Patterico's Pontifications

9/30/2015

Liberal Writer Jonathan Capehart: I Defend Planned Parenthood But Draw The Line At Watching Those Icky Videos

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:06 am

[guest post by Dana]

Jonathan Capehart, political writer at the Washington Post and regular guest on MSNBC, admitted that although he can’t stomach watching the Planned Parenthood videos, he nonetheless supports Planned Parenthood:

Capehart said he couldn’t watch them because “there are some things where I just have to draw the line.”

“I would say, I haven’t seen the videos,” Capehart said on Morning Joe. “The discussion of the videos is disturbing enough.”

“Is that why you haven’t watched them?” fill-in host Nicolle Wallace asked. “You just feel like you have enough information?”

“There are some things where I just have to draw the line, things that I can deal with as a human being,” Capehart said. “I cannot get to the point, though, where I say that Planned Parenthood should be completely defunded. They do so many other things, providing health care to women.”

Capehart added a woman tweeted at him that she was still alive thanks to Planned Parenthood. The BlazeTV’s Amy Holmes told Capehart he should watch the videos, “as we’re discussing this issue,” to decide for himself if he could abide the conduct being discussed.

“We are on the same page on that issue,” he said. “What I’m saying is I then can’t go the next step, like a lot of the Planned Parenthood opponents, and say that Planned Parenthood should be completely defunded.”

If it’s just tissue and blood, what’s the big deal about watching the videos? Wouldn’t a “professional” journalist want to be as fully informed as possible before taking a public stand on an issue?

As I noted last night on Patterico’s post, Gregg Cunningham, founder of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, makes the point when discussing David Daleiden of CMP and the release of the Planned Parenthood videos: “What he has managed to accomplish is to shift the terms of the debate away from choice to a visualization of what is being chosen.”

If you’re going to choose to defend something, it’s good to know precisely what it is that you are defending. Especially in matters of life and death. Courage and honesty, Capehart, courage and honesty.

–Dana

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: It is always such a delight when I wake up wanting to convey an idea, turn on my computer, and see it already expressed (and powerfully so) by Dana. I add this update only to express my agreement that the “visualization of what is being chosen” is what is central about this discussion. There is debate online about whether the video I described last night of a 17-week-old baby (estimated age) put in a metal bowl to expire was an abortion or not. It doesn’t matter to the larger debate. People can now see what a 17-week-old baby looks like — not just in images or ultrasounds, but after delivery, as it moves around. It looks like a baby. It may not be viable, but it is not “tissue.” It’s a baby. That reality scares a lot of people who don’t want the public to know the truth.

The only other thing I would like to do this morning is link Mollie Hemingway’s guide to the Planned Parenthood videos. In it, she makes a great point: “Planned Parenthood, contra the video, claims to only recoup fixed costs in sale of human organs. They’ve never explained why negotiations would be taking place if that were true.” That is a devastating point that the leftist defenders of Planned Parenthood like Michael Hiltzik do not even try to answer.

UPDATE x2: Thanks to Simon J. for the link to Mollie Hemingway.

145 Responses to “Liberal Writer Jonathan Capehart: I Defend Planned Parenthood But Draw The Line At Watching Those Icky Videos”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Important post, Dana.

    Say… I had an idea. Maybe every time certain offensive words are used in response to posts like this, the offender should contribute 20 bucks to Patterico. Win-win.

    More seriously, Dana, it would be easy to not post things like this because the resultant unpleasantness. I’m glad you do, because for almost everyone, it prods readers into examining what kinds of people they are, and what they believe in these odd days.

    Thank you.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  3. nonono he should watch them you learn a lot about propaganda techniques and editing and stuff

    plus there’s lots of salad

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  4. UPDATE BY PATTERICO: It is always such a delight when I wake up wanting to convey an idea, turn on my computer, and see it already expressed (and powerfully so) by Dana. I add this update only to express my agreement that the “visualization of what is being chosen” is what is central about this discussion. There is debate online about whether the video I described last night of a 17-week-old baby (estimated age) put in a metal bowl to expire was an abortion or not. It doesn’t matter to the larger debate. People can now see what a 17-week-old baby looks like — not just in images or ultrasounds, but after delivery, as it moves around. It looks like a baby. It may not be viable, but it is not “tissue.” It’s a baby. That reality scares a lot of people who don’t want the public to know the truth.

    The only other thing I would like to do this morning is link Mollie Hemingway’s guide to the Planned Parenthood videos. In it, she makes a great point: “Planned Parenthood, contra the video, claims to only recoup fixed costs in sale of human organs. They’ve never explained why negotiations would be taking place if that were true.” That is a devastating point that the leftist defenders of Planned Parenthood like Michael Hiltzik do not even try to answer.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  5. nonono he should watch them you learn a lot about propaganda techniques

    These days the biggest “propaganda technique” I see is to claim that the truth is propaganda.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  6. That’s quite right, Patterico. I thought that Hemingway’s article was well done.

    This really isn’t about abortion. This is about who we want to be, and what we value.

    In my younger days, I used to debate PETA folks about animal research. They would make claims that animal research “never” helped anyone, and things would devolve quickly.

    So, in front of an audience (in the late 80s), I would ask this question:

    “Let me pose a hypothetical. What if we could absolutely, no question about it, cure HIV and AIDS using a drug that necessitated killing animals. Would you support or oppose that action?”

    Dead silence. Lots of temporizing. I would push them back to the question. Because, I reminded them, it helped define who they were, and what they believed. It’s not a trick question. I did want to make liberal shibboleths collide to prove a point, it’s true.

    Several, to their credit, admitted that they would oppose that action…and lost their audience.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  7. UPDATE x2: Thanks to Simon J. for the link to Mollie Hemingway.

    Patterico (fecd9b)

  8. these videos are meant to distract people from the truth I think – i watched them all, edited and not Mr. P

    the first number one truth i’m left with is that women who choose to have abortions are in some cases given the option to donate the fetal tissue

    if they choose not to or they’re not given this option the tissue gets destroyed (usually incinerated) (but never ever in a facility what has any cogeneration technology) (somewhere else)

    the number two truth I’m left with is that these are sting videos where the mischievous super-secret agents try to set a conversational tone what will induce people to make comments what they can edit to great effect – a good example is the one about the italian car that’s hard to spell… it’s obvious to anybody who is willing to do the analysis that when the lady says she wants an italian car that’s hard to spell it’s her ironic way of acknowledging that they are in fact NOT talking about large sums of money

    the third truth I’m left with is that this idea about defunding planned parenthood is not about saving any money it’s about taking monies from planned parenthood (democratic cronies) and giving it to other people (republican cronies). I find this distasteful, and there’s been very little analysis I’ve seen about what this would mean (I think it’s very, very likely we’d end up with a Planned Parenthood what was stronger and more independent like what would happen with NPR if we cut all their monies).

    Lastly, with respect to the question of “why negotiations” – there are no negotiations depicted in these videos. What you see in the sting videos are preliminary discussions that the Planned Parenthood people were lured into by scamsters and the Planned Parenthood people always caution the scamsters that everything will need to be run past legal advisors as well as the individual abortion doctors to make sure everything is done legally and ethically.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  9. The videos are real, notwithstanding the local troll’s comments.

    Long ago, in 1969, I did some abortions. I was a surgery resident and was doing my time on GYN. Abortion in California had just become legal and the GYN residents at County were expected to do them. Since this was early, the method used was saline injection into the amniotic fluid which killed the fetus and caused the woman to go into labor. She would stay on the GYN admitting ward until the baby was expelled.

    I did some to be a part of the team. The GYN residents hated it and the County soon hired some non-resident MDs to do them. Those abortions were around 20 weeks, partly because the new law required a psych consult, etc. I watched expelled fetuses try to breathe and kicked their legs and moved their arms. We all did and hated it.

    The videos are real.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  10. of course the videos are real duh so is my jar of pickled watermelon rinds what i got at gene’s sausage shop but that is not the point is it

    the point is that these videos are sketchy and they’re designed to wig people out so they run off half-cocked like how carlycakes did

    they’re propaganda duh

    if it helps, think of them as teensy little Michael Moore films, just even more puerile and amateurish

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  11. “There are some things where I just have to draw the line, things that I can deal with as a human being,” Capehart said.

    Heinrich Himmler, top dog in the Jew-killing business, saw a bunch of dead Jews that his Special Action Groups had machinegunned and got sick to his stomach. He then ordered a “better way”. Gas trucks followed by gas chambers and ovens.

    Evil people can be squeamish. They can stand dead babies in their sick minds if they go into their brain through hearsay, but not if they go into their brain directly through their vision center.

    But there’s more to it. Psychos understand that if they, who don’t mind killing babies, get upset by the images, decent people will get much more upset. So it’s very, very important to attack the videos, minimize them, keep people from watching them, and demonize the people who made them or even discuss them. Because that might put a damper on the babykilling.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. It’s interesting to see how the respectful comment HF made to Patterico immediately descended into the usual stuff in just minutes. It is possible for HF to write normally; he just chooses to be someone who agitates and tries to distract from the facts of the situation. So now it is clear: a choice, just as nk points out.

    Nk is spot on. It’s very interesting what we teach and don’t teach young people today.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  13. “(I)t is not “tissue.” It’s a baby.”

    Thank you for that. Even Fiorina called it a fetus, soft-pedaling the truth.

    ThOR (a52560)

  14. For the benefit of those who filter out a certain commenter, something he said that I would like to expand on.
    the third truth I’m left with is that this idea about defunding planned parenthood is not about saving any money it’s about taking monies from planned parenthood (democratic cronies) and giving it to other people (republican cronies). I find this distasteful, and there’s been very little analysis I’ve seen about what this would mean (I think it’s very, very likely we’d end up with a Planned Parenthood what was stronger and more independent like what would happen with NPR if we cut all their monies).

    While flipping radio stations in the car this morning, I caught a stray comment on Diane Rheem’s show. Apparently she wants to convince listeners that fetal tissue is absolutely vital to medical research. One of her guests remarked that NIH gives out 76 million dollars to fund fetal tissue research. Not much in terms of the federal budget, but that is a wholesale bunch of kopecks that ultimately are fed into the abortion mills (even if some of this is from miscarriages). And defunding PP will just make more available to the other abortion centers.

    Which is why I think, instead of defunding PP, the goal should be a return to the Reagan rule that barred the use of aborted fetuses for research. That would treat the illness instead of just a symptom.

    One further idea occurred to me this morning. It would probably need to be done at the state level: require all fetuses to be treated as human remains, and buried accordingly. If the mother can not afford it, then do it at public expense. That would drive home the point that they were humans, not just tissue samples.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  15. Yesterday Steve mentioned that one aim of CMP was to get investigations and prosecution going. I am not so sanguine about investigations.
    For instance, you may have heard that the Missouri AG investigated the PP office in St. Louis, and found no wrongdoing. What did not get reported was some info about the AG which I found on Wikipedia. He used to be a GOP legislator, but switched to Democrat because he did not like tge GOP’s turn towards conservative. Among the issues he cited when explaining the switch was stem cell research.
    IOW he was on the same page as PP. So why would he find trouble at PP?

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  16. The progress in stem cell research has pretty much passed fetal cell research in importance. Of course, this does not make those who have built little empires on fetal tissue to reconsider.

    The discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and the concurrent development of protocols for their cell-type-specific differentiation have revolutionized our approach to cell therapy.

    The genetics are revolutionizing this field. The patient’s own stem cells can be used so the rejection issue is moot.

    For example.

    There were no complications related to transplantations and no side effects related to the therapy during 2 years of treatment. The ASIA score improved from A to C/D (from 112 to 231 points). The sensation level expanded from Th1 to L3-4, and the patient’s ability to control the body trunk was fully restored. Bladder filling sensation, bladder control, and anal sensation were also restored. Muscle strength in the left lower extremities improved from plegia to deep paresis (1 on the Lovett scale). The patient’s ability to move lower extremities against gravity supported by the movements in quadriceps was restored. The patient gained the ability to stand in a standing frame and was able to walk with the support of hip and knee ortheses.

    This is spinal cord complete injury and it is recovering. T1 means quadriplegia. Neck down.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  17. That is wonderful news for the treatment of spinal disease, Dr. K. Thank you.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  18. The work was done in Poland, Dr. K. Why not here?

    Hmmm.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  19. There’s an hitman assassination bureau that, on the side, inspects men’s balls for cancer so we can’t defund them.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  20. Why would anyone defend the killing of babies? I suppose there are several possibilities — an unwavering commitment to protecting abortion no matter what the cost, or a financial interest in Planned Parenthood, or to please friends and family who support PP. It’s possible to support both abortion and fairness without supporting this, e.g., liberals like Kirsten Powers. I see no hope for people who defend killing babies for politics or for money.

    DRJ (521990)

  21. mrs richards used to work for pelosi, has ties to the SEIU, next question

    narciso (ee1f88)

  22. My God, Jonthan Capehart’s necktie knot is nearly as big as his head! Never trust a guy who ties a loose double-Windsor knot, unless he is, you know, from the House of Windsor. A dignified half-Windsor is what we Americans ought to be sporting, and the more insouciant of us — schoolboys and rakish bachelors — can get away with the four-in-hand knot.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  23. Shouldn’t someone have pointed out that Capehart just disqualified himself from the debate over the funding of PP by choosing the path of willful ignorance?

    Steve57 (59a8e4)

  24. The issue at hand is not abortion. The issue is that Planned Parenthood is a significant contributor to the Democratic party.

    I would ask Mr. Capehart how he assesses the trade off between his party and his race, Last year, in New York City, more black babies were aborted than were born.

    Roy Lofquist (6e7240)

  25. Planned Parenthood has killed more people than small pox.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  26. Capehart on the Obama decision to support ISIS as part of it’s anti-Assad coalition: I can’t watch the videos where ISIS burns people alive in cages. Or where they put explosive collars on prisoners to decapitate them by remote control. Or where they throw gays off of tall buildings. Or any of their snuff videos, really. The discussion of the videos is disturbing enough.

    There are some things where I just have to draw the line, things that I can deal with as a human being. I cannot get to the point, though, where I say that ISIS should be completely defunded. They do so many other things, like fighting Bashar al Assad, repairing schools, infrastructure, and providing welfare in conquered areas.

    Steve57 (59a8e4)

  27. The work was done in Poland, Dr. K. Why not here?

    Hmmm.

    That was just a sample at random and the European countries are very advanced in this area. Interesting since Hillary Clinton is now attacking drug therapy like the biologicals that cure rheumatoid arthritis. I had dinner with a classmate and his wife a few years ago. She had RA and I mentioned the new drugs. I saw them a year later and she had had a dramatic response. He is a psychiatrist and might not have been keeping up.

    We are in the midst of a new revolutionary period like bacteriology and surgery in the 19th century. We had the antibiotic revolution in the 1940s. Now we are in a new one. I can’t even keep up with the genetics. My students know far more in year II than I do.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  28. biologicals that cure rheumatoid arthritis

    At a certain cost. I have an autoimmune disease (Crohn’s), and know what the generally available ones are. Let’s just say I prefer the problems of having an overactive immune system to the problems of not having an immune system that works.

    But how has Hillary been attacking them?

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  29. Simon,
    So now it is clear: a choice, just as nk points out.
    In a rare moment of clarity, late on a Sunday, happyfascist admitted as much in response to a DRJ question.

    You have strong opinions (on subjects like SSM and abortion) but you seem to have problems grasping that some people may have other opinions, happyfeet. You don’t have to accept them as your own but it seems to me that an intelligent person could grasp other opinions and discuss them hypothetically — as if they were valid — even if you disagree. Why can’t you do that?
    DRJ (1dff03) — 8/23/2015 @ 6:31 pm

    i’m a pass you the baton Mr. Eric

    run with it baby

    run like a gazelle

    and sing your truth

    don’t forget to sing

    promise me you won’t forget to sing
    happyfeet (831175) — 8/23/2015 @ 6:31 pm

    Why can’t you do that?

    it’s a choice
    happyfeet (831175) — 8/23/2015 @ 6:32 pm

    Gazzer (124d91)

  30. Don’t walk, RUN to the nearest church and pray for your soul, happyfeet. Your brain is pickled.

    Colonel Haiku (fd5d8b)

  31. Actually, it’s pikachued.

    Gazzer (124d91)

  32. step one

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  33. we can have lots of fun!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  34. happyfeet,

    What is the larger point that you feel is more important than worrying about babies? Is it a woman’s rights’ issue, the right to abortion, concern about how social issues can affect the GOP, or something else?

    DRJ (521990)

  35. Also, what concerns people you know who support Planned Parenthood? Is it about being pro-choice or is it something else?

    DRJ (521990)

  36. Can’t be about being pro choice DRJ for those who support PP. Defunding taxpayers money from PP does not make abortion illegal, not even at PP. All it does is stop forcing Christians and others who are anti-babykilling on religious principles to pay for it. And that is as it should be. For the left it’s never been about PP or abortion per se. It’s about breaking Christianity just like SSM, gay rights, multiculturalism, illegal immigration and just about every other plank in their platform. Forcing Christians by law to break their doctrines or suffer monetary and legal persecution. Remember, they BOO’D God….twice. Once Christianity is broken, the state is the highest authority and that’s their goal. It’s always been their goal for all of history.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  37. Selective-child under the pro-choice doctrine is a semi-voluntary genocide. The additional revelation of torture, harvesting, and trafficking by Planned Parenthood corporation is hoped to change the convictions of leaders (e.g. Obama, Reid, Pelosi) and members of the pro-choice Party.

    n.n (281ea6)

  38. Forcing Christians by law to break their doctrines

    It is about marginalizing and eviscerating competing interests, but also Blood and Green money, environment, etc.

    n.n (281ea6)

  39. What is the larger point that you feel is more important than worrying about babies? Is it a woman’s rights’ issue, the right to abortion, concern about how social issues can affect the GOP, or something else?

    this is a false dichotomy DRJ

    you worry about what it is that’s given to you to worry about – that’s your job

    for example i have my family and people in LA and some people in Texas and people hither and yither and a few here in Chicago and my turtles to worry about and I do my dead level best to help all of them keep their boats in the water

    part of that is really doing my best to advocate policies where they will live in a prosperous little country where they can find a job they don’t have to go on the welfare and they don’t have to worry about a zimbabwe-style economic collapse

    when they have babies we celebrate when they have abortions we do the lean on me when you’re not strong thing

    me personally i do not favor abortion as a choice cause i love babies so much

    they’re my favorite

    but people have to have freedom to make these decisions

    states can ban abortion after 20 weeks or so that’s fine (with exceptions) … 20 weeks is plenty time to get your head in the game and get a plan together

    it’s super-lame for the US congress to do that though cause it’s not been given to them to worry about, silly monkeys (hello? constitution?)

    but this part is very real: concern about how social issues can affect the GOP

    yes why on earth the gop wants to be all mucked up in a silly issue like this what’s so divisive

    it’s not really a GOP issue, this abortion stuff – the GOP needs to worry about stuff like peace and prosperity

    what i would say to the GOP is this: limited government starts with you, losers

    chop chop

    Also, what concerns people you know who support Planned Parenthood? Is it about being pro-choice or is it something else?

    i wish my friend D was in today

    my sense is they’re just sick to death of Team R acting like they have to get all up into everyone’s lives – it’s truly obnoxious how the whole fetuses and homos agenda of the Republican Party eclipses anything else they might have once hope to accomplish in terms of tax reform or fiscal responsibility or repealing obamacare

    but here we are

    hysterically threatening to shut down the government over piffle and blarg

    it’s so hard to take republicans seriously when they behave this way

    and especially carlycakes

    what in the name of pickled watermelon rinds has that woman ever done her whole life for fetuses?

    not a goddamn thing

    but now the hooch wants to be president and suddenly she’s the fetus queen of the codswollop kentucky fetusfest

    this is me rolling my eyes

    you can’t see it but we can splice in footage of someone else rolling their eyes later in the editing bay

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  40. might have once *hoped* to accomplish i mean

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  41. I disagree with the title – we are having our generations of Omelas:

    Our Summer of Omelas

    We are being shown how our society has built itself around the suffering of children about whom no one cares.
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/29/our-summer-of-omelas/

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  42. Let’s just say I prefer the problems of having an overactive immune system to the problems of not having an immune system that works.

    My wife has RA and chronic emphysema. She can’t take the biologicals because all are immunosuppressive and she gets pneumonia.

    Life is tough.

    I once operated on a guy for a gastric ulcer from steroids. The rush of cortisone from the stress of surgery (and our efforts to keep him from crashing) made his arthritis symptoms go away. He thought I was a miracle worker until a week later when his RA was back.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  43. happyfeet,

    Do you identify with Libertarians?

    DRJ (521990)

  44. no that’s not a real thing really

    happyfeet (7e3f0b)

  45. It seems you want the GOP to get out of the values business, which means it will be more Libertarian.

    DRJ (521990)

  46. nonono just a gop what believes in limited government

    this is not something that exists though

    happyfeet (831175)

  47. How is it limited government for the federal government to mandate SSM?

    DRJ (521990)

  48. You are for limited government except when it is something you want, and then you love government intervention.

    DRJ (521990)

  49. not true at all

    the individual american is what matters

    an individual american shouldn’t have to beg an ignorant hateful pseudo-christian bigot like kim davis for permission to get married

    no more than she had to beg to get married and married and married and married

    happyfeet (831175)

  50. Like I wrote to you, DRJ.

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  51. You are for limited government except when it is something you want, and then you love government intervention.
    In other words, a typical conservative. HF merely has unorthodox preferences about when he wants government to intervene.
    How is it limited government for the federal government to mandate SSM?
    How is it limited government for state governments to keep people from marrying whom they want?

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  52. Again, hf, according to the Sacred Scripture that you have admitted yourself that you reject, you’re a heretic. You’re not a Christian at all. According to The Almighty’s Words.

    John Hitchcock (bc8490)

  53. How is it limited government for state governments to keep people from marrying whom they want?

    we hold these truths to be self-evident, well some of us do, that all men are created equal, even gay people, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, even gay people, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even for gay people.

    happyfeet (831175)

  54. when do i even want the government to intervene Mr. kishnevi?

    i don’t like poliggers but i don’t think the government should rustle them up

    i don’t think government should give monies to the planned parenthood

    i don’t think government should sanction bigots who refuse to do business with gay people

    i don’t think government should deliver mail

    i don’t think government should build a garish fleet of carlyboats

    mostly i think there’s less harmful things the failmerican government does with the monies it confiscates and borrows and more harmful things it does with the monies it confiscates and borrows

    happyfeet (831175)

  55. i like national parks but i think we should take care of the ones we have and I think the private sector should have a bigger role in that

    happyfeet (831175)

  56. the number two truth I’m left with is that these are sting videos where the mischievous super-secret agents try to set a conversational tone what will induce people to make comments what they can edit to great effect – a good example is the one about the italian car that’s hard to spell… it’s obvious to anybody who is willing to do the analysis that when the lady says she wants an italian car that’s hard to spell it’s her ironic way of acknowledging that they are in fact NOT talking about large sums of money

    I happen to agree with that. That being said, the question Mollie Hemingway posed remains: why is there haggling if they are simply charging cost? Why not either a) here is the cost, or b) I don’t know our cost, but someone who does will get back to you.

    But I think all of that is (while perhaps legally important) a side issue in terms of perception. It is the buying and selling of human body parts that people find repulsive. To the extent that you oppose any taxpayer money being given to private companies, I’m with you. Defunding this one organization would be a step in the right direction, I’m sure you agree, since we share a view of the Constitution granting only enumerated powers to the central government.

    Patterico (9245e1)

  57. An individual American shouldn’t have to beg to be able to follow his or her religious beliefs. Someone who cares about individual rights would care about religious rihts, too, but you don’t so I think you pick and choose which rights you care about.

    DRJ (521990)

  58. How is it limited government for the federal government to mandate SSM?
    How is it limited government for state governments to keep people from marrying whom they want?

    kishnevi (31ba4e) — 9/30/2015 @ 6:22 pm

    Limited government has nothing to do with whether the states outlaw SSM. For SCOTUS to prevent the people from having a vote on the issue any more is overstepping their authority, a far more serious problem than limited vs expansive government.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  59. kishnevi,

    Let the States decide who should get married, that’s limited government, and how sad that you find all conservatives to be hypocritical. Why bother talking to people you hold in such low regard?

    DRJ (521990)

  60. Defunding this one organization would be a step in the right direction

    oh my gosh if they can defund this they can defund outer space and beyond

    go go gadget!

    It is the buying and selling of human body parts that people find repulsive.

    I’m not on board with that. Not to repeatpeat but if a woman wants to donate her aborted fetus for research then that’s none of my business. If there wasn’t the element of consent I’d be all for taking steps to make sure that piece was in place.

    happyfeet (831175)

  61. That was what you were trying to say, right, happyfeet?

    Patterico (1b7516)

  62. kishnevi,

    Do you think State government has no role to play in marriage, families, etc.? I can see that argument, especially for Libertarians.

    DRJ (521990)

  63. oh my gosh if they can defund this they can defund outer space and beyond

    Our comments crossed.

    I don’t understand what that means.

    Please answer me a simple question: do you support defunding Planned Parenthood?

    I can’t imagine how you couldn’t. It is the only position consistent with the Constitution and limited government.

    Could you do me the favor of giving me an intelligible answer?

    Patterico (9245e1)

  64. An individual American shouldn’t have to beg to be able to follow his or her religious beliefs. Someone who cares about individual rights would care about religious rights, too, but you don’t so I think you pick and choose which rights you care about.

    this is facile

    i never said the bigot bakers should be forced to serve gay people; i said i disdain them for their socially retrograde stances, stances that I think are incredibly mean-spirited, and toxic to both social comity and the religion they claim to believe in

    i know a lot of people what are religious up one side and down the other without ever treating gay people like crap

    one thing what’s come out of this is

    hey where’s elissa is she ok? and Mr. daley

    one thing what’s come out of this is I’ve rethought my previous thinking that maybe churches should pay property tax

    i decided that ship has sailed

    I don’t want to cross that rubicon you’d have to cross when a church decided not to pay

    I also have no honest sympathy for commie nuns and such who hate this one iddle biddle piece of the coercive and oppressive anti-human horror that is obamacare

    but other than that my record on religious liberty is pretty darn good i think

    happyfeet (831175)

  65. Please answer me a simple question: do you support defunding Planned Parenthood?

    yesyesyes (but i do not support simply shifting the PP monies to people Team R deems worthy)

    but a lot of the reason I support it is if Team R can cut Planned Parenthood funding

    they can cut NPR funding

    they can cut defense spending

    they can cut piggy pensions

    they can cut thuggy thuggy public employee unions off at the knees

    a new whirl awaits you in the off-world colonies

    happyfeet (831175)

  66. Thank you for weighing in on this, Patterico. I find that when you personally directly interact with this individual, he tends to be less insulting and bizarre. And less insulting and bizarre means real discussion. Which I would hope is the point of your comment section on your blog.

    One thing that has always bothered me about the libertarian position that a woman should be able to choose to abort her unborn child: what about the rights of the father?

    Sure, you can make the argument that the woman is doing all the work, but half that chromosomal complement is his. Shouldn’t he have a say in it?

    But I find that no one really discusses that, other than name calling and such.

    More to the point of the post, I think that folks who believe as PP does should grasp the nettle firmly and state their case. Problem is, despite what some might say, I doubt most Americans would be in favor of women have a right to abortion no matter what, whenever.

    Which is why it is called a “right to choose” instead of what is clearly meant.

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  67. I spoke too soon.

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  68. It’s not “outlawing” SSM.
    It’s not “defunding” Planned Parenthood.

    The reality is
    “Not enacting” SSM in the marriage laws
    “Not giving taxpayer money” to Planned Parenthood

    That’s how the jammers fight their battles. Semantically. Twisting words around so when we don’t give them what they want, we are victimizing them.

    That’s how that dipwhiddle poll shows that “there should not be a government shut down over the ‘defunding of Planned Parenhood'”. Phrase the question “Should the Democrats and the President shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenhood is not included in the federal budget?”, which is the honest phrasing, and see how people answer.

    nk (dbc370)

  69. It is the buying and selling of human body parts that people find repulsive.

    This can’t be divorced from actual barbaric procedures used to procure the parts to sell, as well as the complete devaluation of life.

    Dana (86e864)

  70. nk, that is precisely correct—push polling. You saw how Hillary supporters approved of Trump’s plans if they were told there were Hillary’s?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxXty6vEBA

    I would love for there to be poll tests for voters, but the Democrats made sure that could never happen with their racist nonsense.

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  71. Dana, I agree completely. Notice how Dr. K. wrote about the situation. He actually has been there.

    Folks are surprisingly tough if they don’t have to personally deal with their slogans.

    That is what I like about the Federalist essay: here are the facts. How do they impact your narrative? And what does your response say about your world view?

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  72. Why do you think you get to decide whether people’s religious beliefs are acceptable or unacceptable, hf?

    DRJ (521990)

  73. It’s not “outlawing” SSM.

    The reality is
    “Not enacting” SSM in the marriage laws

    nk (dbc370) — 9/30/2015 @ 6:57 pm

    Right. That’s what I meant to say in #58.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  74. Limited government has nothing to do with whether the states outlaw SSM. For SCOTUS to prevent the people from having a vote on the issue any more is overstepping their authority, a far more serious problem than limited vs expansive government.

    So you think it is okay for a majority to deny rights to a minority.

    Let the States decide who should get married, that’s limited government
    Limited government applies at state and local level,not just federal. The state has two reasons to be interested in marriage: impact on property rights and inheritance, and barring a relationship which is at least potentially abusive. The latter is why we ban incestous relationships, and have ages of consent. Neither reason justifies on their own banning SSM.
    Which is why banning SSM is government denial of individual right for no valid reason, and hence an unwarranted intrusion.

    An individual American shouldn’t have to beg to be able to follow his or her religious beliefs.
    If Steve and Brad get married, you retain the right to disapprove and, contrary to Oregon bureaucrats, the right to not bake a cake for them. Forcing you to approve of or participate in an SSM is attacking religious liberty, but the bare fact that SSMs are legally valid is not.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  75. What troubles me, happyfeet, is that you don’t get that you are essentially playing god for the rest of us. It’s tacky, dishonest and presumptuous, at the very least. It’s oddly fascist, too.

    Dana (86e864)

  76. Why do you think you get to decide whether people’s religious beliefs are acceptable or unacceptable, hf?

    cause I’m socially engaged and that’s how we temper fanaticism and anti-social impulses

    if i were as unorthodox a mulsim as I am a christian you’d call me ayaanhirsialifeet

    happyfeet (831175)

  77. DRJ: some day I would like to chat with you about small “l” libertarianism. I suspect some folks have made you think ill of the grouping.

    I do think that there is something in almost everyone (me, too) that burns to tell other people what to do, and judge them for their choices. Some people fight it. Some people give in. Maybe that is a form of our secular “original sin.”

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  78. *muslim* i mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  79. That’s how that dipwhiddle poll shows that “there should not be a government shut down over the ‘defunding of Planned Parenhood’”. Phrase the question “Should the Democrats and the President shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenhood is not included in the federal budget?”, which is the honest phrasing, and see how people answer.

    Yes! I heard Michael Medved today and he cited the poll and was so smug while he did his, See, no one wants the government shut down over defunding PP routine, that I wanted to scream at him.

    Dana (86e864)

  80. What troubles me, happyfeet, is that you don’t get that you are essentially playing god for the rest of us. It’s tacky, dishonest and presumptuous, at the very least. It’s oddly fascist, too.

    that’s so over the top

    it would be way way more tacky dishonest and presumptuous of me to remain silent

    happyfeet (831175)

  81. Yeah, I have to think about the rational basis of laws against bestiality. How is chopping off a chicken’s head, plucking it, cutting it up into pieces, cooking it and eating it permissible, and taking it to bed isn’t?

    Societies have the right to have moral codes and to enforce them, kishnevi. We are not machines limited to doing only useful things.

    nk (dbc370)

  82. I’m glad Michael Medved is better after his cancer battle, Dana. But he can be annoying.

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  83. kishnevi,

    And yet a court has ruled that Kim Davis doesn’t get a religious accommodation that is relatively easy to grant, and courts across the nation have said people have to cater (literally and figuratively) to SSM participants. You may think this is about a bare right to marry but it’s not. It’s about forcing society to accept and celebrate SSM, too.

    DRJ (521990)

  84. We are not machines limited to doing only useful things.

    robots are the new chickens, so this is ironic, what you said

    happyfeet (831175)

  85. how sad that you find all conservatives to be hypocritical.
    Most conservatives are not libertarians and happily admit to that. They think certain functions of government require big government in practice. I don’t consider that hypocrisy.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  86. I have no problem with Libertarians, either big L or little l. I understand the attraction because I was one, but I’m not anymore.

    DRJ (521990)

  87. No, kishnevi, real conservatives don’t think big government is the answer.

    DRJ (521990)

  88. for the big L libertarians, you have to hold the shift key

    that’s the same as fascism

    happyfeet (831175)

  89. “Live honestly and let others live honestly” is libertarian enough for me. “Live and let live” strikes me as libertine. We can fight over the limits of “honestly” but I insist on its inclusion.

    nk (dbc370)

  90. DRJ (521990) — 9/30/2015 @ 7:14 pm
    I think almost all of us agree the courts are wrong to do that, and forcing people to approve of SSM is wrong and should be opposed. Even possibly HF.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  91. I understand, DRJ. I’ve never been a good one. When I was a boy, I wanted to be a minister (though my father is a lapsed LDS, and my mother a nonpracticing Catholic, they insisted I go to some kind of church until I was 16). My kind Methodist minister said something funny. He told me that I didn’t have the temperament to be a minister since I was not comfortable telling people what to do with their lives, and worried about it. He went on to say (and I didn’t know why this was funny until later) that I might have made a good Jesuit, but he was pretty sure I was going to like girls.

    I hate the idea of one size fits all. Always have. It helps me with students. So maybe I am a minister, but in a different way.

    I continue to have great respect for people of faith, and always will.

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  92. did I ever tell you that this here jacket represents a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom

    stab it and steer baby

    happyfeet (831175)

  93. Gosh, nk, I enjoy your posts. Though I don’t agree with all the contents, I love the title and the sentiment behind it.

    http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Hurt-People-Their-Stuff/dp/0062308254

    Simon Jester (9050fb)

  94. Limited government has nothing to do with whether the states outlaw SSM. For SCOTUS to prevent the people from having a vote on the issue any more is overstepping their authority, a far more serious problem than limited vs expansive government.

    So you think it is okay for a majority to deny rights to a minority.

    kishnevi (28fa9f) — 9/30/2015 @ 7:08 pm

    I am saying that SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to decide the issue. Nor do they have a moral right to decide it.

    Strictly speaking, refusing to have the state recognize SSM is not denying a right to gays. A gay person has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as a hetero person. That’s why analogies to the segregation era are erroneous. Blacks did not have the right to do the identical thing as a white person. That is logically what equal rights entail.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  95. I’m going way off-topic. I think Obama will do everything he can to ruin Hilkary’s candidacy so the Democrats can pick Joe Biden, and Biden will pick Obama-favorite Elizabeth Warren as his running mate. That would be 73-year-old white man with a 67-year-old white woman — 140 years when you add it together. Yikes.

    DRJ (521990)

  96. No, kishnevi, real conservatives don’t think big government is the answer.

    Then people who are hawks in military matters and foreign policy (which is big government applied to defense and foreign affairs) are not real conservatives?

    Actually, until the Cold War changed things, most conservatives were isolationist/small military. Aggressive foreign policy was a feature of the big government side in politics.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  97. Should have said “Strictly speaking, refusing to have the state recognize SSM is not denying a right equal rights to gays”.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  98. No, kishnevi, real conservatives don’t think big government is the answer.

    i give you carly fetalrrhea’s vision of limited government

    “Why shouldn’t taxpayers be paying for pregnancy centers in communities all across this nation, to give women an opportunity to understand their choices?”*

    happyfeet (831175)

  99. A lot of libertarians (myself included) are opposed to abortion, for the same reason conservatives are.

    Human beings are not to be disposed of when inconvenient.

    We can all think of hard cases where an absolute prohibition of abortion is abhorrent, but that doesn’t make the current situation, of one person getting to dispose of the life of another, with no one else’s input, ok. If abortion is to be legal the hurdle has to be pretty goddamned high, like it is with capital punishment or even self-defense.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  100. kish,

    We deny “rights” to people all the time for societal reasons. Children can’t legally smoke or drink, adults can’t do illegal drugs or marry multiple people at one time, and we place all sorts of restrictions on where people live (zoning) and eat (health inspections). There are reasons we might want to limit marriage to a man and a woman, too, but it’s moot now.

    DRJ (521990)

  101. Most conservatives are not libertarians and happily admit to that. They think certain functions of government require big government in practice. I don’t consider that hypocrisy.

    I agree with you on that on kishnevi. I think it’s quite obvious that “certain” and may I add limited functions of government require big government in practice.

    However, you stated: ” The state has two reasons to be interested in marriage: impact on property rights and inheritance, and barring a relationship which is at least potentially abusive.” I gotta disagree. There is more to a stable and healthy society and culture than that. There is the family dynamic, healthy morals, balance of religion and state, social interactions, protection of children the physically and mentally disabled and much more I can’t think of. People are not just political machines to be turned on and off and oiled by the government. Human interaction is quite complex and while we (I) don’t want government controlling everything I believe too little leadership can cause chaos. Nothing and no system is perfect, that said I think our Constitution came as close as anything in history.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  102. Capehart said he couldn’t watch them because “there are some things where I just have to draw the line.”

    He also reportedly proclaimed: “But liberalism is such a virtuous, noble, caring, wonderful, beautiful, compassionate, sophisticated, generous way of thinking and living, that if that line somehow crosses beyond liberal sentiment, liberal bias and my being a liberal, fuggedabout it!”

    Mark (f713e4)

  103. My quibble is with the word “big.” Among other things, the government’s job is to protect our borders and provide for the national defense. That doesn’t mean we need a big government to do them, and if we only did those things the government would be pretty small.

    DRJ (521990)

  104. Children can’t legally smoke or drink, adults can’t do illegal drugs or marry multiple people at one time, and we place all sorts of restrictions on where people live (zoning) and eat (health inspections).
    Remember, from a libertarian perspective, only the two I bokded are justified government intervention, protecting people who otherwise would be endangered.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  105. Gabriel Hanna, what irritates me most about abortion is the argument for it is to protect women’s health. But it turns out to be a bloody form of contraception in reality. So we’ve turned into a society that kills a million babies a year because we’re too lazy to buy condoms? Then they defend it by saying it’s a woman’s choice and the father has no rights. Okay, but then when a woman keeps a baby it’s also her choice and she can’t get anything from the father. No rights means no responsibilities. BTW, if what is growing inside a woman is not a person and she’s not committing murder how is it if a criminal shoots her and kills the baby he’s up for murder? It all sounds very sexist.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  106. . Human interaction is quite complex and while we (I) don’t want government controlling everything

    You just stated the argument for SSM, even though you provide a contrary result.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  107. @kishnevi:justified government intervention, protecting people who otherwise would be endangered.

    None of those interventions require a government; insurance companies could perform those functions and turn a profit.

    The inspection tags on electrical appliances say “UL” on them. Stands for “Underwriters’ Laboratories”. Insurance companies are the reason for that.

    There is no reason why your insurance company couldn’t issue your driver’s license, and no reason why a restaurant’s liability policy wouldn’t require submitting to health inspections.

    Incidentally, people who have not worked in food service are rarely aware that health inspections are conducted by appointment. A place has to be very bad indeed so as not to pass inspection with as much advance notice at they get.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  108. 107.
    And there is evidence even I am not as pure a libertarian as I could be.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  109. You just stated the argument for SSM, even though you provide a contrary result.

    That therefore goes double or triple for arguments in favor of polygamy.

    Mark (f713e4)

  110. all this polygamy is bad news

    I’m telling the truth

    happyfeet (831175)

  111. @Hoagie: the argument for it is to protect women’s health.

    In fairness there are others, autonomy and privacy. Like how the state shouldn’t be able to confiscate my children if I feed them chocolate sundaes for breakfast, or spy on me to see whether I am doing it. Undoubtedly there would be children who would benefit by these interventions. Well, abortions are certainly never done for the good of the baby, so these aren’t strictly analogous.

    Everyone knows the primary motive for abortion is economic, saving the mother either money, time, or trouble. That’s why most of them are done.

    If carrying a pregnancy to term would kill a woman, I could see a process for a court order to terminate the pregnancy on self-defense grounds. But I can’t just shoot a guy who comes in my house, say “self-defense”, and then go on my merry way. At the very least there will be an investigation, and if the investigation doesn’t turn up evidence that I was in fear of my life I will likely at least be indicted.

    The analogy for the current abortion regime would be that once the guy is in my house, whether I invited him or not, I can shoot him no questions asked, and not only that get government funding for the guns, ammo, and cleanup.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  112. 109. True. Although there the need to protect people might be brought into play, because of the danger that wives would be treated unequally… something recognized even in antiquity (which is why Judaism and Islam both required wives to be treated equally. The Jewish response was, over time, to abandon polygamy. The Muslim response, in contrast, was to develop the practice of concubinage, since concubines did not need to be treated like wives.)

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  113. It’s hilarious when big fans of SSM suddenly become uncomfortable about, much less opposed to, the idea of multi-partner marriages, which, if anything, fit human nature (or more of it—referring to the innately non-monogamous nature of a high percentage of males), and encompasses far more people (ie, all the couples out there who aren’t able to remain faithful to their significant other) than same-sex relationships and homosexuality does.

    I’ll be honest about my bias: The image of a guy with two or three, or more, wives (which is a far more common form of polygamy than instances of one woman with two or three, or more, husbands—assuming the latter even or ever exists in reality) doesn’t make me flinch as much as the image of a guy with another guy, less so the idea of another woman with another woman.

    For various reason, plenty of liberals have a reaction that flips that sentiment upside down.

    Mark (f713e4)

  114. @Mark:It’s hilarious when big fans of SSM suddenly become uncomfortable about, much less opposed to, the idea of multi-partner marriages…

    I have never met a genuine case of this. I have only met progressives who pretend that multi-partner marriages are abhorrent so that they cannot be countered with the slippery-slope to polygamy. Their objection is every bit as genuine as the Democrats who opposed SSM a few years ago and now suddenly turn out to have been for it all along.

    In every case, when these people are speaking honestly, they are for any kind of marriage except one-man one-woman.

    Gabriel Hanna (2ca835)

  115. For various reason, plenty of liberals have a reaction that flips that sentiment upside down.

    For feminist ideologues, polygyny (one man, multiple wives) is a prime example of Patriarchy™ suppressing women. Hence they oppose it. Given how it is practiced in Islamic countries, and was practiced in China until the early years, they do have a point.

    Also, as Steve and others have pointed out before, some opposition might be a put-on to help SSM.

    kishnevi (28fa9f)

  116. The Muslim response, in contrast, was to develop the practice of concubinage, since concubines did not need to be treated like wives.

    Another fascinating example of just how two-faced and nonsensical liberal sentiment is are the large numbers of “progressives” in Europe, in particular — the US, by contrast, is still at the intro stage — who are shrugging off the growing establishment of Sharia law in their part of the world and the way multi-partner marriages are being given wider latitude, if not outright acceptability, in European society.

    Mark (f713e4)

  117. and was practiced in China until the early years,
    Early years of the 20th century is what I meant there
    Also, as Steve and others have pointed out before, some opposition might be a put-on to help SSM.
    Gabriel and I cross posted.

    kishnevi (31ba4e)

  118. Given how it is practiced in Islamic countries, and was practiced in China until the early years, they do have a point.

    Which brings up the matter of the way that STDs run rampant in the world of male homosexuality (as opposed to female homosexuality), and how very volatile (or non-existent) monogamy is in that part of society, with the history of SSM indicating that government altering the definition of marriage will not change matters much or at all. Simply put, there is every good a reason (if not an even better one) to discourage homosexuality as to discourage one-guy-many-women relationships.

    Mark (f713e4)

  119. sui juris marriage; a marriage that is considered valid by both partners, but has not been formally recorded with a state or religious registry, or celebrated in a formal religious service. In effect, the act of the couple representing themselves to others as being married, and organizing their relation as if they were married, acts as the evidence that they are married.

    You don’t have to get a marriage licence at all? Cutting out the Davi of the world. Just between you and Steve, Happy.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  120. I’m late to the party, haven’t read the comment string, but did watch the embedded video. So, shooting from the hip – Capehart is being blatantly dishonest, he took every opportunity to claim or imply the issue was about completely defunding Planned Parenthood when he knows full well the congressional hearings were about the rather modest portion of PP’s budget that comes from federal taxes. Taxpayer money could be completely withdrawn and PP would still have an annual operating surplus even including all the generous campaign contributions PP showers on Democrat candidates.

    Rather than elucidate Capehart conflates – that’s fundamental dishonesty on display. He’s in the business of making propaganda and this time he exposed his red ass.

    ropelight (6a80af)

  121. If it was 17 wks, it was an “abortion”, whether induced or spontaneous. I have to give the questions about provenance this much credit – it is not known what degree of medical necessity existed, whether the pregnancy (vs fetus) was non-viable, or had a high chance of ending unsuccesfully and was carried out to minimize risk – or whether it was completion of an inevitable (natural but incomplete) abortion. An example of the latter would have been spontaneous rupture of membranes.

    Few women have “recreational” terminations of pregnancy in the late second trimester.

    SarahW (67599f)

  122. Few women have “recreational” terminations of pregnancy in the late second trimester.

    Exactly what constitutes “few women” to you SarahW? Because at over a million abortions per year I find that claim highly specious without proof.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  123. Few women have “recreational” terminations of pregnancy in the late second trimester.

    second trimester is weeks 14-26 Mr. Hoagie

    here is the data from the internet:

    United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted between 13 and 15 weeks, 4.2% between 16 and 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.

    so if we call “late second trimester” weeks 23-26, you’re looking at what’s likely a 1% incidence rate or less given how quickly the curve drops off in 2T

    I give Sarah ZERO bruschettas for her honesty and perspicacity.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  124. oh and also given the fact that some number of the incidence is going to be non-recreational I think Sarah actually deserves even less bruschettas

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  125. Thanks for clearing that up for me happyfeet. Now what is the difference between second trimester and late second trimester or is it splitting hairs to skew the numbers? Also, who has an abortion for recreation? Does that mean some leftist was going to do downward facing dogbut decided to get an abortion instead? The way they use language to dance around the event is quite ingenious.

    Just so ya know, if it turns out to be 4% that’s 40,000 “few” dead third trimester babies.

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  126. late second trimester your lil fetus is viable outside the womb, whereas early on in the second trimester it’s not

    recreational abortion is a term of art I’m not familiar with honestly but I just take it to mean there’s nothing messed up about the lil monkey or the mom

    4% is way way too high – don’t worry about that not even a little, and besides all of this is very out of sight out of mind and everyone can stay calm chive on and enjoy the glorious onset of autumn while remaining wholly oblivious to what may or may not be happening with respect people who are choosing to terminate pregnancies

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  127. plus there’s a hurricane a’comin’

    we got an email about it, but it mostly just applies to our ny people

    i hope this doesn’t devolve into one of those situations where I end up having to send money

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  128. The death of one person is a tragedy; the deaths of a million are a statistic.

    So don’t go anthropomorphizing numbers.

    Have some bruschetta, with fresh basil and feta.

    nk (9faaca)

  129. oh my goodness though Sarah’s in the cone

    be careful Sarah I know you will be but this one’s a real bear so far

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  130. as long as people keep their personal abortion scores really low then they’ve more than done their part I think Mr. nk

    think globally act locally i say

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  131. Well, ok, as long as you have fresh basil.

    nk (9faaca)

  132. Et tu, nk?

    Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  133. Sarcasm, Hoagie. From the Greek work sarka flesh (to tear into). Dead babies are percentages, yeah right. Sigh.

    nk (9faaca)

  134. *word*

    nk (9faaca)

  135. Well, ok, as long as you have fresh basil.

    nk (9faaca) — 10/1/2015 @ 12:54 pm

    Basil says he’s done with you, nk… m’kay?

    Colonel Haiku (fd5d8b)

  136. your pie chart has to add up to 100 or people will think your numbers are screwy

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  137. “Recreational” abortion? Is that like recreational drug use? What does it even mean?

    Dana (28d9fd)

  138. “Recreational” abortion? Is that like recreational drug use? What does it even mean?

    Why Dana, don’t tell me you haven’t heard of the abortion spa vacation. It’s all the rage among the Jezebel/HuffPo Women set.

    JVW (aa050c)

  139. Clowns talk about “few” women having abortions under specific conditions — second trimester. Clowns say “oh, it’s only like one percent, dood”.

    If you had one percent of Bill Gates’ money, would you have few dollars or many dollars? Since Bill Gates’ net worth is reported to be 80,000,000,000.00 and Melinda Gates’ net worth is reported to be 70,000,000.00, one percent of Bill’s money would be 800,000,000.00. In what world would that be “few dollars”?

    Likewise, in a nation that performs 1,500,000 abortions a year, one percent is 15,000 abortions. That’s not few. That’s the entire population of Auburn, California aborted every year in the second trimester — and then some.

    John Hitchcock (31d6d0)

  140. JVW @ 139,

    Oh, yeah, I thought that sounded familiar

    Which is interesting in re-reading it, because the whole point of the “spa abortion” is to “put a face on it, so to speak:

    Plagued by political setbacks in recent years, abortion-rights activists are now seeking to normalize abortion, to put a human face — and in some cases, even a positive spin — on the procedure.Ironic, isn’t it? Put a human face on ….abortion and those who partake. But God forbid, we put a human face on the one being aborted. Oops, I mean, they *don’t* have a face – how could they, they’re just tissue and goo.

    This speaks again to the utter importance of the “visual” – the pro-aborts will stop at nothing to keep that dirty little secret kept in the dark. Because they know, like we know, that when it gets out, decent people are disturbed and repelled. And that threatens their butcher business.

    Dana (86e864)

  141. From happyfeet’s link:

    The phrase recreational abortion appears to refer to abortion necessitated by becoming pregnant from recreational copulation, especially where such pregnancies (and abortions) are done repeatedly because contraceptions are not used.

    So, recreational sex can cause unwanted pregnancy and then result in recreational abortion…

    Dana (86e864)

  142. it’s a vicious circle

    happyfeet (831175)

  143. oh. the cone looks dramatically different this morning

    so barring any weird anomaly this weekend the inconvenient truth is it looks like that’s probably a wrap on hurricane season 2015

    so far this year we’ve seen only 50% of the average number of hurricanes (3 vs. average of 6.4)

    happyfeet (831175)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.9553 secs.