# "Partial-birth" abortion ban: What does it accomplish for pro-lifers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2007, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670 "2007-04-18T19:24:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/101 "2007-04-20T04:08:37Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] Yes, there seems to be a desire on both parts to assert a particular position. Doctors are trained for all kinds of things, but lives are taken via abortions, well, millions and millions of times. [/QUOTE] Only if a mindless fetus qualifies as a person, and it doesn’t. Or are you going to forbid organ transplants as well ? If a fetus is a person, so is a brain dead body. Considering abortion murder requires a view of human life that is either contradictory, or one that lowers human life to the value of so much meat. It’s not surprising that “pro-lifers” are so amoral and uncaring. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/102 "2007-04-20T04:09:59Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Maybe the mother has a medical condition such that she couldn’t survive a delivery. [/QUOTE] A medical condition such as…? > [@](#): > > Maybe the fetus is hydrocephalic and can’t pass thru the cervix. Then try a C-section delivery first. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/103 "2007-04-20T04:13:26Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Only if a mindless fetus qualifies as a person, and it doesn’t. Or are you going to forbid organ transplants as well ? [/quote] No, feel free. > [@](#): > > If a fetus is a person, so is a brain dead body. Yes, indeed. A fetus, who will attain consciousness, is identical to the temporarily flat-lined patient who ultimately regains consciousness. Ain’t life grand? > [@](#): > > Considering abortion murder requires a view of human life that is either contradictory, or one that lowers human life to the value of so much meat. It’s not surprising that “pro-lifers” are so amoral and uncaring. Gosh! You found us out. Dammit. You are such a…it’s laughable. I’ll just chuckle, in deference to the forum. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/104 "2007-04-20T04:18:41Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] A medical condition such as…? [/quote] Sewage trap vagina. > [@](#): > > Then try a C-section delivery first. Cut it out. Logic has no weight in determining the “right to choose.” (JThunder, good to see you.) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/105 "2007-04-20T04:34:39Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] No, feel free. [/QUOTE] Then you are being hypocritical, or irrational. Or are lying, and intend to ban organ transplants later. [QUOTE=Stratocaster] Yes, indeed. A fetus, who will attain consciousness, is identical to the temporarily flat-lined patient who ultimately regains consciousness. [/quote] No; someone who in _temporarily_ flatlined is there, just shut off. A fetus is the same as someone whose brain is _dead_. Someone who that even if you had the kind of biotech to fix them, would _still_ be dead; you could create a new brain, but the old one is gone. Just as a fetus lacks a functioning human brain to begin with. [QUOTE=Stratocaster] Gosh! You found us out. Dammit. You are such a…it’s laughable. I’ll just chuckle, in deference to the forum. [/QUOTE] It hardly requires any effort to “find you out”. I simply need to look at places where your side wins, and look at the hellish conditions your beliefs create. And the utter lack of concern for the lives of the children you force into existence, and the malice towards the women you regard not even as animals, but only as wombs. The “pro-life” movement is one of the most utterly evil in history. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/106 "2007-04-20T04:41:36Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] The “pro-life” movement is one of the most utterly evil in history. [/QUOTE] We’re right up there with the Nazis. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/107 "2007-04-20T05:08:28Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] We’re right up there with the Nazis. [/QUOTE] Not quite as openly destructive, but even emptier. The Nazis at least valued something, even if it was conquest and power. The anti-abortion movement is pure malice; it hurts many, and helps no one, not even it’s own followers. And if it achieved the power the Nazis have, I can easily see it rivalling them in sheer nastiness. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/108 "2007-04-20T05:19:58Z")
Godwin is dead. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/109 "2007-04-20T05:28:33Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] You’re reading that post differently than I did. “If you have to kill the kid, do it in utero–outside the womb is just wrong, not when you have a womb handy to get the job done,” is how I read it. [/QUOTE] Well, you read it wrongly. All I was saying is that, if the law we are dealing with says that, as long as the baby is inside the mother, we cannot legally prevent her from killing the fetus, then I think “fine, but that’s as far as we should allow this right to go”. Within the confines of this law, we should not allow the baby to be taken out, partially or totally, and killed. That’s the most we can do given the law we have. Now, if you can work towards changing the law that is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/110 "2007-04-20T05:30:30Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Godwin is dead. [/QUOTE] Godwin is alive and well > [@](#): > > As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/111 "2007-04-20T05:31:45Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Godwin is dead. [/QUOTE] He was aborted. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/112 "2007-04-20T05:51:21Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Sandra Day O’Conner isn’t Catholic (nominated by Reagan), and neither is Harriet Miers, whom Bush nominated before Alito. And Thomas was an Episcopalian when he was nominated by Bush I. Not to mention that Kennedy got nominated after Bork was rejected by the Senate. Bork converted to Catholicism in the 90s, but he was not a Catholic when Reagan nominated him. I’d say your theory doesn’t hold water. [/QUOTE] If my goal were to overturn _Roe_, I’d choose Justices who were from the population demographic most likely to be sympathic to that goal. Sure, many Protestants are opposed as well, but Roman Catholics are ALL opposed to abortion (or at least they’re supposed to be). Protestants are splintered into many different denominations and as a group probably aren’t as reliable as Catholics vis a vis abortion. Of course, being Catholic isn’t strictly neccesary to this end if the nominee is sufficiently ideologically “pure” in some other way (Bork comes to mind). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/113 "2007-04-20T06:42:24Z")
[QUOTE=Blalron] If my goal were to overturn Roe, I’d choose Justices who were from the population demographic most likely to be sympathic to that goal. Sure, many Protestants are opposed as well, but Roman Catholics are ALL opposed to abortion (or at least they’re supposed to be). Protestants are splintered into many different denominations and as a group probably aren’t as reliable as Catholics vis a vis abortion. Of course, being Catholic isn’t strictly neccesary to this end if the nominee is sufficiently ideologically “pure” in some other way (Bork comes to mind). [/quote] I’m not sure what your point is. I’ve demonstrated that, contrary to **Evil Captor** ’s thesis, there is not some conspiracy to stack the court with Catholics. There is a (very open) conspiracy to stack the court with originalists (or what Bush likes to call "strict constructionists). And if you wanted to overturn _Roe_, that would be the thing to do. “Protestantism” isn’t a particular religion and there are plenty of Protestant denominations that are as anti-abortion as the Catholic Church is. If you call yourself an evangelical Christian, of whatever denomination, I bet it’s more likely that you’re anti-abortion and anti-\*Roe \*than if you’re Catholic. In fact, there is no significant different between Prostestants in general and Catholics on abortion. From this [CBS poll:](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml) > [@](#): > > Catholics and Protestants in the survey held roughly the same views on the issue. 36% of Catholics believe abortion should be generally available, and 34% of Protestants agree. 27% of Catholics think abortion should not be permitted, and 24% of Protestants believe this, as well. Most Catholics seem to be like most Americans-- they think abortion is wrong, but don’t want it to be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/114 "2007-04-20T12:24:52Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Then you are being hypocritical, or irrational. Or are lying, and intend to ban organ transplants later. [/quote] Right. Because you’ve clearly argued beyond dispute that an organ and a fetus are morally equivalent. Try again. > [@](#): > > No; someone who in _temporarily_ flatlined is there, just shut off. A fetus is the same as someone whose brain is _dead_. Someone who that even if you had the kind of biotech to fix them, would _still_ be dead; you could create a new brain, but the old one is gone. Just as a fetus lacks a functioning human brain to begin with. We’ve had exchanges on this point before, and you continue to flail, so we needn’t continue. This is a meaningless distinction, one that recognizes the humanity (or personhood) of the flat-liner while still permitting abortion, an incoherent position. You have long ago established that you believe that a living entity without the current capacity for thought is a mass of tissue, no different than a tumor or an organ, without human rights per se. Um, except when it does have rights. “Shut off.” Right. The lack of brain activity either creates the bright line that excludes persons, the boundary you’re so fond of trotting out, or it doesn’t. It’s your point, not mine. I don’t need the existence of brain activity to recognize another’s rights. As soon as you acknowledge that someone without brain activity has human rights, you’ve opened the door for discussion of fetus rights. The distinction you draw is not a meaningful one, it’s arbitrary. > [@](#): > > It hardly requires any effort to “find you out”. I simply need to look at places where your side wins, and look at the hellish conditions your beliefs create. And the utter lack of concern for the lives of the children you force into existence, and the malice towards the women you regard not even as animals, but only as wombs. > > The “pro-life” movement is one of the most utterly evil in history. Well, how can I argue with such a well-argued position? ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/115 "2007-04-20T16:10:16Z")
[QUOTE=Stratocaster] I don’t know. [/quote] Then I stand by my point. > [@](#): > > What if walking through the door created some harm for another. Would that influence your definition of “necessary”? No, and this is just the sort of dance I was talking about: we weren’t talking about the moral implications of the proceedure yet, but rather whether it is indicated medically or not. The question is whether the proceedure is necessary medically. Pro-lifers claim that it isn’t, making it sound like it is simply egregious. But just because it isn’t the only _possible_ option doesn’t mean that it can’t be the medically appropriate one. > [@](#): > > Neither Roe nor Casey establishes an absolute right to abortion. That is an assertion abhorrent to many pro-choicers, but that’s the inference from a simple reading. And yet we have folks like Friar Ted and many pro-life people running around claiming that we need all sorts of vast new legal powers in order to restrict late-term abortions. Do you agree that this is essentially dishonest, given that states can ALREADY heavily restrict post-viability abortion as long as there are exceptions for health/life of the mother? Note that even if you think those exceptions can be abused, restrictions on that exception can be made more stringent. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/116 "2007-04-20T16:14:11Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] A medical condition such as…? Then try a C-section delivery first. [/QUOTE] I think the person that wrote the first part of your snark needs to be in better communication with the person who wrote the second. C-sections may be one of the safer surgeries someone can have, but they are still surgeries. Especially if the baby is not going to survive either method regardless (which even you must admit is at least some of the cases this legislation tries to ban), then I hardly see the reason in insisting over a more dangerous and invasive proceedure for removing the fetus than a less invasive and scarring one. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/117 "2007-04-20T17:01:10Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] I think the person that wrote the first part of your snark needs to be in better communication with the person who wrote the second. [/QUOTE] No, because they are separate issues. The first statement asks what types of medical conditions would threaten the mother’s life if she were to deliver the child normally. The second statement addresses the claim that piercing the unborn’s skull is the only suitable means of extracting the unborn. As I said, separate issues. > [@](#): > > C-sections may be one of the safer surgeries someone can have, but they are still surgeries. Nobody denies that. The point is that piercing and deflating the infant’s skull is NOT the only way to extract it. As you yourself said, a C-section delivery is comparably safe, and more importantly, it does not necessitate killing the unborn, much less piercing or crushing its skull. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/118 "2007-04-20T18:47:43Z")
[QUOTE=JThunder] No, because they are separate issues. The first statement asks what types of medical conditions would threaten the mother’s life if she were to deliver the child normally. The second statement addresses the claim that piercing the unborn’s skull is the only suitable means of extracting the unborn. As I said, separate issues. Nobody denies that. The point is that piercing and deflating the infant’s skull is NOT the only way to extract it. As you yourself said, a C-section delivery is comparably safe, and more importantly, it does not necessitate killing the unborn, much less piercing or crushing its skull. [/QUOTE] The point is that it’s the _safest_ way. There is no reason a woman should be denied the _safest_ procedure, period. And these are not cases where the fetus would be able to survive outside the womb anyway. They would still die from a C-section. ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/119 "2007-04-20T19:44:40Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The point is that it’s the _safest_ way. [/QUOTE] Irrelevant. Even if we grant that it’s the safest way, that doesn’t make it morally justified. Consider a child drowning in a swimming pool. The safest thing for a mother or father to do would be to stay out of water and avoid any personal risk. Such a parent would be derided for his or her action – and rightfully so. No reasonable person would accept the statement, “I decided to minimize my personal risk” as a valid excuse for abandoning the child to death. Similarly, imagine a father whose son was being beaten to a pulp by a couple of other youngsters. His safest response would be to run away as fast as he possibly could. Such a father would be derided for his cowardice… and rightfully so. Once again, there’s a huge difference between what’s “safest” and what’s right. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2007, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670/120 "2007-04-20T19:47:08Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Then I stand by my point. [/quote] Which is? I’m not trying to be snarky, but how does my response reinforce your point? > [@](#): > > No, and this is just the sort of dance I was talking about: we weren’t talking about the moral implications of the proceedure yet, but rather whether it is indicated medically or not. The question is whether the proceedure is necessary medically. Pro-lifers claim that it isn’t, making it sound like it is simply egregious. All pro-lifers, eh? Me included, since you used me as a reference? But my point stands. Alternatives become reasonable by virtue of the net benefit they produce. It is not unreasonable, given a certain set of facts (and I’m no expert) to say a given alternative is not necessary because it creates an egregious harm that could otherwise be avoided by assuming only a minor potential harm. > [@](#): > > And yet we have folks like Friar Ted and many pro-life people running around claiming that we need all sorts of vast new legal powers in order to restrict late-term abortions. Do you agree that this is essentially dishonest, given that states can ALREADY heavily restrict post-viability abortion as long as there are exceptions for health/life of the mother? Note that even if you think those exceptions can be abused, restrictions on that exception can be made more stringent. But even making those restrictions on the exceptions more stringent is now more politically palatable, more seemingly reasonable, by virtue of this decision. The door has been opened further. Challenges to post-viability restrictions have been made that much less likely to be successful. States where late-term restrictions are more lax are now that much more ripe for a political strategy that looks to limit abortion options. That’s my point. That’s what this decision accomplished. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/partial-birth-abortion-ban-what-does-it-accomplish-for-pro-lifers/400670.md?page=7)