No it isn’t good enough for me. It’s easy to find one or two people to say what you want them to say. I want them to prove it not say it.
Look, at the risk of spouting cliches, you’re missing the forest for the trees. First of all, medical records are PRIVATE, and protected by law. One can not simply produce “a name and a date,” as this would violate doctor-patient confidentiality.
Second, what possible motive would these physicians have for lying? They confessed to performing late-term abortions for non-medical purposes, even though this is an extremely unpopular claim to make. Moreover, it violates the common pro-choice claim that such abortions are never done. What is more plausible – that these physicians (plural!) are lying for no discernable reason, despite great harm to their reputations and the pro-choice cause, or that they are being honest?
And third, I was NOT refuting your claim that “third-term abortions represent only about one hundredth of one percent of all abortions.” Please re-read this thread, because at no point did I ever deny this. Rather, I was refuting your claim that
I am making no claims regarding the frequency of these third-trimester abortions, but I do deny that they are ONLY performed “for compelling medical reasons.” We have pro-choice testimonies which say otherwise.
Sorry, DtC. I checked a couple of dictionaries and found the word “abortionist” attested from the late 19th Century. Today, though, it does seem to be a “loaded” word used only by those with a particular agenda.
Sounds like the argument is in a very weird state, then. It’s agreed that late-term abortions, which constitute .01% of abortions. So sometimes, right or wrong as it may seem, some of those .01% of abortions are done for non-medical reasons. If true, that would make me uncomfortable as well, but given this infrequency it wouldn’t go very far in proving that abortion is wrong or something, would it? Put it more simply: how many is that, really? Not many, I’d venture to say.
Diogenes is right to demand proof, and you’re still not giving it. Let me provide what I consider a parallel example (sorry if it seems tangential).
I’m an atheist, and it’s happened once or twice that I’ve dealt with the very pro-Christian, repent-or-go-to-hell crowd. It’s very easy to find sites on the web by fiercely converted ex-atheists who say things like “atheism is properly defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full knowledge that the true God does indeed exist.”
I’m still an atheist and this is patently untrue (not to mention stupid), and of course there’s no proof provided.
‘But what motivation does this person have for lying?’ one might ask. For one, the writer is an interested (not unbiased) party, even though one wonders why he says something untrue when you’d think individual truth would suffice.
I hope that made sense. My point is that whether or not you know what an individual’s motives for lying might be, that doesn’t change the untruth of the statement. People can find or make up motivations and reasons to do anything. Actual proof is called for.
I think I just phrased it badly. I meant to say that “abortionist” is not a term which is used in the medical industry and that “abortionists” don’t exist in the sense that the word was used when the procedure was illegal. Doctors who perform abortion are not really “abortionists” any more than a pharmacist is a “drug dealer.”
Absolute proof? Certainly not, and I’ll freely admit such. However, the logical, most likely and most reasonable conclusion is that late-term abortions ARE being conducted for non-medical reasons.
You’ve got it backwards. Do these abortionists have a vested interest in the issue? Certainly – but if anything, this bias would compel them to DENY conducting late-term elective abortions. They might have reasons to lie, but not in this manner. There is no reasonable cause for them to falsely admit to performing such heinous acts as third-trimester abortions for non-medical purposes. It would be like a criminal falsely admitting to a crime. A criminal might lie, but it is unlikely that such a person would accept guilt for a crime of which he is innocent.
Look, at the risk of spouting cliches, you’re missing the forest for the trees. First of all, medical records are PRIVATE, and protected by law. One can not simply produce “a name and a date,” as this would violate doctor-patient confidentiality.
Second, what possible motive would these physicians have for lying? They confessed to performing late-term abortions for non-medical purposes, even though this is an extremely unpopular claim to make. Moreover, it violates the common pro-choice claim that such abortions are never done. What is more plausible – that these physicians (plural!) are lying for no discernable reason, despite great harm to their reputations and the pro-choice cause, or that they are being honest?
And third, I was NOT refuting your claim that “third-term abortions represent only about one hundredth of one percent of all abortions.” Please re-read this thread, because at no point did I ever deny this. Rather, I was refuting your claim that
I am making no claims regarding the frequency of these third-trimester abortions, but I do deny that they are ONLY performed “for compelling medical reasons.” We have pro-choice testimonies which say otherwise.
Drat. I don’t know how that happened.
Couple of things…
On the one hand it would be very difficult to find a specific, documented case of a 8th month abortion (most records are closed, no one who had one would want it known, etc.), so calling JThunder et al, out on that one is a bit disingenuous. You know they can’t come up with it, don’t push that issue. Also, some cogent points have been made about selective perception (e.g. -“Moreover, it’s interesting to note that you’re quick to object to Dr. Haskell’s admission, yet perfectly willing to accept Diogenes’ unsubstantiated claim, even in the absence of any corroborating sources.”) So let’s keep our truth seeker hats on, and our knee jerk liberal (I am one too) pants off…so to speak.
On the other hand taking at face value unsubstantiated testimony (that is what you get until those specific, documented cases come to light) of people claiming that they “regularly aborted perfectly healthy babies, even into the ninth month of pregnancy” is questionable at best. What kind of monster would actually do that? “Ms. Smith, I see that you have a perfectly healthy baby, due in abut 2 weeks…oh, you changed your mind? No problem, I do this all the time, that kid will be dead within the hour…”
Part of the problem seems to stem from each camp not really making an effort to see the other sides point of view, they just want to pick apart the specifics of the others argument.
IANAPL but I would assume at least some of their issues with legal abortion are as follows:
Abortion is killing babies. (I don’t mean that facetiously or as a straw man)
By legalizing it, society is saying killing babies is OK. (the analogy with slavery illustrated that quite well)
If someone gets pregnant (with exception for involuntary pregnancy, or pregnant children), they should be responsible for that pregnancy/child.
There is a concern that abortions (baby killing) are taken lightly, for convenience sake.
“Pro-choicers” are hiding their collective heads in the sand as to what an actual abortion entails (the killing and cleaning your own meat point was well put).
Just because men can walk away from a pregnant woman, a pregnant woman should not be able to walk away from her pregnancy. That may be unfair, but life is unfair and (once again excepting a “forced” pregnancy) taking responsibility for your actions is part of being an adult. (once again assuming we are only talking about adults here, I don’t think anyone wants an 11 year old rape victim to be forced to give birth)
IAAPC but I can’t speak for all of them, I can speak for myself when I say the following:
I am extremely ambivalent about the abortion issue, it is not a black and white issue at all.
Generally speaking abortion is killing something that could be a baby some day, but, with very few exceptions (I would hope only medically necessary ones), is not yet.
Abortion is a choice between two evils. Forcing a person to be born unwanted (and unless you are born healthy and white, that unwanted becomes a big issue) while forcing someone to have an unwanted baby versus aborting the pregnancy (or killing the baby, depending on your point of view).
There is a philosophical component (although this is not a major part for me, probably because I am male), women who can not get abortions are forced to be mothers, and men can walk away from them.
As it was stated before, easy, available birth control that everyone is informed about is absolutely better than abortion.
I wish there was no need for any more abortions ever.
I am well aware of what is entailed in an abortion (at least a first tri) and that does not change my thought out, conflicted point of view.
I have a daughter (year and a half) who I would have defended to the death from the moment of conception.
I apologize for the long winded, arrogant tone, that is my personality showing through (pity my wife).
What did I say that was unsubstantiated?
I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I’m sure that all of you have heard the usual reasoning on both sides of the issue and there is no point in my repeating them.
I did not follow the link in Tgwaty’s OP. If I had, then maybe my response would be different.
I don’t see arrogance in Tgwaty’s OP. I do hear someone coming to terms with us vs. them thinking and knowing that all of us have the potential for doing horrible things simply because we are human. Acknowledging that to myself was a turning point in my life and it frightens me and saddens me if I allow myself to dwell on it for very long.
I can acknowledge my own potential for cruelty and still wonder how the Nazis could have continued to work in the extermination camps. I hear something like that in Tgwaty’s posts. I don’t hear his judgment so much as I hear him asking how can they do it? (If it helps, Tgwaty, I know gynecological surgeons who agree with you and refuse to participate – and yet they do not judge those who do. My own doctor said that it made him sick.)
I can understand why Tgwaty would try to appeal to us about something that he feels so strongly about. He is fulfilling his sense of moral obligation just as Diogenes is.
With that said, Tgwaty, I would ask you to see one thing in a different light. You said:
What you may not realize is that these “emotional factors” are considered mental health issues. Mental illness is just as real as other illnesses and is not a matter of weakness or of attitude. Very often the causes are physical. Even before Roe v. Wade, abortions were performed on the mentally ill on a voluntary basis because of the high rate of suicide among pregnant depressives and others. These were indeed done to save the life of the mother. I ask you to reconsider dismissing “emotional factors” so easily.
SteveSteve said:
Can you not see the irony in your own statement? Those men are adults too and must be as responsible as the mother. And until they are forced to be held accountable, I don’t think that we can effectively speak about the mother’s responsibility as an adult or even consider forcing her to carry the child until it is full term.
I think there is also a very good argument for the morning after pill.
Maybe when women are equally represented in the halls of the Capital, in Presidential administrations and on the Supreme Court, people will be more open to your side of the argument.
Diogenes, I think this is the first time that I have not completely agreed with you. That is a record for me! I make no judgment on your stance morally – other than to let you know that I understand it.
Zoe, I think Stevesteve was reiterating that argument more than he was agreeing with it.
At the time, you said that third-trimester abortions were performed (and I quote!) “only for compelling medical reasons,” without citing any sources for that claim. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy behind other posters accepting this claim unconditionally, while simultaneously demanding proof to corroborate Dr. Martin Haskell’s own self-damning admission.
Later on, you DID cite statistics which show third-trimester abortions to be relatively rare; however, that was not the claim which I was contesting. At no point did I deny that they are uncommon; rather, I was refuting the claim that these are only performed due to “compelling medical reasons.”
What kind of a monster would abortion a nine-month pregnancy? Good question… but remember, these physicians admitted to performing such acts. One may as well ask “What kind of lunatic would falsely admit to performing such a monstrous deed, if it weren’t really true?”
Besides, many pro-choicers do believe that life, humanity and/or personhood doesn’t begin until birth, so that viewpoint isn’t as uncommon as one might think.
These “partial-birth” (see, if you use stupid terms like that, they bite you in the butt, since even you don’t really know what they mean) abortions were performed in the second trimester, even according to the article you linked. DtC’s comments were in regards to the third trimester.
Yes, and so I realized after the fact. However, I also cited the admission of Dr James McMahon, who confessed to performing abortions into the third trimester, as well as testimony that Dr. George Tiller has done the same. So even without Haskell’s testimony, the point still remains.
In addition, “partial birth abortion” is a perfectly valid and accurate term to describe what’s going on. This is the term which both houses of Congress use in their legislation, as it was the most accurate term to use. It is, however, unpalatable to many abortion advocates, for obvious reasons.
Actually, according to your link, here are the reasons abortions were performed on a viable fetus: “After 26 weeks, those pregnancies that are not flawed are still non-elective. They are interrupted because of maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications.”
Your “corroborating” link only takes me to some index with a lot of pdfs. You’ll need to be a lot more specific, if you want me to actually find the evidence you’re touting. Keep in mind, that Kansas uses the term “partial birth” for anything beyond 22 weeks. That’s still late in the second trimester.
I’m waiting for some of that evidence to show up, actually. Second trimester abortions, while not even in the same numerical ballpark as first trimester, do happen more frequently than I’d like. Maybe we can cut that number down a bit, along with a lot of the first trimester abortions. What’s your stance on sex education in schools, birth control distribution without parental permission, and insurance coverage of birth control medicines?
Not all of which amount to “compelling medical reasons.” Being the victim of rape or incest is tragic, for example, but this is not the same as having an urgent medical condition which must be addressed. In addition, the mere presence of maternal “risk” is not the same as compelling medical necessity – and in those extreme cases where it is (where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, such as due to an ectopic pregnancy), few pro-lifers would object to an abortion.
You can’t really trust someone in a discussion like this who speaks of doctors who perform abortions as “abortionists,” who cites literature from the National Right to Life Committee, who uses the term “partial birth abortion” which is NOT a recognized MEDICAL term*, and who calls pro-choice folks “abortion advocates.” Few people who I know who are pro choice think abortion is a good thing. None of them advocate it. This is emotional, base rhetoric intended to inflame tempers and demonize the other side.
That would be like going to Jack T. Chick for balanced, honest information on Catholicism.
*- The members of the United States Congress can use the term “partial birth abortion” all they like, that doesn’t make it a real thing. The procedure is a MEDICAL procedure. Congress doesn’t get to determine medical terminology. Also, legislation written by Republicans in the thrall of the NRTLC isn’t a good source for terminology in the abortion debate.
Does one need to do all these things or any of them to be unworthy of trust? And this renders their argument false exactly how? Do you categorize pro-choice folks who use terms like “anti-choice” and “blobs of tissue” in the same manner? If so, you are at least consistent in your application of logical fallacies.