Many of my liberal friends expected me to be depressed about the election results, but aside from the awful fact that California did NOT pass Prop 85 (the parental notification for abortion), I am fairly upbeat.
1. Trimming the Extremes
Seventeen of the House Republicans who lost
were far right on immigration ("just build a fence and kick illegals
out"), and at least one of the Dems is a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat. I
hope that this means a move towards the center for both parties.
2. Marriage Protection
The media (other than Fox, thank God for them) has largely ignored the fact that 7 of the 8 states that had marriage protection amendments (a.k.a. Gay Marriage Bans)
to their state constitutions (defining marriage as between a man and a
woman) passed, bringing the total to 27 states with this type of
legislation.
3. Abortion
One big story is that the referendum on legislation
in South Dakota banning abortion in all cases except to save the
mother’s life was rejected – i.e. the public turned back the law
banning abortion. What’s really interesting about this story is that
the legislature actually passed the law previously, and conservatives
hoped that Planned Parenthood et al. would challenge it in court,
taking it up the Supreme Court in order to challenge Roe v. Wade.
However, PP instead collected enough signatures to get it on the
ballot, because in SD you can reject legislation with a a public
referendum.
I have a few comments on this event.
First, it shows that many people who are probably
pro-life are not yet willing to extend that protection to children of
rape or incest. This is probably for a few reasons.
- Logic v. Emotion: Many people are pro life, NOT based on the logical argument that it is a child, but merely
on a more emotional feeling that it is wrong. So, when they
balance this against the "wrongness" of "forcing" a woman in these tough
situations to give birth, they are merely juggling two qualitative wrongs, and in
their minds, choosing the lesser of two evils.- Abortion v. Adoption: Many believe that allowing the child to live will force MORE
trauma on the rape/incest victim, while allowing them to have an
abortion will help alleviate that trauma. However, I find this a poor
argument, for a few reasons. First, studies have shown that post-abortion syndrome, i.e. the
remorse and guilt over an abortion, can be worse trauma than giving
birth. Second, abortion does not cure the real problem which is emotional injury from being violated. Third, many (most?) women with unwanted pregnancies who have birthed their babies have experienced a redemption and joy in having the child, even if they had to give it up for adoption.- Conscience v. Law: Many people, even liberals ;), find abortion a terrible choice to have to make, but don’t want to prevent people by law from getting one. Rather. they would like to leave it up to the conscience of the mother. And while that may sound respectable, if you really believe that the unborn child is a person who is being murdered, you look at it like infanticide. Should a mother have the right to kill her children? Not if you believe that the government has the obligation to protect the weak.
Liberals are really playing an "out of sight, out of mind trick" on themselves – that’s why they hate seeing pictures of the fetus at 12 weeks or later – while they say "you are appealing to emotions when you show those pictures", what they are really saying is "I’ve already used my own logic to convince myself that it is not a child, so don’t show me any contradictory evidence. It’s a blob of cells, dammit! Don’t show me reality, I want the picture that’s in my mind!"
I believe that we should push backwards from the third trimester until we get to about 4-6 weeks after pregnancy begins, and that will be good enough for the law. Before that, we can leave it to the conscience of the mother and father, because it is still much closer to being a "blob of cells that can not feel anything."
Second, the defeat of the South Dakota law may indicate that we need to approach abortion stepwise, not in an all or nothing gambit. Conservatives disagree on which approach is best, but I favor BOTH. However, some have argued well that passing a ban on partial birth abortion will be enough to ensure the overturn of abortion on demand as provided for by roe v. wade, and will pave room for further restrictions, which I totally agree with.
4. Legislative Balance
The Republican party has once again proved that "ultimate power corrupts ultimately." Many voters, including many Evangelicals, voted against Republicans who were involved in questionable dealings. Not only does this speak well for Evangelicals, who claim to act on principle, not just on power politics and party affiliation, but it speaks to the fact that Americans value honesty in public office.
I think the Conservatives, esp. those extreme ones who never question our policy in Iraq, or GWB’s spending habits, or legislative earmarks, or corruption due to lobbyists like Abramov, need a wake up call that such extremism is not welcome in politics. Hopefully, the far left is learning that as well. They haven’t been out of office for so long because they’ve been speaking for the people, and they didn’t get elected this time because people are more liberal – this was more of a rejection of far right control, abuse of power, republican corruption, and the poor handling of Iraq. If lefties like Pilosi don’t moderate some of their hard core left leanings, 2008 will sweep them right out of power again.
And as many have said, this loss, in the 6th year of a two term president, is typical, if not expected. And it may actually bode well for a Republican candidate in 2008, because people don’t want the opposite problem we’ve had – that is, a one party control of both Legislative and Executive branches. I can take two years of liberals in power in order to get another conservative president who can, among other things, appoint conservative judges.
5. Taxes and the Economy
My real concern is that Dems will not make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and thereby ruin the economy. They will probably try to reinstate the "marriage penalty tax," and who knows what else. As GWB has proved, lowering taxes in income actually creates MORE tax income because incomes for business go UP. If Dems, who believe in penalizing the rich through the graduated tax, and penalizing business via regulation and minimum wage hikes (which I think may be OK within reason) and higher taxes, we may be in for a foul economy.
CONCLUSION
Overall, I am glad that some balance is restored to our government, and I have high hopes for the near future. One with more cooperation, less spending (AND less taxes), a balanced budget, balanced foreign policy that is still aggressive against terrorism (not accommodating or blind to the evils of Islam), and pro-family and pro-life legislation.
Before I respond to this can you and Aaron please respond to the comments in "Courageous Moderate Muslims: Nyamko Sabuni" and "Red lining on the blue cloud." I do have comments to make on this post but there are points by Lawanda, Sam and I you guys have left unaddressed in other posts.
P.S. The Dems may yet take the Senate!
I’ve just heard that the AP projects that the Democrats have now also won control of the Senate. If this holds (big IF), it means Bush is now a LAME DUCK! After 8 years of feeling disenfranchised, liberals finally will be a voice of reason in government again.
California did NOT pass Prop 85
And rightfully so! It’s her body. It’s her decision. If she feels she can’t even confide in her parents in the first place, there is something wrong.
Seventeen of the House Republicans who lost were far right on immigration (“just build a fence and kick illegals out”)
You are with the Dems on this issue right? Well, at least against the build the fence and kick them out plan.
The media (other than Fox, thank God for them) has largely ignored the fact that 7 of the 8 states that had marriage protection amendments (a.k.a. Gay Marriage Bans) to their state constitutions (defining marriage as between a man and a woman) passed, bringing the total to 27 states with this type of legislation.
FOX is such a “low rent” network. Leave it to them to focus on a non issue. News flash for Fox news… This election was obviously not about gay marriage, it was about the Republican incompetence and corruption.
Many believe that allowing the child to live will force MORE trauma on the rape/incest victim, while allowing them to have an abortion will help alleviate that trauma. However, I find this a poor argument…
That’s because it’s a straw man argument. An abortion will not help alleviate any trauma. Everyone knows this.
The victim simply should not be required to pay for a crime that she didn’t commit by carrying a child to term. It’s as if I knocked YOU unconscious and stole your kidney to put it into someone who’s life depends on it. It should be your choice to decide if you want to be a kidney donor or not. It should not be mandated by the government!! Pro-life people are simply blind to this moral truth. If the ignorant pro-life people (the ones who don’t understand this obvious analogy) get their way, it means the loss of the right for a woman to control her own body.
Liberals are really playing an “out of sight, out of mind trick” on themselves – that’s why they hate seeing pictures of the fetus at 12 weeks or later – while they say “you are appealing to emotions when you show those pictures”
More lies. In cases of rape and incest or when a mother’s life is threatened (South Dakota Referendum 6 is the topic here correct?), it’s the mother’s right to decide. Even assuming a blastocyst and even a 12 week old fetus is a person with full rights it still SHOULD be the victim’s (mother’s) decision. The analogy to your straw man argument is as if I took pictures of the corpses of people who died of kidney failure and showed them to people who didn’t donate their kidneys to save their lives.
Simply put, pro-lifers who favor a ban on abortion even on incest and rape victims are either brain washed or abjectly ignorant.
Not only does this speak well for Evangelicals, who claim to act on principle, not just on power politics and party affiliation, but it speaks to the fact that Americans value honesty in public office.
I actually agree with you here :) I think 25% or so voted for Democrats. I thought the number of Evangelicals voting Republican would have been around 99%. I am glad they are not as locked into the Republican party as I thought.
I think the Conservatives, esp. those extreme ones who never question our policy in Iraq, or GWB’s spending habits, or legislative earmarks, or corruption due to lobbyists like Abramov, need a wake up call that such extremism is not welcome in politics. Hopefully, the far left is learning that as well.
WOW! I also agree with this.
If lefties like Pilosi don’t moderate some of their hard core left leanings, 2008 will sweep them right out of power again.
Curious Seeker, would you place me to the left or right of Pelosi? Why or why not?
I can take two years of liberals in power in order to get another conservative president who can, among other things, appoint conservative judges.
Okay, now this is very bad. Like the government, the Supreme Court should be a mix of perspectives. It should not be dominated by just conservatives or liberals. This is consistent with your words about our government. It should be equal parts of each with moderates too like Sandra Day O’Connor. If you think Judge Jones was an “activist” judge or all the judges who ruled on the Teri Shaivo case were activist judges, you are sadly mistaken. Those judges did a wonderful job it’s just not the judgment a far right fundamentalist evangelical would agree with. Simple as that.
My real concern is that Dems will not make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and thereby ruin the economy.
If you think taxing millionaires will ruin the economy then you have good reason to worry because I think they should tax rich people more! I’m sick of hearing that Exxon is making 15 billion per quarter and not having to pay the taxes that they should be paying. So much money just encourages corporate greed and corruption. I strongly believe that big business already controls politics more than it should. See Jack Abramoff?
CONCLUSION
I agree with most of your conclusion. I too want to see something done. This Congress works an average of 2 days a week and it seems the only substantial legislation they pass are pay raises for themselves. This MUST change!
You are with the Dems on this issue right?
I'm with GWB on immigration
If she feels she can't even confide in her parents in the first place, there is something wrong.
Yes, she might be a typical teenager who feels she has failed, and with the myopic view of life and lack of perspective that most teens have, she is unlikely to tell her parents about the thing she needs the most guidance, compassion, and support on. This is a case where the liberals have strained out a gnat and swallowed a camel – they've rejected common sense and the rights of parents to protect their children based on the exception of abusive parents, thinking it is the rule. And this law does NOT take away the girl's right to have the procedure done, it only says that she should have to inform her parents! How awful! It's a sad fact that any other surgical procedure, even the use of aspirin, requires paretnal approval. Why this exception? Not to protect the girl, but to protect her right to kill her child and undermine her family structure and authority. It's clearly rebellion against valid authority from liberals who argue like rebellious fools.
Imagine what I consider to be the MOST common scenario, as opposed to the exception of abusive parents, which liberals base their opposition to the notification law. You are a parent whose daughter becomes pregnant. If you knew, you would want to help your daughter walk through the options. Instead, she is scared to approach you, mistakenly thinking that you will be angry. She knows that her uncle is a pro-choicer, and he agrees to help her solve her problem through abortion. And you never know till after the fact. Fine with you? If you say YES, you are a foolish, irresponsible parent.
This election was obviously not about gay marriage, it was about the Republican incompetence and corruption.
Leave it to libs to focus on only part of the news while ignoring things they don't want to admit, like the fact that most Americans are against gay marriage. While the election was mainly a referendum on Republican issues, this very imporant issue should not be ignored. It was part of election day news.
In cases of rape and incest or when a mother's life is threatened (South Dakota Referendum 6 is the topic here correct?), it's the mother's right to decide. Even assuming a blastocyst and even a 12 week old fetus is a person with full rights it still SHOULD be the victim's (mother's) decision.
Why is a 12 week old child not protected by the law, but a 9 month old is? I say they are both infanticide, and no mother has that right. If you agree that they have "full rights", then allow the mother to take those rights away, that's doubletalk. You value the right to choose over the right to life. That's abysmal.
Curious Seeker, would you place me to the left or right of Pelosi?
Haven't done the in-depth, issue by issue analysis yet ;)
If you think taxing millionaires will ruin the economy then you have good reason to worry because I think they should tax rich people more!
Of course you do. Why not tax those who are successful? They don't deserve the moneys they've earned. The fact is, tax cuts have boosted our economy, and raising taxes beyond a certain point brings diminishing returns.
If I'm clear Seeker, you're against the allegedly arbirtray taxation system that singles out one group for decidedly unfair treatment (the rich), but you have no problem endorsing other systems which single out one group for obviously unfair treatment (your opposition to gay marriage). The hoops you jump through politically are fascinating.
I'm with GWB on immigration.
And GWB seems more in line with Democrats on the immigration agenda than Republicans. Illegal Immigration is one of the issues he took a lot of flack from his own party on. If there are any issues likely to be addressed in a bipartisan way between Democrats and Bush, immigration reform is it. Let's back the issue and not the parties on this one.
…with the myopic view of life and lack of perspective that most teens have.
If your name was John Kerry, Republicans would be demanding you apologize to all teens for calling them stupid or uneducated.
And this law does NOT take away the girl's right to have the procedure done, it only says that she should have to inform her parents! How awful!
Isn't it Evangelicals who hope that parents will forbid their daughters to have an abortion? Even if she rebels, the parents will make it very very hard on her. They will punish her. That is indeed awful. Your analogy does not apply to me, as I am pro-choice. If I had a daughter who came to me to "go through the options," I would ask her what she wants to do and support her decision. Your analogy applies to someone like yourself who is angry that their daughter is not required to talk to you about it so that you can talk her out of it. Failing that, you would force her not to have an abortion. Awful!
It's a sad fact that any other surgical procedure, even the use of aspirin, requires parental approval. Why this exception?
The law requires parental approval for use of aspirin? Isn't that because someone might be allergic to aspirin? Also, if prop 85 passed, it would be a sick move to throw your own daughter in jail because she broke the law by not informing her parents of an abortion. If you vote for prop 85 then you should put a sign in front of your house saying, "dump all self aborted fetuses here."
Leave it to libs to focus on only part of the news while ignoring things they don't want to admit…
Leave it to neo-cons to focus on only part of the news while ignoring things they don't want to admit like the fact that gay marriage was not the issue Americans voted on. Despite the sad fact most Americans are against gay marriage, that issue obviously took a back seat to far more important issues like Iraq. We all know that even though the Democrats have controlled congress for 24 hours, it was actually Democrats who got us embroiled in the Iraq war. (sarcasm)
You value the right to choose over the right to life. That's abysmal.
Disclaimer: The following is an example only to make a point about South Dakota Referendum 6, I am not serious about doing this…
…i'm going to go to your house Seeker to knock you unconscious and steal one of your kidneys and give it to someone who needs it. Your right to decide whether you want to donate your kidney or not is trumped by the right to life of the terminal ill person who needs your kidney. If you argue that it's against the law to steal your kidney and that you are a victim, I will show you disgusting pictures of the corpses of people who died of kidney failure to prove to you that they were human beings.
Do you know the whole "in cases of rape or incest" abortion argument upsets me SO MUCH.
First of all, it is almost impossible to get pregnant from rape. Almost. It happens sometimes. Second of all, most rape isnt even reported, because of the stigma placed on the woman who was raped. And most rape victims who go on to have their babies feel vindicated. Third of all, nearly 80% of women who are raped (whether reported or not) and do get pregnant – just do not want to get an abortion, and do not get one.
So do you realize how many abortions each year are for rape vitims? About .001% and that is prolly a high estimate. I happen to know a woman who got an abortion after becoming pregnant from rape, at the age of 15. She was in her thirties before she could think about having another baby. Because she was so traumatised after the abortion, and not for any other reason, according to her.
And speaking of "straw man" arguments, this whole – "to save the life of the mother" thing makes me mad too. Do you know what most women do who are at high risk of death because they are pregnant? They have the baby by a c-section. Not an abortion. Because this is usually in the second or third trimester. It is very rare to be high risk for death in the first trimester.
I am saying again: It doesn't matter if the fetus is by law considered a real person. The whole of the legal abortion argument is based on whether the woman wants her baby or not. And that is all. If a woman wants her baby, she views it as her baby. If not, she views it as something easy to get rid of.
And they are out to make it EASIER and EASIER and legal where nothing else is legal.
Consider the CA law just passed. I do not understand how a law could be considered non-biased which says that a person under the age of 18 can get a surgical procedure done without their parent's consent. It is obvious that this is caused by the whole "abortion" push in our country.
You have to have parental consent for EVERY other surgical (and even a lot of non-surgical) procedures on minors in the rest of the country, and I'd wager even in CA.
But oh no, NOT ABORTION. Even a GIRL (not a woman, mind you, a GIRL – one who is too young to vote, drive, get a job, drink, smoke, have sex – legally) can get an abortion. Yes, that is SO REASONABLE.
And Cineaste, do you know most (ethical) plastic surgeons will not do cosmetic procedures on minors, even with parental consent, except after a very intense psychological interview.
And this is because the teens are not mature enough to make their own choice about whether to have the procedure or not.
Compare this to abortion – where all you have to do is say, "I want one" whether you are a teen or not.
More logic, there. Yes, I see the coherence to reason. /end sarcasm
My daughter cannot have a tooth implant until she is 16 legally. No doctor around here will do it until then. But if she were to get pregnant at the age of 13 or 14, she could have an abortion done, without my knowledge, in CA. Nice.
If I'm clear Seeker, you're against the allegedly arbirtray taxation system that singles out one group for decidedly unfair treatment (the rich), but you have no problem endorsing other systems which single out one group for obviously unfair treatment (your opposition to gay marriage). The hoops you jump through politically are fascinating.
Your example is a perfect one to clarify the conservative position. I think you, and others who misunderstand the conservative Christian approach to government, spend a lot of wasted energy complaining about apparent inconsistencies and contradictory logic that aren't really there.
So let it be known that fiscal and social policy are separate items. You can be conservative or liberal in both of these areas, in different combinations.
DEFINITIONS
Fiscal Conservative: Small government, deregulation, decentralization, low taxes, less social programs, sometimes against the graduated tax (seen as unfair)
Fiscal Liberal: More social programs ("big" government), regulation, centralization, higher taxes, more social programs, usually FOR the graduated tax
Social Conservative: Supports traditional morals and family structure, and laws that protect children and parental rights over individual sovereignty, and restrain vice by setting limits based on traditional morals.
Social Liberal: Supports all family structures as equal, laws that protect individual sovereignty over government "intrusion" into matters that might affect the invidiual, and support the personal practice of vices as long as they don't directly affect others.
COMBINATIONS MAKE FOR DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES
Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative – Most evangelical Christians fall in this category – so while they want to keep government out of our pocketbooks, they also want to put legislation as guardrails around society in order to maintain morality and order. Again, they are not enforcing their morality (for example, forcing unwed people to marry if they live together or have a child), but they do want to set up a system that rewards and encourages virtues like fidelity, chastity, industry, honesty, home ownership, investment, etc. (those are both fiscal and social virtues). They don't see the latter as "big" government, because that is primarily a fiscal term.
Social Conservative, Fiscal Liberal – Most evangelical and Christian Left people fall into this category – they believe in traditional morality, but they also think that the government is central to social justice. Many are closet Socialists, believing that reditribution of wealth through higher taxes is totally acceptable.
Social Liberal, Fiscal Conservative – Libertarians are in this category. They believe in minimal government, which includes low taxes, deregulation, AND keeping social engineering laws to a minimum. Sam, this is probably what you think it logically consistent, and how you think Christians conservatives should be. But they are not.
Social Liberal, Fiscal Liberal – Your classic big government, anti-virtue liberal. Ugh. ;)
ONE MORE THING
The graduated tax is anything but "arbitrary" – while it means well, it is the wrong solution to the problem of accumulation of wealth and solving the problem of poverty – it is a classic 'two wrongs can make a right' thinking that liberals engage in – just like the injustice of affirmative action (reverse discrimination being used to try to fix racial inequity). I believe that a flat tax, coupled with tax exemption for people below a certain annual wage, is much more fair. And even under a flat tax, the rich pay much more in taxes than the middle class or poor, but not an inordinate, out of proportion amount. I believe that the graduated tax basically punishes success and hard work, rather than rewarding it (that was one of the problems with Communism).
I believe that a flat tax, coupled with tax exemption for people below a certain annual wage, is much more fair.
It is, or would be.
And this is because the teens are not mature enough to make their own choice about whether to have the procedure or not.
Lawanda, this is a much stronger argument than the one against South Dakota Referendum 6. My opinion is that teens are mature enough to make decisions about their own body. For example, I can understand why a parent would force their child, despite the child's protests, to undergo painful chemotherapy. It's because the chemotherapy can send the cancer into remission. However, if that child is 15 or 16 years old and they say they realize what the chemotherapy is for and they understand that they will die if they don't get treatment, yet they still don't want the chemotherapy, then I believe that at that age, they should be able to make their own decision. Every time a 16 year old gets behind the steering wheel, they have the potential to die or kill someone else. Yet, at this age, it's their decision to make. This rational also applies to Prop 85 in my opinion, and the majority of Californians feel this way.
This whole – "to save the life of the mother" thing makes me mad too.
I am going to politely ask you to please drop this point because it is very personal to me. Recently, my cousin was pregnant and in a situation where it was either her or the baby. If you insist on pushing it, just know that this is a personal issue for me and I won't stand for someone saying she was a bad person for the decision she made. I won't allow someone to bad mouth my family. Family is the most important thing in the world to me. So, back off here please.
As far as South Dakota Referendum 6 goes, Seeker you still have not addressed my analogy.
I do not know any ethical doctor who would save the baby (or advise a woman to keep her pregnancy) in a true case of "her or the baby". Or anyone who would consider such an action ethical. Not even very avid "pro-lifers".
My point was the rarity of the situation, especially in the first trimester, which is (luckily) when 87%+ of abortions take place in the US.
I am sorry your cousin had to terminate her pregnancy. That would break my heart, personally. Just like it breaks my heart when people have to have their babies early, sometimes WAY early, in order to live. I have a cousin who had to do this. Her baby lived however, against all odds, so to speak. She was only 21 weeks along.
I do not judge people harshly who have abortions. I know too many who've done it and have some very good friends who've got abortions. But I still do not think it should be legal.
(I would be more apt to judge harshly the woman who keeps her baby and still uses drugs, and then gets a late term abortion because the baby is SO DEFORMED and will not survive after birth. I know someone who did this as well, and I have to admit to being pretty harsh in my thoughts on that one.)
The topic of "to save her life" is one of the pro-choice "straw man" arguments, though. Because the most part of abortions taking place in America today are not for this reason at all, but for birth control.
And I am positive that every pro-life person (especially those who are informed) would be FOR passing a law against abortion with the expections that say a woman can abort if she is raped or if it is a case of incest or saving the woman's life.
As opposed to having "abortion on demand" for the purpose of bc. Yes, because obviously not everyone likes condoms. (I dont personally, as I am allergic to latex! It is only a slight allergy, but very annoying. Now how's that for TMI?!)
I truly am sorry about your cousin. Very sad and difficult, I am sure. :(
I can take two years of liberals in power in order to get another conservative president who can, among other things, appoint conservative judges.
And if Democrats maintain control of the Senate, you can forget about that. There are enough conservative judges on the Supreme Court already; too many I think. To balance that out, we need moderate and liberal judges.
Cineaste, I cannot find anything to read about South Dakota Referendum 6.
And on this:
"Isn't it Evangelicals who hope that parents will forbid their daughters to have an abortion? Even if she rebels, the parents will make it very very hard on her. They will punish her. That is indeed awful. Your analogy does not apply to me, as I am pro-choice. If I had a daughter who came to me to "go through the options," I would ask her what she wants to do and support her decision. Your analogy applies to someone like yourself who is angry that their daughter is not required to talk to you about it so that you can talk her out of it. Failing that, you would force her not to have an abortion. Awful!"
I would definitely talk her out of having an abortion, if she came to me, which I hope she would. And I would let her know she doesnt have to marry the idiot boy who got her pregnant either. As a matter of fact I would beg her not to, until she is older.
These are my future grandkids we are talkin about here. I would tell her that she has help and support, in the form of me.
And think about what you are saying…
Parents could forbid their daughter to have the baby as well…they could force her to have the abortion. Is that awful too?
It does work both ways.
I do not know any ethical doctor who would save the baby (or advise a woman to keep her pregnancy) in a true case of "her or the baby". Or anyone who would consider such an action ethical. Not even very avid "pro-lifers".
I am an 'avid' pro-lifer, and I think that MOST evangelicals I know want to make an exception for the life of the mother. To not leave that decision up to the mother is unethical. And if she chooses to live and kill the fetus in that clear case, she should be immune from prosecution or condemnation.
Regarding the SD law which was turned back, I gave my opinion above, I thought. But let me be clear. I think that this type of law is *almost* exactly what we should do – protect the life of the child, regardless of how the child was sired. Abortion won't undo the rape or incest, it will only add to the problem, because now we've added murder to the mix, thinking that another wrong will make it right.
The only change I would make is that I would allow a person to abort up to about week 6, at which time the fetal heartbeat,brainwaves, and spontaneous movement are detectable. From that time on, I think the fetus is a person with a RIGHT to life.
My position also would allow for the morning after pill, and embryonic stem cell research.
You can read my position at the site I created but have done nothing with, c-ral.org
Because the most part of abortions taking place in America today are not for this reason at all, but for birth control.
Lawanda, I agree with you here about not using abortions as birth control. Here is the link to South Dakota Referendum 6 for you hun. (If "hun" is too familiar just tell me and I'll never say it again :) Just do a word search on the page for South Dakota. Now the reason I feel abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and incest is the same I gave to Seeker…
Your analogy fails because your story does not involve killing an innocent person. Here's a better analogy.
Your neighbor has a premie child and doesn't want it, breaks into your house and leaves it on the couch. You are traumatized by the breakin, and horrified to find this new burden in your house. You decide that to make things right, you will hire a doctor to come and dispose of the child, and then you feel better, and absolved from responsibility.
Your analogy fails because your story does not involve killing an innocent person.
By not donating your kidney to the terminally ill person you are effectively sentencing that person to death. That is the killing of an innocent human being.
My analogy is closer. Yours involves TAKING a body part, mine involves allowing one person to kill another.
…mine involves allowing one person to kill another.
So does mine. Besides, in your analogy, I would just bring the premie over to your house. It's not like I have to keep it for it to stay alive. It would probably be happier with you.
From your argument above it looks like abortion is still the overriding issue that concerns you the most. I am against abortion but I also understand that it's not a black and white issue that there are times when it is necessary and that I cannot enforce my values on others.There are certain social issues that are best handled at the state level, and abortion is such a case. If a state like South Dakota likes to make it illegal more power to them, and even they thought making abortion illegal in all forms is not right. But We cannot push South Dakota values values on the rest of the country.
Most Americans are socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Bush had made America socially ultra conservative and fiscally irresponsible. This election should teach Bush and all conservatives and democrats that America likes to be in the middle and middle is defined as socially moderate and fiscally conservative. By that I mean an America where abortion is legal, some form of civil union, and a stop to reckless spending.
Then how about this argument?
"I am against infanticide but I also understand that it's not a black and white issue that there are times when it is necessary and that I cannot enforce my values on others."
But We cannot push South Dakota values values on the rest of the country.
You make the classic mistake of assuming that legislation is value neutral. It is not. We are always legislating someone's values. The question really is, what things are ok to legislate, and what aren't? And we've discussed that at length.
We legislate to protect individuals and society from harm. Pro-life legislation is desirable in order to protect unborn children from harm.
Would you feel different if people were using abortion to terminate children of a certain gender, or potentially homosexual children, or would you leave it up to their conscience?
"I am against infanticide but I also understand that it's not a black and white issue that there are times when it is necessary and that I cannot enforce my values on others."
Sometimes, infanticide is unavoidable when it is either the mother's life or the baby's. It's a horrible horrible choice but it is one that SHOULD be left to the mother, no one else. The government has no right to mandate that she die to save her baby. It should be her decision not yours, mine, the governments, or anyone else's. I need to bow out of this conversation for now because it's too personal, sorry.
In regard to my analogy, your being a hypocrite though.
<i.Sometimes, infanticide is unavoidable when it is either the mother's life or the baby's.</i>
I agree, but that's the only provision I would make, as I stated. All lesser reasons are just not valid. She does not have the right to kill the baby a day or week or month before it's born, any more than a day after.
((Cineaste)) You can call me hun anytime… or anything nice and comfy you want ;)
In the analogy you gave…
if the person knocked unconcious could have prevented the kidney malfunction from existing to begin with in the other person, then the knocked unconcious person is the person who is responsible to take care of the kidney patient. After all, the kidney patient is an innocent bystander who is in need of some help from another human, preferably the one who caused his kidney troubles.
It is a (moral) shame the person had to be knocked unconcious and have his/her kidney taken by another person though.
Sorry, to get all sentimental, but this brought to mind the song—
Lonely, so lonely.
Tin can at my feet,
I think I'll kick it down the street.
That's the way to treat a friend.
Bright before me the signs implore me:
Help the needy and show them the way.
Human kindness is overflowing,
and I think it's gonna rain today.
Bette Midler
Dang it, Seeker switched the posts on me, I was addressing him.
How about this one Lawanda? Are you old enough to guess?
A winter's day
In a deep and dark December
I am alone
Gazing from my window
To the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow
I am a rock
I am an island
I've built walls
A fortress deep and mighty
That none may penetrate
I have no need for friendship
Friendship causes pain
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock
I am an island
Don't talk of love
Well, I've heard the word before
It's sleeping in my memory
I won't disturb the slumber
Of feelings that have died
If I'd never loved,
I never would have cried
I am a rock
I am an island
I have my books
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room
Safe within my womb
I touch no-one and no-one touches me
I am a rock
I am an island
And the rock feels no pain
And an island never cries
Cin,
How about my argument that my analogy is closer to the reality? Do you buy my analogy? Why not?
I didnt know who sang it til I looked it up. (Simon and Garfunkel!) But I love that song! I must be hormonal today. I am going to cry if I keep on this train of thought.
(Oh, and I forgot to say thank you for the link.) :)
You're saying that if my neighbor leaves her baby on my sofa that I am now responsible and have no choice but to raise the child?
Not at all. I am comparing this to rape. Let's say it wasn't your neighbor, it was someone you don't know. The point is, do you kill the child?
This is what is happening with rape. Though you are not responsible for creating the child, you now have the responsibility to decide the child's fate.
Obviously, you can raise the child as your own or put it up for adoption or find the parent (rapist) and let them raise it – OR you can kill it (abortion). That's the allegory. And it fits much better the real situation. The child is not some kidney, or person needing one.
That's the allegory. And it fits much better the real situation. The child is not some kidney, or person needing one.
Seeker no, I don't agree. First, a person who needs a kidney is just as much of a human being as a baby is. I can prove that if you don't agree. Second, the baby left on the couch has nothing to do with my own body. There is no sacrifice involved on my part so what reason would I have for killing the baby? I can just give it to you.
Here is my logic and how it equates to a rape or incest victim being forced by the law to carry a baby to term…
…i'm going to go to your house Seeker to knock you unconscious and steal one of your kidneys and give it to someone who needs it.
This is equivalent to a getting pregnant from rape or incest: you are the victim, you're body is violated. Just as a pregnant woman's organs have been hijacked by the rapist to support a baby, your organ, specifically your kidney, has been hijacked to support a terminally ill kidney patient. In both cases, the usage of your organs are necessary to the survival of another human being.
Your right to decide whether you want to donate your kidney or not is trumped by the right to life of the terminally ill person who needs your kidney.
According to your pro-life rational, you MUST donate your kidney else the person who is depending on it will die. According to your pro-life rational, the mother must donate use of her body else the person who is depending on it, the baby, will die. Your right to chose whether to be a kidney donor or not is trumped by the other persons right to life. But your a hypocrite if you say that you have the choice of being a kidney donor or not because this situation is analogous to a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. You say you have the right to chose but the rape/incest woman victim does not. That's BS!
If you argue that it's against the law to steal your kidney and that you are a victim, I will show you disgusting pictures of the corpses of people who died of kidney failure to prove to you that they were human beings.
This is my appeal to your emotion that by refusing to donate your kidney, you have effectively sentenced the person who needed your kidney to death.
I am sorry, your analogy does not follow. Your violation involves taking something, not creating a new life.
Mine involves violating your home (which is similar to violating your body), and putting a helpless child at your disposal. Will you care for it, or will you argue that it's not your fault or responsibility, and kill it? Or will you offer it for adoption?
I have not missed your point. Your point is not valid. And you have not addressed mine. My point is that if it is a child, it does not matter how it was created.
What is your justification for killing the child if it is just born? Because it was a product of rape? If you can't justify that, neither can you, I argue, justify killing it if it is a person with rights at an earlier time.
I am sorry, your analogy does not follow. Your violation involves taking something, not creating a new life.
When you rape a woman, and you get her pregnant, you are taking something from her. You are hijacking her organs to support your baby. This follows the analogy. See?
Mine involves violating your home (which is similar to violating your body)
Violating my home does not involve hijacking the use of my organs to support a baby or someone else.
Will you care for it, or will you argue that it's not your fault or responsibility, and kill it? Or will you offer it for adoption?
Simple. I'll call the police. I won't kill it. That would be unjustified murder.
I have not missed your point. Your point is not valid. And you have not addressed mine. My point is that if it is a child, it does not matter how it was created.
Yes, I agree that a baby is a person. No, it matters not how it was created it only matters that it is a person with the rights of a person. Just like the person who needs your kidney to live. Yet you reserve the right to chose to be a kidney donor regardless. You don't reserve this right for women who get pregnant from rape or incest. You want a law that forces female victims to reproduce against their will.
What is your justification for killing the child if it is just born?
If the child is no longer tied to the mother's body the is NO justification for killing him or her. If the child is still dependent upon the mothers organs for survival the justification for killing the child would be the same as if you chose not to donate your kidney to someone who will die without it. The baby has the same rights, no more, no less, as the person who needs your kidney. Yet you reserve your right to chose to be a donor and effectively "kill" that person off. Yet don't give the victims of rape and incest the same rights as you would have yourself enjoy. Your views conflict.
If the child is still dependent upon the mothers organs for survival the justification for killing the child would be the same as if you chose not to donate your kidney to someone who will die without it. The baby has the same rights, no more, no less, as the person who needs your kidney.
Wow! So there you have it. As long as the child is attached to the mother, it is her personal property with no rights under the law.
Because the woman didn't want the child, she has no legal responsibility, though she may have an ethical one, but you would leave that up to her.
That's an interesting argument, I'll think on it. So based on that, you would make exceptions for rape and incest, but disallow other types of abortion after, say, the first trimester?
Wow! So there you have it. As long as the child is attached to the mother, it is her personal property with no rights under the law.
Nope, it's not her personal property. It does indeed have rights under the law. The child is a person with the full rights of a human being just like the person who needs your kidney in order to live. Yet you reserve your right to chose whether to donate despite the fact this means the death of the person who needs your kidney to live.
Because the woman didn't want the child, she has no legal responsibility, though she may have an ethical one, but you would leave that up to her.
It's up to her whether she chooses to donate her organs to the baby just like it's up to you to decide to donate your organs to a person who will die without them. If you chose not to donate someone will die, yet you still have the right to choose. A pregnant rape/incest victim has the same rights as you do. If you say she does not, you're a hypocrite (not an insult, I am a hypocrite when it comes to the practice of eating meat and the ethics of eating meat).
So based on that, you would make exceptions for rape and incest, but disallow other types of abortion after, say, the first trimester?
Yes, though I am not sure as to the exact time frame. No one is sure, that's why we start counting a person's age from birth and not from the first day of the first trimester. We don't know exactly when someone should be considered a person with rights. I am not so pro-choice to argue that all abortions before birth are justified. I don't agree with using abortion, when the baby reaches the age when it is clearly a person, as birth control. So, no abortions at 8 months just because you don't want to have the baby.
It's up to her whether she chooses to donate her organs to the baby just like it's up to you to decide to donate your organs to a person who will die without them.
Where your analogy breaks down is that refusing to give a kidney is a passive act, while abortion is a direct action that takes a human life. It's the difference between you not feeding a hungry child in Africa, and going there personally to shoot them. Are they the same, morally speaking? Not on your life.
The other fact is, that kidney person has other possible avenues to get a kidney. The unborn child has no options. My analogy is closer – someone abandons a child at your door, and you decide not to give it up for adoption (which a raped woman could do), but to murder it.
when the baby reaches the age when it is clearly a person, as birth control.
I believe that we can use principle and reason to arrive at an agreement for legislation that is neither overly restrictive nor careless with the child's life. If you do not believe we can do so, then you can NOT be part of the solution, only a bystander or part of the problem.
Where your analogy breaks down is that refusing to give a kidney is a passive act, while abortion is a direct action that takes a human life. It's the difference between you not feeding a hungry child in Africa, and going there personally to shoot them.
No, if you are the only donor that is compatible it is a very personal decision. For example, if it's your brother who going to die in a week, and you are the only donor, refusing to donate is as good as blowing his head off. Yet, you have the right to refuse him.
If my brother refused to donate his kidney to me in such a situation I would be crushed, but I would also not hire someone to knock him unconscious and steal his kidney for me. I would be willing to die of kidney failure rather than violate his right to choose.
I believe that we can use principle and reason to arrive at an agreement for legislation that is neither overly restrictive nor careless with the child's life. If you do not believe we can do so, then you can NOT be part of the solution, only a bystander or part of the problem.
If you hold to your belief that women who are victims of rape or incest should be forced to reproduce against their will by law, that they don't even have the same rights over their own body as you do, then you Seeker are indeed NOT part of the solution, but the problem.