Bush Betrays Babies Say Christian Conservatives

Evidently, by nominating Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, Bush is displeasing some of the Christian conservatives who claim to have gotten him elected.

Comments

[Jason Bourne]

Ronald Bailey,

They've had this beef against him since Bush elected the first time; its nothing particularly new. Indeed, it has often been rumored that it may keep Gonzalez from being appointed to the SCOTUS, even though it appears that Bush would like to send him there (in the event one of the Ravens kicks off).

[kmw]

See, I don't think Bush is nearly as Fundie as he tried to portray himself.

The Evangelicals have been taken for a free ride in a fancy car.

And now that he doesn't need to run another campaign, maybe he'll drop the god talk. (I can only hope.)

Still, it was despicable selling several groups of people up the river, to please the Jesus freaks.

[Ken Shultz]

Gonzales isn't a purist on the abortion issue, and that's why he's settling for Attorney General rather than waiting to be nominated as a Supreme Court Justice.

Even if Roe vs. Wade was overturned during Bush's last term, that would mean that the abortion question would be decided at the state level. That is to say, the Attorney General wouldn't be responsible for enforcing state abortion laws anyway...

...So why do pro-lifers give a rip about whether or not he's pure pro-life? They probably don't. They just want to keep the President on the straight and narrow; now that he's been re-elected, he has nothing to lose but his soul.

[Brian]

Republican politicians do not want to get rid of Roe. It's really useful to have around to run against and rile up the base. If they got rid of it they'd have to spend all their time fighting at a state and federal level to really, finally, this time, make abortion illegal. Which most of them don't want to do, I suspect.

The base, on the other hand, does want Roe gone (and Griswold too I'd bet, and that's just getting started). I can't decide if they'll finally start demanding that the guys they elect to office actually do what they'll say they'll do, or if they'll be content to keep voting like suckers for these guys and never getting anywhere.

Every republican president since 1980 has promised to get rid of Roe, right?

[Isaac Bartram]

Fundies carping about Gonzales abortion stand can only help his nomination IMO.

Conspiracy theory, you say? Hey this is the gang that got South Florida Democrats to steal the 2000 election for Shrub; I wouldn't put anything past them.

[Jason Bourne]

Brian,

I'm pretty certain that pre-Casey that Republicans thought that they were creating a Court that would overturn Roe, but in that they were disappointed. However, the current Court has four members which would overturn Roe if they could get the fifth vote. Obviously that fifth vote wouldn't come from the retirement of Rhenquist, but it could come from the retirement of say Ginsberg or Stevens or even O'Connor (who chose to limit but uphold Roe).

[Isaac Bartram]

"And now that he doesn't need to run another campaign, maybe he'll drop the god talk. (I can only hope.)"

He still has to get a republicon elected in 08. Alienating the base ain't gonna get that. Unless he can shift the base.

[Ruthless]

Ya know how Catholics have difficulty defining what's a suitable urn for a soul?
Not a sperm, not an egg, but an embryo?

If I were Pope, I'd spend my holy capital defining family. It might be easier in the long run, and doing so might turn out to be more pro life.

This might be the sticky part: Pope Ruthless I would define families as groups of people that define themselves as family. That would need to include same-sex families. Fine with Pope Ruthless I.

My thought is, and goddess backs me up here, that, once families are nailed down and made sovereign, many other pro life benefits would flow like a mighty river.

[Lewis]

Bush Betrays Babies Say Christian Conservatives

How about a protest in the form of mass suicide? Kool Aid anyone?

So whats the next headline? Bush Betrays Tree's Say Loggers

[raymond]

Ya know how Catholics have difficulty defining what's a suitable urn for a soul?

I believe Catholics have _no_ difficulty defining human life.

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person -- among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

The great merit of this definition is its clarity. One who accepts it has _no doubt_ about what is meant.

The great danger with a "movable definition" of life can be found in history. Jews, blacks, gypsies, harijan, the mentally defective have all at times been considered "subhuman" and therefore enslaveable, killable.

[Ruthless]

Okay, okay, raymond, so you have a good definition of life.
You could also have a good definition of family, and that definition would be much more life-friendly for homo sapiens.
Families should have sovereignty over embryoes. Over all, it would be better for embryoes.

[Jason Bourne]

raymond,

The Catholic Church never questioned slavery, etc., (especially of non-Christians) until well, modern times. Of course, no one else did either. This is part of the difference between the liberty of the ancients (not recognizing individual liberty - see Greek "democracy") and the liberty of the moderns (recognizing individual liberty - see Harrington, Montesuqieu, etc.) fought out in the Enlightenment and since.

[Ruthless]

raymond and Chase N. Sanbourne,
It would be better for families to define embryoes as subhuman than for governments to have sovereignty over families.

[R C Dean]

Ruthless, what do you mean by "sovereignty?"

If you mean the state subjects some aspects of family life (and I would question whether abortion is an aspect of family life) to its control, well, yeah.

Few libertarians (as opposed to anarchists) believe that "family life" (whatever that is) exists within an umbrella within which the state may not enter. Most sane people believe that relations between family members should be subject to basic legal norms, after all.

[Ruthless]

R C Dean,
I'm rarely influenced by "most sane people."
Don't care much for "basic legal norms" either.

[James Kabala]

Jason Bourne,
Only three justices - Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas - are anti-Roe. The notion that Kennedy is anti-Roe is a falsehood put forth by NARAL and similar groups since Kennedy's dissenting vote in Sternberg v. Carhart, but it is not true.

[brinck]

I think this is such a slipppery issue because it really depends on faith on both sides... if you "have faith" that life (i.e. self-awareness) begins at conception, then abortion is murder and the pope is right. If you believe that you can pinpoint the time at which an embryo becomes self-aware, then abortion before that point is fine. But since we don't know yet when life really begins, everyone's going to argue about it until we figure it out.

p.s. Jason Bourne - I love that Benjamin Constant essay

[raymond]

so you have a good definition of life.

It's not "my" definition. It's from the catechism.

You could also have a good definition of family, and that definition would be much more life-friendly for homo sapiens.

At the moment, my definition of family is life-friendly for canis sapiens. And it's as life-friendly as a definition gets.

The Catholic Church never questioned slavery, etc., (especially of non-Christians) until well, modern times

Didn't question capital punishment, either. But institutions evolve. Julian of Bologna no longer rides his horse into battle.

It would be better for families to define embryoes as subhuman...

Have you ever been to India? In many families, girl embryos are disposed of as quickly as possible. I couldn't say that females are generally considered "subhuman" there, but in the countryside they are very often considered chattel, so I imagine that comes down to the same thing. Sort of "family sovereignty" in action.

...than for governments to have sovereignty over families.

If governments are instituted to secure rights, then governments have a legitimate obligation to protect children, it seems to me. (I'm talking specifically about children, not z/e/f.)

One last comment (and one I'm sure you've heard dozens of times): If ever a "gay gene" is discovered, you can be pretty sure that lots of "gay" embryos all over the world will not reach f?tus-hood.

[J]

Somewhat off-topic, but I just heard a news story on NPR that Badnarik and Cobb are trying to raise a little over $100,000 to get a recount of the votes in Ohio (apparently they have a provision that if you find the money, they'll find the time). A quick google search didn't turn up any web stories about it though.

Also, it looks like Badnarik managed to break 400,000 (400,252). These are magical times.

[Swamp Justice]

If there is a gay gene, why does it still exist? How does it reproduce itself?

Wouldn't a gay gene contradict Richard Dawkins' selfish gene theory that biological organisms are "vehicles" used by their genes for making more copies of those genes, regardless of the effect they might have on individuals or species? Genes that tend to help the organisms they are in to survive and reproduce also help themselves; so most of the time the gene and the organism share common goals. A chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs. A gay gene would have a difficult time reproducing itself in offspring!

[Isaac Bartram]

Swampy

Didn't you hear the one a while ago that homosexuality survived in repressive societies because queers were forced to marry and reproduce.

So the message was if you hate gays let 'em be and they'll go extinct. Or something like that. 🙂

[J]

Swamp,

There are a multiple possible explanations. One requires a more inclusive definition of fitness to include families, and relatives of homosexuals might have some advantage. In fact, several days ago I posted on another thread an abstract of a recent study suggesting just that - female maternal relatives of male homosexuals have significantly higher fecundity.

Another possibility is that the "gay gene" (or genes) is linked, either genetically or physiologically, with some other trait that is advantageous. And depending on the genetics of these genes and how they are expressed, that might be enough to maintain the gay gene.

Others would have to do with any environmental component there might be to homosexuality, and interactions between genetic and environmental components (including a societal component, where perhaps homosexuals have kids because they're forced to pretend to be straight).

[trainwreck]

swamp,

don't think about the trait of sexual preference as as absolute binary, either "gay" or "not gay", but as a cline which varies from one extreme to the other with lots of gradations in between, and you can easily see how such a trait would be persistent in human populations.

[Ken Shultz]

"If there is a gay gene, why does it still exist? How does it reproduce itself?"

Couldn't the attraction to men be passed from the mother by way of the X Chromosone?

I don't know, I'm asking.

[thoreau]

Didn't you hear the one a while ago that homosexuality survived in repressive societies because queers were forced to marry and reproduce.

So the message was if you hate gays let 'em be and they'll go extinct. Or something like that. 🙂

I realize that this message was intended mostly as humor, but it raises an interesting point. However, that may not be the only reason why homosexuality has thrived. Apparently some scientists are studying the possibility that siblings of homosexuals enjoy more reproductive success (i.e. more offspring who make it to child-bearing age), so homosexuality confers survival advantages on people who carry a copy of the gene but don't express the trait.

I'm not sure whether the advantage is biological (e.g. maybe the genes that control homosexuality also yield a stronger immune system), behavioral (e.g. maybe straight people with a copy of the gene make better parents), or social (e.g. the gay uncle helps his sister raise kids or something). I also don't know whether homosexuality arises from a single gene or the combined effect of multiple genes.

Also, even if societies have forced homosexuals to marry and have kids, that alone can't explain why the trait has thrived. If we assume (quite plausibly) that closeted homosexuals are likely to (on average) have fewer kids than closeted heterosexuals, then over time the relevant gene or genes would become less prevalent.

Still, I do think it would be ironic if letting gays out of the closet led to their extinction.

[Swamp Justice]

Some studies have shown that homosexuals are more affluent, more educated, and travel more the heterosexuals. Maybe the gay gene accidentally coexists with other beneficial genes?

[Ruthless]

raymond said:
"At the moment, my definition of family is life-friendly for canis sapiens. And it's as life-friendly as a definition gets."

raymond, do you like the comic strip, Mutts? I do too.

"The Catholic Church never questioned slavery, etc., (especially of non-Christians) until well, modern times

Didn't question capital punishment, either. But institutions evolve. Julian of Bologna no longer rides his horse into battle."

How about evolving a little more respect for HUMAN families?

"It would be better for families to define embryoes as subhuman...

Have you ever been to India? In many families, girl embryos are disposed of as quickly as possible. I couldn't say that females are generally considered "subhuman" there, but in the countryside they are very often considered chattel, so I imagine that comes down to the same thing. Sort of "family sovereignty" in action."

Correctemundo, raymond--none of our business. (Their loss, of course.)

"...than for governments to have sovereignty over families.

If governments are instituted to secure rights, then governments have a legitimate obligation to protect children, it seems to me. (I'm talking specifically about children, not z/e/f.)"

Never was a government instituted to secure rights. That's bullshit. They are instituted only to take rights away. Even from little children--born or otherwise.

"One last comment (and one I'm sure you've heard dozens of times): If ever a "gay gene" is discovered, you can be pretty sure that lots of "gay" embryos all over the world will not reach f?tus-hood. "

Brian Doherty and I share the 'gay' gene, in that we are gay regardless of who wins elections. Brian and I are examples of Survival of the Fittest. Don't worry about us.

[raymond]

"If there is a gay gene, why does it still exist? How does it reproduce itself?"

Maybe it's recessive.

Some studies have shown that homosexuals are more affluent, more educated, and travel more the heterosexuals.

This is a bit like the statement in another thread which goes something like this: "The Dutch are burning down mosques."

(re: India) none of our business

I see the concept of fundamental human rights as a net covering humanity. If part of the net is cut, the whole thing risks unravelling. So violations of an individual's rights - wherever he is - are an attack on the concept and so put _me_ in danger.

(Thank you, Amnesty!)

Brian and I are examples of Survival of the Fittest

You're not embryos. So, until the practise of postnatal abortion becomes even more widespread...

Never was a government instituted to secure rights.

Not yet, perhaps. But unless we act as IF it were, and unless we continually remind it of the goal we wish to reach, there's no point in our being "libertarians".

(Oh right. You're an anarchist. I was talking about you - youze guys - yesterday. When I was a callow youth, I numbered myself among your company. [I was also a poet, a playwright, a Byronic figure - but with cute feet.] But one grows out of that sort of thing.

An anarchist is just a libertarian whose bike has not yet been stolen.

[raymond]

WOW. HERE is a government with a plan for the family.

(NB - It is not a "Catholic country".)

[Jason Bourne]

I think most people misconstrue genetics as if it were an "on/off" switch, when indeed most genetic traits are very, very complicated, and not remotely Mendelian in nature.

Genetics, hormone exposure in the womb, socialization, etc., are all a factor in homosexuality. All I know is that I started liking guys when I was about 12-13, that is exactly when puberty hit.

[Foucault Fan]

Michel Foucault had a theory that homosexuality is ony a social construct, in most cases at least.

Homosexuality exists in reality too, of course, but only in comparatively few cases on one end of a bell curve. Pure heterosexuality exists on the other end of that distribution curve, also in rather few cases even if the number is higher than on the opposite end. Most people are in between, thus bi-sexual by orientation, even though their actual preference may be hetero in most cases, at least in our culture which is influenced by Judeo-Christian religious disapproval of homosexuality.

It used to be different in ancient Greece or Rome where people could be more openly bisexual. They would marry opposite-sex partners for procreation and to increase the wealth of their family, but seek pleasure with same-sex partners. On the other hand, marriage had not much to do with love then -- it was rather a contract to enhance wealth and occasionally influence.

[Ruthless]

"All I know is that I started liking guys when I was about 12-13, that is exactly when puberty hit. "

Post some pictures, Big Boy!

[Isaac Bartram]

"I realize that this message was intended mostly as humor"

It was intended TOTALLY as humor. Next time I'll include a laugh track. 🙂

[Bob Jones]

Jason Bourne:

THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!!

BJ

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I'm not a biologist, but I do agree with those who think homosexuality is genetic. I think that the potential is always there, no matter how a species breed.

Homosexuality is not isolated to humans, of course. I believe that it is a natural safety valve mechanism for overpopulation. Maybe it's also to stop us from killing each other if we were in a 100% competitive environment. How the "valve" works exactly, I dunno.

Plus there's an added benefit of girl on girl action. That is so hot..

[raymond]

I do agree with those who think homosexuality is genetic.

OZ.

[joe]

Bush has been herding the fundie sheep like a pro since his first run for Gov. in Texas. Back then, he was denouncing Ann Richards because she didn't want to imprison people for being gay. But he has never delivered, except to toss a few verbal and symbolic victories their way. Which, oddly, seems to be good enough for most of them, who are far more concerned with having someone who appears to be like them in power, than in actual issues.

The New Republic ran a piece about how Bush wouldn't be that bad in 2000, and the blatant emptiness of his appeals to the Christian Right, demonstrated over the course of his career in Texas, was Exhibit A. Bush is a pro-Big Business conservative, like Gingrich, and his use of religious demogoguery is nothing but an electoral tactic.

[thoreau]

joe-

I mostly agree. If they put all the gays "in their place" and banned abortion, then what would Republican politicians rail against when seeking re-election?

[raymond]

masturbation.

[raymond]

proposal for Amendment 29:

Orgasm in the United States shall occur only during the union of a married man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to admit that orgasm or the legal incidents thereof be enjoyed within any union other than the union of a married man and a woman.

[Ruthless]

Change the word "enjoyed," and put in an exemption for wet dreams.

[raymond]

A lawyer friend of mine read my proposed Amendment and pointed out an unfortunate loophole.

I have, therefore, corrected the wording.

Orgasm in the United States shall occur only during the union of a married man and his legal wife. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, shall be construed to admit that orgasm or the legal incidents thereof be enjoyed within any union other than the union of a married man and his legal wife.