Archive for the 'Abortion' Category


So much for taking a break

Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in!

In particular, somebody who thinks government should start limiting how many kids you should have to limit the impact on the environment.

State-forced abortions!  Where did I ever hear that before!?

Now, if you think about this policy, it effectively spells the death of socialism.  Socialism works on the principle that the children of tomorrow will pay for the retirement of the workers of today.  Well, if you limit the number of kids today, there will be more workers and less to pay, to a point where the promised monies to the elderly will exceed the tax revenue of the children, leading to higher taxes until you get to a point where the government cannot pay all the retirees, and you get a collapse.  It’s where we’re heading with social security, but the politicians are too afraid to fix it.  And forcing abortion isn’t going to fix it, it’s only going to exascerbate the problem.


Just a reminder

of what you get when the state is given too much control over the population.


This Post is Above My Pay Grade

I haven’t watched the “forum debate” with Barack Obama and John McCain last night, but Obama’s “above my pay grade” answer to abortion has certainly gone viral. Here’s the question and complete answer by Obama:

Here’s the entire problem with that answer. If the problem is “above his pay grade”, which is an allusion to God, then it would be the safe bet to err on the side of caution and assume the embryo/fetus is a baby.

Now, later in that answer, Barack says he believes in Roe V. Wade, and feels that should not be overturned. At that point, he makes his fatal error. By stating Roe V. Wade should still be legal, even though the problem of theology or science is “above his pay grade”, he says that legal definitions overrule that of God or science, even though he admits he doesn’t know what the theological answer is! Obama effectively says that humans (and he himself!) know more than God!

What a terrible answer, but it clearly exposes his arrogance, inexperience and theological ineptitude.


Children Are Killing the Planet

The latest in environmentalism– don’t have kids.

It’s a “logical” jump. If humanity is destroying the planet, then it’s only reasonable to end humanity, and that means stop having kids.

Get your tubes tied. Get your vasectomy. Remove your testicles. Remove your ovaries. That prevents you from having an abortion, too! Solve that ethical problem. Now you can have as much sex as you want while trying to get everyone else to stop consuming to save the world from catastrophic warming.

China’s already suggested their abortion policies are helping to curb global warming. Too bad all those new coal-burning power plants aren’t helping. I guess if you abort 10 babies, it offsets the carbon released by one plant for one year!

Of course, this is the extreme extreme of the pro-abortion movement (note this has nothing to do with choice– if we don’t start killing the children, we’re all going to die!).

What’s next? Soylent green? Start putting caps on the maximum age of people? (Because those old fogies don’t contribute to society, so it’s best to just kill them at age 70.)

But, in all, I don’t care if the environmentalists want to sterilize themselves for a better tomorrow. Go ahead. But we know where this kind of thinking goes. How long before Dennis Kucinich recommends the government control just how many kids a family can have and to have a “maximum age” for non-contributing members of society? All to save the planet, of course.


High Court Chickens Out

I’m not sure why the Supreme Court is avoiding a state/religion battle, especially one with such staggering implications.

I’m talking about the decision of the NY Supreme Court to force religious institutions to buy health care for their employees that covers birth control, even though the religious entities may disagree with such a practice. Here’s what the defendants in the lawsuit had to say in the brief to the USSC to try and get heard:

“If the state can compel church entities to subsidize contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, it can compel them to subsidize abortions as well,” the groups said in urging the court to take their case. “And if it can compel church entities to subsidize abortions, it can require hospitals owned by churches to provide them.”

They’re right. This legislation is a back-door to force religious institutions to conform to practices that the religions disagree with. Already in Connecticut, the state is forcing Catholic Hospitals to provide Plan B emergency contraception to rape victims, something that made the Catholic Bishops come out with an edict that says Plan B for rape victims is OK. The big problem here is how Plan B works.

Plan B is a larger dose of Levonorgestrel, a common birth control agent. When taken, it can prevent ovulation, prevent fertilization, or prevent implantation. The biggest objection, from a Catholic standpoint, would be the last measure, which is effectively abortion.

But it’s nice to see that THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE is alive and well, especially when it’s preventing religious organizations from practicing their beliefs.


It’s Not a Person. It Has No Personality or ‘Being’!

Something about the summer makes hardcore abortion supporters want to come out and rail against the pro-life movement. First, there’s Anna Quindlen’s magnificent piece here. Let me give you the highlights– a group of anti-abortion protesters were confronted by an amateur video-maker with the question, “How much time should a woman who gets an abortion do?” The protesters were caught off-guard, to which Quindlen says:

Those ancient notions undergird the refusal to confront the logical endpoint of criminalization. Lawmakers in a number of states have already passed or are considering statutes designed to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned. But almost none hold the woman, the person who set the so-called crime in motion, accountable. Is the message that women are not to be held responsible for their actions?

The key to her article is that there is no clearly defined penalty for abortion. My response is– why should there be? Abortion falls under the statutes of murder– someone intentionally ends the life of someone else.

She ends with this garbage:

“I haven’t sorted out the penalties,” he said lamely. Neither, it turns out, has anyone else. But there are only two logical choices: hold women accountable for a criminal act by sending them to prison, or refuse to criminalize the act in the first place. If you can’t countenance the first, you have to accept the second. You can’t have it both ways.

She’s trying to disconnect abortion & murder. If we do establish a separate penalty for abortion, then it’s saying the fetus is somehow different than an infant, child, or adult, as the penalties would be very different.

Jill Filipovic jumps on the bandwagon over at the PuffingTonsHost. She actually gets the idea, but then spins off into an emotionally-charged rant. Here’s where she gets it:

The definition of murder is “killing a person with malice aforethought.” If personhood is established at the moment of fertilization, and all people are invested with equal rights under the law, then there is no getting around the fact that under anti-choice legislation, women who terminate pregnancies are committing murder — or at the very least, paying someone else to do it.

She answers her own question. But, as usual, spins into the world of hypothetical “What-if” statements, which are complete waste of time as it’s an idealized question set to sabotage someone’s position. Let’s take her “unanswerable hypothetical” here:

There’s a fire in a fertility clinic. Inside the clinic there’s a three-year-old boy who you’ve never met and have absolutely no connection to. There are also 100 embryos in a box, none of which you have any connection to. You only have time to run into the clinic one time. You cannot carry the boy and the box at the same time. What do you do? Do you save 100, or do you save one?

1) A “box of embryos” would have to be kept at specific temperatures inside the clinic, so they’d be in a structure that could resist the fire. They have no need for airborne oxygen at the moment, so smoke-inhalation is not a risk as it is to the 3-year old. The person in the most danger, therefore, is the 3-year old, and should be removed.

2) Fertility clinics are typically on the opposite end of the pro-life scale as they operate by a shotgun approach. Fertilize a bunch of embryos, take those with the best chance of implanting (usually 7 or 8) and then inject them and see which implant and which don’t. They should be fertilizing one and implanting it directly on the uterine wall.

To which I pose another hypothetical to Jill. You meet your friend who is 5 months pregnant and she talks about how wonderful her life will be with the new baby. She knows it’s a girl and has named her Haley already. Well, at 6 months, she comes over to your house in tears. She’s found out her husband has been cheating on her and she doesn’t want the baby any more. She pulls out a coat-hanger and starts to self-abort. Do you stop her?

If you stop her, why? If you don’t, why didn’t you?

The comments on this post are also priceless. The ever-present ClevelandChick posts the following:

I’m saying potential life as in the fetus cannot survive on it’s own outside of the womb. It’s survival depends on the health of the woman carrying it who is in fact alive.

The fetus is inanimate before it pops out of the womb. It has no life, so it must just be a non-nucleic tumor, one which has lost its nuclei, like dead skin-cells.

Such denial of science is cult-like in its denial. I can see why the buy the global warming trash spewed by AlGore so easily.

You can find my entire list of responses over here at the PuffingtonsHost on page 2. Do a search for Nethicus1. And while you’re there, become a fan of me and favorite all of my posts. That way I can become a blogger for Arianna for free! Hurrah!

And our last post comes from DailyKos and the poster Devilstower:

I do not believe, do not see any reason to believe, that a small cluster of cells — cells that have no nerves, no muscles, no organs — deserves the same rights as a human being. The argument that these cells have the genetic signature of humanity is meaningless, since this is a trait shared by every cell in my thumb. Neither do I see any compelling reason to view these cells as imbued with a soul.

Obviously Devilstower doesn’t want to apply all of the knowledge he learned about biology, just some of it. Much like the eugenicists did.

The embryo in any stage is a totality of being. The difference between DT’s thumb and an embryo is that if I remove his thumb, most of his body is still there– the totality of his being has been disrupted in a minor way. However, removal of the entire embryo, or the destruction of the embryo to make stem cells, results in the destruction of the individual in its totality.

He’s also mistaken here:

Only there’s a problem. The Bush administration has supported the development of these new techniques, but they’ve not updated the regulation over using the cells.

The 2001 policy says that federal funds may not be used to study embryonic stem cells created after Aug. 9 of that year. It is based on the assumption that the only way to make the cells is by destroying human embryos — a truism in 2001 but not any longer.

The error is that the non-destructive manner in making “embryonic” stem-cells, the methods using a retro-virus to create “pluripotent” stem cells or harvesting stem-cells without harming the embryo, produce stem-cell lines that are “pluripotent” and no-longer embryonic.

It’s legal semantics that would be easily dismantled with a minor court case. In fact, I’m reasonably sure the US Attorney’s office wouldn’t oppose such a lawsuit.

So there you have it. Absurdly long post for a Thursday. Enjoy!


Socialized Medicine Recommended Abortion

But instead of an abortion, they had a perfect little baby boy. Nice to see they did get a second opinion.

If anyone tells you that abortion will be the “more humane” choice for your child, get a second opinion. They may be wrong.

But hey, it was a simple mistake. Who could have thought that with Michael Moore railing against the American insurance system? Obviously government is a much better caretaker.

About Me

My name is Doc. Welcome to my blog. If you're visiting from another blog, add me to your blogroll (and I'll happily reciprocate). I have a Ph.D. in Chemistry and live in Wisconsin. If you have any questions, feel free to email me. My email is docattheautopsy at gmail. (No linking to deflate the incredible spam monsters).



World Temp Widget

Blog Stats

  • 130,702 hits

RSS The Autopsy

The Autopsy