Since I pointed out that you begged the question by assuming that any revelation is an actual revelation, you’ve been using that argument (incorrectly) non stop.

Joe: not just a COMPLETE complement of DNA, but a COMPLETELY UNIQUE complement of HUMAN DNA.

Monozygotic twins will be disturbed to know that they are not actual human beings, because their DNA is not unique. Moreover, sufferers from certain terminal diseases will be disturbed to know that what haunts them is a human person – because of its unique DNA.

Joe: The differences in development between the embryo and an adult are admittedly vast, but whatever they are, those difference do NOT include “living” or “breathing.” As with the Jew, so with the embryo.

Embryos don’t breathe. They get their oxygen from the mother. And they certainly don’t live. You can’t freeze living tissue for a few hundred years, take it out, unfreeze it and have it live again – sorry Walt.

Joe: Still, as a concession to brutality, if size matters so much, you list all the ways the adult and the fetus are different—go ahead, use a BIG pencil—while I shall list all the ways they are they same. I guarantee you ahead of time that my list will be far longer, as in far BIGGER.

Perhaps, and we share 60% of our genome with a banana – that does not make a banana human. The point is that the embryo lacks defining characteristics of a human and a person. Viability, for example.

Joe: An embryo or a fetus is perfectly “able to live” in his mother’s womb. So I really have to ask, why isn’t it good enough that he does just fine in there? In fact he may never do as fine, affairs may never be as satisfactory nor he as contented in being alive as he was in utero were he to live to a hundred. That he will die outside the womb, by which you place such store, appears to me to be as unremarkable as that a bird will die when placed underwater or a fish when taken into the air.

Well, you proclaim that embryos are actual persons. Why compare them with fish, when you can compare them to actual persons? Of course, actual persons can survive outside of the womb, which would negate your argument.

Joe: When such things happen SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG; so it is as half-witted to discount the humanity of a fetus because it is so weak, infirm, and improvident as to die after someone rips it from its proper place as it would be for someone to (1) lock YOU in a freezer, (2) pull YOU out a day later, and (3) scoff at YOU for being hopelessly nonviable at ten below.

I’m glad you brought that up. I wouldn’t be able to survive that, nor would you. Why? We are persons. An embryo would survive that.

Joe: In wrestling your sense of affrontery into some semblance of control, you might keep in mind that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (PP) was an enthusiastic eugenicist. As she once said, eugenics could “assist the race in eliminating the unfit.” Ponder well that word, “eliminating.” That same unwholesome goal was of course the absolute heart of Nazi-ism,

Elimination can mean any number of things. Do you have any evidence that by that, Margaret Sanger meant actual extermination?

Joe: To her credit, Sanger was opposed to abortion

So did the actual Nazis, to their credit.

Joe: So yes, when you kill 330,000 “living, breathing” human beings a year, for decade after decade, at a pace to rival the best efforts Nazis, I should think you’d be thankful if the epithets hurled your way stop with “running an abortion mill.”

And yet it constitutes 3-16% of their activities. If they are an abortion mill, then they are a contraception mill, and a breast exam mill.

Joe: Personhood, unless you want to get all metaphysical and religious about it, which I’m quite sure you don’t, is a legal concept as well as a psychological one.

Ridiculous. It’s a moral concept. If it were only a legal concept, the legislature could decree that you are not a person. If it were a religious concept, then all would be persons, save for Amalekites.

This is a perfect example of a near-peerless ability to beg the question. The status of the human being that you call an “embryo” IS the very heart of the question that you step right over on your way to asserting the difference of embryo and adult, as if simply by scribbling a three-syllable term of art you could materially alter the biological reality of a human being with, not just a COMPLETE complement of DNA, but a COMPLETELY UNIQUE complement of HUMAN DNA.

As far as their humanity is concerned, the ONLY difference that I can see between am embryo and “living, breathing Jew” is their age. In fact, your statement is so lacking in self-reflection as to be self-refuting. The differences in development between the embryo and an adult are admittedly vast, but whatever they are, those difference do NOT include “living” or “breathing.” As with the Jew, so with the embryo.

An embryo IS tiny. Who would deny it? And I also admit that many people exhibit the sort of brutish sensibility that is impressed by size. They tend to be fans of Wrestle-Mania and Monster Car rodeos; but I suggest that we are better off not looking to fans of “The Biggest Loser” for appropriate standards of appraisal. Still, as a concession to brutality, if size matters so much, you list all the ways the adult and the fetus are different—go ahead, use a BIG pencil—while I shall list all the ways they are they same. I guarantee you ahead of time that my list will be far longer, as in far BIGGER.

You HAVE at times made mention of another difference that strikes you as particularly relevant, so I will address it in more detail. I’m speaking of the protean term “viability.” Now, strictly as a matter of the respecting the correct meaning in words, which I have had reason to note is not consistently a priority of yours, “viability” denotes only “able to live.” An embryo or a fetus is perfectly “able to live” in his mother’s womb. So I really have to ask, why isn’t it good enough that he does just fine in there? In fact he may never do as fine, affairs may never be as satisfactory nor he as contented in being alive as he was in utero were he to live to a hundred. That he will die outside the womb, by which you place such store, appears to me to be as unremarkable as that a bird will die when placed underwater or a fish when taken into the air. When such things happen SOMETHING IS TERRIBLY WRONG; so it is as half-witted to discount the humanity of a fetus because it is so weak, infirm, and improvident as to die after someone rips it from its proper place as it would be for someone to (1) lock YOU in a freezer, (2) pull YOU out a day later, and (3) scoff at YOU for being hopelessly nonviable at ten below.

In wrestling your sense of affrontery into some semblance of control, you might keep in mind that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood (PP) was an enthusiastic eugenicist. As she once said, eugenics could “assist the race in eliminating the unfit.” Ponder well that word, “eliminating.” That same unwholesome goal was of course the absolute heart of Nazi-ism, it should need NO pointing out, without which Nazi-ism would not be Nazi-ism. To her credit, Sanger was opposed to abortion; but forced sterilization was okay with her; and she took a VERY dim view of certain races and classes of people. Appropriate comparisons to Nazis is unavoidable as a historical matter as well. Eugenicists here and those in Europe read the same books and were influenced by the same authors. (Consult “A History of Birth Control,” by Peter Engleman, 2011.)

Yet more needs saying. I do not know that PP, founded in 1921, I believe, with eugenics as an explicit part of its manifesto, has ever formally disavowed it or its goals. Planned Parenthood advocates simply ceased mentioning the subject after some indefinite period of time. Sanger herself died in 1966 without having retracted her support for eugenics. So, I must ask, in exactly what frame of mind might the members of PP have greeted the decision in Roe in 1973? That Roe MAY be used to advance a eugenicist program cannot be doubted; and it certainly advances the goal of planned parenthood. It is, therefore, NOT at all “insulting” to espy a connection to what was, after all, the eschaton of Adolf Hitler. Further because PP, unlike its founder who gave as one reason for opposing abortion her conviction that life began at conception, her successors, for reasons similar to yours—and worse!—show no patience with footling scruples such as “is a fetus alive?” or “is a fetus human?” and like pointless chit-chat. No, sir. Their message to women has always been “You wanna de knife, you gedda de knife!” Interview over, and further questions disallowed.

So yes, when you kill 330,000 “living, breathing” human beings a year, for decade after decade, at a pace to rival the best efforts Nazis, I should think you’d be thankful if the epithets hurled your way stop with “running an abortion mill.”

Finally if “personhood” is all that’s stopping you from condemning the killing of fetuses, well, now that is easily settled. Personhood, unless you want to get all metaphysical and religious about it, which I’m quite sure you don’t, is a legal concept as well as a psychological one. If a legislature can make a corporation a person for purposes of taxing it, they can just as well make fetuses into persons for the purpose of not killing them. The related psychological concept of “personality” always singles out as important some uniqueness in a given human being. The frequency distribution of his DNA—on the order of one in a trillion—would seem to qualify a fetus as plenty unique.

Then that is an insult to every victim, survivor of the Holocaust – and every humanitarian in the world. An embryo is in no way comparable to a living, breathing Jew.

Joe: What ARE you talking about? I wasn’t aware that I was defending circumcision.

I didn’t say you were. But neither did you show concern for the babies killed by this practice.

Joe: I then attempted an estimate of the monies involved in abortion mills

Honestly, do you really think that if 3% of your services and 16.4% of your income are related to abortion, that makes you an “abortion mill”?

Joe: a moral equivalence between the very, very, rare chance of dying from circumcision with the very, very, very rare chance of surviving an abortion.

An unnecessary body count of more than 100 is not “very, very, very rare”. In the very case a woman dies of an abortion, the case is touted by the anti-abortion until my ears wear out.

Joe: I further think that you would have to have the sensibility of a slab of ocean-bottom basalt to believe otherwise, as in “there wouldn’t be ANYTHING wrong with that, either [emphasis supplied].”

You’re entitled to your opinion, but lowering the number of unwanted children is a good thing in my book. It lowers the chance of the mistreatment of actual persons, as opposed to embryos.

Joe: I also tend to doubt that Planned Parenthood shares your assessment of just how “impressive” $165 million is.

Well, you thankfully calculated the percentage of total income that this constitutes – 16.4%. It’s not negligible, but it’s not particularly impressive either. It shows that Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of services, one of which is abortion.

Joe: And why are you dragging poor Sen. Kyle into this? Have I forgotten something? Did I mention him?

No, but it was still fun to mention him – and his “not intended to be a factual statement”.

Yes.

“Can you not show at least some concern for the babies who bleed to death as a result of this completely unnecessary and disgusting practice?”

What ARE you talking about? I wasn’t aware that I was defending circumcision. I was responding to some insipid remark up-thread to the effect that, if one objection to abortion raised in the past “on these boards” is the potential the profit motive holds to kill more to make more, then of course, for shame, a similar objection to circumcision must be allowed.

I then attempted an estimate of the monies involved in abortion mills and decided that the tu quoque proffered was absurd, as absurd your trying to construct—what?—a moral equivalence between the very, very, rare chance of dying from circumcision with the very, very, very rare chance of surviving an abortion. It’s simply not a comparison that can be taken seriously.

I also tend to doubt that Planned Parenthood shares your assessment of just how “impressive” $165 million is. I think that 1100 abortions a day, 330,000 a year, year in and year out is the nonpareil of an abortion mill. I further think that you would have to have the sensibility of a slab of ocean-bottom basalt to believe otherwise, as in “there wouldn’t be ANYTHING wrong with that, either [emphasis supplied].” But hey, that’s only my opinion.

And why are you dragging poor Sen. Kyle into this? Have I forgotten something? Did I mention him?

I’ve learned my lesson with you though, Max. It’s mostly a waste of time fencing with you, so I’m going to call it a night.

Even if we go by your measure, 16.4% still isn’t particularly impressive. It certainly doesn’t come close to Senator Jon Kyl’s assertion that “more than 90%” of what Planned Parenthood does is abortion – but a spokesperson later said that it was not intended to be a factual statement. And it certainly does not justify you calling Planned Parenthood an abortion mill – and there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that, either.

Joe: Not coincidentally, PP placing fewer than 5000 infants for adoption in 2009 and only 850 in 2010. Why so drastic a drop when it comes to keeping babies alive, I have to wonder.

Probably because it is not PP’s… choice. What are they supposed to do? Force young ladies to bear a fetus to term and give it up for adoption?

Joe: the Nazis are estimated to have exterminated about 6-million Jews or about 3300 per day.

Are you really comparing the elimination of non-viable embryos and fetuses to the murder of living, breathing Jews? If you do, you can count non-PP abortions and you’d arrive at a number of abortion greater than the number of killings carried out by Nazi Germany, on a yearly basis.

You also didn’t answer my question. If you are pro-life, can you not show at least some concern for the babies who bleed to death as a result of this completely unnecessary and disgusting practice?

Three percent of “activities” does not address that question at all and, I suspect, is a deliberate red herring designed to confuse the easily confused, which seems to have worked, congratulations to PP and its propagandists.

I did locate the following figures for 2009 PP INCOME, which is rather more pertinent: Income from abortion services $165 million, earned from 332,000 assaults on unborn human beings per day. On a budget of roughly $1.1 billion/year, that works out to 16.4%. So you may take your 3% red herring and wrap it with the New York Times: $165 million/year is a truly interesting sum of money. At more than 16% of budget, moreover, it can hardly fail to be a serious incentive. In 2010, PP performed 329,000 abortions. I do not have figures on its abortion income for that year, but it probably is roughly the same as the year before’s since there is less than a 1% difference in the number of abortions performed from one year to the next. Not coincidentally, PP placing fewer than 5000 infants for adoption in 2009 and only 850 in 2010. Why so drastic a drop when it comes to keeping babies alive, I have to wonder.

Finally, 330,000 abortions per year. excluding Sundays and Federal holidays, works out to about 1100 deaths a day. That sounds like industrial-level killing to me; but, simply for purposes of comparison, between Feb. 1940 and Feb. 1945, the Nazis are estimated to have exterminated about 6-million Jews or about 3300 per day. So PP, with 800 clinics and a staff of 26,000, assuming that roughly 3% or 800 work in abortion services, manages to reach one third the yearly output of Adolph Eichmann and friends. The numbers employed by Eichmann in this business is hard to come by. The SS is known to have run about 1500 concentration camps, and although killing occurred at all of them, only about a half dozen were true Vernichtungslage: death camps. Figures are difficult to come by but it seems that at least 10,000 or so members of the so-called SiPo (Sicherheitspolizei) were actively engaged in rounding up Jews and Gipsies and so forth. So as measured simply by deaths per employee the PP figure of one-and-three-eighths dead fetuses per employee per day stands up rather impressively to the measly one-third of a Jew per Nazi per day that the SiPo managed to send to his reward. Atta boy— Excuse me—Atta girl, PP! That’s the spirit.

Sure, 3% of the services of Planned Parenthood being abortion makes it an abortion mill.

Joe: harm to the “sacrosanct” child, who presumably becomes so at birth,

That would be as ridiculous as arguing that a fertilized egg or a frozen embryo is a child. What difference does the location of a child make? A child three weeks before birth can survive perfectly well on its own. To eliminate it for convenience is nothing less than murdering innocence.

Joe: are as nothing compared to the guaranteed harm that abortion provides

Are you interested in scoring imaginary points on abortion (favorite topic of some), or in doing what is right? If you are pro-life, do you care at all about the babies who bleed to death due to no fault of their own? Or do you say: what’s the use of saving the lives of 113 babies a year, when abortion remains legal?

Second, the relative gravity of the procedures must be considered. The term “abortion mill” is NOT an exaggeration for many of the so-called “clinics” that earn money dismembering fetuses or scraping away at fetuses or sticking sharpened knives into fetuses or who-knows-what other ghastly and novel procedures that adequate for killing a human being quite dead they’ve come up with.

The clinical and ethical questions of abortion are, well, “difficult,” as even a brain-dead clown like Sen. Barbara Boxer seems to have noticed; they are even “heart-wrenching” and “traumatic” and, oh yes, “deeply personal,” so it is surprising, to say no more, to learn that all that Sturm und Drang can all be sorted out given a free afternoon and a Visa card.

The picture of a woman and her Solon-like physician pondering the seriousness of the decision they are about to make, which the abortion rhetoric paints as a diversion, is ludicrous, more often than not bearing NO RESEMBLANCE WHATSOEVER to the factory-like slice-and-dice assembly lines one actually encounters, especially in urban settings where 90% of the killing takes place. Depend on it, in such hellish settings, wages are of the utmost importance in motivating all concerned, mother and child excepted, that is, and sometimes not even the sort of mother who’s on her third or fourth go around and looking to economize. As a business matter it’s a case of “Volume! Volume! Volume!” and “By Midnite All Babies Must go!”

The ethical and health concerns of circumcision, on the other hand, for all the faux handwringing about harm to the “sacrosanct” child, who presumably becomes so at birth, are as nothing compared to the guaranteed harm that abortion provides, which is, after all, its NUMBER ONE selling point. Has anyone ever heard the term “circumcision mill”? I know I haven’t.