It was bit of black comedy yesterday watching the reaction to the news that Planned Parenthood was selling the body parts of its victims. If you were (understandably) in hiding, here is a good summary with the video. Right about 3 minutes, the evil Dr. Deborah Nucatola, purveyor of parts, says, “A lot of people want liver” then she eats something and says, “Yum.” Completing the theme, at about 7:40 she wondered about coming up with a “menu” of viable viscera. Yum.
The reactions from realists, i.e. those who hold to Truth, was as expected: uniform horror and a sort of triumphant I-told-you-so-ness. It wasn’t really a surprise that an organization as moral defunct as Planned Parenthood would sell body parts.
The reaction from the tolerant left? Crickets, at first, and for quite a long time. Nobody could figure out how to spin the gruesome video. All mainstream outlets and reporters pretended it wasn’t happening.
But, gradually and inevitably, a line emerged. The slaughter and sale were now called “tissue donation” and ordinary. This allowed an enormous gasp of relief from the left’s foot soldiers, who often do not know what to think until they are told.
Of course, tissue donation for a fee or “donation” is a sale, and that it is “ordinary” was part of the original charge. Too ordinary.
Anyway, it’s a good bet those who love the idea of killing won’t watch the video, because some progressive out there had the brilliant idea of claiming the video was “heavily edited.” Indeed it was. Mostly to rewind and replay the bit you just heard but couldn’t believe. Or to insert commentary.
But it doesn’t matter, because the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that conducted the sting, has the full, unedited version available at YouTube and at their site. It’s 2 hours 42 minutes.
What interests me most is the phenomenon. The killing of human beings we already knew about, have assimilated, and have mostly shrugged off as a culture, or even embraced it for the sake of “convenience”. The selling of the butchered is new and it’s curious to see how progressives deal with it.
Objectively, once you have talked yourself into killing because, you believe, the baby isn’t a human being, then it should be no trouble swallowing (I’m sticking with Nucatola’s theme) selling off the pieces. We buy chicken and pig parts from the supermarket and they used to be alive, too. What’s the difference?
No, I’m asking. What is the difference? Sure, it’s illegal. But skip that. We’re not interested in the law. We have learned from Anthony Kennedy (repeatedly) that the law is mutable and therefore meaningless, so there’s little point in discussing it. We want to know about the morality of the thing. What makes selling body parts morally right or wrong?
That progs were squeamish about it before they had their talking points must indicate that they know it’s wrong, but that their desire that abortion be allowed overruled their common sense. That they’re finding ways of talking themselves into believing the quick sale of baby livers is a moral good.
Evil is incremental. When the “right” to abortion was discovered hidden in the Constitution—only those who have swallowed the magic potion concocted from ivy leaves can find these—it wasn’t announced on the same day that organ trafficking would also be a hidden “right”. Indeed, laws were written to disclaim the idea.
But now we have open selling after barbaric eviscerations (see the video for descriptions). Investigations are promised, reforms to be announced. But it’s doubtful the practice will disappear.
What’s next on the bloody list? We already have academics calling for the killing of the post-born, which is to say children. They call them “after-birth abortions“. Prime source of healthy organs, there. Euthanasia, the purposeful killing by hospital-appointed executioners, already the rage in Enlightened Europe, is bound to be a “right” discovered, too. Making available more livers, hearts, and spleens the rich can buy.
All easy predictions, of course. What are yours?
Incidentally, I suppose it’s not surprising that the news came on Bastille Day. Same day we learned the religious of the Little Sisters of the Poor lost their court case and will now have to buy contraception coverage, among other things. Abortion, as Nancy Pelosi said, is sacred.
Categories: Culture, Philosophy
This is all in preparation for the cannibalism that will result when Leftist policies destroy most food sources, etc. Leftists love mayhem–and apparently human liver, too. It’s interesting to note that a while back a woman bought mice, rats, etc at a pet store and was vilified for eating them. Seems she was looking to the future for food sources. Who knew Planned Parenthood had already filled that void?
We already rent out body parts, as in Womb Rental for those who want a baby but not stretch marks or are who are ignoring biology. In Nevada, you can rent out body parts for the fun and pleasure of a person wanting sex. It’s a short hop from rental to selling.
All claims that “this is will NEVER happen, we promise” should be understood as “Okay, dummy, we’re on our way to that outcome now”. All denial is really just a sign of things to come when dealing with the Left.
Little Sisters of the Poor need to go home and stop helping the Obama administration force people to lose their religious freedoms. If they are not allowed to practice their religion, they should shut down. Go all volunteer if you insist that it is your duty to help the poor. Have NO employees. Obama can give your former employees phones, food stamps and flat-screen TVs. No problem. As long as you stay in business, you are part of the problem.
This is all in preparation for the cannibalism that will result when Leftist policies destroy most food sources, etc.
Sheri, What is the secret of Soylent Green?
Sheri: Go all volunteer…
My wife tried to volunteer in NYS.
They handed her a stack of paperwork that probably exceeded the paperwork of an employee.
The volunteer work had nothing to do with childcare, eldercare or anything to do with financial handling. Just run-of-the-mill volunteer.
The left dehumanizes itself with this unspeakable evil. And just as the dehumanization of the unborn led to mass death, so too the Left’s self-debasement will cause them to reap the same fate.
Hey, this is not so bad. Now public schools can hold Bake Donations to support scholastic activity.
Until I heard about this, I was certain the insanity / incompetence / unadulterated evil of Obama and Associates constituted an unchallenged all time low in my lifetime. I do believe the thriving body parts industry has for the moment seized first place. Blaaah!
Opens the door for the defense teams of whack-jobs who shoot up movie theaters, schools, and churches. “You Honor, the defendant only committed these post-natal abortions with the intent of donating to people on organ transplant lists and for medical research.”
You should have had the non sequitur, which in your case is the hit-and-run tactic of inferring another argument is fallacious without bothering to offer proof. I see that same fallacy all over Twitter now, as predicted, by lefties saying “The video is edited” etc.
Others should know that the slippery slope is an informal fallacy, which is to say, it is not always a fallacy. And it certainly isn’t here because the actual steps along the path to doom have been spelled out, steps which are not in dispute. If you haven’t read the post on “post-birth abortion”, you should.
The only thing required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. This meets the definition of evil. It is rationalized by the academics, the elites, and the secularists. Nonetheless, it is evil. What is so frightening, aside from the content of the topic itself, is that we, as a species and a culture, have been so inundated with this evil that I fear we have grown jaded and snow-blind to it, simply resulting in a shrug of the shoulders.
Such seemingly occurred to Rome and other “advanced” empires before they fell. If someone had suggested such doomsday scenarios to me 20 years ago I would have dismissed them as hyperventilating extremists. Now, I am convinced that society in the United States cannot continue much longer under this devolution of humanity. I do not know what will be the final straw, but I see no other recourse.
Steve E: It’s people!
John B(): Guess the poor are now at the mercy of the government then. Perhaps that will be enlightening for them. (Ridiculous that so many rules exist, isn’t it? I quit working day care or anything with kids because the interrogations were just too much to take. I don’t think they are looking for predators, they are looking to weed out the rational people.)
G Boggs: Remember, the left just wants you to be healthy, not run every detail of your life. How long before kids denied sweets and forced to eat kale start their own revolution in schools?
Hans: It’s not a fallacy if there’s evidence the slope is slippery. If someone has greased the slope over and over and over, as has been done with most leftist ideas, then it’s illogical to assume they’re not out there with peanut oil (the healthy stuff) dumping more grease. Briggs notes this also.
Gary: There was a Criminal Minds show where the father was killing potential organ donors in the hopes of getting his daughter a liver. He killed himself and she got his liver, so it all worked out okay in the end, except for the three or four dead people along the way. If the person skips the suicide, then we might see this in court. I keep waiting for people to wake up and realize how bad things are, but alas, they continue to sleep.
Mark: Yes, and they refuse to ever see it coming.
This should surprise no one. Don’t forget that tissues from aborted fetuses are used to create many common vaccinations. Some anti-vaxxers are so on moral grounds; and have no objection to vaccines created without human tissue. The problem is that there is not not a rush to develop alternatives. The Vatican produced this document: Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses: http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
The Brits were burning the aborted fetuses for heat. I guess this is just a more lucrative way to dispose of the tissues (which are not a human being, yet are being sold/donated as human tissue…..)
Medical doctors talking shop. And instead of a volunteer donation of tissue or organs, the donor was an aborted baby.
I take it everybody against these practices will make sure that by the time they need a transplant they will choose a doctor who is verifyibly not into this kind of stuff?
Sander: Discussion of dismembering is “shop talk”? Remind me to stay away from your idea of a doctor. And, believe it or not, some would not take any organ obtain via the purposeful death of another (I imagine there are animal rights people who won’t take pig organs). Some people do still have principles. (After seeing what goes on with organ donation when my mother died, I’m not sure I’d take one from any source.)
Note: A fetus is not human, so this is not selling human tissue. If the labs and others clearly state “fetal” tissue, I can’t see how anyone can be prosecuted, unless you can prove they lied. And currently lies are the way our society works–POTUS does it daily, so I don’t see how legally there is a problem. Except perhaps in the late-term abortions, if they are illegal where this happened. This is precisely why no one is ever allowed to show a pregnant woman an ultra-sound, no fetuses in jars for pro-life lectures, etc. It riles everyone up and they get all emotional. Really bites. So no reality allowed.
Reality usually turns out very different from how it is presented on Breitbart, a scurrilous source at best.
JMJ—did you look at the entire unedited video sans commentary which is linked above—https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4UjIM9B9KQ. What do you think about what is going on, without using any media filter, right or left, whatsoever? What is inscribed on your heart?
The trouble with critical thinking is that it is neither.
1) Fertilized egg, embryos and fetuses are only human once they are born. If you are against abortion just don’t get one, and stick your nose out of women body.
2) Thousands of poor people are killed worldwide each years to have their organs sold to rich guy that suffers deceases. Just think of Dick Cheney. These are real people with real family that don’t know what happens to them.
3) tissue from fetuses are sent to research lab that ends up saving lives of real people. They sell it so they can offer care to more women that can’t afford them. They don’t profit from it.
4)Fetus are not alive. Abortion is constituional right. There is no crime here.
5) It is very funny to see the people that complain the most about the poor, wanting to make sure that a maximum of babies are born out of wedlock to single women that are sure to be poor because of an unwanted child.
Of course the right can then call them lazy, smoocher, or criminal because they end up stealing.
It is so sick having a bunch of old trying to dictate their will to women. Women are not the property of old white male.
Are you trying to say that DNA from a fetus that is growing inside a human female is in no way “human”? That objective scientific tests would not show that such matter is not “human”? Would such tests show that such tissue is wolf, bear, tiger, or giraffe?
You are an evil man, or brutally unthinking. But you still have time.
Also, if there is such a big worry about what or who is and isn’t property, and the disposition thereof, where does a fetus fit in this picture? The poorest creatures of all are in the womb.
How can the existence of an organ trade anywhere in the world be justification for what is happening at PP? No one is condoning the terrible awful things that happen in other parts of the world. Listen to yourself think.
PP is very well funded by our federal government, at least for the moment.
Fine, we’ll accept that abortion is not a crime. The problem is the line that has been crossed—from offering abortions, to using the remains of what was one pulsing with life (sorry, I have seen an evil sonogram) for gain.
Say you are an organ donor and you are knocked out in an accident. You aren’t dead, but you aren’t completely alert. The docs are aware that they need a new heart, and, and there is federal quota, there is your heart, beating strongly. How tempting would it be to offer you a sedative, and oops, you don’t make it, but thank goodness we saved his heart and kidneys…. The same for end of life care. There is not left on an aging body that might be attractive, but if something can be salvaged, oops.
Sure, there is horror in the current story, but there is also horror in the stories yet to be told because the way is being paved to a complete desensitization of what is “life.”
I come to this blog late in the evening and having read it and all comments offer but one for consideration. Once we were a people with principles; now we are not. Consequences await.
1) I never hurt anyone over my belief, while the pro-life movement and any religions have shown that they were ready to kill in large quantities for their beliefs.
2) your conception of liberty seems to mean that everyone must do as you say.
Who exactly is pro-life movement killing?
You realize that before abortion, women were killing their undesirable babies after birth. I guess that was much better than aborting before the babies is actually alive.
The girlfriend of of my cousin lately gave birth to a baby with water in the ad instead of a brain. The brain was just big enough to keep the heart beating and give some kicks. Yet it has never breathing it never was alive, it never was a person. By the way, that woman doesn’t drink, smoke or take drugs and she didn’t need medication during her pregnancy. The child was also desired.
At birth that fetus was not a person, it didn’t acquire any right. It had human tissue with human DNA but it never was alive. It was an empty vessel that could never have been ensouled.
To see a short list of pro-life violence:
Babies no bigger than the palm of your hand are viable outside of the womb, albeit with heroic medical attention. That said, having an anencephalic baby is a true tragedy, and my heart goes out to the mother. However, just because we may suffer anguish at some vague future date doesn’t justify having an abortion now (legalities aside). To dip into the cliches, no one is promised a life without pain, and we all have our burdens. That said, there are many churches that minister and give comfort to especially to women who’ve miscarried, had abortions, or experienced infant death.
Many mothers whose doctors have claimed that the baby was going to be disabled or deficient in some way have defied the doctors’ advice and went on to have perfectly healthy children. Doctors makes mistakes. Science isn’t perfect. Our goal should be to nurture life the best we can. We shouldn’t gleefully dispense with the next generation of workers, taxpayers, mothers, fathers just because it is momentarily expedient. Engineer is correct in that there will be consequences. As a society, we are too blind and too full of ourselves to think about that.
Ah, I saw your website. Since Roe v Wade there have been approx 57, 762, 169 abortions. Whom shall we say is responsible? Lenin was able to clock in at about 4 mil. Stalin has between 34-49 mil “unnatural deaths” to his credit. Mao was able to off 45 million in four years. I don’t think these men were the regular church-going pro-lifers you’re thinking about.
The earliest fetus that have ever been viable were born at the 21st week, but at the cost of serious health impedement. As nurse student I had to care for a three year old born that early. In his three years he had spent over 24 months at the hospital.
“However, just because we may suffer anguish at some vague future date doesn’t justify having an abortion now (legalities aside).”
This is a personal decision for each women to have. They are the one that have to live with the consequence. No one is force to have abortion and many women choose not too.
It always nice to see the hypocrisy in people like in the case of this pro-lifer:
Of course the honus is always on the women.
That one is unrelated but funny and not unique:
My guess is that I had sex much less than anyone on this blog and even less than the vast majority of priest.
There is a good reason why pregnancy caused by rape can be much higher than some people believe. Women that are in their period will often refrain from having sex or will refuse to do so without protection. It doeasn’t mean that their husband or boyfriend will not force themselves on them, even more if alcohol is involve. The vast majority of rape are done buy men that are close to the women, including husbands. But then when the women is rape by a stranger how is she supposed to protect herself. With an aspirin between her leg or at the manner Todd Akin imagined in the last election that the woman body has a way to protect itself from getting pregnant.
Stalin, Lenin, and Hitler all had belief and they were ready to kill a lot of peoplefor those belief. This is not that different from pro-lifers who are ready to kill for theirs.
I am continually amazed that the liberal/left/progressives, who are supposed to care for the marginalized, the poor, those who have no advocate, do not take up the cause of the unborn. The notion that a fetus is not human until it leaves the birth canal is manifestly false–when is it human?–when the head emerges, when 2/3 of the whole body emerges.? The fetus is not part of a woman’s body; its dna is different, it feels pain when the woman doesn’t.
I left the Democratic party and its so-call liberalism in the 1990’s when the party catered to the demands of feminazis (to use Rush’s apt phrase) on total abortion lunacy. There is no right more important than the right to life.
1) Fertilized egg, embryos and fetuses are only human once they are born. If you are against abortion just don’t get one, and stick your nose out of women body.”
so one half second before a baby is outside of its mother’s vagina, its not a person, and a half second after its out, it is a human?
so…when a doctor moves a baby into a breech position, delivers it entirely, except for its head, and then sucks its brain out, while its legs are dangling in the air, this is what, exactly?
When child is born after a failed abortion, what is that baby?
a survivor of an attempted murder?
remnants of a failed abortion?
a blob of tissue?
so…when a woman has a high risk pregnancy, and demands medical care in order to bring her precious bundle of DNA into the world, we are obligated to pay for this care?
prenatal surgeries…these are what? operations on tissue?
why do women and men mourn miscarriages?
your argument could be called specious, but that would be an insult to those who propose specious arguments throughout the world.
Vile is a better word.
Look, if you feel that, for whatever reason, decisions regarding abortions are best left to the women who carry babies to term, thats fine…just dont insult everyones’ intelligence here.
You are living and able to write what you write because you were not aborted. I thank God for the blessings of life.
Millions are not able to do that, thanks to the rationalizing abortion industry.
“Fertilized egg, embryos and fetuses are only human once they are born.”
if human, then ‘was born’, and
if ~’was born’, then ~human
So what about “in vitro fertilized” babies?
Sylvain said: “5) It is very funny to see the people that complain the most about the poor, wanting to make sure that a maximum of babies are born out of wedlock to single women that are sure to be poor because of an unwanted child.”
Which reveals his absolute ignorance of the thousands of pregnancy resource centers in the US saving lives of children and mothers and assisting them far beyond birthing to help them build stable and productive lives. It’s not funny at all to see such a slur against people who care for those in difficult situations. But I forget that goodness is rarely advertised and that Sylvain is woefully uninformed.
JMJ: Only a true idiot reads ONE and only one news source. Reality looked pretty much the same at many outlets and the video itself (which is NOT said to be manufactured, only misinterpreted, though I’m not sure how you miss “saving the head is the best way–heads are very expensive” (Paraphrased) so I have no reason to doubt the story. Pleas note I have clearly stated that selling fetal parts cannot be illegal because fetuses are not human by law. So, no more lectures on Breitbart.
Katie: You assume JMJ has a heart. Most progressives care only about their small world and the fantasy in which they live. Their supposed concern about others is just a lie.
The comments on a fetus not being human are based LEGAL definitions, not science. (You know, like blacks were once only 3/4 of a human legally. Doesn’t seem to bother progressives, though, even though at the time, they were the ones reducing blacks to less than human.)
Appealing to a progressive like Sylvain about “care” is useless. Progressives care about themselves ONLY. No one else, often even children and spouses are just ornaments in their lives that make them feel good. The feeling stops, the ornaments go.
Sylvain: Please quote, VERBATIM, which passage in the Constitution gives one the right to an abortion. Hint: There isn’t one.
Note also that liberty is what YOU say and it is in every example you have ever given.
First off, you have NO say in this whatsoever, because as you so amply point out, you have NOTHING to with being pregnant and women do. Your opinion is mute.
You’re just a sperm source.
Oh, and again, your argument that people did/do worse–some people kill 4 or 5 innocent people, so if someone only kills one, we should just overlook that one.
An Engineer: Well said.
Bob: The right to life is in the Constitution. Sylvain apparently missed reading that part.
Note progressives: Gassing Jews was not illegal in Germany. Okay, Sylvain specifically, and JMJ, was that moral and proper and you’re okay with it? If not, why not? Legal is moral seems to be your mantra. And who made blacks 100% a person now? How did that change? Oh, moral is whatever can get pushed through THAT YOU APPROVE OF. So you are the arbitrators of moral??? Sounds pretty much like a God complex to me.
(Apologies for the long answer—storm knocked out internet till this AM.)
“First off, you have NO say in this whatsoever, because as you so amply point out, you have NOTHING to with being pregnant and women do. Your opinion is mute.”
Are you sure? What about Caitlyn formerly-called-Bruce Jenner?
Never underestimate the power of lunacy.
Fascinating, is it not, that some believe the harvested organs are not human organs, yet used as human organs.
Can you imagine the sort of mind that delights in the idea that as a full-term baby is being born—it has not yet exited its mother, see the comments below—that mind shivers with the joys to be had slitting the baby’s throat? And then carving up the remains for sale. For some utilitarian ends-justifies-the-means goal, or for the profit, or just for the pleasure in killing.
G. Rodrigues, are you saying that Jenner (once called Bruce, now called Caitlyn) has female reproductive organs? My wife read an article in which he/she was doubtful about having those dangly bits removed and the lower part restructured…but even if he/she did, it would take another miracle for him to conceive…..maybe that’s what the left/liberals are waiting.
waiting–> waiting for.
“G. Rodrigues, are you saying that Jenner (once called Bruce, now called Caitlyn) has female reproductive organs?”
I’m certainly not saying that (like Briggs, I am an ultramontane reactionary). I am saying, or asking rather, that if the claim is that only women have a say in the abortion issue, then what about Caitlyn formerly-known-as-Bruce Jenner? If your definition of woman is “having female reproductive organs”, then obviously no — but I suspect that the lunatics running the asylum would object to that definition.
G. Rodriques: The athlete formerly known as Bruce cannot have a say either. Said individual cannot get pregnant. This also excludes women who are past menopause (I am assuming here no one pays thousands to defeat nature to get pregnant at 67 and then aborts, though it is possible it would happen) and those who have had hysterectomies. No pregnancy, no say.
Briggs: As noted, this is why no one can show a pregnant woman an ultrasound before the procedure and fetuses in jars are not allowed in abortion discussion. Reality must remain hidden.
Bob: Female to male transponders can still get pregnant. This is NOT true transition–it’s trying to have one’s cake and eat it too (no nasty thoughts on that one, okay?).
“The athlete formerly known as Bruce cannot have a say either. Said individual cannot get pregnant. This also excludes women who are past menopause (I am assuming here no one pays thousands to defeat nature to get pregnant at 67 and then aborts, though it is possible it would happen) and those who have had hysterectomies. No pregnancy, no say.”
Then this implies that before he or she can have a say in the abortion issue, then he or she must produce a medical certificate, signed by the appropriate medical authorities that he or she can indeed get pregnant. So for example, a 19-year old nun can, but a 67-year old grandmother, having birthed 12 children, but now past menopause, cannot. And these authorities are appointed by whom? Why your old pal the Government! So in the end, who has a say in the abortion issue is decided by the Government.
Whatever else one can say about the lunatics running the asylum, it sure has its measure of dialectical fun.
G. Rodriques: I don’t make the rules, I just report them. Abortion advocates argue this is about a woman’s right to control her own body (except she obviously cannot control her body when it comes to saying no to sex). It’s also about women having sex without consequence, as they see men do. It really has nothing to do with the fetus at all. According to the feminists, only those affected have a say. The 67 year old grandmother is not affected by the ruling and the 19 year old can stray or change her mind (or not say no). So, yes, your examples appear correct. Of course the government makes the rule in the end, but women are the ones who are supposed to have the say. The government might decide you need a certificate to weigh in on the argument, but usually as long as you are saying what they want to hear, that’s good enough. They will let the grandmother have a pass if she is pro-choice and the nun is vilified if she is pro-life. Remember, progressives are not required to follow their own rules. Everyone else is, however, required to do so.
Yes, watching the lunatics running the asylum can have a measure of fun, even if it’s also laced with a bit of pure terror when one realizes the long-term implications.
I have to ask though, not without some trepidation at this revolutionary thought (the mind reels before the unprecedented possibilities), who are you to say who gets to be pregnant or who has female reproductive organs? After all what is a “female reproductive organ”? Is not that a last remnant of the old patriarchal order? What is a reproductive organ anyway? Given that this is such a complex, difficult issue, I think we should let Science ™ decide, that is, appoint a committee of self-designated specialists dressed in togas that will decide for the rest of mankind, who is a “woman” (such a cliche) for the purposes of having a say in the abortion issue. And of course the Government will appoint the requisite specialists, Scientists ™ all of them. After all, we have already established that it is the Government who decides who gets to have a say in the abortion issue, so I think a pretty good argument can be laid out to the effect that it is the Government that decides who is a “woman” (really, this word without scare-quotes is virtually meaningless) for the purposes of having a say in the abortion issue. All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
G. Rodrigues: Okay, rephrase as I see my original wording is problematic. Only an individual with a functioning uterus gets a vote, assuming our experts agree this is vital for a fetus to be carried. Should we reach the artificial uterus stage, one supposes this must be redefined and may become a moot point if a “woman’s” body is not involved in the growth of a fetus (this will be really complicated, of course, as is the fight over fertilized embryos and whose property they are). Theoretically, the elder individual past menopause does qualify if we include those able to carry a fetus no matter what the source and how conceived. I still have problems thinking the 67 year old person would abort a fetus after spending a lot of money to artificially create one, but then again, I would never have thought any 67 year old person insane enough to want to make a baby inside their past menopause body in the first place. I really missed on that one.
Sheri lead off the comments with this:
“This is all in preparation for the cannibalism…”
There is no principle within liberalism to stop it. The natural aversion to cannibalism and prohibitions against it belong to older principles which liberalism must dismantle on the way to creating their man-centered utopia of perfect liberty and equality. Eating human flesh would be a perfect expression of liberal principle; since the unborn are not people they may be disposed of and nobody may put their laws between the liberal and his dinner plate. Don’t like baby burgers? Don’t eat them!
Consider how the natural aversion to homosex and prohibitions against it are being dismantled. What was unthinkable is now a civil right. How many of our liberal politicians who voted for civil rights back in 1964 would have believed that the logic of their principle — equality — would also one day demand homo gmarriage? They would have laughed! They never would have imagined such a thing, blinded as they were by their utopian visions, and being easily deceived by the sort of specious arguments we see presented on this thread by abortion advocates. An evil seed grows many monsters.
Well, the liberal might say, you Christians believe in cannibalism too — what do you think the eucharist is – the body and blood of Christ! Just so, but when we partake of His essence we partake of the Divine, and when you eat man you’re only eating man. And eating man would be a fitting sacrament for the religion of man, Liberalism. I predict that ritual cannibalism — eating human flesh — will be required in the future Liberal Utopian Church (if, God forbid, it should ever be established). Perhaps that would be the “abomination of desolation” of which the bible speaks.
4)Fetus are not alive.
Yes they are you dummy.
4)Fetus are not alive.
Neither then are one half of a pair of siamese twins. I’m guessing the idea that fetuses are not alive was based on the symbiotic relationship of the mother and fetus. Biologically, both parts of a symbiotic relationship are alive. The inability to survive without both halves does not change the fact that both are alive. Same for parasitic relationships where the parasite kills the host and then dies. Not a good survival strategy, but both parts are alive until the host or the parasite ceases to meet the definition of alive.
Breitbart, a refreshing source of no nonsense information, despised by Leftists the world over. (Because it tends to demolish their emotive arguments.)
There is nothing no heinous it can’t be poo poo’d away for the good of the state. I’m sure Sylvain could come up with a half dozen bullet points for the moral virtue inherent in the extermination of the inferior races, if that was the current fashion of the Left.
At least JMJ tried to put his fingers in his ears by suggesting it didn’t happen, or if it did happen, not in the way it was presented.
I read the comments only because I was interested in how some people might try to rationalise this sort of thing. In a way I wish I hadn’t, as reading Sylvain made me depressed. That such people exist, monsters who feel they are morally superior to everyone else, or at least to those who aren’t like them, makes me despondent.
I find it interesting that people of different political, religious and philosophical persuasions have found the actions of Planned Parenthood and “Dr. Yum” reprehensible. There’s a common core (sorry to use that phrase) of morality there.
“so one half second before a baby is outside of its mother’s vagina, its not a person, and a half second after its out, it is a human?”
Almost exactly. The baby doesn’t become a person only becaus it is born but it also has to be alive. Alive means breathing.
For example, some religion like scientologie could refused intensive care for a baby born and not breathing for reason of religious beliefs which are so dear to most reader here. Surely you don’t want to deny other their religious belief.
“so…when a woman has a high risk pregnancy, and demands medical care in order to bring her precious bundle of DNA into the world, we are obligated to pay for this care?”
You are very inconstent in your claim, and factualy incorrect about your claim of paying for her care since no one in the US pay for others care other than medicaid patient in regard to prenatal health care. Medicaire patient undoubtedly seldom become pregnant .
“Millions are not able to do that, thanks to the rationalizing abortion industry.”
None of these millions ever had any consiousness that they were or could be a thing. If so you would remember beingin your mothers womb.
I find people like you funny not those that help the poor women. Who do you think pay for that? and who do you think call these people smoochers and lazy? Exactly the same people.
“You’re just a sperm source” I agree which is why each women as the right to chose what happens to their own body.
See the 9Th amendment for your Verbatim.
As for the right to life it begins when you are born and alive, not before. The right to life is not hypothetical.
One of the thing I understood the best when studying law was that it is not about morality, justice, equality, reason. It is about interpreting the text and intent of the legislative body.
“Fascinating, is it not, that some believe the harvested organs are not human organs, yet used as human organs.”
I really meant is not a person.
“Can you imagine the sort of mind that delights in the idea that as a full-term baby is being born—it has not yet exited its mother, see the comments below—that mind shivers with the joys to be had slitting the baby’s throat?…”
There was such a case last year and the doctor was sentence to lifetime jail for murder in cases where the unborn were considered viable.
The extremist who starts life at fertilization prevent any reasonable or rational discussion of abortion.
Sylvain: Sorry, the 9th amendment does not mention abortion or any such right whatsoever. No verbatim there. You do know what “verbatim” means, right??
The law is definitely not about morality. It’s also not about “intent”. If the idiots writing the law couldn’t do so without 10,000 pages, the idiots need to be replaced by someone who can. Laws change–so tomorrow Roe v Wade could be repealed and that would be a-okay with you cause it’s all about the law, not right and wrong. Correct?
There is nothing hypothetical about a fetus. It is alive. Unless you are claiming that one half of a set of siamese twins are not alive, since the life of one depends on the life of the other. Also, people like Christopher Reeves should have been declared dead, just as many on life support should be. They are not “alive” by your definition. They were alive, but now they are dead as they cannot live without being hooked up to a machine that breathes for them—kind of like the fetus that lives hooked up to a female human that provides oxygen and food for them. Oh, wait, it’s the same thing.
The science deniers who claim life does not start at conception are the extremists here. The fetus has human DNA and a functioning body. It is not an alien, it’s not a growth. It can’t magically turn human when it pops out. That’s like fairies suddenly show up and make it alive and human? Really, it’s a most irrational argument. Perhaps you should stick to the real argument here, that women have the right to have sex in any way with any one without consequences the way men do and since nature was incredibly rude as to make women the only ones who can get pregnant (except transgendered females, of course), then by God, we can fix that oversight of nature. Be honest here.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
1) This means that the constituion never intended to enumerate all rights a person posess. The founder recognized that situations that they did not foresee could arise in the future and they did not want people rights to suffer because of it.
In the 17th, 18th, 19th century abortion did not exist. So women giving birth to unwanted children killed them at birth. This was not a rare event. Do you really think that farmers barely able to feed themselves because of a bad crop year kept the new born around?
In Japan they killed chidren out of mercy when they had famine condition.
Abortion is not a new phenomenon in the sense that it was always present though before the medicale advance, abortion took the form of killing new born.
So the 9th amendment does include the right to abortion.
2) Dredd Scott ruling before the secession war was immoral to us today. Though it was welcome and moral to white people living in the south back then. The US constitution was understood as all white male are born free and equel and rejected women and colored peopl.
Having that ruling, Lincoln had to push for the modifcation of the constitution to overrule it. He succeded and first the black male where recognize as person. In Canada, Women had to wait till 1929 to have the same right.
In Canada, Police still can’t charge a husband sharing is bed with is wife of rape. Though the court now allow such charge if the couple is seperated or in the process to divorce.
A constitutional amendment could reverse the recent court decision, though I hardly see how it could stand the test of time since even Missippi Personhood bill was arshly defeated.
Such an amendment would not mike the law any more moral. since the vast majority of people do not share your opinion of what is moral or not.
“You are very inconstent in your claim, and factualy incorrect about your claim of paying for her care since no one in the US pay for others care other than medicaid patient in regard to prenatal health care. Medicaire patient undoubtedly seldom become pregnant .”
This is simply incorrect. Everyone who lives in the US subsidizes post natal care, either through taxes, or insurance premiums…Post natal care is covered by medicare…and indigent babies are covered by medicare.
So, simply put youre wrong. Now, why not deal with my other points?
Your line drawing exercise resulted in an absurd conclusion, one that you are too hide bound to recognize.
There obviously isn’t any difference between a baby moment before and moments after delivery.
What about a baby with its legs dangling in the air, its head still inside its mother?
youre an ass, a dissembling disingenuous ass.
Sorry that should read “Post natal care is covered by medicaid…and indigent babies are covered by medicaid.”
Sylvain: There IS NO STATEMENT ON ABORTION. It’s not not not not not in there. Anywhere. And if this covers abortion, and all other things that might arise, we wasted huge sums of money on the next 28 amendments. It’s an idiotic interpretation and completely false.
You seem to feel it’s morally justified to kill whatever annoys you and then declare it necessary for freedom. If my parasitic, do-nothing neighbor drives me crazy, I should be able to remove him from the gene pool because he is making my life miserable. Insanity leads to anarchy. Have a nice time upon arrival.
On the need for proper language: The creature formally known as Bruce did NOT have a male to female sex change. He became an hemaphrodite. He should be referred to using the scientifically correct term.
Sheri I wonder why you bother. Sylvain is too simple minded and erratic to have deep understanding. He is that sort of person, sadly all too common among the intellectually insecure, who tries to ascertain what his “team” thinks and then replicates that thought. That is his arguments never make much sense or are 100% absent of nuance… well he knows what he believes is the socially correct way to think, he just doesn’t understand why.
Is this why you can never predict properly what SCOTUS will decide So?
What you consider erratic is what I call on your part the inability to understand simple concept that 16 year olds can. That would place your IQ below the 80s bar.
Excellent call on the spin. Now, how soon will the ACLU be jumping in to protect the rights of the poor to equal access to the body parts and their uses…
“The creature formally known as Bruce did NOT have a male to female sex change. He became an hemaphrodite. He should be referred to using the scientifically correct term.”
Actually he is still a male with psychological problems.
1)You realize that the organs are not transplanted right?
2) organ transplants waiting list depends on emergency and compatibility not money. Unless one select the trafficked organ route, which usually means a poor is harvested for the rich.
Yet no one here seems disgusted by that practice.
“2) organ transplants waiting list depends on emergency and compatibility not money. Unless one select the trafficked organ route, which usually means a poor is harvested for the rich.”
sure…David Crosby, Micky Mantle and Robert Casey, governor of PA were given transplants because they were most compatible with potential donors…
Your post is one of a polyanna, or a willfully ignorant person.
Re cannibalism, I seem to recall that folks in China were eating fetal body parts back in the peak 1 child policy madness. Why let all that protein go to waste? Cannibalism and organ harvesting are just the logical outcomes of the dehumanizing abortion mentality.
Will: I realize Sylvain does not appear to have a deep understanding of anything and will make contradictory statements. I engage him only when I have time. The answers are more for the benefit of others or to stimulate discussions. I have virtually no hope for educating Sylvain or anyone who emotes rather than thinks. (I see he’s jumped into childish insults all ready. So sad.)
KuhnKat: I agree totally, though I call him an “aftermarket hemaphrodite”. The pregnant dads (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/11/07/362269036/transgender-men-who-become-pregnant-face-health-challenges) are another example of the lie of “transgendering”. They did NOT change gender. Obviously.
David Crane: I can’t verify your claim. Besides, why are you telling us what a communist dictatorship finds acceptable?
Sylvain: “Yet no one here seems disgusted by that practice.” Earth to Sylvain: NO ONE SAID THAT. You make things up in your head.
Just search “Chinese fetal cannibalism reports”. But as I recall they were actually featuring fetal parts as menu items in some eating establishment or other.
Politicians (e.g. Hillary Clinton) in the past have praised China’s population control policies and would like us to emulate them. We are well on the way.