Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Price of Utopia
“This is a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution of a doctor who’s done nothing but give (back) to the poor and the people of West Philadelphia,” announced defense attorney Jack McMahon in his opening salvo before reaching his anti-climactic climax, “It’s a prosecutorial lynching of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.” The prescription of racism having thus been written, most of the media took their meds and went dutifully to sleep. The only thing missing were a few New Black Panthers to stand guard at the courthouse and Eric Holder could have short-circuited the legal process altogether. But something’s gone amiss here as the dark side of utopia slowly comes into the light.
We weren’t supposed to see the milk jugs, juice cartons, and pet food containers that held the remains of 45 human beings, nor the jars of severed babies’ limbs. In our supposedly enlightened age, when even the language is sanitized so as to avoid offending the advanced sensitivities of people who expect us to pay for their contraceptives, we weren’t supposed to gaze into a decidedly unsanitary and blood-stained doctor’s office, where broken and unwashed medical instruments were used amidst the stench of urine and scattered cat feces. In an age when received wisdom instructs us that government knows best and is therefore entitled to regulate everything from mud puddles in our back yards to the air we breathe, it really wasn’t intended that we learn of the studied regulatory neglect that resulted in semi-literate high school dropouts posing as medical professionals, administering anesthesia to young women and performing “snippings,” (the act of jamming scissors into the base of a child’s skull and killing him/her by “snipping” the spinal cord). No, realities of this order were suppose to be subsumed into the hazy euphemism of “choice,” and “reproductive rights,” thereby denying us entrance to Dr. Gosnell’s office, where according to one former employee:
If… a baby was about to come out, I would take the woman to the bathroom, they would sit on the toilet and basically the baby would fall out and it would be in the toilet and I would be rubbing her back and trying to calm her down for two, three, four hours until Dr. Gosnell comes.
In an age in which the mere mention of the word “Chicago,” sends the tender racial sensitivities of Chris Matthews into apoplectic fits, an abortion clinic in which white women were kept in the cleanest rooms and seen promptly by the doctor, while black and Asian patients waited for hours in filthy rooms evidently sends no alerts, nor anything else, down the “journalist’s” famous leg. Then again, perhaps he can be excused on the basis that he’s been busy peering over the heads of Allen West, Herman Cain, Condoleeza Rice, Mia Love, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Thomas Sowell, et. al., in his never-ending quest to locate Republican Racism.
“Margaret Sanger,” according to pbs.org, “devoted her life to legalizing birth control and making it universally available for women.” The benign biography covers the approved highlights of Sanger’s life, such as the fact that, “In 1914 she coined the term ‘birth control’ and soon began to provide women with information and contraceptives,” and concludes happily ever after by observing that, “…after more than half a century of fighting for the right of women to control their own fertility, she died knowing she had won the battle.” A battle against who? Well, PBS would rather not say, because to do so would again expose progressivism’s dark side, which includes a quote from Ms. Sanger herself when she wrote Dr. Clarence Gamble in 1939 that, “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten the idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” One supposes that Chris Matthews would pass out cold if he heard that sentence, but one wonders if it would be from the savage inhumanity of the idea or because it undermines the progressive agenda?
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control,” wrote the woman whose work led to the birth of Planned Parenthood, though I rather doubt the quote will make its way onto the organization’s website. Instead, you’ll learn that:
For nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.
In fact, the closest we get to Sanger’s admonishment that, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it,” is the comparatively straightforward analysis of writer Heather McNamara. “Dr. Gosnell ended the lives of some fetuses, which, left alone, would have become cute little bouncing pink babies in adorable outfits,” she writes. (Question: Do they become human only after the purchase of “adorable outfits,” or after they begin bouncing?) With brutal candor, Ms. McNamara continues:
Now is the time when we, as feminists, can show we’re not afraid to confront the difficult and unpleasant realities of abortion — the disturbing bloody images, the fact that sometimes women don’t actually have a Very Good Reason to be seeking one, and even the unfortunate physical and emotional consequences that sometimes follow. Once we acknowledge that these things are there and real and unpleasant, we can continue to assert our right to do it anyway, and in doing this, remove their power over us.
Why, Joseph Goebbels himself couldn’t have said it any better! Ms. McNamara at least does us the honor of her honesty, showing vastly more fortitude than Barack Obama, who voted against laws banning infanticide while in the Illinois Senate while explaining:
That if that fetus, or child, however you want to describe it, is now outside of the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think it’s non-viable but there’s lets say a movement or some indication that they’re not just coming out limp and dead that in fact they would have then have to call in a second physician to monitor and then check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved?
How’s that for courage? How’s that for decisiveness? How’s that for meandering pablum designed to obfuscate and mask the issue of infanticide with a layer of rhetorical fog thick enough to blot out the sun and everything under it, including the gore and butchery of Kermit Gosnell’s clinic?
Of the Gosnell story, Ricochet member Matthew Gilley writes, “So are the social conservatives still supposed to sit down and shut up?” To which one answers, no sir, it is the duty of anyone with even a semi-developed conscience to not only speak up, but to tear down the curtain of double-speak and amorphous dissimulation behind which the ghastly costs of leftism speaks for itself. As soon as the President is through carrying survivors of the Sandy Hook massacre on Air Force One, in his effort to disarm the American citizenry, perhaps he can haul the survivors (few though they may be) of Dr. Gosnell’s tender care (including relatives of the women who died following botched abortions) to Capitol Hill and deploy them on a mission to make infanticide as unacceptable to the ruling class as a Big Gulp is to Michael Bloomberg. For that matter, why not take the families of the victims of Fast and Furious on a similar flight, or the survivors of the Benghazi attack?
And as long as they were in the neighborhood, couldn’t the President at least ask Jay Z and Beyonce to take the surviving family members of the 166 Cubans who, according to the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission, “…were executed and submitted to medical procedures of blood extraction of an average of seven pints per person,” by Fidel Castro’s government and fly them the hell off the island? Well, of course not! The reason, of course, is that initiatives of that order would not advance the agenda of the left, an agenda that seeks always to minimize the individual, depriving him of life and liberty in pursuit of a future that is fictional, while employing tactics whose horrific and deadly price must be shielded at all costs. We, on the side of liberty and humanity, must remain relentless.
Published in General
I sometimes wonder if those who catalogue the woes of a shrinking tax base/burgeoning entitlement programs should see the picture of “Baby B” and myriads of others like him…children of God and citizens whose potential will never be known.
Thank you, Dave and all of Ricochet!
This so-called doctor is obviously a monster. But to cite him as proof of a larger political point is a tactic typical of the left, and not worthy of our side. ·46 minutes ago
The larger political point is that advocates of “reproductive rights” essentially gave this monster a green light. As a society we need to take a look at the facts of this case, get real, and call evil what it is.
And I surmise Larry3435 that the women murdered, butchered and treated worse than cattle in charnel house conditions are also somewhat less than sentient human beings. Maybe we could identify them as Untermenschen and that would make the practice acceptable? Maybe we could return to the Roman form of abortion practice which allowed fathers to kill their children up to the age of two because they weren’t considered to be sentient citizens yet. The current mass murder of viable babies and vulnerable women would make Dr Josef Mengele green with envy. Words matter. It is time to end the carnage.
I was being facetious…kind of.
How is that different than us? ·in 0 minutes
If you raise your voice, the Gestapo will not come for you. We still have free elections, and we can still put up a fight. ·22 minutes ago
Gosnell is a monster, obviously.
Forgive me for being obtuse. But since I’m thoroughly used to the murderous nature of the left- which has liberally sprinkled the planet with mass graves- what really grates me about this story is the utter incapacity of the Republican party to offer an effective political response.
President Barry should have been forced to defend his warm embrace of infanticide by Mitt Romney as part of the recent presidential campaign. I suspect the swarms of female Obama supporters might have been a little less enthusiastic about him if they had known he thought shoving scissors into the skulls of newborn babies was a fine idea.
In fact I think pointing this out is yet one another of the myriad ways by which Romney could have won election, if the reaction of my wife when I picked up a pair of scissors and explained partial birth abortion to her is any indication.
She was unhappy. And if those swarms of Julias hankering for that sweet government cash only knew what they were actually voting for many of them would have been unhappy, too.
And many of them wouldn’t have voted for Barry, either.
I wonder, in light of that, what she would think about Planned Parenthood, the organization she helped found?
No voice could ring more powerfully than Dave Carter’s – in damning the evil laid before us. ·32 minutes ago
With the greatest of respect, Trink, and appreciation, the most powerful voices are those of the women whose lives were permanently scarred. ·2 hours ago
Dave. You are the warrior. I haven’t the courage to watch it.
I hope we can keep the fight up. It is very challenging to fight against people who certainly appear to have no shame.
Our society has long since set the proper conditions. Given all of our mega-city incubators for such mischief, do you really think only one such case has evolved?
…
Oh, I suspect that this is not an isolated case. And I suspect that the MSM fears that very possibility. If they pull at the threads of this incident, all the others might unravel as well and what would that do but expose the grisly cynicism of “reproductive rights?” A lot depends on the perpetuation of that particular euphemism, and its most vocal adherents know it.
Enough with the “we live under a tyranny” stuff. It’s just an excuse to wail and gnash our teeth. And we know how well that works out.
My original comparison of us to the German Volk of the 30s and 40s had more to do with their (and our) silence of the monstrous actions rather than comparing the doctor to the Nazi experimenters.
This so-called doctor is obviously a monster. But to cite him as proof of a larger political point is a tactic typical of the left, and not worthy of our side.
Dave has never needed my help so this has more to do with my understanding of your posting than defending Dave.
It seems that you are not.
The original was a simple observation that the longer an online conversation goes, the more likely it is that Hitler will be mentioned.
It was only later that those who could not defend against comparisons– such as systematic slaughter of dehumanized persons, often based on eugenic theories– decided to claim that the first to mention the Nazis loses.
Getting very tired of the “you’re just like a Liberal” accusation from people who can’t be bothered to answer an argument but want to shut those who disagree up.
In fact I think pointing this out is yet one another of the myriad ways by which Romney could have won election, if the reaction of my wife when I picked up a pair of scissors and explained partial birth abortion to her is any indication.
She was unhappy. And if those swarms of Julias hankering for that sweet government cash only knew what they were actually voting for many of them would have been unhappy, too.
It’s not 100%.
I’ve tried. A sizable number simply refuse to believe things as simple as the Obama infanticide law information, let alone what’s involved in an abortion.
Most ironic reaction: “That can’t be true, or it wouldn’t be legal.”
While we admittedly don’t live under a tyranny, the comment was a reflection of me not being thrilled with how our Republic is functioning at the moment. The refusal of the public to see what went on with Gosnell is somewhat related to the fact the his actions aren’t that far from Obama’s voting record. And our leader certainly has demonstrated at least some behavior of someone with tyrannical tendencies. And wailing and gnashing of teeth (re: well placed complaining) was part of what brought Gosnell to the limelight.
So, yes, we don’t live in a tyranny, but we do live in a plutocracy. And our system (governed by the wealthy elites) is doing every bit as bad as one would expect from such a system when it comes to caring for vulnerable women and children (case in point: Gosnell). Ironically, the more the government tries their version of help, the worse it gets.
While we admittedly don’t live under a tyranny, the comment was a reflection of me not being thrilled with how our Republic is functioning at the moment. The refusal of the public to see what went on with Gosnell is somewhat related to the fact the his actions aren’t that far from Obama’s voting record. And our leader certainly has demonstrated at least some behavior of someone with tyrannical tendencies. And wailing and gnashing of teeth (re: well placed complaining) was part of what brought Gosnell to the limelight.
So, yes, we don’t live in a tyranny, but we do live in a plutocracy. And our system (governed by the wealthy elites) is doing every bit as bad as one would expect from such a system when it comes to caring for vulnerable women and children (case in point: Gosnell). Ironically, the more the government tries their version of help, the worse it gets.
I suggest a compromise. Let’s call_it “nascent_tyranny.”
I wonder, in light of that, what she would think about Planned Parenthood, the organization she helped found? ·44 minutes ago
Well, she died the year the NOW was founded and the abortion push began in earnest.
The late Charles Colson once said
That’s around the same number as illegal immigrants since Roe v Wade and their kids, isn’t it?
It’s not 100%.
I’ve tried. A sizable number simply refuse to believe things as simple as the Obama infanticide law information, let alone what’s involved in an abortion.
Most ironic reaction: “That can’t be true, or it wouldn’t be legal.” ·
Ugh. I’ve had the exact same response.
Especially re your last sentence. And it isn’t legal. It did me no good at all to point out that those laws are essentially dead letters, unenforceable, because of R. v. W.
My take is that vast swarms of people are comforted by their warm cozy assumptions about the law, figuring that since infanticide should be illegal, it is, and thinking no more about it.
But reality is different. And the GOP should point that out.
The leftist media certainly won’t tell anyone about it.
Excellent work Dave. I especially appreciate the Margaret Sanger quotes. Very informative to those unaware.
They are far off in the calendar, next year in fact, but very good ways to participate and show the country just how many people are pro life.
Who knows, they could be used as Ricochet meet-ups.
http://www.marchforlife.org/
http://www.walkforlifewc.com/
I have volunteered at the Walk For Life West Coast the past few years. A very well run and well attended walk. It’s a very uplifting experience.
Dave, The “first to mention Hitler” axiom is not a principle of logic, but of rhetoric. It says that over-the-top rhetoric is not persuasive to those who disagree with you. My comment was a plea for moderation in rhetoric. Not because I want you, or anyone here who agrees with you, to abandon your core principles, but because you do not do your principles justice by this kind of argument.
When I talk to lefties, it is always striking to me that they do not accept that people of good faith could possibly disagree with them. If you disagree with them, you are evil. That is how they think.
In stark contrast, my experience has been that our side tries to persuade with reason and facts. Except, unfortunately, on those few issues where morality intersects with sex or reproduction. On those issues, our side becomes (to my ear) shrill, dogmatic, and intolerant of opposing positions. And our side’s rhetoric on those issues tar our brand. This is the reason that our side is seen as intolerant, when anyone should be able to see that the intolerance is on the other side.
I should add that over-the-top rhetoric can certainly draw cheers if you are preaching to the choir. People who agree with you that an egg becomes a human being at the moment of fertilization will certainly agree with your argument.
But think for a moment about people, like me, who do not believe that this single-celled organism is morally indistinguishable from a sentient human being. Telling us that we are cheerleaders for mass murder is not the kind of argument that is likely to sway us. On the contrary, it is a turn-off.
Admittedly, nothing is likely to sway me on this. I have thought about it long and hard, and I have reached the conclusion that a fetus is not human until it develops a functioning brain. That is where I draw the line. I recognize that people of good faith can disagree with me.
The fact that some lefties turn a blind eye to Dr. Monster is not a brush you can use to paint me. Not everyone who accepts abortion under some circumstances is can be thrown into that cauldron.
Larry 3435,
You seem the perfect mouthpiece, similar to all those apologists who’ve existed throughout history, who try to ameliorate the harshness of what is true Fascism. Such a stream of weasel words. Don’t even begin to argue with me unless you’ve read and understood Jonah Goldberg’s remarkable treatise on Fascism. Aren’t we to never forget!?!?
“Moderation” in the face of unmitigated evil is cowardice!
And, Larry 3435,
I comment on online content about once a month, so don’t even try to write me off as a hack or troll. You really got my dander up. Let’s try truth! Let’s not nestle in comfy rhetoric.
Larry, again with respect, Kermit Gosnell operated a butcher shop. If that isn’t evil, then the word has no meaning. This isn’t about sex or reproduction. It’s about slaughter, murder, and racism,…traits which, I again state with or without your indulgence, also animated the monsters of the Holocaust.
As for shrillness, according to one of Gosnell’s former employees, one of the infants born alive screamed. “I can’t describe it,” she said, “It sounded like a little alien.” I appreciate your forthrightness, but respectfully submit that it is that child’s shrillness which should register as horrific to your ear.
“Reason” requires us to process those “facts” and call them what they are. My core principles, which you presumably don’t want me to abandon, require me to fight this head on and without equivocation.
We cannot follow in their footsteps. ·4 hours ago
Too late, we already have.
That is an interesting perspective. And this isn’t a “gotcha” question at all, I’m genuinely curious; at what point, in terms of time frame and operational criteria, would you say a functioning brain develops? As an aside, and speaking of functioning brains, have you heard one of Nancy Pelosi’s speeches lately?
Margaret Sanger’s work was often cited as “international acknowledgment” by the Nazi authorities as to the legitimacy of it’s racial policies.
Read these two posts before proclaiming it out of bounds:
Wrongful Life and The Regressives
Regarding Herr Goebbels:
I don’t think he would have used words like “unpleasant” or “disturbing” to describe images of murdered babies (provided they weren’t Lebensborn babies, of course) – or at least he wouldn’t personally have found such images to be disturbing. I do think he would agree with suppressing revulsion at man’s inhumanity to man (or children, in this case), in the name of the Cause – Goebbels was intelligent enough to know that you can’t build a nation out of natural sociopaths, so the sociopathy must be drilled into people.
Thus
It’s a strange sort of freedom that Ms. McNamara is groping towards.
Admittedly, nothing is likely to sway me on this. I have thought about it long and hard, and I have reached the conclusion that a fetus is not human until it develops a functioning brain. That is where I draw the line. I recognize that people of good faith can disagree with me. ·1 hour ago
What do you define as a functioning brain? Are you talking about the end of the second trimester, or something earlier?
What do you define as a functioning brain? Are you talking about the end of the second trimester, or something earlier? ·5 minutes ago
I’m not sure of the physiology exactly, although the brain is pretty clearly not capable of thought or self-awareness during the first trimester. Even in the face of some uncertainty, though, I prefer my answer to the problem because it is a formulation that is susceptible of an empirical answer, rather than just a theological one. I don’t know when a soul enters or develops in the fetus, and I don’t know how anyone could answer such a question with any certainty. A brain, however, can be perceived and measured.
Also, my answer satisfies my moral sense that a fetus at the point just before birth is very different from a one-celled embryo. I think others share that moral sense, since pretty much everyone condemns Dr. Monster, but I never hear a peep about IUD’s. You know how an IUD works, don’t you?
As an aside, and speaking of functioning brains, have you heard one of Nancy Pelosi’s speeches lately? ·1 hour ago
Not if I can help it, and don’t even get me started on Maxine Waters, but by “functioning” I don’t mean functioning rationally. I mean something closer to self-awareness. “I think, therefore I am.” That kind of thing.