Getting Mocked on Hit and Run is Good for Your Career

South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson (the one still recovering from a brain hemorrhage) has drawn his first Republican challenger:

South Dakota state Rep. Joel Dykstra (R) filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday and declared himself a "candidate for U.S. Senate."

"I am very appreciative of the encouragement that I have received in my exploration of a run for the U.S. Senate," Dykstra said. "My family and I are humbled by the expressions of support we have received from many people from across the state."

Who's Joel Dykstra? Kerry Howley found out last April during the state's abortion ban debate.

"I think 'rape and incest' is a buzzword," said [State] Rep. Joel Dykstra about not including those conditions in the abortion bill. "It's a bit of a throwaway line and not everybody who says that really understands what that means. How are you going to define that?"

The no-loopholes abortion ban was overturned by voters in the midterm election despite dynamite ads like this one:

Comments

[jf]

People who don't believe abortion is acceptable deserve no representation in government at all.

[Warren]

Getting Mocked on Hit and Run is Good for Your Career

Said mocking must be done, by the staff on the main page, in order for said benefits to incur I presume.

[dhex]

oh that fucking guy.

you can differ on abortion in many different ways, but calling rape a buzzword is pretty much scumfuck territory.

[jj]

Amazing how fast 'reason' degenerates from reasonable argument to ad hominem attacks when it comes to the abortion issue. This is a complex issue, with good, rational people on both sides of the fence, and it should be treated that way. Or not. Come across like the numbskulls you so like to parody on the left and right.

[Zoomie Junior]

jf, please don't take this as an attack, just picking your brain. What other forms of human population control do you find accepable?

[Chris S.]

jf, please don't take this as an attack, just picking your brain. What other forms of human population control do you find accepable?

The consensual ones, perhaps? No one is forcing you to have an abortion.

[Andrew]

jj-

When somebody comes forward and says that rape and incest are simply "buzzwords", they deserve to be mocked.

[Lamar]

"Rape" is a throw away line because it can't be defined? The courts and criminal codes across the land have been defining for centuries. Dykstra is being a disingenuous asshole by suggesting people don't know what rape it. Why not just say what you mean, Dykstra?

[Chris S.]

Actually, it's not the "rape" part that's the most ridiculous and disingenuous (although it's certainly both), it's his suggestion that "incest" can't be defined. What, you can't fathom defining "incest"? Do tell...

[jf]

Zoomie Junior,

I was being facetious. I'm personally against abortion, but do not believe it rises to the level of something that the government needs to ban.

[jimmydageek]

This is a complex issue, with good, rational people on both sides of the fence, and it should be treated that way.

Saying that "rape" and "incest" can't be defined and, therefore, not included as a "loophole" to abortions is in no fucking way rational. Is he condoning rape and incest? WTF?

That being the case, ad hominem attacks are perfectly justifiable.

[ClubMedSux]

To me, the irony is that I view "rape and incest" as a pro-life buzzword (and, for the record, I'm pro-life myself). It seems to me that if the powers that be in the pro-life movement would give an inch on the "rape and incest" exception, they would receive a lot more popular support. But of course I'm assuming their goal is to prevent as many abortions as possible, rather than using a powerful issue to mobilize a voter base. And what happens when you assume?

[D.A. Ridgely]

Talk about Bait and Switch! I naturally assumed this was about Dondero!

[thoreau]

Getting Mocked on Hit and Run is Good for Your Career

Could you guys start mocking Ron Paul?

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

People who don't believe abortion is acceptable deserve no representation in government at all.

I love it, here's my list.

People who don't believe immigration is acceptable, most democrats, and suburban flatlanders who insist on trashing the land with their dirt bikes deserve no representation in government at all.

Pretty cool.

[Amy Alkon]

I'm personally against abortion, but do not believe it rises to the level of something that the government needs to ban.

I'm personally against religion, and the silly, evidence-free belief in the Imaginary Friend...

[matt]

You guys are FoxNewsing him: misrepresenting his quote because he holds a position you have a personal animus against.

He didn't say rape and incest are okay or nonexistent, he said that the presence of a rape/incest clause in the abortion bill would create ambiguity, which it would.

[Andrew]

Off the subject of Mr. Dykstra, had to start laughing at the line in that commercial: "science now proves that life begins at conception". That's almost as bad as Mr. Dykstra's comment.

[Scooby]

There is plenty of ambiguity in the abortion issue. Crafting our laws to account for that is a lot more just than simply saying "abortion bad- absolutely no abortions never ever."

Just about everyone will agree that abortions are bad (except for those caricature abortionists that discourage contraceptive use in order to profit from government-sponsored abortions that exist only in the imaginations of more rabid anti-abortion activists). Only drooling morons think that they are always the worst possible option.

[JKElemenope]

Almost as bad? I think it's worse. Appropriating 'science' for a question that science has little to do with is damaging for the fragile understanding of the general public regarding just what science is, and what it can and can't do.

Any medical doctor willing to make a commercial saying "science says life begins at conception" ought to be slapped, because as a doctor he or she ought to know better.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

I was being facetious

JF, sorry man, I didn't see the twinkle in your eyes or that sardonic grin.

Can I still keep my list?

Matt, I think you are right. I couldn't get back to the original source article and quotes by using the links and I'm too lazy to google it but I think Dykstras point is that anybody wanting an abortion would simply claim rape victim and proceed. There certainly wouldn't be anyone at Planned Parenthood that would even blink at the claim.

[Lamar]

"He didn't say rape and incest are okay or nonexistent, he said that the presence of a rape/incest clause in the abortion bill would create ambiguity, which it would."

Every piece of legislation ever written contains ambiguity. That's why we have courts. As I said before, courts have been doing this for centuries. There are a number of legal and policy mechanisms to combat abuses of a rape and incest exception, which is why I think Dykstra doesn't give a crap about the ambiguities. I wonder if Dykstra supports other legal loopholes that create ambiguity, such as the legal loophole around murder we call self-defense.

[Timothy]

DAR: Well the dude did steal DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!'s creepy mustache, so I understand your confusion.

[Ron Paulbot]

ad hominem attacks when it comes to the abortion issue

An abortion issues proof of an ad hominem attack.

[crimethink]

I wouldn't go so far as saying rape and incest are buzzwords, but truth is that only a tiny percentage of aborted pregnancies resulted from these things. Yet, whenever a law restricting abortion comes up, the pro-choicers start screeching about how you don't have an exception for rape and incest.

That's a trap: if you agree to such an exception, first, they will question your consistency ("are you saying a baby conceived thru rape or incest has less of a right to life?"), then pose dystopian scenarios where rape victims are interrogated mercilessly to make sure they're not faking it so they can get an abortion.

Thus, for the sake of a tiny number of hard cases, unrestricted abortion of healthy unborns conceived through consensual, non-incestuous sex, is maintained as the law of the land.

[Brian Sorgatz]

I think Camille Paglia has the right kind of philosophical defense of the right to an abortion (if I'm paraphrasing her accurately here). Nature is sometimes kind and sometimes cruel to humanity. From humanity's point of view, nature is sometimes a friend to be accommodated and sometimes an enemy to be opposed. Unintended pregnancy as a result of sexual intercourse is arguably an example of nature's cruelty. An abortion may therefore be justified as an appropriate defiance, just as medicine in general is a defiance of the natural tendency for our bodies to get sick, experience pain, and die.

Of course, religious pro-lifers say it's not nature's will but God's will that every conceived fetus have a chance to be born. But since the Bible never mentions abortion, God's opinion on the subject must be a matter of conjecture for honest Jews and Christians.

[crimethink]

Brian Sorgatz,

That sounds all well and good, but that line of reasoning could be used to justify all sorts of hideous acts, once you accept that a human being can be an "example of nature's cruelty" whose destruction is an act of noble defiance.

[Lamar]

crimethink: you have a point. I think that trap resonates because the pro-life people make such a philosophically rigid argument. If they believe that life starts at point A, and abortions kill that life, how can they possibly support murder because daddy raped his daughter? Nobody would support killing that baby after it was born, no? I think it is a fair thing to highlight that these people want to force women to have incest and rape babies. If they don't, then they should be comfortable saying, no, rape and incest are an exception. For some reason, they refuse to make that practical concession. I can only conclude it is because they don't believe in any exceptions. Just because somebody belongs to a small minority (pregnant rape victims) doesn't mean they lose the ability to direct their own life.

[Brian Sorgatz]

That sounds all well and good, but that line of reasoning could be used to justify all sorts of hideous acts, once you accept that a human being can be an "example of nature's cruelty" whose destruction is an act of noble defiance.

Some slippery slopes are legitimate sources of worry, and some aren't. Unlike some people, I don't worry that same-sex marriage will make it fashionable for brothers and sisters to marry each other. Likewise, I don't worry that tolerance of abortion will lead to holocausts or purges in the United States. (Not that I think those things are completely impossible, but that abortion won't lead to them.)

If you think of abortion as murder, aren't you obligated by consistency to support charging women who have abortions with first-degree murder-or to do what the anti-porn feminists do and describe women as essentially the victims of their own choices?

[Cesar]

This mans comments are second only to that guy running for Congress in Idaho (I forget his name) who said that breast cancer is God's punishment for women who have abortions.

[Cesar]

I'm curious, regardless of ones personal views, how many on here think abortion is a state level instead of federal issue?

I'm pro-choice personally but lean towards a view that it should be more of a state-level decision.

[Brian Sorgatz]

This mans comments are second only to that guy running for Congress in Idaho (I forget his name) who said that breast cancer is God's punishment for women who have abortions.

Fred Phelps for president! This wicked land of sodomites needs tough love.

[Brian Sorgatz]

I'm curious, regardless of ones personal views, how many on here think abortion is a state level instead of federal issue?

Good question, and I admit it's a difficult one for me. Roe v. Wade may be constitutionally problematic, as some say. But without it, a woman who lives in a pro-life state and wants an abortion is a victim of the tyranny of the majority. That phrase is crucial for libertarians to remember.

[Brian Sorgatz]

When social conservatives complain about "judicial activism," it's often (but not always) because a court somewhere has thwarted the tyrannical will of the majority. But why are we supposed to have an independent judiciary at all unless the will of the majority is sometimes wrong?

[Cesar]

But without it, a woman who lives in a pro-life state and wants an abortion is a victim of the tyranny of the majority.

That is a valid point, and its actually the one I use with liberals who say being in favor of federalism and states rights means you believe 1960s civil rights rulings were unconstitutional.

However, the Constitution says each state shall have a small-r republican form of government. Any state that enforces laws like racial segregation and voter fraud is not republican, so the courts are in line if they make rulings to correct that.

In short, individual rights > states rights > federal rights.

[Jennifer]

If your principles mandate that you pooh-pooh the possibility a pregnant rape victim has suffered enough already without having to carry and bear her rapist's child, then maybe your principles need to be re-thought.

And if your principles say a pregnant rape victim should be forced to carry and bear her rapist's child, then fuck you and your principles too.

[crimethink]

Everybody notices, I'm being dragged into another abortion debate, kicking and screaming, right? I'm not the dick here, I was totally content to agree to disagree until I started getting called out. I just want to make sure that's on the record.

[Brian Sorgatz]

I'm not the dick here, I was totally content to agree to disagree until I started getting called out.

I don't blame you for the comments I left of my own free will.

[crimethink]

Brian Sorgatz,

I never said that legal abortion will inevitably lead to genocide; I said that the same argument you used to justify abortion could be used to justify the murder of any undesirable persons. The fact that that argument wouldn't be carried all the way through to its logical conclusion in practice, doesn't fix this problem with the argument.

But without it, a woman who lives in a pro-life state and wants an abortion is a victim of the tyranny of the majority.

Again, Brian, is there any law that you don't like that's immune from the label of "tyranny of the majority"? Are laws against prostitution unconstitutional because they are "tyranny of the majority" against prostitutes?

In short, individual rights > states rights > federal rights.

You're stealing a base here; you're assuming that abortion is a constitutional right. There would be no question of the validity of RvW if that were so obvious.

Jennifer,

Your principles, correct me if I'm wrong, mandate that a healthy unborn conceived thru consensual non-incestuous sex, should be forced to die if the expected birth date interferes with the mother's vacation plans. Is this incorrect?

[crimethink]

Brian Sorgatz,

I'm not sure if you've been around in previous abortion threads, but I've been accused of being a "dick" by some of the more sensitive readers for arguing my position on this issue in no uncertain terms. Also, it's been said that I'm obsessed with sex because of my passionate arguing style on this and other topics. I wasn't trying to blame you for anything, I just wanted to make it clear that I didn't start this shizzle.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Again, Brian, is there any law that you don't like that's immune from the label of "tyranny of the majority"? Are laws against prostitution unconstitutional because they are "tyranny of the majority" against prostitutes?

To the best of my knowledge, the constitution never mentions prostitution. But constitutional questions aside, laws against prostitution serve as an excellent example of the tyranny of the majority. They cause needless suffering through government overreach. Those laws are a road to hell paved with good intentions.

[Scooby]

Are laws against prostitution unconstitutional because they are "tyranny of the majority" against prostitutes?

I wouldn't argue that they're "unconstitutional", but I would argue that they are unjust. The Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS is not a perfect document. Many tyranical laws slip through its cracks.

Your principles, correct me if I'm wrong, mandate that a healthy unborn conceived thru consensual non-incestuous sex, should be forced to die if the expected birth date interferes with the mother's vacation plans. Is this incorrect?

Is there anyone at all advocating mandatory abortions for mothers with scheduling problems? What color is the sky where you live?

The fetus and the mother both have rights, and the balancing of these rights depends on the developmental status of the fetus. Immediately post-conception, the blob of cells has very little claim of rights over the life and liberty of the mother. Immediately pre-labor, the fetus has just about equal status with the mother. Taking a pill to kill the ball of cells is not murder, even if it is for a trivial reason such as convenience of the mother. Aborting a healthy fetus that is viable (able to live on its own without exceedingly heroic measures, let's call it "third trimester") is murder.

It's not a black & white issue. I think abortion is horrible, but there is such a thing as justifiable abortion, just as there is such a thing as justifiable homicide. Banning abortion outright (even with a R&I exception) is as unjust and tyranical as banning all killing without making self-defence exceptions.

[Brian Sorgatz]

...I've been accused of being a "dick" by some of the more sensitive readers for arguing my position on this issue in no uncertain terms.

Some people just like to whine when confronted with a contrary opinion on something. Those people call you a dick.

[Brian Sorgatz]

My URL link was wrong in the last post. I don't know why, but now it should be right.

[anona]

Crimethink wrote: "Jennifer, Your principles, correct me if I'm wrong, mandate that a healthy unborn conceived thru consensual non-incestuous sex, should be forced to die if the expected birth date interferes with the mother's vacation plans. Is this incorrect?"

And CT, your principles, correct me if I'm wrong, mandate that a pre-teen carrying an anencephalic unborn conceived thru non-consensual incest must be forced to carry that baby to term although it likely won't survive a day? Is THAT incorrect?

Please keep in mind that the fact (yes, it is a fact) that your extreme hypo is more common than my extreme hypo does not render my hypo illegitimate.

[joe]

Ohnoes! The Democrats will never hold that seat now!

Follow the South Dakotans' lead, GOP! The Religious Right is the future! You only lost in 2006 because you weren't conservative enough, and your best shot is to get out there and demonstrate exactly how unyeilding you can be in defense of your principles.

Also, I do not wish to be thrown into a briar patch.

[The Wine Commonsewer?]

Crime, Just for the record (and FWIW) you're not a dick. I have wasted enough time at H&R this week and I hate getting dragged into an abortion thread, so I'm going to just leave it at that.

Big Sigh.

[crimethink]

anona,

My point is, that unless we eliminate the possibility that the fetus/embryo is a person with all the attendant rights, there's no way to avoid somebody getting the proverbial ShortEndOfTheStick when a woman wants to get an abortion. Yes, there are cases in which the standard I would use would result in suffering on the part of the pregnant woman. But there will be cases where someone suffers or is killed no matter what standard one chooses.

[grumpy realist]

Well, that's why people argue about abortion in the case of rape and incest--because forcing a woman to carry to term under those conditions is seen as "unfair". This also carries more than a tinge of "well, if you got pregnant and deliberately CHOSE to have sex, then it was your own choice and you're just out of luck, ha ha." (The fact that the woman may have been very responsible and used birth control which failed, or her partner used birth control--which failed--never seems to modify this argument. )

What this all boils down to is those who accuse "pro-lifers" of wanting to punish women for having sex are, not so surprisingly enough, right.

[crimethink]

grumpy,

The people who think abortion should only be legal if the woman didn't choose to have sex are the ones who are implying that denial of abortion = punishment for having sex. That's not my position, that's the position that the "you need a rape exception!" people are trying to push me into.

My opposition to abortion is based on the need to protect the life of the unborn, not a moral judgement upon the pregnant woman. If I were opposed to abortion because I thought women who had non-marital sex needed to be punished, I wouldn't be opposed to abortion in the case of a woman who became pregnant as a result of sex with her husband, would I? But I'm not making that exception.

[Mark Bahner]

"Science now proves life begins at conception."

When was it that science DIDN'T think "life begins at conception"?

[Chad]

"Well, that's why people argue about abortion in the case of rape and incest--because forcing a woman to carry to term under those conditions is seen as "unfair"."

It need not be "unfair". What if she were compensated fairly (by the state) for her time and risk? Rape followed by pregnancy is a horrible situation with no good solution. The only good question is what is the lesser evil.

"(The fact that the woman may have been very responsible and used birth control which failed, or her partner used birth control--which failed--never seems to modify this argument.)"

Actually, a large number of abortions involve older women (ie, not teenagers, many of whom are married) who at least claim to have been using birth control. My guess is that most of these situations involved couples in serious relationships who banked on the pill being enough, and ditched the not-very-fun condom. Having no back up is your own darned fault.

"What this all boils down to is those who accuse "pro-lifers" of wanting to punish women for having sex are, not so surprisingly enough, right."

I have no idea where this "punish" meme comes from. I care not a whit who you screw how often or in what position, and hope you find ways to have a plethora of enjoyable, safe sex. However, you cannot kill people in order to escape the negative consequences of your choices.

Would a law banning you from robbing a bank be considered "punishing" you for your bad gambling habit that you were trying to bail yourself out of?

[Lamar]

Crimethink: there are sufficient disconnects in the logic chain to render your argument (that abortion can be logically linked to killing undesirables) invalid. Many of the pro-life arguments fall under the "agree-to-disagree" rubric you set forth, but the idea that abortion is like genocide is a very poor argument regardless of your philosophical foundations. Show me an "undesirable" group that inhabits the bodies of other human beings and we'll talk. It'll be really creepy, but we'll talk.