Enjoy!
- You'd never take steroids or substances banned by organizations like the NCAA, right? You're not like that, of course! But... do you drink Vitamin Water?
- Harry has a pair of posts on gedolim, one about how they are all too often manipulated, one about why they fail and what we as a community can do about it. While it's certainly interesting, I think that as with many issues, it will take someone actually standing up and saying it from the gadol end before people will listen. And yes, that's a bit of a catch-22.
- This story is sickening, and is likely going to be (properly) used as fodder for anti-abortion activists. I think R' Menken's take on Cross-Currents is absolutely spot-on. Warning - you will be sickened by the story, whatever your politics.
- I enjoyed this post on "Meeting Dad" on dates by Bad4.
- Ironically, I've been meaning to post this piece on procrastination by NorthernLight for a while.
- NoyG is supressing his urge to fight after the latest shift to extremism in the Charedi community in Israel hits stores - sex segregation.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Ezzie's Blog Roundup II, 2/10
'Tis a busy day today, and I'd really love to comment on the current political landscape, but do not have the time. Instead, here are some good links that have nothing to do with that and are actually of interest to y'all: :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This story is sickening, and is likely going to be (properly) used as fodder for anti-abortion activists. I think R' Menken's take on Cross-Currents is absolutely spot-on.
ReplyDeleteIt's an awful story, but Mencken's take is ridiculous. The baby/fetus died because it was so premature but Mencken claims it was murder. (Mencken writes "At which point one of the clinic’s owners wrapped the breathing infant in a biohazard bag, and threw her out.") This is in direct contrast to the autopsy's findings, which are that the baby died of "extreme prematurity."
It's still callous (and wrong, and probably illegal) to wrap the body in a biohazard bag and throw her out, but probably not as wrong as FALSELY ACCUSING SOMEONE OF MURDER.
This has nothing to do with abortion. There was no abortion.
(I found out the real story from DovBear, btw.)
ReplyDeleteJA - I'd love to see the autopsy report that DB claims to cite. Moreover, not only was the baby found only a week later, calling into doubt much of the findings, but "extreme prematurity" does not mean it was not alive! It just means that it was unlikely to survive. That does not mean it could not have survived had it been immediately taken care of; I know people who have had earlier premees than 23 weeks (like my cousins' twins, who are both living and healthy now). This baby was alive, and it was not taken care of properly. Then it was thrown out like trash.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, it DOES have to do with abortion. If abortion clinics view the end result as the goal, then they don't care what happens in between. If the baby is born alive - well, just get rid of it fast. No need to have tools and equipment there just in case it lives; no need to take care of it; just put it in a biohazard bag and forget about it. It's a mentality that goes along with it, and it's an amazing disregard for human life.
This baby was alive, and it was not taken care of properly.
ReplyDeleteYou're just speculating now, and even with pure speculation I notice you can't bring yourself to repeat Mencken's claim that the baby was murdered. He should be ashamed of himself.
If abortion clinics view the end result as the goal, then they don't care what happens in between.
I doubt a single abortion-provider in America doesn't care what happens in between.
It's a mentality that goes along with it, and it's an amazing disregard for human life.
No, it's not. You don't have the first clue about abortion providers and their motivations. It has nothing to do with a disregard for human life. You should be ashamed of yourself, too.
No, the baby was alive - that's the lawsuit. And whereas you interpret murder as actively killing, I'd interpret placing it into a position where it could not live as the same, though of a lesser variety (much as there's a difference between Murder-1 and Murder-2).
ReplyDeleteI doubt a single abortion-provider in America doesn't care what happens in between.
Clearly, that's not the case, and I would bet money on that.
No, it's not. You don't have the first clue about abortion providers and their motivations. It has nothing to do with a disregard for human life. You should be ashamed of yourself, too.
Sure it does. They don't value life the same way, they just rationalize it as "not really life". And now, even when it falls into what they consider life, there are instances where they'll still let it die. (And while this is a more overt case, it's not much different than partial-birth abortion in mentality.)
No, the baby was alive - that's the lawsuit. And whereas you interpret murder as actively killing, I'd interpret placing it into a position where it could not live as the same, though of a lesser variety (much as there's a difference between Murder-1 and Murder-2).
ReplyDeleteThe baby was born alive at some point, but nobody was expecting such a premature birth, and you have no idea whether the baby could have even been possibly saved. That's a long, long way from murder, 1 or 2.
Clearly, that's not the case, and I would bet money on that.
Based on what, besides disgusting prejudice?
Sure it does. They don't value life the same way, they just rationalize it as "not really life".
To you it's "rationalization." Not to them.
And now, even when it falls into what they consider life, there are instances where they'll still let it die. (And while this is a more overt case, it's not much different than partial-birth abortion in mentality.)
"Partial-birth abortion," in quotes because it's a term of propaganda, not an actual medical procedure, is supported by a minority of abortion supporters. Don't conflate a majority position with a minority wedge issue.
The baby was born alive at some point, but nobody was expecting such a premature birth, and you have no idea whether the baby could have even been possibly saved. That's a long, long way from murder, 1 or 2.
ReplyDeleteThat there's NOTHING in place in such a situation sounds like negligent homicide, though the fact that it was so premature would probably make the sentence end up lower (like it is with people who are very ill, etc.).
Based on what, besides disgusting prejudice?
This case!
To you it's "rationalization." Not to them.
LOL. All rationalizations aren't viewed as such by the people making them.
"Partial-birth abortion," in quotes because it's a term of propaganda, not an actual medical procedure, is supported by a minority of abortion supporters. Don't conflate a majority position with a minority wedge issue.
A strong minority, and that's a lot of people. Do you think partial-birth abortion is murder or permissible? I'll describe the "medical procedure" for you:
"type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed."
Also - sounds like a partial birth to me.
Sorry to break up the fight (I didn't read the story you guys are "discussing") but thanks for the "Dads and dating" link. It was great. I live in fear of this every day.
ReplyDeleteUI - Hehe. We do this every once in a while...
ReplyDeleteThanks! Glad it was appreciated. :)