Wednesday, March 7, 2012

“Post-Birth Abortion”. . . Seriously

Let’s talk about a shocker from the British Medical Journal. In a recent BMJ edition, Oxford University’s Francesca Minerva, a medical ethicist, and Alberto Giubilini, a bioethicist from the U. of Milan, argue in favor of “post-birth abortion.” Specifically, they advocate a right to kill newborn babies if they are disabled, unwanted, or if they would be too expensive for the family. Yes, you read that right.

Here is their argument:
1. Like an unborn child, a newborn has yet “to develop hopes, goals and dreams.” Thus, while the newborn is human, it is not yet “a person – someone with a moral right to life.”

2. In the case of disabled children. . . while the child may be happy, it will not reach the full potential of a normal child: “To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole. . . On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.” In other words, if you aren’t perfect, your don’t have a right to live.

3. Parents, siblings and society have goals that could be affected by the arrival of the child, and those goals should take precedence over the child’s rights. Therefore, “post-birth abortion” is justified if the mother “no longer has the time, money or energy to care for” the child.
Wow, chilling.

The abortion movement has always hidden behind the idea that fetuses aren’t “alive.” Ergo, aborting a fetus is not like killing a child and abortion is no big deal. This argument has worked to the extent we have been unable to define when life begins. That’s why many people are indifferent to early-term abortions, but oppose late-term abortions because the more the fetus looks like a human the more likely it is to be alive. That’s also why partial-birth abortion was such a disaster for feminists because no one could help but grasp that this was a child being killed.

But now Minerva and Giubilini lay bare the real thinking behind the pro-abortion position. They don’t care if the child is alive or not. All that matters to them is the economic progress of the mother.

Moreover, the mental gymnastics Minerva goes through are stunning. First, she redefines life to have value only if a person has “hopes, goals and dreams.” But that’s not really her test because babies have hopes, goals and dreams, as does my dog. What she’s really saying is life only has value when people have “hopes, goals and dreams” which she considers worthwhile. That is a justification for mass murder of undesirables.

And while she limits this to newborns to make her theory seems less dangerous to readers, the fact is her logic does not account for an age limit. Indeed, what difference does it make using her test if someone is 6 weeks, 6 years, or 6 decades old? If they don’t have the right “dreams”/goals to be considered human, then logically there is no reason they couldn’t be exterminated using her same justification. The sick, the infirm, those on welfare or without useful skills, or even old people who are beyond trying to achieve their goals could all be exterminated using her logic.

She also really twists herself to dismiss adoption as an alternative. Indeed, if the mother doesn’t want the child, why not just give it up for adoption? Well, Minerva says we can’t do that because adoption could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Think about that. There is no psychological distress with killing your child, but there would be psychological distress in letting someone else have it. How sick is that?!

What she’s really worried about is that unless the doctor exterminates the child, the mother might want to keep it, and that would expose the atrocity of her theory once the mothers realized that these newborn things actually turn into people that matter.

Not surprisingly, our Hitlerian genius Minerva was shocked at the negative reaction, which included death threats. Boo hoo. She claims that her argument has been “taken out of its academic and theoretical context” and that she’s not advocating this policy. But the fact is, she is advocating this by issuing a paper in which she claims this is an ethically/ philosophically correct position. Whether she likes the backlash or not, she has tried to justify infanticide and she even provided the euphemism: “post-birth abortion” (as if you could abort something that has already happened).

Remember this the next time some abortion advocate tells you they only support abortion because “it’s not alive.”

70 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

great post, Andrew. You are right, it is chilling. I had not heard of this one. I wonder if the feminazi's have remained silent on this one? This morning in Knoxville, we have this old liberal war horse op-ed writer Ina Mackey Hughes with the News Sentinel jumping on the anti-Rush "slut" bandwagon. Dick Morris, I think, did a great job early on of seeing the administration/media link between the new meme attacking Republicans as anti-women's birth contro; and health because pro-abortionists were losing political steam

Joel Farnham said...

This has been the end point abortionists and liberals have been advocating for. The logical end to their arguments. Why is it being put forth now?

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I read about this the other day and posted it on Facebook with a question for my liberal friends: "What was that about the "slippery-slope fallacy"? Apparently, not a fallacy." I got no responses.

Knowing academics as I do, I have no doubt Minerva was being very sincere in voicing her surprise at the backlash. The phrase "ideas have consequences" is one of the last things you will ever hear in the ivory tower; they must be given their intellectual freedom, without any concern for what effects might come of their words. This is the black culmination of the far-left radical feminism that pushes abortion because it hates motherhood.

tryanmax said...

As father of an autistic daughter, this makes me physically ill. Because of our increasing nanny-state, far too often does it cross my mind that I may one day have to literally protect her from the likes of Minerva.

tryanmax also said...

The notion of the slippery slope "fallacy" is a sort of fallacy itself. The slippery slope only becomes a fallacy if it is extended too far or made to connect things that have no reasonable connection.

StanH said...

Sadly, this is the natural extension of unencumbered abortion. However, this is also the natural extension of socialism, they have reached the point of no return. They are attempting to save their useless asses by extermination, Adolph would be so proud.

BevfromNYC said...

Yes, I read this last week. Now those doctors who perform late term abortions that end up with "live birth" problems can be justified in just killing the "fetus". Eventually it will no longer be illegal or "murder" as I like to call it. Obama must be thrilled as this is what he advocates.

I am always curious to ask, who gets to decide a baby's worth?

Tam said...

These people are sick. And Tryanmax, would your life be better without the burden of your daughter? Or would you move heaven and earth to protect her and help her realize her hopes and dreams? Just as I would do with my "normal" (I confess, that word is a stretch when referring to my kid...)"non-disabled" or otherwise "undesirable" child? Or, I don't know, has she actually enriched your life in previously unimagined ways? Something these people obviously can't comprehend. Sick bastards.

LawHawkRFD said...

The Brits have finally joined up with the American radicals on the issue. The argument put forth in their article bears a haunting resemblance to the proposal advocated by Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University, who has argued that the killing of a newborn baby, known as infanticide, should be allowable up to the point that the child develops some ability to communicate and to anticipate the future. In both cases, I think the guiding factor is that without a belief in the God-given right to live, moralists and ethicists can justify almost anything. The William F. Buckley quote that fits here is "With God all things are possible. With man, all things are permissible."

ScottDS said...

As one of the resident pro-choicers on the site, I have to say I'm disgusted by this.

Call it compartmentalization on my part or whatever but isn't "post-birth abortion" simply... murder?

tryanmax said...

Tam, as with most things in life, greater challenges yield greater rewards. I would not give up my "pumpkin" for anything, any more than I would part with my "bean" (my son).

Back to the slippery slope, my son is what they call "neurotypical" (NT), but being the younger sibling of an autistic child, he had a higher statistical probability of being autistic as well. I have little doubt that in Minerva's utopia, my son wouldn't be afforded the opportunity to be conceived, much less born.

tryanmax said...

Scott, it's only murder if you call it that. Just like modern liberals are the near antithesis of Classical Liberals, yet they still like to claim the mantle.

T-Rav said...

A friend of mine and his wife were going to have their first child several years ago. Then shortly before he was due, they learned he had some severe physical deformity which meant he could only survive a few hours outside the womb. So they prepared for it, and then following his birth, named him and spent every second with him until he passed away. It was an incredibly sad event. When I think about that, and then read bull@#$% like this--well, I have some very unpleasant words crossing my mind.

LawHawkRFD said...

Scott: About five years ago, Hillary Clinton was given a hypothetical situation. "If a partial-birth abortion was scheduled for noon, but on the way to the operating room the mother delivers the baby, is it acceptable to proceed to the delivery room anyway and perform the identical procedure to terminate the baby's life?" She actually hesitated, then said she wasn't sure about the ethics in a case like that. That's at least a partial answer to your question. Is it murder or is it post-birth abortion or is it merely completion of a scheduled partial-birth abortion (an artificial delay to what would otherwise be a normal delivery)? It depends entirely on how man has most recently defined life.

BevfromNYC said...

Rational, reasonable, loving people have to be shocked by this. At least Jonathon Swift was using satire when he suggested that we eat our children, rather than starve. This is just beyond what any civilized society should opine about even in a published "academic and theoretical context".

But, you can always look on the bright side. Only Liberals will be the one's who can and will justify killing their "post-birth" children, so less liberals...

Cruel, but true. Well, that's until it is mandated by the state who will now "own" your healthcare and health, and then the state be compelled to decide that your "pre" and/or "post-birth" baby will not be financial enhancing to the hopes, goals, and dreams" of the State.

And since I can't understand a thing teenagers say, can we stretch it to include them in the "until they can communicate" deadline? (Just kidding...maybe)

BevfromNYC said...

LawHawk, there are at least 2 doctors (one in Florida and one in New Jersey) who have been arrested and are being tried on for 1st degree murder on this very issue of botched late term abortion. Both were late term abortion providers who killed babies born live in the process of an abortion. I will spare you the grizzly details of how they completed their task...

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Jed. I hate to say this, but it wasn't as chilling to me as it should it have been I've honestly seen this kind of logic before with radical feminists.

And of course, this is nothing new historically. The eugenics movement in America long advocated something similar, though it was usually just abortion combined with sterlization of undesirables. On of our own Supreme Court Justices said Virginia could sterilize people because "three generations of idiots is enough." And it was always just under the surface that removing the poor, the sick and the undesirables would make society stronger.

Of course, Hitler and his crew did the same thing.

So while it is shocking to hear this spoken out loud, I have heard it from leftists before.

AndrewPrice said...

BTW, There's something from the original article which I left out because I wasn't sure if it was what Minerva was really saying or if it was interpretation, the idea was that doctors would be empowered to make this decision as well as mothers. In other words, the state would now decide.

Here's the link to the article where I found this: LINK

TJ said...

". . .adoption could cause undue psychological distress to the mother. Think about that. There is no psychological distress with killing your child, but there would be psychological distress in letting someone else have it. How sick is that?!" Wow what mental gymnastics liberals go through to justify their beliefs.

I was adopted as an infant because my mother had 4 children in 3 years (1 set of twins who were adopted as well), she and my father were separated and she was not able to take care of all of us (very long story there). I can tell you that my mother suffered no psychological distress whatsoever because of her decision.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, This is the logical conclusion of their argument. What Minerva has done is simply (sort of) unmask the logic -- though she's actually still not being completely honest.

If you believe the primary issue is economic rather than any sort of respect for life, then it doesn't really matter to you if the child is unborn, born or too old to be useful to society.

T-Rav said...

Jeez. I read through the Daily Mail article and unless I'm very mistaken, someone in Britain actually performed a late-term abortion a few years ago on a baby whose only defect was a cleft palate. That's....just great.

By the way, the argument being made by the editor of the journal, that "we publish articles based on their well-reasoned arguments, not their policy positions," is completely bogus. I bet I could come up with a "well-reasoned argument" defending Hitler's extermination policies, or why women need to be prevented from wearing pants or working outside the house. I guarantee you the journal would refuse to run such an article.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, I think you're right. And let me respond by numbers...

1. Your friends will not respond because this is their side getting exposed. Liberals do not accept being exposed. They usually just attack the exposer. But in this case, they can't do that so they will pretend it never happened. You watch, they'll be back to the same old arguments and will ignore this shortly.

2. A LOT of are people wrongly upset at the BMJ for publishing this. They claim that this idea is so nasty that the BMJ should have refused to print it.

I disagree. We should always be open to hearing all ideas. Why? For one thing, that's how we run across good ideas we never thought about. A lot of science ends up that way when someone challenges the conventional wisdom -- look at global warming where the establishment wants to squelch unpopular opinion.

But even more, it exposes people for what they are. In other words, if there's a Hitler out there, I would rather that they make it obvious through an article about aborting children than that they get to keep those ideas hidden.

Also, it is through the release of articles like this that people begin to rethink their stupidity. I'll bet you there is some percentage of people who believe that the pro-abortion people are acting in good faith when they say they believe in abortion because they don't see this "thing" as alive. This is the kind of argument that exposes the abortion lobby and makes those fence sitters think again.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That's absolutely true. The article actually had an interesting history of infanticide where they pointed out that it was required in Ancient Rome and Greece. The Nazis did this as well. We also had a lessor version of it (learned that in Con Law). Etc.

When you are considered nothing more than an economic input by the state, i.e. the socialist way, then it makes sense to eliminate you if you can't contribute or will cost too much.

This is the real danger of ObamaCare -- that it gets us closer to those kinds of equations where the state gets to decide who lives and dies based on the cost of your upkeep compared to the economic benefit of your life.

AndrewPrice said...

The problem with the slippery slope argument, in my opinion, is that it's too easy to ignore by claiming "this will never happen." It also lets people skip over the principle argument and assume that big things are ok so long as they don't go "too far."

T-Rav said...

Andrew, I would go further and say that in government-run schemes such as ObamaCare, it's not even that the government wants to make these decisions (though it very well might), it has to make them. Because then, it's not about taking care of people, it's about not going over-budget. (Speaking of which, the only reason Europe has been able to sustain these systems is we've been taking care of their defense since '45, so they don't have to allocate much money for that. If they did have to handle that responsibility all on their own, they would have been forced to privatize long ago.)

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

This is what the abortionists have been aiming at all along. If this argument is accepted, the next one will be. The next argument is deciding who have missed being aborted and now must be
retroactively terminated.

All who aren't liberal need not worry, they will be nice about it. First, they will sterilize all the ones who didn't vote for Obama. Next they will sterilize any foreigners who are from a politically incorrect country like Israel. Don't think it can happen here? They didn't think the holocaust would happen in Nazi Germany.

AndrewPrice said...

Stan, That's exactly right, this is the end result of socialist thinking because socialism is by it's very nature about rationing the things society creates and that implies deciding who lives and who dies. This is it in its most blatant form, but this is the same thinking which goes into everything socialism does -- are you valuable to the state?

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's the thing they always like to avoid saying because it sounds really really bad when they say it. Thus, they always cage these things in terms of "the decisions of the mother" or they put leave it in the third person: "if the child has no worth, then it must be eliminated." The truth is that the state will make up its mind. What they are saying is, "we will appoint someone to make these decisions on behalf of the state, and if the state thinks you have little value, then WE the state will eliminate YOU." That's what this comes down to.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, It is sick. It's truly sick that one person thinks they have the right to decide whether another will have sufficient value to the mother to be allowed to live. Just wrapping your head around that kind of thinking is nearly impossible unless you already see yourself as God.

Also, on your point about enrichment, I think that's the reason Minerva is opposed to adoption. If mothers keep their children, then they will realize how horrible abortion would have been and they will turn on Minerva and her friends. So it's better, politically speaking, to make sure the doctor eliminates the evidence so the mother can't realize what is being suggested.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, moralists and ethicists can justify almost anything....

That's really the problem here. When you divorce yourself from any sort of moral code, then anything is possible. It's a matter of garbage in, garbage out.

Indeed, her logic is fine, except it starts with the assumption that life is not life, life is only life when it attains some higher level of sophistication. Thus, this makes perfect sense to her. But I could use the same logic pattern to say that the killing of clowns should be allowed by simply defining life as anyone without an instinct to become a clown.

In other words, she has assumed a definition of life with no basis and the rest flows from there. And in the process, she has exposed the real thinking on the left about the "value of life." Life is not precious... certain life is precious. That's how mass murder always begins.

Individualist said...

Andrew

In ancient Rome if a new born child was thought to be "weak" the parents would drown the baby in a river.

I guess my next question does Minerva want to abandon Christianity and go back to worshipping Appollo, Venus and Zues....

Nevermind....

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, It is murder, pure and simple. But the prolife movement would argue that all abortion is murder. The dividing line is where you think life begins.

If you think life begins at the point the child first breathes, then this is murder, but abortion isn't. If you think life begins at conception then any abortion is murder. Some people have argued for the point of viability.

That's the real question.

But what this woman has done is to expose the radical feminist agenda, and this is nothing new, it's just rarely spoken outside of academic circles: she doesn't see life as the issue. For her the trump card is always the economic status of the mother.

The reason for this is that radical feminism equates economic success with political power and it wants women unencumbered of "the curse" of children so they can spend their timing winning political power. It's a twisted belief, but you will see it in other forms across the left.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, I think the fact Minerva invented a euphemism proves your point. How can you have a post-event abortion? You just can't "abort" something after it happens, just like you can't abort a fetus after it is born and becomes a child. At that point, you are terminating a child. If she was being intellectually honest, she would have simply said, "infanticide is justified when..." or "child-termination."

But liberalism is never honest about these things. Liberalism hides behind false labels and pleasant words which often mean the exact opposite of what is really going on.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's a sad story.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I remember that moment and I remember Hillary struggling to figure out the answer. That should have been a no-brainer if she really believed the idea that abortion is just about terminating a "non-life." The fact she had to hesitate really showed that she didn't see the issue that way and she was more concerned with the mother's right to be rid of the child rather than any concerns about life.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, We should be shocked, except it's not that shocking if you've kept up with the arguments made by the left over the decades. They really see people are tools of the state/collective and if you don't have value to the state/collective, then there's no reason to keep you around.

What Minerva is talking about here is the extension of that. Her argument will be aimed almost entirely at poor people and other undesirables.

In terms of this getting rid of liberals, that would be true except that they will argue this needs to be a decision made by "experts," who will then decide whether or not you are capable of raising this particular child. So what it comes down to is the kind of nightmare scenario envision in science fiction where the state literally gets to decide who lives and dies and who gets to procreate and who doesn't.

In terms of teenagers... I would not be opposed to that idea. ;)

AndrewPrice said...

TJ, Mental gymnastics is the word for this. What Minerva is doing is trying to justify a decision without saying what's really on her mind. Thus, she reaches for BS arguments like this and it doesn't really matter that they are wrong so long as they sound like they could be right. All she really wants is to put a respectable spin on her position.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's true. The idea of free and open speech in these journals is one-sided. They use it when they get caught doing something that upsets people, but they ignore it when they want to keep out arguments they don't like.

Still, I think the idea of free and open speech is a good one, no matter how stupid the theory.

Ed said...

Wow, this is nasty stuff. Thanks Andrew.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's true, and that's something a lot of people don't get -- it doesn't take evil motives for government to do evil. Even in a system where no one wants to kill anyone, if they don't have the money to keep everyone alive, they will let people die to preserve the system.

And knowing this will be a problem going in, because socialism always results in scarcity, it's easier for them if they can spin certain ideas into people's minds about the need to keep costs down. Hence... abortion of high-cost children and euthanasia of high-cost elderly. It's all part of the same instinct, to keep costs down so the system can continue.

You're right about Europe. They've also been living by draining the savings they've collected for centuries. But now they've written too many checks and it's all starting to fall apart.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That is the end result. When you systematically breakdown the belief that life requires protection, you end up with a scenario where people start introducing all kinds of ideas about how certain people should not be allowed to exist. It's the inevitable consequence deciding that you're going to play God.

darski said...

Totally unrelated. I just lost service at BIG sites. would this likely be a DOS attack. I can't believe they are maintaining the site in the middle of a Wednesday just after launch

ScottDS said...

darski -

Yeah, I can't get on either. Looks like some more kinks that need to be worked out.

ScottDS said...

Andrew -

You'll probably disagree, but this is why, when Obama said such matters were "Above my pay grade," I kinda sympathized with him. I'm not saying he was right to use that specific phrase but I understood the sentiment.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, The article actually discussed that. They mentioned that in Ancient Rome and Greece the parents left the children to die of exposure if they had defects.

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome Ed. I figured this was one people should know about.

AndrewPrice said...

darski, I had the same problem last night and just now. But I did get on early and nothing had been updated article-wise, so I'm assuming they are doing some sort of maintenance. I don't think they've worked out the kinks yet.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

The question still isn't answered. Why is this getting out now? All it will do is lose votes in the next election for liberals.

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew said "Still, I think the idea of free and open speech is a good one, no matter how stupid the theory."

"We should always be open to hearing all ideas. Why? For one thing, that's how we run across good ideas we never thought about...[b]ut even more, it exposes people for what they are."

I am in absolute agreement. That's what a free and open society is and what "free speech" means.

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, I would agree except that was rhetorical only. He says life and death is above his pay grade, yet he plunges the government into making more life and death decisions such as rationing healthcare. Also, he's the one who tried to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion, and it's his Justice Department that is going after pharmacies that won't carry the morning after pill, and he's the one trying to force taxpayers to foot the bill for other people's abortions.

That pretty much puts the lie to his claim that this is somehow a matter for individual conscience, doesn't it?

What he's done is say the right thing while doing the exact opposite. That's a long-time liberal trick at this point on issue after issue.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, It's getting out now because a British newspaper brought it out. It's been nowhere to be seen on the American news.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Thanks! I would much rather have a world in which people are allowed to freely speak their minds so we know what people truly believe than live in a world of euphemisms and secret plans.

Knucklehead said...

These are the Utilitarians. What adds to the greatest "overall" happiness is what is best. Since babies, mothers, "unwanted" or imperfect people make them unhappy they would prefer such things be eliminated.

Yet another academic excuse for authoritarian control of society. After all, who but they are able to judge what leads to the greatest level of overall happiness?

These people infest our institutions. They are people like

http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/

IIRC, Obama has one of these modern-day eugenicists on his staff or well positioned within his Obamacare apparatus.

AndrewPrice said...

Kuncklehead, Very true. This is not a philosophy which is grounded in questions of "right and wrong," it's a philosophy based on "better or worse" without any sense that some things are simply off-limits.

And you're right, these people are all over academia, and the Obama administration.

Here's your link: LINK

BevfromNYC said...

And the next logical step. What to do about those genetic imperfections that do not manifest themselves until later even into adulthood...now we get into eugenics for real and sterilizing those who may carry defective genes.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, That's exactly the next logical. And think about all the implications of that.

For one thing, why cure diseases like MS when you can just kill people who have it.

What exactly is a perfect human being? What if you're too tall or too short or "the wrong race"?

This is the problem with this kind of thinking. Once you decide that life doesn't deserve respect just because it's life, suddenly you open the door to all kinds of nasty thinking which eventually leads to the extermination of those the people in power don't like.

tryanmax said...

Speaking of mental gymnastic, I don't know if this argument is found in the article (I can't bring myself to read it), but a common pro-abortion argument is that defining an unborn baby as a full-fledged human being effectively makes women slaves to the state. But if that is true, the expectation that a born child should be raised is the same.

Minerva's argument fixes that inconsistency, but her argument is based on fiscal reasons. If people are regarded primarily for their fiscal value to others, then that by default makes every person a slave of the state.

For that matter, if one person has the power of life and death over another, the latter individual is de facto a slave. Minerva is advocating freedom through slavery.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, She doesn't really go into that. For one thing, the article about her position doesn't give her full theory. So she might actually go into that and I wouldn't be able to say.

But for another, she seems to come more from the school that being a slave to the state is a good thing. She is making the very brutal economic argument that some children are simply too expensive to the family AND THE STATE and thus should be eliminated.

In fact, I would guess that if you brought up your argument to her, and she was being honest, she would ask why slavery mattered because we are all essentially slaves to the state whether we admit that or not... so let's be smarter about how we handle our slavery.

Individualist said...

"Indi, The article actually discussed that. They mentioned that in Ancient Rome and Greece the parents left the children to die of exposure if they had defects."

These are the same people that state that the Tea Party are out of touch for paying attention to the US constituion right? You know that document that's like over 100 years old.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, But the Constitution stops us from doing bad things, so it's irrelevant. Looking back on the dark and darker ages allows us to do bad things. So that's ok.

Doc Whoa said...

Andrew, You may not think this is shocking, but I do. This is really shocking. How can anyone look at a child and think "eh, go ahead and kill it."

Patti said...

I saw this last week and couldn't believe what I was reading. When I posted the link on facebook, a friend said they thought it was satire at first.

nope. not satire.

hitler would be so proud.

AndrewPrice said...

Doc, It's not that I don't think it's shocking, it just that I've seen this before. This is nothing new for the left.

AndrewPrice said...

Patti, It almost seems like it would need to be satire, but it's not.

T-Rav said...

It's both shocking and not entirely surprising. Seriously, I always suspected that we were going to get here one day. I just wasn't sure it would come in this manner. It reminds me of something I once read in an editorial column--to paraphrase, "The real mad scientists are not the drooling, wild-haired hunchbacks who cackle as they tell their plans. They're the professional-looking, articulate researchers with multiple degrees who look you in the eye and calmly suggest murder or gruesome experimentation as though they were reading it off a clipboard."

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, That's always the case. Hollywood and fiction love to portray bad people as maniacal. But they really aren't. They tend to just be people who have lost their moral compass and see very evil behavior as an acceptable way to achieve their goals. That's why so many people can't recognize evil when they see it.

Graham said...

Andrew, Thanks for pointing this out.

rlaWTX said...

T-Rav: excellent point about the "mad-scientists".

I saw this somewhere and posted it on my facebook. I didn't get the responses I expected from my choice cousins...

But I agree that it is basically a logical extension of the under-lying, hush-hush reasons.

AndrewPrice said...

You're welcome Graham

AndrewPrice said...

rlaWTX, My guess is that liberals will do their best to pretend this was never said.

rlaWTX said...

very true...

Post a Comment