means that one must never support a law that might run against a controversial Supreme Court decision.
And again I ask — if asserting the personhood of a baby who survives abortion undermines Roe v. Wade, shouldn’t that lead one to question Roe v. Wade?
love the girls,
Can you tell me if hysterotomy abortions are now illegal in Illinois as the result of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? I am able to find anything.
Die comfortably?
blackadderiv,
The care given to nonviable babies born alive is called “comfort care.” But I will leave out the word altogether, Allowing someone – whether a fetus, a newborn baby, or an adult – to die sooner, without heroic care, rather than later, with heroic care, is perfectly allowable within Catholic medical ethics. Are you denying this?
Obviously Catholic medical ethics prohibits abortion. But suppose a woman in a Catholic hospital has a miscarriage before the baby is viable, and the baby is still alive. It is clear the baby will die within hours. Are you seriously arguing that Catholic medical ethics require the doctors and nurses to do whatever possible to prolong the life of the infant?
Decisions about whether to treat aggressively a very premature baby or allow it to die as comfortably as possible are made all the time in every hospital where babies are delivered. Deciding that heroic efforts would be futile is not infanticide.
David,
If you want to know the sort of “comfort care” being provided to children in Illinois, I would recommend reading the testimony of Jill Stanek and Alison Baker I linked to earlier.
I must say I find your references to Catholic medical ethics rather strange. (Are you even Catholic? Given the views you’ve expressed on these threads I would certainly hope not). We are, after all, talking about abortionists plying their trade. The idea that such people would take care to abide by Catholic medical ethics is simply absurd.
David Nichol writes : “Can you tell me if hysterotomy abortions are now illegal in Illinois as the result of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act? I am able to find anything.”
Postglandin Abortions and Hysterotomy Abortions are now illegal because of the
Born Alive Infant protection act.
http://www.geocities.com/defending_the_defenseless/abortionmethods.html
abortionmethods
David Nichols writes : “suppose a woman in a Catholic hospital has a miscarriage before the baby is viable, and the baby is still alive. It is clear the baby will die within hours. Are you seriously arguing that Catholic medical ethics require the doctors and nurses to do whatever possible to prolong the life of the infant?”
Given the caveat that extraordinary versus ordinary is relative to circumstance and not fixed. Extraordinary means are not required. A better example than your miscarriage example is ectopic pregnancy surgery because there is virtual certitude that the baby will die, and thus extraordinary means are not required. Although I would contend that baptism of the baby is required.
But this is besides the point, first because a miscarriage is not an induced abortion, and secondly because babies are born alive via abortion procedures that are completely viable, or viable via ordinary means, and thus to kill those babies is murder.
blackadderdiv,
I have read the testimony of Jill Stanek and occasionally read other pieces by her. Like anyone, I am horrified by things like leaving a newborn to die unattended in a utility room.
Thanks for hoping I am not Catholic! I was raised Catholic, and to what extent I am still a Catholic is a matter on which different people would have different opinions. I feel I am well informed about Catholic medical ethics, so please feel free to challenge me on anything I say on the topic. I don’t believe I have misrepresented anything, but if you point out specifics, I will be glad to either provide sources or admit I am wrong.
Of course you are right that abortionist are not following Catholic medical ethics. However, I did not say that they were. My attempt has been to narrow in on the issue of killing versus permitting to die. That is why I used the example of a baby being born very prematurely in a Catholic hospital. Would you deny that Catholic medical ethics would permit comfort care instead of aggressive treatment to prolong life, if in the best judgment of the doctors, a premature infant had little or no chance of survival?
The charge of “infanticide,” it seems to me, rests on whether the bill Obama killed in Illinois was intended to mandate more humane care of infants who had no chance of survival, or if it was intended to save the lives of infants who had a chance and were denied life-sustaining treatment. As far as I can tell, it was the former. I have found the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, and it seems clear to me it fully protects viable fetuses. As a matter of fact, it mandates that if an abortion is performed after viability, the abortionist must use the method most likely to assure the survival of the baby, and a second doctor must be present to attend to the baby’s needs if it is born alive. To the best of my knowledge, that is a level of protection few other states have.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720 ILCS 510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.
As I see it, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act that Obama prevented from becoming law, whatever the abuses were in Illinois hospitals, was designed (to the extent that it was not a political ploy) to assure better care for babies who were born alive and could not survive. It was not designed to prevent abortionists from killing viable babies born alive. The 1975 law did that.
Obviously most in the pro-life cause have no sympathy for Obama’s position on abortion, and they would not like him any better if he had championed the law he killed. To them (and I suppose to you) abortion is the equivalent of murder whether done before or after viability. However, once an abortion is performed (or once a woman give birth prematurely) there is a real distinction between letting an infant die who has no chance of living, and actively killing an infant who has a chance to survive. So far no one has said anything to convince me that Obama was in favor of killing infants who had a chance to survive, and Illinois law prohibited it very clearly. Consequently, the charge of infanticide is false. Even the Catholic Catechism condemns abortion and infanticide as two different acts, although equivalent.
I would like Obama better if he championed the law he killed, or if he today expressed regret for killing it.
I think those writing here that Obama is “pro-infanticide” are overheated. I am quite sure that Obama does not fabor killing any particular infants, nor do I think he is OK with it being legal.
What Obama’s treatment of this bill, and his continued defense thereof, reveal to me is absurd priorities. You have maintained that the bill would not save any lives. I think it is even less likely that this bill would have been the trigger to overturning Roe v. Wade. Yet, Obama deemed it necessary to oppose this bill in order to keep Roe v. Wade from being undermined.
That reveals some messed-up priorities, in my view.
David,
Traditionally infanticide has consisted not of actively killing a newborn child, but of leaving it without care so that it dies of “exposure.” Thus, I don’t think the “killing/letting die” distinction will save Obama from the charge of infanticide.
Now it’s true that there are some circumstances when it is permissible to not provide medical treatment to a patient, including to a newborn infant. If, for example, a pregnant woman were to go into labor and deliver her child at such an early stage that no amount of medical treatment would be able to save the child’s life or extent it for any significant length of time, then providing such treatment would not be morally required. The case of the abortion, however, is different. In that case, the whole reason that the child is dying is because the abortionist induced an early delivery, and the purpose of inducing early delivery was precisely so that the child would die. Claiming that this is an example of “letting die” rather than killing is like putting a newborn in a bathtub, turning on the water, and then claiming that you didn’t kill the child because you didn’t turn off the water.
In addition, I’m not inclined to trust an abortionists assessment of whether it would be possible to save a child or not.
John McG,
Isn’t it a lot like gun control? Two sides are at war, and each resists what the other side does, no matter if it is reasonable or unreasonable. A case in point:
Please note that my prior posts were in no way concerned with Obama, but with the act of abortion and its relation to infanticide. With that said/
David Nichols writes : “So far no one has said anything to convince me that Obama was in favor of killing infants who had a chance to survive, and Illinois law prohibited it very clearly.”
Do you think that Obama, if given a future opportunity, would prohibit or in any way hinder the use of either postglandin or hysterotomy abortiontions?
Blackadder writes : “I’m not inclined to trust an abortionists assessment of whether it would be possible to save a child or not.”
I would. I wouldn’t trust him to tell me his true actual assessment, but I would trust his actual assessment.
David,
Indeed.
It was my hope that Obama wanted to move us past this. This illustrates that he’s not very different. It’s coming from the pro-lifers — it must be bad!
Of course you are right that abortionist are not following Catholic medical ethics. However, I did not say that they were. My attempt has been to narrow in on the issue of killing versus permitting to die. That is why I used the example of a baby being born very prematurely in a Catholic hospital. Would you deny that Catholic medical ethics would permit comfort care instead of aggressive treatment to prolong life, if in the best judgment of the doctors, a premature infant had little or no chance of survival?
David, the purpose of abortion is to kill the unborn child. An abortionist has that as his ultimate goal. You’ll have to excuse me for having a difficult time trusting the judgment of the man as to the viability and prognosis of the baby who minutes before he was attempting to kill.
Now, if you are talking about independent corroboration of a board certified neonatal pediatrician, I might agree with you. But I don’t think too many abortuaries have those specialties on staff.
Let’s be clear: under the Illinois law, a viable non-terminal child could survive an abortion, and the doctor could either kill the child or allow the child to die due to lack of care/treatment because the child was not legally considered a person.
Obama opposed any efforts to treat the child as a person or to require treatment.
He is pro-infanticide.
I think “pro infanticide” is not accurate, but, when preventing infanticide comes into conflict with Roe v. Wade (or giving pro-lifers a victory), Roe v. Wade wins.
That’s bad enough.
“Baby Jane Doe [of New York] was born on October 11, 1983, suffering from spina bifida, hydrocephaly, and microcephaly”
Spina bifida and hydrocephalus are very treatable conditions. I say this as someone who works with special needs kids. Many of the kids are cognitively normal and aside from varying orthopaedic and urinary issues, they lead wonderful lives. All microcephaly refers to is a small head.
. . . . because babies are born alive via abortion procedures that are completely viable, or viable via ordinary means, and thus to kill those babies is murder.
And the 1975 Illinois law clearly required that there be a second physician present for all abortions past the time of viability who was required to give life-sustaining care to the baby should it be born alive. Failure to comply with the law was a felony.
And the 1975 Illinois law clearly required that there be a second physician present for all abortions past the time of viability who was required to give life-sustaining care to the baby should it be born alive. Failure to comply with the law was a felony.
That’s not the way the Attorney General of Illinois understood the law. The BAIPA was in direct response to the Attorney General’s decision.
Traditionally infanticide has consisted not of actively killing a newborn child, but of leaving it without care so that it dies of “exposure.” Thus, I don’t think the “killing/letting die” distinction will save Obama from the charge of infanticide.
blackadderiv,
It seems you are saying that an abortion in which a fetus dies while still inside the woman’s body is “just” an abortion, but an abortion in which a nonviable fetus dies outside the woman’s body is abortion plus infanticide. But of course a nonviable fetus cannot be saved, by definition. So you are saying that in order to avoid the charge of infanticide, either the fetus must be killed while in the womb (which can and is done in many abortions) or the impossible must be done. A nonviable fetus must be saved. Or perhaps maybe a valiant but futile attempt must be made to save it.
Now, it would seem to me to be the Catholic position that the abortion itself is the offense. Someone who aborts a nonviable fetus has surely killed it, whether it dies instantly or lives a matter of hours. But you are making it two offenses: (1) Performing the abortion and (2) letting a fetus die (even though it cannot be saved).
It seems clear to me that viable fetuses were clearly protected by the 1975 law. Whether or not you trust abortion doctors to abide by them is another issue. Who is to say compliance is any better now that the Act has been passed? So far, nobody has even been able to tell us which Illinois laws (as amended by the Act) are applicable.
Accusing Obama of promoting infanticide is a distortion, since viable fetuses were clearly covered by the 1975 law. If Obama is guilty of promoting infanticide, then any pro-choice politician is equally guilty, because a certain number of abortions are going to result in live births of fetuses that cannot possibly be saved.
I understand why pro-life people don’t like Obama, and I agree that his position on abortion is extreme. However, that doesn’t justify distorting the interpretation of abortion and calling it infanticide.
That’s not the way the Attorney General of Illinois understood the law. The BAIPA was in direct response to the Attorney General’s decision.
Dave,
Please share with us exactly what the attorney general said, or at least provide a link.
Thanks.
Let’s be clear: under the Illinois law, a viable non-terminal child could survive an abortion, and the doctor could either kill the child or allow the child to die due to lack of care/treatment because the child was not legally considered a person.
LCB,
That is absolutely false. Read the law.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720 ILCS 510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975
little gal,
Bless you for working with special needs children.
You’ll have to excuse me for having a difficult time trusting the judgment of the man as to the viability and prognosis of the baby who minutes before he was attempting to kill.
Tony,
That is not an issue unique to this law. It is the case with almost every law. Laws are generally to deter people by threatening them with punishment.
The Illinois 1975 law went farther than most state laws in requiring, when a viable fetus was involved, (1) that the abortion method was the least likely to kill the fetus and (2) that a second doctor be present to attend to the needs of the fetus should it be born alive. I don’t think it is possible to argue that the 1975 Illinois law offered inadequate protection of viable infants born alive. And as I keep pointing out, no one has been able to tell us so far in this discussion what the protections are currently. It’s difficult to compare until we know that.
t seems you are saying that an abortion in which a fetus dies while still inside the woman’s body is “just” an abortion, but an abortion in which a nonviable fetus dies outside the woman’s body is abortion plus infanticide.
Pretty much. The difference between abortion and infanticide is basically one of geography.
And the 1975 Illinois law clearly required that there be a second physician present for all abortions past the time of viability who was required to give life-sustaining care to the baby should it be born alive.
Well, Obama apparently didn’t think so and/or didn’t think that requiring two doctors was a good idea. You can hear him in the first 20 seconds or so of this clip talking about the burden requiring having a second doctor would have on the right to abortion.
blackadderiv,
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act was a bill to redefine person in existing laws. It had nothing to do with calling in an additional doctor in an emergency situation. You clearly aren’t sure what that clip even means.
blackadderiv,
You and others have accused Obama of being pro-infanticide based on the fact that he prevented the passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) in Illinois. Now, it is a fact that the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 mandated that viable fetuses born alive during abortion had to be given life-saving care. (Were there abuses? I don’t know. I do know the hospital Jill Stanek filed complaints against was investigated and cleared of any wrongoing.) So the accusations against Obama for blocking BAIPA must necessarily pertain to the treatment of pre-viable fetuses.
You have said, “The difference between abortion and infanticide is basically one of geography.” You have expressed what I believe to be an unusual view – that an abortion that results in a fetus dying outside the womb rather than inside counts as infanticide. Accepting this definition for the sake of argument, here are my questions to you. The BAIPA was passed in Illinois in 2005. Did it prevent any abortions? We have some evidence that it may have criminalized some abortion techniques, but did it actually prevent any abortions? And did BAIPA prevent previable fetuses from dying, either inside or outside the womb? It seems to me in order to justly accuse Obama of being pro-infanticide for blocking BAIPA, you need to demonstrate that the law put a stop (in principle, if not in fact) to the infanticide you say was taking place before the act was passed. Can you demonstrate that?
Here are abortion statistics for Illinois for the three most recent years they are available:
2004 43,537
2005 (BAIPA passed) 43,409
2006 46,467
http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/abortion/Abortion73-current.htm
Here, once again, is a link to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975
A0510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975
I have to devote my full attention to something else today, so this is my last post in this thread unless it continues until this evening or tomorrow.
David,
You’ve been provided with information about the AG’s position on the matter.
Just because you don’t want something to be true doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The definition of person needed changing because viable babies could survive an abortion and still be killed.
Obama is pro-infanticide.
For clarity’s sake, the attorney general of illinois (who can provide authoritative opinions that create a sort of immunity from prosecution if he is found to be wrong) concluded the 75 law provided no such personhood protection.
That is why a new definition of personhood was needed.
Obama’s own words from the Illinois Senate on the matter:
[T]he only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made the assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let’s say for the purposes of the mother’s health, is being — that — that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, and in fact this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that the physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical procedures and practices that would be involved in saving that child.
Now, if — if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I — I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects that doctors feel that they would already be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding a — an additional doctor who the has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
Now, if that’s the case –and — and I know some of us feel very strongly one way or the other on that issue — that’s fine, but I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these children are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure they’re looked after.
And to follow up, Ed Morrisey’s spot on commentary on this matter. Let’s make matters 100% clear:
Doctors were committing infanticide at Christ’s Hospital and other abortion providers. Babies were born alive, and were allowed to die. Obama defended the practice
Ed’s Commentary:
This passage is really remarkable for the willfully obtuse nature of Obama’s arguments. By the time this debate took place, Jill Stanek had already revealed that doctors weren’t providing medical care to infants born alive during abortions, at Christ Hospital, and a subsequent investigation proved that other abortion providers also abandoned such infants to die. That was the entire reason for the debate. Obama acts as if this is some curious academic hypothesis.
Instead of addressing the actual issue of infanticide, Obama twists it into a protection for abortion. He frames his own hypothetical as an abortion “for the health of the mother”, but the circumstances of the mother’s health has no bearing at all on whether a live infant should receive medical care. How would treating a live infant threaten the health of the mother?
And finally, as the original audio notes, the remainder of Obama’s opposition rests on the “burden” of calling in a second physician to make an independent determination of the birth. The bill created that “burden”, a procedure which would take very little time at all, precisely because the doctors at Christ Hospital and elsewhere threw live infants away with no oversight at all.
Nowhere in this argument does Obama say, “I oppose this bill because of its companion bill,” the lame argument that has surfaced over the last 48 hours from Team Obama. He doesn’t talk about the bill’s supposed unconstitutionality. Moreover, during the presidential campaign, he said he would have supported the federal bill even though it had all of the same supposed flaws Obama argued against in this passage.
Obama protected infanticide in order to protect abortion on demand. There simply is no other explanation except abject stupidity, and this passage proves it.
David Nichols writes : “And the 1975 Illinois law clearly required that there be a second physician present for all abortions past the time of viability who was required to give life-sustaining care to the baby should it be born alive. Failure to comply with the law was a felony.”
As noted prior to your post, I was not writing in relation to Obama but to your assertions of what you held to be “American law”.
With that clear. Why do you consider this a defense of Obama? IF Obama had argued that he was voting against the bill because the bill was a redundancy, then perhaps you would have legs to stand on. But that was not the argument that Obama used to defend his vote.
My understanding is that this is the legislation Obama voted against.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/sbgroups/sb/920SB1661.html
SB1661 92nd General Assembly
LCB writes : “For clarity’s sake, the attorney general of illinois concluded the 75 law provided no such personhood protection.”
Was the Attorney General correct in his interpretation of the 75 law?
If not correct, Why didn’t the Illinois legislature simply write a clarification of the 75 law? Or was that what the new legislation was know as?
Doctors were committing infanticide at Christ’s Hospital and other abortion providers. Babies were born alive, and were allowed to die. Obama defended the practice.
LCB,
The information you have provided so far about what the attorney generals office said regarding the alleged incidents at Christ Medical Center was a quote from National Review purporting to convey the attorney general’s meaning, but in actuality it was an inflammatory distortion. The letter said the opposite.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=
If you read the attorney general’s letter (actually, the chief deputy attorney general) itself, you will see that Christ Medical Center is cleared of any wrongdoing:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Legacy/73696.pdf#page=46
I am not going to bother answering you any more unless you cite original sources, or at least sources from major media outlets that make some effort to determine the facts. You are clearly reading and reproducing only opinion pieces from biased sources that express only your point of view, and then you claim to be presenting facts. I know how certain you are of your position, but you can’t prove it by unquestioningly citing the opinions of others who agree with you.
Was the Attorney General correct in his interpretation of the 75 law?
A better question is what the Attorney General’s interpretation was. We have so far heard only characterizations of what he said, not his actual words. Surely they are available somewhere online.
For those interested, here is more primary source material involving some of the principals in the passage of the Illinois act and the federal act as well.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju73696.000/hju73696_0f.htm
David Nichols writes : “A better question is what the Attorney General’s interpretation was.”
But as noted above, the Attorney General’s interpretation is not relevant to a defense of Obama because he did not vote as a reaction to the Attorney General’s interpretation. But voted against the act because he saw it as somehow having an adverse affect on procurement of abortions.
The question that needs asking is: in what way could Obama have seen the bill as having an adverse affect since the bill is strictly in defense of those babies that are already born?
The only answer which satisfies is that he saw it as affecting those abortions which are in fact infanticide because the baby is born prior to being killed.
David,
If you’re searching for primary source material, you may also want to consult this from the Illinois State Senate.
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf
The discussion of BAIPA begins on page 31. Obama expresses concern about the idea of bringing a second doctor in to determine the viability of an infant born alive, and generally argues that the whole thing is far too much burden on the mother and abortionist.
Interestingly, Obama is not focusing on the assignment of personhood to the child, but rather on the effects he clearly believes that the 2002 bill would have on late term abortion practice.
A minor point compared to infanticide and abortion, but doesn’t a willingness to slander also speak to the suitability of a candidate?
DarwinCatholic,
Thanks! I love these primary source documents.
On taking a very quick look at it, I’d say the legislation under discussion isn’t the BAIPA.
The issue they are discussing is this: The 1975 law mandated that a doctor performing an abortion was required to have a second physician present if, in his (the abortionist’s) judgment, the fetus was viable. The second doctor was present to care for the fetus should it be born alive. What Obama is arguing against is a new proposal that covers cases where the abortionist has determined that the fetus is not viable, performs the abortion, and the fetus shows some signs of viability. In other words, the abortionist has possibly made a mistake, performed an abortion on a viable fetus, and there is no second physician present. The new law would have required the abortionist to call in a second doctor on an emergency basis to determine the viability of the fetus. Obama’s argument is that under the circumstances, he trusts the doctor (abortionist) to provide the necessary care, as he is mandated to do under the 1975 law.
This is not itself the BAIPA, but it is a companion bill. Apparently there were several bills packaged together, and this was one of them.
The question that needs asking is: in what way could Obama have seen the bill as having an adverse affect since the bill is strictly in defense of those babies that are already born?
The only answer which satisfies is that he saw it as affecting those abortions which are in fact infanticide because the baby is born prior to being killed.
live the girls,
Babies born alive were already protected by the 1975 law if they were viable. If they were not viable, then by definition they couldn’t be saved. The whole point of the 1975 law was to save babies that could be saved. I don’t understand why that isn’t clear. Have you read the law?
David writes : “Obama’s argument is that under the circumstances, he trusts the doctor (abortionist) to provide the necessary care, as he is mandated to do under the 1975 law.”
Trusting an abortion doctor with the life of a baby??? The entire concept is obscene. And laughable. And could only be reasonable to someone is already pro-death.
If that was his reason, then so be it. But only a fool trusts the fox in the chicken house. So that not only is Obama pro-death, but a fool.
David,
From the bill number, it appears to be BAIPA to me, but assuming that there’s come confusion abut the bill number: You’d said earlier that if pro-lifers had been honest, they would simply have proposed to ammend the 1975 bill in order to remedy the abuses that were taking place — and yet apparently Obama was against that _as well_.
All this, of course, fits with the image of Obama as someone who is such an absolutist about pro-abortion ideology that literally no regulation even of the most morally disgusting practices is acceptable. If everyone’s open to agreeing that’s what he is, so be it, and we can certainly have the discussion as to whether someone like that should be president of this country.
However the claim that Obama is someone who is somehow going to “bring people together” on the abortion issue by staking out some middle ground is increasingly absurd. We’re dealing with someone only a few steps (if that) removed from a Peter Singer or Jack Kevorkian on life issues.
Trusting an abortion doctor with the life of a baby??? The entire concept is obscene. And laughable. And could only be reasonable to someone is already pro-death.
love the girls,
Don’t you see the flaw in your statement??? Here’s the scenario Obama was arguing against. An abortionist judges that in the abortion he is about to perform, the fetus is not viable. So he performs the abortion, and it shows signs of viability. Now, I understand you do not trust him at all, but the law you seem to think was reasonable requires this doctor to call another doctor in as a consultant. If he is intent on killing the fetus, as you assume, why in the world would he not quietly snuff out the life of the aborted fetus and simply claim he had been correct that the fetus was not viable? Or he could call in another abortionist like himself to claim it was not viable.
Darwin Catholic writes : “However the claim that Obama is someone who is somehow going to “bring people together” on the abortion issue by staking out some middle ground is increasingly absurd. We’re dealing with someone only a few steps (if that) removed from a Peter Singer or Jack Kevorkian on life issues.”
Very nicely put.
Darwin Catholic writes : “All this, of course, fits with the image of Obama as someone who is such an absolutist about pro-abortion ideology that literally no regulation even of the most morally disgusting practices is acceptable.”
And here I am on the other side looking at Abortifacients accounting for 90% of all abortions thereby running the totals of US abortions into the hundreds of millions and wishing they would be treated for what they are, intentional murder by poisoning, while we’re so far down the slippery slope that we are arguing over whether the next US president is pro-infanticide.
David Nichols writes : “Don’t you see the flaw in your statement???”
No. I find the entire Born Alive Infant Protection Act obscene insofar as it codifies abortion. I don’t want abortionists trusted, I don’t even want them alive. I want abortionists burned at the stake. Slowly.
And I especially do not see the flaw in my statement in light of you further proving my point. To wit: If he is intent on killing the fetus, as you assume, why in the world would he not quietly snuff out the life of the aborted fetus and simply claim he had been correct that the fetus was not viable? Or he could call in another abortionist like himself to claim it was not viable.
Which is exactly what I expect him to do. A man is a murderer intent on murder but when the circumstance changes he is suddenly now to be trusted with the life to the person he was just moments ago attempting to murder?
“I don’t want abortionists trusted, I don’t even want them alive. I want abortionists burned at the stake. Slowly.”
These abortionists you refer to, as much as you or I may disagree with them, are God’s children as well. and you should know that it is just as wrong to kill them as a fetus.
Once we make comments like these, even in half-jest, we have surely left the realm of Catholic thought.
Andrew writes : “These abortionists you refer to, as much as you or I may disagree with them, are God’s children as well. and you should know that it is just as wrong to kill them as a fetus.”
Society has the authority to protect itself from harm. It falls under the principle of self defense. Thus I don’t desire their death, but desire defense of society from them. And I desire that defense to set example so as to protect society from others who in turn would follow the lead of those who desire to harm society.
____________________________-
The words of Obama:
“…and that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
And what was that decision? If not to kill the baby?
Andrew writes : “Once we make comments like these, even in half-jest, we have surely left the realm of Catholic thought.”
Further, as my explanation makes clear, my comment was perfectly in line with Catholic thought. Some may contend that burning them ‘Slowly’ might be questionable, but I think it is well within keeping of proper human dignity while also being a very visible sign.
And here I am on the other side looking at Abortifacients accounting for 90% of all abortions
This is certainly new information. Do you mean the pill?
No. I find the entire Born Alive Infant Protection Act obscene insofar as it codifies abortion.
love the girls,
I think I misunderstood your earlier comment. If I understand you now, you are condemning the whole enterprise, including attempts to put a limit here and another limit there, when the goal should be to eliminate abortions entirely, not chip away piece by piece and essentially play the whole game in the pro-choice court. I can respect that. Under such a view, it would be pointless quibbling over trivial details to decide whether Obama was pro-abortion but not pro-infanticide. It would not be a distinction worth bothering about. It would be like having a murder trial in which the defendant was clearly guilty, and the prosecution and defense spent days and days arguing whether the defendant had committed the murder with a hammer or a tire iron.
However the claim that Obama is someone who is somehow going to “bring people together” on the abortion issue by staking out some middle ground is increasingly absurd. We’re dealing with someone only a few steps (if that) removed from a Peter Singer or Jack Kevorkian on life issues.
DarwinCatholic,
You may, of course, be correct. I wouldn’t want to place any bets on it. But it seems to me there is a vast middle ground in America that would like tighter restrictions on abortion but not a legal ban. It might be easier for someone who is pro-choice rather than pro-life to come to some agreement with those people. (Remember the old Vulcan proverb, “Only Nixon could go to China.” And there are also people who want programs that would attempt to alleviate social problems that seem to make abortion more likely. For those who favor that approach, Obama is the more likely choice.
The words of Obama:
“…and that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
And what was that decision? If not to kill the baby?
The decision, of course, is to have an abortion, and if that’s what you are referring to as killing the baby, then I can’t disagree.
However, for those who don’t agree with that, it would be understood (since it’s what the discussion was all about) that what is being discussed is the life of the baby if it is born alive and viable.
Imagine this approach was being advocated for every surgical procedure. That is it would be necessary in every case for your doctor to arrange to have on call and available in minutes a second doctor in case he made a mistake. Everything would have to be scheduled with two doctors, not one. Can anyone honestly say that would not make scheduling medical procedures more difficult?
Interestingly, however, that was basically the arrangement at Christ Medical Center, the hospital Jill Stanek made complaints about that set this whole ball rolling. In the event of a live birth occurring from an abortion, a staff pediatrician was called in to assess the condition of the aborted baby and prescribe life-saving care, if it was warranted.
David,
Frankly, I think one has to call BS on that hope that Obama could be the Nixon that would “go to China” on the abortion issue.
Obama refuses to either call abortion morally wrong or to restrict it in any way. In that sense, he’s well outside the “middle” of American opinion, which holds that it’s wrong in some situations and should be restricted in some situations.
This is why the Democrats find themselves in such an untennable position on this issue right now: Their prime constitutency is completely absolutist on abortion and will not allow them to compromise with even mild restrictions.
The Republicans have a lot of pro-life absolutists in their base, but since American is basically all the way on the abortion side of the pendulum swing right now, even very mild progress towards a “middle ground” is acceptable to pro-lifers but unacceptable to folks like Obama.
The abortion issue will be a net loss for the Dems until restrictions on abortion are _higher_ than the American people like — which is sure not the case now.
Obama refuses to either call abortion morally wrong or to restrict it in any way. In that sense, he’s well outside the “middle” of American opinion, which holds that it’s wrong in some situations and should be restricted in some situations.
Except Obama has expressed views about late term abortions that are quite a bit stricter than what current law allows. Yes, he backtracked a little from his original statement, but the last statement on the topic (the clarification) still put him at odds with prevailing standards of what is meant by the mental health of the mother. (Did I argue with you about this before?) I know there is a lot of contempt (to put it mildly) for Obama coming from the pro-life side, but maybe he meant what he said.
David Nichols writes : “And what was that decision? If not to kill the baby?
The decision, of course, is to have an abortion, and if that’s what you are referring to as killing the baby, then I can’t disagree.”
Killing babies is what those who perform abortions intend to do. That is why there is a distinction between a hysterotomy and a cesarean section even though surgeries are identical. The distinction is the intent to kill the baby versus the intent to have a live baby.
_______________________
David Nichols writes : “This is certainly new information. Do you mean the pill?”
The pill also. But there are a number of abortifacients that are used. The statistic of 90% of all induced abortions are chemically induced abortions comes from American Life League.
Bush, by the way, has said that matter is settled and he would do nothing within his power to attempt to limit chemically induced abortions which is why it can be said that Bush is at least 90% pro-abortion, when not even considering surgical abortions. The same I’m sure can be said for McCain.
The statistic of 90% of all induced abortions are chemically induced abortions comes from American Life League.
love the girls,
I had no idea the percentage was that high. It certainly puts the discussion about whether to have one doctor or two present for a surgical abortion in a new light. If most abortions are chemical, things like BAIPA impact a much smaller number of abortions than I thought (and probably most people know). If surgical abortions account for 10-percent of the total, then obviously attempts to regulate only them don’t come anywhere near dealing with the problem.
Thanks for the information.
David,
We did discuss Obama’s mention of what should be the definition of “health” in regards to late term (he was talking about post-viability, not just post first trimester, which is what “late term” generally means). It’s true that some of his closing rhetoric sounds more restrictive than some of the hard-left pro-abortion lobby. However, he’s never actually supported any such restrictions. (He even opposed the partial birth abortion ban, as I recall.) So it remains to be seen if there’s anything to that alleged willingness to tighten.
I believe he’s already clearly opposed some fairly popular measures such as parental consent.
On the “chemically induced abortion” question you’re having with Love The Girls, that figure from the American Life League includes what one might term “artificial miscarriages” in the first days after conception — effectively abortions that people do not know that they’re having.
While the human life destroyed is not less real, I think it’s arguably a different political issue in that we’re there talking about little known “collateral damage” from the Pill, not an “induced abortion” in the intentional sense.
One issue at a time…
Darwin Catholic writes : “I think it’s arguably a different political issue”
It is also the direction the pro-abortionists have been moving since the late 70s. In fact it was predicted back then that by the time we are now at that they wouldn’t even need surgical abortions. And while the may have misjudged when surgical abortions will be a thing of the past, they were correct as to the direction induced abortions are going.
Attempting to prohibit surgical abortions, especially late term abortions is in the same league as the French building up the Maginot Line. It is not the direction the enemy is headed.
It may be useful in slowing down euthanasia of the elderly, or as pro-lifers used to say, ” the life you save may be your own.” But it has virtually no effect on induced abortions, and will continue to have less until it has none.
“Society has the authority to protect itself from harm. It falls under the principle of self defense. Thus I don’t desire their death, but desire defense of society from them.”
I really don’t see how your idea of self-defense can be reconciled with CCC #2267:
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”
It would be closer to Catholic teaching to suggest that their licenses be revoked, or they be incarcerated for life, or even that their hands be chopped off. I wouldn’t recommend these solutions, either, but to claim that your idea is “perfectly in line with Catholic thought” is simply incorrect.
DarwinCatholic,
Thanks for clarifying that. My best understanding is that the pill works primarily by preventing ovulation, next by preventing fertilization (hindering sperm), and next by preventing implantation. So the first two intended effects have to fail before the third comes into play. Also, many early embryos don’t implant anyway. So to try to quantify embryo loss due to the pill would seem to be next to impossible, but presumably it is very small (and possibly nonexistent).
As I have mentioned before, the Catholic Church doesn’t forbid the use of the pill for noncontraceptive purposes. And while it’s the position of the Church that the pill may not be used as a contraceptive, I have never seen an official statement that this is due to possible abortifacient effects (which doesn’t necessarily mean there hasn’t been one).
Andrew,
It’s a prudential judgment. When the enemy is on your doorstep with a gun pointed at your child’s head, you kill him.
When the abortionists are able to perform their art of killing with ease, whether its legal or not, the methods of defense must be aggressive, or they will ply their trade.
Andrew writes : “It would be closer to Catholic teaching to suggest that their licenses be revoked, or they be incarcerated for life”
Licenses be revoked? As Randall Terry said in commenting on someone having a pro-life bakesale. “If you believe abortion is murder, you have to act like it’s murder,”
Incarceration for life, is a degradation and an offense against human dignity in the same category as prolonged torture. Death is merciful, incarceration is not.
Chopping off the hands is likewise a degradation and offense against human dignity.
love the girls,
Killing an intruder who is intent on murdering you or your child *is* self-defense, and that is clearly justified in the Catechism, although even in that case one is required to use not “more than necessary violence” (CCC #2264).
Applying capital punishment to abortion providers, when other means or defense are available, is clearly *not* justified in the Catechism. It says so quite clearly in CCC #2267. And the desire to provide a strong deterrent does not constitute an exception. The two cases don’t compare.
Personally, I think that the last thing we need is a abortionist MARTYR. But that is a matter of opinion.
I don’t actually advocate any of the solutions I listed. I hope that was clear. My point was simply that they are more in line with the text of CCC #2267, which I hope you agree is Catholic teaching.
Sorry, just to clarify, intentional mutilation is also not permitted by the Catechism (CCC #2297). So I retract that particular example.
Andrew writes : “Applying capital punishment to abortion providers, when other means or defense are available, is clearly *not* justified in the Catechism.”
I already covered this point when I wrote: “the methods of defense must be aggressive, or they will ply their trade.” The method of defense is in direct proportion to the aggressor.
As the Catechism teaches : “Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities . . . The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this [Fifth] Commandment which prohibits murder.”
With “just use” being understood to mean that defense which is proportionate to the aggressor, which is traditional Catholic teaching.
______________________
Andrew writes : “the desire to provide a strong deterrent does not constitute an exception.”
Deterrence likewise falls within the category of defense of society and thus likewise must be proportional to the aggressor. Thus my suggestion of burning abortionist at the stake because it would serve as a proportionate deterrence given that which is being deterred in conjunction with the willfulness of the murderers to ply their trade.
It would be very important, I think, to execute the abortionists in the very act of performing an abortion. If you arrest, imprison, and try them, they might have time to repent and go to confession, and consequently they would not go directly to hell.
love the girls,
Could I please have your address (as your words indicate that the criminal authorities may do well to pay you a friendly visit)?
Mark DeFrancis writes : “Could I please have your address (as your words indicate that the criminal authorities may do well to pay you a friendly visit)?”
I’m dreadfully puzzled. Your remark seems to have no sort of meaning in it, and yet it is certainly English.
Mark DeFrancisis,
It just occurred to me what you were intending. Please Note: all of my comment without exception were directed at what the proper civil authorities should do. And thus your comment could not be further from the mark.
It’s the kind of comment I normally get from kneejerk police state rightwinger types.
love the girls,
Are you being truthful with yourself?
You said above:
“When the abortionists are able to perform their art of killing with ease, whether it’s legal or illegal, the methods of defense must be aggressive, or they will ply their trade.”
Mark DeFrancisis writes,
It is well known among both pro-lifers and pro-abortionists that making abortion illegal will not in itself greatly affect the availability of either chemical or surgical abortion, except for third (3rd) trimester abortions. They will simply go underground. Abortion is not going away without a hard push because we are culturally habituated to it and it is easily obtainable as chemicals, and easily obtainable because the machinery is easily manufactured and transported and used.
Technology and the ability to use that technology does not cease to exist just because that technology is illegal. And chemicals are easily transported and used, as the underground drug industry makes perfectly clear.
The coat hook symbol and argument is for gullible public consumption, and is not taken seriously by either side in the movement. Or at least it wasn’t taken seriously by those who were full time active in the movement, as I was many years ago, unless people have grown very stupid.
As with any other aggression, the object of the civil authority is the greater good, and thus even with wide scale murder of the innocent the means of defense cannot be without limit, but the limit is proportional to the evil being defended against. And since the evil is culturally habitual the bent reed must be bent far back in the opposite direction in order for the mean to be reached.
Men do the good either because they will the good or because the fear the pains of punishment, that punishment and its accompanying fear must be in proportion to the evil being defended against. Thus When the abortionists are able to perform their art of killing with ease, whether it’s legal or illegal, the methods of defense must be aggressive, or they will ply their trade.”
please note, In error, I left out Mark DeFrancisis’ comment where I write “Mark DeFrancisis writes,” The comment is mine and not a quote from Mark DeFrancisis’
(2) that a second doctor be present to attend to the needs of the fetus should it be born alive.
David, I’ve heard you refer inaccurately to a baby as a “fetus” on a couple of occasions in this thread. When the “fetus” is outside the mother’s body and breathing on his or her own, it’s a “baby”. Otherwise, what prevents me from referring to you as a “fetus”.
I know calling him or her a baby makes it harder to argue for his or her death.
Tony,
I have a few quibbles with that, but basically I agree. I think it is probably not a distortion to refer to an infant born alive but too underdeveloped to survive on its own as a fetus, but I also think it would be only natural to call it a baby. I will try in future discussions always to refer to any born-alive infant as a baby.
Now, I would only ask that you correct the pro-life people here who refer to all abortions as “killing babies.” Will you do that?
I know calling him or her a baby makes it harder to argue for his or her death.
I believe every baby that is born alive as the result of an abortion should receive the same medical treatment as a premature baby born alive because the mother goes into labor too early. But when a baby is born alive but previable, it is going to die no matter what anyone does, and it is a gross distortion to call that infanticide. I realize that to people who believe life (personhood) begins at conception, that abortion and the killing of a born-alive, viable baby are morally equivalent. Nevertheless, they are still two different things.