Becoming Human Sooner? (Joe Lieberman's "rethinking" of Roe v. Wade is chilling in several ways)

Intellectual Conservative ^ | 29 December 2003 | Michael R. Bowen, M.D.

[Petronski]

Hey, thanks a bunch for this one. So much information and wit and wisdom in four paragraphs! I hope you don't mind if I apply some pings.

[Petronski]

Well, five paragraphs (duh), but still, how wonderful to see how the lies about the 'fetus' must be maintained in toto, lest some small admission expose the horror--in this case, Lieberman's backwards admission that we might have been killing humans all along (another duh).

[stylin_geek]

What I find most disturbing about the phrase "late-term abortion" is how it can also be applied to euthanasia of the old or infirm.

[Petronski]

What I find most disturbing about the phrase "late-term abortion" is how it can also be applied to euthanasia of the old or infirm.

Ah yes, the 'useless eaters' who are now being targeted by the ghoulish 'death with dignity' crowd.

God save the inconvenient ones!

[Tabi Katz]

Bravo!!!

Poor Joey will live to regret that slip!

[Amelia]

Lieberman explained that advances in medical science are pushing back to earlier and earlier stages the point at which a baby in utero (fetus, to you Democrats) can be sustained outside the womb. This means, said Lieberman, that what we once thought of as "early" abortions, in the beginning of the first trimester, before viability, really aren't as early as we thought, and that it may be time to abandon Roe's trimester-based division of abortions into "early" (good) and "late" (bad).

To me, this article is a prime example of some conservatives always seeing the glass as half-empty rather than half-full.

Instead of welcoming a re-opening of the debate and a chance to reduce the number of abortions (especially the really troubling late-term ones), the author takes the opportunity to bash Lieberman as immoral.

The problem is, the people who will agree with the author don't need to be convinced that abortion is wrong. The people who do need convincing will, I'm afraid, be put off by the author's critical and moralizing tone.

[ken5050]

I understand your point, but IMHO, the thrust of the article is to rail against Lieberman's hypocritical sanctimoniusness...to me, it's always been inconceivable that anyone who calls himself and orthodox Jew, evern a "modern" orthodox Jew, whatever the hell that is?...could support "choice", er..murder...any never be called on it publicly....ever see the pics or stories of Orthodox jews in America, with their 10 or so kids per family?..

[americafirst]

I agree with your point politically but not morally. Someday, society will look back on our killing of the unborn and wonder how in the world a civilized society allowed this. Not unlike how we look back on the Romans feeding Christians to the lions, or earlier this century when blacks were lynched as if they, like fetuses, were not human.

[Amelia]

I see what you're saying, but I think it's directed at all pro-abortion people and the Democratic party, as well as Joe Lieberman. It does have a couple of prime shots at Lieberman.

It looks to me as if the author is taking the opportunity to paint all abortion proponents as immoral hypocrites. I'm sure he feels that's a valid opinion; however, it will do nothing to advance the cause of reducing (and eventually eliminating) the number of abortions, whereas welcoming and following through with Lieberman's reasoning very well could.

[Amelia]

I agree with your point politically but not morally.

We can't make other people become moral, but we can work through the political system to try to eliminate practices we find morally offensive. I can't see throwing away an opportunity to do that.

[reed_inthe_wind]

I was thinking the same thing as you. But I am reminded of one or two priests that I have met along the way who try very hard not to force their beliefs into a utilitarian framework.

[ken5050]

And most chilling of all, Lieberman seemed completely unawers that he was pulling aside the pretty veil of Choice, exposing the bloody mess behind....

very powerful sentence...and an accurate indictment of Lieberman, IMHO..see, that's why the Choice group fights so hard to keep PBA's legal...once you admit that there's something, anything, wrong, with any abortion..you're forced to confront the obvious facts...those people, though evil, aren't stupid....the author pints out that Lieberman, if he isn't evil, is therefore, logically... stupid...

with regards to the issue you raise..thatis the desire to limit abortions as much as possible..I as one who is fervently pro-life...pose this question to you...assume that Bush gets to appoint a few SC justices, and Roe is overturned....as conservattives.we believe the issue is one best decided by the several states...so you'd have, maybe, 35 states impose a near total ban on abortions...yet the rest, like NY, Cal,and Mass..keeo the same laws on the books..possibly even more liberal interpetations...and you'd have millons of women travelling from, say, Texas or Miss...to Cal of NY to have an abortion...so, would the AG of Texas indict a Texas woman who went to NYC to have a second trimester abortion?...I don't think so..thus..who benefits..aside fro travel agents?...I don't really know the answer...indeed, I despair of the problem....

[Old Professer]

Wise men don't argue with fools.

[Hank Kerchief]

... morality: it is purely determined by what level of medical skill we have at the moment.

But isn't that exactly the principle used in the Terri Shiavo case? Fifty years ago there could have been no argument about whether her feeding tube should be removed or not. We did not have the medical skill to keep someone alive that way. Now suddenly, based entirely on the fact the medical skill makes it possible, not using it is called "murder." This is the very thing you are arguing against, that anything changes morally based on new medical skills. Either it does or it doesn't.

I am not supporting Joe Lieberman, or anything about his position, only pointing out, this particular argument does not fly.

Hank

[Old Professer]

The only work accomplished through the political system is the massive transfer of wealth.

[Alouette]

ever see the pics or stories of Orthodox jews in America, with their 10 or so kids per family?

Pics? I don't need pics. Ha ha ha.

[Amelia]

and you'd have millons of women travelling from, say, Texas or Miss...to Cal of NY to have an abortion...so, would the AG of Texas indict a Texas woman who went to NYC to have a second trimester abortion?...I don't think so..thus..who benefits..aside fro travel agents?

The point is, if you could get 2nd or 3rd trimester babies declared viable and therefore "off-limits" for abortion, part of that problem would disappear. Except, of course, for illegal abortions.

[Petronski]

This is the very thing you are arguing against, that anything changes morally based on new medical skills. Either it does or it doesn't.

The medical skills give us the power to save the life--a life which is just as human whether we can save it or not. It's these Brave-New-Worlders who want to define humanity by medical technology, not the pro-lifers. Oh, and in the case of abortion, we have always had the technology to nurture the 'fetus:' it's called the uterus.