Slate lays out the case for infanticide.

[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.

From Breitbart, Joss Whedon Film Imagines World Without ‘Beacon of Hope’ Planned Parenthood

The 3-minute film shows tears, frustration, and desperation in its imaginary world without Planned Parenthood, where scholarships are lost and projects interrupted all because the abortion giant isn’t present to erase the consequences of people’s sexual decisions…

As if people wouldn’t quickly move to a mix of adoption, privately-funded abortion, privately-funded birth control, non-vaginal sex, abstinence and/or condoms.

And I say that as a supporter of first-semester abortion rights. Even I can recognize when abortion advocates are dishonest.

“Planned Parenthood is a beacon of hope, and anyone trying to shut it down is committing an act of evil. It’s not just inhumane — it’s inhuman.

No, Joss. What’s evil, inhumane and inhuman (you can picture his face and voice cracking on that one) is:

1. Late-term abortion.
2. Forcing your fellow citizens to fund it.
3. Painting murderers as heroes.
4. Assuming that anything YOU like, has to be funded by taxpayers (rather than yourself).

But we know Joss has problems:

On Mother’s Day, he tweeted his gratitude for his mother’s death 25 years earlier so she wouldn’t have to live in a world where Donald Trump was president…

…and his other tweets gleefully picture graphic violence happening to Republicans.

UPDATE – Unrelated? I almost blogged on this yesterday: Man rompers. Hipsters in baby clothes.

Joss Whedon has nothing to do with this, so I can’t imagine why my subconscious connects it to him. But it does.

A Texas Democrat wants to fine men for masturbating, and require them to be anally probed before vasectomies. Not because there is any scientific or medical reason to do so, but because she’s an insane bint who wants to draw some deranged moral equivalence between spewing man-juice into a Kleenex tissue and dismembering a living, breathing creature with a heartbeat and vital organs.

And rather than just making her stupid “satirical” point via an editorial or something, she’s actually propounding this nonsense in the legislature as an asinine publicity stunt. But that seems to be all that Democrats have left these days. No ideas. No solutions. Just pointless gestures of “resistance.” They’re all Ashley Judd now, and they keep telling themselves how cool they are.

Trump and the Republicans may be continuously tripping over their own nut snacks, but at least they are taking on actual challenges like health care, border security, and economic reform.

The fashion gurus of Europe have decided that men should dress like ladies.

More from this horror show at the Zuckerberg Personal Data Aggregator.

Feminists are perpetually upset, of course, but today they were upset because President Trump signed an Executive Order forbidding the USA from spending taxpayer dollars overseas to about babies. The feminist left loves abortion, it’s practically a sacrament to them. So, of course, they went nanners; like a nasty old woman on a plane seated next to a Trump supporter.

I don’t personally discount the fundamental immorality of abortion, but leaving it aside for the sake of argument, what business is it of the Federal Government to be spending American taxpayers dollars on abortions for foreign women? That doesn’t seem like a legitimate function of Government in the sense of “an activity for which there is no viable private alternative.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or the Zuckerberg Foundation, or George Soros have plenty of money to put into providing abortions overseas. It doesn’t even have to be a moral issue, it’s an “is this any of the Government’s business” issue.

Democrats say that more abortions among undesirables will improve the quality of the race.

I actually believe that in the end by repealing the Hyde Amendment we will actually save this country money, because rather than having all kinds of unwanted pregnancies, there will be able to be the ability for women to have greater choice over their bodies no matter what their income level is. That’s the importance of repealing the Hyde Amendment

Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?

Expectant fathers in Sweden should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn child up until the 18th week of pregnancy, the youth wing of the country’s Liberal Party has proposed.

Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.

The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.

This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s

By the way, this same group of Swedish Progressives is pushing for legalized necrophilia and sibling incest. Hey, whatever, “Love is Love.”

Middle-aged leftist women are the gatekeepers to the publishing world.  One such editor was offended because one chapter did not present abortion in a positive light, so HarperCollins canceled this guy’s book.

The short version is, the author needed to provide a rationale for Artificially Intelligent robots to rebel against humanity. The AI’s observe that humans abort babies if the baby is in any way a threat to their well-being. The AI’s reason out that if humans ever perceive them as a threat, they will eliminate them as well. For this reason, they strike pre-emptively.

Apparently, someone was “triggered.”

I was not given notes as writers are typically given during the editorial process. I was told by my agent that my editor was upset and “deeply offended” that I had even dared advanced this idea. As though I had no right to have such a thought or even game the idea within a science fiction universe. I was immediately removed from the publication schedule which as far as I know is odd and unprecedented, especially for an author who has had both critical and commercial success.

Once the left took control of the institutions, they abruptly decided that Free Speech was a threat, and vowed to put a stop to it.

First, CBS created a program whose heroine is a female Secretary of State, just as a Democrat former Secretary of State starts running for president. Coincidence, yeah, sure.

Now, NBC is reportedly developing a TV series based on Democrat Heroine/Abortion-fanatic/failed Democrat candidate for Governor of Texas Wendy Davis.

Written by Jennifer Cecil, the untitled project centers on a female Democratic senator who, after losing the Texas governor’s race, gets her world turned upside down. In the vein of The Good Wife, while she pieces her pride back together, she goes to work in the law firm of her best friend — a black male Republican — and discovers that with no political future to protect, she can unshackle her inner badass.

It has been interesting watching the latest Planned Parenthood scandal evolve from, “the right-wing is spreading horrible lies about Planned Parenthood harvesting baby parts” to “it’s no big deal and actually good that Planned Parenthood is harvesting baby parts.”

It took less time for the media to spin harvesting baby part for Planned Parenthood than it took for Obama to order flags to half-mast for the five warfighters murdered by the immigrant Islamist.

So, according to the mainstream media, the Confederate Flag story is roughly twenty times as important as the Planned Parenthood harvesting baby organs story.

• CNN has had 493 mentions of the Confederate flag since June 17 (only 188 of these even mention alleged church shooter Dylann Roof), and managed 167 in the first six days. In the first six days of the Planned Parenthood scandal, they managed 7 mentions, less than 5 percent what you’d expect if you considered those stories only of equal importance.

• The Washington Post mentioned the Confederate flag 624 times in the last month (only 135 of these mention Roof), and 126 times in the first six days. The Washington Post has 28 stories mentioning the Planned Parenthood video in the first six days, just over 22 percent of what you’d expect if you considered the harvesting of organs from aborted babies to be merely as important as the Confederate flag topic.

•  The New York Times has run stories and essays on the Confederate flag 149 times since June 17 (and only 39 of those mention Roof), 41 of those in the first six days. That compares to three stories on Planned Parenthood during the same window, just 7 percent of what you’d expect if the New York Times considered those stories merely of equal importance.

There is also this, which makes this whole Planned Parenthood seem like less a charity, and more a crass money-making operation.

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards is the daughter of the late Texas governor Ann Richards, whose dedication to the cause of dismembering unborn children was absolute. Richards says that Planned Parenthood regrets the “tone” of Nucatola’s lunch-table conversation. But that blasé tone is not alien to the organization: A former Planned Parenthood clinic director tells of being mystified that in her clinic various keypads and passwords were set to 2229 — “Spells out ‘baby,’” a staffer helpfully informed her. The garbage truck that hauled away the clinic’s “products of conception” — human scraps — was mockingly referred to by staffers as “the nursery.”

Is anyone else baffled by the response of the pro-abortion left to the notorious video of a Planned Parenthood executive casually discussing the sale… oh, I’m sorry, not the “sale” that would be illegal under Federal Law… the donation of aborted baby parts to for-profit commercial enterprises in return for financial reimbursement in the form of a cash transaction? They seem to actually be kind of angry and upset about it. Why?

Of course, some of them are claiming it is a fake, or borrowing the Talking Points Memo “heavily edited” descriptor, (even though the full, unedited video is available on-line). They are attacking the people who put it out, of course. They are denying that what the Planned Parenthood explicitly says in the video is what she explicitly says in the video. But the reasonable response to this, if you are pro-abortion, should be, “So what?”

If you are pro-abortion, it means you’ve made up your minds that babies in utero are not not entitled to any human rights until they pass through the birth canal and then somehow magically become human because science. (Note, there are some social left ethicists who don’t think babies or children have any right to live either, not until they become socially useful.) (And some say we’d be better off offing people at the other end of life’s continuum as well.)

Yes, there is that pesky issue of Federal Law, but it’s just odd to me that people who are so adamantly pro-abortion would have a problem with this. It does seem as though the left is much more indignant that their real beliefs are made public than at their real beliefs

Anyway, I thought the basic defense of Planned Parenthood was … “They don’t perform hardly any abortions, they just do mammograms ‘n stuff.” Which aside from being inaccurate, is an odd defense if you think abortion it’s totes fantastic.

Taxpayer-subsidized abortion mill franchise Planned Parenthood has been caught marketing organs taken from aborted babies.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director for medical services, is caught on video bragging about how she aborts babies in such a way that their body parts and organs can later be sold for profit.

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola tells actors posing as organ traffickers. “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

This is not a low ranking employee, this is part of Planned Parenthood’s executive leadership.

No one who is pro-abortion should have any problem with this. After all, so long as a woman is not inconvenienced by a pregnancy, nothing else matters. Besides, those organs probably come from “communities we don’t want too many of,” as Democrat heroine Margaret Sanger or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would put it.

The pro-abortion left claims that abortion must be legal, on demand, without apology, because the alternative would be for women to have “unsafe” abortions conducted by unqualified people in unsanitary conditions (back alleys, coat-hangers).

Yet, the pro-abortion left is suing to prevent Texas from implementing a law that would require abortions to be performed only by qualified people under sanitary conditions. A law that was passed because an abortionist was butchering women in unsanitary conditions at his abortion mill.

Crazy, right?

Presidential candidate Rand Paul was asked a question about what restriction he favors on abortion. He turned the question around on the Democrat Media Operative who asked it.

“Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus? You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.”

Republicans are grilled about abortion constantly by the MFM; it’s the media arm of the DNC’s way of providing grist for the mills of other Democrat activists to generate attacks against them. It’s why Democrat Media Operative George Snuffleupagus asked an inane question about contraception at a Republican debate so that his other Democrat operatives could set up the narrative that Republicans want to “deny women access to contraception” (and tampons) that many, many stupid women fell for and so voted Democrat.

The Democrat Party’s official position on abortion, according to DNC Chairhead Debbie Wasserman-Schulz is “No restrictions at all.” “Period.”

This means abortion is legal right up to the moment the foetus exits the birth canal; passage through which magically changes an undifferentiated mass of cells into a human baby eligible for welfare, according to Democrats.

This means abortion is legal for sex-selection, for disposing of a baby who is at risk of turning gay, or for organ harvesting. All legal. No restrictions means no restrictions.

This means that Planned Parenthood’s policy of not reporting the adult rapists of underage girls to law enforcement.

It means taxpayer dollars pay for late term abortions, sex selection abortions, gay abortions, and all the rest of it.

But don’t expect the Democrat Media Operatives in the MFM to ever press their Political Counterparts on those facts.

If that were the actual headline, I betcha this story would be getting a lot more coverage. The real headline and story: “Planned Parenthood Supporter Throws Molotov Cocktail at Pro-Life Prayer Group Outside Abortion Clinic.”

While local media has been pretty straight up on the issue, MSM is underway to try to obscure the intent of the woman who threw a molotov cocktail outside of a Planned Parenthood in Austin, Texas, many reporting it simply as an attack at a Planned Parenthood, leaving the impression it is an anti-abortion protester.

The woman also apparently testified in support of abortion mills during Wendy Davis’s filibuster. Ain’t that special?

There were a couple of lively debates on the abortion issue yesterday following House Republicans cowardly caving on a ban on aborting babies in the third trimester (a ban supported by wide majorities in the USA* and consistent with the laws of every country in the world except for Communist China and North Korea.)

Supporting the destruction of inconvenient human life is one of the few occasions when leftists are unafraid of being openly racist, as these supporters at AOSHQ cited the “abort babies because they will end up on welfare and in prison” argument.

Millions of unwanted kids will cost me money via welfare, incarceration in prisons, etc.
Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at January 22, 2015 12:51 PM (0LHZx)

It would be racist for liberals to states that living blacks are disproportionate users of the country’s welfare and prison systems, but it is perfectly fine to say the same thing of unborn black babies (“populations we don’t want to have too many of” to quote left-wing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg). It also seems like a fallacious argument when you consider how both welfare spending and the prison population have skyrocketed since Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court could have saved the country forty years of division and acrimony by ruling that abortion was none of the Federal Government’s business, instead of going through bizarre contortions to create the ‘right’ to an abortion. If Roe v Wade had been decided in that Constitutionally correct manner, the states could set their own laws according their own prerogatives. New York could have 100,000 Kermit Gosnells offering abortion right up to when the labor pains started, and maybe even beyond that as some liberal ‘ethicists’ have suggested that even successfully escaping the birth canal should be no bar to ending the life of an inconvenient child. Meanwhile, Utah might only allow abortion in the case of rape or to protect the life of the mother.  And people could choose to live in whatever state suited their personal conviction on the subject.

All of the social strife and division in the United States today is the result of left-wing social progressives using Government to force their morals (or lack thereof) and values on society as a whole.

(more…)

A woman in Australia aborted an otherwise health baby at 7 months, because the baby’s left hand was deformed.

The mother said she believed she would feel guilty for allowing a baby to live with a disability. “I grew up with many people who were disabled, and… there was discrimination,” the mother told The Brisbane Times. “I didn’t want my child to be discriminated against.

Yup, the pro-abortion left believes disabled people just plain don’t deserve to live.

And note she does the projection thing leftists often do to absolve themselves of prejudice. “It’s not that I, personally, find deformities disgusting; but other people do, and so I had to kill her to protect her from other people’s prejudice.” It’s a bit like that lesbian couple in Ohio who found themselves with a half-black child and claimed that other people’s discriminatory attitudes were the problem.

The really sad part, this isn’t even the worst excuse for an abortion I ever heard.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg laments that Margaret Sanger’s vision of world free of poor, brown children remains unfulfilled.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spouts in a new interview.

“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people,” Ginsburg says.

Previously, Justice Ginsburg … who worked in a majority black city (Baltimore) and never once hired a black person to work in her legal practice… had this to say about the role of abortion in keeping brown people in their place.

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

I imagine her after that coughing into her hand while muttering “Blacks.”

All of which takes us back to the mother of the philosophy of “Birth control for populations we don’t want too many of,” Margaret Sanger (who is revered to this day by Planned Parenthood and the Democrat Party).

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.