The Democrats are trying to "reframe" their message to make people think they believe abortion is wrong. I think this is going to be a hard sell if they plan to continue ferociously defending abortion-on-demand right up until the moment the baby's head is through the birth canal.
But both The New York Times and The Washington Post have recently run op-eds by liberals calling for Democrats to abandon their single-minded devotion to Roe v. Wade.
In the Post, Richard Cohen said it was time for liberals to "untether abortion rights from Roe." Cohen admitted that conservatives (and "some liberals," he claimed implausibly) have a point when they say abortion ought to be decided by the states. This is another way of saying abortion is not a constitutional right. Kate Michelman: Call your abortion mill!
In The New York Times, William Saletan gently counseled feminists that it was time to admit: "It's bad to kill a fetus." And they say liberals have no values!
Even Jimmy Carter, the Democrats' idea of an Evangelical Christian, has allowed that "I don't believe that Christ would approve of abortions." (Though Carter added that Christ would approve of abortion if "the mother's life or health was seriously endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest" — or if Jesus really, really needed the feminists to vote for him.)
It's been a long time coming, but the Democrats are finally throwing the NARAL ladies off the boat.
One by one, the Democratic Party keeps having to abandon all the insane positions that have made it the funny, silly party we've come to know and love.
The gun control fanatics were thrown overboard after President Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress passed the 1994 crime bill that banned so-called "assault weapons" — i.e., otherwise completely legal semiautomatic weapons that looked scary to Dianne Feinstein.
As a result, the Democrats lost Congress for the first time in 40 years and lost the South forever. When is the last time you heard a Democrat use the words "gun control"?
In 1995, the new Republican Congress sent a welfare reform bill to Clinton, a man who had campaigned on "mend it, don't end it" and then refused to do anything about it.
Not one Democrat resigned from the Clinton administration when Clinton turned out to be molesting the help and committing lots of felonies. But a whole slew of them resigned to protest Clinton's signing the Republicans' welfare reform bill.
You never hear a peep out of Democrats anymore about restoring government welfare programs to their former glory.
Now it's the abortion ladies' turn.
As Saletan informed feminists in his Times column:
"You can tell yourself that the pro-choice majority stayed home in the last election, or that they voted on other issues, or that Democrats botched the debate. But those excuses are getting tired. Sixteen years ago, as the behavior of voters and politicians showed, abortion was clearly a winning issue for you. Now it isn't. You have a problem."
It's finally happened: Abortion stopped a bleeding heart.
I guess Sandra Day O'Connor's demand that "the contending sides" on abortion "end their national division" and accept the court's diktat in Roe didn't work out for her.
As Abraham Lincoln said of another moral blight on the nation supported by Democrats: You can "repeal the Declaration of Independence — repeal all past history — you still cannot repeal human nature. It will still be the abundance of man's heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart, his mouth will continue to speak."
Or, as Justice Antonin Scalia said, the court's refusal to overrule the lawless Roe decision would not stand because of "the twin facts that the American people love democracy and the American people are not fools."
With even liberals backing away from Roe, apparently the last group of people on Earth to realize the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is a catastrophe is going to be the Supreme Court.
Keep your heheldeald high Republicans...the Left has no ideas but bad ones. Running on lots of hand-outs, welfare and killing babies will keep them out of power. Blacks seem to be the only grouppeopleople who still blindly follow the Dems. I really can't understand how people can be so happy andemotionalnate about killing babies. It is mind boggling.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
ABORTION STOPS A BLEEDING HEART
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
Those are tough issues. Should partial birth abortion be legal....NO
Should it be very difficult to get one, and need parents permission if the person is under 18....YES
Lets start with those two, once we have things to a reasonable level, we can worry about the middle ground.
I agree with you there. I also agree that the right to an abortion is not guaranteed in the Constitution.
But if I had a daughter that was raped, and she wanted an abortion, would I honestly tell her no? It would be cruel to do so.
Let's ban all medical procedures that have the effect of waylaying God's plan to populate the universe. No more hysterectomies for pre-menapausal women. Ovarian cancer be damned. Prosate cancer? Too bad.
A D&E is a medical procedure. It is a procedure used primarily to end the pregnancy of a woman when carrying the fetus to full term is a significant risk to the woman's health. This medical procedure is used because it poses the least risk to the woman's health.
Is it your position that women should be forced to carry a fetus to full term even if doing so risks her life or her ability to have children in the future? Is that your position?
Or is it OK to terminate a pregnancy that poses a grave threat to the woman?
Which is it?
So what is your objection to this medical procedure? If it is OK to terminate an at risk pregnancy, would you prefer some other procedure? A cesarian even if it poses greater risk to the woman? At the end of either procedure, the fetus is not alive, so what is the difference?
Or do you propose that a live birth by cesarian be mandated in all cases?
Why is this any business of yours?
And Jason, if an abortion is "killing an innocent baby", why is it OK or not OK depending on the circumstance of conception? It's still an innocent baby, right?
Jim's weak and pathetic argument that this is a "medical procedure" is crap. The very, very, very small percent of the time that a woman's life is in danger, most will agree that you might have to do something about it. But any human being with a heart and soul will try and preserve the babies life. A vast majority of abortions are not coming from your "medical procedure" situation, they are coming from women who are using it as birth control.
so lets have some common ground... focus Jim. Take a deep breath, and try and focus on this part of it.
You have to agree that partial birth abortion is wrong....correct.
You have to agree that a woman who simply kills a baby because she does not want to have it is wrong.
You have to agree that parents need to know if their minor daughter is having an abortion....right?
Really, if you can not even agree with these comments you are a very sick, heartless, shallow, evil person.
Let's ban all medical procedures that have the effect of waylaying God's plan to populate the universe.
Jim, making comments like that makes you the crazy liberal that I portray on my blog at times....it also makes me think you really despise religion...what is wrong with a little morality and people doing tha right thing anyway..
Why do you care about dead soldiers in Iraq but not dead babies?
I don't understand the logic behind most of the liberal ethics. Since it does make a point about the fallacies of liberal thinking I will post it here also, as I did with the smoking ban post:
This is absolutely crazy! I just heard on the radio that CA is trying to pass, or has passed a law prohibiting parents who smoke from smoking in their cars while their children are present. Fines, jail time, what will the consequences be? Will they monitor the homes next? One of the physicians interviewed said: "I think we Californians sometimes take things a bit too far!" That's for sure!
Go figure, it's OK to abort babies, and it's OK, to engage in high risk sexual activities that lead to extreme health risks for the entire country, but not OK to smoke in the car with your kids around! Amazing!
I'd like to point out how horrible HIV and AIDS is, and it's not just the consenting adults that are victimized. And you betcha, gay sexual practices create the conditions for the disease. The lining of the rectum/colon wasn't made for penetration, it breaks down easily, exposing the underlying tissues, and blood vessels to bacteria. And yet, all that is COOL, and better for your health than smoking, for the sake of being tolerant, that is. AIDS causes far more expensive national health care problems than smoking. The costs to health care facilities to provide protection for their employees caring for those with HIV and AIDS is just one of the major expenses. (The rationale for the smoking bans is the danger to others, and the way it accelerates health care costs.) Go figure...CA liberal moonbats.
There are so many issues that liberals cite the reason for supporting these issues as being tolerant.
The bottom line is that the liberals do not have any ethical guidelines. They simply cater to whichever special interest groups they believe will provide them with enough votes. There are no critical thinking processes going on with liberals. Period.
PS: I just saw the most incredible pics of Bush and Hilarious placed side by side, next to an article entitled "Bush Calls Clinton Formidable". The look of disgust on Bush's face is priceless. Since it was on AOL, one of those flash pics/headliners, I couldn't capture it. The article the pics were from was simply a Washington AP address. They never give out the origins. Damn. I would have really liked to see what EH could do with those pics. It would have been priceless. I think I'll keep looking for the pics somewhere I can capture them.
Of course I never go to EH's anymore, (paranoia runs deep there) but I could probably have arranged for them to be sent via friends.
anon...are you steph?
Focus on this, Game.
Really, Game. I get it. Anyone who does not agree with you is "a very sick, heartless, shallow, evil person." Why? Because YOU are the Truth, the Light, and the Way? It must be a hard but rewarding job for you to pass judgement on who in this world is "very sick, heartless, shallow, evil."
I (and millions of others) DO NOT agree that d&e's are wrong. Are they tragic? Yes. Does that make it wrong? Millions think not. Doesn't mean they are "right" and you are "wrong". It means that people disagree, and therefore there is not one "TRUTH".
If I found it morally repugnant (or wrong) that a doctor should perform a procedure which removes the heart of a living person and transplants it into your brother's chest in order to prolong his life, should that procedure be outlawed? I mean, mixing body parts!
Yes, I agree that it is wrong for a woman to kill a baby. However, I do not agree that a fetus is a baby. Many, many millions of people do not believe that a fetus is a baby. So no, I don't "have to agree" with you on abortion.
I agree that it is preferable for parents to be informed about their minor child having an abortion. But I don't believe it is an absolute, and I don't believe it is necessarily a good thing to have such a law IF it encourages girls to have unsafe abortions in order not to have to tell their parents. This is not an absolute black or white issue, so no, I don't "have to agree" with you.
If not agreeing with you makes me "a very sick, heartless, shallow, evil person" in your eyes, then you must be an irrational demagogue with delusions of god-hood.
Anonymous can't be Stephanie Rose, Game. Anonymous is more or less civil.
Am I who? Stepahnie Rose? Well, I WAS told recently by another blogger, one with even more "uncivil" mannerisms than myself, that I was an "ITSELF".
Jim, I really wish you wouldn't speak so harshly to Game like you did in your last 2 posts, it sort of bothers me. Isn't there a more "civil" way to word things?
OOPS! Typo..Correction: Stephanie;)
Anon,
I don't know how much time you spend here, but my tone is more civil than Game's by a power of magnitude. The names he calls me are very uncivil. He says that I am "a very sick, heartless, shallow, evil person." And that's only on this thread.
You'll notice that I don't call anybody names. Suggesting he was "an irrational demagogue with delusions of god-hood" because he declared me an evil person is about as bad as I've ever given, especially considering what I take here.
Game can surely take care of himself.
Jim, I don't recall saying that gay sexual practices were the cause of AIDS. If I did say that, I apologize. The bare bones facts are though, that gays, and IV drug users who share needles are still in the highest risk groups for contracting AIDS. One important reason gays are high risk is because of the FACT that the linings of the rectum and the colon were not designed for penetration.
I was simply relating the high health risk factors of contracting AIDS to the smoking ban situation. Indeed, will you now try and tell me that gays are not at higher risk for AIDS? Because AIDS is not limited only to gays, they further the spread of the disease to other victims. (However, every gay that practices unprotected sex will eventually contract either HIV or AIDS. It is inevitable.) Not every smoker, or every child in a family who smokes contracts smoking related diseases either. But yet the ban is in place. And if we ban smoking as discussed earlier...because of the increased health risks, why not ban gay sex? (It is a very high risk behavior.)
Both create financial burdens on our government, and health care organizations, only far less monies have been allocated toward diseases causes by smoking than diseases caused from AIDS. Astronomical amounts of money have been given for AIDS research alone. And the predictions for escalations of
the AIDS epidemic are very grim.
So the rationale that liberals are using to justify the smoking bans, aren't consistent. If it's a significant health risk, we should ban it? Well, like Game's most recent post (above), where will we stop with these bans? Because after all, using the smoking ban's 'logical' premise, we should ban many other things known as health risks.
I have to go, but I'll be happy to discuss this some more with you later:)
Jim, I have been hanging out at The Game's since he started this blog. He may shoot from the hip at times, but he speaks from his heart. I can relate to that:)
Game's a good guy.
Former Surgeon General C Everett Koop, said there is, and never has been, any valid reason for partial birth Abortions. Never.
As far as case of rape and incest...I don't believe in abortion in those cases either. Why punish (execute) the innocent babies for something that happened to it's mother?
If for some reason the mother doesn't want her baby, there are literal lines of people awaiting the opportunity to adopt.
I wasn't altogether serious about you being harsh, Jim. (My weird sense of hunor, I guess.) You are one the most civil, stubborn, but civil, liberals out there. If you ever want to get a fine and dandy look at the epitome of uncivil behaviors, visit the AOL message boards sometimes. It's absolutely vicious there. I don't post there much anymore, because it's a bit too violent for my taste. You don't have to be a member to view these at www.aol.com, then click message boards, then select a HOT topic. Browse around from board to board until you find some real heated action. You do have to be a member to post. Egads! The fury goes on all day and all night. Sometimes they have 200 to 300 posts coming in every minute, on one board alone.
More response about the gay topic later.
Thanks for the compliment, Anon. What a rarity.
I can imagine what AOL is like.
You're welcome, Jim. I think I've told you that before, though.
I believe the nastiness within the debates problem, lies with the temptation to use inflammatory language, or sarcastic wit to unnerve the opponent, aka 'baiting'.
People get sort of 'hooked' on the adrenaline rush that follows these types of behaviors. And the Internet provides a way to anonymously get their adrenaline 'fix'.
Unfortunately, I've been guilty of it too, on occasion.
I have to admit that sometimes I'm tempted to get really irate here and sometimes I write things that I never push the publish button on because I try stay above that level of discourse.
Jim & all --
Of course the circumstances matter.
On the one hand, there isn't any difference between killing a viable seven month fetus and a newborn. On the other hand, the people who believe a zygote should be a locus of rights are absurd -- they're like the Terri Schiavo idiots who insisted she had a soul even though her most of her brain had degenerated into cerebral-spinal fluid.
Jason, I have found something I completely agree with you about. The Schiavo case was ridiculous.
I was amazed every time someone thought that because of her involuntary muscle movements, she was smiling, or elsewise voluntarily reacting to some outside stimulus. She was actually having seizures during most of these occurrences. I worked in neuro years ago. I had quite a passion for those AOL Schiavo boards last year.
What exactly is your major in college, Jason? I think I did read at some time that you are a college student, right?
Come on Jim,
You will not say partial birth abortion is wrong...how can I not stand by my comments then?
I am trying to rationalize and fine some common ground...really.
I think partial birth abortion needs to go period...
there needs to be more restrictions and more parental verification...
After that I am up for debate...
But then saying that if you make it too hard they are just going to get unsafe abortions....you could use that with anything.
I have to agree with something else said...even though Jim has been getting a bit more nasty lately...there are much, much, much worse...
Jim, stick to making arguments and try to use reason...most liberals at other sides are 100 percent emotion...and it is impossible to debate.
I know you think that I am not debating and just trying to say all liberals are crap...well, sometimes I am, and many times I am trying to get some thinking going. Like with partial birth abortion, like with the newest post about all the things the government needs to ban to save us from ourselves...I write all about schools and school choice and get nothing...
I am sorry if I ALWAYS seem like I am not even listening to your argument...lately it has been harder, but I do think about them. On abortion...I can not think of a reason someone would be FOR it...especially when the baby can live by itself...that is plain wrong.
There are legitimate cases for abortion. birth control isn't one of them. Neither is partial birth abortion. Liberals aren't a lower life form?
I don't think I ever said end EVER SINGLE instance of abortion...but the way it is now is insanity.
I LOVE MIKE ADAMS:)
Why I don’t take feminists seriously, Part V
Jan 31, 2006
by Mike S. Adams ( bio | archive | contact )
18. Fhttp://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/mikeadams/2006/01/31/184431.html
Feminists’ husbands are even more irritating than feminists.
Post a Comment