The Abortion Debate: Part 2

In our previous discussion, we learned that a critical component of debate is the definition of terms. Those definitions must be reasonable, logical, and clear. Without a clearly defined definition of the terms of the debate, no germane, cogent discussion is possible. 

This installment is to describe a debate tactic. It is called the “even if,” argument. “Even if” a certain fact is, in fact, true, how does that change the tenor and course of the debate? We aver that the fact in question does not change the thrust, nor results, of the proposal and is either irrelevant or, possibly, contradictory to the opposing position.

An excellent example of this tactic, but, unused to this point as far as I know, is from the contest for Senator from Georgia. Senator Warnock’s supporters have accused Herschel Walker of encouraging and even facilitating former girl friends to abort their shared children. Walker is campaigning on a platform, of among other things, of being against abortion. The ironic part of this argument, is that Warnock, himself, is in favor of abortion.

In short, Warnock’s campaigners’ position is, that Walker is wrong and unreliable because he changed his mind. In fact, it would seem that the fact that he now opposes something that he allegedly supported in the past is the “burr under the saddle.” Or more likely, a “spur to the neck.”

To my knowledge, Walker’s response has been to deny the validity of the charge that he was involved in advocating for an abortion. Let’s apply the “even if” analysis to this question. Even if the incident in question were true, how does that change the force of the debate? If the position of favoring abortion was wrong, and he changed his mind, then why should he be excoriated and condemned? On the other hand, is it the direction of the change that is the sticking point? If he had changed from anti-abortion to pro-abortion would they still be against him?

Let’s explore other “changes of mind.” Here is a quote on a notable change of mind reported by that conservative bastion, CNN. (https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/03/politics/joe-biden-abortion-draft-opinion/index.html)

“Long one of the Democratic Party’s most moderate voices on abortion, Biden has reckoned with personal qualms rooted in his Catholic faith.

“He said early on in his career that while he supported individuals’ right to an abortion, he opposed federal funds paying for them. Later, he backed Republican efforts to ban so-called ‘partial-birth abortions,’ a non-medical term describing rare late-term procedures, and said he would have liked to go further in restricting them.

“In 2006, two years before he was elected vice president, he told an interviewer he did “not view abortion as a choice and a right.” A year later, he spelled out his internal conflict in an appearance on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press.’

“‘I was 29 years old when I came to the United States Senate, and I have learned a lot,’ he said. ‘I’m a practicing Catholic, and it is the biggest dilemma for me in terms of comporting my religious and cultural views with my political responsibility.’”

Here he admits that he changed his position, only in the opposite direction from Walker. It appears that Warnock’s supporters oppose the fact that he is now against abortion, rather than for it. “He is unstable and unsuited for the position.” Even that charge is illogical. If he is indeed, unstable, then he might change back to favoring abortion. That would be a win for the Democrats. Sounds like an argument that a Republican might have used in the primaries to vote for another candidate. If he changes now, it would be in favor of the pro-abortion position.

So “even if” Walker has changed his mind, it merely shows that he has evaluated the the facts and decided that he was wrong. It is alive, it is a baby, it is a baby person. And it has worth. We should not call it, an “it.” “He or she” is more accurate. However that evokes another debate, which I will forego. ("Whew," goes the crowd.)

Personal Postscript: If the voters of Georgia base their votes on a pro or anti abortion stance, they are pretty shortsighted. Soaring prices for the necessities of life, soaring crime rates, soaring numbers of illegal immigrants, and plummeting confidence by our allies in the resolve of America to defend them, and other critical issues obscure the import of whether a woman can “terminate a pregnancy at will.” If the entire Congress were for abortion, or against abortion, these issues would still dominate the lives of citizens for years to come. Focus on the critical issues.

Abortion Questions

Many abortion advocates has suggested that abortion bans subject medical personnel to unreasonable threats of legal action for performing some medical procedures that are deemed to be abortions. This, in turn, has the potential of harming a woman’s health by unreasonable delay in performing life-saving interventions. One example often cited is D and C, also known as: dilation and curettage.

There are times when a successful birth is not followed by the successful expulsion of the afterbirth. This retained placenta, according to Dr. Google, happens in about 3% of vaginal births. The treatment for this can include our friend, D and C. Is that a post-delivery abortion, and thus subject to abortion bans? (If such a thing could actually be or could be construed in that manner.)

To answer this question we go back to my college debate and subsequent coaching of high school debaters. No academic debate can proceed without the definition of terms. If the meaning of the terms used are not agreed upon, the debaters do not know what they are talking about. Or what their opponents are talking about. Often a debate hinges upon the definition of the terms involved.

Here we define “abortion” as a procedure that is performed with the intent of producing a dead baby. A “medical procedure,” such as D and C in the instance in question, is administered with the primary intent of preserving the life of the mother, and secondarily, producing a live birth if at all possible. Any conflict in those two conclusions must be resolved according to the priorities: live mother first, then live birth.

Concerning D and C, since it is used in some abortion procedures, an objection has been raised that any D and C would be considered an abortion, in violation of the law. This is irrespective of the intent of the procedure. Obviously, this argument is flawed and blatantly false because it does not meet the definition of terms. If it is used in the preservation of the mother’s life, it does not qualify as a violation of the law.

Going further, some abortions are effected by the administration of medication. So would the administration of any medication to a pregnant woman be considered, abortion” No reasonable, logical person would interpret it that way. Anesthesia can be administered during an abortion, so would sedating a pregnant mother, even in the process of delivery, be prosecuted as an violation of the abortion ban? We are getting pretty ridiculous here. In debate, we called that reductio ad absurdum, reducing to absurdity. 

Incidentally, should an over zealous prosecutor take more than one such incident to trial and have  it summarily dismissed, he or she would most likely be subject to some legal reprimand, censure, and even sanctions. 

What about other instances? If a baby is stillborn and some placental fragments remain within the mother’s uterus, would that removal be prosecution worthy? Asked and answered. How about a little more obscure example. A baby is still born, dead, but not delivered. Would the surgical removal of the dead baby be abortion? We answer that by asking a simple question: Did a medical intervention deliberately result in the death of the infant? If the answer is no, then the answer is, “No.”

The final and most difficult situation is when a living baby utero is threatening the life of the mother, for some reason.  And here we defer to the experts. (https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/20/what-about-woman-whose-life-threatened-pregnancy-o/)

And I quote: While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a preborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify abortion in general was a “smoke screen.”

Further: Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Dr. Landrum Shettles says that less than 1 percent of all abortions are performed to save the mother’s life. End quote.

You can read the entire explanation of the options at the above referenced location. So in conclusion, it seems that the abortion advocates have failed to consider the definition of terms, and literally, do not know what they are talking about. 

Abortion Complications

 On Wednesday, July 20, the Tennessean ran an article bemoaning the fact that OBGYN training and practice has become extremely difficult and convoluted due to the overturning of the Roe decision. In essence, the article spelled out the difficulty for doctors in knowing how to “treat” pregnant women (or “birthing persons,” as some say). “What if there is a complication and the doctor does not know how to proceed?”

Just as a helpful piece of advice, they might pull out the medical texts from the 1960's. I do not recall doctors or OBGYN practitioners struggling with how to handle problem pregnancies. With maybe one or two outlier exceptions, the doctor treats the mother (bp) in order to save her life. No problem or controversy. Incidentally, ectopic pregnancies are not considered true medical pregnancies as there is no chance that a live birth will occur. Generally, “abortion” refers to the termination of a viable pregnancy which has a reasonable likelihood of producing a live baby.

What the article failed to mention is that the practice of abortion has become so commonplace that many medical practitioners use it as a standard operating procedure when any difficulty occurs. It can be abbreviated as SOP. And unfortunately, it has become a literal sop to many. And that is the root of the supposed problems. As any insurance agent knows, insurance coverage is normally restricted to “medically necessarily.” Any medical procedure should conform to that standard. “Is this necessary?”

That would even simplify the hullabaloo over juvenile sex treatment. Statistics show that gender dysphoria, especially among young adolescents, clears up by middle to late teens. It is not hard to find reports from individuals who regret early choices, especially the irreversible ones. 

Me thinks the abortion advocates doth protest too much.

Abortion: Red Herrings and Facts

I have tried to read every article, letter to the editor, opinion piece, and editorial since the Dobbs decision was rendered. And I searched in vain to find a justification for why so many people in our country, including the present administration, are so rabidly intent on acquiring and assuring the right to kill babies. There are several “red herrings,” which in debate language identifies an argument, which is non-probative, but emotional or sensational. This tactic, in forensics, is to distract the opponent into wasting time and resourses in refutation of nonessential points, leaving the consequential arguments untouched. This leads to victory in the debate for the opposition.

Red herring number one: President Biden dragged this smelly carcass across the trail with his reference to a ten-year old girl who had to leave her home in Ohio and go to, gasp! Indiana, for an abortion of a baby fathered by her perverted father. Incidentally, my daughter and her family live in Indiana, and I was not aware that it was such a repugnant and repulsive place. But I digress.

Fact number one: Six states were surveyed* which seem to be representative of the nation as a whole, and the statistics showed 0.39% of abortions were performed on babies who were conceived by rape or incest. This is consequential to the victim, but the procedure imposes a second trauma on the unwilling mother, and an end of life for the baby who has done nothing worthy of capital punishment. Hard cases make bad law.

Red herring number two: Many women will die because a potentially lethal pregnancy will not be terminated. A second argument is that the baby will be born with life threatening deformaties.

Fact number two: In those same states, 1.14% were done to save the life or physical health of the mother and 1.28% to preserve her mental health. And all states have exceptions that deal with the well-being of the mother. As for deformed babies, 0.69% of abortions were done for fetal birth defects, or eugenics. Bad logic makes bad law.

Red herring number three: These babies are unwanted and destined to grow up in a terrible and deprived environment. This will spare them.

Fact number three: For this, exact stats are very hard to acquire. But I have heard testimonies of abortion survivors. There is very little more that will convince a person that they were unwanted, than an attempt to end their existence. Every one, without exception expressed gratitude for life and many are actively working to reduce and even eliminate abortion. I have not read nor heard any person testify that their deprived live or unhealthy surroundings have convinced them that abortion would have been a better alternative than being born and living.

The 3.50% of all the hard cases combined merely illustrate that 96.5% of abortions are for less than substantial reasons. They are executed for social or economic reasons, which, I might add, are not incumbent on the baby. Selfish decisions make bad law.

“Even the Guttmacher Institute puts the number of abortions done for the hard cases under 7% after doing several surveys of women obtaining abortions (the Guttmacher Institute was the research arm of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest chain of abortion clinics in the United States. It is considered the most reliable provider of accurate statistics on abortion).”*

We live in a civilized nation that is responsible for approximately 61 million, or more, baby murders. And using the most liberal numbers, over 90% of them are for non-medical reasons.

If you have not read the actual Dobbs opinion, but are depending upon the rantings of the rabid abortion adherents, do so. All of their so called reasons for objecting to the decision are refuted in the opinion. Justice and democracy, let alone reason and sanity, demand an end to this atrocious practice.

*Source of statistics: https://www.hli.org/resources/why-women-abort/

Just a thought: If V. Putin is invading Ukraine to liberate oppressed Russian sympathizers, why have 1.5 million of them fled to other countries?  Just a thought.

New Fad/Response

 

It is difficult to find an interview with anyone that does not begin with the introductory conjunction, “Absolutely!” Is anyone else tired of this trivial use?

Let’s make up a new one, and see how long it takes to permeate our society. How about, “Indubitably?” When somone asks a question or makes a comment, reply with a hearty, “Indubitably!”

Let’s give it a trial run. “Are you looking forward to the SuperBowl?”

“Indubitably!” The (fill in the blank) will certainly win.”

“Can you believe the weather?”

“Indubitably!” “I have never seen such weather in February.” (Or any appropriate time frame.)

“Is your family doing well?”

“Indubitably!”

You get the point. Let’s indubitably change the conversation, shall we?

“Indubitably!”