Radio host Neal Boortz disappoints with argument (or lack thereof) favoring legality of abortion

Neal's Nuze ^ | 12/9/02

[MitchellC]

"And don't bother sending me e-mails about this issue ... they will never make it to me. "

A reason I brought this here.

[Mr. Blond]

Exemptions for rape and incest are in essence holding the baby accountable for the circumstances of its conception.

[MitchellC]

Exactamundo.

[sinkspur]

Boortz is a libertarian. This is another reason (along with drugs) why Republicans shy away from the Libertarian Party as an alternative.

We don't get Boortz in DFW any longer, and I don't miss him.

[poet]

He's also an anti-smoking wacko.

[MitchellC]

I'm also an anti-smoking wacko, judging by my agreement with what I've heard Boortz say. He might think smokers are all sluts, have bad breath, are generally stupid, etc. - but so long as he isn't calling for the banning of tobacco products, the abortion thing is easily worse.

[Tall_Texan]

Neal is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative (as are many libertarians). If you want to watch your skin crawl, catch him on one of those tangents where he comes out in favor of gays, drugs, prostitution, etc. He really believes this stuff.

Because he believes these things, he's also rather openly opposed to religious conservatives. It's not uncommon to hear him spout off about Bible thumpers, etc.

He's better than Limbaugh when he is savaging liberal socialists but he is equally venomous when he goes after social conservatives.

These comments are not out of character for him.

[rdb3]

I used to listen religiously to Boortz on WSB-AM online. But for the past 6 months or so, I couldn't listen to him anymore.

On matters of governance, he's right more often than not. But he can't resist going off on anti-religious tirades and his support for homosexuals (saying that it is natural) took its toll. It seemed to me that he loved nothing more than jamming his thumb into the eyes of Christians.

Boortz is good, but Limbaugh he ain't.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[John Valentine]

When you can point at forced abortions by the government, you can bring me aboard.

In the meantime, to those who feel abortion is or ought to be a crime, or a sin, please, by all means, don't get one.

[One More Time]

Exemptions for rape and incest are in essence holding the baby accountable for the circumstances of its conception.

Do you agree with many supporters of Marx that the needs of some amount to an entitlement to be supported by those more capable? A woman who is raped has no choice and you would force her into involuntary servitude in order to provide for the needs of another. That is not a position that can have moral support in a world that places value on the rights of an individual to chart their own course. To take responsibility for themselves and for those they choose to include in their lives, not those that you or others wish to force them to support.

[plain talk]

Yes, he gets quite emotional about moral issues since he's for all practical matters an aetheist. Ill listen to him beat up liberals but when he gets on his anti-religious soap box, I have to change the channel.

[Arthur McGowan]

One thing that hardly gets mentioned is that pregnancy as the result of rape is very rare. And it certainly is no argument for "legalizing" 1.5 million abortions a year.

[Arthur McGowan]

In the meantime, to those who feel abortion is or ought to be a crime, or a sin, please, by all means, don't get one.

Laws against rape have never succeeded in eliminating rape. If rape is illegal, it will only take place in back alleys, under unsafe conditions. Rape is one of the most personal decisions a man can make. Certainly a man has the right to do as he chooses with his own body. To those who feel that rape should be illegal, please, don't rape.

[MitchellC]

please, by all means, don't get one.

I hope you aren't so lax on other forms of murder as well.

[lara]

"When you can point at forced abortions by the government, you can bring me aboard.
In the meantime, to those who feel abortion is or ought to be a crime, or a sin, please, by all means, don't get one."


Ok. How about this?
When you can point at forced beatings of children by the government, you can bring me aboard.
In the meantime, to those who feel beating children is or ought to be a crime, or a sin, please, by all means, don't beat your children.

[Slewfoot]

In the meantime, to those who feel abortion is or ought to be a crime, or a sin, please, by all means, don't get one.

Rarely does the one being aborted get to choose.

[Long Cut]

I'm sorry, Sir, but that comparison is not only ludicrous, but patently absurd. I know you were trying for irony, but the two situations are nowhere NEAR alike. And, a MALE deciding to FORCE a female who has been through a traumatic and violent event such as rape, to carry a child concieved in that hatred, and to therefore be forever reminded of her status as a "vessel" for others, is absolute evil no matter HOW you Bibleize it.

The fact that so many alleged "conservatives" feel that this form of cruel slavery is just fine is evidence that some take "that 'ol time religion" a little TOO literally.

In my life, I've known TWO women who have endured violent rape. NEITHER would have considered carrying a child thus begot to term, regardless of ANY laws in place, although thank God neither concieved. To even THINK of using government power to FORCE that on them only compounds, and reignites, the injury they suffered. It would be, as I said, Evil to do so. Do not be so quick to slap a pat "answer" on those situations. I DO say these things while angry, but with respect.

[MitchellC]

A parent has the responsibility to take care of his or her child if he or she is able to regardless of whether their parenthood was planned, even if not and by the cruelest means. If a woman is convinced that she cannot raise her child, then there are many individuals who would love to take the burden off her hands and put into into their own. And even if reduced to somewhat relativistic terms, carrying a baby for a time until birth - even if viewed as an act of "servitude" to the child - is not worse than being permanently murdered.

[xrp]

It's surprising that Boortz posted this argument on his website. On his talk show, this is the "forbidden topic" that he refuses to address on his show. I agree with his position on not discussing the topic on the show (too many zealots, both pro-abortion and anti-abortion) but not particularly with his statements here.

[Cicero]

I enjoy reading Neil's stuff. I first ran into him as a science-fiction writer. But Libertarians are going to have to make up their minds whether they want to join forces with the pot-smoking hippies of the left or the social conservatives of the right. Otherwise they will never get more than 2 or 3 percent of the vote.

Which is more important to them? Freedom in most aspects of life, the right to bear arms, and lower taxes--or abortion and pot?

Somebody needs to raise families, keep to the straight and narrow, build the society, and pay taxes. Non-conformists are welcome to do their thing and have a good time, but they shouldn't try to tear down the rest of society.