In a Nutshell
From The Poor Man Institute:
We’ve got what amounts to a reverse Nuremberg defense, where Bush administration officials are let off the hook because they were only giving orders.
posted by JimK at 10:56 AM
88 Comments:
Bush activities involved interogation of a small number of people who were assuredly blood-thirsty terrorists. While their techniques may not be wise, comparing them to the offenses tried in Nuremberg is outrageous and symptomatic of lunacy.
Well, since the topic du jour is torture around here...here's how a second trimester abortion is done. A third trimester abortion is done the same way, but since the baby is much bigger, some other techniques are employed. (Interesting fact: In 1997, Obama voted AGAINST banning partial birth abortion.)
The Second Trimester
The D&E (dilation and extraction) is the most common type of second trimester abortion. During this procedure, the mother's cervix must be dilated much more than in a first trimester abortion simply because her baby is now too large to pull it from the uterus solely by using the suction machine.
After sufficient dilation is accomplished, the abortionist begins the D&E procedure by rupturing the amniotic sac which contains the unborn child. He then begins the process of dismembering the baby and pulling it out of the uterus in pieces. To do this, the abortionist uses suction as well as surgical forceps which basically act like a pair of pliers. He inserts this instrument into the uterus and starts to open and close it until a part of the baby or placenta is grasped. That piece is torn off and is pulled out. This process is repeated until the abortionist feels that the procedure has been completed.
Sometimes, the baby's skull is too large to pull out of the uterus, so the abortionist must first crush it with the forceps. The abortionist will know that the child's skull has been sufficiently collapsed when the baby's brains flow out of the uterus. Among abortionists this is called the "calvaria sign" and it signals that the skull will then be much easier to remove.
Once the abortionist has pulled out everything he can feel with the forceps, he will use a curette to scrape any remaining parts off the sides of the uterus. After that, the suction machine can be used again to vacuum up whatever debris is still in the uterus.
Throughout a D&E procedure, all of the extracted baby parts are placed on a tray where they are then reassembled. This is done to make certain that the entire baby is accounted for and that no parts are left behind.
One way that the D&E procedure is often made easier is by killing the baby a day or so before the procedure is scheduled. This extra step is generally referred to as a "ditch" and is accomplished by inserting a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the heart of her baby. Then, a chemical agent - usually digoxin - is injected through the needle causing the child's death. The advantage of doing this is that the feticidal agent (digoxin) causes the child's body to soften, making the dismemberment and removal process much easier. Despite that advantage, however, ditching does have one potential downside. Because the chemical used to kill the baby is toxic, it is crucial for the abortionist to know that he has inserted the needle into the baby and not the mother. To verify that, the abortionist will sometimes let go of the needle before injecting the drug and see if it jumps around independent of the mom's movements. If so, he knows that he has hit the baby and can proceed. (This part of the ditching process is sometimes referred to as "harpooning the whale").
A variation of the D&E is called intact D&E. In this procedure, the baby is not pulled out in pieces but removed whole. Normally, the abortionist will use a feticidal chemical to kill the baby first or he will position the baby so that he can crush its skull. However, in some cases the baby will actually survive the procedure and emerge alive. In the abortion industry, live births are referred to as "The Dreaded Complication."
Since most Intact D&E abortions are performed on babies who are too young to survive once separated from the mother, the usual response to a live birth is to simply set the child aside and allow it to die on its own. The abortion industry calls this practice "comfort care." In some cases, abortionists have been observed actively killing the child by drowning it, crushing its tracheal tube, or snapping its neck.
Another type of second trimester procedure is known as instillation. This procedure begins with the abortionist sticking a long needle through the mother's abdomen and into the baby's amniotic fluid sac. A substantial amount of amniotic fluid is then drained from the sac and replaced with either a saline or urea solution. This usually kills the child, but it may take hours during which some women report feeling their baby violently thrashing around. Photos of children killed by instillation procedures generally show massive chemical burns covering the child's entire body.
Once the process of killing the baby has been initiated, the mother is given drugs to induce labor so she will eventually deliver the dead child. Because there have been cases where babies have survived this process, some abortionists inject a drug into the baby's heart prior to delivery to make sure it is dead. (Urea has also been used as a prepping agent for D&E abortions. The urea is inserted into the amniotic sac but instead of inducing labor, a D&E is performed. The advantage of this is that the urea solution helps soften up the baby and makes it easier to dismember and remove.)
Another type of second trimester procedure is called induction. The mother is given a drug - usually prostaglandin or oxytocin - that causes her to go into labor. Often the abortionist will kill the baby at the same time in order to avoid the possibility that the mom will deliver a live baby. In other instances, the labor-inducing drug which was given to the mother will kill her baby. However, it is well established that live births are a real possibility with induction procedures. As in the case of Intact D&E abortions, these procedures are usually performed on babies who are too young to survive outside the womb. Again, if the baby emerges alive, the usual response is to set the child aside and allow it to die on its own, or for the abortionist to kill it once it's delivered.
The final methods of second trimester abortion are hysterectomy and hysterotomy. Of the more than one million American babies killed by abortion every year, approximately 5000 are destroyed in this manner. The relative rarity of these procedures is driven by the fact that they have a higher incidence of maternal complications and death than other second trimester abortion methods. During a hysterectomy abortion, the mother's entire uterus (including the baby) is removed and the baby usually dies during the procedure. The hysterotomy abortion is similar to a cesarean section. The abortionist does not remove the uterus, but cuts it open and removes the baby. If the child was not killed prior to removal, it is set aside to die.
thanks for the reminder about the suffering caused by the liberal agenda's support for abortion
also, the suffering experienced by innocent disadvantaged inner city kids who have no choice but to attend dangerous schools and mix with violent gangs greatly dwarfs any suffering experienced by the evil conspirators in U.S. custody who are guilty of planning the death of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have shown no remorse
Jesse Jackson once called abortion racist because it disproportionately kills minority children
both abortion and no-choice schools are attacks on disadvantaged children in America
would be nice to see TTF apply the kind of rage they feel over the treatment of murderous monsters to the conditions imposed on innocent disadvantaged children by liberals in America
will they ever repent?
Except you can't have a "defense" until you have a trial. In modern times, trials have often followed wars to bring war criminals to justice.
We need a Truth Commission investigation to uncover the secrets locked inside the Bush/Cheney White House. Maybe the facts uncovered will justify a trial or two, maybe not, but we won't know until a full investigation is done.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
“Bush activities involved interogation of a small number of people who were assuredly blood-thirsty terrorists.”
Just so we’re on the same page, do you mean the kind of blood-thirsty terrorists who would invade, occupy, terrorize, and devastate an entire nation?
“Bush activities involved interogation of a small number of people who were assuredly blood-thirsty terrorists.”Never proven. Innocent until proven guilty. No one deserves to be punished prior to an establishment of guilt. Hence the evil of the Bush regime. If you don't follow the rules of justice yourself, how can you ever convince others to?
A trial?
These creeps not only have confessed, they've boasted of their evil.
They are blatant war criminals.
Still, I'm not arguing for torture.
I'm just noting how much concern you have for these vile creatures and how little you have for disadvantaged children whose lives are made so much worse by hypocritical liberal policies- and that's if you don't allow their mothers to kill them before they're born because they're inconvenient.
No one believes your lies bad anonymous. The Bush regime tortured people they had not proven guilty. When Bush and his cronies refuse to follow the rule of law they justify the law breaking of others.
Sorry about the length, Jim.
PART 1
“would be nice to see TTF apply the kind of rage they feel over the treatment of murderous monsters to the conditions imposed on innocent disadvantaged children by liberals in America”
You know what would be even nicer? Social conservatives getting a grip on reality. A long term memory wouldn’t hurt either.
---
“thanks for the reminder about the suffering caused by the liberal agenda's support for abortion”
A search for spontaneous abortion brings up:
Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant.
A search for Miscarriage statistics yields similar results:
Miscarriage Statistics - A Look at the Figures and DefinitionsMiscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent.
That’s quite a few newly created eternal souls that end up in the garbage bin. Where’s the outrage for all of those poor souls? Why aren’t you soliciting congress to pour money into research that would prevent all miscarriages?
Further, 30,000 already born children die of starvation every day. That’s nearly 11 million preventable deaths a year, and about 400 million since Roe v Wade was decided in ‘73. (http://www.starvation.net/)
Starvation is a slow and PAINFUL death. One would think that would factor in as far as priorities go.
---
More on the “liberal agenda's support for abortion”:
Democrats for LIFE of America:
The 95-10 Initiative [95% reduction in 10 years] seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America…
…We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.
Further reading: The 17 programs of the "95-10 Initiative”
PART 2
Still more on the “liberal agenda's support for abortion”:
MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, the night before last:
But we begin with President Obama at Notre Dame and the debate over abortion… …They‘re working together, however, on legislation to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce the number of abortions.
REP. TIM RYAN (D), OHIO: …most abortions are performed on women who live within 200 percent of the poverty level, so this is really about access to prevention. …at the same time, incentivize adoption and those social service programs, that if a woman does get pregnant, she has the wherewithal to bring the baby to term, know that the baby will have health care, make sure that if she‘s in college, that there are child care centers at the college campus, all of those things, nurses for newborns, those programs that would encourage the woman to bring the baby to term.
I’m 40, I’ve been a news junkie since I was 15, and I can’t remember the last time I heard a social conservative or Republican make those suggestions.
REP. ROSA DELAURO (D), CONNECTICUT: …But it is a combination, as Tim Ryan pointed out, of prevention, and if you don‘t want to deal with the issue of prevention or with contraception, then you may not be serious about wanting to reduce that need for abortions or unintended pregnancies.
That pretty much sums it up. “Just say no” appears to be the only solution that social conservatives have to offer. Blissfully unaware that stifling and suppressing the sexual - or creative force of human nature, only ensures that it comes out as the destructive force of human nature. And I’m not talking about self-determination, I’m talking about coerced indoctrination.
As far as “just say no” goes, you may as well be trying to prevent relationships.
---
The same thoughtful considerations were discussed on Chris Matthews on March 5th of this year, except this time Ken Blackwell of the FRC was also on, and had nothing more to offer than pompus bluster and the “Just say no” “outlaw it” mantra.
PART 3, FINAL
Anonymous: “Jesse Jackson once called abortion racist because it disproportionately kills minority children”
Where? When? Until you provide a source for that information, it’s nothing more than a baseless assertion, but I’ll humor you:
Disproportionate African-American POVERTY is racist. It’s a connection between poverty and racism, abortion falls under that category.
---
“also, the suffering experienced by innocent disadvantaged inner city kids who have no choice but to attend dangerous schools and mix with violent gangs greatly dwarfs any suffering experienced by the evil conspirators in U.S. custody who are guilty of planning the death of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have shown no remorse
would be nice to see TTF apply the kind of rage they feel over the treatment of murderous monsters to the conditions imposed on innocent disadvantaged children by liberals in America”
(Oh the pain, the pain of it all. Won’t somebody please think about the children!)
Where was your concern for “the children” these past eight years of “stick it to the poor and give it to the rich?
Funding cuts for Medicaid, food stamps, eligibility for food stamps, school lunch programs, student loan subsidies, etc. But extension of tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income, A OK. And that’s just from one Associated Press article via Fox News:
“Republicans said reining in such programs whose costs spiral upward each year automatically s (sic) the first step to restoring fiscal discipline.”
Yet Republican policies are responsible for adding 4 trillion to the national debt. Fiscal discipline my derriere.
Republicans for the rich, Democrats for the impoverished children, every step of the way, and I watched it all happen live on CSPAN, every day - I am a first hand eye-witness.
If you want to argue better ways of helping the poor, I have no objections. But cut the nonsense as to which side of the issues you're on.
The past eight years have been an orgy of corruption, greed, waste, fraud and abuse. Your willful ignorance is blinding. But you don’t miss a trick when it comes to your daily talking points, do you? Regurgitating all of it, verifying none of it.
(Did your "family" groups have to tell you to distract from the issues by characterizing our concern for the law as concern for monsters, or is that something you came up with on your own?)
All of that is just the tip of the iceberg. 600 billion (1 trillion estimated) on an unnecessary and illegal war with a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, resulting in millions of deaths, injuries, maimings, refugees and destroyed lives. Yet even when it comes to our own, Republicans cut veterans’ benefits - in the name of "fiscal discipline."
Social conservatives may be anti-abortion, but you’re not only not pro-life, you’re definitively pro-death.
“will they ever repent?”
Anyone who feels bad about not living up to the Golden Rule when it comes to the treatment of others, IS repentant. That’s the “bleeding heart” part of the “bleeding heart liberals” pejorative -- we supposedly care too much.
The “morality” and “values” of self-proclaimed socially conservative Christians have all the properties of human dung, except the only thing it fertilizes is your own egos.
When you die, you won’t be separate from your “enemies,” and you will feel their pain, and will have to live with that.
I apply that same understanding to my own life, and to be candid, I’m often lousy at practicing the Golden Rule. But when possible, I do atone - no matter how humiliating.
There’s one thing I think Christians like you forget - God can’t make you forgive yourself.
I suggest you take heed.
A lot of blather to rationalize two simple and obvious facts, Improv:
Liberals are not motivated by the best interests of disadvantaged kids when they support allowing them to be killed before they are born or when they block any effort to provide them with an alternative to dangerous and failing schools.
Their motivation for excessive concern about confessed murderers of thousands of their citizens? Simply a political attack.
Remember how concerned Democrats were in the campaign about closing down Guantanamo? Yesterday, the Democratic controlled Senate rejected the closure of Guantanamo.
In addition to all the other affirmation of Bush policies that Obama has made since becoming President, this just indicates, once again, the moral imperative of a grand sweeping apology owed by Democrats to President Bush, who, without regard to his own political benefit, protected our country for the years since 9/11 while terrorists vowed to rain incessant attacks on U.S. soil.
Liberals also want to deny kids access to scripture and deny them the opportunity for spiritual growth:
"(May 19) -- Some liberals in a Texas school district are upset that an evangelical Christian group left Bibles on tables inside middle and high schools.
According to FoxNews.com, members of Gideons International used to hand out Bibles outside schools in Frisco, Texas, but that so upset some liberals that they called the police against the evangelicals.
Members of the religious organization then left the Bibles on cafeteria tables inside the district's middle and high schools, under a school policy that allows materials to be distributed on tables.
School guidelines forbid the Gideons from interacting with students inside the school -- but the Bibles, administrators said, pass the school's test.
Shana Wortham, director of communications for the district, told Fox: "We have to handle this request in the same manner as other requests to distribute non-school literature — in a viewpoint neutral manner."
The new move has drawn complaints from liberals, however."
Hi everybody, I’m sociopathanon. I don’t own a TV, don’t know what a radeo is, and have never read a newspaper in my life. I have an attention span of three minutes, which I’m very proud of, and I’ve never operated a search engine in my life. Which I am also very proud of.
You’ll have to be patient with me because sometimes I have these things that…well, they’re like…well it’s kind of like this moving sensation thingie in my head that comes and goes, and there’s like words in there and pictures and stuff, which scared my when they first started happening three minutes ago, and they really reeeally hurt. So I’m going to see a doctor now to hopefully have them removed. Also, I’m currently working on legislation with my socially conservative republican senator to make facts illegal. Except for some reason he never talks to me, not a word, even though I heard that a picture is worth like, ten words or something. You’d think he’d at least say the words thank you for the nice pitcher frame I get him (oh, and he never closes his I’s, it’s really creepy but don’t tell anyone I said that).
Anyway, I’m just your average everyday… … … Hi everybody, I’m sociopathanon. I don’t own a TV, don’t know what a radeo is…
Pretty sad attempt by Improv to divert focus away from two simple and obvious facts:
Liberals are not motivated by the best interests of disadvantaged kids when they support allowing them to be killed before they are born or when they block any effort to provide them with an alternative to dangerous and failing schools.
Their motivation for excessive concern about confessed murderers of thousands of their citizens? Simply a political attack.
Remember how concerned Democrats were in the campaign about closing down Guantanamo? Yesterday, the Democratic controlled Senate rejected the closure of Guantanamo.
In addition to all the other affirmation of Bush policies that Obama has made since becoming President, this just indicates, once again, the moral imperative of a grand sweeping apology owed by Democrats to President Bush, who, without regard to his own political benefit, protected our country for the years since 9/11 while terrorists vowed to rain incessant attacks on U.S. soil.
yes, a sad attempt by Improv
gee, I guess TTFers are glad Improv put his two cents in
Liberals are not motivated by the best interests of disadvantaged kids when they support allowing them to be killed before they are born or when they block any effort to provide them with an alternative to dangerous and failing schools.The majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal and safe. In fact, 75% think it should either be legal under any or only under certain circumstances, while only 23% think it should be illegal.
Conservatives think lifting disadvantaged kids out of poverty by giving their parents tax breaks and offering free and reduced meals and programs like Head Start and extra curricular clubs is socialism and worse. However, they see nothing wrong with taking public school tax money and using it for vouchers to pay for private school tuition, particularly at untaxed religious schools.
"In fact, 75% think it should either be legal under any or only under certain circumstances, while only 23% think it should be illegal."
Misleading. Most Americans think abortion is wrong and even conservatives agree that in the rare cases where the mother's life is in danger, that it be permitted.
Legalized abortion has decimated disadvantaged minority groups.
"Conservatives think lifting disadvantaged kids out of poverty by giving their parents tax breaks and offering free and reduced meals and programs like Head Start and extra curricular clubs is socialism and worse. However, they see nothing wrong with taking public school tax money and using it for vouchers to pay for private school tuition, particularly at untaxed religious schools."
The biggest red herring in the world, that vouchers take money out of public schools. Typically, vouchers are for significantly less than the per capita costs of educating students in a locality so there is a net gain. In the case of D.C., the money is completely Federal. There are so many wasteful programs in public schools that could be redirected to reducing the teacher student ratio but you never hear liberals complain.
Trapping kids in dangerous schools is as inhuman as the child labor of Dickens time. Your advocacy of the status quo is an abomination.
yes, Aunt Bee is an abomination
Misleading. Most Americans think abortion is wrong and even conservatives agree that in the rare cases where the mother's life is in danger, that it be permitted.
Rare late term abortions are used for that very purpose, to save the life of the mother, and yet that's the procedure Anon highlighted above as "torture." Make up your mind, Anon. You either support procedures to save women's lives or you don't. How misleading can you get?
To compare spontaneous abortion and miscarriages to abortions is ludicrous. If a person dies while sleeping, that's a natural death (like a miscarriage). If a person plunges scissors into the person's neck after he's fallen asleep, that's murder (exactly like abortion). Here's a THIRD TRIMESTER procedure that plunges the scissors into the baby's neck:
Sometimes, the procedure itself is modified. For example, one of the most common third trimester abortion procedures is the intact D&E described earlier. This method is also known as D&X (dilation and extraction) or partial-birth abortion. When this procedure is used in the third trimester, the abortionist maneuvers the baby into a breech position (feet first) and then pulls the baby out of the uterus up to its head – leaving the baby’s head just inside of the uterus. It is not at all uncommon for the baby to still be alive at this point. Now the abortionist pushes a long pair of scissors into the base of the baby's skull and creates a hole. He then inserts a suction tube into the hole and sucks out the baby's brain. This modification to the intact D&E procedure insures that the baby is not born alive, and it helps make the head smaller so that it is easier to pull out of the uterus.
“To compare spontaneous abortion and miscarriages to abortions is ludicrous.”
I rest my case.
Bea -- Your argument lacks any semblance of moral balance. You look only at the mother's life, while completely ignoring the baby's life. My best friend's daughter was born at six months and she lived, from day one, with no life support. That is not an uncommon story and it is even more common for babies to live after they've had some life support help.
Also, it is completely untrue that late-term abortions are done mainly to save the mother's life. That is a fallacy that the abortion industry promotes like crazy. Statistics just don't bear that statement out.
"How misleading can you get?"
Well, we could be like you and try to conflate various public opinion polls in such a way as to imply that Americans approve of a general right to murder unborn children for the sake of convenience.
They don't.
btw, thanks to the other anon who is defending children
"I rest my case."
In that case, our ruling is that you not be released into the general population until you received further counseling and treatment.
"However, they see nothing wrong with taking public school tax money and using it for vouchers to pay for private school tuition, particularly at untaxed religious schools."
It is not the schools money, it is MY TAX MONEY. I paid for it, 1.00 out of ever 2 I make. MCPS spends what, 15K on every kid ? the religous grades schools are like 5K.
We have a kid, African American, that is at my son's religous school. His mom, who works at NIH, used the voucher program to come out of the inner school he would have been in at DC to come to our area to go to school. He is a nice kid, and made the tie breaker shot at the basketball game.
Fortunately he was in 8th grade, because without the voucher program his mom would not have been able to send him back.
She choose to send him to HR because the drug problem was so rampant at his local school that tons of the kids weren't even getting to high school, much less graduating. So she wanted her son out of that environment.
I thought you were for HELPING people Bea, how could you possibly oppose a program that was doing so much good ?
The issue of school vouchers is one that has good arguments on both sides. Bea's point was not that school vouchers are necessarily a bad policy (although she may think that, on balance, it is), but that too many people who advance the idea seem to be opposed to all other ways of making life easier and opening opportunities for those who need the help. So, in effect, she questions their motives. Maybe that's fair, maybe not.
It does bring to mind the words T.S. Eliot puts in the words of St. Thomas Becket: "That to the soul is the greatest treason. To do the right thing, but for the wrong reason." Of course, that was in the context of doing the right thing, but perhaps for self-aggrandizement. Here, the question is whether some people's motivation for supporting vouchers is to hurt public education and push people into sectarian schools.
But we can get into difficulty when we simply assume bad motives (although Anon's posts over time do suggest that Bea has a point).
Everyone involved in these sorts of discussions should listen to President Obama's speech last weekend at Notre Dame:
http://commencement.nd.edu/commencement-weekend/commencement-videos-recorded/commencement-address/
Oh I'm all in favor of helping people, Anon. But in your example, what good has the private school tuition voucher program done for the other kids in the DC school this one kid got out of? Can the DC government afford the same voucher, transportation, uniform, books etc., for every other kid in it? If not, there's problem.
And excuse me but if you'd pay attention, you'd see I used the phrase "public school tax money," which you have reduced to "schools money," Theresa. It's MY TAX MONEY TOO.
And to the Anon who claims it is completely untrue that late-term abortions are done mainly to save the mother's life. That is a fallacy that the abortion industry promotes like crazy. Statistics just don't bear that statement out.
Show us the "statistics" that support your statement and tell us the source.
Bad anonymous yet again makes up stuff to suit his agenda and has no stats to back up his baseless claims. This is like when he claimed the AIDS rate was highest in San Francisco and lowest in anti-gay states. When Aunt Bea presented the stats we saw the opposite was true - bad anonymous is nothing but a prolific liar.
"But we can get into difficulty when we simply assume bad motives (although Anon's posts over time do suggest that Bea has a point)."
You're in my good graces because you're quoting T.S. Eliot, David, but I still must ask for some elaboration here.
"Can the DC government afford the same voucher, transportation, uniform, books etc., for every other kid in it?"
Not only could they, in D.C.'s case they'd save money.
Alright, Priya -- Here's information from Canada. The author of this article is the one who uses the term "moral balance," which I used previously. This is from the Herald Sun. And don't let it be lost on you that some of the medical conditions they talk about here are abnormalities of the fetus, not the mother. So, that even lessens the "life of the mother" statistic.
David van Gend
January 28, 2008 12:00am
THE claim that late-term abortion is done only in cases of lethal abnormality or to save the mother's life is demonstrably false.
The truth is that most late abortions, which are 20 weeks of pregnancy, are done to entirely healthy babies of entirely healthy mothers, and by a method so cruel I am reluctant to describe it.
In many cases these are babies older than those in our hospital nurseries, who might have been born alive and adopted to loving parents, but were instead "terminated".
Dr Lachlan De Crespigny and Prof Julian Savulescu (Opinion 23/1) state that late abortion is done only "for major problems as a last resort", giving the example of a lethal heart abnormality in the fetus.
The medical data tells a different story. In Victoria, the most recent data is from the Health Department's 2005 survey of perinatal deaths.
The majority of late abortions were for psychosocial reasons, not fetal abnormality.
The term "psychosocial" means there is no medical problem with the mother or the baby, but the parents request abortion because of economic or emotional stress.
At 23-27 weeks of pregnancy, when other premature babies are being cared for in the hospital nursery, the records for 2005 show that 108 healthy babies were terminated for psychosocial reasons, which is five times as many as those terminated for congenital abnormality.
Late abortion for psychosocial reasons is by far the biggest single cause of "stillbirth" in Victoria.
In 2005, the deliberate ending of these healthy lives accounted for one in every three stillbirths.
Is late abortion merely a tragic response to grave fetal abnormality or risk to the mother's life?
No. Late abortion is done for any reason that sufficiently stresses the parents and its numbers are climbing fast.
Importantly, the report shows that public hospitals almost never perform late abortion for reasons of psychosocial stress.
Since 2001, of the 581 late abortions done for psychosocial reasons, only four were done in a public hospital. The rest were done by private operators.
Private clinics should be regulated so they lose their licence if they perform abortions after 20 weeks.
This would save the lives of 100 premmie babies a year.
Instead of being wide awake to the devastating violence of late abortion, the public is being lulled as to how rare it is and how necessary it is in the face of lethal abnormality.
In my view, if adults are so psychologically disturbed that they would take their healthy, 20-week baby, visibly kicking and jumping in the womb, to an abortion clinic, those people need urgent psychological and social help.
The law must continue to restrain adults, and the doctors who would collaborate in such an assault.
De Crespigny's argument lacks moral balance. It is as if the baby does not exist.
For our generation, late abortion is the test of whether or not our society sinks into savagery, deaf to babies so callously sacrificed to the psychosocial comfort of adults.
Dr David van Gend is secretary to the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life
btw, Priya, looks like anon's done pretty well since keep referring to once incident out of the thousands posted
how many misstatements have you made?
I mean, that you didn't delete?
Powell to Rush, Cheney: Room For Me Among 'Emerging' Republican Party
Posted by David Beard, Boston.com Staff May 20, 2009 01:17 PM
Colin Powell issued a sharp rebuke Tuesday night to Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney for trying to exclude him from the backbiting Republican Party.
Before some 1,500 business leaders in Boston, as well as Patriots quarterback Tom Brady and wife Gisele Bundchen, the retired general and former secretary of state spoke openly of the dispute roiling the Grand Old Party after election setbacks and polls putting its popularity at roughly one of five Americans.
"Rush Limbaugh says, 'Get out of the Republican Party.' Dick Cheney says, 'He's already out.' I may be out of their version of the Republican Party, but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again," Powell told the crowd.
Powell, the former secretary of state, split from the Bush-Cheney administration over the Iraq war after he presented to the United Nations what he had been told was ironclad evidence that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction. That, of course, turned out not to be true.
Then, just before last November's election, Powell delivered his prized endorsement to President Obama, giving him a major last-month boost.
Powell, who was talked about as a presidential candidate himself over the year, called Obama "a transformational figure" who "brings a fresh set of eyes, a fresh set of ideas" at a time the nation urgently needs them. "He has met the standard of being president," he said.
This comment has been removed by the author.
LOL, bad anonymous - you fool! That was NOT from Canada, it was from Australia - you should try actually reading through some of the crap you post before you do so. And in either event we're talking about the U.S. here and NOT some other country. Once again you've failed to provide statistics to back up your baseless claim and you remain a liar until such time as you do so.
And as to the article you quoted from that was NOT from the Australian Victoria government it was from a right wing conservative Christian group. I could find no report from the Australian government on a "Health Department's 2005 survey of perinatal deaths". The only references to such were made by the same biased Christian group - likely they made it all up just as you typically do.
Bad anonymous said "looks like anon's done pretty well since keep referring to once incident out of the thousands posted".
LOL, bad anonymous has lied thousands of times, the AIDS claim was far from his only lie - as we can see from his current pathetic attempt to lie here.
prove it, Priya
we're not believing you until we see some statistics
Its a scientifically accepted principle that the onus is on the one making the claim to prove their claim, not on the skeptic to disprove it. In either case you can do as I did and google
"2005 survey of perinatal deaths" Victoria
and you'll see there is no such official Austrailian government document - only your same biased Christians claiming it and such statistics exist. That combined with the propensity of conservative Christians to lie makes this article's claims highly suspect. And as you acknowledge yourself, this has nothing to do with the U.S. upon which your original claim was based - you pulled it all out of your butt.
"you pulled it all out of your butt."
I must say, this Priya person seems quite taken with the idea of finding things in "butts"!
I must say, this bad anonymous person is quite unwilling to acknowledge the reality that he has nothing to back up his claim that there are statistics to show that its a fallacy that late term abortions are done mainly to save the mother's life.
Priya -- I had the article misfiled in my "Canada Abortion" folder. Please forgive the error. Since you are from Canada, I was trying to pull out relevant data to your life. Please note that the people who track and post this type of data are normally against abortion. If you are not willing to give any credibility to those sources, then it's fruitless to post anything here.
Well, what the heck!
Partial Birth Abortion - Letter to the Editor
The Journal has informed its readers that partial birth abortion is a "rare" procedure, "typically performed when the life of the mother is at risk, or the fetus is determined to have severe abnormalities" ("Drive to Ban Abortion Procedure Slows," April 27.) But those claims, fabricated by pro-abortion advocacy groups in 1995, had been thoroughly discredited by early 1997.
The Journal said that "critics . . . contend the procedure sometimes is used in less dire circumstances." Actually, it was abortionists and their paid spokespersons who admitted that partial birth abortion is routinely used for purely elective abortions, usually in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy. For example, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told The New York Times that "in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus" (Feb. 26, 1997).
Mr. Fitzsimmons elsewhere estimated that 4,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial birth method. He expressed regret for his own role in previously propagating what he called a "party line," stating, "I lied through my teeth." The claim that partialbirth abortions are used only or mostly in unusual medical circumstances was also disproved by reporters for the Hackensack (N.J.) Record and the Washington Post, among others. These reporters interviewed numerous abortionists, who readily acknowledged that they routinely use the method for purely elective abortions.
In January 1997, the PBS media criticism program "Media Matters" treated as a case study in bad reporting the news media's earlier, uncritical dissemination of the abortion lobby's lies about partial birth abortion.
For a respected national newspaper to resurrect such blatant misinformation four years later may demonstrate how attached some journalists are to comforting myths about abortion.
Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director
National Right to Life Committee
The discussion was about abortion in the U.S. What's going on in one territory of several in Australia, or Canada for that matter, is of no relevance to what's going on in the U.S. I personally wouldn't put much faith in anything a religious conservative said - I've seen them lie far too many times to accept their statements without a secular source backing them up. The basis for religious thought is to accept conclusions without question, and then to try and find "evidence" to back that up all the while ignoring the evidence that contradicts the desired conclusion. That's why science has given us the wonders of the world and religion has given us nothing of any practical value.
"The basis for religious thought is to accept conclusions without question,"
oh, by gosh, by golly
more of Priya's folly
did you think anyone here hasn't noticed that you have preconceived notions and will not give them up regardless of the evidence?
remember your denial that inner city schools are hellholes, that al quaeda has no justification for attacking the U.S., that the Nazi party's SS in Germany was run by gays, et al
I never asserted that inner city schools were or weren't hell holes - I just noted you lack of any statistics to back up your claim.
I never asserted that Al Quaida did or didn't have any justification in attacking the U.S.
The idea that the Nazi party was run by gays is indeed laughable. The Christian reconstructionist who wrote that book has been thoroughly debunked - no reputable historian takes that idea seriously.
So, 2 out of three claims you made about what I've denied were lies. And in the third case you were lying about the facts and of course I denied that was true.
Of the 1.6 million abortions performed in the U.S. each year only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
And that was from Fox News no less! Once again bad anonymous is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. In the meantime he'd prevent the millions of children being raised by same sex couples from having the safety and security of legally married parents. No morals in him.
Here's what happens when people like bad anonymous are blinded with religion:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/05/modern_day_isaacs.php#comments
Colleen Hauser has flown the coop. She has defied a court order to bring her sick son, Daniel Hauser, to a qualified doctor for essential medical care. The boy has Hodgkins lymphoma, a disease with a very good prognosis if treated soon, but is a painful death sentence within a few years if neglected. His mother, though, is fervently religious, and no doubt smug in her righteousness, has bundled her son into a car and is devoutly driving to Mt. Moriah. I hope she's not expecting an angel of the lord to appear and spare her son.
What she has done has gone even deeper. Daniel is 13 years old; he has been tested for his competency, and has been found to be completely illiterate. He was homeschooled. Colleen Hauser has been wielding the sacrificial dagger of her faith on her son for years, crippling his brain and rendering him unable to evaluate the real-world consequences of their decisions. I wonder how many Daniel Hausers there are in this country, living lives of quiet ignorance, unexposed by the trauma of a physical disease?
And here's the real tragedy: Colleen Hauser almost certainly loves her son and believes she is doing what is best for him, every step of the way. I can identify with her in that regard — I can understand that deep, gut-wrenching love a parent can have for her children, the kind that can put you to your knees with agony at every little hurt they suffer…and Daniel Hauser faces deeper pain and an imminent threat of death that my kids have never had. But Colleen Hauser is so afflicted with the poison of religion that she has lost sight of reality, and is going to kill her son with her ignorance.
"I never asserted that inner city schools were or weren't hell holes - I just noted you lack of any statistics to back up your claim."
You asserted that it was something that still needs to be proven. It's not, not even close, and your motive is to advocate against helping disavantaged kids.
"I never asserted that Al Quaida did or didn't have any justification in attacking the U.S."
Sure you did. You said it couldn't happen to Canada because they have not given anyone a reason to attack. This is another way of stating that those who are attacked have givne their attackers a reason.
The U.S. was attacked. You're a sympathizer.
"The idea that the Nazi party was run by gays is indeed laughable. The Christian reconstructionist who wrote that book has been thoroughly debunked - no reputable historian takes that idea seriously."
Actually, all historians know Ernst Rohm, who ran the SS for Hitler, was gay and installed gay buddies in his ranks. His tactics were inspid by the sado-masochistic homosexual culture in Berlin at the time. The only open question is whether Hitler himself was gay but the circumstantial evidence is strong.
Additionally, you're now denying that the torturous death of late-term abortion victims is a mountain.
You're a vile and venal promoter of evil.
AnonBigot-
You are a perfect example of why Republicans are losing power all over the USA. Priceless.
Name-calling? That´s all you have left is name-calling? Pathetic (and very Republican of you).
you mean like calling someone AnonBigot?
Priya defends evil
diadvantaged kids suffer
stay in Mexico
Latest news about Ireland's hell-holes, AKA religious private schools
Thousands Beaten, Raped in Irish Schools
By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, AP
DUBLIN (May 20) – A fiercely debated, long-delayed investigation into Ireland's Roman Catholic-run institutions says priests and nuns terrorized thousands of boys and girls in workhouse-style schools for decades — and government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.
Nine years in the making, Wednesday's 2,600-page report sides almost completely with the horrific reports of abuse from former students sent to more than 250 church-run, mostly residential institutions. But victims' leaders said it didn't go far enough — particularly because none of their abusers were identified by name.
The report concluded that church officials always shielded their orders' pedophiles from arrest to protect their own reputations and, according to documents uncovered in the Vatican, knew that many pedophiles were serial attackers.
The investigators said overwhelming, consistent testimony from still-traumatized men and women, now in their 50s to 80s, had demonstrated beyond a doubt that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential.
"A climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys. Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from," the final report of Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse concluded.
The leader of Ireland's 4 million Catholics, Cardinal Sean Brady, and religious orders at the center of the scandal offered immediate apologies.
"I am profoundly sorry and deeply ashamed that children suffered in such awful ways in these institutions. Children deserved better and especially from those caring for them in the name of Jesus Christ," Brady said.
The Sisters of Mercy, which ran several refuges for girls where the report documented chronic brutality, said in a statement its nuns "accept that many who spent their childhoods in our orphanages or industrial schools were hurt and damaged while in our care."
"There is a great sadness in all of our hearts at this time and our deepest desire is to continue the healing process for all involved," the Sisters of Mercy said...
Actually, I left Mexico last week and am in Costa Rica for three months. Thanks.
Yes, like AnonBigot. I guess I am another example of why Republicans are losing power everywhere.
¡Pura vida, mae!
According to About.com: US Liberal Politics:
Statistics report that 12% of abortions are performed after 12 weeks (3 months) of gestation, and 1.5% are performed after 20 weeks (5 months)of gestation. Many attribute the steady decrease in the proportion of abortions performed after the first trimester to increased access to and knowledge about birth control practices and safe, legal abortion services.
In 2005, 1.2 million abortions occurred, so we're talking about 18,000 partial birth abortions per year.
18,000 is a molehill?
and to think, TTF is in an uproar about two or three confessed murderers who had water shot up their nostrils while EIGHTEEN THOUSAND American children are murdered in a torturous manner every year
The number of abortions performed in this country is way too high, especially when compared to other nations like Switzerland. That's why realistic comprehensive sex education is so important in our public schools, not only to reduce the number of unplanned teen pregnancies, but also to improve the public health by reducing the spread of STDs.
New teen mother Bristol Palin has learned some lessons the hard way and told Greta Van Susteren, "everyone should be abstinent but it's not realistic... [sex] is more and more accepted among kids my age."
And she told People Magazine, "Girls need to imagine and picture their life with a screaming newborn baby and then think before they have sex...Think about the consequences." ... Bristol gets up – usually twice during the night – to feed Tripp, who sleeps in a hand-me-down crib in her bedroom..."If girls realized the consequences of sex, nobody would be having sex". Poor kid, she wishes she'd waited 10 more years to have a child. Who can blame her?
When my kids took 8th grade sex ed at MCPS, they brought home an egg for two weeks that they had to care for like it was a newborn baby, including 2 AM feedings. That egg wasn't a "screaming newborn" but they soon got the message of how exhausting it can be to be woken up at night to tend to a tender one, night after night.
The single 10th grade class on proper condom usage recently added to the MCPS sex ed program, teaches teens how the CDC has determined all sexually active people can avoid unplanned pregnancies and STDs. This instruction helps sexually active teens as well as abstinent teens learn an important lifeskill to protect themselves and their partners from some of the negative consequences of sexual activity, whenever that may happen in their lives.
I'm glad Obama has cut the funding for ineffective abstinence-only and abstinence pledging programs like the Silver Ring Thing and it's 88% failure rate.
I'm also glad MCPS teaches teens the facts so they can make well informed decisions and hopefully avoid facing the abortion decision.
Bea, you crazy old bat, comprehensive sex ed programs have been around since the 70s
they caused an explosion in teen pregnancies that only abated when abstinence programs spread across the country in the 90s
they do worse than fail
they make the problem worse
so unborn kids are being torturously killed and you think the answer that they never should have existed but, since they do, they deserve what they get?
maybe that's the answer to waterboarding too
let's just make sure terrorists are never born so we won't have to waterboard them
if you think waterboarding is horrible and should be outlawed, at least be consistent and advocate outlawing late-term abortions and hell-hole schools without alternatives
that's right
at least, do that!
EMTPD = Electronic Multiple Troll Personality Disorder
The source for the notion that Roehm was gay and installed gays in the party is Joseph Goebbels. Read the Pink Swastika, it's all there in the sources.
A good lesson in the notion that, if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes "common knowledge".
you're wrong, Robert
the fact is established by multiple sources
don't repeat lies
This comment has been removed by the author.
I said "I never asserted that inner city schools were or weren't hell holes - I just noted you lack of any statistics to back up your claim."
Bad anonymous said "You asserted that it was something that still needs to be proven. It's not, not even close, and your motive is to advocate against helping disavantaged kids.".
Your original claim was that I denied that inner city schools were hellholes - you lied about that. Now you're "shifting the goal posts" and claiming something different - that I asserted it needed to be proven, that is a true statement for a change. In any event your claim is unproven. Your statements of certainty about your claim carry as much weight as did your statments of certainty that Mccain was going to win the election. As to my motive you're no better at reading minds than you are at predicting the future - president Hucakbee. My motive is to point out what a dishonest person you are and with your help I succeeded nicely. As Aunt Bea proved, the real hellholes are religious schools.
I said "I never asserted that Al Quaida did or didn't have any justification in attacking the U.S."
Bad anonymous said "Sure you did. You said it couldn't happen to Canada because they have not given anyone a reason to attack. This is another way of stating that those who are attacked have givne their attackers a reason.".
You lie, what I actually said was in this thread:
http://www.teachthefacts.org/2009/05/torture-is-against-law.html#comments
I said "I have no fear of [Saskatchewan being attacked]. Canadians don't give the world reason after reason to hate us."
I did not say Al Quaida did or didn't have any justification in attacking the U.S. I did not even say the U.S. had given anyone reason to hate it - you assumed that (possibly because of your guilty concience). In any event giving someone reason to hate you doesn't give them justification to attack you. Your constant lies about LGBTs and attempts to oppress them give me reason to hate you, but that doesn't give me justification to physically attack you.
As to your laughable assertions that gays controlled the millions of heterosexual Nazis who murdered gays, that's so preposterous as to not even need any debunking.
Bad anonymous said "Additionally, you're now denying that the torturous death of late-term abortion victims is a mountain".
I'm not denying it - your buddies at Fox news are denying it, you've always asserted that they are the voice of truth, you even quoted them as such in this very thread.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html
There's your statistics, less than 100 third trimester abortions out of 1.6 million. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
"As Aunt Bea proved, the real hellholes are religious schools."
Catholic Ireland is a far cry from the U.S.. Catholic schools are much more secularized in a place like that where there is no seperation of church and state.
Religious schools in America are a haven of safety in the inner city.
I'd say come visit and see for yourself but the State Dept should not let someone with your hostile views of America into the country.
That's a good one bad anonymous - Catholic schools aren't religious. Thanks for the laugh.
And I'll decline your offer to visit. I'd never go to a country that doesn't adhere to the rule of law, imprisons people without trials, and doesn't have equality and freedom for all its citizens.
And let's see some statistics to back up your claim that American religious schools are a "haven" - I won't hold my breath.
that's right, Priya
when the state and the church are intermingled, a secularization takes place
glad you won't be visiting but please hold your breath
Two problems with your excuse bad anonymous.
One the religious right in the U.S. have long sought to deny that there is a seperation of church and state in the U.S. The situation in Ireland is exactly what they're trying to bring about in the U.S.
Secondly, if the problem with the religious schools was the lack of religion then the non-religious schools would be even worse - they aren't, its the religious schools that are hell-holes, not the secular ones. That blows your whole excuse out of the water. Religion makes schools hell holes.
The anonymoid asserts that Rohm's sexual orientation is established by multiple sources.
Again, he hopes by repetition that he will be believed.
Scott Lively in the Pink Swastika quotes a speech by Hitler and statements by the party after the Putsch. Lively also quotes Shirer, who uses those same tainted sources.
There are no original independent original sources that can be used for genuine history that show Rohm was gay.
Fact is, he Nazi's couldn't think of anything worse to say about him after they'd killed him. Genuine haters like Lively (and anonymous proves himself here to belong to that class) buy this propaganda in whole sheets, because they also can not think of anything worse to say about the Nazis than that they were gay. Shirer felt the same way, vastly reducing the credibility of his work.
The Anonymoid, on the other hand, has no credibility.
I bet he has bad hair, too.
You're right Robert. That was a popular way to attempt to smear and discredit your enemies back in Germany at the time - claim they were gay. Nowadays right wing christinists like bad anonymous attempt to smear and discredit gays in a similar way - by claiming they were Nazis.
Ironically, one of the most prominent right wing Christian oppressors of gays is a Nazi sympathizer - Paul Cameron.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,020.htm
Its no surprise that Nazi sympathizer Paul Cameron is a Christian, or that current neo-nazi groups are christians, all the Nazis themselves were devout christians as well as the millions and millions of every day Germans that brought them to power.
In their shame right wing christinists nowadays try to deny the Chrisitanity of the Nazi party and laughably claim that gays ran it, however, unfortunately for them, unlike with the gay claim there is a huge amount of historical documentation (to put it mildly) demonstrating the Christianity of the Nazis from Hitler on down:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
they caused an explosion in teen pregnancies that only abated when abstinence programs spread across the country in the 90s
Wow! That's great fiction Anon, but what you mean to say is that in 1990, abstinence was added to sex ed programs that covered contraceptives and so abstinence-plus sex education was born. Abstinence-plus sex education means information about both abstinence and contraception is included.
In contrast to Anon's spin, here's some actual data from the CDC that shows what happens when part of comprehensive sex education is withheld. The decline in teen pregnancies and teen births that had been remarkably steady from the 90s continued uninterrupted until a few years after Bush began insisting abstinence-only should be taught and the contraception component of comprehensive sex education should be either ignored or maligned. The CDC analyzed recent teen pregnancy, birth and contraceptive data and found:
NCHS' 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) shows trends in behaviors underlying the reductions in U.S. teenage pregnancy rates through the early 2000s. During 1995 to 2002, the percent of female teens who had ever had intercourse declined significantly (among ages 15-17) or was stable (among ages 18-19). During the same time period, the percent who used contraception at last sex rose from 71 to 83 percent. According to recent data on high school students from CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2007), increases in contraceptive use and decreases in sexual activity stopped after 2001. These may be among the factors accounting for the upturn in teenage birth rates in 2006. Findings from Cycle 7 of the NSFG (available in late 2009) are expected to help explain the most recent trends and variations in pregnancy rates and the behavioral, social, and economic factors that account for them.
We don't want sexually active teens to use contraception less. We want them to do what the CDC recommends -- to properly use a condom for every instance of sexual contact.
Frankly, I don't much care whether Rohm, or Goering, or Hitler were homosexual. But if any of them were, it certainly would be a reasonable hypothesis that the suppression and self-loathing that can result from societal forcing of people into the closet might have contributed to their twisted, evil personalities.
"I bet he has bad hair, too."
Quite a petty remark from the Lex Luthor of TTF.
"There are no original independent original sources"
Robert, you're going all historian on us. Rohm's sexuality is as established as any historical fact. In 1931, the Munich Post published letters of Rohm's where he discussed his sexual realtions with other men.
Here's Wikpedia on the topic:
"SA intimidation contributed to the rise of the Nazis, breaking down the electoral activity of the left-wing parties. But the SA's reputation for street violence, heavy drinking, and quasi-socialist radicalism was a hindrance.
Another hindrance was the more or less open homosexuality of Röhm and other SA leaders such as his deputy Edmund Heines. Many writers have suggested Röhm and Heines allowed or encouraged SA promotions on the basis of sexual liaisons with themselves and other SA leaders."
Of course, there are books (plural) that discuss this but I just quoted wikipedia to show that this is a commonly known fact.
You could try to debunk it, Robert, but the burden is on you, and your motive is obvious.
"During the same time period, the percent who used contraception at last sex rose from 71 to 83 percent"
Actually, not much of a rise, and it coincides with the spread of abstinence programs. Probably just caused a general awareness of the need for caution. CDC doesn't say if these users were also in comp sex ed classes.
Truth is kids all know about condoms already. When teachers at school bring it up, they turn off.
"Frankly, I don't much care whether Rohm, or Goering, or Hitler were homosexual. But if any of them were, it certainly would be a reasonable hypothesis that the suppression and self-loathing that can result from societal forcing of people into the closet might have contributed to their twisted, evil personalities."
That's a legitimate argument to discuss, David. The point is that Priya, and apparently Lex, are just in denial.
Bad anonymous said "Truth is kids all know about condoms already. When teachers at school bring it up, they turn off.".
Yeah, right. And they never heard of abstinence and get all perked up when someone brings it up.
You're a joke. And a liar. Bea's got the stats to prove abstinence only is a failure. You're just whistling in the dark.
And I might add that while people can speculate about a sexuality of Roehm's we'll never know, one thing we do know for certain, he was a devout Christian like all the Nazis and their millions of German supporters.
The Wikthipedia page on Roehm is a terrific example of why teachers warn students away from using it as their primary source: the last time I checked, that page used Scott Lively's "The Pink Swastika" as it's primary source. Right. It's like having to rely on Suetonius as your major source for info on Caligula or Nero.
Lex Luthor gets a bad rap from the pro-Superman media. He was a good-looking man.
That anonymous refers to me as Lex highlights the basic inequality involved in his commenting here: he's seen me and knows what I look like, because I admit who I am, but he is a shadow-figure, the archtypal troll. I wonder again what his purpose in composing about half the comments on what is an otherwise very interesting blog.
My conjecture is that he remains anonymous because he has bad hair.
Roehm's homosexuality is a given, accepted by most historians, Robert.
You decided to bring up the hair attack so don't try the victimization routine. Actually, the bald look seems more prevalent these days than the long hair look.
btw, Lex is a much more sympathetic character in the early episodes of Smallville, a TV show based on an alternative universe from the original Superman story. If you haven't seen it, they repeat the shows without commercial interruption on local HD cable. The show kind of does for Lex what Wicked did for Elphaba.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates supports President Obama's plans to close GITMO and place its detainees in US super-max prisons. Salon reports:"May 22nd, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Obama administration had no choice but to order the shutdown of the prison at Guantanamo because "the name itself is a condemnation" of U.S. anti-terrorism strategy.
In an interview broadcast Friday on NBC's "Today" show, Gates called the facility on the island of Cuba "probably one of the finest prisons in the world today." But at the same time, he said it had become "a taint" on the reputation of America.
Gates has served both President George W. Bush and now Barack Obama at the Pentagon. In an interview taped Thursday aboard the retired World War II-era battleship USS Intrepid, the defense secretary said that once the decision was made to close Guantanamo, "the question is, where do you put them?" He said Obama would do nothing to endanger the public and said there has never been an escape from a "super-max" prison in this country.
Of criticism the president's plan would jeopardize people's safety, Gates said: "I think that one of the points ... was that he had no interest whatsoever in releasing publicly detainees who might come back to harm Americans."
Gates said that "we have many terrorists in United States' prisons today," and he decried "fear-mongering about this."...
Crazy old Aunt Bea. Nothing if not consistent. Only in America will you find such delicious irrationality.
On the right, politicians decry Obama's hypocrisy in maintaining Bush policies. On the left...well, they feel pretty much the same way.
Yet, Aunt Bea stands like a lunatic tower unwavered by the gales of fact.
love it:
Krauthammer
"If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush.
Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.
Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government.
Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e., slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e., the surge) -- and now Guantanamo."
Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus -- to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.
The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over.
When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.
That's happening before our eyes.
The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians.
Obama is doing it day by day.
His denials mean nothing.
Look at his deeds."
WSJ, today:
"President Obama delivered a major speech yesterday on how he intends to prosecute the war on terror (or whatever it's now called), and in particular his desire to close the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay.
As rhetoric, his remarks were at pains to declare a bold new moral direction.
On substance, however, the speech and other events this week look more like a vindication of the past seven years.
The 90-6 vote on Gitmo in the Senate was especially notable because all but a half-dozen Democrats opposed their own President, on that high-minded principle known as not-in-my-backyard.
Then there is the voluble Jim Webb, who in January said Mr. Obama had offered a reasonable timeline in ordering Guantanamo closed in a year. But now the Virginia Democrat opposes closing Gitmo anytime soon while observing to ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday that "We spend hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions in Guantanamo to try these cases. There are cases against international law."
That was the Bush Administration's point all along.
Yet for all of his attacks on the Bush Administration, which he accused of making "decisions based upon fear rather than foresight," Mr. Obama stuck with his predecessor's support for military commissions, adding some procedural bells and whistles as political cover to justify his past opposition.
For the record: Both the left and right, from the ACLU to Dick Cheney, now agree that the President has all but embraced the Bush policy.
Mr. Obama's most remarkable Gitmo sleight-of-hand was on the matter of how to handle the hard cases, those who Mr. Obama said "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people." After acknowledging this was "the toughest issue we will face" and pledging that he would not "release individuals who endanger the American people," the President proposed . . . well, he didn't really say what he'd do, except that whatever it is must be "defensible and lawful."
No wonder the ACLU is in a tizzy.
Which brings us back to Guantanamo.
The President went out of his way to insist that its existence "likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained," albeit without offering any evidence, and that it "has weakened American security," again based only on assertion.
What is a plain fact is that in the seven-plus years that Gitmo has been in operation the American homeland has not been attacked.
It is also a plain fact -- and one the President acknowledged -- that many of the detainees previously released, often under intense pressure from Mr. Obama's anti-antiterror allies, have returned to careers as Taliban commanders and al Qaeda "emirs."
The New York Times reported yesterday on an undisclosed Pentagon report that no fewer than one in seven detainees released from Gitmo have returned to jihad.
Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design.
He's the one who announced the end of Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with, or where to put, KSM and other killers.
Now he's found that his erstwhile allies in Congress and Europe want nothing to do with them.
Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
I wonder when everyone else will get bored and stop commenting, leaving anonymous to talk in a room all by himself?
I myself am not bored yet, but it does get old and tiresome. He thinks he's smarter than everyone else (also straighter, more godly, maybe, more moral?).
Alas, for the lonely trolls.
All the bit about Rohm, my friends, is a great example of how prejudice feeds on itself. If you don't like queers, you grasp and believe everything that is pejorative about them. If you don't like George Bush or Dick Cheney, you kinda go for the stuff that reinforces your beliefs. We all listen to, watch and read media that make sense to us it's explains the continued financial success of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Fox, the National Review and the Wall Street Journal. I think, however, that the Dartmouth Review was a largely subsidized endeavor. Exodus and other ex-gay groups can't support themselves from payments or gifts from their successes, which are too few, and must be subsidized by those who see them as anti-gay props.
Our own little anonymous is a great study in how minds can be closed, and the walls of such prisons reinforced and held up by their own inmates.
Bad anonymous said "Roehm's homosexuality is a given, accepted by most historians, Robert".
Another baseless claim. As Robert demonstrated, the wikipedia page you mentioned is based on the Pink Swastika, a book written by a Christian reconstructionist - a group that favours putting gays to death. Clearly anyone with that agenda will do anything they can to foment hatred against gays - lying is a trivial thing to that group.
What we do know for certain, and ALL real historians agree is that Roehm, Hitler, and all the Nazis were devout Christians. It is their Christianity itself that motivated the holicaust:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
I'll be honest, Priya, I find blaming Nazism on Christians as unpleasant as blaming it on gays. Even if one proves that Hitler were a Christian, blaming all Christians for his heinous acts and twisted mind are like holding me responsible for Perez Hilton's bad manners.
I hear you Robert, but I'd say one cause is much more likely than the other.
Robert
I never have blamed gays for Nazism. I think the particular gay culture in between wars in Germany was a contributing factor but that's not the point.
I pointed this out months ago only in response to Priya continually trying to argue that Christianity was responsible for Nazism.
I brought up now because Priya was on one of those jags, denying facts that are inconvenient so I was using it as an example.
Bad anonymous said "I never have blamed gays for Nazism".
You lie. You repeatedly claimed that if it weren't for alleged gays leading the SA that the Nazi party would have never gotten off the ground.
The New York Times reported yesterday on an undisclosed Pentagon report that no fewer than one in seven detainees released from Gitmo have returned to jihad.
Mr. Obama called all of this a "mess" that he had inherited, but in truth the mess is of his own haphazard design.
Excuse me? What is wrong with you? Can you only lie? Is the truth alien to you somehow? How many detainees has Obama released from GITMO? Two, one to Britain and one to France. The 500 detainees already released from GITMO were released by the Bush/Cheney administration, including every one of the 61 who are reported to have "returned to jihad."
Tell us again why Gitmo should be closed?"
How soon they forget.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Obama administration had no choice but to order the shutdown of the prison at Guantanamo because "the name itself is a condemnation" of U.S. anti-terrorism strategy.
And remember, Obama won't be "releasing" GITMO detainees so they can "return to jihad." He's considering sending them to other nations for "detention and rehabilitation" and putting them in super-max prisons that have never had a single escape, and which could mean 100 new jobs would come from filling the prison, a real boost to this small, beleaguered community of Hardin, Montana.
I personally would rather no one went around blaming non-responsible groups of people for Nazism. The Nazis were for themselves, and neither Christians nor lgbt should be maligned because of them.
Post a Comment
<< Home