Of all the nonsensical charges that the Democrats and the left have thrown at Republicans, the so-called War on Women is the silliest of all. It basically consists of people like Sandra Fluke, who is upset that the Republicans may deny her free condoms, supported by the mad hatters at MSNBC.
Now comes the University of Michigan, which is overflowing with silly people posing as academics, like Middle East studies professor Juan Cole, holding a War on Women forum. (I don't know if Cole participated.)
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/university-says-republican-war-on-women-forum-is-not-partisan.html
This just shows to me that the University of Michigan is not a serious institution. This is what they are teaching their students-that the Republican party is waging a war on women?
10 comments:
You can always tell which side is wrong by whether they lie in describing their position. "Pro-Choice" REALLY means "Pro-Abortion"
Having to pay for their own contraception is not a woman's health care issue. They are not "doing what they want with their own body" It is NOT their body. It is another human being with different DNA. If it were fingernails, it would be the same DNA and she can do what she wants with them. A human life should not depend on the mother's sole decision of whether or not the baby is convenient to her.
This shows that they are simultaneously stupid (to get pregnant) and selfish (to get someone else to pay for getting rid of it).
Part of the problem with the abortion debate, along with so many other debates, is that one side fails to even try and understand where the other side is coming from.
Miggie's response above proves just that. I have met many pro-choice people, but I have never met anybody who is "pro-abortion". Most of the women I know who are pro-choice, for instance, would absolutely never get an abortion themselves.
And unless you want to come up with a solution for dealing with all of those unwanted children (in other words, higher taxes to care for them) then you are not pro-life, but pro-birth. You don't get to care just up until the baby is born and then become indifferent.
It happens, Anonymous 703, that there is a great demand for babies. American couples have to go to foreign countries to adopt. Many families would take in these children, love them and raise them. You don't need a government, higher taxes, solution at all.
We don't know how many of those aborted lives would have solved world hunger, etc.
My point is that they CALL it pro choice but what it really means is the woman is allowed to unilaterally decide on whether another human should be allowed to live. I assume you accept the basic point that it is a DIFFERENT human being and not just part of the woman's body. Once you accept that, there is no justification for it except in certain circumstances. Incidentally, the number of those certain circumstances is infinitesimal compared to the number of babies aborted.
You may also know that Obama voted 3 times in the Illinois legislation to allow the murder of babies already born... if the abortion was botched and the baby was born alive.
Once you get into that, who decides when old people should be put to rest? Or disabled ones? Or any human being that is not convenient.
703,
You can cite many practical reasons for abortion. Personally, I would not oppose something like an RU486 pill immediately after a rape. As far as the rape, incest, life of the mother, I can go along with that. Romney apparently does as well.
However, when you are talking about the millions of abortions conducted as a form of birth control, there are no moral reasons. Add to that partial birth abortions, and killing a baby that survives an abortion, and one has to ask if we have lost our collective souls. Euthanasia is also on the horizen.
Inconvenient life?
Yes, this is a partisan event.
No, it should not be sponsored by the University of Michigan.
I don't believe the "Republican War on Women" is a particularly helpful slogan, or gains much tractions outside the mutual admiration society that advances it.
But, Miggie is a patent liar when he says "Pro-Choice" really means Pro-Abortion." I am constitutionally pro-choice. I believe that in the great constitutional division between the police powers of The State, and the autonomy of individual citizens, the decision to abort or not, at least up to the 20 the week, belongs to the woman concerned, and to nobody else.
That says nothing about which choice is the right choice. The same principle would shield a woman who wants to carry her pregnancy to term from some nanny state government that tried to legislatively MANDATE abortion, for the good of the child, to save taxpayers from mother and child becoming a burden to society, or on whatever pretext.
If its none of the government's business, its none of the government's business. Period.
Obviously, I don't believe that growth inside an adult woman's body, which cannot survive outside that body, and lacks a developed central nervous system, is a human life.
Direct your arguments on moral reasons to the pregnant woman concerned, not to the government. Perhaps she agrees. Then she will "choose life," an option reserved to her by Roe v. Wade.
Miggie,
You are aware that we have many children in foster care in this country, right? It's not as simple as you're making it sound.
" I assume you accept the basic point that it is a DIFFERENT human being and not just part of the woman's body."
Again, not that simple. At eight months in the womb? Yes, definitely. At a month? A day? At those times, the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother, so it's completely dependent on the mother's body. It depends on how you define a "separate" individual.
I'm not sure where the line is where I'd call it a separate human, but I don't think that's always the case from day one.
" Incidentally, the number of those certain circumstances is infinitesimal compared to the number of babies aborted."
Is it? I don't know one way or another.
"Once you get into that, who decides when old people should be put to rest? Or disabled ones? Or any human being that is not convenient."
We can play the same scenario out to the other extreme though. If the government can force a woman to bring a baby to term, what else can they force us to do? Let's take it all one issue at a time. Abortion has been legal for some time now, and we haven't been executing disabled people. If anything, we have improved the lives of disabled people in this country, so your argument doesn't quite work. You're making it sound like abortion was just made legal.
Gary wrote:
"Euthanasia is also on the horizen."
That's not necessarily a bad thing, depending on the circumstances.
And my point is not to make either one of you pro-choice. I just wish that you guys would acknowledge the other position in a fair way. I do not call you guys "anti-choice" or accuse you of waging a war on women. Please do the other side the same courtesy.
Nobody forces anyone to take in a foster child. They are all volunteers, and there is more of a demand for babies than supply.
The point is that the baby is a different human being and not part of the woman's body to be disposed of as she may choose. When the fetus becomes viable is a separate and legitimate inquiry.
There have been tens of millions of abortions and the ones attributable to rape and incest are infinitesimal in comparison.
Nobody is forcing anyone to have a baby. If you are stupid enough to get into an unwanted pregnancy you should not also be selfish by asking anyone, including the government to pay for it. Nobody is calling for making abortions illegal, it is just that it is immoral and you should at least pay for it on your own.
Gary's extension of the scenario is entirely reasonable.
I don't think you know your history if you don't know that euthanasia is a bad thing. Who gets to decide when someone should die? The government? The head of the government? A panel of "experts"?
I am giving you my view of the issue and not imposing them on you. Hopefully, you will take some of the reasoning to heart.
.
"Nobody forces anyone to take in a foster child. They are all volunteers, and there is more of a demand for babies than supply."
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The point is that there are kids who need homes. And there are more kids than there are homes.
"there is more of a demand for babies than supply"
Perhaps for newborns (although I'm just conceding that for the sake of argument, as I'm not sure one way or another) but there are more than just newborns out there. I'm looking a bit more long-term than just that.
"If you are stupid enough to get into an unwanted pregnancy..."
This is an awfully judgmental point of view that you're taking. People are hard-wired to want to reproduce, and that often will overwhelm our better judgment.
"Nobody is calling for making abortions illegal..."
Well, maybe you're not. I thought that Gary was pro-life though by his comments (which would mean that he'd favor making it illegal). If I'm wrong about that, let me know.
"I don't think you know your history if you don't know that euthanasia is a bad thing. Who gets to decide when someone should die? The government? The head of the government? A panel of "experts"?"
I've done a fair amount of reading. What if the patient is the one making the decision? I suppose that's what I'm talking about. I know that it's a complex issue though with good arguments on both sides. I just hope that when I get on in years and am suffering that I can die with as much dignity as we allow our pets to have, at the very least.
But anyway, my point in all this is that it's simply not honest to call people "pro-abortion". That term makes it sound like they want people to get abortions, and I have never met anybody who fits that description. It's okay to disagree with people, but disagree with what they're actually saying.
Personally, I'm pro-contraception. I think that it should be cheap and readily available. That will ultimately lead to fewer abortions and fewer unwanted children.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/05/study-free-birth-control-significantly-cuts-abortion-rates/
When the fetus becomes viable is a separate and legitimate inquiry.
Right you are, Miggie, and that is the heart of the controversy. Over 90 percent of abortions occur during the first trimester.
If what's growing inside a womb can be removed without injury to the mother, and survive on its own outside the womb, without artificial life support, then the removal is a delivery, not an abortion, and should be treated as such in both law and medical ethics.
Erring on the side of caution, I'd favor a cut off at the 20th week of pregnancy, after which there is some cause to believe an organism with a central nervous system capable of some degree of self-awareness exists.
After that, if the mother's life is in danger, no law should require her to risk her life to save the baby, but by that stage, a baby it is.
What I am saying, 703, is that generally there are more people looking to adopt than kids that need homes. They usually prefer babies but will take what they can get.
If something "overwhelms better judgment" it is called acting stupidity. You could say driving 150 miles per hour on the freeway is not good judgment but many, if not most, would call it reckless stupidity.
You can be pro-life and not necessarily want to make it illegal. I think it is an immoral thing but not illegal.
It turns out, that for the most part those who are closest to death are the ones who fight for life hardest of all. It is easy to say when you are young and healthy that you would rather die with dignity but you don't see many old and sick people saying that.
It IS honest to call pro-choice people pro-abortion as most want to make abortions cheap, easy, faultless, and paid for by someone else.
That is my take.
.
Post a Comment