Apparently not

Julia Baird, ABC, today: Can’t we all agree killing women and children is wrong?
ABC, August: Abortion bill passes NSW Lower House to cheers and applause.

No, I’m not comparing medical personnel who kill unborn Down Syndrome babies (for example) by the score every year with a deranged lunatic who incinerates three children in a car. They’re far worse.

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, Western Civilsation. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Apparently not

  1. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Hey CL – here’s an idea, go and resurrect your previously widely unread blog, instead of taking over this one, m’kay?

    FFS.

  2. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    And yes, abortion is wrong, blah, yada, blah …

  3. C.L.

    Your 13 year-old girl’s complaint aside, do you have an argument about the post, though?

  4. Davey Boy

    Actual headline at ABC online:

    “Myths of families destroyed by ‘monsters’ hide the reality: a normal man killed his wife and kids”

    See, normal men do a lot of killing. It’s normal, not the action of a deranged lunatic, how dare you cause offence to lunatics.

  5. Scott Osmond

    No, it’s different when women kill the kids. Not just abortions. When a woman kills her kids we hear about it once if that and the media circus moves on. If you are lucky you will hear some platitude about how hard it is for women, post natal depression or mental illness. But when it’s a male why it will lead the news for days if not weeks. Vagina privilege.

  6. Davey Boy

    The article in question is https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-21/rowan-baxter-hannah-clarke-monster-myth-in-domestic-violence/11986976

    The byline at the end of it:

    ”Annie Blatchford is a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne’s Melbourne Law School.”

    Twitter feed – somewhat of a Titania McGrath look

  7. Oh come on

    Around the staff table over lunch, one of my female colleagues launched into some rant about how the killer’s “male ego” caused him to do it. I said that mothers killing their children is not an especially rare criminal phenomenon. Response: reeeeeeeeeeee

    Then the “male ego” woman quoted a fun fact – 99% of spouse murders are males killing their female spouses. 99%!

    There really is no point reasoning with some people. They are beyond reason.

  8. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    CL – abortion is a monstrosity.

    Quite frankly, I’d rather criticise it on economic grounds than allegedly moral ones. But that’s the just sort of moral vacuum I am.

  9. Oh come on

    Spurgeon, CL doesn’t need me to white knight for him, but…fuck it. I’m going to anyway.

    CL’s old blog was great and far from unread. Also, CL is a fantastic blogger. He’s very, very good at juxtaposing disparate pieces of news or information to make his point in a witty, clever and compelling manner. Regardless of whether you agree with his perspective, this is undeniable.

    The fact that you play the man straight out of the gate says a lot about you, Spurgeon. And it says nothing good.

  10. Scott Osmond

    Oh come on, did you wip out the smartphone and draw up the abs numbers? You will never convince the sisterhood of perpetual victimhood but bystanders and some coleagues might be reached. I find that if you challenge them in the open and have the figures to hand they keep the insanity on a leash in case of being confronted by reality. What these types of people are after is emotional validation.

  11. BorisG

    do you have an argument about the post, though?

    Abortion is not murder. If you disagree, look up Australian laws. abortion is and should be woman’s right.

    These laws are enacted by federal and state parliaments elected by Australians.

    Thus this comparison (and implied trivialization of a horrific murder) makes no sense.

  12. will

    BorisG
    #3331190, posted on February 22, 2020 at 3:32 am
    do you have an argument about the post, though?

    Abortion is not murder.

    and there it is: the dishonest moral vacuum that denies infanticide is murder because the law does not define it as such. What’s next? old people? the mentally handicapped?

  13. duncanm

    Ah yes – one woman per week killed.

    Which going by Australia’s homicide rate of 1 per 100k, means there’s about four men killed per week.

    The problem is not men, its crime.

    Annie Blatchford needs to go through some history of civilisation and consider why we tag such men as monsters/mad/crazy/senseless.

    Everyone is capable of such crimes, but there’s a moral fabric which keeps it in check.

    btw, our homicide rate is at an all time low.

  14. a happy little debunker

    abortion is and should be woman’s right

    What you are saying is that men have no rights over a conceived child.
    Fair enough – but that also suggests men should have no responsibilities over any conceived child.

  15. Iampeter

    No, I’m not comparing medical personnel who kill unborn Down Syndrome babies (for example) by the score every year with a deranged lunatic who incinerates three children in a car. They’re far worse.

    I see we are reaching new levels of unhinged insanity at the Cat.
    It’s believing people are nothing more than mindless meat and cattle, as anti-abortionists do, that ultimately leads to horror shows like this.

  16. Tel

    I am suspicious to look at those statistics and not see any report of the number of false positives.

    That is to say, after the abortion they check closely and say, “Well you know this was actually a perfectly healthy baby, no Downs syndrome here at all.” Since it’s practically impossible to have a test without some false positives, the lack of reporting suggests they prefer not to say.

    That said, I can understand why a couple might want to try for a second baby hoping for a fully healthy child, rather than spending the rest of their lives looking after someone with a severe mental disability who won’t be capable of working, and contributing, and won’t produce any grandchildren. It’s a difficult choice, also a necessary choice, which is always better to keep government away from where possible.

  17. Iampeter

    Thus this comparison (and implied trivialization of a horrific murder) makes no sense.

    Yea but when you have no understanding of politics, no logic, just random positions on random issues, then emotionalist rationalization is all you have.
    Nothing like the abortion issue to prove that conservatives are the very same emotionalist leftists they criticize, but with even less political understanding.

  18. Shy Ted

    Annie Blatchford. One more to the list of “don’t go there”.

  19. Roger

    If I understand correctly, the test for Down syndrome has a 20% error rate.

    1 in 5 of the babies aborted was perfectly normal.

    [Not that aborting Down syndrome babies is justifiable.]

  20. C.L.

    Spurgeon, you’re a good stick and I enjoy your comments here.
    Pretty clearly, you just attacked because you didn’t like a – to you – faith-oriented comparison made on a libertarian blog. This brawl is as old as Catallaxy.

    Three things: I write on all manner of topics and my aligned-with-libertarians score would have to be close to 98 percent. Size of government, war on drugs, taxation, spending, free speech, property rights, deregulation, industrial relations, reined-in military adventurism … you name it.

    Second: your argument that everything should be discussed in economic rather than “moral” terms is self-evidently ridiculous. What is the “economic” case against 18c’s ban on absolutely free speech? Is that provision in the law affecting GDP? People of faith should not be banished from the site or the libertarian space just because it makes certain old-fashioned libertarians uncomfortable. This hayseed either/or is one of the most idiotic characteristics of Australian libertarianism. You don’t see it in the US, for example.

    Finally, about 9 or 10 people have posting rights at Catallaxy. About three of those are economics professors, another three nationally syndicated columnists (trained in economics, I believe) and about three of four pseudonymous bloggers like me. How could I, why would I, “take over” the blog? If it makes you feel better, though, it’s not my intention to despoil the site forever.

  21. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    CL – apologies, I was a boor and it was uncalled for.

  22. C.L.

    Not at all, Spurgeon. Forget about it, mate.

  23. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    They’re far worse.
    A man tips petrol on his wife and three kids and burns them alive. You decide that is fodder for your hobby horse. Congrats.

  24. dover_beach

    Abortion is not murder. If you disagree, look up Australian laws.

    That is precisely what the Commissars claimed when they murdered their political enemies: this is not murder, they are ‘enemies of the people’. If you disagree, look up Soviet law, and then you’re off to a gulag”.

  25. C.L.

    A man tips petrol on his wife and three kids and burns them alive. You decide that is fodder for your hobby horse. Congrats.

    Thank you for the congratulations.
    There is a national conversation underway led by feminists whose theme is that all men are responsible for such violence. Baird (in the linked article) says we should all “agree” that violence against children is wrong. As I pointed out, feminists like her cannot be taken seriously because they fully approve of violence against innocent children – up to 8+ months in utero. That is, they believe such children can be decapitated, disemboweled and dismembered for any reason whatsoever.

    Nothing to do with hobby horses. Just the truth.

    If you want to mount an argument that doctors slaughtering Down Syndrome babies by the thousands is not worse than the car murders, have a go. Good luck.

  26. dover_beach

    That is, they believe such children can be decapitated, disemboweled and dismembered for any reason whatsoever.

    Indeed. You have the case of Gianna Jessen who was almost murdered by an instillation abortion (saline solution) at 7 and half months. It chemical burns the child in utero alive. She, however, survived the delivery. The BBC article that covered this case includes the following:

    Pro-choice groups say that while hers is a distressing story it is unusual and that guidelines are in place in the UK to stop live births after abortions.

    As usual, C.L. is right over the target in his juxtaposition.

  27. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    C.L. get a life. Or at least have a thought for that family. It is simply inhuman to take advantage of this situation for a supposed “debate”. This woman and her kids weren’t debating.

  28. Chris

    This woman and her kids weren’t debating.

    Fact.
    And yet a few dozen overpaid, entitled white middle-class women are competing for moral exhibition credits, at the cost of the community standing of all decent, ordinary men.

  29. Chris

    In the media response to this crime.

  30. BorisG

    That said, I can understand why a couple might want to try for a second baby hoping for a fully healthy child, rather than spending the rest of their lives looking after someone with a severe mental disability who won’t be capable of working, and contributing, and won’t produce any grandchildren. It’s a difficult choice, also a necessary choice,

    ‘Xactly.

  31. BorisG

    And yet a few dozen overpaid, entitled white middle-class women are competing for moral exhibition credits, at the cost of the community standing of all decent, ordinary men.

    Which is indeed disgusting. Unfortunately the right have their own idiocy: saying the guy was driven to this. Idiots on both sides.

  32. BorisG

    That is precisely what the Commissars claimed

    Claims are one thing, but democratically adopted laws are another.

  33. Elderly White Man From Skipton

    Chris, unless you are capable of that hateful act you are fine. It has cost you nothing. The fact that a few people are projecting their rhetoric is no reason to drag a tragedy down to the gutter level of life

  34. C.L.

    It is simply inhuman to take advantage of this situation for a supposed “debate”. This woman and her kids weren’t debating.

    No no. Feminists and activists took advantage of the tragedy.
    Their lies and hypocrisy must always be countered.
    They don’t get to build a monument on the crime scene.

    The children with Down Syndrome aren’t debating either. Why aren’t you upset about them being killed?

  35. dover_beach

    Claims are one thing, but democratically adopted laws are another.

    Not in the relevant sense. If the Commissars were pointing to ‘democratically adopted laws’ would you also say that the executions of ‘enemies of the people’ were not murders too? A worry if you are.

  36. dover_beach

    No no. Feminists and activists took advantage of the tragedy.

    Quite. Not even a day had passed before they had weaponized the murder to their own ends. That includes the media.

  37. Keith Forwheels

    First, CL & Spurgeon Monkfish III, thank you for restoring faith that the blog doesn’t always devolve into pointless stoushing and escalation, sincerely, it is a refreshing change to see an apology honesty given and accepted. Second, CL, thank you for the post. The counter arguments in the comments are unconvincing and don’t address your central point. They can’t, they can only attempt to divert and misdirect. I’m not going to impune to motives of those so engaged, only note every person must decide for themselves if they believe all life has value. Once that decision is made it is not something that can be limited by legislation or ranked for importance by a 3rd parties actions.

  38. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Thanks Keith and apologies, Dover.

  39. Arky

    Vomit.
    Where’s the stoushing?
    This blog has turned into a men’s shed for model aeroplane afficionados.

  40. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Arks – get back to fellating your armadildo. You’ll feel better and so will we.

  41. dover_beach

    Spurgeon, I expect nothing less on a Friday night at the Cat.

  42. BorisG

    . If the Commissars were pointing to ‘democratically adopted laws’ would you also say that the executions of ‘enemies of the people’ were not murders too?

    But this never happens in a modern democracy, because there are always constitutional guarantees (codified or implied) against such atrocities.

    This was different in Athens where democracy was direct. That is, the people could change the law at any time. Many poeple now advocate for direct democracy, but it is essentially a mob rule, which destroyed Athens.

    If you are asking: what if a constitutional referendum was organized such that it changed the constitution to completely remove the rule of law etc? I think it will not be a democracy any longer,

  43. BorisG

    No no. Feminists and activists took advantage of the tragedy.
    Their lies and hypocrisy must always be countered.

    Not by building an alternative false narrative

  44. Iampeter

    Three things: I write on all manner of topics and my aligned-with-libertarians score would have to be close to 98 percent. Size of government, war on drugs, taxation, spending, free speech, property rights, deregulation, industrial relations, reined-in military adventurism … you name it.

    That’s a long winded way of describing unintended comedy.
    You have ZERO alignment with what you call “libertarians score” on anything but like most of the leftists at the Cat you seem to be simply unaware of it.
    You are someone who supports censorship, regulating tech, regulating private companies in general, regulating trade, regulating immigration and you’ve spent months engaging in shameless tribal and leftist identity politics on issue after issue. There’s not an aspect of peoples lives you don’t think the government shouldn’t be planning and controlling. You’ve never mentioned concepts like “individual rights” and don’t know what it means or why it’s even important.
    The fact that you are totally unaware of it and conclude you are aligned with “libertarians” is hard to take seriously to put it mildly.

    And I’m not saying any of this to attack or anything, but because I’m genuinely curious how someone manages to arrive at a such a totally confused and self-contradictory state of affairs.

  45. Iampeter

    BorisG, abortion is not murder not because of “democratically adopted laws” or something. The majority don’t determine what is or isn’t legal, unless you do want to live in something like communism.
    Abortion isn’t murder because it isn’t even a rights violation. That’s all there is to it.
    Those trying to suggest abortion is murder are simply leftist political illiterates that are resorting to false analogy and question begging because they don’t know how we actually determine whether something should be legal or not.
    You see this with conservatives on EVERY issue.

  46. rickw

    Abortion is not murder. If you disagree, look up Australian laws. abortion is and should be woman’s right.

    Here’s a little women’s rights story:

    Mother of a friend of my son was forced to abort their second child by her bastard of a husband. All manner of threats and pressure applied to her. Eventually she caved in and exercised her “right”, she carries it with her today.

    Of course no fuckwit who supports this important women’s right would have ever envisioned this scenario.

  47. Neil

    The majority don’t determine what is or isn’t legal,

    Isn’t that what we did with the gay marriage vote? What was illegal became legal because of a majority vote

  48. dover_beach

    But this never happens in a modern democracy, because there are always constitutional guarantees (codified or implied) against such atrocities.

    Then why mention ‘democratically-adopted law’ as if this determined whether abortion was or was not murder when you now say that is irrelevant in the case of ‘enemies of the people?

  49. Iampeter

    Isn’t that what we did with the gay marriage vote? What was illegal became legal because of a majority vote

    Yea and that was wrong. I think I even said in one of the threads about it at the time that this is not the sort of thing you vote on. What’s needed is understanding of political theory and it’s application. That’s what’s missing from all these discussions, but the problem is that this ignorance only hurts those of us on the right.
    The left just wins by default.
    Or in the case of things like abortion, SSM and other “social issues,” leftist authoritarianism is advanced by those claiming to oppose leftist authoritarianism without even the realization.

  50. dover_beach

    Gay ‘marriage was not illegal.

  51. Iampeter

    Except it was literally made illegal in 2004 by the Howard government’s Marriage Amendment Act.
    As usual you’re post is completely wrong and also completely irrelevant to the point that was being discussed.

    Classic dover.

  52. dover_beach

    Except it was literally made illegal in 2004 by the Howard government’s Marriage Amendment Act.

    No, neither the 1961 Act nor the amendment act 2004 made gay ‘marriage’ illegal. There is a world of difference between something not being recognized at law and something being illegal.

Comments are closed.