patrick.net

socal2 says

You can argue that Conservatives strayed from their roots during the Bush years of "Compassionate Conservatism" which was nothing more than big spending Liberalism and tax cuts.

I'll argue that the so-called GOP became it's polar opposite in the 1960s with Barry Goldwater, Dixicrats, and religious nutjobs taking over the party.

Eisenhower was the last "republican" president that wasn't a crook.

socal2 says

If Fox News or the Republicans have to own every fringe kook and birther, than the Media and Democrats need to own every OWS kook who got arrested for terrorism charges (trying to blow up Ohio bridges) or raping girls in the camps.

Another red herring. OWS has nothing to do with liberalism or RT News, the two things I've been defending. I'm not a democrat; I just think they are by far the lesser of the two evils, but they are still an evil. Nor have I've been advocating MSNBC or CNN as excellent news sources. Read my original post.

Dan8267 says

The only real news outlets are:
Daily Show
Colbert Report
NPR
RT News
and The Newsroom (US)

and three of them don't even call themselves real news.

You still haven't refuted that. So stop with the red herrings and strawmen. The best thing I've ever said about CNN and MSNBC is that they are nowhere as bad and deceptive as Fox. And there's plenty of evidence to support that.

socal2 says

But you can't say what you said above with a straight face and think the current crop of Democrats running the show believe in ANY of the things you list above.

I don't vote for democrats because I think they will do good. I vote against republicans because I think they will do far more harm.

socal2 says

Nancy Pelosi was going around last week saying we don't even have a spending problem.

Then she sounds exactly like Dick Cheney, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.".

Oh, and I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi's economic or social policies.

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

However, today social conservatism is just code for bigotry and xenophobia and

financial conservatism is just code for ransacking the economy to steal as much

wealth from the middle class as possible before the whole system collapses. And

that is why conservatives are no longer respectable.

Missed this bit of nonsense.

You really BELIEVE this garbage Dan? Really?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/xULsYYVcbr4

socal2 says

See - just like I said earlier. It is not enough for Libs to disagree with Conservative political philosophy. They have to attach all sorts of evil motives like racism and bigotry.

Notice that they are all the same damn map!

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.

When these people stop acting like bigots, renounce their racist and backwards culture, and join the rest of us in the 21st century, I'll stop calling them bigots. Until then, they are bigots and none of us should let their opinions and horrible values determine the course of our nation.

Dan8267 says

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.

When these people stop acting like bigots, renounce their racist and backwards culture, and join the rest of us in the 21st century, I'll stop calling them bigots. Until then, they are bigots and none of us should let their opinions and horrible values determine the course of our nation.

Do you even realize how crazy you sound? You are writing off half the freaking country like they are ALL bigots by calling the Midwest and South "overwhelmingly" evil.

Really a pretty dumb statement dude.

But I guess you got to do what you do to maintain your hyperbolic fear of Republicans or maintain a coherent political ideology. EEEEVVILLL people are coming for your girly parts Dan. Better watch out and keep voting straight Dem!

socal2 says

Do you even realize how crazy you sound? You are writing off half the freaking country like they are ALL bigots by calling the Midwest and South "overwhelmingly" evil.

Not as crazy as the right wing.

And I'm only writing off a third of the freaking country as bigots. Furthermore, 200 years of history backs me up. Notice how you haven't actually refuted any of the maps I've shown. A picture is worth a thousand words.

One more thing, your reading comprehension skills suck ass. I said

Dan8267 says

The American South and Midwest have been people, not entirely but overwhelmingly, with despicable, racist

Now, please continue down this thread of argument. I still have about six billion images from Google Image Search to post showing just how god-awfully evil the American South/Midwest has been throughout its 200-year history. Please make me post more pictures. Please do.

Dan8267 says

I still have about six billion images from Google Image Search to post showing just how god-awfully evil the American South/Midwest has been throughout its 200-year history. Please make me post more pictures. Please do.

Keep on hating man.

Do you suppose our media might have just a few people in editorial positions who share your same pathological hatred for flyover country and Republicans?

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.
( see fox, highest rated cable news channel )

Unless you are not being fed.
( see msnbc, lowest rated cable news channel )

Case Closed.

CL says

SoftShell says

Precisely.

And O'reilly SLAMMED GE.

You lose.

Case Closed.

Re-read it, please. Fox has NEVER found fault with its parent company. That's because it is a horseshit organization. Unless you find Bill Ohreally criticizing Murdoch, the case is very much open.

socal2 says

Keep on hating man.

Hate is the appropriate emotional response to evil from Nazism to the KKK. I will keep hating evil. You can keep condoning it and whitewashing history.

I'm catching up on Real Time with Bill Maher and on the episode 2013-01-25 Howard Dean says the best line that sums up the differences between the Republicans and the Democrats. Responding to a republican, Dean says,

You have 49% crackpots in your party, and we only have about 10!

referring to the 49% of republicans who still believe Obama was born in Kenya. And that really hits true. There are crazies in both parties, but the lunatics have taken over the Republican Party.

Howard Dean and the two republicans. Notice how both republicans can't help but smirk because they know it's true.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

Keep on hating man.

Hate is the appropriate emotional response to evil from Nazism to the KKK. I will keep hating evil. You can keep condoning it and whitewashing history.

Hah! Now you are talking about Nazis!

Unhinged.

It's like talking to an Ibex.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/TugslL45aXk

Dan8267 says

I believe in small government, rugged individualism, balanced budgets, and zero debt. That used to make me a textbook conservative. However, today conservative has become code for wanting big government that controls the lives of individuals and spends enormous money, but only on defense not social safety nets, and helps big corporations ensure that no startups can compete with them in establish markets.

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.

SoftShell says

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

( see fox, highest rated cable news channel )

Unless you are not being fed.

( see msnbc, lowest rated cable news channel )

Case Closed.

Journalism requires that you do. It would make sense that Fox watchers don't understand that.

Fox doesn't speak truth-to-power, because it is merely sycophantic drivel. Not as much conservative as it is a GOP outlet for talking points.

MSNBC does use talking points, but at least they're journalists. That's why they criticize their sugar daddies. Fox requires that their male newsreaders be dumb, and that their female newsreaders be blonde.

Just to clarify, when you speak of "fox" and "msnbc", are you speaking of their generic news show, or the "oreilly o'donnell maddow hannity MrEd" opinion shows?

CL says

SoftShell says

You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

( see fox, highest rated cable news channel )

Unless you are not being fed.

( see msnbc, lowest rated cable news channel )

Case Closed.

Journalism requires that you do. It would make sense that Fox watchers don't understand that.

Fox doesn't speak truth-to-power, because it is merely sycophantic drivel. Not as much conservative as it is a GOP outlet for talking points.

MSNBC does use talking points, but at least they're journalists. That's why they criticize their sugar daddies. Fox requires that their male newsreaders be dumb, and that their female newsreaders be blonde.

FortWayne says

Ron Paul is an old school conservative, and it's probably why he can't win in an entitled welfare driven society.

Ron Paul does better with people who vote democrat or independent. He's very popular with liberals because of his good stand on human and civil rights. Even leftist who strongly disagree with his economics begrudging admit he's a good guy.

It's not welfare entitlement mentality that prevents Paul from being elected. Ron Paul will never be elected by the Republican base. Just look at the 2012 primary. The Republicans literally tried every single possible alternative to Mitt Romney, who they hated, including the black pizza guy, except Ron Paul. The only person they loathed more than Romney was Paul.

Despite that, Paul was pretty consistently in second place for the nomination due to the continual support across multiple states. Hell, I think Ron Paul had a better chance of defeating Obama than Romney did. He probably would not have won, but he likely would have come a lot closer especially in key swing states.

No, it's the republican base that prevents Ron Paul from being elected. Even if he were elected, they would assassinate him. They have already tossed out ballets for him and got caught doing so.

Dan8267 says

Ron Paul does better with people who vote democrat or independent. He's very popular with liberals because of his good stand on human and civil rights. Even leftist who strongly disagree with his economics begrudging admit he's a good guy.

This is why it was impossible for to have been nominated in the primaries in the election.

How can we start a "Abolish Closed Primaries" movement?

Dan8267 says

Even if he were elected

he wouldn't be able to govern. Obama can barely get his Republican Defense nominee through, even with support of Democrats in Congress.

Paul would have been an unmitigated disaster. No support from Dems or the GOP.

SoftShell says

Just to clarify, when you speak of "fox" and "msnbc", are you speaking of their generic news show, or the "oreilly o'donnell maddow hannity MrEd" opinion shows?

There are a few on Fox that I'd call journos. Wallace, sometimes Brett Baier, sometimes Shep.

But absolutely none of them have ever criticized Murdoch or Ailes, so they're still sycophants.

Murdoch has been pilloried for his crimes in Britain and Australia. And on MSNBC. Why does Fox avoid criticizing Murdoch?

MSNBC attacked Obama on drones, for example.

Who on Fox criticized Bush when he wasn't conservative enough?

How did Medicare Part D get treated on Fox? Was the Iraq war a conservative goal, or an issue that helped the Republican President?

Dan8267 says

Ron Paul does better with people who vote democrat or independent. He's very
popular with liberals because of his good stand on human and civil rights. Even
leftist who strongly disagree with his economics begrudging admit he's a good
guy.

The Left only liked Ron Paul because he was a borderline 9/11 Troofer and blamed most of the Muslim/Arab world's dysfunction on the US and Israel.

I got to believe that most liberals (including you) have no clue about Ron Paul because virtually all of his economic and social policies (including being staunchly pro-life) would send the girls in the Democrat party running for the hills. Ron Paul has a powerful story how he turned pro-life as an OBGYN doctor after witnessing a late term abortion where a living breathing baby was delivered and put into a bucket in the corner of the room to die.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/10/14/ron-paul-relives-witnessing-late-term-abortion-in-new-pro-life-ad/

Besides, doesn't the fact that the Republicans nominated a Northeastern squish like Romney who was pro-abortion until recently and soft on a number of economic issues and not Ron Paul contradict your earlier paranoia that Republicans were only after your ladyparts?

socal2 says

Ron Paul has a powerful story how he turned pro-life

Weird how his view of "liberty" doesn't extend to women choosing what's best for them.

socal2 says

Besides, doesn't the fact that the Republicans nominated a Northeastern squish like Romney who was pro-abortion until recently and soft on a number of economic issues and not Ron Paul contradict your earlier paranoia that Republicans were only after your ladyparts?

The GOP primary voter responded well to two things:

1) Negative attacks: The unruly mob wanted more and more negativity, more and more divisiveness. Romney dropped the bombs in spades.

2) Rhetoric/lies: Say anything, the more outrageous and unhinged the better.

Then they voted for the last guy left standing. Then they pretended they liked him and that the republic depended on him getting elected.

Alas, it's the voters on the right that the rest of the country are really scared of. The GOP leadership has proven that they are fickle and directionless. The angry mob of teabaggers are, as we speak, pushing personhood amendments, transvaginal ultrasounds, and more weird rape talk. It would be easy to accomplish any of these anti-woman measures with a weathervane like Romney.

CL says

socal2
says

Ron Paul has a powerful story how he turned pro-life

Weird how his view of "liberty" doesn't extend to women choosing what's best
for them.

Weird how your view of "liberty" apparently doesn't extend to a living breathing baby outside the womb that Ron Paul saw delivered and put into a bucket in the corner of the room to die.

I really think it is monstrous how some people can support late term abortions like as they hide behind euphamisms of "choice".

Why do some liberals and abortion supporters "hate science"?

As our society becomes more educated on the science and biology of procreation, I think future generations will look back at us as worse than slave-holders for the amount of unborn children we terminated. We are like freaking cave-men primitive.

BTW - Libs should be encouraging the US and Western Countries to have more babies if we want future tax payers to prop up our entitlement Ponzi schemes.

socal2 says

As our society becomes more educated on the science and biology of
procreation, I think future generations will look back at us as worse than
slave-holders for the amount of unborn children we terminated. We are like
freaking cave-men primitive.

Abortion is a very complex topic. I don't think anyone advocates someone being a serial abortionists. The key is to minimize chances where a woman will be in a positiion to make that choice. Reps need to do their part which will involve providing contraceptives even at high school level. But the fundamentalists won't go for it - they will claim that it will lead to societal decay because we will "encourage" people to have premarital sex aka "fornicators" lol

dublin hillz says

Abortion is a very complex topic. I don't think anyone advocates someone
being a serial abortionists. The key is to minimize chances where a woman will
be in a positiion to make that choice. Reps need to do their part which will
involve providing contraceptives even at high school level. But the
fundamentalists won't go for it - they will claim that it will lead to societal
decay because we will "encourage" people to have premarital sex aka
"fornicators" lol

I agree that abortion is a complex subject. But we are far more educated in 2013 than we were in 1973 when most people could hide behind the ignorance that a baby in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is a "clump of cells" or a "tumor". Same types of ignorance about genetics were used by slave holders and eugenics supporters to justify their evil practices.

Thanks to ultrasounds, we can no longer hide behind that ignorance.

I would like to think that even most abortion supporters understand that late term abortion is absolutely barbaric and rarely necessary to save the life of the mother. Particularly the case that Ron Paul saw where a baby was born alive and left in a bucket to die.

Yet here is Andrew Cuomo in New York trying to push a bill to reduce restrictions on late term abortion in New York.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/20/cuomos-logical-but-risky-late-term-abortion-push/

And what the heck are you talking about in terms of contraception availability? Do you think we live in the 1950's or something? It is as ubiquitous as the air we breath.

And we do have societal decay. A large percentage of the population has become so dumb that they don't realize that we need to have at least replacement level fertility rates to support the big massive government that 52% of the population thinks we deserve.

socal2 says

Weird how your view of "liberty" apparently doesn't extend to a living breathing baby outside the womb that Ron Paul saw delivered and put into a bucket in the corner of the room to die.

Does Paul support ending abortion? That is the elimination of choice, because in his view some "abuse it", right?

If a woman and her doctor agree to the procedure, to save the life of the mother, for example, then why would the non-authoritarian Paul become an authoritarian? Besides hypocrisy, I mean.

It gets down to, "If Paul does it, then it can't be authoritarian".

If Paul requests money for Galveston citizens deciding to live there, that's him just doing his constituents a solid, right?

But when it comes to Louisiana, it's their own damn fault?

And I like Paul, but to say he's a consistent motherfucker takes some real blinders.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/s66bTshO1jM

Earmarks for Dr. No? Shrimp fisheries? Pshaw.

CL says

Does Paul support ending abortion? That is the elimination of choice, because
in his view some "abuse it", right?

If a woman and her doctor agree to the procedure, to save the life of the
mother, for example, then why would the non-authoritarian Paul become an
authoritarian? Besides hypocrisy, I mean.

It gets down to, "If Paul does it, then it can't be authoritarian".

I don't get what you are trying to say.

I am not a Ron Paul fan. His principled (and medically informed) position against abortion is about the only position of his I support.

I am just puzzled how you could respond to the story about Ron Paul seeing a doctor put a healthy living baby in a bucket to die by decrying the lack of "liberty of the mother" to still choose to murder the baby that is no longer part of her body.

Seriously, raise your hand if you can support late term abortion unless the health of the mother or baby is severely at risk. And before someone chimes in claiming that late term abortions are rare, why on earth is Cuomo in New York trying to loosen the restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions?

I can almost excuse those who still try to pretend 8 week fetuses are just a "clump of cells". But if you are even minimally educated, you should know full well that babies in the 3rd trimester are very human and deserve the "liberty" of human rights and protection from destruction.

That video doesn't show Ron Paul getting "owned", the cool slang word internet users like to use. It shows that he represents his district, that's his job to represent.

And I guess some people have a problem with that, they think government should do as they please, not represent. CL you screwed up man.

socal2 says

I don't get what you are trying to say.

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 have a friend who says he's anti-abortion, but his sister used in vitro to have her baby. Since embryos are destroyed in the process, I asked if that child should not have been born then. Is in vitro immoral? Should it be illegal?

If the answer, becomes, "well, yes. In that case it's okay. Or, I guess it's inhumane to the mother if we force her to carry a rape-baby to term", etc.

Doesn't that essentially mean that "when I say it's okay, it's okay"?

To which I would ask, "Who are we to tell a woman that she hasn't searched her soul long enough, or sincerely enough for her to choose abortion"?

I know there are women who treat it like a form of contraception, and that shouldn't be. I don't see how anyone who claims to be anti-big government, anti-Statist, anti-authoritarian can claim that he also wants the State to step between a Doctor and his/her patient.

One who claims to be for "liberty" above all else (even at the expense of civil rights!), has an awfully inconsistent way of showing it.

FortWayne says

That video doesn't show Ron Paul getting "owned", the cool slang word internet users like to use. It shows that he represents his district, that's his job to represent.

It shows that he has the same fucking principles as any Congress person.

Bringing money to my district=good, your district=pork. He's a charlatan.

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

FortWayne says

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.

CL says

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?

socal2 says

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?

CL says

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.

socal2 says

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".

socal2 says

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/02/20/cuomos-logical-but-risky-late-term-abortion-push/

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.

CL says

Because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

I think that thought most certainly applies to practice of destroying unwanted babies.

CL says

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.

socal2 says

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.

CDon says

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.

CDon says

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.

socal2 says

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?

Dan8267 says

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HihONIZVI4

socal2 says

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJuH70_YsN0

thomaswong.1986 says

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.