Posted on 05/07/2003 11:25:45 AM PDT by tame
FREEP CALL: KGO'S JOHN ROTHMANN INDICATES HIS BELIEF THAT A NEWBORN IS NOT ALIVE BEFORE BREATHING!
Originally Posted on 09/02/2000 06:35:28 PDT by tame
I post this again for a little retrospection on the implications John Rothmann's bizarre belief would have on the Laci Peterson case...no double homicide?
In responding to a freep caller's questioning, VERY liberal KGO radio host John Rothmann indicated that a newborn infant is not alive until breathing begins. It is understood that, medically, it could be argued that it depends on what the meaning of the word "alive" is.
But in the context of John's show, he justified partial birth abortion on the grounds that the baby is not "alive" until after being completely born, and when pressed on the SAME POINT, he indicated that the baby is alive when the first breath is drawn. But this logic would seem to justify killing the child after birth, but before the first breath, as the caller pointed out.
John broadcasts at of San Francisco's KGO 810 am radio station.
John's topic of the hour was related to a woman who killed her child after birth. The freeper called to demonstrate John's hypocricy in condemning the woman, since he supports the absolute right of a woman to have a partial birth abortion for any reason.
John also attempted to blur the ontological (the baby "being" alive) fact with the epistemological ("knowing" the baby's alive) fact. Please keep in mind that the audio is set up so a caller's volume drops out when the host speaks. This makes it difficult for the listeners to hear many of the caller's comments. One of Rothmann's tactics is to falsely accuse the caller of failing to answer, while Rothmann speaks over the caller so listeners cannot hear the response. Here is the transcript:
JOHN: Welcome to KGO.
CALLER: Hi, John. Hey, I think by your own logic you're inconsistent on blaming the woman. I do want to...
JOHN: Explain why.
CALLER: I do want to straighten out a couple of "facts". They're not facts. You said that a lot of these partial birth abortions were done for compelling medical reasons. But I gotta tell you, Dr. Martin Haskell disagrees with you, and he's the guy who developed the procedure. He said eighty percent of his operations were done for elective purposes. The woman just did NOT want the kid. And the ones that were for health reasons had to do with the fact that the baby might have had a cleft lip, or cleft palate, or something of that nature.
You also said that the baby's alive when he's born. I don't know what standard you're using. In most states we consider brain waves the standard if somebody's dead, if there's no brain waves. And in this case, in partial birth, the baby's got all the things necesary for life--brain waves, heart beat--so I don't know what standard you're using. But, John, when your baby was born--I assume you have kids, right?
JOHN: I do.
CALLER: Okay, when your children were born, were you there present when they were...
JOHN: You bet!
CALLER: When that baby was partially coming out, did you--My mom asked me to ask this, so I'm going to ask it--When that baby was partially, almost two thirds of the way out, did you really think that that was not a baby? That that was somehow subhuman until he got all the way out? What standard are you using for a baby being alive?
JOHN: I will tell you exactly. As soon as the baby drew a breath, I knew that that child was alive and well. And until that baby drew a breath, until it began to cry, I didn't know whether the baby was alive or dead. And I'll tell you that I have had the experience of friends who have had still born children, still born children. The baby comes out...
CALLER: John...
JOHN: You don't know until the baby comes out whether that child is alive or dead.
CALLER: Wait a minute.
JOHN: But I'm going to--let me be clear on this, because this partial birth abortion thing is one that I know rankles a lot of concerns. But lets be clear about this. My feeling is that when a Physician and a patient determine that there is a need for an end to the pregnancy to protect the mother's health, because there's something with the child, whole host of things, that is a decision which is a medical decision. I'm not prepared to have me or you or someone else make that decision.
CALLER: Can I comment on that? Would that be okay?
JOHN: Yeah, sure.
CALLER: Okay, Look, when your baby was born you didn't know it was alive, but clearly you wouldn't think it was not alive. In other words, you said 'til they draw the "first breath". But by that same reasoning, not until the Doctor slaps that baby's butt is that baby alive, and therefore could be terminated. And as far as a Doctor...
P>[John speaks over caller]
JOHN: Hold on, hold on a minute! Wait a minute! You asked me a question, and the question was--Wait a minute, wait a minute. You asked me a question. I'm more than happy to answer it. When did I feel a child was alive, and the answer is the minute I knew that the child was breathing.
CALLER: Is that the definition of life to you? When the baby starts breathing?
JOHN: Yes! That's right, because I'll tell you something, you can't get a birth certificate unless you come out of the womb and your alive.
CALLER: You Could Kill that baby after it's born, but before it's slapped on the butt, by that definition. But one more thing. Let me...
JOHN: No, now hold on a minute. Let's not be--Lets understand this very, very clearly. A partial birth abortion, which people have very strong feelings about--And I understand that. The argument that I tried to make last week with the gentleman who called with a similar point of view, and I'll ask you the same blunt definitive question, do you ever believe, ever believe, at any point during a pregnancy, that abortion is legitimate?
CALLER: Yes...
JOHN: Good. Then you and I agree.
CALLER: ...in one exception. But that's not to say--that's not to kill either it's to save one. That's when you have, like, a tubal pregnancy and almost certainly...
JOHN: Oh, that would be the only circumstance?
CALLER: John, let me finish my...
JOHN: No, no, no, no. I've let you talk. I'm asking you a question. My question is do you believe that Roe v. Wade is a decision which ought to be sustained? Do you believe a woman ha[s] a...
CALLER: I want to finish my...
JOHN: my sentence, and I'll be GLAD to answer you.
CALLER: But please let me finish my earlier statement that you cutt me off, on. First of all, by your own reasoning, just because a woman agrees with her Doctor that she wants to kill her kid, by that reasoning, my mom could go agree with her Doctor and kill me now, UNLESS THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!
JOHN: Okay, first of all, I disagree with you. Now, answer my question. You've made your absurd statement, now I'd like you to answer my question.
CALLER: In a pregnancy where the woman...
JOHN: Excuse me, excuse me. Are you going to listen for a minute?
CALLER: I've answered your question...
JOHN: NO, no, hold on. Listen carefully. I want it clear to everybody who's listening, and that is...
CALLER: You didn't answer my question about...
JOHN: When you were on--if...
CALLER: ...butt...
JOHN: Listen, you could either answer the question or I'll let you go. I mean that's your choice. I'm happy to ask you the question and let you answer it. I don't know what your hesitation is. Do you believe that Roe v. Wade is something that should be rescinded by the court?
CALLER: Absolutely, because it's a very badly...[John speaks over the caller]
JOHN: Then--I'm, going to tell you--Then your position is well justified, I just don't agree with you. [John hangs up on the caller] But do you understand that there's a deviousness, there is a deviousness in those who call and raise the issue of partial birth abortion without, frankly, explaining the circumstance, who, when you really get to push come to shove, will tell you, they don't favor abortion under any circumstance.
Or, oh yes, if it'll save the life of the mother early on, maybe. Do you understand the disingenuous nature of those who make that argument? They have every right to. I wouldn't argue with them one wit about their right to feel as they do. But their approach is not legitimate. All I ask is honesty. And, as you can see, it takes a lot to have honesty from these people.
The Heimlich maneuver is pointless - clearly once someone's airways are obstructed, they are instantaneously dead. There's no reason to do anything.
Good point.
Ignore this idiot and let his ratings fall in the dumper.
You're being serious???
One could carry what Rothmann postulates to extend to the beginning of rational thought. In such a case, Rothmann qualifies as being "not alive".
maybe you were merely a...crawling fetus.
When you think about it, the unborn receive oxygen...they just do it in a different way (umbilical cord...their scuba gear).
Now, that's one double standard I hadn't thought of that really P*sses me off!
Right on. He's not even a "fetus".
Actually, there's a third loss...On top of it all the I.R.S. will tax your corpse!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.