I know Dan (GPW) covered this already….. so I only have one comment. GayCowboyBob owes me $100.
Gay Groups Oppose Roberts Nomination – Washington Blade
“For his entire adult life, John Roberts has been a disciple of and promoted a political and legal ideology that is antithetical to an America that embraces all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people,” said Matt Foreman, executive director of the Task Force.
It hasn’t been confirmed, but I understand Foreman is in negotiations with the Sci-Fi Channel to be the next host of “Scare Tactics.”
-Bruce (GayPatriot) – gaypatriot2004@aol.com
Good luck on collecting that. I didn’t see a lot of libs moving to Canada after the election either.
Is it mere accident that they chose a less-flattering profile shot of Roberts for the accompanying photo?
Quick! Name the appeaser/peacenik contest:
1. “[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
2. “Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years.”
3. “Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
4. “If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
5. “I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
6. “Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
7. “I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
Answers: These statements were all made after we had our troops on the ground in harm’s way. Statements like these provide aid and comfort to our enemy and are, therefore, despicable! : 1)Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA); 2)Joe Scarborough (R-FL); 3)Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99; 4)Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush; 5)Rep Tom Delay (R-TX); 6)Governor George W. Bush (R-TX); 7)Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) All statements were made during the Kosovo war.
So, how’d you do?
Gee, I can’t help but notice that none of those people listed above said “Clinton=Hitler.” I also don’t recall any of those people, during the Kosovo bombing marching around carrying American flags with swastikas in place of stars, nor do I recall any of them throwing out outrageous and inaccurate numbers of civilian deaths, nor do I recall any of those persons ever comparing American troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags,” and so forth…
And it’s good to see that GWB (#6) took his own advice and has described the exit strategy for Iraq: i.e. establish democracy and train Iraqi security forces to handle the terrorists. Either the left is too stupid to recognize an exit strategy when they hear it, or it just isn’t the one they want to hear.
The troops in Kosovo are still there, by the way. Unlike Bush 43, Clinton never had any exit strategy for Kosovo.
Bush Rulez:
Perhaps you meant to post this on the open thread, or on one of the many threads related to the Iraq war?
Otherwise, I might be tempted to respond with a long cut-and-paste on why Michael Moore is an idiot.
#3 – None of those statements are despicable, Bush Rulez, because they were all motivated by a genuine desire to see U.S. forces win – after being used sparingly and for worthwhile goals.
Can Democrats say the same? Yes – Some Democrats have been concerned and constructive in their criticisms. (Not Kennedy or any of the current “Gitmo!”, “Abu Ghraib!”-screaming types.)
Can the Howard Dean, Michael Moore types say the same? No, they cannot.
If the people you quoted had actually *sided with the enemy* – if they referred to a brutal, repressive enemy as “freedom fighters” in hopes of encouraging that enemy to kill Americans and ultimately triumph – as some of those furthest Left have, in fact, done – yes, then they would be despicable statements.
There are some pretty basic distinctions or ideas here, Bush Rulez!, that you seem pretty clueless about. So get a clue.
Actually, I think Michael Moore is quite clever (in a Lumpy Reifenstahl sort of way). He’s made a fortune telling dim-witted lefties exactly what they want to hear.
P.S. The most basic and important distinction: What is the purpose of the criticism? Constructive or destructive? Pro-military, or anti-? Pro-America, or anti-?
Vigorous constructive criticism is a great American tradition, and makes you more of an American. Destructive criticism makes you less of an American.
Glad you folks enjoyed the quiz! It’s fun to see you get all tangled up in illogical knots trying to justify statements you would condemn were they directed at this war! FWIW, I see only constructive criticism of the war by Kerry, Sheehan, Hagel, Abizaid, etc. Even Durbin obviously loves this country so much that it pains him (and most Americans, to be sure) to see prisoners suffer abuse in US custody. I know Republicans never had anything but the highest respect for Clinton and would never intone the Nazis, communists, etc to make their points (right! What about Santorum invoking Nazis recently, as well as Sen. Sessions, Rep. Cole, Peter King, Phil Gramm, Norquist, Inhofe, Ralph Peters, “feminazis”, “Hitlery Clinton”, etc?)
I think it’s also obvious that the above statements were meant to be destructive towards President Clinton and that the speakers really wanted us to fail in that endeavor so that it would reflect badly on the President. If Kosovo had been fought by a Republican president, you can bet they would have all supported it. Furthermore, the US suffered very few casualties, there was a clear objective, and the war was fought at reasonable expense. Those who honestly believe Iraq is going according to plans are seriously deluded. If Clinton had conducted a war this badly, he would have been impeached and removed from office!
As for Michael Moore, he’s no different than Rush Limbaugh. They both twist the facts to make their point at attempt to interject humor into their editorializing. The only difference is that Moore is not on drugs so, therefore, hasn’t lost his coherency and his sense of hearing.
Again, I’m glad you enjoyed the quiz! Maybe we’ll have to do a follow-up eventually!
Bruce,
Just a reminder that I never took on that bet because I too said that HRC wouldn’t support him unless he passed their litmus test. Problem was, when you first reported about this, you presented it as a fait accompli, which at the time the organization had made no determination and issued no formal position for or against the nominee. You made a probable guess. I advocated waiting and watching the situation to let facts come out before partisan wrangling began. Should you get $100 for that when no one was doubting your position but rather your timing?
The response from my site quoted verbatim:
I think they [HRC] have valid concerns. But it pre-polarizes the issue when you sensationalize and demonize those concerns, no?
It’s unlikely that the President will back down from the nomination, and it’s unlikely that groups like HRC will be satisfied without the nominee passing a litmus test on abortion, women’s and GLBT issues.
I agree with you that the HRC will come to find that they can’t support the nominee, but I don’t think they’ve made that determination yet – even in light of a predisposition from what they’ve researched about him being on the President’t short list – and I don’t think you should be fabricating suppositions about their decision until they’ve made it. It only heightens the tension and the impending conflict.
So no I won’t bet you $100 that the HRC won’t work against Roberts, but I will bet you $100 that you will sensationalize the next story about liberal gay groups the next chance you get.
If anything, I think you owe ME $100. 🙂
Let me phrase it this way, Bob…..the Executive Director of HRC, in his previous role as head of EMILY’S List, gave $300k to a candidate who supported the FMA because said candidate was pro-abortion, as approved by the organization’s founder, who is a lesbian.
If HRC wants to be a pro-abortion group, let them. But they should stop pretending they’re a gay-rights group, especially since they want to continue to support candidates who want to ban gay marriage.
ND30,
I never said anything about that. Why are you getting upset with me?
And if you read the joint statement, unless I missed it, there’s nothing in there opposing Roberts on abortion concerns. In fact, documents relating to that issue are part of what’s not being released to the public.
From the article Bruce quotes:
“The coalition of gay rights groups said it is troubled that the Bush administration has denied the Senate access to documents from Roberts’ service as deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993. These documents are said to include Roberts’ writings on cases involving voting rights, abortion rights and the separation of church and state.”
In fact, does the HRC even have ANYTHING on their website relating to abortion issues? I can’t seem to find it and would appreciate if someone actually posted it so I could be better informed about their position or lack of one.
Yup.
Actually, to refer back to that link, it’s even scarier…..HRC is supposedly involved for the purposes of preventing the spread of HIV, but because of the promotion of abortion as an ideal means of birth control by NARAL, etc., the population with the highest abortion rate (black females 18 – 24) is amazingly similar to one for which death from HIV/AIDS is the number-one killer (black males and females ages 25 – 44).
Anyone besides HRC not see the connection between pushing birth control required AFTER unprotected sex with deaths from HIV/AIDS?
To your direct point, though, GCB, check this out (about halfway down the linked page of explanations for why HRC opposes Roberts):
Judge Roberts Would Undermine a Woman’s Right to Choose
Actually, I doubt Roberts would undermine a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have unprotected sex (as established in Griswold and other cases). But I do believe he would have issues with a woman knowing she isn’t ready to have a child, having unprotected sex, and then killing the child afterwards because doing otherwise would inconvenience her socially.
ND30,
Thanks for the links. With the first, it seems as if it just shows connections to other “partner” organizations they work with, NARAL being one of those. They also work with Mautner Project, for breast cancer, and a number of other positive, yet liberal, community based organizations. It seems their concerns are diverse and not very conservative in nature. I don’t understand people on here getting so upset about it. HRC doesn’t speak for you in the first place right?
Personally, I don’t particularly see why a GLBT organization is particularly concerned with reproductive rights as its unlikely that any gay man or woman will get accidentally pregnant, but it seems to be wrapped up as a women’s health issue. Perhaps we could get a female perspective on the board here to help me understand what’s at stake a little better.
I’m pro-choice yet anti-abortion. I personally do not want Roe v. Wade turned over. I don’t think abortions are a good thing but I want to make sure that it is possible for someone to have a safe and legal one if their conscience dictates.
I also realize that a judicial appointment is about many things and this one issue alone would not make the choice for me. I think this is also what HRC is saying. There’s a variety of issues they’ve considered and they’ve taken the position that Robert’s nomination doesn’t suit this suite of concerns. So be it. Personally I’m not terribly enthusiastic about Roberts one way or another. I think he’ll make a very blase, forgettable justice and because of that, not because I have any outstanding issue against him, I am wondering if we can’t do better.
But I do believe he would have issues with a woman knowing she isn’t ready to have a child, having unprotected sex, and then killing the child afterwards because doing otherwise would inconvenience her socially.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty
===============================
10W30,
That is if you believe that clumps of cells are a child. I am tired of this drum beat of “killing unborn children” which has to be the dumbest oxymoron in all of history. They ain’t children AND citizens till, like Puxotawney Phil, they pop out of the hole.
Oh, yeah, and breathe.
Think what you like, Chandler, but you were one of them.
I’ve just always found it interesting that the Left has to go to such lengths to deny the personhood of what’s in the womb. Why can’t they just say that a mother has the right to kill her baby any time in utero?
I’ve just always found it interesting that the Left has to go to such lengths to deny the personhood of what’s in the womb. Why can’t they just say that a mother has the right to kill her baby any time in utero?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty
=====================
10W30,
First of all it isn’t a baby till it’s born.
Secondly, I actually like the Spartan concept of personhood. If a child was determined to be unacceptable then it was lobbed off a cliff IF IT COULD NOT SPEAK. At the time a child could communicate verbally, it became a Spartan citizen. There are many horrible three year olds I would have gladly pitched into the ocean. But that is not our custom.
Up until a child is delivered to life, it is just a growth.
No rights, no obligations.
Unborn child is an oxymoron.
And I hate to get all scientific, because science doesn’t hold water when it comes to religious dogmo-jumbo, but it took the invention of the microscope in the 16th/17th century to determine human fertilization. Prior to that, the concept of conception and when it actually happened was pure poetic conjecture. Conjecture that existed for 16 centuries. I think you all are just bitter because the Earth isn’t the center of the universe. It isn’t. And Intelligent Design intelligently made me a gay man. H@@@@@@@
How disgusting you are, Chandler. Obviously your tongue is in cheek when you joke about lobbing 3-year-olds off cliffs, and yet even if it is, the very fact that you could joke about lobbing 3-year-olds off cliffs is disgusting.
What if a woman is in labor, her cervix is dilating, the 9-month “growth” (as you call it) is in the process of coming out, and then she says “I want an abortion. Kill it now.” Should that be legal? C’mon, Chandler, show us more about how disgusting you are.
Ah the devolution of this thread.
By scientific standards, there is a point where a fetus can live on its own without the support of the womb, even before that there is a point where body parts have developed that would allow it under special circumstances to continue to develop. Anti-choice activist will always construct their arguments to reduce the factors necessary to consider a fetus viable and pro-choice activists will always construct their arguments in a reverse fashion.
The point is that abortion is never an easy, positive situation. Ever. Anti-choice activisit would rhetorically want you to believe that abortion is practiced only by druggies and hookers as birth control who happily walk in the clinic every Friday to have the muck scraped out.
But there are so many other possible circumstances – rape, incest, birth control failure, simple poor choices by normally smart people. I think the United States has done a very good job in looking at the issue to define when it is and isn’t OK to have an abortion. If the government is determined to be involved in such personal, private medical issues, which I do not appreciate in the first place, I’m happy where things stand just as they are right now. The choice is protected within defined circumstances.
I’ve never understood having a baby for having a baby’s sake. With world population spinning out of control, every birth should be a positive and happy occurence. Every child should be wanted, prepared for and represent a possibility, not a problem and a burden. And I find it disheartening that anti-choice activists focus their energies on the unborn while ignoring the circumstances of the living. How many of you actively donate your time and money to projects helping children in a similar manner to how you’d like to force unwilling women to bear unwanted fetuses?
The point is that abortion is never an easy, positive situation.
Tell that to NARAL. Their organization is dedicated to making it as easy and positive a decision as possible, and seeing to it that the decision is made as often as possible, and they get extremely pissy if anyone suggests even moderate reforms, e.g. parental involvement, preventing the butchering of viable fetuses, and so forth…
To me, what defies science is the idea that something magical and mysterious happens in the birth canal that transforms a lump of tissue into a human being with rights. An hour before the passage, the being can be murdered at will. An hour after the passage, it’s somehow magically become a human being. What the hell is up with that?
Hypothetical situation, GCB: An unemployed, homeless woman with a drug problem who’s already had two kids is pregnant with a third. Would you advise her to get an abortion?
GCB-
“How many of you actively donate your time and money to projects helping children in a similar manner to how you’d like to force unwilling women to bear unwanted fetuses?”
Dear God. The CH-1 mental virus has mutated and spread.
Shall we have a half dozen threads seriously discussing whether anyone who doesn’t volunteer in an orphanage should be permitted to express any opinion on whether child abuse is wrong, or when life begins?
Chander, I couldn’t disagree with you more on your thoughts of Life’s beginning. But I’m glad you at least have the courage of your convictions and a logical progression of your thoughts. (I.e., no platitudes about late-term (or even post-term, it seems) abortions.) Although it makes me think less of you as a good-hearted person, at least you’re consistent and honest. THAT’s refreshing in the abortion debate.
#24 – Clint, I guess this means that since I adopted two kids out of foster care, all must kneel before me on the abortion issue.
VtK-
Don’t worry. They’ll have some other excuse. Logical consistency seems to be the first mental organ damaged by the CH-1 virus, and I have no reason to believe that the CH-2a strain will be any different.
The irony of nationwide abortion-on-demand is, of course, that liberals have been slowly killing off their own future voters.
There is no definitive proof about the following – take it as speculative –
but some studies have suggested that a person’s general political and social orientation (liberal or conservative) may have a genetic aspect, and tends to be influenced heavily by parents/family….some studies have also shown that politically liberal women are more likely to get abortions and have fewer kids than conservative women; not by a gigantic margin, but some…..and some political studies say that the younger generations of today are more conservative on average than political scientists expected…..and the number of annual abortions in America went up after Roe (1973). Put 4 and 4 together.
Even if we’re only talking about a difference of 1,000,000 votes in 2005, it’s enough to have elected Bush twice and made America a conservative country.
What was Goldwater’s position on abortion?
The amusing thing is that, when science develops an artificial womb, Chandler and his type will STILL be arguing that babies aren’t real.
But there are so many other possible circumstances – rape, incest, birth control failure, simple poor choices by normally smart people.
Ah, but you see, GCB, rape and incest are not consensual sex. As for birth control failure, that’s the risk that you take when you have sex.
When it comes to poor decisions, why should you be allowed to kill people for them?
Every child should be wanted, prepared for and represent a possibility, not a problem and a burden.
The key word is “should”. However, when they aren’t, does that give you the right to kill them?
And I find it disheartening that anti-choice activists focus their energies on the unborn while ignoring the circumstances of the living.
As I have said before, GCB, just because the world into which they are born is not perfect does not give you the right to kill them.
Furthermore, considering that an abortion costs an average of $500 and that over a million of them are performed annually, if abortionists want more money to be given for child healthcare, quit blowing it on abortions.
How many of you actively donate your time and money to projects helping children in a similar manner to how you’d like to force unwilling women to bear unwanted fetuses?
I don’t think a single one of us here would advocate that women who had sex against their will, i.e. rape and incest, be denied the legal right to abort the resulting baby, even though many of us would find it to be morally wrong.
However, I will point out that the fact that a baby will be “unwanted” is almost invariably known prior to having sex. Thus, if a woman chooses to have sex, she is willingly exposing herself to the risk that she will get pregnant, even though she knows she doesn’t want a baby.
Hypothetical situation, GCB: An unemployed, homeless woman with a drug problem who’s already had two kids is pregnant with a third. Would you advise her to get an abortion?
I dunno Vo’K. It’s none of my business right?
By the way, V o’K. I think it’s really great that you adopted. That’s very cool. I have friends, a couple, that just adopted a pre-teen brother and sister. It’s funny to hear them speak the typical parent talk.
ND30,
Ah, but you see, GCB, rape and incest are not consensual sex. As for birth control failure, that’s the risk that you take when you have sex.
But conservatives would want to make even these situations illegal, right?
The key word is “should”. However, when they aren’t, does that give you the right to kill them?
It doesn’t give me any right whatsoever. Nor does it you. That’s my point. Within given parameters, it’s really up to the parents and no one else, right?
Lefties always cop out when you shoot a real-world example at them.
ND30: I don’t think a single one of us here would advocate that women who had sex against their will, i.e. rape and incest, be denied the legal right to abort the resulting baby, even though many of us would find it to be morally wrong.
GCB: But conservatives would want to make even these situations illegal, right?
A few here and there. Sometimes the campaign has a candidate’s spouce articulate support for this exemption. Depends on the electoral climate. ND30’s position is quite poll tested. From an operative’s goal this would be the position you would want for maximum electibility. You really want to hone this wedge. Ask ND30 about jailing the mother for murder. That doesn’t test well at all.
What if a woman is in labor, her cervix is dilating, the 9-month “growth” (as you call it) is in the process of coming out, and then she says “I want an abortion. Kill it now.” Should that be legal? C’mon, Chandler, show us more about how disgusting you are.
Comment by joe
===================
The decision is one between a patient and her doctor.
As I am neither patient nor doctor, I cannot answer your question.
I support the actions of the doctor not to be interfered with by invasive laws derived from a religious position rather than a scientific basis for options.
GCB-
“It doesn’t give me any right whatsoever. Nor does it you. That’s my point. Within given parameters, it’s really up to the parents and no one else, right?”
Of course. The disagreement here is over what those parameters ought to be.
I assume you don’t believe that it’s “up to the parents” whether or not a father should be having intercourse with his eight-year-old daughter. Nor would you say it is “up to the parents” whether or not a six-week baby should be smothered with a pillow because he cries all the time. Birth is a straightforward and demonstrable line — so it works well legally for that reason. But it’s not a scientific distinction — it’s a practical one.
Going back to the original Roe line of six months, or even pushing it back to 4 or 3 months, is more scientifically defensible. Unless you take the position (as it seems you might) that the child gains “rights” (or religiously speaking, his soul) primarily through taking his first breath, rather than through feeling his first sensation or thinking his first thought. This seems to me to be just as ridiculous as suggesting that rights inhere to a unique genetic code, and as soon as that genome is set, rights attach — to a single cell.
We might reasonably argue about the exact point at which a lump of cells becomes a tiny, young person. But birth and conception both make no sense.
Clint
*** Some might argue for a line much later, when the baby learns to talk. I wouldn’t agree — but this would be a far more defensible position to take than birth, because it refers to a quality of the child himself, rather than merely his location.
joe: Even if we’re only talking about a difference of 1,000,000 votes in 2005, it’s enough to have elected Bush twice and made America a conservative country.
ND30: I don’t think a single one of us here would advocate that women who had sex against their will, i.e. rape and incest, be denied the legal right to abort the resulting baby, even though many of us would find it to be morally wrong.
That’s for sure. That’d cost you votes. This ain’t about religious piety. This is about electoral politics. Otherwise ND30 wouldn’t be so sure that not a single one of you would ban abortion in the the case of rape and incest.
joe, were you able to track down Goldwater’s position on abortion and his opinion of the ethics of those that try to use it to manipulate elections?
Chandler-
“I support the actions of the doctor not to be interfered with by invasive laws derived from a religious position rather than a scientific basis for options.”
So, you’d have no problem with a doctor “euthanizing” gay people, against their wills, on the basis of a “scientific” argument about how gay people are evolutionary dead ends?? I doubt it. What you mean is that you don’t want moral values imposed other than yours.
At some point, laws are always based on value judgements — whether you believe that genocide is wrong because your faith tells you so, because your conscience tells you so, or because utilitarian moral philosophy allows you to derive it (from unprovable axiums, of course) — you are always making an arbitrary value judgement. Supporters of euthenasia in the first half of the last century made no scientific mistakes — they just made different value judgements than most of us today.
There is absolutely no scientific theory that will tell you that rape, murder, torture and genocide are wrong. We agree on those because we share some common values, not because of the result of a scientific experiment.
#37 – anon, as usual your comments are hard to follow and the closest I can come to making sense of them is that perhaps you did not see what I was really getting at.
What if a woman is in labor, her cervix is dilating, the 9-month “growth” (as you call it) is in the process of coming out, and then she says “I want an abortion. Kill it now.” Should that be legal?
Comment by joe
===================
The decision is one between a patient and her doctor.
As I am neither patient nor doctor, I cannot answer your question.
I support the actions of the doctor not to be interfered with by invasive laws derived from a religious position rather than a scientific basis for options.
Comment by chandler
===================
Translation of Chandler’s answer: Yes.
He seriously thinks that if the “9-month growth” is in the process of moving down the birth canal and the woman suddenly says “Kill it”, and if the doctor is willing to, then it ought to be legal for them to do so.
Can you spell c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n?
“….you are always making an arbitrary value judgement…”
Errrrr….some moral judgments are objective, not arbitrary….and without relying on Bible/God for any argument-by-authority…..but that’s a whole ‘nother story, for a whole ‘nother time.
And back to the real issue…..The real point of this thread:
GCB, have you given, or are you going to give, Bruce his $100?
Suggestion: Use the link “Support GayPatriot – PayPal Donate” which is in the far-right column (hah hah) of the main page.
joe, were you able to track down Goldwater’s position on abortion and his opinion of the ethics of those that try to use it to manipulate elections?
anon – You obviously believe you know the answer, and appear to think you’re setting some clever trap, although I can’t imagine why, because I suspect you have misunderstood my position, but it seems to be super important to you, so I’ll bite. What’s *your rendition* of Goldwater’s position on abortion, for the record?
Here ya go joe: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article.php/653.html
Come back, Barry, by Adrian Wooldridge, The Economist, May 12, 2005
The Republican Party continues to abandon small-government conservatism at its peril
Exceprt:
He thundered that social conservatives such as Jerry Falwell deserved “a swift kick in the ass”, and insisted that the decision to have an abortion should be “up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right”. For Goldwater, abortion was “not a conservative issue at all”. For many Republicans today, it often seems to be the only conservative issue.
Exceprt:
One reason why Ronald Reagan had such an invigorating impact on his party is that he never allowed the Christian right to gain too much power at the expense of the Goldwater right. Messrs Bush and Rove may have to pay more attention to that balance if they are to realise their dream of turning the Republicans into America’s permanent ruling party.
joe, I assume your position on abortion is: the issue should be exploited for maximum political gain.
#47 – anon, as I suspected, you totally misunderstood what I said; you assume quite wrongly.
P.S. I am aware of Goldwater’s “swift kick in the ass” comment about Falwell, and have long admired him for it.
Even so, I seriously doubt that if Goldwater were asked the question I asked of Chandler, that he would have given anything resembling the answer Chandler gave.
Of course you knew Goldwater’s position. So in the interests of driving up GP’s hit count, what’s your position on the legality of abortion?. I gather from your comments above you are against very very late term abortions and that liberals may have lost their electoral advantage by aborting their offspring.
Pro-lifers that don’t want to jail the mother strike me as being motivated by things other than the life of the unborn child. Politicians know this and play these people like violins.
That’s a more accurate reading of my position.
Penalties for mothers: To be honest, this is absolutely the first time I have ever thought about what they might be. I imagine that mothers are expected to be emotional about pregnancy (not being sexist here – all the women’s groups, NOW, etc., have tried to defend mothers during and after pregnancy on the basis of hormonally induced insanity – just mirroring what they say). I imagine that, for that reason, penalties on mothers for abortion would be unenforcable. I imagine that the doctor or facility performing the ultra late term abortion are the ones expected to be rational, and thus morally accountable.
Joe-
Skipping several steps of debate… I’d agree that you’d have to be pretty messed up to disagree with some basic principles like a belief in the value of human dignity (if you’re a human) and such, but at the end of the day, there are logically self-consistent justifications for the most insane leftists positions. (The fact that a number of the liberals posting here couldn’t recognize a logically self-consistent set of propositions if their lives depended on it doesn’t change that fact.)
Example: PETA’s positions are completely reasonable if you start from the proposition that all animals are innately good and valuable, except for humans who are innately evil and worthless. Everything else follows logically.
I understand that Ayn Rand disagreed, and believed she could derive her entire political philosophy (and sense of esthetics — including that gay people are icky) from basic principles of logic like “a is a”. I disagree. The inherent value and dignity of individual humans is self-evident, but that’s just another way of saying it’s an input assumption, not something proven. And it’s something many on the left disagree with (or agree with the words, but mean something different by them).
Anyway… you’re right, this is way off topic.
anon-
“Pro-lifers that don’t want to jail the mother strike me as being motivated by things other than the life of the unborn child. Politicians know this and play these people like violins.”
Does that mean that anyone who wants drug dealers to go to jail, and drug users to pay a fine, is motivated by something other than a concern about the harmful consequences of drugs?
Or that anyone who wants to put gun manufacturers in jail, while merely confiscating the guns of law-abiding gun owners, is motivated by something other than a concern about gun violence?
.
Please.
#42 Joe,
Didn’t you read my reply in #10? It’s actually Bruce who owes me $100. I never took on the bet because I actually agreed with Bruce. So in my best kindergarten inflection nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah!
The reason is, Clint, is that the left uses absurdist arguments when trying to explain their support of abortion and abortion-pushers.
To whit:
But conservatives would want to make even these situations illegal, right?
Otherwise ND30 wouldn’t be so sure that not a single one of you would ban abortion in the the case of rape and incest.
You see, what these absurdists fail to mention is that rape and incest constitute only 1% of all abortions performed.
As I broke out in that post, 90% of the abortions performed annually are for reasons that a woman knew prior to having sex. The reason abortionists use these scare tactics is because they cannot level with the American people and tell them that over 90% of the million-plus abortions performed annually in the US are as a result of the mother’s choice to have unprotected or risky sex.
It’s no coincidence that the demographic group for which HIV/AIDS is the number-one killer (black men and women ages 25 – 44) is so closely linked to the demographic group most likely to have an abortion (black females ages 18 – 24). Abortionists have promoted and encouraged abortion as a birth control method, and the STD rate has skyrocketed.
And here they stand screaming that, despite our very clear words to the contrary, you and I want to make abortion illegal in the case of rape or incest. That’s called “distraction”.
If you believe abortion is murder, jail the mother. She is a murderess. (Clint, if I murder someone with a candlestick, we don’t put the candlestick maker in jail.) Allowing it in the case of rape and incest because it’s statistically rare makes no ethical sense to me. I’m sure there are many crimes on the books that we would not want to abandon enforcing just because they are rarer that conception from rape or incest.
But the exception in the case of rape or incest from a political standpoint makes perfect sense. You’d never win an election with an outright ban.
As ND30 (do you prefer NDT?) rightfully points out: over 90% of the million-plus abortions performed annually in the US are as a result of the mother’s choice to have unprotected or risky sex. Enforce an outright ban and you would deny women any wiggle room (claiming rape) to terminate pregnancies. Very few of those that have “religious” objections to abortion would ever want to eliminate this loophole.
Goldwater was right. This is an issue the Republican Party should stay out of. Most neo-cons have few in any qualms about abortion on demand (and paid for by tax dollars) during the first trimester. Their alliance with the religious right in their lust for power is ugly in the extreme.
#54 – Wonderfully interesting – Bruce, true? Or a GCB cop-out?
ND30,
I’m glad you bring up points about why a woman chooses to have an abortion. It clarifies my position that we live in a time when every child should ultimately be loved and well provided for.
Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life (16%)
Woman can’t afford baby now (21%)
Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood (12%)
Woman is unready for responsibility (21%)
Woman doesn’t want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant (1%)
Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child (11%)
Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children (8%)
If a woman, or better yet if a couple, know that they are unwilling, unable or unprepared to take care of a child, perhaps it’s best the child never be born. In the best interests of the child, any descision about having or not having a baby ultimately should to be left to the parents. An unhappy burden will come to no good end, whereas an unexpected challenge can be accepted and nurtured. That’s my first point.
My second point is that despite the best precautions beyond more criminal actions like rape and incest, accidents do often happen. Birth control fails, bad decisions are made. However, within reasonable guidelines, it’s neither the government’s interest or role to dictate to a woman or a couple what circumstances must be present to force them to have children. Unless the government is ultimately willing to proscribe and regulate sexual behavior, which most reasonable people would see as unacceptable or impossible or both, it is inappropriate for it to regulate the outcome thereof.
Allowing it in the case of rape and incest because it’s statistically rare makes no ethical sense to me.
But it makes plenty of legal sense because the right of the mother to choose whether to have sex or not was taken away. What is legal is not always ethical.
If a woman, or better yet if a couple, know that they are unwilling, unable or unprepared to take care of a child, perhaps it’s best the child never be born.
I’ll do you one better. It’s best that the child never be conceived in the first place.
If you absolutely don’t want a baby and want a guarantee of the fact, don’t have sex.
If you don’t want a baby, but want to have sex, accept the fact that contraceptives occasionally fail.
What abortion is is the right to have unprotected sex and take a human life in exchange. Find me THAT in the Constitution.
Unless the government is ultimately willing to proscribe and regulate sexual behavior, which most reasonable people would see as unacceptable or impossible or both, it is inappropriate for it to regulate the outcome thereof.
The government is perfectly willing to proscribe and regulate sexual behavior — witness laws against incest, polygamy, pedophilia, etc. — and very few people object to those, save the ACLU.
If you don’t want the government to intervene, don’t have sex or accept the fact that contraceptives occasionally fail.
It amuses me to no end that liberal glbts, a population that should know first-hand the danger of promoting unprotected sex, vociferously push and promote abortion as a means of practicing unprotected sex without consequences.
Translation of Chandler’s answer: Yes.
He seriously thinks that if the “9-month growth” is in the process of moving down the birth canal and the woman suddenly says “Kill it”, and if the doctor is willing to, then it ought to be legal for them to do so.
Can you spell c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n?
Comment by joe
=====================
joe,
Please stop interpreting my answers then throwing your regurgitated right wing crap over your interpretation.
When I said that a late term abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor, guess what, I meant it. There are many reasons why a doctor would legitimately deliver a late term baby against the wishes of the mother. But it is a decision made between a woman and her doctor and something not to be intervened by some people’s religious determination as to what our laws should morally be.
I am glad you can spell corruption as I have no freaking idea as to what you were trying to say. You do that a lot. Focus, old boy, focus.
What abortion is is the right to have unprotected sex and take a human life in exchange. Find me THAT in the Constitution.
But that’s the point ND30. As harsh as it seems, early term abortions are not taking a human life. A person is determined by consciousness and the ability to live independent of the mother. Neither of these are present in the early trimesters.
And there’s a lot in the constitution that government has taken on its should to regulate, moderate, protect and destroy. There’s nothing about gay sex in the constitution but you know as well as I that government chose to have laws on the books to regulate that until recently.
Unless you want the government further intruding on your privacy, you should really think of the implications of what you’re advocating.
But it makes plenty of legal sense because the right of the mother to choose whether to have sex or not was taken away. What is legal is not always ethical.
ND30, still unclear to me is:
The difference to the unborn child
Why you aren’t jailing the mother for “taking a human life”
Why not a single one of you here would advocate denying women who had sex against their will the legal right to abort the resulting baby.
What abortion is is the right to have unprotected sex and take a human life in exchange
Is it the screwing, or is it the baby killing, that bothers you?
GCB-
Point of clarity: where do you draw the line? Are you pro-choice for a 9 1/2 month fetus, if it’s still in the womb?
NDT-
Flip side — do you draw the line all the way back at conception?
where do you draw the line? Are you pro-choice for a 9 1/2 month fetus, if it’s still in the womb?
I believe early in the pregnancy, say the first trimester should be absolutely protected, no questions asked. It should be enough time to put your house in order, so to speak, to make a commitment to the child and also test for any detectable defects and diseases.
I believe the second trimester should be conditionally protected for various circumstances – risk to the health of the mother for example. It should be fully protected but the determination should be an agreement between the parents and a health care specialist.
By the third trimester, everything should be in place but special circumstances should be accounted for although special permission would have to be sought.
Any clarification?
But that’s the point ND30. As harsh as it seems, early term abortions are not taking a human life. A person is determined by consciousness and the ability to live independent of the mother. Neither of these are present in the early trimesters.
Oh please, Bob. You don’t run around stripping personhood from the unconscious and those dependent on life support, nor do you allow infanticide because a child is “too much of a burden”.
The only reason a child in utero is an exception is because of the old rule “out of sight, out of mind”. It’s easy to depersonalize the child at that stage because it’s not cute or cuddly.
Unless you want the government further intruding on your privacy, you should really think of the implications of what you’re advocating.
Yes — I might have to actually think about public issues before taking private actions.
It isn’t exactly a secret that unprotected sex produces babies. The right to not have to have unprotected sex was established by decisions like Griswold. Only in Roe, though, was the precedent set that you may kill another person as the direct result of your private actions.
The difference to the unborn child
Are you allowed to kill the unconscious because they might not recognize the difference?
Why you aren’t jailing the mother for “taking a human life”
We might, we might not. Manslaughter doesn’t always carry jail time, you know.
Why not a single one of you here would advocate denying women who had sex against their will the legal right to abort the resulting baby.
The woman didn’t consent to sex. Her claim still exists and trumps the baby’s.
Is it the screwing, or is it the baby killing, that bothers you?
Sex between consenting adults doesn’t bother me. Killing the result of it does.
Flip side — do you draw the line all the way back at conception?
Yup.
Sex between consenting adults doesn’t bother me. Killing the result of it does.
The difference to the unborn child for being killed because he was conceived by rape, not consent, was my question. Why doesn’t this child need your protection? What is your ethical, moral, and religious justification for granting the mother the legal right to kill that baby?
What is legal is not always ethical. I need to understand your ethics. Yes we don’t always jail murderers. But that still doesn’t tell me why you do not want to jail (or advocate jailing) mothers that murder their unborn children.
The only reason a child in utero is an exception is because of the old rule “out of sight, out of mind”. It’s easy to depersonalize the child at that stage because it’s not cute or cuddly.
That’s absolutely not true. Are you saying that an unconscious mass of cells with human DNA is a person?
An embryo only represents potential life. There’s no guarantee. Death, even premature death is a part of life. And as cruel as it seems to terminate potential life, it seems to me even crueler to bring a child into the world with an unwilling heart or without the means to care for it properly and no interest in changing that situation.
And unless you’re willing to have the government regulate every aspect of personal behavior that represents potential injury or death to personhood (absolutely no smoking, no drinking, no working in factories with potential hazardous chemicals, no driving a car etc.) it’s hypocritical to apply it here.
An embryo only represents potential life. There’s no guarantee. Death, even premature death is a part of life.
So the logic here is that the fact that some pregnancies terminate naturally gives you the right to dehumanize the baby and terminate the pregnancy artificially for whatever reason you choose?
Do you then apply that logic to argue that, because some people die naturally, you have the right to dehumanize other people and cause their death artificially for whatever reason you choose?
And as cruel as it seems to terminate potential life, it seems to me even crueler to bring a child into the world with an unwilling heart or without the means to care for it properly and no interest in changing that situation.
Again, the liberal left’s psychic powers manifest…..since they can infallibly predict the future, they should kill these babies to spare them from what they claim will be a lifetime of torment.
I suppose that means that kids like my grandfather, my great-aunt, and my cousin, all of whom were born to unwilling mothers with no means to care for them properly and no interest in changing that situation, should have been killed because, God knows, their lives would turn out to be completely worthless and full of pain and torment.
How much other potential has been killed because GayCowboyBob and his ilk prejudged their worth and found it wanting in a desperate effort to rationalize destroying human life?
And unless you’re willing to have the government regulate every aspect of personal behavior that represents potential injury or death to personhood (absolutely no smoking, no drinking, no working in factories with potential hazardous chemicals, no driving a car etc.) it’s hypocritical to apply it here.
Again, the absurdist argument — since some women smoke during pregnancy, we should have the right to crush a baby’s skull with forceps and use a giant vacuum cleaner to suck it out of the womb.
The difference to the unborn child for being killed because he was conceived by rape, not consent, was my question. Why doesn’t this child need your protection? What is your ethical, moral, and religious justification for granting the mother the legal right to kill that baby?
She didn’t choose to have sex. It’s just that simple.
But of course, your point is not to determine my “ethical, moral, and religious justification” — it’s to frantically find justification for your supporting a woman’s pseudo-“right” to kill a child that is the consequence of her having consensual sex.
In a nutshell, you want to use the fact that I would legally allow abortion in cases resulting from nonconsensual sex to justify your allowing it in all cases.
“And unless you’re willing to have the government regulate every aspect of personal behavior that represents potential injury or death to personhood (absolutely no smoking, no drinking, no working in factories with potential hazardous chemicals, no driving a car etc.) it’s hypocritical to apply it here.” – Comment by Bob
“Again, the absurdist argument — since some women smoke during pregnancy, we should have the right to crush a baby’s skull with forceps and use a giant vacuum cleaner to suck it out of the womb.” – Comment by NDT
The irony of Bob’s comment is that, in left/liberal politics, they usually do want to “have the government regulate every aspect of personal behavior that represents potential injury or death to personhood (absolutely no smoking, no drinking, no working in factories with potential hazardous chemicals, no driving a car etc.) “…..so why their sudden hesitation or squeamishness about applying it to abortion also?? Now that is hypocrisy.
Why doesn’t the child conceived by rape, not consent, need your protection? What is your ethical, moral, and religious justification for granting the mother the legal right to kill that baby?
What is legal is not always ethical. I need to understand your ethics. Yes we don’t always jail murderers. But that still doesn’t tell me why you do not want to jail (or advocate jailing) mothers that murder their unborn children.
My point is very much to determine your ethical, moral, and religious justifications.
They do. But legally, I can’t give it to them.
Abortion is wrong from a moral, ethical, and religious standpoint, regardless of how you slice it, because the baby is not responsible for the sins of the parents. However, from a legal standpoint, the mother’s lack of consent trumps the baby’s right of existence. Had she consented to engage in an act that any reasonable person knows has a risk of producing pregnancy, she consents to the risk of the baby’s right to life overruling her right to “control her own body”.
In the case of a rape that results in pregnancy, the decision has to be the mother’s. I can tell her that it is best to keep the baby, but she legally can ignore me. Personally, if it came down to filing murder/manslaughter charges in that case, I would file them against the rapist, not the mother.
But that still doesn’t tell me why you do not want to jail (or advocate jailing) mothers that murder their unborn children.
I don’t particularly WANT to jail anyone. However, if people insist on breaking the law, that’s where they quite often end up. If jail is what it takes to get people to stop aborting children — and to think twice about the reproductive consequences of having sex — and to think three times about how good of an idea it is to have unprotected sex, which is what creates the need for an abortion in the first place — then so be it.
Thanks ND30. Good to see you lay it out. You have strong opinions on the character of those that deny personhood to some fetuses. You’ve certainly honed your position to an effective electoral edge.
Your lack of zeal to prosecute murderers might be surprising to those that would look to you as a “law and order” type of guy. But I find your position entirely consistent with the ethics of “compassionate” conservatives.
Good blog with interesing information!
…naturally gives you the right to dehumanize the baby…
I’ve never dehumanized a baby. I’ve only laid out the bare fact that a fetus, not a baby which is a different thing, is not not self-aware and not a viable organism. The debate between you and I as we’re talking is one of sentimental emotions versus scientific fact.
and terminate the pregnancy artificially for whatever reason you choose
I’ve already fully laid out my ideas about when it is and isn’t acceptable during pregnancy for termination and the criteria therein. Wouold you actually like to respond to that?
they should kill these babies to spare them from what they claim will be a lifetime of torment.
Again, it’s termination of a fetus, not a baby. And I’m not claiming to predict how a child will develop. But it’s standard rationalization that children in poor homes with negligent parents have significantly less opportunities available to them and more liklihood to constantly deal with problem lives.
I suppose that means that kids like my grandfather, my great-aunt, and my cousin, all of whom were born to unwilling mothers with no means to care for them properly and no interest in changing that situation, should have been killed because, God knows, their lives would turn out to be completely worthless and full of pain and torment.
I can’t help that your family bred like wild rabbits but your hyperbolic stories don’t really further the debate here. I’ve never advocated forcing individuals to utilize abortion but I will fight to keep it legal and safely available to those who choose to use it. It’s about individual choice, not forced choices or either having or not having children.
How much other potential has been killed because GayCowboyBob and his ilk prejudged their worth
Would you like to offer some examples of how mankind has been furthered by overbreeding? How would you do that anyway? For everypotential genius of mankind isn’t there also a potential serial killer? We’re talking about unguaranteed extremes which is ridiculous.
since some women smoke during pregnancy, we should have the right to crush a baby’s skull with forceps and use a giant vacuum cleaner to suck it out of the womb.
That’s absolutely not what we’re talking about. It’s like PETA holding up posters of tortured animals. A soapbox constructed of rhetorical emotion.
Abortion is wrong from a moral, ethical, and religious standpoint, regardless of how you slice it, because the baby is not responsible for the sins of the parents.
Are you planning on adpoting or funding a gevernment to support all the unwanted children of the United States?
The debate between you and I as we’re talking is one of sentimental emotions versus scientific fact.
“Scientific fact”, GayCowboyBob, is that, left to its own devices, the matter of that “fetus” meeting your criteria for humanity is one of time, not of being inhuman. You deny that fact because it is inconvenient.
I can’t help that your family bred like wild rabbits but your hyperbolic stories don’t really further the debate here.
The people in question, GayCowboyBob, one of them biracial, are all adopted. I know that’s an inconvenient option for abortionists to acknowledge, but it exists.
I’ve already fully laid out my ideas about when it is and isn’t acceptable during pregnancy for termination and the criteria therein. Wouold you actually like to respond to that?
Of course — with your statement here:
I’ve never advocated forcing individuals to utilize abortion but I will fight to keep it legal and safely available to those who choose to use it.
So really, your words are meaningless. You will always support abortion, regardless of the circumstances.
That’s absolutely not what we’re talking about.
Oh, but it IS, Bob. You see, that’s what your “individual choice” results in — so deal with it.