Abortion and Infanticide

Tom Donelson
April 12, 2012 Posted by Tom Donelson tomdonelson@aol.com

A live baby in a womb

“Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

Read this carefully for it was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics and we are seeing what we have sowed as a result of Roe v Wade.  The unborn child became a fetus, a potential human being and now a baby born is now a potential human being, so what we have is the promotion of infanticide.  But we shouldn’t be surprised since ethicist Peter Singer wrote seven years after Roe v Wade, “, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time.  They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”  Your family cat in Singer’s view has more value than the little baby recently born and Singer logic is that since a baby has no awareness and essentially can’t survive on his or her own, parents can kill the child if they have no use for the baby.  (Of course, the same can be said of many seniors in a nursing home since their survival is dependent upon nursing home staffs, that maybe their value to society is gone.  As we will see shortly, the dehumanization of  the unborn and newborn has spread to the elderly.)

Maybe the crux of the abortion of the issue has been how do you measure the rights of two human lives that exist within the same body?  To make Roe work, the first step was to dehumanize the unborn child and turn the child into a fetus, an “it”.  Singer believed the Christian view about the sanctity of human life as nothing more than speciesism but as we have already noted the farm pig or cow has more value in Singer’s eye.  Which brings us to a crisis within Western civilization, what does it mean to be human?

Colorado Ex-Governor Richard Lamm

Nor does it end with the newborn as the movement towards euthanasia has been directed toward the elderly.  As former governor Richard Lamm argued in the 80’s terminally ill seniors had a duty to die and the recent debate over Obamacare included that same role with IPAB, the official advisory board and its role in rationing Obamacare.  When Sarah Palin talked of the IPAB acting as death panel, she was hammered.  But, in September of 2007, Robert Reich essentially made it clear that Obamacare would encourage the elderly die early as he noted that older people are too expensive and should accept their duty to die, a phrase similar to Lamm two decades earlier.  (In the same speech, Reich added that young people need to pay more and there will be less innovation in medical care.  As he concluded, “You should not expect to live longer than your parents.”  Reich gave a nice summary of Obamacare and our health care future.)

Peter Singer

When commenting on this piece, Weekly Standard’s, Andrew Ferguson noted, “But what about adoption, you ask.  The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.”  But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression.  A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.”  By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.”  So much for humanity.

During the 1990’s, a friend of mine had a chance to talk with a neonatologist in Wichita and the Doctor told him, “We are saving the lives of babies here that are being aborted in George Tiller’s abortion clinic.”  The doctor put the issue right before us, babies whether located in a mother’s womb or born outside are indeed human and this has been the most difficult aspect of the abortion debate.

How do we measure the right of the mother with the right of the unborn, to be born?  As the Declaration of Independence states, we have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” but the right to life is first before the other rights can be enjoyed.  Of course, the political aspect of abortion resembles the wisdom of Solomon and many pro-lifers have struggled with this, which is why over the years, many pro-lifers legislators have been willing to allow an exception for abortion if the mother’s life is in jeopardy.  Many have been willing to extend this exception to rape or incest.  This is not an easy issue; for even many pro-choice women understand the humanity of the unborn children.  It is a debate emotionally charged, but the central question, remains what does it mean to be human?

If you dehumanize the unborn child, then an abortion is not big thing.  It is no more damaging than removing a wart.  But, any ultrasound will show the unborn is human.  However the movement to dehumanize the unborn has now spread to the newly born as geography no longer protects the baby.  A baby born is no more human than a fetus and no more human than the family cat or dog.

Maybe we are seeing the ultimate result of the expansion of the welfare state in which the government attempt takes over all of our care.  When the government provides the right to health care, then the government provides the condition to those rights.  As we have seen with the Obama administration’s war with the Catholic Church,  the right to healthcare trumps the right of religious freedom.  The government will determine which rights will grant higher status.  This is what happens in a society that views natural rights as an anachronism.  As Robert Reich noted, when caring for seniors becomes too expensive rationing reduces cost by allowing seniors their duty to die.  In a world in which human are more a calculation on a government accounting sheet, then death panels are the result.  The dehumanization began with Roe when the Supreme Court denied the humanity of the unborn and now we are seriously talking about the need for infanticide.  This is how civilizations die when they deny their own humanity.

Writer’s note: Reich made his statement in 2007 and not in 2009 as the original article stated.

Tags: , , ,

23 Responses to Abortion and Infanticide

  1. spaceghost on April 12, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    This is idiotic. Roe v. Wade is not predicated on a fetus not being human. No one disputes that a fetus is human. It’s a question of whether or not it has a right to life. And this…

    >>But, in October of the same year, Robert Reich essentially made it clear that Obamacare would encourage the elderly die

    …is just a flat out lie. Where did he say that?

    This I gotta see.

    • Frank DeMartini on April 13, 2012 at 8:29 am

      Actually, you have just proven that you have not ever read Roe. The ruling in Roe is very complicated and says very simply that as the baby’s viability outside of the womb becomes stronger, the women’s right to abort the fetus becomes less. When Roe was written viability was at a much later point in the pregnancy than now. Accordingly, a simple reading of Roe will show you that as science progresses the right to abortion becomes less. It has nothing to do about a “Right to Live.” It has to do with whether the baby can survive outside the womb. All of the propoganda since that ruling has completely changed it and twisted it into liberal talking points. Before you write anymore on the issue, I suggest you actually read the opinion and the dissents. You may finally learn something.

      • Spaceghost on April 15, 2012 at 12:33 pm

        None of which changes the fact that no one is saying that a fetus isn’t human, so to argue that it IS human is a Strawman.

        But I admit I was unclear when I said:

        “No one disputes that a fetus is human. It’s a question of whether or not it has a right to life.”

        I didn’t mean that the Roe v. Wade decision was about whether or not it has a right to life. Roe v. Wade was mainly about the mother’s right to privacy. My point was that whether or not the fetus has a right to life is the question to be debated; whether or not the fetus is human is not. No one disputes that it’s human.

        And while I have your attention, Frank, any thoughts on this whole Robert Reich issue? Tom still seems pretty sure that Reich was actually saying that he wants old people to be told they’re going to die. I’m still pretty sure he was making a satirical point about how bad the system was. You with Tom on this, or…?

  2. Tom Donelson on April 12, 2012 at 7:04 pm

    Did you not read the first paragraph? You have experts in a medical journal saying the unborn are not fully human. On top of that, they are supporting infanticide because a born baby is not fully human. (The phrase they use is potential persons, but the meaning is clear.) So are you not disgusted that leading medical experts calling for infanticide? And why is the unborn called fetus but to eliminate the human identity? It is easier to abort a fetus than a unborn child. So your assertion that of course a fetus is human is not shared by the authors of the piece that I refer to. If a fetus is human, it does have a right to life.

    As for Reich, find it on You tube October 2009. He makes it clear that he favors rationing of healthcare for seniors, and he states outright that younger will not live as long as their parents because medical innovation will be reduced. Plus healthcare cost will go up for younger voters. I will add that he made it clear this is not a bad outcome but the audience was not in full agreement.

    As usual you miss the point of the article and did not read it very carefully.

  3. Spaceghost on April 12, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    >>Did you not read the first paragraph? You have experts in a medical journal saying the unborn are not fully human.

    Sorry, no. That’s not what that paragraph says. And incidentally, it’s usually good form to link to a source, particularly one you’re quoting that extensively and prominently. I know you guys don’t give a shit about context, but others do. Just FYI.

    >>So are you not disgusted that leading medical experts calling for infanticide?

    “Leading medical experts”? It’s one Italian doctor and one Australian doctor. And just because the Journal of Medical Ethics published it doesn’t mean they support the views. Here’s what the editor has to say about publishing it:

    http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/#comment-451456352

    Does it not disgust YOU that some people’s lives have been threatened just for expressing a controversial view? Aren’t you guys the ones always crying about how your free speech is being impinged on? Well, here we have free speech being greeted with DEATH THREATS. That okay by you?

    >>As for Reich, find it on You tube October 2009.

    Why not link to it? Jesus! Do you really not get the concept of linking? Is it that complicated?

    >>He makes it clear that he favors rationing of healthcare for seniors, and he states outright that younger will not live as long as their parents because medical innovation will be reduced

    Even if he DOES say that, that is not remotely saying that “Obamacare would encourage the elderly to die.” Seriously, not even close. You honestly think anyone would actually say that? And mean it?

    >>I will add that he made it clear this is not a bad outcome but the audience was not in full agreement.

    Hm, it sounds fascinating. Link to it and I’ll take a gander.

    >>As usual you miss the point of the article and did not read it very carefully.

    No, as usual, you misstated a bunch of stuff and presented other stuff without context and basically posted a meaningless pile of crap.

    Nicely done.

  4. Tom Donelson on April 13, 2012 at 11:52 am

    First, I do condemn death threats against the scientists but you need to re-read what the editor and authors are saying. The editor does not once condemn what the author promoted, only defending the right of the journal to publish the article. (He adds that others disagree but note the word others, he doesn’t himself condemn. As for me, the idea that a person can’t come out and say, killing babies ALREADY BORN is bad say something about the indvidual.) He adds that this debate has been going on as if this is no big deal Do you know what infanticide and what the authors are supporting? A baby BORN can be killed if the parents don’t want the child. That is murder, no matter how you cut it. That is infanticide. That is what the authors are promoting and saying. And for medical journal to dispense this as if this is no big deal, well, that does say something about the editors that something like killing babies might be consider bad or evil by the vast majority of us is a surprise. The moral indifference to murder by the editor can be seen by his own words, “However, the goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. The authors provocatively argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn. Their capacities are relevantly similar. If abortion is permissible, infanticide should be permissible.” Are you really going to argue that that killing babies already born is no big deal or that is should be permissible? Do you really want to argue that a medical journal that treats infanticide as acceptable topic for debate is at least on the wrong path morally?

    Well, are you for infanticide and do you really believe that a parent can kill their babies after it is born? Is this a concept beyond your understanding? As usual, you can’t even grasp the central point of the authors or what they are promoting. Or you are simply as morally bankrupt as the authors of the studies or the editor.

    As Reich, go find it yourself, it is not hard. But I will give quotes from the speech.

    “Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more…. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die..

    “Also I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid—we already have a lot of bargaining leverage—to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents. Thank you.”

    This is easy to understand and maybe you might just comprehend the points he is making. You probably agree with much of it.

  5. spaceghost on April 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm

    >>The editor does not once condemn what the author promoted, only defending the right of the journal to publish the article.

    Right. And he doesn’t advocate what’s in the article either. The point is that it doesn’t mean they agree or disagree, it means they found it worth publishing and talking about as a conclusion logically drawn from a premise. So spare me the Chicken Little routine. You honestly think we’re on the road to legalized infanticide?

    >>Do you know what infanticide and what the authors are supporting? A baby BORN can be killed if the parents don’t want the child. That is murder, no matter how you cut it. That is infanticide.

    Without getting into whether or not they were actually promoting it, let’s just stipulate for the moment that they were. So? So that’s one paper. You don’t think I could come up with some equally stupid and horrible crap from the right? Pat Robertson blames homosexuality on demonic possession, off the top of my head. So? You see me worried that mandatory exorcism for homosexuals is going to be codified into law? There’s a lot of extreme views out there from all over the political spectrum. Deal with it.

    >>Well, are you for infanticide and do you really believe that a parent can kill their babies after it is born? Is this a concept beyond your understanding? As usual, you can’t even grasp the central point of the authors or what they are promoting.

    I’m not for it, but more to the point: Scroll up to see how this started. My response to this column had NOTHING to do with the after-birth abortion aspect. I pointed out that your argument that the fetus is human was a Strawman, and I expressed doubt about what you said about Robert Reich.

    >>As Reich, go find it yourself, it is not hard. But I will give quotes from the speech.

    Dude, seriously, the onus is on YOU, the guy who posted the column, to provide the link, not us, the readers. Otherwise, I could just post “Tom Donelson fucks donkeys. There’s video. Go find it for yourself.” See the problem there?

    >>As Reich, go find it yourself, it is not hard. But I will give quotes from the speech.

    Oh my God, are you kidding? You’re kidding, right?

    So you REALLY don’t care about context, then? Because you’re kind of ignoring this part…

    “I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:”

    GET IT? The part you quoted is not in his own actual voice, it’s in the voice of a FICTIONAL CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. He’s not actually stating ANY of that as his actual view, he’s using SATIRE to make a point. You honestly, actually think a guy could say that for real and not get tarred and feathered within seconds? “We’re going to let you die”? Seriously? Did you even give this two seconds of thought?

    (Well, of course, you’re coming from the party who actually cheers the idea of letting uninsured people die, so who knows.)

    In any case:

    WHOOSH. No wonder you didn’t get it. It’s satire. It’s aimed at smart people.

    And you’re, you know…an idiot.

  6. spaceghost on April 13, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    By the way, that Reich speech was in 2007, when Bush was President, long before there was any talk of Obamacare, or even Obama being President.

    See how helpful it is to research stuff before you post about it? Then you can sorta, kinda know what you’re talking about!

    • Tom Donelson on April 13, 2012 at 4:46 pm

      It was corrected even before your observation, even the New York Times make mistakes and Reich talk describe Obamacare perfectly. The article is still accurate from opening paragraph to the end.

      • spaceghost on April 13, 2012 at 5:07 pm

        Seriously? You’re standing your ground on this? You quoted Reich, out of context, as if he was speaking in his own voice and thoughts, when it is bleeding freakin’ obvious – BECAUSE HE EVEN SAYS SO – that he is NOT, that he is speaking in the voice of a HYPOTHETICAL CANDIDATE, in order to make the exact OPPOSITE point that you’re claiming he’s making? You’re not gonna admit that that’s kind of a boo-boo on your part?

        Seriously, not to put too fine a point on this, but how fucking dumb are you?

  7. spaceghost on April 13, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    I love it, you corrected the DATE of the article, but not that fact that Reich was not actually, saying what you said he was saying. It’s like attributing dialogue that an actor says in a role to the actor himself. Oh my God, Tom, Anthony Hopkins is a cannibal!!!! He ate a guy’s liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti!!!!! Why hasn’t been arrested????

    You’re such an idiot. The mind just reels some
    days.)

    • Tom Donelson on April 13, 2012 at 6:06 pm

      Reich did say what I stated he said, he made it clear that health care will be rationed, it will cost more and younger patients can count on less medical innovation and not live longer than their parents, elderly will see health care curtailed and oh yea, you still have not condemned infanticide. I have come to conclusion it is a waste of time to have a running conversation with individuals who can’t see the obvious in front of them or actually read or understand what is in front of them. So continue to call us names, it doesn’t change the fact that you fail to grasp what I stated, or the fact medical journal or a leading Princeton support infanticide or what Reich actually stated about Left view of health care verifies what we conservatives have stated about Obamacare.

    • Tom Donelson on April 13, 2012 at 6:49 pm

      As for the satire, Reich stated what a politician should say and represent his true opinion. That is not so hard to understand. Do you not really believe that this is not Reich’s true view?

      • Spaceghost on April 14, 2012 at 12:40 am

        Seriously, I’m begging you, just take a moment and think this through. He’s making a point…in 2007, mind you…of WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. Here’s the audio:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

        Listen to the audience. THEY’RE LAUGHING when he says “…so we’re gonna let you die.” Why? Because HE’S MAKING FUN OF THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. He’s saying if a candidate honestly described the system as it was THEN (“the only health care system in the world that’s designed to avoid sick people.”). He’s advocating for a CHANGE in the system. It’s really not that complicated. Why do you THINK they’re laughing? Because the entire audience thinks that old people dying is funny?

        Seriously, what’s wrong with you? How do you get through the day being completely unfamiliar with the concept of irony?

        It’s a wonder that you still know how to breathe.

  8. Spaceghost on April 14, 2012 at 12:32 am

    >>Reich did say what I stated he said, he made it clear that health care will be rationed, it will cost more and younger patients can count on less medical innovation and not live longer than their parents, elderly will see health care curtailed

    Dude, what part of HE WAS BEING IRONIC do you not understand? Seriously, how fucking dumb are you? This is insane. Have you ever read Swift’s “Modest Proposal”? He’s NOT ACTUALLY SUGGESTING WE EAT CHILDREN. How can a grown man have such difficulty with reading comprehension? Seriously, how do you even remember how to breathe?

    >>you still have not condemned infanticide.

    Learn to read. I said I’m against it, and I also said it had nothing to do with what I was responding to. That you still haven’t grasped the concept of irony is really the bigger story here.

    >>I have come to conclusion it is a waste of time to have a running conversation with individuals who can’t see the obvious in front of them or actually read or understand what is in front of them.

    Ya know, so have I, and yet, here I still am, giving it my best shot to help you get it. Not optimistic about it…Just bored, I guess.

    >>what Reich actually stated about Left view of health care verifies what we conservatives have stated about Obamacare.

    What Reich said means nothing without context. Because nothing means ANYTHING without context. But you guys don’t give a shit about context, and that’s why you’re so fucking bad at this. But I’ll illustrate. Without context, I can quote you saying this:

    “Abortion resembles the wisdom of Solomon.”

    And if you protest that that’s only part of the sentence, and that’s not what you meant at all, I can just say “Well, that doesn’t change that that’s what you said!”

    See why context is important?

    See why you’re being an idiot by ignoring it?

  9. Tom Donelsno on April 14, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Reich point was that his ideal candidate would say young Americans would pay more, there will be less medical innovation, younger Americans would not live as long as their parents and granny will be allow to die. Translation: This is Reich position or it is his position when he is being honest about the result of Leftist health care policy. I don’t know why you are having a hard time understanding it. Oh yea, I will ask for a final time, can you at least condemn infanticide. Or are you simply as evil as those I quoted in the beginning of this piece? I will continue to write the truth and who knows maybe the light bulb will turn on inside your mind?

  10. Tom Donelson on April 14, 2012 at 10:24 pm

    Reich point was that his ideal candidate would say young Americans would pay more, there will be less medical innovation, younger Americans would not live as long as their parents and granny will be allow to die. Translation: This is Reich position or it is his position when he is being honest about the result of Leftist health care policy. I don’t know why you are having a hard time understanding it. Oh yea, I will ask for a final time, can you at least condemn infanticide. Or are you simply as evil as those I quoted in the beginning of this piece? I will continue to write the truth and who knows maybe the light bulb will turn on inside your mind?

  11. Spaceghost on April 15, 2012 at 12:46 am

    >>Reich point was that his ideal candidate would say young Americans would pay more, there will be less medical innovation, younger Americans would not live as long as their parents and granny will be allow to die.

    No! Wrong! You really couldn’t be more wrong! He’s NOT saying that’s what “his ideal candidate” would say; he’s saying what a candidate would say if he were able to be completely honest about HOW SHITTY THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS. He is commenting AGAINST ALL THAT WAS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM in the FORM of a hypothetical speech!

    Jesus, man, you’re dumb as a fucking stump. What’s that like?

    >>Oh yea, I will ask for a final time, can you at least condemn infanticide.

    I’ve responded to that twice now, even though my point had nothing to do with infanticide, so scroll the fuck up and quit asking. You’re boring AND stupid.

    >>I will continue to write the truth and who knows maybe the light bulb will turn on inside your mind?

    Dumb as a fucking stump. Swear to God.

  12. Tom Donelson on April 15, 2012 at 6:22 am

    Your frustration and inability to respond without name calling and cursing simply demonstrate a shallow nature and lack of historical perpectives on issues.

    Having won my fair share of debates in various formats and various places like college campuses against some very so smart people. (Some even had PHD behind their names; one lesson I learn. Keep your cool. It is not good to be hateful to your opponents, it simply makes you look small and when you are in the other guy backyard, you have to win a portion of the audience or at least get them to like you so they will listen you.

  13. Spaceghost on April 15, 2012 at 8:13 am

    >>Having won my fair share of debates in various formats and various places like college campuses against some very so smart people.

    That you decided to resort to boasting about your old college debate days instead of actually thinking this through and responding to the points made is really a bit of a sign that the ol’ debating skills aren’t what they used to be, Tom. And once AGAIN on this silly site, an inability to look past the words I’m using for emphasis to the CONTENT of what I’m saying. It’s just uncanny.

    Tom…honestly…have you thought this through? Do you honestly, seriously think that Robert Reich’s “ideal candidate”, or ANYONE’S ideal candidate, would tell old people “We’re going to let you die”? Does that really sound like something that anyone would actually, genuinely WANT in a candidate? One who delivers cruel, sadistic news to the elderly?

    If yes: You’re insane.

    If no: Then can you take a moment and think through what his point might have actually been? Here, I’ll give you some help:

    His point was: This is what the system DOES, and this is what candidates would say if they could be HONEST about it. Clearly it’s a call for an IMPROVEMENT to the system. THAT’S WHY PEOPLE WERE LAUGHING, because he was using a funny way to describe how bad the system was. Again, I ask: Why else WOULD people be laughing? Are they laughing at dying old people?

    Because, see, no candidate would ever, ever actually say “We’re going to let you die.” THAT’S THE FUNNY PART, TOM, THAT IF A CANDIDATE WERE HONEST ABOUT THE SYSTEM, HE’D HAVE TO SAY SOME REALLY HORRIBLE THINGS.

    That’s why the only people to make a fuss about this were right-wing bloggers who took it out of context like you, Tom. BECAUSE HE WAS SAYING SOMETHING TOTALLY UNCONTROVERSIAL. Don’t you think it would have made more mainstream news in 2007 if a guy like Robert Reich said in a public speech that he wants old people to be told they’re gonna die because they can’t afford to be kept alive? Don’t you think ONE mainstream publication would point it out? Isn’t that a pretty crazy, cruel thing for a man of his reputation to say? Wouldn’t that be news?

    Okay? Think it through? Really not that complicated.

    Keep in mind that the internet is written in ink, so consider that the more you stand your ground on this, the more damage you do to your sterling college debate record.

    Give it some thought. I’ll be here. I know you can do this, Tom. Admit you’re wrong. I honestly won’t say a word beyond “Thank you” if you do. You’ll be the king of this website.

    Whatcha got for me, Tom?

  14. Spaceghost on April 15, 2012 at 11:45 am

    Bonus question here, Tom:

    Google that speech, and the ONLY hits you get on it are right-wing blogs quoting that section you quoted, and then pointing to it as how evil Democrats are. Not a single one, as far as I can tell, prints or links to the video or transcript of the entire speech. NONE.

    Why do you think that is, Tom? I mean, if he said all that supposedly damning stuff in just those few minutes, wouldn’t the rest of the speech be just as bad? And even if he didn’t, wouldn’t it just be common courtesy and helpfulness to link to the speech in its entirety, just so people can see it in context?

    But NO ONE DID. Why not, ya think?

    Because the rest of the speech made it obvious what his actual, non-controversial point was, perhaps?

    Or is it just that it just so happens that nothing else in the speech is as damning as that excerpt, and every single right-wing blogger all decided independently of each other that context wasn’t necessary?

    Take your time.

  15. Tom Donelson on April 15, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    Every thing that Reich stated those two mintues is coming to pass. Cost estimate on Obamacare is going up, we have major studies showing that many individuals will not keep their same insurance, Medicare is broke and rationing is in the card. I am not wrong and you are not right, so why admit that I am wrong when I am right? Least I forget, the many Catholic supporters of Obamacare are now finding out that religious freedom means nothing if it oppose the Obama’s goal. I am not wrong and I am not going to apologize to you or anyone for being right on this issue and others.

    • Spaceghost on April 15, 2012 at 10:58 pm

      >>Every thing that Reich stated those two mintues is coming to pass. Cost estimate on Obamacare is going up, we have major studies showing that many individuals will not keep their same insurance, Medicare is broke and rationing is in the card.

      Not gonna debate it, cause it’s not what I asked. Completely non-responsive. Lemme guess: You didn’t think this through.

      >>I am not wrong and you are not right, so why admit that I am wrong when I am right?

      You are so obviously, flagrantly wrong about what Reich’s speech meant that I need a new language just to find the words for it. You didn’t think this through, did you?

      >>I forget, the many Catholic supporters of Obamacare are now finding out that religious freedom means nothing if it oppose the Obama’s goal.

      That’s gibberish, and irrelevant gibberish, at that. Didn’t think it through?

      >>I am not wrong and I am not going to apologize to you or anyone for being right on this issue and others.

      You’re an idiot.

      And you didn’t think it through. Not that I imagined you would, but it would’ve been a nice surprise to start the week.

      But whatcha gonna do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Feature

Will Obama Leave the Democratic Party Better Than He Found It?

Has President Obama served or hurt the Democratic Party in his six years in office. Any basic review of the facts gives a...

Bill Maher, Ben Affleck and Islam

On Last Week's Bill Maher show, an interesting this happened. Liberal Maher took on Ben Affleck and his liberal views on Islam. ...