Re: Any anti-abortion atheists?

"robpar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:07:09 -0500, Mushinronsha
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Steve Dufour wrote:
> >> I've been wondering about this for the last few days.  Are there any
> >> well known people around who are both atheists and are against
> >> abortion?  Thanks.
> >
>   Hello Mushy, been a while since I have read any of your post.
>
> >I am an atheist, and I have a problem accepting abortion.  When a fetus
grows to
> >the point that it becomes a human being, I think it is wrong to have it's
life
> >terminated.  I don't know when that milestone is crossed, though.  If the
mother
> >decides that the pregnancy, and the the resulting obligation to provide
for the
> >welfare of a child, should be terminated when she is 8 months and 3 weeks
into
> >the pregnancy, it is probably too late to call an abortion anything other
than
> >wrong.  However, if that mother decides to choose to end the pregnancy at
2
> >weeks, the fetus is not yet functional as a human, and ending it's
existence
> >would be no more consequential than clipping one's fingernails.
> >
>   After the sixth month it`s considered a induced birth, the baby has a
good
> chance of living a normal life, if proper care is given.
>   The so called late term abortion that the thumpers are lying about is to
save
> the mothers life. Often the fetus is already dead, or so badly deformed
that it
> is unlikely to ever be more than a vegetable. The vaginal extraction is
easier
> on the mother than a cesarian section.
>   Most abortions are performed in the first 3 months.


Objection #1: The Procedure is Very Rare.

This was one of the first objections raised by Sam Donaldson on a recent
broadcast of "This Week with David Brinkley."[1] He noted that only about
450 partial-birth abortions are done each year. Only two doctors (Haskell
and McMahon) did the procedure, he added, and one of them (McMahon) was now
dead. This is the same information quoted in National Abortion Foundation
materials.[2]

Haskell and McMahon, however, are not the only doctors using this procedure.
The New York Times, November 6, 1995, quoted a gynecologist at a New York
teaching hospital who said, "Of course I use it, and I've taught it for the
last 10 years....So do doctors in other cities."[3] Further, Haskell and
McMahon have written on and promoted this technique for years (I quoted
earlier from Haskell's instruction manual).

Even if this objection was true, it hardly seems significant. George Will
pointed out that two jumbo jets crashing would result in "only" 450
casualties, but who would minimize such a disaster?

This objection turns out to be silliness. If the fetus is nothing more than
a blob of tissue, then a million abortions a day have no moral consequence.
However, if these abortions kill innocent human children, then why ignore
even a single, preventable death?

Another rare occurrence might bring this objection into focus. Since the
1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion on demand, there have been
five killings of abortion providers. That's "only" one dead every four and a
half years. That was enough, however, to stimulate a barrage of legislation.
Why should partial-birth abortion be different?


Objection #2: D&X Abortions May Save the Life of the Mother.

The National Abortion Federation literature states unequivocally, "Women
seeking later abortions do so for very serious reasons. All abortions taking
place in the third trimester are for reasons of serious fetal abnormality or
a risk to the life of the woman"[4] [emphasis in the original]. They cite as
their source the Abortion Fact Book published in 1992 by the Allan
Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, and the NAF
quarterly statistical reports of 1994.

But that's not what the doctors who've performed most of these abortions
say.

The American Medical News--the official newspaper of the AMA--documented Dr.
Haskell's forthright admission during a tape-recorded interview. "And I'll
be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range.
. . . In my particular case, probably 20% [of these abortions] are for
genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective."[5]

Dr. McMahon voluntarily submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution
Subcommittee a sample of 175 partial-birth abortions he performed. In its
official report the committee notes that 22% of the total abortions were for
reasons of depression, not protection of the mother's life.[6]

Interestingly, even in the NAF material the reasons cited for why some
doctors prefer this procedure have nothing to do with the life of the
mother. It "prevents unnecessary bleeding and has a low complication rate.
Reaction from the patients is positive [and] they found the surgery less
painful and difficult than they expected." Some families just "want a chance
to say good-bye."[7]

These may all be important considerations, everything being equal, but note
that no doctor mentions threat to the mother's life, even in the
pro-abortion material. There's a reason the doctors don't emphasize it:
there is no threat.

Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Department of
Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, said, "There are
absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which
require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the
life of the mother."[8]

In fact, breech births after the fashion of D&X are more dangerous.
Partial-birth abortion is a variation of a breech-birth technique used by
obstetricians to deliver a living child, often a twin.[9] Ironically, this
procedure has been largely replaced by Caesarean section, specifically
because a c-section is safer.[10]

There's a simpler way of dealing with this objection, though. Just ask, "If
the law allowed this procedure when it was necessary to protect the mother's
life, would you drop your objection?" It does.

The Senate version of the bill, in Sec. 1531. (a), states, "This paragraph
shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the
life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness,
or injury, provided that no other medical procedure would suffice for that
purpose."

Breech delivery is risky. Standard delivery is the safest. D&X abortion does
not protect the life of the mother. When there is an exception, HR 1833
permits a partial-birth abortion.


Objection #3: The Anesthesia Kills the Baby Before the Abortion Begins.

Robin Abcarian, defending D&X in her LA Times column, wrote, "[The mother]
was given enough anesthesia and analgesic that her baby was dead before he
was delivered."[11] A USA Today editorial on November 3, 1995, also claimed,
"The fetus dies from an overdose of anesthesia given to its mother."

Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Il.), Kate Michelman, president of the
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and Ellen Goodman
in her widely syndicated column all made the same claim. Most depend on a
statement Dr. McMahon made in a written submission to the House Judiciary
Constitution Subcommittee on June 23, 1995.[12]

Such misinformation sent a shock wave through the American Society of
Anesthesiologists (ASA). Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 32,000 member
organization, took heated exception with the claim before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, November 17, 1995.

Dr. Ellison said McMahon's statement is "entirely inaccurate." He added, "I
have not spoken with one anesthesiologist who agrees with Dr. McMahon's
conclusion, and in my judgment, it is contrary to scientific fact. It simply
must not be allowed to stand."[13]

Dr. Haskell knows from personal experience that the child is often alive
during this procedure. Because of the misinformation circulating on this
question, American Medical News has released a transcript of a taped
conversation with him from 1993.

AMNews: Let's talk first about whether or not the fetus is dead
beforehand....

Haskell: No, it's not. No, it's really not....In my case, probably about a
third of those are definitely are [sic] dead before I actually start to
remove the fetus. And probably the other two-thirds are not."[14]

Not only is the pro-abortion claim false; even if true it's irrelevant to
this legislation. In Sec. 1531. (a) (1) the legislation specifically defines
a partial-birth abortion as, "an abortion in which the person performing the
abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the
fetus and completing the delivery" [emphasis added].

If the child is dead before delivery begins, then the abortion does not fall
under the restrictions of this bill, so the point is moot. Simply put, if
the child is dead, then the law does not apply. The procedure is allowed.


Silly, False, and Inconsequential

Let's review the objections. The first one, that the procedure is extremely
rare, is silly. Further, if it's so rare, then why object to the ban? Other
abortion procedures unchallenged by this law can accomplish the same end.

The second one, that this kind of abortion protects the life of the mother,
fails on two counts. One, the amended bill provides for D&X when it's the
only thing that will save the mother. Two, such a circumstance almost never
occurs. Other forms of legal abortion are safer. The breech birth required
in a partial-birth abortion is much more dangerous for women than a normal
birth. Ask any obstetrician.

The third one, that the baby is dead before the delivery, is
inconsequential. If this was true (which it isn't, in most cases), then the
legislation simply wouldn't apply.

Every objection to a ban on partial-birth abortion fails completely. Then
why the vigorous resistance by pro-abortionists? Because there's more at
stake here than meets the eye. Partial-birth abortion is not just about
abortion; it's about much more.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

[1] Dec. 10, 1995.

[2] National Abortion Federation, "Later Abortions: Questions and Answers,"
The Abortion Rights Activist, p. 2.

[3] Cited in Douglas Johnson, "Facts on Partial-Birth Abortion," NRLC, Nov.
29, 1995, p. 3.

[4] NAF, "Later Abortions: Questions and Answers," p. 1.

[5] Statistic noted in Diane M. Gianelli, "Outlawing Abortion Method,"
American Medical News, AMA, Nov. 20, 1995, p. 70. Actual quote taken from
American Medical News audio tape transcript, on file with Barbara Bolsen,
AMN Editor.

[6] NRLC brief, "Senate Hearing Explodes Pro-Abortion Misinformation About
Partial-Birth Abortions," Nov. 28, 1995, p. 5; and "Facts on Partial-Birth
Abortion," NRLC, Nov. 29, 1995, p. 4.

[7] NAF, "Later Abortions: Questions and Answers," p. 2.

[8] Gianelli, p. 3.

[9] "Why, if it's dangerous to the mother's health to do this when your
intent is to deliver the baby alive, that this should suddenly become...the
safe method when your intention is to kill the baby?" Dr. Pamela Smith,
testimony to Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, cited in Johnson, p. 11.

[10] See Williams Obstetrics, the most widely used textbook used to train
obstetricians, p. 520-21, 865-66.

[11] Robin Abcarian, "Lifesaving Option or Criminal Conduct?", LA Times,
Nov. 26, 1995, p. E-1.

[12] Diane M. Gianelli, "Anesthesiologists Question Claims in Abortion
Debate," American Medical News, AMA, Jan. 1, 1996, p. 4; also, NRLC brief,
"Senate Hearing Explodes Pro-Abortion Misinformation About Partial-Birth
Abortions," Nov. 28, 1995, p. 3.

[13] Statement of Norig Ellison, M.D., before the Committee on the
Judiciary, United States Senate, Nov. 17, 1995.

[14] Quote taken from American Medical News audio tape transcript, on file
with Barbara Bolsen, AMN Editor.






>
> >It is the in-between time I have a problem with.  If there were a test to
> >determine human-hood, we could resolve the question.  Of course, the
definition
> >of human-hood would have to be established first, and that is what the
crux of
> >the argument is in the first place, isn't it?
> >Mushy
>
>   The definition is well established, the bible in genesis is very clear
that
> Adam became a living soul when he took his first breath. Under the law if
I baby
> never takes a breath, it`s still born., if it breathes then dies it`s a
infant
> death. This is used many times in cases of abandoned new borns, if the
lungs
> were inflated  the mother will be charged with murder for abandoning a
live
> baby, Other wise it was a still birth and the charge is abandoning a
corpse.
>   Life begins at birth, not at conception.

Wrong again, you can not have a human life with out conception.  Human life
begins at conception.

Unless you can magically make a human being just appear from nowhere.