These days, people say "Season's Greetings," which, when you think about it, means nothing. It's like walking up to somebody and saying "Appropriate Remark" in a loud, cheerful voice.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Babies Are Just Like Rapists

Cornell Law Professor Sherry Colb writing for FindLaw Magazine writes a ghastly piece on abortion.

She's writing about the case where a woman attempted to procure a late term abortion but the abortionist wasn't on time and the baby was born alive gasping for breath, only to be thrown into a plastic bag and killed.

Now, Colb doesn't exactly excuse the abortionist's actions but examines them and seeks to codify them. But the language used is, I'm sure, unintentionally ghastly and cold. Reading her column sent chills up my spine.

Here's Colb's writing on the issue:

One might argue, as some pro-life advocates have, that there is no meaningful difference between what Gonzalez did and what an abortion provider does, because in both cases, a fetus is killed. This argument, however, ignores one of the main premises of the right to abortion – the bodily-integrity interest of the pregnant woman. Particularly at the later stages of pregnancy, the right to abortion does not protect an interest in killing a fetus as such. What it protects instead is the woman's interest in not being physically, internally occupied by another creature against her will, the same interest that explains the right to use deadly force, if necessary, to stop a rapist. Though the fetus is innocent of any intentional wrongdoing and the rapist is not, the woman's interest in repelling an unwanted physical intrusion is quite similar.
Yeah. That's right. In her little metaphor the baby is a rapist.

But of course that doesn't make sense because the woman likely became pregnant through an act of her own will whereas a rape takes place against a woman's will.

Now, to be fair, Colb argues that the treatment of the "creature" as she calls the baby should be investigated as homicide (which it isn't for some crazy reason.)

In fact, Colb encourages that even non-viable fetuses who are born accidentally should be treated well. Get this one:
When a nonviable fetus completely emerges from the womb alive, writhing, and gasping for breath, the right thing to do is – at the very least – to comfort the creature until it expires or to contact someone else who will.
That's right. Contact someone who will. From the abortion clinic you should call a friend and say "Hey buddy, I just tried killing my baby but the creature was born anyway. I'm pretty sure it'll expire soon so could you come on down here and hug the thing until it dies. Cool?"

But why is she even so concerned with being merciful to the baby that she's allowing to be killed? It makes no sense to me. Because the baby emerged from a woman's womb it's not OK to kill it then but moments before it's fair game.

In the end, Colb blames guess who for late term abortions. Come on make a guess. That's right pro-lifers. I'm not kidding. Because pro-lifers are asking for things like parental consent they make it more difficult to procure early abortions so pro-lifers make late term abortions more likely.

Well, just file this one under the ever expanding file of Ivy League Lunacy. And these are the elites of our culture. No wonder we're in such trouble.

Your Ad Here

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Academic theorists are just like 3 year olds. They don't quite get words like 'why' and 'because.'

S. Murphy

Edgar said...

Unreal. An innocent primate compared to a rapist. This is what a university degree does to a probably otherwise healthy brain.

Anonymous said...

I do not know if there is a way for me to coherently reply to Colb's ideas.

How should we even begin to gainfully engage this kind of argument? It is worse than a willful ignorance - Colb (and many others) have considered the situation at hand, and decided that murder is acceptable.

carina said...

If anything, it should be the other way around. When you abort a baby, who cannot defend itself, it's worse than rape.

Anonymous said...

I really don't think she said that the baby was a rapist.. she even said it herself, "...the fetus is innocent of any intentional wrongdoing..." She is saying that the woman didn't want an intruder inside of her body which would be the rapist or the killer... but she never said a baby is a rapist... GET IT STRAIGHT.

Anonymous said...

OOOPPSSS I meant baby not killer. But it doesn't matter anyway cus I just found out that this is a Christian website. THANK GOD you don't have any validity in your silly posts because you're driven by bias (i.e. MY GOD).

Sir Francis said...

I believe, Matthew, that rather than a rapist, this person is treating the baby as a virus by which a woman is 'internally occupied by another creature against her will', not unlike the 'creature' in the Alien movies.

There is a dreadful struggle to avoid calling the child a child, for even in the author's own mind such a thing would cause a collapse or change of heart. We must remember these unfortunate persons, who have conceived such a hatred for their own children.

JB said...

Re: Anon 2:01am

Hmm. "this is a Christian website ... you're diven by bias"

You claim: If Christian, then driven by bias. Christian, thus bias.

So P → Q, P : Q.

What about P → Q, ~Q : ~P ?

Those who aren't Christians aren't driven by bias, right? Care to include some universal or existential quantifiers so you're clear on the matter?

Wait! As a Christian, am I allowed to use logic? Help me out here, guys, I don't want to do this incorrectly.

JB said...

Oh, I got that modus tollens backward in phrasing: Anonymous isn't driven by bias, thus we can conclude s/he isn't Christian, according to his/her own premises.

I must have been temporarily confused by all my bias, won't happen again.

matthew archbold said...

The one difference is that liberals don't support the death penalty for actual rapists.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Just remember -- birth is a magical process that turns someone who can be killed without guilt into someone who ought to recieved comfort care.

I guess the child gets zapped with 'morally significant' beams on his way out or something.

And they accuse CATHOLICS of 'magical thinking!'

Kimberly said...

Sweet, Deirdre...'morally significant' beams...

Brilliant!

matthew archbold said...

Deirdre,
Truly brilliant. One of the all time great comments.

Anonymous said...

"Oh noes, I botched the abortion and now the baby, er, I mean creature, like in Alien, yeah, that's right, was born alive and now squirming all over my nice clean operating room. Hmmm, what to do. Someone should hold it, except I don't know anyone personally who has that much heart and decency. None of my nurses, definitely not my office manager. My wife? Naw, she is getting her nails done. I know! I will ask one of those crazy pro lifers who camp on my sidewalk day in and day out praying with those funny beads, that might work."

I am sorry, this is all too ghastly not to be mocked as a means of coping. Uhhg.

Michael said...

This "baby rapes the mom" argument is so old and tired... I heard it in college 20 years ago. The issue here is that the woman is unhappy with natural law: 1. sex produces babies 2. women are the ones with uteruses ("internally occupied) 3. There's only one (normative) way out of a uterus. Violence is her only response, which is always the response when one rejects natural law.
Her argument is just the fallacy that comes from rejecting the Christian view of sex and love within marriage where sex in understood as naturally leading to children out of love with a loving spouse.

carina said...

JB, Chesterton put it quite nicely in his essay The Error of Impartiality.


"First he challenged me to find a black swan, and then he ruled out all my swans because they were black. The fact that all these great intellects had come to the Christian view was somehow or other a proof either that they were not great intellects or that they had not really come to that view. The argument thus stood in a charmingly convenient form: 'All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count.'"

freddy said...

"I just found out that this is a Christian website."

That's comedy gold, considering that my two-year-old sitting on my lap immediately yelled, "Look, Mommy, Jesus! Baby Jesus!" when I pulled up this site.

Michael Maedoc said...

Isn't that basically Obama's argument, that the baby should only be comforted?

If stopping a rapist is a good thing then one must argue that abortion is good thing. Wouldn't this make supporters of this procedure pro-abortion not just pro-choice?

Colb's Demon Master said...

Colb is a vile CREATURE. It should be exterminated...but of course comforted during the process.

Renee said...

When the news reports of a mother murdering her young child, it is reported as "unthinkable" in the sense the relationship between a mother and child holds a higher sense of obligation in protect life, then murdering a stranger. I mean the 'creature' isn't an alien, it's biological kin.

I don't understand how by law, as a mother, I'm held to a level to neither abuse or neglect children, if I harm my child it is a crime, but this rule isn't applied when my children are internally within me?

For example where I live in Boston, where the news reported a mother failed to take her son with treatable leukemia to his doctor appointments and failed to give him the needed drugs for treatment. The son medical treatment was so neglected that his cancer spread to the point he was terminal. The mother was charged, and now that her son died from cancer, additional charges may be filed.

I understand the bodily integrity argument, but don't you think as a civilized nation we would realize the exception to mothers carrying their own child, that an unborn child deserves the same protection from neglect an abuse from his/her mother?

BTW I'm Catholic so will all of my concerns blown off as bias?

MissJean said...

ROFL. She's using the logic of a sophomore (in high school).

I heard something similar this week. A group of boys were talking about killing burglars under common law. They began to argue (with the logic of sophomore boys) that they might legally shoot a party guest who hangs around too long. Although he was invited, like a homeintruder, he is occupying the livingroom against homeowner's will.

I thought they were being sophomoric. Now I see that they're doctorate material.

Anonymous said...

Ms Colb says "For both pro-choice and pro-life advocates, the facts of this case are unsettling and even shocking".

I know this goes against the grain of the strategy a lot of good pro-life work (such as the ban on partial birth abortion), but something in me wants to protest: "No Ms Colb, you are not entitled to find the facts of this case unsettling and shocking. They are YOUR facts, and YOU are responsible for them. Take a long hard look at them and don't give yourself the luxury of looking away. Then maybe you will really SEE."

Ultimately, Ms Colbs article demonstrates that the pro-abortion lobby is driven by asthetics. As long as we can't see the reality it isnt there.

Alice Gunther said...

This is truly beyond ghastly. I find it almost unbearable to believe that anyone could see an unborn (or newborn) baby this way.

Horrifying.

Anonymous said...

Even animals treat their offspring with more care and love than some sick people do. Which means that some morally dead people are lower than animals when they kill their own child.

Anonymous said...

In that case, Colb was a creature in her mother's womb. If she doesn't want creatures in her womb, then maybe she and other women should learn to respect their bodies and keep their legs closed.

Anonymous said...

Why not drop that creature Colb an e-mail:

sfcolb@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

That woman is insane and very dangerous. She is another type of Hitler. Very disturbing

Anonymous said...

This is an old bogus argument used when women were subject to "property rights" -- a bogus argument pushed by the likes of Marquette's Daniel McGuire, a pro abortion ultra liberal. It was used in middle ages to justify abortion and got past some -- the notion of the baby as aggressor ignored the baby's inherent human worth.

Lew Waters said...

How does it escape Colb that the Rapist is given maybe a few years in Jail, while the baby is executed in an inhumane way?

Aren't these the same people that cry over murderers being executed, but an innocent baby deserves execution?

margarite34 said...

Oh My God!

Nothing I could say would dent the insanity of this person.

Most dogs .... in fact most all animals are better than this person. Remember the cat who carried her kittens out of a burning building, one by one, getting herself singed in the process? That cat was wayy better than this thing who posted this blog.

Patricia said...

This is horrifying. It is another example of people not taking responsibility for their own actions. A woman does not want this foreign "creature" inside of her??? It is her own flesh and blood that she helped to create!!! The "creature" is her child; a living BABY that IS a part of her. I don't understand how anyone can say things like this.

JoJo said...

"Late-term abortions are morally complicated, because the later-term fetus may experience pain and may therefore plausibly be described – without any need for a religious gloss – as truly being a victim of the procedure. This does not, as some claim, necessarily mean that a woman should not have the right to terminate a pregnancy."

My God, this woman is blind.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
matthew archbold said...

Guys, please keep the language just a little bit this side of good taste. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

So she admits we are created.

Francis Donovan said...

The "elite" are no different than others. They take a position whether through selfisahness, hostility to religion or whatever.
They \ then rationalize it so that evil can be disguised as good. There is no room for discussio. Look a a picture of the infant in the womb. The fetus is a real peson and to kill it is MURDER!

JOG.KNIGHT said...

Upon reading this, my first response was to get angry, but then I realized that God doesn't want us to get angry, but to pray for this person and all those like her, and send extra angels to help bring her to him. Because she is obviously deeply wounded and is absolutely being lied to and manipulated by Satan through her own brokenness.

Rose said...

This amazes me - this article refers to the "woman's interest in not being physically, internally occupied by another creature against her will". It appears to me that the woman who makes a conscious choice to have sex, knowing full well what the consequences could be, is making a choice of pre-meditated murder with the choice to end the pregnancy. It was her will to have sex, so if she had an interest in not being physically and internally occupied by a "creature" against her will, the choice seems simple. Use precautions, or don't have sex. At the point of conception, her choice should be done. What about the innocent baby's choice to live? I guess that doesn't count. Is it any wonder God is allowing the world to spiral downward at a very fast rate? None of us should be surprised.

Mrs. O'Riordan said...

If people really knew what they are being "internally occupied" by when their heart is so hardened against the helpless unborn, I think they would go as fast as their legs could carry them to the nearest confessional box and have "it" removed. - Blessings - Rene

Rev. Donald Spitz said...

Will someone please post this babykillers contact information. I would like to write her a letter. Any coward who supports abortion has the blood of babies on their hands.

SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com

Anonymous said...

If this were a baby seal it would be all over the news and they would go to prison. Oh wait, it was a baby human. Who cares!

If it were a rain forest, dont hurt the trees! Oh wait, it was a baby human!!

JMJ

Anonymous said...

Academics think they can think rational thought. Yet humans are irrational only God can provide rationality to our lives. Hence natural law which academics chose to ignore. Aquinas was right.
JMP

Post a Comment