Thus far two states have cut off funding to Planned Parenthood. Only 48 to go. In addition, we had a close vote in the Senate on whether to cut them off at the federal level. This vote was taken after just a third of the videos had been released. The current amount of pressure, continued for just a little bit longer, is going to get increasing results.
Incidentally, speaking of which, we really need somebody to start one of those petitions at the White House web site, where they promise to respond to x number of signatures. We should ask them to pick someone at the White House to watch the videos, and then give us a response.
That said, here are three basic reasons why we should see this campaign as one that is preeminently winnable. Planned Parenthood can go down the same way that ACORN did.
Cold Blood, Not Red Blood
The most potent aspect of these videos has been the juxtaposition of the reality of abortion over against the cucumber cool demeanor of the doctors involved, with their salad and wine, with their jokes about luxury automobiles and “less crunchy” options, and admissions that dissections can be “fun.” This is the damning part, and this is why these videos are having the impact that they are. It is the normal life part, the haggling over the price point part, the power lunch part, that has everyone horrified. The actual horror has always been there, as informed pro-lifers have known all along, but this is a moment of juxtaposition that has enabled others actually to see it.
Incidentally, this is why I would caution all the pro-lifers on social media to be sparing in their use of images from abortions. This is not because the use of such images is unrighteous — not at all, and at times it is necessary. But we have had such images for decades, long enough to know that it is not nearly as effective as these videos have been. At a certain point, the human emotional response mechanism just shuts down. Our goal is to get the nation to see, which is only going to happen if they do not look away. Our first goal in what we communicate is to be compelling, which is not necessarily the same thing as graphic.
The best things to circulate now would be copies of invoices for named parts, or copies of the investigative reports from Florida busting PP for illegal abortions, or ghoulish quotations from respected scientific journals. Cecile Richards has been adamant that what they have been doing is all for the sake of “research,” all rise, and who would want to stand in the way of scientific progress?
Well, depending on what you mean by scientific research, every humane soul might insist on standing in the way of it. One friend sent me this link of someone who has been going through scientific journals in order to translate the jargon into English. For one example, “researchers” would remove living children from the wombs of their mothers (who had come for elective abortions). They would then inject amino acids into their umbilical cords, and observe the results. When the baby died about ten minutes later, they would then harvest the relevant parts in order to store them for further research. Here is it untranslated:
“All injections were made into the umbilical vein through a short Teflon catheter which was then rinsed with 0.2 ml 0.9% NaCl; the whole cord was clamped on the fetal side of the point of entry of the catheter to prevent blood loss during the experiment. After 10 min (elsewhere in the paper, “in all cases the heart continued to beat during the 10-min period and spontaneous movement was seen”), the cord was severed close to the fetus, and as much blood as possible was collected into a tube which contained heparin as anticoagulant. The fetal organs were quickly removed and dropped into liquid nitrogen.”
Saruman’s lab coat isn’t so white any more.
The thing that is working for us is the juxtaposition, and so what we must keep in front of everyone is that juxtaposition. Real evil is not done in the world by cartoon characters. Real evil is done by real people, people who do appalling things and then go home to their families.
The results of the above research, incidentally, were published in Science. That particular vile experiment was done in Finland, but it was funded by “the Lalor Foundation in Boston,” the “New York State Department of Mental Hygiene,” and, get this, the “Association for Aid of Crippled Children,” also located in New York.
My other two reasons can be stated briefly.
Concrete, Not Abstract
A second reason this campaign is working is that in God’s providence we have been given the opportunity to observe a high percentage of Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals. There is a full list of his rules here, and by my calculation this spontaneous campaign against Planned Parenthood is — without orchestration — naturally and easily following #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #8, and #12. What we are doing is good work in the eyes of the Lord, and this August of #ProLifeSummer needs to be twice as hard for the bad guys as July was.
A Scapegoat That Is Actually Guilty
The last generation or so has seen one ludicrous cultural transformation after another. For various reasons, we have had decade after decade dedicated to the insulting of normal people. Despite the craziness at the top, these normal people have tried to live normal lives. This was allowed at first, but even that has becomes more and more problematic — see the evangelical florists and bakers file.
If you have spent quite a number of years taunting a long-suffering bear with a stick, you might discover one day that the stick you choose for today’s session was a trifle short.
Planned Parenthood is catching it, and they deserve absolutely everything they are getting, good and hard. But they are also catching it for numerous other reasons, some of which have little to do with their specific organization. I have mentioned Obergefell in this connection before, so let us keep in mind that the bear has been irritated for a while, and for more than one or two reasons. And then into our ursine meditations, finally, specifically, someone showed up with a short stick.
Think of it this way — Planned Parenthood is serving as the designated victim. This is not scapegoating, or unjust in any way, because in this case the scapegoat really is guilty.
Is there anyone here who is not a product of conception? Please raise your hand.
You mean, “please raise some tissue,” right?
You may mean tissue, but its pronounced “clump of cells.”
Of course the “sodomites” who are at constant war against Christianity {“501(c) That?”} have sprung full grown from the fetal (fetid?) brow of Douglas Wilson.
Definitely parthenogenisis
All the “fighting Uruk-Hai” that Douglas Wilson’s reference to Saruman’s lab coat engenders.
New Jersey and Texas have already defunded Planned Parenthood.
The Guttmacher Institute has ten states listed as cutting funds to abortion providers.
Alabama looks like they defunded today. The article doesnt say its a complete defunding of state funds, but I believe it is. They also passed a law making it a felony to recieve money in exchange for baby parts.
http://yellowhammernews.com/faithandculture/breaking-bentley-terminates-alabamas-medicaid-contract-with-planned-parenthood/
Good for Alabama! Thanks for the link.
I don’t know much about the Guttmacher Institute, except that they’re obviously pro-abortion. I would like to have independent confirmation of their data, in any case.
In Oklahoma, Planned Parenthood centeres are not allowed to do abortions. I dont know the history of stripping them of that right. It happened before I moved here. In such a case, I dont know that pushing for state defunding is quite the right move. It would seem to prop up the ludacris and completely false idea (Jeb Bush’s comments notwithstanding) that the war on Planned Parenthood is really just a war on women’s health.
If this is true, I can see the prudence in this consideration. Probably best for Oklahomans to focus on writing to corporate donors pushing for the private sector defund, as well making a hard and consistent push to State representatives for positive, substantive pro-life legislation rather than focusing on state defunding at this time. Still use the momentum we have here, just focus it slightly differently.
it is not true! there are over 6000 abortions per year in okla.
There is this petition already: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/order-attorney-general-investigate-planned-parenthoods-sale-aborted-baby-parts-2
It’s a shame it probably won’t get very many signatures before the deadline.
Signed it.
Pastor Wilson, Did you not, I think last year or so, link on Twitter to a selfie posted by a 20-something year-old girl in an abortion clinic with a caption close to “About to get this thing out of me”? If you remember and can find that, what if you were to attach it to the #StandWittPP and similar hashtags? Make her the face of PP’s “liberation” of “women’s rights.” As you were saying, it’s not always the graphic images of murdered babies, but a display of the cold and cavalier attitude of our society towards the atrocities you can… Read more »
I heard that for all their brave talk, this campaign has got PP on the ropes, and the leaders are seriously considering completely revamping the organization along biblical principles. They’re talking about cutting way back on the number of abortions they perform, only performing abortions on Egyptian women, and only if it’s their first pregnancy. And they’re going to change their name to Passover Parenthood.
But take it for what it’s worth. It might be just a rumor.
It’s worth about what it cost, right?
Right. But the point remains – Jesus/God isn’t nearly as bothered by baby killing as Christians make him out to be . He ordered the wholesale slaughter of men, women, children, infants, elderly, and the unborn repeatedly throughout the Old Testament.
That’s an odd argument. By that logic he has no problem with murder, yet there it is right in the ten commandments. Would you be trolling at all?
Wow.
You really just did make that “comparison”.
Incredible.
Oh, that is the saddest thing I’ve read today. Do you mean, you actually thought you were making a salient point… and making it cleverly? Oh, you poor man; your poor friends.
So if you are actually trying to say something serious, is it that (1) Planned Parenthood has every right to decide who lives and dies, because it is God; or that (2) God has no right to decide who lives and dies…er…even though He’s…well, you know?
You poor man.
Now now. He probably doesn’t mean it. He probably just wants to see what kind of nonsense he can provoke us into saying.
Greg and salient point in the same sentence?
*facepalm*
I’ve suspected for some time that you were a troll, sir. Now I know it.
Just messin’ with ya! Jesus/God never slaughtered any babies in the Old Testament. He LUVS LUVS LUVS all babies, without exception*. Always has, always will. Because Jesus is a really nice guy.
(*Not counting Japs or A-rabs)
I’m curious how come Alex hasn’t up-voted these posts from McDivitt yet.
LOL, yes I had upvoted his first comment here asap just for you. And since Timothy hasn’t shown up (presumably) to cover for you or “God bless” you for being so polite to me, I’ll upvote you to start the day off impartially and lightheartedly…
So like most anti-Christians, the paint is one coat deep? If your learned cliche doesn’t knock everyone over, if even a simple basic question is asked, all you’ve got is to reword the cliche? And no one in your life is trying to help you with this?
So it’s now anti-Christian to talk about certain parts of the Bible? Wow.
It’s not a “cliche” that God regularly slaughtered people in the Old Testament, or ordered the Israelites to slaughter them. It’s simply a fact. Calling it a “cliche” doesn’t make it go away, no matter how much you hate that side of God.
…aaaand once again, PA#4 plays itself out, as it always does (http://bit.ly/MTJJox).
Let me know if you ever stop rewording yourself long enough even to attempt an answer to the questions you’re ignoring. (And pretending not to know what questions you’re ignoring is not an answer; I know my unthinking trolls.)
“ignoring” reminds me of the advice once upon a thread that the best way to deal with or silence an alleged troll is to ignore him :)
Dan, I have your site bookmarked and it is part of my regular rotation under “faith” in my bookmarks. Much appreciative of your work.
God bless.
t
Wow, Dan, that list of Phillips’ Axioms is some really powerful stuff. For those who didn’t click through, here are some of Dan’s more scintillating gems: 1. If you ever weren’t God, you never will be. Deep, Dan. Really deep. But you should’ve added: GOO GOO G’JOOB 14. Don’t let truth lose by default through your laziness, indifference, cowardice or ignorance. So it’s OK to let truth lose by default through our greed, pride, ambition, rebellion, etc? 19. Counsel the person who’s there. Very sagacious advice, Dan. When you counsel a person who isn’t there, people tend to think you’re… Read more »
Haha. Gregory is making the “unless you say everything you can’t say anything” fallacy.
Dan: 5+5=10
Gregory: So I guess Dan doesn’t believe that 7+3=10. Idiot.
Jimmy, can I just say one thing?
If you ever weren’t Albert Einstein, you never will be.
Just sayin’.
too fun…since when does truth LOSE even by default, it will triumph OVER us, or it wasn’t truth to begin with
however, the marriage advice was good warning–“only more so” trials and tribulations” indeed…and then “counsel the person who’s there” if you don’t want them to hang around very long :)
McDivitt wrote: He LUVS LUVS LUVS all babies, without exception*. … (Not counting Japs or A-rabs) Then he wrote: So it’s now anti-Christian to talk about certain parts of the Bible? Wow. Which part of the Bible mentions God’s lack of “LUV” for “Japs”? McDivitt seems to be the sort who just keeps doubling-down; digging himself deeper; perhaps in a hope of escaping out the other side. It’s like how our Government and Federal Reserve bank thinks that piling on more debt is the best way to pay it off. At some point the only thing to do is call… Read more »
Hey Gregory, don’t let anyone criticize you for talking about certain parts of the Bible, even the tough parts like that. But while you’re at it, go ahead and talk about the parts that are tough for you, too, like man being made in God’s image, the sovereignty of God (rather than man), the Fall, depravity, the proscriptions against murder — you know, all the parts that explain why it’s okay for God to take lives and not us – – you know, all the ones that make a hash out of your “God doesn’t care about baby killing” crap.… Read more »
“If you’re less selective, then you’ll find little opposition on here for bringing up those canaanite babies.” There, exactly! I thought it was fun to see the reaction to his purposefully using just “certain parts”…poking at all of our tendencies to be very selective to avoid making hash out of our own preconceived notions or theological grafts. It’s okay to acknowledge we just might not know it all in spite of seeking the One Who does. I guess I’m looking partial and covering up, so I’ll hush. I just think it’s good to laugh at foibles every once in a… Read more »
True enough, but I think it’s important that we realize that that “challenge” is coming from the Holy Spirit, not McDivvitt. Gregory’s purposes are twice as dishonest as any of our sinful blind spots and privileged pet perceptions, b/c ours are vestiges of the fall in the context of continual submission to the Spirit’s work of sanctification. Whereas Gregory’s purposes in bringing up OT “problem passages” is inconsistent and deceptive from top to bottom. We all have blind spots and sinful tendencies, but the motive for bringing up the Canaanite babies was not a “simul justus et peccator” style folly.… Read more »
Generally, I believe the reason God ordered the destruction of an entire culture, including the killing of the entire population, it was because of their particular brand of rebellion against Him. It wasn’t just, “Oh, hey, I’m worshipping this idol over here,” but “Oh, hey, I’m slaughtering my own children to this idol over here.” The kind of idolatry that repeatedly seduced and destroyed Israel, that deserved cultural extinction. Now, why does that mean America doesn’t deserve this kind of cultural extinction? It doesn’t. I think it simply means that God’s harsh commands are still righteous, even if He has… Read more »
Not counting female eggs that are never fertilized, approximately 70% of zygotes are naturally aborted before coming to term, because they are not viable at some stage of development. (genetic abnormalities, nutrition, environment, physical trauma, crack cocaine sold to inner city moms by Reagan’s CIA operatives,…)
Since humans are entirely considered to be people at conception, God is Pro-Abortion.
Since all people die, God is pro-murder.
Since all people get sick, God is pro-disease.
Since all people sin, God is pro-sin….
Again, Sells. Do you know the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I don’t think you do.
Tell me timothy, when did Our lord Jesus Christ not say, “I tell you the Truth…”?
“The answer is simple, it is to remind us that He is the Truth. It is a living testament that He was and He is the Truth and He was telling the truth yet people of Israel, not necessarily Jews, were blind and unable to see or hear or accept the Truth, Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with English and or phrases in any language. ‘I am telling you the truth!'”
Amen
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/4096/why-did-jesus-use-the-expression-i-tell-you-the-truth
Of course timothy, The Book of Job shows that ‘the opponent’ is the source of whispers and lies, half-truths and misrepresentations. God is NOT the source of calamities; (satan’s whisper to Jobs’s wife) God does NOT cause only the innocent and upright people to enrich themselves on Earth; {prosperity theology} (satan’s whisper to Eliphaz) God does NOT punish the wicked on earth; {Westboro Baptist theology} (satan’s whispers to Bildad and Zophar) God is greater than we can comprehend, he is ineffable, but he is NOT far away; (satan’s whisper to Elihu) However righteous you are, you can NOT assume the… Read more »
Which would imply humility at the awesome gift that is a human life in the womb. Which is why your advocacy for taking that life is evil. And again, after at least 5 queries you have not answered: What is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? You do not acknowledge the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you advocate for abortion and you spread confusion and lies. “What spirit” I ask myself behaves that way? I will hound you until you answer. I expect an “I do not know” or The Gospel of Jesus Christ in a reply to this comment. What is… Read more »
I also heard that stuff you say makes sense. But oh well, rumors are rumors.
That upvote is for someone else’s enjoyment and expectation :D
You sound like franklinb23. Where is he…(ha, wouldn’t he enjoy the efforts at koinonia…)
The mental diversions were diverting…(and besides there are those enough that would bring these points up in far more seriousness…it doesn’t hurt to ponder them…)
He might prolly also add that PP would give abortifacients to suspicious husbands and only charge a fine to someone other than themselves that caused the fruit to depart from the womb.
Sigh…
In addition to the stuff Pastor Wilson has pointed out, people like McDivitt give me hope; if this is the best the opposition’s got, we’re in good shape.
Ouch. You didn’t have to say it like that.
LOLOL. That’s what I’ve been trying to say along the way. If the ambassador of defeat, noodle of despair is just considered foolish, trollish, nonsensical talk…it should be an ENCOURAGEMENT :)
Dear Gregory, please do some homework.* The slaying of the firstborn of Egypt was atonement for Pharaoh’s murder of the Hebrew infants 80 years before. If you are going to comment on a story, you need to start watching before episode 62 – or get the Cliffs Notes. Also, Pharaoh was given plenty of warning, wasn’t he? Their deaths were all on his shoulders. With this in mind, you might be able to apply Passover to today’s situation with more wisdom, i.e. working out who is Pharaoh and who is Moses, because that seems to have gone over your head.… Read more »
Of course that would look suspiciously like killing black and brown babies. Hasn’t PP got that pretty much covered already?
Not counting female eggs that are never fertilized, approximately 70% of zygotes are naturally aborted before coming to term, because they are not viable at some stage of development. (genetic abnormalities, nutrition, environment, physical trauma, crack cocaine sold to inner city moms by President Reagan’s CIA operatives,…)
Humans are entirely considered to be people at conception, therefore God is Pro-Abortion.
;-)
So, will the results of this medical research be ok in 50 years like the aborted fetal cells from 50 years ago that are used for the propagation of the the rubella (German measles) vaccine to this day? Then there are the newer cell lines that are used for the chicken pox, shingles, hepatitis B and other vaccines as well. Once we accept the use of aborted fetal tissue’s use in medicine, aren’t we complicit in the demand for the further use of it?
What’s sad and aggravating is that very few pro-life people are going to give any thought to the baby slaughter that took place 70 years ago today in Hiroshima, but will actually, when pressed, defend it as a moral necessity. Shouldn’t we be concerned that this inconsistency will cause us to lose credibility with those whom we are trying to convince?
You sir, are absolutely amazing.
Based on your sarcasm, am I to assume that you don’t give a crap about the people slaughtered on that day? If you don’t, then you shouldn’t crusade against PP, as you are morally inconsistent and, quite frankly, obtuse. This collective inconsistency within evangelicalism is a real embarrassment to the gospel. I honestly can’t believe that people like me still have to deal with it.
I don’t know if “morally inconsistent” is accurate. Nuking Hiroshima was an act of war against a nation against whom the US was at war. PP’s murder of infants is not “war” in the proper use of the term. I think you raise a fair point about hating US nuclear armaments, but to say that it is equivalent to abortion is not logically correct, it is not valid. I’m not a pacifist by any stretch of the definition and I actually used to be fascinated by nuclear weaponry, but after watching the video footage of the Castle Bravo test off… Read more »
No, it was an act of mass slaughter against people who were victims of a psychotic and suicidal empire. It was completely unnecessary, and frankly the motives for doing it, about which I won’t go in to detail here, were nefarious. Believe it or not, there was actually a time in history when people didn’t target civilians in war, when war was understood to be a power struggle exclusively between leaders of different empires, a struggle in which the civilians had no real concern or interest. This was ended in 1864 with the tyrant Abraham Lincoln’s burning of the civilian… Read more »
Murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Not to diminish the horror of Hiroshima, but killing babies in utero is more clearly murder than the effects of dropping a bomb during a war.
Were the children there not victims of their own insane government? I just don’t see how killing the victims of the mafia goon somehow can be seen as an attack on the mafia goon himself.
Their own government was guilty then, correct? Not the US. The people of Japan also bore responsibility for their Emperor worship and the atrocities such as those seen in the Rape of Nanking that they gave their tacit approval to. You’re also forgetting that if not for the nuclear bomb, hundreds of thousands more Japanese soldiers and civilians would have been killed in an American invasion. So as an act of War, it was justifiable.
Of course the Japanese government was guilty. But if someone kills your family, do you have a right to kill that person’s family in retaliation? Why assume that both governments didn’t share in the guilt? At the end of the day, the average American had more in common with the average Japanese civilian than they did with their own political rulers. Those people in Hiroshima were victims of their evil government. We shared with those people a common enemy. This is not to mention the fact that Nagasaki was a heavily Christian area, so this attack represented Christians killing Christians… Read more »
Just as the nation of Israel wasn’t guilty of murder when they killed invading Philistines, so any sovereign nation responding to existential attacks is also not guilty of murder when their offensive effort results in civilian casualties. Just war theory is biblical. This wasn’t “Christians” killing “Christians”. It was one sovereign nation defending itself against another and doing so by taking the battle to them and putting a stop to the threat. If there were Christians in Nagasaki, as you say, then I would expect that they would have had at least some understanding of God’s sovereignty and His providence… Read more »
“This is not to mention the fact that Nagasaki was a heavily Christian
area, so this attack represented Christians killing Christians in the
name of their evil,”
One of my college roommates was from Nagasaki. When I went to visit them and this topic came up, the conversation dwindled into understanding silence that neither one of us would or could give no excuses for our governments. Common enemy indeed.
So, abortion is not the analog to Hiroshima, but Sherman’s March to the Sea.
And, I reject your “there was actually a time in history when people didn’t target civilians in war”. I agree that targeting civilians is wrong and should NOT be done, but there never was a “good ol’ days” of war at large. However, I acknowledge that, if Harry Reeder at Briarwood Prez in B’Ham is right on his Civil War history, the Confederacy DID NOT practice total war. If that is what you’re referencing, then I grant that.
This type of response is getting to be all-too-typical. Do you really think it’s mature and helpful to just drop in and say “you’re wrong” without providing any refutation to anything I’ve said? Were the points I made wrong? Do you have ANY evidence at all to that effect?
America’s penchant for total war started with the Federal troops during the Civil War. There is no way to separate Lincoln’s victory from the extermination of the Plains Indians, the Philippines War, and the air war during WWII.
When was the time when civilians were not targeted in war? I can’t think of any such time.
In the West, before the Thirty Years War, which lasted from 1618 to 1648, and after that up until 1864 with Lincoln’s attack on the Shenandoah Valley.
I think you need to read up on the Hundred Years’ War. And the Crusades (both sides.) And the Napoleonic Wars. And the early civil wars of Norma Britain. And…and….
It may have been frowned upon, but it happened, and not rarely.
So you’re saying there was never a period of time in which civilians were not targeted during wars?
Yes. I am saying that.
I concede that there were some wars in which it did not happen, and that there were times when it was not condoned by those leading one side or the other.
But no, I don’t believe there was any time in history when, as a general rule, civilians were never targeted. The French Revolution, for example, happened while the Treaty of Westphalia was in effect. If the behavior of the initial revolutionaries, and later the Committee of Public Safety doesn’t qualify as “targeting civilians,” then I sense some special pleading happening.
… the history of war did not begin with the Geneva Conventions.
War throughout history has involved civilians always and intimately. When they weren’t being drafted as footsoldiers, they were being overrun and enslaved by their conquerors.
Historical illiteracy is unbecoming in one who would use history to make his points.
You’re simply not correct. There were periods of time in the West that lasted for centuries in which the rights of civilians were respected in war. From the time of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 to Lincoln’s aggression in 1864 this was how war was fought, thanks largely to the influence of the Catholic church.
You are right in that it was sarcasm, but wrong as to the reason why.
Hiroshima was horrible. I am not informed enough, however, to defend or condemn the action.
However, what I am informed enough on is the current and presently real atrocity of crushing and ripping apart children. You know, that thing that is going on now and not decades in the past.
You can’t change Hiroshima, but you can stand up for those who still have a chance to live.
You’re right that we can’t change Hiroshima, but we CAN change how we think about, namely, we can think about it in from a position of objectivity and moral sanity. This however, is in short supply among the pro-life movement, according to my experience.
Which human movement exactly is long on objectivity?
It’s in short supply among the pro-life movement, ergo, what? What are we supposed to then presume about the pro-life movement, that it’s invalid? Not credible? Due to be cut down to size? Christians are sinners. We have all sorts of blind spots. But fierce opposition to abortion is not one of them, and while it’s fine to discuss the issues related to Hiroshima/Nagasaki/Dresden, etc. it’s not like it ought to be a litmus test for whether you ought speak out on abortion. What else would we have our fellow believers do, abandon the pro-life movement until they get settled… Read more »
This is all very much reminding me of the not-always-so-loving Loving discussion. And maybe this topic can be more fully worked out amongst us here so that we know where we all stand on what some of us see as very related issues–whether we end up agreeing or not, we fully understand or commiserate or have a better united consistent approach. “It’s in short supply among the pro-life movement, ergo, what? What are we supposed to then presume about the pro-life movement, that it’s invalid? Not credible? Due to be cut down to size?” As with the “what to do… Read more »
Bill Whittle has given it thought
http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/from-the-archives-jon-stewarts-stupid-nuclear-commentary-1808/
Typical chicken hawk neocon propaganda. I’m supposed to believe the assertion by the PTB at that time that a million U.S. soldiers would have died if not for the bomb? The Japanese were in fact ready to surrender, but the U.S. wouldn’t agree to allow Hirohito, considered a god-king, to remain a puppet ruler. This was the only condition the Japanese had, but because of the crooked thugs in power in our country, it just wasn’t enough. It had to be unconditional surrender. Our creep politicians killed all those people over absolutely nothing. Actually, I should correct that to say,… Read more »
Take it up with him, its not my fight. My reply was to show that thought had been given to it. Whittle is, I believe, pro-life.
I know thought has been given to it. I’m more concerned about the quality of the thought.
You wrote: Shouldn’t we be concerned that this inconsistency will cause us to lose credibility with those whom we are trying to convince? Whittle makes a credible, thoughtful case that resolves the inconsistency problem you cited. That is why I posted the link. My reaction is analogous to a reply I would give to the Pro-North zealots who argue Wilson’s take on Civ War 1.0 is immoral/not credible. I find Whittle’s take plausible, you do not. Nothing you wrote in your reply changes my mind as your reply is just a screed, not a compelling argument; I do not mean… Read more »
Go back and read it again, and you’ll see that I actually did make arguments. But you know what, let me just restate them here without all of the “screed” trappings: 1. The Japanese were ready to surrender before the bombings, with the only condition being that Hirohito maintain a puppet ruler status, which they ended up giving him anyway. 2. There is no evidence AT ALL that a million troops would have died. It is pure speculation. 3. The U.S. rulers were motivated to test out the atomic bomb on an actual population, as they had invested vast resources… Read more »
The comment to which I was replying made no such assertsions.
In full, it read:
What’s sad and aggravating is that very few pro-life people are going to
give any thought to the baby slaughter that took place 70 years ago
today in Hiroshima, but will actually, when pressed, defend it as a
moral necessity. Shouldn’t we be concerned that this inconsistency will
cause us to lose credibility with those whom we are trying to convince?
Please note that your points 1->4 are nowhere contained in that comment.
My original comment and reply stands.
My mistake, I thought you were referring to my response to Whittle’s video. That’s where points 1-4 were taken from.
Ben, the US government didn’t place an order for Purple Hearts for decades after World War II, and I’m not sure if they have yet. They’ve been using what they manufactured for the invasion of Japan.
Regarding your claim that the Japanese were ready to surrender, rogue elements still tried a coup to prevent surrender after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, the Japanese casualties from a ground invasion would have been multiple times higher than the American one.
As to loving your enemies, the government bears not the sword in vain.
Also, why didn’t you make that clear up front, so I wouldn’t have wasted my time responding to it, knowing that you wouldn’t read it? That’s kind of rude.
Ben is another hypocrite who believes himself holier than Jesus. By his standards, we can’t condemn a single evil near us in the present since it pales in comparison to all evil acts committed in all places throughout history.
Ahh, so this really is a thing now…. Who are we and why are we bringing this up? Reminds me of black arm bands worn on Columbus day when I was in college by people asserting germ warfare.
So please what on earth is this point that is so obliquely trying to be made? I’m afraid I’m obtuse.
The argument, in a nutshell, is that slaughtering innocent babies is wrong, which every pro-lifer agrees with, yet they generally condone the slaughter of innocent babies that took place at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By showing outrage over Planned Parenthood but condoning these other attacks on babies, they are being inconsistent.
The only way my argument falls is if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in fact not acts of slaughter against innocent babies. I do think it’s fair to say that the burden of proof is on whoever makes such a claim, however.
There are too many inconsistencies to that argument. Japan was one of the belligerents that started what was WWII. Legally we declared war on them. One recognized state on another. WWII also saw civilian populations on both sides targeted. Sometimes, as with most of our raids on Germany, the object was industrial capacity and not the directly populace. Dresden being one horrific exception, and London and Coventry, and Tokyo being others. Babies were not the targets any more than left handed grandmothers, but they still died none the less. The civilians were all non-combatant citizens of a country at war.… Read more »
I only use Hiroshima and Nagasaki because I find them to be the most dramatic examples (and their anniversaries are this month), but you could certainly include all those other examples with my argument. You could also include all the bombing campaigns our government has carried out since WWII, none of which involved a Congressional declaration of war, making them essentially illegal. To say that the object was not directly on the population is a non sequitur, because murder is still murder. Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah building as an attack on the federal government, not on… Read more »
Its not if its questionable or not. There is a big difference. There is murder, and there is killing. The two are not comparable, its a non-sequitur.
I know that our Generals and Suits didn’t relish the idea, they knew what would happen. They also knew they had a duty to their people. Its worth pointing out this was an aggressor nation that we were in an active war with.
Refine your argument so it doesn’t use such a broad brush. As it stands its an invalid comparison, and an invalid argument.
It’s only an invalid comparison if it’s not murder. If it was murder then it’s valid. Seems pretty straightforward to me. It was not an “aggressor nation.” Such a thing does not exist. It was an aggressor ruling class. The people there, including of course the children, were just as much victims of the Japanese government as we were. I’ve said this a million times already, and I’ll say it again: It was not necessary at all. You can read my previous posts if you want to see where I explained that in some detail. So here’s the argument in… Read more »
You’re actually right. It wasn’t murder, it was killing. Killing is where death has resulted with out the act of malice. This was a declared war, and deaths that are caused in the prosecution of such a war are not murder. Did you know that soldiers have been prosecuted for murder in time of war? But this wasn’t the case. Since the US and Japan were declared belligerents (we declared war on Japan, and they legally did declare war on the United States) And it is your *opinion* on what was necessary, learned though it may be. Like your favorite… Read more »
If I’m a revisionist historian, can you tell me how my facts are wrong?
If the argument I made in my previous post is wrong, can you tell me which of the two premises is wrong? Were the bombings actually necessary? Is bombing civilians when it’s not necessary NOT murder?
These aren’t facts, they are your opinions, learned though they may be. You say its not necessary, but others decided it was.
I don’t know what put it into your head to come up with this line of reasoning, but you do not seem to be very learned in the political or military history of WWII and that era.
Again we have one of these “you’re wrong but I’m not going to present counterarguments” replies. This gets old though it never surprises me when it happens.
Ben, I’ve been doing that arguing from history. WWII and that era is a hobby of mine for the last 30 years. You, on the other hand are playing fantasy football.
If you’re so well informed, then counter my argument. Here it is again:
Premise 1: Bombing civilians in a war unnecessarily is murder.
Premise 2: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were unnecessary.
Conclusion: The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were murder.
Obviously the conclusion necessarily follows the premises, so tell me how one or both of the premises are wrong. It shouldn’t be hard for you if you’ve been studying the war for 30 years. Put me in my place. I’m happy to be corrected.
You haven’t said how or why it was unnecessary, and have not proven your 1st premise. Go to work on that.
Actually yeah I did in an earlier comment on this same post.
Truman’s own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff William Leahy believed it was wrong. Are you in a better position than him to make this judgment? Here’s his quote: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of… Read more »
Here’s your hint; targeting civilian centers became a strategy early on after the blitz. London, Coventry, Dresden, Berlin, Tokyo, et al. That’s way before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.So how do you plan on defining unnecessary by the time we’re ready to drop the big bomb s 4-5 years in?
To define it you really have to start at the beginning. Which the allies did, until they got tired of the London populace being destroyed. b
Essentially the war was already over. In fact, Truman would have in all likelihood ended the war even sooner had he NOT wanted to use the bomb, as he had delayed meeting with Churchill and Stalin at Potsdam in order to await news regarding whether or not the bomb had been tested successfully. If the Potsdam Conference had taken place sooner fewer people would have died.
I don’t think any of the attacks against those other cities were moral either, but that gets into a whole different can of worms that I’m not wanting to explore right now.
Or you could have said, “You, sir, are absolutely amazing!”
:D
I hesitate to enter this conversation due to the shear amount of ignorance on display about WWII, simple ethics, who the Japanese were, the amount of extra bloodshed and casualties that would have resulted from your suggestions not only to your countrymen, but to the Japanese people, and the moral arrogance to sit behind a keyboard and claim some sort of moral superiority over something you clearly know nothing about and over men who sacrificed their lives so that you may have the pleasure of questioning their morality. You made this statement regarding the Japanese: “It was not an “aggressor… Read more »
Anne Barnhardt reports
Baby and Placenta soup at thousands $$/serving in China:
http://www.barnhardt.biz/2015/08/05/where-this-will-eventually-end-up-fetal-cannibalism/
Capsules with powdered baby flesh
http://www.businessinsider.com/south-korea-china-babies-capsules-pills-2012-5
A British Man Was Caught Trying To Smuggle Roasted Baby Fetuses Into Thailand
http://www.businessinsider.com/a-british-man-was-caught-trying-to-smuggle-roasted-baby-fetuses-into-thailand-2012-5#ixzz3i59qHwlo
Fetuses sold as good luck charms
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/05/21/2003533362
Without Christ, that will happen here.
I am heartsick.
To clarify: ACORN didn’t go away. It mutated. Got a make over. Still in the nasty business of community agitating under a different name.
What did ACORN morph into?
Michelle Malkin wrote about this (as did several others) at se time. An analogy would be a company which went bankrupt, reorganized, rebranded and started the same type of business again.
Ok, you’re right. I plugged that into Google and got lots of hits… Here’s Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/document-drop-the-story-behind-the-acorn-changed-its-name-story/
This retired B-52 pilot is going to refrain from making a second comment about either nukes per se or bombing targets with civilians in proximity for the duration of the PP fight.
However, if and when a stand-alone thread ever appears along the lines of the Just War Doctrine etc etc, I will weigh in if that thread’s readers want to chase such topics.
Meanwhile, as to PP threads, I see discussion of Hiroshima per se as a pointless distraction.
B-52 pilot…
Color me green with envy and admiration….
In all fairness, no one should need either me or any other crew dog to figure this stuff out. There’s been so much published over the decades since the war ended that it’s really hard for me to imagine anyone can think of a new thing to say. While in Japan in 1982 (leave, not duty), I picked up a copy of the English version of The Day Mankind Lost, a book by a team of Japanese scholars about Hiroshima.
I look forward to the appropriate thread when you decide to weigh in.
timothy,
While we wait, start with these two things:
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture by Ruth Benedict [declassified for civilian release; published in English 1946; translated into Japanese 1948/49]
http://www.amazon.com/The-Chrysanthemum-Sword-Patterns-Japanese/dp/0395500753
Occasional Paper 32 (July 2004) [by the Japan Policy Research Institute (JPRI)]
Chrysanthemum’s Strange Life: Ruth Benedict in Postwar Japan by Sonia Ryang [covers the 1950 Japanese conference to discuss the book]
http://www.jpri.org/publications/occasionalpapers/op32.html
This is a digression, but as one USAF alum to another, thanks for your service!
Ditto!
Spent last week on grandson duty, mainly in Texas. Got him to Barksdale in time to see a school house “H” beating up the active. They have about 20 gate guards parked along the road leading to the north gate, including a “D” (staff tour on Guam, ’80-’82) and a “G” (Ellsworth ’75-’80 and Grand Forks ’82-’85). Flew Hs before going to Guam, so I managed to get time in all three versions left after ‘Nam of the “aluminum overcast” in my crew dog days.
Yes, I still miss flying . . . .
Nice! I would have been assigned to Barksdale, but I swapped to stay north instead. I didn’t have near the fun you did – all my hitch was at Fairchild ’83-’87 (I just scheduled AGE, with a dab of Supply thrown in) during which we replaced our G’s with H’s, though we had a D on static – I always thought the vertical stab. was more striking with the D than the later models – I reckon you can speak from experience as to which version was better to fly.
Probably better stop digressing – have a good one!
Then you were there for the Thunderhawk crash. Sad day all around.
Yep, don’t know if you were briefed in on all the particulars, but God sure spared a lot of folks that day, myself included.
Thunderhawk was halfway thru my 4 yr tour in flight safety for Tinker, the depot and system manager of the BUFF and -135. Left there in ’89 to be the -52 guy at the USAF Safety Center which was at Norton then.
Still recall the whole sad story.
It was sad indeed. Love to pick this up in another context.
Whatever AFR 127-4 has morphed into these days, you & I won’t be able to go over the “safety” report. The AFR 110-14 (what the Navy calls the JAGMAN report) is fully releasable and discussable by anyone.
However, check these out, and follow them wherever your interests take you . . . .
Czar 52, Fairchild, 1994. (My radar from Guam was on this jet.)
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2007/06/absorbing-hard-lessons.html
and
http://sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/3096011/darker_shades_of_blue.pdf
C-17, 2010:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Alaska_C-17_crash
There you are! “for the duration of the PP fight.” well, now since that is an unknown length of time…and since there really isn’t much more to say about the PP fight ’til new videos are released or there are updates to comment on…sigh… and I like how threads unravel or weave together however they will in chasing one topic or another…like B-52s and such…it’s all good all worthwhile or enjoyable… :) “I see discussion of Hiroshima per se as a pointless distraction” maybe it’s not a distraction to others because we are thinking “value of life” thoughts or are… Read more »
WAY too much to unpack this late. Will make time Sun after church to do your points justice. In the meantime scroll around for the Jul 15 th NYT story on “House Repubs Investigate PP.” Prof of Med Ethics is quoted that the timing and method changes just to get better parts violates ethics. Then recall the NYT editorial blog I but in all caps that the 2 ” cleared” programs were not in donation states. To get any “education” here wed have to get some honest competent reporters and editors in key places at the Grey Lady. Maybe I’m… Read more »
“Rather than respect religious liberty and individual conscience,” the clergy group wrote, “some seek to impose their values and work obsessively to limit access to health care on individuals despite the fact that denial of health care may have a tremendous impact on their families.” When I first saw those words my gag reflex circuit breakers popped. Then I opened your link. Step One in the “lie/fraud” checklist is to demonstrate an inaccurate statement. For example, perjury consists of (1) incorrect (2) knowing (3) material (affects the outcome; it “matters”) (4) done for the purpose of deception (5) under oath.… Read more »
“When I first saw those words my gag reflex circuit breakers popped.”
You pulled me out of the doldrums…similar reaction…my eyes! my eyes! I had to find out your reaction! Success!
I was particularly drawn to the “rather than respect religious liberty and individual conscience”…using words they’ve heard from “us” — and despised — and using it for their … cause.
Anyway, :D
Here’s a news report y’all might like to know about! Seems this trafficking in baby body parts has been going on for a LONG time…
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/matthew-balan/2015/08/06/flashback-2000-chris-wallace-aired-undercover-report-abc-about
Horrifying.
Pastor Wilson – that was really heinous research. Did you note the publication date? Pediat. Res. 6: 538-547 (1972). [http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v6/n6/pdf/pr197243a.pdf] The real horror comes when one contemplates how many times that has been replicated…
When you stand up to the microphone, deliver something.
What, we have somebody who believes that all hard science data hasn’t been cooked?
Peer reviewed sanctioned narrative is false.
White House petitions have been created already:
Petition for Obama to watch the videos: http://ow.ly/QAAtg
Petition to investigate Planned Parenthood: http://wh.gov/iIqQ1
So far since the release of the videos and the subsequent galvanizing of the pro life movement, we have at the very least seen: – AT&T discontinue matches on employee donations to PP – New Hampshire and Alabama have defunded PP on the state level – Louisiana medicaid no longer funds PP – A Senate vote has given us a rough map of the landscape in that house of congress These might not be the enemies biggest or most powerful cities, but they are significant enough wins to show that what is being done is having results! Don’t let up!… Read more »
Hurrah! Three!
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/06/alabama-becomes-3rd-state-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-after-it-sells-aborted-babies/
” Who can stop what must arrive now?
Something new is waiting to be born
Dark as the night you’re still by my side shine inside
Gone are the days we stopped to decide where we should go, we just ride
Gone are the broken eyes we saw through in dreams gone
Both dream and lie…”
Life may be sweeter for this I don’t know
Feels like it might be alright
While Lady Lullaby sings plainly for you
Love still rings true
An ethical aside for the “…evangelical florists and bakers…” reference. I live near Chicago, where we are aware of the horrible effects of unchecked gun violence on “normal people”. Chicago Police Chief Garry McCarthy used to announce the tally of thousands of handguns confiscated every week, until it became abundantly clear that the politicians allow gun dealers in Cook County Illinois and Lake County Indiana to profit wildly from sales to ‘straw buyers’, using little or no recordkeeping or background checks. Then he stopped those announcements. The Politicians here are allowing this ‘murder for profit’ scheme to continue because the… Read more »
Oh wait.
How is this different?
Douglas – Love the ironically apt LOTR reference. “Sauruman’s Labcoat”. Of course the horror perpetrated by Sauruman the White by the creation of “the Fighting Uruk-Hai”, was NOT ‘vivisection’. The horror perpetrated by the powerful wizard was unchecked reproduction of a “chosen race” for the personal glory of one (assuredly mortal) individual; the disregard for the destruction of the natural habitat in the massive consumption of natural resources; an unbalancing of the forces of nature by industrial growth and application of technology; a clear intent to displace all other creatures from the land and replace them with all-consuming wretched Orcs;…… Read more »
I applaud that Douglas Wilson has dropped all pretense of Biblical authority: No ‘cherry picked’ Bible verses here. No name calling……merely an oblique reference to “Obergefell” – I have not read extensively enough of Reverend Wilson’s expostulations to trace the “sodomites are behind all anti-Christian activities” trope. No half-truths, per se. I had not read (nor watched, nor listened to more than 30 seconds of…) any Glenn Beck, nor the Saul Alinsky source material (attached). Interesting: http://archive.org/stream/RulesForRadicals/RulesForRadicals_djvu.txt {I was what originally was considered to be ‘mainline Protestant’ in the last century, and not a radical in the body of the… Read more »