The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing

Posted on | January 28, 2014 | 14 Comments

Kludt wrote a Talking Points Memo blog with this headline:

Erick Erickson Responds To Greta Van Susteren With Graphic Anti-Abortion Screed

We could get bogged down by asking why Tom Kludt is stirring up a fight between Erickson and Van Susteren, or ask why this argument is being treated like a popularity contest, as if Erickson and Van Sustern were rival candidates for sophomore class president. But that would be a distraction from the actual public policy issue involved, and such a distraction is exactly what Kludt is trying to create.

Is abortion a good thing or a bad thing?

If you think abortion is a good thing, you are simply wicked. Even most people who are in favor of keeping abortion legal will admit that the act itself is morally repugnant, an evil that they would prefer to avoid but do not believe can be or should be effectively outlawed. With such people, it is possible to have civil and reasonable disagreements. Not so those who are consciously pro-abortion, e.g., NARAL and Planned Parenthood and other abortion industry lobbying groups.

They and their supporters actively encourage abortion, because they are heartless bloodthirsty monsters who love evil. And the Texas Democrat candidate for governor, Wendy Davis, has welcomed the embrace of these ghoulish Death Merchants. Davis filibustered Texas legislation to restrict late-term abortion.

So when Erickson defends his criticism of Davis by describing late-term abortion in vivid terms, he is trying to place the focus where it belongs — on these gruesome atrocities, and on Democrats like Wendy Davis who advocate these atrocities. “Abortion Barbie” is not the worst thing she could be called. Perhaps Tom Kludt can explain why “slaughtering children on the altar of Moloch” is a good thing. But nobody ever asks liberals for such explanations.



14 Responses to “Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing”

  1. ThomasD
    January 28th, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

    The reproduction and distribution of this image was once a highly controversial, if not downright subversive act.

    Harsh realities often deserve frank disclosure. It is the only way some people will come to recognize the barbarity.

  2. russemerson
    January 28th, 2014 @ 9:21 pm

    “Moloch worship” is how I’ve always described it, and I am more and more convinced that it isn’t just a rhetorical device. These people are, in fact, evil.

  3. RS
    January 28th, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

    Off topic via Instapundit: The Progressive Game Plan for children they don’t abort.

  4. Igor Shafarevich
    January 28th, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

    At best, today’s liberalism is impelled by an anti-life force.

    At worst, it seeks the death of mankind, the “ultimate” triumph of socialism, as the Bolsheviks used to say.

  5. RKae
    January 28th, 2014 @ 11:16 pm

    Back in the ’80s I wrote a piece about the stupidity of paying dairy farmers to pour their milk in a ditch. Someone told me, “It’s actually economically logical to pay them to do that.” I answered, “And that’s your problem: you have a system where waste has become logical.”

    That’s how I feel when people try to explain abortion to me as a logical and pragmatic solution to a problem. If you can chop up a baby as a “logical solution,” then you have fallen into an evil and barbaric system. Please look at an aborted baby and then use the word “logical.”

    They worship sexual pleasure so much that they will do anything to keep it from being infringed upon. Anything that stands between them and their next sexual experience must be vaporized. Anything.

  6. From the Comments at Talking Points Memo | Blackmailers Don't Shoot
    January 28th, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

    […] The Other McCain: Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing […]

  7. Adjoran
    January 29th, 2014 @ 1:18 am

    Of course most of the pro-abortion side understands fully well that it is evil. Why else have they been so adamant against laws requiring sonograms? Counseling? Notification of parents? And demanding government or insurance pay the cost?

    They know that delay risks the woman gaining more knowledge, seeing a sonogram is more knowledge, counseling is more knowledge, parental consent is delay which can also yield more knowledge. And the more one knows about it, the less likely one is to do it – because it is a horrible and inhuman thing to kill an innocent, and for a mother to kill her own child goes against every law of nature.

    WHY then, do the abortion proponents have such a sick and fiendish desire to see as many abortions as possible? They are NOT about just keeping it legal, they want it fast, they want it easy, and they want it in high volume. Sure, for “providers” like Planned Parenthood, it is a source of money in the pocket. But most of the advocates of abortion on demand don’t make a dime.

    It’s about power and control of a frightening nature and degree. If they can convince you that killing your own baby is in your best interest, they can convince you of anything. You belong to them forever, because as soon as you question anything they tell you it means you will have to question that pressure to kill and you will realize what you did. So you have to see them as absolute moral authorities, and swallow anything they tell you, no matter how insane it is.

    And the next thing you know, you are in a voting booth, electing Obama.

  8. Adjoran
    January 29th, 2014 @ 1:26 am

    The fallacy of their subsidy argument is that if it were indeed in the farmer’s interest to dump the milk, you wouldn’t have to pay him to do it. So they have to invent a hypothetical that excess production means producers make less and some will fail at the lower prices, and there will be shortages and prices will rise.

    Which is true enough, but it doesn’t end with the rising prices and shortages, because the price signal brings in more producers and increases supply which brings prices down again. It’s how prices are arrived at in a free market.

    The subsidy plan not only costs taxpayers both the payment and higher milk prices they pay, it also costs them and the dairy industry in the long run by keeping marginal and poor producers in the business longer than they should be.

    So the way to get the highest quality supply of milk at the best possible price point is to leave the market the heck alone.

  9. concern00
    January 29th, 2014 @ 3:14 am

    Ultrasounds, counselling, parental notification, cost? Nothing must get in the way of Satan and his appetite for the murder of young souls.

  10. Kirby McCain
    January 29th, 2014 @ 5:37 am

    I left Buckhead today about oneish and I’m still trying to get back to the ‘burbs. Eric pulled an extra shift and talked most of us out of hanging Raw Deal in Marietta square.

  11. Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing : The Other McCain | Dead Citizen's Rights Society
    January 29th, 2014 @ 7:29 am

    […] Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing : The Other McCain. […]

  12. bridget
    January 29th, 2014 @ 8:25 am

    Take a look at the comments. They all are attacking Erickson, not the procedure that ends a human life. I think they fail to understand – or do understand and are scared – how the gore of abortion converts squishy pro-choicers into pro-lifers.

  13. Barry’s World: Season 6: Okay, What? | Regular Right Guy
    January 29th, 2014 @ 3:59 pm

    […] Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing […]

  14. FMJRA 2.0: Waiting For The Superb Owl : The Other McCain
    February 2nd, 2014 @ 2:58 pm

    […] Perhaps @TomKludt Could Explain Why Killing Babies Is Such a Good Thing […]