OJ:

Ask your wife about Trisomy-13. It is the cause of a large number of late-term abortions.

They also abort for Trisomy 21. But the majority are just because they don't feel like having a kid.

Mr. Judd;

Is it really appropriate for the federal government to legislate this? I don't see where in the enumerated powers the basis for this legislation exists. There's no federal law against murder except for people directly employeed by the federal government. Regardless of where you think life begins, I'm convinced that federal employment starts long after birth.

(And yes, I agree that Roe v. Wade was at best Constitutionally dubious for the same reason)

Why the neocon comment? Aren't many neocons pro-life.

AOG:

Suppose Rhode Island made murder legal. There are plenty of extreme federalists who would argue that such is their right, but how can that be squared with the Declaration, the Preamble, the first purposes of government, or our humanity?

Down the road you're walking lies the repugnant argument that Lincoln was a fascist because he freed the slaves without Constitutional permission to do so.

Edward:

No they aren't. They're generally secularists. It's one of the reasons that their cloning opposition is incoherent:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/000303.html

Ha! I love the comment about banning a "safe medical procedure." Not so safe for the baby, is it?

Mr. Guinn: I remember when I first heard about late term abortion and confidantly expressed my view that no woman would abort her baby so late in the pregnancy without it being an extreme case of her life endangered or the baby being horribly deformed. My boyfriend (who is now my husband) wanted to know what special knowledge of the nobility of women I was basing this belief on.

Yes, Buttercup, and let us not forget to give honourable mention to all those swell guys who play the subtle, politically-correct "it's all up to you, sweetheart" game early in the pregnancy but then ratchet up the emotional pressure when their worst fears appear to be imminent.

Mr. B:

And all this time the pro choice rhetoric has been that men were coercing women into having babies, not abortions. Now you tell me that men are forcing women to have late term abortions!
I'm confused, but certain of one thing, that men are to blame, somehow.

Buttercup:

I wouldn't say "forcing" and I wouldn't excuse anyone, but Orrin's point that free abortions favour men is one I agree with. Call me old-fashioned, but threatening to withdraw love, support or even one's presence from a pregnant woman has got to put a lot of heavy pressure on her, no?

Mr. Judd;

On the other hand, down your road is the nanny / welfare state and the activist judiciary which is frequently excorciated here. At this point in time, I consider that scenario far more likely than your example. As you might point out, we got along fine for 150 years without federal law on that issue. Another lesson from the master is that principle is fine as long as it's mixed with a bit of practical politics. I take that to mean in this case taking likelihood of the events in to account in addition to principle.

P.S. As for Lincoln, he freed the slaves after the war started which makes it a bit different.

AOG:

What does "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean if life isn't provided basic protection? Even libertarians agree that freedom doesn't extend to killing each other, right?

Buttercup:

An article I read said "... a large number of ..." late term abortions are due to Trisomy-13.

I don't know the exact numbers, but that wasn't the point. A blanket prohibition on late term abortions will include condemning some women to experiencing far more horrible to them than the late-term abortion itself must be.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be making the choice.

Mr. B:

We have a remedy to the love, support and presence question. It is called marriage.

Mr. Guinn:

Please direct me to you source material, I'm a little bit lost on your last comment.

Marriage tilts the balance towards love, support, and presence, but hardly ensures them.

Mr. Herdegen:

It's not perfect because we're not perfect. But it does a heck of a lot better job than any of the alternatives come up with so far.

Buttercup:

The article was in (I think) the Detroit Free Press roughly a month ago.

Part of the reason my comment lost you is because I lost some words in the comment. It should have said:

A blanket prohibition on late term abortions will include condemning some women to experiencing something far more horrible to them than the late-term abortion itself must be.

Trisomy-13 is a rare genetic disease that causes horrible birth defects that are invariably fatal within the neonates first several days of life. The article said, I think, that about 15,000 late term abortions are due to this, but that number could also have been 1500.

In any event, this condition is sufficiently terrible that women who otherwise desire a baby elect to have a late-term abortion instead.

Something to think about when pitching blanket prohibitions.

It afflicts only 1 in 5,000 -- http://www.henryfordhealth.org/12807.cfm --so the lower number is probably right.

It would appear to be recognizable rather early in the pregnancy and certainly doesn't require partial birth abortion.

OJ:

You are right, it should be. But for whatever reason, in those cases it apparently wasn't.

Jeff:

Bunk.

OJ:

Thank you for that well reasoned rejoinder.

You forgot to add what your alternative hypothesis is, though.

The survival rate for babies born (not spontaneously miscarried) with trisomy is almost zero. Pro-actively killing in utero seems like a decision made more with convenience in mind. Parents can avoid the inevitable attachment that would occur only to watch the child die naturally. I guess it's a bit old fashioned but where there is life there is always hope.Innocent life justifies itself. Killing is just killing.