Safely for whom?
This, from Andy on the Corner, is a great illustration of NY Times nuttiness:
I heard a lot of feedback from my post of yesterday (see here) regarding the nurse’s chilling infanticide testimony, quoted at length by the Court. But, for my money, if you want a sense of the ineffable, impenetrable coarseness of what passes for pro-choice thought, of the trance these people must have to put themselves in to filter out the inherent savagery of the “procedure,” try this (highlighting is mine). It made my jaw drop:
[T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents….
Safely? “Having safely e-n-t-e-r-e-d the s-k-u-l-l?” Right before spreading the “opening” (i.e., the wound) and “evacuat[ing] the skull contents” (i.e., sucking the brains out)?
Safely for whom?
What can you say about the mindset of human beings who could defend that? That which they wouldn’t abide being done to a dog, and which they declaim the dire necessity of … right before their next editorial about how our lives are really threatened by gasoline fumes, second-hand smoke, aerosol spray, melting ice caps, or Dick Cheney?
With bated breath I await the Grey Lady’s next lecture about the benighted cruelty of Guantanamo Bay.
Yup, Andy, I do too.
