January 23, 2013
— andy [Andy -- I wouldn't normally swipe an entire post like this, but see the lead-in. Steven, you're welcome to post here anytime.]
If I still had posting privileges to the Green Room, I'd have put this there. But I no longer have any kind of political mikan box to stand on, so I guess I'll put it here. (I thought of asking Ace if he wanted it, but then I decided that would have been pretentious.) So politics, for a change.
Work with me here: there's a highly controversial right, with people on one side of the political fence deeply committed to defending it and people on the other side equally deeply committed to outright eliminating it. The latter deny that it is a right; they think it should be a crime, heavily punished, because it leads to a lot of unnecessary and unjust deaths.
The issue is a major controversy in Congress and in the states, and over the course of decades no consensus emerges. It is deeply contentious. Laws are passed, and new laws override old ones. It is a major factor in election campaigns all over the country every two years. Finally, defenders of this right take to the courts, and after years of effort and loads of appeals, finally get the Supreme Court to issue a landmark opinion declaring that it is indeed a right, protected by the Constitution.
But the opponents won't accept this. Now no longer able to outright outlaw this thing, they instead fiddle around the edges and try to pass laws which have the effect of making it inaccessible, even though it is nominally legal. As an issue it refuses to go away; it still figures in elections all over the country, and shows no sign of any consensus ever appearing.
What am I talking about? Well, actually two things: abortion and gun rights.
Without considering the merits of the issues themselves, it occurred to me the other day that the way the two issues have been handled by proponents and opponents have been surprisingly symmetrical. Understand that I'm not saying the various points of view are equally valid. But in terms of strategy and tactics, the issues are almost mirror images. (Yes, the word "abortion" never appears in the Constitution, and the Second Amendment explicitly is about gun ownership; you don't have to mention that. Also it is irrelevant to the point I am making.)
And, of course, the sides are opposite on each. Defense of abortion is a left-wing position, whereas defense of gun rights is generally considered to be right-wing. (And of course, there are loads of exceptions in both cases.) Even so, it's almost like each side in one issue has been studying what worked for the other side on the other issue, and copying it.
Did the people behind District of Columbia v. Heller study the litigation history of Roe v. Wade?
Posted by: andy at
04:24 AM
| Comments (193)
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 04:28 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Thorvald at January 23, 2013 04:30 AM (1V6Pv)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 23, 2013 04:30 AM (GVxQo)
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 04:30 AM (NF2Bf)
Posted by: Thorvald at January 23, 2013 04:32 AM (1V6Pv)
The Constitution is a rather malleable document to the left and viewed as an impediment to "government doing its job." The problem is to the right the Bill of Rights and Constitution are the entire justification for government at all at the Federal level. I am losing the ability to ever see the left stopping and I will never stop trying to protect the document so there is not a way to a happy ending.
They will keep adding magic "rights" with invisible ink additions while ignoring plain language that is intrinsic, and expect the same deference from me for their usurped power that they refuse to grant the enumerated rights therein.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 04:33 AM (LRFds)
Oui, oui.
Serious question what do you think of your own basket case province in "plain language intent" the Je Me Souviens brigades in Quebec?
All Canada is bilingual by law but ONE magical province.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 04:34 AM (LRFds)
From the comments at his place:
>>I'm curious to know: when I was talking in vague terms before I identified which issues I was talking about, did you realize what I was talking about, and if so, which did you think I was discussing?
I realized that you could be talking about either one.
And that was without noticing the word "symmetry" in the title. (Sigh.)
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 04:35 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: pawn at January 23, 2013 04:35 AM (iMsF6)
Posted by: mallfly at January 23, 2013 04:36 AM (jDjlM)
Yes it would, SDB at his best is one of the more reasoned political analysts out there.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 04:36 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Gay Marriage AND Free Shit for Deadbeats at January 23, 2013 04:36 AM (VrVBw)
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 23, 2013 04:37 AM (9e+9n)
Posted by: mallfly at January 23, 2013 04:37 AM (jDjlM)
Posted by: Golan Globus at January 23, 2013 04:38 AM (/1U3u)
I'm capable of decent writing, unfortunately it is timed on a complicated Lunar/Martian Refractory Light Schedule.
Thanks for the compliment.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 04:39 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Clemenza at January 23, 2013 04:40 AM (x59Gv)
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 04:40 AM (E55AK)
Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 04:40 AM (v+It9)
Scrap this stupid fucking post, shove the symmetry up your ass, and punch yourself in the gut. It's well deserved.
Posted by: really at January 23, 2013 04:41 AM (y5B3J)
Posted by: Clemenza at January 23, 2013 04:43 AM (x59Gv)
She's ugly and shrill and linked to many failures.
She's a lock!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 04:43 AM (GsoHv)
Agreed. SDB brought me into the blog world and taught me that every comment post is it's own mini-blog, so get it right.
Like I didn't above while whacking random keys on the abysmal work laptop.
Posted by: Captain Ned at January 23, 2013 04:47 AM (0E7ho)
@7, 9
Appeasing whiny Quebecers by pretending to care about the 'threat to French culture' and paying them off to shut the fuck up once in a while is our true national sport.
I would be happy to have another separation referendum, but this time for the Rest of Canada, with 'Get the fuck out' being option one.
Posted by: Lurking Canuck at January 23, 2013 04:47 AM (NF2Bf)
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 23, 2013 04:48 AM (GVxQo)
Posted by: Clemenza at January 23, 2013 04:48 AM (x59Gv)
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)
Strangely I could not find a quote from any of the founding fathers regarding their thoughts on infanticide.
Posted by: General Woundwort at January 23, 2013 04:48 AM (RrD4h)
Good thing Steven was clear about this:
>>Without considering the merits of the issues themselves, it occurred to me the other day that the way the two issues have been handled by proponents and opponents have been surprisingly symmetrical.
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 04:49 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 04:49 AM (qFpRI)
Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 04:49 AM (v+It9)
Posted by: DangerGirl at January 23, 2013 04:50 AM (yDr5/)
Posted by: CommonSenseMom at January 23, 2013 04:50 AM (RNvbh)
Posted by: Truman North, at 25% battery life at January 23, 2013 04:50 AM (nr/As)
She's a lock!
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 08:43 AM (GsoHv)
She is really popular though. Why do you think? I dont know if she'll run. The clintons are power hungry but I'm unsure. Cuomo seems to be preparing a run
Posted by: Flapjackmaka at January 23, 2013 04:50 AM (9e+9n)
Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree at January 23, 2013 04:51 AM (eMtQ2)
Golan Globus,I'd say it was not coincidence, but neither a causative. The right gets angry with "traitor conservative appointed justices" without understanding that for better or worse the Justices are ducks. The duck will never run down and devour a tiger, because its job is to muckrake the bottom and fly.
Roe v Wade has been taught to a generation of legal students as being just about the maximum acceptable limit of magic thinking allowed by "men of sober conscience wearing the robe." While I disagree and view the creativity they used to magic up a right at the national level wholecloth, I am not a legal instructor Elizabeth Warren is. This leads to the Conservative judiciary being constrained in counter-revolution in the law's interpretation precisely because they are conditioned to defer to the prior overreaches.
Crafting your arguments in such a way that you show harm in the manner that the "Roe" in R v W was, and then having the support of plain language contained therein the document will be a bulletproof forgive the pun method of winning your point at court so long as the liberal faction does not have raw numbers. The crisis the right faces is the margin is razor thin, and if the President's prior appointments are ANY indication the new liberal wing will be even less bound by restraint and deference to prior history than even the Warren court was. "Lawfare" will now be practiced at every level of the Federal legal maze and the existing structure of protections of original intent will be crushed.
I am not excusing Justice Roberts' desperate flailing efforts to find some way not to overturn Obamacare, but I researched and now understand why Larry tribe was so smug about Roberts' actions whether he had contacted and leaned on the Chief Justice or not-the fact of the matter is that Tribe is the one who burnt Roberts' hand to teach him the oven was hot.
Parents have power over their kids for a reason, and "our" Justices are at best the left's wayward kids we adopted.
The Right would be well served nominating State Supreme Court Justices from here on out if Reid destroys the filibuster to exert more ability to have a prior resume of activity.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 04:51 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Truman North, at 25% battery life at January 23, 2013 04:51 AM (nr/As)
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 04:51 AM (O/Ize)
Posted by: Hobojerky at January 23, 2013 04:52 AM (tmTDE)
IOW you want to trash the Constitution and wit the help of liberal judges appointed by liberal Presidents of both parties you have got your way since FDR was President. Based on that we must now agree with you. The Constitution is trashed. Beginning this year the States with Republican control (Red States) will begin passing laws outlawing Democrats.
And we will ignore the Supreme Court since it is an outgrowth of the Constitution and a bad ruling anyway.
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2013 04:52 AM (53z96)
Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 04:52 AM (v+It9)
I'll consider it just as soon as I finish pondering how many angels can dance on the head of this here pin...
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 23, 2013 04:53 AM (RSqz2)
Posted by: Steve White at January 23, 2013 04:54 AM (XB4No)
We're so good at making the gun rights argument that we can apply them to other things like abortion, marijuana, gay marriage, and regulatory overreach. And why we don't do that more often is beyond me.
Abortion certainly has a moral argument attached to it that simply owning a gun does not. That's a tough hurdle, but I think if you make your arguments consistent about how we view individual liberty and responsibility, it will resonate with a lot of people (read: electoral majorities).
Posted by: bjjfiter at January 23, 2013 04:56 AM (8z3Pa)
Has this been factored into the symmetry?
Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2013 04:56 AM (/ZZCn)
I rather enjoyed Lansing Lamont's book on the issue "The Break Up" it argued, quite persuasively I might add that Quebec's exit would in all likelihood obliterate the Confederation with dire results for North America's prosperity. Lamont was, of course, trying to argue for that to be reason enough to cave to Pierre Le Stinque in Quebec City but I took the opposite tack and figured that an unfettered Canadian prairie would finally reach its potential. Demographics says they have missed their opportunity, the "Original Gangsta" Francophones are being diplaced by the Allophonic and non Quebecois Francophonic populations and both see "Froggonian Only" as being a burden on commerce.
I give the language Nazis with their charming little rulers another 10-20 years tops.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 04:56 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at January 23, 2013 04:56 AM (ltdV/)
Posted by: DangerGirl at January 23, 2013 04:57 AM (TggD9)
Posted by: Blind and Retarded Justice at January 23, 2013 04:57 AM (tmTDE)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 04:58 AM (mOyDx)
O/T ... the senate live feed is up on Fox, everyone just milling around getting settled in right now, no sound yet. Supposed to be up on C-span 3 at 9et.
Posted by: and irresolute at January 23, 2013 04:58 AM (DBH1h)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 04:59 AM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Judge_Roy_bean at January 23, 2013 04:59 AM (v+It9)
Mr. Den Beste,
I miss your thoughtful and reasoned posts from the USS Clueless days. And I know many others feel the same way. Your posts on Energy, Innovations, and Terrorism helped shape my thinking and my ability to ask the important questions. If you ever decide to post more, please ask Ace or Glenn to host them.
Your posts will be worth it.
Posted by: rd at January 23, 2013 04:59 AM (zLp5I)
Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 05:00 AM (Sptt8)
Frankly, I want to quit. I need to pack up my Constitution, flag, and guns and go somewhere THEY ain't at. Any suggestions? A lot of people I talk to say Idaho...I'm thinking Utah.
Of course Oklahoma is 100% red countywise.
The fact that I have to breathe the same air as those pricks is making me sick. Whatever happened to the Clean Air Act? Whatever happened to the Right of Association?
Posted by: torabora at January 23, 2013 05:00 AM (t4veC)
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 05:01 AM (O/Ize)
Posted by: low info voter. at January 23, 2013 05:02 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 05:02 AM (O/Ize)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 05:03 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 05:03 AM (41VCE)
What did Steven say that led to his being evicted from the Green Room? Whatever it was, I agree with him.
Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree
My take from the comments I read as it was happening...
Hotair management purged the green room at the back-end of last year of everyone who was too conservative, with no advance notice to the bloggers. Then they tried to turn it into an Ed and Allah longform twitter feed with no commenting allowed, until the hue and cry forced them to promise to turn comments back on.
Oh, and the awful Jazz Shaw got leveled up to co-blogger.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 05:04 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 05:04 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 05:04 AM (qFpRI)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 05:05 AM (5Tgpu)
Roe v Wade was based primarily on Stare Decisis and Griswold v Connecticut. The latter case found some magic right to privacy among the penumbras and emantions of the Constitution. Sure the CT law was a damn bad law. But, so what? If the people of CT are that stupid let them suffer.
But they first found this right to privacy and then that enabled the "right" to an abortion. Both cases are shit and Starre Decisis creep has no buisness in appellate jurisprudence. (That is also how we got Kelo)
But thanks to elections by the FSA it is going to be virtually impossible to get rid of any of this shit. It is time for an Art V convention before we have a revolution.
Posted by: Vic at January 23, 2013 05:06 AM (53z96)
Figured it was something like that. Thanks.
Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree at January 23, 2013 05:07 AM (eMtQ2)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 05:07 AM (LpQbZ)
I'm not sure the two things, abortion and gun rights, ARE the same, even in strategy and tactics.
One (gun rights) is in the Second Amendment (as you point out). The other (abortion), relies very heavily on the argument that a "clump of cells" is not considered a human life (because if it was, abortion automatically becomes murder).
The real problem, as I see it, is how each side views and treats the other. Many on the Right WILL accept some kind of abortions, even if "only" over rape, incest, or the health of the mother. I know, there is a vocal group that brooks no compromise, but I think there are more on the Right who will accept some kind of abortion over those who will not allow any.
Can you say the same of the majority of the Left? Not only do they rely on lies (not religious interpretation, outright lies) to make their points, but I believe that each chipping away is towards the greater goal of the loss of ALL Gun Rights.
And the above doesn't refer to the Constitution at all. The Right correctly argues that abortion does not appear in that august document at all. The Left simply decides, as sven10077 states, to "invent" new Rights while ignoring the ones actually spelled out.
I think from the larger perception, you are right. Both use similar tactics overall. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts, it seems the Left is far more interested in an outright ban as a whole than the Right is.
I could be way off-base, but that's how I see it, and how I especially see President Obama's dishonest actions since Sandy Hook.
Thanks for the thoughtful post!
Posted by: acethepug at January 23, 2013 05:07 AM (OQhDd)
Part of the reason Poppin' Fresh and I split paths was his inferiority to SDB, and Watt's up with that on the energy issue. Tepid is not as entertaining as here, and neither Ed nor AP offer anywhere near the precise reasoned insight of Watt or Den-Beste or even Ace when the ewok has his dancing shoes on.
Hotair takes hit whoring to a new level.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 05:07 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 05:07 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: torabora at January 23, 2013 05:08 AM (t4veC)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 23, 2013 05:08 AM (/eBe8)
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 05:09 AM (O/Ize)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 05:11 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 05:12 AM (5Tgpu)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 05:12 AM (5Tgpu)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 05:12 AM (b+8h9)
Posted by: rockmom at January 23, 2013 09:09 AM (O/Ize)
Barry has said, in the past, that the Constitution is deeply flawed. He will vigorously pursue his leftist agenda at the expense of the country. The MFM will cheer him on and destroy anyone who attempts to stand in his way. And right now enough cretins buy into the bullshit
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 23, 2013 05:12 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 05:13 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 05:14 AM (41VCE)
Posted by: mallfly at January 23, 2013 05:15 AM (jDjlM)
Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 05:16 AM (41VCE)
I may, I purposefully have not listened to Levin, Limbaugh, or the news much because I was soul searching over what I feel the correct course of action is.
I've decided, for the sake of clarity and not to hype my own standing I am not advocating the initiation of any act of overt violence against the general public or government of the United States.
I will spend the rest of my political life trying actively to depower the Federal government and undermine its usurped power by every moral means necessary as a way to agitate for an Article V convention, and will lobby openly when my family leaves federal service for the the secession of states who are tired of the federal Government's extra-Constitutional assault on their ability to generate wealth by usurped regulatory means.
If asked by a federal agent or officer I will invoke the 5th amendment while it is the more sensible course of action, and will openly admit my intentions when we are more isolated from potential retribution by the forces therein.
It is my sincere, heartfelt analysis that at least 30% of the electorate could not pass the US citizenship test I aided the immigrant community in study for as a young man and I no longer trust the Blue states to honor the contract the people have with the Federal government to allow the states to conduct the majority of law making.
I am slowly reconciling myself to pay no more honor to the federal government than i felt was owed to the Soviet Union.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 05:17 AM (LRFds)
Fact 2) - If they were really afraid of legal Gun owners ,
They wouldn't hold public forums to discuss the reasons
for confiscation...
Fact 3) - There true Fear of guns is raced based....
Posted by: American Dawg at January 23, 2013 05:17 AM (trA4n)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 05:17 AM (5Tgpu)
Will report on it on the ONT.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 05:17 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 23, 2013 05:17 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 05:17 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:05 AM (5Tgpu)
Bob's a real favorite of Dominican hookers and sex offenders he hires as interns. Good choice to represent the donks imo.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:18 AM (j8wNz)
Republican National Committee meeting in town. Got invited to reception tonight.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual
The Lord and Masters of the Party probably expect you to park cars and bus tables...
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 05:19 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (41VCE)
This is sophistry at best. Maybe a strange sorta vague connection exists, but only if you vague everything up (in a sense.) I suppose that's the new normal of argumentation, but I don't like it. Maybe if it convinces a few libtards (who weren't otherwise going to be swung on abortion anyway) to see the issue with gun control, maybe it's worth it.
To be clear, I don't think that makes it "bad" (I'm all for novel approaches to argumentation) but I think it shoots itself in the foot in a sense.
Consider that there is signficiant overlap between "pro-Life" and "Pro-Gun" (like the overlap is stronger for "Pro-Life, Gun lovers" than it is for "gun loving pro-lifers" if that distinction makes any sense. In any case it's meaningless at this point.)
To sucessfully fend off the "Anti-Gun horde" (for whom it doesn't matter if they're pro-life or pro-abortion) you need to form a successful coalition amongst all "Pro-Gun" people, regardless of their views of abortion. This undercuts that in a big way.
As I mentioned, it's sophistry, cool word tricks (that were fairly obvious at the outset, I expected the "ohhh! hah, see this is about abortion or gun conrol" early on). But it's going to be nothing but babble to a pro-lifer. To those who believe life begins at conception (or even implantation) these issues couldn't be farther apart. Proper gun ownership by me does not infringe upon any one else's rights. Proper abortion (to a pro-lifer at least) infringes upon the unborn child's right to life. (Protection against counter-snark: Lethal self defense is not an infringement upon the attacker's right to life, as there is a well accepted norm of using force to protect oneself against harm. There is simply no connection here. Simply put, actions by a person can put inperil their right to life, legitamately, a fetus is not capable of such action.)
By conflating these issues you're driving a wedge in your coalition, which now factured, will be over taken by the united front on the other side. (It's also possible you'd move some strong Pro-life/weak gun-rights people over the line in the wrong direction, but I think that number is small enough to not be important.)
So, meh, interesting thought experiment, but horrible outcome.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: gulfkraken at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (WBfjO)
Not so sure about all of that. Women are so selfish now, that it's all about them. I know several who have had abortions. They look at it as a root canal or something. Total disconnect.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (wR+pz)
I realized how bad the Republican party has gotten when my Romney/Ryan bumper sticker and decal order arrived three weeks after the election.
I hang up on them now.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (GsoHv)
Tactics indeed.
Posted by: Fritz at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 05:20 AM (b+8h9)
hey great glad to hear it, I feared it went over like a fart in Church.
It is probably my favorite work of historical fiction from a non-Anglic source.
Hope you enjoy the series.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 05:21 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 09:19 AM (kdS6q)
They better have an open bar, just saying, I bought my bartenders coat.
Posted by: Billy Bob, Pseudo Intellectual at January 23, 2013 05:21 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: gigg at January 23, 2013 05:21 AM (41VCE)
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 05:22 AM (E55AK)
Hotair takes hit whoring to a new level.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:07 AM (LRFds)
One of the biggest fucking wastes of my time was hanging around that dump for one of its open enrollment windows. It was before AllahPander and Poppin' went on one of their purges while giving the trolls free passes. I never got banned so I can still go back there and tell them all to go fuck themselves if I'm ever terminally bored.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:22 AM (j8wNz)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 05:22 AM (5Tgpu)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 05:22 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 05:23 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 05:23 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 05:24 AM (l86i3)
Not quite that bad, but you are expected to listen not talk unless you are a superstar donor and even with the amounts I slung I am not there yet....not even a quarter of the way actually.
I'm not going if that tells you where my head is at and I've been to two, and have been invited to 4 meetings.
I wrote a fairly coherent letter to my contact explaining that I wanted to thank the national committee for undermining every argument I have made for deference to the GOP for conservatives in just 2 short years.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 05:24 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Justamom of the LiB camp at January 23, 2013 05:24 AM (Sptt8)
Plushie pink vagina suits?
I think it's easy to forget that strategy (as opposed to instance specific tactics) includes maneuver and terrain as much or more than it includes actual skirmishes and battles.
This holds true politically as well. For instance: the legislative and litigious tactics are very similar in the same way that two armies fighting in the same location will have similar tactics. It's what happens outside the specific battles and skirmishes that makes up the "strategy." How does one side "maneuver" (which, in these cases, could be correlated with attempting to sway public opinion)? How does the other select terrain (which events do they choose to politicize)?
And on those two the groups are very different.
Pro-life groups point to the fact that Planned Parenthood (the largest Abortion provider in the US, and therefore a fair representative of the species) was the brain-child of Racist Eugenicist Margaret Sanger. We point to the case of Richard Grennell (did I get that name right?) not to say that his abortion mill was representative of all abortion providers, but to point out that the media has an agenda (to whit: to legitimize abortion).
Gun Control groups seize on minor and rare instances (such as school shootings) and try to claim they are representative of gun owners in general. "If we can save even one life!" as it were.
On the other side, Pro-Abortion groups stick to pablum and rhetoric, because they have no facts or figures on their side. Vagina suits may make good theater, but they're hardly reasoned argument.
Gun Rights groups use facts, figures, and positive anecdotes to make their case. They use actual events and reasoned argument.
So while their may be similarities, I do not believe there is "symmetry."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 23, 2013 05:25 AM (/eBe8)
Posted by: frozenbeach at January 23, 2013 05:26 AM (LpQbZ)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 05:26 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Opus An Arcus at January 23, 2013 09:22 AM (5Tgpu)
He probably found a barren dusty wasteland with maybe some Vince Foster graffiti on the walls.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:27 AM (j8wNz)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 05:28 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: Citizen Anachronda at January 23, 2013 05:28 AM (1c58W)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 05:29 AM (l86i3)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:26 AM (XkWWK)
Tits on a boar.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 05:29 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 05:30 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)
I read that and thought it was a bad example too.
Interesting counter-point though. If I do father a child, decide I'd like to go ahead and raise him or her, (and have sufficient means) I have no rights to do that either.
The example of forcing a woman to get an abortion is crappy. Now the example of having to merely sit by and watch your future child get killed, I think is on more much more solid ground.
Posted by: tsrblke at January 23, 2013 05:30 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 05:31 AM (XkWWK)
My opinion? Practice personal generosity to people of good character as much as your means allows, give good service to your community, county, and state while reinforcing the notion that your primary loyalty should be to your state and that the federal government has become a tyrannical beast as subtly as one can muster. Prepare the endure an implosion of at least 90 days in length as a means of showing good civic virtue, and if able husband the resources you can bring to bear to protect those of good character in your new circle from predations of fate that may test their ability to endure to the limit.
Simply put the government cannot match our efficiency in aid and preparation in the same way we can never compete with the federal power straight out.
I want good people to rebuild this ship of freedom when we are shattered on the crash, and if need be I'll settle for a canoe of freedom versus this decaying supertanker of power.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 05:31 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:29 AM (l86i3)
I don't know if it's possible to scrape off enough layers to find any evidence that Slick was spelunking there.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:31 AM (j8wNz)
Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at January 23, 2013 05:31 AM (qFpRI)
You're missing the point of my question. From a perspective of tactic this seems like a good approach to go after... relentlessly point out that the current law is just another form of men protecting women as they are incapable of doing it for themselves.
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 05:32 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 05:32 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:30 AM (XkWWK)
She probably has the goods on the rest of those dumbasses.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:32 AM (j8wNz)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 05:32 AM (XkWWK)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 05:33 AM (RuUvx)
Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2013 05:33 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: Mama AJ at January 23, 2013 09:31 AM (SUKHu)
I once pointed out to a libtard friend that Sanger was a horrible horrible racist/eugencist (BIRM). He accused me of slandering her.
So we googled (this was during that phase between google and Wikipedia). Found a page that had Sanger's writings, commentary, noted her eugenics positions. My friend cried "it's a baised website." To which another (conservative friend) who was with us said "It's New York University's website, since when are they bastions of conservatism? You find bias everwhere that doesn't fit your worldview. Suck it up, this one is true, and now you have to live with that knowledge."
(I may have the university wrong, but it was some liberal college.)
Posted by: tsrblke at January 23, 2013 05:33 AM (GaqMa)
Posted by: American Dawg at January 23, 2013 05:34 AM (trA4n)
Richard Grenell is someone quite different.
D*mn. I knew that was wrong. I was just too lazy to double-check.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at January 23, 2013 05:35 AM (/eBe8)
There's just no excuse for AllahPussy.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff
Give the Devil his due, he is an excellent headline writer. He knows how to draw the clicks.
Of course, once you open the thread and read his "analysis", ye gads!
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 23, 2013 05:36 AM (kdS6q)
Likewise, could any lefty reasonably believe that a group which opposes morning after pills and abortion in the case of rape is a rational actor with designs on anything other than a complete ban on abortion?
Arguments and facts in both these cases are just bullshit in aid of emotion-driven objectives.
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 05:37 AM (E55AK)
Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2013 05:37 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 05:37 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 05:39 AM (b+8h9)
Posted by: blindside at January 23, 2013 05:39 AM (x7g7t)
I'd blame Michelle Malkin for selling it, but it went to shit long before the sale, but as soon as she realized she had a salable commodity.
There's just no excuse for AllahPussy. He USED to be hilarious and had a pair of balls. And it seems he traded them in for a pay check.
Bitch.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:32 AM (mOyDx)
I can mind my manners when that's the lay of the land (Mother Hate would be appalled at my language and state "He wasn't raised that way" while being secretly pleased that I can express myself in coherent sentences) although obviously I prefer unfettered profanity. You're right about how the place used to be and then it just got boring and pussified. It's funny that sometimes I see some of their current twatty posters refer to this place like it's where the wild things hang out.
Btw, nice anniversary vid. Your kids look wonderful and you obviously married well.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:40 AM (j8wNz)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon.
http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)
Oh, yeah? You got sperm that can go though a cut off dick?
Posted by: Mr Vasectomy at January 23, 2013 05:40 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 05:40 AM (RuUvx)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at January 23, 2013 05:42 AM (RuUvx)
Do you understand why the second amendment exists?
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:44 AM (j8wNz)
Right after you learn how to read, moron.
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 05:46 AM (E55AK)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 05:47 AM (mOyDx)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet, Author of Amy Lynn available on Amazon. http://tinyurl.com/ahc8poj at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (l86i3)
What's the definition of eternity?
The time between when you come and she leaves.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 05:47 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 09:40 AM (j8wNz)
They clearly got her looks.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at January 23, 2013 05:50 AM (GsoHv)
Posted by: Andy at January 23, 2013 05:51 AM (ytax8)
Posted by: Krusty the Clown at January 23, 2013 05:52 AM (RuUvx)
That your attempt to undermine the plain original intent of the founders with regards to manpack shoulder fired weaponry by extra-Constitutional means is the very definition of Tyranny the founders enumerated the right to thwart.
IOW for the sake of brevity what your stupidity is saying to people who understand what the federal government is and is not is "destroy my party."
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 05:52 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 23, 2013 09:47 AM (mOyDx)
When places get too boring I just leave. That applies both on the internet and in real life (marital vows overrule all). I may still have a working account at Little Green Nerfballs although the pony-tailed bike-riding turd may have banned me in absentia when he was trolling to see what people were saying about him, because I don't even go back there out of curiosity of finding out the extent of degradation..
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:54 AM (j8wNz)
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 09:48 AM (E55AK)
It exists to protect you against the state; assault weapons included.
Posted by: Captain Hate at January 23, 2013 05:55 AM (j8wNz)
I have no idea what you're babbling about. My entire point was that progressives have their designs on taking all guns, regardless of their more benign posture. Likewise, the Jesus zombies want to ban abortion, regardless of how, like the left on guns, they invest time in tinkering around the edges.
Posted by: Zippity Doo Dah at January 23, 2013 05:59 AM (E55AK)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at January 23, 2013 09:26 AM (XkWWK)
Exactly what happened to me - suggested that the problem wasn't lack of term limits, it was the electorate itself, and that it would probably take a revolution to fix it.
Have to wonder what they think of George Washington.
Posted by: Shakin' Like a Man on a Fuzzy Tree at January 23, 2013 06:00 AM (eMtQ2)
Like look at the birther issue. And don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying Obama is foreign-born. But look at all the controversy there. Regardless of where Obama was or wasn't born, the fact is he was a douche bag and refused to release records showing his history. Well, where is the agency that vets presidential candidates to see if they are "eligible" or not? Nothing like this exists! It's just Congress. Obama said "I was born in Hawaii" and that was the end of it. They didn't ask to see records, they didn't perform an investigation. It was just this man's word. What does natural born citizen even mean? Some say born on US soil, some say both parents must be citizens and location born doesn't matter, some say born on US soil and parents must be citizens.
Constitution says war must be declared by congress. How many places do we have troops where war hasn't been declared?
Where the hell did executive orders come from? That isn't in the Constitution anywhere. A manager always has to give his personnel instructions. Since Washington presidents have written letters giving directions to people under their charge. But starting with Lincoln these letters changed into something that gave them the same weight as legislation and force of law. And then it's been incrementalism since that time, later a numbering scheme was created and an official title for these letters. Today the letters aren't at the level of legislation passed by Congress, but they aren't far behind. Give it a few more years. Especially with someone like Obama pushing the envelope the EOs gain more and more power over Congress.
Where the heck did the Fed come from? Department of Education? TSA? Unlawful search and seizure? Patriot Act? SOPA? Subsidies for farmers? What about existing gun laws? Automatic weapons for example aren't illegal but they are taxed to the point that it's the same thing. 2nd amendment doesn't specify the type of arms, it just says arms. And back in the day private citizen organized militias had cannons and all the same weapons of war that the feds had.
I would agree that a citizen should not have a WMD of course, but there is nothing in the Constitution to address something like this. There should be a specific amendment added for WMDs and a clear definition of what constitutes a WMD... anything nuclear or chemical. I don't have a problem with citizens having fully automatic rifles though. Why not? The gangs have them illegally. And fact is any semi-auto weapon can be made full auto with some rather simple mods. So if someone wants it they will get it.
Long story short, very little of the Constitution is still followed. How many of our Reps have even read the Constitution cover to cover? It's not a big document. If you were to randomly ask them about a specific amendment how many could even give you a high level gist of what that amendment says? A handful at most.
The only people in government who study the Constitution are on the supreme court, and they are partisan hacks that spend all their time trying to figure out how to bend the Constitution to justify what they want to do.
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 06:01 AM (HS3dy)
Posted by: Bigby's Itchy Trigger Finger at January 23, 2013 06:11 AM (3ZtZW)
But the baby is part of the man's body too? I get what you're saying, but if that is the rationale, then we're openly sanctioning murder because the baby happens to occupying someone else's body?
If the mother has the right to abort the baby against the will of the father, father should have the same right to terminate his responsibilities.
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 06:12 AM (HS3dy)
No symmetry here. The major restrictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld on abortion include public funding prohibition, conscience amendments that allow individuals and facilities to refuse to perform abortions, a 24 hour waiting period, and parental consent with a judicial override. The only real restriction is that abortions after viability can be prevented (see third tier analysis of the balancing test) which was in the original Roe decision anyway.
Re 2nd Amendment mirror image--imagine court claims that public funding for firearms as self defense restricts a right to chose proper self defense weapons within the penumbras of the 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th, amendments. Conscience laws permit people and corporations objecting to icky self defense rights not to buy, own, or sell guns nor allow workers to have guns either. Since the penumbras dictate it, a juvenile under 18 cannot get a gun without parental permission but only if the state allows a judge to determine whether or not the youth is mature enough for the judge to allow them to buy a gun. Using a gun to end the viability of another, however, could result in criminal charges. Ammunition limits, types of weapons (surgical procedures), prohibition of vague laws, magazine limits, etc. could all result in an undue burden on the right to choose a firearm.
One last fact, prior to the last two court decisions of Heller and MacDonald, the NRA notoriously stayed out of most court battles because it reasoned that it had political clout on the Hill and state legislatures. They did not want to risk a negative decision by the Supreme Court that would harm legislation in Congress. NARAL is not a mirror image of NRA popularity as NARAL demands that plans cover abortions nearly sank Obamacare and so on. Abortion legislation extending abortion rights have generally floundered except in the most liberal states--California and New York. Abortion rights activists do their thing in court primarily.
BTW--so called pattern litigation did not start with Roe--see Muller v. Oregon and the Brandeis brief. This was later used by the NAACP for the pattern litigation over segregation. Likewise ACLU for freedom of speech and removal of religious faith from the public square. Since then, every group seeking legal change has adopted this strategy as par for the course. Unfortunately, there are a lot fewer conservative legal groups pushing for originalist legal change than those seeking an open ended Constitution.
Posted by: wg at January 23, 2013 06:20 AM (5hfZT)
The *point* of abortion is to end a life. That was the reason for Obama's post-natal-abortion bill in Illinois: to ensure that the child's life ended, even if the abortion procedure itself did not accomplish that goal.
However, the *point* of gun ownership is much more diverse: recreation, sport, and the preservation of life. Using guns to assault and murder is contrary to the purpose of gun ownership.
So, guns and abortion are simply not comparable.
Posted by: Brown Line at January 23, 2013 06:21 AM (VrNoa)
I can't comment on your site, but I want you to know Chizumatic is a daily read for me.
Posted by: flashbazzbo, s.e. at January 23, 2013 06:22 AM (i0rVe)
Instead, we get coverage about how Beyonce might have lip-synched at the inauguration. What stooges!
Enemies of the republic they are, I think.
Posted by: Flounder at January 23, 2013 06:30 AM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: NJRob at January 23, 2013 06:30 AM (FVp26)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 06:31 AM (b+8h9)
Posted by: NJRob at January 23, 2013 06:36 AM (FVp26)
A slight correction. The baby is not part of the woman. It is simply growing in a chamber inside her. So that argument doesn't fly. After a child is born a mother would be negligent and guilty of murder if she didn't feed the child and let it die. Why is that burden any different than the burden of bearing the child? The 9mo burden is nothing compared to what comes after... as someone with a bunch of kids, I say this unequivocally.
According to the law, human life, any human life, has the same rights regardless of age. So I don't agree with the argument that we are sanctioning murder in this particular case. To my understanding Roe v. Wade only stands because unborn baby is not defined anywhere as being life afforded Constitutional rights. It's a grey area.
While the woman may have some burdens to deal with, they are very small compared to 18 years of indentured servitude. Not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. And the issue of women terminating pregnancy against will of the father, same issue. For a man who is deeply against abortion and regards it murder, what kind of psychological effect does this have on him?
You can argue against abortion and I'll agree with you, but if you're saying current system is fair, sorry, completely disagree. And I'm not even saying it should be fair, just saying it isn't fair. And this is in a world where zero regard for the life of the child exists.
If the woman wasn't raped, she is just as responsible as the man. Both should have same rights and responsibilities. So there's a cost involved, ok, make him pay half.
Posted by: Andrew at January 23, 2013 06:57 AM (HS3dy)
And I realize it's just lip service, but it irks me to no end, probably mostly because I know the LoFo voters out there are thinking, "see, what can the opposition possibly have against this guy."
Posted by: Flounder at January 23, 2013 07:04 AM (Kkt/i)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 07:22 AM (b+8h9)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 11:22 AM (b+8h9)
"Fair" is the wrong terminology. I would say that the argument that pro-abortion people use - "that it is the "woman's choice" and only effects the woman and therefore men shouldn't get a say" - should be used against them.
If the woman chooses to have the baby - the man is forced to pay child support until the child turns 18. Yet, the man has no say if the woman aborts. So the woman's choice effects the man very clearly. The man should have the right to a legal abortion. Whether the woman chooses to abort or not, the man should have the option of "aborting" his child in the same manner. Thus, the man can choose to "abort" and have no right to visitation, etc. to the child - but also no legal duty to support the child. This way, the right to "abort" is equitable and the man is not imprisoned by the woman's "choice". The man therefore gets full say in whether his "body" will be used as slave-labor to pay for the child the woman chose to have.
I have a feeling that the pro-abortion people would find this argument crazy - but in reality it is perfectly equal to the argument they make in favor of abortion. If I don't want a child as a man - why should I be forced to be responsible for one? I should have, under the equal protection clause, the same right to abort the child that the women has. Perhaps my right of "abortion" does not kill the child - but it frees me from any responsibility for the child, which is truly the only point of "abortion" for the woman involved as well. The woman does not abort for "health reasons". The sole and only reason for abortion is so that the woman does not have to take responsibility for a child. That is it, period (except, perhaps in about 0.001% of rape cases or the very, very, very rare medical cases). Anyone arguing otherwise is lying.
So, why should men not have the same right to avoid responsibility for a child?
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 08:01 AM (sOx93)
the point I am making is not that the abortion should be legal but that the law should be equitable. This will have the impact of forcing pro-abortion people to realize that the "it's a woman's choice not effecting anyone else" is a lie. they can lie to themselves about a fetus not being a person because they never see the fetus and never know the fetus. But, if they know a woman whose baby-daddy "aborted" the child (i.e., has no legal duty for responsibility for the child) and know the child - they will realize the truth of their idiotic arguments.
Plus, of course, the fact that the law should always be equitable and not so one-sided favoring one group over another.
Arguing against this on the ground that the "child did not ask to be born" misses the entire point and in fact, helps the pro-abortion crowd. They get the best of both worlds - killing babies when they want to and forcing men to be their financial supporters when they want to. they can have their cake and eat it too.
If the gov't's job is to raise children - then the gov't has just as much right to round them all up and place them in gov't institutions as to force one person to pay for another person's child.
An anecdote - I have known men who never knew they had a child until the child was 14 or so when the mother sought child support (including 14 years of back child support). The man had no rights in such situation. The woman stole from him any chance to know the child or develop a true father/child relationship or watch the child grow - yet the man was on the hook for lots of money and was being penalized for not supporting a child he never knew he had.
that is not a reasonable or equitable or just law. Arguing "life is not fair" is a dumb argument. The law should in fact be fair and just. Whether life is fair or not is irrelevant - the law should not be purposefully set up to favor women over men or men over women or to screw some people to help others.
And all arguments of "do it for the children" are not rational arguments. They are emotional arguments that are not based on sound philosophical, ethical or legal basis. When conservatives start arguing to use the gov't "for the children" in the way you suggest, we may as well hang it up because we've bought into the left's argument about what gov't is and what role it should play in controlling our lives. We are arguing for a nanny state that "takes care of the children".
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 08:13 AM (sOx93)
Posted by: Sinalco at January 23, 2013 08:15 AM (aT/Cc)
Posted by: Sinalco at January 23, 2013 08:18 AM (aT/Cc)
Posted by: Jenny Tries Too Hard at January 23, 2013 08:34 AM (b+8h9)
"Freedom to choose"
The Left always says that we cannot take away the "Freedom to choose"...with regard to abortion.
But they are okay with taking away the "Freedom to choose"...with regard to firearms.
Posted by: wheatie at January 23, 2013 08:40 AM (fH4X9)
Posted by: JPS at January 23, 2013 09:02 AM (QnaW/)
Posted by: JPS at January 23, 2013 09:06 AM (QnaW/)
Yeah but their "logic" taken to its conclusion means you and I can start a national hysteria campaign to end commerce, since money motivates criminals to take the guns and engage in violence n'est'c'pas?
Your family has decided that they are guaranteed a risk free planet to undermine an enumerated right, and if statistics hold are also perfectly okay with a magic markered invisible ink penumbra that is there by design to end life for personal comfort.
The cognitive dissonance ain't on my end.
Posted by: sven10077 at January 23, 2013 09:10 AM (LRFds)
You are being blinded by the forest for the trees. Your argument is that we should not approach the argument any other way than to say "abortion is murder" and doing anything else is giving in.
Well - good luck with that. It is certainly working - what with no polls showing that for the first time a majority is in favor of abortion in almost all circumstances.
You have also missed the point completely about "live is not fair" argument. You argued that life is not fair and therefore it is o.k. for the law to be unequal between men and women. I pointed out that while it is true that life is not fair, the law is supposed to be fair and therefore the law should be applied equally to men and women.
Your argument that "children have the right to be supported by both parents" is interesting. It is the job of gov't to decide who supports what children and how much they should support the children? tell me more about this nanny state gov't you believe in?
Your arguments all come from the left. We must make gov't force people to care for their children because we as a society have a duty to "protect the children". by your argument, gov't should have the right to decide how to raise the kids as well.
Further, my point is that if we are going to have legal abortion - which we currently do - we should argue for equality of the law - that is men should have as much right to abortion as women as per my post above. This is another avenue for attacking abortion. This is not to say we should agree that abortion is right - simply that if we must have abortion (as we do) then we should also have equality before the law.
Men and women will never agree that the aftermath of an unplanned pregnancy is fair, because it's not. And that's not the law's business.
what is the "law's business". the law is meant to be applied equally regardless of gender, race, wealth, etc. to allow a woman to chose to opt out of caring for the results of procreation but not allowing a man the same privilege under the law violates the most basic principals of law. I know that your answer is you don't agree with allowing a woman to opt out. I don't either. But here we are.
The baby has a right to live and to be supported by his or her parents. No man or woman should be allowed to either kill the baby, at any point, or walk away from supporting him/her (before age 16 at the youngest) without first finding a suitable replacement who agrees to pay for the child's expenses.
At the expense of sounding cruel - where is that right found, exactly? My constitution seems to be missing that clause? I understand that morally people should be responsible for their children - but we are not talking about morality here, we are talking about the law. You are confusing the two. My understanding of limited gov't allows for lousy parents who abandon their children and families. Freedom often allows unsavory things. You apparently have a different idea of what "limited gov't means". Apparently, to you, limited gov't means controlling people in ways you believe is right.
I'm not saying that either option is moral or ethical or nice. But then again, that is not the law's job. Or at least it should not be the law's job to make people moral or nice.
this is another instance showing why conservatism cannot win. People will always believe that gov't should be used to control people in the way that they believe is right. Just people have different beliefs about what that is. A conservative may be against requiring a religious hospital to pay for contraception for his employees, but has no problem using gov't to enforce how people pay for or raise children.
6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 09:28 AM (sOx93)
I meant the clause about "the right to be supported by his or her parents" not about the right to live.
I don't think I've ever heard of a case where a baby is given up to state care and the state goes after the mother for child support. However, that does happen to men. Why is that? Why can a woman both opt to kill her baby and/or opt to give it up without supporting it but a man can not do either?
Again, I'm not saying it's right, just unequal - which the law is not supposed to be.
And one point in raising these arguments is to get pro-abortion people to realize that these "choices" are not simply affecting the woman making them. Once we get the vast majority of Americans to understand that simple point, the arguments against abortion become easier.
Most Americans live in a cocoon where they believe "it's none of my business, the "choice" doesn't effect anyone but the woman making it, so why should I care".
We have argued for 30 years about the "choice" affecting the unborn child to almost no avail. So, perhaps we should attack it from a different angle then blindly charging forward with the same arguments we've made for 30 years?
Posted by: Monkeytoe at January 23, 2013 09:35 AM (sOx93)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3942 seconds, 321 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: phoenixgirl waiting for spring training at January 23, 2013 04:27 AM (GVxQo)