Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The liberal war on science: Abortion edition

Liberals not only coined the expression "War on Science," they seem to be the ones engaged in it.

The "War on Science" was a term invented by liberals to use against conservatives. It was conservatives who have a troubled relationship to the material facts. But in a congressional hearing on a bill that would ban abortion in the last four months of pregnancy except in the case of danger to the life of the mother. As John McCormack at the Weekly Standard describes it:

During the hearing, [Rep. Jerrold] Nadler called the bill "facially unconstitutional" because he said it would ban abortions prior to viability, the point at which a baby can survive long-term outside the womb, and the point at which the Supreme Court has ruled abortion bans may be enacted.

But medical studies show that Nadler is factually wrong: Some babies born 20 weeks after conception--the point at which the bill would ban most abortions--can survive long-term outside the womb. "In June 2009, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported a Swedish series of over 300,000 infants," Dr. Colleen Malloy testified before Congress in 2012. "Survival to one year of life of live born infants at 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 weeks postfertilization age was 10%, 53%, 67%, 82%, and 85%, respectively."

Tsk, tsk. Read the rest here.

24 comments:

Martin S. said...

Centralising liberal technocratic governments ruin everything they touch. Every useful institution is to be assimilated into it late stage democracies.

Science(TM) has long succumbed. No one believes there is a seperation of science and state. How else do you explain scientism apart from its fantastically co-incident greasing of the liberal Power-Money dynamism between DCandIvy.

Moribund and corrupt left and right liberalism needs intelligent resistance bravo Martin Cothran. Kentucky is lucky to have him.

KyCobb said...

I hold hardly call a baby born with a 90% probability of dying, even with modern technology, and likely a near 100% probability of severe handicaps even if its "lucky" enough to survive, viable.

Thomas said...

"...severe handicaps even if its "lucky" enough to survive..."

KyCobb, what are you suggesting about the value of lives for those with disabilities?

KyCobb said...

Martin,

Interestingly enough, I found out that Dr. Malloy lied to Congress. The June 2009 Issue of the Journal of the AMA is available for free on the internet. The 10% survival figure was actually for babies born at 22 weeks, 2 weeks later than Malloy claimed. This is what the article said about babies born alive earlier than 22 weeks: "There were 2 live-born infants reported
before 22 gestational weeks; they died after
1 and 10 hours, respectively." Of course, I urge you not to take my word for it; you can read the article for yourself:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/Issue.aspx?journalid=67&issueID=4466&direction=P

KyCobb said...

OK, I'm man enough to admit I might be wrong, since there are apparently two systems of dating fetal development, one from the last menstrual period (LMP), and one starting post-fertilization two weeks later.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I hold hardly call a baby born with a 90% probability of dying, even with modern technology, and likely a near 100% probability of severe handicaps even if its "lucky" enough to survive, viable.

Gee, it almost sounds as if you think handicapped people are inferior human beings. I thought the fact that someone was handicapped was a reason to help them, not to think they are somehow inferior.

Thomas said...

This is the dark underbelly of the abortion debate: abortions can be performed for no other reason than the child has a disability (such as Downs) or is the wrong gender (especially in other countries).

Abortion advocates seem to have little problem with the judgment that someone does not deserve to live because they are female or disable.

KyCobb said...

Martin,

That's not what I think. I think parents ought to take into consideration the amount of suffering their children should have to endure. Is there any amount of suffering high enough for you to conclude a child shouldn't have to endure it?

KyCobb said...

Thomas,

"Abortion advocates seem to have little problem with the judgment that someone does not deserve to live because they are female or disable."

I think a pregnant woman's decision about whether to carry a child to term isn't any of my business. And the concern from the Right about sex selective abortions, which I expect rarely occurs in the US since we don't have the same cultural pressure to produce sons that you see in India or China, is just the Right looking for another angle to use to further limit women's right to choose with the ultimate goal of banning all abortions.

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

Is there any amount of suffering high enough for you to conclude a child shouldn't have to endure it?

So can I conclude from this remark that you are you against performing abortions after the point that the unborn child feels pain?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

I think a pregnant woman's decision about whether to carry a child to term isn't any of my business.

So the possibility that millions of babies are having their lives taken is none of your business, but gay rights is?

What is the process by which something becomes your business?

Thomas said...

"I think a pregnant woman's decision about whether to carry a child to term isn't any of my business."

Let's say that a prenatal test is developed that could predict homosexuality. You would, I assume, be perfectly fine with it if women in the US chose en masse to abort fetuses predisposed to homosexuality.

KyCobb said...

Thomas, one can spin unlikely hypotheticals concerning all sorts of things; it doesn't change the fact that women have a constitutional right to choose, as they should.

Martin,

Fetal pain should be considered, but not based on fringe claims of the pro-life movement, but actual science.

Thomas said...

KyCobb,

Just so I have this straight, you don't have a problem with eliminating persons from with homosexual genes (assuming that homosexuality is an inborn genetic trait) from the gene pool, so long as it results from women's choices to have an abortion?

I do.

KyCobb said...

Thomas,

I'm pretty sure you are opposed to all abortions. Let me give you a silly hypothetical. If working mothers en masse decided they would kill their children unless the government starts providing free, high quality day care paid for by taxes on millionaires, would you support rasing taxes to enact that program?

Thomas said...

KyCobb,

I would support raising taxes to provide better quality day care in general (or better, to subsidize parents who stay home part or full time)--even without the scenario you present. But I don't see what that has to do with the question.

If abortion is permissible so long as the mother voluntarily chooses it, then abortions based on a positive prenatel test for homosexual genes is permissible. The logic here is unavoidable.

So: do you think that women should be able to abort if they discover the child to have a genetic disposition to homosexuality? If so, should hospitals routinely offer these tests (as they do for Downs Syndrome)? Should hate groups be able provide free abortions in cases of a positive test?

KyCobb said...

Thomas,

This is what it has to do with the question: its easy to create silly hypotheticals to make any policy choice look bad. In matters of women's personal reproductive health, I am willing to err on the side of women making those decisions in consultation with their healthcare providers. The Right, of course, is looking for new ways to harass abortion providers until they can force them out of business. Laws picking certain reason why women can't have abortions not only violate their constitutional rights, but are designed to justify harassing investigations.

Thomas said...

KyCobb,

You are evading the question. I am not asking whether aborting children with homosexual genes should be illegal when it's a ruse to force abortion clinics out of business.

The question is simple. Should it ever be illegal to abort a child because the child is genetically disposed to homosexuality?

KyCobb said...

No, Thomas, women have a constitutional right to choose, and we don't need the police harassing them about why they want an abortion.

zain ul abidin kk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I agree KyCobb that the decision of whether a baby lives or not is not any of your business or mine. But I also don't think its any of the mother's business either. What gives her the right to choose whether another human lives or dies?

Anonymous said...

KyCobb, women do not have a Constitutional Right to choose whether their children are alive or not. In fact, all men have a Constitutional and Inalienable Right to Life. Please explain how the right to choose extended to the right to end another's life.

Thomas said...

I almost forget about this, but it's too good to let go.

KYCobb, are there any circumstances in which you would limit a mother's choice to have an abortion, such as the following:

1. Suppose that enough women were choosing to abort children with genes that dispose them to homosexuality, that these genes are at risk of being extinguished. In other words, the selective pressure is forcing these genes out of existence. Or:

2. Suppose that hate groups funded abortion clinics that would perform genetic tests for homosexuality-disposing genes and perform abortions for free, as well as providing a generous stipend to women who undergo the procedure. Or:

3. Suppose that, rather than offering abortions, companies offer genetic engineering procedures that eliminate any genes linked to homosexuality so as to guarantee that your child is straight.

Do any of these, under any circumstances, warrant legal intervention? Do any of these warrant moral condemnation?

One Brow said...

Thomas,

I hope you don't mind my joining in.

1) The government should not force a woman to carry a homosexual child if the woman chooses to abort it.

2) I'm uncomfortable with the stipend, just as I am uncomfortable with people offering money to those who would donate bodily organs. Both are taking advantage of the desperate. Without the stipend, as long as the woman is not pressured into the abortion, I have no objection.

3) I object here, because the woman's role in carrying the child is not fundamentally changed by the child's sexual orientation, and because homosexual orientation is not a disease or disability.