Question for Planned Parenthood official: What should happen to a baby born alive after a botched abortion?

posted at 4:21 pm on March 29, 2013 by Allahpundit

Via John McCormack at the Weekly Standard, some words of wisdom from the Kermit Gosnell school of “women’s health.” Say this much for her: As monstrous as this is, at least she’s consistent. It’s a strange mindset that would suddenly demand that a doctor rescue a baby in peril after giving him the green light to kill it in the womb 10 minutes earlier. The only situation I can think of where someone’s typically asked to switch from assailant to savior in the blink of an eye is when cops or soldiers wound an armed enemy in the course of defending themselves. In all other cases, a person who’s made the decision to kill will, if left uninterrupted, tend to finish the job. Pro-lifers have always argued that it’s silly and arbitrary to make birth (or viability) some key threshold for personhood. In her own ominous way, she’s agreeing with that. If a mother and her doctor have decided to kill, why stop at accidental birth? Why not let them finish the job? Free Gosnell!

As a practical matter, even if Florida’s law requiring rescue is enacted, how many abortionists do you suppose would actually follow it in the privacy of the “exam room” in cases of accidental birth?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7

And they call us the fanatics.

OliverB on March 29, 2013 at 5:09 PM

She probably thinks fur is murder.

catmman on March 29, 2013 at 5:09 PM

And yet, the Obama administration can’t live without gun control.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

So you’re admitting that “pro-life” arguments are as stupid and dishonest as those used by the Obama Administration to ram through gun control? Thank you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:09 PM

From Jill Stanek (the nurse who went toe to toe with Obama in IL over partial birth abortion) in a post about how pro-aborts are demoralized:

Mark Crutcher of Life Dynamics wrote something inspiring on Facebook this week:

There are no unimportant discussions about abortion. First, with the public’s growing unease over abortion, people who we could have never reached in the past are at least willing to listen to the pro-life message. Even among abortion clinic employees, there is a creeping sense of doubt about what they are doing. Morale is low, turnover rates are astronomical, discouragement is rampant, and while they would never admit it, every rational pro-life argument they hear amplifies their doubts.

INC on March 29, 2013 at 5:10 PM

I’ve always been pro-life but after my son was born 2 weeks and 6 days ago I just want to cry any time I hear/read about abortion.

DethMetalCookieMonst on March 29, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Armin is a raging moron.
He’s a liberal too.
He argues like a liberal & projects his faults onto others.
Have fun with him.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 5:10 PM

These people are not human!

Celestiallady on March 29, 2013 at 5:11 PM

At what stage do you end a mother’s ability to legally kill her child? The only bright clear line that I think most people would agree is too late and is clear cut, is when the baby is out of the womb and alive. If we go beyond that point, where does the right to kill end? If I can kill a viable child outside the womb in an abortion clinic after birth, why not in my own home or wherever the mother gave birth? What is the difference? There has to be some standard and live birth may be as good as we can get the Supreme Court to accept once there is an Obama appointed majority.

KW64 on March 29, 2013 at 5:07 PM

If it was up to Planned Parenthood and the LEFT, infanticide would be legal. Did you see that “research paper” written by some far left professors, that argued that babies are NOT real persons, and as such infanticide should be legal until age 3 or something. Except they called it post birth abortion.

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 29, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Unfortunately, this logic isn’t really amenable to people who are not raging morons. The proposition that fertilized eggs should be treated as persons is absurd, on its face.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

It’s only absurd to the unthinking and illogical. What will happen with nature taking its course? Will a mother give birth to a chicken or a head of lettuce? A child is the only possible result.

Children already attain rights from birth, except in the case of monsters like this lady and the President. How does 9 months make a difference?

P.S. I was born in less than 7.

njrob on March 29, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Yeah, pro-baby killers never do that with rape or incest which account for a tiny, tiny fraction of all pregnancies.

The number of procedures aside, are you for or against partial birth abortions?

NotCoach on March 29, 2013 at 5:07 PM

The legality of late-term abortions should be determined by the states.

Personally: I don’t see any logical reason to distinguish it from earlier abortions, and neither should any consistent “pro-lifer”.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:12 PM

So you’re admitting that “pro-life” arguments are as stupid and dishonest as those used by the Obama Administration to ram through gun control? Thank you.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Not even close, padre.

He promotes the killing of babies in clinics. He uses mass killings to advance his agenda of gun grabbing. He doesn’t give a damn about the kids killed in school or in the clinic.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:13 PM

“We believe that any decision made should be up to the fam…to the woman…”

Notice her “save”. She could give two sh!ts about the father.

DethMetalCookieMonst on March 29, 2013 at 5:13 PM

“Partial birth abortions” also account for a tiny, tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. Of course, “pro-lifers” try to misrepresent this fact and pass them off as the rule and not the exception.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Again it doesn’t matter if it’s 1 in 5 million abortions, this is America NOT china, we should not condone this even if it’s RARE.

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

P.S. I was born in less than 7.

njrob on March 29, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Obviously, you’re not a person in ObamaLand.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Obama support this, or letting the kid starve in a closet.

His kids just left the Bahamas and went skiing in Sun Valley, having just skied in Aspen.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

“Partial birth abortions” also account for a tiny, tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. Of course, “pro-lifers” try to misrepresent this fact and pass them off as the rule and not the exception.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

So the number of events negate the value of the lives lost or the need to minimize the loss of life? A small fraction of murders are caused by arson, should we, based on the tiny fraction of deaths, not seek to prevent them or punish those responsible? There are a few death row inmates that would love to have you as their lawyer if you could pull that off. But of course you can’t , because a loss of life occurred and was caused by someone with the intent to kill. Same situation with PBA – the physician intends to kill an otherwise viable person and via PBA achieves the desired outcome. No difference between the two situations really but I do understand your need to deflect in order to defend the truly indefensible.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

The majority of hospital neonatologists will not attempt to resuscitate or perform life support on any preterm birth before 22 weeks. Which is what you’re talking here, probably way before that even. It might make you a little less emotional if you did not picture a seven pound Gerber Baby lying there.

But I’ve been here before and I’m not staying. Maybe call your local hospital with the highest level of NICU care and ask as a ballpark which “babies” born preterm are “vigorously rescuscitated” and which are not. Usually it’s (gasp!!) left up to the mother and doctor. Prior to 20 weeks, forget it. It’s not done.

Marcus on March 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM

The little feet in Gosnell’s jars were far later than 22 weeks. And Gosnell is only the one who got caught.

So who advocates for the child? In almost every other case, the court advocates for the child in matters involving the child’s well being. The court appoints an attorney to represent the child in any matter wherein the parent’s behavior would put the child into danger — except this one.

The solution is, of course, to have an attending physician always be present for the child, and if the child is viable, for that attending physician to care for his or her charge.

Now, the mother’s right will become one of either accepting the child as hers, or giving it up to the state — the ultimate guarantor of our rights, including our right to life…

It’s the only fair way to deal with this issue. Of course, as the age of viability decreases due to advances in healthcare (provided we have a healthcare industry at all in a few years…), this decision will allow more and more children to live.

If we are going to cut the baby in half, this is the correct way to do it. Choose the point in life when we say “this human has a right to live” and make sure that the attendant right is enforced.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Personally: I don’t see any logical reason to distinguish it from earlier abortions, and neither should any consistent “pro-lifer”.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:12 PM

They don’t. There is a difference between taking victories where you can get them and an all or nothing attitude. Stopping late term abortions is a viable legal strategy in today’s world, so of course a pro-lifer will move to save lives even if they can’t save all lives yet.

NotCoach on March 29, 2013 at 5:15 PM

“Partial birth abortions” also account for a tiny, tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. Of course, “pro-lifers” try to misrepresent this fact and pass them off as the rule and not the exception.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

So, you are for the killing/execution of one such baby?

You are all tyrants, every one of you.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Again it doesn’t matter if it’s 1 in 5 million abortions, this is America NOT china, we should not condone this even if it’s RARE.

Raquel Pinkbullet on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Most late-term abortions happen for emergency medical reasons anyway. You make it sound as if women are just casually deciding to terminate a pregnancy, at great personal expense (and elevated medical risk), for the hell of it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

EricW on March 29, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Moral relativism is neither a negotiating tactic nor a debating skill, it is the refuge of those without conscience, reason or morals. Abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage, fetal tissue research, and human cloning are intrinsic evils and should not be negotiated.

fourdeucer on March 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Obviously, you’re not a person in ObamaLand.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

And I wear that badge proudly. The left always tries to talk about rights, but until they try and protect the most defenseless of us all, that’s all it is, talk.

njrob on March 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Evil. There is no other word to pin on it. Evil. It actually made me feel ill watching that. I just can’t imagine how anyone could side with this monster.

Limerick on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

So the number of events negate the value of the lives lost or the need to minimize the loss of life? A small fraction of murders are caused by arson, should we, based on the tiny fraction of deaths, not seek to prevent them or punish those responsible? There are a few death row inmates that would love to have you as their lawyer if you could pull that off. But of course you can’t , because a loss of life occurred and was caused by someone with the intent to kill. Same situation with PBA – the physician intends to kill an otherwise viable person and via PBA achieves the desired outcome. No difference between the two situations really but I do understand your need to deflect in order to defend the truly indefensible.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:14 PM

If anyone here is trying to deflect, it’s you. My point was that pro-lifers intentionally misrepresent abortion in order to enhance their emotional appeal. Your analogy is stupid and irrelevant.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

The quickest way to change the culture on abortion is to actually make people watch them. Put it into the sex ed curriculum. If you think it’s ok for a 12 year old to have an abortion without their parents knowledge then they should be able to watch a movie about it.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

If you wondered what the next issue that Democrats were going to evolve on, you have your answer. Not really new since Obama essentially said this back as a state Senator and we know Democrats really just want to ignore this reality. So now that so many Republicans seem to be willing to evolve on gay marriage, I wonder how long before they evolve on abortion as well. They should also jump on the ObamaCare mandate bandwagon.

Blue Collar Todd on March 29, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Monster is consistently monstrous. Got it. Not surprised, but still sickened.

I had a totally OT for Allah, but now I’m just sick. I’m going out for a while and clear my head.

novaculus on March 29, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Unfortunately, this logic isn’t really amenable to people who are not raging morons. The proposition that fertilized eggs should be treated as persons is absurd, on its face.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Why? I see no problem here. There are natural ways to die, and unnaturual ways (murder) to die. Even you, in an earlier, comment, admit that…

“Partial birth abortions” also account for a tiny, tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. Of course, “pro-lifers” try to misrepresent this fact and pass them off as the rule and not the exception.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

If this is the case, than why did State Senator Obama fight so hard against a partial birth abortion ban in Illinois? You are signing up to defend this type of act — and I see you as no better than that Planned Parenthood lady (and I use that term loosely) who advocates for postnatal abortion. The two acts are nearly synonymous — you can let the head crown and then stir the brains with scissors, or you can wait until it’s popped completely out and then stir the brains with scissors. It’s only a matter of a few seconds difference, and it’s the same child, and the same act, but hey — who are we troglogytes to mention science or fact, especially when they contradict the law.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Thank you for posting that and can’t really disagree with the underlying theme, but do disagree on one point from your prof.

It was wrong to define a defense attorney like that. We need them in order to ensure the checks and balances of the justice system are served, even the indefensible. That guarantees we all get our moment if we need it.

Sometimes it’s an ugly, thankless job, but one that needs to be done. I’d say that defending the indefensible in court would be soul *affirming* because it guarantees everyone the right to a defense or otherwise we’d have a tyranny.

On the other hand, there really is no good purpose to abortion on demand except for expediency, convenience and responsibility avoidance.

kim roy on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Most late-term abortions happen for emergency medical reasons anyway. You make it sound as if women are just casually deciding to terminate a pregnancy, at great personal expense (and elevated medical risk), for the hell of it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

We’re not talking about the circumstances which result in a PBA but rather whether it should be legal to do so in the first place. Yes, women do casually decide to have an abortion and no, it’s not that expensive to have one. Especially so if you’re on gov’t assistance. But you’re still using the number of occurrences to justify the practice itself which should have little bearing on the whether the act should be legal or not. Can you justify the killing of any person regardless of age by the number of times it actually happens?

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

The quickest way to change the culture on abortion is to actually make people watch them. Put it into the sex ed curriculum. If you think it’s ok for a 12 year old to have an abortion without their parents knowledge then they should be able to watch a movie about it.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Yeah, and people should have to look at pictures of diseased lungs before buying cigarettes too, right?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

If anyone here is trying to deflect, it’s you. My point was that pro-lifers intentionally misrepresent abortion in order to enhance their emotional appeal. Your analogy is stupid and irrelevant.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Leftists misrepresent and propagandize everything, you hypocrites. If hypocrisy would hurt we’d need mufflers.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM

I had a lot of trouble following this. Was this woman trying to say without actually saying it, that a child born alive should not be saved? And was she really giving the excuse that sometimes said surviving child might be too far away (an hour or more) that it’s not worth trying to get the child help?
God help us.

hopeful on March 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM

You’ve a newborn baby. You’ve lying on a table. You’ve struggling for air, to breathe. This woman wants the decision to kill you left up to the woman and the attending doctor who just tried unsuccessfully to kill you.

Monstrous indeed.

CrustyB on March 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM

“Partial birth abortions” also account for a tiny, tiny fraction of the abortions performed in this country. Of course, “pro-lifers” try to misrepresent this fact and pass them off as the rule and not the exception.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Tell that to the baby’s who are killed.
So.. I’d like to ask.. how will you go about killing the baby who is laying on the table crying? Use a pillow? Stab him/her with a knife? Shoot him with a gun?

Could just snip their necks with scissors. That’s what the abortion “doctor” in Philly did. His assistant has admitted to killing at least 10 babies born alive.
http://articles.philly.com/2013-03-20/news/37846890_1_adrienne-moton-women-s-medical-society-clinic-kermit-gosnell

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 5:26 PM

fetal tissue research,
fourdeucer on March 29, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Sorry, I meant Embryonic Stem Cell research.

fourdeucer on March 29, 2013 at 5:26 PM

If anyone here is trying to deflect, it’s you. My point was that pro-lifers intentionally misrepresent abortion in order to enhance their emotional appeal. Your analogy is stupid and irrelevant.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

You mock the point but don’t address it. Weak to be sure but not surprising. You assert that the number of incidents negate the need the the immorality and potential illegality of the act itself. Which undermines your point but whatever – anything in the name of “freedom” right?

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM

If anyone here is trying to deflect, it’s you. My point was that pro-lifers intentionally misrepresent abortion in order to enhance their emotional appeal. Your analogy is stupid and irrelevant.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Misrepresent abortion? It’s the killing of a baby. You’re just trying to say it’s not muder.

Vince on March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Yeah, and people should have to look at pictures of diseased lungs before buying cigarettes too, right?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

You just equated smoking one cigarette with killing one live baby, you monster. The tyrants of the world love you. How do you live? I hope you suffocate from guilt.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Armin is a raging moron.
He’s a liberal too.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 5:10 PM

No need to repeat yourself.

tballard on March 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM

No need to repeat yourself.

tballard on March 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Heh, YMMV. :)

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Most late-term abortions happen for emergency medical reasons anyway. You make it sound as if women are just casually deciding to terminate a pregnancy, at great personal expense (and elevated medical risk), for the hell of it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

I work in health care.

Yes, a good portion of women do get abortions. How casually, I do not know as YOU do not know as we don’t speak to them so we cannot assess that, but the numbers are there.

kim roy on March 29, 2013 at 5:28 PM

You guys are lightyears behind this story … which was played out in the Illinois State Senate during Barry O’Bozo’s otherwise meaningless tenure there. O’Bozo single-handedly prevented a bill from coming to a vote, which aimed to prevent the murder of children born alive after a failed late-term abortion attempt.

We elected such a monster President … twice.

Jaibones on March 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Deserves repetition.

steebo77 on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Unfortunately, this logic isn’t really amenable to people who are not raging morons. The proposition that fertilized eggs should be treated as persons is absurd, on its face.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Interesting to note that I have more in common with a Muslim than with this ghoul.

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

We’re not talking about the circumstances which result in a PBA but rather whether it should be legal to do so in the first place. Yes, women do casually decide to have an abortion and no, it’s not that expensive to have one. Especially so if you’re on gov’t assistance. But you’re still using the number of occurrences to justify the practice itself which should have little bearing on the whether the act should be legal or not. Can you justify the killing of any person regardless of age by the number of times it actually happens?

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Considering that I believe abortion should be a matter of policy as determined by the states themselves, yes, I think the circumstances that result in “partial-birth abortion” should be taken into consideration when mulling over its legality. And to be clear, I meant that women do not casually decide to have a late-term abortion. No one is going to carry a baby for half a year or longer and suddenly decide to end the pregnancy on a whim. In almost all cases, it’s a result of learning about some horrible birth defect.

Leftists misrepresent and propagandize everything, you hypocrites. If hypocrisy would hurt we’d need mufflers.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM

And your solution is to adopt their tactics, while calling them hypocrites. Now who is the hypocrite?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Misrepresent abortion? It’s the killing of a baby. You’re just trying to say it’s not muder.

Vince on March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Excuse me. Murder.

Vince on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Unfortunately, this logic isn’t really amenable to people who are not raging morons. The proposition that fertilized eggs should be treated as persons is absurd, on its face.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe you missed my question, so I’ll ask it again:

Why is it a felony to smash turtle eggs?

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM

to kill it in the womb 10 minutes earlier.

Please don’t call a child “it.”

itsnotaboutme on March 29, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Yeah, and people should have to look at pictures of diseased lungs before buying cigarettes too, right?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Actually, I’d prefer that the government not fund or subsidize tobacco products, and I’d prefer that the government take the role in mitigating the past effects of it having funded/subsidized tobacco products. I do think that people should have to look at diseased lungs, and tracheotomies, and all of the other effects of smoking or chewing…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvCH6lzjmgQ

As someone else here has already pointed out, Mr. Obama is going all out to erect some kind of legal memorial for the Sandy Hook deaths, but his hands are already dirty with the blood of millions of murdered children…

There will be no similar legal memorial to Dr. Gosnell’s victims while Mr. Obama is President.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Armin Tamzarian

I’m just wondering if you have any children of your own and if you were able to see them on sonogram in utero. I suspect not because you would probably feel very differently than you do.

hopeful on March 29, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Deflection is indignant. Answer my question – are you for even one of these killings?

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Yeah, and people should have to look at pictures of diseased lungs before buying cigarettes too, right?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

One is suicide and the other murder.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 5:32 PM

“It’s GWB’s fault, whatever it is. He did it too, we are the waaaaaaah children, the never grown ups, never” — Obama/Armin Tamzarian.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

You mock the point but don’t address it. Weak to be sure but not surprising. You assert that the number of incidents negate the need the the immorality and potential illegality of the act itself. Which undermines your point but whatever – anything in the name of “freedom” right?

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM

I’m only going to repeat myself one more time: I was making a comment on the dishonesty of pro-lifers using imagery–words, pictures, whatever–of late-term abortions to represent the typical abortion, which happens at a much earlier point in pregnancy.

You just equated smoking one cigarette with killing one live baby, you monster. The tyrants of the world love you. How do you live? I hope you suffocate from guilt.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:27 PM

Does every single social “conservative” suffer from some kind of learning disability that prevents them from processing or understanding analogies? Seriously.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I’m just wondering if you have any children of your own and if you were able to see them on sonogram in utero. I suspect not because you would probably feel very differently than you do.

hopeful on March 29, 2013 at 5:31 PM

My guess? 3rd year poli-sci at UC Berkley

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

That question sounds precisely like something those blood thirsty, Godless, amoral ghouls would be contemplating.

rplat on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Axelturd is not getting his money’s worth today. HAL made a fool of himself on the Biden thread. Armin is pummelled and can’t answer a simple question, the excecutioner.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Most late-term abortions happen for emergency medical reasons anyway. You make it sound as if women are just casually deciding to terminate a pregnancy, at great personal expense (and elevated medical risk), for the hell of it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Please explain to me what emergency medical reason requiring that a child being born early also requires said child to be born dead? Usually in a late term emergency in a wanted pregnancy, a C-section is performed, so what emergency requires a vaginal birth with forceps stuck in the child’s neck?

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Most late-term abortions happen for emergency medical reasons anyway. You make it sound as if women are just casually deciding to terminate a pregnancy, at great personal expense (and elevated medical risk), for the hell of it.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

That’s a lie.

http://www.justfactsdaily.com/most-late-term-abortions-are-not-for-medical-reasons

JannyMae on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Oh, and Armin, how did that suck-up-to-AP shit taste the other day? How pathetic you were/are.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

The proposition that fertilized eggs should be treated as persons is absurd, on its face.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

I think thats called a strawman.

In your world, when does the “egg” part cease to be a valid description of reality?

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM

It is this kind of thinking that will have no problem killing 25 million Americans…

Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Does every single social “conservative” suffer from some kind of learning disability that prevents them from processing or understanding analogies? Seriously.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Azzhole of the world, and executioner of fully born children, we know exactly what you are doing. You only think that you are smart.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Maybe you missed my question, so I’ll ask it again:

Why is it a felony to smash turtle eggs?

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:30 PM

What does this have to do with anything?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Obama voted in the Senate at least once, but I think twice to force doctors to kill survivors of abortion.

To think that PP would possibly give up a few hundred dollars just because the baby is alive is to be extremely naive.

RJL on March 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Sorry, I meant Embryonic Stem Cell research.

fourdeucer on March 29, 2013 at 5:26 PM

How you said it was entirely correct. Most of these tissues are more than eight weeks old….

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Armin Tamzarian, asnwer my question, executioner. How many such killings are ok by you?

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Armin Tamzarian

You’re not a conservative. You never display any understanding or advocacy for conservatism or liberty.
Socons will have more clues and be more connected to reality than you ever will.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Does every single social “conservative” suffer from some kind of learning disability that prevents them from processing or understanding analogies? Seriously.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Might be your “analogy” is silly?
Lame and not representative.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Obama and Armin are executioners of fully developed and born babies.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Dang it, I had a legitimate question for Armin Tamzarian and it’s in moderation?

Cindy Munford on March 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Prov. 6: 12-19

12 A worthless person, a wicked man,
Walks with a perverse mouth;
13 He winks with his eyes,
He shuffles his feet,
He points with his fingers;
14 Perversity is in his heart,
He devises evil continually,
He sows discord.
15 Therefore his calamity shall come suddenly;
Suddenly he shall be broken without remedy.

16 These six things the Lord hates,
Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:

17 A proud look,
A lying tongue,
Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies,
And one who sows discord among brethren.

40 million aborted in America? And now we’re openly talking about killing babies born alive? It’s already being done, in fact.

Psalm 139:13-16
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

We have no fear of God. None at all.

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Armin, verbaluce and HAL are 100 times smarter than you.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Armin Tamzarian, asnwer my question, executioner. How many such killings are ok by you?

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

The more the better, obviously. Sweet, sweet baby blood. V8 needs to bottle and sell it.

There, do you have the answer you want?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM

What does this have to do with anything?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Try this:

The proposition that fertilized eggs should be treated as persons turtles is absurd, on its face.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Turtle eggs are not turtles, yet its a crime to smash them. According to you, fertilized human eggs are not persons, so its ok to smash them.

Do you see it now? The government says fertilized eggs of species A are little, tiny living unborn versions of that species, but fertilized eggs of species B is just a lump of cells.

The argument fails.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM

No one is going to carry a baby for half a year or longer and suddenly decide to end the pregnancy on a whim. In almost all cases, it’s a result of learning about some horrible birth defect.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

The mother’s motives have little to do with whether it should be legal or not. If it’s allowed it will occur – anyone arguing otherwise is being intentionally obtuse or just a moron. Two things though, first in your mind would it be OK for PBA to exist if the mother were unserious about the procedure and the child that she carried to near term and hence PBA’s legality be preserved. Second, when does an unborn child, regardless of disability or period of gestation become a person and thusly afforded due process rights? Does the disability alone negate personhood and further, who should be the arbiter of one’s degree of disability such that their life is worth less than mine or yours or similarly an otherwise “normal” unborn childs? These are serious questions I’m not trying to bait you. I’m curious how those that advocate for abortion on demand reconcile the very real distinctions that have to take place in order to justify any PBA’s to occur.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM

What does this have to do with anything?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Quite a bit. The turtles are protected species under federal law, and the reason the eggs are also protected is rooted in the fact that they are immature turtles. You kill the egg, and you’ve just killed a turtle.

So, in this case, science gets properly applied (recognizing all of the stages of development of an animal as being that animal), yet, in the case of abortion, or in vitro fertilization, it doesn’t.

The liberals in this case are harkening back to their earlier support of slavery — in which they found a position in which some women were legally either not human, or lesser humans, than others. One sees the nonscientific aspect of your argument immediately when viewed through that lens.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM

There, do you have the answer you want?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM

It’ll be here, for eternity. You have the lives on your soul. May it torment you every second of your life. I hope it destroys you, 24/7, every single day of your life. I hope you hear these babies scream in your dreams, you monster.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM

The quickest way to change the culture on abortion is to actually make people watch them. Put it into the sex ed curriculum. If you think it’s ok for a 12 year old to have an abortion without their parents knowledge then they should be able to watch a movie about it.

monalisa on March 29, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Yeah, and people should have to look at pictures of diseased lungs before buying cigarettes too, right?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:23 PM

We did in our government school you A-Hole troll. Just like we watched car wreck carnage films and gun films with people shot by buns in a home. We also got to watch the obligatory animal cruelty films.

Not one abortion file however.

Obviously it’s fine to show things like that all day in a public school but heaven forbid anyone showed a late term abortion. Although you could argue that of all the films listed above none would be more graphic and disturbing than killing an 8 month old and dropping them in a trash can.

You are a vile and disgusting scumbag. Not so much because abortions happen but you defend these people and denigrate infants as if anyone wanting to safeguard life is the extremist.

acyl72 on March 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM

She and Planned Parenthood, like Barack Obama before her, are fighting the restrictions against withholding medical care and killing infants who survive abortions. She specifically says that the decision regarding what to do about the baby on the table is between the mother and the “healthcare provider.” (She initially said the family, then thought better of those implications and reverted to just the mother later in her testimony). And while this question may not have been asked, presumably she would insist that taxpayers fund the killing of the baby on the table.

Apparently the horrors of being a little too far away from a hospital were too much for Planned Parenthood to take, so speaking like Dr. Nick Riviera of The Simpsons, just to be on the safe side they need to be allowed to kill the baby.

Of course it is spectacularly evil to withhold care or directly kill a baby on a table. Just because the abortionist failed on the first try doesn’t mean he gets a second shot. Anyone without a warped moral compass would agree. But who are the inconsistent ones? I submit that she is entirely consistent with the Democrats’ platform of abortions without restrictions, funded by taxpayers.

Remember, the successful abortion would have had the mother and child in the same room, with an irrelevant change in the distance between them. Everyone in the video seems to concede that. This Planned Parenthood representative would have been entirely consistent in saying the following (channeling Hillary Clinton):

“With all due respect, the fact is we end up with a dead baby who wasn’t wanted by her mother. Was it because she was killed slightly inside the mother or slightly outside? What difference at this point does it make?”

And she would be right. While killing the baby on the table seems worse, it is morally equal. (Speaking of red equal signs . . .)

eMatters on March 29, 2013 at 5:43 PM

You hafe in front of you the entire leftist establishment, from Obama to Armin Tamzarian.

These are the overlords who want to disarm you.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Turtle eggs are not turtles, yet its a crime to smash them. According to you, fertilized human eggs are not persons, so its ok to smash them.

Do you see it now? The government says fertilized eggs of species A are little, tiny living unborn versions of that species, but fertilized eggs of species B is just a lump of cells.

The argument fails.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM

And I’m still wondering why you’re asking me to rationalize laws I had nothing to do with and have never expressed support for? If you think you’ve struck some kind of rhetorical gold here, take it up with someone who thinks turtle eggs should be protected. I don’t care either way.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

hafe = have

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

No one is going to carry a baby for half a year or longer and suddenly decide to end the pregnancy on a whim. In almost all cases, it’s a result of learning about some horrible birth defect.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

And if that “birth defect” is that the child is a female, or has a gene which might produce aberrant behavior (such as gayness or a predisposition to murder, or any of a number of known genetic diseases such as “mongolism”…), then those children are a fair target for disposal…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_abortion

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

And the spirit behind them.

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM

This is not abortion.

This is execution, China-style.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Contrary to the OP, cops don’t make a decision to kill (officially). But the point holds for soldiers.

CommonMan on March 29, 2013 at 5:46 PM

This thread proves that indeed all leftists are tyrants.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Armin: The turtle egg question is pertinent because, if it is indeed a felony to smash them, we have criminalized the destruction of turtle ‘fertilized eggs’ (your term) while regarding as a right the destruction of human ‘fertilized eggs’.

I will ask the question that is clear to most here. Why do turtle eggs receive more protection under our laws than human eggs?

Also, I might point out that you have simply dismissed (generally while ridiculing) every analogy/analogue given to you on this thread. What you are allowed to simply dismiss, others are also, if you wish to maintain an honest rhetorical posture.

Scott H on March 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I don’t care either way.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Bad enough right there, but you defend the indefensible anyway.

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Quite a bit. The turtles are protected species under federal law, and the reason the eggs are also protected is rooted in the fact that they are immature turtles. You kill the egg, and you’ve just killed a turtle.

So, in this case, science gets properly applied (recognizing all of the stages of development of an animal as being that animal), yet, in the case of abortion, or in vitro fertilization, it doesn’t.

The liberals in this case are harkening back to their earlier support of slavery — in which they found a position in which some women were legally either not human, or lesser humans, than others. One sees the nonscientific aspect of your argument immediately when viewed through that lens.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:41 PM

This line of reasoning isn’t even responsive to the central legal argument in favor of abortion: that it is a right and a natural extension of the mother’s right to self-ownership and bodily autonomy. Turtles do not have rights. So can we put this moronic strawman to rest now?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

but you defend the indefensible anyway.

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

He defends executions, in cold blood, just like China does.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

And I’m still wondering why you’re asking me to rationalize laws I had nothing to do with and have never expressed support for? If you think you’ve struck some kind of rhetorical gold here, take it up with someone who thinks turtle eggs should be protected. I don’t care either way.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Ah. But the underlying argument escapes you. Heh.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:49 PM

You hafe in front of you the entire leftist establishment, from Obama to Armin Tamzarian.

These are the overlords who want to disarm you.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I don’t think that the leftist establishment (any of them really) have thought out what the policies that they advocate for really lead to. Remove enough freedoms such that the State is omnipotent and all powerful but the State will not tolerate dissent, which the Left is exceptionally good at. Which is why they are the first to be gassed/eliminated in every case where dictators rule through tyranny. The policies they advocate are the same policies once implemented will cost them their lives.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM

? If you think you’ve struck some kind of rhetorical gold here, take it up with someone who thinks turtle eggs should be protected. I don’t care either way.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

How about Polar bears or wetlands?

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM

I have come to believe that abortion is murder or at least manslaughter.
After birth abortion, what Godless evil people are these?
Go live in a Gulag where you belong!

losarkos on March 29, 2013 at 5:51 PM

The policies they advocate are the same policies once implemented will cost them their lives.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Why do you think Obama is for SSM? Because his brotherhood will take care of it.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:52 PM

And I’m still wondering why you’re asking me to rationalize laws I had nothing to do with and have never expressed support for? If you think you’ve struck some kind of rhetorical gold here, take it up with someone who thinks turtle eggs should be protected. I don’t care either way.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Because you rationalize abortion as not murder by believing that an embryo, zygote, fetus, or lump of cells is not a human being.

The government and Supreme Court support your rationalization, and the current resident of the White House can’t put his finger on when life begins.

Except for turtles.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:52 PM

How about Polar bears or wetlands?

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Is the protection of polar bears and wetlands an enumerated power of the federal government? That’s the only consideration I have.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 7