Wednesday, May 24, 2006

On "The Party of Death"

Dr. Mike Adams recently commented on The Party of Death by Ramesh Ponnuruat at Townhall.com. (I gotta get this book!)

Below is an excerpt from The Party of Death courtesy of Adams in which Senators Santorum and Boxer "discuss" the rights of a baby and when they begin:

Santorum: Do you agree any child who is born has the right to life?

Boxer: I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, and what you are doing goes against it and will harm the women of this country.

Santorum: But I would like to ask you this question. You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?

Boxer: I think when you bring your baby home … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights …

Santorum: You said "once the baby comes home." Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is … completely separated from the mother, you would agree that baby is entitled to constitutional protection?

Boxer: I will tell you why I don’t want to engage in this. You did the same conversation with a colleague of mine, and I never saw such a twisting of his remarks.

Santorum: Let’s say the baby is completely separated; in other words, no part of the baby is inside of the mother.

Boxer: You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in the mother’s arms? It is a human being? … I would say when the baby is born, the baby is born and would then have every right of every other human being living in this country, and I don’t know why this would even be a question.

Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby’s foot, if the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?

Boxer: The baby is born when the baby is born. That is the answer to the question...

Unbelievable. Why does Boxer sound just like a politician? Oops. That's right; she is one.

Is it just me or should such a simple question receive a simple answer? That Boxer couldn't answer it without giving away her agenda, well, gives away her agenda.

So how do people like her get portrayed in the MSM as kind, compassionate, and in the little guy's corner (just not that little, I guess) , while more principled people who think American citizens are entitled to the rights of American citizens no matter how small get painted as meanies? Just wondering.

Hey, Paul, can I borrow your copy when you're finished?

18 Comments:

At 5/24/2006 8:53 AM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

I've already finished it, just haven't updated with a new what I'm reading post. (Impostor by Bruce Bartlett and The Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, if you're really interested.)

Let me know how I should get the book to you.

 
At 5/24/2006 9:53 AM, Blogger Martha said...

"Santorum: Because we are talking about a situation here where the baby is almost born. So I ask the question of the senator from California, if the baby was born except for the baby’s foot, if the baby’s foot was inside the mother but the rest of the baby was outside, could that baby be killed?"

This is the type of extrapolation which deserves no answer - and thus - no answer to anything.

 
At 5/24/2006 10:19 AM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Hmmm, really? I think when we are talking about a baby almost at full term--- or of an age that other "wanted" babies could and would be saved--with the whole body outside the womb except for the head, the question really does deserve an answer. We are far more barbaric than the other civilized nations. "They" don't ram siccors into the back of a baby's skull and suck the brains out of him so he can be considered dead upon birth.

 
At 5/24/2006 10:39 AM, Blogger ColossusHube said...

This is the type of extrapolation which deserves no answer - and thus - no answer to anything.

It only "deserves no answer" because it is such a difficult question -- one which Martha is obviously too afraid to face.

 
At 5/24/2006 11:00 AM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

Santorum is asking where the line should be drawn, because it's clear there is no clear line that can be drawn at that point. That's why Senator Boxer (and Martha) want to avoid the question.

 
At 5/24/2006 1:22 PM, Blogger Martha said...

" Santorum is asking where the line should be drawn..."

No, Santorum is using excess as a graphic scare tactic.

The line should be drawn at twelve weeks for an abortion of choice.

 
At 5/24/2006 2:09 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

OK, so we've established that Martha is not for abortion for any reason at any time.

So, why does she still support Boxer who just can't bring herself to say that a baby is a person when a part of a baby is outside the womb?

Martha, go look up pictures of partial birth abortion. Go get a description of it. It is graphic and it is scary. It's scary that hospitals in the U.S. can induce a woman into labor, birth a baby that in all probability is viable, and then kill it when it is almost completely out of the womb.

 
At 5/24/2006 3:43 PM, Blogger Christopher Taylor said...

If any line can be drawn anywhere, I should think that partial birth abortions is a good place for a bare minimum.

 
At 5/24/2006 7:20 PM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

Martha, I don't know if it's intentionally, but you're missing Santorum's point. He asked Bover when a person has the right to life. She said once the child brought home. He pointed out that terminology allows for infanticide, which she doesn't support, so he asked her if Constitutional rights begin at birth. She refused to answer the question. Nothing scary, except for the implication that Boxer might indeed support infanticide but is smart enough not to admit it.

 
At 5/24/2006 8:04 PM, Blogger mynym said...

If any line can be drawn anywhere, I should think that partial birth abortions is a good place for a bare minimum.

When the Judiciary takes it upon itself to draw all the lines then there is little reason for citizens to discuss anything except checking the Judiciary.

 
At 5/24/2006 8:56 PM, Anonymous Andy said...

Martha is right. The interviewer is just harassing Boxer in the same way Michael Moore harasses folks in his films. Why is it ok for one to do it but not the other? They're both wrong for employing these tactics.

This interview isn't about abortion, which deserves the serious attention you guys give it.

 
At 5/24/2006 10:21 PM, Blogger Martha said...

"Martha, go look up pictures of partial birth abortion. Go get a description of it. It is graphic and it is scary."

And visceral and irrrelevant.

 
At 5/24/2006 10:23 PM, Blogger Martha said...

"He pointed out that terminology allows for infanticide,"

Creating a straw man, and not discussing the issue.

 
At 5/24/2006 10:27 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

No, I don't think so, Andy. I haven't read the book so I can't say with absolute certainty when this debate took place, but I think it was when the Senate was debating partial birth abortion. That was a big deal and I paid attention to it as much as I could.

Trying to get someone to state their position because something is being debated and will be voted upon is absolutely reasonable.

One of the first rules of debate is to identify terms so everyone knows exactly what definitions are being used. Trying to identify when exactly a baby is born---when part of him is outside the mother, all of him, when he goes home because the parents decide to keep him, whatever---is crucial in such a situation.

It's not badgering. He's not accosting her on the street or at a dinner party or while she's on vacation. It's a debate on the floor of the Senate. Definitions of terms and statement of position and debate about those things is what it's all about.

 
At 5/25/2006 12:35 AM, Anonymous Andy said...

Ah, I missed the setting. I stand corrected.

 
At 5/25/2006 6:30 AM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Well, not necessarily. That was how I read it. I too could be wrong about the setting. But when I read the description, I immediately recalled the debate on the Senate floor over partial birth abortion and I think this was part of it. I was horrified about how the death crowd couldn't even bring themselves to condemn a partial birth abortion.

If our Paul stops in, he could answer this for us definitively.

 
At 5/25/2006 8:56 AM, Blogger Paul Smith Jr. said...

The Santorum-Boxer exchange took place in the context of the debate over Partial Birth Abortion Act on October 20, 1999. (Source)

 
At 5/25/2006 2:36 PM, Blogger Anna Venger said...

Thanks, Paul. Good link.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home