"We’re created by God for some special purpose," Mr. Akin told Mr. Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas.If God is for us, who can be against us?
The first link goes to the NYT, which has that as its top story on the front page. And right under it is: "G.O.P. Approves Strict Anti-Abortion Language in Party Platform."
While Republican officials stressed that the plank did not go into granular details, saying that they were better left to the states, the language of the plank seems to leave little room for exceptions to the abortion ban. It states that “the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed.”
“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” said the draft platform language approved Tuesday.... "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
The timing of the approval of the Republican anti-abortion plank was awkward for Mitt Romney, who has denounced Mr. Akin’s comments about rape and abortion and who has said that he supports exceptions to allow abortions in cases of rape. And it comes as his selection of his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, was already drawing scrutiny for his support for a more absolute ban on abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.
पोस्ट्स
५१६ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 516 पैकी 201 – 400 नवीन› नवीनतम»RogerJ
Thought about you last week as my arms were falling off catching some huge Lake Michigan smallies :-)
Pretty epic, can't believe I waited this long to try that fishery.
Eustace Chilke said...
Akinism is just one more reason that the republican party is not worth a ripe shit as opposition.
Akinism????
The Lefties must really be desperate to need to turn the blathering of one candidate, unsupported by his party, into a doctrine.
Maybe we ought to try to define Bidenism.
Lindsey Meadows said...
This is precisely what history has taught us about politicians proclaiming that they have God on their side.
Hey, remember when you criticized Obama for saying we have to pass his health care bill because Jesus was his brother's keeper and stuff?
Oh, wait...
Wouldn't you love to see a Venn Diagram of the people who denied the OWS rapes and those expressing outrage about Akin's comments?
Jr. Ok I will answer that. I don't think abortion should be legal after the 1st trimester. It's reasonable to believe the more developed the babies nervous system the more likely that baby will suffer.
Maybe we ought to try to define Bidenism.
"Early-stage Alzheimer's" isn't good enough?
"So what happens when the fetus implants itself somewhere not in the uterus?
Can the women get an abortion then?"
Interesting question, Unknown.
It's called an ectopic pregnancy, and no one argues about the unborn babies' rights when they "take care of this" with drugs or surgery. The mothers' health is compromised, and medical people react accordingly.
I wonder what strict, right-to-lifers think about this? It hasn't come up in abortion discussions that I've seen.
AllieOop said...
Also Jr, I don't advocate forcing anyone to bear a baby, that would be an extreme. It's killing at all stages of development, IN MY OPINION only based on my personal belief system.
What pathetic blathering dishonesty. Do you really think anyone believes you're anything other than a nutty leftist trying to justify your views with your caricature of conservative principles?
You believe it's murder, but that murder should be personal choice judgable only by god?
You and the other trolls keep congratulating yourselves on your "logic". We'll keep laughing.
Conrats on the smallies, Garage--we have a very modest fishery here--not nearly as big as colder waters. Post some pics so I can lust after them :)
...In fact, the Republican Party’s platform on abortion has gone virtually unchanged since Ronald Reagan ran for reelection, according to the archive at The American Presidency Project. Platforms from 1984–2008 advocated for a human life amendment to the constitution and legislation that applies the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment to unborn children.....
Hmmm,we've come a long way in almost 30 years.
The plank is such old news, where's the fainting couch?
Allie's come a long way, it's only judgeable by God, now if she agrees the state shouldn't have to pay for it, some might actually agree on something.
RogerJ
Will do. We caught probably 100 in a few days from a canoe. Several between 16-19", and one 22". Close to 6 pounds. Nothing, and I mean nothing fights like a smallmouth.
You should take your sons up to Door Cty someday.
The typically cited "exceptions to rape" are rape, incest, life and (physical health) of the mother.
But lets add two more that most people agree on:
Here is the 1st"
1. During flush times, American Christians got in the delusion that with our "unlimited wealth" we could just send all the free shiploads of wheat, rice, beans to any overpopulated African, Muslim, Caribbean nations that had overbred their arable land and water supply's ability to feed the masses.
Better that than accept "one child" policies.
Now that we face a future where Christians will not accept free shiploads of food adding to our debt, even massive entitlements to each welfare mammy to raise they many "precious babies" because we are close to being bankrupt....what will those Christians do?
Say it is more moral to starve the overbred Haitians or Yemeni down to acceptable numbers?
Better that we have birth control and access to abortion when a 3rd World family that stuggles to feed 3 children and two elders does not have to decide between a 4th "precious baby" being left to be exposed and die or starving granny to death to make room for the new gift of life..Once all the boatloads of "Free!" food from the West end.
This is precisely what history has taught us about politicians proclaiming that they have God on their side.
Good point. Lincoln's and FDR's repeated invocations of God is one of the key reasons most historians recognize them as among the worst Presidents in American history.
Oh. Wait.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the reluctance to claim "God is on our side" is a modern phenomenon that grew out of the far left's hostility to religion. Prior to that it was common for politicians on ALL points of the political spectrum to claim divine support.
Darcy 1, Cedarford 0
No Jr, I'm not going to bite. I've had this argument ad nauseum here on this blog, it NEVER ever ends with any agreement or understanding.
We have laws for a purpose.
but you SEEM To be arguing that we couldn't pass any law restricting any abortion even up to and including third trimester abortions, even absent any health issues or even if the mother isn't raped? Correct?
So then saying we have laws for a purpose is in fact a non answer, as is any discussion about exceptions that should be made for mothers in the case of rape, since even if those exceptions weren't there, we still couldnt tell a mother NOT to abort her kid in the third trimester?
Marshal, you have a right to your opinion, as I have a right to mine. For all I know you have no honest sincere belief in anything but yourself, but hey that's your right.
Small minds like yours cannot conceive of anything outside their narrow sphere of knowledge.
I'm not much of a pro-life advocate, but I don't understand why liberals think it's okay to terminate the pregnancy of an 8 month unborn baby when it doesn't present harm to the mother?
Jr. Did you miss my comment at 4:48 PM?
Garage--thanks for the info and I will check it out--my boys and I are still hooked on northern saskatchewan though--literally a northern or walleye on every cast--and we use ultralight spinning with 4 pound test but, of course, with a six inch stainless steel leader--walleye for breakfast and supper every day :) we will eat northerns in a pinch, and up in the northwoods, dont have to worry about the y bones--messy but good.
most important question: what were you using? I have always done well with smallies with dark blade baits.
Sloanasaurus....precisely! and when guns kill people it is ok because it is a protected right.
noted.
"Maybe if Akin just posted a video saying, "I'm not a witch" this would all work itself out."
Chip S., my mind also went to Christine O'Donnell, Delaware's Tea Party Republican who won the Republican Primary and was later trounced by her Democratic opponent.
Shamefully, I don't recall many Republicans acknowledging their foolhardiness after the loss. Republican Mike Castle may not have passed any tea party purity tests, but at least there was a Republican in the seat instead of the current Democrat.
I guess this is where I'm supposed to say that McCain would definitely not have been better than Obama.
Um hm, OK then!
Let's keep this rape/abortion thread going thru election day. C'mon, who's w/me! :)
Hey, it's a winning political issue for mittens lol as the entire Rep hierarchy disowns Akin.
hmm, brings back fond memories of Mark Foley.
In other news Paul Ryan's congress has a 10% approval rating! How low can you go ...
"Sloanasaurus....precisely! and when guns kill people it is ok because it is a protected right."
Sorry, I just don't get the analogy. Are you saying we should ban the tools doctor's use to perform abortions, and maybe then we could reduce the amount of abortions performed?
hdhouse said...
Sloanasaurus....precisely! and when guns kill people it is ok because it is a protected right.
I love the fact that you think this level of retardation advances an argument.
Seeing Red, I haven't "come a long way", I've always felt this way and expressed these same opinions regarding abortion, my opinion as to when human life begins and Roe v Wade, here on this blog.
I guess you weren't listening.
Here is the other exception that most people agree on, even if they would not DREAM of doing so in a pro-life loving Christian family (though doctors say they do, more often than not).....
2. Abortions that terminate the fetuses with serious birth defects and genetic diseases.
Such a "blessed baby" risks:
A. Under our present healthcare system - financially ruining a family and depriving existing children of options, as well as the parents.
B. Would destroy or greatly diminish the chances of a childless couple to raise a viable family...as several years could pass where the woman will not get pregnant so she can care for the doomed, dying child - even work to be able to afford the medical care.
C. Up to half the married couples that have a very damaged, dying child to care for get divorced and describe the birth and death period as "hell for both of us".
D. Medical ethicists question the allocation of vast financial resources from taxpayers and hospital coffers on badly defective babies whose parents lack insurance or soon reach caps. Money better spend on other healthcare needs. Not aborting and inflicting the costs on others is not in our best interests, ethicists say.
Most women have experience with, helped a friend, know of a friend of a friend, or heard about someone with an badly defective baby...that ended up wrecking the mariage, the hope of a family, led to medical bankruptcy, led to the woman having a miserable life.
Any woman going through pregnancy knows of the dread of having a baby born with irrepairable serious abnormalities, genetic diseases.
Even women that accept they would want to have the damaged, even doomed baby, give up on ever having a viable family, acept the risk it would destroy home finances or the marriage itself....
Even they are also accepting of women that decide they cannot opt to embrace that nightmare vs. get an abortion and try again.
That is why so many who talk the loudest about draconian restrictions on abortion, keeping the brainless husk of Terri Schiavo fed and watered...tend to be men of the Republican religious right...NOT typical women.
Hence, the Gender Gap where women in general fear the Right to Lifer male zealots - and incline to vote Democrat on this powerful and for many deeply personal emotional issue - even against their other views on economic issues, national security.
@Allie:
I don't agree with you about Roe (b/c it was badly -- not necessarily wrongly -- decided), but I appreciate your good faith and clarity and I think I get the balance you're striking.
I see Oop is doing the Sgt Schultz act, waving at the trains to Auschwitz.
Chip S. said...
Maybe we ought to try to define Bidenism.
"Early-stage Alzheimer's" isn't good enough?
Ordinarily, I'd agree, but anybody who's been exposed to Halo Joe during his 40 years in politics (DE is treated like a suburb of Philadelphia, so we got all the Biden highlights) knows this has been a lifetime condition.
PS By all means, let's keep this thread - right along one of the ones for the first Gay President, and the "Hit the road, Barack" one.
We'll see which counts more.
In other news Paul Ryan's congress has a 10% approval rating! How low can you go ...
No, Harry Reid's does.
Penny queried: Shamefully, I don't recall many Republicans acknowledging their foolhardiness after the loss.
O'Donnell's loss was masked by the net gain of 6 seats in 2010. Even if she had won, it wouldn't have been a majority for the Republicans. O'Donnell was an earlier attempt on the part of Dems to take out the Tea Party, and those within the Republican party who despise(d) the same.
Interesting that you were on that side on that one, Penny. You're endlessly fascinating :)
OMG, it turns out that Todd Akin is John Willke's Doof.
I think people kill the handicapped in secret because they know how awful it is. We have a 95% termination rate on babies with Down's syndrome. It's pure Nazism, no other word for it.
I imagine your anti-Semitism will keep the liberals who agree with you embarrassed and silent, C-4.
As for me, I say people with Down's syndrome are the nicest people on the planet.
Allie Oop wrote:
Your arguments are in fact contradicting one another:
Jr. Ok I will answer that. I don't think abortion should be legal after the 1st trimester. It's reasonable to believe the more developed the babies nervous system the more likely that baby will suffer.
You saying that abortions shouldn't be legal after the first trimester is describing a legal classification that would therefore restrict the reproductive rights of women who want an abortion in the second and third trimester. But I thought we had no right to impose our values on anyone, and you were all about choice? Not the choice of a mother in the second trimester apparently, and if it's a legal restriction, we are certainly not leaving it up to god are we?
Also Jr, I don't advocate forcing anyone to bear a baby, that would be an extreme. what about women in the second trimester and onwards who want to abort? If they can't abort, then they are being forced to carry a bang they don't want. Wouldn't that make your position an extreme one, and one that denies women their reproductive rights?
It's killing at all stages of development, IN MY OPINION only based on my personal belief system. Again, it is not my RIGHT to force my personal belief system on anyone else. They are free to make their own mistakes, they are free to answer for them one day. I am not the judge, God is. except, if you think abortions should be illegal after the first trimester, then you and the law would be imposing your belief system on women who may want to abort in the third trimester for example. Absent issues of health carrying a baby to term, are they free or should they be free to make their own mistakes? If you say abortions should be illegal after the first trimester then you are in fact saying no they cant make their mistakes in those cases where the law would restrict their abortion.
Even roe v wade ostensibly restricts third trimester abortions. Meaning there are restrictions in place preventing women (again ostensibly) who want to abort in the third trimester from doing so. Should a woman have a right to choose to abort then in the third trimester absent any undue health issues carrying that baby to term? You can't argue on one hand that 2nd trimester and above abortions should be illegal and are murder, and then turn atouns and argue we can't restrict abortions and that women can have the ultimate right to choose. Do you not see the contradiction?
Jason:
People die in car wrecks all the time, too, Dante.
That's the point. I guess you missed it. When a person is killed in a car accident, it is a big deal. Not so when a woman auto-aborts and flushes a few cells down the toilet. There are no funerals, grieving, etc.
Nor is it as if after every sex act, women check to see if they are pregnant, because they want to stop smoking, drinking, etc., in the offhand chance the blasticist doesn't attach to the uterine wall.
In fact, I was pretty amazed to find out that I could not find a single birth control pill that doesn't include "Anti-Attach" compounds. That is, so fertilized eggs don't attach to the uterine wall. Does that make all women who take the pill potential murderers?
I suppose by your definition, it would.
most important question: what were you using? I have always done well with smallies with dark blade baits.
Live leeches caught most, and crawlers did the trick when we ran out of leeches. We caught some on tube jigs, [salt/pepper, and natural crawfish colors] and caught quite a few on wacky worms and Senkos. They would not hit any spinnerbaits, topwater baits, or cranks. Not sure why. They just love creature baits.
Your Saskatchewan trip sounds hard to beat though. But, Lake Michigan, and particularly Rowleys Bay, is definitely a world class smallmouth fishery. If you hire a local guide you can also get at the salmon and trout, and walleyes. But, trolling sucks in my opinion, and I wouldn't pay for it.
We took a ferry up to Washington Island one of the days and saw smallies everywhere by one of the docks, and we throw pennies and watched them go nuts. Most times when you were reeling one up you would see 3-4 more following it up from behind. They are extremely curious fish.
I Googled what a 3 month old fetus looks like. It looks like a little baby. When something that looks like a little baby is being aborted, I can well imagine that it struggles to stay alive. I wouldn't be surprised that it's little face shows absolute terror. :(
I'll bet that's why you never see videos of 3 month old fetuses being aborted.
You can see videos of cholonoscopies, heart surgery, hip replacements, but not abortions. Is there any wonder why?
Saint Croix said...
We have a 95% termination rate on babies with Down's syndrome.
This is an interesting statistic, if true. It is such a high number that it means a lot of self described pro-life women must change their mind when faced with this particular decision in real life. This is why these survey questions are so meaningless on this issue. It's easy to say you are pro-life until you are up against the wall: with a genetically impaired fetus, or your husband just lost his job, or you are worried that your husband is about to walk out if you have another child, or your promising teenage daughter got pregnant just before her high school graduation. In the real world of difficult choices I suspect the pro-choice percentage is awful lot lower than that what gets self-reported on a questionaire.
Jr. Life is full of contradictions.There are no absolutes. We live on earth, an imperfect place, full of imperfect people. We do the best we can with the laws we have. We still live in the best nation on earth.
My wife had an abortion, because the child was so hopelessly deformed (not enough heart chambers, etc.), that it would have died within a minute of birth. I agree with her decision to abort. Is she a murderer? Would God have her give birth to the child, so she could watch it die?
Just curious.
Heartbreaking, Dante. I'm sorry.
Dante, if anyone should not be judged for her choice, it's your wife.
Reasonable: It is such a high number that it means a lot of self described pro-life women must change their mind when faced with this particular decision in real life.
When you have proof of that, let us know. In the meantime...
Jay, all you do is call people stupid, retarded, etc. and post 4x4 blocks of "HA". Contribute something. Otherwise go fuck yourself. If you're as big of an asshole in real life as you are on the Internet, I'd imagine you're already doing a lot of that anyway.
Andy R. said...
Did Ryan support the change of rape to "forcible rape" in the original version of the bill? Does he still support that redefinition now? Paul Ryan should explain if he thinks there is a difference between rape and forcible rape and why that might matter
The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Report currently only includes "forcible rape" as a definition.
There is nothing mainstream about Akin..if there was you would not see so many Republicans turning on the guy. Even Rush Limbaugh called his comments absurd.
As for the platform, well not every politician completely supports the party platform. After all, Obama says he wants same sex marriage added to the Democratic platform and not all Democrats support that.
But the Republican platform does not say anything about "legitimate" rape or the female body shutting down and not getting pregnant under those circumstances or anything like that.
If Akin had said that he did not believe the innocent unborn should be punished for the crimes of the rapist father, he would have been okay. There would have been people both in and outside of the Republican party who did not agree with that, but it would not have been considered outrageous or strange.
Needless to say the Democrats are happy. In fact, it is said they helped get Akin nominated because they knew he was a kook. But then they have kooks of their own and two of them are in the executive branch.
I don't understand why it's taking so long for the Republicans to get Akin to quit. One call from Dick Cheney ought to do the job.
furious_a said...
@Allie:
I appreciate your good faith and clarity and I think I get the balance you're striking.
No, this is Allies "balance".
AllieOop said...
the new Republican Party's future, The Handmaid's Tale.
You have to pay attention when the mask slips.
Chip S. said...
I don't understand why it's taking so long for the Republicans to get Akin to quit. One call from Dick Cheney ought to do the job.
Who is the titular head of the GOP? Titus would know.
I know the media is really highlighting about the GOP being extreme on life issues, but please consider a lot of Democrats do identify with being pro-life.
I'm pro-life and I would like to vote for more Democrats because several social programs I agree with.
I'm also against the death penalty, and I disagree with charter schools. Especially those that are for-profit and managed by outside sources.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/democrats-reject-move-to-acknowledge-pro-life-stance-in-platform/
"According to Democrats for Life, nearly one-third of all Democrats self-identify as pro-life, and in the 2008 election, about one-fourth of Obama’s supporters considered themselves pro-life.
“These numbers are not trivial,” the group said, pointing to Gallup polling information from 2011 revealing that 61 percent of Democrats support “parental consent for minors seeking abortion.”
In addition, the polling data found that 60 percent of Democrats approved of a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, and 84 percent of party members support informed consent requirements.
Furthermore, 49 percent of Democrats are in favor of ultrasound requirements before an abortion, while 59 percent support a ban on partial-birth abortions, the data indicated.
“We represent a large contingent and a diverse group of pro-life democrats who want to be represented in the Democratic Party,” said Janet Robert, who serves as president of Democrats For Life of America."
If we were not still at war and if the economy was doing well, this could be an issue for Democrats. It feels like, according to Obama's commercials 'that it is scary to be a woman', that it is the Democrats who are the one-issue party of extremists.
Rev,
"A woman who was raped gave no such consent and thus has no such obligations. How's that?"
Not bad; as a Christian and pro-life person, I could definitely go along with that. Same for incest, fwiw.
Allie,
The reason you get so much grief for your position is that's it's beyond incoherent. You think it's murder but you don't want Roe v. Wade repealed???? Do you have any idea how many big names on the pro-choice side think Roe is a crock? And the reason they feel free to admit this, and know it won't blow their pro-choice credentials, is they know that repealing Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal, it will merely leave it to the states (the same as most other criminal law, trivial stuff like murder-murder [that's murder of the already-born, which is not quite as controversial]. )
Who is the titular head of the GOP?
Some guy named Prius, I think. They should put Scott Brown into motion on this one--behind the wheel of his pickup truck.
Personally, I do not care if a woman wants to kill her unborn baby. She knows better than anyone else whether she deserves to reproduce or not. In earlier times these babies were thrown in the sewer or left at the town dump—see Roman and British history. If she does not love and respect the father of the baby, it's prospects are terrible, for it and for society in general. I know this is eugenics. Make what you will of it.
@Allie...I admire you for your persistent courage and intelligent presentation sharing with us a completed female point of view on this issue on which men really need your skill.
AllieOop said...
Marshal, I have my OWN believe system
Yes, you idiotically believe republicans want to enforce the Handmaids Tale on America. I get it, and I think everyone tempted by your charade should see it.
Have you even read The Handmaid's Tale? I doubt it. Way above your head, probably.
The Handmaid's Tale was at a high level? Well, I guess everyone naturally bases that on their own ability.
Well I tried to take this thread in a more uplifting direction. Oy.
Kirk Parker
An extensive discussion by Althouse and commenters regarding Althouse's belief that abortion is murder, yet she feels Roe v Wade should not be overturned. I am not alone in my stance here, I believe many women feel this way.
Allieoop wrote:
Jr. Life is full of contradictions.There are no absolutes. We live on earth, an imperfect place, full of imperfect people. We do the best we can with the laws we have. We still live in the best nation on earth.
I agree that we do (live in the best place on earth). But your support for abortion as described makes little sense logically.
ANd yes we do the best we can with the laws we have. But if we have laws that say limit an abortion after the 3rd trimester, they you can't argue "who are we to decide and lets let God sort it out" No, you've just agreed that the law CAN restrict a womans right to choose, and in fact you think the law SHOULD restrict a womans right to choose as early as the second trimester.
So then all that cal about how you have no say is just bunk. Unless you're saying that its your opinion that abortions should not be done after the 2nd trimester but society can't pass any laws and must leave it in the hands of the mother to choose what life actually is (even though you've already established that she'd be choosing to murder her kid if she aborted. BUt in that case, what you are actually arguing for is abortion completely unrestricted (which would include 3rd trimester abortions that didn't have the mothers health at stake).
Saying the world is complicated shouldn't mean that you get to avoid having to explain your own position adequately.
Thanks Tradguy.
ken in sc wrote:
Personally, I do not care if a woman wants to kill her unborn baby. She knows better than anyone else whether she deserves to reproduce or not. In earlier times these babies were thrown in the sewer or left at the town dump—see Roman and British history. If she does not love and respect the father of the baby, it's prospects are terrible, for it and for society in general. I know this is eugenics. Make what you will of it.
are you also ok if they decide, after giving birth to a baby that they would rather go out partying so strangle their baby and stuff it in a garbage bag?
One call from Dick Cheney ought to do the job.
One grouse hunt with Dick Cheney would do the job.
Have you even read The Handmaid's Tale?
No, But according to Wiki it is a work of fiction.
So, "legitimate murder" is food for thought, while "legitimate rape" is beyond the pale?
Allie,
Yes, I remember that thread.
"I am not alone in my stance here..."
That gives you company, but not coherence.
AReasonableMan said...
Saint Croix said...
We have a 95% termination rate on babies with Down's syndrome.
This is an interesting statistic, if true. It is such a high number that it means a lot of self described pro-life women must change their mind when faced with this particular decision in real life.
===============
It is a statistic that is backed up by multiple, but small and localized studies in the US, UK, Russia, Japan, Australia that show rates from 82% to 94%.
It's important because it indicates the vast majority of women want, and act on, an abortion exception for major birth defects or a severe genetic condition that would lead to not just the birthed fetus suffering, but the mother and many others.
It indicates that the "pro-life" extreme element that want that abortion exception ended, and abortions for rape banned, are a tiny, mostly male segment of the populace.
Some Right to Lifers even want the testing for Downs, tripsomy, microencephalapy, etc. ended "lest fearful women be tempted to abort the blessed babies".
Kirk, you have a right to your opinion, doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean I agree. Althouse said an interesting thing to Curious George about this concept, I guess it would hold true for you too.
@Allie: Of course Althouse supports that decision; she loves staring at decisis.
Actually, I thought St. Croix's opinions were more persuasive in that old thread but what do I know never having read a Handmaid's Tail.
I am not alone in my stance here, I believe many women feel this way.
Argument from popularity fallacy. The claim is that your position isn't sensible -- not that your position is unheard-of.
Cedarford: Some Right to Lifers even want the testing for Downs, tripsomy, microencephalapy, etc. ended 'lest fearful women be tempted to abort the blessed babies'.
Some of that old visceral "Palin-loathing" of yours has new meaning today.
furious_a said...
Reasonable: It is such a high number that it means a lot of self described pro-life women must change their mind when faced with this particular decision in real life.
When you have proof of that, let us know.
It is simple math. If 95% of trisomy fetuses are terminated and 50% of woman are pro-choice then someone changed their mind when faced with a difficult decision.
This does generally fit with my experience. When I was young I knew several families with Down's syndrome children and now I don't know any.
I honestly can say I don't even understand Allie's position.
She says I don't think abortion should be legal after the 1st trimester. That sounds to me like she is arguing the pro life position on 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Though, is she arguing legality, or personal opinion when she says she doesn't think abortions should be legal after the 1st trimester. What does that word "legal" mean to Allie? Because it sounds like it doesn't mean what she thinks it means when she then goes on to describe how it's murder but women can still decide and answer for it in the hereafter. Legal, suggests to me that they would impellled to some form of action or non action in the here and now because there would be laws in place that they would have to obey restricting abortions past the 1st trimester.
It indicates that the "pro-life" extreme element that want that abortion exception ended, and abortions for rape banned, are a tiny, mostly male segment of the populace.
19% of men. 24% of women.
So a little under a quarter of the population, and mostly women. The idea that the pro-life movement is a man-vs-woman thing is an ignorant superstition.
That aside, all the Down's Syndrome statistic shows is that when selfish needs conflict with moral codes, moral codes frequently lose. That's not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about human nature.
For example, virtually everyone agrees that theft should be illegal -- yet study after study has shown that a large majority of people will steal if they are convinced they can get away with it. Virtually everybody will steal if they "need" the money (because they're starving, need a fix, etc).
Heck, but the standards being used here anyone who claims to care about the poor is a liar unless he or she lives a minimal lifestyle without things like cars, entertainment, or internet access. People go without medicine while you pay $5 for a mocha at Starbucks.
So congrats on re-proving, for the umpteenth time, that virtually every human being who has ever lived is a selfish bastard at heart. Now tell us something we didn't already know. :)
Revenant it doesn't need to make sense to you, it doesn't concern you or your body.
Cedarford said...
The typically cited "exceptions to rape" are rape, incest, life and (physical health) of the mother.
But lets add two more that most people agree on:
Here is the 1st"
1. During flush times, American Christians got in the delusion that with our "unlimited wealth" we could just send all the free shiploads of wheat, rice, beans to any overpopulated African, Muslim, Caribbean nations that had overbred their arable land and water supply's ability to feed the masses.
Better that than accept "one child" policies.
Now that we face a future where Christians will not accept free shiploads of food adding to our debt, even massive entitlements to each welfare mammy to raise they many "precious babies" because we are close to being bankrupt....what will those Christians do?
Say it is more moral to starve the overbred Haitians or Yemeni down to acceptable numbers?
Better that we have birth control and access to abortion when a 3rd World family that stuggles to feed 3 children and two elders does not have to decide between a 4th "precious baby" being left to be exposed and die or starving granny to death to make room for the new gift of life..Once all the boatloads of "Free!" food from the West end.
Uh. Since the "green revolution" most third world countries grow their own food. Unless otherwise foiled by a natural disaster or a tyrant we ship our corn to other countries to fatten up their pigs and cattle.
Sloanasaurus said...
"Sloanasaurus....precisely! and when guns kill people it is ok because it is a protected right."
"Sorry, I just don't get the analogy..."
I think that is precisely the point. You don't get the point.
I get it but I'm a dumb girl waiting to be told what to do by very smart men with religious beliefs who are elected to decide. I think his point was perfectly clear.
The 2nd amendment gives the right to have guns and shoot people under certain conditions - kill them if need be - but a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body.
I think that is perfectly clear.
Revenant said...
I am not alone in my stance here, I believe many women feel this way."
When was the last time you touched or talked to a woman to see how they "feel"?
Jr. How difficult is it to understand that I believe it should be ILLEGAL to have an abortion after the 1st trimester? It's a simple concept. No abortion provider would be allowed to perform an abortion after the first trimester.
...An extensive discussion by Althouse and commenters regarding Althouse's belief that abortion is murder, yet she feels Roe v Wade should not be overturned. I am not alone in my stance here, I believe many women feel this way....
"Overturned" that's a funny word.
That was the argument to not remove Bubba from office, because the election would have been "overturned." I could never figure that out because Dole would not have become president if Bubba was removed.
Ummm, no.
Roe v. Wade would not be "overturned" -- South Dakota tried to pass a very restrictive "no abortion whatsoever" law didn't pass.
It wouldn't be "overturned," it would revert to the states and they would tighten or loosen as the citizens of their state wishes.
And thanks to Roberts not wanting to step in and save the citizenry from itself......
Americans don't like it, don't want to pay for it, but won't tell others what to do. Well, until the full scope of Obamacare sinks in.
When the sterilization regulations start bubbling up in the collective consciousness.....
Interesting that the pill was forced on religious institutions but they drew the line at sterilization.
It is simple math. If 95% of trisomy fetuses are terminated and 50% of woman are pro-choice then someone changed their mind when faced with a difficult decision.
It tells us what they did. It does not tell us if they thought it was wrong or not.
Among women aged 35-54 (the ones who most the Downs babies), 19% believe abortion should always be illegal. Given the "82% to 95%" figures for Downs abortion, that means that somewhere between ten and seventy percent of strongly pro-life women violate that belief under pressure.
Which, of course, tells us exactly nothing about whether it is moral, or should be legal, to do so.
Lindsey, do you detect a bunch of dumbasses or are they being willfully ignorant?
Allie wrote:
Jr. How difficult is it to understand that I believe it should be ILLEGAL to have an abortion after the 1st trimester? It's a simple concept. No abortion provider would be allowed to perform an abortion after the first trimester.
But you also wrote:
IN MY OPINION only based on my personal belief system. Again, it is not my RIGHT to force my personal belief system on anyone else. They are free to make their own mistakes, they are free to answer for them one day. I am not the judge, God is.
If you made abortion ILLEGAL after the first trimester, woudlnt you be forcing your personal belief on others, and saying they can't make their own mistakes. YOu would be the judge, not god.(well not you,personally but society). Anyone who wanted an abortion in the 2nd trimester COULDN'T have one. How would you not be limiting reproductive freedom of some women?
Wow. Way to go for the self-described "liberal" to give ammunition to these would-be rape-baby enablers. Of course, it's empty ammunition, as we can see. But talk about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat... And in the face of an opposition no longer capable of defending a mindset that gives rise to talk of "legitimate rape". That's something remarkable.
Yes, sensation of pain and identity would be a reason to go out of one's way to seek an organism's preservation. No, the ability to contain human DNA is not tantamount to having a "soul". If that were the case, then you could say that each of us contain a few hundred billion identical "souls" within us, every one of the human cells in our body, in fact. What a ridiculous proposition. Perhaps some religions, eccentric by Western standards at least, believe this. Our traditions and our ethics and our science tell us otherwise.
And then there is the problem of being afraid to face opposition or debate. Oh well. Agree to disagree. Maybe that's ok when you don't make the error of calling something "a life" that is nothing of the sort, at least by standards that have meaning. A metaphysical life? A symbolic life? Not the same thing as "life".
Yes, the wishes of the person whom you've designated to be the carrier of the rape-baby matters. But no, that does not remove them from moral argumentation, assuming they wish to have that debate.
It seems that there are people who unfortunately want to have this both ways, though they can't. The good news is, they don't need to.
Lindsey Meadows said...
Revenant said...
I am not alone in my stance here, I believe many women feel this way."
When was the last time you touched or talked to a woman to see how they "feel"?
Dear Ms. When-Do-the-Over-100-IQ-Commenters-Show-Up,
Revenant was quoting AllieOop.
OTOH, maybe you really do want to know if Allie goes both ways. Whatever.
- but a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body.
I guess babies are "armed" intruders.
Revenant it doesn't need to make sense to you, it doesn't concern you or your body.
If it doesn't concern me, why should I care if you're forbidden from getting an abortion? Why shouldn't the 1/4 of the population that is male and pro-choice just say "ah, fuck it" and let the pro-choice women duke it out with the pro-life men and women?
Hm. Could it be that people can legitimately worry about whether or not *other* people's rights are being violated? Nah.
But by all means, do keep being self-involved and alienating the people on your own side. I'm sure it'll work out for you in the end.
Revenant said...
Which, of course, tells us exactly nothing about whether it is moral, or should be legal, to do so.
I agree, but is does throw some cold water on the suggestion that there is a solid pro-life constituency amongst fertile women (the only people for whom we have some statistics on how they would behave in real life). There has been so much anti-abortion propaganda, expressed at such a high volume, that many people probably find it easier to say they think abortion is bad, at some level. This social acquiescence, like saying drugs are bad, is almost meaningless. Only behavior really counts.
Probably all the pro-life movement have achieved is make people a bit more hypocritical. If there was a real chance that abortions could be banned I suspect that these expressed opinions would change very quickly.
The vast majority of my women friends are pro-life, as am I. I hate being lumped in with the "abortion is THE women's issue" crowd. My preference would be to leave it up to the states. That way I am unlikely to live next door to the abortion-is-the-sacrament gals. Also, they don't have to live next door to me and my five children, or my neighbor with the oh so offensive child with DS. Fences make for good neighbors.
Lindsey Meadows wrote: The 2nd amendment gives the right to have guns and shoot people under certain conditions - kill them if need be - but a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body.
"Same right" has me confused. Are you equating fetus with "people"? Did I read that correctly? Not judging, just wanting clarification.
a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body
That is correct.
It turns out that not every right we might like to be protected by the Constitution, is.
Jr. Try using REASON for pity sake. We do not live in an anarchy. Even those who believe in choice and freedom understand this. There are limitations after a certain point on many freedoms.
The woman seeking an abortion would have two and a half months to obtain it, that gives them a choice and a time to make it. Would it be better or make more sense to you not give a woman the choice a all?
You really make no sense to me.
The Democratic Party is his largest campaign donor so far. It will remain that way. The man is a fool. He is running against a venal and incompetent incumbent. Take your choice.
Lindsey Meadows wrote: The 2nd amendment...
Seems like there are some really bad arguments being thrown out there, and unfortunately by people who might have more of a stake in this debate. Pretty sad. But here goes...
You could probably argue that the rapist doesn't have a right to keep his "belongings" where he shouldn't have gone in the first place. But of course, those of us who don't equate nucleic acids and lipid bilayers to theological autonomy never had a problem with understanding this from a materialistic perspective anyway.
But of course, even fully born children can be considered as property to some extent.
Lindsey wrote:
The 2nd amendment gives the right to have guns and shoot people under certain conditions - kill them if need be - but a woman doesn't have the same right as gun owners when it comes to her own body.
Technically the second amendment would only give you a right to own arms not shoot people with said arms for any reason.
You do have a separate right to defend yourself from an intruder say,and there you can potentially kill someone, but if that were analogous to the abortion question it woudl be in the instances where the mothers life is seriously in jeapordy if she doesn't abort. Then it would be a self defense argument.
I don't know too many people who would argue that you can't abort a baby if your life would be in jeapordy otherwise even most hard core pro lifers.
--Jr. Try using REASON for pity sake. We do not live in an anarchy. Even those who believe in choice and freedom understand this. There are limitations after a certain point on many freedoms.--
Then why the hysteria from them?
Allieoop wrote:
Jr. Try using REASON for pity sake. We do not live in an anarchy. Even those who believe in choice and freedom understand this. There are limitations after a certain point on many freedoms.
The woman seeking an abortion would have two and a half months to obtain it, that gives them a choice and a time to make it. Would it be better or make more sense to you not give a woman the choice a all?
THat's not consistent with your argument that it's up to the mother to choose. Those wanting an abortion in the 2nd trimester would argue that you were restricting their reproductive rights, and in fact you would be. You seem to be saying now that society CAN restrict womens right to choose. THe only difference between you and a hard core pro lifer then is the diference of one trimester. Most pro choicers would still make the argument that you had no right to force your values on them or get in their wombs.
I agree, but is does throw some cold water on the suggestion that there is a solid pro-life constituency amongst fertile women
Not really. It isn't even demonstrable what percentage of the women were against the abortions in the first place. Like I noted earlier, it could be as low as 10% -- and THAT assumes that strongly anti-abortion women are as likely to find themselves in that situation in the first place. Given how predictable the syndrome is (hint: don't have kids after 40), anti-abortion women may disproportionately avoid pregnancy in the first place.
That aside, even if we knew for a fact that, say, 70% of strongly pro-life women violate their moral code under extreme pressure that tells us nothing interesting. All it shows is that it is possible to put people in a position where they abandon their moral beliefs, and we knew that to begin with.
There is a reason why we do not base our laws around the desires of people who may potentially want to violate that law. It is why, for example, we do not set the punishment for rape by polling accused rapists, or set the penalty for thievery by polling destitute drug addicts. The whole POINT of laws is to discourage people from behaving wrongly in situations where it is in their best interests to do something wrong.
...the new Republican Party's future, 'The Handmaid's Tale'.
Where, let's see, the usual anti-abortion heavies are either hanging from meathooks on "the Wall" (Catholics) or else fighting as guerillas in Appalachia (Baptists). Meanwhile, a cabal of irreligious marketing gurus have appropriated Biblical imagery in order to seize both power AND all the baby-mamas. Because fertility has dropped due to all the nuclear meltdowns and such.
Yeah, it could happen.
Can a blastocyst feel itself being aborted?
Please give me the URL to your soul-identifying app.
Bob Ellison, kiss my ass. It's my BELIEF I didn't say it was based in science.
Strictly anecdotal - but I know a few women with DS children or anacephalic infants (who die shortly after birth), who were put under extreme pressure to abort by their physicians. It was very distressing for them. One was a military wife who couldn't change doctors - on base, you got who you got. I was thankful they sent me offbase for my pregnancy so I didn't have to deal with that guy. Her baby turned out to be perfectly normal in that instance, anyway.
I didn't say it was based in science.
Nor did Bob Ellison claim that you did. He'd just like to see your algorithm.
Now, my guess is that your source is that part of your anatomy you'd like Ellison to kiss.
Chip, get in line to kiss my ass.
I'm still wondering how people think about abortion. Polls show that people tend to be pro-choice, but also tend to be anti-abortion. It's a glitch.
And then there's the problem of the two sides not understanding each other. Pro-abortion people think it's all about the pregnant woman and her body. Anti-abortion people think the zygote is a human life and all that.
I understand that it's difficult to bridge that gap. But how do people still stand on both sides? Andy R. raised a salient point (I think on this thread; maybe another): if the zygote is a human with all rights pertaining, how can the act of rape or incest or similar crimes affect that zygote's rights?
It appears impossible to take an absolutist position. The Roe concept (a three-month put) is one way to go about it. Whatever. But don't let's pretend that there's a perfect solution unless you're ready to be absolute.
He'd just like to see your algorithm.
Now, my guess is that your source is that part of your anatomy you'd like Ellison to kiss.
Heh, Chip. AKA Rationality for THEE but NOT for ME.
Good that you and I (and Revenant) can agree on something here. It's pretty sad to see someone immature enough to actually argue that rationality matters only in the abstract, but not when it comes to the personal beliefs or identification with the problem they'd demand others to be rational about.
Sad. Hypocritical. Unnecessary. And a bit antiquated.
Ritmo, you can skip to the front of the line to kiss my ass.
Ritmo, you can skip to the front of the line to kiss my ass.
The trouble is everybody keeps trying to let the newest arrival go ahead of him.
There's an Alphonse and Gaston scene behind you, dimples.
OK Chip! I'm pissed off, don't make me laugh.
Oh hell I'm tired of this thread.
Bob Ellison said...
But how do people still stand on both sides?
Admit you don't know and you find yourself in the middle.
Revenent - 'That aside, even if we knew for a fact that, say, 70% of strongly pro-life women violate their moral code under extreme pressure that tells us nothing interesting. All it shows is that it is possible to put people in a position where they abandon their moral beliefs, and we knew that to begin with.'
**************
No, it shows professional pols something VERY interesting.
That is, IN PRACTICE, the number of "pro-life women" who would actually side against elective abortion for severe genetic disease and malformations in the voting booth - is far less than opinion polls or largely male Right to Lifers indicate it is.
And even some who would personally accept that their life was basically over but for being the caretaker of a Downs Syndrome child or young adult - would not go in and vote Republican if they thought there was a real chance Republicans would take away the option to other women to look at their own situation and conscience and abort a rape baby or a badly defective one.
Chip S. has bested me, I think. The question is:
Where is the soul?
When does it begin?
Do you think these are important and serious questions?
Ritmo, you still get to skip Bob and Chip.
AllieOop said...
Bob Ellison, kiss my ass. It's my BELIEF I didn't say it was based in science.
Akin should try that one.
Marshal, BUT I'm not pushing MY BELIEF on anyone, he IS. Do you see the difference?
Marshal, BUT I'm not pushing MY BELIEF on anyone, he IS. Do you see the difference?
Why should he? You're saying you push it on the oh so "soul-full" blastocyst that you just defined as such. So by definition, anyone who answers to the state now has a say. Any citizen can petition the government to protect the rights of any other, and you just defined another citizen.
I don't know if there's a nicer way to put this, but this whole "it's personal!" retort has its limits - especially with the parameters you've embraced.
Well said, Ritmo.
(It felt weird, yet satisfying, to say that.)
¡Viva el racionalismo!
Ritmo,
It's my personal belief, that doesn't give a secular government the right to adopt my belief system and make it a state religion.
Muchas gracias y no problemo.
What, is it pile on Allie night in the all boys club tonight?
Ritmo,
It's my personal belief, that doesn't give a secular government the right to adopt my belief system and make it a state religion.
You can say that the government should have a right to allow its citizens to violate the rights of its other citizens, including the integrity of their lives, and that's why you are not being taken seriously on this thread. It's an astoundingly inconsistent position if one intends to declare oneself a member of a rights-respecting democracy.
So in other words, what Revenant said.
It is my personal belief that rape is wrong. Why should I expect a secular state to enforce it?
Marshal, BUT I'm not pushing MY BELIEF on anyone, he IS. Do you see the difference?
All elected official push their beliefs on every subject matter. Try again.
Sure Ritmo, you are always taken seriously here by all the good conservatives. They hang on your every word as Ritmo gospel.
Voting pushes others' beliefs, secular or religious, on other people.
You are pushing your beliefs on someone if your candidate wins.
Sure Ritmo, you are always taken seriously here by all the good conservatives. They hang on your every word as Ritmo gospel.
On this thread, they can surely see that I am making a much less ridiculous argument than someone else is.
So maybe it's not always a personal thing.
Agreement is not just about making visceral points of identification while violating all principle to get there. They are conservatives, and they can surely see that. That's where the agreement lies.
Ritmo...We are men of action. Lies do not become us.
Chip...Well spoken, Ritmo!!
(Apologies to William Goldman)
Democratic platform 2008
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable
from Gallup:
The subject of abortion has been measured extensively in national surveys over the last 30 or so years and the resulting picture of public opinion is clear: Americans believe abortion should be legal, but on a somewhat limited basis.
Ah yes, how could I forget the all wise Ritmo? Carry on with the good conservatives by all means. Maybe they will convert you.
Nice work Ritmo, now you got B commenting, thanks so much, how very kind of you, but you weren't always so kind, how could I forget?
Allie-
I've been on other blogs filled with people without a shred of common sense and that is what we have here. The arguments they present are, unfortunately, more dull-witted then I have seen so just advising you when you are confront with an uncomprehending gaggle of nitwits, just declare victory and retire from the field.
Let's be clear. I hate the idea of abortion. Just makes me very sad. HOWEVER, that is how I feel and those are my feelings and I have NO RIGHT to insist that other's feel like I do. I can hope but I can't force. To do so is a form of rape. Don't you see that? You are forcing something on someone when you have no real right to do it.
That is why it is so personal to women.
They haven't yet.
But I am not the one claiming to be a liberal who believes that cells have souls that can nonetheless be banished for non-transgressions.
You want respect for your beliefs. But the essence of liberal thought is a respect for reason as a means of solving human problems.
Ask yourself if your belief is a rational one? Does it stand up to serious, empiric scrutiny? Without declaring it wrong, outright, doesn't it seem like an awfully tortured way to think about things?
This is where liberalism has gone wrong.
@B, of whom shall it be said that she is quite a winning creature; a trifle simple, perhaps?
Dear Ritmo.
"liberalism gone so wrong"...
are you nuts? do you see the entire world as fascist v. liberal? is that your world view?
you sound like a politician with an accent in the 1930s.
If you're going to quote me, I ask that you use my exact words.
Why concern yourself with my worldview when I am clearly presenting a better argument for what you believe than you can?
Yes, irrational thought is a difficult problem in this world, regardless of one's politics. Does that offend you? Is your response to me an example of a rational one?
I hate Obamacare, that's how I feel, it's being forced on me, ergo - Obamacare = rape?
Or anything I hate which is forced on me is rape?
AllieOop said...
Marshal, BUT I'm not pushing MY BELIEF on anyone, he IS. Do you see the difference?
A. You are pushing your beliefs on people, at three months. But doing it sooner will turn America into The Handmaid's Tale? Nutty.
B. Do you support higher taxes to pay for more government spending? We know your answer is yes, and is yes to virtually every other question of government action enforcing beliefs on others. Yet this principle that doesn't exist in any other facet of your belief set is somehow so inviolable in the single case it appears it justifies allowing murder? Nutty.
Your reasoning isn't credible as a comprehensive belief set.
Chip S. said...
I don't understand why it's taking so long for the Republicans to get Akin to quit. One call from Dick Cheney ought to do the job."
Haha Chippy...Cheney should just take him out hunting with him...that would surely end discussion.
Or anything I hate which is forced on me is rape?
Only if you're a woman.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
If you're going to quote me, I ask that you use my exact words..."
sorry, i was laughing too hard.
Chip S. said...
"... forced on me is rape? Only if you're a woman."
Often times for a woman to be raped it does involve that little thingy you guys have so you have me there...you can only imagine it I am sure, having never seen one first hand..(did i say that?).
too easy. way too easy.
Well try a deeper drag on that cigarette, instead. That will bring about your heretofore hidden powers of reason and persuasion. As well as some other things.
Why are you even talking to me at all? Do you have a point? Is there some kind of resentment that you are having a problem getting off your chest?
Do let me know when you discover your purpose for being here.
Well, you're finally right about something, Lindsey. I've never seen a rape first-hand.
I have, however, known a rape victim sufficiently well for her to tell me at length about how it affected her. She was far more eloquent than you on the subject, but maybe you'll grow.
now now children..petulance after getting whooped up on isn't becoming.
do you have an "a" game?
thought not.
hey Allie - you are right. they are too easy.
Lindsey's trying to convince everyone that she's going to show everyone how to be a grown-up.
Better change the avatar then from the sad, dejected, smoker in the corner, "leave me alone!", teenager pic, then. It looks like you're stuck in the Breakfast Club and not sure if you're more Ally Sheedy or Judd Nelson.
Lindsey, it's the all boys club all the time, even the so called liberal boys join in, but for some liberal boys being the smartest boy on the block is more important.
"Woo Hoo look at me I'm so SMART! Only my manly brain understands REASON"
Allie and Lindsey think they are the only women who comment on Althouse apparently. That explains a lot.
Lindsey Meadows said...
now now children..petulance after getting whooped up on isn't becoming.
do you have an "a" game?
thought not.
hey Allie - you are right. they are too easy.
Oh look. It's so cute when the children play grown up.
Shana, the sweet lady who would force her young daughter to bear her rapists baby, yes Shana, your voice is important too.
allie..they need to loosen their belts and get some air to their brains.
and Sheena, I don't think that at all. sorry if you got that impression because it wasn't meant.
Marshal said...
"Oh look. It's so cute when the children play grown up."
hey marshal...you don't have to dumb down to talk with me.
you weren't dumbing down? this is the natural you?
ooops.
Who got whupped?
Let's see, 9 unlelected old men forced Roe v. Wade on a country that wasn't ready for it. Millions hate it, ergo, the 9 unelected old men have forced a form of rape on the country since 1973.
This is why it's so personal.
And why people fight hard against it.
Now we see the desperate tactics. One let's mask slip so she calls for help. Then they trade inane insults to bury the evidence.
And next time don't call the intern. That's so pathetic I'm embarassed for you.
dear Seeing Red...R.v. Wade was 7-2 not 9-0.
Once you get the basics right you can argue at the grown up table.
Now if I can work in the analogy from the other other thread about socialism, the rapist & the vagina....
Marshal
honeybunch...i don't need any help with u. allie either.
look if you can't stand being embarrassed by smart females, then i perfectly understand. no one thinks the less of you. (snark)
dear seeing red...
well holler if you need help.
Marshal, are you yowling at me? My intern? Lindsey, he thinks we're DNC operatives, LMAO!
Yes, Allie, I realize that you would rather I force her to murder her own child and live with that for the rest of her life.
Or he thinks I'm your intern, hahaha.
allie you must have the patience of a saint to put up with this nonsense. not an a-game among them.
WRONG Shana, it would be her CHOICE.
Ohh, that's so much more comforting to know the country was raped by 7 unelected old men instead of 9.
Lindsey, it only bothers me when liberal men are turn coats, so as to display their "superior" intellect. There are some conservative men on this blog that actually have good sense and see this abortion issue as being a distraction to the Republican Party.
If you think that R.v.W. was limited to trimesters and that the intent of the ruling was to promote abortion you have 1.no grasp of facts, 2. have no understanding of law and federalism and 3. haven't read diddly-squat about women's rights or lack thereof prior to the decision.
Your dog doesn't hunt and you have been so force-fed right wing pablum that your eyes have turned brown.
if you want to debate facts then we can do it any time any place and frankly i'll give you such a whoopin' that it will make the little slings and arrows sound like child's play - which it is.
Lindsey Meadows said...
Marshal
honeybunch...i don't need any help with u. allie either.
look if you can't stand being embarrassed by smart females, then i perfectly understand. no one thinks the less of you. (snark)
I'm happy to find out, do you know where some are?
allie - haven't seen any superior intellect here yet. it is sad to be honest. was hoping for a rouser and all i get are little boys who tweak like guitar strings.
Yeah, I always let my teenagers make all their important life decisions with no input from me because they are always so wise about how they might feel in the future. Plus, my daughters are all crazy-eyed abortionistas. Not.
Marshal said...
"I'm happy to find out, do you know where some are?"
off hand i don't know where anyone is who can possibly think less of you, honeybunch.
so shana you are going to step up and raise the kid so she doesn't have to drop out of school and doom herself and the child to a life of poverty and kids raising kids? good to know you are all for taking full responsibility for as you say she is just a teenager.
Allie has a knack for befriending the beast and the brightest.
She's like one of the suckers on the beast's tentacles--a blue one or the venusian ♀
Shana, what makes you think I wouldn't council my daughter, give her all the information available, as well as outside counseling, but honor her decision?
Yes, Lindsey, that is exactly what I would do.
Lindsey Meadows said...
off hand i don't know where anyone is who can possibly think less of you, honeybunch.
Since employing sixth grade insults isn't high on my life goals I guess I can live without the esteem of those who think they win arguments.
Well Chickie, I befriended you didn't I?
Oh sure Marshal never stoops to insults, hypocrite and liar that he is.
We allow divorce.
"If you think that R.v.W. was limited to trimesters and that the intent of the ruling was to promote abortion you have 1.no grasp of facts, 2. have no understanding of law and federalism and 3. haven't read diddly-squat about women's rights or lack thereof prior to the decision."
My daughter is adopted. Would you like to look my beautiful daughter in the face, hold her hands and tell her why it was more important for her if she were sacrificed for the cause of women's rights, especially since most aborted are female?
Why it's important for the cause of women's rights that females can kill other females because they're female?
It's all for the sisterhood, right?
AllieOop said...
Oh sure Marshal never stoops to insults, hypocrite and liar that he is.
In another thread you said I show hate in every comment. When I asked you to show me any you couldn't. Not a single instance of something you claimed was in every single comment. Similarly, point out these lies and hypocrisies. Show the evidence. You aren't sitting in the drum circle with people who think anyone not sufficiently leftist is a liar and hypcrite by definition.
Marshal, it's not that I couldn't, I wouldn't, because every single time I respond to you it's wasting my time, like now. I won't even let you get in the line to kiss my ass, that's how much I dislike you.
Seeing red, it was not more important to any cause. I'm glad your daughter's birth mother CHOSE life for her child and that she loved her enough to give her up to parents who would care for her and love her.
That choice may have been the wrong one for a different woman. It's not YOUR choice to make.
My sister had something to do with a family that I encountered only once. The thing I recall most was a 24 yr old male at the dining room table playing with a toddler's toy. He was seriously retarded. So was his brother. And his other brother. And his sister. And his mother and his father, all are retarded to some extent or another, all on State assistance plus other assistance. I don't know what my sister did there. Out of six kids one teenage girl was normal and she did most of the organizing for all of the rest.
And I left that place shaking my head wondering how in the world something like that gets that far. There were other problems besides retardation. The whole family was a complete mess. I had a lot of questions for my sister but she had no satisfactory answers.
You have a problem taking things personally, Allie. I could accuse you of being a "turncoat" by agreeing with ridiculous ideas that give legitimacy to awful "fetus as a person" amendments being considered in the South. I don't do that, but when I saw you losing an argument here over it, during a no-brainer of a political scandal, it wasn't hard to offer my two cents. If you are offended that I have a pro-choice view that also happens to be much more defensible to the conservatives here, that is your problem. Not mine.
"We’re created by God for some special purpose."
And Akin's special purpose is to keep Claire McCaskill in the Senate.
Very sad Chip, I've seem similar situations when I was employed as a nurse, back in the County Psych hospital, we has one young woman, who had home visiting privileges, until they were revoked time after time because she was "used" by her brothers and father and uncles, she had a couple of children, that were in foster care. Incest was rampant in that family.
That is, IN PRACTICE, the number of "pro-life women" who would actually side against elective abortion for severe genetic disease and malformations in the voting booth - is far less than opinion polls or largely male Right to Lifers indicate it is.
I see you're sticking with the "largely male right to lifers" delusion.
Anyway, it shows nothing of the kind. There are circumstances under which you, Cedarford, would sell your own daughter into prostitution. That doesn't imply you'd vote to legalize child prostitution.
What you can be driven to do isn't the same as what you think should be legal. If it was, we wouldn't need laws in the first place, because nobody would ever break them.
Lindsey, it only bothers me when liberal men are turn coats, so as to display their "superior" intellect. There are some conservative men on this blog that actually have good sense and see this abortion issue as being a distraction to the Republican Party.
See, the funny thing about that claim is that you take it as a point of pride that you don't have to offer any rational explanation for your position. Your argument, simply put, is "either agree with me or fuck off".
So while there are people who agree with you, people who disagree with you, and people who disregard you entirely, none do so because of the argument you've made. You haven't made one. You've just made some claims and then groused when people questioned them.
You define "good sense" as "agreeing with you unquestioningly". That's why you aren't taken seriously by any side of the abortion debate.
AllieOop said...
Marshal, it's not that I couldn't, I wouldn't, because every single time I respond to you it's wasting my time, like now. I won't even let you get in the line to kiss my ass, that's how much I dislike you.
No, it's that you couldn't. And since your actions show you believe accusations are enough you think you can skip the evidence and it won't matter. Luckily the world isn't at all like they taught you it should be back in WS 101.
I'll consider how to express my feelings about earning your dislike. I admit it will be hard. In fact I'm not sure the words exist to describe it.
While I'm thinking about that why don't you lay out the details of your "Rebublicans are trying to enforce The Handmaid's Tale in America" theory for us?
Revenant, you put into quotes something I never said or implied. How intellectually honest of you.
Thanks again Ritmo, what pal you are. Give these conservatives some more ammo, why don't you.
Shanna, it is fruitless to try to engage with the banality of evil that the Death Nurse has routinely pushed here the last several months, where she admits that what is involved is the killing of innocent human life, but that people ought to have the freedom to kill, both at the beginning and at the end of life, most especially the freedom to kill those minority babies because, in her words, otherwise taxpayers will have to pay to support them.
I'm giving them the respect of an honest and decent argument here and I bet you that they will respect that and forge further ground with it than with the kind of dismissive arrogance you've given in return (as so aptly described by Revenant. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. If you can feel that way about a "soul" then try generalizing a bit more).
Ah yes Ritmo, good work! Now you have Bender chiming in to call me the death nurse again. You people are sick fuckers, you too Ritmo.
Yes Ritmo, always Soooo respectful, they don't know you the way I do, do they?
They know what to take personally and what not to.
AllieOop said...
Revenant, you put into quotes something I never said or implied. How intellectually honest of you.
Thanks again Ritmo, what pal you are. Give these conservatives some more ammo, why don't you.
At least Allie's admitting she's only here to win for team left and honest opinions are not welcome. Step one on the path to recovery..
Well Ritmo honey, should I take Bender seriously?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा