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 5 7

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Thank-you, I was trying to recall the exact wording from the Office of the Doctrine of Faith and could not remember how it was stated.

fourdeucer on March 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM

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.

She is. That’s the problem. In a pro-choice framework, you save the baby, because it’s the mother that matters. From a Roe v. Wade viewpoint, it’s no longer necessary to protect “maternal health,” so there’s no longer any reason to terminate. Same with a “my body, my choice” viewpoint; no longer her body means no longer her choice.

calbear on March 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM

: that it is a right and a natural extension of the mother’s right to self-ownership and bodily autonomy.

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

Natural?

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM

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

Then why can’t I smash turtle eggs and cook up sea turtle soup at will?

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM

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

Then why are their eggs protected?

Vince on March 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM

She ruined Obama’s “America needs to do better” and “war weapons” propaganda today.

It’s good that this topic is up for conversation over the weekend.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:55 PM

I always thought the natural extension of pregnancy was a live birth?

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:55 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

I never said that an embryo or fetus is not a human being. I said that it is not a legal person. Whether or not it is “human” in some abstract sense does not matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Forget the turtle eggs. Armin is for the cold-blooded execution of fully developed born babies. You have it in black and white, repeatedly.

Obama is for same.

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Then why are their eggs protected?

Vince on March 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM

He’s going to run away or change the subject.

Its not that he can’t explain it, he knows there is no explanation. The left simply values turtles more than human beings.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Mr. Tamzarian, you really think a woman terminating the life growing in her womb is the actions of a person acting NATURALLY?

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:57 PM

I said that it is not a legal person. Whether or not it is “human” in some abstract sense does not matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Is a fully developed born baby a “legal person”?

Schadenfreude on March 29, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Then why can’t I smash turtle eggs and cook up sea turtle soup at will?

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 5:54 PM

I don’t know. Why can’t you drop kick puppies for sport either? Dogs don’t have rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM

If Obama had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Armin.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 5:58 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

So there is no “you”. You’re made up of political, ideological or legal abstractions?
The question was obviously one of personal views. If you have no personal views beyond “thinky” abstractions, so be it.

That explains a lot.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:00 PM

I don’t know. Why can’t you drop kick puppies for sport either? Dogs don’t have rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM

You just proved the point.

You’re scum.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:01 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

That’s the money quote right there and the real cause of the conflict which is this: where does the women’s right to privacy and bodily autonomy end and the rights of the unborn child (person) begin? There has to be some crossing of the two or else Scott Peterson wouldn’t be on death row pondering his fate. Yet the same courts that sentenced him to meet his maker prematurely are the most vociferous advocates for there to be no line and that a child doesn’t achieve person status until some undetermined time out the womb waiting period. Choicer’s want to make any attempt to define personhood, and thus restrict their “bodily freedoms”, akin to drawing a picture of Mohammed but at the same time happily send men like Peterson to the chair for killing his unborn child. Very strange indeed.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 6:01 PM

That’s the only consideration I have.

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

You’re so simplistic.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Mr. Tamzarian, you really think a woman terminating the life growing in her womb is the actions of a person acting NATURALLY?

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Personally? I don’t care. I was describing the currently accepted legal rationale for why abortion is considered a right in order to demonstrate why comparing abortion to stomping turtle eggs is a moronic strawman by any reasonable standard.

I’ve always personally held that the best defense of abortion is as outgrowth of property rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I never said that an embryo or fetus is not a human being. I said that it is not a legal person. Whether or not it is “human” in some abstract sense does not matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

You’ve just admitted that an unborn baby is a human being. You then toss in the legal person argument as if that will change some facet of the killing of a human.

What bestows personhood (or continuing our romp through the animal kingdom, turtlehood) on a human being/turtle?

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Tell me would you trade your desires to marry your lover if it meant abortion would end?

CW on March 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM

In a heartbeat.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

self-ownership and bodily autonomy. Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Mindless regurgitated talking points. The tools of the pro-death crowd.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:03 PM

I don’t know. Why can’t you drop kick puppies for sport either? Dogs don’t have rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Ask Michael Vick about that.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:03 PM

: that it is a right and a natural extension of the mother’s right to self-ownership and bodily autonomy.

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

Two women are in a car in Florida. Both are 5 months pregnant. The driver, who plans to keep her baby, is driving her friend to an abortion clinic to have an abortion. A drunk, Comrade Alan Grayson runs a red light and hits the car in which both women are riding. Both women survive. Both foetuses are aborted naturally.

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193 defines DUI manslaughter to include the death of an unborn, quick child.

Should Comrade Alan Grayson be charged with one or two counts of DUI manslaughter?

Remember, one woman was on her way to kill her “collection of cells.”

Thanking you in advance for your thoughtful reply.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 6:04 PM

I don’t know. Why can’t you drop kick puppies for sport either? Dogs don’t have rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM

You can.
You just have to be sure that no one see’s you.
Murdering babies you can not only do out in the open, you can get other people to pay for it.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Wow, she’s a coward. She can’t bring herself to be consistent and say, “Oh, you should finish killing it.” I’d almost respect her if she just said it plain and straight up.

princetrumpet on March 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Can obama have a late term abortion? I’d be OK with that.

Mirimichi on March 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

: that it is a right and a natural extension of the mother’s right to self-ownership and bodily autonomy.

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

The fetus is not part of the womans body.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Whether or not it is “human”

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Whether or not? You failed biology and genetics I see. Just a nasty excuse for a human you are.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM

I’ve always personally held that the best defense of abortion is as outgrowth of property rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

OK that’s just stupid. Property rights? Really? So the unborn child is the “property” of the mother until some later date when it’s…….not? Up and until that point she can dispose of said “property” as she sees fit? Just so you know, people stopped being property some time ago I’m afraid. Better find a better argument for your position, or maybe a better school. Geez.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Armin is just an ugly ugly person. One that you can tell has nearly no soul and no love in its life. Truly sad.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I’ve always personally held that the best defense of abortion is as outgrowth of property rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Property? Good grief!

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 6:08 PM

, people stopped being property some time ago I’m afraid. Better find a better argument for your position, or maybe a better school. Geez.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM

Armin’s not very educated. He thinks he is and that is what makes him dangerous.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I was describing the currently accepted legal rationale for why abortion is considered a right in order to demonstrate why comparing abortion to stomping turtle eggs is a moronic strawman by any reasonable standard.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

As we’re slowly deconstructing the argument of ‘its just a lump of cells’ of the abortionist, he now begins to toss up the ‘settled law’ argument.

He can’t explain why the government accepts that life for turtles begins inside the eggshell, but for humans a baby has to survive the birth canal to become a person, he just says “it is“.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:09 PM

I’ve always personally held that the best defense of abortion is as outgrowth of property rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

So we’ve gone from a natural right to something that needs a defense.

A truly remarkable position.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 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

LOL, I love how you Low-IQ Democrats lie so reflexively and so without guilt. Certainly is something to behold.

You’re asking us to believe that you’re totally against the Endangered Species Act? Just 5 years ago your Party, led by the Washington Post, leveled numerous accusations against the Bush Administration, who they claimed was trying to get around said Act by various means. And they also buried said Administration under a slew of lawsuits.

Highly entertaining!

B+

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

OK that’s just stupid. Property rights? Really? So the unborn child is the “property” of the mother until some later date when it’s…….not? Up and until that point she can dispose of said “property” as she sees fit? Just so you know, people stopped being property some time ago I’m afraid. Better find a better argument for your position, or maybe a better school. Geez.

volnation on March 29, 2013 at 6:07 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother. Whether or not the fetus also is, is academic. Doesn’t matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Thank you…for correctly identifying him as a Democrat.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

I want my 5 minutes back. That was nothin’

tommylotto on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

LOL, I love how you Low-IQ Democrats lie so reflexively and so without guilt. Certainly is something to behold.

You’re asking us to believe that you’re totally against the Endangered Species Act? Just 5 years ago your Party, led by the Washington Post, leveled numerous accusations against the Bush Administration, who they claimed was trying to get around said Act by various means. And they also buried said Administration under a slew of lawsuits.

Highly entertaining!

B+

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

I am not a Democrat, I have never been a Democrat, and I am not, nor have I ever been employed by the Washington Post. Anything else I can clear up for you?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

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

Expert on moronic strawmen checks in.

And despite your quaint claim, under the Federal Endagnered Species Act, turtles do have rights.

D-

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

I’ve always personally held that the best defense of abortion is as outgrowth of property rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

You don’t think there are any other factors which might override those considerations? I mean in your own mind and heart.

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

I’ve always personally held that the best defense of abortion is as outgrowth of property rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Justice Blackmun, the very author of Roe v Wade, and Lawrence Tribe have both expressed their discomfort with the property rights extension being applied to abortion because it is “eerily similar to the legal reasoning” used in Chief Justice Taney’s opinion for the majority in Dred Scot. Blackmun even said later that his own opinion in Roe had too many similarities to Dred after he had time to reconsider it.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Doesn’t matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

You keep stamping your feet and telling yourself that.

My goodness you are one ignorant fool.

The laws more and more disagree with you . Seriously you’re embarrassing yourself.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:14 PM

I am not a Democrat,

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

You’re a quote independent unquote.

/
Whatever.

Too much.

As I have stated previously your breadth of knowledge is limited to just 2 or 3 subjects. So simple. Embarrassing.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:15 PM

D-

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

No, Del.

Its F. Complete, total, F

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

I am not a Democrat, I have never been a Democrat, and I am not, nor have I ever been employed by the Washington Post. Anything else I can clear up for you?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

You may be right…calling you a Democrat is giving you too much credit.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Abortion…….The American Holocaust.

And we think the blood of tens of millions of our most innocent will not cry out for judgement from the ground of this nation?

God have mercy on the nation that allows this.

PappyD61 on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

An independent in the Bloomberg vein Armin. Just in case you did not get it.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Liberals and their failed ideology on display for all to see…

… Truly disgusting and monstrous, isn’t it?

No matter how much they dress it up and try to distract…

… the killing of the truly innocent is their sacrament.

Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother. Whether or not the fetus also is, is academic. Doesn’t matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Thats a very anti science position.

There is nothing academic about it. It’s a question of science.
If the DNA of the fetus is identical to that of the mother, then it’s part of her body.
If the DNA of the fetus is different than that of the mother, then it is not part of her body on the basis of science.
It’s your claim that it is, that is academic and abstract.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

And despite your quaint claim, under the Federal Endagnered Species Act, turtles do have rights.

D-

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Forgot:

Even as a lump of cells, they still have rights.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:17 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

Protection of wetlands is.

As for Polar Bears in Alaska…

Polar bears are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). USFWS also has co-management agreements with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the North Slope Borough. The Chukchi Sea population is managed through a bilateral agreement with Russia. Alaska Natives have also signed an agreement with the indigenous people of Canada regarding the management of the Southern Beaufort Sea population.

You really need 2 shovels. One for each hand.

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Wait until Planned SENIORHood gets going and they start killing off the old people.

Granny and Gramps don’t they have a duty to die and save their loved ones end of life care?

Surely an organization like Planned Parenthood can help.

PappyD61 on March 29, 2013 at 6:17 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother. Whether or not the fetus also is, is academic. Doesn’t matter.

Armin Tamzarian

So I can murder a woman as long as she is on my property. And apparently she can murder me when my p%nis is inside of her property. Cool.

xblade on March 29, 2013 at 6:22 PM

D-

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

No, Del.

Its F. Complete, total, F

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM

With all due respect, they don’t make a letter grade to adequately describe it.

But, if I’m forced to assign…………

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
——————————————————————-
——————————————————————-
——————————————————————-
——————————————————————-
——————————————————————-

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 6:22 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

Turtles do indeed have rights — our laws have made those rights for them.

If you believe that the mother has a right to self-ownership and bodily autonomy (something our laws had also made for her) which trumps any claim her child may have on a right to life, then the Government must, of necessity, have the obligation to support that right. So we have that any mother gets to decide, until birth, whether her child lives or not — but the decision is thereafter barred to her — she cannot kill the child after birth. Now, each state defines birth differently, so let’s take the least restrictive definition — when the umbilical cord has been cut.

So, until the umbilical cord has been cut, the mother has an inalienable right to terminate the child’s life — for any reason whatsoever — because, under your definition, the child is still attached to the mother and is therefore part of the mother.

Ok, fair and consistent. Let’s assume the above is the law of the land.

Now, because continuing the pregnancy is solely the decision of the mother (nobody else, not even the father, enters into it), this can be considered an essential right available only to her.

But suppose the father rushes into the doctor/abortionist’s office and cuts the umbilical cord immediately after the mother makes the determination that the child is not to be human — that it is to be killed. It’s the father who has made the child human, not the mother. Indeed, one could view the cutting of the umbilical cord as an assault upon the woman’s body. Should the mother therefore be in any way responsible for the well being of a child if she determines that the child should not be human?

Now, Armin, please answer the question immediately above with a simple “yes” or “no”.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Armin is not very aware of the laws presently and as time goes along they increasingly work to protect the unborn human. Me thinks someone hates himself. Such true ugliness.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I am not a Democrat, I have never been a Democrat, and I am not, nor have I ever been employed by the Washington Post.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Neither were Hitler and Stalin.

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Dogs don’t have rights.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Tell that to the Leftists who run PETA. Or tell that to the ASPCA, which bills itself as an Animal Rights Organization.

And tell that to the 13 states that have also said dogs do have rights. Those states, which include the Socialist state of Vermont and the People’s Republic of California, have passed laws restricting the chaining of dogs.

And as I recall, you and your fellow Low-IQ Democrat Voters had a cow last year because the Republican candidate for President had a quarter of a century ago let his dog ride in a crate atop his car.

Keep shovelin’.

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

As far as Gosnell goes, we should use the rendition program and send him to Saudi Arabia with photos and a complete transcript of his trial.

After we drop him off, we’ll leave a note that says “OBTW, we don’t want him back”.

The Saudis know how to handle this sort of case.

SWOOOOOSH!

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother. Whether or not the fetus also is, is academic. Doesn’t matter.

Armin Tamzarian

So I can murder a woman as long as she is on my property. And apparently she can murder me when my p%nis is inside of her property. Cool.

xblade on March 29, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Armin’s far too stupid to get just how silly he looks.

Of course our rights whether in our own body or own homes end when other’s are involved.

Oh and if your pecker is inside her…..I guess per Armin she can at least cut it off.
/

Armin’s logic is so simple and so deluded.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM

B+

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

I am not a Democrat, I have never been a Democrat, and I am not, nor have I ever been employed by the Washington Post. Anything else I can clear up for you?

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

You’re not even an unusually good liar.

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:27 PM

And apparently she can murder me when my p%nis is inside of her property. Cool.

xblade on March 29, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Only the inserted portion. Its complicated, but the law is clear on this.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Murdering babies you can not only do out in the open, you can get MAKE other people to pay for it.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Your point is valid but needed a minor correction for accuracy.

Oldnuke on March 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

After watching that woman maneuver through the questions of what to do if a child is born on accident during an abortion, I feel a great sadness for humanity.

portlandon on March 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM

When the little corporal came to power, he used a small what was then insignificant minority group of militants to do so, to facilitate his agenda, when he had gotten what he wanted, he dispensed with them (Night of the Long Knives)because they were in his mind, deviants, his agenda was many things, but it was always power. I should think that were we to take a look at what has methodically gone on since the time of Wilson, we may see a slow ascendancy, and as time comes to pass tactics are adopted and adapted to fit the need. While some may find this a bridge to far, I would be weary of disbelief, for too many could not happen heres have already come to pass.

MarshFox on March 29, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I feel a great sadness for humanity.

portlandon on March 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM

How did we get here?

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:34 PM

With this sad video and the gay marriage debate this week, at least North Dakota passed the most pro-life bill in history.

22044 on March 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Whether or not it is “human” in some abstract sense does not matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

So you consider science to be “abstract”?

malclave on March 29, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Your point is valid but needed a minor correction for accuracy.

Oldnuke on March 29, 2013 at 6:30 PM

You’re right. Thank you.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM

After watching that woman maneuver through the questions of what to do if a child is born on accident during an abortion, I feel a great sadness for humanity.

portlandon on March 29, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Its pretty clear that the left wants to ensure that once a woman “chooses” to terminate a pregnancy, the requires a dead baby.

They push so hard for the right to kill, its almost become a religious rite, pagan-like its horror. I’ll predict that any attempt to change a womans’ mind and not abort her baby will soon be a crime.

(Can’t make a law infringing the practice of religion, now can we?)

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother.

Armin Tamzarian

Since it seems a big, fat pussycat seems to have gotten your tongue relative to my first question, maybe, you can answer this one:

If a woman “owns” her womb, does she also “own” her other organs?

If so, can she legally sell them in the United States?

**Jeopardy music begins playing**

Resist We Much on March 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM

It`s murder, simple as that.

ThePrez on March 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

That doesn’t matter. If something is not your property, you can’t just destroy it, even if it is on your property.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

When I was growing up I could never understand how Hitler climbed to power and was allowed to do what he did. I now understand.

alanstern on March 29, 2013 at 6:41 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

That doesn’t matter. If something is not your property, you can’t just destroy it, even if it is on your property.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Maybe the property owner should have to go through eviction procedures before having an abortion.

#OccupyWombSpace

malclave on March 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Whether or not it is “human” in some abstract sense does not matter.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Wow. I missed this till now.

Being human is an abstract construct? Life and death have no meaning? Should we become like ants, who seem to not have any regard for each other, but operate as a collective without the slightest sense of individuality?

Life must be awful for Armin, moving about the rest of us, not giving a damn about anything, pretending he’s watching a movie where everyone is no where near as enlightened as he is.

Are we sure we weren’t trashing Obama himself? You know, President Above-It-All?

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

fourdeucer on March 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM

You are perhaps looking for the sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbered from 2270 onward, concerning abortion, which occurs under the discussion of the 5th Commandment:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

That doesn’t matter. If something is not your property, you can’t just destroy it, even if it is on your property.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Armin has difficulty grasping such an idea. Not.Real.Bright.

CW on March 29, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Zatarain is busy googling something or other.

That said, I recommend Zatarain’s Dirty Rice and Sausage for a quick meal. It’s cheap.

Mimzey on March 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM

alanstern on March 29, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Only problem is that it isn’t one man behind the curtain this time pulling the strings as the mastermind, but a conglomerate.

MarshFox on March 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Planned Parenthood spokesman Joe Mengele could not be reached for comment so Armin “meds ain’t working” Tamzarian has decided to pimp the mantra….

viking01 on March 29, 2013 at 6:44 PM

There really has to be something psychologically wrong with someone who goes to such great lengths to justify this barbarity. I’ve never seen someone stretch moral ambiguity so badly and sound so desperate doing so.

CurtZHP on March 29, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Del Dolemonte on March 29, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Del, PeTA doesn’t think dogs have rights either.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/dubiousdefense/

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 6:45 PM

I’ll predict that any attempt to change a womans’ mind and not abort her baby will soon be a crime.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM

It already is, if attempted too close to the doors of an abortion mill. I think the standard court decision is that pro-lifers can be no closer than across the street from the mill, unlike OWS types who can block entrance to a business they don’t like on free-speech grounds.

Liam on March 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

It ain’t your womb no more.

The vain Supremes’ Kelo Decision established that it can be purloined via Eminent Domain then redistributed to a political contributor for development as a condominium.

viking01 on March 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

That doesn’t matter. If something is not your property, you can’t just destroy it, even if it is on your property.

Gelsomina on March 29, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Or in it. Very good. Cuts to the heart of the matter.

unclesmrgol on March 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Yeah, slaves were considered property once too.

JellyToast on March 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Hide it from Herod.

hillbillyjim on March 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM

It has always been murder…. they are just becoming more blatant because they know they have an immoral president leading an immoral party……

crosshugger on March 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM

These people are pure evil. The sooner we understand and accept that fact, the sooner we can fix the problem.

bgibbs1000 on March 29, 2013 at 6:57 PM

The womb is certainly the property of the mother.

Armin Tamzarian on March 29, 2013 at 6:11 PM

The womb holding a living human being, who belongs to the Creator.

You’re pathetic.

kingsjester on March 29, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Don’t be too hasty. Before any GOP pols oppose this they’ll want to check with their advisors first. Don’t want those religious busybody SoCons determining party policy. The Bible has no place in lawmaking.

29Victor on March 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM

The womb holding a living human being, who belongs to the Creator.

You’re pathetic.

kingsjester on March 29, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Yes, he is, and not worth responding to. An airplane is the property of an airline. Can airlines force people out of their aircrafts at 10,000 ft?

29Victor on March 29, 2013 at 7:00 PM

You don’t think there are any other factors which might override those considerations? I mean in your own mind and heart.

Cleombrotus on March 29, 2013 at 6:13 PM

The only thing his heart and mind considers is getting attention in blog comment sections.

29Victor on March 29, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Hey Armin, biology has not changed…when you get between the sheets, you run that risk…killing an innocent child for your mistake between the sheets should not be considered birth control…birth control should start long before….keep it zipped up or wear some protection…if you do make a baby, man the hell up and take responsibility and insure that the perspective mother goes to a womans pregnancy center to get an ultrasound….keep her away from planned murderhood or any other abortion clinic because they don’t tell the truth. The woman needs support, not encouragement to take a life…the blood is on your hands if you condone this genocide…….

crosshugger on March 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM

The vain Supremes’ Kelo Decision established that it can be purloined via Eminent Domain then redistributed to a political contributor for development as a condominium.

viking01 on March 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM

An interesting topic, to say the least.

Now, in KELO, the argument was that the ‘state’ could take a property and then sell (or give) that property to an entity that claimed it could make better use of that property by improving it and thereby paying higher property taxes, which satisfied the “public use” requirement of eminent domain.

Now, lets say I’m a pimp. I’ve spotted a PYT who I want to add to my staff. I then file a claim for eminent domain in court claiming that I can use her female parts to greater advantage to the public by renting her out, and paying sales and/or income taxes on the revenue.

If, under the suddenly missing trolls’ theory of property, I can show that my plan serves the “public use” in a better way than she is, I should prevail and be given dominion over her body for the “public use”.

Good thing I’m not a pimp.

BobMbx on March 29, 2013 at 7:04 PM

Anyone remember how the Marxists freaked out when an Alabama judge dared hang a copy of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom? Those ten pesky recommendations which became the basis of British Common Law and then our own?

viking01 on March 29, 2013 at 7:05 PM

crosshugger on March 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM

If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say he missed the boat on that one, and is simply trying to assuage his guilt.

CurtZHP on March 29, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 7