Patterico's Pontifications

4/28/2013

Video: Abortion Clinic Worker: If the Baby Is Born Alive, We Put It In a Solution to Kill It. If You Have It At Home? Flush It!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:29 pm

It’s another undercover video from Live Action, the organization founded by Lila Rose. Kyle Smith at the New York Post gives you the lowlights:

The employee assigned to take note of medical history reassured the woman, “We never had that for ages” (a seeming admission that a baby did survive abortion at the clinic at least once) but that should “it” “survive this,” “They would still have to put it in like a jar, a container, with solution, and send it to the lab. . . . We don’t just throw it out in the garbage.”

Oh, and this innocuous-sounding “solution” was, of course, a toxic substance suitable for killing an infant.

“Like, what if it was twitching?” asked the pregnant woman.

“The solution will make it stop,” said the clinic employee. “That’s the whole purpose of the solution . . . It will automatically stop. It won’t be able to breathe anymore.”

That’s not all:

The employee also advised the pregnant woman to murder her child should the infant unexpectedly be born at home.

“I don’t want to like go into labor at home,” the pregnant woman said. “Like what if it like pops out, like, at home?”

“If it comes out then it comes out. Flush it!” said the employee.

Should the child be born on the floor? “We’ll tell you to put it in a bag or something and bring it to us,” the employee advised.

Watch the video, if you can stomach it:

Both people on the left and right look at a video like this and become concerned that a crime may have been committed. The difference is, people on the right are worried that babies are being murdered. People on the left, by and large, are worried that the taping occurred without permission.

No doubt the clinic will fire the lady for telling the truth and pretend like there is no issue.

56 Responses to “Video: Abortion Clinic Worker: If the Baby Is Born Alive, We Put It In a Solution to Kill It. If You Have It At Home? Flush It!”

  1. Partial Birth Abortion, full birth abortion – what’s the difference. Its just a glob of cells or what ever the left wants to call it so they can sleep at night.

    joe (debac0)

  2. The stunning arrogance of man to play God never ceases to reveal just how small and fallen we as people, are.

    With that, what catches my attention in the vid is the worker’s reassurance the pregnant woman will not have to view a sonogram…. because that clump of blood and tissue might cause a little twinge of discomfort, I guess..

    Dana (292dcf)

  3. I would like to ask those here who consider themselves pro-choice or pro-aborts (during any trimester), if this post and/or the Gosnell case has caused you to re-think and reconsider (or possibly) change your mind on the abortion issue? If so, what was the tipping point for you? If not, how do you justify your position in light of these issues? Or has it possibly caused any to no longer be sure of what they once considered a ‘woman’s right’ but haven’t yet come to a conclusion?

    (Please note, this is not being asked to provoke and attack. I am asking with genuine sincerity and curiosity).

    Dana (292dcf)

  4. on Hemlock Grove this one girl is visited or touched or whatever by an angel to where she gets pregnant and her mom and dad don’t hound her about it or anything but they make it clear they’d prefer it if she terminated the pregnancy

    I know what happens but I don’t wanna ruin it for you it’s just that how the story goes really makes you think about how decisions can have really dramatic consequences

    especially on tv

    I can’t wait for next season

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  5. Mr. Feets – Maybe SNL can do a Bassomatic bortion skit with a supersize blender and if people order now throw in some Ginzu knives.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  6. not to shoot down your idea or anything but I don’t think that’s really a very good idea

    not at least to where SNL should do a skit about abortion where you can get free gifts like knives

    but your idea of incentivizing people to have their abortions as soon as possible may have some merit Mr. daley

    it’s that kind of out of the box thinking what will turn this tugboat around for the American way

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  7. On TV there are certainly consequences but they’re just pretend. In real life, the consequences are real life…and death. It’s two very different things. Apples and oranges…my kids work in television so I know this for reals.

    Dana (292dcf)

  8. i know it’s just make pretend but still it’s a good way to explore situations you don’t come across in real life very often like about what to do if an angel impregnates you

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  9. My queries in #3 were meant seriously. I am however not convinced an honest discussion can be had.

    Dana (292dcf)

  10. “it’s that kind of out of the box thinking what will turn this tugboat around for the American way”

    Mr. Feets – There is more where that came from but I think Dana raises very interesting points which people should not ignore.

    We should BOGO the same sex marriagings certificates with nontransferable certificates for a free late term abortion. Get married to somebody who currently claims to be of the same sex and get a nontransferable certificate for a free late term abortion. Since SSM advocates claim marriage is not all about procreation, what could be better than that? BOGO Baybee!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  11. Mr. daley those ideas don’t do anything to incentivize the early term abortions everybody prefers to the late term ones

    that’s just constructive criticism I’m not saying your ideas suck

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  12. We treat livestock situations with more care than these cretins.

    mg (31009b)

  13. I’m always morbidly amused by all of the people I know on Facebook who are pro-abortion who routinely put up pictures of dogs and cats and loudly criticize any cruelty to animals.

    The Dana on Facebook (af9ec3)

  14. Dana @13, I’m not. I recall when a woman jogging in Kali (near Sacramento if memory serves) was killed by a mountain lion. Officials hunted down and killed the mountain lion. The people you’re talking about were outraged. When a fund was set up for the woman’s children, the people you’re talking about set up a fund for the mountain lion’s surviving cubs that were discovered during the course of the hunt. The fund for the lion’s cubs got far more in donations.

    A friend of mine who reported on that case also reported on a case where a mountain lion that apparently lived in the coastal hills on the S.F. peninsula wandered down into Palo Alto. A labrador retriever treed it. I believe the lion was shot. His paper received nasty letters to the editor denouncing the lab as “a traitor to animal kind.”

    Point being they cared more about the lion than the kids at the nearby elementary school.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  15. “that’s just constructive criticism I’m not saying your ideas suck”

    Mr. Feets – Thanks you very much. I am always on the look out for constructive criticism and perhaps I should journal about yours, but I fear you misunderstand my purpose.

    Much like the president, I merely was throwing ideas out there to avoid anyone getting punished with a baby what doesn’t want one.

    I think a line of designer collectible fetal remain jars would be something today’s insane modern feminists could relate to. Show them off! Fight the Patriarchy! Collect them all! You could even have feminist nutjobs such as Amanda Marcotte sign jars of the month.

    I fear some of my talents are wasted in finance.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  16. I am still trying to understand why rooting for the deaths of these people is wrong? Why is wishing evil dead, wrong? How is this not evil?

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  17. you know who would make cool fetal remains jars I think is that jim shore

    on the other hand it’d be just one more thing to dust is what my mom would’ve said I think

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  18. I can’t address Dana’s questions @3 as I never considered myself pro-abortion. But this video is revealing about the mindset of people in the Abortion industry:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html

    Video: Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion

    Fundamentally they agree with Kermit Gosnell. I can’t figure out if they don’t think a baby outside the womb is a human being or if they don’t care if it’s a human being. Actually I think both points of view exist.

    Here’s another Weekly Standard article. It’s title is “Barbarism in Philadelphia,” but really it exposes the barbarism that is abortion.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/barbarism-philadelphia_718076.html?nopager=1#

    Dr. Gosnell, in short, fits the profile of a sociopathic killer. But unlike most such deviants, Gosnell could argue that he acted within his constitutional rights.

    Under Roe and Doe, doctors possess a constitutional right to perform abortions during the third trimester of pregnancy. While Roe allows states to ban third-trimester abortions, Doe says that any such ban must allow exceptions for the health of the mother, and assessments of maternal health must include “all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the well-being of the patient.” In other words, abortion remains a right in the third trimester for any reason that is relevant to a patient’s well-being.

    The author is referring to lesser known abortion decision Doe v. Bolton, which was decided the same day as Roe v. Wade.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=179

    Who gets to assess the well-being of the mother under Doe? The doctor. The Court in Doe concluded that the necessity of any late-term abortion is a “professional judgment” that the “physician will be called upon to make routinely.” As the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute explains, “only the physician, in the course of evaluating the specific circumstances of an individual case, can define what constitutes ‘health.’ ”

    Thus, states cannot overrule a physician’s evaluation with any independent assessment. States cannot even articulate broad criteria by which doctors should assess well-being. Only doctors can decide what Doe allows in practice. Under Doe, no one has a right to overrule the independent judgment of abortionists.

    The grand jury seemed to think otherwise. It concluded, for example, that Gosnell performed “a flagrantly illegal abortion of a 29-week-old fetus.” It even claimed that aborting fetuses after 24-weeks’ gestation is “a crime in itself.” As a matter of constitutional law, that seems false. Under Roe and Doe, abortionists can always kill fetuses up to the moment of birth for any reason they find compelling, so long as they can couch that reason in terms of the mother’s well-being.

    So what clear legal violation did Gosnell commit? Two relatively minor ones.

    …One might object, further, that Gosnell’s real crime was not the practice of third-trimester abortion. Instead, Gosnell should have saved the lives of those fetuses that survived his attempts to abort them. Pennsylvania has a law protecting babies that survive abortions. And it is clearly the grand jury’s view that Gosnell’s acts were criminal. As the grand jury report emphasized in horror, Gosnell killed “live, viable, moving, breathing, crying babies.” Even so, sending Gosnell to his death on the basis of this argument would seem problematic under the current legal abortion regime, for at least three reasons.

    First, it ignores the fact that there have been many such killings over the years. In the 1970s and ’80s, it was not uncommon for newborns to survive saline abortions. These babies were badly burned by salt solutions and often died untreated.

    …But he might have reasonably concluded that the act itself of killing abortion survivors was not remotely akin to murder. It had been done before, even in state hospitals, without so much as a fine.

    Second, the protection of babies who survive abortions remains a subject of controversy, not a matter of settled law or even morality. While 27 states including Pennsylvania have laws protecting such infants, another 23 states and the District of Columbia do not.

    …So, one might reasonably ask if someone deserves the death penalty for an act that is legal in nearly half the states, an act that isn’t frowned upon by public figures from the president of the United States to the representatives of esteemed interest groups. Gosnell apparently concluded that in the eyes of the abortion industry’s liberal advocates, killing survivors of abortion is at worst a moral gray area.

    This message was conveyed quite powerfully in the state of Pennsylvania, despite its legal ban. According to the grand jury report, when pro-choice governor Tom Ridge came to power in 1993, his administration instructed state officials to cease clinic inspections since they “would be ‘putting a barrier up to women’ seeking abortions.”

    …Gosnell saw that the state did not fully believe in its own abortion restrictions, including the prohibition on killing infants born alive. Now the state seeks Gosnell’s death for violating those same laws.

    Third, the liberal position on killing abortion survivors makes a bizarre kind of moral sense. After all, what is the moral difference between killing an 8-month-old human being in the womb and killing it in the bright light of an operating room?

    The author attempts to argue that the only protection an unborn child has is the moral compass of the abortionist. He attempts to make the argument that their sympathy with the unborn child “quietly limits” the woman’s unrestricted right to abortion. He notes that:

    Not every abortionist is a Gosnell—far from it. In fact, most doctors exercise restraint. Their moral sense, rooted in their human nature, compels them to sympathize with fetuses who resemble newborns. Many abortionists limit their practice to relatively early abortions precisely because they feel such sympathy. The pro-choice activist and feminist physician Susan Wicklund recently explained her decision to restrict her practice after observing a second-trimester abortion:

    Seeing an arm pulled through the vaginal canal was shocking. One of the nurses in the room escorted me out when the color left my face. .  .  . From that moment, I chose to limit my abortion practice to the first trimester: 14 weeks or less.

    A growing body of evidence suggests that Wicklund is not unusual. While nearly all clinics perform first-trimester abortions, fewer than one-fourth perform abortions at 20 weeks’ gestation, and only 11 percent at 24 weeks.

    But I’d say he fails to make the case. The Wicklunds of the abortion industry aren’t really morally opposed to abortion. It’s just that when the fetus begins to look more human it upsets their sense of aesthetics. But if they won’t do the abortion because it offends their delicate sensibilities they will refer the woman to the Gosnells of the abortion industry who have no such issues.

    Recall that Gosnell boasted that he received lots of referrals from other abortionists who knew exactly what he was up to. That knowledge extends to Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation. NAF is apparently touts itself as sort of the Better Business Bureau of the abortion industry. Gosnell applied for membership, but after inspecting his “Women’s Medical Society” they denied his application. Like PP they knew full well about his butchery. That didn’t bother them. It was the unsanitary conditions under which he was performing his murders that they disapproved of.

    This is the dirty little secret about the abortion industry that everyone associated with it knows. Including the press, which explains the news blackout. Dr. Gosnell is not far out of the mainstream of abortionists if he’s outside the mainstream at all.

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/matthew-archbold/ethicists-argue-for-post-birth-abortions

    In the Journal of Medical Ethics, two ethicists argue plainly for the killing of babies post birth. They’re not hedging their bets. They’re saying it plain and simple. And I, for one, thank them for it.

    Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, in the UK, wrote a piece called “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”

    …So, in the “abstract” that’s available for free at the site, it says:

    Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

    Here’s the thing – they’re right. If you accept their premises, they’re absolutely right.

    If Gosnell is out of the mainstream it’s only because he’s on the cutting edge of pro-abortion thought. If you can dehumanize a human being at earlier stages of development prior to birth (and embryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, indeed all of biology establishes that human life begins at conception) then you can also dehumanize them after birth. Indeed you can also dehumanize them at any stage of life when they’re dependent on other human beings and considered a nuisance, as we see in Europe with it’s growing euthanasia culture based upon the exact same premises as the abortion culture.

    So, I doubt like Dana that honest discussion is even possible. Since the pro-abortion crowd is so adept at lying even to themselves in order to blind themselves to what it is they’re advocating. Or in some cases just plain lying in order to blind the rest of us that they don’t care about the true nature of what it is they’re advocating.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  19. Are millions of illegal/undocumented immigrants living in this country against the law? Is their having fake drivers’ licenses and social security numbers and collecting welfare/food stamps against the law? Are mutant teenage criminals in our cities killing with unregistered and stolen guns? Did Dem politician Corzine steal millions from clients’ personal accounts which has never been accounted for or prosecuted? Are what happened in Gosnell’s “facility” and what is recorded as happening at the one in the video embedded above against the law?

    The answer to all those questions I believe is “yes”.

    Gee. Maybe we should start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

    elissa (d757f2)

  20. I don’t know how anyone that lost a child they wanted very badly could ever consider supporting abortion. I have.

    PatAZ (d0625f)

  21. How can these people live with themselves? As a funeral director I’ve done my share of services for “preemies” and I’ve never had a mother refer to it as a fetus as they had already been named. Unless these “workers” get their humanity back and ask God for forgiveness, their meeting with Him on judgement day is not going to be pleasant.

    Funeral Guy (51a2fe)

  22. Oh, and now a U.S. Congressman has been SWAT-ted.

    Good times.

    Icy (d866c5)

  23. Dana, #3, I remain pro-choice during the first trimester and against it after that point. Precisely for the reasons shown here and in Philadelphia. The problem is that laws against late abortions aren’t enforced and the authorities CLEARLY look the other way. If this wasn’t true, Gosnell would be up on about 10,000 charges of late-term abortions, it was all he did.

    I would also be charging the workers with similar crimes pour encourager les autres

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  24. 19. Gee. Maybe we should start enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

    Comment by elissa (d757f2) — 4/28/2013 @ 5:33 pm

    You’ve nailed it, elissa. Every one of those situations is against the law. Yet all those people; the illegal aliens, the mutant teenage gangbangers, Corzine and other cronies (such as Terry McCauliffe), and Kermit Gosnell have powerful protectors in politicians and bureaucrats who really agree with whatever it is they’re doing.

    http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/

    Gangs and Politicians in Chicago: An Unholy Alliance
    LAWBREAKERS, LAWMAKERS: In some parts of Chicago, violent street gangs and pols quietly trade money and favors for mutual gain. The thugs flourish, the elected officials thrive—and you lose. A special report.

    The cops know perfectly well how to disrupt gang activity. The fact they usually don’t means it’s because someone doesn’t want them to.

    In Gosnell’s case at least two state agencies, the Dept. of Health and Dept. of State received multiple complaints about Gosnell. The Grand Jury reported these complaints detailed Gosnell’s entire operation. One never took any action. Another sent an investigator to interview Gosnell, but the investigator never went to Gosnell’s abortion factory.

    Why would an investigator do that unless the state was going to great lengths to be able to deny it knew what it so obviously knew?

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  25. Oh my! This is so horrible. I never thought this is happening. That is why I find these stricter regulations very much important for the welfare of everybody. Abortion clinics must be aware of all these regulations and not do inhuman practices.

    Amanda Fleming (516083)

  26. Nobody—not even the most obnoxious pro-choice person—ever asks a pregnant woman, “So, Martha, how’s your fetus doing inside there ?”

    Elephant Stone (a59d01)

  27. @ Amanda Fleming,

    Abortion clinics must be aware of all these regulations and not do inhuman practices.

    I am not sure if you are being sarcastic as I’m not familiar with you (yet perused your link), but just so I’m not rude I will assume you are being serious and ask: by their very nature and by default, aren’t abortion clinics and inhuman practices mutually inclusive?

    Dana (292dcf)

  28. Amanda Fleming:

    That is a strange post. Did you mean “inhuman” or “inhumane?”

    The words mean different things. If you meant inhuman, you may be defeating your own argument based on your user link.

    Ag80 (19f299)

  29. @ Kevin M,

    I remain pro-choice during the first trimester and against it after that point. Precisely for the reasons shown here and in Philadelphia. The problem is that laws against late abortions aren’t enforced and the authorities CLEARLY look the other way. If this wasn’t true, Gosnell would be up on about 10,000 charges of late-term abortions, it was all he did.

    Would you clarify for me why you are pro-choice 1st tri but against abortion after that? Clearly, if you were of the “a woman’s right to choose” group, her right to choose would not be limited by trimesters – it would run 1st – 3rd as it’s still her body. The other option I see possible is that it might be because you believe that after the 1st tri, there is a human life in the womb? If so, what makes you give it that weight since it could not survive outside of the womb at 12 weeks? What is the another possibility and how does Gosnell and this vid inform that decision? I’m unclear.

    Dana (292dcf)

  30. Oh, and now a U.S. Congressman has been SWAT-ted.

    Good times.

    Oddly enough, that particular Congressman has been the subject of criticism from . . .

    But I’m getting ahead of myself.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  31. Dana @29, excellent questions. I know human life begins at conception. It is an established scientific fact, not a matter of belief. As a matter of fact, it’s the one point I agree on with some of the most ardent pro-abortionists on the planet.

    http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

    Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

    Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:

    I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.1

    On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:

    We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?2

    It isn’t true that we don’t know when human life begins. In 1971 a group of medical experts filed an amicus curiae brief in the Roe v. Wade cast that showed conclusively that human life begins at conception. No one has ever refuted their arguments or their evidence (which is why the SCOTUS side-stepped the issue and refused to address it by pretending it was a difficult question to which they didn’t know the answer).

    Since 1971 the evidence has simply grown stronger. At conception the child is a unique human being, not a part of the mother’s body like her spleen.

    Not even the abortionists I quoted above will argue that it isn’t a living human being.

    So I guess the question is, KevinM, why do you draw the line as to where it matters where you do; at the end of the first trimester? And since it’s an arbitrary line, how can you argue against the bioethicists I quoted earlier, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, who claim that “both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons.”

    Why shouldn’t the line be drawn their, if we’re going to invent concepts like “potential persons” and “actual persons?”

    As a matter of fact, isn’t any child before puberty still just a “potential person?” After all, they’re still going to go through some dramatic changes. They’re still not fully developed.

    That’s not really an original question. That’s what a professor of obstetrics who testified before Congress (a long time ago; back in the early ’80s) used as an example to demonstrate it’s a human life at every stage of development.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  32. In PA one can legally abandon a child no questions asked at a hospital, maybe also police station. No need to let/make a child die even if one has very good reasons to think she cannot propely care for the schild.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  33. I participate in the discussion on a liberal blog where one commenter was chastised for referring to a first-time pregnant woman as a “mother.”

    aunursa (7014a8)

  34. Comment by aunursa (7014a8) — 4/29/2013 @ 6:56 am

    As has been discussed before, words and language mean something, perhaps more than we often realize. Perhaps that is why so many dystopian writings include how language has been manipulated such as Newspeak. One frames a discussion using language. How one frames a discussion, such as in your example, can virtually “fix” (American English use of the word) the outcome.
    Easier to do when people aren’t educated enough, like our public, self included (at least at one time).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  35. The reason why the left is in favor of abortion is simple. Reproduction feels good. Evolution designed it that way so we’d be motivated to spread the gene pool. It’s our #1 motivation outside of flee, fight and food.

    The left like to screw but they don’t like to be saddled with a child for 18 years. So they work overtime to justify abortion in their minds with terms like choice, reproductive freedom, women’s rights, etc. They fool themselves into thinking “it’s just a clump of cells” or “it’s just some tissue being removed from my body.”

    The bottom line is it’s murder.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  36. I’m going to put this here as it is about language, though concerning the Boston Bombing:
    transcript from NPR (I went to the npr site to get it, to make sure it wasn’t really from the Onion, really):
    TEMPLE-RASTON: Well, we’re hearing that they have some promising leads, but no smoking gun. [Or perhaps steaming pot-me]
    The thinking, as we’ve been reporting, is that this is a domestic or extremist attack. Again, this is not because – this has got to be this because officials can’t get away from this idea of timing.
    April is a big month for anti-government, right-wing folks. There’s the Columbine anniversary. There’s Hitler’s birthday. There’s the Oklahoma City bombing. There’s the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. And these are all rallying points for these kinds of extremist groups.
    http://www.npr.org/2013/04/16/177507493/boston-marathon-bombing-case-gains-momentum

    Credit to PowerLine, where I saw it.
    Wow. I thought the obvious thing about the timing was that the Boston Marathon is a big public event that happens to be in April.
    I really would like to know with ontological certainty whether these people were really thinking this way spontaneously without any conscious plan to pin it on people they don’t like.
    I mean it’s like giving a Rorschach test and every answer is “right-wing extremist”, be in george washington, a flower, Lenin, Muhammed, or a butterly.
    And so many people, once upon a time including myself, thought that “All Things Considered” was thoughtful and insightfull news coverage. Maybe it was, sort of, once, but this is beyond absurd.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  37. @ MD,

    Easier to do when people aren’t educated enough, like our public, self included (at least at one time).

    This must not discount or exclude the willfulness of self-deception.

    It takes a very long time and a very thick wall to break through to first see, and then acknowledge a willful self-deception that keeps oneself convinced of what they know way deep, deep down in the soul, past the verbiage and past the bone, exactly what is the truth.

    Our ability to convince ourselves of what is in our best interest – whether or not it is true – should never be minimized. Along with making illogical rationalization possible, it provides cover for not having to assume personal responsibility – whether at the individual or societal level.

    Abortion lends itself to this in spades.

    Dana (292dcf)

  38. Where to start.

    Killing comes easy to people. If the opportunity presents itself, if the means are at hand, and no outside influence to prevent it, people will kill as casually as they scratch their nose. A conscious fear of punishment might deter them, although that has generally been proven to be a societal delusion.

    An abortion clinic is a killing field, where the means and opportunity are pre-ordered and present, and instead of an outside influence to discourage the killing the victims are handed up ready for slaughter and the law guarantees no punishment.

    That stone cold smiling fat blond c**t in the video is a normal human being. So was Adam Lanza so were the Boston Marathon bombers. God help us.

    nk (875f57)

  39. Gosnell didn’t know how to do partial-borth abortions. He had experimented in 1972, using something first tried in Bangladesh at the end of 1971 (the first place maybe international organzitions facilitated abortions – this was for women raped by Pakistani soldiers) He was maybe almost just a technician at that stage, doing it on behalf of someone else.

    The device for breaking up babies inside the mother didn’t work without risking the life, health or fertility of the mother and Gosnell stopped using it.

    So what Gosnell simply did when he went into business for himself was induce labor, and kill the baby afterwards. That’s where the grand jury got its estimate of hundreds from. Very very late term abortions from all over the east coast that others did not want to do themselves weere referred to him. Some very late term “abortions” he handled alone with his wife on Sundays when the clinic was otherwise closed.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  40. 40. Gosnell didn’t know how to do partial-borth abortions. He had experimented in 1972, using something first tried in Bangladesh at the end of 1971 (the first place maybe international organzitions facilitated abortions – this was for women raped by Pakistani soldiers) He was maybe almost just a technician at that stage, doing it on behalf of someone else.

    The device for breaking up babies inside the mother didn’t work without risking the life, health or fertility of the mother and Gosnell stopped using it.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 4/29/2013 @ 12:51 pm

    That device was called a “super coil.” Essentially it consisted of plastic razorblades formed into a ball covered in gel so the razors would stay closed. When it was put into the woman’s uterus the body heat would melt the gel, then the razorblades would spring out to cut up the fetus.

    He did this to 15 women on Mother’s Day in in 1972, which is as sick a joke as I can think of and along with his other traits such as “saving the big ones for Sunday” (per the Grand Jury report) and cutting off the feet and keeping them as trophies point to the fact he was a sociopath. He wasn’t in this just for the money. He enjoyed it.

    Anyway, 15 poor women were bused in from Chicago to Dr. Mengele’s Philly clinic so he could try out his new super coils on them. And he put nine into the hospital with serious complications.

    Even if I was pro-abortion I don’t see how anyone would think this super coil was a good idea.

    Gosnell really wasn’t a skilled doctor. For instance, in the early ’80s a method of abortion known as digoxin induction was introduced. Digoxin is a heart medicine derived from the digitalis plant. But if an adult dose is injected into a fetal heart it’s toxic. Gosnell apparently did try to use this method to kill the fetus, but he just wasn’t good at it.

    So he just fell back on what was easiest and what apparently he enjoyed most; delivering the baby and then killing it.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  41. 36. April is a big month for anti-government, right-wing folks. There’s the Columbine anniversary. There’s Hitler’s birthday. There’s the Oklahoma City bombing. There’s the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. And these are all rallying points for these kinds of extremist groups. http://www.npr.org/2013/04/16/177507493/boston-marathon-bombing-case-gains-momentum

    Credit to PowerLine, where I saw it.
    Wow. I thought the obvious thing about the timing was that the Boston Marathon is a big public event that happens to be in April.
    I really would like to know with ontological certainty whether these people were really thinking this way spontaneously without any conscious plan to pin it on people they don’t like.
    I mean it’s like giving a Rorschach test and every answer is “right-wing extremist”, be in george washington, a flower, Lenin, Muhammed, or a butterly.
    And so many people, once upon a time including myself, thought that “All Things Considered” was thoughtful and insightfull news coverage. Maybe it was, sort of, once, but this is beyond absurd.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/29/2013 @ 7:55 am

    You know what’s funny about this dolt? Muslims love Hitler far more than the “right wing extremists” he claims to know something about. An Arabic language translation of Mein Kampf is a best seller throughout the region.

    http://www.truthbeknown.com/images/godblesshitler.jpg

    In answer to your question, I think you really have to have a conscious plan to pin things on people you don’t like if you’re going to claim Columbine is a rallying point for the right.

    And make no mistake, when it comes to abortion there is a conscious plan to minimize what it is through the use of euphemisms. The abortionists know perfectly well what they’re doing. They’re killing a human being. We know perfectly well when human life begins. It begins at conception. Abortionists know it, too. That’s why in comment #31 I included those quotes from Faye Wattleton, the former head of PP, and Ann Furedi, who for all I know may still head the largest independent abortion provider in the UK.

    The latter of which, perhaps channeling Hillary! asked, “the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?”

    But the use of carefully planned euphemisms serves to hide the fact from most who aren’t prepared to face the reality of that question. Because when they have or participate or procure an abortion they really are saying that particular human life doesn’t matter.

    As an aside, the euphemism “women’s health” that the President was throwing around during his speech to PP the other day is not merely planned to hide the reality of abortion. It is also planned to demonize abortion opponents.

    You see, the Catholic Church and other religious groups suing the government over the HHS mandate aren’t opposing abortion. They’re opposing women’s health!

    We’ve seen this effort to demonize religious groups before, because religious groups compete with the state as a source of moral authority. So the state must attack religion’s moral authority.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/23/washington-state-plan-b-ruling_n_1295585.html

    Washington State Plan B Ruling:
    Federal Judge Says State Can Not Force Pharmacies To Sell Plan B

    TACOMA, Wash. – Washington state cannot force pharmacies to sell Plan B or other emergency contraceptives, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, saying the state’s true goal was to suppress religious objections by druggists – not to promote timely access to the medicines for people who need them.

    Essentially what Washington did was to adopt new dispensing rules in 2007 that said pharmacies must carry these abortifacients. They allowed for business, economic, and convenience exemptions, but for the first time none for reasons of conscience. The state argued it was legal because the regulations applied neutrally to all pharmacies.

    What you won’t see in most reporting is that through FOIA requests the plaintiffs were able to provide internal government documents that showed the entire purpose of the new dispensing regulations was to stamp out the right to refuse for reasons of conscience. In fact, the documents showed that the pro-abortion governor was actively seeking the help of pro-abortion groups like planned parenthood to devise a workaround for the fact that Washington state law provides for a conscience exemption for health care workers. What they discovered is while the law provides an exemption to providers like doctors and pharmacy employees, it does not provide an exemption to pharmacy owners.

    I read the judge’s ruling. Basically the emails and memos stated blatantly that they were aiming to put religious people out of business.

    Obama has brought this war on religion to the national level. Recently the Army produced training labeling Catholics and evangelicals “extremists” in the same vein as Al Qaeda. They tried to explain it away as an isolated incident. But even more recently they blocked internet access to the Southern Baptist website due to the fact it was a “hate site.” When Southern Baptist chaplains righteously complained, again it was an isolated incident.

    It’s not. And there’s nothing subconscious about it.

    In those two cases the Army labeled Christian denominations “hate organizations” due to their opposition to gay marriage. But they will use the HHS mandate to do the same. The DoJ is arguing that the HHS mandate serves the compelling government interest in promoting “gender equality.”

    And here we all thought the purpose of health insurance was to provide health care. How wrong we were.

    Obama is no Christian. As Victor David Hanson once noted the purpose of liberation theology, including the Black Liberation theology that attracted Prom Queen to Rev. Wright’s church, is to cloak atheism in the language of Christianity. So expect him to continue to wage war on religion in the name of empty euphemisms of “gender equality,” “women’s health,” and “marriage equality.”

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  42. @MD in Philly, further to your question in your earlier comment #36.

    I posted a link to a YouTube video on this thread in #24.

    http://patterico.com/2013/04/29/tsarneavs-received-over-100k-in-government-handouts/comment-page-2/#comment-1213014

    I won’t post it here because the subject matter isn’t appropriate to this thread. But I think it will satisfy your curiosity about whether there’s a conscious plan. Be forewarned, it’s just over 50 minutes but none of it’s wasted.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  43. The video is both chilling and gruesome, and as bad as sending our youth to fight a war of choice, put in a position of destroying living human beings.

    Perry (9e3535)

  44. False equivalence, Perry. But it’s nice to see your Random Argument Fallacy Generator is still working.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  45. Perry is still spewing that same obnoxious intellectually dishonest claptrap. SHOCKA

    JD (32eeec)

  46. Abortion is the great moral issue of our time. For 99% of cases, it’s a choice between life and lifestyle, leveraged by both feminist ideology which conflates women killing their offspring en utero with liberation and the juggernaut of the sexual revolution’s false promise of privilege without responsibility.

    With those strong motivations, it’s easy to believe the lie that what a woman carries is not human or is not alive. So when put to a hard test we fall and perform human sacrifice, placing our young on the altar of personal advancement.

    The consequence of the truth can be too horrible to contemplate, thus the crazy denial and avoidance we are seeing. Then there’s the crushing guilt felt by both men and women who have participated in the slaughter of the innocent.

    All I can say is that there is a man who is willing and able to comprehensibly forgive, based on who he is and what he has done. Find the Savior and cling to him with both hands.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  47. ==sending our youth to fight a war of choice==

    Does Perry know that the draft is long gone? It sure does not sound like it.

    elissa (f99a6e)

  48. In those two cases the Army labeled Christian denominations “hate organizations” due to their opposition to gay marriage.

    I often cite the case of Nidal Hasan to illustrate just how much loony leftism has infiltrated and infected society. IOW, when something so politically ridiculous occurs in the 21st century, and which in the past would have been immediately associated with the idiocy of the ACLU, GLAAD or NAACP, but now — in today’s era — is something that has to be associated with the US military, that says it all. That speaks volumes.

    We in the West perhaps are deserving suckers, deserving of being snagged by Sharia Law.

    Mark (c5d4eb)

  49. Our youth are sooner rather than later to have another ‘war of choice’.

    Whether to shoot citizens or officers?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  50. ==sending our youth to fight a war of choice==
    Does Perry know that the draft is long gone? It sure does not sound like it.

    Yes, that. But not only that, as Afghanistan was the “good war” to the left, but apparently Perry doesn’t think we should even defend ourselves.

    JD (b63a52)

  51. @ Perry,

    The video is both chilling and gruesome, and as bad as sending our youth to fight a war of choice, put in a position of destroying living human beings.

    Stop trying to make a moral equivalency between young men and women who, of their own volition and free will sign up to serve our country – with the very understanding that their training will be focused on defending themselves and our nation should they have to go to war – anywhere, anytime. This does not in the least compare or coincide in any way with a baby – who could no more voluntarily of their own volition and/or understanding make any choice or decision impacting their own life. What happens to that baby is 100% determined by others – from their very beginning to their very end.

    It’s shameful to have to spell that out for you. But then you’re a very intelligent person and I believe you already know this but had to attempt a desperate political point. And that’s what’s so sad about your comment: the horror and atrocities of what these babies endure isn’t enough for one solid, passionate comment to support and protect them from the hands of madmen and women.

    Dana (292dcf)

  52. A man who volunteers during a time where we are trying to create freedom for Iraqis or Afghanistan is perhaps the highest form of charity. To risk your own life to fight tyrants in a foreign land is an act of love.

    Dana is right that comparing this to murdering newborn children is shameful, but words really fail to fully say how shameful.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  53. *or woman, of course.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  54. 47. This is old cliche borrowed from the Vietnam war. This is an old argument.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  55. Disgusting to say the least. Why don’t you stop your abortion during the 1st trimester? Going beyond that would look like really murder.

    Sheri (ea47b6)

  56. There are probably many reasons women postpone an abortion past the 1st or 2nd trimester — including if they want to keep the child, or if they’re worried about the abortion procedure, or if they’re in denial about being pregnant.

    Also, federal/state governments offer more financial assistance to pregnant women, which means there could be a financial incentive to continuing a pregnancy past the 1st or 2nd trimester (if you don’t mind being pregnant). In Pennsylvania, where the Gosnell case is pending, the federally-funded WIC program offers pregnant women better food choices than other food assistance programs.

    DRJ (a83b8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.5229 secs.