Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Jane Roe" Endorses Ron Paul
About an hour ago Norma McCorvey, a.k.a "Jane Roe" from the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, formally endorsed Ron Paul at the Phoenix Park hotel in Washington. Why didn't she endorse a frontrunner like Mike Huckabee? Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters, using the analogy of the frog and the pot of boiling water to demonstrate what was happening to America. "It touched my heart." That was three weeks ago, and McCorvey keynoted a pro-life Paul rally in Nevada on January 12th, but the campaign made the official announcement today before Paul spoke at the March for Life. McCorvey:
I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade. Ron Paul doesn’t just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all. Ron Paul is the prime author of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade. As the signor of the affidavit that legalized abortion 35 years ago I appreciate Ron Paul’s action to restore protection for the unborn. Ron Paul has also authored H.R. 1094 in Congress, which seeks to define life as beginning at conception. He has never wavered on the issue of being pro-life and has a voting record to prove it. He understands the importance of civil liberties for all, including the unborn.
Paul took questions from a tiny audience of press and local supporters after elucidating his abortion views. Roe was wrongly decided; federal courts need to be taken out of the loop on abortion law to let states make their own laws. A constitutional amendment would be "a tedious solution; it takes a long time." Pro-lifers need to make this possible, in public opinion, before lawmakers move. "The ultimate test of the right to life movement is how we change attitudes on this."
McCorvey was frustrated at the lack of attention her original Reno endorsement got, but she was lighthearted today. "When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at the White House?"
"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room cracked up.
"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.
UPDATE: Paul said that he found McCorvey compelling because she changed her mind on abortion in 1995, so he was asked what he thought of Mitt Romney's evolution on the issue. He generally praised Romney, but I want to listen to the tape before I run what he said.
|1.22.08 @ 11:59AM|#
What she doesn't understand, is Paul has a 75% NARAL voting
record in recent years and is all over the place.
the legislation she sites, first the "Life starts at conception"
would quickly be ruled Unconstitutional by atleast a 5 to 4 ruling,
if it got that far, possibly 9-0 since the Constitution says it
applies to 'those born in'.
the part about taking the issue away from the courts is
counterproductive and pointless, as long as the Supreme Law of the
land(Roe and Casey) are on the books with all the jurisprudence
since then. The only effect it would have is confusing the issue
and stop any future federal related issues with life.
the guy is all over the map on the issue and is
counterproductive.
|1.22.08 @ 12:03PM|#
There isn't all that much Doctor Paul can do about abortion. Plus, I don't know if the abortion lovers care about this endorsement.
|1.22.08 @ 12:04PM|#
The pro life people could care less about life, they just want
to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized,
multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.
Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows
that. No one knows when life begins so we need to assume it is at
birth.
Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the cord
is cut. It is the most important, God given right any woman has,
without it all other rights are meaningless.
javier|1.22.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone
knows that
ummm... WTF kind of logic and reasoning is that??
so anything that is not wanted is not alive?
You may want to go a little deeper in qualifying that.
Beltway Blackbelt|1.22.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Birth control (including abortion) is needed to keep the lower classes from out-breeding finer stock.
|1.22.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Maybe we should concentrate on endorsements from intelligent, accomplished, respectable people like Gary Johnson, and not take so much notice of the of the galacticly stupid.
|1.22.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Dear Amanda - Did you notice that you didn't cite any evidence to prove your assertion that ANYONE who is pro life is at heart a control freak? ''Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows that.'' This sentence proves your total lack of logic. Simply by not wanting a baby to be born, we may render it ''dead''? I'm not sure how in the world you can believe something so profoundly stupid. Also, the fact that you believe the right to an abortion is more important for women than free speech or the right to vote says a lot about you, I'm afraid.
Seer|1.22.08 @ 12:13PM|#
Amanda, please tell me that is satire. It's way too hard to tell with libertarians sometimes.
jackanapestarian|1.22.08 @ 12:13PM|#
"When you're president," she asked Paul, "can I stay over at
the White House?"
"Anytime," Paul said. The supporters in the back of the room
cracked up.
"I'll take the Lincoln Bedroom," said McCorvey.
Charming. And they lived happily ever after.
robc|1.22.08 @ 12:17PM|#
I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone. Amanda's posts from yesterday's thread (and today's) have just about convinced me.
|1.22.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Obviously, if the teenage mother didn't want her baby, it was
never alive to begin with!
Pure genius
jj|1.22.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Darn! I thought Amanda was being ironic in the last abortion
thread. Her comments were so deliciously outrageous and sexist they
seemed funny.
Amanda, I can respect both pro-choice and positions, but not one
that blames men for simply wanting to enslave women. Are you aware
that more men are pro-choice than women? Men actually like the
freedom not to have to deal with alimony. Some simply believe that
it is a human being and feel they need to pay their dues.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Oh god - a troll pretending to be Amanda Marcotte. What kind of double hell is that?
|1.22.08 @ 12:20PM|#
"Dear Amanda - Did you notice that you didn't cite any evidence
to prove your assertion that ANYONE who is pro life is at heart a
control freak?"
Actually, in my undergrad days we ran some numbers from I think the
GSS and there was considerable overlap between people who were
pro-life and those who were rather prudish on things like
extramarital affairs and such. In fact your stupid comment:
"Also, the fact that you believe the right to an abortion is more
important for women than free speech or the right to vote says a
lot about you, I'm afraid."
Heavily implies that connection...
Can't say much for Amanda's logic on the "not alive because not
wanted" part though. As a pro-choice person I would say that any
non-viable entity without a functioning brain of any significance
is not a life. If you look at centuries of common understanding, as
manifested in such things as the common law, fetuses just were not
considered people...
|1.22.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Wow, I was absolutely sure Amanda was a parody. Then I linked to her website. Horrible. It should have a link to Larouche's website so they can share rhetorical techniques.
|1.22.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Amanda,
You are obviously not basing your opinion on either science or the
law. Science proves a fetus is alive and can be delivered as early
as 21 weeks, 6 days.
The rule of law states that no person shall be deprived of life
without due process of law. Under generally understood concepts of
the law, the only defendable reason to deprive a person of life is
in defense. That's why the death penalty doesn't apply. That's why
pre-emptive war doesn't apply.
The life issue has nothing to do with patriarchy. It has everything
to do with the fact that 1/3rd of my generation is gone thanks to
Roe v. Wade. That includes men and women.
|1.22.08 @ 12:21PM|#
I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene
is located on the Y chromosone.
Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are
other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is
meant to oppress womyn.
JayDubya|1.22.08 @ 12:22PM|#
The damage has already been done to our governmental system, but
if it hadn't have been her, it would have been someone else. I do
have to laud her for fighting to undo the legal absurdity she
helped to create.
And of course, she has good taste in presidential candidates.
andy|1.22.08 @ 12:22PM|#
amanda, you completely miss the secular crux of ron paul's
argument: if it's not alive then why are ob/gyns sued if they
accidentally harm the fetus? after all, it's not like they killed
anyone. should it just be an "aw, shucks" moment for the
ob/gyn?
why was scott peterson convicted for the murder of laci peterson
*and* her unborn son?
your "logic" has bigger disagreements with the law than it does
with ron paul. although, the law seems to have disagreements with
itself on this issue.
|1.22.08 @ 12:22PM|#
A person can certainly see what they think of as reproductive rights to be pretty fundamental without being a skank. I mean, we ARE on a site where people think the right to contribute 10,000 dollars or the right to employ people in dangerous occupations is fundamental, fer christ sake.
tarran|1.22.08 @ 12:23PM|#
I have long considered the possibility that the logic gene is located on the Y chromosone.
Carefull there robc:
Dave W has a Y-Chromosome.
Eric Dondero has a Y chromosome.
Jennifer does not have one.
I think your theory is flawed.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 12:23PM|#
dude you guys are getting trolled hardcore.
ps. calling your reply name "...is probably promiscuous" is a good
way of reinforcing that some abortion opponents are interested more
in social control and sexual chastity.
JayDubya|1.22.08 @ 12:24PM|#
"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there
are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic
is meant to oppress womyn."
lol joke poster confirmed? I hope?
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 12:25PM|#
dude you guys are getting trolled hardcore.
ps. calling your reply name "...is probably promiscuous" is a good
way of reinforcing that some abortion opponents are interested more
in social control and sexual chastity.
Amanda and Amanda is Probably Promiscuous are presumably the same
troll...
|1.22.08 @ 12:25PM|#
"You are obviously not basing your opinion on either science or
the law. Science proves a fetus is alive and can be delivered as
early as 21 weeks, 6 days."
And the court has ruled that there is a state interest of stepping
in to protect a fetus as one gets closer to viability, right? And
some do.
"amanda, you completely miss the secular crux of ron paul's
argument: if it's not alive then why are ob/gyns sued if they
accidentally harm the fetus?" But its not treated as a murder is
it? Now you answer why not.
|1.22.08 @ 12:25PM|#
"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there
are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid."
Like makebelieve.
OK, she's definitely a troll, not being serious. Moving on...
|1.22.08 @ 12:25PM|#
Norma McCovey is 100% full of crap. She was the pro-choice
poster child for over 20 years, then all of the sudden she claims
that she had no idea "Jane Roe" meant so much to the pro-choice
movement. In fact, she's wrong on two levels. She's full of it to
say she didn't know Roe v. Wade was a rallying cry, and she's full
of it to assume that anybody gave a crap about Norma McCovey (as
opposed to fictional person Roe).
Frankly, I feel sad that people give that old bag any credence,
whether they admire her for her pre-flip flop pro-choice stance or
her post-flop pro-life stance.
|1.22.08 @ 12:27PM|#
I heard that Ron Paul doesn't mind if black women get
abortions.
This is blatantly wrong. Ron Paul is one of the only people who
actually understands that civil liberties are God-given, not given
by the government. That means civil liberties for white, black,
brown, gay, straight, born and unborn. His message is
purely non-prejudiced.
The chairman of the NAACP has known him for 20 years,
coincidentally, and has said that Ron Paul isn't racist.
The pro life people could care less about life, they just want
to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized,
multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.
Wow, I thought Ron Paul people were supposed to have cornered the
tin foil hat market. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I am a
woman and pro life, and I do believe the issue of abortion is very
complicated and needs discussion. It's not a matter of just a
woman's body... it's a matter of the fetus as well.
The law states that if a person beats a pregnant woman, and that
woman miscarries, you can be charged with murder. The law also
states that it's alright to snap the neck of a child coming out of
the birth canal as long as the mother wants it so.
This arbitrary law is very dangerous because it's literally based
on the whim of the mother at that moment, even when the child could
survive outside the womb.
Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who's delivered over 4,000 babies, has
seen an abortion performed where the child came out very much
alive, kicking, and screaming. The doctors put the living baby in a
bucket until the cries stopped.
If there's any conspiracy here, Amanda, it's the conspiracy of
population control. Every unborn child is less money the government
would have to spend finding that child loving parents. It's quite
literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.
jj|1.22.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Amanda, you are my new hero. Can I use this comment as my new
signature. I loves it that much:
Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there are
other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic is
meant to oppress womyn.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Amanda and Amanda is Probably Promiscuous are presumably the
same troll...
ehhh, you have greater faith in the ability of the blind to see
hilarity than i do.
some dude|1.22.08 @ 12:28PM|#
the part about taking the issue away from the courts is
counterproductive and pointless, as long as the Supreme Law of the
land(Roe and Casey) are on the books with all the jurisprudence
since then. The only effect it would have is confusing the issue
and stop any future federal related issues with life.
Au contraire. It would be rather simple and straight-forward.
Jurisprudence is based on precedent. A lower court rules on a case
a certain way because the assumption is that if that case were
taken all the way up to the SCOTUS, the High Court would rule the
same it did in the past. If appellate jurisdiction is taken away by
congress (which they have every power to do), state courts have no
assumptions as to what the SCOTUS would do. They can rule on their
own.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Heidi - congratulations - take a joke at face value and respond to a troll - all in one post.
|1.22.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Amanda says; The pro life people could care less about life,
they just want to control womens bodies.
Well, it is pretty clear that a lot of women can't control their
bodies. Don't want a child, don't get pregnant.
robc|1.22.08 @ 12:30PM|#
tarran,
Just because the logic gene is on the Y doesnt mean that all of us
with a Y have that gene (or have the version that is turned
on).
Ive also considered the possibility that it is on the X, but is
recessive. Thus, women would need to pro-logic genes before it
kicks in. And some men would still be without. That is my nicer
version and I generally dont prefer to be nice.
|1.22.08 @ 12:30PM|#
It is a simple fact that there is considerable overlap between
folks who oppose abortion and those who oppose extra or pre-marital
sex, for instance. Check out any GSS data set for proof of
this...
Now the two don't NECESSARILY have to go together, or LOGICALLY,
but they often do EMPIRICALLY...
andy|1.22.08 @ 12:31PM|#
mr. nice guy:
i don't know of an ob/gyn case to support this, but from the scott
peterson trial:
"On November 12 the reconstituted jury convicted Peterson of
first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci and
second-degree murder for killing his unborn son."
ianal, but my assumption is that ob/gyns get sued for negligence
the same reason any doctor gets sued for negligence when somebody
dies (or doesn't die, i guess... depends on if you consider the
fetus living).
Dave W.|1.22.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Jennifer does not have one.
I think J. deleted my comment over at the Feral Genius site. What
was that all about?
Taktix®|1.22.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Heidi - congratulations - take a joke at face value and
respond to a troll - all in one post.
DavidS,
Don't forget the unnecessary, eye-glazing length. Me thinks that's
the trifecta of dumbass posting...
Damn Paulbots...
|1.22.08 @ 12:32PM|#
amanda, you completely miss the secular crux of ron paul's
argument: if it's not alive then why are ob/gyns sued if they
accidentally harm the fetus? after all, it's not like they killed
anyone. should it just be an "aw, shucks" moment for the
ob/gyn?
If you have an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus is
harmed, it is murder, even if she is her way driving to the
abortion clinic, because what if she changed her mind.
Heidi|1.22.08 @ 12:33PM|#
DavidS - very cute. I don't care if it's a troll or not, I'm making a point for people who may not know.
|1.22.08 @ 12:33PM|#
I am pro-life, but I feel obliged to point out that the boiling
frog thing is a myth:
http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2006/09/the_boiledfrog_myth_stop_the_l.php#more
Amanda, by the way, either actually is, or possibly is someone
pretending to be, Amanda Marcotte, who gained fame a while back
after her controversial comments about Catholicism and the virgin
birth caused her to lose a job with the John Edwards
campaign.
She may be of more interest to Reason posters (who seem to be
generally non-religious) for once claiming that libertarians think
they own the poor. See
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/11/01/6263/ for the original
comment to this effect and
http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2007/11/dance_for_me_peons_dance_mooho.php
for commentary on the subject by one of Reason's own.
|1.22.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Could I please get somebody to opine on why Norma McCovey means
anything to anybody? Aside from cheap symbolic value of an old lady
who changed her mind while waiting to get into heaven, is there any
value in what she says? Roe v. Wade is about Jane Roe, a fictional
person. Any connection to McCovey is irrelevant. Yes, that includes
the fact that McCovey was Jane Roe.
Amanda: Any opinion on old bags who change their minds when they
reach the earlybird special age?
Brett|1.22.08 @ 12:34PM|#
"Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the
cord is cut. It is the most important, God given right any woman
has"
Em, abortion as a God given right? This boggles my mind...
Heidi, I applaud your Ron Paul enthusiasm, but I think Catoite was
only joking.
|1.22.08 @ 12:35PM|#
When a woman is pregnant, she is growing a living organism in her uterus. If you kill a fetus, you are destroying a life. All abortions should be, in my opinion, carried out only as a result of something barbaric like incest, rape, etc. There is no other valid reason to kill an unborn child. That being said, I do not wish to see my personal views on this matter imposed by the Feds on the female population. I just don't support abortion to save a womans reputation. Put the kid up for adoption if you can't afford to raise it.
Heidi|1.22.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Don't forget the unnecessary, eye-glazing length. Me thinks
that's the trifecta of dumbass posting...
Poor thing. Don't like reading? It's okay, I understand.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Ron Paul is one of the only people who actually understands
that civil liberties are God-given
actually, let's hijack this shit cause i have what, in street
parlance, would be called "beef" - that is to say, a complaint or
dispute with - the whole natural law thing.
1) prove it! where the fuck is this fucking god or fucking nature
that gives us these so-fucking-called natural fucking rights?
2) enforce it! why the living fiddle faddle do these natural rights
evaporate as soon as some two bit bureaucrat - pardon, fucking
bureaucrat - says "lie down on the floor and remain calm"? it's
almost like they don't really exist in any concrete way.
3) don't get me wrong! i mean, i like it when people pretend that
natural rights exist because it's another arsenal in the "fuck you,
gubmint" playbook. taking the idea seriously is right up there with
venusians at the center of the earth. it might be fine for personal
spiritual rule-making, but good luck selling it to someone
else.
|1.22.08 @ 12:37PM|#
"The pro life people could care less about life, they just want
to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized,
multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy.
Obviously a fetus is not alive if it is not wanted, everyone knows
that. No one knows when life begins so we need to assume it is at
birth."
Thanks for the reminder that many pro-deathers are complete
moonbats who will say anything they think serves their purpose.
javier|1.22.08 @ 12:37PM|#
But its not treated as a murder is it? Now you answer why
not.
Scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder. I have never
heard a pro-choicer say that is inconsistant if the fetus infact
has no legal rights.
yoshi|1.22.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Thank the grassroots: She saw a newspaper ad in Nevada, bought by Paul supporters,
She has been a tool used by various groups her entire life. Its of
no surprise a mere newspaper ad is all it took for her to support
somebody. I am sure she will see a huckabee leaflet stapled to a
poll tomorrow and change her position.
All this ignores that annoying little fact that RP has no chance of
being president.
andy|1.22.08 @ 12:38PM|#
"If you have an accident with a pregnant woman and the fetus is
harmed, it is murder, even if she is her way driving to the
abortion clinic, because what if she changed her mind."
i'm confused as to how this doesn't support my point. i'm saying
that a fetus has to be considered alive for there to be a murder.
you just substantiated that, thereby refuting your earlier (hasty
and quick) assumption that "life begins at birth."
if you're a troll, you're like, the worst ever... which may make
you the best.
|1.22.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who's delivered over 4,000
babies, has seen an abortion performed where the child came out
very much alive, kicking, and screaming. The doctors put the living
baby in a bucket until the cries stopped.
This is a made-up story. Way to spew out false apocrypha,
Paulbot.
And AmandaM is a troll. Probably a pro-life troll, at that.
|1.22.08 @ 12:41PM|#
"If you kill a fetus, you are destroying a life. All abortions
should be, in my opinion, carried out only as a result of something
barbaric like incest, rape, etc."
Now THAT'S illogical. If it is a life, then why should it matter
that it was produced by incest or rape? Think: what if the product
of rape was born, and two years later the mom could not stand to
look at it anymore and killed it. Certainly that is wrong? If it's
just as much a life in the uterus then why does its origin matter?
Try again...
" but my assumption is that ob/gyns get sued for negligence the
same reason any doctor gets sued for negligence when somebody dies
(or doesn't die, i guess... depends on if you consider the fetus
living)." They get sued if they mess up my kidney too, but my
kidney is not a person.
Gilbert Martin|1.22.08 @ 12:41PM|#
A lower court rules on a case a certain way because the
assumption is that if that case were taken all the way up to the
SCOTUS, the High Court would rule the same it did in the past. If
appellate jurisdiction is taken away by congress (which they have
every power to do), state courts have no assumptions as to what the
SCOTUS would do. They can rule on their own.
Congress does have the power to limit the appellate juridisction of
the Supreme Court - but not in cases where a State shall be a party
as per Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases
before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate
Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and
under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Episiarch|1.22.08 @ 12:42PM|#
You know, Saturn (Cronos) ate his children as a form of birth control.
SPD|1.22.08 @ 12:43PM|#
"Abortions for me, but not for thee." --N. McCorvey
I support overturning Roe v. Wade, if only to prevent a
more socially conservative court from using this precedent to come
in later and outlaw all abortions, everywhere.
Perhaps if a few more drugstore would carry RU-486 and the local
PTA's would stop wringing their hands about sex education in high
school, there wouldn't be as much of a demand for abortions in the
first place.
Nope, nope... too logical for the fundies.
|1.22.08 @ 12:44PM|#
"Scott peterson was charged with two counts of murder. I have
never heard a pro-choicer say that is inconsistant if the fetus
infact has no legal rights."
If I remember that was part of the impetus behind these laws, which
do not exist in every state I think (and why not, eh?) (which are
fairly recent, right?), to make for the supposed inconsistency and
further the pro-life cause. Many pro-choicers went along since we
do think fetuses are valuable things and that viable ones can be
protected as full lives.
andy|1.22.08 @ 12:44PM|#
mr. nice guy:
okay, i concede that you have me there and i could get into
ticky-tacky arguments and you could present to me how killing
cancer is also taking life - genetically unique life, at
that.
but if scott peterson killed laci peterson and her kidneys, i don't
think it would be considered a triple murder.
according to that case, a fetus is alive. you have yet to respond
to that half of my statement.
|1.22.08 @ 12:44PM|#
Gotta ask: If life begins at conception, and we're genuinely concerned with life (as opposed to control of women), then why is the product of rape or incest non-life?
|1.22.08 @ 12:44PM|#
It matters because the sex required to get the woman pregnant in
the event of rape or incest is not consensual.
Why don't YOU try again? You didn't even think about what you just
typed, apparently.
|1.22.08 @ 12:44PM|#
I'll give it one half-hearted effort: reasonable people
disagree. Pro-life or pro-choice, you're not going to change
anyone's mind with your bloggy advocacy.
BTW, responding to an obvious troll makes you look like a
doofus.
|1.22.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Consenting adults engaging in the reproductive act are simply
following the course of nature.
It is an agreement to procreate. Any other view denies the reality.
Once an egg is fertilized, it is the beginning of alife.
Any other view denies reality.
So maybe those that wish to allow for murder of defenseless
children are simply trying to promote sex for fun.
So have fun sex and slaughter your children.
Pathetic humans, just as bad as the neaderthals. Just bigger sticks
and stones, same cave(bunker) mentality.
|1.22.08 @ 12:46PM|#
I have nothing to add to the debate on abortion here. I would
only point out though that the analogy Paul uses of the frog and
the pot of boiling water is bogus, an urban myth.
In reality frogs will try to escape the water once it becomes too
warm. Snopes.com pointed this out a while ago.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/frogboil.asp
|1.22.08 @ 12:46PM|#
"It matters because the sex required to get the woman pregnant
in the event of rape or incest is not consensual."
Are you an idiot or something? It's OK to kill someone if the sex
that created them was not consensual? WTF?
jj|1.22.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Smacky: "This is a made-up story. Way to spew out false
apocrypha, Paulbot."
Actually Ron Paul himself related the story on national media, NPR,
I think. Now you can choose not to believe RP, but calling someone
a Paulbot because you are woefully ignorant is a little beyond the
pale.
javier|1.22.08 @ 12:47PM|#
prove it! where the fuck is this fucking god or fucking
nature that gives us these so-fucking-called natural fucking
rights?
our rationality. the ability of free speech, expression etc. comes
from our nature. our nature as rational, thinking beings. without
interference it is natural for a human being to use his mind and
make choices and act on those choices. this is natural state of
man. only government or criminals can take this away, forcing man
to go against his nature.
was that to randian?
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 12:47PM|#
So "To Mr Nice Guy" and "Amanda is Promiscuous" are one and the same - but are they the same as "Amanda"?
some dude|1.22.08 @ 12:47PM|#
I am pro-life, but I feel obliged to point out that the
boiling frog thing is a myth:
Why? It is such a good analogy. As an analogy, it doesn't
actually matter if you can boil a frog. The truth of the
point you are trying to make does not depend on it.
|1.22.08 @ 12:50PM|#
Look, if you are going to be pro-life then accept the logically
necessary yet stinky conclusions: products of rape and incest are
lifes and must be protected too.
I realize you have not thought this through much...
YOU: Babies, yay! Rape, yuck! Abortion, bad, but in case of rape,
OK.
As I said, try again. Read some books and stuff...
|1.22.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Yes, its okay in my worldview to eradicate bastard children who were conceived by rape or incest. This is different from a girl having consensual sex and accidentally getting pregnant. Then the child should be spared and either raised by the girls family or put up for abortion. Why this is so mind-boggling for you is very curious.
Eric Dondero|1.22.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Someone should dig up a copy of Ron Paul's book from the 1970s
"Abortion & Liberty" published by Mark Elam's M&M
productions in Houston. It's a real eye opener. Paul uses very
harsh anti-abortion rhetoric in the book charging that doctors who
perform abortions are essentially "murderers."
It's rather interesting that the book has fallen off the face of
the earth. You can get Paul's misspelled "Freedom under Seige" from
1988 on pdf, but not "Abortion & Liberty."
|1.22.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Wait. I think amanda is onto something here. If we take a vote and decide amanda is unwanted, can we pay someone to "abort" her?
andy|1.22.08 @ 12:56PM|#
davids: it's just inconsistent. either life is life or it
isn't.
the question that has to be asked first and foremost is "does
abortion end a life?" all other questions regarding medical privacy
or consent or whatever are straw men at best and red herrings at
worst.
if it's a life when a woman is inseminated consensually, why isn't
it when it's not consensual?
again, the issue of consent is a non-issue when compared to the
issue of life, which ostensibly gets the governments protection
first and foremost.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 12:58PM|#
our rationality. the ability of free speech, expression etc.
comes from our nature. our nature as rational, thinking beings.
without interference it is natural for a human being to use his
mind and make choices and act on those choices. this is natural
state of man. only government or criminals can take this away,
forcing man to go against his nature.
was that to randian?
a bit, yeah. i give you a b- for effort though!
problems with that:
1) if our nature is rational, why is human history fraught with
irrationality?
2) what does "without interference it is natural for a human being
to use his mind and make choices and act on those choices." have to
do with the price of tea in china?* it's also natural for me to
pee. peeing does not guarantee me innate rights. unless the
president (or some other crime lord) is a pee freak and into that
sort of thing, in which case pass the cranberry juice - i feel the
natural rights just a-flowin' through me!
*in another thread there's probably a funny joke to be made about
tea prices and no blood for oolong but this is not that thread.
|1.22.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Children of rape and incest is too difficult for me to answer.
The child created isn't going to argue for its own abortion, if it
could talk it would probably say "Mommy, don't kill me."
Even though I think it is truely one of the worst things for a
women to deal with, the child inside didn't ask to be
created.
The child still has rights.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 1:00PM|#
jj, beyond the pale would be me accusing you of murdering that
little girl down in east plano, texas, twelve years ago on a foggy,
moonless night.
beyond the pale doesn't mean "wrong" - it means "egregiously
shitty."
|1.22.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Andy, I think it is morally justifiable to kill a bastard child conceived through non-consensual sex. This makes sense to me because the girl or woman should not be forced to support or find a well being for a child that she was forcibly impregnanted with. The sooner the abortion is carried out in this case, the better.
andy|1.22.08 @ 1:02PM|#
dhex: i would say peeing gives you the innate right to pee, although any other rights that this need/desire/ability confers are limited.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 1:04PM|#
While we're on natural rights, when did libertarians reject the social contract bit of Hobbesian/Lockean natural rights theory? Or didn't they? Am I just confused?
|1.22.08 @ 1:04PM|#
"Why this is so mind-boggling for you is very
curious."
It isn't mind-boggling. It's just proof that you care about
controlling women and not life per se.
Vermont Gun Owner|1.22.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
Yes, you are correct: it is inconsistent to be pro-life but allow
abortions in cases of rape and incest (unless you aren't basing
your opposition to abortion on the fetus being a life, but what
pro-lifers don't?).
This is why I opposed abortion even in cases of incest or rape.
Don't punish someone for a crime their father committed. The only
exception that I will grant is in order to save the life of the
mother.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 1:04PM|#
yes but andy, with a catheter my so-called "natural right" to
pee is easily suspended, diverted and - in the case of certain
films in german and japan - tubed upward and downward yet again,
hoisting me on my own petard.
some fucking natural right that is, so easily diverted with 99
cents of tubing.
|1.22.08 @ 1:05PM|#
I really can't figure out how being an innocent product of rape allows you to be "murdered" as the pro-lifers like to say. Don't tell me life begins at conception except when it doesn't.
|1.22.08 @ 1:06PM|#
What if a rapist sires a child, the mother has the child and gives it up for adoption, then the father finds it and kills it. Murder?
andy|1.22.08 @ 1:07PM|#
matt:
once again. answer this question first: does abortion end a
life?
the issue isn't divided on pro-consent/pro-rape/incest lines! the
issue is surrounding whether or not a life is taken.
it might make sense to you, but it shows no sense of consistency. i
feel that if pro-lifers weren't so a la carte with their
pro-life stance (eg, pro-lifers who are also pro death penalty)
they might be taken more seriously.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 1:09PM|#
What if a rapist sires a child, the mother has the child and
gives it up for adoption, then the father finds it and kills it.
Murder?
i don't know, but it sounds like a banging game of Clue.
While we're on natural rights, when did libertarians reject the
social contract bit of Hobbesian/Lockean natural rights theory? Or
didn't they? Am I just confused?
well depends on who you talk to, it seems. you get quite a few
"ain't no such thing as a social contract" type responses from
some, and others who say "constitution, duh!" and i'm sure there's
about 30,000 more i haven't heard/remembered.
Vermont Gun Owner|1.22.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Dondero:
Paul uses very harsh anti-abortion rhetoric in the book
charging that doctors who perform abortions are essentially
"murderers."
And why is this "eye opening"? That is the consistent position,
assuming that a fetus is a life. Ron Paul is consistent is not an
eye opening fact.
andy|1.22.08 @ 1:11PM|#
dhex: where do you find these wonderful toys?! an endless cycle of peeing? urethra massages for everyone!
robc|1.22.08 @ 1:12PM|#
DavidS,
I think social contract is a mixed bag. Some libertarians accept
it, some dont. I rejected it well before I was (or at least knew I
was) a libertarian. I didnt agree to the social contract, therefore
it doesnt exist.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 1:12PM|#
It's rather interesting that the book has fallen off the
face of the earth. You can get Paul's misspelled "Freedom under
Seige" from 1988 on pdf, but not "Abortion &
Liberty."
So I find that PDF for you on another thread - some poor guy has
scanned it in by hand and then OCR-ed it.
And it's somehow a conspiracy that he hasn't done the same
for another book?
You need to take some pills, pal.
Anonymo the Anonymous|1.22.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Just a few hundred more posts and we'll settle this abortion thing once and for all! We're almost there, I can feel it!
some dude|1.22.08 @ 1:16PM|#
Gilbert Martin,
So the SCOTUS can accept an original case between an individual and
her state saying the state violated her federal constitutional
right to an abortion? I don't know. Doesn't that take a legislative
structure? What law and fact would they be ruling on? Doesn't that
require federal legislation governing the interaction between and
individual and her state by which the SCOTUS could determine if
such legislation was violated?
The fourteenth amendment messed so much up. Sloppy
constitutionalism.
At the very least, it would force the SCOTUS to re-try an abortion
case. Then what? It is exercising its original jurisdiction. Would
it be required to take all abortion cases thereafer?
Shane Brady|1.22.08 @ 1:16PM|#
If you're pro-life and believe life begins at conception, great,
don't get an abortion. I don't care.
But otherwise mind your own fucking business.
Ron Paul believes in the freedom of the state to oppress women. How
twisted.
|1.22.08 @ 1:16PM|#
"I'm neither pro choice, nor pro life; I'm pro
you-shutting-the-hell-up."
The
Regressive Party
robc|1.22.08 @ 1:17PM|#
DavidS,
but you think the natural rights exist?
Yeah, but I prefer God-given rights. But either way, yeah.
I also go along with the social contract people on many things. I
agree with them on the only legitimate purposes of government, I
just dont buy into their mythology on how government came
about.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Thanks robc. I think I am beginning to understand why I spend so much time on this site utterly confused. It comes from being part of an increasingly godless European liberal tradition, I suspect...
|1.22.08 @ 1:21PM|#
um wasn't Adolf Hitler Poe-choice? Didnt he want to kill off the
lesser races? Didnt he kill off people with cleft pallets? Didn't
he kill old feeble people? Hitlerey has the same plan.
God says "those who hate me love death" hmmm ?
Vermont Gun Owner|1.22.08 @ 1:22PM|#
"If you're pro-life and believe life begins at birth, great,
don't commit murder. I don't care.
But otherwise mind your own fucking business.
Shane Brady believes in the freedom of the state to oppress
murderers. How twisted."
NOTE: Apologies to Brady if you are a complete anarchist.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 1:29PM|#
60 odd comments before the first violation of Godwin. Pretty good going...
|1.22.08 @ 1:29PM|#
"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy"
I wasn't sure at first whether you were satirizing the pro-choice
position, but that made me laugh out loud. Well done.
-jcr
|1.22.08 @ 1:35PM|#
This is a moot point. Sure Dr. Paul may be pro-life, but he defends the states rights to choose their own laws. I happen to be pro-choice, but I am also a Paul supporter, knowing that he will not take away my right to freedom of choice.
|1.22.08 @ 1:38PM|#
um wasn't Adolf Hitler Poe-choice? Didnt he want to kill off the lesser races? Didnt he kill off people with cleft pallets? Didn't he kill old feeble people? Hitlerey has the same plan.
Hitler banned abortions for German women. He wanted them to be
soldier-making machines.
Taktix®|1.22.08 @ 1:40PM|#
Poor thing. Don't like reading? It's okay, I
understand.
Heidi,
Go fuck yourself*. Will post a more adequate response when I've
finished my work due at 2 p.m.
*This message brought to you by the Taktix® Go Fuck Yourself
Institute, 2008, all rights reserved...
Christopher (Fipher) D. Osborn|1.22.08 @ 1:45PM|#
"I heard that Ron Paul doesn't mind if black women get
abortions."
That is a most ridiculous and horrible claim. Ron Paul is no
racist! If he was racist he wouldn't be getting the kind of support
he gets, like from the Austin NAACP president Nelson Linder. Check
out this article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm
Now I don't know if I agree with Dr. Paul's position that life
starts at conception, and so I think it should be up to individual
states to decide, but otherwise I think Ron Paul is a great
man.
pedant|1.22.08 @ 1:46PM|#
beyond the pale doesn't mean "wrong" - it means "egregiously
shitty."
No, it means the area of Ireland outside the control of the King of
England. You see, after the Norman Conquest...ah, fuck it.
|1.22.08 @ 1:47PM|#
I just jerked off, Oh my! A thousand murders?
Apparently some on this thread think so.
~~~
Really though, is government mandated pregnancy something folks can
really support?
If I'm understanding what some folks think, I really have to
support embryo worship or some sky fairy is gonna send me to
hell?
On the assumption that that is where Hunter Thompson and Mark Twain
are, where else would I want to be anyway?
|1.22.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Lunch today: soup and sandwich, of course.
I had some Aztec Trail Mix earlier though to tide me over. I get
pretty hungry in the morning.
|1.22.08 @ 1:49PM|#
Eric, why don't you just refrain from commenting on Ron Paul articles? You are obviously nothing more than a jealous hater.
Tom Walls|1.22.08 @ 1:50PM|#
An Amanda I knew once told me Darwin was wrong because he was an old white guy, not because his basic theory was contradicted by the fossil record or anything.
|1.22.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Vermont Gun Owner This is why I opposed abortion even in
cases of incest or rape. Don't
Vermont Gun Owner, In your morality, when does a
zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus become a "person", with rights that
require state protection?
Alice Bowie|1.22.08 @ 1:54PM|#
It's a good thing that Coat hangers r made of plastic now-a-days...ahh???
|1.22.08 @ 1:56PM|#
sage,
Beef vegetable for me with oyster crackers. Why are they called
oyster crackers?
|1.22.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Does Eric Dondero still beat his wife?
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/06/01/has-eric-dondero-rittberg-stopped-beating-his-wife/
|1.22.08 @ 1:57PM|#
Life begins when the woman becomes pregnant. You're not destroying life when you masturbate..thats an awfully inaccurate and hysterical paraphrase of the pro-life philosophy. Pro-Lifers like myself just want legitimate (i.e. non-rape, incest) children protected. Im not saying that incestuous children are not ''life''- but I believe it is much less morally reprehensible to dispose of a child of incest or rape than one resulting from accidental pregnancy. I believe women and men should suffer the consequences of their bad decisions and reasonable exceptions can be made for a girl or couple too young to get a job to pay for food and clothing for the child. That is all
Tacos mmm...|1.22.08 @ 1:59PM|#
um wasn't Adolf Hitler Poe-choice? Didnt he want to kill off the lesser races? Didnt he kill off people with cleft pallets? Didn't he kill old feeble people? Hitlerey has the same plan.
Amazing it took this long. This is a particularly shitty
discussion, even for an abortion thread.
|1.22.08 @ 2:00PM|#
I dunno, de stijl. They're good though. I should get some of those to go with chili. Man I'm hungry.
|1.22.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Matt,
It's true that I'm just playing rude Monyt Python games in this
name, but life begins at conception?
The only way I can understand that from a scientific way would be
to include sperm in you definition of the beginning of life.
Now, if you are using a purely religious definition of "human
life", I could understand, you are saying (I'm guessing) that a
"soul" is present at that moment.
But how can you get there from science, and doesn't your definition
also say frozen embryo's from Infertility treatments should also be
protected?
Hence,
Every Sperm is Sacred!
Tacos mmm...|1.22.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Matt,
Your perspective is a common one, but your positions are basically
aribtrary and I see no justification for enforcing them on others.
It's also more than a little judgemental and condescending.
|1.22.08 @ 2:05PM|#
And for me, I need really compelling arguments against abortion
before I can support such a MASSIVE government intrusion as
governmandated pregnancies.
Also, just a small note, most pro-life organizations are also
against open availability of birth control, suggesting that the
intervention in the female reproductive cycle that most groups (not
all) are looking for is more than the protection, but OVERT GOV
control of a womans reproductive organs.
I might think differently if pro-life groups were also
pro-contraception (as my pro-life conservative aunt was)
|1.22.08 @ 2:08PM|#
I just jerked off, Oh my! A thousand murders?
If your sperm count is that pathetically low, then you won't have
any trouble in the accidental-pregnancy department.
Hell, I regularly spray the ceiling with millions of the little
critters.
Alice Bowie|1.22.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Hey Matt
Will u b willing u pay the welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing,
daycare, for anyone who DOESN'T want to have an abortion.
U will never b pregnant...AND R COMPLETELY UN-QUALIFIED TO STATE an
Opinion on THIS.
|1.22.08 @ 2:12PM|#
"The pro life people could care less about life, they just want
to control womens bodies. It ia all part of an organized,
multicentury long hierarchical patriarchy. "
is this feministing.com or reason.com?
spare me the women's studies 101 rhetoric.
and i'm pro-choice btw. you're still full of it.
Fish Tacos|1.22.08 @ 2:12PM|#
I don't care about abortion -- either way. Abortion, like gay marriage, is just another pointless wedge issue.
Alice Bowie|1.22.08 @ 2:12PM|#
1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion in U.S.
If u wanna bring back the coat hanger, the safe cracker,
and the alley way butcher...out-law abortion at the
federal level !!!
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Alice - Ron Paul doesn't want to outlaw abortion at the federal level, he wants it outlawed at the state level. That's a big difference. Or something.
|1.22.08 @ 2:14PM|#
Life begins when the woman becomes pregnant.
Matt (and Vermont Gun Owner if yoiu're still here) -
From here -
12 days or so after conception: The blastocyst has started to
produce hormones which can be detected in the woman's urine.
This is is the event that all (or almost) all pro-choice
groups and almost all physicians (who are not conservative
Christians) define to be the start of pregnancy. If
instructions are followed exactly, a home-pregnancy test may
reliably detect pregnancy at this point, or shortly
thereafter.[my emphasis]
Going with that definition, emergency contraception (morning after
pill) would be OK. I'm just trying to get definitions down here,
lest the discussion devolve into name-calling. I may be too late
for that. ;-)
|1.22.08 @ 2:15PM|#
Get your abortion within the first trimester.
Other than that, fuck you, you're having the kid. And if you do get
an abortion after that, we'll throw your ass in the slammer.
Got it, you stupid skirts?
Jamie has spoken.
Alice Bowie|1.22.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Alice - Ron Paul doesn't want to outlaw abortion at the
federal level, he wants it outlawed at the state level. That's a
big difference. Or something.
REALLY ???
Right 2 LIFErs want ABORTION 2-END @ ALL LEVELs.
They'll settle 4 state level 2-day. 2-Morrow...wait and c.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:17PM|#
I had some Aztec Trail Mix earlier though to tide me
over.
Original Sufferin' Succotash!
No, it means the area of Ireland outside the control of the
King of England. You see, after the Norman Conquest...ah, fuck
it.
and you call yourself a pedant? man...kids these days.
i think my whole problem with natural rights (or natural law, etc)
is that they're so easily abridged. as far as social fictions go,
though, it's a top-notch idea. it seems to avoid some (but not all)
of the pitfalls associated with other social fictions (like the
social contract).
|1.22.08 @ 2:17PM|#
I don't know fish taco,
When you read The National Review and their concerns about the
brown hordes and mud peoples out re-producing european descended
folks, and certain presidential candidates saying the immigration
problems are all caused because of abortion of potential low paid
worker types (yes one really said that, do you know who?) you kinda
see that maybe, just maybe, having a whole bunch of baby making
machines running overtime just like in the good ole days, might be
central to the modern republican world view?
Maybe?
|1.22.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Jamie,
The pro-choicers now hate you. The pro-lifers do also. I'd expand
that window to about 5 months based on nervous system development.
We could likely have a rational discussion on the issue.
|1.22.08 @ 2:20PM|#
DavidS,
Wow, so if I read you right, it's just like slavery?
State's rights and all that, dontcha' ya know.
Does Ron Paul also believe that the states can pre-empt freedom of
speech and ownership of guns?
Is he consistent on that point?
|1.22.08 @ 2:21PM|#
J sub D,
Fair enough.
Once the fucking thing has a nervous system, fuck you, you're
keeping the kid.
Got it, you stupid skirts?
Jamie has re-spoken.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Ron Paul:
Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.
|1.22.08 @ 2:22PM|#
A surefire way to kill any abortion thread is to highlight the fact that pro-lifers call abortion murder, then advocate for murder when the father is related to the mother or a criminal.
|1.22.08 @ 2:23PM|#
There are those who believe life begins at conception. There are those who believe life beings at birth. Who is to say? That is Dr. Paul point. I feel one way, you feel differently so how are we to solve such a predicament? Like Dr. Paul, I feel is can only be resolved at the local level. A blanket decision by the Federal Government takes your belief and my belief away. Let us discuss the issue with our neighbors, friends and family in public forums and make the appropriate decision based on our common views. I believe for Dr. Paul it is very much a Legal issue as much as a Moral issue. Considering he could be sued for harming a fetis, or that you and I could go to jail for an accident involving the death of a fetus.
|1.22.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Interesting thing too, most christians believed it wasn't a
"baby" until the quickening (putting Jamie square on the spot of a
really conservative view).
Oddly enough, you didn't hear that much from most christians about
abortion until the pill came out. Which they also opposed. Funny
that.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Does Ron Paul also believe that the states can pre-empt
freedom of speech and ownership of guns?
No - because they're constitutionally protected rights.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:24PM|#
ok now we need a "father's rights" posting in 3...2...1....
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
(preemptive response: don't want to pay for a kid? don't ejaculate
in her!)
|1.22.08 @ 2:24PM|#
-"Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy"
-"I wasn't sure at first whether you were satirizing the pro-choice
position, but that made me laugh out loud. Well done."
scarily, there is some rumbling among some feminists that logic IS
a construct of the male way of thinking, and is thus a sexist
concept. this is simialr to the nimrods in race studies programs
who claim that emphasizing concepts such as punctuality,
discriminates against ethnicities that don't value that
either.
specifically, empiricism is critiqued
"[T]he desire to objectify and quantify," says Duran, is related to
a certain position that can be labeled as male objectification, and
it is also clearly linked historically to the overview of the
Vienna Circle, which emphasized correspondence rules, deductive
certainty, empirical tightness, and so forth"
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:25PM|#
I feel one way, you feel differently so how are we to solve
such a predicament? Like Dr. Paul, I feel is can only be resolved
at the local level. A blanket decision by the Federal Government
takes your belief and my belief away.
this really just kicks the belief taking away from the feds to the
locals.
why not do it county by county?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:26PM|#
you didn't hear that much from most christians
Catholics about abortion until the pill came out.
Which they also opposed
There, fixed that for you.
|1.22.08 @ 2:26PM|#
"Oddly enough, you didn't hear that much from most christians
about abortion until the pill came out. Which they also opposed.
Funny that."
"they?"
some did, some didn't. some jews did, some didn't. some atheists
did, some didn't. saying or implying that christians uniformly did
not support the pill is ahistorical generalization.
|1.22.08 @ 2:26PM|#
DavidS,
Thanks!
Good to know that Ron Paul believes that he can make medical
decisions for my family.
Actually, I knew that, which is why I stopped liking him as a
politician.
Can't help it, Like George Washington, I think med decisions about
someones body, belongs with the someone, and not the gov (someones
being anyone without an umbilical chord, so no matrix candidates in
pods either)
|1.22.08 @ 2:27PM|#
To MLK:
The "law of the land" is not, nor should it ever have been, written
by the courts. The law of the land is supposed to be written by
Congress and reviewed by the courts. The truth is that abortion may
be curtailed if it became an issue for lawmakers to decide, but it
would not be eliminated for the minority of procedures that are
nescessary for the health of women, or victims of rape and incest.
Instead of promoting this birth-control safety net, we should be
promoting the wisdom of choosing one of the many preventative
measures of birth control, and accepting that a true "choice"
includes adoption and being a parent. Rather than protest the
promotion of these choices as undermining abortion, look at them as
equaly valid options.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Every Sperm...
I too am a little confused by the sharp Federal/State divide in
Paul's thinking.
Presumably ending the 'war on drugs' means ending the
federal war on drugs.
State law would ensure that most of the currently illegal drugs
remain illegal.
|1.22.08 @ 2:30PM|#
I agree that it is a wedge issue, and I don't see how people can
vote strictly on this issue. Election cycles start out being about
a lot of things, but in the end it's
"He's for killing babies!"
"He's black!"
"He wants to take away a woman's right to choose!"
"He's a socialist"
"He's rich!"
Personally, I'm pro-life if it were to ever come down to a personal
decision, but I view abortions that other people have as more of
something sad than as a crime.
|1.22.08 @ 2:30PM|#
"Can't help it, Like George Washington, I think med decisions
about someones body, belongs with the someone, and not the gov
"
i do too.
and im pro-choice
but #1. a fetus is distinct from somebody else's body. it's
DEPENDANT, but it is not THEIR body. one can be pro-choice without
believing the (imo a simplifcation at best, lie at worst) idea that
abortion is merely about a woman's control over her body. it's
about a woman's control over her body AND a fetus.
#2 while i wish govt. would get out of legislating our bodies, they
certainly haven't in other areas. we can't sell our organs, go to
unlicensed doctors, take whatever drugs we want, prostitute
ourselves (except in certain jurisdictions, etc.)
i think we SHOULD have control over our bodies, but most
pro-choicers don't take the argument to consistent extremes and
support this kind of stuff.
note that many pro-choicers are even against women getting breast
implants etc. many don't think ThAT should be a choice.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:30PM|#
why not do it county by county?
You mean like zoning and building codes?
|1.22.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Over halfway to taxtix's predictions of 300 posts! Go
thread! Go thread!
That post doesn't count. Nor does TaxTix's prediction. Nor does
this one.
Subtract three.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:31PM|#
this is simialr to the nimrods in race studies programs who
claim that emphasizing concepts such as punctuality, discriminates
against ethnicities that don't value that either.
well, to be certain, some cultures don't. my best friend is
colombian, which means i'm going to have to drag him to his own
fucking wedding later this year because of what, at least if you're
an "intercultural business training specialist" is called
"polychronic time orientation" as opposed to my more rigid
"monochronic time orientation."
i.e. if the movie is at 6, i'm there at 5:45. if the movie is at 6,
he's there at 6:20. if you've done business in south america (and
elsewhere) you've encountered this.
|1.22.08 @ 2:31PM|#
Dhex:
What if the father wants to pay for the kid? I've been there, but
my choice didn't matter.
|1.22.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Okay, everybody. Why some people come down on the anti-choice
side of the abortion issue is beyond me. What part of individual
bodily autonomy do you not understand? For those who say it is not
just a matter of womens bodies and that it is complicated, esp. the
women: Fuck you and stop making choices for other people.
Ditto to the "sex has consequences" crowd. Amanda and other
feminist bloggers (yes, I read them and agree with them on some
things) have you pegged: Plain old right-wing misogynists who want
to assert control over womens bodies and choices. Sexual freedom is
a good thing.
|1.22.08 @ 2:32PM|#
whit,
Actually sorta, but at a closer look, not really.
I was raised in the Wisconsin Evangilecal Lutheran Synod, a fairly
conserative org.
Most serious pro-life orgs, church's or not, have very similar
lines between attitude towards abortion as towards birth
control.
Easily confirmed by google.
Pro-choice, usually means pro-contractption, pro-life, usually
means "abstinence" or anti-contraception (not unlike the Catholic
Church).
It's been a fairly consistent line over the past forty years.
|1.22.08 @ 2:34PM|#
The debate over abortion is a distraction. We're arguing over deck chairs and steerage is already submerged.
|1.22.08 @ 2:35PM|#
"Okay, everybody. Why some people come down on the anti-choice
side of the abortion issue is beyond me. What part of individual
bodily autonomy do you not understand? For those who say it is not
just a matter of womens bodies and that it is complicated, esp. the
women: Fuck you and stop making choices for other people."
except it's not just about a woman's body. it's about a womans body
AND the dependant fetus. personally, i am pro-choice. i think the
fetus' "rights" are generally subordinate to the woman.
but it's simply a lie to say that abortion is just about body
autonomy.
drug use, prostitution, plastic surgery, hormone therapy, etc.
ARE
abortion is not.
i'm pro-choice, but i'm not gonna spout the lie that abortion is
just a woman exerting control over her body. a fetus is a dependent
being, but it's another "entity" apart from her body, yet dependant
- whether that entity is a person, a humanbeing, a mass of cells,
etc. is tangential to that fact.
|1.22.08 @ 2:36PM|#
What part of individual bodily autonomy do you not
understand?
Yeah! Once that fetus or whatever that THING is is removed from my
body, it can do whatever the f*** it wants!
Brandybuck|1.22.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Abortion must be legal thru all nine month right up till the cord is cut.
A baby is most definitely alive, breathing and crying by the time
the umbilical cord is cut. Killing a baby after it
has been born is murder. Period.
DavidS|1.22.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Polychronic time orientation. That's great, Dhex. Next time some sperm-murdering wanker is complaining about me being late, I can sue them in some UN court for infringing my human rights.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Every, I know a lot of Christians. I know exactly none that are
against birth control. Good Gravy, even my nutcase psychotic rabid
Pro-Lifer sister who's been arrested five times is okay with
BC.
I even know Catholics who aren't against birth control. Course
those guys are California Catholics and eat red meat on Friday as
well, so maybe it don't count.
|1.22.08 @ 2:40PM|#
"I was raised in the Wisconsin Evangilecal Lutheran Synod, a
fairly conserative org.
Most serious pro-life orgs, church's or not, have very similar
lines between attitude towards abortion as towards birth
control."
i know (and knew back in the day) plenty of pro-choice and pro-life
christians. both sides.
very few pro-lifers were against birth control (the pill, rubbers,
etc.)
"Easily confirmed by google."
pr monty python...
"the difference between us and them papists is we can use little
rubber things on our john-thomases if we want to " (from memory as
best i could).
"Pro-choice, usually means pro-contractption, pro-life, usually
means "abstinence" or anti-contraception (not unlike the Catholic
Church)."
no, it doesn't.
"It's been a fairly consistent line over the past forty
years"
not really. it is true that most who are against contraception are
ALSO pro-life.
it is hardly true that the latter = the former, whether among
christian pro-lifers, or atheist pro-lifers, or jewish pro-lifers,
or whatever.
but the specific reference was to christian ones
|1.22.08 @ 2:40PM|#
whit,
That is the central contention.
No longer believing in sky-faeries as my parents did, I need
science.
And the science for me, just can't make a bundle of cells a person,
or even seperate.
Back to the traditional christian (before Buckley? BB?), I can
believe that there may be a point between conception and birth that
we are actually dealing with a two humans rather than one. But it
sure is only one by science, in the first trimester. And prolly a
chunk of the second. Now the third, that I can easily
entertain.
But, where are the pro-life orgs that are for contraception?
Without them it is hard to believe this is about little humans. If
the pro-lifers are defending human life rather than EXCLUSIVELY
attempting to extend government control, why aren't more
pro-contraception?
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:40PM|#
What if the father wants to pay for the kid? I've been
there, but my choice didn't matter.
discuss prior to unloading the troops from the bus?
hey that kind of rhymes, which seems inappropriate in this
context.
i tend to fall on the "it's her body and all you did was jizz" side
of things but i have been what some might call ULTRA FUCKING
PARANOID about those ladies who received the healing light of my
immaculate substance, as it were. (hair doesn't count)
|1.22.08 @ 2:41PM|#
Also, you know who doesn't have abortions? Illegal immigrants
that's who.
Also Also, all those fetuses who were aborted eighteen years ago
and beyond were all probably people that would have voted for Ron
Paul.Isn't that a bitch?
they just want to control womens bodies
The Cathars were a highly matriarchal society in medieval France.
The Albigensian crusade of 1209 was a mass Papal enforced
abortion.
|1.22.08 @ 2:41PM|#
"I even know Catholics who aren't against birth control. Course
those guys are California Catholics and eat red meat on Friday as
well, so maybe it don't count."
it's not the red meat you gotta worry about. it's the GREEN
MEAT
|1.22.08 @ 2:42PM|#
dhex,
I encountered the mañana attitude from South American exchange
students. My theory is that, their government is so corrupt that
one's individual industry is of no consequence. If you produce
anything someone will just steal it. If you don't produce anything,
you can still steal it.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:42PM|#
The debate over abortion is a distraction. We're arguing
over deck chairs and steerage is already submerged.
Brilliantly said. Akston.
And if steerage is submerged those immigrants down there ain't got
much of a chance neither.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:43PM|#
it's the GREEN MEAT
Soylent Green Meat?
[ducks a rotten tomato]
Come on, I'm doing my part to boost the comments to 300.
|1.22.08 @ 2:43PM|#
The Wine Commonsewerer,
You've really never met any catholics?
WOW
Talk about sheltered.
I suppose you don't remember the news stories (talked about right
here on H n R) concerning Pharmacists who were fired for refusing
to dispense the regular pills? About those same pharmacists seeking
state protection after the pharmacies they worked for fired them
for non-performance?
Sheltered?
|1.22.08 @ 2:44PM|#
"As a pro-choice person I would say that any non-viable entity
without a functioning brain of any significance is not a
life."
So I guess abortion is OK up until about age 18, right? I've known
many teenagers who have no functioning brain and certainly aren't
viable on their own...
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Speaking of idle comments designed to push the numbers,
What ever happened to all the Catholics who went to Purgatory for
eating meat on Fridays when I was a kid?
[ducks Crimethink's Fist of Death]
|1.22.08 @ 2:46PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer,
I think they were in Limbo when it got closed by the pope, I have
no idea where they are squatting now.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:49PM|#
The Cathars were a highly matriarchal society in medieval France.
The Albigensian crusade of 1209 was a mass Papal enforced
abortion.
actually, i hate to step on your dick here mk (metaphorically) or
perhaps to even ABORT your point (ha ha get it?) but the cathars
were anything but friendly towards the concept of pregnancy. why?
because they were gnostics, and gnostics hate the fucking body like
fat kids hate exercise.
they were nicer about women than catholic doctrine at the time, to
be sure.
|1.22.08 @ 2:49PM|#
"No longer believing in sky-faeries as my parents did, I need
science."
so do i
"And the science for me, just can't make a bundle of cells a
person, or even seperate."
i don't want to get all semantical, but the issue is not
necessarily personhood.
it comes down to this (for me at least). does the "right" of a
fetus to live supersede the right of a carrier to abort it. i
think, generally yes.
you don't have to believe it's a person. frankly, some have made
the argument that a newborn baby is not a person in the
self-actualized sense. i don't think that gives us the right to
kill it.
it's a balancing test.
"Back to the traditional christian (before Buckley? BB?), I can
believe that there may be a point between conception and birth that
we are actually dealing with a two humans rather than one. But it
sure is only one by science, in the first trimester. And prolly a
chunk of the second. Now the third, that I can easily
entertain."
it's hard for science OR law to draw bright lines in many cases.
but we do. see: age of consent for example.
almost (not all) everybody believes you don't have the right to
kill a newborn baby.
most believe you do have the right to abort a fetus 3 weeks after
conception.
the relative status at various interim stages is difficult, and
opinions vary.
"But, where are the pro-life orgs that are for
contraception?"
to my knowledge, few pro-life orgs ADDRESS contraception. the issue
they see is abortion.
" Without them it is hard to believe this is about little
humans."
i know WAY too many pro-lifers to think anything else.
some of the strongest, most "pro-women" and moral people i have
ever met are pro-life. they do NOT want to subjugate women. they DO
NOT want to see fetuses aborted.
i am sure there are SOME who are pro-life, who are for it at least
in part to subjugate women. just like im sure that there are some
who are against racial quotas because they are racist. doesn't
change my mind about racial quotas.
" If the pro-lifers are defending human life rather than
EXCLUSIVELY attempting to extend government control, why aren't
more pro-contraception?"
i really don't know where you get this? what %age of pro-lifers are
against contraception ?
|1.22.08 @ 2:49PM|#
The pope closed Purgatory, but it was reopened with corporate
sponsorship.
It's now called Pfizertory.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 2:49PM|#
Every, huh? You should re-read my post, I've met lots of
Catholics. Some are OK with BC. Some aren't.
As to your second point re: pharmacists, as a libertarian I do not
support government interference in a contractual agreement between
an employer and an employee. Therefore, if the boss says fill
the prescription and you don't, you're on the street.
However, I also do not support the State of California forcing
Catholic Social Services to provide birth control pills to
employees as part of it's medical insurance coverage as was praised
by many libertarians. It isn't a religious issue it is an
employment matter. The employer sets the rules, if you don't like
'em, take a hike.
some dude|1.22.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Good to know that Ron Paul believes that he can make medical
decisions for my family.
Abortion is not a "medical decision."
Medicine is the field of making sick people well. A pregnant woman
is not sick.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:51PM|#
A pregnant woman is not sick.
oh yeah smart guy?
why do they call it "morning sickness" then?
|1.22.08 @ 2:52PM|#
"But it is the purple meat that oppresses womyn!"
yes. i am going to a seminar^H^H^Hovular this weekend on that very
subject.
womyn and the patriarchal fascist capitalist heterosexist white
chauvinist corporatist purple meat hegemony that oppresses them...
a discursive study of the hermeneutics of meat
|1.22.08 @ 2:54PM|#
The Wine Commonsewer,
Ever since Papal infallacy was put forth, the popes opinion is the
lay opinion. defacto. If these "catholics" you speak of think
otherwise, then they are apostate and heretical.
Which is why there was so much talk about refusing the mass to
pro-choice politicians in the last election.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 2:55PM|#
hey spermy look up ex cathedra and do a hundred pushups.
bring your a game or stay the fuck home, broseidon.
|1.22.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Funny, I only "sleep" with feminists, 'cause they are the only
womyn who don't seem oppressed by the "purlpe" meat.
Sex is better if you practice it, and feminism definitely supports
the conceptual practice of it.
But your mileage may differ.
|1.22.08 @ 2:57PM|#
2 years in a Jesuit compound did make me punchy and prone to
extreme's.
Doesn't change what they taught me.
|1.22.08 @ 2:58PM|#
"Sex is better if you practice it, and feminism definitely
supports the conceptual practice of it."
yea, but the repressed catholic wimmyn's are often wilder under da
sheets (or in the kitchen, etc.)
just ask frank zappa.
well, he's dead, but you know what i mean.
catholic wimmyns and feminists doing their part to keep men
happy!
Minarchist|1.22.08 @ 2:59PM|#
MLK - being consistent with defending liberty puts one on what
you might consider to be "all over the map" on the issues,
like:
o being for a strong defense but against the Iraq war
o being strong on law and order but against the war on drugs
|1.22.08 @ 2:59PM|#
"2 years in a Jesuit compound did make me punchy and prone to
extreme's."
he who f*cks nuns, will later join the church - death or glory by
the clash. i always liked the social distortion version best, but i
digress
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Every,
they are apostate and heretical.
Of course they are. Technically. But they don't care. The
difference is theory v practice.
Throwing apostate and heretic modifiers at American Catholics
doesn't work much any more. Still effective in rural Latin America
but in California? Not so much. Piss 'em off enough and they start
going to EV Free Church and the Priests know it.
Oh sure, the priests talk the talk and don't miss an opportunity.
Got a whole Pro-Life sermon last time I attended a christening at a
Catholic church.
But in the end, it's Don't Ask and If Asked, Don't Tell. Cuz if you
put the priest in the corner by admitting to BC use, he has to give
you the boot. Or at least a counseling session.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Funny, I only "sleep" with feminists, 'cause they are the
only womyn who don't seem oppressed by the "purlpe"
meat.
man it's only purple if you squeeze it too much.
this thread has only 200 something posts.
i'm very disappointed in all of you.
[i'm trying to figure out some variation on a joke that goes
something like "catholic, protestant, atheist, repressed or
free-spirited, i think we can all agree that it only counts as sex
if they're crying" but frankly that's just creepy.]
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Every, BTW, my Catholic Little League coach told his priest
(after five boys) that he wasn't having any more kids unless the
church agreed to support them.
The priest didn't agree to support them but he didn't kick the
family out either.
|1.22.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Like Heinlein I only take seriously those folks who lie up to
their own creed.
A Catholic who doesn't except the fact that the Pope is the soul
source for all final pronouncements of religious laws for
catholics, is the worst kind of boot licker.
If they want to disagree with the Pope. Stop being Catholic, until
then....I'll view them like I view Clinton.
Folks who lie under oath.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Oh, and TWC is fine, it's a bitch to spell that whole thing
out.
Still doing my part for the 300. Cuz that's more fun than
working.
|1.22.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Though right and wrong may or may not be absolute (I think it
is), governments are imperfect and at best are going through a
discovery process in learning to protect our rights. Centrality of
government determination of right and wrong erodes that discovery
process. Rights to life and property are best protected by the
local state, not the federal government.
A critical and needed aspect of pro-life work, though, must be, as
Paul says, to persuade the people of the nation, to create an
emergent consensus.
|1.22.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Live up to their own creeds, Live up...
(laughing) Freudian much?
It's been a gas kids...
See ya in the funny pages.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:10PM|#
Every, I see your point, but they don't care. Times change.
Catholics eat meat on Fridays. That was unheard of back in the old
days. In fact, Fish Friday was so pervasive that every public
school I attended had fish sticks in the cafeteria every got dam
Friday.
I was half serious. What happened to all those Catholics who ate
meat on Friday now that it's perfectly ok? Did they call them up
from Hell and say: we forgive you, you may now enter the
Kindom. Sorry about the long wait.
|1.22.08 @ 3:12PM|#
If every sperm were sacred, there would be a prohibition against eating it on Friday. Are we at 300 yet?
dhex|1.22.08 @ 3:12PM|#
Like Heinlein I only take seriously those folks who lie up
to their own creed.
that's amazing.
both because it's an impressive typo and because i can't believe
anyone would take anything a fucking science fiction author wrote
seriously. that shit's not even fit for setting fetuses on
fire.
(now **this** is the route to get us over 1000 comments, beyond
invoking THE ANARCHRIST. COME UNTO ME, NERDS, AND SHARE YOUR SWEATY
WRATH!!!!)
|1.22.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Let's settle this once and for all.
"God, what is your stance on abortion?"
(crickets)
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:13PM|#
Oops, didn't mean to hit submit.
And that is my point about BC. Catholics who ate meat on Friday
never left the church. They changed it.
Just like all the fundies who were never allowed to go to the
movies. They didn't move on to churches that allowed movies, they
changed there own churches. It's not a sin for Tangerine kids to go
to the movies anymore.
|1.22.08 @ 3:14PM|#
"God, what is your stance on abortion?"
"I try not to stand on abortions. Gets all squishy between my
toes."
|1.22.08 @ 3:14PM|#
(I just can't give up and do some work)
Actually Lamar I think that exact topic came up in Boston and
Cardinal Law said something to the effect that as long as they came
from altar boys, all was fine.
|1.22.08 @ 3:15PM|#
An abortion walks into a bar and says, "funny thing happened on my way through the birth canal...."
|1.22.08 @ 3:16PM|#
R.Heinlein is the closest thing to god I know.
If it wasn't for him, I might have grown up thinking government was
good.
Alice Bowie|1.22.08 @ 3:22PM|#
We should STOP Women from carrying their OWN children in their
bodies.
We should consider just incubating the entire process.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:23PM|#
tangerine kid
Oh sorry, that was a bit of my own lingo without context.
Tangerine is my word for a Nazarene. As you will recall from Sunday
School, Jesus was a Nazarene and there is also a Protestant Sect
called the Nazarene Church. The Nazarene Church at one time forbid
movies as sinful (along with dancing, pool halls, circuses,
smoking, and drinking alcohol. Odd given that the founder of the
church smoked cigars). At one time, the Tangerines even forbade
roller skating. They were always okay with coffee though.
The modern Tangerine Church has gotten over the movie ban and they
also allow boys and girls to swim in the same pool without making
the girls wear tee shirts over their bathing suits.
More than you wanted to know regards, TWC
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:23PM|#
An abortion walks into a bar
Nah, never mind that's too sick.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:25PM|#
What's the difference between a truckload of golf balls and
truck load of aborted fetuses?
Can't unload the golf balls with a pitch fork.
|1.22.08 @ 3:25PM|#
I just couldn't let somebody be more disgusting than Lamar. Besides, I have 1,000 set-ups for the birth canal punch line.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 3:25PM|#
More than you wanted to know regards, TWC
naw that was fucking perfect, actually.
also putting t shirts over bathing suits is really dumb cause then
they get all wet and clingy.
Sean W. Malone|1.22.08 @ 3:26PM|#
I'm quite sure I have never understood why people spend so much
time back and forth on whether or not abortion is murder.
Ultimately the argument just comes down to semantics anyway doesn't
it?
A. We all agree that taking a human life is the definition of
murder... check.
B. We all seem to generally agree murder is something bad and
accept the societally/governmentally enforced tradeoff that we
won't murder anyone in exchange for not being murdered...
check.
B. We all agree that an infant child can rightly be considered a
life and thus falls under the category of bad, even worse than
other types of murder as children are so cute and innocent...
check.
The question isn't whether or not Pro-life people just want to
control women, generalities aside, I'm quite convinced that's not
really what it's about. Nor is it that Pro-choice people support
murdering babies...
So the issue as I've always seen it simply comes down to what you
define as a "human life".
Not that anyone is ever going to agree on that exactly, but why do
we have to sit here and read all of this back and forth nonsense
about various ideologies when the basic terms of discussion haven't
been agreed upon?!
Isn't that kind of a major step everyone's glossing over?
We all agree murdering humans is wrong. We all agree rape is wrong.
We all (should) agree that women (and men) should have the right
make their own decisions about their bodies.
We DON'T all agree at what point a fetus becomes a human. Since
that's kinda the first thing we need to establish, why again aren't
we discussing that?
|1.22.08 @ 3:31PM|#
A rabbi, priest and an abortion are playing golf....rabbi says "In my religion, we all agree that taking a human life is the definition of murder... check", and the priest says, "in my religion, we all agree that taking a human life is the definition of murder... check," and the abortion says, "what about self-defense, capital punishment, castle rule, suicide, negligence, and malpractice?"
|1.22.08 @ 3:31PM|#
People who actually cares what the Constitution says about freedom and liberty may take notes from Ron Paul at any point. He has held his beliefs for sometime now and does not pander to one group or another. Oh no, a sincere individual, what's next... a country changed for the better.
|1.22.08 @ 3:33PM|#
The modern Tangerine Church has gotten over the movie ban
and they also allow boys and girls to swim in the same pool without
making the girls wear tee shirts over their bathing
suits.
Semi-related: chunky kids, don't wear t-shirts when you go
swimming. Everyone knows you're chunky. You're not fooling anyone
into thinking "Hey! Why is that skinny kid wearing a t-shirt when
he's swimming?" Embrace your inner chunkster. Let the chunk flag
fly, my little flabby brothers and sisters!
|1.22.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I vote for "life begins when ya get a nervous system". If you're
multi-cellular and don't have a nervous system then you're a
sponge, and sponges don't have rights.
So, that puts "not a human" back to what, about the first 5-6 weeks
of "fertilized eggness"?
There, problem solved.
|1.22.08 @ 3:34PM|#
We DON'T all agree at what point a fetus becomes a human.
Since that's kinda the first thing we need to establish, why again
aren't we discussing that?
Because it's unknowable.
|1.22.08 @ 3:36PM|#
I think we can all agree that abortion should be illegal after the point in which a fetus is able to say "ouch mommy, that hurts."
|1.22.08 @ 3:37PM|#
de stijl -
Guilty! I was one of those chubsters who wore a t-shirt. Although,
it was more at water-parks than during actual swimming. Two
different things, I guess.
|1.22.08 @ 3:40PM|#
How about the ol' Roman idea of Paterfamilias, where the father can abort any of his children right up until the day the father dies?
|1.22.08 @ 3:41PM|#
We cannot assume life begins at birth. I personally think it begins once there is brain activity. Since this is such a complicated issue it is better decided locally.
|1.22.08 @ 3:41PM|#
Oh no, a sincere individual, what's next... a country
changed for the better.
I believe that his sincerity is what has been called into question
the past couple of weeks, so don't beg the question.
Hannibal Lector|1.22.08 @ 3:43PM|#
We all agree murdering humans is wrong.
Not all of us.
Please pass the chianti and the fava beans.
|1.22.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Embrace your inner chunkster. Let the chunk flag fly, my
little flabby brothers and sisters!
Please, no.
Perhaps your "chunk flag" would best be placed at places where
it's, you know, welcome, like, say, the comic book store.
:-D
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:45PM|#
A rabbi, priest and an abortion are playing
golf..
With an intro like you don't need no punch line.
ROTFLMAO
Jennifer|1.22.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Sincere question for those who are libertarian but would also
like to see abortion outlawed: how, exactly, do you see an
anti-abortion law being enforced without violating civil liberties
even more than they already are?
Consider: The drug war has already led to proliferation of SWAT
teams, Stasi-style informants, doctors afraid to give pain
medication to those who desperately need it, kids encouraged to rat
out their own frickin' parents. . . the civil-liberty
problem with the drug war (even ignoring the whole "it's MY body
and MY brain, so I'll fuck with it if I damn well please") is that
there are no actual victims. So instead of cops hearing from a
victim and then going out to investigate the crime, the cops have
to go looking for victims and crimes. That's why they must
depend on informants, and blood/urine testing, and racial profiling
in "certain" neighborhoods. . . and all these civil liberties
violations are to enforce a law whose presumptive rationale is
"Certain people must be protected from themselves."
So how much worse do you think things will get to enforce
a law whose presumptive rationale is "Oooh, someone has to save the
cute and helpless little babies from those who would murder
them?"
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 3:52PM|#
Sometimes the Chunk Flag is to avoid sunburns.
Which reminds me that the last time Mrs TWC took some kids to the
beach the chunky one nearly got third degree burns. Surprised his
mom didn't call social services. Or at least ban him from our
house.
|1.22.08 @ 3:57PM|#
All I'm saying is that the embrace of the "Chunk Pride"
lifestyle has led to the pandemic of muffin-related conditions,
such as muffinus topinus and splittus-topis
muffinus.
These are horrible afflictions and can cause blindness, nausea and
vomiting in a significant portion of the male population.
|1.22.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Jennifer, I think for the pro-lifers they would be satisfied if
it were simply outlawed. Then they can ignore the back alley wire
hanger abortions because it is illegal and now, rather than
convince people not to have abortions on the principle of moral
ickyness, they can simply say, "it's illegal, now it is the
police's problem." Then, when they hear on the news about someone
having an abortion they can be appalled for five minutes and then
go back to watching bad reality television.
I think that is the same with the War on Drugs. Some people who
don't like drugs and don't like other people using drugs can simply
stop worrying about trying to convince others to stop doing drugs
and being all druggy and icky in their neighborhood, now they can
just call the police and say, "Deal with these *criminals* so I
don't have to."
And so on and so forth with prostitution, baggy pants, smoking, and
(insert nanny-stater issue here).
|1.22.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Malt-o-meal actually sells a cereal called "Muffin Tops," which is totally delicious despite the fact that it has like, 4 grams of fat per serving. Some friends bought it for me as an inside joke :)
|1.22.08 @ 4:03PM|#
All I'm saying is that the embrace of the "Chunk Pride"
lifestyle has led to the pandemic of muffin-related conditions,
such as muffinus topinus and splittus-topis muffinus.
That's not Chunk Pride - that's flat-out self delusion. "These
tight jeans will make me look skinny."
Fat people know what they need to wear -
This!
|1.22.08 @ 4:05PM|#
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, the question would be whether the existence of homos in San Francisco will be enough to get cro-magnons to the polls.
|1.22.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Reinmoose! "Muffinus Topis" is SRS BIZNESS:
More on this horrendous disease hier.
WARNING: CONTAINS GRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF THE DISEASE!
That's not Chunk Pride - that's flat-out self delusion. "These
tight jeans will make me look skinny."
Look, buddy, I know the score: you're just trying to cram this
"Chunk Agenda" down the collective throat of this Christian nation!
Quit trying to subvert such august institutions like
marriage Playboy with your insidious perversions.
|1.22.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Ayn_Randian -
I know it's a serious disease, and I was the one responsible for
increasing its awareness to my friends (hence why they got me a box
of the cereal).
Even a minor case of love handles can turn into a full-blown Muffin
Top if not treated properly.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 4:16PM|#
i can't believe the second photo in that wikipedia link is a
blueberry muffin.
that's too mean, even for me.
|1.22.08 @ 4:18PM|#
The funniest thing about the Wikipedia Muffin Top page (besides its existence) is that it shows a muffin underneath the example picture and is so specific as to have as it's caption "A blueberry muffin." I'm glad we know it's blueberry. I wouldn't have been able to sleep otherwise.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 4:19PM|#
i briefly thought it was an encyclopedia dramatica page but then realized there was no animated gif of muffins flying out of goatse (or whatever they're onto these days).
|1.22.08 @ 4:24PM|#
well, you sir should know that these "Chunk Pride" FREAKS are
the primary disease vector for Muffinus Topinus.
Good thing Mike Huckadizzle will put these perverts into camps for
us.
dhex|1.22.08 @ 4:26PM|#
randian, you've clearly never tenderly chewed on the supple side
of a bbw.
it is soothing.
B|1.22.08 @ 4:29PM|#
This post is the most brillian of reason's "Comment
Bombs". The east coast starts knocking off work in an hour or
so...I think we really have a chance to make this a 4-digit comment
thread.
Don't let me down, people.
Akston|1.22.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Life begins after you get your driver's license, so abortion should be legal up to 16. Go ahead, fling some attitude at mom. Dare ya.
|1.22.08 @ 4:46PM|#
@Jennifer
Sincere question for those who are libertarian but would also
like to see abortion outlawed: how, exactly, do you see an
anti-abortion law being enforced without violating civil liberties
even more than they already are?
Not that I favor outlawing abortions, but it's silly to conflate a
law with it's enforcement strategy.
Abortion was illegal in a number of states for a good long time
without any of the nightmare strategies you list being put into
place. Basically, it amounted to "If you're caught in the act,
you're busted".
We manage to enforce laws against murder without daily visits from
the police checking under the bed for bodies, thankyouverymuch.
JayDubya|1.22.08 @ 4:57PM|#
[i]Jennifer, I think for the pro-lifers they would be satisfied
if it were simply outlawed. Then they can ignore the back alley
wire hanger abortions because it is illegal and now, rather than
convince people not to have abortions on the principle of moral
ickyness, they can simply say, "it's illegal, now it is the
police's problem." Then, when they hear on the news about someone
having an abortion they can be appalled for five minutes and then
go back to watching bad reality television.
I think that is the same with the War on Drugs. Some people who
don't like drugs and don't like other people using drugs can simply
stop worrying about trying to convince others to stop doing drugs
and being all druggy and icky in their neighborhood, now they can
just call the police and say, "Deal with these *criminals* so I
don't have to."[/i]
Well Nick, personally speaking, I don't care about drugs or
prostitution in the least - do what you want with YOUR own body.
And I don't watch reality TV.
I also have the same amount of sympathy for a back alley
abortionist patron as I do for those that hire hitmen.
Jennifer|1.22.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Not that I favor outlawing abortions, but it's silly to
conflate a law with it's enforcement strategy. Abortion was illegal
in a number of states for a good long time without any of the
nightmare strategies you list being put into place. Basically, it
amounted to "If you're caught in the act, you're busted". We manage
to enforce laws against murder without daily visits from the police
checking under the bed for bodies, thankyouverymuch.
In all sincerity: fifty or a hundred years ago I'd've maybe found
that a very persuasive argument, concerning how I should expect the
United States Government to behave. But the behavior of the
government in regard to the drug war makes me think you're being
unjustifiably optimistic.
The thing about the "murder" analogy is, cops don't even
begin to investigate a murder unless they've either found
a body or been told that someone is missing. In other words: they
wait until they have good reason to believe a crime has been
committed. But they do NOT behave thusly regarding drugs, and
there's no reason to assume they'll behave thusly regarding
abortions either. Since no woman will report her abortionist, and
no abortionist will report his client, do you really think the cops
will take a laid-back "wait and see" attitude rather than go
LOOKING for people to arrest? They don't do that for drugs, but you
think they'll do it for what they consider baby-murder?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 5:12PM|#
such as muffinus topinus and splittus-topis
muffinus.
You mean Man Boobs and Plumber's Butt?
|1.22.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Heath Ledger died for the sins of all you
abortionists.
Weird story. I doubt he was high on anyone's dead pool list, but he
was looking a little bit heroin-y lately.
|1.22.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Re: Heath Ledger: They apparently found pills next to him. Let's called it an auto-abortion.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 5:15PM|#
More on this horrendous disease hier.
Got Dam that was funny. You'll pay for that Man.
|1.22.08 @ 5:24PM|#
@Jennifer
The thing about the "murder" analogy is, cops don't even begin
to investigate a murder unless they've either found a body or been
told that someone is missing. In other words: they wait until they
have good reason to believe a crime has been committed. But they do
NOT behave thusly regarding drugs, and there's no reason to assume
they'll behave thusly regarding abortions either. Since no woman
will report her abortionist, and no abortionist will report his
client, do you really think the cops will take a laid-back "wait
and see" attitude rather than go LOOKING for people to arrest? They
don't do that for drugs, but you think they'll do it for what they
consider baby-murder?
That's a good point, and to some extent, I'm in agreement.
But my point there was that a law, in and of itself, doesn't
necessarily create a civil liberties jeopardy. I've seen people in
here say that the drug laws are a lot more lenient now than they
were 30 years ago, and technically, that's true. But realistically,
in 1978 I could walk down Michigan Ave. smoking a joint, and a cop
wouldn't look at me twice. Nor were SWAT teams likely to come
busting into your house because you're a suspected drug dealer. I
wouldn't try the Michigan Ave. stunt now, even with more lenient
laws on the books.
The point of the preceding ramble being that I agree with your view
that outlawing abortion or anything else creates a potential for
law enforcement abuse, but that's not an automatic given.
Jennifer|1.22.08 @ 6:01PM|#
outlawing abortion or anything else creates a potential for
law enforcement abuse, but that's not an automatic
given.
In our country, with its current "us noble cops versus them vile
citizens" law-enforcement climate, it IS a given. Hell, a couple of
years ago a Virginia state delegate actually tried introducing a
law requiring any woman who suffered a miscarriage to report it to
the police within 24 hours or face criminal consequences.
Fortunately, the proposal was laughed out of the state house.
I suspect that if abortion were illegal, however, the law would've
been considered a perfectly cromulent way to make sure none o'them
vile abortion-gettin' women try to lie and claim it was a
miscarriage instead. And since we're already required to sign
registries when buying cold medicine, just in case
somebody might use that medicine to make illegal meth, I
can only begin to imagine the fun registries invented to
prevent babies from being killed. Lessee--maybe registering
feminine-hygiene-supply purchases, so the powers-that-be will know
if pregnancy made a woman skip a month?
Sounds ludicrous, I know, but no more so than having to sign
cold-medicine registries and limiting the amount of
over-the-counter people with allergies are allowed to buy. And
those last two examples of asininity were pulled from modern
reality, not my imagination.
That's why I'd still be sincerely interested in hearing how today's
anti-abortion libertarians imagine a real-world abortion ban would
be enforced in this fair country of ours.
Jennifer|1.22.08 @ 6:02PM|#
but no more so than having to sign cold-medicine registries
and limiting the amount of over-the-counter people with allergies
are allowed to buy
"limiting the amount of over-the-counter allergy
medication people with allergies are allowed to buy"
Rrrr.
Sean W. Malone|1.22.08 @ 6:27PM|#
"I vote for "life begins when ya get a nervous system". If
you're multi-cellular and don't have a nervous system then you're a
sponge, and sponges don't have rights.
So, that puts "not a human" back to what, about the first 5-6 weeks
of "fertilized eggness"?
There, problem solved."
I could certainly agree with that definition - makes it easy enough
then? If you need to get an abortion and won't be convinced to
carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption, do so within a
month or two. Beyond that, with the development of the brain &
spinal chord, the fetus is now alive and has its own rights.
Pre-spine: Mom + tissue. Post-spine: Mom + Baby Human. Issue
officially solved.
Now was that so hard?
|1.22.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Logic is a contruction of the hierarchical patriarchy, there
are other, non-linear forms of thought that are more valid. Logic
is meant to oppress womyn.
I realize that Amanda is trolling, so understand that I'm not
replying to this with the intention of convincing "her" otherwise.
I am replying to this because this shit don't wash and there's a
point to be made here.
One often hears the claim made that logic is a male invention, that
science is a white construct, and that reason is a tool of
oppression. I call these claims "identity epistemology" - the
notion that knowledge and indeed truth are of a fundamentally
different character if you're of this ethnicity or that one, of
this sex or that one, of this class or that one, and so
forth.
Now, understand that I'm not equating logic with knowledge; it's
widely understood that logic is merely a tool for parsing and that
the truth of its conclusions are dependent on its premises. I'm
also not disagreeing that there exist other non-linear,
propositional forms of knowledge-manufacture (for example, I would
argue that art and aesthetic communication is one of these and is
legitimate as such, though that topic in full is a subject for
another dsicussion). What I'm taking aim at is the idea - quite
patriarchal when you think about it - that logic is the
sole domain of men and was created by men to dominate women.
Do any of those trafficking in this notion realize how insulting it
is to women who do use logic, perhaps pride themselves on
their logical talents, or who participate in science or analytic
philosophy? It not only dismisses any logical or scientific claims
made by a woman, if carried to its conclusion it would seek to
incriminate those women as traitors. If that be the case, then
Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, Ada Lovelace,Émilie du Châtelet,
Lisa Meitner - these are all traitors and abettors of the
patriarchy. Likewise are Hannah Arendt, Emma Goldman and doubtless
many, many of the early feminists.
I understand the desire of the humanities disciplines to detach
themselves from implicitly-accepted constructs. However, this race
to the bottom for authenticity, and for identity-appropriate
approaches to fundamental disciplines is philosophically ludicrous,
scientifically unfounded, prejudicial toward women and minorities,
and serves nobody.
|1.22.08 @ 6:36PM|#
One of my friends had a law professor (self-proclaimed
"feminist") who tried to pull that "logic is an invention of the
patriarchy and anti-woman!" schtick on her.
Never, EVER try that on a woman who went to MIT. My friend flayed
her to the bones.
|1.22.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Sounds ludicrous, I know, but no more so than having to sign
cold-medicine registries and limiting the amount of
over-the-counter people with allergies are allowed to buy. And
those last two examples of asininity were pulled from modern
reality, not my imagination.
Believe me, I know all about those! But what you're describing is
essentially is the fundamental social/political/legal climate
currently operative in this country, not the inevitable effects of
an abortion ban, per se. An abortion ban should be the least of
your worries. The possible consequences you list are a symptom of a
much larger problem.
That is the problem you need to be worried about!
|1.22.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Actually, strictly speaking, "Logic" is a creation of Aristotle,
and even he realized it had significant flaws.
You really can't survive in a modern competitive society if you are
"pro" A.
"Logic" is probably not what you think it is. If Aristotlean logic
is true, than almost every piece of science we presently use is
false.
Later, it became a sort of formalized dance, but rarely used.
And of course Spock completely screwed it up.
Yes, logic is a formalized way of thinking that if you really want
to use, you have to give up your calculator (well, at least the
advanced models).
Logic as a cute period piece dance. Great.
As anything more, no so much, it was replaced by Reason during the
enlightenment phase of society.
Pastor Mark Mitchell|1.22.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Ron Paul opposes a constitutional amendment to end all abortion. That position is not a prolife position. He holds states rights over the lives of unborn children. Shameful
|1.22.08 @ 7:57PM|#
"Frankly, I feel sad that people give that old bag any credence,
whether they admire her for her pre-flip flop pro-choice stance or
her post-flop pro-life stance."
... Lamar is a cock-sucker.
If anyone can regret a personal choice, it is a woman who had an
abortion and later had to live with that decision. And only a
God-less faggot would think otherwise.
If you do practice sodomy, my calling you those names in no way
advocates any hatred toward you except that you may one day know
the heartache you spoke of with such scorn. However, if you are
straight, your gat ass name says otherwise.
|1.22.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Pastor Mark Mitchell,
You are on glue. Disgraceful for a man of the cloth! Say something
7X on the internet, but..
Ron paul's sponsored "Right To Life" legislation is a
Constitutional ban on abortion o at least it equates abortion with
murder. Then the states may decide on criminalizing it however they
see fit.
|1.22.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Roe didn't endorse pastor Mike Huckabee, because he made several thousands of dollars last year giving lectures to fetus-eaters at Novo Nordisk.
|1.22.08 @ 8:24PM|#
Ron Paul's opposition to a constitutional amendment is not contrary to protecting life. For example, Dr. Paul's support of such bills at the "Sanctity of Life Act" would help to clarify the Constitutional rights of the unborn, specifically by clarifying that life begins at conception (strangely a notion that was well accepted before 1973, when abortion was legalized). To say that Dr. Paul holds states rights over the lives of unborn children is simply ridiculous. Please read more about Ron Paul on the issue of before you decide that he's "shameful".
Pablo Escobar|1.22.08 @ 9:20PM|#
This isn't about abortion. It's about whether you support the Constitution, which provides no authority for the federal government (of which the Supreme Court is a branch) to legislate on abortion. In that respect, all Ron Paul supporters should welcome endorsements from pro-life activists who support federalism.
|1.22.08 @ 9:59PM|#
J sub D
Spoken like a condescending fuckwad of a shrink in the most
Freudian tradition. Your noted lack of interrogative punctuation
speaks volumes, sirrah.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.22.08 @ 10:13PM|#
I see you boys managed the big THREE OH OH without anymore help from yours truly.
Lady of Liberty|1.23.08 @ 12:32AM|#
Why didn't she endorse a frontrunner like Mike Huckabee?
A: Because an endorsement for Hunk-A-Spend is not about freedom or
fiscal responsibility. There has to be more than religion to draw
someone in.
She used her brain.
|1.23.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Paul is right. We never needed an issue like abortion to occupy
such a devisive and diversionary central position in national
politics. Abortion is a serious, local issue and an example of why
we have the 10th amendment. People must choose in their own
communities how the community will deal with such issues. This is
the freedom and the system that we are given in the constitution.
These issues should not be decided by some unreachable entity far
from the lives and location of people.
People mistakenly believed the American Revolution would fail. The
"shot that was heard around the world" was fired by a small group
and fought for freedom agains the most powerful empire on earth. It
is simply unamerican to be overly concerned about the odds of
winning. Too much concern for winning may lead to compromise which
is alright until you wake up oneday and all values (including
freedom) have been compromised away. Rather we should keep our eyes
and mind set on what is right. In this way we may believe and act
accordingly. I am a veteran and have always voted. I never have
believed a candidate would hold the American ideal in high regard
but then I heard Ron Paul. If you support Paul you are not alone
please help to get the message out. If you want to know more about
Dr. Ron Paul please visit:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
M|1.24.08 @ 6:43AM|#
if carried to its conclusion it would seek to incriminate those women
Those women and any who discursively link predicates to subjects.
You can't even attempt to invalidate logic without employing it.
Even if you mispyll wyrds.
Jill|1.25.08 @ 1:40AM|#
Until a fetus is capable of surviving outside of the mother, it
is not a person. Once it can survive outside of the mother, with
the reasonable care that is legally required for children in
today's world, then it has legal rights. Up until that point, it is
really just another part of the woman's body. Overturning Roe Vs.
Wade would be an injustice to any woman who wants to control her
own body, not be controlled by those who 'know best'.
And it should be pointed out that pro-choice doesn't mean
pro-abortion. It really just does mean pro-CHOICE. A woman should
have the ability to choose, and if abortion is the option that best
fits her needs, then that is her right. I know several women who
support the right to choose without ever contemplating the idea of
abortion themselves (one of them had her first unexpected child
last year, in fact).
Oh, and when you degenerate to slinging curse words back and forth,
it completely invalidates whatever you had to say to begin with. If
that is the only thing you can think of to respond with, you
obviously have too little imagination/mental capacity to come up
with a valid argument in the first place. Come on, clean it up
people.
|1.28.08 @ 8:47PM|#
i dont believe in the right to have abortions. The matter of it says that woman take advantage of it and use it to the full extent that if they do something stupid then they always have a backup method. Instead of making a realistic choice and giving it up to someone who may love it and cherish it you kill it. Go down to georgia and visit an abortion clinic. They kill babies who have heartbeats, and fingers, and toes. There not sponges, or a cluster of cells. There real babies. That in itself is murder not only to that baby but too your soul. How you can live with yourself taking a pill and a few hours later feeling that babies heart beat start to slow and then stop. While it moves inside you. You know what i was 18 when i had my first child and it never hurt anyone for me to have him. he's the best thing in my life. Dont get me wrong i do think there are situations that abortion would be the best for the fetus and the mother, but the way people view it, it's just an escape route from the inevitable truth.
Carol Shaffron|2.5.08 @ 3:44AM|#
Proponents of abortion claim that simply because you don't see
the baby in the womb he or she is not a real person. Who can see
their brains in their heads? Maybe they don't have one? Maybe their
brains are dead nothings?
When I was stupid I murdered my baby in my womb. Not only did it
royally screw up my hormones and emotional stability, but it also
exacerbated the depression I already suffered from. And just
recently the Spirit of God reached down in the depths of my souls
and gave my murdered child a voice screaming, "NO! NO!! NO! over
and over and over and over and over for I don't know how long.
Don't tell me life doesn't begin at conception.
The murdering of innocent babies who have no voice to speak for
themselves is going to be stopped if God has to send fire from
heaven on abortion clinics. Like when Cain killed his brother Abel
his blood cried out from the ground these babies' blood is
screaming from our ground. Abortion proponents have brought a curse
on America-denying our country the gifts God has sent us. My
daughter, Rebekah that I murdered when I was stupid is a dancer who
would have brought immense enjoyment to the world. I've seen her
dancing in heaven. And if you don't have eyes to see in the spirit,
you don't need to mock those of us who do. But then, go ahead
because you're only cursing your own self.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245