Say Anything Blog

This is what I mean about looking at each issue on its own merits.  And on this one, I take heat from the opposite party than the one most of you apparently belong to.

I am pro-life.

Not just unborn life, but Iraqis who George Bush shocked and awed into tiny macerated pieces when he began this immoral war.

So, the ‘libs’ as you might call them are pro-life on that issue but pro-death to unwanted unborn life, and the rest of you...’repugs’ as they might call you...are pro-life for unborn life but don’t give a crap about living babies who happen to be Iraqi.

I find both positions entirely illogical and hypocritical.

Not that you’ll ever be convinced of this, but we’ve actually saved lives in Iraq.  Saddam was killing more of his own citizens every year than are dying in the violence there now.

Plus, war is not abortion.  In Iraq we are killing terrorists to help spread democracy and freedom.  Abortions are just parents killing children they don’t want. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Not that you’ll ever be convinced of this

Truer words were never spoken.  I’m not easily fooled.  Sad to say, those who are are going to be responsible for tens of thousands of innocent deaths because ignorance (of the law, including international law) will be no excuse.

Welcome to your future.

Rob, you might as well talk to your dog. You will get more intelligent answers.

I know, 2H9, but I’m an optimist.

Diane, my future? You mean the one where, five years from now, our troops are at home and Iraq and Afghanistan are flourishing democracies where once millions were oppressed?

What’s so bad about that future?  Your future would still have those millions being oppressed, raped and murdered. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I’d suggest you take our troops and move them like little robotic killer pawns all over the globe; after Iraq, where would you like to place them next on the chessboard of real life?  And how will you fund them?

I’m happy you’re deceived; perhaps it will prove to be some semblance of a defense for you.

In the meantime, I despise what you have done to this country and, more so, I despise and condemn what you have done to the lives of innocent Iraqis who you couldn’t convince for one single second of the benefits of our immoral invasion and occupation.  You know, the one where the reasons keep changing as they are proven totally false.

In the meantime, I despise what you have done to this country and, more so, I despise and condemn what you have done to the lives of innocent Iraqis who you couldn’t convince for one single second of the benefits of our immoral invasion and occupation.  You know, the one where the reasons keep changing as they are proven totally false.

Meanwhile, America’s economy is steaming along.  We’re pretty much at full employment.  Iraqis are more optimistic about their own fate than anyone else on earth (there was a poll to that effect but I’m too lazy to dig it up now) and fewer of them are dying now then were dying under Saddam Hussein.

 Tell me, Diane...what dimension do you live in?  Are there unicorns there?

I mean, seriously.  We’ve allowed them to form their own representative government while simultaneously protecting them from the monsters who would see the country pushed back into oppression.

What a tragedy. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

While 65 percent of adults considered themselves "familiar" with Roe v. Wade, only 29 percent of adults were able to select the correct description of it from a list of possibilities. Fifty percent thought Roe was much more limited than it was. Even among those with post-graduate degrees, only 38 percent got it right.

And apparently 0% realized that Casey is the law of the land. 

Anyway, it doesn’t matter if Casey is overturned, as lots of "illegal" abortions in states that ban the practice will continue (if Latin America is any indication).  Or women will go to other states or to Canada. 

Anti-abortion types don’t of course deal with the costs associated with such a regime, where every miscarraige is treated as a potential crime and investigated by the state  Then again, counting the costs of state action seems to be outside the purview of both major political parties. 

Rob, I live in the dimension where this immoral war has cost the lives of over 100,000 innocent people and raised our national debt to proportions you in the land of American White Knight/Save The World From Tyrants (we feel like saving them from) World can’t even get your head around, yet you stumble blindly and bloodily forward, killing, plundering, raping, tormenting men, women and children as you go.

And you will be called on to account for it at some point; but I honestly think in the back of your mind you know that and just can’t deal with it enough to admit it.

P.S.  Remember when Saddam wasn’t so bad; you know...around the time Rumsfeld was shown shaking his hand in the infamous photo. 

If Bush and Rummy said bow and crawl, how long would it take you to get into position?  The famous painting of the Buffalo Stampede or lemmings comes to mind.

Rob, my question for Dhimi diane’s kind is"Why did you not stop the genocide in Central Africa?" Her and the rest of the Fred Phelps wing of Christianity are awfully quite about that whole episode of Global History.

Rob, my question for Dhimi diane’s kind is"Why did you not stop the genocide in Central Africa?" Her and the rest of the Fred Phelps wing of Christianity are awfully quite about that whole episode of Global History.

Not familiar iwth Fred Phelps, but I think you’re confused.  I’m the one who didn’t want to go to Iraq.  You’re the one whose responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.  The question for you is:  Where do you want us to go next?  Who is next on your list to save because they are about to go through years of horror and someone should warn them.  But go ahead, pick one:  North Korea?

Why did you not stop the genocide of the innocent people in Central Africa?

Was it because the Right Reverend Frederic Phelps told you they were homosexuals and God commanded they die in agony?

Or was it because they were"Black"?

Or was it possibly because your a selfish twat who did not give a shit?

Perhaps you just were not paying attention?

Pick one, or several. You are irrelevent.

And my pick is Warziristan. Lots of Wahabist deathworshippers seeking death there. We should do the right thing and help them meet Allah as guickly as possible.

I have a question (it’s in all seriousness too):

Say for example abortion is outlawed. If you still have an abortion, would it legally be considered murder or something else? To charge someone with murder, it must first be determined that unborn children have a right to life, which outlawing abortion really doesn’t do. So wouldn’t the penalties for having an abortion have to be something similar to say an illegal breat enhancement operation (if, hypothetically, it was illegal to have breast augmentation surgery)?

So I guess a condensed version of my question would be: Is simply outlawing abortion itself enough to charge and convict someone of murder, or would other laws have to be put in place that grants and protects the right to life of the unborn?

Andrew, it would depend on how the law was written.

I would assume that any law banning abortion (and this would have to be after Roe is overturned) would have to define, explicitly, when life begins.  After that, ending a life without due process afforded by the fifth amendment would be murder.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Alright, just something I’ve occasionally wondered. I have to admit that my knowledge of law (and many other topics) is relatively small.

I’m no expert.  I just do the best I can and try to learn from those who know more than I do.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

HotelBoy, I have no idea what your fascination with Fred Phelps is, but I love the fact that I got you this dizzy.  You didn’t answer:  Which people would you love to ‘liberate’ next?

And what have you personally done to make sure this happens, and what did you do in any of the cases you mentioned?

I thought so...you’re all smoke and mirrors.

And one of the nuttiest fruitcakes in this tin.

He is your minister, you explain him.

I see diane wasted no time in derailing yet another thread.

The US has always been pro-life.  The earlier polls were dishonest;  they didn’t ask: "Do you favor abortion on demand? or even: "Do you favor abortion as a method of birth control?"  They asked: "Do you support a woman’s right to choose?"  If they had asked the real question, America is about 70% against abortion.  More lying from the MSM.

Ann Coulter had a column about that a long time ago.  She also pointed out how people change their perspective over time.  Young males were always very pro-abortion but when they became fathers they become anti-abortion.

Many polls are used to actually drive the opinions of those without strong convictions.  "Everyone supports freedom to choose, don’t you?" 

Andrew,

Is simply outlawing abortion itself enough to charge and convict someone of murder, or would other laws have to be put in place that grants and protects the right to life of the unborn?

Any law which tries to outlaw abortions will be a convoluted, heavily litigated mess. 

What do you do about a woman who travels to Canada and has an abortion?  Or a woman who travels from SD to Massachusetts for same?  How would a D.A. gather evidence of the "crime" in Canada?  Are pregnant women going to have to be inspected and questioned before they leave a state and after they return? 

Will prosecutors investigate every miscarraige?  Will the state begin to monitor every pregnancy? 

Right.  Outlawing abortion would be a big mess, so let’s just keep murdering unborn children.

That’s easier.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Epicurus said, What do you do about a woman who travels to Canada and has an abortion?  Or a woman who travels from SD to Massachusetts for same?  How would a D.A. gather evidence of the "crime" in Canada?  Are pregnant women going to have to be inspected and questioned before they leave a state and after they return?

Why would that happen? Do we charge people with marijuana possession if they went on vacation to Amsterdam? No? Then why do you think abortion would be any different? How could we charge people for a crime that isn’t a crime in the locale in which it was committed?

Your arguments are ridiculous Epicurus and it is telling that you are resorted to using them.

likwidshoe,

Do we charge people with marijuana possession if they went on vacation to Amsterdam?

We could.  Numerous doctrines allow the federal government to pursue illegal activities across borders if they are committed by American citizens, even if no action actually happened in the U.S. 

But we don’t.

Likwidshoe’s point was that we already handle situations similar to those you indicated just fine, thus your use of them as an argument against outlawing abortion is nonsense. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Epicurus said, Numerous doctrines allow the federal government to pursue illegal activities across borders if they are committed by American citizens, even if no action actually happened in the U.S.

Well then that is the issue you need to focus on. No need to obfuscate the abortion debate.

The Polling Company has released a new poll of 1,000 adults conducted on April 13 and 14. The poll was commissioned by "Real Women’s Voices," a project sponsored by the Susan B. Anthony List and other pro-life groups.

You could check out this collection of polls that shows, if nothing else, that these polls never give out consistent results and that, to broadly say something like "Americans are becoming pro-life" or "Americans are becoming pro-choice" is foolish.

I particularly liked the Fox News poll that showed how 47% of Republicans opposed South Dakota’s latest law banning abortion except in the life of the mother.

"Do you favor abortion on demand? or even: "Do you favor abortion as a method of birth control?"  They asked: "Do you support a woman’s right to choose?"

None of these questions are unbiased. Here’s a better one (or two):

"Do you agree or disagree with the current abortion law?"
"Are you pro-choice or pro-life?"

likwidshoe,

How could we charge people for a crime that isn’t a crime in the locale in which it was committed?

Wasn’t there recently a case where a Nebraskan man (in his early 20s) was charged with and convicted of statutory rape even though he had married his 14 year old bride in Kansas? 

likwidshoe,

Well then that is the issue you need to focus on. No need to obfuscate the abortion debate.

I am doing no such thing.  And I will focus on what I wish to.

Rob,

Actually we prosecute people for committing actions overseas all the time, including drug related crimes.  The issue isn’t a moot one.  Both states and the federal government have, in other words, long-arm statutes that allow them to attack activities outside their borders.  Its something they teach you the first semester in law school. 

It is a moot one.  We already deal with these issues with drugs, etc. so there is no reason why we can’t deal with them on abortion.

But feel free to keep muddying the water if you must. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

State long-arm statutes also allow state governments to attack criminal and civil issues of activities that are connected to but may happen outside of states.  

Anyway, I notice that neither you nor likwidshoe addressed any of my other comments? 

Will prosecutors investigate every miscarraige?  Will the state begin to monitor every pregnancy? 

Rob,

Do learn something about long-arm statutes before you continue to comment.

I suspect they’ll investigate where necessary, just as the investigate suspcious deaths now.

Like I said, non-issue. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I suspect they’ll investigate where necessary, just as the investigate suspcious deaths now.

As we’re aware, prosecutors are paragons of virtue and completely apolitical entities.

I’m not sure what else I need to know, Epi.  I know that the states already have methods in place for handling discrepancies in laws both domestically and internationally.  I have no reason to think that these same channels can’t be used with the abortion situation.

Which is why this is a cop-out argument meant more to muddy the waters than anything else.  If we can handle citizens smoking weed in Amsterdam we can handle citizens getting abortions in Canada or Mexico.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Like a lot of conservatives you simply don’t want to acknowledge the dangers or the costs associated with a more intrusive government as long as the social goals that you cherish are enacted into law. 

As we’re aware, prosecutors are paragons of virtue and completely apolitical entities.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but it seems to me that law enforcement does an adequate job now investigating suspected wrongful death cases.  No reason for me to think why that wouldn’t continue with investigations into illegal abortions.

Like a lot of conservatives you simply don’t want to acknowledge the dangers or the costs associated with a more intrusive government as long as the social goals that you cherish are enacted into law.

Label me what you want, but abortions are murder and should be illegal.  The fifth amendment requires that no one be deprived of life without due process of law, yet millions of unborn children are being deprived of just that on the whim of a mother and her doctor.  That isn’t right. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I don’t know how it all works, but apparently shrooms are legal in the Bahamas, but you can’t take them back with you. So it appeared to me that they don’t choose to look for things like that until you get back.

If we do start prosecuting for abortion, should we put the mother on death row? 

Rob,

I know that the states already have methods in place for handling discrepancies in laws both domestically and internationally.  I have no reason to think that these same channels can’t be used with the abortion situation.

Heh.  I seriously doubt any knowledge on your part regarding the jurisdictional issues I’ve raised, given the specialized nature of them.  Anyway, before you were arguing that they can’t possibly go after someone for having an abortion across a state border, and now you appear to have backtracked and arguing that they have a way of sorting this out.

Which is why this is a cop-out argument meant more to muddy the waters than anything else. 

Apparently anything which illustrates the costs and dangers of such laws is "muddying the waters."  More knowledge means muddying the waters.  Heh.   

If we can handle citizens smoking weed in Amsterdam we can handle citizens getting abortions in Canada or Mexico.

Yes, the way we handle the former is sending them to jail if the government demonstrate their use, etc. overseas.  Given the ideologically charged nature of abortion, one would suspect an even more zealous attack on that issue for those seeking abortion outside the borders of a state or the U.S. (depending on what happens after Casey is overturned - if Casey is overturned).

Heh.  I seriously doubt any knowledge on your part regarding the jurisdictional issues I’ve raised, given the specialized nature of them.  Anyway, before you were arguing that they can’t possibly go after someone for having an abortion across a state border, and now you appear to have backtracked and arguing that they have a way of sorting this out.

I said that "they" can’t possibly go after somone for having an abortion across the state border?  Care to point out where I said or even implied that?

Also, I haven’t seen you display any sort of special knowledge on this subject, so why don’t you stop acting like a pretentious boob and just discuss the issue with me without all the sneering condescension. 

Apparently anything which illustrates the costs and dangers of such laws is "muddying the waters."  More knowledge means muddying the waters.  Heh.  

Harping on non-issues is certainly muddying the waters.  I don’t see "it would be too complicated/too intrusive" as a valid argument against banning the murder of unborn children.  Sorry.  Better find something else if you’re going to convince me.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

You can continue to argue yourself into a box with ever more ludicrous commentary, but these dangers are real and the fact that until I mentioned them you apparently didn’t realize they existed should make you rethink your position. 

You’ve labelled yourself a conservative.

student student,

So it appeared to me that they don’t choose to look for things like that until you get back.

It depends on how the government wants to enforce the law; nevertheless the law exists and allows the government prosecute you (just as if you as a U.S. citizen committed an act of terrorism overseas even if no U.S. property, citizens, etc. were harmed in that act).  The federal government assumes very broad jurisdiction in a lot of matters, and so do many states (just take a gander at California’s long-arm statute and its language). 

You can continue to argue yourself into a box with ever more ludicrous commentary, but these dangers are real and the fact that until I mentioned them you apparently didn’t realize they existed should make you rethink your position. 

You’ve labelled yourself a conservative.

Yes, I’m a conservative.  Best thing to be.

And I’ve heard your arguments before and didn’t find them convincing previously, just as I don’t find the convincing now.  If you want to pretend that’s because I’m not as smart as you, go ahead.  I don’t really care.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

student student,

Also, in light of the developments following International Shoe, the very general long-arm statute language that is part of such statutes for states like California and the like means that the maximal jurisdiction is very, very broad.

By the way, I’ve noticed you’ve stopped addressing the points and the issue at hand in favor of implying that I’m stupid for not agreeing with you.

Nice way to pretend like you’ve won an argument, I guess. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I can only teach; I can’t make people learn. 

If you say so.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Another concern associated with anti-abortion laws is that they will give fuel to conservatives who want to limit other areas of choice, for example in the area of medical or reproductive choice (indeed, the Plan B fiasco is a pretty good example of this).  On the matter of such choice Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom has this to say:

Transhumanists argue that the best way to avoid a Brave New World is by vigorously defending morphological and reproductive freedoms against any would-be world controllers. History has shown the dangers in letting governments curtail these freedoms. The last century’s government-sponsored coercive eugenics programs, once favored by both the left and the right, have been thoroughly discredited. Because people are likely to differ profoundly in their attitudes towards human enhancement technologies, it is crucial that no one solution be imposed on everyone from above but that individuals get to consult their own consciences as to what is right for themselves and their families. Information, public debate, and education are the appropriate means by which to encourage others to make wise choices, not a global ban on a broad range of potentially beneficial medical and other enhancement options.

And think for that is: http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/dignity.html

Ah, now we’re on the slippery slope argument.

If we protect the lives of unborn children that will obviously lead to conservatives wanting regulate what people eat, etc.

Not sure about the logic in that argument, but I guess it sounds good when you’re desperate for something to say. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

ss: Asking questions that convey the reality of abortion are no "biased";  they are truthful.  You obviously have a pro-abortion agenda.

Epi:  Two flaws in your argument.  There are more than two choices here.  You try to frame it as either no restrictions on abortion(abortion on demand) or totally banning abortion at the national level.  That is simply untrue.  The reality of overturning the existing federal law is to leave the matter to the states, where it should have been in the first place.  If the people of a state want abortion, they can have it, and if they don’t, then they will not have it forced upon them by an ever more intrusive federal govt.  The other flaw is to assume that there will be prosecution of miscarriages and of illegal abortions as murder.  Once again, the miscarriage meme is ridiculous, and the prosecution of illegal abortion would be up to the voters of the state, where it should be.  Your overheated nightmare of law enforcement is false;  the present situation has produced a holocaust of over 50 million casualties, all of them innocent children.  What could be worse than that?

nobody here is stupid, we’re all just stubborn.

Rob,

Some slopes are indeed slippery.

If we protect the lives of unborn children that will obviously lead to conservatives wanting regulate what people eat, etc.

Its not that it will lead to such a wanting, they currently want to regulate the lives of individuals in numerous ways that they tie to the abortion issue, be it the right to die issue, anti-sodomy statutes, and of course bans on medical enhancements.  Not that its conservatives alone who are interested in such control regarding their pet issues - indeed, there is a great cohabitation between many conservatives and many leftists on the issue of medical enhancements. 

I see anti-sodomy laws and such as a separate issue.  Abortion is different because it involves the ending of a life without due process.  The child doesn’t get a say, and that is wrong.

Now, if we’re talking about some old duffer who wants to end it all...I don’t really have a problem with that.  I also don’t have a problem with gays.

My abortion stance doesn’t translate into other issues, so I don’t see this slippery slope argument as all that convincing either. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robert108,

The reality of overturning the existing federal law is to leave the matter to the states, where it should have been in the first place. 

Throughout my comments I mention this possibility.  Did you read them?  Apparently not.  Ergo, no flaw.

The other flaw is to assume that there will be prosecution of miscarriages and of illegal abortions as murder. 

I see, so abortions will be illegal, but there will be no prosecutions for homicide? 

Once again, the miscarriage meme is ridiculous...

Once again?  Are you trying to sound smart or something?  For there to be a "once again," you would have to have commented on my statements before this. 

Once again, the miscarriage meme is ridiculous, and the prosecution of illegal abortion would be up to the voters of the state, where it should be.

As the agenda of most anti-abortion groups is a federal amendment against the practice; and your rhetoric about the number of abortions doesn’t engender much confidence in any claim that it will remain a state issue (especially since both major parties like to federalize everything).

I’m going to start putting all my eggs somewhere so that there will be millions of me out there. That way, when they ban the birth control pill because it’s abortion, I’ll at least say that I didn’t kill my eggs every month. That’s the lab’s fault if they die.

Rob,

It doesn’t matter whether you think it is a seperate issue or not.  A vast body of conservatives don’t.  They view it as part of the ‘culture of life’ agenda.

I think we, as a nation, are quite capable of allowing states to ban the murder of unborn children without it having to lead to the banning of vibrators or gay sex.

So, again, your slippery slope argument isn’t very convincing. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

let’s see, we need to define what constitutes as abortion.

-Birth control pill?

-Morning after pill?

-After x months?

-All months?

-Condoms?

-All months, condoms, birth control, and morning after?

 What will be the punishment?

 -Kill the mother?

-x years in prison for mother?

-kill both mother and father? 

-kill the father?

-x years in prison for the father?

-community service for either/or/both?

-forced adoption of a kid with mother/father paying for the kid with no help?

How do we determine who is responsible? With drugs, we say that anyone who knows should be punished. So, we should probably do that. Just like any murderers and their conspirators should be killed. People who tip off the police on this should get a reward.

So does anyone have additional suggestions? 

Epi: I’ll reply to your statements about the substance of this issue.  As a conservative, I don’t support federalizing anything but the monetary system, interstate highways and national defense, so don’t try lumping me and Rob in your flawed counter arguments.  Since illegal abortion before the current federal mandate was not generally prosecuted as murder, what is your basis for saying that it will after we get rid of the federally mandated abortion on demand?

I also don’t buy your scareology argument about eugenics being more likely under a states rights position than under a federal mandate.  It is highly unlikely that the people of this nation, on a state by state basis, will approve of any eugenics program, but it is likely that some future coalition of five Supreme Court justices, especially leftie ones, will do that exact thing, especially if they think it will produce a Dem majority in the future. 

student student,

Attacking birth control is part and parcel of the agenda of many of the anti-abortion crowd. 

Epicurus continues, Anyway, I notice that neither you nor likwidshoe addressed any of my other comments?

Will prosecutors investigate every miscarraige?  Will the state begin to monitor every pregnancy?

I’m guessing the answer is a big fat NO.

As we’re aware, prosecutors are paragons of virtue and completely apolitical entities.

Well hell then, let’s decriminalize theft while we’re at it. Since the justice system is not perfect and that is obviously what you require, it would only be fair to decriminalize everything. Right? That’s the logic you are using.

Like a lot of conservatives you simply don’t want to acknowledge the dangers or the costs associated with a more intrusive government as long as the social goals that you cherish are enacted into law.

That makes not a lick of sense to people who view abortion as murder. But continue the insults if you feel that you must, as it makes for a stronger case for my position. But continue calling the abolition of legalized murder a "social goal"; I’ll take it.

Another concern associated with anti-abortion laws is that they will give fuel to conservatives who want to limit other areas of choice...

Murder is always a choice. Just because it is a choice, doesn’t mean that it is good.

It doesn’t matter whether you think it is a seperate issue or not.  A vast body of conservatives don’t.

You’re not talking with those conservatives, so why bring up them and their issues?

robert108,

As a conservative, I don’t support federalizing anything but the monetary system, interstate highways and national defense...

Again, as an individual it doesn’t matter what you believe.  Its what the movement generally argues, and a federal amendment is extremely popular in the anti-abortion movement.  Ignoring this is like burying your head in the sand.    

Since illegal abortion before the current federal mandate was not generally prosecuted as murder, what is your basis for saying that it will after we get rid of the federally mandated abortion on demand?

Because a federal ban is something that anti-abortion groups are interested in.  Apparently I shouldn’t believe them.

I also don’t buy your scareology argument about eugenics being more likely under a states rights position than under a federal mandate. 

What the hell?  Where exactly do you get this from?  I made no such argument.  *boggle*

student student,

Given the "every sperm is sacred" approach of many, your comments aren’t far off the mark.     

Epi? Why are you detemined to abort every baby on the planet?

likwidshoe,

I’m guessing the answer is a big fat NO.

Its the sort of unsubstantiated response I expect out of you.

Well hell then, let’s decriminalize theft while we’re at it. Since the justice system is not perfect and that is obviously what you require, it would only be fair to decriminalize everything. Right? That’s the logic you are using.

No, its not the logic that I am using.  I am taking on the Smithian and Hayekian logic that one better think long and hard about the consequences of government action before one adopts it.  Furthermore, you ignore the context of the statement, the context being Rob arguing that there was no danger of prosecutorial overreach.  Of course the danger exists and one better ask whether that danger can be checked, the nature of the danger, etc.  If I’m a gadfly for forcing you to ask those sorts of questions, so be it. 

That makes not a lick of sense to people who view abortion as murder. But continue the insults if you feel that you must, as it makes for a stronger case for my position. But continue calling the abolition of legalized murder a "social goal"; I’ll take it.

It makes perfect sense actually.  Even when the government does something which view as a "good act," costs are attached to that (in the case of prosecuting crimes the possibility of a false conviction).  Thus you better have a good idea what those costs are before you go forward with the government action.  Merely because something is viewed as a moral wrong does not mean that the government should be involved in it in other words; since the government may simply make the issue worse.  Instead you’d apparently rather simply create a law against abortion and damn the consequences. 

Murder is always a choice. Just because it is a choice, doesn’t mean that it is good.

Its obvious in the context of the statement that choice here means acts which aren’t coercive. 

You’re not talking with those conservatives, so why bring up them and their issues?

I’m making comments about general trends.  In that context your statement makes little sense.

It doesn’t matter whether you think it is a seperate issue or not. A vast body of conservatives don’t.

You’re not talking with those conservatives, so why bring up them and their issues?

Fetuses piss me off. I mean, for Christ’s sake, it’s a freaking finger… what the hell makes it so captivating?!?!?!

TwoHotel9,

Heh.  I’m not.  *boggle*

____________________________________________

Anyway, I suspect that any abortion law will be about as successful as our current drug laws - not very.  So even the benefit associated with such a law must be questioned.

Epi: Your error is to equate "anti-abortion groups" with conservatives.  Your groupthink is a flawed argument because it will return the matter to the voters, not just the "anti-abortion groups".  Nice try at demonization, though.

 As to your denial, I submit one of your posts on this thread:

Another concern associated with anti-abortion laws is that they will give fuel to conservatives who want to limit other areas of choice, for example in the area of medical or reproductive choice (indeed, the Plan B fiasco is a pretty good example of this).  On the matter of such choice Oxford University philosopher Nick Bostrom has this to say:

Transhumanists argue that the best way to avoid a Brave New World is by vigorously defending morphological and reproductive freedoms against any would-be world controllers...."

It is logical to assume you quoted this guy because you agree with him. In case you should choose to continue your denial, Brave New World was a novel about future genetic manipulation done to assure a docile population, which is the opposite of conservatism.  We favor individual independence.

My only problem with abortion is tax money being used to pay for it. Beyond that it is your choice. And don’t cry me a river about the poor and disadvantaged, rich girls get knockedup just as often as all the poor ones.

Epi: You wrote:  "I am taking on the Smithian and Hayekian logic that one better think long and hard about the consequences of government action before one adopts it"

Those of us who oppose federally mandated abortion on demand and who favor returning the matter to the states have exactly that position.  The situation now is of judicial overreach, and needs to be remedied.  The death of over 50 million innocent children is the result of this judicial overreach;  a mighty high price to pay for Political Correctness. 

It is funny that you attempt to paint those of us who want to get the feds out of the reproductive arena as favoring intrusive govt. 

Rob,

Your error is to equate "anti-abortion groups" with conservatives. 

One is basically a proxy for the other. 

Your groupthink is a flawed argument because it will return the matter to the voters, not just the "anti-abortion groups".

(A) Learn what the term "groupthink" means.

(B) Interest groups influence policy in the country.  Any true conservative would be quite wary of the majoritarian politics you sometimes adhere to here (though not always).

As to your denial, I submit one of your posts on this thread:

And where in any of this does the claim that state sponsored eugenics is more likely to exist under the states than the federal government exist?  Where.  Be specific. 

robert108,

Those of us who oppose federally mandated abortion on demand and who favor returning the matter to the states have exactly that position. 

We’ve never had federally mandated abortion on demand, so…

Indeed, most of the states have bans on post-viability abortions (as Casey allows).

robert108,

Those of us who oppose federally mandated abortion on demand and who favor returning the matter to the states have exactly that position. 

We’ve never had federally mandated abortion on demand, so…

Indeed, most of the states have bans on post-viability abortions (as Casey allows).

Anyway, you know my view (or you should).  There’s really nothing else I can say on the matter to further explicate it.

Its the sort of unsubstantiated response I expect out of you.

Whatever Epicurus. You are proving to be quite the condescending ass. You remind me so much of someone who used to comment regularly here. Did you once comment here under a couple of different nicknames? I’ve asked this before and you never answered. It’s almost like you are avoiding the question.

No, its not the logic that I am using.

Actually it was. Rob said, "I suspect they’ll investigate where necessary, just as the investigate suspcious deaths now." and then you replied with, "As we’re aware, prosecutors are paragons of virtue and completely apolitical entities."

So why don’t we apply your logic to crimes such as theft?

Furthermore, you ignore the context of the statement, the context being Rob arguing that there was no danger of prosecutorial overreach.

Maybe I’m "ignoring" it because he didn’t say it. You have a habit of thinking that we have stated things that we haven’t.

Its obvious in the context of the statement that choice here means acts which aren’t coercive.

What? What could be more coercive than abortion? It’s an act of killing for crying out loud. But call it "choice" if you want.

I’m making comments about general trends.  In that context your statement makes little sense.

Bull. You’re lumping our individual opinions into a homogenized whole and then turning around and saying that it doesn’t matter what our individual opinions are because there are those who disagree. Again - you’re not talking with those conservatives, you’re talking with (actually you’re condescendingly talking to) us.

Epi: Groupthink means, among other things, to think in terms of groups, not individuals.  That describes your thinking on this thread to a "T".  Busted.

The article you posted clearly says that a "Brave New World" is more likely as a result of overturning the existing federalization of abortion, when I submit that it is far less likely.

"Majoritarian politics"?  That is the American way, not elitist groupthink.  I know you have the attitude that you are smarter and more educated than anyone else, but we don’t buy you as our governing elite.  You are just another guy with a superior attitude.  Try some substance and less denial;  you might get more respect.  A dash of humility wouldn’t hurt, either.  I notice you fail to deal with the 50 million dead babies that are a result of the policy you advocate.  Maybe you just don’t care, I don’t know. 

stop mentioning the babies and mention the consequences, and what constitutes a dead baby!!! What do YOU think is fair?

This is not an emotional appeal, it is supposed to be a logical appeal!!! 

ss: What is the logic of permitting a holocaust of over 50 million dead in the name of the "right" to an abortion=using abortion as a means of birth control?  The entire meme about "a woman’s right to choose" is an emotion-based appeal.

ss: Each abortion equals one dead baby.  Othewise why do it?  Ending that life is the whole point of abortion, isn’t it?

ss: Even if you want to call it a fetus, it’s a human fetus;  it’s not a cocker spaniel, is it?

What is the logic of permitting a holocaust of over 50 million dead (...)?

"They’re just dumb animals."  -Rob Port

Flawless!

Animals are animals, dummy.  Humans are humans.

There is a difference. 

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Dave denies that he doesn’t know the difference, you know?

If this is a moral argument, then I think people like this should stay out of the government. Ever heard of separation of church and state.

Your argument should be on the grounds of is a fetus human? Does killing a fetus impede on the rights of that fetus?

THAT is the political argument.

Not "this looks like a human, and you are killing 50 million of them each year because you appear to be a liberal"

It is a political issue because they are not sure if it is human, and therefore if it deserves to have rights. 

Oh, and explain your point. Don’t just sit there and point fingers.

Most of you probably don’t even believe in birth control pills anyways. So what’s a woman to do if she can’t use pills or the shot? Nobody has mentioned their stand on condoms even.

What stage makes it a human? Can anyone answer that for me? Please?

btw, I’d appreciate if you didn’t call me a murderer because after I was raped, I took the morning after pill. If I had prescription birth control pills every day, my mom would have figured it out and called me a MURDERER. And that appears to be the pro-life stance in my area.

Yes, it hurt me. No, I would not do it again. But I still think that the pill should be out there. Having the pill will most likely reduce the number of surgical abortions because it is a preventative measure. I’m sure that most people that would take the pill would not ever take it more than once. The only way you can get the pill is through prescription, and you have to list it when you go to the doctor so they know how many times you’ve taken it. If you take it often enough, you become infertile.

How much money is a birthing procedure, versus how much is the cost of a pill?

I went broke to buy that pill, borrowed money, didn’t have anything. And it was worth keeping my childhood so that I could take care of myself. I am not responsible enough to raise a kid, and I certainly need to have a job. Not just any job, but a job that I would consider to be for "rich" people- relatively rich compared to me.

You will tell me that I didn’t need to be having sex, that I’m a baby killer. But I tell you that there might be other people out there whose boyfriends stalk them and threaten to harm them, who refuse to wear protection and want to have sex all the time. Are they going to say no? No. That’s because they’re trapped. 

People that are predictable are boring.  And both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’ are boring because they always come down on the ‘right’ and/or ‘left’ side of every issue they are supposed to come down on to be part of their own little herd.

Ann Coulter had a column about that a long time ago. She also pointed out how people change their perspective over time. Young males were always very pro-abortion but when they became fathers they become anti-abortion.

Gee, what insight Raggedy Ann has, eh?!!! ;p

This was, of course, the same Ann who shows how much she values human life in another of her insightful statements:

"We should invade their countries, KILL their leaders and CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY."

What a woman!!!

What stage makes it a human? Can anyone answer that for me? Please?

I’d like to.  A better question might be ‘at what stage is it not human, and, if it isn’t human, what is it?’  It doesn’t just ‘become human’ at some magical moment.  It’s a human egg inside a human woman which a human man fertilizes and it grows into a human embryo, which becomes a human baby, and eventually dies a human death as a human.  When does it become a ‘person’ with all the rights of personhood?  Well, my mom always had a saying:  "When in doubt....don’t".  And, until someone can give you a specific moment when that fetus ‘becomes’ a ‘person’....it seems to me you error on the side of giving it the benefit of the doubt.  Remember, some ‘fetuses’ lived after premature births and they are able to at shorter gestations as technology advances.

Diane, just don’t ovulate. Do it for everyone. Because every time you ovulate there are many eggs that you will be killing once a month. Those are human babies. We’re all mass murderers, and you know it.

Diane, I take it your mother said "when in doubt of a personhood, don’t get raped?" well gee, sex is a choice for everyone, isn’t it?

 Diane says,"It’s a human egg inside a human woman which a human man fertilizes and it grows into a human embryo, which becomes a human baby, and eventually dies a human death as a human."

Also, if you’re in doubt as to whether the human egg is a person, then how can you "don’t"? I think we should all be sitting in death row.

Life is not a "gift" or a "punishment". Most people make it to be that way, but life is whatever you make it to be.

If you are going to say that people can’t take the pill, or that they can’t do certain things to prevent pregnancy nor stop it after all prevention methods have been rejected by the government, then you might as well stop people from taking fertility drugs,viagra, or donating to sperm banks, or having un natural babies. These were not meant to be made if the babies you are mentioning weren’t meant to die. I would agree to this kind of statement, no joke.

I don’t think it is natural to want to take these extra fertility things with the idea to enhance your sex life or pamper yourself with someone "of your blood", when you are not meant to have that kind of life. Therefore, it would not be necessary to kill a natural born baby.

Diane, does an embryo live?

I often wonder if any of the righteous people here have ever screwed up in their lives or if they just make fun of people who have screwed up.