Yet Another Reason Why I Don't Agree With Liberals

Inconvenient Headlines​

By Mona Charen - April 2, 2013​

​

It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.

It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion -- a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.

But recent headlines have not been similarly cooperative. In Florida, the legislature is considering a variant of the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," which would require that abortionists provide medical assistance to infants who are "accidentally" born alive and kicking during an abortion. (Then State Senator Barack Obama vociferously opposed similar legislation in Illinois.)

Ms. Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified against the bill. Florida representative Jim Boyd, apparently unsure that he had understood her correctly, asked:

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"

Ms. Snow responded that her organization "believes that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician." In short, as the Weekly Standard summarized, Florida Planned Parenthood is in favor of "post-birth abortion." This is consistent with the position of the president of the United States and most members of the caring party.

Ms. Snow was asked why she didn't support simply transporting a breathing, moving infant to a hospital where he or she would have the best chance of survival. Snow developed a sudden concern for ambulance convenience: "(T)hose situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that's the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there's just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about." Really? Logistical concerns?

So if a baby is brought to a rural clinic suffering from, say, meningitis, and the nearest trauma center is 45 minutes away, does Planned Parenthood have "concerns" about the "logistical issues" involved? Or does Planned Parenthood stand for the principle that when a woman chooses abortion, she is entitled to a dead baby?

Snow's testimony comes at an inopportune moment for the deniers -- the "abortion rights" absolutists who hotly deny that infants are ever born alive during botched abortions -- because in Philadelphia, an abortionist is on trial.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for murder in the deaths of one woman and seven second trimester babies. The 41-year-old woman had sought an abortion and was given an overdose of narcotics at Gosnell's clinic. The seven babies were all born alive, according to the indictment. Gosnell then used scissors to "snip" their spinal columns. One of his assistants, who pled guilty to third-degree murder, said that such "snippings" were "routine" for late-term abortions -- so there were probably many more than seven.

Gosnell wasn't at all particular about gestational age. An ultrasound technician recorded the age of one baby as 29.4 weeks, or about 7.5 months. In Pennsylvania, abortions are not permitted after 24 weeks (and survival is above 85 percent for babies born at 27 weeks). In one case, a nurse testified that a baby cried after being born. Gosnell snipped his neck and told the nurse that there was nothing to worry about. He was placed in a basin on a counter. Another large baby was disposed of in a shoebox, but he was too large and his feet dangled over the sides. In another case, Gosnell allegedly joked with a nurse that a baby was so big "he could have walked to the bus stop."

Gosnell seems to be a particularly freakish "provider." He kept fetal feet in jars in an office prosecutors described as a "house of horrors." (Pictures are on the Internet, but beware: They are graphic.)

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California who engaged in an unwise colloquy with then-Senator Rick Santorum about when infants deserve to be treated as people, spoke for many of the caring elite when she said that life begins when "you take the baby home from the hospital."

Some day, our descendants will look back at this and ask how we could have tamely accepted such barbarism. A special obloquy will attach to the Orwellians who call it compassion.


Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/02/inconvenient_headlines_117749.html#ixzz2PLAjNyu0
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

 

Funny the same party who is so opposed to abortion is also the same party who is totally for the death penalty. It's also the party who sees the majority of the citizens as deadbeat takers. You'd think they'd be all for abortion. Most cases are those involving women too poor to take care of a child, or those who otherwise shouldn't be having one (drug user, mentally ill, etc). So, it would help eliminate a future 'burden on society' as they like to see it, before it became one. The conservatives are so hypocritical they don't even see it anymore.

 

While I'm personally opposed to the death penalty, such is not the case for most Democrats. While it's true that a majority of Republicans support the death penalty, over half of Democrats also support it. It's disingenuous of you to claim Republicans are "totally for the death penalty" (not true), but not recognize that a majority of Democrats also support it. As of 2012, more Democrats supported the death penalty than opposed it.

View attachment 1572

Give Them Death: Three Leading Democratic Candidates Support Capital Punishment​

January 24, 2008​

...​

Clinton, Obama and Edwards all support capital punishment. It's a position you'd be hard pressed to find on their websites, and they might not be bragging about it the way they might have in, say, 2000. Or 1996. Or 1992, the year their party's pro-death penalty stance was codified in its official party platform and then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton made a campaign trail detour to Arkansas, where he presided over the execution of mentally damaged prisoner Ricky Ray Rector. Nevertheless, all three hold on to their pro-death penalty stance, as have virtually all leading Democrats running for office in the past 20 years.​

...​

http://www.alternet.org/story/74884...ocratic_candidates_support_capital_punishment

Also:

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, (also known as AEDPA) is an act of Congress signed into law on April 24, 1996. The bill was introduced by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress (91-8-1 in the United States Senate, 293-133-7 in the House of Representatives) following the 1990s World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.[1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiterrorism_and_Effective_Death_Penalty_Act_of_1996

I'm opposed to death whether it be a human who hasn't yet gone through the birthing process (or, in the case of the OP, one who HAS gone through the birthing process) or whether it's a convicted murderer. ​

​

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. We're going to need all the taxpayers we can possibly get what with Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and similar socialist programs draining our current population.

 

A Gallup pole on registered voters is not an answer to what I said. Find a graph with elected officials and I might agree. As an aside, I'm neither democrat nor republican and I'm for the penalty. You see ensuring Americans are covered by healthcare because it's too costly, while I'm against keeping violent criminals confined to limited view hotels with three meals a day because it's too costly.

 

Now, you're changing the parameters. Registered voters (including elected officials) make up a political party. Not one or the other.

But, what is your stance on abortion?

I'm not sure we can place a value on a human life that could be taken by a recidivist murderer whom society turned loose. Weighing the cost of the life of an innocent person to the monetary cost of incarcerating a prisoner, I'll choose incarceration.

 

I find it odd that the party that claims it cares more for others so radically fights for the power to end the most innocent of human lives.

 

[CoinOKC]

IAh, but that's where you're wrong. We're going to need all the taxpayers we can possibly get what with Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and similar socialist programs draining our current population.​

[/quote]

No, it is YOU who is wrong. The Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Social Security are not socialist programs. The ACA is a law that regulates insurers and cuts waste and further legislates that you may not live off of the rest of us and must contribute to the cost of health care. Some Socialist program that would be if it were true. Medicare comes out of my pay check every pay period. So does Social Security kind of in my case. But with your complete lack of any knowledge of what Socialism actually is, your mistake is easy to understand. Try to speak of things you actually know something about. That would be a very short conversation.​

 

A religious view, not a legal or medical opinion.

 

Spoken like a true Socialist.

 

Why do your inane quips make so little sense? Habit?

 

My stance is that it's nobody's choice but the one who is left to deal with the problem. Not a government choice. Not a social choice. A personal choice. Once again, Conservatives preach smaller government that stays out of the lives of others, yet you seem to want just the opposite.

As far as socialism goes, it seems nobody even knows what socialism is. Don't you like social security, public schools, free roadways, medicare....I could go on and on, and they're all socialistic programs we all use every day. Is Canada, and Europe negatively effected by socialism? I mean give me a break. Socialism isn't communism, yet thats what the dopes at the media outlets have driven into the soft heads of this country.

 

A baby isn't a "problem", it's an innocent human life.

 

Even an innocent human life can be a problem for many people, especially those who can't afford to feed it, abuse it, or the baby is a victim of drug abuse, and/or fetal issues arising from drug substances during pregnancy. There are a multitude of issues that can indeed make that baby a problem, not only for the mother, but for society, no matter how you spin it.

 

There are over 6 billion of us on the planet now. We have been fruitful and multiplied to the point where we are killing the planet. If a handful of people decide that they don't want to add to the population explosion, who is anyone else to tell them they should have do so? The danger of mass extinction through environmental degradation, starvation, pandemics, and wars over resources will dwarf the number or abortions performed but to the ideologues that are a penny wise and a pound foolish, none of this matters.

How are we doing?

View attachment 1573

 

So what's the cut-off for when it's okay to take an innocent life? At what age do you not consider a child to be a "problem"? What's the socio-economic criteria for a baby being a hardship?

 

If people really cared about the world population, they would stop having babies. Good luck with that, Joe. I don't believe the solution to overpopulation is killing babies, however. If a couple decide to create a new human life, they should be willing to sustain that life otherwise they shouldn't be conceiving in the first place. If they're unable to sustain it, there are foster or adoptive parents who will gladly take on that responsibility for them. Would you advocate a policy such as they have in China of decreeing that a couple can only have one child? Or an even stricter policy where some people wouldn't be allowed to have children at all?

 

Pre-birth...hence the subject of abortion. Thought that was plainly obvious.

 

We were discuss ing abortion, not the execution of children already born. This is why there is so much division...pure lack of understanding simple english and misconstruing basic context.

 

Do you believe it's OK to abort the baby at any time from the moment of conception up to the moment before birth?