Pro-choicers still whining about Law & Order

The pro-choice flip out over the recent Law and Order episode “Dignity” continues. Amanda Marcotte and Kathleen Reeves both weigh in at the RH Reality Check blog with assertions galore.

Reeves even claims the reality that some children survive abortions and are born alive is a “myth.”

Ever hear of Baby Shanice? RH Reality Check’s Emily Douglas even included the story about how abortion provider Pierre Jean-Jacques Renelique lost his license because of this horrible case in one of her posts. But little things like evidence and facts don’t get in Reeves’ way. She can just assert broad statements like this:

“You see, for OB/GYNs, the boundaries are clear. A baby is a baby, and a fetus is a fetus.”

What’s the boundary? And how is it clear for all OB/GYNs? Is it the complete expulsion of a living child or is it when the head of the child is out? Is she still a “fetus” if her entire body is out except for her foot? What should they do if a child is born alive?

Please tell us Kathleen because you seem to understand how every abortion provider in the world operates.

Marcotte’s piece in no better. She thinks that it’s often the case that TV shows like Law & Order “pander so much to conservatives.” Maybe she's watching a different kind of TV? I can't ever remember a TV show in which prolife views were given much more than a glossing over.

She thinks it’s an “implausible” story that a mother would try to self-abort later in pregnancy because she claims most women who self-abort attempt to do so early in pregnancy. Maybe she doesn’t understand what implausible means but just because the majority people do something at one time doesn’t mean it’s not believable that someone would do the same thing at a different time. That’s a little like saying it’s implausible for someone to brush their teeth at noon because most people brush their teeth in the morning and/or before bed. But who needs logic?

She also claims Jill Stanek’s testimony about children being born alive after abortion is “obviously false.” No evidence or explanation is provided.

Does Marcotte not realize how completely unpersuasive she is? Or maybe she doesn’t care? I guess if your audience is made up entirely of people who are so locked in their mentality that they think every claim prolifers make is false then you don’t need to bring any evidence to bear.