Patterico's Pontifications

1/19/2011

Will the Left Take Responsibility For the Hateful Rhetoric Leading to the (Alleged) Crimes of Dr. Kermit Gosnell? (Update: Grand Jury Report Added)

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 2:24 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Update: You can read the (gruesome) grand jury report, here. Hat tip: Hot Air.

If you want to get into hateful rhetoric, there is one group of Americans the left regularly dehumanizes. They literally declare they are not persons, that they are not alive, that they have no rights that the rest of us are bound to respect.  Indeed, our own president fought against efforts to declare that the killing of one of these Americans to be murder.

Of course, I am speaking of the unborn.  And can there be any doubt that the callous disregard for human life led to this?

For those who can’t watch, here’s the story in print.  The short version is that his doctor allegedly ran a massively unsafe abortion clinic, involving dirty equipment giving patients infections, causing by some means one adult patient.  Further in seven cases he induced the birth of viable fetuses and then committed infanticide.

And yes, the left has said all of those awful things about fetuses.  Indeed, the Supreme Court itself has contributed much to that rhetoric in Roe v. Wade.  First, they admitted that if the fetus was a person it was fatal to the right to an abortion:

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.

And then they concluded that it was not a person:

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

But of course our discourse is filled with feminists asserting that a fetus was not alive, and deserved no protection under the law.  And indeed, our own president has opposed laws in Illinois that would outlaw murders precisely like this:

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers — would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case…

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

And Planned Parenthood joins in this (as does NARAL):

The really hot question is, “When does being a person begin?” Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.

Can there be any doubt that the degradation of human life regularly done in word and deed in the name of a right to abortion might spill over into even a willingness to kill those children born alive?

So will the left take responsibility for this?

And while we are talking about hateful rhetoric leading to murder, let’s talk again about the hate they are not discussing and how Democrats have contributed to that.  Remember when Dick Durbin compared our military men and women fighting in the war on terror to Nazis?

Yes, a bit later, he apologized, but the damage was already done.  Democrats always worry about winning over the hearts and minds of the Islamic world, and of hampering recruitment efforts.  Well, doesn’t this harm our ability to win over hearts and minds?  Doesn’t this help al Qaeda with recruiting?  And if you think Sarah Palin’s supporters are scary, they don’t hold a candle to these al Qaeda animals.

Nor is this an isolated incident.

Again, Democrats, do you really want to play this game?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Return to main page.

186 Responses to “Will the Left Take Responsibility For the Hateful Rhetoric Leading to the (Alleged) Crimes of Dr. Kermit Gosnell? (Update: Grand Jury Report Added)”

  1. Sorry… laughing too hard… only made it to the 5th word in the post title…

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  2. I think that abortion needs to end now!

    However, we need to fine sperm donors 25K per unwed mother they knockup and 1000 a month to the kid until they are 21

    problem solved

    EricPWJohnson (719277)

  3. However, we need to fine sperm donors 25K per unwed mother they knockup and 1000 a month to the kid until they are 21

    Nothing wrong with that, aside from the fact many dads are judgment proof.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  4. Under California law a fetus is considered a human being unless the mother says it isn’t.

    If she solicits an abortionist to kill the fetus, it isn’t murder. If you kill her fetus and she didn’t want you to kill it, then it is murder.

    We live in an utterly sick and demented world.

    The law…

    187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
    (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
    (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
    106 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
    case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
    although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.
    (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

    Dave Surls (c13c16)

  5. This guy is some kind of serial killer. Killing born babies and stuffing them into a freezer?

    I am just waiting for some poisoned degenerate to say this is why abortion should be legal (because illegal abortions are less safe).

    This guy belongs in a cell with Loughner.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. Hey, when you’re right you’re right.

    Everyday, all I hear is people on the left calling “unborn fetuses” hateful and disgusting names. “Placenta hoggers”, “Trimester tots”… and of course “Nazis”. Such hateful rhetoric!

    Clearly, that’s why abortion clinics do what they do. Because of the left’s hateful rhetoric.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  7. i think i need to fix the durbin video. i will when i get home.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  8. Such hateful rhetoric!

    they call them less than people. they say it is good to kill them, to combat global warming.

    you are pretty damn trashy to pretend the opposite. Once again, you just invent a bad faith denial for no clear reason.

    Remember, some democrats actually think it’s OK to kill a viable baby, after it is born, if the mother wanted an abortion.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  9. This is just awful. It really is. This man has killed hundreds of babies. Allegedly of course.

    Terrye (7379d2)

  10. Kman

    > Everyday, all I hear is people on the left calling “unborn fetuses” hateful and disgusting names

    How about simply “not a person.” is that ugly enough for you?

    > Clearly, that’s why abortion clinics do what they do. Because of the left’s hateful rhetoric.

    that is not only why they do it, but it is HOW they do it. if the law treated them as a person, then there would be little-to-no right to an abortion in this country.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. This is just awful.

    Comment by Terrye

    I don’t think there’s any way to process it, beyond just being horrified. It’s just awful.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. Kman – Let’s not jump to conclusions.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  13. How about simply “not a person.” is that ugly enough for you?

    It’s not “hateful” to call a zygote “not a person”. It’s just being factual.

    My dog isn’t a person either; it doesn’t mean I hate my dog by pointing that out. Nor is that an “ugly” thing to say about my dog.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  14. It’s not “hateful” to call a zygote “not a person”. It’s just being factual.

    My dog isn’t a person either; it doesn’t mean I hate my dog by pointing that out.

    Uh huh. Another bad faith argument. Indeed, if you said it was OK to kill a dog, because it’s not like it has human rights, then you are saying something awfully hateful.

    A lot of people say the world is a better place without unwanted fetuses being born. There truly is no greater hate than this.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. Here’s the entire federal born alive act. Can someone (Patterico, perhaps) explain how this definition (which is all that the act consists of) requires babies born alive to be provided with medical care?

    H.R.2175

    One Hundred Seventh Congress

    of the

    United States of America

    AT THE SECOND SESSION

    Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

    the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

    An Act

    To protect infants who are born alive.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002′.

    SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF BORN-ALIVE INFANT.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    Sec. 8. `Person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’ as including born-alive infant

    (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

    (b) As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

    (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive’ as defined in this section.’.

    (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

    8. `Person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’ as including born-alive infant.’.

    Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Vice President of the United States and

    President of the Senate.

    Jim (87e69d)

  16. Wow… is Kman really saying abortion is just another method of contraception?

    Because that’s what the “zygote” reference sounds like.

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  17. Dustin, consider me one of the haters. The world is probably a better place because unwanted kids were aborted.

    Jim (87e69d)

  18. Gentlemen: I think that we all have a right to an opinion on this , but don’t you think that it might be interested to learn what women think—since they are the ones most intimately involved?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  19. Uh huh. Another bad faith argument

    No. The bad faith argument is trying to equate abortion with “hateful rhetoric”.

    If you are opposed to abortion, that’s a respectable position. And I know the reason why people have that position. I don’t agree with it, but I understand that argument.

    By the same token, there is a pro-choice position. And AW is acting in bad faith when he characterizes those who hold that position as engaging in “hateful rhetoric” (tellingly, he doesn’t give a specific example).

    That said, the allegations against Gosnell, if true, only point out why abortions should be safe and legal and regulated. Because his whole operation reeks of back-alleyness — which is what we would end up with if abortion was made illegal.

    Gotta go. Have at me in my absence. And due respect to those who disagree with me by making good faith arguments.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  20. P.S. Another way you can tell AW is making a bad faith argument is that he blames this on “the left’s” hateful rhetoric. As if nobody on the right (or in the center) can be pro-life.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  21. And AW is acting in bad faith when he characterizes those who hold that position as engaging in “hateful rhetoric”

    Liberals are held to no such standard. It is pure bigotry on your part to expect it of conservatives.

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  22. Ooops. I mean pro-choice

    Kman (d30fc3)

  23. Kman, you’re equating abortion in general with killing born babies?

    did you read the post? Aaron’s not talking about all abortion. He’s talking about someone who has dehumanized babies to an even more horrible degree than you have.

    And yes, it makes sense to discuss how that came to be. Now you’re projecting your bad faith. I guess that was predictable. Slow down, windows your computer screen, and read Aaron’s post for the first time.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  24. rather, Windex your computer screen. Dammit.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. what women think—since they are the ones most intimately involved?

    Comment by Simon Jester

    I don’t see what having a vagina has to do with the logic behind killing a baby. I also think it’s the baby who is most intimately involved.

    We all understand that having a baby is work. I think it’s fair to invite women to discuss this, but also think it’s OK for me to say it’s in their best interest not to kill their child unless they are in an extreme situation.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. I am changing my opinion on abortion. The more liberals who kill their babies, the fewer liberals there will be.

    nk (db4a41)

  27. “not a person”, I think that’s been used before.

    Revising the medical malpractice system should also provide for faster investigation of docs with multiple claims that sound worrisome. If in the process of getting records an attorney came across suspicion of criminal negligence he/she would have an obligation to report it, yes? What if he realizes his client was guilty of a crime, e.g. an abortion at 28 weeks which is illegal in PA?

    As a med student in the early 80’s, I heard one of the pediatric residents tell of the time he was on call and heard a “STAT” page (over the speaker system back then) to part of the hospital he was unfamiliar with. When he got there he found that a live birth had resulted from a late term induced abortion. At that time in history it was unheard of for a premie that small to survive, so his action was limited to saying, “What the hell do you want me to do?”

    Stepping out of ignoring mode for a second:
    Kman, if you had a nano-particle of good faith, conscience, or intellectual integrity you would have had the sense to at least stay out of this, if not agree that the actions were repulsive.

    I don’t remember exactly why we decided to ignore you before, but it was something on the order of your comment here, such garbage that it didn’t even deserve rebutting.

    I motion we as a group again consign Kman to essential nonexistence, that is, treat him as if he is not there.

    Do I have a second?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  28. It’s not “hateful” to call a zygote “not a person”

    Can we abort you instead?

    Dmac (498ece)

  29. since they are the ones most intimately involved?
    Well, other than the aborted fetus (or murdered babies, in the case of this article).

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  30. Second the motion.
    Call the question.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. Lefties.

    Kill your babies all you want.

    Please?

    nk (db4a41)

  32. Once the baby has been born the only “risk” the mother has is financially supporting and raising the child if he/she lives, and in PA someone can drop the child off at a hospital without fear of repercussion.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  33. Kman, no, your dog isn’t a person but I guaran-damn-tee you that if you ripped your dogs puppies out of her, you would be going to jail and PETA would be hiring lawyers to make sure that you get three hots and a cot for quite a while.

    Personally, I think that all highschools should be required to show actual medical films of abortions (the same ones shown to med students). They should show how a baby is brought down the birth canal, and a Messenbaum scissors shoved into the back of its neck. Or how it is disected into peices to make it easier to remove from the woman’s womb. But hey, schools won’t do that because, God forbid, the little darlings be subjected to “violence”, since the little darlings don’t see any violence on the big and little screens or on their GameBoys. If that doesn’t work, then every state should require the woman to view the sonigram of her unborn child prior to the abortion procedure.

    I was listening to a talk show one day where a woman who supports a woman’s right to “choose” was asked if she had ever personally witnessed an abortion. She said “no”. Then she was asked if she had ever seen a medical film of an abortion procedure. She said, “No, I can’t say that I have.”

    What has happened is that life itself has been marginalized to one simple word: choice. But if you look at the reasons women have abortions, the percentage due to incest is less than 1%, and the percentage due to rape is almost as small. So it becomes clear that the “choice” was made PRIOR to conception, not after it.

    The latest abortion stats from New York City show that 39% of ALL pregnancies are ending in voluntary termination, i.e. abortion.

    retire05 (173aa6)

  34. It has been motioned and seconded that we no longer acknowledge Kman’s presence, as his behavior is unbecoming even of a troll.

    This is volumtary if carried, but we urge cooperation. There are others you can play “Whack a mole” with.

    All in favor???

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. I’m with you, MD.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  36. Counting Myself, SPQR, Scott Jacobs, and Dustin

    We currently have a vote 4-0 in favor of shunning, not acknowledging, not paying attention to, and outright ignoring Kman, at least on this thread, for behavior beneath that of even a troll.

    If Kman thinks it is OK to consider unborn babies as not persons and treat them as such (even after they are born), we will at least consider him not a commenter.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  37. the Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay.

    From the indictment.

    Politics, from democrats, killed these children, already born. ‘No barrier’ to democrat’s victim class… we hear that one from time to time to justify crimes ranging from voter fraud to murder.

    This is government run healthy authorities playing politics with human lives.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  38. Don’t count on me to be able to play “whack a mole” with. Paterico has apparently banned me.

    Jim (8de501)

  39. Ok, maybe not banned. Just deleted.

    Where did kman say that born babies shouldn’t be treated as persons? I sure don’t see him having said that.

    Jim (8de501)

  40. Dustin, I don’t disagree with most of your points here. I simply say that women are carrying the zygote/unborn child, and I would hope that their opinion would hold more weight for that reason.

    It’s perfectly okay if that doesn’t seem reasonable to anyone else.

    As for Kman, I honestly think he just posts to stir people up. I am trying to think of when he does not reflexively post in contradiction to anything Aaron posts.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  41. Dustin, I think you need to rethink that, the indictment indicts more than you might think.

    Bob Casey Sr. was a staunch pro-life democrat, maybe the last in existence, who was denied a spot at the Democrat Convention one time because they didn’t want to hear what he had to say. Ridge was and is a “Moderate” and I believe Pro-choice (certainly NOT vocal pro-life) Republican. Maybe it was Democratic bureaucrats down the chain that implimented the change in policy, but it was a “moderate” Repub in charge.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  42. Simon, once the child has been born and is no longer attached to the woman, does she still have an opinion that yields more weight?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  43. I would hope that their opinion would hold more weight for that reason.

    I disagree.

    I think they have the same weight as a man’s opinion on the issue of whether a fetus has the right to life.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. MD, I am trying to help you avoid a very common trap in these arguments. There is no reason to deal a snarkslap at me about this.

    You want women to agree with your thesis, and you will find many who do. Their points of view can actually be powerful testimony toward your goal, in fact.

    Your business, not mine.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  45. In fact, I think it’s fallacious just to appeal to someone’s moral authority, just because they are hosting the fetus.

    Let’s stick to rational arguments, instead of finding out who has the most special opinion. I could just lie and say I’m a girl, if that helps, but I know a lot of women who are far more pro-life than I am. It’s not only irrational to evaluate this issue via sex of the person holding an opinion, but also injects an impossible degree of complexity to sorting out what ‘women’ think. They are all over the map on this, same as men. The truth of the matter has nothing to do with what sex I am.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  46. ___________________________________________

    The doctor apparently is of black/mixed-race background, and I suspect his clinic was in a predominantly minority (ie, non-white) part of Philadelphia (per below). Such communities are chock full of people who are mindlessly, foolishly pro-liberal, pro-Democrat-Party to a fault. So even if approval of the most extreme form of abortion were to become pervasive and popular among leftist politicians and organizations, many of the neighborhoods most impacted by such a cavalier attitude wouldn’t bat an eye.

    Humanevents.com:

    Fox News reports a horrifying case in Philadelphia, about a doctor who murdered “minorities, immigrants, and the poor” with scissors for profit. He’s been doing it for thirty years, and raked in millions of dollars. His lair is described by authorities as a “house of horrors,” filled with “bags and bottles” holding the corpses of his victims.

    Mark (411533)

  47. You want women to agree with your thesis, and you will find many who do. Their points of view can actually be powerful testimony toward your goal, in fact.

    MD knows that because he’s chatted with women on this blog about it, if I recall correctly. It’s great to ask everyone what they think, but it’s also misplaced to say the debate is missing something just because some identify group hasn’t yet been represented.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  48. There is no reason to deal a snarkslap at me about this.

    It seems like sometimes you think people are being antagonistic towards you, when they are just responding normally. I don’t think MD was being snarky at all. He’s right that these babies were murdered after birth. I think it’s fair to wonder if this ‘women gave birth’ issue then dies, but I never recognized that issue in the first place.

    In fact, I think it’s pretty horrifying if a woman aborts a child whose father wants it. What do you think of that situation?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  49. Kim

    Obviously your parents felt different

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  50. Kim, he killed babies after they had been born. You compare criticizing that to Saudi Arabian Sharia law?

    What in the hell is wrong with you? Why are you injecting your bigotry against Christians into this? It’s wrong, on the most basic level, to murder a newborn child. It’s something most low vertebrates figured out a billion years ago.

    Behold: Kim’s hateful rhetoric, in defense of murder, proving Aaron’s point.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. Good retort, EPWJ.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  52. Kim – Stay and talk, you feckless libtard.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  53. Kim

    The notion that our laws have to be secular in their moral origins his ahistorical claptrap. Every major advance in civil rights has been inspired by faith, and indeed was our rebellion from england.

    Do the words “endowed by our creator” ring any bells?

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  54. ______________________________________

    the culture war

    It’s peculiar and very telling that a growing segment of liberals (and liberalism) in modern society is more likely to shed tears over the treatment of animals than human fetuses.

    Moreover, I do admit there is an odd convergence of a percentage of leftists and a percentage of rightists over the nature of high abortion rates in America today.

    “Fewer mouths to feed, fewer welfare cases and fewer criminals of the future!!” or “fewer humans to pollute and destroy the planet!!,” so sayeth that odd assemblage of people of leftist and rightist sentiment.

    Meanwhile: “Our pet dogs and cats — and the animal kingdom in general — should be treated with greater kindness and care!! We should think of animals as virtually analogous to human beings! Maybe even superior to human beings!”

    Okay, that’s fine. Just please don’t fool yourself into believing the ideology you hold near and dear is resting on a foundation of humaneness and compassion.

    Mark (411533)

  55. Simon,

    As Dustin suggests, I was not being snarky, I was just trying to be clear that we weren’t talking only of abortion, but of infanticide. But as I am usually verbose, I can see where you think I might have been snarking with a brief and specific (seemingly “pointed”) remark.

    No problem, I went off fierce on somebody once when I didn’t catch the sarcasm.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  56. I went off fierce on somebody once when I didn’t catch the sarcasm.

    Yeah, I’ve done that too. I don’t want Simon to get the impression people are trying to be rude to him, but I think people just learn the drier tone here over time.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  57. There is a logical reason a pro-“choice” person wants to defend post-failed-abortion infanticide, which was demonstrated in an interchange between then Sen. Santorum and I think Sen. Boxer. If you admit that the 30 week gestation “former fetus” fully out of the mother’s womb, having been delivered, is a person entitled to protection as a person, then the obvious question is, “OK, just when did that happen? When the umbilical cord was cut? When the baby breathed on its own? When the baby was completely out of the birth canal? What about when the baby is out of the birth canal except one foot? Except two feet? When the head and chest are out? When the head is out? When the head is crowning? Is it OK to kill the “fetus” 1/2 inch away from the head crowning?” You get into the indefensible position/question of saying at what moment this separate living being is a person or not.

    The idea that the mother has a right to see the child killed because that was the intent of the abortion treats the infant as the mother’s property, not as a person. As soon as you grant personhood at one instant, you need to justify why “it” wasn’t a person a moment before. On one end of the argument you have Peter Singer and others who want to deny personhood to a newborn, at least until you know it is a healthy newborn, (or the “correct: sex newborn, etc.). The closer you can get to granting personhood only to humans old enough to take care of themselves who are healthy and “productive members of society” “the better”.

    On the other hand, for the majority of people who really do not like the idea of abortion but who feel constrained from telling another person they can’t do it, the idea of infanticide makes them say “enough already”!!!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  58. Kim seems pretty ignorant of the abortion laws of European countries.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  59. Kim-

    So if Thomas Jefferson said it then it must be right, and if others overruled him they must be wrong?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  60. Kim

    Actually “created” and “creation” has religious undertones, too. the reason why he used that language was he was cribbing off George Mason. if he wanted to be secular, he could have said “born.”

    But what of it? It was not Thomas Jefferson who rebelled against England, but the whole United States of America, of which he was only a part. If you feel the continental congress made it “more religious” how exactly does that undercut my point? They better represented the U.S. than one man.

    Again, faith underlies the very existence of this country as a separate and independent nation. And it underlies just about everything you are likely to like in our constitution and laws. The civil rights act of 1964, the voting rights act of 65, the 13th, 14th, 15th and 18th amendments, the first, second, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments–all thanks in significant part to the Christian faith. Which is not to say no other faith could have inspired a similar set of laws, but in america, our Christian faith did inspire those laws.

    But no, please give me a secular, logical, not at all religious justification for the rule against murder.

    Here’s a hint. It can’t be done. i know this because i have had this conversation about 50 times. every explanation involves a leap of logic or a leap of faith. it always results in either “because it just is” or “because [insert name of deity] said so” at the bottom of it all.

    You cannot simply categorically and simplistically say “all laws based on religion is bad.” Do you really think in a country where around 90% of the population is specifically christian, that this is a winning point of view? No what you have to argue is that X law is bad, X law is repressive. Like the rule in iran that sees adulterers get stoned isn’t a backward, idiotic and repressive law because it is based on a religion. it is a bad law because it just is, on its own, whatever its origins.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  61. Kim

    From you own quote:

    From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.”

    No where is a right to decide who lives and who doesn’t implied in that sentence

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  62. Kim

    > “Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

    Jefferson, bluntly, didn’t know what he was talking about. anyone who has sat through a first year of tort class will see biblical parables discussed as precedents to be followed. it is very much a part of the common law.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  63. Kim’s hate speech against Christians has resulted in this bombing of a Christian school. Kim’s hate speech kills people.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  64. And I’m not sure why I’m supposed to believe the words about morality, Christianity and law from a slave holder who molested his female slaves.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  65. How long must we wait for “Kim” to apologize for the rhetoric that killed children in Pakistan?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  66. Kim-

    I want to live in a society where men have to be responsible because they can’t “get out of a situation” by intimidating a woman to have an abortion.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  67. And I’m not sure why I’m supposed to believe the words about morality, Christianity and law from a slave holder who molested his female slaves.

    Comment by SPQR

    No kidding. I can imagine if Jefferson said something democrats didn’t like, this would be more relevant. though I realize that most of Jefferson’s views are actually just ignored by democrats. Guess what: appeals to authority are irrelevant. The actual words in our documents mean more than some version that was rejected.

    As MD notes, this is about personal responsibility, as usual. Abortion is mainly about avoiding responsibility, and pushing women to be available for sex. Women who kill their children to keep some jerk around wind up paying for that for the rest of their lives. There probably should be a PTSD term for this, but the MSM would never permit such a discussion.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  68. Dustin,

    Its not just the woman, it takes two to tango – he is JUST ifnot more the primary responsible party

    EricPWJohnson (c5f1fc)

  69. people like Dr. Kermit jeopardize the availability of abortion way more than your average pro-lifer could ever dream of I think

    happyfeet (aa4bab)

  70. Anyone who thinks George III believed in the Divine Right of Kings has no business commenting on the US revolution. George Hanovers knew very well that their royal authority was endowed to them by Parliament, and could be stripped from them by Parliament. His uncle left a few thousand corpses at Culloden to emphasise that point.

    In any event, the Declaration of Independence was not an appeal to the King, or even to Parliament. It was addressed to the world, justifying the rebellion that was already in progress for more than a year. So what the King might have thought of the phrasing was irrelevant.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  71. I simply say that women are carrying the zygote/unborn child, and I would hope that their opinion would hold more weight for that reason.

    I can’t agree with this because it was women who waited until they were late term to have their abortions. Clearly not all women who carry life in their womb realize the significance of that gift. Also, in large part, RvW and the the booming multi-billion dollar abortion industry is driven by women. I’m married to man who cares more about the life in the womb than did these women.

    As far as Dr. Gosnell goes, I thought perhaps death to him by the same horrific method he preferred when killing newborns would be appropriate. But I think even that is too good for him. He is an abomination and reflects the base depraved nature of a fallen humanity.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  72. Kim, he killed babies after they had been born.

    Liberals just consider that post-partum abortion, or maybe abortion in the fourth trimester. No biggie.

    malclave (4f3ec1)

  73. That said, the allegations against Gosnell, if true, only point out why abortions should be safe and legal and regulated. Because his whole operation reeks of back-alleyness — which is what we would end up with if abortion was made illegal.

    First of all, abortion is already legal and still, this is what we get.

    Secondly, does the commenter realize that what took place at the hand of Gosnell in the light of day is what takes place in the uterus, hidden away like where it’s heinous truth can be denied? If the commenter objects to the murder of an induced baby, then if one is logical and consistent, one would also object to the same procedure happening albeit in a different location. It’s not a question of life – both were clearly viable and could breathe on their own. It’s always amazing how much people are able to rationalize inhumane behavior.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  74. Millhouse

    The dirty secret, though, is that George wasn’t really the problem in the revolutionary times. It was parliament. George III was only slightly more powerful than queen Elizabeth is today.

    Yes, our declaration of independence said it was all the king, but that was because we didn’t want to alienate our friends in parliament. What we did in our revolution was take the principles of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and threw it right back in their faces. And in terms of defeating the British, we didn’t defeat them so much as convinced them to stop fighting. We called ourselves the whigs and tories to mimick the political divisions in England, throwing in with the revolutionary party, the whigs, as opposed to the tories.

    That is why the Federalist party was so willing to ally with England. Because they only felt that one party in that country was their enemy.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  75. Still no apology for the anti-christian rhetoric that killed children at a Christian church in Pakistan?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  76. Oops, comment #75 is rather mangled. The second sentence should read: “George Hanover knew very well that his royal authority was endowed to him by Parliament, and could be stripped from him by Parliament.”

    And Aaron, the “dirty secret” as you call it goes further than that. Try explaining rationally why the Americans felt it was just fine for the British taxpayer to pay the entire cost of defending them from the French and Indians, and it was wrong to ask them to contribute even a tiny bit. Or why they’d have been happy to pay if only they were given 13 MPs of their own, who would have been massively outvoted by the other several-hundred. Or why “the King” (i.e. Parliament) was wrong to restrict them from stealing the Indians’ land and starting another war with them.

    Adam Smith pointed to what was really bothering the Americans: the trade restrictions imposed on them in order to help British merchants exploit the British consumer. And he pointed out that not only was the Americans’ complaint legitimate, the restrictions were hurting Britain, and therefore should be lifted even if the Americans hadn’t been complaining. He wrote that if trade was made free, and representation was tied to population, then the fight could be resolved peacefully, and he foresaw that in the next century the capital of the empire would move to the New World.

    In any case, this is going far afield. My point was merely that Jim or Kim or whatever he’s calling himself this minute hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  77. milhouse

    well the fact they were purporting to rule them without representation was a pretty serious and completely legit complaint, too.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  78. The right to life is the most fundamental of our unalienable rights. These babies, born alive in the United States, are citizens due all of the rights and protections of any other citizen whether their mother, doctor, representative, senator, judge – or anyone else thinks they should have them or not. To deny these living babies medical aid for the purpose of causing their death, especially in a facility under the supervision of trained medical personnel, is premeditated murder. In this case, murder for hire.

    FiddlerBob (08fe1b)

  79. Kim seems to have the common liberal affliction of confusing religion in law with laws based on a society’s morals, which are indeed influenced by faith.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  80. Aaron, so do you think we have the right to rule the people of DC and Puerto Rico?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  81. “Yes, keep up the religious moral imperatives, the Christian fetus fetishists, the culture war that aims to make the US the only major industrial nation to deny women reproductive rights.”

    There’s no such thing as the right to kill.

    Dave Surls (c13c16)

  82. Kim is Scott who is that demonic midget Yelverton.gender bending again.

    JD (a651fe)

  83. Milhouse, I wish they’d just make DC a district of Maryland. The original idea of a non political home for our capital didn’t work out. Anything that isn’t explicitly conservative will become liberal.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  84. milhouse

    DC, yes. it is a small, justified deviation from principle that every single DC resident consents to implicitly by living there. Seriously, you go 10 miles in any direction and you are out of that situation. indeed, the vast majority of people who work in DC don’t live in DC.

    It is justified by the fact that you cannot give any local government dominance over the capital. and that is inevitably what would happen if you created any situation where the DC residents are facially equal. they would be facially equal, but in reality dominant. Further congress and the president have a national security interest in making sure no concept of state’s rights can prevent them from getting things done. if the mayor can’t clean up the snow on time, for instance, congress can step in, fire the bastard and replace him. national security demands that kind of arrangement.

    On the other hand, none of those justifications apply to PR or any of the other scattered territories we hold that i honestly can’t even name. So morally, it is past time to fish or cut bait. We need to either come up with a plan to make them into states and soon, or cut them loose. I admit i am not sure which would be the right course, but this colonization in all but name has to end, one way or the other. And it is a betrayal of our founders that it has gone on as long as it has.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  85. Dustin

    couldn’t disagree more. DC is not suppose to be a “non political” place. it is supposed to be a place where congress and the FG dominates. Because if the local government is not dominated by us, it will dominate us.

    As it is, the greater D.C. region gets perks and goodies no one else does. D.C. is just about the only city in america untouched by the recession, which is a bad thing, because our congresscritters need to see the pain on their doorstep. That is bad enough as it is, but if you add in D.C. statehood or reabsorption into MD, then it gets 100fold worse.

    That being said, i prefer reabsorption into MD greatly over making them our 51st state. We did that with the virginia side years ago, and it worked out just fine.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  86. You make a great point, Aaron.

    I see the national security implications. I think a compromise is easy to reach. With regard to local government, the federal government should dominate. However, add their votes in for counting for Maryland’s Senator and Electoral College votes. Give them House representation. Keep the local government separate from Maryland.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  87. “Jefferson, bluntly, didn’t know what he was talking about.”

    – Aaron Worthing, genius

    Comment by Kim

    Do you have an actual argument, though?

    didn’t think so. Jefferson slept with a woman who didn’t have the right to say no. I respect some of his ideas, but he isn’t king of America. The constitution and declaration and bill of rights were assembled by many people, too.

    You like to worship some and hate others, don’t you? You just can let it go, William. There’s something out there called “rational discussion” that allows Aaron to disagree with your fictional version of Thomas Jefferson.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  88. A.W. – D.C. is sort of like Vatican City that way, an independent city inside a nation. Heh.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  89. “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”

    — John Adams, “this awful blashpemy” that he refers to is the myth of the Incarnation of Christ

    “…we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna-Charta of our country.”

    — George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789

    What did Bill Maher say about the Founding Fathers and the tea party? Brilliant.

    Kim (390f26)

  90. Dustin – Kim doesn’t have an argument, just religious hatred. She(?) has not yet said she(?) is against murder, what a surprise.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  91. April 30, 1789 – Washington gives his First Inaugural Address.
    “My fervent supplications to that Almighty Being Who rules over the universe, Who presides in the council of nations, and Whose providential aid can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by Himself for these essential purposes.”

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  92. It must be lead in the water from the Grotto, that leads to such misunderstandings

    narciso (6075d0)

  93. Kim – Thanks for the fake John Adams quote:

    “Did John Adams say

    God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world

    in 1820?

    No. The two sentences given above were both written by John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, the first in 1820 and the second in 1825, but (as the dates show) they were not joined together, not written on the same topic, and not even part of the same letter.”

    For a more detailed explanation

    http://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/john-adams-and-the-awful-blasphemy/

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  94. Daley, I’m pretty confident that JD is correct about Kim being the same nut, though I admit it’s a little more responsive than usual, so maybe it’s just a different nut.

    You’re right… Kim’s completely ignored the most basic point. I’ll never understand why the kim’s out there hate so completely. I think it’s just the internet giving craziness a podium.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  95. Kim – Why don’t you list the Judeo-Christian principles upon which this country was founded which you object to the most? Go!

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  96. In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it. … The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.”

    –Benjamin Fanklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac

    It’s sad that Kim doesn’t understand what this means. It’s not very complicated, Kim. Read it again. Ben isn’t saying that faith is a weakness, or unreasonable. He’s saying that for lesser, worldly issues, we do need to question and analyze.

    He certainly isn’t criticizing theology.

    they flatly denied his divinity.

    LOL. You like making things up, don’t you? Is that fun? Do you realize you’re the faithful zealot in this thread?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  97. Kim

    When it comes to quotations, you really should follow the words of Lincoln:

    “The problem with Internet quotations is that many are not genuine.” – Abraham Lincoln

    By the way, I went to yale law school. I know a little something about the law. And yeah, Jefferson didn’t know what he was talking about when he said it. And its worth noting that this quote only addresses half of our court system. The other side, equity… well, let’s talk about that.

    You see, the problem with the common law is that all you can ever get under the common law is damages, i.e. money. I mean if the state is about to bulldoze your house illegally, how much comfort is it to you that they will pay you back for it?

    So it was gradually seen that we needed someone to intervene and actually make people do things or stop from doing things. So the Church of England stepped in and started making these orders. And the way it worked is they said, either do this or don’t do this or you will go to hell. Literally. As time went on they established an entire court system, headed by judges called chancellors, and they didn’t sentence you to hell, but jail, until finally a few hundred years later they just merged it into one system in America. And to this day they apply the same principles, rooted in Christian morality as interpreted by the church of England. So for instance, you have to come to the court with “clean hands” yourself, or you cannot recover.

    And the thing is, that the systems have bled over into each other. For instance, it used to be that the statute of limitations worked one way and the doctrine of laches—a similar concept in equity—worked by its own rules. The statute of limitations said, “bring the action within X amount of time, or the case dies.” The doctrine of laches says that you must bring a case within a reasonable time after you discover, or should have discovered, the harm. But then somewhere along the way the courts decided to merge the two questions. So today, most statutes of limitations are interpreted to incorporate the “discovery rule” which says that a statute of limitation begins to run at the moment that you discovery, or should have discovered, the harm. Time period fixed by statute, triggered by the discovery rule borrowed from the principle of laches, which descended from the church courts of England.

    I talk more on the subject, here.

    http://patterico.com/2010/11/12/banning-the-banning-of-sharia-in-oklahama/

    by the way, some deists flatly deny the divinity of Christ. Some do. there really isn’t a lot of organization in that way of thought.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  98. they flatly denied his divinity.

    Only the Messiah would deny his divinity!!

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  99. You are misunderstanding Jefferson. Common Law is also understood to be “law by precedent” and he is claiming the precedent has as it’s origins Anglo-Saxon (thus Germanic) roots that precede Christianity.

    According to Jefferson, common law was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England… “about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century…Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it…”

    It is documented that the alliance of state and church in 15th c. England perpetrated the myth of Christian common law. The origins of the common law were twisted. In 1458 Wallington England Chief Justice Prisot decided that “written church laws” should be respected in common law court. This was later mistranslated as the “holy scripture.” The mistranslated version was applied in court, and blasphemy became a common law offense (…just as blasphemy is now on offense in theocratic societies).

    Kim (a91e4e)

  100. This is a horrible story and is not related to legal and safe abortion that is our human right. We don’t need government in our reproductive organs but we sure do need gov’t to regulate health standards that were lacking in this awful situation.

    Jen (a863d5)

  101. Actually, Jen, the Gov’t knew full good and well about this guy.

    They didn’t spend the time or effort to make sure things were even within spitting distance of safe there, for fear of putting some kind of barrier between women and “safe, legal, and rare” abortions.

    This guy treated women like a money-printing machine, like most abortion docs.

    Little secret, Jen – people who perform abortions don’t give a s**t about you. You’re a source of income, nothing more. This guy was just WAY more blatant about it.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  102. Kim – You’ve got a good record of believability going so far – fake quotes, misinterpreted quotes. Why should I doubt you?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  103. There are dead children in Pakistan at a Christian church, and “Kim” is responsible for those deaths due to his anti-Christian hate speech.

    But there is no acknowledgement about this responsibility from “Kim”, no apology, no resolution to improve the civil discourse about religion, nothing from “Kim” addressing the situation.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  104. Kim

    > Common Law is also understood to be “law by precedent” and he is claiming the precedent has as it’s origins Anglo-Saxon (thus Germanic) roots that precede Christianity.

    And when biblical parables are treated as precedent…?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  105. Legal and safe abortion is now a “human right?”

    SPC Jack Klompus (7f83ed)

  106. SPC Jack Klompus – Google it. Heh!

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  107. MD any man (and there are many) who has had his unborn child executed against his will would contest your assertion about “women forced by men to abort”.
    I mean sure it happens but which do you think happens more often???

    DAve (3a4560)

  108. Dave you are absolutely correct. My comment was specifically aimed at the idea that abortion gives “reproductive freedom” to women. Certainly in the individual case it has the effect of a woman having the option to carry a child to term or not no matter what the father says. My point was that on the overall view it makes it easier for people to be irresponsible, including men who want the immediate gratification of sex and then avoid the responsibilities that come with it.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  109. I guess the front alley isn’t that much better than the back alley after all.

    gp (098d27)

  110. 26. I am changing my opinion on abortion. The more liberals who kill their babies, the fewer liberals there will be.
    Comment by nk — 1/19/2011 @ 3:19 pm

    — How is this a change in your position?

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  111. do you think we have the right to rule the people of DC and Puerto Rico?
    Comment by Milhouse — 1/19/2011 @ 8:02 pm

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:
    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

    — So, uh, Yes.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  112. icy

    i think he meant by moral principles, not necessarily legal ones. we were talking in the context of how i said england had no right to tax us without representation. of course i am sure there was some statute that said they did, but i was saying morally they had no right.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  113. 101. This is a horrible story and is not related to legal and safe abortion that is our human right. We don’t need government in our reproductive organs but we sure do need gov’t to regulate health standards that were lacking in this awful situation.
    Comment by Jen — 1/20/2011 @ 1:32 am

    — “I’m from the guvmint, and I’m here to help . . . help you to ‘safely’ kill your baby, that is.”

    Interesting (and heavily ironic) how it is “our human right” to commit the most inhumane act imaginable.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  114. Point taken, Aaron.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  115. Icy Texan, that applies to DC, not to Puerto Rico.

    And who is the idiot that deleted almost all of Kim’s posts? I can’t figure out what the discussion was all about.

    Jim (87e69d)

  116. We need to either come up with a plan to make them into states and soon, or cut them loose

    Regarding PR, they had a national vote not that long ago to become a state and it was defeated, as all prior attempts have ended in similar outcomes. PR likes the advantages of being a territory without the legal obligations required of states – and there’s that little matter of our current administration attempting to give PR a huge payment (under the table) in order to help them settle their budget deficits. So if we put the question to their citizens again, what do you think the result will be this time?

    Dmac (498ece)

  117. “D.C. is just about the only city in america untouched by the recession, which is a bad thing, because our congresscritters need to see the pain on their doorstep.”

    – Aaron Worthing

    The problem with the layout of D.C. is that Capitol Hill is virtually its own mini-city, separated in spirit and in truth from the rest of the city – basically anything southwest of the Potomac. The point of which is that even if the recession had hit D.C. harder, everyone in Congress rents one of those swanky little bungalows off Massachusetts Avenue or 3rd & A or whatever and would never see any of the desperation intended to spur them to nobler action anyway.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  118. And when biblical parables are treated as precedent…?

    For people who had never heard them? Revisionist history with a motive to elevate Christianity and bring together church and state.

    And yes, safe and legal abortion is a human right, at least in most modern and civilized countries. Abortion is less where it is safe and legal, and outlawing it does not deter it, it just kills more women.

    kim (d80ea7)

  119. Make child support optional and abortion would be banned in a heart beat. Abolish welfare and the abortion ban would become an absolute certainty.

    Just a simple switch from my body, my choice to your body, your problem. Problem solved.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  120. Kim

    > Revisionist history with a motive to elevate Christianity and bring together church and state.

    Not at all. First, its just plain history, stop calling me a liar when you know not of which you speak.

    Second, saying that the people in excercising their powers of self governance will based their preferences on a morality influenced by faith is not merging church and state. or if it is, then we have only been doing it for over 200 years. But go on, explain to me how it is that when we banned slavery, after a war in which our soldiers marched into battle singing, “Glory, glory, Hallelujah” we were being secular. Explain to me how they wrote the principle of equality into our constitution in the 14th amendment without once thinking of the Golden rule. Indeed, the very concept of religious freedom is a specific application of the golden rule, as made plain by those who advocated for it, such as Patrick Henry.

    We are allowed to be informed by our faith when making the law. and you should be damn glad we are. Virtually every advance in human rights in this country has been by religiously motivated christians including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. whose birthday we just celebrated.

    He said that an unjust law is no law at all and could be rightfully disregarded. and how did he know whether a law was just or not? As he said in his letter from a birmingham jail, “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” OMG, he’s a theocrat!

    Btw, if abortion is a human right, then where did it come from? if we are not endowed with that right by our creator, where did it come from? Did it spring forth from a UN resolution or any other edict from a human institution? And if so, could it be repealed by the same?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  121. kim yelverton answering for “Jen”? How handy.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  122. @ Kman:

    It’s not “hateful” to call a zygote “not a person”. It’s just being factual.

    No, it’s subjective; but then “person” is a subjective term too, and that’s why I favor using “human being” or “individual” instead – and a zygote, at least an human one, is undeniably both of those, though not full-fledged as you and I and Mr. Worthing are. I’m not pro-life, but pro-lifers are right that pro-choicers often dodge the implications of their position, and that “zygote-are-no-persons” is one particularly swarmy way to do that.
    Having said that, that man Gosnell is a filthy monster and I’m now seriously reconsidering my life-long opposition to the dealth penalty.

    Oplontis (0692b1)

  123. Oplontis

    > I’m not pro-life… Gosnell is a filthy monster and I’m now seriously reconsidering my life-long opposition to the dealth penalty.

    You remind me of something Bill Maher said, when he was a funnier and less creepy man. he said he was pro abortion and pro death penalty. he was pro death all across the board.

    (and that’s not me criticizing, just making a funny observation)

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  124. Mr. Worthing,

    I’m not pro-life, but neither am I pro-choice: I don’t believe in that famed “women’s right to choose” and I think abortion is something horrible to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s possible to ban it – to ban it effectively, that is. Even if Roe vs. Wade was repealed, the rich and powerful girls would find ways to get a safe abortion, whereas the not-so-rich and not-so-powerful ones would risk their lives at the hands of butchers like Gosnell. There is really no clear solution. No one I can think of, at least.

    Oplontis (0692b1)

  125. No, it’s subjective; but then “person” is a subjective term too, and that’s why I favor using “human being” or “individual” instead – and a zygote, at least an human one, is undeniably both of those, though not full-fledged as you and I and Mr. Worthing are.

    I think you’re 100% correct, Oplontis, in that this is both subjective and semantical. I still believe that a zygote is not a “person”, although it IS “human” from a species perspective. A human zygote, but not a human person.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  126. Oplontis, you are free to do as you wish, but there was a resolution motioned, seconded, and voted on without opposition yesterday at #37 which reads, in part:

    We currently have a vote 4-0 in favor of shunning, not acknowledging, not paying attention to, and outright ignoring Kman, at least on this thread, for behavior beneath that of even a troll.
    If Kman thinks it is OK to consider unborn babies as not persons and treat them as such (even after they are born), we will at least consider him not a commenter.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  127. Oplontis – I did not know zygotes had heads the back of which to stab with scissors after they were born alive. Are you sure of your terminology here?

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  128. If Kman thinks it is OK to consider unborn babies as not persons and treat them as such (even after they are born), we will at least consider him not a commenter.

    Wow. Just saw this.

    First of all, nice sentence structuring. Hint: Unborn babies after they are born are no longer “unborn babies”, by anyone’s definition.

    That said, I don’t what I could have possibly written to make ANYONE think that I believe that babies after they are born are not “persons”. Of course they are.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  129. A note to educate those who may not have followed the entire discussion;

    daleyrocks in post #126 is referring to this:

    It’s not “hateful” to call a zygote “not a person”. It’s just being factual.
    My dog isn’t a person either; it doesn’t mean I hate my dog by pointing that out. Nor is that an “ugly” thing to say about my dog.
    – Comment by Kman

    The discussion is about the deliberate killing of neonates who survived induction of labor for the purpose of abortion. Kman had total disregard for that fact when beginning his customary oppositional musings. So, in other words, we chose to disregard him.

    Reasoned opposition is welcome, oppositional baiting is not.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  130. Sorry that I wasn’t around to vote; I was working yesterday. I’m afraid that, once again, I insist that I (at least) will keep responding to kman. This despite personal calls from Aaron and others to refrain from the practice. There are two reasons for this:

    1) I belive it to be important to respond, challenge, refute the opposing opinions expressed here, no matter how clumsily presented, factually deficient, ad hominem & non sequitur strewn, or morally and/or intellectually bankrupt they may be.

    2) Troll-slamming is just too much damn fun.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  131. I belive it to be important to respond, challenge, refute the opposing opinions expressed here, no matter how clumsily presented, factually deficient, ad hominem & non sequitur strewn, or morally and/or intellectually bankrupt they may be.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself, Icy.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  132. icy

    i think its his status as a stalker more than anything…

    Besides i get the creepy feeling that kman gets off on behind denounced. which kind of feeds back into that stalker issue.

    But knock yourself out. just don’t trust anything the idiot says.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  133. Icy-

    It is a voluntary “suggestion”, intended to emphasize when trollish comments are so inappropriate as to warrant being ignored.

    But, when threads go long, it is necessary at times to inform those who have not followed the entire thread just how dishonest and absurd someone can be.

    And: Hint back at ya, please take up the challenge in post #58 to tell us at what moment in the transition from a zygote to an “overgrown zygote” to an unborn baby to a born baby is it OK to kill “it” whatever “it” is, and why.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  134. 2) Troll-slamming is just too much damn fun.

    Comment by Icy Texan —

    I know what you mean, but I’m just ignoring this guy because he wants to be spanked. He’s contributing even less than timb, or the average angry democrat, because he boasts about not reading what he’s talking about.

    Good hunting, but it’s just like talking to Cleverbot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  135. I don’t think it’s possible to ban it – to ban it effectively, that is. Even if Roe vs. Wade was repealed, the rich and powerful girls would find ways to get a safe abortion, whereas the not-so-rich and not-so-powerful ones would risk their lives at the hands of butchers like Gosnell. There is really no clear solution. No one I can think of, at least.
    Comment by Oplontis — 1/20/2011 @ 11:06 am

    — Threatening to take away the medical license of someone that performs a banned procedure would surely have the effect of reducing the instances of it being performed. Ending ALL government funding of Planned Parenthood would certainly be a step in the right direction. I don’t think that anyone here is looking to reduce the number of abortions performed in the U.S. form 1.3 million per year to zero overnight. The question is more along the lines of, Do the “rich and powerful girls”, or any other girls, for that matter, NEED to get abortions? A “clear solution” sounds like absolutist (read: liberal) rhetoric. More than anything, it IS a battle of hearts & minds — which is why the federal govenment really should not be doing ANYTHING to promote or enable the procedure.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  136. Couldn’t have said it better myself, Icy.
    Comment by Kman — 1/20/2011 @ 1:12 pm

    — That is correct. You really couldn’t. 😉

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  137. at what moment in the transition from a zygote to an “overgrown zygote” to an unborn baby to a born baby is it OK to kill “it” whatever “it” is, and why.

    Me, I don’t think it is ever okay, except for maybe when at the very earliest stages of growth.

    But I don’t make the rules for everybody. Not in a free country.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  138. MD, I’m on record somewhere for saying that I’m okay with the morning-after pill, but that, once the zygote is implanted in the uterine wall it’s hands-off.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  139. That’s right, kman. In a free country the people, through the means of their elected officials, make the rules. You, personally, do not make the rules.

    And neither does an activist SCOTUS.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  140. That’s right, kman. In a free country the people, through the means of their elected officials, make the rules.

    And even the people through their elected officials can’t make the rules, in some cases. So sayeth the Constitution.

    So now it comes down to a quibble (as it usually does) about what the Constitution protects.

    Kman (d30fc3)

  141. When did men start deferring to women on abortion? I know politicians who say, you’ll have to ask my wife. What a condescending beta-male chickenshit copout. Then privately admit, yes abortion is terrible but the issue is radioactive. They use Roe v. Wade as an excuse to shrug it off.

    I admit I get impatient sometimes when prolifers grill a candidate at a time when fiscal sanity seems so overwhelmingly important, but it is fun to watch them squirm.

    carol (5a5d33)

  142. And at one time people said the Constitution protected slavery.

    Icy, it’s interesting what science and medicine may not even consider an ethical issue, with birth control being a prime example. Initially with oral contraceptives, it was believed/taken for granted, that the way it worked was to stop ovulation, so no ovulation, no chance of pregnancy. While some religious traditions and individuals had reasons to disapprove, there was no issue about whether any type of killing occured. As the technology behind “the Pill” changed, few in the medical community gave much thought to potential ethical implications. As is reasonable in all things, the amount of hormones in the Pill was decreased as much as possible, little by little. At some point in time, the method of action of oral contraceptives changed from “exclusively” preventing ovulation to also inhibiting the ability of sperm to enter the uterus and preventing the implantation of the fertilized ovum. For the majority of the medical community, what percentage was preventing ovulation vs. these other mechanisms was of little consequence. For some women/couples, they were shocked to realize after the fact that their method of contraception could actually be acting as inducing what could be considered a very early abortion, in that a fertilized egg/embryo would have been killed by prevention of implantation. Similar concerns are real for progesterone only methods whether by pill, shot, or implantation.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  143. According to news reports locally on the radio tonight, Gosnell had not understood that he was being charged for the deaths of any infants, only the death of the one adult woman.

    Apparently he doesn’t think there is any significant difference between killing the child while partially in utero or in the birth canal, and after birth.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  144. BUNNIES! FU, Mitch.

    JD (306f5d)

  145. At least Mitch linked to the whole thing, so we could see that quote in context. That was silly of him, since we can easily see how he has distorted it. Either he’s too stupid to see that, or he thought nobody would bother to follow the link, and would just take his word for it.

    Beck did not call for anybody to be shot. He warned the valueless media and politicians who have cynically co-opted radical communists that “those people actually believe in something, and will therefore eventually turn on you, and you will have to shoot them, if they don’t shoot you first”. That’s a prediction, not a call for action. And Giffords is not a communist or a radical, by anybody’s standards. She’s more like one of the squishes Beck was warning.

    Milhouse (54f1a0)

  146. “mitch” is a good little Soros b@tch.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  147. Mitch,

    Thank you for providing the link, but I don’t think the link means what you think it does, here is a little bit more of the quote (nothing edited out of the segment):

    You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
    They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

    Beck wasn’t saying Conservatives should shoot Democrats, he was saying that Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc. had chosen to bring in the far left, people like Van Jones who is a self acclaimed revolutionary communist, Ayers and Dohrn who advocated violence and never took their words back. Beck was saying that the established Dems may think they can use the far left for their own purposes, but in the end it is the far left revolutionaries who will not be satisfied being used for somebody elses agenda.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  148. Milhouse!! Why didn’t you tell me you were going to look it up, then I wouldn’t have had to!!! 😉

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  149. Dag nab it!!! Milhouse, while we’re wasting our time on this the boss man has a new thread on it….

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  150. My point was that on the overall view it makes it easier for people to be irresponsible, including men who want the immediate gratification of sex and then avoid the responsibilities that come with it.

    I’m glad you clarified that it makes it easier for *people*, both men and women to be irresponsible. If you look at second wave fems, alot of the push back was frustration and anger that men got the free love sans consequences, unlike women. So we pushed and pushed for equality and no, it wasn’t all about equal pay for equal work: it was a demand that we have the right to be equal to men in their ability to have indiscriminate sex and not be saddled with the unwanted consequence. Hence, legalized abortion.

    Of course, fems don’t admit to this because it’s rather unseemly in its revelation that we too adopted a wham-bam-thank-you-m’am mentality, but since then the litmus test for feminism in most schools of thought, is abortion, it’s difficult not to follow the tracks.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  151. Dana-

    I’ve had female patients that essentially used abortion as their contraception, so yes, irresponsibility is “linked” to both X and Y chromosomes.

    My understanding was that the introduction of the birth control pill in 1961 played a huge role in allowing sexual activity to be much more casual and indiscriminate. I guess with more indiscriminate sex there were more “mistakes” in not remembering to take the pill, or something, hence, ironically, more of a “need” for abortion services?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  152. Notice how William Yelverton spammed that patently dishonest link and then fled like the cowardly little midget beeyotch that he is?

    JD (d4bbf1)

  153. Beck did not call for anybody to be shot. He warned the valueless media and politicians who have cynically co-opted radical communists that “those people actually believe in something, and will therefore eventually turn on you, and you will have to shoot them, if they don’t shoot you first”. That’s a prediction, not a call for action. And Giffords is not a communist or a radical, by anybody’s standards. She’s more like one of the squishes Beck was warning.

    Comment by Milhouse

    You nailed him perfectly, though I do want to note that Giffords didn’t give this particular radical kook the time of day. Of course, it’s not really fair to associate Loughner’s shootings with communism so much as madness.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  154. Notice how the lute playing midget coward spammed that aggressively dishonest link, and then scurried away like the coward he is?

    JD (d4bbf1)

  155. JD – I thought Patterico said Mitch was imdw.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  156. JD – Yelverton is also under the impression that if he finds or fabricates a single quote fromone of this country’s founders and twists its meaning sufficiently, that it it is proof that the country was not founded based upon Judeo-Christian principles. Such is the depth of his anti-religious bigotry.

    You would think that if he had a coherent argument supporting his theory he could present it. He does not, so he is forced to distort history and bite ankles with fabrications.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  157. FYI, Ace.mu.nu has a lot of Reagan’s greatest speeches up. Much better material than the current hell of recent news.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  158. Mitch is imdw, who is spamming a comment about how I should be embarrassed to be telling the truth about that Glenn Beck video. Now he is pretending to be other commenters, like carlitos. I should have banned that asswipe years ago. Wait — maybe I did . . .

    Patterico (c218bd)

  159. Now he is pretending to be other commenters, like carlitos.

    Wow. What a damn loser.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  160. Iamadimwit and William Yelverton are in a contest to see who is the biggest cowardly douchenozzle.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  161. It would be pretty funny if they are the same guy, just using different computers.

    It’s gotten so bad that if I read something stupid or sarcastic enough i just assume it’s Yelverton, half the time. And half the time Yelverton or imdw’s said something, I assume it’s a sane person being sarcastic.

    One thing is clear, these guys don’t like the idea of giving up power, thanks to the recent election. Even this tiny trickle of split government has really pissed them off.

    I worry that people like me reacting to them creates an atmosphere that is pure fighting, with no room for reasonable libs. That’s why I’ve followed MD’s advice to ignore some of this crap.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  162. So now it comes down to a quibble (as it usually does) about what the Constitution protects.
    Comment by Kman — 1/20/2011 @ 1:45 pm

    — The life of a child rates more than a quibble.

    Icy Texan (1ddadb)

  163. Geez, it’s getting to where it’s just better not to comment at all because one doesn’t really know who they’re talking to. There’s something a bit jarring to find out you were dragged into some idiot’s identity crisis.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  164. LOL, Dana. That’s true. I thought Mitch was just jokingly mocking an insane lefty.

    These two obviously dearly want to interact with us, but why can’t they just nicely talk about their POVs? What’s so freaking difficult about this?

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  165. Argh. There’s something a bit jarring to when you find out you were dragged into some idiot’s identity crisis.

    Dustin,

    You mean, why can’t they be honest? Not in the DNA, I suspect.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  166. Honesty and decency are beyond them.

    JD (d4bbf1)

  167. Remind me why I thought it was a good idea to unban people I already banned before?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  168. imdw did give me a whole slew of IP’s to ban, though. That was thoughtful of him.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  169. Remind me why I thought it was a good idea to unban people I already banned before?

    Comment by Patterico

    You were trying to reset what seemed like a really negative atmosphere, if I recall correctly. That and you were bribed by crazy GOP money to do it.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  170. That and you were bribed by crazy GOP money to do it.

    I suspected as much.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  171. Oh, yeah. The bribes. I forgot about those.

    I think the atmosphere around here seems just fine, don’t you? Except for the assholes I banned.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  172. I think the atmosphere is great. Aaron is congenial and takes differences of opinion very well, which I think has helped quite a bit.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  173. #167: because you wanted to give them a chance to debate and disagree without acting like poop-flinging baboons. It’s their problem, not yours.

    Simon Jester (8d21ad)

  174. “Now he is pretending to be other commenters, like carlitos.”

    Some of those comments did not sound like a conservative with a pornstache, I gotta say. That freak can’t even get the imitation bit right.

    daleyrocks (e7bc4f)

  175. Michael Steele went from $25 Million in the black to $21 million in the red.

    Where’s that swank stripper bar the RNC was dropping all that money? Los Angeles.

    Michael Steele just got canned, and lo and behold Patterico has more time for his blogging lately.

    Both P and Michael Steele are notorious for saying “What up?” when trying to demonstrate street cred with their kids.

    Things that make you go: hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

    My other contribution to this discussion is that if you name your kid Kermit or Ms Piggy, you are just asking for trouble.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  176. To be clear: carlitos (who is great) actually did comment here tonight. imdw just got frustrated that all his posts were being blocked and started resorting to using other people’s names in a vain attempt to get his comment out. He tried leaving that same comment easily a dozen times.

    He thought it was a really killer comment, about how I should be ashamed to be an apologist for Glenn Beck. Had I published it, my credibility would have been like so devastated!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  177. Lotta comments going into spam. Sorry about that, folks. I will try to check it more often.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  178. @ Daleyrocks,

    Oplontis – I did not know zygotes had heads the back of which to stab with scissors after they were born alive. Are you sure of your terminology here?

    I was answering Kman’s specific point, not commenting on the case itself.

    Oplontis (0692b1)

  179. “oplontis” has been banned under multiple names. Coward.

    JD (3dddfd)

  180. What I find interesting is how the left approached this topic. When it came to Giffords, even with a complete lack of evidence, it spoke to something greater than the crime, specifically, the right wing hate-filled violent speech that led to the shooting. With this monster, it is portrayed as an isolated criminal act, and does not speak to anything beyond that.

    JD (3dddfd)

  181. With this monster, it is portrayed as an isolated criminal act, and does not speak to anything beyond that.

    Do you think they had to address it gingerly because they’re in the bag with abortion and Gosnell was an abortionist – as well as a murderer? It’s important for them to make a distinction between murder in the womb and murder outside of the womb. The late term abortions had to somehow be unscathed by the hideous acts of infanticide.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  182. One day, in the far distant future, with any luck, the near future, feminists such as me will receive the opprobrium of historians that we so richly merit. Who knew that it would be the “fairer sex” who would commit the harsher atrocity…

    ignatius (6020b2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8688 secs.