As the House of Representatives gears up for Tuesday’s debate on HR 1797, a bill that would outlaw virtually all abortions 20 weeks post fertilization, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued in favor of banning abortions even earlier in pregnancy because, he said, male fetuses that age were already, shall we say, spanking the monkey.This is getting a fair amount of attention from pro-abortion rights bloggers, and I'd just like to say — and note that I support abortion rights — that this mockery is very ugly.
“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”
ADDED: Pharyngula writes, obviously intending humor:
... I think the good Christians of Texas ought to regard this as an argument for abortion — the sinful little self-polluters must be punished!Balloon Juice jokingly detects sexism and instructs readers ("Juicers") to find the hilarity:
Just when you thought you’ve heard it all, some dude bro starts talking about male fetuses jerking off, and then your brain starts to cry... I find it very interesting that the concern is only for male fetus pleasure. Because women are just brood mares who can’t feel pleasure. Where’s the love for female fetuses? Damn.The first commenter says: "'I fap, therefore I am'? Sounds like a plausible slogan for today’s GOP wankers. Jesus God. Where is that meteor already?"
Have fun with this one, Juicers.
Speaking of "the good Christians of Texas," why don't good liberals seriously believe "I fap, therefore I am"? At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
ADDED: I respond to the question "What's so 'ugly' about the mockery."
पोस्ट्स
२८२ टिप्पण्या:
282 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The culture of death welcomes you.
I hope they at least let the little fellow enjoy a happy ending before his unhappy one.
Sexism: Would there a very different reaction if the fetuses were girls and they were sliding-down banisters in the uterus?
This is getting a fair amount of attention from pro-abortion rights bloggers,
Of course it is. See, when you can't defend your position, you go to arguing against strawmen and mockery.
And what does this dummy former OB/GYN know about babies anyway!??
I'd just like to say — and note that I support abortion rights — that this mockery is very ugly.
I, too, support abortion rights, but isn’t that the point.......to trivialize and make frivolous objections to the contrary?
We have the same weirdos up here, Texas.
It's what the left does. It's what they've always done. It's part of how they often win--who wants to be portrayed as a crank and be laughed at by the cool kids after all?
And as Jay beat me to: what does that OB/GYN know about babies anyway?
Funny. Barry trashes the Constitution with the blessings of the lapdogs who laud him (falsely) as a former ConLaw Prof...but let an OB talk about babies and it's what the fuck does this dumb hick know anyway.
BTW could he have not made his point in a way to avoid inviting mockery?
"[T]his mockery is very ugly."
Some mockery is uglier than others but there's no such thing as a becoming mockery.
All mockery is petty.
It's a sick society that affords more rights to dogs than to nascent human life.
They love death and mock pleasure. Boys learn to scratch their nuts in the womb. And, we never stop doing it.
"We have the same weirdos up here, Texas."
...who believe human fetuses can't feel pain or pleasure because - out of sight, out of mind.
So, mockery is ugly but death is okay.
Interesting....in a macabre, better sleep with one eye open when you're around sort of way.
Darleen said...
It's a sick society that affords more rights to dogs than to nascent human life."
Tell that to the shockingly high number of dogs shot by cops every day.
This is what happens when one has lost the intellectual argument. I am not sure about others, but this is the way I know I have won the debate. That and name calling, changing the argument, saying its Bush's fault, or everybody else is or was doing it.
And, we never stop doing it.
And why would we voluntarily give it up?
The killing of the innocent is a hallmark of the enemy of humanity and he has fooled many into seeing his butchery as a logical choice.
God forgive and heal us.
Trey
See, the christofascist godbags oppose masturbation and they oppose abortion.
So it's super funny to use the former to deny the latter.
Effing hypocrites!
The uterine fapper was just gonna be born blind and hairy-palmed anyways.
better off dead.
A human life is disposable throughout its evolution, from conception to grave, primarily for reason of money, welfare, and convenience, right?
Abortion is a right because some women, and men, are incapable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. While others maintain that women should remain available for sex and taxation.
The consequences, including a loss of liberty, are not constrained to women who choose abortion. The pro-abortion/choice people support a general devaluation of human life.
Anyway, sacrifice another human life to appease your materialistic and egoistic needs.
When did evolutionary fitness become politically incorrect?
I think it fairly clear that most on the left who support abortion rights also support post-birth abortion rights.
"BTW could he have not made his point in a way to avoid inviting mockery?"
What pleasure do you expect a fetus to be enjoying, a good book? A game of chess?
Abort the fetus by giving it an over-
dose of a drug which causes pleasure,
Cocaine, for example, which can cause
orgasm - Problem Solved.
Note that the medical establishment definition of the word pain. Pain only exists, they claim, if the person can clearly state that they are in pain. So while this obviously is true for someone under general anesthesia in a good way, it's also open to abuse for the pre-born, severely handicapped, accident victims, and the elderly.
You can also conclude from this definition that the only way you can feel pain as far as a doctor is concerned is if you can call a lawyer and make that pain a topic of conversation. Just moaning or flailing doesn't cut it.
It takes a certain learned selective morality to cut into another human body - one that tunes out natural inhibitions and considers something like this to be another day at the office. While this is good overall for those who need surgery, it has some psychological baggage that comes with it that we shouldn't be blind to in this debate.
Icepick, I will stop scratching my nuts when "they pry them from my cold dead hands!"
This guy and you all are right. We need to focus on abortion more. It totally helps the country to push government limitations on abortion. We shouldn't care if a new law works or not or if there is a better way to accomplish what we want.
More abortion laws! More government! It works everywhere else so well. Changing people and helping them see a different way is hard, passing new laws and saying retarded shit that alienate half the country is easy. We need to talk about rape provisions endlessly too. Because it makes conservatives look really smart.
I would assume that most on the pro-abortion side know that fetuses can feel pain ... they just don't care.
"More abortion laws! More government!"
So the left coerces abortion on demand as national law, then bitches because the social cons want to pull the same lever.
Makes sense, I guess.
Icepick, I will stop scratching my nuts when "they pry them from my cold dead hands!"
ouch
Hell, Freud knew about this, so it's old news.
Isn't this a problem?
From the NYT article:
“These 20-week laws are absolutely unconstitutional,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal group
I personally find RvR hard to accept as anything other than finding rights in the constitution, but even still. How does this woman know? It's a political statement.
And, what happens if she were wrong? I can imagine if this were some pet theory of the left, there would be an injunction based on this study by now, until such time as the science is more solid. Because it would be absolutely horrible and unethical to kill a human child, fetus, whatever, if it were aware of its situation and felt unbearable pain.
This annoying "can feel pain" facet of fetal right to life is really confusing. So is it OK to kill someone as long as they don't feel pain or not? WOuld shooting Steven Hawking be a crime?
Our first child was sucking his thumb in the womb at five months (and he turned out to be a long-time thumb sucker). Would a child in the womb suck his thumb for reasons other than it was comforting, relaxing, etc.?
BTW could he have not made his point in a way to avoid inviting mockery?
Yes. This is where the abortion rights movement is much more effective than anti-abortion movement. The abortions rights movement is way better at coaching and engaging the culture at large.
Well we can assume Achilles is in favor of repealing welfare for healthy able bodied adults. It's a form of abortion and half the country supports that.
Pogo said...
"More abortion laws! More government!"
So the left coerces abortion on demand as national law, then bitches because the social cons want to pull the same lever.
Makes sense, I guess.
6/18/13, 9:19 AM
The left and the right have both decided the government should be making this choice. Now that you are the electoral minority the left has decided you should pay for women to have their abortions too.
But conservatives are just as brainwashed as leftists it seems when it comes to demanding the government solve every problem. Have fun being at the mercy of the majority. Make sure to call them baby killers so you can feel better while paying for those abortions.
An interesting note from the NYT article, is a researcher claiming it requires a cerebral cortex to feel pain. Which means non-mammals do not feel pain. Fish, birds, ants, etc. I always felt badly for spraying ants with Raid, as they go crazy. I hope it's a cocaine like experience, that Edwards callously suggested.
Also interesting was the following note from Wikipedia:
Human 19,000,000,000–23,000,000,000 For average adult
"The average number of neocortical neurons was 19 billion in female brains and 23 billion in male brains."
Next highest # of cerebral cortex neurons is the elephant, with 11 billion cells.
cubanbob said...
Well we can assume Achilles is in favor of repealing welfare for healthy able bodied adults. It's a form of abortion and half the country supports that.
6/18/13, 9:26 AM
Of course. But apparently you have me in the wrong ideological box. I am opposed to abortion. But the government is the wrong solution to this issue. The church is a better one.
This annoying "can feel pain" facet of fetal right to life is really confusing. So is it OK to kill someone as long as they don't feel pain or not? WOuld shooting Steven Hawking be a crime?
Your logic is awful, but let me see if I can follow.
Using your kind of reasoning, it would be OK to torture someone so long as they didn't die.
"But conservatives are just as brainwashed as leftists it seems when it comes to demanding the government solve every problem."
Arguments against imaginary conservatives can be very satisfying.
My own position is to devolve this to the states, but you can mock the straw man if it makes you feel better.
... this mockery is very ugly.
The left has always been both ugly and coercive. You just now are noticing this?
"See, the christofascist godbags oppose masturbation and they oppose abortion.
So it's super funny to use the former to deny the latter.
Effing hypocrites!"
Or at least it would be funny if someone actually was tied up in the knots of a dilemma because they believe that masturbaters should be executed. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any ACTUAL "Christofascist godbags" experiencing that deliciously ironic dilemma because they don't exist. 99.99999% of the prolife crowd has no problem at all with fetuses (or anyone else) masturbating. So let's just imagine that these troglodites actually exist and make fun of them anyway...
@Pogo
So the left coerces abortion on demand as national law, then bitches because the social cons want to pull the same lever.
Makes sense, I guess.
Can I advocate in favor of common-sense restrictions on abortion that preserve the fundamental right?
Background checks for the mother. Waiting periods. We don't want her to rush into the procedure.
If the pregnancy is a result of rape, we should wait until the rapist is prosecuted and convicted, instead of just taking her word for it. (If the pregnancy results in a live baby in the meantime, government officials and adoptions agencies can help her, right?)
If the pregnancy is the result of illicit sex with a minor (either the mother or the father), then the background check should also figure out who committed that crime.
And we should have regular inspections of abortion service providers. (Do I need to explain why?)
Maybe a special "Application to have an abortion" form, filled out at the County Clerk's office. With a fee for each application. To make that background-check stuff easier.
These practices wouldn't infringe on the fundamental right. Just helping make the process safe and legal. And making sure that the mother (or father) aren't hiding evidence of some crime committed.
Pogo said...
"But conservatives are just as brainwashed as leftists it seems when it comes to demanding the government solve every problem."
Arguments against imaginary conservatives can be very satisfying.
My own position is to devolve this to the states, but you can mock the straw man if it makes you feel better.
6/18/13, 9:35 AM
The government of a state is still a government. You are still using an electoral majority to coerce. The first thing that has to go when demanding government involvement it seems is critical thought.
That observation led Burgess to say he had argued for the abortion ban to start at a much earlier stage of gestation, 15 or 16 weeks.
It's so bizaree for pro-choice people to be mocking this guy. He's allowing abortions for four months! If he was European we would call him a pro-choice extremist.
Most of Europe outlaws abortion after 10-12 weeks. Is Europe filled with pro-life fanatics, too? Or is that what democracy looks like?
If someone as fat as Nadler spoke out in favor of banning abortions, then such a person's weight would not pass unnoticed.......The unwillingness of the left to admit that there are many, far too many, moral ambiguities about late term abortions is troubling. Gosnell was not an outlier. He was the easily predicted product of such a system in the way that famines were the product of collective farms.
You are still using an electoral majority to coerce.
Yeah, we do that occasionally. What about you?
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
Well, liberty for those the courts deem human, anyway.
"Sexism: Would there a very different reaction if the fetuses were girls and they were sliding-down banisters in the uterus?"
Uh-oh. Kaitlyn Hunt's ears just perked up.
And I'd be more sympathetic to the demands for abortion rights if contraception weren't so cheap, plentiful and effective when one takes just a little care.
Whether mockery is bad is dependent on the subject and the target. If you take the subject seriously and your ideas are the target, then it is very, very bad.
If it's John Stewart mocking the Occupy Wall Street crowd, then it's freaking funny.
Whether mockery is bad is dependent on the subject and the target. If you take the subject seriously and your ideas are the target, then it is very, very bad.
If it's John Stewart mocking the Occupy Wall Street crowd, then it's freaking funny.
What pleasure do you expect a fetus to be enjoying, a good book? A game of chess?
The crowns on most kings and queens are often kind of pointy, so I feel sorry for the mothers!
@achilles,
So you're an anarchist?
Or are you seriously asserting that 100% consensus on all aspects of human interaction is possible?
Icepick, I will stop scratching my nuts when "they pry them from my cold dead hands!"
I hear you loud and clear!
Boys learn to scratch their nuts in the womb.
Two balls in the scrotum: result, contentment.
One ball undescended: result, confusion.
Our first child was sucking his thumb in the womb at five months (and he turned out to be a long-time thumb sucker). Would a child in the womb suck his thumb for reasons other than it was comforting, relaxing, etc.?
Dude, I've got to ask: What was so stressful about that womb?!
"The government of a state is still a government. You are still using an electoral majority to coerce."
True, but it's still an important distinction. State government is more responsive to the electorate and smaller in scope, and thus easier to escape. Contentious issues like this are pretty much why the state governments exist in the first place.
This might be the first time ever a fetus has been humanized by the other side.
Silver lining?
and note that I support abortion rights
Call it what it is, Althouse. You support a woman's decision to have her unborn child's brain scrambled and its limbs torn from its body before birth.
How courageous of you.
Can I advocate in favor of common-sense restrictions on abortion that preserve the fundamental right?
Background checks for the mother. Waiting periods. We don't want her to rush into the procedure.
The public supports these. The courts have noted they are not an infringement upon a woman's right to choose.
NARAL views these regulations as men trying to control a woman's body. Ergo, opposed, through use of all extreme measures.
Of course. But apparently you have me in the wrong ideological box. I am opposed to abortion. But the government is the wrong solution to this issue. The church is a better one."
Achilles it might be a stretch for you but one of our foundational documents states that we have a right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". We don't leave the solution of dealing with murder and theft to the Church eventhough those actions violate the Ten Commandments.
If government is the wrong solution to abortion then it is definitely the wrong solution for child support since as it stands giving birth is entirely optional for the mother.
Why is he referred to as a "former OB/GYN?" Was his medical license revoked?
"The government of a state is still a government."
As designed in the US Constitution. A federal republic.
Or are you arguing against government per se?
@Samson
I was kidding; a mock position.
If the Republicans really wanted to spike abortion then let them propose taking a woman's choice to its logical conclusion by banning mandatory child support and welfare for healthy, able bodied woman from fifteen and up. It's her choice to get pregnant, her choice to stay pregnant her obligation and responsibility to provide for the kid she chose to birth.
@cubanbob:
Logic is racist and anti-woman.
"nd note that I support abortion rights — that this mockery is very ugly."
Kill them if you want, but it's really out of line to mock them first.
Attacking Althouse doesn't help anything.
Why not focus on the thing the other side is doing?
How can we best respond to that kind of hatred and animus.
I'm against abortion. I'm also against making it illegal. Does that mean I think it should be a "right"? Hmm. I guess before I want it called anything else, I want it called killing.
"You have a right to kill your baby." That doesn't sound like a right to be coveted, does it?
I will never quit passionately advocating for life. I just prefer to do it personally in any conversation that gives me the opening.
Fap means fortran assembly program to me.
Here's a program in fap. (1963)
Think of the fascism for a moment. The obvious aspects of fascism in Roe v. Wade is that unelected people are dictating rules, and those rules have resulted in lots of dead bodies.
But the fascism runs even deeper. Here are pro-choice people mocking another pro-choice man, who thinks abortion should be criminalized after 16 weeks.
They can't abide any dissent from the party line. They are rigid and inflexible. If Roe v. Wade said "16 weeks," then that would be the rule. They are mindless followers.
But you really see the fascism in the dehumanization. That's Althouse's objection. But of course this puts her in a corner, because the dehumanization is right there in Roe v. Wade itself.
The denial that the baby is a baby comes from our authorities. The "ugly mockery" is from the top down. When the Supreme Court says "non-person," that's an insult, too. Except instead of the normal insult, it's an insult with the force of law behind it. You're not just insulted, your very humanity is denied. People can start killing you.
It's trickle down ugliness, Althouse.
Twins in the womb will often touch each other and seem to be "aware" of the other twin's presence. They do touch themselves and seem to have some "feelings" of pleasure, smile and make facial expressions. Twins in the womb can even be seen fighting and pushing at each other. It IS pretty damned crowded in there.
To deny that even at such a young stage of development, there is not life, feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, uncomfortableness, and even the beginnings of personality, is to deny reality and evidence.
But .....hey......so what if these are human beings.....the mother's right to kill her unborn child trumps all.
"Why not focus on the thing the other side is doing?
How can we best respond to that kind of hatred and animus."
First try to convince those close to you to consider their positions and face the consequences honestly. Work with people you respect and know to be thinking people, capable of persuasion. I think the chances of converting those doing the mocking is pretty slim.
But you really see the fascism in the dehumanization.
You mean like this?
I think the chances of converting those doing the mocking is pretty slim.
But I think we still have to respond. Not to respond is tantamount to giving up imho.
Althouse: "Abortion = murder"
Althouse: "I support murder"
I agree with you, Lem. We still have to respond. It's the response to this kind of ugliness that is so damned hard for me, though. I want to be ugly back. But that will never win hearts.
... why don't good liberals ...
Because there aren't any "good liberals," Professor. They've all turned into Progressives, and Progressives tolerate no dissent from their orthodoxy.
This annoying "can feel pain" facet of fetal right to life is really confusing. So is it OK to kill someone as long as they don't feel pain or not?
A non-human clump of cells would feel no pleasure nor pain. If they can, then perhaps abortion rights supporters might need something to back up their claims.
How can we best respond to that kind of hatred and animus.
Be amused that the kids being slaughtered en masse are, overwhelmingly, from parents quite supportive of their cause. Which is why they need to import more mind-numbed idiots to replace the children they slaughtered for the last few decades.
The worst thing resulting from the Obama scandals is not necessarily that there are some bad apples who have exercise power over us in a corrupt manner, but that in this administration, they will not be checked nor held accountable; if anything, they will be rewarded.
This kind of mockery is like a reward for a job well done.
It's like a masturbation... the thing they claim to see they see because it is exactly what they themselves are doing.
The GOP will continue cutting food stamps, repealing healthcare, and speeding up executions to prove they are pro life.
Abortion post always draw a clear line between the ignorant and the clear thinkers don't they?
This thread has some of the most childish posts I've seen in a long time.
Of course those comments are intended to be mockery of those that disagree with them.
I really can't understand how one can straddle the fence on the abortion issue. It either stand with reason or thake the side of the immature and childish.
Those of us who support the right to choose have to face that we are supporting killing an innocent human. That is a necessary evil at times like all out war, but we need to ask ourselves when and under what justification we will support that murder, including paying for, and handing the doctor the syringe.
This is not like other rights where we say you can do what you want as long it doesn't hurt anyone else, because this doesn't just violate someone's rights, it takes them all away - every single one: the right to breath, to be loved, to learn, to live, all of them - from an absolute innocent.
Are they drunk with conceit?
con·ceit
Noun
1.Excessive pride in oneself.
2.A fanciful expression in writing or speech; an elaborate metaphor.
Synonyms
vanity - arrogance - self-conceit - pride - haughtiness
It's the response to this kind of ugliness that is so damned hard for me, though. I want to be ugly back. But that will never win hearts.
You will never win their hearts and minds, Darcy. They have replaced conventional Christianity with a new religion, and one of their core tenets is that aborting a fetus is a good thing, for any reason or no particular reason at all. IMHO the Professor is taking the right track, holding a mirror up to their own ugliness and challenging them to defend themselves using science and logic. The badly mis-named "Progressives" can no more defend themselves with science and logic than a Catholic priest can defend the notion that ethanol, once imbibed in the proper setting, literally becomes blood on its way to the stomach. "You have to believe."
Garage believes.
That's nice, garage. Do you want to address the actual subject here?
And FYI: Obamacare is not "healthcare". Insurance does not equal care - as we are about to find out quite painfully -thanks to the lack of substantive debate and the convenient misuse of the term "health care".
How do you know someone cannot be trusted on an issue?
When they demonize the opposition. When they are unwilling to look at their own arguments and acknowledge all the ugly warts clearly.
I too support abortion rights. But I am always very careful to acknowledge that the unborn child is precisely that. A living human baby. If you support abortion rights and cannot acknowledge that, you are lying to yourself and everyone around you - and every honest speaker in the debate knows it. This is an ugly subject. Mother nature doesn't give us an antiseptic, no harm choice. And in the end, it comes down to a value judgment: You can believe that the value of a human life trumps all, or you can believe (as I do) that there is always a choice made on some level. That outlawing abortion is also making a choice, and mandating that it be made by the government, not by the person with the clearest motivation and incentive to examine the alternatives in her situation and make the right decision.
To outlaw abortion is to mandate that women with clear threats to their health somehow obtain government sanction to terminate their pregnancy. I find the corollaries to that far more horrifying than the possibility the woman herself will make a mistake.
Since "the actual subject here" is empty, unfunny snark, I'd say Garage is on-topic for once.
Do you want to address the actual subject here?
Fetuses masturbating? I've honestly never given it a thought. I might recommend checking this guy's hard drive though.
Fap means fortran assembly program to me.
Huh. I'd have guessed "farm animal pageant".
That outlawing abortion is also making a choice, and mandating that it be made by the government, not by the person with the clearest motivation and incentive to examine the alternatives in her situation and make the right decision.
Does the mother continue to be the best decision-maker once the baby is born? If not, what is it that changes to allow the state a legitimate veto?
I don't think it's a human, for what that's worth. It's human, i.e. not wolf, but not a human.
Ordinary usage agrees with me. Why would that be?
I'd suggest that we agree to treat a born baby _as a human_ and they learn gradually to grow into it.
Being _a human_ is a social thing.
There are rules, e.g. "He hardly seems human," of this or that person.
That is not about his feeling pain or masturbating.
What happens at birth is an agreement about how society treats you, takes an interest they can do something about.
The bright line is social.
Again. Nice.
You could probably get the Dems solidly behind a proposal to guarantee every fetus/unborn child/baby the right to a state-provided lawyer.
"He hardly seems human," said of a newborn, for some bit of inconsideration the baby has displayed, would be a joke.
We agree that the newborn doesn't fit except as treated-as human.
Of a grown person, it could be a serious display of criteria for being a human.
bagoh20 said...
"Why not focus on the thing the other side is doing?
How can we best respond to that kind of hatred and animus."
First try to convince those close to you to consider their positions and face the consequences honestly. Work with people you respect and know to be thinking people, capable of persuasion. I think the chances of converting those doing the mocking is pretty slim.
6/18/13, 10:26 AM
Nobody here is trying to convince anyone. None of these people want anything to change. If they did they would try to implement strategies that would actually reduce the number of abortions.
The vast majority of posts here are moral preening. You all sound like the worst leftist professors preaching down at the moral failures and wretched losers who disagree. The is a complete lack of self awareness. The difference between your posts and Garages posts are in the end negligible. You all think you are morally superior to each other and you should be the ones to force the others to do what you want through legislative coercion.
If you continue on this path you will change nothing and not reduce the number of abortions. But you will sure feel better about yourselves. Call it moral masturbation.
I really don't care what odd thing pops out of odd GOPs mouth.
Is it untrue? It seems to me liberals don't want to be reminded that it's a little human in there.
Please - don't remind us!
I cannot get over the fact that the Democrat party - led by Obama and Pelosi -think that LATE TERM ABORITON IS SACRED.
Now that's offensive.
rhhardin said...
The bright line is social.
I'm not sure you've thought through the full implications of your proposition.
Be very careful.
And Garage lines up with the mockers. Who also believe people sitting in an alley trading food stamps for heroin is life affirming, or that doubling the cost overnight of what was barely affordable healthcare is somehow compassionate, or that you show how much you value life when you sentence a man who tortures and murders a dozen innocent people by giving him life-long health care, housing, TV, and a better life than the average elderly person, because that proves how much you are incensed at someone who takes the life of others.
I think your positions prove clearly that you don't value life much at all, but rather like to imagine that you care.
Icepick said...
Our first child was sucking his thumb in the womb at five months (and he turned out to be a long-time thumb sucker). Would a child in the womb suck his thumb for reasons other than it was comforting, relaxing, etc.?
Dude, I've got to ask: What was so stressful about that womb?!"
There's a lot of research about how if the mother is stressed, the child is stressed--and the effects can be felt for a lifetime. There's a pretty good NatGeo documentary on Netflix about it.
@Curious George,
Your syllogism is a bit of a strawman.
There is killing, and there is murder. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.
We have 3 stages of murder in law, right? (although I have never really understood how losing control of your emotions so badly that you kill someone is somehow better than a dish of cold revenge...)
What I think Ms. Althouse is arguing is that abortion is generally morally wrong, but still should not be legally wrong.
I sometimes think that way.
It is morally wrong, but it is morally wrong because it coarsens the heart of the mother and the medical professionals involved.
But should it be illegal for that reason?
Is there more harm done to someone by NOT allowing abortion?
Honestly, I think allowing the abortion is worse. There are very, very, very, very few cases where the harm to the mother by carrying the child to term is greater than the harm done to the baby via aborting it. And in most of the cases where there is tangible harm to the mother, it is balanced by the moments of joy, peace, happiness, etc, created and/or enjoyed by the baby being able to live.
That's one of the reason I am pro-life, but but still pro-RU-486.
Because that way it is the mother's hand that kills the baby. No one else is forced to participate in the moral wrong. The mother suffers the ill effects (if there are any...I think there are, but pro-abortion advocates insist there aren't) alone, without dragging a doctor and some nurses into it.
...and my position strengthened when NYU proposed (not sure if they implemented) forcing interns to perform an abortion as a requirement to graduate.
I get the "At the heart of liberty ..." quote, but doesn't it cut both ways? After all, it is the Congressman pushing for policy -- i.e. "the compulsion of state" -- to define a threshold of personhood.
You will never win their hearts and minds, Darcy.
That may be true, Big Mike, but I will continue to offer what's in my heart on it. I don't really think the persuasion comes from me anyway. I must not make it about me.
I get the "At the heart of liberty ..." quote, but doesn't it cut both ways? After all, it is the Congressman pushing for policy -- i.e. "the compulsion of state" -- to define a threshold of personhood.
LHogan said...
Abortion post always draw a clear line between the ignorant and the clear thinkers don't they?
Absolutely. Just about everyone agrees that the clear thinkers are all on the same side of this issue.
The only disagreement is which side.
Out of curiosity, which side do you think they are on?
Philboid Studge said...
I get the "At the heart of liberty ..." quote, but doesn't it cut both ways? After all, it is the Congressman pushing for policy -- i.e. "the compulsion of state" -- to define a threshold of personhood.
6/18/13, 11:15 AM
For the statist there is only one power above all other powers that can determine this: the government. The government is the only tool available and the only way to ensure justice. Just make sure it is my version of justice! And if we lose the election then the majority is obviously right so government will always make the right choice.
After all, it is the Congressman pushing for policy -- i.e. "the compulsion of state" -- to define a threshold of personhood.
Hmm. Novel argument; I shall have to give it much thought.
[furrows brow]
OK, done.
Conclusion: You give sophistry a bad name.
Darcy said...
You will never win their hearts and minds, Darcy.
That may be true, Big Mike, but I will continue to offer what's in my heart on it. I don't really think the persuasion comes from me anyway. I must not make it about me.
6/18/13, 11:17 AM
You actually want to help. They do not. They want to preen their beautiful white moral feathers. And impose their will through government force whether it is the best way or not.
For them, it is all about "me."
You are so hot when you go all furrowed brow, Chip. :)
(This is going to get deleted, isn't it?)
Chip S. said...
After all, it is the Congressman pushing for policy -- i.e. "the compulsion of state" -- to define a threshold of personhood.
Hmm. Novel argument; I shall have to give it much thought.
[furrows brow]
OK, done.
Conclusion: You give sophistry a bad name.
6/18/13, 11:22 AM
Good then. Back to your moral preening quick. Don't miss a chance to feel superior to others.
Achilles, if homicide is to be illegal and foeticide is to be legal, how can the state accomplish this w/o defining the point at which a fetus becomes a person?
I don't understand what's "statist" about that.
Danmelson said...
That outlawing abortion is also making a choice, and mandating that it be made by the government, not by the person with the clearest motivation and incentive to examine the alternatives in her situation and make the right decision.
For any other topic, this would be considered a conflict of interest.
What if this kind mockery is aimed at their own? the new generations of leftist who were not shaped by Roe v Wade and who may now be asking uncomfortable questions.
A question Taranto asked about the future of social conservatism seem apropos here.
If liberal baby boomers stubbornly refuse to see the damage that their idea of "progress" has wrought, what about younger generations, for whom the sexual revolution was an inheritance, not a choice, and therefore perhaps not an essential component of personal identity, even among those on the left?
What if this mockery also serves as a way of intimidating the young up and coming leftists?
A way of intimidation dressed up as comedy to serve as a warning... 'you want to be ridiculed along with those pro-lifers Jesus freaks?'
Its a dual purpose thing.
Back to your moral preening quick. Don't miss a chance to feel superior to others.
From a guy shouting "statist", that's pretty funny.
@Achilles
Thank you, but I think there are a lot of commenters here who want to help and do help. It's just such a painful subject that it's easier to give in to anger and mockery sometimes. (Just as it is for those on the other side of this, I'm sure.)
Nathan Alexander said...
@achilles,
So you're an anarchist?
Or are you seriously asserting that 100% consensus on all aspects of human interaction is possible?
6/18/13, 9:53 AM
Neither. I believe that if you want to divide a people have the outcome determined by electoral majority. Both sides immediately flee to ideological boundaries and declare the other side a moral failure. Notice there is little argument outside friendly confines about what music we listen to. But if the government was to decide what music was played you would instantly start a divisive and bitter argument.
If you want to have polite conversations about abortion, and actually change people's minds about it or convince some young women to make a better choice, you will remove government from the conversation at least in the first trimester.
When the two sides debate abortion, everyone loses.
Chip S. said...
Achilles, if homicide is to be illegal and foeticide is to be legal, how can the state accomplish this w/o defining the point at which a fetus becomes a person?
I don't understand what's "statist" about that.
6/18/13, 11:25 AM
Exactly. Having that decision determined by electoral majority is the fastest way to end that discussion. If you want to talk to people and change minds you have to remove the specter of government imposition.
@Achilles,
So if you aren't just engaging in moral preening, since you denigrate elections and election results as being both "statist" and forcible imposition of a majority will on a minority, well, exactly how do you suggest people resolve differences of opinion regarding public behavior?
I fully expect you will ignore this question and return to your moral preening.
Achilles is an example of a libertarian run amok. Welcome to Anarchy.
What's more fun than laughing about the death of a human soul? What a riot!
Darcy said...
@Achilles
Thank you, but I think there are a lot of commenters here who want to help and do help. It's just such a painful subject that it's easier to give in to anger and mockery sometimes. (Just as it is for those on the other side of this, I'm sure.)
6/18/13, 11:28 AM
That is the heart of it. Making the decision one of majority rule immediately polarizes the discussion and makes any discussion divisive and bitter. It is impossible to change anything at that point and when you lose you get the most extreme results. In this case you all get to pay for abortions because that is what the majority wants.
Achilles is an example of a libertarian run amok.
Until the moment of personhood is defined, there is no libertarian position on abortion.
Making the decision one of majority rule immediately polarizes the discussion and makes any discussion divisive and bitter.
Unlike having the decision made by the SCOTUS?
I simply can't follow your reasoning here, unless you're saying that abortion should be legal up to the moment of birth.
In saying that, I'm assuming that you're in favor of keeping infanticide illegal.
Nathan Alexander said...
@Achilles,
So if you aren't just engaging in moral preening, since you denigrate elections and election results as being both "statist" and forcible imposition of a majority will on a minority, well, exactly how do you suggest people resolve differences of opinion regarding public behavior?
I fully expect you will ignore this question and return to your moral preening.
6/18/13, 11:36 AM
What are your goals with government intervention? If you actually want to reduce the number of abortions is the government the right tool? Obviously not for two reasons:
1. You are in the minority. If you insist on the government making this decision you will get to pay for abortions because more people support that than a ban. Most people take a position in the middle but that is not the result of decision by electoral majority. Electoral majorities run to the ideological extreme.
2. Because of the inherent divisiveness of leaving decisions to electoral majority people stop talking and flee to the ideological extremes, like 90% of the posts here.
@achilles,
Neither. I believe that if you want to divide a people have the outcome determined by electoral majority. Both sides immediately flee to ideological boundaries and declare the other side a moral failure. Notice there is little argument outside friendly confines about what music we listen to. But if the government was to decide what music was played you would instantly start a divisive and bitter argument.
If you want to have polite conversations about abortion, and actually change people's minds about it or convince some young women to make a better choice, you will remove government from the conversation at least in the first trimester.
Are you seriously comparing music preference to abortion?
Abortion rights were not established via an election, or officials determined by an election.
Abortion rights were established by an unelected tribunal, with no way for the people to provide any input/feedback to that decision EXCEPT to elect officials who can change the makeup of that tribunal.
Because of that tribunal's decision ("right to privacy"), some people assert that right implies they can transport my underage daughter to a doctor and have that doctor give her an abortion, without having to obtain my consent, much less inform me.
Do you think polite talking, the willing abandonment of any debate regarding the appropriateness of legal 1st-trimester abortion, and the willing abandonment of using majority elections as a tactic will actually do anything to protect my underage daughter from that sort of predation?
I don't.
Pro-lif advocates can and should fight the battle for life on all fronts. They shouldn't limit themselves to any specific tactic, argument, or topic regarding abortion. I suspect you understand this, but enjoy moral preening too much to accept it.
Inga said...
Achilles is an example of a libertarian run amok. Welcome to Anarchy.
6/18/13, 11:38 AM
Inga is a product of a state monopoly on education. Utterly incapable of critical thought and only capable of discussing straw men like anarchy.
And Garage lines up with the mockers
These people deserve to be mocked. I've had quite enough of them, and I have zero desire to empathize with them or try to find "common ground" with them. On anything.
@Achilles,
What are your goals with government intervention? If you actually want to reduce the number of abortions is the government the right tool? Obviously not for two reasons:
1. You are in the minority. If you insist on the government making this decision you will get to pay for abortions because more people support that than a ban. Most people take a position in the middle but that is not the result of decision by electoral majority. Electoral majorities run to the ideological extreme.
2. Because of the inherent divisiveness of leaving decisions to electoral majority people stop talking and flee to the ideological extremes, like 90% of the posts here.
Your assumptions are wrong.
A majority of Americans opposes abortion in most cases at any point in the pregnancy, and that number is growing.
You really need to separate the notion of an argument that you find compelling from an argument that others find compelling.
It takes all kinds.
Which is one reason I don't read Balloon Juice anymore (and the only skeptic blog I read is Orac's).
I'm entirely "meh" about abortion, except to note that only the anti side seems to take it seriously in-and-of-itself, rather than as a mystico-political sacrament.
And thus this kind of more or less illiterate* mockery disgusts me.
(* In that they seem to have never actually read any of the things they make fun of - or understand anything about them other than that they are The Other and thus to be mocked.)
Chip S. said...
Achilles, if homicide is to be illegal and foeticide is to be legal, how can the state accomplish this w/o defining the point at which a fetus becomes a person?
I don't understand what's "statist" about that.
Achilles said...
Exactly. Having that decision determined by electoral majority is the fastest way to end that discussion. If you want to talk to people and change minds you have to remove the specter of government imposition.
So are you actually advocating that we get the government out of the business of making homicide illegal? Or did you entirely miss Chip S's point? Or did I entirely miss yours?
Until you clear the birth canal, you have no rights a born man is bound to respect.
With apologies to Chief Justice Taney.
Achilles does not recognize the extreme position he takes, himself. He is completely unaware that he has crossed the line from libertarianism into anarchy. Even Nathan Alexander recognizes this, amazing. This discussion is fascinating.
@achilles,
Props for answering, tho.
I thought you'd ignore the 2nd one because at the time of my writing, you hadn't answered my first one.
By the time I posted it, however, you had.
My apologies.
But your response returns me to the point:
Libertarianism often fails at morality.
Individual responsibility is great, and I fully support it, but humanity has proven that it does need govt. We will always have disputes that require disinterested referees. There will always be times when rights conflict.
Witness the "Freedom of/from Religion" battle. Is a govt worker who says "Merry Christmas" establishing a state religion? Or even just giving one religion too much emphasis above the others? When the govt worker says "Merry Christmas", are they representing the govt at all, or just themselves? Yes, they are on the clock, but do they drop their humanity and personality completely at work? Is there a govt-approved way of defecation and nose-wiping, or is that still up to the individual? If still up to the individual, then why can't meaningless social politeness phrases also still be up the individual?
But since some atheists have chosen to make it an issue, claiming their right to not be confronted with a religious expression trumps the rights of others to express their religion, well, we need a referee. I.e., govt.
Abortion is the same thing.
If it were just a woman aborting like pressing a button, it would be different.
But pro-abortions use the right to abortion to secure taxpayer $ to pay for it and even advertise for it. They use the right to privacy to secure access to underage girls and cut parents and pro-life organizations completely out of being able to even advise...and have gone so far as to get the IRS to assist in blocking pro-life groups from communicating.
So if we don't express our views in society, in blog comment sections, and in elections (by who we vote for, and the laws they pass), how can this issue be resolved?
It can't.
There is no neutral space. The main assumption of liberals is if something isn't mandatory, it is prohibited, and if it isn't prohibited, it is mandatory. Any rhetorical or moral space not contested is ceded.
These people deserve to be mocked. I've had quite enough of them, and I have zero desire to empathize with them or try to find "common ground" with them. On anything.
So, what would change your mind?
Say that study is correct, that fetuses feel pain at 15 weeks. Then what?
Nathan Alexander said...
.....
Excellent example. Allow me to expound.
"Are you seriously comparing music preference to abortion?"
No. Because the government does not force us to listen to whatever music it prescribes we don't have to argue about that. You dodge this point by exclaiming how morally depraved it is to compare music and abortion. Excellent example of an ideological extreme. Anyone who disagrees with me is a heathen!
"Abortion rights were not established via an election, or officials determined by an election."
But you are subject to that decision. Because the government is in charge of everything and the ultimate moral arbiter. You make that decision. When you are the minority things don't always go your way.
"Abortion rights were established by an unelected tribunal, with no way for the people to provide any input/feedback to that decision EXCEPT to elect officials who can change the makeup of that tribunal."
Sucks being the minority doesn't it.
"Because of that tribunal's decision ("right to privacy"), some people assert that right implies they can transport my underage daughter to a doctor and have that doctor give her an abortion, without having to obtain my consent, much less inform me."
Your opposition won the election and is occupying the ideological extreme they fled to when people decided to make this a decision for the electoral majority.
"Do you think polite talking, the willing abandonment of any debate regarding the appropriateness of legal 1st-trimester abortion, and the willing abandonment of using majority elections as a tactic will actually do anything to protect my underage daughter from that sort of predation?"
Yes. It will work better than feeble moral preening on a discussion board.
"I don't."
That is why you and republicans will fail. Again and again.
"Pro-lif advocates can and should fight the battle for life on all fronts. They shouldn't limit themselves to any specific tactic, argument, or topic regarding abortion. I suspect you understand this, but enjoy moral preening too much to accept it."
You sound like a progressive. When both sides are statists bad policy will be the result. And you have to live with it. It seems republicans like to be a whining minority and prefer living in Obamas progressive utopia than a free country.
When the two sides debate abortion, everyone loses.
MAD lives.
@Inga,
Even Nathan Alexander recognizes this, amazing.
I saw what you did there! I do agree that one should never miss an opportunity to reveal their character, as this comment of yours does.
garage mahal said...
And Garage lines up with the mockers
These people deserve to be mocked. I've had quite enough of them, and I have zero desire to empathize with them or try to find "common ground" with them. On anything.
6/18/13, 11:49 AM
You people are all so alike it is uncanny.
This is the other ideological extreme. You people deserve each other. When the Supreme Court found abortion somewhere in the fourth amendment all it succeeded in doing was permanently dividing the country. You are all sheep.
@achilles,
Guess we have to agree to disagree, then.
Inga said...
Achilles does not recognize the extreme position he takes, himself. He is completely unaware that he has crossed the line from libertarianism into anarchy. Even Nathan Alexander recognizes this, amazing. This discussion is fascinating.
6/18/13, 11:57 AM
It may be extreme. But it is well reasoned. Unlike your posts which are generally staggeringly stupid. Your post adding nothing this time seems almost intelligent.
Sorry I know this is gratuitous but I dislike fascist whores who cheer on Obama and the IRS.
This is the other ideological extreme.
I'm not in the ideological extreme. They are.
I'm not in the ideological extreme. They are.
Oh, great, garage has decided to start making parody comments again.
Achilles said...
Exactly. Having that decision determined by electoral majority is the fastest way to end that discussion. If you want to talk to people and change minds you have to remove the specter of government imposition.
So are you actually advocating that we get the government out of the business of making homicide illegal? Or did you entirely miss Chip S's point? Or did I entirely miss yours?
6/18/13, 11:51 AM
There are a lot of people out there, a majority, that do not think first trimester abortions are murder. You have retreated to the ideological extreme calling these women murderers. There is middle ground there.
The result of your position will be losing elections to the other side, and because the other ideological extreme is the most active part of the other side, you will get state funding of abortion, late term abortions and all other manner of disgusting crap.
If you want to find a middle ground you need to stop calling women murderers. Right now they are proposing 20 week bans, which i think would be appropriate personally, but it is never enough and some dumbass had to go off and say stupid shit. Government legislation Will never lead to the outcome you want. In order to get what we want we need to go another way.
Oh. Here I go being bitchy, but that was awesome, Achilles.
@12:15, I meant.
Until the moment of personhood is defined, there is no libertarian position on abortion.
Both pro-life and pro-choice groups are in reality pro-choice. Each demands the freedom to define the exact moment that a collection of cells becomes a person.
Nathan Alexander said...
@achilles,
Guess we have to agree to disagree, then.
6/18/13, 12:08 PM
If so we will lose this country to the statist fucks like Inga and Garage. They are unified in their belief that the government is the ultimate arbiter of truth. You don't believe the government is the best way to run an economy true? Why would it be a better way to create a more moral and virtuous society? Isn't the church the foundation of virtue rather than the government? Why are we trying to use government to do the work of the church? And why is losing elections over it a good idea?
I just finished "Acid Christ," a bad biography of Ken Kesey, who wrote "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and became the other great popularizer of LSD after Timothy Leary, as described in Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test."
Kesey mostly lined up on the left, but when it came to abortion he was solidly opposed.
You are you from conception, and that never changes no matter what physical changes your body takes. And the virile sport in the Mustang driving to work with his muscular forearm tanned and ready for a day’s labor has not one microgram more right to his inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than has the three months foetus riding in a sack of water...
How can abortion be anything but fascism again, back as a fad in a new intellectual garb with a new, and more helpless, victim?
I love hearing the rank hypocrisy here by those who consider themselves intelligent, gawd it never stops.
I've stated many times that I am pro choice, that abortion should be limited to the first trimester, regulated by evil government. Achilles you speak out of both sides of your mouth as well as Darcy.
Darcy said...
@12:15, I meant.
6/18/13, 12:25 PM
I am not proud. I should leave the lesser alone. Getting muddy with the pigs is not glorious. Short feelings of vindictive joy, but lowers me as a person. :(
I had rather hoped you liked the other comments.
"Until the moment of personhood is defined, there is no libertarian position on abortion."
----------------
"Both pro-life and pro-choice groups are in reality pro-choice. Each demands the freedom to define the exact moment that a collection of cells becomes a person."
6/18/13, 12:28 PM
--------------
This.
I did like the other comments. I don't completely agree with you - I cannot abandon trying to influence some protections for the unborn when I can through government, but you've made me think.
And yeah. We shouldn't be proud of rolling in the muck. I liked that comment too.
Achilles, you lower yourself further by dehumanizing those who disagree with you philosophically. Don't you see that either?
Inga said...
I love hearing the rank hypocrisy here by those who consider themselves intelligent, gawd it never stops.
I've stated many times that I am pro choice, that abortion should be limited to the first trimester, regulated by evil government. Achilles you speak out of both sides of your mouth as well as Darcy.
6/18/13, 12:31 PM
That's great. You still support Obama and the government suppression of those that disagree with you. You are still a fascist whore who trades her vote for filthy government lucre.
Darcy, I'm very dissapointed to see that you are a hypocrite, some Christian you are, ha.
Chip S wrote:
Achilles, if homicide is to be illegal and foeticide is to be legal, how can the state accomplish this w/o defining the point at which a fetus becomes a person?
I don't understand what's "statist" about that.
Agreed. And if we are going to get into questions of legality versus illegality how do you do so without involving govt? Since questions legality or illegality both require laws passed and enforced by govt.
Achilles/ Whoresoftheinternet, my guess.
I am a hypocrite, a liar and a sinner, Inga. This is not news.
You will never win their hearts and minds, Darcy.
The way that happens is not by changing people's minds, but rather by making arguments to people whose minds are not made up.
Pro-lifers have an advantage in that almost all of us are opposed to infanticide. Thus pro-choice people have to rely on censorship, denial, repression.
Ultrasounds and pictures of abortions are what will end this fight. And I do believe the press can and should be shamed into covering this issue. Pro-lifers should be mocking them. They aren't journalists, they are Pravda, and abortion is the most obvious example of this.
Well Darcy, get on your knees and ask for forgiveness, even I do that occasionally.
The pro-baby-killing crowd is welcome to mock. It doesn't help their side.
The basic strategy of the baby-killing crowd is to dehumanize the unborn child. Just a glob of cells, they will insist. Hence the choice of terms: fetus unstead of baby or child, etc.
Well, folks can snicker all they want about the idea of an unborn child--er, "fetus"--masturbating, but...
That sounds like a human act.
(Yes, cue someone citing examples of other animals doing it too--but the point is, no one thinks a pregnant woman is carrying a different species.)
It wouldn't surprise me if the political commissars for the pro-dead-baby movement to send the word out: knock it off, because it goes contrary to the primary message:
That's not a baby, not human, just nothing...change the subject.
If so we will lose this country to the statist fucks like Inga and Garage. They are unified in their belief that the government is the ultimate arbiter of truth. You don't believe the government is the best way to run an economy true? Why would it be a better way to create a more moral and virtuous society? Isn't the church the foundation of virtue rather than the government? Why are we trying to use government to do the work of the church? And why is losing elections over it a good idea?
No, I disagree there, too.
I think ceding the argument to fascists means you lose to the fascists.
Your argument seems very similar to "violence never solved anything."
Which is sorta true from a philosophical viewpoint but utter nonsense in reality.
People are starting to see what happens when you don't think critically about liberal-fascist feel-good slogans. That's why pro-life support is growing, and why the pro-choice side is both increasingly shrill AND desperately fighting a rear-guard action to prevent a weeks-since-conception limit on abortion (that Inga consistently votes against).
Also, and be clear on this: no one is ever convinced to change their view in a single conversation.
But many are influenced.
I have no doubt that at least one person is influenced toward a pro-life position every time Ms. Althouse introduces an abortion-related topic.
Maybe there are some influenced toward a pro-choice position, but I doubt it is very many.
Every conversation is a seed planted. Sometimes it takes years for the seed to sprout, and sometimes it never does.
That's no reason to not cast seeds, however.
Calling others Facists only diminishes your credibility and seriousness, if you truly believe Democrats are Facists, it reveals a disordered unrealistic thought process. Sometimes just arguing your stances on the strength of it does change minds, wins hearts.
The way that happens is not by changing people's minds, but rather by making arguments to people whose minds are not made up.
Saint Croix: Even people who have their minds made up may eventually change them. That's usually the result of making small adjustments over a period of time until one's previous position is so weakened that it collapses.
The ultrasounds that you mention are affecting everyone, whether their minds are made up or not.
I think ceding the argument to fascists means you lose to the fascists.
Fascists that draft a state mandated ultrasound bill and ram it through the legislature within a 10 day period, and cut off debate in 20 minutes?
The fascist call is coming from inside the house!
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all...
Fascists that draft a state mandated ultrasound bill and ram it through the legislature within a 10 day period, and cut off debate in 20 minutes?
That's your definition of fascist? Really?
Since Obamacare was written and passed by literally locking the GOP out of the room, you are saying that 20 minutes of debate is somehow worse than no debate or opposition input at all.
My, you really hate the democratic process don't you?
Inga said...
Calling others Facists only diminishes your credibility and seriousness, if you truly believe Democrats are Facists, it reveals a disordered unrealistic thought process
Funny, the same happens to those who argue we're at risk the religious right will turn America into The Handmaid's Tale.
Inga and garage are doing a great job of demonstrating that liberals have no idea of the real definition or description of facism at all, and use it to mean "anything liberals want to de-legitimize via smearing".
My, you really hate the democratic process don't you?
You HAVE to be a moby, dude.
Fr Martin Fox wrote:
Well, folks can snicker all they want about the idea of an unborn child--er, "fetus"--masturbating, but...
That sounds like a human act
it also sounds like something that a clump of cells can't do.
garage,
Aw, have I hurt your feelings by pointing out the incoherency and hypocrisy of your assertions?
Aw, have I hurt your feelings by pointing out the incoherency and hypocrisy of your assertions?
No, I'm shaking my head in disbelief over the idiotic comparison you made.
The first four entries on a Google search for Fascism:
1) a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that promotes the mass mobilization of the national community.
- Community Organizing!
- Organizing For America!
2) a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Obama wanted China's dictatorship powers!
His administration has used the IRS, DoJ, and the EPA to suppress opposition via threat of force!
3) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
- "These [voter protection] laws weren't written to protect white people"
- The IRS censored Tea Party views, encouraged by Obama's "jokes"
- War on Women; i.e.: "The Republicans are coming for your ladyparts!" or "the GOP will make The Handmaiden's Tale become reality!"
4) As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.
- Obamacare!
- "Govt must invest in Green Technology"!
garage: "but, but, but, I can't be a fascist, I'm a Democrat/liberal! We're the good guys, so it is okay if we embrace all these fascist aspects as core principles of our exercise of political power, right?!?"
The GOP will continue cutting food stamps, repealing healthcare, and speeding up executions to prove they are pro life.
They'll cut Obamacare and food stamps to show they are still anti-slavery.
As far as executions, don't much care for them but that is a state-by-state case.
If they did they would try to implement strategies that would actually reduce the number of abortions.
Yes, moderate one's opinion on an act that one feels is murder.
That sounds noble.
For the statist there is only one power above all other powers that can determine this: the government. The government is the only tool available and the only way to ensure justice. Just make sure it is my version of justice! And if we lose the election then the majority is obviously right so government will always make the right choice.
OK, for giggles --- provide any method of reducing abortion that does not require any government interference whatsoever. Note: preventing government interference would qualify as interference in your examples thus far.
If you want to have polite conversations about abortion, and actually change people's minds about it or convince some young women to make a better choice, you will remove government from the conversation at least in the first trimester.
This isn't being a statist how?
Trying to point out that this "clump of cells" actually has feelings is worthy of mockery. Asking them to make better choices is "shaming them".
Not to be mean, but pro-lifers are far more willing to negotiate than pro-choicers have ever been willing to do so. You can't even get any bills dealing with partial birth abortions passed AFTER the Gosnell atrocities became public knowledge.
Blacks being less than whites was not an unpopular opinion for a long, long time. Even though their rights were violated, nobody should have done anything to remedy it?
The remedy has gone too far in a different direction, but that does not mean the remedy was unneeded.
My God! Garage, and they call us Facists. I was waiting to see that video, it's even worse than I thought.
No, I'm shaking my head in disbelief over the idiotic comparison you made.
Oh, I'm sorry, you are still in parody mode, aren't you?
You aren't really stupid enough to continue to assert the passing of Obamacare was more inclusive than whatever it was you asserted was fascism, are you?
I refuse to believe anyone can be that blind to their own hypocrisy.
My God! Garage, and they call us Facists
People in the gallery were arrested for having duct tape over their mouths.
Just think of Walker as President, Lord help America.
Does he condone this type of governing?
6/18/13, 1:42 PM
Every conversation is a seed planted.
Yes, that is so true.
Instapundit used to joke around with an "I had an abortion" T-shirt image of himself. He doesn't do that anymore.
Pro-lifers give birth to new voters. Pro-aborts don't.
And all the illegal aliens/future voters seem to be coming from the very Catholic Latin and South America.
Ultra pro-choice Hollywood has already made 2 pro-life films (Juno and Knocked Up) because, let's face it, abortion is no happy ending.
And the Supreme Court has utterly failed to resolve this controversy. Republicans are still determined to overrule their work. And, as Lochner has shown us, if the Supreme Court makes one political party very unhappy, there will be pushback.
Every pregnant girl googles abortion now.
I don't need to support or agree with what was shown in garage's video to know that neither garage nor Inga object when much worse is done by Democrats at both the State and Federal level.
So the outrage is more than slightly hypocritical.
Interestingly, Inga finds it easy and convenient to be horrified when the result is a restriction on abortion that Inga claims to support in theory, but always seems to oppose in action.
And garage's video is selectively filmed and edited to remove significant context...garage used to insist that was bad, bad, bad, bad. Now it is clear that he only thinks it is bad when typical Democrat party behavior is revealed.
These people deserve to be mocked. I've had quite enough of them, and I have zero desire to empathize with them or try to find "common ground" with them. On anything.
To Darcy, and others who believe that being human about this issue: The above comment tells you everything you need to know about the left. They can't be reasoned with. They can't be considered equals.
They must be beaten. And by any legal means necessary.
St. Croix, pro choice or pro aborts don't have children themselves? Really?
Until you clear the birth canal, you have no rights a born man is bound to respect. With apologies to Chief Justice Taney.
That is an assertion, based on a subjective view. It is in no way or basis a fact.
Baby killers fear an ultrasound for the same reason Democrats fear voter
ID laws.
They fear a simple solution that will change things for them.
Walker is doing the right thing by supporting these measures and let the chips fall where they may.
We will know who the baby killers and vote fraudsters are by their opposition.
A fetus in America is no more than an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, or a fragment of underdone potato.
Well, if they could smile, suck a thumb, or cop a feel.
But otherwise just waste products.
"I am a hypocrite, a liar and a sinner"
That's hot!
Don't dehumanize the baby, by calling it a fetus Pogo!
OK; we'll just dehumanize it by dismembering it.
1) Baby
2) Abort
3) B
y
b . . a
If I was a mocker myself, I'd say that fetal masturbation is just asking for it. I'm assuming that the kid waited for the ultrasound to fire up before starting his demonstration. We don't need anymore of that type walking around, do we?
It's funny that when people like Obama and Andy Cuomo are more than willing to kill a real live baby who was born alive during a botched abortion there is not any problems for the pro-abortion crowd.
It is alive. It is breathing. And they will let it die. The are baby killers. And proud of it.
It is beyond evil.
(Yes, cue someone citing examples of other animals doing it too--but the point is, no one thinks a pregnant woman is carrying a different species.) - Fr Martin Fox
Things would likely work out better for the unborn if we called them puppies instead of baby humans.
Remember, we need to force women to give birth against their will because liberty!
Achilles wrote;
f you want to find a middle ground you need to stop calling women murderers. Right now they are proposing 20 week bans, which i think would be appropriate personally, but it is never enough and some dumbass had to go off and say stupid shit. Government legislation Will never lead to the outcome you want. In order to get what we want we need to go another way.
------------
When talking about 20 week bans versus other week bans we are talking about the law being involved. How then are you not going to have govt in that decision?
Life begins at X under law. What is allowable is a determination of law. Morality may play into the creation of said law, But it's going to be law taht determines the specifics of what is allowable and not allowable when it comes to abortion. Therefore, there is no way to separate that from govt. Since govt creates and enforces laws.
Terry Canaan:
"Remember, we need to force women to give birth against their will because liberty!"
Me:
Remember, we need to stop me from killing hitchhikers -- against my will -- because liberty. Because my will, no matter how it affects other people, should be determinative of the respective rights involved.
You assumed the morality away and were left with the position with which you started.
Basic!
Logical!
Fallacy!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा