More Gory Details from the Kermit Gosnell Trial
If you’re squeamish, I would not read further.
A janitor testified that he
threatened to quit working at the abortion clinic because he refused to pull any more flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing. …
He told the jury toilets backed up one-two times a week and said he opened the outside clean out pipe and fetal parts such as babies’ arms came spilling out.
Johnson said he scooped up body parts with shovel and put them in a bag that was taken to rat infested basement. Johnson said a cat kept at the Gosnell clinic was there to deal with rat infestations that kept happening. He said the [cat] pooped in plants all over clinic.
. . . .
“If … a baby was about to come out, I would take the woman to the bathroom, they would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet,” testified Latosha Lewis, who worked for Gosnell for over eight years. “I would be rubbing her back and trying to calm her down for two, three, four hours until Dr. Gosnell comes. She would not move.”
Via Hot Air.
We Americans eat our young.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 4/17/2013 @ 7:25 amJust another day at the clinic. Amazing how callous the human heart is an become.
Velcro (fcc231) — 4/17/2013 @ 7:29 amthis is such a coup for LIFE
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/17/2013 @ 7:43 amHow can any decent human being countenance this man?
Patricia (be0117) — 4/17/2013 @ 8:01 amIsn’t that the feminist dream? Make women into men by sending motherhood down the crapper.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 4/17/2013 @ 8:03 amIsn’t that what the Planned Parenthood spokesperson said in Florida? It’s between a woman and her plumber.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 4/17/2013 @ 8:50 amGood thing the White House has adopted a new policy of not commenting on legal matters except when they want to.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2013 @ 8:57 amThis update is nauseating. Some folks have an unbelievable capacity for evil.
dustin (1c6ec8) — 4/17/2013 @ 9:10 amI continue to think that the fact that Gosnell was a black monster is equally, if not even more relevant to the “media’s” pointed avoidance of the story for so long than that it involved illegal abortions. And I don’t believe even the journalists who have recently started to apologize about their former lack of interest in the trial (and have tried to justify their reasons for that), have still fully accepted or owned up to the race aspect of their reluctance to report an important national story.
This approach is not how a sane colorblind society should operate and I do not think it was the sort of thing MLK had in mind when he said people should be judged by the content of their character.
elissa (a4a051) — 4/17/2013 @ 9:20 amthreatened to quit working at the abortion clinic because he refused to pull any more flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing. …
He told the jury toilets backed up one-two times a week and said he opened the outside clean out pipe and fetal parts such as babies’ arms came spilling out
The plumber was fed up so he threatened to quit as a way of forceful protest?
While we are accustomed to discounting anything once “nazi” is mentioned, isn’t this a bit like saying “I’m going to move if the smoke from those chimneys keeps up”?
It’s a bit mistifying, that it seems once a certain level of horror confronts us it is hard to place it in an appropriate context. Maybe this is what is meant by a “seared conscience”, that the human psyche is geared to have reacted at a much earlier state, and if that doesn’t happen then things are “off the scale” and the “appropriate” response is unknown.
Scripture says wickedness will multiply because the love of most will have grown cold. hard to fathom.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/17/2013 @ 9:45 amApparently all of the clinic workers were able to pretend these weren’t babies. That might be surprising, except half of America already does that.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/17/2013 @ 9:52 amLike pretending Jews, or Blacks, or peasants, or any other group of “them” aren’t people.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/17/2013 @ 9:57 amBoth DRJ and MD in Philly nailed it. Once one can dehumanize a select group, they no longer count. So, kill the babies, the Jews, the fags, the gypsy’s and let the party begin. Yep, “them” aren’t people.
Hoagie (3259ab) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:07 amMaybe this is what is meant by a “seared conscience”
Maybe. Let’s consult J. Effing Kerry.
lyle (aca483) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:08 amYeah, but you all stop short.
We wouldn’t dehumanize them if they weren’t in our way. They aren’t alive because we’re better off with them dead.
That’s why this went on for decades and only stopped because they were investigating something important, like illegal drugs.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:21 amNot that delving into the mind of Evil is healthy or ultimately profitable, what goes on in the mind of a creature like Gosnell who treats those of his ‘kind’ as subhuman, not worthy of sterile, even clean conditions.
He’s there to make money off the man killing his own kind, the only lasting verification of his worth.
Same goes for Down Low, Gosnell’s enabler. He’s a married father of girls only as a vehicle. He’s the bastard of a Marxist philanderer who divorced his wife after 5 ‘legitimate’ children.
How can these people continue in their own skin?
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:22 amIt’s not for women’s health. It’s not for the children. It’s not for the poor. It’s not for minorities.
It’s for our fricken pleasure without consequences or lifestyle without restrictions.
Previous generations sacrificed for us, but that wasn’t enough. Future generations will have to sacrifice for us too.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:30 amPerhaps Latosha Lewis needs to change name to Latoilet Lewis
jb (bd3b0f) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:35 am17. Mea culpa.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/17/2013 @ 10:36 amTo whom it may concern:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/philadelphia-5th-largest-city-in-us-is.html?
The hit abortion clinics are taking seems to have been the last straw.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 4/17/2013 @ 11:02 amApparently all of the clinic workers were able to pretend these weren’t babies. That might be surprising, except half of America already does that.
They do, and as long as the killing is hidden away from eyes, it’s can safely remain just a blob of tissue and blood. But the bottom line remains: what Gossnell did outside the womb has the same outcome for the baby as when it’s done away from view. That is the rub of the whole matter for those pro-aborts. How do you continue to justify and scream about women’s rights being protected at all costs when unborn – and the born females are having their very right to live stolen away? The hypocrisy is stunning and sick.
That’s why this isn’t being reported on – the blunt, sickening truth of what happens to these babies – whether in plain sight or out of sight – cannot be denied. And what kind of monster would support the procedure? Keep it a blob of tissue or a innocuous “fetus” and maybe the mind can still rationalize it.
Dana (292dcf) — 4/17/2013 @ 12:56 pm“And what kind of monster would support the procedure?”
Dana – I know. I know. Call on me!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/17/2013 @ 1:46 pmJames Taranto had a good “Best of the Web Today” on Monday on the subject. I especially liked how he notes that people engage in Orwellian doublespeak to justify what they’re actually doing during an abortion. It’s not just Gosnell:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324030704578422883948238160.html
There really is no difference between what Gosnell was doing and so many abortion enthusiasts advocate doing. Because there is no moral difference between delivering the baby all the way before snipping its spinal cord and delivering it partway before cutting a hole in its head and vacuuming out the brains to collapse the skull.
According to testimony the baby that is only partway out reacts exactly the same way. But if you’re going to insist the baby isn’t a human being until the mother says it’s a human being then at least Gosnell had the strength of his convictions.
So did Obama when he opposed the Illinois state version of the “Born Alive” Act. He lies about it now, but at the time he opposed it because it “burdened” the original decision of the woman carrying the child. The goal of an abortion is a dead baby. Nothing more. Abortion enthusiasts can talk all they want about “reproductive health.” That’s just more doublespeak. There is no physical or medical condition I’m aware of that requires killing a viable, healthy, infant. Fine, terminate the pregnancy but not the baby’s life. But these medical “ethicists” argue in the Journal of Medical Ethics that very thing should be legal in the form of an “after birth abortion.”
Gosnell and his staff didn’t know what they were doing was wrong. The abortion industry’s dirty little secret is the majority of them don’t think it’s wrong either. Which is why, I believe, local and state health agencies responded to complaints about Gosnell by suspending inspections of all abortion clinics. And why Gosnell would get referrals when other abortion clinics wouldn’t touch the “patient” because she was too far along.
It’s just illegal. But they don’t think it’s wrong. And they don’t think it should be illegal. But they know they can’t say it. Which is why the deceive about what does actually go on by speaking in euphemisms not unlike the code Gosnell and his staff spoke in. And why the abortion enthusiasts don’t want to report on the Gosnell trial.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/17/2013 @ 8:21 pmYou can tell the guy who approved of abortionists letting babies die if they were actually born alive is responsible for our new health care scheme.
Remember this?
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/09/30/medicare-to-fine-hospitals-with-high-readmission-rates-among-seniors/
More Orwellian doublespeak. Just like with buying health insurance and paying higher taxes, no one is being “asked” anything. They’re being coerced.
The way to save money on health care for the unwanted or the useless (to the whomever is paying for it, such as the government) is to let them die. If not actively kill them as they are doing in Europe. Or Gosnells clinic.
And it’s happening.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/04/what-if-your-loved-one-was-sent-home-to-die/
In 2008 Obama promised to send your elderly mom home with the pill instead of paying for the surgery.
I guess this is one campaign promise that didn’t come with an expiration date.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/17/2013 @ 11:48 pmBlast from the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/17/2013 @ 11:56 pmGosnell, I fear, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Andy (b63f79) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:44 amwell for sure if the lifeydoodles ban abortion it sure as hell will be
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:45 amMr 57 wrote:
What difference does it make? The babies were scheduled to be killed, and really lived for only a few seconds longer than planned. Does it make one God damned bit of difference if the babies were slain in utero or had their spinal cords cut after they were delivered?
The brutally honest Dana (3e4784) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:09 amDana, you should know that one ot the drivers behind the Roe v Wade decision was the Gosnell-like behavior which had become commonplace behavior for desperate women.
I don’t hear anyone defending the behavior of Gosnell, but dissolution of Roe would likely regenerate make more Gosnells.
If you were as passionate against our conducting wars of choice, which produce Gosnell-like atrocities against innocent people, then perhaps you would have more credibility with regard to your anti-Roe position. Otherwise, I chalk you up as being inconsistent about pro-life issues.
Perry (d7a158) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:23 amOh right another one of Perry’s “concerns,” the “wars of choice.” I’m sure Perry is just sick with hurt over the fate of the Afghan people too. Better call up your buddy Obama and call off the drones and the night raids since his policies in his “war of necessity” is killing so many precious Afghans I’m sure you care so deeply about.
Jack Klompus (2b072c) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:26 amPerry: If you were as passionate against our conducting wars of choice…
So abortion is analogous to an act of war?
The victim in an abortion is not collateral damage but rather the intended target.
Perry, think it through a bit more before inserting such debris into the thread.
beer 'n pretzels (6ef50f) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:39 amI don’t hear anyone defending the behavior of Gosnell, but dissolution of Roe would likely regenerate make more Gosnells.
BS. All it would do would be to return the decision to the States.
JD (f6c1a6) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:40 amSo, Perry and feets would like us to feel lucky there are not more Gosnell’s around?
Here’s an idea, how about instead of letting a child reach viable age and then kill it, in utero or out utero,
that once the child is viable let it live out utero and be adopted?
I don’t think that is original, so I can’t take credit for it.
This should not be a discussion. Decent people should first and second be appalled at gosnell, not first concerned about the PR of it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:41 amI chalk you up as being inconsistent about honesty issues.
JD (f6c1a6) — 4/18/2013 @ 9:42 amIf a million Iraqis had been killed in the too-long war of liberation, they would still be fewer than we slaughter in our abortion clinics every single year. If a million Afghanis are killed in the war, it will still be far, far fewer than the 45 million who have died in our abortuaries since Roe v Wade. The Nazis killed six million Jews in six years of World War II? Heck, they’re pikers compared to us!
And if abortion were illegal, and all there were were some back alley butchers like Dr Gosnell, there would at least be fewer people killed.
The logic that “one ot the drivers behind the Roe v Wade decision was the Gosnell-like behavior which had become commonplace behavior for desperate women” is pretty silly. By that logic, since so many young black men want to kill each other on the streets of Philadelphia and Chicago and Camden, we should just make the killing of young black men in Philadelphia and Chicago and Camden legal.
The brutally direct Dana (3e4784) — 4/18/2013 @ 10:07 amPerry wrote:
Well, not Dr Gosnell, but I happen to know of someone who defended George Tiller, who was doing the same thing as Dr Gosnell, but just did it a little bit more neatly. You even said:
What Dr Tiller did, he did in a nice, clean setting, but the infants he killed were just as far along in gestation as the ones killed by Dr Gosnell.
That’s just three links — which might send this comment into moderation — but there are several more along the same lines.
The Dana who looked it up. (3e4784) — 4/18/2013 @ 10:29 amDana, have you new evidence to show that Dr Tiller was operating outside the law? I’m not aware of it.
I also note that there were terrorists surrounding Dr Tiller’s clinic attempting to intimidate the women who wished to have legal abortions there.
Moreover, you have not yet defended the inconsistent pro-life stand you have taken: In support of wars of choice; against legal abortions. This inconsistency weakens your anti-legal abortion position, Dana.
And like I said before, it is those who insist on negating a woman’s right to choose, who unwittingly nurture the formation of the Dr Gosnell types. Roe was a compromise solution which had to happen. Instead of overturning Roe, we should do everything possible to encourage women to carry their fetuses full term, then provide the adoption alternative whenever wanted.
Perry (d7a158) — 4/18/2013 @ 10:47 amMoreover, you have not yet defended the inconsistent pro-life stand you have taken:
That someone chooses to not engage in your sophistry, your dishonest assertions, and your false choices means nothing … You do not get to dictate to others. But you like dictators. Patterns emerge.
Roe was not a compromise. It was judicial fiat.
JD (b63a52) — 4/18/2013 @ 10:50 amPerry is fundamentally dishonest.
JD (b63a52) — 4/18/2013 @ 10:51 amOh, no, Perry, I’m certain that the late and very much unlamented Dr Tiller was operating within the law; does that make any of the children he slaughtered any less dead?
Dr Josef Mengele was operating within the law as well.
The Einsatzgruppen were very inefficient, and some of their victims wound up still alive when buried, while the pioneering use of Zyclon B made things much neater, much more efficient at Auschwitz. That’s about as much difference as I can see between Kermit Gosnell and George Tiller.
The coldly realistic Dana (3e4784) — 4/18/2013 @ 10:53 am“If you were as passionate against our conducting wars of choice, which produce Gosnell-like atrocities against innocent people”
Perry – Just for clarification, are you referring to the Congressionally approved kinetic military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq when you use the phrase “wars of choice”?
If so, you are aware that Saddam Hussein was inflicting more Gosnell-like atrocities on his people on an annual basis prior to our “war of choice” than the casualties which resulted during our occupation, aren’t you?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:10 am“War of choice”
At some point, every war we have ever been involved in was a choice.
JD (f6c1a6) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:15 amPerry is fundamentally a douchenozzle, making the standard-issue leftist goalpost move (“So it’s not an issue of ‘if’ you kill someone, but ‘when’?”).
Icy (5f1098) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:15 amDana, only an unreconciled radical would ever attempt to compare a legal abortion of a fetus to the heinous behavior of Joseph Mengele regarding the Jewish people. There is no valid comparison.
Are you also ready to compare our generating wars of choice which killed and wounded innocent civilians, to the behavior of Mengele?
Your inability to be consistent on pro-life issues is obvious, thus again, your selective credibility falters.
Perry (d7a158) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:25 am“At some point, every war we have ever been involved in was a choice.”
JD – Perry basically objects to the “rule of the majority” when it does something he doesn’t like and what he calls the “rule of the minority” when it frustrates the progress of something he like. A typical progressive who wants it both ways.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:43 amDid Gosnell do terrible things, legal or illegal, yes or no?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:46 amLiberals can not have a rational discussion on Abortion b/c it requires them to makes hard choices on right v wrong. So they throw their hand up in the air and say “women’s body, women’s choice.” Sounds great, means nothing in context to a reasoned debate.
A women’s right to choose is nothing more than a simple way of justifying a behavior based on feelings.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:49 amGosnell is a DEMOCRAT. His actions are thereby justified.
Gus (694db4) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:51 amArms falling out of the toilet plumbing.
Gus (694db4) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:54 amDid anyone try to determine which SPECIES these arms were?? I mean it is possible they were HUMAN!! Humans have arms.
MD – yes, but Bush’s wars of choice!
JD (f6c1a6) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:54 amThey were fetus arms, not human arms.
JD (f6c1a6) — 4/18/2013 @ 11:55 amOf course, because no one would flush baby arms down the toilet.
Gus (694db4) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:04 pm“Your inability to be consistent on pro-life issues is obvious, thus again, your selective credibility falters.”
Perry – I thought you were complaining about personal attacks on another thread, yet here you are doing the same thing.
I see no inconsistency in Dana’s positions, only your imagined claim of his inconsistency.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:09 pmPerry wrote:
I think it a very appropriate comparison.
However, if you are going to insist that a fetus, italics yours, is somehow different from a real human being, why is it that you claim to be personally opposed to abortion, even if you think it should be completely legal? If a fetus, italics yours, is somehow not a real human being, not a person, why should abortion be any different to you than trimming your toenails?
The logical Dana (3e4784) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:23 pmPerry is so full of excrement.
Yes people are defending Gosnell’s behavior. They are advocating more of it. That’s why I linked to Taranto’s column in which he cited the Orwellian named Journal of Medical Ethics. So-called medical ethicists were arguing for “post birth abortions.”
Barack Obama voted against the Illinois “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” precisely because ending up with a live baby “burdened” the woman’s original decision to have an abortion.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html
Peter Singer, the Princeton “bioethicist” argues that a baby shouldn’t be considered human for the first 30 days of life.
Oh, yeah, Perry. There are people defending Gosnell’s behavior.
They aren’t defending Gosnell because he exposes them for exactly the ghouls they are, so they’re going to shut up about how they think what he did should be legal.
And this is the product of treating babies in the womb as nonhuman lumps of tissue. Not the pro-life movement.
That’s just pure evil on your part, Perry. Not to mention a transparent infantile lie.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:39 pmDana @54, what we must keep in mind is that if you change fetus to jew then Perry’s argument works just as well in 1930s/1940s Germany as it does in the US in 2012.
As I mentioned, there are plenty of advocates for post-birth abortion. Including Peter Singer, who doesn’t think a baby should be considered human for 30 days.
The Nazis didn’t think Jews should be considered human their entire life. That’s not a moral difference; the only difference is the degree of evil.
The fact that Perry would even attempt to make it just shows that he’s capable of dehumanizing a human being. Then you’re really only arguing about a difference in degree between someone like Perry and a death camp worker.
Once you argue against all scientific evidence to the contrary the fetus inside the womb is just a lump of tissue that’s part of a woman’s body (DNA evidence proves it is a unique human being, different from its mother and father) then why shouldn’t Kermitt Gosnell think he should be allowed to kill it if it slips out of the vagina since he can kill a baby of the exact same gestational age while it’s still in the vagina?
And then what’s the time limit for the “post birth abortion?” 5 seconds? 20 minutes? 30 days? Until the child is 18?
This is what happens when you dehumanize people.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:50 pmDana, please do not put words in my mouth. You know me well enough to know that I detest the behavior of people like Gosnell, and for that matter, anyone who would attempt to defend them. And you also know that I am against abortion at any point in the period of gestation. Therefore, you are the liar!
And again, your pro-life position does not extend to opposing wars of choice, as you were wholeheartedly, from day one to now, a supporter of Bush’s war on Iraq. So wipe off those crocodile tears, please, and tell the truth while you’re at it.
Perry (d7a158) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:54 pmSteve, you are desperate, and wrong, again!
Perry (d7a158) — 4/18/2013 @ 12:56 pmThat’s because you’re deliberately not listening to those people who are defending this behavior.
Gosnell isn’t on trial for conducting abortions in violation of health standards. He’s on trial for murder. Serial murder, including of newborn infants.
And there are plenty of people saying that behavior should be legal.
Really? Where’s your detestation of Barack Obama, who did try to defend that behavior by keeping it legal in Illinois? Or at least, keep abortionists who behave like Gosnell safe from prosecution.
And your treatises about how it’s “terrorists” tried to keep women from getting legal abortions and that puts the lie to the fact you’re against abortions.
Since the SCOTUS overreached on Roe v. Wade the only way to stop a woman from getting an abortion is to try to persuade her not to at the source.
Someone who is against abortion at any stage of gestation wouldn’t call people trying to talk a woman out of getting abortions “terrorists.”
Keep moving the goalposts, Perry, you’re not very good at it.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/18/2013 @ 1:10 pm“why is it that you claim to be personally opposed to abortion, even if you think it should be completely legal?”
The logical Dana – Perry’s position implies that if the question were put back to the states and were on a referendum, even though he personally opposes it, he would vote in favor it because he believes it should be legal, effectively erasing the private/public distinction he attempts to create. It is Perry’s position which is inconsistent.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/18/2013 @ 1:16 pmdaley @60, it’s amazing how Perry pretends to take a position, then proceeds to destroy any and every basis to believe his pretense.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/18/2013 @ 1:25 pmI almost believe Perry is pro-life. Because all pro lifeydoodles call other pro lifers terrorists.
JD (f6c1a6) — 4/18/2013 @ 1:58 pmThe AP has a headline story on today’s trial testimony.
Icy (64e059) — 4/18/2013 @ 5:43 pmPerry wrote:
Put words in your mouth? I quote your own words, with the appropriate links back to the comments in which you made them. I posted three links to statements by you supporting George Tiller, another late term abortionist. Dr Tiller doted all of the i’s and crossed all of the t’s, but what he did was indistinguishable from Dr Gosnell’s “practice” only in its efficiency. Just what is it about Dr Gosnell that you detest that is so very different from what Dr Tiller did?
Well, I am certainly aware that you have said that you are, yet you have defended legal abortion, and you have defended keeping late term abortions legal, and you have said a late term abortionist is someone who should be honored for his bravery. For someone who is “against abortion at any point in the period of gestation,” you have a rather odd way of showing it.
The Dana relying on the evidence (af9ec3) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:13 pmdaleystones wrote:
Well, you know how it is. I am personally opposed to slavery, and would certainly never choose to own slaves myself, but I don’t really think that it’s an of my — or anyone else’s — business to impose that view on those who disagree.
The Dana relying on the evidence (af9ec3) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:15 pmi’m against slavery cause of it takes away people’s choices
i’m for abortion cause of that’s not a choice I’m a make for somebody else
i’m for fresh and easy cause cause of you can choose the tasty butternut squash risotto and also they put baked goods on sale what I can choose and get them for the office and then pull the sale sticker off and set it out for everyone to enjoy
i’m for immigration reform because of I like it for people to be able to choose to immigrate and become americans but not when the senatorsluts choose to do it all cheesedicky
also, legalizing the marijuanas, I am pro (cause of it’s about choices)
what else? I am pro-anti-subsidies for electric cars cause of that warps people choices
it’s all about choices
freedom’s just another word for something we’re bout to lose
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:22 pmthat warps *people’s* choices I mean
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:23 pmI’m also pro-choice. I think every developing baby should be given the choice to trade in his or her parents after they are born.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:26 pmyes that is your choice
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:33 pm
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:49 pmcauseI know what you mean. I’m personally opposed to killing Jews, but far be it for me to impose my personal morality on other Germans.
Steve57 (b238b6) — 4/18/2013 @ 7:56 pmno it’s ok to choose to oppose genocidal germans why wouldn’t it be
it’s perfectly ok to be a lifeydoodle you just have to accept the loss of credibility what attends
cause of when you stand against choices you stand with the fascists, and you buttress their license to enforce all kinds of whimsical nonsense
cause a government what can force a woman to have a baby can force ALL of us everyone to dance monkey dance in any number of ways what are degrading to our dignity
and the fascists, they love that
me I do not stand with the fascists
the happyfeet stands alone
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:05 pmSo standing against abortion means standing with the facists? Is that what you are saying??
Dana (292dcf) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:20 pmit’s certainly not standing with limited government now is it
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:22 pmIt’s Orwellian to claim that standing up against murdering babies is fascist.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:24 pmno it’s not it is however orwellian to claim that it’s orwellian to claim that standing up against murdering babies is fascist
orwell hated hated HATED big government (he wrote a whole book about it)
he wanted all the pikachus to make their own choices
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:26 pmI don’t know much, but I do know that giving the federal government the power to decide at the precise point when any baby might be killed is not a good idea.
Ag80 (19f299) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:34 pmi agree so let’s not give the government that power
i wonder if cider house rules was ever made into a musical
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:37 pmthe googles say no
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/18/2013 @ 8:37 pmAg80/happyfeet –
Gee, I thought killing (murdering) babies (your term) was already illegal. I guess we’ll see what happens in Philly.
If the government doesn’t have the power to prosecute murder, then we have no effective government at all. But I suppose that’s old news.
And Gold is 79, not 80.
Amphipolis (e01538) — 4/20/2013 @ 7:05 amIt’s Orwellian to claim that standing up against murdering babies is fascist.
I’ve detected something amiss over the past few months in a part of happyfeet’s brain. A raised eyebrow on my part from a combination of his devotion to SSM/GLBT and the flippant way he more recently dealt with legislators in Florida who’ve sought to protect viable babies in the middle of late-term abortions.
The situation with happyfeet reminds me of the judge who ruled against Proposition 8 a few years ago. A casual viewer might have believed Vaughn Walker was a somewhat reliable Republican or at least not a loony liberal. But when I came upon a comment of his from the 1980s, where he glibly shrugged off the 2nd Amendment by implying a local government could easily ignore existing laws (much less the Constitution) and ban guns, that was a “a-ha!” moment for me.
Mark (6d6213) — 4/20/2013 @ 7:39 am