I had one of those odd synchronicity things, where stories just line up. Or maybe it wasn't weird synchronicity, maybe it just all goes together.
First, there was all the hidden camera video from Planned Parenthood, talking about harvesting baby parts for sale. Talking about how they mastered just slightly side-stepping the law by putting a baby in breech position so they could crush it's little skull and still harvest a healthy liver and maybe a heart and lungs. How they do "less crunchy" abortions so that the valuable little organs are available
In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.That's about a 1.25 aborted to every live birth, roughly 5/4. As actress Stacey Dash put it, Black Lives Don't Seem to Matter in NYC. She also publishes an astounding quote by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a 2009 interview with the occasionally-truthful New York Times.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”“...growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” WTF??? Is this Margaret Sanger in the 1920s? I've heard her referred to as Darth Vader Ginsburg. She's earning it here.
Look, I know this is a difficult subject. The life of unwanted children isn't a wonderful bed of roses. The tired old argument about exceptions for incest only applies to 1% of abortions (according to Wikipedia), so it just distracts attention from the other 99%. It's dishonest to talk about "tissue" and speculating "when does it become a human life?" What do they think it is before then, a squid? If it's not a life at all, what is it then: a Volkswagen? It just strikes me as incredibly disconnected to have children in a neonatal intensive care unit who are a month or more older than a child being aborted across town. A baby born 6 weeks premature is considered pretty likely to make it these days, but Planned Parenthood is talking about harvesting their organs.
During the interviews one of the Planned Parenthood doctors put it, “We don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling tissue and stuff like that”. Can you imagine a drug dealer saying, “We don’t want to be in a position of being accused of selling cocaine and stuff like that.” Isn't that tantamount to saying that's exactly what you're doing and you damned well know it?
Very well put.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear. You will probably receive criticism from some of your audience for coming down on the side of unborn babies, but you'll get nothing but applause from me. Abortion has killed more people since 9/11 than terrorism, and thousands more are murdered in the abortion mills each year, paid for by the US of A Federal government. It's pure evil.
ReplyDeleteYeah, paid for by OUR tax dollars!
ReplyDeleteDisgusting......
For many years, I was blind to what abortion involved and was "pro-choice", thinking that it was "just tissue" until some vague point in gestation. I've since come to realize that even an almost clueless heathen such as myself has to come down on the pro-life side. That killing a fetus is no different than killing an infant. Discovering the "partial=birth" abortions and the post-delivery killing of live, viable babies made me cringe for every second in my past that I thought abortion was acceptable.
ReplyDeleteThis revelation of where Planned Parenthood-Prevention stands on the killing/crushing/butchering of babies along with _profiting_ from those killings makes me realize that the Nazis and the horrors of the Holocaust were not an aberration but are a condition of a significant portion of the so-called human race. Definitely, killing babies and other people is a "choice" of most of the socialists on earth, just as it was with the National Socialists of Germany in the 30's and 40's.
Add the muslims to that sub-human group, as shown by ISIS training its bomb-makers by blowing up an infant whose father had been put to death some days before the infant.
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=17352&page=1
I may not be religious, but I am on board with abortion being murder, especially how it is being done these days. And one of the people profiting from it - by killing the babies of mostly black women like herself - is Sharon Holder, an OB/GYN _doctor_ who is part owner (and also, I believe an abortionist herself) in an abortion clinic in Georgia, where ~80% of the victims are black. Yes, we are talking about the wife of Eric Holder, the worst excuse for a US Attorney General that has ever infected that office.
I had a stillborn son. And a daughter who was premature and lived 12 hours. That was a long time ago, today she would have had a much better chance.
ReplyDeleteYou can probably guess how I feel about killing an innocent baby.
I aborted my own child when I was 15. I was scared, she was pregnant, and there was no adult supervision to speak of. The abortionists took my $110, and snuffed my child's life. At the time, I felt relief. I'd "gotten out of trouble." Free to fornicate again.
ReplyDeleteI am now in my 40s, with 4 kids of my own. That child would be 31.
I am haunted by that child I murdered. Abortion is a nation murdering its children.
May God's judgement be just.
Thanks, gang. There's some really good, heartfelt, and touching comments there. Dripping with emotion.
ReplyDeleteNot even the father is a party to the conflict between the mother and the unborn fetus/baby. As bystanders not party to the conflict, freedom requires you to keep your legal enforcement off the mother and the medical team she hires.
ReplyDeleteJust because you want some outcome, doesn't mean you are justified forcing it on someone else. The difference between preventing partial-birth abortion and requiring Obamacare is a matter of degree, not kind. In both cases you believe other humans are your tin soldiers to set up and knock down for the pleasure of your own design.
Anonymous 1213-
ReplyDeleteYour comment is perfectly reasonable-- as long as you are willing to accept the unborn is not a person.
If the unborn is a human being, then every stricture against murder comes into play-we are no longer talking about whether a person could interfere to prevent a tattoo,or the removal of a bunion, but whether that party is justified in preventing one person from murdering another.
I want to close by quoting your own comment- there is a huge implication here, and it may have gone by you unseen.
"Just because you want some outcome, doesn't mean you are justified forcing it on someone else." Does the "someone else" include the baby?
I appreciate that you're willing to have this conversation.
ReplyDeleteA new human being starts with two cells that merge, then grows smoothly and continually in capability for decades. Developmental milestones include: able to breath unassisted outside the womb; walking; talking; able to earn a living, historically around age 7 when government doesn't prevent it; able to reproduce, around age 16; mature enough to understand politics, around age 30; and so on.
The law I would prefer to live under says that a human child does not become his or her own separate legal person until they have become separate from their parents in the ordinary details of their life. Prior to then they are the chattel property of the parent, a thing, an object. Awful things done to little children can be prosecuted as some third party permanently damaging the valuable property of the parent. If the parent is awful, the child can run away as soon as they are able and demonstrate an independent living. Children become property of themselves when they homestead themselves, perhaps through adverse possession by open and notorious possession of themselves.
My answer to your question is, the unborn baby isn't a "someone else" yet.
anonymous 1213
ReplyDeleteAlthough it seems you and I have irreconcilable differences in belief, I will ask you to consider this-
If a child is to be considered property and only achieve humanness when they are able to be self supporting,either out of the womb or in survival on the street, does that not also apply on the other end of life? What of those who become dependent through sickness or age or disability? According to your definitions, have they now become chattel, to be disposed of if causing any inconvenience? Do you turn love and life off and on with a switch?
Once we accept the idea that "personhood" is subject to definition by others based on age, capacity , or anything else, the sole remaining protection for anyone is who makes the definition.
Your argument aligns with some very, very bad company-we have seen the results of this on a worldwide scale-dehumanize the individual and the STATE ends up acting as god.
Anon 1213 - I'm with Raven: your definitions describe a completely horrific world to me. A child is a possession, chattel, until they're self sufficient? If I read you correctly, you're saying if a 5 year old or 10 year old does something sufficiently annoying, the parent can kill them with no repercussions? I find that horrifically barbaric. That's farther "out there" than Peter Singer at Princeton or any medical ethicist I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteRaven's question about the other end of the spectrum, old age, comes to my mind, too. If you're saying no one who is not 100% fully abled, with no need for help or support of any kind, not handicapped in anyway, not suffering from any dementia of any sort, is not fully human, that indeed describes a sad, depressing, dystopian world.
In my world, a child is "someone else"; a fully human being in every sense at conception. People routinely abort children at ages where they can survive with medical intervention - and which they can sometimes survive with just basic support, such as providing warmth and comfort. If the argument is that they become human at some arbitrary point when neonatal intensive care can save them at 99% probability, that's relying on technology to determine humanity and the point where "being human" begins will proceed back to conception anyway. Humans don't have a pronounced alternation of generations (see any freshman biology text). So with the exception of sperm and egg cells, everything is human; from conception until death.
With some exceptions, creatures in the animal kingdom never kill off their own offspring. Alligators, which have notoriously primitive brains, take care of their young, bringing them food and carrying them around when necessary, until they become able to fend for themselves. That's a better sense of "humanity" than you describe.
> does that not also apply on the other end of life?
ReplyDeleteBarely. The child becoming capable of acting as an individual at age 7 transfers a property right from the parent to the child by homesteading their own body. That human having title to themselves doesn't un-transfer by the wishes of majority vote. It doesn't vanish until the child becomes an elder and abandons it by death. I suppose it can be abandoned by braindeath in a coma, but that's just a technicality away from death.
> What of those who become dependent through sickness or age or disability?
Another of the laws I would prefer to live under is that no person has a legal duty to support another person, no matter the relative ages. Note carefully through this whole discussion I say "legal", meaning forced by third parties at gunpoint. The behavior I consider proper and moral towards babies and elders I suspect is not much different from what you believe.
> Once we accept the idea that "personhood" is subject to definition by others based on age, capacity, or anything else, the sole remaining protection for anyone is who makes the definition.
What the definers then do is make laws to punish sex. I know they are punishing sex rather than protecting unborn babies because they make an exception for rape. The baby wasn't an accessory to the rape because they didn't exist yet, thus they can't be guilty, and should have equal legal status no matter what crimes their father committed. The Soviets punished families for the crimes of a family member, so do the conservative Republicans.
> you're saying if a 5 year old or 10 year old does something sufficiently annoying, the parent can kill them with no repercussions?
Social repercussions I hope, no repercussions from the legal system. But really, how common is this? Do parents of 6 year olds really only not kill them because the police will put them in a cage? No. Bad cases make bad law, and rearranging the whole legal structure of human-ness around this rare edge case creates wrong outcomes for ordinary cases in the middle, which in this discussion, is early-ish abortion.
> If you're saying no one who is not 100% fully abled, with no need for help or support of any kind, not handicapped in anyway, not suffering from any dementia of any sort, is not fully human, that indeed describes a sad, depressing, dystopian world.
Humans lock humans in prisons and psychiatric wards and nursing homes because, at that moment, their brains or personalities are broken. Maybe they can be healed. But at that moment they are indeed less than human and that's why they are forcibly in custodial care. My standard for letting someone out of prison amounts to, don't kill people or steal from them. Most advanced Alzheimer's patients will still meet that standard.
> that's relying on technology to determine humanity and the point where "being human" begins will proceed back to conception anyway.
Ah, but look where this is going, the next step is for you to invent legal obligations for others, which you will enforce others to uphold. Right back to punishing sex. If this was about self-protection for your person and wife and child, then you would be talking about what protections you wanted for yourself. What behaviors some other uncivilized persons engage in wouldn't come up, because they don't affect you.
> With some exceptions, creatures in the animal kingdom never kill off their own offspring.
Many species are happy to kill off a rival male's children when moving in on a new female. I don't think this example is favorable.
> you're saying if a 5 year old or 10 year old does something sufficiently annoying, the parent can kill them with no repercussions?
ReplyDelete"Social repercussions I hope, no repercussions from the legal system."
I have no words to respond to this.
Ah, but look where this is going, the next step is for you to invent legal obligations for others, which you will enforce others to uphold. Right back to punishing sex. If this was about self-protection for your person and wife and child, then you would be talking about what protections you wanted for yourself. What behaviors some other uncivilized persons engage in wouldn't come up, because they don't affect you. [I added the bold font - SiG]
ReplyDeleteMe? Not a chance. I'm one of those evil libertarians who would take power and then leave you alone. In fact, my fondest wish is for a government that would first off take a torch to the code of federal regulations and second off add a mandatory sunset provision to every law. By the way - take note of that. It's the only time you will ever read me asking for a new law or regulation. I want a regulation to cancel laws after some small set time. The rest of your text misses what this article about so badly I suggest you try a reading comprehension program. You're reacting to what you think I said, not what I wrote.
I defy you to find a single place in the five years of this blog where I asked for laws against anything. The story this piece started out about is a good example of why: selling body parts is already against the law now, but Planned Parenthood is doing it now. I strenuously object to Planned Parenthood getting my tax money, but I strenuously object to lots of things they spend my money on.
The Soviets punished families for the crimes of a family member, so do the conservative Republicans. Utter bullcrap - the second part that is. Again, I don't have a dog in this argument because I'm not a Republican. But I know bullcrap when I read it. There have been documented wackos shooting abortion doctors. I abhor that completely, and it's 100% wrong. I don't know they were "conservative Republicans" as you say, but even if they are, I don't care. What they're doing is wrong. But I also think Kermit Gosnel, the abortionist who killed not only thousands of babies and kept their hands and feet in jars on his desk (why?), but killed many poor mothers is also 100% wrong and I abhor that every bit as much.
The rest of this just too scattered, disconnected or plain abhorent to waste time responding to.