Posted on 02/14/2007 7:28:54 PM PST by rodomila
I agree. It's lousy with Bush sycophants and Rudy sycophants.
HONK!!! He would make a great running mate for Duncan Hunter.
I certainly hope I can vote for the GOP nominee against the little Marxist from Illinois/Arkansas/New York.
I'm proud to be a right wing KOOK as well. In particular my initials already point me in that direction.
My initials are KO, OK?
KO,OK? ---> KOOK? ---> KOOK
and proud of it.
I think you will --- it's a must. I am pleased that our candidates are speaking nicely about one another, but when the debates commence, it'll get heated and that's fine too. With maybe one or two exceptions, I think our candidates will support and campaign for the rival who wins the nomination.
LOL That's pretty kool. :)
Dominic, I'm a Rudy supporter and while Fierce Allegiance doesn't want Rudy to win the nomination and is supporting Hunter he has said that he will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is.
See tag line.
Rodomila Who?
Got it.
MM
The only situation that would cause me to vote for Rudy is if the only choice is Rudy or the former First Bitch.
That sums up alot of folks feelings.
The short answer is that I don't value all human life the way that you do, if I understand your position.
***I find this way of looking at things brings a weary sadness to my heart.
In the case of abortion, I agree the fetus is a human. But to me, it's a human at such an undeveloped state that doing away with it doesn't bother me.
***Well, saying that "doing away with" an acknowledged human life doesn't bother you is a very honest thing to say. It really should bother you, and I don't know how the death of innocent ones doesn't cry out for justice in your conscience. I will pray for you. During the Roe v Wade court arguments, one of the key components was the age of viability, which seems to be what you're bringing up here. The problem is, once again, the current law is behind on biological advances & Medicine. Many of the late term abortions could survive outside the womb, and would meet the legal definition of viable. Soon we will have the ability to transfer fetuses to surrogate wombs and then there will be no moral excuse to kill that baby.
And when compared to what is likely to happen if that mother has the child she doesn't want, especially in the case of young, poor, urban mothers . . .
***who could easily put up that baby for adoption... and then everyone involved is better off.
I read an interesting book called, "Freakonomics" a while back. One of the chapters in it put forth an interesting theory. Crime rates started declining in the early 90s. 18 or so years after abortion first became illegal. They theorized that a high percentage of the babies who were aborted would have grown up to be criminals, because they were largely to urban, poor, uneducated mothers.
***Sounds like a violation of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is the best. Crime rates declined in the early 90's because the economy was better. I read an interesting book that you might consider, since you like non-fiction. The biggest selling non-fiction title of the entire decade of the 1970's was "Late Great Planet Earth" by Hal Lindsay. Maybe it will awaken that dormant conscience of yours.
Cold, and harsh, I understand. But I'm ok with that. I'm at peace with my hard heart!
***I don't see how you can proceed from acknowledging that your position is cold and harsh, your heart is hard, and that this is somehow a superior moral position to pro-life? Why would you want to lead others to think like this? Do you really think it makes for a better president to be so callous about human life?
I fully understand why others like yourself feel differently. I would understand why you would want your states to have laws against it.
***Do you fully understand why slavery has been outlawed? I understand that people would still view outlawing abortion laws as an intrusion of Gov't into their lives (which is very American). You could view it with slavery that it was a terrible intrusion into their lives. But what about the slaves' lives? Was it an intrusion into theirs? The right to privacy ends where a person abuses that right and does not countenance another's person right to LIBERTY in the case of slavery or LIFE in the case of a preborn human. It was very american to resist guvmint intrusion into the rights of slaveholders, but that had to be dealt with for the good of our society. Looking at it from a purely numbers approach, there were maybe 2-400k dead( ? ~10^5) in the Civil War. There are maybe 100 times (2 orders of magnitude) more than that ( ? ~10^7) dead in the abortion thing. We already have not done better with this moral issue than we did with slavery.
I'm actually not really thinking in terms of 'viability', to be honest. I'm thinking purely in terms of outcomes.
I personally don't feel that every human life will be a good thing to have around. If, say, a crack-addicted mother is going to have 10 kids, and 9 of them will grow up to be thieves, to me it would have been better if all of them had been aborted. Purely hypothetical, of course. But that's my thinking.
Adoption certainly is one possible solution. But short of forcibly removing children from unfit parents, that doesn't seem to be an option that is chosen most of the time. People who do not want the babies will abort them. If they don't, and are forced for whatever reason to carry the baby to term, they seem very reluctant to give the baby up for adoption many times. I don't get it, but that seems to be the case.
Cold hearted, yes. That's one of the knocks often levelled against those of us who believe in a conservative use of federal power. Like our stances on welfare, and crime, and war, and the border, and illegal immigrants, and the death penalty, and . . .
The simplest explanation is the best. Crime rates declined in the early 90's because the economy was better.
It was an excellent book. Levitt, the guy who did the numbers analysis, is something of a genius and had some good data behind the theory. But it is just a theory, of course. But I think that is one of the simplest answers. Aborted babies are unwanted babies, with parents typically unable to raise those kids right. Children in those circumstances are at a high risk of growing up to be criminals.
It's a fascinating book. There's one chapter analyzing names, and how people turned out. One poor black family in NYC named one kid 'Winner' (they called him 'Win') and one kid 'Loser' (they called him 'Lou'). 'Win' grew up to be a career criminal, and 'Lou' grew up to be a cop. They also submitted identical resumes for jobs, one with a name like 'Judy' and another with a name like 'LaShandra'. The normal 'Judy' names got invited for interviews far, far more often.
Cool book.
The idea of 'defining' ouselves as this, or that. "I'm a conservative" or "You're a liberal".
I think I'm going to try and start saying more, "I believe in the conservative use of govt power". Or, "You're talking about a liberal use of govt power".
'Conservative' has come to mean so many different things, some of them completely opposite from each other.
I'm actually not really thinking in terms of 'viability', to be honest. I'm thinking purely in terms of outcomes.
***I often aproach it in terms of outcomes as well. Tens of Millions of dead babies. What can I do to change that outcome?
I do have an policy proposal based upon the age of viability, but this isn't the right time nor place to discuss it.
With all due respect, you're sidestepping. Please answer the contentions and address the analogy developed in post #319 and the last paragraph in #353.
Oh, sorry -- I'm at work, posting around building some web tools. Sometimes I miss answering every point.
The analogy to slavery?
Specificaly, if I understand you, you're asking do I believe that every human being in America should have the legal protection from being killed in all instances, I think?
To me, the answer is not in all circumstances. One example that would be relevant here I believe you might agree with would be abortion when the life of the mother is at stake.
To me, if the mother decides that she for whatever reason can not care for and raise her baby, it should be her right to terminate it before live birth.
Once born, I can see that the baby then gains the protections. But before it's born, it's in a state that I believe makes terminating it, ending it's life, not to be a very big deal at all.
Certainly, adoption is a better option in most cases. But for whatever reasons, there seem to be many folks who will not choose this. So for those people, the mothers who feel they can not or will not raise the baby properly and will not choose adoption -- abortion is probably a good option in many cases. The choice should be up to the mother.
The analogy to slavery?
***Yes. The expansion of the definition of who had rights in our society, not necessarily an intrusion of guvmint. Because as a society we came to believe that slaves were people too, and they had the right to life/LIBERTY/pursuit of happiness.
Specificaly, if I understand you, you're asking do I believe that every human being in America should have the legal protection from being killed in all instances, I think?
***I think you missed the point, that wasn't where I was going at all. Should we extend rights and protection to a human preborn, especially one which would live were it to be removed from the womb? The age of viability is ~6 months from conception; some babies have survived at less than 5 months, but it's admittedly quite risky. Some babies have had access to external resources outside the womb (one of the tests of viability) by getting surgery at 2 months, or when the mother suffers brain death and the baby lives.
To me, if the mother decides that she for whatever reason can not care for and raise her baby, it should be her right to terminate it before live birth.
***It's killing a baby. If she can't make the decision before the age of viability, she has no excuse for killing it. Of course, I have my own thoughts about women who kill their babies before the age of viability, but that is a separate discussion.
Once born, I can see that the baby then gains the protections.
***Yes. Once it's born, it has all the rights of a citizen in our society, even though it is a completely dependent life form. The key is that it doesn't have to be completely dependent upon the mother, the baby has access to societal resources to help it thrive. Now that our medical technology has gotten more sophisticated, preborn babies are viable at 6 months and could survive without the mother, and that age keeps shrinking. If we perfect womb transfers, the age would shrink dramatically. I believe it is a morally dangerous viewpoint to look at it this subject the notion that "it's ok to kill it until it's born" because that threshold of "being born" is not the threshold the courts nor society (nor God) has used in the past. The age of viability used to be considered 5-6 years old, but it has gradually shrunk down to 0 years old, and now it is about -0.4 years old and shrinking.
But before it's born, it's in a state that I believe makes terminating it, ending it's life, not to be a very big deal at all.
***Oh my goodness. "not a very big deal at all". I'm having some trouble processing that on an emotional level. OK, so you acknowledge that it's a human life but that killing it is no big deal. I'm afraid I just don't have the time to go down that path. I'll stick with... why would we want a president with such a cold hearted disregard for innocent human life?
Certainly, adoption is a better option in most cases. But for whatever reasons, there seem to be many folks who will not choose this.
***So to extend the slavery analogy here, certainly freeing the slaves is the better option but for whatever reason, there are many folks who will not choose this. Our society grew up and realized that this was plainly, wrong. It's also, plainly, wrong to kill an innocent baby and we need to do as much as we can as a society to extend our resources, care, protection and legal recognition to these lives.
So for those people, the mothers who feel they can not or will not raise the baby properly and will not choose adoption -- abortion is probably a good option in many cases. The choice should be up to the mother.
***Not after the age of viability. And also, for the most part,not even before the age of viability, but I choose not to engage in that discussion because it takes too long. The woman made a choice to engage in the activity which generates a human life. Once that human life has legal status & protection in our society, killing it is murder. We should extend the legal status of personhood to preborn babies -- starting with PBA/Late term abortions -- because it's the right thing to do.
Same reason we want a Prez with such a cold heart that he'd throw people off of welfare. Or with such a cold heart he'd allow "collatoral damage" to fight a war. 'Conservatives'
That might be a useful analogy here -- in agreeing to fight a war like Iraq, a Prez has to be willing to knowingly condemn innocents to die too. He knows it's inevitable that his actions will directly cause the deaths of innocents. But for a greater purpose, he chooses the 'cold hearted' approach.
Similarly, my thinking is that extending the legal protection of 'citizen' to unborn children would violate what I believe would be a greater purpose -- the freedom of those women to have control over their own bodies. Illegal abortions would force women to go thru a pregnancy they could otherwise end.
Because to me, that's where the 'slavery' analogy falls short. A slave is not also a part of another human being's body.
That's my thinking, anyway. Your mileage may vary. :-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.