Friday, July 23, 2010

Abortionists Who Mock Viability

Anthony Kennedy is the fifth vote for Roe, and he likes viability.  So we pro-lifers are stuck with this stupid concept, on loan from Plato and baby-killers everywhere.  "She's not viable, she's too weak to survive.  So kill her."

One of the reasons the Supreme Court likes viability is that it's such a vague, unenforceable doctrine.  The doctor has a tray full of pieces, and he shrugs and says, "She couldn't have survived."  What would viability-enforcing cops do, weigh the pieces?  "She was a two-pounder, maybe she could have made it." 

Viability is a lie.  Nobody is trying to keep the baby alive, so the baby's chance to survive is nil.  It is this failure that gives pro-lifers an opportunity.  We can use the Court's own viability arguments on behalf of a new law.  It's almost impossible to prosecute a doctor for killing a viable infant.  But it's a lot easier to prosecute a doctor for not having an incubator in his clinic.

Our opponents insist they are not baby-killers.  We are told that all the pro-choice people--the Supreme Court, liberals, the Democratic party, the medical profession and half of America--care about viable infants and want to protect them.  Okay.  You do have an incubator in your abortion clinic, right?  Cause that baby might be cold.  And her lungs are tiny and undeveloped.  She really needs to be in an incubator.  If you want to try to keep her alive, maybe you should have the proper equipment.  You think? 

If a health inspector goes to an abortion clinic and they don't have an incubator, how do they keep viable babies alive?  What do you put him in, panty hose? 

I say, shut the clinic down.  That's right.  If you can't actually save the life of a viable infant, then you're disrespecting the viability standard.  In fact, you're dissing the Supreme Court.  How dare you!  Yes, we are shutting you down in the name of Roe v. Wade and Casey and the God-fearing Americans who sit on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, you viability-mocking bastard.  Who do you think you are, running an abortion clinic without bothering to acquire the machine that keeps viable babies alive?  It's almost like you don't give a damn.

Now, I know it's an expensive piece of equipment.  Keeping a preemie alive costs a lot of money.  Okay.  Hospitals spend that kind of money, because hospitals are in the life-saving business.  You are in the pregnancy-termination business.  And you are certain, oh so certain, that none of the little squids you dispose of could have survived in a hypothetical incubator that you do not own.  You are certain, like the Supreme Court is certain.  "Oh, we never make mistakes.  We only abort non-viables, that's for sure.  We don't try to keep the baby alive or anything.  But we know we're right."  

Of course, since nobody in the room is actually trying to keep this baby alive, it's an artificial standard.  It's make-believe.  If you actually give a damn about the viability standard, Supreme Court, then you would allow states to enforce it.  Right?  I mean, "viability" is not just some rhetoric you use to save face.  Or is it? 

One thing we do know, if you actually want to keep a preemie alive, you need an incubator.  It's not my standard.  It's your standard, Supreme Court.  You came up with it.  

I'm just asking.  Where are the incubators?  How come abortionists don't have any incubators? 


  1. I'm sorry you're not still posting here. This is some of the best writing on abortion I've ever seen. I look forward to all of your comments at Althouse.

  2. Please begin and publish an open letter to the female justices of the Supreme Court, who do not vote with a blind spot (G spot?), asking them to exonerate Scott Bollig or reduce his charge to practicing medicine without a license. He is still viable, and I have lost my notes.

  3. Texan99 and Laura, thanks so much for your kind words. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail for a free pdf version of my book.

  4. Laura, that's a very strong point. I think there is a big conflict between recognizing an unsolicited abortion as murder, while we say a solicited abortion is a right thing to do. This is why a lot of feminists were opposed to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Recognizing the humanity of the unborn in other contexts causes stress in officials and undermines Roe v. Wade.

    Slavery law and Nazi law ran into the same problems. Irrationalities pop up in the laws, people are human in one context and non-people in another. It causes stress and internal conflicts. "Baby" when we want a baby, "fetus" when we do not. We teach our daughters to cry at a miscarriage and feel nothing at an abortion. But our minds recoil at this dishonesty and hypocrisy.

    The only way people can respond to this irrationality (and the violence) is by pretending, not thinking about it, and looking the other way. I think abortion laws are relying heavily on ignorance, censorship, denial and repression. If and when institutional media starts running photographs of aborted infants at 22 weeks, Roe v. Wade will be finished.