An Apology

YouTube Preview Image

Lately, in several posts, I have been in the habit of referring to Planned Parenthood as Murder, Inc.  I apologize for doing so.  It was unfair of me to draw this type of comparison.

In the late twenties of the last century, gangsters Charles “Lucky” Luciano and Meyer Lansky set up the National Crime Syndicate.  Organized crime needed a mechanism to keep anarchy from breaking out within its ranks between various gangs and factions.  Operating out of a 24 hour candy store in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, Murder Inc. ( the name was a newspaper invention) provided this mechanism.  Louis “The Judge” “Lepke” Buchalter and Albert “The Mad Hatter” Anastasia were the leaders of Murder, Inc.

The Syndicate, by majority vote, would order the slaying of an unruly gangster and Murder, Inc would carry it out.  The hitmen of Murder, Inc. operated under strict guidlines.  No innocent bystanders were to be killed.  No hits could be ordered against judges, police or prosecuting attorneys for fear of reprisals from law enforcement.

Over the years Murder Inc murdered some 800 fellow gangsters.  In 1940 the downfall of the murder enterprise began when Murder, Inc killer Abe ‘Kid Twist’ Reles, turned informant in order to save himself from the electric chair.  Louis “The Judge” “Lepke” Buchalter died in the chair in Sing Sing in 1944, after the US Supreme Court rejected his appeal which raised, among other issues, the contention of Buchalter that lurid press coverage had tainted the jury.  Other Murder, Inc members swiftly followed “The Judge” down the last mile.  Albert “The Madhatter” Anastasia would have followed in their footsteps but for the tragic “accidental” death of Abe ‘Kid Twist’ Reles when he fell from room 623 of the Half Moon Hotel on Coney Island.  In the gang world he was ever after known as “The Canary that sung but couldn’t fly.”  However, with the attention of law enforcement focused upon it, Murder Inc could no longer function and it ceased to exist except as a gangland legend.

Based upon this grim record I hope you can see why it is necessary for me to apologize—to Murder, Inc. 

1.  Their death toll of 800 over a little over a decade would be exceeded in Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics in this country on even a slow day.

2.  They restricted their lethal ministrations to fellow gangsters, unlike the contract killers employed by Planned Parenthood who target the most innocent and defenseless amongst us.

3.  The killers of Murder Inc never attempted to argue that their activities were a Constitutional right.

4.  Murder Inc rarely dismembered their victims which is a daily part of doing business in a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic.

5.  Almost all the murderers of Murder Inc came from the lower economic rungs of American society and had very little education.  The leaders of Planned Parenthood and the abortionists they employ have often been educated at elite American institutions of higher learning and are usually solidly upper middle class or wealthy.

6.  All decent elements of society opposed Murder Inc., and Murder Inc never claimed that their killings should be embraced by the public at large.  Planned Parenthood has convinced large segments of our society that their killings are acceptable.

And so I must apologize to the shades of the members of Murder, Inc.  You were despicable killers of your fellow men, and I rather hope you are paying a stiff sentence indeed in the world to come, but I did you an injustice.  From now on I promise to refer to Planned Parenthood as Worse Than Murder, Inc.

58 Responses to An Apology

  • Al says:

    While I having ocassionally refered to PP as Murder Inc, I have also often said that PP makes them seem like amateurs. Basicly, this post backs up my claim that PP is worse.

    As someone of Italiano heritage, but no Mafia ties, I think that I am able to speak on behalf of Murder Inc., accept you apology & say you are forgiven for trying to lower them down to the level of PP.

  • Brian C says:

    Thanks for the good laugh. The scary thing is every thing you say is true and that is not funny. PP make the members of Murder Inc look like a bunch of retired boy scouts. Of course our fearless leader BOH loves this group and is giving them all kinds of money to help fix the economy, not sure how that works but I dare not criticize I don’t want to end up on a list somewhere.

  • Dennis Dreyer says:

    The total of all Americans killed in all of our wars is about one million.

    The total number of slaves brought into this country, against their will, was about one million.

    The total number of Jews killed in the holocaust was about six million.

    The total number of babies killed by abortion in this country since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973 is about 50 million.

    Planned Parenthood is clearly the leading provider of abortions and is clearly supported by BHO and the Democratic Party.

    When the time comes, I am sure that God will understand these facts and hold us accountable.

  • Gabriel Austin says:

    Would it not be simpler to refer to the organization as Planned Unparenthood?

    Can anyone cite statistics about the number of parents who became parents because of the organization?

  • Hoss says:

    I am confused. Isn’t Planned Parenthood worse than Murder Incorporated ever was? Why not call it what it is? Isn’t president Obama about to join the mass murderers club with FOCA? And I’m not at all sorry to say it.

  • Albert Julius says:

    For all those against access to abortion, just once I would like to see you volunteer to pay much higher taxes to fund the increases in welfare, TANF, food stamps, WIC, medicaid, school enrollment increases, extra police forces needed to enforce the measure, greater legal costs from abortion related prosecutions, more money for jails for abortion related imprisonment, etc, etc, etc if abortion were to be criminalized.

    And don’t get around the issue telling me about charity and adoption. Study after study shows, when a woman chooses to keep a baby, she chooses not to give it up for adoption. The choice is abortion or raising the child. Studies overwhelmingly show that.

    So we’re talking tens of billions per year minimum, if not hundreds of billions, of more government money and that’s every year.

    I’m not saying abortion is right. I’m just asking for some consistency among so called conservatives.

    Step right up. Pay your taxes. Stop arguing against the increases in the social welfare safety net that you have been doing concerning President Obama’s budget.

    Because if you truly oppose abortion, you must be prepared to fund those same things on a much greater scale than we’ve ever seen. You have to choose MORE government or LESS government. If you choose criminalizing abortion, you are telling us that you believe in MORE government. There’s no two ways about it. So be consistent and stop chiding Obama when at heart you feel the same way as he does about our social welfare system.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Albert, considering the fact that Obama has all those funds from the Bankrupt the Nation Act of 2009, sometimes called a Stimulus bill, perhaps he can now call a halt to the killing of almost a million unborn children in this country a year. When pigs fly! Cost of raising the children has nothing to do with it. Obama and the other pro-aborts in this country support the slaying of the unborn, erroneously, as a matter of women’s rights and not because of the cost to raise the children. It is interesting that abortion became legal in our country just as the welfare state was becoming the huge enterprise it is today. If your argument had any validity, then the welfare state would have prevented the massive number of abortions since 1973, some 50,000,000 lives lost. The fact that it did not, clearly indicates that there are other factors than government largesse to unwed mothers or poor families at work. On a personal note I have been on the board of directors of a crisis pregnancy center, currently I am president of the board, assisting poor mothers for 10 years. What have you done?

  • Albert,

    Given that statistics show that a very large percentage of the unplanned pregnancies that end up being aborted are the result of abortion being legal (as in, if you look at the historical record, the number of unplanned pregnancies skyrocketed after Roe, because the effective cost of behavior resulting in unplanned pregnancy had been reduced) this argument is basically illusory.

    While even as a conservative I have no objection to funding a limited and highly means tested welfare state (as being conducive to peace and the common good) it is at the same time clear that in any functional society the primary responsibility for providing financial support for all children conceived is that of their parents. It is no more necessary to have abortion as an “out” for parents who did not intend to become such than it is to allow euthanasia as an “out” for the children of parents who failed to save for retirement.

  • Markus says:

    …or maybe ‘The Man of Perdition’

    I jest at the argument “oh it’s just a fetus”

    ….five minutes later it’s suddenly a REAL human with hands, feet, eyes and yes able to feel evey single PAIN imaginable!

    Poor America, so civilized, so intellectual, so powerful, yet with insatiable Necrophilia.

  • I’ve never understand the whole it’s not human, while in the womb. I mean let’s for the sake of argument admit it is a foetus in the womb.. and remove the whole it’s not a baby, for themoment. what kind of foetus is it. It is a human foetus.

    I mean really, a pregnat can’t will carry a feline foetus. preganat female dogs will be pregnant with a canine foetus. A pregnant woman is pregnant with a human foetus.

    So if this kind of HUMAN can be denied the right to live according tot he law, what other HUMAN will the law deem to not have the right to life.

  • Gerard E. says:

    Don- you only missed that Albert Anastasia met an unfortunate end in 1957. Safely nestled in Manhattan barber chair when met with large flurry of shots fired by person or persons unknown. Sad end indeed.

  • Weldon says:

    Albert et al,

    A nation cannot kill its own and be prosperous. Killing children kills the tax and consumer base. Killing children kills off producers and ideas and vision for a better world. All economic booms are in tandem with increased birth rates. If you can’t seek the truth of divine revelation then at least be a good economist. Go to Demographicwinter.com

    I have seen numerous young women become pregnant. Often they will tell me, “I either keep the baby (no adoption) or I have an abortion.” What they are expressing is power, not nurturing love. Because of our contraceptive and abortive society, children are now property. Abortion is nothing more than a contraceptive measure. Out of wedlock births continue to climb for all races, with blacks near 70%. hispanics around 60% and whites approaching 50%. Roe v Wade continued this.

    So, no more grace, no more companionship rooted in sacrificial love, no more marriages; only power plays: penetrators vs penetrated.

  • Robert Klingle says:

    I am looking for a copy of FOCA. I can not find it. Would zome one help me? I have written to my local Catolic paper and they will not answer.
    I do need a copy because I hate to contact my congress man without knowing what I am talking about.

  • Albert Julius says:

    As thought, no one had the balls to be honest.

    Weldon, you did at least admit the truth that the choice is either abortion or keeping the baby. I give you credit for not going into the ridiculous argument of “we’ll have pregnancy crisis centers and lots of adoption and that will make everything ok.”

    Um, no. It won’t. We’ll just have lots more welfare, tanf, food stamps, medicaid, wic, etc, etc, etc. It will make Obama’s current spending look trivial by comparison. But you guys just can’t stop wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

    If you favor criminalizing abortion, you must accept the enormous empowerment that it would give to the federal and state government. Trillions of dollars of new government spending on social programs and billions more on police powers. Some conservative cause that is!

  • Albert,

    The fact that you can write hooey does not mean that other people need to accept your assumptions as gospel.

    Trillions of spending on social programs and billions on police powers?

    Let’s see, there are 1.2 million abortions per year. If you say “trillions” I assume we shall have to assume that you mean at least two trillion dollars. Divide that two trillion dollars between the 1.2 million people not aborted that year. You apparently imagine that every single un-aborted person will require $1.6 million in welfare spending. I don’t think that it’s a stretch to point out to you that this is rather more generous than welfare benefits in any state at this time.

    If you want people to take your comments seriously, try saying something worthy of thought.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    “Trillions of dollars of new government spending on social programs and billions more on police powers. Some conservative cause that is!”

    Just like we did prior to Roe in 1973? Really, if you are going to be a pro-abort troll on a pro-life Catholic website you need to do better than that. One thing I will grant you however, it is cheaper to kill them short term, Of course that is true of all children and I think it is a crime beyond imagining to kill a child even if it does improve one’s bottom line individually or as a nation. Of course if we did have those 50,000,000 kids who have been slain over the years through abortion since 1973, a fair number of them now would be taxpayers and making financial and other contributions to society, so your argument really flies out the reality window when that is taken into account.

    Oh, and you didn’t answer this question:

    “On a personal note I have been on the board of directors of a crisis pregnancy center, currently I am president of the board, assisting poor mothers for 10 years. What have you done?” Other than shill for abortion of course.

  • Albert Julius says:

    Darwin, Your assumptions about my math are wrong because it’s not simply 1.2 million per year. It compounds. Each of those children would often have to be provided for until age 18. Studies show a great majority of the non-abortions and non-adoptions would be on public assistance throughout their childhood. And the mothers in such scenarios are provided for under our safety net as well. We could be talking, therefore, about adding 10-20 million people to the government rolls down the road (and that’s merely using current numbers). Given our current population rate of increase, and rampant legal and illegal immigration, the number could easily be double that in a couple of decades. So I stand behind those numbers completely. That’s Trillion with a T, as we’ve been recently reminding President Obama.

    Like I stated earlier, I am not necessarily in favor of abortion.

    I simply think it’s disingenuous for people to favor the criminalization of abortion AND yet claim to be fiscal conservatives who oppose President Obama’s current expansion of the social welfare safety net. One can’t have it both ways. If abortion is your priority, then make it your priority. Stop opposing expansions of the very programs which will become relied on more than ever were abortion to be criminalized.

    And, Donald, kudos to you for your charity work. That’s great and if you need for me to tell you that you are a good person, well, then you seem to be a good person. You won’t get an argument from me on that. I could list my but I generally prefer to let intellectual arguments rest on their own merit. I happen to believe our charitable works and gifts are best left to the eyes of our own conscience and God.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    One does not need to swear allegiance to the welfare state in order to oppose killing children in the womb. I may not wish to raise my neighbor’s kids, but that does not mean I would sit by while he kills them. Somehow this country did just fine in providing for kids throughout most of our history without resorting to abortion or crushing the economy by a vastly expanded welfare state. You present a false dichotomy. I do find it interesting to note however that in my experience those who want a vast expanision of the welfare state usually, not always but usually, are also the most ardent pro-aborts.

  • Albert Julius says:

    I am not ardently pro-abortion at all.

    I just realize where we are in the big picture of our nation’s history. The fact that individuals were able to provide for their children with little to no government assistance for 150-200 years is irrelevant to where we are today.

    We are on the verge of having a full-scale socialist state. I hate it. And you’re talking about giving the government power to criminalize something that is widespread. And the government power to police it. And then the government has to greatly expand an already massive social safety net to provide for all those extra people.

    My point is – we are so close to socialism – the irony is that the cause of social conservatives (were it to ever come to fruition) would be the final measure that truly kills fiscal conservatism and expands our government and its powers like never before.

    Donald, what happened in 1820 or 1920 or even 1980 simply isn’t relevant to 2009 in this regard.

    This is simply not the time to push this issue.

    If you disagree and feel it is, well, like I originally said, it’s obviously your priority. It trumps your conservatism. Be consistent. Get off Obama’s back because your coming from the same angle of believing in the power of government to make wrongs right, ie abortion.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Well, the power to ban abortion was something exercised by the states during their entire existence up to 1973. I see no need for a radical expansion of the police power in order for the states to do what they did only 36 years ago.

    “We are on the verge of having a full-scale socialist state.”

    I have more faith in the essential good sense of the American people. We shall see after the elections of 2010.

    “My point is – we are so close to socialism – the irony is that the cause of social conservatives (were it to ever come to fruition) would be the final measure that truly kills fiscal conservatism and expands our government and its powers like never before.”

    Disagree. I do not think the economics of the issue are at all that clear, especially if one factors in the ultimate economic contribution of those children spared from the abortionist’s knife. The idea that because a mother can’t get an abortion she and the child will remain on welfare until the child is 18 understates other factors: marriage, family support, mom becoming employed, which could well lead to a non-welfare life for both mom and child.

    “Donald, what happened in 1820 or 1920 or even 1980 simply isn’t relevant to 2009 in this regard.”

    Actually history is always relevant, especially when it teaches us that straight line progressions rarely work out in reality. More kids being born would have a big impact on our society and I would argue that most of them would be positive. People ultimately are a resource for society. How many of our fiscal problems in regard to social security for example, are due to the missing 50,000,000 and the offspring that many of them would have by now? I of course would be opposed to abortion even if you could prove that ending it would be a fiscal disaster, but I think that is far, far from the case.

    “Get off Obama’s back because your coming from the same angle of believing in the power of government to make wrongs right, ie abortion.”

    That is your weakest argument. The main function of government is to protect its people from physical violence. Banning abortion is something that has often been done by governments throughout the ages. The idea that courts prevent legislation in this area is the novelty. I cannot understand how any conservative can be opposed to legislators, and not judges, determining the law in this area.

    You are correct however, that my priority is to end legal abortion. It has been since 1973 and that will always be my goal. I may not live to see the goal reached, but I am confident that one day abortion will be viewed with the same abhorrence that we have for slavery as practised in America’s past.

  • cminor says:

    Albert Julius’s argument seems to me to rest on the fallacy that all 1.2 million children aborted would have been conceived in an abortion-free nation.

    Given that a sizeable number of aborting women are repeat aborters and that some conceive and abort more than once within the year to eighteen months during which they would be either pregnant or in a state of postpartum infertility, this would be unlikely.

    Mothers have a greater incentive to be sexually responsible than women with no young children. And “redemptive pregnancies” are not unusual in postabortion women.

  • Trillion with a T in what timeframe? Per year? Per ten years?

    Honestly, it just doesn’t add up no matter how you cut it. Indeed, your analysis is so simplistic as to be borderline embarrassing.

    The countries in Europe, which have significantly more restrictions on abortion than we do, significantly lower abortion rather, and much lower birth rates than we. (Yes, they’re comparatively more socialist, but not because of population pressures.)

    There is absolutely no reason why we could not both ban abortion and reduce the welfare state. To assume otherwise is to buy into a number of eugenicist myths which have little grounding in modern science.

    And keep in mind, one of the reasons that we’re heading for a nasty fiscal mess in the next 10-20 years (and are likely to try to socialize our way out of it) is precisely because our population growth is barely above the replacement rate — and more key, because it’s well below the replacement rate among middle class and native born populations, while above replacement rate only among the poorest and most recent immigrants.

    Plus as I pointed out, the research is pretty clear that one of the reasons why there are so many unplanned pregnancies is because the availability of abortion makes the potential cost of promiscuous behavior lower. (This isn’t just a Catholic or pro-life point, check out pro-choice agnostic economist Megan McArdle’s posts on the topic over at the Atlantic.) It’s entirely possible that a 70-80% drop in the abortion rate would translate to only a very small blip in the birth rate.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    I would like to raise a different but equally significant point here. I agree that Roe was a horrendous decision, ranking right up there with Dred Scott, that ought to be reversed some day. However, I think its overall effects have been overrated to a certain extent, mainly by pro-lifers but also by pro-abortion rights people.

    Pro-lifers often talk as if 1) legal abortion didn’t exist before Roe and 2) every single one of the 50 million children aborted since Roe would be alive today had Roe never happened.

    Actually, 19 states had already legalized abortion before Roe; at least 5 had in effect legalized abortion on demand. Had Roe been decided “correctly” it would simply have affirmed the right of states to continue making their own abortion laws. However, the trend at the time was toward liberalization, and that trend would likely have continued.

    We would have ended up with a patchwork of different levels of state regulation of abortion; a few states might still ban it outright, others would allow it only for “health” reasons (which would still probably be relatively easy to circumvent) and still others would have abortion on demand. Some states also would have parental consent or notification provisions and bans on partial-birth, while others would not.

    So chances are that at least some of the 50 million legal abortions since Roe would have still occurred without it. How many is impossible to say, but my gut feeling is that at least 25 to 30 million abortions would still have occurred legally in states that allowed it. Of course that’s not as bad as 50 million, but it’s still bad enough.

    Also, can we really assume that if Roe never happened, every single one of the 50 million aborted children WOULD be alive today? Not necessarily. A good number of them might never have been concieved because their mothers had other children earlier whom they did NOT abort, and therefore did not feel the need to “replace.” (I have heard it said that something like 30 to 40 percent of all abortions are performed on repeat “customers” who have had abortions before)

    Others would have since died of other causes; some by natural causes, some via accidents, others, sadly, by suicide, violence or drug abuse, particularly if they had been born into extremely dysfunctional families (which is NOT to say they would have been “better off” being killed in the womb, but you get my point)

    My point is twofold: legalized abortion has obviously had some demographic effect, but how much it has had in comparision to the alternative scenario of Roe having been decided the other way or not decided at all is impossible to determine fully. And, there would still have been a need for an active pro-life movement even without Roe.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    There certainly would have been a fight over abortion in each state without Roe. However, I think it is a fight that pro-lifers would have won. Laws legalizing some abortions were usually far more restrictive than Roe. I believe the New York law was up to 24 weeks, and that was the most “liberal” law. Most states who had “liberalized” their abortion laws dealt with the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother. These laws were passed as part of a general movement towards the left in the sixties. Roe, by taking abortion out of the hands of legislators, prevented the repeal of many of these laws as a natural political reaction when conservatives came into their own with Reagan in 80. A see-saw battle would have been fought since then, but without the protection of a constitutional right, abortion would be increasingly hemmed in with a maze of state laws restricting it if not outright banning it. I have no fear for ultimate pro-life victory when Roe is ultimately overturned.

  • John Henry says:

    I think you make some good points Elaine; pro-lifers, like most passionate advocates, can frequently overstate their case. And there certainly will still be abortion in most states even if/when Roe is overturned. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that Roe overturned the abortion restrictions (in one form or another) of 46 states. With increases in sonogram technology etc., it’s not clear how much of the liberalization of abortion restrictions in the late 1960′s might have been turned back in the mid-to-late 1980′s as people better understood fetal development had Roe not prevented it.

  • Albert Julius says:

    “pro-lifers, like most passionate advocates, can frequently overstate their case.”

    Truer words were never spoken. What you all fail to realize is that though you may be passionate about the cause of abortion, the issue of choice is actually a settled issue. It’s now a firmly established privacy right. Even many pro-lifers are often forced to admit that in moments of reflection as Michael Steele did recently. You simply cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. Move on and work to make abortion a less attractive choice to women. By sending the message that you think it’s sinful or that it should be illegal, you actually only make it more appealing. Put down bible for just a few minutes and study human nature people.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    Albert,

    we’ll pray for you.

    Elaine,

    Others would have since died of other causes; some by natural causes, some via accidents, others, sadly, by suicide, violence or drug abuse, particularly if they had been born into extremely dysfunctional families (which is NOT to say they would have been “better off” being killed in the womb, but you get my point)

    My point is twofold: legalized abortion has obviously had some demographic effect, but how much it has had in comparision to the alternative scenario of Roe having been decided the other way or not decided at all is impossible to determine fully. And, there would still have been a need for an active pro-life movement even without Roe.

    You act as if pro-lifers actually believe that Roe vs. Wade was and is the only problem, but we don’t. It is obviously the first big hurdle in banning baby murder EVERYWHERE to actually make it legal to ban in at least ONE place. There was a pro-life movement before Roe vs. Wade and there will be one when this unconstitutional and evil decision is overturned.

    Your claim that 70% of abortions would have occurred without Roe vs. Wade is absurd. Remember, even in states that had legal abortion it was with significant restrictions which Roe vs. Wade (and companion rulings) eliminated, and it was always considered wrong. When the government says something is a “right” then it has legitimacy. Without Roe vs. Wade groups like PP would not be able to get funding from the federal government and would be much more restricted in their ability to further their cause.

    Having said that… what’s your point?

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Albert, the killing of innocents is never a “settled issue”. You may not be fortunate enough to live to see it but there will come a day when the right to life of the unborn is once again respected in law in every state in this country.

  • Elaine Krewer says:

    Matt, my point is that pro-lifers should be careful not to overstate their case or make arguments that could easily be shot down, lest it undermine their credibility and make it harder to win people over to their cause. We are supposed to be proclaiming the truth and that means not resorting to exaggeration, distortion, or any of the other tricks the opposition uses.

    Yes, I am quite aware that a pro-life movement existed before Roe and will continue exist after it is gone. And I do not deny that Roe made the problem of abortion significantly worse and gave it a “legitimacy” that it did not have previously. I fear the same is likely to happen with same-sex “marriage.”

    However, the federal government is not the only government there is. If a number of states approve something (be it same-sex “marriage,” the death penalty, concealed carry permits, etc.) that likewise gives legitimacy to other states to do it. I do agree that Planned Parenthood would not be nearly as powerful as it is today without federal support.

    However, my main concern as always is to insure that pro-life perspectives and arguments are as accurate and factually based as possible.

  • Albert Julius says:

    Donald, the only way I see it happening, even if in the distant future, is if we have some form of totalitarian government in response to our current government’s socialist experimentation. Sadly that pattern has affected many other governments. Hard left, bad failure, then hard right. That form of government would seek to control all measures of a person’s life and the right to choose abortion could very well be one of them.

    Let me ask you this then, rhetorically. Let’s say my scenario does happen – humor me, ok. 50 years down the road. Our socialism has all but ruined our democracy and the faith people have in government. A political leader or leaders come along promising resurrection of American greatness but that our constitution no longer works. Power needs to be centralized for the rebuilding to work.

    Here’s the catch. One of their promises is that in this new state, abortion would be criminalized. And they tell us the Supreme Court or any other court will not matter in it. It will be enforced via executive order and federal enforcement.

    Humor me, accept this possibility for just a moment. It has happened to other democracies in history (something I know you value) afterall.

    Question: would you give that person or persons your support?

    I anticipate you’re gonna tell me you don’t accept my scenario. Fine. Maybe I’m way wrong. But just ask yourself this one time. Abortion is your issue. The choice is abortion or American democracy?
    What would you choose???

  • Matt McDonald says:

    Albert,

    are you at all familiar with the the Dred Scott decision, the 13th, 15th, 18th, and 19th amendments of the Constitution?

    Do you think the founders ever envisioned slavery would be abolished, blacks and women would vote or liquor would be banned???

    The idea that any of those could be enacted would be incredible to the founders, and yet they were.

    As to your little “trap” question, it’s ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Albert, I would choose (c), the second American Revolution. I reject both socialism and killing kids in the womb. Additionally, after 27 years at the bar, I know that questions in life, as opposed to in court, are ever just a and b. There are usually many different courses open to us as we make our way through life.

  • Albert Julius says:

    Matt, actually many of the Founders did envision slavery being abolished. Some wanted it to happen in 1787 no less. And I’m quite sure John Adams envisioned the need to give the vote to his wife Abagail. You might want to brush up on history before making that claim.

    However, as I have said before, I feel history only has so much power in the wake of monumental changes. The Unites States of America is about to become a socialist country under President Obama. Do you even understand that? Our government is soon to own or control directly our banking industry, large segments of our manufacturing industries, and no single segment of the economy has become more important than government spending. Don’t tell me about 1787. Or 1887. Or even 1987. The history books are sadly being erased and the Democrats and Republicans too are chartering us a new history.

    Donald, that’s a lot of drinking man. If it gives you clarity, more power to you. But step away sometime. Consider diet sodas or spring water. They do a world of good. Trust me, I know from experience. Moving on, yes, you’re right, as individuals we usually do have many courses open to us. As individuals we do have options. One could have voted protest voted in 2008 for Bob Barr or Newt Gingrich or numerous other more worthy natural born American citizens older than 35 years of age who have lived in the country more than 14 years.

    But realistically, as a whole, we know that options A and B were the only legitimate options. In looking back I see your use of similar arguments in your steadfast support for John McCain. So flatter me. You well know that as a people, we sometimes do come to forks in the road. As a whole, we sometimes do have to go one way or the other. You can ignore this as a trap if you must. But I envision the American people facing this very question (whether over abortion, perhaps gun rights, perhaps even direct voting, etc) in the future with the way we are presently heading. So where stand you?

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    “C” Albert. By the way you have made clear that you are against socialism. What is your position on abortion? Once you view it as the taking of innocent human life as I do, any such thought experiments as you propose are nonsensical. You might as well ask a parent which child they would prefer to have killed. I love both freedom and unborn kids.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    The Unites States of America is about to become a socialist country under President Obama. Do you even understand that? Our government is soon to own or control directly our banking industry, large segments of our manufacturing industries, and no single segment of the economy has become more important than government spending.

    Of course I stand and act against these ills. The worst thing that Obama will do is expand the murder of innocent unborn babies.

    What is YOUR position on abortion?

  • Albert Julius says:

    Donald, you may say C, but your words reveal B. And that’s good. You will not sacrifice freedom to stop abortion. You want both and will settle for no less, even if you have to wait for all eternity to see it.

    If only your all colleagues in the extreme anti-abortion movement felt the same. I sadly believe a small percentage (some whom it looks like they may write or comment on this site too) would sacrifice all principles in the name of their cause. I’m glad you don’t.

    And this is why I also say, in moments of reflection, most pro-life people are not as ardent in their cause as they believe they are. That’s not to say you don’t believe in it. I know in your heart you do. But you realize there are limits on how hard you will fight for it. And thank god for that. If pro-lifers had the fervor of the environmental movement, for example, abortion may very well be illegal but this country would also be a very scary place.

    As to abortion, I’ve made my position known. I’m against abortion. Judge me by those words, please. I repeat, I am against having abortions. And I’m also against lots of bad things. But I will not advocate giving the state the control over a person’s body almost ever. That right may only be given in the name of reasonable law and order, such as incarceration or punishment for crime after trial or pending one.

    You may think a fetus in human life. I may even think a fetus is human life. But the fact is that it is also a life trapped inside another person’s body. I will not allow the state to get so powerful that it does not respect that limit. And that is why I feel opposition to abortion IS consistent with being a conservative, but opposition to choice IS NOT consistent with being a conservative.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    Albert,

    you may think a fetus in human life. I may even think a fetus is human life. But the fact is that it is also a life trapped inside another person’s body. I will not allow the state to get so powerful that it does not respect that limit. And that is why I feel opposition to abortion IS consistent with being a conservative, but opposition to choice IS NOT consistent with being a conservative.

    you may say you are against abortion but your word’s belie the fact that you are in favor of abortion to be legal.

    As a conservative, why do you believe murder should be illegal? A conservative believes that because a human life has intrinsic value, regardless of it’s state, it’s utilitarian value, it’s potential, or it’s dependence on another. That’s why true conservatives believe murdering an unborn child ought to be illegal.

    Some so called conservatives argued against forcing the freeing of slaves on exactly the same lines as you… that is NOT conservative, and it’s not principled.

  • Matt McDonald says:

    ps. the fact that someone would not abandon their principles to accomplish a good in now way dimishes their devotion to accomplishing the good. The Church has always taught that one may not do evil that good may come. Period.

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Abortion is the slaying of the innocent Albert, it is as simple as that. No one has a right to choose to do that. I, and many more people like me, will never stop fighting it. The protection of innocent human life is a key component of any conservatism worthy of that honorable title.

  • Rich says:

    Hail:

    As a clear conquering hero to the pro-life folk, and with a lovely sense of humor, Hail is the proper greeting.

    Hail! proud Hero, Hail!

    And as for a new term, commenter Paul recommends,

    “Murder Ltd” or “Murder LLC”?

    Methinks that, “Murder uLtd” – meaning “Murder unlimited” is far better and more accurate – as the bloody grasp of Moloch is seemingly without bound.

    God Bless,
    Rich

  • Donald R. McClarey says:

    Conquering hero Rich? At most I aspire to comedy relief for the pro-life movement! I do appreciate your kind words. Perhaps some day I will run a contest for a new name for Planned Parenthood although I do like your Murder Unlimited. Murder Extreme also seems to fit in, sadly, with the spirit of the times.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .