September 17, 2019

"Meanwhile, as a kind of grimly ironic accompaniment to his scriptural musings, Buttigieg’s hometown, South Bend, has just discovered..."

"... that its longtime abortion provider, the late Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, kept a substantial collection of fetal remains on his property: 2,246 'products of conception,' to be exact, carefully preserved. The version of pro-choice politics that has been generally successful in this country allows Americans to support abortion rights within limits, while still regarding figures like Dr. Klopfer as murderous or monstrous. But the more maximalist and mystical your claims about when personhood begins (or doesn’t), the more strained that distinction gets. The unapologetic grisliness of a Klopfer, or a Kermit Gosnell before him, haunts a Buttigiegian abortion politics more than it does a 'safe, legal, rare' triangulation, because it establishes the most visceral of contrasts — between the mysticism required to believe that the right to life begins at birth and the cold and obvious reality that what our laws call a nonperson can still become a corpse."

From "The Abortion Mysticism of Pete Buttigieg/How the party of science decided that personhood begins at birth" by Ross Douthat (NYT).

The article linked at "products of conception" is "More Than 2,200 Preserved Fetuses Found at Property of Dead Doctor, Officials Say/There was no evidence that medical procedures were performed at the Illinois property where the remains were found, the authorities said" (NYT). It doesn't use the words "products of conception" or "corpse" or anything like "murder" or "monster." It says "preserved fetuses" and "medically preserved fetal remains." I can't find anything in that article to support "unapologetic grisliness of a Klopfer" other than that Klopfer is dead and dead men are unapologetic.

Most of Douthat's column is about Buttigieg's discussion of the Bible in connection with his pro-choice position. Buttigieg observes that the Bible isn't clear on the subject — there are verses suggesting that life begins with the first breath — and that supports giving the decision to the individual pregnant woman. That's the same thing the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade.

77 comments:

Gordon Scott said...

Well, sounds like Alicalde Pedro should be promising to pardon anyone, anywhere in the US who has been convicted of injuring a pre-person.


rhhardin said...

What's worth preserving is that society cares for cute things. When a fetus becomes cute is what it's worth saying society cares for it.

Not only as a matter of fact but as a matter of where the votes would come from. A political agreement achieved by a transparent process is possible there.

Once the process is correct, the losers are content to lose, because they lost fairly.

tim maguire said...

The problem with "Safe, Legal, and Rare" is that "rare" gives the lie to the whole thing. If it's not the killing of a human being, but simply a choice not to have a child, than who cares if it's rare?

Gosnell and Klopfer (and how many others?) are simply collecting curios. If you support abortion and are consistent, then they might be a bit icky, but if you say they are murderous or monstrous, then you are yourself confessing to being murderous or monstrous.

Birkel said...

I like a hearty defense of murder in the morning.
One supposes God will sort them out.

Darrell said...

In China, dried human baby capsules are the new "hot" thing. They also found hair and teeth in some samples confiscated in the Chinese neighborhood in Seoul, implying that they don't limit their feedstock to fetuses. The belief is that the consumer will get that extra lifeforce. Ain't life grand?

whitney said...

Guy talks about how God sanctions abortions. Local Abortion provider dies with 1000s of baby parts on his property. If the profound soul sickness that infects these unrepentant murderers weren't so absolutely horrifying, it would be funny

Ralph L said...

The Elders of Zion did not return his call.

The party of science is totally faith-based, but one that's only a hundred years old.


Hagar said...

According to Senator Ma'am, life begins when you bring "it" home from the hospital.

wendybar said...

After the Serial Killer Gosnell, we were told that was an anomaly. I guess we got lied to again. Wonder how many serial killers are keeping souverneirs of their victims in jars like these guys do? Seems like genocide to me. The Aztecs have NOTHING on our Abortion doctors.

Roy Lofquist said...

Euphemisms, allusions, yada yada yada.

Abortionist have murdered more than 60 million human beings since Roe v Wade, including 24 million black babies.

David Begley said...

Is Mayor Pete now Theologian-in-Chief?

I'm Full of Soup said...

Mayor Pete is a huge joke but only about half of the population gets the joke because he is gay which is one of the groups adored by and protected by the left. Castro is another of the candidate jokes- he is the lame but Hispanic version.

Bay Area Guy said...

The modern day Left in all its glory.

Darrell said...

Before Gosnell, there was an abortionist somewhere in the US who used to gross out the staff in the cafeteria by keeping aborted fetuses in the refrig and eating one or two to the shrieks of his comrades. After he was arrested for this and other "irregularities," the story quickly disappeared from the news.

Gahrie said...

The Bible supports another evil...slavery. Are we supposed to repeal the 13th Amendment now?

Mary Beth said...

And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

The Bible appears to say that John was affected by news from the Holy Ghost. Life may begin at the first breath, but it seems a soul is there earlier.

Just an observation. I don't think we should use the Bible as the guide for deciding this.

hawkeyedjb said...

As long as the pro-abortion and anti-abortion sides retain their maximalist positions, we will retain the status quo: unlimited abortion in most states, with a few others attempting - with varying success - to halt the practice or make it as inconvenient as possible. And all court appointments will be about abortion and nothing else.

Most Americans would accept the European (or Tulsi Gabbard) position: restricted abortion in the third trimester. Even many pro-life people do not want abortion outlawed. They see that position as unattainable fantasy, and they are right. But as long as both extremes want the war to continue, it certainly will.

Craig Howard said...

Since Buttigieg is now interpreting scripture, perhaps he could explain abortion away as simply a sacrifice of one's child to gain God's favor.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

bootyjudge is not a follower of Christ, he's a follower of the progressive church.

narciso said...

A follower of baal or moloch, that was about indentured servitude gahrie

Temujin said...

Abortion or not, he's a shitty Mayor. He would not even win re-election in South Bend. Nothing about his abilities say, this should be the Chief Executive of the United States. Being Gay and pro-abortion are not qualifications.

Can we stop that sort of nonsense already. This guy needs, how you say?...a show of success other than getting elected. Getting elected is also not a qualification for going to a higher office, no more than getting hired at a job is a qualification for getting a promotion.

Tom T. said...

I'd go with "Buttigian," rather than "Buttigiegian.". The latter is all but impossible to say.

Tina Trent said...

Unapologetic doesn't necessarily involve a person not making an apology.

You can unapologetically fling your hair out a car window as you whip down a California highway on a sunlit day by the sea, or unapologetically squeeze hundreds of babies you have aborted into jars of formaldehyde to immerse yourself in the world of death you have created with your own hands.

Tina Trent said...

@hawkwyedjb: the Western European standard is abortion is legal for the first 12 weeks, one trimester, not two. They think our laws are insane.

Fernandinande said...

NPC = "non-person character"

Charlie Eklund said...

If the Bible is silent on the subject of abortion it’s only because “Thou shall not kill” was unavailable for comment.

narciso said...

Thou shalt not murder, there is clear precdent in leviticus among other sources, what are they teaching at the universities?

Caligula said...

Well, at least he didn't eat them.

RigelDog said...

Ms. Althouse writes: "It doesn't use the words "products of conception" or "corpse" or anything like "murder" or "monster." It says "preserved fetuses" and "medically preserved fetal remains." I can't find anything in that article to support "unapologetic grisliness of a Klopfer" other than that Klopfer is dead and dead men are unapologetic."

I read her words as objections and those objections appear to be the main reason for her post. But from where stems the objection? Douthat is giving his own opinion based on what's known so far and he has a plausible basis for his opinion in those facts. It's not like he's trying to mislead anyone as to the language used in the underlying article (which I read.) I think Douthat is operating on the premise that we could not look at these preserved human bodies and not see that they are truly human corpses. He contrasts that brutal reality with the anodyne distancing medical terms used (outside of a medical discussion) to describe those human bodies as "products of conception" or even "fetus." A nine-month term human being/body is medically a "fetus" one second before delivery but we all know it's also a baby in our common understanding. It's Douthat's opinion that taking the life of such a being is murder. It's his opinion that a doctor who has performed thousands upon thousands of such procedures is a monster. The sight of thousands of preserved fetuses can fairly be called a "grisly" one. We know that the deceased Klopfer is "unapologetic" because the article included quotes from him previous to his decease-ment where he unapologetically defends his practice. OK, I'll give you that it's an extrapolation (albeit a reasonable one) to imply that he would have been also unapologetic about keeping the remains at his house had he given his honest opinion. It would be instructive to know what ages the fetuses were and what the proper procedure was supposed to be for the disposition of the aborted fetuses. Pretty sure that "doctor owns the aborted bodies and can take them home as a collectible" was not one of the approved methods.

Michael K said...

It stands to reason that abortionists are unconcerned with human life. The preservation of "trophies" is also characteristic of serial killers.

Wince said...

Meanwhile, as a kind of grimly ironic accompaniment to his scriptural musings, Buttigieg’s hometown, South Bend, has just discovered... that its longtime abortion provider, the late Dr. Ulrich Klopfer, kept a substantial collection of fetal remains on his property: 2,246 'products of conception,' to be exact, carefully preserved.

'Dr. Ulrich Klopfer' is right out of central casting.

"Buttigieg observes that the Bible isn't clear on the subject..."

Yeah, but the Karma is a bitch.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

They shed innocent blood—
the blood of their sons and daughters,
whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,
and the land was polluted with blood.
Psalms 106:38

jaydub said...

Some practical exercises regarding the abortion debate:

CDC reports 638,169 abortions performed in 2015, the most recent year for which I could find numbers, plus 55 - 60 million abortions estimated to have been preformed since Roe v Wade in 1972. Using these numbers define the "rare" of the safe, legal and rare triangulation.

Next, consider the CDC estimate that 35% of all abortions were performed on African American women, which would compute to about 20,000,000 black babies removed from the US population and leaving the estimated 43,000,000 African Americans today. Whites accounted for about 60% of abortions since 1972, or about 34,000,000 removed from the US population, leaving around 200,000,000 Whites today. So, since 1972, and assuming all the aborted fetuses were still alive today, the potential White population was reduced by around 17% (200 million vs 234 million) while the potential black population was reduced by about 46% (43 million vs 63 million.) While the estimates are rough approximations, abortion's net effects on the two populations are directionally accurate. Now, consider the following questions:
- What is the greater threat to African Americans, White supremacy or Planned Parenthood?
- Is the Democrat Party's unwavering support of abortion on demand more detrimental to the welfare of the African American community than was the Democrat Party's unwavering support of Jim Crow laws?
- If the KKK was placed in charge of Planned Parenthood, what would they do differently to legally increase the ratio of the White population to the Black population in the US?

Big Mike said...

@Michael K., the similarity of Klopfer’s souvenirs to a serial killer’s “trophies” struck me, too. I suspect some doctors become abortionists for reasons that are not altruistic, but much, much darker.

Maillard Reactionary said...

What a nexus of weird and vile depravity that Peter Boatshoes-Buttboy is, and those who surround and support him.

"Dr. Ulrich Klopfer". Sounds like an evil Nazi doctor. Maybe he was.

Say what you like about them, but the Left has certainly moved the "Overton Window" of what is tolerated by our culture in a direction that would have been inconceivable to an earlier generation of Americans (i.e., people who came of age in the early 20th century).

I suspect the damage may be irreparable. It is easy enough for me to ignore it, but it is an unappetizing prospect with respect to my grandchildren.

Nichevo said...

Once the process is correct, the losers are content to lose, because they lost fairly.

Dear rhhardin,

Why do you lie all the time, as above?

Sebastian said...

"that the Bible isn't clear on the subject — there are verses suggesting that life begins with the first breath — and that supports giving the decision to the individual pregnant woman. That's the same thing the Supreme Court said in Roe v. Wade."

WTF? The Bible isn't clear, therefore the individual woman gets to decide? Logic.

Sebastian said...

"I can't find anything in that article to support "unapologetic grisliness of a Klopfer""

Spoken like a true believer, who takes the NYT as her Bible.

But I admire the frank consistency: of course, if you believe in abortion, and maintain the illusion that it's all about women making moral choices, collecting fetal remains isn't grisly at all.

Michael K said...

I suspect some doctors become abortionists for reasons that are not altruistic, but much, much darker.

Oh yes. I've never seen an analysis of those people but, of course, it would not be reported. When I w3as a surgery resident in 1969, we did a rotation on GYN at County Hospital. Abortion was legal then and the methods were a bit primitive. I did a few as nobody liked it and I thought I should be part of the team. Soon the County hired a few doctors (we called them "mercenaries") who were willing to do abortions full time. The rest of us were glad to see them but I never knew any of them. The psychological profile would be interesting.

purplepenquin said...

While praying about this issue many-many years ago, I felt God telling me to look to His written word for guidance. I opened up my Bible and Genesis 2:7 jumped right out at me.

*shrug*

Yancey Ward said...

You do have to wonder about the character of a person that decides to become an abortionist? Are the Klopfers and Gosnells really outliers?

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

I wonder if Mayor Pete has any butt baby trophies in his closet.

YoungHegelian said...

Buttigieg observes that the Bible isn't clear on the subject

What is it with amateur theologians that they think that Christian & Jewish theology begins and ends with the Bible?

Look, there are some Protestant Fundamentalists who say they believe that. Whether they, in fact, act that way is another story. Nobody else does. Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Copts, the Evangelicals, Lutherans, the Anglicans, the Presbys, the Methodists, & all varieties of Jews --- none of them believe it all stops with the Bible. They all believe that what their faith is consonant with the Bible, or is somehow "contained" in it, but they understand that spiritual history has continued since the end of the Apostolic Age.

Neither Christians nor Jews take sodomites out & kill them because, for both, the divine moral landscape has changed since Leviticus. Changed in different ways & for different reasons, but still, it's changed.

hombre said...

Regardless of the clarity, or lack thereof, of the Bible on “ personhood”, human embryologists have been virtually unanimous forever that life begins at conception. “Personhood” is a linguistic construct intended to cover the murderous behavior of pro-aborts, their dupes and Democrat enablers.

Abortion is the taking of innocent life. To suggest that the Bible condones it is both idiotic and monstrous. But then we ARE talking about a Democrat pol, aren’t we?

Ken B said...

Is Douthat supposed to footnote his own judgment now? I think Klopfer's collection is grisly. Does Althouse disagree? I think Klopfer is unapologetic about it. Does Althouse disagree? Then why the expostulation? Because abortion is a hot button for Althouse and *anything* that reflects badly on it sets her off.

hombre said...

Regardless of the clarity, or lack thereof, of the Bible about “personhood”, human embryologists have been virtually unanimous forever that life begins at conception. “Personhood” is a linguistic construct used by pro-aborts and their Democrat enablers to justify homicide.

To argue that the Bible condones or is ambiguous about the taking of innocent human life is both idiotic and monstrous. But then he is a Democrat pol, isn’t he?

hombre said...


Blogger Gahrie said...
The Bible supports another evil...slavery. Are we supposed to repeal the 13th Amendment now?

“Supports”? Really? Look again.

Birches said...

What else are preserved fetal remains, but corpses?

Tina Trent said...

I used to represent the abortion industry for a statewide coalition.

I sometimes found myself comforting middle-class pro-choice activists who decided to put their money where their mouth was and work in clinics.

They didn't last. One went nuts on my front porch, ranting about spending her first day putting bloody arms and legs and torsos back together in surgical trays to make sure they got all the "products of conception" out. Plus she was subjected to the usual relentless abuse for being a white heterosexual female, as abortion clinics were early and militant adopters of the most virulent versions of race and LGBT mau mauing in the workplace. Many of the doctors were gay men who literally hated women.

I can name names.

I never had the nerve to work in a clinic. I failed to interrogate my own comfort zone. I lobbied instead. It was the physiologically sterile work. I eventually changed my heart and my mind. The people who did go in were instrumental in that, as were the craven, dishonest, impossible-to-parody walking stereotypes who made big bucks as lawyers for Planned Parenthood.

I think every political operative and elected official who supports abortion should have to spend a week working in a clinic. See what you believe. I regret I didn't do so.

I conducted extensive interviews with several of the lawyers, judges, and doctors involved in Doe v. Bolton, which was to be the lead case over Roe v. Wade but for a calendar issue at the Supreme Court. They all told the same story: in the Fifties and Sixties, when the South was still really impoverished, they saw women with five, six, 12 children, abandoned or abused by their husbands, women who couldn't feed another child and rarely had a say in whether they would have sex. Poor blacks, poor whites in the rural South. That was why they did it. To a person, they never imagined it would become what it is today. I can see their point of view.

But by the time I was involved, the clinics were hiding the fact that predators were coming into clinics with underage girls they'd impregnated; the doctors and many staff did strike me as sociopaths, misogynists, and cult members -- if not serial killers -- and to express any concern that going to 24 weeks was wrong would get you purged from the movement.

And none of my board members, virtually all wealthy Atlanta community leaders, had ever set foot in a clinic, let alone possess any understanding of how the other half lives, procreates, aborts, or raises their children.

Pro-choice activists are, with some very important exceptions, the most sheltered, privileged people I've ever met. I hold out hope for many of them.


n.n said...

They unearthed more victims of progressive policy.

There are four reconcilable choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. The fifth choice, Pro-Choice/selective-child, is the Wicked Solution: elective abortion a.k.a. planned parenthood, which denies women and men's faculty and moral character, normalizes discrimination, summary judgments, and cruel and unusual punishment past one month.

n.n said...

Blogger Gahrie said...
The Bible supports another evil...slavery. Are we supposed to repeal the 13th Amendment now?


It does not support slavery. It does not support affirmative discrimination, redistributive change, and similar practices. It advises people to not exploit each other without compensation or charitable consensus.

n.n said...

human embryologists have been virtually unanimous forever that life begins at conception

The source of human evolution. And, around one month, the presumptive development of human consciousness. Not an isolated sperm, or egg, but their union. Certainly not Stork or spontaneous conception proposed by the Twilight faith and peddled by Pro-Choice quasi-religious sects. The only legitimate exception to human rights is self-defense, and, perhaps, reconciliation in the case of rape... rape-rape.

BUMBLE BEE said...

An interesting note. Steven Jacobs published his paper asking 5,502 biologists from 1058 academic institutions. The biologists predominantly identified as non-religious (63 percent), liberal (89 percent and 11 percent conservative), Democratic (92 percent), and pro-choice (85 percent, only 15 were pro-life). %95 Stated that human life begins at fertilization. Would our hostess seek the opinion of a Podiatrist about Brain tumors?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-95-percent-of-biologists-say-life-begins-at-conception/

BUMBLE BEE said...

It is also noted that the NRA doesn't sell arms, but Planned Parenthood does!

BUMBLE BEE said...

Fetal remains = what? Carriage bolts???.
Perhaps the'd be served with Fava Beans?

jimbino said...

Vitriol from Russ Douthat, who regularly partakes of human flesh and blood.

n.n said...

Buttigieg observes that the Bible isn't clear on the subject

The Bible is clear: from ensoulment, which may be from conception, or with the emergence of human consciousness correlated with the development of the nervous system one month later.

YoungHegelian said...

Vitriol from Russ Douthat, who regularly partakes of human flesh and blood.

And in comes jimbino, as unclear on the doctrine of Transubstantiation as he is on National Parks.

n.n said...

Fetus is a technical term of art that refers to an early stage in human evolution, used by technicians to dissociate from empathetic attachment, and abortionists, transhumanists, and reproductive rites activists to debase human life for social progress and profit. In Stork They Trust.

Would a doctor dare refer to a baby as a "fetus" in her mother and father's presence?

Mark said...

Buttigieg's (and Blackmun's) desire to impose their own peculiar theocracy on the country is and never has been particularly convincing.

Note that it is typically the pro-abortion side that tries to drag religion into this.

The pro-life community is content to rest on biological science.
However one answers the metaphysical or theological question whether the fetus is a "human being" or the legal question whether it is a "person" as that term is used in the Constitution, one must at least recognize, first, that the fetus is an entity that bears in its cells all the genetic information that characterizes a member of the species homo sapiens and distinguishes an individual member of that species from all others, and second, that there is no nonarbitrary line separating a fetus from a child or, indeed, an adult human being. Thornburgh v. Amer. Coll. of Obstetricians, 476 U.S. 747, 792 (1986) (White, J., dissenting).

Mark said...

Re: "products of conception"

I had a jury trial once where the complaining witness was an OB/GYN physician. During my cross-examination, that is the term he used.

Witness: Blah, blah, blah, products of conception.

Me (having heard him perfectly clear): I'm sorry. The what?

Witness: The products of conception.

Me: (dramatic pause) . . . You mean . . . babies?

Witness: Yes, the products of conception.

You could tell the jury was disgusted.

Mark said...

there are verses suggesting that life begins with the first breath

Of course, in the original languages, "breath" is a word that describes the Holy Spirit of God, and not necessarily the inhalation of air into one's lungs.

Hence you have in the Nicene Creed the profession, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life."

Roy Lofquist said...

Blogger Mary Beth (the commenter) said...
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

The Bible appears to say that John was affected by news from the Holy Ghost. Life may begin at the first breath, but it seems a soul is there earlier.

Just an observation. I don't think we should use the Bible as the guide for deciding this.
-------
Right on! Let's try the Quran or maybe Mein Kampf. How about the Communist Manifesto? Those are righteous guides to murdering human beings by the hundreds of million.

Mark said...

Re: ensoulment

Let's not drag Blackmun's (or Thomas Aquinas') silly ideas about "ensoulment" into this.

Note that Aquinas did not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wince said...

"Products of Conception" would be a good name for a punk rock band.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

who gets to confer 'personhood' upon whom?
who gets to decide? By what distinction, and why?

Or is it innate?

stephen cooper said...

Mark - for that reason Aquinas is considered second-rate by many of us who care

penelope said...

Buttigieg observed that the Bible isn’t clear on the subject.

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee ... - Jeremiah 1:5

I’d say the Bible is crystal clear on the subject.

stephen cooper said...

Buttigieg is a liar, everyone knows that.

I hate saying this about people, but he does not seem to be the sort of person who has love in his heart.


The fact that someone (an Obama voter who made a good living off aborting mostly African-American babies) who probably voted for and admired Buttigieg had thousands of trophies of thousands of different dead little babies in his home and was happy about that ---- the fact that such a person OBVIOUSLY was a Buttigieg supporter probably does not bother poor little Buttigieg much.

That is a good indication that he does not have much love in his heart for his fellow human beings. Sad !

And yes the Bible is crystal clear, abortion, murder, the use of potions and witchcraft to kill those who are born or unborn, all of that is repeatedly condemned.

ken in tx said...

"Buttigieg observes that the Bible isn't clear on the subject"

His observation is not true. In the Old Testament, if someone injures a pregnant woman so as to cause her to lose the baby, the father is due reparations. Clearly, in that time and culture Abortion was a tort.

Mark said...

The Bible is not a science book. It isn't meant to be a science book and it doesn't pretend to be. Instead, the Bible is meant to tell certain truths about the meaning of the human person, made male and female, and of God.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Wince:

" "Products of Conception" would be a good name for a punk rock band."

Agreed. I'll suggest it when my grandson gets to that age.

Although by then punk rock might seem rather tame.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Methinks ken in tx (@7:57 PM) is a lawyer.

Comments hereon by Our Hostess would be as interesting as they are unlikely.

Saint Croix said...

Buttigieg observes that the Bible isn't clear on the subject

Christ calls on us to love our children, not to deny them and commit secret violence upon them.

Gretchen said...

Serial killers like to keep mementos of their victims. The abortionist was a serial killer. It isn't that difficult.

Karen said...

You knew me in my mother’s womb, you knit together my inmost parts...