invite response« First « Previous Comments 121 - 150 of 150 Search these comments
He can't win the nomination by the republican party but if he could have actually won the party nomination, he could have won the election. Only person from the republican side who had a chance to defeat Obama. But that's not what the republicans corporate masters wanted
That's not conservatism, that's just our government today, bunch of big time spenders. Ron Paul is an old school conservative, and it's probably why he can't win in an entitled welfare driven society.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I take as my starting point that indeed there are situations where abortion is medically necessary.
If you believe that, should it be legal or illegal? Does Paul support making it illegal?
Wouldn't that line of reasoning lead one to be authoritarian?
I believe most pro-life people take the medical and ethical view that there are two lives at stake in terms of abortion. Even more so now when fetus viability is getting earlier and earlier.
So wouldn't the least "authoritarian" government position be to protect the lives of both human beings?
CL
2013 Feb 22, 1:35am
So wouldn't the least "authoritarian" government position be to protect the lives of both human beings?
That's why the first premise is so important: That sometimes it is a medically necessary procedure to save the life of the mother.
Given that it is, how does the Government that is NOT authoritarian intervene to make sure that the same Government approves of your medically necessary procedure?
Would they require all women to declare how it is that they became pregnant? Would they force women who got pregnant through rape to carry the fetus to term? Would the Government demand to see the reasons the Doctor has prescribed the treatment? Would the Government decide that In Vitro is to be ceased? What happens when the Government disagrees with the doctor's assessment? Do we defer to the Government or the Doctor?
How does that work in practice, without diminishing the rights of the woman citizen?
That's why the first premise is so important: That sometimes it is a medically necessary procedure to save the life of the mother.
Given that it is, how does the Government that is NOT authoritarian intervene to make sure that the same Government approves of your medically necessary procedure?
First - I believe it is statistically rare that a healthy baby (especially in the 3rd trimester) needs to be terminated to save the life of the mother.
When these extremely rare occassions arrive, then it shouldn't be hard for a doctor to be able to sign off on a abortion procedure to save the life of the mother. Very few pro-life people object to this. The government is already going to be more up in our healthcare decisions now we have Obamacare anyway.
I admit rape is a very tough example as well, but I also think it is statistically rare.
So I hate how abortion supporters constantly throw up extreme cases of rape or the life of the mother to justify the millons of other abortions that hapen in our country every year for convenience.
I think Bill Clinton was right when he said abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE". But right now, we have Obama and the whole Democratic party celebrating this monstrous practice in the last election as a wedge issue against Republicans and Gov Cuomo in New York trying to legalize abortion on demand through the 3rd trimester.
It's personal for me as one of my children was born premature. I spent quite a bit of time in the NICU seeing my child and many other children who were born even more premature (5 months) survive and grow into normal healthy children.
I just don't get how these babies in incubators have the "liberty" and human rights protections you decry, but babies much older are still allowed to be killed with late term abortions simply because it was the mother's "choice".
Again, someone explain to me how we have come to a point as a society or a human species where it is legal to deliver a healthy baby and put it in a bucket to die like Ron Paul described.
CL
2013 Feb 22, 4:00am
First - I believe it is statistically rare that a healthy baby (especially in the 3rd trimester) needs to be terminated to save the life of the mother.
Key word there is "healthy".
I admit rape is a very tough example as well, but I also think it is statistically rare.
I assume, same with incest?
So, in practice, how does an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist Paulista recommend the State verify that the abortion was performed for "the right reasons"?
Do they require Government Doctors investigate all abortions? Should there be a Government Doctor who approves them?
When a woman is raped, does she have to prove her case? What if she is denied (but was truly raped)? Are her rights an issue here?
Obviously the courts have decided that they are.
Again, in any case, you'll find that Paul is hardly consistent on any issue, really. He would err on a small government non-intervention when it comes to the Civil war, or on Civil rights, but would deny a woman, her doctor and the medical community the same.
Apparently, slavery and violating citizens' rights don't rise to the level of intervention, but when it's only a rape victim I guess that's just the price we pay?
When it comes to disaster relief, he's just doing the people's business. When he condemns others for doing the same, he's a saint.
Dr. No is really, Dr. No (for you, Yes for me).
Effectively, there is zero difference between Paul and his peers. The only difference would be that he would have zero chance of getting his appointees confirmed, zero chance of governing and less than zero chance of making an ounce of difference, which is also why he had zero chance of winning the primary and then the General.
On Cuomo, there is less there than meets the eye.
Sounds like the "change" is to protect the health of the mother instead of only the life of the mother.
Women, as citizens, cannot be forced to be heroic and risk themselves to have a baby. What are miscarriages but a woman's body rejecting a conception gone bad?
Because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Sometimes these babies were not meant to be.
Because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
I think that thought most certainly applies to practice of destroying unwanted babies.
Sometimes these babies were not meant to be.
Like the ones born alive, but put into a bucket to die?
Again, I am not a Ron Paul fan......so not sure why you are trying to get me to defend to his other positions.
I just think it is a reasonable case to make that the least "authoritarian" position our government should take is to let these babies live without being destroyed. Especially after the baby reaches viability.
I truly think we will look back at abortion 50-100 years from now with absolute horror. It's a primitive caveman practice. But I understand how some will want to continue to support this policy out of eugenics principles, or hide behind the rare cases of rape or life of the mother to help them sleep at night.
Again, someone explain to me how we have come to a point as a society or a human species where it is legal to deliver a healthy baby and put it in a bucket to die like Ron Paul described.
While I am generally reluctant to enter into this foray, I think its important to highlight exactly what dr. paul said. (i.e. not that it was "healthy" but that it "was able to cry and breathe").
While I am NOT saying that this is the type of case that Dr. Paul found, I note that a good many aborted babies who are able to "cry and breathe" - for example, those born with Anencephaly (WARNING - be very careful before you view these images as they can really haunt your dreams)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly
From what I understand, this is something they diagnose in 2nd or 3rd trimester, and while they have no brains, they can indeed "live" in the sense that they have lungs, hearts, circulatory systems.
As an interesting sidenote, read the case of Stephanie Keene who was born and able to live 2+ years due to her parents religious convictions that all life is precious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_K
Personally I am incredulous that one can force the state (on our dime) to keep a being without a brain alive for several years, diverting time and resources that could be better used for others who perhaps stood a real chance of a purposeful life.
Anyway, I guess my larger point here is that the whole issue of "life" and "being" is not as simple as a soundbite or necessarily a "clump of cells". Anencephaly is apparently found in 1 of 10,000 pregnancies in the US - not a small number. And this is but one of many conditions where a reasonable person could conclude that the parent has a right to terminate the pregnancy, no questions asked.
CL
2013 Feb 22, 5:04am
Anyway, I guess my larger point here is that the whole issue of "life" and "being" is not as simple as a soundbite or necessarily a "clump of cells". Anencephaly is apparently found in 1 of 10,000 pregnancies in the US - not a small number. And this is but one of many conditions where a reasonable person could conclude that the parent has a right to terminate the pregnancy, no questions asked.
Absolutely right. Which is what I meant by just because we can, doesn't mean we should. Technology can make a huge difference, but we need to come to grips with this concept. Nature rejects embryos for a reason.
Anyway, I guess my larger point here is that the whole issue of "life" and "being" is not as simple as a soundbite or necessarily a "clump of cells". Anencephaly is apparently found in 1 of 10,000 pregnancies in the US - not a small number. And this is but one of many conditions where a reasonable person could conclude that the parent has a right to terminate the pregnancy, no questions asked.
I think most (not all) pro-life people understand that sometimes there are EXTREME cases where abortion is the lesser or two evils (health of mother, health of baby, incest etc).
But I don't find it ethically or medically convincing at all that we need to allow abortion on demand (as we have now in most States) because we have a statistically small number of medical cases that might require an abortion for health reasons.
The majority of the 55 million human beings our country has terminated since 1973 were out of convenience and not medically necessary.
But I don't find it ethically or medically convincing at all that we need to allow abortion on demand (as we have now in most States) because we have a statistically small number of medical cases that might require an abortion for health reasons.
The majority of the 55 million human beings our country has terminated since 1973 were out of convenience and not medically necessary.
There is a certain irony in that (at least as far as I can tell), it is not "medically necessary" to abort a being with anencephaly. Specifically, there is no real harm to the mother in that the anencephalagic being will either be born alive or stillborn as part of the natural course of pregnancy.
As such, given that health is not an issue, it sounds very much like this is an abortion of convenience. Yet again if you look at those things with anencephaly (and btw the images on wikipedia are mild compared to some of them), I have a hard time requiring anyone to carry a being like that to term.
And frankly, as much as I dont like to appeal to emotion, this is a textbook case of why it is useful. The brightline rule "no abortions of convenience" sounds good on paper, but what then of cases of anencephaly or other similar horrific diseases? I mean seriously, if you look at those things and read about them, there is, sadly, a very gray area between what constitutes "a child" and what constitutes "a tumor"... a living breathing tumor...
Anyway, I bring this up not to unnecessarily provoke, but to challenge. Based on your writings you seem like an intelligent guy. Yet, (and I really dont mean to put words in your mouth), but my suspicion is you would in fact outlaw "all abortions of convenience", largely because of concerns of the sanctity of life.
Yet, when viewed with facts like these, can you really say that the "right" or the "ethical" or the "moral" thing to do, is to require people to bring these beings to term?
The American South and Midwest have been people, not entirely but overwhelmingly, with despicable, racist, and downright evil people since before the country was founded. They have established a culture of racism and bigotry and have been on the bigoted side of every civil rights issue in this nation's history. They are still fighting the Civil War which is why they love to wave, not the Confederate Flag, but the flag of the Confederate Navy which was made into a symbol by the KKK to show they were still fighting for slavery.
NEWS: Black Pastors Group Organizes Against YOUR PRESIDENT
We did not fight for civil rights so two men or two women would get married.
I think Bill Clinton was right when he said abortion should be "safe, legal, and RARE".
it was Hilary who said that.. not Billy Bob.. actually Hilary took more of a Conservative approach.. making it REALLY REALLY RARE! and reduces the total number of abortions.
Dan8267
2013 Feb 22, 11:16am
NEWS: Black Pastors Group Organizes Against YOUR PRESIDENT
We did not fight for civil rights so two men or two women would get married.
1. Obama is the president of the United States, not the president of me. As far as I'm concerned, he's my employee just the same as any other president.
2. The anti-gay bigotry of some African-Americans does not mitigate the sheer vileness of the American South and Midwest, vileness that I'm more than willing to illustrate with ample photographs of the atrocities committed over the past 200 years by those assholes.
3. The 14th Amendment guarantees marriage equality as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Loving v. Virginia. I've shown this on other threads. Go back and read them.
4. Your pettiness aside, there is no legal justification for gays to have any less than equal legal standing in the eye of the law.
4. Your pettiness aside, there is no legal justification for gays to have any less than equal legal standing in the eye of the law.
Legal standings in what ? Insurance and Retirement claims of "surviving spouse".. there are not Govt issues, but issues as they related to various industry policies and practices.
To think you are going after the religious institution of marriage all to get Insurance claim rights is laughable...
Dan8267
2013 Feb 22, 3:26pm
religious institution of marriage
Laws are about the secular institution of marriage, not the religious institution, dummy.
And frankly, as much as I dont like to appeal to emotion, this is a textbook case of why it is useful. The brightline rule "no abortions of convenience" sounds good on paper, but what then of cases of anencephaly or other similar horrific diseases? I mean seriously, if you look at those things and read about them, there is, sadly, a very gray area between what constitutes "a child" and what constitutes "a tumor"... a living breathing tumor...
Anyway, I bring this up not to unnecessarily provoke, but to challenge.
Fair enough, but appealing to emotion and the grisly images of anencephaly is the same thing that those who picket abortion clinics with big pictures of aborted fetuses are doing. There are any number of tragic ailements that can inflict the human species. But these types of medically tragic conceptions along with conception due to rape/incest are still a relatively small percentage of the total - thank God.
Yet these extreme cases are always used by abortion advocates as the reason for essentially UNLIMTED ABORTION all the way into the 3rd trimester in many States.
You are right there are plenty of gray areas on this issue. How is a baby who is in the womb at 8 months really different than a baby already already born and a week old? Both life forms will need massive human assistance in terms of feeding and caring or they wouldn't survive a few days.
A 2 year old's brain is not as developed as an 19 year old brain, is the toddler less human and have less worth than the 19 year old?
I think the gray areas scientifically, philosophically and ethically are in favor of the new life. Yet, we stiill have pretty much unlimited abortion in the US. And the pro-abortion crowd go nuts when some States (through their democratic legislatures) try to impose some moderate restrictions on this practice.
The whole abortion issue has successfully been reduced to a the harmless sounding euphamism of "choice" and "women's rights". It's all about evil White Republicans trying to police lady parts and makes no mention of the independent life who's existence is at stake. I don't think America has really had a legitimate (and scientific) debate on this issue since Roe was passed. We know a hell of alot more today than we did 40 years ago about human and fetal biology.
I know full well that we can't (and shouldn't) ban all abortions over night. It should be done at the State level. There will still be tragic cases where the practice is the lesser of two evils. But just like the moral stain of slavery, I think we will see individual States continue to make incremental restrictions on abortion and hope that future generations will be more educated and have better options than to continue this primitive caveman practice of destroying our future.
Vicente
2013 Feb 26, 2:57pm
But just like the moral stain of slavery
Because clearly slavery in the US was ended by states rights advocates, and not by unilateral Federal action.
That states rights garbage don't wash, and it's historically proven to be a crap solution to just about anything. Oh yeah except for those who think Balkanization is great and want to split up the USA so Jesusland can do it's own thing.
zzyzzx
2019 Feb 6, 2:09pm
Media Bias: While journalists are getting pink slips across the country, the Washington Post decided to dump a boatload of cash for a Super Bowl image ad that tried to portray the news media as national heroes. Here's a better, and much cheaper, idea to restore the industry's shattered reputation: Be less blatantly partisan.
« First « Previous Comments 121 - 150 of 150 Search these comments
It seems to me like both sides and by that I mean both sides that are far from center like to act victimized by the "media." Conservatives like to complain of "liberal media" bias. Liberals have been known to complain of slanted coverage by "corporate media" on the other hand. It seems to me like both groups are missing the point. Conservatives don't understand the common decency decorum and manners. Many media companies (with the exception of fox news) don't like to alienate and hence lose large demographics of viewers. At the same time these media companies are not likely to rock the status quo too much and alienate the advertisers who obviously rely on capitalist system to stay in business. The end result is obvious. The far right will have to stick with their talk shows on the radio and take whatever advertiser support they can get while the liberals will have to rely on listener sponsored support if they really want to present the far left point of view (such as KPFA 94.1 here in bay area). However for either side to cry "bias" is the height of arrogance and common sense and refusal to see forest for the trees.
#politics