That's a snippet of the illustration — by Ruth Gwily — which you can see enlarged and in full here. The op-ed, by Katha Pollitt, is "How to Really Defend Planned Parenthood." Pollitt's op-ed is somewhat interesting, because she does seem to be struggling over what to think and how to talk about abortion in the wake of the disturbing Planned Parenthood videos. ("[T]he videos do cleverly evoke visceral feelings of disgust — graphic images, physicians using the words 'crush' and 'crunchy' — to activate the stereotype that abortion providers are money-grubbing baby killers.") Pollitt wants pro-choice people to speak up, loud and clear, rather than to keep their head down and only pipe up when there's something — like these videos — that needs a response. But in the end, I don't think Pollitt has said anything that will change the low-profile of the pro-choice crowd.
We need to say that women have sex, have abortions, are at peace with the decision and move on with their lives. We need to say that is their right, and, moreover, it’s good for everyone that they have this right: The whole society benefits when motherhood is voluntary. When we gloss over these truths we unintentionally promote the very stigma we’re trying to combat...There are truths on both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, and the truths on the pro-life side lend themselves to loud, passionate assertion. On the pro-choice side, there's more reason to exercise restraint. These are hard truths. The whole society benefits when motherhood is voluntary can be paraphrased as That dead baby would have been a bad citizen anyway. And the pro-choice side got its passion extracted when abortion became a right. Rights are supposed to make you feel secure, and, feeling secure, why should you have to yell about what you want anymore?
But let's talk about that illustration. I thought some right-wing website was portraying feminists as creepy, ugly jerks! The rat teeth, the sneering nose, the greasy, stringy hair, the misshapen ear that seems twisted a few notches to the left. That's the pro-choice image of a pro-choice woman?! I don't get it. Why make her repulsive?
It also makes no sense to use a tiny megaphone to express the idea that her voice is not being heard. Pro-choicers can get all the social and mainstream amplification they want. They are choosing to be low-key. That's Pollitt's point!
I'm assuming that you immediately perceive the thing in the woman's hand as a megaphone. I called Meade over to look at the illustration, and at first glance, he "saw" a little baby about to be eaten by the woman.
I did a Google image search for a megaphone to get an idea of how accurate the illustration is and I came up with this Planned Parenthood image:
I strongly suspect that Ruth Gwily (the illustrator) used that photo as her reference. I think it explains the protruding teeth and the sneering nose. It seemed, I'm guessing, like a good idea to turn the pretty model into a "real" woman, and nobody with decision-making authority had the perspective to notice how awful she looked.
Posts
283 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 283 of 283Blogger Big Mike said...
Also, your comment at 1:58, can you explain the 3rd paragraph. What I'm reading into it is along the lines of it's expensive to keep a premature baby alive so better to abort the fetus. I trust I'm misinterpreting you.
I trust you're not misinterpreting her.
Ann Althouse said...Would you experiment upon thousands of little creatures toward the end of achieving that goal?
Would you kill thousands upon thousands of little creatures towards the goal of helping women avoid the inconvenience and burden of being pregnant/carrying a child to term? PP does. Would you kill thousands and thousand of little creatures in specific ways (ways that may not be medically necessary or correct for the "mother") in order to preserve organs so that you can sell them to medical companies and thereby gain money to fund your continuing operations? PP does (or if we're being fair, is alleged to do so).
Experimenting on thousands of little creatures doesn't seem right to you. Institutionalized killing of tens of thousands of little creatures apparently isn't a problem.
"No, Ann, the problem is that argument is an out and out lie, and no one who's paid attention to the videos believes it."
The Professor has NOT watched the videos. Words are the only thing that matter to her. Only, it's words that have been pronounced by PP that she cares about. The words spoken in the video have no meaning to her. There are some issues that she is damn sure she is correct about and hell and be damned if someone tries to educate her. In that way she is a lot like Obama. She's the smartest law professor just like he is the smartest Prez ever. She's like Josh Earnest & the WH who say well, I've read in the paper that videos are debunked so therefore they are debunked.
Arguments are valid only when they don't make me rethink my views.
There is no basis for the belief I call apparent?
Ok, then given the *hours* of footage beyond the Lamborghini line that make perfectly clear that what is going on is Commerce In Body Parts, how do you justify ripping it out of that context, "explaining" it (badly), accuse your opponents of bad faith for even bringing it up, and then acting as if the entire matter is settled?
Still seems pretty apparent to me.
Of course, I note you didnt answer the question. What percentage of the videoa have you seen, Ann?
If you want to shut your eyes and live in wilful ignorance, thats on you. What I cant stomach is the gall of then calling US "dishonest and uninformed".
motherhood is voluntary can be paraphrased as that dead baby would have been a bad citizen anyway'-- I certainly didn't think that Katha Pollitt was intending to mean that. Who argues that women who may have abortions are likely to bear children who become bad citizens? There may be some eugenicists out there somewhere... but I think I'm just missing your point."
Do you remember the old PP slogan: Every child a wanted child.
The idea is that we're all better off, because the unwanted child doesn't have good enough prospects. It is eugenics, packaged within individual autonomy, and that's why so many people are willing to go along with abortion but want to be low-key about it.
Those who are anti-abortion seem puzzled that the videos aren't having more effect, but I think the problem is that those who support abortion know what is involved, that a baby is killed, whether they like calling it a baby or not. They know it's grisly, and a human body winds up dead. This isn't news, but they don't want to dwell on it.
You might want to say: Please look at the suffering. Don't be so hard-hearted. But you could ALWAYS say that.
What has changed? Video shows that there is commerce or something like commerce in body parts? But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added? For every twinge that maybe PP is money-grubbing, there's a twinge in the other direction that says medical research might help people.
How much lower can you sink, professor?
You seem to have no morals at all.
This world does not exist to kiss your ass.
How many more rationales can you invent to justify your right to commit murder?
How did you arrive at this juncture?
Feminism has really fucked us up.
Our age old belief in the moral supremacy of woman has rendered us incapable of confronting the sheer, murderous evil women like Althouse advocate, so long as they pretty up their desire to commit murder in the language of do-gooderism.
What has changed is the clear and compelling evidence that PP is breaking the law.
There's also more evidence for the fact that abortion desensitizes and dehumanizes its practitioners, which may not be as obvious as you desperately want to believe.
Everyone take a deep breath in.......hold it for a count of five and then let it out sloooooow. OK now go ahead and post your comment.
I was an unwanted child.
My mother told me so every day of my youth.
She said: "If abortion had been legal when I was young, you never would have been born."
She meant it, too. I was born with my umbilical cord wrapped around my neck and I barely survived suffocation during delivery.
Despite that, I've lived quite a successful and happy life. I have children and grandchildren.
My father fought against that sin of my mother, and over the decades my mother, without ever acknowledging her sin against her children, has become a great-grandmother who is happy with her life and her progeny. I learned to overcome my mother's selfishness. I learned to become happy and productive.
Would it have been better to have given her the right to commit infanticide?
Because it's beyond abortion.
It's no longer about the woman's body or the unwanted pregnancy, it is about maximizing revenue streams.
Why should Planned Parenthood have non-profit status?
How is this feminism?
I think McArdle's column today is relevant to Althouse's argument that the children must be dismembered, and it's ghoulish to contemplate allowing them to live---
This isn't a legal or a rational position. It's a religious one.
Althouse does not believe in a woman's absolute dominion over her body - she makes an exception for their might be a war that would require women to take up ranks in the front line. Then, the state has a prevailing interest in keeping them safe, for re-population.
So if you oppose abortion because you consider it the murder of a human being, that's controlling women sexual organs. But if you support the government reserving the right to control women's sexual organs, then that's just smart planning.
I think it's one of those cases where the aesthetics of the position are fluid, but the central premise, "whatever is most convenient for the material well-being of women at any given time", is pretty rock solid.
Those who are anti-abortion seem puzzled that the videos aren't having more effect...
...really? Puzzled that the mainstream press are blockading the story (THANK YOU, Cecil the Lion!!) or puzzled that an Obama court appointee granted prior restraint to PP regarding video releases?
They're only at #5, of...14 or more?
I don't think these videos should make us reconsider whether ABORTION should be legal/illegal.
These videos SHOULD make us reconsider and investigate whether Planned Parenthood is the best way to spend government money on women's health. For example, I wonder if there are service providers who don't lie to their patients and delay procedures to get better samples for their side business who could use some government funding instead of Planned Parenthood.
Ann, I assume you watched her expression on the video as she said it. Humor was conspicuously non-evident.
If I was pro-choice, I would have an abortion in a hospital. I would have the doctor and staff put my health above the potential revenue and of the medical waste.
I had a benign tumor on my breast removed at a hospital, rather superficial, but it was growing. The doctor's priority is me when I'm on the operating table! The priority is not what happens to the benign tumor afterwards that would benefit her or the hospital.
We argue who has more rights woman vs. unborn child. Now PP shifts it, who brings in more profit. The question is not woman vs. unborn child, the question PP's interests is more about a fresh speciems vs. women's health.
If I was pro-choice, I would have an abortion in a hospital. I would have the doctor and staff put my health above the potential revenue and of the medical waste.
I had a benign tumor on my breast removed at a hospital, rather superficial, but it was growing. The doctor's priority is me when I'm on the operating table! The priority is not what happens to the benign tumor afterwards that would benefit her or the hospital.
We argue who has more rights woman vs. unborn child. Now PP shifts it, who brings in more profit. The question is not woman vs. unborn child, the question PP's interests is more about a fresh speciems vs. women's health.
Ann Althouse said...The Lamborghini remark was an offhand joke/stupidity that has been used for everything that it's possible to use for to stir up outrage. I am not impressed with this.
I don't remember that being your position when Dr. Tim Hunt got shitcanned, Prof. He told a couple of jokes in a lecture, those jokes were misreported as being sexists comments, the outrage machine took over, and he suffered the consequences. Was that outcome not problematic enough in your mind to warrant comment, or pushback against that outrage?
See, I'm really trying to understand when emotional appeals/outrage based on loose interpretation of facts are ok and when they aren't. According to Pollit and I guess to Prof. A (based on her comments here) we shouldn't be blinded by the emotional response (disgust) we feel based on these videos--we should think deeply about the circumstances, give PP the benefit of the doubt, consider context and nuance, etc. But in a large number of recent cases where the Media (ie the Left) has turned its Outrage Machine on someone we were encouraged to do exactly none of those things--it was all emotion all the time, and that was a-OK. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?
So, for reference, this is what the ghoulish act of keeping a 22 week preemie alive looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqlaDJ352uU
Abortion is legal. Abortion is the woman's decision. Period. That's the bottom line and the highest truth. Anything else is just guys who have time to waste at their computers spouting arguments that don't reach to the root or the height of the matter. If you have that kind of time to waste. Good for you. But it won't make a dimes worth a difference...
Ann Althouse said...For every twinge that maybe PP is money-grubbing, there's a twinge in the other direction that says medical research might help people.
Mengele's high altitude experiments produced research that later helped some people. Twinge!
AA, at 1:58pm: "The answer is that under American law, the individual whose body is subjected to the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth has a right to determine for herself what is preferable. She is the decisionmaker." We get this, even if in comments threads it isn't always obvious. We think the status quo should be changed, but we get it.
What I don't understand is what you continue with, the premature infant/industry built around caring for premature infants business. I guess you are implying that-- were abortions to be made illegal after 22 or 24 weeks that that will result in thousands of premature infants on whom countless resources will be wasted, which leaves me shaking my head, because of course that argument about 'wasting resources' can be wielded against the elderly in care, the disabled in care etc i.e. precisely those vulnerable groups of people whose personhood is not in any doubt (except in those academic and think tank quarters where the Singers and Savalescus exist darkly). I get that there are folks who comment here who may think that the state ought not to contribute toward the support of such people but I didn't know you were one of that lot.
Those who are anti-abortion seem puzzled that the videos aren't having more effect, but I think the problem is that those who support abortion know what is involved, that a baby is killed, whether they like calling it a baby or not. They know it's grisly, and a human body winds up dead. This isn't news, but they don't want to dwell on it.
You might want to say: Please look at the suffering. Don't be so hard-hearted. But you could ALWAYS say that.
What has changed? Video shows that there is commerce or something like commerce in body parts? But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added? For every twinge that maybe PP is money-grubbing, there's a twinge in the other direction that says medical research might help people.
I shudder when I read such callousness, but I know it's true.
I remember in college I was in a debate class/English class and we had to give speeches. I gave mine on abortion. Several times during the question/answer part, I was challenged on my assertion that it's a baby, rather than a clump of cells (The year was 1990). The idea was, the pro abortion crowd was just as moral as the rest of us, because we differed over what was happening inside the woman. The pro life crowd said, it's the murder of a human life. The pro abortion crowd exclaimed, "No! It's a clump of cells."
Like the atheist, it was always a lie. They told themselves the lie because it was comforting to their psyche, so that they could have what they wanted.
Now the lie has been shattered. It was shattered when the 3d imaging of babies in the womb became popular. They were forced to confront the truth they knew all along. And they've had time to adjust. Now, they are comfortable in their evil.
Blogger sunsong said...
Abortion is legal. Abortion is the woman's decision. Period. That's the bottom line and the highest truth. Anything else is just guys who have time to waste at their computers spouting arguments that don't reach to the root or the height of the matter. If you have that kind of time to waste. Good for you. But it won't make a dimes worth a difference...
I take it you support the murder of innocent babies.
those who support abortion know what is involved, that a baby is killed,
Even Ann admits it.
Marc-- yeah, from a 'future value to society' argument, it makes a lot more sense to drop $1 Million on a preemie who has 80-90 years ahead of him than on a 75 year old whose best years are behind him.
I mean, if money is the issue.
I guess it depends on whether you believe a life is valuable as a life, or only as an economic unit to be used for the greater good of society.
But, if I were a baby boomer approaching retirement, I'd think twice before arguing that current costs of medical care should be weighed against future value.....
Ann Althouse said...Those who are anti-abortion seem puzzled that the videos aren't having more effect, but I think the problem is that those who support abortion know what is involved, that a baby is killed, whether they like calling it a baby or not. They know it's grisly, and a human body winds up dead. This isn't news, but they don't want to dwell on it.
Ok, and why don't they want to dwell on it? No one wants to dwell on the harm their decisions may cause, even if they'd still make the decision knowing the harm. Pollitt says pro-abortion people ought to be more vocal about their support, but even she doesn't say they ought to be more willing to dwell on the grisly truth. I for one am not puzzled, and I don't think people in this comment section are expressing puzzlement so much as disappointment. The pro-abortion folks on the do a lot to hide the grisly truth ("it's just a clump of cells, it's just a normal medical procedure like having a tumor removed") and in so doing are dishonest. You seem to be giving them credit for honesty (they know it's grisly already) on the one hand and forgiving the dishonesty on the other (they just don't want to dwell on it), Professor.
In other words, many of us don't believe it when pro-abortion people say they think it's just a clump of cells and they're nothing morally wrong with abortion. They claim that is their belief, but I don't buy it. Their behavior (constant resort to euphemism, misdirection [it helps advance science!], emotional appeal [anti-abortionists want to enslave women], and evasion [let's just not dwell on the truth]) gives evidence that they know there is a moral problem with their position and/or that their assertions are factually false.
As someone who has been vocally skeptical of publicly professed religious belief I think you'd understand the skepticism towards the professed beliefs of the pro-abortion crowd.
"Abortion is legal. Abortion is the woman's decision. Period. That's the bottom line and the highest truth."
Where do people get this type of flaccid thinking? Abortion is legal ergo it should be legal.
Anchors Refuse to Say ‘Baby’ in Planned Parenthood Reports.
Link
Also, I agree with Matthew Sablan that these videos are unlikely to sway many people's opinion about abortion itself or whether it ought to remain legal, but they really SHOULD sway people's opinion about Planned Parenthood w/r/t the veracity of its statements and public image. The videos give evidence that PP lies about why it does things and possibly evidence that PP engages in illegal behavior (certainly in morally questionable behavior, irrespective of your view of abortion's morality generally). That supporters of PP haven't been able to make a good case in PPs defense ("oh, it's heavily edited, she was only joking" etc) likewise should give evidence against trusting PP.
The videos give evidence that PP isn't the sort of organization our government ought to be supporting. That's enough for me, and I guess any puzzlement Prof A detects might be from others not understanding why the videos don't cause others to come to this same conclusion (again apart from however one might feel about abortion itself).
Feminists ARE creepy, ugly jerks [UDT #24 - Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.]- ones who support infanticide. Why are so many being quiet? Probably because they're embarrassed that to admit they support trafficking in body parts from murdered innocent babies. Should they speak up? Would you? But if this cunt wants to loudly proclaim she supports baby murder then let her, but let's not pretend she and those like her are something better than creepy, ugly jerks.
AA. I didn't see your comment at 2:20 before I posted mine at 2:49. I do recall that the notion 'every child should be wanted' has been used in the argument, but it is a peculiarly unconvincing argument, surely, if people think about it any length. I don't engage those who are overly excitable in comments threads, ordinarily, but in this particular instance I think Shouting Thomas at 2:32 makes a valid (if sad, lamentable etc) point.
While I welcome the CMP videos, I think that they will have a small effect-- perhaps some women will reconsider killing their unborn children, perhaps the feds will end up reducing some of these monies available to PP, perhaps more people will be motivated to go out to work at supporting women who are living with challenging pregnancies, perhaps the consensus against euthanasia won't grow-- precisely because I agree with you that women have always known what is at stake in the choice they make, the nature of which choice being something the pro-abortion propagandists have tried to obscure assiduously for the last forty years.
Because it's beyond abortion. It's no longer about the woman's body or the unwanted pregnancy, it is about maximizing revenue streams.
Money is important, but it isn't the whole thing. The question you have to ask is this: what does money get PP? Higher salaries for doctors / providers / executives at PP? Partly. But what it really gets is this: power.
Let's boil all of this down to the question of why abortion is such an important topic to feminists: it is the one absolute privilege that women have over men in this country. It's the one situation where men have absolutely no bargaining power or say in the matter. And as the leading provider of this service, PP will do ANYTHING to make sure that doesn't change, because they're feminists first and health care providers last.
But the culture is changing. Because of advances in science, people can see their growing child in ultrasounds, and babies can survive longer outside the womb. That's why PP and the media are scared - all it takes is for this to get out en masse (via the mainstream media), and there will be an uproar not seen in this country for ages.
It's why there is so much backpedaling, and why some pro-choicers are contorting themselves into knots trying to justify it all.
But, if I were a baby boomer approaching retirement, I'd think twice before arguing that current costs of medical care should be weighed against future value.....
They might end up bedridden and helpless in care of the care of the sort of people at PP.
Abortion is legal. Abortion is the woman's decision. Period. That's the bottom line and the highest truth. Anything else is just guys who have time to waste at their computers spouting arguments that don't reach to the root or the height of the matter. If you have that kind of time to waste. Good for you. But it won't make a dimes worth a difference...
No, not period. The law can change.
That said - if the above is some kind of argument, then it proves that you did not read a single comment in this thread, because a number of people put forth arguments that reached beyond the root or height of the mater. Or it proves that it doesn't matter how much logic or reason you hear, your mind is made up.
In the latter of those two scenarios, if you had the stones to admit that, you'd at least have the advantage of being honest.
Video shows that there is commerce or something like commerce in body parts? But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life?
Well, for one thing, I'm pretty sure there are laws against commerce in body parts. So if PP is in fact engaged in commerce in body parts it means they're breaking the law. If they're breaking the law then it can't be said "you might not like abortion, but what PP does is legal in America," which you'll note is a common defense (including here). That seems like a big deal, at least if one cares about whether PP acts within the law or not.
Video shows that there is commerce or something like commerce in body parts? But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added?
Well, Professor, I might be an atheist but this still shocked my conscience. I am aware that Planned Parenthood pushes abortion in preference to taking the baby to term; any number of interviews with young woman who've been through Planned Parenthood, and articles actually authored by such women, have established this beyond reasonable doubt. Now I have to wonder whether there is a profit motive behind their emphasis on abortion as the easy way out.
I also note that back during the Bush administration the research in fetal stem cells was restricted to established stem cell lines because, in part, it was believed that some people would use abortion primarily to provide stem cells for research and not to end problematic pregnancies. The longer the Left is in power in the US, the more retrospective respect I have for George W. Bush.
Ann Althouse said...What has changed? Video shows that there is commerce or something like commerce in body parts? But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added? For every twinge that maybe PP is money-grubbing, there's a twinge in the other direction that says medical research might help people.
The videos are being used by anti-abortion people to argue BOTH that PP is morally bad/evil (money grubbing, etc) AND that PP likely violates the law and should therefore be investigated. Even if you think the 1st part is nothing new, do you really think the 2nd part is inconsequential? In other words, does it matter to you if PP follows the law or not? I guess it's possible for someone to say "we already know abortion is the killing of a human life and PP performs abortions, so it doesn't really matter if they follow some chickenshit law against engaging in commerce in body parts," but I'd like to give you more credit than that, Prof.
Maybe I'm insufficiently jaded, but it seems like the law still matters. Or is this one of those Leftist things, where you can say we should all just MoveOn? You know, a President perjured himself, but he was only lying about sex, it was just a sex thing, and anyway his enemies are such jerks that the Media just decided it's wasn't a big deal. Maybe that's it, that sure, maybe the videos give evidence that PP acts in violation of the law and that their public statements are contradicted by their employees' actual actions, but it's only an abortion thing, so the lies are in the service of keeping abortion available, and anyway anti-abortionists are such jerks that we should all just decide it's not a big deal.
Laws against commerce in body parts? At this point what difference do they even make?
Now, if you shoot a lion that should have been protected, or build guitars using wood that was legal when you bought it but later was added to a restricted list, or forget to dot every i on some IRS form and happen to be on the Right...well then, sorry buddy, the majesty of the law and all that jazz, your ass is toast.
Those who are anti-abortion seem puzzled that the videos aren't having more effect, but I think the problem is that those who support abortion know what is involved, that a baby is killed, whether they like calling it a baby or not. They know it's grisly, and a human body winds up dead. This isn't news, but they don't want to dwell on it.
No, we're amazed the media spent more time on a fucking dead lion in Zimbabwe than selling dead baby parts here.
It's not surprise, it's revulsion, maybe combined with the promising recognition that abortion advocates have nothing beyond Althousian disingenuousness and foot-stamping. In which case one can credibly expect reason to eventually win.
You might want to say: Please look at the suffering. Don't be so hard-hearted. But you could ALWAYS say that.
If I remember correctly, by the way, the Prof was sufficiently upset by the lack of compassion a group of Libertarians showed for people who might be discriminated against under a hypothetical future with Libertarian laws (around freedom of association)--or possibly it was around their lack of compassion towards people who were discriminated against under Jim Crow--that she wept. In that instance she was upset at Libertarians for NOT looking at the suffering. In that instance dwelling on suffering and potential suffering was correct, and the people who minimized those problems in favor of some larger goal/good were wrong. In THIS instance it's the people who want to dwell on the suffering who are wrong, and the people who want to minimize that suffering/those problems in favor of some larger goal who are correct.
Is the difference something other than the fact that in the Prof's framework the principle beneficiaries of the availability of abortion are women, or is that it? If the heuristic to determine whether, per Prof. A, one should dwell on suffering or not is simply to answer "does the suffering occur in furtherance of a goal that primarily benefits women," that's at least an easy way to predict the Prof's response...but it's not exactly sophisticated, nor would it be easy to defend on moral grounds.
"PP is good for women, so whether they follow the law or not is immaterial."
"PP provides abortions, and having abortion available is good for women, so whether they follow the law or not is immaterial."
"PP is good for women, so whether they're honest in their public statements about their actions is immaterial."
"PP is good for women, so an investigation into their practices (even when prompted by clandestinely-taped conversations seeming to show them to engaged in likely-illegal practices) hurts women, so PP must not be investigated."
I mean, if you care about bluntness and honesty, shouldn't you just say that?
Make this argument to the woman who has dominion over her own body.
The moral problem is dominion over someone else's body.
I'm done with Althouse. Anyone who is so blindly superficial and immoral can have nothing whatever to say that would interest me.
sunsong said...
Abortion is legal. Abortion is the woman's decision. Period. That's the bottom line and the highest truth. Anything else is just guys who have time to waste at their computers spouting arguments that don't reach to the root or the height of the matter. If you have that kind of time to waste. Good for you. But it won't make a dimes worth a difference...
Commerce in fetal organs is illegal. PP employees are on tape apparently discussing PP conducting commerce in fetal organs. PP ought to be investigated for possible illegal acts. Period. That's the bottom line and the highest truth. Anything else is just guys who have time to waste a their computers spouting arguments that don't address the actual issue. If you want to ignore the actual issue and have time to do so, good for you. But it won't change the facts...
Wow, I almost got clobbered by the goalposts zipping by...
For weeks, our hostess's readers have been informing her that the videos clearly show Commerce In Body Parts.
In response today, our hostess insults that readership by calling them "dishonest or uninformed", and then when asked directly refuses to confirm whether she ever actually watched the videos herself. Her focus on one single line ("Lamborghini") pointed out by those readers, as if the context of the entirety of all the videos proving Commerce In Body Parts didn't exist, is further evidence that she never bothered to check. She just assumes bad faith on their part.
And now, confronted with being unable to actually defend her insult of her readership, and realizing that she doesn't actually know what the videos do or don't prove, and she *still* can't be bothered to investigate for herself, instead of apologizing to those readers she throws the Mother Of All Moving Goalposts. Now, the issue suddenly becomes, hey, even IF the videos prove they're trafficking in body parts, so what? We always knew babies were getting chopped up anyway. We always knew we were condoning murder. Might as well do something useful with the carcass, amirite? Never mind that PP is financially invested in, as the videos also prove, getting women to delay their abortions so the parts are more "viable". Suddenly, the legality of abortion as a function of "viability" is also a trifling concern, really a footnote that those godbothering right wing nutjobs are unfairly tarring their opponents with.
(By the way, I've been agnostic for over 30 years. It's not the religious pro-lifers who are making religious arguments in defense of their position. It's the pro-choice side, with their Magical Vaginal Canal of Ensoulment, doing that).
Personally, I won't be clicking the Althouse Amazon link until an apology to her readership for projecting BOTH "dishonest" AND "uninformed" onto her readers, while practicing both things herself. I'll give Instapundit the pennies. He is at least capable of acknowledging when people he disagrees with have a point, and if everyone tells him "A says B", he looks for himself before insulting them.
Personally, I won't be clicking the Althouse Amazon link until an apology to her readership for projecting BOTH "dishonest" AND "uninformed" onto her readers, while practicing both things herself.
I'm not sure I agree with that call. I come here because Althouse and her commenters are often interesting. It would be different if I was looking for morality or integrity, but I don't think Althouse pretends to value such things (other than as a pretext for policies she likes).
"If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one."
"If you don't believe in killing fish, don't kill a fish."
"If you don't believe in murder, don't murder anyone."
Two out of three of those sentences are equivalent to both sides, it's just a different two.
But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added?
Like I said, literally ghouls.
Also note...
"But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added? "
If we already always knew that, why has the pro-choice side *always* continued to maintain their "clump of cells" narrative? What has been added by these videos is the total dismantling of that narrative. Maybe in the faculty lounge everyone has always admitted that abortion is "the killing of a human life". When was the last time you heard *any* democrat politician concede the point? Ever?
The shipping and handling argument is disingenuous. If that is what they were discussing, there wouldn't be any need to negotiate. The doctor could just whip out a UPS or Fedex schedule of rates - x amount to this region, y amount to that. The packaging would be standard, and the weights wouldn't vary much. So that is misdirection. Ann also doesn't mention that in one of the videos, they bring up price and the doctor says " in negotiation the first to mention the price loses" or words to that effect. So a fixed shipping and handling price is not what was being discussed.
I couldn't make myself watch after the first one, but I saw a still from the third ( ? I think) of the parts in a tray, and of the tiny arm hand with the 5 tiny fingers. It made me ill.
I think that illustration may be the artists rendition of Katha Pollit - which would actually make it quite flattering.
'We already always knew what abortion was, the killing of a human life'-- that Professor Althouse knows this, quite apart from every other aspect of this business with the CMP videos, is in itself a good thing, is it not? many other commentators pretend not to know this fundamental truth; shame on them. That she doesn't draw the right conclusions from it, well, well, there are very few paragons of virtue and reason on the Internet. I suspect that most people whose minds are changed on this subject find that this happens away from the computer keyboard.
The human rights issue begins and ends with indiscriminate killing of wholly innocent human lives. The evidence for the abortion industry's torture and dismemberment of viable human lives, then Planned Parenthood's subsequent harvesting and sale of their preserved tissue, parts, and bodies, is directed to adherents of the pro-choice or selective religious/moral doctrine. The peculiarly classified "social moderates".
Marc,
I'm not sure I agree that *knowing* and admitting that it's the taking of a human life, being okay with that and arguing for its continued legality, is better than claiming not to know it. The latter simply pretends ignorance, but by doing so in a sense acknowledges that if it *were* "the taking of a human life", it would be a bad thing. The former doesn't even leave room for that.
I am marginally pro-choice but I just don't like the fact that PP is running a human chop shop. If you are going to have an abortion, then have an abortion but don't harvest the organs.
Funny how it becomes a human liver when they need it for research.
Ann Althouse said...
"Why is dismemberment preferable to early delivery and adoption?"
Make this argument to the woman who has dominion over her own body.
8/6/15, 1:40 PM"
Bad argument. If she did have dominion over her body then she would have the right to legally prostitute herself and to sell her own organs. Being a whore or selling an organ doesn't involve killing someone else so there nothing to make an argument to woman about. Nor would your straw-woman want to hear a man tell her honey, your body, your choice and your child support. You have no dominion over my body and the labor I exert to earn money.
Althouse said:
"Saying it's obviously commerce in body parts is dishonest or not fully informed.""
If money changed hands, its commerce. To say anything else is dishonest or not fully informed.
"Her stint at NBC was a disaster, perhaps because it ran so contrary to her instincts. “Most of us were baffled [by the hire], because she never even spoke to the press,” says an NBC veteran. “She’d walk by with the imperial stare, looking forward, and interacted not at all.” The feeling inside NBC was that she had been hired to maintain access to and curry favor with the Clintons. When news broke that she had been getting paid $600,000—for a part-time job—NBC staffers were appalled. Most full-time correspondents were being paid far less. The big salary was predicated on the idea that she was already a star, and according to an insider, she started acting like one. Colleagues felt they couldn’t communicate with her directly. Instead, they had to go through her people. And she was hardly present in the office. “There was a joke inside the building that she was the ‘highest-paid ghost’ at NBC,” says a network source. It all might have been excused had she been any good. In the span of nearly three years, however, she filed only a handful of segments—all painfully stiff reports on global do-gooders, plus an attempted comic interview with the Geico Gecko. As the insider puts it, “NBC has made a lot of bad decisions in the last few years, but hiring Chelsea has to be very near the top.”
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/chelsea-clinton-foundation-nbc-first-daughter
mike talked about dishonest arguments and how poorly the media is informing any of us on this issue, with a few examples.
There is a sideways slant to any discussion on abortion, even the slide that Ann makes by making this post about the illustration, and then moving on.
ann mentions that everyone (in the pro-choice camp) knows body parts are being harvested.
This would be a good time to fully examine the ethics of it. I am quite sure much excellent work is being done in integrity,a don it would be useful for us to review such systems that are part of our science and medicine.
Too bad the media wants to slant and hide, deflect and not detail.
There is some corruption and excess going on inPlanned Parenthood, it seems to me, and we would all be better for a good, thoughtful review.
My heart and prayers go out to all those that must make the terrible choice to kill the life inside them, no matter what. It must be their choice, I do believe and will argue out with my dear friends who believe otherwise.
Let us argue it out honestly and aim for the highest good.
Godspeed, America
Qwinn, Oh, it may be a debatable point, sure. I don't know that AA is 'okay' with the act of abortion if only because she is a writer whose blog posts may not always represent her own private moral sentiments (which she's under no obligation to share with anyone, after all). People, in my poor experience, can justify many crimes in the name of this or that without being entirely willing to sign on to all of their consequences, at some level, anyway. AA argues (as I understand it) that, while the act of abortion is killing a human life, the procuring of one is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution: I imagine that from her perspective as a constitutional law professor she doesn't consider herself morally implicated in the killings. That is about as irenic as it's possible for me to be here, and the fact is that I think there've been good arguments in this thread that AA hasn't responded to.
The illustration looks like an asthmatic using an albuterol rescue inhaler with a spacer attached.
"AA argues (as I understand it) that, while the act of abortion is killing a human life, the procuring of one is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution:"
I missed where that right is enshrined in the Constitution. I know there was something about emanations and penumbras of the Constitution at some point. I also knew a lawyer, whose intent was to be come a judge, who readily admitted that the legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was preposterous and indefensible. She also went to every pro-choice march she could find. I always had a lot of respect for her as an individual, and I could never reconcile how she could on principle know full well that the decision was a legal atrocity while simultaneously doing everything she could to defend it. I wonder if the Professor feels the same. I'm just glad my philosophy and beliefs do not require maintaining massive irreconcilable cognitive dissonance, and over an issue of life and death, to boot. I don't know how people do it. It must be hell. To people who simply can't bear to watch the videos because it would require admitting that they've been wrong and that they've been defending the indefensible for most or all of their lives, I can believe that that initial first step would have to be horrible, but I can also only imagine that in the long run getting to shed the insanity of having to maintain completely contradictory beliefs (and act self righteous while advocating murder, to boot) could only be a tremendous relief eventually.
Qwinn, Indeed, yes; Pelosis, Bidens, Kennedys, the whole lot of them are such terrible hypocrites with respect to this issue, judging from here, at any rate, people who 'compartmentalise' or otherwise mute their consciences as they seek power or 'the greater good'. The 'psychopathology of evil', I suppose; thanks for the comments.
And of course I meant, 'a fundamental right guaranteed by the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in Roe v Wade and its progeny'.
Interstate Commerce was defined by the Supreme Court as anything affecting the stream of Commerce, even if the good was not sold. (Willard v Filburn) Therefore, to deny that this is commerce is facially absurd.
That said, whether these things are illegal as practiced by PP is an open question. That PP is negotiating prices shifts the burden of proof to PP, in the court of reasonable people's public opinion, back to PP. So far, the proffered defense is "trust us". Only partisans will take such a defense seriously.
There are more videos coming. I look forward to NOT hearing Or reading about those videos on any MSM outlet.
Wickard
Roe V Wade was possibly, and probably the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made prior to the Roberts Court.. That includes Plessy. It is absurd in its legal "reasoning", it relies on bad science, and it is morally repugnant.
The worst part is how the Liberals simply phoned it in. They knew there was no way the Constitution provided a right to abortion, so they just made one up extending from a right to privacy that also does not exist in the Constitution.
But, it allows women to behave irresponsibly with no repercussions, so it must be defended.
(And very few pro-choicers will admit that it is the taking of a human life. Althouse is the first I know of....perhaps it was a Kinsley gaffe?)
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Why is dismemberment preferable to early delivery and adoption?"
Make this argument to the woman who has dominion over her own body.
1: I'm curious, does everyone "have dominion over [their] own bod[ies]", or only women? because, last I checked, it was illegal in teh US to attempt to commit suicide, which would be a clear right any place where we had dominion over our bodies.
2: Reality check: the woman isn't murdering herself with the abortion, she's murdering another, entirely distinct, human being. A human being who apparent has no "dominion" over her own body, since mommy is having it sliced into bits, and then it's being sold for research.
It would be nice if a law professor would actually pay attention to the law, and to logic.
Ann Althouse said...
"I want whatever job Ann thinks will let you buy a Lamborghini off shipping and handling."
What joking have you ever indulged in when you didn't believe you are being recorded?
Those engaged in serious work do not always speak of their work in somber terms. There is humor, there is irritation, there is stupidity. That is the way human beings adjust to their work and deal with the routine pressure of day to day life. They don't expect a casual, crude snippet to be displayed to the world.
1: If PP was following the law, then they would only be charging their costs.
2: The market value of the baby parts is apparently much higher than PP's costs (according to PP's defenders). As such, an honest PP would not be engaging in any negotiating, at all. "Here's our charges, based on our costs. If you're not willing to pay, someone else will."
3: The point of the Lamborghini comment is that it would not have been made if they were following the law.
I'm not the only one who's pointed all this out. You have consistently ignored it. Do you ahve a reason? Or are even you clear that yes, what PP has been caught doing is a clear violation of the law?
Althouse wrote:
For every twinge that maybe PP is money-grubbing, there's a twinge in the other direction that says medical research might help people.*
Your use of "might" betrays uncertainty that the research has indeed panned out. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. If your strongest argument rests on that, you need to back it up.
I can give you a few good examples in the field of chemical research where faith in "might pan out" destroyed an entire research culture. Given your family history, you should be interested in that. But I doubt that you are, given your personal history.
___________________
* How ironic that a nascent research field depends so on the pre-nascent.
Once you've convinced yourself that Women's Rights trump human rights, the rest is easy.
For every twinge that maybe PP is money-grubbing, there's a twinge in the other direction that says medical research might help people.
Care to explain why PP needs to make a profit for the medical research to help people?
Althouse said,
"What has changed? Video shows that there is commerce or something like commerce in body parts? But why is that any worse than what we already always knew abortion was, the killing of a human life? What is added?"
Let me preface this by saying I don't give a shit what you do with what is yours. The problem becomes that once that egg adheres to the uterus and starts to divide you have another human being.
OK?
I don't see how allowing a pregnancy to advance to the point where the baby is sufficiently large enough to harvest for profit can be anything but unethical. To put it mildly.
And , yes. That is the message. That abortions are a matter of convenience for society. Otherwise there would be large cohorts of unwanted children wandering around causing trouble. Meaning , of course, the black community.
"once that egg adheres to the uterus and starts to divide"
Before the egg adheres to the uterus, meiosis has already started. (Biology 101)
Re: "About to be"? She's already bitten off the head and one arm.
Good one, Smilin' Jack. I had to look at the picture again but then...
I am saddened that my point was misinterpreted by those commenting on it above. I believe that the discussion of when an abortion may be performed requires both sides to recognize that abortion is the taking of a human life, and to discuss it on that basis. Otherwise there is no honest debate possible.
Likewise, once that has been agreed upon, the authority of a mother to terminate her pregnancy needs to be defined; otherwise no honest debate is possible.
If the conclusion of this debate is that all abortions are legal, including up to a week post-partum, or that every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great, and if we should lose one, God will be irate, then so be it.
But talking past each other with "rights" versus "human" arguments goes nowhere and has ever since the Supreme Court decided the legislature of the US wasn't up to the challenge of settling this.
mikee said... believe that the discussion of when an abortion may be performed requires both sides to recognize that abortion is the taking of a human life, and to discuss it on that basis. Otherwise there is no honest debate possible.
Likewise, once that has been agreed upon, the authority of a mother to terminate her pregnancy needs to be defined; otherwise no honest debate is possible.
But agreeing to those stipulations doesn't get us much further, mikee, even thought you'd think it would. The Prof. seemingly answered both parts in her comments on this very thread. She acknowledges that abortion is killing a baby (she points out that fact should be bluntly stated) and also says that a woman must have dominion over her own body--without stating any limit on that idea, and since an unborn baby is a part of the woman's body until it's actually born and separated therefrom...
There's your answer. Abortion is the killing of a baby and women should be able to choose to abort likely until the point a child is physically born/separated from the woman's body. Does that settle anything? Does setting the terms in that manner materially help the discussion? It doesn't prevent one side from still talking about a person and the other side still talking about some cells--a baby's still a bunch of cells, of course (as are we all), so what's fundamentally improved by those stipulations?
I appreciate what you're trying to accomplish but I don't think your suggestion will lead to the end you seek.
But but but... Ok, so if women have the right to commit murder, men also have to have that right, because equal protection. Ok. Will there be a quota, because then I should prioritize.
I wonder how many women you would have to shoot in the head for having abortions before the rest would stop.
Post a Comment