Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
It is common for pro-lifers to equate abortion with murder, and I've done so myself more than once. For purposes of this post, however, I want us to assume that is false. Althouse notes the story of a young mother, Sycloria, who went to an abortionist; what happened next (according to her allegations) could coldly be described as a botched abortion. The mother is suing the clinic for distress; her complaint alleges that the the clinic administered a labor-inducing drug, but failed to perform an abortion, with horrifically predictable results:
Sycloria witnessed the live birth and suffering of her daughter as she struggled for life in pain, moving and breathing on the recliner. She witnessed [clinic owner] Belkis Gonzalez enter the room and knock the live baby from the recliner seat where she had given birth to the floor. ... Gonzalez picked up a large pair of orange shears and cut the umbilical cord connecting mother and daughter ... [but] did not clamp the baby's umbilical cord allowing the baby to bleed out[,] and also threw or by some accounts literally swept the breathing live child into a biohazard bag to suffocate and bleed to death. There are reports that Belkis Gonzalez also placed a caustic chemical in the bag with the live baby.
Florida's prohibition on partial-birth abortion (see Fla. Stat. § 782.34 (one who "intentionally kills a living fetus while that fetus is partially born commits the crime of partial-birth abortion, which is a felony of the second degree")) probably doesn't apply, remaining void under Stenberg v. Carhart despite the Carhart decision. But there's a more obvious, pressing reason why it doesn't apply, and it's the reason that creates a problem for Gonzalez: the fœtus wasn't partially-born. It was fully born. That being so, I don't understand why Gonzalez has not been indicted under another Florida statute: the statute for manslaughter. "The killing of a human being by the act ... of another ... is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree...." Fla. stat. § 782.07(1).
Even for those who support abortion rights, I can't understand why this isn't, in every sense of the term, infanticide. This wasn't an abortion: this was the cold-blooded killing of a fully-born child -- fully delivered, breathing, most likely screaming, given the proclivities of most newborns. That the intent was to abort is beside the point: an abortion was not performed. A delivery was. Quite aside from the mother's civil suit, is there any reason at all why Gonzalez shouldn't be prosecuted to the full?
Something to keep in mind
Something to keep in mind amidst all the outrage: Things like this are literally an everyday occurrence. The strange and shocking aspect is merely that it's being reported, talked about, and perhaps might even lead to prosecution.
Can't disagree at all, Simon.
It's clear the child (not the fetus, BTW) was fully born, and thus taking her life is at least manslaughter, if not straight-up murder. They threw the baby into a bag, and threw her away, like she was soiled rags, or something.
It amazes me how certain people can look at these things happening, and well, you know...
It seems so obvious, but then
It seems so obvious, but then again, I can't see why it's not just as obvious before that same child became 'child' in the instant she left the birth canal. Does that really make sense to anyone, or is it a case of knowing that this is arbitrary but feeling that the law has to draw an arbitrary line (like saying that having sex with a person minutes before that person's eighteenth birthday is statutory rape but moments later is perfectly legal?)
I have a different question on this particular case- since the doctor wasn't present, wouldn't the staff member be the one who would most clearly be charged with murder? Obviously the doctor is liable in some way as well since his delay led to the situation to begin with, but it would seem that his defense could include a claim that if he'd been present for a live birth he wouldn't have discarded the child, no?
Medical Board Revokes License of Abortion Practitioner in Florid
Medical Board Revokes License of Abortion Practitioner in Florida Born Alive Case
http://www.lifenews.com/state3823.html
So you've not only got
So you've not only got homicide, you've got obstruction of justice.
And did this really happen in
And did this really happen in July '06- and he's just now losing his license??
You have to understand that
You have to understand that the Florida Medical Board may be one of the worst in the country. Florida is a haven for quack doctors.
See, this is exactly the kind of thing our President was worried
“SENATOR OBAMA: So — and again, I’m — I’m not going to prolong this, but I just want to be clear because I think this was the source of the objections of the Medical Society. As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it — is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?” http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts (Page 32)(April 4, 2002)
Didn't he say?
I seem to recall that Candidate Obama said one reason for objecting to that bill was because it was legislating doctors to do what doctors would do anyway, because there's no way any real doctor would allow a living baby to die...
That's why I brought up the
That's why I brought up the culpability of the staff member who actually murdered the baby (sorry, but unless someone's completely misrepresenting the facts here, there's no mincing words on that) vs. the doctor. Even if one assumes that Obama's argument is correct (I don't buy that either, but for argument's sake...), that a doctor wouldn't allow a viable neonate to die, do the current laws really cover the possibility of other medical personnel from doing just that? Say, when the doctor's not present, as in this case? After all, those staff members don't have a physician's license on the line, so if that's the sort of thing we're relying on then we'd better make sure there are other safeguards in place, hmm?
modern oath
Someone was playing God.
A few observations
A few observations
Consensus regarding the perennial debate of when a fetus becomes a person seems to be that a fetus becomes a person around the 24th month of pregnancy. I due not suggest said pre-born person enjoys all the rights enumerated in the Constitution however. Some advocates make the start of "qualified" personhood twenty months so as to avoid the possibility which Simon cited: that some fetuses can leave the womb, naturally or unnaturally, as it did in this case, and survive without much medical intervention making them de facto persons. It would be reasonable for the doctor to a. properly evaluate viability at time of proposed abortion, b. inform the mother at the earliest possible time at what point the law, regardless of ethics, forbids the termination of a fetus that has legally become a person for both doctor and mother, in particular, the certified evaluation of fetal state the doctor should be required to sign in each mother's case. Variation undoubtedly presents a different range of natural viability outside the womb for all fetuses. A doctor performing abortions should be required to either record or document making the law and medical certification clear to the mother. Such parental responsiblity in no way excuses the doctor's or his staff's infanticide.
We can argue about different definitions, but is seems the option above is the most pluralistic and scientific. That may seem harsh to those who feel substantial personhood or soul is endowed in the embryo the instant it is fertilized. To argue against this standard because the transition point is fuzzy is similar to denying the measurement of motion because there is an infinite number of points between two points. Most rational human beings in describing the basic attributes of personhood; personality, primitive self-awareness and even basic neural complexity for "thinking" occurs at the stage set forth above. The example cited by Simon is a series of failures resulting in infanticide, assuming that upon professional assessment, the baby was in fact viable.
Let's work backwards. The doctor and/or his clinic should be held responsible for murder or manslaughter. I can see how the staff and doctor can kick the ball around because the doctor can say he didn't perform the abortion, or wouldn't have upon final disposition of fetal state and the staff can claim they were given the wrong information and were not qualified to make final fetal determination.
The mother was either wrongly informed of fetal state and abortion procedure and rightly freaked out to see what she (unwittingly) and the staff (criminally) had done to her obvious child, or, she failed (under penalty of law) to understand what she had consented to, what was clearly described by doctor and has a lot of nerve claiming she was surprised. I can see why she would make a strong case for the former.
And two other related thoughts:
Couldn’t a child sue their parents for negligence while they were fetuses? That is, a crack mother being sued by her adult child for the physical harm inflicted on them while in her womb? My natural inclination would be to hold the parent accountable for all enumerated negligence committed during the entire period of gestation of the fetus once it was past the 20-24 month line of personhood. I see some problems however with my inclination: to hold parents responsible for their acts against their younger-than-20-month-old fetus despite that fetus's eventual development into a living person capable of bringing forth such legal actions against them. I am sure there is already a case history. Perhaps Simon might have additonal comments.
Stubborn Facts comment thread is tame compared to Althouse's.
missed the consensus
i am in favor of an approach to abortion policy which looks closely at the mechanics of development and at improvements in viability, in order to try to found a modern policy based more on science than upon rhetoric and the wide range of personal moral views. (I cheerfully grant it's hard to work around that latter, BTW).
But it is not my sense that there exists anything resembling the consensus you describe. I don't even think there's anything approaching a consensus that my perspective makes sense.
My personal opinion is that it is unconscionable to have an abortion of a fetus that is healthy, normal, and past the point of viability. And that arguably once a fetus has a detectable pulse and semi-developed nervous system, it's either a person or at least so far along the way that it's unconscionable not to make any decision about whether to terminate a pregnancy with all deliberate speed.
In other words, I think you can make a pretty good case based on science that a 2nd trimester abortion is morally quite iffy if you believe that murder is wrong. And I'm a pretty solid defender of the principle of the parental right to choose whether to have their pregnancy result in a child.
So I don't think any amount of declaring a consensus makes one so.
I'm pretty sure that the
I'm pretty sure that the number of people who'd agree that the fetus becomes a person around the 24th month of pregnancy would be zero.
(Sorry, I know it was a typo but I found it so funny that I couldn't resist.)
along that same line of funny
My mother frequently argued that abortion should be legal until the age of 18, or whenever the kids moved out of the house. Mind you, she had 3 teenagers at the time.
Actually, most scientists do
Actually, most scientists do not think that a "person" we typically ascribe "self-awareness" and "personality" to happens before three years.
Of course, it was a typo, but take a look at the science and you will find "person" in a "personality" sense comes into being about the 36 month mark.
I saw the typo, but didn't want my post to go to the top after fixing it....thanks.
Yeah, I find that that's
Yeah, I find that that's another logical inconsistency for those who are horrified at infanticide but don't think we should even consider personhood for the babe even as it's descending through the birth canal. There's certainly nothing magical about the moment that the neonate passes through that would make it more ethical to kill it just before that moment but not afterward. And all of the arguments about accommodating the mother's right to abort because of the unfairness of her condition are moot as well because certainly once the baby is born and has legal personhood, there are expectations of provision of care for this completely dependent child. The child at the moment of birth just transitions from an internal parasite to an external one, if you're looking at it in those terms- so why does the mother have the right to 'choose' to do away with an internal parasite but not an external one? If anything, it's a bit more burdensome for a mother to care for an infant than to carry a child in utero.
I guess the viability standard is a little bit more logical but of course then the problem is that it's a moving target. For each individual fetus, how would the decision be made of viability? Viable with intensive medical intervention, or would it have to be viable pretty much on it's own with minimal assistance? Or, would the law arbitrarily pick a date when the majority of fetuses pass that viability threshold, even though we know that means that some 'murders' (by that standard) would still be permitted to occur? And even that's leaving aside the movement of the target over time as medicine advances to be able to perhaps have actual artificial wombs (perhaps providing blood oxygenation via umbilicus just like mom does, and bypassing the need for lung development.) What then?
free to shun
The moving target issue makes real-world policy difficult to design and implement, but it seems fairly sound logically (and IMO morally, but let's skip that argument.)
I am fine with the "viable with intensive medical intervention" standard if it were either funded via private sponsorship or democratically approved. At its most basic, I see the provision of abortion as protecting some individual (or collective among concerned parties, iow parents) right to shun or reject a particular course for themselves.
The way I see it, once that person or parties in question have been freed from this undesirable course, their "rights" cease to be relevant.
What other consensus is there?
Well Brian, science does not confirm that at twelve weeks the fetus has the attributes we normally associate with a person. Of course, I am referring to "person" in the sense we talk about "murdering" a person. When I said "consensus", I meant the following: most pro-choice people I have ever talked to would not object to calling the killing of a mother and her eight month old fetus, a double murder. From my experience (of course, limited) discussing the issue with those on the Liberal side, most supporting abortion admit there is a line to be drawn during fetal development. I think Pew has the "legal in most cases (not late term abortion)" group with higher numbers that the other groups. My comment generalized data, but I did not mean a "consensus" like the one that exists over evolution....I also think that there are more than a few pro-lifers who object only with later term abortion and the "abuse of abortion" in general.
There are four basic positions that I am aware of: a person begins at conception, a person begins with a heartbeat, a person begins with a certain nerve volume associated with thought, volition, autonomy, personality etc. (around 20 - 24 weeks) which also is around the same time a fetus can survive outside the womb, and a person once the fetus has left the womb. I think polls indicate and science does support the idea that a person first appears at the mark I indicated.
I never said that was more than my opinion, but it does appear to be the general mark set down by Roe which talks about natural viability outside the womb. It makes sense that the person would arrive about the same time viability outside the womb is possible. While I don't think Roe is great law, I doubt that "person" ought to be decided by each state.
And what Simon posted was infanticide, not abortion.
qualifier provided
Max, I was thrown by your use of the word consensus. Now that you've clarified that you meant "consensus among pro-choice liberals," I understand.
In general use, I presume that when someone speaks of a consensus they are implying that there is some form of general agreement across a diverse range, unless otherwise specified with a qualifier, by saying something like "the consensus among climatologists" or "the consensus among Yankees fans" etc.
Murder Is Murder
When I read about this case, I started to write a post about it. The more I thought, the more disgusted I felt. I finally trashed the draft and moved on to something else.
I'm pro-choice, albeit reluctantly. But this is murder, plain and simple. Not manslaughter. If a murder charge isn't forthcoming, then something is terribly wrong down in Florida.