skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comics Curmudgeon, April 23, 2013, reads "Beetle Bailey":
Haha, are you tired of dry, lifeless hamburgers, Sarge? Why not enjoy this burger? It’s made up of flesh that’s been shredded into innumerable tendrils by an enormous industrial meat grinder; yet somehow, impossibly, that flesh is still alive, still moving, those tendrils writhing and squirming. The abomination has no eyes, so it cannot see, yet somehow it still senses the presence of another living thing, and so it drags itself impossibly across the plate, leaving an oozing trail of blood behind. It moves ever so slowly, and Sarge is paralyzed in terror as it twitches towards him. It hungers, he knows; it hungers for revenge, and to feed. He feels the clammy touch as the leading edge of this pulsating meat-mass touches his hand. He wants to run, wants to scream. But he cannot.
NYT, April 23, 2013: "Philadelphia Abortion Doctor Is Cleared on Some Counts."
Dr. Gosnell’s lawyer, Jack J. McMahon... dismissed prosecutors’ arguments that an arm movement by one of the fetuses, known as Baby C, indicated that it was alive. He said that the movement was “one spasm” but that the fetus was not breathing....
But Edward Cameron, an assistant district attorney, said that Baby C responded and “pulled back” when touched by medical staff. “That’s voluntary movement, and that’s all the law requires,” Mr. Cameron said. “That baby was alive.”... Mr. Cameron also highlighted the case of Baby D, which he said was 10 to 15 inches long and had a head “as big as a pancake.” It was moving when it was delivered into a toilet, Mr. Cameron said.
Posts
40 comments:
Your vet, if you take the dog home to bury that you just put down, will tell you that the dog may move, but it's just muscle spasms.
So there's something to the point.
Maybe you should leave the mushrooms alone when you read the comics.
This is a repugnant comparison to use Althouse. What has gotten into you lately. Are you becoming vapidly intellectually lazy all of sudden? Or is there something deeper going on in your psyche?
What ever happened to rigor mortis?
Anyway, why is the word "abortion" used at all in reference to this case?
The question at had is whether or not the doc killed a living human being, which has nothing to do with abortion, at least until the Pope starts writing our laws.
Ah, the old geography=personhood argument. How many inches out of the birth canal do you have to be, to be a living human being?
Also the Comic Curmudgeon doesn't seem so much curmudgeonly as somewhat insane. A curmudgeon is The Underground Grammarian or Ambrose Bierce.
We talk about this in the Burroughs thread, how Orwellian rhetoric and ideology can hide really foul crimes.
The cops go into an abortion clinic to bust him for illegal pill-pushing. And they are shocked to find all the dead bodies. And so he's charged with multiple murders.
Now we're back in the Orwellian court room, where babies become property right before our eyes. Yesterday you murdered a baby and there was a corpse. The jury saw pictures and heard evidence.
Today you aborted a fetus, and it was a right thing to do.
This is a repugnant comparison to use Althouse. What has gotten into you lately.
She's using dark humor to deal with her grief and her upset. That's normal. See this or this. It might be in horrible taste. It probably is. But I try to use humor to deal with emotional upset because I don't want to be angry all the time.
The Abortion Industry and the End of Life Industry both demand total power like a corrupt and murderous Papacy from the 1500s.
The value of human life plummets when they are in power. The value of human life sores when they are replaced by readers of the translated Scriptures.
Blame William Tyndale.
Sarge would kick the Gray Lady's ass?
jimbino said...
What ever happened to rigor mortis?
Anyway, why is the word "abortion" used at all in reference to this case?
Because the Lefties would swoon if he were charged with MURDER.
This must be a local news story, I've not heard of it before.
jimbino,
Rigor mortis takes hours to set in. Now, cadaveric spasm can be instantaneous, but it doesn't usually happen.
(Yeah, I read too many mystery novels.)
Query, though: Why would Gosnell (or his assistants) "snip" a baby if they were sure it was already dead?
Why didn't they use the WHO definition of born alive ... breathed, had a heartbeat, or exhibited voluntary muscle movement? If a personnel of the clinic recognized just one of those three at any time, then the baby was alive and should have been sent to a hospital.
Well, sent to the hospital or you just stab scissors into the back of their neck to kill them. They paid for an abortion after all.
Hey, if they don't "just come out limp and dead" ( you know like breathing an such ) it doesn't mean you should let them live. It's the Obama way.
The verdict is that a human life has selective value from conception to grave. We are especially vulnerable to acts of involuntary exploitation (e.g. elective abortion) when we have no voice to protest or Arms to challenge our persecutors.
Would the verdict have been different if the human life was named Barack Obama? There is a greater emotional connection formed when an object is identified.
With "diversity" we are interchangeable. With "rights" we are disposable. With "progress" we are dysfunctional and degenerate.
Good thing President Foodstamps is out schilling for Planned Parenthood today.
Will the liberal courts give Gosnell a way out? but of course...
sick.
"How many inches out of the birth canal do you have to be, to be a living human being?"
And what about blobs of cells delivered by Caesarean section? Do they ever become human? Is it still OK to stick some scissors in their necks when they are, say, 42?
President-Mom-Jeans said...
Good thing President Foodstamps is out schilling for Planned Parenthood today.
An moral president would announce the investigations of any Planned Parenthood clinics receiving federal funds that sent patients to Gosnell's clinic. And actually apply healthcare laws to them as well.
The best trick Margaret Sanger ever pulled was making people forget what it was that she wanted. Now her movement has hundreds of millions of adherents, marching in lock step with her psychotic ambitions.
Jupiter:
We are all "blobs" of cells. Some of us are better formed than others. The material difference between the "blob" of cells before birth and after, is that in the latter case we have a voice to protest and, typically, arms (and Arms) to challenge anyone or anything who would choose to conduct involuntary exploitation, including murder.
The "blobs" of cells criterion is insufficient to discern the quality of a human life, which evolves from conception to grave.
lincolntf:
Can it still be considered a genocide when it is elective (i.e. choice)?
I think it can be. If the decision was made after indoctrination (i.e. manipulation) and the consequences were either misrepresented or obfuscated.
What people fail to appreciate is that the principles of evolution are not relevant to a species as a whole. The principle they need to recall is survival of the fittest. Their dysfunctional behavior is endorsed by a minority class of men and women.
That said, liberty is only suitable for individuals capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. If people willfully defer their dignity to the stewardship of others then perhaps they are, in fact, unfit to survive.
"And what about blobs of cells delivered by Caesarean section? Do they ever become human? Is it still OK to stick some scissors in their necks when they are, say, 42?"
Sounds reasonable to me. We can call it the Macduff Principle.
jimbino said...
What ever happened to rigor mortis?
Anyway, why is the word "abortion" used at all in reference to this case?
Are we to believe other physicians and healthcare professionals referred their patients to Gosnell for an infanticide?
Don't worry about me. React to the post in itself.
The Blobs of cells were first seen in a good sci-fi flick with Steve McQueens in the starring role.
That Blob could jump on the unwary and counter abort them instead of it.
Needless to say, the screams and horror equaled Gosnell's clinic.
Anyway, why is the word "abortion" used at all in reference to this case?
Because that was the purpose of the clinic, and also because third trimester abortions are illegal in Pennslyvania.
Aw, little boy Barry backed down:
President Obama has canceled plans to deliver a keynote address at Planned Parenthood’s annual fundraising dinner Thursday night after critics decried his high-profile role at the abortion rights group amid new concerns about the brutality of illegal forms of abortion.
White House spokesman Jay Carney announced the decision to cancel the keynote speech at the gala during his daily press briefing with reporters Wednesday.
I don't understand what the fuss is about here. Uncle Kermit was doing what Planned Parenthood and President Obama believes to be a medical procedure.
Marshal said...
Are we to believe other physicians and healthcare professionals referred their patients to Gosnell for an infanticide?
They wouldn't perform it because it would be infanticide. On the other hand, Gosnell was know to do this. Why else would you refer a woman to him?
And the defense rests ...
https://twitter.com/jdmullane/statuses/327113184244797440
... wow. That was a short defense.
I think they might still be able to get Gosnell on "Littering with Intent".
It's remarkable how this case makes the pro-chocie crowd so incoherent. See, for instance, the NYT article.
A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday threw out three of seven murder charges against a Philadelphia doctor charged with killing viable fetuses while performing abortions.
Think about that sentence! Gosnell is charged with murdering babies. Newborns. Yet the NYT changes the allegations to "killing viable fetuses."
Of course, it's true that Gosnell is charged with doing illegal abortions on unborn babies, in addition to the murder charges on newborns. Yet the paper conflates the illegal abortions with the murders in a desperate attempt to keep denying the baby's humanity.
Halfway through the frickin' first sentence, the victim of a murder becomes a "viable fetus."
The NYT goes on to say...
Judge Minehart also granted a motion for acquittal in five charges of abuse of corpse against Dr. Gosnell, who according to prosecutors killed fetuses that were alive after they were aborted by plunging scissors into their necks..
You got that? Born babies are fetuses now. Hey, just like the Romans! Congrats, NYT, you are the paper of record for pagans everywhere.
Dr. Gosnell, 72, was also acquitted on one charge of infanticide.
Now it's the paper of record for chaos and confusion. One charge of infanticide was dismissed? Is that different than the three murder charges that were dismissed?
The murders, the infanticides, and the constitutional rights seem to be conflating in a moshpit of body parts and decapitations.
Be kinda awkward for liberals if Dr. Gosnell is acquitted of everything. "Oh sure, he's a monster, but it's the law."
The illegal abortion charges, by the way, will almost certainly end up in federal court, since the Supremes made it a right to do an abortion until birth for health reasons, including the stigma of unwed motherhood.
I guess Justice Kennedy will be using "stare decisis" to rewrite Roe yet again.
Two words: Eraserhead chicken.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqV41XH_dLI
Pretty good summary here. Apparently there are separate charges for "infanticide" and "first degree murder."
Weird how a blog can do the simple reporting that the NYT can't actually do. Space limitations? Ideological bullshit?
He said that the movement was “one spasm” but that the fetus was not breathing....
Breathing is not the standard for whether a baby is alive.
“That’s voluntary movement, and that’s all the law requires,” Mr. Cameron said.
Not sure that's right, either. But voluntary movement does coincide with activity in the brain stem, which is the legal standard for human life.
Weird how these attorneys who are fighting over Dr. Gosnell's infanticides think that the baby's life is an important issue. Almost like they think Roe v. Wade is wrong or something.
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins."
One thing to drive home is how political Barry is, who his real political coalitions are, and the money behind them.
I know it's old hat, but the more sunlight getting cast onto just how much he needs to organize, obfuscate, emotionalize, and sometimes compromise the common interest for what seem to be his beliefs and political calculations, the better.
He loves the speeches, and the crust of moderation that th good faith of the nation and the office of the Presidency has, for they give him cover.
Debt, dependency, greens, reds, unions, feminists, abortionists, all prosper under his activism. This is where the ideas lead.
Ann Althouse said...
Don't worry about me. React to the post in itself.
So there is something wrong. I wonder what it could be.
The tattoo on Cookie the tubby cook with hairy upper-arms. ... Tattoos aren't just for old Popeye the salty Sailor types nowadays.
Cookie the comic strip Army cook was hip and fashionable ahead of his time. Contemporary people are so much more sophisticated than old folks who think tattoos are low class.
Men with tattoos get a lot more sex! ... Which we hope doesn't lead to abortion.
"Viable fetus". Is that newspeak for premature baby?
Post a Comment