Posts Tagged ‘Abortion’

Stuff that’s been going down.

October 29, 2012 4 comments

Well, apparently it’s going to be raining in New York for the next several days.  Atlantic City is already underwater, or so the media reports.  While some are quite concerned about Sandy, I view it as an opportunity to clean out some of the trash that resides in the Northeast.

Like this guy.

Don’t worry about me though.  I’m ready for Sandy.  Any potential looters should be on notice that I am bitterly clinging to my guns and God.  And Sparky’s riding shotgun.


Lots of interesting things happened over the weekend…some sad, some not so sad.  One sad thing that happened was the Tigers forgot they needed to score runs in order to win at baseball.  The second thing is a combination of happy and sad.  I went to Benihana on Saturday night to celebrate one of my kid’s birthdays.  Hibachi always makes me happy because I get to drink a comically large beer while watching some guy in a big hat make a train out of an onion.  Friggin’ genius, that is.  It was also sad though, because said guy did not let me catch a shrimp in my mouth.  See, I’m really awesome at catching stuff in my mouth, and I lost out on the opportunity to totally impress my wife and give her another reason to be proud of me.

What else….oh yeah, there was this Catholic Bishop in Green Bay, WI, who wrote a letter to his parisioners about the upcoming election.  In it, he advised his flock that one’s religious beliefs should actually impact one’s life outside of church.  Novel concept, I know.  As a result, the Bishop recommended that voting for a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-gay marriage candidate should probably not be done, since all three positions are in stark contrast to what the Bible teaches.  The only reason this is news is because Catholics have an inexplicable history of voting for baby killers liberals.

And let’s not forget about the dumpster fire that is Benghazi.  On Saturday, Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer told Fox News that he has sources in the military that told him Obama watched the entire attack go down via live feed from a drone flying over the scene.  No word on whether Barry had butter on his popcorn though.  Yes, my many liberal readers, I can hear you now: “Oh, but that’s Fox News.  You can’t believe them.”  Well, usually I would attempt to corroborate their reporting with “objective” media outlets, except that hasn’t been possible in this case.

And then there’s the report going around the interwebs about General Carter Ham, commander of the U.S. Africa Command, being forcefully retired because he attempted to disobey orders and send military assistance to Benghazi.  By now you know that everybody and their mother received real-time emails from a CIA outpost that an attack was taking place, and when some Navy Seals attempted to go and help, they were repeatedly told to stand down.  Of course, the Seals went anyway, and saved approximately 30 people before being blown up by terrorists after seven hours of fighting.  The new rumor is that Gen. Ham, who was in a position to provide assistance, was fired when he attempted to do something other than complain about running out of Goobers.  These may just be rumors, but it is a strange coincidence that he would “retire” at this specific point in history.

Of course, the best person to ask about what happened in Benghazi on September 11 would be the Commander in Chief.  He’s too busy “bringing folks to justice” to take questions though.  Exit quote:

Ultimately, as commander in chief, I’m responsible, and I don’t shy away from that responsibility. My number one responsibility is to go after folks who did this and we’re going to make sure that we get them. I’ve got a pretty good track record doing that.

In other words, the Prez is responsible.  The buck stops with him.  And at some point, long after the election, he’ll let everyone know that there was a serious communication breakdown somewhere, that absolutely positively did not involve him, and it will never happen again.  But please don’t ask him about it right now, because he’s busy.  Why don’t we all just do him a favor, and remove the heavy burden of being president from his shoulders.  After that, he’ll no longer have to go through the strain of dodging questions.


FYI…you can kill your baby if you want. It’s not a real person.

March 2, 2012 1 comment

Heard at the entrance to the Club of Life: "You're good. Not you. You can come in. Nope, not with that hair."

Yes, you read that right.  No, the title wasn’t meant to simply make you read this post; it was, instead, a factual representation of how some view life.  When I was in college, I took a class in logic.  Why did I take a class in logic, you ask?  It probably had something to do with it not convening until after lunch.  In that class, I learned that the “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy, i.e., logically wrong.  While it may be technically true that it is a fallacy, it is also true that it tends to be a practical reality.  Case in point: abortion.

Many pro-life folks have been making the argument for decades that legalizing abortion will lead to a devaluing of human life, which will, in turn, lead to killing those deemed undesirable or a burden.  To anyone with common sense, this was not an unreasonable step to take.  A society either values life or it doesn’t.  The wholesale slaughter of the unborn, mostly for the sake of convenience, seems lacking in the “respect life” department.

Of course, since the legal fiction of Roe v. Wade, the aforementioned “slippery-slope” has proven to be factual.  The left has made significant, and largely successful, efforts to justify late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions.  And our current president supported legislation allowing a newborn, who survived an attempted abortion, to die on a table from lack of medical care.  So, the next step shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

‘The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.’

Yep, you read that right.  This comes from an article entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” which was published in the ironically titled “Journal of Medical Ethics.”  The authors are, of course, college professors, with significant connections to Oxford and Cambridge.  In other words, this article is coming from the minds of the academic elite.  Not surprisingly, the authors have received death threats.  The Journal’s editor, a professor of ethics at Oxford, had this to say about the persons doing the threatening:

He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were ‘fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society’.

Take a moment to let that sink in.  “Values of aliberal society.”  That’s perfect, huh?  While the talking heads can’t shut up about the Catholic Church trying to take away women’s rights, the liberal elite are publishing an article, in a respected journal about ethics, that advocates for infanticide.

How can they possible justify their position, you ask?  Simple, by huffing paint thinner and waxing philosophic.

Rather than being ‘actual persons’, newborns were ‘potential persons’. They explained: ‘Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

What the hell is an “actual person?”  Can I decide?  Are the authors of the article “actual people?”  It’s difficult to put into words just how dangerous this line of reasoning is.  Lest we forget, a certain group of people weren’t “actual people” to the Nazi’s.

Fortunately, the authors have deemed us fit to receive their thoughts on personhood.

‘We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.’

I’d love to hear who fits into that definition.  Of course, the authors don’t tell us who gets to be in the Club of Life; only those who don’t.

They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that ‘only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases’ in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.

Once such children were born there was ‘no choice for the parents but to keep the child’, they wrote.

‘To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.’

Well the disabled are out; too expensive.  Seriously, the Nazi’s would LOVE these guys.

Interestingly, the authors did point out one undeniable truth, albeit in a presumably unintentional way:

However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised (emphasis mine).

These two morally abhorrent creatures actually stumbled upon a truth lost on the pro-choice morons in America.  There is no moral difference between the unborn and born.  Contrary to the author’s philosophical ramblings, however, it isn’t that they’re both disposable; it’s that they’re both sacred.

Feminist hopes Gosnell doesn’t put crimp on abortions.

January 24, 2011 Leave a comment

Whenever something bad happens, it elicits all kinds of responses.  In the case of the butcher of Philadelphia, most of the response has been disgust.  There are always some, though, that are so severely tone deaf, that complete lunacy ensues.  Take lefty feminist Carol King (no, not that Carole King), for example.  Her response to Dr. Kermit Gosnell: Gee, I sure hope this doesn’t impact the right of women to have more abortions.

The fact is that existing laws limiting access to abortion created this horror. This is what happens when we deprive women of affordable and accessible reproductive health care. When we force poor women who want to terminate unwanted pregnancies to wait until they can raise enough money to pay for a legal procedure, we force their abortions later in the pregnancy. And we force them into the hands of disreputable clinics. Of course, that’s the goal of these restrictions – they want to make it as difficult and challenging for these women as they can. This is what happens when we marginalize women’s health.

Reading the foregoing paragraph made me wonder if I’d just been kicked in the head by a donkey.  There are so many things wrong (morally wrong that is) with Ms. King’s statements that I’m feeling a little woozy. 

This is what happens when we deprive women of affordable and accessible reproductive health care.

I’m sorry, what?  How much do condoms cost?  Ever been to a Planned Parenthood?   They hand birth control out like it’s candy.  How about your local public school?   Simply put, it’s difficult to conceive of making “reproductive health care” any more affordable and accessible than it currently is.  Oh yeah, one could always try not having sex.  That’s free.

When we force poor women who want to terminate unwanted pregnancies to wait until they can raise enough money to pay for a legal procedure, we force their abortions later in the pregnancy.

I wasn’t aware that we were “forcing” women to do anything with respect to abortion.  A woman doesn’t have to have an abortion.  She doesn’t even have to get pregnant.  And I’m not going to apologize for lacking one little bit of sympathy for anyone trying to terminate an “unwanted” pregnancy.  It’s pretty easy to not get pregnant. 

Now, this is the moment when my mother gives me one of those “not everything’s black and white” or “walk a mile in her shoes” nonsense.  Maybe on a different day.  But not today.  Not after reading this liberal, feminist drivel about a mass murderer being the natural result of not providing federal funding for abortions.  Carol King, and those like her, lower the collective I.Q. of this nation while, ironically, giving women everywhere a bad name. 

And she left her best for last.

We are watching the disintegration of a fundamental right–the right to choose whether and when to become mothers.

You should read that again, because that’s where we are in this conversation.  To the Carol King’s of the world, pregnancy has become similar to the common cold; an inconvenience that is simply acquired.  Newsflash: every woman has the right to choose whether and when to become mothers.  It’s called life-planning.  And it’s free. 

He’s a serial killer you’ll never hear about.

January 19, 2011 2 comments

I don’t post about abortion.  In fact, I don’t really think about it that much.  When I was young and stupid I used to buy into the “it’s a woman’s right” slogan.  Of course, I’ve always known that the “Constitutional right to abortion” was a fiction dreamt up by leftist judges who spent too much time at Harvard or Berkeley or Michigan (the University of), and since leaving college I’ve done a 180 on it being a woman’s right, but still, it is what it is, right?

Well, since the Tucson shooting, I’ve been forced to hear more leftist nonsense about how violent our society has become, and that there are too many guns, and too much violent rhetoric, and video games, and movies, etc.  Why?  Because a Democratic Congresswoman was shot.  And a nine year old girl was killed by the same shooter.  I’m not going to insert some snarky comment here because it’s bad when anyone gets shot or is killed.  Once I cut through all the liberal noise though, I wonder, why people like this don’t get just as much, if not more, attention than the lunatic in Tuscon:

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 69, faces eight counts of murder in the deaths of a woman following a botched abortion at his office, along with the deaths of seven other babies who, prosecutors allege, were born alive following illegal late-term abortions and then were killed by severing their spinal cords with a pair of scissors.
I’d bet some serious dough on this story never making it to the national news.  I know the libs on the radio won’t discuss it.  Why?  Is severing the spinal cords of newly-born infants not violent enough?

A search of Gosnell’s office, called the Women’s Medical Society, revealed that bags and bottles holding aborted fetuses were scattered throughout the building.  Jars containing the severed feet of babies lined a shelf.

Will we see any video of CSI folks bringing these bags and jars out of Dr. Mengele’s Gosnell’s office, like we saw them bring out Dahmer’s apartment contents?  Probably not.  Oh yeah, the local authorities apparently knew:
The grand jury investigation revealed that, for over two decades, government health and licensing officials had received repeated reports about Gosnell’s dangerous practices.  However, no action was ever taken, even after the agencies learned that Mrs. Mongar had died during routine abortions under Gosnell’s care.
There are your tax dollars hard at work.   You see, I have a theory.  When we live in a society that cares so little about life that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for a baby to survive pregnancy, I find the rabble about too many guns and crosshairs on maps of congressional districts to be a tad disingenuous.   And then to admire the eulogy delivered by a man who voted in favor of denying medical care to infants born after botched abortions?  Well, that’s more than being disingenous.  That’s strait-jacket-wearing lunacy.
%d bloggers like this: