Choice
I don't care much about politics and don't have any idea why John McCain chose Sarah Palin to run for vice president. It seems like a weird decision to me, but what do I know? Besides that, there is something in it that I found interesting in today's paper.
Sarah Palin has described herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." According to THIS STORY from yesterday, her anti-abortion position has made Evangelicals comfortable with the Republican ticket -- they weren't that happy with McCain, but McCain-Palin works for them, because of her record of pro-life advocacy, her support for teaching creationism, you know the pattern.
Here's a quote from that article:
And here's a quote from the front page of this morning's Post:
Look, the debate over abortion isn't between those who favor it and those who oppose it. Everybody would prefer that abortion was unnecessary, everybody wishes nobody ever needed one. The debate is between those who think a woman ought to be able to decide for herself when she needs an abortion and those who think the government should make the decision for her.
When my wife was pregnant with one of our kids, we got back an amnio test that suggested the baby might have had Down syndrome, and we discussed it and decided we could love a child with that condition. We decided to have the baby even if further testing showed the presence of the syndrome, which it didn't -- the fact is, it was a discussion we had and a choice that we were empowered to make.
Here the "Christian activists" consider Palin's choice to keep the baby as a testament to her faith.
In the second quote, the same thing, she is proud of her daughter's choice to have her baby at the age of seventeen.
I think it's wonderful that these women chose to have their babies, and I think it's excellent that the choice was theirs to make. Call it a testament to faith, whatever, a woman is pregnant and she has a choice in the matter. She has circumstances to consider, and whether you and I agree with the way she handles the situation, it's hers to handle.
What if Sarah Palin or her daughter had been forced by law to have their babies? Wouldn't that have robbed her of the opportunity to testify to her faith? How proud would they be of their daughter, who was only obeying the law?
We take the freedom to choose for granted.
Sarah Palin opposes the right of women to make these decisions. Can she imagine what it would be like if she got her way?
Sarah Palin has described herself as "pro-life as any candidate can be." According to THIS STORY from yesterday, her anti-abortion position has made Evangelicals comfortable with the Republican ticket -- they weren't that happy with McCain, but McCain-Palin works for them, because of her record of pro-life advocacy, her support for teaching creationism, you know the pattern.
Here's a quote from that article:
In her private life, her religious background -- a spokeswoman for Palin said she regularly attends many nondenominational churches -- and particularly the decision she said she made to have her fifth baby despite being told he had Down syndrome, are powerful testaments for many Christian activists.
And here's a quote from the front page of this morning's Post:
"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned," Palin said in a statement issued Monday by McCain's campaign.. "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support." Hurricane, Palin Roil the Start of GOP Convention
Look, the debate over abortion isn't between those who favor it and those who oppose it. Everybody would prefer that abortion was unnecessary, everybody wishes nobody ever needed one. The debate is between those who think a woman ought to be able to decide for herself when she needs an abortion and those who think the government should make the decision for her.
When my wife was pregnant with one of our kids, we got back an amnio test that suggested the baby might have had Down syndrome, and we discussed it and decided we could love a child with that condition. We decided to have the baby even if further testing showed the presence of the syndrome, which it didn't -- the fact is, it was a discussion we had and a choice that we were empowered to make.
Here the "Christian activists" consider Palin's choice to keep the baby as a testament to her faith.
In the second quote, the same thing, she is proud of her daughter's choice to have her baby at the age of seventeen.
I think it's wonderful that these women chose to have their babies, and I think it's excellent that the choice was theirs to make. Call it a testament to faith, whatever, a woman is pregnant and she has a choice in the matter. She has circumstances to consider, and whether you and I agree with the way she handles the situation, it's hers to handle.
What if Sarah Palin or her daughter had been forced by law to have their babies? Wouldn't that have robbed her of the opportunity to testify to her faith? How proud would they be of their daughter, who was only obeying the law?
We take the freedom to choose for granted.
Sarah Palin opposes the right of women to make these decisions. Can she imagine what it would be like if she got her way?
posted by JimK at 9:02 AM
47 Comments:
Whether to end someone's life is not a lifestyle "choice".
We must all agree that protecting the life of the weak is a vital function of government.
If we free parents to kill their children before they are born if they decide the child will be incovenient and burdensome, under what rationale do we take that right away after the child is born?
Our society must come to a consensus that the life of the weak is more important than the pleasure and convenience of the strong.
We must, as a society, protect every individual.
Posterity will remember what we valued.
We must, as a society, protect every individual.
That's exactly right Anon. So glad that you will now support Bill 23-07.
Vote YES on Question C.
Protect their life and safety, CB, not their immunity from social disapproval.
Here's McCain's view, well one of them. Has he flip-flopped to a new view since 2000?
McCain struggles with sensitive abortion question
By Jonathan Karl/CNN
January 26, 2000
Web posted at: 1:19 p.m. EST (1819 GMT)
MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Republican presidential candidate John McCain, when asked Wednesday what he would do if his 15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion, said it would be a "family decision."
"The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy.
"I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else," McCain told reporters in New Hampshire on board his campaign bus nicknamed "The Straight Talk Express. "Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel."
"the final decision would be made by Meghan"
Abortion is currently legal, unfortunately.
McCain was stating the obvious.
He should, however, refuse to answer such a question and never entertain any questions from the reporter who asked it again, on any subject.
He should, however, refuse to answer such a question and never entertain any questions from the reporter who asked it again, on any subject.
Oh sure! And maybe he should start calling himself "Anonymous" too so he can further cloud his record of flip flops!
I appreciate the anonymous poster stating his opinion, clearly and strongly felt, without attacking others who feel differently.
Abortion is one of the most difficult questions of our time.
rrjr
On September 11, 2006, the Washington Post disclosed a secret report from military intelligence that said prospects for securing the Anbar province in Iraq from insurgents was dim.
This began a rising flood of cries from Democrats and backbone-challenged GOP moderates like John Warner that we need to find an exit strategy to minimize the costs of our defeat in Iraq.
Yesterday, we handed over control of the 11th of 18 Iraqi provinces to our allies, the democratically elected government of Iraq. This victory for liberty was largely due to the vision of three men: General Petraeus, President Bush and Senator McCain.
Expect to hear about it this week at the convention.
The Bush administration which performed so badly in the worst natural catastrophes in history, Katrina, showed this week that it has learned from experience. What a rebound!
Last week, the government revised its numbers for the second quarter, saying GDP rose at an annual rate of 3.3%. Looks like that recession was imaginary after all. Thanks would go to the Bush tax policies.
Many Democrats are now saying that one unconcluded term in office does not qualify one to be VP.
On the theory that it also then wouldn't qualify one to be P, I assume that Sen Obama will soon withdraw from the race.
It's a good time to be a Republican.
The US economy is chugging along and life is good, as long as you ignore pesky facts like:
WASHINGTON — More than one of every 20 home mortgages was delinquent during the last three months of 2007, the highest level in 23 years, according to a report Thursday by the Mortgage Bankers Association.
The group's National Delinquency Survey also found that the rate of foreclosures and the percent of loans in the process of foreclosure reached record levels...
=======
This morning the government is bailing out the housing market's two mortgage giants, ready to reassure investors that they will stay sound.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said, "[These companies'] continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets."
The proposed bailout incudes three big steps: extending lines of credit with the treasury department for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, giving treasury the authority to buy some stock to prop them up, and providing the Federal Reserve Bank authority to oversee both.
==========
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- State regulators closed Florida's First Priority Bank on Friday, marking the eighth bank failure of the year.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which was named the receiver of the failed bank by Florida state officials, entered into an agreement with Atlanta-based SunTrust Bank (STI, Fortune 500) to assume the insured deposits of First Priority.
I see.
The economy is in good shape but a bunch of people have over-extended themselves.
What do you think the government should have done differently or should now do differently?
Do you support the government taking all financial decisions from individuals?
How would Pres Obama have made a difference?
Well, President Obama would have had enough foresight to have included a provision in his American Dream Downpayment Initiative that only fixed rate mortgages would qualify for downpayment assistance, rather than subprime and adjustable rate mortgages. Bush's intiative was used to tempt poor people into homeownership by helping with the downpayment, but there was no requirement how to finance the rest of the cost and risky financing schemes were not excluded. Bush was happy with the inflated numbers of home owners even as he knew the subprime and ARM mortgage bubble became evident.
Here's what Bush said when he signed that legislation into law:
This administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. And this is a good time for the American homeowner. Today we received a report that showed that new home construction last month reached its highest level in nearly 20 years. (Applause.)
The reason that is so is because there is renewed confidence in our economy. Low interest rates help. They have made owning a home more affordable, for those who refinance and for those who buy a home for the first time. Rising home values have added more than $2.5 trillion to the assets of the American family since the start of 2001.
Now that interest rates are climbing and house values are falling, Bush's initiative is proving itself to be a major source of misery for the poor who relied on it to buy homes.
I see. So President Obama would prefer that poor people not own their own home?
I don't think most people feel that is the problem.
The idea that President Obama would have had any type of superior foresight is an untestable assertion, and a questionable assertion as well.
How about now? What does he want to do now that isn't already being done?
Read for yourself
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Just looked at your link to Obama's website. It constitutes a bunch of easy going platitudes like:
"Economy- Obama wants a 21st century global economy"
Brilliant.
Why didn't I think of that?
Still, there wasn't a word about what you said was the big problem:
mortgage defaults.
I ask you again:
What would President Obama do about them?
Hurricane Gustav hit New Orleans during the height of what was supposed to be Southern Decadence, an event which was described as God's reason for Katrina.
Obviously, if we sent all the queer people to reparative therapy (perhaps financed by adjustable-rate loans?), there would be no more huirricanes. QED.
rrjr
I'd prefer that the poor not be manipulated with free down payment money into ruining their credit ratings because there was no advice or requirement that safe, fixed-rate mortgages be used to finance the rest of the cost of their homes. I trust Obama to fix this GOP gimmick.
I'd prefer that we were using the Clinton surplus rather than taking out loans from China to pay for the cost of running our country. I trust Obama to return our bookkeeping to black ink and to eliminate Bush's red ink entries.
I'd prefer that we were using our funds to find and capture Al Qaeda instead of letting our tax dollars be wasted pouring through the sands of Iraq. I trust Obama to bring our troops home and to never send them off to fight for an ever-changing bunch of misguided misplaced rationales.
I'd prefer that our scientists be free to report their findings without interference of Bush's political hacks. I trust Obama to let scientists proceed to make their discoveries rather than trying to spin their findings to fit a political agenda.
I'd prefer that our DOJ didn't politicize it's hiring process and that it's once outstanding Civil Rights Division hadn't been gutted by Bush & Cheney. I trust Obama to repair the damage those idiots have wrought.
I'd prefer that our Commander in Chief order his employees to cooperate with investigations by both the Legislative and Judicial brances of government into Executive Branch wrongdoing rather than claiming "Executive Privilege" to cover his sorry behind. The buck will stop with Barack Obama because he has more integrity than all the neocons put together.
"an event which was described as God's reason for Katrina"
Who did this describin', Robert?
The bigots lose another battle:
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080902/NEWS10/80902026
A New York state Supreme Court judge ruled today that Gov. David Paterson's directive in May to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries is legal in New York.
Justice Lucy Billings in Bronx Supreme Court ruled that to “recognize same-sex marriages legally solemnized in other jurisdictions is consistent with New York’s common law, statutory law, and constitutional separation of powers.”
The ruling rejects an argument from the anti-family Alliance Defense Fund that Paterson overstepped his authority by recognizing same-sex marriages because New York doesn’t itself allow for same-sex marriages.
Bigotry of Red baron belongs to the minority:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/majority-americans-agree-transgender-employees/story.aspx?guid=%7BD2240470-EEB7-48C1-905A-A1CA1F8E99C4%7D&dist=hppr
According to a recent national survey, seven out of ten heterosexual adults (71%) agree that how an employee performs at their job should be the standard for judging an employee, not whether or not they are transgender. The new survey also showed that nearly eight out of ten (79%) heterosexual adults strongly or somewhat agree that how an employee does his or her job should be the standard for judging an employee, not their sexual orientation.
"A New York state Supreme Court judge ruled today that Gov. David Paterson's directive in May to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries is legal in New York."
So what?
"According to a recent national survey, seven out of ten heterosexual adults (71%) agree that how an employee performs at their job should be the standard for judging an employee, not whether or not they are transgender. The new survey also showed that nearly eight out of ten (79%) heterosexual adults strongly or somewhat agree that how an employee does his or her job should be the standard for judging an employee, not their sexual orientation."
Doesn't mean they favor a law with the government enforcing what "should" be.
Jim writes,
Look, the debate over abortion isn't between those who favor it and those who oppose it. Everybody would prefer that abortion was unnecessary, everybody wishes nobody ever needed one. The debate is between those who think a woman ought to be able to decide for herself when she needs an abortion and those who think the government should make the decision for her.
Nice try Jim, but everyone, even you, understand at one level or another that this business of "choice" is about an issue that much like the issue of slavery is about elementary principles of human justice. Government exists for a few very basic reasons (though if the citizens want to expand it they can), one of which is the protection of human life. It is so very basic a function that if a government cannot get that right, there is little hope they can get much else right.
If a woman does not want to get pregnant then that is her right and prerogative. Once a woman is pregnant then the interests of the state in establishing, maintaining and even defending the protection of human life start...since most people understand (well at least those who have not been blinded by self-interest) that it is within their "pay grade" to determine that the "choice" with regards to abortion is not a choice for the one destroyed.
When my wife was pregnant with one of our kids, we got back an amnio test that suggested the baby might have had Down syndrome, and we discussed it and decided we could love a child with that condition. We decided to have the baby even if further testing showed the presence of the syndrome, which it didn't -- the fact is, it was a discussion we had and a choice that we were empowered to make.
While that is oh-so-heart-warming, it does nothing to establish, maintain or defend something as simple a matter of justice as the protection of human life. I could see someone like Jim growing up in the South in 1850 and taking the stand against slavery by releasing their family slaves, all the while maintaining a studied indifference to what their neighbors were doing with their slaves.
Slavery was about the enslavement of human beings; abortion (like capital punishment) is about the destruction of human beings with the permission of the state.
It is as simple as a matter of justice.
Here the "Christian activists" consider Palin's choice to keep the baby as a testament to her faith.
In the second quote, the same thing, she is proud of her daughter's choice to have her baby at the age of seventeen.
I think it's wonderful that these women chose to have their babies, and I think it's excellent that the choice was theirs to make. Call it a testament to faith, whatever, a woman is pregnant and she has a choice in the matter. She has circumstances to consider, and whether you and I agree with the way she handles the situation, it's hers to handle.
What if Sarah Palin or her daughter had been forced by law to have their babies? Wouldn't that have robbed her of the opportunity to testify to her faith? How proud would they be of their daughter, who was only obeying the law?
In a free society there are indeed many, many choices...the unlimited PUBLIC license for the use of PRIVATE lethal force should not be among such choices.
We take the freedom to choose for granted.
I love the freedom to choose...it is so very wonderful to have a variety of choices. Destruction of human life is not a choice, rather it is heading down the path towards barbarism.
Sarah Palin opposes the right of women to make these decisions. Can she imagine what it would be like if she got her way?
Well, since she is a member of Feminists for Life I think I can imagine what it might be like...something along the lines of the slogan of Feminists for Life:
Women Deserve Better than Abortion
Now that is a world where the common good is considered as equally, if not more, important. Still, there are those that simply desire to assert their own will in a show of power and self-interest, waving the bloody coat hanger.
Which choice has the greater potential for making us as a people more repulsed by the violence we find all around us...in the form of war, capital punishment and violent crime? Now that is a question worth pondering...and something that is well within just about everyone's "pay grade", even Barack Obama's.
"I'd prefer that the poor not be manipulated with free down payment money into ruining their credit ratings because there was no advice or requirement that safe, fixed-rate mortgages be used to finance the rest of the cost of their homes. I trust Obama to fix this GOP gimmick."
Funny Obama doesn't mention it on the site you linked to earlier.
Probably because he knows that the idea that assisting someone in making a down payment caused them to default on their loans is so ridiculous, he be laughed at by, well, everyone.
"I'd prefer that we were using the Clinton surplus rather than taking out loans from China to pay for the cost of running our country. I trust Obama to return our bookkeeping to black ink and to eliminate Bush's red ink entries."
Why? Because he has a solid record of alienating his colleagues in the Senate by fighting their pork barrel spending?
Oh, that's right. That's McCain.
Never mind.
"I'd prefer that we were using our funds to find and capture Al Qaeda instead of letting our tax dollars be wasted pouring through the sands of Iraq."
Really? How would spending less result in Bin Laden's capture? What should we do that we're not already doing?
"I trust Obama to bring our troops home and to never send them off to fight for an ever-changing bunch of misguided misplaced rationales."
Actually, he has voted to support what the Democratic leadership told him to vote to support 99% of the time. Why do you think he'd have bucked them on Iraq?
The goal of creating a stable democratic ally in a strategic location is being quickly realized.
Iraq is a loser issue.
"I'd prefer that our scientists be free to report their findings without interference of Bush's political hacks. I trust Obama to let scientists proceed to make their discoveries rather than trying to spin their findings to fit a political agenda."
Really? If they find that evolution theory has some problems, will they be allowed to pursue them.
"I'd prefer that our DOJ didn't politicize it's hiring process and that it's once outstanding Civil Rights Division hadn't been gutted by Bush & Cheney. I trust Obama to repair the damage those idiots have wrought."
Why do you trust him to do that? He has no executive experience to base your belief on.
"I'd prefer that our Commander in Chief order his employees to cooperate with investigations by both the Legislative and Judicial brances of government into Executive Branch wrongdoing rather than claiming "Executive Privilege" to cover his sorry behind. The buck will stop with Barack Obama because he has more integrity than all the neocons put together."
You mean like when he said he ws against NAFTA when he was trying to get blue collar votes and then changed his mind when the primaries were over.
That's old-fashioned integrity.
WASHINGTON (Sept. 2) - Republican John McCain, whose running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teen mothers to stay in school or lose their benefits.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's announcement Monday about her daughter, Bristol, was aimed at rebutting Internet rumors that Palin's youngest son, born in April, was actually her daughter's. Palin said her daughter intends to raise her child and marry the baby's father, who was identified only by his first name, Levi. The baby is due in late December.
McCain's record on issues surrounding teen pregnancy and contraceptives during his more than two decades in the Senate indicates that he and Palin have similar views. Until Monday, when the subject surfaced in a deeply personal manner, teen pregnancy and sex education were not issues in the national political campaign.
Palin herself said she opposes funding sexual-education programs in Alaska.
"The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support," she wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates.
McCain's position on contraceptives and teen pregnancy issues has been difficult to judge on the campaign trail, as he appears uncomfortable discussing such topics. Reporters asked the presumptive GOP presidential nominee in November 2007 whether he supported grants for sex education in the United States, whether such programs should include directions for using contraceptives and whether he supports President Bush's policy of promoting abstinence.
"Ahhh, I think I support the president's policy," McCain said.
When reporters pressed McCain whether the government should provide contraceptives or counseling on contraceptives, he replied, "You've stumped me." McCain said later that he was sure he opposed government spending on contraceptives.
The McCain campaign on Monday did not respond to repeated requests for information.
So you think contraceptives are an entitlement that should be distributed free of charge by the government and that teens get pregnant because the government hasn't told them that sex without contraception causes pregnancy?
News media report "The family asked the media to respect the young couple's privacy as has been the tradition with children of candidates."
Yet "the family" has decided to bring Levi Johnson to the RNC Convention. So we're supposed to respect their privacy but the young unwed pregnant couple is going to be very publicly displayed at the convention.
Gee, I'm glad there's no confusion about how to spin the senior in high school's unplanned premarital pregnancy from the family values crowd.
Whether a woman wants to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term or not, is her choice based on her views.
"Our society must come to a consensus that the life of the weak is more important than the pleasure and convenience of the strong."
McCain struggles with sensitive abortion question
""The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel," McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy."
So basically, John McCain thinks that murder is ok, as long as the family comes to a consensus on it.
Until they're born of course - Then screw 'em!
this business of "choice" is about an issue that much like the issue of slavery is about elementary principles of human justice.
Great analogy, Orin. Is a woman a slave to her reproductive organs or does she have the right to decide for herself when she will and will not bear children? Just because you believe God put life inside her, does she have to believe that too -- is she a slave to your beliefs? No, this is America and she is free to hold her own beliefs and make her own decisions based on them.
Every woman has the right to decide if she wants to put her body through the risk of bearing children or not. If she's willing to take that risk but unable to conceive naturally, then I think we agree she should be free to seek fertility treatments. If she conceives naturally but did not intend to do so and has no desire to risk bringing a child into the world, then IMHO she should be equally free to terminate the pregnancy.
If a woman does not want to get pregnant then that is her right and prerogative. Once a woman is pregnant then the interests of the state in establishing, maintaining and even defending the protection of human life start.
If the state has this "in utero" interest then why doesn't it allow the tax deduction until the child is born?
If a woman does not intend to become pregnant, but does so by accident, the state has no right telling her she must take the medical risk to carry the pregnancy to term. She must decide for herself if she wishes to take that medical and life altering risk, just like Bristol Palin did.
If we make abortion illegal in this country again, back alley abortionists will meet women's needs and women will once again die. Is that what you really want?
The answer to that question, Aunt Bea, would be "yes". If a woman has gotten herself into a situation where she might decide to terminate a pregnancy she shoud then suffer the consequences - even if it means it cripples her life or results in death. Women should be much more careful in sharing their sexual desires. After all, we can't expect the male to make responsible decisions (as per Mr. Johnston in Alaska) so the burden must fall on the woman. This is the thinking of groups like "Focus on the Family" and "Citizens for a Responsible Government (sic)" And...I do question Bristol Palin's so-called decision not to abort her fetus. That decision was made for her by her mother, who has agreed to consign her daughter to all of this public humiliation and a marriage destined for failure.
How's that for "Family Values"?
A concerned citizen
The campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., likes to herald the independence of its new running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she and her husband were once member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United State.
And while McCain's motto -- as seen in a new TV ad -- is "Country First," the AIP's motto is the exact opposite -- "Alaska First -- Alaska Always."
another lie from the liberal blogosphere
she is and always has been Republican
Todd belonged to the AIP but that just gives them another interesting edge
The anonymoit, in his inimitable way asked, "Really? If they find that evolution theory has some problems, will they be allowed to pursue them."
You have underscored the basic bankruptness of Intelligent Design, which isn't science, but simple sniping at sound evolutionary theory.
rrjr
BTW, hurray for New York for moving a little step closer towards marriage equality and family values that include all families.
"You have underscored the basic bankruptness of Intelligent Design, which isn't science, but simple sniping at sound evolutionary theory."
It's called skepticism, Robert. If there are rational and empirical problems, they need to be tested and understood.
That you feel that the theory of evolution is beyond the scrutiny that other scientific theories are subject to, demonstrates that you have embraced Darwinism, a religious philosophy which believes that the theory of evolution is beyond questioning.
You're a member of NEA, right?
Funny you should mention the NEA, Anonymous Troll.
The NEA stands for these, among other American values: "We believe public education is the gateway to opportunity. All students have the human and civil right to a quality public education that develops their potential, independence, and character." and "We believe public education is vital to building respect for the worth, dignity, and equality of every individual in our diverse society", and "We believe public education is the cornerstone of our republic. Pulbic education provides individuals with the skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our representative democracy."
You have shown, over and over and over again here, that you do not support or believe in any of these value statements. You want to replace intellect (which you equate with "elitism") with religious subservience and anti-illectualism, you are opposed to equal rights and protections for anyone who is not exactly like you, you constantly carp and moan about human and civil rights, and you have beat to death your angry opposition to the concepts of worth, dignity, and equality of every individual in our diverse society.
Is there anything of value and merit that you do stand for?
In a word, you are a loser.
RT
"The NEA stands for these, among other American values: "We believe public education is the gateway to opportunity. All students have the human and civil right to a quality public education that develops their potential, independence, and character." and "We believe public education is vital to building respect for the worth, dignity, and equality of every individual in our diverse society", and "We believe public education is the cornerstone of our republic. Pulbic education provides individuals with the skills to be involved, informed, and engaged in our representative democracy.""
Nice little ramble by the NEA, Robert.
How do they reconcile this with their opposition to school choice, where kids in the inner city might have a chance to escape dangerous and worthless "schools" and actually achieve some of what the NEA claims to want for them?
It's clear to everyone that NEA is concerned about the welfare of its members, teachers, not the welfare of their members' clients, students.
It's clear to everyone
What's clear to everyone is that Anon wants taxpayer money to support religious institutions via school vouchers when America's founding fathers were clear on this point: they erected a wall of separation between religion and the state, a wall that Anon wants to tear down.
during the time of the founding fathers, all education was religious
the Constitution is not anti-religion, it is neutral to religion
so is school choice
if it turns out to favor religion because religious organizations are better at education, it is not the place of government to level the playing field
that would be attacking religion which is just as anti-constitutional as supporting it
bottom line is that innumerable kids in poverty could be given a hope and an education were it not for the NEA fighting with all their might to prevent alternatives for parents who can't afford private schools
if you're worried that choice funds would go mainly to religious organizations, start some high-quality secular schools
don't undermine the hopes of the disadvantaged
John McCain on NBC's, Meet The Press, 1/30/00
Mr. Russert: “A Constitutional Amendment to ban all abortions?”
McCain: “Yes Sir”
Mr. Russert: “But, Senator, women across the country would say, prior to Roe v. Wade, hundreds of thousands of women a year went to the back alleys to have abortions.”
McCain responded: “I understand that.”
Mr. Russert: “Many died.”
McCain, “I understand that.”
So John McCain said he understands that women will die if a Constitutional Amendment were to render all abortions illegal in the US.
He did not say he cared.
Mr. Russert: “A Constitutional Amendment to ban all murder?”
McCain: “Yes Sir”
Mr. Russert: “But, Senator, people across the country would say that hundreds of thousands of them a year would have to hire illegal hitmen.”
McCain responded: “I understand that.”
Mr. Russert: “Many would die.”
McCain, “I understand that.”
Well gosh golly! Surprise surprise! My transcript is factual and Anon's is lies and spin.
We know you have a hard time accepting reality. Thanks for confirming it.
I wrote
this business of "choice" is about an issue that much like the issue of slavery is about elementary principles of human justice.
Great analogy, Orin. Is a woman a slave to her reproductive organs or does she have the right to decide for herself when she will and will not bear children?
Dear Aunt Bea,
Have you ever heard of "competing interests"? No, a woman is not any sort of "slave" to her reproductive organs, though I fail to see how this has much of a bearing on establishing, maintaining and defending norms of human decency.
Please, do explain.
Just because you believe God put life inside her, does she have to believe that too -- is she a slave to your beliefs?
Did I drag God into this discussion? Please, please quote me... Yes I know the Christian Right wants to theocratize this argument, but like Nat Hentoff of The Village Voice, a pro-life Atheist, I have little interest, and even less patience with these folks. Much like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I affirm that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." And there is nothing more unjust than having your most fundamental right violated - goodness, at least with human slavery there was a hope of freedom.
Aunt Bea continues, answering her own question,
No, this is America and she is free to hold her own beliefs and make her own decisions based on them.
Principles of Justice are not so idiosyncratic, nor should be allowed to permit self interest to violate the common good.
In Book 1 of The Republic, the reader is introduced to a couple of ideas seeking to define what is Justice. The first idea is that Justice is giving everyone what is owed them. A second idea, and idea that bears close resemblance to the "pro-choice" argument, is that Justice is the advantage of the stronger. Both ideas are dispensed with in Book 1, leaving Book 2 thru 10 free to explore this, and other ideas in more complexity than could ever be expressed on a bumper sticker.
Might does not make right, and it is for that very reason I would oppose an amendment to the Constitution banning all abortions. A genuine Culture of Life (which will include the elimination of capital punishment) will in turn bring forth laws reflecting a support for women and the children that they bear. It will be embraced as something so natural as the start of a human life.
Every woman has the right to decide if she wants to put her body through the risk of bearing children or not. If she's willing to take that risk but unable to conceive naturally, then I think we agree she should be free to seek fertility treatments. If she conceives naturally but did not intend to do so and has no desire to risk bringing a child into the world, then IMHO she should be equally free to terminate the pregnancy.
Ah, the risk factor...which happily in this country is mostly a thing of the past, thanks in no small measure to the advances in medical technology, advances which also make it increasingly difficult to deny what happens when a woman decides (but ONLY after much agonizing with her Dr. and the Flying Spaghetti Monster if she worships one) to "terminate" her pregnancy - a human life is destroyed.
Previously, I wrote,
If a woman does not want to get pregnant then that is her right and prerogative. Once a woman is pregnant then the interests of the state in establishing, maintaining and even defending the protection of human life start.
If the state has this "in utero" interest then why doesn't it allow the tax deduction until the child is born?
That is a good idea...problem is this: the moment pro-life advocates would push such a measure it would be the "pro-choice" crowd that would stop this idea by any means necessary because then it would legally establish the personhood of nascent human life.
If a woman does not intend to become pregnant, but does so by accident, the state has no right telling her she must take the medical risk to carry the pregnancy to term. She must decide for herself if she wishes to take that medical and life altering risk, just like Bristol Palin did.
Other than on the strength of raw political power you have made no substantial argument on behalf of state granting an unlimited license for the use of private lethal force (keeping in mind this - nowhere in American society is this allowed...an elementary school teacher suspects a 3rd grade student of theirs is being abused...what happens next? - (I think you know the answer already) the legal apparatus of the State kicks in and takes over until there is a determination that a crime has taken place - this is a good thing...children deserve to be loved and protected.)
Do you have an argument, or not?
If we make abortion illegal in this country again, back alley abortionists will meet women's needs and women will once again die. Is that what you really want?
Ahhh, run the bloody coat hanger up the flag pole? Good grief...do you have an argument, or simply a string of fallacies you memorized from bumper stickers and rallies? You do know that the number of women that died from so-called "back alley abortionists" was grossly exaggerated for political purposes, don't you?
Then Anonymous Anonymous writes,
The answer to that question, Aunt Bea, would be "yes". If a woman has gotten herself into a situation where she might decide to terminate a pregnancy she shoud then suffer the consequences - even if it means it cripples her life or results in death. Women should be much more careful in sharing their sexual desires. After all, we can't expect the male to make responsible decisions (as per Mr. Johnston in Alaska) so the burden must fall on the woman. This is the thinking of groups like "Focus on the Family" and "Citizens for a Responsible Government (sic)" And...I do question Bristol Palin's so-called decision not to abort her fetus. That decision was made for her by her mother, who has agreed to consign her daughter to all of this public humiliation and a marriage destined for failure.
How's that for "Family Values"?
A concerned citizen
Dear Concerned Citizen,
If you would like to be a smart ass that is your right. However, you should not expect serious people to indulge you.
My desire is that nobody endanger their own lives, or the lives of anyone else.
As for Bristol Palin's "public humiliation"...what planet are you living on? The last vestiges of shame connected with unwed pregnancy and childbearing went away a while ago.
Wow...and I thought I was out of touch.
Have you ever heard of "competing interests"?
Orin, I'm a woman, mother and wife, I know "competing interests" quite well. I've also heard of the "common good." Let's work together to reduce the need for abortion by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. Let's support comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence and includes a demonstration of the proper way to use birth control like condoms.
I have a private and personal interest in controlling my reproductive system. You seem to want to lay some "common good" claim to controlling it to support of your religious view. Your "competing interest" in what goes on in my uterus, however, is misplaced, out of bounds, and a foul because what goes on in my uterus is none of your or society's business. I have a right to privacy and to care for my body as I see fit. If a tumor or cyst or fertilized egg ends up unexpectedly in my uterus, I may have it removed.
Did I drag God into this discussion? Please, please quote me...
Did I say you dragged God into this discussion? No, I drew on my understanding of your faith expressed on this blog. Over the years we've both been commenting here, you have told us that your faith in the LDS church waned and you became Catholic. For example, you said
Everyone where I work (a public state university) knows that I am for the most part a bible-believing Christian (albeit of the Roman Catholic flavor).
I assumed you believed the Catholic Church's view on conception and ensoulment and that your belief has been the basis of your views on abortion. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Feel free to straighten out my misperceptions.
And there is nothing more unjust than having your most fundamental right violated
Unless it's having three of your fundament rights violated. I am a real person. I exist legally and in every other sense. I work and pay taxes, vote and obey the law. An embryo in my uterus is at most a potential person, and may become a real, legal, existing person if I decide to risk going full term. However, if I choose not to continue an unplanned pregnancy, no one has the right to force me to. Forcing me to continue with the medical risk of pregnancy would be a violation of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Ah, the risk factor...which happily in this country is mostly a thing of the past
Oh, that's too easy for a man who will never face the risk of pregnancy to say, and a white man at that. Try telling that to American women who are African American or Hispanic, whose rates of maternal mortality rival some third world countries. The United States ranks 41st in maternal mortality in the world and dead last among industrialized nations. We are the greatest country on the face of the Earth, we should have the lowest rate of maternal mortality and be ranked Number One in the World! Pregnancy still poses fatal and debilitating risks and each woman must weigh the general risk in the population as well as her family history to make her own decision.
I said, "If the state has this "in utero" interest then why doesn't it allow the tax deduction until the child is born?"
Orin replied, "That is a good idea..problem is this: the moment pro-life advocates would push such a measure it would be the "pro-choice" crowd that would stop this idea by any means necessary because then it would legally establish the personhood of nascent human life"
Well, you finally got to it. The problem is it would legally establish the personhood of nascent human life, and no, that is not a good idea. You could give them "nascent" personhood I suppose, but they'll just have to wait to be born, just like a person has to wait to reach the age of majority to be legally declared an adult.
Do you have an argument or not?
Yes Orin, I've made several. My main argument is simple; it's my body and my choice. I'm sorry you don't like that argument, but that's how it is. What goes on in my uterus or the uterus of any other woman (except one where you have fertilized the egg) is none of your business! Butt out!
Maybe you'll want to read some simple facts about back alley abortions before your bias leads you to stray from the facts. Back-alley abortions performed by physicians might be safe, but when they are performed by non-medically trained people or when they are self-induced, they are almost never safe. Women always have and always will find ways to end unplanned pregnancies, even at the risk of death. You are deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. Abortion has to remain safe and legal. Instead of deceiving ourselves about reality, we should work to educate our teenagers before they become sexually active about abstinence and how to prevent unplanned pregnancy so we can continue to reduce the demand for abortion in this country.
Previously I wrote,
Have you ever heard of "competing interests"?
To which Aunt Bea replied,
Orin, I'm a woman, mother and wife, I know "competing interests" quite well. I've also heard of the "common good." Let's work together to reduce the need for abortion by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies. Let's support comprehensive sex education that advocates abstinence and includes a demonstration of the proper way to use birth control like condoms.
Ah, the Clintonian cliche of making abortion "safe, legal and rare"...problem is that the moment you make something legal, you will almost surely make it more commonplace...as abortion has become.
Contraceptive sex education has a focus, as does Abstinence sex education, and that focus is the promotion of birth control pills for the girls and condoms for the boys with just enough of the "well, we really don't think it is a good idea you become sexually active, so the best course is to abstain for sexual activity, but we understand, and..." and then the focus is back on STD prevention and contraception. In a sexually permissive...even licentious...culture such a message very quickly gets drowned out in the din and noise of what passes for our culture these days.
We make people responsible when they drink and drive, correct? Why? Because of the harm it causes to others...so why do we carve out an exception for abortion? Yes, pregnancy is a burden that is entirely borne by women, however the permissive abortion culture we now have cheapens human life.
I have a private and personal interest in controlling my reproductive system. You seem to want to lay some "common good" claim to controlling it to support of your religious view. Your "competing interest" in what goes on in my uterus, however, is misplaced, out of bounds, and a foul because what goes on in my uterus is none of your or society's business. I have a right to privacy and to care for my body as I see fit. If a tumor or cyst or fertilized egg ends up unexpectedly in my uterus, I may have it removed.
Nice try, but it is a biological FACT (and isn't that what TTF is all about? Teach the FACTS?) that human life starts at the moment of conception.
What I find so odd about contemporary American legal culture is how selective it is about where moral sentiment will be imposed as a matter of law. Take smoking for example...we have made all manner of legislation against smoking a high public priority, and rightly so because of the harm it poses to public health. Ask some smokers though and you will get a different picture; that it is nobodys damn business if they want to smoke, so butt out would be what they would say. We do know the risks that pregnancy, as well as abortions performed by unqualified personnel, but how about the destruction of human life via a permissive abortion culture? I suspect the lack of progress in abolishing Capital Punishment is due in no small measure to the moral callousness that this abortion culture has caused to develop around our conscience.
Despite your morally reductionistic assertions, most people recognize a moral difference in a tumor, cyst and early human life.
Again, previously I wrote,
Did I drag God into this discussion? Please, please quote me...
Did I say you dragged God into this discussion? No, I drew on my understanding of your faith expressed on this blog. Over the years we've both been commenting here, you have told us that your faith in the LDS church waned and you became Catholic. For example, you said
Everyone where I work (a public state university) knows that I am for the most part a bible-believing Christian (albeit of the Roman Catholic flavor).
I assumed you believed the Catholic Church's view on conception and ensoulment and that your belief has been the basis of your views on abortion. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. Feel free to straighten out my misperceptions.
When I first became pro-life I was Agnostic, having left the LDS faith; in becoming Catholic I was embracing one of the few faiths that really took this issue seriously. And while catholicism informs my thinking on it, it does not determine my thinking. What does then? The moral philosophy that weak, the ill and the voiceless should not be shortchanged Justice because of the advantage of the stronger (the I'm Pro-Choice and I Vote school of philosophy).
And there is nothing more unjust than having your most fundamental right violated
Unless it's having three of your fundament rights violated. I am a real person. I exist legally and in every other sense. I work and pay taxes, vote and obey the law. An embryo in my uterus is at most a potential person, and may become a real, legal, existing person if I decide to risk going full term. However, if I choose not to continue an unplanned pregnancy, no one has the right to force me to. Forcing me to continue with the medical risk of pregnancy would be a violation of my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Limits on life and liberty can and are placed with due process of the laws. Someone convicted of murder and sentenced to be executed has their life deprived of them only after a due process of the laws is administered, yet nascent human life is preserved only at the whim of the woman, her (abortion) doctor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (if she even worships any authority higher than her own will).
"An embryo in my uterus is at most a potential person, and may become a real, legal, existing person if I decide to risk going full term." That is the fiction you and many others tell themselves in order to obscure the moral reality of what is taking place. Advocates of American style slavery did it, the Nazis did it as well and now we are doing it...not something to be proud of, and certainly not something that would suggest moral progress.
Ah, the risk factor...which happily in this country is mostly a thing of the past
Oh, that's too easy for a man who will never face the risk of pregnancy to say, and a white man at that. Try telling that to American women who are African American or Hispanic, whose rates of maternal mortality rival some third world countries. The United States ranks 41st in maternal mortality in the world and dead last among industrialized nations. We are the greatest country on the face of the Earth, we should have the lowest rate of maternal mortality and be ranked Number One in the World! Pregnancy still poses fatal and debilitating risks and each woman must weigh the general risk in the population as well as her family history to make her own decision.
So, are you then advocating (shades of the demon spirit of Margaret Sanger beckoning) that we provide these groups with more abortion?
Come now, for a majority of women this is NOT a factor...it interfers with educational plans, career plans, vacation plans...in short, life. Please, don't make me pull up the Guttmacher Institute study on this...darn, you did anyway. Please, take a quick read,
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
page 113
Now, to be sure, some of the reasons have more of an air of seriousness to them, while others really do appear to be for what many would consider morally trivalizing reasons (my favorite in this category? "Having a baby would dramatically change my life" at 74 DUH!!! As a stay-at-home dad for 5 years I can attest to that fact...)
You wrote "If the state has this "in utero" interest then why doesn't it allow the tax deduction until the child is born?"
To which I replied, "That is a good idea..problem is this: the moment pro-life advocates would push such a measure it would be the "pro-choice" crowd that would stop this idea by any means necessary because then it would legally establish the personhood of nascent human life"
And then you reply, Well, you finally got to it. The problem is it would legally establish the personhood of nascent human life, and no, that is not a good idea. You could give them "nascent" personhood I suppose, but they'll just have to wait to be born, just like a person has to wait to reach the age of majority to be legally declared an adult.
Then why ask the question, as you originally did? Most would consider such a rhetorical tactic suggestive of someone that is insincere.
Then I wrote,
Do you have an argument or not?
Yes Orin, I've made several. My main argument is simple; it's my body and my choice. I'm sorry you don't like that argument, but that's how it is. What goes on in my uterus or the uterus of any other woman (except one where you have fertilized the egg) is none of your business! Butt out!
To the contrary, what you have done is assert the advantage of the stronger as a principle of human justice (frankly not a solid foundation for establishing any sort of principles of human justice). The wanton destruction of human life is EVERYONES business, so we will not be butting out.
Maybe you'll want to read some simple facts about back alley abortions before your bias leads you to stray from the facts. Back-alley abortions performed by physicians might be safe, but when they are performed by non-medically trained people or when they are self-induced, they are almost never safe. Women always have and always will find ways to end unplanned pregnancies, even at the risk of death. You are deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. Abortion has to remain safe and legal. Instead of deceiving ourselves about reality, we should work to educate our teenagers before they become sexually active about abstinence and how to prevent unplanned pregnancy so we can continue to reduce the demand for abortion in this country.
Rather than repeating pro-choice talking points, please...an argument that is based on something other than self-interested raw political power (I pay taxes, vote, can lobby public officials, etc). Crack open The Republic...takes a bit of effort, but it may help you in this area.
Yes, pregnancy is a burden that is entirely borne by women, however the permissive abortion culture we now have cheapens human life.
Well, that's your opinion and you are entitled to it but mine differs, and I'm entitled to my own opinion too. I think forcing every woman facing an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy to continue with it, cheapens human life. Every child deserves to be wanted and provided for.
Nice try, but it is a biological FACT (and isn't that what TTF is all about? Teach the FACTS?) that human life starts at the moment of conception.
No Orin, potential life begins with conception. Spontaneous abortions occur frequently. Life begins at viability. Or as HerbBlock pointed out years ago, Life begins at 40! (That's a joke!)
Your analogy about smokers is interesting, but wrong. My uterus harms no one but potentially me, but my second hand smoke does harm others. You keep going back to your opinion that a fetus is a life but it's not, it's only a potential life. The woman, however, is a living person and no one can force her to remain pregnant if she chooses not to risk it.
Despite your morally reductionistic assertions, most people recognize a moral difference in a tumor, cyst and early human life.
Well of course, they are entitled to their opinions and to act on them. So am I.
That's an interesting spiritual journey you've described. I still disagree with your opinions and still control what goes on in my uterus as does each woman.
(if she even worships any authority higher than her own will).
Now you're getting it. It's HER choice to worship or not, to believe as you or I do or not, to continue with an unplanned pregnancy or not, etc.
I said..."An embryo in my uterus is at most a potential person, and may become a real, legal, existing person if I decide to risk going full term."
You replied...That is the fiction
No, Orin, that is the fact. If an embryo matures, develops, is born and survives, then it has become a person. Until it clears all those hurdles, it's only a potential person.
So, are you then advocating (shades of the demon spirit of Margaret Sanger beckoning) that we provide these groups with more abortion?
Come now, for a majority of women this is NOT a factor...
No, I'm pointing out that the pregnancy can be fatal. Pregnancy is not risk free. Each woman must decide for herself if she wishes to risk it or not. And further, I'm suggesting we reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancy through education, particularly through comprehensive sex education including the proper use of birth control like condoms.
Then why ask the question, as you originally did?
To point out another difference between nascent and actual persons. You are free to believe they are one and the same and I am free to believe they are not. Apparently the IRS agrees with me.
The wanton destruction of human life is EVERYONES business, so we will not be butting out.
My decision to have a baby or not is no one's business but my own and Orin, that's true for every woman. Sorry you don't like my arguments; I don't like yours either.
Previously I wrote,
The wanton destruction of human life is EVERYONES business, so we will not be butting out.
And then you "responded",
My decision to have a baby or not is no one's business but my own and Orin, that's true for every woman. Sorry you don't like my arguments; I don't like yours either.
Thank you for so simply expressing what Thrasymachus did in Book 1 of The Republic, the advantage of the stronger, otherwise known as might makes right. This is the heart and soul of the "pro-choice" position.
Aunt Bea, I don't like liver and onions, no matter how good it might be considered for my health. You may not like another type of food...however this matter, the unlimited public license of private lethal force is a violation of human justice, and a majority of those that are able to think beyond self-interested political will know this to be true, much like the math equation of 2 plus 2 equaling 4.
You, and others like you can maintain that this equals 5, but this will not change the fundamental truth of this equation, or, for that matter, the equation of human justice that requires us to protect the weak, the ill, the elderly and yes, even those that are not yet able to have any voice (and depend on others).
Orin, you are like a broken record, "I believe X so it's true and you must act like you believe it too." No Orin, your beliefs about "human justice" have no bearing on my medical and procreative decisions. My family is just as free as your family to live our own lives as we see fit. I don't tell you how to decide to handle unplanned pregnancies and you don't tell me. We each get to focus on our own family.
IMHO it's the social conservatives' holier-than-thou-mission to tell everyone how to run their lives that has lead to their decline as a political force. Palin seems to have put some wind behind their sails, and we'll see if her bump lasts or fades, but big segments of the country are becoming appalled as her extreme positions come out.
Palin talks out of both sides of her mouth on abortion, saying she respects others' views and at the same time saying she would work toward passage of a constitutional amendment that would actually force rape and incest victims to carry any resultant pregnancies full term, victimizing girls and women a second time, unless their life was in danger. If that's the social conservatives' poster girl, you can keep her.
The change we need is coming.
Post a Comment
<< Home