Say Anything Blog

$336 million > $133.6 billion = Fuzzy math

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I believe the correct formulation is that war spending was 397.61904761904761904761904761905 times that of Planned Parenthood.

That’s likely why the eyes aren’t blinking although mine is winking.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Sigh…

I’m dumb.  I’m correcting the post.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Correct your knee problem first.

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

I believe the correct formulation is that war spending was 397.61904761904761904761904761905 times that of Planned Parenthood.

A dumb mistake after a long weekend.

Even so, that Planned Parenthood is getting any public funding is awful.  Next we’ll be spending tax dollars on supporting Code Pink and MoveOn.org.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Correct your knee problem first.

Whatever you say, Mr. Blackwater.  At least I own up to my mistakes.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No worries Rob. If it helps any, Planned Parenthood isn’t actually a recruiting agent for abortionists but does include abortion as an option when counseling clients.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

Rob
...and I thought Bear and Stearns got way too much tax money! Low and behold, it was PP all along.

Also, you should research and add the cost of medicine and whatnot for the wounded vets into your war cost figures.

No worries Rob. If it helps any, Planned Parenthood isn’t actually a recruiting agent for abortionists but does include abortion as an option when counseling clients.

Abortion counts for almost all of Planned Parenthood’s financing. Every undercover operation into the group has found the same thing...their initial counsiling is abortion.

They have been caught breaking the law numerous times to line their pockets.

Thousands of abortions in America each and every single day.

A day and a half equals a five year Iraq war in the number of deaths.

1.2 million dead per year.

When will the liberal war end?

Your money pays for the most effective law enforcement in America: Abortion v. Crime

Believe me, people who can afford it (and are less likely to birth criminals) don’t use Planned Parenthood.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

"No taxpayer money to kill innocent children”

Communism is evil

Correct your knee problem first.

Says the Clinton swallower!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Kenny

Abortion counts for almost all of Planned Parenthood’s financing. Every undercover operation into the group has found the same thing...their initial counsiling is abortion.

When I look at page 6 of PP’s Annual Report, I find a breakout of services provided. I note that abortion services constitutes 3% of services provided...are you suggesting that 3% of services brings in “almost all of Planned Parenthood’s financing?”

I find that kind of hard to believe although it wouldn’t be the first time.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

“No taxpayer money to kill innocent children”

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

Hairy, the Steven Leavitt argument was contradicted when someone looked at the breakdown of crime statistics.  If indeed abortion reduces crime, we should expect to see a quick DROP in crime around 1990 among juveniles.  Reality is that the drop in crime at that time was among adults, and juvenile crime kept going at the same rate.  Abortion had nothing to do with it.  Incarceration of adult criminals probably did.

Leavitt’s big weakness; a reluctance/refusal to seek corroborating evidence.

I’m also the great-uncle of a child who was spared because (thank God!) my niece went somewhere else besides Planned Infanticide.  Yes, the first thing presented--ONLY thing really--was prenatal infanticide. 

And Mike, am I to believe that the nation’s leading employer of “prenatal infanticide providers” doesn’t recruit them?  That they don’t, say, look around for people wanting to get into the business? 

Please.

Beats me...all I know is that their AR says that abortion services constitutes 3% of their business.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*

In which case the annual report ought to suggest that they had thirty billion dollars of revenue, in which case we really don’t need to be giving them tax money, do we?

Of course, they don’t, and hence the “3%” figure is merely a tortured statistic, in which case we also do not need to be giving them public funds.

And either way, you still don’t get to be the nation’s #1 provider of prenatal infanticide without recruiting people.  This is HR 101 stuff that apparently their PR people can’t be bothered to learn.

Odd contradiction in conservative thinking:

99% of conservatives bitch about entitlement spending (I fall into that 99%), yet a good chunk of conservatives blanch at the idea of providing “infanticide” for those who cannot afford to support themselves much less their unwanted children.

So which is it? I personally cannot in good conscience FORCE a poor, uneducated human being to keep her kid and then tell her that I’m going to let her and the kid starve. I can, on the other hand, let her and the kid starve when I haven’t FORCED her to keep the kid (having had no hand in the latter).

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Since when are we letting anyone starve in this country, Hairy?  Please; Dinesh D’Souza came here from India in part to see a country where the poor people are fat.  You add up the free food that various agencies (food stamps/WIC/TANF/school lunch/breakfast/etc..) give out, and you get to 10,000 calories per day pretty quickly.

So which is it? I personally cannot in good conscience FORCE a poor, uneducated human being to keep her kid and then tell her that I’m going to let her and the kid starve.

Wow, what a stretch Hairy.  I know it takes a lot of contortions for normally logical and rational people to justify their support for abortion, but you should put in for a medal for that one.

It takes one cold hearted SOB to say the answer to the entitlement problems is to kill the kids so they won’t be a problem.

Here’s the thing: This conservative feels that we should help those who truly cannot help themselves.  That, for me, includes children.  I think there are a lot of things we can do differently to still help those children without providing them with cradle-to-grave entitlements.

Abortion, clearly, isn’t the solution.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Right Bike. And the point is, I am against those entitlements. And I could not be against those entitlements if I were also against abortion. Conscience dictates a choice between one or the other: We either allow the poor to manage their own population, or we agree to feed them.

I, personally, would rather let them manage their stuff and let me be.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Rob,

I know it takes a lot of contortions for normally logical and rational people to…

Please point out where my premise fails to bridge to conclusion next time you attack my logic.

All I see is you attacking the premise itself:

It takes one cold hearted SOB to say the answer to the entitlement problems is to kill the kids so they won’t be a problem.

With an appeal to emotion no less! I thought only liberals did that…

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Yes, you can oppose both entitlements and abortion.  Reality is that even prior to the Great Society and LBJ’s “War on the Poor,” it was really quite rare for people to go hungry.  Starvation really hasn’t been much of an issue in our country for centuries except for isolated instances like Donner Pass and the first few years at Jamestown and Plimoth.

And yes, if you’d rather kill a child than feed him, it’s entirely appropriate to call you a heartless bastard.  Pardon my French, but it fits.

Please point out where my premise fails to bridge to conclusion next time you attack my logic.

Sorry, perhaps a bit more snarky than I intended, butI thought I did.  In order to defend your support for abortion you have to find excuses like..."Let’s kill the kids so they don’t become entitlement problems.”

Ignoring that there are plenty of things we can do to fix the entitlement problems we face without needing to murder unborn children.

And as for appealing to emotion, if you find my arguments to be inconvenient in that regard perhaps it is a commentary on the crass nature of your position (kill kids rather than feed them?) rather than the illogical nature of my points.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Answer me this: Why do you think the solution is to kill a child before he/she has really has a chance to live because that child might end up with a life of poverty?

You do know that some of those murder kids might manage to life themselves out of poverty and lead fulfilling lives.  Why do you think that you should get to decide if a child lives or dies?  Why do you think that a mother should get that decision?

I know, I know.  How dare anyone ask you to debate the morality of an issue given that we all have different morals and thus its impossible to define right and wrong, but do try to at least think about the question for once.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

For someone who claims to be against collectivist thinking, Hairy, you sure don’t seem to mind putting the well-being of the collective above the right of the individual children to live.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

For someone who claims to be against collectivist thinking, Hairy, you sure don’t seem to mind putting the well-being of the collective above the right of the individual children to live.

Last I checked, this started with a “taxes funding abortion” issue. Taxes fund collective goods, so obviously I would frame my pro-abortion funding argument in a collective context.

Answer me this: Why do you think the solution is to kill a child before he/she has really has a chance to live because that child might end up with a life of poverty?

I think the mother is far closer to the situation than society to decide the likelihood of that child ending up with a life of poverty. If she decides that that will be the case, then we must accept that finding of fact and let her do what she thinks is right.

Why do you think that you should get to decide if a child lives or dies?

I shouldn’t.

Why do you think that a mother should get that decision?

Because she is in a better position to decide that child’s future than any of us.

How dare anyone ask you to debate the morality of an issue given that we all have different morals and thus its impossible to define right and wrong, but do try to at least think about the question for once.

Debating morality is a moot point. A system of government that provides the MOST liberty to its citizens is one that DOES NOT legislate morality because doing so would be FORCING one sect’s values on another.

If you are against abortion then, well and good, don’t have one. If you are against funding abortion, I will argue that you are unreasonable because your need to live in a safe and prosperous society should, as a matter of self-preservation, override your desire to live in a society that bans abortions.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

If debating morality is a moot point, why are the founding documents full of intrinsically moral arguments?

Please, Hairy; you’re more or less arguing Jeremy Bentham’s “greatest good for the greatest number,” and that argument, historically speaking, leads to totalitarianism.

Get back with Blackstone and true law; that based on morals.  Those who advocate funding for Planned Parenthood more or less tell me that I’ve got to pay for some barbarian to rip a child limb from limb--a crime that if committed anywhere else would lead to life in prison or the death penalty.

I think the mother is far closer to the situation than society to decide the likelihood of that child ending up with a life of poverty. If she decides that that will be the case, then we must accept that finding of fact and let her do what she thinks is right.

Finding of fact?  Really?  You’re going to toss that out there and pretend like it makes sense?

What you’re talking about is giving someone the power to murder their child on nothing more than a whim, and then saying that we have to accept it.

What utter nonsense.

If you are against funding abortion, I will argue that you are unreasonable because your need to live in a safe and prosperous society should, as a matter of self-preservation, override your desire to live in a society that bans abortions.

Right.  Because society was awful before we subsidized infanticide.

Again, free societies emphasize the rights of the individual.  You are arguing that we trump the right of individual children to live - the most basic of all rights - for the greater good.

I’d point out that entitlements for children are not the problem in America.  Its entitlements for the elderly - most of whom don’t need them - that are killing us.  Our problem is with Social Security and Medicare, not WIC and TANF (though there’s plenty of fat to be cut in programs like that as well).

We can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder.  You won’t admit this because you need the entitlements argument to justify your support for said murder.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

We can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder. You won’t admit this because you need the entitlements argument to justify your support for said murder.

No, I admit that we can solve the entitlements problem without resorting to murder if “solving the entitlements problem” meant nothing more than cutting the spending.

You are equivocating two arguments:(1) Being against entitlements while contributing to the situation that calls for them is contradictiory. (2) Funding abortion would fix the entitlements problem. I argued the former, not the latter.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Harry.  Taxpayer money is approved for all sorts of contraceptives including operations in hospitals.  I approve these efforts to prevent pregnancy.  I think that most people are intelligent enough to make that decision.  They should also know that killing babies is immoral and should not be allowed nor taxpayer funded.  The “poor” ploy does not float.  I saw these “poor” people while teaching.  They had $150 hair dos, $200 shoes, lied about their free lunch applications, sold drugs, prostituted themselves and corrupted as many young children as they could.

Communism is evil

You are equivocating two arguments:(1) Being against entitlements while contributing to the situation that calls for them is contradictiory. (2) Funding abortion would fix the entitlements problem.

Ok, fair enough, but you’re argument is still bogus for two big reasons:

1) Not all abortions happen because of financial reasons.  I’d argue that most abortions happen not because the mother can’t care for the child, but because the mother doesn’t want to.  Not every abortion results in the murder of a child that would have been a burden to the entitlements system.

2) There are other options to cutting down on unwanted pregnancies too without resorting to killing the children.

I know you have no moral compunctions about abortion - which is troubling to me in and of itself - but surely you should be able to admit that at-will abortion and entitlement problems are not an either/or proposition.

You essentially want to call people like me hypocrites because we feel entitlements should be limited but also feel that abortion is wrong.

Clearly, you’re the one who is wrong here.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

but surely you should be able to admit that at-will abortion and entitlement problems are not an either/or proposition

Fair enough, so long as you admit that if even one poor person wanted to have an abortion but couldn’t because you forbade her, you owe her child support for forcing her to take care of a kid she that couldn’t afford.

You essentially want to call people like me hypocrites because we feel entitlements should be limited but also feel that abortion is wrong.

No I don’t. Methinks you’re too used to generalized attacks on this board. I merely wanted to point out the contradiction of forcing a woman to take care of a kid but not wanting to support her while she does so. I’m not arguing the abortion issue in general—we can save that for when you post a topic that says “abortion is wrong,” then I’ll reply “no it’s not” and we’ll have that argument.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Harry.  How about personal responsibility?  Unless that woman is legally mentally retarded, in which case she is a ward of the state just like children are in loco parentis before age 18, then the state would be obligated to provide for her and her child.  If one wants freedom, then one must accept the consequences for their own behaviors.  In the case of the woman above, it also follows that the state would be dictating her every move to prevent such a thing from happening.

Communism is evil

How about personal responsibility?

I’m sorry, is this part of the “no to funding abortion” or the “no to abortion” argument? Because the personal responsibility argument is good for telling me that she should pay for her own abortion. Alright, fair enough, I agree.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Fair enough, so long as you admit that if even one poor person wanted to have an abortion but couldn’t because you forbade her, you owe her child support for forcing her to take care of a kid she that couldn’t afford.

Right.  Because I force her to have that child.  So much for personal responsibility, eh Hair?  Guess that goes out the door as soon as its convenient for you.

Though, frankly, I’m fine with aid for kids.

Because the personal responsibility argument is good for telling me that she should pay for her own abortion.

Only because you consider denying the kid of his/her right to life an option.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Harry, I will answer in reverse.  Last, I am glad that we both seem to agree with personal responsibility.  Second, my personal and spiritual stance is no to abortion.  That would be murder.  First, I do not support taxpayer financed murder.  War is not murder.  it may involve killing, but of the self defensive type that one can read about in many places in the Old Testament.

Communism is evil

Hairy Polemic - I merely wanted to point out the contradiction of forcing a woman to take care of a kid but not wanting to support her while she does so.

Her kid.

Hers.

She owns it.

It is hers.

That said, she could always give it up for adoption. Your argument fails.

Right.  Because I force her to have that child.  So much for personal responsibility, eh Hair?  Guess that goes out the door as soon as its convenient for you.

If you deny her the last resort right to abort it, you are forcing her to have it. But you’re right, I’ll admit that refusing to pay for the abortion is not denying one.

Her kid.

Hers.

She owns it.

It is hers.

She owns it? Cool, then society has no say in what she does with it (including killing it). If we can own human beings like chattel, then we can dispose of them no?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I wouldn’t say she owns the child, because saying that implies that it is hers to do with as she pleases.

She’s responsible for the child, and if she won’t be responsible for the child then the state must step in unfortunately until the child can care for him/herself.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

That said, she could always give it up for adoption. Your argument fails.

She could. But she doesn’t have to, cause she owns it. She owns it so you can’t tell her what she can or cannot do with it. Cause its hers, not yours. Right?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

She owns it? Cool, then society has no say in what she does with it (including killing it).

Lik misspoke.  You know what he meant.

If you deny her the last resort right to abort it, you are forcing her to have it.

I didn’t force her to have sex.  That was her choice.  She’s forcing herself to have it, because murdering those we find inconvenient shouldn’t be an option in a free society.

And as I said, I’ve never had a problem with social aid for those who cannot help themselves.  This includes children, obviously, so your argument here hasn’t made sense since the beginning.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Harry, come on, you are better than that.  Just because I own my car does not mean I can drive it 130 MPH on the interstate.  Just because I own a gun does not mean I can take target practice on my front yard, or burn down my house, or do anything else against the law like killing a baby.  Think about this--the punishment for throwing a dog out the window of a car is sometimes more than throwing a baby out the window--unless you are a man.

Communism is evil

And as I said, I’ve never had a problem with social aid for those who cannot help themselves.  This includes children, obviously, so your argument here hasn’t made sense since the beginning.

I concede on that then.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

As an aside,

murdering those we find inconvenient shouldn’t be an option in a free society

You’re against the death penalty too then? Violent criminals sure are inconvenient.

Personally, I don’t know where I stand on the death penalty. Your arguments are beginning to make me lean against.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

You’re against the death penalty too then? Violent criminals sure are inconvenient.

Hairy, You’re being polemical...again.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

That crazy Hairy Polemic, always being polemical…

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Crazy? Nah.

But everyone should be aware of the emphasis he puts into the skillfulness of his diputations.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

It’s almost inevitable that two principles within an ideology will clash if you don’t prioritize those principles. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution which will satisfy both.

I doubt anyone here would confer a modicum of reflection on my solution to the problem, so I’ll let that simmer a bit longer to formulate a decent argument.

Meanwhile consider this other option: Often times when people exhibit behavior which is contrary to what society considers normal we place them in institutions to modify that behavior. (Sounds parenthetical, but I’ll try to weave this into the existing thread.) How exactly do we define “insanity”?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Contrary the skill I put into typing:

But everyone should be aware of the emphasis he puts into the skillfulness of his diputations.

S/B: disputations

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Often times when people exhibit behavior which is contrary to what society considers normal we place them in institutions to modify that behavior.

If our ideal is a “free society” then that society would only be justified in censuring behavior which directly threatens the very fabric of society. Thus, while I can easily concede that abortion may be immoral, I would argue that a “free society” (unless there are only a few people left in it) has no stake in regulating it.

This harkens back to my earlier statement that government should not legislate morality. Murder is not illegal because it is immoral, but because we could not have a “free society” if people ran around killing each other at whim.

When you argue morality, you need a premise. Most people look to religion. At the very least, I would argue that when we discuss morality in relation to laws, we should look to the purpose of our government instead. So if we ask whether government should regulate abortion, we should consider, above all, what effect, if any, abortion has on the existence of our ideal, minimal government.

I think I’ll end my abortion debate here.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Hairy.  Executing crazed killers like Manson and in our state PeeWee Gaskins protect society from being brutally attacked, raped, tortured and killed many times over.  In Gaskin’s case, he killed about a hundred people.  If he had been caught and executed, 99 innocent civilians would have been saved.  Saved lives, a great mantra from the left.  Save the children.  Yes, save the children from crazed killers.

Communism is evil

What Chief says.  Hairy, if we decide that innocent human life is not worth protecting at any level, exactly how can we argue that your life is worth protecting at the level it’s at--especially if you become disabled and are not “contributing” to society?

Let’s be real here; the well-being of society is NOT the only reason we protect life, as that sets up a system of “Lebensunwertes Leben” that can be discarded.  As a son of Jacob, I’m sure you understand exactly what that means.

If our ideal is a “free society” then that society would only be justified in censuring behavior which directly threatens the very fabric of society.

A better representation might be a “free and ordered society”. The statement you quoted was not necessarily in reference to the abortion issue. It was merely a preface to another line of argument, but since you wish to terminate your involvement in this discussion, I’ll just respond to your last and final post.

I brought up the institutionalizing of the insane because the definition (of insane) is ambiguous and the way in which these people are reintroduced to societal norms is handled capriciously. This is not inconsistent with the reasons you have for the way society manages those who willfully disregard our laws.

To infer that abortion is a behavior which does not “ directly threaten the very fabric of society” is simply wrong. Abortion is the easy way out of bad behavior and continued acceptance of this form of resolution leads to greater ills.

I concur that government should not legislate morality, whether that manifests itself in acts of bestiality, drug use or abortion. But government must enact rules which deal with the consequences of those actions. If “Planned Parenthood”, a misnomer by the way, dealt with the latter by means of inhibition through prophylaxis that’s acceptable to a great majority; there is no cultural outgrowth. Sadly they have chosen to emphasize the opposite.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry