George Will on Justice Kennedy

"In 1992, before delivering the Supreme Court's ruling in an abortion case, Justice Anthony Kennedy stood with a journalist observing rival groups of demonstrators and mused: "Sometimes you don't know if you're Caesar about to cross the Rubicon or Captain Queeg cutting your own tow line." Or perhaps you are a would-be legislator, a dilettante sociologist and a free-lance moralist, disguised as a judge."

Ouch.

Read the rest.

I'm going to eventually try to round up quotes around the blogsphere/columns regarding Kennedy and the Supreme Court's decision in Roper v. Simmons.

What really happened at the UN?

I find it interesting the different ways that pro-choice and prolife blogs/groups are discussing what happened at the United Nations regarding Beijing Platform and women's rights. Jessica at Bush v. Choice informs us that

The Associated Press reports today that “under intense global pressure” the US dropped it’s anti-choice amendment at the United Nations. Whew.

But of course they couldn’t give up everything; the administration still wanted to keep a line in that said that the Beijing Platform must not “create any new international human rights.” (Which could potentially mean abortion)

At the same time, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute is reporting that

"Many countries and abortion proponents this week reaffirmed that the Beijing Platform for Action did not create a right to abortion."

and

"Several other pro-abortion groups present at the meeting applauded, and their members reiterated that the Beijing documents do not create the right to abortion."

David Freddoso from CFHRI's The Thing Is blog has more on the behavior of UN delegates.

How Pro-Choicers Argue: Part 9

Intro, Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven, Part Eight

Confusing Parts and Wholes

One of arguments that I find most odd from some in the pro-choice camp goes something like this:

If an embryo is alive then both human sperm and egg cells are alive as well. Sperm and egg cells are obviously not the same as grown human beings in the same way that embryos aren't the same as grown human beings.

This example shows how pro-choicers can confuse parts and wholes. Sperm and egg cells are merely parts of larger, whole human organisms (namely male and female human beings) like my hand or arm is part of me while the unborn are not parts of other organisms but are whole human organisms unto themselves.

It is true that the unborn are smaller and less developed than born human beings but their size and stage of development does not change what they are. They are still whole human organisms regardless of whether they are small and less developed.

I've even talked with one pro-choicer who was so desperate not to lose an argument that he asserted that sperm and egg cells were organisms unto themselves and that humans reproduced asexually to produce sperm and egg and then egg and sperm mated to produce an organism (the embryo) which was an organism until she attached to her mother and was then only part of the larger female organism (the mother) until separation when she again became a whole organism. Needless to say, confusing parts and wholes can lead people to outlandish positions.

A 3 minute debate on abortion

Here.

Hat tip : Amigo's Place

Strolling in the Evangelical Neighborhood

This week I visited a blog by a resident of British Columbia named Tim Thompson. This post has Tim's opinion on abortion and led me to a great article in the National Review about Harvard and life issues that I had some how previously missed.

Here Tim discusses his former confusion with the pronunciation of the word "blog."

I also enjoyed this post. Keep up the good work Tim.

Here's how it happened

Andrew Sullivan can at times be interesting but his latest column on abortion in Time makes me wonder about a few things.

He says, "According to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control, since 1990 the number of reported legal abortions dropped from 1.4 million a year to 853,000 in 2001. The number of abortions for every 1,000 live births dropped from 344 to 246.

How did this happen? No one is quite sure....."

Gosh Andrew. Did you actually check the stats or read the CDC report? Did you actually ask anyone? Are there editors at Time? Most people who know a thing or two about abortion statistics or who've read the report know that the # of abortions in the CDC's latest report and reports from a few previous years are so much lower because they don't include a couple of states, most notably the most populous state in America - California - where approximately 250,000 abortions take place every year.

Andrew also has trouble understanding why some prolife groups aren't ecstatic about supporting a bill that gives more money to family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood, provides no money to programs that stress abstinence only education and that states emergency contraception does not cause an abortion when no one is really sure if EC does cause abortions or not.

UPDATE: I should add that abortions per year have gone in the last 15 years by approximately 300,000 abortions from 1990 to 2005 due to a combination of things. Prolife legislation, something Sullivan doesn't mention, being a main contributing factor. The national number of abortions in this country has not been below 1 million since the mid-70's.

Revisiting Lincoln

I've been reading Natural Rights and the Right to Choose by Hadley Arkes and he points to an old argument by Abraham Lincoln used to discuss slavery that I've heard paraphrased and I thought I'd post it here.

You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then: the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own.

You do not mean color exactly? - You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own.

But, say you, it is a question of interest; and, if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.

Which arguments in favor of abortion fit this mold? Size, dependence on others, location, degree of development, and brain function are a few I could think of.

Which arguments for killing Terri Schiavo by starving/dehydrating her to death fit this mold?

Promoting Adoption? Heavens No!

The blogger at Planned Parenthood's Saveroe.com is up in arms that the state of Florida is working to promote and encourage - get this horrors of horrors - adoption.

She spews forth:

"Jeb Bush is putting four million dollars into a new program that will allow women with unintended pregnancies to call a toll-free hotline to be directed to the crisis pregnancy center near them. There, they won't be given information about abortion — other than how "dangerous" or "wrong" it is — but will instead be steered toward adoption. Floridians' tax money will pay to have pregnant women lobbied by a quasi-governmental agency to choose an "abortion alternative." Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Moreover, it really sounds like "help," no? What it definitely doesn't sound like is an effort to give women the resources they'd need to make the decision to take the pregnancy to term and keep the baby."

Saveroe's blogger would prefer that this $4 million go instead to family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood because it's not like Planned Parenthood doesn't get plenty of tax dollars as it is. Their latest annual report (page 22) indicates they received $265.2 million from the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. Planned Parenthood provides no adoption services but are bemoaning Florida's plans to spend $4 million to promote adoption?

We've been hearing from NARAL that pro-choicers want to reduce abortion but when a plan to promote adoption (something that could reduce the # of abortions) is introduced, Planned Parenthood grumbles.

Another interesting tidbit is that Saveroe's blogger goes after Jeb Bush when the state's Lieutenant Governor Toni Jennings, unveiled the plan.

HT: Dawn Eden

Prolife views around the blogsphere

It looks like Naaman and I are on the same page.

Emily at After Abortion tells us how pro-choice bloggers are upset that a Catholic Church in Colorado is burying the remains of unborn children.

I think I think John Cipriani gets it right when he asks in the comments section at Third Wave.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but abortion supporters believe the fetus is just so much tissue...right? So, why should it matter what happens to it post-abortion? It shouldn't, and the hoopla over all this is an implicit admission that it's something more than that.

Richard at Blogs for Terri discussing the circumstances around the changing of Florida's law to include of feeding someone as a "life prolonging procedure."

Planned Parenthood is featuring the story of a pro-choice activist.

Montoya-Humphrey's politics took a personal turn when, at 17, she was sexually assaulted and became pregnant. Growing up American Indian — and on a predominantly Catholic reservation — meant that, because of her personal cultural and religious beliefs, Montoya-Humphrey did not feel she could choose abortion for herself. But her personal choice never detracted from her commitment to protect the right to choose for others. In 2000, having miscarried, she took time off from school to recover, returned to New Mexico, and began volunteering at New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL and in local tribal schools.

This is an extremely sad story but it begs the question of what cultural and religious beliefs did she hold that made her feel she didn't want to abort yet at the same time allow her to advocate and work for organizations who advocate for abortion.

Still asking why?

Joanna Veth at World Mag's blog points out why no pro-choicers are willing to step up to the plate and answer the question - "Why should there be less abortions?"

Some might see this as a decided shift in the terms of debate, a significant achievement for the pro-life cause. That's why I'm skeptical. Mr. Sullivan blithely ignores the intellectual and philosophical difficulty of switching from the position that abortion is a positive good, an important civil right, and an essential component of "women's health care" to treating abortion as, as he puts it, "a profound moral choice." If you support abortion, how can you agree that we need less of a good thing, less "health care," and fewer people exercising a civil right? Once you concede that we "should" have less abortion, then you concede ground to the contention that abortion is not a good thing, that it is, in fact, a "bad thing."

Embryology quote of the week

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."

[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

The Usual Suspects

The ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights are at it again.

According to the Detroit News, they've filed a lawsuit to challenge Michigan's Legal Birth Definition Act, which defines legal birth at the time when any non-severed portion of a child is visible outside her mother. The goal is to define legal birth in order to ban partial-birth abortion by declaring it to be infanticide.

As usual, the opponents of this law are full of baloney.

The News states that, "The law's critics say it is deceptive, extreme and would prohibit virtually any method of abortion.

The Rev. Mark Pawlowski, CEO of Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said "this radical law goes far beyond any other legislation in the country, threatening women's ability to obtain even a first-trimester abortion and, in some instances, preventing doctors from treating miscarriages."

Read the law. "Reverend" Pawlowski is obviously lying or has never read the law.

The law plainly states that "A physician or an individual performing an act, task, or function under the delegatory authority of a physician is immune from criminal, civil, or administrative liability for performing any procedure that results in injury or death of a perinate while completing the delivery of the perinate under any of the following circumstances:

(a) If the perinate is being expelled from the mother's body as a result of a spontaneous abortion...."

So how does this law prevent doctors from treating women who are having miscarriages aka spontaneous abortions? The law clearly states that a physician is immune from liability if the woman is having a miscarriage.

What first trimester abortions involve children whose non-severed body parts are visible outside the mother's body?

If I was pro-choice I'd be completely embarrassed by the fact that one of my movements leaders is completely ignorant of a law he is commenting on or is obviously lying.

Movie Potential, Outrage, and Privacy

Wesley Smith has a column in the Weekly Standard on the missed potential of the Oscar-winning movie Million Dollar Baby.

Rick at Stones Cry Out asks "Where is the Outrage" over Howard Dean's recent comments about how the domestic policy of the Democrats (abortion on demand included) is good and they are fighting against evil. My feeling is that most conservatives expect this kind of thing from Dean. We know that what he really believes so we're not terribly surprised by it. But I think Rick has a point in that even if we're not surprised, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged.

What happened to welcoming prolife Democrats? Dean is now calling prolife pastors who speak out against abortion "intolerant."

A bunch of pro-choice blogs have commented on Phil Kline, Kansas' Attorney General, and his attempts to see if Kansas abortionists broke the law by performing abortions after 22 weeks and hoping to protect young girls (10, 11, 12, and 13) who have been sexually assaulted. They're furious that Kline would dive into the privacy of these women/girls. Yet none of them as far as I've seen has commented on abortionist George Tiller and how he gives his clients information out to his fundraising organization. They noticeably have also not mentioned the recent death of a woman at Tiller's clinic.

Do you think girls who are 11, 12, and 13 would prefer to continually be raped because an abortionist won't tell the authorities about the abuse or that authorities examine an abortionists records and try to find the men who are sexually assaulting them?

UPDATE:
Another one - Captain Ed on Hollywoodites trying impose their will on Rhode Island Democrats.

This is a science textbook?

I came across this webpage that has a chapter from a textbook called Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert while looking in the comments section of a pro-choice blog. Gilbert is a professor at Swarthmore College.

I find this to be the oddest chapter in any biology textbook that I've ever seen. Instead of focusing on what science tells us about when life begins, Gilbert's chapter introduction asserts that, "A key point in the debate rests on the way in which we choose to define the concepts of humanity, life and human life. What does it mean to be alive? What does it mean to be human? Is a zygote or an embryo alive? Is a zygote or an embryo a human being? These are intricate philosophical questions that often incite intense debate, for their answers are used as evidence in the answers to questions about the moral status of a zygote, embryo or fetus.

"The question of when human life begins has been pondered throughout history and in a multitude of cultural contexts. The "answer" is fluid, in that it has been changing throughout history, because any answer about when human life begins is deeply integrated with the beliefs, values and social constructs of the community or individual that drew the conclusion. Throughout history there have been several "answers" to the question of when human life begins, but the only consistency among the answers is that they are always changing as social contexts change, religious morals fluctuate, or new knowledge about the process of embryo development is obtained."

For an embryologist to claim that when something is alive or what species it belongs to are questions for philosophy shows me that a certain embryologist has allowed his philosophical and political views to undermine his scientific work. Who really thinks that whether an organism is a rat or a human or a amoeba or a duck is a question for philosophy? Who really thinks that whether a human being is alive or dead is a question for philosophy?

Gilbert's drafty logic seems to be that because various cultures with no to very little scientific knowledge about fetal development had differing opinions about when life begins that therefore the "answer is fluid" and not some how attainable through science.

It is also extremely odd because the first paragraph of Gilbert's book says, "Between fertilization and birth, the developing organism is known as an embryo. The concept of an embryo is a staggering one, and forming an embryo is the hardest thing you will ever do(emphasis mine)." Gilbert then goes on to explain how difficult it is for you to build yourself.

How can a developing organism possibly not be alive? How can an organism that is growing and developing itself somehow not be alive? Do things that aren't alive develop? Don't we have to be alive to grow and develop? How can you be a human being now but at some prior point in your development be something other than a human being. It makes absolutely no sense. Gilbert is well aware that embryos are alive and that human embryos are in fact human beings.

His "When Does Human Life Begin" chapter then examines the views of a variety of historic cultures regarding abortion and how those views influenced their perception of when life begins or vice versa (Gilbert never explains why the opinions of ancient people with extremely little scientific knowledge about embryology is important). After that Gilbert examines how different "scientific" perspectives vary on when life begins and asserts that "contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins."

The first view Gilbert examines is the metabolic view. He cites no scientist that holds this view which isn't surprising because this view holds that "Both the sperm and egg cells should individually be considered to be units of life in the same respect as any other single or multicellular organism." Only a complete quack of a scientist would actual believe egg and sperm cells (parts of larger organisms - like hands, fingers, toenails, etc.) should be given the same respect as whole organisms.

The second view that Gilbert examines is the genetic view which is actually a scientific position that he summarizes as, "The genetic view takes the position that the creation of a genetically unique individual is the moment at which life begins." Gilbert, however, seems to not like this view because he raises numerous philosophical objections (something he doesn't do for most of the other views).

He continues with the embryological view which "states that human life originates not at fertilization but rather at gastrulation. Human embryos are capable of splitting into identical twins as late as 12 days after fertilization resulting in the development of separate individuals with unique personalities and different souls, according to the religious view. Therefore, properties governing individuality are not set until after gastrulation." This is a philosophical view loosely based on science not a scientific view. If something is developing how is it not alive? If adult humans had the ability to twin, would that mean that we weren't alive until that ability ceased? Are flat worms not alive because we can cut one flat worm in two and get two flat worms?

Gilbert then summarizes a couple more philosophical views (which I might get to later - this post is long enough) which he labels scientific views and then summarizes one view that he actually admits is philosophical (self-consciousness makes us human beings).

Gilbert concludes by saying, "However, understanding the basis for societal moral standards appears to be the key to discerning how to approach the question of when human life begins. Science has not been able to give a definitive answer to this question.....The moments of fertilization, gastrulation, neurulation, and birth, are then milestones in the gradual acquisition of what it is to be human. While one may have a particular belief in when the embryo becomes human, it is difficult to justify such a belief solely by science."

How is this a science textbook? When life begins is a matter for societal moral standards? What an assertion! Questions of what something is biologically aren't questions for philosophy or sociology, they are obviously questions for biology. It seems that Gilbert doesn't like the answers that biology has given him and has allowed his political opinions on abortion to influence his writing.

I will try to write later about Gilbert's cheap shots at prolifers (he calls us anti-abortion activists) and the use of images of unborn children in the womb.

UPDATE:Serge has beaten me to the punch.

Another Hero of Choice

The Detroit Free Press and Click on Detroit reported that a Michigan abortionist, Rodolfo Finkelstein, was arrested in September of 2004 for molesting 3 patients. LifeNews reports that on February 25, a preliminary hearing was held.

The Daily Oakland Press reports, "Much of the testimony was graphic, detailing alleged inappropriate touching and penetration of a now 21-year-old woman who reportedly sought out Finkelstein for a second trimester abortion last summer."

The old Free Press article states, "The women told investigators that Finkelstein created opportunities to be alone with them, police said. He allegedly made sexual remarks -- such as "Don't you want me?" -- and then kissed and fondled the women, according to investigators; in one case, the woman was digitally penetrated."

Finkelstein has been free on bond since September and has most likely still been performing abortions for the last 5 months.

Three more weeks

Blogs for Terri is reporting that Terri will be given at least 3 more weeks to live. However, Judge Greer has ruled that "absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1:00 p.m. on March 18, 2005.

They are also linking to this column by Kevin McCullough.

Why some people are pro-choice?

The more I talk with pro-choice people on the internet or read pro-choice blogs, the more I realize that many of these pro-choice aren't very informed about the things they are talking about - especially with regards to fetal development. Jill at Third Wave is a perfect example. In her piece on embryonic stem cell research, she asserts, "although I can't concede that an embryo, which is a fertilized egg and not even a fetus, is the moral equivalent to a living, breathing human being."

A human embryo killed for her stem cells is not a fertilized egg. A fertilized egg or zygote is a human being made of one cell. You couldn't really create a pluripotent stem cell line from a single-celled organism whose one cell happens to be totipotent. The embryos that are destroyed for their stem cells are 5-7 days old and are organisms of around 100 cells.

Jill then claims that the argument that "adult stem cells are more successful because they have cured people while embryonic stem cells have not" can be put to rest. Why? She links to this article in the NY Times about a researcher that hopes to use embryonic stem cells to cure paralysis in humans. Somehow she thinks that one researcher hoping to help paralysis in humans with embryonic stem cells is proof enough to dispel the fact that adult stem cells have been much more successful in treating a variety of ailments.

Jill seems to be unfortunately ignorant of the use of olfactory stem cells to help those afflicted with paralysis by doctors in Portugal.

Just when you thought Planned Parenthood couldn't get any worse

Planned Parenthood's sex site for teens (and younger), www.teenwire.com is featuring an article with a link from their front page regarding statutory rape and underage girls having sex with older men. One of the links in the article was to a site called Age of Consent, which seems to be run by pedophiles (which is why I'm not linking to it directly). Dawn Eden discovered the article yesterday and posted on it and the link to the Age of Consent web site.

Since then the paragraph that included the link to the Age of Consent web site has been taken down. Paul at Catholic Cadet was kind enough to go cache diving and found the original article. He has posted it here.

How many children accessed this link to the Age of Consent web site and then clicked on other pages and found "dozens upon dozens of articles offering justification for having sex with children and viewing child pornography?"

Also notice how the author's name has changed from Terry Miller Shannon to Juhie Bhatia. Maybe Terry Miller Shannon didn't want her career ruined. She has her own website and has written numerous other articles for the Teenwire site.

Infants and Life Support

Here's a story that is somewhat similar (the infant is on life support while Terri is not) to Terri Schiavo's case but has garnered much less attention.

A woman in Texas named Wanda Hudson is fighting against the hospital to keep her infant son named Sun on life support. Sun was born with "thanatophoric dysplasia, a genetic condition characterized by extremely short limbs, a narrow chest, small ribs and underdeveloped lungs. Infants usually are stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure. There have been rare documented cases of survivors, however."

A week ago, the Judge William C. McCulloch said, "I'm not saying whether they can or can't, but I am saying that they are not restrained. I am no longer prohibiting the hospital from removing Sun from life support."

Another article quotes John Paris, a Jesuit priest who teaches medical ethics at Boston College and has written extensively on the subject: "No judge has ever ordered the cessation of treatment while the baby is still alive," said. "Never."

Strolling in the Neighborhood

I'm going to try to make it a weekly habit to link to other another blog on the Evangelical Blogroll that I've never visited before. I've been meaning to do this for some time but have failed.

Today I visited The Banty Rooster by blogger Brian Mattson. Some posts that I enjoyed especially include Are Science & Theism Antagonistic? and his post on Powerline's assessment of Hillary.