Pro-life vid of day: Former Obama admin czar stumbles on abortion Q
by Hans Johnson
Well-known politicos seem to be as slippery as ever when asked a direct abortion-related question. Cass Sunstein, former regulatory czar and friend of pro-infanticide Princeton professor Peter Singer was asked if a fetus should have the same rights as a horse. Unable to defend the indefensible, he does the typical tap dance about not inflicting intentional pain and respecting others’ views.
One has to wonder how much he respects the push for pain-capable abortion restriction legislation.
Comments begin around 1:05:30:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/DWzcwTq_M6Q[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
(HT: TheBlaze)
May.06, 2014 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
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.
Could you give us an estimated time to tune in?
Comments begin around 1:05:30.
Sunstein sees abortion as a difficult moral issue, yet supports a right to abortion. The interviewer should have asked: what is the moral issue in abortion, if it is not the issue of killing an innocent human without due process?
I have read a fair amt of Sunstein’s writing – all of us liberals love him. He seems so reasonable and intelligent, that we don’t have to worry about the reasoning behind any opinions we are told to hold – if he has some lengthy, wordy support of abortion here, government propaganda there, and re-writing the Constitution yet over here, we can rest assured some other liberal has vetted the reasonableness of the policy.
–Here is how nearly all, and possibly all, of Sunstein’s arguments work: the illogic is always in the very beginning. He can then follow through with the rest of the matter in a reasonable way.
For example, he might argue: we all know a basic goal of government is to provide for an educated, interactive populace. So, …
The premise, the starting point, is always so reasonable that is slips right past you. Then, when the rest follows reasonably, you don’t know how you ended up agreeing that the government has an obligation to subvert citizen groups who have ideas that vary from the leftist cult-think. But that premise is the point that, on reflection, is always wrong. –Above, in my example of his style, the govt is not here to ensure everyone is educated, etc. But you have to pay attn. to catch that.
So, if anyone goes on to read Sunstein, identify and analyze the first premise or two of whatever he is arguing.
In his abortion discussion here, he acknowledges the moral dimension of abortion and says he understands the pro-life point of view. –But this is wrong. He cannot possibly be referring to the taking of an innocent life. It seems like he is sympathetic, but he is not.
That is how to read Sunstein.