Eugene Robinson is an scribe for the Washington Post who specializes in embarrassing himself with ad hominem attacks on right wing personalities. Lately he’s made some scathing and offensive remarks about Rick Santorum.
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson set off alarm bells last month when he denigrated Rick Santorum as “very weird” for the manner in which Santorum and his wife mourned the loss of their newborn son Gabriel, who died within hours of his birth in 1996. The Santorums brought their deceased baby home and grieved with their other children in a private vigil before a funeral was held.
Jack Coleman wryly notes that the Kennedy family did the same weird thing with Teddie:
Consider, for example, how the Kennedys responded after the death of Ted Kennedy in Hyannisport three years ago. Kennedy’s body remained at the compound and a vigil for family and close friends was held there, followed by a public wake and invitation-only funeral, and Kennedy’s burial at Arlington National Cemetery.
In other words, the Kennedys reacted much the same as the Santorums to the death of a loved one — with a private vigil at their home followed by a funeral. Difference being, Ted Kennedy had been a fully formed human being — all too human, you might say — while Gabriel Santorum clearly wasn’t, not at conception and not even after he was born, at least to Eugene Robinson.
Then Robinson launches a new pogrom on Catholics
MADDOW: What about this issue seems to be a winning argument to Republicans? Why, why do they like it if the polls aren’t with them?
ROBINSON: Well, the polls are not with them, the voters are not with them, so, so clearly it’s not a winning issue. I mean, they can’t believe this is, this is a good idea politically. So, I mean, the only thing I can figure out, Rachel, is that’s based on a wrong and frankly insane belief that a fertilized egg is a fully formed person and has personhood and that, you know, preventing the implantation of that egg is some-, is murder. I don’t, you know, it baffles me as to what other explanation there could be. They can be sincerely mad on this, on this subject, I think, and maybe they are.
So it appears that we have a standard of sorts for life- a “fully formed person.” What we don’t have is a definition of what a “fully formed person” is. Coleman thinks that Robinson’s “fully formed person” would exclude the Santorums’ preemie Gabriel from the ranks of being alive.
Robinson doesn’t limit himself to his belief that a fertilized egg is not fully human. He also believes this of babies born prematurely who die shortly after birth — as shown by his dismissive criticism of the Santorums’ response to the death of their son. Why all the fuss, Robinson wondered aloud. It’s not as if this child had been a fully formed person.
One thing Robinson owes us is an explanation- a definition of a “fully formed person.” I cast the question into a pool of personalities on another forum just to see what would result. The most common response was that a fetus develops into a “fully formed person” somewhere around late second and early third trimesters.
But one could argue that this is too limiting.
A “fully formed person” should be capable of reproduction.
If a being is still growing, then it is not fully formed.
Thus one could argue that a fully formed person is one beyond puberty and has stopped growing. Then all others are not “fully formed” and do not qualify for “personhood” in Robinsonworld. And non-persons do not enjoy the rights and protections of fully formed persons, do they?
Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mr. Robinson
Jesus loves you more than you will know
God bless you please, Mr. Robinson
Heaven holds a place for those who pray
(Hey, hey, hey…hey, hey, hey)
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Maddow and Robinson are correct about one thing. That is, the issue is a loser for the GOP. Of course, the reason they believe it is a loser, and the reality of why it’s a loser are two different things.
It seems that Maddow and Robinson believe that the crux of the issue of the contraceptive mandate centers on “women’s reproductive rights” vs. “religious rights”, and from the viewpoint that those women’s rights can be imposed upon others, regardless of any other rights present, including those in conflict with it. In other words, they believe that a person, or entity, can be forced to “give” those rights to women by the government, even if that action includes the infringement of that person’s, or entity’s, own rights.
When a right is “demanded” by a person, or group, that requires an action by another person, or group, it isn’t really so much a “right” as it is a “privilege”. In order to have a privilege, another person has to grant, or bestow it upon a person, or group. In this case, we have the federal government forcing a group to bestow the privilege on the women who work for them.
The left, however, has taken what IS a right of women, that is, to do with their bodies as they wish, and generalized the term “right” by including “privilege” into the discussion. No conservative that I know wishes to infringe on the right of women to do with their bodies as they wish, especially by using government force to do so. If such was the case, their would be a movement towards prohibition on all contraceptives and abortifacients, such that none of these would be available for the use of women. Yet, this is how the issue is presented to the public.
The reality is that the left wishes to DEMAND that a person, or group, PAY for someone else’s “right”. That makes it not a right, but a privilege, and in so doing, they are basically stating that their privilege can be forced upon a group, to the point where that group has to pay for that privilege, and, at the cost of that group being allowed to enjoy a right specifically listed within the Constitution.
We are in a bizarro world where privileges are granted the same status, or more so, than actual rights, simply by calling those privileges “rights”. What’s next? Do we grant the privilege of driving the status of a right and use government force to make certain people or groups pay for another person’s auto insurance when they cannot afford it themselves?
Every now and then somebody trots out stats that purport to show the USA has a lower live birth rate than some European countries.
But the sets of numbers are based on differing assumptions.
In Europe, some countries adopt Eugene Robinson’s idea that a breathing baby is NOT to be counted as a ”live” birth UNLESS it continues to breath for a specified number of days…..three or so.
Therefore those European countries take a bunch of once-living babies out of their equation for live birth rates.
Does this make a mom fell better?
Or is it merely to salve the collective conscience of a nation that lacks the will to pour money into trying to save every life?
Or what?
Whatever.
Eugene Robinson wants us to swallow the values behind that practice here, too.
As far as the main topic of this post, Mr. Robinson fails to take into account the differing viewpoints on exactly when life becomes significant. Some people believe it becomes significant at the moment of conception. Others when it becomes self-aware. And still others don’t consider it life until birth. Mr. Robinson wishes to describe an exact condition upon which that life is significant. That is fine. It would be interesting, though, to hear Mr. Robinson’s response to Dr. J’s assertion at the end of his post.
Be honest. Don’t you think the dead baby business was just a trifle weird? Would you feel comfortable having dinner at their house. REALLY? LOL.
We are in a bizarro world J.G., but in a bizarro world where Republicans have decided they can garner votes by making themselves sound very much like Iranian mullahs. LOL.
@mattens:
No, I wouldn’t have been comfortable. However, I am not a Santorum family member, and neither are you, and neither was Robinson. It is apparent that you missed the point by Dr. J. That is, that Mr. Robinson felt it “weird” when the Santorum’s held their vigil, yet is quite ok with a similar one for a dead grown-up.
And as for your #5 post, please explain further rather than dropping a conjecture without basis.
The term “person” speaks to the idea of who a person, at his or her core, is. The “person” is immutable. Thus, a human is a human always, an angel is an angel always. Right. Angels are persons too, but the human being is a person with a body and a soul and angels have no body or soul, they are pure spirits, and God is God always, three Persons in one God. The person comes into existence at the will of God. Here is where the schism begins. Here is the battle line. How dare you bring God into the secular world of atheism? I dare for the devil is a person, no body no soul, but personhood. Mr. Robinson, if you cannot explain your own existence, how can you define another person’s existence? From the writing of Reverend James Lentini
Mary De Voe
wow that is a good touchez, like an arrow in the center of his targeted point,
he look body finish maybe but the mind has sometimes dislocated itself in many pieces,
not connected by neurons without the spark, so he is not finish, never to be complete human,
he must be discarded and thrown in the bin
Part of the problem is that Mr. Robinson is not a fully formed objective thinker. His intellectual growth seems to have been curtailed when he “won” a Pulitzer for his written adulation of our first black president, and he’s now stuck in an effort to see if he can somehow repeat the miracle.
“won” is in quotes because a search of Pulitzers (from that unbiased bastion of objectivity, Columbia) will show that they lean heavily left (and in some cases, for example JFK and Alex Haley weren’t even earned). There’s also that wonderful Pulitzer awarded to a fashion writer whose noted body of work included a hit piece on Dick Cheney for not showing up at a foreign event in the “right” apparel.
A fully formed journalist would certainly be able to see the good in both sides, wouldn’t he?
@ilovebeeswarzone: As you must know bee hives were used in battle, to throw at the enemy. Human beings must never be thrown in the dust bin or discarded, for such is the dignity of the human being. Each person is precious. And I would not like being discarded, but Robinson’s writing needs to be discarded. God bless
I was a preemie, 3lbs,5oz. and spent 6 weeks in an incubator fighting for survival. I guess according to Robinson I don’t qualify as “a fully formed person” and shouldn’t have any right to life. If you go by his and Obama’s Chicago Democrat abortion policy logic, it wouldn’t be a crime to kill me.
Good luck with that. I’m a 50 year old military veteran type fetus, with a weapon collection who knows how to use them. Come on over Eugene, we’ll have a glass of milk and have a little goo-goo talk. But if you pull a hanger or surgical drill on me, you’ll be one sorry lefty.
mattens #4:
No, it is not at all weird. Yes, I would be perfectly comfortable having dinner with the Santorums. Satisfied?
Mary De Voe
hi
I agree on human being precious on the top chain of life, and I have respect for that too,
it seem that some are loosing their essence which only human possess and are killing the other humans,
one way or another, what should we do with them, if we must.I say we must then
bye
CURT
I haven’t received the comments following my answers in the last 2 days,
back to my site as I was before, I’m trying to find where the problem come from,
it’s the first time I see that happening in all the time I come here,
bye
ilovebeeswarzone:
Hi,
The precious human being throws him/herself into hell. The law abiding citizen, the sovereign person, cannot abide crime, but must bring the lawbreaker to Justice. Bringing the criminal to Justice of necessity includes Capital Punishment, the temporal punishment due to capital one homicide. Supersititon in the Supremacy of TRUTH is Catholic. If Truth is not true, then it is a lie. The infallibility of TRUTH comes from God, in perfection. Moral relativism comes from imperfect human reasoning until the human person is lost in the wilderness, hopefully searching for God’s TRUTH.
Ditto,
Glad you made it. “A fully formed person” or personhood, is endowed by our CREATOR when two become one, (from our Declaration of Independence). Our CREATOR gives us His Name “I AM” when human beings come into existence at conception (of the immortal, rational soul) through the will of God, God, WHO is being and existence. Government does not create life nor personhood, therefore, government cannot take innocent life or redefine personhood. Personhood is an immutable fact of existence. What Robinson may be thinking of is personality which is man’s response (a willful act of the human being’s soul through free will) to personhood. Personality grows with human growth. Personality is actually proof positive that there is an immortal, rational soul, and personhood, from which personality derives. However, if the person chooses to not indulge or respond to his personhood, that is still his freedom. His personality may be nil, but the person may not be put to death for his free will choice.
Ditto”
My neighbor was 9 ounces when she was born prematurely during WWI because her father was killed in sabotage. Her grandmother wrapped her in cotton, put her in a cigar box near the pot-bellied stove and Elaine lived to be seventy years or more. I lost track when she moved. Oh, the power of grandmothers.
“the dead baby business a trifle weird?” No, to be honest, I find your comment and your attitude repugnant and inhumane. How dare you trivialize the agony of losing a child? Gabriel was their SON. How sad for you that you cannot grasp the humanity of a tiny baby and appreciate the value of such a baby and thus feel empathy for his death. I would be HONORED AND PROUD to have dinner at the Santorum home. They are honorable people who understand the value of human life. God bless them.
And along with Mr. Robinson’s sick timing of comments we get this disturbing thesis from:
Warning: Link may make you extremely angry with the, ‘researchers.”
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstract
Mary De Voe
I like the comments you gave, and I must say I was just expressing anger for the idiot robinsson,
I just can’t stand those robinsson and there are numerous heartless which influence the hardening of the inner souls of the young growing up being thought to not feel for the other suffering, because they too are suffering from their past misery teaching them to hate because their generation have suffer from it,
they are kept into that mindset and locked in which prevent their soul to enlighten their spirit along with their brain positive sides
best to you