Pro-life vid of day: Dana Loesch dismantles liberal media’s now infamous “cool” invasive ultrasound misquote of Scott Walker
by Jill
Over the last few days left wing “news” outlets – the the help of Planned Parenthood – have glaringly misappropriated Wisconsin Gov. and pro-life GOP presidential candidate Scott’s Walker’s innocent comment that ultrasound images of preborn babies are “cool” as thumbs-up support of mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.
Caleb Howe at Red State picked up the story from there:
“Walker Derangement Syndrome’ is absolutely correct. The left and the media (standard “but I repeat myself” joke goes here) will relentlessly latch onto stories that they think paint Republicans as monsters, particularly if it can be used as a demographic wedge. Republicans hate minorities. Republicans hate immigrants. Republicans hate gays. Republicans hate abortion. Well . that last one is actually true, for the most part. And the way it spreads is utterly predictable. For this so-called scandal, and future ones, Dana Loesch mapped out the anatomy on her Blaze TV show Thursday.,.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huljqaUPo64[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
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.
Granted, it’s completely unrelated to Walker’s comment, but I fully support mandatory ultrasounds (transvaginal if a good image can’t be had otherwise), because it is an important diagnostic tool. So long as abortion is legal, any woman who seeks the procedure should undergo imaging to confirm gestational age, number of fetuses, location of implantation, and to map her anatomy. She should also be shown these images with explanations of what the scans are for, so that she can give informed consent.
Stepping away from the immorality of the procedure for a moment, ultrasound prior to abortion is akin to having diagnostic imaging done prior to dental work, bone setting, or heart surgery. It informs the practitioner, thus making the procedure safer for the patient, and is a valuable graphic tool in explaining the course of action to the patient (informed consent being a human right). It absolutely infuriates me that pro-aborts can’t even agree on stuff like this with pro-lifers.
Facts? What facts? We know better than to listen to the truth….
liberal media’s now infamous “cool” invasive ultrasound misquote of Scott Walker
“Infamous”? I had heard nothing about it. I suspect there is a mountain wanting to go back to being a molehill.
Rachel: It absolutely infuriates me that pro-aborts can’t even agree on stuff like this with pro-lifers.
[eyeroll]
Don’t you mean that pro-choicers can’t agree with you woman-slavers?
; )
In reality, who do you see saying that an ultrasound should not be done if it’s needed for the surgical procedure itself?
Rachel, and Jill Stanek, et al,
Why is it that these malevolent, hate filled, dishonest, vindictive, venomous, narcissistic, bigoted, deviant people who are so obsessed, to the point of being fetishists, with butchering innocent new human beings, babies, which amounts to infanticide, plain, simple, and accurately stated, are okay with ultrasound during the act of butchering babies, as is done during abortion procedures?
Why is it that these malicious, violent people ignore the fact that ultrasound imaging IS used during the violent act of aggression and abuse which is the act of elective, induced abortion?
They want to feign self righteous indignation in their pretend outrage at the lie of a story claiming that Governor Walker, and they have done so with others in the past, wants to force women, against their will, to have a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound, even though he never did what they claim.
Frankly, if our nation had any morals, and respectful values for people’s lives, Liberty, and natural law, there would be no abortions. Moreover, there would be no one complaining of transvaginal imaging, or the more simple, abdominal ultra sound of the womb. They are tools for medical and health purposes, yet they are used during the slaughter of babies during abortion.
A new human being’s heart beat is detectible by current technology as early as the 18th to the 21st day into the new person’s life (based on sexual reproduction, in vivo time sequence). If a mother lies still while a Doppler device picks up baby’s heart beat, what will mother do? Will she say, “Oh, that is not a living human being inside me. That is just a blob of tissue, a clump of cells, a product of conception, a parasite … or something?”
The Abortion cult is so violent, so cruel, so inhumane, so hateful toward innocent babies, so obsessed with infanticide, and so supported by others who are as sick, perverted, vicious, and cruel as themselves, that I often think the world has long ago gone insane!
They abortion pushers don’t even care that, had they been slaughtered in the abortuary, the baby butcher house, they would not be alive to champion the slaughter of millions of innocent babies. Moreover, they will never have to feel the excruciating torture, the agony that is elective, induced abortion.
How convenient that only those who were not aborted stand in support of the butchering, the slaughtering of other people, of innocent babies, preventing their birth, and snuffing out their lives, refusing to respect their right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness!
I find it risible that abortion obsessives-cultists-fetishists ignore the fact that ultrasounds, and transvaginal ultrasound imaging are less invasive, and less violent, and less dangerous than is abortion.
Doug, so now you call us woman enslavers? Do you think that mandatory child support laws enslave men?
Not really, Rebecca. Was joking with Rachel about her choice of terminology.
Mandatory child support laws – they hit both men and women; it’s really the non-custodial parent that gets the shaft, often.
Yeah but women can avoid it by having an abortion. A man who fathers a child has to pay for it, while a woman who conceives has a second chance to avoid that responsibility.
Also, you never did answer my question. If a child has a severe congenital defect that prevented it from acheiving consciousness in the womb, and rendered it comatose at birth, and a new medical technique was invented that would enable it to achieve a conscious existence, would you consider that child to be a person since it then would have the potential to have a concious existence? Would you support the parent’s decision to directly kill the child or deny it food and shelter if the child had a good chance of achieving a conscious existence with that new medical treatment?
Rebecca: Yeah but women can avoid it by having an abortion. A man who fathers a child has to pay for it, while a woman who conceives has a second chance to avoid that responsibility.
While you are correct about the woman having control later in time than the man, if an abortion takes place, then both man and woman avoid it.
Also, you never did answer my question. If a child has a severe congenital defect that prevented it from acheiving consciousness in the womb, and rendered it comatose at birth, and a new medical technique was invented that would enable it to achieve a conscious existence, would you consider that child to be a person since it then would have the potential to have a concious existence? Would you support the parent’s decision to directly kill the child or deny it food and shelter if the child had a good chance of achieving a conscious existence with that new medical treatment?
Oh yeah, I really did reply. Now I gotta go find it… ¯_(?)_/¯
When threads “time out” after two weeks and further comments are disabled, I usually move the conversation to a “Pro-life blog buzz” thread, as they tend to be grab-bags with differing topics and conversations, to begin with.
Pro-life blog buzz 5-12-15 There it is. ?(????)
8:10 p.m., May 12:
Rebecca: A temporary coma patient has no consciousness, no sentience. They have been conscious in the past and have the potential to be conscious in the future, but you seem to grant them personhood based soley on past consciousness and the ability to be conscious in the future.
Their personhood is not in doubt nor at issue in that case, Rebecca.
If you took out a brain from someone, they could never be conscious in the future. If they could, would you consider them to be persons? Based on the fact that you grant personhood to temporary coma patients with severe brain damage that prevents sentience and consciousness, it seems that your answer would be yes.
Indeed, but so what? Nobody is saying “not a person,” there.
I consider all human organisms to be persons, particularly if they can become conscious in the future.
Okay, your opinion. Yet what if that organism dies – dies while it’s one cell, or a few, or a blastocyst? Most of them had a chance to become conscious “in the future,” but to me, to say that, for example, the zygote “is a person” is just plain ridiculous.
It’s no less arbitrary than declaring a human with an IQ of 15 to be a person, even though they are less capable of understanding than your average rat, and rats are not persons. One could just as easily argue that personhood cannot exist unless that person has demonstrated some ability for higher thought processes, which would exclude infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities.
There is more than one thing here. One is the societal attribution of personhood at birth, which indeed is somewhat arbitrary – it’s up to the will of society and it could be set at some other time.
Then there is how we as individuals conceive of people. If we had an example of a 15 IQ, that would be so profoundly mentally defective that yeah, a rat would be smarter. Really, on the low side, when you get down to about 40, that’s just about it – there, the percentage of people is already vanishingly small. They are not nearly the person they’d be if their mental development had been anything like normal.
Likewise, a normal adult is much more of a person than they were at birth, and more than they will be if they get severe Alzheimer’s and dementia later on.
After all, it would make sense of why we exclude other sentient animals from personhood, since the ability for higher thought is unique to us and a few other species.
Well, we don’t treat them, legally, like we do “normal” people. Personhood or not doesn’t really come into it, but they do have different status.
If an infant had brain damage that prevented consciousness in the womb and caused it to be comatose when it was born, it is still legally considered to be a person.
Yes, but the question of keeping it alive comes immediately to the parents and doctors.
This does not mean much, since the law is arbitrary, but if some new medical treatment was invented that would give that child a chance at a conscious existence, would you consider it to be a person, even though it never experienced consciousness before? If the treatment had a good chance of succeeding, would you support the parent’s choice to directly kill or deny that medical treatment to such an infant?
Rebecca, your hypothetical is so far-fetched that it pretty much just boggles the mind.
However, if, in fact, that treatment had a good chance of succeeding, then it’s not going to be legal to pull the plug, in the first place. I and most others would say go ahead and try the miracle treatment, and let’s see what happens.
Doug, the whole Judith Jarvis violinist scenario is extremely far-fetched and could never happen in real life, yet pro-choicers use it all the time to make a point about bodily autonomy. I’m using this scenario to make a point about personhood and how we should treat humans who have not yet achieved a conscious existence but probably will in the future.
Doug, the whole Judith Jarvis violinist scenario is extremely far-fetched and could never happen in real life, yet pro-choicers use it all the time to make a point about bodily autonomy. I’m using this scenario to make a point about personhood and how we should treat humans who have not yet achieved a conscious existence but probably will in the future.
Rebecca, okay – now I gotta see what the deal is with Judith Jarvis. …found it, and it’s blessedly short. : ) Yes, it is indeed far-fetched. That is not to say that we should not consider it, and I didn’t say we should not consider yours, either, and I did reply to it. Will comment on the violinist deal in a bit. First, your scenario:
If a child has a severe congenital defect that prevented it from achieving consciousness in the womb, and rendered it comatose at birth, and a new medical technique was invented that would enable it to achieve a conscious existence, would you consider that child to be a person since it then would have the potential to have a conscious existence? Would you support the parent’s decision to directly kill the child or deny it food and shelter if the child had a good chance of achieving a conscious existence with that new medical treatment?
I make a distinction between having consciousness and not having it. If it’s just a body, just a living organism, that is not the same thing as having personality, awareness, emotion, etc.
If never going to have awareness, then I say not a person. Same as if awareness is gone, permanently, as with my hypothetical brain removal scenario, or in real-life cases where brain death has occurred but the body can be kept alive.
Where you say, “a new medical technique was invented that would enable it to achieve a conscious existence” – that’s pretty darn positive. In this case it *will* attain consciousness due to the medical technique, and at that point in time I’d say personhood has arrived.
That is different from where you say, “it then would have the potential to have a conscious existence” The potential is not the same thing as the certainty of having it, so somewhat different cases. Don’t human zygotes “have the potential to have a conscious existence”? Well yeah, but it’s still nutty, to me, to call a zygote “a person.”
Your “new medical technique” – just how expensive is this? If it costs a billion Dollars, then it’s just not going to be happening, by and large. If it’s reasonable, doable, then I would not support the wish of the parents (or the doctors) for the baby to die. Just go ahead and use the new technique. Same deal as real-life now, if there’s something to do done that’s necessary for the baby to live, it’s usually done. In your scenario, I also doubt the parents would wish the baby to die. Why would they?
That’s where the real far-fetchedness of your scenario comes in. The parents go all through pregnancy, through birth, and then the baby needs something done for it to attain consciousness. Doesn’t make sense at that point that the parents “just don’t want the baby.”
– – – – –
So, the violinist deal:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. … To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it’s only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
We are presuming, here, that the Society of Music Lovers has the legal right to kidnap and hook up the person, so a bit outside the norm, yes.
I would not blindly state that this justifies abortion. Bodily autonomy is not absolute; it has limits. People get drafted into military service, for example. Let us say it was not a violinist, let us say it was the President, and that it was only going to be 15 minutes – there are enough people that qualify that they only need be hooked up for 15 minutes.
So, Congress passes a law, and people get drafted, to be hooked up to the President for 15 minutes.
Hee hee hee – around here, some people are saying, “Well, I’m going to be a conscientious objector….” :P
Across the whole spectrum, I think it comes down to “is it worth it?” Is it worth it to compel people to do something, against their will?
For a more real-world example, I was thinking what if nobody donated blood. Without donated blood, people would be dying in hospitals left and right, and I bet something would be done, i.e. a program would be set up where blood was taken from people, whether they were willing or not.
To keep a President alive – there is quite a bit of motivation there (despite that there will always be some people who think the sitting President is the Devil, incarnate, etc.).
To keep a famous violinist alive, less motivation, but still obviously many people who would want the violinist to live.
When we get down to the zygote and embryo, it is a much different case. The President and the violinist are singular people, highly known and valued. Not so with the zygote and the embryo. And – most zygotes and embryos die, anyway. In the case of one given woman with an unwanted pregnancy, no case can be made like that for the President or the violinist – and here I am not saying that even the President or the violinist *has* to be saved. So what if she chooses to end the pregnancy? The odds were that the zygote/embryo was going to die, anyway.
I hope the progressives keep up the assault on Walker. He is proven and their animosity towards him can only help Walker to win the GOP nomination. WooHoo!! Walker/Fiorina 2016
Truthseeker, Walker has proven to be a bad Governor of Wisconsin, that’s about it.
Walker has already flip-flopped on abortion, i.e. at first he tried to appear more against it, but then during his 2014 re-election campaign he tried to back off, and he ran an advertisement saying that he backed legislation that “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.”
Now he’s going back the other way – apparently he’s for legislation that would deny an abortion even in the case of when a father rapes his daughter. Walker is saying that the girl will be forced to bear the child? That’s what it looks like, to me.
Here, I would not say that his past performance really has to matter all that much, either – he is cutting his own throat, as far as winning the GOP nomination.
Doug, a child with a congenital defect that has prevented it from achieving consciousness in the womb and rendered it comatose upon birth is not a person, by your own defination, even if a new medical treatment gave it the potential to achieve a conscious existence. Why then should the parents not have the right to directly kill it or to starve it to death? Non-persons don’t have human rights, including the right to life.
Also, you’re ignoring the fact the parents have an obligation to provide an ordinary level of care for their children, as demonstrated by our laws regarding mandatory child support. If every child needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, it would almost certainly be a legal parental obligation, just like paying child support. And only about 10 to 20 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. By the time the woman knows that she is pregnant and is making her decision about it, her embryo has an 80 to 90 chance of survival. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mayoclinic.org%2Fdiseases-conditions%2Fpregnancy-loss-miscarriage%2Fbasics%2Fdefinition%2Fcon-20033827&ei=fu9sVbLZEdjWoATspYDACA&usg=AFQjCNGwTuQhDkOC5L5VTpLOgPJCiKx_6Q&sig2=Lvzi9WgNskl3mg3TqKxtLw&bvm=bv.94911696,d.cGU
Rebecca: Doug, a child with a congenital defect that has prevented it from achieving consciousness in the womb and rendered it comatose upon birth is not a person, by your own defination, even if a new medical treatment gave it the potential to achieve a conscious existence. Why then should the parents not have the right to directly kill it or to starve it to death? Non-persons don’t have human rights, including the right to life.
Rebecca, that does not make sense. People don’t have kids because they are going to never develop consciousness.
As things are now, when there’s not going to be any consciousness – let’s say anencephaly is present – then the parents do have the right to “pull the plug,” so to speak. Most anencephalic babies will die fairly soon after birth anyway. And – this is with us saying that the full right to life is there at birth.
Now, in the hypothetical scenario, I am saying that the parents aren’t usually going to go all the way through pregnancy and birth without at least a good chance that the baby can get consciousness.
You are saying there is a medical treatment that can make that happen. It does not make sense that the parents go all the way through pregnancy and birth, and then don’t want to have that treatment done. I’m saying that the treatment should be tried. I also don’t think it makes sense that the parents would feel any differently.
If the treatment doesn’t work, then presumably the parents could elect to have the medical prolongation of the body’s life ended. If it did work, then they’ve got a conscious baby and things have been “fixed.”
– – – – –
Also, you’re ignoring the fact the parents have an obligation to provide an ordinary level of care for their children, as demonstrated by our laws regarding mandatory child support.
No, I’m not ignoring it. If you’re talking about your hypothetical situation, then we’ve been through it multiple times now. If you’re talking about our current ‘real world,’ then with some conditions there isn’t that obligation you mention, and the parents can have the plug pulled.
If every child needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, it would almost certainly be a legal parental obligation, just like paying child support.
Interesting question – yeah, there probably would be some society-mandated deal there.
And only about 10 to 20 percent of all known pregnancies end in miscarriage. By the time the woman knows that she is pregnant and is making her decision about it, her embryo has an 80 to 90 chance of survival.
Has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
Doug, I don’t understand why you would have a problem with the parents deciding to kill an individual, who is in your view, a non-person since it has never been conscious and only has a chance to be conscious in the future. So since the infant in my hypothetical scenario fits those criteria, why do you have a problem with killing it?
Rebecca, I’m saying try the treatment. I’d rather have that done, than for it not to be tried.
If it doesn’t work, then it’s the same situation we sometimes have now, and the plug can be pulled, etc. If it does work, then there will be a born, conscious baby, and things are pretty much settled then, eh?
My problem with the parents deciding to kill the baby, without trying the treatment, is that it does not make sense. Why go so far and then not give the treatment a try?
If that’s going to be the deal, then better, imo, to have an early abortion, or better yet – to prevent the pregnancy altogether.