Gosnell; Baby Feet Kick the Nation – UPDATES

If your stomach and your psyche can stand it, read the grand jury report on this fiendish abortionist, Kermit Gosnell.

I have been afraid to write about this woman-killing, baby-slaughtering, fertility-stealing, heartless and exploitative freak since the story broke. It’s been that horrifying.

But I agree with the assertion of the district attorney that Gosnell was able to get along with for so long by design.

The State Legislature has charged the Department of Health (DOH) with responsibility for writing and enforcing regulations to protect health and safety in abortion clinics as well as in hospitals and other health care facilities. Yet a significant difference exists between how DOH monitors abortion clinics and how it monitors facilities where other medical procedures are performed.

Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: It is by design. …

State health officials knew that Gosnell and his clinic were offering unacceptable medical care to women and girls, yet DOH failed to take any action to stop the atrocities documented by this Grand Jury.

Of course this neglect toward patient’s safety and the law is by design. A shoddy operation like Gosnell’s could not have continued to perpetrate medical atrocities on women, unless somewhere along the line situations were going unreported and investigations were left unassigned as true-believers within the system looked determinedly away. See pages 9-15 of the report. In fact, just keep reading.

For them, I suppose, these dead or maimed women might be considered “collateral damage” in the efforts to preserve a “choice” they consider sacrosanct. If a few women perish along with the million babies per year, well, it’s such a small number, right?

And if some women are left scarred, maimed or infertile, well…probably they’re the sort of women who shouldn’t have babies, anyway, right?

After all, Margaret Sanger — the poster girl for pro-choice advocates in America — was all about making sure that certain races and certain classes of people were discouraged from reproducing. But you’re not supposed to know that, or at least you’re not supposed to acknowledge that. To do so would be as rude as forcing people to consider that the only way to prevent a pregnancy from advancing to new life is to “stop” it unnaturally, or to note that “stopping” is just a euphemism for “killing.” Because that’s the only way to stop new life from flourishing: by killing it.

But it’s rude to mention that. It is also rude (and “shrill”) to mention in polite company that the method of killing the new life involves reaching deep within a woman’s body with unnatural instrumentation and either sucking the baby, bit-by-bit, through a vacuum tube into a jar, or scraping it out of her, limb-by-limb.

And it is beyond rude to suggest to true-believers (many of whom are enthusiastic students of social and psychological theory) that the violent death-and-dismemberment being performed within a woman’s womb — deep inside her body — may produce both physical repercussions on her body, and psychological repercussions within society.

Intelligent people — people who pride themselves on having curious minds, who have studied philosophy and arcana, and who often allow for notions of karmic energies while rejecting the idea of a sin — would prefer to keep to their euphemisms and change the subject rather than consider what affect it may have on a nation, when so many of its women are walking around carrying all of that unanswered negativity and violence within their bodies.

To approach such people with a Bible and the idea that there was a real child, begotten of God, torn to shreds within the living tissue of its mother, whose soul (her life-force) might then be in peril due to that act, is so profoundly rude and full of “magical thinking” as to inspire mockery and jeering disdain.

To approach them with The Tao and the idea that there was a real being, energetically positive, violently destroyed in a burst of extreme, negative energy — energy that remains within the woman and will affect her chi, her lifeforce, is also rude. But it also scares them to fury.

Generally the true believers in abortion, very comfortable with dismissing all that unsophisticated Judeo/Christian moralizing, find it much more difficult to respond to those arguing from the side of Eastern philosophy. For one thing, Eastern philosophy — if it is embraced superficially — seems so modern and smart and permissive; it’s not full of that dread word “no,” and so they can’t accept that it might contain an argument against abortion.

For another thing, hey, all that talk about “energy” that’s sort of science-y right? And science is supposed to be respectable in ways theology is not.

Yesterday on Twitter, a journalist wrote: “This abortion doctor story is gruesome. Anti-choicers will seize on it, but it’s about criminal behavior, not abortion.”

Its funny how framing works. A massacre perpetrated by a deranged man is not about the deranged man; it’s about “rhetoric.” But a massacre perpetrated by an abortion provider whose violations against laws of the nation and of humanity were overlooked for years is “not about abortion.” It’s about criminal behavior, and that’s all. But some of our most prominent politicians have voted against the very bill — the “born alive” bill — that defines such behavior as criminal. Meaning, I guess, that if only enough politicians had voted with Sen. Barack Obama, Gosnell’s behavior would not be “criminal” at all, and therefore we wouldn’t even be talking about it?

Well, the story of Kermit Gosnell is about abortion; it’s about abortion in America. And abortion in America is about a mindset, — even (or especially) among regulation-happy folk who will make a big noise about public safety on issues large and small — a mindset that will protect a Gosnell, and purposely turn a blind eye to abortion centers and practitioners and all of their lapses and illegalities, as long as the abortions keep on coming.

If that were not true, if the blind eye were not being turned, don’t you think someone — before now — would have seen and been disgusted by Kermit Gosnell’s collection of severed baby feet?

Look at the photo, if you can take it. It’s a kick to the gut.

UPDATE I: Ace notes that all three major news networks embargoed this story. They’re going to want this one to be flushed down the drain, like a “precipitated” fetus, as soon as possible.

UPDATE II: Leticia Velasquez, whose daughter has Down syndrome, writes about the cognitive dissonance that leads some to take great pains with language while discussing those they’d rather see aborted. She dares to be provocative, and to challenge:

Given the choice, I would prefer my daughter to be called a “retard” and know that abortion of babies with Down syndrome had ceased. Early last month President Barack Obama signed a law decreeing that federal statutes must no longer use the term “mental retardation.” The phrase replacing it will be “intellectual disability.”

Many Down syndrome advocates were jubilant, but I am more skeptical. [...] It seems that, every few decades, old terms for those with physical disabilities or cognitive delays are abandoned in favor of new ones, since existing terms have developed a negative connotation.

But drawing a new word from the thesaurus is not enough. We have to respect the right of the mentally disabled to exist. We need to stop aborting them.

Plainspoken and forthright. You’ll want to read the whole thing.

Ultrasound Abortions; What No One Sees
Fr. Dwight Longenecker
Forty Years
Chicago Boyz
“We’re Fighting the Bloody Lot”
GOP introduces ban on Fed Funding for Abortion
Ace excerpts a large portion of the report
Eric Sammons
Catholic Hospital Restrictions Controversial
“Little Angel Who Almost Wasn’t”
The Abortion Seesaw

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • Rhinestone Suderman

    I’d be willing to see some of my tax dollars go to saving young lives—that is, if I could be sure they’d actually go to help children and their mothers, and not to line some bureaucrat’s pocket, or be squandered away in make-work programs that, again, don’t help mothers or children.

    That’s the problem with tax dollars; they tend to sort of melt away, like snow.

    Our current financial problems are vast, and complex, and many of them seem to stem from the ripples generated by the current Fanny/Freddie meltdown; our own local agencies have started cutting back on services—and they just told us they were going to do this, we had no say in the matter.

    That’s another problem with tax-funded programs; when the economy tanks, so do they—and usually without much warning, or offering some sort of alternative.

    If I could be sure of a particular program, however, I’d be willing to support it.

    But what are you suggesting, ds? Are you saying that we should just write off the lives of 4,000 children, and allow abortion to continue, because it’s just too danged expensive to support and educate all those unwanted kids, so let’s just get of ‘em, to help the economy?

    (I’m not a Catholic myself, so I’ll let the Catholic posters here defend Catholicism’s programs; I do know that many churches in my area have programs reaching out to unwed mothers, collecting money and essentials, such as diapers for them. In all bluntness, when it comes to unwed motherhood, it seems to me religious groups, while their efforts are frequently flawed, or incomplete, do more to help actual children than liberals, who seem to think all such problems can be solved by 1. Abortion, and/or 2. Welfare, which tends to trap those on it in a cycle of poverty.)

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    So, ds, the question comes back to you: do you value life more than money? Would you be willing to see money cut from a particular program: the arts, midnight basketball, foreign aid to whatever country, etc. to be given to support children, and their mothers?

    By the way, speaking of supporting Health services, what’s your opinion about the DHS, which turned a blind eye to what was going on at this abortion clinic? Do you think they weren’t getting enough tax dollars? Enough community support? What was the problem here, in your opinion?

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Also, to repeat jb’s question, do you really think these kids are better off dead?

  • archangel

    Not to go to far astray but the “gay marriage” thing is a misnomer. They already can have a “civil union” which is fine as far as I’m concerned. The laws are such in many states where any “partner” can have survivor benefits. This is true for life insurance policies and the like. To call it “marriage”, though, is not a possibility. A “marriage” must have procreation. THAT is its sole purpose which is why it is defined by the union of a MAN and a WOMAN.

    When a homosexual couple can produce offspring between them, get back to me.

  • Pingback: “Feminists” & the Gosnell case: Babykilling is different when it happens outside the womb « Sister Toldjah

  • archangel

    For the record. I would DEFUND ALL DIRECT National Healthcare. It is NOT the Federal goverment’s job.

    Remove ALL payroll taxes that are taken on the federal, state and local level for the purpose of personal healthcare.

    Give that money back to the worker, untaxed, and allow health INSURERS to sell health insurance across state lines. Let the employee apply the payroll savings PRETAXED into THEIR OWN health insurance.

    For the poorest of the poor… within the welfare framework of what they get in money from the state; a stipend with which basic healthcare insurance can be purchased BY THEM through the same insurance network. Just because they are poor, doesn’t mean they aren’t responsible for themselves.

    REMOVE the gov’t from the decision equation.

    Not one more penny to Planned Parenthood. They are after all a PRIVATE organization founded by a NAZI sympathazer.


    Women used to drown their children in the river Styx.
    Nothing has changed.

  • Lori

    There are those on the left blaming this monster’s behavior on restrictions placed on late-term abortion, saying this is what happens when there are “barriers to access.”

    OK, except that this man was estimated by the grand jury investigation to lock down $1.8 MILLION annually from his abortion “business” in addition to the “income” he made from being the state’s 3rd largest supplier of illegal prescription drugs, particularly Oxycontin. Putting aside the little issue of murder for a minute, are we to believe “anti-choice” laws are the reason a multimillionaire performed abortions in filth? The reason he allowed high school kids to administer IV meds and deliver aborted, viable babies into a toilet for $8/hour? The tube he had available to suction the lungs of a woman who might encounter breathing problems from the anesthesia was the same tube used to suction the aborted babies. Exactly what regulations, restrictions, or limited funding prevented this mulitmillionaire from buying another *&$* tube, cleaning his equipment, having his staff wear gloves, or picking up animal excrement?

    This is not what happens when there are abortion restrictions in place. PA’s restrictions are completely in keeping with what is spelled out as legal in Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court denied the ACLU-type amici briefs arguing a woman’s right was “absolute.” Roe affirms that the state has a “legitimate and compelling interest” in protecting the “potential for human life” that exists in an unborn baby, let alone a baby born alive. There is nothing wrong with PA’s laws. The left just doesn’t want to live with them. They want to push further, flouting Roe’s rejection of their argument, and act as if the woman’s “choice” is indeed absolute and the baby’s interests are irrelevant.

    This is what happens when an ideologically-driven bureaucracy colludes with politicians and officials who are afraid of the wrath and political outfall they would face from the pro-choice machine were they ever to try and enforce existing laws and standards. The self-proclaimed protectors of the disenfranchised knowingly turned a blind eye to some of the most vulnerable among us, and their willful inaction resulted in the systematic murder of countless living babies and the negligent injury and deaths of untold numbers of women. If that’s not having blood on your hands, I don’t know what is.

  • ds0490

    “But what are you suggesting, ds? Are you saying that we should just write off the lives of 4,000 children, and allow abortion to continue, because it’s just too danged expensive to support and educate all those unwanted kids, so let’s just get of ‘em, to help the economy?”

    No, not at all. Remember, I am the one supporting increased funding of things like community health services, comprehensive family planning education, increased access and availability of contraception, and *gasp* universal health care. It seems to be the conservatives who are putting a price tag on human life. They seem fine with passing laws, but when it comes to actually changing the circumstances in which people find themselves the drive for life hits the derail button.

    “So, ds, the question comes back to you: do you value life more than money? Would you be willing to see money cut from a particular program: the arts, midnight basketball, foreign aid to whatever country, etc. to be given to support children, and their mothers?”

    Very cool…let’s see what that involves:

    Elimination of funding for National Endowment for the Humanities: $155 million, or around $130 dollars per aborted child.


    Elimination of funding for the National Endowment for the Arts: $155 million, another $130 per aborted child.


    Eliminate all foreign aid spending (including Israel): $26 billion, or around $20,000 per aborted child.

    Estimated savings from proposed cuts to Pentagon budget over the next 4 years: $178 billion, or $44 billion per year…over $35,000 per aborted child.


    Yep…there are cost savings to be had in the current budget. You can eliminate the arts and humanities funding and add a drop in the bucket to helping save the lives of the unborn, or you can eliminate all of our foreign aid and actually have a chance of helping these children significantly.

    Or, you can just adopt the changes proposed by the SecDef for the next four years and make a relatively painless and truly significant difference for the children and the women who bear them to term.

    So…how about it? Sound like a workable deal so far? Your side gets a ban on abortion across the board, and the women and children get a much needed boost to their chances for a healthy and successful birth. And all it costs are some programs that the Pentagon says we can do without.

  • ds0490

    “Also, to repeat jb’s question, do you really think these kids are better off dead?”

    Not at all, which is why I’m even bothering with posting here. Does your commitment to life go beyond supporting pro-life politicians (which, as we saw in the 90s when the allegedly pro-life GOP would not advance the Human Life Amendment, really means nothing)? Or do you feel your God-given duty to the unborn ends with voting pro-life and sending a tax-deductible contribution to your favorite pro-life charity?

  • ds0490

    Where would these funds be spent to help women and children? How about an organization like this.


    “Established in 1981 as a private non-profit organization, PACHC was formed by and for community health center programs. PACHC programs and services are designed to strengthen, promote and grow health centers in today’s complex and constantly changing health care environment as well as support Community Health Centers (FQHCs) in their mission to provide quality primary care to all, regardless of ability to pay.”

    Oh, and to answer Rhinestone’s question: what do I think of the DHS that turned a blind eye towards this (or, more than likely, covered it over)? I think of them with pretty much the same disgust that I view those in the Catholic Church who either abused children or protected those who abused them.

  • Pingback: Gosnell’s House of Horrors « Nice Deb

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    ds, you seem less interested in actual debate, than you do in bashing the Catholic Church (either that, or you’re just trying very hard to change the subject.) You can’t even say you condemn the DHS, without dragging in the Church’s pedophilia scandal.

    The Church isn’t the only one with problems like that; the UN has had its share of sex abuse scandals, too.

    Also, you need to stop re-hashing the same old points, over and over, which, as far as I understand—you’re accusing everybody who opposes abortion as being hypocrites, if they don’t unquestioningly approve certain tax founded health programs. Now, this one you link to, PACHC might do a wonderful job; or it might not. Again, the whole question of oversight, who’se in charge and who’se keeping an eye on things (remember how the DHS messed up, and covered up this abortion clinic scandal?) needs to be addressed before we start giving it tax dollars, and our unquestioning support.

    Also, its mission statement seem quite broad—health in general, which isn’t a bad thing, but what’s needed is something that cares for women and children in particular, and which will address the needs of children who weren’t aborted as they grow. I’m willing to see this done, if it’s done well, and if the “healthcare” provided for women isn’t limited to 1. Abortion and 2. Birth control, and nothing at all for kids. (Like Archangel, I have some doubts as to whether or not the government is the best one to handle this.)

    It will need a lot of change. It could mean cutting government employees’ benefits, so that the money could be funneled to children’s programs, instead. It could mean reassessing our foreign aid program; Yassir Arafat reportedly died a rich man, because of aid money he latched onto from both America and Europe–money which certainly could have been better spent. Also, things such as the NEA, public supported television, radio, etc. I could also mean churches focusing less on “social gospel”, or supporting various political causes (such as the UN???) and doing grass-roots stuff, such as collecting diapers, manning a hotline for mothers considering abortion and the like.

    It would mean a lot of change; I think it would be worth it.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, Archangel, you’re right about Sanger; she did have a very dark past.

  • Scott W. Somerville

    There should be some remarkable lawsuits against the Pennsylvania officials who were responsible for regulating this clinic. Most of them will involve a civil rights claim, especially when black women claim a “denial of equal protection.” Any woman who suffered any injury that would not have happened if the State had done its job should have a claim–and if I were the Governor of Pennsylvania, I’d order the Attorney General to settle every single suit for whatever it cost.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    And, yes, I see that PACHC is touted as a non-profit organization; a series of non-profit, privately owned organizations could be a good thing—again, with proper oversight, and accountability.

    Against, it’s mission seems to be quite broad, and general (and a bit vague), and not specifically directed towards women and caring for children.

    Also, the best clinic in the world isn’t going to do much good without a real spiritual revolution, and change in our attitude towards human life, as far as abortion goes.

  • archangel

    Without going to much farther afield…

    Re: Sanger- Probably an even darker present… but I’m not one to judge.

    Re: Scandals- Many (if not most) are being found to be fraudulent but don’t let SNAP hear that. Further, as has been forth, the percentage of actual cases is quite low considering the population overall. The Catholic church was the focus without even looking at the Public schools as well as other denominations. But that train has left the station a while ago. Not denying the past, just placing it perspective. I immediately turn off the discussion when “the scandal” is brought up in an unrelated matter.

    ds has one essential “go to” argument. Fine. It has no bearing re: abortion. For this person, the issue is a “health care” issue. For us, it is a moral issue with a choice between life and death of a CHILD. Abortion is murder. It is a homicide, the intentional killing of another human being. It is not a health issue. The acceptance of the “health care” lie glosses over the broader truth of what the act of abortion is and makes it more palatable. And, until ds comes to that truth they will be at a loss to understand any other position.


    Listen. Either women are allowed to kill their kids, or they are not. Does not matter if their kids are 5 weeks old or 55 years. A murder is a murder, and thats the way the cookie crumbles.

    And remember; if you`ve had 2 abortions, – you fit the profile of a serial killer.

    Have a nice day!

  • John

    What this man has done is terrible, but doesn’t it just cultivate hatred to call him a freak? One thought. John

  • ds0490

    “ds, you seem less interested in actual debate, than you do in bashing the Catholic Church (either that, or you’re just trying very hard to change the subject.) You can’t even say you condemn the DHS, without dragging in the Church’s pedophilia scandal.”

    No, Rhinestone. I say that I reserve the same level of disgust for all who terrorize children, whether it be those who brutally murder them in utero or those who terrorize them in the sanctuary of a church (or a Boy Scout meeting room, or a classroom).

    “Also, you need to stop re-hashing the same old points, over and over, which, as far as I understand—you’re accusing everybody who opposes abortion as being hypocrites, if they don’t unquestioningly approve certain tax founded health programs.”

    I will be happy to do so when the conservative pro-life supporters here (and elsewhere) quit rehashing the same old points about electing pro-life, anti-tax legislators, and saying that anyone who does not adhere to their politically-driven agenda is of the devil. The solution to this is not going to be politically driven, and yet their will undoubtedly be a political element.

    So far I have suggested that I could support a policy that involved essentially two things:

    1) Outlawing abortions via constitutional amendment
    2) Increasing funding for those in need so they can not only carry healthy pregnancies to full term, but also receive contraceptive education and supplies as well as other non-abortive healthcare.

    So far the response has been tepid at best, hostile on average. Are the folks who post here more interested in vilifying people and engaging in engaging in partisan rhetoric, or actually doing something to reduce and eventually eliminate abortions in the nation?

    If all you want to do is pass laws and condemn, you are as guilty as any of the pro-choicers in the deaths. Condemning has been going on for over a generation, and we still see millions of babies dying, both before and after they are born.

    Is the church doing all it can to help prevent this? In most cases I think they are doing what they can, but it is not enough. You point to the number of people wanting to adopt children. Getting children to the point of being born healthy and whole takes more than just the desire of the couple to adopt. It takes money. It takes healthcare services. Sometimes it takes drug treatment, STD treatment, housing, food, and protection from predators for the mother and unborn child. All of that costs money.

    It’s been said that fully 1/2 of all pregnancies in this nation end in abortion. If the legislative side is successful in outlawing abortion, do we have the services necessary to provide for all of those children and their mothers?

    Some of you are acting as if Mark Chapter 8 started out like this:

    About that time, when there was again a great crowd of people who had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him, and said: “We need to send these people home, as it is time for them to eat. They are responsible for their welfare, and if they didn’t bring food then it is their problem, not ours. If we send them away to their homes hungry, they will learn a valuable lesson and not be this foolish again. They need to learn personal responsibility.”

    As foolish as these people were in coming that long distance without food, Jesus didn’t condemn them for their careless actions. He fed them.

  • ds0490

    “The acceptance of the “health care” lie glosses over the broader truth of what the act of abortion is and makes it more palatable. And, until ds comes to that truth they will be at a loss to understand any other position.”

    Archangel, it seems that you believe that all we need to do is outlaw abortion and the problem will go away. A simplistic answer, and one that I often hear from fair-weather pro-life advocates. Pass a law, send some doctors to jail, and the problem just goes away. No concern about what happens next, or if there is anything else that might be done to help the mothers and their children. Your conscience is salved, your duty done, and your taxes unraised.

  • ds0490

    Rhinestone, I would also suggest that the spiritual change needs to happen with regards to money, and why God has blessed us with such wealth compared to other nations.

  • Pingback: Fiendish abortionist, Kermit Gosnell | Adam Smith

  • http://eternityroad.info Francis W. Porretto

    Dear ds:

    Help the mothers yourself. I do.

    The answer to abortion is two fold:
    1. Restore a culture that respects life;
    2. Get government out of the way of people who want to adopt unwanted children.

    Additional government involvement in “family planning” is just an entering wedge for totalitarian power over family decision making.

  • c matt

    Well ds, you did not answer one question

    So, ds, the question comes back to you: do you value life more than money?

    Your position seems to be that if we are not able to provide a certain level of support for the life of these babies, then it is allright to kill them. That does not sound much like valuing life over money.

    For the record, I would be happy to reduce defense spending, which I think is way out of whack, and reallocate that to domestic programs if they actually work.

  • archangel

    What “problem” are you referring to?

    You will always have a law breaker. Ban robbery and you’ll still have robbers. Ban murder, and you’ll still have murders. What’s your point?

    Yes… make it a constitutional amendmentment. Call it a Life Amendment and have it guarantee the lif of ALL from cradle-to-grave, even for convicts. So, will this end abortions… probably not. Will it end unwanted pregnancies… probably not. Will it guarantee that every baby, born or unborn, is considered a HUMAN BEING with equal protection under the law? Most definitiely.

    So I ask, what problem are you referring to?

  • newton

    “What this man has done is terrible, but doesn’t it just cultivate hatred to call him a freak?”


    A man who is found to have collected severed baby feet and had all kinds of fetal “souvenirs” all over his practice is plenty akin to a man who has someone’s liver with Fava beans and a nice Chianti.

    He EARNED the title “freak”.

    Hate him? Rather feel sorry that such a heart of scum ever appeared among humanity.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » Thank goodness for smart friends

  • http://sailorette.blogspot.com Foxfier

    ds0490, you make a lot of really bad assumptions– always in the same direction, too.

    We’re either being trolled, or he’s just trying to change the topic away from the large pile of murdered children.

  • Pingback: The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Framing

  • http://sailorette.blogspot.com Foxfier

    Know what happens when folks actually do a scientifically passable study on the effects of abstinence vs safe sex educations on populations that are controlled for social and economic factors?

    The abstinence ed works.
    Not perfectly, but works a heck of a lot better than pointing at a state and going “they have a lot of evangelicals, and lots of pregnant teenagers!”

    Incidentally, the CDC statistics are for live births to those 15-19. Mother’s marital status isn’t considered, nor are abortions….all kinds of things come to mind when you actually unpack the statistics and look at them, rather than take a one-year useful clip and try to use it as a hammer.

  • Pingback: Ed Driscoll » ‘It’s Funny How Framing Works:’ The MSM and Kermit Gosnell

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    Well, nice to know you condemn all those who terrorize children. (Meanwhile, managing to bash the Catholic Church yet again—as well as the Boy Scouts! LOL!)

    What spiritual changes, in regards to money, are you talking about exactly? Are we not giving enough? Are we giving too much? Are we giving it to the wrong things? Are you saying that asking people for personal responsibility is just too, too cruel, and, instead, we just ought to throw money at problems and give women abortions because, poor dears, how can we hold them responsible for anything? Isn’t this treating them as something lower than animals? (Something Jesus never did with people, even when He disagreed with them.)

    Isn’t this the sort of attitude that led to the horrors at this clinic in the first place? “Oh, they need abortions, so let’s not look too deeply into what’s going on there!”

    (Of course, payola may have had something to do with it, too.)

    Remember my example of Yassir Arafat? Was it really a good idea to send him so much foreign aid—none of which seems to have reached his people. Are all our foreign aid programs good, either for us, or the countries they’re supposedly helping? If we cut some of it back, maybe we’d be able to pay for group homes in which to raise children with no parents, and for adoption services. Suppose our elected officials stopped using tax dollars for expensive trips overseas? Couldn’t that be used to help people, and cut down the number of abortions? Couldn’t it be used to help raise healthy children? Also, pregnancy isn’t a disease; we should stop thinking of it like that.

    Yes, Jesus fed the multitudes who came to hear Him preach. He fed His sheep. He also had some strong words about marriage (“What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder!”), about committing adultery in one’s heart, about some becoming “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” if necessary. Suppose churches dropped the endless nattering about “The Social Gospel”, and started reaffirming the value of marriage, family and human life? (A lot of those who love it when Our Lord talks about “Rendering unto Caesar”, or when He feeds the multitude, suddenly don’t have much to say when He talks about marriage, or “Take up your cross and follow Me!” or about millstones being hung around the necks of those who harm little ones.)

    Actually, I do talk about money, and how it should be spent, in my posts; you’re ignoring the questions I raise about it, and you’re also ignoring the points both dj and Archangel have raised; none of us say we should merely focus on voting for certain candidates, or that if you support abortion, you’re of the party of Satan. Please, drop that strawman. Adoption, as well as cutting back on certain forms of spending and revivying a culture of life have all been suggested.

  • http://sailorette.blogspot.com Foxfier
  • Rhinestone Suderman

    newton, yes—in fact, “freak” is one of the less harsh terms to describe him!

    Reading about what he actually did. . . well, “Jack the Ripper” does come to mind, as well as “Brute”, “Serial Killer”, etc., etc., etc.

  • Rhinestone Suderman

    ds, I believe America has been “blessed” (if you want to call it that) with wealth relative to other nations because of:

    1. Its system of laws, and. . .

    2. Dare I say it? It’s work ethic, and adherence to capitalism.

    Both South America, and Russia, have been blessed with great natural resources; many Middle-Eastern countries have been blessed with oil. If many of their people are poor, and their standard of living not as good as ours, the reason probably isn’t that we aren’t sharing enough of our wealth with them.

    Money isn’t a blessing, per se; you have to work for it. It isn’t like manna from Heaven, it doesn’t just appear.

    St. Paul said that the love of money is the root of all evil, but he also said “He who does not work, neither shall he eat!”

  • archangel

    Newton; re names for the “good” doctor:

    I was thinking more along the lines of Dr. Mengle.

    When one thinks about these atrocities and the excuses given for them, what really needs to be considered is the fact that we have been here before. Sanger was an admirer of Hitler’s and the NAZI party. No one discusses the fact that Stalin (Bolshevik Communist) was an ally of Hitlers’. Strip away the “Final Solution” and the concentration camps and look strictly at what the NAZI Party of Germany sought and it is at its heart Socialism. Fascism is a SOCIALIST animal. Mussolini was no different in Italy. All three of these folk had admirers here in the States. Those admirers all hailed from what would be considered the “elite” folk, not to mention not a few in the broadcast industry. All supported abortion to limit the number of undesireables… pick your undesireable. Sanger had hers. Hitler had his. All were dehumanized.

    All these “elites” hailed the “State” as having the final say as to who lived and who died simply because the “state” PAID for the health care. All hailed from what is euphamistically called “the Left” of the political spectrum. Essentially the “Final Solution” was a cost cutting measure. It is the same argument we hear today. So, when we hear from the nattering nabobs from the media, the “Left”, NOW, NARAL, etc.; understand the pedigree from which they come.

  • archangel


    When you say America has been blessed. Again, that blessing is a misnomer. America has been blessed to the extent that individual Americans have been blessed. That “national” wealth you speak of is a collective wealth only in the sense that the individual’s who have it, have attained it, have worked for it, are American. The “NATION” does not own that wealth.

    You brought up the feeding of the masses by Jesus. Before he multiplied the loaves and fish, His admonition was “give something to them yourselves.” Historically, the miracle was one of sharing. Some were clearly prepared for the journey and had food for themselves. The Apostles themselves brought the loaves and fishes.

    Americans share their wealth freely. We are the first to aid, even our enemies and those who wish us ill. Remember the Iran earthquake 10 years ago. America was the first to aid them. IRAN!!!! So… understand this. When you say that America is blessed by wealth, its the PEOPLE of America… not the gov’t. The people produce the wealth you seem so set on redistributing… not gov’t. The people are far more efficient in redistributing their own wealth. than the gov’t is doing it for them.

  • newton

    “Reading about what he actually did. . . well, “Jack the Ripper” does come to mind, as well as “Brute”, “Serial Killer”, etc., etc., etc.”

    You know which one I’m talking about… do you?

  • Pingback: Cold Fury » The Narrative: abortion-mill horror story not really about abortion at all. No, really

  • finishstrongdoc

    “The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated.”
    Justice Robert H. Jackson
    Chief Justice, Nuremburg Trials

  • Grannadeb

    Interestingly enough, PL108-212 of the 108th Congress says “Fetus is a member of the species Homo sapiens, and therefore, by definition is a human being at every stage of its development in the womb.” Furthermore, in our country DNA is accepted as proof positive of the identification of an individual human being. The DNA is formed within 10 hours (note: not days or weeks, hours) of conception. We cannot have it both ways. Our courts and even our Congress say that this is a human being, so why are they still being murdered every day? Mother Teresa of Calcuta said that “it is a terrible poverty that a child must die so that you can have the life you wish to have.” Abortion does stop a beating heart, it is a heinous crime against humanity, and we as a nation should be ashamed to have tolerated it this long (38 years), because most abortions in our country are performed for convenience, not for any other reason. “Abortion does not make a woman Un-pregnant, it makes her the mother of a dead baby.” And the government continues, with the full cooperation of the National Cancer Institute, to ignore the fully documented connection between breast cancer in women and abortion. We are to be pitied as a nation.

  • http://scottthong.wordpress.com Scott

    8 counts of murder for delivering living babies, then killing them.

    33 counts of illegal late-term abortions for killing them in the womb.


  • Micha Elyi

    …but there isn’t any situation where society wouldn’t be protected by [placing] someone in jail for life…-Manny (27)

    “Society” is people. The jail’s guards are people; overlooking such a basic truth is imprudent.

    Consider the sort of jail that is soooo safe and the jailer’s jobs soooo pleasant that 1/2 of the people who apply for guard jobs are female. (Just look around you, females generally shun dangerous and icky jobs.) Now here’s the thought experiment: Does any possible safe-and-pleasant-for-guards jail exist that wouldn’t be horribly inhumane, even considered torture, for the prisoners?

  • Pingback: Another March for Life | Regnum Novum

  • Pingback: The Face of Evil

  • http://j3b3.wordpress.com jb


    No one is rehashing anything of what you say. You are using 30 year old excuses, to what end, if you mean what you say, makes no sense anyway.

    Do you even have a flipping clue–I MEAN A FLIPPING CLUE!–how many pro-life people over the last 38 years since that bastard of a SCOTUS condemned babies to die in their mothers’ wombs, have been doing all the tings you think aren’t being done? You are so beyond ignorant of the facts I feel embarrassed even telling you that you have your head where the sun don’t shine. How DARE YOU accuse those saving children best they can after getting stuck with a piece of SCAT law by our own SCOTUS, come onto any site and spout your (in your view ALONE) pious nonsense.

    Stop it! First of all, quit talking like a pro deather. Quit bartering with the lives of babies–that is flipping (for want of the more applicable word) beyond the pale! You have a solution, then get YOUR OWN BUTTCHEEKS in gear and save these innocent lives. Don’t sit back like some uninterested anal orifice and pretend you are somehow above the rest of us. That doesn’t even rise to the level of sophistry. You are simply acting like a dignified troll, without the dignity.

    Actually, you simply sound like an ass. Might get me banned here for saying so, but your equivocation over the worth of human life would make you, as my dear departed step-dad (don’t you dare go after him–he’s dead like the babies you barter about), about as worthless as a pimple on a pig’s ass.

    Meanwhile, while you and others have done your silkly little dance, 50 million children were murdered–YES–murdered in their own mothers’ wombs. Makes the dictators of old look like wanna be’s.

    Yeah, I use ad hominem with anyone who is pro death–like you.

    Sue me.

  • http://j3b3.wordpress.com jb

    Let me take one other aspect of you pro death thinking . . .

    Archangel, it seems that you believe that all we need to do is outlaw abortion and the problem will go away. A simplistic answer, and one that I often hear from fair-weather pro-life advocates.

    Dude, I doubt, unless you are polling your own family members, that you will find a single “fair-weather” pro-life advocate. If ANYONE is being simplistic, it is YOU.

    But following your too silly to be imagined logic, why outlaw murder, or rape. or robbery?

    The problems they present are still there, but I will bet if some murdered one of your family members or robbed your house, you would be Mr. Law and Oder like yesterday.

    You really need to refine your argumentation . . . it is so 1970′s feminism. Get with History Writer, he presents a much better view of the pro-death position.

    Better yet, get with that baby-killer in Philadelphia. He thinks he was doing a good work!

    Pro deathers make one’s brain hurt. They are alive, but they know who should die. What sheer arrogance!

  • http://kermitgosnellcrimes.wikispaces.com/ Christina Dunigan

    I’m in the process of Wikifying the entire Grand Jury report, breaking it down into sections, cross-linking, and adding supplemental materials:


    137 pages and counting!

  • Pingback: WhaTCKAS: That Kid Whose Spinal Cord I Just Cut Was Big Enough to Walk Me To the Bus Stop Edition « King B Live