People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, March 05, 2012

Memo To Roanoke Times:

You'll eat these words when debate begins on ObamaCare repeal:

[W]e question the wisdom of lawmakers legislating how doctors should practice medicine.

You profess such a sentiment today.

But when the most intrusive government mandate in American history comes up for review, let's see how quickly you change that tune.

An inevitable occurrence to which I look forward with glee.

Fight The Propaganda Machine

The Democratic Party, the mainstream press, and the president of the United States are glorying in the contraception/Republicans-want-to-kill-women sleight of hand these days.

And it's up to us to stop them.  And to stand up to their lies.  As some are starting to do.

From "What Would Breitbart Do?":
The saga of Sandra Fluke (now being painted as some sort of hero to women) is a perfect example of why we needed Andrew.

Her testimony before Congress appears to have been very dishonest. Fluke’s story about her friend who was denied birth control pills despite a medical need unrelated to contraception seems unlikely to be true, and should be investigated — it seems implausible that reimbursement for a product that might be used for birth control would, or legally could, be denied someone with a medical need for it. And the claim students need $1000 per year for contraception is just flat-out untrue; birth control is generally around $20/month, and anyone can buy condoms for a dollar each, in the unlikely event a college student is unable to find free condoms, which cost nothing. And it’s not clear who misrepresented her age as 23 rather than 31, but it certainly gives the appearance of having been done to elicit sympathy.

So, she goes in front of Congress and lies, and the President of the United States personally telephones her and tells her how brave she was. For lying.
And this gal lying through her teeth is only part of it.


This isn't a third-shift Wal-Mart employee living in a double-wide who needs federal government assistance we're talking about. She's a law school student, for God's sake. One who was privileged enough to be able to choose the path she's on. One who could easily - presumably - go out and obtain employment such as to be able to afford the amenities of life without assistance.

Which raises the biggest point: If Sandra Fluke wants to have protected sex, more power to her. (I'll avoid championing the Roe effect at this point.) But I choose to not pay for it. Either directly or through my insurance company.

If she wants her jollies and she wants someone else to pay for them to be protected, get a jar, hit the streets. We owe this pampered lass nothing.

As for the president, the press, and the nitwits who comprise the Democratic Party - as Andrew Breitbart might have shouted it: Stop the lies! Stop the attacks! Stop making fools of yourselves.

What Abortion Is & Isn't

As I've been saying for years, those who cling to the detached notion that abortion is nothing more than "a woman's right to choose" must do so because any alternative requires that they confront that little mass of flesh and sinew with that little beating heart that gets aborted.  And that they shall not do.

So along comes this pair of academics who now take the abortion issue to the next level.  Newborns can be abortion targets too.  Because they too aren't fully developed human beings.  And the inconvenience they potentially cause to their mothers trumps their right to life.  So off with their heads.

What now?

Now those who refuse to address the issue are going to have to.  From "Article Advocating 'After-Birth Abortion' Mugs Liberals with Reality":
Conservatives were horrified when the Journal of Medical Ethics published an article advocating "after-birth abortion" for handicapped, or just inconvenient, babies. They are correct that it is a disgusting piece of amoral analysis, but that is its virtue. As much as conservatives hate it, progressives hate it more. Many are convinced that it's a plant by the pro-life crowd. What progressives cannot articulate, but intuitively understand, is that by applying a reductio ad absurdum approach to the notion of abortion, the article forces pro-abortion people to confront the Big Lie that underpins their willingness to terminate a pregnancy, even an advanced one.

For the pro-abortion crowd, the problem with the article's analysis is that it reveals the amoral, illogical, unscientific approach justifying the current no-holds-barred approach to abortion. The article says a baby is not a person, but only a potential person. The pro-abortionist says the fetus is not a baby, but only potential baby. "It" (with "It" being the proto-person) begins as a zygote, then becomes a thing indistinguishable from a similarly situated chicken or a dog thing, and then slowly develops into a potential human. While in the womb, It does not breath or eat, nor does It think or have an awareness of itself or of others. It is a simulacrum of a person; It looks like a baby but lacks minimum human attributes. Being un-human, It therefore has no right to life.

Many pro-abortion folks are uncomfortably aware, at least at a subliminal level, that this is a Big Lie. With modern medicine, fetuses that have passed the 24-week stage can become part of the breathing, eating, communicating, aware, thinking world, simply by being born. More importantly, biological reality is that all fetuses, from conception onward, are nascent persons. Just as life outside the womb is a continuum from cradle to grave, with the soft, fuzzy baby becoming the desiccated centenarian, so too is there a continuum within the womb, as the zygote transitions into a fully fledged -- and viable -- infant.
This reality begs the question, one that we never confront: What is that mass of flesh that's being aborted? What is it?

As long as people focus on "a woman's right to choose" - one that libertarian-inclined Americans like me are more than willing to acknowledge - they will never deal with that little beating heart. But the latest trend in abortion doctrine - see above - may require that they do just that.

Time to face reality. What is it exactly that's getting aborted?  And what group of human beings is next?

- - -

Bottom line: You have the right to choose.  Choose to do the right thing.  Please don't stop that beating heart you created.

- - -

By the way, did you catch the news out of Richmond about the protest that took place at the state Capitol yesterday?  America's feminists gathered there to demonstrate against a government action that doesn't exist (sign: "KEEP YOUR LAWS OUT OF MY VAGINA"; laws that don't enter same).

Their demand?  The "right to choose."

The world of illusion.

Quote of the Day

From Jim Treacher:
A quick note to everyone who howled at me for criticizing David Letterman’s comments on Sarah Palin and her daughters, and who are now scolding Rush Limbaugh:

You sluts.