Post-natal abortion (infanticide)

NORTHAM: If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

Here’s the backstory and commentary via Rush Limbaugh. But the video of the Governor of Virginia interviewed on radio demonstrates beyond all doubt that this is exactly what he said. The subsequent wish to clarify and explain has arisen only because of the fire this has lit, but not even remotely within the mainstream media.

I have only gone back to this, which is from January 30, because I have met people who have never heard a word of this, and will not believe it could possibly be true. I suspect it would not undermine their support for the left and the Democrats since there are more important principles at stake – don’t ask me what. The only evidence that the left is perfectly aware how barbaric this is comes from the fact that this kind of information is already hard to find on the net. If the Governor of Virginia is mentioned at all, it is only because when he was 25 years old in the 1980s he appeared in a photo either in blackface or wearing a KKK bedsheet when he had just graduated from med school, since which time he has been a paediatrician.

As for the health of the baby, this was also discussed at the link:

A tweet here from an MD and MBA, Omar Hamada . “I want to clear something up so that there is absolutely no doubt. I’m a Board-Certified OB/GYN who has delivered over 2,500 babies. There’s not a single fetal or maternal condition that requires third-trimester abortion. Not one. Delivery, yes,” all kinds of conditions that might require delivery, but, “Abortion, no.”

The “consent” of two doctors is the kind of formality that is all pretence. How a baby can get to full term and only then at the ninth month discover some deformity is so improbable that it is just said to confuse the debate. At least till now, and possibly for a bit into the future, that there is something radically wrong with the child remains the cover story for murdering babies.

And if you are looking for another take on this same thing: Modern philosophy, untethered from morality, is just nihilism in fancy dress. There you find:

The reality is that, without a moral construct, philosophy is simply a way to intellectualize whatever outcomes one prefers. That’s why Peter Singer, an endowed philosophy chair at Princeton University, can argue that parents should have a 30 days period after their baby is born to decide whether or not to kill the baby, a position even more extreme than that espoused by the average abortion-obsessed Leftist….

When I raised Singer as an example of the selfish, morality-free nihilism that passes for modern philosophy, the other people involved in the conversation were quite sure that I was making things up in order to justify my arcane, impractical conservative views. Then, when I offered to send them links proving Singer’s viewpoints, they hastily declined that offer. They did not want to know.

The reality is they do not want to know. They think being on the left, and being able to self-identify as socialists or some such thing, makes them nice people. In actual fact, it turns them into monsters, but self-satisfied monsters.

WE DON’T EVEN KNOW THE HALF OF IT: AND HERE IS SOME OF IT.

Planned Parenthood kept aborted babies alive to harvest organs, ex-technician says

Pro-life group releases 7th undercover video

In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthoodpersonnel and practices.

David Daleiden, the video project leader, said the undercover footage and interviews show that fetuses are sometimes delivered “intact and alive” before their organs are harvested.

The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says that when a child is born alive, including having a beating heart, he or she is a legal person and has a right to lifesaving medical care.

More at the link if you can stand it.

This entry was posted in Politics of the Left. Bookmark the permalink.

285 Responses to Post-natal abortion (infanticide)

  1. iain russell

    Look on ‘post-term abortion’ as a return to Country and the ancient ways of the TO, where unwanted babies had their heads dashed on the nearest rock. Caring and sharing indeed. So ‘family’.

  2. The Left continues to consider the merits of infanticide. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Consider that about 2021 you might be reading a story like this:

    “Any child who’s 30 years old and still living with their parents is obviously a non-viable life form, and that’s between the parents and their doctor to discuss options,” said one representative defending a new bill. “The millennial can be kept comfortable in the basement while the mother decides if she wants to keep them. But that’s between her and her doctor.”
    “Her basement, her choice,” he added.

    Medical professionals can use early detection methods to try to spot signs of non-viability in the millennial’s development, like getting a useless college degree, eating quinoa and avocado toast, and wearing a man bun. But sometimes, parents just aren’t sure until very late in gestation, like by the time they are 30 or 35 years old and still don’t have a job.

    “At that point it’s a humane option,” a medical doctor who has performed dozens of millennial abortions said. “It’s a quality of life issue, not an issue of morality or murder.”

  3. Enyaw

    IT IS PLAIN AND OPEN ,,,BLOODY MURDER ….MURDER of a little helpless child …Jesus please please stop them .

  4. stackja

    Stalin was ‘caring’.

  5. stackja

    Nuremberg defendants only involved a few thousand deaths? And the guilty were hung. Today they would be lorded?

  6. Bruce

    “Retrospecive abortion”: coming soon to a country near you.

    See also: “Pre-emptive euthanasia”.

  7. Ivan Denisovich

    The only evidence that the left is perfectly aware how barbaric this is comes from the fact that this kind of information is already hard to find on the net.

    It’s not only fake news but also what is ignored that makes much of the msm the enemy of the people.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jdmullane/status/322525542605799425?lang=en

  8. Trax

    Call it for what it is: child sacrifice
    If it is all about the mothers choice and mothers body then it is sacrificing another life for that ideal.

  9. Karabar
    #2930636, posted on February 11, 2019 at 1:30 pm

    Top notch.

    Actually that would be much more just and humane because the millennial would have been given the choice of moving out and getting a job.

  10. pbw

    40 days for life is coming up.

    Only Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth have campaigns.

  11. Bruce of Newcastle

    I’m not sure which of these two headlines I saw this morning is the most hilarious.

    Ralph Northam: As a doctor, I can help Virginia heal

    Gov. Northam: ‘I Am Not Going Anywhere’ — Virginia Needs Someone with a Moral Compass

    Sounds like the Dems have decided to go with the devil they know instead of the gardener.

    (h/t Tom this morning. 😀 )

  12. a happy little debunker

    Didn’t Eric Cartman’s mother try something like this – in her 43rd trimester?

    the infant would be resuscitated if

    So how long do they wait before the infant stops breathing?

  13. Alan

    TRUE. Virginia Legislative Information System
    HB 2491 Abortion; eliminate certain requirements.
    Only requires ONE physician. See paras § 18.2-74 & 18.2-76
    Abortion includes “the product of such abortion or miscarriage” whereupon actual “termination” can be delayed until AFTER “permission is given in writing”.
    Introduced by: Kathy K.L. Tran (Dem) – House District 42
    http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HB2491
    (You may need to copy / paste the link to your address bar)

  14. Whalehunt fun

    False. There is one condition where post-natal termination is justufied. If the child or either parent is a socialist.

  15. Jock

    Recall that the DEmocrats were the party of Eugenics so post partum abortion should not be a surprise. What better way to control the black population so the Latinos can take over.

    A very crude policy. Whu not just adopt the method used in Ancient Greece? Chuck the deformed babies from a mountain? Let me guess….being killed by two doctors is more humane?

    Dont get me wrong. I am not anti abortion. Mind you in this modern pill age I am surprised it is still so common. However surely there has to be some limits on the procedure?

    In terms of the Democrats, it is unfortunate that retrospective abortion is not available for some of them.

  16. Iampeter

    But the video of the Governor of Virginia interviewed on radio demonstrates beyond all doubt that this is exactly what he said.

    Beyond all doubt that he said what? We should have infanticide? Did you even watch the video you linked?
    Here’s the relevant bit at about 1 min mark: “and its done in case where there may be severe deformities, where there may be a fetus that is non-viable.
    The coverage of this has been so incompetent and dishonest that we can plainly see that conservative media is as bad or worse than CNN.
    Northam should be taking legal action for defamation.

    I have only gone back to this, which is from January 30, because I have met people who have never heard a word of this, and will not believe it could possibly be true.

    Because it’s not true. Your own links show it’s not true, you know it’s not true, but you posted this anyway, because you’re an incompetent hack.

    How a baby can get to full term and only then at the ninth month discover some deformity is so improbable that it is just said to confuse the debate.

    Except conditions like preeclampsia or hydrocephalus are known to cause complications that may require aborting the fetus to save the mothers life.
    Not to mention the more generic complications with blood pressure, infection, etc, that could lead to the same outcome.
    This is common knowledge. This is why I’m so appalled by the breathtaking ignorance, routinely on display at the CatallaxyFiles. I can understand some teenager not knowing anything about the world, but how did you get to your advanced age and not pick anything up? Have you never had kids? Has no one you’ve ever known had kids? How do you casually not know about the complications that might develop during pregnancy? Did you not think to at least google some of this, so you don’t look like an idiot?
    No, you don’t care. You’re just a collectivist, pushing your gangs agenda, facts and reality be damned. Your feelings on the subject are all that matter.

    At least till now, and possibly for a bit into the future, that there is something radically wrong with the child remains the cover story for murdering babies.

    Abortion has nothing to do with “murdering babies.” These are the appeal to emotion arguments of the politically illiterate leftists, that dominate today’s hopeless conservative movement.
    But facts don’t care about your feelings.
    The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal, at any stage and for any reason.

    The reality is they do not want to know. They think being on the left, and being able to self-identify as socialists or some such thing, makes them nice people.

    I know you’re confused about absolutely everything, so I’m going to join the dots for you here: you are ALSO a leftist. If you think you can force someone to carry to term, then you’re no different to someone who thinks someone can be forced to pay for your healthcare. You’ve agreed with socialists on the fundamental view that individuals don’t have rights, but are just a means to some gangs ends.

    You’ve also clearly demonstrated you’re prepared to lie to advance your agenda, just like any good leftist.

  17. The BigBlueCat

    Peter Singer would be very pleased. But the worth of a human life is not determined by their utility – they have intrinsic worth just by being a human life. While the issue of likelihood of deformities has been discussed, it is also quite irrelevant to the question of whether a third-trimester abortion should even be considered.

    Put simply, a post-natal “abortion” is not an abortion, it is the killing of a child that has been born. It is fundamentally and objectively immoral to kill a child if it has been born. Kermit Gosnell is serving a lot of time for killing babies while conducting his “abortions”.

    Science has already answered the question of when human life begins to exist – specifically, embryologists have declared that human life begins at conception. Just ask anyone undergoing IVF as to when human life begins.

    To consider the moral implications of abortion, one just needs to ask the question of “what is it?” that is being terminated. The answer lies in the consideration that it is life (it grows and develops, it moves), it is human (it’s not another species), and it is not a body-part of the woman carrying the fetus (it has DNA and other features that determine it to be separate from the mother). These are the key questions when considering the morality of abortion. The fetus’ dependency on its mother is not a reason to terminate – but it is reason for the mother to nurture the life developing within her.

    Size, location or stage of development ought not be the determining factors for arguing for justfying an abortion. The unjustifed taking of another human life is called murder, isn’t it?

    Abortion is not a form of contraception – that needs to occur prior to conception!

  18. The BigBlueCat

    Except conditions like preeclampsia or hydrocephalus are known to cause complications that may require aborting the fetus to save the mothers life.

    Neither of these conditions justifies killing an unborn child out of hand. But you would be faced with a moral decision regarding what would be “the greater good”; either kill the mother, or kill the unborn child – a difficult decision to be sure.

    The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal, at any stage and for any reason.

    Yet people are frequently charged under the law for killing unborn children when the mother has determined to want the child. Your blanket statement does not stand scrutiny.

    If you think you can force someone to carry to term, then you’re no different to someone who thinks someone can be forced to pay for your healthcare.

    Women can make their own choices. The best choice for them is for them to recognise their responsibility for carrying the next generation. There are many, many stories of women on the verge of having an abortion, changing their minds, and having wonderfully happy lives with their children. But if women don’t feel capable of the responsibility, then contraception is a viable alternative. Abortion isn’t a contraceptive.

    The question lies whether or not the government should permit objectively morally reprehensible acts on another human life. What we are seeing in the US is exactly that – objectively immoral acts being enshrined as rights. As a moral relativist, you won’t see that of course.

  19. Iampeter

    But the worth of a human life is not determined by their utility – they have intrinsic worth just by being a human life.

    Exactly, which is why abortion should be perfectly legal. Human life doesn’t suddenly become cattle, as punishment for pregnancy.
    Unless of course you think humans can be forced to be incubators for other humans. You can’t oppose socialism then and you clearly don’t support the idea that human life has value.

    Put simply, a post-natal “abortion” is not an abortion, it is the killing of a child that has been born.

    Exactly. No one is advocating something that is a self-contradiction, so by definition, does not exist.

    Science has already answered the question of when human life begins to exist – specifically, embryologists have declared that human life begins at conception. Just ask anyone undergoing IVF as to when human life begins.

    Yes, we know that life begins at conception, but human life with rights, begins only at birth. You can verify this through simple observation, the most basic of “scientific” steps.
    Not to mention the obvious contradiction in equating human life with mindless tissue, devaluing it completely, in order to assign so much value to it, that you could justify sacrificing actual individuals with rights.
    In other words, if you think humans are less than plants, then you have no reason to oppose abortion anyway.

    To consider the moral implications of abortion, one just needs to ask the question of “what is it?”

    One doesn’t need to consider the moral implications to determine the legal implications. Legality is based on rights. No one has a right to be carried to term anymore than anyone has a right to free healthcare, not to mention the unborn don’t have any rights by virtue of being unborn.

    Size, location or stage of development ought not be the determining factors for arguing for justfying an abortion.

    They aren’t.

    Abortion is not a form of contraception – that needs to occur prior to conception!

    All you’ve done is just posted the usual boilerplate and straw-men arguments of today’s politically illiterate conservatives.
    This is sad.

  20. Candy

    Iampeter
    Abortion at any stage for any reason would include a junkie mother changing her mind and aborting a baby at say 8 months’ gestation so as to score more drugs without the complication of a baby.

    Kill the baby so as to get drugs. Evil priorities.

  21. Except conditions like preeclampsia or hydrocephalus are known to cause complications that may require aborting the fetus to save the mothers life.

    NORTHAM: If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

    How does killing the baby after it’s born save the mother’s life?

  22. Percy Popinjay

    “Pre-emptive euthanasia”.

    The correct term is “involuntary euthanasia”.

    Something I’m going to be practising on certain imbeciles posting on this thread.

    For their own good and society’s, of course.

  23. Behind Enemy Lines

    So, ImaPeter is on record favouring the murder of babies.

    For it is murder, plain and simple.

    We get a lot of stupid trollish weaselry from you, champ, in between the increasingly rare and fleeting moments of sane comment. For goodness’ sake show some decency and self-awareness. Be quiet, and be gone. Otherwise, it’s time for the mods to lower the banhammer on you.

    Side note: if the left gets away with this legislation in the States, they’ll finally get the civil war they’ve been gagging for. I always wondered what it would take to start it, and whether the left would be sneaky enough to boil the frog instead. Evidently not.

  24. And the next similar step will be to help families struggling with the elderly and infirm, so that they aren’t a burden to the family and society (two birds with one stone). Then of course they’ll start looking at the disabled for similar reasons.

    Fantasy? Once you approve the killing of the newborn, killing of the old, infirm and disabled is a much easier step.

  25. Ivan Denisovich

    The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal, at any stage and for any reason

    So killing one minute prior to delivery is licit but one minute after delivery is illicit?

  26. Iampeter

    So, ImaPeter is on record favouring the murder of babies.
    For it is murder, plain and simple.

    No, it’s not. To murder a baby, you would have to first give birth, so abortion cannot do such a thing.
    No amount of appealing to emotion will turn your contradiction into fact.

    We get a lot of stupid trollish weaselry from you, champ, in between the increasingly rare and fleeting moments of sane comment.

    You’ve never gotten any trolling from me, stupid or otherwise. What you get from me is the articulation of positions from a right wing perspective. The discussion of such ideas, is the primary purpose of “Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog.” Presumably.

    The incoherent, misconceptions and uncritical regurgitation of left wing talking points, from the religious collectivists that dominate this blog, are the real “stupid trolls” who need to show “some decency and self-awareness. Be quiet, and be gone. Otherwise, it’s time for the mods to lower the banhammer on you.”

    You really have to be completely stupid to have things this backwards, Behind Enemy Lines.

  27. Except conditions like preeclampsia or hydrocephalus are known to cause complications that may require aborting the fetus to save the mothers life.
    Not to mention the more generic complications with blood pressure, infection, etc, that could lead to the same outcome.

    Preeclampsia doesn’t require aborting a baby. It requires, in the severest of cases where the symptoms cannot be managed, inducing delivery of the child or a c-section. Nor does hydrocephalus in the child require an abortion as you can simply care for the child until to succumbs to its condition.

    Abortion has nothing to do with “murdering babies.” …
    The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal, at any stage and for any reason.

    So what is it that is destroyed in utero? What is different about a 28 week old fetus that is delivered prematurely and treated in the neonatal section and the 28 week old fetus that is dismembered in utero?

    Exactly, which is why abortion should be perfectly legal. Human life doesn’t suddenly become cattle, as punishment for pregnancy.

    Curious argument. This would mean that parents ought to be able to abandon their children in the woods because parents shouldn’t be punished for parenthood.

    Yes, we know that life begins at conception, but human life with rights, begins only at birth. You can verify this through simple observation, the most basic of “scientific” steps.
    Not to mention the obvious contradiction in equating human life with mindless tissue, devaluing it completely, in order to assign so much value to it, that you could justify sacrificing actual individuals with rights.

    Nonsense on stilts. How does a change of location in week 30 of pregnancy, for instance, led immediately from mindless to mind?

    Iambeggingthequestion is certainly living up to his reputation.

  28. Crossie

    Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.

    A StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face.

    Makes you wonder somebody who can do that to a baby what else they are capable of doing.

  29. Gab

    All this clamouring about the woman’s body – it’s her body blah blah blah – but no mention about the child’s body and it’s rights. How very un-Libertarian. The child is disposable, apparently. Mengele would be proud of the pro-abortionists.

  30. Gab, Mengele very likely performed clandestine abortions in Argentina having evaded capture in 1945.

  31. calli

    Such a love of death on open display.

  32. Beertruk

    I have always liked this video. I have used it in arguments before and have pissed off a few leftards.
    Apologies if it has been posted before:
    Linky.

  33. Ivan Denisovich

    – it’s her body blah blah blah – but no mention about the child’s body and it’s rights

    Indeed, Gab.

  34. Empire 5:5

    Human life doesn’t suddenly become cattle, as punishment for pregnancy

    He is Peta.

  35. Crossie

    Gab
    #2930974, posted on February 11, 2019 at 7:48 pm
    All this clamouring about the woman’s body – it’s her body blah blah blah – but no mention about the child’s body and it’s rights. How very un-Libertarian. The child is disposable, apparently. Mengele would be proud of the pro-abortionists.

    Eventually this will be used against women in some form when they become “inconvenient”. Even worse, if you allow killing of innocents it will become a standard.

  36. Crossie

    What is even more appalling is that most of these people are vehemently opposed to the death penalty for murderers and serial killers.

  37. Gab

    Makes you wonder somebody who can do that to a baby what else they are capable of doing.

    Yes society is not heading in a good direction. Consider how they convince themselves that a baby in-utero is just “a clump of cells” even up to the second before it is born, and worse, if the abortion doesn’t succeed they just wait around until “the clump of” 9 month-old “cells” just dies. Plain murder” euphemise it all they like but that doesn’t make it morally right and it is still murder of an innocent.

  38. Nighthawk the Elder

    Is this the same Peter Singer, who wrote a paper a few years back with the idea everyone over the age of 70 needs to be bumped off to save the planet from globull worming? The greenfilth party were caught out publishing it on their website as a policy discussion topic. From memory it was John Howard who called them out and the removed all references from their website. (or more likely placed it somewhere secure from prying eyes).

    If it is the same guy, then he wants then dead at both ends of the life cycle. What is it with the greenfilth and wanting to kill people?

  39. Leo G

    Abortion has nothing to do with “murdering babies”.

    That’s what abortionist Kermit Gosnell argued. Even so, he was convicted of multiple acts of first-degree murder.

  40. Ivan Denisovich

    If it is the same guy, then he wants then dead at both ends of the life cycle

    Peter Colosi:

    Utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer says some humans—particularly fetuses, newborn babies, and elderly people suffering from dementia—should be killed if their deaths will reduce overall suffering. Never mind that Singer broke all of his own rules when his mother became ill with Alzheimer’s disease.

    https://oldarchive.godspy.com/issues/WHATS-LOVE-GOT-TO-DO-WITH-IT-The-Ethical-Contradictions-of-Peter-Singer-by-Dr-Peter-J-Colosi.cfm.htm

  41. candy

    The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal, at any stage and for any reason

    Iampeter and Harken won’t address that. It’s too awful to contemplate even for Left peoples.

    It really is N..zi stuff what the Dems are doing in America, though. Honestly, KKK pictures, rapes etc and they are not asked to resign. They will seriously accept any weirdo criminal as their leader apparently.

  42. The BigBlueCat

    The question the Governor was asked to comment on related to a baby in the process of being born, and if the law allowed an abortion in those circumstances. His response was:

    If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

    We should rightly ask “what discussion”? If the child is viable, albeit with some defect, would the law allow the mother and 2 doctors to terminate the life of the child? The answer the Governor gives implies that it would – the mother and 2 doctors can decide. His answer shows his thought process – life requires breathing, and if the child is not breathing then they might let the child die (if the mother and 2 doctors agree). But many births require the OB/GYN to do something to cause the baby to breathe … the expulsion of fluid, a rub of the chest, a slap on the back, etc. Have we sunk so low that in order for a baby to live, we have to have the mother and 2 doctors make that decision?

    Exactly, which is why abortion should be perfectly legal.

    Many cultures view the unborn as property – therefore killing the unborn results in a claim for loss of property rights. I thought you, Iampeter, might at least understand rights at the property level. We even have laws where there is criminal punishment for those who cause the death of a fetus where the mother intended on giving birth and raising the child. If we (the people) determine that the unborn human has value and therefore has a right to life, then that life should be protected by law, and it’s not unreasonable to make abortion on demand illegal.

    Exactly. No one is advocating something that is a self-contradiction, so by definition, does not exist.

    The Governor certainly contemplates the possibility of killing a child that has been born with a deformity – just listen to how he answers that specific question. His only conditions are the parent wants it, and 2 doctors agree. therefore it would be lawful. But you might also be interested in this.

    Yes, we know that life begins at conception, but human life with rights, begins only at birth.

    I disagree … rights are an expression of what we value. If we value the life of the unborn human, we can assign rights to the unborn. I fully recognise that many also don’t ascribe rights to the unborn (you certainly don’t, Iampeter). But that does not mean the right to life isn’t granted to the unborn by natural law, just that the right is ignored. If we intrinsically value human life in all forms, whether they are fully functioning, fully developed or not, then it is reasonable to attribute the right to life to the unborn. If you don’t, then eugenics (or worse) is only a short step away – there are many (eg Peter Singer, the neo-Marxists, actual Nazis, etc) who believe that there is a benefit of killing those who have no utilitarian value to society, and they certainly view the unborn and the handicapped in that way, and feel no emotion in their disposal.

    In other words, if you think humans are less than plants, then you have no reason to oppose abortion anyway.

    But I don’t think that. I hold to the Judeo-Christian worldview that places very high value on human life, and I oppose abortion on demand specifically but I also recognise that there are some rare circumstances that might require an abortion for medical and even ethical reasons. Your words seem to make out I do think “humans are less than plants” … please be careful.

    One doesn’t need to consider the moral implications to determine the legal implications.

    Perhaps you might consider the moral implications of breaking the speed limit, for instance. The legal implications are clear. Some would argue that speeding isn’t in-and-of itself a moral consideration – there just happens to be consequences associated with a sudden stop from high speed. But I accept that the law is there to protect me and others from “danger” (be that a fine, injury or death). In your worldview, the universe doesn’t care if I speed or not, since there are no natural laws saying “do not speed”. In my worldview, breaking a reasonable law is itself worthy of moral consideration, especially how my breaking the law might impinge on others rights (something you bang on about incessantly).

    All you’ve done is just posted the usual boilerplate and straw-men arguments of today’s politically illiterate conservatives.
    This is sad.

    No, I’ve posted a reasonable rebuttal of why abortion is objectively, morally wrong. You just don’t agree with it. Your diatribe is incoherent to the point that anyone reading it would claim a Marxist wrote it – you certainly have a lot in common with the hard-left, neo-Marxists, feminism and other causes you claim to object to. And we all thought you wanted to distinguish yourself from them … on this issue, it’s not that you are no better than them … you are worse!

  43. Kneel

    “The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal …”

    Legal.

    It doesn’t violate rights – although it is clear that many think it should, and have presented several cogent arguments as to why. Perhaps Peter, you would care to elucidate your opinion of where “rights” should begin – something you have so far avoided.

    Legal.

    Not a “person” with rights until born.
    A line in the sand that is simple and easy. Yes, it creates issues, but so does any line, no matter where you draw it. Am I “safe” at 0.049 BAC but “culpable” at 0.051? Indeed I am – at least at law – regardless of how much (or little) intoxication I may display, including physical and mental co-ordination issues.

    Morally and ethically? It would be rude to take up that much space…

  44. Iampeter

    That’s what abortionist Kermit Gosnell argued. Even so, he was convicted of multiple acts of first-degree murder.

    Gosnell was no more an abortionist than abortion is murder. Constant misuse of words does not a cogent argument make.
    Only the poorest and most desperate went to Gosnell, largely as a result of existing restrictions on abortion. Those advocating for more regulation of abortion or it’s banning, are going to be responsible for a lot more Gosnells.
    Just like statists who outlawed alcohol and drugs, were responsible for creating organized crime and destroying who knows how many lives.
    Rights violating, leftist policies always have “unintended” consequences like this.

  45. Iampeter

    The Governor certainly contemplates the possibility of killing a child that has been born with a deformity – just listen to how he answers that specific question.

    No he doesn’t. He is talking about non-viable newborns that were too dangerous to abort at that stage, to the mother. There’s no mistaking what he says and the ongoing delusions about his words are simply dishonest.

    I disagree … rights are an expression of what we value.

    No, rights are the freedom to think and act in a social context. They are derived from the facts of man’s nature and his requirements if he is going to live among other men. You need to be born to start having rights.
    In any case, being carried to term would be no more a right than free healthcare, so either way you want to cut it, abortion doesn’t violate any rights.

    But I don’t think that. I hold to the Judeo-Christian worldview that places very high value on human life

    If that were true of Christianity, then it’s holiest symbol wouldn’t be an innocent man being murdered. In other words, a death cult does not place a high value on human life. Obviously. This nonsense is the root of all our problems and confusion.

    No, I’ve posted a reasonable rebuttal of why abortion is objectively, morally wrong.

    Even if you did, which you didn’t, you still wouldn’t have addressed the legal question.
    You’re as confused about how morality works as about how legality works.

    Whether something is legal or not, is determined by whether rights have been violated or not.
    Regulating morality is theocratic-level, leftism.

  46. Gosnell was no more an abortionist than abortion is murder. Constant misuse of words does not a cogent argument make.
    Only the poorest and most desperate went to Gosnell, largely as a result of existing restrictions on abortion. Those advocating for more regulation of abortion or it’s banning, are going to be responsible for a lot more Gosnells.

    So Gosnell was not an abortionist but people were going to Gosnell for what exactly?

  47. Iampeter

    Your diatribe is incoherent to the point that anyone reading it would claim a Marxist wrote it – you certainly have a lot in common with the hard-left, neo-Marxists,

    Also, no one who has the faintest idea of what they are talking about, would EVER suggest ANYTHING I’ve written was Marxist.

    The same cannot be said of what most others post here at the Cat, including “classic economist” Steve Kates.

    In fact, the only difference between many posters here and actual Marxists, is that actual Marxists aren’t anywhere near as confused about absolutely everything.

  48. Iampeter

    It doesn’t violate rights – although it is clear that many think it should, and have presented several cogent arguments as to why.

    And an example of just ONE such “cogent argument”would be…?

  49. He is talking about non-viable newborns

    So he was talking about infanticide. Thanks for admitting, IamMengele, what was never in doubt. Further infants don’t cease being human beings because they are ‘non-viable’, nor do the cease to have rights.

  50. Snoopy

    So Gosnell was not an abortionist but people were going to Gosnell for what exactly?

    Good question. Deserves an answer.

  51. EvilElvis

    Hilariously it’s the anti war, anti capital punishment, nanny state, look after every fucking dead beat on earth crowd that are completely complicit and ok with the controlled and regulated murder of babies, born or otherwise and oldies. That’s all it comes down to in the end, a controlled and regulated population and power to the chosen ones.

  52. The BigBlueCat

    If that were true of Christianity, then it’s holiest symbol wouldn’t be an innocent man being murdered. In other words, a death cult does not place a high value on human life. Obviously. This nonsense is the root of all our problems and confusion.

    You have to ask yourself “who was Jesus?” and “why did Jesus have to die?” These are theological and philosophical questions. Unless you can examine the significance of the event from the Christian perspective, and “joined the dots” in your parlance, you will find it difficult to comprehend the importance of Jesus life and death.

    Also, no one who has the faintest idea of what they are talking about, would EVER suggest ANYTHING I’ve written was Marxist.

    I said “on this issue” … stop being dishonest. Your views on abortion align perfectly with modern neo-Marxist feminists … worse than those, since you cannot even claim a personal right as a female might!

  53. John Stankevicius

    Recall l the 60 Minutes episode where the couple were shamed for leaving the “deformed” baby with the surrogate mother while taking the healthy twin – oh the outrage and shame.
    Could some one explain to me the “ Ooh he/ she is so amazing and their life is priceless!”

  54. Leo G

    Gosnell was no more an abortionist than abortion is murder.

    Accordingly, as Gosnell was an abortionist to some extent, abortion is murder to some greater extent.

  55. The BigBlueCat

    Even if you did, which you didn’t, you still wouldn’t have addressed the legal question.
    You’re as confused about how morality works as about how legality works.

    So consider the moral and legal consequences of breaking the speed limit. You claim that morality and legality are entirely separate. A reasonable person would expect alignment of laws and morality – cripes, if you believe that laws don’t reflect some semblance of morality, or ought to, then you have a sick view of what the law is intended to achieve. You have a specific rights view of the law – so how do you reconcile laws that remove your rights? Are they not immoral in your worldview?

  56. mh

    Do we really need Iampeter hijacking every thread with rights-violating arguments? He goes around in circles with the same talking points that everyone has moved on from long ago. He’s on the Ayn Rand hamster wheel.

    The subject matters are too important. It’s time to abort Iampeter.

  57. Tel

    A reasonable person would expect alignment of laws and morality – cripes, if you believe that laws don’t reflect some semblance of morality, or ought to, then you have a sick view of what the law is intended to achieve.

    I doubt you will ever find laws that can turn bad people into good people. At best you can achieve obedient but frightened people, who have no opportunity to do anything good because they spend their lives checking off their compliance sheets.

    For example, now that infanticide is legal in New York, do you expect that a whole bunch of mothers will suddenly say, “Hey I wanted to have this baby but now that the law says it’s legal … I better have an abortion because everything legal is always also a good idea!”

  58. The BigBlueCat

    dover_beach
    #2931204, posted on February 11, 2019 at 10:21 pm
    He is talking about non-viable newborns

    So he was talking about infanticide. Thanks for admitting, IamMengele, what was never in doubt. Further infants don’t cease being human beings because they are ‘non-viable’, nor do the cease to have rights.

    Good points. Viability is a common, basic test of viability – isn’t that 20 weeks? Abortion should be abhorrent, yet many see pregnancy as an inconvenience, a nuisance, an attack on their right to be “not pregnant”, a “clump of cells” to be purged. This whole issue of deformity is being used as a non-sequiter to justify killing viable human babies. But it requires a response.

    If the issue of human rights rests with the question of born or not-born, then being actually born means human rights are attributable to the child. But I keep having to ask the question “why is location so important?” I mean, it could be that less than 5 minutes earlier, while the child is still in utero, no human rights would be attributed to the child. For the “right to choose” mob, those 5 minutes seem to be quite magical. For everyone else, there is no magic – the unborn at that stage should have the same rights.

    Of course, they are relying on a technicality to justify killing the child. But on any objective and practical level, there is no difference. It is morally wrong to kill a child 5 minutes from birth, as it is to kill a child 5 minutes after birth. The US law should reflect that – ours does!

  59. The BigBlueCat

    I doubt you will ever find laws that can turn bad people into good people. At best you can achieve obedient but frightened people, who have no opportunity to do anything good because they spend their lives checking off their compliance sheets.

    For example, now that infanticide is legal in New York, do you expect that a whole bunch of mothers will suddenly say, “Hey I wanted to have this baby but now that the law says it’s legal … I better have an abortion because everything legal is always also a good idea!”

    Tel, I would prefer a world where bad people live in fear of punishment and refrain from doing bad things, but I also would want them to become better people capable of doing more good than bad. Obedience isn’t a necessarily bad concept – anyone with children understands that. I also think that bad people can become good – whether the law assists with that or not I don’t know (I like to think it does). But I think everyone has the opportunity to do good – stopping doing bad is a good first step.

    No, I don’t think that people are out there counting the seconds until the birth of their children – but it might give some to consider killing a newborn should that newborn suffer any “defects” that hadn’t been identified until birth (for some that might be skin colour!). Parents of children with disabilities do struggle (in many ways) but for the most part love their children unconditionally. But the child is an individual human being and needs to be respected as such.

    The argument is looking at an extreme circumstance to see if the principles being applied are sound. There might be people out there who fit the extreme criteria. But in my view, the move to allowing third-trimester abortions on demand (even with 2 doctors approving) is very disturbing and morally reprehensible. I acknowledge there are circumstances where an emergency abortion is warranted, but these are very rare. What these US legislators are proposing is not for rare circumstances. Planned Parenthood must be salivating at the prospects ….

  60. Tim Neilson

    So Gosnell was not an abortionist but people were going to Gosnell for what exactly?

    Good question. Deserves an answer.

    Notice how Iamashiteater always ignores the questions that blow his poseurism right out of the water?

  61. jupes

    The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal, at any stage and for any reason.

    Wow. Iammengele demonstrating pure libertarian doctrine.

    What an evil ideology.

  62. The BigBlueCat

    Tim Neilson
    #2931277, posted on February 11, 2019 at 11:33 pm
    So Gosnell was not an abortionist but people were going to Gosnell for what exactly?

    Good question. Deserves an answer.

    Notice how Iamashiteater always ignores the questions that blow his poseurism right out of the water?

    Yes.

  63. The BigBlueCat

    Only the poorest and most desperate went to Gosnell, largely as a result of existing restrictions on abortion. Those advocating for more regulation of abortion or it’s banning, are going to be responsible for a lot more Gosnells.

    Gosnell’s practice wasn’t on the scale of Planned Parenthood, but just being available, cheaper and local doesn’t make what he did justifiable. He certainly illegally aborted many late-term babies and even kept many in jars and in his refrigerator, either whole or in parts. He even made comments about how some were big enough to be walking around (eg. viable). It still stuns me how the MSM stayed away from his trial. But let us not call him a working-class hero meeting the medical needs of his clientele – he is neither. Lets call him for what he really is – a murdering criminal (backed by his legal trial and subsequent judgement).

  64. rickw

    Iampeter is a Moloch fanboy.

    A complete sicko.

  65. Only the poorest and most desperate went to Gosnell, largely as a result of existing restrictions on abortion.

    Rubbish, Gosnell plied his macabre trade in Philadelphia. A city with ample availability to abortion. People went to Gosnell because he would still kill children in the late second and third trimester. Children that, in other circumstances, would be receiving medical care if they were born prematurely or identified with a medical problem in utero.

  66. Iampeter

    I said “on this issue” … stop being dishonest. Your views on abortion align perfectly with modern neo-Marxist feminists … worse than those, since you cannot even claim a personal right as a female might!

    You have this backwards.
    Marxists don’t argue from the point of view of individual rights.
    On the other hand, those who want to ban abortion are collectivists, so are on the same side of politics as Marxists.

    It doesn’t violate rights – although it is clear that many think it should, and have presented several cogent arguments as to why.
    And an example of just ONE such “cogent argument”would be…?

    Good thing I wasn’t holing my breath on this one…

  67. The BigBlueCat

    Marxists don’t argue from the point of view of individual rights.

    On this issue they do. Get your facts straight. They use their liberal arguments to push this agenda … how can you not see this?

  68. The BigBlueCat

    I should add that Marxists view abortion laws as oppressive. Like Iampeter, they see that there is no humanity in the unborn (unless the individual decides there is a social connection). It should come as no surprise that modern Marxist thinking on the fetus having no humanity is exactly the same argument that Iampeter is using to defend his position that abortion should be legal and freely available. While Iampeter and Mar ism are usually in fundamental opposition, on the matter of abortion they are so aligned as to be indistinguishable. But he hates to understand that he agrees with Marxists on anything, such is the mindset of the Randian Individualist.

  69. Iampeter

    You claim that morality and legality are entirely separate. A reasonable person would expect alignment of laws and morality – cripes, if you believe that laws don’t reflect some semblance of morality, or ought to, then you have a sick view of what the law is intended to achieve.

    I’m not saying they’re separate, just that you don’t seem to understand their correct relationship and are appealing to morality, while trying to argue legality, because you also don’t know how to argue legality.

    Morality deals with how an individual should live his life on earth. A moral government, is one that leaves the individual free to do so. In other words, a moral government is one that protects individual rights.
    And an individual rights protecting government doesn’t force you to carry to term, anymore than it forces you to pay for others healthcare, or education, or shelter, or whatever. That would be a rights violation.

    On this issue they do. Get your facts straight. They use their liberal arguments to push this agenda … how can you not see this?

    Because I’m getting at the fundamentals, while you’re stuck on the superficial.
    Marxists are collectivists. Anti-abortionists are collectivists.
    Whatever lies they might tell themselves or the public to get support, doesn’t change this fact.

    It should come as no surprise that modern Marxist thinking on the fetus having no humanity is exactly the same argument that Iampeter

    Except that’s not the argument that I’m making. You can pretend the unborn is a full grown adult if you like, it changes nothing about the legal position.
    Not even an adult, has the right to use another persons body as a personal incubator.
    If you want to make these kinds of pro-abortion arguments, then you need to concede you’re a socialist, who thinks some can be forced to provide for the lives of others, because “humanity.” It’s the anti-abortion position that is aligned with Marxists as to the role of government, not mine.

    Then we can have an honest discussion.

  70. dover_beach

    If you want to make these kinds of pro-abortion arguments,

    IamMengele is just phoning it in. He can’t even get the sides right, so how can we expect him to get the arguments right.

  71. Empire 5:5

    The Richmond video presents a similar scenario as the New Jersey video. A man posing as a pimp and his “bottom girl” seek assistance for getting abortions, STD testing, and birth control for girls they “manage” as sex workers, who are from out of the country and as young as 14 to 15 years old. The Planned Parenthood staffer provides information on types of contraception and how they can get around parental consent laws to obtain abortions for the trafficked minor girls.

    https://www.liveaction.org/what-we-do/investigations/child-sex-trafficking-cover-up/

  72. Percy Popinjay

    So as well as being one the most pathetic, appalling ignoramuses on the planet, our resident “roights protectin’ gubment” imbecile is also strident screecher for infanticide.

    How completely unsurprising.

  73. Empire 5:5

    Then-gubernatorial Virginia Democrat candidate Ralph Northam received nearly $2 million in donations from Planned Parenthood Virginia.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/01/ralph-northam-got-nearly-2-million-in-donations-from-planned-parenthood/

  74. Empire 5:5

    Planned Parenthood abortion doctors readily admit that their late-term abortion procedures present ethical and legal dilemmas that even professional abortionists find challenging.[2]The ever-increasing size and familiarity of the second trimester fetus blurs the line between abortion and infanticide for even the most hardened professionals, and preterm infants have now been recorded as surviving as early as 5 months.[3]

    http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org/human-capital/special-report-partial-birth-abortion-at-planned-parenthood/

  75. Tel

    No, I don’t think that people are out there counting the seconds until the birth of their children – but it might give some to consider killing a newborn should that newborn suffer any “defects” that hadn’t been identified until birth (for some that might be skin colour!).

    Hmmm … there’s an angle the cartoonists haven’t worked on yet.

  76. Iampeter

    Do we really need Iampeter hijacking every thread with rights-violating arguments? He goes around in circles with the same talking points that everyone has moved on from long ago. He’s on the Ayn Rand hamster wheel.

    This is advertised as a “libertarian and centre-right blog” so the pro-abortion position should be the dominant one, even if not in 100% agreement with me.
    The fact that’s not the case, speaks to the urgent need for moderation at the cat, as it is overrun by nutters who not only derail threads, but post threads that don’t belong on a libertiarian, centre-right blog to begin with.
    Also md, the fact that you don’t know anything about politics or how to even discuss the subject, means that it’s you and others here like you, that are derailing threads.
    You can do nothing else, as you InfoWars nutters, don’t have any business on political blogs.

  77. Empire 5:5

    Bribes > Open borders > child trafficking > abortion > marketing of human remains.

    RICHMOND, Va. — Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has vetoed a bill aimed at preventing so-called “sanctuary cities” in the state.

    https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/9/ralph-northam-vetoes-bill-ban-sanctuary-cities-vir/

  78. Empire 5:5

    speaks to the urgent need for moderation at the cat

    Keep digging.

  79. Ivan Denisovich

    Gendercide:

    Globally, the ratio by sex already has increased to 107 males for every 100 females because of the sheer scale of the abortion of female babies. Even if the birth ratio normalized immediately, the natural balance would not be restored until 2050.

    In addition to the harm for women, gender imbalance prevents men from entering the socially stabilizing institution of marriage. An article in The Economist magazine notes that a rising demand for brides in female-starved communities increasingly is met through coercion and trafficking.

    Sex-selective abortion is at work in the U.S. as well. Until recent negative publicity, “it was not unusual to find abortionists advertising the availability of sex-selective abortions in newspapers such as the New York Times,” Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, testified at a congressional hearing in December.

    In a 2008 study, Columbia University researchers found that among children born in America to Chinese, Korean and Indian parents, a first-born girl tends to skew the sex ratio of the second or third birth. For second births the male-female ratio was 117 to 100, the report said, and for third births 151 to 100 if the couple already had two girls.

    As technology plays a larger role in reproduction, parents can choose whether to carry a child to term based on sex or other genetic characteristics. That leads to Hvistendahl’s grim conclusion: “In China and California alike, mothers have become their own eugenicists.”

    Hvistendahl tells how Asia’s gender imbalance was fueled in part by Western pressure for government population control, which allowed an existing cultural preference for boys to evolve into deadly discrimination.

    But feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women and NARAL Pro-Choice America have yet to join the call to outlaw sex-selective abortion. Rather than show solidarity with their daughters and sisters in life, they swear allegiance to unrestricted access to abortion—even when it decimates females.

    https://www.heritage.org/marriage-and-family/commentary/why-do-feminists-ignore-gendercide

  80. Iampeter

    Planned Parenthood kept aborted babies alive to harvest organs, ex-technician says

    So, your original post is 100% wrong and the video you yourself linked, proves as much.
    You need to be putting in a retraction, but instead you’re deciding to double down by introducing an even more hysterical conspiracy theory?

    Until you can tell the difference between people and the unborn and murder and abortion, no discussion on this topic is possible anyway, as words don’t have any meaning to you.

    The Cat is becoming an Alex Jones-level freakshow, with posts like this.

  81. Gab

    speaks to the urgent need for moderation at the cat

    typical socialist wants to ban free discussion. Game over.

  82. Hugh

    Iampeter,
    No, rights are the freedom to think and act in a social context. They are derived from the facts of man’s nature and his requirements if he is going to live among other men. You need to be born to start having rights.

    In any case, being carried to term would be no more a right than free healthcare, so either way you want to cut it, abortion doesn’t violate any rights.

    This point of view justifies intentional infanticide by omission. It logically entails that if parents Bob and Betty choose not to look after their newborn baby Elsie anymore, they are perfectly within their rights to let Elsie – viable or not – starve to death or die of thirst. Elsie, according to this view, certainly has rights to life and property, so we may conclude with equal certainly that Bob and Betty may not cut Elsie into pieces and suck her up with a powerful vacuum cleaner. (Who would be so cruel as to contemplate the legitimacy of such a procedure?) But Elsie has no more right to “free food” from her parents Bob and Betty – especially the milk from Betty’s breasts, the horror! – than she had to the “free healthcare” which she availed herself of as she developed in utero. Suggesting Bob and Betty are obliged to feed Elsie, albeit she cannot feed herself, is just backdoor Marxism. To go further, on the grounds of their right to property with respect to their home, Bob and Betty are perfectly justified in preventing “trespassers” intent on saving the starving Elsie’s life from coming into their home with the purpose of removing the starving baby and caring for it. To suggest otherwise is just more monstrous Marxism.

    As I have thought about these matters over the years, the more I have come to the view (bleeding obvious to me now) that 1. while humans by their nature certainly have rights to life and property, it’s because – equally certainly – that 2. they have, by their nature, obligations, that rights are ordered to the fulfillment of those obligations, and that 3. rights sound in justice (not merely in morality) precisely because the obligations from which rights are derived are obligations in justice.

    Human beings by their nature have serious obligations, the fulfillment of which contributes to their flourishing. The most obvious example concerns the right to life. I have a right to life, because I have an obligation to live. A human who deliberately kills themselves is not an example of a flourishing human, any more than an animal is which does the same thing. (If you have a dog that refuses to eat its food, you don’t say “Ah, dogs will be dogs!” The commonsense response is, “There’s something wrong with Fido.”) My right to life doesn’t extend to deliberately ending my life. Suicide directly contravenes the obligation from which my right to life derives. (Of course, there are situations where I may, say, refuse seriously painful treatment on the grounds of its distressing nature, knowing that my life may be shortened as an unintended consequence. In such cases, I’m not directly choosing to kill myself – ie, suiciding.)

    Certain obligations flow from one’s state or circumstance in life, which may or may not be chosen. I’m walking by a pond and see a child drowning in a situation where I can easily rescue it and there’s no other way the child can be saved. All other things being equal, I’m obliged in justice to rescue that child. It is not Marxist to assert I have such an obligation.

    Parenthood – chosen or otherwise – generates obligations in justice of parents to their children (just as childhood generates obligations in justice to one’s parents). Thus parents who refuse to feed their children, or choose to let them freeze to death in the backyard (because “rights”!) are not flourishing examples of human beings, just as a lioness who refuses to feed and otherwise mother her cubs is not a flourishing example of a lioness. Likewise, parents have a right to educate their children because they have an obligation in justice to educate their children. It follows from this that the right to educate one’s children, deriving as it does from the obligation to educate them, does not extend to the right to choose not to educate one’s children. The choice not to educate completely undermines the rationale of the right.

    Thus parents have an obligation to look after their unborn baby, too, and have rights concomitant with that obligation, to make choices with respect to that baby’s flourishing. And making choices to fulfill that obligation is not just good for the child. It in turn makes those parents good parents – good examples of human beings in that state of life. It’s win-win!

    Sure, a woman has a “right” to her body, but, to repeat, that is not an unlimited right – to suicide, self-mutilation, etc, – since that right is predicated on the obligation to look after her body and use it to fulfill her obligations as a woman and mother. And just as parents of born children have obligations to use their bodies to nurture their children, the woman has an obligation to use her own body to do what it is specifically designed to do – nurture her unborn child.

    For further thoughts along these lines, Ed Feser’s work is helpful. See, for example, https://tinyurl.com/y5lrqjyu, or Chapter 5 in his book “The Last Superstition”.

    ( By the way, to postulate that to deny a woman has a “right” to abortion is Marxism is to get Marx seriously wrong. Marx was a thoroughgoing materialist. He didn’t believe in “morality”, “justice” or “rights”.)

  83. mh

    This is advertised as a “libertarian and centre-right blog” so the pro-abortion position should be the dominant one…

    No.

  84. Iampeter

    It logically entails that if parents Bob and Betty choose not to look after their newborn baby Elsie anymore

    No, because a newborn baby has rights, so letting her die would be a rights violation, which abortion is not.
    Abortion has nothing to do with harming children because it doesn’t involve children.
    Suggesting it does is a contradiction.

    while humans by their nature certainly have rights to life and property, it’s because – equally certainly – that 2 they have, by their nature, obligations

    “Rights” are the freedom of action of volitional beings in a social context. They are not derived from or connected to obligations, which must be freely chosen, not imposed.
    Truing to conflate rights with obligation is the age-old leftist game, to get individuals to accept the will of the collective.

    Marx was a thoroughgoing materialist. He didn’t believe in “morality”, “justice” or “rights”.

    Marx was certainly a materialist, but that’s the essential issue. The essential issue is that Marx was an altruist. He believed individuals should be sacrificed for a greater good. This is the root of collectivism and the same root used to justify banning abortion. Hence, anti-abortionists are on the same side of politics as Marx. You agree on the very fundamentals.

  85. stackja

    Will Marxists do good and suicide?

  86. dover_beach

    No, because a newborn baby has rights, so letting her die would be a rights violation, which abortion is not.

    So a child at 28 weeks but still in the womb has no rights but a child at 28 weeks but born prematurely has rights. Does IamMengele actually explain why any of this is the case or does he just beg the question? Of course, he begs the question.

    Abortion has nothing to do with harming children because it doesn’t involve children.

    So what is actually destroyed in the 28th week if not a child?

  87. No, because a newborn baby has rights, so letting her die would be a rights violation, which abortion is not……
    “Rights” are the freedom of action of volitional beings in a social context. They are not derived from or connected to obligations, which must be freely chosen, not imposed.

    Poor old Iamashiteater, hopelessly confused and self-contradictory yet again.

  88. Ivan Denisovich

    So a child at 28 weeks but still in the womb has no rights but a child at 28 weeks but born prematurely has rights

    Surely only hopeless eggheads could embrace Peter’s propositions, the sort of eggheads that defended and promoted marxism/communism right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and, in some cases, beyond. The ideology doesn’t translate well into sound policy. When the rubber hits the road, the sheer impracticality – and evil – of such beliefs is exposed. The ideological straight jacket of individualism being proposed leads directly to the sort of absurd demarcation Dover describes above.

  89. Buccaneer

    1ampmeter,

    you assert
    “The essential issue is that Marx was an altruist. He believed individuals should be sacrificed for a greater good. This is the root of collectivism and the same root used to justify banning abortion. Hence, anti-abortionists are on the same side of politics as Marx. You agree on the very fundamentals.”

    This really reveals your mindset and it’s clearly not a libertarian one as you continually assert.

    It seems that you are advocating not for individual rights as both unborn and mother have rights (re sophies law QLD and Zoes law NSW). You are advocating that a mother has no responsibility post conception up until birth.
    Do you also believe a mother has no responsibility post birth?

    I sincerely hope you are not and will never be a parent. Your idea that somehow opposing abortion is Marxist is bizarre and yet you admit and anti abortion stand is an altruist position? Also by extension your arguments suggest parents can abandon responsibility to their children as occurred in communist Romania, yet suggest this is the position of anti abortionists who are standing up for the rights of the child.
    Seems pretty clear you’re not who you a pretending to be, just some one who wants to sabotage a discussion. Standard lefty debating tactic.

  90. Percy Popinjay

    Globally, the ratio by sex already has increased to 107 males for every 100 females because of the sheer scale of the abortion of female babies.

    Yet another “benefit” of multiculturalism. As Steyn has pointed out, this is now also adversely affecting the sex ratios in western societies, as they become increasingly filled with backward z-grade third world imbeciles.

  91. one old bruce

    Marx has little to do with this, except in some febrile minds. Peter Singer is a Utilitarian. Utilitarianism and Classical Liberalism (hello Steve) have a common origin. But liberals went off to favour individuals for some reason (Christianity?), while Peter Singer takes the original Utilitarian creed at face value and proposes an ethics of the collective good, i.e. ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ – the Utilitarian formula, way before Marx, and a wholly British ideology, although clarifying an idea which was always there in human life. (Peter Singer also applies the latest neurological research to the classic Utilitarian philosophy, which leads to uncomfortable proposals, but that’s science).

    Chasing red herrings is such a waste of time. Why not actually study some of this stuff?

  92. struth

    No, it’s not. To murder a baby, you would have to first give birth, so abortion cannot do such a thing.
    No amount of appealing to emotion will turn your contradiction into fact.

    Pure evil, and purposefully ignorant.
    Many times babies are induced early, a fact these evil fuckers full well know.
    If you decide to yank a baby out prem or through c section, that’s because you know there is a live baby inside.
    Using this disgusting evil deflection, means the evil leftist is trying to tell himself and you, that the baby is not alive, with it’s beating heart, kicking and wriggling and squirming to get comfortable inside the womb, until it passes through the life giving vaginal cavity.

    Talk about superstition of the godless.
    A C section birth delivers a live baby you piece of inhuman shit, Iampeter.
    And it can be very Prem and still survive.
    You are a dishonest, foul, left wing vomit inducing cretin, and never again try to talk about science here.
    Every time only your godless superstition and boundless Naivety shows through.
    The damage done to a society who allows others to decide who lives and dies, is paramount.
    It certainly isn’t a libertarian principle.
    Are you for capital punishment by the state as well.

    You are a fucking moron, anti human, and a plain and simple western hating anarchist.

  93. Iampeter

    This really reveals your mindset and it’s clearly not a libertarian one as you continually assert.

    I’m not a Libertarian, but I am right wing. There are some good libertarians that would have similar positions to me, though.
    In any case, nothing in what you’ve quoted reveals anything you’ve concluded.

    It seems that you are advocating not for individual rights as both unborn and mother have rights (re sophies law QLD and Zoes law NSW). You are advocating that a mother has no responsibility post conception up until birth.

    That’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying, right down to conflating “rights” with “responsibility” which I clearly addressed and you’ve either ignored or didn’t read.

    Do you also believe a mother has no responsibility post birth?

    This has been addressed in the very post you’re responding to.
    Why are you responding to a post you haven’t read?

    Seems pretty clear you’re not who you a pretending to be, just some one who wants to sabotage a discussion. Standard lefty debating tactic.

    Comments this ignorant continue to reinforce my low opinion of cat readers and posters. There’s nothing left wing or “sabotage” in my posts. You being a politically illiterate leftist, who has no business in any political discussions, is not my fault.

  94. dover_beach

    IamMengele is a leftist concern-trolling as a Randian.

  95. Kneel

    “Good thing I wasn’t holing (sic) my breath on this one…”

    Not everyone reads this site at the same time as you, you know.
    Besides which, turn about is fair play, innit? So it’s my turn to ask, and your turn to answer, OK?

    OK, how about this then: other than the fact of the current legal definition, what is the difference – biologically – between an unborn at 1 minute prior to birth and a newborn at 1 minute after birth?
    There is very little difference, at least as far as I know. Yet the consequences of this timing are enormous. This does not seem to me to make a great deal of sense – if there is little difference between the two, they should be treated (almost) identically, yet they are not.
    Now, I quite realise that any other definition comes fraught with its own issues, however you have still failed to disclose your opinion on the morals and ethics of such things – not their legal standing, your personal opinion on the rightness of the current law on this matter. If you could change it, what would you change and why? If you are seriously trying to change the world “for the better”, then by all means expound…

  96. Buccaneer

    “That’s the exact opposite of what I’m saying, right down to conflating “rights” with “responsibility” which I clearly addressed and you’ve either ignored or didn’t read.”

    You didn’t even read what you wrote yourself or were too stupid to understand it, another standard leftist tactic. Along with avoiding posting the evidence of any accuracy to your claims.

    Obligations don’t equal responsibilities and although a parent is responsible or accountable for what happens to a child there is nothing to stop them from abrogating that responsibility to the state, hence it’s not really an obligation. I doubt you want to argue the benefits or otherwise of the state’s role in this since you’re really not that sincere.

    It’s not me that’s conflating rights with responsibilities, I was pointing out that you are. Another lefty tactic from you.

  97. The BigBlueCat

    Nice to see the conversation progressing without me …

    I’m not a Libertarian, but I am right wing.

    I have to ask the question then – what is your purpose here? This is a libertarian and centre-right blog, which you keep telling us it is. But you are neither of those. You think you are educating us to your way of thinking, but you’re not. You are right wing infused with thinking in common with your run-of-the-mill Marxist. This is more libertarian than you are willing to admit. I think you might be confused as to why you are here ….

    dover_beach
    #2931682, posted on February 12, 2019 at 1:27 pm
    IamMengele is a leftist concern-trolling as a Randian.

    I find it astonishing how he cannot even conceive that his thinking on this issue has any alignment with Marxist thought in this area. He expresses a pure libertarian thought, and denies being libertarian. He expresses a pure neo-Marxist thought, and accuses others as being Socialist. He gathers all his opponents together to label them as collectivists, yet doesn’t see he is what he condemns in others. Go figure.

  98. Tom

    IamMengele is a leftist concern-trolling as a Randian.

    Spot on, Dover. He reminds me a little of Yobbo, the leftard libertarian who used to frequent the Cat before it was dominated by small government, centre-right libertarians. Except Yobbo was honest, not a lying liar like Iampeter, whose tortured style of disinformational propaganda is straight out of the Third Reich.

  99. Buccaneer

    BBC

    “Comments this ignorant continue to reinforce my low opinion of cat readers and posters. There’s nothing left wing or “sabotage” in my posts. You being a politically illiterate leftist, who has no business in any political discussions, is not my fault.”

    This comment explains it all – no sincere, self aware person who does not hate themselves writes something this confused, particularly after the spectacular rhetorical gymnastics on show.

  100. Iampeter

    Not everyone reads this site at the same time as you, you know.
    Besides which, turn about is fair play, innit? So it’s my turn to ask, and your turn to answer, OK?

    Sure, you’re right. I actually realized after I hit post that I was probably being unfair, but it was too late.
    Also, the cat is full of rude dickheads, so being fair isn’t really a top priority for me.
    Now, that you’re here though, you were going to provide just one of those “many cogent arguments” that suggest abortion is a rights violation…

    OK, how about this then: other than the fact of the current legal definition, what is the difference – biologically – between an unborn at 1 minute prior to birth and a newborn at 1 minute after birth?

    Who cares? I’m happy to discuss this once you concede you have no arguments against abortion being perfectly legal, not before.

    however you have still failed to disclose your opinion on the morals and ethics of such things – not their legal standing, your personal opinion on the rightness of the current law on this matter.

    That’s not true, I made it clear from my very first post in this thread why abortion should be perfectly legal.
    I’m sure there are contexts in which it might be immoral, but that alone doesn’t determine legality.
    In other words, discussing whether an action is moral or not, is irrelevant to whether it should be legal or not. Conservatives are constantly bringing up morality, a topic they also know nothing about, because they don’t know anything about politics, or how to discuss the subject.

    I have to ask the question then – what is your purpose here?

    Well, it should be self explanatory why a right winger is on a Libertarian and centre-right blog. The better question is, why are you and 90% of the other posters here? You are completely, politically illiterate leftists, on a right-ish political blog. What are you doing here? Also, I assume Kates is friends with the owner of the blog IRL, but aside from that his posting, among a few others, makes this a leftist blog too.

    I find it astonishing how he cannot even conceive that his thinking on this issue has any alignment with Marxist thought in this area.

    Why would you find it astonishing when I clearly explained it to you, along with why it is you who is on the same side as Marxists? No amount of throwing around phrases you don’t understand like “neo-Marxist thought” will change the fact that you don’t really know what you’re talking about and should be conceding.

  101. mh

    I’m not a Libertarian, but I am right wing. There are some good libertarians that would have similar positions to me, though.

    The good libertarians think like Iampeter, the bad libertarians do not.

  102. dover_beach

    We’ve clearly learned on this thread that IamMengele supports infanticide. Good to know.

  103. Hugh

    Iampeter,

    As a first reply (I may not have time to reply to your other arguments till the weekend as I’m away from internet.)

    “Abortion has nothing to do with harming children because it doesn’t involve children.
    Suggesting it does is a contradiction.”

    This is argument by stipulation. Contra most dictionaries, you’ve chosen to define children as those who are born. So abortion, the killing of the unborn, can’t be the harming of children.

    Very convenient … but hardly convincing!

  104. Iampeter

    This is argument by stipulation. Contra most dictionaries, you’ve chosen to define children as those who are born. So abortion, the killing of the unborn, can’t be the harming of children.

    It’s not any kind of argument, it’s a statement of self evident, fact.
    You can verify it yourself through observation.
    No out of context, dictionary definition, is going to change this fact.

    While this has nothing to do with the legality of abortion, it is the most basic, of basic thinking steps.
    If this is too hard, then you will have no hope in understanding the far more abstract concepts like, individual rights, without which discussion of politics is not possible.

  105. Leo G

    This is argument by stipulation. Contra most dictionaries, you’ve chosen to define children as those who are born. So abortion, the killing of the unborn, can’t be the harming of children.

    There are semantic issues, though.
    In the 19th century medicos made general distinctions between miscarriage, abortion, premature labor and normal labor as matters of timing. Miscarriage was “expulsion of the foetus from the uterus” within 6 weeks from conception, abortion between 6 and 26 weeks, and premature labor was delivery after 26 weeks but before due time.
    There was a conscious effort to avoid the issue of the status of the fetus as a living human. Even now biologists often refer to a live fetus in utero with arrested development as an abortion.
    Consequently, the contemporary use of the word “abortion” is something of an euphemism. It still evades proper consideration of the responsibility for the loss of human life.

  106. Gab

    We’ve clearly learned on this thread that IamMengele supports infanticide.

    Yes and nothing will change his mind.

  107. Hugh

    “You can verify it yourself through observation.”

    I’m verifying through observation that the definition of “child” is “one who is born:? How so?

  108. dover_beach

    You can verify it yourself through observation.

    Indeed, I can view the human being in utero via sonogram (or other medical imaging) and compare it to another child born prematurely at the same age, and establish that the former is, in fact, a child. You, however, have provided no evidence to the contrary. Now, shoo, IamMengele.

  109. dover_beach

    I’m verifying through observation that the definition of “child” is “one who is born:? How so?

    Indeed, Hugh, almost all standard dictionaries (does anyone know of one that does not?) define ‘child’ as a young human being below puberty and/or age of majority. By any description, a human being in utero or postpartum is both a human being and prepubescent and /or below the age of majority. Ergo, a child.

    IamMengele has been smashed from pillar to post.

  110. Leo G

    IamMengele has been smashed from pillar to post.

    I suspect the troll is role-playing a libertarian scarecrow.

  111. Empire 5:5

    dover_beach
    #2931682, posted on February 12, 2019 at 1:27 pm
    IamMengele is a leftist concern-trolling as a Randian.

    And probably female.

    While it was powerful promiscuous men who initially pushed legalisation, rabid defence of abortion as demonstrated by peta is rarely seen from blokes, unless they are fully cucked by a feminazi overlord.

  112. struth

    Iampeter is deflecting now.

    He’s doing exactly what Monty did (RIP).
    Totally ignore what he can’t answer and pick at the ones he can re word to argue bagainst what wasn’t said.

    You were absolutely punished here.
    Your ass was caned in Singapore.
    Iampeter, why wait?
    End it all now, your mummy doesn’t even like you, no matter what she says.

    Your unwanted vermin ……………………

  113. Iampeter

    Why is Monty RIP?

    He was a lefty, but at least he wasn’t bat-shit crazy, like the vast majority of other posters here.

  114. Iampeter

    Actually I just realized I’m asking a question of a screaming imbecile, in full meltdown mode.
    Disregard.

  115. candy

    Monty has 2 little kids. I doubt he would engage in a conversation about killing newborns.

    The two sides will never meet. Conservatives are adrift in trying to understand why liberals don’t mind seeing babies killed. Liberals/left do not see babies as living beings, God’s gift, all of them. They see the killings as expression of a political statement, as far as I can tell. The baby body parts found in jars and rubbish bins outside Gosnell’s place – a political statement of the right to dispense with life.

  116. dover_beach

    IamMengele has been thoroughly exposed, again, in this thread as a complete fraud and nimcompoop.

  117. Tim Neilson

    Iampeter is deflecting now.

    He’s doing exactly what Monty did (RIP).
    Totally ignore what he can’t answer and pick at the ones he can re word to argue against what wasn’t said.

    I think you’re being unfair to monty.

    But you’ve nailed Iamashiteater.

  118. Kneel

    ““Rights” are the freedom of action of volitional beings in a social context. They are not derived from or connected to obligations, which must be freely chosen, not imposed.”

    Certain rights – the so called human rights – are, by convention at least, bestowed upon all humans. These rights also impose obligations upon people – the obligation to assist others obtain and/or retain their “human rights”. (eg a soldier refusing to kill unarmed civilians)
    Other rights may or may not be granted by the government of the day, and such rights also impose an obligation – if nothing else, the obligation to respect the rights of other citizens, and the laws of the land.
    So all rights come with obligations, without exception.

  119. Kneel

    “Who cares? I’m happy to discuss this once you concede you have no arguments against abortion being perfectly legal, not before.”

    It is perfectly legal under certain circumstances, so no, I don’t have an argument against this fact.

    “That’s not true, I made it clear from my very first post in this thread why abortion should be perfectly legal.”

    Indeed you did, but that is not what I asked. As I recall, your argument went along the lines of “a person is only a person after they are born, therefore abortion should be legal”. This is fine logic as justification for legal abortion, but it hardly counts as an opinion on the ethics and morals of using birth as the defining point for the granting of rights.
    So, once again, perhaps you would care to elucidate your opinion on the morals and ethics of the law as it currently stands.

    Not to be judgemental, but do you have autism spectrum disorder? You sure come across as such at times…

  120. Tim Neilson

    Kneel
    #2932282, posted on February 12, 2019 at 10:15 pm

    So all rights come with obligations, without exception.

    In any real life situation you are absolutely correct.

    For pure analytical purposes it is possible to identify “liberties” which don’t come with a corresponding obligation.

    E.g. the liberty of freedom of speech in and of itself doesn’t have any correlative obligation on anyone to help you spread your message, or to listen to you (let alone take you seriously).

    But it is effectively useless without “rights” properly so-called which are inevitably correlative to obligations e.g a right not to be physically assaulted while you’re exercising your liberty of freedom of speech. (Not that that’s generally recognised by, e.g. Antifa and their “progressive” apologists.)

    But don’t expect Iamashiteater to even begin to understand what you’re getting at. His whole “rights” shtick depends on maintaining a hopeless confusion between phenomena that are analytically quite separate.

  121. struth

    Iampeter goes nowhere near the C section or induced premature birth.
    He’ll call peoples names, he’ll state he is being scientific, all the while believing that a baby is dead until it passes through he mystical magical vagina of a woman.
    Then, the great warlock with his pointy hat says the magic words, and life starts.
    You couldn’t either be more thick, or indeed, if not so incredibly thick, then truly evil.

  122. Iampeter

    Not to be judgemental, but do you have autism spectrum disorder? You sure come across as such at times…

    LOL, given what you wrote in your two imbecilic posts, it’s not me that comes across as “autistic.”
    But this is the kind of projection I’ve come to expect from the embarrassingly ignorant cat posters.
    I was happy to tolerate your role-play of someone talking politics, but I guess you’ll go in the pile with the other rambling imbeciles that post here and get ignored instead.

    So all rights come with obligations, without exception.

    Like all politically illiterate conservatives you are calling for and supporting dictatorship, but are too much of an imbecile to realize it.

  123. dover_beach

    IamMengele has been undone. His disguise exposed. The leftist plainly in view. Shoo, now, you dissembling and perverse cretin.

  124. The BigBlueCat

    Does Iampeter think that “autism” equates to “imbecility”? Wow! I wonder how Iampeter explains savants then ….

  125. calli

    His disguise exposed.

    That happened waaaay up thread when he called Christianity a “death cult” because Cross. The false equivalence was stark in its banality.

    You have been kind to engage him.

  126. Iampeter

    Does Iampeter think that “autism” equates to “imbecility”? Wow! I wonder how Iampeter explains savants then ….

    The point is, the stupidity at the cat is such that it is too hard to tell between the genuine imbeciles and those with actual disability.
    Trying to snidely turn this around onto me, like Kneel was attempting, is one of the ways the dummies here evade the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about and have no business on political blogs.

    You have been kind to engage him.

    The one or two, pretentious and incoherent posts, interspaced with an endless stream of ad hominem, contradictions and appeals to emotion, typical of the clueless, melting snowlfakes here, is not an example of “engaging.”

    I’m the one being too kind here, not the other way around.

  127. dover_beach

    IamMengele, you have been undone. Shoo, now, there’s a good boy.

  128. Kneel

    “Trying to snidely turn this around onto me, like Kneel was attempting, is one of the ways the dummies here evade the fact that they don’t know what they’re talking about and have no business on political blogs.”

    What part of “Not to be judgemental…” was not clear to you?

    All I suggested was that you display traits similar to people with autism spectrum disorder – you appear to insists there is only one “right answer”- even for questions most would consider “tricky” -, you abuse people who aren’t as quick as you are, you appear to have no idea of what morals and ethics are or how they should be applied (since you refuse to answer questions on these issues, even trying to divert from “moral” to “legal”), surprisingly intense mood swings and so on. But not uneducated and not unintelligent – in fact, most autistic spectrum sufferers are of above average intelligence by standard tests, although they are pathetic in most social situations. There is no shame in having this condition – it is no more under your control than your sex or skin colour.

    In actual fact, I have a very mild form of this myself – I can “overcome” it and be highly social, but it requires constant effort to do, which can be very tiring. So you can see that this was certainly not intended as an insult, despite you obviously thinking it was.

    If you were suffering from this condition, then I would be more than happy to provide you with tollerence, patience and some tips on how to deal more successfully with social situations.

    Since you insist you are not such a sufferer, I can only conclude that you are either a troll, or someone that makes Homer Simpson look like a genius. Since you are clearly intelligent…

  129. Kneel

    “…interspaced with an endless stream of ad hominem, contradictions and appeals to emotion, typical of the clueless, melting snowlfakes here,…”

    Heh.
    I tried to play devil’s advocate and see things from your perspective. Initially you seemed happy about that. When I suggested you may have an issue that I too have (although I didn’t initially mention that I did), you immediately felt it was intended as an insult, rather than the information gathering it really was, and proceeded to paste me for it.

    Peter, I have honestly done my best to understand your point of view, even going as far as to point out what many others appear to have missed – your insistence that “legal” is all that matters. It is not. The evidence is right here in this thread, if you care to take the time to digest it. If you cannot see that, then you are being deliberately obtuse, or you do, in fact, have some form of autism spectrum disorder – and it would appear to be worse than mine!

    You may take (or feign taking) whatever offense you like to whatever I, or anyone else, posts. But that does not mean it was offensive, let alone created just to offend you (although it is pretty clear that it sometimes is, wouldn’t deny that!)

  130. dover_beach

    clueless, melting snowlfakes

    I’ve broken you in every thread, creampuff.

  131. struth

    Isn’t it amazing watching a lefty like Iampeter divert and detract.

    Classic.

    He’s doing exactly what Monty did (RIP).
    Totally ignore what he can’t answer and pick at the ones he can re word to argue against what wasn’t said.

    Arguing the side comments.

    You’ve been done to death here , again, Iampeter, and no amount of but, buts are going to change that.

    It doesn’t matter what you think, many a fool doesn’t understand when he’s being laughed at.

    You sad, murderous, government expanding, fuck.

  132. Iampeter

    Peter, I have honestly done my best to understand your point of view, even going as far as to point out what many others appear to have missed – your insistence that “legal” is all that matters.

    No, that’s not what you’ve done.
    What’s happened is, you’ve blundered into a conversation you don’t know enough about. Rather than conceding, you’ve decided to double down, putting forward largely nonsensical questions, leaving me to divine meaning or look evasive when pointing out you don’t know what you’re saying.
    The fact that you’ve learnt from me that morality is not legality, is not something you’ve “pointed out that others have missed.”
    You’ve also said there were “many cogent arguments” as of yesterday, yet still haven’t given me even the one example I asked for.

    Nothing in what you’re doing, is in any way honest.

    The only way you could claim such a thing is if you said something like, “I still don’t agree with you, but I need to go away and think about this a lot more. Also the other posters here are batshit crazy.”

    But don’t pretend for even a second, we’ve done anything other than me humoring your evasions.

  133. struth

    Totally ignore what he can’t answer and pick at the ones he can re word to argue against what wasn’t said.

    Again, he keeps doing it.

  134. dover_beach

    IamMengele, you have dropped the mask so thoroughly we can see you in your full ugliness. Your obsession with Alex Jones is the tell that you’re are far left wacko.

  135. Kneel

    “No, that’s not what you’ve done.”
    Had you had the manners to add “from my point of view”, we could agree – or perhaps, more accurately, agree to disagree. Yet again, you state your OPINION as FACT – despite several others as well as myself pointing out to you that this is quite fallacious in your part.

    “What’s happened is, you’ve blundered into a conversation you don’t know enough about.”
    I see. I’m curious what you think I don’t know enough about, and what makes you think that you yourself know enough to make an intelligent comment – surely there are many here who would suggest your comments are rarely intelligent, although not me. They are weird, they are argumentative, they are brazen lies in places – I could go on – but often have intelligent comment in them. Providing you can keep yourself under control long enough, of course. Which is rare enough – but worthwhile when you can. Why else would I continue reading your posts and responding to them? You are hardly an endearing personality as you present here.

    “Rather than conceding, you’ve decided to double down, putting forward largely nonsensical questions, leaving me to divine meaning or look evasive when pointing out you don’t know what you’re saying.”

    There is nothing to concede – I was never arguing with you, I was only ever trying to understand your position and have you understand others. I didn’t “double down”, I re-asked questions that you evaded or ignored – I even went to the trouble to expand and explain, yet you still dodged or failed to understand, or more likely, took some affected offense at some ambiguous comment to avoid answering a difficult question.

    “The fact that you’ve learnt from me that morality is not legality, is not something you’ve “pointed out that others have missed.””
    Could you be more condescending? What makes you think I EVER believed morality and legality are the same? It’s hard to credit that anyone would suggest that, given what I’ve posted on this thread. Perhaps you should read what is actually written and take it at the surface meaning, instead of this affected “I’m smarter than all of you, so you should all shut up”. Seriously – a LOT of people were arguing from a moral point of view, and seemed to miss that you said (once, and easily missed) “legally”. Go read my posts again – that’s why I put “Legal” on lines by themselves.

    “You’ve also said there were “many cogent arguments” as of yesterday, yet still haven’t given me even the one example I asked for.”
    I did – look harder. That you do not find the argument cogent is not the fault of the argument itself, but the interpretation you place on it. If you care to do so, we could conduct a straw poll on the cogency of various arguments, but I suspect you would never participate in such a thing, knowing you will fail.

    “Nothing in what you’re doing, is in any way honest.”
    Oh I see – so now I am a liar, am I? How dare you. I spent my own time and effort to understand your rambling, incoherent crap so as I could hopefully explain it to others, thus giving those others a greater scope of opinions and options to consider, and my reward is to be called a liar. Gee, thanks so much.

    “The only way you could claim such a thing is if you said something like, “I still don’t agree with you, but I need to go away and think about this a lot more. Also the other posters here are batshit crazy.””
    OK.
    I still don’t agree with you, but YOU need to go away and think about it a lot more. You are batshit crazy.
    Oh, not quite right, you say? Others would not agree, methinks – and besides, it’s a hell of a lot more accurate, in both sentences! (at least, IMO)

    “But don’t pretend for even a second, we’ve done anything other than me humoring your evasions.”
    MY evasions? Riiight. Remember where I asked if you had autism spectrum? There was a question in there, well before the one about autism, that I had re-stated in the hope that it was clear what I wanted and that no-one would be offended. Apparently, you didn’t even notice it. And you call others “too stupid to post here”? You accuse me of evading your questions? Sheesh.

    You think I’m being offensive? No, I’m trying to be nice – this bit is me being offensive:
    I have seen more intelligent creatures than you peering at me from the bottom of a pond. I have seen more honest creatures than you standing for public office. And I have seen more consistency of thought (such as it is) and opinion (in significantly greater volumes than the thought, I might add) from confidence tricksters and charlatans. You, Sir, are an embarasment to evolution, to your ancestry, and to your education – assuming you even had one, which looks more and more unlikely with every post you make. Did you manage to tie your own shoe-laces this morning, or did you go for the easy option of thongs or bare feet instead? Had you the wit of a retarded flea, it would be an improvement in every way. All of which could be excused, if only you had a smaller ego and would consider that you may not be right and may not know everything. Alas, your ego appears to be several orders of magnitude larger than your intelligence, so you will never admit even a slight lapse, and are therefore that most despised of all creatures: rude, arrogant, wrong more often than right and unwilling to admit a single error. Are you standing for parliament? You seem to be a perfect fit for that cesspool.
    See? That’s nasty, that’s rude, that’s offensive – I can do it if I chose, but prefer to avoid it. Of course, when my interlocutor insists…

  136. mh

    IamMengele, you have dropped the mask so thoroughly we can see you in your full ugliness. Your obsession with Alex Jones is the tell that you’re are far left wacko.

    His obsession with Alex Jones is not so much wacko, but sad.

    Sad, sad, Peter.

  137. Iampeter

    What makes you think I EVER believed morality and legality are the same?

    Your very first post in this thread makes me think that. You clearly had never heard my approach (politics is about rights) explanation before. Most people haven’t, because most people don’t know anything about politics.
    Instead of admitting that’s the right way to look at it, which I think you know it is, therefore ending the abortion question for yourself, you posted incoherent questions and went back to asking, “what about morality?”

    I did – look harder.

    All these walls of text from you and you can’t just link the post or copy and paste the argument?
    Just conceded there’s no cogent arguments in the drivel from The Cat’s hillbillies.

    You are hardly an endearing personality as you present here.

    When someone is evading the honesty and effort required to concede and go away and think more, they always start bringing up completely irrelevant things like “personality” or grammar.

    Honest people don’t need to like someone to know they are right or wrong.
    Facts don’t care about feelings.

  138. dover_beach

    Facts don’t care about feelings.

    Indeed, I have pummelled you with facts repeatedly such that you are now punch drunk. I remain unmoved.

  139. Kneel

    “Your very first post in this thread makes me think that. You clearly had never heard my approach (politics is about rights) explanation before.”

    Oh Lord Iampeter, please forgive me, for I have sinned! I doubted that you are the unchallenged font of all knowledge, and beg your forgiveness! (in case you needed it)

    Here is the apropos parts of my first post (which, may I add, I am happy to have you quote in full if you think I have been guilty of taking something out of context):
    —-

    “The facts are, abortion doesn’t violate any rights and so should be legal …”

    Legal.

    It doesn’t violate rights – although it is clear that many think it should, and have presented several cogent arguments as to why. Perhaps Peter, you would care to elucidate your opinion of where “rights” should begin – something you have so far avoided.


    Please point out what part of this (or any elided part of the post) indicates to you that I believe morality and legality are the same. It may be worth advising you that someones opinion that the law should follow the generally accepted morals of the citizenry (as you seem to assume I do), does not indicate that they think these are the same thing.

    In any case, here I am, agreeing that it doesn’t violate rights, but questioning, not DOES IT, but rather SHOULD IT? Suggesting that others had made cogent arguments in support of their view, and asking you to respond with your opinion of same, while noting that you had not (and still have not) opined on WHERE THE LINE SHOULD BE, NOT WHERE IT IS!
    Not asking you to hand me FACTS, asking you to advise me of your FEELINGS on the matter. Is that the right place? Why? Have you considered alternatives? Is it, instead, the least bad place to have it? Or have you previously taken this position as a “given”? I would find it difficult to be more explicit about why your previous answers were unresponsive to the question or to state the question in a less ambiguous way – to be frank, I thought the original was pretty straight-forward, especially to one who apparently considers himself intellectually superior. Nor would it be particularly onerous to answer – if it were the case, you could simply say “I agree with where this line currently is, and I have no desire to discuss it further”. Or whatever the case may be.

    I have to say, it surprises me that someone who has no hesitation in writing many posts where they spew their opinions hither and thither with great abandon is suddenly shy about expressing an opinion on this one thing. Perhaps you know you are so inexpert in this area, that your opinion is of no value? Who can say why you avoid this – yet avoiding it you are.

    “Facts don’t care about feelings.”
    So? Iampeter doesn’t appear to care about morals – what does that say about him, and what does he THINK it says about him? I suspect the answers are very different.

  140. The BigBlueCat

    The point is, the stupidity at the cat is such that it is too hard to tell between the genuine imbeciles and those with actual disability.

    Wow again!! That’s an interesting (but false) dichotomy you present there – either your critics are “imbeciles” or have “an actual disability” (that you’ve assumed to be “autistic”). You seem to be limiting your options …

    BTW – those on the spectrum don’t think they have an “actual disability” – they think they are differently abled. Savants are a good example (but you made no attempt to explain savantism and if you think savants are “imbeciles”).

    Facts don’t care about feelings.

    Ah … a Ben Shapiro quote … nice!

    But I must admit – you do cause me to try to understand where you are coming from. Others have stopped trying. Randian Individualism Objectivism is pretty simple to understand – unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. Pure capitalism is the embodiment of self-interest, and government’s forceful intervention on the individual is evil. In Rand’s words:

    Collectivism is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases.

    and

    man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself

    There’s more (eg. egoism), but that’s pretty much it at its core. That’s exactly your point of view.

    But this being a centre-right and libertarian blog, there will be much to “excite” you. That’s why you come here.

  141. Iampeter

    Please point out what part of this (or any elided part of the post) indicates to you that I believe morality and legality are the same.

    That entire bit you linked, indicates this, as it is a dishonest attempt at evading conceding the point.

    Anyway, I’m still waiting for at least one “cogent argument” that abortion somehow violates rights?
    How many more walls of confused text are you willing to put up to avoid conceding?

    But I must admit – you do cause me to try to understand where you are coming from. Others have stopped trying.

    Others haven’t stopped trying, they have no business on a political blog. They are triggered by the few people that swing by here that might know what they are talking about, because it ruins the role-play.

    But this being a centre-right and libertarian blog, there will be much to “excite” you. That’s why you come here.

    You still don’t seem to understand, despite numerous explanations, that what you are linking describing the ideas I agree with, are the ones that should be dominant on a “libertarian, centre-right blog,” even if not as clearly or fully in agreement.

    You don’t seem to understand that you and most posters here are complete leftists, who are on the wrong blog.

  142. dover_beach

    Anyway, I’m still waiting for at least one “cogent argument” that abortion somehow violates rights?

    To repeat, there is no morally relevant difference between a child in utero and a child post partum. If the child post partum enjoys a natural right to life than so does the child in utero.

    Nothing you have said has demonstrated otherwise.

  143. The BigBlueCat

    What bit of “centre-right” don’t you understand? Of course there will be some views expressed that will be to the left of your self-claimed hard-right point of view … that doesn’t make a view “leftist”. Plus there is much in common with libertarian and leftist viewpoints (views on abortion is the classic example). It’s not hard to work out, Iampeter, that you share many views with the leftists you disdain, despite your protestations to the contrary. You just won’t admit it. You’re in denial. You are not libertarian (you claim this yourself) but you are a Randian Individualist soaking in Objectivism. This is not particularly helpful on a centre-right and libertarian blog because you are neither.

  144. Iampeter

    What bit of “centre-right” don’t you understand? Of course there will be some views expressed that will be to the left of your self-claimed hard-right point of view … that doesn’t make a view “leftist”.

    I agree 100% agreement is not a requirement and even said as much.
    I can even understand arguments against aborting a perfectly viable fetus, for example, when there is no medical need, even if I disagree with it. There are no such rational positions put forward here, just unhinged shrieks about baby murder, making no conversation possible.
    Also, those that want to ban all abortion, regulate immigration, trade, reject capitalism and have positive things to say about socialism ARE leftists and are on the wrong blog. This shouldn’t be contentious.

    Plus there is much in common with libertarian and leftist viewpoints (views on abortion is the classic example).

    Right and to the extent that is the case it represents an issue with Libertarianism. Unless you don’t have an issue with being a leftist?

    It’s not hard to work out, Iampeter, that you share many views with the leftists you disdain, despite your protestations to the contrary.

    None of my positions are left wing. You haven’t got any of the terms clearly defined.
    Leftists are collectivists, so since you call me “individualist soaking in Objectivism” you can’t also call me left wing. That’s a contradiction.
    You on the other hand, are vague on everything, as most people are re politics today, so don’t even realize why I’m calling you leftists. Your simply throwing terms you don’t understand.
    Being a consistent individualist is the most helpful you can have on a libertarian and centre-right blog, while muddled, collectivists and leftists like you have no place on such a blog and makes no sense for you to be here.
    You and many others here are such totally politically illiterate leftists, that this even has to be explained.
    There’s nothing like this on the internet, precisely because of moderation.

  145. Infidel Tiger

    We’re all shocked to find out that Iampeter is a deranged ghoul with depraved morals.

  146. Iampeter

    Oh look, more ad hominem from a politically illiterate leftist, at the cat.

    Have you figured out what “individual rights” are yet? LOL.

  147. Infidel Tiger

    Have you figured out what “individual rights” are yet? LOL.

    The right to life must be one you reject.

    You’re a very sick person.

  148. Iampeter

    Well, if you think the right to life means you can force another person to be an incubator, I can’t imagine what arguments you have against forcing people to pay for healthcare, food, shelter, anything really.

    This complete inversion of the concept and use of rights, is how we get Marxism.

    And it’s conservatives loudly and proudly advancing this.

  149. struth

    Totally ignore what he can’t answer and pick at the ones he can re word to argue against what wasn’t said.

    IamPeter is an anarchist who believes murder is just a human right.

    One sick fucker.
    Yet the sadness we see here is that he has been destroyed.
    He now knows what sort of a fuckwit he is, he’s been utterly destroyed, and yet, that arrogance won’t let him admit it, and he therefore continues on showing us what might more properly be expressed lying on a couch somewhere private , in therapy, than to bawl his eyes out here.

  150. Kneel

    OK Peter – I went away and thought about your position.

    Seems to me that while your logic is impeccable, your premises are faulty – meaning your conclusions are also faulty.

    Also, you quite rightly pointed out that “Facts don’t care about feelings”.
    It is a fact that while individuals can be persuaded by facts and logic, crowds are more easily swayed by emotions – hence violence at mass protests, despite the majority attending with no violent intent.
    It is also a fact that in a democracy, in order to get things done, you need to be elected, which means you need to persuade large groups.
    Clearly then, the most effective approach is to make emotional arguments – which is what we see all the time in politics.
    Also clear then, is that your strategy of “facts and logic, no feelings” is a losing one.

    Your preferred method of dismissing arguments – that your interlocutor is stupid, ignorant or both and that they should “go away” – is certainly reminiscent of typical left-wing strategies, yet you claim to be right-wing. Perhaps it is you who is confused.

    Your “idea” that politics is all about “rights” falls because the fact is the politics is about power – pure and simple. There is quite literally only one “politician” who appears, once elected, to be more concerned with the good of the country than his or her own power and money – DJT. And how despised by the political class he is. Telling, what?

    Furthermore, in response to your statement that I picked on your personality, you could only “prove” this by taking one sentence completely out of context, indicating the dishonesty and “whatever it takes” attitude of left wingers.

    Here are just some of the “defects” in your personality that will almost certainly prevent you from ever obtaining political power unless you change or hide them:
    Your are arrogant – only your view is a considered opinion, others have not thought about the issue.
    You are intransigent – you will not change your mind in light of new evidence or new variations you have not previously considered.
    You are a hypocrite – you abuse others rather than address the argument, then claim that should others do the same (or you can distort what they say by selective quotation to make it appear so), they have no argument to make.
    You are rude – I initially tried to be polite and solicit your opinion, only to be handed abuse when it wasn’t what you thought it was.
    Your propensity to be careless with the truth does not appear to be any sort of barrier to political success, so that seems unimportant in this case, although worthy of mention – we would all appreciate a politician without this trait, but they are few and far between, and rarely “successful”.

    Your intransigence and arrogance might be acceptable were you correct.
    Your rudeness could be overlooked provided you could also suppress your hypocrisy and arrogance.
    Alas, you do not meet the conditions and I suspect you are incapable of doing so.

  151. Infidel Tiger

    Well, if you think the right to life means you can force another person to be an incubator, I can’t imagine what arguments you have against forcing people to pay for healthcare, food, shelter, anything really.

    Using this logic, should a mother be required to feed, clothe and shelter a child after she has given birth? Or can she abandon the child because as a hyper individualist she believes it should be able to make its own way in the world?

  152. Tel

    … you think the right to life means you can force another person to be an incubator …

    Ummm, did I force her to get pregnant?

  153. dover_beach

    IT, you are not going to get an honest answer from IamMengele, who is now reduced to calling pregnant mothers ‘incubators’, a well-known leftie feminist trope.

  154. Kneel

    ” It’s not hard to work out, Iampeter, that you share many views with the leftists you disdain, despite your protestations to the contrary.

    None of my positions are left wing.”

    Once again, you distort.
    “you share many views” is not equivalent to “you are”, yet you deliberately conflate the two in order to, what? “score points”? Feel better?

    “…I can’t imagine what arguments you have against forcing people to pay for healthcare, food, shelter, anything really.”

    It seems clear from this that you think people should not be forced to pay for these things – how is that not a leftist view, that someone else pays for your needs, wants and desires?

  155. Iampeter

    Using this logic, should a mother be required to feed, clothe and shelter a child after she has given birth?

    Um, no because that would be a rights violation. Obviously.
    I’m glad you’re here to prove my point that when you guys aren’t throwing ad hominem, you’re putting forward utterly confused, baby-level, attemps at “debate” that I would expect to hear from a Marxist kid, that had no idea what’s going on.

    It seems clear from this that you think people should not be forced to pay for these things – how is that not a leftist view

    It’s literally the opposite of a leftist argument.

  156. Iampeter

    I meant yes, child neglect being a rights violation obviously.

    I can’t believe this is the level of “political discussion” here.

    SMH.

  157. Infidel Tiger

    Um, no because that would be a rights violation. Obviously.

    What right is violated?

    Please explain how killing a baby in utero is different to leaving a bay to die once it is born?

    How does crossing the vaginal wall change things?

  158. Infidel Tiger

    I meant yes, child neglect being a rights violation obviously.

    So you’re saying people do have the right to health care, shelter, food and clothing even if they are incapable of proving it themselves.

    Seems to be a lot of loopholes in your hyper individualist utopia.

  159. struth

    Um, no because that would be a rights violation. Obviously.

    So the scary level dumb of Iampeter has a child dead until it passes through a vagina, so all c section births and Prems should be dead according to his “scientific approach”, well , his god like approach (he’s playing god)

    I’m glad you’re here to prove my point that when you guys aren’t throwing ad hominem, you’re putting forward utterly confused, baby-level, attemps at “debate” that I would expect to hear from a Marxist kid, that had no idea what’s going on.

    Lefty 101, if you’re ugly and you know it, don’t enter the beauty competition and deride those that have and are winning.

    Not just an anarchist.
    Very much an authoritarian left wing anarchist.

  160. dover_beach

    Um, [yes] because that would be a rights violation. Obviously.

    There goes Iambeggingthequestion, again. If the mother is obliged to feed, clothe and shelter, in other words, care for the child post partum because the child is entitled as a matter of right to this care from the mother, why isn’t the mother obliged to care for the child in utero as a matter of right too? You’ve still presented no morally relevant difference.

  161. mh

    The Soros Open Society Foundations would welcome Iampeter’s activism.

    Not sure why Iampeter would hang around the Cat where he has had zero influence over anyone or anything ever. He keeps doing the same thing expecting a different result.

  162. Ivan Denisovich

    Um, no because that would be a rights violation. Obviously.

    Peter, how have you determined what constitutes a right? Your calculation seems rather arbitrary. If it’s simply a matter of personal choice, then what’s to stop pe dos declaring that sex with a 9 year old doesn’t violate any rights? Or do you see the law as the deciding factor – if it’s not illegal, it’s a right?

  163. Tel

    The same question with two opposite answers one after another:

    Um, no because that would be a rights violation. Obviously.

    Well, obviously.

    I meant yes, child neglect being a rights violation obviously.

    Ahhhh wait, both yes and no, either way the “rights violation” explanation gets used (because this same explanation gets used for everything). The guy has gone around in so many circles he even confuses himself. Haven’t you good people figured out by now that when Iampeter says “rights violation” he is only spoofing the Randian perspective?

    That’s why you can never get a straight answer out of him. He never will give you a coherent description of “rights” because he never had one to begin with, it’s proto-Randian boilerplate text. The purpose is to waste your time.

  164. RobK

    The purpose is to waste your time.
    Big job for Calli and her Gernie about these parts.

  165. The BigBlueCat

    Right and to the extent that is the case it represents an issue with Libertarianism. Unless you don’t have an issue with being a leftist?

    I have an issue with being called a leftist when I’m not a leftist. I’m happy to concede that some positions I might take are in common with leftists, but taken as a whole I am centre-right. I do not share leftists views on who should own and control the means of production, for instance. But I might share some views with leftists on welfare for those with genuine needs.

    It’s not hard to work out, Iampeter, that you share many views with the leftists you disdain, despite your protestations to the contrary.

    None of my positions are left wing.

    I am saying you share views with leftists to to some make you indistinguishable from leftists in terms of those views (eg. abortion).

    You on the other hand, are vague on everything, as most people are re politics today, so don’t even realize why I’m calling you leftists. Your simply throwing terms you don’t understand.

    No, I have been very, very specific. I know why you call me leftist – I am left of your position on a few topics. Opposing abortion, for instance, does not make one a leftist except to you. You are the only one claiming that being anti-abortion is leftist. No-one else agrees with your position. It’s not that they are politically ignorant – rather they are politically informed.

    Being a consistent individualist is the most helpful you can have on a libertarian and centre-right blog, while muddled, collectivists and leftists like you have no place on such a blog and makes no sense for you to be here.

    One would have thought being consistently centre-right or libertatrian would be the most helpful, especially when addressing individulaism, objectivism and Socialism.

    You and many others here are such totally politically illiterate leftists, that this even has to be explained.
    There’s nothing like this on the internet, precisely because of moderation.

    Few of us would be professional economists or political science academics, though clearly some are. No-one is claiming otherwise. You have a very limited and special point of view, but worse it’s the invective (from you but also towards you) that I am most concerned about.

    But most do understand the key differences between the means of production being in private or public hands, the effects of Keynsian versus Moneterist policy, the rights of the individual to own and control property, the desire to see government influence on our lives significantly reduced or elimated, the rise of neo-Marxism in our media, education institutions and government, and a range of other politically defined impacts on the conduct of our daily existence.

    For the most part, the Cat is a lion’s cage where the inhabitants have a good growl at issues of the day (and each other), but for the most part the course of Western Civilisation really isn’t changed all that much. I doubt any of us has a perfect grasp of “the truth” when it comes to politics and the economy.

    And I can tell you for a fact that pure Randian Individualist Objectivism for all is the answer either – an observation of human nature tells me that. While Uncle Milt, Hayek, Sowell, Laffer and others who influenced leaders like Reagan and Thatcher (both fans of Ayn Rand) and saw neo-liberalism make significant strides in terms of productivity, lower taxation, better GDP, etc are to be admired, studied and in many ways replicated, at certain levels excessive competitiveness borne out of extreme self-interest can be very destructive (exhibit A being the recent Banking Royal Commission). We all need to be concerned about the unintended consequences of public policy decisions and decisions made by highly competitive people running large, influential companies.

  166. Tintarella di Luna

    Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,

    The craven monsters are so weak they can only wage war on the unborn and infants.

  167. Ellen of Tasmania

    Dr Anthony Levatino second trimester abortion congressional testimony – not for the faint of heart:

  168. The BigBlueCat

    To be clear …

    And I can tell you for a fact that pure Randian Individualist Objectivism for all isn’t the answer either – an observation of human nature tells me that.

  169. Iampeter

    Seems to be a lot of loopholes in your hyper individualist utopia.

    Your contradictions and non-squiturs don’t show any loopholes in anything I’ve said, rather reinforce my original position, that you are a very uninformed leftist.
    Take it from the top:
    I’ve said abortion should be legal because it doesn’t violate rights.
    You’re responded with the classic, leftist, “but it’s human life therefore free stuff from other humans by force…”
    On top of being leftist, this is also a contradiction.
    When I pointed out that this puts you on the same side as Marxists, you switched to the non-sequitur of child neglect.
    Contrary to abortion, child neglect IS a rights violation and so should rightly be illegal.
    Me saying as much, led you to another non-sequitur therefore concluding I must support socialism.
    Also, suggesting that opposing the rights violations of child neglect, would mean support for the rights violations of socialism is another contradiction.
    All this beside the point that child neglect has nothing to do with abortion and doesn’t need to come up.

    This is the pattern you have, to avoid conceding that I’m right and that as a right winger, abortion should be perfectly legal, even if you personally don’t agree with it.
    OR
    That you’re a leftist, don’t give a shit about rights and will support collectivist policies like banning abortion.

    Since you mock my individualist positions as “utopian” we both know your real position is the second one.
    This is a jarring realization for you, because you’ve spent years reading and blogging about politics and fancy yourself relatively informed, tut tutting at those ignorant leftists, only to have it pointed out that you are also, one of those ignorant leftists.

  170. Iampeter

    It is a fact that while individuals can be persuaded by facts and logic, crowds are more easily swayed by emotions – hence violence at mass protests, despite the majority attending with no violent intent.
    It is also a fact that in a democracy, in order to get things done, you need to be elected, which means you need to persuade large groups.

    Basically what you’re saying here is, facts and logic are too much effort, lets just go with the emotional mob.

    Here are just some of the “defects” in your personality that will almost certainly prevent you from ever obtaining political power unless you change or hide them:

    LOL you’re on a thread with raving lunatics, sperging non-stop, but it’s MY personality defects that are so concerning that you feel the need to put it in writing?
    Who do you think you are trying to convince of anything at this point?

  171. Tel

    If child neglect is a rights violation, then other humans are obliged to care for the child. Who is obliged and where does this obligation come from?

  172. Infidel Tiger

    Contrary to abortion, child neglect IS a rights violation and so should rightly be illegal.

    Help me out here bro.

    At what point does a baby become a rights deserving human being?

  173. mh

    Ayn Rand and her husband were both recipients of welfare for years and years.

    Rand’s musings should not be taken as a philosophical framework for life, because this was not even done by Ayn herself. If her followers want to engage in mutual mental masturbation, that’s fine. But please, not here.

  174. dover_beach

    IamMengele is just babbling now. Killing the child in utero at 34 weeks is not a rights violation but leaving the child to die still at 35 weeks but now post partum, is a rights violation. When asked what the difference is, silence ensues.

    This sort of argumentative cluelessness is legion.

  175. Tel

    Ayn Rand and her husband were both recipients of welfare for years and years.

    I doubt she got as much back out of US Social Security as what she paid into it. Not sure if that counts as “welfare” although words are hard to pin down these days … since the word “welfare” long ago meant how well you fared.

    Most people with a decent income during their working lives make a nett loss out of Social Security even if they claim everything they can get. That’s kind of why they need to be forced into the scam in the first place.

  176. dover_beach

    Ellen, that clip is indeed chilling but it needs to be acknowledged.

  177. Iampeter

    At what point does a baby become a rights deserving human being?

    The fact a baby has rights is not in dispute.
    Abortion doesn’t involve babies though, so what is your point?

  178. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    Abortion doesn’t involve babies though, so what is your point?

    sorry we forgot, of course it involves dogs….are you just deliberately acting stupid??

  179. Tel

    Iampeter checklist:

    * Karl Marx was a devout Christian.
    * Benjamin Franklin hated Christians.
    * The US Constitution has nothing to do with limited government.
    * Abortion doesn’t involve babies.
    * If in doubt, say “rights violation” five times and “you don’t know anything about politics”.

  180. Infidel Tiger

    Abortion doesn’t involve babies though, so what is your point?

    I have two more questions:

    1. What does it involve?
    2. At what point does a Fetus turn from a rights violating clump of cells into a rights deserving human being?

    Thanks for engaging. I am learning much.

  181. Gab

    Abortion doesn’t involve babies though,

    Seconds from birth the baby can be aborted instead – oh wait it’s not a baby at that stage, so it must be an aardvark or something.

    You idiot.

  182. Iampeter

    1. What does it involve?
    2. At what point does a Fetus turn from a rights violating clump of cells into a rights deserving human being?

    1. Who cares? It doesn’t change the fact that being carried to term is not a right, anymore than free healthcare is a right, so it could be a full grown adult, or a man who thinks he’s a woman, or whatever other self-evident, nonsense you want, in order to evade conceding that you don’t know anything about politics, and it still won’t be a rights violation to have an abortion.

    2. You first get individual rights when you’re born. Rights are not something you “deserve” but a concept derived from the facts of mans nature and his requirements if he’s going to live among other men.

    Thanks for engaging. I am learning much.

    Your sarcasm makes no sense.
    Your ignorance on these topics is breathtaking, especially when you factor in that you’re not a teenager and have spent years reading about politics.

  183. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    we’re having a fetus!

    you’re all invited to our fetus shower!

    it’s a fetus with XY chromosomes!

    grandma knitting some fetus booties

  184. Infidel Tiger

    Your sarcasm makes no sense.
    Your ignorance on these topics is breathtaking, especially when you factor in that you’re not a teenager and have spent years reading about politics.

    Tell me about it!

    Until 2 minutes ago I was of the opinion that all human pregnancies involved human beings and now I know differently!

    I’m still not clear on this whole “rights” thing though – are you saying you instantly get these rights the moment you are outside of the woman or if you prefer “incubator”? Because that would really complicate things if the abortion failed and the”baby” was born alive.

  185. dover_beach

    1. What does [abortion] involve?

    1. Who cares?

    IamMengele in a nutshell.

  186. JC

    WTF

    1. Who cares? It doesn’t change the fact that being carried to term is not a right, anymore than free healthcare is a right, so it could be a full grown adult, or a man who thinks he’s a woman, or whatever other self-evident, nonsense you want, in order to evade conceding that you don’t know anything about politics, and it still won’t be a rights violation to have an abortion.

    2. You first get individual rights when you’re born. Rights are not something you “deserve” but a concept derived from the facts of mans nature and his requirements if he’s going to live among other men.

    Iamapeter,

    How far up the autism spectrum are you? Do you twirl your fingers for instance when speaking to people. Do you have difficulty looking at people when conversing?

  187. The BigBlueCat

    Basically what you’re saying here is, facts and logic are too much effort, lets just go with the emotional mob.

    He’s not saying “let’s just go with the emotional mob” … he’s explaining how mobs work.

    Abortion doesn’t involve babies though, so what is your point?

    From Merriam-Webster dictionary:

    fetus noun
    fe·tus | \ ˈfē-təs \
    Definition of fetus
    : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind
    specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

    Cambridge dictionary:

    fetus
    noun [ C ] uk also foetus UK /ˈfiː.təs/ US /ˈfiː.t̬əs/

    a young human being or animal before birth, after the organs have started to develop

    Collins dictionary:

    fetus in British
    or foetus (ˈfiːtəs )
    noun
    Word forms: plural -tuses
    the embryo of a mammal in the later stages of development, when it shows all the main recognizable features of the mature animal, esp a human embryo from the end of the second month of pregnancy until birth

    To make a claim that the unborn human is worthy of a capricious​ termination by order of the mother because “feelings” is morally wrong. Let’s not discuss deformities or other defects – stick with the premise of a healthy and viable fetus, in utero at, say, 28 weeks. What is the moral argument that the life of the fetus (future born child) can have their life potential removed because of the feelings, financial situation, mental state, etc of the one carrying the child in pregnancy? Unless there is agreement at that basic level, all other arguments for and against are meaningless (relatively speaking).

    The conversation needs to change from “the rights of the woman” to “the proper love and nurturing of the child”. Abortion is an emotional topic on both sides of the argument – of that there should be no doubt. The conversations needs to encourage the women to consider the life they carry within, and not see that life as a mere inconvenience or threat, but as something that is a continuation of their genetic and emotional make-up.

    If we’re able to start at that point, then the issues of utility of the child ought to evaporate.

    While people like to talk about the rights of the unborn (whether they have them or not) is not really the point – nor is it a strict issue of legality, since (in my view) the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights (this will get a rise from someone we know). Irrespective​ if anyone thinks this is a Socialist or a Libertarian position, there is no doubt there is a societal case to consider whether the yet-to-be-born human should receive the nurture and care they warrant. They are more than a clump of cells – they either actually or potentially a human being​ with rights and feelings. We were all that once.

  188. Iampeter

    Until 2 minutes ago I was of the opinion that all human pregnancies involved human beings and now I know differently!

    No one said pregnancies don’t involve human beings.
    All that’s being said is abortion is not a rights violation.
    You’re the one that’s stuck pretending embryos are baby’s, for some reason, which changes nothing about the above point either way.
    I guess you must also think men can be women and that squares are circles.

    But please, continue with your sarcasm, to evade the fact that you have no counter argument and that the ones you want to make, are the same as any Marxist would make.

  189. Iampeter

    While people like to talk about the rights of the unborn (whether they have them or not) is not really the point – nor is it a strict issue of legality, since (in my view) the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights

    Yea…so does every socialist and fascist. In fact that sounds like something Hitler would’ve said.

    You post this far-left, authoritarianism, in the same thread that you were claiming to be centre-right. SMH.

    Every post from you cretins, is another example that the cat is full of the most clueless leftists.

  190. Infidel Tiger

    No one said pregnancies don’t involve human beings.
    All that’s being said is abortion is not a rights violation.
    You’re the one that’s stuck pretending embryos are baby’s, for some reason, which changes nothing about the above point either way.
    I guess you must also think men can be women and that squares are circles.

    No, I have much simpler beliefs. I believe human life begins at conception.

    Sorry if that is too complicated for a ghoul like yourself.

  191. struth

    This guy is one loony tune,

    You get your rights once you are born says the totalitarian god from on high.
    The baby is not alive until the moment it is born says this obviously dopey young life experience poor scrotum sack.
    Against all facts about the living being of separate D&A living inside, kicking, feeding and growing, being able to be pulled from the womb alive via a c section, be alive born prematurely, through a c section, he believes like a dopey dangerous young shit he is, that until it goes through the vaginal cavity, it has no rights.
    Yet as soon as it is born, in many ways then more helpless than it was and much more in need of parental care, it can stand up and claim it’s rights.

    Obviously in Iampeter’s mind, you have a right to murder as long as you don’t see the living human you are killing.

    There is no such right.
    The baby is helpless and you, oh lord above, oh god of understanding and political freedom expert, the almighty Iampopeandgod can imbue it with rights when ever you feel you may decree, but it’s rights aren’t going to be claimed by it and is not the issue.
    The issue is whether you believe you have the right to murder babies.
    And you don’t have that right, and only the sickest, most evil, primitive of cultures practiced it.
    You are godless Iampeter because you think you are one.

    The basic state of affairs is this.
    Forget the rights of the baby.
    The person killing a human has no right to do so.
    And to believe a baby inside his or her mummies tummy, kicking, feeding, growing and moving just to get comfy, is dead because you can’t see it ,is the ultimate purposeful evil ignorance .
    You’re an inhuman piece of shit.
    Murderers have no right to murder, and humans do not get to decide which other humans live or die.
    So tell us when exactly during the birth process does your science tell you it’s alive?
    Is it the smack on the bum?
    Really numbskull?
    Maybe it’s the cutting of the chord?
    The baby has had a heart beat, hair on it’s head, it’s fingernails often need a little trim because they don’t get trimmed inside.
    Birth is welcoming an already living human into the world and it’s a beautiful thing.
    You’re a sick boy, Iampeter.
    YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL BABIES .
    That’s not libertarian, that’s totalitarianism.
    That’s pagan uncivilised barbaric murder.
    You, shitfabrains do not get to decide who lives and who dies.
    No one does.
    We don’t kill those who murder these days anymore, because no one has the right to take a life.
    NO one.

  192. struth

    One day, if you are lucky enough Iampeter, you may get married and your wife may get pregnant.
    I guarantee you she will love the child with it’s heart beat and it’s kicking , and how sick it makes her will be irrelevant, and the pain of birth, and you’ll feel feelings for the baby inside her that you can’t possibly understand now.
    You will feel the baby kick, and love it before you see it, you will understand that it is you inside her.

    You know nothing of life.
    I can’t explain it here, but just before it is born, let me know and I’ll come around and smash your wife in the guts with a baseball bat.
    See if you don’t scream murder then.

  193. dover_beach

    You’re the one that’s stuck pretending embryos are baby’s

    A child in utero at 10 or 20 or 30 or 36 weeks, IamMengele, is beyond the developmental stage of an embryo. Your attempt to hide behind words that are not even moral relevant indicate a level of intellectual poverty that is embarrassing indeed.

  194. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter has invoked Hitler … he loses !

  195. Iampeter

    Iampeter has invoked Hitler … he loses !

    No moron, you invoked Hitler, when you started channeling him to demonstrate how not left wing you were.
    Here’s what you said: “legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights”
    Here’s some choice Hitler quotes:

    “The liberty of the individual ends where it starts to harm the interests of the collective.”
    “In this case the liberty of the Volk takes precedence over the liberty of the individual.”
    “Above the liberty of the individual, however, there stands the liberty of our Volk. The liberty of the Reich takes precedence over both.”
    “The lone individual is short-lived; the Volk is lasting.”
    “While the liberal world outlook, by according the individual a god-like status, must of necessity lead to the destruction of the Volk, National Socialism wishes to preserve the Volk as such, if necessary at the expense of the individual.”
    “National Socialist…setting the interest of the community above the liberty and the initiative of the individual.”

    Actually as I was posting those, it struck me how often people at the cat express this kind of sentiment, almost verbatim. Reinforcing how clueless and left wing posters here are.

    Also, since the “Hitlerian” accusations have been directed at me all thread and you’ve not said anything, because you have no idea about anything, I should point out that Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-abortion and worked to tighten anti-abortion laws.

    In fact, the vile religious conservatives and both disgusting catholic and orthodox churches at the time, overwhelmingly supported the Nazi’s, because they were anti-abortion and anti-homosexual.

    You people really don’t know anything.
    Just a bunch of raving lunatics and politically illiterate leftists.

    Australia’s leading libertarian and centre-right blog, everyone!

  196. Ivan Denisovich

    In fact, the vile religious conservatives and both disgusting catholic and orthodox churches at the time, overwhelmingly supported the Nazi’s, because they were anti-abortion and anti-homosexual.

    Some of the history:

    The Church in Nazi Germany was subjected to as much pressure as any other organisation in Germany. Any perceived threat to Hitler could not be tolerated – and the churches of Germany potentially presented the Nazis with numerous threats.

    In 1933, the Catholic Church had viewed the Nazis as a barrier to the spread of communism from Russia. In this year, Hitler and the Catholic Church signed an agreement that he would not interfere with the Catholic Church while the Church would not comment on politics. However, this only lasted until 1937, when Hitler started a concerted attack on the Catholic Church arresting priests etc………………..

    The Protestants themselves were split. The “German Christians” were lead by Ludwig Muller who believed that any member of the church who had Jewish ancestry should be sacked from the church. Muller supported Hitler and in 1933 he was given the title of “Reich Bishop”.

    Those who opposed the views of Muller were called the “Confessing Church”. This was led by Martin Niemoller. He was famous in Germany as he had been a World War One U-boat captain. Therefore, he was potentially an embarrassing foe to the Nazis. Regardless of this, he was not safe from the Gestapo who arrested him for opposing Hitler. Niemoller was sent to a concentration camp for 7 years where he was kept in solitary confinement. Many other Confessional Church members suffered the same fate……………………………..

    In 1941, a secret report compiled by Protestants stated that children in Germany were being brought up minus a Christian education. It stated that the Nazis confiscated vast areas of church property and that the Catholic Church in Germany was suffering from the same fate.

    https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-church-in-nazi-germany/

    Pius XI criticised the state for putting ideological beliefs before Christian ones. Priests in Germany were warned not to criticise Hitler or the Nazi regime. However, individual priests did make a stand against the government and between 1939 and 1943, 693 Catholic priests were arrested and tried for “oppositional activity”.

    In April 1940, the Pope received a communication from a Papal messenger in Berlin that priests were being openly hostile to the Nazi government…………………………………..

    On August 3rd 1941 the Catholic Church in Germany made clear its stand against euthanasia……………………………….

    Galen must have known that to make such a speech during the war would have been extremely provocative. Walter Tiessler who worked in the propaganda section of the Reich Chancellery, called on Martin Bormann to order Galen’s execution. In fact, Goebbels effectively saved Galen as he stated that only Hitler could order such an outcome……………….

    https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/the-catholic-church-and-nazi-germany/

  197. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter … I am invoking Godwin’s rule … you specifically invoked Hitler. All you have done is found something Hitler said. If Hitler said “the sky is blue” and I said “the sky is blue” does that make me the same as Hitler? I don’t think so. Your belief is that Hitler is necessarily wrong on all matters. My view is that he sometimes used truth but rung its neck to achieve his own ends. Pretty much what you do. I’m not calling you Hitler though ….

    What I found astounding is that when your views that align with leftism are pointed out to you is deny, deny, deny. Isn’t that intellectual dishonesty?

    You problem is that unless a Cat shares your Randian Indivualism Objectivism beliefs, they must ipso facto be of the left. My position as a centre-right is that there may be some shared beliefs with leftists, but the core beliefs are still rooted in neo-liberalism. You are unable to see that because “Ayn Rand”.

    Social conscience: a sense of responsibility or concern for the problems and injustices of society.

    Doesn’t sound very “Hitler” to me … you have expressed the very same sensibility when it comes to individual rights. I don’t think that makes you Hitler.

    Also, since the “Hitlerian” accusations have been directed at me all thread and you’ve not said anything, because you have no idea about anything, I should point out that Hitler and the Nazi’s were anti-abortion and worked to tighten anti-abortion laws.

    I’m not aware of any “Hitlerian accusations” against you specifically, and if there was I am more than certain you will have pointed them out. You have no need for anyone to defend you – you seem to do quite well on your own. But I would point out that you are wrong about Nazi Germany’s views on abortion.

    You might find this academic article interesting. It states:

    Nazi Germany’s eugenics laws liberalized abortion for both Aryan and non-Aryan women. Aryan women could obtain an abortion simply by demonstrating that either parent had an hereditary defect, or that the child would be born with a congenital defect. Non-Aryan women were “encouraged” to utilize contraception and abortion in order to reduce their populations.

    But to quote your own words back at you: You’ve also clearly demonstrated you’re prepared to lie to advance your agenda, just like any good leftist. Care to comment?

    You people really don’t know anything.
    Just a bunch of raving lunatics and politically illiterate leftists.

    So the question remains – why are you here? You think we are all know-nothing leftists. OK. Are you being altruistic in teaching us the view from the Randian Objectivist landscape???? I would proffer we know something different, be that from the right, centre, left, authoritarian or laissez-faire. Centre-right and libertarian can be a “broad church” – maybe too broad for you.

    Bottom line – few will buy your argument that unconditional abortion of the unborn is moral and should be legal under any circumstances. Those that do buy your argument usually align with social liberalism, atheism, neo-Marxism and (it seems) Nazism. And with Randian Individualism Objectivism, it seems.

  198. The BigBlueCat

    And Iampeter, the Mussolini’s Fascist policy on abortion was that they opposed abortion. Just because many agree with that does not make them Fascists or promote Fascism hollus bollus.

    But of course, you are being a collectivist yourself – any minor alignment with thinking with an oppressive regime makes that person “one of them” and should therefore be pilloried and disdained. Isn’t this Randian tactic “collectivism”? (It’s certainly ad hominem). Doesn’t it make the claim that because one idea is the same, then all ideas of that collective are the same? That has been your rationale all along …. you are more “collectivist” than anyone else on this blog!

  199. Iampeter

    All you have done is found something Hitler said. If Hitler said “the sky is blue” and I said “the sky is blue” does that make me the same as Hitler?

    No, I have not pointed out a non-essential like this.
    I’ve pointed out how you are almost verbatim in line with the principles of far-leftists, like nationalist socialists. That’s kind of a big deal.

    Pretty much what you do. I’m not calling you Hitler though ….

    That’s a description of you and other posters here. To the extent they are not just raving.
    What I’m doing is presenting facts and making supporting arguments.
    Precisely what people here cannot do, hence the triggering and hysterics.

    What I found astounding is that when your views that align with leftism are pointed out to you is deny, deny, deny.

    None of my views align with leftism, so you can’t be pointing this out. Your views and other posters here, are pretty traditional leftist views though.
    You don’t understand this because neither you nor other posters here understand what leftism is anyway. You don’t know anything about politics. You also keep ignoring the basic explanations of these basic terms that are provided repeatedly.

    Doesn’t sound very “Hitler” to me

    That’s because you’re a completely disintegrated thinker. You don’t know what sounds or doesn’t sound like anything.
    You have no grasp of the fundamentals and can’t even make the connections as you post almost verbatim the same stuff as you think you’re opposing.

    I’m not aware of any “Hitlerian accusations” against you

    Aside from the endless IamMengels for example?
    It’s not about defending me, it’s about intellectual honesty.
    Everything you’re saying about me (note how it always becomes about me and not the ideas or arguments, because you morons don’t have any) should be directed at the other commenters here, not me.

    So the question remains – why are you here? You think we are all know-nothing leftists

    Which means the real question is, why are you, know nothing leftists here?

  200. The BigBlueCat

    None of my views align with leftism, so you can’t be pointing this out.

    Bwahahahahahahaha You ought to go into comedy with lines like that! Your stance on abortion perfectly aligns with extreme liberal thought but you are plainly unwilling to admit that someone else can see something you cannot. See here. Oh, the arrogance (not the pejorative use of the word). But it is very clear that abortion on demand, the rights of the mother, the view that the fetus is “a collection of cells”/”is not a person” and other arguments are arguments of the left and arguments of libertarians, individualists, objectivists and others (ie. those who place themselves on the right).

    What I’m doing is presenting facts and making supporting arguments.
    Precisely what people here cannot do, hence the triggering and hysterics.

    No, you are expressing your opinion based on your worldview, which does trigger those who have a differing view, but you deliberately do that by your own admission. You make few supporting arguments other than “rights” and accusing your opponents holding views on certain topics as leftist (and therefore they are Socialists according to your collectivist viewpoint.) Yet as I have demonstrated, you also share much in common with leftists, but you will not see it. Everyone else does though.

    Aside from the endless IamMengels for example?

    That’s a reference to Mengele, who was a Nazi. But not Hitler or Nazism specifically. That’s probably a bit semantic, but accurate nonetheless. But as I said, you are more than capable of defending yourself – you don’t need me (because I’m a leftist, aren’t I? – this is not an admission, but a reflection of your prior claims). Whether your defence is successful or not, well ….

    Which means the real question is, why are you, know nothing leftists here?

    But we’re not leftist and your accusation does not make it so, as I have demonstrated but you have arrogantly (not the pejorative use) ignored. I have indicated at least twice to you why I am not a leftist but am centre-right. While you are more than prepared to lump me in as a leftist based on single issues, but casually ignore the political and ecomnomic views I hold that align with neo-liberalism, capitalism and centre-right ideas you will not consider me any of those. That just shows your inconsistencies.

    That’s because you’re a completely disintegrated thinker. You don’t know what sounds or doesn’t sound like anything.

    Au contraire … my thinking is broader than you are prepared to acknowledge. I just don’t conform to your limited and bigoted Randian worldview. But that’s ok – that is only your opinion, which as has demonstrated consistently here, is very limited and unique on this blog.

    Everything you’re saying about me (note how it always becomes about me and not the ideas or arguments, because you morons don’t have any) should be directed at the other commenters here, not me.

    Not true. Your views are regularly addressed in the opposition, but you are usually the first to start the name calling (leftist, Socialist, unable to think/join dots, etc), and people respond to that. It’s your fixation of always refuting anything that is actually conservative, libertarian or centre-right and in other cases making false claims that the one making it is leftist and Socialist (when in actuality it might only be a shared view on a specific topic – something we’ve seen you share with leftists even). Your intransigence and readiness to hurl invective is what gets up people’s noses. Just because you make a claim from your Randian worldview does not make it necessarily correct. You know this though, but you cannot possibly admit it because it would do your head in.

  201. Kneel

    “I’ve said abortion should be legal because it doesn’t violate rights.”

    Indeed – and under current law and specific circumstances, you are correct, it is legal.
    Yet you still refuse to even speculate on whether or not the current legal definition is appropriate – except for one point: because of the “not a person until born” schtick, you think abortion should be legal until birth. But you won’t even express an opinion about whether or not “being born” is an appropriate place to draw the line. As I said before, cogent arguments have been made about moving the line, but you seem incapable of seeing what a significant issue this is.
    For someone who claims superior knowledge of politics, you are are remarkably unable to see why this matters – you are blind to it, just as you are blind to the fact the having one or two things in common with the “opposition” doesn’t make you a part of that opposition.

  202. Kneel

    “It is a fact that while individuals can be persuaded by facts and logic, crowds are more easily swayed by emotions – hence violence at mass protests, despite the majority attending with no violent intent.
    It is also a fact that in a democracy, in order to get things done, you need to be elected, which means you need to persuade large groups.

    Basically what you’re saying here is, facts and logic are too much effort, lets just go with the emotional mob.”

    With this comment, you have reached an entirely new level of stupidity – somewhat surprising me, as I had thought you were already being about as stupid as you could get. So congratulations for that.

    Read again, fuckwit – I said (paraphrased) “crowds are more easily swayed by emotion” and “to get things done, you need to persuade crowds”. At no point did I say that facts and logic are too much effort – rather the reverse, if you care to think about it. Because if you start a logical argument (and you should), in order to have the best chance to get it enacted, you need to find an emotional argument as well.
    But this is clearly far too complex reasoning for one of such limited cognitive skills as yourself.

    And now I will wait for the “Well I know you are, but what am I?” response or other abuse you typically make when you know you have lost.

  203. Buccaneer

    Oh wow, a list of Hitler quotes. Yes, it’s true that it’s a fact that they are Hitler quotes, not so much that they relate to anything other than confirming Hitler’s ideology was rooted in socialism. Isn’t it interesting that leftists constantly use facts out of context to confirm their feelings, for peter is clearly a leftist. Why is peter here? To construct a strawman “right wing” position that attempts to delegitimise the whole blog. Sad, not very creative and pretty boring.

  204. Kneel

    “None of my views align with leftism,..”
    Except where they do, it is the leftists that have stolen MY ideas!

    “You don’t understand …”
    “You don’t know anything about politics.”
    “That’s because you’re a completely disintegrated thinker.”
    “You have no grasp of the fundamentals…”
    “…not the ideas or arguments, because you morons don’t have any…”

    Wow.
    Everyone else is an idiot, I’m the only one who knows and understands.
    Fine.
    Then fuck off and let us dribble our shit, OK? You can laugh at us from the naughty corner when Mommy finds out what you’ve done when she wasn’t keeping an eye on you.

  205. dover_beach

    IamMengele is a perfection description of Iampeter, as is Iambeggingthequestion. When faced with the simple question,

    What does [abortion] involve?

    you responded,

    Who cares?

    which perfectly encapsulated not only the moral trajectory of liberalism but also your complete inability to argue rationally.

  206. Kneel

    “Why is peter here?”

    Suggestion: It’s not really Peter, it’s really Malcolm Turdball, and he’s here to have his revenge for the heathens tossing him out of the top job! That’ll learn yas!

  207. mh

    All Iampeter had to do was let go of Ayn Rand and start thinking for himself. Instead he doubled down and soiled himself. He is like a trapped monkey:

    Farmers and hunters in third-world countries have been capturing monkeys for centuries. If you want to catch a monkey, you have to trap it. Here’s how: A farmer or hunter will take a gourd, or they’ll cut a small hole into a termite mound if they’re in Africa. The small hole they cut will be just big enough for the monkey to fit their hand through. Inside the gourd or the jar they’ll put nuts or sweets, something the monkey craves.

    Then they wait. Sooner or later a monkey will come by and smell the nuts, and they’ll want it. They’ll put their hand through the hole, grab a fistful of nuts, and then they’ll try to pull their hand back out. But they can’t. The hole is small enough to put their empty hand through, but not big enough for a hand clutching a fistful of nuts. They’re stuck.

    Now, at this point, the monkey should realize, “Hey, I’m stuck, drop the nuts.” But they don’t. They want the nuts. They don’t want to surrender the nuts. So they pull and pull and pull, refusing to drop the nuts, and the hunter or farmer comes up behind and snatches them.

  208. Iampeter

    But it is very clear that abortion on demand, the rights of the mother, the view that the fetus is “a collection of cells”/”is not a person” and other arguments are arguments of the left and arguments of libertarians, individualists, objectivists and others (ie. those who place themselves on the right).

    Those are NOT the arguments of those of us who are individualists and objectivists. This is why I say you don’t understand the fundamentals. Your politics is not determined by a random position, on a random issue, you’re holding for a random reason. It is determined by your approach to all issues. So, many leftists hold what appear to be contradictory positions on abortion, but they are fundmanentally still leftist. For example, Nazi’s wanted to ban abortion, Russian communists wanted free abortion, that others would pay for, China communists want to force abortion after one child. They are all different. What makes them all leftists is that they are collectivist policies. Like you, they believe “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights” so will impose their beliefs on everyone.
    Those of us who are right wing, fundamentally disagree with this. We think the function of government is to protect individual rights and “social conscience” whatever that is, be damned. As such, we believe abortion should be perfectly legal, because no rights are violated. Superficially you might think we have some similarities to some leftists, but we couldn’t be more apart at the fundamental level.

    No, you are expressing your opinion based on your worldview, which does trigger those who have a differing view, but you deliberately do that by your own admission.

    I’ve expressed no opinion. Only facts.
    Take it from the top:
    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion.” That is a self contradiction, like saying “square circle.” Fact.
    Northam is not advocating infanticide, he is discussing palliative care for terminal newborns in the video. The evidence is IN THE VIDEO. Fact.
    At this point, the entire post by Kates is incorrect and needs to be retracted. Fact.
    I then went on to explain why abortion should be legal and gave the proper, right wing, individualist arguments for it. These are all still facts. I’ve done all this in MY FIRST POST.

    The response has been the usual triggered and unhinged rantings of Cat imbeciles.
    I know you don’t want these facts to be real, but they are what they are and your opinions on the matter will not change them. But stop projecting onto me what you are doing.

    But we’re not leftist and your accusation does not make it so, as I have demonstrated but you have arrogantly (not the pejorative use) ignored.

    I have not ignored it, I’ve explained why you are incorrect and YOU have ignored it.
    Let me spell this out to you as basically as possible:
    Individualist = right wing.
    Collectivist = left wing.
    When you say something like, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights” you are a collectivist and therefore a leftist. We’re not disagreeing on some technicality, this is the fundamentals. Until you take the EXACT OPPOSITE of your current stance, you remain a leftist. Stop saying you are “centre-right,” you are not and you don’t know what you’re saying.
    This total confusion about the basics, is why I refer to you all as, poltitically illiterate leftists.
    This leftist position is pretty common among all posters here, hence my question as to why they are on a Libertarian, centre-right blog. The answer to which is, because they are this politically illiterate that they don’t understand the facts that I’ve explained here. They’ve spend years reading about politics, but know nothing about politics, heh.

    Not true. Your views are regularly addressed in the opposition, but you are usually the first to start the name calling (leftist, Socialist, unable to think/join dots, etc)

    None of my views have ever been addressed, which is why you turn every thread into me, instead of my actual ideas, which you political illiterates, don’t understand and have no counter positions to.
    Again, you are describing everyone else EXCEPT me, but directing it at me for some reason.
    This is just pure dishonesty on your part.

  209. Iampeter

    But it is very clear that abortion on demand, the rights of the mother, the view that the fetus is “a collection of cells”/”is not a person” and other arguments are arguments of the left and arguments of libertarians, individualists, objectivists and others (ie. those who place themselves on the right).

    Those are NOT the arguments of those of us who are individualists and objectivists. This is why I say you don’t understand the fundamentals. Your politics is not determined by a random position, on a random issue, you’re holding for a random reason. It is determined by your approach to all issues. So, many leftists hold what appear to be contradictory positions on abortion, but they are fundmanentally still leftist. For example, Nazi’s wanted to ban abortion, Russian communists wanted free abortion, that others would pay for, China communists want to force abortion after one child. They are all different. What makes them all leftists is that they are collectivist policies. Like you, they believe “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights” so will impose their beliefs on everyone.
    Those of us who are right wing, fundamentally disagree with this. We think the function of government is to protect individual rights and “social conscience” whatever that is, be damned. As such, we believe abortion should be perfectly legal, because no rights are violated. Superficially you might think we have some similarities to some leftists, but we couldn’t be more apart at the fundamental level.

    No, you are expressing your opinion based on your worldview, which does trigger those who have a differing view, but you deliberately do that by your own admission.

    I’ve expressed no opinion. Only facts.
    Take it from the top:
    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion.” That is a self contradiction, like saying “square circle.” Fact.
    Northam is not advocating infanticide, he is discussing palliative care for terminal newborns in the video. The evidence is IN THE VIDEO. Fact.
    At this point, the entire post by Kates is incorrect and needs to be retracted. Fact.
    I then went on to explain why abortion should be legal and gave the proper, right wing, individualist arguments for it. These are all still facts. I’ve done all this in MY FIRST POST.

    The response has been the usual triggered and unhinged rantings of Cat imbeciles.
    I know you don’t want these facts to be real, but they are what they are and your opinions on the matter will not change them. But stop projecting onto me what you are doing.

    But we’re not leftist and your accusation does not make it so, as I have demonstrated but you have arrogantly (not the pejorative use) ignored.

    I have not ignored it, I’ve explained why you are incorrect and YOU have ignored it.
    Let me spell this out to you as basically as possible:
    Individualist = right wing.
    Collectivist = left wing.
    When you say something like, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights” you are a collectivist and therefore a leftist. We’re not disagreeing on some technicality, this is the fundamentals. Until you take the EXACT OPPOSITE of your current stance, you remain a leftist. Stop saying you are “centre-right,” you are not and you don’t know what you’re saying.
    This total confusion about the basics, is why I refer to you all as, poltitically illiterate leftists.
    This leftist position is pretty common among all posters here, hence my question as to why they are on a Libertarian, centre-right blog. The answer to which is, because they are this politically illiterate that they don’t understand the facts that I’ve explained here. They’ve spend years reading about politics, but know nothing about politics, heh.

  210. Iampeter

    But it is very clear that abortion on demand, the rights of the mother, the view that the fetus is “a collection of cells”/”is not a person” and other arguments are arguments of the left and arguments of libertarians, individualists, objectivists and others (ie. those who place themselves on the right).

    Those are NOT the arguments of those of us who are individualists and objectivists. This is why I say you don’t understand the fundamentals. Your politics is not determined by a random position, on a random issue, you’re holding for a random reason. It is determined by your approach to all issues. So, many leftists hold what appear to be contradictory positions on abortion, but they are fundmanentally still leftist. For example, Nazi’s wanted to ban abortion, Russian communists wanted free abortion, that others would pay for, China communists want to force abortion after one child. They are all different. What makes them all leftists is that they are collectivist policies. Like you, they believe “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights” so will impose their beliefs on everyone.
    Those of us who are right wing, fundamentally disagree with this. We think the function of government is to protect individual rights and “social conscience” whatever that is, be damned. As such, we believe abortion should be perfectly legal, because no rights are violated. Superficially you might think we have some similarities to some leftists, but we couldn’t be more apart at the fundamental level.

  211. Iampeter

    No, you are expressing your opinion based on your worldview, which does trigger those who have a differing view, but you deliberately do that by your own admission.

    I’ve expressed no opinion. Only facts.
    Take it from the top:
    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion.” That is a self contradiction, like saying “square circle.” Fact.
    Northam is not advocating infanticide, he is discussing palliative care for terminal newborns in the video. The evidence is IN THE VIDEO. Fact.
    At this point, the entire post by Kates is incorrect and needs to be retracted. Fact.
    I then went on to explain why abortion should be legal and gave the proper, right wing, individualist arguments for it. These are all still facts. I’ve done all this in MY FIRST POST.

    The response has been the usual triggered and unhinged rantings of Cat imbeciles.
    I know you don’t want these facts to be real, but they are what they are and your opinions on the matter will not change them. But stop projecting onto me what you are doing.

  212. Iampeter

    But we’re not leftist and your accusation does not make it so, as I have demonstrated but you have arrogantly (not the pejorative use) ignored.

    I have not ignored it, I’ve explained why you are incorrect and YOU have ignored it.
    Let me spell this out to you as basically as possible:
    Individualists are right wing.
    Collectivist are left wing.
    When you say something like, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights” you are a collectivist and therefore a leftist. We’re not disagreeing on some technicality, this is the fundamentals. Until you take the EXACT OPPOSITE of your current stance, you remain a leftist. Stop saying you are “centre-right,” you are not and you don’t know what you’re saying.
    This total confusion about the basics, is why I refer to you all as, poltitically illiterate leftists.

  213. Iampeter

    But we’re not leftist and your accusation does not make it so, as I have demonstrated but you have arrogantly (not the pejorative use) ignored.

    I have not ignored it, I’ve explained why you are incorrect and YOU have ignored it.
    Let me spell this out to you as basically as possible:
    To be right wing, you need to be an individualist.
    As someone who believes, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights,” you are a leftist and therefore a collectivist.
    Stop saying you are centre-right, you are not and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Not understanding this, is why I refer to you as politically illiterate leftists.

  214. Iampeter

    But we’re not leftist and your accusation does not make it so, as I have demonstrated but you have arrogantly ignored.

    I have not ignored it, I’ve explained why you are incorrect and YOU have ignored it.
    Let me spell this out to you as basically as possible.
    To be right wing, you need to be an individualist.
    As someone who believes, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights,” you are a leftist and therefore a collectivist.
    Stop saying you are centre/right, you are not and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Not understanding this, is why I refer to you as politically illiterate leftists.

  215. Iampeter

    I have not ignored your statements about being centre-right, I’ve explained why you are incorrect and YOU have ignored it.
    Let me spell this out to you as basically as possible.
    To be right wing, you need to be an individualist.
    As someone who believes, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights,” you are a collectivist and therefore a leftist.
    Stop saying you are centre-right, you are not and you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    Not understanding this, is why I refer to you as politically illiterate leftists.

  216. Iampeter

    The most important point in your clueless post I can’t seem to respond to due to filter here.
    So I’ll have to make it brief.
    For the millionth time you are a leftist.
    This is because you say things like, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights.”
    To be right wing is to reject that and stand for individualism instead.
    Not getting these very basic concepts, is why I refer to you all as politically illiterate leftists.
    That is what you are.

  217. Iampeter

    Not true. Your views are regularly addressed in the opposition, but you are usually the first to start the name calling (leftist, Socialist, unable to think/join dots, etc)

    None of my views have ever been addressed, which is why you turn every thread into me, instead of my actual ideas, which you political illiterates, don’t understand and have no counter positions to.
    Again, you are describing everyone else EXCEPT me, but directing it at me for some reason.
    This is just pure dishonesty on your part.

  218. Buccaneer

    Sadly the reasons quoted in your first post stating why a fetus would be aborted aren’t actually facts.

    “Except conditions like preeclampsia or hydrocephalus are known to cause complications that may require aborting the fetus to save the mothers life.
    Not to mention the more generic complications with blood pressure, infection, etc, that could lead to the same outcome.”

    None of these conditions actually require abortion, they might require the inducement of early labour that could result in death to the fetus, but that does not have to be abortion. Your own “facts” seem to run counter to your argument. Interestingly, no one seems to contest your assertions about Northam’s statement just the rest of your misguided rant. Perhaps if you spent less time insulting people and setting up strawman arguments here, you might get the respect you seem to crave. Are you ok?

  219. dover_beach

    Northam is not advocating infanticide, he is discussing palliative care for terminal newborns in the video. The evidence is IN THE VIDEO. Fact.

    This is a perfect example of you being a dissembling clown. The video involves Gov. Northam trying to defend Rep. Tran’s claim that the bill would allow abortion even as the mother is in the midst of delivering her child. Now, he tries to muddy the waters by suggesting that the majority of third-trimester abortions involve ‘severely disabled’ infants, but this is merely an attempt to diminish the enormity under consideration because he and you place little if any value on the severely disabled and he hopes those listening might have a similar disposition. But it is clear that what Rep. Tran was suggesting is that the abortion license provided by the bill in question operated up to birth and that if the mother decided as she was delivering the child that the child should die than the bill would allow even this option.

    Further, your utter failure in providing any meaningful criteria for morally distinguishing the child 1 day prior to delivery and just delivered suggests that your protestations re infanticide are meaningless.

    You are a complete charlatan.

  220. Ivan Denisovich

    The key point is this:

    Indeed, I can view the human being in utero via sonogram (or other medical imaging) and compare it to another child born prematurely at the same age, and establish that the former is, in fact, a child.

    Peter well understands that if he was to concede the obvious (as laid out by Dover, above) the whole edifice would come crashing down. So we get this:

    You’re the one that’s stuck pretending embryos are baby’s

    and

    The fact a baby has rights is not in dispute.
    Abortion doesn’t involve babies though, so what is your point?

  221. The BigBlueCat

    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion.”

    I gave you a link proving otherwise. Did you not read it? Here it is again. Clearly, it is a “thing” (post-natal abortion). It’s just not legal in most jurisdictions. Care to comment?

    I’ve expressed no opinion. Only facts.

    No, you have expressed opinions dressed as facts. But you know this.

    None of my views have ever been addressed

    Yes they have … every time. You choose to ignore or obfusticate.

    For the millionth time you are a leftist.

    I’ve already addressed this. You are a collectivist – one expressed opinion does not make me a leftist, though you are more than ready to make a collectivist decision on what I think about all things based on solitary opinions. That makes you a collectivist – a common complaint you make against others here. Shall we call for a vote on this?

  222. The BigBlueCat

    This is because you say things like, “the legality should follow the social conscience rather the rights.”
    To be right wing is to reject that and stand for individualism instead.

    And I have addressed this also. I am not right wing. I am centre-right. I am not leftist. I have made this abundantly clear. And I am certainly not a Randian Individualist Objectivist … because that would make me exactly like you (and then I’d have to kill myself).

  223. Iampeter

    None of these conditions actually require abortion, they might require the inducement of early labour that could result in death to the fetus, but that does not have to be abortion.

    Those conditions may require getting the fetus out of the mother, even if it’s viable, in order to save the mothers life.
    These are well known facts.

    Your own “facts” seem to run counter to your argument.

    So much so that you forgot to mention even one example?

    Interestingly, no one seems to contest your assertions about Northam’s statement just the rest of your misguided rant.

    Again, you seem to offer no contest either. Not that one is possible given he said what he said and what he said is not what Kates or the conservative media, or you seem to think he said.
    Also, none of my posts are rants. You can direct those comments to the the many raving lunatics here.

    Perhaps if you spent less time insulting people and setting up strawman arguments here, you might get the respect you seem to crave. Are you ok?

    This seems to be another comment you should be directing at others, but I see you are just another triggered leftist at the cat, who has no arguments so has to play the man.
    Thanks for participating, there’s totally not enough of this crap already.

  224. Iampeter

    There’s no such thing as “post-natal abortion.”

    Linking to an article about a self contradiction changes nothing about the FACT that it is a self contradiction.

    No, you have expressed opinions dressed as facts. But you know this.

    No, this is what YOU have done.
    You’ve done this because you do not have the intellectual honesty to concede as you should’ve done, on every point, in response to my very first post here.

    And I have addressed this also. I am not right wing. I am centre-right. I am not leftist. I have made this abundantly clear.

    That’s not addressing anything, that’s missing what I’m saying. You simply have no idea and aren’t getting one.
    You cannot hold the idea that something comes before the individual and be anything-right wing. You are not centre-right, you are a leftist.
    Our disagreement is not that you are not an Objectivist, but that you fundamentally reject what it means to be an alternative to the left.

    Or let me put it concretely, since you simply cannot grasp the abstracts: you cannot be a capitalist socialist. If you support socialism, you are a socialist.
    Likewise, if you support collectivism, as you explicitly do, you are a leftist.

  225. Iampeter

    Kneel, I said ages ago that you’d just be posting gibberish posts to avoid conceding that you can’t name even one of those “many” cogent arguments you said had being presented.

    Thanks for proving me right.

    A website of idiots, liars and politically illiterate leftists. LOL.

  226. The BigBlueCat

    Linking to an article about a self contradiction changes nothing about the FACT that it is a self contradiction.

    The point is, of course, that there are those in the medical profession who would deem it ethical to kill a child immediately (and later) following the child’s birth. They are calling it “post-natal abortion”, so therefore it is a concept being put forward. Of course, it’s an oxymoron – I agree with you. But nevertheless, it’s a “thing” even if you don’t agree with the semantics. That is my point. You might think the language is a self-contradiction, as do I. But irrespective of what we might think, others don’t. They see it as a valid method of dealing with children who don’t meet their utility requirements. Yes, it is evil. But when you claim no-one is proposing it, I say they are, and provide the evidence. You posture and deny.

    Another point – if “post-natal abortion” (aka infanticide) ever becomes legal, is it your intention to stand there and tell them their semantics are wrong??? Or are you going to activate yourself to try to reverse the policy decision? Oh, that’s right, individualism … you wouldn’t lift a finger, would you?

    Or let me put it concretely, since you simply cannot grasp the abstracts: you cannot be a capitalist socialist. If you support socialism, you are a socialist.
    Likewise, if you support collectivism, as you explicitly do, you are a leftist.

    I see… you haven’t heard of state capitalism (something I vehemently reject). Well, there you go.

    But you a leftist on your own view because you are a collectivist yourself as I have proven, and despite what ever other political views or leanings you have, it’s your collectivism that defines you (again the view you apply to others). No wonder people say things about you …

    I do not support Socialism. There may be certain policies I can compromise on, but that does not make me a Socialist. I am not a member of any Socialist political organisation. That I accept society as a fact, and I believe we should help each other, especially during a time of need, does not make me a Socialist, it makes me compassionate. Compassion is clearly something that is anathema to you, since Ayn Rand also rejects compassion. I reject Randian Individualism – it is selfish and self-centred. But that does not make me a Socialist despite your replies to the contrary.

    Abstracts are important, but you spend your time joining dots that have no business being connected together, and are wanting others to do the same so that your ego can be satisfied. Well, it won’t be stroked by me or many others.

    You simply have no idea and aren’t getting one.

    I have plenty of ideas … they reject Randian Individualism and Objectivism. I won’t be recruited.

    You cannot hold the idea that something comes before the individual and be anything-right wing. You are not centre-right, you are a leftist.

    Not holding the idea that something comes before the individual is your argument, not mine. That statement speaks of pure individualism. You believe that nothing comes before the individual – that’s your whole schtick. Self-sacrifice is not the exclusive purview of the left. My view is that usually the individual is the most important, but there are reasons why self-sacrifice plays an important role. You don’t think that at all – you see that as anathema. Self-sacrifice has no place for you, or you it. That’s why people of good conscience reject Individualism. But not capitalism.

    Our disagreement is not that you are not an Objectivist, but that you fundamentally reject what it means to be an alternative to the left.

    No. What you object to is the reasoning that your stance on abortion is virtually identical to the Socialists and, it seems, the Nazi’s. But not the Fascists. It does your head in, and no sophistry or misinformation on your part can fix it. Just let the reality sink in … it’s ok. You can agree with them and still be an Objectivist. Doesn’t make you or them objectively morally correct on what you have claimed regarding abortion. It doesn’t really make you a leftist either (unless you apply your own standards in this regard – I was playing with that concept to see if you would at least understand how you apply the tactic to others but not yourself – seems you are too self-unaware to see it).

  227. dover_beach

    Those conditions may require getting the fetus out of the mother, even if it’s viable, in order to save the mothers life.

    ‘getting the fetus out of the mother, even if it’s viable’ involves inducing delivery or C-section, not an abortion, you dishonest clown.

  228. Iampeter

    The point is, of course, that there are those in the medical profession who would deem it ethical to kill a child immediately (and later) following the child’s birth.

    No one in the medical profession supports killing children.
    Abortion has nothing to do with this, so stop bringing this non-sequitur up. Either present an anti-abortion argument or piss off.
    Also, this doesn’t change that Northam was talking about palliative care for non-viable newborns. This is also is not killing newborns.
    Kates should retract this post, because these kinds of unhinged posts belong on InfoWars not The Cat.

    But you a leftist on your own view because you are a collectivist yourself as I have proven

    You haven’t proved anything, just spouting nonsense and haven no idea what you are talking about.
    You still don’t even understand what “leftist” means. You know nothing and are refusing to get.
    Your constant misuse of words is tiresome. No conversation is possible when you are intentionally creating language barriers to avoid conceding.

    Also, these endless posts from idiots, claiming to have “proven” or presented “cogent arguments” of which no one can actually even link to one, are pretty hilarious.

    If you have no arguments, then there’s nothing further.

  229. dover_beach

    No one in the medical profession supports killing children.
    Abortion has nothing to do with this, so stop bringing this non-sequitur up. Either present an anti-abortion argument or piss off.

    They support the killing of the child in utero while also supporting the treatment of the child post partum even where both are at the same developmental age. You refuse to address this glaring fact because you are a dishonest clown and windbag.

    Either address it or shut up.

  230. The BigBlueCat

    No one in the medical profession supports the killing of children.

    What an ignorant statement. There are plenty in the AMA and elsewhere supporting “assisted suicide” for children. There are cases overseas where parents were not consulted in the euthanasia of their children. For you to sit behind your keyboard and spout your ignorant, bigoted diatribe is way too much. Educate yourself .. you make yourself look like a fool.

    Your use of semantics is also questionable. Of course there are statements that are oxymorons – that’s how people like you justify bad behavior. Of course post-natal abortion is just infanticide by another name. But as I proved to you, there are medical professionals promoting this. You obviously were poor at English Comprehension. You tell me to piss off. I politely decline your request.

    Why are you here again?

  231. The BigBlueCat

    Either address it or shut up.

    He won’t address it as it would do his head in. So he has shut up. Typical behavior from a “clown and a windbag”.

    He selling but no-one is buying. What was that about free markets?

  232. Iampeter

    What an ignorant statement. There are plenty in the AMA and elsewhere supporting “assisted suicide” for children.

    These are just word games. No one support murdering children.
    This also has nothing to do with this thread, other than an exercise in evasion on your part.

    Why are you here again?

    This has been answered repeatedly. This is a libertarian and centre-right blog, supposedly. So it’s you and the other politically illiterate leftists that have no business here. And no, you are NOT “centre-right” because you are not carving a swastika in your forehead. You are an explicit collectivist and therefore a leftist. As is everyone else that has posted in this thread.

    He won’t address it as it would do his head in. So he has shut up. Typical behavior from a “clown and a windbag”.

    All of this has been addressed in my very first post in this thread. LOL.
    There has been no counter. Just random self contradictory statements, leftist arguments to think of the collective, then endless streams of abuse and ravings from the usual lunatics, who are only here because they’ve probably been banned at properly moderated forums.

    If you have an actual anti-abortion argument, I’m still waiting to hear it.
    If you have any counter point to what I raised in my first post here, then let’s here it.

    But don’t make anymore posts about square circles, as you are basically defeating yourself, or tell me how you’re not a leftist as you call for society to come before the individual.

  233. Kneel

    “At this point, the entire post by Kates is incorrect and needs to be retracted. Fact.”

    That is definitely an opinion, not a fact.

    Surprising that someone claiming to be libertarian wants to stop someone expressing their opinion – something that violates no-ones rights and, therefore, by your previously posted standards, should be legal. The original source material is linked, so there is no distortion of facts involved at all – like you have done throughout this thread, he is simply selectively quoting the parts of the material he wished to respond to.

    If it is your contention that quoting selectively and then opining on that one part, even should it be the opposite of the original when taken in context, is wrong and should be retracted, then I await your retractions for your posts on this thread – there are several posts you have responded to where your reply fits this exact pattern, including one of mine. So retract them – or explain why Steve should not follow your example and refuse to retract.

    “I then went on to explain why abortion should be legal and gave the proper, right wing, individualist arguments for it. These are all still facts. I’ve done all this in MY FIRST POST.”
    Yes, you did make this totally off topic and irrellavent statement of facts in your first post – the post did not request facts, it was soliciting opinion and discussion, which you failed to provide (Discussion and insulting the opposition are different things. Spewing facts is not discussion. Repeating the same inane comments time after time is not discussion).
    Despite repeated requests, you have still not responded to the question that the entire post is actually about – does ANY aspect of current law as it pertains to abortion need to be changed? IMO, the post was not made to provide anyone with specific information( ie facts), but rather to provoke a dialogue on the matter – why do you think Steve “distorted” it as he did? Because he is fully anti-abortion? Well maybe he is, I don’t know, but I believe it was deliberately provocative in order to elicit strong opinions and have both sides express their views. Arguments will ensue, no doubt (as they did). Such arguments tend to bring to light many aspects that one side or the other have not considered, and so can change minds. This is good, this is what we want more of – increased awareness of all the issues involved. Law, morals, ethics, religion – all these are important parts of peoples lives and affect their views on many things. It matters not if you see this as illogical, or wrong or anything else – it is a fact, which you shouldn’t ignore, but apparently want to. Exactly what you accuse others of, and denigrate them for. Humans are strange creatures, are we not?

    You have repeatedly stated some FACTS on this, but refuse to offer an opinion on whether you think the current law has it right in terms of when rights are granted.
    This is not a hard thing to do – state your opinion, that is. Obviously, the question itself is fraught with conundrums, exceptions and so on. But that doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion on it.
    Me, I think it needs some very careful consideration, as there are clearly issues with the current arrangements. I am unsure that we can make a better (or, at least, a less bad) LAW on this, as the law requires objective facts to properly and impartially carry out its duties, but I believe it worth investigating – if nothing else, it is hard to see why an infant that could be delivered by c-section and survive with appropriate care, is not as deserving of the same rights as one who has been so delivered.

    BTW, there’s one of the cogent arguments you have been asking for, already previously made in this thread, and which you have obviously not seen or decided to ignore. You can now drop your affected “no cogent arguments” claim and respond – if you have the wit, which is a highly dubious assumption to make, IMO.

    To ensure we do get the “least bad” arrangements requires soliciting a wide range of opinions, from your (apparent) view that everything is just fine the way it is, except that (your opinion) third trimester abortions should be legal, all the way through to those who say no abortions should be allowed – and neither of these extremes is acceptable to the majority of the voting population, and certainly not to me. If you refuse to contribute to the conversation in a constructive way, then it seems obvious that either you have nothing of value to say on the matter, or you care very little about the outcome – yet clearly, you do care about it. A conundrum, then – if you care about it, why do you not engage in persuasion instead of stating your facts as if they are all that matter? I’ve already explained to you that facts are less persuasive to crowds than emotion, but you continue to rest your case on facts – it’s almost like you think if you say it long and often enough, people will finally “get it”. The reality is, people already “get it”, they just don’t agree with you. You won’t change their mind by re-presenting the same “facts” over and over, most especially when it is not the current facts in dispute, but rather the simple question of: do we have this as right as possible?

    I know this already overly long, however indulge me here..

    Let us say that I have created a test for a disease, and that test is 99% accurate and unbiased – that is to say, that, on average, if you test groups of 100 people there will be only one incorrect result per group , and further that this result could equally be “yes” when it should be “no”, or visa-versa.
    I take this test, and apply it to a randomly selected individual from the greater community. The result comes back positive.
    What are the chances that this person has this disease?

    I will stop at this point and await an answer – clearly, such a basic medical question should be answerable by someone advocating such a radical procedure as a termination of pregnancy, or they are unqualified to opine on the matter (as per your own oft stated standards).

    (BTW, if anyone else cares to answer, I would be happy to continue the example).

  234. Iampeter

    Surprising that someone claiming to be libertarian wants to stop someone expressing their opinion – something that violates no-ones rights and, therefore, by your previously posted standards, should be legal.

    Pointing out that a retraction is needed when someone is not correct, is not wanting to stop someone from expressing an opinion. How stupid are you?

    Also, we don’t need any more walls of this stupid nonsense from you idiot.
    You are making confused, teenage SJW’s seem intelligent by comparison.

    Either you have an example of those “many cogent arguments” or you don’t.
    If you don’t, which was always going to be the case obviously, then have at least the decency to concede and piss off.

  235. Kneel

    “Either you have an example of those “many cogent arguments” or you don’t.
    If you don’t, which was always going to be the case obviously, then have at least the decency to concede and piss off.”

    Provided in the very post you responded to – explicitly mentioned as such.
    Denying facts now, are we?

    Care to answer re: the medical test, or would you prefer to acknowledge that you are unqualified to comment on medical matters?

  236. Iampeter

    No, mate. You said there were “many cogent arguments” as to why abortion violates rights. I’ve asked you for days now to point to just one. Your wall of gibberish does not do so. If you want to start making your own arguments, then you are welcome to do so, but there’s nothing resembling any argument here. Just incomprehensible blather.
    An argument goes like this: I think abortion should be X because Y.
    Start with that.

    I’m also laughing at you accusing me of “spewing facts” LOL.
    You also make lots of criticisms that should be directed at others here, not me, but this is to be expected from liars and idiots.

    Despite repeated requests, you have still not responded to the question that the entire post is actually about – does ANY aspect of current law as it pertains to abortion need to be changed?

    This was answered in my first post, when I said abortion should be perfectly legal and for any reason.

    You not liking facts and the supporting arguments, but having no counter arguments, is not grounds for walls of text accusing me of something incomprehensible, because you don’t want to concede that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  237. Kneel

    “… there’s nothing resembling any argument here. ”
    To save you wading through the wall, here is the apropos part that you deny exists:
    “… if nothing else, it is hard to see why an infant that could be delivered by c-section and survive with appropriate care, is not as deserving of the same rights as one who has been so delivered.”

    “…no idea what you’re talking about.”

    OK, let’s stipulate that as true, regardless of where reality may lie – for the sake of the argument, if you prefer.
    If that means I am unqualified to speak on the matter, then it is equally true that you should either answer my question re: medical test, or concede that you are unqualified to answer such questions and cease posting about medical matters such as abortion.

    Stump up.

  238. Iampeter

    Are you conceding that there have not been any “cogent arguments” that abortion violates rights, let alone the “many” you said that there were, when you posted that?
    If you are conceding this, then the next question is WHY did you say this?

    Once you’ve answered this, we can move on.
    But we will not be indulging you in a dishonest conversation, where you get to pretend to talk about politics or something.

  239. Kneel

    “Are you conceding…”
    Not at all – how can you possibly be that thick? It’s right there. Again. In case you missed it (again), here it is (again):
    “… if nothing else, it is hard to see why an infant that could be delivered by c-section and survive with appropriate care, is not as deserving of the same rights as one who has been so delivered.”

    Stop denying facts.

    “…we can move on.”
    You need to either answer my medical question or concede you are unqualified to speak on such matters and cease posting your ignorant dross on medical matters like abortion.

  240. Iampeter

    Kneel, your exact statement was:

    It doesn’t violate rights – although it is clear that many think it should, and have presented several cogent arguments as to why.

    I’m asking for just one example, of the “many cogent arguments” you claim had been provided at that point.

  241. Kneel

    “I’m asking for just one example, of the “many cogent arguments”…”

    Such has been provided three times just today.

    From your lack of response, it is obvious that you are unqualified to speak on medical matters such as abortion – you should shut up about things you don’t know anything about, as you continuously say to others.

  242. dover_beach

    He won’t address [ supporting the killing of the child in utero while also supporting the treatment of the child post partum even where both are at the same developmental age] as it would do his head in. So he has shut up. Typical behavior from a “clown and a windbag”.

    All of this has been addressed in my very first post in this thread. LOL.

    Has it been addressed in IamMengele’s first post? Let’s go back and see.

    Nope, none of it was addressed there. As usual, IamMengele begged the question, made false assertions, argued in a circle, and so on. Nothing changes with this fella.

    N. B. To anyone arguing with IamMengele. Don’t open multiple fronts. You need to focus on one point and pin him down there. You either resolve that point or refuse to continue. He maintains these arguments through distraction. You will expose his dishonesty and dissembling by doing so without question.

Comments are closed.