Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Slice of Life

obama, obama jokes, political, humor, cartoon, conservative, hope n' change, hope and change, stilton jarlsberg, ahmed, clock, bomb, planned parenthood, abortion, late term

Yesterday, Democrats defeated a Republican bill which would have made the most horrorific late term abortions illegal. And by "late term," we're largely referring to infants who could possibly survive outside the womb with proper medical care (22 weeks being the age cited by the NY Times referring to a new New England Journal of Medicine study).

Unlike the Cowardly Lion getting a haircut in Oz, a late term abortion is no simple "snip, snip here, snip, snip there" operation. Rather, it involves taking an infant and giving it the full ISIS treatment - ripping off arms and legs, slicing spinal cords, and decapitation. And in partial birth abortion, the child has largely already been delivered before the slaughtering begins.

Do Democrats believe there is any limit on when abortions should be allowed? Hillary Clinton says no, and Barack Obama is already on record as supporting post-natal abortion for babies who are born alive (repeatedly voting against the Illinois "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.")

Of course, late term abortions are very, very, very rare - only happening about 18,000 times a year. Or perhaps more if the price of Lamborghinis goes up.

So what does this have to do with Ahmed the alleged clockmaker? Plenty - and not just the "parts is parts" comparison made in the cartoon above. Obama tweeted "Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It's what makes America great."

Only you can't really "like science" and like late term abortion, because the science says that the young victims are fully capable of feeling every bit of the pain and agony of being dismembered alive. And the science says that mothers are 35 times more likely to die from late term abortions than abortions performed in the first trimester.

Ignoring science doesn't "make America great," Mr. Obama. But it does win a lot of bloodsoaked votes for Democrats from people who don't give a damn about human life.

30 comments:

TrickyRicky said...

"the science says that mothers are 35 times more likely to die from late term abortions than abortions performed in the first trimester." WAR ON WOMYNS!!!

Geoff King said...

It must be difficult for the left to justify late term abortions while at the same time attempting to normalize pedophilia:
http://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/356856/normalizing-pedophilia-2-wesley-j-smith
Seems like a major conflict of interest to me.

Bobo the Hobo said...

we have a majority in both houses; I still don't understand how the left defeated the bill.

Colby Muenster said...

I'm not sure what is more disturbing, the monsters who support late term abortion, or the monsters that actually perform them. May they all rot in hell.

Jan Blickenstaff said...

Dems: the party of death, destruction, dependency, deviancy, and division.

Colby Muenster said...

@Bobo,

I could be wrong, but I believe it was a bunch of assholes in the Senate who set up rules years ago where you need 60 votes to pass anything. What ever happened to "simple majority?" More proof that our gubmint does not operate in the real world...

Judi King said...

I'm totally opposed to abortion but I am sorry some of these libs mother's didn't believe in abortion years ago. Or have any of them ever thought of that? :) Smile, your mother chose life. !!

John the Econ said...

Abortion has never been a hot-button issue with me, but if we're going to have it, I think it ought to be legal up to the 75th trimester.

That's probably what it would take to make America's abortion laws the most liberal in the world. Only a few places, such as China makes it easier than in the US.

Meanwhile, in the oh-so liberal social democracies in Europe which American Progressives worship as examples of what we could and should be, abortion laws are actually surprisingly restrictive. Most have counselling requirements and "waiting periods" which the pro-choicers here decry as unreasonable and infantile. Most are restricted to well before the 3rd trimester. None of these "enlightened" democracies consider "late term" abortion (with the exception of health issues) as an enlightened thing to do.

As I've said here before, if the GOP really wants to put the brakes on legal abortion, then they should come out for it. Point out that the vast majority of aborted children belong to "enlightened" Democrats. If we were only to make abortion cheaper and freer, then we could be rid of most lo-fo Democrat voters in a generation. If they really had guts, they'd harness the left's worst imagined stereotypes about the racism, homophobia and class-dividism of the right and embrace the philosophy of leftist hero and UnPlanned UnParenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and point out that the vast majority of abortions are of children of minorities and the poor. Don't want to risk having a homosexual child? A genetic test could prevent a lot of heartache a dozen years down the road.

Since the left no longer bothers to question anything until a conservative considers it, it's probably the most effective way to make a point.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@TrickyRicky- I don't think there's much question which side is really waging a "War on Women," complete with fatalities.

@Geoff King- Well, if they throw necrophilia into the normalization mix, it should all work out.

@Bobo the Hobo- Although there's a Republican majority in both houses, the majority in the Senate isn't big enough to carry the bill without some Democratic votes - and there just weren't enough to make it happen. Of course, Obama would veto any such bill - but that's no reason not to at least try to do the right thing.

@Colby Muenster- When Obama voted repeatedly (in Illinois) against the protection of infants born alive after a failed abortion, he claimed - falsely - that he was doing so because the bill contained language which would damage Roe vs Wade. No, it didn't. But I think one of the reasons Dems support late term abortion is because they want to make sure all abortions for any reason and at any time are protected.

@Jan Blickenstaff- Absolutely right.

@Judi King- I actually support (with huge reluctance) limited legal abortion. I have no support for the carnage we're seeing from the way the practice is actually being applied in our country.

By the way, my father was born out of wedlock in a time when abortions weren't available at the Planned Parenthood drive-thru. Lucky for me.

GenEarly said...

The Senate Republican "Leadership" can re-institute the Harry Reid Rules of only requiring a simple majority at any time. Sen. Mitchy McCuckold Likes having his hands tied up by the "minority" DemocRats.
It's All a Sham from the putz potus, the soopreme injustices, and the cons-gress.

Bruce Bleu said...

C'mon, folks... rather than just bitch about the issue, the ONLY way to expose this wickedness is to get a national voice to advocate that ONLY black babies and babies "genetically predisposed to homosexuality" can be aborted, then sit back and watch the apoplexy of liberals! It's only THEN that they will recognize abortion as death, and realize what has been happening for 4 decades!

Mike Porter said...

John the Econ: All of them gone in a generation... oh, but to dream.

Colby Muenster: The first step towards them rotting in hell is, well, a very, very late term abortion (John the Econ pretty much said this). Of course, it's only legal if we get the consent of their mothers. And if their mothers are deceased, we'll just need their votes instead.

Bruce Bleu: It would appear that the majority of aborted babies are black - Margret Sanger would be proud. As to a national voice, Detroit Lions safety Don Carey recently wrote an op-ed for the Detroit Free Press that basically asks: if black lives matter, how about those still within the womb.

http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nfl/lions/2015/09/20/detroit-lions-don-carey-black-lives-matter/72511852/

American Cowboy said...

Why have all the people who argue so vehemently in favor of unrestricted abortion already been born?

The, in my opinion, late great Paul Harvey used the term "Abortion after the fact" for infant and child murder. I think that in the interest of "fairness" liberals should begin promoting that type of abortion also, IF they really believe all abortions should be legal! The child is expensive, pooped it's diaper at an inconvenient time, prevented the liberal from going to the latest America hating movie, simple choice. abortion after the fact. Why should they recoil in disgust, as any sane person would, at that philosophy?

Disclaimer: I am in NO WAY promoting infanticide.

Colby Muenster said...

@John the Econ,
A sorta example of your proposal that the GOP come out if total support of abortion... Here in North Carolina, some Republican Congress Critters are proposing a stop to the death penalty, and some Democrats are opposing it. I honestly think your plan might just work.

@Stilton,
Now that you mention it, I was born out of wedlock back then too. Lucky me as well! Never met my birth mother, but my undying gratitude to her, wherever she is, for doing the right thing and not going to some "coat hangar" physician to get rid of me back when I was just a lump of lifeless tissue.

John the Econ said...

What gets me are the rhetorical lengths the "choice" people will go to sell their agenda. It's not enough to convince the undecided that it's a difficult situation that people face, but they actually make arguments that totally trivialize what's really happening. For example, consider this in our "hash tag" society:

Why Women Are Shouting Out Their Abortion Stories On Twitter

That's right, there are people who encourage others to trivialize their abortion experience by tweeting about it.

"Honestly, my abortion at 20 was one of the first responsible, non-self-destructive, grown-ass choices I ever made."

Non-destructive for you!

"Ex partner of 4 yrs forced me into 2 abortions. My life is better now but only through the support of PP."

Don't even know where to go with that.

"My abortion was the most compassionate option for the baby and me."

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree.

"I had an abortion when my son was 4 & I stand by my decision b/c it was best for my family"

At least the family that survived.

"I've had 2 abortions. I don't have to justify or explain them to anybody. My life is more valuable than a potential life."

And yet you felt compelled to tweet about it. The fact that you'd say such a thing suggests that the notion that your life is more valuable than the one you put a stop to is a debatable one.

This, from a doctor: "My birth mother put me up for adoption. Her autonomy was respected. I provide abortions b/c I respect that autonomy."

You mean that had your mother exercised her autonomy otherwise, UnPlanned UnParenthood would have one less abortionist today?

"Had an abortion at 18, went on complete 2 degrees & live a fulfilling life. It was right decision in my circumstances."

Glad your life is fulfilling.

"I could not have given that child the life it deserved. I would not have been the mother I want to be."

Someone else would have.

Again, it's thinking and marketing like this that makes me believe that abortion shouldn't just be "exercising autonomy", but perhaps mandatory. And I bet these people vote as well as tweet.

Geoff King said...

@John the Econ: "I could not have given that child the life it deserved. I would not have been the mother I want to be."
Unbe-f'ing-leivable. So, her reasoning was that death was preferable for the child than any possible life it may have had? Usually one must sit on Death Row for many years, and after several failed appeals, before someone else can make that decision for you.
I have to wonder just what kind of mother she wanted to be? Obviously not one who cares for her children's well being. Perhaps one who has enough money to pay someone else to raise the child.

Rod said...

Stilt I don't want to hijack the thread here but I'd like to poll you and HNC followers for whom I have great respect about another topic in the news. Kind of a sanity check on my own attitude: Volkswagon is supposedly in deep shit for their software in certain diesel vehicles (mostly in Europe) which were given enough logic to use input from velocity and throttle settings to figure out when the vehicle was on a test and to pass the test. Then most of the time it was delivering better fuel mileage, performance & range and cutting fuel usage which is supposed to be good; while doing what everyone knows diesel engine do: produce higher NOX and particulates than gasoline engines even in generally cleaner engines. I think it's genius and good old business savvy. But in our bureaucracy & media you'd think they made a pact with the devil. VW is in trouble; value of the cars is questioned. I'd think the value of the car is greater. It knows how the pass the G-man test then deliver great performance to the guy who paid for it. What's the big deal? Indy racers would be envious; Henry Ford etal would be proud. But now... IF one outsmarts the regulators, which doesn't usually take much... it's evil. Bullshit. BTW, I don't own a VW diesel but with values down.. I might.
Bottom line, the law says the vehicle must pass the test, and it does.

bobtater said...

Well, the Democrats motto for the next election should be, "The only good baby is a dead baby." Hmm probably should be the way PP should advertise too.

Anonymous said...

Rod: it's not as though VW demanded a hundred billion dollar bailout even as they were covering up a known problem with defective ignitions that killed over a hundred of American citizens. That would have been A-OK. No, VW dared not to tremble before the altar of Enviroweenieism, and for that sin an example's going to be made of them.

John the Econ said...

Okay @Rod, I'll bite.

What VW did was criminally stupid, and a prime indication of a corrupt culture within the company. Mrs. Econ is a fan of business & management literature and we have these discussions all the time. Whenever a story like this pops up, we both say the exact same thing at the same time: "Was there nobody in the room who stood up and said that this was a bad idea?"

It's fair to debate the illogic of EPA mandates that simultaneously demand the mutually exclusive goals of better fuel economy and lower emissions. But the fact remains that the law is still the law, and Volkswagen willfully with full foresight dried to cheat it. What you call "genius and good old business savvy" was nothing more than cheating people. They not only cheated the buyers of their cars, who honestly thought they were buying a new generation of diesel car that was both clean and efficient, but the public in general, to whom they sold the idea that their diesel engines were cleaner than they really were. Those consumers and the public in general did got get what they paid for. In a sense, we were all cheated by VW.

I don't know if you've ever been to a major European city within the last decade or so, but if you have, you'd know that the air in most of them is literally almost unbreathable compared to almost any major US city. It's largely due to diesel exhaust. Progressives here would like you to believe that Europeans like small cars and diesel technology because they're more ecologically sensitive than we careless, profligate Americans are. That's total BS. Europeans like them because fuel is taxed to nearly $10/gallon to fund their welfare states, and diesel cars get much better mileage than gasoline cars do. Also, diesel in most Europe is taxed less than gasoline, so diesel cars have become very popular with consumers tired of tj $10/gallon gas. A consequence of that is air quality that makes 1970s Los Angeles look clear by comparison.

Say what you will about EPA mandates, but I remember LA in the '70s, when visibility was measured in miles, or less. People who complain about the air quality there today don't have a clue to what it was like then. This was due entirely to improved technology mandated over 40 years ago. VW couldn't make their technology work, so they said "screw it". It remains to be seen if they were cheating their competitors as well, or if they too were cheating.

Just because I despise "big government" doesn't mean I love "big business", and this is a good example why. When any organization gets too big, be it government or business, they tend to get slow, arrogant, and stupid. Again, when the idea of engineering their cars to cheat the test was proposed, was there nobody in the room that said that perhaps this was a bad idea, and that sooner or later, somebody was going to figure it out and there'd be hell to pay? And there will be hell to pay, both figuratively and literally. Even after the billions in fines the US government is likely to levy, they're very likely going to have to buy-back nearly a half-a-million cars, or at least pay their owners a fair chunk of their purchase price as the owners are not going to be very happy with the reduced performance and lower mileage after VW de-tunes them to comply with the mandates. Also, there are another 10-million or so of these cars in other countries. Those governments and owners are going to want their pound of flesh as well. VW, currently the world's largest auto manufacturer will be lucky to survive this.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@John the Econ & Rod- Great discussion about VW and the insanity of thinking they could get away with it. Reminds me of a scandal from a couple of years ago when a lot of pets were dying from eating dry food with ingredients from China (a fact not heavily advertised on the bags). It seems the Chinese didn't want to include as much protein as was required, and they knew there would be chemical tests to make sure they were delivering the targeted amount. So they added chemicals which would skew the test results and give false readings of more protein content than actually existed. Unfortunately, the chemicals started killing scores of dogs and the whole dirty scheme fell apart.

John the Econ said...

"It knows how the pass the G-man test then deliver great performance to the guy who paid for it. What's the big deal?... IF one outsmarts the regulators, which doesn't usually take much... it's evil."

Actually, this is the Clinton ethical standard: Something is only "evil" if you get caught and prosecuted. Until that point, all is fair in their view.

I really don't want to live in a world where this is the ethical standard, in government or the private sector. There can be no efficient free market under this paradigm, and we're all libel to get screwed one way or another.

Rod said...

@John the Econ et al: OK, overnight and with a good sleep, I readily concede the debate. Your comments are quite valid. I could shift the discussion to inadequate monitoring technolocy and general ineffectiveness in what we expect from government oversight, such as also with the BP Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, which most people with any experience in offshore drilling could have seen coming when the lead-up was revealed. But both cases and many other examples still go into the "Stupid and corrupt business file", which I also dislike. We can stop now. LOL! Stilt, thanks for the brief hijack.

REM1875 said...

Any company that puts customers ahead of e p a insanity has my vote!

Colby Muenster said...

I've driven a 1998 Jetta diesel since it was new; over 400,000 miles now. It looks like shit, but the 50 MPG is wonderful. My daughter has a 2014 Passat diesel, and she said the emissions were the furthest thing from her mind when she bought it. She was interested in the mileage. Same with her husband and his 2013 Passat diesel. Just one voice here, but I think the majority of people who buy these soot machines, buy them for the mileage, not the emissions wonderfulness. Tree huggers buy Suburu's and Priuses, not VW's, so their inevitable boycott of VW will have little effect.

I somehow think that this may not hurt VW as much as we might think in the long run. A new "crisis" will come along and eclipse the VW crisis out of the news, and VW will likely rebound.

And I'm not keen on buying new cars, but this might be a great time to score a VW diesel cheap!

John the Econ said...

@Rod, thanks for bringing it up. I was chomping at the bit to let loose on this, but I've hijacked enough of @Stilton's topics.

I have a feeling we'll be revisiting this topic gain, because this case will continue to bring up interesting problems, like the interaction between government and private industry, and the often blurred lines involved. For example, VW is partly owned by the German government, and largely controlled by unions. This will give it the whole "too big to fail" aura. Ultimately, there will be international politics involved.

This is also a good example of why government and industry should be segregated. Could you imagine how this would play out had VW been a wholly government-run concern? If you need a hint, look at how the EPA's toxic spill in Colorado was conducted. You don't hear much about it now, do you?

@REM1875, I doubt the owners of the affected VW cars feel that way today. The customers were not put ahead; they were exploited, and soon most will have to send their cars in to be "corrected", which will result in lower mileage and performance, and will drastically reduce the value of their cars. They "voted" by spending over $30k on these cars, and will end up owning cars worth a fraction of that now.

Also, this whole episode will now be used as a justification for expanding the "EPA insanity", meaning less choice and more cost of consumers. Nobody's winning here, except perhaps the Federal bureaucracy and a lot of lawyers.

Last time I was in a major city in Europe, my nose ran and my eyes literally burned the whole time due to not-clean diesel. I really don't want that here.

John the Econ said...

@Colby Muenster, it will be interesting to see what kind of mileage your daughter's husband gets after his Passat is "fixed". Since most of the people who own these cars live in states that require emissions testing, most will not have a choice about getting them modified.

Rod said...

I've not yet determined specifically what changes were being made in the control & operation of VW diesel engines to effect these "test vs. no test" changes in performance. That's a topic of interest. The difference may be much ado about not much. While I agree about ethics & wisdom in business, I'd still like to know how they do it. Perhaps there are regional applications? Also a main concern about diesel, cleaner or not, is cost. Used to be cheap; not so now. And thanks everyon and Stilt, for this discussion.

John the Econ said...

@Rod, my guess that it's totally in software. The software looked for parameters that would be in place during any likely test procedure, and tuned the engine for minimal emissions. But once the car hit the road, the software tuned the engine for maximum performance. The "fix" will likely not be any change in hardware at all, but the downloading of new engine management software without the "test avoidance" code. The fix itself will not cost VW very much; mostly just the time for a tech at a dealership to plug the car in and do the download. But the ire of owners with their no-longer-peppy expensive German autos will cost them much more.

Yes, diesel fuel is more expensive. But the extreme difference in mileage over gasoline cars made the difference worthwhile. That may not be the case once these cars are "fixed".

@Colby Muenster is right. By next year, used diesel VWs will probably be very cheap and otherwise a good deal. But they won't perform like they do today either.

Alfonso Bedoya said...

Just finished a book I picked up in a thrift shop: "Unlimited Access," by Gary Aldrich. Aldrich was an FBI agent, stationed in the White House in the Bush Administration, and present during the transition of the WH when the Clintons took over.

The book is revealing in that it shows the putrid character of both Bill and Hillary Clinton and points to the seemingly endless scandals that Hillary has managed to sidestep unscathed for the past 25 years, thanks to the apathetic media, and to a fawning, always-forgiving class of low-info voters.

The book was published in 1993, but is still a great "read." I am now searching for other even more-revealing publications that will help me educate dummo liberals whenever possible.