Last week, the Eight Circuit court of appeals ruled that a South Dakota law which requires doctors to tell women seeking an abortion that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being” should be sent back to federal District Court to decide constitutionality. In the meantime, the state may begin enforcement of the law. According to an AP story, The court ruled on June 27
that Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota’s only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, has not provided enough evidence that it is likely to prevail.
“The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that’s not a violation of the First Amendment,” said South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the law in court.
Mimi Liu, a lawyer for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said such rulings generally take about three weeks to take effect. Long said it could take less time.
Predictably, reaction was mixed to the ruling
Harold Cassidy, a lawyer representing two pregnancy counseling centers that support the abortion law, hailed the ruling.
“We think it’s a big victory for the woman obviously to be given accurate information in order to make a decision not only for the child, but also for herself,” Cassidy said.
Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, said the law would force doctors to read ideological language to women seeking abortions.
“They are imposing compelled speech on doctors. It is not about providing information to women. It is about intruding in the doctor-patient relationship. It is unprecedented and extremely outrageous,” Stoesz said.
According to the AP story, the law also requires women to be told the potential mental health risks of abortion. I have addressed that informed consent issue in prior articles.
Two points are at issue: prescribing professional speech and the accuracy of the prescribed speech. Professional disclosure is sometimes prescribed by law. For instance, many states required licensed psychotherapists to provide a disclosure statement to clients regarding services and means of handling complaints. The South Dakota statement is very specific and no doubt is intended to discourage abortions. The second issue is the accuracy of the information. Pro-life advocates are united that abortion ends a life, hence their opposition to abortion. But what do pro-choice doctors believe? To get this perspective, I consulted noted abortion doctor and friend of Hillary Clinton, Dr. William Harrison. I referred to Dr. Harrison via Dr. Paul Kengor’s book on the faith of Hillary Clinton in a former post, noting that Dr. Harrison was
Hillary’s personal OB-GYN in the early 1970s in Fayetteville, Arkansas. He has done about 20,000 abortions. He was interviewed at length for my book. He was quite candid, extremely open, and very generous with his time. He likewise is a Methodist. He says that he prays to God that Hillary will be our next president.
I emailed Dr. Harrison regarding the South Dakota law. While his prayers regarding Hillary have not been answered, he clearly does not support the Republican ticket due to his pro-choice position as will be clear from his responses to me. I asked him if the South Dakota statement was accurate, to which he replied
Life is being terminated when a male wears a condom, or has a wet dream or “spills his seed of life on the ground” or in someone’s mouth or anus. Or when he ejaculates into the vagina of a women who isn’t ovulating or is post menopausal. The sperm are alive until they die. And the egg is alive until it dies. Each is a unique human life, etc.
The only reason the S.Dakota leg passed that law was to either make a girl or woman who was not prepared to have a baby have that baby, or to make her suffer as much emotionally as they could.
It is a piece of shit legislation, designed solely to increase human suffering. A few days ago I wrote a letter to our state and local newspapers. I will send you a copy which describes exactly what I think about this type of legislation.
I wrote back and asked for clarification regarding prevention of conception and ending of life. He then provided the copy of the letter to the editor he mentioned in the first email which makes his views even more clear. He gave permission to use both email replies. The Christian acquaintance referred to in this letter is my GCC colleague and author, Paul Kengor.
Letter to the editor.
A few days ago I got a question from a Christian Pro-Life acquaintance. [What follows is a paraphrase of part of a letter I got from your friend and colleague. I sent him a somewhat longer reply. I also sent him a copy of my book, There is a Bomb In Gilead. Ask him to let you read it.]
“I understand fully that you see your work as saving women from an unwanted pregnancy that might, if illegal, lead them to dangerous “back alley abortions,” doing them great harm or perhaps even killing them. I, as a prolife Christian, don’t want to see them hurt or killed. On the other hand, by doing an abortion, you are taking a life – an innocent one that has no say in the decision. I rarely hear pro-choicers lament that decision, the loss of the unborn.
“Do you ever regret that part of the decision? How do you come to terms with that, or do you not see the fetus as a life or a person? I don’t want to see either one die, and would do my best to save both. But your work on the other hand, seeks the end of one of these lives. How do you justify that decision?”
Here is my answer: Anyone who has delivered as many babies as I have, and has seen hundreds of living and dead embryos and fetuses being spontaneously aborted as have I, knows exactly what we are doing when we provide an elective abortion for our patient. We are ending the life of an embryo or a fetus. Not the life of a person, but certainly a creature that might have become a person under other circumstances. When I am asked this question, I always go back to two of the most insightful and beautiful verses of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khyyam.
Oh, if the world were but to recreate
That we might catch ere closed the Book of Fate
And make the Writer on a fairer leaf
Inscribe our names, or quite obliterate.
Better, oh, better cancel from the Scroll
Of universe one luckless Human Soul,
Than drop by drop enlarge the Flood that roars
Hoarser with Anguish as the ages roll.
When Omar wrote his beautiful and treasured poem over a thousand years ago, mankind had no way of safely canceling “from the scroll of universe one luckless human soul” whose numbers make up that flood of howling anguish; at least, no way of canceling it without risking also the life of the woman carrying it. In this day of medical marvels and, hopefully, ever increasing social justice, we possess such a way.
Embryos and fetuses spontaneously aborted – most, but not all of those “canceled” by “God” – are just such luckless human souls. But a few spontaneous abortions occur in desired pregnancies with no discernable abnormalities. For those girls and women and their families whose circumstances would make their babies “luckless human souls,” I “cancel” them before they become babies.
Physicians who save wanted babies from being spontaneously aborted (and we can save a few now that God once seemed determined to abort), and we who cancel “luckless human souls” are doing God’s work.
Want to increase Omar’s flood of anguish? Just vote to put John McCain in the White House and Pro-Lifers in your legislatures and the U.S. Congress.
Dr. Harrison places his views in the context of the current election. Clearly there is an ideological divide between Barack Obama and John McCain, the religious left and religious right on abortion. While Dr. Harrison does not like the South Dakota legislation, it does appear that if the wording was changed from “terminate a life” to “cancel a soul”, the law requires accurate disclosure. I am still reflecting on his response but I think he and I have different ideas of what preventing a life/soul is. For him, it appears that prevention ranges from preventing conception to preventing a birth, whereas, I see the fetus as a human soul, luckless or not.
First off, I was surprised by William Harrison’s almost cold and impersonal treatment of the matter. It got really weird when he went on about cancelling souls and some of the more philosophical issues. And how did that poem fit in with everything?? That really confused me and wondered what his concepts about God are. :/
Having said that I’m somewhat pro-choice *ducks for cover*, please don’t all stone me at once 😉
I’m worried with either extreme;
1. full on legal abortion without any checks or proper guidance and counselling for the mother.
OR
2. no abortion at all allowed because it is against God’s will and it’s still illegal no matter what your beliefs.
What about cases where a girl has been raped? Remember that in some poorer countries where the Catholic Church is the dominant religion, even in such cases abortion is not permissible. Not only that but contraception as a whole is seen as rather sinful.
Are we not delving into theological arguments and debates? And some trying to force the government to uphold their own particular views? Shouldn’t people be free to choose? Hmm this discussion could equally be applied to the gay marriage debate……but I think I might leave that for another post. 🙂
Lisa Harlett said in post 112250:
I’m not quite sure as to how a sperm or egg constitutes the same thing as a zygote or fetus.
It doesn’t constitute “the same thing.” Just as a zygote isn’t the same thing as an embryo and an embryo isn’t the same thing as a fetus. What I believe Dr. Harrison was pointing out was the characteristics many Pro-Life use to claim that a fertilized egg is a distinct person, exist in other cases where the cell clearly is not a distinct person.
Case in point, your own example about a sperm cell is incorrect. A sperm cell could eventually grow into a distinct person under the right circumstances. Just as a zygote could grow into a distinct person under the right circumstances. Granted the probability for a sperm is much lower than that of a fertilized egg. However, the probability of a fertilized egg is much lower than that of an embryo that has implanted in the womb, etc.
I’m not quite sure as to how a sperm or egg constitutes the same thing as a zygote or fetus. It’s like saying a single cell (also a living organism) is the same as a fetus. Of course it is not. When a sperm and egg join, the become a new creation – a growing being that goes through many stages of change – including after birth. A sperm is a sperm is a sperm and no amount of time will cause it be anything else by itself.
The logic that is used in such an argument is incredibly obtuse for a supposedly educated person, and I grieve that such thinking is prevalent in the world when it does not even make sense.
How does the living fetus get to that point if it’s life is terminated?
Ken,
Yes, that is because you were allowed to live – others were not and died.
A simple beating heart? Are you kidding? What is so simple about that?
I use the term, viability , to refer to the point when the fetus has developed enough that it could survive (with mechanical help) outside the womb. This point, generally, happens sometime between the 5th to 6th months of pregnancy.
Ken,
Would you consider a beating heart a viable place to start?
Warren asked in post 111907 :
When did you start?
I don’t know, and I certainly don’t remember. However, as I’ve previously said, I think viability is a good point to start considering fetal rights.
We all have to start someplace Ken.
When did you start?
Ann said in post 111854 :
a heart begins beating at 3 weeks gestation – when that heart is stopped by an abortion, the living child dies.
So if I got a cadaver from a hospital morgue and hooked it up to a machine to make it’s heart beat would you consider it to be a living human being? It would even be possible to give that cadaver several other bodily functions (ex. breathing) that the embryo doesn’t have.
We have all been unwanted at sometime in our life – does that mean we are at the mercy of being killed by the person who does not want us?
No it doesn’t, but that is a poor analogy. Unless you are physically attached to the person who doesn’t want you and adversely effecting her.
If this matter is referred to as a parasite, then what were you at three weeks gestation?
An embryo. With only a few minimally operational parts. No brain functions: no thoughts, feelings or desires. Just a small clump of cells no bigger than my thumb is right now. Eventually, that embryo grew into a large clump of cells that became me. And I know I’m far more than a simple beating heart and a small clump of cells. Much more than that.
a heart begins beating at 3 weeks gestation – when that heart is stopped by an abortion, the living child dies. Please put your hand over your heart and feel it – what you are feeling is the same as a pre-born child’s heart beating. They have every right to continue living as you do. We have all been unwanted at sometime in our life – does that mean we are at the mercy of being killed by the person who does not want us? If this matter is referred to as a parasite, then what were you at three weeks gestation? Take a moment and realize this is not a weed in our backyard we are talking about – it is a live human being. My personal belief is that choice is paramount when making decisions for ourselves and I pray when making the decision to terminate or sustain a life, the choice will always be to sustain that life.
From the evidence given here, it’s been reinforced that pro-abortion-on-demand types come to the arena of ideas empty-handed.
To them, children are parasites, telling the truth is a lie (or a “deceptive inaccuracy”), and when science doesn’t comfort them in their impetus to kill children, then finesse the science.
Apparently, none of the pro-abortion types here are parents. And evidently, none of the pro-abortion types here had parents who were…
–Mike
Ken,
Here are two more definitions:
And here’s another example from a randomly chosen biological study:
The definition you used is a general definition, not a scientific one. It lacks all the necessary criteria. A foetus does not invade a female carrier, it’s not specialised in profiting from hosts and doesn’t spawn insider her. Don’t compare foetuses with lice or fleas. You cannot make that argument, because you have no scientific grounds for that.
Evan said in post 111735:
Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship between two organisms from two separate species. The host does not benefit from this relationship.
I am aware that there are alternate definitions of a parasite that require 2 distinct species. However, I cited the source of the definition I am using. And under that definition, an embryo or fetus does fit the definition of a parasite.
Ken,
You should not look into a language dictionary for a scientific definition. 😐
Parasitism is a symbiotic relationship between two organisms from two separate species. The host does not benefit from this relationship. A woman getting an unintended pregnancy cannot be compared with an organism being invaded by a parasite. It’s incorrect, if not cynical.
Mike Bratton said in post 111635 :
Both are references that will verify the presence of a child’s brainwave pattern roughly six weeks after conception. From what I’ve read, there’s been documentation of this going on for several decades now. Perhaps you missed it?
As the link Patrick as posted (thanks for that, saved me a library trip :)), nothing in the citations you gave show there are any EEG patterns that indicate brain function or a “separate brainwave pattern” as you claimed. And the reason you can’t get EEG patterns from an embryo (or 1st trimester fetus) that you get from a functioning human brain, is because the synaptic pathways aren’t formed until about 20 weeks into gestation (as pointed out in the link patrick provided). Without those pathways, the cells can’t communicate, and so you can’t have a EEG patterns that indicate brain function. I suspect this is also why no one has even bothered to try to measure EEG in an embryo in over 30 years.
If I may ask, do you have any sources to validate the eugenicist notion that a child is a “parasite” only if Mommy doesn’t want the baby–right now?
An embryo or fetus is a parasite based on the definition of a parasite (from the American Heritage Dictionary)
parasite: Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
So what lie is the South Dakota law, and others like it, forcing an abortionist to tell?
I said nothing about a lie, I said the statement was inaccurate (and it is deceptive). It requires doctors to present something as a medical fact that is not fact. It is a philosophical belief that is not even commonly accepted let alone a medical fact. And I would say based more on inaccurate information (such as your claims of embryonic “brain wave patterns”) than actual knowledge of human gestation.
=== EVIL ===
Can anyone better verbalize the evil of abortion. This man is confused – he works for Satan and he thinks he’s working for God.
And it’s typical that a discussion of issues can degenerate when emotion-based arguments, such as those advancing abortion-on-demand, are advanced as unassailable. Your “buster” has an agenda, obviously. Ask for proof, and then deny it when it’s presented. Typical, if disappointing.
But rather than insisting you and yours know what a developing child isn’t, why don’t you advance a plausible definition of who (or what) is inside a woman’s womb? The occupant is undeniably a developing human being at some point, and from conception is in possession of a full set of unique, uniquely human genetic material, so tell us why we should think “blob of tissue” or “parasite” rather than “child.”
And why we should think “procedure” rather than “murder.”
–Mike
Because of course pro-lifes would never skew data.
The reality is all the EEG data that is quoted by pro-lifers seems to suggest that there is some electrical activity when probes are places in various points in a fetuses brain. Of course there is electical activity across any living cellular membrane.
Hardly the claims that the pro-lifers would like on this one. Yes it does appear you claims have been busted.
No, it looks like someone with a pro-abortion-on-demand agenda wants to play games with data.
Has anyone ever suggested a developing child’s brain is fully developed at six weeks’ gestation? No, and hammering at a nonexistent claim does nothing to advance the discussion. Does the term “straw man” ring any bells?
But by all means, folks who need to rationalize killing children before they’re able to defend themselves should keep right on looking for support. Not that there is any…
–Mike
Interesting information about the EEG material referenced here:
eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm
It looks like the the 6 week old claim is a bust.
Ken, I’m not going to volley with you if you are so remarkably uncivilized as to refer to a developing child as a “parasite.” Such remarks are base. However, I’ll be more than happy to save you the trouble of actually doing the research, seeing that your own “knowledge” possesses some gaps.
With regard to your EEG question, I’ll refer you to JAMA, October 12, 1964, page 120. And to the New England Journal of Medicine, August 26, 1982, page 564. Both are references that will verify the presence of a child’s brainwave pattern roughly six weeks after conception. From what I’ve read, there’s been documentation of this going on for several decades now. Perhaps you missed it?
If I may ask, do you have any sources to validate the eugenicist notion that a child is a “parasite” only if Mommy doesn’t want the baby–right now?
So what lie is the South Dakota law, and others like it, forcing an abortionist to tell? Granted, abortionists have enough lies they have to pump into folks’ minds to turn killing a child into a tolerable exercise, but what additional lie will that law require?
–Mike
Dr. William Harrison is doing satans work – NOT GOD`S WORK.
PSALMS 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
JOB 12:10 In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
Mike Bratton said in post 111548:
Do you understand that the developing child has a separate brainwave pattern,
Do you have a cite for this claim?
Abortion is not a medical procedure. It can be hidden behind abortionists’ phraseology, but at the end of the day, what negative medical condition does it address, treat, or relieve?
Your attempt to redefine what a medical procedure is fails. There are a lot of medical procedures that are performed that do not address a “negative medical condition.” Simply because in most (but not all) cases abortion is an elective procedure, does not mean it isn’t a medical procedure. However, if you want to play word games, abortion can be said to remove an unwanted parasite from a woman’s body.
Forcing them to tell the truth–and isn’t it fascinating that they must be forced to do so?–is only asking them to be held to the same standard actual, legitimate physicians must attain.
The law isn’t “forcing them to tell the truth” it is forcing them to give inaccurate, politically motivated information. I find it interesting that the pro-life crowd always points out the potential for mental health problems women who have abortions face, yet they support laws like this one.
But I thought you were the one who wanted to note how very, very rare third-trimester abortions were in the first place?
I do know how rare 3rd trimester abortions are (and the DX procedure Drowssap described). My questions were to gauge how much Drowssap understood about their rarity. And I am familiar with the various abortion procedures as well as knowledge of human gestation.
It doesn’t take “medical science” to develop a definition for the beginning of human life, not when common sense is such a handy aid.
I agree. I believe that what constitutes human life (the endpoints are where the real debates happen) is a philosophical issue not a medical one. Which is why I disagree with this law, because it forces doctors to incorrectly present a single philosophical viewpoint (distinct human life begins at conception) as a medical one.
As for my personal opinion, I do not believe a single cell (or small cluster of them) constitutes a distinct human being. I believe viability to be a good measure for when fetal “rights” should begin to be taken into consideration.
and discernable brainwave patterns at six weeks.
Again I will ask for your source for this claim. From my own knowledge of EEG and human gestation, your claim isn’t possible.
MIke – You may be right about my being too generous. The concept Harrison advances here is jarring. Selecting some as lucky and some as unlucky and therefore a target for cancelation is thinking that if extended, could lead to a very scary place. The lucky ones are those who escape a trip to Harrison’s clinic.
It is interesting to read the scattered, specious, insubstantial opinions of people who haven’t taken the time to consider the consequences of indulging abortion-on-demand. Before addressing the behavior of Mr. Harrison’s (not “Dr. Harrison,” since he forfeited the use of that title after killing his first child), let’s review some of the boilerplate previously advanced, shall we?
I didn’t realize someone had to be “whole or separate” to be human; apparently, conjoined twins don’t make the grade. Do you understand that the developing child has a separate brainwave pattern, a separate heartbeat, and can even have a separate blood type from his or her mother?
And some of the best medical advice one can give a pregnant woman is “Don’t kill your child.”
Let’s just park there for a moment.
Abortion is not a medical procedure. It can be hidden behind abortionists’ phraseology, but at the end of the day, what negative medical condition does it address, treat, or relieve? Unless you’re of a mind to define pregnancy as an illness or other deleterious medical condition, the only available answer is “Why, none, Mike.”
Abortionists lie to the women whose children they kill. Forcing them to tell the truth–and isn’t it fascinating that they must be forced to do so?–is only asking them to be held to the same standard actual, legitimate physicians must attain. To use your example, would you tolerate it if a heart surgeon working on a family member–or on you–lied about the goal of a surgical procedure?
Somehow, I doubt it.
A remarkably small percentage, thanks for asking. But partial-birth abortion is but one tool in the abortionist’s kit. Are you familiar with the standard procedures used in the vast majority of abortions, or do you need details?
Most state legislatures have been flummoxed by Roe v Wade and every other pro-abortion ruling since. But I thought you were the one who wanted to note how very, very rare third-trimester abortions were in the first place?
It doesn’t take “medical science” to develop a definition for the beginning of human life, not when common sense is such a handy aid.
Would you say that a developing child eight months past conception is a living human being? Most folks would say “yes.”
How about seven months? Six? Five? From what I’ve heard and read, children only 22 weeks post-conception have survived premature delivery, which pushes things back to the five-month area.
So how about four months? Are you interested in saying that a child who’s a human being at five months’ gestation wasn’t a human being at four? Or at three? If we keep dialing back, developing children have a discernable heartbeat at roughly three weeks’ gestation, and discernable brainwave patterns at six weeks.
Even before this time, from the moment of conception, the developing human being is just that–developing, and with unique, and uniquely human, genetic information. Common sense will tell you that life begins at conception, if you’ll just employ it.
Ah, one of the best red herrings of them all. But read your own words: You define abortion as “the loss of the life of… the child”. Please ask yourself why you’re limiting your own argument to the choice between one death or two, when you could be considering scenarios where no one dies!
What other “evils” are “necessary”? I’ve never encountered even one, so I’d appreciate hearing why any sort of out-and-out evil is ever necessary.
Then you are actively engaged in cognitive dissonance. If you say you believe a thing to be wrong, but you refuse to enter the arena of ideas and contend for the advancement of what you say you believe, you do not have a belief, but rather a lukewarm opinion that brings you comfort.
Millions of children have been murdered by people pretending to be doctors. It has been facilitated by politicians and judges with no substantive morality, and pursued by women (and the men who aid them) who range from the brainwashed to the hedonist. How is the world a better place by indulging the slaughter of fifty million children in the United States alone?
“Faults”? Bill Clinton is a diabolical individual; you would do well to never consider anything he says to be “great.” But what inspires you to think his quote is even something he believed? What did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton ever do to make abortion-on-demand more rare? Anything?
Here’s an even better quote for your mantelpiece: “We must champion the innocent and the defenseless; there is no one more innocent, more vulnerable, than the child yet to be born.”
Now as for Mr. Harrison (and I use the “Mr.” loosely), it is evident from his statements that the psychological strain of killing approximately 20,000 children has taken its toll. If he frequents a church that at all preaches the Christian Gospel, he cannot help but be aware of (even if he will not admit it) the ramifications of willfully, freely violating God’s own standards by murdering child after child over the years, much less the ramifications of rejecting the call of God to repentance and faith in Christ.
While those of us who are Christians should pray for his salvation, we must not allow ourselves to be surprised when a man who indiscriminately takes life makes statements that are non sequiturs.
Dr. Throckmorton, you are being generous in your statements considering what Harrison has said. He will not entertain the notion that one of the 20,000 he has killed could have been anything other than an anguished, tortured human being with no chance of redemption; were he to do so, he would face being personally convicted of the crimes against God and humanity he has enthusiastically committed.
–Mike
It’s worth taking the time to study closely and at great length the American Psychological Association’s deeply considered position on abortion and mental health risks. In case any reader is concerned that the article might be too lengthy and technical, I’ll quote the relevant portion for you:
That relevant portion, by the way, happens to be the whole thing.
One might give an organization a little grace, I suppose. They have every right and duty to take a little time to update a fact sheet. They’ve only had since (at least) October 2006, after all. The British Royal College of Psychiatrists has had time to come to a conclusion, but apparently it’s taking their American psychologist counterparts just a tad bit longer.
Or maybe they’re too busy (as Warren Throckmorton himself ferreted out) being a civil rights organization instead of a mental health organization. Their agenda is utterly confused. No wonder they can’t come out and say anything clear on this. In the meantime, though, they are failing miserably in their role of advocating for mental and emotional health.
Perhaps we should get into a discussion about what abortion was like BEFORE it was legalized – would images of coathangers and the loss of the life of not only the child but the mother be better?
I see abortion as one of those necessary evils. I don’t agree with it, I stand opposed to it, but I will not force my particular belief onto someone else by voting for legislation that tries to make it illegal. I think there needs to be limits to its use and that we should use eduction as one of our best weapons to lessen its occurrence. I do not, however agree that the world would be “better” if it weren’t legalized.
Bill Clinton, for all his faults, had a great quote that I use often: “Abortion ought to be safe, legal and RARE”.
Drowssap said in post 110705:
During a late term abortions doctors partially deliver the child, stick a device in it’s head to kill it and follow up by sucking out it’s brains.
What percentage of abortions does this procedure represent? And given that the original Roe v. Wade decision does give States authority to regulate 3rd trimester abortions, wouldn’t that indicate there was some sort of necessity for this procedure?
As for the law in question, I think it is just as bad as a law that said doctors have to tell their patients that “God thinks abortion is bad” or “If you vote for a Democrat, innocent children will die.” All of these statements (including the one in question) are based on philosophical or political beliefs not medicine. Medical science does NOT define when life begins (nor do I believe it should). It does define when life ends, but that is more of a legal definition (i.e. when can a doctor legally stop trying to revive or treat a patient).
Yes, but most people — freaked though they may be — would also understand that the person undergoing the open heart surgery probably survived and was healthier after.
Where they would also realize that the fetus — the child — involved in the abortion didn’t survive.
Patrick
During a late term abortions doctors partially deliver the child, stick a device in it’s head to kill it and follow up by sucking out it’s brains.
Pure, 100% evil.
Of course most people know that the images associated with abortion aren’t pretty.
Neither are images associated with lots of medical procedures. I think most people would freak if they actually saw the images associated with open heart surgery – but we don’t expose people to that.
In short there is no reason to be blatant with the imagery *unless* someone wants to push an anti-abortion agenda.
Shaming people is worse than killing people?
(I don’t think raising awareness about the facts in the face of a medical decision is shaming, it may interfere with the defenses of minimization, rationalization and denial…perhaps a healthy form of stress).
It is amazing to me how shame has become a moral evil equal to more palpable moral evils: such as prejudice, bigotry and selective persecution.
Making sure people feel good is not the highest moral good.
The media endlessly reminds us with photos, videos, stories etc. of the brutality of the Holocaust and other evil events in the past. Why? To teach people about what we shouldn’t repeat.
On the flip side:
Every effort is made to limit information about what an abortion is. It’s been deemed offensive to show pictures or video of an abortion in any mass media. Why? To keep people in the dark, and keep abortion legal.
Okay, I just find this law a little creepy. It isn’t as though women who choose to have an abortion don’t know why they there are there. It seems like a way to shame or scare people off from having abortions – rather than just giving them medical advice. And in what sense is a fetus whole or separate anyway.
Dr. Harrison said this: “Life is being terminated when a male wears a condom, or has a wet dream or “spills his seed of life on the ground” or in someone’s mouth or anus. Or when he ejaculates into the vagina of a women who isn’t ovulating or is post menopausal. The sperm are alive until they die. And the egg is alive until it dies. Each is a unique human life, etc.”
What!? I’ve only had introductory college biology classes, and even I know that a sperm and an egg aren’t “unique human lives.” In no way could a gamete, on its own, grow into a human being. Never. Yes, they are the essential building blocks of a human life, but alone they are just one half of a set of chromosones.
“Better, oh, better cancel from the Scroll
Of universe one luckless Human Soul,
Than drop by drop enlarge the Flood that roars
Hoarser with Anguish as the ages roll.”
Is this the ‘collective suffering’ argument applied to childbearing: one death may limit the accumulated suffering of others?
Like killing Hitler is justified to save 6 million Jews?
Is the “flood that roars” only with anguish, or is there joy, innovation, compassion, curiousity in the flood?
We really don’t know what we are “cancelling;” the conservative energy in medicine has been about promoting healing, saving lives and reducing suffering…assuming that abortion cancels only suffering is an odd, quite restrictive assumption.