The Super Bowl ad controversy has been good for something, at least.
In a statement to POLITICO, NOW President Terry O’Neill said that Palin is “missing our point.”
“The goal of the Focus on the Family ad is not to empower women. It’s to create a climate in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned,” O’Neill said. “There are always going to be women who need abortions. In this country, one in three women will have an abortion.”
If one-in-three is your justification for rabidly attacking the public airing of any alternative opinion, then it kind of undermines that whole “Safe, Rare, and Legal” canard, doesn’ t it? And while we’re on the subject, why was there ever lip service paid to the goal of making abortion “rare” if there is nothing wrong with it and it should be a RIGHT anyway?
Anybody? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?
I particularly liked the quick transition from “will need” to “will have“.
As we’re all too aware, the problem here isn’t “women who need abortions.” Nor is it Focus on the Family’s agenda, which is and has always been staunchly and openly pro-life. It’s that the major networks are supposed to turn away voices that dare to dissent from left-liberal orthodoxy, especially on the subject of abortion — and one such voice has been permitted past the barricades.
Left-liberals cannot win arguments with reason and evidence; those things are against them in virtually every case. Therefore, they must gain power and suppress competing messages, evidence, and opinions. There’s no other way to defend a position that defies the laws of nature.
Oops. I just implied that for a woman to kill her baby is somehow depraved and unnatural, didn’t I? My bad. Apologies to everyone who was offended. But I meant it that way, just the same.
Something has always confused me. We bitch about the fed telling us what we can and can not eat, yet the hard right insists telling a woman what she can do with her body.
I got no skin in this game, so it matters not how it eventually comes out.
Dick,
I can think of several opposing views that have more intellectual honesty than what Roe hath wrought, despite the fact that they do not necessarily agree with each other.
1.) It was never rightfully the purview of the federal government, therefore, it was not within the purview of the Court, through Roe, to make the procedure legal in the states where it had previously been illegal. You know, that whole pesky Tenth Amendment thing.
2.) It isn’t just about the woman. There is another life in the balance. The trimester/viability justification employed in Roe has been walked back in succeeding cases, but is still hanging by a thread. It is still an utterly dishonest argument because a pregnant woman will NEVER give birth to anything other than a human being. Acting on a decision to end that life will never be anything other than murder for that reason.
3.) Because a pregnant woman who carries to term will ALWAYS give birth to a human being, a decision by a mother to kill her child by abortion is nothing less than depriving that child of their Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically because by making the process legal, the government is denying equal protection of the laws to a person in their jurisdiction.
Did I mention that I don’t like children? Probably should’ve.
No worries. I’ll never tell your kid, Dick.
Napalm sticks to kids, and Rutherford.
Okay, my best arguments for abortion.
1. Daily Kos.
2. Democratic Underground
3. Nancy Pelosi
4. Harry Reid
5. Barack Obama
Don’t even try. You can’t win.
OMG … I know a sure fire way to make Dick change his mind. For once, I AGREE with Dick! No, not the part about hating kids. Nor his five reasons to support abortion. LOL
There is an incredible inconsistency with folks saying the Fed should stay out of their business and in the same breath demanding that the Fed prevent abortions.
Dick is about to become my favorite crackpot on the Net. A rare conservative who knows hypocrisy when he sees it.
An aside to BiW, another note of logical consistency. If one is truly pro-life two things must follow: 1. NO exceptions other than to save the life of the mother and 2. NO death penalty. Either we consider life sacred or we don’t.
An aside to BiW, another note of logical consistency. If one is truly pro-life two things must follow: 1. NO exceptions other than to save the life of the mother and 2. NO death penalty. Either we consider life sacred or we don’t.
Once again, you seek, you strive, and you fail.
Logic requires consistency. You get this right, and I have never been an exceptions kind of guy on this.
However, you fail on the death penalty. Again, if we just apply the law we already have, i.e. the Fourteenth Amendment, the language is very clear:
“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Taken at it face value, it is clear that government has the right, and perhaps even the duty to take life in order to maintain a safe and just society for all, but only after that life is accorded the due process of law. That’s why you have the right to trial by a jury of your peers if you are in danger of having your life taken from you by the state for your crimes. It is not something lightly undetaken by government, which is why we have the distinction of capital crimes, and why that penalty is reserved for the most heinous acts against public safety, or good order and discpline for men and women under arms, such as murder, desertion, and treason.
In contrast, that “blob of cells” that will be born as a human being is has no such process, and the state stands by silently, hiding behind a morally and logically bankrupt philosophy that it is not rightly a human being until the latest stages of gestation. It is a rationale that has had to be tweaked and walked back since its inception because it is subjective and the objective truth of what actually occurrs is too much to be ignored if we actually call it what it is. This is the real reason why NOW, Planned Parenthood, and others HAVE to attack any contrary message, and why Sarah Palin was in the left’s crosshairs two seconds after McSame chose her to bring voters to his ticket.
This is a case of philosophical as well as constitutional argument. You DO understand that your 14th Amendment argument relies entirely on the definition of “a person” and reasonable people can disagree as to when life, on a cellular level, has become sufficiently complex in its resemblance of a living “person” that it can indeed be called a “person” and afforded any constitutional rights.
You must also concede that your average pro-life advocate is NOT making a constitutional argument. They are making a purely philosophical argument regarding the sanctity of life, and in that arena, pro-life, pro-death penalty is indeed oxymoronic.
While we’re at it, let’s take your 14th amendment due process argument a step further. What if we believed that a pregnant female serial killer suffered from a mental disease that could be inherited by her offspring. Is it then reasonable to demand an abortion from this woman “to maintain a safe and just society for all” since the possibility exists that she will birth an unstable individual? (Damn, even better, can we even execute this woman and then kill the “person” inside her who did no crime?)
Since there is nothing new about abortion, I wonder why the founding fathers did not see fit to address the issue back then?
I didn’t realize R was Catholic…
I don’t think I’ve heard people per say that the fed should prevent abortions- the tenth ammendment says the states should decide- period.
I’m curious R as to were you fall in this:
Pro-abortion (most of the left)
Pro-choice (a sizable portion of America)
Pro-life (most of the right)
You see, this is where things like the Tebow ad come in. It was a pro-choice ad, it just didn’t make the choice the left demands, so it was/is criticized.
I believe abortion should be legal, but heavily regulated. Life style decisions to use abortion are just plain wrong, but seem to be the vogue of the left for whatever reason. To me, the bar is far to low in allowing the procedure.
And I’ve not even gotten into the premise of the fathers rights in all this…
Can’t believe I missed this: “become sufficiently complex in its resemblance of a living “person” that it can indeed be called a “person” and afforded any constitutional rights”.
We can give Constitutional rights to KSM but we can’t give them to a fetus that will grow up to be NOTHING other than a human being?
Please, provide one shred of evidence of that blob of cells turning into ANYTHING other than a human being. If you’re going to use this stupid argument, than back it up with facts that should cast doubt on the outcome of the blob of cells…
I don’t buy your inconsistency argument concerning abortion, being we are arguing about life and death Rutherford as it a well known fact, lefties love to market in unjust death, but assuming one second your right, then perhaps you can explain this inconsistency of the left.
Abortion on demand = A woman’s right! Pro-choice!
School Vouchers = Absolutely not! There will be no school choice.
make that you’re…
Tex,
Lets not forget, the baby never has a choice in being aborted.
OH … BiW I forgot to say that to some degree I agree with the premise of your post. 33% of all women getting abortions is way too high to be considered “rare”.
Is it then reasonable to demand an abortion from this woman “to maintain a safe and just society for all” since the possibility exists that she will birth an unstable individual?
That’s a stupid argument, and you know it. Our laws and courts punish people for things they have done, not what they are capable or might do.
If we go by your standard, you’d be jailed as a potential rapist.
Well, since I knew my hypothetical was a bit absurd, I threw in a different question for good measure (which you chose to avoid). Do we sentence a pregnant serial killer to death? On the one hand, we protect society, as BiW says we should do, but on the other hand we kill an innocent.
Any thoughts, Xbradtc? (BTW, since I’m a fan of word puzzles, should I read your handle as “Brad in ecstasy”?)
My biggest beef is that the pro-abortion folks don’t even want pregnant women to know the facts.
You know, like when the heart starts beating. Stuff like that .
I feel that if more women know the truth, they wouldn’t choose abortion in the numbers they do.
But, from their first menstrual cycle, they’re indoctrinated by that glob of cells bullshit.
Well, since I knew my hypothetical was a bit absurd, I threw in a different question for good measure (which you chose to avoid). Do we sentence a pregnant serial killer to death? On the one hand, we protect society, as BiW says we should do, but on the other hand we kill an innocent.
1. Will you please tell me why for the love of all that’s holy do liberals ALWAYS take the exception and let it define the rule [Which assumes that your absurd hypotheticalwould ever be more than an absurd hypothetical.]???
2. It doesn’t matter, R, because your question assumes that a murderer (and a serial killer, no less) could be tried and convicted before she carries to term. Here in the reality-based world I can tell you that it NEVER WOULD HAPPEN, especially after the exhaustion of the manditory appeals that liberals are so very fond of. This isn’t the High Seas, and your perp is not the infamous Anne Bonney.
3. However, if we totally suspend reality for the purpose of your question, it still assumes that a tribunal could not or would not stay the execution of the sentence until after the child was born. Since courts sit in equity as well as law, if they abandoned the subjective and artificial notions currently employed to depersonalize the unborn child, and recognized the child’s 14th Amendment rights, then a stay of execution would be a necessity.
1. The exception often helps us understand the deficiency of the rule. That is why it is brought up.
2. Touche … LOL you are right … virtually impossible to get executed within nine months of conviction.
3. You answered my question …. you’d support a have your cake and eat it too solution … wait till baby is born and then kill his/her mother. Well done.
1. Piffle and nonsense.
2. Of course I’m right.
3. Have the cake and eat it too? How about be consistent? Mom got the benefit of due process of law before she was sentenced to death. The kid didn’t get that option, and therefore the state had to wait for it to be born. However, if you were to somehow argue that there was a compelling reason for execution immediately, the Court could appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the child, as they do for unrepresented minors, or minors with conflicts of interest with their parents or lawful guardians. Of course every lawyer knows what the guardian ad litem will say, and how the court will rule, which brings us to the same result.
Drones being consistent? Please
You know “progressives” want to control your life, even in the womb.
“OMG … I know a sure fire way to make Dick change his mind. For once, I AGREE with Dick! No, not the part about hating kids. Nor his five reasons to support abortion. LOL
There is an incredible inconsistency with folks saying the Fed should stay out of their business and in the same breath demanding that the Fed prevent abortions.
Dick is about to become my favorite crackpot on the Net. A rare conservative who knows hypocrisy when he sees it.”
Rutherford, on the subject of abortion, we agree fully.
On the subject of you wasting good oxygen, we still have some work to do.
BIW,
Let us not forget the most hollow of the promises made by the pro infanticide crowd after Roe V. Wade:
“This will help to ensure all children will be wanted.”
That one sure panned out. Like all lib promises, the promises fall far short of expectations but there is never a mention of accountability.