The conversion of an abortion agnostic

I have never been particularly exercised over the abortion issue. I've been content to let the two sides fight it out. But something James Taranato covered today made me think:

Writing in Slate, Meredith Simons suggests what seems an expedient remedy: keep abortion out of government insurance, and let private philanthropy fill the breach. But she notes:

Progressives hate the idea of a private abortion fund. They argue that abortion is a medical procedure like any other and should be covered by any insurance plan, public or private. Nobody has to set up charities for appendectomies--why do it for abortions?

An abortion is not an appendectomy. A burst appendix is a threat to life. Pregnancies lead to life. Pregnancy is, in fact, not an illness of any kind and, if not an illness, why are doctors "treating" it to "restore health" to the patient?

It's interesting. My view has now changed completely. Since pregnancy is not only healthy but super-healthy: the way in which all of us are born, doctors have no right to interfere. If the woman can't afford a baby, how is that a doctor's business? Since when is a doctor a social worker? A doctor's job is the physical health of his patient and, having taken the Hyppocratic Oath which instructs him to do no harm, to save life and alleviate suffering, doctors practising abortion should probably have their licenses to practise medicine revoked.

What a conversion from an abortion-neutral agnostic to a full-bloown Pro-Lifer! And why? Because the Left just doesn't know when to shut up and stop lying through its teeth.

Julia!

I really love this blog for some reason. I can't get anyone to my site and look at what she's achieved! It's a phenomenon worth studying!

In case anyone is reading this

CTV news would have it that the bus passengers who escaped with their lives were brave. It must be so because CTV news said they were brave over and over. I think they did that in case some old fool still believes that a brave person would have disarmed the murderer and tried to save someone else's life. How old school! I'm not saying there's anything wrong with people fleeing. I'm not judging them, I'm judging CTV news. 300 Spartans held off tens of thousands of Persians at Thermoplyae: now that was brave! But then that was an act common to a great culture while our culture is a tiny turd slowly spiralling down a toilet. Is it too bad CTV advertises our shame or is it a good thing to have notice of it so we can fix the problem?

And the photographers have shown such a remarkable delicacy, not to mention a puzzling lack of common curiosity about the appearance of the accused man, Vince Weiguang Li. Now why is that? Curiosity is what journalism is about, is it not? And yet the BEST photo we can get is here? It's fascinating to note the hyperlink name to this story, which has the headline: "

Bus attack suspect appears in Manitoba court

Read this link very closely:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080731/Manitoba_victim_080801/20080801?hub=Canada,.

You see? This is a photograph of the "Mantiboba_victim," not the suspect. Get it? The guy with his head cut off is a victim and the guy who cut it off is a victim. So it's a draw. Let's get a soda.

I blew up a closeup and am posting it here. It doesn't give us much more information, unfortunately. This is the news team who I once watched interview a young girl, a victim of an horrific tragedy; they sadistically goaded her about her loss to capture every tear flowing down her pretty face. Their lack of curiosity about this killer is breathtaking. Are they afraid of being accused of racial stereotyping. Please! Tell me it ain't so! And why 2nd degree murder? An enormous knife brought on board for what? picking at his fingernails? Exhibiting the head to the passengers? Gee. Maybe it ought to have been common assault, huh?

Karsenty and the France 2 Al-Dura Hoax

I'm in love

Who should care? I don't care!

Truth or Fact?

God I hate this argument! Yesterday James Taranto brought up the issue of Creationism vs Evolution and today published a letter from a reader.

Science has to do with fact, not truth; religion has to do with truth, not fact.

It's so simple. It's true that God created the Universe in 7 days, Adam from mud and Eve from his rib and mud: this truth speaks to our understanding of the nature of man, woman, life, sex; it gives a sense of wholeness to human experience; it grounds us in a necessary mytho-poetic form through which we create the social and moral order in which we participate and uphold by our actions. But it's a fact that humankind evolved from lower life forms. One is an emotional understanding of life without which our lives would be empty; the other an exercise in imagination and logic without which our existence would be fruitless. If you don't understand why, I pity you.

What else is there to say about the "Human Rights Council?"

Israel's kindness mistaken for weakness

Here's an interesting post by a commenter at the Jerusalem Post:

30. #21 - Thank you but Hamas is not a serious threat /
redmike - Israel
04/24/2007 15:06

Hamas/PA are totally out of touch with reality Their attacks, although they could kill someone, are in the greater scheme of things like some annoying insect that could be swatted whenever Israel decided to do so. Israel could kill its members today and bring Gaza to its knees - water, electricity military incursion etc in 48 hours. They fail to understand that they are allowed to continue thanks only to Israel's benevolence. Presumably their distorted view stems from religious fervor.

That's quite true. The Israelis are a humane people and the Palestinians sending Qassams into Israel are real delusional cases. Where are the Psychiatrists Without Borders?

Unimpeachible is irresponsible

What does AP (Associated Press) think it's doing? Here's its report:

Nine Palestinians were killed in the latest violence in the West Bank and Gaza, including two militants and a 17-year-old killed Sunday in the West Bank. The fighting also included a Palestinian rocket attack on the southern Israeli town of Sderot that damaged a home there.

"Also included?" Which came first? Was the rocket attack in response to the attack in Gaza or the other way around? What interests do Israelis have in Gaza? Are there any settlements there that have not been dismantled? When did Israel leave Gaza? If Israel has left Gaza, why would they need to invade Gaza? Why are Qassam rockets being fired into Israel? How often? How many have been killed or injured by Qassams? If a group were firing rockets near your home, would you accept that?

For a calendar of Qassam attacks for April, 2007click here.

AP continues:

Israeli officials defended the latest moves as part of operations that have been effective in drastically reducing the number of attacks against Israelis. But Palestinian officials charged that the new deaths jeopardized their efforts to expand the truce in Gaza to the West Bank.

What is a truce? In what way has a truce “largely held” if Gaza “militants have frequently fired rockets into Israel and have attacked Israeli patrols along the border fence?” If Canadians in Windsor were firing rockets into Detroit or vice versa and attacking border station with gunfire, would Canada or the US accept that as a truce that has “largely held?”

This kind of verbiage is an insult to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Israelis are told that violence is what they're owed, what they deserve. Where have we heard this before? Isn't this the message to the Jews for the past 2,000 years, from the Roman expulsion to the European expulsions and massacres leading up to the Holocaust? And wasn't that the reason for the creation and necessity of the State of Israel, to prevent the Jews from annihilation?

As for the Palestinians, the press holds them accountable and responsible for none of their actions. So is it any surprise that they act irresponsibly? The Palestinians were offered a state beside Israel in 1937 and rejected it. See here for the Peel Commission Report of 1937. Note how tiny is the land allocation for the State of Israel in Plan A, which the Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted in return for security guarantees from the International community. The Palestinian Arabs continue to reject any compromise.

More AP:

The Gaza truce has largely held, though militants have frequently fired rockets into Israel and have attacked Israeli patrols along the border fence.

Again: what is a truce?

More from AP:

The Palestinian unity government, which includes Hamas, has called for an expanded truce, and Hamas officials in the government have often tried to separate themselves from the fiery pronouncements of the group's military wing. Israel and the U.S. State Department consider Hamas to be a terrorist group.

What is the “political wing” of Hamas? What is a “military wing?” What does the Hamas Charter say about the existence of Israel? Does the “political wing” foreswear the destruction of Israel? No.

Here is an excerpt from the Hamas Charter, which no member of Hamas has foresworn to this day:

Part III - Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic Generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari’a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This [norm] has prevailed since the commanders of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq, and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise. Following discussions and consultations between the Caliph of Islam, ‘Umar Ibn al-Khattab, and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah, be peace and prayer upon him, they decided that the land should remain in the hands of its owners to benefit from it and from its wealth; but the control of the land and the land itself ought to be endowed as a Waqf [in perpetuity] for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

Note what bin Laden said in this context regarding Spain and Portugal. Note also that bin Laden’s talking about the humiliation of the past 80 years. Therefore he is NOT talking about the State of Israel (1948) but the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire in 1919.

Shall we make a list of Muslim conquests which, according to religious fanatics, are Islamic holdings until the Day of Resurrection? Why not? Let’s start with Muhammed’s first military operation to found Islam. He started in Medina and he and his followers took:

1. Mecca
2. the rest of Saudi Arabia
3. Palestine
4. Jordan
5. Egypt
6. Syria
7. Lybia
8. Algeria
9. Morocco
10. Turkey
11. Iraq
12. Afghanistan
13. Russia
14. Spain
15. Portugal
16. Europe right up to the gates of Vienna
17. France right up to Poitiers.
18.Pakistan
19.Kazakhstan
20.Uzbekistan
21....

All the above are considered holdings of Islam by religious fanatics and Israel is the front line, not the thing that will appease these insane backward psychopaths who live in the 7th century. Israel is the Czechoslovakia of the 3rd World War.