This thread is hilarious.

I agree. Your cooperation in keeping it so is appreciated.

Anyone who is familiar with U.S. abortion law knows that late term abortions have never been banned in the U.S. at a federal level.

Really? Are you saying only early stage abortions were prohibited? If late term abortions have never been banned, why is there legislation permitting them in certain circumstances (such as to save the mother’s life)? Or is it just that you meant to say there have always been circumstances in which a late stage termination can be carried out?

The point is, why are you saying she’s lying? Do you have anything to base your belief on?

Yes. Go back and re-read the comments. I explained why I felt why her testimony was false. At best she is repeating a lie told to her by others.

The whole basis here stinks of ignorance, but go ahead and drag out all the bible bashing you want, unfortunately it’s completely irrelevant.

Before you go bashing people’s credibility based on the notion that “people have argued (and lied) about abortion facts and figures for a long time.” so it must be true in this case right? Good grief, straw man, ad hominem attacks have nothing to do with the point. The point is, why are you saying she’s lying? Do you have anything to base your belief on?

Why don’t we care about adults’ rights before they are born?

The opposition to abortion never phrases the question like this. In the case of Gianna Jessen we are talking about an adult. In fact I would argue that the reason babies and children are special is their capacity to grow into adults. This seems testable. Whilst out with friends roll around on the ground screaming, vomiting and soiling yourself and see what the reaction is. The whole aim of parenthood is to remove the anti-social behaviour of the newborn infant to integrate it into human society.

So why talk in terms of babies or children but never adults? The concept of an unborn adult might seem ridiculous, clearly an embryo or foetus isn’t an adult. Neither is it a child. It isn’t even a baby which is one reason we have words like foetus or embryo. This is important if you think that rights vary with development. For instance we don’t give children the vote. Older children may be considered to have rights to privacy that younger children lack. If you accept that children have different rights from adults then it’s not unreasonable to ask if foetuses or embryoes have a different set of rights too.

The next problem is the assumption that people don’t care. The time that Heather, Lee and TW have spent discussing it shows this assumption is incorrect. People clearly do care, at least in the UK.

Where I would say she is wrong (and I’d use the word mistaken rather than lying) is where she thinks and being anti-abortion is a Christian position. That’s because I’ve read Exodus 21:22-23, Leviticus 27:6, Numbers 3:15-16 and Matthew 5:17-20. God doesn’t count someone as a person till one month after birth. Fortunately I’ve not met any Christians who take those bits of the bible seriously.

What does being pro-life or pro-choice have to do with heather’s post?

Quite a bit really. The problem is anti-choicers (pro-life is a misnomer, both sides are pro-life) have a tendency to exaggerate the issues involved. I am not suggesting the pro-choicers are whiter than white, but (so far) the balance is on their side.

The girl in the video is not lying– or she would have been discredited by now.

Not at all true. As I said previously she may even be saying what she thinks is the truth. My position, and I suspect Heathers’ as well, is that at best her testimony is atypical and indicative of a series of other, possibly criminal, activities that took place.

As you request I will dwell any further as your position on the matter, you are correct it is (largely) irrelevant.

If we look at the blog post cited in Heather’s contains the following quote which it claims is from Gessen’s testimony:

“Generally the practice at the time….and up until 2002 was to end the life of an abortion survivor by strangulation, suffocation, leaving the baby to die, or throwing the baby away.

That is a lie. It makes a broad reaching claim about something being general practice from 1977 to at least 2002 when it wasn’t. It was illegal in 1977 and it was illegal in 2002. The 2001 legislation was, largely, superfluous but it isn’t the only example of legislation to prohibit things already prohibited. The 2001 legislation was there to clarify the states position, but the position was the same in 1977.

The testimony is second-hand (at best) from Gessen, she has no idea what actually happened and relies on what she is told by her family and her community. This does not mean it is a lie, but it also does not make it true.

She is not an abortion survivor. No abortion took place. Her testimony is worded in such a manner as to trigger an emotive response in people who listen to it. Her testimony is worded in a manner that appears to have been coached and prepared for the very purpose of distorting how the events are perceived by the listener/reader. This is not an example of how people talk naturally, and as such makes me suspect there is lying involved. As I said, she may be telling what she thinks is the truth. Doesn’t mean it is though.

One last point, the blog post Heather cited begins with:

Why don’t we care about children’s rights before they are born?

What a farcical question. Pro-choicers care about “life” just as much as the anti-choicers.

You’ve distracted from that issue by engaging in a “generic attack” against pro-life people (and now again by making this about which side i’m “for”).

I don’t think distraction is necessary to defend your position.

You could just admit your error and then jump into a discussion of how you think the video is ineffective.

For some reason when a post gets more than a few comments, the blog eats anything with a URL in. We haven’t worked out how to solve this yet.

I will address your points with a new post to keep things cleaner.

The rant against anti-abortionists was pretty generic, this is a blog with around 400 readers a day so, while the post addressed points in your comment it was still my opinion.

You didn’t need to say anything about abortion itself, your position is demonstrated by your choice of websites for research and the general angle of your comments. Avoiding taking a public position is not a valid position.

The point of my first comment was not to defend pro-lifers or anti-abortionists. My point was to show to point out that babies born alive after attempted abortions were left to die and given “comfort care.”

I didn’t say anything about abortion itself. I think it’s revealing that you end this post with a rant against pro-lifes/anti-abortionists.

Peace out. Happy New year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4500022.stm
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_reports&docid=f:hr186.107