Stanek weekend question: Should pro-lifers press PBS to cancel “After Tiller” or demand equal time?
Since news broke that PBS, a taxpayer-funded public television station, will air the late-term abortion and abortionist propaganda documentary After Tiller throughout the month of September, pro-lifers have been up in arms.
American Life League is demanding PBS cancel After Tiller.
Meanwhile, a petition drive has been launched to press PBS to air the pro-life documentary 40. Another petition drive wants PBS to air Maafa21. Other suggestions I’ve read include After the Choice and Life Happens.
A PBS official told Dustin Siggins of LifeSiteNews.com yesterday it currently has no plans to air a pro-life counterpart to After Tiller, but it seems as if a strong case could be made for equal time.
What do you think? Should pro-lifers fight the airing of this pro-abortion “crockumentary,” or should we use the opportunity to demand equal time? Also take the poll!
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Definitely equal time. If our case is stronger, we have nothing to fear from letting the public see both sides of the issue and make up their minds on their own.
The more the abortion advocates distort reality…the worse they will look and loose even more credibility once those who get deceived realize they have been played.
We should ask for equal time because the more people think about it the more hearts we will win.
Equal time. I haven’t seen 40 but Maafa21 needs to get a lot of exposure.
Let them show the evil of those who kill/support the legal killing of full-term children. I have faith that some of the people who view their garbage, will become as horrified as we and will start looking a little closer at the abortion industry.
Sure show it. You know they are going to polish it up to make a womans right to choose like the much needed healthcare that it is. @@. Heck they need to try a new avenue after Obvious Flop ( child ) tanked and with all of the abortion clinics closing. Good luck.
It makes me ill that PBS is going to show this documentary. I am hoping that at least a few of the local affiliates will balk and refuse to air this.
I do think that we should press for equal time. But I don’t think that we will get it. Does anyone else see this as a giant fund raising attempt for PBS? I think that they believe that their subscriber base would totally love this documentary. I am about 100% sure that subscribers will receive pledge information touting their courage in airing After Tiller.
I supported my PBS affiliate generously for years. But as time went by I found that much of their programming was available elsewhere and I got annoyed at the constant liberal slant. In the end I just subscribed to Acorn TV via my Roku box and get all the really excellent dramas that way.
At one time PBS offered unique innovative programming. But that was years ago. Maybe decades ago. While there is still good programming it is really nothing special. Just goes to show you that a government entity once created, just goes on and on whether is serves a purpose or not.
I’m all for humanizing late-term abortion. Because a human gets killed.
There will never be equal time for us Forced Birthers.
This saying attributed to St Augustine comes to mind: “The truth is like a lion. You don’t have to defend it. Let it loose. It will defend itself.”
I think demanding a pro-life documentary receive equal time is a brilliant move. We have nothing to fear of the lie if the truth is also able to be told.
To humanize the goings-on in an abortion practice, I’d favor airing any of the “Live Action” sting videos. The crockumentary is clearly a propaganda piece, more like a fantasy. A Live Action undercover video or three would show the reality that wasn’t shown by the Tiller the Saint mess. Of course, that would only happen when pigs fly, but a Pro Lifer can dream, can’t he?
If I was a pro-lifer, I’d leave Maafa21 out of contention. It’s just too transparently silly.
Doug thinks Maafa21 is silly. All the more reason to push it being shown.
Heh. Well, it’s hardly just me. Mark Crutcher doesn’t make “documentaries,” he makes propaganda, and Maafa21 is lamely contrived propaganda at that. What would be next – the now discredited, admittedly faked and misrepresented ‘Silent Scream’? ;)
‘Maafa’ requires a suspension of rationality, and a willful gullibility that would push the bounds of most people. The beginning premise is that once slavery was ended, the ruling “elite” of the US wanted to get rid of the blacks. And of course that is patent nonsense, as the factories of the north and the fields of the south still needed laborers, with blacks making up a substantial portion of them.
‘Maafa’ manages to be a step down from even 2008’s ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,’ which Ben Stein had the misfortune to be in.
However, carry on – it would be fun to see the responses to the preposterousness of ‘Maafa.’
I’m not surprised the poll favors equal time so heavily. Our side wants to have the debate. Abortion supporters’ only hope is to silence the truth.
I am really not sure how they can possibly make these guys look like not creeps and make late abortions look not problematic. I bet any thoughtful person will not watch this and think late-term abortion is okay, especially if they found it problematic before.
“The beginning premise is that once slavery was ended, the ruling “elite” of the US wanted to get rid of the blacks. And of course that is patent nonsense, as the factories of the north and the fields of the south still needed laborers, with blacks making up a substantial portion of them.””
I believe that many, if not most, of the ruling elite racists would have rather paid poor whites meager wages over paying black laborers a penny. They did not want blacks to own anything to say nothing of letting them manage money. Racist elitists didn’t want blacks to learn how to read, for crying in the rain. If the elite racists couldn’t have blacks as slaves, they wanted blacks dead or never born. After all, they did not view blacks as humans and “beasts of burden” are paid in food, water and shelter, not money.
Planned Parenthood is an effects of this warped mindset.
If Maafa21 is “transparently silly” then PBS should be eager to air it just to make prolifers look like the rubes they think we are.
But they aren’t showing it (or anything else) are they.
Ding Dong, Tiller the Killer is dead.
Tommy R: If Maafa21 is “transparently silly” then PBS should be eager to air it just to make prolifers look like the rubes they think we are.
But they aren’t showing it (or anything else) are they.
Tommy, I don’t think PBS has an agenda as you seem to think they do. I don’t know 40 – it may be quite reasonable. But Maafa21 is not just made with an eye toward the “Fox News” people, it’s aimed at the tinfoil hat wearing, eager-to-believe-in-conspiracy types.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
~Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”~
“You know you’re over the target when you start taking flak.”
~Go Naval Air~
The incoming flak (Doug’s ridicule of Ma’afa 21) has identified our most potent weapon: Ma’afa21
Advantage: Pro Life
Doc, then why not push for the showing of “Silent Scream”? ;)
One prevalent answer is that it’s widely known to have been faked and misrepresented. Quite a few pro-life organizations specifically tell their people not to bring it up, as it demeans them and impugns them.
I am not at all saying that anything presented by pro-lifers would necessarily be silly, less-than-intelligent, etc.
However, Maafa21 is easily and immediately seen to be full of historical inaccuracies, things taken out of context, laughable generalizations from the particular, and a bunch of other fallacies, of which the genetic fallacy is but one.
Again, this is not a “documentary,” this is silly propaganda.
I’m also not saying that pro-lifers as a group are the only ones where some members are gullible enough to believe stuff like Maafa21. There are plenty of nearly or fully outright lunatics who eagerly gobbled up the most preposterous stuff about George Bush, who see all sorts of conspiracies at work in the gov’t, the churches, the school boards, etc. I would argue just as strongly with them.
All they’d have to show is this nine minute video. It’s the reality of abortion.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTDzZeqFKB0]
Hi TS nice to see you. I remember the morning Id heard Tiller died. I was a bit shocked but I put on my coat shrugged my shoulders and went Oh well. I got on with my day. Id be a liar if I said Id gotten emotional. Ik people in this world who dont harm people and they are good to people and many are my terminally ill patients. I will save my energy to feel bad for them.
Never forget Tiller once said ” Performing abortions is worth burning in hell for.” Unless he was able to have a moment to repent ( which perhaps he did. Maybe even in church that day ) I wonder if he would take it back now.
Doug: So “Silent Scream” is faked, according to you. How to explain the change in Dr. Nathanson, then? I’ve looked into that man’s eyes, and he always seemed driven to do as much as he possibly could for the unborn, expending his incredible intellectual gifts liberally and at great cost to himself. Having perpetrated great harm in lying about deaths of women before “Roe” from self-induced abortion, why in heaven’s name would he be involved in a deception concerning the humanity of the unborn in “Silent Scream?”
R.I.P. Dr. Bernard Nathanson
Pro Life Hero
Dr. Nathanson was once asked why he converted to Catholicism. His simple, elegant answer has always impressed me. He said, “To have my sins forgiven.”
Indeed God bless Dr. Bernard Nathanson and all other abortionists who have repented and found the truth! Im glad they all left before it was too late. Im still holding out hope for Ruddock Carhart Pinkerton and others who are aging and have not yet come to the truth.
Doug The Silent Scream IS real! What proof do you have to show otherwise? Watch The Choice Blues and let me know if you think that is fake too.
DocKimble: How to explain the change in Dr. Nathanson, then? I’ve looked into that man’s eyes, and he always seemed driven to do as much as he possibly could for the unborn, expending his incredible intellectual gifts liberally and at great cost to himself.
Doc, it’s at least two different questions. I grant you that Nathanson changed his mind about some things. He wasn’t the director or producer of ‘Silent Scream,’ though, so even though it’s hard for me to believe he knew nothing of the deception that was being attempted, in no way can all the blame be heaped on him.
Heather: The Silent Scream IS real!
Heather, except for the outright lies, deceptions, half-truths, opinion stated as fact, manipulating the speed of ultrasound films to make things appear different than reality, using models that are grossly of different size than what is true of the unborn at the stated stage of gestation, etc….
Anthony Levitano quit. He admitted “Here I was killing babies and throwing them in the garbage.” Yet another Dr. Hill quit and said “I was a hired hit man. I was murdering children for $” He quoted Deuteronomy…Cursed is the man who taketh reward to kill an innocent person…..it ate away at him and he quit!!
Equal time. Show Choice Blues. Or 3801 Lancaster.
And cancelling it would just invoke the Streisand effect anyway.
Navi (always good posts from you) – I agree. Really, in the end, I say let’s have everybody show everything they want to, and then have everybody discuss it all. That would probably be too unwieldy in the modern age, but less so now than ever before.
Heather, speaking of Deuteronomy, how about 23:1?
He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
I always thought that was some pretty wild stuff.
Doug,
According to the USCCB; “Exclusion of an emasculated male may have had to do with association of emasculation with the practices of other peoples, or it may have been rejection of someone with a significant blemish who was thus not suitable for participation in the sacral assembly.”
heather, I don’t harbor any hate for Tiller; but I can’t say I am sad that he reaped what he sowed…his murder stopped the murder of many innocents.
DOUG you sound a lot like “Dig Doug Deeper” from Wichita. Doug I. was a militant atheist clinic escort until Tiller’s own staff got tired of him and his friends and kicked them off the clinic parking lot.
Doug: Ultrasound images are what changed Dr. Nathanson’s mind about the practice of abortion, according to his own testimony. Apparently Dr. Nathanson was well enough acquainted with the anatomy of the preborn to know what he was looking at when he saw those early, blurry ultrasound images. What he knew before seeing the ultrasounds was different from what he knew after seeing them. That is a “known known.” Whatever else Dr. Nathanson knew or didn’t know is irrelevant, unknowable and untestable, Dr. Nathanson having passed on, but to say he was self-deceived or may have been deliberately deceiving others is something no one but God can know.
Intimating that Dr. Nathanson could have known he was deceiving people with “Silent Scream” is typical of anti-lifers; lying about the humanity of persons is a stock-in-trade of the no-choice-for-the-unborn crowd, who are still self-deceived by their own admission that they are certain that the unborn aren’t persons. It would be consistent, then, with the pro-death mentality to say anything to support the cause of death. Strange that when the unborn are wanted and delivered normally they are babies, but when unwanted and delivered by abortionists, they are “not babies.”
In a court of law, I believe when someone is found to be deliberately covering up the truth, any testimony they give is to be disregarded by the jury. Because you believe the unborn to be non-persons, the judgment I make on your depiction of Dr. Natahanson as being deliberately deceptive in any way to be unbelievable and I can safely disregard it.
TS ditto. We dont know ( and will never ) if Tiller repented in church that day or while dying. I really hope he did. Look at what some of his patients even had to say about him. He was NOT a nice man or “doctor” in fact in the abortionists defense I could almost see where their loathing of women comes in. As Anthony Levitino said “You wish you could just take those children home wiith you but it just doesnt work that way.” He went onto explain how many murders were performed in a day. I believe in a subconscious way they probably grow to loathe. women and by their own admission self loathing sets in.
You see Im pretty direct. I didnt know Tiller but what he chose to do with his life was an abomination. Did I hate him? No but I sure do/did hate what he did! People gave their time at his mill to pray for his soul. Just like our group did for Ruddock and his mill workers. One nurse who was post abortive did quit about a yr before he closed. She was a tough case but she did it! Annd these abortionists are called heroes? How so? Firemen doctors and paramedics are heroes. They save lives. They dont kill children. Ripping off limbs of an unwanted baby makes a man a hero? Not IMO. So I dont feel one way or another about him. Hes deceased and he doesnt cross my mind much. Oh ik shame on me!
Would anyone who dares to take up for Tiller also take up for Hitler. Both commited mass genocide. The guy was a sick ( I cant say )
Also for abortion supporters where is your beloved abortionist Brian Leslie Finkle? The Nevada/Arizona abortionist who sits in the slammer for 80 counts of sexual misconduct GSI and rape. NOW and NARAL wanted to sweep him under the rug and quick. Pro aborts do your homework. The info is there if you want it. Finkle didnt care about women. He kissed them fondled their breasts and raped them on his table. He jerked one woman down in the stirrups hard pre op and when she began crying he yelled ” Shut up”!! He also said “Back in the day I realized that wo
Cont. Women will do ANYTHING to get an abortion.” There goes your respect from this former hero. Mysogynist is a good word for him but pro aborts will reserve that for any anti choicer. uh hu.
Here’s a link to Molotov Mitchell where he mentions Jill Stanek tagging him about the PBS mockumentary on the endangered late term abortionists:
http://www.wnd.com/2014/09/pbs-child-killing-propaganda/
Tiller, a lion of the tribe of Satan and hero of the pro-abort
TSL According to the USCCB; “Exclusion of an emasculated male may have had to do with association of emasculation with the practices of other peoples, or it may have been rejection of someone with a significant blemish who was thus not suitable for participation in the sacral assembly.”
Truthseeker, I wasn’t being critical or trying to bash the Bible, there. Frankly, it’s just a phrase which always struck me as funny (‘privy member’) – and this is going back many decades.
Always liked Proverbs 31: 6-7 too. :)
To be more serious, most of us in the developed world have incredibly different lives versus how people lived 2000, 3000 years ago. Such different lives… Heck, even versus 40 or 50 years ago.
Stuart Bensch: DOUG you sound a lot like “Dig Doug Deeper” from Wichita. Doug I. was a militant atheist clinic escort until Tiller’s own staff got tired of him and his friends and kicked them off the clinic parking lot.
Hi Stuart. I’m not that ‘Doug’ and haven’t ever been an escort, nor have even been at an abortion clinic in any capacity at all. Sounds like this guy was pretty far out there….? No argument from me that there aren’t “extreme” people on both sides of the debate.
DocKimble: Doug: Ultrasound images are what changed Dr. Nathanson’s mind about the practice of abortion, according to his own testimony. Apparently Dr. Nathanson was well enough acquainted with the anatomy of the preborn to know what he was looking at when he saw those early, blurry ultrasound images. What he knew before seeing the ultrasounds was different from what he knew after seeing them. That is a “known known.” Whatever else Dr. Nathanson knew or didn’t know is irrelevant, unknowable and untestable, Dr. Nathanson having passed on, but to say he was self-deceived or may have been deliberately deceiving others is something no one but God can know.
Doc, I really don’t disagree with all that. The only thing is the degree to which he was involved with some of the attempted deceptions put forth in ‘Silent Scream,’ and here too these are “known knowns.” More about that in a minute.
—–
Intimating that Dr. Nathanson could have known he was deceiving people with “Silent Scream” is typical of anti-lifers; lying about the humanity of persons is a stock-in-trade of the no-choice-for-the-unborn crowd, who are still self-deceived by their own admission that they are certain that the unborn aren’t persons. It would be consistent, then, with the pro-death mentality to say anything to support the cause of death. Strange that when the unborn are wanted and delivered normally they are babies, but when unwanted and delivered by abortionists, they are “not babies.”
In a court of law….
Doc, in your “court,” you are mostly just making things up, and then, rather than looking at actual evidence, going with your pretenses and acting as prosecutor, judge and jury, all in one.
“Humanity” – the unborn in this debate are as human as you or I. In no way do I say they are “not human,” and I have never said any such thing, so you are wrong about me, there.
You are also wrong about me being one of the ones where “they are certain that the unborn aren’t persons,” applies. I do see personhood as being the case, later in gestation, for most of the unborn. With some obvious physical differences, a full-term, unborn baby is very much the same as a full-term, born baby.
Wanted or unwanted does not mean “baby” or “not baby” and there too I have never said anything to the contrary. So, just what kind of a court are you runnin’ here, Doc?
DocKimble: In a court of law, I believe when someone is found to be deliberately covering up the truth, any testimony they give is to be disregarded by the jury.
Yeah, this is the problem that ‘Silent Scream’ and ‘Maafa21’ have.
This is what I meant about Nathanson – he did the narration over definitely and obviously faked portions of ‘Silent Scream.’ A less than two inch long fetus is portrayed as much larger – as the size of a full-term baby, via models and via enlarged ultrasound pictures. The same for ultrasound films which are run at much higher than normal speeds, to try and make viewers think the fetus is responding purposefully, consciously, agitatedly, rather than merely reflexively.
With what Nathanson knew of the unborn, is it really believable that he knew nothing of the attempted deceptions?
—–
Because you believe the unborn to be non-persons, the judgment I make on your depiction of Dr. Nathanson as being deliberately deceptive in any way to be unbelievable and I can safely disregard it.
Doc, I have said nothing less than what is 100% true for Nathanson. You are also misstating my position on personhood.
I have said, “it’s hard for me to believe he knew nothing of the deception that was being attempted.”
And above, I ask the question: “is it really believable that he knew nothing of the attempted deceptions?”
What are the lies in Maafa21?
Doug: Whatever court of opinion you are using to judge Dr. Nathanson as guilty of deception is an illegitimate one. In your court, unless the unborn achieve a certain amount of maturity within their mother’s womb, they are not persons. In your court of opinion “Mr. Straw Man” is aware of “deceptions,” and therefore Dr. Nathanson is guilty of deception. In your court of opinion, “Damning with faint praise” is as good as “guilty as charged.”
Dr. Nathanson saw enough in those ultrasounds and knew enough of what babies and all human beings do when prodded, cut, and impaled to know when it is appropriate for screaming to commence. Dr. Nathanson saw an image of God screaming. He described it, and millions heard it in their heads. A few others say they saw nothing and started screaming “fraud.” I believe, in my court of opinion, that they, and you, are either liars or are being willfully ignorant, and wish to besmirch and malign evidence that the unborn are persons from the moment of conception.
DocKimble: Whatever court of opinion you are using to judge Dr. Nathanson as guilty of deception is an illegitimate one. In your court, unless the unborn achieve a certain amount of maturity within their mother’s womb, they are not persons.
Doc, you and I evidently disagree on when personhood is achieved, but that has nothing to do with Nathanson.
—–
In your court of opinion “Mr. Straw Man” is aware of “deceptions,” and therefore Dr. Nathanson is guilty of deception.
I asked the question: “is it really believable that he knew nothing of the attempted deceptions?”
I also said, ““it’s hard for me to believe he knew nothing of the deception that was being attempted.”
I do think it’s farfetched to assume the Nathanson didn’t know what was going on. However, I didn’t start out criticizing him, Doc. It is the deception in ‘Silent Scream’ itself that I brought up.
—–
In your court of opinion, “Damning with faint praise” is as good as “guilty as charged.”
You said it pretty well yourself, Doc. In a court of law, I believe when someone is found to be deliberately covering up the truth, any testimony they give is to be disregarded by the jury.
What is more, the makers of ‘Silent Scream’ have admitted that they took considerable liberties with the ultrasounds and models. You brought up Nathanson, and you are right that there is no way we can totally know how aware he was. I am just saying that it’s pretty hard to believe he knew nothing of it.
[…] Mitchell takes on PBS (and their taxpayer-funded, supposedly politically neutral stance) for their decision to air the warm and fuzzy late-term abortionist documentary, After Tiller, throughout the month of […]
Prax id like to know myself???
Heather, we may never know because Doug is a busy man. We should just trust that Doug knows better than we little ole’ silly gals.
Heather, are you satisfied with what I’ve said about ‘Silent Scream’?
Maafa21 came out 15 years later, and it took a while for ‘Silent Scream’s general discrediting to make its way through the public consciousness, including that of the pro-life community, which was very resistant to the truth, there, for quite a while.
It took a while for the makers of ‘Silent Scream” to admit that they faked some things. It took a while for several pro-life organizations to tell their members to stop referring to the movie, as they knew of the faked stuff, and that enough other people then did too, which made the organizations look bad.
Yet, a relative few people still will defend it, as you did above. If that’s the way it’s going to be, then fine, but then you are not even on the same side as rational pro-lifers, there.
Mafaa21 has been out for only 5 years. I’ve been discussing abortion for a long time, and there used to be a ton of arguing about ‘Silent Scream” when it was much newer. You don’t see much of that now.
I watched all or part of Maafa some years ago. I need to watch it again and take notes all the way through, if I’m going to tell you all what’s wrong with it. I am willing to do that. ‘Silent Scream’ is 29 minutes long, while ‘Maafa21’ is 138 minutes long, so it’s a bigger job.
‘Silent Scream’ is also easier – you see stuff which was faked, and by now most people know of it, and that’s that. Maafa is sneakier, and it takes more background knowledge and a lot more words to identify all of what’s going on. Heck, one could write an entire book about the falseness of Maafa21.
For now, I do know that ‘Maafa’ takes a ton of things out of context, engages in ludicrous guilt-by-association, and blatantly misrepresents many things.
Some examples: Margaret Sanger is presented as “anti-black,” while the truth is that her being in favor of eugenics applied to all people. At that time, eugenics was very popular in the US. Colleges offered courses in it, sociologists touted it and were favored for doing so, and the proponents of it included huge numbers of people who were against birth control and against legal abortion.
Sanger’s true position was no secret at the time, and her supporters included many prominent blacks such as W.E.B. Du Bois. Sanger had a clinic in Harlem, New York City, and she was endorsed by the local black newspaper, by local religious and political leaders, and she was invited to speak before the assembly of Harlem’s biggest Baptist church.
In ‘Maafa21,’ there is one Connie Eller, who is presented as “a St. Louis community organizer.” The truth is that she founded ‘Missouri Blacks For Life.’ She talks about Gunnar Myrdal, and his book, ‘An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.’
She says that Myrdal “believed that not only could blacks not help themselves, he felt that nobody could help them, and the only solution in his eyes was to get rid of them.” This is an outright lie.
The truth is that the book is as anti-racist as anything. Myrdal worked with Ralph Bunche, the same guy who was an associate of Martin Luther King (they both won Nobel Peace Prizes, for that matter), and Myrdal said racism was a “problem in the heart of the American.” Myrdals book was even cited in the ‘Brown v. the Board of Education’ decision.
‘Maafa21’ then gives us what some white racists have said, and it tries to make us think that Myrdal himself said them. Blatant falsehoods.
This should be no surprise to anybody who is familiar with Mark Crutcher and the sort of propaganda that he favors.
Maafa21 invokes Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece Alveda King, when the truth is that MLK was all for family planning. MLK won Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award in 1966.
MLK on Sanger:
She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist—a nonviolent resister… At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions… Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.
Of Margaret Sanger, MLK also said, “There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early effort.”
Crutcher is trying to make legal abortion a “race issue,” and this is as silly as anything in the film. You sure don’t see Crutcher acknowledging that the black birthrate in the US is higher than that for whites, now do you? This fact easily and plainly puts the lie to talk of “black genocide” on the part of Planned Parenthood.
Crutcher tries to tie Sanger and Planned Parenthood to the Nazis, when the truth is that Hitler was as anti-choice as anybody. He got into power, and laws were passed that forbade abortions for some women, and which mandated them for others.
Crutcher gives us nasty quotes from Charles Davenport, but neglects to tell us that Davenport was against birth control.
Crutcher maintains that the eugenics movement was aimed at blacks, while the truth is that it was much more targeting Mexican and Asian immigrants.
Enough for now..
“I am willing to do that.”
Awesome. I’m looking forward to a breakdown of and solid proof of the lies you find.
If Sanger was indeed targeting Mexican and Asians over blacks (although you also admit that the movement targeted blacks as well), we should get those facts out there, don’t you think?
Is the movement still targeting Mexicans, Asians and blacks?
The point about the eugenics movement is that it was very popular at the time, and this was among people who were both for and against birth control and legal abortion.
People were fired-up about what were seen as large numbers of Mexican and Asian immigrants – and, just like now – one hardly had to be for legal abortion to be thinking that “too many of them were coming in.”
Let’s see what Heather says. If she wants to maintain that ‘Silent Scream’ is “real” without qualification, then there’s little point in discussing things. DocKimble said it well:
In a court of law, I believe when someone is found to be deliberately covering up the truth, any testimony they give is to be disregarded by the jury.
Is Heather going to point at “something that is accurate,” and from there maintain that there is nothing at all wrong with the whole film?
The exact same thing applies to Maafa21.
There are some clear-cut lies and falsehoods from Maafa, above.
“In ‘Maafa21,’ there is one Connie Eller, who is presented as “a St. Louis community organizer.” The truth is that she founded ‘Missouri Blacks For Life.’ She talks about Gunnar Myrdal, and his book, ‘An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy.’
She says that Myrdal “believed that not only could blacks not help themselves, he felt that nobody could help them, and the only solution in his eyes was to get rid of them.” This is an outright lie.”
If people who support either film (regardless of pro-life or pro-choice) are not willing to admit what is proven to be false, and unwilling to see lame propaganda where it is present – in the case of Maafa21, it’s Mark Drutcher up to the same old baloney that he’s engaged in, in the past – then there is no hope of them being rational.
“The truth is that she founded ‘Missouri Blacks For Life.’”
So she can’t also be a community organizer? Is the film obligated to tell everything she has ever been involved in/a member of, etc. because you think they should?
“This is an outright lie.”
Proof please.
Is the movement still targeting Mexicans, Asians and blacks?
Start listing the clear-cut lies and falsehoods one by one with proof, please.
Anyone who believes the conceptus is a non-person until some arbitrary point of gestation occurs is either being deceived or is willfully ignorant. ONLY proof of the nature of the preborn as being fully human and worthy of legal protection need be established to overturn Roe, as Roe itself plainly says. The only proof that’s needed for that is available. The willfully ignorant can search all they want through the propaganda on both sides of the issue of abortion and look for and find whatever they want, but the plain evidence of the illegitimacy of Roe would make even the biggest liar in the history of humanity blush.
Doc, it is the fact that full personhood is not attributed to the unborn that has you upset in the first place. No society, anywhere on earth, has ever said that the unborn are full persons.
If Roe would be overturned, then some states would have abortion be practically entirely illegal, and others would have it legal until a point in gestation, as they do now.
“The truth is that she founded ‘Missouri Blacks For Life.’”
Praxedes: So she can’t also be a community organizer? Is the film obligated to tell everything she has ever been involved in/a member of, etc. because you think they should?
Of course she can, but Crutcher was having her lie, so he wanted to try and make it less obvious.
Praxedes, it looks like Heather isn’t going to respond about ‘Silent Scream.’ Do you agree that some things were faked in that film?
Is the movement still targeting Mexicans, Asians and blacks?
“The movement”? :P I think the birth rate of all those groups is higher in the US than for whites, so any such talk is pretty silly.
Doug: Roe itself is illegitimate; it is the Supreme Court legislating and using specious argumentation to achieve intolerance for human rights and state’s rights. Roe will kill us all.
The human heart was not made to hate, and to make the murder of the unborn even thinkable in legal terms makes all laws we live under illegitimate.
Roe is a companion to the pure hate of Dr. Kinsey, who hated God and humankind. God help us all. I’m not upset; I’m on fire with God’s purifying love for all humankind.
If your wife had taken your children from you before they were born, would it make any difference to you at which age of gestation they were taken from you?
““The movement”?”
Read back — you referred to it first as a movement — not sure why targeting folks for death is funny in the least.
“Do you agree that some things were faked in that film?”
Don’t know enough to comment one way or the another about ‘Silent Scream’ and I haven’t made any such claims. I am waiting to hear about all the lies THAT YOU CLAIM are in Maafa21.
“I think the birth rate of all those groups is higher in the US than for whites, so any such talk is pretty silly.”
Wha? Because the birth rate might be higher for one group, it makes the targeting of other groups for murder a-okay.
Stop avoiding, diverting and arguing and start listing the clear-cut lies and falsehoods you have stated are in Maafa21. With proof, please. So far I haven’t seen proof of any lies.
DocKimble: Roe itself is illegitimate; it is the Supreme Court legislating and using specious argumentation to achieve intolerance for human rights and state’s rights. Roe will kill us all.
Well, Doc, that’s some pretty far-out stuff.
Not only has the US’s population grown like crazy since Roe, the world’s has too. In 1973, we were under 4 billion. We’re now over 7 billion. So….
—–
If your wife had taken your children from you before they were born, would it make any difference to you at which age of gestation they were taken from you?
Doc, you have so many suppositions and assumptions in there that it’s a meaningless question.
As it happens, we have no children, and my wife has never been pregnant. I didn’t get married until I was 41 (she was 38) and in the end we didn’t want to have kids, on balance. If I had really wanted them, she said she’d go for it. We didn’t, and she has since had a hysterectomy, so that ship has pretty well sailed.
“Taken my children from me” – who says I would consider it a “child”? By far, most abortions take place before I think it’s reasonable to call it a “child.” I agree that it is “human” and that it’s a “living organism” after conception, but we have an enormous number of such deaths every year, from failed implantation after fertilization – last time I looked at the figures it’s like 4 to 12 million, I think (we don’t know the exact rate of failure to implant).
Do you really see this as all those millions of deaths “of children”? And you may – it just seems ridiculous, to me.
Praxedes: Read back — you referred to it first as a movement — not sure why targeting folks for death is funny in the least.
The point is that it wasn’t “targeting blacks” in the first place. That there was a fairly prevalent mood in the US that supported eugenics – yes, certainly – but this was true among those who were against birth control and legal abortion, in great numbers, as well as those who were not. A large concern was the immigration and population of Mexicans and Asians, and this is yet another area where Maafa21 misstates things – not identifying this fact, and rather, conjuring up the imaginary “targeting of blacks” by Planned Parenthood.
—–
Don’t know enough to comment one way or the another about ‘Silent Scream’ and I haven’t made any such claims. I am waiting to hear about all the lies THAT YOU CLAIM are in Maafa21.
You certainly have one, already, in the post I made on September 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm. Anybody that is familiar with Myrdal’s book, or Myrdal himself, along with Ralph Bunche, with whom Myrdal worked (the same Bunche that was later or at the time an associate of Martin Luther King), knows what what Maafa21 says is an outright lie.
What you said about ‘Silent Scream’ is reasonable. However, what I have seen over the years is that few if any pro-lifers will really admit to the fakery in it, and this continues to this day, even as its’ fraudulence has generally become known, and as some pro-life organizations tell their members not to reference it.
15 years ago, pro-lifers were all over the place about ‘Silent Scream,’ and we’re somewhat in the same place now with ‘Maafa21.’ I say “somewhat” because “Silent Scream’ was a much bigger deal. What I think will happen with ‘Maafa’ is the same – it will fade as the truth becomes more generally known.
My point to Heather – who I guess isn’t bothering to defend ‘Silent Scream’ now (with good reason) – was that if she can’t admit to what was faked in that movie, then why should anybody bother going through ‘Maafa21’ for her?
And the same for you, Praxedes – if you can’t admit to some of Maafa’s most glaring falsehoods – what is stated about how Gunnar Myrdal felt about blacks; and the usage of quotes that sound very racist – the attempt being on Crutcher’s part to make the viewer think that people from Planned Parenthood, or Margaret Sanger, or pro-choicers in general, said them – when the truth is that some of the quotes were from people who were against birth control and legal abortion – then why should I bother going though the whole thing?
—–
“I think the birth rate of all those groups is higher in the US than for whites, so any such talk is pretty silly.”
Wha? Because the birth rate might be higher for one group, it makes the targeting of other groups for murder a-okay.
There is no “murder,” there, in the first place. And there is no “targeting.” My point was that this talk of “genocide” (as well as most of the thrust of ‘Maafa21’) is just plain silly. By definition, having legal abortion and have PP offer them is not that.
First you said, “Crutcher maintains that the eugenics movement was aimed at blacks, while the truth is that it was much more targeting Mexican and Asian immigrants.”
Now you say, “And there is no “targeting.””
If I understand you clearly, you claim there was targeting at one time but there is not anymore. It other words, abortion today is an equal opportunity killer.
“then why should anybody bother going through ‘Maafa21? for her?”
“then why should I bother going though the whole thing?”
Because a man is only as good as his word.
Doug, you said “Not only has the US’s population grown like crazy since Roe, the world’s has too. In 1973, we were under 4 billion. We’re now over 7 billion. So….”
Question: What is the “perfect number of people?”
Question: When did we ever have a “perfect number of people?”
Question: Who has the authority to decide how many people are the “perfect number of people?”
Question: Why do human beings have to strive to achieve the “perfect number of people?”
Question: How do you propose humankind would go about achieving the “perfect number of people?”
My question about the abortion of “your” children was rhetorical, not specifically aimed at you.
Question: Would it make a difference to the father of a child at which point in gestation a woman had murdered his offspring? The child is murdered no matter at which point in gestation he or she was removed from the Land of the Living.
Of course I believe in personhood from the point of conception. Anyone who presumes to say a child in the womb becomes a person at any other point than at the moment of conception is playing God. That’s “above everyone’s pay grade.”
Question: When Barack Obama was asked his opinion about when the conceptus becomes a person, he responded, “That’s above my pay grade.” What “pay grade” do you think Senator Obama was referring? To whom or to what authority was Senator Obama deferring as the authority on when the conceptus becomes a person? Are you that authority?
Hope this does better than yesterday – had it done and then by the time I posted it, the website was down…
Praxedes: First you said, “Crutcher maintains that the eugenics movement was aimed at blacks, while the truth is that it was much more targeting Mexican and Asian immigrants.”
Now you say, “And there is no “targeting.””
If I understand you clearly, you claim there was targeting at one time but there is not anymore. It other words, abortion today is an equal opportunity killer.
Has nothing to do with abortion. Yes – back when the eugenics movement was much more prevalent in society (among those who were against birth control and legal abortion, as well as among those who were not) – the concern was more the rapidly-swelling numbers of those immigrants and their populations in the US. Now, there is nothing like the support for eugenics that there was 80 or 90 years ago.
—–
“then why should anybody bother going through ‘Maafa21′ for her?”
“then why should I bother going though the whole thing?”
Because a man is only as good as his word.
Indeed. And you know me – I don’t usually leave an argument untended to. :P
My post: September 5, 2014 at 3:11 pm: “Heather, are you satisfied with what I’ve said about ‘Silent Scream’?”
There is a quid pro quo here. Years ago, I argued about ‘Silent Scream’ and in the end it didn’t really matter much. What did matter was time going by, and the fact of the fakery in the movie getting pretty well into the public consciousness, even to the point where some pro-life organizations told their members not to reference it.
If Heather isn’t going to agree on the faked stuff – and I am not saying every aspect in the film is wrong or false, just that some things definitely are faked – then what is the point in going through another movie for her?
Praxedes, you say you don’t know ‘Silent Scream’ well enough. Okay, that is reasonable. It’s also reasonable for me to want you to agree to the more obvious untruths and misrepresentations in ‘Maafa21’ before considerable effort is expended going through the whole deal.
Two obvious things in Maafa21 are what is said of Gunnar Myrdal, i.e. the movie presents his feeling toward blacks as, “the only solution in his eyes was to get rid of them,” and quotes from Charles Davenport and others, quotes which sound quite nasty and racist. Crutcher presents these quotes as if they were from supporters of Planned Parenthood. The truth is that Davenport was against birth control.
A little less obvious, perhaps, but prevalent through the whole of Maafa21, is the incorrect notion that Margaret Sanger was “against blacks” and that Planned Parenthood is somehow, too.
Sanger’s true position was no secret at the time, and her supporters included many prominent blacks such as W.E.B. Du Bois. Sanger had a clinic in Harlem, New York City, and she was endorsed by the local black newspaper, by local religious and political leaders, and she was invited to speak before the assembly of Harlem’s biggest Baptist church.
Many black leaders, seeing the relationship between larger families and poverty, were receptive to what Sanger and others had to say. It was not merely a “numbers game” as Du Bois said, I believe, it was that quality of life was what mattered.
Martin Luther King won won Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award in 1966.
MLK on Sanger: “She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist—a nonviolent resister… At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions… Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.”
MLK again on Sanger: ““There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early effort.”
DocKimble: Doug, you said “Not only has the US’s population grown like crazy since Roe, the world’s has too. In 1973, we were under 4 billion. We’re now over 7 billion. So….”
Question: What is the “perfect number of people?”
Doc, the perfect number of people for what? You had said that “Roe will kill us all.” I pointed out that since Roe has been fact, we’ve gained a whole bunch of people in the US, and more than three thousand million people on earth.
—–
Question: When did we ever have a “perfect number of people?”
Again, depends on what is being considered. As far as the best number for the survival of the human race, I’ve seen the figure of 4 billion mentioned. This, I believe, is a balance between numbers low enough that our harmful impact on the world is lessened, and numbers high enough that it gives a greater chance of the advances and productivity necessary for our survival – in the end it’s going to require us getting off this planet. This is not coming from me – it’s what I’ve read. My opinion – I don’t have any “ideal” number in mind – is that as a race we have to learn the hard way. We’re pretty good at fixing huge, immediate problems; that’s when we really shine. If I have a worry, it’s that we won’t always be able to correct stuff at that late date. As far as doing things before there is massive, crying urgency – there, we are not so hot.
—–
Question: Who has the authority to decide how many people are the “perfect number of people?”
Those that are in charge. This can be on a national level – and that’s what’s been true, in practice. I am not saying that you would think this is “good,” nor that I would (to say the least), but that’s the way it’s worked out so far. In other times, other situations, it would be on a different level. I do think that as we go forward in time, increasing population pressure will make this more of a current discussion. Going down the scale from nations, we get all the way to the family, and there it’s the parents who decide what’s enough.
—–
Question: Why do human beings have to strive to achieve the “perfect number of people?”
There is no demonstrable, current need for any certain number. Eventually, this may prove not to be true, i.e. there are some “worst-case” scenarios that have us realizing later on that even in 2014 it was too late…. But as of now, people are not really aiming at any number. So, as of now, I don’t see many people really at all thinking about “a perfect number.”
—–
Question: How do you propose humankind would go about achieving the “perfect number of people?”
Very good question. I don’t know enough, and can’t see into the future well enough, to propose such things. What I do think will happen will be some really ugly, nasty stuff – ugly and nasty in the eyes of almost everybody here on earth right now. China felt they had to do something, and the “one child” policy has worked out really badly. In the long run I think we’ll see more stuff like that.
I have nothing to say, for now, that would in any way override what the individual people want, i.e. whether the parents want zero kids, or one, or two, or ten – I don’t have any compelling things to say to try and persuade them otherwise.
—–
Of course I believe in personhood from the point of conception. Anyone who presumes to say a child in the womb becomes a person at any other point than at the moment of conception is playing God. That’s “above everyone’s pay grade.”
This is dependent on everybody agreeing with you in the first place, Doc, a thing where you know that’s just not the case.
—–
Question: When Barack Obama was asked his opinion about when the conceptus becomes a person, he responded, “That’s above my pay grade.” What “pay grade” do you think Senator Obama was referring? To whom or to what authority was Senator Obama deferring as the authority on when the conceptus becomes a person? Are you that authority?
Each of us will have our own feeling about when a person is present. There is the societal position that full personhood is not attributed until birth. That is not the same thing as your opinion, my opinion, or the opinion of the President or a Senator. It’s not the President nor the Senate (any Senate) that determines society’s position – and that is what you are dissatisfied with, that’s what a good bit of the abortion debate is about. Senators and Presidents are not paid to pronounce upon it – it’s really not their pay grade, in fact.
whirlpool cabrio washer manual
Your profile may be the first impression that hiring managers have of you ‘ so allow it to be count.
Take them from the hand in the event you must,
but please do not be afraid to ask for the order. whirlpool cabrio dryer troubleshooting whirlpool cabrio gas dryer troubleshooting Are employees
asking to be fully informed in what’s going on with your organization. We all share same means and access to information can also be similar.
Doug:
Roe has killed us all. At the heart of Roe is the intent to decide when one person, in consultation with her doctor, may allow that doctor to kill another person. Enter ObamaCare, with Death Panels, with the intent to give one person or a panel of persons, the power under the law to deny life-saving medical care to those deemed not worthy of life, after consulting with the “proper authority.” In the case of Roe, the “proper authority” is the woman carrying the child. The “proper medical care” in the case of a woman with child is to care for them both. But medicine has been turned away from its proper course, and now, death for the patient is “health care.”
You have a history in the recent past of some people killing other people in death chambers. This is our human response to “…. people that we don’t want too many of.” (Justice Ginsberg) It is a very short step from making the woman the “proper authority” to making a panel of people, such as a “Supreme” Court the “proper authority” to eliminate any and all, including themselves. Can you say “Jonestown?”
We have gone from Roe to ObamaCare in one short generation, with the help of Population Controllers who intend to reduce the population of the world to four billion people. This road has been gone down before, and the world said, “Never again.” The judgment at Nuremberg was that human experimentation was illicit when the patient does not consent to said experiment. The judgment at Nuremberg was that the purpose of medicine is the curing of the patient, not human experimentation, in any case. Only when consent is given by the patient is human experimentation licit.
The philosophy of Roe has yet to be fully realized in its intent, but its intent is to kill us all if such would be the desire of the Barbarian Ruling Elites. Not We the People, but the Barbarian Ruling Elites. Perhaps there will never again be a self-governing people who all agree to be ruled by law, not by men. Perhaps our Constitution will finally go out with a whimper, and that noble experiment in human self-governmentr will be followed by a Reign of Terror such as the world has never before seen. Then will the intent of Roe be fully realized. And then, all the speculation on the “perfect number of people” will be academic. The perfect number of people will be the ones who remain after the blood-lust of the Barbarians is satiated.
“The perfect number of people for what? ” you ask. That answer will have to be gotten from the Barbarian Ruling Elites or, as you say, “… those that are in charge.” Some people will become “non-persons” (age is of no concern to the Elites; “Quality of Life” is). Meaning, of course, not the quality of your life, but theirs. No amount of “scientific proof” that you, Doug, are a person will be capable of changing their minds. They will have no ears to hear you. You will be screaming. But they won’t hear you.
Doc, if there is one thing that will bring about the dystopian society you envision, it is population pressure itself.
You’re wrong about Obamacare and “death panels.” Heck, it was Sarah Palin, and later, Michelle Bachmann, who in fits of loony exaggeration, came up with the incorrect idea that you seem to be quite set on. Are you channeling Truthseeker? ;)
That was in reference to a section (Section 1233) of proposed law that did not even go into the final, passed version of Obamacare. And it was not about “denying life-saving medical care,” in the first place. It was about reimbursement for doctors who had voluntary counseling with patients about living wills, hospice care, advance directives, etc.
It was based on another bill co-sponsored by a Republican Senator from Louisiana. It was also much akin to provisions already in place for Medicare to pay for consulting about end-of-life issues – President George W. Bush had signed that bill in 2008.
“Death panel” got PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” award in 2009. :P
Additionally, it is only good sense to realize that we cannot give unlimited care to everybody. In 2011, Medicare spent roughly 170 billion Dollars on patients’ last 6 months of life.
This is absolutely unsustainable, and it’s been no secret for some time. Now, you would think that Republicans, purporting to be “conservatives,” would realize this, eh?
Well, they did – many of them voted for the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, which included funding for counseling for end-of-life issues and care. Among Republicans, 42 Senators and 204 Representatives voted for it. The bill passed, and Bush Jr. signed it in December 2003.
From the text of that bill: “The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary’s need for pain and symptom management, including the individual’s need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning.”
Doc: The judgment at Nuremberg was that the purpose of medicine is the curing of the patient, not human experimentation, in any case. Only when consent is given by the patient is human experimentation licit.
Coincidence Dept., Doc – just 2 nights ago I watched the movie ‘Judgment at Nuremberg.’ If the outcome of the Nuremberg proceedings were as you say, then the movie really didn’t deal with that. More that it dealt with German judges who had sentenced people to die.
Awesome movie.
Pain management and the kill pill are two different things, Doug. I have no confidence that the medical profession that cannot police itself well enough to at least censure Gosnell-type abortionists will be able to or are able now to control the “hospice care” industry well enough to prevent the hospice worker from slipping the loved one a kill pill in the middle of the night when no one is paying attention.
When the insurance runs out, the patient mysteriously dies shortly thereafter, in “hospice care.” Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen because I’ve seen it happen twice in the last three years to my two best friends, a husband and a wife.
Medicine is no longer a calling. It’s an industry, mostly. You wouldn’t have hospital administrators forcing nurses to participate in abortions if it were a calling that requires people who work in the profession to have compassion for all human beings under all circumstances. You wouldn’t have nurses whispering in the ears of women who are having difficult labor, “Sweetie, you don’t want to go through THIS again, do you?” When the woman in agony says, “No,” the agreement to have an IUD inserted shows up at the bedside. And then, upon delivery, the IUD is inserted. The absolute WORST time for that operation to take place. And people die, or nearly die from that, having impacted bowels, etc. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. It happened to a close relative of mine.
At Nuremberg, Doctors were judged guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and the Peace of the World. Chief Justice Jackson’s Opening Statement should be seen as a warning for those of us today who advocate for the slaughter of the innocents and the managing of medicine in such a way that life becomes a bookkeeping matter. The first paragraph sets the tone for the trial:
“The privilege of opening the first trial in history for crimes against the peace of the world imposes a grave responsibility. The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated. That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason.”
The “Doctor’s Trial” was an adjunct to the “Crimes Against Humanity and the Peace of the World” trial. The opening statement there included these words, which should seem familiar to those who have been trying to expose the banal evil of abortion for more than forty years now:
“The defendants in this case are charged with murders, tortures, and other atrocities committed in the name of medical science. The victims of these crimes are numbered in the hundreds of thousands. A handful only are still alive; a few of the survivors will appear in this courtroom. But most of these miserable victims were slaughtered outright or died in the course of the tortures to which they were subjected.
For the most part they are nameless dead. To their murderers, these wretched people were not individuals at all. They came in wholesale lots and were treated worse than animals.”
~Brigadier General Telford Taylor~
When the machinery of “reason” becomes the tool of despots and “machine men,” cold, calculated bookkeeping replaces the human heart, and the slaughter of millions “becomes a statistic.” The solution to the problems we have created won’t be found in the methods we have used thus far which have cause the problems in the first place.
At the acceptance of the surrender of Japan on the battleship USS Missouri, General Douglas MacArthur spoke these prophetic words:
“Mankind has had his last chance. Either there will be a recrudescence of the spirit of man, or the flesh of mankind will not be saved.”
But, dictators abound today. And, just as they always have, when defeat of their cause is near, the Dictators will rally mankind again, and once again, the Dictator, having only Human Will to count on, will fall back into promoting the very errors that brought him and his remaining followers to the brink of worldwide human extinction. God help us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
Awesome post, DocKimble.
“When the insurance runs out, the patient mysteriously dies shortly thereafter, in “hospice care.””
Race to the bottom of the bottom feeders. Many others do this as well. Divorces become final when there are no assets left,etc.
By the time my divorce became finalized, all that was left was the children.
But children are worth fighting for.
Pain management and the kill pill are two different things, Doug. I have no confidence that the medical profession that cannot police itself well enough to at least censure Gosnell-type abortionists will be able to or are able now to control the “hospice care” industry well enough to prevent the hospice worker from slipping the loved one a kill pill in the middle of the night when no one is paying attention.
Doc, what does this have to do with what we were talking about?
In any case, if one suspects foul play, then call the police, the state Attorney General’s office, the FBI, don’t let the body be moved, don’t let the medications be disposed of, don’t let embalming take place, etc.
I realize that if we are really talking about “one pill in the middle of the night,” then there may be no way to prevent that. Yet that would be the case in a hospital or anywhere there’s an overnight stay. What are you really saying – do not go into hospice care?
I don’t trust the degraded medical profession, Doug. I took care of my mom for 10 years so she could stay out of any situation that put her in with a nursing facility. Then, when one person couldn’t do it all, the family found a great nursing home for her that is Pro Life 100%. Mom is 92 now and still going strong, but I believe she wouldn’t be with us if she’d have been just placed anywhere. I used most of my retirement money to keep her out of that mess, but I have my doubts that the moral climate will be the same when I can’t take care of myself anymore.
I wasn’t in a position with that man and his wife to interject myself into that family’s affairs. They both were handled by the same hospice outfit, and it was weird how they both died within a couple of weeks of coming home. People don’t mistrust the medical profession generally and it would be very difficult to get all up in people’s business when their mom & dad are experiencing big health issues at the end of life.
The way this applies to the question at hand is if you just believe the medical profession is doing a great thing by being all OK about abortion, then it would follow that you’d be just fine with the lefty media and the government calling Pro Lifers domestic terrorists, and then you’d be a perfect candidate for the Kill Pill when your time comes. If you don’t believe in redemptive suffering, of course, this would mean nothing to you, and when your time comes you’ll probably request the Kill Pill. And you wouldn’t want anyone poking their nose into your “private business.”
Doc, I’m not really into redemptive suffering, no. I also don’t think the medical profession is “all OK” about abortion, i.e. some people within it are opposed to legal abortion, in general.
As to requesting a “kill pill,” who knows – the may come a time for all or almost all of us when we’d rather cease living than continue it.
On hospices, I don’t think they are an automatic death sentence (although weren’t they really originally for people who were terminal?), nor do I think that what you describe “never happens.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/08/21/as-more-hospices-enroll-patients-who-arent-dying-questions-about-lethal-doses-arise/
Don’t really think it has to do with global warming being a plot by polar bears or Obama being the AntiChrist.
Elder care is a delicate thing to balance. When you have a profit motive involved, and no advocate for the elder person, things can go downhill very fast. I was my mother’s advocate, and I found another person to assist me in finding a highly qualified geriatric doctor. And WE listened very closely to what was being put forward for her as far as this or that. I felt honored to do for her as she had done for me. That’s the essence of redemptive suffering, and it dove-tails quite nicely with the Golden Rule.
There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical. We live in a fallen world that will never achieve a worldly utopia. I have plenty of theories about what our leadership has planned for us. I’m pretty sure the Founders were more than a bit like myself. They, too, were skeptical of men who have no taste for offering up their suffering for the good of others. They had con men even back then. They knew human nature, and wrote a Constitution that took the evils of human nature into account, and Separated Powers. The men our Founders warned us about are quite clearly defined, easily recognized, and their plans are more than just a little obvious when held up against the Light.
Elder care is a delicate thing to balance. When you have a profit motive involved, and no advocate for the elder person, things can go downhill very fast. I was my mother’s advocate, and I found another person to assist me in finding a highly qualified geriatric doctor. And WE listened very closely to what was being put forward for her as far as this or that. I felt honored to do for her as she had done for me. That’s the essence of redemptive suffering, and it dove-tails quite nicely with the Golden Rule.
Doc, the Golden Rule makes a lot of sense. Profit motive + no advocate = I totally agree with you. I don’t really see how it was “suffering” for you to care for your mom, though.
—–
There’s nothing wrong with being skeptical. We live in a fallen world that will never achieve a worldly utopia. I have plenty of theories about what our leadership has planned for us. I’m pretty sure the Founders were more than a bit like myself. They, too, were skeptical of men who have no taste for offering up their suffering for the good of others. They had con men even back then. They knew human nature, and wrote a Constitution that took the evils of human nature into account, and Separated Powers. The men our Founders warned us about are quite clearly defined, easily recognized, and their plans are more than just a little obvious when held up against the Light.
Yet, who is saying anything about a “utopia,” in the first place? Indeed, there is human nature, and it only makes sense to be skeptical. I would certainly and instantly extend that to the priesthood, where I see them playing on people’s fears, forever. Not trying to criticize Catholic beliefs, specifically, but “redemptive suffering” sounds like a spiritual “zero-sum game” to me.