Except in the Case of Rape and Incest

[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=sharron+angle&iid=9981473″ src=”http://view2.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9981473/newt-gingrich-launches-his/newt-gingrich-launches-his.jpg?size=500&imageId=9981473″ width=”234″ height=”158″ /]

As we approach the midterm election, my friends on the left are particularly disturbed by some in the current crop of nutjob GOP candidates who are pro-life and do not make the exception for rape and incest. Sharron Angle is one such candidate. Well, I hate to disappoint my liberal friends but this is about the only issue where Sharron Angle is right on the money.

No, I haven’t switched from pro-choice to pro-life but I know an inconsistent argument when I see one. Calling oneself pro-life and then tossing in the rape/incest caveat completely implodes the position. Let’s examine why the exception gets discussed and why supposedly pro-life people should be called on the carpet for it.

Fundamental Premise

The fundamental premise of a pro-life stance must be zygote/embryo/fetus centric. That is the “life” we are talking about when we say pro-life. So the rape/incest exception must be viewed from a zygote/embryo/fetus perspective.

Rape

Rape is an horrific trauma to the female victim. I know of no scientific study that says a developing fetus is negatively effected by having been conceived by rape. A pro-life stance places our priority on the new life, not the psychological situation of the mother. No child chooses a rapist for his father. Why should any child’s life be terminated because of it? Is that not the very essence of visiting the sins of the father upon the child? The argument that the presence of the child in the mother’s life will forever remind her of her rape is compelling but is answered by adoption. The cold hard fact is rape is no excuse for abortion.

Incest

First we need to define our terms very carefully. Intercourse between unwilling partners is rape. So incest between non-consenting partners is rape. See above argument. So now we get to the much stickier situation of consensual incest. This of course is the ultimate taboo in Western culture. I argue that few people are really concerned about the medical implications of “in-breeding” when they make incest an abortion exception. The truth is they are disgusted by the circumstances of the birth and are visiting that disgust upon the developing fetus. Once again, abortion is not the answer. No one asks for their uncle to be their daddy. So why should their life be snuffed out because of it?

If you are truly pro-life, then the only exception that I can fathom is distinct physical risk to the mother that might result in her death. Then you’ve got a real dilemma in balancing the welfare of the baby against that of the mother. From what I’ve heard, Sharron Angle has not advocated mother’s risking probable death to go full term.

So what this comes down to is that the rape/incest exception ipso facto makes you pro-choice. The only difference is that you have self righteously declared your set of choices more worthy than the choices other women might wrestle with.

I may be pro-choice and Sharron Angle may be as nutty as a holiday fruitcake but I applaud her and others like her for being truly pro-life. The rest of you so-called pro-lifers are pretenders to the throne.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

250 thoughts on “Except in the Case of Rape and Incest

  1. Exactly right.

    I have always believed that most “pro-life” folks would look the other way on an abortion in the abstract (even for YOUR daughter) if the pregnancy is due to rape for one simple reason. The stereotype of the rapist is still the scary, brooding black man raping someone’s lovely white daughter, and then that daughter having that black baby conceived in rape. What could be worse than that? Certainly not killing the damn thing.

    But of course the majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. Date-rape is common, even though it often goes unreported.

    The incest exception makes no logical sense at all on any level. A lot of hard-core pro-life people would ban abortion in the case of fetal deformity, but then obsess over the possibility of genetic defects due to inbreeding. Huh?

    Like the rape exception, I think that the incest exception has roots in the dark psyches of some in the “pro-life” crowd. That baby would be a red flag to the whole world that Daddy or Uncle Fred had molested Snow White. The family shame would be unbearable if people knew.

  2. I used to know an elderly Jewish man whose parents were born in a tiny town in eastern Europe, and who were first cousins. I asked him why those cousins would marry each other instead of someone unrelated. His serious answer was that the pool of available mates was very small in their little town. His flippant answer was “What – you should marry a stranger?”

    Of course another couple of married cousins that he knew had a son with cystic fibrosis – a genetic disease caused by a genetic contribution from BOTH parents.

    This discussion makes me think of that horrifying scene in the movie Chinatown in which Faye Dunaway is explaining the little girl she has with her: “She’s my sister. She’s my daughter. SHE’S MY SISTER AND MY DAUGHTER!”

  3. Wow, Gray you’ve taken it to a whole different level. Clearly your examples of racial and family shame factor into some cases and call out the hypocrisy of many pro-lifers.

    The other interesting thing, inasmuch as you mention babies with deformities, I particularly get rankled by this “exception” because it violates the rights of the disabled from the very damn start … in utero.While I support choice, I am damn thankful I was not aborted, as well I might have been given a different set of parents.

  4. The right has been gleeful recently over a poll that found a majority choosing the label “pro-life” over the label “pro-choice.”

    The “pro-life” side won the Battle of the Labels long ago. Who could be “anti-life”? But the question is fatally superficial. I would like to see a poll that asked questions like: Would you ban abortion in the case of:

    Pregnancy due to rape.
    Pregnancy due to incest with the pregnant girl’s father.
    Pregnancy due to incest with another relative.
    Pregnancy with serious fetal deformity.
    Pregnancy in a girl under age 14.
    Pregnancy in a woman with three or more children and already receiving public assistance.
    Would you consider abortion for yourself if you were single and unable to support both yourself and a child?

    You see where I’m going with this. The devil is in the details.

  5. Rutherford, you become more sensible by the day. You’re both right and your wrong in this post.

    You’re right about the pro-life definition in my opinion. It’s no different than that bogus argument that libs like to use of “safe, legal and rare.” Like both BIC and I have asked without answer “if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why the need to preface it with rare?”

    It’s the ultimate red herring used by the pro-abortion crowd to confuse the argument. Take those rare cases of extreme nature and position them as the norm – intensive survey after survey proves 95% of abortions are done in a perfectly healthy pregnancy for convenience of the mother/father.

    Here’s what would happen for the exceptions of rape and incest. All of the sudden, you would magically see a dramatic rise in the number of reported rapes, the number of incestuous pregnancies. Just as rape as traumatic to the female, the false accusation of rape leveled at men is equally traumatic. And it happens all of the time.

    ————————-

    It’s perfectly within your right to believe Angle nuttier than a fruit-cake, as any Conservative candidate is a nut to you. But I think it worth remembering as recently as last week, the ‘nuttier than a fruitcake’ candidate cleaned the clock of the extreme liberal thief and hypocrite Senate Majority Leader. Had the old criminal confused and looking for his papers, asked him questions about his personal wealth he had no answers, and made him look incredibly moronic – which is actually not a great achievement as Dingy perfectly capable of doing that himself.

    But it goes to show how low the quality of membership in the Senate Majority has sunk when a liar and hypocrite who made his fortune in shady governmental backroom deals is your majority leader.

    When Obama and Hillary Rotten Clinton, a phenomenal liar, phony, shrew, and lightning rod in her own right, are the best you’ve got, and there is absolutely nobody on the horizon worth a damn, you are in serious trouble as a party.

    Matter of time… 🙂

    So what does that make Harry Reid? Dumber than a stump?

  6. Rutherford, I’m pro-choice but not pro-abortion. I particularly loathe the hypocrisy of the “pro-life” crowd that I have alluded to above.

    But the choice of aborting a fetus with a manageable disability gives me an icky feeling at best. Down’s syndrome babies, for example, are wonderful children and can manage well as adults. To abort a baby like that and for that reason just seems wrong to me. I don’t know much about your disability, but any kid that can graduate from Haraavard and lead a productive life certainly shouldn’t be aborted for the parents’ convenience. And that’s what it would be isn’t it? For the parents’ good, not the baby’s?

    My pro-choice stance comes from, believe it or not, a wish to keep government from overstepping its proper boundaries. I have a hard time understanding how a alleged libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul can live with the cognitive dissonance of small government and criminalizing abortion.

  7. “The stereotype of the rapist is still the scary, brooding black man raping someone’s lovely white daughter, and then that daughter having that black baby conceived in rape.” -G-chin

    Thank God the worldly G-chin is here to point out what’s really going on with the pro-life crowd: Racism — Again.

  8. “if there is nothing wrong with abortion, why the need to preface it with rare?”

    Who said abortion should be rare because it’s wrong? You did, not me.

    Abortion should be rare primarily because it is tragic and traumatic for the woman under the best of circumstances. And to the extent that it occurs because of a lack of information or a lack of access to birth control (which seems to be the hypocritical goal of some vocal “pro-life” forces), it seems doubly tragic to me.

    One more reason that abortion should be rare, and the least important reason, is that a condom costs a lot less.

    Safe, legal… and rare. Nobody ever summed it up better than that.

  9. Pro-choice – a euphemism that makes the killing of a fetus sound almost saint like in nature – an altruistic, angelic quality; like “I personally couldn’t have an abortion” but…if somehow that makes one magnanimous. What it does signify is one that is mindless and gutless.

    Cut the putrid politically correct language Graychin – you’re all for granting the right for a woman to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. Whatever the correct lingo, pro-choice as descriptor is an utter abomination because 100% of the time that being aborted has absolutely no choice in the matter.

    My pro-choice stance comes from, believe it or not, a wish to keep government from overstepping its proper boundaries.

    Gag!!! So I guess you have a real problem with the Dept. of Human Services taking Johnny from the home after its suspected “Daddy” the alcoholic beats the hell out of Johnny every night, or Missy’s mom decides that she’ll smoke a little reefer with the 2nd grader?

    If not, then you are so laughably inconsistent in your application to make your own reasoning meaningless. A primary role of government is to protect the vulnerable – and I can think of nothing more vulnerable than a child in the mother’s womb.

    —————-

    It comes down to a real simple question Graychin. Nothing else needs to be addressed. Is it a life, or is it not? Does it have priceless value, or is it a product of conception?

    If it’s POC, cut the “RARE” talk because it doesn’t matter; its like having a wart removed. If it truly life, then stop the nonsense of pro-choice; abortion means termination – and there is no choice for that one being aborted.

  10. El Tigre,

    Thank God the worldly G-chin is here to point out what’s really going on with the pro-life crowd: Racism — Again.

    Oh, it’s infinitely worse than that. The “worldly Graychin” is also qualifying himself to play God in what’s acceptable. Gee, what’s an acceptable disability for abortion, and what’s not?

    Is it Downs okay – spina bifida, maybe not, encephalopathy mandatory?

    The arrogance, duplicity and hypocrisy of the so-called “pro-choice” crowd is mind numbing.

  11. My pro-choice stance comes from, believe it or not, a wish to keep government from overstepping its proper boundaries.

    Gray, that is pretty much where I come from. I just have an impossible barrier I can’t get through to condone a predominantly male legislature telling women how to handle the most intimate aspect of their life.

    There is just something about the unique correlation of pregnancy to women that I have a hard time not giving them the ultimate say in how the situation is handled.

    In my ideal world, abortions only happen to save the life of the mother.

  12. Who said abortion should be rare because it’s wrong? You did, not me.

    followed in six sentences later by…I have actually gotten to the point in my debate with Graychin, with 95% certainty can tell you exactly what is coming next. It’s like reading your child. When you see the wheels spinning, you know what is being contemplated and it’s a simple guess of which mantra will be chosen. It’s that way with most really hardcore libs. Graychin is just a more eloquent Marxist/elitist than most of the others.

    Safe, legal… and rare. Nobody ever summed it up better than that.

    Perhaps one can see why I think it may be time to put Graychin to pasture. There may have been a day that he was reasonably lucid. Those days are over…

  13. There is just something about the unique correlation of pregnancy to women that I have a hard time not giving them the ultimate say in how the situation is handled.

    I guess the father doesn’t count? 🙂 This is the inevitable conclusion, no matter how ‘good’ the person, when one doesn’t recognize life is granted not by mom, but by God. But then, that is what really separates us, isn’t it Rutherford? Otherwise, you and I are not so much different in our thinking.

    In my ideal world, abortions only happen to save the life of the mother.

    Mine too…

  14. “Is it a life, or is it not?”

    You call that a simple question? Was that wart alive?

    Let’s get real. The religious dogma of “life begins at conception” has crept into secular law fairly recently in the scheme of things. And that is exactly what it is – a religious dogma that not everyone believes – or is required to believe, thanks to that “establishment” clause in the First Amendment. This dogma is based on the unfalsifiable religious idea that the infusion of a Soul by Almighty God occurs at the moment of conception.

    Through much of the history of western legal doctrine, the unscientific marker called “quickening” was the start of legally protected life. So I guess that if the doctrine of “life begins at conception” is actually in the Bible, it has been only recently discovered.

  15. The religious dogma of “life begins at conception” has crept into secular law” – Chin

    Please provide evidence of a single egg developing into a human being without conception. Let me guess, biology wasn’t your major. Don’t suppose you ever looked at an ultrasound at that non-living thing kicking around in the womb.

    You’re such an intellectual fraud. Really, you’re pathetic…

  16. Tigre, interesting question. I have been against euthanasia from the time I first learned what the word meant. Assisted suicide is really just a form of euthanasia.

    I feel for the relative, or the doctor, who must be deaf to the urgent plea from a dying person to be taken out of their misery. Still, I think you die when you die and not a moment sooner. Doctors in particular have only one job … to do no harm and keep people alive. For those who are terminal, their job is to keep them comfortable. It is not their job to murder them.

    The complication of abortion is we are talking about two lives within one body. True pro-lifers (not the hypocrites I highlight in my article) believe the younger life takes precedence over concerns about the preferences of the older life. It’s a simple way to adjudicate the matter. I’m just not there yet.

  17. “Who said abortion should be rare because it’s wrong? You did, not me.”

    That’s right. You said it, not me. Don’t put words in my mouth and then say that you disagree with ME.

    If you have an actual reason for disagreeing with me, why is it necessary for you to argue with what I didn’t say and don’t believe?

  18. Through much of the history of western legal doctrine, the unscientific marker called “quickening” was the start of legally protected life. So I guess that if the doctrine of “life begins at conception” is actually in the Bible, it has been only recently discovered.

    Your ignorance of science is exceeded only by your ignorance of Christianity. It has always been the opinions of most Christians that life begins even before conception Graychin.

    Jeremiah 1:5
    “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.”

    John leaped for joy is his mother’s womb upon hearing the news of Christ’s birth. Or did you forget that one too Graychin?

    I have no idea where you come to your conclusions, but you must be attending one of those really “liberal, man centered” churches where the congregation ‘creates’ the scripture to suit the flavor of the day and the practice of bashing Republicans substitutes for worship. How convenient that must be. And how meaningless.

    ————

    As to the science, perhaps you may or may not be aware why more and more people are struggling with the idea of “abortion.” Science has much to do with Mr. Graychin. From heartbeats not long after missed periods, to 3 dimension pictures of fingers and toes, as one wise person once said, “If women had a window to the womb, abortion would end immediately.”

    See Graychin, this is why I find you such a malicious liar. You’re smart enough in your own limited world to actually fool some of the people all of the time, giving you this perverse measure of credibility. Oh, I give you credit for your cleverness.

    But where I have a problem with you is your in your narcissistic nature, you’ve decided in essence to “be like god.” As if somehow in your own wisdom, you can determine when life begins.

    However, this poses a problem for your argument. If you were really the pragmatist as you’ve explained to us, and you were honest and consistent in your opinions, the most pragmatic and prudent approach is to assume life begins at conception. It’s the safest assumption, much like our law of innocent until proven guilty.

    For political convenience, at least on this issue, you’ve turned your “pragmatic” nature on it’s head and have decided that you’ll make a good guess as to when you “think” life begins – and in that case, what drives the best guess is what your politics dictates it needs to be.

  19. Euthanasia is another subject about which I’m “pro-choice” but about which I have an icky feeling.

    I might want to end my own life if I was living in misery with no hope of improvement. Would I appreciate some help in that case? Definitely. Would I be willing to help someone else in that same situation? Could be.

    But when people want to “help Grandma go home to Jesus,” are we sure that they are putting Grandma first? Or are they sparing themselves the difficulty and expense of taking care of Grandma in her final days?

    Was Dr. Anna Pou a criminal?

  20. You really do like to play both sides of the fence, hey Gray? Or it is just short-term memory loss?

    If you have an actual reason for disagreeing with me, why is it necessary for you to argue with what I didn’t say and don’t believe?

    Explain it to me again…

    One more reason that abortion should be rare, and the least important reason, is that a condom costs a lot less. Safe, legal… and rare. Nobody ever summed it up better than that. ~ Graychin

  21. “you’ve decided in essence to “be like god.” As if somehow in your own wisdom, you can determine when life begins.”

    There you go again. I don’t know when “life begins” – whatever that means. I never said that I did.

    Neither does any legislative body know “when life begins,” whatever that means.

    You claim that you do know, and you have all the conventional proof texts to back you up. But I don’t want you to write your religious beliefs into law. You’re tripping over that troublesome “establishment” clause again. Who needs a “wall of separation” when we have a perfectly clear “establishment” clause?

  22. I regret my response to the Ape at #28. It’s just that he quoted me from a much longer comment that already explains why his question doesn’t even make sense.

    In any case – is Jesus Christ a correct answer to your question?

    Or what about cloning? Would that count?

  23. How about identical twins, or identical triplets? Are multiple souls implanted by God at the moment of the initial conception? Or is a second soul implanted when the fertilized egg divides? If the latter, which twin gets the original soul, and which gets the second soul?

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How many souls can one fertilized egg contain?

  24. Gorilla,

    Graychin is again being evasive when he has no answer. 🙂

    Just as he didn’t answer one question of mine last night or this morning. When inconvenient, Graychin generally reverts to memory lapse.

  25. There you go again. I don’t know when “life begins” – whatever that means. I never said that I did.

    But you have called yourself a pragmatist.

    So I ask you again: if you’re pragmatic like you attest, and you admit you don’t know, what’s the most prudent approach to when deciding when life begins?

  26. The most prudent approach to deciding “when life begins” (whatever that means) is to let each family decide for itself. Why not allow people to make these kinds of decisions for themselves instead of Big Brother?

    Who DOES know? Not you. Certainly not the State. If the State decides for us all on religious grounds, than that is an excellent example of making an “establishment” of religion.

  27. Along with the “rape or incest” exceptions that Rutherford has discussed, another telling hypocrisy of the “pro-life” crowd is that not even the most extreme among them would prosecute the woman for murder. Only the doctor, and then not even the nurses who assist him or the clerks doing his scheduling.

    Would someone please explain why that makes sense? I think it is a purely political strategy. How many people would claim to be “pro-life” if “pro-life” meant demanding the death penalty for women who are caught having abortions?

    Should a woman actively seeking an abortion be prosecuted for attempted murder?

    How about it, Tex and Ape? Now answer MY questions.

  28. The most prudent approach to deciding “when life begins” (whatever that means) is to let each family decide for itself. Why not allow people to make these kinds of decisions for themselves instead of Big Brother?

    What a load. Then we shall all decide what the law is in every regard too? I may decide 28% in personal federal taxes is too high then. I drive at the speed I deem safe. I’ll remove the yoke of Big Brother. 😉 Who are we to determine what’s right and wrong, what is moral and what is immoral in some haphazard fashion, to be chosen by each individual or family?

    That’s not government. That’s anarchy, followed by chaos. And that is exactly what we are slowly starting to witness as a nation.

    You know who made that very same argument Graychin? The argument “Who are you to tell us what is right and wrong?” And you’re welcome to make charge of Godwin’s Law if you wish, but in this particular case, my reasoning just. Nuremberg. And it through the court for a loop for a short time.

    Your ilk made legalized abortion for any reason of convenience the law of the land Graychin. You have been party to it, if for no other reason your sin of omission. And the results have been the death of 50MM innocents under the nuances of “safe, legal and rare.”

    The lie that abortion was sold on, that promise of “this will assure every child wanted”, has led to so many additional societal problems, from a coarsening of the culture, to documented flat out racism and praying on minorities, to a cheapening of life, that if you had any sense, you’d be ashamed to be party to it.

    But as usual, party politics is your guide to life.

  29. How about it, Tex and Ape? Now answer MY questions.

    Why should we? You don’t answer a one of our difficult ones. But unlike you, I’m not gutless. So here’s my answer. Why should the woman not be tried for murder?

    Because murder signifies intent. There are two victims in abortion – the unborn child and the mother. The mother is most often being lied to. It’s a product of conception; it’s not a baby; you can’t afford it; the world would be better off…

    Why take my word for it? Why don’t you Google “Silent no More” and read for yourself the end result of abortion for the mothers Graychin?

    Do those testimonies read like a murderer? Or do they read like a grieving parent who recognized they just terminated their own son or daughter?

    Guys like you never hang around to witness what happens to women who’ve had an abortion, do you? What’s done is done…but it’s not.

  30. R, @ 12, you adopted G-chin’s comment that, “[your] pro-choice stance comes from, believe it or not, a wish to keep government from overstepping its proper boundaries.

    @ 15 I asked about your stance on assisted suicide.

    @ 20 you said, “[you] think you die when you die and not a moment sooner. Doctors in particular have only one job … to do no harm and keep people alive. For those who are terminal, their job is to keep them comfortable. It is not their job to murder them.”

    I am having a hard time reconciling the inconsistencies.

    First, I did not refer to euthanasia. I referred to assisted suicide. They are not the same insofar as in with assisted suicide you have the active decision of both (1) the one seeking to bring about their own demise, and (2) the one agreeing to assist Accepting that, you take issue with providing (medical) assistance to that end based on professional ethics?

    If laws that proscribe assisting suicide are acceptable, how do you square that with your stance on abortion, i.e. your “wish to keep government from overstepping its proper boundaries” and the professional ethics that it’s not the doctors job to “murder” a human (murder of course is the wrong term since it requires malice)?

    Second, if “doctors in particular have only one job … to do no harm and keep people alive” tell me how abortion in those instances that don’t threaten the life of the mother fit into you analysis?

    You object to the decided and rational decision to end life from those connected with it and capable of making that decision, yet have no problem with the mothers unilateral decision to terminate a life based on her own circumstances. How odd.

    Gichin’s dumb-assed comment about “injecting just a little too much morphine got me thinking about my father-in-law’s death last year. You’ll remember he choked on food on a visit to our home and we were told after three days that he was brain dead.

    As an attorney, the family looked to me to help with the decision to remove life support under my father-in-law’s directives. I wanted no part in the decision because I did not view it as my place to encourage or discourage. In other words, he hadn’t selected me to make the decision so I viewed my role as that of explaining the legalities of the situation. They pleaded with me. I resisted. It was hard.

    By contrast, the medical personnel strongly encouraged the decision to terminate life support. In fact, they treated it like a foregone conclusion and almost instructed my wife’s family to authorize it before even hearing from my sister-in-law who was the one with authority to decide. It was surreal. I had no idea they would lean so hard. I mean really hard.

    The decision was ultimately 6 made to disconnect. My father-in-law lingered for four days on his own. Then drugs were administered on the false premise that they were o.k. to ease pain, when in fact they suppressed breathing and heart rate to hasten death. It came after 6 days.

    Now, the idea that terminating life is free from undue persuasion is pure bullshit under either scenario. But the absurdity that you take issue with laws that would prevent the hastening of a death of an adult for compassionate or medical reasons (as I witnessed), while protecting the unilateral decision to end life to ensure that the government doesn’t overstep its boundaries is pure sophistry.

    (I have more, but work calls).

  31. So Tex, the natural follow-up question is:

    If women should not be prosecuted for seeking or obtaining an abortion, should doctors be prosecuted for providing them? Should this be formal legal prosecution with a prison term attached or simply stripping of the medical license?

  32. Tex, you were only courageous enough to stick your toe barely into the water. But you stopped way short. WAAAAY short.

    The pregnant woman is the victim and not the perpetrator? Because the poor silly thing doesn’t really know what she is doing? She has no intent to “murder” the fetus? Really? Because she has been “lied to”?

    That’s about as weak and ridiculous as anything I have ever heard.

    What about the abortion clinic staff? Aren’t they complicit in murder? Shouldn’t they be prosecuted as accessories to murder?

    And what about the husband or boyfriend who pays for an abortion, and even drives the woman to the abortion clinic? Isn’t he an accessory to murder? Shouldn’t he be prosecuted if abortion really is murder? Something like “procuring murder for hire”?

    (Won’t THAT give some male “pro-life” politicians some pause!)

  33. Tex – as our resident medical expert, what is the best scientific estimate of the percentage of conceptions that end in spontaneous abortion?

    Of course estimating that percentage is very difficult because a very early miscarriage can occur without the woman having any indication that she had been pregnant. The unreliable Wikipedia says that 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week of pregnancy. Is that even close to correct?

    Of course an extremely high rate of spontaneous abortion is no argument for legal abortion – but doesn’t it seriously undermine the absolutist “pro-life” position? If God is so frivolous about the souls that he implants upon conception, why does he expect us to feel differently? If every sperm embryo is sacred, why do so many of them die?

  34. … yet have no problem with the mothers unilateral decision to terminate a life based on her own circumstances.

    When did I ever say I have no problem with it? It is very problematic.

    I think doctors who terminate a pregnancy with the full knowledge that (relatively) trivial reasons are being used to justify the abortion, face a terrible ethical dilemma and are party to a possibly casual taking of a developing life. Tiller “the baby killer” was, depending on whom you talk to, a no-skin-off-my-ass come one come all terminator. Others say he was the place of last resort for women in desperate non-trivial situations.

    Since I think everyone here agrees that abortion is worth considering when the life of the mother is at risk, that makes us ALL pro-choice. That is really the point of my article.

    What you guys are against are folks who are pro-trivial-choice. So am I. Now comes the hard part. How do we define trivial?

  35. If God is so frivolous about the souls that he implants upon conception, why does he expect us to feel differently? If every sperm embryo is sacred, why do so many of them die?

    This will piss Tex off but the answer of course is that God works in mysterious ways, not to be questioned by mere mortals.

    Your strikeout Gray, of course leads to the whole question of why masturbation is a terrible sin. The only reason all those little fishies exist is to find an ovum to fertilize. They didn’t get manufactured to end up in the Kleenex of the guy wacking off to Sarah Palin. 😉 (Or in my case, Christine O’Donnell.)

  36. Rutherford:

    The story of Onan is the only Biblical basis that I know of for condemning masturbation. Of course Onan’s sin of “onanism” was spilling his seed instead of doing his fraternal duty of impregnating his brother’s wife. (Which later on came to be defined as incest – go figure!) But interpretations of the meaning of Onan’s story vary. So I’m sure that Tex, our resident authority on all things Biblical as well as medical, will pop in very soon to set me straight.

    But don’t forget that (as Christine O’Donnell so insightfully pointed out) you can’t masturbate without lust. And you know what happens to people with lust in their hearts….

  37. “How do we define trivial?”

    I believe that abortion is emotionally traumatic to women and their families in almost every case, the exception being those persons who are somewhat sociopathic in the first place. The common myth is that women usually seek abortions as casually as they get a haircut or a manicure. They don’t. It is a wrenching experience, before and after.

    Therefore, why not let women and their families decide for themselves what is “trivial,” instead of treating all women as if they were sociopaths? Or treating all women like Tex’s mythical females who are poor, silly innocents who don’t have any idea what they are doing, and for whom Big Brother knows best?

  38. I don’t know the details of the medical practice of Dr. Tiller “the baby killer.” But it has been my understanding that most abortion clinics won’t perform an abortion in the third trimester, even if it is medically necessary. I believe that Dr. Tiller was an abortionist of last resort. He had been investigated up and down, back and forth, by Kansas “pro-life” politicians and never found to have violated the rather strict abortion laws of the Great State of Kansas. Most other doctors had been intimidated by zealots from performing the procedures that Dr. Tiller performed.

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong. And I know that you will.

  39. “I think doctors who terminate a pregnancy with the full knowledge that (relatively) trivial reasons are being used to justify the abortion, face a terrible ethical dilemma and are party to a possibly casual taking of a developing life.”

    What are you saying now? I understood from your perspective, the decision, trivial or not, should belong to the pregnant female –not the doctor, state, father or anyone else. In other words, the “unilateral decision” of the mother as I said. And the legal “problem I was quite obviously referring to was that very decision — trivial or not.

  40. I missed this jewel earlier:

    The lie that abortion was sold on, that promise of “this will assure every child wanted”….

    Actually, I never heard that particular promise before. Whoever made such a promise (if anyone ever did, which I doubt) is an idiot.

    Don’t try to put it in my mouth. It’s crazy. Another one of your straw men.

  41. My pro-choice stance comes from, believe it or not, a wish to keep government from overstepping its proper boundaries.

    The government, at both the state and federal levels has a vested interest in maintaining a proscription against murder. And the feds overstepped their role in usurping authority over what had been exclusively the jurisdiction of the states when it discovered the right of a mother to “privately” kill her unborn child.

    I have a hard time understanding how a alleged libertarians like Ron and Rand Paul can live with the cognitive dissonance of small government and criminalizing abortion.

    I have a harder time understanding self-identified “progressives” who condone the government legalizing muder under the legal justification of privacy between a woman and her doctor, and yet want to make sure that government will tell me how I can pay my physician, and that they need to know all my medical information, including my BMI. Privacy for murder, but not what I had for dinner last night or how my doc and I might choose a course of treatment. Got it.

    Through much of the history of western legal doctrine, the unscientific marker called “quickening” was the start of legally protected life. So I guess that if the doctrine of “life begins at conception” is actually in the Bible, it has been only recently discovered.

    You’re right. Those “secular” measures used by the courts are much more accurate. That’s why they’ve been walked back more than once since Roe. But let’s look at this scientifically, shall we? Once that genentic material mixes, it is no longer solely “of the Mother”. It is a unique organism, which shares the genetic make up of both parents, and is no longer “part of the woman’s body” as much as it is self contained while drawing its sustenance from the Mother as it grows.

    Now perhaps, maybe, you might convince me that the “blob of cells” which grows in a womb after conception should be subject to the arbitrary termination based on the whims of the woman if you could cite for me a single instance where that “blob of cells” developed into anything other than what we recognize as a human being (absent any scientific or medical manipulation), If you can do that, and we are all presented with the case of a woman giving birth to a fist, a horse, or a little of puppies, then I will be happy to revisit the conclusion that the act is anything other than state sanctioned murder.

  42. “cite for me a single instance where that “blob of cells” developed into anything other than what we recognize as a human being”

    G-chin.

    Defense rests.

  43. Don’t try to put it in my mouth. It’s crazy. Another one of your straw men.

    Geezer, you don’t even use straw man in the correct context. If you’re going to keep invoking it, can you at least use it correctly? In addition, you don’t even make correct accusations. I didn’t say YOU as in Graychin dipshit.

    So many questions to answer, and such little time. I’ll be back to demonstrate why Graychin is one messed up old dude, and in fact, is of the devil. 🙂

    But to answer this bit of trivia for Mr. Pragmatic, who is proving anything but pragmatic in this debate, asked this?

    Actually, I never heard that particular promise before. Whoever made such a promise (if anyone ever did, which I doubt) is an idiot.

    Surely you jest? Before I provide you a list of names, some of the true “heroines” of the Left, how much money would you like to make bet on your claim of me lying, fool? We’ll start with the attorneys and work our way down.

    You’re so stupid and conveniently forgetful, you don’t even remember that besides the “reproductive rights” of the woman (another euphemism having nothing to do with reproduction), the promise of “wanted children” was a motivating force for a society that only a few years before was skeptical of the right to an abortion.

    It is hard for me to believe at long ago, though I thought you confused and perverted, a worthy opponent at the T-World board. You’re about as flaccid as they come Pops.

  44. Tex:

    That’s very nice, but it isn’t about me. Would you care to address any of the questions that I asked instead of copping out by alleging that I am “of the devil”?

    Even just one of them?

  45. Black = White:

    “The government, at both the state and federal levels has a vested interest in maintaining a proscription against murder.”

    Indeed it does. But the question before the court today is whether or not abortion constitutes “murder.” Esteemed council is aware that taking of human life is not always considered under the law to be “murder.” Examples: state executions of convicted criminals, shooting of fleeing suspects by police, bombing civilians under color of war, and killing in self-defense. Purposeful killing may even be considered NOT murder under so-called “make my day” laws, when a fleeing suspect is shot in the back inside the residence of a property owner(not a police officer) whose residence the fleeing suspect has invaded or trespassed upon.

    Having demonstrated that not all killing is “murder,” let us turn our attention again to the status of a first-trimester fetus solely dependent upon a woman for its survival. Is it already a human person with the same status as a child already born? Again, please correct me if I’m wrong, but the assignment of legal status to human beings has traditionally occurred upon the event known as “birth.”

    Sincere and conscientious people can disagree about whether or not abortion should be considered “murder” under the law. It does not boil down to a simple question of whether the “blob of cells” belongs to the species homo sapiens, which it self-evidently does.

    Counselor, would you care to address my questions about whether or not all the people involved in an abortion (doctor, nurses, scheduling clerk, husband/boyfriend who pays for the abortion, relative or friend who drives the woman to the clinic) are accessories to murder and should be tried and convicted as such?

  46. Sure – but there needs to be a quid pro quo here Graychin and you aren’t fulfilling your part of the bargain. It’s a pattern and cowardly on your behalf.

    So let me leave the spiritual aspects of the soul and your form of “(ir)religious” talk and move to the simple facts. Because you don’t have a clue to what you are talking about.

    Here’s the science – and they are not disputed. There may be some disagreement with other adaptations (evolution being one), but these six are universally agreed upon. Science confirms that life, biologically speaking, begins at conception. If I am wrong, prove it.

    The basic characteristics of life are:

    (1) Based on a concept of organelles, including the cellular membrane which is capable of replication and differentiation
    (2) Complex organizational patterns
    (3) Metabolism (energy usage)
    (4) Homeostasis – stable internal conditions
    (5) Growth
    (6) Heredity

    Now can you pinpoint for me which of these criteria a zygote fails meet Graychin?

    You may facetiously mock my “medical expert” credentials, as I don’t consider myself an expert in anything, so we can put that argument to rest.

    But as you question my “expertise”, consider that I still have four years of prerequisites, two additional degrees in biology and chemistry, testing for entrance, four years in an emergency room assistance, and one year of medical school -including clinical aspects.

    And the way I count it, that’s five years of academia and four years of practical clinical experience more than you have Gramps. Try to keep that in mind when you trivialize my “expertise” concerning anatomy, biology and medicine. 😉

  47. Perry “Graychin” Mason,

    I don’t need to wait for BIC’s legal expertise, as I can answer that question from my own experience and my own will. Before the will recently updated, it stated that my assets would be left to my spouse, and in the event her death preceded mine, that the assets of my “vast” estate would be divided upon death between ….. …… (eldest daughter) and our unborn child. My wife was six months pregnant at the time the will created.

    So clearly, the law recognized our unborn “as child.” Not zygote, or embryo, or fetus, or production of conception; not wart, mole, or tissue – but CHILD.

  48. Counselor, would you care to address my questions about whether or not all the people involved in an abortion (doctor, nurses, scheduling clerk, husband/boyfriend who pays for the abortion, relative or friend who drives the woman to the clinic) are accessories to murder and should be tried and convicted as such?

    BIC, I’ll answer Graychin’s leading and specious questions with my own opinion, but I will leave it in you capable hands and will wait until you’ve had the opportunity to steamroll the insufferable Graychin in your wake. Because I am no attorney.

    Just as Graychin fails to recognize I have far more “expertise” in the knowledge of medicine and biological sciences than he does, I have often noted Graychin fails to recognize that you are a professionally credentialed attorney.

    I recognize the frustration of having to explain life’s toughest questions in a legal capacity with a selfish, incapable and evil imbecile. But patience is a virtue.

    After that, I will be more than happy to address Graychin’s specious questions about “spontaneous” abortions. Graychin being a megalomaniac of the lowest order, I assume feels it necessary for me to distinguish who has domination over all things. And it ain’t him. 😉

  49. Hey Graychin,

    One final question to my own “ridiculous” answers.

    The pregnant woman is the victim and not the perpetrator? Because the poor silly thing doesn’t really know what she is doing? She has no intent to “murder” the fetus? Really? Because she has been “lied to”?

    How many women do you think while undergoing an abortion believe they are killing a child? Because I think if you would refer back to my suggestion, and get off your fat ass to research what I said, and you will read the personal testimonies of the individual women who provide the testimonies, you will find that each one had been convinced by the abortionists, by the clinics, and nurses, and attendants present that the women were terminating a blog, a POC, a lifeless bunch of goo.

    And gutless. You didn’t take my bet from above where you called me a liar. Tsk tsk…

  50. 😆

    Terminating a blog – as in the Two Useful Idiot’s blog. Now that would be an abortion worth celebrating, as it already is an abortion! 🙂

    Make that terminating a BLOB.

  51. Esteemed council is aware that taking of human life is not always considered under the law to be “murder.” Examples: state executions of convicted criminals, shooting of fleeing suspects by police, bombing civilians under color of war, and killing in self-defense.

    State executions: Depriving one of life after due process and trial by jury of one’s peers? Not even close to murder. It is an exercise of legitimate state power after application of legal guarantees. Not even close to murder.

    shooting of fleeing suspects by police Done under color of legal authority, and generally investigated by authories to determine if it was a proper use of police power…a process that doesn’t always end well for the police who do the shooting.

    bombing civilians under color of war
    If you are referring to civilians who permit the enemy to use them as a shield, sorry. The ultimate end of any conflict should be to end it as soon as possible. Sometimes that means not letting an enemy who lacks the scruples we have profit from them. (Like Iraqi insurgents who deliberately hid in hospitals and schools).

    If you are talking about the deliberate targeting of civilians without any other justification or reason for doing so, then yes, it would be murder.

    killing in self-defense Aside from self-defense being the right of any person, it also underscores the main difference between murder and most of the other examples you have presented :INTENT. The intent in self defense is to prevent serious bodily harm or death from being inflicted upon you or someone you have elected to defend. It also requires a reasonable belief that the serious bodily harm/ death is a likely result if you do not act.

    Example: I walk out of the rest room, and I see you walk into the tavern, raise a .38 to Rutherford’s head. If the gun does appear to be real and perhaps if I see what appear to be live rounds in the cylander, and you cock the hammer, I have a reasonable belief that serious bodily harm/death will occur if I do nothing, and in most juridictions, whatever act is necessary to prevent that from happening will likely be sanctioned by the state.
    In contrast, if I walk out, and see you put a plastic ray gun to R’s head, and I deside to shoot you, that is going to be treated differently based on the outcome, and the intent determined in a Court of law.

    Abortion can be distingushed from most of these examples by the fact that is a deliberate act undertaken to kill another human being. It is almost always premeditated, and unless undertaken in highly unusual circumstances, would also be done without any due process.

    Now perhaps you can tell me how a right to privacy allows one person to decide to end a life unilaterally, when that life has no say in it, and how that squares with an unalientable right to life that cannot be taken from you without due process of law.

    Counselor, would you care to address my questions about whether or not all the people involved in an abortion (doctor, nurses, scheduling clerk, husband/boyfriend who pays for the abortion, relative or friend who drives the woman to the clinic) are accessories to murder and should be tried and convicted as such?

    The “medical” actors? Yes. They acted with intent.

    Husband/Boyfriend? If they knew what they were paying for (i.e. had the necessary knowledge and intent) then yes.

    The Driver? If they knew what the destination really was and the purpose for the trip? Yes.

    I assume you understand the distinction between accessories and accomplices.

  52. Does Graychin understand better than the original Roe of Roe vs. Wade? That’s the question I would like you answer next for me Graychin. Give it your best shot as to why Norma McCorvey is wrong?

    ———————–

    TESTIMONY OF NORMA MCCORVEY, THE FORMER ROE OF ROE v. WADE, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
    JUNE 23, 2005

    I am the woman once known as the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade. But I dislike the name Jane Roe and all that it stands for. I am a real person named Norma McCorvey and I want you to know the horrible and evil things that Roe v. Wade did to me and others. I never got the opportunity to speak for myself in my own court case. I am not a trained spokesperson, nor a judge, but I am a real person – a living human being who was supposed to be helped by my lawyers and the courts in Roe v. Wade. But instead, I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America. Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation. In 1970, I was pregnant for the third time. I was not married and I truly did not know what to do with this pregnancy. I had already put one child up for adoption and it was difficult to place a child for adoption because of the natural bond that occurs between a woman and her child. And after all, a woman becomes a mother as soon as she is pregnant, not when the child is born. And women are now speaking out about their harmful experiences from legal abortion.

    Instead of getting me financial or vocational help, instead of helping me to get off of drugs and alcohol, instead of working for open adoption or giving me other help, my lawyers wanted to eliminate the right of society to protect women and children from abortionists. My lawyers were looking for a young, white woman to be a guinea pig for a great new social experiment, somewhat like Adolf Hitler did. I wanted an abortion at the time, but my lawyers did not tell me that I would be killing a human being. My lawyers did not inform me about the life-changing consequences of this decision. I was living on the streets. And while I was confused and conflicted about the decision for many years, and while I was once an advocate for abortion, like many women who choose to participate in abortion, my lawyers did not tell me that I would later come to deeply regret that I was partially responsible for killing 40-50 million human beings. Do you have any idea how much emotional grief I have experienced? It is like a living hell knowing that you have had a part to play, though in some sense I was just a pawn of the legal system. But I have had to accept my role in the deaths of millions of babies and the destruction of women’s lives. I will tell you later how I have tried to cope with that. How did I come to the position where I >am today?

    Abortion is a shameful and secret thing. I wanted to justify my desire for an abortion in my own mind, as almost every woman who participates in the killing of her own child must also do. I made up the story that I had been raped to help justify my abortion. Why would I make up a lie to justify my conduct? Abortion itself is a lie and it is based on lies. My lawyers didn’t tell me that abortion would be used for sex selection, but later when I was a pro-choice advocate and worked in abortion clinics, I found women who were using abortion as a means of gender selection. My lawyers didn’t tell me that future children would be getting abortions and losing their innocence. Yet I saw young girls getting abortions who were never the same. In 1973, when I learned about the Roe v. Wade decision from the newspapers, not my lawyers, I didn’t feel real elated. After all, the decision didn’t help me at all. I never had an abortion. I gave my baby up for adoption since the baby was born before the legal case was over. I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort. I was actually silent about my role in abortion for many years and did not speak out at all. Then, in the 1980’s, in order to justify my own conduct, with many conflicting emotions, I did come forward publicly to support Roe v. Wade. Keep in mind that I had not had an abortion and did not know much about it at the time.

    Then around 1992, I began to work in abortion clinics. Like most Americans, including many of you Senators, I had no actual experience with abortion until that point. When I began to work in the abortion clinics, I became even more emotionally confused and conflicted between what my conscience knew to be evil, and what the judges, my mind and my need for money were telling me was OK. I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying? Even Senator Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by the New York Times to finally admit “that abortion is a sad, even tragic choice for many, many women.” Actually it is a tragic choice for every child that is killed and every woman and man who participates in killing their own child, whether they know it at the time or not. Many women will be in denial and even pro-choice for years like I was. But participating in the murder of your own child will eat away at your conscience forever if you do not take steps to cleanse your conscience, which I will discuss later. I saw the baby parts, which are a horrible sight to see, but I urge everyone who supports abortion to look at the bodies to face the truth of what they support. I saw filthy conditions in abortions clinics even when “Roe” was supposed to clean up “back alley” abortions. I saw the low regard for women from abortion doctors.

    My conscience was bothering me more and more, causing me to drink more and more and more. If you are trapped in
    wrongdoing then all you can do is justify and defend your actions, but the pain gets worse and worse, so I drank a lot to kill the pain. Finally, in 1995, a pro-life organization moved its offices right next door to the abortion clinic where I was working. I acted hatefully towards those people. But those people acted lovingly to me most of the time. One man did angrily accuse me at one point of being responsible for killing 40 million babies, but he later came to me and apologized for his words and said they were not motivated by love. The answer to the abortion problem is forgiveness, repentance, and love. Many of the women who abort their babies ask the little babies to forgive them. Even some abortionists encourage women to write cards explaining their behavior and asking the child’s forgiveness. This is an old Japanese custom also. The web is filled with post-abortion recovery and grief sites. According to an amicus brief filed in my case, 100,000 women a year enter abortion recovery counseling programs. Abortion is not a simple medical procedure that is safer than childbirth, it is the killing of a human being. It produces severe psychological and emotional consequences. We can ask the children to forgive us, but the children are dead. They say – Alone, I was born. Alone, I shall die. We must also ask Almighty God to forgive us for what we have done. We must repent of our action as a nation in allowing this holocaust to come to our shores. We have to turn from our wicked ways. Senators, I urge you to examine your own conscience before Almighty God.

  53. BIC #62 – thank you. I could not have said it as well.

    To answer your question Rutherford, I have nothing more to say that what BIC just posted and I agree in its entirety.

  54. Actually, Tex, I have a question for you.

    I actually tried to research the statistics for “medically necessary” abortions. (Life of the Mother), and what little I found seemed to be wildly different, and rooted in the biases of the people presenting the data.

    Did this topic ever come up in your studies, and/or what were you taught about it?

  55. To answer your other question Graychin about spontaneous abortions – it is worse than you advertise – less than 1/3 of conceptions survive until birth. *

    * Source: Berger, The Developing Person Through the Lifespan 3rd ed.Worth, 1994.

    That is the most current reference I can find in Medical Embryology textbook.

    Ironic that the universe seems so finally tuned, and the earth so stable – God seems have met His Divine Covenant – if you are to believe that “myth” of Genesis, right Graychin? My azaleas bloom at the same time each year. The earth remains in orbit; the moon in orbit around earth and has perfectly for millions of years. Molecules react with other molecules in a constant state.

    At yet, all that walks, climbs, flies, burrows, and crawls seems to be so cursed and imperfect. And yet, life goes on. Gee, I wonder why?

  56. “Go fuck yourself, Ape.”

    This is from the guy who doesn’t want me or Tex at his precious blog because we don’t add anything to the discussion and are too inflammatory.

  57. Tex @ #57:

    Again, you are barking up the wrong tree. I never questioned the fact that a living fetus is alive. No one does.

    The issue is whether it is life that ought to have the same legal status from the moment of its conception that a newborn baby has today.

    If you want to divide your estate by your will among your living children and among those not born and not yet conceived at the time of the will’s execution, that is entirely proper. It doesn’t mean that the law recognized the personhood of the unconceived children at the time your will was written. Nor does it imply the legal recognition of the conceived but unborn ones.

    It will get me zinged for saying so, but I commend Black = White for having the cajones to address the propriety of murder-related charges for EVERYONE who knowingly aids or abets an abortion – including the pregnant woman. When THAT becomes part of the “pro-life” agenda, we will find out who REALLY believes thinks that abortion is “murder.”

  58. “How many women do you think while undergoing an abortion believe they are killing a child?”

    If the definition of a “child” includes an embryo at all stages of its development from the first moment of its conception, then the answer is obviously:

    All of them.

  59. BIC,

    Did this topic ever come up in your studies, and/or what were you taught about it?

    After approximately 24 weeks, there is absolutely no “medically necessary” reason for abortion, as an emergency C-section terminates the pregnancy – thereby rendering the lie called “Intact dilation and extraction” (partial birth abortion) a moot point. But you probably can’t convince Obama & Co. of that.

    We never talked about the need for medically required abortion before 24 weeks, but if memory serves, approximately 3-5% of pregnancies are deemed high enough risk to medically justify the termination of pregnancy. I can see if I can find the research if you need it.

    Here is the most comprehensive study I’ve found concerning abortion.

    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/18/Report_Trends_Women_Obtaining_Abortions.pdf

    I’ll see if I can find your answer with something similar. I’ve seen it before on the net.

  60. If the definition of a “child” includes an embryo at all stages of its development from the first moment of its conception, then the answer is obviously:

    All of them.

    Believe my post from Norma McCorvey would say you are mistaken. She would add it was people like you that propagated the lies.

  61. Huck, 😆

    “Go fuck yourself, Ape.”

    This is from the guy who doesn’t want me or Tex at his precious blog because we don’t add anything to the discussion and are too inflammatory.

    But then again, this is from a blog owner that also advertises “The blog authors are unapologetic progressives, but we welcome participation from intelligent, conservative commenters who are able – and willing – to make cogent arguments for conservative principles without resorting to outrageous lies, racist nonsense, ad hominem irrelevancies, or childish gay-bashing.

    We’re serious! Are you out there? Do you even exist? Please come on in and show us! “

  62. Now perhaps you can tell me how a right to privacy allows one person to decide to end a life unilaterally, when that life has no say in it, and how that squares with an unalientable right to life that cannot be taken from you without due process of law.

    I’ll do my best.

    When one “ends a life” that “has no say in it,” one must specify whether or not the life in question is one that the law protects in the same manner as a new-born baby from the first moment that the “life” was conceived.

    As I mentioned much earlier, the idea of giving full legal status and protection to every human “life” from the moment of its conception is one rooted in religious dogma and NOT one generally recognized in the law prior to Roe v. Wade – not even in the context of abortions being illegal in most jurisdictions before that. The court decided, and has repeatedly upheld, that the right to privacy trumps the alleged legal rights of a fetus in early stages of its developments.

    Of course even simple birth control was illegal in some of those same jurisdictions, but the right to privacy prevailed over those laws as well. To the consternation of Catholic bishops everywhere.

  63. Poor Norma McCorvey.

    I think she made a mistake by allowing herself to be used – twice. First by the lawyers who may or may not have arm-twisted her into becoming the pro-choice poster child, and then by the “pro-life” crowd who may or may not have arm-twisted her into becoming the anti-abortion poster child.

  64. Again, you are barking up the wrong tree. I never questioned the fact that a living fetus is alive. No one does.

    You must live in a cave. Do you know how many people not only believe but make the argument that a fetus does not constitute life? Ludicrous, yes. But hardly uncommon as you suggest. In fact, I would venture a guess that is the most common reasoning to justify abortion. You’re attempting to make that case and don’t even realize it.

    It doesn’t mean that the law recognized the personhood of the unconceived children at the time your will was written. Nor does it imply the legal recognition of the conceived but unborn ones.

    That’s the biggest bunch of malarkey in your phenomenal assortment of stupid things you say that you’ve written yet. If an unborn child is not recognized by our courts as legal or “whole”, please explain to me the many occasions of the perpetrators being tried in a court of law for the murder of two persons, or how my assets were to be divided by something not recognized. She was as recognized as her walking sister – and I confirmed that with our attorney.

    I know you don’t qualify as legal counselor. But I’m now wondering after last night’s display of ignorance if you actually were able to pass the CPA. It certainly would appear far more challenging for you to pass that than any wisdom you’ve demonstrated here on Rutherford’s blog.

  65. Re: my comment @ #73 –

    Instead of asking me for the legal reasoning behind privacy and abortion, why don’t you just read Roe v. Wade. I’m sure it expresses the arguments much better than I could.

    But you aren’t interested in that. Are you?

  66. By the way Rutherford, I meant to mention this morning:

    Like Gorilla, I condemn the goon that was stomping the Move ON woman last night.

    Nothing justifies some man putting his foot on the neck of some woman. It’s not only improper, but dangerous. I’d have busted the old goon’s ass had I been standing there. Promise.

    It would have been interesting to see what actions precipitated that. It wouldn’t change my opinion, but I’ll bet you a pop (soda to you) she was making an ass of herself, as so many loons from Move On are fond of doing.

  67. Like I’ve said before Graychin, to end this silly argument and prove you wrong, I will gladly forgo what little anonymity I still hold here (not much) and simply get the representative attorney who created the will (my wife’s friend) to explain your error (which are many).

    But it’s going to cost you twice. Because I will ask that you pay for her time as well. Since you’re ‘rich’ and well established, you can afford it. Make my day. TU is killing my cash flow. 😉

    And you still didn’t take my bet from above. You’re not going to chicken out on me, are you Hoss?

  68. The woman who was dragged to the ground and stomped by Rand Paul supporters outside of the Kentucky Senate debate last says her assailants recognized her as a regular anti-Paul protester and premeditated their attack.

    “The Rand Paul campaign knows me and they have expressed their distaste for my work before,” Lauren Valle, 23, told TPM and two other reporters on a conference call this afternoon.

    “Rand Paul’s car arrived, and as soon as it did, a couple of them stepped right in front of me and so I stepped off the curb to get around them, back out to the front, and at that point they started grabbing for me and I ran all the way around the car with them in pursuit, and the point at which they see the footage is after I’ve run all the way around the car and am in front of the car and that is when they take me down,”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/kentucky-stomping-victim-says-assailants-recognized-her-premeditated-attack.php

    If that isn’t making an ass of herself, I have no idea what is.

  69. If your lawyer says that you can’t divide your estate to include your unborn AND unconceived children, then she’s just wrong and you ought to get a different lawyer.

  70. Graychin, you’re gutless. 😈 I knew when I was attempting to take a little of your “vast” estate, you’d fold like a cheap pair of sunglasses.

    After doing a little research on your esteemed on National Conference of State Legislatures, can you give me something a little less bias as source? Because reading through some of the literature, it would appear to be comparable to say NOW or Reproductive Services in its method.

    For an organization that prides itself on bipartisanship, the National Conference of State Legislatures annual legislative summit erupted last week in a fractious policy debate that left some members vowing never to return to the gathering.

    ~ Politico

  71. Unconceived children? Now exactly what is an unconceived child? Is that like a future investment, or something? Like derivatives? Is that something new in legal lingo you picked up from Mother Jones? Okay, you got me. I say “unconceived children” don’t have any rights either. 😈

    My pregnant wife would has told you she was feeling “very conceived”.

  72. Instead of asking me for the legal reasoning behind privacy and abortion, why don’t you just read Roe v. Wade. I’m sure it expresses the arguments much better than I could.

    I have. And I share the opinion of many legal scholars, including liberal ones like Lawrence Tribe, that the court crafted a justification out of whole cloth, which is the poilite legal way of saying “They made shit up.”

    In a 1973 article in the Yale Law Journal, Professor John Hart Ely criticized Roe as a decision which “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”[37] Ely added: “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.” Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”[38] Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz,[39] Cass Sunstein,[40] and Kermit Roosevelt[41] have also expressed disappointment with Roe.

    Jeffrey Rosen[42] and Michael Kinsley[43] echo Ginsburg, arguing that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote that “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”[44] Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe “disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply”.[45] And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who “loved Roe’s author like a grandfather” wrote: “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible….Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.”

    As much as I HATE citing this source, it did provide a good synopsis in the paragraphs above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    But you aren’t interested in finding a straight corolation, or even a somewhat coherent rationale between the plain language of the Constitution and the result, are you?

  73. Unconceived children? Now exactly what is an unconceived child? Is that like a future investment, or something? Like derivatives? Is that something new in legal lingo you picked up from Mother Jones?

    Okay, you got me. I say “unconceived children” don’t have any legal rights either. Neither does Casper the Friendly Ghost. twisted:

  74. The court decided, and has repeatedly upheld, that the right to privacy trumps the alleged legal rights of a fetus in early stages of its developments.

    Well, Hell, Chin. By that reasoning,Plessy v. Furguson should have never been overturned and “Separate but equal” would still be the law of the land.

  75. “Unconceived children? Now exactly what is an unconceived child?”

    I think you’re being argumentative, because you aren’t usually this stupid.

    If you made a will in, say, 1990 that said “I leave my estate in equal shares to any of the following who survive me: my son John, my daughter Marcia, the child present in my wife’s womb at the date of this will, and to any other children subsequently born to me” –

    then your son Tex Jr. born in 1995 would receive a 1/4 share of your estate upon your death, even if you had not updated your will since the 1990 version.

    In 1990, Tex Jr. was “unconceived.” Got it now?

    Check with your lawyer. She will tell you that I am right. You pay her bill.

  76. Before we had grandkids, my wife used to buy stuff like Disney videos for imagined grandkids because we knew that our daughter was trying to conceive.

    So I used to tease Mrs. G about her “unborn, unconceived grandchildren.”

    Today there are two – very much conceived and very much born. Cutest and brightest kids anywhere on Planet Earth.

  77. As someone who drafts 5-10 estate plans per month, I will say that we have not only made concieved but unborn at the time of excution children secondary or contingent beneficiaries, we have sometimes referred to them by name…. and there is nothing illegal about it.

    Also, a failure to name unborn children of single or married women, regardless of age, and regardless of whether or not they are even pregnant is bordering on malpractice…at least in any jurisdiction I have lived in.

    Tex, this is America. You pay for your own lawyer.

    Unless you live in a state with prevailing party statutes, the statutory remedy includes attorneys fees, or the cause of action is on a contract that includes attorney’s fees. But if none of those apply, and there is no equitable reason to impose attorneys fees on the other party, then you are correct.

  78. then your son Tex Jr. born in 1995 would receive a 1/4 share of your estate upon your death, even if you had not updated your will since the 1990 version.

    In 1990, Tex Jr. was “unconceived.” Got it now?

    Omitted child statutes will sometimes bat clean for the sloppy lawyer who doesn’t include this.

  79. In 1990, Tex Jr. was “unconceived.” Got it now?

    No, because my daughter was conceived and nothing unconceived is mentioned in the will. Let’s not deviate from your first incorrect and moronic statement you made which is one of two proposed bets. You keep avoiding the other one I made.

    If you want to divide your estate by your will among your living children and among those not born and not yet conceived at the time of the will’s execution, that is entirely proper. It doesn’t mean that the law recognized the personhood of the unconceived children at the time your will was written. Nor does it imply the legal recognition of the conceived but unborn ones.

    The argument dummy has nothing to do with future children. It has to do with our “unborn child.” And I say she had the same legal status as her sister and was recognized “as child.”

    I’m sure I could up with some logical fallacy like you are fond of, but I’ve never felt in necessary to retrieve philosophical jargon when it’s so much simpler to say you’re simply stupid and dishonesty in your argument. 😐

    So I’ll ask you again. Do you want to bet your original statement is wrong, or do you want to “move the goalposts” some more?

  80. Hey Gray, you of the Intrade market mentality. How does one place a bet? Because they have Tom Coburn setting at an 87.5% chance of winning last night. It’s a “longshot”, and a potential small return, but I’m feeling lucky…

    I think the odds better than that. 🙂

    So save me some time. Do you have to establish an account to bet?

  81. Roe v. Wade doesn’t resolve the rights of the born versus fetus. The reason is that prior to birth the rights of the mother (probably what G-chin would call a host) must also be accounted for in the analysis. After birth, the issue of “rights” change because those of the child (probably what G-chin would call a parasite) and mother can be examined independently. Hence right to privacy (mother’s) and compelling state interests (proxy for the shild’s) are the lynch pin. Whole cloth indeed.

  82. To whom or what you leave your estate is the exercise of your rights to dispose of you property as you wish, not the “rights” of the beneficiary. Incidentally, conceived but unborn children are usually included as a “class” for gifting purposes by statute (as opposed to common law) because the gestational period is finite.

  83. I messed with Intrade some two years ago – the free version. I had a pretty cool arbitrage thing going on and was in the Top Ten for awhile, but then one day they reversed a bunch of my trades from weeks earlier. So I left and never went back.

    I don’t know anything about their money play, but I agree that Coburn’s odds are a lot better than that. Problem is you have to find a fool who wants the other side of that bet. Good luck with that. Sometimes in a case like that the spreads are really wide.

  84. The reason is that prior to birth the rights of the mother (probably what G-chin would call a host)

    😆 😆 😆

    That’s the hardest I’ve laughed all day. Host… :lol; Takes the beauty and miracle of childbirth and make it sound straight out of Predator vs. Alien. Libs have the damnedest way of turning gold into lead.

    That was a good one Tigre.

  85. Roe v. Wade doesn’t resolve the rights of the born versus fetus. The reason is that prior to birth the rights of the mother (probably what G-chin would call a host) must also be accounted for in the analysis. After birth, the issue of “rights” change because those of the child (probably what G-chin would call a parasite) and mother can be examined independently. Hence right to privacy (mother’s) and compelling state interests (proxy for the shild’s) are the lynch pin. Whole cloth indeed.

    That description is at least clearer than what Justice Blackmun had wrought, but it’s still bullshit, because it makes the end of pregnancy “personhood” with all the rights that it implies, rather than recognizing that genetically, that blob of cells is a distinct being…and if not arborted, will indeed become what is recongnizable as a human being.

    The born/unborn distinction is the wrong one. The issue is whether or not that life is worthy of defense. An unborn child cannot speak in its own defense, but neither can a cataonic person, someone who has been in a coma for ten years or someone who has suffered a traumatic brain injury. They all share the same genetic characteristics, and in a general sense, the same chemical and bilogical make up, yet no one goes around claiming that a right of privacy gives them the right to snuff any one of these examples, largely because of the protection of law. If the law fails to defend those least able to defend themselves, then it fails, and we can drop any pretense or aspiration of “civilization”.

  86. Thanks Graychin.

    I don’t know anything about their money play, but I agree that Coburn’s odds are a lot better than that. Problem is you have to find a fool who wants the other side of that bet. Good luck with that. Sometimes in a case like that the spreads are really wide.

    I figured at 87.5%, some sucker out there had to be betting against Coburn. P.T. Barnum…i was hoping to find him.

    87.5%? If the Democrat for Senator, and I still can’t remember his name, wins in Oklahoma, it would be the greatest upset in all of political history.

  87. “State executions: Depriving one of life after due process and trial by jury of one’s peers? Not even close to murder. It is an exercise of legitimate state power after application of legal guarantees. Not even close to murder”-BiC

    I disagree. You are saying legitimate state power necessarily equals moral authority, are you not?

    So, if an uncorrupted and elected legislative body enacts a popularly backed law dictating death by lethal injection for those who illegally download music, that would acceptable?

    And how legitimate is the current state of due process? Women pretty much never get offed, and black dudes are way more likely to.

    Hey, I’m a hypocrite. I’m weak like Peter. I would have slashed that ear off the Roman soldier. And I will kill a motherfucker who hurts my family.

    But sin is sin.

  88. Rutherford, why do you get a chubby over the fact that I struggle with the ultra rare case of incest and rape? Who cares if you can use extremes and call me pro-choice.

    The law on the books cause the following: Millions of innocent, babies are chopped up to pieces.

    Enjoy your fetus soup, you sick fucks. Enjoy your genocide.

  89. Old Jim. 🙂 I swear his mug shot really looks like a mug shot. All it needs is some bars and the words Oklahoma State Penitentiary somewhere in the picture. Talk about adding to the stereotype of our state.

    Is Jim even advertising? I haven’t seen a commercial or a sign. Matter of fact, I’ve seen little of Coburn either. It’s like there’s not even election proceeding in one week. Normally by now, I’m starting to at least see yard signs. I have seen a few Askin and Fallin signs, but little else.

    Jeri Askins is one Dimocrat I actually kind of like, and if it were any other year, might cast a vote for her. She’s reasonable, nice, respectable, and pro-life – probably a higher caliber person than Mary Fallin, who I remain unimpressed with.

  90. I’m a genius! Or Charles Krauthammer is a dunce. Either way, in my gentleman’s bet last night with Rutherford (who is ducking me – chicken), Charles K. and I picked the same election result swing.

    So if I go down in flames, I’m at least in good company to burn with. 🙂

  91. The most prudent approach to deciding “when life begins” (whatever that means) is to let each family decide for itself. ” – Chin

    Do they get to decide when life ends too?

    Immaculate conception aside, every single instance you mockingly put forth required an egg to be fertilized, and thus conception.

    P.S. Go fuck yourself…

  92. Speaking of tax dollars that need to be distributed elsewhere, I hope even my liberal friends will agree that a pictures exhibiting Jesus Christ receiving oral sex is not appropriate for a public museum, funded with tax dollars?

    http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_16231749#ixzz11PWUtB6C

    What the article doesn’t mention is that the artist and his “works ” are in part funded by you guessed it, the National Endowment for the Arts. I”m not sure how many Piss Christ or Mary Magadalene montages we need with phallic symbols and covered with elephant dung before we determine that there are better uses of federal funding?

    And you’ll note these cowards reserve every bit of their hatred towards Christianity? Does anybody here seriously believe this coward would also portray Mohammad in a similar light?

  93. Re: Jim Rogers

    (For the benefit of everyone but Tex, who already knows, he’s the Democratic candidate for US Senate in Oklahoma vs. Tom Coburn)

    For what it’s worth, we have been getting an insane number of hits on my blog to the post that I wrote a couple of months ago called “Who is Jim Rogers?” About half of the hits are from within Oklahoma.

    Apparently inquiring minds want to know! Jim isn’t doing any campaigning that I’m aware of. Even my many email sources for local Democratic sources are silent about Jim.

    My lonely post may be one of the few ways that exist to find out. 😀

  94. Tex, I haven’t finished reading through all the comments yet but I’m sorry, your will example is disingenuous.

    You wrote your will when your wife was six months pregnant. Rather than your attorney telling you “wait seven months and write the will then” or “write the will now for those who are alive and amend it when your child is born”, your attorney allowed you to do a bit of a “cheat”.

    Clearly, if your wife pre-deceased you while pregnant, the baby would most likely die also. So leaving your money to your unborn child makes no sense. The real meaning of your will verbiage was “if my wife dies before me, split my money between my living children, including the one that will be living by the time this circumstance (i.e. wife pre-deceasing) comes into effect.” The will verbiage assumes the birth of your presently unborn child prior to the death of your wife, hence leaving you with one more child to share in your estate.

    Your attempt to suggest the will recognized a fetus as a proper “inheritor” of your riches does not pass the smell test.

  95. Reading some subsequent comments, including those by BiW, let me state things more simply.

    Wills do not leave estates to fetuses. They leave estates to those alive at the time of the death of the will holder. All verbiage referencing unconceived and unborn children carries with it the assumption that those hypotheticals will have been born by the time the will is executed. This, to my mind, does not give a fetus legal standing.

  96. Rabbit, glad to see you finally jumped on board the discussion. Hey, be pissed if you like but you ARE pro-choice if you think a kid conceived by a rapist deserves to die in utero. It’s real simple dude.

    I don’t fault you for struggling with it. I struggle with the whole topic of abortion, I’m very very torn. But I’m sick and tired of pro-life people thumping their chests and then rolling out a list of “extreme exceptions” that meet their “ewwww” test.

    If you’re so torn up about mangled fetuses … if you want the genocide to end, then trash all the excuses and support bringing every baby to term regardless of circumstance. Or, admit you’re pro-choice … i.e. that a choice must be made and the choice is not always crystal clear.

  97. Rutherford, sometimes you amaze me. One moment, you can be an absolutely beautiful author and a reasonable man – the next moment, you can be the absolute most stupid person on WordPress.

    You don’t create a will at some moment in time when the stars aligned right, or all the children situated. The point I made, and the point of the will was not to “cheat” as you suggest. It was to prove there are precedents for legal rights to unborn “children.” Did you catch that? The legal phrasing of the word? There was no mention of “fetus” as you suggested in your moronic retort. Did you think that clever, or something?

    I confirmed with our attorney that the will legal and binding as my wife and I intended it. The attorney and witness who happened to managing partner of the firm assured me that if my demise happened, and the my wife died soon thereafter without changing the will, and the daughter was living, it was not necessary to have …. (daughter #2’s) formal name listed for her to receive 50% of the estate. She did suggest to us that we provide her with the name upon her birth to append or provide addendum, or change, or whatever the correct legalese lingo.

    But the fact of the matter is, unborn are recognized as living beings much to your chagrin, which for the life of me with your disabilities I do not understand. My will and the fact that perpetrator of a murdered expecting mothers can be and are often charged with the murder of both mother and child are only two examples. There are further precedents including manslaugher listing both mother and “unborn child.”

    So don’t give me your line of stupid bullshit about passing some smell test, or your ignorant mentioning of fetus to justify your abominations, which I have tried to explain to you a million times, including providing the real meaning of fetus.

    There are parts to that are both elitist and naive at the same time. Rutherford, for all your niceties, you are still one lost soul. You have recently had a wake up call, but you still slumber…

  98. Tex, first you truly need to get over this obsession you have with the word fetus. I didn’t use it to piss you off. Until John Doe exits the vagina it is a fetus. It is not an infant. Infants live outside the womb unattached to an umbilical cord. Sorry … THAT is a valid definition no matter how many Latin etymologies you want to pull out of your ass. If you find the word distasteful (I still don’t understand why) I’ll call them the unborn from now on since it is not my intention to offend.

    Now back to your legal examples. OK … I shouldn’t have used the word “cheat” since it was loaded. What I intended to say was that your attorney avoided having to make you amend the will after your child’s birth by referencing the child-to-be in the will. I maintain this did not impart any legal rights upon the unborn. It was a statement of status as an inheritor upon birth. Your attempt to say the unborn is recognized legally in your will is playing fast and loose.

    As for the murder of a pregnant woman, I have to concede that killers have been accused of two counts of murder when killing a pregnant woman. I submit this is more about enforcing the societal outrage against killing a pregnant woman than it is about conferring any real human status on the unborn. But perhaps that is a distinction without a difference.

  99. G, i guess I don’t understand election fraud. Why deliver two pre-loaded voting booths to a location just to have them collected again? Why not just load them, wait until election day, and then count the loaded votes. Why bother moving them around town, particularly to a place that was not a designated polling place.

    Now I would understand putting pre-loaded booths at a polling place. If that was proven it would be far more upsetting. I don’t understand how what the video describes makes any sense.

  100. By legit voters, I assume you mean citizens, but then again, it is your side that is pushing for non-citizens to have the right to vote.

  101. BiW @ 100: We’re in complete agreement. I was responding to the departures made by G-chin et al. And the comatose example you’ve offered is precisely what I was attempting to raise with Rutherford. Deaf ears, I guess.

  102. Rutherford, you’re armchair legal analysis is dead wrong. Again, thanks for ignoring my informed comments. Let me know when you’re an architect, I’m trying to design a new roof system on my house and could use your thoughts.

  103. There is nothing new about public outrage over crimes against pregnant women that involve harm to the fetus.

    What IS relatively new is the push by “pro-life” forces in state legislatures to define the fetus as a second victim, something that was not always present in earlier law.

    The overarching strategy here is to be able to say: “See! Abortion is always wrong because now the law protects the fetus as well as the mother.” This is just one more front that “pro-life” has opened in the Abortion Wars.

  104. The argument over wills has become stupid, all beginning with Tex’s stupid argumentative statements and his stubborn insistence that his statements made sense from the beginning.

    The discussion should have ended after # 91 when our resident legal authority Black = White said

    “a failure to name unborn children of single or married women, regardless of age, and regardless of whether or not they are even pregnant is bordering on malpractice…at least in any jurisdiction I have lived in.”

    Nothing was wrong with naming Mrs. Tex’s fetus as an heir. Failure to name any hypothetical subsequent children (the “unconceived”) in the will would have “bordered on malpractice.”

  105. Incidentally, conceived but unborn children are usually included as a “class” for gifting purposes by statute (as opposed to common law) because the gestational period is finite.

    Sorry you thought I was ignoring you Tigre.

    Does your statement imply that the unborn have legal rights? No. In fact, you stated clearly that it is NOT about the rights of the beneficiary, therefore having the unborn in your will does not imply they have legal rights. They don’t get squat from Daddy until they are born.

    We’re on the verge of arguing science fiction here.

  106. I agree with 123 Gray but the fetus was not the friggin’ heir. The will is written to handle eventualities. “Any children I might have at the time of my death” is the verbiage that makes the most sense and it doesn’t get us involved in this foolishness of a fetus being an heir.

  107. Dr. Elizabeth Newhall appeared on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” and explained the virtues and positive benefits of abortion. “This is excellent medicine, this is mandatory for public health, for all of our health, for children’s health…”

    We’ve pointed this out before, but it bears repeating.

    “The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” or how about “We are failing to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . a dead weight of human waste . . .an ever-increasing spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.” – both by Margret Sanger. No coincidence at all, Sanger was a proponent of eugenics too, and a racist to boot.

    Or a montage of liberal familial support…

    “Destroy the family and you destroy society.” Vladimir Lenin

    “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” — Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

    [W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children…. The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. ? Alison Jagger – Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

    “In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them” Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman

    “The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation…[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women.” Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

    ?[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young…. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.? ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p. 100

    “How will the family unit be destroyed? … the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare.” — From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar.

    “The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. … Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. … “Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. … — Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.

    “Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women.” — From article, “Is Marriage the Answer?” by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995

    “[The nuclear family is] a cornerstone of woman’s oppression: it enforces women’s dependence on men, it enforces heterosexuality and it imposes the prevailing masculine and feminine character structures on the next generation.” — Alison Jagger, Feminist Politics and Human Nature

    “The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.” [Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York, International Publishers,1942) p.58]

    “The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” [Engels, p.67]

    Of course, the proper response to this would be an examination of the black family over the last 60 years, and then comparing those stats with the other stats demonstrating diminishing socio-economic growth. Graduation rates, incarceration rates, violence and crime statistics- almost all of this can be tied to the nuclear family, or in this case, the lack thereof.

    That’s a significant point in this debate. “Pro-choice” proponents aren’t doing this for women’s rights, they’re doing it for social engineering.

  108. If you are a “conservative,” it’s better if thousands of eligible voters are turned away from the polls for not being able to produce the proper documents or though outright intimidation than it is for even one ineligible voter to cast a ballot.

    Which distorts election results more: an illegally voted ballot or a legal but suppressed ballot?

  109. You are saying legitimate state power necessarily equals moral authority, are you not?

    Rabbit, I read this before going to the scout meeting last night. I re-read it when I got back. I read it again before going to bed.

    The answer is yes. It couldn’t be any thing other than yes.
    The state has that authority because we give it that authority. We enable the legislative branches to to codify behavior, and in so doing, they also codify morals. Because we give the state the power to then enforce those laws, yes, they have moral authority. That’s what makes things such as what the SCOTUS did with abortion that much more eggregious, because the current status of the law is not the product of the body politic debating and coming to consensus, which is how law is to be made, and it wasn’t the overturning of a specific law on the basis of a CLEAR violation of constitutional protections, which the Court is constitutionally empowered to do. Instead, it was a handful of unelected and unaacountable jurists who overturned laws of 49(?) states based on the mystical divination of a heretofore unenumerated “right”, and pretended that it gave a pass to an act that would be criminal in any other context.

    Your downloading music example is just silly. Capital punsihment is, and always has been (in modern western jurisprudence) reserved for crimes such as treason, or violent crimes. Besides, if you’re dead, the RIIA cannot collect on the enormous judgments they like to get against scofflaw 11 year-olds who use Daddy’s computer to download Lady Gaga. Dead people cannot work to pay these things off. 😉

    If you think the death penalty is wrong, or is applied incorrectly, you have an avenue to change it. Petition the leglislature in Lansing. Do it again, and again, and again. Make your case. Present your facts. You’re more likely to have an effect in Michigan than say a state like Texas.

    If you want to start thinking about law and morality in a way that you perhaps haven’t before, I suggest getting a copy of “Legislating Morality” by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek.

  110. Sometimes when you’re a hammer, everything just looks like a nail. I disagree with Black = White’s legalistic description of “moral authority” at #128. Thank goodness not everyone is a lawyer.

    I think that the following definition of moral authority is the way that the concept is understood by most non-lawyers, including myself:

    The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.

    In that light, does the State really have “moral authority” when it carries out the death penalty?

    Right or wrong, did the Warren Supreme Court have “moral authority” when it decided Brown v. Board of Education by a vote of 9-0?

    Right or wrong, did the Burger Supreme Court have “moral authority” when it decided Roe v. Wade by a vote of 7-2?

    Right or wrong, did the Rhenquist court have “moral authority” when it decided Bush v. Gore by a vote of 5-4?

  111. Graychin,

    You know I find you a profoundly shallow and hypocritical man, a partisan hack, rank propagandist, and pompous but insignificant ass. So I won’t slow Rutherford’s board further with more descriptions of your own incompetence and evil nature.

    Let’s just leave it that both you and Rutherford are abortion on demand proponents. Neither of you have any qualms about 52,000,000+ children being legally terminated in the womb in the most ghastly of methods. We are far more humane to abandoned pets in the worst pounds on earth than we are in terminating pregnancies. You and your ilk can be party to only one of two things: (1) mass murder; (2) it’s not a baby and carries no value.

    Your insistence of using fetus instead of “unborn child” is both amusing and tedious, because nobody, not even a competent medical doctor when addressing a family or staff, uses the term “fetus.” It’s like telling a woman you are pregnant with embryo. The semantics you and Rutherford use are the weak attempt to soften the procedure of the unborn child being scalded, burned, or torn limb from limb.

    And that is the pink elephant in the room you and Rutherford clumsily make attempt to ignore while justifying abortion on demand as just another medical procedure. Worse, doctors who do perform abortions are the ‘B’ actors of the practice. Many women are butchered. And the old, tired argument of “a women has the right over her body” is worn out too – half the time the unborn child not even the same sex, and all unborn children carry with them a unique DNA. That is what is being aborted.

    The convenient excuse about the baby can’t exist without mother’s body is true, but that argument carries its own set of shortcoming in debate – it is equally true that a newborn child can’t exist without adult care either. It’s a specious piece of reasoning as you attempt to dissuade real truth.

    Everyone including you if you were being honest, which you can’t in a public forum because you believe it would expose your weakness, refers to that in the womb as “baby.” I am sure you and your wife did during you daughter’s pregnancies.

    You are many things Graychin. But the one thing you are not is pragmatic.

  112. Only if you’re black. Or so it seems.

    ROTFL … BINGO Gray!

    For every GOPher “watching a polling place” to ensure legit votes, I want my friendly local NBPP member doing the same.

  113. G, I truly admire all the work you did collecting those quotes. To those of us who enjoy the family structure those quotes are indeed pretty scary.

    But you know full well being pro-choice is not equivalent to being some femi-nazi. It’s like saying all terrorists have two arms and two legs therefore everyone with two arms and two legs is a terrorist.

    Your quotes only serve to show that there are some who use the pro-choice stance to evil objectives. It says nothing about the whole pro-choice philosophy.

  114. Let’s just leave it that both you and Rutherford are abortion on demand proponents.

    You know this makes you sound like an ass don’t you? Gray can speak for himself but I have NEVER advocated abortion on demand. I don’t know how we control it. I don’t know how or if we should legislate around it. I have a simple bottom line and I’ll express it in real vulgar language so its fully understood. You (generic male) get to stick your dick in any willing vagina and walk away. Then you open your big fat mouth about what women should do about the consequences of your mutual behavior.

    When men (MANY of whom are horny selfish bastards) have to spend nine months growing twice their size, feeling a growing living thing move around within their bodies and then deal with the agony of what to do about that new life, then they get to mouth off about the morality of the situation. Until then, leave it to the woman, her clergy, her family and her doctor and mind your own f*cking business. 👿

  115. “So I won’t slow Rutherford’s board further with more descriptions of your own incompetence and evil nature.”

    Promises, promises.

    Yes, you will. It’s what you do. You do more of that here than anything else that you do.

    “Let’s just leave it that both you and Rutherford are abortion on demand proponents.”

    That would be a fair description of my position, for the reasons that I have stated above in considerable detail – and not for the reasons that you and others have attempted to put in my mouth. My reasons boil down to my greater trust in pregnant women and their families to make decisions for themselves about abortion than in Big Brother or a Nanny State to do it. Believing the opposite, as you do, is entirely inconsistent for anyone who claims to be a “conservative.”

    I doubt that your description fits Rutherford, but he is entirely capable of responding to you without my participation.

  116. I always thought we give the state the consent to govern because it is rational to do so. Often times, acts that are rational are also moral. So it works out most of the time. However, if I’m reading you correctly, morality and rationalism could be used interchangeably.

    While my downloaded music example is pretty stupid, you aren’t making the claim that all legislation in a properly functioning republic is, by, definition, moral…are you?

    Why do you go to church? Seems to me you should get on your knees in Washington DC and worship…Barney Frank?

    Damn, I crack myself up sometimes.

  117. Rutherford, I will just have my wife respond for me tonight. That way we can put your silly argument on the shelf.

  118. Rabbit – Oops, you just broke your winning streak.

    Rutherford’s statements make perfect sense. For every woman you drag in here to argue with him, we can find one or more who will agree with him.

  119. Like you, I’ll put this in terms that everyone, including a proponent of abortion on demand such as yourself can understand.

    Your comment about men is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

    This is a common ploy by abortion on demand proponents such as yourself, because it deflects from the real argument which is, ‘what exactly are we aborting?’ This too is a tired, worn out argument, because in the discussion of male responsibility – we agree. And I have lived my entire adult life under that premise, and anything you wish to propose to further increase the male taking responsibility for his actions in creating “LIFE” – well, I’m right there with you pal.

    If we are to use your abortion on demand logic of only women have a say in the state of pregnancy, then that eventually leads back to women have the entire responsibility of both prevention and/or raising children. You will no longer be able to call the sperm donor “father” or “guardian” because he is just a third party in the manner. Child-bearing then leads to child-rearing by the mother, because you have excluded the father’s right in determination.

    You are an abortion on demand proponent Rutherford. Spin it as you wish and think about that when you loosely throw around the term “fetus.” After all, words have no meaning. Right? Unless you can give us your reasoning for preventing an abortion, and so far you have not provided one, there is nothing else to call you.

  120. Oh Graychin. You extrapolated my initial response this morning much too far. My promise only included this post.

    You can rest assured that there are many future occurrences wear I will still send you into apoplexy as payment for your insidious lies, pomposity, smarmy behavior, and even sometimes garden variety leftist stupidity.

    As I find you one of the few people on earth I could actually say, “We will better off when you’re gone”, rest assured if you happen to meet an unexpected demise, I would hope you do understand that unlike Jim Dougan or Rutherford should he so pass, I can absolutely guarantee you will not get the sympathetic and personal testimonies that Jim received. Never think for a moment, you’re of that caliber.

    Imagine if Rosie O’Donnell, Joyless Behar, Hugo Chavez were to drop dead.

    Somehow, I imagine a few shrugs, a couple of cute quips from the net about your wonderful demeanor, perhaps I’ll add some scripture from The Revelation for your 2nd Death, and a quick forget! 😉

  121. wear I will send? 😳

    “where I will send.” Graychin, I’ve grown so bored with your vast multitude of weaknesses, that I think you’re rubbing off on me.

  122. R, said “They don’t get squat from Daddy until they are born.”

    Yep. That’s true. Tex’s analogy is misplaced, and so is your extrapolation of that premise when it comes to the termination of life.

    The only reason the law has changed respecting the “unborn” is the medical certainty with which viability and paternity can be ascertained. (BTW, the terms “heir” and “beneficiary” are not the same thing). So too with the “homicide” (not “murder people — which as I said requires malice or legally implied malice) of the unborn. In other words, the concepts you guys are debating are not of rights but of proof.

    “We’re on the verge of arguing science fiction here.” Yeah. For fun, read property rights cases/journals involving frozen sperm and embryos yet to be united. Even better, look at the estate distribution schemes involving pets, something our legislature has now seen fit to codify.

    Anyway Rutherford, what I was digging at had more to do with the analytical consistency you applaud when it comes to Angle’s abortion stance, yet disregard in your response to my question about assisted suicide. Just trying to keep it real.

  123. I was thinking about the facetiousness concerning the logic of Graychin and his ilk exhibiting the “wisdom” of “My reasons boil down to my greater trust in pregnant women and their families to make decisions for themselves about abortion than in Big Brother or a Nanny State to do it.”

    This is the humanist version of abortion should be safe (cough cough – never for the baby), legal, and rare (only if you consider 52,000,000+ rare).

    Ironically, the slaughtering of the unborn is the one time it is proper where people like Graychin would find it both appropriate and proper to invoke the word “god” in the public square. And it goes something like this: the decision should be between the woman, her doctor, and her ‘god’.

    That raises all kinds of questions because I thought Rutherford didn’t believe in ‘god’? I suppose doctor covers and acts as ‘god’. And for the rest of them they has some undefined, unknown and nebulous god.

    And it got me thinking about Graychin’s charges of my own inconsistencies where gov’t shall have no role in deciding what is best concerning parenting. Because if Graychin holds the mother knows the situation best in determining matters of life and death, then surely it would follow – in fact, it would be terribly inconsistent if it didn’t that the birth mother the only one fit to deem how best to raise the children. So even if there is suspicion of beatings, drug use, child porn, rape, incest or the like, – well we can all trust the mother to make the right decisions about the child’s well being – we can decide as a society how to throw the ‘doctor and mother into the mix’. Never would we want Nanny or Big Brother involved.

    But I have one final question Graychin about your abortion on demand mind set.

    Are the charges of ‘inconsistency’ from same man who represents the same party that has figuratively and literally dragged children out of their mother’s home for (1) strange religious beliefs, (2) spanking (3) childhood obesity? Represents consistently the party that has determined the role of gov’t to decide what foods we can eat, how much salt we can use, what type of gun we can own, what type of car we can drive, and how much carbon we can dispense?

    I’m sorry, but you seem to have so many “inconsistencies” in your definitions, one wonders how you keep the meme straight.

  124. Tea Party members have started challenging voter registration applications and have announced plans to question individual voters at the polls whom they suspect of being ineligible.

    In response, liberal groups and voting rights advocates are sounding an alarm, claiming that such strategies are scare tactics intended to suppress minority and poor voters.

    In St. Paul, organizers from the Tea Party and related groups announced this week that they were offering a $500 reward for anyone who turned in someone who was successfully prosecuted for voter fraud.

    The group is also organizing volunteer “surveillance squads” to photograph and videotape what it suspects are irregularities, and in some cases to follow buses that take voters to the polls.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us/politics/27fraud.html?_r=1

    What are the signs that a voter might be ineligible? What are the poll watchers supposed to be looking for? I just can’t imagine how they could spot an ineligible voter. Can you?

    But these poll watchers will all be white, so nothing they do can possibly be as intimidating as two asshats who…

    Never mind. You get the idea.

  125. R, how does your belief hold up with teenage abortions? In most states, individuals under the age of 18 aren’t deemed competent to contract. Hell under federal law you’ve got to be 18 to vote, but not terminate life?

  126. Tigre, I’ve had so many different conversations with our abortion on demand proponents, it would be impossible for me to address your charges of my “misplaced” analogy. I’ve made many during this thread.

    If you’ll be more specific, then I would happily address your charge and see if I can’t back it up with something other than the tedious legalese that always enters the conversations when Graychin plays attorney.

  127. But these poll watchers will all be white

    Then you should feel right at home. It will look just like your block,neighborhood and entire zip code. 😉

  128. “the same party that has figuratively and literally dragged children out of their mother’s home for (1) strange religious beliefs, (2) spanking (3) childhood obesity? Represents consistently the party that has determined the role of gov’t to decide what foods we can eat, how much salt we can use, what type of gun we can own, what type of car we can drive, and how much carbon we can dispense?

    The last time I checked, I can drive whatever car I can afford to buy, eat whatever I want including lots of salty stuff, own any gun I like short of a bazooka, and even produce all the CO2 I want. So – what in the holy hell are you talking about?

    If you have to make stuff up to argue with me then you really don’t have much on your side, do you?

    The state has always had a legitimate interest in protecting children from parental abuse. There are far too many children in DHS custody whose parents are meth-heads, child molesters, or who beat up on their kids. You think that is wrong? You have a problem with that? My party supports it. And so does yours.

  129. Tex, No need. I wasn’t attacking. The mispalced analogies apply to all playing lawyer (that obviously doesn’t include my brother at the bar, BiW). I now know why my friends that are medical doctors wince when they overhear laypersons talk shit about medicine based on their patient visits.

    Frankly, I think your label of “abortion on demand” is apt. Reading Rutherford’s angry comments about the men staying out of the abortion decision makes me wonder how he would’ve reacted had his wife elected to abort his daughters without his input.

  130. So G-chin is in favor of the poll watchers based on his position with the NBPP which was no problem. Glad we could put it to rest.

  131. Make stuff up? Surely you jest Gramps.

    The last time I checked, I can drive whatever car I can afford to buy,

    Cash for clunkers worked so well. 😉

    It’s coming – or at least the attempt. Drive a Hummer through the heart of libbieville and witness the reaction you get. In fact, in California, they burn down Hummer dealerships in the name of letting the family decide what is best for travel. Of course, by the looks of Eucha, OK, ecology doesn’t appear much of a concern. 😆

    eat whatever I want including lots of salty stuff,

    Really? Been to a NYC restaurant lately? Ask them for a tasty transfat dessert dish, head to the supermarket, or heavily salt your steak while you’re at it. I suppose with you living in the Aryan fortress deep in the heart of white trash Jay, OK, you’ve missed the Food police

    own any gun I like short of a bazooka,

    Graychin, my old friend, in many cities in the United States including Chicago and Washington D.C., you can not only not own an automatic weapon, they’re arresting people for owning a .38.

    and even produce all the CO2 I want.

    Tell the oil refiners, drillers, producers of hydrocarbons that. Contraire, I’ll let you talk to my father-in-law and his propane business about how much “all the CO2” he wants to produce has worked out. He’ll give you a lesson not only in how naive you are, but in manners.

    If you have to make stuff up to argue with me then you really don’t have much on your side, do you?

    Just 52,000,000 dead babies who never got a chance to cast a vote, take a breath, or debate the consequences of abortion on demand.

  132. Tigre, I didn’t take it as attack. I was simply curious, as obviously unlike you, I have a problem with the game of semantics concerning abortion. Mine has nothing about the legal aspects, but the practicality of “words” do have meaning.

    The argument of “fetus” vs. “unborn child” I can assure you in not without importance, or consequence. And you’ll note Rutherford recognizes as much.

  133. Ape – Thanks for the flood, but I speak for myself and don’t want the words of any of those people put in my mouth.” – Chin

    Nope, you own them.

    R, your arm analogy is wrong. A better, more accurate version would be comparing leftist terror acts with Islamic terror acts. Both are doing the same thing, but for different reasons. What makes this analogy fit is that one side gets tactically co opted by the other, hence the lefts tolerance of Islam.

    You may not agree with those positions, but your liberal elitist friends do, and they will ride you all the way to the bank.

  134. My neighborhood is not all white. And you know that.

    You’re absolutely right Graychin. My mistake.

    I forgot about the eight Mexicans in your zipcode that mow your lawn and the two that run the Mexican restaurant.

  135. “My neighborhood is not all white. And you know that.” -G-chin.

    With that kind of street-cred, I guess you are qualified to call everyone here racist.

    (oh, did someone marry into it asshole?)

  136. Let’s lay this foolishness to rest:

    From MediniceNet.com (boldfacing by me):

    Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

    I have NEVER used the word inaccurately. This is totally about Tex’s sensibilities. End of story.

  137. Tigre, when it comes to Tex’s will example, I think we basically agree.

    I can understand why you would find my objection to assisted suicide inconsistent with my more subtle view of abortion. Humans are inconsistent. Conservatives demand that every conceived baby be born and then be abandoned rather than cared for by the “nanny state”. Inconsistency abounds. 😉

  138. “Conservatives demand that every conceived baby be born and then be abandoned rather than cared for by the “nanny state”.”

    They do?

  139. Really? And here I thought we were about families raising children, not the nanny state. How silly of me…

    R, really, the hyperbole is a bit much. I expect this from mental midgets like Chin. Man up.

  140. I think that the following definition of moral authority is the way that the concept is understood by most non-lawyers, including myself:

    The quality or characteristic of being respected for having good character or knowledge, especially as a source of guidance or an exemplar of proper conduct.

    Ahhhh, the philosophy of law according to Greychin. Forgive me for not knowing that a definition of the word “moral” also sufficed to define the concept of “moral authority”. Maybe because it doesn’t.

    Moral authority is an philosophical concept that should serve as a basis for, but is not in itself a rule of written law. The moral authority and legitimacy of law can be based on metaphysics or religion, on nature, on some aspect of society, or on the individual. It may be referred to as a “higher law”, involving right reason, which calls a person to the performance of their duties and restrains them from doing wrong.

    Constitutional democracy combines qualitative, substantive, “higher law” concepts of justice and universal equality derived primarily from classical civilization and Judeo-Christian religion with quantitative, procedural concepts of justice and equality derived primarily from the communitarian ethic of common law, republican traditions, and social contract theory.

    http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/moral-authority/

    In that light, does the State really have “moral authority” when it carries out the death penalty?

    You mean in the incomplete light that you want to apply to it?

  141. Rutherford,

    Let’s clear something else up. I never have used the medical definition of fetus incorrectly. Find where I have said that you did and I will grovel. That is the medical definition which I will help you out even more below.

    Now my question is, and I ask this sincerely. When you and your wife went to listen to the first sounds of a heartbeat at which point the conception could have been medically referred to as embryonic heart beat, as it starts at the 22 day mark, did they refer to you “unborn daughter” as listening to sound of the “fetus” Rutherford?

    When your wife was pregnant and she told you as much, did she refer to her womb as pregnant with “embryo”, “fetus”, or “child” throughout the birth?

    When your wife was giving birth, and assuming she did so vaginally, and they hooked the “fetal monitor” to gauge the heart rate, did they explain to you and your wife that they would monitor the “fetus’ heart rate”, or did they refer to the monitoring as “the baby’s heart rate?” Because technically, they should have referred to your daughter throughout the birth “fetus” if we are going to go by the book; just as technically our attorney should have called our soon-to-be daugther a fetus, right?

    Did your wife’s friends or your wife’s mother ask your wife, “and how is the fetus doing today?”, where in return your wife answered, “feel the ‘fetus'” kick Rutherford!”

    When a fetus in the womb at late pregnancy, or a fetus lies died in the womb at six months, do the obituaries read fetus or child?

    Looking at the information I provided to Graychin about the post trauma of having an abortion? Do the women who provided those testimonies talk of the their zygote, embryo, fetus, or child? More likely you’ll read “son” or “daughter.”

    And finally, even the medical definition of fetus contains the word offspring – and offspring means the immediate descendants of a person. And I assume descendants to you would signify something living, right?

    —————

    A little, black disabled baby from the early 60s? “Get rid of it – abort it or kill it; no difference. It’s of no use, will never amount to anything, and will be a drag on society and a burden on costs.”

    Your insistence upon the right of parent to choose death even for convenience, and now you be honest and admit that is what a vast majority of abortions are for; and being many of those you share political persuasion with and party to, upon recognizing that you were disabled in utero, would have extracted you from your mother’s womb in the most grisly imaginable way possible in a nanosecond Rutherford while uttering those words.

    And it happens disproportionately with blacks and Hispanics alike. We have well documented evidence abortion providers prey on minority communities, even build their mills in minority communities. Do not stick your head in the sand Rutherford. That happens hundreds of times day, every day of the year.

    And indirectly, you are party to it. The sin of omission is no excuse.

  142. “I can understand why you would find my objection to assisted suicide inconsistent with my more subtle view of abortion. Humans are inconsistent.” On matters such as this, not all of them are my inconsistent friend.

  143. I always thought we give the state the consent to govern because it is rational to do so. Often times, acts that are rational are also moral. So it works out most of the time. However, if I’m reading you correctly, morality and rationalism could be used interchangeably.

    We give the state consent to govern because living in a society is unavaoidable, and since we must do so, it must perform the basic functions to secure the unalientable rights that we all have. Laws typically have a moral component to them. we have laws against theft because we believe it is morally wrong. The same with killing, and with rape. Laws concerning fraud, assault, forgery, and perjury also represent a moral judgment of society, codified by its representatives in the legislative branch. Laws have always been a reflection of a people’s morals and values. The question that is often unclear for many is whose morals they reflect. Since most people don’t really thing too hard about that question, they often fall for the idea that laws billed as ‘neutral” actually are, rather than a reflection of a moral belief set that they might not actually share.

    Further, more people than actually think about it actually expect the law to reflect their morality. If they did not, abortion wouldn’t be the divisive issue that it is for many people. There would not be outrage and a a drive for a new law to address when we see people being “wronged”, and holding no remedy or an inadequate one. And if the government didn’t have the moral authority we give it, people wouldn’t look to government to address these issues.

    While my downloaded music example is pretty stupid, you aren’t making the claim that all legislation in a properly functioning republic is, by, definition, moral…are you?

    Not at all. Any properly functioning republic will have a body of administrative law, and its primary purpose is not necessarily to address issues of what we perceive as right and wrong, but instead is to simply provide rules for how government conducts its work. A building code has no moral underlay; it is a system that requires a degree of uniiformity. Some of its requirements may be for a safety purpose, but more often than not, it exists to make the job of building inspectors easier, with saftey being a convenient pretext.
    The ability of various agencies to pass rules that have the effect of law is not reflective of a moral purpose, it is a matter of convenience, as it frees legislative bodies from the minutia of establsihing these rules and regulations themselves.

    It is worth noting that your example of a prohibition against pirating music does reflect a moral judgment (that stealing the fruits of someone else’s labor is wrong).

    I would also point out that it is worth noting that the moral expectations of “We the people” overide the rational approach that you ask about. Case in point? The war on drugs. Most economic analyses show that it is not “rational”. They would argue that the costs of enforcement are prohbitively high (no pun intended) for the results obtained. At the same time, anyone who has had family or freinds fall into drug use and watched them surrender all dignity and integrity for the next hit, as they waste away, and sometimes die will certainly view it as wrong that some in society would turn a blind eye to those who would prey on these people, stealing everything they have, literally and figuratively, in order to enslave them to something that will very likely kill them, and at a minimum completely destroy their lives. And when you talk about the people who enforce the laws and don’t have the emotional attachments to the victims, they will still tell how it can only be characterized as evil. Just ask any LEO who has dealt with a meth epidemic.

  144. Tex, you are absolutely right that my objection to abortion is its possible abuse in removing “undesirables” from the population. There are many more reasons NOT to have an abortion than there are to have one. As you and I agreed earlier, the mother’s life being at risk is about the only one that is a slam dunk.

    From what I understand, some of the women who visited Tiller had brain-dead babies in their womb. Doctors verified that although there was a heartbeat, there was no brain activity, or in some cases incomplete brains. These babies would die as soon as they were born. Should such a woman be forced to carry the baby to term?

    Finally on this whole fetus issue … I use “fetus” in an unconscious attempt to stop you from making no distinction between the born and the unborn. Making no distinction helps your case obviously. When we talk about babies, whether in or outside the womb, it stacks the deck so to speak psychologically in the no-choice direction.

    So …. I think I finally get where your fetus obsession is coming from. You find it dehumanizing …. and I confess saying “fetus” makes it much easier to make an intellectual argument about abortion. Takes some of the emotion out of it.

  145. I lost track but someone (I think Tigre) asked me about teen pregnancy and abortion. I believe in parental consent. No minor should be able to get an abortion without parental consent.

    How does everyone here feel about a 13 year old being forced to carry a baby to term? Just curious. Is there any age at which childbirth gives you guys the heebie jeebies? 12? 11?

    By the way, as I said about Sharron Angle, if your answer is no, then I applaud you for consistency. You are champions of the unborn at virtually any cost. It has a certain nobility to it. I find it hard to be dogmatic to that degree on this subject.

  146. So …. I think I finally get where your fetus obsession is coming from. You find it dehumanizing …. and I confess saying “fetus” makes it much easier to make an intellectual argument about abortion. Takes some of the emotion out of it.

    You’re right. Stripping them of their humanity in the nomenclature that you use makes it much easier to not have to really think about some of the hard questions that the practice raises.

  147. How does everyone here feel about a 13 year old being forced to carry a baby to term? Just curious. Is there any age at which childbirth gives you guys the heebie jeebies? 12? 11?

    I could channel my inner Rabbit and say “its population replacement” because if I got my hands one who ever knocked up a 12 year old, there’d be one less person drawing breath.

    Seriously, it happened in a family I’ve come to know, and the girl’s mother raised the child as if it was one of hers.

  148. The question of pregnant children and abortion is the hardest one of all for me. I can’t decide who should decide.

    It depends on the age of the pregnant child to some degree. If the girl is 17 and wants an abortion, should her parents have the last word? Should her militantly “pro-life” parents be allowed to force her to carry the FETUS to term? I don’t think so. I guess I would set an arbitrary age (16?) at which a girl ought to be considered old enough to make that decision for herself.

    What about younger pregnant children? That’s an even uglier question. I don’t think that parents should ever force an abortion on a pregnant child. I don’t think they should force a child that young to carry the FETUS either.

  149. Sister Margaret McBride was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for approving an abortion needed to save a woman’s life. An administrator at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, McBride was part of the hospital’s ethics committee that decided in November 2009 to allow a 27-year-old woman with pulmonary hypertension, or high blood pressure in the arteries that supply blood to the lungs, to terminate her 11-week pregnancy. Due to her condition, the woman would almost certainly have died without the abortion.

    After learning of McBride’s decision, Diocese of Phoenix bishop Thomas J. Olmsted declared in May that she was “automatically excommunicated” and asked her to resign her post as vice-president of mission integration at St. Joseph’s.

    http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6541/excommunicated_over_abortion/

  150. Seriously, it happened in a family I’ve come to know, and the girl’s mother raised the child as if it was one of hers.

    BiW do you know if the child was lied to as to the identity of her real mother? Was she raised as the mother’s “sister” and never told the truth? Just curious. Another very thorny dilemma.

  151. But Graychin – since you like logical fallacies, I return one back to you.

    What you have provided is the ultimate red herring from the left, because it is a well documented fact that about 1 in 20 pregnancies are terminated for rape, incest, life of the child, life of the mother. So my question in return is what do you propose for the 1,150,000 legalized abortions a year that are simply done for convenience?

    Abortion addict admits to 15 abortions in 16 years

    Irene Vilar, an Hispanic author, describes the 15 abortions she has had as a married woman in her new book to be released next month. Irene Vilar is the granddaughter of Lolita Lebron, a Puerto Rican nationalist who stormed the Capitol building with gunfire wounding several congressmen in 1954. In her upcoming book, Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict, she describes herself as an abortion addict who had 15 abortions as a married woman.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/279620

    About half (47%) of the women who terminate pregnancies today have already done it at least once, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that focuses on reproductive-health research.

    And you can’t tie the McBride decision to any of us, because all of us have here agreed that baby not take precedent over mother. I do think the woman above should then decide to take the responsibility during the surgery to abort the pregnancy to have her tubes tied, a partial hysterectomy, or whatever procedure renders her sterile so that this situation never face again.

    I’m a little confused by your arbitrarily choosing age 16 for a girl, because we as a society have decided that girls aren’t mature enough to vote until 18, consent to marry until 18, or drink until 21. You think the decision to vote more difficult than to abort?

    You that support abortion have shown yourselves to be incredibly inconsistent in your reasoning. You insist of the requirement for parental notification even through 12th grade of taking something like Tylenol – yet many don’t wish parental notification of any type for abortion.

    I’m guessing for any situation you can show as difficult or in both cases of the Catholic Church pathetic, I can show you far more documented instances of abortion used as birth control.

  152. The Real Liberal Solution to Reducing Unemployment

    Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said the most significant economic effect of President Barack Obama’s health care reform package will be to drive people out of the job market.

    We’re in the best of hands.

  153. Damn, I can’t even type “bet” anymore without error. Sorry.

    Hopefully Rutherford, you’ll allow me to go off topic a little more. But this was too good to pass up to prove that Joyless Behar, the despicable shrew and phenomenally stupid lard ass of the infamous “THE View”, has deemed NPR being vetted by Media Matters as completely objective. 😆

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/joy-behar-npr-has-been-vetted-by-objective-%E2%80%98media-matters%E2%80%99-type-people/

  154. In her upcoming book, Impossible Motherhood: Testimony of an Abortion Addict, she describes herself as an abortion addict who had 15 abortions as a married woman.” Tex

    In any other circumstance, she’d not be an addict- she’d be a serial killer…

  155. So my question in return is what do you propose for the 1,150,000 legalized abortions a year that are simply done for convenience?

    I think that you mischaracterize a lot of those “abortions for convenience.” But if you had been paying attention, you would already have your answer. So pay attention this time: I already said that “abortion on demand” is a fair way to characterize my position.

  156. I can show you far more documented instances of abortion used as birth control.

    So what? I don’t approve of abortion used as birth control, but I wouldn’t criminalize it.

    Like I keep trying to tell you, I’m in favor of abortion on demand. Can you hear me now?

    If the same people who are “pro-life” wouldn’t put up so many obstacles to kids having access to good information and to birth control methods, maybe (just maybe) there would be fewer abortions, and definitely fewer abortions for birth control.

  157. A footnote to the case I linked at #177.

    The second time the girl was impregnated, this time not by her father but by her FOSTER father, an abortion for her second pregnancy (at age 14) was out of the question because she had been and was in State custody. And we all know what a terrible thing it is to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions.

  158. You insist of the requirement for parental notification even through 12th grade of taking something like Tylenol …

    No I don’t. That’s stupid. Putting words in my mouth again.

    yet many don’t wish parental notification of any type for abortion.

    That’s another thorny question for me. What if a girl 17.5 years old wants an abortion, but her militantly pro-life parents won’t give permission? I don’t have the answer.

  159. How do the cases I linked show the Catholic Church as pathetic?

    Catholic bishops seem to illustrate Rutherford’s original point exceptionally well. They may be the last people on Planet Earth who are not pro-choice.

  160. I guess I would set an arbitrary age (16?) at which a girl ought to be considered old enough to make that decision for herself.

    And I said, “I’m a little confused by your arbitrarily choosing age 16 for a girl.”

    You’re so confused old man, you not only mischaracterized or failed to understand that I just indirectly repeated what you had commented, you can’t remember what you yourself previously stated. You’re starting to read like Robert Byrd sounded the last few months of his life.

    I’m beginning to believe that you may not be entirely in control his faculties. I’m guessing you’re somewhere in your mid 60s, but there are times you fade out so bad, I would suggest you have yourself tested for dementia and cranial plaque.

    I get it you’re “uncomfortable with abortion and euthanasia”, yet call yourself an abortion on demand proponent. That parallels the rest of your inconsistencies – like where you choose to live and how you vote; or you living in possibly the most segregated part of the country and certainly Oklahoma, yet insinuating to Rabbit, who happens to live close to minority status, that he sounds racist.

    Graychin, get yourself tested. You’re fading fast – not where Yeller Dawg finds himself yet, but you’re aging more quickly than you should.

  161. Catholic bishops seem to illustrate Rutherford’s original point exceptionally well. They may be the last people on Planet Earth who are not pro-choice. ~ Graychin

    😐

    Clearly delusional…

  162. If the same people who are “pro-life” wouldn’t put up so many obstacles to kids having access to good information and to birth control methods, maybe (just maybe) there would be fewer abortions, and definitely fewer abortions for birth control.

    What obstacles? Good Lawd, we’ve been teaching sex ed for 40 years in public schools. When you teach young adults that they are like dogs in heat, you should expect them to act like dogs in heat. I’m not surprised when we send kids to Caesar, they come home Romans. Why should you?

    Pretty simple.

  163. The second time the girl was impregnated, this time not by her father but by her FOSTER father, an abortion for her second pregnancy (at age 14) was out of the question because she had been and was in State custody. And we all know what a terrible thing it is to use taxpayer money to pay for abortions.

    Yeah, if her birth mother had just had an abortion, everything would have been okay and this would have never happened.

    /sarc off

  164. I wish the Hipster was still with us. I think he would have gotten a chuckle out of this as he had a good sense of humor – but he also was pretty sensitive when I teased him about higher education.

  165. I wanted to buy your wife the Christine O’Donnell witch doll, but due to ObamaCare, couldn’t afford another one.

    I added emphasis by way of wondering what your plans are for the one you already bought. 😉 Do they make a blow-up doll model?

    By the way, in this crazy-ass election season, Jimmy McMillan is my favorite candidate. 🙂

  166. How in the world could I have missed this piece of excellent news today?

    ‘Obama unlikely to last his first term’

    A US analyst says US President Barack Obama is unlikely to end his first term as there are serious efforts by American officials to remove him due to his incompetence.

    😛 😛 😛

    “It is very doubtful at this time that he will last his first term,” Edward Spannaus of Executive Intelligence Review said in an interview with Press TV on Wednesday.

    “There are people who are upset within the administration and the Democratic party who are seriously considering how to remove Obama from presidency,” Spannaus added.

    Many of them put out all their calls for removing Obama under the amendment 25th of the US Constitution.

    The amendment allows for the removal of the US president if he is incapacitated either physically or mentally.

    Spannaus also opined that people in the military are upset because Obama “is not attentive” to what is going on. “We have troops killing and being killed and he is not interested in dealing with it,” he further explained.

    Elsewhere in his remarks, Spannaus said people inside the White House say, “Once he got into the White House he is very unhappy having to govern … he is very frustrated, he is very depressed, some reports say he is on medications and he cannot concentrate or focus, which is a mental problem.”

    Did I not tell you that Obama and Graychin shared many things – mental problems being the most obvious?

  167. Tex, don’t know how you found that video but you’re right, HippieProf would have loved it.

    By the way, for what it’s worth, I’ve used Xtranormal professionally. Since I admittedly have a face for radio, and it’s so important nowadays professionally to have a YouTube presence, I produced a couple of short vids using Xtranormal. It was fun and even though the vids don’t get many hits, I get a major kick out of watching them. 🙂

  168. Say what you like about Gray but he is the only one who seems to have retained the original premise of the article. The article was not advocacy for pro-choice or pro-life stances but rather advocacy for consistency.

    The minute you claim to be pro-life and then make exceptions, you are ipso facto pro-choice. It’s as simple as that.

  169. Gawd Rutherford, your one step more lucid than the graying old man. Unless you’re referring to me going off topic out of boredom with Mr. Brain Plaque from Jay, my message has most assuredly been consistent throughout this entire thread, starting with agreeing with Angle’s assessment. So has BiCs, so has Gorillas.

    The one person who can’t justify his position is Brain Plaque.

    You’re judgment is so bent and skewed anymore, no wonder you don’t see the ass kicking down the pike. You sure you’re not smoking weed?

    P.S. – I think Hippie would have though it funny too. Higher education is getting ready to get an Obama 2010 type epiphany. Most of what passes for higher education anymore is a joke.

  170. Where did you get that horsesh*t from Tex … The Onion?

    Better than that. 🙂 And you won’ t believe that source.

    Do you remember when Barry Nobama said that our problem with Iran was that we hadn’t tried conduct dialogue? You remember that farce, don’t you? And we were going to be pals, and because of the charismatic Iman Obama, Muslims would lay down their arms? Remember that facade?

    Well, here’s a piece of good news for you propeller heads from the left. Your friends in Iran have come to that assessment. 😆 You still think Mr. President Dynamite knows what he is doing? He’s not just a national disgrace. No, Pres. Dynamite is now global disgrace. ** GUFFAW **

    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148446.html

    I hope they are right! This is one time I’m actually rooting for the Ayatollahs. 😉

  171. Rutherford, this current blog post is about labels and semantics.

    Not very deep stuff.

    Child like, really.

    “Um, um, what if, um, what if King Kong rapes and impregnates a girl directly after having unprotected sex with an AIDS infested Crab Monster on a side street in a Central Asian slum while the comedian Carrot Top films it? Um, um, um…what about then? Uh? Uh? What about then? Made you think didn’t I? Burn! Your pro-choice!”

  172. Not very deep stuff.

    Funny that you say that Rabbit because I was thinking just this afternoon how “deep” you consider yourself because some photos of mangled babies turned your formerly pro-choice head around 180 degrees. Now you even think you speak for woman-kind on the subject.

    Here’s the crux … and it’s what’s got your undies twisted … the only difference between the average pro-lifer and the average pro-choicer is a self righteousness that the pro-lifer’s assessment of valid abortion excuses is somehow loftier than the pro-choicer’s excuses. It’s this holier-than-thou attitude as you call others murderers when all they are doing is contemplating a broader array of choices than you do.

    I don’t recall your stand on this Rabbit. Do you make an exception for rape and incest? Considering your passion for the rights of the unborn, I have to assume you don’t. Otherwise, as I said in the article, you’re a pretender to the pro-life throne.

    P.S. After your discussions with BiW, what say you? Does our government have the moral authority to prohibit abortion?

  173. “Um, um, what if, um, what if King Kong rapes and impregnates a girl directly after having unprotected sex with an AIDS infested Crab Monster on a side street in a Central Asian slum while the comedian Carrot Top films it? Um, um, um…what about then? Uh? Uh? What about then? Made you think didn’t I? Burn! Your pro-choice!”

    Ok, that made me blow hot sauce through my nose.

  174. Tex ROTFLMAO!!!!!! OH my friggin’ God … where do you come up with this stuff? Suddenly Mr. “No NYC mosque for you” is sitting with bated breath watching a Muslim broadcaster interview some crackpot about Obama’s impending 25th Amendment removal from office.

    Tex … I know you’re jesting dude. Just cos the nutty Iranian “news” site fulfills your fantasies, doesn’t mean you should share it. It makes you look almost as wacky as Elric!

    😆 😆 😆 😆

  175. Here’s the crux … and it’s what’s got your undies twisted … the only difference between the average pro-lifer and the average pro-choicer is a self righteousness that the pro-lifer’s assessment of valid abortion excuses is somehow loftier than the pro-choicer’s excuses.

    Right ON Rutherford! And not the fact at the end of the day Rabbit’s “self-righteousness” leads to one living baby, where Rutherford’s “excuses” lead to another dead mass of flesh.

    /propeller helmet removed…

  176. Mr. Brain Plaque has become contagious and Rutherford has been living in close quarters. That last dressing down of Rabbit qualified Rutherford for the O.J. Simpson humanitarian award of the year…

  177. “Government” is amoral, and therefore never has moral authority. I don’t give a shit what Black = White’s law dictionary says.

    Only individual human beings can behave morally or immorally. Human institutions are amoral, and institutional actions only reflect the morality of their human decision makers.

    You can’t legislate morality. Really – you can’t.

    “The Moral Sense is the creator of wrong; wrong cannot exist until Moral Sense brings it into being.”

    “Whenever I look at the other animals and realize that whatever they do is blameless and they can’t do wrong, I envy them the dignity of their estate, its purity and its loftiness, and recognise that the Moral Sense is a thoroughly disastrous thing.”

    Both of those quotes are from Mark Twain. I disagree with both of them, although they each contain a kernel of truth.

  178. You can’t legislate morality. Really – you can’t. ~ Graychin

    True. But we can and do legislate against immorality every day. ~ Tex

  179. Of course we try to legislate morality, but those attempts are are abject failures.

    Tex is closer to the truth. But legislating against immorality is not the same as legislating morality.

  180. Of course we try to legislate morality, but those attempts are are abject failures.

    Oh, of course. We know people don’t asbstain from murder because they don’t want their lives to be forfeit.

    We know people don’t rob banks because the don’t think that a jury of their peers will find them guilty and send them to poke me in the ass prison.

    Of course every attempt to legislate morality ends in failure.

  181. And not the fact at the end of the day Rabbit’s “self-righteousness” leads to one living baby, where Rutherford’s “excuses” lead to another dead mass of flesh.

    Well that all depends on which excuses Rabbit signs up for. Until Rabbit gives an answer, for all we know the baby of the rapist ends up a dead mass of flesh. So much for his defense of the unborn. 😉

  182. They had the lads from Top Gear on. Those guys can make even Steve Kroft watchable.” BiW

    Was it the UK Top Gear or the new US version? The UK version is absolutely the best program on BBC America, with Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares a close second.

  183. “Say what you like about Gray but he is the only one who seems to have retained the original premise of the article. The article was not advocacy for pro-choice or pro-life stances but rather advocacy for consistency.”

    Hahahahaha.

    R @ 164: “I can understand why you would find my objection to assisted suicide inconsistent with my more subtle view of abortion. Humans are inconsistent.”

    R, you kill me. Even your consistency is inconsistent.

  184. 1. I’m ok with Rutherford’s insult on how I arrived at defending unborn babies. While it was much more then simply looking at a picture of an abortion, it was observation and inductive reasoning that made me take note of the genocide. The biggest influence in my decision was Mrs. Rabbit’s teaching on what an unborn child is and its relationship with the mother. However, I wouldn’t blame anyone being influenced from only pictures of murdered, unborn babies.

    2. I’m still thinking about BiC’s response on morality and legislation, and will be for some time.

    3. Rape victims should allow the baby to live. A soldier should also give his life to save his platoon. There are rare situations when the right thing to do is so ridiculously difficult, I tend not to wax eloquently about it.

    4. I find abortion to be the lesser of two evils in cases of incest as incest is an abomination. So I’m pro-choice. Got me.

  185. “Rape victims should allow the baby to live.”

    That one is going to be a tough sell.

    Is the “morning after pill” an acceptable option for you in the case of rape? Just in case?

  186. Well first Rabbit, I was fully expecting to be bitch-slapped so thanks for the restraint.

    Your answer cuts to the core of the problem. This is all very subjective, isn’t it? Many consider rape an “abomination”. You reserve that word for incest I assume because it involves a violation of trust. But if I’m not mistaken, most women are raped by someone they know. Getting raped in an alley by a stranger is not all that common. I can go try to find stats if need be. So rape is almost always a violation of trust.

    I’m not criticizing where YOU draw the line. I’m just saying when we legislate this, who do we listen to? The Rabbit? Sharron Angle? Some crackpot feminist who wants to destroy the family unit to liberate women?

  187. I’m just saying when we legislate this, who do we listen to? The Rabbit? Sharron Angle? Some crackpot feminist who wants to destroy the family unit to liberate women?

    The citizens of each state, as their respective legislatures work it out, since the Feds have no legal jurisdiction in the matter.

  188. You only mentioned attempts to legislate against immorality. Why?

    No. I mentioned how our morality has been codified by making illegal acts which we as a society have deemed immoral, and that we have empowered government to enforce these laws and administer penalties for violating these morals…do try to keep up.

    Or in your world is morality merely obeying the law?
    Hardly, as the law doesn’t specifcally address all moral issues, like what happens if you’re walking down the street and find a wallet stuffed with C-notes and no one in sight, or if you’re shopping at the Win-Co and you see a short old lady having difficulty getting something from the top shelf, or if you turn a corner when walking to the gym and find someone lying in the street who clearly has had the %@$^ beat out of them.

  189. Rutherford, I’m going to make a radical statement – completely out of my adamantly “pro-life?” stance. In other words, I’m going to eliminate one of those massive red herrings the wicked liars of the Left like to use as excuse to murder the unborn. And unlike some lying sack that frequents this board, I can be practical. I don’t want women punished through no fault of their own.

    So here is what I propose concerning the facetious slogan of “rape, incest, and mother’s life”. No argument on the last one. This doesn’t handle all cases of rape – it does handle most of them.

    A woman is raped. She reports it immediately (say within 24 hours). She provides the information of the accuser, if known. More about him in a minute. DNA from the semen is required and kept as confirmation.

    A rape file must be charged. After examination by a doctor and confirmation of coitus, with parental consent if under age, the woman is immediately given chemical inducement to stop any potential pregnancy.

    If it is determined by a court of law and a jury of his peers that the man did indeed commit rape beyond reasonable doubt and the act not consensual , murder is the charge. Two choices – the needle; mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole, complete with hard labor.

    However, if it is later determined that the woman lied, that the sex was consensual, the law then states that the woman will be sterilized, with removal of the uterus nullifying chances of any pregnancy. She is also charged with perjury and convicted of an extended sentence in a maximum security prison.

    Now that may sound harsh. But you’ve got my consent to immediately stop the pregnancy with chemical inducement. If you don’t make it that definitive and the requirements that harsh, I guarantee you that incidents of “rape” would become a far more common occurrence.

    I’ll also give you my suggestion about incest. I believe we can handle that one too if you let Tex serve as judge and executioner for any man that can’t control his impulses to impregnate children. I am absolutely sure I can make that a very rare occurrence. 😉

    And we can then get down to really debating the merits of the “right to choose.” I give Graychin one thing – at least he is honest about being a proponent of legalized infanticide. He’s completely demented, so I can at least understand his reasoning.

  190. If it is determined by a court of law and a jury of his peers that the man did indeed commit rape beyond reasonable doubt and the act not consensual , murder is the charge. Two choices – the needle; mandatory life sentence with no chance of parole, complete with hard labor.

    Leaving the rest of what you said alone for the time being, unless you can prove that conception actually occurred, there is no way you can charge with murder. And I think many members of my tribe, myself included, would have trouble with making a murder charge the end result of a rape. You might be able to craft a justification based on the felony murder rule, but there are states that no longer recognize felony murder based on the lack of intent to actually commit murder.

  191. BiC, I appreciate your legal expertise, and I’m sure you are correct. I too am uncomfortable with the thought of execution for rape, not because of the act – which if proven deserves death in my opinion, but because it so hard to prove intent and situation. I have found the man accused is always immediately suspected of guilt – I’ve also personally experience a scorned woman’s wrath and it ain’t pretty. I realize this suggestion opens up a can of worms.

    I personally know of at least one man who suffered consequences from a false charge of rape. Though there was intercourse, we all knew it was consensual. The woman years later admitted it was, and in fact was the one who initiated the tryst. She’s propositioned me before and I knew Todd simply screwed up – no pun intended.

    But I’m personally tired of give the abortion on demand proponents an out in using the most difficult situations that nobody as good answer for as excuse to slaughter one million innocents a year and treat rape as a common reason for aborting. It’s a lie and their bluff needs to be called.

  192. As an advocate of abortion on demand, I find Tex’s comment at # 224 to be horrific and disgusting.

    Tex, I would be interested in your opinion of the “morning after” pill in the case of (alleged) rape.

  193. Yes, the morning after pill would be acceptable to me in cases of rape.

    Are we done now? Can we talk about the millions of murdered babies now?

    Do you guys ignore the murder rate because of a few cases of self defense killing?

    Oh I forgot, black teens being shot in the head is a taboo subject around here.

    So yeah, come to think of it you guys don’t talk about the murder rate.

    After all, who wants to open that Pandora’s Box?

    That would force you to take the longest look in the philosophical mirror of your life: The rise of the murder rate in minority communities at the very same time you libs created your urban reservation.

  194. Brain Plaque,

    As an advocate of abortion on demand, I find Tex’s comment at # 224 to be horrific and disgusting.

    That’s not my comment at #224 dumb ass…

    You’re confused again.

    Tex, I would be interested in your opinion of the “morning after” pill in the case of (alleged) rape.

    I just gave it plaque.

  195. I don’t know why I referred to 224. I meant 229.

    You referred to #224 because you’re a clueless buffoon and are suffering the first signs of dementia – a common ailment from Bozos with a lifetime record of intellectual dishonesty and Carl Albert/Broke Obama messianic complex and chronic case of BDS.

    Horrific and disgusting.

    But butchering 52,000,000 babies in the womb in with methods that would make an Auschwitz butcher hide in the weeds. Why it’s a “reproductive right” – not so safe, insidiously legal, and anything but rare. 🙄

  196. Rabbit, 😆

    You think Graychin may have a little keg breath too? 🙂 I’ve often wondered if Graychin didn’t ponder before typing his misguided posts with a bottle of Wild Turkey between his legs.

    You know Yeller Dawg imbibes the Mad Dog while he types.

    Great explanation of rationing health care under the guidelines of that abortion called ObamaCare…this one should piss sane people off big time

  197. Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself…

    Interesting piece of history.
    In 1872 the Arabs invented the condom, using a goat’s lower intestine .
    In 1873 the British somewhat refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first.

  198. “Leaving the rest of what you said alone for the time being, unless you can prove that conception actually occurred. . . ”

    BiW, you’d still need to determine viability (causation) which obviously couldn’t be determined if it was abort first, investigate second.

  199. Thank you for standing up for real people like myself whose mother was raped by eight men. She is happier than anyone I’ve spoken to who aborted their rape conceived child. She never felt like committing suicide for killing her innocent baby. But many are still suicidal many years after aborting their innocent baby. I know one woman who is self destructive NOT because of her rape but because she listened to society telling her abortion was the only solution.

    Misplaced compassion kills an innocent baby and sets a criminal free to harm other people. Society needs to hear from real people in this situation instead of talking about us from an abstract position.
    For more stories from mothers and children of rape conception visit http://www.choices4life.org (restoring honor and dignity to women and children of rape conception) and http://www.judamyers.com

  200. Juda, thank you SO much for lending a real human voice to this issue. While I feel this is a personal decision that every woman must wrestle with and I don’t believe the government should dictate that decision, I am very happy that your mother chose life for you and that you are here to advocate for the unborn who had NOTHING to do with the circumstances of their conception.

    Best of everything to you in the future!

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s