After Birth Abortions? Really? REALLY? – Mike Church Show Audio & Transcript

[mp3t track=’05032012_Transcript_Limbaugh_contraception_and _lack_of_modesty_EDIT.mp3′]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  We are possessed of immodest people, immodest young people.  Theres no modesty left.  [mocking] Ive been out here doing it for years.  Its expensive.  Somebody ought to help me pay for it.  Can I just say, you have to choose between paying for your law school and paying for your contraceptives.  Again, is that a priority or is a choice being made?  Could you not make the same argument about Twinkies?  Could you not make the same argument about expanded coverage of your satellite television service?  Thats an elective, in other words.

Do you have Ms. Fluke talking about how its just ridiculous that in 2012, it would cost $3,000, I think she said, a year for her contraceptive services or device or pills or prescriptions or whatever, and that thats hard to manage and pay for law school at the same time?  So in other words, there must be a component of law school that is — is it called Hanky Panky 101, that you have to engage in the immodest behavior and the promiscuous behavior?  I must be missing something here.  Do we have any of the Fluke commentary?  Were you able to find it?

AG:  Well, she spoke for an hour, so Im trying to go through and find it.

Mike:  Look at that Huffington Post story you sent me today.  I think its in that, the one we did show prep on.  I think theres a video on that.  You might find it there.  Lets go back to the phones.  You people are all hot and bothered by this.  Do we have any women on the line?  No women?  None?  Richard in Maryland, youre next.  How are you?

Richard:  I just wanted to suggest that for $3,000, and I dont know what the cost of abortion is today, dont know that I would ever know what the cost ever was, but if you figure the cost of abortions being roughly $250, thats the equivalent of having an abortion a month.  So contraceptive services, maybe in Ms. Flukes mind, is having the government pay for her to have an abortion every month for twelve months.

Mike:  Well, I dont think shes arguing for that.  I think shes arguing for the stuff that would prevent the pregnancy to start with.

Richard:  Right.  I understand that.  I wonder if its maybe the whittling away of our sensitive nature?

Mike:  What sensitive nature?  Thats the point.  There is no sensitivity.  Theres sensitivity about a radio host saying things about a young lady, allegedly who is the victim here in all this, but theres no one saying anything about the immodest statement of promiscuity that started the whole conversation. 

Did you see the story last week?  It was a doctor in England and a Ph.D. at Oxford University who is promoting after-birth abortions.  Have you heard this, after-birth abortions?  Now what is that?  Well, thats what happens after a child is born.  If the parents dont like his hair color, this doctor says, [mocking] Just kill it.  Just get rid of it.  You think Im making that up, dont you?  Im not making it up.  Im looking for the story right now.  The story is that parents ought to have the right to make their — [mocking] What if the kid is born with nine toes and nine fingers?  We dont want him to have to go through a life of hardship.  Youre actually sparing the young lad of all the fun thats going to be made of him.  So its okay to have an after-birth abortion.?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is what happens here.  Speaking of the old slippery slope — here it is.  AG, this piece was written by Jonah Goldberg last week.  I think I told you about this, didnt I? 

[reading]

Via a particularly excellent Best of the Web column today, I learned that a prominent group of ethicists at Oxford University has concluded that, in the words of the London Telegraph: Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are morally irrelevant and ending their lives is no different to abortion.  The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not actual persons and do not have a moral right to life.

[end reading]

Mike:  Hey, I got a question.  When do they become actual persons?  Can we kill them at nine months?  [mocking] Whyd you shoot your kid in the head?  Hes still pooping his drawers.  What kind of kid poops his drawers at nine, ten months old?  All of them.  Well, Im tired of cleaning it up.  Ive had it with that brat.  Again, if there was a guy who was saying what I just read to you and if he was in a German officers uniform and had a funky-looking mustache, what would you say of him?  Mr. Gruss, had you heard this story before, about the after-birth abortion?

AG:  I had not.

Mike:  Would you like to hear some more?  Are you intrigued?

AG:  Im intrigued, but its not uplifting on a Monday.

Mike:  What is uplifting on a Monday?  Back to the story.  Ill just finish up this part of it.

[reading]

The journals editor, Professor Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the articles authors had received death threats after publishing the article.  He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

[end reading]

Mike:  So a liberal society now values the ability to kill children after they have been born.  Genius.  What could possibly go wrong?  The article was entitled — now folks, Im quoting this to you.  Im not making this up.  Im quoting this to you.  Im just trying to demonstrate how out of whack our priorities are. 

[reading]

The article entitled After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live? was written by two of Professor Savulescus former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.  They argued: The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.  Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons.  They explained: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a person in the sense of subject of a moral right to life.

Goldberg writes: Now, my hunch is that for the vast majority of the civilizedand, frankly, uncivilizedworld, the only thing these authors have demonstrated is their own moral irrelevance.  Theres so much that can be said about this, its difficult to know where to begin.

[end of reading]

Mike:  Ill say.  Can you say slippery slope?  Are things
out of whack?  I think they are.  Or our priorities out of whack?

End Mike Church Show Transcript 

TheKingDude

Host of the Mike Church Show on The Veritas Radio Network's CRUSADE Channel & Founder of the Veritas Radio Network. Formerly, of Sirius/XM's Patriot channel 125. The show began in March of 2003 exclusively on Sirius and remains "the longest running radio talk show in satellite radio history".

See Full Bio