Sen. John McCain has made it clear that he’ll be very socially conservative on judicial appointments. How socially conservative? He’s named Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., co-chairman of his Justice Advisory Committee.
Brownback, remember, thinks abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, including cases of incest, rape and when the life of the mother is at risk.
This might give pause to Democratic voters thinking of supporting McCain if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination.
118 Comments
The Democrats should run this as an ad throughout the entire campaign, no matter who is the nominee.
McCain used to be an independent but it looks like he has caved in to the Religious Right to get their votes. Let’s not forget McCain kissed up to John Hagee for his endorsement, even knowing how Hagee truly felt about the Catholics and gays. How can Brownback still support McCain knowing that McCain begged Hagee for his endorsement? Isn’t Brownback a faithful Catholic?
But politics makes strange bedfellows, doesn’t it?
How about, no new laws. We are losing our rights as free Amreicans way to fast. Or, we could just become a new Russia or Cuba! The citizens of America have no one running for president that we want in the white house. What happened to free elections? Oh, I for got you have to sell you soul to the devil to be president.
“Brownback, remember, thinks abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, including cases of incest, rape and when the life of the mother is at risk.”
THIS is the quintessential thing witht the cons isn’t it?
I have my own theory. I think that if they could get to the place of FORCING a woman to give birth? Pretty much nothing would be outside of what they could chalk up to “personal responsibility”. That would be the end of any and all pretenses to social and econmomic justice.
Maybe some more honest con (well at least to this issue) can answer me.
How will this be done exactly? If a woman is unwilling, are you going to strap her into a gurney and FORCE her to gestate?
McCain lost his top airbus lobbyist today. Little late to close the barn door, he’s already let the cash cows out!
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080519/mccain_lobbying.html?.v=1
If he keeps it up there won’t be anyone to drive the Straight Talk Express, maybe he’ll hire a wetback.
Someone ask Brownback whether he thinks that all of his personal religious beliefs should be reflected in law and public policy, regardless of the Constitution and legal precedent.
If so, we’ll need constitutional amendments to prohibit swearing and coveting one’s neighbor’s ass.
Why can’t Randy be honest when building his strawman of Browback? Randy lies when he says:
“Brownback, remember, thinks abortion should be illegal in all circumstances…including cases when the life of the mother is at risk.”
Notice the absence of a link in dishonetly attributing this belief to someone who is clearly on record on saying what he believes. However, I’ll provide on for Randy since Randy does not have to due diligence to get his facts straight. Brownback does not oppose abortion when the the life of the mother is at risk.
Q: Since you’ve opposed abortion in every instance except to save the life of the mother, how would you explain to a rape victim, who does not believe that life begins at conception, why her trauma should be compounded by carrying the child to term?
Brownback: That would be a very difficult situation. But the basic question remains. Is the child in the womb a person? Is it viable life? Is it an innocent person? And if it is a person, it’s entitled to respect….
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sam_Brownback_Abortion.htm
More links on this topic:
“Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned,” he told the cheering crowd. Brownback predicted that would happen “a few years from now,” and abortion will be illegal unless a mother’s life is at risk, he [Brownback] said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201365.html
If that is Senator Brownback’s position, I don’t think that many folks who call themselves pro-life that share that view. Even the some of the most ardent pro-lifers think there should be some type of exception for cases of rape or incest. It just makes sense to be compassionate to the victim of a crime by allowing that the rights of the victim could outweigh the right to life of the child she is carrying, but had no consenting part in conceiving.
Hey!
What happened to “hope” and “change” and “yes we can!” Randy?
Here we are back at the base of the REAL camp Obama. Randy here playing the role of counselor.
Fear. Vote for Obama or the bogey man cons will win!
Brownback is an unfunny joke. And the cons have marginalized themselves into irrelevancy. No matter who is President.
One of the few things Bush did right was who he nominated for the Supreme Court.
McCains choice of judicial advisors is one of the few things I’ve seen from him that gives me hope that voting for him won’t be a complete waste.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/mccain08.jpg
We watched Brownback’s snowflake saga. Don’t destroy those blastocysts for potential good for mankind, but ignore the fact hundreds of thousands are thrown in the trash as medical waste.
People can see through that sham. Few of us are the special kind of idiot Brownback is.
a woman, her doctor and her god
Brownback may convince a few to support McCain. More will see this as another area of pandering for votes.
How many different opinions does McCain now hold? Which strongly-held conviction he pulls out of his bag of tricks is decided by which group he is pandering to at the moment.
Vote Pro-Life for a Better Communiy. Ask your self, what has Roe v Wade done for your community?
Planned Parenthood’s business ventures in Black communities promulgates the destructive doctrine that human life is not to be respected or valued. The deleterious effects on communities where aborting human beings is commonplace are obvious.
“Blacks do, indeed, have much higher rates of abortions than whites or other minority groups. In 2000, while blacks made up 17 percent of live births, they made up more than twice that share of abortions (36 percent). If those aborted children had been born, the number of blacks born would have been slightly over 50 percent greater than it was.”
Data from 1973 on indicate that black women’s share of abortions has consistently been at least twice their share of live births.
But not all those babies would necessarily have been born if abortion were illegal or harder to obtain. A number of recent academic studies have found that making abortion more difficult results in less pre-marital sex and fewer pre-marital pregnancies.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html
“a woman, her doctor and her god”
and her baby.
Studies tell us that MOST women choose to end a gestation due to economic reasons.
I don’t need to go check. Being a con, Brownback is by default against all social welfare programs.
As are most of the cons and “pro life” folks here.
Unless and until this country provides basic food, shelter, and medical care for ALL of its citizens, “pro life” people are hypocrites who will accomplish no more than making irritating noise.
This will appeal to the one issue voters, but the party is trying to figure out right now what happen while they slept. Some are saying that the party needs to break with the social issues and get back to the meat and potatoes. In a odd way it is the Neoconservatives themselves whom welcomed the R.R. that are now saying the party need to ouster the Religious Rights influence. They have become acidic to the GOP, but for now the confusion and refusal to do that deep of inner reflection has not yet been reached.
JR I do not have an answer to your question, that would be a totalitarian society to force births. I know there are countries worried about pure nationality whom are heading that way. The Russians have expressed a concern about how the true Russians birth rates are going down and the immigrants are starting to repopulate Russian. The same has been observed here too, but that concern seems more racially based than nationally base here.
“This might give pause to Democratic voters thinking of supporting McCain if Hillary Clinton loses the nomination.”
The most important sentence in the article. Whether it’s Parsley and his world-wide Jihad against Islam; Hagee and his Whore of babylon or Brownback with this. A vote for McCain is solidly a vote for the extremists.
“It just makes sense to be compassionate to the victim of a crime by allowing that the rights of the victim could outweigh the right to life of the child she is carrying, but had no consenting part in conceiving.”
Outlander,
This is a more enlightened, and dare I say liberal, position than I would have imagined you would have taken. This place can still hold surprises - but, usually not.
Stop and think about this though, either the thought is there is nothing to lose or its just that sure of a win.
The brand is in the crapper, it is solely associated with Religious extremist views and it is the joke at the bar every time a Republicans said something about less government and lower taxes. So why would Mc Cain come out close to the election this far to the Right? Not ever politically expedient!
Ah, I see the designated ‘hate spewing’ thread has been provided to duh Libs for their early morning upchucking.
Regular what do you think about this? You know the atmosphere the party is operating in, it is wise to make this move? It would work out if running against Hillary but not against Obama, yet it is Obama that seem to be the one whom Mc Cain will be running against.
Ah yes, the simple minded libs. When will they ever learn?
Overturning the Gay Marriage ban in California as is “legislating from the Bench by activits judges” While overturning Roe v Wade would be “Judicial Prudence”
Let me guess. Strict Constructionists. Right? You mean the philosophy that Antonin Scalia considers “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute?”
I had to open the can of worms early. Sorry
Nothing makes a GOPer madder than how FDR supposedly packed the Supreme Court.
But then Brokeback wants non-activist, i.e., rule my way or the highway, judges. Sounds like packing the court to me.
But then, IOKIFYAR I guess.
Dennis
writerdog
Posted May 19, 2008 at 9:59 am | Permalink
Regular what do you think about this? You know the atmosphere the party is operating in, it is wise to make this move? It would work out if running against Hillary but not against Obama, yet it is Obama that seem to be the one whom Mc Cain will be running against.
———————-
Well dog, I won’t be voting for McCain as he has too many half-baked waffles in his bag. The guy is just all over the board and doesn’t have a clue what the pulse of America is actually doing.
And while I’m at it, how about the story in this morn’s paper about how Brokeback is trying to sooth the Catholics to vote for McLame? Sam wants to be veep so bad he’d sell out his church to get the job.
And anyway, isn’t there something in the Constitution about the separation of church and state? I seem to remember it.
Dennis
Will Brownback still receive the eucharist? (a.k.a communion)
Outlander,
I can say that you have incorrectly surmised what a majority of pro-lifers believe.
Most pro-lifers see the biological proof of the humanity of an unborn baby as non-negotiable in determining whether or not an unborn baby deserves the right to life, regardless of the horrible albeit unlikely occurance of a pregnancy due to rape or incest.
The legality of abortion encourages would be statutory rape offenders to seduce their victim into a sexual relationship. Since abortion is legal, the victim, who has been persuaded naively into a harmful sexual relationship can be easily armtwisted into having an abortion so that the relationship is left undiscovered, and the offender can continue violating the young victim. Abortion actually encourages the victimization of young girls by selfish conniving adult male perpetrators. The same is true of incest.
Furthermore, Incidences of prenancy from non statutory rape are so rare that is is strange that the pro-choice side so commonly use such an unlikely scenario as a means of defeating pro-life, pro-community legislation.
I would hope that earning a compliment for your liberal view from the likes of StephenEDavis, might prompt you to re-think your position if you have any desire to remain consistent on the issue.
No Yellow. The exact words “separation of church and state are not there” only the words “congress shall pass no law respective of religion and the free exercise thereof” or something to that effect.
So as long as it isn’t CONGRESS passing the laws, then our illustrious STRICT CONSTRUCTIONSIST can keep it from being considered unconstitutional.
“Sam wants to be veep so bad he’d sell out his church to get the job.” Gee, isn’t that sort of like a “Great Whore”?
“illegal in all circumstances, including cases … when the life of the mother is at risk”
So, then both parties can die …
Regular I agree with that!
RFL. Why can’t Brownback conceed these exceptions. It seems more of a winner take all attitude.
There’s a critical difference between embryos and people. For example (and a tip o’ the hat to Senator Brownback), so-called “Snowflake Babies” come from fertilized embryos which have been frozen, thawed out, and implanted into a uterus. Try freezing your three-year-old and thawing her out.
No, three year olds are just fine. Wait until they are about 12, then freeze for the next 8 years, thawing carefully, watching for any sign of spoilage.
“RFL. Why can’t Brownback conceed these exceptions. It seems more of a winner take all attitude.”
-VET
When exceptions are made for political reasons that are inconsistent, the logical rebutal is to argue that the exceptions are in fact inconsistent.
For example:
Romney believes that it should be up to the states to decide the legality of abortion. But He also believes that an unborn baby is a human being and deserves the right to life. But he believes murder to be illegal in all states. Romney’s compromise is understandable politically. However, the inevitable question is: If you believe the an unborn child is an alive human being, then why do fail apply the same illegal status to abortion as you do to murder of post-utero human beings?
There is no rational answer to this question when you take the compromiser view. Which is why it will always be a winner take all stance. Either we believe the life is only valued if it is convenient to us, or we think that all life is valued, PERIOD. Howevever the supposed convience of ridding a community of unwanted pregnancies has significant pernicious implications that negatively degrade the quality of life in that community.
What benefit does abortion have to a community if the quality of life in that comminuty degrades because people have lost the ability to respect life and behave responsibly?
Well, well, well, what have we here?
McCain is against agribusiness, farm subsidies and FOR the small farmers? hehehehehhehehe.
He says small farmers have been “forgotten”. Heh. No, they havent. They mostly dont exist anymore except for people like me.
And… I still havent seen if the subsidies for fruit and veggie growers remain intact in the newly passed farm bill.
You all know I dont favor big ag subsidies, but in Kansas? Big ag is KING.
Either mcsame is dog whistling to big ag (wink wink) or…
Perhaps he should have made brownback his ag advisor instead of his “judicial” advisor?
I’m not sure he’s qualified for either, but…
I’m sure kansas is safely in mcsame’s pocket and he knows it, no matter WHAT he says. Thomas Frank was right. Kansans continue to vote against their own interests every time they pull the “r” lever.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080519/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_agriculture_dc
Oh, and all that trash talk from the obama camp about turning kansas at least purple if not blue?
Trash talk.
The ksgop will continue to control the kansas legislature and hold both senate seats unless sebelius and her party get their asses back home and start working HERE!
That is, if the kdp really GIVES a rat’s patoot.
“At 20 weeks, the fetal brain has the full complement
of brain cells present in adulthood, ready and waiting
to receive pain signals from the body, and their
electrical activity can be be recorded by standard
electroencephalography (EEG)”
– Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto
http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/life/abortion/articles/ranallinotabortiondoctor.html
“What benefit does abortion have to a community if the quality of life in that comminuty degrades because people have lost the ability to respect life and behave responsibly?”
Link please? Or is that just your totally biased opinion?
Perhaps you copied off of yesterday’s church bulletin?
“I would hope that earning a compliment for your liberal view from the likes of StephenEDavis, might prompt you to re-think your position if you have any desire to remain consistent on the issue.”
I, on the other hand, hope that RFL’s castigation of your thinking, Mike, will convince you that you might be on to something.
I am betting that RFL does not have a daughter, nor even the remotest prospect of ever having one.
This is Dick Morris’s advice for the McCain campaign.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/16/AR2008051603729.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
If you ever wondered why Dick is called Dick, this should erase that question mark for you.
That is, if the kdp really GIVES a rat’s patoot.
…gets an icky feeling thinking about a rat’s patoot…
“In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center.”
“Well dog, I won’t be voting for McCain as he has too many half-baked waffles in his bag. The guy is just all over the board and doesn’t have a clue what the pulse of America is actually doing.”
Which raises a question: At what point does pandering backfire? That is, the constituency that you are attempting to woo doesn’t believe you and your core supporters abandon you because of what they see as betrayal.
This is not a ‘bash-McCain’ bash but is rather intended as a general comment toward ALL the campaigns.
Stephen,
I know of a pro-life set of parents whose teenaged daughter became pregnant through consential sex with a coworker who had no plans to be a Dad. The person impregnating their daughter fully expected her to have an abortion. However, the parents of the girl, and the girl herself had no plans to do so.
The baby was born and the parents of the teenager easily obtained custody since the father was more than happy to avoid child support.
Such would be my action if I am in the same situation as those parents. Teaching my daughter that two wrongs do not make the first one right would be a valuable lesson that will aid her for the rest of her life. Even if the pregnancy was a result of non consentual sex (ie rape), my view is unchanged.
Meanwhile, the child reared in a loving nuturing home without the influence of a philandering father with no concept of being responsible for his own actions.
bth
Posted May 19, 2008 at 11:36 am | Permalink
“In this environment, McCain can win by running to the center.”
“Well dog, I won’t be voting for McCain as he has too many half-baked waffles in his bag. The guy is just all over the board and doesn’t have a clue what the pulse of America is actually doing.”
Which raises a question: At what point does pandering backfire? That is, the constituency that you are attempting to woo doesn’t believe you and your core supporters abandon you because of what they see as betrayal.
This is not a ‘bash-McCain’ bash but is rather intended as a general comment toward ALL the campaigns.
———————————
Ben,
This will be a year of great confusion. The large bulk of the American populace, the centrists have been left out on the clothes line.
I consider myself a centrist on most things and certainly am feeling a bit ‘voiceless’ during this campaign season.
I feel that all the candidates are carrying too much partisan baggage and all of the candidates have forgotten that the American public likes a “little ketchup off to the side of their fries” and not the entire bottle dumped. (ketchup analogy, was thinking about fries - deal with it)
Pandering is probably the most accurate description I’ve seen describing the totality of this presidential campaign season.
There is too much pandering from all sides and no one left who wants to stand by a conviction.
What kind of judges would McSame nominate? Why, the only kind that are acceptable on the right: “strict constructionists.”
And what does THAT mean? Here’s William Rehnquist’s off-the-record definition:
“A judge who is a “strict constructionist” in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs—the latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court’s “broad constructionist” reading of the Constitution.
In other words, concludes Dean, to Rehnquist “strict constructionist” has nothing to do with adherence to the intent of the framers when interpreting the constitution. It just means screwing the little guy to benefit law enforcement or discriminators.”
http://slate.msn.com/id/117140/
The Wingnuts try to play the game by framing the ideology of judges in terms of “originalism” versus “activism.” But the real question to watch is who benefits from the decisions of those whom a President nominates to the SCOTUS.
What’s wrong with “originalism?”
Originalism is not the same thing as “strict constructionism.”
Originalism is a theory of interpretation, not construction. See Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause. As Scalia has said, “the Constitution, or any text, should be interpreted [n]either strictly [n]or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably”
wikipedia - “originalism”
NYMBY’sm extends even to pro-choice advocates. While they fight for the right to an abortion, they want to see abortions decrease (at least in their own community). Why?
If abortions are so beneficial to society and a right not to be denied, why contradict yourself by claiming to prefer fewer abortions?
“The year after Roe, two-thirds of Americans favored abortion on demand. Now, after years of private and public debate, most people freely tell pollsters they’d prefer fewer abortions, but a majority embraces the inherent contradiction of “safe, legal and rare.”
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1705604,00.html
Pro-Choicers simply don’t want to live where high rate of abortions take place so they do not have to see the effects of their position.
Correction: NIMBYism not NYMBY’sm
“A judge who is a “strict constructionist” in constitutional matters will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs—the latter two groups having been the principal beneficiaries of the Supreme Court’s “broad constructionist” reading of the Constitution.
In other words, concludes Dean, to Rehnquist “strict constructionist” has nothing to do with adherence to the intent of the framers when interpreting the constitution. It just means screwing the little guy to benefit law ”
Sorry, Dean’s conclusion is incorrect, and inherently false. Renquists summary is what the effect of Strict constructionism is, not the motive.
“But the real question to watch is who benefits from the decisions of those whom a President nominates to the SCOTUS.”
That is not the real question. The real question is whether or not they follow the Constitution of the United States, regardless of who benefits.
“If abortions are so beneficial to society and a right not to be denied, why contradict yourself by claiming to prefer fewer abortions?”
That is flat out idiotic.
First, no one has claimed that abortion is beneficial to society - that is just a strawman argument.
Two, no one is pro-abortion - the term is pro-choice.
Three, some of us can see beyond our own self-interest or ideology. I am personally opposed to abortion, but I support a woman’s right to choose. I am not homosexual, but I support gay rights. I am not a woman, but I support women’s rights, etc.
“Most pro-lifers see the biological proof of the humanity of an unborn baby as non-negotiable in determining whether or not an unborn baby deserves the right to life, regardless of the horrible albeit unlikely occurance of a pregnancy due to rape or incest…”
“I would hope that earning a compliment for your liberal view from the likes of StephenEDavis, might prompt you to re-think your position if you have any desire to remain consistent on the issue.”
——————–
What Steven thinks or does not think about this issue should have no effect on what I think is right and wrong. Obviously, a rape victim’s choice terminating a pregnancy or giving birth is a painful choice for the victim, regardless. But this feet in cement attitude by some in the pro-life movement that you think is consistency, is seen by most on the outside as uncaring, dogmatic insensitivity. And they are right.
If we in the pro-life movement are ever to change hearts, it will have to be with the truth, plus genuine concern and compassion of the plight of people, particularly innocent victims.
“First, no one has claimed that abortion is beneficial to society - that is just a strawman argument.
Two, no one is pro-abortion - the term is pro-choice.”
Clark believes that the right to choose an abortion is beneficial to socity but abortions in and of themselves are not beneficial. Clark’s logic (shared by all pro-choicers) is contradictory.
Clark,
You are not an unborn child either. Therefore, based on the premise you gave for supporting the rights of groups of people to which you are not a member, you should in like manner support the right to life of unborn children.
Clark is both contradictory and inconsistent.
“Clark believes that the right to choose an abortion is beneficial to socity but abortions in and of themselves are not beneficial”
Copy and past anywhere that I came EVEN close to saying that the right to choose an abortion was beneficial to society.
I made zero claims regarding abortion and an alleged benefit to society.
You are just flat out full of shit.
outlander - agreed. And I still find it interesting that RFL would rather see the mother die if need be …
None of the usual anti-choice advocates want to address the difference between the “life” of frozen embryos and how that doesn’t seem to work with real people.
Guess they’ve got nothing.
“you should in like manner support the right to life of unborn children.”
A pregnant woman’s rights supersede the rights of fetus.
RFL–
Steven D. Levitt showed pretty conclusively that the only explanation for plummeting crime rates in the early 90’s were the legalization of Roe v Wade in the early 70’s.
The unwanted children born to poor women (who didn’t have access to “illegal” abortions like wealthy women have always had) were the highest risk group for violent criminals.
All those violent criminals didn’t get born thanks to legal and safe abortion.
So . . . yes, abortion does benefit society.
If you’re against abortion, don’t have one.
“unborn children”
Right, that’s the crux of the issue.
If someone could prove that a 10 week mass of cells without a brain is an “unborn child,” then everyone would agree to outlaw abortion.
Unfortunately, something without a brain is life, but not exactly human life in most people’s way of thinking . . .
http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/unborn-images/10-weeks
“10 week mass of cells”
Outlander,
I find it strange that you feel like you are gaining something in this attempt at being compassionate.
Do you have a comment about my post in 10:21 am where I described the often repeated scenario where legal abortion actually encourages statutory rape and incest?
reference my May 19, 2008 at 11:39 am post as to my supposed uncaringness.
The pro-choicers will not consent to the making abortion illegal even for the exception for the case of legitimate rape or incest.
While the pro-choice community points to this exception whenever pro-life legislation comes up, they still defend the right for the woman to choose abortion regardless of how the pregnancy was originated.
“they still defend the right for the woman to choose abortion regardless of how the pregnancy was originated.”
That is why the position and policy is called pro-CHOICE.
There are a number of options, one of them is to terminate the pregnancy.
Clark,
You support the woman’s right to choose an abortion.
Are you saying that supporting the right to choose an abortion is not supporting something that is beneficial to society?
How strange, I support rights that actually benefit society, in contrast to the obvious inference from your statements and subsquent denials that you support rights that are NOT beneficial to society.
Capn,
In yours and Levitt’s view, an abortion an pre-emptive execution of a inevitable criminal.
Hmm, that sounds like Eugenics to me.
“Are you saying that supporting the right to choose an abortion is not supporting something that is beneficial to society?”
Again that is a strawman argument - not every “right” is a matter of the benefit to society, nor should it be.
Gays amount to a very small fraction of the population, less than 4%. The impact of gay rights has little effect on society as a whole, but to grant equal rights to gays is the right and moral thing to do. The “benefit” to society in practical terms is negligible.
The “benefit” of a pro-choice policy is the benefit to the individual.
It was a study done by two economists — Donohue and Levitt. One conclusion the study drew was an economic benefit. Neither of the two researchers gave a personal “view,” just research statistics. Capn didn’t give a personal “view,” just a mention of the study.
It wasn’t even a good try, RFL. You didn’t make words mean something different, except maybe in your mind.
“All those violent criminals didn’t get born thanks to legal and safe abortion”
In Capn’s view, the Black community must be ahead of the curve in eliminating criminals before they have a chance to do harm.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348649,00.html
Do you have any evidence of how Planned Parenthood has turned around high crime areas by getting rid of all the unwanted future criminals?
If Mccain thinks Iran poses the same threat as the Soviet Union did, he’s just too dumb and senile to be pres.
CHICAGO - Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.
ADVERTISEMENT
McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama’s home turf.
“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess,” McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry’s annual meeting.
“The “benefit” of a pro-choice policy is the benefit to the individual.”
-Clark
Society is inhabited by individuals. How can you say that the right to have an abortion is a benefit to the individual but NOT a benefit to the society in which that individual lives?
What truly benefits the individual will always benefit society in which that individual lives, or else it is not a benefit at all, but only a perceived one.
I wonder if McLame would attack Reagan for negotiating with the Soviets.
By the way - wasn’t McBush Pro-choice before he was anti-choice?
Ben, I think he still is both. His deeply-held convictions are varied depending on his audience.
CapnAmerica
Posted May 19, 2008 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
“unborn children”
Right, that’s the crux of the issue.
If someone could prove that a 10 week mass of cells without a brain is an “unborn child,” then everyone would agree to outlaw abortion.
—————————————
If you look at outlander’s link - when is the last time you saw a ‘mass of cells” smile?
“Society is inhabited by individuals.”
Back to being idiotic, I see.
A benefit to one individual does not translate to a benefit to collective society, and it should not be viewed a just such.
The ADA only benefits those that are disabled - a fraction of the society. The disable individual benefits - there is no practical benefit for the collective society.
The same applies to a pro-choice position - the benefit is to the individual that has a choice regarding her pregnancy.
But perhaps you would like to explain the “individual benefit” of an anti-choice policy?
“Regular” posits –
“…when is the last time you saw a ‘mass of cells” smile?”
Oh, I dunno. Like the last time I saw a dog “smile.” Or a shark “smile.”
Attributing human emotions to non-humans is a common misconception.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm | Permalink
“Regular” posits –
“…when is the last time you saw a ‘mass of cells” smile?”
Oh, I dunno. Like the last time I saw a dog “smile.” Or a shark “smile.”
Attributing human emotions to non-humans is a common misconception.
————————–
Non-human?
So what do those ‘mass of cells” grow up to be?
A furry rabbit?
“If someone could prove that a 10 week mass of cells without a brain is an “unborn child,” then everyone would agree to outlaw abortion.”
_____________________
You would think so, wouldn’t you Capn?
http://www.spuc.org.uk/ethics/abortion/unborn-images/10-weeks
So, since the “10 week old clump of cells” is proven an unborn child, I welcome CapnAmerica to the pro-life side.
What I expect, and I hope I am wrong, is for Capn to say, I didn’t mean a 10 week old human fetus, I meant a “10 week clump of cells without a brain”.
“Regular” whines –
“So what do those ‘mass of cells” grow up to be?”
Okay. Have it your way. Call it prehuman.
Like all those frozen embryos that can be stored in a freezer for ages, then thawed out.
Try that with a real person.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 19, 2008 at 2:34 pm | Permalink
“Regular” whines –
“So what do those ‘mass of cells” grow up to be?”
Okay. Have it your way. Call it prehuman.
Like all those frozen embryos that can be stored in a freezer for ages, then thawed out.
Try that with a real person.
———————–
Prehuman?
How come a ‘mass of cells” be ‘prehuman’? Is that an evolutionary term. Do some walrus cells evolve into a ‘prehuman’ form?
Do these ‘mass of cells’ have non-human genomes?
How do explain this scientific disparity?
“outlander” strains credulity with –
“a 10 week clump of cells without a brain”.”
And the ethics are pretty well established. Lack of brain activity is the medical and ethical standard for pulling the plug on “life” support.
Seems like the presence of cognitive brain activity should be the standard of establishing the person-ness of a pre-human.
“Regular” is getting desperate with stuff like –
“How come a ‘mass of cells” be ‘prehuman’? Is that an evolutionary term. Do some walrus cells evolve into a ‘prehuman’ form?
“Do these ‘mass of cells’ have non-human genomes?
“How do explain this scientific disparity?”
Time for you to explain to me why embryos can be frozen and brought back to life and, for example, you cannot.
There’s something about “life” that goes beyond a collection of cells’ DNA. Isn’t there?
TMonkeyhawk
Posted May 19, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
“outlander” strains credulity with –
“a 10 week clump of cells without a brain”.”
And the ethics are pretty well established. Lack of brain activity is the medical and ethical standard for pulling the plug on “life” support.
Seems like the presence of cognitive brain activity should be the standard of establishing the person-ness of a pre-human.
————————————————-
The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week of fetal development.
So Monkey, you’re stating that anything after 12 weeks of fetal development should be considered human?
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm | Permalink
“Regular” is getting desperate with stuff like –
“How come a ‘mass of cells” be ‘prehuman’? Is that an evolutionary term. Do some walrus cells evolve into a ‘prehuman’ form?
“Do these ‘mass of cells’ have non-human genomes?
“How do explain this scientific disparity?”
Time for you to explain to me why embryos can be frozen and brought back to life and, for example, you cannot.
There’s something about “life” that goes beyond a collection of cells’ DNA. Isn’t there?
—————————-
So slowing down the molecular flow of an organic system is your requisite for considering something human or non-human?
So when I freeze that fish I caught and later thaw it to eat, the frozen substance in my freezer is not a fish but a ???
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 19, 2008 at 2:40 pm | Permalink
“And the ethics are pretty well established. Lack of brain activity is the medical and ethical standard for pulling the plug on “life” support.
Seems like the presence of cognitive brain activity should be the standard of establishing the person-ness of a pre-human.”
So then, would you agree that at that point, using the same evaluation of brain activity as they do for those they are decideing on pulling the plug, that that unborn is therefore a human, a live human, and worthy of constitutional protections?
And the ethics are pretty well established. Lack of brain activity is the medical and ethical standard for pulling the plug on “life” support.
Seems like the presence of cognitive brain activity should be the standard of establishing the person-ness of a pre-human.
————————————————-
The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week of fetal development.
*****
Brain wave activity is not the be-all and end-all.
Terri Schavio had brain wave activitiy too.
So do fish.
What we’re talking about is a functional human brain. If someone could determine when that occurs, they could make a strong case that abortion should not occur after that date, except for monstrous births and other health reasons, IMHO.
CapnAmerica
Posted May 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm | Permalink
And the ethics are pretty well established. Lack of brain activity is the medical and ethical standard for pulling the plug on “life” support.
Seems like the presence of cognitive brain activity should be the standard of establishing the person-ness of a pre-human.
————————————————-
The first measurable signs of EEG movement occur in the 12th week of fetal development.
*****
Brain wave activity is not the be-all and end-all.
Terri Schavio had brain wave activitiy too.
So do fish.
What we’re talking about is a functional human brain. If someone could determine when that occurs, they could make a strong case that abortion should not occur after that date, except for monstrous births and other health reasons, IMHO.
—————————————-
Do fish have higher cognitive functions like reasoning?
Functional human brain? What is non-functional in a 12 week old fetal human brain?
And how would you know?
“littlejohn” asks –
“… at that point, using the same evaluation of brain activity as they do for those they are decideing [sic] on pulling the plug, that that unborn is therefore a human, a live human, and worthy of constitutional protections?”
Fair question.
And frankly, I’m one of the most eager pro-choicers you’re ever gonna find willing to consider such issues. Because I’ve long tried to advocate some kind of common ground with abortion abolitionists. But they won’t have anything to do with reaching a compromise.
For example: The abortion abolitionists favorite “demon” George Tiller’s practice primarily deals with anacephalic (no brain) pregnancies. He doesn’t perform so-called “partial birth” abortions. But what do we hear about from the clinic-bombers and doctor-shooters?
Yeah, I can accept some sort of understanding about independent viability vis a vis a fetus developing in a uterus. But since I don’t have a uterus it’s only a theoretical issue for me.
My niece had an ectopic pregnancy a couple of months ago. No rape. No incest. And there’s always a possibility she might have survived it without emergency surgery. All those abortion abolitionists consider that microscopic clump of cells in her fallopian tube to have as many rights as hers. I disagree.
No sorry, Brownback doesn’t care about the life of the mother, the definition would be so incredibly restrictive that there would be no ‘life of the mother’ clause. No rape, no incest…you women should die for your zygote and your God- oh and your country too…but don’t kill those cells!
“But perhaps you would like to explain the “individual benefit” of an anti-choice policy?”
Sure,
1. The individual is benefited by being relieved of the guilt of ending the life of a human being. Women who have had abortions struggle with depression. I can’t change nor am I responsible for the biological/psychological science that makes this happen.
2. Individuals who would have otherwise provided a benefit to society are snuffed out of a chance to make their meaningfull contribution. How many brilliant unborn children would have made advancements to our life that we will never realize?
3. The individual is forced to be responsible for their own actions. The more individuals in a society who are accountable for their own decisions, the better society operates. This is true in economics as well.
Legal Abortion teaches the false lesson that the there are no victims during an abortion. Actually, there are two. The first is the mother who will go on living her life believing she does not have to make good decisions because there will always be a way out to the bad ones. Encouraging bad behavior by alleviating one of personal responsibility is bad for society in all areas.
5. Sex with your life long partner is glorious. Young people need to understand this instead of cheapening it for a quick passing thrill which will impact future ability in choosing the right mate. Making abortion illegal will encourage young people to wait until marriage and thereby enjoying the tremendous benefits of finding someone who has tremendous character. One who also waited for your.
6. The quality of life we all are capable of enjoying is dependent on the people with which we share society with. Strong, cohesive families are an immense benefit to society. The conditions through which abortions are considered necissary are not brought about by actions which are not conducive to strong families. Making abortion legal, makes these actions more ubiquitous.
Therefore, abortion does not benefit society.
Correction: The conditions through which abortions are considered necissary are brought about by actions which are not conducive to strong families.
I went and read what the Catholic church’s position was on ectopic pregnancy, and it is a doozy. As long as you don’t disturb the cells themselves, you can remove an ectopic pregnancy, but you must take the whole fallopian tube without touching the cells of the ‘child’, rendering the woman partially sterilized on that side. It is a likely outcome anyway, but can you imagine? If they can save the fallopian tube, why on earth would’nt they go for that? Their doctrine is so whack that they’d rather you have trouble getting pregnant than to have ‘an abortion’…even when it means death?
They also don’t allow a hysterectomy if that will render her sterile (which of course it would) EVEN IF she has a high risk of a dangerous pregnancy. Now rectify that nonsense?
Oh and also, some ectopic pregnancies don’t occur in the fallopian tube, so what about then? the woman is just supposed to die?
Or do you take her whole pelvic cavity out?
I’m with ya Monkey”boy”. I’m all in favor of determining the viablility of a human being on the basis of brain activity. I consider it one of the compromises I am willing to make. A first step in recognizing biological science as it aplies to the unborn could be a slippery slope for pro-choice activists however.
“From the moment of conception, the foetus is continually developing and growing, both physically and mentally. There are times when a baby’s brain is making a quarter of a million new neurons every minute which is one of the reasons why pregnant women get so tired - creating brain cells is hard work! In the womb, your baby’s brain is developing all the time, growing neurons and also making links between those neurons.
Babies can recognise their mother’s voice, which shows that they developed that memory before they were born, so the brain was ‘working’ at that stage. This is one of the reasons why diet and the lifestyle choices that you make can have such an impact upon the unborn child.”
http://www.babyworld.co.uk/information/baby/baby_development/babies_brains.asp#stage
“Regular,” for once demonstrating higher cognitive functions than a fish, asks –
“…how would you know?”
And that’s the gist of the question as it relates to public policy.
All laws are arbitrary.
A former premie doesn’t have to wait a month after his 16th birthday to qualify for a driver’s license. The law — arbitrarily — says it’s gotta be 16 years after birth to qualify. You might have been an overdue baby but try to get Social Security benefits a few weeks early due to it.
I marvel at how far medical technology has come so that a premature birth can result in a healthy, thriving child. And I am willing to consider all sorts of considerations regarding viability outside the womb.
But the hard-fact, real world fact is that public policy is forced to consider arbitrary cut-offs. You’d have a legitimate gripe if you got a speeding ticket for going 36 mph in a 35 mph zone. But it is the law.
Laws are like that.
Sigh…
I’m disappointed.
But not surprised.
I really thought some of the cons would have spoken up for universal health care, housing, and food for ALL people.
You know? Be TRULY pro life?
As usual, what we have are people who are anti sex.
.” The individual is benefited by being relieved of the guilt of ending the life of a human being. Women who have had abortions struggle with depression. I can’t change nor am I responsible for the biological/psychological science that makes this happen. ”
Nonsense. Depression occurs even in women who have had children. Depression also occurs when one is allowed to be guilted for her best decision.
“2. Individuals who would have otherwise provided a benefit to society are snuffed out of a chance to make their meaningfull contribution. How many brilliant unborn children would have made advancements to our life that we will never realize?”
Again, nonsense. What about the children you haven’t conceived? See how ridiculous this argument is? We’re talking about POTENTIAL children, and 50% of these ‘children’ are passed from the women without even knowing they’re pregnant from all sorts of reasons. Poverty is never good for anyone, and overpopulation is damaging to society.
“3. The individual is forced to be responsible for their own actions. The more individuals in a society who are accountable for their own decisions, the better society operates. This is true in economics as well.”
Ah the old ‘you deserve to be punished for having sex’ argument.
“Legal Abortion teaches the false lesson that the there are no victims during an abortion. Actually, there are two. The first is the mother who will go on living her life believing she does not have to make good decisions because there will always be a way out to the bad ones. Encouraging bad behavior by alleviating one of personal responsibility is bad for society in all areas.”
No, punishing women for sex is ridiculous.
“5. Sex with your life long partner is glorious. Young people need to understand this instead of cheapening it for a quick passing thrill which will impact future ability in choosing the right mate. Making abortion illegal will encourage young people to wait until marriage and thereby enjoying the tremendous benefits of finding someone who has tremendous character. One who also waited for your.”
Yeah that worked so well when abortion was illegal now didn’t it? We had young women dying and or being forced into birthing houses away from her peers, and we had shotgun weddings. All pluses I’m sure in your eyes, but not in mine.
“6. The quality of life we all are capable of enjoying is dependent on the people with which we share society with. Strong, cohesive families are an immense benefit to society. The conditions through which abortions are considered necissary are not brought about by actions which are not conducive to strong families. Making abortion legal, makes these actions more ubiquitous.”
I agree strong families are good. When you deny sexual beings freedom, they choose to get married too fast in order to have sex, or they choose to have sex anyway. Neither of these are a good foundation for a strong healthy family, neither is overbreeding. Believe it or not, some people can have sex and not think about it being for procreation.
Monkeyhawk
Posted May 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm | Permalink
“Regular,” for once demonstrating higher cognitive functions than a fish, asks –
“…how would you know?”
And that’s the gist of the question as it relates to public policy.
All laws are arbitrary.
A former premie doesn’t have to wait a month after his 16th birthday to qualify for a driver’s license. The law — arbitrarily — says it’s gotta be 16 years after birth to qualify. You might have been an overdue baby but try to get Social Security benefits a few weeks early due to it.
I marvel at how far medical technology has come so that a premature birth can result in a healthy, thriving child. And I am willing to consider all sorts of considerations regarding viability outside the womb.
But the hard-fact, real world fact is that public policy is forced to consider arbitrary cut-offs. You’d have a legitimate gripe if you got a speeding ticket for going 36 mph in a 35 mph zone. But it is the law.
Laws are like that.
————————
Not all laws are arbitrary.
Arbitrary means that an outside influence or decision was made to affect the instrumentation of the law.
If something “is” or “isn’t” then the arbiter of a decision to make it legally something it “is” or “isn’t” is a reflection on the arbiter’s interpretation.
If a fetus is considered ‘alive and functional’ due to a functional brain wave pattern, then by definition it “is” ‘alive and functional’ with viability.
The elimination of ‘choice’ from the fetus’s perspective then become arbitrary and the ‘choice’ is transferred to someone who by law states they have the right to make a ‘viable lifeform’ cease to exist.
Morality not withstanding, the arbitray decision of a ‘viable lifeform’ then becomes a legal execution without out trial or representation by his/her peers.
“Fair question.
And frankly, I’m one of the most eager pro-choicers you’re ever gonna find willing to consider such issues. Because I’ve long tried to advocate some kind of common ground with abortion abolitionists. But they won’t have anything to do with reaching a compromise.”
True enough. Equally true, or at least closely true, are the diehards on the prochoice side. Any abortion, any time, any reason, is their mantra.
I say both are wrong. I have tried to advance, both to political and religious leaders, some sort of policy like I have mentioned. If we can define death as the abscence of brain waves of a certain type, and declare someone dead on that principle, then we should be able to declare someone alive based on the prescence of those brain waves, the logic being if it is not dead, it is alive. At that point, it is arguably alive, it is definately human, and in my view, deserves Constitional protection. Prior to that point, the state should have no interest. If an individual has an interest, let him or her work peacably to insure that an abortion does not become “necesary”
RFL, your alleged benefits are highly debatable to say the least. They show the anti-choice view of a Utopian world if abortion was just banned.
“The individual is benefited by being relieved of the guilt of ending the life of a human being.”
None of the women that I have known suffered the effects of depression due to the abortion they had. Further, your point ignores those women that do suffer depression because they are unable to adequately care for a child.
“Individuals who would have otherwise provided a benefit to society are snuffed out of a chance to make their meaningfull contribution.”
Using this logic, China and India, because of their recent population exposions, and South America, where abortion is largely illegal due to the influence of the Catholic Church, would be leading the world in Nobel prizes. They don’t. For the most part, they are third-world countries.
“The individual is forced to be responsible for their own actions”
Forcing responsibility rarely if ever works. Further, it is apparent that you have bought into the “pregnancy as punishment for sex” credo.
“Sex with your life long partner is glorious.”
What does that have to do with abortion? Are you assuming that every abortion is a result of casual sex?
“Strong, cohesive families are an immense benefit to society.”
And greater economic and educational opportunity would do far more for families and society than would banning abortion.
All banning abortion would do is move the abortions of poorer women to the back rooms and alley’s. The more well to do women would still have their “D & C’s” at their doctor’s office.
I was in a meeting for a few hours. RFL. How does conceeding that a woman who was raped be allowed to abort a baby, cause the community to lose the ability to respect life and act responsibly?
VET - didn’t you see? The rapist convinces the victim to get an abortion.
“RFL” trots out the abortion abolitionists’ talking points with –
“1. The individual is benefited by being relieved of the guilt of ending the life of a human being.”
A clump of first trimester cells, or any fetus unable to survive outside the womb isn’t exactly what I’d call a “human being.” Yet.
And the so-called “guilt” is likely the direct result of “loving ‘Christians’” screaming “BABY-KILLER” outside clinics.
It’s one step down from “Nathaniel” taking it upon himself to judge the quick and the dead and thinking “Nathaniel” is who determines who and what is a “Christian” or not.
Here, and I thought that was God’s job, not “Nathaniel’s.”
“2. Individuals who would have otherwise provided a benefit to society are snuffed out of a chance to make their meaningfull [sic]contribution. How many brilliant unborn children would have made advancements to our life that we will never realize?”
Oh, yeah. Trot out the old “Beethoven” example, an old war-horse of propaganda that’s fallen into disfavor among abortion abolitionists.
Tell ya what. From all evidence, Charlie Mason’s mother wasn’t exactly Mommy Material.
The whole “individuals who would have otherwise provided a benefit” argument is pure sophistry.
I mean, “what-ifs” are silly. What if Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother had had the option of a safe, legal abortion? JFK would have lived and Barry Goldwater would have won in 1964 and we’d be living in a conservative Republican paradise for the past 44 years and there wouldn’t be any problems in the world!
“3. The individual is forced to be responsible…”
Ah, “RFL!” So now you’re coming out for government power “force” responsibility!
Sometimes the responsible alternative might be to not become an 11-year-old mother of your biological brother.
“Legal Abortion teaches the false lesson that the there are no victims during an abortion. Actually, there are two. The first is the mother who will go on living her life believing she does not have to make good decisions because there will always be a way out to the bad ones.”
Uhm. Your first argument was all the supposed guilt experienced by “Baby Killers!” who’ve chosen abortions. Now you say it teaches them there are no consequences. Get your arguments straight.
“5. …Making abortion illegal will encourage young people to wait until marriage and thereby enjoying the tremendous benefits of finding someone who has tremendous character….”
Uh-huh. There was no premarital sex before Roe v. Wade, right?
“6. …The conditions through which abortions are considered necissary [sic] are not brought about by actions which are not conducive to strong families. Making abortion legal, makes these actions more ubiquitous.”
Ah! “More” ubiquitous! Thanks for clearing that up.
The “conditions” through which abortions are considered, ahem, “necissary” have been around since the beginning of humanity. The history of abortificants is as old (or older) than civilization.
There will always be abortion. There always has been. Protecting desperate women from back-alley butchers or self-induced coat-hanger abortions is the sign of an advanced civilization.
There you have it Ben. Now Getting an abortion will not be like ordering a big mac at McDonalds (fair enough) and the rapist will be known since that is one of the very few reason an abortion would be allowed. The same concept could apply to incest as well. This way the rapist/abusing family member will also be made known.
But Brownback doesn’t want to compromise. Compromise, as RFL puts logic contrary to his question about life. Of course he doesn’t use that same absolute logic regarding an American Soldier’s life. But I have already opened one can of worms for today.
Pregnancy is a consequence of sex. All actions have consequences and having an abortion by eliminating a life, devalues life for the person performing the abortion.
If the pregnancy was unwanted, it is much better for the mother to give it up for adoption instead life is only valued if you give it value.
Vet,
Do you not understand that Life is Life and no matter how the life was conceived? It is better to act on behalf or protecting life in lieu of the alternative.
To All:
Life on this planet will soon SUCK if we start to view other human beings as interfering with our own convenience and can therefore can justify killing those people. Biological science deems an unborn child fit to be human. There is no reason to prevent the same pernicious view currently applied to the unborn to all other humans who we see as interfering with our selfish wants.
By aborting children we devaluing life and thereby devaluing the very entity that we strive to enjoy, our own life and that of other people.
I don’t know about you guys, but The greatest thing about my life is people. No matter how much nice things I have or how much food I can buy, without other people who respect and value my friendship and I theirs, life on this planet would be a miserable experience.
Many on this thread obviously disagree, so we will all endure the consequences of our collective actions as a society.
RFL, A child whose very existence is based on rape has a very poor chance at what you call LIFE. Perhaps this unfortunate soul can breath. But unless someone else is willing to take responsibility for that LIFE, a rape victim is forced to. That is so acceptable to you. I don’t know why. Now if you are going to take every single rape child and raise them (without my tax dollars) then knock yourself out. Until then, get your head out of the clouds and see reality.
RFL, you are so thick headed. Your premise that those clumps of cells are humans has been rejected repeatedly. Yet you cling to that as the essence of your position.
“Life on this planet will soon SUCK if we start to view other human beings as interfering with our own convenience and can therefore can justify killing those people.”
No one is killing people. These are fetuses, not people.
So… how many frozen embryos are you adopting this week? And when will the catholics take up THEIR cause?
And you actually KNOW any adopted people or children who’ve been in “the system” for a long time?
I doubt it. But you have no hesitation to speak for them.
Typical. Just because you are uniformed and prejudice, dont let that stop you from pontificating.
hee hee heeeeeee…..
and I’m STILL laughing at this one:
“I don’t know about you guys, but The greatest thing about my life is people.”
“Yeah RFL. We see your concern for “people” here on this blog everyday.
heheheheheheh!
You left out part of the sentence though.
“People LIKE ME!”
If someone is different from you, well, they are on their own!
God, guns and gays, the republican trifecta.
If it were not for that triad of issues, the republicans would have no membership!
How did that work for you all in 2006?
Holy Cow, now we have bleeding hearted NeoCons!
I’ll tell you what. Once the reality of the Iraq war is over and Soldiers no longer need to die, then we can make certain (together) that abortion becomes obsolete and that reality is also changed. After all, LIFE IS LIFE.
Until then, please stop cherry -picking which Rightous Indignation you want to preach about.
Compassionate conservatives indeed!
If you look at outlander’s link - when is the last time you saw a ‘mass of cells” smile?
It’s gas.
HERE is where “RFL” REALLY lives…
” The individual is forced to be responsible for their own actions. ”
As I said earlier, this is key to the con “pro life” stand.
If you can FORCE a woman to gestate against her will? Well then they could pretty much justify leaving ANYONE to their own consequences.
That is their real aim. Because then they don’t have to have any responsibility to society beyond the end of their….nose.
“If the pregnancy was unwanted, it is much better for the mother to give it up for adoption instead life is only valued if you give it value.”
Much better? For whom?
The guilt of giving up a child for adoption is as great (IMHO) as is the “guilt” of having an abortion.
The fairy tale that adoption is a wonderful thing, yada, yada, yada, everyone lives happily ever after is just so much bullshit.
Absolute bullshit.
I know of a woman that gave up her first born to adoption because her then (third) husband didn’t want him around.
She sank into such denial of her action that she named her fourth child with the same name as her FIRST (except the surname.)
I know this woman because she is my birth mother, a lousy POS loser.
Adoption is not all sugar cookies and warm milk.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Isn’t Obama and Hillary against the Partial-birth abortion act? So it’s okay for democrats if for any reason an unborn child weeks away from birth is cut to pieces.
And didn’t Obama vote against the Born Alive Act? So he was against giving health care to a baby who survived an abortion because it would undermine the basis of abortion. Please read the link:
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/896416.html
And after these the Eagle wants to go against Brownback?
Obamanation would appoint only federal judges who would again legalize partial-birth abortions and live-birth abortions. Babies are worth nothing at all to them. Babies don’t vote.
“Obamanation would appoint only federal judges who would again legalize partial-birth abortions and live-birth abortions.”
I assume some of you must have paid attention in government class. If Roe V Wade was overturned tomorrow abortion would……not be any different than the day before. It would be turned over to the legislature. Some states would be more restrictive than others, but abortion will always be legal and to pretend a president or a judge will make something illegal is a blatant distortion of the facts. At the very least Scholfield should be aware of that.
McCains lobbyists — an interesting list of clients, if one didn’t know better you’d think Ole man John aided and abetted terrorists :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
It’s a baaaaaaaaaad move, Brownbeck is a retard. This could cause me to actually work against McCain in every way possible.
know of a woman that gave up her first born to adoption because her then (third) husband didn’t want him around.
She sank into such denial of her action that she named her fourth child with the same name as her FIRST (except the surname.)
I know this woman because she is my birth mother, a lousy POS loser.
-Clark
I’m glad that your adoptive parents saw value in you and chose to adopt you. The world is better because of the simple act of respecting you for the human being you are instead of the sad circumstances that resulted from the deprived human nature of your birth parents.
At least your birth mom was pro-life. Mine was too. I was reared with my sisters by a single parent. My dad was not around. We lived off of food stamps while my Mom worked two jobs. But we had a blast as a family because we did not know that we were “poor”. We had to wear old clothes and ride in a car without A/C while living in the south. So what!? We were rich because we had our faith in a loving God and we had each other.
More people on this planet is not the problem. As population booms, standard of living increases. However, what makes life really enjoyable is adherence to moral absolutes, namely that life is to be protected and enjoyed. We should be protecting innocent life no matter how disabled, poor or vulnerable each life may be.
“I’m glad that your adoptive parents saw value in you and chose to adopt you.”
The “value” they saw in me was as a “big brother” to their previous adopted infant.
That’s it.
4 Trackbacks
[...] Political Animal wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptSen. John McCain has made it clear that he’ll be very socially conservative on judicial appointments. How socially conservative?… [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] profitweaver wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNutritional Supplements Beauty With Herbalife Herbalife Weight Loss… I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me… [...]
[...] Nutritional Supplements Beauty With Herbalife Herbalife Weight Loss placed an interesting blog post on Comment on McCain listening to Brownback on courts by Nutritional …Here’s a brief overviewNutritional Supplements Beauty With Herbalife Herbalife Weight Loss… I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me… [...]