One of Heather’s recent posts (Lies make the baby Jesus cry<\/a>) has attracted a few comments. This is odd because most of our readers rarely comment (shame on you) but in some respects unsurprising because the post was on the constantly emotive topic of abortion. In a nutshell, Heather expressed some doubt on the “testimony” presented by an anti-abortion website which described very late term and post-birth “abortions<\/em>” (murder to normal people) as if they were regularly carried out.<\/p>\n The source had a statement which read: “Generally the practice at the time\u2026.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.” Heather quite rightly (IMHO) pointed out that this was most certainly nonsense. Strangling a baby after birth is not an abortion.<\/p>\n Anyway, one of the commenters (Lee) has brought up a few points<\/a> that I felt needed to be elevated beyond the comment thread and given a post all of their own:<\/p>\n Aren\u2019t you talking about an old issue? The girl in the video was born in the 70\u2019s\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Got to answer this yes and no. This is an old issue in that people have argued (and lied) about abortion facts and figures for a long time. The website Heather addressed stated this practice continued until 2002 (old only in internet time). The post itself was made on 17 December 2008, that isn’t even old in Internet time.<\/p>\n The woman in the video was born in 1977 (still not “old”) and yes, US Abortion law has changed between then and now. The “landmark” Roe vs Wade<\/em> was in 1973 and allowed for an abortion to take place up to three months into the pregnancy. This is not final term and is not post-partum.<\/p>\n Killing a baby after it has been born is now, and was then, murder. In 1977 it was illegal to terminate a baby who was about to be born naturally, unless a doctor stated the mother’s health was at risk (Doe vs Bolton<\/em>). You can argue that “corrupt” doctors would sign off on anything being a risk to allow a late term abortion but that is a whole different discussion – and can never be prevented unless you rate the mothers life as subordinate to the unborn child.<\/p>\n Maybe I misunderstood the point of your post.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It seems likely, but I actually think you got the point.<\/p>\n It seemed to me you were implying that the girl in the video is lying about the circumstances of her birth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Yep. If Heather wasn’t implying this, she should have been.<\/p>\n Now it gets fun:<\/p>\n I watched the video (thanks again for the link), it seemed interesting, she didn\u2019t seem to be lying\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ok. You watched it and thought she was telling the truth. I watched it and thought she was lying. Where do we go from there?<\/p>\n People lie for all kinds of reasons and people will also present a lie as the truth once they have become conditioned to believe it. If the woman in the video was brought up to think they were the circumstances around her birth, she will believe it with all her heart and can easily pass a polygraph. It doesn’t make it the truth though.<\/p>\n I did some research.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So did I. This is why I think there is a healthy dose of lying for jesus going on here.<\/p>\n Not extensive\u2026<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Maybe you should try to do some more extensive research. False modesty is not a virtue.<\/p>\n I\u2019m just a blog reader, but it was pretty easy to find information that proved what the girl in the video claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I can search the internet and find proof the Earth orbits the Sun. I can find proof the Apollo moon landings were a hoax and proof that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is false. Doesn’t make any of them true. What she describes is illegal, and was illegal in 1977. Who was prosecuted following this? Where are the court records of the trial?<\/p>\n I suppose lots of other people would have proved her birth certificate (signed by the abortionist) and her medical records wrong by now if she was lying.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n How? Show me her medical records detailing her birth. Her birth certificate would have been signed by a doctor just like everyone else, it wont have “Abortionist” in big letters after his or her name. Equally, claims like this – which hit the emotional triggers of lots of people who want<\/em> it to be true, rarely get subjected to scrutiny.<\/p>\n Crucially<\/strong>, read \/ listen to what is actually said. The woman claims she was born alive before the “abortionist” arrived and was transferred to a hospital. Her records will begin there. She (and her parents) can make any claims they want about the precursor events.<\/p>\n The claims are unverifiable. They are improbable based on law at the time. They are unlikely based on human nature. What conclusion do you draw from that?<\/p>\n Are you saying that these kinds of failed abortions didn\u2019t happen, or don\u2019t happen? (now there is a law against letting infants die if they survive an abortion\u2026so hopefully they don\u2019t happen anymore).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n “Failed abortion” is a wide-reaching phrase. Abortions are carried out in the first trimester (and were in 1977) so it is monumentally unlikely a natural, live and viable birth could take place while in the abortion clinic waiting room. I would be surprised if you honestly thought that US hospitals in the 1970s left babies to die.<\/p>\n The US congress took it seriously: The link to the Right to Life website speaks volumes as to the selected choices of information sources. The fact that Congress were convinced to “take it seriously” in 2001 doesn’t lend much support. The blog Heather referenced said this was still going on in 2002 and, there is a tendency to pass legislation on things that are already prohibited if there is enough political pressure to do so. With abortion there is certainly the political pressure.<\/p>\n It does raise one big set of questions though. Prior to the legalisation, and regulisation, of abortions how many babies were left to die, how many were born then strangled, how many mothers died due to complications, how many women died in back street abortions? (etc). Anti-abortionists are not “Pro-lifers” if the mother’s health is sacrificed for the baby. Banning abortion does not make it go away.<\/p>\n If you really want to reduce abortions, without going down the dreaded road of contracption, then plough all your funds into making society better for the parents. Improve healthcare, improve education, improve social supports – just be ready for when a certain section of society realise they get paid for having kids and breed like rabbits. Despite what the anti-abortionist propoganda claims, 99% of abortions are not “lifestyle choices” made by people who feel a child will cramp their demon-worshipping activities.<\/p>\n
\nBorn-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 [Linked to <\/a>http:\/\/www.nrlc.org\/federal\/Born_Alive_Infants\/BAIPA_%202001_HJC_report.pdf<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\nShare this:<\/h3>