JUST A QUICK NOTICE: Throughout the next couple of days I may be taking the opportunity to play around with the look of the site. So if you come here and it looks funny that is why. Changes may not be permanent and the site may continue to change. The final look of the site by the end of the week may be exactly the same or way different. Please feel free to comment on whether you like or not whatever looks you see. But reference what you are commenting on as several changes later I may not know what you are talking about! As promised, an open thread for all of you to use as you see fit. You can post a new topic, continue a conversation that you were having on the last thread (because I know that it becomes a pain to continue scrolling down to resume the conversation and it also slows way down in loading the longer the thread gets), or even write an article that you want to post. Once I have recovered from my surgery I will be back at writing all the things that either delight or infuriate you! In the mean time you will just have to infuriate each other! But remember to keep it fairly civil as we discuss our differences with respect. I am also going to add a cartoon or two each day. These have no other purpose than to chuckle at. They are nothing more than cartoons that I saw at some point and never used.
.
USWeapon
gmanfortruth
Jon Smith
Life of Illusion
Black Flag®
d13thecolonel
commonman55
8)
Hey hop along!
How ya feeling this mornin?
V. sore, very little sleep
Rumor has it that BF is secretly giving aerial lessons for a new reality show……but that is just rumor.
BF
Thigh treatment:
Hot pad and ice packs. Alternating at least three times per treatment and four treatments per day.
End with the ice each time.
JAC…quite correct and it works.
How long should the hot/cold be applied before switching?
BF
If it is your thigh you need to start with heat and keep it on until it is completely warmed. So it might take 30 minutes with a hot pad.
Less time if you have a hot tub. But try 15 minutes to 30 minutes on high. You’ll be able to tell when the leg is warmed and feeling a little looser.
Then the ice bag until it is cooled completely. Usually about half the time of heat, depending on how big your ice bag vs. wound area.
So a single treatment will take about an hour to hour and half.
The goal is to get the blood flowing full and then chill to constrict veins then again and again. The conflicting action apparently helps pump out the blood shot and lactic acid build up much faster. You can gauge the proper time given what the goal is.
Ice will also help reduce pain all by itself as needed, like your elbow.
Hot Tub = The Best Money the Weapon Family ever spent. We wouldn’t give ours up for anything.
Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
As you read this, 47years later, you should be shocked by the events that have played themselves out.
Here’s a partial list. I put GOAL #15 first, for obvious reasons:
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc
Anybody else recognize liberal Progressivism in all this? Sounds like the complete Democrat Party platform!
“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”
- Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.
*****************************
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”
- Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate.
Old russian proverb, “the fish rots from the head”. This is more or less what happens to all empires. They start to believe they are invincible, hubris sets in, they overextend themselves by getting involved in wars and nation building they cannot afford, corruption spreads and the lust for power and control drive the political elite to either madness or stupidity or both.
To anyone who has read just a little history, they can see this is a true saying.
When massive looting of the treasury (the citizens taxes)takes place the people begin to wake up to the crimes of the political and financial elite.In order to control or destroy opposition to the elite’s rule, totalitarianism raises it’s ugly head.
Does no one else see this happening?
“When the people fear their government,there is Tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is Liberty.”–Thomas Jefferson
“Shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”.”–Thomas Jefferson
Interesting list TC,
The reference to a one world government in #11, was striking, mainly the New World Order (NWO) is just that, which is still referred to as a conspiracy theory.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
I’ve been researching this one, as to the extent it is happening, and how they are using it to manipulate common thinking, especially in young people. I watched two movies yesterday on ScyFy channel and they fit perfectly with my theory. The movie, Catagory 6, a weather disaster film, was a good example of what the L/P’s want people to believe, i.e., global warming as only explaination, evil big energy CEO, aldultress big energy exec (had an affair with man with normal christain family and was caught), and a media newscaster as the hero who bucks her bosses evil ways and wins. It also put Govt. in a good light.
Then it was Catagory 7, a continuation of 6. And, of course mostly the same references included, the weather is bad “because” of man’s actions, media hero type, evil govt big shot who was in big energies pocket, hero govt. senator who saved the rest of the world, attacked Christianity in a big way to make it look evil ect. The Left Wing idealology was very present and easy to see, if your looking for it.
“Does no one else see this happening?”
Yes, I do, and in a big way. I am but one small voice, who will expose their deceit every chance I get. I don’t believe that our left leaning friends want a tyrannical communist type of government, but rather only those parts they like. Too bad it don’t work that way.
PEACE!
G!
Tex
Something smells about this list. It looks like a list developed by someone who was fighting against communism. In other words, it is their opinion of what the communist goals are.
I think you can simply look at Marx’s manifesto, the Progressive Manifesto and the Wilson and FDR agenda if you want a list of actual goals.
Hello T.C.,
I understand and have known of a lot of these things since way back in my not-so-reckless (well, part of it anyway) youth. We were given a lot of this in Intel Briefings early in my USMC career. I remember some of the guys in those briefings saying that they (Communists) would never get a foothold in the good old USA in our lifetime. I sure hope those guys are still alive!
Do you happen to have any of the “Little Red Book” excerpts from Chairman Mao’s days in China? If you do, please publish them here as I think we all need to see what our good old buddy Hu Jintao’s motivations and goals really are.
Dawg,
If you believe the modern Chinese State is Maoist, you are really out to lunch regarding your understanding of China today
Veteran to Veteran
When a Veteran leaves the ‘job’ and retires to another life of work,
many are jealous, some are pleased, and others, who may have already
retired, wonder if he knows what he is leaving behind, because we
already know.
1. We know, for example, that after all of the camaraderie that few
experience, it will remain as a longing for those past times.
2. We know in the Military life there is a fellowship which lasts long
after the uniforms are hung up in the back of the closet.
3. We know even if he throws them away, they will be on him with every
step and breath that remains in his life. We also know how the very
bearing of the man speaks of what he was and in his heart still is.
These are the burdens of the job. You will still look at people
suspiciously, still see what others do not see or choose to ignore and
always will look at the rest of the Military world with a respect for
what they do; only grown in a lifetime of knowing.
Never think for one moment you are escaping from that life. You are only
escaping the ‘job’ and merely being allowed to leave ‘active’ duty.
So what I wish for you is that whenever you ease into retirement, in
your heart you never forget for one moment that you are still a member
of the greatest fraternity the world has ever known.
NOW! Civilian Friends vs. Veteran Friends Comparisons
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Get upset if you’re too busy to talk to them for a
week.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Are glad to see you after years, and will happily carry on the same conversation you were having the last time you met.
———- ——-
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Have never seen you cry.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Have cried with you.
—————–
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Keep your stuff so long they forget it’s yours.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Borrow your stuff for a few days then give it back.
———- ——-
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Know a few things about you.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Could write a book with direct quotes from you.
—————–
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will leave you behind if that’s what the crowd is
doing.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Will stand by you no matter what the crowd does.
—————–
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Are for a while.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Are for life.
——————–
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Have shared a few experiences…
VETERAN FRIENDS: Have shared a lifetime of experiences no citizen could ever dream of…
—————–
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will take your drink away when they think you’ve had
enough.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Will look at you stumbling all over the place and say,
‘You better drink the rest of that before you spill it!’ Then carry you
home safely and put you to bed…
———– ——-
CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Will ignore this.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Will forward this.
——————
A veteran – whether active duty, retired, served one hitch, or reserve -
is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made
payable to ‘The Government of the United States of America ‘ for an
amount of ‘up to and including my life’.
From one Veteran to another, it’s an honor to be in your company.
I hope you don’t mind, but I copied and pasted this on my blog.
Copy and Paste away my friend!
Semper Fi!
Ahhhh….you Jarheads……GO ARMY!!!!
Thanks for the post sir…even if you are gyrene, I still have your back if needed.
Black Flag, you are especially going to like this one, if you haven’t seen it already.
Mathius and Buck, you guys might want to pay close attention as well, since your closer to the action.
From Electric City Weblog
“FUNNY MONEY GETS EVEN FUNNIER
Written by Dave Budge on 22 January 2011
The Fed has invented a new shell game: Concerns that the Federal Reserve could suffer losses on its massive bond holdings may have driven the central bank to adopt a little-noticed accounting change with huge implications: it makes insolvency much less likely.
[...]
“Could the Fed go broke? The answer to this question was ‘Yes,’ but is now ‘No,’” said Raymond Stone, managing director at Stone & McCarthy in Princeton, New Jersey. “An accounting methodology change at the central bank will allow the Fed to incur losses, even substantial losses, without eroding its capital.”
The change essentially allows the Fed to denote losses by the various regional reserve banks that make up the Fed system as a liability to the Treasury rather than a hit to its capital. It would then simply direct future profits from Fed operations toward that liability.This enhances transparency by providing clearer, more frequent, snapshots of the central bank’s finances, analysts say. The bonus: the number can now turn negative without affecting the central bank’s underlying financial condition.
“Any future losses the Fed may incur will now show up as a negative liability as opposed to a reduction in Fed capital, thereby making a negative capital situation technically impossible,” said Brian Smedley, a rates strategist at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch and a former New York Fed staffer.
I’ve added the emphasis.
So the implications seem to be that losses from all of the crap that the Fed has been buying to buoy the financial sector can be charged off and entered as an “asset” to the U.S. Treasury to be paid from future earnings of the Fed. I think this is more curious than first meets the eye.
I could be wrong about this but it seems to me that the Treasury then might have an accounting offset to its total liabilities thereby actually reducing the net outstanding debt. If that turns out to be true then an aggressive move to write down assets by the Fed would decrease the need to increase the U.S. debt limit. And it might do this by taking on garbage assets that the Fed charged off. Mind boggling.
Jeff Skilling, call your office.
We’re in the very best of hands.”
HERE ARE TWO LINKS TO DIFFERENT BUT RELATED STORIES ON THIS SUBJECT: The first discusses the “accounting trick” and the second the larger explanation of what is going on and how “insolvency” could occur.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41198789
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41015501/?Could_the_Federal_Reserve_Become_Insolvent
Happy Sunday Everyone
JAC
Good Morning JAC,
Hope today finds you warm and healthy. It’s a little nipply here, 4 degrees.
Flag, hope you are feeling better today
With all the economic info out there, one wonders what to believe anymore. On one side it’s “Don’t worry, be happy” and on the other side it’s “doom and gloom”. Those on the “happy” side are just trudging along as if nothing bad will happen and those on the “gloom” side are preparing for a disaster that may not come. IMHO, preparing for disaster is akin to investing for the future. If food prices continue to rise and rise, I will be eating at last years prices and saving a ton of money, at the very least. At the very worst, I will have food to eat, when those that failed to get ready for disaster, will likely be very hungry, I guess that’s one way to fix the obesity problems in this country, looking at a positive angle.
Which side of the table does everyone sit, “happy” or “gloomy”?
Knowing how many on this site love a good conspiracy and that conspiracies never die, how is it that our discussion leaders are under the weather at the same time? Is it some diabolical government plot? Will more be infected with this calamity? Inquiring minds want to know.
Obama, Natalitono and Pelosi had a meeting at the end of the year. It was decided that, in order to contain political dissent and develpoed a plan of action. They called it…The Kenyan Voodoo Project. It does appear to create collateral damage, but Napolitono says it’s a small price to pay to keep the agenda moving forward.
I told the witch doctor I was in love with SUFA
I told the witch doctor I was in love with SUFA
And then the witch doctor, he told me what to do
He said that ….
(Chorus:)
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang…
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
Ooo eee, ooo ah ah ting tang
Walla walla, bing bang
I told the witch doctor O didn’t love me true
I told the witch doctor O didn’t love me nice
And then the witch doctor, he gave me this advice
He said to …
(Repeat Chorus)
Now, you’ve been keeping love from me
Just like you were a miser
And I’ll admit I wasn’t very smart
So I went out and found myself
A guy that’s so much wiser
And he taught me the way to win your heart
My friend the witch doctor, he taught me what to say
My friend the witch doctor, he taught me what to do
I know that you’ll be mine when I say this to you
Oh, Baby ….
(Repeat Chorus)
The bad thing about your post…….that damned tune will be in my head all day,,,,,THANKS A LOT.
I guess the government is going to take over the drug industry now-kinda like they did the college loans-one step at a time.
Federal agency to spearhead new drug-development center
By Gardiner Harris
The New York Times
Posted: 01/23/2011 01:00:00 AM MST
The Obama administration has become so concerned about the slowing pace of new drugs coming out of the pharmaceutical industry that officials have decided to start a billion-dollar government drug development center to help create medicines.
The new effort comes as many large drugmakers, unable to find enough new drugs, are paring back research. Promising discoveries in such illnesses as depression and Parkinson’s that once would have led to clinical trials are instead going unexplored because companies have neither the will nor the resources to undertake the effort. Drug companies have typically spent twice as much on marketing as on research, a business model that is increasingly suspect.
The initial financing of the government’s new drug center is small compared with the $45.8 billion that the industry estimates it invested in research in 2009. The cost of bringing a single drug to market can exceed $1 billion, according to some estimates.
Groundwork for drug firms
The National Institutes of Health has traditionally focused on basic research, such as describing the structure of proteins, leaving industry to create drugs using those compounds. But the drug industry’s research productivity has been declining for 15 years, “and it certainly doesn’t show any signs of turning upward,” said Dr. Francis Collins, director of the institutes.
The job of the new center, to be called the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, is akin to that of a home seller who spruces up properties to attract buyers in a down market. In this case, the center will do as much research as it needs to do to attract drug company investment.
That means that in some cases, the center will use one of the institutes’ four new robotic screeners to find chemicals that affect enzymes and might lead to the development of a drug or a cure. In other cases, the center might need to discover not only the right chemicals but also perform animal tests to ensure that they are safe and even start human trials to see whether they work. All of that has traditionally been done by drug companies, not the government.
“None of this is intended to be competitive with the private sector,” Collins said. “The hope would be that any project that reaches the point of commercial appeal would be moved out of the academic support line and into the private sector.”
Whether the government can succeed where private industry has failed is uncertain, officials say, but they say doing nothing is not an option.
The health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, sent a letter to Congress on Jan. 14 outlining the plan to open the new drug center by October — an unusually rapid turnaround for an idea first released with little fanfare in December.
Creating the center is a signature effort of Collins, who once directed the agency’s Human Genome Project. Collins has been predicting for years that gene sequencing will lead to a vast array of new treatments, but years of effort and tens of billions of dollars in financing by drugmakers in gene-related research have largely been a bust.
As a result, industry has become far less willing to follow the latest genetic advances with expensive clinical trials. Rather than wait longer, Collins has decided the government can start the work itself.
“I am a little frustrated to see how many of the discoveries that do look as though they have therapeutic implications are waiting for the pharmaceutical industry to follow through with them,” he said.
Catalyst for breakthroughs
Collins’ ability to conceive and create such a center in a few short months would have been impossible for most of his predecessors, who had nice offices but little power. But Congress in recent years has invested real budgetary and administrative authority in the director’s office, and Collins is the first director to fully use these new powers.
Under the plan, more than $700 million in research projects underway at various institutes and centers would be brought together at the new center. Officials hope the prospect of finding new drugs will lure Congress into increasing the center’s financing well beyond $1 billion.
Hopes of new money may be optimistic. House Republicans have promised to cut the kind of discretionary domestic spending that supports the health institutes, and officials are already bracing for significant cuts this year.
But Collins has hinted that he is willing to cannibalize other parts of the health institutes to bring more resources to the new center.
“There are some people that would say this is not the time to do something bold and ambitious because the budget is so tight,” he said. “But we would be irresponsible not to take advantage of scientific opportunity, even if it means tightening in other places.”
For the plan to go into effect by October, the administration must by law get rid of one of the 27 centers and institutes already in existence at the NIH — something that has never been done before. So the administration plans to downgrade the National Center for Research Resources, in part by giving some of its functions to the new drug center.
Researchers and staff members connected to the research resources center have inundated a complaint blog about the coming change. Mark Lively, a professor of biochemistry at Wake Forest University and a member of an advisory council to the research resources center, said he could not understand why the administration was moving so quickly with its plans.
“And the NIH is not likely to be very good at drug discovery, so why are they doing this?” Lively asked.
But Garret FitzGerald, a professor of medicine and pharmacology at the University of Pennsylvania, said the new center could inspire universities to train a new generation of investigators.
“It could be a really good idea,” he said.
http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_17171570?source=rss
http://www.hapblog.com/2011/01/why-is-chris-matthews-displaying-target.html
Video: One Gosnell victim speaks
Share13
posted at 12:00 pm on January 23, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
CNN interviews LaToya Ransome, one of the victims of Kermit Gosnell, who faces eight counts of murder and other charges for his gruesome abortion practice in Philadelphia. Ransome, clearly reluctant to be on camera, relates how Gosnell’s work ended up making her so ill that she had to have open-heart surgery and disabled her. Ransome says that the death penalty is too easy for him and wants him to get life in prison instead:
CNN’s Martin Savidge introduces the segment rather oddly, saying that Gosnell is accused of “destroying viable fetuses.” Certainly Gosnell faces charges of performing illegal third-trimester abortions, but he faces murder charges for killing babies, not “viable fetuses.” The babies Gosnell murdered survived to birth, which means they no longer were “fetuses” at all. They were, both legally and morally, live infants requiring care. Instead, Gosnell and his staff stabbed them with scissors or cut their throats to kill them.
Other victims are also speaking out:
In one 1999 case, prosecutors said, 20-year-old Marie Smith was sent home after a Gosnell abortion unaware that he had been unable to remove the entire fetus from her uterus. Days later, vomiting and with a swollen abdomen and severe infection, Smith was taken to a hospital, where she was rushed into surgery.
Her mother, Johnnie Mae Smith, said she was shocked at the “nasty and dirty, filthy” conditions in the clinic. When her daughter took ill days later, she called Gosnell.
“I said, ‘What did you do to my daughter? … My daughter’s about to die,’ Smith said. “He said, ‘Take her to the hospital.’”
Gosnell turned up at the hospital with his checkbook, she said, aiming to settle immediately. Instead, she chased him away, vowing to sue. Later, her daughter got $3,000, after lawyer fees, from a $5,000 settlement.
It looks like one early consequence is that Gosnell has to find a new lawyer:
Defense lawyer William J. Brennan, who represented Gosnell during the investigation, said Gosnell “feels he has provided a general care medical facility in a fairly impoverished area for four decades.”
“That’s his belief,” Brennan said, “and he’s entitled to it.”
Gosnell told the magistrate he’s looking to retain another lawyer, and Brennan confirmed he’s not representing Gosnell anymore.
“I wish him well, but I am not taking this case,” Brennan said. “The doctor and I have had our run.”
Kevin McCullough argues today that the widespread revulsion created by the Gosnell case should cause people to take a much closer look at the abortion industry:
He was a monster. He was out of control. He deserves justice to the fullest measure–even if that were to mean the state took his life as a result.
It was as I was reading the details of the procedures he seemed to prefer to perform that I was suddenly struck by an overwhelming question that has not yet gone from my mind.
Why are we so outraged now?
The truth is, the procedure Gosnell preferred is not new. Third term, especially “late term,” abortions are performed the same way in overwhelming numbers.
Commonly referred to as “partial birth abortions” the procedure begins the same was as the “Gosnell abortion.” Inducing labor and beginning the delivery of the child is where most of the children are lost in both procedures. As many as 75% of the children lose their lives in the process of early induced labor. Leaving roughly 25% of the children involved to have their lives terminated through an additional step.
In partial birth abortion, the child is delivered to within two inches of being free of the birth canal. In the “Gosnell” he delivered the child completely.
But from that point on, little difference between the procedures existed.
Be sure to read it all.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/23/video-one-gosnell-victim-speaks/
As I have stated many times before in my not-so-humble opinion; Murder, by any other name, is still murder.
Unfortunately, I have been speaking to deaf ears.
Murder, by any other name, is still murder
Except what is sanctioned by your government, right, Dawg?
I had a somewhat absurd conversation the other day, which was really an exercise in logic, principles, and absolutes. You may find this entertaining. Here is the basic premise/train of thought…
There is one reason to kill, survival. If you aren’t going to eat it or aren’t defending against it, why kill it?
Murder is death caused by a physical act driven by conscious willful intent. Murder is an act of malice.
Manslaughter is death caused by gross negligence without willful intent.
The law recognizes natural rights with civil rights and seeks to protect rights with laws against such violations.
It also recognizes the rights of other organisms to survive and thrive and live freely, hence cruelty to animals laws and environmental protectionist laws; IE – deer tags and endangered species lists.
Beat your dog to death, let your horse starve, kill this bird or cut down that tree, and you might end up looking at a judge demanding your money and/or time.
You can’t beat your mother in law or dog to death. The natural order of the universe, natural law/rights, and civil/gov. law all say this is fundamentally wrong.
But what about vegetation? You can’t cut down certain tree species because the law recognizes their natural right to live freely. So does this recognition of natural rights extend in principle to include other natural rights that also apply to other creatures?
If you get mad at a thorn bush and set it on fire, is it act of malice? Is it murder? Cruelty to animals?
If you harvest a carrot and then let it go to waste, is it “veggie-slaughter”?
If you are a child that refuses to eat your green beans, is this accessory to “veggie-slaughter”?
..or would that fall under something in line with abortion laws because they are beans, and not plants yet?
I know we recognize superiority of species as does natural law and the universe, but how does that fit into the equation?
Like I said, it is absurd, but what say you?
Besides the obvious horror of this being ignored for 20 years-the discussion about language-was interesting-The statement “My point is this: if an entire class of people, those with three sets of the 21st chromosome, are routinely targeted for destruction—at a scandalous rate of 90 percent—can merely changing the term we use to describe those 10 percent who escape the net increase respect for their human dignity and intrinsic value to society in a meaningful way?” Words, no one can deny they have power-but trying to make everything sound nicer-isn’t always the way to truth-it can in many instances just put up a curtain that hides truth-that hides the true attitudes of our society.
Abortion, Language and Looking Away – UPDATED
January 21, 2011 by Elizabeth Scalia
24tweetsretweet
175Share
Photosource
“Over a period of two decades, government health and licensing officials were repeatedly presented with evidence about Gosnell, and repeatedly chose to do nothing…”
“No action was taken, even after the agencies learned that women had died under Gosnell’s care.”
Kermit Gosnell was arraigned yesterday on 8 charges charges of murder, and much, much more.
Most of the news reports I’m reading on this story are surprisingly succinct, given the 281 page Grand Jury Report which brings his crimes into sickening detail and make it plain that Gosnell brought a depraved indifference to life and human dignity into his “practice” if one could call it that. The press writes as little as possible, and many of these stories online do not include links to the report.
Many of the women who came to Gosnell were poor, and far along in their pregnancies They paid exorbitant sums to Gosnell (after being referred to him by who? Other doctors?) in order to be stripped from the waist down and given not-so-much as a gown — only blood-stained blankets that were washed once a week. They were anesthetized by unlicensed persons while flea-infested cats roamed freely. That’s just the tip of this iceberg, but I can’t go on because its too upsetting. The babies who “precipitated” and “fell out” of women while no medical personnel were available; babies being pulled out of the pipes or “seeming to swim” in the toilet. Babies breathing and crying before their spinal cords were “snipped” and their bodies were thrown into empty milk-cartins, cat food containers, shoe boxes. Women who were maimed or left infertile, or diseased or killed. The unwashed instruments, the bloody tables and stirrups, the feet severed from babies and kept as trophies.
The press is not going giving a full sense of the scope of this horrorshow, because they will want this story minimized and shoved down the memory hole as fast as possible. There are a few weak lines of spin being bandied about, but do not be fooled; this is about abortion in America, and about a mindset that will excuse a great deal for its sake. Steel yourself to it and try to read the report. Become educated about Gosnell; it is very likely there are more like him — exploiting the poor, cutting every corner and confident that local authorities and regulators will not care. As the Grand Jury asserts:
[After Gosnell's center was approved as an abortion clinic in 1979, the Pennsylvania Department of Healt] did not conduct another site review until 1989. Numerous violations were already apparent but Gosnell got a pass when he promised to fix them. Site reviews in 1992 and 1993 also noted various violations [and] failed to ensure they were corrected. [...] After 1993 even that pro-forma effort came to an end . . . DOH abruptly decided for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro . . . officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions. . . . Several different attorneys, representing women injured by Gosnell, contacted the department. A doctor from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia hand-delivered a complaint, advising the department that number patients he had referred for abortions came back from Gosnell with the same venereal disease.
It goes on and on, noting that not even the death of Karnamaya Mongar prompted the department to look at Gosnell. All of this came to light only after the place was raided for drug trafficking.
The Gosnell story would be repellent enough, even if he had been charged ten or fifteen years ago. The horror is compounded by the fact that people in authority looked the other way, for decades, rather than stop him.
And curiously, given the brevity of these articles I’m linking to, the U.S. press seems to want to look away, too. But they shouldn’t. In 2002 the media quite rightly delved deeply into the cover-ups of priestly abuse in the Catholic Church; they helped to shine a light into vast darkness, raising awareness and making sure there was no more room to hide; they helped precipitate a painful but necessary, and ongoing, cleansing. They need to do that again, here, because it is very likely that — as with those abuse stories — these horrors are not isolated to one town, or one practice or one state.
The UK Press with photographs of those charged and some of the “milder” photos from the Grand Jury Report. I’m told the NY Times has a larger story in its print edition. Will have to go out and buy a paper!
Enough about Gosnell. Let me give you the antidote to that story with this column by Marcia Morrissey who writes about a pregnancy she was pressured to abort:
When you are struggling, and the medical people are so forceful, the idea of abortion blips through your mind, unbidden, because you’re told it is a real option, and when you’re emotional, it’s easy to fall for fall for rhetoric.
Having been told by doctors about all the risks and complications for me and the baby, once I was in the hospital yet again during the pregnancy, for a brief moment, I heard that blip in my mind.
I thought about it, and the idea that I thought of it at all, even for a split second, makes me cringe even now. Maybe that is why I feel compassion for those women who have in a time of weakness, or difficult circumstances, made that decision. I am 100 percent pro-life, but we need to be understanding, and we need to tell women in this position that we will help them, and that God loves them, that he is always merciful, and ready to forgive the moment we reach out to Him. They are not alone.
Like I said, it’s the antidote. Read it all. I am sure that was not an easy piece for Marcia to write.
Finally – something really provocative and straightforward: The language of abortion is euphemism-heavy. Abortion proponents don’t like the word “abortion,” so they use “choice.” They refer to “products of conception,” and “clumps of cells.” Writer and activist Leticia Valesquez, whose daughter has Down syndrome, would prefer that “sensitive language” take a backseat to, you know…life!
Given the choice, I would prefer my daughter to be called a “retard” and know that abortion of babies with Down syndrome had ceased.
Early last month President Barack Obama signed a law decreeing that federal statutes must no longer use the term “mental retardation.” The phrase replacing it will be “intellectual disability.” [...] It seems that, every few decades, old terms for those with physical disabilities or cognitive delays are abandoned in favor of new ones, since existing terms have developed a negative connotation.
But drawing a new word from the thesaurus is not enough. We have to respect the right of the mentally disabled to exist. We need to stop aborting them. Changing vocabulary, while significant, can only get you so far.
As a writer who is also in the pro-life movement I understand the importance of words. Calling an unborn child a fetus, while medically accurate, can depersonalize the child, allowing members of the public to rationalize abortion in the same way that calling certain members of society “useless eaters,” “vermin,” and “life unworthy of life” eventually depersonalized entire classes of people, including the mentally retarded, and sent them to their deaths in the Nazi concentration camps.
My point is this: if an entire class of people, those with three sets of the 21st chromosome, are routinely targeted for destruction—at a scandalous rate of 90 percent—can merely changing the term we use to describe those 10 percent who escape the net increase respect for their human dignity and intrinsic value to society in a meaningful way?
Isn’t a more fundamental change required before having a child with Down syndrome goes from being the greatest fear of pregnant women to being widely accepted by society?
Yep. Pretty hard to argue that “sensitive” language is meaningless when the overall message being delivered by society is “why are you alive at all?”
Again, read it all also this piece on the “silent eugenics” behind that 90% figure, by Timothy P. Shriver.
http://standupforamerica.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/sunday-january-23-2011-open-thread/#comments
And here are some of those pictures. You look at these babies, & tell me they weren’t human. This is for those who think they aren’t.
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/shocking-photos-of-gosnell-murder-victims-included-in-grand-jury-re
Really horrible isn’t it-and to think people actually argue that a few weeks earlier they weren’t babies.
Hi V
Tell that to Matt & Buck, I believe they are 2 of them that think that way. That’s one of the reasons I put this up, hoping they would see it.
Hope you’re doing well.
Lot’s of people think this way-Why shouldn’t they-by legalizing abortion-they have been teaching our children for 30 years that killing babies in the womb is okay-what is acceptable has grown. I wonder whether the next generation will decide that this practice is horribly wrong. Or if they will just continue extending this idea until they believe that society gets to decide who of those of us, who are breathing has a right to live. Oh wait, some people have argued they should have that right already. One thing I know for sure is that if evil is allowed, it will grow, if someone doesn’t speak against it. The individual argument doesn’t work on this one -we are talking about two people-woman have rights but they do not have the right to kill just because they don’t like the role that Nature gave them.
Not sure what you’re looking for here Judy: for me to defend this guy? No way. This guy was a murderer, plain and simple. As you say, he routinely delivered babies and then killed them.
However, I fear that this horrendous crime will just be used by those on the far right to further restrict a woman’s right to abortion. Based on your comments here, and others I have read over the weekend, this is already becoming the case…
Maybe what she wants you to see Buck is that the only difference between this monster and the nice clean abortion clinics-is that the nice clean abortion clinic is only butchering the baby. Maybe she wants you to see that these babies in these pictures are at the most 32 weeks old-they can be killed at 24 weeks legally. They can be killed by partial birth abortion in the same damn way as this monster did it. There is one thing I agree with the absolutists about-there is no difference between killing a baby at 18 weeks or 32. It is wrong-it is cruel and unusual punishment applied to an innocent that cannot protect its self. I’m curious -what is your opinion of the woman who knowingly went to him after 24 weeks-what are they? Are they monsters too or are they just poor desperate woman? I ask because I wonder if there is any point at which you will hold them responsible for killing babies in the womb.
I’ve long said that this is a terrible, difficult choice for all involved. I draw a line at viability – sure its a bit too easy, but at least there’s some science behind it.
After 24 weeks should we hold the mother accountable? I don’t know. I guess it depends on all of the facts and circumstances. I guess I would like there to be an exception for where the mother’s life is in danger. But honestly I don’t know; I don’t have all of the answers.
If the baby is viable and the mother’s life is in danger they just deliver the baby. The only reason for killing it is because you don’t want it.
The difficulty of the decision makes not 1 iota of difference. Except in having compassion for the woman-but it means nothing in deciding whether or not this practice is right or wrong. Life is not determined by a babies viability outside of the womb. In what other scientific situation is life determined by this type of viability-Plants are considered alive but if you jerk them out of the ground they will die-were they not alive. This is a convenient and arbitrary date that allows horrific practices to be followed so that woman can overcome nature. And if they have to kill there own species to do it-so be it. Hell abortion rights activist’s don’t even want ultrasounds to be done to accurately determine that their arbitrary age has been reached. Why do you think that is?
No Buck I in no way want you to defend this guy, just wanted you to see it’s a human life that was taken in a horrific way. I know some don’t consider it is until it’s born & breathing on it’s own. It’s murder in my eyes when an abortion is done. In the case of a mother’s life being at risk, if at all possible that baby can live outside the womb with very special care, then by all means, let that baby be born first before it is killed. I know that is a very hard decision to make, but if it can save both mother & baby, then who not let that baby have a chance at life before it’s snuffed out first.
Monkeys fetuses look like humans babies, too.
Just because something looks like something else doesn’t mean it is.
There’s more to this story than emotion. You keep doing what you always accuse liberals of doing: appealing to emotion. Look, this makes you sick to your stomach therefore X. No.
No, goddamnit. No.
It is awful to look at. I get it.
It looks like a person. I get it.
We are hardwired to be repulsed by the idea. I get it.
I do.
But that doesn’t make it de facto true.
Logic. Not appeals to emotion.
Logic.
Don’t try to shock me with emotional appeal and gorey pictures. Start with Premise A and reach Conclusion Z.
And, I’d like to add, that nobody would have needed to go to this psycho’s “clinic” if the protesters weren’t scaring people away from responsible clinics such as Planned Parenthood and if onerous and overly restrictive laws didn’t make it virtually impossible to have choices in the matter.
Yet, what Buck says is true, the far right is going to use this to “prove” that “abortionists” are baby killing psychopaths.
This woman is telling her story, she isn’t a reporter giving the facts. Does the fact that she had an emotional reaction change the reality of what she was saying. Do you think she lied that the baby reacted to the touch of the instrument untrue. Did she change her life’s work because she was just being emotional. Or was the horror of the reality of what she was supporting, not just the cold, logical words lead her to the truth.
Ooops, thought you were talking about a different article. I don’t blame you for objecting to pictures-a realistic picture of what is being done legally and illegally to the unborn children of this country is a little horrifying.
I was born with an extra bone in my foot. True story. (..and queue the mutant jokes..) It hurt. A lot.
So one day, I had had enough of it and I convinced my parents to let me have surgery to remove it.
I was curious about what the surgery was going to be like, so I got the doctors to show me a video of the surgery being performed (something they were very hesitant to do).
Talk about gory. Wow, it didn’t look like something that should ever be allowed to be done to a human being.
But I had it done anyway, and now I can walk like a normal person.
The moral of the story is this: Just because a “realistic picture of what is being done legally” looks bad doesn’t mean anything. In short, pictures aren’t proof.
Pictures aren’t proof-statements make by people who watched the procedures and the babies reactions aren’t proof. Having a heart beat isn’t proof-growing isn’t proof. Reacting to touch isn’t proof. Can we add anything else that isn’t proof-Please tell me what proof do you have that they aren’t babies? And why you think this viability outside of the womb is a reasonable definition for life.
I’m not an expert on neo-natal medicine. But I know the following:
*Beforehand, she was under the impression that the babies could not sense the abortion.
*She was the director of an abortion clinic, therefor this is something she should have had on good authority.
So, taking a leap of logic, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that there is some sort of a scientific consensus on this issue.
So what did she see/experience? Maybe nothing? Maybe something. She admits her hands were shaking, so moving of the ultrasound is a distinct possibility, thus giving the appearance of motion. Alternatively, fetuses sometimes just move around (any woman how has ever had a baby can tell you that). Alternatively, the tool was touching the fetus which may have moved it (that is, the motion came from the doctor, not the fetus). The touch may have triggered an autonomic nervous response not a representing a deliberate effort to avoid the device. OR the fetus sensed the device and “did not like what it was feeling.”
That last is the one you’ve chosen to believe, but I think this anthropomorphizes the fetus*. I’ll go with that second to last one.
Any way you cut it, however, I think the woman had a highly emotional experience. She projected her feelings for her own child onto this fetus. Because she felt that she was killing a baby like her own child, she could no longer continue doing so. I don’t question her motives, but I do not necessarily stipulate that because she made an emotional connection that she must be correct.
“Person X feels that Object Y is a sentient being” is not a valid argument to bind the rest of us with.**
There is a woman who married the Berlin Wall. That’s right. Married it. The wall. Should I accept that, because she has made an emotional connection and believes that the wall is a person, the wall is a sentient being? No. Of course not. Now, admittedly, Mrs. Berlin Wall is a nut, but it’s the same argument and its still not proof.
*oh boy, I bet that comment pissed some people off.. sorry ’bout that..
**OK, yes, that was another sentence ending with a prepositional phrase. Sorry ’bout that, too..
Okay, I’m gonna take a leap of logic-A woman who has worked in the industry for years-who has taken up for and supported abortion. Is going to be very hard to convince because they do not want to believe what they are seeing with their own eyes. So the proof would have to be pretty strong to convince her.
But remember, really most abortions are only in the case of extreme circumstances or because of the health of the mother. Oh wait, maybe not? As long as people continue to be in denial about what actually happens during an abortion and the number of them occurring, we won’t see a change.
39 Percent Of NYC Pregnancies Result In Abortion
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/01/07/41-percent-of-nyc-pregnancies-result-in-abortion/
Sounds like an argument to increase the affordability and availability of preventative measures.
I’m not seeing the argument to ban abortions here.
B-I-N-G-O…and BINGO was his name-O!
Ooh, did I just win a prize?
Just the satisfaction of hitting the nail on the head.
No, you just successfully changed the subject-Whether or not woman should get more free stuff has nothing to do with whether or not people should have abortions. Now as an argument to help stop woman from having back alley abortions-we can talk. But again charity would be the best way to go.
We’re not talking about free stuff. But the fact remains that by promoting affordable access to abortion at an earlier stage we can significantly limit these tragic cases.
I believe Saletan said it in his article that was posted earlier:
The best option is affordable access to contraception, then the morning after pill, then early abortion. This is the single best method of limiting the number of abortions both overall and at later stages of pregnancy.
I resent your implication that I’m trying to change the sub- Oh over there! Something shiny!
Did that work?
OK, fine. Fine. I’ll elaborate. Your argument is parallel to the following:
A) Drug users use needles.
B) We should ban needles.
C) Crap. Now they’re sharing needles.
D) Sharing needles spreads AIDS.
E) We should ban needles.
See, E is where it jumped the rails. We should be giving out free needles in needle exchange programs, and discouraging drug use separately.
Miss the analogy? Maybe you didn’t, but Buck is slow, so I’ll spell it out for his sake. You’re trying to take away the safer way of doing something bad, but which they’re going to do anyway.
Thus, they’re still going to do it, only now it’s going to be more dangerous. It seems clear to me that that is what happened in Philly, and something that’s going to happen with increasing frequency as laws tighten around this issue.
Wait…so we should ban needles?
I really hate that argument. People are going to do it anyway so let’s help them do it. I may buy this argument in some situations-but we are talking about whether or not something we are doing in this country is murder or not. I’m not going to help people commit murder so they won’t hurt themselves.
OK, so don’t help.
But I’m pretty sure that the women getting abortions are human beings. And I’m pretty sure that I shouldn’t be doing things that make it likelier that they will have serious complications. You don’t have to help, but you’re actually making matters worse.
Your new argument:
A) Speeding causes accidents.
B) Accidents kill people.
C) I will place rocks in the road to force drivers to slow down.
D) Crap! They’re now having more accidents.
E) I should place more rocks in the road to force them to slow down.
I was talking about your point that we should allow abortion because people are going to have abortions anyway. What we should do to keep the woman who are having “legal” abortions is a different conversation.
Meanwhile, femisogynists (rather than being outraged at the abuses women were forced to endure at Gosnell’s hands) are scurrying to excuse this. They pay lip service to the outrage of the situation, and then quickly go right into abortion-defense mode.
Amanda Marcotte begins by quickly contorting herself into an intellectual pretzel trying to blame the pro-life movement for this madman.
That shady abortion providers get patients at all is something we can safely blame the anti-choice movement for. Most doctors in this country are pro-choice, and many would like to provide abortion, but as Slate’s Emily Bazelon demonstrated in the New York Times, the stigma of doing so makes it that much harder to do. Good medical care costs money, but very few women seeking abortion can get coverage, in no small part because of anti-choice initiatives like the Hyde Amendment. If you’re seeking an abortion but can’t afford it, going to a doctor who provides substandard care on the cheap is certainly going to be an attractive option.
These particular charges involve late-term abortion, and all I could think upon reading the news story was, “I wish these women could have gone to Dr. George Tiller,” because he was renowned for the quality of care provided at his Kansas clinic. But sadly, that wasn’t even an option, even for those who could afford it, as Dr. Tiller’s life was taken by an anti-choice extremist in 2009. When vacuums are created, we shouldn’t be surprised when they suck in a bunch of junk.
Amanda’s premise is flawed on virtually every level. First, Dr. Tiller was murdered in 2009. The violations at Dr. Gosnell’s clinic go back decades, so many of the women violated at his clinic could have gone to Dr. Tiller. Also, this wasn’t a case of women choosing to go to an abortion butcher like Dr. Gosnell because it was cheap, or because better options weren’t available. As Rachael Larimore pointed out in her rebuttal, Philadelphia houses several abortion clinics, one of which offers financial assistance. Pennsylvania offers no-cost birth control and emergency contraception to women who qualify. And while Planned Parenthood charges less than $1,000 for first trimester abortions, Dr. Gosnell was charging his patients $2,500 or more for his late-term abortions.
Jill at Feministe tried to pretend that he was just a murderer and not an abortionist, and therefore this has nothing to do with abortion.
Contrary to what Great Moral Authority On Abortion William Saletan has to say about the matter, I think we’re all pretty well agreed that if the charges against Kermit Gosnell are true, then dude is a criminal and needs to go to jail. Killing a baby after it’s born and has taken breaths? Is not abortion. It should be, and is, a crime punishable by law. And Kermit Gosnell is being criminally prosecuted.
Also, women don’t get late-term abortions for fun. Seriously. No one is like, “I think I will continue this pregnancy for as long as legally possible before I undergo an invasive medical procedure that is rendered longer, more expensive, and more complicated because I waited six months to have it.” No. It’s actually more like, “I really wanted this baby but now it turns out that there’s a fetal abnormality incompatible with life, and if I continue this pregnancy I risk my own health and/or life to give birth to a baby that either will not live or will only live in extreme pain for a very short while.” Fun stuff like that.
That’s a falsehood, of course. Most late-term abortions are actually not done to save the life of the mother or because the baby won’t survive. There have been virtually no studies done on late-term abortions, with the exception of the Guttmacher Institute over 20 years ago. In a survey of 1,900 women who had abortions, 420 had late-term abortions. Of those 420, only 2% had a late-term abortion due to a fetal abnormality. Most women just claimed they didn’t know they were pregnant or misjudged their gestation. And what is Jill’s point? That killing a baby when he is delivered is murder, but doing it moments beforehand when he’s still partially in his mother’s birth canal is A-OK? To someone like her, there’s no difference. And it wasn’t as if Dr. Gosnell was only killing babies in the “bad” way. He performed many, many, many “acceptable” late-term abortions. He’s being charged with 33 illegal late-term abortions, but killed hundreds in this manner.
Vanessa Valenti at Feministing basically regurgitates Jill Filipovic and Amanda Marcotte’s nonsensical arguments. It’s not about abortion, but even if it was, this never would have happened if women had better access to abortion clinics anyways. Nevermind the 33 counts of felony abortion and exorbitant prices patients were charged. Gotta tread carefully here, because if they express too much condemnation, then it could infringe on abortion rights!
The pro-abortion feminist left is going to great lengths to brush this controversy underneath the rug in order to protect abortion rights. They claim to be fighting for women, but are willing to overlook instances where women are abused and injured, and even killed. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe that these are today’s champions of women’s rights — women who can barely muster more than a shrug of the shoulders over the murder of one woman, the murders of seven infants, and the butchering of countless other women who were fortunate enough to survive a visit to Gosnell’s clinic. If one ever needed an example of just how far these women who call themselves feminists are willing to go to protect their sacred cow, you would need only look at their reaction to Kermit Gosnell butcher shop.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/01/22/gosnells-house-of-horrors-exposes-the-soulless-feminist-left/
Here’s another story about how some women, one here in particular said how an abortion made her sterile.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110123/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_clinic_investigation_8
Wow, picketers scared her -but dirty blood stained recliners with drugged out people in them-wasn’t enough to make her walk out the door.
Lose more customers that way.
A view from the left.
War Room
Sunday, Jan 23, 2011 01:23 ET
Why I’m glad Keith Olbermann is gone
The smugness, the narcissism, the never-ending parade of yes-man guests: Goodnight and good riddance!
By Niall Stanage
*
Why I’m glad MSNBC is now Olbermann-free
AP
Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann
If there was some strange parallel universe in which Keith Olbermann and I were members of Congress, I suspect we would vote together about 99 percent of the time. But when the “Countdown” host announced his abrupt departure from MSNBC on Friday night, I felt only relief.
First reactions to Olbermann’s exit have broken along lines as partisan as they were predictable. That the New York Post would respond to the news with glee and The Huffington Post with a gnashing of teeth was hardly a shock.
But back in the real world, I cannot imagine I am the only viewer who is basically simpatico with Olbermann’s worldview, but who had come to find him and his show utterly insufferable. The glibness, the pomposity, the narcissism — all these foibles had, of late, reached gut-wrenching proportions.
It was not always thus. It is easy to forget just what the media landscape looked like in the early years of Olbermann’s tenure at the helm of “Countdown.” (He had, of course, had an earlier, unsuccessful stint at MSNBC, which culminated in one of the many enmity-filled partings that have dotted his career.)
The show began in 2003, when large swathes of the journalistic profession appeared to have been cowed — not just by the Bush administration per se but by a jingoistic atmosphere that lingered too long after 9/11 and took many unwise forms.
In that environment, Olbermann was fresh, even daring. The show’s increasingly forceful liberalism through its early years made for some riveting TV moments, the best-known perhaps his 2006 takedown of then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The freshness curdled soon enough.
In his farewell remarks on Friday, Olbermann proudly proclaimed that his show was “anti-establishment.” In recent years, that description was a stretch, at best.
Everything from the increasingly contrived “Worst Person in the World” segments to the host’s persona — a kind of an ersatz version of Walter Cronkite, with infinitely more “attitude” but infinitely less real authority — had settled into a rut. Predictability and self-importance were the main features.
“Countdown” had a niche — a profitable one for both the network and its host, who was rumored to have negotiated a $30 million four-year contract in 2008 — and Olbermann apparently saw little need for change.
Meanwhile, his professed commitment to the questioning of authority all-too-evidently did not extend to himself. There were myriad stories about diva-like histrionics in front of — and allegedly directed against — staff. There were instances where his sneering at co-anchors had embarrassing public results.
But, more importantly, there was a years-long procession of pundits whose only apparent purpose was to confirm the correctness and brilliance of the host’s every utterance. The spectacle was one in which purportedly respectable journalists seemed to fall over themselves to play courtier to King Smug.
By last year, criticism of this trend had become so widespread that Olbermann responded, via a promo spot for the show. The ad, which showed the host proclaiming that “I ask a lot of these questions to find out whether or not I’m wildly incorrect about something,” was unintentionally hilarious. The only “establishment” being challenged by then was the one that is charged with taking action against false advertising.
There was a bigger problem, too. Olbermann rose to prominence in large part through attacking other media figures — most notably Bill O’Reilly — for both their gloating self-regard and their rhetorical recklessness.
Olbermann’s claim to the moral high ground here was strictly relative. This is a man, after all, who once reported an allegation that Paris Hilton had been punched in the face under the tagline “A Slut and Battery.” Hilarious, no?
Later silliness — the risible condemnation of then-Senator-Elect Scott Brown as “an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence” — only strengthened the impression that Olbermann had morphed into a mirror image of those he so often attacked.
The blogosphere is already aflame with suggestions that Olbermann’s departure is linked to Comcast’s impending takeover of NBC. Maybe it is. Petitions for his reinstatement are growing as I type. Maybe they’ll be successful — though I doubt it.
In any case, for me at least, Olbermann’s act has long been threadbare. Goodnight and good luck, Keith — and good riddance.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/01/22/stanage_olbermann/index.html
I was just reading the CNN article on Justice Scalia speaking tomorrow. So many comments about the Constitution after the article are so disheartening. Such widespread disrespect for the one document that once separated us from the rest of the world. A document which was to help protect individual liberty, simply shunned out of ignorance or to obtain whatever injustice is desired. Today it is spit upon by the ignorant to their own detriment. And yes, I was refering to the Constitution in past tense.
APD,
Never quit my friend! The L/P agenda is designed to do that, see through it and retaliate. I can fully understand Black Flags position on this, and even support it. I’ll take BF’s ideals over the Progressive ideals any day. I have wondered, is the next US civil war going to be between the Left and Right? They sure bark alot, and the right is getting fed up with their BS. What’s your opinion?
G!
I don’t think there will be a civil war, but an implosion. The slower we implode the more time we all have to adapt. Gosh, maybe the implosion has already begun? It’s minus 24 F here with no wind. A good time to make ice. Where is that ice house I forgot to build? LOL
The ultrasound that changed my life – Abby Johnson’s pro-life conversion in her own words
by Abby Johnson
* Mon Jan 10, 2011 16:44 EST
* Comments (2)
*
*
*
Former Planned Parenthood director, and now pro-life activist Abby Johnson.
Related Stories
Former Planned Parenthood director admits: I had two ‘traumatic’ abortions
Note: The following is the first chapter of Abby Johnson’s forthcoming book. To find out more about the book, which will be released January 11, click here.
January 10, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – CHERYL POKED HER HEAD INTO MY OFFICE. “Abby, they need an extra person back in the exam room. Are you free?”
I looked up from my paperwork, surprised. “Sure.”
Though I’d been with Planned Parenthood for eight years, I had never been called into the exam room to help the medical team during an abortion, and I had no idea why I was needed now. Nurse-practitioners were the ones who assisted in abortions, not the other clinic staff. As director of this clinic in Bryan, Texas, I was able to fill in for any position in a pinch, except, of course, for doctors or nurses performing medical procedures. I had, on a few occasions, agreed at a patient’s request to stay with her and even hold her hand during the procedure, but only when I’d been the counselor who’d worked with her during intake and counseling. That was not the case today. So why did they need me?
Today’s visiting abortionist had been here at the Bryan clinic only two or three times before. He had a private abortion practice about 100 miles away. When I’d talked with him about the job several weeks before, he had explained that at his own facility he did only ultrasound-guided abortions — the abortion procedure with the least risk of complications for the woman. Because this method allows the doctor to see exactly what is going on inside the uterus, there is less chance of perforating the uterine wall, one of the risks of abortion. I respected that about him. The more that could be done to keep women safe and healthy, the better, as far as I was concerned. However, I’d explained to him that this practice wasn’t the protocol at our clinic. He understood and said he’d follow our typical procedures, though we agreed he’d be free to use ultrasound if he felt a particular situation warranted it.
To my knowledge, we’d never done ultrasound-guided abortions at our facility. We did abortions only every other Saturday, and the assigned goal from our Planned Parenthood affiliate was to perform 25 to 35 procedures on those days. We liked to wrap them up by around 2 p.m. Our typical procedure took about 10 minutes, but an ultrasound added about five minutes, and when you’re trying to schedule up to 35 abortions in a day, those extra minutes add up.
I felt a moment’s reluctance outside the exam room. I never liked entering this room during an abortion procedure — never welcomed what happened behind this door. But since we all had to be ready at any time to pitch in and get the job done, I pushed the door open and stepped in.
The patient was already sedated, still conscious but groggy, the doctor’s brilliant light beaming down on her. She was in position, the instruments were laid out neatly on the tray next to the doctor, and the nurse-practitioner was positioning the ultrasound machine next to the operating table.
“I’m going to perform an ultrasound-guided abortion on this patient. I need you to hold the ultrasound probe,” the doctor explained.
As I took the ultrasound probe in hand and adjusted the settings on the machine, I argued with myself, I don’t want to be here. I don’t want to take part in an abortion. No, wrong attitude — I needed to psych myself up for this task. I took a deep breath and tried to tune in to the music from the radio playing softly in the background. It’s a good learning experience — I’ve never seen an ultrasound-guided abortion before, I told myself. Maybe this will help me when I counsel women. I’ll learn firsthand about this safer procedure. Besides, it will be over in just a few minutes.
I could not have imagined how the next 10 minutes would shake the foundation of my values and change the course of my life.
I had occasionally performed diagnostic ultrasounds for clients before. It was one of the services we offered to confirm pregnancies and estimate how far along they were. The familiarity of preparing for an ultrasound soothed my uneasiness at being in this room. I applied the lubricant to the patient’s belly, then maneuvered the ultrasound probe until her uterus was displayed on the screen and adjusted the probe’s position to capture the image of the fetus.
I was expecting to see what I had seen in past ultrasounds. Usually, depending on how far along the pregnancy was and how the fetus was turned, I’d first see a leg, or the head, or some partial image of the torso, and would need to maneuver a bit to get the best possible image. But this time, the image was complete. I could see the entire, perfect profile of a baby.
It looks just like Grace at 12 weeks, I thought, surprised, remembering my very first peek at my daughter, three years before, snuggled securely inside my womb. The image now before me looked the same, only clearer, sharper. The detail startled me. I could clearly see the profile of the head, both arms, legs, and even tiny fingers and toes. Perfect.
And just that quickly, the flutter of the warm memory of Grace was replaced with a surge of anxiety. What am I about to see? My stomach tightened. I don’t want to watch what is about to happen.
I suppose that sounds odd coming from a professional who’d been running a Planned Parenthood clinic for two years, counseling women in crisis, scheduling abortions, reviewing the clinic’s monthly budget reports, hiring and training staff. But odd or not, the simple fact is, I had never been interested in promoting abortion. I’d come to Planned Parenthood eight years before, believing that its purpose was primarily to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing the number of abortions. That had certainly been my goal. And I believed that Planned Parenthood saved lives — the lives of women who, without the services provided by this organization, might resort to some back-alley butcher. All of this sped through my mind as I carefully held the probe in place.
“Thirteen weeks,” I heard the nurse say after taking measurements to determine the fetus’s age.
“Okay,” the doctor said, looking at me, “just hold the probe in place during the procedure so I can see what I’m doing.”
The cool air of the exam room left me feeling chilled. My eyes still glued to the image of this perfectly formed baby, I watched as a new image entered the video screen. The cannula — a strawshaped instrument attached to the end of the suction tube — had been inserted into the uterus and was nearing the baby’s side. It looked like an invader on the screen, out of place. Wrong. It just looked wrong.
My heart sped up. Time slowed. I didn’t want to look, but I didn’t want to stop looking either. I couldn’t not watch. I was horrified, but fascinated at the same time, like a gawker slowing as he drives past some horrific automobile wreck — not wanting to see a mangled body, but looking all the same.
My eyes flew to the patient’s face; tears flowed from the corners of her eyes. I could see she was in pain. The nurse dabbed the woman’s face with a tissue.
“Just breathe,” the nurse gently coached her. “Breathe.”
“It’s almost over,” I whispered. I wanted to stay focused on her, but my eyes shot back to the image on the screen.
At first, the baby didn’t seem aware of the cannula. It gently probed the baby’s side, and for a quick second I felt relief. Of course, I thought. The fetus doesn’t feel pain. I had reassured countless women of this as I’d been taught by Planned Parenthood. The fetal tissue feels nothing as it is removed. Get a grip, Abby. This is a simple, quick medical procedure. My head was working hard to control my responses, but I couldn’t shake an inner disquiet that was quickly mounting to horror as I watched the screen.
The next movement was the sudden jerk of a tiny foot as the baby started kicking, as if it were trying to move away from the probing invader. As the cannula pressed its side, the baby began struggling to turn and twist away. It seemed clear to me that it could feel the cannula, and it did not like what it was feeling. And then the doctor’s voice broke through, startling me.
“Beam me up, Scotty,” he said lightheartedly to the nurse. He was telling her to turn on the suction — in an abortion the suction isn’t turned on until the doctor feels he has the cannula in exactly the right place.
I had a sudden urge to yell, “Stop!” To shake the woman and say, “Look at what is happening to your baby! Wake up! Hurry! Stop them!”
But even as I thought those words, I looked at my own hand holding the probe. I was one of “them” performing this act. My eyes shot back to the screen again. The cannula was already being rotated by the doctor, and now I could see the tiny body violently twisting with it. For the briefest moment the baby looked as if it were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then it crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then it was gone. And the uterus was empty. Totally empty.
I was frozen in disbelief. Without realizing it, I let go of the probe. It slipped off the patient’s tummy and slid onto her leg. I could feel my heart pounding — pounding so hard my neck throbbed. I tried to get a deep breath but couldn’t seem to breathe in or out. I still stared at the screen, even though it was black now because I’d lost the image. But nothing was registering to me. I felt too stunned and shaken to move. I was aware of the doctor and nurse casually chatting as they worked, but it sounded distant, like vague background noise, hard to hear over the pounding of my own blood in my ears.
The image of the tiny body, mangled and sucked away, was replaying in my mind, and with it the image of Grace’s first ultrasound — how she’d been about the same size. And I could hear in my memory one of the many arguments I’d had with my husband, Doug, about abortion.
“When you were pregnant with Grace, it wasn’t a fetus; it was a baby,” Doug had said. And now it hit me like a lightning bolt: He was right! What was in this woman’s womb just a moment ago was alive. It wasn’t just tissue, just cells. It was a human baby. And it was fighting for its life! A battle it lost in the blink of an eye. What I have told people for years, what I’ve believed and taught and defended, is a lie.
Suddenly I felt the eyes of the doctor and nurse on me. It shook me out of my thoughts. I noticed the probe lying on the woman’s leg and fumbled to get it back into place. But my hands were shaking now.
“Abby, are you OK?” the doctor asked. The nurse’s eyes searched my face with concern.
“Yeah, I’m OK.” I still didn’t have the probe correctly positioned, and now I was worried because the doctor couldn’t see inside the uterus. My right hand held the probe, and my left hand rested gingerly on the woman’s warm belly. I glanced at her face — more tears and a grimace of pain. I moved the probe until I’d recaptured the image of her now-empty uterus. My eyes traveled back to my hands. I looked at them as if they weren’t even my own.
How much damage have these hands done over the past eight years? How many lives have been taken because of them? Not just because of my hands, but because of my words. What if I’d known the truth, and what if I’d told all those women?
What if?
I had believed a lie! I had blindly promoted the “company line” for so long. Why? Why hadn’t I searched out the truth for myself? Why had I closed my ears to the arguments I’d heard? Oh, dear God, what had I done?
My hand was still on the patient’s belly, and I had the sense that I had just taken something away from her with that hand. I’d robbed her. And my hand started to hurt — I felt an actual physical pain. And right there, standing beside the table, my hand on the weeping woman’s belly, this thought came from deep within me:
Never again! Never again.
I went into autopilot. As the nurse cleaned up the woman, I put away the ultrasound machine, then gently roused the patient, who was limp and groggy. I helped her sit up, coaxed her into a wheelchair, and took her to the recovery room. I tucked a light blanket around her. Like so many patients I’d seen before, she continued to cry, in obvious emotional and physical pain. I did my best to make her more comfortable.
Ten minutes, maybe 15 at most, had passed since Cheryl had asked me to go help in the exam room. And in those few minutes, everything had changed. Drastically. The image of that tiny baby twisting and struggling kept replaying in my mind. And the patient. I felt so guilty. I’d taken something precious from her, and she didn’t even know it.
How had it come to this? How had I let this happen? I had invested myself, my heart, my career in Planned Parenthood because I cared about women in crisis. And now I faced a crisis of my own.
Looking back now on that late September day of 2009, I realize how wise God is for not revealing our future to us. Had I known then the firestorm I was about to endure, I might not have had the courage to move forward. As it was, since I didn’t know, I wasn’t yet looking for courage. I was, however, looking to understand how I found myself in this place — living a lie, spreading a lie, and hurting the very women I so wanted to help.
And I desperately needed to know what to do next.
This is my story.
To read the rest of the book, click here.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-ultrasound-that-changed-my-life-abby-johnsons-pro-life-conversion-in-he?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=a9876ec852-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines01_10_2011&utm_medium=email
I’m sure those images will haunt her for the rest of her life too.
Two thoughts here….
(1) With my first child, my son, my thoughts on abortion changed almost entirely. After trying for 10 years we finally had the start of a successful pregnancy. Days before the 10 week ultrasound (when we should hear the first heartbeat) we feared the worst – a likely miscarry. We went to the hospital and experienced the other end of the emotional spectrum – the sight and sound of a strong heartbeat (the night before was likely a small clot that had passed). For me – “life” became that heartbeat – not some arbitrary date that is used to say ok/not ok for abortion. So my position has moved way way back to assert that life begins at that heartbeat – not perfect answer to some but that’s ok for me right now.
(2) That “back alley” was the West Philly clinic. The failure to apply and enforce law is akin to their being no law.
Ray, based on your experiences and your own changing views on this, would you propose restricting a woman’s right to abortion to that 10-week mark? Or do you see the 10-weeks as your own personal marker?
Buck – its my personal marker first and utmost.
The rub is how I apply this to my view on the law, practices, etc……
I still hold for legalized pregnancy termination when…
(1) There is confirmed pregnancy regardless of how it happened (rape, incest, busted rubber, two kids who thought “pulling out” was birth control,…….) but only in the earliest stages of the pregnancy (first 5-6 weeks?).
(2) The mother’s life is in danger – this is a highly intense and very personal decision imho – the “in danger” criteria should be assessed by more than a single opinion and this criteria could be applied deep into a pregnancy.
Fair points. My only personal disagreement is with (1) — Clearly, the earlier the better as far as abortion goes, but 5-6 weeks to me is too early of a cut off point. Right now I still support the viability distinction as it provides time to make a decision, though whose to say over time my own views won’t change for a shorter timeframe.
“Right now I still support the viability distinction as it provides time to make a decision,”
Please read what you just said. What about your statement has anything to do with whether or not the baby is alive or not. Do you really choose and support the viability argument based on a woman having time to decide instead on whether or not the baby is alive.
Viability works for me because it both provides time to make a very difficult decision and it provides some scientific framework (whether or not the fetus can survive outside the womb).
I’ve never said it isn’t somewhat arbitrary. But it works for me.
Okay, I have a question-does the woman who is beyond the 24 weeks have a right to induce labor at this point. If she doesn’t want to carry the baby any longer. I mean it’s her body-why not the baby is viable now.
Ya know, Buck,,,,This is a (as the English put it) a sticky wicket or some such. My significant other and I have decided that this is not a topic of discussion. Well, I have actually made it a non topic. Her concept is one of…conception. When the DNA started….life starts. I have learned to not argue because, like here, you will not change opinions.
I just tell her she misses the point that is being made. I asked her about being hypocritical in that she is for women’s rights all the way down the line……EXCEPT the womans right to choose. Well, I just leave it alone and will continue to do so.
As to the Philly case…….this SOB needs to be strung up by his gonads….and left for the buzzards.
Can we come up with something a little worse for him?
But here’s the million dollar question. One of the women said she went to him because she was scared off by the protesters at the planned parenthood clinic and because there were no other clinics available because of legal restrictions. If we accept that as true then would making them illegal actually stop them, or would it just force women into dangerous back-alley clinics?
And before you answer, consider this: Did making drugs illegal stop drug use, or did it just create a whole lot of other problems?
There is a difference between those woman who go into back alleys and have abortions -they choose to-the babies they have no choose in whether or not they are slaughtered. It is sad but unless you are willing to allow woman to have abortion on demand no matter the stage of their pregnancy there are going to be horror stories. All legal abortion does is cause an increase in killed babies.
Not necessarily – statistics are very hazy with that regard.
The only the the data show with any certainty is that restricting access to legal and professional abortion causes an increase in complications and deaths in the women who get abortions.
Did anyone here read Cider House Rules, by the way? Excellent book (I think they also made it into a movie).
Hypocritical-it’s hypocritical to acknowledge that in this one case you are not just ONE. That your rights do not extend to killing an unborn child. If a woman truly has a right to choose based on her individual rights than there really isn’t a cutoff date. The baby is still attached to her body until she actually gives birth.
If we accept your premise that it’s not one person, but two, then we have to accept that one person is having their resources stolen by another person. (stolen, because the one person doesn’t want the other person, therefore that person is taking by theft).
So, if you own a farm and someone keeps taking your food (which you worked to grow and harvest, but which the other person did not), then you have no right to kick them out?
And if they starve to death because they cannot steal from you is that your problem? Do you have a moral obligation to give your resource to others?
Do I have to accept the premise that I must give my resources to my outside of the womb children-yes. Can I let them starve because they are taking my resources-no? Do I look at the responsibility I have to take care of my children(inside the womb and out) as the same as the responsibility I have to other adult humans who can take care of themselves-no. And yes I do believe that I have a moral responsibility to help my fellow man. I just believe that we should give charity not rights to those in need.
Why does this obligation extend only to your children? Why not other people’s children? What about if they’re 30 years old and refuse to fend for themselves?
How are you drawing the line?
I’m sure I have said this many times-I believe in small temporary social programs -but we should rely on charity unless it just can’t take care of the problem. In our present situation-the government has to continue these programs to help people but they need to be reduced and people need to be weaned off of them. Charity should and I believe could with time take care of those who truly need help.
VH- I’m sorry but I have to weigh in on this one. A woman does have the right to choose, I agree with that 100%. The government has no business telling her what she can and cannot do to her body and I’m sorry but neither do you. That is something that she has to decide for herself and that decision and the consequences of it are between her and whatever God she prays to. Are there better ways to do it? I’m sure that there are, but as long as there is a stigma attached to this choice you are going to find more and more cases like this Gosnell idiot.
It comes down to this, it’s the woman’s choice. Not yours, not the government. That choice and the consequences are hers. You have the right to choose not to do that for yourself, but not for anyone else. It isn’t something that I would choose to do, but it’s not something that I am going to dictate to someone else either. I don’t believe that this should ever have become a political issue. I’ve said this on here before, you can’t legislate morality. When you try to you are imposing your morals on to someone else and I don’t believe that is your intent here.
In this instance I couldn’t give a crap about imposing morality on someone-that is what national laws or rights are based on. BF talks about universal truth is the only laws we should have -not individual truths. Well, Murder is wrong-it is that simple. Making it more complicated is what has brought to life BS definitions that define viability based on the desires of one person. Not the actual truth.
natural laws
V.H.
Kristian,
But where do you get the right to determine life and death of another human being???
The choice was made long before this question – called intercourse.
That was the choice.
The baby is the consequence.
You are claiming that it is a Right of a Woman to murder so to mitigate the consequence of her choice.
You tread a very, very, very dangerous path here, Kristan.
And in the case of rape?
There’s no choice in that.
It was her fault for looking attractive. Wasn’t that the accepted defense in the Ye Olden Times? A short skirt “invited” sex, therefore it wasn’t rape.
Therefore, the pregnancy is a “consequence of her choice”
Buck and Mathius,
Your argue regarding “rape” is disingenuous.
You gentlemen are completely confused and contradicted on the easy questions where she consented
You have NO SKILL or UNDERSTANDING of any questions of complexity such as a rape or incest.
You guys can’t even add 2+2, and want to use the principles of calculus to try to disprove arithmetic!
When either of you can (1) accept arguments against abortion where consent of intercourse exists OR provide compelling argument FOR abortion where consent of intercourse exists … then and only then are you prepared to discuss the further complexities you have raised here.
Until then, your attempt of “contradiction by example” simply a futile fallacy.
Kudos for dodging the question.
Why don’t you enlighten me then? Moving beyond the ‘easy’ question of where we have consent…how do you apply this ‘easy’ answer to the complex situation of rape?
It seems I run up against this walk-before-you-can-run kind of argument from BF ever time I ask a question that he doesn’t want to answer.
Maybe I’m just imagining it. I am stark raving mad, after all..
Kristian,
Just re read my remarks to you-didn’t mean to sound so harsh- Sorry
Ray
On your second point. I would submit that it is not the same.
Having law that is not enforced is much worse. We assume the law will protect. It causes us to take things for granted. It allows evil and immorality to spread without opposition.
Another example, the financial and housing derivative meltdown.
This is the risk of laws and regulations. Citizens become complacent, they assume it is OK or they throw up their hands in frustration because they have no legal recourse.
With respect to the West Philly case – I keep hearing here how hair and nail salons are regulated and inspected more frequently that abortion clinics. WTF?!?!? This is where my fucking tax dollars go? (sorry for the anger on this one)
We have a “doctor” stabbing living babies in the neck with scissors and reportedly conducting forced abortions (he supposedly became so enraged with an “on the fence” patient he had her forcible sedated, performed a forced abortion and then left her sitting on a filthy toilet clogged with dead fetuses) and we assume the laws will somehow magically protect us? We have really gone in the wrong direction on this….
Ray, it took us 13 years & many, many problems to have our 2 son’s. The first heart beat starts at 26 days after conception.
@Judy – I could never imagine silencing my son’s heartbeat. For my wife and I – as soon as we knew there was a positive pregnancy “it” became our “baby” – not some “fetal tissue”.
Ray, I couldn’t agree with you more. Like I said, I had a lot of problems in getting pregnant, & a lot of problems during as well, & that’s one of the reason’s I’m so against abortions, not to mention what a baby goes through, whether it can feel it or not. I don’t care what anybody else says, it’s murdering a life before it has a chance at life.
Disturbing imagery.
Of course, it was intentionally written that way. But never mind that for now.
What gets me is the fact that we have no new information. Nothing was added to the debate. Nothing changed. Yet, somehow, she knew – KNEW – that what she had previously believed was a lie.
Before I address this fact, I want to ridicule something: she said she had been telling lies (specifically that a fetus is not a baby). That is not a lie. A lie is a deliberate untruth. If we accept her new belief as gospel (which I do not) – that a fetus is a human being – and we add in the fact that she did not believe this beforehand, she was not LYING. She was WRONG. And there is a major difference between the two. Similarly, when she attributes the advocation of this belief from all “abortionists” to be lying, she is incorrect. At worst, they are WRONG since they believe what they are saying.
Not to belabor the point, but I feel this is an important distinction because lying maligns good people who are well-intentioned, but wrong (though, again, I do not think they are wrong, but we’ll get there momentarily). If you say that Texas is better than New York, that is a mistake, not a lie, because you (incorrectly) believe it to be true. Got it? Good. Moving along.
Sausage. I love sausage with my pancakes, covered in syrup. Or with my egg and cheese on an everything bagel with salt and pepper and tons of tobacco sauce. Yum. Not good for the cholesterol (which I should be watching), or the waistline (which I finally have back in check), but so good that I really just don’t care. Why am I talking about sausage, you may ask? Because you do not want to know how it’s made. Seriously, you don’t.
I know how sausage is made. And, worse, I know what goes into it. And I know what the casing is. (shudder). I know all of this, but I have never actually been to a sausage factory and seen it first hand. I know it’s not good for you, and you should try to avoid it, but occasional consumption is ok in moderation. If I opted to go to a factory and watch this production, I might have an epiphany: sausage is disgusting and should never be consumed by humans. But I would have this epiphany as a result of a guttural, visceral, emotional reaction.
But nothing has changed. Sausage is just as tasty. Everything I knew before is still true. All the logic still holds. All the beliefs are just as valid. Except now, somehow, I know that sausage is not fit for human consumption? And now, I’m going to accuse everyone who says otherwise not just of being wrong, but with lying? My logical rational said it wasn’t good for you, but ok to eat in moderation. My emotional visceral first-hand experience said that it’s never ok to eat. And we should now accept the later over the former?
Please.
Abortion is an emotionally loaded topic, and first hand experience can drive a strong emotional response. But the facts are the same and we should endeavor always to make our decisions on facts, not emotions.
Woman believes Y, had emotional tangential experience, facts unaltered, woman now believes Not(Y): therefore advocates of Y are liars, Y is proven false?
Imagine a religious man who loses his wife in a tragic accident. In his grief, he comes to the conclusion that there must be no god. Now he turns around and accuses his former friends of being liars? And what is more, though he has no new information, we are to take his new opinion as the irrefutable truth?
Man believed X, had emotional tangential experience, facts unaltered, man now believes Not(X): therefor advocates of X are liars, X is proven false?
That’s how we do logic here?
I get it. I do. I really, honestly do. But seeing things first hand, and having an emotional response does not change the logical structure of the debate – it is an emotional appeal on par with all the emotional appeals you guys abhor when they come from the left. “But the poor are starving” “ok, so show me a logical argument where that means I have to pay for them” – how many times have you made this argument? If I went out and actually saw them starving somewhere, came back, and wrote a book about it, would that suddenly mean that you had to accept my conclusions?
Oh, and by the way, while you’re not obligated to accept my conclusions based on my emotional experience, you also now have to concede that you were liars beforehand.
No, sorry. Build for me the logical framework, don’t tug on my heart-strings.
“Before I address this fact, I want to ridicule something: she said she had been telling lies (specifically that a fetus is not a baby). That is not a lie. A lie is a deliberate untruth. If we accept her new belief as gospel (which I do not) – that a fetus is a human being – and we add in the fact that she did not believe this beforehand, she was not LYING. She was WRONG. And there is a major difference between the two. Similarly, when she attributes the advocation of this belief from all “abortionists” to be lying, she is incorrect. At worst, they are WRONG since they believe what they are saying.”
OMG – you are such a lying sack of shit, oh no wait, just a wrong sack of shit. Still a sack of shit.
Sorry for the strong language so early in the day but I get so sick and tired of justifying absolutely anything and everything by just changing a few words.
Harsh. And very uncalled for, I think.
I wasn’t really justifying anything with that particular paragraph. I was pointing out that she is attributing a nefarious motive for an untruth despite freely admitting that there was none.
I didn’t now.
I said X.
I found out that X was wrong.
Therefore I was a liar.
Therefore everyone else is lying.
WRONG.
Flat wrong.
Were people lying when they said the world was flat? No. They were wrong. When they found out otherwise, and changed their mind, their previous statements did not magically transform into lies. They were simply proven incorrect.
Calling all “abortionists” liars for advocating something you hold to be incorrect is unfair. With the exception of a very small number of individuals such as the one in Philly, doctors and nurses in these clinics are good people who are genuinely interested in the welfare of their patients. They firmly believe that what they are doing is not murder. The woman knew this was true and she acknowledges this fact. Prior to this experience, she did not believe it was murder either.
So how does she reach the conclusion that it was a lie rather than an error?
If I ask you what 23423 times 34235 is, and you say 801,886,406 but then change your answer after checking your math to 801,886,405, you weren’t lying the first time, were you?
Kathy, I have to say that was wrong to say about Mathius. There is no need in that type of name calling on this site.
Besides, I like the guy even if I rarely agree with him. This is a subject that you obviously are very sensative about, and I respect that and agree with you, but the SOS reference was unfair.
Thanks, Terry.
I, too, think she was being very unfair to sacks of shit everywhere.
I’m thinking she wasn’t calling anyone a SOS-Just pointing out that whether you call it a lie or just being mistaken-the message was still a SOS.
Unusually quiet even for a Sunday-but I am tired of reading so I’m out of here too.
WooooHooooo! Superbowl Baby!
Way to go Packers! Missed the second half, came back in during some interviews. Still don’t know the score, figured you’d have that covered for me. Let me go find it! Maybe Wisconsin can win some kind of title this year!
Packers 21 Bears 14,
Good luck to the Pack fans in #45!
aah thanks G! Wow the Pack got lucky then!
Not really, led 14-0, and never got behind, good game!
Yeah I saw til 14-0..the Pack was tough from what I saw but it ended up close. who won the other game?
Steelers 24 Jets 16. Jets were down 24-3 at the half and fought back.
Oops 24-19
oooh! alrighty then! sounds like a rumble from the old days then..should be fun!
I actually wanted Chicago to win….but really wanted the Packers to win…..WHAT IS THAT YOU SAY?
Answer is quite simple….As a Dallas fan, I was against the Packers (very old rivalry) but as a Texan……I wanted Chicago to lose so Obama would not come here for the Super Bowl. No one wants him here….
Now I hear he may come anyway.
D13, it has to be a slap in every Dallas Cowboy’s face to have Green Bay, AND Pittsburg playing in the first ever Super Bowl in the new stadium. I can think of few other teams that would top their SHIT list. I can say this because…I am a Cowboy fan as well.
@ Terry…….Nah…..the Cowboys blew it. Not a slap in the face. Just Jerry Jones.
Climate change: Dogs of law are off the leash
By Richard Ingham (AFP) – 1 day ago
PARIS — From being a marginal and even mocked issue, climate-change litigation is fast emerging as a new frontier of law where some believe hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake.
Compensation for losses inflicted by man-made global warming would be jaw-dropping, a payout that would make tobacco and asbestos damages look like pocket money.
Imagine: a country or an individual could get redress for a drought that destroyed farmland, for floods and storms that created an army of refugees, for rising seas that wiped a small island state off the map.
In the past three years, the number of climate-related lawsuits has ballooned, filling the void of political efforts in tackling greenhouse-gas emissions.
Eyeing the money-spinning potential, some major commercial law firms now place climate-change litigation in their Internet shop window.
Seminars on climate law are often thickly attended by corporations that could be in the firing line — and by the companies that insure them.
But legal experts sound a note of caution, warning that this is a new and mist-shrouded area of justice.
Many obstacles lie ahead before a Western court awards a cent in climate damages and even more before the award is upheld on appeal.
“There’s a large number of entrepreneurial lawyers and NGOs who are hunting around for a way to gain leverage on the climate problem,” said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego.
“The number of suits filed has increased radically. But the number of suits claiming damages from climate change that have been successful remains zero.”
Lawsuits in the United States related directly or indirectly almost tripled in 2010 over 2009, reaching 132 filings after 48 a year earlier, according to a Deutsche Bank report.
Elsewhere in the world, the total of lawsuits is far lower than in the US, but nearly doubled between 2008 and 2010, when 32 cases were filed, according to a tally compiled by AFP from specialist sites.
The majority of these cases touch on regulatory issues and access to information, which can have many repercussions for coal, gas and oil producers and big carbon-emitting industries such as steel and cement.
“In this area, the floodgates have opened,” said Michael Gerrard, director of the recently-opened Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York, who contributed to the Deutsche Bank report.
In the United States, many cases seek clarification on the right of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while in Europe, the main issue has been emissions quotas allotted to companies in Europe’s carbon market.
In some cases, courts have thrown out the suits, admitted part of them or declared themselves unfit to issue a ruling and booted the affair to a higher authority.
The legal fog is especially thick when it comes to so-called nuisance suits, which seek to determine blame, and thus open the way to damages.
“There are billions of potential plaintiffs and millions of potential defendants,” said Gerrard. “The biggest problem, though, is causation.”
Gerrard and others pointed out some of the dilemmas for establishing liability, starting with the fact that fossil fuels are used, by all of us, in complete legality.
And a molecule of CO2 is no respecter of national boundaries. Gas emitted by a car in Los Angeles or by a coal plant in China will help drive climate damage in South Asia, Europe, the North Pole — anywhere.
Then there is the business of distinguishing between weather and climate. For instance, hurricanes, droughts and floods have always occurred in human history. Can one, or even several, of these be pinned to human meddling in the climate system?
And there’s a further complication: rich nations were the first to plunder the coal, oil and gas that powered the industrial revolution, but they are now being overtaken by China and other fast-growing but still poor giants.
So who is to blame? And to what degree?
Some of the wrangling can be seen in a 2006 case in which California sued three US and three Japanese carmakers, arguing that emissions from their vehicles had caused among other things a melting of mountain snow pack on which the state depends for its water.
That case was dismissed by a district court in 2007, which ruled that the issues were “political questions” that should be tackled by the US president and Congress.
It also noted that the cars were sold legally, that the car emissions had not violated any current laws or regulations and climate change had many contributing factors.
Two other big cases touching on liability have gone to the Supreme Court to adjudicate on competence.
In the most eagerly-awaited case, whose ruling is expected by the end of June, the state of Connecticut is demanding an injunction against major power companies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
“That will definitely be the big one,” said Gerrard. “Everyone is waiting to hear what the Supreme Court says.”
Christoph Schwarte, a lawyer with a British charity called FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development), said that even if today’s lawsuits run into the sand, “some of these cases may be winnable in the future.”
“Case law in the future might evolve, and scientists’ claims to determine the percentage of human contribution to certain extreme weather events may be recognised in some way or another.”
Today’s lawsuits may also spur thinking about future liability risks among major emitters, Schwarte argued.
Many tobacco and asbestos lawsuits, for instance, hinged on arguments that firms knew their product was dangerous at the time, but concealed this evidence from the public.
“(The lawsuits) create awareness and thus also may have an impact on the actions of governments and corporations,” said Schwarte.
“They also create caution” about what is said in internal documents and emails, he said. “In 15 years’ time, you might not be able to turn around and say ‘I didn’t know anything about it at the time.’”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jLQy3ze-D7N4ZQzyDjvLA8ChIEhQ?docId=CNG.0974f2ca1c91adea909b6017dc4d554e.471
Here is a little something different. The talk above of climate change litigation reminded me of something. If one day it is proven that radio waves (electromagnetic energy) cause cancer or other health effects just think what that might unleash in litigation. At this very moment radio waves are going through your body from local tv/radio/cell and distant longer waves from all around the world. What effect is this having on your body at the molecular level and the environment? There are already regulations on how far people are allowed to be from an RF source, depending on the power and frequency. Looking into a microwave transmitting antenna could damage your eyes. What about distances considered ‘safe’ but never ending. 24/7 we are all being penetrated by RF. Something to think about. Time to wrap myself in another layer of foil………… Just kidding…errrrr… yeah just kidding.
OH, and I can prove RF causes much brain damage. The cities have the highest RF levels. Which political party dominates the cites?
Need to walk back a comment I made last week in reference to Trump for president. I said I liked the idea at the time. Big Woops! Seems he contributed big time to Rahm Emaneuel’s campaign..just in the nick of time..right before there was a cap put on donations. Why would a conservative guy donate to Rahm Emanuel? Something smells Dead Fishy!
Maybe his Trump’s hair made the donation rather than Trump himself?
Ummmmmmm….why are you assuming that Trump is conservative?
His hair is liberal, he is conservative.
He does have liberal hair, that is fer sure…fer sure….but you keep him in your camp…I dont want him.
Trump Towers and Casino Chicago?
Good Morning to All
This is what we can expect FEMA to feed folks after a disaster, and what they are preparing for.
Via: Federal Business Opportunities:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) procures and stores pre-packaged commercial meals to support readiness capability for immediate distribution to disaster survivors routinely. The purpose of this Request for Information is to identify sources of supply for meals in support of disaster relief efforts based on a catastrophic disaster event within the New Madrid Fault System for a survivor population of 7M to be utilized for the sustainment of life during a 10-day period of operations. FEMA is considering the following specifications (14M meals per day):
- Serving Size – 12 ounce (entree not to exceed 480 calorie count);
- Maximum calories – 1200 and/or 1165 per meal;
- Protein parameters – 29g-37g kit;
- Trans Fat – 0;
- Saturated Fat – 13 grams (9 calories per gram);
- Total Fat – 47 grams (less than 10% calories);
- Maximum sodium – 800-930 mg;
Requested Menus to include snacks (i.e. fruit mix, candy, chocolate/peanut butter squeezers, drink mix, condiments, and utensils). All meals/kits must have 36 months of remaining shelf life upon delivery. Packaging should be environmentally friendly.
Eat an MRE.
We have a few of those already.
How long is the shelf life of a MRE?
Too friggin long. We are eating three year old MRE’s and they taste the same as a new one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy%27nut
BF & Jon
Re: Homeschool
Check this out. Spoke with school board super’s secretary this morning regrding laws or forms or proceedure for pulling out of public school. She was very receptive to my story and reasons but absolutely clueless on who or what to refer me too! WTH? Further she is having same kind of difficulties with her own son who is in the high school here. We have highly accredited schools here..blue ribbon schools, schools of choice..but 2+2 is not equalling 4. Amazing! Waiting for return call from the school super now!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/24/report-explosion-moscows-busiest-airport/
Terror attack in Russia.
Minus 8 degrees F here at noon. If conditions hold it could be a cold night for a lot of Maineiacs.
http://www.bangordailynews.com/external/mobile/index.php?id=164627
-2 F this AM. Mathius was not pleased.
Matt,
It’s that global warming again….
transcript of the report from the Friday, January 21, World News on ABC:
DIANE SAWYER: And up next, millions of people across the East saying enough already with the snow and ice and cold. Another winter storm roared through today. More records were toppled, and it heightened that question: Do the leading scientists now agree that this is global warming? And this is what winter will be from now on? Linsey Davis is in Boston.
LINSEY DAVIS: More than half the country spent the day digging out yet again, a rough winter of broken records. Miami Beach, Florida, has just shivered through their coldest December on record. On the 14th last month, Atlanta dropped to 14 degrees, a record low for the day. More than 55 inches of snow has fallen this season on Hartford, Connecticut, which averages 46 inches in an entire winter. Typically, Boston gets about 42 inches worth of snowfall each year. But just in the last month, this area’s had about 50 inches of snow. That’s an entire season’s worth of snowfall in just the first month of winter.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Feel like I’m in a different state right now. I ain’t never seen nothing like this in Georgia.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Honestly, I think it’s enough is enough.
DAVIS: School administrators are struggling, too, not only with the snow days wracking up, but when to cancel outdoor recess. In Houston, the principal at Frazier Elementary typically keeps the kids inside if the mercury dips below 45 degrees. But in hardy South Dakota, the principle of Parkston Elementary says it has to be below bone-chilling 0 to keep his kids inside. If this winter seems especially brutal, scientists say you’re right. ABC News contacted 10 climate scientists to ask their take, if an extreme winter like the one we’re having is the way of the future. The consensus? Global warming
Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/01/24/abc-blames-global-warming-extreme-cold-temperatures-and-snow#ixzz1BzFk8WZJ
Mathematics
This comes from 2 math teachers with a combined total of 70 yrs. experience.
It has an indisputable mathematical logic.
This is a strictly mathematical viewpoint..it goes like this:
What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103%?
What makes up 100% in life?
Here’s a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But ,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that while Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, its the Bullshit and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top.
Now you know why some people are where they are!
Rahm booted: >
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/24/court-boots-rahm-emanuel-chicago-mayoral-ballot
Well, he certainly should not waste this crisis!!! Perhaps he enjoys fishing!
I have a nephew (that part of the family is so liberal they are almost communists) who lives there and he is somewhat ticked off right now because he thinks RE is the greatest thing since Obama . . .
I read that article and I ROTHALMAO!!!!!
Now, I am not a “birther”, but if you watch this video clip, you might be amazed…
The reason the “birther” issue will never be resolved, is because Obama was hatched not born and they are still defining “born”.
Obama uses normally-neutral board to pay back unions
By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller | Published: 9:13 AM 01/22/2011
President Barack Obama’s administration continues its private sector unionization efforts, this time with the historically “politically neutral” National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). A newly proposed rule from the NLRB would require private sector companies to post employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act, the legislation that gives employees the “right” to unionize, in their workplaces.
Former Department of Labor Solicitor Greg Jacob told The Daily Caller these unionization efforts are a misuse of the NLRB’s power, especially because there is no legal basis whatsoever for what that board is trying to do.
“We’re all familiar with posting requirements of various other federal agencies. The EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] has postings, the Wage and Hour division have postings about your wage and hour rights, but all of those are provided for in law,” Jacob said in a phone interview. “Here, there is no such provision the NLRA saying any kind of posting like this should be required.”
Tommy Eden, an Alabama and Georgia lawyer who has written extensively on the Obama administration’s pandering to Big Labor, told TheDC that it’s typical for an administration to use the NLRB for policymaking but playing these kinds of political games with the organization is “highly unusual.”
“The National Labor Relations has always been neutral in these issues. At this point, now, they’re trying to mandate employers post a posting in favor of unions,” Eden said in a phone interview. “This is basically getting into the battle between employers and unions over the hearts.”
Jacob, who served as Solicitor during the Bush Administration, said the NLRB is supposed to act as an independent organization that doesn’t report to the president or his political appointees, but the most pro-union member of that board, Craig Becker, owes his job to Obama making the appointment in recess. Becker worked with the AFL-CIO and SEIU on behalf of unionization efforts for years before Obama appointed him to the NLRB. Jacob told TheDC Obama had to appoint Becker to his current spot during recess because Becker is “too extreme.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/22/obama-uses-normally-neutral-board-to-pay-back-unions/#ixzz1BzJs5WYx
from John Lott,
Obama appointees threaten to sue four states over their attempt to guarantee secret ballots for union elections
The Obama appointees who control the NLRB are threatening lawsuits against states that want to guarantee the secret ballot for union elections. This whole thing is strange because as of right now there is no conflict. This conflict will only occur if the Obama administration changes the current rules.
The National Labor Relations Board today advised the Attorneys General of Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah that recently-approved state constitutional amendments governing the method by which employees choose union representation conflict with federal labor law and therefore are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The states were also advised that the Board has authorized the Acting General Counsel to file lawsuits in federal court, if necessary, to enjoin them from enforcing the laws.
Under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act, private-sector employees have two ways to choose a union: They may vote in a secret-ballot election conducted by the NLRB, or they may persuade an employer to voluntarily recognize a union after showing majority support by signed authorization cards or other means. . . .
The NLRB claims that unions can already be certified without a secret vote.
The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the amendments conflict with federal law, which gives employers the option of recognizing a union if a majority of workers sign cards that support unionizing. . . .
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said he believes the state is on solid ground. He plans to coordinate a response with the other three states.
“If they want to bring a lawsuit, then bring it,” Shurtleff said. “We believe that a secret ballot is as fundamental a right as any American has had since the beginning of this country. We want to protect the constitutional rights of our citizens.” . . .
Uh Oh, new Public Policy Polling poll out on Social Security.
The findings? With a choice between (a) Raising the payroll cap (currently $106,800) and (b) Cutting benefits, the vast majority of Americans across all political spectrums (including self-identified Tea Partiers) and across all ages and income levels went with option (A).
A whopping 77% opted to raise the payroll cap.
I know PPP is not a valid source on SUFA so we obviously must disregard these results. Not sure why I’m even posting it.
Why are you wasting all of our time with this? Obviously this is a plot by the liberal media.
By raising the payroll cap they can put off the collapse of the ponzi scheme onto another generation.
Is Social Security a Ponzai Scheme?
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm
That is a good point the, morally, SS is the polar opposite of a ponzi scheme. (ie, we all know what it is and how it works, and the goal is to help society not to profit those at the top).
Other than that, though, they’re pretty much the same, I’d have to admit.
It became a Ponzai Scheme when the federal government raided the fund and transferred it to the general fund to hide debt. A cabinet full of IOU’s is not money in the bank.
Buck
YES, it is.
Proof you ask?
Simply read the same article more carefully. See how often the author says no then provides the evidence for his proof, but the evidence says yes.
His entire defense lies on the “fraud”. But if you don’t think it is fraud just listen to the claims of the public that they contributed to “their” accounts and just want “their” money back.
The article basically says, “It’s not a ponzi scheme because the government says so”
Close, but not quite. Its not a ponzi scheme (according to the author) because everyone knows exactly how it works and because it can be tweaked to ensure continuity.
Buck
It is not a dodge – in fact, your question (as I pointed out) is disingenuous (that is, “falsely or hypocritically ingenuous”)
You wish to use a very rare, but complex, situation to nullify the most very common and simple of cases.
You want the “exceptions” to rule!
…. instead of using the just solution in a simple matter as a bed rock or platform to building the justice for those rare and extreme situations that are complex.
We cannot “move on” unless you whole heartily agree that abortion in the matters of consent to intercourse is evil and immoral – and I do mean heartily, not hypothetically.
Because, otherwise you will – mark my words – in the heat of dialogue within the scope of complexity – fall back to your fallacious arguments surrounding the abortion issues in the matter of consent – and that is a foul.
You will NOT engage the complexities with the clarity it requires for you will be still mired in your contradictions in the matters of consent.
So, when I hear your arguments in the matter of consent that either:
(1) agree with my position that abortion is evil and immoral
OR
(2) offer compelling argument to why -in this simple matter- abortion is NOT evil and NOT immoral
…we can move on to the complexities.
Until then, we’re just spitting into the wind….
Hmmmmm….BF…a question. You do not wish to argue a point unless someone agrees with your premise for getting there..
Let me see if I understand your position.
BF states:(1) agree with my position that abortion is evil and immoral
OR
(2) offer compelling argument to why -in this simple matter- abortion is NOT evil and NOT immoral
…we can move on to the complexities.
So, to you, unless those two positions are addressed there is no use pursuing other arguments or positions.
If I understand you correctly, abortion is immoral as it is taking the life of an innocent person, therefore, there is no other option. But, if someone disagrees with you, they must argue the second of your statement…or their argument means nothing to you.
Do I have this correctly? If so, then, assuming I have no problem with abortions, why should I srgue why it is not evil and immoral? I have no reason to argue that. I can have alternative thoughts and positions and not argue evil or immoral. I can simply say, like you, that I do not find it evil and immoral. That can simply be my feelings or belief. YOu find it evil because you subscribe to the theory of the taking of an innocent life. That is your onl reason. If that is the case, then I submit that any argument contrary to that stance will be contradictory and fallacious and a “foul” because nothing will agree with your stance.
Hmmmm.
Interestingly put D13. I was trying to come up with a way of answering BF, but absent a second cup of coffee, it is way too early to think clearly…
As you indicate, I do not believe abortion to be evil nor immoral in most instances (as I’ve said in the past, I draw my own line at the point of viability, with exceptions for the mother’s life). I am not going to argue why abortion is not evil nor immoral as we will never reach any consensus on the issue.
What I do want to know though is how you, BF, who does believe it is evil and immoral in the case of consensual sex approach the issue of abortion in a non-consensual situation. I am still waiting on that answer.
I don’t have much time this morning but I have to ask-just what were we discussing all day yesterday-if it wasn’t whether or not abortion is immoral or murder to be more precise.
Mathius
You are in error, again.
We have gone down this path before, and you abandoned continuing the argument abruptly.
The basis for your whole argument with pro-abortion absolutely rests on the rare, but complex, issues. Your argument cannot hold up in the matter of consensual intercourse – and as such, your pillar is completely resting on the extremes and exceptions – and you want that to be the base principle for all cases.
But, no sir. It does not work that way. The simple cases provide the basis, and the complexities extend from there – not the other way around.
Bf,
Hope your feeling better today! I’m glad I stayed out of the abortion arguement, up till now, because I have a question. Are there any cases where an abusive husband killed his pregnant wife and was charged with double murder? (I think there are). If an abusive husband beats his wife up and kills the baby in the womb, but not the mother, is that murder or abortion or both? If the Father want’s an abortion of his baby, why can’t he force the mother to get one?
Just Wondering
G-Man,
Case 1 – killing of a pregnant woman.
True – it is written up as a double homicide.
Case 2 – killing of a pregnant woman in an accident
True – it is written up as a double fatality.
Case 3 – killing of unborn baby without death of mother.
True – it is written up as “manslaughter” or 3rd degree murder.
Case 4 – Father demands abortion.
True – he has zero rights in the matter.
Yeah, because the argument has nothing to with the life of the child, only with the “right” of the mother to do what she wants with her own body.
Michelle,
But the question still stands:
Does a woman’s right allow her to kill an innocent human being?
Where did she get this Right?
No, I totally agree that their entire premise is wrong. Just pointing out that their argument can’t include the father because the baby doesn’t matter, only the woman’s body matters. The baby is only a collection of cells in their point of view.
Michelle,
Ah! Sorry – I read your post sideways….
Yes, I agree with you point.
So, because a man took the life of an unborn baby “WITHOUT” the mothers permission, it is murder. If the mother gives said permission to kill an unborn baby, it is not murder.
THAT is an insane contradiction!
After much thought, it comes down to a womens vanity overshadows natural, moral and legal Law. I think I’m finally taking a position on this matter. In the case of abortion, it is claimed that it is the right of the women to make decisions about her body. So, in the eyes of the pro-abortion group, it would then be legal for a women to smoke crack, use illegal drugs, and…. murder, because she has the choice about her body.
Vanity, all about vanity. The sad part is that most who get abortions don’t deserve the priviledge of this vanity.
I am going to bed soon-so I may read your response tomorrow-but I am curious why you choose the word Vanity-I can think of many reasons why women have abortions but vanity is one I have never applied.
Darn-choose chose choice-just pick the correct one when reading-I consistently use the wrong one or just don’t think long enough to spell it correctly
Hi V.H.
I just thought long and hard as to why the big disagreement on the issue. I asked myself, why would women believe that abortion should be allowed. Most women that I have known, care deeply about their appearance. That appearance changes after giving birth, in most cases. A womens appearance is quite important to them. I then applied that to the arguement of the pro-choice crowd and the current laws involving death, as I stated above with the examples.
I left out extreme circumstances, and rationalized the mindset of those that get abortions. There are two reasons, lack of personnal responsibility about their own health and well being, or vanity. No sane person would allow murder because of a lack of responsibility, that leaves only vanity (or extreme circumstances, but one issue at a time for me).
Personal responsibility plays both ways. Perhaps the woman knows that she is unable to raise a child at this point in life.
Buck,
Perhaps a women that can’t raise a child at some point in her life should refrain from spreading her legs during that period of time. That is personnal responsibility.
So is using a condom and other methods of birth control.
Now you are going to argue that said woman should not have consensual protected sex just in case she gets pregnant unless she is fully willing to raise the child (which she did not want and took steps to ensure she did not have)?
It’s called abstainence (sp?). So your saying that murder is OK if one gambles and losses?
I don’t quite understand why personal responsibility only falls one way? There are many ways to take personal responsibility.
One is abstinence.
Another is using protection.
A third is carrying a baby to term and giving it up for adoption.
A fourth is recognizing you are unable to raise a child and making the difficult choice to terminate the pregnancy.
Scott Peterson/Lacy Peterson/Baby Connor Peterson..Modesto,CA..ring a bell?
I knew there were a few, just making a point, if it’s murder in one case, then it should be in all cases. I’ve stayed out of the abotionfray because, 1. it’s very emotional for some, 2. I’ve never had an abortion, and 3. I’m not likely to get pregnant in the future (although if I keep drinking beer, it may appear that way).
As many of the people who frequent this site are libertarian or libertarian leaning I thought you would all enjoy this article on the physcological profile of a libertarian.
http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/20/the-science-of-libertarian-mor
I tried to put myself into it as I seem to have become more and more libertarian over time. But, while I think that liberty is the highest value, leading to all other good things such as prosperity and education and personal achievement, I don’t think I couple that with a lack of care for the welfare of others. I’m a political libertarian, but not a social one. Charity is the highest of virtues and liberty the greatest of blessings.
My brother however pointed out that just recently I told my sister to “just say no” to people who need her. She tends to rush around helping everyone in sight and running herself ragged in the process. And from my rather distant point of view she seems to just encourage more and more people to take unfair advantage of her. Maybe I’m less inviting, but people just don’t ask me for favors very often.
Uh, that’s “psychological”, I had a little spell checker hick-up.
My keyboard needs an exorcism it spells so bad sometimes
Hi Michelle.
Libertarians believe in personnal responsibility at a high level. Much like you, I don’t believe it is my responsibility to help anyone should I choose not to. I don’t have trust in strangers to just open my arms to them. Far too many people rely on charity of some sort to exist, it’s almost staggering. I don’t believe in helping those that are not willing to help themselves.
AMAZINGLY SIMPLE HOME REMEDIES:
1. AVOID CUTTING YOURSELF WHEN SLICING VEGETABLES BY GETTING SOMEONE ELSE TO HOLD THE VEGETABLES WHILE YOU CHOP.
2. AVOID ARGUMENTS WITH THE FEMALES ABOUT LIFTING THE TOILET SEAT BY USING THE SINK.
3. FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE SUFFERERS ~ SIMPLY CUT YOURSELF AND BLEED FOR A FEW MINUTES, THUS REDUCING THE PRESSURE ON YOUR VEINS. REMEMBER TO USE A TIMER..
4. A MOUSE TRAP PLACED ON TOP OF YOUR ALARM CLOCK WILL PREVENT YOU FROM ROLLING OVER AND GOING BACK TO SLEEP AFTER YOU HIT THE SNOOZE BUTTON.
5. IF YOU HAVE A BAD COUGH, TAKE A LARGE DOSE OF LAXATIVES. THEN YOU’LL BE AFRAID TO COUGH.
6. YOU ONLY NEED TWO TOOLS IN LIFE – WD-40 AND DUCT TAPE. IF IT DOESN’T MOVE AND SHOULD, USE THE WD-40. IF IT SHOULDN’T MOVE AND DOES, USE THE DUCT TAPE.
7. IF YOU CAN’T FIX IT WITH A HAMMER, YOU’VE GOT AN ELECTRICAL PROBLEM.
DAILY THOUGHT:
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES – NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS
Another political test. I took it and it classified me as ‘enterpriser’. It nailed me. Very accurate. No mention of Liberterians though.
Try it out, bbl >
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/
I’m an enterpriser too, though many of the characteristics didn’t seem to fit, like big supporter of the War on Terror and the Patriot Act (and male).
Enterpriser. I fit mostly, but not completely.
Enterpriser
WOW! I was expecting ‘maybe’ one other ‘Enterpriser’ on all of SUFA! Would be interested to see how it labels a true liberterian such as BF and BL…….. and of course everyone……..
Tomorrow and thanks for the results!
Not that it wasn’t still entertaining, but…
I found that survey to be a bit annoying as I kept finding myself trying to decide between two statements that I didn’t at all agree with, or that were completely irrelevant, or were based on a false premise.
How DOES a libertarian anarchist fill out a survey made for red or blue statists?
I answered less than half of the questions.
I was labeled as “Disaffected”.
I suspected some of the questions would give you a problem. So it is a somewhat flawed test.
You say you are a “libertarian anarchist” (i agree). I would say BF is a “moralist anarchist”? or “libertarian moralist anarchist”?
What say you BF? …..
Puritan,
Sure – however I label myself as:
Sovereign Individualist
Enterpriser as well…I find it astonishing that only 10% of the population fall within this category…
Enterpriser
Liberal.
Big shock, huh?
Fayetteville, North Carolina, home of Fort Bragg, is planning a 10-day celebration and homecoming this November to honor Vietnam Vets. Its a honor well deserved. These soldiers, marines, and other vets served our nation honorably. It’s not their fault that we had lousy leadership in Washington that lost the war.
But Fayetteville Mayor Tony Chavonne decided to “honor” the Vets by reaching out to Quaker House, an anti-Vietnam war protesting outfit. And Quaker House said they are glad to participate and intend to show two anti-war films that include Jane Fonda. As in “Hanoi Jane.” This is how they plan to “honor Vietnam vets.”
http://bigpeace.com/pschweizer/2011/01/24/honor-vietnam-vets-with-jane-fonda-and-anti-war-protestors/
The link has a link to E-mail the mayor, LOL.
Hope the vets stay home-I think they have heard enough from the anti-war crowd. And no one who actually wanted to honor them would want to open old wounds. The jerk mayor should be ashamed of his self.
Good Morning
Things that make me giggle.
To VH & Flag,
VH- you weren’t harsh sweetie and I didn’t take it that way. No worries!
Flag- I know that a lot of people consider abortion murder, I am one of them. But when it comes to other women, I don’t know what they believe, I don’t know what their circumstances are and I don’t pretend to know their minds. Yes, murder is murder, but there are those that don’t consider abortion murder and they don’t see the universal truth that you speak of. Do we force them to think the way that we think? Do we pass laws that force them to do what we believe is the right thing?
By the by, I am at work and may not be able to respond right away, but I will be watching the thred today. Have a great day everyone!!
The question isn’t IMHO
whether or not I or anyone else has the right to tell someone else what to do. If the practice is murder than yes, we have that right. The question is-is the viability in the womb premise that is used to justify abortions a true and accurate definition for when life begins. I don’t believe it is and I have tried to explain why.
Then this is a debate that will never have an answer simply because no one has satisfactorily answered that one nagging question, when does life begin? Until that is answered and there is no more debate on it this is and forever will be an argument that no one can win.
I don’t believe in abortion. I think that life begins the moment egg and sperm meet, but that’s me.
Kristain,
I learned in science class, once the first cell multiplies, it is the beginning of life. It happens long before the women knows she is pregnant.
Kristian,
G-man is correct. There is no real debate here (except others who, in desperation, attempt to pervert nearly every definition of life and “human”).
It is beyond dispute in science that life begins at conception.
That is absolutely untrue. In your own opinion, there is no dispute. In society as a whole, including the scientific community itself, there is plenty of dispute as to what constitutes a ‘living human being’.
Buck,
You are completely in error.
Is there -in society- political arguments regarding “human” – yes. Heck, slaves were argued to be “non-persons” in history.
But do not confuse this with science.
Science is absolutely clear about the matter.
Life begins at conception.
Doesn’t seem to be so absolutley clear to me. All I walk away with is that scientists disagree on this very question.
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/10/thisweekssciencequestions
Buck, today’s scientists can’t agree in the time of day. I’ll ask simply, if something is growing, is it alive? I don’t care if it a human, a dog or a tree sapling. If it is growing, is it alive?
Buck,
Why am I not surprised.
You rest all your principles and understanding within the realm of politics.
If politics declared: “Gravity does not exist” – you would argue this as if it was a “fact” to the end of time.
Here are the telling statements in the articles you provided, and please note, not one of them is science
(1)
Glover believes the 14-day line is a political compromise ….
(2)A key point in the debate rests on the way in which we choose to define the concepts of humanity, life, and human life
Nowhere, in either of your links, even approached the science of life – they both raised political issues – that is, demanding the right to kill human beings for medical purposes.
….to ensure research could continue ….
Kristan,
V.H. is correct.
Whether you think murder is “ok” does not make it “ok” for you to murder.
The maintenance of social order demands that murder is never “ok” – whether or not the murderer thinks otherwise. Thus, society MUST and WILL ACT to suppress murderers.
D13,
Not my “premise”, but the process.
I’ve been around this block a few times, D13 – I know the fallacies.
Those in favor of abortion cannot justify it within terms of consent of intercourse – because the choice occurs at that point and the consequences is a baby. The choice has been already made and the responsibilities of that choice is being disputed. To avoid the consequences, they want to kill a human being. If you agree they can, you have proceeded down the most dangerous path of humanity.
So to avoid providing a reason for the destruction of all humanity BUT provide a justification to kill a baby, the pro-abortionist engage the tactic of attacking the consent of intercourse – so moving the game into the very rare circumstances of rape/incest in an attempt to provide cases that will then be used to invalidate all choice, hence all responsibility.
That game don’t fly with this duck.
Until the simpler, and very most common scenario is understood and agreed, moving beyond that is stupid.
You should know that by know, D13.
It is Not addressing two points – it is one case with two sides.
You either cannot justify abortion where intercourse was consensual or you can.
What’s the problem? Either you can or cannot.
But until simple questions are resolved, more complex questions raised from the simple questions cannot be solved – is this so beyond your understanding????
If you cannot add, you cannot multiply.
To demand that you must move to multiplication before you know addition is a futile waste of time.
You do not understand much.
What my position happens to be is moot. I know my position, and I can argue it compellingly without contradiction.
I demand that those who argue a different position do the same – a compelling non-contradicted argument. So far, none exists – but I am patient.
If an argument is not compelling and contradicted, then YES! Their argument is meaningless to me.
It should be meaningless to you, too, if you have a smidgen of sense and reasoning.
Reword this to an exactly equal statement:
“I have no problem with murder, why should I argue why it is not evil and immoral”
You have no argument in your possession if this is your belief. You would be an unreasoned and an uncivilized savage and I would place into that category and deal with you from that place.
But if you wish to join civilization, you better have either a compelling argument based on reason for your position OR you better abandon your belief
BF, can you just please explain how you personally approach the more complex situation of non-consensual sex? For a minute just forget our disagreement. I’m just curious how you approach this single scenario within your own framework. My framework is irrelevant.
This is all very exhausting.
Buck
Then stop playing games and provide your compelling and reasoned argument for abortion where the intercourse was consensual.
This should be a piece of cake, right??
I start with the firm, core principles established on cases where consensual intercourse existed plus Human Rights.
Add the two together, up bubbles the rightful answer.
But if you do not have the former, adding something to that provides no answers.
So since you find abortion to be murder at its core, consensual vs. non-consensual is irrelevant. Murder is murder and lack of consent does not make it ok.
Correct? (I don’t want to be accussed of misrepresenting your remarks)
Its a fair answer, and perfectly logical if you believe abortion to be murder. Just not sure why it took you so long to provide it.
Buck
Do not try to argue my position for me – you are wholly incapable.
Violence -always in all times and all situations – is destructive and terrible. Nothing good comes out of violence.
Using violence to defend yourself is destructive and terrible – but necessary. The conclusion in the use of this violence is not “a good” – something has been destroyed, society is lessened because of it, pain and suffering is always a consequence – but it was an unfortunate, but necessary use of violence.
Using violence to attack someone is destructive and terrible – but evil. The conclusion in the use of this violence is not “a good” – something has been destroyed, society is lessened because of it, pain and suffering is always a consequence – but it was an unfortunate, but completely unnecessary use of violence.
Hopefully some little light bulbs will flash in your brain.
BF says: “You either cannot justify abortion where intercourse was consensual or you can.”
This is the only thing that you have said that makes any sense at all. I understand your position perfectly and always have. A baby is the consequence of “consensual” sex….this is a no brainer. Your opinion is that if one justifies abortion where intercourse was consensual then they are evil and immoral (your judgement)as it amounts to murder under your definition. I understand this perfectly. I am not arguing that fact at all. If it is consensual and the result is a child, then abortion is not justified and, therefore, evil and murder. Cool. As states previously, I do not agree with abortion as a form of birth control or a fix all to “OOPS”.
I am not sure where I stand on the issue in some instances. Some scientists and doctors claim that life begins at conception using DNA as a base line. Some scientists and doctors believe that viability is a base line. Some believe that there is no base line and justify it at anytime. I cannot fathom the no base line at all. I can see arguments on conception and I can see arguments on viability which is pretty much universally accepted at 16-20 weeks. My sig other has a background in biology and falls on the conception side (life begins with DNA). I have a tendency to fall towards the viablity side.
So, my question to you. It matters not where life begins. In the case of rape or incest where consensual sex was not an option and a pregnance results…the baby is still innocent. So, under your premise (and it is a premise)does the mother have a right to terminate since it is not consensual and not planned and not wanted or does the unborn trump the mother’s rights. Are there no exceptions to your position?
BF says: “But if you wish to join civilization, you better have either a compelling argument based on reason for your position OR you better abandon your belief”
Translation: Believe the way I do or you are wrong. BF..you and I are widely travelled and we both know that there are plenty of countries that are part of civilization that utilize abortion as well as full term abortions as a matter of policy. You and I both know that female children, when born, are murdered in the name of civilization. You and both know that there are countries that utilize abortions in known birth defects. You and I both know that there are countries where the life of the mother, both mentally and physically, supersedes that of any unborn. So, the civilization does not fly..as you say…with this duck.
But your insights are welcomed by me. It is interesting to see the conflicting positions that you take and the justifications for them.
Who’s definition of civilization, yours or BF’s? He has said that using force destroys civilization, or something to that effect. His comments on abortion are giving me a rare clarity of mind on this topic, I think I understand his argument and where he would go with this. I will leave it for BF, this is interesting.
Fair question….probably my definition that I surmise is from the travels that I have seen and been part of…to me that is civilization…as it exists today…in reality. And I understand his logic as well. But his logic is not the only one out there. Many people have many definitions of logic….I have seen that here, in politics, in medical, in military, in eveything. I have learned to approach things in a reality situation….ie. As I have seen and experienced…not something that fits a template that has yet to happen. But Bf’s insights are informative and if anything..he is fairly consitent. I would like to play poker with him…or chess….it would be fun.
Poker stars has a “home game” option where you can invite your friends to play in an “invitation only” game.
Anyone interested???
I would certainly be interested in a week or two when I am back to a more normal world. I haven’t played at PS in quite a while, usually on FT
D13,
You are incomplete.
A baby is a consequence of sex. (Note the lack of an adjective). It matters not whether there was consent or not – the physical act created the baby.
You are mistaken, because you have a contradiction in your statement.
If you can justify abortion, then you have done so by the use of reason and have successfully avoided contradicting yourself.
If you have done this, then I am compelled -as a advocate of reason- to accept your argument.
It is impossible to have a justification based on reason and moral principle and be evil and immoral, which is what your sentence demanded.
So, either it is justified or it is not. It cannot be justified AND immoral, and it cannot be unjustified AND moral.
That is my argument and one I can justify and support using reason and Universal principles.
But that does not mean there are no other arguments – remember, the Universe has infinite number of answers to any problem.
I just haven’t heard any other good ones yet. But I am patient.
No scientist says this – Life begins at conception.
There are many scientists who leave their discipline and engage in politics in trying to separate human from humanity and persons and use argument of viability. Note, this argument is also used for Euthanasia and thus not solely applied only to abortions.
I make that point because the debate with Euthanasia has nothing to do with whether it is “human or not” or “alive or not” – but wholly based on viability and whimsical quality of life measure. This is the same when applied to abortions.
Thus, my warning. What will apply to one arena will be transferred to the other.
If one can justify abortion based on Euthanasia, then slaughter of babies AND children AND adults will occur unabated.
I agree, since there is no debate on the matter.
We cannot discuss this at this time.
Unless there is firm agreement on the matter of consensual intercourse creating baby consequence – we cannot discuss a greater complexity
I have already explained why.
If you cannot agree on the basics, how possibly can any argument be made for the complex that you can agree with????
You will merely carry over 100% of your dispute within the simple matters into the complex … so why bother leaving the simple matters?
Buck
You are an unreasoned and thus, uncivilized man.
You have no argument to provide why “viability” is a measure to justify or not a killing a human being.
You have never provided an reasoned argument to justify abortion whatsoever. Every statement you have made has contradicted yourself.
Whether you define abortion “evil” or not is irrelevant.
Evil is a definition of mine that I use to describe “violence upon the non-violent.” Abortion fits that definition precisely.
It is not a matter of immoral or not – though doing evil with purpose is immoral.
Then you will wait forever.
If you cannot understand the arguments that makes abortion evil in the cases of consensual intercourse, it is impossible for you to understand anything more complex – you simply incapable.
You have no moral principle or reference to judge the matter.
Methinks you don’t have an answer to the question.
But I’m a bit bored at work today so I will play along a bit with why I believe viability works. As I’ve long believed, the world is not black and white, but many shades of gray. As such I will apply a sliding scale (us liberals love sliding scales!) Prior to viability the fetus is unable to survive on its own outside the mother’s womb. During this stage, the mother’s free choice to carry or terminate the pregnancy wins. I don’t care what the reason. Upon attaining viability however, as the fetus can survive outside the womb, the sliding scale slides (as it is prone to do) and favors the fetus’ life more than the mother’s free choice. But the sliding scale is tempered by such issues as where the mother’s life is in danger.
Is it a perfect system? Nope, never claimed it as such. I admit I don’t have all the answers nor a perfect solution. But it works for me.
Now I propose a challenge. Answer my question, if you can.
Lord help us-the value of life is determined by a sliding scale. V out
V.H.
Yes, God help us.
It is very, very, very scary to know there are human beings who believe such.
And people wonder how the Nazis so easily slaughtered so many. They provided the same basic justification – and simply moved the scales to include whomever they wanted.
And after all that, there are still a multitude that use the same philosophy …. you’d think humanity would have learned something….
Did you just compare me to a Nazi!? Just wow…
Buck
Nazi used math. I use math, therefore I am an Nazi????
I did not compare you to a Nazi.
I said that the core evil of the Nazi’s was to use “viability” and “sliding scales” to measure humanity.
To Buck,
…[Tom Cochrane was] inspired after reading a book about Raoul Wallenberg, who rescued Jews from the Holocaust during World War II
Buck
So says the boy who cannot add to the man who knows calculus….
(sigh)
So, not so fast, old foe.
You have not provided a compelling reason to provide the basis of more complexity.
To be consistent then, you believe humans who -on some subjective, whimsical scale – that you determine are not viable allows you to kill them.
Please explain how your subjective measure gives you the right to kill human beings?
Buck
Are you going to argue that if you get in your car, and use a seat belt, and drive under the speed limits, etc. … that if you cause an accident that kills someone, you get no consequences because – heck – you did all the “right” things to avoid it?
Alex, i will choose “who is casey brezik” for $400 please
Buck
#4 is not an example of responsibility.
It is an example of avoiding responsibility.
Responsibility is doing what is RIGHT, no matter how hard or costly it maybe personally.
Killing to solve a personal problem of responsibility is an AVOIDANCE.
Buck, your first 3 I can agree with, but not the 4th. You’re making it sound like taking out the trash. That’s the problem with a lot of women, they use abortion as a convenience. OOOOOPS! I got pregnant,, oh well, no worry, I’ll just get rid of it. Nobody ever, ever considers that life that’s growing inside her. It’s like they think it’s not real or something & it’s just so easy to snuff out.
So far I agree with everything Flag is saying about this topic.
That’s true – those few individuals that use abortion as a simple contraception with complete disregard for the nature of their decision are not taking personal responsibility.
But for the vast majority that weigh their options and make this gut-wrenching choice? Yes, that is an example of personal responsibility in my book.
Buck,
So let me get this straight.
If the avoidance of responsibility is gut-wrenching and invokes guilty conscience, then it is really an act of responsibility to actually avoid responsibility…..
Egads!
There is a huge difference between the rare case of using abortion as birth control and making a painful decision to terminate a pregnancy giving due regard to one’s options and the consequences of same.
The world is not as black and white as you may like it to be.
Buck,
What black and white?
You have said – paraphrased:
There is a huge decision between living in my ego and living in my ego…
I cannot see any difference in your statement – they are exactly equal.
birth control = regard to one’s options and the consequences of same.
Buck, All I can say is, then if a woman is worried about getting pregnant, then the most responsible thing for her to do, is either not have sex, & keep her legs shut, or use birth control. I know it’s a gut wrenching thing to have to decide on whether or not to kill her baby, but if she has to make that decision, then it would be best for her not to have sex at all, then she wouldn’t have to make that decision. But, then, that’s juts my opinion.
Buck, you make it sound like Women have to have sex. Don’t you realize that sex is optional and not a requirement in life? We all know the consequence of having sex, regardless of how “cautious” you are.
Don’t make it seem that Women have no choice but to have sex. There is always a choice (don’t throw in rape).
Of course there is always a choice. But why should a woman not be able to have sex (or be chastised for having sex) just because she doesn’t want a child? So long as she is taking steps to protect against pregnancy, why do you have an issue with this?
Sex was designed for reproduction. Of course I am not abdicating that we do not have sex for pleasure, however it would be deeply ignorant not to know the possible consequence of conception. If you have sex, you acknowledge the possible consequence. Abortion is not an excuse to avoid consequence of your free choice. It is a fact of life.
Buck,
As TS said, she can do whatever she wishes – but whatever she does will not dismiss the responsibility of her actions
G-Man,
Re: Women and Abortion
It is a form of vanity – true – more due to the ego-centric world view many (most?) people have today.
Today’s society is really a “Me First” society. Principled living is almost anarchistic today.
Thus, the appearance of a child – requiring a lifetime commitment, and is the most responsible task a human can undertake – is life “style” threatening.
Suddenly, goals and dreams held by the ego are under direct threat due to an unplanned situation. For some, this can be devastating as their entire lives up to that point has been consumed in an attempt to achieve these goals and to -suddenly- see the risk of all that effort and time go “to waste” can be mentally destructive to someone whose “ego” is the most important thing.
BF, I have to disagree with your little theory here.
Most abortions that have taken place since Roe v Wade was shoved up our collective rears was due to no other reason than a method of convenient birth control – People having “raw” sex and not using any other form of birth control just because they were too lazy or it just wasn’t convenient at the time.
A friend of mine’s daughter has had ten, yes I said 10, abortions because they we not her husbands children. The state of California has paid for all of them.
I know that you base all of your statements on your own philosophy and I am not trying to put you down, just trying to let you know why I disagree with you.
On a much lighter note; I have noticed that you have been “under the weather” lately . . . Making that homemade kickapoo joy juice can do that to you. You need to make it from real grapes and not store bought grape juice
Papa,
I think we are saying the same thing.
“Ego-centric” simply means “Me first”.
So as you exampled, if they are “lazy” or “careless”, the “Me First” doctrine tries to mitigate or dismiss the consequences of their action because it will interfere with their ego (ie: oh no! It won’t be “Me First” any more!!)
Before Roe, it was difficult to avoid their responsibility and often entailed even greater risk.
After Roe, the difficulty in avoiding responsibility was significantly lowered.
If you lower the requirements of responsibility, you will increase the level of irresponsibility.
Papa,
PS: Thanks for the suggestion.
Sadly, I am in no position to make the “juice”, so I have to submit to the store-bought equivalent – BEER! – in ample quantity.
Mrs. Flag shakes her head claiming – and most probably correctly – it will delay and impede my healing.
I say – makes more time to consume more!
and, as was shared with me today, will make the limited pain medication last twice as long!
Here Buck, take a look at this, see what abortion is. If this doesn’t turn your stomach, then I don’t know what will. This is murder, murder of a life even before it has a chance at it.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=498750479231&set=p.498750479231
As I pointed out yesterday, it was pretty gory when they operated on my foot. That doesn’t make it murder.
I’ll pass on the graphic image, thank you, but please give me an argument where “it looks like a person” means the same a “it is a person”. Monkey fetuses look eerily human as well.
Mathius,
But that’s the point.
No matter how it looks, a human fetus is human. It is never a monkey fetus, nor a cat fetus, nor anything else in the Universe other than a human fetus.
In this, there is no debate whatsoever.
It is a human being. Period.
Thank you Flag, & Matt, if you can’t tell that’s a human baby, & think it looks like a monkey, then you really do have problems in identifying what a human baby looks like. That in no way, looks like a monkey in any way.
Is an egg a bird? If so I am guilty of countless bird massacres.
USWep,
Do you chicken? Then you are guilty of countless bird massacres.
Guilty as charged…. Chicken is yummy. I also will now admit guilt in the massacre of Deer, Steer, Pigs, and Salmon in order to feed my need to feed.
You post these pictures as if I have never seen them before. I know full well what an abortion looks like, as do the women making this choice. To assume they (or I) would change their minds if they only looked at these graphic images is beyond ridiculous and paternalistic.
Buck,
Where these pictures may not change your mind – for many it will.
Much of the pro-abortionist ideology is based on -as Mathius says – a bunch of cells.
And many people think that – they think it is merely a bunch of flesh in an non-discrete form – and that gives them “comfort” that it “isn’t human yet”.
When they see it is human – it is no longer an abstract “clump of cells”. They see themselves – a human looking upon a human.
To then see it ripped and shredded and bloodied – an innocent baby, nonetheless – it does invoke the humanity within normal humans.
It becomes repugnant.
If you do not sense this, I am concerned.
Buck,
I will also guess you are not yet a father … true?
This is true. Will my views on abortion change once I have a child? Perhaps. But there are millions of fathers who support abortion rights.
As for the pictures and ‘seeing human’ — I have looked at these pictures. Why do you think I am so quick to acknowledge how gut-wrenching this decision must (or at least should) be?? And yet I still come down to believe in freedom of choice and that abortion is not equivalent to murder. If this makes you ‘concerned’ for me in any way, so be it. But trust me, I have thought long and hard about my views on this subject and am very satisfied with the position I have reached.
Buck
Biologically, -and probably due to hormone release of the mother- alters the father’s brain – he changes his aggression patterns.
Before I had a child, I could never understand why my friends -who were parents- would weep at the suffering of kids in other countries.
“How can you cry for someone you do not even know existed yesterday???”
After my kid, I now understand.
I believe you will too.
True.
The “natural” parenting can be easily overwhelmed by the ego.
So you say YET no reasoned argument to justify what you say
Freedom of choice to kill to mitigate a responsibility is evil
To be satisfied with the unrepentant slaughter of human life…
..and that is very scary.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand how Buck & Matt can think that way. I hope to God, that when & if you find out your wives are pregnant, & can see the development of that baby growing inside, you WILL realize that it’s a human being in there, & not just some sort of invasion of a clump or mass of tissues but a real live baby, moving with a heart beating, maybe then you both will have a change of heart.
OOOOOOHHHHHHH….. How quick you are to defend the right of someone to reach their own conclusions based on the information presented to them.
Unless, of course, that conclusion is different from your own.
I especially loved the “natural parenting can be easily overwhelmed by the ego” statement, implying that if someone drew a different conclusion than you did, then it is obviously a problem with their ego.
I am unable to get into this with you at the moment. Just still find it fascinating that you seem to have those one or two issues where what you state is in contradiction to the positions you take on nearly everything else.
Hope you are healing up well my Pirate friend. We are long overdue for a good spar session.
USWep,
I believe you are suffering from a drug overdose – no where have I contradicted any position.
You don’t find it contradictory that you believe every person has the right to analyze the facts and reach their own logical conclusions, but on this issue believe that otherwise logical conclusions are not warranted?
I get your position. I also get how some others reach a different conclusion. And none of the conclusions from the SUFA commenters seem to be without logical merit. I don’t know the answers, but it seems as though we don’t have people reaching any conclusions that are completely crazy. Just my thought.
D13,
Re: Civilization
I have never, ever, ever said this.
I have demanded reason and compelling argument to demonstrate a position.
There are an infinite number of answers to a problem – but there are very, very few that are moral or “good“.
It is little wonder that there are only a handful or -perhaps- one good answer to a human problem – and at the end of the day, it remains alone.
This may appear to some to be “I’m right/You’re wrong” dichotomy. But it is NOT an enforcement by my hand, but by the hand of reason.
And, as such, if by the same method another answer is described, I will defend it with the same zeal.
None of that is civilized.
Just because we have running water in our homes does not make us “civilized”. It makes us technically astute
There are peoples who have little or no technology who are incredibly civilized.
As Gandhi quipped when asked “What do you think of Western Civilization? — his response: It would be a good idea
Civilization exists on the bedrock of reason over violence.
Most of us are a long way from civilized.
Black Flag
Question on your abortion arguments.
You say a decision to abort is a deliberate act to avoid responsibility.
So exactly where does this responsibility come from for those victims of rape and incest?
JAC
Repeat from above:
We cannot discuss this at this time.
Unless there is firm agreement on the matter of consensual intercourse creating baby consequence – we cannot discuss a greater complexity
If you cannot agree on the basics, how possibly can any argument be made for the complex that you can agree with????
You will merely carry over 100% of your dispute within the simple matters into the complex … so why bother leaving the simple matters?
Black Flag
I am not arguing anything. I asked a simple question.
It is your position and your argument.
Explain it or abandon it.
Where does this RESPONSIBILITY come from for those victims?
JAC
BF
There is noting befuddled nor unusually complex here.
You posed the argument that abortion is an abandonment of responsibility.
So where does this responsibility come from with regard to victims of rape and incest?
I am not talking about life here but your claim of the existence of responsibility.
So explain it further or admit your own befuddlement.
JAC
BF
Here are your own words using the term responsibility.
If you are not claiming that a pregnant woman is avoiding responsibility then explain your position a little better.
Because it sure does appear to me that you claim a responsibility exists and that abortion is an avoidance of that responsibility.
“Freedom of choice to kill to mitigate a responsibility is evil”
“As TS said, she can do whatever she wishes – but whatever she does will not dismiss the responsibility of her actions”
“If the avoidance of responsibility is gut-wrenching and invokes guilty conscience, then it is really an act of responsibility to actually avoid responsibility…..”
“#4 is not an example of responsibility.
It is an example of avoiding responsibility.
Responsibility is doing what is RIGHT, no matter how hard or costly it maybe personally.
Killing to solve a personal problem of responsibility is an AVOIDANCE.”
If I am following BF correctly, I would say (from my own reasoning), that even though a women was rapped and impregnated against her will, that still does not excuse the evilness of murder. Two evils do not make it less evil
However, the women is not forced to raise that child and I do not think it would be immoral to put the child up for adoption. Rape and incest is indeed horrible but aborting an innocent life will not make the rape/incest go away.
I forgot to add:
Don’t let something that rarely happens dictate your choices for the majority of the time. Evil is Evil no matter what kind of sugar you try to coat it in.
JAC
You are missing the context of this dialogue, and that is your confusion.
No where has my dialogue extended any further then the “consensual intercourse” scenario.
You are trying to extend my argument beyond this scenario.
I state again that I will not do that for it is futile to add complexity upon a situation where the simplifier situation is turmoil, because just as you’ve done, the debaters will pull the same dispute they had in the simpler version and merely apply it to the complex – so what’s the point?
Might as well hold the terms of argument on the simpler question – there is no further understanding garnered by making the unresolved issues more complex
It is akin to claiming you will understand the mechanics of adding if you could understand how multiplication works.
Truthseeker,
What I am saying is that these scenarios are far more complex – they invoke a multitude of issues of human rights and discussion on how best to deal with them.
However, if one cannot even resolve the question without this complexity it is hopeless to even discuss the complexities.
How can a mind muddle in the simple possibly figure out the more complex?
BF
I am not debating or arguing anything with you. Simple or complex.
If you are not applying the concept of responsibility beyond consensual then at least explain what you mean in that context.
Do you consider one taking responsibility for their actions the same as being responsible for the results, in this case a child?
So in your view, consensual sex carries automatically the responsibility to carry any resulting pregnancy to term. Is that correct?
I assume that would include the responsibility to raise that child as well. Is that correct?
JAC
My point is: I will not make any argument whatsoever in the “complex” issues with those who have not resolved the simple.
I am withholding any and all argument on the complex matters
I refuse to add confusion to those already confused. They need to straighten out their own positions FIRST before ANY discussion expands.
In the case of consensual intercourse:
There are MANY ways to take responsibility for their actions; Buck outlined a few – (and errored with one…) but I wouldn’t doubt there are other ways as well beyond his short list.
Pretty much, though technology has methods to shorten the “term”.
No.
As Buck pointed out one (of many) examples – such as adoption.
BF
In this sense “Pretty much, though technology has methods to shorten the “term”.”
Would you equate responsibility and obligation as synonymous?
In other words, there is an obligation to carry the pregnancy to term.
JAC,
I didn’t use the word “obligation” anywhere – so I had to look up the meanings so not to misunderstand your post.
re·spon·si·bil·i·ty = a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible
As responsibility -in this meaning- embeds obligation, which is the word you used, I would be comfortable to say;
“Yes, responsibility and obligation in this matter could be considered synonymous”
So are you saying that what I recently stated is not correct? I agree with your basic premise.
He is saying that he doesn’t want to smack his head against the same wall-but I will add one qualifier-there are people on here who agree with your original premise-why should our discussions and your participation have to stop
Truthseeker,
V.H. is doubly correct.
(1) I refuse to participate in complex scenarios with those who have not yet principled themselves in the simple scenarios.
Been there done that – why waste time adding complexity when the simple stuff is over their heads.
(2) With those that have principled themselves in the simpler matters – sure, let’s move on.
BUT – that means we will be poked by those still struggling with (1) – they will be seeking complexity as an attempt to resolve their confusion. It never works, but they always try anyway.
So, we can ignore them – but then they take that as a personal victory for their irrational positions …. it usually a no-win situation.
But I’m game regardless.
USWep
What logical conclusions??????
I have yet to see any from the “pro-abortion” side. They require -not facts- but subjective measures (such as development or viability) so to defray the guilt of slaughtering human beings.
The logical conclusion of agreeing with their arguments is the wholesale slaughter of human beings of all ages on whim – as I pointed out to Buck – precisely the methodology the Nazi used to eliminate their “undesirables” – simply change the definitions on a whim, put human beings in that definition, kill them.
Logic is meaningless when the premise is wrong.
Logic is deadly when the premise is evil.
Logic is a methodology – it is NOT the root of truth
If your premise starts with little green Martians – you can logically build quite a story, but completely bizarre.