A Question from a Webb Supporter

The Washington Post ^ | November 14, 2006 | John Whitesides

[therut]

Would you ban knives and human fists if one crime of passion could be stopped. Surely you do not want to live in that regulated of a police state do you?

[NewLand]

Where to begin...

"Considered mainly on my feelings..."

Feelings can, and do, change often.

"my feelings are an appropriate way to judge"

Spotting a trend here...you're OK with judgment by feelings?

Can you finish the story of your friend with the unwanted pregnancy? What happened to her and the child? Can we contrast that with the story of anyone who had an abortion?

How did an abortion ever make the world a better place?

" if my moral matrix says"

There it is right there. You create your own moral matrix. Six billion others create theirs. Do you not see an issue there?

Those who believe in, and commit their lives to the Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, who sent His son here to show us the way, die for our sins, and be resurrected...we believe that God provides us HIS moral matrix and it is up to us to do our best to follow His words.

We all have a choice to follow Him or not.

[DCBandita]

Although I have been roundly told that there is no middle, I would see Giuliani's base AS the middle. I know that I would vote for him in a fictitious Hillary v. Rudy battle.

I don't know how or why your son has that opinion so I don't think I can comment. I am happy, however, to hear he is back safely. Godspeed.

[Darnright]

>I find that link and organization to be propaganda at best<

The link doesn't change the original question: tell me why the boy in the quote below is any more deserving of life than a 24 week gestational boy who has not yet been born.

I've seen babies that premature. In fact, seeing a tiny preemie is one of the reasons I simply cannot support abortion, especially partial birth abortion.

You've been asked this by others, and I'll ask this again. If your side is so "pro" choice, why doesn't Planned Parenthood feature women who had abortions, and who now regret, and suffer emotionally from the choice they made years ago? Why doesn't Planned Parenthood feature adoption as significantly as they do abortion?

[streetpreacher]

Ummm... no I didn't, because I was using an absurd argument to deconstruct your fallacious logic.

It's obvious to anyone that punching someone in the face and stealing their wallet is morally wrong. It's a self-evident truth, an absolute.

I was merely pointing out that you can't have it both ways. For you to now cede this point without blushing is itself troubling.

BTW, I don't buy your initial post that you're this blue dog NRA loving Jim Webb supporter. You would have voted for anyone with a (D) beside their name. There's nothing in any of your posts that I have read to indicate anything close to a centrist or a moderate as you tow the liberal line on every issue.

[DCBandita]

Yes. Because the fabled pro-life contingent just loves to characterize pro-choice people as "pro-abortion", as if we advocate for it and hand out free abortion passes. Puh-leeze. Reinforcing the issue as "Choice" is the correct way to characterize it, because it advocates nothing but that: a choice. No, I'm pretty Virginian-ized on the issue of guns, which you will find is consistent with the traditional pro-gun faction.

[BusterBear]

You can't seriously still be defending the march to war on the basis of WMDs. Even your own party has abandoned that line, and rightfully so.

Just the facts, maam. (Which you seem to like to ignore.) 2000 tons of enriched uranium. Chemical weapons. Detailed plans to build a nuclear bomb. Plans to commit a terrorist act against the US, in conjunction with al Qaeda, in July, 2003. All that information has been released in documents found in Iraq. It was listed on the Pentagon web site, so I don't know what you mean by my party disowning it. Senator Santorum and Representative Hoekstra gave a news conference recently on the chemical weapons. You can bloviate all you want, but you can't argue with facts.

[NewLand]

for me it is a fundamental decision about dominion over my own body. Making abortions illegal takes the dominion away from me. Period.

You do not have dominion over your own body. That is a fact. You are merely a temporary steward of that body.

What specific areas do you have dominion over your body?

The original composition of it? No.
The modular functionality of it? No.
How long you live? No.
Dominion over death? No.

You do not have dominion over your body. Period.

Clearly, your issue is not accepting full responsibility and accountibility for your actions. If you take the action that causes pregnancy, you must be prepared to accept the results. As I pointed out earlier, abortion is merely a convenience for you, as opposed to "suffering" for a few months and bringing a new life into the world...one that could be adopted into a happy home and fulfill those parents every dream. One life that could change the world...

Instead, you choose death. I ask again...

How has abortion ever made the world a better place?

[murphE]

The job is about representing constituents. Yet the pro-life movement doesn't want to make it about that, because the constituency wants abortion legal but regulated

Because truth is not decided by a majority vote.

[RedStateRocker]

Oops I meant "Moderation in defense of tyranny is not a virtue, extremism in the defense of liberty is not a VICE"
DOH!

[murphE]

Reinforcing the issue as "Choice" is the correct way to characterize it, because it advocates nothing but that: a choice.

A choice to take the life of an innocent human being because allowing that human being to live is inconvenient and because that human being is too little and too weak to fight back or protest.

[therut]

It would be the democratic way though. I would accept it. The idea of abortion as a right is silly. Even those who like the USSC decision know it was bad law. That is what will eventually over turn it. Not the issue of abortion but plain bad constitutional law.

[section9]

I have thought for some time that if Rudy gets right with the Federalist Society on judges, that will be all that matters to the Base. Basically, what Rudy has to say is that he'll follow President Bush's example on judges and appoint judges like Roberts and Alito to the High Court. The Base will go nuts.

That answer works well for abortion and RKBA issues.

The DNC press release reaked of fear and anxiety. They don't want to run against Mr. 9/11.

Rudy knows that he has to square himself proper with the NRA. That's the critical issue, much more so than abortion. RKBA is the civil religion of the Republican Party and one has to acknowledge fidelity to the 2nd Amendment to do that.

That's one of the reasons I think Rudy, if nominated, picks Condi as the VP. Aside from the fact that she'll knock Obama around in any debate and make him look like a small child, she's got an absolutely heroic reputation among gunowners for her standing on RKBA issues.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[dfwgator]

Agreed, moderate Democrats need to step up and take back their party from the liberal kooks, like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, etc.

Right now, that's the best chance to halt the spread of liberalism, especially now that the GOP is going to be spending the next few years getting their act together. Martinez as RNC chair gives me little hope for the immediate future.

[therut]

Because their purpose is the delivery of a dead baby. Simple. If they wanted a live baby they would have a live baby. It has absolutely nothing to do with the life or health of the mother. NONE. I listened to the oral arguments on c-span the other day. They even talked about pre-eclampsia and eclampsia as a need for this procedure. ONly if you want a dead baby. The standard of care is induction of labor in pre-eclampsia and immediate C/S in the case of eclampsia. Dicking around doing a partial birth abortion would be malpractice. Unless the baby must be dead before completely delivered. I thought it amazing that the physician charged 5,000 a procedure. Medicaid pays me 1,260 and private insurance 2,500 for nine full months of care no matter what complications or whether vaginal or c/s delivery. Just think of the money this abortionist makes. I refuse to call him physician which is honorable. He is not.Another thing BC pills do prevent fertilization as their primary mechanism. They prevent ovulation. Yes they can prevent implantation(theoretically) but that is not the way they work if taken correctly. Our moderate is wrong.

[Liberty Valance]

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

[Campion]

when it comes to issue like Choice, I'd rather people live their principles and not try to legislate them at all.

Then you're prepared to fully de-fund Planned Parenthood? Take away every last dime of taxpayer money?

Or does "live their principles and not try to legislate them" only apply to those of us on the "religious right"?

[therut]

They lied to her. She could have had a c/s. I took care of a hydocephalic infant one time. Its head was as big as a basketball. It lived for a few months. It cried, sucked the bottle. Its mother and father were there taking care of it. They took it home. They did not have to puncture its head and suck the fluid out and kill it before birth. I to this day remember that child and its parents. All doctors are not liars. I have seen they lie to women about IUD's which do only work by preventing implantation. ie early abortion. It horrifies me. One patient who was a hispanic was in tears when I told her how one worked as she had had one before and NO ONE told her.

[therut]

Not so. The bible does not preach aganist all war or the death penalty. The Pope can not change that unless he becomes apostate. Those things you list are his personal opinions not doctrine. It takes a little understanding to get the intellectual working of the Catholic Church and the Pope. As much as some liberals would like the Bible is not a living breathing document like their interpretation of the Constitution.

[Vicomte13]

"Moreover, my point at the end of that comment was that it's a "dominion over my body" issue - an issue for which I have been TOTALLY consistent throughout the 400+ comments in this thread. So it doesn't logically follow that I would choose to IMPOSE euthanasia on a handicapped or terminally ill person."

Oh, it follows directly from your "dominion over my body" issue. Because with abortion, you are asserting dominion not only over YOUR body, but dominion to kill the body of another, a tiny child. That you choose to not define the child as a child is the crux of why you do not equate imposing death on an adult and imposing death on that child.

And you are right, there is absolutely no convincing you.
This is a matter that must be imposed by law. Right now, your view holds sway, and death is imposed on millions of tiny people every year. Watch the movie "Silent Scream" sometime. Watch a little baby human die. In agony. In the womb. You choose not to see that as a baby, and that is the legal authority today. You must understand, therefore, that I have no compunction at all about imposing my will on you, in reverse, if I and mine are ever able to get the power to do it.
How one views human life, its sacredness, when it may be taken, is so fundamental, such a core issue, that the opinion of the majority simply isn't good enough to settle the issue. The majority can be wrong - it currently is. To the extent that the majority can be persuaded, things may change peacefully. I do not believe persuasion is possible, because it is, as you say, a matter of power, of sovereignty. THAT is only gained or lost through conquest.
So, that is what it is going to take.

I have to say, that after the South Dakota vote, my side is a long way from achieving that conquest. Maybe we never will. My long-term hope is placed with the Hispanics and pro-life birth rate advantages. Where else can it be placed?