Sunday, October 25, 2009

Wow! Law & Order presents some reality of late abortion



Keep in mind, the sort of thing the fictitious nurse describes happens hundreds of times a year in the US -- the main difference being that the babies in real life typically could have lived long, normal lives if carried to term (or even, in many cases, if brought to the NICU at the time of birth instead of being disposed of as medical waste).

For more on the real-life scenarios, see:

  • Obama Comments, I Respond
  • Planned Parenthood Admits to Live Births
  • A Fetus With Attitude
  • A Question About Born-Alive Babies and Criminal Charges
  • Obama, McCain, and "Health"
  • Third Trimester Abortions and the Law
  • Funeral Scheduled for Baby Shanice, Thrown on a Roof to Die
  • Just Why are Abortions Being Done so Late in the Pregnancy That the Babies Can Be Born Alive
  • More Born-Alive Babies
  • Jill Stanek and FactCheck's Faulty "Facts"
  • 26 comments:

    Leslie said...

    Gotta admit, it was shockingly honest dialogue!!!

    SegaMon said...

    Wow indeed. If more of this could continue to be exposed into the general public, public opinion could change.

    Subvet said...

    Hmm. This throws the proaborts on the defense. At the very least it moves the portrayal of prolifers away from slopebrowed Neanderthals who mindlessly worshipp the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    OperationCounterstrike said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    OperationCounterstrike said...

    OK, here's a question from a non-viewer: the murder victim in this episode was a high-powered specialist like Dr. Tiller, wasn't he? A full-time late-termer? But didn't the episode have a born-alive that one of the medical workers offered to kill? If that's what the episode contained, it's totally implausible.

    Competent late-termers don't get born-alives anymore, you stop the heart and don't start taking anything out until you've documented the cessation. This fetus-on-the-roof case was a woman with no medical training who screwed up the fetal age and is in jail now anyway.

    Is L&O usually this bad at medical tech? Is the forensic chemistry correct, or plausible?

    GrannyGrump said...

    OC, why do you consistently presume that it's totally unrealistic to think an abortionist could possible ever screw up? Look at the quackery NAF members have committed, and they're the cream of the crop. If the sainted Steve Lichtenberg can overdose a 13-year-old girl on Brevitol then stand around with his thumb up his ass watching her die, if the peerless Bobby Crist can send a teenage girl home to bleed to death, surely the standard-issue non-NAF abortionist has the capacity to have a live birth during a late abortion. Sort of the way MARTIN HASKELL did. (Does anybody have the link for that? I thought I did a write up on my site but I can't find it right off and I need to leave for work.)

    Kathy said...

    This looks like it.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Christina, I specifically said I was talking about COMPETENT late-termers. Tiller-types.

    Martin Haskell--was that before, or after, the development of ultrasound-guided intracardiac injections?

    Sure, everybody screws up, but no one screws up by imagining the heart has stopped when it's still beating. You can hear it, you can see it on the ultrasound! If you screw up the intracardiac injection, you try again, until you succeed. Today a born-alive late-termer isn't just a "screw-up"; it's rank incompetence. Say whatever you like about Dr. Tiller, but no one denies his competence.

    GrannyGrump said...

    Kathy, that's Haskell in general, not the live birth where the nurse saw him crush the baby's head with forceps.

    OC, Haskell is a NAF member, and in his 1992 presentation to NAF in Dallas he said he used ultrasound in doing his D&X procedures. The reported live birth was after that.

    And "competent" and "late term abortionist" are pretty contradictory ideas. If the guy's a competent doctor he'd be providing real medical care, not swooping in like a vulture to make a few thousand dollars off some reeling woman's shock and bewilderment and grief. But that's just me, being a freaky antichoicer and thinking that pregnant women should be provided with real medical care and not treated like containers for Demon Seeds that need to be exterminated.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    RE: "And "competent" and "late term abortionist" are pretty contradictory ideas. "

    That's a pretty stupid thing to say. You can be competent, or incompetent, at ANY task or job, good or bad.

    For instance, writing right-to-life propaganda is a bad job, but some people are competent at it anyway (unlike Christina Dunigan).

    Leslie said...

    Competent murderer. Really some thing to be proud of!

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Leslie, proud or not, Dr. Tiller was way to competent to have a born-alive. (The single case Christina Dunigan likes to bring up over and over again was from the early 1970s.) So L&O's episode is not plausible.

    And abortion on demand is not murder; it is justifiable homicide.

    DRmcburney said...

    Could you describe a case of unjustifiable homicide? Is there any abortion you would condemn?

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Yes to both questions.

    1. Shooting Dr. Tiller in the face in his church was a case of unjustifiable homicide.

    2. I condemn any and all abortions which are done against the wishes of the pregnant woman.

    GrannyGrump said...

    So, OC, an abortion performed after the woman goes into labor, but before the baby emerges, performed because the woman hated the baby's father, knew he loved the baby, and just wanted to do something that would totally devastate him, would be fine with you?

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    GG, in my view, as long as the baby is inside the mother's body, she is entitled to have it killed for any reason or for no reason.

    I might disapprove of her reasons, but they are not my business. She's entitled to abort her pregnancy, even when it's NOT "fine with me".

    Leslie said...

    "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes!"

    Judges 21:25

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Leslie, as opposed to what?

    Should everyone do what is right in someone else's eyes?

    I think everyone should do what is right in MY eyes! And what is right in my eyes is: killing right-to-lifers.

    SegaMon said...

    OC, you're ideology is on the fringe.

    OperationCounterstrike said...
    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
    Lilliput said...

    Christina, if mom cared so little about the baby that she was prepared to use it as a tool of revenge for the father - then I'd have to believe that this wasn't the right time for this special soul to come down. Can you imagine the years of emotional torture the child would have faced as a pawn between these adults.

    At least he/she is at peace....

    GrannyGrump said...

    Lil, would you say that about ANY child a parent was killing out of spite? (Parents HAVE done that!) Or would you perhaps think it better to put the child with a loving adoptive home?

    liat said...

    How is forcing her to give birth and then forcibly removing the child from her care - better for her? Its not as easy as that - you cannot have children just for the sake of giving a gift to people who can't have any - and besides, the father would have wanted to keep it - which is probably the nest for the child however he wasn't able to persuade her to give him the child so how are you going to persuade her to give the child to strangers - something I'm not sure is allowed to be done when the father wants the baby?

    Its just not that simple.

    GrannyGrump said...

    liat, there's this idea of NOT F***ING KILLING PEOPLE. Which prolifers have an inexplicable obsession with. The baby is where its parents caused it to be, and when they want to kill it we're supposed to say yeah, snuff it. People who are bigger and stronger and more capable are supposed to PROTECT the smaller and weaker and more vulnerable, not snivel about how the smaller and weaker and more vulnerable person -- who they CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE -- is bugging them and that this gives them a right to kill.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    Yep, it's very sad to be inside another person's body where you are not welcome.

    If you're a not-yet-conceived fetus getting ready to take the plunge into existence, my advice would be, go get conceived inside someone who wants you.

    Otherwise, your early life will be very dicey. "Nasty, poor, brutish, and short" as the fellow said.

    OperationCounterstrike said...

    If fetuses were as good as Christina seems to think, they would not WANT to grow inside another person's body where they were not welcome.

    A morally-good fetus would prefer to be aborted, rather than to commit such a terrible violation. If it could talk, it would say, as the cannula approached: "It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done; it is to a far, far better rest I go, than I have ever known."