What's more disgusting than late-term abortion? This scheme to exploit it by hiring actors & secretly taping doctors. wapo.st/11wBHIW
— Will Saletan (@saletan) April 29, 2013
Oy, there was so much wrong with
this it was hard to know where to begin.
First, the videos he is complaining about appear to be journalism. Politically motivated journalism, but
journalism nonetheless. How does this
differ from the hundreds of hidden camera investigations conducted by ABC, CBS,
NBC and so on over the years? But
suddenly whenever a conservative uses it to go after a liberal sacred cow, its
somehow unfair and unethical. Heck
one of the targets of this called it “terrorism.”
Of course what is upsetting them
are these videos that have been surfacing, James O’Keefe III style. Apparently Liveaction.org ran women who were
genuinely pregnant into abortion clinics and essentially got a candid take on
the attitude of these doctors’ attitude towards life and death. Here’s one video, for instance:
Of course the comparison to DNR
(do not resuscitate) orders in the case of a terminal cancer patient is
inapposite. In that case, it is
generally done at the wishes of the patient him or herself. This is a mother who just tried to kill her
baby in the womb then deciding that the baby isn’t getting off that
easily. And of course a terminal patient
is a terminal patient, as in a person
expected to die soon. The babies
surviving abortion, by comparison, have their whole lives ahead of them, if
they could only make it out of the doctor’s office alive.
And that is followed by this
video:
The chilling part is when they
are talking about the solution. What
they are saying is that if the fetus comes out in once piece, don’t worry they
will put it in a solution and it will die, from the toxins and from drowning.
And notice also how they are
doing their best to make sure she doesn’t
think through the moral implications of it.
Don’t worry you won’t see the baby, won’t see any sonograms, etc. Yeah God forbid you look what you are killing
in the eye.
But pointing it out is
exploitation to Saleton and that is the real issue. Which led me to this mockery on twitter:
so killing a fully sentient being is less disgusting than trying to STOP the killing of a sentient being? @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
did you say that Spielberg making Schindler's List was worse than the holocaust? @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
did you say that the abolitionists exposing slavery were worse than the slaveholders? @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
An exploitive book:
did you think MLK was more disgusting than the racism he fought and died to end? @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
Okay that is more of the “humor
that barely masks fury” variety of mockery but there you go. And indeed, if you follow the link in his
original tweet, it leads to a
story about those videos, which involve infanticide. So his tweet saying it was about “late term
abortion” is not accurate. I mean,
unless you accept the Mrs. Cartman definition of abortion:
That is from an episode of South
Park, and as outlandish as it might sound to call killing an eight year old
child and calling it abortion, it is getting less outlandish by the day. For instance, several months ago, I covered
the story of The Journal of Medical
Ethics publishing an article advocating after-birth abortion, that actually
went the full Nazi. Never go the full
Nazi. From the article:
Euthanasia in
infants has been proposed by philosophers for children with severe
abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are
experiencing unbearable suffering....
Although it is
reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the
best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the
effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those
pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained
that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of
Down's syndrome children, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of
a normal child’. But, in fact, people
with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe
disabilities, are often reported to be happy.
Nonetheless, to
bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on
society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On
these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who
will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion.
Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we
call after-birth abortion should be
permissible.
So I pounded Saletan on how he
was at the very least ignoring the infanticide involved:
and btw these videos are not talking about abortion but infanticide. When it's born and you kill it, it's infanticide. @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
(By the way = by the way.)
I mean the article you link to us not talking about abortion. It is talking about live birth. @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
I thought all but the most radical pro-abortionists said that by the time a baby is born, it was person entitled to life @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
When does life begin for you? Can you at least concede that a fully born baby has a right to life? @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
and if you DON'T think a fully born baby has a right to life, when exactly do you acquire it? @saletan
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
As I was making this point, a
pro-life twitterer and I had this exchange:
yes, but I am going with what we are supposed to all agree on: life has definitely begun by the time it's born @howardslugh
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
And continuing my conversation:
you have to be like Lincoln. Hammer them first on their most radical position. Then work backwards @howardslugh
— Aaron Worthing (@AaronWorthing) April 29, 2013
And so I would like to take a
moment to explain in further detail what I mean.
Abraham Lincoln wasn’t perfect,
but he believed in the wrongness of slavery.
He once said: “I am naturally
anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember
when I did not so think, and feel.”
He never conceded for one moment
the rightness of slavery. But as a
strategy he did not talk about its abolition generally. Instead he focused on two issues that are at
its periphery.
The first, was the far more basic
issue of freedom and democracy for white people. This is less than ideal, because it made the freedom
of black people a secondary concern, but I think it was necessary at the time
rhetorically. He held the view, shared
by many, that holding black people in slavery was not only an affront to the
human rights of black people, but it threatened the freedom and democratic
government of all people. This was not
an unrealistic fear. For instance, when the
territory of Kansas was allowed to vote on whether to come in as a free or
slave state, the people of the free states watched as a pro-slavery cabal
attempted to undemocratically put in place a pro-slavery government. During the small-scale civil war in that
territory, Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist newspaperman died defending his
press from an anti-abolitionist mob.
There were even proposals for federal sedition acts that would have
prohibited abolitionist speech lest it foment slave rebellion.
And then there was the political
extortion used to try to bully the North into failing to vote its
conscience. Abraham
Lincoln makes the evil of this tactic clear:
But you will not
abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say,
you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having
destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my
ear, and mutters through his teeth, "[Give me your money], or I shall kill
you, and then you will be a murderer!"
To be sure, what the
robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep
it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death
to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to
extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
Of course if what the South was
asking for was respect for the Constitution or basic human rights that would be
one thing, but it wasn’t. He wasn’t
proposing to outlaw slavery where it was.
He was proposing to ban it in the territories where it wasn’t—something
he correctly pointed out in the same speech was understood to be Constitutional
since the establishment of the republic.
What you have to understand is
that in the eyes of the North, the election of Abraham Lincoln was seen as a
test, to see if the South could stand to lose for once. Even if you dispute that view of things (and
I don’t), that is how Lincoln made the
North see it. And it was key to his
political victory in 1860 and that important step toward the end of slavery.
The rest of the speech similarly
hammered the issue of freedom and democracy—as in, how it affected white
freedom and mainly white democracy. For instance,
he explained to the North what it would take to appease the South:
The question recurs,
what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we
must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by
experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the
very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms
and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but
this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them,
is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb
them.
These natural, and
apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this
only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this
must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be
tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new
sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that
slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in
private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure.
We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be
disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to
believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
He goes on to paint out the
litany of horrors that would follow from that appeasement. The rhetorical trick is to make appeasement so
unappetizing that anyone thinking of it would choke. Their sense of honor would reject it the way
your stomach will eject a diseased egg salad sandwich. So when it was clear that he had painted a
sufficiently awful picture of appeasement, he then turned around and argued that
they then had to stand firm, that appeasement is not an option. Not to end slavery—they were several years
away from that—but to stop the appeasement of its advocates.
So that was one issue he focused
on: the right to speak and to vote your conscience. And the other, hinted at in that speech, was
his desire to stop the spread of slavery.
To explain how he could allow slavery to continue to exist in the states
while opposing its spread in the territories and in new states, he offered a
metaphor:
If I saw a venomous
snake crawling in the road, any man would say I might seize the nearest stick
and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed with my children, that would be
another question. [Laughter.] I might hurt the children more than the snake,
and it might bite them. [Applause.] Much more if I found it in bed with my
neighbor's children, and I had bound myself by a solemn compact not to meddle
with his children under any circumstances, it would become me to let that particular
mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. [Great laughter.] But if there was
a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was
proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take
it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide! [Prolonged
applause and cheers.]
That is just the
case! The new Territories are the newly made bed to which our children are to
go, and it lies with the nation to say whether they shall have snakes mixed up
with them or not. It does not seem as if there could be much hesitation what
our policy should be! [Applause.]
(Seriously, we need Daniel
Day-Lewis to go back and do at least a vocal track, if not a full video
rendition of each of these speeches. It
would be a national treasure. He was
that good as Lincoln.)
So those were the two
issues. Freedom and democracy, and
ending slavery in the territories. While
he never let people get confused about the morality of slavery itself, he
focused his political proposals on those two issues.
Of course ideally Lincoln would
have proposed, and the people would have gone along with, a Thirteenth
Amendment ending slavery right then and there.
I think in his heart of hearts, Lincoln wanted that to happen but whatever he wanted, it
just wasn’t politically possible at that time.
So instead he used these smaller issues to drive a wedge. He would use milder messages: “I know you
aren’t willing to give up your slaves in your states, but could we just stop
expanding slavery?” That isn’t a quote,
but it is boiled down what his message was.
It was also this: “I know you aren’t willing to give up the slaves in
your states, but can we continue to at least say it is wrong? Can we vote
for politicians who say it is wrong and it shouldn’t expend?”
This was the opposite end from
firebrands like William Garrison who famously burned a copy of the Constitution
because it was seen as a pact with slavery.
By being so moderate, by asking for such basic things, Lincoln wanted to
show the North just how radicalized and unreasonable the South had become by
that time. He wanted to be the
soft-spoken one, clearly speaking moral truth to evil. And when his olive branch was rejected moral
clarity would result. Everyone would
know who the radicals, who the aggressors were.
As Lincoln said at the eve of the Civil War to the South, “You can have
no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.” Some Southern-leaning historians have alleged
that by doing this or that the North started the war, but it really does make
it hard to argue that the North was the aggressors when the South did
unambiguously fire the first shot.
And likewise, before the war, he
forced the South into being the aggressors, to say “No! You can’t vote for a
politician who will only stop the spread of slavery.” Consider for instance, the document
from South Carolina declaring secession.
Like our Declaration of Independence listed charges against the King of
England, it lists a set of supposed violations of Southern rights, but they
read as thin gruel:
We affirm that these
ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the
Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the
non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon
the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of
property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the
Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they
have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object
is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other
States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave
their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and
pictures to servile insurrection.
That is right, South Carolina
felt it was a cause of secession to speak out against slavery and assemble to
make that message known, two actions specifically protected by the Constitution
itself. And the other complaint was that
they refused to allow slaves to be held in their states, which is how it was
from the beginning of the republic. It
gets worse (as in lamer). In the next
paragraph, they complain that
Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional
party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the
means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn
across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the
election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose
opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.
Saying it observes the “forms” of
the Constitution is better understood as meaning that they can’t even pretend
the Constitution prohibits Lincoln from becoming President. They just don’t like it. But losing an election by itself is not a
cause for just rebellion. And, alas,
they go on:
This sectional
combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of
the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the
land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to
inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs
and safety.
In other words, they are mad that
some states let black people be citizens and vote, based on the Dred Scott case. I discussed that aspect of the case, here. As though another state doing such a thing is
an affront to them. What happened to
states’ rights?
And it goes on, flying into sheer
hysterics, claiming that somehow all of this will lead to this horror:
The guaranties of
the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will
be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of
self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have
become their enemy.
All because people wanted to
elect a president who said he thought slavery was wrong, and should be excluded
from the territories. Really, seriously,
doesn’t it sound a bit like this:
My point isn’t to debate the
causes and justification of the Civil War.*
If you believe the South’s cause was just, then you have to concede that
Lincoln made your allegedly just cause look unjust and indeed ridiculous. And if you think the Southern cause was
unjust—as I do—then he simply made obvious what was true all along. Whatever you think of the substance of the
issue, appreciate the political maneuver for what it is.
And if you are pro-life, you
should seek to replicate it for slavery.
Abraham Lincoln said, more or
less, “can we just stop the spread of slavery? And can we be free to vote and speak our
consciences?” These were utterly
reasonable requests.
Likewise, we should start with, “once
the fetus has left the womb, shouldn’t a doctor be required to do everything within
reason to make it live?”
I do not mean that the pro-lifers
must give one inch morally. If you are
inclined to oppose all abortion, do that.
If you are inclined to allow for a few exceptions, be clear on that as
well.
But focus our action on what is
the mildest and most reasonable position: that once a baby is fully born, it
has a right to life. And create laws
designed to aggressively ensure that it happens. With the Gosnell trial, with the blasé attitude
of the people in those videos, it is increasingly clear that the cheapening in
the value of human life inside the womb has led to a co-commitment cheapening
of the value of life outside the womb.
What possible objection could the
left have to that? Once it is outside the
woman’s body it is no longer a matter of “my body my choice,” now is it? And over and over again abortion advocates act
as though if a woman gives birth to a baby, they are legally obligated to take
care of it. Listen to the women in the second
video. They act as though the baby being
born alive is a problem for the
mother. This isn’t true. You can’t leave a baby in a dumpster, but you
can always turn the baby over to the state, give up your parental rights and
hope your baby finds a loving home. In any
case, once you give your baby to the state, it is no longer your problem. Or at the very least leave it on the doorstep
to a convent and knock hard. You don’t want to take care of it? Fine, give it to someone who will. Is that too much to ask for?
It is sad that we seem to have
reached a point where infanticide is increasingly tolerated, ignored or excused. We
even have a president who will not ban it.
But this, my pro-life friends, is the battle you can focus on and you
can win. And once it is conceded a fetus
that had been gestating for six months, that can live outside the womb and has
been ejected from the mother has a right to life, then work your way backwards.
And for those on the pro-choice
side, let me lay it out. Abortion is an
evil, but it is occasionally a necessary evil.
I don’t want to see a total ban, but this is what I want to see the
most.
First, Roe v. Wade and its progeny must go. And that doesn’t mean suddenly abortion will
be illegal all across the U.S. What it
means is that states will have a chance to decide whether abortion is legal and
under what conditions.
But I say that with one
caveat. Contrary to some of my friends
on the pro-life side, I do believe that the Constitution guarantees a right to
abortion when the health or life of the mother is in danger. To me, I see it as being similar to my belief
that you have a constitutional right to self-defense. I will not say that the state can never ask a
person to lay down their lives for another—military conscription is
Constitutional, after all—but the times when the state can ask you to do so are
few and far between. So while we should
correctly honor the courage and sacrifice of any woman willing to endanger her
life or health to bring another life into this world, the law should not demand
it.
From there, I say let the states
have at it. What exactly is the left
afraid of? Fifty three percent of the
population is women. And the other forty-seven
percent is blood relation to at least one woman. These facts are tautologically true and should
stop making us scared of having a normal negotiation over the exact contours of
abortion law. This is something We the People
can work out for ourselves and not have it handed down to us by nine robed
masters. And the best thing of all is if
what we decide is a mistake, it is easy to fix it. You can’t say the same thing about an
unconstitutional decision by the Supreme Court.
I have an opinion on what the
particulars of an idea post-Roe regime would be. But this piece is long enough already. And besides the most important part is that
We the People should make this decision, not some elite.
---------------------------------------
* But I will restate my
often-repeated position on the righteousness of the Confederacy. There is no right to secession in the
Constitution. And there was indeed no
legal right for us to rebel against England, too. It is exceedingly rare to find a government
charter that allows for its own destruction.
But there is a natural, moral
right of rebellion, which we properly invoked during the Revolution. So can the South invoke it? I would say not. Defenders of the Confederacy said that they
were about state’s rights. It would take
a longer essay that this to make this point, but the South found no state’s
right it supported or federal power it opposed, that harmed the cause of slavery. For instance, the
Fugutive Slave Act of 1850 was not only flagrantly unconstitutional but a
violation of state’s rights, and yet the south supported it, even against
assertions of state rights to block it.
When a person is hypocritical in one cause but utterly consistent in the
service of another, it is only logical to say that it is the latter cause that
is truly motivating them. That is the
case with slavery.
And the protection of slavery is
not a just cause for a war. Even if they
were violating provisions explicitly in the Constitution, so what? That is a cause for lawsuits and complaints,
but not for unlawful violence. Rebellion
is reserved for vindicating true rights, like the right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. And rather
than protecting those rights, slavery was an affront to all of them. On each day of its existence, slavery was
only a cause for rebellion for the slaves themselves, not for their masters.
---------------------------------------
My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds fantastic,
but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable,
please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.
Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
History here.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.
---------------------------------------
Disclaimer:
I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.
In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.
And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).
And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.
The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.
And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.
No comments:
Post a Comment