Abortion: Leopards Vs Hyenas
It's a fine line, and sometimes we forget about the Baboons. Creation Date Saturday, 27 April 2013. Hits 41239
One of the major drawbacks of being a blogger who has opinions that don't always fit the mainstream of either political party is that, after awhile, the party faithful tend to tune you out. Truth be told, I tend to get more responses from the left than from the right when I post my articles to facebook. On the issue of abortion, I am a guy who was once in the pro life political camp until my views evolved (politically, not personally) to pro choice. Yet I have long believed, ever since I knew there even was such an issue, that we should all be able to find some common ground on a child that has been born alive. That was, of course, before I knew about a State Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama and a doctor from Pennsylvania named Kermit Gosnell.
Basically, no matter where you stand on when life begins, I have always thought it to be commonly accepted as fact that a baby who has been delivered from the mother and is breathing and showing other signs of life is a live human. I'm not sure how one would even begin to argue against that statement, but I find it more disturbing that some would try. Now, if reasonable people would all agree that the baby that is living outside of the womb is indeed a live human baby, then can't we all agree that at this point any attempt to end that life would not be abortion? After all, abortion is the ending of the process of pregnancy. If the baby is delivered and alive, it is a little too late to attempt to end that process. What we would then be ending is in fact life, not a process. At the risk of being caught up in a game of semantics, I won't call it murder, but it would seem to me that reasonable people would without a doubt conclude here that the person performing an act that results in this baby dying is killing a baby and not terminating a pregnancy.
The other day I was watching some nature videos, and I came upon the one posted at the bottom of this article. Don't watch it yet! It's at the bottom for a reason. Also at the bottom will be a link to the story behind the video.
In the video, you have a leopard out in the jungle and she spots a baboon. Apparently, baboons are good eating to a leopard. Also worth noting is the fact that leopards must be good eating to hyenas, because there are some of these guys gathered around scoping out the leopard. You can see where this is going here, right? Baboon wants to eat grass, or whatever the heck it eats. Leopard wants to kill the baboon, but it has to be careful to avoid the hyenas. Hyenas want to eat the leopard, but they would settle for the baboon, but both are bigger than they are so they need to be careful how they approach.
At some point, the leopard strikes and kills the baboon. Now it has to drag this thing up a tree to eat it so that the hyenas don't a) steal it's kill and b) attack her. In the process of dragging the leopard up the tree, as if the drama wasn't thick enough, a baby baboon falls out of the fur of the mother. Ready for a multiple choice quiz? At this point, the leopard...
- Doesn't even notice the baby baboon.
- Sees the baby baboon, but shows no sign of interest.
- Sees the baby baboon, realizes that it cannot survive on it's own, and performs a mercy kill.
- Sees the baby baboon, and realizes its plight, and provides reasonable care and assistance to the creature.
- Sees the baby baboon, and devours it as an appetizer before her mama baboon meal.
Now be honest, which of the above do you suppose is most likely to have actually happened? I would vote for "c" myself, although a, b, c, and e all seem logical enough to me. Obviously, the last thing I expected was "d" save the baboon and provide reasonable care and assistance. But that is precisely what happened. Don't believe me? You can watch it now, but you had better come back!
This leopard (it should be noted, the same leopard that had just killed the baby mama) climbs out of the tree, takes the baby baboon gently in it's mouth, and gets it up into the tree safely away from the hyenas. It then proceeds to look out for the little guy as the hyenas wait below. It even quits trying to defend it's kill from the looming predators. It's main focus is now caring for this baby baboon. Unreal, right? As the day drags on, it licks the baboon clean, pulls it down when it climbs too high, and cuddles up with it to keep it warm as it falls asleep. And I just watched this video wondering when leopards suddenly became more humane than humans.
I'm not trying to get on anyone here. Politically, I don't want to take away the right of a woman to abort a pregnancy. But once the baby is born, even if it is born in an attempt to abort, isn't it a life? This leopard was in the process of preparing to eat a mother she had just slaughtered when she saw the baby and had compassion. Where the hell is ours? We have an abortion doctor murdering live babies, and pro life people call him an animal, and my leopard girl over here says "Excuse me? Even we aren't that messed up."
Now, where does President Obama come in to all of this? Most of you know that when he was a State Senator in Illinois he opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act twice. The first time I can cut him some slack. The second time I cannot. Here is what he said the first time. (Page 87)
Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality. Now, as I said before, this probably won't make any difference. I recall the last time we had a debate about abortion, we passed a bill out of here. I suggested to Members of the Judiciary Committee that it was unconstitutional and it would be struck down by the Seventh Circuit. It was. I recognize this is a passionate issue, and so I -- I won't, as I said, belabor the point. I think it's important to recognize though that this is an area where potentially we might have compromised and -- and arrived at a bill that dealt with the narrow concerns about how a -- a previable fetus or child was treated by a hospital. We decided not to do that. We're going much further than that in this bill. As a consequence, I think that we will probably end up in court once again, as we often do, on this issue. And as a consequence, I'll be voting Present.
You may not like that, but it is reasonable. He wanted a compromise that distinguished between a viable infant that could survive outside the mother and one that couldn't. But round 2 that part of the legislation had changed. Surely he would support it this time, right? (Pages 33, 34)
Essentially, I think, as -- as this emerged during debate and during committee, the only plausible rationale, to my mind, for this legislation would be if you had a suspicion that a doctor, the attending physician, who has made an assessment that this is a nonviable fetus and that, let's say for the purposes of the mother's health, is being -- that -- that labor is being induced, that that physician (a) is going to make the wrong assessment and (b) if the physician discovered, after the labor had been induced, that, in fact, he made an error, or she made an error, and, in fact, that this was not a nonviable fetus but, in fact, a live child, that that physician, of his own accord or her own accord, would not try to exercise the sort of medical measures and practices that would be involved in saving that child. Now, if -- if you think that there are possibilities that doctors would not do that, then maybe this bill makes sense, but I -- I suspect and my impression is, is that the Medical Society suspects as well that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations and that, essentially, adding a -- an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. Now, if that's the case - and -- and I know that some of us feel very strongly one way or another on that issue - that's fine, but I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least, have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they're looked after. Thank you, Mr. President.
Seriously? Than why did you originally say that you would support this legislation if it only applied to a viable fetus? Why is it now that you are suddenly convinced that there are no hyenas in this world like Dr. Kermit over there, when previously you felt like this was a reasonable measure if it only applied to lives that could survive? And now, I get to the worst part of the above statement.
...simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
So let me see if I have this straight. If the mother wanted to abort the pregnancy, but that pregnancy was so far along that the fetus survived the attempt and was delivered instead as a viable fetus, to not honor the mothers original wish and then kill the baby is an unfair burden on the mother? If that isn't sick, it is one stop short of it on the train to Crazyville.
Now I want to be clear here. Even having watched the video below, I'm not convinced that every leopard would act in a manner similar to the leopard observed in said video. Furthermore, I am not convinced that this leopard would act in such a manner every time she encountered a similar situation. I'm just saying if we want the classification of "human" to actually mean something, then we shouldn't have to learn a lesson this basic from the animal kingdom. Dr. Gosnell is charged with, and will most likely be convicted of murder as he should be. When the Born Alive Infant Protection Act hit the federal level, it passed the United States Senate by unanimous consent in 2002, obviously before President Obama arrived on the scene. Remember that kind of bipartisanship? Perhaps it is lacking now because we elected a President so radical that he couldn't even agree with the most liberal in his party on this basic issue of human rights.