Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Roll Your Own. | Main | Reading Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Speech »



Isn't it odd that pro-life people are called "absolutists" and the ones who kill the baby/fetus/parasite are not? The pro-lifer could change her mind and kill later, but the pro-abortion mom can't bring that life back. Death is pretty absolute whether at 3 weeks in utero, or 95 in the nursing home.


"Abortion on demand," any time for any reason, that's absolutist. No abortion ever for any reason except the mother will die otherwise, that's also absolutist. Reality is some women are going to have abortions even if it's illegal. The rich ones who could afford to have the baby will be OK, the poorest and most desperate ones among them may die. Think that's only fair?

What's real is to reduce the number of abortions by every possible means -- education, propaganda, abstinence, birth control, Plan B, research -- and restrict the remainder to the first trimester, with the abovementioned exception. That will save lives. It's fine to try to persuade women that they should never have an abortion, but legally regulating early pregnancy, yes, that is a privacy and family issue.


I mean, what is parental notification? A teen-age girl's parents are not necessarily going to be against her having an abortion. They may even be more for it than she is. They may push her in the direction of having one. Is it their parental right to counsel her against abortion, but not their parental right to counsel her in favor of it?

As a blastocyst becomes an embryo and continues to develop into a fetus, the interest of the law should shift in its favor. The destruction of an individual life in the very early stages is a tragedy. It is not a crime from a legal perspective.

This is common sense. Like life itself, it's complicated and not hard-and-fast. Anyone who wants to observe a stricter standard for themselves, God bless them.


And Norma, I don't know if you have read my essay about abortion, but gee, tell me about how you can't bring it back. That's not exactly news to me. If I knew someone who was contemplating having an abortion, I would urge them not to.


If you nip life in the bud- the result is that this person(no matter the blastocyst reference)will never grow to bear fruit-- and i'm not meaning of the loin.

I agree w/you, amba-- as a beginning of an end to abortion. It still amazes me that life is so easily denied to those growing children of the womb. That the realization of life w/in the womb is not allowed to see the light of day(i'm assuming in most cases, here- which is arrogant of me- i apologize)because to allow this realization is to admit a horror of a death willfully committed. A mistake.

Harsh- is partial-birth abortion. Harsh: is hearing a heartbeat, seeing a sonogram- and choosing abortion because it's just too much to deal w/an ~imperfect~ child. Harsh: is allowing a newborn- of abortion- to die w/out ever being held or allowed medical treatment to live.

Who is it that supports all of these, the harshest- of abortion stances as a mantra and ideology? Rewarded for his ~human rights~ interests w/a doctorate of Law form the ever-so-Catholic Notre Dame?

When this man speaks and leads otherwise, amba-- then i think i'll believe there is a hope in reducing the deaths of unwanted children through their murder in what should be the most sacred and safe places in this world: the womb.

Until then, it's all just words.


I have come up with a rule of thumb which, I find, is quite useful in judging anti-abortion arguments. Two, actually.

1) anyone who opposes abortion, but also opposes all birth-control methods, teaching, etc. is not actually opposed to abortion. They are opposed to what they see as immoral sex. Period.

2) anyone who claims that all abortions are murder needs to have a good response when asked if they and their church hold funeral services for every mis-carriage suffered by anyone in the congregation. It isn't murder, but it clearly is a death in the congregation according to their position. No funeral services pretty well knocks the "life begins at conception" position on its back.

There are certainly those who oppose all abortion on its merits. But they appear, in my experience, to be a tiny minority compared to those who have other agendas for which opposing abortion is at least in substantial part a means to an end.

The Meaning Of Life

Great thoughts wh


"What matters is whether they can impose their own choices, noble as they may be, on everyone else, and whether, if they can't, they view it as an utter defeat by a satanic society."

At least a pro-lifer can later change that opinion, and no life has been lost. So just who is the absolutist? Who is bring down society to the lowest, most degrading, inhumane level? Animals have more protections than the pre-born.


Will there be PAYBACK for Dr. Tiller?

Will there be COUNTERTERROR against right-to-lifers?

If a right-to-lifer gets counterterrorized TO DEATH, will that be murder or JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE?

WHO would be the most effective and deserving TARGETS for anti-right-to-lifist counterterror?

WHERE do they LIVE?


Right-to-lifers have one good answer: fetuses are persons, members of the Human Family, and entitled to all the rights and privileges other persons enjoy.

But right-to-lifers have the wrong QUESTION. What matters is not WHAT fetuses are, but WHERE they are.

I say if something is inside my body, then I'm entitled to have it killed NO MATTER WHAT IT IS. Even if it's a person. Even if it's an INNOCENT person. If you were inside my body, I'd be entitled to kill you. If I were inside your body, you'd be entitled to kill me. In fact, if ALL the people in the WHOLE HUMPING WORLD, including the innocent ones, the pregnant ones, and the unborn ones, were assembled inside my body, then I'd be entitled to kill any or all of them. That's part of the meaning of the word "my" in the phrase "my body". MY body is the body about which I, and no one else, get to decide who gets to live inside it, and when, AND HOW LONG.

Abortion kills a person. Doing an abortion on a woman who doesn't want it is baby-murder. But abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.


And I DO support parental-consent requirements. If my thirteen-year-old daughter comes home pregnant and says she wants to grow the pregnancy and be a mom, she should damm well need my permission for that. Which she would not get. If necessary, I'd strap her down and do her abortion my own self.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004