"As a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for a roof so a family from Fargo
can be guaranteed to see a game."
Check back here often for commentary and announcements.
POSTS BY TOPIC
Beer of the Week
Media National (02-06)
Media National (07-09)
Media National (10-11)
Separated At Birth?
CHAD THE ELDER:
rightwinger23 at hotmail.com Twitter
saintp at excite.com
abunodisceomnes at hotmail.com
atomizer77 at yahoo.com
NIHILIST IN GOLF PANTS:
NihilistPaul at yahoo.com Twitter
THE CRAZY UKE:
karkoc5 at earthlink.net
Fraters At The Fair
Hugh Hugs A Tree
Separated At Birth?
Travels With Ralphie
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
This following story caught my eye for a number of reasons.
Man Gets Life In Punching Death Of Fetus:
A Hopkins man accused of having a friend punch his pregnant girlfriend to kill the fetus has been sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole.
Twenty-five-year-old Dameon Gatson was charged with first- and second-degree murder and first-degree assault. A jury found him guilty on all charges.
Hennepin County prosecutors say Gatson was sentenced Thursday.
Prosecutors say he arranged the events that led to his daughter's premature birth in 2007 and her death 10 days later.
Police say Gatson paid the man $40 after he hit Shyloe Linde twice in the stomach. She was six months pregnant.
Defense attorney Emmett Donnelly has said Gatson will seek a new trial on the grounds that he wasn't allowed to confront his accuser.
First you have to love the incongruity of the title. After all, if a fetus is nothing more than an unviable tissue mass, can it really be punched to death? If the fetus is nothing more than part of the woman's body--like an arm or leg--than isn't punching a fetus nothing more than punching the woman herself? And in that case, wouldn't the charges against the man who did the punching and Gatson be nothing more than assault?
Now, you could argue that since Linde was six months pregnant the fetus was past the "viability" stage and therefore deserving of protections not otherwise accorded (although in some states it would still be legal to have a late-term abortion), but then you're saying that the right to not have your life snuffed out is entirely dependent on how "viable" you are. The other angle that could be taken is that since this wasn't Linde's decision, it somehow becomes murder rather than "reproductive choice." Then you're arguing that one being's right to life is entirely dependent on the whims of another. Neither argument passes muster here.
If a Martian landed on earth and inquired about these matters, the most ardent and informed pro-choicer would not be able to explain the logic of our current abortion regime and how it fits with other legal protections that fetuses (none dare call them babies) apparently enjoy in the womb. So it's okay to kill them then? Yes. What about then? No. How about then? Well, that's not such an easy answer.
The final striking note in this horrible story is that the man was willing to punch Shyloe Linde in the stomach in order to kill her baby in return for forty dollars (another story said he expected to get another $200 after the deed). When your culture embraces death, life becomes cheap.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
David Harsanyi has a killer piece on the delicious irony of pro-choice Democrats being concerned about the health care bill restricting abortion rights and freedom called Freedom to Confuse:
Take the torrent of hypocrisy that spilled from the jilted pro-choice wing of the Democratic Party after a House amendment to the health care reform bill tightened a ban on federal funds for abortions by a vote of 240-194--a more substantial mandate against abortion funding, incidentally, than for health-care reform.
Denver's Democratic congresswoman, Diana DeGette, immediately began collecting signatures to oppose what she called "an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health services to which they are lawfully entitled."
Congresswomen Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., went further, adding that the amendment "attempts an unprecedented overreach into women's basic rights and freedoms in this country."
Overreach? Unprecedented? Basic rights? Freedoms?
Right words, wrong issue.
I have no doubt that the progressive wing of Congress--folks who generally support a single-payer plan that would eradicate choice and freedom in health care--believe government failing to give you something is indistinguishable from government taking something away from you.
Yet, while no one will be stripped of their right to have an abortion under this legislation, the vast majority of citizens will have to deal with a cluster of new mandates and more than 100 new government bureaucracies to enforce them.
Harsanyi goes on to note that the ultimate irony would be if pro-choice Democrats' concern over protecting "reproductive health services" leads to the eventual scuttling of the entire health care bill. We can only hope.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
In this era of apparently ascendant secular, libertine, and Democrat party values, it is easy for those dedicated to pro life positions to get discouraged. Even formerly trusted, bedrock institutions like Notre Dame have gone wobbly. I'm sure many have begun to doubt the potential for turning back this tide. Maybe started to wonder whether continued dissent from the dominant cultural mindset is worth effort and personal cost.
The prayer below was handed out on a small yellow card after Mass in Stillwater on Sunday. I find it spot-on in its tone and themes and especially effective in inspiring an essential ingredient for improbable victory, the will to succeed.
Amen indeed. It even inspires a little elevation to boot.
Cursory Googling on the text show it popping up elsewhere in a limited fashion. No indication of the source or author though. That's just as well.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
We here at Fraters HQ were somewhat skeptical when we heard the news that Patty Wetterling, mother of a youth who was abducted near St. Cloud some years ago while riding his bicycle (and never seen again) was going to run for a congressional seat in the Sixth District.
Skeptical, as in we yelled "WTF? What does she know about politics?" When she announced her candidacy, she said she would make a good pol because she, you know, cares more than Republicans about, you know, things.
And the libs love a victim. And who is more victimized than a mother whose son was abducted in broad daylight while he innocently played with his friends?
Yes, we were skeptical. But we did not give her a proper introduction to the sometimes nasty world of amateur political hackery known as blogging. However, upon hearing news from our cigar-chomping, minority-rights-denying friends over at the state GOP that Wetterling has been endorsed by Emily's list, the time has come.
As you know, Emily's list is a group of whacked-out lesbians and other other misfit womyn who have never met an abortion they didn't like. Abortion on demand for twelve-year-olds? Yes! Abortions paid for by the government? Hell yes! Abortions at any time during pregnancy! You betcha! Abortions up to the ninth year of life? Why not?
They actively promote, sanctify and worship abortion. The other day I saw one of them walking around with one of those I HATE BABIES AND ENJOY HEARING OF THEIR VIOLENT DEMISE t-shirts that have grown so fashionable in certain parts of Minneapolis.
So now they have endorsed Wetterling, but she won't come out and tell the good people of Minnesota where she stands on important issues that Emily's List loves like partial-birth (also known as complete-death) abortion and has failed to fill out a survey from the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life detailing her positions.
So we want to know, Patty, why is ripping a kid out of a uterus and killing him so different than ripping a kid off a bike and killing him?
TALK O' THE TOWN
Listen to the Northern Alliance Radio Network on Saturdays from 11am 'til 3pm on AM 1280-The Patriot: