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
Who’s error led to the misspelling of “niece” in the graphic?
I’m not sure of the physiology exactly…. I prefer my answer to the problem because it is…an empirical answer, rather than just a theological one.
Also, my answer satisfies my moral sense that a fetus at the point just before birth is verydifferent from a one-celled embryo.
The best description of the physiology of the miracle that is human birth I think was posted on Ricochet some time ago. The answer is neither theological nor empirical – it is metaphysical. Watch the video and try to answer the question, “What is it that changes the nature of a fetus from a ‘what’ to a ‘whom’?” Throughout gestation, the changes are ones of degree, not of kind. Everything necessary for a human is present at the time of conception.
Yes, the embryo is very much different than the baby, but the difference is one of degree, not of kind. By your own admission, no one can point to the moment of humanity. That is because it is not metamorphosis; it is simply growth.
A rhetorical device? Perhaps. But how does one get someone confident in error to reevaluate their position?
To make your argument, Larry, you must equate humanity with intelligence. If you claim that you need a functioning brain to be human, you’re therefore locked into the premise that the definition of humanity requires intelligence.
Two obvious problems with that. First, there are some people who are universally recognized as human but who do not display intelligence, either at all or fully; e,g., people in comas, or those who are developmentally impaired. Second, other entities display every definition of intelligence but aren’t human; higher level animals, or artificial intelligence.
You can’t accuse others of being dogmatic and then offer nothing but your own beliefs; after all, that’s the essence of dogmatism. You may be convinced of it, but your conviction isn’t enough. It also isn’t enough to base your argument on “something empirical,” because you still have to justify why your empirical evidence matters.
Think about it – we can measure that the fetus is an organism developing as an individual entity, not as a part of the mother. We can plainly measure that. Why is that any less “empirical” than a brain?
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.
Why not go for the really simple answer and draw the line at killing humans? That is an objective line.
History is full of examples of people deciding this or that human was enough of a non-person to be killed on less justification than themselves.
And why people don’t fight IUDs– and other abortion inducing “birth control” methods– as fiercely as mutilating born children is the same reason that you try to stop the gushing blood before you set a bone.
It seems to me that, in our society and most of western civilization, once a critical mass of people (say 20% or so) believe that a class (women, blacks, asians, etc.) actually qualify as persons, there is no turning back. Furthermore, modern people almost have difficulty understanding how people ever thought otherwise. Considering 45%+ believe a fetus is life, we are well past that critical mass and there is no turning back. I am cynical by nature, but, mercifully, abortion appears to be in death throes (which might still last 10-15 years).
I admit there could be some gray area as to whether a fetus qualifies as a “person” in the objective sense, but I couldn’t imagine believing that the law should tolerate something that half (or more) of citizens believe to be murder. Would I fire a bullet at a screen if half the members of a random sample of people believed that there was a person on the other side?
Is it okay if we sound a bit testy?
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. ·21 hours ago
I watched it.
For several days, as I have been re-Tweeting Mollie’s interrogatories to reluctant journalists, this story has kept me in a state of sadness. But as I watched, this video brought me to tears. Bless you, Dave, for writing this post. Bless you, Mollie, for doing your part to bring this horrific tale into the public conscience.
Watch the video. Weep for the victims.
Unfortunately, though, my point has been lost here. My comment was a plea for measured discussion that accepts the possibility that reasonable minds can differ on this subject. In particular, I object to citing Dr. Monster as the poster boy for the pro-choice position. ·6 hours ago
I don’t think Dave was doing that above (although perhaps some commenters are). I do think that Gosnell should be the poster boy for the “elective third trimester abortions are just a decision reached by a woman and her doctor” crowd. Our current President is a member of that crowd.
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. ·8 hours ago
Are you familiar with Peter Singer? I find his philosophy to be repugnant, but perhaps you have a different definition of sentience than the one he uses.
Re: #72, Bearing in mind that Dr. Singer’s philosophy didn’t apply to his own mother, who suffered from dementia…
Only moderately testy, and only during off-election years. At least that’s the rumor. Not that I listen very well…
We wouldn’t want to offend the sensibilities of those who dismember babies for fun and profit.
When asked about it, he claimed that the emotional charge and lack of hardship to not killing/abandoning her was the reason he didn’t apply his theories where the rubber meets the road.
Larry3435,
You ramble without focus. A rhetorical intellectual veneer doesn’t constitute or add to serious matters. Life defines itself, not you. Take your “measured discussion” to the leftie blogs. Or, read Jonah Goldberg.
Hope I don’t get thrown off this thread for speaking emotionally-laden truth.
Unfortunately, though, my point has been lost here. My comment was a plea for measured discussion that accepts the possibility that reasonable minds can differ on this subject. In particular,I object to citing Dr. Monster as the poster boy for the pro-choice position.·6 hours ago
I don’t think Dave was doing that above (although perhaps some commenters are). I do think that Gosnell should be the poster boy for the “elective third trimester abortions are just a decision reached by a woman and her doctor” crowd. Our current President is a member of that crowd. ·1 hour ago
Correct call, Greg. My primary focus is Gosnell, though that leads to the question of how many other similar “clinics” are out there. Now, the Goebbels reference was directed at the feminist who, as I said, looked this evil in the eye and said, “…we can continue to assert our right to do it anyway…” I find the inhumanity breathtaking.
Gosnell may not be the poster boy for the pro-choice crowd,…but they sure have been awfully quiet about him.
Edited 3 hours ago
Only moderately testy, and only during off-election years. At least that’s the rumor. Not that I listen very well…
But we can’t have a discussion about how we, as a society, intend to deal with such cases if we restrict ourselves to individual moral answers.
As far equating intelligence with humanity, I am not talking about intelligence but sentience, and I am not equating it with humanity but with moral worth.
OK, but again, why is sentience the basis of moral worth? Why isn’t being biologically human sufficient to be treated as morally human?
—
Obviously, the parameters of these arguments aren’t new. Philosophers have wrestled with them for many years. The idea that we could all “solve” this problem if we only settled down and respected each other simply overlooks the rational discussion that has been happening for many years.
But at the same time, we must admit that calm discussion alone won’t solve this issue. It’s a clash of values, and such conflicts aren’t created by immature emotion or disrespect. Therefore, calls for more maturity and respect aren’t the solution.
But we can’t have a discussion about how we, as a society, intend to deal with such cases if we restrict ourselves to individual moral answers.
As far equating intelligence with humanity, I am not talking about intelligence but sentience, and I am not equating it with humanity but with moral worth.
OK, but again, why is sentience the basis of moral worth? Why isn’t being biologically human sufficient to be treated as morally human?
. . .
Liberals view humans as a virus on the planet.
They worship the creation, not the creator, so there is no moral worth in being human.
I guess we should be glad that Larry views some moral worth in being sentient.
Unfortunately, though, my point has been lost here. My comment was a plea for measured discussion that accepts the possibility that reasonable minds can differ on this subject. ·23 hours ago
While of course I do not know anyone’s motivations to a certainty, I suspect that the following lies behind this line of argument: the premise that a measured, rational discussion is politically healthier than an angry one. The premise behind that might reasonably be that angry discussions lead to the type of political environment in which people get killed. The premise behind that might be that killing people is bad. That last premise starts to sound awfully pro-life.
While this discussion has been heated, I would submit that a heated political discussion is OK as long as it maintains an ethical foundation. Pro-choice advocates have failed to provide much, if anything in the way of an ethical foundation for their views.
As far equating intelligence with humanity, I am not talking about intelligence but sentience, and I am not equating it with humanity but with moral worth. And yes, I do think that higher level animals have moral worth. Most people think so. I think even Michael Vick has figured that out by now. ·23 hours ago
The trouble with arguing that sentience is the characteristic imparting moral worth is that sentience is basically an emotional, rather than a rational category. Put another way, the claim is that if the person doesn’t feel bad about being killed, it’s OK to kill him or her. This premise is, to put it mildly, at least as dangerous as a heated discussion.
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.
And please be aware, and I say this with the utmost respect, there are some of us who consider ourselves to be on the side of liberty and humanity and yet, and yet, somehow we don’t believe that every fertilized egg is morally indistinguishable from a sentient human being…. And speak your mind — I would expect no less. But with moderation. Too many of my family died in the holocaust. Don’t come at me with Goebbels.
So true. Comparing the Nazis to us is unfair to the Nazis. The Nazis slaughtered only 16 million innocent human beings; we’ve killed over 55 million.
KC,
I don’t think I am being dogmatic, since I am not trying to convince anyone of my position and I am perfectly willing to accept that people of good faith may disagree with me. In fact, I think a reasonable case can be made for drawing the line anywhere from conception to birth. (And in the case of certain lefties, I am willing to consider the argument for the 200th trimester.) I don’t claim to have the one truth. I only claim to have found an answer to a thorny moral problem that satisfies me.
As far equating intelligence with humanity, I am not talking about intelligence but sentience, and I am not equating it with humanity but with moral worth. And yes, I do think that higher level animals have moral worth. Most people think so. I think even Michael Vick has figured that out by now.
Unfortunately, though, my point has been lost here. My comment was a plea for measured discussion that accepts the possibility that reasonable minds can differ on this subject. In particular, I object to citing Dr. Monster as the poster boy for the pro-choice position.
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 areevil. 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….
Millions of babies are being killed by the most barbaric means imaginable. Their bodies are being cut to pieces inside their mother’s wombs all without benefit of anesthesia. God forbid that anyone should sound “intolerant” or “shrill” when discussing such practices, or that we should describe them as “evil.”
And, Professor, with heat comes light! I appreciate your insights. ·8 hours ago
Actually I am not a professor, but I thank you for your comments. We are all blessed to have Ricochet as a forum in which to engage in these conversations.
What an interesting debate!
I’ve concluded that there is a limit to the power of intellectual analysis and that the underlying truth of this issue remains inviolate: life endures and enjoys a God-given aura of protection. After five web pages of comment and erudite analysis, this is where we end up. Professor Rahe loves life, but others assign qualifiers or limiting conditions.
Too bad Larry3435 wouldn’t engage. I was eagerly anticipating witnessing him auguring in.
And, Professor, with heat comes light! I appreciate your insights.
Too bad Larry3435 wouldn’t engage. I was eagerly anticipating witnessing him auguring in.
While I recognize that there is probably nobody left around this thread to read this, I will comment. I “engaged” as much as possible. I explained my position, and eventually got tired of being attacked for it. You can’t really argue an issue with someone who considers their position to be a self-evident truth. If you decide that it is axiomatic that a cell becomes “human” at the moment of conception, then you can argue that you are “pro-humanity” and anyone who disagrees with you is “anti-humanity.” Trying to argue with that line of reasoning is as silly as trying to argue with some feminist who thinks the whole debate is about “men trying to control women’s bodies.”
I suppose it is easy to be very sure of one’s self, if one does not question one’s premises or acknowledge even the possibility of valid counter-arguments. However, there is not much there that is worth “engaging.”
My response to your argument that sentience should be the standard for personhood is given in an earlier post: Star Trek Meets a Thought Experiment.
Richard,
The violence done in your Star Trek hypothetical was done not to the egg but to the mother. While I do not accept the premise that a single cell with no brain is “human,” I certainly accept that it can have its mother’s love.
Here is another thought experiment. Imagine a person who has had his brain surgically removed, but whose body is kept alive by technology. The body is in all other respects human, but it has no brain. I would concede that the body should be treated with respect due any corpse. But in my view it is a corpse, nonetheless.
Cooking and eating an egg does do violence to the egg. You’ve still by-passed the point that the egg represents nascent sentience/personhood (hortahood?).
Agreed that brain dead is dead. However, a body with no brain clearly has no potential of becoming sentient, so it still sidesteps the question at issue.
If you decide that it is axiomatic that a cell becomes “human” at the moment of conception…
No one now personally decides that at the moment of conception the cell becomes human. Science has established that, at the moment of conception, a complete and separate-from-the-mother human DNA is created. This is called a zygote. It is now a human being with potential not potentially a human being. This is based on science using reason and rational thought not on some form of relativism.