November 30, 2012

Victoria Toensing: Pro-Choice Republicans Must Come Out of the Closet
— Ace

Nah.

I am a pro-choice Republican. We are not an endangered species. Since the Republican Party declared itself pro-life, most of us have been in the closet.

I appreciate that both viewpoints are sincerely held: Pro-choicers believe that the government should not intrude in such a private decision; pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception. I have supported each.

...

Today, any Republican who believes, as I do, in a strong national defense and fiscal conservatism, and that limited government is consistent with being publicly pro-choice, knows that if she takes the latter position she will get creamed in the primary. The choice is to not run or to get in the closet. By discouraging potential candidates, our tent gets smaller and we end up with a Richard Mourdock and a Todd Akin, who confuse rape with sex.

As a political matter, being pro-life has not helped Republicans. John McCain lost Catholics by nine points. Romney lost the Catholic vote by two points, even after four years of President Obama’s strong pro-choice position and Obamacare forcing certain Catholic entities to cover birth control.

As a results-oriented matter, the pro-life position cannot prevail. In the 39 years since Roe v. Wade, no pro-life president has overturned it and, because that ruling is constitutionally based, no member of Congress can overturn it via legislation. Even Republican-appointed justices would have a difficult time overturning Roe after four decades because of the conservative philosophy of upholding precedent. If Roe were overturned, each state would decide the issue, and, presumably, local politicians would vote their constituents’ position. Many states would approve abortion, so pro-lifers would not attain their goal of outlawing the procedure.

...

I am not arguing that our party should be pro-choice. I just want our candidates to feel free to leave the closet. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels wisely counseled Republican presidential candidates last year: “Declare a truce on social issues” and address the dire economic problems. As for morality, our party should live it, not legislate it.

Semi-related: I've noticed a strong tendency, not just among conservatives, mind you, but any political actors, left or right, to think that the way to show strong agreement with a principle is to urge state action (or oppose the retreat of state action from the field, as in the case of drug criminalization). The below doesn't apply completely to the abortion question, because that one question involves, necessarily, another human life, and is not just all about the mother's choices. That said:

A "personal preference" for an outcome, without a preference for state action to forward that outcome, is often considered a sort of fake, politically-expedient stance.

Thus, the line of thinking goes:

If you're really against abortion, you would never say you're "pro-life as a personal matter, but don't favor making it illegal." Those who are really pro-life support making it illegal.

If you're really anti-drug, you wouldn't say "I don't do drugs and in fact would strongly urge people not to do them, but I don't favor laws against them." Someone who's really anti-drug, and is genuinely alarmed by the prospects of drug use, would favor the continuation of the criminalization regime.

If you're anti-gun or anti-gun violence, of course you won't just make a personal choice about gun ownership. No, those who are really against murder will naturally fight to make guns illegal, or at least burden gun ownership in every conceivable manner.

You can't just say you support women's right to purchase birth control. No, that's a dodge. Someone who's really interested in a woman's right to birth control will of course support laws which compel third parties to purchase the birth control on the woman's behalf.

If you're really anti-obesity, anti-diabetes, and pro-good-health, you will not merely be content to propagate the message that the human body is not designed to handle the high quantities of refined, potent sugar currently part of the American diet. Such "half-measures" are what's gotten us into this Obesity Trap to begin with. No, the person who is really anti-sugar will take his relationship with the anti-sugar cause to the next level -- he'll "marry it," he'll make it official and legitimate, by joining Michael Bloomberg's crusade to pass laws against sugar sale and consumption.

It's usually taken as a truth -- an assumed, usually-unstated truth, but a truth nonetheless -- that those genuinely concerned with some social ill will naturally support state action to combat it, and those who do not support such state action must either be 1, not terribly concerned about the issue at all, or 2, actually lying in their claim to have any moral objection to the ill, claiming to be "personally" opposed to the ill in question while arguing against laws in the matter in a transparent have-it-both-ways political dodge.

As to the latter: The idea seems to be that that's "too easy." It's too easy, it's too politically expedient to be "personally" opposed to abortion (or drug use, or sugar) while not favoring any state action in the area. It's a popular position -- you get to make moral noises (popular) while not pushing any laws to enforce that moral choice (also generally popular) -- and ergo was most likely selected for its popularity.

I genuinely agree with the idea that if something feels "too easy," it probably is. Life is a series of tradeoffs, after all. You select A, and don't select B. You are forced to choose, and, generally, when you make a choice, your foreclose a lot of other choices. Choosing is an affirmative act with consequences; it's an important action, or at least should be. And the personally opposed/politically neutral formulation feels like a too-easy way to avoid making a choice of real consequence.

But that's a guideline and not a firm rule. I thought the idea that adult stem cells could produce medical breakthroughs was similarly "too easy" -- I suspected the universe wouldn't permit us to simply avoid the moral choice of destroying human embryos in exchange for possibly saving (or at least dramatically improving) other human lives. However, it seems to have turned out that adult stem cells are in fact a more productive avenue for research -- in this case, the "too easy" answer turned out to be not only viable, but optimal.

I'm wondering, lately, about this unexamined assumption that I'm pretty sure underlies the thinking of most. (I say this because I discovered it underlay my own.) "One should not do [X]" and "One is legally forbidden to do [X]" are not in fact points on the same line, with the latter being further along the line than the former, the former representing a weak form of the prohibition, the latter representing the strong form, or "real" form, of it.

Rather, they are points on entirely separate lines, one line representing the personal and truly moral, the other representing law, political might, and the official, backed-by-possibility-of-jail-or-fine prohibition of the state. One does not in fact inevitably lead to the other in strong form.

Although the "personally against" line of thought is criticized as "soft" or a "dodge," it's also the more pro-freedom line, as the state is not involved in the personal decision of citizen. It's not frequently acknowledged that the person who doesn't want to pass a law isn't necessarily "immoral" or unconcerned with the ill in question, but simply prizes another moral choice -- the value of personal freedom -- more than most other moral choices.

On morality, I'd also note that a thief with two convictions to his credit may in fact stop thieving, due to the three-strikes law; but that's not actually a choice based in morality. It's simply a pragmatic choice based on the consequences for a third offense. I don't know where people come down on this philosophically -- I suppose most would say it doesn't matter, as far as orderliness in society goes, why a citizen chooses to not commit a bad action, whether it's due to an actual belief in an ennobling morality or a very simple and self-interested desire to avoid punishment. But that's a utilitarian mode of thought, and many people reject utilitarianism, preferring true morality in personal choices. Prohibition may decrease the incidence of a particular action but it does not actually inspire a moral preference against that action.

I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the way politics works -- that one group assembles a temporary majority, and then does its best to start Makin' Some Laws largely to demonstrate hostility to the values of the losing coalition. It's might be the case that people will always do this, and there's no sense in even arguing against it.

But I'm not sure about that. Maybe people can start to think about larger principles than the instant issue. Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps.


Posted by: Ace at 08:45 AM | Comments (846)
Post contains 1533 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Back on top

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:47 AM (0PiQ4)

2 Again

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:48 AM (0PiQ4)

3 I feel good

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:48 AM (0PiQ4)

4 Yes I do

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:48 AM (0PiQ4)

5 Uh huh

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:48 AM (0PiQ4)

6 Hi Ace

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:49 AM (0PiQ4)

7 Are we alone?

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:49 AM (0PiQ4)

8 I didn't like this movie.

Posted by: EC at November 30, 2012 08:49 AM (GQ8sn)

9 We just might be

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:49 AM (0PiQ4)

10 She's confusing Catholic with Pro-Life. They are NOT the same.

Posted by: Baldy at November 30, 2012 08:50 AM (opS9C)

11 If you are a pro-choice Republican in a rural area, being ok with killing babies isn't going to get you a lot of votes.  Massachusetts on the other hand probably wouldn't care.  At the end of the day it comes down to location.

Posted by: Lemmenkainen at November 30, 2012 08:50 AM (ZWvOb)

12 Was this a re-boot or a sequel?

Posted by: RWC at November 30, 2012 08:51 AM (fWAjv)

13 Sorry, Ace, but at least WRT Abortion you've got that wrong.

The only reason to be pro-life is because you believe that abortion kills a human being.  "I believe you're murdering a human being, but who am I to judge" is not a coherent position.

"I believe that it's a bad idea to take drugs, but it's your life, fell free to screw it up (just don't expect to get welfare if you're on drugs)" OTOH, is a perfectly reasonable position.  But that's because the person being harmed is the person doing the harming.

It's one thing to allow someone to harm herself.  It's entirely different to allow her to harm someone who's too weak to protect herself.

Posted by: Greg Q at November 30, 2012 08:51 AM (4Pleu)

14 So how was the movie?

Posted by: LibertarianJim (team #letitburn) at November 30, 2012 08:51 AM (WDCYi)

15 J. J. Sefton What was that you said about 5 out of 6? This is me gloating. HA!

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 08:51 AM (0PiQ4)

16 219 Mass crossbow shooting on a college campus! Told you, longbow bitches! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 08:51 AM (PFvlM)

17 There are a shit ton of issues that are now the purview of the State that ought not to be. Marriage for instance. Preventing the murder of babies is not one of these issues that belongs outside the purview of that State.

Posted by: Truman North at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (I2LwF)

18 >>>The only reason to be pro-life is because you believe that abortion kills a human being. "I believe you're murdering a human being, but who am I to judge" is not a coherent position. Yeah I realized that and added in a caveat to that effect.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (LCRYB)

19
O/T but nice to see Ace quoted over at the gatewaypundit.com within this story by Jim:

Corrupt Media Is Complicit in Obama's Fiscal Lie -- It's Time to Call Them Out

Posted by: beach at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (LpQbZ)

20 I wonder if you polled Democrats and Republicans and asked them-- Why are you a Democrat or Republican? Where would this issue fall on that list? For Democrats it probably is higher on the list.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (r2PLg)

21

"one group assembles a temporary majority, and then does its best to start Makin' Some Laws largely to demonstrate hostility to the values of the losing coalition"

 

The hell?  What kind of laws did the Republicans make that were hostile to the values of the losing coalition?

 

Oh, you mean liberals assume a temporary majority and then run roughshod over any sort of conservative ideas, then Republicans get elected and don't do a damn thing.

 

I must've misread that then.

Posted by: egd at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (XVGEg)

22 So how was the movie?

Posted by: LibertarianJim (team #letitburn) at November 30, 2012 01:51 PM (WDCYi)

 

 

I give it two suction curettes way up!

Posted by: Margaret Sanger at November 30, 2012 08:52 AM (DrWcr)

23 If you are opposed to slavery don't own any.


Posted by: ThomasD at November 30, 2012 08:53 AM (FA+FN)

24 why the fsck do we ever let the topic move to baby-killing... it's so far down the list of important things facing the Nation as a whole

OT

Iowahawk just won teh internets again

DC is a crack addict who thinks he's subsidizing the liquor store by not robbing it.


Posted by: phreshone at November 30, 2012 08:54 AM (0SXI6)

25 I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the way politics works -- that one group assembles a temporary majority, and then does its best to start Makin' Some Laws largely to demonstrate hostility to the values of the losing coalition. Shut up, serf. You will do as we command. ..and Late 70's Conservatives would like to welcome you to the party, BTW.

Posted by: EPA at November 30, 2012 08:54 AM (udKQu)

26

Victoria Toensing.....last heard from in early 2009, proclaiming what a swell, upstanding guy Eric Holder is, and urging the Senate Repubs to confirm him as AG.

Ignore her.

Posted by: Kaffirgal at November 30, 2012 08:54 AM (9JJI7)

27 If you are opposed to slavery don't own any.


Posted by: ThomasD at November 30, 2012 01:53 PM (FA+FN)

 

That's a private decision between a plantation owner and his slaver.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 30, 2012 08:54 AM (DrWcr)

28 I consider myself pro-life but in terms of "state action" at the federal level it's all about judges. Every conservative (whether pro-life or not) should consider that pro-life Republicans are more likely, ceteris paribus, to support judges who are conservative about the Constitution. Back in '08 when Rudy Giuliani was running, he stated that he would pursue nominating judges who wouldn't wipe their asses with the Constitution, and that was enough to get my support on that front (setting aside his other shortcomings).

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2012 08:54 AM (gBuIk)

29 If everyone will just look the other way while I murder a few score of people, we could avoid the need for state interest.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 08:55 AM (QupBk)

30 Shorter ace:  The Appeal of Libertarianism.

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2012 08:55 AM (SwjAj)

31 Again, the dems have open hostility among their many groups: blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims. But come voting time they band together. We, republicans, expend our energies backbiting with one another on purity tests instead of fighting the good fight together. It got us here. Let it burn.

Posted by: NCKate at November 30, 2012 08:55 AM (V1oS8)

32 I'm confused. What exactly happened in this movie? Did it end? Was there a conclusion?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 08:56 AM (da5Wo)

33 Not just no, but hell no. Ace, sorry but if the government serves any purpose at all, it should be to protect innocent lives. We aren't talking about a nice little moral choice about if someone should drink themselves into oblivion. We're talking about killing another human being. That's not something we should casually allow because we're afraid that protecting life amounts to a big government boogie man.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 08:56 AM (LmyR7)

34 "I believe you're murdering a human being, but who am I to judge" is not a coherent position. Yeah, but what about “I believe you’re murdering a human being, but I strongly oppose laws with no consequences”? What will the punishment be for the woman who ordered the murder?

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 08:56 AM (QF8uk)

35 OT: Is there a talented musical moron out there that do a new X-Mass song where the lyrics "Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow" will be "Let it burn, let it burn, let it burn" along withe the rest of the song matching the theme for this X-Mass season?

Posted by: Paladin at November 30, 2012 08:56 AM (hxLER)

36 Was there a conclusion?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 01:56 PM (da5Wo)

 

More like a termination.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 30, 2012 08:56 AM (DrWcr)

37 So do we really think we lost the election over the abortion issue?

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 08:57 AM (r2PLg)

38 If you are opposed to slavery don't own any. Slavery is okay if the slaves' father raped you.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 08:57 AM (sgNEe)

39 >>>"Although the "personally against" line of thought is criticized as "soft" or a "dodge," it's also the more pro-freedom line, as the state is not involved in the personal decision of citizen." Unfortunately we'll never unify conservatives around a coherent abortion platform. That, along with gay marriage will always be an anchor holding us down. These things are really important to young people whether or not we want to admit it. That's one of several reasons why the Republican party is (obviously) dying.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 08:57 AM (q177U)

40 Government exists so the correctly-thinking may lead those who will otherwise make all the wrong decisions and be unable to take care of themselves. Free thought leads to poverty, racism, crimes against women, and rich white men starting illegal wars against brown people in order to make more money for the Wall Street machine and "international bankers." And those "international bankers" just happen to be of the same religion as most of those evil racist Israelis too.

Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at November 30, 2012 08:58 AM (jCQ+I)

41

Ok, Victoria Toensing:  not hot.

 

Therefore, don't care.

Posted by: LibertarianJim (team #letitburn) at November 30, 2012 08:58 AM (WDCYi)

42 16 219 Mass crossbow shooting on a college campus! Told you, longbow bitches! THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 01:51 PM (PFvlM) Meh. Don't even get within 1800 meters of me.

Posted by: Browning M-2HB at November 30, 2012 08:58 AM (udKQu)

43 Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps.

No. Because that's what makes them leftists: They live to impose their preferences on others. Some on the right have this tendency as well, although less so.


Live and let live is a foreign idea to about 85% of the country.

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (0DlnM)

44 What will the punishment be for the woman who ordered the murder?  Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 01:56 PM (QF8uk)

Watch an abortion via sonogram once and you'll know the answer to that question.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (sbV1u)

45

But I'm not sure about that. Maybe people can start to think about larger principles than the instant issue. Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps.


Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM



Running along with this train of thought, has anyone ever explained to Bloomberg that most folks get their iodine from salt, and that a no-salt diet may well result in a variety of conditions, like, I dunno, goiters, to people who do not realize how important such nutrients are, and do not seek them elsewhere?



Or is that a bit advanced for Bloomberg's mental capacity?

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (R8Rbc)

46 Yes, it really is. I'm not just saying that.

Posted by: Admiral Ackbar at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (RD7QR)

47 ace: "Maybe people can start to think about larger principles than the instant issue. Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps."

If they thought that, they wouldn't be liberals."  Duh.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (X/+QT)

48 What will the punishment be for the woman who ordered the murder? If there are clinics that let you kill people, a good way to lower the murder rate is to outlaw the clinics.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (sgNEe)

49 What will the punishment be for the woman who ordered the murder? 3 to 5 would work for me personally. Usually these poor women are under a lot of stress. The Killer-for-hire on the other hand, I'd have flayed.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 08:59 AM (QupBk)

50 Maybe another way to say this is that nanny-statism infects both sides of the ideological spectrum.

Both sides, (but liberals more so than conservatives), have a tendency to be unable to accept that free people must be free to make choice we think are bad ones. 

Posted by: angler at November 30, 2012 09:00 AM (SwjAj)

51 Saying "I'm personally pro-life, but we shouldn't legally restrict abortion" is much like saying "I'm personally anti-murder, but we shouldn't pass laws against murder."

At least, to us pro-lifers it is.

Posted by: Long-time Commenter, First-time Reader at November 30, 2012 09:00 AM (v5lxX)

52 Not just no, but hell no. Ace, sorry but if the government serves any purpose at all, it should be to protect innocent lives.



>>That

Posted by: typo dynamofo at November 30, 2012 09:00 AM (+VMZ0)

53 35 OT: Is there a talented musical moron out there that do a new X-Mass song where the lyrics "Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow" will be "Let it burn, let it burn, let it burn" along withe the rest of the song matching the theme for this X-Mass season?

Posted by: Paladin at November 30, 2012 01:56 PM (hxLER)



I will donate $50.00 via Paypal to this.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 30, 2012 09:00 AM (R8Rbc)

54 Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps. Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2012 01:59 PM (0DlnM)

No, because totalitarians have to be totalitarians.  It's what they do.  It's like air to them.

No snark intended.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:00 AM (sbV1u)

55 "Romney lost the Catholic vote by two points, even after four years of President Obama’s strong pro-choice position and Obamacare forcing certain Catholic entities to cover birth control."

The people who are worked up about birth control aren't the Catholic laity, the majority of whom who have drifted into a comfortable hypocrisy wherein they remain nominally Catholic but nevertheless obtain and use birth control in defiance of Church strictures.

The people who are worked up about birth control are the Church hierarchy.

And, when I think about the Church hierarchy, my attitude has come to be a heartfelt "Fuck 'em".

The Church hierarchy have essentially let themselves in for this situation in which the bishops are being bent over by Obamacare, and losing their autonomy, and being stripped of their First Amendment protections.

They did so by allowing members of the faith who are liberal Democrats to repeatedly and constantly and publicly flout Church tenets. If the Pope had firmly excommunicated the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Bela Pelosi, I'd think the Catholic hierarchy at least were being doctrinally consistent. They weren't consistent. They figured they could play both sides of the street. They were wrong. And they've been burned by the party whose excesses and deviations they excused.

The Church hierarchy also have, in the last forty years, been among the most vocal proponents and enablers of the giant Hispanic illegal-immigrant tidal wave entering America. They couched this as "social justice" and being humane to the poor. Well, those among the new Hispanics the Church hierarchy had fought to admit then turned around when they got the vote, and voted in overwhelming numbers to re-elect a politician who the Church hierarchy consider anathema to their beliefs and interests. Hoist on their own petard.

Once more with feeling: "Fuck 'em!"

Posted by: torquewrench at November 30, 2012 09:00 AM (ymG7s)

56 27 If you are opposed to slavery don't own any.
Posted by: ThomasD at November 30, 2012 01:53 PM (FA+FN)

That's a private decision between a plantation owner and his slaver.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 30, 2012 01:54 PM (DrWcr)


----


Because the vast majority of slaves remained on the plantation and worked, it stands to reason that they were actively supporting slavery.


Those few outliers, like Dredd Scott and Eliza, are proof that, like today, 90%+ liked being owned by the Democratic Party


Posted by: Zombie Robert Byrd at November 30, 2012 09:01 AM (w5RwR)

57

Wall of text, didn't read. Don't need to.

 

Be pro-choice, diaf for all I care.

 

I shut up when y'all were creaming your pants for Scott Brown since I couldn't vote one way or the other, but now, I don't give a fuck.

 

If Rs are pro-choice they can rot in hell. I'll give up and get on the free shit train. It is less painful.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 09:01 AM (OQpzc)

58 40 Government exists so the correctly-thinking may lead those who will otherwise make all the wrong decisions and be unable to take care of themselves. Free thought leads to poverty, racism, crimes against women, and rich white men starting illegal wars against brown people in order to make more money for the Wall Street machine and "international bankers." And those "international bankers" just happen to be of the same religion as most of those evil racist Israelis too. Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, VT at November 30, 2012 01:58 PM (jCQ+I) My, you certainly are a satire, wrapped inside of a comedy posing as a kernel of Capn' Crunch aren't ya?

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 30, 2012 09:01 AM (udKQu)

59 What's so wrong with going back to the days of back-alley abortions with rusty coathangers? I doubt too many gals would be lining up for one of those. I'm sure not every gal who had one ended up dead. And seeing as Kermit Gosnell killed a couple of his patients legally and ruined the plumbing of many others, it doesn't seem like you're guaranteed the "safe" pillar of the all-time holy triumvirate of pussified hedging: "Safe, legal and rare."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 09:01 AM (PFvlM)

60 Just in terms of political math, she makes many mistakes.  She doesn't acknowledge the existence of white evangelicals, who are the largest social conservative voting bloc.

She also makes the mistake of a lot of commentators in talking about a unified "Catholic vote".  There are two main Catholic voting patterns, white and non-white.  White Catholics voted for Romney 59-40, the same split as 2010 and probably the best a Republican presidential candidate has ever done with this group.  But Obama won the "Catholic vote" because Hispanics went for Obama by about a 3-1 margin.  She's conflating two entirely separate voting patterns.

Posted by: Chris P at November 30, 2012 09:02 AM (LuvqF)

61 OT

Hank "Tip Over and Capsize" Johnson calls for an Amendment to curtail free speech.

On Drudge.

Posted by: EC at November 30, 2012 09:02 AM (GQ8sn)

62 Probably if Republicans against abortion took all the campaign cash used to fight the issue and funded support for unwed mothers they could save more lives. I think President Bush had it right. I also think abortion gives too many boyfriends, families and communities an easy out--to not support women who want to keep their babies.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:02 AM (r2PLg)

63 <<Although the "personally against" line of thought is criticized as "soft" or a "dodge," it's also the more pro-freedom line, as the state is not involved in the personal decision of citizen.>>


"I'm personally against first-degree murder, but as a matter of legislation, I prefer to leave it to the choice of the individual."

Seems legit.

Posted by: Sgt. York at November 30, 2012 09:03 AM (K1wp/)

64 After reaping the joys and benefits of one's own birth it should strike any clear thinking or fair minded person as hypocritical to abort another.

But then these are the same people that would never consider executing a convicted murderer.

Go figure.

Posted by: ontherocks at November 30, 2012 09:03 AM (aZ6ew)

65 or... Victoria Toestring: Republicans Must Be More Like Democrats

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:03 AM (jUytm)

66 3 to 5 would work for me personally. Usually these poor women are under a lot of stress. Republicans: Stressed poor women need 3-5 years prison

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 09:03 AM (QF8uk)

67 She's right. Time to get real.

Posted by: LASue at November 30, 2012 09:03 AM (gjIQF)

68

"Pro-Choice Republican" = Democrat subversive trying to undermine the party from within.  

Kind of like "Log Cabin Republican":  Has the same secret history of voting lock-step with Democrats, but instead of wink and nod donations to gay rights groups does wink and nod donations to Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Manolo at November 30, 2012 09:04 AM (kl3xJ)

69 61 OT Hank "Tip Over and Capsize" Johnson calls for an Amendment to curtail free speech. On Drudge. --- What a surprise. This shithead claims racism whenever anyone questions him, so now he wants to limit speech.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 30, 2012 09:04 AM (e0xKF)

70

Posted by: Baldy at November 30, 2012 01:50 PM (opS9C)

__

Tickled Pink posted a breakdown of the Catholic vote on this morning's thread. It wasn't the pro-life position that moved Catholics away from Romney, it was the Hispanic Catholic vote that overcame the 19 point advantage R/R enjoyed with suburban non-Hispanoids. Who it turns out are not as predictably pro-life as everyone assumed.

 

Someone was making the case that Santorum would have done better with Hispanics because of their social conservatism.

In 1970 maybe, but not today.

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 09:04 AM (jm/9g)

71 The conservative political position on abortion is that it is a State's decision. The conservative morale position should be to go to confession after cutting an abortionists fingers of with bolt cutters. The conservative fiscal position should that promoting abortion in a time of declining births and massive under funding retirement obligations is insane.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 09:04 AM (X6eYN)

72 Republicans: Stressed poor women need 3-5 years prison.  Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 02:03 PM (QF8uk)

On this issue, the MFM can phrase it any way they want.  I'd wear it with pride.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:04 AM (sbV1u)

73 Minor quibble on 3 strike laws. The point of the law isn't that the crook will stop comitting crimes after 2 convictions (although that is possible). The assumption is that the crook will keep doing felonies and 3 strike laws allow us to define career criminals and then remove them so they can't hurt us anymore.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at November 30, 2012 09:05 AM (IH2b5)

74 All legalizing abortion did was put the back-alley guys in labcoats. No top-of-their-class Doctor goes into abortion.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:05 AM (sgNEe)

75

Democrats are allowed to have a full spectrum of abortion candidates:  From kill the baby that survives guys like Obama to Stupak type pro-lifers. 

The GOP on the other hand only has illegitmate rape guys like Akin. 

We are defined by the media, not by our actual positions. 

With that said, the GOP is tremendously divided on the social issues.  I respect those that are strongly opposed to gay marriage and abortion.  But they seem to want me out of the party because of my lack of purity.   

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 09:05 AM (hbVtd)

76

Simple fix. Any woman that kills her child, even in the womb, should have her name posted on the internet.

 

Would you choose, for the mother of your children, a woman who has a record of killing them in the name of personal convenience?

 

If so, you deserve what you get.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 09:05 AM (OQpzc)

77 RepublicansTobias Took: Stressed poor women need 3-5 years prison FTFY

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (QupBk)

78 America's Euroweenization grows;

Recession Left Baby Bust as U.S. Births Lowest Since 1920

http://tinyurl.com/booddgo

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (wwsoB)

79 Not sure I've heard of the movie "Victoria Toensing". I haven't read the review above yet, so I'm not sure... Wait! What? That is a movie review up there, right?

Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Mohammad was a goat-fucking kiddie-raper at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (eQnzo)

80 Ace, I just finished reading your post. You are, it seems an idealist at heart. Which surprises me really.

Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (0PiQ4)

81 Ask a liberal:  is killing a pregnant woman considered a double homicide? 

Posted by: EC at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (GQ8sn)

82

Aren't morality and political expediency mutually exclusive?  Put another way:  does any reasonable person look to politicians for moral fortitude?  This is not to say that a politician cannot have a moral compass.  I presume some do.  But I don't know many people who look to political operatives as paragons of morality.  Just doesn't work that way. 

 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (T+4DM)

83 Progressives - will man the ramparts over turkey farm brutality. And man the ramparts for a woman's right to take a human life.
Progressives.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 09:06 AM (BoE3Z)

84 Uhm... I don't KNOW or even strongly believe that life begins at conception. This is a complex moral issue for me. I just can't get behind the "Pro-Choice" Abortion Enthusiasts though... Sooo fuckin' creepy.

Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2012 09:07 AM (QG3g9)

85 51 Saying "I'm personally pro-life, but we shouldn't legally restrict abortion" is much like saying "I'm personally anti-murder, but we shouldn't pass laws against murder."

At least, to us pro-lifers it is.

____________________________________________________________

What turns off people from Republicans is the absolute nature of abortion held by the pro life movement. I think most people, even those who describe themselves as pro-choice could live with limits on abortion...things like no abortions past a certain date, no abortions for 12 year olds without parental consent, etc.

But what the Akins and Murdocks of the world want is no abortions period. 16 and raped raped by your uncle? Fuck you, have the kid. Got pregnant while drunk at a party by a guy you'll never see again? Fuck you, have the kid. Already have 3 kids you can barely afford to feed and pregnant? Fuck you, have the kid. 17 and on your way to college but forgot to take the pill? Fuck you, have the kid.

This is the message people hear when they hear the absolutist pro-life movement. And it doesn't sell. It will never sell.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:07 AM (HDgX3)

86

I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the way politics works -- that one group assembles a temporary majority, and then does its best to start Makin' Some Laws largely to demonstrate hostility to the values of the losing coalition.

 

Yup.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:07 AM (TULs6)

87

L, Elle- you type really well for a kindergartner.  

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 09:07 AM (hbVtd)

88

When I first formed my opinion about abortion, it was that the morality of abortion depends entirely on your definition of when life begins, and your definition may not be the same as others'.  This is mostly a religious belief - though I have heard of atheists who are strongly pro-life - and so this is not a question that the state can answer for everyone.  If a woman truly believes that an embryo or fetus inside her is not a human life, then she can make an entirely moral judgement to terminate that pregnancy, and who am I to tell her she is acting immorally?  I thnk we can arrive at a much stronger consensus of belief that late-term abortions are taking human life that could survive outside the womb, and this should be prohibited.

 

I personally strongly believe now that human life begins at conception.  I despise abortion and believe it has produced an untold plethora of social ills.  But I do not believe I have the right to impose what is essentially my religious belief on other women who may just as legitimately believe that a 3-week-old embryo is not a human life.  I do not think this is being inconsistent at all, it is admitting that in a democracy that establishes and protects freedom of religious expression, I do not have the right to impose my religious belief on someone else.

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2012 09:07 AM (aBlZ1)

89 I would never own a slave, but I don't want to interfere with anyone else's right to own one. The Republican party needs to tone down its opposition to slavery.

Posted by: We've heard it all before at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (ES9R7)

90 Democrats are allowed to have a full spectrum of abortion candidates: From kill the baby that survives guyslike Obamato Stupak type pro-lifers.
The GOP on the other hand only has illegitmate rape guys like Akin.
We are defined by the media,not by our actual positions.
With that said, the GOP is tremendously dividedon the social issues. I respect those that are strongly opposed to gay marriage and abortion. But they seem to want me out of the party because of my lack of purity.

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 02:05 PM (hbVtd)



The GOP is only divided because of the cultural influence of the Media.  For many people, it is difficult to be at odds with the opinion of the cultural elite.



The Media is the real enemy.






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (bb5+k)

91 If you want to make a leftists head explode say, "I'm personally against abortion, but on a legal level I'm cool with it because it eliminates a lot of potential undesirables."

Posted by: Warden at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (0DlnM)

92 forget it ace. it's Socontown. just as statist as the socialists, only about different stuff.

Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (KHo8t)

93 DC is a crack addict who thinks he's subsidizing the liquor store by not robbing it. Posted by: phreshone at November 30, 2012 01:54 PM (0SXI6) I like that ...gonna save it for future use....Is this by Burge or you?

Posted by: kawfytawk at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (JWLqy)

94

 Democrats are afraid repubs will take away their access to abortions. This fuels the left into coming out in masses against the gop. We can take the moral high ground, or not - it doesn't matter. It's a numbers game and a majority feel abortion should be legal. Abortion kills and the left still win. 

 

The right often say - "we are winning on the abortion issue". No. We are not.

 

Posted by: Fresh at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (O7ksG)

95 Running along with this train of thought, has anyone ever explained to Bloomberg that most folks get their iodine from salt, and that a no-salt diet may well result in a variety of conditions, like, I dunno, goiters, to people who do not realize how important such nutrients are, and do not seek them elsewhere? Or is that a bit advanced for Bloomberg's mental capacity? Posted by: Kinley Ardal at November 30, 2012 01:59 PM (R8Rbc) --I also pointed out that one of the problems with the people stranded by Sandy was dehydration. Salt not only helps replenish lost minerals, but also helps to retain water.

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (gBuIk)

96 It's dumb shits like Victoria Whoeverthefuck who can't get it through their thick fucking heads that half of our opposition to abortion is the state and federal govts paying for them. If Victoria Toestring said she also opposes subsidizing Planned Parenthood, I'd believe her claim of being a fiscal conservative. But she doesn't because she's not. She's full of shit.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:08 AM (jUytm)

97 Also, I will tell you with 100% certainty that if the GOP drops the prolife platform, they lose every single prolife voter. If we're not willing to defend the most basic right to.life, let it fucking burn to the ground. It's not worth saving.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (LmyR7)

98

King Henry II: Am I the strongest or am I not?


Thomas a Becket: You are today, but one must never drive one's enemy to despair; it makes him strong. Gentleness is better politics, it saps virility. A good occupational force must never crush. It must corrupt.

Posted by: jwest at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (ZDsRL)

99 Ace--welcome to the Liberty thing. It's lonely but it's free. Yeah, I'm pro-life, in the sense that I think it's murder, and pro-choice, in the sense that it would be a nightmare to enforce to the extent that murder entails. They used to do this in Communist Romania. (Check out "4 months, three weeks, two days", or don't because it's horrible.) Because socialism invariably leads to population collapse, abortions were criminal. I'm not even sure about birth control. They monitored women's periods. If life begins at conception--duh, where else it would it begin?--and the deliberate ending of that life is murder, then the state needs to know whenever any woman gets pregnant. And, of course, women miscarry a whole lot in the first few weeks. Deliberate? Prove it. This is the logical conclusion of the "state must get involved". I'm against it. Whatever is done is going to be an illogical, messy compromise. I prefer one that gives the state minimal power. To end abortion, doctors have to reject it. Women have to reject it. Society has to reject it. The State does not have the power, any more than they can stop drug use, and trying to make it so is just another road to tyranny.

Posted by: moviegique at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (Cepxj)

100 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:07 PM (HDgX3) Yes, absolutist arguments against murder are very annoying.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (sgNEe)

101 Get rid of those icky churchy people who force me and my gay friends to have babies and all my cool friends will switch to the GOP

Posted by: Meghan McCain, Real Republican at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (wwsoB)

102 10 She's confusing Catholic with Pro-Life. They are NOT the same. Posted by: Baldy at November 30, 2012 01:50 PM (opS9C) Yes, she is. The very definitions confuse the issue to the detriment of the Republican position, for the simple reason of political advantage. It was baked that way long time ago.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Waiting for the Sun at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (udKQu)

103 62 Probably if Republicans against abortion took all the campaign cash used to fight the issue and funded support for unwed mothers they could save more lives.

I think President Bush had it right.

I also think abortion gives too many boyfriends, families and communities an easy out--to not support women who want to keep their babies.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 02:02 PM (r2PLg)



$400 a month, split between two different crisis pregnancy centers in Nebraska, one in Lincoln, one in Omaha.  Money where the mouth is, aye, that's crucial.


As for giving men and families in general an easy out - feature, not bug.  The annihilation of the family unit and the instilling of a general apathy for the very young/very old is central to Leftist dogma.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (R8Rbc)

104 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:07 PM (HDgX3)

Barrel. Now.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at November 30, 2012 09:09 AM (JEpGb)

105 What turns off people from Republicans is the absolute nature of abortion held by the pro life movement. I don't know how to do it as anything other than Due Process. The innocent should not be punished. That this is a hard sell should be what worries us.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (QupBk)

106 64 After reaping the joys and benefits of one's own birth it should strike any clear thinking or fair minded person as hypocritical to abort another. But then these are the same people that would never consider executing a convicted murderer. Go figure. Posted by: ontherocks at November 30, 2012 02:03 PM (aZ6ew) --Requisite P.J. O'Rourke quote: The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors–psychology, sociology, women’s studies–to prove that nothing is anybody’s fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you’d have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view.

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (gBuIk)

107 I would never own a slave, but I don't want to interfere with anyone else's right to own one. The Republican party needs to tone down its opposition to slavery.

Posted by: We've heard it all before at November 30, 2012 02:08 PM (ES9R7)



Exactly what I hear whenever people start making this sort of noise. The point can be summed up by this comment I read over at "Power and Control"



" Roe v. Wade is cut from the same cloth as Dred Scott v. Sanford: Certain classes of people are property. "

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (bb5+k)

108 #26 is absolutely correct.  Toensing and hubby, Joseph DiGenova, were a part of the Confirm Holder and Restore Honor to the DOJ Gang.  Even if their opinions are correct, no one should pay any attention to them.  Knowing about the Marc Rich pardons and the Puerto Rican terrorist pardons couldn't stop these two assholes from going to bat for Holder.  Don't go away mad, just go away.

Posted by: ejo at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (GXvSO)

109 Death before culinary freedom!

Posted by: Mikey nanny Bloomberg at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (LRFds)

110 92 forget it ace. it's Socontown. just as statist as the socialists, only about different stuff. Yeah, about murder.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (sgNEe)

111 You wanna pro-abortion? Fine. You wanna subsidize Planned Abortionhood and support forcing people to pay for others' birth control? Fine, but don't tell me you're a fiscal conservative and you don't give a shit about the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:10 AM (jUytm)

112 This is a review for a movie called:  Get Your Laws Out of My Vagina! starring Sandra Fluke.  Limited showings in Georgetown Law School's student theater and some midnight shows in the Bowery. 

Posted by: Sharkman at November 30, 2012 09:12 AM (03IDC)

113 Hank "Tip Over and Capsize" Johnson calls for an Amendment to curtail free speech.

On Drudge.

Posted by: EC at November 30, 2012 02:02 PM (GQ8sn)



I'm sure liberals would have no issue with this. Not paying for Sandy Fuck's birth control is the end of the nation as we know it but the government restricting free speech like this is just fine

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 09:12 AM (1Jaio)

114
The rightoften say - "we are winning on the abortion issue". No. We are not.
Posted by: Fresh





Well, they keep killing their children, we don't kill ours.

Looks like a win in the long game for us, demographically speaking....

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at November 30, 2012 09:12 AM (kdS6q)

115 This thread reminds of why "Let It Burn" is OK by me.  If the gubmint won't defend the innocent, don't expect it to come to your defense when your time comes.

They don't want to just steal my stuff.  They want to kill me too.


Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 09:12 AM (V70Uh)

116 97 Also, I will tell you with 100% certainty that if the GOP drops the prolife platform, they lose every single prolife voter. If we're not willing to defend the most basic right to.life, let it fucking burn to the ground. It's not worth saving.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 02:09 PM (LmyR7)



*raises hand* This is me in spades.


When the GOP drops the defense of the unborn as a central tenant of the party's platform, I will actively work on Make it Fuckin' Burn, and not simply disengage from the culture as I do now.


This issue defines us as a race.  It doesn't get much more serious than this.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:13 AM (R8Rbc)

117 Yeah, I'm pro-life, in the sense that I think it's murder, and pro-choice, in the sense that it would be a nightmare to enforce to the extent that murder entails. So if I develop an untraceable poison, it should be legal to kill with it because of how hard it is to enforce? closing down abortion clinics will solve 90% of the problem.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:13 AM (sgNEe)

118 114 LDC,

Want to know why they are pushing Amnesty?

They lost 30 million kids.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:13 AM (LRFds)

119

I personally strongly believe now that human life begins at conception. I despise abortion and believe it has produced an untold plethora of social ills. But I do not believe I have the right to impose what is essentiallymy religious belief on other women who may just as legitimately believe that a 3-week-old embryo is not a human life. I do not think this is being inconsistent at all, it is admitting that in a democracy that establishes and protectsfreedom of religious expression, I do not have the right to impose my religious belief on someone else.

That's a load of crap.  That line of thinking can be used to justify the removal of any sort of legal prohibition.

"I think having sex with a ten year old is wrong, but I know that there are people who disagree with me so I don't think it should be illegal."

"I think torturing animals is wrong, but I know that there are people who disagree with me so I don't think it should be illegal."

"I think slavery is wrong, but I know there are people who diagree with me so I don't think it should be illegal."

The list goes on and on.

If you aren't willing to stand up for your beliefs, then you're a coward and a fool.

Posted by: Alex at November 30, 2012 09:13 AM (3x3F6)

120 King Henry II: So what in most people is morality, in you it's just an exercise in... what's the word?
Thomas a Becket: Aesthetics.
King Henry II: Yes, that's the word. Always "aesthetics."

Posted by: jwest at November 30, 2012 09:13 AM (ZDsRL)

121 Oh, and for the love of God, the question of when life begins isn't philosophical or religious, it's scientific. A new, unique human life is formed at aphimixisis. There's no magical personhood fairy. There is no question. Telling yourself otherwise is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:14 AM (LmyR7)

122 1 Back on top Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 01:47 PM (0PiQ4) 3 I feel good Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 01:48 PM (0PiQ4) 5 Uh huh Posted by: L, Elle at November 30, 2012 01:48 PM (0PiQ4) ************* Go on...

Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Mohammad was a goat-fucking kiddie-raper at November 30, 2012 09:14 AM (eQnzo)

123 How about we all argue for what we believe as individuals? I will never allow some "party line" to define me. Abortion is immoral and ends a life, electoral consequences won't cause me to change my belief on that.

Posted by: Ken Royall at November 30, 2012 09:14 AM (x0g8a)

124

Saying "I'm personally pro-life, but we shouldn't legally restrict
abortion" is much like saying "I'm personally anti-murder, but we
shouldn't pass laws against murder."

At least, to us pro-lifers it is.

 

If you make a woman drive 15 minutes extra to cross the state line you haven't saved a single baby.

 

If you make a woman get an abortion in the back of a tattoo parlor you haven't saved a single baby.

 

You have to fucking convince someone of the truth about a 5 month old fetus, and if you do that, you've saved a life regardless of what the law is.

 

Push it under ground and you will only make it harder to find them. At least in the open sunlight you know where to go to reach out. Also, it's much harder to ignore in the open and forces the debate. Laws are not the answer, you cannot ban the tide from coming in and you cannot dictate reality with a legal pen.  Out of sight doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just allows you to pretend it doesn't happen, which is close enough for some. Prohibition is the easy answer, not the right one.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:14 AM (TULs6)

125 "Slavery is okay if the slaves' father raped you."
==========

Slavery is also okay if doing the work yourself might adversely affect your health.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 09:14 AM (H84UO)

126 What's more, I don't give a shit about what Akin thinks about rape. The chances that his stupid opinion means a godamm thing to anybody or has real consequences is ZERO. What I do care about is how he'd vote on Planned Parenthood subsidies. Can you idiot-trucers understand that?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:14 AM (jUytm)

127 jwest gets +1 for quoting Becket.

Posted by: LibertarianJim (team #letitburn) at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (WDCYi)

128 Abortion is homicide.

Really, do any of you morons want to dispute that words have meaning, a fetus is human and thus killing a fetus is killing a human?

But is it murder? First degree? Second degree? Justified? Self defense?

1) By calling it "CHOICE" you've only shown your a slave to statist propaganda.

2) Until we can have an ADULT conversation about the clear meaning of words, any "debate" is beyond stupid.

3) Once we've all decide to use English as a common language, instead of progessive-statism-speak, we can have a real talk about Federalism, what counts as murder vs. justified homicide, etc.

Thanks ... The Non-Insane, Non-Atheist, Non-Statist Public

Posted by: Henry George at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (Bv9qa)

129 71

You  hit on what might be the most uncomfortable reality of the American electorate.  Both the right and the left have an interest in promoting the "Hispanics are social conservatives" narrative.  The left likes it because they think they can trick the right which is largely religious into supporting an amnesty on this.  And the right likes it as a reassurance that if we can just fix immigration, we'll win their votes.

I'm not the biggest immigration hardliner by a longshot, but I'm under no illusion that a bunch of socially conservative reinforcements would become citizens

Posted by: Chris P at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (LuvqF)

130 Abortion is an ethical, rather than a purely religious, question. When is it allowed to kill someone, and who decides?

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (QupBk)

131
3 to 5 would work for me personally. Usually these poor women are under a lot of stress. The Killer-for-hire on the other hand, I'd have flayed.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 30, 2012 01:59 PM (QupBk)

 

 

I believe that traditionally women were considered guilty, but usually dealt with fairly leniently since abortion was rare enough that only the most desperate women were tempted to get one. The real anger was reserved for the abortionists, who were seen as professional assassins, with a good bit also for the men who had gotten the woman pregnant out of wedlock and then abandoned her.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (iK4hL)

132 TRUCERS. That's the new monicker for you pro-abortion mealy-mouthed white-flag waving shitheads who might occasionally vote Republican.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (jUytm)

133 I didn't know Krauthammer and O'Reilly were in the closet.  News to me. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (m2CN7)

134 Got pregnant while drunk at a party by a guy you'll never see again? Fuck you, have the kid. Already have 3 kids you can barely afford to feed and pregnant? Fuck you, have the kid. 17 and on your way to college but forgot to take the pill? Fuck you, have the kid.

Every example you quoted, except one, has to do with personal control and personal responsibility.  If someone gets knocked up because they're a slut, I DO expect them to take responsibility for the results of their behavior.  If you're so stupid you can't remember to take the pill, then I'm having a problem seeing why an innocent human life should pay for that.

If that's a message that doesn't sell, fuck it.  It at least has the virtue of being both moral and intellectually consistent. 

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (sbV1u)

135 When Republicans give in on sh*t, even just to "open the tent" or "sound less extreme", it just allows the Left to move to their more and more extreme positions.

F*ck. We're on the fifty yard line saying, "hey, maybe we should let the opposition run the ball here on third down" and meanwhile they're busy doing gangnam style in the end zone while our women fondle their balls because they actually just returned another kickoff for a touchdown. Clueless.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 30, 2012 09:15 AM (tbn20)

136 I don't want to set foot inside any tent that I would have to share with a jackelope "fiscal conservative" who is down with abortion and late-term infanticide.

Posted by: jackson murrell at November 30, 2012 09:16 AM (XQ0gk)

137 19 O/T but nice to see Ace quoted over at the gatewaypundit.com within this story by Jim: Corrupt Media Is Complicit in Obama's Fiscal Lie -- It's Time to Call Them Out Posted by: beach at November 30, 2012 01:52 PM (LpQbZ) ******************** Hey, Ace! Congrats!

Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Mohammad was a goat-fucking kiddie-raper at November 30, 2012 09:16 AM (eQnzo)

138 Well I'm going to say the shortcut of "I'm personally against it but don't support state action about it" presupposes that the position is in inappropriate activity for the state, or at least is arguably an inappropriate activity of the state.

Now if we take a moral stance back a hundred plus years and say, I am against owning slaves and so do not own them, but do not think it is something the government should interfere in; do I have a laudable defensible stance?

When you consider that the American theory of government is that government exists to protect the rights of life, liberty, and property of the people, I have made the statement that the right to property of one person can be exerted to deprive another person of their right to liberty by defining them as property. This is not a morally acceptable stance, nor is it in keeping with a theory of ordered liberty. Clearly someones right to be free of ownership outweighs someones right to own. And to believe that on the personal level also means one should believe the government should define it the same way and protect the rights of the would be owned from being enslaved.

When it comes to right to life the same question is applied. Either you believe the unborn are persons or you do not. If you do the stance that someone may say their right to privacy gives them a shield, behind which they may kill that person without interference from the law, as above you have placed a persons right to privacy (not even important enough to list among the three basic rights of a person) ahead of another persons right to life. You are pro choice, and while you may never have an abortion, nor support someone in your family or that you are having a relationship having one, you are akin to those that would not own a slave but would not push the state to make slavery illegal.

That is you have turned a blind eye to the brutal deprivation of rights of one person by another and said the law should not act to prevent it. That is not a tenable position for a statesman.

The stance of pro-choice is at least easier to swallow if the argument is made that the unborn are not persons. At least then no obligation to protect the rights of the unborn exist. But by saying that you would never get one, you are at least quasi admitting the immorality of the act, which is in effect admitting to the personhood of the unborn. At that point not trying to protect them from murder becomes not a philosophically consistent position on which to stand.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 30, 2012 09:16 AM (0q2P7)

139 107 Diogene's lamp,

It's worse they are literally making children the property of the state.

That sidetab on letting born babies dehydrate and die via NHS made me cry tears of rage.

The ethical Congresses that allow this shit need open air and lynching.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:16 AM (LRFds)

140 Posted by: Henry George Hey nice nic. I live in your town, more or less.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:16 AM (QupBk)

141
I think we could all agree on one thing and that is to tax the abortion industry.  And it is an industry, it is big business, there is no reason why it should be classified as a non-profit.  Call it a sin tax.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 30, 2012 09:16 AM (n/ubI)

142 This is the message people hear when they hear the absolutist pro-life movement. And it doesn't sell. It will never sell.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:07 PM (HDgX3)


Just as bad as those absolutist Abolitionists regarding slavery. Obviously we should have told them to shut up and stop bothering people.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:17 AM (bb5+k)

143 92 forget it ace. it's Socontown. just as statist as the socialists, only about different stuff.

Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 02:08 PM (KHo8t)




Ahhh, nihilists - a rejoinder for everything.  In the end though, for all your wit, scorn, and open-minded superiority, you're still a fuckin' nihilist.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:17 AM (R8Rbc)

144 So, count one more vagina for the Dems.  After all, isn't that all they want out of women?  Nothing above the vagina, nothing below it is of interest to any true liberal.  It is only what goes on it, in it, protects it, reveals it, shows it, and so forth.  Only the vagina counts.   Brains?  Not so much.  In fact, not at all.

Posted by: TimothyJ at November 30, 2012 09:17 AM (J1D9e)

145 So if I develop an untraceable poison, it should be legal to kill with it because of how hard it is to enforce? There is no such thing as an untraceable poison. But if there were, and if enforcing laws against using it means tracking everybody’s movement from birth to death to make sure that they never acquire this particular thing, then, yes, there should be no law specifically against this poison. If you do think that there should specifically be a law against this particular untraceable poison, the same logic will also be used to make laws against owning firearms.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 09:17 AM (QF8uk)

146 "It would be a nightmare to enforce to the extent that murder entails. " Ireland and Poland do just fine. So did America in the Roe days

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:17 AM (LmyR7)

147 Yup.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:07 PM (TULs6)



Left a few posts in the old thread for you.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:18 AM (bb5+k)

148
Push it under ground and you will only make it harder to find them. At least in the open sunlight you know where to go to reach out. Also, it's much harder to ignore in the open and forces the debate. Laws are not the answer, you cannot ban the tide from coming in and you cannot dictate reality with a legal pen. Out of sight doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just allows you to pretend it doesn't happen, which is close enough for some. Prohibition is the easy answer, not the right one.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:14 PM (TULs6)

 

Prohibition and enforcement of said prohibition would save a lot of lives; prohibition, enforcement, and making it taboo would save the vast majority. Same as any other activity that we want to get rid of...

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 09:18 AM (iK4hL)

149

13 Greg Q.

 

What if you think you can avoid the need for abortions (and thereby reduce the number of killings of unborn children) by working on the issue culturally rather than legally?  Do you have to insist on a legal prohibition to "oppose" abortion?

 

There are other playing field's that may be much more effective in combating abortion than engaging in the effort to pass laws that seem to, much the general public, contradict the belief in small and less intrusive government and the right of adult individuals to make personal decisions.    

 

I think this goes to Ace's point about fighting in the cultural battle space.

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 09:18 AM (kFeuD)

150 Pro Life is a position based on a bedrock belief.


Pro Choice is a rationalization prone to change in circumstance or the failure to seek objective truth. It is an inherently weaker position for the individual and whatever civil group or society in which that person mistakenly thinks they take part.

 

Posted by: ontherocks at November 30, 2012 09:18 AM (aZ6ew)

151 29 If everyone will just look the other way while I murder a few score of people, we could avoid the need for state interest. Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 30, 2012 01:55 PM (QupBk) ************************ *Points over right shoulder* Look, everybody but Toby! A purple squirrel!

Posted by: Boomer Redneque knows Mohammad was a goat-fucking kiddie-raper at November 30, 2012 09:19 AM (eQnzo)

152

If you aren't willing to stand up for your beliefs, then you're a coward and a fool.

 

You think "standing up for your beliefs" means passing legal prohibitions? Did you read the blog post by any chance?

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:19 AM (TULs6)

153 re: "It's might be the case that people will always do this, and there's no sense in even arguing against it."

That's what I think. So maybe don't think that.

re: "It's a popular position -- you get to make moral noises (popular) while not pushing any laws to enforce that moral choice (also generally popular) -- and ergo was most likely selected for its popularity."

One guard against that, to make sure your there-oughtn't-be-a-law stance is a principled one you're really attached to, is to purposefully make your non-legally-binding moral judgments/arguments as ugly and offensive as possible.

So on abortion, for example, I have two "moral" positions, both of which I do in fact believe, but I pick which one I'm going to share based on how much it will disgust whoever I'm talking to (and shouldn't talking about abortion should be disgusting?): "Law is worse than murder , so, pragmatically..."--or, "It's a historical and presumably biological fact that women value killing their babies over any other freedom they have, and it's not the place of 'society' to determine what women value; 'society' is an *acknowledgement* of its constituents' values. But no 'society' can sustain itself on a foundation of lies, so what 'society' needs to say is: Go ahead and kill your baby. We understand how important it is to you. But you don't get to act like you're doing something else."

It's...not for everybody.

Posted by: oblig. at November 30, 2012 09:19 AM (cePv8)

154 I believe that traditionally women were considered guilty, but usually dealt withfairly leniently since abortion was rare enough that only the most desperate women were tempted to get one. The real anger was reserved for the abortionists, who were seen as professional assassins, with a good bit also for the men who had gotten the woman pregnant out of wedlock and then abandoned her.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 02:15 PM (iK4hL)



This is spot on.


Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:19 AM (R8Rbc)

155

If we are considering as a social matter modifying the platform to encourage an amendment that sets the limit on abortion at say randomly 12 weeks, that's still to far in my belief system, but as a matter of political reality, it would be leaps and bounds better.

12 weeks.  Not "viability" at 26 weeks, and not 4 weeks (or none at all).

If that's the kind of compromise she's suggesting, then great.

Otherwise, she's just wanting to jettison the parts of the party she finds icky, without realizing that the party would functionally cease to be.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 09:19 AM (UaxA0)

156 >>>This is the message people hear when they hear the absolutist pro-life movement. And it doesn't sell. It will never sell.

It is not a message that you should have to sell. It is a harbinger. Any society that would kill their own blood as a matter of convenience is one already headed to the dumpster themselves. All we are doing is giving them the opportunity to turn back.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 30, 2012 09:20 AM (0q2P7)

157 Also, I will tell you with 100% certainty that if the GOP drops the prolife platform, they lose every single prolife voter. If we're not willing to defend the most basic right to.life, let it fucking burn to the ground. It's not worth saving.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 02:09 PM (LmyR7)



Yup.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:20 AM (bb5+k)

158 I don't know how many of you have children, but NO baby can survive outside the womb. They can't feed themselves and by the time they can crawl, they are like a robot with the self-destruct activated. They're constantly looking for ways to fuck themselves up. And Mr. Moo Moo, the flip side of your flippant "argument" is "Fuck it, kill your baby." Forgot to take your pill? "Fuck it, kill your baby." No matter who the father is, it's ALWAYS the mother's flesh-and-blood she's killing. Thankfully, you're there to distract her from the horrific reality of murdering her own child. But Fuck it, right?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 09:20 AM (PFvlM)

159 94 Democrats are afraid repubs will take away their access to abortions. This fuels the left into coming out in masses against the gop.We can take the moral high ground, or not - it doesn't matter. It's a numbersgame andamajority feel abortion should be legal. Abortion kills and the leftstill win. The rightoften say - "we are winning on the abortion issue". No. We are not. Posted by: Fresh at November 30, 2012 02:08 PM (O7ksG) ___________ Correct--because reality dictates that you win the elections-- first. That's why Mr. Moo Moo unthread is on to the heart of the matter. Say what you will about George Bush--he wasn't a wordsmith but on this issue he had it almost pitch perfect.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:20 AM (r2PLg)

160 There is no such thing as an untraceable poison.

Polonium

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:20 AM (sbV1u)

161 The reason conservative officials back away from the absolutist pro-life rhetoric is because (drum rollll ....) it's the politically pragmatic thing to do.  It's not deep philosphy, people.  It's politics.  Maybe a little Machievellian, but it's just plain ol' politics.  The SoCons don't get it and probably never will.  Politics and morality -- mutually exclusive.  Read it. Learn it. Know it.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 09:21 AM (T+4DM)

162

The only winning issue for the GOP is to say loudly ( the gop  does not  say it at all and that must change ) is  that  we know  most  tax  payers  do  not  want  to  fund  abortion.

That is the only winning message we can send. and the gop doesn't send it.

Posted by: Fresh at November 30, 2012 09:21 AM (O7ksG)

163

I've posted before what my strategy is when discussing abortion with a pro-choice person. 

 

I start by asking when is a baby considered life and if its okay and the choice for the mother to kill her 5 hour old baby.  When they answer no, I just work back in increments of 5 hours until they say that is the time when a baby is no longer a baby.  Ususally the conversation doesn't get that far. 

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 09:21 AM (m2CN7)

164 According to the alleged best and brightest in the GOP, the Republicans have to get rid of pro-lifers, socons, embrace amnesty, gun control, and tax hikes

Who the hell is going to be left to vote Republican outside of David Frum's dinner party companions?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (wwsoB)

165 Oh, knock it off already, Jeff! I fail to see how this particular dumbass, somehow ratifies your crossbow preference. Everyone knows that Yew trees have been banned from college campuses on this continent for almost 300 years now. *sniff*

Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (QG3g9)

166

The annihilation of the family unit and the instilling of a general apathy for the very young/very old is central to Leftist dogma.

___

The sidebar article about British Health Service allowing disabled babies to die a slow death from starvation and dehydration is where this ideology leads.

To end abortion, doctors have to reject it.

___

In a limited sense, this is occurring as those who are drawn to the healing profession rarely choose this line of work. Specialites such as cosmetic surgery are far more lucrative and present fewer inherent risks and  melodrama. That's why Cali passed the law that midwives and nurses can do abortions, because fewer MDs are attracted to this practice.

 

The doctors who are still in the abortion biz are usually the dregs, the lowest performing of their medical class.

 

 

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (jm/9g)

167 Does anyone actually believe that limiting those wicked socons somehow is striking a blow for limited government control.  Explain how that works in the real world-Does the state government in California or New York exercise less control over the lives of its citizens than that of, say, Texas.  Do the former's citizens have more "freedom" because the socons aren't in charge and abortion is a sacrament.   

Posted by: ejo at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (GXvSO)

168

Same as any other activity that we want to get rid of...

 

Dear god, that phrase. Shall we call it reason #1623 why I will never again be a republican?

 

That is a damn frightening phrase. It was one thing when I thought this was about abortion, but now that I know the same thing goes for 'every activity you want to get rid of'...

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (TULs6)

169 As a practical matter, I want the feds out and the states in on this issue. I can at least reconcile myself that what goes on in California or New York is like what goes on in France. I may deplore it and I may argue against it with citizens of those states, but it's not my house so I can't say.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (QupBk)

170 A no bullshit, no tolerance platform for Republicans:

No Federally-funded abortions after the 24th week.

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (rzTDZ)

171 The problem is 1) Pro-Life Republicans will vote for Pro-Life Democrats, but 2) Pro-Choice Democrats NEVER vote for Pro-Choice Republicans. It is a fantasy to think that Republicans will win by changing their platform on abortion. If being a Pro-Choice Republican is so important, why don't we have President Giuliani, or President Pataki or President Weld?

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at November 30, 2012 09:22 AM (iAUf+)

172 160 There is no such thing as an untraceable poison. Polonium --- It's still traceable. You just have to look for it quickly because the half-life is something like 150 days. That's why the exhumation of Arafat was such a farce, as they were looking for this when everyone knows he died from AIDS but they don't want to admit it.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at November 30, 2012 09:23 AM (e0xKF)

173 Polonium is radioactive. Hardly untraceable.

Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 09:23 AM (QF8uk)

174 Toensing is one of the RINO inside the Beltway Libtards who sold us McLame & Romney

Posted by: Evilpens at November 30, 2012 09:23 AM (ck76k)

175 Unfortunately the "pro-choice" position ends in tears, because with it, you get academic papers by our betters (earlier this year) explaining that "nothing magic happens by passing through the birth canal" and therefore the restrictions on "abortion" have no reason to actually end there.

The only place where "magic" happens is at conception and even the vampiric eugenics goons can't argue with that.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 30, 2012 09:23 AM (tbn20)

176

If abortion is banned,  pregnantwomen will go to butchers like "Dr" Kermit Gosnell.

Wait a minute......

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at November 30, 2012 09:23 AM (YmPwQ)

177 1. this is published in the WaPo 2. the cartoon that accompanies this "long time Republican's" piece is a piece of work, alright

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:23 AM (jUytm)

178
Kids.

This is one of the weirdest things regarding kids in the past couple days:

You Are All Underachieving Disappointments: U.K. Dad’s Scathing Letter to His Kids Goes Viral — Do You Agree?

Perhaps this should be sent to Congress.

http://tinyurl.com/d5prbhr

Posted by: beach at November 30, 2012 09:24 AM (LpQbZ)

179 That is a damn frightening phrase. It was one thingwhen I thought this was about abortion, but now that I know the same thing goes for 'every activity you want to get rid of'...  Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:22 PM (TULs6)

Yeah, 'cause that phrase is never utter by liberals.  Nope, never.

Big Gulp, anyone?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:24 AM (sbV1u)

180 175 TMI,

One day if I ever fall off the wagon I will explain why I am no longer a eugenicist.

I was 12 when reality slapped me hard in a chance meeting.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:24 AM (LRFds)

181


Polonium

Posted by: Sean Bannion



They traced that shit every step of the way from the hotel room to Litivenko's hospital bed.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 09:25 AM (UaxA0)

182 Well said rockmom.

Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2012 09:25 AM (QG3g9)

183 I'm against liberalism, should I push to have the government make it a crime?

I don't like rap music, should I push to have the government make it a crime?

I don't think my neighbor should kiss his wife on Tuesdays, I push to have the government make it a crime?

Does that mean I'm "soft" on liberalism or don't really believe what I believe?

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 30, 2012 09:25 AM (X/+QT)

184 If this "advice" from the "long time Republicans" in the beltway keeps up at this pace, in January 2016 it will be: Victoria Toestring: Republicans Must Nominate a Democrat If They Want to Win the White House

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:26 AM (jUytm)

185

Toensing, DiGenova and Holder.

 

Well, it's all a matter of professional courtesy, you know.

Posted by: Reader C.J. Burch is not the Easter Bunny at November 30, 2012 09:26 AM (RFeQD)

186
169 As a practical matter, I want the feds out and the states in on this issue. I can at least reconcile myself that what goes on in California or New York is like what goes on in France. I may deplore it and I may argue against it with citizens of those states, but it's not my house so I can't say.

Posted by: toby928© for TB at November 30, 2012 02:22 PM (QupBk)



A commenter here, I can't remember who, brought up an interesting point. If we believe that abortion is murder, that a "fetus" is a "person", doesn't the 14th Amendment make it the business of the federal govt?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 09:27 AM (da5Wo)

187

Posted by: kawfytawk at November 30, 2012 02:08 PM (JWLqy)

must credit Iowahawk...


Posted by: phreshone at November 30, 2012 09:27 AM (0SXI6)

188 Polonium is radioactive. Hardly untraceable. Posted by: Stephen Price Blair at November 30, 2012 02:23 PM (QF8uk)

Polonium has a half life of 138 days.  By the time anyone figures out to look for it, you're dead and it's gone.

To me, that's the definition of untraceable.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:27 AM (sbV1u)

189 We will solve the abortion issue on the same day the Palestinian question is resolved.

What we really want to know is whether the NORK unicorns are nuclear capable.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at November 30, 2012 09:27 AM (epxV4)

190 Who the hell is going to be left to vote Republican outside of David Frum's dinner party companions? Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 02:22 PM (wwsoB) ______________ David Frum who actually started his new coalition on dumping Pro-Life. The same guy that led the attack on Harriet Miers because she might not be truly-- Pro -Life. It's unreal--hardly anyone remembers that sick twist. Speaking of twists I suppose Harriet mires without her Harvard education would not have been nimble enough to do the John Roberts -- "It's A Transformative Tax! Dance!".--That required an Ivy League education.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:27 AM (r2PLg)

191 That's the new monicker for you pro-abortion mealy-mouthed white-flag waving shitheads who might occasionally vote Republican. Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 02:15 PM (jUytm) I never vote Democrat. It's really eye opening to see how my views are held in such contempt. Let it burn. Enjoy your fire.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 09:27 AM (q177U)

192 156   Mike the Moose: wrote "It is not a message that you should have to sell. It is a harbinger. Any society that would kill their own blood as a matter of convenience is one already headed to the dumpster themselves. All we are doing is giving them the opportunity to turn back."     Perhaps a legal prohibition is not the most effective way to combat a culteral problem.  Perhaps we need a different focus. 

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 09:28 AM (Hd5n8)

193 damn you auto-correct.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:28 AM (r2PLg)

194 Arms akimbo!

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:28 AM (jUytm)

195

I wonder what the Church of the Sacremental Abortion would say if it became the position of the Republican party to say, "Sure bitch, have all the abortions you want.  I won't stand in your way.  The little bastard would have probably grown up to be a fucking socialist anyway.  Make my day."?

 

Fucking ghouls.  How they've rationalized sucking their unborn baby's brains out  for the greater goal  of "reproductive  freedom" makes me want to puke. 

Posted by: Jaws at November 30, 2012 09:28 AM (4I3Uo)

196

Where are all the pro-lifers going to go if they abandon the GOP?  Going to start your own party?  Going to caucus with the Dems?  Be realistic. 

I know your beleifs are strong, but your threats are dumb.  Walking away from the GOP would toltally eliminate your polical influence and the ability to make changes on an issue that is near and dear to your heart.    

 

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (hbVtd)

197

Ace:

 

Government coercion is the evil.

 

Thus the distinction between state action and INCENTIVES.

 

I am all for states/federal government incentivizing behavior.  But it should not be allowed to cross the line into coercion.  My two cents.

Posted by: Prescient11 at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (tVTLU)

198

Left a few posts in the old thread for you.

 

Diogenes, I am really not all that interested in a discussion of why drugs will turn us all into addled zombies.

 

Best case scenario I already know where this ends. I think the sources you hold to be credible are bogus and quite crazy, and you will think the same of mine.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (TULs6)

199 174Toensing is one of the RINO inside the Beltway Libtards who sold us McLame & Romney

Posted by: Evilpens at November 30, 2012 02:23 PM (ck76k)

>>
>

What was the alternative this year?  Ron Paul?  Rick Santorum?  Weren't you supporting Romney publicly out here?  Should I check the archive?

What a weird thing to say.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (T+4DM)

200 It's a popular position -- you get to make moral noises (popular) while not pushing any laws to enforce that moral choice (also generally popular) -- and ergo was most likely selected for its popularity. Not sure if sarcastic? These are both moral choice: (1) it is against my morals to shag a woman who's engaged to someone else and (2) it is immoral to desire punitive legal action against someone who has not violated any of my rights. If what you say is true then Obama would have already made a solid case about why he thinks the current marijuana laws need to be reformed.

Posted by: Not Ready To Unsock at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (BgIBZ)

201 I was 12 when reality slapped me hard in a chance meeting.

Get it said. I don't like all this teasing.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (tbn20)

202 My wife's friend:

early 30s, married, 3 kids, college degree, makes 6 figure salary, her and husband big outdoorsy types including fishing/hunting

On paper this woman is about as Republican as they come right? 

WRONG!

Guess why pro-lifers?


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:29 AM (HDgX3)

203
Tax it.  What you tax you get less of.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (n/ubI)

204 i don't like talking about abortion...i'm am solidly pro life....if you would like to have an abortion then by all means go right ahead...but not on my dime and i'm not going to celebrate it with you... if you are pro choice....then you pay for the holy abortion...you taxi misguided womyn to their murder appointment .... and be sure to quiz your daughter/granddaughter/niece/girlfriends about whether or not their going to keep IT when they announce they are having a baby.....and i don't want to hear how it's not that you would personally have one.....or want your daughter to have one you just want the choice open for all womyn.....that's the stupidest position i've ever heard.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (GVxQo)

205 The ethical Congresses that allow this shit need open air and lynching.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 02:16 PM (LRFds)


Hold fire and wait for the collapse. After the revolution we can dish out comeuppance.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (bb5+k)

206 Words mean things.

Pro-life =/= Pro-choice
Pro-choice = Pro-choice
Pro-choice =/= Pro-abortion

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (X/+QT)

207 I don't like rap music, should I push to have the government make it a crime? Whether you should depends on how strongly you feel about it. If it's a question of can you, absolutely you should be able to, if you can convince enough people to go along with the idea. This is where I strongly part ways with the big L libertarians. There is not a right and wrong answer to these questions, in the sense that everyone agrees on what it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of ideas is in the convincing.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (QupBk)

208 I've defined the "abortion issue" in simpler terms - There comes a point where Society can insist that a woman make up her damn mind. - Pro Choicer arguments, at their core, say that isn't so.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (RuUvx)

209 Hank "Tip Over and Capsize" Johnson calls for an Amendment to curtail free speech.

On Drudge.
Posted by: EC at November 30, 2012 02:02 PM

Drudge linked a disturbing story from Wired, two subhuman dregs have been indicted in Houston for making videos of animals being tortured and killed, planned to market the vids

A few idiots in the comments actually excuse their behavior because to them it's no different from killing cows and chickens for meat.

Two Indicted for Online Distribution of Puppy-Snuff Videos

http://tinyurl.com/d47aqs5

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 09:30 AM (wwsoB)

210 I'm a big tent person.

I'm not a socon. I guess I'm a paleolibertarian fiscon. My basic position on most issues comes down to "My lawn. Get off of it."

I'm perfectly happy to have socons standing prominently within the party.

And I think it's possible to defend even seriously maximalist socon views, such as no abortions under any circumstances ever, in language that doesn't lose elections for the rest of the party.

The thing which makes me just give up in horrified frustration and hook up a Val-U-Rite intravenous drip is that many socons don't think they are under any obligation to the rest of the party to thus develop and cultivate and test their messaging skills.

Instead, they think it's all right to blurt out opinions about hot-button issues like rapebortion in an unpracticed, unpolished, extemporaneous way. And that's when you get guys like Richard Mourdock -- not a nut case, a decent fellow actually -- delivering the politically lethal message about rape being something that "God intended" in certain cases.

No. No. No. No. No. NO. Either socons as a bloc learn to speak with greater polish, or they have to shut the fuck up and stay out of politics and stop losing elections for everyone else with an (R) after their name on the ballot.

The thing about a big tent is that circuses happen under big tents. And what we saw in this last election cycle was a circus. A full bore three-ring circus with clowns completely running amuck, and it's getting incredibly tiresome to watch.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 30, 2012 09:31 AM (ymG7s)

211

You think "standing up for your beliefs" means passing legal prohibitions? Did you read the blog post by any chance?

 


I did read the blog post.


The problem with his argument is that there are some values for which support must demand that you impose them on others, generally because they involve perceived harm to a third party.


I'm personally opposed to shooting heroin into my veins.  If someone else wants to do that to themselves then I think that they should have that right.  It harms no one else, which is the key point.


However, if I'm opposed to adults having sex with ten year olds because I believe it is rape, then I have a moral duty to intervene and attempt to stop those people who disagree with me precisely because it harms an innocent party. 


The principle way we should see to do so is to make the moral case, but we should also seek legislation where necessary.

Posted by: Alex at November 30, 2012 09:31 AM (3x3F6)

212 I think abortion is vile, but I also recognize it's a big ugly genie that is not going back into the bottle, ever. So- rape-incest-danger to the mother-evidence of profound birth defect are my exceptions.

Abortion as birth control? No.

And don't make me- John Q Taxpayer- foot the bill.

Posted by: Jones in CO at November 30, 2012 09:32 AM (8sCoq)

213 Either socons as a bloc learn to speak with greater polish _ Don't forget the Poles.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2012 09:32 AM (RuUvx)

214 "Where are all the pro-lifers going to go if they abandon the GOP? Going to start your own party? Going to caucus with the Dems? Be realistic. " Actively work to undermine this country to hasten its dissolution is one option. Hello welfare benefits!

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:32 AM (LmyR7)

215 Guess why pro-lifers? Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (HDgX3)

Because they're intellectually inconsistent and down with for termination of someone who never did anything to them?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:32 AM (sbV1u)

216 168
Same as any other activity that we want to get rid of...

Dear god, that phrase. Shall we call it reason #1623 why I will never again be a republican?

That is a damn frightening phrase. It was one thingwhen I thought this wasaboutabortion, but now that I know the same thing goes for 'every activity you want to get rid of'...

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:22 PM (TULs6

 

 

 

I had in mind activities such as rape, armed robbery, kidnapping, slaving, etc. You do think at least some activities should be illegal, right?

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 09:33 AM (iK4hL)

217 I'm still awaiting an apology from this crank and her husband for supporting Eric Holder's nomination to be AG.

Posted by: Hoystory at November 30, 2012 09:33 AM (KpHDh)

218 Christine Todd Whitman called, she wants her schtick back. Oh, and her job.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 30, 2012 09:33 AM (7vSU0)

219 Actively work to undermine this country to hasten its dissolution is one option. Hello welfare benefits! Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 02:32 PM (LmyR7)

Wow.  A conservative Cloward-Piven

That's sort of like a political Seinfeld episode.

Jerry:  "Sex.  To save the friendship.  Well, OK then!"

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:34 AM (sbV1u)

220 - There is no I in Uterus. _

Posted by: SoCon 81322 at November 30, 2012 09:34 AM (RuUvx)

221 It is not a message that you should have to sell. It is a harbinger. Any society that would kill their own blood as a matter of convenience is one already headed to the dumpster themselves. All we are doing is giving them the opportunity to turn back.

Posted by: Mike the Moose at November 30, 2012 02:20 PM (0q2P7)


We have warned them. Now it is best that we look to ourselves and weather the collapse.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:34 AM (bb5+k)

222 202 My wife's friend: early 30s, married, 3 kids, college degree, makes 6 figure salary, her and husband big outdoorsy types including fishing/hunting On paper this woman is about as Republican as they come right? WRONG! Guess why pro-lifers? Oh okay. Let's support murder because of your friend.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:34 AM (sgNEe)

223 Guess why pro-lifers? Lack of humanity?

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:35 AM (QupBk)

224

I don't understand the logic of a prochoice believer in God.

 

Are you intentionally supporting something that your religious teachings tell you God would be against.  Knowingly rebuking God on a continuous basis?  

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 09:36 AM (m2CN7)

225 the GOP would toltally eliminate your policalinfluence and the ability to make changes on an issue that is near and dear to your heart.

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (hbVtd)

 

Test me.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 09:36 AM (OQpzc)

226 #138 Just a reminder to all y'all tooting the "abortion=slavery" horn, our Constitution originally held that slavery was legal, and half the country thought it was also perfectly moral.  It took a very bloody war and a Constitutional amendment to change that. 

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2012 09:36 AM (NYnoe)

227 Where are all the pro-lifers going to go if they abandon the GOP? Going to start your own party? Going to caucus with the Dems? Be realistic.
I know your beleifs are strong, but your threats are dumb. Walking away from the GOP would toltally eliminate your policalinfluence and the ability to make changes on an issue that is near and dear to your heart.
Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM

Maybe they'll stay home. Or maybe like blacks and Hispanics who are anti-abortion and socially conservative, they'll vote their wallets, and they don't tend to be the upper income levels of the demographic charts

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 09:36 AM (wwsoB)

228

A pro-life position on abortion is one thing.  Absolutist pro-life rhetoric coming out of Republican office holders is like draining the mote, dropping the drawbridge, pulling down your armor and kneeling over a tree stump.  Let me utter a dirty four-letter word:  Akin.  They should name a White House bedroom "The Akin Suite".

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (T+4DM)

229 No. No. No. No. No. NO. Either socons as a bloc learn to speak with greater polish, or they have to shut the fuck up and stay out of politics and stop losing elections for everyone else with an (R) after their name on the ballot. And FiscCons can blab about the 47%? They can still make dumbass gaffes? We (socons) are the bulk of the party. I'm sick of voting for Scott Browns and losing anyway. Fuck it.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (sgNEe)

230 Test me. Word. I voted for a pro-choice politician once. Once. But only because I didn't know Gerry Ford was one until later.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (QupBk)

231 "Any society that would kill their own blood as a matter of convenience is one already headed to the dumpster themselves." EXCEPT IN SPARTAAAAAAAA! _

Posted by: King Leonidas at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (RuUvx)

232 ...slavery was legal, and half the country thought it was also perfectly moral. It took a very bloody war and a Constitutional amendment to change that. What? When did this happen?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (jUytm)

233 "Wow. A conservative Cloward-Piven" Really, why not? If this country has gotten to the point where no major political party will stand for literally the most basic human right, it's not worth fighting to save.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (LmyR7)

234

Push it under ground and you will only make it harder to find them. At least in the open sunlight you know where to go to reach out.

___

Oh, plenty of people reached out to the PA authorities when it became clear that Kermit Gosnell was a butcher of women and babies. The DPW and medical board were getting complaints from ER doctors. Complaints from women who suffered permanent internal damage after enduring his procedure. AND NOTHING WAS DONE. Why? Because no one wanted to touch the political football.

As long as the butchery of children is condoned by a society, there will be little political will to enforce the few strictures and limitations put on that barbaric practice.

 

The only reason Gosnell was exposed is because the Feds moved in on him when they got word he was an oxycontin pusher. It had nothing at all to do with an attempt to police the abortion "profession".

 

(Gosnell's patients were mainly minority women who sought 3rd trimester abortions that are illegal in PA.)

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 09:37 AM (jm/9g)

235 196 California Red,

I'll caucus with God.

If the secular America is pro baby murder I am suddenly a lot less pro America period.

The left can tell me what to eat, what to watch, how big my cup can be, how much I can use my land and I can't defend a child at all?

Yeah it is getting easier every day to let go.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:38 AM (LRFds)

236 Cripes-- I'm off to go look at the exit polling. I highly doubt we lost the election over this one issue.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:38 AM (r2PLg)

237 Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 02:34 PM (sgNEe)
and
Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 02:32 PM (sbV1u)

You guys just don't get. Women (and some men) who are natural Republicans are repulsed by the insane abortion policy by the GOP. And the younger you go the worse this gets. As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the baby for the next 18 years, you will lose election after election. Wake the fuck up.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:38 AM (HDgX3)

238

Posted by: torquewrench at November 30, 2012 02:31 PM (ymG7s)

Look, a critique of socons by a non-socon that is actually helpful and doesn't just tell us to abandon our principles for the sake of our pocketbooks! Wonder of wonders!

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 09:38 AM (iK4hL)

239 gop stance on gay marriage, abortion, and drug laws all scream for government regulation of personal decisions.  Tell me again how they are the party of liberty?

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 09:38 AM (hbVtd)

240 Really, why not? If this country has gotten to the point where no major political party will stand for literally the most basic human right, it's not worth fighting to save. Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 02:37 PM (LmyR7)

Oh, I'm with ya!  I just never thought if it that way.

Save a spot under the bridge for me.  We'll go hobo hunting at night.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:39 AM (sbV1u)

241 My wife's friend:

early 30s, married, 3 kids, college degree, makes 6 figure salary, her and husband big outdoorsy types including fishing/hunting

On paper this woman is about as Republican as they come right?

WRONG!

Guess why pro-lifers?


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (HDgX3)



I used to ask pro-abortion women who were pregnant if they made their choice yet. What do you mean? I mean, are you going to abort IT or kept IT? They always got hysterically pissed at me for daring to say something like that about their unborn child. I also have asked pro-abortion women if they would like to see a baby being born. Of course. How about an abortion? No. Why not? I don't want to see something like that. Something that you support and base your vote on you don't want to see? So as long as it's a simple phrase (pro choice) and you don't have to think about it or see it you're all for it

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 09:39 AM (1Jaio)

242

Some of the comments above got me thinking. 

Seems like the best answer when you hear anything about abortion is say, "Oh, good.  One less Democrat voter"

Drive them batty, it would seem.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 09:39 AM (UaxA0)

243 "It took a very bloody war and a Constitutional amendment to change that." Your point?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:39 AM (LmyR7)

244 I'm the parent of a child with a terminal genetic disorder. While I would choose to keep another child with this disorder, would I force my wife to carry it to term? No, that would make me a fucking monster. Some of you so-cons are pure evil.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 09:39 AM (q177U)

245 As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the baby for the next 18 years, you will lose election after election. I'm not aware of anyone saying that. You'll need to cite your source.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:39 AM (QupBk)

246 the insane abortion policy by the GOP hahahahaha, okay, professor

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:40 AM (jUytm)

247 A government that fails to protect the innocent loses its legitimacy.

The U.S. lost its legitimacy in 1973.

So what if Assad killed 30,000 Syrians this past year.  Chump change.

Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 09:40 AM (V70Uh)

248 >>>You wanna subsidize Planned Abortionhood and support forcing people to pay for others' birth control? I think that's a bit of a strawman. I'm not aware of many Republicans who believe that. I see that Toensing made some noises to that effect. But to the great majority pro-choice Republicans, that would be a redline.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 09:40 AM (LCRYB)

249 We have misunderestimated the power of community organizing. Alinsky laughs in Hell. If babies don't matter, BIll Ayer's death camps are sure to be on their way.

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 30, 2012 09:40 AM (7vSU0)

250 23 days ago Exit polls: Abortion as an election issue Posted by CNN Senior Writer Joe Von Kanel (CNN) - Abortion became an issue in some of this year's U.S. Senate races as well as in the presidential race, exit polls show. In Missouri, Republican Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin said in a local news interview that women have biological ways to avoid pregnancy after a "legitimate rape." Tuesday's early exit polls show 51% of Missouri voters say they believe abortion should be legal all or most of the time. Of those voters, exit polls show 76% supporting Akin's opponent, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill while 19% voted for Akin. Forty-seven percent of Missouri's voters say abortion should be illegal. Exit polls show Akin takes 67% of this group's votes while 27% of people who think abortion should be illegal supported Sen. McCaskill. – Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker The other state where abortion became a big controversy is Indiana, where Republican U.S. Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said during a debate question over abortion rights, that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape…it is something that God intended to happen." CNN projected Mourdock's opponent, Joe Donnelly, will defeat Mourdock for the U.S. Senate seat but Indiana voters' attitudes about abortion are unclear because they weren't on the exit poll questionnaire. In some of the other swing states where voters were asked about abortion, 56% of Ohio's voters told exit pollsters abortion should be legal all or most of the time while 39% say it should be illegal. _________________ CNN--so there is that. This "polling" doesn't tell you jack all about -- *if* and how high up voters prioritized the issue of abortion.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (r2PLg)

251 Had Akin not said the idiotic shit he said, GOP would have 2-3 more senate seats today. Pro-lifers have no idea how much damage he did.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (HDgX3)

252

As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the baby for the next 18 years, you will lose election after election. Wake the fuck up.

 

Ever heard of putting a baby up for adoption? All we ask is that you don't kill an innocent person. Kill the rapist, not the baby.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (iK4hL)

253 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:38 PM (HDgX3) You're gonna lose elections anyway with your anti-handout rhetoric, chump. I sure as hell ain't going to carry water for you if you decide murder is okay, please lower my taxes.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (sgNEe)

254

My  down - low  bf   Barry   should  come   out  of   the   closet!  Cake  Boy  that  I  enjoy!!   Next   month  I'm  the  gay  in  the  $4  million  vacay!   Thanx  serfs! 

Posted by: Reggie Love at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (wIgpo)

255 And the younger you go the worse this gets. Professor, here's a widely known secret: young people are stupid and ignorant and know nothing about life.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (jUytm)

256
244 I'm the parent of a child with a terminal genetic disorder. While I would choose to keep another child with this disorder, would I force my wife to carry it to term? No, that would make me a fucking monster.

Some of you so-cons are pure evil.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 02:39 PM (q177U)




So because of a genetic disorder, you value your child's life at zero? And I'm evil?

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 09:41 AM (da5Wo)

257 As for Victoria Toensing, Eric Holder is a constant reminder of the kind of trade-offs Victoria and he husband have help to give us. During the confirmation process, they came out strongly for Eric Holder, who has thanked them by showing what a real a-hole a USAG can be.

Posted by: Diogenes at November 30, 2012 09:42 AM (e8kgV)

258

224 I don't understand the logic of aprochoice believer in God.

Are you intentionally supporting something that your religious teachings tell you God would be against. Knowingly rebuking God on a continuous basis?

 

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 02:36 PM (m2CN7)

 

Not supporting it at all.  Just acknowledging that others may not share my conviction about what God would be for or against, and since none of us can really know what God wants,  it isn't right for me to impose my beliefs about this on others.  I think it is perfectly reasonable for a woman to believe that God gives her free will and also babies, and it is up to her to decide how to balance her interests with those of the baby's, and answer to God for that decision when the time comes.

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2012 09:42 AM (NYnoe)

259 3-5 years? some of you fake socons are soft on murder. Death penalty.

Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 09:42 AM (KHo8t)

260 if you would like to have an abortion then by all means go right ahead...but not on my dime and i'm not going to celebrate it with you...

But it will be on your dime. Why do you think they have pushed so hard for "birth control" under BambiCare? Out of all things? Because Demorats want you to fund abortion... they NEED you to fund abortion. Because they are sick in the f*cking head.

It's probably some kind of twisted revenge for making them fund the incarceration and frying of cop-killers.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 30, 2012 09:42 AM (tbn20)

261

To end abortion, doctors have to reject it. Women have to reject it. Society has to reject it. The State does not have the power, any more than they can stop drug use, and trying to make it so is just another road to tyranny.

 

Ding ding.

 

Get 80% against abortion as murder (which I believe it is, at least after the 12th week but not sooner than the 4th week) and abortion will become illegal.

 

Making abortion illegal does not make 80% against it.

 

Liberalism is an economic cargo cult and conservatism is a social cargo cult.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:42 AM (TULs6)

262 Incidentally, Toensing's support of that -- of coerced taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood -- is in direct violation of the principle I'm arguing for. She is forcing people, via the state, to contribute to that. Not just to merely permit it, but to be actual cash-money supporters of it. That's not "freedom." That's just state-imposed obligations and state-imposed "morality," yet again.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 09:43 AM (LCRYB)

263 Anyone here read David Goldman's "Why Civilizations Die?"

They fail to reproduce.

Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 09:43 AM (V70Uh)

264 some of you fake socons are soft on murder. Death penalty.

Wow. You couldn't have timed that any better, dummy.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 30, 2012 09:43 AM (tbn20)

265 Professor, here's a widely known secret: young people are stupid and ignorant and know nothing about life.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 02:41 PM (jUytm)


Yes, there is a reason why the President has to be at least 40 years old.

Posted by: Islamic Rage Boy at November 30, 2012 09:43 AM (e8kgV)

266 :::222 202 My wife's friend: early 30s, married, 3 kids, college degree, makes 6 figure salary, her and husband big outdoorsy types including fishing/hunting On paper this woman is about as Republican as they come right? WRONG! Guess why pro-lifers? :::: What?! I was waiting for the story where she killed her fourth baby in utero with a Philips head screwdriver and Coca-Cola douche. You know, tie it in to the rugged individualist theme you had going. Then I lost interest when I remembered that I don't care what you think, cunt.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 09:43 AM (PFvlM)

267 My wife's friend:

early 30s, married, 3 kids, college degree, makes 6 figure salary, her and husband big outdoorsy types including fishing/hunting

On paper this woman is about as Republican as they come right?

WRONG!

Guess why pro-lifers?


Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM

She gets all her news from MSNBCNNPRCBS, the New York Times, and The View. Her favorite celebrities tell her how icky and racist Republicans are, and all her friends are the wine and cheese yuppie types. She also thinks THE RICH don't pay their fair share in taxes.

Oh, and that awful man called a Sandra of Arc a bad name

That about right?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (wwsoB)

268 201 Mike the moose,

I was a young logical bastard who made the mistake of conflating my grasp of economics, genetics, and history to go downt he teddy Roosevelt Eugenics path.

I was carrying a book on Eugenics at the USAF Museum and a holocaust survivor took the time to talk to a misguided 12 year old boy.

I'll never be the same.

I would have allowed me to be murdered had i been in charge.

I was born with a barely functioning pancreas that a kindly old German doctor here in America saved by multiple blood transfusions jumpstarting it.

I'd die now probably under Ocare, an HMO or definitely the NHS.

He did it very well, didn't show me the tatoo until after I had 'won.'

I cried on the 7 mile walk home when he asked me, "you are aware as am I I suppose that the nazis corresponded at length with Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana on "race matters?"

Eugenics is the proof man is not God, no matter one's thoughts on god being a Kindly once mean Jewish imaginary man or chaos theory.

Like I said of Ace, I suspect he is at least a clockwork deist and likely at least that.

There *is* natural law and whatever the Socialists are selling violates it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (LRFds)

269 "Same as any other activity we want to get rid of..."

UGH

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (fXInK)

270 Great.... ANOTHER decision involving babies. Okay ... I'll do it. Let me get my sword _

Posted by: King Solomon at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (RuUvx)

271 The Death Penalty isn't murder.


Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (V70Uh)

272 3-5 years? some of you fake socons are soft on murder. Death penalty. Meh. Mitigating circumstances. Maybe even diminished capacity.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (QupBk)

273 No uterus, no opinion. -Me I can't believe that we as a nation allow a serious chunk of our polarizing bullshit politics be devoted to this particular issue. Seriously. This is the most important issue in all the land? *This* issue, regardless of which side you're on, is actually worth losing national elections over? Folks that let any single issue get them *that* flustered? I'll never understand it, tbqh. WiB.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (hNXHo)

274 "Diogenes, I am really not all that interested in a discussion of why drugs will turn us all into addled zombies."



You pigeonholed me on this issue, not the other way around.  You are also strawmaning my point. I argue that over decades the addiction rate will creep upward until it becomes an existential threat to the nation.  65 Million Japanese do not whip 500 million Chinese without something being very out of whack.








"Best case scenario I already know where this ends. I think the sources you hold to be credible are bogus and quite crazy, and you will think the same of mine."

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (TULs6)




Well, now see there, I don't automatically assume (before the fact) that your sources are insane, as I haven't seen them yet.  Pre-Judging is not my methodology. 




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (bb5+k)

275 264 TMI,

Yup you got the wrong guy pal.

I am pro death penalty and lose not a wink over it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (LRFds)

276 I don't have a problem with socons, you might even call me one yourself. I support banning abortion and if the fight was still on over embryonic stem cell research, I'd go after that too. I don't understand why socons are the last bastion of the plainly stupid in the Republican party. Sure, there are Boehners and McCains and Grahams out there, but they are at least clever enough to score points here and there. But Akin O'Donnell et. al. can't get the morning paper without stepping on their dick first.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 09:44 AM (csi6Y)

277 >>>So because of a genetic disorder, you value your child's life at zero? And I'm evil? you're doing what I suggested. He said he would choose to bring it to term. He said, however, he would not compel his wife to do so. You seem to think that a principle isn't a principle unless its holder is enthusiastic about compulsion to obtain it.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 09:45 AM (LCRYB)

278

gopstanceon gay marriage, abortion, and drug laws all scream for government regulation of personal decisions. Tell me again how they are the party of liberty?

Posted by: California Red



Because, Kindergarten Libertarian, "freedom" is not anarchy, and "society" actually exists.  A "society" will invariably form rules for its perpetuation and moral governance.  Your idealized state of freedom does not and cannot work.  Even if I in theory agree on some parts of your drug war argument (since that has the fewest secondary impacts, but only in a minimalist state where we don't live), if one believes an embryo is human life (as opposed to what, I guess), then that life being protected is a core value of even the minimalist government you advocate.

Not to mention, how the fuck is "gay marriage" keeping teh STATE out of peoples biddness?

It's the ultimate regulation of personal freedom.  Leave this person and you have to pay.

You so cwazy.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 09:45 AM (UaxA0)

279 Ace, that's the real reason for all this truce talk. Republicans are too afraid to stop subsidizing abortions and that's why they want to drop the issue. It's insulting to hear all these self-acclaimed fiscal hawks argue this point when the truth is they can't admit they're afraid of battling the Democrats.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:45 AM (jUytm)

280 Diogenes is right, and I think my head is going to explode at this point.



All I can say is that if it makes me a conservative version of Cloward or Piven to say that this country isn't worth saving if we don't mind rolling around in blood, so long as we get the financials on track, so be it - and incidentally, that bit about getting the financials on track IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN so long as the nihilistic fuckwits on this thread and in society at large continue prancing about sing-song til the sky falls, preaching their hippy-esque free love bullshit, because all their efforts at teaching 'responsibility' and 'discipline' to the next generation will not matter one shining blue fuck from Tuesday if you extend your permissiveness to something as vital as the lives of the missing half of that generation.


Fucking Communists have done their work well.  Half our own number is indoctrinated and doesn't even realize it.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:45 AM (R8Rbc)

281 I can't believe that we as a nation allow a serious chunk of our polarizing bullshit politics be devoted to this particular issue.



The murder of children? Sorry boss, to me, that's an even bigger deal than Ron Burgundy.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 09:45 AM (da5Wo)

282 This Toensing woman needs to get her frock back on and get her ass back into the kitchen. 

Posted by: Todd Akin at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (pmsMR)

283

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 02:39 PM (q177U)

 

You are picking out the 1% of the prolife caucus to try and make yourself justify your prochoice position. You can be prolife with reasonable exceptions,.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (m2CN7)

284 196
Where are all the pro-lifers going to go if they abandon the GOP? Going to start your own party? Going to caucus with the Dems? Be realistic.
I know your beleifs are strong, but your threats are dumb. Walking away from the GOP would toltally eliminate your policalinfluence and the ability to make changes on an issue that is near and dear to your heart. Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (hbVtd)

The majority of pro-lifers are Christian. Their allegiance is to God - specifically Jesus Christ. Not any party, or personal liberty. "Walking away" for them, is walking away from sin, which is evil. They do not engage in politics the way secularists do. They are willing to "not" vote for questions of morality, and Party Sophistry will not get them to the polls.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (BoE3Z)

285 251 Had Akin not said the idiotic shit he said, GOP would have 2-3 more senate seats today. Pro-lifers have no idea how much damage he did. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:41 PM (HDgX3) --It was Akin himself who did the damage, not pro-lifers. I bet most pro-lifers (I'm sure there's a poll) are fine with rape/incest/life of mother exceptions. The candidates were too stupid and cavalier to articulate themselves properly.

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (gBuIk)

286 You guys just don't get. Women (and some men) who are natural Republicans are repulsed by the insane abortion policy by the GOP. And the younger you go the worse this gets. As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the baby for the next 18 years, you will lose election after election. Wake the fuck up. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:38 PM (HDgX3)

Oh we get it.  We really do get it.  

...and its immoral.

See this is the thing (and Bevel will agree as I know his ouevre well), morality is not gray.  It's black and white.  Something is either wrong, or its right.  But it's not both simultaneously, or else it's not morality.  You might want it to be flexible, but it's not.  Period.  Full stop.

Now we know most of life is lived in the "gray"  but neither you nor your friends should mistake your position for something moral.  It might be "practical" because it can win elections or it might "comfortable" because you won't have to deeply consider the fact that your position, in fact, endorses murder, but you should never, ever think your position is moral.

I'd rather be right on this one issue and lose every election.

I would at least be able to say I am intellectually consistent, which is in stark contrast to what you propose.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (sbV1u)

287 Ace, are you ok with the government compelling me not to murder my 3.week old?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (LmyR7)

288

Truth be told, the less America looks like itself, the less vested I am in its continued survival. Embracing an all encompassing nanny-state that promotes infantanicide makes me have a second look at Coward-Piven.

 

Maybe this country is becoming Old Yeller...

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 09:46 AM (t06LC)

289 Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (HDgX3)



Don't care. Nature abhors a vacuum.  Embracing contemporary opinions because they are popular do not protect us from the long term consequences of nature's rebuttal.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:47 AM (bb5+k)

290 244 I'm the parent of a child with a terminal genetic disorder. While I would choose to keep another child with this disorder, would I force my wife to carry it to term? No, that would make me a fucking monster. Some of you so-cons are pure evil. So if your wife kills your kid tonight, you won't make a peep? You'll have to forgive me - I'm evil and don't like murder. Seriously? In a world of Kermit Gosnells and Margaret Sangers, I'm pure evil?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:47 AM (sgNEe)

291 The murder of children? Sorry boss, to me, that's an even bigger deal than Ron Burgundy.  Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 02:45 PM (da5Wo)

Dude.  THIS is why I love you.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:47 AM (sbV1u)

292 you're doing what I suggested. He said he would choose to bring it to term. He said, however, he would not compel his wife to do so.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 02:45 PM (LCRYB)



No, he said that insisting that his wife carry the child to term would make him a monster. Solely because of a genetic disorder. That's....I don't even have words for it.




You seem to think that a principle isn't a principle unless its holder is enthusiastic about compulsion to obtain it.



I'm not even sure what that fucking means.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 09:48 AM (da5Wo)

293

The  POTUS  gives  it  to  me  up  the  ass  and  I  like  it!   Why  don't  you  serfs  enjoy  it?!

Posted by: Reggie Love at November 30, 2012 09:48 AM (wIgpo)

294 "I used to ask pro-abortion women who were pregnant if they made their choice yet. What do you mean? I mean, are you going to abort IT or kept IT? They always got hysterically pissed at me for daring to say something like that about their unborn child."
===============

Ha ha. Yeah, I did that, too, about ten years ago. A friend who was a liberal zealot was pregnant, and I would occasionally offer to drive her to the abortion clinic just to see how she'd respond.

She'd get very nervous and tittery, as though she understood how wrong it would be to do that but couldn't possibly acknowledge it.

Good times.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 09:48 AM (H84UO)

295 >>>>Wow. You couldn't have timed that any better, dummy. Posted by: The Mega Independent at November 30, 2012 02:43 PM (tbn20) OK, what's the exact right sentence for abortion/murder Mega?

Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 09:48 AM (KHo8t)

296 >>>You seem to think that a principle isn't a principle unless its holder is enthusiastic about compulsion to obtain it. Well, a fair enough point I suppose? There are so many complicating factors in that scenario. The worst of them, of course, being that it's legal.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 09:48 AM (csi6Y)

297 I'm the parent of a child with a terminal genetic disorder. While I would choose to keep another child with this disorder, would I force my wife to carry it to term? No, that would make me a fucking monster. Some of you so-cons are pure evil. Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 02:39 PM (q177U)

Well, as long as you can sleep at night, I suppose that's all that really counts.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:48 AM (sbV1u)

298 But Akin O'Donnell et. al. can't get the morning paper without stepping on their dick first. Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 02:44 PM (csi6Y) ________________________ So you are saying--O'Donnell is especially "talented"?

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:49 AM (r2PLg)

299 "Guess why pro-lifers?"
==========

I dunno. Morally retarded?

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 09:49 AM (H84UO)

300 I'm thinking that that 30's, mother of 3 kids, outdoorsy chick is married to
averagejoesimagination.

Posted by: ontherocks at November 30, 2012 09:49 AM (aZ6ew)

301 >>>Ace, are you ok with the government compelling me not to murder my 3.week old? sure am! There's not a lot of rhetorical power in this neverending "It's completely and unambiguously different from murder so we should have the same laws" claim. People blip over it. it's meaningless. Death penalty or at least life in prison for any woman seeking an abortion? Why not?! It's conspiracy to murder/accessory to murder/solicitation to murder, right? You can keep making the argument but it doesn't cut ice with anyone.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 09:49 AM (LCRYB)

302 Nice write up.   Less laws, more freedom!

Also, I'm pro-death penalty. 

What's that you say?

Posted by: Fritz at November 30, 2012 09:49 AM (d8K+M)

303 >>>Just a reminder to all y'all tooting the "abortion=slavery" I'm not saying they are equal I'm saying rationalizing a tolerance for them follows the same path. Yes a bloody war was fought to end slavery. In the end is the difficulty or repercussions of holding a moral stance your determinant as to whether you hold them? Slavery didn't become wrong in the 1860s it was always wrong. Also it didn't suddenly be become right for the government to free the slaves. It was always right for government to do so. If the unborn are persons they have rights.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2012 09:49 AM (wSncD)

304 I meant "completely and unambiguously the SAME as murder.' Pardon.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 09:50 AM (LCRYB)

305 Dude. THIS is why I love you.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 02:47 PM (sbV1u)




Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 09:50 AM (da5Wo)

306 No. No. No. No. No. NO. Either socons as a bloc learn to speak with greater polish, or they have to shut the fuck up and stay out of politics and stop losing elections for everyone else with an (R) after their name on the ballot.


Posted by: torquewrench at November 30, 2012 02:31 PM (ymG7s)



I agree with this.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:50 AM (bb5+k)

307

Oh, plenty of people reached out to the PA authorities when it became clear that Kermit Gosnell was a butcher of women and babies. The DPW and medical board were getting complaints from ER doctors

 

Well, if you made a push to accept reality on issues like rape exemptions, and made your bones about ending 9th-11th month post-birth abortions instead, not only would you win on the issue, you'd make abortion seem as icky and sick as it really is and probably swing another 10% of the electorate to prolife, instead of swinging another 10% prochoice with legitimate-rape-babies.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:50 AM (TULs6)

308 As for giving men and families in general an easy out - feature, not bug. The annihilation of the family unit and the instilling of a general apathy for the very young/very old is central to Leftist dogma.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 02:09 PM (R8Rbc)

 

Amen, amen I say to you.

Posted by: RushBabe at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (tQHzJ)

309 I'd rather be right on this one issue and lose every election.

I would at least be able to say I am intellectually consistent, which is in stark contrast to what you propose.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 02:46 PM (sbV1u)


______________________________________________________

Here are your options:

Akin: no abortions ever

moderate GOP: wants a few abortions

Democrat: wants a gazillion abortions

Each time you nominate Akin you get the Democrat elected.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (HDgX3)

310 That's not "freedom." That's just state-imposed obligations and state-imposed "morality," yet again.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 02:43 PM (LCRYB)

 

What law is not based on morality?

 

Are you floating this shit for the R party? I can't believe you are this shallow.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (OQpzc)

311 "And FiscCons can blab about the 47%? They can still make dumbass gaffes?"

Let's note two things about Romney's 47%er gaffe.

First off, he made that comment in private. Or in what was supposed to be private. (65 year old guys are still coming to terms with the fact that in the new age of smartphones, there isn't any "private" any longer. This is one of the key pieces of street smarts that campaign managers need to hammer into their candidates from now on.)

Romney did not intend those private remarks for broad public consumption.

When Akin and Mourdock made their remarks, it was in public space. Official campaign appearances. On television. On camera. Miked up.

A wee bit different.

The other point here is that Romney's fiscon gaffe wasn't enormously and measurably and immediately damaging in the way that Akin and Mourdock's socon gaffes were.

Romney didn't instantly tank in the polls when his remarks were aired. Akin and Mourdock's polls went from "healthy" to "circling the drain" within hours of their remarks. Twenty plus percent downticks overnight.

Posted by: torquewrench at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (ymG7s)

312 280 I can't believe that we as a nation allow a serious chunk of our polarizing bullshit politics be devoted to this particular issue. The murder of children? Sorry boss, to me, that's an even bigger deal than Ron Burgundy. And that's why there's never going to be a tent big enough for SoCons and FisCons to fit under in happy, happy harmony. If a deal cut actually the Federal deficit in half in the next 4 years (8 trillion dollars)...I'd sign on to direct Federal Funding of whatever Obama wants. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it either...because 330+M people would be incredibly better off in 4 years...and there'd be so much Federal tax collection, they wouldn't even be able to spend it fast enough - even at lower rates. I guess that's a benefit...er..., side effect of never being exposed to religion as a youth. Idk. I can't think of any issue more important to the entire country than getting out of this debt nightmare.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (hNXHo)

313 259 3-5 years? some of you fake socons are soft on murder. Death penalty.

Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 02:42 PM (KHo8t)



...well that's kind of a weak rejoinder.  Weak on the death penalty?


Tell you what, if you can arrange for Pennsylvania to make me a state executioner, I'll march right up there and stand in line with Gosnell's firing squad.  While I'm at it, bring me a few of the loonies like Charles Manson and any others you can think of.  I think we're entirely too gentle on violent criminals.


I'll go out on a limb here and add Sandusky to the list of folks who just need killin', but in this country we don't seem to think that serial child rape is important enough to punish properly.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (R8Rbc)

314 But hey, that would be 'selling out what you really believe' to be effective like that.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (TULs6)

315 Actively work to undermine this country to hasten its dissolution is one option. Hello welfare benefits!


Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 02:32 PM (LmyR7)



And this I agree with.  If we are going to become the Soviet Union, I see nothing wrong with working to collapse it faster.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (bb5+k)

316

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:42 PM (TULs6)

 

Entropy, we social conservatives have been working long and hard to change the culture, without much success. We have also been working at the state and local level as well as the federal level, with better success. Everything that is presented here at the HQ as a new tactic to advance conservatism lately is something that socons figured out long ago.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (iK4hL)

317 OT

$1.6 trillion in tax hikes and we can't even cut a program like this:

"Feds: $100k to teach teen girls 'condom negotiation'"

Link to the Examiner in sock

Posted by: The Q at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (w4fEE)

318

The State needs to stay out of it.  The Church, to paraphrase Beckett again, can do this:

 

This is the sin of murder and sacrilege. In that  {this woman}  has rendered no act of contrition or repentance, and is at the moment, at liberty in the land, we do, here and now, separate him from the precious body and blood of Christ, and from the society of all Christians. We exclude  { her)  from our Holy Mother Church and all her sacraments, in heaven, or on Earth. We declare him excommunicate and anathema. We cast him into the outer darkness. We judge him damned with the devil and his fallen angels and all the reprobate, to eternal fire and everlasting pain!
[slams candle to the ground]


Monks: [chanting] So be it.

Posted by: jwest at November 30, 2012 09:51 AM (ZDsRL)

319

Oh, and that awful man called a Sandra of Arc a bad name

This one sails over my pointy, little head.

Posted by: fluffy at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (3SvjA)

320 Democrats can convince educated women that Republicans want to control their reproductive organs but we can't convince 51% of the people that Obama is a dangerous socialist. Amazing.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (jUytm)

321 Totally agree with the opening statement.

As a side, pro-choice Republicans aren't "afraid" of Planned Parenthood, so the people saying they're fake Republicans or whatever can set their strawmen aside. I know several pro-choice Republicans, and all of them support defunding the shit out of PP.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (fXInK)

322

This post just highlights why the United States was formed as a Constitutional Republic.  The only (legitimate) purpose of government is to make laws and regulations by which people could live in harmony.  I assume our founders and the writer's of the constitution dilluted the federal government's powers and deferred to state governments except in specific circumstances because that provided for regional philosphosical (moral, whatever) differences which allowed persons of similar feather to flock together.  "States rights" wasn't just about slavery no matter what the progressive caucus claims--it probably had more to do with religious differences than any other one thing. 

 

That being said and the true intent having been stuck to, the national level republican candidate wouldn't have to take a stand on abortion, capital punishment,  or any other non-enumerated position one way or the other.  Of course, the national level republican candidate would have far less "power".  However, ridicule him all you want, but it is within the federal Constitutional framework (can't speak to New York Constitutional law) for Mayor Bloomberg to proscribe the size of a soft drink at his least favored constituents' place of business.  If his constituents don't like it, they should vote him out.  If they don't vote him out, then they must accept it.  And I support their right to be stupid.  Same goes for California (where i currently and woefully reside).  On the federal level, California and New York make up a ridiculous amount of the electorate so we're going to get federal laws that reflect their version of morality.  That's what the U.S. Constitution was supposed to prevent. 

 

The Republican Party has backed itself into this corner by slowly surrendering the field in return for more political power.  By accepting Federal supremacy on every issue that is put in front of them, they have sold out the states and populations they were supposed to be representing.

 

In summary, let it burn.  Many great nations have been built on the ashes of the ones that went before.

 

Posted by: SpasticToad at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (Zewfw)

323 I'd rather be right on this one issue and lose every election. I would at least be able to say I am intellectually consistent, which is in stark contrast to what you propose. Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 02:46 PM (sbV1u) _______________ Aren't you morally obligated to do what you can? This is akin to washing your hands of it.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (r2PLg)

324 Here are your options:Akin: no abortions evermoderate GOP: wants a few abortionsDemocrat: wants a gazillion abortionsEach time you nominate Akin you get the Democrat elected.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:51 PM (HDgX3)



Seems that Scotty Brown and Romney didn't win despite their spottiness on abortion.  That's also socons fault, though, right?

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (R8Rbc)

325 Entitlement reform doesn't "cut ice" with anyone either. Doesn't mean that it's not true or that we should give up on it.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 09:52 AM (LmyR7)

326 "A woman's body won't get pregnant if she's REALLY raped," is not a socon belief. It's the belief of an imbecile.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (H84UO)

327

@301

 

But, since we are deep philosophising at this point, why not?

 

That is what is the difference in me taking a newborn, putting a .45 to its head and pulling the trigger and using a scalpel and vaccum to remove the contents of its cranium a mere three weeks earlier?

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (t06LC)

328 288 Jolly Roger,

Amen, we're kissing a corpse.

It's unGodly.

I failed, I quit the academy too early and in ceding that battlefield I allow Billy Lenin Ayers to steal kids.

I have to face God on that point and I do not look forward to the rebuke.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (LRFds)

329 "Maybe people -- maybe even liberals -- can start to take seriously the idea that respecting a fellow citizen's freedom to choose and freedom to live by his own moral code is even more important than the critical issue of Big Gulps."

Nope. Liberals are religious cult that is forever moving Forward™, which necessarily means imposing their will on the non-believers. The hippies have won, and their prize is a majority coalition of perpetual children demanding that everyone else bend to their whims because, FAIRNESS.

Posted by: holygoat at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (XnwWl)

330 259 3-5 years? some of you fake socons are soft on murder. Death penalty. Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 02:42 PM

When a fetus busts into a house, tortures and rapes the residents, then burns the house down to hide the crimes, then I'll consider the leftist so called argument of "You're pro life but you support the Death Penalty, hypocrites!!11!! "

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (wwsoB)

331 Here are your options:Akin: no abortions ever moderate GOP: wants a few abortions  Democrat: wants a gazillion abortions  Each time you nominate Akin you get the Democrat elected. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:51 PM (HDgX3)

So be it.

I don't believe in murder because you want to win an election.

I'm sorry that you can't see why that's a good thing.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (sbV1u)

332 $1.6 trillion in tax hikes and we can't even cut a program like this: "Feds: $100k to teach teen girls 'condom negotiation'" Truce! Truce! Let's just move on.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (jUytm)

333 >>> If the unborn are persons they have rights. but that's the question. Yes, life begins at conception. Obviously, it's life. However, it's not obviously a person. When a fertilized egg is literally 16 cells, is that a full person? We know, statistically, a lot of these very very early fertilized eggs fail to implant, and get flushed out of the body, to *die.* Does anyone ever have a rally to remember all the naturally-aborted 16-cell embryos? No, you don't. No one does. You don't, no one does. This is the problem with insisting it's "obviously a full person." If it were obviously a full person you'd be grieving over the yearly holocaust of millions of dead "persons" by failure to implant. But you *don't*, because you don't actually consider such a thing an actual person. You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolic funerals.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (LCRYB)

334 abortionsDemocrat: wants a gazillion abortionsEach time you nominate Akin you get the Democrat elected.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:51 PM (HDgX3)

 

This is easy to test. Promote more pro-choice Rs. Let me know how that works out for you. I'll vote D, because at least they admit to being my enemy, so they can't be guilty of betraying me.

 

I won't reward betrayal. I'll even suffer to punish it.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (OQpzc)

335

It's usually taken as a truth -- an assumed, usually-unstated truth, but a truth nonetheless -- that those genuinely concerned with some social ill will naturally support state action to combat it, and those who do not support such state action must either be 1, not terribly concerned about the issue at all, or 2, actually lying in their claim to have any moral objection to the ill, claiming to be "personally" opposed to the ill in question while arguing against laws in the matter in a transparent have-it-both-ways political dodge.

What happens when "state action" is ITSELF the social ill in question?

Posted by: Phinn at November 30, 2012 09:53 AM (oFH2D)

336 >>>So you are saying--O'Donnell is especially "talented"? We would have known but for Will Folk's sacred honor. SO CLOSE!

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 09:54 AM (csi6Y)

337 If a deal cut actually the Federal deficit in half in the next 4 years (8 trillion dollars)...I'd sign on to direct Federal Funding of whatever Obama wants. I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep over it either...because 330+M people would be incredibly better off in 4 years...and there'd be so much Federal tax collection, they wouldn't even be able to spend it fast enough - even at lower rates.

I guess that's a benefit...er..., side effect of never being exposed to religion as a youth. Idk. I can't think of any issue more important to the entire country than getting out of this debt nightmare.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 02:51 PM (hNXHo)



Then I view you as completely morally bankrupt. That may be brutally honest, but it's what I think. If you're ok with trading the murder of  (how many millions of children now? and into the future?) children in exchange for economic policy...well...I have no use for you.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 09:54 AM (da5Wo)

338

Also, I'm pro-death penalty.

 

In theory, some people need killin.

 

In practice, you're fucking insane and dangerous if you think the government is compitent and capable enough to correctly determine whom.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:54 AM (TULs6)

339 ....."and since none of us can really know what God wants, it isn't right for me to impose my beliefs about this on others....."

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2012 02:42 PM (NYnoe)

Traditionally, Christians get their information from what God wants from the Bible. It's available free on-line.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 09:54 AM (BoE3Z)

340 Aren't you morally obligated to do what you can?  Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 02:52 PM (r2PLg)

I am, and I do.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:54 AM (sbV1u)

341

It seems to me like the Republican Party is imploding. you have 1 group telling everyone we must support amnesty in order to get votes from some previously undetected sooper secret bloc of voters and now you have another group telling everyone that we have to abandon being pro-life in order to get votes from another previously undetected sooper secret bloc.

 

I understand that this past election has left a lot of people scratching their heads, but encouraging folks to abandon their principles or core values in order to possibly attract a few votes is not an effective strategy.

Posted by: DaveinNC at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (boNGU)

342 So if your wife kills your kid tonight, you won't make a peep? You'll have to forgive me - I'm evil and don't like murder. Seriously? In a world of Kermit Gosnells and Margaret Sangers, I'm pure evil? Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 02:47 PM (sgNEe) It's hard to explain how fiercely you love a special needs child. I guess I don't understad your question.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (q177U)

343 >>>You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolic funerals. No sarcasm - I haven't thought about it this way.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (csi6Y)

344

Death penalty or at least life in prison for any woman seeking an abortion? Why not?! It's conspiracy to murder/accessory to murder/solicitation to murder, right?


Ah, absolutism, the last refuge of a libertarian. 

Just fucking with you ace.  As you or someone else noted above, we can take into account the mental state of the perpetrator.  We do it all the time.  Sometimes even to EXCUSE premeditated murder of an born human being.  3-5 is too much for me, even.  But for the MD butchers?

20 - 25.  I'd actually like them to get out, just so they can regret all they have missed out on.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (UaxA0)

345 Nope. Liberals are religious cult that is forever moving Forward™, which necessarily means imposing their will on the non-believers. The hippies have won, and their prize is a majority coalition of perpetual children demanding that everyone else bend to their whims because, FAIRNESS.

Posted by: holygoat at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (XnwWl)




The protest over fast food employees' wages is called Fast Food FOWARD. Gee, I wonder where they got that from

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (1Jaio)

346 I think the Nov. 6th election shows that, for now, traditional Western Christendom morality is waning.  Between the Free Shit Alliance and the Abortion "rights" mentality, the country is going down the rabbit hole.  Do not expect the GOP to go all Libertarian on the abortion issue.  If they do, they go the way of the Federalists and the Whigs.

Things will get worse before they get better.

"Miseries and disasters will be seen in 2013"


Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (V70Uh)

347 The other point here is that Romney's fiscon gaffe wasn't enormously and measurably and immediately damaging in the way that Akin and Mourdock's socon gaffes were. It damaged his presidential run more than Akin or Mourdock did.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (sgNEe)

348 OK, what's the exact right sentence for abortion/murder Mega?

Huh? There is no "exact right sentence" for abortion. It's legal.

Posted by: The Mega Independent[/i] at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (tbn20)

349 301 Ace,

My personal truce was I would not counsel my wife or girlfriends' to get one and I would pay for my sex partner's if it came to be and I accepted the logic of their choice.

I am now party to baby butchery.

They broke the deal like Ms. Fluck and Birth control pills.

Like I said letting go gets easier every year.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (LRFds)

350 I don't understand why socons are the last bastion of the plainly stupid in the Republican party. Sure, there are Boehners and McCains and Grahams out there, but they are at least clever enough to score points here and there. But Akin O'Donnell et. al. can't get the morning paper without stepping on their dick first.

Too many SoCons are cheap dates.  If running in a socially conservative district, you just speak louder and more often about God and abortion than your opponent, and bam- instant nomination.

That you might be a dunce who frequently steps on his dick and isn't particularly conservative in other respects doesn't matter.  Nor does it matter if your opponent is also a pro-life Christian opposed to gay marriage.

The result is they don't get enough scrutiny in the primaries because only a heathen baby killing sodomite RINO would dare question the SoCon model of the True Conservative.

SoCons aren't necessarily any dumber or less fiscally conservative, it's that bad SoCon candidates have an easier time getting nominated in SoCon districts.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2012 09:55 AM (SY2Kh)

351 Traditionally, Christians get their information from what God wants from the Bible. It's available free on-line.  Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 02:54 PM (BoE3Z)

^5

Damn!  I am finding out today that some of you mouth-breathing-knuckle-dragging-cousin-humping-socon-neathderthals like me are damn funny.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (sbV1u)

352 liberals talk about Equality, conservatives talk about Liberty, but i've never really agreed with the reduction of conservatism to generic anti-statism that it seems like a lot of people engage in.

generic "pro-freedom" talk detached from any discussion of right and wrong doesn't mean much to me

Posted by: JDP at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (60GaT)

353 >>I'm not a socon. I guess I'm a paleolibertarian fiscon. My basic position on most issues comes down to "My lawn. Get off of it." I'm perfectly happy to have socons standing prominently within the party. And I think it's possible to defend even seriously maximalist socon views, such as no abortions under any circumstances ever, in language that doesn't lose elections for the rest of the party. The thing which makes me just give up in horrified frustration and hook up a Val-U-Rite intravenous drip is that many socons don't think they are under any obligation to the rest of the party to thus develop and cultivate and test their messaging skills.<<

Posted by: Deety at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (QG3g9)

354 339 Tubal,

Yeah and I don't see 'kill your babies" anywhere in it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (LRFds)

355 Hey, here's an idea, amnesty all the Hispanics and then abort all their children on the taxpayer dime! We could give death row inmates abortion licenses and set them free doing the work of the state!

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (7vSU0)

356 >>>In practice, you're fucking insane and dangerous if you think the government is compitent and capable enough to correctly determine whom. The government also locks people up for the rest of their natural born lives, sunbeam. Some consider that a fate worse than death.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (csi6Y)

357 311

In Akin's case, that is true.  He turned a double digit win into a double digit loss with that idiocy.

In Mourdock's case, even before the rape comment, he was barely up in the public polls.  That is because the pro-Lugar people were sitting on their hands and not helping out.  It could be that his rape snafu was the deciding push, but he was not leading big in any reputable poll before that comment.

Posted by: Chris P at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (LuvqF)

358 I know several pro-choice Republicans, and all of them support defunding the shit out of PP.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 30, 2012 02:52 PM (fXInK)

 

So, they are rich enough to afford their own baby killing. What totally moral icons.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (OQpzc)

359 "I'm becoming more and more uncomfortable with the way politics works -- that one group assembles a temporary majority, and then does its best to start Makin' Some Laws largely to demonstrate hostility to the values of the losing coalition. It's might be the case that people will always do this, and there's no sense in even arguing against it." Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM Oddly enough Rush is speaking about "core values" now. Anyway, you hear that someone else will try to control your healthcare and you don't believe it and then you find out it's either going to be a government law or a largely bureaucratic health care company. Sort of like choosing between a rock and a hard place. So you then find out your doctor, still paying off his student loans at 40, has decided to stop practicing medicine. He says it's because he "wants to teach" but everyone really knows it's because, under obamacare, you're going to make more money teaching and he realizes this and wants to get his "foot in the door". A casualty of obamacare. But we never believed that obamacare would pass, right? We sent cards and letters and were sure they'd hear us. Instead they insulted us by passing it on Christmas eve. Everyday Drudge has another "democratic law maker" suggesting another way to curtail our personal freedoms. But, they're not going to do that, right?

Posted by: Caustic at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (/b8+5)

360 If abortion is really murder as in KILLING BABIES, why isn't this the top priority of the pro-lifers? Shouldn't all these women go to jail, or face the death penalty?

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 09:56 AM (t1NLo)

361 Fact: All the pro-choice Republicans who want to drop the abortion issue want to completely drop it. As in never speak of it again. As in ever. Not for Planned Parenthood funding, not for anything. They don't want it discussed at all.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (jUytm)

362 "That is what is the difference in me taking a newborn, putting a .45 to its head and pulling the trigger and using a scalpel and vaccum to remove the contents of its cranium a mere three weeks earlier?"

Trick question. It's a strawman!

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (fXInK)

363

The majority of today's American women will vote to  be  allowed  to  avoid the inconvenience of carrying a baby, even just to allow it to be adopted.

 

 

And their convenience is what the argument is about from their perspective. They couldn't care less if they are killing an innocent. Their other arguments are excuses to cover for this truth.

Posted by: Meremortal, pass the dynamite cause the fuse is lit at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (jTKU5)

364 Seems that Scotty Brown and Romney didn't win despite their spottiness on abortion. That's also socons fault, though, right?

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 02:52 PM (R8Rbc)

_________________________________________________

The entire GOP brand was tarnished by Akin and Co. Anyone with an R next to their name was associated with Akin. Rightly or wrongly, when people heard Republican, they heard AKIN.

The right mocked the DNC for being 4 days of non-stop abortion. But it worked brilliantly.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (HDgX3)

365 I don't know. anything short of the death penalty for murder seems soft on crime/ pro murder.

Posted by: PR at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (KHo8t)

366 There have always been a significant number of pro-abortion Republicans ("pro-choice" is BS, 100%) - in fact, before Roe v Wade they were probably a majority in the party.  There is still a significant minority of our voters who are pro-abortion.  The point is moot.

The activists who stuff envelopes, ring doorbells, and volunteer for primary campaigns are overwhelmingly pro-life.  That's just the fact.  If the pro-abortion folks like Toensing and others want to play, they have to get their manicured hands dirty in the field.  Sitting at the Cosmo Bar and whining about it just doesn't cut it.

Posted by: Adjoran at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (ZHQvg)

367

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (LCRYB)

 

Work backwards with a newborn and tell me when its changes from something to nothing.

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (m2CN7)

368 If abortion is really murder as in KILLING BABIES, why isn't this the top priority of the pro-lifers?

Shouldn't all these women go to jail, or face the death penalty?

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 02:56 PM (t1NLo)




You're mother should go to jail for having you

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 09:57 AM (1Jaio)

369 your not you're

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (1Jaio)

370

@333

 

Maybe, but at that point is it all a line drawing exercise? Or by throwing any sembalence of morality towards political expediency, do we risk creating a situation as found in most communist countries where life is cheap and thus all freedoms less assured?

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (t06LC)

371 SoCons aren't necessarily any dumber or less fiscally conservative, it's that bad SoCon candidates have an easier time getting nominated in SoCon districts. Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2012 02:55 PM (SY2Kh) So.... Let's have a bunch of candidates that hate SoCons and babies?

Posted by: Golan Globus at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (7vSU0)

372 You guys just don't get. Women (and some men) who are natural Republicans are repulsed by the insane abortion policy by the GOP. And the younger you go the worse this gets. As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the baby for the next 18 years, you will lose election after election. Wake the fuck up.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:38 PM (HDgX3)



No, you son of a bitch, *YOU*  WAKE THE FUCK UP!  The Policies we oppose will eventually collapse the country.  Losing elections simply mean the medicine doesn't get delivered. The Patient is choosing to die, and you need to fucking respect the nation's CHOICE. 


Ethics isn't supposed to be easy. If it's easy, it's usually wrong.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (bb5+k)

373 Too many SoCons are cheap dates. If running in a socially conservative district, you just speak louder and more often about God and abortion than your opponent, and bam- instant nomination.  Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2012 02:55 PM (SY2Kh)

That's it right there.  So few people give a damn about socons outside of election season that when a politico steps up and takes up their cause there is instant swooning.

But seriously, we gotta find some guys to run for office who are a little deeper than the 3-year certificate program at Ouachita Bible College.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (sbV1u)

374 361
Fact: All the pro-choice Republicans who want to drop the abortion issue want to completely drop it. As in never speak of it again. As in ever.

Not for Planned Parenthood funding, not for anything. They don't want it discussed at all.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 02:57 PM (jUytm)

_____________________________________________________

I can't speak for all of them. Speaking for myself, I am pro-choice but I oppose PUBLIC funding of PP.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (HDgX3)

375 351 Sean bannion,

We try.

I am a FiCon with SdoCon leanings.

Demonize the SoCons I walk with them.

God comes first.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (LRFds)

376

"So if your wife kills your kid tonight, you won't make a peep?"

 

Nah, once  a kid is  completely downloaded and gets  a social security number, it  becomes  fully innocent and  worthy  of  protection at all costs.  Before then, it's  kinives out and game on.

Posted by: Jaws at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (4I3Uo)

377 SHould a woman who had an abortion go to jail or get the death penalty?

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (t1NLo)

378 >>>SoCons aren't necessarily any dumber or less fiscally conservative, it's that bad SoCon candidates have an easier time getting nominated in SoCon districts. I have to admit your post rings with me, but why doesn't the same thing happen in districts with other values? Are they just less opinionated than socon districts?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 09:58 AM (csi6Y)

379 Oh we get it. We really do get it.

...and its immoral.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 02:46 PM (sbV1u)

>>

>

>

It's not about the position on abortion, dummy.  It's about the pro-life rhetoric coming out of the GOP that is the issue.  If you like losing elections, that's that's your choice.  Again.  Morality and Politics are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Go consecrate a host or something. 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (T+4DM)

380 Someone take t1NLo out to the woodshed before I get my hands on him.   I don't want to get blood on my clothes.  

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (4df7R)

381 ::::296 >>>You seem to think that a principle isn't a principle unless its holder is enthusiastic about compulsion to obtain it. ::::: If you're still conflating outlawing the killing of unborn babies with regulating the size of Big Gulps, then YES, that's probably exactly what he's saying. Or perhaps the whole "dead babies" thing is the issue and the other bullshit is just a distraction. I look at my four young'uns and it's an easy call. YMMV.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (PFvlM)

382

Unfortunately a lot of this comes down to the simple phrase-

 

Out of sight, out of mind.  

Posted by: polynikes at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (m2CN7)

383 "So, they are rich enough to afford their own baby killing. What totally moral icons."

Attacking pro-choice Republicans from the left? Interesting.

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (fXInK)

384 It's hard to explain how fiercely you love a special needs child. I guess I don't understad your question. If you wouldn't force your wife to carry another special needs child to term, how could you get mad at her for killing your current one? They are both people, at least to us pro-lifers. Why does that make us monstrous or evil?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (PVNda)

385

Ignore the troll, Quietman

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (UaxA0)

386

Entropy, we social conservatives have been working long and hard to change the culture, without much success. We have also been working at the state and local level as well as the federal level, with better success.

 

No, I think you're wrong.

 

Every success you've ever had has been in the culture, and you've never succeeded once in politics and you never will.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 09:59 AM (TULs6)

387 gopstanceon gay marriage, abortion, and drug laws all scream for government regulation of personal decisions. Tell me again how they are the party of liberty?

Posted by: California Red at November 30, 2012 02:38 PM (hbVtd)



Read some damn Edmund Burke for crying out loud.  Practices which affect the rest of us ARE our business.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:00 AM (bb5+k)

388 337 Then I view you as completely morally bankrupt. That may be brutally honest, but it's what I think. If you're ok with trading the murder of (how many millions of children now? and into the future?) children in exchange for economic policy...well...I have no use for you. And this is why I view many SoCons very much with similar inflammatory terms as you want to throw around about me. You'd rather call it murder and blah, blah, blah than find a solution to the *real* problems this country faces. That's cool. No worries. Humans have been killing other humans since there were about 2 or 3 humans. I appreciate the fact that your deity tells you you can fix all that by destroying the Republican Party and taking a "principled stand"...but in case you haven't checked up on current events, this party is dying and/or dead. We/they just got their asses handed to them on a silver platter. I'm glad you feel better at having taken your principled stand and all that, but human nature remains...human nature. When the shit hit the fan and the time was at hand to make "the choice", even Rick Santorum and his wife *did the right fucking thing*. They saved her life. Best of luck!

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:00 AM (hNXHo)

389 "If life begins at conception--duh, where else it would it begin?" There are those who believe a HUMAN life begins when the portion of the brain that supports human-level thought forms, around the third trimester, and that both the "one cell is a human being" and the "it's a clump of tissue until one nanosecond after the head come out of the vulva" camps are friggin' nuts. Because you are.

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 10:00 AM (y4eis)

390 "As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the
baby for the next 18 years"

==========

Who has ever advocated this? Pro-life has never meant anti-adoption.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 10:00 AM (H84UO)

391 Traditionally, Christians get their information from what God wants from the Bible. It's available free on-line.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 02:54 PM (BoE3Z)

 

I got my pro-life position from a sonogram of a 10 week old fetus. God had little to do with it, unless he led me to see it.

 

A lot of y'all's bigotry against religion is showing.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 10:00 AM (OQpzc)

392

 

It takes two people to make a baby, you know.

 

Why all this condemnation of women?

 

For every woman who is contemplating having an abortion...there is a man who hasn't convinced her to have his child.

 

And there are probably more men out there who are 'Pro-Choice' than women.

 

Face it...a lot of men like being able to have sex and walk away from the responsibility of having a child as a result of it.

 

Posted by: wheatie at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (CM59X)

393
Yes, life begins at conception. Obviously, it's life. However, it's not obviously a person. When a fertilized egg is literally 16 cells, is that a full person?

____________________________________

Eh - it's definitely alive and human as it has its own unique DNA.  Maybe that's where the important philosophical point is - legally defining certain as "persons" and others as "not persons" or at least "not persons deserving of life or liberty" has been a bit of a sticky wicket in the history of humanity.  A lot of trouble has been made and blood spilled because we've decided to come down on the "not persons" side of the fence before.

Just saying.

Posted by: Michael Corleone at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (mg08E)

394 Or perhaps the whole "dead babies" thing is the issue and the other bullshit is just a distraction. I look at my four young'uns and it's an easy call. YMMV.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (PFvlM)



DING DING motherfucking DING

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (da5Wo)

395 "Christians get their information from what God wants from the Bible. It's available free on-line. " Not for long. I found Lars Ulrich's points persuasive. Oh, and the fetus becomes a potential person with the quickening, figure about 20 weeks. Don't ask Me why. You wouldn't understand. Masturbatin' Pete might. But he's not been around of late.

Posted by: - God - at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (RuUvx)

396 But you *don't*, because you don't actually consider such a thing an actual person. You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolic funerals.  Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (LCRYB)

Nice argument, Ace.

You left out the part where the death of the embryo is a natural process unaided by man as opposed to someone injecting it with saline solution or piercing its skull and then sucking out its brains.

But yeah, other than that flaw you're spot on.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (sbV1u)

397 377 HoeLaf,

I suggest castrating or genitally mutilating the provider first.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (LRFds)

398
Go consecrate a host or something. Posted by: Reggie Dwight


Nothing like a little anti-Catholic bigotry for lunch.  Mmmmm, tasty!

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:01 AM (UaxA0)

399 i think it's evil to make healthcare professionals kill babies in utero if it's early enough for some sort of abortifacient, go ahead lady. we'll see you for post-care What are we DOING to our nurses and doctors?!?!

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 30, 2012 10:02 AM (F+ZCA)

400

Morality and Politics are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

 

No they aren't.   They need not be mutually INCLUSIVE, but    if you don't want a moral politician, then you're a dumbfuck loony.    Or an Obama supporter.  BIRM.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 10:02 AM (4df7R)

401
Some of you so-cons are pure evil.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 02:39 PM (q177U)



And apparently you are unfamiliar with tubal ligation or vasectomy?




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:02 AM (bb5+k)

402 396 Sean Bannion,

Maybe, I carry the pain of ~10 miscarriages since I can only have one child with my wife evidently.

I am an ogre?

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:02 AM (LRFds)

403 Go consecrate a host or something.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (T+4DM)




Took a few seconds away from the glory hole to write that little gem did you?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 10:03 AM (1Jaio)

404 Abortion makes me hard.  Not that there's much there to get hard, but what little there is gets stiff.

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 10:03 AM (/YJYi)

405 So....

Let's have a bunch of candidates that hate SoCons and babies?


Clearly you missed the point, which is that candidates need to be judged as a whole.  Not solely based on their dedication to a few social issues.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2012 10:03 AM (SY2Kh)

406 360 If abortion is really murder as in KILLING BABIES, why isn't this the top priority of the pro-lifers?

Shouldn't all these women go to jail, or face the death penalty?

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 02:56 PM (t1NLo)



Why on earth would anyone ever want to prosecute a scared young woman who has been abandoned by her family, or her boyfriend, for doing what society is pressuring her to do?



No, seriously.  You murderous jackoffs are complicit in bloodshed with all this yammering.  The folks I want punished are the men and women who deceive the people, coaxing them into making decisions that destroy both the woman and the infant.



The women are victims of the Sangers, Gosnells, Tillers, and Obamas of the world.  The Pelosis, the Reids, and the Flukes.


Those are the ones who should be held responsible.  Eventually, they will be, if not on this earth then when they go to meet the Lord, they're gonna be shocked to find out that he's incensed with them.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 10:03 AM (R8Rbc)

407 Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 03:00 PM (hNXHo)




Congratulations! You've been selected as a finalist for the OZFIC award! Traditionally given to the commenter making the stupidest comment. You have an early lead, but stay strong and don't let up.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 10:03 AM (da5Wo)

408

Thanks for sharing your story sven, not easy but a good point.

 

When I was in high school, I thought I got my girlfriend pregnant, and we had the talk. I was supportive, but part of me wanted her to abort. I lived in a small town, I wanted to go to college, and I didn't want to tell my family (or hers) how I let them down.

The truth was it was cowardice on my part. Nothing more, just wanting an easy way out for what I had done. It turned out to be a false alarm, but when I saw the sonogram of my daughter for the first time, I then realized the gravity of what I had contimplated those years before. Since then, I am pro-life.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (t06LC)

409 As I've always said: in the soiled linen closet, out of mind.

Posted by: Barack Obama at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (H84UO)

410 Go consecrate a host or something. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (T+4DM)

Nice counter.

How many brain cells you expend on that?

You never get them back once they're dead you know.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (sbV1u)

411 So, what's the difference between a tyranny in which a single person makes all the decisions regarding the affairs of State for his/her own personal self-aggrandizement and a democracy in which the voters vote for their own self-interest, regardless of the long-term best interests of the nation?

Nothing.  Democracy decays.

Welcome to Idiocracy.

Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (V70Uh)

412 393 BC1981,

add in the fact that the Brit NHS is living up to every fear and sale I made on its amoral evil....

They are arguing a toddler is not a human for fuck's sakes.

I am arguing with myself not to declare Holy war on them.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (LRFds)

413 I keep hearing of these phantom voters who would flood the GOP with votes if they just lightened up on the social issues

You know, "my friend the college educated yuppie in Petaluma was going to consider voting GOP, until that monster Rush Limbaugh committed that atrocity against all women", that type

How many do you know who actually switched over to GOP when a social moderate ran?

Clownifornia is loaded with socially liberal Republicans. They switched so many Californians over that the Dems have a supermajority assembly and senate, the governor's seat, loads of congressmen, two senators, and every dipshit proposition approved. This in a state that's going tits up economically

So tell me where all those who are dying to vote GOP but the socons turn them off are coming from?

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (wwsoB)

414

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 02:50 PM (TULs6)

__

I am pragmatic when it comes to presenting the pro-life view to the larger community. I don't even hold to the theory that life begins at conception.

 

I was merely addressing a common misconception that you voiced - that somehow, now because abortion is "safe and legal", the way NARAL promised it would be - that the good guy/abortion cops would be at the ready, willing to spring into action once it became clear that applicable laws were being broken and women were suffering grave physical injuries.

 

And speaking of a push to accept rape exceptions, - which I also support:

 

Where is the push from the pro-choice contingent to address the very real issue of maternal deaths due to abortion? Where is the push from the NARAL cohort to expose the breast cancer/abortion connection, or the psychological aftereffects that aborted women frequently suffer? I thought it was all about women's health.

 

I think the pro-life position is better presented by female politicians who express their concerns with the aftereffects of abortion on the women who undergo them, sometimes as a result of coercion from family members. IOW it really isn't their choice.

 

Why was it your immediate assumption that I am a no-exception pro-lifer? The DA and his staff who prosecuted Gosnell are all committed pro-choicers. I was merely presenting an instance of how the systemic safeguards put in place were willfully disregarded to horrific consequence.

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (jm/9g)

415

When the shit hit the fan and the time was at hand to make "the choice", even Rick Santorum and his wife *did the right fucking thing*. They saved her life.

Best of luck! Posted by: Rob McNeece



There is no recognizable mainstream Christian doctrine that says you cannot have an abortion to save teh LIFE of the mother.

It's this squishy "health" shit that causes the late term infanticide.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:04 AM (UaxA0)

416

Socons, did Jesus insist upon, or even advocate for, governments to pass laws prohibiting immoral things?

 

Was that his focus?

 

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (Hd5n8)

417 340 Aren't you morally obligated to do what you can? Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 02:52 PM (r2PLg) I am, and I do. Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 02:54 PM (sbV1u) _________________________ Well I think what some people are saying is that Republican candidates should stop falling into the trap of debating the Pro-abortion "exception traps." George Bush won, Akin lost. they probably both believed the same things.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (r2PLg)

418 Had Akin not said the idiotic shit he said, GOP would have 2-3 more senate seats today. Pro-lifers have no idea how much damage he did.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:41 PM (HDgX3)


I have a very good idea of how much damage he did. He and Mourdock may very well have cost those seats AND the Presidential election. I simply cannot believe they were so stupid to answer that question in that manner, even if they themselves believed it. It was a massive unforced error.  TWICE!!!!






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (bb5+k)

419 "Eventually, they will be, if not on this earth then when they go to meet the Lord, they're gonna be shocked to find out that he's incensed with them."

So I guess we can drop the issue then?

Posted by: WAGOPinTX at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (fXInK)

420 If you wouldn't force your wife to carry another special needs child to term, how could you get mad at her for killing your current one? They are both people, at least to us pro-lifers. Why does that make us monstrous or evil? Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (PVNda) That doesn't make any sense to me, sorry. For the record it was wrong for me to use the term "pure evil" I was pissed off. I apologize. It's hard to explain the pain of raising a child with a terminal illness. Forcing someone to do this against their will is morally wrong.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (q177U)

421 "If the unborn are persons they have rights. but that's the question." See, Ace, you are confusing a necessary factor for a sufficient one. Yes, personhood implies rights, but rights do not imply personhood. For example, we all agree that newborns should not be mistreated and deserve certain protections, but nobody could really make the argument that a newborn is a "person" anymore than an elephant is a "person". The question isn't "is it a person". The question is "does it deserve the same protections as other humans?" The answer is pretty damn obvious when you really think about it.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (wsGWu)

422

The government also locks people up for the rest of their natural born lives, sunbeam. Some consider that a fate worse than death.

Then why don't they kill themselves?

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (TULs6)

423 More Americans think abortion is wrong than think it's right. People are starting to realize that civilized societies don't murder their young in the womb. It's starting to make them uncomfortable. Of course our brilliant law makers have not yet realized that the simple solution is to fund birth control for every woman. I know you don't want to hear that but if every woman gets free birth control then there will be fewer infants to abort. The first Republican who comes out with this will be the smart one. Cause right now, more people are changing their previous republican voter registration to independent as they don't want to be part of a party who doesn't know how to communicate and doesn't care to win elections.

Posted by: Caustic at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (/b8+5)

424

 

Legalize beastiality!  If my mom hadn't had sex with that poodle, I wouldn't have been born!

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (ggRof)

425 Remember that Kermit Gosnell psychopath in PA who ran an abortion clinic? Me,too. He is the poster-man of why I will never go pro-choice. Fetus' feet in his freezer and on shelves.

I am pro-life for innocent babies. I am pro-death for murdering serial killers or rapists/pedophiles. #HoneyBadger

Posted by: ChristyBlinky, raving lunatic about Benghazi at November 30, 2012 10:05 AM (baL2B)

426 This is an issue for Federalism and States Rights. That the Roe decision made it a Federal matter is why there is such unrest. I think the court believed that, like Brown vs Board, the country would eventually acquiesce in this usurpation. Plainly, we have not.

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (QupBk)

427 If the unborn are persons they have rights.

but that's the question.

Yes, life begins at conception. Obviously, it's life. However, it's not obviously a person. When a fertilized egg is literally 16 cells, is that a full person?

We know, statistically, a lot of these very very early fertilized eggs fail to implant, and get flushed out of the body, to *die.*

Does anyone ever have a rally to remember all the naturally-aborted 16-cell embryos?

No, you don't. No one does. You don't, no one does. This is the problem with insisting it's "obviously a full person." If it were obviously a full person you'd be grieving over the yearly holocaust of millions of dead "persons" by failure to implant. But you *don't*, because you don't actually consider such a thing an actual person. You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolic funerals.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (LCRYB

 

 

Most people are not remembered for long after death. Many do not receive funerals. That doesn't make them non-human.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (iK4hL)

428

Ace:

So where do you stand on mug-nutting laws?

Posted by: Matt at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (90w0O)

429 ::::No, you don't. No one does. You don't, no one does. This is the problem with insisting it's "obviously a full person." If it were obviously a full person you'd be grieving over the yearly holocaust of millions of dead "persons" by failure to implant. But you *don't*, because you don't actually consider such a thing an actual person. You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolic funerals. :::: Wow. Just... Wow. Okay, Dr. Science. When does it change from "life" to "Person?" Show your work.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (PFvlM)

430 407 Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 03:00 PM (hNXHo) Congratulations! You've been selected as a finalist for the OZFIC award! Traditionally given to the commenter making the stupidest comment. You have an early lead, but stay strong and don't let up. I appreciate the fact that we need to fight the progressive left with every ounce of strength we possess - but when you adopt their tactics to attack and demean folks like myself (enemy of your enemy, no?) - you're just playing their fucking game, man. And they laugh...and they laugh...and they laugh all the way to the ballot box for 4 more years. Who won?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (hNXHo)

431 408 Jolly Roger,

I learned a lot from that man. Wife aborted our first pregnancy b/c it was a tubal and she has a malformed uterus as it turns out. I owe that gentleman my soul perhaps literally.

Logic is a tool, the moral calls are God's IMHO.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (LRFds)

432 No, you don't. No one does. You don't, no one does. This is the problem with insisting it's "obviously a full person." If it were obviously a full person you'd be grieving over the yearly holocaust of millions of dead "persons" by failure to implant. But you *don't*, because you don't actually consider such a thing an actual person. You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolicarrc funerals.  Clearly you've never seen a woman weep over a chemical pregnancy. I have, and nearly all of those weeping women were prochoice. You're showing your ignorance of the pain of miscarriage.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (LmyR7)

433 >>>You left out the part where the death of the embryo is a natural process unaided by man as opposed to someone injecting it with saline solution or piercing its skull and then sucking out its brains. Maybe you missed the point that the stage of life ace is talking about doesn't even have a skull.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (csi6Y)

434 If government didn't pay for stuff, abortion wouldn't be an issue, let women pay for abortions themselves and with their own conscience.  As for drugs, it isn't as just affecting the person who does drugs if they steal to support their habit.  

Posted by: Deli LLama at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (lGu1O)

435 Nice argument, Ace.

You left out the part where the death of the embryo is a natural process unaided by man as opposed to someone injecting it with saline solution or piercing its skull and then sucking out its brains.

But yeah, other than that flaw you're spot on.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 03:01 PM (sbV1u)



If my wife and I found out that she had several pregnancies that naturally aborted/terminated we would be heartbroken. Those were our children that we never got the privilege to know. And yeah, we've had that exact convo before.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 10:06 AM (da5Wo)

436

Some of those people who get locked up for their entire natural born lives actually get out after just 30 years because we find proof of their innocence.

 

But the ones we execute aren't ressurected.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:07 AM (TULs6)

437 >>Or perhaps the whole "dead babies" thing is the
issue and the other bullshit is just a distraction. I look at my four
young'uns and it's an easy call. YMMV.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (PFvlM)


DING DING motherfucking DING

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 03:01 PM (da5Wo)



I've always said that while a serious moral question, it's a political strawdog.

The lefty welfare queens ARE BEING PAID to have their babies.


And this incredible rash of rape pregnancies seems to have some suspicious timing..

Posted by: ontherocks at November 30, 2012 10:07 AM (aZ6ew)

438 Socons, did Jesus insist upon, or even advocate for, governments to pass laws prohibiting immoral things? Yes, and He also stayed at a Holiday Inn, once.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 10:07 AM (jUytm)

439 Is Gosnell even in custody or under indictment

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 10:07 AM (ilc7b)

440 "It's hard to explain the pain of raising a child with a terminal illness. Forcing someone to do this against their will is morally wrong." Don't raise it mother fucker. Give it up for adoption. What's worse, raising a special needs kid or fucking murdering a special needs kid? Don't zero in on one issue. You have to actually balance the alternative.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (wsGWu)

441 This is easy to test. Promote more pro-choice Rs. Let me know how that works out for you. I'll vote D, because at least they admit to being my enemy, so they can't be guilty of betraying me.

I won't reward betrayal. I'll even suffer to punish it.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (OQpzc)



LOL!!!!!

All thread you've been hard core pro-life kill any who disagree with you.  Now you're threatening to vote Dem?  LOL!!!!

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (X/+QT)

442 And apparently you are unfamiliar with tubal ligation or vasectomy? Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 03:02 PM (bb5+k) Already DONE fuck-stick. The second child scenario was a hypothetical.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (q177U)

443 >>>Shouldn't all these women go to jail, or face the death penalty? Let me respond this way, a mother who kills her child right after birth, how is her action substantively different than the one who does it right before birth?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (oZ6hC)

444

As mentioned above, SoCons continue to nominate flawed candidates because the flawed candidates are always the only ones who even make mention of what SoCons find most valuable: namely family, morality and the home.   GOOD    candidates who may have SoCon predilections       stay away from SoCon topics because they   feel they'll be demonized and kicked to the curb by their own   party.  And they're right.  That's why the ONLY SoCon candidates are BAD candidates; because the   FiCon candidates who hold SoCon views keep them shut up like    t1NLo's     closeted    homosexuality.  

 

Instead of treating SoCon's like the "black sheep" of the conservative family,    if a few more candidates would simply and clearly articulate    not only their FiCon bona fides, but also that they don't find SoCon's to be anathema, maybe -- JUST maybe -- we wouldn't constantly be fighting this useless internescine war.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (4df7R)

445 Anyone here read David Goldman's "Why Civilizations Die?"

They fail to reproduce.

Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 02:43 PM (V70Uh)




This is my constant point. Nature decides who wins, not some transient morality which is contemporaneously popular for a time.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (bb5+k)

446 Socons, did Jesus insist upon, or even advocate for, governments to pass laws prohibiting immoral things?

Was that his focus?

_____________________________


Since the Torah consisted of law books which were enforced by the state, as the religious and state authorities were essentially the same, and he did not come to "abolish the law," I'd say he was for the status quo. 

Posted by: Michael Corleone at November 30, 2012 10:08 AM (mg08E)

447 "And this incredible rash of rape pregnancies seems to have some suspicious timing.."
===============

That's nothing. Just imagine the sudden epidemic of rape that would blow up if abortion were outlawed with rape exceptions.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 10:09 AM (H84UO)

448 Okay, Dr. Science. When does it change from "life" to "Person?" When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up.

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 10:09 AM (y4eis)

449 When someone's "friend" tells them they'd consider voting Republican if only ...

They're telling you they'd vote Republican if only the GOP candidate was virtually a Democrat

Posted by: kbdabear at November 30, 2012 10:09 AM (wwsoB)

450 "I keep hearing of these phantom voters who would flood the GOP with votes if they just lightened up on the social issues"

I agree - this is BS, Lucy holding the football for the GOP Charlie Brown.


Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 30, 2012 10:09 AM (zpqa2)

451

It's very presumptuous of me, but I do not think that on judgment day, the lord will be at all concerned with what laws you sought to have the government pass.  He will want to know what you (not the government) did.

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 10:09 AM (Hd5n8)

452
LOL!!!!!All thread you've been hard core pro-life kill any who disagree with you. Now you're threatening to vote Dem? LOL!!!!

Posted by: Tonic Dog at November 30, 2012 03:08 PM (X/+QT)



It's an assertion made in the heat of anger.  The intent was to express that this country is going to hell and it is increasingly obvious that it should.


Tl;DR, Let it burn.  Or make it burn.  One of the two.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 10:10 AM (R8Rbc)

453
412 393 BC1981,

add in the fact that the Brit NHS is living up to every fear and sale I made on its amoral evil....

They are arguing a toddler is not a human for fuck's sakes.

I am arguing with myself not to declare Holy war on them.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 03:04 PM (LRFds)



I thought abortion was the most gruesome, vile thing I'd heard of. Then I saw that story. I can't even read it, I've just seen commenters talking about it. Just the thought....

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 10:10 AM (da5Wo)

454 Socons, did Jesus insist upon, or even advocate for, governments to pass laws prohibiting immoral things? Would Jesus vote for Obama?

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 10:10 AM (jUytm)

455 416 Brian,

You are arguing that the Gaia Watermelon marx cult gets to legislate their morals and I must as a Christian in a free nation cede mine.

Good luck with that argument.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:10 AM (LRFds)

456

A politician MAY possess morality, but it has nothing to do with his ability to be a successful politician.  Clinton was a very successful politician.  What was the source of his political success?  Morality?  Get real.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 10:10 AM (T+4DM)

457 >>>You left out the part where the death of the embryo is a natural process unaided by man as opposed to someone injecting it with saline solution or piercing its skull and then sucking out its brains. >>>But yeah, other than that flaw you're spot on. Dead is dead and a person is a person. Do you only attend the funerals of murder victims? No, you don't, you grieve any death connected to you, whether natural or accidental or murder. I put it to your that your rhetoric is that a 16 cell egg is a "full person" but your actual moral sentiment disagrees with that sharply, because I see you here contriving reasons why, in your day to day life, you should not, in fact, treat some "persons' deaths" like any other person's death. You say, "Wouldn't you convict someone of murder for killing a ten week old baby?" Yes. But let me put it the other way: "How many funerals have you held for spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs?" Zero, it seems. If you don't actually treat such "persons" as actual "persons" -- and persons get funerals when they die -- then your actual moral sentiment is not, in fact, informing you these are actually full persons in all ways. You can't really say "obviously these are full persons in all ways and should be treated as such" if you yourself are acting contrary to that. You are taking an abstract rhetorical claim and attempting to reify it, to claim it's actually real, and it's real for all purposes. But the reification is incomplete -- you're not actually behaving as if you believe the claim you're making. And yes, as polynikes says, part of this is out of sight, out of mind. But that's where people's moral sentiments line up-- it is much easier to have a strong moral sentiment about something visible and tangible (a five week old baby) than something invisible and not really existing in any tangible way in the real world (a 16 cell egg, or an unknown, brief pregnancy that spontaneously terminates).

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:10 AM (LCRYB)

458

Well, if you made a push to accept reality on issues like rape exemptions, and made your bones about ending 9th-11th month post-birthabortions instead, not only would you win on the issue,

___

Third trimester abortions are illegal in PA, Gosnell was doing them under the radar. He was performing post birth abortions. He snipped the spines of babies just born. Women were coming from up and down the east coast to get them done. The woman who ended up dead was from the metro DC area.

 

These kinds of true life horror stories actually do win women over to the prolife position. There had to be a fair amount of who changed their minds about getting an abortion after the grisly and gruesome details of his practice were exposed.

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 10:11 AM (jm/9g)

459 Gee, I wonder if we could find any issues to divide and conquer the Democratic coalition. Let's see...African Americans and Hispanics. Nope, no way to drive a wedge between those two. Hmmm...Americans who practice Islam and homosexuals. Shit, those two are lovey-dovey. Hmmm...Liberal Intelligencia and folks on Welfare. Shit, they're all in the same book club. No way they're dissolving their alliance. /endfacetiousness. Fuck, SoCons and FisCons are alike for basically 1 or 2 (admittedly large in the eyes of SoCons) issues. And the Democrats succeed in getting us to fight each other like clockwork. Fuck it. WiB. Oh yeah, Fuck Organized Religion too.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:11 AM (hNXHo)

460 I want a couple of nukes and maybe a few chemical warheads on my missiles for home defense. Second Amendment, bitches. The right to keep and bear Arms -- it's right there in the text, and Arms is even capitalized. Are you telling me a nuclear warhead isn't an Arm?
 
Or is there some line in that Amendment that you can see that makes some sort of sense to restrict private citizens from crossing? How does the Supreme Court handle this issue? By defining 'reasonable restrictions'.
 
Of course there is. Hell, we threaten to blow the shit out of other countries that try and obtain these weapons.
 
I can analogize this to the meeting of a sperm and an egg in a petri dish. Once that meeting happens, if the doctor disposes of it should he be charged with murder? Is that what you really want?
 
I cannot ever support such an extreme view. Reasonable restrictions, yes. No taxpayer funding of abortions ever, yes.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2012 10:11 AM (ccXZP)

461 Elton John would be insulted to know a stupid troll is using his name.

Posted by: logprof at November 30, 2012 10:11 AM (gBuIk)

462 I am very much pro-life. I am a fiscal conservative, small government, personal liberty and responsibility person. Life beginning or continuing is not, in my opinion, a valid or reasonable argument to have. But at the same time, I cannot condone any expansion of government into peoples bedrooms, marriages, or uterus. I abhor abortion. I believe it to be wrong. But its not my call to impose my will or beliefs on anyone else. In fact, this is one of the very few things Obama gets right. Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. Our job is to make the rare part the obvious choice ... not by legislation ... but by making the alternatives so much better, that they occur ONLY in cases of a violation, by default. But its not the government's job to be sitting in moral judgement of anyone, and placing moral restrictions into the legal code. That WOULD BE imposing your beliefs upon someone else. And that is also wrong. You can debate degrees of wrongness if you wish (a life versus a moral issue). But you'd be missing the point. Abortion shouldn't happen, but it shouldn't happen because the alternatives are so much better. Not because the process is illegal. But this gets to the bigger picture. Its very hard to argue that a government should legislate morality if you also believe that government should be as small as possible, and be as unobtrusive as possible. You cannot be for a nanny state, telling you what you can and cannot do, if you are also for a small government and personal liberty. If you think about it, this gets to exactly the design of the first amendment. No matter how offensive peoples words are, they have the right to say them, within specific limits. Exactly like this, people have rights that the government cannot and should not attempt to abridge. You cannot possibly be for a limited government personal liberty viewpoint and outlook, if you advocate the government deciding who can get married and so on. They two are at complete odds with each other. Akin and Mourdock, Angle, and others, represent a set of failed candidates, usually perfectly embodying these conundrums. You cannot have it both ways. You are either a conservative (limited government, personal liberty and responsibility), or a nanny statist (marriage limits, abortion and other terrible events limits, ... ). As a young jewish kid growing up in NY, I remember well the imposition of others viewpoints upon my life. My school district/township had voting specifically on jewish holidays, with some of the towns leaders overtly stating that they wanted to reduce jewish participation, we had excused absence for all Christian holidays, and I was penalized by my school for taking off for Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. I remember others working at imposing their particular viewpoints on me. And this is why today, I find this completely abhorrent. Regardless of whose views, I cannot tolerate imposition of "morals" upon others. Nor should any of us. This is why in part, I am a fiscal conservative, personal liberty and responsibility, with very limited government. I am highly concerned about any attempt to expand upon government role in nannying us. Blue laws are a great example. They are unconstitutional, but still in practice. You can't buy alcohol at certain times of the week. For no other reason that it would "offend" someone. This is seriously broken. If you are advocating for any aspect of this seriously broken phenomenon, you couldn't possibly be a conservative, for limited government, personal liberty and responsibility. Or you are a deeply conflicted person who wants those things, and a nanny state too. The government isn't in the business, and shouldn't be in the business of managing morality. And we shouldn't support any candidate who doesn't grasp this.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 10:12 AM (3R8wQ)

463 >>>Let me respond this way, a mother who kills her child right after birth, how is her action substantively different than the one who does it right before birth? Why do the "life begins at conception" crowd prefer responding EXCLUSIVELY in tu quoque rhetorical questions when their beliefs are probed? It's not really a ringing defense.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:12 AM (csi6Y)

464 453 BC1981,

I forced myself to do so, I am unsure if I am better for it.

Obamacare has us on the same path.

I am desperately trying to understand why I should not learn the lesson the left is trying to teach me via their caving to Islam.

I am wondering if Charles Martel would be "a terrorist?"

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:12 AM (LRFds)

465 "When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up." How do you define "capable of human thought?" Newborns aren't even self-aware. Arguably, personhood doesn't come into sight until the person is capable of standing as a moral agent. A functioning brain stem does define personhood, or else we would have a shit-ton of people-animals.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:12 AM (wsGWu)

466 I appreciate the fact that we need to fight the progressive left with every ounce of strength we possess - but when you adopt their tactics to attack and demean folks like myself (enemy of your enemy, no?) - you're just playing their fucking game, man.

And they laugh...and they laugh...and they laugh all the way to the ballot box for 4 more years.

Who won?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 03:06 PM (hNXHo)




I don't mock Libs and strive to defeat them because they are Libs. I mock Libs and strive to defeat them because of their STUPIDITY. And that action isn't reserved to any one political persuasion.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 10:12 AM (da5Wo)

467 Well I think what some people are saying is that Republican candidates should stop falling into the trap of debating the Pro-abortion "exception traps." Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 03:05 PM (r2PLg)

I'm all for politicians, whose stock in trade is supposed to be public speaking and handling the media, would get a grip and stop falling into these traps.  We agree.

What I don't agree on is that there is such a thing as trying to split the difference in reality.  The old dodge, "I am personally opposed to abortion but I would never presume to choose for anyone else" is just that - a dodge.  It's also intellectually dishonest.  You're either for abortion, or against abortion.  You can't sit there and say abortion is evil - but it's OK if someone else does it.  Well, you can do that, but if you do your position is completely meaningless. 

That's really my issue.  Not the issue that Akin should have been smarter.  He should have, but since he's a moron he wasn't.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:12 AM (sbV1u)

468 That's nothing. Just imagine the sudden epidemic of rape that would blow up if abortion were outlawed with rape exceptions. Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 03:09 PM (H84UO) _________________ That's a hypothetical. At least you would have the law and boyfriends, families and communities would have to support mothers and wouldn't have the ready excuse-- Just go have an abortion!

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 10:13 AM (r2PLg)

469 >>>But at the same time, I cannot condone any expansion of government into peoples bedrooms, marriages, or uterus. I abhor abortion. I believe it to be wrong. But its not my call to impose my will or beliefs on anyone else. Well, let's put it this way. We don't allow Rastafarians a religious exemption to smoke pot. If you honestly believe an abortion at any stage is a murder, that's a little worse.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (csi6Y)

470

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 03:07 PM (ilc7b)

__

Yes he is in custody and under indictment. You can read the grand jury presentment on the Philly D.A. website.

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (jm/9g)

471 it's good that we have robots to perform all these abortions. id hate to think what it might do to an actual person who killed babies all day !!!! there is a THIRD PARTY here! and one that will affect ALL of us, pro-life or pro-choice, women and men. LOOK at what is happening in Britain! what has the NHS done to the psyches of their healthcare professionals? would you want to be under their care, for anything!??!

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (F+ZCA)

472 Okay, Dr. Science. When does it change from "life" to "Person?"

When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up.

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 03:09 PM (y4eis)



So Joe Biden is still abortable?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (1Jaio)

473 I don't mock Libs and strive to defeat them because they are Libs. I mock Libs and strive to defeat them because of their STUPIDITY. And that action isn't reserved to any one political persuasion. Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 03:12 PM (da5Wo)

Stupidity is an equal opportunity handicap.

Although I note that there seems to be a statistically significant over-representation on the liberal side of the aisle.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (sbV1u)

474 It's hard to explain the pain of raising a child with a terminal illness. Forcing someone to do this against their will is morally wrong. First, I hope only the best for you and your child. It takes great strength to do what you are doing. But I would say it is not morally wrong to expect people to honor their responsibilities. It is hard to care for a child - any child. There are many times you could just walk away. Society cannot - ever - accept that. That is what is morally wrong.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (v6YdM)

475 There is a whole group of people with Very Strong Opinions about issues involving children who don't have, you know, kids. They are "Parents Without Progeny" -- It doesn't mean their points are valid. It just prompts me to roll my eyes when I hear such folk wax poetic on their theoretical understanding of what having kids entails -- provided one gives a shit about them.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2012 10:14 AM (RuUvx)

476 Ace, I will say it again. Person implies rights, but rights do not imply personhood. Animals have some rights in our society; they are not persons. Newborns have rights in our society; they are not persons. The question isn't about personhood. It is about rights.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:15 AM (wsGWu)

477 >>> Clearly you've never seen a woman weep over a chemical pregnancy. I have, and nearly all of those weeping women were prochoice. You're showing your ignorance of the pain of miscarriage. I actually have, and I have seen women cry. However, to the extent I know about this (and I only know about it indirectly) it seems to be about a two week grieving process. It doesn't really stick with someone the way a child's death does, haunting them throughout their lives. I also know (or think I know) that it is common after such a miscarriage for a mother (or father) to say "We'll try again." A sentence which indicates to me -- or seems to -- that the miscarriage is thought of as an incomplete action, not a completed one, followed by death, as is plainly the case in the death of a child. While parents may say they'll have another child after experiencing the death of a child, I don't think they say "We'll *try again*," as if the child wasn't a full and real child and could just be swapped out for the next attempt.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:16 AM (LCRYB)

478 416Socons, did Jesus insist upon, or even advocate for, governments to pass laws prohibiting immoral things?

Was that his focus?

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 03:05 PM (Hd5n

 

 

Jesus, second person of the Trinity, focused on other things, and said remarkably little about proper role of government. The Law of the Old Testament, given by the same Trinity, said quite a bit. How much should carry over and how is a complicated question, but just referencing Jesus without acknowledging the rest of scripture is a bit simplistic at best.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 10:16 AM (iK4hL)

479

But let me put it the other way: "How many funerals have you held for spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs?"

Zero, it seems.

 

ace, while I see your point, I also have to say that you can't say, "You wouldn't hold a funeral for a spontaneously aborted fertilized egg."   Because honestly, how do     you know that?      Such spontaneous abortions are      unnoticeable,   unless    the woman knew she was pregnant.   Which, at such an early stage, she most likely wouldn't.    You're basing    your argument on a    narrow number of individuals.

 

If I DID find out that    such a thing had happened to me?    I might not hold a funeral, but I'd make SOME kind of effort to contemplate    and mourn the life that was lost.     Hell yes I would.     Even if all I did was light a candle, or send a prayer up for the child's soul, I'd do it. 

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 10:16 AM (4df7R)

480

1. Where in the Bible does it talk about abortion?  Seriously, I would like to know.   I've only been a Christian for 14 years, but I was a Jew for 40 years before that and I have read a lot of the Bible.  

 

2. You all know, much of the hostility of younger people to the GOP comes not from their pure support of abortion rights, because many of them when confronted with abortion directly are very squeamish about it.   It's a sense that pro-life social conservatives are anti-sex prudes and busybodies.  They do think we want girls to be "punished with a baby" if they have sex.  They see opposition to contraception and abortion as nothing more than wanting single people to stop having sex until they are married and ready to have babies.  They see this as so ridiculous that anyone who holds such views should not be listened to on any other issues. 

Posted by: rockmom at November 30, 2012 10:16 AM (NYnoe)

481 When it has a brain capable of human thought. At the risk of the wrath of Godwin, you're only a step or two away from "Useless Eaters".

Posted by: toby928 for TB at November 30, 2012 10:16 AM (QupBk)

482 Can it live on its own, without its host? At that point (which I personally believe to be somewhere *after* the first trimester), I'm ok with issuing it a social security number and taxing the shit out of it. Obviosuly, someday, we'll have uterine replicators and all of this bullshit will be very, very moot. Why would any sperm donor want their partner to subject their body to that level of abuse just to procreate. Evolution? Naaaaah.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:16 AM (hNXHo)

483 But let me put it the other way: "How many funerals have you held for spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs?"  Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:10 PM (LCRYB)

None.  I didn't abort them and I don't know them.

How many funerals of complete and total strangers did you go to last week?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:17 AM (sbV1u)

484 Huh?  Newborns aren't persons?  That's news to me.

OK, they haven't reached the age of majority and therefore cannot sign contracts.  But wtf?


Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 10:17 AM (V70Uh)

485 >>>GOOD candidates who may have SoCon predilections stay away from SoCon topics because they feel [they will be kicked to the curb by their own party] Dude, what the hell. When has this ever happened?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:17 AM (csi6Y)

486 465 "When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up." A baby ain't thinking anything more complicated than 'sleep-eat-pain' until it is out of the womb for five months. Your criteria is inadequate.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:18 AM (DRG6e)

487 Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (T+4DM) Nope I was a ANYBODY but Obama which meant Romney !

Posted by: Evilpens at November 30, 2012 10:18 AM (ck76k)

488 410 Go consecrate a host or something. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (T+4DM)

Nice counter.

How many brain cells you expend on that?

You never get them back once they're dead you know.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 03:04 PM (sbV1u)

Setting aside the 1st comment as a tired dig at Catholicism, abortion is a huge issue for the Mormon Church, Non-Denominational Protestants, and the Assemblies of God and Pentecostals. These groups all have one thing in common - they are growing groups. Ironically, they grow because they have LARGE families.

And they vote their conscience. The Republicans would be foolish to marginalize them. So would fiscal Conservatives.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:18 AM (BoE3Z)

489

ace, now you're being a dickhead.

Dead is dead and a person is a person. Do you only attend the funerals of murder victims? No, you don't, you grieve any death connected to you, whether natural or accidental or murder.

I put it to your that your rhetoric is that a 16 cell egg is a "full person" but your actual moral sentiment disagrees with that sharply, because I see you here contriving reasons why, in your day to day life, you should not, in fact, treat some "persons' deaths" like any other person's death.

You say, "Wouldn't you convict someone of murder for killing a ten week old baby?"

Yes.

But let me put it the other way: "How many funerals have you held for spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs?"



Guess what champ, parents who lose a baby (embryo to you) to a miscarriage grieve just like losing a child that has been born.

Unless you go through it, stop talking out of your ass.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:18 AM (UaxA0)

490 Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 03:14 PM (sbV1u)





Btw bud, I hope you're getting even a small measure of enjoyment reading my comments, cause I'm sure enjoying yours.

Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 10:18 AM (da5Wo)

491 If we define the life standard as "capable of human thought," won't the entire Left be eligible for abortion?

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at November 30, 2012 10:18 AM (zpqa2)

492

I'm sure I could convert most pro-choicers to pro-lifers by passing around a newborn hamster in all its helpless undeveloped-ness, and then taking a meat cleaver to it.  It helps the unimaginative when you can show them what you're talking about.  Unfortunately, I couldn't even bring myself to do that to a hamster.

Posted by: firewun at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (sg1xS)

493 I have to admit your post rings with me, but why doesn't the same thing happen in districts with other values? Are they just less opinionated than socon districts?

I don't mean to sound condescending to SoCons, but frankly it's pretty easy to stake out socially conservative positions.  Take conservative stances on abortion, gay marriage, "family values" (no need to really specify, just use the phase a lot), and be outwardly religious and you too can be a True Social Conservative.

In a district where you can't skate by on your SoCon cred, it becomes a little more complicated.  Now you have to rely not only on your social issue positions- which will still be important- but also entitlement spending, subsidies (corn in IA for example), immigration, etc.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (SY2Kh)

494 480, Look up the Didache (The teachings of the 12 Apostles).  "Thou shalt not procure abortions." "Thou shalt not kill newborns."


Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (V70Uh)

495 At the risk of the wrath of Godwin, you're only a step or two away from "Useless Eaters". Oh,please. Just about every state now defines death with respect to brain activity.

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (y4eis)

496 A baby ain't thinking anything more complicated than 'sleep-eat-pain' until it is out of the womb for five months.

Your criteria is inadequate.

__________________________________


Most of my favorite meals are capable of 'sleep-eat-pain.'

And I ain't going to be a vegetarian.


Posted by: Alec Leamas at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (mg08E)

497 Took a few seconds away from the glory hole to write that little gem did you?

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 03:03 PM (1Jaio)

>>>

>>

>  What are you so touchy about?  This thread is about morality, but its peppered with vile language and repulsive imagery by the very proponents of "morality".  My first point is that morality and politics are exclusive of each other -- not to say they don't blend at times, but they are inherently exclusive.  My second point is that our GOP does us no favors, as the RNC did, by coming to the defense of their officials who spew divisive rhetoric all in the name of "higher morality".  It's just plain dumb.  But go ahead, I'm sure you have your reasons for watching the country you purport to love burn.  Enjoy the show.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (T+4DM)

498 I'm all for politicians, whose stock in trade is supposed to be public speaking and handling the media, would get a grip and stop falling into these traps. We agree. What I don't agree on is that there is such a thing as trying to split the difference in reality. The old dodge, "I am personally opposed to abortion but I would never presume to choose for anyone else" is just that - a dodge. It's also intellectually dishonest. You're either for abortion, or against abortion. You can't sit there and say abortion is evil - but it's OK if someone else does it. Well, you can do that, but if you do your position is completely meaningless. That's really my issue. Not the issue that Akin should have been smarter. He should have, but since he's a moron he wasn't. Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 03:12 PM (sbV1u) _____________________ Okay. I got it. Wasn't sure we were in agreement on that.

Posted by: tasker at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (r2PLg)

499 >>>Yes, life begins at conception. Obviously, it's life. However, it's not obviously a person. When a fertilized egg is literally 16 cells, is that a full person? That idea is dangerously close to defining a person based on their interaction with society. While some philosophical schools would affirm that position. It is not the values of a society that respect the individual. Those 16 cells may or may not make it, but that person is in development, and so like all people, will always be in development until they die. Constantly changing and hopefully growing as a person throughout, and most likely like the rest of us totally unworthy of being given life to begin with. For once you start making such measurements few deserve to live.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (svdpV)

500 The real rape question is how Planned Parenthood can continue to fail in its obligation to report statutory rape.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 10:19 AM (ICwOo)

501 >>>482 Can it live on its own, without its host? This is a profoundly retarded criteria for making any value judgment on life. Joeys can't live without their mothers' wombs. does that make them non-kangaroos?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:20 AM (csi6Y)

502 If you honestly believe an abortion at any stage is a murder, that's a little worse.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 03:14 PM (csi6Y)



Right, snuffing out something with a heartbeat isn't murder.  I'm not a no abortions ever kind of guy but saying that sticking a tube in the skull and sucking an active brain out isn't murder seem a little confusing to me.

Posted by: Adam at November 30, 2012 10:20 AM (/YJYi)

503 Where in the Bible does it talk about iPods?

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 10:20 AM (H84UO)

504 480 Rockmom,

You know me ma'am.


I come across as a Bible thumper?

I am pretty pro-sex, much to my chagrin I am in fact guilty of the sin of pre-marital sex.

I want no part of folk's bedroom, and I have less desire than that to aid them in killing the unborn.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:20 AM (LRFds)

505 I guess that's a benefit...er..., side effect of never being exposed to religion as a youth. Idk. I can't think of any issue more important to the entire country than getting out of this debt nightmare.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 02:51 PM (hNXHo)


And you seemingly don't understand that the fiscal crises is a manifestation of the social crises.  The number one Federal Budget expense is the Welfare system, caused by funding bad social policy.


Read Adam Smith and Edmund Burke.  It will enlighten you.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:21 AM (bb5+k)

506 Re: moral sentiment-- which do you all imagine is the worse, more wrenching calamity, the one you'd more wish to not experience-- the death of a four year old child, or a spontaneous miscarriage of a two month old fetus? Remember, if we're pushing the line that they're both completely the same for all purposes your moral sentiment should be that the two can't be distinguished. But I think we all understand they can be rather easily distinguished.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:21 AM (LCRYB)

507 >>>That idea is dangerously close to defining a person based on their interaction with society. Let's put this idea up to bat, then. When the central nervous system is developed. Then it's a person.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:21 AM (csi6Y)

508 Btw bud, I hope you're getting even a small measure of enjoyment reading my comments, cause I'm sure enjoying yours. Posted by: BCochran1981 at November 30, 2012 03:18 PM (da5Wo)

The bro-mance continues.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:21 AM (sbV1u)

509

"As long as you insist on telling a woman that if she gets raped, she has to raise the baby for the next 18 years, you will lose election after election."

Which isn't the arguement at all and I suspect you know that. Abortion after a rape is a form of denial. Unfortunately, it doesn't make the rape *not happen* it just adds  both physical and emotional  trauma. The hope is that a woman won't feel forced to *add* to her trauma and then will either make the decision to adopt out or raise the child as works best for her.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 10:21 AM (NYki8)

510 484 Al,


They invented the new penumbra, must be able to express feelings on community.

In other words we just okayed about 40% of the Nazi's race theory in Anglia.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:22 AM (LRFds)

511 499 - Mike that is a beautiful post. Thank you.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 30, 2012 10:22 AM (F+ZCA)

512 >>>Right, snuffing out something with a heartbeat isn't murder. I'm not a no abortions ever kind of guy but saying that sticking a tube in the skull and sucking an active brain out isn't murder seem a little confusing to me. I think something was lost in translation.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:22 AM (csi6Y)

513 "A baby ain't thinking anything more complicated than 'sleep-eat-pain' until it is out of the womb for five months. Your criteria is inadequate." Irrelevant. Before the third trimester they don't have the hardware to have human thought. That's why I used the word "capable".

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 10:22 AM (y4eis)

514

"Pro-Choice Republican" = Democrat subversive trying to undermine the party from within.

============

Sorry,  but  no.  I'm  a  pro-choice  republican  and  have  no  desire  whatsoever  to  undermine  the  party.  In  fact,  but   for   abortion,   I'm  probably  more  right  on  every  issue  than  your  average  conservative.

Posted by: Tired Wemch at November 30, 2012 10:22 AM (Uq+DN)

515

Not to mention the fact that a spontaneous miscarriage isn't consciously CAUSED by the parents, and funerals are meant for actual, you know, bodies.

Several faith traditions have services for miscarried infants. 

http://www.examiner.com/article/ naming-a-miscarried-baby

do a damned bing search and see all the memorials for miscarriages.  (Aside from the Duggars bullshit)

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:22 AM (UaxA0)

516 "Can it live on its own, without its host? At that point (which I personally believe to be somewhere *after* the first trimester), I'm ok with issuing it a social security number and taxing the shit out of it." Can a newborn live on its own? Drop one in the forest and see what happens. Just because a preborn needs food, water, oxygen, and shelter doesn't make it any more dependent on other people than any little child. Hell, we are all "non-viable" if ejected into space. Are we not persons because we require to live off the Earth, or other animals/plants for food? Moreover, if we do build uterine replicators, does it change the inherent status of the being now that it doesn't require a host? If you step into the future and back does it make the fetus a person, then not a person, etc? How the fuck can an inherent definition be based on external circumstances? You're confusing the issue badly.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:23 AM (wsGWu)

517 ace - any restriction of a woman's actions wrt her body's natural functioning is unacceptable. Period. - (intended) _

Posted by: BumperStickerist at November 30, 2012 10:23 AM (RuUvx)

518 siding with life makes socons evil....nice....you're a dick who ever you are....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 30, 2012 10:23 AM (GVxQo)

519 >>>In a district where you can't skate by on your SoCon cred, it becomes a little more complicated. Now you have to rely not only on your social issue positions- which will still be important- but also entitlement spending, subsidies (corn in IA for example), immigration, etc. Sounds true enough to me. The Bible is a pretty definitive guide to morals (although not to politics) and not economics.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:24 AM (csi6Y)

520

moral sentiment should be that the two can't be distinguished

"Moral sentiment" is not an actual concept. 

There's morality (in which the two are identical) and themn there is sentiment (in which an emotional bond was not able to fully form, because we are, after all, visual animals)

Seriously, you're being a monumental cockholster.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:24 AM (UaxA0)

521

Tired  Wemch  =  Tired  Wench.

 

Jeez,  you'd  think  I  could  spell  my  own  name.  Guess  I  really  am  tired.

Posted by: Tired Wemch at November 30, 2012 10:24 AM (Uq+DN)

522 Ace "which do you all imagine is the worse, more wrenching calamity, the one you'd more wish to not experience-- the death of a four year old child, or a spontaneous miscarriage of a two month old fetus?" Which is worse? The death of a newborn at birth or the death of a four year old child? Parents grieve the deaths of older children differently than stillbirths as well. Does that make newborns not deserving of rights?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:24 AM (wsGWu)

523 The abortion issue as a whole will culturally vanish, one way or another, as soon as technology advances to the point where gene identification allows aborting gay embryos.

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 30, 2012 10:24 AM (jfUIE)

524 479 But let me put it the other way: "How many funerals have you held for spontaneously aborted fertilized eggs?" Zero, it seems. It took my wife and I many, many years to have a baby. If we had know she had miscarried - at any point - it would have saddened us greatly.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:24 AM (Ezq3m)

525 Which is sooner than most think.

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 30, 2012 10:25 AM (jfUIE)

526 465 "When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up."

How do you define "capable of human thought?" Newborns aren't even self-aware. Arguably, personhood doesn't come into sight until the person is capable of standing as a moral agent. A functioning brain stem does define personhood, or else we would have a shit-ton of people-animals.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 03:12 PM (wsGWu)

Christians historically have been more concerned with the sould of a person, rather than it's "thought" or "intelligence", or "viability". Something about "God knowing you before your bones were knit in your mother's womb". Or some sort of foolishness like that - so says the world, anyway.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:25 AM (BoE3Z)

527 489 Imp,

My son was born thanksgiving day 1999.

We had a miscarriage thanksgiving day 2001.

3.5 months along.

It almost put wife in the rubber room.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:25 AM (LRFds)

528 Democrats can convince educated women that Republicans want to control their reproductive organs but we can't convince 51% of the people that Obama is a dangerous socialist.

Amazing.

Posted by: soothsayer at November 30, 2012 02:52 PM (jUytm)


And this takes us right back to the Media being the most dangerous threat facing this nation.  Every slot in the Media is occupied by a Liberal Democrat Union Member most likely Hired in New York or Los Angeles.


We will never get a fair shake from these people, and I personally think we should violently attack them every time they come within reach.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:25 AM (bb5+k)

529

which do you all imagine is the worse, more wrenching calamity, the one you'd more wish to not experience--

the death of a four year old child, or

a spontaneous miscarriage of a two month old fetus?

 

Ace,w ith all due respect,    that's bullshit.

 

Ask someone who has dearly wanted a child, who has tried and tried to have a child, who finally got pregnant and was preparing to have the baby, only to have the pregnancy spontaneously terminate at two months, if that isn't    as gut-wrenching and   painful as losing a four year old child.

 

Then ask someone with five     kids who couldn't give a shit where they go or what they do or who they're with   so long as they keep the welfare checks coming     if losing their four year old son     is that big of a deal.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 10:25 AM (4df7R)

530
If we had know she had miscarried - at any point - it would have saddened us greatly.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 03:24 PM (Ezq3m)

 

My wife did. It wasn't great. There was no funeral. There was mourning.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 10:26 AM (t06LC)

531 "Irrelevant. Before the third trimester they don't have the hardware to have human thought. That's why I used the word "capable"." Nope. Look at the hardware. It simply isn't capable of higher than animal thought. The brain is far, far too underdeveloped. Compare the intelligence and stimulus-response of a newborn to just about any grown mammal/bird.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:26 AM (wsGWu)

532 518 PhxGirl,

A nation built on empowering a Ponzi scheme as retirement plan devours its babies.

One set of folk ain't thinking and it ain't we SoCons.

I'm FiCon first but a party with no room for SoCons loses me.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:27 AM (LRFds)

533 >>>There's morality (in which the two are identical) and themn there is sentiment (in which an emotional bond was not able to fully form, because we are, after all, visual animals) This is some grade A pedantic bullshit.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:27 AM (csi6Y)

534 But I think we all understand they can be rather easily distinguished.  Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:21 PM (LCRYB)

No, Ace, that's the point you can do that.  Many of us cannot.  They're equal to some of us.  You can mock that all you want, but it doesn't mean that your view of the topic is correct.

Now if you want to chalk that all off to some of us being a bunch of Bible-thumping nut jobs while you, and you alone hold the truth sacred in your Fortress of Agnostic Solitude© you're welcome to it.  

But it does not strengthen your argument.

You're making an argument, but it is by no means a slam-dunk QED clincher.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:27 AM (sbV1u)

535 523 The abortion issue as a whole will culturally vanish, one way or another, as soon as technology advances to the point where gene identification allows aborting gay embryos. There is no gay gene any more than there is a gene that makes you like broccoli or S&M.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:28 AM (Ezq3m)

536 530 JollyRoger,

My wife had a soldier in Louisiana who miscarried at 5 months get to see them throwing the body away.

She got out on a section 8, I would have been getting out of prison by now had it been my wife.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:28 AM (LRFds)

537 You're confusing the issue badly. Nope, I just know definitively it's one that's NEVER worth losing a national election over. But that's why the GOP (my former political party of choice) can go pound sand while I.......WiB

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:29 AM (hNXHo)

538

Every so often, ace gets this libertarian bug up his ass and starts this kind of sophistry on some sort of socon issue. 

It's fun and cathartic really, but ultimately it shows that there is a principled reason to be pro-life and a pragmatic basis for pro-abortion, and a political minefield in between.

Nothing changes but we do get a content-based flame war.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:29 AM (UaxA0)

539 501 >>>482 Can it live on its own, without its host?

This is a profoundly retarded criteria for making any value judgment on life.....

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 03:20 PM (csi6Y)

Wait - are we talking about the Free Shit Army, OWS, Obama Supporters, or what?

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:30 AM (BoE3Z)

540

Here's my point Kallisto, and forgive me if I get frustrated when screaming about it but whatever.

 

There's no fucking sanity at all, no salvation and no progress to be made arguing against rape exemptions in a society that butchers newborns. The focus should be there, because there is where it should be won easily. The rape babies and the legal 1st trimester abortions are a fucking distraction and we pay for getting distracted. Worry about that shit when you actually come remotely close to it. You've got 15 bridges to cross before you get to that one, and you'd have an easier time convincing people to cross that one if you got them to it first.

 

Deal with that shit after you end the infanticide and the POST-birth 'abortions' of newborns screaming on a table. While that's happening, if anyone mentions 'rape babies' or birth control, not only are they an idiot they're a self-defeating idiot who is doing exactly zilch for the movement that's trying to save babies above imposing values.

 

And I think that's the crux of it, it seems to me and millions of others that some people are really more concerned about remaking society in their image than they are about actually saving babies. Because if their priorities where really what they said they were, it would be obvious in the difference in their priorities and their positions.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:30 AM (TULs6)

541 >>>Yes, life begins at conception. Obviously, it's life. However, it's not obviously a person. When a fertilized egg is literally 16 cells, is that a full person? That idea is dangerously close to defining a person based on their interaction with society. While some philosophical schools would affirm that position. It is not the values of a society that respect the individual. Those 16 cells may or may not make it, but that person is in development, and so like all people, will always be in development until they die. Constantly changing and hopefully growing as a person throughout, and most likely like the rest of us totally unworthy of being given life to begin with. For once you start making such measurements few deserve to live. And making worthiness to live arguments based on whether society would remember the passing is a dangerous and progressive way to think.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at November 30, 2012 10:30 AM (zLsg3)

542 Sven, I'm really sorry to hear about that. Its a traumatic experience to be sure.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 10:31 AM (t06LC)

543 Nope. Look at the hardware. It simply isn't capable of higher than animal thought. The brain is far, far too underdeveloped. Compare the intelligence and stimulus-response of a newborn to just about any grown mammal/bird.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 03:26 PM (wsGWu)

 

So a human life is defined by its brain? Are smarter people worth more than less-intelligent ones? If not, why not?

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 10:31 AM (iK4hL)

544 539 Tubal,

Bingo....

now remember that academia is allied with the Malthusian Death Cult left and they keep trying to define Locke as a mental illness......

stir and pour into your cranial cavity.

Pleasant dreams....they make me scream.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:31 AM (LRFds)

545 537, No, you are confusing the two stems of the argument. Whether a preborn has rights inherently and whether those rights include access to its mother's body. A fetus can be, for example, totally deserving of all the rights a newborn is entitled too (the most obvious position) but still not have the right to use its mother's body because of the mother's bodily autonomy. The viability thing is a complete fuckery of mixing the two up.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:31 AM (wsGWu)

546 No, you don't. No one does. You don't, no one does. This is the problem with insisting it's "obviously a full person." If it were obviously a full person you'd be grieving over the yearly holocaust of millions of dead "persons" by failure to implant. But you *don't*, because you don't actually consider such a thing an actual person. You say it rhetorically, but if it could be scientifically proven to you that, for example, your wife, over the course of her life, had spontaneously aborted five fertilized eggs, you would NOT hold five symbolic funerals.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (LCRYB)




Death by accident or circumstance is not equivalent to death by overt action. 



As an Atheist/Agnostic, I presume you are aware that mammals evolved from egg laying creatures?  When the unborn Child was an independent life inside an egg, should the mother have more of a choice to kill it than the father?






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:31 AM (bb5+k)

547

Yoshi, bullshit to you.


Morality is a concept distinct from sentimentality. 

ace conflated the two.  That is incorrect.  A 14 week baby in utero is morally equivalent to a 14 month born baby.

Do parents naturally feel differently about one than the other, maybe stronger feelings for a child you've seen take his first steps? 

Yeah, duh.

It doesn't mean that the 14 week old "embryo" is not extremely loved and cherished, and yes, grieved over when lost.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:32 AM (UaxA0)

548 That doesn't mean that GOP politicians should be pro choice in the slightest, it just means they should be focused on saving babies where they can, not arguing theological absolutes that MUST be affirmed or fuck you, we take our ball and go home.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:32 AM (TULs6)

549 538 Nothing changes but we do get a content-based flame war. I'm reasonably new here, but I assumed that was the general plan....lol In other news, there's only one thing I know definitively, positively, for sure with absolute and total 100% certainty - I will never have an abortion in my lifetime. It's one of the reasons I could GAF about the issue to begin with. To lump every other human on Earth in with me - when I have zero clue what circumstances caused them to be making the horrifying decision to abort a life...no thanks. Sounds way too "Big Government" to me.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:33 AM (hNXHo)

550 I won't reward betrayal. I'll even suffer to punish it.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (OQpzc)


Me too. I have.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:33 AM (bb5+k)

551 542 JollyRoger,

It is literally life and death.

I meant what I said here once I begrudge no man his peace with the beginning and end that harms no other.

I don't have an answer that miscarriage was the hardest thing I have ever edured in my life.

I had developed the hope that our issues were "solved" we had a 2 year old after all.

I can "make peace" by not treating abortion with the fury my faith calls for, I begged and plead not to be made party to the murder and I now subsidize it and will be forced if I employ enough people in the future to directly buy it.


Obama is asking me to go to hell.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:34 AM (LRFds)

552 >>>You're making an argument, but it is by no means a slam-dunk QED clincher. Yeah, I would have to agree with that if a good number of people feel crushed over losing blastulas.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:34 AM (csi6Y)

553 >>>482 Can it live on its own, without its host? A newborn can't live on its own. It's detached host needs to care for it around the clock.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:34 AM (Ezq3m)

554

entropy, see my 155.  That's exactly right.

Third trimester ban now.  We can campaign as being in favor of "European style abortion laws."

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:34 AM (UaxA0)

555 Abortion threads always make me cry.   Goddammit.   I will never understand how anyone can find a new, untested,  unexplored life     less than precious.    It hurts my heart and my head.  If you have no qualms about the loss of that life at any stage during the process of gestation, just because in your mind its not yet a "person," then I just don't think I'll ever understand you, nor you me.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 10:35 AM (4df7R)

556 Excellent article Ace. Coming from the left, I completely agree and we find ourselves having a meeting of the minds in Libertarian territory.

Posted by: vonKreedon at November 30, 2012 10:35 AM (E5aGQ)

557

Yeah, I would have to agree with that if a good number of people feel crushed over losing blastulas. Posted by: Yoshi




They do, you fucking cunt.

Suck on a frag grenade.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:35 AM (UaxA0)

558
Iunderstand that this past election hasleft alot of people scratching their heads, but encouraging folks to abandon their principlesor core values in order topossibly attract a few votesis not an effective strategy.

Posted by: DaveinNC at November 30, 2012 02:55 PM (boNGU)


And it avoids dealing with the fact that the Media determine what is the socially acceptable position on everything.  Take those bastards out, and let people see the opposition arguments, and we will be able to move the population to our side.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:35 AM (bb5+k)

559 Grey Fox, You misunderstand me. My point is exactly yours. The brain doesn't have anything to do with whether humans have worth and therefore rights. Otherwise, the severely mentally handicapped would have no right to protection from harm, and newborns would be on the chopping block as well. FWIW, several prominent pro-choice philosophers actually support infanticide as the logical extension of abortion rights. At least I can respect their moral consistency.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:36 AM (wsGWu)

560 Which one of you morons knocked Ace up?

Posted by: Walkers! at November 30, 2012 10:37 AM (TYO2p)

561 Yeah, I would have to agree with that if a good number of people feel crushed over losing blastulas.  Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 03:34 PM (csi6Y)

A good number of people do.

Scroll up.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:37 AM (sbV1u)

562

Do any of you absolutist pro-lifers understand how most women want the right to choose?  Do you also understand they are a growing constiuency, and that politicians take policy positions based on their constiuents?  Do you think "conservative" politicians and "liberal" politicians do anything that would diminish their re-election?  Consituents, like everyone here, may have principles, and they should be respected.  Politicians, on the other hand, have one prinicple.  It's called re-election, or moving on to a bigger office and more power.  This is irrefutable and it goes across party lines.  When Romeny ran for governor, he spun the "against abortion personally but support the law" line that people seem to reject as insincere.  It may be philisophically insincere but it is politcally pragmatic.  And he won that election, in a Blue state, with a Blue legislature.  The lessons are there, if you only take the time to learn them.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 10:37 AM (T+4DM)

563 Me too, MWR. It's just so terribly sad. And there is no logic behind agnostics who are not literal misanthropes being pro-abortion, frankly. Honestly religion does not make me pro-life. Being alive and not perverse does.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 30, 2012 10:37 AM (F+ZCA)

564

@Ace:

which do you all imagine is the worse, more wrenching calamity, the one you'd more wish to not experience--

I'm going to mourn the loss of my parents far more than I mourned the loss of my grandparents, or those of distant uncles or aunts. 

Despite this difference in grief, my subjective response has no bearing on their absolute worth as indidivual human beings. 

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at November 30, 2012 10:37 AM (oY6Yp)

565 455 sven10077   You've got me wrong.  I'm trying to address what I perceive is a belief by Socons that they act immorally by not advocating laws prohibiting abortion.  They seem to think that they have some moral affirmative duty to vote for laws.  I do not think so.    I do think that abortion is evil, and that the culture that celebrates the "right" is horribly flawed and must be changed.  But, passing laws does not change culture.  Consider the Democrats and their long march through our culture and our education systems.  We have to engage in that same march.              

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 10:38 AM (kFeuD)

566 Yeah, no shit. Some people get over the death of their kids really fast. Does it mean their kids weren't really people? Sound logic if I ever heard it!

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:38 AM (wsGWu)

567
Yeah and I don't see 'kill your babies" anywhere in it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 02:56 PM (LRFds)


It says Baal worshipers did it.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (bb5+k)

568 >>>Morality is a concept distinct from sentimentality. Yes, if you are Ultra Pedant, Defender of Only the Strictest Connotations. The term ace used, "moral sentiment," is merely a more flowerly version of "moral feeling." It can be left at that. You are derailing the discussion into the weeds where the English and philosophy majors are circlejerking. >>>It doesn't mean that the 14 week old "embryo" is not extremely loved and cherished, and yes, grieved over when lost. Yes, I understand.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (csi6Y)

569 Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 03:37 PM (T+4DM)






Glad to know that you have everything figured out. I can't wait to see the Reggie Dwight 2016 signs

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (1Jaio)

570 Honestly religion does not make me pro-life. Being alive and not perverse does.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 30, 2012 03:37 PM (F+ZCA)

 

Exactly.

 

{{BlackOrchid}}

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit, rooting for SMOD or the Mayans, whichever comes first [/i][/b] at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (4df7R)

571

"Irrelevant. Before the third trimester they don't have the hardware to have human thought. That's why I used the word "capable"."

 

This is incorrect. Scientifically wrong.

 

12 weeks, end of the first trimester, EKG shows brain patterns identical to a newborn. It sucks it thumb in the womb, plays with it's feet, wakes from and goes to into REM sleep which means it dreams.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (TULs6)

572 >>>If we had know she had miscarried - at any point - it would have saddened us greatly. Haunted you throughout the bulk of your lives as the death of a four year old child would have?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (LCRYB)

573 >>>A good number of people do. Scroll up. That post was not meant in sarcasm.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (csi6Y)

574 now i'm just pissed... if you can disgard human life you are dispicable......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at November 30, 2012 10:39 AM (GVxQo)

575 "C onsider the Democrats and their long march through our culture and our education systems. We have to engage in that same march." Or burn it down and start over.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 10:40 AM (TjgR9)

576

Posted by: Walkers! at November 30, 2012 03:37 PM (TYO2p)

___

It was me, on the sundeck, with a turkey baster.

Posted by: kallisto at November 30, 2012 10:40 AM (jm/9g)

577 Glad to know that you have everything figured out. I can't wait to see the Reggie Dwight 2016 signs  Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 03:39 PM (1Jaio)

Well, he's got the mouth-breather vote locked up early.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:40 AM (sbV1u)

578 >>>They do, you fucking cunt. Great balls of fire. I can read, the post was not sarcastic.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:42 AM (csi6Y)

579
Shouldn't all these women go to jail, or face the death penalty?

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 02:56 PM (t1NLo)


In historical practice, the woman were regarded as desperate dupes. The Law always brought it's foot down on the Abortionist with the women always receiving suspended or no sentences. 


For what it's worth,  Dr. Joseph Mengele (Butcher of Auschwitz) Made his living as an abortionist after World War II.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:42 AM (bb5+k)

580 "Haunted you throughout the bulk of your lives as the death of a four year old child would have?" Dude, Ace, this is a fucking stupid argument, and you know it. Plenty of people mourn their miscarriages their whole lives. (See my wife.) And plenty of people get over the death of their child pretty fast. Again, I ask you, which is more gut wrenching, the death at birth of a child or the death of a 4 year old, and does it really matter? Which is more gut wrenching, the death of a loved one who has been really far away for years and years, or the death of a loved one who you see every day? How is this material to the argument?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:42 AM (wsGWu)

581 <blockquote>You can't just say you support women's right to purchase birth control. No, that's a dodge. Someone who's really interested in a woman's right to birth control will of course support laws which compel third parties to purchase the birth control on the woman's behalf.</blockquote>

Surely I'm misunderstanding you.  I can support someone's right to drink alcohol without insisting that someone else pay for it.

Posted by: scooter (not libby) at November 30, 2012 10:43 AM (WKeEA)

582 Haunted you throughout the bulk of your lives as the death of a four year old child would have? Dear Ace. This is irrelevant. Not. Relevant. And last time I checked, my first miscarriage was still haunting me, and it's 15 years later now. Plus all the other ones. And the twin I lost when I had my son. All equivalently painful, all always on my mind. But there's likely something wrong with me. I'm not thinking about this properly, with not enough LOGIC and REMOVE like you clearly are.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-StillMissingDagny at November 30, 2012 10:43 AM (F+ZCA)

583 579 For what it's worth, Dr. Joseph Mengele... Holy shit, the Angel of Death in an abortion thread again. I'm definitely going to listen to some Slayer when I get home tonight. I need to get one of those pick 3 tickets tonight with all sixes too. It's definitely our lucky day.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:44 AM (hNXHo)

584

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 03:36 PM (wsGWu)

 

I see. Thanks.

Posted by: Grey Fox at November 30, 2012 10:44 AM (iK4hL)

585 567 Diogenes Lamp,

Well it is proscribed and decried not advocated.

I don't try to follow evil, but point taken friend.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:44 AM (LRFds)

586 But it worked brilliantly.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at November 30, 2012 02:57 PM (HDgX3)



And yet you don't blame the media for this?  The Media covers up the ugly by Democrats, and Highlights any mistakes by a Republican?  All Democrat gaffes are ignored, all Republican gaffes are amplified through loud speakers for weeks.


And you think the problem is the people making the gaffes? No, it's those son of bitches who are aiming their weapons at us!







Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:44 AM (bb5+k)

587

Glad to know that you have everything figured out. I can't wait to see the Reggie Dwight 2016 signs

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 03:39 PM (1Jaio)

>>>
>>
>

It's becomming reasonable to believe that the pro-life absolutists in the GOP are just as likely to be moles from the other side as they are "principled" zealots.  Adapt or perish.  Oh, wait, that's Darwinian, and evolution is a lie.  And the earth is 6000 years old.  Where's my cocoa?   ...  ZZZzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 10:45 AM (T+4DM)

588

Sorry Yosh,

I see that now

Looked sarcastic after all the tools above

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:45 AM (UaxA0)

589 :::506 Re: moral sentiment-- which do you all imagine is the worse, more wrenching calamity, the one you'd more wish to not experience-- the death of a four year old child, or a spontaneous miscarriage of a two month old fetus? Remember, if we're pushing the line that they're both completely the same for all purposes your moral sentiment should be that the two can't be distinguished. But I think we all understand they can be rather easily distinguished. Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:21 PM (LCRYB):::: I don't know why you're flame-baiting your own blog. Are you just looking to lash out at pro-lifers because you need someone to blame for the election? To answer your question, my little brother died at 3 days old. My next little brother was stillborn prematurely at 5 months. Both are still mourned to this day. And yet, my parents "tried again" (using those words) a few years late and had my little sister. This is one of those topics where you try to quantify something you don't understand and at best, looks ridiculous. At worst, you reduce human beings to disposable cogs. Fuck "the state." I'm more worried about the people in that state, who, as in places like Great Britain, are now officially disposable. Which is where we're headed. Fucking hell, dude.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 10:45 AM (PFvlM)

590

And last time I checked, my first miscarriage was still haunting me, and it's 15 years later now. Plus all the other ones. And the twin I lost when I had my son.

I am so sorry, BlackOrchid.  And I agree with you - how a person subjectively processes grief is not relevant to the protection of unborn human life.

Posted by: Insomniac at November 30, 2012 10:46 AM (DrWcr)

591 >>>Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 03:45 PM (UaxA0) No harm done

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:46 AM (csi6Y)

592 Word of advice: Never express that opinion on the lack of concern and sediment for naturally aborted fetus to a women who had a miscarriage - the beating you receive would be considered justified by a jury of the most jaded Obama voters.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 10:46 AM (TjgR9)

593  The real rape question is how Planned Parenthood can continue to fail in its obligation to report statutory rape.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 03:19 PM (ICwOo)

 

If you'd spent much time praying outside one of their abortion mills, you'd have seed evidence that getting rid of the evidence of statuator rape is part of their buiness model.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 10:46 AM (OQpzc)

594 SHould a woman who had an abortion go to jail or get the death penalty?

Posted by: Olaf at November 30, 2012 02:58 PM (t1NLo)


Did she do it herself?  Plenty of women have strangled their newborns, what do you think should be done about this??? 

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:47 AM (bb5+k)

595 562
Do any of you absolutist pro-lifers understand how most women want the right to choose? Do you also understand they are a growing constiuency, and that politicians take policy positions based on their constiuents?

With no desire to pick a fight, none of what you say is relevant to morality. Social Conservatives are Christian, primarily. Being so, they answer to Jesus Christ, and not women's rights. Or political pragmatism. These are Christians who "are" Christians, not CINO's or nominal Christians, who primarily inhabit the dying mainstream Protestant denominations. They're Christian Liberals.
Without these Christians, Republicans cannot win any national election.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:48 AM (BoE3Z)

596 587 Reggie Dwight,

Bigotry much?

I find less book with my brothers and sisters who decry theory based on the book than I do with the fucking snake oil salesmen who swear they can make socialism work here because they are smarter than the other failed tries.

Besodden Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old, besodden free shit army believes we are 8 days from paradise.

Ie if we just tax 'the rich" we can fund the nation 8 whole days.

One sets' magic thinking is ridiculed by left and right.

Let it burn, start over.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:49 AM (LRFds)

597 >>>. Being so, they answer to Jesus Christ, and not women's rights. I understand that this is a point of mainstream Christianity but I think I need to point out Christ never mentions abortion.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:49 AM (LCRYB)

598

The real rape question is how Planned Parenthood can continue to fail in its obligation to report statutory rape.

 

Because 'pro-life' politicians like Rick Santorum are too busy talking about birth control and categorizing various levels of rape to hammer that kind of shit that would actually matter.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:49 AM (TULs6)

599

Thx Yoshi.  Obviously an emotional topic.

EoJ, that's it!  Ace is flamebaiting his own blog. 

Mjolnir can't actually hit Thor, right?

The laughter is indeed cathartic, though.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:49 AM (UaxA0)

600 Haunted you throughout the bulk of your lives as the death of a four year old child would have? We were terrified throught my wife's pregnancy we were going to lose our son. It had taken us a very long time to conceive - at great expense both emotionally and financially. He was born premature. Birth is not miraculous when you hear one nurse tell another he's not breathing. Your answer is in there somewhere. Our son was prized when he was 2 millimeters long on a ultrasound screen (that's two weeks after conception) when I saw his tiny, furious heartbeat.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:50 AM (5TFvk)

601 {{BlackOrchid}}

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 10:51 AM (NYki8)

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:51 AM (BoE3Z)

603 >>> I don't know why you're flame-baiting your own blog. Are you just looking to lash out at pro-lifers because you need someone to blame for the election? Flame baiting? I get clubbed all fucking day with the "You support murdering babies" crap and when I attempt to probe the key assumption here -- that there is no difference whatsoever between a baby and a foetus -- I'm "flame-baiting" people and unduly provoking them? Get a fucking little thicker skin, man. If you're going to push Answers you should be expecting some Questions. Fuck this How Dare You Ask Me A Single Question About My Claims bullshit.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:52 AM (LCRYB)

604 598 >>>. Being so, they answer to Jesus Christ, and not women's rights. I understand that this is a point of mainstream Christianity but I think I need to point out Christ never mentions abortion. All that Bible folklore is admittedly quite hazy to me - I have heard rumors there were 10 more Commandments handed off to that Moses fellow at one point in time? Perhaps...?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:52 AM (hNXHo)

605

Christ never mentions abortion

ace, you point wrong

Whosoever, shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Not letting them be born would rank up high on the "offend" list.  And need I remind you that it was the early Christian Church that tried to stop the abortion of Roman times---exposure in the forest. 

You are seriously out of whack today.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:52 AM (UaxA0)

606 115 This thread reminds of why "Let It Burn" is OK by me. If the gubmint won't defend the innocent, don't expect it to come to your defense when your time comes. They don't want to just steal my stuff. They want to kill me too. Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 02:12 PM (V70Uh) This.

Posted by: baldilocks via iPad at November 30, 2012 10:53 AM (Su0W2)

607 I understand that this is a point of mainstream Christianity but I think I need to point out Christ never mentions abortion. Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:49 PM (LCRYB)

Yes, we certainly would want to impute any meaning to Jesus Christ that isn't in the Bible verbatim.

I mean, the Bible is like a court transcription, it's not like literature.  No analogies or metaphors there.  Nope.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:53 AM (sbV1u)

608 I'm libertarian.

I'm also rabidly pro-life, as there is no liberty without life.

This is just silly. Pro-life position creates MANY single issue voters.

I know of many people who would vote D if it wasn't for pro-abortion stance of the left.

Let's not sell our soul for phantom electoral benefits.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 30, 2012 10:53 AM (xAtAj)

609 point out Christ never mentions abortion.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:49 PM (LCRYB)

 

I'm pretty sure he never mentioned biological warfare either. I am sure the morality he taught would lead us to oppose it.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 10:53 AM (OQpzc)

610

Everyone whose panties are in a bunch right now are squawking about when life begins, and dead fetuses, and stillborn siblings.  Ace is on a different level - its called politics.  The absolutists believe that they have the market cornered on principles, and when Ace informs them about the big picture, he/she gets attacked for not playing small-ball like them.  So. Very. Fucked.   

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 10:53 AM (T+4DM)

611 File this under Nobody Cares: I'm going to retire my "Max Power" sig. I know it seems sentimental, but I'm fond of it and I've been using it for years and years. If anyone uses it they are some new guy or I am drunk and I forgot to clear the cache on one of my computers. No I'm not going anywhere, I just feel weird about posting personal information about my life of such a deeply personal nature. And I'm sorry for calling the social cons evil. That is all.

Posted by: Max Power says goodbye to his very favorite sig. at November 30, 2012 10:53 AM (q177U)

612 589 Empire of Jeff,

Let it go EoJ.

We lost, they push they lose us.

I think maybe the Amish have it right.

I reject the super state.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:54 AM (LRFds)

613 empire, are you beliefs so shaky you'll fall to pieces if I probe them slightly? Or are you just not used to that? This is just like the liberals' bubble-chamber where the Obviously Politically Correct attitude is privileged to the point where it not only can't be questioned, but it's actually *offensive* to question it. If you're fucking right you should have no problems establishing that and shouldn't need to resort to the How Dare You, Sir card.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:54 AM (LCRYB)

614 603 Get a fucking little thicker skin, man. If you're going to push Answers you should be expecting some Questions. ...and then, spontaneously, I remember why this is becoming my portal of choice to the conservative world. If we can't defend our beliefs to each other without using leftist tactics, they'll just continue eating us alive.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:54 AM (hNXHo)

615

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:49 PM (LCRYB)

 

Ace, it's pretty clear that this is mostly just a theoretical thought experiment with you. It's also clear that for a lot of commenters it is *very* real and very painful. If you're doing this for fun then I'm quite disappointed (which I realize holds no weight for you, but feel the need to make my opinion known).

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 10:55 AM (NYki8)

616 >>> I am sure the morality he taught would lead us to oppose it. If you're so sure, you're basing that on your own thoughts and beliefs, so why not just rely on them instead of ventriloquizing Christ?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:55 AM (LCRYB)

617 The Book has two parts. Old and New. The Old part is still in effect. Look up the abominations related to worshiping Moloch.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:55 AM (BoE3Z)

618 The problem Ace is that you aren't pushing on the morally relevant questions. You are pushing some sort of bullshit sentimentality about "who do you grieve for more?" You have to know that it is an irrelevant question, other than for pondering the structure of human grief. People grieve at different levels for people based on their accumulated experiences. If you had a child who was magically whisked away at birth and then died at age 4, you wouldn't grieve that child the same. You might not even have a funeral. Does this make the 4 year old any less important?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 10:55 AM (wsGWu)

619 611 File this under Nobody Cares: I'm going to retire my "Max Power" sig. I know it seems sentimental, but I'm fond of it and I've been using it for years and years. If anyone uses it they are some new guy or I am drunk and I forgot to clear the cache on one of my computers. No I'm not going anywhere, I just feel weird about posting personal information about my life of such a deeply personal nature. And I'm sorry for calling the social cons evil. That is all. You don't need to do that Max. As for calling SoCons evil, no harm done. It's the internet. Tempers flare.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 10:56 AM (5TFvk)

620 611 Max power,

Understood and I don't hate you.

I am retiring "sven10077" I have quite the trail I am also "harlekwin15"

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:56 AM (LRFds)

621 I mean, the Bible is like a court transcription, it's not like literature. No analogies or metaphors there. Nope.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 03:53 PM (sbV1u)

Ace normally you're pretty smart about biblical stuff, but new testament canon makes it clear that fetuses are imbued with a soul and have worth in God's eyes.


Otherwise: Jesus also never said anything about launching liberals into space without a space suit.


Thank you Jesus!

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 30, 2012 10:56 AM (xAtAj)

622

Some socons could be talking constantly about babies being killed after they umbilical cord has already been cut - which given that the catholic church would get on it's knees and beg to foster them, has no excuse except the naked anti-human malthusian death cult.

 

But they'd rather talk about how it is vitally neccessary for society that we use the bully pulpit of the presidency to remind everyone that god hates jimmy hats.

 

How many times have Rick and Huck mentioned birth control and rape exemptions, and how many times have they begged and mentioned a simple desire to be able to adopt unwanted babies who survive botched abortions rather than finishing them off? Is that about saving babies or imposing values?

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 10:56 AM (TULs6)

623

there is no difference whatsoever between a baby and a foetus


After you're done ass-raping strawmen before setting them alight, would you please note that there is a significant difference between moral value and emotional attachment.  There is no meaningful moral distinction to be drawn.  But not having had children (that you knew about when they lived, I guess) you miss the real truth here, which is that emotional attachments grow over time, but it's there from the start.

Stop the fucking train, REALLY?

That's a surprise to you?



Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 10:56 AM (UaxA0)

624 Well, it's not flame bait if you genuinely don't know. Morons just assumed he knew. So that's that. >>>I understand that this is a point of mainstream Christianity but I think I need to point out Christ never mentions abortion. While this is no mean theological matter, Christ didn't mention video games, movies, or virtual porn either. But Christians can use biblical principles to infer the right course of action.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:56 AM (csi6Y)

625 >>>Ace, it's pretty clear that this is mostly just a theoretical thought experiment with you. It's also clear that for a lot of commenters it is *very* real and very painful. If you're doing this for fun then I'm quite disappointed (which I realize holds no weight for you, but feel the need to make my opinion known). How Dare You Question My Political Beliefs In The Comments Section of a Political Blog, Part 2. This is another thing that's bothering me-- this playing of the Emotional Trump Card at every turn.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 10:57 AM (LCRYB)

626 616 Ace,

because I am pretty sure that the creator sent Jesus as his representative on Earth to tell man I was wrong original sin sucks...let Jesus take the fall follow his teachings.

were it only possible the left would treat the Jihadist as warily.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 10:58 AM (LRFds)

627 598 >>>. Being so, they answer to Jesus Christ, and not women's rights.

I understand that this is a point of mainstream Christianity but I think I need to point out Christ never mentions abortion.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:49 PM (LCRYB


The Book has two parts. Old and New. The Old part is still in effect. Look up the abominations related to worshiping Moloch.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 10:58 AM (BoE3Z)

628 If you're so sure, you're basing that on your own thoughts and beliefs, so why not just rely on them instead of ventriloquizing Christ? Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:55 PM (LCRYB)

Congrats, Ace!  Welcome to Fundamentalism!  You believe that the Bible means literally what it says and no more and no less.  Excellent.  You'll have endless hours of fun at the local Pentecostal church.

Now, I'm a Catholic myself.  But I still welcome your entry into a more religiously nuanced view of the world.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 10:58 AM (sbV1u)

629 >>>The problem Ace is that you aren't pushing on the morally relevant questions. You are pushing some sort of bullshit sentimentality about "who do you grieve for more?" ace is genuinely surprised that people feel grief for chemical pregnancies. He didn't actually know.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 10:59 AM (csi6Y)

630 625 This is another thing that's bothering me-- this playing of the Emotional Trump Card at every turn. Emulating the "other side" who can only win by playing race cards. It's all just learned behavior. Human nature remains...human.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 10:59 AM (hNXHo)

631 Already DONE fuck-stick. The second child scenario was a hypothetical.

Posted by: Max Power at November 30, 2012 03:08 PM (q177U)


It is only hypothetical if you postulate a fool.  As you are not, your hypothetical was not either.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 10:59 AM (bb5+k)

632  when I attempt to probe the key assumption here -- that there is no difference whatsoever between a baby and a foetus -- I'm "flame-baiting" people and unduly provoking them" Sophomoric questions straight off RH Reality Check are hardly strong "probes" of the prolife position. Since you are so fond of these "how does X death make you feel?".arguments let's try this one. What hurts you more the deaths of 10 random guyx in Boston who you've never met, or the death of your cat?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 10:59 AM (LmyR7)

633 Ace, so the political solution is a personhood amendment that defines life based on a brain wave monitor at ten weeks or so, damn all those religious nuts who want it to be at conception. That way the "missing moral sediment" for fertilized embryos that fail to attach and the morning-after pill for rape victims can be assuaged.

Posted by: Jean at November 30, 2012 10:59 AM (TjgR9)

634 "I understand that this is a point of mainstream Christianity but I think I need to point out Christ never mentions abortion."
==============

Who doesn't love when non-believers demonstrate how little they understand Jesus?

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 11:00 AM (H84UO)

635 625 Ace,

Ace I didn't share to throw trump at you.

I disagree with your hypothesis and have very real reasons why.

I do not hate you, I am not castigating you I did not inveigh you to hell.

If there is no room for the Christian right in the party there is no room for me either.

Not a threat and I *am* FiCon first, but God is God bud no matter how flawed and bad an ambassador I am.

I'll shut up.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:00 AM (LRFds)

636 >>> ace is genuinely surprised that people feel grief for chemical pregnancies. He didn't actually know. No I understood that. I know women who've miscarried. I also know that after two to three weeks they were okay. It simply was not the same as losing a child. I also know at some point they decided to "try again."

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:00 AM (LCRYB)

637 634 Kensington,

I love it less and less each day.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:00 AM (LRFds)

638

ace, for fuck's sake, man, it's not an emotional trump card, for fuck's sake.  You talk about "moral sentiment"  and those are two different things, with two different roles in this debate.  You demand too know why people aren't holding tiny little funerals, and then presented with evidence start talking about the bible.

You've moved the goalposts so many times that what started as football is not cricket.

fuck, man, you're not this sociopathic. 

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:01 AM (UaxA0)

639 Just seems to me that if you want to argue the politics, then just say "well fuck, I hate abortion, but people won't listen our arguments, so I'm going to support pro-choice Republicans." If you want to argue the moral merits of the pro-life position, then let's argue about whether a fetus has rights, and whether those rights capture the mother's body. Why hedge on all of this emotional attachment bullshit? Do you think we have never heard the point before or something?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:01 AM (wsGWu)

640 When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up.

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 03:09 PM (y4eis)


And what weighty thoughts are being contemplated by this third tri-mester brain? No doubt they are significantly more insightful than that which came before.



By the way, how do you measure this condition? By assumption that it exists, or do you have some real data?


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (bb5+k)

641 "This is another thing that's bothering me-- this playing of the Emotional Trump Card at every turn."
==========

Yeah, take it up with Max Power; he's on your side, by the way.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (H84UO)

642 All that Bible folklore is admittedly quite hazy to me - I have heard rumors there were 10 more Commandments handed off to that Moses fellow at one point in time? Perhaps...?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 03:52 PM (hNXHo)

"All that Bible folklore" is the most cherished part of many Christian lives. But go ahead and snark it up. Be sure and do it come the next election, when FiscCon secularists are trying to scrounge up votes.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (BoE3Z)

643 636 Ace,

Your argument is valid for the majority.

I am still at a loss why the left inflicts their morals with aplomb and we are to be demonized for wanting at best EUtopia's third trimester safeguards that now England is thwarting.

Can you help me out?

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (LRFds)

644

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:57 PM (LCRYB)

 

Uhm, it's *not* a political belief Ace,  it goes a whole lot deeper than that. And *you* are the one who tried to use a question of grieving "correctly" (or not) into a question of what *is* life and who gets to have it.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (NYki8)

645 613 empire, are you beliefs so shaky you'll fall to pieces if I probe them slightly? Or are you just not used to that? This is just like the liberals' bubble-chamber where the Obviously Politically Correct attitude is privileged to the point where it not only can't be questioned, but it's actually *offensive* to question it. If you're fucking right you should have no problems establishing that and shouldn't need to resort to the How Dare You, Sir card. Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:54 PM (LCRYB) You mad, bro? I answered your question. And you haven't even come close to questioning my beliefs. Or yours, for that matter. So far all I've seen is the same attempts to dance around the central issue of the abortion question: Is it okay to kill an unborn child? I believe it is not. Every other tangent is... Tangential. Did I call you a baby murderer? Cite, please.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (PFvlM)

646 This is another thing that's bothering me-- this playing of the Emotional Trump Card at every turn.  Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:57 PM (LCRYB)

Ace, you did that too.  In fact, you did it first.  WAY up at the top of the thread.  
You were using emotionally loaded arguments, and now it sounds like you're pretending you did not such thing.  Hell, look at one of your last few posts.

"ventriloquizing Christ"

Really?  Are you going to tell me you thought that would be completely emotionally neutral?

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (sbV1u)

647 >>>Who doesn't love when non-believers demonstrate how little they understand Jesus? I understand that people often say "I am following Christ's law, not man's" and then when I ask about Christ law they start to mention human interpretations and metaphor, things that were not present in their original statement about Christ's law.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (LCRYB)

648 If you're so sure, you're basing that on your own thoughts and beliefs, so why not just rely on them instead of ventriloquizing Christ?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:55 PM (LCRYB)

 

Whenever I think, "What would Jesus do?", it never comes back with, "Kill the baby, so you can win the election."

 

Maybe that's just me being nuts.

Posted by: Invictus at November 30, 2012 11:02 AM (OQpzc)

649 I suppose, if one wants to be a pseudo-theologian, that Christ also never mentioned the trimester test from Roe v. Wade, thus leading to the inescapable conclusion that he would have voted with the Brennan wing.  And he never directly addressed glory holes either, so I'm off to the Manhole for a night of fabulous entertainment.  He did issue the One Commandment though, right-"Do it if it feels good, f the consequences".  That's why Samson's whoring ended so well for him.

Posted by: ejo at November 30, 2012 11:03 AM (GXvSO)

650 "I love it less and less each day."
==========

I guess I meant "Who doesn't love when non-believers demonstrate how little they understand Jesus at the same time they think they've found the ultimate GOTCHA!"

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 11:03 AM (H84UO)

651

No I understood that. I know women who've miscarried.

I also know that after two to three weeks they were okay. It simply was not the same as losing a child.



What the fuck does this have to do with morality and grieving?  Did you know their hearts?  How this immensely personal feeling of loss, viewed obviously with disdain or nonchalance by you, might not be shared with you for that reason?  

I missed the day you became omniscient.

If so, you know what I'm thinking right now.


Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:04 AM (UaxA0)

652 You are arguing that the Gaia Watermelon marx cult gets to legislate their morals and I must as a Christian in a free nation cede mine.

Good luck with that argument.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 03:10 PM (LRFds)


Agreed. They overlook the fact that all laws are imposed morality. It is never a question WHETHER morality is imposed, it is just a question of who's.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:04 AM (bb5+k)

653 >>> Uhm, it's *not* a political belief Ace, it goes a whole lot deeper than that. And *you* are the one who tried to use a question of grieving "correctly" (or not) into a question of what *is* life and who gets to have it. Once again if the foundation of this position is the underlying claim that there is NO DISTINCTION between a four year old child and a four week old foetus I have the right to question whether this claim is, you know, actually true, or something people just say to foreclose further argumentation (akin to "Racism!").

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:04 AM (LCRYB)

654 I guess everyone is at the new thread.  I had to leave the house but I just read over most of the comments here. 

This argument is a source of conflict because to the prolifer, abortion is in issue of life and death and one of principle.  Most of the pro-choice arguments are rooted in moral relativism --- the "I'm personally pro-life, but I won't force my view on others" line.  I can understand the pro-choice viewpoint if you really do not accept that life begins anywhere before natural birth.  Most fiscal conservatives take black and white positions on taxes like arguing that everyone should pay taxes poor, middle class, and rich alike so that effects of tax increases are felt by all.  It shouldn't  be that difficult to understand the black and white view of  prolifers.

Also, Ace, there is a prolife argument made in the Bible.   


Posted by: L, elle at November 30, 2012 11:04 AM (0PiQ4)

655 Let me put this Christian thing another way. If the Bible could not adapt to the needs of any person living on this earth at any time in history, including today, then it's just a crutch for Jewish fisherman at the turn of anno domini. Of course, Christians don't believe that.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:04 AM (csi6Y)

656 My guess is that third trimester brain has at least as much firing of neurons going on as the obamaphone lady.

Posted by: ejo at November 30, 2012 11:05 AM (GXvSO)

657

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:00 PM (LCRYB)

 

No, you know that after two or three weeks they didn't talk about it any more and seemed pretty much normal, that's nothing like being "okay" which you have no means of knowing.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:05 AM (NYki8)

658 The sad thing for me is that I expect more out of you Ace. I come to this blog and lurk pretty much all day long. You make incredibly rational arguments in almost every posts. including movie reviews. Why are you trying to push such a meaningless side issue? It has been pretty much the only thing you have responded to in the majority of the thread.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:05 AM (wsGWu)

659 I oppose federal laws concerning moral issue "x", on 10th Amendment grounds. In contrast, I fully support the right of the people of my state to legislate (by popular vote, not judicial fiat!) their collective morality on the subject, as that is one of the proper functions of state level government. As it turns out, I am in the minority position on this issue in my state. But I am willing to let the majority overrule me in my state, because I can always move to another state where the people agree with me. Moreover, by letting other people legislate morality on issue "x", it shows we can also legislate on issue "y", which is even more important to me and is more popular. "X" is pretty much anything, subject to a Justice Thomas reading of the Constitution. I.e., "x" cannot be slavery, but can be cash-for-ass.

Posted by: Wooga at November 30, 2012 11:05 AM (Zg1LA)

660 "This is another thing that's bothering me-- this playing of the Emotional Trump Card at every turn. " What the hell? You make the argument that people are not deeply emotionally affected by miscarriage, we tell you that we were actually very, very emotionally affected, and you say we're playing an emotional trump card? Your entire argument rested on lack of emotional response. How could we possibly respond to that charge without mentioning emotional responses that contradict your thesis?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 11:06 AM (LmyR7)

661

Whenever I think, "What would Jesus do?", it never comes back with, "Kill the baby, so you can win the election."


Amateur

Posted by: axelrodbamajarrettmessina at November 30, 2012 11:06 AM (UaxA0)

662 Ace you are stepping on your wee-wee.

It's ok to move on.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at November 30, 2012 11:06 AM (xAtAj)

663 Oh yeah, Fuck Organized Religion too.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 03:11 PM (hNXHo)


That's just what Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Hilter all said. Collectively between them, they killed over 100 million people.


Hmmm... compared to the alternative, religion doesn't seem so bad.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:06 AM (bb5+k)

664 What the hell? You make the argument that people are not deeply emotionally affected by miscarriage, we tell you that we were actually very, very emotionally affected, and you say we're playing an emotional trump card?

Your entire argument rested on lack of emotional response. How could we possibly respond to that charge without mentioning emotional responses that contradict your thesis?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 04:06 PM (LmyR7)

 

This. 

Posted by: Insomniac at November 30, 2012 11:06 AM (DrWcr)

665 With no desire to pick a fight, none of what you say is relevant to morality.

Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 03:48 PM (BoE3Z)

>>>
>>
>
I don't want to fight or flame, either.  But I've repeatedly stated that I'm not talking about morality.  I'm talking about politics, and the two are mutually exclusive.  The GOP will continue to diminish in relevance if there isn't some grassroots recognition that the abortion issue is a non-starter, politically, particularly in regard to overturning Roe v. Wade.  Women vote, and they don't want it.  Christians come in all flavors, and those who would never have an abortion, somehow, feel that a woman still has a right to choose.  Are they philisophically inconsistent?  Maybe.  But you can't legislate critical thought anymore than you can morality.  And, as a conservative, one wouldn't want the governement trying to to so.  That's my point:  NOT morality.  Political pragmatism.  A subject nobody really wants to tackle. 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:07 AM (T+4DM)

666 >>>What the hell? You make the argument that people are not deeply emotionally affected by miscarriage, we tell you that we were actually very, very emotionally affected, and you say we're playing an emotional trump card? I expliclity said they WERE affected -- just not as much as with a child. Because you find that argument difficult to gainsay, you create a silly strawman no one proposed -- no one sweats a miscarriage -- and then light up the matches.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:07 AM (LCRYB)

667 Ace: "Once again if the foundation of this position is the underlying claim that there is NO DISTINCTION between a four year old child and a four week old foetus" What the hell? Who is saying there is NO DISTINCTION (implied generally)? We are saying there is no distinction regarding the extension of basic human rights. It is easy to win when you make shit up.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:07 AM (wsGWu)

668 >>>No I understood that. I know women who've miscarried. Yes, but you didn't know people who felt like a lot of people in this thread. That is clear.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:08 AM (csi6Y)

669 650 Kensington,

I know I understod you.

I am saddened because i am beginning to suspect that we Christians may need to divorce ourselves from the US government as much as possible like the Amish.

Barack Obama wants me paying for infanticide.

SCotUS better ponder their next move.

I was "THRILLED" with Roberts' last theatrical trump card....he magics up 'fuck faith" the US Constitution is toilet paper.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:08 AM (LRFds)

670 "I am following Christ's law, not man's" and then when I ask about Christ law they start to mention human interpretations and metaphor, things that were not present in their original statement about Christ's law.  Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:02 PM (LCRYB)

This isn't the place for a 3 credit course in Fundamental Theology (but call me if you want a great all online course) or an exposition of Augustinian philosophy, but you're missing the fact that most Christians view themselves theology as "faith seeking understanding," and as such Christ's law is always bound up with man's interpretations. 

It cannot be any other way.  It's not like we can just hop on Skype and ask God what he was really talking about.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 11:08 AM (sbV1u)

671 I thought everyone knew this.

Life begins...


...when your youngest moves out and takes the dog with him.


Thank you very much.  I will be here all week.  Try the veal and be sure to tip your waitress.

Posted by: Al at November 30, 2012 11:08 AM (V70Uh)

672 Blue laws are a great example. They are unconstitutional, but still in practice. You can't buy alcohol at certain times of the week. For no other reason that it would "offend" someone.


Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 03:12 PM (3R8wQ)



Not necessarily.  Not allowing liquor sales on Sunday makes it far more likely that workers won't be drunk on Monday.  Some places ban Liquor sales on Election day to, and it's not for religious reasons.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:09 AM (bb5+k)

673 663 Diogenes lamp,

My grandmother who fled the reds warned me that the US left was just the cunning sibling of Stalin.

I see it more and more each day.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:09 AM (LRFds)

674 Lauren: "You make the argument that people are not deeply emotionally affected by miscarriage" Ace: "I expliclity said they WERE affected" Who is making the strawman? You said they were affected, not deeply affected. That is the entire point you are making. Lauren is establishing that women who have miscarriages are often DEEPLY affected.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:10 AM (wsGWu)

675 Tax-Paid Infanticide is a tax on or morality and ethics and culture of life.

Constitutional!

Posted by: "Justice" John Roberts at November 30, 2012 11:10 AM (xAtAj)

676

I expliclity said they WERE affected -- just not as much as with a child.

 

ace, if your girlfriend of two months died versus your wife of four years, which case would make you sadder?

 

Is your girlfriend less of a person than your wife?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 11:10 AM (FkKjr)

677
Once again if the foundation of this position is the underlying claim that there is NO DISTINCTION between a four year old child and a four week old foetus I have the right to question whether this claim is, you know, actually true


Pray tell, what is your distinction?  I have none.  That is my answer.

The reason I have no distinction is because all life is potentiality.  At any point, in the proper environment, a human life can continue.  Cohesive, organized cells with human DNA will continue to thrive as a self-regulating system with only respiration and nutrition as requirements (as we all have)

There is no point at which I can say, it's not human, kill it.

I come by this revelation the hard way, but that does not make it an argument from emotion or one from moral superiority (if anything, inferiority)

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:10 AM (UaxA0)

678 >>>ho is saying there is NO DISTINCTION (implied generally)? We are saying there is no distinction regarding the extension of basic human rights. it is seriously urged, again and again, that my position on killing a four year old should be my exact same position on a killing a four week old foetus because they're the same and the same moral and legal rules should apply to both. When I probe on this I get a lot of jazz about this being "too painful" to discuss or too emotional or whatever, and then I hear that maybe there are SOME distinctions after all. Which is all I was trying to establish. When people say HOW COULD YOU TREAT A FOETUS ANY DIFFERENTLY FROM A CHILD?!! -- with the implication that perhaps I'm okay with murdering children -- I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that not only do *I* think about foetuses differently than I think about children, but so in fact do most of the people who claim the "no difference" line.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:10 AM (LCRYB)

679 >>>I expliclity said they WERE affected -- just not as much as with a child. Because you find that argument difficult to gainsay It's not really difficult at all to gainsay. As long as people hold the truthful belief that a miscarried baby is the same as the loss of a born one (which they obviously do, given the responses here), well... That's it. You have to deal with that. There's no cognitive dissonance to probe. Your thrust is only effective if there is a conscious or subconscious difference here (e.g. "easier to get over"). There isn't for a lot of people.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:10 AM (csi6Y)

680

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:04 PM (LCRYB)

 

And when your commenters tried to tell you  (from their own experience) that, when you really get down to it there's suprisingly little difference, you in your invinceable ignorance began to bait and mock them. Like I said, really disappointed (and pretty shocked you actually replied, which I do give you points for even though I couldn't disagree more vehemently). 

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:11 AM (NYki8)

681 imp, I'm not talking to you. For the last hour every one of your comments have contained anger and f-bombs every other word. I don't talk to liberals who "argue" by saying "FUCK YOU RACIST" and I don't argue with your sort of similar jazz, either.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:11 AM (LCRYB)

682 Ace - if you can't spot the political grown up at the table, it's probably you.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:12 AM (T+4DM)

683 675 Justice John Roberts,

Yeah waiting on his ass to do the right thing by precedent is now a choose your own adventure book.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:12 AM (LRFds)

684

There is no I in Uterus.

 

This.  This is why the HQ is like no place else in the interwebz.

Posted by: RushBabe at November 30, 2012 11:12 AM (tQHzJ)

685 The government isn't in the business, and shouldn't be in the business of managing morality. And we shouldn't support any candidate who doesn't grasp this.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 03:12 PM (3R8wQ)


The government *IS* in the business of managing "official" morality.  All laws are legislated morality.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:13 AM (bb5+k)

686 Okay then. I'll be on Twitter calling Mark Ruffalo a hack if anyone needs me. Can't argue with the Ewok when he's got his heels dug in.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at November 30, 2012 11:13 AM (PFvlM)

687

When it has a brain capable of human thought. Which is in the third trimester, not at conception. It's science. Look it up.

 

Where the fuck are you getting your information?

 

;">Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

;">Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

;">Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

 

;">Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

;">Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can "breathe" amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

 

;">Week 15: The baby has an adult's taste buds.

 

;">Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep. 

 

;">Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.

 

;">Week 20: The earliest stage at which Partial birth abortions are performed. At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its' mothers voice.

 

3rd trimester starts at week 24.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 11:13 AM (TULs6)

688 >>>And when your commenters tried to tell you (from their own experience) that, when you really get down to it there's suprisingly little difference, you in your invinceable ignorance began to bait and mock them. bullshit they did. They told me they grieved the miscarriage -- something I never contradicted. No one is claiming "miscarrying a foetus is exactly like losing a six year old boy." They're just sort of hinting that maybe they're the same to win the point. In fact, they're not, and no one believes they are. I see people trying to make this claim, sort of, saying there is "virtually no difference," like you did. There is a big difference and you know it.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:13 AM (LCRYB)

689 FARK those Christians and social cons!

Romney didn't run on the ECONOMY at all.

In no way, whatsover, did the voters reject FISCAL CONSERVATISM...

That's why all Tea Party candiates won with flying colors, and why our man Mitt is the president-elect...

Posted by: Beadered Spock at November 30, 2012 11:14 AM (Bv9qa)

690 678 Ace,

at what point do you grant the living breathing growing thinking feeling child the right to live once out the womb?

The NHS is making judgements about the validity of a child's life based on amoral brutal mathematics of economic viability of care.

ARGGGHHH for fuck's sakes we are now the Nazis in a generation.

God in heaven forgive me.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 11:14 AM (LRFds)

691 My mother lost a baby at 4 month in-utero. This was 35 years ago. She still talks about that experience, and the sadness of not getting to meet that child. She went on to have 4 more children. I miscarried a couple of years ago at 12 weeks. This was a baby that was conceived even though I had had and IUD in. (It fell out) This was my 6th pregnancy, after having 5 kids, and hubby was transitioning through work, and money was tight. I mourned. It would have been inconvenient to have a baby at that time. I still mourned. Even though I'm now 4 weeks away from giving birth to my (now) 6th child, I still mourn for that baby I'll never hold. Never get to look into its eyes and hear it laugh, or cry. Would it have looked like its brothers? Would it have adored his sister? Questions that will never be answered, but certainly asked, and pondered on. And mourned.

Posted by: DawnMB at November 30, 2012 11:15 AM (FrELl)

692 I expliclity said they WERE affected -- just not as much as with a child I say." You make the argument that people are not deeply emotionally affected by miscarriage..." Ace says " I expliclity said they WERE affected -- just not as much as with a child" Deeply emotionally affected =/= "affected, but not as much as X" You're moving the goal posts. Also, are you as emotionally upset by the deaths of 10 strangers in Boston as you are about the death of your cat? No? Does that mean that the 10 Bostonians are less deserving of rights and protections than your cat?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 11:15 AM (LmyR7)

693 Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 03:52 PM (hNXHo)
"All that Bible folklore" is the most cherished part of many Christian lives. But go ahead and snark it up. Be sure and do it come the next election, when FiscCon secularists are trying to scrounge up votes.
Posted by: tubal at November 30, 2012 04:02 PM (BoE3Z)





People like Robby and his pal Reggie Love Dwight are sooooo much more clever and more educated then us religious rubes. They have all the answers to everything. I mean a bunch of single women who couldn't name who the VP is don't agree with us on abortion so the Republican party should chuck the social conservatives and become Rockefeller party. And while we're at it let's not make too much noise about taxes because that would be racist and not let's talk about borders because that kind of xenophobia will lose us some voters. In fact, let's just agree with the Dems on everything so Jon Stewart won't make fun of us. That ought to win us some elections

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 11:15 AM (1Jaio)

694 "I think it's perfectly reasonable to point out that not only do *I* think about foetuses differently than I think about children, but so in fact do most of the people who claim the "no difference" line." It is reasonable, but pedantic. The argument isn't really about whether people have the same emotional responses, and you know this, as demonstrated by the dozens of examples where this falls a part. The argument is whether a 4 week old fetus has the same human rights as a 4 year old. The thing is, the argument isn't even that. The question of whether a preborn can be aborted is not about whether that preborn has even every right a full adult has. They can't vote, for example. The question is whether a preborn has enough rights to prevent its abortion. Namely, does a preborn have the right the not be neglected and does that right require its caretaker to give up some bodily autonomy to secure it. It's a simple argument. Why bring in stupid shit such as religion or emotional response? Do you actually give a shit about the rational argument behind the anti-abortion stance?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:15 AM (wsGWu)

695 >>>No one is claiming "miscarrying a foetus is exactly like losing a six year old boy." They're just sort of hinting that maybe they're the same to win the point. Actually a bunch of people posted that they believed they were exactly the same in this very thread. Empire of Jeff being one of them. I mean this in the most literal sense. They really did. I understand there are people who dance around this but there's not many posting in this thread from what I've read.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:16 AM (csi6Y)

696 Formatting fail, sorry. Phone hates me.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 11:16 AM (LmyR7)

697

But you can't legislate critical thought anymore than you can morality. And, as a conservative, one wouldn't want the government trying to to so.



Respectfully, you are not conservative.  You are libertarian. 

"Conservatism" in the modern American sense from Kirk and Weaver, Voegelin and Nisbet, etc., was an attempt to stop the slide into amoral secular government.  Pick a new name, cuz it ain't conservative what you're saying.

Radical classical liberal, maybe.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:16 AM (UaxA0)

698 There is a big difference and you know it.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:13 PM (LCRYB)

 

The only difference is between somebody you know and somebody you haven't really met yet.  That's it.

 

And I'm guessing your friends who were fine 'two weeks later' really weren't.  They just didn't talk about it in public anymore.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 11:17 AM (FkKjr)

699 I actually have, and I have seen women cry. However, to the extent I know about this (and I only know about it indirectly) it seems to be about a two week grieving process. It doesn't really stick with someone the way a child's death does, haunting them throughout their lives.


Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:16 PM (LCRYB)


For what it's worth, Fetal cells continue to reside in the woman for the rest of her life. Not only do they reside in her, they actually assist in the repairing of her tissues from any injuries she acquires. 


Look it up.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:18 AM (bb5+k)

700 "To answer your question, my little brother died at 3 days old. My next little brother was stillborn prematurely at 5 months. Both are still mourned to this day. And yet, my parents "tried again" (using those words) a few years late and had my little sister." that's a pretty straightforward answer ace

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:18 AM (csi6Y)

701 Bevel just nailed it.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:19 AM (wsGWu)

702

Not necessarily. Not allowing liquor sales on Sunday makes it far more likely that workers won't be drunk on Monday.

 

Oh FFS. What about Tuesday? If blue laws had anything to do with people being sober on Monday morning, everyone would still be shitfaced by Monday noon. It's about imposing values.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 11:19 AM (TULs6)

703 No one is claiming "miscarrying a foetus is exactly like losing a six year old boy." They're just sort of hinting that maybe they're the same to win the point. In fact, they're not, and no one believes they are.  Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:13 PM (LCRYB)

And you through your borderline divine and semi-mystical way have ascertained what's in the minds, and hearts, without ever leaving your couch.

Bravo.

Now, seriously Ace, there are some folks here who you can take those statements and toss them out the window - as you have done.  I get it.  Some people are over the top and will say anything to "win."  But there are others, long-time Morons who aren't as easy to dismiss, like Lauren, and Poliwog and MWR.  They're not as easy to dismiss because they have track records of not being overly emotional trolls.

But dismiss them you did.  Just now.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 11:19 AM (sbV1u)

704 I expliclity said they WERE affected -- just not as much as with a child. Because you find that argument difficult to gainsay, you create a silly strawman no one proposed -- no one sweats a miscarriage -- and then light up the matches.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:07 PM (LCRYB)

 

That is true to a degree, but is it because the parents are strictly mourning for the life itself or is it because they are mourning the connection to the life (experiences, memories, etc.)

I think the parents of the four year old have more to draw from, and thus the grief is more profound. It is akin to grandpartents you might have. Some are very close to thier grandparents, spent much time with them, etc. Losing a grandparent like that is more painful because it takes a personal toll. Losing one you don't know very well has less of an impact.

While i agree with you somewhat as to the degree of pain inflicted, I do not believe that it is universal, nor do I think the degree of impact on others should be a test for a validity of life.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 11:19 AM (t06LC)

705 Aaaaaaand....scene.

Posted by: Kensington at November 30, 2012 11:20 AM (H84UO)

706 642 when FiscCon secularists are trying to scrounge up votes. I'm the one saying the tent isn't big enough for both camps (yet hoping some savior will come in and unite us all in our best interests to fight and destroy progressive liberalism), so I doubt I'll be looking to support a party that attempts the fools errand of trying to unite FisCons and SoCons. There are apparently other, far more effective coalitions that can, could and should be built.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 11:21 AM (hNXHo)

707
Dear Sir,

It has come to my attention that you are distressed at the notion of profanity, and that vulgarity is the bane of your existence.  Most humble apologies from your contrite correspondent.  Please direct your attention to the following argument:

there is no moral distinction to be drawn between a baby in utero and one that has been born.  The  death of either causes great emotional pain.  The manifestation of such pain may vary, because in normal human beings (present company excepted, of course) emotional attachments are based on familiarity and time.  The deliberate killing of either is a moral wrong.  People can and do grieve significantly for miscarriages.

Please do fee free to address the argument without dismissing it because of the messenger.


Please direct your

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:21 AM (UaxA0)

708

One thing we can do is to stop incentivizing behavior that we morally disapprove of - with abortion, do not pay for it under any circumstances using federal tax revenues.  Nor should any takpayer have to pay for birth control.  Procreation (and the activities that result in procreation at least part of the time) are in the private domain.  If you truly believe that the government should stay out of the bedroom, then be consistent and take care of yourself.

 

If I were a politician (God forbid) I would have to project a public image of my beliefs and how I would act legislatively.  I consider myself a conservative but cannot support making abortion illegal in the entire US (while I have never been pregnant myself I have been very close to individuals in unplanned pregnancies and cannot judge what is best for them for all that abortion is technically murder).  I would support Roe vs Wade being turned out and allowing states to deal with the issues.

 

ANYTHING that can be taken out of federal hands should be taken out of federal hands.  We are a Republic - never forget that.

Posted by: disa at November 30, 2012 11:22 AM (INP/i)

709

Diogenes you remind me of Obama's "saved or created", like how any liberal with a job can credit Obama with having saved it since he's not fired.

 

If any one person isn't high, then the drug war is working.

 

And if anyone isn't drunk on monday, it's because you had the good sense to ban liquour sales the day before.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 11:22 AM (TULs6)

710

it seems to be about a two week grieving process. It
doesn't really stick with someone the way a child's death does, haunting
them throughout their lives.

 

Two of my relatives got a divorce over a miscarriage.  She was born four months early and died in their arms.  They couldn't interact the same after that.  I'd say it stays with them both to this day.  He remarried a woman with a daughter who was about the same age.

I wouldn't go telling either of them, "good thing she wasn't four years old, eh?"

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 11:22 AM (FkKjr)

711

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:13 PM (LCRYB)

 

Sorry Ace, but you're going to have to accept that for a lot of the commenters here *you're wrong*. You made an assumption based on ignorance and it's biting you in the butt, but you won't back down. We who've had children, or been unable to, will *never* agree with your statement (which we understood perfectly clearly, but you've moved the goalposts) and now you can decide whether to take our word for our experiences or ignore it and maintain your assunptions.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:23 AM (NYki8)

712 535 523 There is no gay gene any more than there is a gene that makes you like broccoli or S&M. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 03:28 PM (Ezq3m) I don't know if you're being literal here, or mocking The Culture's fence-sitting talking points, but anyway: http://tinyurl.com/yj9oqaj

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 30, 2012 11:23 AM (jfUIE)

713 >>>Actually a bunch of people posted that they believed they were exactly the same in this very thread. Empire of Jeff being one of them. No he didn't. He said: >>>To answer your question, my little brother died at 3 days old. My next little brother was stillborn prematurely at 5 months. >>>Both are still mourned to this day. And yet, my parents "tried again" (using those words) a few years late and had my little sister. My question was about comparative grief, not whether grief attaches to either, which was never doubted. This is what I mean -- people are pretending to answer the question in such a way that shuts my ass up (Yes, they're exactly the same!!!) without actually saying that. And they're not actually saying that because they know it's not actually true. So we get these "sort of" answers disguising themselves as direct answers. The actual answer I get from a response like EoJ's (or the numerous other similar ones) is that "They are *sufficiently* equal to demand equal treatment." Which is fine, but a step away from "no distinction."

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:23 AM (LCRYB)

714 poliwogg, I never 'moved the goalposts." You and your allies moved them on my behalf, because they found the goalposts to be too difficult a target. Please quote me making the statement "miscarriages aren't grieved." thank you.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM (LCRYB)

715 639  A-Hole wrote:

 

"Just seems to me that if you want to argue the politics, then just say "well fuck, I hate abortion, but people won't listen our arguments, so I'm going to support pro-choice Republicans.""

 

 

The fact that a politician does not want to pass a law banning abortions does not make that politician "pro-abortion".

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM (Hd5n8)

716

If it's just the emotional attachment that determines whether it's OK to kill someone, can I just go down the street and kill the homeless guy?


Hey, wait a minute . . . .

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM (UaxA0)

717 480 1. Where in the Bible does it talk about abortion? Seriously, I would like to know. I've only been a Christian for 14 years, but I wasa Jew for 40 years before that and I have read a lot of the Bible.

"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).

Posted by: 80sBaby at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM (YjDyJ)

718 I don't know if you're being literal here, or mocking The Culture's fence-sitting talking points, but anyway: http://tinyurl.com/yj9oqaj

Posted by: BuddyPC at November 30, 2012 04:23 PM (jfUIE)

 

Correllation does not equal causation.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM (FkKjr)

719 >>> so I doubt I'll be looking to support a party that attempts the fools errand of trying to unite FisCons and SoCons. There are apparently other, far more effective coalitions that can, could and should be built. Dude you are blathering nonsense. Especially when the socons that you REALLY hate are the stupid ones, as in, the ones not posting in this thread. But that doesn't stop you from being a first rate Christian hater with all the knee jerk bottle rocket talking points. It's really tiresome.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:25 AM (csi6Y)

720 People like Robby and his pal Reggie Love Dwight are sooooo much more clever and more educated then us religious rubes.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 04:15 PM (1Jaio)

>>>
>>
>

FYI, I was raised Catholic, a faith I now reject for ... none of your fucking business.  I never entertained a literal interpretation of the bible, and if you think that kind of thinking is necessary to be religious, you are living in a sad, fantasy world where the GOP becomes continually greater through its increased marginalization.  I never attacked anyone here, except a few snarky comments that are decidedly mild in comparison to things I've read here.  I'm not saying you're stupid, Quiet Man.  But I am calling you gutless for your fear of engaging in a dialogue.  It's an irrational fear, but no less cowardly.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:27 AM (T+4DM)

721 719 It's really tiresome. So are people that want to base OUR laws on THEIR religion. That shit gets real old real quick.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 11:27 AM (hNXHo)

722 Nope. Look at the hardware. It simply isn't capable of higher than animal thought. The brain is far, far too underdeveloped. Compare the intelligence and stimulus-response of a newborn to just about any grown mammal/bird.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 03:26 PM (wsGWu)


Get out your cardboard nose profiles, and measure it properly the way the Nazis did.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:28 AM (bb5+k)

723 >>>The actual answer I get from a response like EoJ's (or the numerous other similar ones) is that "They are *sufficiently* equal to demand equal treatment." I fail to see how there is much of a distinction when both are mourned to this day, much as, say...the miscarried sibling was a child, a PERSON, even, that actually died? I really do not see the hidden difference that you are seeing. That is a pretty explicit declaration of sameness to me.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:28 AM (csi6Y)

724 "Please quote me making the statement "miscarriages aren't grieved." thank you." You didn't say they aren't grieved. You said they are grieved for a much shorter period of time. I think you said "two weeks or so" for miscarriages and "haunting your entire life" for a 4 year old's death. The posters here have explained to you that it isn't so cut and dried. Some people mourn miscarriages for their entire lives. Some people don't mourn their 4 year old's death for their entire lives. And whoop-di-do. Who cares? Why is this at all relevant for the discussion of abortion? Just because one or two people one time said their was no distinction in the level of grief? Who here has actually said that? Maybe 5% of the posters? Why do you care so much about it?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:28 AM (wsGWu)

725 Sorry about the formatting in #717.

Posted by: 80sBaby at November 30, 2012 11:28 AM (YjDyJ)

726 Bostonians vs cat, ace. Any response?

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 11:29 AM (jpF+v)

727 Please quote me making the statement "miscarriages aren't grieved." thank you.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:25 PM (LCRYB)

 

Please quote me saying you said that.  My "allies" ace, really? You made a statement from ignorance,  and people pushed back from their position of knowledge which you seem to be taking personally. Fine, but this is ridiculous and unworthy of you.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:29 AM (NYki8)

728 720 I never attacked anyone here, Welcome to the club. Attack the messenger, not the message. Go, Progressives!

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 11:30 AM (hNXHo)

729 Nothing changes but we do get a content-based flame war.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 03:29 PM (UaxA0)


It's been relatively flame-less.  Not nearly so much as I have had in the past on this issue.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:30 AM (bb5+k)

730

I'm not comfortable with the proposition that the grief elicited upon others be the yardstick for measuring the validity of life, 4 week old or 4 year old or 40 year old.

 

Ace, I concede your point to a degree, but I fail to see where it is valid in determining if abortion should be legal or not. Once again, I posit that some of the grief exhibited by the parents of the 4 year old is based on proximity, not upon the validity of life.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 11:32 AM (t06LC)

731

well, Diogenes, it's largely flameless b/c ace is now offended by profanity, or something.


Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:32 AM (UaxA0)

732

Posted by: 80sBaby at November 30, 2012 04:28 PM (YjDyJ)

 

Formatting looked great to me.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:32 AM (NYki8)

733 I never attacked anyone here, except a few snarky comments that are decidedly mild in comparison to things I've read here. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 04:27 PM (T+4DM)

Go consecrate a host or something. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (T+4DM)

 'Cause that was just mild.  Nope.  You never attacked anyone.

Not you.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 11:33 AM (sbV1u)

734 >>>Welcome to the club. Attack the messenger, not the message. Go, Progressives! I have no idea what the hell you are doing here, then. What the hell are you doing here?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:33 AM (csi6Y)

735 728720 I never attacked anyone here,

Welcome to the club. Attack the messenger, not the message. Go, Progressives!

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 04:30 PM (hNXHo)

<<<
<<
<

How right you are.  thanks, man.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:33 AM (T+4DM)

736

Fuck you reggie.  Mr. "Go Consecrate some Host."

YOU started that shit.

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:34 AM (UaxA0)

737

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 04:33 PM (csi6Y)

 

Maybe he's new and doesn't know the way things work here? Actually, I'm pretty sure he said he was new so he almost surely doesn't know that cutting eachother up for fun is one of the hobbies here at the HQ.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:36 AM (NYki8)

738 Is Richard Dawkins gonna summon himself as the third stooge anytime soon?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 11:36 AM (csi6Y)

739

Compare the intelligence and stimulus-response of a newborn to just
about any grown mammal/bird.

 

So you're OK with killing newborns?

 

In all seriousness... nah I won't say anything. Just don't let me catch you.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 11:36 AM (TULs6)

740 Gah, can't believe I spent my afternoon arguing with Ace instead of killing stuff on WoW which was my intention.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:37 AM (NYki8)

741 Gah, can't believe I spent my afternoon arguing with Ace instead of killing stuff on WoW which was my intention.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 04:37 PM (NYki

 

You're better off here.  Pandas are stupid.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 11:39 AM (FkKjr)

742

Gah, can't believe I spent my afternoon arguing with Ace instead of killing stuff on WoW which was my intention.

 

Why, is your level 47 elf princess preggers with a half-orc?

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 11:39 AM (TULs6)

743 No Entropy. I am not okay with killing newborns, and I am not okay with killing preborns. The point is that there is nothing special about newborns, so their rights must stem from their humanity in general. Therefore, as soon as something becomes a human organism, it has some basic human rights and protections.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:39 AM (wsGWu)

744 733I never attacked anyone here, except a few snarky comments that are decidedly mild in comparison to things I've read here. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 04:27 PM (T+4DM)

Go consecrate a host or something. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (T+4DM)

'Cause that was just mild. Nope. You never attacked anyone.

Not you.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 04:33 PM (sbV1u)

>>>
>>

>>
It was snarky, I'll give you that.  If you think that's an attack more than mild, you need to read how people are piling on Ace in the above posts.  A little perspective, my son.  If I hurt you, I'm sorry.  Anytime you want to stop talking about when the moment of life begins, or stillborn siblings, or the fetus-baby timeline progression and discuss the political ramifications of absolutist pro-life positions with regard to the survival of the GOP, I'll be here.  Until then -- get your shinebox.  (Was that nicer?).

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:39 AM (T+4DM)

745 >>>Ace, I concede your point to a degree, but I fail to see where it is valid in determining if abortion should be legal or not. Once again, I posit that some of the grief exhibited by the parents of the 4 year old is based on proximity, not upon the validity of life. Thank you for the concession (and I understand it is a limited concession). The point of the concession is that you shouldn't be all that surprised that other people don't consider a foetus (a very early foetus) fully a "baby" or fully a "child" because, look, no one does, including pro-life people. People understand they are different. Now you might take the position (as you seem to) that they are not *sufficiently* different to warrant a difference in treatment, and I understand that point. But what I'm arguing against, as a first matter, is the claim that they are obviously not different at all and people shouldn't/don't have any different moral sentiments about them. And by the way, I consider all basic morality to be rooted in moral sentiment. Higher-level stuff, where logic enters into it and all, is abstract and learned and intellectual, and just isn't as powerful a thing as moral sentiment. This is the difference between laws against crimes mala in se (bad in and of themselves, in our root sentiment) and mala prohibata (bad because a law -- or logic -- tells us it should be). People just do not have the same sense that stealing a book from a store is *precisely like* downloading a pirated copy of that book. We ought to, but we don't. I know a LOTTTT of people who would never, ever reduce themselves to shoplifters but who will nevertheless download pirated books like there's no tomorrow.

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 11:40 AM (LCRYB)

746 Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:52 PM (LCRYB)


Mammals evolved from egg laying creatures. Were the eggs independent lives or not?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:40 AM (bb5+k)

747

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 04:39 PM (FkKjr)

 

Well, as a chick, I sort of like the pandas but the real point is that I just got my deathknight and haven't gotten much playing time with her yet.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:41 AM (NYki8)

748 Posted by: MikeTheMoose is Shrugging at November 30, 2012 02:16 PM (0q2P7)

------------------


This is one of the best summations of the argument that I have ever read.  Ever.


Thank you.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 11:42 AM (P6QsQ)

749 Until then -- get your shinebox. (Was that nicer?). Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 04:39 PM (T+4DM)

That doesn't bother me.  In fact, if you wanted to be a Moron it would actually be, "now go get your fucking shinebox"

You know, just because you're cocksure it doesn't mean you're actually right.

You might want to read up a bit on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 11:42 AM (sbV1u)

750 There will never be a one-size-fits-all national answer to this problem. Ever. Never, ever, ever, never - never. 330M+ people will NEVER agree. Coincidentally, this may be why a virtual fuck-ton of shit was left by the Founders to "the laboratories of Democracy", ya know?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 11:42 AM (hNXHo)

751 Everyone whose panties are in a bunch right now are squawking about when life begins, and dead fetuses, and stillborn siblings. Ace is on a different level - its called politics. The absolutists believe that they have the market cornered on principles, and when Ace informs them about the big picture, he/she gets attacked for not playing small-ball like them.So. Very.Fucked.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 03:53 PM (T+4DM)


We might win the politics but lose our entire purpose.  If we are to become like Democrats, then we might as well capitulate to the real thing.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:43 AM (bb5+k)

752

this may be why a virtual fuck-ton of shit was left by the Founders to "the laboratories of Democracy"


That's a LITERAL fuckton, thanks.

Posted by: Joe Biden at November 30, 2012 11:43 AM (UaxA0)

753 We might win the politics but lose our entire purpose. If we are to become like Democrats, then we might as well capitulate to the real thing. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 04:43 PM (bb5+k)

THIS.

And the defense rests, Your Honor.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at November 30, 2012 11:44 AM (sbV1u)

754

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 04:39 PM (wsGWu)

 

The problem is that that argument is often used for saying *unborn* should be killed so when people see it they tend to assume that's what you're arguing. At the same time I don't know a better one to replace that with since you hit all the important bits, it's just the last sentence (essentially) that's different from what's been said so often.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:45 AM (NYki8)

755

If the Dunning-Kruger effect doesn't deal with the marginalization of the GOP through its tacit or implicity advocacy of extreme, absolutist pro-life statements of Republican officials, I can't say I'm all that interested.  I'm still trying to be nice. 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:45 AM (T+4DM)

756 Coincidentally, this may be why a virtual fuck-ton of shit was left by the Founders to "the laboratories of Democracy", ya know?

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 04:42 PM (hNXHo)

 

Unfortunately for the concept of states' rights, slavery existed.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 11:46 AM (FkKjr)

757 See Ace, plenty of people DO have the same sentimental reaction. It has been established in this thread alone. Besides, like Lauren pointed out earlier, you would mourn your cat much more than some foreigner's death, but you would not advocate your cat's life as more important than said foreigner, even at an emotional, gut level, would you? (I may be making an assumption here...) You may want to consider that emotional response to a death, or the method of grieving a death is still not the same as "moral sentiment" as you term it. In other words, I grieved more over my dog's death than my grandfather's death, but in my gut, logic removed (woohoo!) I still view my grandfather as a more important individual with much more extensive rights. Logic only supports that. All that said, do you not think that logic, although not as persuasive as it should be, is a far greater ground for a moral position than is sentiment?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:46 AM (wsGWu)

758 Whoops, emphasis was supposed to be on "should" not unborn.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:46 AM (NYki8)

759

Dunning-Kruger effect is where the incompetent are so incompetent that they don't know that they're incompetent

Posted by: Joe Biden at November 30, 2012 11:47 AM (UaxA0)

760

Serendipitous sock fail.

A-hole, remember, this is all just an elaborate ruse for ace to justify his hobo hunts.

If no one feels for the hobos, they're open targets, right?

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 11:49 AM (UaxA0)

761 Polliwog, Well, exactly. I used to push the whole "a fetus IS a person thing" before I realized that I wasn't really worried about whether a fetus was a person. I was worried whether it had rights to be defended. The very argument used by pro-choicers to kill the unborn can be used to kill newborns. So, morally, they are likely on the same level.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:50 AM (wsGWu)

762 We might win the politics but lose our entire purpose. If we are to become like Democrats, then we might as well capitulate to the real thing.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 04:43 PM (bb5+k)

>>>
>>
>
< Well, here's where we differ.  I don't think that "our entire purpose" hinges on the abortion issue.  Did you ever think you could put abortion on the back burner -- for NOW -- get a red prez and a red congress, then appoint a pro-life justice to tip the scale to have Roe v. Wade overturned, along with implementing lots of other conservative policies fiscally and socially? 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:50 AM (T+4DM)

763

@745

Now we're getting somewhere...

I think we are to the root of the matter. The pro-lifers here are of the position that all human life is special because it is human (from theology, natural law, what have you) and that terminating any human life, at any time is therefore mala in se (man, I haven't heard that since Criminal law (the other "ConLaw")

 

I think your position is that abortion can be viewed as the diet coke of murder or like downloading "Batman XXX" from rapidshare or whatever, kinda wrong but nonetheless acceptable. (Mala prohibida)

 

I guess the question is, why is that the case at all? Is it the chance of getting caught? Is it the social stigma attached? I can see no logical argument that termination of a human being should be treated differently based solely on length of time alone. Are we then basing the foundations for abortion based on the above reasons? Would we then be able to say that slavery should have been viewed acceptable as it was indeed not illegal and widely socially acceptable?

 

I'm really not trying to be a dick, I would like to understand and that sometimes doesn't come through in type.

 

 

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 11:51 AM (t06LC)

764

Unfortunately for the concept of states' rights

 

It's republicans blocking a bill with that word in the title because it is about pot?

 

Come on, all those idiot stoners are such high idiots. You're passing on the opportunity to tie it to pot legalization so 'States Rights' means getting your happy on and not racism in the minds of millions of morons.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 11:51 AM (TULs6)

765

So do we really think we lost the election over the abortion issue?

 

It swayed a lot of my liberal friends who don't realize that they are libertarian/republicans...they only see the republican social issues...STOP GETTING INTO THE SOCIAL ISSUES DURING ELECTIONS-libertarianism means freedom of choice and lack of govt intervention...now let it burn.  Let the JEF own this

That is all.

Posted by: baskethound at November 30, 2012 11:52 AM (JxvNx)

766 Ace, By the way, if you really want to talk about morals based on sentiment, consider that, grief equality aside, most pro-lifers arrived at their position initially out of "moral sentiment" and then probed their thoughts with logic. Pro-choicers have done the same thing. So, the role of moral sentiment in the argument is irrelevant. Logic is the only common ground between the two sides.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:52 AM (wsGWu)

767

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 04:50 PM (wsGWu)

 

Ah, thanks for explaining that. I'll have to think about using that tack as well. The thing that gets me is those who equate an unborn with cancer. I have four kids and lost my husband to cancer so I feel *very* strongly about such deeply dishonest and,  frankly,  evil arguments.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:53 AM (NYki8)

768 759

Dunning-Kruger effect is where the incompetent are so incompetent that they don't know that they're incompetent
Posted by: Joe Biden at November 30, 2012 04:47 PM (UaxA0)

>>>
>>
>

Oh, in other words, the extreme pro-life fringe within the GOP that insists on pushing its narrow, absolutist agenda at the expense of actually winning elections.  Cool.  Thanks.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:53 AM (T+4DM)

769 Women are elevated to the position of being able to grant life or death, to proclaim a human being either a life with full rights or property to be disposed of at their will. Women, and women alone. Execution or mercy. My question is how did women arrive at this level of magical-ness?

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 11:54 AM (P6QsQ)

770

@769

Behold the power of teh vagina.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 11:56 AM (t06LC)

771 My grandmother who fled the reds warned me that the US left was just the cunning sibling of Stalin.

I see it more and more each day.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 04:09 PM (LRFds)


It's more than that. The Left are a naturally occurring manifestation of certain social conditions, amongst of which prosperity is prominent.  People who acquire wealth (especially wealth that they did not create or earn) develop notions that are antithetical to their own interests.



The French Revolution was pushed and promulgated by the families of the Wealthy Aristocracy.  (Marquis de Sade e.g.)  They were shocked when their own heads ended up in the Guillotine. Such is leftism.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 11:56 AM (bb5+k)

772

Moral arguments should be won through persuasion and example, not the ballot box.  Jesus didn't prevail over both the Romans and the Jewish establishment by leading an army, or a mob.  He led by persuasion, instruction, and example.  If we're all going to live together in a reasonably free society (atheists, Christians and a bunch of other religions, belief systems, etc) we have to forgo using coercive force to impose our beliefs on others.  If you think abortion is murder, make your case.  Likewise for those who disagree.  Just don't presume that because your deity of choice said x/y/z (or some human wrote about them saying it) that you can dictate my choices to me. 

The political reality is that if your religious beliefs are so strong that you can't buy into argument a) and accept when society's laws deviate from your own beliefs, you can't politically co-exist with those who believe otherwise, at least not well and not for long.   Theologies that demand rigid adherence to and political enforcement of their beliefs are either separatists or conquerors - for common sensical reasons.   Christianity is one of the few that has avoided that trap and even served to hold our societies together when politics couldn't do the job.  I think it's because Christianity's core is about Jesus making a choice to die as a new kind of messiah rather than lead an army like an Old Testament messiah.  Jesus wasn't about seizing political power and using it to make people live Christian lives.   Jesus taught that unless you believe sincerely in your heart no amount of outward observance and right behavior will save your soul.  Christians who recognize that moral force outweighs temporal force can lead people toward more Christian lives.  Christians who want to us to take a shortcut to New Jerusalem at swordpoint are missing a big part of what Jesus' message was all about, IMO.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at November 30, 2012 11:57 AM (WLuv5)

773 770@769
Behold the power of teh vagina.

Posted by: JollyRoger at November 30, 2012 04:56 PM (t06LC)

>>>
>>
>

Power or no, don't mind if I do ....

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 11:57 AM (T+4DM)

774

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 04:54 PM (P6QsQ)

 

That very view is what made the first feminists decry abortion. Unfortunately I can't remember which one was quoted as saying that if they didn't view themselves as property how could it be right to view their children as property.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 11:57 AM (NYki8)

775 Polliwog, The cancer argument irritates me too. It stems from a mistaken pro-life argument that "unique DNA" means a human life. The science is more complex than that, but it supports our side. Any time someone says "well it's got unique DNA, but so does cancer!" explain that a blastocyst is not just unique DNA; it is a human organism capable of cell differentiation from day one. Pro-choicers are very anti-science, so you have to explain the basics.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 11:57 AM (wsGWu)

776 Ace, I didn't see a response to my three posts about the cats versus the dead Bostonians, so I will take that as a concession to my point. Stop me if you actually did respond to it, and I just missed it.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 11:59 AM (wsGWu)

777 RE #480- Some other Bible verses RE the sanctity of life:
Genesis 1:27, 9:6; Exodus 20:13, 23:7; Job 10:8-12, 31:14-15; Psalms 22:9-10, 51:5, 78:5-6, 82:3-4, 127:3-5, 139:13-16; Proverbs 24:11-12; Ecclesiastes 11:5; Isaiah 44:2, 46:3-4, 49:5; Jeremiah 1:4-5; Luke 1:41-42, 44; Galatians 1:15-16a

Posted by: 80sBaby at November 30, 2012 11:59 AM (YjDyJ)

778 "I have no idea what the hell you are doing here, then. What the hell are you doing here? Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at November 30, 2012 04:33 PM (csi6Y)" My moby senses are tingling, speaking for myself. Picked the wrong blog to put on his show for, he did.

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at November 30, 2012 12:00 PM (WE5bx)

779 Well, I have to go get my shit together for my LSAT tomorrow, so I am out of here. (I apologize, Ace, if I came across like, well, an A-Hole. I see your point, sort of, but I can't stand tangential arguments that don't dive into the logic.)

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 12:00 PM (wsGWu)

780 It seems to me that for consistency's sake, if pregnant women are the only ones who can decide if their child is a person or a piece of property, and can do with them as they wish depending on their personal decision, then we ought to have recognized that same right amongst slaveholders.  Only those who held slaves should have been allowed to make the decision whether to keep them as property or to grant them full personhood rights.  It should not have been the business of the government.


Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 12:01 PM (P6QsQ)

781 Oh, in other words, the extreme pro-life fringe within the GOP that insists on pushing its narrow, absolutist agenda at the expense of actually winning elections.Cool. Thanks.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 04:53 PM (T+4DM)

 

Yep.  That Mitt Romney ran a 100% social issues campaign.  If only he would have mentioned jobs and gas prices and nothing else.

 

Because telling people you are going to stop giving them checks from the government is waay more palatable than saying you are against killing babies.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 12:01 PM (FkKjr)

782

Remember folks-Victoria Toensing didn't just go to bat for Eric Holder;  She positively argued that he is what the DOJ needed after the Bush Years, with that nasty old Alberto Gonzalez in charge.  He would restore honor and morality to the Department.  Yes, I absolutely want someone so morally blind calling us out on morality issues and letting us know how wrong we are.  It wouldn't matter what the topic was-I don't want her involved in it.

Posted by: ejo at November 30, 2012 12:01 PM (GXvSO)

783 776Ace,

I didn't see a response to my three posts about the cats versus the dead Bostonians, so I will take that as a concession to my point. Stop me if you actually did respond to it, and I just missed it.

Posted by: Lauren at November 30, 2012 04:59 PM (wsGWu)

>>>
>>
>
It was likely too infintile a premise and too inconsistent an analogy to deserve a response.  Probably, anyway.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 12:01 PM (T+4DM)

784

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 04:57 PM (wsGWu)

 

Yeah, they're deeply anti-science. Y-not backed me up on Twitter one time against such an argument. The woman making the argument ignored the fact that Y-not's degree is in developmental biology, said "well they're really the same" (because she says so I guess) and then blocking us. The fact that she had been told point-blank  that she was wrong by someone who was an expert in the field  didn't slow her down at all. Very sad and troubling to see someone *that* deperate to have a baby not be human. 

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:03 PM (NYki8)

785

769Women are elevated to the position of being able to grant life or death, to proclaim a human being either a life with full rights or property to be disposed of at their will. Women, and women alone. Execution or mercy. My question is how did women arrive at this level of magical-ness?

 

-------------

 

We can't become pregnant all by ourselves, mama winger.

 

It still takes a sperm to create a life.

Whether it is done artificially, or the old fashioned way...it still takes both a sperm and an egg to create a new life.

 

Which is why I don't think that men should be excluded from the condemnations I see....regarding abortions.

 

It takes two.

 

For every abortion that happens...there is a guy in that equation, a guy who has not convinced that pregnant woman to have his child.

 

 

 

Posted by: wheatie at November 30, 2012 12:03 PM (CM59X)

786 Yep. That Mitt Romney ran a 100% social issues campaign. If only he would have mentioned jobs and gas prices and nothing else.

Because telling people you are going tostop givingthemchecks from the government is waay more palatable than saying you are against killing babies.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 05:01 PM (FkKjr)

>>>
>>
>

No, he ran as a fiscal and social conservative, for the most part (I'll leave his immigration position alone for now).  But the stink of Akin, and his narrow absolutist zealot supporters, was all over him and gave the "war on women" fable a hint of realism for the people who went to the polls.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to focus on the pro-life part of it.  And based on your "killing babies" inflammatory rhetoric, Obama should be personally thanking you. 

 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 12:05 PM (T+4DM)

787

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 05:01 PM (T+4DM)

 

She was talking to Ace moby. And yes, as an unfamiliar hash and nic going around insulting app. half the commenters will lead to the assumption you're a moby.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:06 PM (NYki8)

788 ace, how you can monitor two threads, participate in both, and work on your next post is a skill I marvel at.
 
To drag this back into the realm of the politic, I like to point out an election result here in MS, where Romney won by 11 points this year. Last year, there was a personhood amendment on the ballot. Life begins at conception, codified into law.
 
It was shot down by 11 points.
 
MS is widely considered one of the most conservative and religious (and restrictive on abortion) states in the country, and it wasn't a close call. What are some of the possible outcomes if this is enacted in a state? Doctors charged with murder for prescribing the morning after pill. Forensic autopsies on all miscarriages. Charges of murder for crossing a state line to obtain an abortion.
 
For you ultra pro-lifers, is that what you really want the state to do? That is your dream result? Because those are some of the implications.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2012 12:07 PM (ccXZP)

789

Posted by: wheatie at November 30, 2012 05:03 PM (CM59X)

 

Yes. One of the traps of "easy" abortion is that women aren't picky  when most able to have children  and men don't feel like they  should have to be responsible either. So nobody takes responsibility, which is normal human behavior, and the baby pays the price.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:09 PM (NYki8)

790 Outlawing abortion does not imply a specific method of enacting that outlaw. There are countries in the world that are Pro-Life. See Ireland. We don't have to turn it into some totalitarian state, necessarily.

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 12:09 PM (wsGWu)

791 My daughter just found out last week that she is pregnant. Just barely detectable pregnant.  To anyone who thinks that just-barely-knowing you are pregnant doesn't equal thinking of the baby as a baby, please tell me why we already have a nickname for it, we already have sorted through the older siblings bins of clothes for all the newborn stuff, why we already have decided where the third crib will go, and why I already have presents bought for it.

I went from not knowing this person existed to immediately enlarging my dinner table in my head and trying to figure out how to get three car seats in my Malibu.

Not a person?  What is it then, a puppy?

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 12:10 PM (P6QsQ)

792

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2012 05:07 PM (ccXZP)

 

Well, at this point I'd be thrilled to just see Planned Parenthood treated like every other out-patient medical facility in the country when it came to health and safety inspections. That doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:11 PM (NYki8)

793 Speaking on the issue here,I see all the SoCon issues getting lumped into the same bin, but that's swapping out the apples for oranges and still claiming it's the former. To wit: there's a lot of opposition to gay marriage, but it's not generally a line in the sand because it's a genuine personal liberty issue. It does not contradict the establishing laws of the Republic. The same absolutely cannot be said of abortion, no matter how many fundamentalist secularists want it to be. The very core of conservatism is not opposition to out-of-control government spending, nor is it psychopath tendencies cleverly disguised as a political leaning. The core, the very thing the Founding Fathers asserted was that the Creator has bestowed us with the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order. Abortion throws the very first one right out the window. Moreover, conservatism recognizes that some government is necessary: government exists to safeguard the rights of it citizens, most notably from other citizens. So it isn't a government intrusion any more than other laws against murder are; indeed, it's the whole point of government, even more than lowering the debt or paving highways. It is the line in the sand for many, as well it should be, because once you start negotiating on the right that sets the United States apart from every other government in the world, you've already thrown out the foundation of the nation itself.

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at November 30, 2012 12:13 PM (WE5bx)

794 I never attacked anyone here, except a few snarky comments that are decidedly mild in comparison to things 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 04:27 PM (T+4DM)


Go consecrate a host or something. Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 02:59 PM (T+4DM) 


Adapt or perish. Oh, wait, that's Darwinian, and evolution is a lie. And the earth is 6000 years old. Where's my cocoa? ... ZZZzzzzzzzz.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 03:45 PM (T+4DM)




Nope, no attacks on anyone. Go back to Think Progress you queen

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 12:13 PM (1Jaio)

795 787Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 05:01 PM (T+4DM)

She was talking to Ace moby. And yes, as an unfamiliar hash and nic going around insulting app. half the commenters will lead to the assumption you're a moby.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 05:06 PM (NYki

<<<<
<<<
<
<
Sticks and stones.  I threw out a couple snarky comments, and was slighty firmer against people who came at me.  I tried to engage several people to stop talking about fetuses and stillborns and miscarriages and the fetus-baby timeline progression and just discuss the political ramifications of the absolutist pro-life rhetoric with regards to the survival of the GOP.  I had few or no takers.  Not my fault people would rather pile on the creator of the list itself then discuss how the GOP is imploding.  This thread should be a wake-up call to everyone who cares about the conservative movement.  I know I do, and it seems like I'm in the minority because I don't believe that the abortion issue is central to the GOP, nor that the world is only 6000 years old, nor that the framers of the constitution wanted religion to dictate social and political policy.  Seems like there's some LINOs and CINOs on this list, and that's not cool.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 12:13 PM (T+4DM)

796

 But the stink of Akin, and his narrow absolutist zealot supporters,was all over him and gave the "war on women" fable a hint of realism for the people who went to the polls.

 

Sorry, sparkie.  Mitt won white women and all women over 44.  He lost women of different ethnicities, just like he lost men of different ethnicities.

 

The minority vote didn't reject Mitt because of Akin.  Your clumsy half-assed attempt to pin this on SoCons won't work.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 12:14 PM (FkKjr)

797

While I REALLY like:

 

"DC is a crack addict who thinks he's subsidizing the liquor store by not robbing it,"

 

I think it's actually "DC is a crack addict who thinks he's subsidizing the liquor store by buying booze there with money robbed from it."

Posted by: p mike at November 30, 2012 12:15 PM (fBIFQ)

798

Posted by: The Ghost of Flannery O'Connor at November 30, 2012 05:13 PM (WE5bx)

 

This. Thanks for putting it so much better than I can.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:17 PM (NYki8)

799 Nope, no attacks on anyone. Go back to Think Progress you queen

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 05:13 PM (1Jaio)

>>>
>>
>

Toughen up or shut up.  Go big or go home.  You interpret the bible literally?  Fine.  You think the earth is NOT 4.5 billion years old.  Okey-dokey.  Evolution is a myth?  Well, alrighty, then.  In the meantime, get some bactine and quit whining because I "offended" your intense devotion and faith that informs the deep-seated "morality" that compels you to call me a "queen".  And show me where "conservative" or "libertarian" qualifications require one to tow the absolutist pro-life invectives you seem to embrace.  If anyone out here is contributing to the degradation of thought and free exchange of ideas out here, its the likes of you.

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 12:20 PM (T+4DM)

800 Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 05:11 PM (NYki
 
As you may (or may not) know, MS has exactly one abortion clinic in the entire state due to progressively more difficult laws over their operation. This year, new laws were passed that required every doctor at that clinic to have admitting privileges at some hospital, which the Jackson hospitals won't grant. The new law was specifically targeted at that one clinic still in operation, to shut it down. The clinic has appealed this to the federal court system.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2012 12:21 PM (ccXZP)

801 Sorry, sparkie. Mitt won white women and all women over 44. He lost women of different ethnicities, just like he lost men of different ethnicities.

The minority vote didn't reject Mitt because of Akin. Your clumsy half-assed attempt to pin this on SoCons won't work.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 30, 2012 05:14 PM (FkKjr)

>>>
>>
>
You wouldn't happen to have the breakdown of "all women" in the big cities, would ya?

 

 

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 12:22 PM (T+4DM)

802
There is no point at which I can say, it's not human, kill it.

I come by this revelation the hard way, but that does not make it an argument from emotion or one from moral superiority (if anything, inferiority)

Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 04:10 PM (UaxA0)


The Characteristic which occurs to make us a unique human pattern occur when the disparate DNA bind together to form a unique new one. (At Conception.) 


When Mammal's predecessors laid eggs, it was impossible to claim that they were not a unique and independent life. With the evolution of internal child carrying, this clarity has now been blurred.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:27 PM (bb5+k)

803

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2012 05:21 PM (ccXZP)

 

I guess proving your point that MS is *very* conservative as the general clinic (based on reports from those who've worked there and those who've had abortions as well as the things that his the news) is filthy and would be shut down quickly if subject to the same level of scrutiny as is standard for every other health facility. The  (govenment? private? religious? what?)hospital  has the right to choose to with-hold admitting privledges if they believe the doctors are involved in activities that will make their liability too high, and given the general quality of abortion doctors, this would be a legitimate concern.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:30 PM (NYki8)

804 They have all the answers to everything. I mean a bunch of single women who couldn't name who the VP is don't agree with us on abortion so the Republican party should chuck the social conservatives and become Rockefeller party. And while we're at it let's not make too much noise about taxes because that would be racist and not let's talk about borders because that kind of xenophobia will lose us some voters. In fact, let's just agree with the Dems on everything so Jon Stewart won't make fun of us. That ought to win us some elections

Posted by: TheQuietMan at November 30, 2012 04:15 PM (1Jaio)


And in the midst of this argument people fail to realize that the people driving the agenda are the Media Liberals.  They have been pushing the public in the direction it is going while we have been yelling "Stop! Cliff!!!"


It's time to let the public walk off the cliff. People need to get ready for a hard fall.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:32 PM (bb5+k)

805 I think it's actually "DC is a crack addict who thinks he's subsidizing the liquor store by buying booze there withmoneyrobbed from it."

Posted by: p mike at November 30, 2012 05:15 PM (fBIFQ)

 

I think you've got it pretty accurately.

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 12:32 PM (NYki8)

806 "672 Not necessarily. Not allowing liquor sales on Sunday makes it far more likely that workers won't be drunk on Monday. Some places ban Liquor sales on Election day to, and it's not for religious reasons. " You can make that same argument for any day of the week and the week after this. What's so special about Sunday? And this is the point of this. They were enacted specifically with a concept in mind of a sabbath on sunday. You can argue "no drunk workers on monday", but as I noted, that applies to any pair of adjacent days, and is hence nonsensical as an argument. That is, pick a random pair of adjacent days, and if the same argument does not apply with the same force as it does for Sunday/Monday, then you have a problem. Sure you can argue "start of work week" and other things. And you rapidly get into the definitiion of what "is" is. That is, its deep into the weeds, no recovery, and you are digging a deeper hole with every sentence. They are unconstitutional for a specific reason, and this goes to their intent. Law has a great deal to do with intent. The intent of these laws has nothing to do with hung over mondays. Which is why they were unconstitutional. As the intent was no drinking on the sabbath. Which imposes someone's belief system upon others, their value system upon others.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 12:33 PM (3R8wQ)

807 Namely, does a preborn have the right the not be neglected and does that right require its caretaker to give up some bodily autonomy to secure it. It's a simple argument. Why bring in stupid shit such as religion or emotional response? Do you actually give a shit about the rational argument behind the anti-abortion stance?

Posted by: A-Hole at November 30, 2012 04:15 PM (wsGWu)


It is interesting that a woman can be convicted of child abuse for using drugs during pregnancy, but there is no penalty at all for killing that same child.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:34 PM (bb5+k)

808
Oh FFS. What about Tuesday? If blue laws had anything to do with people being sober on Monday morning, everyone would still be shitfaced by Monday noon. It's about imposing values.

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 04:19 PM (TULs6)


There is more temptation to continue drinking on the weekend than there is to start drinking during the weekday. 



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:37 PM (bb5+k)

809 There are apparently other, far more effective coalitions that can, could and should be built.

Posted by: Rob McNeece at November 30, 2012 04:21 PM (hNXHo)


If your only concern is building a majority coalition, then you aren't acting out of principle.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:39 PM (bb5+k)

810 It is interesting that a woman can be convicted of child abuse for using drugs during pregnancy, but there is no penalty at all for killing that same child.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 05:34 PM (bb5+k)

---------------


What if I walked up to an obviously pregnant woman and stabbed her in the mid-section with the intent to kill the child, and in fact the child did die?  I would be charged with some degree of homicide, wouldn't I?

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 12:39 PM (P6QsQ)

811 ANYTHING that can be taken out of federal hands should be taken out of federal hands. We are a Republic - never forget that.

Posted by: disa at November 30, 2012 04:22 PM (INP/i)


Amen. 

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:41 PM (bb5+k)

812 "685 The government *IS* in the business of managing "official" morality. All laws are legislated morality. " Odd ... thats not what I learned. The government is in the business of providing rules between entities for their interaction, for preservation of the entities rights, and protecting the entities. No where in this is morality a factor. Implying otherwise is a grave error in a conception of the purpose of governments. Laws may be completely immoral, yet completely legal. I am am sure that this group could come up with at least one being debated above. Immorality may be completely legal. Morality may be rendered illegal, and specific protections needed to protect moral choices (good samaritan laws). But in no way, shape, or form, should a government EVER legislate morality. This ends, badly, for everyone. It creates a market and economic incentive for immorality. It breeds a greater, more dangerous spawn than that which it seeks to protect against (prohibition, etc.).

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 12:41 PM (3R8wQ)

813 "Diogenes you remind me of Obama's "saved or created", like how any liberal with a job can credit Obama with having saved it since he's not fired. "

"If any one person isn't high, then the drug war is working."





Big difference between 2% of the population and 50% of the population addicted to drugs.  







"And if anyone isn't drunk on monday, it's because you had the good sense to ban liquour sales the day before."

Posted by: entropy at November 30, 2012 04:22 PM (TULs6)




I didn't say the idea had to be sensible, I said that it MIGHT have been the motivation among some for creating such a law.  




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:43 PM (bb5+k)

814 The government is in the business of providing rules between entities for their interaction, for preservation of the entities rights, and protecting the entities. No where in this is morality a factor.

------------



I would argue that those three purposes all derive to one degree or another  from a moral code.

Posted by: mama winger at November 30, 2012 12:45 PM (P6QsQ)

815
The fact that a politician does not want to pass a law banning abortions does not make that politician "pro-abortion".

Posted by: Brian at November 30, 2012 04:25 PM (Hd5n


Just as someone who sits out an election isn't Pro-Obama.  It has the same effect though.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:45 PM (bb5+k)

816 well, Diogenes, it's largely flameless b/c ace is now offended by profanity, or something.


Posted by: imp at November 30, 2012 04:32 PM (UaxA0)




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:47 PM (bb5+k)

817 This is the difference between laws against crimes mala in se (bad in and of themselves, in our root sentiment) and mala prohibata (bad because a law -- or logic -- tells us it should be).


Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 04:40 PM (LCRYB)



As our morality evolved during tribal conditions (during which infant mortality was horrendous) and as a successful defense of the tribe required having more bodies than the attacking tribe, the mala in se of abortion is that it is a deadly threat to the well being of the community's ability to defend itself and prosper.  



Same problem with massive drug addiction. Get enough people taken out of the defense equation through addiction, and pretty soon you have a very weak country, ripe for the plucking.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:53 PM (bb5+k)

818 Well, here's where we differ. I don't think that "our entire purpose" hinges on the abortion issue. Did you ever think you could put abortion on the back burner -- for NOW -- get a red prez and a red congress, then appoint a pro-life justice to tip the scale to have Roe v. Wade overturned, along with implementing lots of other conservative policies fiscally and socially?

Posted by: Reggie Dwight at November 30, 2012 04:50 PM (T+4DM)


Nope, I don't think such a scenario is very likely.  Of course, at this point I think the fuse is lit and it no longer matters about these issues. Romney was the last chance to stop the dying which I expect to come from a financial collapse.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 12:56 PM (bb5+k)

819 It swayed a lot of my liberal friends who don't realize that they are libertarian/republicans...they only see the republican social issues...STOP GETTING INTO THE SOCIAL ISSUES DURING ELECTIONS-libertarianism means freedom of choice and lack of govt intervention...now let it burn. Let the JEF own this
That is all.

Posted by: baskethound at November 30, 2012 04:52 PM (JxvNx)



The jokes on them. They think they are punishing people whom they don't like, but they are in fact voting to enact an agenda that will threaten their very lives. 



Fuck them. People that stupid don't deserve to live anyway.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:00 PM (bb5+k)

820 Wouldn't it be awesome if some fiscally responsible, pro-free market Democrats came out of the closet?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2012 01:03 PM (azHfB)

821 Moral arguments should be won through persuasion and example, not the ballot box.

Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at November 30, 2012 04:57 PM (WLuv5)




So we should persuade gang bangers to not kill anyone by the example we set? Seems rather a weak and ineffective method to me. How many centuries should we try this tactic before we can decide it doesn't work?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:04 PM (bb5+k)

822 For you ultra pro-lifers, is that what you really want the state to do? That is your dream result? Because those are some of the implications.

Posted by: GnuBreed at November 30, 2012 05:07 PM (ccXZP)



I would be content with throwing abortionists into prison.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:08 PM (bb5+k)

823 820 GoY,

they did....

ask Evan Bayh about it.

Posted by: sven10077 at November 30, 2012 01:10 PM (LRFds)

824 Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 05:33 PM (3R8wQ)

Not worth arguing about. You can have it.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:12 PM (bb5+k)

825
What if I walked up to an obviously pregnant woman and stabbed her in the mid-section with the intent to kill the child, and in fact the child did die? I would be charged with some degree of homicide, wouldn't I?

Posted by:Mama Winger at November 30, 2012 05:39 PM (P6QsQ)


This has happened, and the answer is yes.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:13 PM (bb5+k)

826 The government is in the business of providing rules between entities for their interaction, for preservation of the entities rights, and protecting the entities.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 05:41 PM (3R8wQ)





Right. That is a form of morality, and one very much at odds with a previous form of morality which stated that certain people of a noble character had more rights than do you. 



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:16 PM (bb5+k)

827 But in no way, shape, or form, should a government EVER legislate morality.

Posted by: joe in michigan at November 30, 2012 05:41 PM (3R8wQ)





What exactly is a prohibition on slavery? It's all morality dude. It's just morality from different reference frames.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at November 30, 2012 01:18 PM (bb5+k)

828 281 Diogenes is right, and I think my head is going to explode at this point.



All I can say is that if it makes me a conservative version of Cloward or Piven to say that this country isn't worth saving if we don't mind rolling around in blood, so long as we get the financials on track, so be it - and incidentally, that bit about getting the financials on track IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN so long as the nihilistic fuckwits on this thread and in society at large continue prancing about sing-song til the sky falls, preaching their hippy-esque free love bullshit, because all their efforts at teaching 'responsibility' and 'discipline' to the next generation will not matter one shining blue fuck from Tuesday if you extend your permissiveness to something as vital as the lives of the missing half of that generation.


Fucking Communists have done their work well. Half our own number is indoctrinated and doesn't even realize it.

Posted by: Kinley Ardal, enemy of Sanger 'til doomsday at November 30, 2012 02:45 PM (R8Rbc)


I grew up without religion, bought into the "religion is evil" meme, and even I can see what destruction that the left has wreaked on the family unit because of that meme.

I believe it's all connected.

When Mitch Daniels said "Truce please" prior to 2012, I remember thinking he was an idiot. He attacked his own party instead of saying "It's all connected, follow the money" - if you step back and look at the big picture, it all ties together. I mean all of it.

No religion =  {usually} no moral framework.

No penalty = {usually} no responsibility. Personal, public, or private.

No standards = {usually} no discernment. If anything goes, nothing has any value.

So while I agree my body is MY business, the destruction to our society with abortion on demand is endemic, with immeasurable fiscal costs, as the gov't pie shrinks and more hands are held out.

IMHO, the solution is not to be found by creating even more laws {that would probably not even be enforced, ala immigration} but to restore personal responsibility, humility, and a strong work ethic.

Delayed gratification IS returning, with stores doing layaway's, so after 4 more years of The Great Oppression Depression, the pendulum should swing back and wholesale rejection of the "Have your cake and eat it too" party should finally happen.

I say should - if the R's realize they need to stop using the D's playbook, and start framing the narrative correctly, it WILL happen.



Posted by: Amy Shulkusky at November 30, 2012 01:54 PM (uMfFZ)

829

Being a pro-life republican, I did not trust either McCain nor Romney to nominate pro-life judges or justices.  And now we are holding up a 'republican' who says the pro-lifers are wrong because those two lost the catholic vote? 

Look at it this way....The two recent GOP nominees who I did trust would nominate pro-life judges, that being Reagan and Bush Jr....how did they do with the votes? 

Yes, they actually won, why, because they had strong and steady moral compass to go along with moral character, something seriously lacking in our last two liberal leaning nominees.

Posted by: doug at November 30, 2012 02:03 PM (uJ8q7)

830 Here's the problem, I think abortion is immoral, but I don't think it's murder.  I think it's on the same plane of "sin" as say Adultery.

Some pro-lifers take outrage at that thinking, but if you truly believe abortion is first-degree murder, the logical extension would be the electric chair for abortion providers and also capital punishment for the woman that commissioned the abortion. 

I'm not a Theologian, but I don't believe God views a woman getting an abortion a week into a pregnancy the same as a woman say drowning her 6 month old infant.  I think if pro-lifers were honest, they'd also admit there's a difference, even though they would say both are wrong.

That's why I can live with a political party that doesn't make this issue front and center, especially since the train left the station a long time ago. 

Abortion is never going to be made illegal, it's now a question of personal morality.  I want to salvage what's left of this country before we become a failed state.  I don't want to be arguing over abortion as we're flying off a cliff, especially since it's not going to ever change anyway.



Posted by: Jeepers at November 30, 2012 02:16 PM (XDRsa)

831 389 "If life begins at conception--duh, where else it would it begin?"

There are those who believe a HUMAN life begins when the portion of the brain that supports human-level thought forms, around the third trimester, and that both the "one cell is a human being" and the "it's a clump of tissue until one nanosecond after the head come out of the vulva" camps are friggin' nuts. Because you are.

Posted by: Hadley V. Baxendale at November 30, 2012 03:00 PM (y4eis)


Setting the goal posts to make your opinion the norm? Because you say? Well, all righty then. You are the sane one here.  


Ah, hubris - it stinks.

Posted by: Amy Shulkusky at November 30, 2012 02:29 PM (uMfFZ)

832 ...the problem is always "Math". I'm pro-choice fallen catholic.I think i'm right(correct). ...but whether its ss, medicare, food stamps, unemployment... somebody better be making babies to carry u're ass-ponzi schemes are tuff  if u keep killin' the foundation...

Posted by: pahound at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (mT6YX)

833 Wouldn't it be awesome if some fiscally responsible, pro-free market Democrats came out of the closet?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 30, 2012 06:03 PM (azHfB)

 

That would indeed be awesome. I suppose there *has* to be at least a few right?

Posted by: Polliwog the 'Ette, still a Hobbit at November 30, 2012 02:53 PM (NYki8)

834 It figures I'm late to the abortion thread. But I do want to add something to the argument about whether the loss of a child in utero is grieved as much or the same way as the loss of a child in preschool or older. My mom actually got to talking with me about this---she's had two miscarriages (one very late, 19 weeks in 1979 before they could routinely save those babies) and lost my brother at the age of 27---when I had a miscarriage earlier this year. It was horribly painful for me and somehow in talking to my mom (on the anniversary of my brother's death, the difference got brought up. My mom said that when she thinks of the babies she lost and when she thinks of Tomas it hurts just as much---but she just doesn't have as much occasion to think of them as of Tomas because she just didn't know them, didn't have those memories. She mourned them the same amount, but Tomas she mourned more often. With someone you get to know, things pop up and remind you. Sometimes when Sheldon on the gosh darn Big Bang Theory says "Mee-maw" my mom gets choked up because it reminds her of her son---if the other two babies had been around long enough to form weird little verbal tics and accents, there would be moments like that for them. In family pictures, now, it looks like Tomas is missing---where he should be towering over all of us in the very back, there's just empty space---but it's not the same for the other two because we have no idea whether they'd be tall or short or where their "place" in the picture would be. So yeah---TL;DR---it's not the same grief but it is, in fact, equal.

Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at November 30, 2012 03:17 PM (2KBjW)

835 So when Ace hires a hooker he pays her even when she says I'd personally have sex with you but you know cya later.

Posted by: tennvols87 at November 30, 2012 03:40 PM (CNuph)

836 If abortion is good and PP gives out Black Friday coupons then we should see it all the time on Discovery Channel or PBS. It is not business, it is gruesome business that society would never approve of in the light. There are far more Ernest Gosnells out there and I wished he had been tried before the election.

Posted by: madamex at November 30, 2012 04:05 PM (+kvQd)

837
Haunted you throughout the bulk of your lives as the death of a four year old child would have?

Posted by: ace at November 30, 2012 03:39 PM (LCRYB)

R.I.P. Shana Barber 1991. Seven weeks along. I got to see her heart beating, a sight I will remember for the rest of my life.

Posted by: baldilocks, AfriCon American at November 30, 2012 08:29 PM (Su0W2)

838 Democrats offer the same arguments over abortion that they offered in defense of slavery.

It is not really a person.

It is not a full-fledged human being.

It is perfectly acceptable if this life is never lived in freedom and liberty.

Ah, but black people ARE people.

And black people ARE full-fledged human beings.

And black people ARE deserving of a life lived in freedom and liberty!

Posted by: Sam Adams at November 30, 2012 10:46 PM (TBpZC)

839 I believe in science. Science states that life at conception is human. I believe in protecting innocent life. I be there were pro-slavery Republicans, pro-Jim Crow Republicans, but I think we should leave that anti-freedom/anti-life stuff to the Democrats. This is a core belief for me, and I place everything else beneath the protection of innocent life on my priority list, including economics.

Posted by: ALL_IS_LOST at December 01, 2012 03:15 AM (T/L2Z)

840 Didn't she give a thumbs up to Eric Holder when he was being appointed? Idiot..

Posted by: TexasJew at December 01, 2012 04:36 AM (lD8ju)

841 I think we should have post-birth abortions for Obama voters Even first trimester fetuses couldn't be that fucking stupid.

Posted by: TexasJew at December 01, 2012 04:42 AM (lD8ju)

842

Can someone explain how denying two people in love the equality of marriage is pro-liberty?

Also, are the pro-lifers aware that there are many pro-liberty people that see body autonomy as a more important liberty than a forced pregnancy that may or may not produce a baby? I find the State involvment in pregnancies to be the greater evil. Particularly as it is also State involvment in pregnancies and marriage that has brought us the sexist anti-male divorce industry. I think that State involvment in preganacy will result in yet more power distortions that harm everybodies liberty more.

I get the "right to life" pro-life argument, as it makes sense and is Constitutionally sound, unlike the religious argument which is "because God said so". I also see the competing freedoms and and that you cannot stuff that genie back in the bottle.

I also see the State then going after people that "harm" their in-the-womb baby using "protecting the unborn" as the excuse. Didn't wear your seatbelt while driving? Thats child negligence, not a traffic infraction. Drank a  glass of wine while pregnant? Child abuse. You deviated from your doctors pre-natal dietary recommendations? Child abuse. The authoritarians will run with whatever licence they can run with. I don't want to give them that power over families.

I am perfectly fine with legal yet restricted abortions as the compromise.

Posted by: SGT Ted at December 01, 2012 06:08 AM (OoS+x)

843 Oh yes I also think Roe v Wade should be overturned and the issue go back to each State to decide.

Posted by: SGT Ted at December 01, 2012 06:13 AM (OoS+x)

844 Any leader who is pro-abortion or who is anti-abortion in name only is one for whom I cannot, I will not, vote or lend my support to in any way. Period. It's a deal breakers. Abortion is baby killing, whether people decline to face that truth or not. The proof that this is true is not only religious but scientific. Baby killers used to laugh at us not long ago when we held that life begins at conception, on account of our backwards religious views, but science has borne us out. That fetus is not part of a woman's body, it has its own distinct DNA apart from hers, it is following along its own separate life cycle. More evidence accrues everyday that unborn babies are remarkably and disctincly human individuals in their own right. The only possible justification for abortion are cases such as ectopic pregnancies and the like which do endanger the life of the mother. Thankfully these cases are rather rare. So, go ahead, align the GOP with the baby killers. Millions of folks like me will simply look elsewhere then for leadership.

Posted by: Cowboy at December 01, 2012 10:34 AM (WcgMM)

845 If anyone needs a reason to vote Democrat, I'll send them to this thread.

Posted by: Jake at December 02, 2012 07:02 AM (PTWMN)

846

Where in the U.S. Constitution is the word "privacy"? Even if it was there, how does that equate to the choice of killing another human being.

By allowing this travesty 40 years ago, it has taken us on a road to moral decay.

Posted by: Hank at December 03, 2012 04:39 PM (2oV3z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
657kb generated in CPU 2.41, elapsed 5.5239 seconds.
62 queries taking 3.8136 seconds, 1082 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.