Who said this?
More government control does not make for a better country, less government does.
Ronald Reagan. That does not mean I or he is or was for no laws and no regulation.
Hey Rep, how's that "porn, not corn" legislation coming? As my elected representative, I'd like you to finish one boneheaded endeavor before moving to the next, please.
The question is NOT WHEN life begins. That is a settled question; you can read about it in any medical textbook. We can't decide the biological facts; they are what they are. The real question for us is WHICH human beings will be granted rights of personhood and which will not. This is a LEGAL question that is decided by whoever is in power. In a democratic republic, we (the citizens) can grant or deny rights of personhood to whomever we choose. In the past, we have been EXclusive (as opposed to INclusive) when it came to granting these rights. For example, for many years we excluded certain human beings from rights of personhood based on the arbitrary criterion of skin color. If you were black, you were excluded. In order to justify this injustice, we manipulated the language to obscure the humanity of the intended victim class. We asserted a developmental criterion and declared that Blacks did not qualify for rights of personhood because they were a “subordinate and inferior class of beings.” Today, we exclude human beings based on the twin criteria of birth status and wantedness. If the child is BOTH unborn AND unwanted, you can kill that child. If the child is EITHER born OR wanted, you CANNOT legally kill that child.
By the way, it is easy to measure wantedness. If the child is presented by his mother to an abortionist for termination, that child is UNwanted and the abortionist can kill him. If the child has not been presented to an abortionist, it is assumed to be wanted and therefore worthy of legal protection. The recent case of Connor Peterson is an example of a child that was assumed to be wanted, because he had not been presented to an abortionist for termination. Because Connor was assumed to be wanted by his mother, killing him was a criminal act in California.
As a legislator, you must know that some of the things you're posting here are untrue. For instance, in your point #2, you say that "When a person does a heinous crime and beats up a pregnant woman and kills her and the baby it is a double murder," and yet, if one looks at the relevant statute, you'd see that that's only the case for viable fetuses.
Causing a woman to miscarry resulting in the death of a fetus before a fetus is viable is a felony, but it's not murder.
You also state that "This bill will give information to the state that is not available now on how many abortions are given each year." You must know that this is also not true. All abortions are reported to the state and that number is widely available.
Also, because of the strict legal guidelines in Tennessee that govern when and how pregnancies are aborted, doctors have to be quite sure of the age of the fetus.
So, if most of the things you are asking for are already reported to the state, what is it you're really after?
I, and others, have noticed that doctors are legally forbidden from informing the state of the names of women who've had abortions, but that, when the state issues a death certificate for a fetus who has been lost in a miscarriage, the parents names are reported to the state.
Are you attempting to find a way around the laws that prohibit you from accessing individuals' private medical records in order to compile yourself, or make it easier for others to compile, a list of the names of women who've had abortions?
Aren't you in fact attempting to find a way to make that part of a person's health information public? How is that not in conflict with federal HIPAA guidelines?
And regardless of how your constituents feel about abortion, what assurances do they have from you that this will be the only part of an individual's medical information you'd like to be privy to?
1. We give out death certificates to miscarried babies now. It is done on a weight determination basis. So in the eyes of the state the baby is (or was) a life.
Do you have any idea what a logistical nightmare that would be for miscarrying women and their doctors?
Look, I've had two miscarriages.
The first one was at 6 weeks--I hadn't even been to a doctor yet. Would I breaking the law by not getting a death certificate? How would one even prove I'd been pregnant to begin with, after the decline in hcg levels? Answer: they wouldn't. And, if I wouldn't be breaking the law for not declaring an early term loss, what does that say about when life begins? What about women that miscarry before they know they're pregnant? 50% of all pregnancies terminate within days of implantation--that's a medical fact, having to do with the delicate nature of genetic make-up: most of those "babies" have extra/too few chromosomes. That's just how human reproduction works.
And, even later in pregnancy? Last year, right on the cusp my second trimester. It was incredibly painful and gory. I miscarried at home. If the state needs to issue a death certificate, are you honestly suggesting that I would need to dig around in the bloody remains of my miscarried pregnancy to provide proof that it was a miscarriage in the correct "variable" range? After all, if I didn't dig around in the bloody, tissuey remains of my miscarried pregnancy, how would I prove that I was treating my fetus with "dignity?" And, you do realize that the medical community refers to miscarriage as "abortion" anyway, right? That's what the medical paperwork says when you miscarry: "aborted."
Do you actually know anything about miscarriage?
You are all very scary, especially Fletcher Armstrong. At some point in time people will look back on our culture aghast that we let men, elected officials for that matter, decide what is best for a woman. Right now it is disgusting. You should all be ashamed.
I look forward to the Rep's responses to these comments--the inaccuracy, the lack of depth, all of it.
Peter has no arguments to support the killing of human beings, so he attempts to change the subject by talking about my gender. Peter should learn that arguments have no gender. If it would make him feel better, I can introduce him to many women who will make the same arguments as me. What will he say then?
Peter says I am very scary. How can I scare anybody? I'm just a guy sitting at a computer. If I am a threat, it's only because my arguments make sense, and his are nonexistent.
I'm with Aunt B and Veronica. And: if we care about life, and documenting its loss, remember we need Iraq body counts,
for Iraqi civilians and military as well as all U.S. and other personnel!
And on children: what about after they are born, kids who die due to lack of medical insurance, food, etc. - things we certainly are an organized and rich enough country to provide even if their parents are broke?
Being pro-choice, I oppose the bill of course. I support the precedence and freedom of the life, the women and girls, already here.
Death certificates for aborted babies - This idea is brilliant and completely logical. I find it amazing how supposedly sane people can dismiss the destruction of human life as if it were nothing. It’s quite telling how, these same people freak out when the big lie might be exposed for what it really is – murder. The intentional stopping of a human heart at any stage of life is murder and in the case of abortion it is pre-meditated murder for hire.
The usual arguments are put forth, it’s a private matter, it’s my body, etc…. First of all, if murder were a private matter, then our prisons would be a lot emptier, as would divorce courts ladies (it would be a lot simpler and cheaper to abort an inconvenient wife than to go through a divorce and suffer a life long financial burden supporting that unwanted wife). Secondly, the “it’s my body” argument doesn’t work either, because when you have an abortion, you are not terminating your body, you are terminating the life of someone with totally unique DNA. If our courts can use DNA to positively identify a person as guilty or innocent of a crime, or as the father of a child in paternity cases, then they are endorsing the idea that DNA identifies a person, not some imaginary idea.
Not wanting to be inconvenienced, does not give someone the right to kill someone else. Sorry ladies, but biology dictates how we live as human beings. We need oxygen to live. It’s not a choice that we get to make. As civilized human beings, we accept that murder is wrong. It’s not a choice that we as individuals get to make without repercussions from society. When the Nazis performed experiments on and killed human beings it was considered heinous, but today, people advocate killing babies in the womb and using their cells to advance science. Where is there a difference between these scenarios?
As to the matter of Pro-Choice, why not call it what it is? Pro-abortion. Anytime an alternative is offered, the militant wing of the Pro-Abortion movement freaks out and attacks anything that breathes – unfortunately, their choice of target is primarily one that is unable to defend itself. Maybe they should try coming after someone their own size.
By the way, every woman has a choice and that is the one they make when choose to be sexually active. That’s the last choice, after that it’s up to luck, chance, God or whatever you subscribe to……
So I ask anyone that is Pro Life, what is the prison sentence for a woman that has a child aborted? What is the charge? First degree? Second degree? No one will answer that question.....
Another question that no one likes to answer is this: Who would Jesus bomb?
Rep - can you help me show where it is that TN does in fact issue death certificates for miscarriages? I can't find any information one way or the other. I see where the state defines a "Fetal death" but it is not clear that an actual death certificate is issued.
Brian - I would say that the doctor performing the abortion would be put on trial for first degree murder. The mother would be charged as a co-conspirator to murder. I do not see the relevance on who would Jesus bomb. Is anybody here advocating the bombing of abortion facilities? That would also be murder and punished by the law. Abortion clinic bombers have been prosecuted in the past for their crimes, but doctors have not. Lets change that!
Brian;
Are people on the side opposite all as illogical as you?
(Answer: No...but enough are that anyone who cannot see the glaring inconsistencies in the pro-aborticide movement needs to have their head examined.
Way to go again Rpe. Keep up the fine work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/1...r=1&
oref=slogin
New York Times! Wow.
D.C.
Over at Volunteer Voters they were asking for input. I imagine they got plenty. I hesitated to offer comment because I want to focus primarily on economic analysis. However, no issue escapes the sphere of economics does it?
My opinion will not likely add to the debate. There is the paradox no? To me it - when life begins and deserves protection - is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact and reason. Unfortunately, it is so difficult to discuss abortion reasonably.
I will say that Stephan Levitt, the University of Chicago economist or Freakonomics fame, had a great analysis of the issue.
Regardless of where I stand on a particular issue I appreciate a representative's initiative to provoke thought and discussion. Your bill does that.
To all pro-abortionists:
A very simple question......What do you see looking at an ultrasound? When we all saw blacks being sprayed with water cannons, we saw human beings being abused. When you look at an ultrasound there can be no doubt you are looking at a human. You must at least admit it is a baby in the womb. Do you think the pictures are all photoshops?
Many people -- and I am a mom with my own spiritual experiences and convictions -- believe that the soul, the spiritual essence -- if you believe in that sort of thing -- does not enter the body until the moment of birth. So when you define life, you need to go further and get to the essence of personhood.
Regardless of the definition of personhood, a female must be able to control her body and life. Without that primary freedom, there is no freedom at all. That is the reason I also oppose the military draft.
No one has the spiritual right to force another to have a child she does not want to have. And part of that essential value of and respect for the life already here is the fact that all pregnancies and childbirths are dangers to the life already here and do permanently alter the female's body and can kill her. You do not have the right to tell me what risks I will take with my health and my life.
You do not have the right to dictate the purpose of my life.
I have had three blighted ovums, that is where the egg splits and makes a pregnancy sac and starts to make a fetus, but it doesn't quite have the chromozones, and it's just an empty sac. However, your body thinks it's pregnant, you think you are pregnant - up until 6-8 weeks along. Then, your body aborts the tissue. There never was a fetus. Your HCG count stopped climbing and starts reversing. In case you don't know, it is supposed to double every two days. I am 39 now, diabetic with multiple health problems.
So, if a pregnant woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, but didn't even know she had a blighted ovum in the first place, and the procedure just ends up being a D&C, is she still going to be issued a death certificate, even though a death never occurred?
Will death certificates come with Plan B prescriptions?
What WOULD Jesus do in this situation? Use his energy to find ways to add shame, horror and stress to an already upset woman, or use his creativity, power and energy to find ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies (family planning clinics), and remove barriers to having healthy children (economic policy, health care & head start funding)?
The quintessential deadbeat parental act is an abortion. I know, I participated in one. A terrible mistake. Few have any problem identifying or jailing a deadbeat Dad, why not a deabeat Mom?
What additional info will we get? What is your vision for how that info will benefit Tennessee? How much extra will have to be budgeted to the Office of Vital Records? How much of your time have you spent/will you spend on the bill?
Donna, you have tried to justify your public policy position based on your religion (i.e., you believe that th soul doesn’t enter the body until the moment of birth). Frankly, I think religion is not helpful here, because neither you nor I can prove the question of when a soul enters the body. For that matter, we can’t objectively prove whether a soul EVER enters a body. Therefore, we should look at the issue of abortion based on objective fact and reason. It is an objective fact that the unborn child is both alive and human; it is a living human being. To address the question of whether that unborn child deserves protection or not, we have to depend on our reason. Your reasoning is weak.
You assert that a female must be able to control her body and life. Fair enough. Same should be true for a man, by the way. Yet there are conditions under which nearly all of us agree that the government can and should compel both men and women to give up some of this control over their own lives. One such condition is parenthood. As a parent, I am legally obligated to care for my child. I must use my body to go out and find a legal way to support the physical, emotional, and educational needs of my child. I must find a means of support, even though there is a certain amount of personal risk in just about any job I might find. The mother of my child also has that same legal obligation. That obligation exists for 18 years out of the first 18 years and 9 months of my child’s life.
The obligations or burdens or even risks of parenthood can never be used as an excuse to kill your own child. Yes, you have rights, but no right is absolute. In every situation except abortion, your rights cannot be used as an excuse for harming another human being. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose (or your child's nose) begins.
Would you believe that I am pro choice and not for abortion? Have you ever heard such a thing? I am for the right to have the choice........I myself would never want this to happen to anyone in my family but I don't get to choose what someone does or does not do.
As for prosecuting the doctor. It is not their decision to abort the baby. In that case, when someone shoots someone and kills them, should we prosecute the person who chose to shoot or the gun.
Pro lifers have it all wrong, trying to shut down the clinics/doctors. What pro lifers should be doing is promoting safe sex at early ages. More than likely though, most pro lifers are the same ones pounding abstience into the heads of young chlidren who will end up playing a game of "just the tip" in the backseat of their parents camry.
Brian - do we prosecute people if they are hired to kill another person? I believe we do, along with the person that hired them.
Abortion ends the life of a unique individual. That person has a right to life. Yes, the person depends on the mother to feed and care for him... so does a newborn baby. At what age should mothers no longer be allowed to kill their children?
Brian, if you are opposed to abortion, then Stephen Douglas was opposed to slavery. When he debated Abraham Lincoln over the issue of slavery in 1858, Douglas tried to argue that he was personally opposed to slavery--slavery was a bad thing--but he just thought the Southern states should have the right to choose whether to be slave states or free states. History would not let him get away with that little bit of subterfuge, and neither will we let you.
If you really believe this, Mr. Campfield, make darn tootin' sure that your sister/daughter and mother/aunt don't have none of them infernal 'bortions, even if'n it was yer brother/daddy who did the nasty. Whee-Doggies!
Only someone named fletcher would compare abortion to slavery.
Once again, no one can answer my question. If abortion is murder, what should the punishment be for the mother? No one will say what is right, put the mom to death. If a woman went and killed a 1 day old baby, what would you want? probation? Wait, I'm confused, is a one day old baby when it is conceived or after it is born. Anyhow, what if a woman kills a baby one day after it has left the womb? Electric chair? Lethal injection?
As a pro-life advocate, I do not support the death penalty. I stated in another post that the mother should be tried as an acomplice (sp?) to murder along with the doctor. I would support a long jail sentence for both.
But you support the war in Iraq, don't you, Jim? The death penalty for hundreds of thousands of civilians? Wanna go count the dead for death certificates down there?
Screw that. Put the mom to death! She is the real killer here.
Fletcher, actually I am not religious. I subscribe to no dogma. I have only my personal experience and observations and studies. I spent years studying Eastern religions. I like reading about physics: quantum mechanics, field theory, etc. I find those scientific discoveries and theories reflect my own "spiritual" experience and leanings. They are not antagonistic to each other.
Roe v. Wade came down to a determination of the constitutional right to privacy. I believe you will find that Campfield's bill here will be boiled down to that as well.
But, as I noted in a comment on the Volunteer Voters blog, this bill is a useful arrow in the quiver.
Since abortion seems to be a tenet of the faith for many commenting, I'm sure your hero Peter Singer's final solution [the baby can be killed up to 30 days past delivery] will be the logical next step for many of you pro-aborts. For those here who so love abortion, and you do love it so, if the mom changed her mind 7 days out, who are we to judge, shouldn't it be her choice.
Brian, you asserted that only I would compare abortion to slavery. Actually, Rev. Jesse Jackson compared abortion to racial injustice long before I did. His words: "That is why the Constitution called us three-fifths human and then whites further dehumanized us by calling us 'niggers'. It was part of the dehumanizing process. The first step was to distort the image of us as human beings in order to justify that which they wanted to do and not even feel like they had done anything wrong. Those advocates of taking life prior to birth do not call it killing or murder, they call it abortion. They further never talk about aborting a baby because that would imply something human. Rather they talk about aborting the fetus. Fetus sounds less than human and therefore abortion can be justified." (www.blackgenocide.org) Dr. Alveda King, the neice of Dr. Martin Luther King, also asserts the same comparison. Sarcasm is no substitute for a reasoned argument.
oh, it's so easy for a man to say things like this. Go touch a fetus in your hands and tell me it's a child.
Allie, with all due respect to you, arguments have no gender. Many women will make the same exact arguments that I have made. How will you respond to them?
In response to your admonition that I "go touch a fetus in [my] hands", I have a question. If I have actually held a fetus in my own hands, would that validate my arguments in your mind? If so, then let's talk. If not, then why did you bring it up?
As a Pro-Choice individual, I am often willing to debate abortion with other people who disagree with me. Many of the comments here though smack as illogical and lacking common sense.
Firstly, most people who are pro-choice do not believe that a fetus/embryo/unborn child/what have you constitutes a human life. By this I mean a living, thinking, sentient human being - a heartbeat signifies a working body, but this does not mean that what is growing in the womb is "alive" per se. You may disagree with this point of view, but comparing it to Nazi experiments against living, thinking, sentient human being is an unfair comparison.
Secondly, this is not about inconvenience for women, it is most often about being in a terrifying, frightening, psychologically and physically damaging situation that many are willing to risk their own lives rather than go through with the pregnancy. Dismissing this situation as mere "inconvenience" on the part of women is patronising and spiteful. Further more, it removes the woman's genuine human characteristics and motives - she becomes a selfish, cruel baby killer.
Considering the awful way women who have abortions in our society are treated, who on earth would gladly go through with one??? Removing the real-life trauma and devastation of the person involved smacks of point scoring rather than genuine concern, and thus diminishes many of the arguments you may make within the debate.
My main concern is the number of back-street abortions that will occur if such a legislation is passed, due to many women fearing the social ramifications. This will mean both abortions and too often dead women.
Calling people baby-killers, etc, is counter productive and cruel. Address the issues that cause women to get abortions - social conditioning and shame, financial insecurity, lack of free medical care, rape, incest, violence, etc etc etc - and you'll eliminate the need to have them in the first place. I'd also request that many of you drop the contempt for the women who find themselves in this situation - we're all far more likely to have open and productive dialogue if you do.
Katie, as a radically pro-life person, I’d like to agree with at least some of what you have said. You are right when you say that some women have abortions because they in terrifying, frightening circumstances. I would add that her plight is quite often the result of irresponsible or even predatory male behavior. Some women are threatened by their boyfriends with abandonment, “You get that thing taken care of our I’m out of here.” Even fathers will threaten their daughters, “You must have that abortion if you want to continue to live here.” I saw one report which documented coerced abortions on a large scale, and the authors suggested it might be as much as 60% of all abortions.
Ironically, the general availability of abortion enables the very male behavior that threatens these women. Irresponsible and predatory males want easy access to sex, but they will do whatever is necessary to avoid the responsibilities of their actions. Hence, when the woman becomes pregnant, he applies withering pressure for her to have the abortion. First, he uses the availability of abortion to pressure her to have sex, then he uses the availability of abortion to pressure her to rid him of his responsibilities. She gets stuck with the physical and emotional consequences. Once the abortion is done, he is free to repeat the cycle, either with her or with some other woman. Abortion has become a tool that some (perhaps many) men use to control women.
But here is one place we differ. You believe that the best outcome for this woman is to help her be complicit in the death of her unborn child. I simply disagree. I would suggest other alternatives: abstinence, male responsibility, adoption, or even perseverance through difficult life circumstances. None of these are easy. But we shouldn’t use violence as a way to solve difficult life problems.
I also agree that we should never be cruel or condemning to women who have had abortions. I freely admit that when I was in my early 20s, I could have easily rationalized an abortion. I could have done this because I had no idea what the unborn child was like and what abortion did to him. Most of us have been told nothing but lies about this; we’ve been told that the unborn child is not really a baby and abortion is not an act of violence. I can tell you that people who know the truth about abortion are much less likely to do it.
Finally, I would like to address your assertion that the unborn child should not be considered “alive” in the sense that it is thinking or sentient. OK, fine. I will agree that the unborn child has much less sentience than an adult human being. I get that. But why should we accept your assertion that sentience is the criterion that defines whether a human being deserves protection or not. Why sentience and not feeling pain? Why sentience and not viability? Why sentience and not birth? Why sentience and not first grade? There are any number of criteria we might use to grant or deny rights of personhood. Why should we accept sentience? Even if we do accept sentience as the measure of human value, then how much sentience is enough? After all, the newborn child also has much less sentience than an adult human being. Can we kill him, too? How do we measure sentience, and how do we know when somebody has enough of it? Until you can provide satisfactory answers to those questions, I offer a simple proposition: protect every human being, regardless of age, color, birth status, sentience, or whatever.
So Fletcher, would you support abortion in cases where the mother's life is endangered by continuing the pregancy? Hint: that's ALL cases; in most, the danger is very small, but it's never gone. If a foetus is a person, then it's a person that engages in a relentless, life-threatening assault on the mother for nine months - in any other context, the phrase "self-defense" would be at the top of the discussion. Sure it has no other option to survive, but should the mother, in the name of protecting life, be required to endanger her own?
In the clash between the rights of a potential person, not yet a viable organism, and a real living person, my sympathies lie with the latter.
Likewise, what about massively multiple pregancy? A few years ago in the UK, there was a case of octuplets in which all the doctors agreed that attempting to continue the pregancy would result in all eight dying - while aborting some of them would give some of the others a chance of survival. Britain's so-called pro-life groups were up in arms about it (including threats to the mother's life) - even those who agreed with the medical diagnosis advocated pursuing a course that they acknowledged would result in more foetal deaths than the abortions would. She continued the pregnancy. All eight died. Which course of action was really pro-life?
See there's no such thing as "pro-abortion" - pro-choice is the correct term, because the only position consistent to its members is that women should have sovreignty over their bodies, and who gets to use them.
The only position consistent to the "anti abortion" side is that women should be denied such sovreignty (heck, even anti-abortionism isn't consistent in the wake of Pat Robertson's statements about forced abortion in China) - so the correct term for them is "pro-coercion."
SunlessNick, yes, I support removing the baby (abortion, C-section, labor inducement, etc., as appropriate) in cases where the mother’s life is in imminent danger. This is a very, very small percentage of pregnancies. In these rare cases, the purpose of the abortion is to preserve life, not destroy it.
The case of multiple pregnancies to which you referred is irrelevant to the question before us. Yes, there are times when medical science will not allow us to save every victim. For example, a bus wreck or a military battle may create casualties too numerous for the medical resources available. They can’t save everybody, so they save who they can. In the case you referenced, pro-lifers obviously would not all agree. In my view, it gets back to the basic question: was the purpose of the proposed action, to preserve life or destroy it? (I will say, by the way, that it is wrong to knowingly set up situations where multiple pregnancies will be created and then destroyed.) But no matter what we might think about the ethical questions surrounding those octuplets, their unfortunate circumstance does not give you or anybody else the right to go out and kill the next child that happens to walk down the street — or the next 1.3 million, as the case may be. Just like when a bus wrecks and you can’t save all the passengers, it doesn’t give you the right to go out and kill the next motorist that happens to drive by.
If there is no such thing as pro-abortion, then you must also say that Stephen Douglas was not pro-slavery; you have to say that he was pro-choice. When Douglas debated Lincoln over the issue of slavery in 1958, he said that he was personally opposed to slavery, but he just felt that the Southern states should have the right to choose. He said these states should have sovereignty over what happened within their own borders. Contrary to your assertion, most historians today regard Stephen Douglas as pro-slavery, not just pro-choice.
You go, Brian. I am staunchly Pro-Choice yet not FOR having abortions. And whatever happened to the separation of church and state? Too bad the earth isn't flat so that all you pro-life harpies could roll off the edge and disappear.
Commenting by HaloScan
