Patterico's Pontifications

4/12/2013

What Is Behind the Kermit Gosnell News Blackout?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:55 am



Twitchy.com reports that there is a concerted effort today on Twitter to spread the word about Kermit Gosnell and his trial for serial murder of newly born babies. The idea (which appears to have originated on Facebook) ignores Instapundit’s now age-old plea: “can we please stop scheduling PR stunts on Fridays?” Nevertheless, it is still a good idea. The story has been pooh-poohed as a “local crime story” by national reporters. As Jim Geraghty points out, what was the O.J. Simpson trial? The Trayvon Martin case? The arrest of Henry Louis Gates? I would add to that stories about serial murderers of strangers, which often make national news — or indeed, the single murder of any abortion doctor. The fundamental irony is expressed well by John Nolte:

The attempt by leftists to black out the story is so complete, they’re even considering deleting the Wikipedia article about Gosnell.

All this got me thinking about why the Gosnell story is being ignored. I do believe that if a random masked man were walking into numerous delivery rooms and snipping the spinal cords of babies the mothers were trying to have, it would be perhaps the biggest story in the nation. I think there are two things that, in the mind of the media, separate this story from such a situation.

First, unlike babies in a delivery room, the babies are not wanted by their mothers. Quite simply, the media is putting a lower value on the lives of babies that mothers don’t want — even after they are born. I think this is a fundamental difference between people outraged by abortion and people who support late-term abortions. The former consider all life precious, while the latter group, which often falsifies the facts about why people obtain such abortions (about which more in a second), simply does not care as much about lives that are not wanted by their mothers.

This was made clear to me when I saw an Erick Erickson tweet saying that this would be a huge story if Gosnell had killed puppies. I immediately thought: but dog pounds do kill puppies, all the time, if they are not wanted. With dogs, we look at an overpopulation and decide that we will attempt to place the creatures in homes, but only up to a point. With humans, it is different — at least for now. We put unwanted children in foster homes, and no matter how long they remain unwanted, we do not simply put them down.

But a society that takes no note of a Kermit Gosnell is a society that is on a slippery slope towards putting foster children to sleep. And if you want to mock me for saying that, tell me what national newspapers have been reporting on the Gosnell trial. I’ll wait right here.

You would think that a profession (journalism) that prides itself on “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable” would recognize this slippery slope and highlight it, but not so much.

The second factor at work here is, I believe, the lazy assumption that most mid- or late-term abortions are done because the fetus is horribly deformed and has a terminal disease, to the point where it will lead such a short and painful life that the parents killed it out of mercy. Such abortions happen, of course, but they are not the only such abortions. I have discussed this before in the context of partial-birth abortions:

Radical abortion rights supporters claim that we need to have partial-birth abortion, because (they claim) most late-term abortions are done for medical reasons such as terrible genetic abnormalities. This is not so. Don’t believe me; believe liberal journalists David Savage and Franklin Foer.

David Savage of the L.A. Times has written: “Doctors say only a small percentage of [partial-birth abortions] are done because of medical complications or fetal deformity.” Foer summarized research done by the Washington Post and Bergen Record and said: “After interviewing doctors who perform the procedure, both papers concluded that only in very few instances was the [partial-birth abortion] actually necessary to protect the woman’s health. Most of them were performed on poor women who could not muster the money to pay for abortions earlier in their pregnancies.”

In addition, the “health” exception for women is not limited to physical health. The exception is so broad that it can always be justified by a doctor willing to claim that a woman’s mental health would be affected by the denial of an abortion. As Jan Crawford Greenburg has explained:

Current Supreme Court jurisprudence is understood by lower courts to prohibit those flat-out bans unless the laws provide exceptions for a woman’s mental health. Lower courts repeatedly have struck down laws that only provide an exception for serious physical issues as being contrary to Supreme Court precedent.

I don’t know whether any of Gosnell’s victims were terminally ill anyway, but to assume that they were simply because a late-term abortion was done is lazy.

End the media blackout.

I am tweeting out this post on my Twitter feed. Go retweet it. And if you’re not following me on Twitter, why not?

P.S. There is a simpler potential reason for the blackout, and it may be the real reason: if people get outraged about this, they may start thinking to themselves: hey, how is this different from the guy killing the baby inside the womb instead of outside? Does that mean maybe I oppose abortion — or at least late-term abortion?

And we can’t have that!

357 Responses to “What Is Behind the Kermit Gosnell News Blackout?”

  1. 3 Reasons for the blackout

    1. The victims were mostly Black

    2. Gosnell is Black

    3. Abortion is a sacred right.

    Don’t you know anything?

    glenn (647d76)

  2. Zero results for a Gosnell search at politico.

    JD (b63a52)

  3. P.S. There is a simpler potential reason for the blackout, and it may be the real reason: if people get outraged about this, they may start thinking to themselves: hey, how is this different from the guy killing the baby inside the womb instead of outside? Does that mean maybe I oppose abortion — or at least late-term abortion?

    And we can’t have that!

    Patterico (9c670f)

  4. According to Sister Toldjah, if you put the hashtag #Gosnell in the post title, when you tweet it, the blog post counts toward the total, whatever that means.

    The Dana who can just barely use Twitter. (3e4784)

  5. As for the news blackout, it’s simple: the story is too big a challenge to Teh Narrative. There is no practical difference between a 36 week gestation baby killed while still in, or partially in, the birth canal, and one that Dr Gosnell and his staff killed completely post-partum; there’s only a legal difference.

    Dr Gosnell was doing things the way he did because he wasn’t particularly skilled at partial birth abortion. That “procedure” calls for some reasonably adept maneuvering of hands and instruments, and it’s just plain easier to do it the Gosnell way. The babies are no deader the Gosnell way than by the legal method.

    The professional media know that if they publicize this story, more people will start to think about what really happens, and that could eventually spell the death knell for legal abortion. Because the other point becomes quickly apparent: if the 32 week gestation baby who is killed while still in the birth canal is just as dead as the 32 week gestation baby slaughtered the Gosnell way, it is also true that the 32 week gestation baby killed while still in partially in the birth canal is no deader than the 8 week gestation baby killed in a nice, clean “clinic.”

    The sadly realistic Dana (3e4784)

  6. The Gosnell case also points out the odd way in which we decide who is legally a “person,” and protected by the law. Abortion has made it very clear: someone is a legal person not based on his own rights, but based on whether other people believe he should be a legal person. See Dred Scott v Sanford.

    The Dana who isn't an attorney (3e4784)

  7. it’s every bit as distasteful to exploit these murdered philly baby wazzles as it is to pimp out the connecticut ones I think

    america is so gross

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  8. Good to see conor friedersdorf stepped up… Ps spell check changes his last name to fried escort

    Auntie fraud (2f38aa)

  9. As many things as I disagree with Ace on, I think he has this right — the press has taken on the role of “protecting” the public from information that’s “too dangerous”.

    Rob Crawford (6c262f)

  10. Abortion doctor kills seven newborn babies: not news.

    Abortion doctor gets killed on way to work: news!

    CrustyB (69f730)

  11. 1. The victims were mostly Black
    2. Gosnell is Black

    I’d imagine that plays an unspoken role in the contortionist routine that the media are going through in explaining why the story has gotten scant coverage. But if all the players in the crime were white, I bet the typical reporter/editor (in which 90-plus percent of them are of the left) still would hesitate to play up the situation. But perhaps if the doctor were white and his patients were black? Or perhaps if most of his patients were bisexuals/lesbians?

    Maybe if the doctor were affiliated with the Tea Party? How about if the doctor were a fan of the Klu Klux Klan or a known sympathizer of Hitler? Well, okay. A few members of media might — might — finally raise an eyebrow and be embarrassed about a lack of reporting on such a story.

    Mark (03ca77)

  12. Seeking justice for a murdered wazzle is a form of exploitation? It’s called ‘being held responsible for ones actions,’ Mr feets.

    Icy (928aea)

  13. Gee, it’s almost like there’s some sort of ‘list’ that all of these ‘journos’ are on — coordinating what they will and will NOT report. Hmmm . . .

    Icy (928aea)

  14. Ok, at risk of being banned forever, I’m going to stick up for late term abortion in a “nice clean place” with a reputable medical facility, regulated by the state as it already is, constitutionally under Roe V wade, to preserve the life and health of the mother, at all times before viability (that window about 23 weeks) and even after in select circumstances.

    Those include situations where intrauterine demise/stillbirth/inevitable death after birth basically defects so severe as to be incompatible with life, or there is a chance to save one but not two in a multiple pregnancy. Think of the woman in Ireland who died from infection because a fetus who could never live still had a heart-beat. That was medical malpractice, they killed her because they did not manage the risk of infection from ruptured membranes.

    I know why Gosnell’s story is blocked out, and its’ not what you think. It’s blocked out because it has nothing to do with medically necessary induced abortion, any accepted medical practice anywhere ever, and the press doesn’t want the pro-life movement to use it as nasty pointy hooky thing to say SEE SEE this is what abortion is and they are all like this and the doctors are all monsters and there can never ever be any justification for this….

    Gosnell was not merely a quack, and a license-rovoked quack, but a genuine monster. Nothing he did would be protected under Roe v. Wade and the state laws in place. NOTHING. When he induced labor on nearly term patients for NO REASON AT ALL – not to preserve the life and health of the mother – he was already in violation of law even if he had been licensed to practice.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  15. it’s every bit as distasteful to exploit these murdered philly baby wazzles as it is to pimp out the connecticut ones I think

    That’s a lame moral equivalence, happyfeet, if only because one story has been splashed across the national headlines (and rightly so), while the story out of Philadelphia has gotten zero attention. BTW, you’re showing your left-leaning biases once again. Just like the time a few weeks ago when you were chastising the legislators in Florida for discussing a bill that would protect babies born alive during a failed abortion.

    Mark (03ca77)

  16. the trial is ongoing and I been getting regular updates without much effort Mr. Icy

    Mr. Drudge has been all over it

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  17. Why would you be banned for supporting that, SarahW?

    JD (b63a52)

  18. Happyfeet – it is outright disingenuous to claim that there has been mainstream coverage of this.

    JD (b63a52)

  19. Those who rail against a D&X – which is rarely resorted to, but when it is it has one specific purpose, to spare the mother trauma to the uterus and to ensure complete evacuation of the uterus to prevent infection. It is not done on a live fetus by any reputable physcian, even within the womb. Taking a cannula and collapsing the skull has, obviously zero effect on the uterus of the mother. She has already endured (and many women brutalized by Gosnell did suffer complications) all the trauma. There is no benefit or point except tryng to hide that you’ve exposed the mother to unecessary trauma, trying to hide bungles, and sociopathic sadism.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  20. It’s funny how even the most ardent pro-choice person will always ask a pregnant woman, “Jane, how’s your baby doing inside there ?”

    They never ask a woman how her fetus or ‘clump of dependent cells’ is doing inside there.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  21. Does Minitrue, the AP, carry it, does Yahoo have updates, if not it isn’t happening,

    narciso (3fec35)

  22. happyfeet, maybe you should abort your present line of argument on account of the fact that your argument is not viable outside your mouth

    🙂

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  23. News isn’t reported.

    News is managed.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  24. no there hasn’t been mainstream coverage but if you want to know about the trial there’s certainly not a blackout

    plus also I’m not 100% sure there’s a huge appetite for nasty gross stories of snip snips out there

    even the whole thing about the murderous mormon sexpot what zuckzuck was banking on to goose the cnn ratings never took off

    lifeydoodles are just frustrated cause for some reason they think the fascist propaganda slut media should smear fetus blood and tissue snip snips all up in everybody’s faces like they do with the blood of the newtown baby wazzles

    but exploiting dead baby wazzles for political gain is nasty whether you’re a fascist gun-grabber or a sincere and earnest lifeydoodle

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  25. Well, Pat, they may be just covering for an abortion Doc but I think it’s worse than that.

    There’s been much made of the amount of abortions and advertising for same in black neighborhoods.

    Democrats are supposed Blacks’ protectors and yet they promote abortion to the point of insanity.

    Ergo; big paradox for the media’s embargo machines: Do they report it and show they care or do they hide it to protect their Base? Or neither and protect abortion.

    Hiding wins out every time.

    Anyone who thinks they’re no colluding on their embargo for this and other stories has forgotten about Journolist and the discussion amongst so called journalist of how to spin, not spin or ignore stories that would harm the left.

    someone should sue the media for anti trust violations. Oh wait that would be by a Democrat controlled Executive branch DOJ. So NO. No suits for violating the public trust from this administration.

    Gosnell is Black
    His assistants who aided in his murdering are black or minority.
    It’s in a Democrat run city
    It’s about abortion.

    Easy to see how they passed on this story.

    also they’re learning to hide in plain sight. AP has stories about Gosnell but they don’t tag the story under Abortion and other key words that would seem logical so as to write the story but then hide it from searches.

    Clever and it will work with the low attention spanned public.

    Jcw46 (0af03c)

  26. Abortion is a queasy thing for any thinking person — at least I hope it is. I have trouble justifying it but I know women whose lives were much better for ending a pregnancy. Selfish? Yes, hard to define it any other way.
    At the same time, the woman owns her body. If she chooses not to shelter the child in her own body, I have trouble with the idea of making a crime out of ending the pregnancy.
    This is murky enough. The abortion of a potentially viable fetus isn’t murky, it’s flat out dark and that’s why Roe v Wade left room to prohibit it.
    I’d like to see doctors refuse to induce delivery of a viable fetus except for the very rare medical instances where it’s truly necessary and I think it should be done as any pre-term birth would be, with a neonatal team standing by to do what they can. No wilfull injury to the pre-term fetus. I think this would fit into Roe v Wade and I think it would satisfy all but the most hysterical pro-choice people.
    As for Dr. Gosnell — there’s a term for killing a baby who was born alive and the term is murder.

    MT Geoff (a67ef4)

  27. So only one side of the abortion debate deserves coverage?

    JD (b63a52)

  28. When the MFM and happyfeet want to talk about Akin and rape babies, then we get wall-to-wall coverage.

    JD (b63a52)

  29. Meanwhile, it’s business as usual over at 1600 Penn.

    Icy (928aea)

  30. The story has been pooh-poohed as a “local crime story” by national reporters. As Jim Geraghty points out, what was the O.J. Simpson trial? The Trayvon Martin case? The arrest of Henry Louis Gates?

    And what about the two New York State corruptiuon/bribery indictments which probably nobody not in New York ever heard of?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/nyregion/first-spring-valley-ny-meeting-since-officials-arrests.html?ref=malcolmasmith&_r=0

    http://politicker.com/2013/04/nelson-castro-announces-resignation-after-cooperating-in-corruption-case/

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  31. a society that takes no note of a Kermit Gosnell is a society that is on a slippery slope towards putting foster children to sleep

    No, because in 1973, the Supreme Court erected a firebreak on the slippery slope with the Roe v Wade decision.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebreak

    A firebreak is when a fire is deliberately set at apoint beyond whoich the fire has reached – when the fire reaches that point, it cannot jump over.

    In 1973 the Supreme Court went beyond public opinion, and there was reaction againmst it, and it put a barrioer on the slippery slope.

    The media is treating thios as somewhat ho-hum,. but Gosnell is being prosecuted for murder, because he went beyond what the law allows.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  32. Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 4/12/2013 @ 7:39 am

    Think of the woman in Ireland who died from infection because a fetus who could never live still had a heart-beat. That was medical malpractice, they killed her because they did not manage the risk of infection from ruptured membranes.

    That’s maybe Catholic doctrine, although probably Jesuits could probably find a way around that.

    Gosnell was not merely a quack, and a license-rovoked quack, but a genuine monster. Nothing he did would be protected under Roe v. Wade and the state laws in place. NOTHING.

    That’s why he is being prosecuted. But nobody noticed till…he killed an adult woman? What finally ended his career?

    He probably couldn’t have gotten away with this in a different neighborhood.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  33. Wonder how many babies were killed like this in Illinois when “Senator” obama lifted the ban on live birth abortion? I heard horror stories from nurses who quit one of the hospitals. And showed graphic videos of live babies left to die in dirty laudry rooms, thrown down garbage disposals and dumps, and sharp utensils stabbed in their neck.

    Want to know why the media won’t cover it?

    Look no further that our baby butcher-in chief.

    Cop killer, bomber Bernadine’s statement (and friends of the obmama family) on the Manson murders:

    “In December 1969, Weatherman convened a “War Council” at a black-owned concert hall in a Flint, Michigan ghetto. At that event (whose attendees included SDS leaders Tom Hayden and Jeff Jones), Dohrn launched a scathing attack on Hayden and his white confederates for not being radical enough. Said Dohrn: “Since October 11 [the last day of the Days of Rage], we’ve been wimpy…. A lot of us are still honkies and we’re scared of fighting. We have to get into armed struggle.” Also during the Council, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman “fork salute,” she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family (in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion had been brutally stabbed to death): “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”[7]”

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2190

    AnnS (7759b9)

  34. Christopher Scarver is my hero. Not lifting a finger to help Kitty Genovese is one thing, failing to take out the garbage, expunge pestilence, is quite another.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  35. JD, it’s a position highly disfavored and could be considered a trollish antagonism to lay out.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  36. SarahW – can you think of even one time where a good-faithed honest difference of opinion got someone banned here? No, you cannot.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  37. Patterico- I’ve noted in the past that the MSM are not the only ones who don’t want to discuss abortion. Even conservative blogs tend to shy from the subject unless it’s national news- with that in mind, I’m happy to see you and others writing about this. I don’t think people realize that “health of the mother” could mean anything from “raising a child is too expensive” to “I don’t want to get stretch marks.” – Both reasons are legally considered “health” of the mother.

    Clearly the MSM does NOT want to discuss this because to talk about it would mean they’d have to have a serious discussion about the realities of abortion. And here again we see Democrats running from science as fast as they can.

    Book (eacf06)

  38. My big revelation this morning was this…

    How is Gosnell not a serial killer?

    I looked up the FBI definition. He is.

    So shouldn’t it be covered as much as Dahmer or Gacey?

    But I suspect there is another element at work, here: race.

    Gosnell is black. And the press is always reluctant to report on criminal conduct by black people.

    This is despite the fact that this is functionally racist toward the victims–that is, the victims of black criminals are usually black, so that by not covering black criminals, they are disproportionately ignoring black victims.

    It is born out of the best intentions. They are afraid that if they cover crimes by black people some racist idiots will conclude all kinds of racist things. That is laudible, but as i said, the result is that black victims get the short shrift.

    I will also nitpick one point for Patrick. I don’t think most pro-life people value all human life. just all innocent human life. For instance, if prosecutors sought the death penalty for Gosnell, most pro-lifers would support that.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b)

  39. Dana at 8

    Roe v. Wade itself suggested that anyone who is born is a person under the 14th A, which suggests that the state MUST protect their lives.

    Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b)

  40. You’re forgetting the most obvious reason this isn’t being widely reported. The job of the msm is to cover for Obama and Obama is a fanatical supporter of infanticide. Consciousness of guilt.

    Blanche Holstein (dca40e)

  41. A.W.- Serial killer he was. I have a hard time believing the people who worked with him thought that what he was doing wasn’t that big of a deal. He was cutting off infant feet and saving them as trophies in JARS, for Pete’s sake! It’s not like they weren’t aware of this.

    My question is, how deluded do you have to be, how stubbornly pro-choice does one have to be to believe that abortion as a cause is far more important than what they were seeing happen in front of them??

    That’s why the MSM won’t cover this. Because that’s a question no Democrat wants answered.

    Book (eacf06)

  42. ==lifeydoodles are just frustrated ==

    Happyfeet- you have jumped the shark. I am stunned at what you wrote. Honestly, perhaps you need to voluntarily remove yourself from this particular thread.

    I do not think that reasonable, mature people who find extreme outrage that in America women are being “treated” in conditions less sterile than a butcher shop, and that live fully formed and born babies are having their spines snipped to kill them, deserve to be called your cutsey term “lifeydoodles”.

    Kim Kardashian’s pregnancy (along with her butt) is big news, and Casey Anthony was wall to wall, and Marco Rubio took a sip of water— but this genuine atrocity isn’t worthy of coverage? Really?

    elissa (5dbb7a)

  43. A woman who goes by the Twitter handle Lauramarie4life had a great tweet:

    What if #Gosnell had been snipping the necks of puppies? Would the media be paying attention? twitter.com/Lauramarie4Lif…— Laura P. (@Lauramarie4Life) April 12, 2013

    Take a moment to ruminate on that one, NARAL

    JVW (4826a9)

  44. elissa the lifeydoodles do not want to have a discussion about how we can go about providing clean professional abortion services

    they want to pimp out the dead babies newtown style like how Mr. P says

    if people get outraged about this, they may start thinking to themselves: hey, how is this different from the guy killing the baby inside the womb instead of outside? Does that mean maybe I oppose abortion — or at least late-term abortion?

    and good luck lifeydoodles with your dead baby pimping tweeter campaign

    if it’s every bit as smashingly successful as the newtown one then

    um

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  45. news what is used to whip people into an OUTRAGE you can exploit for political purposes is called demagoguery I think

    hint it’s exactly what they be doin with the newtown baby wazzles

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  46. 44. I think that about closes the book.

    But for one eensy postscript. Pro-choicers, beginning with Sanger, are really standing up for black crack babies.

    There is a minimum ‘quality of life’ standard to be met that we may call a human life worth living, worth subsidizing, worth entraining our unblinking gaze.

    The most responisble thing a black crack whore can do is take our tax dollar an blot out her contribution to the gene pool.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  47. Wellp. Call me a lifeydoodle, if thats what you have to do to make yourself feel better. It doesn’t change what Gosnell has done. It doesn’t change what abortion is. It doesn’t change the fact that every pro-choice Democrat is hiding from this story like it’s the lifeydoodle bogeyman.

    You don’t like it? Tough turtles. Call everyone names, I guess. Doesn’t change the facts one whit.

    Book (eacf06)

  48. i like turtles Mr. Book

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  49. Mr Finkelman wrote:

    Think of the woman in Ireland who died from infection because a fetus who could never live still had a heart-beat. That was medical malpractice, they killed her because they did not manage the risk of infection from ruptured membranes.

    That’s maybe Catholic doctrine, although probably Jesuits could probably find a way around that.

    That’s covered under the doctrine of double effect, expounded by St Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica. It may be necessary to take an action which would be immoral, by itself, if there is a good which outweighs the bad. War is the obvious example, but in an abortion case, but in an abortion case it would refer to saving the life of the mother. The life of the mother and the life of her child have equal value, but if the pregnancy kills the mother, it will almost certainly kill her child along with her, unless the cause of death is a difficult delivery.

    Under double effect, an abortion would be allowable in a case in which the pregnancy led to a direct threat to the life of the mother; it would not cover anything short of saving the life of the mother, including preserving her health — physical or mental — or a pregnancy resulting from rape.

    The Catholic Dana (3e4784)

  50. happyfeet, you mean like the kind of “OUTRAGE” you exhibited in the case of the same-sex marriage debates ?

    the media had you whipped into a frenzy, pal.

    🙂

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  51. touche Mr. Stone

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  52. Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 4/12/2013 @ 7:39 am

    SarahW, I don’t think you get banned here for making an unpopular argument, as long as it is made in good faith and you engage honestly with your critics.

    That said, I have two major issues with you comment. The first one is that, like many defenders, you want to carve out a exemption to bans on late-term abortions in order to protect “the life and health” of the mother. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that allowing for the protection of a mother’s “health” is a backdoor way of ensuring that the ban on abortion has a universal loophole. I remember back in the 90s when the GOP Congress was trying to ban late-term abortions and the Clinton Administration and their allies were trying to add the health exemption. The “health” exemption generally includes the mental health of the mother as well, and a doctor who had once supported abortion but had changed his mind wrote an op-ed in my newspaper explaining how easy it is for a woman who wants a late-term abortion to find an abortion-friendly psychologist or physician to assert that the woman will suffer mental anguish if forced to carry the child to term. In other words, supporters of the mental health exemption want credit for opposing late-term abortions, while still ensuring that anyone who really wants one can have one.

    The other major issue I have is that while you acknowledge the horrors of what Gosnell did in his clinic, you are ignoring one of the most important aspects of all this which is the question of why he was allowed to run such an awful (and even evil) clinic for so long without intervention from regulators. In the aftermath of the discovery of Gosnell’s shop of horrors, some of the health inspectors in Philadelphia admitted that they were reluctant to perform detailed checks of abortion clinics because every time they cited one for violations they would have NOW and NARAL and other abortion rights groups demanding to know why. It got to the point where there was such a hassle over having to defend their work that inspectors apparently just stopped paying attention to those clinics altogether. It is not a stretch, therefore, to say that abortion rights groups absolutely made it possible for Gosnell to run his butcher shop for as long as he did. Pro-choice groups ought to stop and consider that before pontificating so sanctimoniously about “making abortion safe.”

    JVW (4826a9)

  53. I agree with happyfeet except on one teensy little point. What is of overwhelming importance to me is for my mutual to give me a steady, safe 25% return and you lifeydoodles are distracting from what I vote for the GOP for — to make me money. But what good is the money when my liver, pancreas, heart and lungs give out, and here’s where I disagree with happyfeet. Those late term babies should not be totally flatlined. They should be placed on life support until their organs can be harvested for transplantation. Their remains after … I don’t know. There was a movie, Soylent Green I think.

    nk (d4662f)

  54. I think on balance late term baby wazzles what don’t endanger the mom should be put up for adoption Mr. nk

    but there’s probably a few wrinkles with that idea

    adoption is a mess in america since we’ve all but gotten rid of closed adoptions

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  55. MT Geoff wrote:

    At the same time, the woman owns her body. If she chooses not to shelter the child in her own body, I have trouble with the idea of making a crime out of ending the pregnancy.

    A couple of years ago, our esteemed host asked what people would think if a pregnant woman who didn’t want to be so could have her unborn child somehow transferred to another woman who wanted the child, or a device in which the child could survive through gestation.

    I don’t remember all of the comments, but I seem to recall that some thought the child should be killed anyway if the birth mother didn’t want him.

    The Catholic Dana (3e4784)

  56. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

    According to this article, which is a candidate for deletion, Gosnell even forced a 15-year old girl in 1998 to go through with an abortion.

    On January 31, 1998, a then 15 year old Robyn Reid in the company of her grandmother sought an abortion from Gosnell’s clinic – a triangle shaped building in West Philadelphia called Women’s Medical Society. Once she was in the clinic, though, Reid, an 87-pound teenager at the time, told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion.

    Gosnell got upset, ripped off Reid’s clothes, and restrained the girl. Reid said that Gosnell repeatedly told her, “This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter.” Reid regained consciousness 12 hours later at her aunt’s home, with the abortion having been completed against her will.[12][13]

    Gosnell also became a big distributor of oxycodone and alprazolam.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  57. As long as we’re objecting to lifeydoodles that want to waste our time and money saving black crack babies that no one will take responsibility for, that will just suffer until eradicated in a drive-by or mugging for a scrap of food or clothing lets talk about real waste.

    Take Holmes of Aurora fame. Why waste a cell on excrement. Once it was established at the theatre that he was responsible it was the duty of those present to grab anything at hand and beat the fluids out of his carcass.

    They should have cleared the lot and burnt a pyre within the hour.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  58. adoption is a mess in america since we’ve all but gotten rid of closed adoptions

    Well, now that the gays are on the verge of being able to marry there should be a huge run on adoptions, right? Problem solved.

    JVW (4826a9)

  59. Except Tom Ridge illustrates exactly how that notion, fails utterly,

    narciso (3fec35)

  60. Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 4/12/2013 @ 9:26 am

    It is not a stretch, therefore, to say that abortion rights groups absolutely made it possible for Gosnell to run his butcher shop for as long as he did. Pro-choice groups ought to stop and consider that before pontificating so sanctimoniously about “making abortion safe.”

    According to the Wikipedia article:

    Brenda Green, executive director of CHOICE, a nonprofit that connects the underinsured and uninsured with health services, told Katha Pollitt of the Nation that “it tried to report complaints from clients, but the department wouldn’t accept them from a third party. Instead, the patients had to fill out a daunting five-page form, available only in English, that required them to reveal their identities upfront and be available to testify in Harrisburg. Even with CHOICE staffers there to help, only two women agreed to fill out the form, and both decided not to submit it. The Department of State and the Philadelphia Public Health Department also had ample warning of dire conditions and took no action.” [14]

    Maybe there was political protection, or the problem was at higher levels of pro-choice groups, who didn’t want to see any investigations, and politicians arranged to make that very difficult.

    Reference 14 is a Nation story from 2 years ago:

    http://www.thenation.com/article/158089/dr-kermit-gosnells-horror-show

    The facility was closed after a drug raid.

    We read:

    …The grand jury report suggests that Tom Ridge, Republican governor from 1995 to 2001, discontinued inspections because prochoicers claimed they were too burdensome. The ones I talked to were skeptical. “We never lobbied against inspection,” Carol Tracy of the Women’s Law Project, which represents clinics in Pennsylvania, told me by phone. She pointed out that under Ridge’s Democratic predecessor, Bob Casey, who was famously opposed to legal abortion, Gosnell’s clinic was inspected three times, and each time serious problems were found. Nothing was done. Perhaps it’s relevant that Gosnell’s patients were poor, many of them immigrants—like 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar from Nepal, with whose murder Gosnell has been charged—who may not even have known that safe and legal abortion is available here.

    On Slate, William Saletan agreed with the grand jury’s criticism of the National Abortion Federation, which rejected Gosnell’s 2009 application for membership, for failing to alert state authorities to the terrible conditions at his facility. In her organization’s defense, NAF head Vicki Saporta says, “What we saw didn’t meet our standards, but they’d cleaned the place up and hired an RN for our visit. We only saw first-trimester procedures.” Others did alert authorities about problems at the facility, though. A doctor from the Children’s Hospital hand-delivered a complaint to the Health Department after numerous patients returned from Gosnell’s facility with venereal disease from unsterilized instruments. The department never responded. As the grand jury report noted, the department was also alerted by the medical examiner of Delaware County that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old who was thirty weeks pregnant. And the department was informed of Mongar’s death at Gosnell’s hands. Brenda Green, executive director of CHOICE, a nonprofit that connects the underinsured and uninsured with health services, told me it tried to report complaints from clients, but the department wouldn’t accept them from a third party. Instead, the patients had to fill out a daunting five-page form, available only in English, that required them to reveal their identities upfront and be available to testify in Harrisburg. Even with CHOICE staffers there to help, only two women agreed to fill out the form, and both decided not to submit it. The Department of State and the Philadelphia Public Health Department also had ample warning of dire conditions and took no action…..

    Pennsylvania didn’t do anything about Jerry Sandusky eitehr, you know, or took years to oinvestigate complaints.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  61. The Nation claimed that if abortion was covered by insurance, things like that wouldn’t happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  62. “That Gosnell was able to get away with his horrific practice does not prove new regulations are needed,” says Susan Schewel, executive director of the Women’s Medical Fund, which helps low-income women pay for their abortions. “It shows we need to enforce the laws we have.”

    Maybe she should get together with the NRA.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  63. Maybe she should get together with the NRA.

    The NRAARAL?

    JVW (4826a9)

  64. “Well, now that the gays are on the verge of being able to marry there should be a huge run on adoptions, right? Problem solved.”

    – JVW

    I don’t know your views on the subject, but that could spark an interesting discussion:

    To anyone who is anti-abortion and against gay marriage, would you concede gay marriage in order to end abortion? Late-term abortion?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  65. Obama to Hand Mic to Newtown Victim’s Mom for Weekly Radio Address…

    is what Mr. Drudge says

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  66. Interesting question, Leviticus. I was actually being facetious. Recently I had read a blog post somewhere which linked to an article which referenced a study (quite the online journey) claiming that a survey of gay couples showed that allowing them to marry actually wouldn’t have much effect on adoption. Only a minority of gay couples expressed a desire to be parents, and by far most of them wanted to have a biological child using a surrogate. This was to counter a claim from supporters of gay marriage that it would help with placing children with adoptive parents. For the record, I have no idea as to how legitimate this study was, and I generally support gay marriage.

    But you ask an provocative question. What if gay marriage was granted on the condition that a gay couple be ineligible for surrogate pregnancy (I know, that would be impossible to enforce) and therefore must adopt? Would gay marriage supporters accept this limitation? Would the anti-abortion crowd be more likely to support gay marriage under these circumstances?

    JVW (4826a9)

  67. the babies are not wanted by their mothers

    A compounding factor is that in this case, the mothers themselves were among the poorest in the area. Gosnell seemed to treat their lives cheaply as well, as did the people who refused to even inspect the clinic.

    John T (d1f787)

  68. 68. Also, given our litigious utopia, the responsibilities of donors in the event of union terminus need be considered a complication.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  69. Personally, I rather prefer the odds for a society in which indiscriminate slaughter reigns over that of libertarian nirvana.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  70. The MSM has mostly considered the 2007 Christian-Newsom torture-murders in Knoxville, Tennessee to be “a local crime story.” The last (?) trial in the case is scheduled for next month.

    If you haven’t heard of it, Google “Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom” and speculate why it isn’t a national story and Trayvon Martin is.

    DN (ad6cba)

  71. “Interesting question, Leviticus. I was actually being facetious.”

    – JVW

    Yeah, I know. Still raised the interesting question, though.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  72. To anyone who is anti-abortion and against gay marriage, would you concede gay marriage in order to end abortion? Late-term abortion?
    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/12/2013 @ 10:02 am

    — One can envision the posters now:
    “If you allow us to marry, we promise to adopt your babies”

    [Never mind the implied threat of “if you don’t allow us to marry, then our friends will keep killing their babies.”]

    Icy (212b82)

  73. So true, DN. I followed all the trials in the Christian-Newsom torture-murders. It was beyond horrible. You and I know why it was not covered by the MSM. The liberals would not approve.

    PatAZ (d0625f)

  74. This was apparently the only New York Times story about this (published when the trial began)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/us/philadelphia-abortion-doctors-murder-trial-opens.html?_r=0

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  75. “What if gay marriage was granted on the condition that a gay couple be ineligible for surrogate pregnancy (I know, that would be impossible to enforce) and therefore must adopt? Would gay marriage supporters accept this limitation? Would the anti-abortion crowd be more likely to support gay marriage under these circumstances?”

    – JVW

    I meant more as a pure trade-off, a “meet halfway” kind of thing – not so much suggesting the connection that you pinpoint as making an inquiry into priorities. If one side thinks it’s protecting gay rights and women’s rights, and the other side thinks it’s protecting traditional marriage and the rights of children, what gives first when a trade-off is proposed?

    But your scenario raises interesting questions as well.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  76. “– One can envision the posters now:
    “If you allow us to marry, we promise to adopt your babies””

    – Icy

    I was more curious about how much anti-abortion conservatives would be willing to give up to end abortion.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  77. JVW wrote:

    adoption is a mess in america since we’ve all but gotten rid of closed adoptions

    Well, now that the gays are on the verge of being able to marry there should be a huge run on adoptions, right? Problem solved.

    No, they’d be doing what other otherwise infertile heterosexual couples do, and some homosexual couples already do: use surrogacy or artificial inspermination — a deliberate typo 🙂 — or any other quack method to have a baby all their own.

    I am deeply disappointed by the fact that we have so many children out there who need adoptive parents, and infertile couples who would rather spend tens of thousands of dollars to somehow get knocked up, instead of those couples adopting. Our ridiculous adoption laws are partially responsible for that repugnant state of affairs.

    The Catholic Dana (3e4784)

  78. R.I.P. Jonathan Winters

    Icy (212b82)

  79. 79. I know it was not your intent to minimize the accomplishment of raising healthy children but adopting a two-year-old with fetal alcohol syndrome weaned in an instituion is a job for heroes without the certainty that the child will be healthy and whole, or even that it will love and cherish the parent.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  80. I was more curious about how much anti-abortion conservatives would be willing to give up to end abortion.
    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/12/2013 @ 10:43 am

    — Understood, but there’s an implication of moral blackmail there. It’s probably best in the long run for neither side to compromise core beliefs just for the sake of being able to lay claim to “bipartisan cooperation.”

    [“Wow! You reached an agreement? How’d you do that?”
    “Threw my morality under the bus.”]

    Icy (212b82)

  81. Mr Gulrud, there are plenty of kids who need adoptive parents who aren’t afflicted with handicaps. The biggest problem is that they are older and black.

    The Catholic Dana (3e4784)

  82. 84. Understood, but the sacrifices of the responsible are in no way diminished by the failures of the irresponsible.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  83. Comment by The Catholic Dana (3e4784) — 4/12/2013 @ 9:44 am

    I seem to recall that some thought the child should be killed anyway if the birth mother didn’t want him.

    I once heard from someone that she felt worse about the idea of giving a child up for adoption (and not knowing what was going on with that child) than abouyt abortion. This is a real feeling.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  84. Gosnell Grand jury Report (via Slate)

    http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

    If it ever loads.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  85. it finally did.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  86. Since it sounds like killing a baby out of the womb is acceptable, particularly in the context of sparing the expenses the baby will incur if it were to be “allowed” to live, I wonder if we can just do away with the entire city of Detroit ?

    After all, many people in Detroit—thirty year old adults, even !—are burdening ‘other people’ with incredible expense to keep them alive.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  87. For those who have not seen it, Hotair has a very recent update. Apparently several high profile journalists “just heard about Gosnell yesterday” are shocked and are now writing or airing pieces. Some are even admitting a bubble exists. Wow. Ya think?

    It’s terribly late in the game but good on the ones who are at least talking about it now.

    elissa (5dbb7a)

  88. 86. The jumper oft reports feeling that ‘life is not worth living’. Are we wrong to talk him down?

    Do we regard feelings as reliable?

    I have this feeling that the new girlfriend won’t like seeing “Sonja’s” tattooed all over my azz. Should I tell her its not important and her reaction speaks poorly of her?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  89. From the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith 1776? IO foiund it.

    I was familiar with this quote by Adam Smith that mentioned China.

    It turns out it comes from a 1759 book.

    http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/smith-adam/works/moral/part03/part3b.htm

    Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe, who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it. But what makes this difference? When our passive feelings are almost always so sordid and so selfish, how comes it that our active principles should often be so generous and so noble? When we are always so much more deeply affected by whatever concerns ourselves, than by whatever concerns other men; what is it which prompts the generous, upon all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interests of others? It is not the soft power of humanity, it is not that feeble spark of benevolence which Nature has lighted up in the human heart, that is thus capable of counteracting the strongest impulses of self-love. It is a stronger power, a more forcible motive, which exerts itself upon such occasions. It is reason, principle, conscience, the inhabitant of the breast, the man within, the great judge and arbiter of our conduct. It is he who, whenever we are about to act so as to affect the happiness of others, calls to us, with a voice capable of astonishing the most presumptuous of our passions, that we are but one of the multitude, in no respect better than any other in it; and that when we prefer ourselves so shamefully and so blindly to others, we become the proper objects of resentment, abhorrence, and execration. It is from him only that we learn the real littleness of ourselves, and of whatever relates to ourselves, and the natural misrepresentations of self-love can be corrected only by the eye of this impartial spectator. It is he who shows us the propriety of generosity and the deformity of injustice; the propriety of resigning the greatest interests of our own, for the yet greater interests of others, and the deformity of doing the smallest injury to another, in order to obtain the greatest benefit to ourselves. It is not the love of our neighbour, it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  90. 90. I hear Gaia is totally pissed. Chlamydia is nothing by comparison.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  91. BY the way, the example is not all so farfetched these days.

    Kim Jong Eun threatened to nuke Tokyo today.

    http://rt.com/news/north-korea-tokyo-strike-748/

    Consumed in nuclear flames’: N. Korea threatens strike on Tokyo

    April 12, 2013 09:29

    Pyongyang warned that Tokyo would be its primary target if war broke out on the Korean Peninsula, if Japan maintains its “hostile posture.” It also threatened a nuclear strike against the island nation if it intercepts any North Korean test missiles.

    The United States Defense Department thinks he probably has a missile he can fit on a warhead, but no trigger mechanism. He has yet to test that.

    But what if his idea of a test is to try it out on the real world? On Japan?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  92. journalism is a profession only in that its practitioners get paid for what they do.

    all whores do.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  93. It’s terribly late in the game but good on the ones who are at least talking about it now.

    i’ll believe that when the stories are widely promulgated and not either spiked or ignored, which is the same thing.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  94. THREAD JACK

    Restaurant in Hawaii SWATed (as seen on Gateway Pundit)
    http://www.khon2.com/2013/04/11/prank-call-sends-panic-through-waikiki-restaurant/

    PS: the link chingadera isn’t w*rking, hence the raw link.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  95. Aaron “Worthing” Walker @ 40:

    I will also nitpick one point for Patrick. I don’t think most pro-life people value all human life. just all innocent human life. For instance, if prosecutors sought the death penalty for Gosnell, most pro-lifers would support that.

    This is a profound statement, overlooked by most pro-life people, I think.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  96. 100. Like popes who were Nazi sympathizers as adolescents.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  97. Overlooked by none, Perry. Absent of a crime, the taking of a human life is a grave evil. That principle is central to the Catholic concept of Christianity. And I wouldn’t be surprised to find it in the Protestant branch as well.

    Where do you get the **** you sling?

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  98. 102. I have a friend, a better person than myself, who is a PhD. Chemist. Lost a three year old to drowning and has never forgiven God.

    I don’t believe Pervy has such a burden, in any of the details.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  99. I will also nitpick one point for Patrick. I don’t think most pro-life people value all human life. just all innocent human life. For instance, if prosecutors sought the death penalty for Gosnell, most pro-lifers would support that.

    It’s not that pro-lifers don’t value life, it’st that they recognize the difference between capital punishment after due process and killing a human being who has never done anything wrong.

    Those who try to make capital punishment and abortion morally equivalent are dead wrong.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  100. To anyone who is anti-abortion and against gay marriage, would you concede gay marriage in order to end abortion? Late-term abortion?
    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/12/2013 @ 10:02 am

    Leviticus – Would I still be forced to pay for fertility treatments for same sex couples under Obamacare?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. You folks are happy to segment killing into categories, some of which you favor, like capital punishment death and collateral damage from wars of choice, and some of which you do not favor, like legal abortion of a fetus.

    Why not try being consistent, like being against all killing, and then do all you can to convince your fellow citizens to make killing less likely? This is where I come down on this issue!

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  102. The revelations of the different methods of care given to white, and non-white patients, is absolutely disgusting.
    And, to have a 15-yr old administering anesthesia – that alone should be a crime, which the employee copped a plea to.
    If this trial was being fairly covered by the media, there would be crowds in the street in front of this courthouse every day demanding Gosnell’s conviction, and execution.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  103. This is a profound statement, overlooked by most pro-life people, I think.

    Only a ‘tard like Perry could come up with that, ignoring the innocent life of a baby as compared to those that chose to kill another.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  104. 106. You folks are happy to segment killing into categories, some of which you favor, like capital punishment death and collateral damage from wars of choice, and some of which you do not favor, like legal abortion of a fetus.

    Why not try being consistent, like being against all killing, and then do all you can to convince your fellow citizens to make killing less likely? This is where I come down on this issue!

    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2) — 4/12/2013 @ 1:23 pm

    Dear Dip****,

    We are consistent. An aggressor’s life may be taken incident to stopping the aggression.

    Nothing more. An unborn child can never clear the hurdle.

    Yours,

    Hugs and kisses,

    Steve57

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  105. “You folks are happy to segment killing into categories, some of which you favor, like capital punishment death and collateral damage from wars of choice, and some of which you do not favor, like legal abortion of a fetus.”

    Perry – I see what you did there. Well Perry, how does the left reconcile its segmentation of killing innocent babies and refusing to support the death penalty for people society has judged should be removed from it.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  106. Perry is bridging the gap between stupid and dishonest.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  107. A crystal clear sign of a person losing a debate is the last ditch resort to ad hominem attacks.

    I also note that you folks are adherents of the Sharia Law concept of an eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, a life for a life. The movement from a tribal mentality to a more civilized state of being has escaped you folks on this issue, unfortunately.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  108. Resorting to Catholic catechism is, in Perry’s distorted view, “ad hominem.”

    Not that it was ever necessary to resort to Catholic catechism, mind you. There were several bases from which to rebut Perry’s earlier stupidity.

    Now we get more of the same. Which only serves to show Perry has a bottomless pit of stupidity to draw from.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  109. There is no debate with your invincible stupidity, Perry. I choose to point and laugh.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  110. If we followed Sharia like you claim, an ad hom if there ever was one, we would demand you cut off your ass due to the number of things you pull from it.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  111. “I also note that you folks are adherents of the Sharia Law concept of an eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, a life for a life.”

    Perry – Is that really from Sharia law? Can you provide any links?

    Since the U.S. Criminal Code doesn’t provide for mutilation, amputation, etc., it seems once again you are misinformed.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  112. 114. There is no debate with your invincible stupidity, Perry. I choose to point and laugh.

    Comment by JD (f5b0a4) — 4/12/2013 @ 2:21 pm

    I choose to point and ask why in holy hell does the Pope persist in even having a Swiss Guard?

    Perry being the theologian to end all theologians, maybe he can clear up what can only be the Vatican’s screwed up misunderstanding of the fundamental tenets of Christianity and all.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  113. Perry wrote:

    I will also nitpick one point for Patrick. I don’t think most pro-life people value all human life. just all innocent human life. For instance, if prosecutors sought the death penalty for Gosnell, most pro-lifers would support that. (Aaron Walker)

    This is a profound statement, overlooked by most pro-life people, I think.

    And I would add the point that, were the prosecutors seeking the death penalty for Dr Gosnell, most pro-abortion people would object to that.

    The Dana who states the obvious (af9ec3)

  114. And btw, Patterico, I endorse your complaint of the Gosnell atrocities being ignored by too much of the press, though we have had daily front page coverage here in DE by the local press.

    Have we become this numb to the taking of life, whether it be by the Gosnell types, or by those who would create a war of choice, or by the states which permit capital punishment. How many innocent people have we killed?

    Ask the grieving parents and relatives from Newton CT, who are now lobbying Congress to promote sane gun control measures, measures which the Right and the NRA adamantly oppose.

    Will sanity and morality ever prevail here on the issue of killing people?

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  115. daleyrocks wrote:

    Well Perry, how does the left reconcile its segmentation of killing innocent babies and refusing to support the death penalty for people society has judged should be removed from it.

    Catholic doctrine on this question, which I wholeheartedly support, is that neither the innocent child nor the convicted murderer should be killed. The Church holds that those people who are so dangerous that they must be removed from society have met the standard of being removed from society via the modern penal system.

    I would like to see Dr Gosnell convicted on all counts, and every member of his staff who has been charge convicted on every possible count, and every last one of them spend as much time in the state penitentiary as can be legally imposed upon them. I would like to see them have plenty of time, plenty of time, to contemplate what they have done in life.

    Catholic doctrine also holds that no person is irredeemable, and I would hope that Dr Gosnell and his staffers all see the light and repent and confess their sins. I am also cynical enough to believe that most of them don’t believe that they have done anything terribly wrong, and that Dr Gosnell, when he finally goes to his eternal reward, will get to meet George Tiller and every other deceased abortionist in the pits of Hell.

    The Catholic Dana (af9ec3)

  116. ‘Eye for an eye’ is referred to as ‘lex talionis’ and far, far, far predates Sharia Law.

    It’s from before the Old Testament.

    luagha (5cbe06)

  117. now lobbying Congress to promote sane gun control measures,

    Aggressive lie. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  118. Why not try being consistent, like being against all killing, and then do all you can to convince your fellow citizens to make killing less likely? This is where I come down on this issue!

    when a fetus guns down a school of kids with a semi automatic assualt weapon, I will give your latest version of disengenious some consideration

    E.PWJ (bdd0a6)

  119. I also note that you folks are adherents of the Sharia Law concept of an eye for an eye, an ear for an ear, a life for a life. The movement from a tribal mentality to a more civilized state of being has escaped you folks on this issue, unfortunately.

    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2) — 4/12/2013 @ 2:12 pm

    That’s from the Bible:

    “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

    Maybe Sharia law has something similar since some of the Koran is clearly derived from the Bible. Or Perry’s confused.

    Jesus referred to the Exodus passage:

    You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

    Gerald A (67e17e)

  120. The Dana who states the obvious @ 118:

    And I would add the point that, were the prosecutors seeking the death penalty for Dr Gosnell, most pro-abortion people would object to that.

    Perhaps obvious to you, Dana, because you wrongly equate pro-choice to pro-abortion. For example, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, a position which you have never fully understood.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  121. From Cassy Fiano Chesser:

    Meanwhile, other “local crime” stories like, say, Michael Vick torturing and killing dogs receive widespread media attention. So, an NFL player who kills dogs is front page news. A doctor who kills women and babies, and practices in filth and decay, is hushed up. Perhaps we should go plant a dead dog in the grand jury report. Because clearly, if Gosnell was killing dogs, the media would care. But killing babies… that’s no big deal. Right?

    One of my high school classmates keeps posting things on Facebook about how great dogs are, and how terrible it is when people abuse animals. She is, as you’d guess, a very liberal pro-abortion supporter.

    The Dana who can see the hypocrisy (af9ec3)

  122. And Sheryl Atkinson is being given the heave ho, at CBS, according to Politico,

    narciso (3fec35)

  123. Perry, give it up.

    Your “maybe we can say this…” schtick is busted. More than busted.

    Take it somewhere else.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  124. Perhaps obvious to you, Dana, because you wrongly equate pro-choice to pro-abortion. For example, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, a position which you have never fully understood.

    Being pro-choice and anti-abortion makes no sense whatsoever.

    There is no contradiction between being anti-abortion and pro death penalty unless you’re an airhead.

    Gerald A (67e17e)

  125. 125. For example, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, a position which you have never fully understood.

    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2) — 4/12/2013 @ 2:58 pm

    And you think it’s Dana who hasn’t understood your position?

    Really. It’s Dana, Mr. Pro-choice/anti-abortion, who fails to understand?

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  126. Good point, Gerald A. @ 124, but I am not confused, since the “eye for eye” concept also appears in Sharia Law as well as the Old Testament:

    3. Sharia Law ALLOWS exact punishment, an eye for an eye (literally) Sura 5:45

    And We ordained therein for them: Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds equal for equal.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  127. Just for the record, if anyone is keeping a record, I understand you position, Perry.

    It’s just that up until now I only thought dogs could do it.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  128. Perry wrote:

    Perhaps obvious to you, Dana, because you wrongly equate pro-choice to pro-abortion. For example, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, a position which you have never fully understood.

    That’s the problem: you actually do believe that you are both pro-choice and anti-abortion, but you can’t be. Abortion is a service provided by very few “doctors,” because it’s such a repugnant procedure. The vast majority of abortions in this country are performed in high volume clinics, to take advantage of the economies of scale, in order to keep individual abortions inexpensive. Without a significant number of abortions being performed, these “clinics” would go out of business. To support having the choice you must want to see enough abortions occur to make that choice economically available.

    That’s not morality, Perry, but simple economics.

    The economist Dana (af9ec3)

  129. Perry wants abortions to be safe, legal, and rare, and a available to anyone at any age without parental consent or notification at any time at taxpayer expense.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  130. Gerald A. @ 129:

    Being pro-choice and anti-abortion makes no sense whatsoever.

    There is no contradiction between being anti-abortion and pro death penalty unless you’re an airhead.

    Either you have not sufficiently thought this through, or you have become a big government ideologue, thinking that the government has the right to control a woman’s body, and, to take the life of a person.

    You have not advanced past the Old Testament or Sharia Law, nor has Steve.

    Simply said: You two are either pro-life, or you are not. Segmentation of the issue as you have done here is not kosher, except for the uncivilized!

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  131. Perry wrote:

    Perhaps obvious to you, Dana, because you wrongly equate pro-choice to pro-abortion. For example, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, a position which you have never fully understood.

    Oh, no, Perry, it is a position I have seen many, many times before, from people like Mario Cuomo and many others, who claimed to bee good Catholics, and told us that they were “personally opposed” to abortion, but, when in a position to actually do something about at least reducing the number of abortions, would fall back on that empty formulation and do nothing at all.

    They are lying to themselves just as much as they are lying to everyone else.

    The very Catholic Dana (af9ec3)

  132. “Perhaps obvious to you, Dana, because you wrongly equate pro-choice to pro-abortion. For example, I am pro-choice and anti-abortion, a position which you have never fully understood.”

    – Perry

    Could you explain this, since you don’t think we’ve understood it?

    Why are you anti-abortion? Why do you oppose abortion?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  133. Simply said: You two are either pro-life, or you are not. Segmentation of the issue as you have done here is not kosher, except for the uncivilized!

    You are uncivilized Sharia lovers if you think Perry is a clown.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  134. Amazingly Perry has succeeded in getting you off the track of hideous murderous mass killer Gosnell and the blinded incompetent media–and has instead gotten you arguing about Sharia law, victims of “wars of choice” and capital punishment. Way to go guys!

    elissa (5dbb7a)

  135. Perry wrote:

    Simply said: You two are either pro-life, or you are not. Segmentation of the issue as you have done here is not kosher, except for the uncivilized!

    Then we shall have to call you a barbarian, because you are certainly not pro-life! You “segment” the issue, telling us that you are “anti-abortion,” but you are completely unwilling to do anything to actually stop abortions.

    The Dana who spotted it (af9ec3)

  136. The economist Dana @ 133:

    Abortion is a service provided by very few “doctors,” because it’s such a repugnant procedure.

    I don’t at all agree. Terrorism carried out by the anti-abortion Christian Right of this country have made the practice of legal abortions subject to even possible assassination by moral vigilantes.

    I am anti-abortion because I think it is morally wrong, but I do not think I have the right to impose my moral values on a woman. My only option is to use moral suasion, not terrorism, and it should be yours as well, Dana.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  137. Perry think moral suasion is calling people Sharia lovin terrorists.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  138. elissa,

    It seems that we’re discussing the core issue. What would you have us do?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  139. To anyone who is anti-abortion and against gay marriage, would you concede gay marriage in order to end abortion? Late-term abortion?

    If it were a package deal that was guaranteed not to be broken? Absolutely.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  140. “I am anti-abortion because I think it is morally wrong, but I do not think I have the right to impose my moral values on a woman.”

    – Perry

    I mean like specifically, why do you think it’s morally wrong?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  141. The Dana who spotted it @ 141:

    Then we shall have to call you a barbarian, because you are certainly not pro-life! You “segment” the issue, telling us that you are “anti-abortion,” but you are completely unwilling to do anything to actually stop abortions.

    I would call you the barbarian, Dana, because you have segmented the issue in your quote, part pro-life, part anti-life. Moreover, you support our wars of choice, not the Catholic thing to do. You are terribly confused, and inconsistent as a result! That said, I commend you on your opposition to capital punishment, a value to which I assume you still hold steady.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  142. “If it were a package deal that was guaranteed not to be broken? Absolutely.”

    – Milhouse

    Good answer. Of course, the qualifications point out the obvious problem with my hypothetical.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  143. One does notice that they can secure, what they consider a milestone through fraud and abuse of precedents, then abuse those who oppose it, if necessary proscribe any protest against that activity, then they wonder why some, occasionally turn to violence, which they use to further to stigmatize any remaining opposition,

    narciso (3fec35)

  144. I once heard from someone that she felt worse about the idea of giving a child up for adoption (and not knowing what was going on with that child) than abouyt abortion. This is a real feeling.

    Yes, it’s the same feeling that induces women to kill their children because their depression has convinced them that they’re bad mothers.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  145. Leviticus, my morality dictates to me that it is immoral to kill another human, with the exception of self-preservation, where even the latter depends on the circumstances. I do not dictate my morality to you or others, but I am more than willing to express my views. There’s a big difference there.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  146. Perry,

    Just to get it out there in case you don’t want to give the obvious answer to the “Why?” question:

    It seems to me that the main reason people oppose abortion on moral grounds is that they believe (as in “rule governing action,” a la Charles Peirce) that that abortion kills a child.

    If you believe that abortion kills a child, how can you be in favor of leaving it to the discretion of mothers? Do you leave it to the discretion of mothers to kill their children without consequence at any time prior to the age of majority?

    If you believe that abortion kills a child, and belief (in the pragmatic sense) means “rule governing action,” you can’t support policies which allow abortion. Your actions do not evidence governance by the rule you claim to follow.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  147. 142. I am anti-abortion because I think it is morally wrong, but I do not think I have the right to impose my moral values on a woman. My only option is to use moral suasion, not terrorism, and it should be yours as well, Dana.

    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2) — 4/12/2013 @ 3:36 pm

    Well, hell, Perry I’m against Hutus killing Tutsis but I’m agin’ forcing my own personal moral choices on Rwanda for the exact same reason.

    You simplistic f***tard.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  148. So you see the pattern that began with Roe, manifest itself in the 9th Circuit, with Walker holding the scales down,

    narciso (3fec35)

  149. “I do not dictate my morality to you or others, but I am more than willing to express my views. There’s a big difference there.”

    – Perry

    My apologies for assuming you wouldn’t answer, and thank you for answering.

    I’ll reiterate to narrow, then: do you support laws criminalizing the deliberate and unprovoked killing of human beings in other contexts? Where does the distinction lie, to your mind?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  150. This is a profound statement, overlooked by most pro-life people, I think.

    No, it isn’t. Most pro-life people (who support capital punishment) see the distinction as too obvious to need pointing out.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  151. 100. Like popes who were Nazi sympathizers as adolescents.

    Which popes would those be? As far as I know it’s an empty set.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  152. Leviticus – he makes no differentiation between an innocent life that cannot defend itself and those convicted of capital crimes.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  153. Leviticus, I am anti-abortion simply because I think it is immoral to terminate a fetus, soon to become a birthed human being/person. However, I do not feel it is my business to compel a woman to carry to term; that’s her decision to make, since her fetus belongs exclusively to her, and to no one else.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  154. == we’re discussing the core issue. ==

    No Leviticus, y’all are having an online late nite dorm room discussion/bull session which never in the history of college got anybody anywhere (except drunker and possibly stoned). I do know something about this phenomenon. Instead of theoretical what ifs on this Patterico thread, I would welcome an intelligent give and take on the media’s avoidance of this particular case in relation to other stories they have covered extensively– and what that all might mean to the citizens of our republic.

    But go ahead and do what you want. I just filed my state and federal tax returns and I’m a little grumpy. I’m now on my way out for the evening to a nice restaurant where I’ll personally spend and get to enjoy a bit of what’s left in the old checking account.

    elissa (5dbb7a)

  155. “I am anti-abortion simply because I think it is immoral to terminate a fetus, soon to become a birthed human being/person. However, I do not feel it is my business to compel a woman to carry to term; that’s her decision to make, since her fetus belongs exclusively to her, and to no one else.”

    – Perry

    How can you think that a fetus “belongs exclusively to [the mother]” if you think it’s a human being? Does is it similarly the mother’s property after birth?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  156. That was an oblique reference to Pope Benedict who was in the Wehrmacht, interestingly big anti Nazi crusader Gunter Grass, was too,

    narciso (3fec35)

  157. Leviticus – he makes no differentiation between an innocent life that cannot defend itself and those convicted of capital crimes.

    For a change, JD, you are correct. It is morally wrong to terminate either life.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  158. You folks are happy to segment killing into categories, some of which you favor, like capital punishment death and collateral damage from wars of choice, and some of which you do not favor, like legal abortion of a fetus.

    That’s literally insane. Of course not all killing is the same. Killing animals, for instance, is perfectly fine. So’s killing people in self-defense. Do you have a problem with either of those? Does not having a problem with them mean that you must therefore approve of Adam Lanza or Ted Bundy?! The distinction between just killing and murder is obvious. And both war and capital punishment are, in principle, just.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  159. Elissa – Perry’s ideological brethren in he MFM gave far more coverage to Michelle’s bangs and biceps, Michael Vick’s dogs, Trayvon, and Mitt’s dog and cancer-stare.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  160. But, but, but this is a social issue and only those icky social conservatives care about such a think. We want to get rid of those monsters from the party. Don’t we?

    Thank you Patterico for bringing this to your page. I’ve been highlighting this monster on Facebook for all who can stomach it. That this creature is not front page headlines is a disgrace and shows how the MSM controls the narrative.

    At some point, they will have to break the news blackout, they’ll do a sanitized version of the story on a low viewer/read point and then declared the story covered and over with.

    So the drumbeat of killing babies continues. Roe vs Wade was no different than the Dred Scott decision. How history repeats itself.

    NJRob (853bb3)

  161. The movement from a tribal mentality to a more civilized state of being has escaped you folks on this issue, unfortunately.

    There is nothing civilized about depriving murder victims of justice. “The Earth cannot be forgiven for the blood spilled on it, except by the blood of the spiller.”

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  162. “No Leviticus, y’all are having an online late nite dorm room discussion/bull session which never in the history of college got anybody anywhere (except drunker and possibly stoned). I do know something about this phenomenon. Instead of theoretical what ifs on this Patterico thread, I would welcome an intelligent give and take on the media’s avoidance of this particular case in relation to other stories they have covered extensively– and what that all might mean to the citizens of our republic.”

    – elissa

    elissa,

    We’re having a discussion of the actual issues implicated by Patterico’s post – in particular, the moral defensibility of abortion (on which the reprehensibility of Gosnell’s conduct hinges). Since everyone agrees that there is no defensible explanation for the media’s avoidance of this issue, and agrees that American media is completely morally bankrupt, I worry that you would rather we restrict ourselves to complaining – about the media, about what a monster Gosnell is, etc.

    I hate threads limited to aggregated complaining. I love threads where ideas are debated. This can be a place where people of the same mind get together to complain about the other guys, or a place where people of different minds get together to engage in discourse. I prefer the latter.

    To end on a sincere note: enjoy your dinner. I hope it’s delightful.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  163. Have we become this numb to the taking of life, whether it be by the Gosnell types, or by those who would create a war of choice, or by the states which permit capital punishment. How many innocent people have we killed?

    None, as far as I know.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  164. If you ignore all the differences, Milhouse, one thing is just the same as the other.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  165. Elissa – going to Alinea? Sunda?

    JD (f5b0a4)

  166. Ask the grieving parents and relatives from Newton CT, who are now lobbying Congress to promote sane gun control measures, measures which the Right and the NRA adamantly oppose.

    Being a grieving parent gives someone the right to inflict grief on other people?! If I were to find a recently bereaved parent who said that locking you up for 10 years would make her feel better, would you be OK with that?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  167. May I suggest that if Perry is going to bring “Teh Cuhrazy” he should at least link to some eye candy?

    Or am I out of line.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  168. How can you think that a fetus “belongs exclusively to [the mother]” if you think it’s a human being? Does is it similarly the mother’s property after birth?

    Do you agree, Leviticus, that the fetus belongs to the woman who carries it within her womb?

    After birth, the baby is obviously no longer physically attached to its mother.

    Aren’t these obvious distinctions to you? Don’t you think these distinctions have to be taken into account as to how we treat each?

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  169. “Do you agree, Leviticus, that the fetus belongs to the woman who carries it within her womb?”

    – Perry

    No, I do not agree. I don’t believe that human beings can be property. Physical attachment has nothing to do with it. Does one Siamese twin “belong” to the other?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  170. 1. Do you believe that one human being can be the property of another?

    2. Do you believe that a fetus is a human being?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  171. Perry, you are trolling this thread and you should stop.

    nk (d4662f)

  172. Being a grieving parent gives someone the right to inflict grief on other people?!

    Please explain to me, Milhouse, how the grieving parents from Newton are “inflicting grief on other people”?

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  173. You have not advanced past the Old Testament

    That would be impossible. The problem is that you have regressed from it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  174. As for the expected Tapper feature on the case, it was nebulous, not focusing on any of the major issues.

    narciso (3fec35)

  175. He’s answering questions, nk. There’s value in this kind of discourse. The thread doesn’t implicate any issue more serious than abortion, and that’s what being discussed, so I don’t see it as a derailing.

    Plus (if I recall correctly) the Dana of Many Names has (sort of) vouched for Perry. That’s more than good enough for me, and I think it should be good enough for others who want to dismiss Perry out of hand.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  176. I am anti-abortion because I think it is morally wrong, but I do not think I have the right to impose my moral values on a woman. My only option is to use moral suasion, not terrorism, and it should be yours as well, Dana.

    Do you take the same attitude to other crimes? Would you empty the prisons and disband all police forces, because you have no right to impose your moral values on a murderer, a rapist, or a thief?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  177. i.e. it should dissuade others from dismissing Perry out of hand. Sorry, that was poorly worded.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  178. No, I do not agree. I don’t believe that human beings can be property. Physical attachment has nothing to do with it. Does one Siamese twin “belong” to the other?

    Well there is the basic disagreement between us, Leviticus. Physical attachment has everything to do with it, therefore you are in denial of reality. There is a reason that the Roe v Wade distinguished between non-viability and viability of the fetus.

    Regarding your Siamese twin question, it depends on whether the two are interdependent to the point that neither can survive when detached.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  179. Please explain to me, Milhouse, how the grieving parents from Newton are “inflicting grief on other people”?

    They are allowing themselves to be used as political pawns, and use their grief as a moral currency to take away enumerated Rights from law-abiding citizens.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  180. There is indeed a reason tat Roe v. Wade distinguished between “viability” and “non-viability” of a fetus – because they needed a standard to support a policy preference. It doesn’t mean that the standard is defensible.

    Is a person who needs life support to survive still a human being?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  181. If you disagree with Perry you are a reality denying Sharia loving terrorist.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  182. And I’m assuming by your reference to viability that you’ve abandoned any “physical attachment” standard, by the way – since the two are unrelated. I’m assuming you want to use “viability” instead of “physical attachment”?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  183. Leviticus,

    How does “vouching” for someone’s authenticity extend inherent credibility to their arguments ?
    That’s puzzling to me.

    I believe that Dana recently said he’s met Perry, and that Perry is indeed in his late 70s.
    But that doesn’t mean that Perry’s particular arguments are inherently valuable or good.

    It just means he’s been authenticated as a real person in his late 70s.

    I can authenticate that Barry Obama is a real person in his early 50s who resides on Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia. But that doesn’t negate the fact that Obama’s policies and arguments are whack.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  184. Funny, how that works;

    http://minx.cc/?post=339087

    narciso (3fec35)

  185. It is ironic that telling someone it is wrong to kill an innocent defenseless child is a bridge too far for Perry, when he has no problems with telling people they should bow down to big nanny government.

    Leviticus – he doesn’t debate.

    JD (f5b0a4)

  186. Do you take the same attitude to other crimes? Would you empty the prisons and disband all police forces, because you have no right to impose your moral values on a murderer, a rapist, or a thief?

    First of all, Milhouse, a legal abortion is not a crime, though some, like I, would call it immoral. But let us recognize the distinction between a legal abortion and the crimes to which you referred. So no, we should not empty the prisons. Moreover, aren’t our laws based on our moral values? I think so.

    Let’s face it, the natural total dependence of a nonviable fetus on it’s mother is unique, and must be treated as such regarding the laws we make or do not make on this issue.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  187. “I believe that Dana recently said he’s met Perry, and that Perry is indeed in his late 70s.
    But that doesn’t mean that Perry’s particular arguments are inherently valuable or good.”

    – Elephant Stone

    That’s not all that the Dana of Many Names said. Dana essentially said that Perry was arguing in good faith. That demands at least an attempt at serious discussion, I think.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  188. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Barry & Michelle paid only 18.4% of their income to Uncle Sam in federal income taxes.

    Fair share. Rich people. 1%. Privileged. Or something.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  189. First of all, Milhouse, a legal abortion is not a crime, though some, like I, would call it immoral. But let us recognize the distinction between a legal abortion and the crimes to which you referred. So no, we should not empty the prisons. Moreover, aren’t our laws based on our moral values? I think so.

    Let’s face it, the natural total dependence of a nonviable fetus on it’s mother is unique, and must be treated as such regarding the laws we make or do not make on this issue.

    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2) — 4/12/2013 @ 4:38 pm

    Executing someone convicted of a capital offense is not a crime either. Why would you have an issue with that? After all, you claim it’s not for you to judge.

    NJRob (853bb3)

  190. “Let’s face it, the natural total dependence of a nonviable fetus on it’s mother is unique, and must be treated as such regarding the laws we make or do not make on this issue.”

    – Perry

    What of it? Is your standard “depends upon X for survival”?

    I’m trying to figure out what standard you are using.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  191. Additionally,

    the attachment of an unborn infant to a mother is not that different from an out of the womb newborn. Both are completely helpless and require another person’s assistance for their continuation of life.

    Perry, do you think that a parent should be permitted to kill their child up until the age where they can take care of themselves?

    With the disclaimer of course that you would “personally find the act distasteful and you wouldn’t do it.”

    NJRob (853bb3)

  192. The shooter in Newton was able to commit his crimes by the “shoot your mother in the face and steal her guns” loophole in the law. I think that needs to be corrected. It should be against the law to shoot your mother in the face and steal her guns. And we do need some kind of law that says we should not shoot schoolchildren, too. Can you say “disingenuous”?

    nk (d4662f)

  193. Essentially, your statement is question-begging: it says “a fetus that can’t survive without its mother is totally dependent on its mother, and this justifies treating the fetus as property of the mother.”

    It’s a non-standard. Consider this: “viability” is not fixed. Technological advances affect “viability” – a baby that could not survive a premature birth 100 years ago could survive an equally premature birth today. Did we turn that baby human by inventing an effective respirator? What kind of sense does that make to you?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  194. Leviticus,

    So Dana reports he believes that Perry believes in his own convictions.
    Ok. I enjoy much of what Dana writes.

    But so what if Perry is genuine ?
    Charles Manson believes in his own convictions. As did Jim Jones, Hitler, Mao, and Osama Bin Laden—they were all very genuine.

    We don’t judge people by their passion—rather, we judge the merit of their actions and advocacy.

    Men who are members of NAMBLA have passion. But the fact they have passion shouldn’t extend more creedence to what they believe in. (And no, I’m not comparing Perry’s beliefs to those held by Manson, Jones, Hitler, Mao, Bin Laden, or members of NAMBLA.)

    Perry’s assertions and arguments are usually pretty whack. The fact he is actually passionate about his whack actually gives me more pause.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  195. And I’m assuming by your reference to viability that you’ve abandoned any “physical attachment” standard, by the way – since the two are unrelated. I’m assuming you want to use “viability” instead of “physical attachment”?

    Correct. Since physical attachment exists throughout gestation, the important issue regarding abortion is viability, which again is the distinction which the Roe v Wade decision addressed.

    But let us not forget the moral issue as well: It is immoral to abort an implanted fetus at any stage of gestation, except when the life of the mother is in jeopardy – also covered by Roe v Wade.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  196. Elephant Stone,

    I would rather not assume that anyone who disagrees with me is Pol Pot.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  197. “It is immoral to abort an implanted fetus at any stage of gestation, except when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.”

    – Perry

    Then we get back to Milhouse’s question, about why you’re willing to legislate your morality with regard to other deliberate killing of human beings but not with regard to this particular deliberate killing of human beings.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  198. “I would rather not assume that anyone who disagrees with me is Pol Pot.”

    – Leviticus

    Sorry, I see that you expressly disclaimed this, Elephant Stone. My bad.

    What it boils down to is, this is a place designed for discourse. Conversations with people who disagree are more productive than conversations with people who agree. As long as there’s good faith, there’s productive potential. That’s all.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  199. It’s a non-standard. Consider this: “viability” is not fixed. Technological advances affect “viability” – a baby that could not survive a premature birth 100 years ago could survive an equally premature birth today. Did we turn that baby human by inventing an effective respirator? What kind of sense does that make to you?

    A fetus exists inside the womb and physically attached to and completely dependent upon it’s mother, a baby is outside of the womb and independent of it’s mother, and can be nurtured by anyone. The choice of words is important here.

    Correct: Technology is not fixed, so the period of viability has been getting shorter. Therefore, viability, not time, ought to be the decider.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  200. “Viability” means “could not survive apart from the mother if delivered” correct?

    100 years ago, a baby born [X] weeks premature could not survive apart from its mother if delivered. That baby was not viable.

    Today, a baby born [X] weeks premature can survive apart from its mother if delivered. That baby is viable.

    Does that mean that one of those babies is human and the other is not?

    If the answer to that question is “no,” is viability a probative standard? Or just a convenient one?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  201. Then we get back to Milhouse’s question, about why you’re willing to legislate your morality with regard to other deliberate killing of human beings but not with regard to this particular deliberate killing of human beings.

    NJ Rob also made the point that it is not a crime to execute a person who committed a capital crime.

    We have this sometimes confusing interplay between the morality and the law, especially in the case where some act may be legal but still immoral, like execution, like abortion. In these cases, we need to consider alternatives based on reason, like adoption instead of abortion, like life sentences instead of execution.

    Thanks for the discussion.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  202. Leviticus,

    My soccer-playing friend, do you really believe I’m insinuating that I automaticallly assume someone who disagrees with me is Pol Pot ?
    That’s silliness, even from you.

    You’re confusing passion with merit.

    Passion for bad ideas still leaves one with bad ideas. We can discuss bad ideas, but discussing bad ideas does not give greater merit to bad ideas.
    I think you’re confusing allowing Perry to comment here with giving creedence to his whack assertions and faulty facts.

    I’m all for allowing Perry to comment here. I’m also all for calling him out on his bad ideas and faulty facts.

    🙂

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  203. “My soccer-playing friend, do you really believe I’m insinuating that I automaticallly assume someone who disagrees with me is Pol Pot ?
    That’s silliness, even from you.”

    – Elephant Stone

    Yeah, I already apologized for that.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  204. Oh, one more comment from Leviticus:

    Does that mean that one of those babies is human and the other is not?

    By definition, a fetus is not a baby, therefore a baby is not a fetus. Using the term “human” is confusing, since both are human considering the DNA coding.

    Perry (e2a5b2)

  205. I would like to see a Venn diagram of that logic.

    Ag80 (f872ce)

  206. Perry,

    To say that “we have this sometimes confusing interplay between the morality and the law,” is all well and good. However:

    1. You still haven’t attempted to explain why it’s OK to legislate morality in some cases but not others.

    2. You still haven’t explained why “viability” is a good standard for determining whether or not a baby may be aborted.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  207. I can diagram it for you, Ag80:

    O

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  208. “By definition, a fetus is not a baby, therefore a baby is not a fetus. Using the term “human” is confusing, since both are human considering the DNA coding.”

    – Perry

    Put another way, I’ll stipulate that “a fetus is not a baby” if you can come up with a coherent standard for distinguishing one from the other. I submit that “viability” is insufficient, for reasons detailed above.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  209. In fact, I’ll rephrase:

    “Viability” means “could not survive apart from the mother if delivered” correct?

    100 years ago, a thing delivered [X] weeks premature could not survive apart from its mother. That thing was not viable.

    Today, a thing delivered [X] weeks premature can survive apart from its mother (on a respirator, say). That thing is viable.

    Does that mean that one of those things is a baby and the other is a fetus?

    If the answer to that question is “no,” is viability a probative standard? Or just a convenient one?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  210. Let’s face it, the natural total dependence of a nonviable fetus on it’s mother is unique, and must be treated as such regarding the laws we make or do not make on this issue.

    A 1 year old is totally dependent on others for its life.

    I would rather not assume that anyone who disagrees with me is Pol Pot.

    Yet Perry thinks anyone that disagrees with him is a Sharia loving reality denying terrorist.

    JD (b63a52)

  211. pol pot is an even dumber name than beyonce i think

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  212. pol pot beyonce rihanna gaga you git down off daddy’s backhoe right this meenit

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  213. Actual name was Saloth Sar, which is even more obscure, he was a bloodthirsty SOB, whatever his name.

    narciso (3fec35)

  214. “a fetus is not a baby”

    It is clearly a dolphin. Or a desk.

    If the answer to that question is “no,” is viability a probative standard? Or just a convenient one?

    I think the lack of an answer answers that question for you.

    JD (b63a52)

  215. Nout unlike Abilio Guzman, although not as intellectual;

    http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/pol-pot.htm

    narciso (3fec35)

  216. The media ignores Gosnell’s evil crimes for the same reason the 3 monkeys refuse to see, hear, or speak evil. They’re looking the other way, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge their collective lack of moral responsibility.

    And, in the process pretending Shizaru, the 4th monkey’s inconvenient admonition (do no evil), has no place in their world.

    ropelight (1b10ff)

  217. You guys do realize you’re arguing over “abortion” with the same type of character you’d be arguing with over background checks.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  218. Explain. Should I have my caps-lock engaged or something?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  219. I mean, it’s totally freakin’ reasonable. Nancy Pelosi won’t be doing the background checks.

    Hell, no.

    She’ll just hire Perry.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  220. Or are you saying that you wouldn’t trust Perry to issue you a firearm license if you had to obtain a background check from him?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  221. There is some weird, right-wing political crap on the internet if you type “dictionary” into your browser and search some words.

    fe•tus
    [fee-tuh s] Show IPA
    noun, plural fe•tus•es. Embryology .
    (used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

    ba•by
    [bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural ba•bies, adjective, verb, ba•bied, ba•by•ing.
    noun
    1.
    an infant or very young child.
    2.
    a newborn or very young animal.
    3.
    the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
    4.
    an immature or childish person.
    5.
    a human fetus.

    mar•riage
    [mar-ij] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    a.
    the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husbandand wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
    b.
    a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
    2.
    the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms:matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
    3.
    the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple,including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriageceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
    4.
    a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husbandand wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
    5.
    any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms:blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion,schism.

    I condemn dictionaries for the reactionary, misplaced hatred they spew.

    Ag80 (f872ce)

  222. I will also nitpick one point for Patrick. I don’t think most pro-life people value all human life. just all innocent human life. For instance, if prosecutors sought the death penalty for Gosnell, most pro-lifers would support that.

    Comment by Aaron “Worthing” Walker (23789b) – 4/12/2013 @ 8:43 am

    The reason I support the death penalty for all who perpetrate heinous crimes is because I value all life. If the perpetrators life had zero value, them paying justice with the ultimate price one can pay, would be on the cheap and the check would bounce.

    MSL (5f601f)

  223. Or are you saying that you wouldn’t trust Perry to issue you a firearm license if you had to obtain a background check from him?

    Would you?

    JD (b63a52)

  224. 225. Or are you saying that you wouldn’t trust Perry to issue you a firearm license if you had to obtain a background check from him?

    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:03 pm

    Ignoring all the other defects in your assertion, yes. I have a problem with Perry.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  225. “Ignoring all the other defects in your assertion, yes. I have a problem with Perry.”

    – Steve57

    What I meant was “speak plainly.” You could start now, if you wanted.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  226. Here’s an example: what “defects” in my “assertion” are you ignoring?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  227. Mr. JD there is now 2 Gosnell stories at the politico.com

    http://find.politico.com/?reporters=&dt=all&key=gosnell

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  228. Levitus, I thought I was speaking plainly. I’d rather feed Perry an elbow than what I give my dogs.

    If I can speak more plainly than that, please advise.

    Hugs and kisses,

    Steve57

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  229. The Gosnell case also points out the odd way in which we decide who is legally a “person,” and protected by the law. Abortion has made it very clear: someone is a legal person not based on his own rights, but based on whether other people believe he should be a legal person. See Dred Scott v Sanford.

    The problem is this.

    The Constitution, in its plain words, makes a distinction between born and unborn.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  230. Happyfeet – that is not a story about Gosnell, it is a story about Dylan Byers observing others observing how the Gosnell story is not being covered. The 2nd one mentions the word in passing in an article about creepy Cohen.

    JD (b63a52)

  231. Catholic doctrine on this question, which I wholeheartedly support, is that neither the innocent child nor the convicted murderer should be killed. The Church holds that those people who are so dangerous that they must be removed from society have met the standard of being removed from society via the modern penal system.

    How does that square with the Church’s support of executing heretics?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  232. yes it’s not honest robust coverage I should’ve said *mentions* instead of stories

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  233. There is little coverage for the same reason you never see an article about citizens with a CC permit stopping a crime or other than local coverage for a ritual Islamic beheading in NJ, it doesn’t fit the propaganda goals.

    Ok, at risk of being banned forever,
    as others have said, you’re not even on the list of people being considered to be put on the list

    I’m going to stick up for late term abortion in a “nice clean place” with a reputable medical facility, regulated by the state as it already is, constitutionally under Roe V wade, to preserve the life and health of the mother, at all times before viability (that window about 23 weeks) and even after in select circumstances.
    I am confused by your use of the words “late term abortion” and “before viability”. I think a major part of the issue is that “before viability” was not part of the issue. “Before viability” would mean there was no reason to snip the spine, just give nature a few minutes to do the job itself.

    I know why Gosnell’s story is blocked out, and its’ not what you think. It’s blocked out because it has nothing to do with medically necessary induced abortion, any accepted medical practice anywhere ever, and the press doesn’t want the pro-life movement to use it as nasty pointy hooky thing to say SEE SEE this is what abortion is and they are all like this and the doctors are all monsters and there can never ever be any justification for this….

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 4/12/2013 @ 7:39 am

    You have your right to that opinion, but that is what it is.
    It may well be correct that no one wants us lifeydoodles to pull a Santorum and say “what’s the difference between sucking out the brains before the whole body is delivered and snipping the spine once delivered”?

    As also mentioned by others, “for the health of the mother” is essentially a meaningless phrase. Anything, including being bummed because one can’t take a vacation, can be wrapped up in that,
    which is of no help to a woman who does have a truly significant medical issue, including a history of serious post-partum depression.

    It would be helpful if in general factual news was reported as factual news and discussion of policy could be openly and honestly could be discussed as policy.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  234. The problem is this.
    The Constitution, in its plain words, makes a distinction between born and unborn.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:41 pm

    Does that really mean that they are distinguishing the born from the unborn with regard to personhood?
    Or does it reflect that it never occurred to them that they needed to protect human life in the womb?
    I do not know anything about how one would back either opinion from historic documents or case law, I’m just making an observation.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  235. The Constitution, in its plain words, makes a distinction between born and unborn.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:41 pm

    So you’re saying we should give the unborn the same rights we give to illegal aliens?

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  236. So you’re saying we should give the unborn the same rights we give to illegal aliens?
    Comment by NJRob (fe68e7) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:58 pm

    Hey, that was a nice move of verbal judo.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  237. The reason why they continue to obfuscate, is simple, Gosnell shows the utter hollowness of their position, had pro choicers really been sincere, he would have been ratted out years ago, but that didn’t happen either under the shameless Tom Ridge, who proved all too willing to take a chiv to his own party, or the more odious Rendell.

    narciso (3fec35)

  238. To anyone who is anti-abortion and against gay marriage, would you concede gay marriage in order to end abortion? Late-term abortion?

    How about this scenario: If a test were created that detected the heterosexuality or homosexuality of a fetus, and various women who received that test, upon learning their pregnancy would result in a 100%-homosexual child, decide to have an abortion, would various pro-choice liberals start to really flinch or grimace?

    I will also nitpick one point for Patrick. I don’t think most pro-life people value all human life. just all innocent human life. For instance, if prosecutors sought the death penalty for Gosnell, most pro-lifers would support that.

    This is a profound statement, overlooked by most pro-life people, I think.
    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2)

    Actually, the concept you’re responding to is overlooked by folks like you—by most pro-choice liberals who go “a-ha! gotcha!” at anti-abortion conservatives (or others) for also supporting the death penalty. But the left is too foolish (or dumb) to realize that the sympathy and sentiments of pro-lifers are directed at INNOCENT life — innocent nascent human life in particular — not the life of, for example, a two-bit murderer. Then again, many liberals struggle to make a distinction between innocent or guilty humans — or transpose the two categories — so for folks on the left to not understand the concept between innocent fetuses versus non-innocent adults is par for the course.

    Mark (03ca77)

  239. @Leviticus, the “compromise” you suggest is actually that of supporting an intrinsic evil over another intrinsic evil. I can’t support abortion as it’s the taking of a human life, nor can I support gay marriage as marriage is between one man and one woman. Suggesting that it’s possible for those who believe these are both evil to prioritize one evil over another is sick. a

    Nan (5964aa)

  240. sick sick sick

    I told him to repent Nan I did but he perseveres in his evil sick ways like he got a devil in him

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  241. Gateway Pundit also has a documentary on the overall case, apparently done by Katie Couric, so at least a small hat tip to her.

    It will simply break your heart, sicken you, and make you feel shame that human beings did this or let this go on. Tom Ridge stopped inspections. He is evil.

    Patricia (be0117)

  242. 243, 244, .., 247. Reminds one of the Warsaw ghetto and the “Pianist”.

    I think we’ve entered the ‘end times’, Consumer Confidence had the the biggest miss vis a vis expert expectations, the ECB is forcing Cyprus to sell its gold and fork the proceeds over, energy usage at 1997 levels, rail and shipping traffic at all time lows, economic activity dying.

    This is the year it all comes apart, no need to wait for another.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  243. So is anyone challenging Governor Target, or Franken, over there.

    narciso (3fec35)

  244. If it saves one spine snippydoodle, we need to pass reforms.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  245. The government has no business involving itself in my health choices…well, you know, except for when I demand they pay for my health choices !

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  246. Elephant Stone – Your health choices are none of my business……well, you know, except when the government demands I pay for your health choices.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  247. …except when the government demands I pay for your health choices.

    And if I were a part of devious lot when in government I’d place all sorts of demands in the form of extra charges on all sorts of “health choices” formerly known as political choices that I disapprove of, wouldn’t I?

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  248. 249. No one’s declared.

    Versus the Fool, the MN GOP loves them some John Kline 2nd District. One of Boehner’s 70 or so stalwarts. Of course, I’d love Crazy Eyes, a natural cage match.

    Versus Gov. Prozac I’ve not seen a name mooted. Former House Leader Siefert from Rochester was my choice last time, don’t know that he’s up for. Delano Lawyer Emmer was the grassroots fave but is not MN ‘Nice’ so lost by 7000.

    On the subject of our fool. It may have been noted already:

    1. Ending a human life is immoral. But by dint of her eminent domain the kitchen is sovereign and can snuff the pilot with impunity.

    2. Executing the innocent is immoral. Executing the criminally immoral is immoral. A dilemma incapable of further articulation.

    We have no control over the miscreant because they are in both cases already an independent life. Therefore we are constrained, our duty to maintain the miscreant’s life to the degree it is dependent or a danger to independent lives.

    The misbegotten is dependent therefore we have no obligation.

    To sum, why do we waste our time with the intellectually defective? Pull the plug.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  249. I have a question. Who funded Kermit The baby Slayer? Was he working on his own extracting $500 or more for each proceedure from poor inner-city folks in Philly, or was he financed by our tax dollars?

    Either way, I assume the left will now have a new god-like figure to worship. Just another mass murderer/serial killer born from the religion of leftism. Nothin’ to see here.

    As the New Savior would say: “Suffer the Little Children to come unto me, and I shall $nip their little necks”. ( Dollar sign deliberate )

    Hoagie (3259ab)

  250. I don’t know where the national media has been, but here in the Philly area it’s been front page news for months.

    JEA (fb1111)

  251. #241, NJRob might be onto something, perhaps if unborn human beings were members of an organized labor union the Left would have to quit dehumanizing them with demeaning names and would stop protecting murderous butchers in dirty backrooms who slaughter the defenseless unborn without benefit of due process.

    The unborn are the original undocumented human beings. Their lives shouldn’t be sacrificed for votes to keep Democrats in office.

    ropelight (9d1c0d)

  252. narciso – You could land a 747 between Donna Brazile’s ears. Who do they consider “right wing media”?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  253. The question I have is whether it is true that the medial have been ignoring the Gosnell horror story? I think it is not true, rather a fiction of the right wing. I have been reading about this Gosnell character since day one of the revelation.

    Perry (d7a158)

  254. And worse, to think that the so-called left is any less horrified by this story than the right, is just one more fiction broadcast by the right wing media and blogs.

    Perry (d7a158)

  255. And here is one example of this unsubstantiated thinking: Hoagie @ 255:

    Either way, I assume the left will now have a new god-like figure to worship. Just another mass murderer/serial killer born from the religion of leftism.

    An outrageous statement this is!

    Perry (d7a158)

  256. Shorter Perry:

    Push em back, push em back….yaaaaaay team.

    Those kneedpads are a little tight, aren’t they? But if you just love the quarterback enough, he will notice you and ask you to the prom.

    Oh, I know: you are fair and tolerant and all the rest. But you know better than that, in your heart.

    That’s why you keep trolling. You know you are wrong.

    If you were correct, you would just smirk and move on.

    But you know that’s not true, and like a classic liar, you have to keep flogging that dead donkey, so to speak. And it only draws attention to your plight.

    Simon Jester (6a57b1)

  257. Based on his energy and verve, it appears like Perry took his multivitamin this morning.
    Unfortunately, that only gives energy to his body—it does nothing for his mind.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  258. “Those kneedpads are a little tight, aren’t they? But if you just love the quarterback enough, he will notice you and ask you to the prom.”

    – Simon Jester

    You can be awfully passive-aggressive, Simon.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  259. You could land a 747 between ____’s ears.
    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/13/2013 @ 10:01 am

    That’s a line to remember.

    If any one wants to bother discussing this with Perry (I’m not), here is an article that documents the lack of coverage:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/10/philadelphia-abortion-clinic-horror-column/2072577/
    (via PowerLineblog).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  260. Sigh. Okay, Leviticus. Have you noticed that pretty much whenever I post, you have to be kinda jerky?

    Fair enough. I have said I don’t want to fight with you.

    I think Perry is partisan with his head in the sand, afraid to criticize his own party…but claiming to do so in some mysterious fashion.

    But I’m done, Leviticus. You win. Have fun.

    Simon Jester (6a57b1)

  261. Simon Jester, you are always welcome here. The lefties have the art of flapping their gums and intimidation on their side, but they lack artistry when it comes to actual discourse and thought.

    To quote Bono from a particular U2 song, “Don’t let the bastards get you down.”

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  262. What really horrifies me is not Gosnell himself and his insane, bloody works. After all, the human gene pool occasionally spews out a morally deformed monster who, thankfully, is notable because he is so rare.

    However, the casual and total indifference of ordinary, thoughtful functionaries to the conditions at the “clinic”, to the murder of live babies, to the mutilated and dying women who turned up time after time in ERs, is what really horrifies me.

    Don’t ever tell me that the German people were unusual.

    Patricia (be0117)

  263. Simon Jester:

    “Those kneedpads are a little tight, aren’t they [Perry]? But if you just love the quarterback enough, he will notice you and ask you to the prom.
    Oh, I know: you are fair and tolerant and all the rest. But you know better than that, in your heart.
    That’s why you keep trolling. You know you are wrong.
    If you were correct, you would just smirk and move on.
    But you know that’s not true, and like a classic liar, you have to keep flogging that dead donkey, so to speak. And it only draws attention to your plight.”

    Leviticus:

    “You can be awfully passive-aggressive, Simon.”

    Simon Jester:

    “Have you noticed that pretty much whenever I post, you have to be kinda jerky?”

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  264. Oh wait – that’s different.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  265. Again, you win, dude. Leave me alone. I’m leaving you alone, after this message.

    Hell, I’m tired of all the troll nonsense I see here. Again, have fun.

    Simon Jester (6a57b1)

  266. “The lefties have the art of flapping their gums and intimidation on their side, but they lack artistry when it comes to actual discourse and thought.”

    – Elephant Stone

    I’m sorry if you feel intimidated. I’m sure that wasn’t Perry’s intention.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  267. Buh-bye, Jester.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  268. Patricia, I was with you up to this point:

    Don’t ever tell me that the German people were unusual.

    Did you really mean to write that?

    Perry (d7a158)

  269. “The question I have is whether it is true that the medial have been ignoring the Gosnell horror story? I think it is not true, rather a fiction of the right wing. I have been reading about this Gosnell character since day one of the revelation.”

    Perry – That’s a very nice try. People have not been disputing the presence of local coverage. Where have you been seeing national coverage. Please supply links to support your assertion.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  270. To anyone who is anti-abortion and against gay marriage, would you concede gay marriage in order to end abortion? Late-term abortion?

    Leviticus, frankly I couldn’t give a rats ass about gay marriage as long as babies are being killed in the womb – and outside the womb. One is a group of the most vulnerable and defenseless with no voice other than their pure innocence who are being killed for their mere existence and reminder of their unblemished humanity. How does that square with a group of gays squawking that the very definition of marriage should be changed for them, wah-wah?

    One is quite literally, life and death. The other is politics. I don’t see them remotely equal.

    Dana (292dcf)

  271. And worse, to think that the so-called left is any less horrified by this story than the right,

    If you’re not being disingenuous about the workings of the liberal mind — of left-leaning biases (and I’m not referring to everyone on the left, but a large percentage) — then you’re surprisingly naive.

    The modern-day media are so clumsily subjective and deceptive that they’ll purposefully leave out the “who” of the “who, what, when, where, how and why” of a story. Look at the silly decision by the AP several days ago to ban the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant” in news coverage. Actually, that isn’t as ridiculous as what they and other members of the media have been doing for at least 20 years. I’m referring to where they routinely avoid mentioning the race or ethnicity of a suspect, even when such details are important in identifying and apprehending that person.

    At the very least, it’s almost a given that the race of both the abortion doctor and his patients in Philadelphia has been twisted and turned in the minds of most reporters/editors—90-plus percent of them tilted to the left. One would have to be a fool to believe otherwise.

    Liberals are deluded not just about others, but about themselves too. Hardly surprising, therefore, that they fall for the belief that their biases imbue them with such generous, sophisticated, beautiful, wonderful, giving, tolerant qualities.

    Mark (03ca77)

  272. Leviticus,

    Are they (gays and/or pro-aborts) willing to admit that the re-defining of our social mores has been causation of more sexually transmitted diseases, abortion, rape, unwed mothers, “baby daddies”, etc.??? At what point are they going to say enough is enough? How much more degeneration must take place in the name of “freedom” and/or “rights”?

    Dana (292dcf)

  273. 270. Thread winner, anyone?

    I’m satisfied Pervy, within his God-given limitations, is genuine.

    I’m also convinced he is incapable of reasoned discourse, not merely brainwashed, afflicted, impaired.

    It’s not his ‘fault’. Hopefully his line is not fecund.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  274. I’m going to stick up for late term abortion in a “nice clean place” with a reputable medical facility, regulated by the state as it already is, constitutionally under Roe V wade, to preserve the life and health of the mother, at all times before viability (that window about 23 weeks) and even after in select circumstances.

    Is this actually being said without a trace of irony?

    And yes, going all Godwin here – tough shit – but didn’t the state sanction mass murders in specified state-approved locations in Germany – already protected by the law then???

    That’s the problem – assuming that the state has it right. Sheep.

    Dana (292dcf)

  275. Like I said, Mr. Jester, your commentary is always a welcome addition to the threads.
    Don’t allow the chirpy Occupy protesters’ tweets and schoolyard taunts to discourage you from voicing your valuable opinions.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  276. Maybe I can help here. Defending yourself is one thing, Leviticus. We all do it if we feel we’re being attacked or misunderstood. No one would ever fault you for that. But when (as this case this morning) you insert yourself as a scold– jumping in seemingly to argue for Perry’s honor when another valued commenter’s post and message was strictly and directly pointed at Perry’s behavior (not yours) it just looks strange. I’d be happy if both you and Simon stuck around and will miss either/both of you very much if you don’t. Perry? Not so much.

    elissa (14f9d2)

  277. “One is quite literally, life and death. The other is politics. I don’t see them remotely equal.”

    – Dana

    I agree.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  278. “Don’t ever tell me that the German people were unusual.”

    Patricia – The rich history of progressive racism has never really disappeared. From Woodrow Wilson and his fondness for eugenics and forced sterilization onward, through the founding of Planned Parenthood as a population control organization, you saw Democrats/progressives adopt policies similar in thought to those of the Nazis in Germany.

    Even now with their hidebound support for “diversity”/affirmative action they betray the racist attitude that skin color or ethnicity is primary determinant in the way a person thinks. Those attitudes would have been shouted down as unacceptable in the 1960s, but now get cloaked in buzz words which the masses have been indoctrinated to believe are socially acceptable. Since when has dividing America into segments by race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/class ever been part of any version of the American Dream? Yet that is exactly what progressives/liberals/Democrats are doing right before our eyes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  279. “Defending yourself is one thing, Leviticus. We all do it if we feel we’re being attacked or misunderstood. No one would ever fault you for that. But when (as this case this morning) you insert yourself as a scold– jumping in seemingly to argue for Perry’s honor when another valued commenter’s post and message was strictly and directly pointed at Perry’s behavior (not yours) it just looks strange.”

    – elissa

    That doesn’t seem right. I was having a good-faith conversation with Perry. It was interrupted. I objected. I don’t see how that makes me a “scold.” And I doubt you really think that it’s wrong to stick up for others.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  280. @ Patterico,

    But a society that takes no note of a Kermit Gosnell is a society that is on a slippery slope towards putting foster children to sleep.

    I would suggest that we were put on the slippery slope when the courts approved RvW 40 years ago and life was as that point, devalued.

    Unfortunately, the ‘our body, ourselves’ crowd either don’t see the Gosnell situation as a problem, but rather as another benefit of the slippery slope we’re all sliding down.

    Dana (292dcf)

  281. ==I was having a good-faith conversation with Perry. It was interrupted. I objected. I don’t see how that makes me a “scold.” And I doubt you really think that it’s wrong to stick up for others.==

    OK Leviticus. Well then apparently I can’t help out here. Sorry. But please know that losing long time Patterico commenters diminishes the value of the site for us all and on a personal level it makes me very sad. I don’t think even testy online discussions should result in that. .

    elissa (14f9d2)

  282. elissa,

    I don’t know what to say. Look at the comment I made to Simon and tell me that it was out of line in any way. If he stops commenting, that’s his prerogative – but it would be awfully thin-skinned.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  283. this one time on the internet i was in a conversation online and I was told to voluntarily remove myself from a particular thread but i didn’t cause of I didn’t want to diminish the value of the site and also I didn’t want to make anyone sad on a personal level

    i’m a giver is the takeaway here I guess

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  284. Well, yes. I do think “Buh-bye Jester” was entirely out of line.

    elissa (14f9d2)

  285. Oh. That.

    Well… OK.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  286. I was having a good-faith conversation with Perry.

    — I plan to discuss this during my next heart-to-heart with imdw.

    Icy (bba214)

  287. From Woodrow Wilson and his fondness for eugenics and forced sterilization onward

    I’m embarrassed to admit that my knowledge of US history has been so stunted that until recently I didn’t realize Wilson — an avowed liberal and Democrat — was at the heart of Jim Crow laws. In a flipside of that, I originally fell for the dumb notion (or the stereotype that undoubtedly has long tickled partisan Democrats) that Republican Herbert Hoover, considered the poster boy of the Great Depression, was a survival-of-the-fittest, libertarian-tilted, uncaring conservative. In fact, he was merely a run-up to his liberal successor, FDR, and in reality was more of a tax-and-spend Big Mommy.

    BTW, Perry’s blog has an interesting post about how Margaret Thatcher was surprisingly tilted to the left when it came to her various policies and opinions. If anything, that merely shows the idiocy and two-faced nature of modern-day liberalism and many liberals, who deem that Thatcher nonetheless was still too conservative and excoriate her accordingly.

    Simply put, liberalism and its adherents in the 21st century (much less a Woodrow Wilson of the 20th century) are contemptible.

    Mark (3764db)

  288. RIP: Maria Tallchief

    elissa (14f9d2)

  289. Well he was probably the counterpart to Malan, the father of apartheid, which was not a particularly
    conservative movement, it was nationalist and not Marxist, he segregated the DC public schools, a good friend of his, was William Dixon, the author
    of the basis for ‘Birth of a Nation’

    narciso (3fec35)

  290. Mr. Feets – If they put up any of Gruesome Gosnell’s trophies for auction like the cut off baby feets, you want I should put in some bids for you? I have a feeling the spiny snippydoodles might willing to spend some big bucks, though.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  291. Mark – The progressives/liberals/Democrats don’t see their racism and bigotry as such because they invent pretzel logic and enlightened sounding code words and bogus theories to explain it away.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  292. i’m not really a knick-knack kinda pika Mr. daley

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  293. Mr. Feets – Having some interesting tchotchkes around for when guests come over can help keep the conversation going.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  294. You thought the previous links were deranged, this was written in blood;

    http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/13/the-future-of-abortion/

    narciso (3fec35)

  295. Always follow links by narciso

    That is so absurd that an Alice In Wonderland reference is totally inadequate, yet there are people who think that way.

    What’s worse that Gosnell doing what he did? Finding others to help. What’s worse than his finding others to help? The others getting their teenagers to join in…
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/abortionist-slit-necks-born-babies-front-teenager-told-assistant-thats-what-you-call

    I imagine most of us have seen references to psychology experiments where people are lulled/seduced/manipulated into taking part of what they think is torture?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  296. It really does turn the stomach;

    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/13/ap-gosnells-co-defendants-really-needed-jobs-you-know/

    not only the acts, but the ‘devil’s advocates’ who whitewash them.

    narciso (3fec35)

  297. i have one of those kicky italian cigarette dispensing music carousel thingies Mr. daley

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WubLAqMfSxY

    not as much fun since I quit smoking though

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  298. 260. narciso – You could land a 747 between Donna Brazile’s ears. Who do they consider “right wing media”?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/13/2013 @ 10:01 am

    Sometimes you need all the runway you’ve got.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_z5HtME9n8&feature=youtube_gdata&imagePerPage=18

    Every inch of it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=dOx5Knk6S9I

    Sometimes you don’t.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZTzQrz014&feature=youtube_gdata

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  299. I have no doubt Donna Brazile has a great deal of space between her ears. That space is both wide and long.

    I just doubt it’s rated for a 747. You know how heavy that thing is? I doubt Donna Brazile can handle the weight.

    From what I’ve seen, she can’t handle much weight at all.

    Steve57 (b238b6)

  300. Perry, I meant that a so-called “Good German” was the result of a slow, subtle indoctrination of the kind that led the bureaucrats in PA to ignore the Gosnell house of horrors.

    Not that I expect you to accept that explanation, but there it is.

    Patricia (be0117)

  301. 283. Here in German-Catholic country if amniocentesis at 36 weeks verifys adequate lung development the Ob-Gyn is ready to yank the kid, especially if the previous birth was Caesarean. No significant benefit can accrue worthy of the dangers in bringing the pregnancy to term.

    A 36-week abortion is equivalent to infanticide. A 6 month fetus weighing over a pound has a decent chance of survival.

    If cruising upto a green stop light at my usual 5 over I notice a kid on bike approaching the intersection and I decide in the split second to beat him then clip the kid should I feel justified if not ticketed? What if he’s a redhead?

    A woman who aborts a 7 month 3 pound fetus rather than birth the kid because “her health is threatened” knows shes killing a baby, one that kicks, that reminds her often of her pregnancy.

    Can I be Ok with that? Its effin sick, and so is anyone who can pass it off as good enough.

    People do awful things. I have. Calling it Ok is twisted.

    End of story.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  302. I have a friend who was a great grandmother by my age. My one and only offspring last week when advised she could not turn on the TV on arising says “I’m 5, old enough to decide these things”.

    Wonder how many hundreds of thousands of years that sort of statement’s been made?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  303. Aaaand, Megan McArdle finaly weighs in on the grisly story.

    So I’ll tell you why I haven’t covered it.
    To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. I am someone who cringes when I hear a description of a sprained ankle.

    But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/12/why-the-mainstream-media-is-not-covering-the-gosnell-abortion-trial.html

    elissa (14f9d2)

  304. I thinks she gives the real reason;

    Moreover, surely those of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion: that a crackdown on abortion clinics will follow, with onerous white-glove inspections; that a revolted public will demand more restrictions on late-term abortions; or that women will be too afraid of Gosnell-style crimes to seek a medically necessary abortion.

    narciso (3fec35)

  305. We’re having a discussion of the actual issues implicated by Patterico’s post – in particular, the moral defensibility of abortion (on which the reprehensibility of Gosnell’s conduct hinges).

    No, it doesn’t. A person could actually agree with the current state of the law, which is that birth is a bright line, and personhood comes with the first breath. Such a person might have no problem with aborting a 39-week baby in the womb, but would also condemn Gosnell as a mass-murderer.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  306. Please explain to me, Milhouse, how the grieving parents from Newton are “inflicting grief on other people”?

    Not all of them are. But you asked about those who, in your own words, “are now lobbying Congress to promote sane gun control measures, measures which the Right and the NRA adamantly oppose”. In other, truer, words, they are campaigning against the constitutional freedoms and inherent human rights of all Americans. You wouldn’t defer to a grieving parent who was seeking to undermine the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, or eighth amendments; you wouldn’t say that her grief gave her the moral authority to demand that the right to a fair trial be abridged, or that criminals should be cruelly and unusually punished, or that the police should be allowed to search suspects’ homes without probable cause. How are these parents any different?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  307. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”

    I give McArdle points for her candor. Nothing annoys me more than when people in the media claim they can’t possibly be biased to the left because “hey, we’re owned by big corporations and some of our CEOs are rich Republicans!”

    However, McArdle and her colleagues probably will continue to resist looking at the way the racial angle of the Gosnell story has influenced their thinking. IOW, they’ll sidestep the fact that if the media is biased enough to purposefully bend the rules of “who, what, when, where, how and why” in covering crime stories where race is a part of the case (and the Gosnell trial involves a crime), then it’s ridiculous to assume that didn’t play some role in how they’ve treated (and ignored) the story out of Philadelphia.

    Mark (3764db)

  308. Moreover, surely those of us who are pro-choice must worry that this will restrict access to abortion

    You have to be very, very, very pro-choice if you worry or believe that. If anything, the attitudes and culture have become so cavalier about human fetuses — because so many of us instead worry about the well-being of our precious household pets, or the problems of an overpopulated planet — that it would take the ultimate of a sea change to get abortion providers to pause and step back.

    Mark (3764db)

  309. The problem is this.
    The Constitution, in its plain words, makes a distinction between born and unborn.
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 4/12/2013 @ 6:41 pm

    Does that really mean that they are distinguishing the born from the unborn with regard to personhood?
    Or does it reflect that it never occurred to them that they needed to protect human life in the womb?

    Neither one. The clause has nothing to do with personhood. Nothing in the clause even suggests that a foetus is not a person. All it implies is that foetuses are not necessarily citizens of the USA. What difference does that make? What would be the point of a foetus holding citizenship in a country? What could it do with citizenship?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  310. So you’re saying we should give the unborn the same rights we give to illegal aliens?

    Who said anything about illegal?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  311. @Leviticus, the “compromise” you suggest is actually that of supporting an intrinsic evil over another intrinsic evil. I can’t support abortion as it’s the taking of a human life, nor can I support gay marriage as marriage is between one man and one woman. Suggesting that it’s possible for those who believe these are both evil to prioritize one evil over another is sick.

    Hey, I’m a language nerd too, but I don’t think perverting the dictionary is evil, at least not in the same sense in which the slaughter of millions of innocent people is evil.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  312. Is their really no connection whatever between a society that accepts abortion by decapitation of sentient beings for totally bogus excuses like ‘the health of the mother’ and one where government exuses any lie for its citizens’ benefit, that exists solely for its own perpetuation and benefit?

    Really?

    Lifeydoodles are just that sanctimonius and anal?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  313. Well is it a coincidence that the campaign against the death penalty, which culminated in Furman, and spared Charles Manson, and for abortion, ran on parallel tracks,

    narciso (3fec35)

  314. Well he was probably the counterpart to Malan, the father of apartheid, which was not a particularly conservative movement,

    To say the least. In the 1920s the unionists were marching to the slogan “workers of the world unite and fight for a white South Africa”.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  315. Some of us just have to accept we didn’t have the grades and test scores appropriate for admission to the University of New Mexico.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  316. We can’t all get into elite colleges, Elephant Stone. We’re not all Barack Obama.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  317. The Wikipedia AfD was closed with an unusual notation Keep as per WP:SNOW. Unless you followed through, you could miss that. It’s a special rule for when somebody tries something that doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of working it’s ok to shortcut the procedure. In other words, the deletion of Gosnell’s article was closed with prejudice.

    They’re already trying to kill it softly, to make it about the trial and not about the man because nobody on the pro-choice side wants to see what’s really going on, a multi-state network of skeevy late term abortion houses that skirt the law and sometimes violate it. How far this conspiracy extends I don’t know but I’m reasonably sure we haven’t gotten to the bottom of it and we already know that there are links in PA, DE, and LA.

    TMLutas (0876a3)

  318. 326. Indeed, the Sauds use about half the oil they pump, much of it for air conditioning.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  319. Yes, gary. but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

    narciso (3fec35)

  320. Oh, Leviticus, don’t be so modest.
    Everyone knows that the University of New Mexico is the ivy league college of…uh, New Mexico.

    If Barack Obama can somehow “transfer” to Columbia with a “C” average, and then hide his shitty awesome transcripts from peering eyes, then it is proof that just about anybody can get into a schlocky school such as Columbia…but not everyone can get into the University of New Mexico—they only accept the elite students.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  321. 330. Soetoro/Obama was bankrolled at Harvard as a promising young Muslim by the Sauds.

    Which brings me to the next calculated transformation of Down Low.

    It would seem that the Lesbians have the easier case to bring in establishing that somehow SSM is equivalent to the defacto institution.

    Now I’m not disputing that Rosie O’Donnell is more masculine than I, or that the Mrs. would find another woman’s opinion/existence easier to respect as spouse.

    I’m saying when the opportunity presents itself the case amounts to “Just because”. Like the onus is on us to prove we’re not irrational Luddites.

    If their whole march to history depends on a generation of baristas living in the ‘rents basements filing the paperwork to avoid technical default on their student loans until they(the parents) die and they get the house, well then its history without a legacy.

    The Lightbringer is sticking with his Nation of Islam haircut.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  322. “If their whole march to history depends on a generation of baristas living in the ‘rents basements filing the paperwork to avoid technical default on their student loans until they(the parents) die and they get the house, well then its history without a legacy.”

    ———————–

    Ouch…one of the most potent lines ever written in these comment threads.
    ‘The Nation of Islam haircut,’ too !

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  323. Elephant Stone,

    You seem to be rambling a little. Are you alright?

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  324. Leviticus, to an absolutely brilliant man-child such as yourself, it may appear that I am “rambling.”
    But as a meek fellow of merely average intelligence, I am doing my best to comment at the same time that I am watching the Portland-San Jose MLS game of the week.

    Portland just scored on a set piece.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  325. I was lucky enough to get paid to go to college instead of the other way around. I owe UNM for that, big-time.

    Funny how a thread comes together.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  326. The University of New Mexico paid me to stay away from their campus. They didn’t want me to ruin their academic reputation.

    Now that I make real money, I pay the state of California obscene amounts of money for the privilige of living here. You know, “fair share.” Or whatever.

    Elephant Stone (8a7f08)

  327. Gosnell taught that newborn babies are not alive.

    How is this different from what is told to so many women a few months before?

    In this scientific age, where we know more about life than ever before, and in this self-righteous era of exalted human rights, we still believe in life only when it is convenient for us to us to do so. Our televisions scream fantasy murder all day long, and yet we fail to observe the selfish murder of the most helpless among us.

    The most inhumane savages of ages past seem mild compared to what our meaningless culture is becoming.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  328. Ok, at risk of being banned forever, I’m going to stick up for late term abortion in a “nice clean place” with a reputable medical facility, regulated by the state as it already is, constitutionally under Roe V wade, to preserve the life and health of the mother, at all times before viability (that window about 23 weeks) and even after in select circumstances.

    The problem Sarah, is that when states have tried to regulate the cleanliness of places of abortion the left and the media scream that the states are violating Roe v Wade.

    Tanny O'Haley (09cf80)

  329. The problem Sarah, is that when states have tried to regulate the cleanliness of places of abortion the left and the media scream that the states are violating Roe v Wade.

    Evidence?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  330. I heard on Red Eye radio during the night that these 7 murders were only in the last two years – because there is a 2 year statute of limitations for infanticide in Pennsylvania – and he might have killed hundreds (well, 100 to 200) and the grand jury report, which he said he read, specifiucally complained about that statute of limitations.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  331. Comment by Mark (3764db) — 4/13/2013 @ 1:05 pm

    I’m embarrassed to admit that my knowledge of US history has been so stunted that until recently I didn’t realize Wilson — an avowed liberal and Democrat — was at the heart of Jim Crow laws.

    You could have had a pretty thorough knowledge of U.S. history and not known that about Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson is kind iof like a liberal hero – antitrust – other reforms – League of Nations and all that, and at that time there was no national civil rigfhts issue at all. It wasn’t much of an issue while he was Presidnet – so it wasnt remembered in the 1930s and later.

    Theer’s another thing: most people didn”t know Woodporw Wilson’s background. People knew he was a professor at Princeton and later President of Princeton and Governor of New Jersey. That’s in the north. If you looked at an almanac, you’d see he was born in Virginia. So you’d think, maybe he grew up there. Winston Chruchill, in an alternate histiry he wrote had him be Woodrow Wilson of Virginia, I think presidnet of the Confederate states.

    But Woodrow Wilson’s father moved to Georgia, and he grew up there during the Civil War (born December 1858) and he was there while general Sherman was marching through it and he absorbed all the racial attiutude of the deep south.

    Jim crow actually was enacted during the 1890s. NBow in the south blacks had beenm federal (esopecially Post Office) employees. There were only Republican prewsidents from the election of 1896 to 1912. I think Wilson fioredd people (patronage after all) and he may segregated Wash DC?

    Herbert Hoover did try to make the Repuyblican Party in the south white. It was an empty shell.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  332. The problem Sarah, is that when states have tried to regulate the cleanliness of places of abortion the left and the media scream that the states are violating Roe v Wade.

    Evidence?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 4/15/2013 @ 7:53 am

    http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/trap_laws.html

    Tanny O'Haley (09cf80)

  333. “The University of New Mexico paid me to stay away from their campus.”

    – Elephant Stone

    I would pay you to stay out of New Mexico, too.

    Leviticus (1aca67)

  334. Well they kid, but one wonders how a law student is so ignorant of basic aspects of the law,

    narciso (3fec35)

  335. Evidence?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 4/15/2013

    Well, where were the regulators in the Gosnell case? Regulators and inspectors hadn’t visited in twenty full years, and inspections should’t be passive any more than they are at a McDonalds. And the Penn dept. of health had been repeatedly notified and failed to act. Why wasn’t there any useful regulation presence?

    A plausible explanation is legal fears. Another is that Pennsylvania is not a decent society.

    Dustin (6e7388)

  336. You folks are happy to segment killing into categories, some of which you favor, like capital punishment death and collateral damage from wars of choice, and some of which you do not favor, like legal abortion of a fetus.

    Why not try being consistent, like being against all killing, and then do all you can to convince your fellow citizens to make killing less likely? This is where I come down on this issue!

    Comment by Perry (e2a5b2) — 4/12/2013 @ 1:23 pm

    I am consistent, I believe that the execution of murderers and “just” wars save lives.

    Perry,

    If the execution of 40 convicted murderers a year prevents the murder of over 2,100 lives wouldn’t you be for those legal executions. Isn’t that a pro-life position?

    If you disagree, why do you want over 2,100 people to be murdered each year?

    Do you disagree with Patrick’s assertion that the national media hasn’t covered this heinous crime against humanity? Why isn’t a serial murderer, unregulated abortion clinic, and government workers not doing their job not national news? Shouldn’t the national media ask if these “problems” are common? Why is the murderer of an abortionist national news but not the illegal and immoral acts of an abortionist?

    Science has discovered since 1973 that a fetus is a developing baby not a lump tissue. In the case of Gosnell, he was murdering fully formed viable babies and if that didn’t work, murdered live babies who had just been born.

    If you don’t want to push your morality on others, why have laws at all? Aren’t laws just pushing someone’s morality on another? Do you really believe your morality? If you lived in the 1800s would you have let slave laws stay law because you did not want to “push your morality” on others? If you were in Nazi Germany would you have stood by while jews were “legally” murdered? Will you stand by while Dutch senior citizens are murdered without their permission in the name of legal assisted suicide? Will you stand by while millions of unborn babies are legally murdered? Are you man or mouse? Do you have moral convictions that you can stand up for?

    Tanny O'Haley (09cf80)

  337. Also Perry, from a Jewish and Christian position the bible doesn’t say don’t kill, the Hebrew word is the word for murder. It says “You shall not murder” which is far from a blanket prohibition on killing.

    Tanny O'Haley (09cf80)

  338. Tanny, a troll doesn’t get any more obvious than saying it’s inconsistent to support capital punishment of a murderer and not support killing a newborn baby or an innocent fetus. The idea there is no logical distinction between the two is just silly.

    Trolls at political blogs seek to anger those who were having an interesting conversation about ‘the wrong ideas’, in order to waste their time with reactions to absurd points.

    Dustin (6e7388)

  339. R.I.P. John Galardi, founder of Wienerschnitzel

    Icy (cd5209)

  340. Tanny, a troll doesn’t get any more obvious than saying it’s inconsistent to support capital punishment of a murderer and not support killing a newborn baby or an innocent fetus. The idea there is no logical distinction between the two is just silly.

    Trolls at political blogs seek to anger those who were having an interesting conversation about ‘the wrong ideas’, in order to waste their time with reactions to absurd points.

    Comment by Dustin (6e7388) — 4/15/2013 @ 9:25 am

    It seems that Perry does answer when asked, though his answers are often off point. I just wanted to see if he or others would answer my questions and indulge myself with an attack that is so often used by the left in that if you don’t believe what I believe you must believe something really terrible. You know, put the shoe on the other foot.

    Tanny O'Haley (5e430b)

  341. There are all sorts of newspaper stories and columns about Gosnell now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/us/online-furor-draws-press-to-abortion-doctors-trial.html

    Martin Baron, the executive editor of The Washington Post, told a reporter from his paper writing about the controversy that he simply had not known of the story until readers e-mailed him last week. “I wish I could be conscious of all stories everywhere, but I can’t be,” he said. “We never decide what to cover for ideological reasons, no matter what critics might claim.”

    The New York Times, which covered the news of Dr. Gosnell’s indictment in 2011, was one of the few national outlets to report on the opening of the trial March 18.

    In any event, the coverage has arrived…

    http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/politics-aside-the-gosnell-trial-deserves-and-is-getting-more-coverage/

    On Friday, after hearing some complaints about The Times’s coverage of the horrifying Philadelphia murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, I reviewed what had been written so far.

    Since 2011, it amounted to three full-length pieces and a number of shorter ones. The most recent on March 19 was a thorough setup piece as the trial began, which included coverage of opening statements. The longer pieces were written by Times journalists; the shorter pieces were from The Associated Press…The national editor Sam Sifton told me on Friday that further coverage was very likely. Then I wrote a couple of messages on Twitter. I wrote that The Times’s coverage had been “not insubstantial,” but that there certainly could be more. I added that there would probably be more to come from The Times.

    http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/kermit-gosnell-and-reproductive-care/

    http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/abortion-trench-warfare-article-1.1317610

    The anti-abortion side shares blame, too. The stepped-up inspections ordered by Ridge’s predecessor, Gov. Robert Casey (a Democrat), may have pleased his antiabortion supporters, but they failed to stop — or even understand — what was really going on in Gosnell’s clinic.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  342. Little hands suspended in jars are demanding Justice. Can’t you see them beckoning? Where is their Justice?

    It’s all been a pack of lies.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  343. Just one isolated incident.

    Except for the too-late repentant employees, the falsely compassionate referrals, the willfully blind government agencies. The office in Delaware.

    Your wrath is misplaced, even naive. The media ignored this for weeks. These collaborators ignored it for decades, despite many isolated incidents. He was found out because he sold illegal drugs. If not for that he would be happily snipping freely offered victims still, because it’s between a woman and her murderer.

    Women’s health a few blocks from the Ivy League is not so isolated after all.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  344. Perry,

    Since you don’t believe in killing, what do you think of Dennis Prager’s statements on capital punishment?

    http://www.prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/Capital-Punishment.html

    Tanny O'Haley (09cf80)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2189 secs.