War on Children

War on women? I do not know how any human being could be more privileged or more powerful than a first-world modern woman.
We have bestowed upon every woman of childbearing age an unquestionable right to end the lives of her own children in utero totally without consequence.

It is a war on our children.

I am not making this up. I arrived at my mom’s house (she needs company 24/7 now) to relieve my sister. She was watching Judgment at Nuremberg on TV. When it was over I happened to turn directly to C-Span and there was Cecile Richards testifying in front of congress about Planned Parenthood funding. If you don’t see the serendipity, let me explain.

Judgment at Nuremberg spends time bandying about some questions, like: Were these crimes standard operating procedure in times of war? Weren’t all sides guilty of similar things? Or were these war crimes or crimes against humanity, crimes against civilization? How could genocide happen in this civilized place? Who was really responsible?

Wouldn’t it be best to let it go and move on?

The film’s poignant verdict: when we decide to dehumanize a single person, we have made a decision to evaluate the relative worth of all human beings from then on. We are capable of excusing any crime against any human being. In our willingness to exploit one person, we are on the inevitable, one way road to oppression by the powerful upon the socially powerless. Very often the final result is genocide.

We have discarded any objective basis for true justice. We have lost who we are.

We have condemned ourselves; we have lost our humanity.

A nation of people who were once civilized and great had descended into a nation of accomplices to genocide, of relative justice, of inhumanity to man.

Explicit in that message is that everyday Germans had failed to take responsibility for what had been happening in their country. They had looked the other way. There was nothing they could do. They didn’t know.

What did I see on C-Span? The well-compensated President of Planned Parenthood unable to answer a single question. She didn’t know anything about anything. She’d have to ask her hundreds of staff. She was not responsible for anything.
Passing the responsibility, pleading the incompetence of being a small cog in the machine, pleading ignorance: all these were the most popular pleas of those tried at Nuremberg.

There are only two choices here: either this President of the organization came to the hearing unprepared, or she was unwilling to answer truthfully because she would implicate herself. If abortion is such a boon to womankind, why didn’t she stand up proudly for exactly what she does?

I also saw, and see, a culture which was willing to look the other way, and to comfort itself with euphemisms and rationalizations.

(Then she pulled the girl card: “You’ve made me testify for 5 1/2 hours now, and I can’t answer any more!” *sniff sniff* Hooray for feminism.)

By the way, let’s remember we were only deciding if they still get federal funding, not whether they were going to be forcibly shut down. Shame on us that shutdown isn’t even an option.

She is the head of an organization which has been implicated in:
infanticide,
mutilation of pre-born infants living and dead,

quantifying and cataloging human body parts for the purposes of selling them
and profiting from their sale by the billions,

altering surgical procedures on unsuspecting clients in order to minimize the damage to saleable body parts,

ginning up more business by creating a culture of death, self-orientation, and free and easy sex promoted to children,

while destroying the trust and supportive relationships which ought to exist between young people and their parents. (Check out some of their educational materials.)

There is plain evidence now, for anyone who wants to look, that they do all of this.

On Facebook, I saw my pro-choice friends’ objections: “That’s absurd! The videos are doctored. The charges are ridiculous!”

Then aren’t you saying that the charges are objectionable?

If true, would we abandon our support of PP? My guess is no.

If we’re unwilling to be moved by the slaughter, undeniably true, of innocent infants;
of a huge corporation profiting by the billions from their deaths;
by the danger this corporation exposes women to in order to maximize their profit;
to lies, to divisive propaganda,
to immorality, to injustice, to exploitation…
then what does matter?

I see in our culture the same willingness to look the other way as there was in Germany of the 30’s and 40’s, the same willingness to pass the responsibility…to shrug and to say, what can I do about it anyway?

To excuse it by rationalizing away the value of human lives. To tend to our own interests while human beings are being slaughtered right down the street.

The trains full of the doomed passed through their towns and villages, but at least they hid their death camps deep in the forests. Our killing mills are sitting right on our main streets, and we’re downright proud of them.

Advertisements

74 thoughts on “War on Children

        1. john zande

          You are saying foetus’s are being killed, worse actually, “murdered,” so I’m asking you, if this true then explain to me how you can kill something that cannot die?

          Something cannot be considered “alive” until it can “die.” Defined Human Life begins at the moment its twin, death, also springs into existence. Without death there is no life. The former begets the latter. The latter assigns meaning to the former. One delineates the other, and the definition of death is not in dispute. Death is when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. That’s it. That’s death. It follows quite naturally therefore that the onset of defined human life is when foetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular and sustained wave patterns, and that occurs consistently at around week 25, although it is not until 28 weeks till we see full bilateral synchronisation. That is when you may call the foetus “On,” and only after something is “On” can it be turned “Off,” meeting the legal, scientific and medical definitions of death. To argue anything to the contrary is patently absurd.

          Like

        2. madblog Post author

          Your scientific/medical information is agenda-driven, absurd and simply wrong. A comforting rationalization from a MAN, whose presumptuous opinion on this matter entails no personal risk.

          If it allows you to yawn while human beings are being terminated, you prove my point. You are demonstrating the truth of my post.

          Any woman who has carried a child to term will tell you that there’s a living thing moving in there. Your distinction between living/NOT YET living is moot. It’s human. It’s not a dead thing. It is a living thing. The science is in: it is a living human being, or if your selected silly medical criteria prefers, it soon WILL BE a living human. The same moral values apply regardless.

          If an adult person ceases to have brain waves he retains his humanity; he does not become non-human. Likewise, he may become a dead human, but not a non-living human. He is either alive or dead.
          A fetus is not dead, therefore it is alive.

          Liked by 2 people

        3. john zande

          Your scientific/medical information is agenda-driven, absurd and simply wrong.

          No, they’re not.

          In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.”

          This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.”

          Further still updated in 1995 (to present), “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death’

          This is mirrored in US law:

          U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) states: “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory function, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.”

          It is also mirrored in Australian law:

          The Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation define death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person; or b) Irreversible cessation of circulation of blood in the body of the person.

          So, the question stands: How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Can you answer this?

          If you don’t want to believe me, believe Professor Goldenring, a leading figure in the anti-abortion movement. He wrote the New England Journal of Medicine paper, “Development of the Fetal Brain.”

          “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

          You see, Madblog, your problem here is you think “life” magically appears in the foetus. It doesn’t. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. For this reason, the only true method we have to distinguish the onset of a distinct, functioning human being is when the brain begins to exhibit sustain EEG activity, and we see full bilateral synchronisation only at week 28.

          Only after something is “On” can it be turned “Off.”

          Period.

          Like

        4. madblog Post author

          You’re still talking about death–and even your criteria here require that death means the DEATH of something which was previously alive. That is exactly what I’m talking about: ending lives, resulting in death.

          You see, Madblog, your problem here is you think “life” magically appears in the foetus. It doesn’t. At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. ”

          You have just agreed with me that fetuses are living. YOU are insisting that non-living fetuses suddenly become alive.

          But then you are trying to posit a third category which is neither alive nor dead, but something like pre-living. Which is absurd.

          Like

        5. madblog Post author

          All of it is living. I think we can agree on that. It is possible for a sperm to die. So that’s not really the question, is it?

          I’m not spending any more time today on the precise moment when a fetus becomes a living human because the question is moot and because it is a distraction. You, and many others, posit a “before life–bing! –living” continuum. That allows you to defend the proper termination of not-living-yet “fetuses.”

          The question is: is it a living person?

          The science all demonstrates that the zygote is a distinct human being apart from its mother host. It is a living organism, and it is a distinct human; it does not have potential to become anything but a human being.

          You can assign personhood at any arbitrary mark if you wish, but that assignation is arbitrary and preference-based.

          I think the question is moot anyway if the item in the womb is going to become a person, unless you end its life.

          Like

        6. john zande

          All of it is living. I think we can agree on that. It is possible for a sperm to die. So that’s not really the question, is it?

          No. How can a sperm meet the legal, medical and scientific definition of death?

          Please explain that to me.

          I’m not spending any more time today on the precise moment when a fetus becomes a living human because the question is moot and because it is a distraction.

          Quite on the contrary, it is the heart of the very matter. You are saying something is being “murdered,” so justify that word use. Justify yourself. Prove it.

          The science all demonstrates that the zygote is a distinct human being apart from its mother host.

          Wrong, again. I really want you to read this exceptionally carefully. It’s the words of the so-called ”Father of the Anti-Abortion Movement”, Jack Willke:

          “Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?” (Dr. Jack Willke, Abortion: Questions and Answers)

          So, please answer the question: Before full bilateral synchronisation, how can you “kill” something that cannot “Die”?

          Like

        7. madblog Post author

          What? A skin cell is living, a bacteria is living, an amoeba is a living organism. A sperm is not living? An egg is not living?

          Sperm cannot die? Really?

          Like

        8. john zande

          Part of the living system that began on earth 13.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. You have to address the matter of when a distinct, functioning human being becomes a reality. You are saying a distinct human being is being “murdered.” So, tell me:

          how can you kill something that cannot die?

          You have the legal, medical, and scientific definitions of death.

          To repeat, as the anti-abortionist, Goldenring (Professor of Surgery, the Paul W. Sanger Chair in Experimental Surgery, Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology), clearly states:

          Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists

          .”

          Like

        9. madblog Post author

          This is silly. You are very clearly arguing all of my points.

          Death happens AFTER LIFE.

          Zygotes and sperm and bacteria and eggs are living, continuing the life that began at the beginning.

          The question here is not whether something is living. Sometimes you are arguing over that, and sometimes you are arguing over personhood. You don’t see the distinction.

          The quotes you cite do not support the assertion that you are making; they are part of a discussion about the relative development of a human organism.

          The final point you cede is that “…when we decide to dehumanize a single person, we have made a decision to evaluate the relative worth of all human beings from then on.”

          Like

        10. john zande

          You have the legal, scientific and medical definitions of death.

          Unless you can tell me how you can kill something that cannot die your post (and your position in general) is patently absurd.

          So tell me, how can you turn something “Off” that is not “On”?

          If you can’t, just stop talking because you’re just babbling nonsense.

          Like

        11. madblog Post author

          Yes. Death is the termination of life. It is not the state of something before it is alive. That, according to you, is some third option other than life or death.
          All-ALL-medical and otherwise expertise has known for some time that a fetus is a living organism, and that it is human. Living + human = living human.
          The question among those who are searching for justification for Abortion-On-Demand is whether those living humans have personhood. (Not whether they are alive OR human.)

          When you take your hands off your ears and stop yelling, “La–la–la!” we can talk. You are talking past all my answers as if I haven’t responded.

          Again, I write a post the point of which is: When we devalue a single human life, we have to decide the relative value/status of all lives from then on; and you start a comment thread the point of which is to question the human value/status of fetuses. PERFECT.

          Like

        12. john zande

          All-ALL-medical and otherwise expertise has known for some time that a fetus is a living organism, and that it is human.

          Absolutely, categorically incorrect. A total and complete lie.

          Shall I re-post the words of the so-called ”Father of the Anti-Abortion Movement”, Jack Willke:

          “Since all authorities accept that the end of an individual’s life is measured by the ending of his brain function (as measured by brain waves on the EEG), would it not be logical for them to at least agree that individual’s life began with the onset of that same human brain function as measured by brain waves recorded on that same instrument?” (Dr. Jack Willke, Abortion: Questions and Answers)

          There it is, in black and white from an anti-abortionist.

          And here is another anti-abortionist, Professor Goldenring:

          “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists. Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops. After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.”

          Let me repeat that first sentence: “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists.

          A distinct human being can die. So answer the question:

          How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Like

        13. madblog Post author

          Since all authorities…This man may see that as logical, but it is not conclusively so. That may be a logical conclusion, or it may not be, because there are a multitude of other factors to include in the question.
          There are other legal definitions of death; brain death is not the universal measure.
          The DEATH of a living organism after it was alive is not equivalent to the state of an organism either before it is living, or before it has brain waves (or any other arbitrary measure pro-choicers like to pull out of their hats.)
          I repeat, that man whose brain waves have ceased ( or become unmeasurable, which is notable) does not become either (1.) non-human or (2.) living in the way that life began 18 gazillion years ago BUT not living yet. He becomes a dead human being who was previously alive.

          You are here declaring that an unborn child is dead. Or else you are granting it a third state which is neither life nor death.

          There is no science or medicine anywhere which tells us that a fetus is not a living organism. (You may not wish to allow personhood, but you cannot seriously deny that it is a living thing.)
          There is no science anywhere which tells us that the fetus is not human. You may wish to deny personhood until some arbitrary condition is met, but it is human as species, it will be human, it will never be anything else.

          Tell a woman who has miscarried, even at a very early stage, that she has not lost her baby, or that it’s OK—it wasn’t alive. Actually, please don’t.

          Like

        14. john zande

          Since all authorities…This man may see that as logical, but it is not conclusively so. That may be a logical conclusion, or it may not be, because there are a multitude of other factors to include in the question.

          Madblog, I have provided you evidence for my position. All you have done is disagree and offer nothing, nothing at all, to support yours. Somewhat hilariously, you’re also contradicting the statements of staunch, staunch, staunch anti-abortionists.

          What other “factors” might be involved? Please explain. Are you talking about a soul? Great, prove it.

          There are other legal definitions of death; brain death is not the universal measure.

          Absolutely false. A bold faced lie, in fact.

          I have given you the legal, scientific and medical definitions of Death from the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand.

          Why lie, Madblog?

          I repeat, that man whose brain waves have ceased ( or become unmeasurable, which is notable) does not become either (1.) non-human or (2.) living in the way that life began 18 gazillion years ago BUT not living yet. He becomes a dead human being who was previously alive.

          Again, an absolute lie.

          Goldenring, an anti-abortionist says it quite clearly: “When the coordinating and individuating function of a living brain is demonstrably present, the full human organism exists… After brain death what is left of the organism is once again only a collection of organs, all available to us for use in transplantation, since the full human being no longer exists.

          You are here declaring that an unborn child is dead.

          I have made no such declaration. Again, why are you lying?

          What I have said is that before full synchronisation (week 28) there is no functioning human organism. As Goldenring says, “Before full brain differentiation, only cells, organs, and organ systems exist, which may potentially be integrated into a full human organism if the brain develops.

          Tell a woman who has miscarried, even at a very early stage, that she has not lost her baby, or that it’s OK—it wasn’t alive. Actually, please don’t.

          I’m glad you brought this up. There’s a very good reason why the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the U.S. National Library of Medicine call natural abortion after week 20 “preterm deliveries,” while before that date it is labeled “miscarriages.” There is a distinct line.

          So, the facts are these: At no stage does “life” magically appear in a zygote, a blastocyst, embryo, or foetus. Life began on earth 3.8 billion years ago and hasn’t been interrupted since. A foetus was never inorganic and suddenly becomes organic. For this reason, the only method we have to distinguish the onset of a distinct, functioning human being is when the brain begins to exhibit sustain EEG activity, and we see full bilateral synchronisation only at week 28.

          Only after something is “On” can it be turned “Off.”

          If you want to use language like “kill” and “murder” then you must tell me, and everyone reading this, how you can kill something that cannot die?

          Would you like the legal, scientific and medical definitions of death again?

          Over to you.

          Like

        15. madblog Post author

          I’m telling you the sky is blue here, not some wacko personal belief. Enough time has been spent on this.
          Just one thing though: What part of the following is a “lie?”
          “I repeat, that man whose brain waves have ceased ( or become unmeasurable, which is notable) does not become either (1.) non-human or (2.) living in the way that life began 18 gazillion years ago BUT not living yet. He becomes a dead human being who was previously alive.”

          Are you actually disputing this?!

          How are you not embarrassed to prove the point of my post: that a culture which devalues, discounts, erases the value of human beings must forever after make judgments on the relative value of human lives?

          Like

        16. john zande

          Let me know when you want to answer the only question that matters here, OK.

          How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Until you answer this, I suggest you drop the deliberately inflammatory language you’re using. It’s unfounded, patently false, and inherently irrational… It’s why no one takes Evangelicals seriously.

          Like

        17. john zande

          Apologies… you are correct in saying he becomes a dead human who was once alive: a living, functioning, distinct human organism, defined as such because he had full neural synchronisation. He had a brain that was “On,” and is now “Off.”

          Like

        18. john zande

          There is no “human being” until full bilateral synchronisation. Please understand that. Please get that straight in your head. A human being can die. Before week 28 nothing can “die.” Period. So, if you want to use language like “kill” and “murder” then you must tell me, and everyone reading this, how you can kill something that cannot die…

          Like

        19. madblog Post author

          OK, let’s go into it a little. Fetal brain waves are measured long before 28 weeks. Your “science” is ridiculous.

          Here’s the one question for you: How do you justify terminating fetuses after they have achieved full bilateral synchronization? Because clearly you do. This is the only topic on which I will converse.

          Like

        20. john zande

          OK, let’s go into it a little. Fetal brain waves are measured long before 28 weeks. Your “science” is ridiculous.

          OK, Madblog, this is where you’re supposed to provide “evidence.” Like I said, no one takes Evangelicals seriously because of baseless statements just like this.

          First up, there is no such thing as “brain waves.” If you knew what you were talking about you’d already know that. For brain activity the required neurological infrastructure (neurons, dendrites, and axons with synapses between them) simply doesn’t exist until week 20. From the New England Journal of Medicine, Professors K.J.S. Anand, and P.R. Hickey:

          “electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.”

          Now, bear in mind, circuitry firings from week 20 do not denote sustained activity. What is happening is much like a car turning over. Bursts, but no feedback. The “engine” is not on.

          So, let’s let Prof. Christof Koch (2009) explain:

          “But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.”

          Here’s the one question for you: How do you justify terminating fetuses after they have achieved full bilateral synchronization? Because clearly you do. This is the only topic on which I will converse.

          Clearly I do? Really, and based on what do you make that assumption? I certainly haven’t said anything to the like, so you’re just lying… again.

          Why do you lie so much, Madblog?

          Like

        21. john zande

          After full bilateral synchronisation, no, not unless the woman’s life is in danger. This, of course, reflects almost all abortion laws. In fact, most laws err on the side of caution, naming 20 weeks as the legal cutoff date. I think that’s fair.

          Like

        22. madblog Post author

          It definitely
          does not reflect “almost all ” abortion laws. Educate yourself.

          I think you should let your feminist friends know your views; most of them would define you as pro-life and a forced-birther.

          Like

        23. john zande

          This explains it a little clearer:

          No restriction 9 states and D.C., 28 million population
          28 weeks 3 states, 36 million population
          24 to 26 weeks 26 states, 190 million population
          22 weeks 8 states, 35 million population
          20 weeks 2 states, 16 million population
          12 weeks 1 state, 3 million population
          6 Weeks 1 state, 672,591 population

          Like

        24. madblog Post author

          That puts us in the same boat. You now understand that there are (many) fetuses, which by your criteria are living, which are being terminated. By your own set of markers, human beings are selectively killed. What will you do with that information?

          Let’s add to that the fact that there are still more abortions happening outside of the legal criteria. Hence my post, since the videos I mention have PP spokespersons describing how to do partial-birth abortions (which are illegal) in such a way as to leave saleable parts undamaged. In other words, within Planned Parenthood this (abortion which violates legal criteria) is S.O.P.

          In my area, there was the notorious trial of Kermit Gosnell, an actual sadist, who operated an abortion facility for decades which killed born fetuses (“botched abortions”) in the most gruesome and cruel ways imaginable, and sent many women to the hospital wounded as well. He carried on his PP practice unmolested by law, with Planned Parenthood’s approval, for many years.

          Like

        25. john zande

          Not in the same boat. I said before full synchronisation, but if the woman’s life is in danger after that point then I can fully understand terminating the pregnancy.

          The videos are a fraud. Even the producer admitted that. You see, this is another reason why no one takes you seriously: you’re citing a known fraud. You have no credibility.

          Like

        26. madblog Post author

          I don’t understand. There are abortions by your statistics which would happen after that point. There certainly are for real, regardless of your statistics.

          The woman’s life in danger is a notorious distraction, an extremely rare reason for abortion. Certainly most, even after your own marker, are not for this reason.

          The producer said no such thing. Apparently you have not watched the videos; they are certainly not fake, and this was determined in court. Better check your agenda-driven news outlets.

          Like

        27. madblog Post author

          Really, you show yourself to be uninformed and defensive here. In the U.S. it is only the dumbest of the feminist Kool-Aid drinkers who believe the videos were faked. They are widely understood to be real and accurate; it’s just that not enough of us care…which was the whole point of my post.

          Like

        28. madblog Post author

          Why are you SUCH a jerk? It isn’t a lie to use the word “statistics” for a list of numbered items. I apologize for using an incorrect word.

          Like

        29. madblog Post author

          Uninformed again sir. The complete and unedited videos were freely available as well. The court declared that the “edits” were for time and not for substance, and that they were accurate. You really haven’t watched them, have you? Best bloviate on what you know.

          Like

        30. john zande

          “David Daleiden wanted to show exactly what a 19-week-old aborted fetus, being held in the hands of a medical technician, looked like. The problem was he didn’t have that picture. So he went to the Internet, found something close and inserted it into his documentary.

          The photo, two cupped hands holding a tiny male fetus, appeared on screen as dramatic music played. Against this backdrop, a medical technician detailed how she was present when an intact 19-week gestated fetus was aborted at a Planned Parenthood clinic and, she says, harvested for tissue samples.

          Daleiden’s video failed to mention that the photo and the story do not match.”

          http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/19/politics/planned-parenthood-videos/

          That’s just one of the frauds in the “videos.”

          You see, if all you have is lying then no one, ever, is going to take you seriously. Lying does that to people. They lose all credibility.

          Like

        31. madblog Post author

          I’m going to have to stop here and ask you what do YOU think is the definition of “lie”? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

          Not sure but at this point in the video, I believe he may have been showing an example of how a 19-week fetus appears for the viewers’ benefit. I know about that, and I believe the parents approved the use of the picture. No explanation would be needed.

          Like

        32. john zande

          No, he stole a picture from the net of a stillborn.

          And I’m still waiting for you to show this court case you said cleared the producers.

          You weren’t lying again, were you, madblog?

          Like

        33. madblog Post author

          No. I’m not sure why you keep throwing that non-sequitur at me, but have fun.

          What about those fetuses which are “human” and “alive” according to your own personal criteria? The numbers would be many. Still don’t care, am I right?

          And you are still missing the point of my post, at the same time demonstrating its truth.

          Like

        34. john zande

          Like I said, if the mother’s life is in danger, then a termination of the pregnancy is fine. The absolute majority of terminations occur in the first few weeks of pregnancy, so whatever you’re trying to argue here holds no bearing whatsoever on the broader subject.

          So, are you going to tell me how you can kill something that cannot die?

          I remind you, you are using language like “kill” and “murder,” so either justify that language use, or drop it

          How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Like

        35. madblog Post author

          I never said that any court case cleared the producers! Please don’t put words in my mouth. The analyses didn’t legally “clear” anybody. I
          simply said that a court had determined that the videos were accurate. I was incorrect here, in that the analyses were offered as evidence but not that any legal determination was made one way or the other regarding the analyses themselves.

          Here are some articles Re: the analysis. There was an analysis by Coalfire, which found the “edits” were bathroom breaks and waiting room times. Then there was the analysis hired by PP, which found much the same, though since they reported “edits,” agendaed headlines abounded.

          http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/29/forensic-analysis-planned-parenthood-videos-are-authentic/

          http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9764

          And here’s a report on the firm that Planned Parenthood hired to examine the videos:
          http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423246/planned-parenthoods-commissioned-video-review-proves-authenticity-its-employees

          “The importance of the Fusion GPS report is in what it does not show: evidence of fabrication or of blatantly misrepresentative editing. Nothing was dubbed or (contra the Times’s headline, “altered”). Despite the cuts and skips, even Fusion GPS admits: “This analysis did not reveal widespread evidence of substantive video manipulation.” What Planned Parenthood representatives said, they said. Melissa Farrell still says Planned Parenthood can “get creative” about tissue procurement, Debbie Nucatola still talks about illegally altering abortion procedures to increase the likelihood of usable organs, and Mary Gatter still wants her Lamborghini. The report doesn’t even touch the latest Planned Parenthood videos, which culminate in charges of outright homicide. … In short, Planned Parenthood’s own technical analysis has shown that the Center for Medical Progress did not put words in any of its employees’ mouths, and there is no “context” in which tampering with abortion procedures to obtain usable organs could be justified.”

          Like

        36. john zande

          Alliance Defending Freedom: A radical right wing evangelical Christian legal group (dedicated to opposing abortion) who want to reinstate “Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.”

          Oh wow… Fabulous link there. Thoroughly believable.

          Nice group, too. In April 2013 ADF attorney Lisa Biron was found guilty of child pornography when she filmed her own 14-year-old daughter having sex with two men on multiple occasions.

          Look, I’m not at all interested in the “videos.” They are a fraud. Period. By even bringing this fraud up demonstrates to me that you’re not interested in what is “real.”

          There is only one question here which must be addressed here:

          How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Answer that, or this conversation is over.

          Like

        37. madblog Post author

          Since the substance of my post, and my repeated statements during this conversation, have been to point out that our culture has abandoned the value that says all human beings are of inestimable intrinsic worth, and that it is inhumane to evaluate the status and worth of select human beings as compared to others, assigning full status to some and erasing status for others…when a child in the womb develops arbitrarily selected brain markers is completely irrelevant.

          The apparent fact that you cannot see that point demonstrates my assertions over and over again. YOU are here to assign worth to some humans and to devalue the worth of others. That is your purpose in this conversation.

          (Now there is (sic) no such thing as “brain waves”? Oy.)

          At no point did I lump you into a pile of “all those atheists” as you have lumped me into a category. You are talking to me, not a cartoon.

          A disagreement with you does not constitute a lie. Is English your first language? I let it go for a bit, but calling your host a liar is quite beyond civil behavior and you are finished here.

          Liked by 1 person

        38. john zande

          Well, stop lying, and you won’t be called a liar. It’s really quite simple.

          Now, are you going to tell me how you can kill something that cannot die?

          Like

        39. john zande

          You haven’t, not in this post, but “killing a human” (as you are trying to argue) implies murder, does it not?

          So, that brings us back to the all important question:

          Madblog: How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Like

        40. madblog Post author

          I never refer to abortion as murder for good reasons.

          How do you expect to be taken seriously when you’re a liar?

          Like

        41. john zande

          “Our killing mills are sitting right on our main streets, and we’re downright proud of them.”

          So, once again Madblog:

          How can you kill something that cannot die?

          Like

        42. SusanneH

          John Zande; I’ve been pregnant three times. Each time, by the beginning of the fourth month, I could feel my sons moving. According to you, they were not actually “alive” yet. However: son #1 was very quiet, moved rarely, spent days at a time making no perceptible motion. He is now 18, and outstandingly quiet and peaceful, and recently mentioned to me that he couldn’t understand boys who had to move around all the time, he’d rather just sit still. I laughed and told him he had been that way since I first started to get to know him, at four months of life inside of me. Son #4 was a pusher, shover and honestly I wasn’t sure if he ever slept from four months til birth. And now he is a high-energy, active kid; the exact opposite of his older brother. And sons 2 and 3 were twins, and since it was hard to tell who was who before they were born, it was not possible to tell their characters before birth, but they did jostle for room quite a bit and were very much ALIVE when I first felt them move at four months.

          You, sir, are an uneducated dunce. I wince in shame for you when I read your comments. You are abusive and cruel, full of your perceived “knowledge” that is really foolishness. Get some humility; you will be much wiser for it.

          Like

        43. madblog Post author

          Thank you Susanne. Much could be said of the presumption and insensitivity of a man who feels free to marginalize the self-report of literally all women who have been with child, and to “explain” to them their experiences.
          Isn’t it remarkable how the personality of each child is apparent in the womb? I’ve told my kids the same thing exactly! It’s very clear that children-as young as a few weeks in utero-are possessed of built-in personalities.

          Liked by 1 person

        44. john zande

          Hi Susanne

          ”I’ve been pregnant three times. Each time, by the beginning of the fourth month, I could feel my sons moving. According to you, they were not actually “alive” yet.”

          I never said that. Ever. Please read carefully what I wrote.

          The movement you are describing is simply action potentials firing. The actions are not directed (consciously) in any way, nor can they be, until after full bilateral synchronisation.

          That is simply a hard fact. There is simply no neurological apparatus (neurons, dendrites, and axons with synapses between them) in place at week 16. What you were feeling was akin to a frog’s leg spasm when electricity is passed through it.

          You, sir, are an uneducated dunce. I wince in shame for you when I read your comments. You are abusive and cruel, full of your perceived “knowledge” that is really foolishness. Get some humility; you will be much wiser for it.

          Nice ad hominem attack, but thoroughly misplaced. If you’d like to actually address the points presented (namely, how can you kill something that cannot die?) in a coherent manner then by all means do so.

          Like

        45. madblog Post author

          Your insensitive reply seems more like either a programmed response or akin to a frog’s leg spasm when electricity is passed through it.

          Like

        46. john zande

          Well, I’m sorry is simple biology disturbs you, madblog, but all i wrote was the simple facts of an organic body.

          You are aware, aren’t you, as to how the body works?

          Like

        47. madblog Post author

          The bold arrogance here is remarkable. I am aware of the biological facts here, yes I am, having carried and borne six children. And having miscarried at least one. I am obviously aware of how the body works.
          You presume to interpret every woman’s experience for us. And you are apparently unable to comprehend conversation directed to you, since you’ve been completely uninformed by anything said to you. You’re like a parrot.
          How does your mind work and do you have a capacity for empathy? That is really what is in question here.

          Like

        48. john zande

          ”You presume to interpret every woman’s experience for us.”

          Not at all, nor did say anything even remotely close to that. You’d be well advised in the future to be more careful with your accusations, Madblog. It does not reflect well on you, or your capacity to engage an adult conversation.

          ”And you are apparently unable to comprehend conversation directed to you, since you’ve been completely uninformed by anything said to you.”

          That’s a peculiar statement, especially considering all I have been talking about here are facts. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to apologise for facts. If you can’t respond to them in a coherent and meaningful manner then that is your problem, not mine.

          As Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine so eloquently put it:

          “Facts are facts. They are enormously discourteous.”

          Liked by 1 person

  1. Pingback: War on Children | militantchristianblog

  2. Pingback: Things I have read on the internet – 24 | clydeherrin

  3. Pingback: We Kill the Weak | Messages from the Mythical

  4. Pingback: One Hundred Years of Death | Messages from the Mythical

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s