WordPress version

                          

  About & Contact          Archives         Page One          Resource Pages          Topics Index          Art


Antinomian Opinion Page


October 25, 2016
2 pm, PDT

A teaching-moment for Jeffrey Toobin & 
David Remnick: What a "so-called" 
partial-birth abortion looks like



Blows it

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin gleefully picked up essentially where Anita Hill left off when it comes to bashing Clarence Thomas. Toobin's latest gratuitous hit-piece on Thomas was short, sharp, and not unexpected.  It's becoming obvious that Toobin and his editor, David Remnick, are too thick to understand that they do The New Yorker more damage than they do Thomas with their subjective, risible bullspit.  

For instance, whilst Toobin's point of attack is that Thomas has never authored what (in Toobin's opinion) is a "landmark opinion" for the Supreme Court, Toobin does not provide a single comparison as a point of reference. Ginsburg?  Breyer? Alito? Toobin's good buddy Kagen? How about some data on how many "landmark decisions" other justices have authored, adjusted for years on the bench?  Nope, dope, Toobin doesn't do objective reporting, and The New Yorker rarely does, either. They are a good fit.

It seems obvious to me that Toobin's and Remnick's real complaint with Thomas is that Thomas is a goy who has to go. Almost half (3, or 40%) of the justices on the USSCT are Jews. The remaining 60% are all Catholics, but the number of Jews is growing: four of the last six nominations (67%) have been Jews. And yet Jews comprise only 3% of the country's general population. If Thomas was a Jew, there would be no problem with The New Yorker, with Toobin, or with Remnick -- no bashing, no hit-piece.

But the view through Toobin's and Remnick's spectacles is not just Jewish, it is left wing-nutter as well, and the reason I say that is this phrase in Toobin's Thomas hit-piece: "so-called partial-birth abortions."  It left me asking myself: What the fuck is "so-called" about partial-birth abortions? And the most astounding thing is that such ignorance about abortions is being publicly expressed by an over-testosteronized, polyamorous, wanker who 1) tried to push an abortion on his mistress, Casey Greenfield (he had been married to Amy McIntosh 20 years at the time), 2) then refused to acknowledge or see the kid when Greenfield refused to have the abortion, and 3) then had to be taken to court for child-support . Here  Here  Here &etc.

And so, whilst Toobin obviously knows a thing or two about demanding abortions, he apparently doesn't know why a "so-called partial-birth abortion" is called a "partial-birth abortion."  A teaching moment for Jeffery.


Partial-birth abortion: avoiding prosecution for murder-one

The short answer to why this form of abortion is called "partial-birth" is obvious from the diagram above, which is from a YT vid. Similar images and explanations are readily found all over the internet for anyone who cares to understand what they are writing about. 

From an obstetrical point of view, P-BA comprises, essentially, the steps of:  1) grabbing the fetus' feet and pulling the body through the birth canal, 2) holding the head within the uterus, and 3) killing the fetus, which is called "feticide." The sequence sometimes varies, but usually the feticide occurs after the fetus' legs are out of the womb. In some jurisdictions and in some clinical situations, the fetus is killed before the partial removal from the uterus. 

The figure shows the abortionist reaching into the womb with a pair of scissors to cut a hole in the doomed fetus' neck. Then a vacuum-hose is inserted through the hole and into the head to suck the fetus' brain matter out of the head while it is still alive. This allows the cranium to collapse and the dead fetus is then completely removed from the uterus and dumped somewhere.

To a lawyer like Toobin, the legal niceties of P-BA would be more fascinating than the obstetrical procedures. For by killing the tiny human while its head is still in the uterus, the abortionist is, technically, not committing homicide; he/she is committing feticide, the technical term for all abortions carried out past about nine weeks. In many or most cases it would be technically easier to first remove the fetus completely from the womb and then kill it, but that would be premeditated killing of a human, aka homicide, aka infanticide, aka murder in the first degree, aka aggravated murder for hire. Not only would the abortionist and his/her staff be indictable for a very serious felony, but the mother would be indictable for conspiracy. And so, by leaving the fetal head in the uterus when the feticide is committed, all of the participants avoid being charged with felonies that could put them away for the rest of their own lives. It's that simple: kill the fetus before it is completely removed from the uterus and you avoid a life sentence.

"So-called" partial-birth abortion: now you know, Jeffrey Toobin and David Remnick.  Sleep well. 

Wanna' rip into this post?   Comment on


 

 

Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.