Advocates for infanticide astounded that people want them to die.

Although the authors (Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva) apparently prefer the term ‘after-birth abortion.’  Seems that calling it that helps distract one from the thought that you’re on the record for advocating no-fooling baby killing. Anyway…

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article.

…It takes a lot of gall to lecture a bunch of people about civility after you defecate all over their moral beliefs and call it a justification for infanticide, but it would seem that the Journal for Medical Ethics is up to the challenge. Maybe they should understand why people are angry? – Oh, wait, my bad. That courtesy is reserved exclusively for people who throw gay people off of buildings. Continue reading Advocates for infanticide astounded that people want them to die.

@slate publishes article by notorious infanticide advocate Peter Singer.

There are those that will call that ‘poisoning the well,’ as Peter Singer was saying stupid things about defunding the coal industry instead of vile things about how parents should be permitted to kill their babies. To which I say: fine. I’m not making a logical argument*. I’m highlighting the fact that Slate published a monster. I’m sure that the website feels that it can easily weather my disapproval of their editorial process.

Moe Lane

PS: link via here. I decline to directly link to monsters if I can help it.

*I know that this will shock some people, but logic is not actually the game-ender that the Internet collectively seems to think that it is.  I know, I know: even to write that out feels more than a little transgressive (I am, after all, an Internet denizen). But it remains true nonetheless.

No truce with the Kermit Gosnells.


I’m going to quote Matthew Clark of Bearing Drift here, because he set up the situation pretty straightforwardly:

Virginia, with the support of Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, has enacted some of the most stringent health requirements for abortion clinics in the country.  The law allows the Virginia Board of Health to regulate abortion clinics much like hospitals, to ensure that they provide the same operation, staffing, equipping, staff qualifications and training, and conditions as hospitals in Virginia.  These regulations would ensure that no “House of Horrors” operates in Virginia.

Yet, late last week, McAuliffe sent a fundraising email asking supporters to fund his campaign because his opponent, GOP gubernatorial all-but nominee Cuccinelli, “pushed through medically unnecessary regulations on women’s health centers with the aim of his number one goal: ending safe and legal abortion in Virginia.”

Why were these regulations proposed?  Precisely to prevent the horrors of Gosnell’s clinic.  The Washington Post reported at the time this bill was passed, “In recent weeks, abortion foes have cited the case of a Philadelphia area clinic [Gosnell’s] recently shut down after authorities discovered a series of botched and illegal abortions; inspectors discovered containers of fetal parts.”

Continue reading No truce with the Kermit Gosnells.

Late-term abortion (aka infanticide): bigger problem than typically reported?

Before we get started, let me be clear: the article that Melinda Henneberger wrote makes it clear that her personal answers to both questions were identical to mine, and probably had the same faint taste of vomit in the back of her mouth. But the Washington Post itself? …Yeah, I think that it’s hoping for a different answer for the second one.

Are there more abortion doctors like Kermit Gosnell?

…Yes, there are.

And do we want to know?

…Yes, we do. Continue reading Late-term abortion (aka infanticide): bigger problem than typically reported?