Our state senator, Dan Foreman, caused a recent stir when it was reported that he was going to introduce a bill in the Idaho legislature that would make abortion first degree murder, not only for the doctor who performs it, but also for the woman who procures it. The first part of this article talks about all that.
The exact wording of the bill is not out in public yet because according to legislative rules it can’t be released yet. So in the meantime, let me say just two things in support of Sen. Foreman. He ran for this office saying what he was going to do, and now he is doing it. There’s a concept.
But the first thing necessary is careful wording. We need to note that in order for the charge of first degree murder to stick, a prosecutor would have to show intent. In some cases, doing that would be straightforward, but in others, not so much. In the case of an abortifacient drug, for example, like a morning after pill, the legal difficulties would be considerable. The woman would not have to demonstrate that she “didn’t know,” the prosecutor would have to demonstrate that she did. He would have the burden of proof because she is innocent until proven guilty. Didn’t know what? Well, for example, if a woman testified that she didn’t know that an IUD prevented the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, it would have to be the responsibility of a prosecutor to demonstrate that she was lying. Now in the case of a woman getting an illegal third trimester abortion, the mere fact of the law would create a presumption that woman knew what she is doing. Some cases would be straightforward, but many would not be. I am trusting the language of the bill will take that into account.
The second thing to note is something that is greatly to Sen. Foreman’s credit. He is taking what pro-lifers have professed to believe seriously. And given Obama’And given Obama’s spectacular successes in turning over state governments to conservative Republicans, pro-lifers are rapidly closing in on the time when the rhetoric of “abortion is murder”—which it is—may be catching up with some of them. s spectacular successes in turning over state governments to conservative Republicans, pro-lifers are rapidly closing in on the time when the rhetoric of “abortion is murder”—which it is—may be catching up with some of them. We cannot use the phrase for raising money, and creating an enduring lobbying organization, and then back away from the logic of the rhetoric when we are finally in a position to pass some legislation.
Given how human life begins, I believe that a bill like this needs to be sophisticated in its anticipation of what would be required in actual trials. That was my first point. But the second point is inexorable in its logic. So abortion is murder, is it? But you cannot have murder without murderers. And the position that only doctors (and never mothers) can occupy that spot is completely untenable. Sen. Foreman is to be commended for his pro-life conviction, which is quite a different thing from pro-life bombast.
For those of us who consider ourselves pro-life but not also extremists who are beyond reason, please answer me this: are we considering the termination of a day-old fertilized egg to be “murder”?
How do I determine if I am in your subset of “pro-life” but not extreme and beyond reason?:
If I hold that no human life should get snuffed without recognition and good cause, am I in your fold?
If I hold also that day-old fertilized eggs are members of the human species, does that get too wacky?
Can you identify the certain number of days or features needed to move eggishness to humanness?
Murder pertains to the wrongful destruction of a distinct human life. A fertilized egg is a distinct human life because it is alive, it is genetically human, and it is genetically distinct from both mother and father.
This is all biologically straightforward. If Bradshaw doesn’t agree, then it would be up to him to provide an argument or a definition of murder that isn’t special pleading.
No, there is no known way to “terminate” a zygote. Either it implants or it doesn’t. Birth control keeps the zygote from existing in the first place.
Doug — should we support an initiative that makes an exception for taking the life of those disgusting babies who came about because of rape?
I don’t support exceptions for rape and incest, but I am an incrementalist.
Doug — Would biblical incrementalism allow for support of some baby killing?
(I’m an incrementalist too but doesn’t it have to operate with a litmus? Some limit? Otherwise neverTrumpism got no legs, no?)
Incrementalism doesn’t mean to stop pushing at some halfway point. It means that if a senator proposes a bill to ban abortions after three months, or do the Texas trick of requiring certain standards for the abortion mill, you tell your legislative critters to vote for it.
And then when they do that, you go back to pushing them to ban it entirely.
Doug had a litmus test that didn’t allow him to vote for Trump, even though Trump was incrementally better than Hillary.
How does that jive with incrementally voting for laws that permit dismembering babies?
This is a representative republic. I’m not sure what you mean by “voting for laws.”
Given that you vote for legislators who vote for laws to be put in play, do you give a thumbs up to the ones who limit — while specifying the allowance of — dismemberment to 3 month olds? Should we be paying that close attention to the wording of the laws? Would Doug go for incrementalism if the bill says out loud that tiny babies may indeed at this time be snuffed, but we’ll prosecute for killing the older ones? Or will Doug go only for the incrementalism that words it: “Any babies over x days old that are killed… Read more »
I understand your point. And if abortion were illegal and people were discussing weakening the law to make early abortions okay, I would be right on board with your point that the aborted unborn child is equally dead at three months’ gestation as at five months’. But we have inherited a situation in which it is currently legal, across parts of the nation, to kill right up to the point of viability. People have accustomed themselves to this, and have bought into the distinctions that Roe made (first trimester, just fine, and so on). There is no way I can… Read more »
“People have accustomed themselves to…”, you rightly say. So no, legislatures can’t get tougher on clinics, because such lovely services are so desperately needed, don’t you know.
The only way to get unaccustomed to this is to see the truth. The whole truth.
I do support getting tougher on clinics. I think that Texas was very creative in this regard. PerfectHold, how does it work your way? Let’s suppose Idaho passes legislation that every abortionist (and presumably his or her clinic staff) and every abortion-procuring woman are tried for first degree murder. What happens next? That legislation is going be struck down by a state or federal court long before it reaches SCOTUS. The women and the abortionists are going to be released from jail, assuming that any charges make it that far. And for every person who says, “Executing women who have… Read more »
I’m as much against seeing folks charged for crimes they did not commit, as I am against letting justice slide for infanticide.
Abortion clinic operators should almost without exception be charged with 1st degree murder.
A good sherriff should not give a rip what legislators or courts think, when he goes in to arrest the operators.
A good local prosecutor same.
Also the local judge.
And local jurors.
Idaho legislation would be wrong to charge every mom with 1st degree murder, however.
She’s just not guilty of that level of crime, with some exceptions of course.
Since it is already legal to dismember the unborn, if there are two people running such that no choice exists to vote for someone who will stop the dismemberment of all the unborn, I would much rather say out loud “I will vote for the one who wishes to stop some of the dismemberment” rather than “I refuse to vote for the one who wishes to stop some of the dismemberment because it’s better that all the dismemberment continue than that I vote for someone who doesn’t want to stop all of it.” Doug, or I, don’t HAVE the power… Read more »
Something like that, yes. And contra some critics, both within and without, I don’t think all efforts in that direction have been completely fruitless.
Is your argument that you’d vote for someone who advocates killing up to and including in utero 8 monthers over against someone who goes all out pro partial birth abortion?
It’s better that all babies die under 8 months compared to all babies under 9 months, right?
Can we agree that the train of thought on this topic parallels that of why one might vote for Trump over Hillary?
I think what you are missing is that we do not have the legal means, right now, to stop every abortion in this country. We have laws that prevent us from prosecuting every abortionist for murder. We have no legal means of defying the Supreme Court on this. If we cannot achieve the perfect right now, we have to go for what we can get. As Jane suggested, if we can stop third trimester abortions, should we not bother because we can’t stop first trimester abortions as well? If the cop can’t capture every criminal, should he let them all… Read more »
Totally agree that we need to incrementally tighten the laws. The question is, do you allow the cop to violate the law to grab some bad guys? Not even a little bit?! But it’s for a good cause! The question is — how do we specifically word our incremental approach such that we in no wise become complicit in any abortion at any stage? Is it important or germane to attend to how we move in the right direction? Might we not undercut our whole effort if we allow / specify or promote abortion in cases of rape, for example?… Read more »
I am happy we agree about something! I don’t think we can ever grant a rape exception without making ourselves look like hypocrites. I can never understand why people don’t get this. Pregnancy is not a punishment for having sex. The rape exception essentially says that as long as the pregnancy was not the woman’s fault, she should not have to go through the punishment of having a child. Laws banning abortion should have the sole purpose of protecting an unborn child. If we waver from that, we are lost. Do I have enormous pity for a pregnant rape victim?… Read more »
Women are not slave brood slaves to rapists.
You’re an idiot for holding that view, dear. The only body you get to control is your own.
I think we should, individually and collectively, love her, support her, and make her pregnancy as bearable as possible.
Agreed. And then make it easy for her adopt the child out to someone else, if she finds herself unable or unwilling to raise it.
How would it work if we did have the means? What would actually happen if a state defied SCOTUS and started executing people for first trimester abortions? I’m asking this seriously because I have no idea.
But, in such a scenario, wouldn’t you still need to find 12 jurors to go along?
It would all come down to a street fight, it’s true.
Even 12 jurors would get shot down by the big government.
But if it were your daughter or granddaughter, or your neighbor’s, about to have her brain torn out, do you back off and wait for better times to revolt?
Jilly, that’s a great question: What would actually happen if a state (or several states) decided they would simply ignore the Supreme Court when the Court acted unconstitutionally? I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that question. One possibility is that nothing happens and that the aura of absolute supremacy in all matters surrounding the Court finally gets shattered. After all, what can the Court do about it? They have no enforcement mechanism, whereas the states actually do have enforcement mechanisms. The other possibility is that the federal government intervenes, generally by threatening to cut off certain forms of… Read more »
fp wrote: Jilly, that’s a great question: What would actually happen if a state (or several states) decided they would simply ignore the Supreme Court when the Court acted unconstitutionally? I don’t think anyone knows the answer to that question. There is some precedent for states defying the federal government. The southern states tried it, and lost. However, some states are defying the federal laws against marijuana and illegal immigration without much consequence. The lesser magistrate has to count the cost of defiance accurately, and correctly determine, if they are willing to come to bloodshed, that the cause is a… Read more »
Doug has been very clear that Christians may not shoot abortion doctors or bomb clinics even though the argument could be made that violence is justified to save an innocent life. For example, while it was clearly wrong to shoot Tiller the Killer in church, would it have been wrong for a group to march into the clinic and stop an individual abortion by restraining Tiller? (I am not advocating this!) But if the lesser magistrate could order a bloody resistance to federal law, why could the lesser magistrate not order direct action to disrupt abortions at the present time?
True, but is there any precedence for anyone — other than Andrew Jackson — defying the Supreme Court in particular? Kim Davis comes to mind, but she defied a federal court order rather than the Supreme Court directly.
The fact that legal means exist on paper does not mean we have access to them. If there is not sufficient support in the right quarters for defying the Supreme Court, you, I, Jilly, and Doug do not have the means to do so.
It is supposed to be. Unfortunately, in some states like my own, every significant piece of legislation, from should shooting a dog catcher be equivalent in penalty to shooting a cop, to may 18 year olds legally smoke weed but not cigarettes?
I understand that, but I’ve yet to see abortion come up for a vote that way and that’s not the situation under discussion.
Note to self: that instinct you have to never move to Cally is a good one. :)
PerfectHold wrote: Doug had a litmus test that didn’t allow him to vote for Trump, even though Trump was incrementally better than Hillary. This is an incorrect statement of Wilson’s reasoning. Doug (and I) believe that both Trump and Hillary, though debatably moving at different speeds, are both headed in the wrong direction together. As such, there is no positive incremental argument for voting for either of them. Remember that our biggest problem as a nation and culture is not that we don’t have a big enough wall on our southern border, or that we don’t have the right Supreme… Read more »
Should one incrementally have supported the German “Gas only Jewish Men” movement, to move the needle in favor of eventually, some day, getting to the ban on child gassing?
Here’s hoping you do a follow-up post detailing more (or again) about how godly incrementalistic sausage gets made.
Before the “Gas Jews” policy was in place, or after?
Of course when the question of gassing any or all Jews was still an open one, supporting the gassing of only some of them would have been evil.
Once the gassing was begun and was backed up by the full force of the state, supporting the non-gassing of some of them would have been far more moral than loudly proclaiming it would be better they all die than that I support protection for only some.
These are lives at stake, not a moral chess game.
Thank you for careful wording. You admirably try to go a good direction when you say “supporting the non-gassing of some” — rather than plainly say “supporting the limited gassing of some”. But doesn’t “I support the non-gassing of Jewish women” kind of not feel quite so clean and pure? Doesn’t that kind of statement, though narrowly true, also carry messages you wouldn’t want your God or child to overhear? My original question still stands to you then: Do you support legislative language on abortion that supports the limited snuffing of some vs the limited non-killing of others? Or is… Read more »
We’re not asked to support the law; we’re asked to choose between a guy who supports that law and a guy who supports ensuring that everybody still dies.
What PerfectHold seems to be suggesting is that “Lesser of Two Evils” incrementalism is identical to “Lesser of Two Goods” incrementalism. Dunsworth’s comment underscores that there is a great difference between downhill (negative) incrementalism, and uphill (positive) incrementalism. Sometimes negative incrementalism is just capitulation.
Zeal for prosecuting abortionists is not a substitute for compassion on the civically innocent unborn. Dunsworth says it well when she observes that some would actually rather that all aborted unborn continue to die (for the sake of the goal of legal perfection) than that we should support a law that protects only some, or prosecutes only some. We shouldn’t lose sight of the objective of civic justice as we try to approach it from our position of cultural weakness. If faithful Christians were in the position of cultural dominance, we should not accept piecemeal justice, but we are not… Read more »
I pray to God that you will never be in the position of cultural dominance. What a scary thought!
Not nearly as scary as your crowd….the ones who repeatedly riot, loot and vandalize. Who try to ban and assault conservative speakers on college campuses for fear of being exposed. Who shoot people at Milo’s rallies. Who fear free speech and think white people should be silenced (well, except the ones who say such things):
That was one incomprehensible rant. Is “Milo’s” the local pub on the corner?
I was an attendee at the Women’s March post inaugural, among hundreds of thousands of women and men, wherein no trash can was overthrown, no bricks thrown. You’re painting with too broad a brush–try a #8 round.
Honey, I can assure you that I am not a slave brood mare to a rapist.
I can assure you that no-one here is impressed with your silliness.
I assure you that the silly ones are those who believe in talking snakes, talking donkeys, unicorns, people walking on water, bears sent to chew up naughty kids…and, oh, hey…don’t eat that pork or lobster!
Fact: no-one should eat lobster. It is a giant spider, only wet. If you like the taste of butter, you should just cut out the middle arthropod and eat some butter. You can even fry it, if you like, in yet more butter. Butter all the way down!
On this issue, at least, I stand firmly with the sacred writ.
I can just imagine now the scene in the courtroom as an Idaho prosecutor tries to persuade a jury to convict a teenaged rape victim of capital murder because, acting on the advice of a rape crisis center, she took the morning after pill to prevent pregnancy.
Just from a legal standpoint, I don’t see how any conviction could be had in a trial for a woman taking the morning after pill, or for the woman using an IUD, or doing anything else that might abort the newly fertilized egg, simply for the fact that there is no physical evidence that a fertilized egg actually was aborted. It is possible that no conception took place, or that the fertilized egg itself was chromosomally defective to the point that it is non viable, and this would be argued by defendant’s counsel. The problem is collecting this one cell,… Read more »
I want to make sure I understand you. Prior to implantation, there is no way to establish that any pregnancy ever existed? Therefore, while you could ban all use of IUDs and medications that hinder implantation, and presumably prosecute women for using them, you could never support a murder charge because there is no proof of pregnancy prior to implantation?
Yes, that is what I’m saying. I’m no lawyer, but it seems clear to me that trying to make a murder charge stick would require absolute certainty that an egg was indeed fertilized, and would result in a viable pregnancy. For if there is uncertainty, does this not amount to a reasonable doubt?
Most women I know who have taken Plan B did not necessarily think they were pregnant. They thought it was a possibility. RU-486, on the other hand, is taken only once a woman has a positive pregnancy test. I think there is a tendency among some people to confuse these two.
But, yes, I think you are right. I might rephrase your second part to say that a murder charge would necessitate a woman’s knowing that fertilization had occurred and that, absent her direct action, implantation would have followed.
Yes, I agree on RU-486, and that demonstrates that a person knew of the pregnancy. As for your second paragraph, I should rephrase, but perhaps not as you might expect. It would be better to say that the woman knew fertilization had occurred, and that absent her direct action, may have resulted in implantation. Why? There are oft quoted statistics that 50% of natural fertilizations do not implant due to natural factors, either within the fertilized egg (a blastocyst at this stage), or within the uterine lining. Even if that number is very high (and I really don’t know how… Read more »
Is there an analogy here to setting off a bomb in a building that may or may not be occupied? Granted you don’t get charged with murder if there is no evidence anyone was killed, but it’s still terrorism worthy of an extremely long sentence.
I don’t think that analogy will work with the morning-after pill. Suppose a woman of child-bearing age does not generally have a sex life and does not use contraceptives. One night she has unprotected sex,and the first thing she does the next morning is take Plan B. The chance that she is pregnant from that encounter is minuscule compared to the probability that she is not. Her primary purpose is to make sure that she does not ovulate while there may be sperm cells swimming around looking for an egg. That central purpose would be argued in court by the… Read more »
But if you set off a bomb in a building, the specific charge may depend on an assessment of what you could reasonably suppose was present in the building, but the fact that you committed *a* serious crime with the potential to destroy human life is a given. I don’t see why the likelihood of, or the likelihood of her knowledge of, a pregnancy matters. She committed an act with the potential to destroy human life with no other intent than to commit destruction if the human life was present. In fact, unlike the guy who wanted to build up… Read more »
I think the law can’t proceed on a supposition that any woman of child-bearing age might be pregnant at any time and that she must act on that assumption. The woman in our hypothetical intended to prevent ovulation. Let’s assume that this is her absolute, good faith belief–that she is at peak fertility, is about to ovulate, and wants to make sure she doesn’t. This good-faith belief is supported by the fact that the primary action of the drug is to suppress ovulation. The woman does not believe she is shooting into a potentially occupied building. She does not believe… Read more »
I’m not suggesting it proceed on that assumption. I’m suggesting it proceed on the same assumption one proceeds on when one commits another kind of illegal act when it is not known in advance or subsequently whether there was a human victim, or where it is known there was not one — you prosecute because an illegal act was committed. Blowing up buildings is illegal and not only because it’s a property crime, but because it has the potential of destroying human life. So, deliberately taking a drug that is known to take human life and exists for the purpose… Read more »
I did some research on Plan B which makes that part of it possibly hypothetical. There is almost no evidence that Plan B actually prevents implantation. In fact, two well authenticated studies showed that when an egg has been fertilized, there is no difference in implantation rates whether you take Plan B or you don’t. If this is so, then Plan B works only by delaying ovulation for three days (or Ella, which delays it for 5 days) so that any sperm cell has died by time ovulation occurs. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/investigation-reveals-morning-after-pill-may-not-prevent-implantation/ Would you agree that, if this is correct, there would… Read more »
How can Plan B work “only” by delaying ovulation, since it doesn’t have the power to go back in time? If the woman has ovulated, and conception has occurred, then for Plan B to be effective in that situation, it has to destroy the embryo by preventing implantation. Because it is possible to take Plan B after ovulation, and there is no guarantee that ovulation has not occurred, there is always the potential that Plan B is destroying human life. I don’t think there’s a big movement to ban oral contraception for this reason, but now we’re getting into a… Read more »
I think I am being unclear here, so I want to try again. Of course, I could simply be wrong in my reasoning, as does happen from time to time! Let’s assume that the research I linked to yesterday is correct, and that Plan B does not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg. Let’s hypothetically assume that there is no chance of this, not even a statistically remote one. So let’s say that Hester Prynne sleeps with the Reverend Mr. Dimsdale on day 14 of her cycle and does not use any protection. If she has already ovulated, she… Read more »
Other than her own?
I agree with jillybean and her last question. I don’t think a prosecutor could with enough certainty speak to both the likelihood of fertilization and implantation which seems to me required to make the bomb analogy work. For with the bomb, even if there are no people present, there is still the intent to kill and perhaps secondarily to destroy property, both of which are illegal. For the woman who takes Plan B with the sincere belief that she has not yet ovulated, her intention is to prevent ovulation and therefore pregnancy. She isn’t intending to destroy anything. And even… Read more »
In 2010, doctor’s at the Catholic-affiliated hospital, St. Joseph’s, in Phoenix, performed a life-saving abortion on an 11-week pregnant woman, dying from pulmonary hypertension in the ER. Medical nun, Margaret McBride, authorized the life-saving abortion. Local Bishop Olmsted got wind of this loss of a martyr to the ‘faith’, and promptly excommunicated the nun involved in the decision to save the woman, and retracted the hospital’s catholic affiliation. Can’t go around saving those uppity women! The doctors and hospital administrator stated that they saved the life that they could–the woman–who means nothing to those who worship the fetus. Public outcry… Read more »
Okay, I’ll bite. The story you told is the only circumstance in which I would support an abortion: an immediate, active threat to the life of the mother. In the case you cited, it is especially important to understand that if there are no other options aside from abortion, then 2 lives will be lost, rather than one, for this baby will not survive out of the womb apart from miraculous intervention, and while we can pray for that, I don’t think we can not act based on that. We do what we know to do, and our actions will… Read more »
I can certainly imagine this.
“I am not a walking incubator for God’s rape-babies.”
I’m a deputy prosecutor, with over 50 jury trials under my belt. There’s no way you will ever find 12 jurors who agree on this. You’ll never get a conviction for Murder 1. Don’t equate some confused, stressed-out pregnant girl with the Green River Killer.
We shouldn’t criminalize abortion. What we should do is completely eliminate public funding of it, and make sonograms and a waiting period mandatory. I think we’re turning the tide of public opinion on this; let’s keep up the education campaign.
Logically speaking — what categories then should we allow for criminalization, if not killing babies?
Is your argument that whenever one discovers majority discord, no law should prevail?
I think that Doug’s incremental approach helps deal with this. If the majority of people do not see the destruction of a fertilized egg as equivalent to first degree murder, it is useless to start at that point. Begin at the point of actual agreement. Most Americans do not support abortion past viability except for narrowly defined life-of-the-mother exceptions. Most Americans support waiting periods, ultrasounds, and parental consent. Most Americans think that Gosnell belongs in jail. Then move it down into the second trimester, and so on. But whether or not a law should prevail, it cannot prevail if the… Read more »
If you eliminate abortion, which will require legislating women into third-class citizenship with fewer rights than men and fetuses, many, many women will die. Do you want this country to be like Catholic Ireland, where Savita Halapanavar was allowed to die from a partial miscarriage and resulting sepsis? That is a horrifying scenario.
I’m far past fertility, which is comforting during this disheartening uprising of religious fundamentalism. Younger women had best be vigilant that their rights are being eroded under your “incremental” attacks, and I trust the Women’s March was a major clarion call.
I have a right not to get pregnant. I have a right to use birth control. I have a right to refuse to engage in sexual encounters likely to produce pregnancy. I have a duty not to conceive a child I do not want to carry through a pregnancy. The right to carelessly get pregnant and then kill the child to suit my personal convenience is not a right I recognize.
Is this a Catholic mantra? If you wish to adhere to this mantra, that is fine for you. Other women are free to live according to their own mantras. My mantra is that I have full ownership of my body. I have the right to enjoy fun healthy sexual intercourse. I have a right to use birth control to avoid pregnancy, even IUD’s. I have the right to make the decision whether to birth a child or not should my birth control fail. Apparently you do want our country held hostage by Catholicism. How evil. I eagerly left ‘evil’ behind… Read more »
Sigh. If I wanted this country to be run by the Catholic church, I would hardly support women’s right to use birth control. Why you think I am homophobic, I can’t imagine but I don’t suppose I could convince you otherwise. Do you know for a fact that the pope annulled Tinderholt’s four prior marriages? I doubt it very much. I do not support jailing women who have abortions. I do not support taking away their voting rights. But neither do I support the notion that we are free to kill the defenseless and the vulnerable because they inconvenience us.… Read more »
I don’t know if a ‘god’ exists or not. One has not manifested herself in my presence. My little joke about the Pope annulling multiple marriages seems to have been lost to the humorless. But to buy one’s annulment for hundred’s of dollars is the practice. You don’t support tossing abortive women in jail? My pardon. I thought I had read somewhere that you support the “destruction of a fertilized egg as equivalent to first degree murder”, if you could convince a credulous populace. Evil is buying up hospitals, especially rural hospitals and imposing their religious dogma on the doctor… Read more »
Evil is killing another person for convenience and selling their body parts for profit. Abortion is evil, it is murder. Stop trying to impose your murderous religion on others.
Embryos are not “another person”. The WOMAN is the “person”. This is a religious site, so I would imagine that you are the religious one, attempting to impose your dogma on all women. No one is “selling body parts”. You must have been duped by those supposed ‘sting’ videos put out by the charlatan David Daleiden, who I hope is still under indictment for his fraud. Fetal tissue is donated for medical research with the permission of the woman, who had an abortion. Fetal tissue originates from hospitals as well as from Planned Parenthood. IVF clinics donate unused embryos for… Read more »
David Daleidan is not under indictment. Planned Parenthood has been recommended to the FBI for criminal charges by the Senate Judiciary. Appeals to authority are fun, huh. http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-refers-planned-parenthood-fetal-tissue-procurement-organizations-fbi
Re: Daleidan: Too bad. He should be in jail for lying and inciting violence.
The pompous Grassley is always agitating at Lynch to indict someone, somewhere, from Clinton’s emails to PP. What a blowhard. Attorney Generals in red- and blue-states have found no wrongdoing on the part of Planned Parenthood. Grassley is known as an obstructionist, refusing to confirm judicial appointments.
How did Daleiden incite violence, pray tell? What exactly did he say encouraging it?
About what did he lie and what, specifically, were the lies?
Is lying a criminal act?
Oo! Oo! Waves hand in air! Let me field this one! Daleiden inflamed the ignorant masses by exposing, GASP!, the LEGAL practice of using fetal tissue for medical research! Horrors! Did the public really not know that there were tissue banks as well as blood banks!? Daleiden edited videos to imply that PP was selling fetal tissue for profit, when costs discussed in the videos pertained to preservation and transportation costs of fetal tissue, which, GASP!, is LEGAL. Daleiden was called out on CNN national news for his fraud in featuring a fetus from a miscarriage in a video, but… Read more »
So you didn’t mention anywhere he lied. You just mentioned where he showed videos of people doing things that you don’t think should be a big deal. And then other people got upset and believed things and did things as a result. Or anywhere he incited anything. Because you see, if people see something, and react, that does not mean that the person who showed it to them incited anything, if he did not actually include any incendiary language. Can you show me any incendiary language he used? Just to save time, incendiary language does not mean saying that things… Read more »
Re: “So you didn’t mention anywhere he lied”: Jesus H. Christ! Can you read, honey? Daleiden LIED that PP was selling fetal tissue for profit. Daleien LIED in a video that a fetus from a miscarriage was from an abortion. “David Daleiden wanted to show exactly what a 19-week-old aborted fetus, being held in the hands of a medical technician, looked like. The problem was he didn’t have that picture. So he went to the Internet, found something close and inserted it into his documentary. The photo, two cupped hands holding a tiny male fetus, appeared on screen as dramatic… Read more »
Okay, conceded. You have demonstrated one lie. Daleiden showed a picture of something that was not a picture of what it purported to be., though the thing that it was purported to be does exist. That counts as a lie. It didn’t, however, actually communicate anything untrue. He should not have misrepresented what he was showing, but it actually didn’t result in anyone believing anything false. So yes, he lied. Guilty. He caused anyone to believe anything false beyond the nature of that particular picture, not guilty. Is showing a picture of one thing that is actually a picture of… Read more »
Re: “incitement”: I have not beem silent at all. You still don’t grasp the fact that the charlatan Daleiden and his cronies purposefully incited violence against PP. “Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf.” Since David Daleiden launched his baby parts hoax aimed at triggering the yuck factor and fueling outrage among gullible abortion foes, and since Republicans in high places decided that assaulting Cecile Richards (and all of the women she represents) was… Read more »
Nice quoting a psychologist on a legal matter. Now can you quote a law that defines telling people things that upset them so that some of the unbalanced ones commit crimes (without in any way having urged those crimes) as incitement and makes it illegal, schnookums? I didn’t think using the adjective human bestowed magical properties, sugarplum. I’ve just never previously been aware that the adjective human ever applied to anything that wasn’t human, or that a constituent part of something that isn’t human could be a human part. I suppose the wonders and semantic gymnastics never cease in lollipopland.… Read more »
What world do you live in that you think shouting over and over again: “Baby Killer!”, “Murderer!” has no effect on the mental midgets among you anti-choicers…?
“…culpability for the assassination of Dr. George Tiller should rest on the shoulders of the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue and Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly…The most common epithet repeated many times by O’Reilly was: “Tiller the Baby Killer.” “–Joyce Arthur, on human rights
I don’t want to see anyone assassinated. But Tiller got off lightly compared to his post-viable victims. He wasn’t stabbed in the base of the skull and his brains sucked out with a shop-vac. He was doing late term abortions based on nothing more than flimsy psychiatric diagnoses for years. That is, when he wasn’t ushering at church and getting his pastor to hold funerals for the children (I mean 28-week blobs of tissue) he killed. Sweetykins.
Re: “psychiatric diagnoses”: I swear, jellybean, the more I read your posts, the more I’m convinced you want the U.S. to be like catholicuckoo Ireland and other countries held hostage by religious superstitions. “A young woman has been legally forced to give birth by caesarean section after being denied an abortion in Ireland, in a [rape] case experts say exposes flaws in recent reform meant to allow limited terminations. The woman, who is an immigrant and cannot be named for legal reasons, was refused an abortion even though at eight weeks she demanded a termination, claiming she was suicidal.”https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-woman-forced-birth-denied-abortion Ah,… Read more »
“Yet you and the other busybodies here declare that you know better than the pregnant woman herself and her doctor.”
The decision is clearly up to the woman herself, why do you keep bringing the doctor into it?
Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to incite random actors to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable. In short, remote-control murder by lone wolf. What did Daleiden specifically say that allegedly incited violence? Here’s your gal pal Madonna at your “women’s rally”, the rally of which you wholeheartedly approved: Yes, I’m angry. Yes, I am outraged. Yes, I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House By your own definition, that is an incitement to violence. Do you really think you’re in any position to lecture anyone about… Read more »
Sweetie, you’re so naive. Across the country, there have been 11 murders of health care personnel, 26 attempted murders of clinic workers and volunteers, around 10 bombings of clinics, over 40 arson fires set at clinics, acid attacks and other vandalism by anti-choicers. I wouldn’t worry about the well-protected White House standing, dear, there is more to fear from your fanatical bible-humping crowd than from clumsy entertainers who fall off stages. I attended the Women’s March in Denver, honey. About 200,000 women and men, in perfect good will harmony. We had various speakers–from a Native American lawyer and Hoop Circle… Read more »
“I wouldn’t worry about the well-protected White House standing, dear”
LoL, so it’s perfectly fine to incite violence against the well protected.
Sweetie, you womb sniffers just continue to vacillate from one crazy accusation with no basis in reality to another.
Virtue signaling is not a virtue.
Sharon, what part of “what did Daleiden specifically say” don’t you understand? What part of “which Republicans assaulted Cecile Richards” don’t you understand? To quote you: “Can you read, honey?” Well, can you? More importantly, can you answer? I don’t care how many people attended your tantrum-fest in Denver. I don’t give a rat’s rear-end about your precious abortion mills. If you don’t have answers to the questions I asked, then you admit you are nothing more than a liar — a hypocritical liar. Save us all the trouble and get lost. Or is it that you’re so brain-damaged that… Read more »
For the record, I have blocked Honeybuttons as of two days ago so I won’t be seeing her responses.
I’ve considered calling her “Honey-boo-boo”, but then I realized it would be insulting to the real Honey-boo-boo.
I’m not normally given to name-calling, but people who are educated beyond their intelligence (in Sharon’s case, far beyond) are in a special class of stupid.
Well, precisely. I hate name-calling in general but her coming on here with her “Honey, Sweetie” nonsense called for a response.
Honey, your “questions” have been answered time and time again, yet you refuse to acknowledge the uptick in violence against Planned Parenthood clinics in the wake of Daleiden’s heavily edited misleading videos…and yet you have the notion that I’m the brain damaged person. Snort. Poor baby…I know you and others here feel outraged and helpless that women are still exercising their free will and right to reproductive medical care, and you can’t stop them. Yep, even now, thousands of women across this country and around the world are aborting unwanted pregnancies, pregnancies with medical complications, fetuses with abnormalities. GASP! Women… Read more »
Sharon, don’t presume to tell me what my state of mind is. I don’t feel outraged nor helpless; in fact, I’m laughing at you because you continue to stumble around in the darkness (in your silly pink hat, no less!), trying so hard to get to me with your feeble insults, your lame attempts at condescension, and your transparently false bravado. On the contrary, it is you on the left who are outraged. Of course, this is nothing new, since this is your perpetual state of being. But now you’re helpless, which is new to you. You’re outraged that Donald… Read more »
I would question it is even a lie. The point of a lie is to perpetuate an untruth that you know to be false. Using a prop for illustrative purposes is extremely common and not generally considered to be untrue unless it tells a different story. And a true illustration can be dishonest if portrayed in a dishonest manner. Who is going to think that an interview after the fact is going to have actual video footage of the event? None would have been taken. Probably the best solution is to have a small disclaimer that states: Image of a… Read more »
Wow. You should totally present your findings to Congress.
Anna, You say “Embryos are not another person”…….Really??? well, biology totally disagrees with you here, according to biology a fetus/embryo/baby has all the biological requirements for a separate person from the moment of conception. So I guess you are anti-science. Hitler said “Jews are not persons, so we can kill them”, didn’t make it true. You said, “This is a religious site, so I would imagine that you are the religious one, attempting to impose your dogma on all women.” Yes, I am trying to impose the true religion of Christianity on all people, men and women, because we are… Read more »
How do you define person? I’m sure you are aware that persons have been variably defined throughout history in ways such that certain classes of humans are considered to be non-persons. I’m sure you would no advocate a return to a time when some groups of people could be arbitrarily deemed non-persons so as to make their transition into slavery easier. The foundational opposition to this is to recognize that all humans are persons, and since you recognize that embryos have such great value to science, you also implicitly rrecognize that they are fully human (what research program is investigating… Read more »
Hi Anna. I am indeed humorless about some things, like the idea of killing people. I am a “seamless garment” pro-life Catholic. I didn’t think you were joking; I thought you were suggesting the Pope gave multiple undeserved annulments to a particular politician. I know quite a bit about annulments. The fees are set by the diocese. Are you suggesting that diocesan mediators and canon lawyers should work for free? There have undoubtedly been cases where unworthy annulments were given in exchange for cash. Both parties to that kind of deal will answer to God. But they are far from… Read more »
Third class citizenship, really? Women who vote, who are free to move from state to state seeking the work they choose, can get a driver’s license without a father or husband’s permission, can borrow money, can assemble to petition the government, can purchase and use firearms, etc, these women are third class citizens? Especially when compared to intrauterine babies, who can exercise NONE of the above rights at the moment, and whose very lives can be taken because it interferes with, say, a basketball scholarship (yet another freedom adult women have)? Please, lay off the histrionics.
First, would this kind of legislation ever get past the Supreme Court? Second, even in previous centuries, no jurisdiction using English common law pressed murder charges against the mother who had the abortion. Third, even full blown infanticide stopped carrying a mandatory death penalty for the mother because juries were unwilling to convict. Fourth, who is going to get the votes for legislation that makes Plan B or an IUD illegal as an instrument of murder? Who is going to testify against the abortionist and his/her staff if admitting to an abortion at a particular clinic is tantamount to a… Read more »
Re: “education campaign”: You mean misinformation campaign. Re: “public funding for abortion”: Hyde Amendment–look it up Mr. Prosecutor. It prevents low-income pregnant women from jumping you and ransacking your pockets for spare change for abortions. https://www.aclu.org/other/public-funding-abortion Re: “sonograms and waiting periods”: (1) Ultrasounds/sonograms do not dissuade women from obtaining abortions. “Relationship Between Ultrasound Viewing and Proceeding to Abortion” by Gatter, Mary MD, et al., Obstetrics & Gynecology, January 2014 – Volume 123 – Issue 1 – p 81–87. RESULTS: Patients opted to view the ultrasound image 42.5% of the time. Nearly all pregnancies (98.8%) were terminated: 98.4% of pregnancies among… Read more »
I am very wary of this measure (not that it affects me in Virginia, a very purple state, sadly). 1) True or not, this is not a hearts and minds bill. I’ve been talking to insane pro abortion women on the net who have gotten abortions this week, and this will send them into somewhat justified frantic paroxysms. One of the things I still love about President Bush was his “culture of life” rhetoric – and while I do think that the endgame is to make abortion criminal (for ALL parties responsible, including anyone who advised women to get the… Read more »
Even if Roe were overturned, it would simply be tossed back to the states. We would see a situation in which procuring an abortion was fully legal in California and a death penalty offense in Idaho. I think this geographical disparity would send the legislation right back to SCOTUS on eighth amendment grounds if nothing else. Most abortions occur in the first trimester, and many are now chemically induced. Are we proposing to charge the pharmaceutical companies with first degree murder as well? This seems to me to be unenforceable. What evidence will we need to differentiate between a miscarriage… Read more »
Your last paragraph is exactly my biggest fear. I want abortion to not be only illegal, but also unthinkable (to steal from someone, but I can’t remember who at this time). This seems incredibly stupid if your goal is to actually make a culture of life, instead of falling into the liberal’s favorite distopian fantasy, The Handmaid’s Tale (which, ugh, is becoming a tv series).
My daughter had to read that in eleventh grade and make a poster about it. We had trouble thinking up visuals that wouldn’t make everybody feel sick!
Good book, lousy movie, very prophetic.
Didn’t see the movie. A bit too graphic to make a pretty poster–we ended up with origami dolls all being hanged.
It was, indeed, a grim book.
I’m glad this legislation is considering punishing the mother procuring the abortion. Even if she doesn’t know it’s a human, it is still gross negligence at least which in other circumstances would lead to a heavy sentence. No do I expect a jury to convict a mother not at the moment. What really is needed is a solid metaphysics of the human person based natural law from which all our arguments follow and then we can influence culture etc – not just hit anti-abortion works but pieces of art which reflect on the nature of man and imply the humanness… Read more »
Doug says, We need to note that in order for the charge of first degree murder to stick, a prosecutor would have to show intent. In some cases, doing that would be straightforward, but in others, not so much. In the case of an abortifacient drug, for example, like a morning after pill, the legal difficulties would be considerable. The woman would not have to demonstrate that she “didn’t know,” the prosecutor would have to demonstrate that she did. He would have the burden of proof because she is innocent until proven guilty. Didn’t know what? Well, for example, if… Read more »
jillybean wrote: It simply isn’t that simple. Does that mean it’s simple, or not simple? Apparently its not apparent to me that jillybean has enough adjectives in her arsenal. :-) Seriously though, Wilson’s post already contemplates all of the factors that jillybean raises. Also, I doubt that the law would require a first degree murder charge when lesser charges, down to manslaughter, are also available. Wilson has already said that the responsibilities for proving guilt fall entirely on the prosecution. That would include the burden of proving that there was even a zygote present, in the case of anti-implantation methods… Read more »
The author doesn’t understand how birth control works. Or how crimes work. How cute!
These religious diehards are crazy. They believe every fertilized egg is “ensouled”, so birth control is “murder”.
Even their Bible disagrees with them.
Yep, but The Christian Left folks do adhere to ‘first breath’ at birth makes a ‘baby’.
You forgot “sweetie.” What happened to your southern gentility?
lady_black is an intelligent person and does not require being handled like a toddler….dear.
“lady_black agrees with me and does not require being handled like a toddler….dear.”
Fixed that for you.
Ikr u r smart
My god, I’m tired of stupida$$ wombsniffers. Most embryos fail to implant and half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. There is nothing magical about human embryos. Abortion is the norm in sexually active women. “The majority of embryos die within a few weeks of conception. This fact is widely known within medical circles, but is a surprise to many in the general public… the riskiest time is before the embryo has implanted in the uterine wall (which typically occurs between 8–10 days after conception (Wilcox et al. 1999). During this early stage, the proportion of surviving embryos drops… Read more »
“spontaneous abortion”. Lol, nice one.
Etymological note: the word “abortion”, in its original sense, was simply a synonym for “miscarriage”. It derives from the latin “aboriri”, meaning “to miscarry”.
In medical and scientific contexts, it is still used in this technical sense. So yes, if you are reading medical literature, you can read about a “spontaneous abortion” without it being doublespeak. There are spontaneous abortions that the person on the street would probably call a miscarriage; contagious abortions such as those caused by brucellosis in cattle; as well as intentional surgical abortions and medical abortions which are the topic of the debate here.
Just curious, what is the punishment for the man? You do realize it takes a man and a woman to make a baby right? Where’s the man’s jail time? If the woman is stripped from her right to choose, then the man should be too. Meaning, he should be required by law to stick by the woman and baby. Do you really think that will ever happen?
“what is the punishment for the man” The punishment for a man who gets an abortion should be the same as it is for a woman who gets an abortion. “You do realize it takes a man and a woman to make a baby right?” Yes, that’s one reason (though not the primary one) why a woman doesn’t have the prerogative of un-making a baby. “Where’s the jail time?” Indeed, where is the jail time – when a man pressures a woman to get an abortion. “If the woman is stripped from her right to choose, then the man should… Read more »