Kerry and Late Term Abortion

[johnnys4life]

This is an excerpt from full article available from The Weekly Standard
October 11, 2004 issue
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/722chwmt.asp?ZoomFont=YES.




Blood Brothers: Why the leading practitioners of late abortion wrote checks to John Kerry

by Douglas Johnson


[Douglas Johnson is legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee ([email protected]) (www.nrlc.org). Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, contributed essential research and documentation regarding Dr. George Tiller.]

*******

Martin Haskell, George Tiller, and Warren Hern have several things in common. All three are abortionists who specialize in late abortions. Haskell's name is closely linked with the partial-birth abortion method. Tiller and Hern may be the only two abortionists in the United States who openly advertise their willingness to perform third-trimester abortions.

Finally, all three men have opened their checkbooks to support Senator John Kerry's bid to be president of the United States. Their contributions to Kerry's campaign total $7,000.

That is not a vast sum compared with the millions being spent by liberal groups to attack President Bush. (Federal law limits a contributor to maximum total donations of $4,000 to a single presidential candidate, split between two types of campaign accounts.) Nevertheless, these contributions are worth scrutinizing because of what they reveal about John Kerry.

Although Haskell, Tiller, and Hern have been controversial figures for many years in national debates about late abortions (as anybody can ascertain by entering their names into Google), the Kerry campaign apparently readily accepted the contributions--money that might very well have originated in fees charged to perform partial-birth abortions or other late abortions.

But why would such men send their hard-earned dollars to Kerry? After all, Kerry told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, on January 25, 2004, "I'm against partial-birth abortion, as are many people." And Kerry told Peter Jennings of ABC News, in an interview broadcast July 22, 2004, "I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception."

My bet is that the abortionists know that during his 20 years in the Senate, Kerry has been an absolutely consistent defender of abortion. So why should they be bothered by statements intended only to mislead voters who are strongly opposed to the grisly business that these men are in--voters who are still unfamiliar with Kerry's actual record?

Most likely, these abortionists are quite aware that Kerry has promised to nominate only Supreme Court justices who share his real position on abortion policy--which would guarantee that partial-birth abortions and other late abortions, and of course earlier abortions, would remain almost entirely shielded from scrutiny or restriction by elected lawmakers for the foreseeable future.



DR. MARTIN HASKELL wrote the Kerry for President campaign a check for $2,000, recorded June 30, 2004. Haskell, based in Ohio, owns three abortion clinics, all called Women's Med Center (www.womensmedcenter.com). In 1992 Haskell published a paper describing how to perform what he called "dilation and extraction." Circulation of this paper led to introduction of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act by Congressman Charles Canady, a Florida Republican, in 1995.

Brenda Pratt Shafer, a nurse who worked briefly at one of Haskell's clinics, witnessed close up the partial-birth abortion of a baby boy who she said was at 26 and a half weeks.

"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant," Shafer related. "The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet.

"The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."

Haskell wrote that he used this method on all of his clients from 20 through 24 weeks, unless they had certain health problems, and on "selected" clients through 26 weeks. He told American Medical News that 80 percent of his late abortions were "purely elective." The head of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers admitted to the New York Times in 1997 that the method is used thousands of times annually, and that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along."

It seems that none of that really bothers John Kerry, who has voted for unsuccessful amendments to allow partial-birth abortions without any restriction whatever during the entire period of pregnancy that Haskell acknowledges performing them, and to allow abortions for "health" reasons (the term includes emotional "health") even later than that. After those killer amendments were rejected, Kerry voted every time (six times) against passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Haskell and Kerry both have a knack for compartmentalization. In 1993, Cincinnati Medicine asked Haskell, "Does it bother you that a second trimester fetus so closely resembles a baby?" Haskell replied, "I really don't think about it. . . . Many of our patients have ethical dilemmas about abortion. I don't feel it's my role as a physician to tell her she should not have an abortion because of her ethical feelings. . . . I'm not to tell them what's right or wrong."

Kerry explained in 1972: "On abortion, I myself, by belief and upbringing, am opposed to abortion, but as a legislator, as one who is called on to pass a law, I would find it very difficult to legislate on something God himself has not seen fit to make clear to all the people on this earth." ...

[Full article continued at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/722chwmt.asp?ZoomFont=YES.]

© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

 

[johnnys4life]

Definately something to think about this election.

 

[civilcynic]

John Kerry is Pro-choice...he believes that women have the right to choose and supports the continued legalization of birth control methods for family planning and clinical abortions up to and including late term abortions.

And yes, I do take that into consideration on whom I will vote for. As a woman, I believe that I have the right to choose what type of birth control I use to avoid pregnancy and I believe that I, like most women are fully capable of making the decision as to whether or not continuing an pregnancy is appropriate.

I don't want or need the government in my bedroom or telling me what I can or cannot do with my body.

I wish the Bush/Cheney group were more concerned with the human lives that already exist. While Bush maintains he is protecting the unborn (aka the fertilized egg, the embryo and the fetus), he has sent 1,055 Americans and 12,000-15,000 Iraqi civilians to their deaths in a war he started under false pretenses. Furthermore, Bush also made it clear that Iraq will not be the last conflict because 'America has the responsibility to bring freedom and democracy to the countries of the world; And will not abide by international law.'

I am sure all those fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses Bush wants to save will prove quite useful once they can hold a gun and be sent to some foreign land as cannon fodder.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yikes civilcynic all that spin is making me dizzy

 

[Feathers in Hair]

That's a very good point, Civilcynic. While I may not know where I stand on abortion, I do know that those who are being killed overseas have just as much right to live as anyone else. Abortion, whether for or against, won't be what decides this election for me.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm with Civilcynic and Feathers on this one: There are several issues (including Iraq) that are more important to me in this election than abortion.

 

[DrM]

Kerry remains steady in his view. He believes, rightly so, that this is NOT a government matter. I have to agree. I do not approve of abortions however, there are times when abortions are necessary for a number of reasons. This is not and will never be a black and white issue. . . . .

The President should not be trying to regulate homosexual activities or abortion matters. There are too many facets to make a "wise" choice.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

As a male, I personally feel that the decision to carry a fetus to term or abort rests solely with the woman and her physician. Why a male would think that they have a right to impose their will when they are not the one involved is beyond me. I am a father of two, and I am elated that I was blessed with the two children I have. I would hope that if I am the one responsible for a woman's pregnancy and she was trying to determine whether or not to carry it to term, she would ask for my input - but she would not be so obligated.

Which raises a point in the Pro-Life argument that I always have a problem with: Prolife people say that a woman should deliver a baby, and that if she can't (or won't) care for the child, it should be put up for adoption. Fine, with one caveat - what about all of the children that currently live in orphanages or foster homes - why haven't they all been adopted by Pro-lifers?

Just asking.
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As a male, I personally feel that the decision to carry a fetus to term or abort rests solely with the woman and her physician. Why a male would think that they have a right to impose their will when they are not the one involved is beyond me. I am a father of two, and I am elated that I was blessed with the two children I have. I would hope that if I am the one responsible for a woman's pregnancy and she was trying to determine whether or not to carry it to term, she would ask for my input - but she would not be so obligated.

I do not understand this reasoning. Remember, we're talking about partial birth abortions here. In partial birth abortions, a baby is delivered feet first, but the head remains inside the woman. This is because legally, a baby does not have the right to be alive until its head passes out of the woman. Then they kill the baby in a most gruesome way. As johnnys4life has pointed out (in another thread, I think) even the American Medical Association supported a ban of partial birth abortions. John Kerry voted against the ban.

I cannot get over the fact that the babies killed in partial birth abortions are exactly the same as newborn babies, only they have an umbilical cord. As Dr. Suesse said, "A person's a person, no matter how small." Doesn't anyone ever consider the baby's right to live? Call me an oppressor of women's rights, but as far as I'm concerned, partial birth abortions are nothing short of barbaric. Our society should be ashamed of itself.

As for adoptions...perhaps not all pro-lifers have adopted children because people have to wait for years and years before they can finally adopt a child. My good friend's parents have been trying to adopt these two autistic children whose mother is a deadbeat for years now, but the courts don't want to allow it because the two children are black, and my friend's family is white. Absolutely mind-boggling...anyway, back on topic...

 

[Jaymes]

What I think society should be ashamed of is playing on emotions to get votes. The above article emphasizes that people will stoop however low they must to get a few extra votes.

 

[Jaymes]

As for adoptions...perhaps not all pro-lifers have adopted children because people have to wait for years and years before they can finally adopt a child.

Untrue. Children can be adopted fairly quickly.

Google 'average time adoption' and you'll see that it normally takes less than a year to adopt. Some agencies even offer it in less than 9 months.

Time is no excuse.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

We should start a new thread about why pro lifers do not adopt more.....I know that healthy newborn babies are in very high demand for adoption, and that a lot of kids who can't get adopted have mental/physical problems and are tend to be older. I think it would be an interesting discussion.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I do not understand this reasoning. Remember, we're talking about partial birth abortions here. In partial birth abortions, a baby is delivered feet first, but the head remains inside the woman. This is because legally, a baby does not have the right to be alive until its head passes out of the woman. Then they kill the baby in a most gruesome way. As johnnys4life has pointed out (in another thread, I think) even the American Medical Association supported a ban of partial birth abortions. John Kerry voted against the ban.

I cannot get over the fact that the babies killed in partial birth abortions are exactly the same as newborn babies, only they have an umbilical cord. As Dr. Suesse said, "A person's a person, no matter how small." Doesn't anyone ever consider the baby's right to live? Call me an oppressor of women's rights, but as far as I'm concerned, partial birth abortions are nothing short of barbaric. Our society should be ashamed of itself.

As for adoptions...perhaps not all pro-lifers have adopted children because people have to wait for years and years before they can finally adopt a child. My good friend's parents have been trying to adopt these two autistic children whose mother is a deadbeat for years now, but the courts don't want to allow it because the two children are black, and my friend's family is white. Absolutely mind-boggling...anyway, back on topic...

This is why I love this site. Mr. Spinkles and I agree on 95% of the issues that are raised on this site. This however, is not one of them. No matter what is said or done, I will always respect Spinkles' position, as I know he has arrived at it as the result of internal speculation and rational thought.

The title of the thread is John Kerry and LATE TERM Abortion (emphasis added by me). Late term abortions are not specifically limited to partial birth abortions. This is either an honest mistake in deciding on the title of the thread, or an intentional attempt at the old "bait and switch" tactic. I'm willing to make the assumption that it was the former, and no intention to mislead by johnnys4life.

The fact that the article is written about partial birth abortion underlines the argument that Jensa makes about the shameless attempt to gain votes by the tactic of an appeal to emotion. The truth is that partial birth abortions are an incredibly low percentage of all abortions, but, since they are the most gruesome when described, they are seized upon to exploit that emotion. No one (let me repeat that - no one) is "Pro Death" as the Prolife movement likes to say. There is an honest disagreement about the moment that a fetus should be considered a human. Personally, no unborn fetus (up to the moment of delivery) would ever be worth my wife's life or health (to me). I'm not right - but this is my opinion and I am entitled to it.

I agree with johnnys4life on one thing in this thread - it is important, and it does influence my vote. It appears that johnnys4life and I will simply negate each others votes in this upcoming election. That is the beauty of the democratic process.

As one of my favorite quotes of all time states - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

Best of luck in the presidential election and may your candidate come in a close second.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

We should start a new thread about why pro lifers do not adopt more.....I know that healthy newborn babies are in very high demand for adoption, and that a lot of kids who can't get adopted have mental/physical problems and are tend to be older. I think it would be an interesting discussion.

I am sure you are correct Spinkles - and I consider this a point in favor of my stance. Many (certainly not all, probably not even most) of the pregnancies that are aborted occur after it is discovered that the fetus has some type of congenital defect. These are the very fetuses that become lifelong orphans after birth - very few people want to adopt them. So my original question remains - why aren't all orphanages empty, with all Prolife households full of children. Your friends that have been trying for an extended period of time have my undying respect, and I truly wish them well. It is obvious just the same, that not all children in all orphanages are even being pursued for adoption.

TVOR

 

[Scott1]

So my original question remains - why aren't all orphanages empty, with all Prolife households full of children

Very good point. My faith is the most vocal of the pro-lifers, and it puzzles me why, instead of spending time picketing or holding signs, 99% won't adopt a child (myself included).

Thanks for bring this up you two.

Scott

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Very good point. My faith is the most vocal of the pro-lifers, and it puzzles me why, instead of spending time picketing or holding signs, 99% won't adopt a child (myself included). Thanks for bring this up you two. Scott

I am elated to see you on this thread SOG. I took classes in college from a man that I respect immensely - he was Catholic, and was VERY active in the Right To Life movement. We debated at quite some length over abortion. I look forward to your input here.

Take care,
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

TVOR-- As always, thanks for the well-reasoned response.

However, let's not spin the issue by criticizing the actions of pro lifers. The issue at hand is (as you corrected me) late term abortions, and Kerry's support of them. To attack those who are against abortion is just ad hominem--a logical fallacy. I'd like to point out, also, that partial birth abortions do fall within the category of late term abortions, and their gruesomeness is, in my mind, a valid justification for opposing them (for reasons I will explain shortly). Additionally, the whole adoption thing is a moot point--if unborn late term babies are human beings with the right to live, that trumps any argument about them not being able to get adopted.

I think everyone here realizes that I do not oppose late term abortions because that's what my religion says, so for me, it is not an issue of church vs. state. I oppose it because it is a violation of the babies rights. Now the question is, why do I feel that third trimester babies should have rights?

Well for starters, ultimately our ethics come from what we 'feel' is right. Most if not all of our liberal humanist morality stems from what we feel is right and good. There is no logical reason that we should treat everyone equally. There is no mathematical proof that tells us the powerful should allow the not-so powerful a voice in government and an equal opportunity to succeed in life. No science experiment ever verified that everyone has equal rights. There are no logical reasons behind these values--you either feel that they are good values, or you don't. And if you feel they are good values, you use logic and reason to find ways of acheiving them.

When I look at pictures of third trimester babies, and when I read about fetal development, I can't help but feel that these are not simply 'extra limbs' to be cut apart and thrown away when deemed useless. In fact, the thought nauseates me. To me, they are little human beings. Every person on this forum, everyone on this planet used to look as they do. In fact, on the cosmic scale, I don't think there is much of a difference between a fully developed human and one that is just about to be born. Both are fragile, imperfect, precious specks of dust in this cloud of material we call the universe.

I think many people feel the same way as I do about unborn children in the late term of pregnancy, providing that they know what unborn children look like, etc, at that stage (or, even moreso if one has actually held those unborn babies just after they emerge from a woman). The vast majority of people are very disturbed by the pictures of dead babies from late term abortions.

However, many groups have tried successfully to get the unborn children and the nature of abortion procedures out of the public mind, with the purpose in mind that if people do not see these things, they won't feel strongly towards them; and if people do not feel strongly towards them, they can be carried out and money can be made off of them. The problem I have with this is that abortions are happening, they are real even though most people don't care to look at the pictures of abortions. As I said earlier, our morality is based on our innermost feelings...if people don't see what is happening, their feelings are not 'true'--they don't correspond with reality. That is why injustice has historically flourished when those who have the power to end it have been allowed to ignore the grim realities of the situation.

As in other historical instances where human rights were being violated, late term abortions are kept out of the public eye whenever possible by the groups who support them. Conversely, the groups who are against late term abortions try to publicize the consequences of them. (I wonder how many journalists would be criticized for publicizing photos of dead civilians in order to raise awareness about the brutality of war?) In Nazi Germany, the death camps were hidden--the holocaust kept away from the public. The German people certainly knew what was going on; still it is much easier to be apathetic when one doesn't actually have to see the gruesome consequences of one's apathy. Maybe that's why Allied soldiers forced German civilians to go through the camps and see the aftermath for themselves. In order to show people the realities of an injustice, it is best to show them--rather than talk to them about it. Injustice also flourishes when groups of human beings can be reduced to mere words or numbers, rather than seen up close for what they really are.

Let's face it--no one likes to hear about late term abortion procedures. No one wants to look at the pictures of the dead bodies of unborn babies. We'd rather just block it out. Out of sight, out of mind. The problem I have with this is that I feel that, just like the Germans of WWII, one of these days we are going to be confronted (either on an individual or societal scale) with the ugly realities of late term abortion--and suddenly we won't feel so apathetic. Suddenly we'll look more closely at sonograms of unborn children in the late term, and say to ourselves "That little baby sucking its thumb is the thing that has no legal right to be alive whatsoever? How many thousands of these have been silently massacred?" I've looked at sonograms of unborn children, and I have a basic familiarity with fetal development, and I feel, deep down, that these unborn children are human beings and therefore have the intrinsic right to be alive.

Martin Luther King, Jr., a man well known for his work in human rights, argued in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. He said that it is morally justifiable for he and his followers to oppose unjust laws and attempt to change them using nonviolent methods. He also said that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere". That was his primary response to the criticism that he was getting the government involved where it should not be, that it was up to individual localities to decide whether or not segregation was just. Segregation was unjust, as it violated human rights, and MLK knew it. The main problem was that many people in America were ignorant/ignoring the realities of segregation.....so MLK sought to bring these realities to the attention of the public. Perhaps photos of dead late term aborted babies need to be brought more effectively into the public eye.

In my mind, and in my gut, an unborn child in the late term is a human being just as much as a newborn is. As a human being, he/she has an inherent right to be alive. That is why I believe I am morally justified in opposing legislation and court rulings that take away that person's right to be alive--because those laws and those rulings are unjust. Of course there are always exceptions, like when an abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. But when confronted with a woman's right to not have to have a baby, and that baby's right to be alive, the scales of justice tip towards the latter.

Wow...I ranted.

 

[civilcynic]

It is my understanding that Roe v. Wade is very specific on when women have the right to choose abortion without interference and when the state can intervene. Roe v. Wade states that during the later part of the pregnancy (can't remember the exact number of months offhand) such as in partial birth abortion, the the abortions are limited to severe health risks. It is not supposed to be 'at will' for women to get abortions during this time. Please note that even when one includes spontaneous abortions in statistics, partial birth abortions make up for less than 1 % of all abortions.

Kerry support the Roe v Wade law which allows for late term abortions under limited circumstances as noted by the law. The latest attempts to ban these abortions have been struck down repeatedly in the courts as they did not allow for any exceptions in the case of the serious health problems. Pro-life organizations would have everyone think that partial birth abortions are commonplace and that they are being done for any and all reasons.

 

[Pah]

I am deeply curious as to the justifcation for singling out one particular form of abortion and why any medical procedure used in a legal act should be challanged by law.

-pah-

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This post (and the one following) are a direct response to Mr. Spinkles:

However, let's not spin the issue by criticizing the actions of pro lifers. The issue at hand is (as you corrected me) late term abortions, and Kerry's support of them. To attack those who are against abortion is just ad hominem--a logical fallacy.

I agree that if I attack the people (rather than their position) it would be an Ad Hominem fallacy - however, I have re-read my own posts twice (each) looking for this error on my part. I can find no instance when I attacked the person and not the position or tactic employed.

I'd like to point out, also, that partial birth abortions do fall within the category of late term abortions, and their gruesomeness is, in my mind, a valid justification for opposing them (for reasons I will explain shortly).

Your point that partial birth abortions fall within the realm of Late Term abortions is valid. What I disagree with is that not all late term abortions are partial birth abortions. This "grouping together" leads to the restriction of abortions that are not truly in the same class.

Additionally, the whole adoption thing is a moot point--if unborn late term babies are human beings with the right to live, that trumps any argument about them not being able to get adopted.

I will preface this portion of my answer with this - I do not concede your point that late term fetuses (note that you use the phrase late term babies, while I use the phrase late term fetuses) are human beings with the right to live. That said, you are correct that the adoption argument is a moot point in the debate about abortion - however it is a valid argument in its own right. It deserves an answer (with some serious thought put into it) from the people that spend TREMENDOUS amounts of capital (in the form of time and money) arguing that these very babies should be carried to term so that they can be adopted. My point stands - although, as you state it is moot to this debate.

I think everyone here realizes that I do not oppose late term abortions because that's what my religion says, so for me, it is not an issue of church vs. state. I oppose it because it is a violation of the babies rights.

I certainly realize that, and it makes me appreciate your stance all the more. The fact that you oppose it because you see it as a violation of the babies' rights assumes that your premise that these are babies rather than fetuses - I still do not concede this point.

Well for starters, ultimately our ethics come from what we 'feel' is right. Most if not all of our liberal humanist morality stems from what we feel is right and good. There is no logical reason that we should treat everyone equally. There is no mathematical proof that tells us the powerful should allow the not-so powerful a voice in government and an equal opportunity to succeed in life. No science experiment ever verified that everyone has equal rights. There are no logical reasons behind these values--you either feel that they are good values, or you don't. And if you feel they are good values, you use logic and reason to find ways of acheiving them.

All valid, and uncontested. We agree.

When I look at pictures of third trimester babies, and when I read about fetal development, I can't help but feel that these are not simply 'extra limbs' to be cut apart and thrown away when deemed useless. In fact, the thought nauseates me.

These pictures truly are horrific to look at. We all agree with this. That said, this is the basis for the appeal to emotion.

To me, they are little human beings.

I fully understand your position, however, I must deny this premise. It does not make me right (or wrong, for that matter) - nor does it make you right or wrong. This is truly opinion on both our parts - and the point cannot be won by either side. We must simply agree to disagree. Regardless of my stance or yours on this point, I deeply respect your opinion - I just disagree with it.

Every person on this forum, everyone on this planet used to look as they do. In fact, on the cosmic scale, I don't think there is much of a difference between a fully developed human and one that is just about to be born. Both are fragile, imperfect, precious specks of dust in this cloud of material we call the universe.

We agree - point made. The phrase "...much of a difference" is the key - I think that the difference, though small, is significant.

I think many people feel the same way as I do about unborn children in the late term of pregnancy, providing that they know what unborn children look like, etc, at that stage (or, even moreso if one has actually held those unborn babies just after they emerge from a woman). The vast majority of people are very disturbed by the pictures of dead babies from late term abortions.

You are correct, but the emotion brought about by the pictures (or the fetuses) still boils down to the appeal to emotion. They disturb me, just as they do you (I have seen them as well). As bad as these photos are, they do not change my position on when a fetus is considered a baby. I'm sure that many on this site (and around the world) feel as you do - I'm also sure that many feel as I. Even if you (or I) were the only person on earth that held your position, it would still be a matter of opinion. The argument that many people agree with either of us would be the fallacy of appeal to authority (in this case "many people").

However, many groups have tried successfully to get the unborn children and the nature of abortion procedures out of the public mind, with the purpose in mind that if people do not see these things, they won't feel strongly towards them; and if people do not feel strongly towards them, they can be carried out and money can be made off of them. The problem I have with this is that abortions are happening, they are real even though most people don't care to look at the pictures of abortions. As I said earlier, our morality is based on our innermost feelings...if people don't see what is happening, their feelings are not 'true'--they don't correspond with reality. That is why injustice has historically flourished when those who have the power to end it have been allowed to ignore the grim realities of the situation. As in other historical instances where human rights were being violated, late term abortions are kept out of the public eye whenever possible by the groups who support them. Conversely, the groups who are against late term abortions try to publicize the consequences of them.

I agree with the majority of this statement, but this still boils down to emotion. We cannot get past the point that we have reduced this argument to the point of opinion. No amount of photographs will change my point of view, just as I am sure that even if the media turns its back to this procedure, you will not change your point of view.

(I wonder how many journalists would be criticized for publicizing photos of dead civilians in order to raise awareness about the brutality of war?) In Nazi Germany, the death camps were hidden--the holocaust kept away from the public. The German people certainly knew what was going on; still it is much easier to be apathetic when one doesn't actually have to see the gruesome consequences of one's apathy. Maybe that's why Allied soldiers forced German civilians to go through the camps and see the aftermath for themselves. In order to show people the realities of an injustice, it is best to show them--rather than talk to them about it.

Here is where our difference of opinion about fetuses and babies is called into stark contrast. We both view the atrocities that happened in the Holocaust as being inflicted on human beings (with lives ruined, etc.). Therefore, we agree that the actions taken to force the German civilians to view the horrors of the death camps was valid - and useful.

Let's face it--no one likes to hear about late term abortion procedures. No one wants to look at the pictures of the dead bodies of unborn babies. We'd rather just block it out. Out of sight, out of mind. The problem I have with this is that I feel that, just like the Germans of WWII, one of these days we are going to be confronted (either on an individual or societal scale) with the ugly realities of late term abortion--and suddenly we won't feel so apathetic.

I think it mischaracterizes the people that are Pro-Choice to say that they are apathetic about abortion - just as it would be wrong to say that people on the Prolife side of the aisle are apathetic to the needs of the mothers. I certainly am not a proponent of abortion, and will not be labeled as such. I am a proponent of the woman's right to choose - huge difference that tends to be obscured by some of the rhetoric of the Prolife movement. Basically - the opposite of Prolife is not Prodeath - it is ProChoice.

Continued in following post.