Hard cases make bad law but zombie-grade distractions

There are circumstances where we need to think about the mother’s wellbeing as well as the circumstances in which that pregnancy, particularly in abhorrent cases like rape and incest, that we need to just use a little bit of common sense. You can’t get too pure in this.”

– National Party leader David Littleproud, asked about the flushing of Roe v. Wade in the US

This is like saying that a few of the Jews in Auschwitz were legitimate felons. The word hypocrisy cannot bear the weight of leftists cheering the ‘trans’ mutilation of minors while crying crocodile tears for violated children. Only evil can. No better are phony conservatives using slogans crafted by abortion conglomerates (founded by nasty eugenicists like Mesdames Sanger and Stopes). They too should be advised that Dobbs was Omaha Beach. This war only ends when the Chancellery is rubble and the exterminationists are on the run.

This entry was posted in Ethics and morality, Fake conservatism. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Hard cases make bad law but zombie-grade distractions

  1. Franx says:

    The overturning of the constitutionality of Roe v Wade is very much a matter of common sense for the judgement gives expression to and extends and justifies the significance and implications of common sense.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    The poor kid who resulted from the rape or incest doesn’t get a say eh?
    How about stopping the rapes, and the incest, and support the innocent progeny?

    Cafe Bruce is a den of such things. My southern magpie pair are dad and daughter. Last year he had, in biblical sense, two daughters. Sadly one has vanished leaving three fine kids. Yesterday I got one of the kids to accept food from my hand for the first time. It was fun.

    Dad and other sister are currently building new nest in preparation for spring. I wish them well, but their DNA is a bit like a bowl of spaghetti.

  3. Pommy Al says:

    Hypocrisy has now become a prerequisite for anyone aspiring to political life.
    Also anyone stupid enough to vote for them.
    Dark times.

  4. twostix says:

    Again with the 1950’s era “arguments” for abortion.

    Meanwhile in “centrist” Littleproud’s actual 2022 QLD:

    – Abortion “on request” (no questions asked) to 22 weeks gestation.
    – Abortion from 22 weeks up to birth is legal based on “social, physical or psychological circumstances”* – so in effect any reason, provided a second doctor signs off.
    – The second “doctor” can be a second abortionist – there is no requirement for impartiality, and the “sign-off” by the second doctor can be merely a phone call or email – there is no requirement for the second approving doctor to see the woman.
    – Additionally there is no legal penalty if there is no second doctor
    a law without a penalty is no law at all.
    – Sex-selective abortion is legal~.
    – Doctors are compelled to refer for abortion under this law, even if it against their own conscience.
    – No “safeguards” for women considering abortion.
    – No ban on partial-birth abortion technique.
    – Babies born alive in failed abortions are left to die.
    – No comprehensive data reporting on abortion.
    – No requirement to anaesthetize a baby prior to an abortion (including no pain relief given to late-term babies prior to an abortion)..

    Don’t get too “pure” Littleproud, keep pretending it’s 1950 while a 2022 style industrial killing industry employs butchers who kills tens of thousands of babies a year.

  5. twostix says:

    Queensland Health’s Clinical Guidelines on terminations of pregnancy (abortions):

    “If a live birth occurs…
    ..Do not provide life-sustaining treatment (e.g. gastric tubes, IV lines, oxygen therapy)

    ..Provide sensitive emotional support and reassurance to parents throughout the process and afterwards
    ..Document date and time end of life occurs”

  6. twostix says:

    Funny that internally, under the hood, the QLD government doesn’t even call it abortion, no the bugman class are much more honest when they’re talking to each other:

    Feticide

    • Provided by a trained specialist
    • Usually for gestations greater than 22+1 weeks 22,27 as is clinically
    appropriate
    • Refer the woman to the closest service with the capability to perform the
    procedure
    • Post feticide, a woman may be transferred to another facility for birth if:
    o Considered clinically safe
    o There is a robust referral process
    o There is comprehensive documentation
    • Involve the woman and the receiving hospital in decisions about transfer

    Also, it’s a sick twist that while abortionarians run around with the fake question “yes yes but when does life really begin??”, the state has answered for itself:

    Birth Certificate Required:

    Gestation less that 20 weeks and less than 400 grams: No
    Otherwise: Yes.

    If your baby is a not officially a human yet it tells abortionists to dumb the babies remains at the tip and offer to sell you a nice QLD commemorative certificate though – like a personalised number plate in his or her place:

    For births less than 20 weeks gestation, or less than 400 grams (i.e. not
    requiring registration), offer information on purchasing a commemorative
    certificate from Queensland Registry of Births Deaths Marriages

  7. C.L. says:

    Rise in Queensland babies surviving late-term abortions, figures show.

    Mr Dick also provided the number of ‘live birth’ abortions for the last 10 years, which shows a steady increase of those that survive.

    Queensland Health confirmed that in such cases, life-saving care is not rendered to the baby after a decision to terminate is made and it is left to perish in the clinic.

  8. vlad redux says:

    There are some things that are just plain wrong, regardless of the circumstances; keeping slaves is one and abortion is another.

  9. Entropy says:

    Little
    Round is the worst kind of politician, doesn’t care about good policy and is a rampant vote buyer. Like most of them these days unfortunately.

  10. Not Trampis says:

    It is nothing like saying that at all.
    No-one but no-one would not support abortion in terms of incest. Rape would depend on the woman concerned. If my wife was raped I would leave that decision to her.
    There is also the case when a husband might have to choose whose life to save his wife’s or the unborn child. That is an easy decision it would always be your wife.

    since you were NEVER a conservative you could not ever understand the argument

  11. Entropy says:

    So NT, would those scenarios be one in a thousand abortions? One in ten thousand?

  12. C.L. says:

    you were NEVER a conservative

    Correct.

  13. C.L. says:

    The abortion industry – literally founded by nazi sympathisers – has no more arguments and now depends solely on Rape ‘n Incest. Historically, the most enthusiastic supporters of abortion for rape and incest victims were the rapists.

    There is also the case when a husband might have to choose whose life to save his wife’s or the unborn child. That is an easy decision it would always be your wife.

    There are a thousand either/or stories of this kind that ended with both surviving. Many doctors in such situations cover their arses by making prognoses founded on self-interest. In cases where pregnancies become so complicated as to endanger the life of the mother, everything that can be done must be done, excepting homicide. If a baby does expire in the course of the treatments given the mother, no moral crime is committed.

    In this fallen world, there will always be scenarios where literally no easy solution exists. That is the consequence of so deplorable an enormity as raping a child, for example. That’s precisely why it is an enormity. Abortion on demand also has consequences: I believe that one of the reasons the sexual abuse of children is now being mainstreamed by the left is that the worst perpetrators believe that, in extremis, an incriminating situation can nowadays be ‘fixed.’

  14. Boambee John says:

    Note that Non Mentis falls back on the “rape, incest, life of the mother” standard diversions, but ignores travesties like abortion at full term, sex-selective abortion, and abortion for lifestyle/convenience.

    Like all rabid pro-abortionists, he ignores the creeping expansion of the reasons given for abortions since 1973, to focus on the less controversial ones.

    Non Mentis is a slippery, evasive, semi-literate, excuse for a debater.

  15. twostix says:

    There is also the case when a husband might have to choose whose life to save his wife’s or the unborn child. That is an easy decision it would always be your wife.

    Nah, lots of mums sacrifice themselves for their baby’s sake. So do dads. You’re just a weirdo anachronism from the sicko 1960’s.

  16. Old Lefty says:

    If you think Littleproud is disappointing (and he is: a little man with little to be proud about, to paraphrase Churchill on Attlee), then look at NSW. Every National MP in NSW voted for Greenwich’s extreme abortion and euthanasia bills – every single one. Even Labor did better than that.

  17. C.L. says:

    …lots of mums sacrifice themselves for their baby’s sake.

    Gianna Beretta Molla.

    From a variety of angles lately discussed, worth reading.

  18. C.L. says:

    Indeed, O.L.

    A few years ago, I coined the word “wokel” to describe this new weird breed of NSW rural luvvies.

  19. Hugh says:

    No-one but no-one would not support abortion in terms of incest. Rape would depend on the woman concerned. If my wife was raped I would leave that decision to her.

    Um, I’m someone who trenchantly supports the right to life of an innocent human being, even one who is the product of rape or incest. Gee, I guess you think it’s OK to kill me right now, because you’d be killing no-one but no-one!

    Please explain: Why does an innocent human being, albeit conceived in rape or incest, not have the right to life?

    X discovers at the age of eight that he was an incest conception. Are you going to tell him that his right to life is forfeit? I mean, he’s the disgusting product of incest! At what point do we acquire the right to life? Killing innocent people is a big deal. Heck, executing callous murderers is a big deal these days. But innocent helpless babes in the womb? You say, go for it!

    It is learnt during birthing while Y’s head is out that Y is the product of rape. “Quick! It’s OK to hack Y to death right now, but it would be murder most foul to do it in five minutes!”

    Jonathan Harris (UK) asked in 2004 at a seminar (I was there): “Why does the right to life only begin when the baby is at one end of the birth canal rather than the other?” He was then and there arguing that it should be OK to kill a baby when it was out of the womb. He had to walk back his argument when it made it into the press. But he could offer only a word salad in defence of his position.

    When you pursue the pro-aborts down the rabbit-holes they dig, all you end up with is a word salad. Rabbits and salad … a close association.

  20. dover_beach says:

    They too should be advised that Dobbs was Omaha Beach. This war only ends when the Chancellery is rubble and the exterminationists are on the run.

    From your pen to God’s ear, C.L.

  21. dover_beach says:

    Queensland Health confirmed that in such cases, life-saving care is not rendered to the baby after a decision to terminate is made and it is left to perish in the clinic.

    C.L., do you know if the figures since are publicly available or is this something we just happen to find out at the state’s pleasure?

    BTW, amazing how little interest this happened to generate. Hundreds of children over a decade, that were marked for death, but who survived the abortion were left to die alone and not rendered any assistance even though they had now departed the womb. Seems like all that talk of reproductive/ bodily autonomy was mere wind – of course it was – and an alibi for murder.

  22. twostix says:

    The nationals have been captured by big agriculture, which is giving its conjoined twin big finance a run for its money in the evil Woke globalist bugman stakes.

    Immense amounts of our current problems – including the pandemic stuff (the ban on leaving the country was created in the 2015 Biosecurity Act, etc ), are being driven by biosecurity policies that big ag demanded be created, merging and bleeding into human governance. Which essentially reduce entire countries to feedlots managed , rather than governed, by a managerial / biosecurity managerial tyranny.

  23. C.L. says:

    I doubt very much they are publicly available, Dover.
    That information was only released because Dick had to answer a Question on Notice by MP for Cleveland, Dr Mark Robinson.

    Logical deduction about the past and extrapolation from the last deaths acknowledged by Dick points to a toll well into the thousands.

    The fact that 204 murders were not newsworthy is proof – if any more were needed – of the West’s terminal spiritual illness. I would classify the callous, ‘lifestyle’-driven abandonment of the elderly in the same category.

  24. C.L. says:

    On that subject, Twostix, I note that Bill Gates – the biggest private owner of farmland in the United States – recently bought even more.

    I don’t know what to make of the many fires at food processing plants in the US but, in light of what the Sri Lankan government did (at somebody’s behest) and what the Netherlands government is now doing (commanding farmers to stop producing as much food), well… nothing would surprise me.

  25. dover_beach says:

    That information was only released because Dick had to answer a Question on Notice by MP for Cleveland, Dr Mark Robinson.

    The first step in reversing this abomination, landing on Omaha if you will, is full public transparency related to everything abortion-related. Are even any abortions audited to see if they’ve been carried out in accordance to the law.
    Also,

    “If a live birth occurs…
    ..Do not provide life-sustaining treatment (e.g. gastric tubes, IV lines, oxygen therapy)

    What is the legal basis of this because right now it only appears to be an administrative (Queensland Health) guideline?
    These are at least two landing sites that could be held.

  26. Not Trampis says:

    yes you people are fanatics. I give three possible reasons for abortion which few people would argue with and would very rarely occur but you people want to argue with that.

    Is it any wonder that most people are in favour of it. congratulations

  27. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    yes you people are fanatics. I give three possible reasons for abortion which few people would argue with and would very rarely occur but you people want to argue with that.

    None of which reasons addressed the issues of late term abortions, sex selective abortions, “lifestyle” abortions, or the fate of “aborted” babies left to die.

    In Bill Clinton’s words “Safe, legal and rare”.

    You are a fanatic.

  28. twostix says:

    In the QLD guidelines it explains that post 2018, practitioners now have to act in accordance with standards, recommendations and the guidelines only.

    As of 3 December 2018 the ToP Act applies to termination of pregnancy in Queensland.
    Termination performed by a registered medical practitioner, is no longer a criminal offence under the Criminal Code; nor is it a criminal offence for a woman to consent to, assist in or perform a termination on herself.
    The purposes of the ToP Act are to:
    • Enable reasonable and safe access by women to termination
    • Regulate the conduct of registered and student health practitioners in relation to
    terminations

    But then…

    Lawful action Offences:
    • Termination is considered a health matter
    No penalty or offence is specified in the ToP Act for a registered or
    student health practitioner’s failure to comply with the requirements of the
    ToP Act

    o Including the conscientious objection provision
    • As for other healthcare, the following may apply 5,8:
    o Professional and legal consequences for non-compliance with the ToP
    Act

    o Laws for duty of care, reasonable skill and care
    o Civil or criminal responsibility for harm that results from a failure to act
    with reasonable skill and care

    So it’s open season.

  29. twostix says:

    . I give three possible reasons for abortion which few people would argue with

    Yeah 1955 called, it wants its “reasons” back.

    We’re talking on this page about thousands of near term babies being born alive after the butchery attempt upon them fails, and left to die in bins and store rooms in hospitals all across the western world.

    Everyone knows you support abortion up until term for any reason at all. That’s why you insist on arguing like it’s 1950 and not 2022 where 90% of abortions are done for no reason.

  30. C.L. says:

    From 1 January 2023, doctors will also be permitted to murder the elderly and the ill in Queensland hospitals. All registered health practitioners who are conscientious objectors must refer-on those wishing to be killed to another practitioner (see page 59 of the Act). Private hospitals must participate and allow killer doctors on their property. (See pp. 61 t0 64).

  31. dover_beach says:

    So it’s open season.

    It’s basically saying the child marked for death is worthless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.