Murdering Infants For A Lamborghini

A second disturbing video has emerged of a Planned Parenthood representative haggling over prices for abortion leftovers. This one features Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Medical Directors’ Council President, Mary Gatter. She is seen talking to what she believed to be fetal tissue procurement agents from a company calling itself Biomax.

It’s the second of what may be many videos to come from the Center for Medical Progress. A 501(c)3 non-profit organization describing itself as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances” though the group appears to be primarily focused on abortion. Planned Parenthood has warned Congress that more videos will follow, and that the group may have “thousands of hours” of video.

In the first video Deborah Nucatola, MD, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America describes in great detail the process by which she will harvest livers, legs, brains, and other organs from infants aborted as late as 24 weeks into pregnancy, and how she would provide the parts to the researchers in exchange for payment. We discussed this recently on my podcast, Radical Agenda.

In the new video, Gatter also ghoulishly describes the process, offering to use methods which are “less crunchy” to obtain intact specimens. The negotiations over price seem to refute Planned Parenthood’s claims that it does not “sell” baby parts, but rather only donates tissue in exchange for payment which they call reimbursement. Gatter coldly calculates her ability to gain greater payment from the investigators, demanding they tell her how much they are already paying for specimens, and saying that whoever throws out a figure first in a negotiation loses.

Murdering Infants For A Lamborghini

Murdering Infants For A Lamborghini

“Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine, if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini!” Gatter joked.

“What did you just say?” the actor asked.

“I said I want a Lamborghini!” she repeated.

Gatter, Nucatola, and the entire Planned Parenthood legal and media apparatus all insist they aren’t in this for the money, but that really does beg the question. Just what are you in this for, then? The lulz?

For people who aren’t in it for the money, they sure do seem to go through a lot of it. In 2013 Planned Parenthood got $540.6 million in funding from the United States Federal Government, approximately 45% of its $1.21 billion in revenue for that year. Planned Parenthood claims that federal funds are not used for abortions, that would be illegal, of course. They say only 3% of the services it provides are abortions, but roughly 92% of pregnant women who walk into Planned Parenthood end up having an abortion.

These explanations might as well read “We do not sell baby parts or use federal funds for abortions because unicorn, frisbee, hologram”. By this I mean, it is complete nonsense. When 92% of the pregnant women who walk into your clinic get an abortion, you are an abortion clinic. When you accept payment in exchange for provision of goods and services, you are selling things. When the bulk of your funding comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, you are a government agency.

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Planned Parenthood was not originally started as a money making operation. It was ideologically driven. The organization’s founder, Margaret Sanger was quite the proud eugenicist and rather obsessed with the topic of race. She figured that by discouraging breeding among undesirables, “negroes” in particular, she could help manufacture a “new race” superior to all others.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

~ Margaret Sanger – Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

That scheme seems to be working out splendidly. While Black women account for 13 percent of the female population, they accounted for 30 percent of all abortions. In 2008, 75,960 Black teens 15-19 had abortions, compared to 65,972 among white teens and 41,465 among Hispanic teens. And these numbers don’t even take into account how many white and hispanic women aborted after they were impregnated by black men. Anyone willing to bet those numbers are also disparately high?

Ah yes, this darling of the racial egalitarian anticapitalist left, who launched a billion dollar a year corporation for the explicit purpose of exterminating black people, and went on to become a chop shop for dismembering infants and distributing the parts, in hopes of obtaining a luxury sports car.

No problems there, right? Everything is fine, isn’t it, pro-choice egalitarian anticapitalist? Let’s panic about the confederate flag and riot in the streets when a strongarm robber gets shot, then celebrate a fucking holocaust of the unborn in the name of racial hygiene. Let’s enthusiastically cheer for political candidates who say this is all about women’s rights, and anybody who opposes them is a woman hating misogynist, using the female gender as a shield while they extort taxpayers to fund a systemic, century old effort to wipe an entire race of people off the face of the planet.

Let’s call anyone who opposes that, a dangerous extremist. Let’s ruin their careers. Let’s brand them religious zealots, racists and misogynists, cold hearted villains who hate the poor.

“Oh, you don’t like my racial extermination program? You’re a terrible person! Now pay your fucking taxes”

“You don’t want me to drive scissors into the skulls of newborns? What’s wrong with you? This is normal behavior. Pay for it or go to prison”

“You don’t want me to cut babies into pieces and ship the parts to different geographic areas? You just hate science”

That’s the level of political discourse in America today, ladies and gentlemen. That’s what you’re cramming yourselves into voting booths for every 2, 4 and 6 years.

People talk about gun violence like guns are the problem. People talk about suicide like we just need to get more medication into the mouths of more children. We look at drug addiction and think we just need to fill up one or two more prisons.

No, no…

I figure most people aren’t intelligent or educated enough to really understand it, but I’ll tell you what’s driving this species off the extinction cliff of insanity. It’s stories like this one. This utter depravity being held up in the public eye as wonderful, caring, behavior. It’s the outright rejection of reason as a means for coming to conclusions, and accepting all the obviously absurd contradictions and lies we’re told as truth. This type of stuff, being as widespread as it is, leads people to hopelessness. They realize on some level, even if only subconsciously, that this world is going nowhere good, and getting there in a hurry. People are giving up on life and losing their minds, like they’re in a plane crash that’s taking decades to reach the ground. They feel themselves falling, they feel like there is nothing they can do about it, but they see that ground coming toward them ever more rapidly and they know they have nothing to look forward to but disaster.

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Subscribe to “Christopher Cantwell Essays” Audio Podcast on iTunes and Stitcher


  • Dennis Wilson

    I posted this a year ago on the discussion about evictionism but it seems appropriate for this issue, because abortion is the RED HERRING issue that the Left counts on to keep the freedom movement divided. Or as Coralyn Herenschrict points out, a very clear distinction needs to be made between the NAP and personal choices

    So far, no one has called for a ban on abortion. I hope this post will head off what usually happens when this subject comes up. If you want to see how this directly relates to Chris’ article, here is the last 2 line paragraph of this post:

    Abortion should remain legal . But not one red cent of federal tax money should ever be spent on it again.


    So what is the proper “libertarian” POLITICAL POSITION on abortion?

    Highlights from “Abortion: An Excerpt From Hope”,

    published in 2001 by Aaron Zelman and L. Neil Smith

    [ The full excerpt is available at: tinyurl (dot) com/Abortion-from-HOPE ]

    “Well, if nothing else, gentlemen, its brevity is commendable. It simply bans abortion anywhere within the United States, their territories, on US military bases overseas, or on American ships at sea. So where’s the rest of it?”

    “That’s right, Senator, the rest of it. When I was a schoolboy, before the Roe vs. Wade decision, something like 50,000 women a year were dying from botched abortions of one kind or another, either self-inflicted, or at the hands of some back-alley butcher. What that tells us is that, whatever the 
    law may decree, women will still take huge risks to control their own 

    “Well for example, you don’t want American women skulking off to Canada or Mexico to get their abortions, do you? So where’s your provision for physical examinations at the borders to detect pregnancies leaving the country, or terminated pregnancies coming back in?”

    “…if you seek to outlaw abortions, you’re going to have to add an enforcement clause to this legislation, aren’t you? And you may even have to create a whole new federal bureaucracy to do the enforcing. I certainly can’t imagine any existing law enforcement agency that I’d care to see doing it, can you?”

    “there’ll have to be agency regulations that go along with the law and sustain it. To begin with, I suppose you gentlemen realize that you’ll have to insist on mandatory monthly pregnancy testing for every female in the country, from puberty to menopause.”

    “Maybe you’ll want to require women to show up once a month down at the local offices of the… well let’s call it the ‘Pregnancy Enforcement Administration’, shall we? Or maybe you can just issue them a home pregnancy test kit every month and they can use it and send in the results—although can you trust them to be that honest? You’ll also have to accept the fact that you’ll be creating a whole new underground market for false test results.”

    “the mother-to-be will be criminally prosecuted if she drinks or smokes while pregnant, or exposes herself or her baby to secondhand smoke or to any other politically incorrect influence—perhaps even if she eats too little or too much of the currently right or wrong thing. It will probably be called ‘unborn child abuse’.”

    “How can you outlaw a thing without taking 
    steps to make sure that people don’t do it? Even if you don’t write 
    those provisions into your bill, others who come along later will try to
    make political hay of their own by tightening up all the ‘loopholes’ 
    that you left for them so thoughtfully.”

    “… a woman who’s obviously pregnant—involuntarily—or has a history of attempted abortions, or who happens to fail a psychological evaluation will have to be subjected to various kinds of physical restraint, ranging from 
    house arrest with an electronic anklet to keep tabs on her whereabouts, 
    to the local jail where she can be watched, to a federal prison, to 
    forced hospitalization, to a padded cell in some lunatic asylum, to a 
    straitjacket. She might even be forcibly sedated—turned into some kind 
    of zombie—for the term of her pregnancy.”

    “Of course you’ll have to outlaw all wire coat hangers, knitting needles, chopsticks over a certain length, or anything else that can be used to induce a self-abortion. Maybe registering these items and licensing their owners will be enough. Although in that case, the coat hangers, knitting needles, and chopsticks will all have to have serial numbers.”

    “Any contact between a woman and her health
    providers will naturally be suspect. If she goes to her doctor, even to
    have an ingrown toenail removed, they’ll have to be ready to prove they
    weren’t planning an abortion, possibly by recording every word they say
    together. If she discusses the weather for too long with her pharmacist
    at the drugstore, they’ll be subject to interrogation by PEA… 
    greenshirts… who’ll want to know if what they talked about was RU486.”

    “Likewise, each and every miscarriage, 
    however tragic, innocent, or accidental,” Alex said, “will have to be 
    investigated like a homicide, with all of the invasions of privacy and 
    violations of rights any homicide investigation entails. And there’s 
    plenty of room in there for another kind of miscarriage—a miscarriage of
    justice. If a woman can be shown to have taken one vitamin pill too 
    few—or one vitamin pill too many—when she was pregnant, some ambitious prosecutor will make her life even more miserable than it is, by trying to nail her for manslaughter.”

    “…little items like the parental licensing laws they’ve wanted at 
    least since the Clinton Administration. When that happens, when couples 
    fail to qualify for a government license—maybe because they own guns, or drive an SUV, or smoke, or like to barbecue red meat—their unlicensed kids 
    will be seized by the state and raised in the crèches socialists are so 
    fond of.”

    “Folks probably thought Prohibition 
    couldn’t happen. But a million marching morons—well-meaning do-gooders 
    and busybodies—couldn’t be wrong, could they? Never mind that they were 
    screwing people’s lives up beyond all recognition. Never mind that it 
    brought us the first turf wars, drive-by shootings, poisoned booze, 
    cement overshoes, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. 
    Never mind that, once it was repealed, the enforcement boys still needed
    their jobs, so we got the war on guns, the war on drugs, and eventually, the war on tobacco. …you can’t claim to outlaw abortion without it”

    “It will give rise to a reign of terror like nothing seen before in 
    America. You’ll be enslaving no less than half the population. It will 
    create a new army of armed and armored nannies. It will devour your 
    wives, your sisters, your daughters, and your granddaughters. It will 
    destroy all that’s left of what America was supposed to be about. But 
    you’ll have made your point, you will have passed your law, and you and 
    your constituents will be happy.”

    “I’ve never said where I stand on the issue personally, because it doesn’t 
    matter. Outlaw abortion, and—no matter what anybody hopes or thinks or 
    fears—that’s where the country’s headed, right into the black abyss of 

    “…abortion is the issue that the Left counts on to keep the freedom movement divided.

    And here we all are today, proving it.”

    “Look: I shouldn’t have to be the one to tell you that you’re going to have to
    grow up, swallow hard, and do your best accept the fact that, as 
    fervently as you loathe abortion, a great many other people in this 
    country disagree with you just as fervently. It’s absolutely vital that 
    we shut down this endless, pointless argument, and move on with our real
    work—fulfilling the promise of the American Revolution.”

    So what is the proper “libertarian” POLITICAL POSITION on abortion?

    Abortion should remain legal . But not one red cent of federal tax money should ever be spent on it again.


    REMINDER: There is NO Constitutional authority to control abortion–or drugs, alcohol, guns, Immigration or Emigration.

    [ The full excerpt is available at: tinyurl (dot) com/Abortion-from-HOPE ]

    • At Odds

      Nah. Considering the recent Cantwell articles, libertarians people can divide themselves just fine on their own on other issues.

      And, murder should never be legal, but never overseen by the federal government.

      • Guy From V

        The new 2014 Huracán LP 610-4 in racing green would be very tempting, however.

    • Richard Chiu

      Unfortunately, the genuine anarchist response probably lies closer to “not only should there be no taxation for the purpose of funding abortions, but there should also be no taxation for the purpose of catching and punishing those who kill abortionists.”

      And that, in a nutshell, is why the abortion issue represents an extraordinary danger to libertarianism. Very few ‘armchair’ anarchists want to confront the reality that government was invented to hide behind all those flowery lies about “legal due process”. In the end, all human governments are ultimately about when we’re willing to have someone killed for what they’re doing. When they’ve aquired the ability to do it? When they’ve actually done it once? When they’ve repeatedly done it and don’t reassure us that they will never do it again? When it is clear that they are simply never going to stop unless we kill them? Never?

      Abolishing government doesn’t abolish the question. It only throws the burden of answering it back on the individual, where it belongs. Not when will ‘we have someone killed’, but when will you, personally, kill someone to stop them from doing something.

      And let’s face it, I’m not all that willing to kill someone to stop them from killing abortionists, and we all know that if nobody does kill people for killing abortionists, then there are going to be people who consider it open season on abortionists.

      I can only presume that there are some anarchists out there who WILL be willing to kill people to stop them from killing abortionists. And maybe that will work out to some kind of rational threat-assessment balance in which abortionists try to be more discrete or at least less egregious (to avoid being killed) while people who categorically oppose abortion adopt a threshold for how flagrant an abortionist has to be worth the risk involved in killing them.

      But it isn’t just about abortion, once you open that can of worms. It’s about everything that people might kill each other over. And most people don’t want to face their personal responsibility for answering that question.

      Which is why they prefer to have a government. That way, ‘someone else’ always decided who to kill, even if nobody else was actually part of the decision.

      Which is why the test of a true anarchist is whether you’re personally willing to kill those who commit certain specified acts ‘under color of law’, i.e. acting as an agent of the government. There’s a whole boundary region defined by ‘strategic/tactical considerations’ and ‘public acknowledgement of personal actions’. I don’t have any problem with people who don’t announce the exact number of cops they’ve killed or intend to kill (I personally don’t know either number anyway). I do have a problem with people who say both those numbers are zero and yet claim to be opposed to the existing criminal organization of the social status quo.

      If you rationally discuss any question of what government shouldn’t be doing and how to stop it, that question arises sooner or later. Usually later. In the case of abortion, it arises sooner. A lot sooner. And very few anarchists, let alone libertarians at large, are ready to have that conversation.

  • At Odds

    I’m speculating here: Anybody know how to look up Cecile Richard’s or any other executive’s from PP or their spouses’ investments? I’m just wondering if they’re investing in companies that they sell the baby parts to. It’s as if PP acts like a hub to get baby body parts for these companies and to act as a lobby whenever there’s an issue like this happens to protect those companies, but there’s no real money in it. Good chunk of the money comes from government…no…from you and me. I believe them that it’s only “if they can make a little more”, which means not that much and not as often as they like. I’m just not buying the idea that this is their best way of making money. I think – and it’s just a wild guess and why I’m asking for investment info – is that the real money is with the companies that benefit from PP’s practices and it acting as a hub. More so, who thought of partial-birth abortion, was it these companies?

    Which, partial-birth abortion was meant to be for so-called research. I remember this when I was younger when this practice came out, at least made known to the public. It was a known fact that it was for some kind of research.

    As for Sanger and her progressive agenda, I’m reminded of what Melinda Gates said about abortion. She said that she doesn’t believe in abortion. I believe her. That is, she doesn’t believe in abortion for her kind – the desirable.

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    I refuse to jump into a muck-pit battling my fellow libertarians over their abortion views. I should hope as anarcho-libertarians we can simply agree that:

    – There should be different sets of private law on different plots of private property interpreting what constitutes human life and who is or isn’t a murderer for getting an abortion at what time.
    – That any government funding of anything, including abortion, is inherently illegitimate.
    – That the trade in body parts from live, dead, potential, or actual creatures, human or otherwise, is all no more or less legitimate than the trade in any other kind of private property.

    • At Odds

      Nobody is arguing against selling body parts. It’s killing an innocent and then selling the parts. In a way, murdering and stealing. They acknowledge that it’s a life and that they’re murdering this life when they say they’re selling body parts. Can’t have it both ways.

      Would be nice in arguments if the other side acknowledges the Christian, and in this case, Cantwell’s, arguments that the baby is a life inside the womb. This is what people are arguing for. Instead progressives would rather ignore it and go straight to “women’s rights” and that nobody should tell her what to do with her body. Everybody knows it’s a human life, confirmed by scientists even. I mean, if it was discovered on Mars it would be.

      But, it’s all about not taking responsibility for one’s actions much like everything else that was affected and allowed by our tyrannical monetary system.

      • Dennis Wilson

        “…abortion is the issue that the Left counts on to keep the freedom movement divided.

        And here we all are today, proving it.”

        • At Odds

          No. It’s an issue just like many other issues within libertarian circles that are disagreed upon. Why is it this one that “divides” not say mincarchists or small-government types versus (conservative) anarchists versus left-leaning (smug bow tie) libertarians? Especially, after Cantwell was kicked out for lack of a good reason.

          More so, it’s often the small-government versus no-government types that argue on who and when to vote, causing rifts; abortion has nothing to do with it. The elites depend on the “lesser of evils”. What may be divided – but really separated – are the conservatives who tend to be free-market but can’t stop and can’t help but to concede to big government tactics to get what they want, and what they want is nothing free-market but a suburb, ranting USA USA USA in their churches. They are not libertarians.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Anytime we observe people heatedly fighting over what “THE law” should be (the one law binding all 300 million people), especially when the matter is deeply personal and volatile, you can bet the state is rubbing its hands together with glee. No one stops to question by what right anyone forces alien values upon him and instead plows all his fury into fighting his fellow man over whose will shall be imposed on each other. You see how the state only wins from this exercise?

            In a libertarian society all such issues are solved by peacefully allowing each disagreeing party to disassociate to live under his own law with the only question being how they want to interact if at all with those who choose to live differently.

          • At Odds

            That’s great and all, but I was talking about murder. I think that would be one that should be opposed by everybody. It’s a pretty good theme, actually. Not that it should involve pre-crime law because it shouldn’t. If this one law was enforced, not as pre-crime law, than even the state, if so exists, would not be allowed to take on wars and certify badges to kill. Remember it’s about violence not laws

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Roger that in theory. But one of the statists’ favorite objections is, “What if people can’t even agree on the very definition of aggression? What if people can’t even agree on the very definition of what constitutes valid property? What if people can’t even agree on the very definition of murder?”

            Anarchism answers these objections by permitting different definitions to peacefully coexist on distinct regions of land just as different countries can peacefully coexist. The farther one set of beliefs is from optimal definitions the more competitively disadvantaged it will be in the long run and accordingly will diminish in popularity over time.

          • At Odds

            Statists are often nihilistic and often times think a well-laid out contract as fuzzy; they may even believe their own lies about distorted definitions. Besides, murder and consequences of it is pretty universal. Mainly due to people not wanting to be murdered or stolen from, and violence, be it murder or theft, demands (actual, true) justice because it violates contracts written or universally agreed upon. Therefore, the statists’ argument is a false paradigm. The fight is not just against government sanctioned violence but violence in general – everybody, outside and inside government, has that potential to be nihilistic and violate somebody in a violent manner. The same people that oversee violence in government are the same people that would violate somebody on the street. They just took different paths for a career. So, whatever society anarchism or minarchists or some make-believe socialistic-peace-loving commune can setup, they will still have to deal with such people.

            As soon as you find out you’re pregnant you know you have life to take responsibility for. Just as there is no written contract to kill me or you everybody in their right mind and can function in society – to progress – knows not to do it.

            I would agree with the optimal definitions and beliefs and anything that functions in society the least will diminish. Except that it doesn’t. You would think it would but not really, considering all the goofy beliefs and distorted definitions that we do have now. Not accusing you of being nihilistic, but the optimal versus the least theory can be seen and used by statists as just that – as if there’s no universal and correct definitions in the first place and that whatever society works best – or seen to be – is truth. I mean, look what the socialists did in the North America and Europe. They made it out to be true that socialism is truth, which is a distortion. A society must have something stronger and more defined than the definition of what is “best” or “optimal”, something beyond man’s conclusions; otherwise, somebody’s going to buy up all the media and have his/ her way with you.

            I do believe that trade and communications between nations or societies is key to peace and non-aggression, and that’s the optimal belief and definition that will prevail.

            With this all said, I do believe our conversation would be very different if it weren’t for inflation that enables such things.

          • Dennis Wilson

            >>  If this one law was enforced, not as pre-crime law, than even the state, if so exists, would not be allowed to take on wars and certify badges to kill.<<

            In what science fantasy universe does such a government reside?

          • At Odds

            In theory. In other words, I don’t want pre-crime law, but you guys seem to think that only government does violence. Those people that aren’t allowed to do violence via the state will only come down to your level and commit violence and theft. What science fiction universe does murder not need a law that contains consequences?

          • paendragon

            Murder is defined as attacking innocent others FIRST.

            But mere “Killing” (as in, attacking second, in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others) is not necessarily murder.

            Therefore, “the state” (largest publicly owned collective insurance company) would indeed and should be allowed to “take on” wars (defensive counter-attacks) that others started, and also to “certify badges to kill” (defensively, but not to offensively murder).


          • At Odds

            Yes, I was defining murder as that.

            There shouldn’t be a need to certify badges to kill only those that are trying to defend and help other to defend their private property. Certify to defend – though should not be a real term – should only be recognized in the context of private property owner in defending his/her property.

            The state doesn’t need to be involved.

          • paendragon

            Unfortunately, “it” (a posse of citizens) often does, when the neighborhood is facing offensive attacks by collectivist gangs.

          • paendragon

            Immoral relativism. There is only one objective factual law, not a cornucopia or plethora of subjective “values” or opinions to choose from.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            Yes, but how is it divined. Do you have the magic stick that glows when you speak it? Or Ayn Rand’s touchstone that you rub three times and out falls her ideal “objective law?” Hint: No such tool exists.

            So even if someone on this planet today happens to be practicing the ideal embodiment of objective factual law, it is unidentifiable as such. Thus different views must be forever respected and allowed to coexist. People must be free to consensually live according to their own definitions of what constitutes “objective factual law” unmolested by others who disagree. You, Chris, me, all of us.

          • paendragon

            So, to you, objective law “does not exist because it’s unidentifiable.”

            That’s called a tautology.

            It’s also called “making a statement expressing an opinion as a fact, (i.e: lying) in stead of asking a question.”


          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            When I said “Yes, but how is it divined,” I meant yes, objective law exists but is impossible to identify. If one were omniscient one could know what it is. But men are not omniscient. Thus, to men, objective law is useful only as an inspirational concept. If an instance of it arose, no one would know, because they have no means to directly identify it.

            That’s the reason no man may claim he alone has the right view of what the law should be and all others must bow to his view. Once we are not talking about philosophical principles, once we are talking about practical implementations of philosophical principles, i.e. law, no man has a basis upon which to claim his implementation is better than anyone else’s.

            Instead we let the proof come out in the pudding.

            It is true the nature of reality dictates non-aggression defined by homesteaded property is the optimal way for man to live. Thus a priori we can know any alternative principles are wrong and will necessarily fail. The Soviet Union was a short-lived example of that. Our current spiraling demise will become another example.

            However, within the definitional possibilities surrounding how to practically define homesteaded property and how to practically define aggression, matters are not so cut and dried. Legal definitions are contextual and subject to continuum problems and complicating factors. Specific standards such as “human life begins at conception” or “human life begins at birth” attempt to codify non-aggression in two different ways, but there is no way to know which codification is a more accurate reflection of reality except allowing both to peacefully co-exist separately in competition. Since dissonance from reality always comes at a cost, in large populations over the long run better outcomes will emerge from laws that better instantiate non-aggression, that is better approximate ideal objective law. Accordingly people will gravitate toward those.

            Here’s a comparable situation. Free market principles are incontrovertible. We can say a priori those who deny free market principles like supply and demand are wrong and destined for failure. However, it does not follow this allows us to say exactly what the ideal, profit-maximizing price of milk should be. That price is subject to a million variables including subjective value rankings of market participants constantly in flux. Only an omniscient being could know it. Thus, the only way for men to price milk is to permit different sellers to try different approaches to pricing their milk employing different pricing guidelines in competition with each other as they attempt to find ones more effective at coming closer to the ideal price. The grocers who prosper in the long run in a statistically significant way are the ones who have honed in on better pricing guidelines rather than worse ones, and other grocers will gravitate toward adopting those same guidelines while continuously working to refine and improve them.

            Whether striving to come up with the perfectly just law or the perfect pricing methodology, which standards and practices are better than others can only be judged a posteriori, requiring there to be a free market in competing standards and practices.

          • paendragon

            Wrong again.

          • Heavenly BluE

            There is no objective law. Law is a set of agreements to which a group agrees (or is forced) to abide. Your group can have a different set of laws from my group, and neither of us have the right or authority to state that the other is wrong. To impose your law on me, or my law on you without consent is to violate the NAP.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            I would quibble with you here as libertarian laws themselves aim to codify the very NAP you refer to. Thus two geographically distinct libertarian groups with different laws could each claim they are only respecting the NAP by imposing their laws on each other if they were to attempt to do so.

            Anything-goes relativism occurs if we say _any_ law is just as good as any other. For example, laws disregarding private property are no different than ones respecting it. But here logic comes to our rescue as we have rigorous, objective, a priori argumentation proving only non-aggression defined by homesteaded private property is moral. We have no such argumentation saying only one particular detailed implementation of that concept is moral.

            For example, must a first swung at a man’s face be less than 10 yards away, less than 10 feet away, less than 10 inches away, or actually make contact to constitute bona-fide aggression? Laws codify such standards in particular ways. All laws constituting potentially valid instantiations of the principle are indeed relativistic and no one has any right or authority to state any others’ is wrong or impose his on others.

            I would also quibble with you to say some of those laws are going to be demonstrably better instantiations of libertarian principles than others, more reflective of reality than others (e.g. a fist swung 10 yards away would quickly prove itself to be a poor standard for aggression). Thus, I would say theoretically there are ideal sets of standards for such matters, but no man can know them a priori or ever be sure he has definitively found them.

          • Heavenly BluE

            I would argue that if my group of friends and acquaintances choose to make our own private community in which murder is not considered a crime, we should be free to do so, as long as each member of the community agrees voluntarily.

            You may hate our society, but you’re in the wrong if you come in with an armed force to stop us and tell us your law is better.

          • Coralyn Herenschrict

            I think you are using the word objectively more broadly than I have been using it. I have been presuming “objective” to be grounded in the valuing of human life (vs. death).

            If you have a group of people determined to act suicidally together, destructive of material value objectively useful for sustaining human life because they consider that lifestyle (or deathstyle) maximally enjoyable, then yes, you are correct, their laws facilitating that can’t be said to be objectively worse than any others.

            In such a hypothetical community where all members voluntarily agree to regard killing of other members to not be aggression, and thus not be murder, then yes of course that would be fine. Those laws still respect private property by respecting members’ rights to contractually surrender rights to their property (including their bodies) under whatever conditions they voluntarily choose. Since value is subjective, then no one can declare such choices a worse path and their laws worse by any objective standard.

            By contrast, the immoral laws I was referring to above would be for example USSR laws that disregard private property and condone violence initiated against those who do not agree beforehand, i.e. aggression. You agree with me these laws are immoral, I hope.

            I will point out over time communities that do not value material human prosperity will achieve less of it than other communities, reduced growth rates, and mounting relative impoverishment. Presumably such members must retain the valuing of at least some pro-human-life values like eating food, avoiding pain, surviving past the age of reproduction. On account of these values, over time members of these communities will face mounting incentives to trade away their land for outside world services like life-saving health care.

            In other words, given the fundamental nature of the requirements of human life, sub-optimal, anti-property-mimicking methods of living, akin to squandering one’s resources, or cutting off one’s own limbs, can be predicted to progressively diminish in popularity over time and eventually all but disappear. This is the sense in which I have been admitting the notion that the concept of objectively ideal laws is valid – the sense of optimally promoting human material flourishing.

          • paendragon

            Such a society already exists: it’s known as “islam.”

          • paendragon

            Re: “neither of us have the right or authority to state that the other is
            wrong. To impose your law on me, or my law on you without consent is to
            violate the NAP.”

            So, you DO agree that the NAP IS THE OBJECTIVE LAW… otherwise, I would have the “right and authority” to impose my law (which happens to be the NAP) on you – no?

            And, in fact, you have no right to refuse to agree to the NAP, because in doing so, you would only be reserving a false right to attack thereby innocent other people first – which is a psychological attack aka a threat (a crime) in itself!


          • Heavenly BluE

            The NAP is an objective moral principle, yes, but there is a lot of subjectivity surrounding whom it applies to. The NAACP could make a society in which white people are not covered by the NAP, the KKK could do the same to black people. This is similar to the way libertarians wouldn’t cover cows under the NAP – few libertarians have any issues with enslaving them and murdering them for food/clothing. A radical PETA society, in a free world, could extend the NAP to all animals.

            Those are all extreme, “life boat scenarios” used to illustrate the point, but it applies in many more subtle ways. For example, are children covered by the NAP, when and at what age – which leads us right back to the same abortion debate that spawned this conversation.

          • paendragon

            Incorrect. The truly universally objective (and hence, the only valid) interpretation of the NAP is to base it on people’s chosen actions (or on intent, as our criminal laws now put it) i.e: on what people choose to do, not on who they are. Therefore the racist NAACP and KKK scenarios are null. Same goes for animals, and, to a lesser extent, embryos.

            And the NAP is incorrectly named, as well, as it lets masochistic liberal weasels pretend that all attacks are “aggressions” (even those executed as counter-attacks, in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others) and so are all equally bad – which lets them be nasty little statists, who always insist individuals have no inherent right to defend themselves.

            Taken correctly, the “NAP” only reiterates the historical status quo, aka The Golden Rule of Law which most simply defines all sub-sequent circumstantial, situational morality as:

            “Do Not Attack First.”


          • Heavenly BluE

            Do not attack WHAT first?

            That’s the point I was getting at. How do you objectively define which animals the NAP applies to. Is it all humans? I mean that seems to be the default position, but that’s certainly not objective morality; it’s just an opinion. It’s speciesism.

            We give preference to our species and fuck the rest. So then if someone wants to hunt bald eagles or bengal tigers or elephants, he’s perfectly within his rights to do so, and it’s wrong to use force to stop him? I think at the very least that idea is uncomfortable and raises questions about how good this “objective law” is.

            And how is the assertion that the NAP applies to only humans any more or less morally valid than the hypothetical assertion that it only applies to people of color, or only to white people? You want to base it on “people’s chosen actions” rather than what they are. So how do you define person? India, correctly in my opinion, considers dolphins to be persons.

            That’s where the lack of objectivity comes in. My personal standard is to consider anything with self-awareness a person. To me, this makes abortion fine, eating beef fine, but killing adult whales and elephants unacceptable. I can’t sit here and claim that my standard is objectively better or worse than your standard, or anyone else’s standard. It’s just where I have chosen to hang my hat, and I feel its a more moral standard than a pure speciesist view.

          • paendragon

            Most of that “reply” seemed to be you talking to your self, AND talking your self OUT of your initial position!

            “I can’t sit here and claim that my standard is objectively better or worse than your standard, or anyone else’s standard.”

            But … Why can’t you?! Seems to me you’re been indoctrinated into liberal immoral relativism for too long.

            Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything.


          • Heavenly BluE

            My standard is the best one I’ve been able to come up with or read elsewhere. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the best or even a good moral standard. I have no objective way to prove it, and I suspect that if humanity lives on another 200 years the people of that time will look on our morality as just as abhorrent as we see the morality of those who lived during the early 19th century.

          • paendragon

            So, what is your standard, then?!

          • Heavenly BluE

            That application of the NAP to a lifeform is contingent on self-awareness.

            The results of that standard are: abortion fine, racism/sexism wrong, eating cows/chickens/fish/turkey fine, killing whales, dolphins, elephants wrong, experimenting on/enslaving chimpanzees/gorillas wrong.

          • paendragon

            Very good. AND: “Do Not Attack (thereby innocent other humans) First.”


          • Tyler Hurson

            Genuinely curious, what is the “objective” punishment for rape?

          • paendragon

            Being impaled in public, of course.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        “Nobody is arguing against selling body parts”

        Chris flogs the emotionality of that above which is suggestive there is something wrong with it. I think it deserves pointing out there is nothing wrong with it. If a fetus is a human life then selling aborted fetus parts constitutes selling property stolen from the fetus. The theft is the crime, not the sale.

        “Would be nice in arguments if the other side acknowledges the…arguments that the baby is a life inside
        the womb…Instead progressives would rather ignore it and go straight to ‘women’s rights'”

        I think the pro-choice people avoid taking a position on the status of the fetus on purpose. This admits many diverse views into the pro-choice camp: those who think the fetus is not a human and has no rights, those who think the fetus has partial rights, and those who think the fetus has full rights but circumstances allow the mother to abort nevertheless.
        “Nobody is arguing against selling body parts”

        Chris flogs the emotionality of that above which is suggestive there is something wrong with it. I think it deserves pointing out there is nothing wrong with it. If a fetus is a human life then selling aborted fetus parts constitutes property stolen from the fetus. The theft is the crime, not the sale.

        “Would be nice in arguments if the other side acknowledges the…arguments that the baby is a life inside the womb…Instead progressives would rather ignore it and go straight to ‘women’s rights'”

        I think the pro-choice people avoid taking a position on the status of the fetus on purpose. This admits many diverse views into the pro-choice camp: those who think the fetus is not a human and has no rights, those who think the fetus has partial rights, and those who think the fetus has full rights but circumstances allow the mother to abort nevertheless.

        • At Odds

          “The theft is the crime, not the sale.” No kidding. That’s what I said. Murder and theft. The person does not have a choice in the matter and is forced via murdered for his/her body parts. The sale of body parts is not being argued against.

          I wasn’t suggesting or making a wishful statement about progressives ignoring the “baby is a life” argument. I was being rhetorical. In other words, they ignore it – on purpose – because they don’t have a real argument when it is acknowledged that the baby is a life. The camps are a farce. It’s only one viewpoint, and that’s convenience with a lack of respect for life.

    • paendragon

      Re: “There should be different sets of private law on different plots of private property interpreting what constitutes human life and who is or isn’t a murderer for getting an abortion at what time.”

      “Murder” is always defined as killing another person without their permission (except in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others) – so, except in that defense, it doesn’t matter if it’s done on “my” land or on “your” land.

      Re: “That any government funding of anything, including abortion, is inherently illegitimate.”

      Nonsense. Government, (best conceived of by Albert Einstein as the largest collectively-owned insurance company) is a great idea if and when it doesn’t compete with (much less pre-empt) private enterprise; it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. Same goes for defending every other need: government can defend the country, but not restrict the citizens’ rights to also own and bear their own arms to defend them selves; government can and should enhance private defense, but never replace it!

      People have rights to freely associate and form insurance companies, and to restrict others within their own properties to, say, buy insurance while therein.

      Re: “That the trade in body parts from live, dead, potential, or actual creatures, human or otherwise, is no less legitimate than the trade in any other kind of private property.”

      Especially concerning that “potential or actual” bit: You cannot legitimately trade that which you do not own, as it does not qualify as any kind of “private property.”

      • Dennis Wilson

        “… it’s OK for the government to buy food to feed the poor, but not to demand that only it is qualified to regulate food growing everywhere, much less to restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food. ”

        That is a peculiar notion–and it is NOT “ok”! It has been long demonstrated and is well acknowledged in libertarian forums that governments funds come from coercion and fraud (taxes, fines, money inflation, etc). It is also pretty basic economics that government redistribution such as you describe does indeed “restrict and deny private individuals from growing or stockpiling their own food.” Your statement contradicts itself–unless, of course, the word “Nonsense” was intended as a title to the paragraph.

        • paendragon

          The individual human citizens who set up the “government” insurance company all had free will and chose to set it up.

          The only ones feeling “coerced” are their feckless children.

          Anarchists are really only a bunch of whiny liberal bedwetting crybaby, criminally negligent infantile delinquents who resent living in their parents’ world, (and basements) really only asserting “I never asked to be born!”

          They forget that existing Civilization was built up by individuals who built their own roads, owned their own properties, and then decided to band together to defer the maintenance to ever-larger groups of insurance company-like entities, which eventually became “government.”

          Now that all the land is taken, these newborns don’t like following the rules built up by others over time and tradition, so they want to tear it all down and re-build what will only amount to being basically the exact same thing, but with THEM in charge this time!

          And THAT is what is “nonsensical!”


          • Heavenly BluE

            Good.. whatever your particular view of quasi insurance company government is, feel free to run it as long as you don’t steal my money or impose your rules. This feckless imbecile won’t let you take 1 red cent despite the fact that you feel I owe your government a living because my parents commissioned them to build the roads.

          • paendragon

            Then feel free to leave the area.

      • Dennis Wilson

        >>”Murder” is always defined as killing another person without their permission (except in defense of one’s self &/or of innocent others) – so, except in that defense, it doesn’t matter if it’s done on “my” land or on “your” land.<<

        You ignored "what constitutes human life". Some people say it begins at birth, others say at conception. Others think it is beyond arrogance for men to be telling women which of those two definition they MUST use. And THAT is why…:

        "… abortion is the issue that the Left counts on to keep the freedom movement divided.

        And here we all are today, proving it."

        • paendragon

          Some think it is beyond arrogance for women to tell their men they have a perfect right to murder their children, just because those women also CHOSE to conceive them but then changed their minds.

          The only time it should be completely up to the woman is in a case of rape.

          And even if she chooses to keep the rapist’s child, he should remain responsible for its upkeep – or his estate should, if he suffers a more permanent legal sanction for his choice.

          • Heavenly BluE

            I thought your position was that abortion is murder? Last time I checked it was totally abhorrent to murder a man’s child if that man is rapist. So if my father rapes someone under your government, should I worry about a hit squad?

            It’s completely irrational to say that abortion is permissible in the case of rape if you feel abortion is murder. This leads me to believe that you don’t actually have a rationally consistent morality but instead makeup rules as you go along, based on your personal opinions, and then try to impose them on others via the state.

          • paendragon

            It was the rapist’s choice to risk creating the kid, and foisting it off on someone else.

            So if that someone else chooses to terminate it, then she’s only done it to defend herself, and the kid’s death is on the rapist – capisce?

            Or are you saying you’d support everyone else’s kid for life, if and when they choose to drop them off at your house?

            If so: Get back to work picking cotton, slave.


          • Heavenly BluE

            So if someone drops their kid at my house and speeds away, I’m morally justified in killing the child – or at least letting him starve? But I’m not justified in “defending myself” against a parasite invading my womb if it got there due to consensual sex?

            And that’s the great objective morality?

            So what if I get infected by ringworm because I was lying in the sand – consensually? Is it immoral to kill that parasite too?

          • paendragon

            But by consenting to sex, you allowed that “parasite to invade” your womb. So I’d say you have a few weeks, at most (like after missing your first period, and thereby determining its existence) to do away with it, before its cells divide enough to form it a nervous system.

          • Heavenly BluE

            Why is it OK to kill the baby before it has a nervous system but not afterwards? What makes that the objective standard that you’re justified in forcing everyone to follow?

            Also, if I eat meat that isn’t thoroughly cooked, through my own conscious choice, and develop toxocara from roundworms, should it be illegal to take the antiparasitics? Roundworms have a nervous system.

          • paendragon

            Same reasons you just claimed here for your own standard of morality:

            “That application of the NAP to a lifeform is contingent on self-awareness. The results of that standard are: abortion fine, racism/sexism wrong, eating cows/chickens/fish/turkey fine, killing whales, dolphins, elephants wrong, experimenting on/enslaving chimpanzees/gorillas wrong.”


          • Heavenly BluE

            Well if you’re just claiming your own standard of morality, that’s great. I’d never dispute your right to live by it – as long as you aren’t trying to force me to live by it.

          • paendragon

            Actually, you DO have to promise to not attack me first; because otherwise, you’re threatening me by reserving your false “right” to attack me and any other innocent others, first.

            After all, when one chooses to attack other people first, one’s own choice self-defines one as the predatory criminal aggressor, and they as your innocent victims; there’s no two ways about it!



          • Heavenly BluE

            I do promise not to attack you or any innocents who are living in the world without my assistance. I do not promise the same to a parasite that has taken residence in my body, even if it got there because I took part in an activity I enjoy.

          • paendragon

            Then don’t leave it there long enough to become conscious or with a self-awareness of pain.

          • Heavenly BluE

            Humans don’t become self-aware until around 18 months old, so no danger of that.

            When it can feel pain is not interesting to me. We kill many things that can feel pain everyday, such as the roundworm parasite I mentioned earlier, chickens, cows, ducks, etc.

          • paendragon

            Humans are self-aware from the time of birth, when they first express their displeasure with the world by crying and yelling. Perhaps you should join islam, where abortions are allowed forever, to both the parents and grandparents, no justification needed.
            A response to pain indicates self-awareness – poke someone in a coma with a pin gets no response.

          • Heavenly BluE

            Humans are not self-aware at birth. You can see this with a reflection test. If you put a mirror in front of a 1 year old, he doesn’t understand that he’s seeing himself. He may even look behind the mirror to find the other person. As he gets older (typically around 18 months), the brain is developed enough to have a sense of self.

            In my opinion, your “rights” cannot be violated if you aren’t aware that you exist.

            reference (2min video): wwwyoutubecom/watch?v=M2I0kwSua44

          • paendragon

            By that sort of “logic” if I kill you in your sleep, it isn’t murder, because you weren’t self-aware at the time!


          • Heavenly BluE

            Sadly, that’s not the first time I’ve heard that absurd objection. We can reasonably assume that I will be self-aware again once I wake up. And before you try to state that an unborn baby will eventually become self aware, the difference is that I’m not draining anyone else’s resources in the interim. You don’t even have the right to come onto my property in order to access my body to kill me. Additionally, you don’t own me. I think we would be in agreement that a 3rd party cannot rightfully kill a woman’s unborn baby. She owns the parasite in her womb, and if someone else kills it without permission, they are at the very least vandalizing her property and assaulting her.

            If I were sleeping in your home without permission, you’d be within your rights to kill me. Although the kind thing to do would be to wake me and try to see if I will leave peacefully. You’d be even more justified to kill me if I had somehow crawled inside your body and went to sleep.

          • paendragon

            The baby isn’t a parasite attacking you – rather, it was your negligent CHOICE which had created it. Therefore, you are responsible for it’s life. Period.

          • Heavenly BluE

            You still haven’t explained to me why it’s okay to kill the roundworm but not the baby. It was my negligent CHOICE to eat the undercooked meat, so now I’m responsible for the life of the roundworm. Period.

          • paendragon

            The difference is that you didn’t actually create the roundworm.

          • Heavenly BluE

            Giving me even less right to destroy it…

          • paendragon

            Not really; you might have a right to destroy a criminal trespasser, but not one of your own children entering your home.

            But anyway, go join islam, if you feel that way!

            The muslims all agree with you!

            Under their sharia “law” (crime) all the parents AND grandparents can “abort” their spawn up to ANY age (child, youth, adult – even into their dotage)!

  • illuminarch

    I’m very glad these videos are coming out. It is important that the public be confronted with the horror it has turned a bilnd-eye to for more than a generation. The utter depravity of the abortionists is astonishing; if you made a movie showing them act like this, everyone would think it ridiculously over the top, but here it is, in real life.

    It’s a shame that so many people are only getting outraged now that Planned Parenthood (and others, no doubt) are making money on the trade in body parts. “Well, I was OK with slaughtering infants, but this goes too far!”

    • Heavenly BluE

      I’m angry that they can only get $100 for a baby liver because of government regulations. In a free market, that liver would go for a couple orders of magnitude more. It would be a worse if they just let these perfectly good baby organs go to waste.

  • Altair Zielite

    I like how you included the post-term-self-inflicted abortions at the very end. I had always thought of the earth as an incubator or a coffin, but you have implied this species has reached adolescent status in the great cosmic scheme. Just pick a day on the calendar, call it revolution day, and lets shed this cocoon.

  • John Kindley

    My comment, which had to do with abortion’s link to increased breast cancer risk, didn’t make it past moderation? I’m dying to know why. Is it because there was a knee-jerk reaction to it as unbelievable, as if it’s inconceivable that a federal agency like the National Cancer Institute would lie about such a thing? Or is it because it’s offensive to the moderator’s sensibilities to abstract from the morality of abortion itself and refer to a significant undisclosed risk of abortion and to the woman’s right to be informed of this risk, or as if I wasn’t being honest and was really attacking abortion itself disingenuously by “lying for Jesus,” when in fact I really could care less whether women have abortions or not, for the reasons described in the post’s last paragraph? Or is it because I included a link to my “lawyer website,” which included extensive documentation of my assertion, as if I was advertising here for clients?

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      The link. The forum software will 86 any post with a link.

    • Dennis Wilson

      Yes, it is the link. If you look at the bottom line of my first post, you will see a way to post a “non-active” link.

    • paendragon

      Re-post it without the link – Cantwell hates ALL links.

      • John Kindley

        The pages I tried to link to are easily found by going to kindleylaw dot com, on the Research and Writing page.

  • Heavenly BluE

    Well she’s not gunna get a lamborghini selling baby parts for $100. Seems you could get a lot more money whether for dead baby parts or in tact live babies in a free market without any restrictions surrounding it. Under the current regime, they can only charge token amounts that they can pass off as “handling fees.”