Posted on | February 11, 2016 | 1 Comment
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Laika, The Socialist Space Dog
Da Tech Guy: I’m Old Enough To Remember When Third Place Was Awesome And Second Place Wasn’t
Proof Positive: Excuse Me, Waiter, There’s A Quid In My Pro Quo
Michelle Malkin: Dismantling David Brooks
Twitchy: Report About Alan Grayson’s Other Job Could Win Him “Hypocrite of the Year”
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: The Death of Twitter
American Thinker: The Four Types of Socialists
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Youngblood by Matt Gallagher
Conservatives4Palin: Tenured Thugs and Thieves
Don Surber: Enjoy the Illegal Alien Insurance Hike, California
Jammie Wearing Fools: Ron Goldman’s Family Receives Charming Facebook Message
Joe For America: Sheriff David Clarke on Beyonce’s Racist Super Bowl Show
JustOneMinute: The Bloomberg Anesthetic
Pamela Geller: Terror-Tied LA Sheriff Lee Baca Pleads Guilty To Corruption
Protein Wisdom: Just In Time – Progressive Valentine Cards
Shot In The Dark: A Bridge from Nowhere
STUMP: The Meaning of the Word “Fault”, Chicago Pensions Edition
The Gateway Pundit: SURPRISE! Bernie Sanders’ Latina Spokeswoman Is An Illegal Immigrant
The Jawa Report: Think Bernie Sanders Won The New Hampshire Primary? Guess Again
The Lonely Conservative: Who Is Owned by Wall Street, Trump or Cruz?
This Ain’t Hell: 500 Infantrymen To Helmand, Afghanistan
Weasel Zippers: Watergate Reporter Mocks Hillary – “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Didn’t Put That Server In Her Damn Closet”
Megan McArdle: Obama’s Oil Tax Is Running On Empty
Mark Steyn: The March of Trump, The Feel of Bern
Posted on | February 11, 2016 | 36 Comments
Top headlines at the Drudge Report, as of 6:30 a.m. ET today:
What does all this mean? At least two conclusions seem obvious:
- Democrat primary voters are crazy;
- People don’t like Hillary Clinton very much.
Say what you will about Barack Obama, but you cannot deny the man has a certain charisma about him. Ever since JFK was assassinated, Democrats had been looking for a candidate like Obama, a charismatic figure as a vehicle to advance a liberal policy agenda. Bill Clinton’s presidency was marked by asterisks — he never got a majority of the popular vote — but Obama won by decisive majorities in 2008 and 2012.
For better or worse, therefore, the Democrats are now Obama’s party, and the fracture in this year’s primary campaign is the result. Bernie Sanders is Obama without charisma. Hillary Clinton is who she has always been, and she has never had any charisma. What the Democrats are betting, really, is that they won’t need charisma in November. Their ideal scenario would be for the Democrats to nominate Hillary, Jeb Bush to get the Republican nomination and Donald Trump to run a third-party populist campaign, so that the Clintons can slither back into the White House on a 43-percent plurality the way Bill did it in 1992.
The underlying problem for Democrats is that their desperation to capture and hold the White House has cost them scores of seats in Congress and state legislatures, and the number of Democrats among governors have been decimated. Democrats now represent the Left on a nationwide basis, which means they represent New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Miami, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle and other major urban centers. Democrats represent government employees, including employees of the liberal-controlled public school system, and Democrats also represent recipients of government benefits, including college students dependent on financial aid.
Democrats are generally the party of all who live at taxpayers’ expense. Democrats are hostile to the interests of those who work for a living in the private sector. Democrats hate America, because Democrats hate capitalism, hate the traditional family, and also hate God. Democrats are the party of abortion clinics and unwed motherhood. Democrats are the party of Hollywood, the New York Times, and the feminist blogosphere. Democrats are the party of dopeheads and atheists, vegetarians and pacifists, homosexuals and hedonists. Democrats are the party of blue-haired hipsters and tattoo-covered slackers. Democrats are the party of the emotionally wounded and the mentally ill, the party of “victims.”
Having collected all these disparate anti-American interest groups into a nationwide anti-American coalition — a phenomenon that was apparent as early as the 1972 McGovern campaign, and replicated in the 1988 Dukakis campaign — the Democrats were able to win the White House in 2008 and 2012 without making any real concession to the part of the American electorate that is Christian, patriotic, and happily married.
Elections have consequences, and living in the Obama Age means that we no longer live in America. We now live in Anti-America.
Obama promised that America would be fundamentally transformed and he has accomplished what he promised, which is why Bernie Sanders was able to rally the Kook Coalition to beat Clinton in the New Hampshire primary by a 22-point margin. As crazy as Hillary Clinton is, she isn’t quite crazy enough to represent what the Democrat Party has become in the Obama Age. Insanity is now public policy, and the paranoid rage of maniacs is a political force to be reckoned with in the wake of our fundamental transformation. The crisis of the Hillary Clinton campaign is therefore an omen of America’s impending doom because, even if the Democrats lose the next election, what can we expect the next time the Democrats win an election? How many more Democrat presidencies can the nation endure before it finally descends into total depravity and madness? The collapse of American society into violent chaos, anarchy and civil war is by no means a far-fetched scenario.
Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.
Posted on | February 10, 2016 | 91 Comments
Byron York almost doesn’t seem to notice:
There really were a lot of Trump voters out there, and party officials could not, or did not want, to see them.
And what an astonishingly varied group of voters Trump attracted. At his victory celebration in Manchester Tuesday night, I met a young woman, Alexis Chiparo, who four years ago was an Obama-voting member of MoveOn.org. Now she is the Merrimack County chair of the Trump campaign.
I sure would like to know how many other core leaders in Trump’s campaign cut their teeth working for the Commies. I don’t know the lady–her support could be sincere. Or not.
Posted on | February 10, 2016 | 9 Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Bern Your Enthusiasm
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – Hillary Accomplishments Vs. Rubio Accomplishments On Morning Joe
Michelle Malkin: This Is How Hillary Treats The American Flag
Twitchy: “Blacks And Hispanics Will Save Her” Hillary Plans March Nomination
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: How “Neomasculinity” Blogger RooshV Became International “Pro-Rape” Villain
American Thinker: No More Room To Compromise With The Socialist Agenda Of The Democrats
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin – Thank You New Hampshire!
Don Surber: Canada – Health Care To Die For. Literally
Jammie Wearing Fools: Guy Who’s Afraid Of Megyn Kelly Calls Ted Cruz “Pussy”
Joe For America: Beyonce – Pro-Black Panther, Anti-Cop
JustOneMinute: New Hampshire Berning!
Pamela Geller: Turkey’s Erdogan Threatened To Flood Europe With Millions Of Muslim Migrants
Protein Wisdom: Well, Since I Don’t Vote With My Vagina, I Guess I’m Going To Hell
Shot In The Dark: Who Saw This Coming?
STUMP: On The Illinois Bailout Idea And Other Shenanigans
The Gateway Pundit: Trump Wins New Hampshire – Fox Calls It Early
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Ted Cruz Totally 100% Not A Pussy
The Lonely Conservative: SCOTUS Puts The Brakes On Obama’s Climate Rule
This Ain’t Hell: Sanders Gets C&D Letter From The American Legion
Weasel Zippers: Hillary Gives Angry, Ranting, Bitter Concession Speech
Megan McArdle: Sanders And Clinton Get Substantive. That’s Where They Go Wrong.
Mark Steyn: Where The Bern Is
Posted on | February 9, 2016 | 53 Comments
Donald Trump continues to lead the Republican race in New Hampshire on the eve of the vote, the final CNN/WMUR tracking poll finds.
On the Democratic side of the race, it remains Bernie Sanders’ primary to lose, with the Vermont senator holding a 26-point lead over Hillary Clinton. . . .
In the Democratic race, Sanders tops Clinton 61% to 35%, an uptick for Sanders since the last update to the tracking poll . . .
The prospect of a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire for the former Secretary of State has sent a shock wave through the Democrat Party establishment. Clinton has “underperformed,” as one analyst said on CNN this morning, and it is clear that the youth vote for the 74-year-old Sanders reflects both a negative judgment of Hillary as well as support for Bernie’s far-left agenda. Because the Democrat establishment considers Sanders “unelectable,” the prospect of his winning the nomination has caused murmurs of a third-party campaign by liberal former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. Meanwhile, Team Clinton is trying to put the wheels back on the Hillary bandwagon:
Hillary and Bill Clinton are so dissatisfied with their campaign’s messaging and digital operations they are considering staffing and strategy changes after what’s expected to be a loss in Tuesday’s primary in New Hampshire, according to a half-dozen people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Clintons — stung by her narrow victory in Iowa and shocked by polls showing her losing by as much as 20 percent here — had been planning to reassess staffing at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters after the first four primaries, but the Clintons have become increasingly caustic in their criticism of aides and demanded the reassessment sooner, a source told POLITICO.
The talk of shake-up echoes what happened in 2008 — when Clinton was on the verge of sacking her campaign manager and several top communications officials — before her surprise win in New Hampshire bailed out her beleaguered staff. Over time, however she slowly layered over top officials, essentially hiring old hands — like Hillaryland stalwart Maggie Williams and pollster Geoff Garin — to run the campaign while the previous staffers were quietly relegated to subsidiary positions.
It’s not clear whether that will happen again, but several people close to the situation said Clinton would be loath to fire anyone outright and more inclined to add new staff.
“The Clintons are not happy and have been letting all of us know that,” said one Democratic official who speaks regularly to both. “The idea is that we need a more forward-looking message, for the primary — but also for the general election too. … There’s no sense of panic, but there is an urgency to fix these problems right now.”
Yeah, “no sense of panic,” but they’re losing to the 74-year-old Sanders, an extremist kook from the fringe. The Clintons are discovering that a Cult of Personality doesn’t work if voters don’t like the personality at its center. Meanwhile, one of the ghosts of Bill’s past is rattling her chains:
One of the women who has accused former U.S. President Bill Clinton of sexual assault says she has agreed to work for an anti-Clinton political group being formed by a former advisor to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him tearfully seeking a paid job, said she had agreed to become a paid national spokeswoman for a group being created by Roger Stone.
Stone, a Republican strategist, said the group would become active should Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton’s wife, win the Democratic nomination in the 2016 race for the White House. . . .
“This gives me more of an opportunity to get this message out to young voters who weren’t even born or don’t even remember what happened and to the women who have suffered,” Willey told Reuters.
Willey said she will give interviews and speeches and appear in political advertisements to ensure the accusations remain part of the political discourse during the election campaign.
“They’re going to be confronted every day, on radio, on television, on billboards,” Stone told Reuters, referring to the Clintons.
How can feminists be against “rape culture” and for Clinton?
— People Magazine (@people) February 9, 2016
Posted on | February 9, 2016 | No Comments
— compiled by Wombat-socho
OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Rest Of The Story
Da Tech Guy: Barack Obama And The VW Scandal Administration
The Political Hat: Time Is A Social Construct
Michelle Malkin: Joe Wilson Proved Right – Obama Did Lie On Obamacare Coverage For Illegals
Twitchy: Marco Rubio Brings Good Tidings To Female Supporter Bound For Hell
RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Millenials Heed The Siren Call Of Socialism
American Thinker: Obama May Be Ensnared In The Clinton E-Mail Scandal
Conservatives4Palin: Liz Cheney Running For Congress In Wyoming
Don Surber: If You Don’t Know Who Ron Jeremy Is, This Just Went Over Your Head
Jammie Wearing Fools: Hilarious – Bill Clinton Whining About Misogyny As Hillary Faces Humiliating Defeat In NH
Joe For America: Watch Ted Cruz Hand A Biased ABC Moderator Her A**
JustOneMinute: Is Bernie Sanders A Coward, Or Just Shrewder Than Jonah Goldberg?
Pamela Geller: American Nanny Murdered By Refujihadi Rapist In Austria
Protein Wisdom: “Welcome Super Bowl! Welcome NFL Players! Please Hand Over Your Earnings Prior To Leaving!”
Shot In The Dark: Meet The DFL’s Praetorian Guard
STUMP: More On The Chicago Schools Situation
The Gateway Pundit: Abortion Rights Group Attacks Doritos Super Bowl Ad For “Humanizing” Fetus
The Jawa Report: ISIS Savage Child Abuse Continues
The Lonely Conservative: On The Fence About Socialism? Look To Venezuela For Your Answer
This Ain’t Hell: MSRB Saves Linda Weiss From Firing By VA
Weasel Zippers: “Hanoi Jane” Fonda Claims Trump’s Comments Are Driving Young Muslims To Jihad
Megan McArdle: Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Will Not Survive
Mark Steyn: 13 Hours
Posted on | February 8, 2016 | 60 Comments
Perhaps readers will recall Nian Hu (@Nian_Hu on Twitter) or you may need to be reminded that Ms. Hu is the Harvard student who declared: “I am a feminist. I believe in the equality of the sexes. For me, feminism means freedom,” and that among these freedoms was “freedom to have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on.”
What Ms. Hu was saying, really, was that other people have no right to their own opinions. Everyone is required to approve of wanton promiscuity. The feminist freedom of Harvard sluts to get drunk and screw around would be infringed if they were to be “looked down on” because of their habitual and shameless fornication.
“Let me tell you what to think” — this is the dictatorial imperative of feminism, a totalitarian regime of clever college girls who have decided the rest of us are wrong about everything. You need to be constantly lectured by angry young women, because she is oppressed and you are privileged. Therefore the only correct opinions are opinions approved by these tyrannical Ivy League brats who consider it a social injustice — “harassment!” “misogyny!” — if anyone dares to disagree with them.
Are there no adults at Harvard University who can explain to these impudent kids that having a high SAT score when you’re 17 is not proof that you already know everything? Or are the faculty and administration of elite universities so intimidated by their students that there is no one on the Cambridge campus who will stand up to these young fools?
Petted and pampered and repeatedly told how wonderful they are (because being admitted to an Ivy League school is proof of their superiority to mere mortals), the insolent youth at schools like Harvard arrive on campus as freshmen convinced that they are smarter than God. The faculty apparently believe their task is to confirm, rather than contradict, their students’ grandiose narcissistic self-regard. So if the girls at Harvard are all sluts and the boys are all perverts, the faculty will schedule lectures in the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies where students will be told how awesome it is to be a slut or a pervert. The Harvard kids will of course bask in this flattery — “We’re not just smart, we’re sexy, too!” — and thus become even more deviant and immoral than they were when they arrived.
The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and we can say of Harvard University what Obi-Wan Kenobi said of Mos Eisley, that it is a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” But I digress . . .
My friend scrolls through the photos of a man on Facebook. He’s white, lives in a predominantly white neighborhood, and went to a predominantly white high school. But in many of his photos, he is accompanied by Asian women.
“Yes, he has yellow fever,” my friend confirms . . . a preference for Asian women. The term is most commonly ascribed to white men who seem to only ever date Asian women.
Yellow fever is a widespread phenomenon. According to data collected from online dating sites, all men except Asians prefer to romantically pursue Asian women. In fact, there are many dating sites specifically tailored for white men looking to date Asian women. There is even a Tumblr blog that compiles messages from “creepy white guys with Asian fetishes.” Yellow fever was also depicted in Debbie Lum’s documentary, Seeking Asian Female, which takes a close look at relationships between white men and Asian women. . . .
It is egregiously misguided to assume that an entire ethnicity of women has one set of personality traits, and the fact that some men actually believe this reflects the limited experience they’ve had with real-life Asian women. Even worse, it suggests that perhaps they are viewing Asian women more as one-dimensional objects than human beings.
Objectification is already something that all women face regardless of race. . . . For Asian women in particular, objectification reduces them to infantile figures — delicate, submissive, and dutiful.
The fact that docility and submissiveness are viewed as favorable traits for Asian women is telling. It implies that non-Asian women are too loud, too opinionated, too intimidating, and that men would prefer women who keep quiet and acquiesce to their every demand. The stereotype that Asian women are meek, though blatantly untrue, nevertheless reveals that perhaps yellow fever is more than just an innocent preference based on physical appearance. . . .
You can read the whole thing, if you feel the urge to absorb another lecture about what a bigoted racist misogynist you are. Frankly, I got bored with these lectures decades ago. The Clarence Thomas hearings, the L.A.riots, the O.J. Simpson trial, Monica Lewinsky, Matthew Shepard — by the time the ’90s ended, like most American adults, I was sick and tired of listening to liberals tell us what to think about everything. Back then, of course, the liberal lectures were delivered by TV commentators and newspaper columnists whereas now, thanks to the Internet, every 19-year-old kid with a Tumblr blog is telling us what to think because, of course, teenagers know everything and grown-ups know nothing. But once again, I digress . . .
What is it about feminism that convinces young women they possess a monopoly of knowledge and virtue in regard to sexual behavior? How is it that I, who have six children — three of them older than Nian Hu — am assumed to be an ignorant bigot in need of a lecture about “Hey, objectification is bad, you guys”? Evidently, Ms. Hu disapproves of white men dating Asian women, and she has the right to her opinion. Likewise, the Nation of Islam and the Ku Klux Klan have the same right to disapprove of interracial relationships. It is not my job to tell other people what to think or say or do, so why should I let a Harvard sophomore tell me what to think, say and do? And how are we to decide whose sexual preferences should be condemned as harmful “fetishes” and “objectification,” whereas other preferences we are never allowed to criticize at all? Who has the authority to make this decision?
For example, ever since the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category of mental illness, the question of why gay people are gay has been considered off-limits. Any speculation about the etiology of homosexuality incites activists to begin shrieking their insistence that gay people are “born that way,” and so it is impossible to research the possible developmental factors involved without being accused of malevolent homophobic intentions. Well, it’s still a free country, and I am therefore at liberty to say (a) I never believed the “born that way” argument, and (b) I don’t think most gay people actually believe it, either. Trust me. After two years of plowing through dozens of books about radical feminist gender theory, and monitoring the ongoing discourse on Feminist Tumblr blogs, I am if anything even more skeptical of the “born that way” narrative than I was before I began this research project. Because of the substantial overlap between feminism and lesbianism (which is apparent to anyone who bothers to look at Tumblr or, for that matter, Women’s Studies programs), an amateur student of feminist gender theory will invariably encounter various first-person narratives of the “How I Knew I Was Gay” genre.
In the course of relating their “discovery” of their “sexuality” (like they were Pizzaro and lesbianism was the Inca Empire), these women will often talk about their family backgrounds and their early childhood in such a way that would make an old-fashioned Freudian psychoanalyst puff his pipe and say, “Tell me more about your mother.” There are certain situations and circumstances that seem especially conducive to homosexual tendencies, and there is always a backstory, usually involving a sense of alienation, a feeling of being a misfit who is different from other kids, which then manifests itself as homosexuality — or not. Some misfits manage to work through their identity crises and turn out more or less normal. Of course, we have to wonder what sort of unresolved “issues” might be lurking behind the mask of normality when we see someone like Bruce Jenner, a 65-year-old married grandfather, suddenly declare that he is a woman named “Caitlyn.”
What does this have to do with Nian Hu’s criticism of “yellow fever”? Perhaps more than you would think. Radical feminists describe the transgenderism of Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner as “gender fetishism.” That is to say, the so-called “dysphoria” of transpeople involves not merely a sense that they don’t fit in the body they were born in, but also a fetishistic obsession with the superficial traits and behaviors of the opposite sex. It is very easy to say Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner is just crazy, but if it’s not yet illegal to ask, why is he/she crazy? What are the components parts of his/her delusional obsession? How does someone develop such an intense identification with the opposite sex?
Well, you can believe what you want to believe, but if Bruce can be “Caitlyn” (and you’ll be condemned for transphobia if you say he/she can’t) then why is it wrong for white boys to be obsessed with Asian girls? If Ms. Hu is going to denounce “yellow fever,” what other sexual preferences will she likewise declare to be intolerable “objectification”? Do we need a Committee for Acceptable Attraction to issue official protocols of who we are and are not allowed to like? Maybe we could have a Central Bureau of Sexual Planning that will assign us sex partners on the basis of a random lottery to prevent unfair “discrimination.” If the Bureau assigns you to have sex with Danny DeVito or Rosie O’Donnell, you must comply with your assignment, comrade!
What we perceive in Nian Hu’s diatribe against the “fetishization” of Asian women is how feminism justifies hypocrisy. Twenty years ago, liberals were constantly lecturing us that we should never be “judgmental,” but now we notice that liberals are themselves quite judgmental. Everything any heterosexual white male says or does is wrong, according to the judgmental Left, and scarcely a day goes by that we don’t get some new notice of hitherto unsuspected Thought Crimes we have have committed. We are nowadays indicted and prosecuted in absentia for Thought Crimes. No evidence is required and the first we learn of our wrongdoing is when we are told we are guilty of it: “Heteronormativity!” “The male gaze!” “Rape culture!”
And who are our accusers? Only the most privileged people on the planet — arrogant brats like Nian Hu whose status as a Harvard University student qualifies her to pass judgment on everyone else. Whatever the feminist likes is good, and whatever you like is wrong, because she is a victim and you are an oppressor. In the 21st century, the claim of victimhood becomes the ultimate privilege, entitling the victim to lecture everybody else, and if any man disagrees with her, his disagreement proves that he is a misogynist. Quod erat demonstrandum.
She’s grinding these axes while enrolled at Harvard University, annual tuition $45,278. Your parents are shelling out that kind of money to send you to college and you’ve got nothing better to do with your time than to look at a guy’s Facebook pages to see if he is “fetishizing” Asian women? And yet, you little hypocrite, you insist that you should be able to “have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on”?
Which is it, Ms. Hu? Is private sexual behavior off-limits to criticism, or is everything to be subjected to public scrutiny to determine if our sexual choices are appropriate? Either all choices are open to criticism or no choices can be criticized, but I suspect most of us would never want to live under a regime in which some distant elite of self-appointed secular “experts” arrogate to themselves the authority to tell everybody else how we are allowed to have sex and with whom.
This is why most people despise contemporary feminism, because feminists do not deceive us with their talk of “gender,” which we understand correctly to be a way of talking about sex. Feminists want to dictate what we are allow to say about sex, so as to control what we think about sex, and thus ultimately to tell us what we are permitted to do about sex. What is the basis for feminist authority in these matters? On whose behalf do feminists claim to wield such extraordinary social, cultural and political power? And when we catch feminists engaged in deception and hypocritical sophistry — excluding their own sexual behaviors from criticism, while condemning the rest of us as guilty of sexual Thought Crimes — why are we always accused of “harassment” for having the effrontery to notice these feminist lies?
Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and unless people wake up to this menace, there will come a time — and perhaps soon — when we no longer have any freedom, nor any means of resisting the feminist dictatorship, which would certainly be the cruelest tyranny the world has ever known.
What a sad page in the history books it will be that tells the tale of how a once-great nation was destroyed, and a formerly free people were enslaved, by a bunch of Crazy Cat Ladies.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 8, 2016
CONCORD, N.H. — On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem: she is having trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause.
Oh! What a bitter disappointment this would be to Ms. Hu!
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 8, 2016
(Hat-tip: Badger Pundit on Twitter.)
Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 55 Comments
— NARAL (@NARAL) February 8, 2016
keep looking »
I realize we’re not supposed to ask “hahrd” questions, but it would be helpful if the Servants of Moloch could explain something.
Accepting for the sake of argument that humans are not continuously human from conception on through death, how DOES the fetus transition from non-human to human state? What magical chrysalis occurs, when the embryo goes from non-human to human status?
I realize that this is a key component of abortion mythology, but I’ve never heard any proponent of the fiction explain it.