I don't really like to start abortion debates here (they are good for the hit meter, but little else), but, when I posted over on Facebook about how abortions have declined for the last 8 years, and how public opinion is turning against the "choice" side, I got this reply (Facebook is not filled with the greatest debaters):
""Jay,,, since you stated about the great success regarding tighter state restrictions on abortion,,, giving kudos up to George Bush and pollsters,,, and overturning Roe,, within the next decade I am just wondering,,, how do you think Dr. Tiller's family is feeling right now?"
Ok, first, I did note as a success some reasonable restrictions states have been placing on abortions (mostly parental notification laws), and I didn't really give pollsters credit, I was referencing this May 15, 2009 Gallup (you may have heard of them) poll showing a 51%-42% Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice poll, putting the "Life" side ahead for the first time.
I am pretty sure (the whole thread is down now) I didn't suggest Roe would be overturned in the next decade (which it won't barring a GOP victory in 2012), but, I do think Roe's days are numbered, but that's for another post.
What really chaps me in this one, as you can probably guess, is the equation of someone being pro-life (as I freely admit I am), with being pro-murder, when the murder in question is of an abortionist.
I replied to the writer of this post that she was comparing apples to oranges, that my position is that murdering the practitioner of a practice that is legal in this country only serves to help the "choice" movement, as evidenced by this post, since it allows those on that side to try to draw these false moral comparisons, and the simpletons eat it up. Beyond that, to compare the heinous murder of one man, however wrong it is, with the genocide (and, that's what it is) of 30M plus children since 1973, is, well, somewhat one-sided.
The reality is that the murderer of Dr. Tiller should face the maximum penalty for what he has done - and he will. The murder of Dr. Tiller does nothing to help the pro-life cause. People who really want to see this practice eliminated need to protest peacefully, contact their elected representatives, and speak out on blogs, etc.
Regardless, the pro-life cause will eventually prevail because incremental steps will be taken to reasonably restrict abortion, technologies such as ultrasounds are changing people's conceptions of life, and science will eventually push that "viability" point so far towards conception that eventually many more than 51% of Americans will realize that this practice is morally reprehensible and will seek to outlaw it (with some exceptions that this society will be able to agree upon - thus keeping it safe, sometimes legal, and finally rare). Finally, it will happen because it is the right thing to do.
end...
Showing posts with label abortion rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion rights. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Barack and Gianna
I can't imagine that anyone on the right has not seen this commercial, but if not, you should see it and understand that Barack Obama isn't interested in any reasonable restrictions on abortion (something we might reasonably expect from a doctrinaire liberal who wants to bring "change" to Washington), and never has been, and likely never will be, and this will flow into his litmus tests on judicial appointees.
The commercial from the group bornalivetruth.org, is posted below:
I heard Gianna on Hannity yesterday and on H&C last night. She's obviously a committed Christian and despite having CP, she is making her life an example of Godliness for all to see.
While Colmes didn't really know how to handle her (inwardly, probably as an object of his scorn, as a failure of Liberal policies), he failed to get her to say that 0bama is for infanticide.
Like many of 0bama's decisions (see post below), despite what may be his best intentions to satisfy his followers (in this case the abortion lobby), this one is another example of failure to see what the consequences of decisions he supports will be, and how heinous they can be.
Whether it's not understanding your support of Senate Bill 99 would allow the teaching of sex education to kindergartners, or whether failure to pass a BIAPA in Illinois means the deaths of abortion survivors, with the approval of the state, I just don't think we can allow this kind of "judgement" in the White House, regardless of how correct he was in opposing the Iraq War from the beginning.
As they say in Georgia, even a blind rat finds the cheese sometimes.
The commercial from the group bornalivetruth.org, is posted below:
I heard Gianna on Hannity yesterday and on H&C last night. She's obviously a committed Christian and despite having CP, she is making her life an example of Godliness for all to see.
While Colmes didn't really know how to handle her (inwardly, probably as an object of his scorn, as a failure of Liberal policies), he failed to get her to say that 0bama is for infanticide.
Like many of 0bama's decisions (see post below), despite what may be his best intentions to satisfy his followers (in this case the abortion lobby), this one is another example of failure to see what the consequences of decisions he supports will be, and how heinous they can be.
Whether it's not understanding your support of Senate Bill 99 would allow the teaching of sex education to kindergartners, or whether failure to pass a BIAPA in Illinois means the deaths of abortion survivors, with the approval of the state, I just don't think we can allow this kind of "judgement" in the White House, regardless of how correct he was in opposing the Iraq War from the beginning.
As they say in Georgia, even a blind rat finds the cheese sometimes.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Doc riles me again
I'm going to point my readers to this post over at Doc MacDonald's blog. I freely admit I have personal problems with Doc's Objectivist anti-religious scribes. Sure, Ayn Rand was an atheist, but you don't have to hold any kind of religious view to know that we can, and should, and have an obligation to be able to draw a line somewhere to define when life begins.
I appreciate that Doc and other Objectivists hold and express these opinions, however wrong I believe they may be. I appreciate the purity of thought that this reasoning displays. And, we need a debate about this in this country, because Roe cut that debate off.
Unfortunately for Objectivist, Western Civilization and this country were not founded on Objectivist principles, they were founded and evolved largely on Judeo-Christian principles, and Western society has succeeded quite well under those principles for 100's of years. We do need thinkers like these, because we share a common belief in limited government, both in its use of our tax dollars, and in its ultimate intrusion in our lives and on our liberties, but, conservatives find a rightful place for government intervention in enforcing some of the basic tenets of human rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence that among these are the right to life, one of those inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. I would like to frame this argument as a technical one over when does that life begin, and how do we balance that right with the same rights (not less, not more) held by the mother.
Unfortunately, Roe is a horribly reasoned piece of jurisprudence that doesn't really help draw that line, instead it really draws no lines, leaving us in a position where the "right" to abortion, or, as Doc would euphemize it, the "right to self-determination," is whatever the mother declares it to be. Doc posits that somehow, Laura Ingraham and others of her ilk, from conception forward, want to confer more rights on the baby (or "clump of cells" to use their phraseology) than on the mother. This is a patently false statement. We want to confer equal rights on the mother and on that "clump of cells." This is clearly not an easy or pleasant task for anyone, but amongst reasonable people, we can agree that mothers that find themselves in this situation as a result of some act beyond their control (rape, incest, a credible threat to the mother's life) should be able to avail themselves of abortion technology. Only the most ideological would argue against that, and in a national debate, I think they'd find it very tough going selling that argument. So, while we might be disappointed that not ALL life could be protected, regardless of its genesis, again, reasonable people would likely have to accept some compromise to reach national consensus, because, yes, the mother does have rights, too.
The problem is that abortion has come to be a favored method of birth control, of rolling back the clock, to somehow allow the mother to "regain control of her own existence." I just find this argument extremely uncompelling. Except in the unusual and rare instances above, women in today's sexed-obsessed society know that pregnancy is a risk of intercourse. In case no one's looked, they're teaching sex ed before kids reach puberty these days. In my opinion, and I think it's quite reasonable, the decision about "control of her own existence" was already made at the time of the act.
Doc's post elevates "self-determination" to the highest level of concern, and, I guess, on re-reading, and understanding a little of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I can see where Objectivists, being ideologically pure, would actually support abortion up until the moment a child is born, maybe beyond (which you can see, I am attempting to draw out of Doc in my reply to him). After all, at what point is a human actually capable of really considering their right to "self-determination?" Are we born with it? Or, do we learn it? If the latter, at what point does one become truly capable of making self-determinant decisions? I mean if a Down's Syndrome child, or a child born with some horrible birth defect or illness, or even into seemingly downtrodden and hopeless circumstances can't make their own decisions about self-determination, why shouldn't their parent, or even the state make the decision of whether they should live? Or, how about a panel of Objectivists, they seem to be doing a higher level of thinking than the rest of the proletariat?
This "mystic" can't convince atheists of the existence of God. They can't touch Him, or feel Him, or see any objective evidence (despite it being all around them), so, therefore, He doesn't exist, and we're all derided as "mystics" who want to deprive women of their rights to correct their mistakes through a specious right to self-determination which legalizes abortion on demand and send them to back rooms where they will be butchered (trust me, if we overturned Roe tomorrow, that would not happen, and to think otherwise demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the ruling).
About Doc's slippery-slope argument about masturbation and gay sex and condom use - it's easy to use extreme arguments to prove a point, but the fact that extreme arguments have to be used to prove the point should tell you something about the point being made. This part of his post is just meant to be sensational. Read it though, it's interesting.
To the kinds of people that rail at the legislation of morality, I posted on this days ago. That train long ago left the station.
If anyone's reading, feel free to chime in.
I appreciate that Doc and other Objectivists hold and express these opinions, however wrong I believe they may be. I appreciate the purity of thought that this reasoning displays. And, we need a debate about this in this country, because Roe cut that debate off.
Unfortunately for Objectivist, Western Civilization and this country were not founded on Objectivist principles, they were founded and evolved largely on Judeo-Christian principles, and Western society has succeeded quite well under those principles for 100's of years. We do need thinkers like these, because we share a common belief in limited government, both in its use of our tax dollars, and in its ultimate intrusion in our lives and on our liberties, but, conservatives find a rightful place for government intervention in enforcing some of the basic tenets of human rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence that among these are the right to life, one of those inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator. I would like to frame this argument as a technical one over when does that life begin, and how do we balance that right with the same rights (not less, not more) held by the mother.
Unfortunately, Roe is a horribly reasoned piece of jurisprudence that doesn't really help draw that line, instead it really draws no lines, leaving us in a position where the "right" to abortion, or, as Doc would euphemize it, the "right to self-determination," is whatever the mother declares it to be. Doc posits that somehow, Laura Ingraham and others of her ilk, from conception forward, want to confer more rights on the baby (or "clump of cells" to use their phraseology) than on the mother. This is a patently false statement. We want to confer equal rights on the mother and on that "clump of cells." This is clearly not an easy or pleasant task for anyone, but amongst reasonable people, we can agree that mothers that find themselves in this situation as a result of some act beyond their control (rape, incest, a credible threat to the mother's life) should be able to avail themselves of abortion technology. Only the most ideological would argue against that, and in a national debate, I think they'd find it very tough going selling that argument. So, while we might be disappointed that not ALL life could be protected, regardless of its genesis, again, reasonable people would likely have to accept some compromise to reach national consensus, because, yes, the mother does have rights, too.
The problem is that abortion has come to be a favored method of birth control, of rolling back the clock, to somehow allow the mother to "regain control of her own existence." I just find this argument extremely uncompelling. Except in the unusual and rare instances above, women in today's sexed-obsessed society know that pregnancy is a risk of intercourse. In case no one's looked, they're teaching sex ed before kids reach puberty these days. In my opinion, and I think it's quite reasonable, the decision about "control of her own existence" was already made at the time of the act.
Doc's post elevates "self-determination" to the highest level of concern, and, I guess, on re-reading, and understanding a little of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, I can see where Objectivists, being ideologically pure, would actually support abortion up until the moment a child is born, maybe beyond (which you can see, I am attempting to draw out of Doc in my reply to him). After all, at what point is a human actually capable of really considering their right to "self-determination?" Are we born with it? Or, do we learn it? If the latter, at what point does one become truly capable of making self-determinant decisions? I mean if a Down's Syndrome child, or a child born with some horrible birth defect or illness, or even into seemingly downtrodden and hopeless circumstances can't make their own decisions about self-determination, why shouldn't their parent, or even the state make the decision of whether they should live? Or, how about a panel of Objectivists, they seem to be doing a higher level of thinking than the rest of the proletariat?
This "mystic" can't convince atheists of the existence of God. They can't touch Him, or feel Him, or see any objective evidence (despite it being all around them), so, therefore, He doesn't exist, and we're all derided as "mystics" who want to deprive women of their rights to correct their mistakes through a specious right to self-determination which legalizes abortion on demand and send them to back rooms where they will be butchered (trust me, if we overturned Roe tomorrow, that would not happen, and to think otherwise demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of the ruling).
About Doc's slippery-slope argument about masturbation and gay sex and condom use - it's easy to use extreme arguments to prove a point, but the fact that extreme arguments have to be used to prove the point should tell you something about the point being made. This part of his post is just meant to be sensational. Read it though, it's interesting.
To the kinds of people that rail at the legislation of morality, I posted on this days ago. That train long ago left the station.
If anyone's reading, feel free to chime in.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Poll Results - Christians will BAN abortion! Hurray!
Well, my very scientific, and lightly voted on, poll, is now closed, and the results are in. In case you live in a cave with Obama (oops, I mean Osama), the question was, "Whats' the most HORRIBLE thing the Christian Right will do when they get their way and rule the USA?"
. And here is the rest of it.
- A whopping 36% of poll respondents think that they (we?) will make abortion illegal in all circumstances. I would say that given the premise of the question, that would be a reasonable thing to do. Hey, since most of the people who will be having abortions anyway will be leaving the USA when this occurs, I doubt this will impact them much.
- Coming in 2nd, with 27% of the vote, you think we'll round up all non-Christians and force them to convert. Well, actually, we have a more sinister plan, which ties into the 3rd place item....
- So, in 3rd place, with 18% of the vote, you think we will round up all the atheists and objectivists and send them to our gulag at Gitmo. Well, while this is tempting, we think that Gitmo is a little too nice for these people. We will instead have mercy on those misguided ones and have them watch 7th Heaven re-runs until they convert to Christianity of their own accord, or commit suicide. Oh, by the way, you don't get to watch the Jessica Biel episodes!
- In a tie for 4th place, 9% of you think we're going to make sodomy illegal in all circumstances or define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Let me just first state that there is no desire to do the former, as long as those practicing it are the latter.
. And here is the rest of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)