JOhn KErry Voted FOR Parital Birth Abortion SIX TIMES

| | Comments (7)

the following is too sick and twisted to publish at the summa mamas, but not at smock's.


Dear Moralizer: What's sicker: a) the idea that a woman who will die or have serious lifelong health problems from a tragic pregnancy should have a choice about that or b) the use 'pro-life' people make of unborn babies' images and the rather sinister joy they take in spreading around gruesome images of dead unborn babies (kind of like Mel Gibson's homoerotic snuff flick joy in the Passion) in order to prevent these women from having the choice?
So-called partial birth abortions represent no more than 5% of abortions (high estimate). Do you know a main reason for them? THE BABY, DEARLY WANTED, IS ALREADY DEAD. How dare you callously moralize about so terrible and tragic an occurrence?
The reason Kerry (and others) voted against the PBA ban? It does not make an exception for the health of the mother. But I guess people like you and George Bush get to pre-decide for all of us who should live and who die, who be healthy and who doesn't get that?
In that vein, consider this if you can: Johns Hopkins has now made a careful estimate that about 100,000 Iraqi civilians, a majority of them women & children, have been killed by U.S. action in the past 18 months. War always causes unforseen civilian casualties but that is truly outrageous. Do you bother to know? Do you bother to care about the waste of those precious and blameless lives... who had absolutely no voice? You right-to-life bloviators are curiously selective in your choice of 'innocents' to protect.

Cannot.... resist..... troll.

okay, let's get a few things straight, here, marianna. There is nothing illegal in the US or Canada in removing a dead child from his or her mother's womb. It is still done. That is NOT a partial birth abortion. It's a form of D&C. It's often done so a mother can bury her dead and not become sick as the child decomposes in the womb. I suggest you check your facts before slandering the smock.

Second, what's sick is forcing the premature birth of an unborn child and then ramming a scapel into its neck and twisting it until the baby dies. I don't care if the baby is malformed, handicapped, unwanted or physically perfect, that's murder, plain and simple. It's wrong under any circumstance.

Finally, I suggest you watch an abortion of any type, in person, as an impartial observer, before you make up your mind about the morality of the practice. I have. I used to be a clinic walker (escorting women into a clinic.) And I know two things out of that experience: Most women feel they are out of choices, and that's why they abort, not because they want to abort their babies. And second: it is evil. I've seen it, and it is evil. The baby's death, and the heartbreak it inflicts on the mothers (and sometimes the fathers.)

So, go read a medical book and get your facts straight, and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion about this.


All I can tell you is read some more. I have a few snippets, so not to overwhelm you, but I
would be happy to talk with you -- off blog about your concerns. In any case, thanks for getting this Yank to post something on the blog...ya got me out from under my cyber-hovel.

Okay, snippet follows...

----In 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell presented at a Risk Management Seminar of the National
Abortion Federation. He personally claims to have done over 700 himself (Interview with
Dr. Martin Haskell, AMA News, 1993), and points out that some 80% are "purely elective." In a
personal conversation with Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Haskell explained that "elective" does
not mean that the woman chooses the procedure because of a medical necessity, but
rather chooses it because she wants an abortion. He admitted to Fr. Frank that there does
not seem to be any medical reason for this procedure. There are in fact absolutely no
obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered
human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother (Dr. Pamela Smith,
Senate Hearing Record, p.82: Partial Birth Abortion Ban Medical Testimony). ---

end snippet--

So, regarding the health...ending the pregnancy is much different then aborting the child. Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve the health of the mother. In fact, it may even pose additional health risks to her. Ending the pregnancy can be done by birthing. Also, “health” can be used to describe mental or emotional state, so an exception to the ban for “health” really would have undermined the protective legislature for the mother and child.

Feminists for Life have a good website that I think may interest you. The women
who started it were actually silenced when they brought up the moral discrepancies in the
movement. They saw that women had been lied to. If you need any other proof, just
Google Margaret Sanger and the Negro Project. I put a link below. What gives me hope
is the black voice is now gaining momentum in educating their community about the scary
origins of Planned Parenthood. There are sinister reasons why the clinics heaviest
advertising is done in the at risk communities, bus depots, subways, etc. Check out

As far as Iraq and the numbers game...we are losing 576,000 small people every day. You have been endowed by your creator (not given by a government)the gift of life -- Actually, I think atheists have a stronger argument as this "here and now" is their only existence.

Be happy to talk with you more off blog.


thanks for stopping by bellyaching so beautifully, but next time please watch your tone; you play nice here or get your butt booted. since you're a first time visitor and had the forsight to admit that i conform to a standard of what is right and what is wrong, you get a second chance.

i have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the gaping holes in your argument, but i will tell you this: my biggest gripe about partial birth supporters such as yourself is the fact that this particular death sentence for the unborn and every so-called support of it is complete bullcocky. emergency c-sections can very well solve the exact same risks when the life of the mother is in question. period.

speaking of being selective of who should or should not die...well, people who live in glass houses and all that. we moralizers prefer you maleficents leave the pontificating up to us.

Thank you, K, for an interesting reply. I will indeed check out your recommendations and I may get back to you off-blog. Indeed, it is difficult to sort out information (nouns and numbers, to begin with!) on this emotional topic, from government jargon-euphemisms to pro-life inflammatory rhetoric. I have been reading around; perhaps I have some 'facts' wrong. As I learned in graduate school, with human beings most frequently 'the story tells the facts' and the work of interpretation is really tough!

I must say, I am struck by your 576,000/day figure: This is abortions? So-called partial birth abortions? US? Worldwide? Or are you including one of the things that really sends me-- infant and toddler deaths? Now there's a great right-to-life issue I'm don't hear mentioned much except where I volunteer (funding cuts, of course). All of these numbers are thrown around rather loosely, don't you think? And if you are really implying that more is worse and Iraqis don't count verus our babies... or that 100,000 Iraqi lives are worth spending for some greater good of other lives... then maybe we live in different worlds of contradiction!

The rest of you: I am a woman who did, in fact, choose life some 33 years ago, despite being urged to take advantage of a then newly-legal abortion. I would do so again today. The excruciating and painstaking act of making the choice was a signal moment in my life and subsequently in my daughter's and it reverbrates to this day. I look for a world in which all women might be capable of making that choice, Cin. Yes, abortion is a bad thing indeed and few women --none I have known-- choose it 'electively' without pain. But it is a much more nuanced issue than 'life' or 'choice' framing accommodates, very caught in larger social and gender matters.

I won't waste time trying say how one can be prochoice and prolife and take the implications of that out beyond babies in the womb to babies born, babies crawling and starving and little children being abused and killed.... all the way to lives barely begun being sacrificed in corrupt wars. If we enlarge the rhetoric (Pro-life) and narrow the field of application (late term unborn babies), it works so much better for us to reduce a terribly difficult set of ethical matters to a single, emblematic instance. Is that really the point for some, perhaps?

There are all kinds of lies and one of the biggest is told by those whose concerns for life end with the political clout they can build by using the lives of unborn children. I am sure this pertains only to some of the women discussing things here. I do not favor PBA, which I why I started sorting through it and came to this site. The contempt I expressed is reserved for what I have been encountering more often than anything else as I surf and read: the kind of cheap certainty, whipped off in the quick slur, the nasty cartoon, the demonization of other people, that diminishes profound consideration of a profound dilemma women face. My rudeness was not good and I apologize for it. In the current climate, I have long since ceased to expect an apology from those who live in such rigid certainty.

Thanks again, K, for replying!!!! If I don't get too busy at my work, you'll hear from me.

surely you are only pretending to be as bigoted as "some of the women discussing things here" are, marianna. because you sure are making a helluvalot of assumptions for someone who throws around tired PC catch phrases like "social and gender matters."

are you actually trying to convince me that ethics are nuanced? that sounds a lot like situational ethics to me and i haven't bought into that crapola since ethics 101.

yes, i tend to call a spade a spade. if that is what you mean by "cheap and rigid certainty" then i'm full of it. and no, i make no apologies for what i know is right. and i don't think anything can ever be any cheaper than a woman murdering her own baby.

That's a great cartoon at your homepage.



About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by smockmomma published on November 1, 2004 1:42 PM.

Sorry, I still think it's ugly.... was the previous entry in this blog.

still killing wives: a follow up to "killing wives" is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.