Friday, August 9, 2013

"... even the Horned One would regard association with the US abortion industry as bad PR"

Tim Stanley:

Texas is undergoing a rough, ugly battle about abortion. On Tuesday, activists for and against a proposed abortion law that would prohibit the procedure past the 20th week of pregnancy gathered at the state Capital in Austin for a bizarre shout-down. The prolife side sang Amazing Grace. The pro-abortion side tried to drown them out by shouting “Hail Satan!” I’m not making this up: you can view one of the confrontations on the video above and another via this link. Quite what Satan thinks about it all, we can obviously only speculate. But I'm guessing that even the Horned One would regard association with the US abortion industry as bad PR. More on why in a moment... 
The abortion bill isn’t that big a deal; it’s already on the books in 12 other states. Charles Cooke has written a brutal take down of opposition to the 20 week ban, pointing out that a baby is pretty much a baby by that point (some studies show it can recognise its mother’s voice) and that a ban is actually supported by a narrow plurality of the American people. Women back it by larger percentages than men, which shoots down Wendy’s claim to speak for her gender. What she does speak for is a profitable industry damaged by bad PR that is desperate for poster-children like Wendy Davis to improve its image after the awful Gosnell case. Remember him? The guy who butchered women and babies through late term abortions carried out in filthy conditions in a surgery that reeked of cat pee? That’s the sordid reality of “safe, legal and rare”. 
But back to the happy campers who yelled “Hail Satan!” at the prolife advocates who tried to sing a hymn. Of course those protestors aren’tactual Satanists, but their casual blasphemy reflects the nihilism at the heart of the pro-abortion lobby. They represent an extreme materialist philosophy that is uninterested in subtle debates about when life begins or in genuine attempts to negotiate between the needs of the infant and its vulnerable mother. No. They are only interested in total, unrestrained liberty – in the freedom to do whatever the Hell they want without any regard for ethics or the lives of others. They would do better to chant “Hail Ourselves!” – for they are a movement of the human ego at its most monstrous.

Just the face of evil.

In my pre-Christian life I was pro-choice, in a reluctant marginal way. But even then I couldn't stand rabid pro-abortionists. There is a vile cruelty to these people that even many of their nominal supporters find repulsive.

The Gosnell atrocities really have changed the public debate on abortion. The mainstream media is silent about it, of course, but there has been a big shift. It may not show in the polls (I don't know), but it is showing in the resolve of pro-life folks to get the job done without compromise and in a reluctance for all but the most rabid abortion-mongers to resist.

There has been a wave of pro-life legislation in the states, in part because the Republican Party made enormous gains in statewide elections in 2010, and in part because of the horrendous clarity of the Gosnell crimes.

Gosnell's clinic is to the pro-life movement what Bull Connor's fire-hoses were to the civil rights movement. The public embodiment of entrenched evil, for all to see.

Gosnell's clinic pulled back the veil on abortion.

There is a pro-life tidal wave building. The pro-death crowd is going to get smaller, and more depraved. 

22 comments:

  1. Nice mix of demonizations and lies.


    a baby is pretty much a baby by that point (some studies show it can recognise its mother’s voice)

    So a fetus can recognize its mother's voice by week 20? What studies show this? I could only find a 2003 study by Kisilevsky et al.(JSTOR link) that shows this for week 38. According to Web of Science, that paper has not been cited by any other papers that demonstrate it for younger fetuses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Troy what type of foetus are you referring to? What type of baby? Could you perhaps be more specific? Human or animal? Where did you look?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is a more recent study (2012) which shows "recognition" of maternal voice at 33 weeks.

    Abstract:
    Evidence for cortical sensory activation in the human fetus at the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy was provided in a recent imaging study. Although hearing is functional before birth, it is not clear whether recognition of the mother's voice is learned in utero or rapidly following delivery. We developed an original fMRI procedure that allows for the specific exploration of fetal brain response to auditory stimuli. This procedure provides the first in vivo evidence for the development of maternal voice recognition in utero between 33 and 34 weeks of gestation. This methodology could have crucial implications in the study of fetal cognition.

    Crusader: I typed ["voice recognition" fetus] (without the brackets but with the quotation marks) in Google. The same search in WoS yielded the more recent paper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Troy,
      Ah, so a web search with a focus on human foetal development!
      Okay. Well when I typed in both 'human foetus recognizes mothers voice' and 'human fetus recognizes human voice' I got dozens of articles citing several studies (considerably more on the first) on ixquick. Even more on Google. Even more when the term 'foetus' is replaced with the more universal term 'baby'.
      The studies seemed to be focused on various stages of behavioural development.
      Two notable studies claimed that a) 36 weeks and b)third trimester babies heart rates slow or speed when the parents voices can be heard. Both these studies were conducted by Chinese and Canadian universities simultaneously. This is presumably when the baby in a conscious or semi conscious state and able to react.
      I also found several dozen pro-life sites that indicate a much earlier time frame. One stating 8 weeks, another stating 12 weeks. I did not bother looking for sources other than where properly cited.
      So, from that rather superficial means of research (web) I would glean that the research is pushing back the time frame in which it can be observed that a human baby in the womb goes through waking or semi-waking periods and is able to exhibit certain responses to stimulus while in that state. Of course, being awake does not make us human. Awareness is only a single piece of the puzzle of life. Otherwise killing a sleeping or comatose person would be perfectly moral (and thus legal in civilized nations). This is, of course, not the case. In fact, killing such individuals is considered an ultimate act of cowardice by any culture that can make any claim on civilization.

      Delete
    2. I also found several dozen pro-life sites that indicate a much earlier time frame. One stating 8 weeks, another stating 12 weeks.

      Pro-life sites are run by shameless liars-for-Jeebus like Egnor, so not to be trusted at all. I'd like to see links to the actual studies.

      Delete
    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 9:19 AM

      Dhimmi: "Pro-life sites are run by shameless liars-for-Jeebus..."

      Translation: "Some sites are run by people who disagree with me, so I do not trust them because I know I am right."

      That's a very powerful intellectual argument, Dhim. Sort of like "Nyah, nyah, nyah!!!"

      You learn that in Dutch Happiness School?

      Delete
    4. Some sites are run by people who disagree with me, so I do not trust them because I know I am right.

      Actually its more like "pro-life sites have a demonstrated practice of making shit up, so cite an actual medical study if you want credibility."

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 9:58 AM

      Some Leftists have a track record of making shit up (cf., Barack Obama and Summer of Recovery, anti-Islamic video, etc. etc.), so would you mind citing a few examples. Otherwise, we might think you're just making shit up.

      Delete
    6. Troy,
      You miss the point entirely. Of the post, of the article you cite, and of my response.
      Your constant, needless attack on the name of Christ and the shameless debasement of His followers has been duly noted. You, yourself, have driven the point home.
      Who is the reader to believe a shameless, hate driven deceiver and distorter of facts like you, or people who feel a need to protect innocent life?
      The answer is simple, even if the reasons for your malady may be complex.

      Delete
    7. Crusader,

      If you read carefully troy's comment, you will see that he attacks Egnor's argument: "So a fetus can recognize its mother's voice by week 20? What studies show this?"

      You, on the other hand, attack troy as a person: "Who is the reader to believe a shameless, hate driven deceiver and distorter of facts like you, or people who feel a need to protect innocent life?"

      Ponder that.

      Hoo

      Delete
    8. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 7:14 PM

      If you think that was "Egnors argument", you're even stupider than I thought. And that's pretty stupid. Charles Cooke made that comment, and even for him, it wasn't a central argument. Stanley mentions it as a possibility, but clearly qualifies that it is not an established finding.

      Egnor didn't even mention 20 weeks. Egnor was discussing Gosnell. Read the fracking post. Stop trying to change the subject. The Left owns Gosnell. Get over it.

      Delete
    9. Hoo,
      I have pondered your posit.

      Here is my response to it:
      Reciprocity. Troy attacks and vilifies Christians and pro life people in his final comments. I point out that his hatred is a sickness that causes him to distort the issues presented and attack straw men. That is precisely what he has done here on this post and has done with great frequency on this blog. You know that as well as I, as a reader of these posts.
      Salvo for salvo.
      Consider the more civilized tone of our own exchanges (you and I, that is). We may not agree on much, but we hold a discourse. When someone attempts to converse with me in a rational fashion, I do my best to respond in kind - even when I disagree passionately.

      But when one is attacking personal beliefs in a deeply disrespectful fashion (see his final comment to me) the nature of the conversation is neither rational or with the intention of committing to an exchange of ideas. Even then, I point out to him that his form of argumentation is ineffective and misguided; that the hatred he feels towards my fellow Christians (and no doubt myself) not only blinds him but dilutes his argument.

      I may be a Christian, Hoo. But, I am no Christ, nor saint. I share more in character with Constantine, and even there I fail miserably.
      Try to remember, Hoo: I may hold letters and a commission, but I am a soldier. I have been educated in the use of force, and recognize a worthy target for it. It is the lingua franca, and I speak it well.
      It is the only way for a person of my own capacities to reach certain souls at certain moments; to cause them to pause and reflect.
      I am sincerely sorry if the more delicate (refined?) intellects find this tactic distasteful. I truly mean that. All I can advise you to do is look beyond the tone of my final response to Troy and seek the meaning of the words. Hate is curable. Distortions can be clarified. Straw men attacks can be abandoned. But, all this must be challenged if the young man in question is to be free of them.

      I do also find this kind of discourse distasteful, at least to a degree. I take no pleasure in it and would prefer an open and honest exchange. But, it is the tool that presents itself for the job. When I am confronted with a barrage of vitriol, I return with a volley of truth and logic.

      Hatred is a malady that infects the capacities of the mind, the argument presented in the post is not about the ability to hear, and Christians or Pro lifers are not commanded to be 'liars for Jeebus'.

      Surely, Hoo, you can now see that I am not attacking him personally. Rather, I attack the dissonance that drives him to present his faulty arguments couched in hatred and distortions of the truth. My aim is to reciprocate his force with a far more effective form of ammunition: Truth.

      Delete
    10. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, crusader. An eye for an eye is an old principle, but it doesn't work very well in argumentation. I can sense your frustration, but I think it is better to walk away from an argument than to make the attack personal.

      Hoo

      Delete
    11. Hoo,

      Turning the other cheek is the best route, I agree. It would have been easiest, I suppose. It was not, however, the route I chose. I found it necessary to call out the obvious and apparent motivations for the comments made by Troy. For both his sake and my own. You're correct in noting frustration.
      You'll note that my tone prior to his attack on my coreligionists and beliefs was entirely different.
      The reasons for this shift in mannerism are as I stated above. Sometimes a screwdriver just wont do the job, and it's time to use a drill or hammer ;)

      Delete
  4. Once again, given Egnor's track record as a political pundit, I predict that the forced birth movement will suffer serious setbacks. This will be especially apparent when the various statutes that he is touting are struck down by the courts, which is something that is already happening.

    In court, you don't get to pretend you have evidence to back up your claims. You actually have to have evidence to back up your claims. This appears to be coming as a surprise to the forced birth movement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 10:20 AM

      "The forced birth movement"? I see that phrase is making the rounds among leftist websites that would never, ever make shit up.

      In fact, I found a perfect example. Mz Jacqueline S Homan is a womyn on a mission. Here's a little excerpt from her bio:

      There was no funding available to me to pay for law school so that I could have become a human rights lawyer like I had always wanted. I began writing about the injustices of poverty due to discrimination and the power dynamics of privilege.

      Translation: "Nobody would give me the money to satisfy my desires, so I started complaining and whining about mean people who have more stuff than me."

      Now there's an independent womyn for you. Impressive, eh? She must have had an orgasm watching "The Life of Julia".

      Delete
    2. Forced birth can only result from forced conception. A willing engagement in the sexual act is an invitation to birth. Perhaps you have no experience in these matters, Nobody? Maybe you never got the 'birds and bees' talk? Or maybe you want to 'force death' on the fatherless offspring of your rutting mates when you lose interest in their physical traits?
      Whatever the reasoning for this gross distortion of the sexual congress and reproduction cycle, it only serves to illustrate to the rational mind what an extreme and bloodthirsty group you belong to by your own declarations. You are not the typical pro-choice dupe, you're the real deal: Pro Death.

      Delete
  5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 9:56 AM

    I hate to change the subject here, but the age at which fetal recognition of maternal speech occurs is a distraction. Deaf children cannot recognize their mother's voice, but that does not mean we can kill them. And if one has the language skills to read the actual article to which Egnor links, the 20 week comment was more-or-less thrown in by the author as an aside, not a definitive point of argument or the point of the article. Any reasonably competent search will show that there is disagreement about the onset of recognition, given that different investigators report different dependent variables and have different interests in fetal development. The article Dhim links to was not attempting to find the "earliest" point of recognition, but was focused instead on the problem of "whether recognition of the mother's voice is learned in utero" (quote taken from the Abstract). The answer those authors was yes, they can do so in utero.

    But let's look at another example: pain. There is ridiculous debate going on about fetal pain. It's also a distraction. Leftists, desperate to "save" the sacrament of abortion, will argue to the death (heh) that the fetus does not feel pain. Even if that is true, so what? Some children are born with a congenital insensitivity to pain, but we don't feel empowered to cut them in pieces and toss them in the garbage.

    As a contrast, Greens and vegans, who are among the most committed leftists on the planet, are now all bent out of shape because a new study suggests lobsters and crabs might feel pain. This is the mind of the Left on display.

    The actual point of the article, and Egnor's point, is that abortion is evil at all times and all places. Whether they recognize Mom's voice or not, or whether they feel pain, these are human beings whose lives are being ended in back-alley abortion mills by demented "doctors" like Gosnell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The actual point of the article, and Egnor's point, is that abortion is evil at all times and all places.

      Bullshit. The point was to paint pro-choice people as monsters, and the lie about 20 week old fetuses being able to listen to mommy was added to help make that point.

      These distortions of the facts were simply made to rally the troops, to make the useful idiots like Egnor and you feel more disgusted with the enemy.

      Delete
    2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 6:47 PM

      "Monsters"? Put down the hash pipe, Dhimster.

      [T]heir casual blasphemy reflects the nihilism at the heart of the pro-abortion lobby. They represent an extreme materialist philosophy that is uninterested in subtle debates about when life begins or in genuine attempts to negotiate between the needs of the infant and its vulnerable mother. No. They are only interested in total, unrestrained liberty...

      Nihilists, materialists, and libertines are not "monsters", moron. They are misguided.

      Do you think people here can't read for themselves and see how obvious and puerile your lies and mischaracterizations are?

      You're a joke, son.

      Delete
    3. Nihilists, materialists, and libertines are not "monsters", moron. They are misguided.

      Oh, I guess that's why Egnor calls them "the face of evil", having "vile cruelty" and being a "depraved" "pro-death crowd". He's just pointing out how "misguided" they are, instead of demonizing them. Silly me for misinterpreting those words.

      The joke is on you, grandpa.

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyAugust 9, 2013 at 7:42 PM

      Evil infects all of us, Dhim. Even you. And when you, or anyone else, including me, or Egnor, or, indeed, the Pope, acts out that evil, that is the face of evil.

      Come on, child. I know you pretend to be this big-time intellectual, but you're failing miserably. The shoes are too big, if you'll pardon the allusion.

      Delete