Dog Brothers Public Forum
June 30, 2016, 09:12:02 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Topic: Abortion (Read 53662 times)
Reply #200 on:
October 01, 2015, 11:22:16 AM »
Quote from: G M on September 30, 2015, 11:09:50 PM
This nation is crumbling before us. The embrace of evil by mainstream society shocks me.
They would have us believe it is not a living thing at the front door while selling body parts from it out the back door.
It's not only legal; it's taxpayer funded - even while they run it at a profit and give money back to the politicians who support them.
What could be more evil and corrupt?
57,762,169 slaughtered since 1973. You should be able to watch the number going up just like the debt clock.
PP: "you made a wise decision."
- No. Men have no say in it whatsoever. Nor does the life to be 'terminated' and sold off for parts.
"What defines life? When does it begin? When the egg is fertilized, when it attaches to the wall, at a specific time period of development, or when it becomes a viable living entity outside of the womb? "
- The closer science looks at it, the closer to conception we get with that answer. Certainly all honest observers can agree that by the time that the 'body parts' are removable and marketable, there is a separate and distinct human being involved. Thinking life begins at birth is sun-revolves-around-the-earth era science. It just isn't so.
Even if it isn't one conservative's issue, Reagan understood it is part of the winning coalition. There is plenty of room to narrow the legality in terms of states and stage of development.
Roe v Wade has no foundation in the constitution. What's wrong with having the regulation and political debate of this go back to the states and have the federal work on things like the powers granted to it in the constitution?
The issue doesn't go away by funding it. And the issue doesn't go away by selling off the useful parts.
Reply #201 on:
October 01, 2015, 12:10:45 PM »
Good point that you make on the life issue with the selling of viable body parts. I had not considered that.
I agree that it is a States Rights issue. But the damage has already been done by Scotus and the DC powers have no desire or incentive to revisit that question in a legislative manner. It is like the Gay Marriage issue. California voted to ban it, but SCOTUS said otherwise.
I am just looking at all of this from a pragmatic view. What can or could be accomplished? I don't see anything coming soon either way since the will in DC does not exist.
Reply #202 on:
October 01, 2015, 01:27:37 PM »
"I am just looking at all of this from a pragmatic view. What can or could be accomplished? I don't see anything coming soon either way since the will in DC does not exist."
As a pragmatic matter, the President appoints Justices and Senators confirm them. Roe v Wade a wrongly decided case for anyone reading the constitution for what it says. The issue will go back to the states someday if conservatives ever win elections and govern accordingly. States then will choose different levels of restrictions. The issue shouldn't be the center of this election except to know where everyone stands on it.
Further on the politics is the idea of a conservative coalition. At the end of the current battle for the nomination, the various groups need to come together to win. If you want secure borders, sitting out or voting Dem won't get that done. If a pro-lifer wants to advance that cause, electing Dems won't do that. If you want a freer economy, sitting out or voting Dem doesn't get you there. For those who want a return to constitutional principles, same. If you are in any of these groups, you need to know who your friends and enemies are.
Pro-life is not a losing issue. Gallup says 54% want abortion either banned completely or banned in all but a few circumstances (generally understood to mean rape, incest and life of the mother). 29% want abortion legal in all circumstances. Most notably, only 2% don't have an opinion! (The remainder want looser restrictions.)
Reply #203 on:
October 01, 2015, 01:47:05 PM »
I love this:
"As a pragmatic matter, the President appoints Justices and Senators confirm them. Roe v Wade a wrongly decided case for anyone reading the constitution for what it says. The issue will go back to the states someday if conservatives ever win elections and govern accordingly. States then will choose different levels of restrictions. The issue shouldn't be the center of this election except to know where everyone stands on it.
Further on the politics is the idea of a conservative coalition. At the end of the current battle for the nomination, the various groups need to come together to win. If you want secure borders, sitting out or voting Dem won't get that done. If a pro-lifer wants to advance that cause, electing Dems won't do that. If you want a freer economy, sitting out or voting Dem doesn't get you there. For those who want a return to constitutional principles, same. If you are in any of these groups, you need to know who your friends and enemies are."
Rather an optimist aren't you? Does the name Souter or Kennedy mean anything? They were thought to be conservative. And as to the Pubbies, they don't care about the base. Look at Boehner and McConnell, plus all the others. Look how they treat the Tea Party and Ted Cruz.
Reply #204 on:
October 01, 2015, 03:05:55 PM »
Quote from: ppulatie on October 01, 2015, 10:41:56 AM
A beautiful young lady. Congrats...............you made a wise decision.
The subject of abortion is such a personal issue that most discussions become highly charged and emotion. Add to that the "conflict" between government, religion, morality and science, and there is no ready answer.
With the availability of many different contraception devices today, abortions should be greatly reduced. However, so many people decry the use of contraception especially on religious grounds, it remains a problem.
What defines life? When does it begin? When the egg is fertilized, when it attaches to the wall, at a specific time period of development, or when it becomes a viable living entity outside of the womb? Everyone has a different opinion and science or law cannot answer that question yet. So the "conflict" will continue.
As to Planned Parenthood, yesterday proved my point on abortion never being banned. Overwhelmingly, Congress approved continued funding for PP. The consequences of defunding PP was too much for even the Pubbies to consider.
Abortion funding for PP is barred by law. But this is such a joke. One simply changes bookkeeping entries showing that the abortion costs came from sources other than the government, and everything is fine. The politicians know this, but they don't care.
Unfortunately, the abortion divide will continue............and both advocating sides will profit from it.
I think we can agree that when body parts are harvested, it is well beyond a "clump of cells".
Reply #205 on:
October 01, 2015, 04:15:39 PM »
I will agree to that.
Reply #206 on:
October 02, 2015, 11:58:46 AM »
On abortion I would concede that laws won't be changed radically anytime soon. First you charge hearts and change minds which takes time and requires taking an honest look at the facts. It isn't murder with criminal intent if people don't even know they are doing something wrong. My intent with many posts here is to draw attention and logic to what is happening and see if people can see that convenience abortions (98% of abortions) are wrong.
Planned Parenthood proved my point by selling body parts.
Women already have control over their own bodies, except in the context of rape.
Dr. Ben Carson on abortion
Reply #207 on:
October 26, 2015, 12:53:32 PM »
Re: Abortion, Obama: That is a child in the womb! Feed it better.
Reply #208 on:
December 23, 2015, 10:26:17 AM »
First a small footnote, 200,000 abortions 'performed' since the last post in this thread 2 months ago, with black children three times as likely to be killed as white children. Black lives matter, whatever, I digress...
It was interesting to catch Justice Breyer a few years back calling the woman involved in an abortion a "mother', begging the question, mother of what?
Now we have Pres Obama's administration referring to the unborn as a child - when it involves increased federal spending on social programs. (There is a human in there!)
This should go under cognitive dissonance of the left but I will keep it in its subject thread.
Same President previously called a fetus that survives an abortion a child and corrected himself, it is a "fetus living outside the womb". Good grief.
If you call them children, no one would be allowed to kill them, and that is the religion of the left. Science, photography, DNA and common sense be damned.
Whoever proofread the new White House paper on food stamps must not have been briefed on this argument.
The paper says women are "mothers" while still only pregnant. And one of the paper's key points -- printed in bold in the executive summary -- is: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's "
positive impact on children begins even before birth
and lasts well beyond their childhood years." (Who knew?!!)
The paper elaborates: "Recent research focusing on the rollout of the Food Stamp Program in the 1960s and 1970s shows the benefits begin even before a child is born:
who receive Food Stamps
have a reduced incidence of low-birth weight babies by between 5 and 12 percent." (Mother of what? It's a baby in there??!!)
If we had more free food assistance, we would have healthier body parts for the taxpayer funded industry of growing and harvesting small humans for profit. Maybe we can balance the budget and fix healthcare with higher quality and healthier, aborted fetus organs...
Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 10:36:10 AM by DougMacG
8 questions the msm won't ask Hillary about abortion
Reply #209 on:
January 26, 2016, 11:38:34 AM »
Mrs. Clinton, just a few questions:
A new Marist poll shows that 81% of Americans support some restrictions on abortion. Do you disagree with 81% of Americans on this issue? If not, what restrictions on abortion would you support?
The same poll found that 66% of pro-choice Americans would restrict abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. Do you stand with the majority of pro-choice Americans on this issue?
Your husband famously said that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
If you agree that abortion should be safe, would you support legislation that would require abortion clinics to meet minimum standards for patient safety and sanitary conditions?
Why should abortion be rare?
Do you condemn China’s policy of forced abortion as a violation of a woman’s right to choose?
The movie Gosnell comes out later this year. As you know, Kermit Gosnell was convicted of the first degree murder of three babies. The Grand Jury report alleged that Gosnell killed hundreds of infants by sticking scissors into their necks. Do you support Kermit Gosnell’s actions? Why not?
Would you support legislation that protects a woman’s right to post-birth abortion?
Re: Abortion, Trump, Matthews
Reply #210 on:
April 01, 2016, 11:42:23 AM »
Trump stepped in it big time suggesting penalties for women having abortions, if it was illegal, after being pressed by a Hillary Clinton surrogate into answering a hypothetical. There are a number of problems with Trump's answer on this.
George H.W. Bush had a similar exchange in a debate, 1988. A 70 year old student of the Presidential pursuit might have known this and have learned from it. http://debates.org/index.php?page=september-25-1988-debate-transcript
[What other recently acquired viewpoints has Trump not thought through?]
If abortion law was returned to the states, the penalty (or not) would be a state issue. Is he running for South Dakota State Assembly? A simpler answer might have been that a pro-abortion mother (oxymoron?) could drive across state lines and have the procedure done legally and safely (at least from the point of view of the mother).
He knew it was a gotcha question when he stepped into it. He tried not to, then caved when pressed. (I wonder if Chris Matthews is tougher than Putin, Xi or the Ayatollah?) Besides showing a lack of wisdom, this is not the kind of strength and control he claims to possess.
What is the right answer, or a better answer, if you are pro-life and trying to advance that cause? Try this:
Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund.
Being pro-life means wanting what is best for the mother and the baby. Women who choose abortion often do so in desperation and then deeply regret such a decision. No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.
In simpler math: Abortion = 1 dead + 1 injured
You must change hearts and minds before you change laws. There is a moral case to be made for life before there is a legal case for protecting it. Right now the highest moral value at stake is protecting is the convenience of the mother.
Trump had a personal encounter with an abortion / non-abortion outcome that ended up with a beautiful life being born that touched him personally, as did I. A person having one of these experiences discovers what should be obvious to anyone - that is a life in there - as valuable as ours and much innocent.
Every woman having an abortion today grew up post Roe v Wade, and likely taught her whole life that her choice of convenience is paramount, not the survival of the rapidly developing life inside of her. There are some steps missing in between going from a wrongly decided constitutional right to a crime.
Instead of Trump backtracking to tell his personal story (that may not have happened), he followed his opponent's henchman down into the abyss, hurting himself and hurting the cause.
While the lives of hundreds of millions of baby girls ended in the pursuit of gender selection against females,
, Hillary Clinton's proxy, Chris Matthews, set up the useful idiot Trump to extend the life of the fable that pro-life conservatives are anti-woman.
Which side is anti-female? The enablers of gender-cide? Or those who want to protect the least powerful and most innocent among us?
Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 11:55:12 AM by DougMacG
Re: Abortion, life deniers, Hillary 'unborn person', 'mother carrying a child'
Reply #211 on:
April 05, 2016, 10:35:02 AM »
Copying this over from Hillbillary thread. I would add that 'person' is a legal term and Hillary is hinting that she would like to guarantee government healthcare to the unborn - if not for the abortion interest. I think she hit her head pretty hard on the fall...
Quote from: DougMacG on April 03, 2016, 02:48:43 PM
Let's see who else picks up on this. HRC on Meet the Press, I think it was, this morning screwed up for pro-choice worse than DT screwed up for pro-life. I can add the transcript later.
Sec. Clinton kept referring to the pregnant woman deserving choice as a "mother carrying a child". She also referred to "the unborn person".
I did not know that it is an unborn "child" or "person" inside a pro-choice "mother". It was called "unviable tissue mass" inside a "woman". Important distinction!
This changes everything. You terminate tissue. You don't terminate a child. ...
Yes, this was noticed by others! At least on the right...
Video Clip of the exchange:
Good for Chuck Todd for asking one tough, relevant question. She usually doesn't go on shows that do that - I believe she has never appeared on Fox News Sunday. Todd introduced the subject by ripping Trump for taking 5 positions in one week on abortion. Hillary got her guard down, was ready to jump in and pile on, but instead he gave her an open ended opportunity to state her view on abortion. She went right into Roe v Wade, that she agrees with it and so on, and it allows for some restrictions. Then Todd bluntly asked her when and if an unborn child has constitutional rights. And she stumbled badly.
The left thrives off of owning the language of the issues. Spending going up is a budget cut. Temporary spending is permanent. Affordable housing is not affordable but requires subsidy, hence a government policy. Affordable healthcare, same thing, makes it unaffordable, requiring a massive federal program with mandates that all would not be needed if it was affordable as the term used to mean. Eliminating racial differences means putting more focus on race. Marriage is no longer husband-wife, and so on. The left owns the language when they are winning on issues, and they pull it off by having monopoly control of the messages around us, from k-12 curriculum, to teachers unions, colleges, elite universities and the media.
Nowhere is language more crucial than abortion. Rachel meant well, especially on moral issues but would only post about abortion by starting a separate thread called 'reproductive issues'. Abortion isn't reproduction; it's the opposite. But you don't call it killing a baby and then ask people what they think about it.
Hillary has been so deeply entrenched in this kind of leftism that her blunder was outrageous. ccp might know, but it could be a symptom of age or brain injury that such an expert on the topic would make such a beginner leftist type of error after all these years in the leftist bubble. Otherwise she got sloppy after recently experiencing a real, grandmother-grandbaby love when she should have been reviewing Saul Alinsky manuals for her upcoming run.
You don't call 'it' a 'person' while talking about it having no rights, okay to kill. You don't call the woman a mother and you don't call the fetus a child. If you begin to admit, as Reagan put it, that it [a fetus] is 1) alive, 2) human, and 3) and has separate, distinct DNA from the mother (and father), then you are pro-life, not pro-choice. Abortion becomes a killing of a child, not a procedure on a woman.
In the middle of the same sentence, she used proper leftist language, that it is the woman's "decision". A sentence that ends without saying it is the woman's decision to do what, kill / end the life of the 'child', 'person', 'tissue mass', whatever you want to call what is alive and being killed and removed.
The science in this case is not on the side of the life deniers, so adhering to a very careful and strict choice of words is the only way to defend this barbaric, 21st century, 1st world practice that in 98% of the cases is done for convenience reasons.
Muslim genitalia mutilation at birth is abhorrent behavior to us, but killing the same baby one moment earlier isn't - only because of a strict choice of words and framing of the issue.
CA raids anti-Planned Parenthood videographer
Reply #212 on:
April 06, 2016, 10:49:21 AM »
Reply #213 on:
April 06, 2016, 11:06:36 AM »
I saw this too. By a Democrat Prosecutor .
If this is not an example of a police state then I don't know what is.
We won't hear much from the MSM.
Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 11:11:06 AM by ccp
Paglia: Feminists have abortion wrong
Reply #214 on:
April 07, 2016, 02:40:57 PM »
Like stumbling twin mastodons, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton fell into the abortion tar pit this past week. Trump blundered his way through a manic inquisition about abortion by MSNBC’s resident woodpecker, Chris Matthews, while Hillary committed an unforced error on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where she referred to the fetus as an “unborn person,” scandalizing the vast pro-choice lobby, who treat all attempts to “humanize” the fetus as a diabolical threat to reproductive rights.
While the Hillary flap was merely a blip, given the consistency of her pro-choice views over time, Trump’s clumsy performance was a fiasco, exposing in his fiat that women should face “some sort of punishment” for illegal abortions how little he had thought about one of the major issues in American public life over the past 40 years. Following his supercilious mishandling of the controversy over his campaign manager’s crude yanking of a woman reporter’s arm, Trump’s MSNBC flame-out was a big fat gift to Democratic strategists, who love to tub-thump about the Republican “war on women”—a tired cliché that is as substance-less as a druggy mirage but that the inept GOP has never been able to counter.
Then this week Hillary raised eyebrows when she was asked by conservative co-host Candace Bure on ABC’s “The View” if she believes someone can be both a feminist and against abortion. “Absolutely,” Hillary replied, possibly not realizing the implications of what she was saying: “Of course you can be a feminist and be pro-life.” Was this an election-year pivot toward conservative women, like Hillary’s fantastical praise of Nancy Reagan as an AIDS activist? If it was rooted in genuine conviction, why have we not heard a word about it before? Hillary is usually wedded cheek-by-jowl with the old-guard feminist establishment.
The real issue is that U.S. politics have been entangled and strangled for far too long by the rote histrionics of the abortion wars, which have raged since Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that defined abortion as a woman’s constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. While I am firmly pro-choice and support unrestricted access to abortion, I have been disturbed and repelled for decades by the way reproductive rights have become an ideological tool ruthlessly exploited by my own party, the Democrats, to inflame passions, raise money, and drive voting.
This mercenary process began with the Senate confirmation hearings for three Supreme Court candidates nominated by Republican presidents: Robert Bork in 1987, David Souter in 1990, and Clarence Thomas in 1991. (Bork was rejected, while Souter and Thomas were approved.) Those hearings became freak shows of feminist fanaticism, culminating in the elevation to martyr status of Anita Hill, whose charges of sexual harassment against Thomas still seem to me flimsy and overblown (and effectively neutralized by Hill’s following Thomas to another job). Abortion was the not-so-hidden motivation of the Democratic operatives who pushed a reluctant Hill forward and fanned the flames in the then monochromatically liberal mainstream media. It was that flagrant abuse of the Senate confirmation process that sparked the meteoric rise of conservative talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh, who provided an alternative voice in what was then (pre-Web) a homogenized media universe.
Abortion has been central to the agenda of second-wave feminism since the 1972 issue of Ms. Magazine, which contained a splashy declaration, “We have had abortions,” signed by 53 prominent American women. A recurrent rubric of contemporary feminism is Gloria Steinem’s snide jibe (which she claims to have heard from an old Irish woman taxi driver in Boston), “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.” But Steinem herself can be credited or blamed for having turned abortion into a sacrament, promoted with the same religiosity that she and her colleagues condemn in their devoutly Christian opponents.
First-wave feminism, born in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention in upstate New York, was focused on property rights and on winning the vote, achieved by ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. Abortion entered the feminist canon with Margaret Sanger’s bold campaign for birth control, a violation of the repressive Comstock Act for which she was arrested in 1914. Her organization, the American Birth Control League, founded in 1921, later became Planned Parenthood, which remains a lightning-rod for controversy because of its lavish federal funding. Sanger remains a heroine to many feminists, including me, despite her troubling association with eugenics, a program (also adopted by the Nazis) of now discredited techniques like sterilization to purify and strengthen the human gene pool. It was partly because of Sanger’s pioneering precedent that I joined Planned Parenthood and contributed to it for many years—until I realized, to my disillusion, how it had become a covert arm of the Democratic party.
My position on abortion is contained in my manifesto, “No Law in the Arena,” from my second essay collection, “Vamps & Tramps” (1994): “Women’s modern liberation is inextricably linked to their ability to control reproduction, which has enslaved them from the origin of the species.” However, I argue that our real oppressor is not men or society but nature—the biological imperative that second-wave feminism and campus gender studies still refuse to acknowledge. Sex is nature’s way—coercive, prankish, and pleasurable–of ensuring survival of the species. But in eras of overpopulation, those pleasures spill into a multitude of directions to slow or halt procreation—which is why I maintain that homosexuality is not a violation of natural law but its fulfillment, when history wills it.
Despite my pro-abortion stance (I call the term pro-choice “a cowardly euphemism”), I profoundly respect the pro-life viewpoint, which I think has the moral high ground. I wrote in “No Law in the Arena”: “We career women are arguing from expedience: it is personally and professionally inconvenient or onerous to bear an unwanted child. The pro-life movement, in contrast, is arguing that every conception is sacred and that society has a responsibility to protect the defenseless.” The silence from second-wave feminists about the ethical ambiguities in their pro-choice belief system has been deafening. The one exception is Naomi Wolf, with whom I have disagreed about many issues. But Wolf showed admirable courage in questioning abortion in her 1995 essay, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” which was reprinted at the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade by the New Statesman in London three years ago.
That a pro-life wing of feminism is possible is proved by this thoughtful letter recently sent to me at Salon by Katherine Carlson in Calgary, Canada:
Many women like myself (a gay liberal) are deeply upset over the abortion issue. Ultrasound technology has allowed us to see into the womb like never before, and the obvious face of humanity is clear. I totally respected your take on abortion precisely because you never tried to dehumanize the preborn vulnerable. You were clearly pro-choice but made the harsh reality of the decision very clear.
I was thrilled when they took down Gloria Steinem’s interview on Lands’ End. To me, she is someone who tried to normalize abortion, and I despise her for it. The Democrats have become callous and extreme on the issue, and I feel completely shut out. And obviously, I am no right-winger. I have listened to the testimony of phenomenal women who have survived abortion attempts and were left to die (were saved only because some took their Hippocratic oath seriously).
I am tired of being bullied by women who equate women’s equality with abortion on demand. I know some women who use abortion as a method of sex selection and it rattles me to my core.
If you ever decide to write a piece on silenced women like myself, I would be entirely grateful.
I totally agree with Carlson that pro-choice Democrats have become “callous and extreme” about abortion. There is a moral hollowness at the core of Western careerist feminism, a bourgeois secular code that sees children as an obstruction to self-realization or as a management problem to be farmed out to working-class nannies.
Liberals routinely delude themselves with shrill propaganda about the motivation of “anti-woman” pro-life supporters. Hillary deals in those smears as her stock in trade: for example, while campaigning last week, she said in the context of Trump’s comments on abortion, “Women’s health is under assault in America”—as if difficulty in obtaining an abortion is more of an assault than the grisly intervention required for surgical termination of a pregnancy. Who is the real victim here?
Or we have Gail Collins, former editorial page head at the New York Times, asserting last week in her column, “Trump, Truth, and Abortion,” “In reality, the anti-abortion movement is grounded on the idea that sex outside of marriage is a sin….It’s the sex, at bottom, that they oppose.” I saw red: where the hell were these middlebrow Steinem feminists of the prestige Manhattan media during the pro-sex insurgency of my rebel wing of feminism during the 1990s? Suddenly, two decades later, Collins is waving the sex flag? Give me a break!
To project sex phobia onto all pro-lifers is vulgar. Although I am an atheist who worships only great nature, I recognize the superior moral beauty of religious doctrine that defends the sanctity of life. The quality of idea and language in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example, exceeds anything in grimly utilitarian feminism. In regard to the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” the Catechism says: “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God….God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being” (#2258). Or this: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person—among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life” (#2270).
Which embodies the more authentic humanism in this area—the Catholic Catechism or pro-choice feminism? If the latter, then we have much work to do to develop feminism philosophically. In “No Law in the Arena,” I argued from the point of view of pre-Christian paganism, when abortion was accepted and widespread: “My code of modern Amazonism says that nature’s fascist scheme of menstruation and procreation should be defied, as a gross infringement of woman’s free will….As a libertarian, I support unrestricted access to abortion because I have reasoned that my absolute right to my body takes precedence over the brute claims of mother nature, who wants to reduce women to their animal function as breeders.”
There are abundant contradictions in a liberal feminism that supports abortion yet opposes capital punishment. The violence intrinsic to abortion cannot be wished away by magical thinking. As I wrote: “Abortion pits the stronger against the weaker, and only one survives.” My program is more ideologically consistent, because I vigorously support abortion but also call for the death penalty for horrific crimes such as political assassination or serial rape-murder. However, the ultimate issue in the abortion debate is that, in a modern democracy, law and government must remain neutral toward religion, which cannot impose its expectations or values on non-believers.
In an in-depth piece in the Boston Globe two years ago, Ruth Graham summarizes one view of the controversial emerging concept of fetal rights in cases where a pregnant woman has been attacked or killed: “It is progressives who have historically pushed to expand civil rights, yet who now find themselves concerned about the expansion of rights to fetuses.” Progressives need to do some soul-searching about their reflex rhetoric in demeaning the pro-life cause. A liberal credo that is variously anti-war, anti-fur, vegan, and committed to environmental protection of endangered species like the sage grouse or spotted owl should not be so stridently withholding its imagination and compassion from the unborn.
Camille Paglia is the University Professor of Humanities and Media Studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.
Abortion, Trump wasn't first Pres candidate to discuss punishing the woman
Reply #215 on:
April 08, 2016, 11:05:05 AM »
Candidate Obama March 2008, if his daughters made a "mistake" he would not want them "punished with a baby".
Reply #216 on:
April 14, 2016, 05:24:47 PM »
If Zika virus causes permanent damage to the unborn, even death, shouldn't it be a constitutional right?
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines