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

Neal's Nuze ^ | 12/9/02

[MitchellC]

I'm no lexicographer, but doesn't "murder" mean unlawful killing? Until they outlaw abortion, you should probably find another term.

Not to sound harsh, but yeah, that really is splitting hairs. Even if we did use the 'unlawful' definition, I could still apply it to abortion by arguing that abortion violates the 'spirit' of defense of basic rights which all laws are supposedly drawn from.

And I agree with the rest. I prefer to use the term 'child'.

[Long Cut]

Certain terms help to fire the EMOTIONS of those to whom the speaker is trying to reach. FEELINGS, remember?

[jwalsh07]

Sounds okay to me,

Congratulations, you're one in a million. Don't ever let anybody tell you you're not special.

[MHGinTN]

Actually, your analogy was not 'dead-on', because when a woman is raped and a child conceived in her body, what is at issue is life support, forced life support if she is forced to carry that CHILD to term and deliver. With the crime of rape, there is no issue of life support. [Incidental to this mire, my mother was forced to have sec which resulted in my conception. She chose to support my life and now at 57 I support her life as best I can.] But I don't advocate forcing such an woman to continue such life support by government edict. I would pray she continue, for her soul's sake and the sake of the child already in existence, but in our society, based on the founding documents of our nation, she ought not be forced to give life support against her will ... but if she doesn't exercise a choice before the end of the embryonic stage of the CHILD's life, she should be supported in her health issues, to bring the child to term and deliver, and our society then take the responsibility of raising that individual human being.

In a nation of faithful citizens, she wouldn't feel forced to give life support and would do so (give life support) willingly, as my mother did for me. But alas, we are not near that goal now, after three plus decades of sanctioning serial killing of individuals in the womb. This issue is so very complex, I've tried to afford clarity by appraoching these issues from a life support perspective. I realize to terminate a life already begun is to punish the innocent victim, but to force life support would be to compound the initial crime. It should be her choice in the earliest stages of that life support. Could we work for a society that would affirm a choice to continue life support? I consider that the Christian mission, but force is not a Christian mission. Reconciling these difficult issues will be all the more gnarly as the issue of democrat defense of the indefensible arises in the coming weeks, as this nation will debate a ban on partial birth infanticide.

[Dick Bachert]

This has been one of the few axes I've had to grind with Boortz over the years.

I can offer no RATIONAL explanation for his rabid pro-abortion position EXCEPT that he or someone in his family had a "problem" with an unwanted pregnancy which was solved by an abortion.

[hinckley buzzard]

I don't know Neil Boortz but if this is an example of the quality of his deliberation, he's a waste of skin.

A little research would have revealed to him that as ugly as pregnancy by rape may seem to him, in the few cases in which it occurs, the woman frequently chooses to bear the child.
Often, however, in their traumatized state, these women are literally told by malignant caseworkers that "of course, you're going to have an abortion," as if she would be a crazed fool to want to keep her baby alive.

Some of these women have reported that the abortion was as bad a violation as the rape, maybe worse, as they lost their baby as a result. Not that the dogooders care. Boortz apparently has the mentality of a liberal social worker, undercover.

[copycat]

I guess the principle of non-aggression doesn't apply to unborn persons.

[Dick Bachert]

Rape and incest pregnancies represent less than 1/2 of 1% of the pregnancies in this country. It is thrown up as a straw man by the pro-abortion feminists who wish to retain abortion as an after-the-fact birth control method.

They MIGHT try keeping their knees together but, hey, that would cut into their fun.

Except for forcible rape situations, the WOMAN is always in control.

[jwalsh07]

I guess the principle of non-aggression doesn't apply to unborn persons.

Which is precisely my problem with pro choice libertarians and Libertarians in general and Neal Boortz and Jay Severin in particular.

[MitchellC]

Obviously. YOURS.

Where have I interjected my own emotions in this discussion?

You feel that abortion is murder, thus, any cruelty you inflict upon ANOTHER innocent, i.e., a rape victim, is justified in your mind.

No, I don't "feel" any such thing. I 'know,' just like a person who sees a steamroller coming his or her way knows they'll end up like a pancake if the situation doesn't change, in spite of any feelings to the contrary.

You spoke of bringing reason to the discussion. Lots of luck, with your attitude.

I have yet to see anything except attempted appeals to the emotions coming from you, so lots of luck yourself.

Boortz does not discuss this issue on his show for precisely this reason...the radical pro-life crowd is totally without ANY reason on this issue whatsoever, being absolutist to the point of harming OTHER innocents.

'Radical,' 'absolutist.' Still appealing to emotions (probably your own). When you can point out where I'm incorrect instead of what makes you flustered, then I'll understand where pro-lifers are being unreasonable here. And on the issue of who's harmed the most, I've already covered that here.

Most people (including me) support REASONABLE restrictions(parental notification for minor children, partial-birth bans, and the like), but those like yourself will drive us away with your "all-or-nothing" approach every time.

Does your use of the word "reasonable" here really mean 'compromising so to make pro-aborts happy?' If I can drive you away then it probably wasn't all that strong of a conviction for you to begin with.

[copycat]

Which is precisely my problem with pro choice libertarians and Libertarians in general and Neal Boortz and Jay Severin in particular.

I have to believe that when anyone who professes to be Libertarian thinks it's OK to suck a baby into a sink, to commit the ultimate act of aggression against in snuffing out that life, he's kinda like the person who says he's a Catholic but never goes to church....not a Libertarian at all.

FReegards.

disclaimer...I am not a libertarian.

[For the Unborn]

Honestly, what do you expect of a LIBERALtarian?

[Woahhs]

While I don't think that a false accusation thereof deserves such a penalty

If the crime is a capital offense, how can you consider putting someone in jeopardy of such punishment be any less severe?

[jwalsh07]

We all know what the facts are. Wouldn't it be great if we could just agree on a single terminology and then use it to discuss the issues like adults?

Here's the facts. From the moment of conception to the day you draw you're last breath, you are a unique human being.

When you were a blastocyst you were a human being, when your heart started beating you were a human being and when you started generating measuable brain waves at 42 days you were a human being.

Now here's the catch. When is it OK to kill human beings without their consent and due process?

[hove]

Are Libertarians typically pro abortion?

[MitchellC]

Actually, your analogy was not 'dead-on'

You're right... it wasn't even my analogy. :)

but in our society, based on the founding documents of our nation, she ought not be forced to give life support against her will ...

I don't know where that is in any founding document, maybe it can be pointed out. But the prohibition of the destruction of a person's life is obviously recognized as the very reason for government's existence in the first place. I don't know how much clearer that could possibly be.

[Woahhs]

Rape and incest pregnancies represent less than 1/2 of 1% of the pregnancies in this country. It is thrown up as a straw man by the pro-abortion feminists who wish to retain abortion as an after-the-fact birth control method.

I am, of course, in complete agreement. My point was to show even the rape issue is a complete canard. A woman who has been raped is NOT more compelling than a baby who has been killed. The whole attitude strikes me as a variation on the "Bridezilla" syndrome. I have absolutely no sympathy for any rape victim that can then turn around and murder an innocent child as a response to her tragedy.

None. Zero. Zip.

[MitchellC]

I agree on their counter-productivity, and I try to avoid them. But the terminology here, like in much of society, has been supposedly decided on by the Liberals (there's another buzzword... :) ) in the media and academia, etc.

And yeah, I think I've been misspelling Neil's name, too.