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
'Pornography Advocate at DOJ': One of the Bright Spots in the Obama Administration
This column by Janet M. LaRue, general counsel at Concerned Women for America, aims to alarm us about David Ogden, President Obama's choice for deputy attorney general. Instead it makes Ogden sound like a vigorous defender of the First Amendment and one of Obama's best nominees. Here are the particulars of LaRue's indictment:
Opposed the Children's Internet Protection Act, which required federally-funded libraries to utilize Internet filters.
Challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 and the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990. Ogden argued that requiring porn producers to personally verify that their models were over age 18 would "burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce First Amendment-protected material."
1988: a challenge to Puerto Rico's decision to ban obscene content from cable
1986: sought an order forcing the Library of Congress to use taxpayer funds to print Playboy Magazine's articles in Braille against the express wishes of Congress
1990: sought an injunction against the inclusion of Playboy in a list of adult magazines that would potentially be included in the Meese Commission report
PHE, Inc. & Adam & Eve (1990): represented one of the biggest producers of hard-core videos against a multidistrict prosecution strategy by the DOJ.
Amicus (friend-of-the court) briefs in support of obscenity and child porn cases:
Fort Wayne Books Inc. v. Indiana (1989) (on behalf of PHE against charging federal RICO laws in a state obscenity case).Virginia v. American Booksellers Association (1988) (on behalf of Freedom to Read Foundation against a "Harmful to Minors" law)
Pope v. Illinois (1987): (on behalf of the ACLU and PHE Inc. in an obscenity case).
Knox v. U.S. (1993) videos titled, "Little Girl Bottoms (Underside)" and "Little Blondes": Ogden argued that the videos weren't child porn unless "the genitals or pubic area exhibited" were "somewhat visible or discernible through the child's clothing."
These all seem to me like marks in Ogden's favor, even that last case. I assume he was arguing for an objective definition of child pornography, as opposed to one that can transform harmless, unobjectionable images into proscribable material based on the thoughts of the people viewing them.
At his confirmation hearing last week, Ogden distinguished between his role as an advocate for clients such as Playboy and his role as a Justice Department official, saying he would not hesitate to enforce laws that have been upheld by the courts even if he had challenged their constitutionality as a lawyer. He acknowledged the legitimacy of laws aimed at pornography involving minors and apologized for mocking social conservatives in a memo he wrote as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun. But he did not repudiate his opposition to policies that impinge on the First Amendment rights of adults in the name of protecting children.
Last fall I considered the pornography record of Ogden's new boss, Eric Holder. In the February issue of Reason, I drew parallels between obscenity and drug paraphernalia prosecutions and predicted that neither would be a big priority in the Obama administration.
|2.13.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Ogden "apologized for mocking social conservatives"?
Well, he is not yet perfect anyway.
Seer|2.13.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Why on Earth would there be a back lash against braille Playboy? I mean, those productions would clearly be used for reading the articles.
|2.13.09 @ 2:47PM|#
PHE, Inc. & Adam & Eve (1990): represented one of
the biggest producers of hard-core videos against a multidistrict
prosecution strategy by the DOJ.
This is actually a great story featuring and told by a genuine
libertarian hero
The Government Vs. Erotica:
Kolohe|2.13.09 @ 3:07PM|#
After the liberalitarian posts yesterday, I was trying to remember what Limbaugh had said in his one minute segment earlier that morning that pissed me off. This post reminded me. He was spouting off on how Obama was appointing a 'pornography advocate' to justice. It was among several other obviously 'red meat' characterizations of various appointments, but I was thinking for most of them, 'that's a point in their favor'.
|2.13.09 @ 3:12PM|#
Obama appears to have this one right. There are far more
important things to do than chase after porn producers selling
entertainment to willing aduklt buyers.
Some of the Bush DOJ neanderthals would criminalize some of my
H&R comments if they could have.
Just giving credit where it's due.
|2.13.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Don't you people get it? By hiring this guy at Justice, they
remove one of the best people defending pornographers, clearing the
way for mo' betta' anti-porn lawsuits.
/ODS.
OK, seriously, this moved Obama on porn into the wait and see
column.
|2.13.09 @ 3:15PM|#
Wow. Some of the people commenting on that LaRue woman's article
seriously need to get laid.
Puritanism is far less of a problem in the USA than socialism these
days, but it's still a problem.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 3:33PM|#
Puritanism is far less of a problem in the USA than
socialism these days
But in your simplistic view of the world, the Peanut Corp's
president is a capitalist while the FDA regulations and legal team
that will punish him are "socialist".
Don't mean to single you out - many conservatives suffer from this
delusion.
Zeb|2.13.09 @ 3:38PM|#
Wow, yeah the comments are pretty amazing. Apparently, we are losing our freedom by being allowed to look at pornography, and pornography makes suburban neighborhoods dangerous.
Charles|2.13.09 @ 3:43PM|#
You really need to check out Radley's blog to see how nutty some
of Ogden's Republican opponents are.
theagitator.com/2009/02/10/the-illinois-rlc-gets-fightin-mad
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/10/radley-balko-exposed
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/10/more-laughs-from-the-illinois-rlc/#comments
cls|2.13.09 @ 4:01PM|#
What is really shocking is not that the lunatic Right is having
hysterics about this matter but that the Republican Liberty Caucus,
on one of their blogs, is sounding as batty as Phyllis Shitfly.
They were the ones who false smeared Radley (hmmm, maybe he'll
understand how Mary Ruwart feels now). They claimed he forged his
credentials by claiming he wrote for Fox News.
To prove he didn't write for Fox News they searched for his name at
Forbes.com. That is totally daft. But if you read what this
allegedly "libertarian" group was saying you'd know they are just
social conservatives. What gets me about "social conservatives" is
that are so unsocial.
|2.13.09 @ 4:03PM|#
What gets me about "social conservatives" is that are so
unsocial.
Hehehehe - tell that to Larry Craig.
Elitist SmutSnob|2.13.09 @ 4:12PM|#
It's obvious to me that I appreciate Little Girl Bottoms at a much deeper level than the rest of you...
|2.13.09 @ 4:20PM|#
shrike,
Puritanism and socialism are equally bad. They require force to
make everyone comply.
I don't think most libertarians would argue that a law against
mass-producing diseased food is all that egregious, but the fact
they failed to prevent it goes to show the FDA's
inefficiencies.
As for the punishment, most of us would probably accept a legal
team going after the offending company and the person who made the
decision to sell the bad peanut butter knowing it was tainted,
although the anarcho-capitalist would want it settled either
through agreed-upon arbitration, punitive lawsuits, and the court
of public opinion.
|2.13.09 @ 4:34PM|#
"Puritanism and socialism are equally bad. They require force to
make everyone comply."
So telling perverts that they can't jack-off to pictures of
under-aged girls in public libraries is just as bad as murdering
tens of millions of people in Communist death camps. It's that kind
of thinking that will forever more consign Libertarians to the
lunatic fringe of politics.
¢|2.13.09 @ 4:35PM|#
Socialism is a subset of puritanism in which the puritan's
sexual repression is turned against economic behaviors that are
analogously licentious.
Sometimes.
|2.13.09 @ 4:48PM|#
"Socialism is a subset of puritanism in which the puritan's
sexual repression is turned against economic behaviors that are
analogously licentious."
Oh, Brother! Talk about your twisted logic.
|2.13.09 @ 4:49PM|#
But in your simplistic view of the world
Go fuck yourself, sunshine. Now that we have exchanged the
formalities...
the Peanut Corp's president is a capitalist while the FDA
regulations and legal team that will punish him are
"socialist".
See, the problem with trying to put words in other people's mouths
is that you will frequently make an ass of yourself. I said nothing
of the kind, and I do in fact support punishing anyone who injures
others by selling them a defective product.
That's what the law is for; to punish those who do wrong. Socialism
is the practice of punishing those who haven't done wrong, simply
because they've obtained more wealth than the next guy.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 4:50PM|#
anon,
There are degrees of socialism and puritanism. At their most
extreme, both have been motives for mass murder.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 5:15PM|#
The lead-in to Tom Lehrer's SMUT.
I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately.
|2.13.09 @ 5:15PM|#
See, the problem with trying to put words in other people's
mouths is that you will frequently make an ass of yourself. I said
nothing of the kind, and I do in fact support punishing anyone who
injures others by selling them a defective product.
You make an exception for cases when the injured party is an
informed consenting adult who knowingly assumed the risk right? For
example, with smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol.
|2.13.09 @ 5:26PM|#
So telling perverts that they can't jack-off to pictures of
under-aged girls in public libraries is just as bad as murdering
tens of millions of people in Communist death camps. It's that kind
of thinking that will forever more consign Libertarians to the
lunatic fringe of politics.
John C. Randolph made one of my main points in his 4:50 comment.
(For example, some would argue that countries like Sweden or
Venezuela are "socialist", but those countries certainly aren't on
the same plain as the USSR under Stalin.)
I would also note that the right to view an image in a
public library doesn't necessarily imply a right to jerk off
while out in the open in such a library. And I think it might
be useful here to reiterate that the only "pictures of under-aged
girls" discussed in this post were clothed,
non-pornographic pictures.
|2.13.09 @ 5:26PM|#
JCR -
Its assholes like yourself that make political terms
meaningless.
I am a Jefferson/Ayn Rand classic "liberal" who voted for Obama -
yet you call us "socialists".
As long as you do - you will get a fucking strong kick in your
little Bush Fascist simple mind.
(Yes, I resorted to the simplistic labeling I accused JCR of).
cunnivore|2.13.09 @ 5:29PM|#
Just as long as they don't censor my girl, Eva Angelina . .
.
Can't agree with you there...I'm all for banning fake boobs.
That, and jail time for producers who include girls who've been in
the industry for five years in "teen" videos.
|2.13.09 @ 5:37PM|#
I don't think most libertarians would argue that a law
against mass-producing diseased food is all that egregious, but the
fact they failed to prevent it goes to show the FDA's
inefficiencies.
Or the fact that they failed to prevent it proves that the
regulators are too fucking cozy with those who they are regulating
and that the regulators seem to put the priorities and health of
the companies they are regulating above the health of the general
public?
Maybe the problem is that when free marketeers who don't believe in
regulations fill the ranks of regulators with like-minded
anti-regulation people the system is going to fail since those
tasked with running the system are sabotaging it every chance they
get?
Maybe there should be personal liability for the regulators who
fail to enforce regulations ?
and I do in fact support punishing anyone who injures others by
selling them a defective product.
Wow really? You support holding people accountable when their
actions cause harm to others? That's so controversial!!@ What a
crap-tastic answer.
The real question that should be addressed is why don't most
libertarians support a system that tries to prevent (or minimize
the odds) or limit the ability of people from selling tainted or
defective products in the first place?
For this example, the standard libertarian position would be that
the company in question (PCA) has an incentive to not make people
sick and not go venue shopping looking for a testing facility that
will produced the desired results rather than the actual results.
Yet that is exactly what this company did.
It seems rather illogical but here we are. Can some libertarian
explain to me why PCA acted in the manner they did and knowing
exposed their company and their customers to these risks?
So maybe the standard libertarian position is wrong-headed and a
bit naive?? Maybe people do need regulations and rules to force
them to be good actors and we need some body to make sure actors
are compliant with the rules??
|2.13.09 @ 5:50PM|#
Great stuff, Chicago Tom.
The Libertarian Movement is strangling in its own vomit rather than
eating its own fruit.
Kant feel Pietzsche|2.13.09 @ 6:14PM|#
I love Concerned Women for America. Their deeply furrowed brows will hold a full bukake load without dripping.
Kolohe|2.13.09 @ 6:28PM|#
Can some libertarian explain to me why PCA acted in the
manner they did and knowing exposed their company and their
customers to these risks?
Why do people drink and drive?
Why do people rob banks?
Why do people kill their kids or their spouse?
Peanut dude's evil. And didn't think he would get caught.
(also, I'm not that read up with the case so I unfamiliar with
their venue shopping. All I know is that they got positive results
for the salmonella or whatever and ignored it. Like I said, simple
evil. Ain't no amount of law or regulation you can do to stop evil
and still maintain a free society)
|2.13.09 @ 7:04PM|#
I am a Jefferson/Ayn Rand classic "liberal" who voted for
Obama - yet you call us "socialists".
Did you hear about the $800 billion pork bill? It made all the
papers. I call Obama a socialist because he is, and I call you a
socialist because you voted for him. You must have heard his clever
little remark about wanting to "spread the wealth" before you did
so.
your little Bush Fascist simple mind.
Rather simple minded of you to presume that if I oppose your brand
of collectivism, that I must be a supporter of the other.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 7:07PM|#
I'm all for banning fake boobs.
I'm not for banning them, even though I find them repulsive. It's
rather like my take on recreational drugs: not for me, but I
wouldn't presume to override anyone else's choice on the
matter.
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 7:12PM|#
Wow really? You support holding people accountable when
their actions cause harm to others?
Shrike implied that I didn't; I disabused him of his baseless
claim. Got a problem with that?
-jcr
|2.13.09 @ 7:14PM|#
why don't most libertarians support a system that tries to
prevent (or minimize the odds) or limit the ability of people from
selling tainted or defective products in the first
place?
Who says we don't?
UL is a great example of how to do exactly that. Compare it to a
government agency which is likely to get more funding if they fuck
up and get people killed.
-jcr
Mad Max|2.13.09 @ 7:26PM|#
'Challenged the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act
of 1988 and the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties
Enhancement Act of 1990. Ogden argued that requiring porn producers
to personally verify that their models were over age 18 would
"burden too heavily and infringe too deeply on the right to produce
First Amendment-protected material."'
It would be terribly burdensome for pornographers to have to
certify that no children were used in their work. It's like
the intolerable burdens incurred by filmmakers in getting
certification that no animals were harmed during the making of
their film.
To be sure, the Humane Society certification is not a legal
requirement, although the film industry is subject to
animal-cruelty laws. It's not unduly burdensome for them to comply
with voluntary certification with the Humane Society, but it's too
burdensome to certify that they're not exploiting children.
SIV|2.13.09 @ 7:52PM|#
Mad Max,
American Humane Association is not the Humane
Society.
Dedicated to protecting both children and animals, American
Humane is not affiliated with the Humane Society of the United
States, an organization that promotes the protection of animals.
Nor is American Humane a parent organization of local "humane
societies" and SPCAs, which are locally based, independent agencies
that operate animal shelters and provide animal care and control
services to their communities.
I don't think they support cockfighting but they aren't an "animal
rights" organization.
|2.13.09 @ 8:39PM|#
apologized for mocking social conservatives
Well, there goes my endorsement. That just isn't something you
should ever apologize for.
Orange Line Destroyer|2.13.09 @ 9:58PM|#
Shrike:
Does your cesspool have a bottom? The problem with the Left is they
have no right or wrong. Anything goes, and when it all goes bad
they call for more government control and trampling on individual
rights.
I cannot wait for Obama to nominate other perverts to his
government. Its pretty clear from his associations with Wright,
Ayers, Sorros, that his moral compass is more or less the same as
yours.
Obama and his bots deonstrate the unfortunate confluence of
ignorance and arrogance. And we wonder how Rome fell.
cuernimus|2.13.09 @ 10:44PM|#
It's not unduly burdensome for them to comply with voluntary certification with the Humane Society, but it's too burdensome to certify that they're not exploiting children.
Proving the actual age of a 16 year-old who says she's 18 is
significantly more difficult than preventing three Yorkshire
terriers from being killed by a Doberman Pinscher, a car, and a
falling safe, particularly on a pornographer's budget. If the
amount of planning that went into a porno had to consist of more
than just making up a terrible pun based on a movie's title, the
porn industry would cease to exist outside of drunk people and
their home videos.
Pablo Escobar|2.13.09 @ 11:29PM|#
Juis:
But remember you have my endorsement and the Cali cartel too. I
wouldn't worry about your loss of endorsements.
You'll always have Barney Frank to go home to.
Naga Sadow|2.14.09 @ 2:40AM|#
Cunnivore, you fool! You'll wreck the entire porn industry plunging us all into a Dark Age from which we as society may never recover! Anarchy will reign! Chaos will be it's currency!
Pablo Escobar|2.14.09 @ 3:15AM|#
JCR:
You don't understand the people here. They celebrate drugs, they
celebrate people who exploit others in perverse ways. This is
described as freedom.
Maybe the mullahs are right about the nature of American society
when such perversity can be embraced and celebrated by this sector
of society. The next step for such a society is bondage and
slavery.
Ed|2.14.09 @ 3:41AM|#
Ah, so this is what my dad was talking about the other day
during one of his semi-coherent anti-Obama rants ("his attorney
general is a porn star!!").
I wish I could blame it on senility, but he's otherwise pretty
intelligent.
Mad Max|2.14.09 @ 9:03AM|#
'Proving the actual age of a 16 year-old who says she's 18 is
significantly more difficult than preventing three Yorkshire
terriers from being killed by a Doberman Pinscher, a car, and a
falling safe, particularly on a pornographer's budget.'
I'm not so sure about that, but in any case, I suspect that the
adult film industry has more to fear from the competition of the
Internet and computer graphics than it does from compulsory
certifications.
cunnivore|2.14.09 @ 9:58AM|#
Maybe the mullahs are right about the nature of American
society when such perversity can be embraced and celebrated by this
sector of society.
I'm not terribly concerned about the moral opinions of ignorant old
men who convince eight year olds to blow themselves up (and take a
bunch of other innocent people with them) and encourage the rape of
young girls who violate Sharia law.
Everyone everywhere of every religion and race is a horny MFer.
While there are undoubtedly a few religious people who actually
practice what they preach, it's a good rule of thumb to assume the
more vocal someone is about sexual morality, the more rotten to the
core their own sexual behavior is.
Mad Max|2.14.09 @ 11:14AM|#
'it's a good rule of thumb to assume the more vocal someone is
about sexual morality, the more rotten to the core their own sexual
behavior is.'
Let us tease out the logical implications here.
The more vocal someone is about freedom, the more he demonstrates
that he is actually a secret Socialist who supports burdensome
regulations, taxing and spending, and government control over the
banking sector.
The more vocal someone is in praising free love, 'honest and open
adult relationships,' 'safer sex' and condom use, the more likely
he is to be guilt-ridden and neurotic in his sexual relationships
and to resent using a condom.
To be sure, there are professed sexual puritans who are actually
adulterers, perverts or sadists, just as there are professed
'limited government' supporters who want a meddling federal
government which locks up dope smokers and regulates the economy
into the ground, and just as there are those who preach the beauty
and honesty of 'honest and nonexclusive sexual relationships' while
their own romantic relationships are sordid, dishonest, and tangled
in all sorts of jealousy.
But in the case of the socialist who professes libertarianism, and
the person with a sordid and squalid sex life who professes
dedication to sexual liberation, you would not claim that liberty
itself is bad because statist politicians hypocritically praise it,
or that free love is bad because bad people insincerely praise
it.
cunnivore|2.14.09 @ 12:41PM|#
I don't think chastity is bad, Max. If it works for you, go for
it. My point is that the vast majority of people trying to foist it
on other people are either hypocritical or redirecting their
pent-up sexual energy towards even more perverse ends.
And to be honest, I feel much the same way as you do about "free
love" devotees. I have no illusions about sex being a beautiful
thing. If aliens landed and watched people having sex they would
probably puke. I feel about it the same way I feel about
defecation: necessary for well-being, but not something to shout
from the rooftops about.
Mad Max|2.14.09 @ 12:53PM|#
cunnivore,
I was responding to the idea that anyone who says sexual morality
is a good thing - not only for particular individuals ("works for
you") but for the community - has sexual behavior which is 'rotten
to the core.' I don't think this is any more true than the examples
I gave. It suggests that sexual morality is a bad thing advocated
by bad people. The same 'reasoning' could be used (*has* been used)
to 'refute' libertarianism - 'look at all those Republicans who
talk about the importance of economic freedom! They actually
support big government. This shows that economic freedom is wrong!'
The suggestion is that libertarianism is false, and that *everyone*
who advocates it has some sinister hidden agenda (or maybe trying
to unnaturally suppress their true Socialist nature).
Hypocrisy has been described (by a Frenchman, I think) as 'the
tribute that vice pays to virtue.' Just as some Republicans have
sought to mask their hard-on for statism by pretending to be
libertarians, so have some adulterers and pervs sought to mask
their behavior by claiming to be supporters of sexual morality.
This at least shows that they're paying 'tribute to virtue,' if
only for the strategic purpose of being better able to promote
vice.
Iamcuriousblue|2.14.09 @ 3:50PM|#
Trackback the handmade way:
Pro-Porn Activism: Obama's "Pro-Porn" DOJ Nominee
Mad Max|2.14.09 @ 4:31PM|#
As noted in this memo
from the organization Fidelis, Ogden has served as counsel in
various abortion cases in the U.S. Supreme Court - often in amicus
briefs, on behalf of a variety of clients, and always on the
pro-abortion side. This is not the case of lawyer who was assigned
a client who *happened* to have an interest in promoting abortion -
this is a lawyer who seems to have put himself forward in
representing the abortion interests. I doubt that he got paid as
much by these pro-abortion clients as he could have been paid from
normal business clients, so the presumption arises that he did this
for the sake of ideology, not for the sake of money. It had been
better if he was just in it for the cash, but this is worse than
defending abortion for money - this is defending abortion from
*conviction.*
In an amicus brief submitted for the American Psychological
Association in the *Casey* case (which upheld *Roe*), Ogden
explained (among other things) why it was unconstitutional to
require that, before getting an abortion, a woman be told about the
availability of government assistance and child-support orders if
she wanted to keep the baby, Ogden said that such information 'may
be irrelevant to a woman for whom an abortion is required as a
life-preserving measure or for genetic reasons.'
Genetic reasons? I thought that progressive types had repented in
sackcloth and ashes for their role in the eugenics movement (or
blamed eugenics on other people, which comes to the same thing for
them). Now it seems that Ogden, at least, is trying to bring
eugenics back, like Freddy in all the movie sequels.
Iamcuriousblue|2.14.09 @ 8:43PM|#
Eugenics is the organized and systemic promotion or elimination of particular genotypes from the human population. An individual aborting a fetus as a result of not wanting to pass along a genetic disease is hardly the same thing as mass eugenics. Once again, anti-abortionists are really reaching.
Mad Max|2.14.09 @ 10:30PM|#
'Eugenics is the organized and systemic promotion or elimination
of particular genotypes from the human population.'
So, if the vast majority of unborn babies diagnosed with, say, Down
Syndrome (a genetic condition) were aborted, that would be
eugenics, eh?
Here
you go.
You may support the eugenic abortion of disabled children, just
don't tell this mother what
you're up to - she might get upset.
Mad Max|2.14.09 @ 10:32PM|#
Iamcuriousblue,
If folks like me are 'antiabortionists,' then what word describes
members of your faction?
cunnivore|2.14.09 @ 11:56PM|#
Max, by your standard, if there were a treatment available to
cure Down's Syndrome, you would consider performing that to be
"eugenics" and thus anathema.
I can understand your position that unborns have the right to life.
Stick with that, rather than trying to drag in every inflammatory
buzzword that looks like it half-fits.
cunnivore|2.14.09 @ 11:58PM|#
Or to put it this way: do you consider it a greater sin/crime to abort a Down's syndrome fetus than to abort a healthy fetus? If not, your cries of "eugenics!" are just red herrings.
zoltan|2.15.09 @ 1:01AM|#
Can't agree with you there...I'm all for banning fake
boobs.
I can't decide if they are attractive or not.
Or to put it this way: do you consider it a greater sin/crime
to abort a Down's syndrome fetus than to abort a healthy
fetus?
Cunnivore, you do know who you're talking to right? This is Mad
Max, any fertilized (or implanted?) egg is a life to him,
regardless of health. Know thy opponent!
|2.15.09 @ 2:06AM|#
And to be honest, I feel much the same way as you do about
"free love" devotees. I have no illusions about sex being a
beautiful thing. If aliens landed and watched people having sex
they would probably puke.
I gotta disagree with you here. And who cares what some aliens
think? (I'm assuming you mean space aliens.)
Naga Sadow|2.15.09 @ 5:27AM|#
BG,
You must be new to Earth. Apparently, aliens are into anal.
Anything else to them seems superfluous.
Mad Max|2.15.09 @ 9:03AM|#
cunnivore,
Perhaps you missed my point. The point of my comment is that
Ogden's legal brief brought in eugenic rationales for abortion. He
was not advocating for genetic surgery to cure the disease while
letting the baby live - he was in favor of *aborting* babies for
genetic reasons.
The significance of this is that some of the pro-aborts seem to be
making eugenic arguments respectable again, although modern
'progressives' denounce the eugenics movement of the earlier
'Progressives' and want us to believe that eugenics is a horror
from the bad old days.
The older Progressive advocacy of eugenics was about sterilizing
people and limiting their right to marry, not about using healing
skills to cure genetic maladies. In technical terms, the old
Progressives were all about 'negative eugenics' - forcibly
interfering with people who had (or were believed to have) genetic
maladies.
But let us at least give the old Progressives their due - they may
have sterilized the 'genetically unfit' and stopped them from
marrying, but at least they didn't want to *kill* them for genetic
reasons. That particular frontier in horror wasn't crossed (at
least in America) until the wonders of abortion began to be
celebrated.
Note that Ogden wasn't dealing with a law forbidding abortions
absolutely, but with a law requiring the abortionist to inform
women of certain non-abortion options. Ogden argued that even
requiring this sort of informed consent was an unconstitutional
limit on the right to abortion, especially when the child had
genetic abnormalities. Why even *bother* to inform a woman of her
non-abortion options if the kid has a genetic malady and obviously
has to die?
Mad Max|2.15.09 @ 9:21AM|#
Here's an interesting link. It's about a Brave New World
technique of screening *in vitro* embryos to see if there's a
genetic predisposition to certain cancers. If there is, the embryo
gets killed. An enthusiastic medical man says: 'The parents will
have been spared the risk of inflicting this disease on their
daughter. The lasting legacy is the eradication of the transmission
of this form of cancer that has blighted these families for
generations.'
Do you get it? Kill someone now to avoid the risk that they will
get cancer in the future, and so as to 'eradicate' bad gene
strains.
Speaking of eradication, annihilation and extermination, here is another
description of this marvelous new medical technique.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 1:24PM|#
Mad Max, so when Josef Mengele was injecting blue dye into Brazilian kids' eyes in an attempt to make them into Aryans, that wasn't eugenics? He wasn't killing or sterilizing them.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 1:27PM|#
BG, Aliens : sex :: Americans : soccer.
And I think Americans are right about soccer.
Mad Max|2.15.09 @ 1:33PM|#
cunnivore,
You'd have to ask the Brazilians. I was talking about negative
eugenics. If there is such a thing as positive eugenics, then I've
made clear that's not what I'm discussing for present purposes.
Mad Max|2.15.09 @ 1:35PM|#
To be clear, are you saying that injecting blue dye into
someone's eyes affects their genes? If not, then how could it be
eugenics. It is torture, to be sure, but torture isn't
automatically eugenics.
In other words, WTF are you trying to say?
zoltan|2.15.09 @ 1:57PM|#
I'm sure glad no one's telling some pregnant woman how she can live on the dole and steal from others because she isn't responsible enough to take care of her child herself.
Mad Max|2.15.09 @ 2:14PM|#
zoltan,
I'm sure that's what David Ogden meant - he's such a hard-core
libertarian that he is morally appalled at the idea of the
government taking tax money from the people (born and unborn) in
order to finance social-welfare schemes. It is for the purpose of
advancing such a libertarian agenda, no doubt, that Ogden wants a
job in the Obama administration.
|2.15.09 @ 2:26PM|#
You must be new to Earth. Apparently, aliens are into anal.
Anything else to them seems superfluous.
Well, to each his own I guess (or her own, or it's own in the case
of aliens).
BG, Aliens : sex :: Americans : soccer.
And I think Americans are right about soccer.
I'm am American. While its true that I am not as enthusiastic about
soccer as most non-Americans, I also don't puke or have any other
adverse reaction to soccer.
Playing soccer is fun; but in my experience, sex is a lot more
fun.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 2:30PM|#
Max, everyone knows that your problem with Ogden has nothing to do with alleged eugenic tendencies. If he were only advocating abortion of healthy fetuses you would still be up in arms.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 2:34PM|#
BG, I believe that my judgement is more objective during the
refractory period than during the foreplay. So I'm going to err on
the side of "sex, yuck" being the more objective attitude.
Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, but then again I enjoy eating a Big
Mac too, even though I would puke if I could see what was going on
inside my body afterwards. Then I would puke in disgust at what
goes on in my body while puking, and so on forever until my body
was totally drained of fluids and I died of dehydration. So don't
go there.
|2.15.09 @ 3:55PM|#
BG, I believe that my judgement is more objective during the
refractory period than during the foreplay. So I'm going to err on
the side of "sex, yuck" being the more objective attitude.
Doesn't mean I don't enjoy it, but then again I enjoy eating a Big
Mac too, even though I would puke if I could see what was going on
inside my body afterwards. Then I would puke in disgust at what
goes on in my body while puking, and so on forever until my body
was totally drained of fluids and I died of dehydration. So don't
go there.
I see. I guess we just have different ways of thinking about it.
Even during the refractory period, my judgement about the act I
just engaged in is very different than "sex, yuck".
As for the "what is going on inside the person's body" perspective,
I can't offer a very informed opinion on that. The closest thing
I've done to observing that phenomenon is looking at close-up shots
of women masterbating (which reinforced my favorable opinion).
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 4:20PM|#
Interesting. My refractory period feeling is more like a "well that was a waste of time, on to something else" thing. I always thought the purpose of that was to prevent guys from constantly having sex and starving to death.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 4:24PM|#
Apparently, aliens are into anal. Anything else to them
seems superfluous.
I never could understand guys who like anal. It's like, you would
never stick your member into a full toilet bowl, so why would you
want to stick it in THAT?
The Ref|2.15.09 @ 4:26PM|#
OK guys, I know you enjoy talking about graphic depictions of sex, but let's try to get back to the topic of the thread.
Robert|2.15.09 @ 4:45PM|#
Can anyone explain to me what's wrong with eugenics? Not what's wrong with particular eugenic practices that aren't inherent in eugenics itself, but eugenics per se?
Mad Max|2.15.09 @ 6:28PM|#
'If he were only advocating abortion of healthy fetuses you
would still be up in arms.'
He does, and I am. But I enjoy pointing out his attempts at
reviving the doctrine of eugenics, which (we are solemnly informed
by many pro-aborts) is an outdated and oppressive policy of
right-wing origin which pro-abort progressives would never, ever
support.
'Can anyone explain to me what's wrong with eugenics? Not what's
wrong with particular eugenic practices that aren't inherent in
eugenics itself, but eugenics per se?'
You mean positive eugenics (assuming it exists)? My concern is with
the revival of the bad kind of eugenics, 'negative eugenics,' the
sort of eugenics which progressive pro-abort types believe to be
evil and would never, ever endorse except when they do.
|2.15.09 @ 7:39PM|#
Choosing not to carry a grossly deformed, doomed fetus to term
is not eugenics.
This is one of those really obvious points that you have to work
hard not to get.
|2.15.09 @ 8:32PM|#
What is interesting is that the forces of pro-choicism insist
that pregnancies resulting from rape, incest, or resulting in
five-legged offspring with hair on their noses, must be the litmus
test for whether abortion should be legal.
Never mind that 99% of abortions involve none of those things. And
then they accuse US of playing to people's emotions.
zoltan|2.15.09 @ 8:42PM|#
Yet Mad Max is in histrionics about aborting trisomy 21 sufferers and the like. Emotional, indeed.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 9:53PM|#
To be fair, I must say that the "it's deformed, kill it!"
argument is more emotionally based than the opposing pro-life
one.
If you think about it, you're basically saying that a deformed
child (let alone one with Down's syndrome) is better off dead than
alive. If you truly believe that, perhaps you should schedule a
visit to your local Ronald McDonald House and share that wisdom
with its residents.
cunnivore|2.15.09 @ 10:02PM|#
My own take on the abortion issue is that it's an extremely
complicated and muddy one, yet people on both sides pretend that
it's obvious that their side is right.
With it being so unclear which rights must prevail, I think it
should remain legal...but at the same time I must acknowledge that
aborting a fetus that didn't result from rape and doesn't threaten
the life of the mother is an extremely selfish decision. Those who
think that a human life that they consented to bring into existence
is less important than their economic or social well-being deserve
to be ostracized from society.
And this goes double for the would-be fathers who push their mates
into an abortion decision.
Mad Max|2.16.09 @ 9:53AM|#
cunnivore,
Thank you for grappling with the complexities of the issue.
Do you think *all* abortions should be legal? Are there any
circumstances in which the law should intervene?
'Those who think that a human life that they consented to bring
into existence is less important than their economic or social
well-being deserve to be ostracized from society.'
I'm not sure I'd go that far. To be sure, they should be prosecuted
with due process of law (together with their doctor-accomplices),
with the sentence being more or less lenient depending on such
things as recidivism and degree of remorse. But I'm not sure I'd go
in for ostracism in every case. There are plenty of people who
commit crimes but then turn their lives around, repent and
reform.
Pro-lifers offer resources for post-abortion healing, such as
Project Rachel.
|2.16.09 @ 10:24AM|#
Choosing not to carry a grossly deformed, doomed fetus to
term is not eugenics.
Of course, for certain values of grossly deformed/doomed, this
defines eugenics right out of existence.
Plenty of people with Downs syndrome children would take issue with
your characterization of them as grossly deformed and doomed.
As would disability rights organizations everywhere.
And I say this as someone who is willing to allow abortion in the
first trimester, for any reason.
|2.19.09 @ 9:05PM|#
Fertilizing a number of eggs in a test tube, testing several of them and selecting one to implant which doesn't have a congenital disease is simply made of win. If the parents are intending to only implant a single embryo, this testing and selection process doesn't decrease the number of children born -- so where's the harm?
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