“We may have lost an election, but we have not lost the war. We will continue to fight for life, no matter how long it takes, no matter how many marches it takes.” – Sen. Sam Brownback (in photo), R-Kan., at Thursday’s March for Life in Washington, D.C.
“Who knows what song would have been written, or book. Or (what) cure for disease that would have been given from that young mind. We lose that through abortion. I think we just push it to the back of our mind under the false pretense that women have the right to choose.” – Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, to a Philadelphia newspaper
“Depends on how you get there.” – Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, asked what he thought of the GOP’s goal of cutting $300 million from the state budget
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
82 Comments
You thought Phill Kline used the Kansas Attorney General’s office for his private issues podium? Then imagine Sam Brownback doing the same if he is able to grab, clutch, shanghai the Kansas Governor’s office.
Brownback needs to find a right wing church somewhere in the South from which to rant his personal agenda.
The way these guys talk it sounds as if they weren’t two of the guys cheering the loudest on bombing other countries.
Sam Brownback plays the same old song which has helped destroy the Republican Party. They still have their priorities all mixed up:
Issues facing America for Republicans:
Number 1: Abortion
Number 2: Abortion
Number 3: Abortion
Number 4: Abortion
etc…..
And to echo the words of my liberal friends on the WEBLOG: “Keep it up!”
Which as interpreted by American Way: “Here’s the last nail Sam, go ahead and hammer it in.”
“Sam Brownback plays the same old song which has helped destroy the Republican Party. They still have their priorities all mixed up.”
——
Sadly it is the song Kansas Republicans dance to. Kansas is still one of the bastions where Republicans who can’t or won’t acknowledge that the Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten to more closely resemble the Bible continue their lost cause. Their leaders and their candidates are those who think morals should be legislated. All the while they rage against theologies across the globe. Try to make any sense of that!
When I posted Linda, I was thinking of the line you used about Sarah Palin in 2013. I just couldn’t remember the exact phrase. Democrats love the republicans to keep up the same ole dogma because it will ensure they never rise again.
Mr. Brownback has a right and a responsibility to speak out for those who cannot speak out for themselves. I’m glad he takes it seriously. Despite portrayals by some, Senator Brownback has shown that he is much more than a single issue guy.
And when elected, he will not be a single issue governor.
Life is short. Not as short as abortionists make it by killing innocent new life, but short none the less. I guess we shall see who has the last and final despair when we face our maker, the giver of that life.
“Senator Brownback has shown that he is much more”
Such as……..?
Both parties have their own song they sing, and this is the one that once again appeared for the Republicans. In the open thread the Democratic song was mentioned about gun control. Of course these are not the only songs sung in the parties. We all need to quit focusing on these songs, as it is becoming a bogus reflection of the parties. Those whom continue to sing them will continue to sing them, as they are blinders for them on everything else. I speak from my past experience, being a single-issue voter is being a cobblestone in the road to destruction. It’s easier since you do not have to think of anything but that issue. In return is makes you simple minded though.
American_Way,
Goldwater said it best and echoes my thoughts, “I didn’t leave my party, it left me.” I see some at the national level who are beginning to recognize what the priorities should be, I don’t see that at the state level in Kansas.
American Way, you are wrong about the abortion issue’s political effect. It strengthens the Republican party with its moral message of responsibility and that human life is important and shouldn’t be tossed away for convenience’s sake. And politically, it is not an unpopular message.
It has been part of the winning platforms of Reagan, both of the Bush’s, and will continue to be on the winning platforms of presidents to come.
Look elsewhere for scapegoats.
Perhaps the religious right could form their own national party?
That way, republicans could try to return to traditional conservative values – which they have completely lost sight of. Although at this point, I believe conservatives would be better to form their own party, which admittedly is a daunting task.
As long as republicans have made their line in the sand over the abortion issue, I predict they are doomed.
Most Americans poll as pro choice but I believe from my own experience that the numbers are higher than that. Take the catholics for instance. I believe when in church or public catholics are vocally anti-abortion and birth control. But in the privacy of their homes and the privacy of the election booth, women vote for control over their own bodies. (no disrespect intended)
I am not arguing pro choice or pro life. I am saying that the republican party is doomed if it continues to put the bible foremost on the public agenda.
#
American_Way
Posted January 25, 2009 at 8:19 am | Permalink
“Senator Brownback has shown that he is much more”
Such as……..?
————–
He is your Senator. Try to keep up.
http://brownback.senate.gov/public/
“It strengthens the Republican party with its moral message of responsibility ”
That message is darkened everytime a republican uses a public restroom. If you want to run on being morally superior and having a higher christian standard – then you had better walk the talk.
It only takes one instance of being human, and that righteousness is shot to he*l.
I hope you are correct Outlander. I also respect your desire for christian standards and your fight for life.
But when the boat is sinking, and taking on water fast, I think you should pick up a bucket and help me bail.
Far to long we have been reacting in to the abstract, “Who knows what song would have been written, or book. Or (what) cure for disease that would have been given from that young mind. We lose that through abortion“.
“If the person torture might know the location of the ticking time bomb then it is acceptable to torture”.
The life of the unborn is unwritten as of yet and for as much of a chance they will be the next savior. There is as much chance they will be the next mass murder, there is no telling. It is an abstract and based on a unwritten page. Abstract thought is a gamble on the unwritten. In the end it is no different then wearing a tinfoil hat on the chance that the space aliens are trying to control your mind.
“a woman, her doctor and her god.”
As the ongoing discussion about religion here on the blog demonstrates, individuals have different interpretations. And most of us think judging another isn’t our place. Everyone will answer individually for himself.
“Both parties have their own song they sing.. quit focusing on these songs”
I have agreed on this before. I post about the red and blue teams cheering for their team which allows all the players to blame the other side.
I just don’t see many posters willing to take off their teams jersey and admit their committed fouls.
The game will not improve until both sides refuse to accept unsportsmanlike conduct.
PS: The gun issue is democrats, and I’d wager money Obama and Congress will create a ban. And soon. So if you don’t like that song, and you know other democrats who agree – please email your party leadership soonest.
I agree American_way
“I post about the red and blue teams cheering for their team which allows all the players to blame the other side.”
And the ONLY thing they agree on is that laws should be made to kick the “siht” out of the pink team.
You welcome for us unifying the country.
And Monkeyhawk is correct when he says wanting to repeal Roe v Wade is being against legal abortions. With or without a law there have been and will be abortions. Let’s work together to help more of the women who find themselves in the position of making that decision.
I dunno American Way, not advocating for high principles because we will inevitably fall short strikes me as somewhat cowardly.
The Democrats are in power now. The scandals are coming as they always do when human beings are involved. Opportunities will abound. The Republican party has had some hard knocks and bad breaks recently but the basic message of conservatism (fiscal and social)is still a winner.
ksfarmgrrl, you are as one issued as the prolifers.
Not trying to start a fight. I guess someone shoot toot your horn. Horton as heard you. But I think you are lost in a sea of pink flowers with others tooting issues.
Don’t attack me this morining, I’m not up to it.
I have posted my support before for your one issue.
Albeit not the exact support you were looking for.
“And most of us think judging another isn’t our place. Everyone will answer individually for himself.”—lindainks55
Or is that just a convenient way to make ourselves feel better about placing ourselves in the position of God?
If Republicans could get back to adding the fiscal to the social it might improve their chances. Somewhere along the line it seems the social issues became overpowering and the definition of the word ‘conservative’ changed drastically.
Or at least that’s what I see. We do all have our own unique perspectives.
“the basic message of conservatism (fiscal and social)is still a winner”
I wish you were correct on that. I personally never saw conservatism as being a social issue.
That event reminds me of the new conservative liberalism new democrats hold high.
Both are a twist of true fiscal conservatism.
On your other comment yes, it is an admission on my part that we will never reach the moral high ground. I don’t think that means I have lowered my personal standards by which I live my life. It means that I don’t expect a political party to meet them.
caffine typing:
someone should toot your horn. Horton has heard you
Geez Linda.
Just read what you posted at 8:45 while I was typing my 8:51.
Scary. I think I’m going to be sick.
lindainks55, this helps explain a seeming incongruence.
“On the one hand, we have Luke 6:37 teaching us not to judge another so that we may not be judged. On the other hand, we have the responsibility in admonishing, rebuking, correcting our wayward brothers in Christ(2Tim 2:25 ESV, 2Tim 3:16 ). How can we correct another without first making a judgment?
We can judge the actions as evil but not condemn the person at the same time. We are told to love the person and not his evil or sinful acts. We have the Bible as the standards of right and wrong and we can for many cases make a sound judgment provided we have all the relevant facts. However, the intentions of the heart are not easily observed. We could only make inferences.”
Heheh. HAHAHAHAHAHAH
So Amway IS up to attacking me, but NOT “up to” being attacked in return.
Good thing you are not gay. We have to be up for attacks on our civil rights every day.
I guess you are just too big of a pu$$ie to be gay.
Here’s a clue. If you arent up to a debate, dont start one.
Coward.
“Don’t attack me this morining, I’m not up to it.”
Pu$$ie. You can dish it out but you cant take it. And if you dont support full equality for us, then you are NOT posting support of any form.
Stupid and cowardly. Wanna go for a trifecta?
Horton should shove that horn up your azz.
I don’t see a blog as a place to discuss religion. It isn’t where I go to get answers, it isn’t where my soul is fed. The subject, for me, is a very personal one. This is a public blog.
I don’t see a blog as a place to discuss religion…This is a public blog.”—lindainks55
It is as you say. So do as you wish….and others will as well, including discuss religion and faith.
We see it daily here, you could not accuse XXX of being a gun control nut and he is a Democratic. I among other Republicans on here are for the most part Pro-choice though it is begrudgingly. Often I find myself allied with the Democratic here on several issues as my party as Linda said seem to have left me. But I still have as many core believes in line with the GOP. So I remain a Republican and try to be a voice of reason to get the party back from what is known as the Conservatives.
O.K. farmgirl, attack away.
I was trying to stay on the porch this morning.
At least until the coffee set in completely.
We see kfg is her typical sweet, congenial self this Sunday morning.
What an example to apply 2Tim 2:25 ESV, 2Tim 3:16
GOD’S WORD® Translation:
“He must be gentle in correcting those who oppose the Good News. Maybe God will allow them to change the way they think and act and lead them to know the truth.”
“Every Scripture passage is inspired by God. All of them are useful for teaching, pointing out errors, correcting people, and training them for a life that has God’s approval.”
LOL Linda beat me to my point as AM had too, the problem with claiming the moral high ground is you have to totally commit to holding that moral high ground. It seems a actuate point to make, to care so much for the unborn then hold up your hands after birth to any issue of that person whom you fought so hard to be allowed to be born.
Is disingenuous, to force upon a parent that had made a decision that they can not care for a child. Then when that child is in need to point as that parent and say “Hey its your job not mine to care for the child!”. You took away their responsibility of .deciding if they can care for a child. Then claim it is to force them to take responsibility for their actions.
The party claiming to have a moral core and the high-ground on Abortion then is the one that is whole-heartily supportive of torture is an oxymoron. We must follow the Bible as it is written but only those parts we agree with is the same claim of moral relativism.
The problem is Boxlocks the Bible is the handbook for those of the Christian faith.
It is not the handbook for the general public, you can rebuke those whom are not living by the Bible and point out the benefits of living by the Bible. But it is not right to force them to live by the Bible. No more then it would be right to have you live by the holy book of any of the other religions. It is a personal faith not a national mandate and that is what many on the Conservative side have been attempting to do. If it is against one’s personal religious beliefs to have an abortion then they should not. If it is against their religious beliefs to engage in homosexual sex then they should not. But that is personal beliefs and that is the function of religious beliefs.
“party back from what is known as the Conservatives”
That would be ideal. It would also be nice to discuss amongst fellow conservatives. But that won’t happen here.
The election was approximately 47/53. Clearly democrats won. But most races were narrow victories in many states (congress and presidential). This in despite of the huge funds available to Obama This was in spite of the huge disapproval of Bush.
All it will take is for democrats to step on their dicks a few times, and the pendulum may swing the other way. I’m not holding my breath.
The proactive approach would be to get conservatives to come with a clear platform they can support. A return to conservative values would mean to vote fiscally conservative. Again, I’m not holding my breath.
“If” the republican party wants to include fiscal conservatives, I believe they need to start promoting some fresh, young candidates who are clearly leaders. Not the same old tired power brokers who don’t even read email yet. IMHO Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative, but he didn’t have the later qualities – at least it was not visible and he did not come across that way.
Gotta pick themselves up and get back in the race.
“American_Way” intones –
“I just don’t see many posters willing to take off their teams jersey and admit their committed fouls.”
Oh really?
Then you haven’t been paying attention.
The leading critics of Rod Blogojevich are Democrats. The guy’s a Democrat but he’s certifiably bat-s#it crazy. It’s embarrassing he wants to associate with us but we don’t embrace his insanity the way, say, the Republic Party kowtows to people like Pat Robertson and James Dobson.
William Jefferson is as crooked as a pretzel. We know that. But Louisiana brews really strange politics. Remember when the Republic Party ran David Duke for governor and the bumper-sticker for the Democrat read: “Vote for the Crook; It’s That Important.”
What possibly could have been the story behind the Republic Party candidate William Jefferson defeated last November? Enough, apparently. They voted for the crook — or, at least, the “alleged” crook — and the legal process is working its way out. And, frankly, Jefferson is a perpetual back-bencher among congressional Democrats.
He’s not sending out pirated “Barack the Magic Negro” CDs to become the leader of his party.
“follow the Bible as it is written but only those parts we agree”
And the history of the world is full of wars over that statement. Much blood has been shed. I don’t know how a political party will ever wrap that up neatly and put it clearly on campaign trail.
Not to mention win.
Well yes Monkeyhawk it is easy to disagree with convicted crooks and those pending prosecution.
It was quite another for me to campaign against and vote against Jim Ryun. I voted for Nancy Boyda because Jim Ryun talked conservative, but voted for pork and huge spending bills. He also spent enormous efforts convincing us he as pro family and anti-abortion. I know him personally and believe he is a man of high integrity and truly a family man.
But he failed to deliver as a fiscal conservative.
See the difference? You speak out on your crooks who have been caught. I am willing to disagree on principles and actions by good republicans.
Coming out of lurking to say:
“American Way, you are wrong about the abortion issue’s political effect. It strengthens the Republican party with its moral message of responsibility and that human life is important and shouldn’t be tossed away for convenience’s sake. And politically, it is not an unpopular message.”
outlander, you are just factually wrong here. Look at the examples set by Phill Kline, Jim Ryun, the Christian Conservative School Board Majority, and Jim Barnett (who was weighed down by Susan Wagle). The Christian Right pushes too hard, and focuses myopically on abortion, they lose, even here, usually to other Republicans who are not so obsessed with these issues in the primary (which is interesting because the “moderates” do not control the machinery of the pary here).
“It has been part of the winning platforms of Reagan, both of the Bush’s, and will continue to be on the winning platforms of presidents to come.”
Point of reality, the winning platforms for Republicans with the general electorate has been national security (i.e., fear) and “you can have your cake and eat it too” faux fiscal conservatism. The issues that appeal to the outlanders of the world gives them a dedicated base that, all other things being equal, gives Republicans an advantage. But when all other things are not equal, the Christian Right and the myopically anti-abortion/”pro-life” position becomes a drag. The Christian Right is one of the most likely target of foul weather voter backlashes, and that’s a fact. That, as much as the Iraq War and even the economy, damaged the Republican party in 2006 and 2008, and there were Republican pundits who, with the party flush with its 2004 victories, predicted this.
“Look elsewhere for scapegoats.”
When the horns fit, outlander, wear them. If Brownback is too strongly affiliated with the Phill Klines and other CR activists, look for Thornburgh to take the primary (and if he does, the election will be a lock).
Let me clarify my stance.
Republicans no longer can claim to be fiscal conservatives. Their voting records do not support that claim.
So if allll that Republicans have left is the moral high ground, biblical superiority, and the crusade against abortion – I will continue to vote against them.
I will look elsewhere to find fiscal conservatives to represent me. I am still leaning and have been a mostly republican voter all my life. But if your party can afford to loose me so be it.
Just let me know soonest. If I hear your leadership still singing Onward Christian Soldier , I will be making my campaign contributions and support elsewhere. I have much to give, since I’d rather give it up to get new leadership before Obama takes it all.
“it is not right to force them to live by the Bible”—writerdog
Come on ‘writerdog’, I have never said that, nor has that ever been my intent. I would strenuously oppose that, it is against the essence of this country.
You are correct with respect to homosexuality being a personal choice to act on. It is bad, it is destructive, and it is of no value to society, but it is one’s free choice, and effects primarily just the individual.
Abortion on the other hand is much much more than a personal choice….it is taking the life of an innocent human being who is defenseless to resist or object.
Remember: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the “inalienable rights” of man. And the first and the one the others are contingent upon is LIFE!
‘writerdog’, you are smarter than that.
it is taking the life of an innocent human being who is defenseless to resist or object.
So is “collateral damage” in war.
Agnatha
Posted January 25, 2009 at 9:43 am | Permalink
…If Brownback is too strongly affiliated with the Phill Klines and other CR activists, look for Thornburgh to take the primary (and if he does, the election will be a lock).
—
First off, great post.
Second, I agree completely that Thornburgh will be very difficult to beat. And your point about social conservatism serving as a lightning rod in bad times is spot on. As writerdog and linda noted, the Bible is a personal handbook, not a political one. What hurts social conservatives politically is the same thing that always bites the self-righteous in the a$$: hypocrisy. When all things are not equal, when members of the GOP behave as the humans they so are then the social conservatives in effect say “send me the bill please” for the entire party.
And the GOP pays full retail. Full.
Off topic: when I worked in Wichita, one afternoon I looked up from my desk and lo and behold who was standing at the door but Ron Thornburgh (an office mate had worked for his campaign and Thornburgh was paying him a visit). I spent maybe 15 minutes with him and he was V E R Y impressive (so is Tiahrt under the same conditions). Thornburgh will be extremely formidable, imho.
I wouldn’t trust Sam Brownback with KU’s or KSU’s biosciences departments any further than I could throw him. I would not be at all surprised to see a Gov. Brownback utterly gut science funding and education in Kansas if he felt it were necessary to saving even one soul for the church.
Technically, a “being” can’t be without self-awareness.
Outie,
“He is your Senator. Try to keep up.”
Actually, he made it very plain some years back that he is not my senator. At the same time Tiahrt also made it plain that he was not my representative in congress. It cost someone I loved her life.
Well Aggie, you know me, always searching for common ground with folks. So I will agree with you on one point of your post. That a politician cannot get be seen as an extremist. Because once defined, your opponents will hang it around your neck should there ever be anything negative associated with it, true or not.
But as to the rest of it, I just shake my head. You are so full of it. You imply that you know the reasons politicians win and lose. For instance you imply that they win or lose because of their ideology. Very simplistic view. Let’s use your example Ryan. Jim was a great runner and photographer. As a politician or public speaker, not so good. He was swept in with the great Republican sweep a few years back. Todd Tiahrt also came in then, I believe. Similar positions on social issues. Ryan is gone. Tiahrt is as popular as ever. Sort of buries your theory, doesn’t it?
Aggie, you clearly don’t understand Republican politics. So as the saying goes, it’s best to remain silent…
“Technically, a “being” can’t be without self-awareness.”—beber
I didn’t see that one beber, here let me help you.
Definitions of being on the Web:
#1 the state or fact of existing;
#2 organism: a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-10,GGGL:en&defl=en&q=define:being&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Oh. My. God. Sam Brownback actually said this, out loud, where people could hear him:
“…the false pretense that women have the right to choose.”
We can debate the humanity of a fetus or blastocyst all we want. That’s fine. But Sam the Sham has just made it clear that women, by virtue of being women have no choices to make – only a pretense of choice.
Sam Brownback is a bigot.
“Well Aggie, you know me, always searching for common ground with folks.”
Uh huh. Love the use of the diminuative.
“So I will agree with you on one point of your post. That a politician cannot get be seen as an extremist. Because once defined, your opponents will hang it around your neck should there ever be anything negative associated with it, true or not.”
I’ve read your posts outlander, including who you tend to run to the support of and who you tend to attack. I doubt your ability to assess whether someone is an extremist. It this case, it doesn’t take one to know one. To one extremist, another is reasonableas long as they agree on their extremist philosophy.
“But as to the rest of it, I just shake my head. You are so full of it.”
Gee, you cut me to the quick there.
“You imply that you know the reasons politicians win and lose. For instance you imply that they win or lose because of their ideology. Very simplistic view. Let’s use your example Ryan. Jim was a great runner and photographer. As a politician or public speaker, not so good. He was swept in with the great Republican sweep a few years back. Todd Tiahrt also came in then, I believe. Similar positions on social issues. Ryan is gone. Tiahrt is as popular as ever. Sort of buries your theory, doesn’t it?”
1) No, it doesn’t. This state is a diverse state. I grew up in one part of the state (the northeast I-70 corridor) but have spent most of my adult life here in south central Kansas. Both are primarily Republican, but believe me there is a huge difference (and the I-70 corridor is where the growth in Kansas is). South central Kansas, particularly south and east of Wichita, is culturally very similar to large parts of Arkansas and Oklahoma, and Tiahrt benefited from the expansion of his district when Kansas lost a congressional district in the 1990’s (it was part of the reason why Glickman lost). This is why this area is a hotbed for coalition Christian conservatives. Other parts of the state, not so much. And even then, Wichitans have shown a limited tolerance for the excesses of the Christian Right. Witness the last state school board election.
2) The Democrats are a disorganized mess in this state. They thought that Roberts was vulnerable and that Tiahrt was not. They simply ignored Betts, a potentially strong candidate and threw their support behind Slattery in an unwinnable race. Tiarht has benefitted and continues to benefit from the myopia of Kansas Democrats.
“Aggie, you clearly don’t understand Republican politics. So as the saying goes, it’s best to remain silent…”
I can pretty much say with confidence I have a better understanding of Kansas (which is, in the end, Republican) politics than you do. The losses for Christian conservatives that I have pointed out often tended to occur in the Republican primaries.
“thomaswitt” reports –
“Sam Brownback actually said this, out loud, where people could hear him:
“…the false pretense that women have the right to choose.””
Was Senator Opus Dei wearing his self-flagellation barbed-wire jock strap at the time?
predestined…so since we have collateral damage in war, that is your reason and justification for killing innocent babies…………seems you could apply the same logic to drunk driving deaths
beber, my granddaughters were born 3 months pre-mature and I assure you they were very self-aware………and they are now 1 year old and still very aware
wichhick,
Congratulations on your granddaughters! Aren’t grandkids….well, Grand!
Abortionists and some mothers are killing them at that age….really sad. Someday they will understand.
boxlock,………..thank you and it is very sad that they are being killed…….I saw them every day when they were premees. and they were very aware i was there……
wichhick,
At one time I worked in a Newborn Intensive Care Unit and would walk around the unit doing postural drainage on such little premature things that they looked like little skinned squirrels resting on my forearm. Those that had progressed to being off CPAP or a vent anyway. And you could tell they loved the motion and percussion to their lung fields as they would simply relax completely.
Many of those babies are now growing up and having their own babies….glad their parents didn’t decide to kill them.
Not to mention moral crusading social conservatism and small government conservatism contradict each other. and also one can be a political liberal and be fiscally conservative, Gwen Welshimer on the county commission would be an example
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Don’t let the presence of George Tiller here mislead you as to when most abortions occur. They tend to occur very early (88.7% occur in the first trimester, only 1.1% occur in the final trimester-3 months premature and beyond).
The corrolary argument to recognizing everything from a zygote to a barely differentiated embryo to a later term embryo to fetuses at varying degrees of development as fully human is the recognition that there are those who would legally compel every woman to carry a pregnancy to term to do so. The latter is, in my very strong opinion, the greatest evil. I have known very good and honorable people on both sides of the abortion issue, and I have known absolutely uncompromising and hard core fanatics on both sides of the issue.
Sometimes, it’s not good against bad, it’s bad against worse. There are people on both sides of the issue who agree that it is very important to try to avoid unwanted pregnancies. There are others who just are concerned about scoring points and punishing those they think are wrong. The majority of the latter are on the “pro-life” side of the equation. That being said, it doesn’t excuse some self described “pro-choice” people for attempting to hang the uncompromising fanatic label on everyone who disagrees with them on abortion.
Boxlock, I think many of your posts are odious in the extreme. That being said, I appreciate anyone who works or has worked in neonatal intensive care.
Pendant, thanks for the nice comments.
I was glad to find out that Thornburgh was running for governor.
Brownback also thinks a women brutally beaten and raped in a parking lot or a back alley should be forced to have a kid, then offer her no help, and you get Ann Coulter calling you some vile name for being a single mom.
thomaswitt
Posted January 25, 2009 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
Oh. My. God. Sam Brownback actually said this, out loud, where people could hear him:
“…the false pretense that women have the right to choose.”
We can debate the humanity of a fetus or blastocyst all we want. That’s fine. But Sam the Sham has just made it clear that women, by virtue of being women have no choices to make – only a pretense of choice.
—
Actually, Brownback and others have made it clear that women, by virtue of being uterus receptacles have no choices to make – only a pretense of a choice.
It’s the uterus they’re interested in, that’s what they insist on controlling. That a woman may have a functioning brain within the cranium attached to the corpus wrapping the uterus ain’t their problem.
Dealing with that brain and its functioning is something all women will just have to overcome, somehow.
After all, if they’re good wimmin then they’ll be happy to be submissive to the desires of good men, shephards of the flock as it were, men like Sam Brownback.
You advocates of Illegal Abortion desperately want to blur the purpose of civil law.
The simple irrefutable fact is civil law needs an arbitrary point on which to determine person-hood. For drivers’ licenses, Social Security, the drinking age, tobacco sales, et cetera, we start counting age on the basis of your BIRTH date.
Your personal morality may convince you human life begins at conception, or implantation of the zygote in the uterus, or “quickening” but civil law cannot wrestle with theological questions. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? That’s not the legislature’s job to determine.
Agnatha, np.
“Brownback also thinks a women brutally beaten and raped in a parking lot or a back alley should be forced to have a kid, then offer her no help, and you get Ann Coulter calling you some vile name for being a single mom.”
———-
Pure hate, and they both do this in the name of their god…
Do not group me with those that would force a woman to carry a child to term that would harm her health, including mental health, if that was truly legit.
Most abortions take the life of a developing human being out of pure self-centered convenience. And everyone will admit that if half way honest.
“Boxlock, I think many of your posts are odious in the extreme. That being said, I appreciate anyone who works or has worked in neonatal intensive care.”—Agnatha
You get a very close look at the reality of their humanity working there. They are people.
For those that hide by lying to themselves, assigning less than human status to the developing child may I remind you that the child’s heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception. And it isn’t anything other than a human heart beat.
Of course most abortions occur after that point, stopping that beating human heart.
I agree… what we really should be debating is not whether or not the fetus is human, but whether or not it’s OK to kill a human before it’s born. Right or wrong, that’s what abortion is, no matter how you choose to spin it.
Thank you Mary. That IS the essence of the problem.
And if a person is really pro-life, they should not support unnecessary wars that kill thousands of innocent children.
“Do not group me with those that would force a woman to carry a child to term that would harm her health, including mental health, if that was truly legit.”
OK, but, are you among those who would make abortion illegal for any woman who discovered that she was pregnant, no matter how far along she is, UNLESS she could legitimately “prove” that her health was at stake?
“Most abortions take the life of a developing human being out of pure self-centered convenience. And everyone will admit that if half way honest.”
That is extremely presumptive. I have known several women who have had abortions, and none of them were cavalier about it.
“You get a very close look at the reality of their humanity working there. They are people.”
Make no mistake, I am not one of those who is “pro-choice” for any reason at any point in the pregnancy. But the fact is, there are substantial differences between levels of development. Even a beating heart (which is actually morphologically quite different from the four chambered heart it will become) in an embryo literally the size of an insect does not make the embryo the equivalent of a third trimester fetus. That being said, I am strongly in favor of using scientific information (as uncluttered as possible from “pro-life” AND “pro-choice” assumptions) from embryology as a guideline for regulating abortion.
“For those that hide by lying to themselves, assigning less than human status to the developing child may I remind you that the child’s heart begins to beat about 18 to 21 days after conception. And it isn’t anything other than a human heart beat.”
Again, the question is this: “Does assigning full personhood to an embryo justify telling women that as soon as they are pregnant, they will be legally compelled to carry the pregnancy to term unless they ‘legitimately prove’ that their health or life is at stake?” Who makes that determination? The fact of the matter is, in cultures where women are able to self regulate the size of their families (including contraception but also access to legal abortion done by professionals in a professional environment), the cultures are healthier physically, economically, and in terms of personal freedom. Look at the Islamist and sub-Saharan countries where women’s reproductive choices are tightly prescribed.
You want to prevent abortions, prevent them by maximally allowing women to have access to contraception and reproductive information before the fact.
And to conclude the ‘jawless fish’s’ offering to the Father, Son and the Holy Tiller, he offers this prayer of contrition:
Spare not the prophylactic device.
Nay give heed to the Trojan (ribbed or plain).
We ask this in they name O’ Tiller of the blessed incinerator.
“But the fact is, there are substantial differences between levels of development. Even a beating heart (which is actually morphologically quite different from the four chambered heart it will become) in an embryo literally the size of an insect does not make the embryo the equivalent of a third trimester fetus.”—Agnatha
Oh Agnatha, you seemingly self-considered god of that creation, just where do you get the authority to declare that living developing child is not a human in every respect. Simply growing and changing continually as we all do from the moment of conception to death at whatever age.
Do I detect a bit of personal emotion in this subject, possibly from personal experience and with an element of rationalization to comfort a conscience. Who knows?
so since we have collateral damage in war, that is your reason and justification for killing innocent babies
No. (see Mary’s 6:16 p.m. post)
I’m simply pointing out the irony/contradiction/hypocrisy. You get to choose which.
Re: Regular
DNFTT
As for you Boxlock, given your extremely common perchant for making absolute pronouncements about who engages in “perversion” and how wrong the “dimlibs” are, your suggestion that I am arrogantly assuming a great deal of personal authority is quite amusing.
Furthermore, you missed my point entirely. I was referring to the biological realities of the embryological differences between levels of development. In confronting the most extreme self described “pro-life” fanatics, an excellent analogy was made by maggotpunk. You have an infant and 20 frozen embryos in a burning hospital. You can either save the single infant or the 20 frozen embryos, but not both. What do you do? If you draw an equivalence between the frozen embryos and the infant, you would “save” the embryos. I wonder how many people would actually do that? Most people, even those who label themselves “pro-life”, would I suspect save the “born” infant. If they do so, they are making a developmental distinction not unlike that I am making. Like I said, I am making a “bad against worse” distinction here (it’s a mature form of ethics) where I believe that allowing women freedom to choose early term abortions is substantially “less bad” than compelling these women to either carry their pregnancy to term, or break the law by seeking out illegal abortions. A person may disagree with me, but I won’t take them seriously if they don’t actually consider the bad consequences of their decision.
And no, there is nothing to your crude attempt to psychoanalyze me. To be blunt, if you think I am simply rationalizing, you are betraying, IMVSO, an immature and underdeveloped sense of “appeal to authority” ethics.
“A person may disagree with me, but I won’t take them seriously if they don’t actually consider the bad consequences of their decision.”
Should be:
“A person may disagree with me, but I won’t take them seriously if they don’t actually consider the bad consequences of their position.”
#
Agnatha
Posted January 25, 2009 at 8:03 pm | Permalink
“A person may disagree with me, but I won’t take them seriously if they don’t actually consider the bad consequences of their decision.”
Should be:
“A person may disagree with me, but I won’t take them seriously if they don’t actually consider the bad consequences of their position.”
—————————-
I was interested in the one on page 33,Chapter 2 in the Karma Sutra, or would that put me in bad consequence because of that position?
Re: Regular
DNFTT (chuckle)
DRAT! No MORE soup for you.
I’m outta here.
Agnatha, your post of 7:59 pm is a ridiculous hypothetical situation, created in desperation.
You lose, to abort and any gestation age is to end a human life with great present and future potential.