Thursday, September 5, 2013

"Like putting meat in a crock pot"

Pro-life folks from Live Action get abortionist LeRoy Carhart on undercover video, advising a potential... customer:



Carhart is no ordinary abortion hack. He's a hero to the pro-abortion movement, the heir apparent to George Tiller.

Here's a synopsis of Carhart's advice, from Live Action:

He casually described the abortion as a “shot into the fetus” to ensure that “[i]t’ll be dead for two days before you deliver it.” He told her the injection also causes the baby to “[get] soft, like mushy [makes squishing sound], so you push it through… so it’s like putting meat in a crock pot.” If this method is unsuccessful, he would have to remove the baby “in pieces,” using, he joked, “a pickaxe, a drill bit.” 
Both investigators asked if Carhart’s abortions “hurt” the babies. He replied by arbitrarily inventing his own parameters for when a fetus feels pain. “so, after about two to three weeks after birth… I think then they have pretty good knowledge of pain, but before that I’m not so sure that they do.” In fact, there is wide consensus in the scientific community that babies feel acute pain by 20 weeks of gestation.

Carhart's explanation would fit in nicely with the defense testimony at the Doctor's Trial in Nuremberg, which is the only thing comparable to it in modern history. 

16 comments:

  1. Michael,

    'In fact, there is wide consensus within the scientific community that "babies" (sic) feel acute pain by 20 weeks gestation'.

    References please. It's generally accepted that it's 24 weeks as the earliest time.

    Which scientists? Neuroscientists? Engineers? Creationist neurosurgeons with an axe to grind?

    Although, with your attitude to consensus and readiness to reject the overwhelming consensus of climatologists that AGW is occurring, then you should also reject this 'consensus', just to be consistent. Although consistency isn't one of your attributes.

    Although, personally I'd ban abortion for choice at 20 weeks gestation, just to be conservative regarding the date at which pain is felt.

    I don't know why you bother with the date at which a fetus feels pain. You want to ban abortion even before implantation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 5, 2013 at 8:04 AM

      batfark, did you read the post?

      First, notice that the section of the post claiming that babies feel pain at 20 weeks was a quote? Now it happens I agree with that quote, but neither Egnor nor I are are required to defend someone else's claim. You make crazy claims here all the time, referencing this and that pop science writer, and you never defend them. So shut the fuck up about "references, please", podna. Unless, of course, you want the same treatment. Just let me know. I'll be deeeeelighted to oblige.

      But since you are obviously reading-impaired, the actual thrust of Egnor's post is the callous attitude of this ghoul, Carhart, who happens to hold a medical license (as did Josef Mengele), and the American left who has lionized him as a saint, some kind of Albert Schweitzer of the late-term abortion mills. I can tell you unreservedly that my veterinarian would not talk about puppies in those terms, and if he did, his practice would collapse.

      So get with the program, mate. I know it's late there. The batteries in your digital camera prosthetics are probably running down. :-)

      Delete
    2. Georgie,

      Quoting someone without disagreement is agreeing with the claim.

      Anyway, the books I quote are often written by scientists and dealing with their field of expertise. Such as Donald Prothero writing a book on mammal fossils, since he is a paleontologist with expertise in the evolution of mammals.

      Whereas, your YouTube videos...

      Anyhow. Your reading skills are impaired. I noted that personally I'd ban abortion by choice after 20 weeks gestation, so if I had my way, Carhart wouldn't be doing 3rd trimester abortions.

      Delete
    3. Let's see if I can understand your latest brain fart, admiral. You and Egnor can use a lie as an argument, as long as it is someone else's lie?

      Hoo

      Delete
    4. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM

      batfark, please note that the author of the book you read was the producer of the invisible gorilla video.

      Delete
    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM

      Hoots, two items...

      First, your question is pure fantasy. Even you could do better than that. I defy you to find anything I have ever written that even approximates justifying the "[use of] a lie as an argument, as long as it is someone else's lie". What I said was "neither Egnor nor I are required to defend someone else's claim". Nor are you, by the way.

      So I'm glad you asked. No, you didn't understand what I said. As usual.

      Now, to the point...

      In your opinion, what should one think of a physician who discusses the treatment of visibly human unborn babies in the terms Carhart used? If you have an opinion on that, of course, as opposed to your usual slavish toadyism to anything remotely Progressive.

      Delete
    6. Good effort, admiral, but not yet enough for a C–. "It looks like a human" is not a winning argument.

      Hoo

      Delete
    7. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 5, 2013 at 12:13 PM

      I wan't making an argument. I asked a question.

      D-

      In your opinion, what should one think of a physician who discusses the treatment of visibly human unborn babies in the terms Carhart used?

      No opinion?

      Delete
    8. I have no opinion about a video that I have not seen, admiral. I was commenting on your stupid term "visibly human." A doll is visibly human. And of course an "unborn baby" is not a child. It is a fetus.

      Appeal to emotions works for people who can't think straight. Try logic instead.

      Hoo

      Delete
    9. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavySeptember 5, 2013 at 1:01 PM

      What video? Are you talking about Egnor's post, or the invisible gorilla conversation? I'm talking about Egnor's post. If you don't want to, just say so or don't reply.

      Anyway, here's what Carhart said:

      He told her the injection also causes the baby to “[get] soft, like mushy [makes squishing sound], so you push it through… so it’s like putting meat in a crock pot.” If this method is unsuccessful, he would have to remove the baby “in pieces,” using, he joked, “a pickaxe, a drill bit.”

      Does that help? I'm amazed at your inability to do the most basic tasks for yourself.

      And why should I appeal to emotion? I'm asking for your opinion, idiot. Surely you have some level of control over your own emotions.

      Anyway, let's eliminate all appeals to emotion and just look at the bare fact...

      X at 20 weeks - L. Nilsson, photographer

      Now,

      In YOUR opinion, what should one think of a physician who discusses the treatment of X (the unspecified thing shown in the image above) in the terms Carhart (as quoted above) used?

      Good grief. Can you wipe your own nose, Hooter?

      Delete
  2. Crusader Rex - on the roadSeptember 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM

    Adm.

    'In YOUR opinion, what should one think of a physician who discusses the treatment of X (the unspecified thing shown in the image above) in the terms Carhart (as quoted above) used?'

    I can only answer for myself on this, but I will do just that. I find it very hard to contain my more visceral instincts when I hear people talk like that about other human beings. I can and do, but it takes effort. I feel a profound distaste and contempt for such statements. I see them as weak, lazy minded, and totally evil. The people who utter them are infested with so much blackness I cannot imagine how they could be redeemed this side of the grave. That said, the Lord is Lord, and many evil souls have been reclaimed. All I can hope and pray for is that this man's foul practice is ended and that he finds grace, justice or both before another innocent life is taken.
    My own take. Hope it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Crusader Rex - on the roadSeptember 5, 2013 at 7:35 PM

    PS
    As to the issue of when an unborn baby can feel pain, it makes no difference to me. Just because a human being can or cannot feel pain is not the issue. If I walk into an operating theater and kill a person under general, is that not murder? It does not matter if a person can see, hear, smell, taste or feel pain. All that matters is that the person in question is a HUMAN BEING. Hell, I would think anyone who spoke like this about animals was an evil SOB (as adm noted re vet).
    A human foetus is a human being. This guy (the abortionist) is a evil POS.
    End of.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Crusader Rex,

      Agreed. If you think that abortion is wrong at all stages of pregnancy then it's irrelevant when a foetus is capable of feeling pain. On the other hand, if you think that a woman has rights too, then it's vitally important as to when a foetus is capable of feeling pain. And Egnor cut and pasted a statement that it's 20 weeks, whereas the consensus that it's 24 weeks.

      A human foetus is human, not necessarily a human being, a person. Personhood is a legal definition. The electors in the left wing liberal socialist (not) state of Mississippi had the chance of changing the law in a referendum and giving personhood to a fertilised ovum. It was rejected.

      Egnor has twisted himself into knots supporting lawyers representing a Catholic hospital in Colorado in a malpractice suit involving the death of 7 month gestation twins in having the suit dismissed because Colorado law doesn't recognise that a foetus has legal rights.

      Despite 3 Colorado catholic bishops disagreeing with the lawyers.

      The law obviously has to be changed.

      Delete
    2. Crusader Rex - on the roadSeptember 6, 2013 at 1:24 AM

      "Agreed. If you think that abortion is wrong at all stages of pregnancy then it's irrelevant when a foetus is capable of feeling pain."
      Pain simply aggravates the charge of evil.
      Killing innocent life is evil, even if the intention is not. Killing babes in painful manner is sadistic and deliberate, clinical evil.

      " On the other hand, if you think that a woman has rights too..."
      Sure I do.
      They have all the rights of any human being.
      However, I do not think the perverse privilege to kill other human beings is some amoral power bequeathed by the presence of female reproductive organs.

      "A human foetus is human, not necessarily a human being,"
      Yes IS necessarily a human being. Literally necessarily. That is the entire point. He or she can be (as in BEING) nothing else. The foetus exists and is unquestionably human (hence the term 'HUMAN foetus'): A human being.

      "Personhood is a legal definition."
      Well, sure - it is these double plus good days. But personhood, in the legal sense is not about being human, it is about the degree of rights bestowed by a government / elite. A corporation is a legal 'person' in most western nations.

      "The electors in the left wing liberal socialist (not) state of Mississippi had the chance of changing the law in a referendum and giving personhood to a fertilised ovum. It was rejected."
      What does that prove? It would not matter if everyone on the planet said a triangle was the same as a square or that 2+2=5. Besides, why the vote? Perhaps because there are those (increasing in numbers) who accept the raw scientific FACT that life begins at conception and actually GET what that means?

      As for the Colorado case and the bishops, all I know about it I have read here. It seems to me, personally, this was a great error on the part of that diocese. They should have paid up.
      And yes, I agree: The law needs to be changed.

      Delete
    3. Crusader Rex,

      You and I disagree on many things. In this case, whether an unimplanted fertilised human ovum is a human being or not. Human, definitely, but not a human being. You're also wrong regarding the Colorado case. The hospital could have defended itself against a charge of malpractice. I think that they would have won. Instead, they went for the unsatisfactory legalistic defence.

      Delete
    4. We sure do disagree on much, Bach.
      The point in (most recent) contention, however, is not one that is a matter of opinion.
      First off, the stage of the 'being' is not at issue.
      Once conception takes place, we have a human life forming. There is no debate about this. This is so.
      I also must address your language. You and I are actually fertilized ovum also.
      So, let's be specific shall we?
      The newly fertilized ovum that you are referring to, as I am sure you understand, is known as a zygote.
      The human zygote is the very first stage of development in human life.This precisely why the stage has a name (again: zygote). A living thing is also known as a 'being'.
      So let's put this together shall we?
      We have a necessarily human thing that is alive and therefor known as a being.
      The zygote (aka the 'fertilised human ovum') is necessarily a human being (provided both parents are) or it is dead. It is not a foetus, an infant, a toddler, a teen, middle aged, or a senior. It is a zygote.
      I assume we are not talking about human zygotes that have naturally died.
      To clarify: The zygote can only be two things from that point on: Human or dead. That is the potential laid bare. There is not third choice created because a lawyer or a politician would have it so.
      Has the zygote implanted in the walls of the mother's uterus? Irrelevant.
      Just as pain is irrelevant as to the humanity of the victim (the human foetus) being torn to pieces or poisoned during abortion procedures.
      It is a human life regardless of sensation or legal definition.
      2+2=4 even if the law of the land says it equals 5.
      As to the zygote's legal status re 'personhood', that makes no difference to the physical and moral landscape of the situation.

      Regarding the malpractice hospital situation: Once again I am barely familiar with the situation. I can respond by saying I have no idea what they could have or could not have argued to avoid malpractice.
      The dead babies and their surviving family is the only real concern to me. From what I read, I was left with the impression they were extremely upset with the treatment provided by the hospital.

      Delete