God Help The Little Babies

_{Barry Arrington

January 25, 2019

Off Topic

1}_{Categories
Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here is a picture of a baby being operated on before birth. With advances in medical technology, this has become a fairly common procedure.

Now, imagine the operating room is in New York. In the operating room on the other side of the wall, a doctor could be hacking a practically identical baby to death. Legally.

Comments

Bob - Please listen to this statement regarding the proposed abortion bill in Virginia with the health exception.Heartlander_{January 30, 2019
January
01
Jan
30
30
2019
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely-different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering. -Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, p67
Heartlander_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

If you look at the modern secular progressive movement (think specifically of the eugenics movement) which came into existence in the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, it was very materialistic and Darwinian in its early thinking and outlook. For example, in Germany one of Darwin’s earliest and most enthusiastic disciples was biologist Ernst Haeckel. While in his book the Descent of Man Darwin discussed some of the ethical implications of his theory at some length, Haeckel took Darwin’s thinking to its logical conclusion.
Haeckel argued that as evolution, supposedly, rewards the “fittest,” man should help evolution along by eliminating the unfit. He wrote: “The cruel and unsparing ‘struggle for existence,’ which rages--and naturally must rage--everywhere in the biosphere, this unceasing and inexorable competition of all living creatures, is an undeniable fact; only the chosen minority of the privileged fit ones in the condition to survive successfully this competition, while the great majority of the competitors must necessarily perish miserably” (Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler, p. 80). In The Natural History of Creation, 1870, Haeckel praised the Spartans, because they practiced euthanasia of imperfect babies in order to create the superior man. Later “he confessed that he had indeed supported infanticide in his earlier book” (Weikart, p. 146). Killing of the unfit was, in his estimation, the logical consequence of Darwinian survival of the fittest. Haeckel promoted abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia for the “inferior” and the infirm. He proposed “a dose of some painless and rapid poison” to do away with the “hundreds of thousands of incurables--lunatics, lepers, people with cancer, etc.” (Weikart, pp. 118, 119). Haeckel proposed that euthanasia program that would be “under the control of an authoritative commission” (p. 119).
https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/ernst_haeckel_darwins_german_apostle.html Notice the reasoning (or rationalization) here. So long as the government is in charge of the euthanasia that make it okay. In other words, as long as it’s legal, it’s moral.
Haeckel gave impetus to the abortion movement by teaching that the embryo is still in the evolutionary stage and not fully human. Even the newborn child, according to Haeckel, “not only possesses no consciousness and no reason, but is also dumb and only gradually develops the activity of the senses and of the mind” (Weikart, p. 147). Haeckel believed that the newborn infant has no soul and therefore “the destruction of abnormal newborn infants cannot rationally be classed as murder” (Haeckel, The Wonders of Life, 1904, p. 21)… “Not only did Haeckel justify infanticide, abortion, and assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, but he also supported the involuntary killing of the mentally ill. He condemned the idea that all human life should be preserved, ‘even when it is totally worthless.’ ... He complained that not only are many mentally ill people burdens to society, but so are lepers, cancer patients, and others with incurable illnesses. Why not just spare ourselves much pain and money, he asked, by just giving them a shot of morphine? ... The leading Darwinist in Germany thus gave his scientific imprimatur to murdering the disabled, both in infancy and in adulthood” (Weikart, p. 148). Since Haeckel believed that man does not have an eternal soul, human life was considered no more significant than that of an animal. He wrote, “... we have the right--or if one prefers--the duty, to end the deep suffering of our fellow humans, if strong illness without hope of recovery makes their existence unbearable and if they themselves ask us for ‘redemption from evil’” (From Darwin to Hitler, p. 148). For the mentally handicapped, he recommended “a small dose of morphine or cyanide” to “free this pitiable creature” from itself as well as from being a burden on its caretakers (ibid).
Notice how Haeckel rationalizes his views on abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. It’s all for the “greater good” of society because it reduces the overall net suffering of society and besides that it can be done with compassion because we can have compassion for those “”pitiable creature[s].” Therefore as long as we have compassion we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. After all, isn’t compassion something good? It’s like a “spoon full sugar helps the medicine go down.” Did this type of thinking lead to the Nazi Holocaust? Many of Haeckel’s modern defenders don’t think so, but if that’s the case it’s certainly coincidental-- Isn’t it?john_a_designer_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT}

Bob states
I hope you would agree that reducing suffering is a good thing.
The fatal flaw in Bob's Darwinian reasoning is that reducing suffering is NOT a good thing within his Darwinian worldview. The amorality inherent within the atheistic materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought allows for no good nor evil, just blind pitiless indifference.
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” ? Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life
The only 'morality' that matters within Darwinian reasoning is 'survival of the fittest'. For crying out loud, if eating aborted babies gave us a survival advantage then on Darwinian reasoning would that would be a 'good' thing. Any 'antiquated' moral objection to such an abhorrent notion as eating aborted babies is held to be subjective and 'illusory' on a Darwinian view. There is literally nothing within Darwinian reasoning to say that it is morally bad to do such a morally abhorrent thing! Yet Bob, even though his Darwinian worldview does not allow for altruistic morality of any sort, feels free to debate the finer details inherent in altruistic morality. i.e. Such as the nuances of suffering for a greater good.
John 15:12-13 This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.
In sum, Bob, even though he has no basis within his atheistic worldview for debating the moral nuances of suffering for a greater good, wants to appeal to the objective Christian moral standard of 'reducing suffering' so as to justify his stance on abortion. In short, Bob has disingenuously stolen from Christian morality in order to provide faux moral support for the larger objective of aborting unborn babies without restriction. Yet if Bob were truly concerned about reducing suffering in this world (instead of disingenuously trying to use the moral nuances of Christianity to his less than forthright advantage), might I suggest that he drop his Darwinian worldview altogether, which has been, (since it is at root amoral), the root cause of much of the untold suffering, misery, and death over the past century, and adopt a Christian worldview, and even then go so far as to devote his life to a life of selfless sacrifice for the benefit of those less fortunate than himself? Perhaps Bob might even go so far as to adopt some of these supposedly 'unwanted' unborn babies that he presently wants to be murdered? A few notes:
Who really cares? The fallacy of charitable secularism – Dec 18, 2017 Excerpt: “Charitable”? “Giving”? Really? The most laughable part comes when Sam (Harris) begins arguing about “charitable giving.” He knows he cannot honestly claim that atheists give more to charitable causes than religious folk, so he uses the word “charitable,” but narrows the definition of the word almost into nothingness. He says, “Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world.”2 Such a fact might shock the average casual reader until he sniffed out Sam’s fishy “terms.” Then we, together, have a good full belly-laugh. If by “devote” and “give” Sam means “devote through government confiscation, and give by forced taxation,” then he can hardly call it charity. Is this the charity of atheism? “Giving” when you may not want to, an amount you may not want to, and to be spent somehow you may not care for? What a blessed assurance! My, how charitable our atheist is with other people’s money. No, charity is voluntarily given. If it’s tax-generated, it ain’t charitable. Besides, boasting that less religious countries take more in government welfare reveals about as much as pointing out that Christians put more in church offering plates than atheists do. What? Really? Get outta here! If, however, Sam means “devote” and “give” in the true sense of “charity,” then his claim is so embarrassingly bogus that not even a third-world tax bureau would accept his tax returns. Unfortunately for Sam, he wrote this nonsense in his Letter to a Christian Nation just a few months before the actual science was done on charitable giving. November 2006 saw the release of the definitive in-depth study on the subject of charitable giving: Who Really Cares? by Syracuse professor Arthur Brooks. Results? Across the board, in every category, accounting for every variable, no matter how you slice the pie, the single biggest factor behind charitable giving is . . . religious faith.3 The amount of private charitable giving from American individuals alone (not including foundations, corporations, etc.) could easily finance the entire gross domestic product of Sam’s more “atheistic” nations, Sweden, Norway, or Denmark.4 The results must be alarming for all secularists. The working poor in America give more than the poor on welfare who have the same income. In fact, the working poor give a larger percentage of their income than the middle class. Two-thirds of American private donations go to other than religious activities (in other words, about 70% in places other than church offering plates). Yet, religious people are more likely to donate even to secular causes than non-religious people are. America gives as much to foreign aid as other nations do, the difference is that we do it mostly through private charity and not government aid. We give it freely—not through socialist government compulsion. No European nation comes close to us in freely-given charitable donations. https://americanvision.org/1820/who-really-cares-the-fallacy-of-charitable-secularism/ Study in Prestigious Journal Shows Abortion harms women’s mental health Excerpt: The largest, most definitive analysis of the mental health risks associated with abortion was published Sept. 1 in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry. Conducted by Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University, the analysis examines 22 studies published between 1995 and 2009 involving 877,181 women, of whom 163,831 had abortions. The findings: — “Women who have had an abortion have an 81 percent higher risk of subsequent mental health problems compared to women who have not had an abortion. — “Women who aborted have a 138 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to women who have given birth. — “Women who aborted have a 55 percent higher risk of mental health problems compared to women with an ‘unplanned’ pregnancy who gave birth. — “Women with a history of abortion have higher rates of anxiety, depression, alcohol use/misuse, marijuana use, and suicidal behavior, compared to those who have not had an abortion. Coleman notes that a 2010 study by Canadian researchers published after she completed her analysis of the 22 studies, arrived at “strikingly similar” conclusions regarding the increased risk of mental health problems associated with abortion. http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/09/study-in-prestigious-journal-shows-abortion-harms-women%E2%80%99s-mental-health/
bornagain77_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT}

Reducing suffering is a good thing. And once all of the evolutionists are stifled most of the world's suffering will start to end. That's because only then we will actually be able to begin to understand our existence- evos are the problem in that regard.ET_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Bob
I hope you would agree that reducing suffering is a good thing.
Well of course that depends on the means one uses to reduce suffering Bob. If the means is "murdering the suffering person," as you advocate, then no I would not agree with you that that is a good thingBarry Arrington_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Bob,
First, I can’t see where I indicate in this thread that I’m OK with this, especially as the discussion in this thread has been about late term abortions. Secondly, this utterly mis-represents my views, in a rather disgusting way.
You have made it clear over and over in this thread that you are OK with killing little babies. I have not misrepresented your views. As is usually the case when one debates Bob, when it is pointed out how evil his position is, he denies having that position, only to come back to it when it suits him. Readers can follow Bob flip-flopping on the "is the Holocaust absolutely evil" issue here in a manner similar to his flip-flopping on whether he is in favor of killing babies in this thread. Oh, and "disgusting," I will tell you what is disgusting Bob. Advocating for the destruction of innocent human life is disgusting. Barry Arrington_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

Bob,
No, if the doctors were acting legally, then the babies would not be identical . . .
Assume your conclusion much Bob? Your conclusion that they would not be identical is based on your factually false assumption that the "health" exception does not swallow up the rule. It does Bob. Facts are such stubborn things. And only the willfully ignorant deny the fact that in the US abortion-on-demand regimen the health exception has been recognized as a farce for decades.Barry Arrington_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H
Do you have any examples?
Again, with your usual method of denying the overwhelmingly obvious and asking for evidence that any idiot could find in 30 seconds on Google. The problems with so-called "health" exceptions have been obvious for decades, as you could have easily seen here, here, here, here and here. It took me a couple of minutes to find these Bob. I could have added dozens more. You could have found them in a couple of minutes too. But, I understand why you didn't bother. Googling is hard work and two minutes is a long time. The fact that the "health" exception is sham is also a deduction from simple logic based on the plain fact that it is never necessary to perform a late term abortion for the health of the mother. A former Surgeon General of the United States said:
In my thirty-six years of pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. . . . If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, [her obstetrician] will either induce labor or perform a Caesarian section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. . . . The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger.
Barry Arrington_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

Barry @ 27 -
Thank you for your comments to Bob. Of course everyone knows that in practice the “health of the mother” exception swallows up the rule.
That exception has been on the US law books since 1970. So if it has been abused then there has been almost half a century for them to come to light. Do you have any examples? If not, then I'd suggest that the law has been working as intended. Barry @ 29 -
In one room doctors perform heroic acts to save a baby’s life. (Why, because it is a baby for crying out loud. I doubt anyone operates on pig fetuses.) And in the next room at the very same time they deny the humanity of an identical baby as they systematically chop it to pieces.
No, if the doctors were acting legally, then the babies would not be identical - the one being saved would be one which could be saved. The other would be aborted because either the mother's life was in danger, or the baby would not be viable, i.e. it would not survive after birth. The purpose of having these exceptions is to try to reduce suffering - I hope you would agree that reducing suffering is a good thing. Barry @ 31 -
And Bob O’H in this very thread has indicated he is OK with getting rid of the undesirables. Yet he lies and says killing them is an act of altruism. It reduces their suffering don’t you see.
First, I can't see where I indicate in this thread that I'm OK with this, especially as the discussion in this thread has been about late term abortions. Secondly, this utterly mis-represents my views, in a rather disgusting way. I don't think you're lying, because I don't think you're deliberately mis-representing my views. My impression is that you don't understand them, even though you may think you do.Bob O'H_{January 29, 2019
January
01
Jan
29
29
2019
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT}

Here is a video of one of the people Bob O'H is OK with killing for their own good. Iceland is full of Bobs. The overwhelming majority of Downs babies are slaughtered in the womb. Bob: "Yay! Go Iceland; it's for their own good."Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

John
Coyne’s thinking is the same kind of thinking which led to the Nazi led holocaust, which began with the medical euthanization of “undesirables,” not long after the beginning of WW II.
And Bob O'H in this very thread has indicated he is OK with getting rid of the undesirables. Yet he lies and says killing them is an act of altruism. It reduces their suffering don't you see.Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Is there a slippery slope here? The new NY law takes us right to the brink of infanticide, which in turn is one step short of full euthanasia, which would allow society to get rid of anyone it deems undesirable. After all, that’s what abortion allows a woman to do, get rid of a baby which she finds undesirable. Some time ago Wesley J. Smith shared some very alarming thoughts from evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. .
Coyne makes the… claim that since we euthanize our sick pets, we should also kill seriously ill and disabled babies. He then explains why he thinks the reasons we resist that meme are wrong, and indeed, irrational. From his blog: “The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion—in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul. It’s the same mindset that, in many places, won’t allow abortion of fetuses that have severe deformities. When religion vanishes, as it will, so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” Well, no. As I have written repeatedly, human exceptionalism can include religious views, but it definitely does not require them. As Coyne’s advocacy proves, once we reject human exceptionalism, universal human rights becomes unsustainable, and we move toward the manufacture of killable and exploitable castes of people, determined by the moral views of those with the power to decide.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/449557/does-darwinism-lead-infanticide-acceptance Coyne’s thinking is the same kind of thinking which led to the Nazi led holocaust, which began with the medical euthanization of “undesirables,” not long after the beginning of WW II. That slippery slope began with the forced sterilizations in the U.S., and some other countries, and ended with Nazi Germany going off the proverbial cliff. However, I think I do agree with Coyne about one thing. Once you get rid of a religious or transcendent basis for morality and ethics, which in western society is predominantly Judeo-Christian, you get rid of any basis of human rights. If there are no human rights then there is no basis at all for any kind of democracy. That raises another disturbing point: who is Jerry Coyne tell everyone else what to think and believe? If there is no transcendent basis for human rights then there are no human rights. And if that is true for everyone else then Jerry Coyne doesn’t have any rights either, not even the right to express his opinion. Apparently he has been able to fool himself into thinking he does. What do you call a person who so can so easily fool himself?john_a_designer_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT}

Ed
But is it not also making the point that babies that look like babies are more important than those that don’t?
You don't appear to understand the argument I am making. It is not an emotional appeal at any level. The point (which I thought was obvious; I guess not) is that we live in an insane world. In one room doctors perform heroic acts to save a baby's life. (Why, because it is a baby for crying out loud. I doubt anyone operates on pig fetuses.) And in the next room at the very same time they deny the humanity of an identical baby as they systematically chop it to pieces.Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Barry
No, but it allows one to make a point that cannot be made in reference to a two-week old baby.
This may be true. But is it not also making the point that babies that look like babies are more important than those that don’t? That was the gist of my argument that going for the emotional argument (eg pictures of aborted three or four month fetuses) might be counterproductive.Ed George_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Heartlander, Thank you for your comments to Bob. Of course everyone knows that in practice the "health of the mother" exception swallows up the rule. That is why progressives fought for such an exception so hard and long in the context of the partial birth abortion battles. Bob knows this too, but he pretends he does not.Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

Ed
Is this somehow worse that aborting a two week old fetus?
No, but it allows one to make a point that cannot be made in reference to a two-week old baby.Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Bob,
The phrase “reasonable and good faith” isn’t meaningless
Bob's fig leaf covering his monstrous moral stand in favor of killing little babies. What else would we expect from a man who admits his is fuzzy on the whole "is the Holocaust evil?" question.Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

Bob - People were getting medical marijuana prescriptions from doctors in California for headaches, sleeplessness, and stress – these were their “health issues”. Now you’ve already stated @20 the phrase ‘good faith’ allows for wriggle room – the same can be said for ‘protecting the health’ of a pregnant woman. It should also be noted that “as of Jan. 22, 2019, abortion is no longer in New York’s penal code. This means health care providers acting in good faith may not be held criminally liable.” Also, “New York law previously made it illegal to administer or take drugs with the intent to cause a miscarriage, but this section of New York's penal code has been repealed.” This also allows for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and midwives may perform nonsurgical abortions.Heartlander_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

Now, imagine the operating room is in New York. In the operating room on the other side of the wall, a doctor could be hacking a practically identical baby to death. Legally.
Is this somehow worse that aborting a two week old fetus? I would think not. Although, I admit, that it is far more emotionally charged.Ed George_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Heartlander - my impression was that that aspect of the law hadn't changes, but I can't find the text of the old law. Presumably the answers to your questions will be settled by case law.Bob O'H_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Here’s what the law specifically says:
A health care practitioner licensed, certified, or authorized under title eight of the education law, acting with-in his or her lawful scope of practice, may perform an abortion when, according to the practitioner's reasonable and good faith professional judgment based on the facts of the patient's case: the patient is within twenty-four weeks from the commencement of pregnancy, or there is an absence of fetal viability, or the abortion is necessary to protect the patient's life or health.
We now have an expanded case of ‘non-doctors’ that can perform abortions - and abortions are allowed after 24 weeks if it is “necessary to protect the patient's life or health." Is this physical health, or mental and emotional health? What are going to be the health issues that satisfy the ‘good faith’ judgement of doctors and certified health care practitioners? Prior to this, New York law made exceptions after 24 weeks only when a woman's life was at risk - and the new law does not define what constitutes a threat to a pregnant woman's health.Heartlander_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

A minor change, a tweak really, is that right Bob? Do you really think the entire progressive community rises as one to shout with joy over minor changes?
No, Barry. If you had actually read what I had written, you would have seen that I said that "the changes in when an abortion can be done are minor". I made no reference to other aspects of the bill, such as it codifying access to abortion for women, and removing abortion from the criminal code. These aspects are more than minor.
You say you are not lying. I will give you then benefit of the doubt then and assume you are stupid and really do not know that the phrase “protect the patient’s health” in practice means anything the doctor murdering the baby wants it to mean.
Read the text again: "PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE". The phrase "reasonable and good faith" isn't meaningless (although, yes, it does allow lawyers some wriggle room). If a doctor were to perform a late-term abortion when they didn't think the mother's health wasn't threatened, or the unborn baby was viable, I hope the authorities throw the book at them.Bob O'H_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Kermit Gosnell Was Imprisoned for Doing What NY Can Now Do Legally FYI: Approx 100,000 New Yorkers are aborted every year and for every 1,000 black babies born alive, 1,180 are aborted. Women have been arrested for killing their unborn child during an attempted suicide - also harming or killing their unborn child by using illegal drugs during pregnancy. Many states that have the death penalty prohibit the pregnant mother from being put to death until the child is born. People have been convicted of double homicide for killing women who are a few weeks pregnant. There are laws against violence to pregnant women and their unborn children. Unborn children can be beneficiaries of trusts and estate settlements. In all these cases, the unborn child is considered a person by law. Abortion is the exception.Heartlander_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

Not allowing this can cause more suffering, to both mother and child.
As long time readers of this site know, Bob is sort of infamous. In several exchanges you can follow here, he said he could not be absolutely sure the Holocaust was evil. Bob said:
I’m sure that (by may standards) Himmler was wrong. But I acknowledge that my standards are not objective, and allow for other people having different standards.
Holocausts are not Bob's cup of tea. But apparently they were Himmler’s cup of tea. And Bob says who is to say whether his tea preference is superior to Himmler’s? Bob is fuzzy on whether the Holocaust was evil. It is totally unsurprising that he would be an apologist for killing little babies. Although, I have to admit that his monstrous doublethink (we kill the babies for their own good) does astound. Himmler: We kill the Jews to achieve a better world of racial purity. Bob: We kill the babies for their own good. Once you cross over the line and determine that you will attempt to justify murder, really any excuse will do. Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Bob
I don’t know if you’ve actually looked at the NY legislation, but the changes in when an abortion can be done are minor.
A minor change, a tweak really, is that right Bob? Do you really think the entire progressive community rises as one to shout with joy over minor changes? Do you think the Governor of New York would order the World Trade Center to be lit up in pink to celebrate a tweak to the statute? You say you are not lying. I will give you then benefit of the doubt then and assume you are stupid and really do not know that the phrase "protect the patient's health" in practice means anything the doctor murdering the baby wants it to mean. And therefore the change in the statute is widely and accurately understood to be a license to kill babies up through the time of crowning.Barry Arrington_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

In other news, medical ethicists have determined there is no such thing as murder, because "in the long run all human life is non-viable."EricMH_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT}

Barry - the NY legistlation hasn't been as widely reported as you might think, and the reporting from the US nowadays covers other matters. I wasn't aware of it - and no I am not lying. I don't know if you've actually looked at the NY legislation, but the changes in when an abortion can be done are minor. They already allowed it late when the mother's life was in danger. Now they also allow it when "HE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH (all caps in original). The only change here is to add the clause about fetal viability. In other words, a "practically identical baby" would have one huge difference: it is not going to survive much beyond birth. Not allowing this can cause more suffering, to both mother and child.Bob O'H_{January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

Harry, perfectly stated.OldArmy94_{January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT}

And just when you thought the liberals couldn't get any lower or more stupid, we have the following from Scandinavia: Denmark Doctors Declare Circumcision of Healthy Boys 'Ethically Unacceptable' These "doctors" are unaware of the health risks of the uncircumcised. As Joshua Swamiass said:
Male circumcision itself has some large health benefits, reducing the transmission of STI’s like HIV and HPV. That is why male circumcision is done by medical professionals all over the world.
ET_{January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply