Documented: Comments by dmarks (AKA Dennis Marks) on the topic of remarks made by Russ Feingold during an exchange between Feingold (D-WI) and Rick Santorum (R-PA) on the Senate floor on 9/26/1996.
[Willis Hart said] "And on the far left you have other people so extreme that they think that a woman should be able to abort a fetus LITERALLY 24 hours prior to the due-date".
The extreme goes beyond that: the view that supports abortion after birth. Senator Feingold once spoke out on the senate floor in favor of this. And on the other end, the extreme could be "no contraception or birth control at all". And that does exist too.
WD should be thankful that no one has made a subjective determination that he is "nonviable" and gotten all bloodthirsty and sought his death.
And who else but to determine such viability? Death panels. Alive and well in WD's comments. The only thing that is shocking here is WD's zeal to kill babies at this stage. It sheds a new light on his support of Bill Maher's statements about how handicapped children are not people and are equivalent to dogs due to some vaguely defined lack of ability to advance.
And here, by the way, is Feingold taking the very extreme view of performing "abortions" to kill children* who have alresdy been born. And yes, he does think it is OK for a doctor and mother to act as judge, jury, and executioner on a new born infant. A person under the law (please check your 14th amendment), and an American citizen who under our Constitution holds the rights of due process. Feingold's views are extreme in the worst way.
John: You seem to have a pretty clear way of looking at it. What do you think of including, as Feingold does, already-born infants (legally persons with every Constitutional right) as Feingold does, as people who can be killed at will at a mere whim by two hostile individuals?
[Dervish Sanders said] "I'm for letting doctors decide. They're qualified while legislators are not".
Again with your death panels. Actually, legislators actually tend to be more qualified in terms of Constitutional rights and due process. It is shocking in many respects (including to the respect of the law and due process) to advocate doctors killing people willy-nilly without any regards to the rights of persons under the Constitution.
[Dervish Sanders said] "I'm opposed to killing on a "mere whim". That would be murder. I'm talking about a medical determination of non viability".
Actually, under the Constitution, there is no allowance for doctors to be judge, jury, and executioner. What you describe very specifically and exactly in fact meets the definition of murder: "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another".
And killing legal American citizens as Feingold advocates is indeed "unlawful", as the victims in this are not fetii, and are not covered in the abortion law being discussed. Feingold and those like him took a huge leap when they deigned to stretch abortion law to cover legal American citizens who are not in the womb.
There's not even a gray area of self-defense: a newborn infant is not going to harm the mother. So you can't even hide behind that. Since you seem to think it does not matter, here is the text of the 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
I can remind you of due process if that is necessary too.
John: In a politically pluralistic situation such as we have in the US, your ideas on this as set forth are reasonable and in my view 'workable'. Problem is there are a lot of extremists/idealogues/purists on both sides who won't give ground in any way.
[Dervish Sanders said] "dmarks says that if I say we should show mercy and end the suffering of a non viable baby".
I am not opposed to that as much as I am opposed to the extra-legal and unConstitutional situation of doctors assuming the mantle of judge, jury, and executioner over these legal American citizens. Take each case to a court of law, where it belongs. "advocate doctors killing people willy-nilly" is exactly what you have advocated. I have seen no mention from you whatsover of this citizen's rights under the Constitution.
"Except to say that I agree with the Feingold position".
Which is to give doctors the right of judge, jury, and executioner to murder (yes, murder) American citizens willy-nilly. It's a very extreme position. Will's original comment had the extreme on this end as aborting a fetus 24 hours before birth. I guess he had no idea that someone would go out in a limb and even make false accusations to put forth a much more extreme position.
[Dervish Sanders said] "It's pointless to argue with dmarks because he keeps lying".
Since I have not lied yet here, one can only guess at what you mean. In any case, it is clear to anyone reading this with even an ounce of reading comprehension that you are making a false accusation. In regards to Will's request "I mean, I know that this has largely become an emotional issue and all but, please, can we plainly just knock it off with all of these battle-lines... at least for a minute or two?"
it is clear that you won't.
For more of what WD advocates, please click here. Medical experts appointing themselves judge, jury, and executioner over American citizens that they have determined to be not worthy of the gift of life. All without any regards to the victim's rights as US citizens under the Constitution. In the name of "mercy", which, in the imagination of WD's medical "experts", completely trumps the victim's Constitutional rights. It's really sick and bloodthirsty. Will, when you created this item, did you have any idea that someone would come out and use this as an excuse to vent their desire to have doctors slaughter such "undesirables" who ale already born?
John said: "Fetuses do huge amounts of harm to the mother, both physically and psychologically".
I know that well. That was not even at question. I brought it up in the matter of unlawfully killing children who have already been born. For some reason this is actually controversial here. These children are in no position to harm the mother.
John also said: "Since some people do not think a fetus is a person. Any argument that assumes this as part of its premise is begging the question and irrelevant. The argument about whether a fetus is a person must be settled first".
I know, I know. But read up for the previous comments. WD is advocating killing newborns, who are legal persons (born, see the 14th Amendment), and technically not a fetus any more. That's a rather outrageous and extreme position.
[Dervish Sanders said] "I'm ignoring dmarks. I oppose forcing a NON VIABLE baby to suffer unduly".
You are also ignoring the Constitution and other law. Which demands that such matters have proper due process.
Rogue killer "doctors" as you advocate... simply not legal.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Check out his last two comments in which he jumps to all kinds of illogical conclusions".
I have not jumped anywhere. The only leap was Feingold's in which he used a discussion of abortion law to vent his own zeal for killing already-born persons. One you support.
And the only "force" involved is in killing existing American citizens.
Tell us, WD. You clearly believe that the 14th Amendment should be ignored. Is there any age at which it should kick in, and legally born American citizens get their Constitutional rights of due process? Is it 1 minute after they were born? 1 hour? 1 day? 3 years? 30? Which is it? Should the 14th Amendment be changed to reflect this? Or do you think it is OK that anyone can choose to ignore it as they see fit?
All I am asking is that citizen's basic 14th Amendment rights be protected, especially if there is an individual who wants to kill this person.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Do you get your jollies thinking of the suffering of non viable babies your absolutism would cause?"
No more than you get your jollies out of your zeal to kill newborns. Seriously, these matters should not be taken likely. Nor are doctors supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. And the existence of the 14th Amendment and due process are inconvenient truths: these protections exist even if we "think" they don't, when it comes to US citizens.
[Dervish Sanders said] "The 14th amendment doesn't apply because nobody is depriving these babies of life if they are already going to die".
That's a bizarre view. It makes one wonder if you have your own alternate-reality Constitution there. One with an asterisk in the 14th Amendment. * = Not applicable of you are going to die. Well, we all will die eventually. So no 14th Amendment. None at all, WD. Truth be told, this major modification exists in your own mind alone. In the real America, the 14th Amendment applies to everyone: even those who you so eagerly want to see slaughtered. And it is so strange you bring up abortion in this part of the discussion. Check the definition of abortion. It does not apply to some mercenary with a medical degree taking a hit on someone who has already been born.
John said: "I also believe that fetuses are humans and that fact should be considered when deciding how to treat them. I do not believe that fetus IS a woman’s body just because he/she lives there".
Again, WD's position is so extreme that he was advocating killing already-born legal citizens, protected under the 14th Amendment. He has even used a few imaginary and silly reasons to say that the 14th Amendment does not apply (when in fact, all of WD's bloodlust aside, it does).
You did, Will. And not only did WD embrace one of the extreme views (extreme according to strongly pro-choice moderate Will and 'insane' according to strongly-Left John Myste), he extended it to a passionate (and compassionless) support for infancticide and disregard for the inconveneint (for him) protections for citizens under the Constitituon (his ineffective argument? People don't have any rights if they might possibly die. For them there are no civil liberties.) His bringing up of blowing up abortion clinics is hollow and ineffective sloganeering. Not only has it hardly ever happened, it represents an extremist view. No one here in this discussion supports either of the extremes, except for WD.
WD started out on the wrong foot with something that is simply not true at all. WD's claim: "Also, Russ Feingold never spoke out on the Senate floor in support of abortions that take place after birth. It NEVER happened (except in dmarks' imagination)".
The truth? It did indeed happen. From The Political Guide: "In September of 1996, Senator Feingold spoke with Senator Santorum on the Senate floor about the possibility of an abortion on a child that was accidentally delivered". He went on to say that he would have no problem with this born baby being killed. You really need to think these things through sometimes, ya know?
Later on you said "That was until dmarks lied about what Russ Feingold said". But we all now know I didn't lie. You have lost any credibility you have had on it. As if you had any left by the time of your 2nd comment in this thread.
[Dervish Sanders said] "and then lied about my agreement with Russ Feingold's common sense position (that we should not let non-viable fetuses suffer for no reason)."
Actually, what is at controversy is Feingold's support for butchering newborns. We've not even argued about what you are falsely claiming we have.
He [Feingold] did say it was fine with him (not his business at ail) if doctors killed newborns. Come on, man, did you even read it? Santorum asked him a direct question, and Feingold weaseled about it for a while, eventually answering admitting his own personal incompetance and insulting Santorum while a qustion about killing the already-born infants in question ("that the baby was completely delivered ") saying: "I am not the person to be answering that question. That is a question that should be answered by a doctor, and by the woman who receives advice from the doctor. And neither I, nor is the Senator from Pennsylvania, truly competent to answer those questions. That is why we should not be making those decisions here on the floor of the Senate".
Also, WD is intentionally deceptive by implying that this conversation is about butchering supposedly "non-viable" American citizens. Feingold was talking about extending abortion to cover the execution of normal newborns, with no distinction made for the non-viable. In his discussion, Feingold favors doctors killing newborns for any reason at all ("That is a question that should be answered by a doctor").
In this, Feingold lied. While his statement about himself being incompetant is answered abundantly in the positive by his answers, the Senator from Pennsylvania and anyone who has read the Constitution knows that killing born babies is illegal. My claim about Feingold is this resolved as true.
By the way, changing the subject from butchering young American citizens to abortion, Feingold is indeed an extremist on it. Every time it comes up for a vote, he takes the fringe extreme view (fringe/extreme/insane as defined by pro-choice moderate Will, and strongly-Left John, at the start of this conversation. Will, you defined an extreme point of view at the start. WD actually found one even more extreme. More insane than insane.
WD: "...response to your nonsensical post where you claimed Russ Feingold wants to kill babies".
Actually, it is nonsensical. You have supported this view of Feingold in the case of babies supposedly deemed to be non-viable.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Russ Feingold does NOT favor doctors killing newborns for any reason at all".
He thinks it is fine if doctors do kill them. Making special exceptions to strip protection from certain citizens you wish harm to DOES mean you favor such policies.
[Dervish Sanders said] "I predict he's going to keep saying Russ Feingold spoke out in favor of killing newborns".
It's what Feingold said, after all.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Nor do I. I am 150 percent opposed".
Wow. That's a big change. It undoes all your previous comments in which you were so strongly in support of Feingold's pro-infanticide stand.
[Dervish Sanders said] "But that's because Feingold has no pro-infanticide stand... except in dmarks' imagination..."
Since Feingold's support for infantice (stripping young American citizens of basic rights and offering their lives up to the whims of doctors) is quite clear in the man's statements, the quote from you above is totally fact-free. Your standing under the bright noon sun and saying "it's night out!" type of stands get tiresome sometime. Perhaps your reading stuff and then saying it says the opposite, or missing entire paragraphs comes from a form of alexia you are afflicted with. Or are you just a malicious "troll" saying silly things just for fun?
here is the actual video. Ignore the first 20 or 40 seconds or so, which are framing from a political pressure group. In between the frames, you will find Feingold's actual words. Feingold is asked flat out about children who have been born (and are this outside of the situation of abortion, and are now US citizens protected by the 14th amendment). In his muddled answer (in which he does admit his own incompetance) Feingold comes across as dazed and confused, and as one of the worst type of politician who refuses to answer direct questions. He actually arguing in favor of killing a newborn who has already been separated from the mother in order to protect the health of the mother. Feingold is arguing for infanticide, and if you support his arguments here, you are supporting infanticide also.
[Dervish Sanders said] "Feingold never argued for infanticide".
No, of course not. He merely said it was fine for someone else's doctor to kill a newborn. It's 100% different, yeah right. Sarcasm off.
[Dervish Sanders said] "I support what he was really arguing for".
This bloodthirsty admitted incompetant was arguing for killing newborns. If you really mean the above quote, it means you are too.
[Dervish Sanders said] "I'm STRONGLY (150 percent) opposed to infanticide".
No, you are not. You just said above that you support Feingold's views, which are pro-infanticide. You can't have it both ways. Make up your mind.
Strong? Your opinion is kind of weak, since it only rarely intersects facts. Lets check this out:
[Dervish Sanders said] "Only a nut would stop an abortion in progress and allow a non-viable fetus to live (for mere minutes probably) because they've been "born" and have "14th amendment protections".
For one, this conversation is not even about abortion. The living child in question is not even inside the womb. Your referring to a matter of killing a born child as an "abortion" is a prime example of your re-defining words. From any dictionary: "The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy".
It's clear that the pregnancy has already been terminated at this point. Also, there is no need to put quotes around the words born and my mention of the 14th Amendment. They clearly apply here. You have already re-written the 14th Amendment above. Perhaps you are re-writing the word "born". Thanks for proving Will's point about extremists and John's about insanity. I guess we should be thankful that only one extremist showed up for this. Except for you, sane heads have prevailed.
In his defense of the indefensibie, WD tore through many barriers of law, common sense, definitions, and compassion. Among his defenses of his zeal to see young US citizens killed without any regards to their Constitutional rights was this disclaimer which said such killings are OK if it isn't the government doing it:
[Dervish Sanders said] "Also, the "state" isn't doing any depriving. It's the mother in consultation with her doctor that are making the decision".
There is a large number of public hospitals which are government-funded, and doctors who receive Medicaid payments. So, then, do you agree, WD, that these government doctors would not be permitted to act as judge. jury, and executioner and snuff out the life of US citizens? That this privilege is only reserved, then, for private individuals?
I will repeat that I have signed off on the moderate, sane compromise agreed to by Will and John earlier in the comments. Compared to what we have, and always will have in the current climate, I think it is an improvement.
| Posts that link here [SWTD #232] The Truth About Dennis Marks, 2/19/2014. [TADM #48] Vile Lie Concerning Russ Feingold From Dennis Marks, Then Cognitive Dissonance When He Is Confronted With the Truth, 7/18/2014. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.