Here We Go Again: Anti-Choice Group Pushes “Personhood” Initiative.

by Ben Hoffman

These religious nuts have once again succeeded in getting their “personhood” measures on the ballots for this fall’s election.

“We are defining the word ‘person’ as a human being & regardless of age, level of functioning, perceived ability or disability,” said Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA, which formed in 2008. “When there is an innocent person, the law should protect them.”

Proponents in Colorado and Mississippi succeeded in getting these “personhood” measures on the ballots. In six other states, including Missouri, volunteers are collecting signatures.

Source

Theirs is a purely religious movement. From their website: “The Primary Mission of Personhood USA is to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child.” Once again, they’re trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

Funny how there’s nothing on their website about the right to life of a person AFTER birth. What about health care for the living? What about all the children who were molested by priests?

These people are only interested in life before birth and what happens after you die. They are religious fanatics, but they keep getting these damn initiatives on the ballots. There may be some good to come out of it, though. If it motivates rational people to get out and vote to defeat the measure, that will help keep the radical right-wingers out of office.

Apathy is democracy’s worst enemy.

Advertisements

107 Comments to “Here We Go Again: Anti-Choice Group Pushes “Personhood” Initiative.”

  1. Funny how there’s nothing on their website about the right to life of a person AFTER birth.

    There is nothing about life after birth on their site presumably because their peculiar cause is to save unborn babies from being murdered. Duh. That does not mean that they are not necessarily also concerned about after the birth. Yours is a foolish argument from silence.

    I am proudly anti-abortion and also am concerned for people outside the womb, as are most of us on this side of the debate.

    As to whether this is religious, of course it is. But it is also pure science. Have you liberals not held a newborn baby who was born prematurely (but could have been murdered legally prior to their premature birth)?

    • [I am proudly anti-abortion and also am concerned for people outside the womb, as are most of us on this side of the debate.]

      So you are for universal health care and spoke out against the pedophile priests?

  2. I am NOT for universal (taxpayer $$ confiscated, budget busting, deficit increasing to pay for it) health care. I am for reform in the health care industry. But health insurance (and health care for that matter) is not a citizen right. There were/are much better ways to make our system better.

    I have not spoken out against the pedophile priests…until now. Any such priests guilty should be summarily castrated, though. So I guess I have spoken out now.

    • [But health insurance (and health care for that matter) is not a citizen right.]

      So you believe in a right-to-life only for the unborn.

      [I have not spoken out against the pedophile priests…until now.]

      What about the Church protecting these perverts?

  3. [So you believe in a right-to-life only for the unborn.]

    Nope. Like I said above, I “am concerned for people outside the womb.” Because I don’t think the government should provide health care to every citizen, it does not follow that I am unconcerned about those lives outside the womb. That’s some bad logical jumps on your part.

    As to the RC church, pedophiles should not be protected by the church leaders.

    • [Because I don’t think the government should provide health care to every citizen, it does not follow that I am unconcerned about those lives outside the womb. ]

      Those are two contradictory statements.

    • So if every pregnancy goes to term, many more profoundly damaged babies come into the world, where they will require a great deal of very expensive health care.

      Do you believe that it should be gov’t policy to force the birth, but once the sickly child is born, mom and dad are on their own?

      Do I have that right?

  4. Hey pro aborts. I have an idea. Trade you universal health care for all babies in the womb. I’m sure I could get plenty of us anti abortion folk to agree. What you say?

  5. “Those are two contradictory statements.”

    do tell. Please explain why.

  6. Count me as a religious nut because that kid inside the womb is a person to me .

    • So, when was the last time you had a conversation with a fetus Alan, or saw one voting, or heck even watching fox news, or anything resembling a reasonable definition of fully autonomous person-hood?

      You have not. Nor will you. Therefore, define it as you will, but do not deprive a woman of her bodily autonomy because of your spurious definition.

    • how about that proto-kid Alan? How about all those eggs we bleed out every month? How about spontaneous abortions? Should we perhaps be looking into child abuse charges for womb-owners who eat junk food?

  7. Alan, and not just to you. They are IN FACT persons.

    • Until they can live on their own, they’re not persons; they’re fetuses.

    • They are IN FACT persons.

      Fantastic, and when they start to vote, and make political speeches, and well actually are persons, which they clearly are not, then feel free to expound on the miseries of the unborn.

      So, stating anti-choice canards such as life begins at conception really does not mean a heck of a lot. And in any case, conception is a extremely complex process involving many factors and stages, precisely when during this convoluted process to you make your mark?

  8. [Until they can live on their own, they’re not persons; they’re fetuses.]

    So to use your rhetorical device, so you believe in the right to kill severely mentally retarded individuals since they can’t live on their own? Or 11 month olds?

    That statement of yours is so much nonsense it would be laughable if the subject were not so deadly.

    So what about the earlier offer. Do you ever really answer things here or just throw out nonsense?

    • [Do you ever really answer things here or just throw out nonsense?]

      I don’t waste my time debating religious nuts. 🙂

    • BH said: [Until they can live on their own, they’re not persons; they’re fetuses.]

      F&L said: So to use your rhetorical device, so you believe in the right to kill severely mentally retarded individuals since they can’t live on their own? Or 11 month olds?

      Wow. Smash that strawman to little bits. You win. Against a weak version of Ben’s argument.

      Try to argue about the point, as opposed to supercilious assertions about mentally challenged individuals.

      The fetus, cannot live without the mother’s life support systems. It is a great strain on the mother and if she decides that she does not want this drain on her body, which also has the possibility of taking her life, then she has the right to end the relationship.

      It is the woman’s decision about what goes on in her body.

  9. That’s so typical of you leftists when you know you can’t win the argument.

    • That’s so typical of you leftists when you know you can’t win the argument.

      What is typical of anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-freedom espousing individuals such as you is that you come here not to argue, but rather spew your rhetoric all of the place:

      I am proudly anti-abortion

      In arguments, you have to look at both sides of the issue. The above statement is indicative of how much you actually intend to ‘argue’, which is not arguing at all, but rather, repeating the standard boilerplate anti-choice rhetoric.

    • You’re a man, arent’ you. You don’t have a womb.

    • Faith and Life, you’re dealing with folks that want to slaughter children in the womb, hiding beneath the guise of a “woman’s choice of what to do with her body” (when the choice has already been made … not talking about rape): yet at the same time have so much sympathy for murderers, etc. The guy with the argument about ‘when was the last time you talked to a fetus’ is about the lamest thing I’ve ever heard.
      “breath and digest food” … holy moly! Now that’s an intellegent definition of life!
      I come to ol’ Ben’s page when I need to be reminded of just how shallow and mean spirited those on the left can be.

      • The guy with the argument about ‘when was the last time you talked to a fetus’ is about the lamest thing I’ve ever heard.

        Steve, I quite clearly recall you stating, from another thread, that Evolution is ‘just a theory’. Lets keep perspective here on ‘lame’ arguments.

      • [The guy with the argument about ‘when was the last time you talked to a fetus’ is about the lamest thing I’ve ever heard.]

        Did anyone actually make that argument or did you just make that up?

      • I’ll help you find that extremely lame argument. The Arbourist herself said it.

        “So, when was the last time you had a conversation with a fetus Alan, or saw one voting, or heck even watching fox news, or anything resembling a reasonable definition of fully autonomous person-hood?”

      • [“So, when was the last time you had a conversation with a fetus Alan, or saw one voting, or heck even watching fox news, or anything resembling a reasonable definition of fully autonomous person-hood?”]

        It could be argued that Fox “news” watchers aren’t fully autonomous people as they share many of their behavioral characteristics with sheep. 🙂

      • “So, when was the last time you had a conversation with a fetus Alan, or saw one voting, or heck even watching fox news, or anything resembling a reasonable definition of fully autonomous person-hood?”

        What is lame or rather, more appropriately termed specious, is the attempt to attribute personhood to feuts.

      • No Ben, I didn’t make it up. Don’t you read the comments you get here?
        “So, when was the last time you had a conversation with a fetus Alan?”
        Uh … Arbourist … it’s called “The Theory Of Evolution”. knock knock … the light’s on but I detect no one is home.

      • Hey Steve, let’s just nail down your position on Evolution before you go of making more erroneous claims.

        From the thread a Moe’s place:

        Steve:You got me Arbourist! And to think I can’t intellectually compete with someone whose ancestors are monkeys … I may as well end it all… 😦

        Well, it looks here like you are trying to make a (poorly reasoned) ironic statement about levels of intellect and evolution.

        You see Steve, if you had actually bothered to look at evolutionary theory you would see we do not actually descent from monkeys, but rather share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees. Your comment rather than being funny or ironic leaves a certain implication of your ignorance of evolutionary theory.

        And then again Steve with a common creationist canard that evolution is “just a theory”. Let’s see what you say:

        Steve:”I’m not the one making that claim Moe. It sure seems to be the claim of those that buy into the evolution theory. (key word: theory)
        Of course there is evolution … just not what Ar thinks … “

        Huh. Just a theory. So then we get lovely little gems of snark like this in this thread.

        Steve: Uh … Arbourist … it’s called “The Theory Of Evolution”. knock knock … the light’s on but I detect no one is home.

        So now you an expert in something that you disbelieve or at the very least find credulous? Your apparent hypocrisy is evident, as well as risible.

        On the other hand have you finally come around to the realization that evolution is fact, put away your magic bible stories, and have turned over a new rational leaf?

        I certainly hope so.

  10. Mr. Hoffman,

    ” Until they can live on their own, they’re not persons; ”

    You of course know that by your reasoning it would be legal to now murder children up to the age of 26 . Since teenagers and young adults are unable to live on their own under Obama-care .

    How old were you when you moved out of your parent’s house and could live on your own, and were thus safe from post birth abortion ?

  11. BH:Theirs is a purely religious movement.

    It is a little much to expect rational ideas to come from the deluded.

    “The Primary Mission of Personhood USA is to serve Jesus by being an Advocate for those who can not speak for themselves, the pre-born child.” Once again, they’re trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else.

    Well of course, because like every other delusional system of religious belief they know they have the right answer for everyone.

    If it includes stripping women of their bodily autonomy, well, so be it I suppose, from their point of view.

    Funny how there’s nothing on their website about the right to life of a person AFTER birth. What about health care for the living?

    Nicely put Ben, as you illustrate how it is really about controlling women and not so much about the newborn. The Fetus Fetishists stop caring once women really do not have a say as to what goes on in their bodies.

    Health care? Come now, that reeks of socialism and we know that is the evilz from the get go (*sigh*). Why would support a system that saves peoples (and children’s) lives? Na, better just to make sure women cannot have a say in their reproductive health, cheaper and easier.

    A woman’s reproductive choices must remain her own, they are a fundamental part of her personal autonomy. Attacks like this group is putting forward threaten these rights, and it is disconcerting to say the least that such anti-woman motions could be put on a ballot.

  12. Mr. Arbourist,

    Where to begin?

    [Wow. Smash that strawman to little bits. You win. Against a weak version of Ben’s argument.]

    Hey I didn’t build the straw man. I just tipped it over. That was too easy.

    [Try to argue about the point, as opposed to supercilious assertions about mentally challenged individuals.]

    Point: applying your (and Mr. Hoffman’s logic consistently, severely mentally challenged individuals should be fair game for elimination. Do you have an actual rebuttal of that?

    [The fetus, cannot live without the mother’s life support systems. It is a great strain on the mother and if she decides that she does not want this drain on her body, which also has the possibility of taking her life, then she has the right to end the relationship.]

    Point displayed. I’ll re-frame your sentence:
    The [severely mentally challenged individuals] cannot live without [someone’s] life support systems. It is a great strain on the [[someone’s] life support system] and if [they] decide that [they] do not want this drain on [their precious resources], which also has the possibility of taking [their] life (in the form of using up their resources), then [they] have the right to end the relationship. (kill the severely mentally challenged individual).

    Do you have a serious reply as to why this extension of your “logic” is not accurate?

    You further wrote:
    [What is typical of anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-freedom espousing individuals such as you is that you come here not to argue, but rather spew your rhetoric all of the place]

    I am far from “anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-freedom…” I believe in the right to life for all, including those babies currently being nourished in the womb. What I am NOT is for the “choice” for one person to kill another person.

    As to my “spew[ing] rhetoric, I have just been trying to engage in an “argument” or discussion. Apparently all the pro-abortionists here want to do is attempt to slam and call names those who dare take a different position on the matter without ever really attempting to answer anything.

    [In arguments, you have to look at both sides of the issue. The above statement is indicative of how much you actually intend to ‘argue’, which is not arguing at all, but rather, repeating the standard boilerplate anti-choice rhetoric.]

    This statement of yours is really ironic. I have looked at both sides of the issue. Have you as well? Sure I hold my position. But that’s true of you, is it not? Try to persuade me (someone, please!) with sound reasoning and science.

    [t is a little much to expect rational ideas to come from the deluded.]

    Deluded? And I am the one “spewing?”

    • FAL, you have a every right to your beliefs about abortion, but the point of this post was, people like you are trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else, and they’re doing it dishonestly.

    • This mentally disabled argument is nuts! It’s not an argument. Breathing, eating, digesting. That’s what living on their own means.

      For years, I’ve worked weekly with a few hundred ‘developmentally challenged’ adults from ages 18-72. They all need assistance of one sort or another, but they live quite independent of a womb.

      There are people who are totally dependent on machines to keep them living. But that’s a whole different place and its’ too difficult for us mere mortals to meddle there

    • Arb: [Wow. Smash that strawman to little bits. You win. Against a weak version of Ben’s argument.]

      FAL:Hey I didn’t build the straw man. I just tipped it over. That was too easy.

      That is the point of constructing a strawman argument, it avoids dealing with the original point, but is easier to refute from your position. So, in theory it should be easier, but also fallacious.

      Point displayed. I’ll re-frame your sentence:

      And use the same strawman deployed earlier, now with a false analogy. Mentally challenged individuals and fetuses are not equivalent beings; therefore your analogy fails.

      I am far from “anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-freedom…” I believe in the right to life for all, including those babies currently being nourished in the womb. What I am NOT is for the “choice” for one person to kill another person.

      You contend that you believe in the right to life for all. I would put forward your position is inconsistent and is based rather on removing the rights of women to reproductive health services rather than some perceived lofty moral sentiment.

      If all life matters then you would be in favour of universal health care as it would save life. You would also be in favour of a tremendous increase in aid to poor countries where some 3,000 children die every day because of lack of food, water, and malaria.

      If you wanted to make a significant difference right now to save as much life as possible there are numerous easy to do solutions that would save many lives all without having to denude women of their reproductive rights.

      But you choose to focus on the fetuses within women’s bodies here. So this to be clear is not about “the right to life for all”, but rather this is about how I (FAL) should impose my will upon the bodies of women.

      This statement of yours is really ironic. I have looked at both sides of the issue. Have you as well? Sure I hold my position. But that’s true of you, is it not? Try to persuade me (someone, please!) with sound reasoning and science.

      Certainly.

      1. Women possess fully body autonomy.
      2. Women’s bodily autonomy includes the contents
      of their uterus.
      —-
      3. Therefore, the woman is ultimately responsible
      for making choices about her body, including
      the choice of what happens to be inside her
      uterus.

      Arb:[t is a little much to expect rational ideas to come from the deluded.]

      I was referring to the self identified christian religious movement. I believe that my assumption is correct.

      If you really believe that someone died and then came back to life, or in talking snakes and burning bushes then indeed you are deluded. It’s the twenty first century, it is time to put the magic behind us.

      • Arbourist,

        [Mentally challenged individuals and fetuses are not equivalent beings; therefore your analogy fails.]

        Sos say you. Many people disagree and will work as long as we live to outlaw the murder of those “fetuses.”

        [you contend that you believe in the right to life for all. I would put forward your position is inconsistent and is based rather on removing the rights of women to reproductive health services rather than some perceived lofty moral sentiment.]

        Well, you would be wrong. You see, my first thought on the matter is not to see women’s “rights” removed. My first thought is preserving the life in the womb. There are two persons involved. No amount of twisted logic can changes that fact. So, the woman has no inherent “right” to murder the person inside her body.

        [If all life matters then you would be in favour of universal health care as it would save life. You would also be in favour of a tremendous increase in aid to poor countries where some 3,000 children die every day because of lack of food, water, and malaria.

        If you wanted to make a significant difference right now to save as much life as possible there are numerous easy to do solutions that would save many lives all without having to denude women of their reproductive rights.]

        No, as I have said earlier I am not in favor of universal health care. I am in fovor of reform, just not what the “one” did.

        I do not oppose all foreign aid. If I want to make a significant difference? You have no idea what I do in the here and now to assist the poor and needy. Don’t presume.

        [1. Women possess fully body autonomy.
        2. Women’s bodily autonomy includes the contents
        of their uterus.
        —-
        3. Therefore, the woman is ultimately responsible
        for making choices about her body, including
        the choice of what happens to be inside her
        uterus.]

        So you say. I say differently and as above will never stop trying to prevent women from murdering their babies.

        [If you really believe that someone died and then came back to life, or in talking snakes and burning bushes then indeed you are deluded. It’s the twenty first century, it is time to put the magic behind us.]

        I really do believe Jesus died and rose again from the dead. It’s not magic. And if you will believe that Jesus rose from the dead and will forgive your sins He will graciously do so. He can heal all the wounds and pain in your life. Look to Him and live.

      • [I really do believe Jesus died and rose again from the dead. It’s not magic. And if you will believe that Jesus rose from the dead and will forgive your sins He will graciously do so. He can heal all the wounds and pain in your life. Look to Him and live.]

        Yikes! 🙂

      • Yeah kinda scary. Just think…I hold to the same belief system as such whackos as JRR Tolkein and CS Lewis. Oh man that’s scary.

      • Arb:[Mentally challenged individuals and fetuses are not equivalent beings; therefore your analogy fails.]

        FAL: Sos say you. Many people disagree and will work as long as we live to outlaw the murder of those “fetuses.”

        I do say so, and it is backed by a cogent rational argument. If people disagree, that is fine. They have every right to be wrong, and not only wrong, but wrong on a unsupported specious argument.

        PAL:My first thought is preserving the life in the womb. There are two persons involved. No amount of twisted logic can changes that fact. So, the woman has no inherent “right” to murder the person inside her body.

        This is based on the faulty premise that the fetus is a person. Therefore, despite your attempt to hand-wave another reasonable argument away, my argument remains.

        Arb: If you wanted to make a significant difference right now to save as much life as possible there are numerous easy to do solutions that would save many lives all without having to denude women of their reproductive rights.]

        FAL: No, as I have said earlier I am not in favor of universal health care. I am in fovor of reform, just not what the “one” did.

        I do not oppose all foreign aid. If I want to make a significant difference? You have no idea what I do in the here and now to assist the poor and needy. Don’t presume.

        That is correct, but in stating that if you wanted save life, you could very easily do it without stripping women of their rights. Therefore, you are not about ‘saving life’ you are about taking away reproductive freedoms from women.

        It is ironic that you would support state sponsored sanctions (oh noez the socialist government) against women, but not support universal healthcare a proven method of saving lives and money. So, really, again your position reinforces the idea that you are not about saving ‘life’ but more about ‘big guv’ment’ controlling peoples lives.

        It must be very confusing trying to make 2000 year old ‘morality’ square with reality. Good luck with that. 🙂

        Arb:
        1. Women possess fully body autonomy.
        2. Women’s bodily autonomy includes the contents
        of their uterus.
        —-
        3. Therefore, the woman is ultimately responsible
        for making choices about her body, including
        the choice of what happens to be inside her
        uterus.]

        FAL :So you say. I say differently and as above will never stop trying to prevent women from murdering their babies.

        You certainly can try, but from what you’ve said so far, you are wrong. The only way you have backed your arguments up has been with comments equivalent to “because I say so”. That particular line of reasoning stops being effective on children around the age of 14, so why should it be acceptable here?

        I really do believe Jesus died and rose again from the dead. It’s not magic.

        Fantastic! I believe in the Mystical Pink Unicorn and Zeus. The funny thing is that my beliefs carry the exact same amount of weight in an argument.

        So, if Jebus is real, then so is Zeus, because I believe it to be true. 🙂

  13. [These people are only interested in life before birth and what happens after you die.]

    You left one out Ben – that life before birth thing is really not about life – it’s about keeping women in their place. It’s never been about the ‘life’ of the fetus.

  14. Ben, I managed to get into your moderation cue again. I think because there are two hyperlinks in the text. :>

  15. Ms. Holland,

    ” Good heavens Alan, ‘live on thier own’ means they can breathe and digest food. That’s what it means. ”

    🙂 That was just my feeble attempt at humor . I do know what the phrase means . However, you have opened another can of worms . People who can’t breath on their own and digest food on their own, not being persons, could take in all sorts of other folks . Many severely ill people on ventilators and feeding tubes, some elderly, some not would .

    Some place, some lawyer has already figured all of this out .

    • Alan – I made that exact point in my previous comment.

      The fetus issue need not be evaluated on a case by case basis, whereas lived on artificial life support is routinely evaluated on case by case. Difference between say Christoper Reeves and Terri Schiavo. Reeves being conscious all decisions were his own, Schiavo being brain-dead meant that family – and then the legal system – had to be get involved. And as I said up thread, this is an area where mere mortals tread very very gently because we really don’t understand it yet.

  16. Here We Go Again: Anti-Choice Group Pushes “Personhood” Initiative.

    Curious. What do you have to say to the laws and courts and jurors and family members when a double homicide case is brought against a suspect for killing a pregnant woman?

    Can you be charged for murder if you didn’t kill a person?

    • Good question. The argument is: a fetus is part of the mother. Therefore, it is the mother’s choice to abort the fetus.

      An analogy might be: If someone intentionally chops off his own finger, that’s not a crime. But if someone else intentionally chops off someone’s finger without his consent, that is a crime.

      • Ben, interesting. So can a woman be charged with intentionally extracting her own “fetus?” Why or why not?

      • The argument is: a fetus is part of the mother.

        In this case, the mother is also dead. She hasn’t made a choice. Further, the suspect is not being charged with murder and then assault, rather, he has been charged with two separate counts of murder.

        Me thinks, that you are saying that a fetus is not a life because you know that if it is, your defense of abortion would collapse. You seem rational enough to know and intuit that life does not begin at some arbitrary time such as leaving the body of the mother.

        Oh, by the way, you should check your language.

        a fetus is part of the mother.

        She can not be a mother unless there is a child. When you say the word mother you implicitly accept “child”.

        I know this is hard for you to admit; I doubt you will.

      • Pino
        Your symantics argument is correct and we have been using the wrong words for convenience sake. Stipulated.How’s this? mother/child; host/symbiot(fetus).

      • It all comes down to who should make the decision: the mother or the government. I think it’s better to leave it up to the mother (or the host… whatever).

      • How’s this? mother/child; host/symbiot(fetus)

        Not acceptable. We ALL know, we intuit, that the “host” is a mother. She shops in motherhood stores, she refers to herself as a mother. When expectant mothers tragically miscarry, they say “I lost the baby”.

        There are organizations that help family members through the hard times of miscarriage. They will hold funerals and grieve in the same way that we would grieve a child living on “the outside”.

        The only reason the Liberal won’t acknowledge life in the womb is that they know it revokes any case they have for elective abortion.

        Why do I never see a Liberal compromise on this and accept the common sense approach to this? Abortion in cases risk to life to mother or child, or in the case of a victim of a crime, abortion is legal. In all other cases, elective abortion is illegal?

        Can you compromise?

      • [Why do I never see a Liberal compromise on this and accept the common sense approach to this?]

        Pino – you see constant compromise from liberals on the legalities of abortion, but you won’t ever get what the right wants – which is pro choicers calling abortion murder and saying a fetus is a person.

        And you’ll see conservatives move and make compromises of the legalities of how we regulate or don’t regulate guns in private hands, but we’ll never get what we want – which is agreement that the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean individual gun rights.

        Way it goes.

        As for the mother/host thing, you named it right first time. It’s a language issue and yes, language is powerful but I can’t make a phone into an egg just by calling it one.

      • you see constant compromise from liberals on the legalities of abortion

        No I don’t.

        pro choicers calling abortion murder and saying a fetus is a person.

        Correct. And we don’t expect that I should be expected to sacrifice my life for another.. Neither should a mother be expected to sacrifice her life for a child If she wants to, that’s fine. I didn’t wanna make that trade when my children were born; so I instructed my doctor in that regard. Should something, God forbid, occur, save momma.

      • You know Pino, we all always get sidetracked in this abortion discussion. The moral aspect is something htat people will always differ on; our concern should be should government be involved at all? I’ve cited this before, but over 200 years ago – here in the early US – abortion was legal until ‘quickening’. And I can go there – unregulated up to that point, a matter of discussion after that point. But NOT a matter of uncompromising law.

    • So, Ben, who should make MY decision on whether I purchase health insurance…the government or me?

      • You. I don’t agree with the mandate.

      • Do you support efforts to repeal it then?

      • Here’s the thing Ben. You and I will never agree on abortion unless and until either I decide it is ok for one person (mother) to deem their life more worthy than another person (baby).

        Or, you decide that the fetus is indeed a person AND come to believe that the baby’s life is of equal worth with the mother’s.

        But just to be consistent in your belief system as it currently is, will you support and speak out for Obamacare repeal if for no other reason than the mandate, which you agree (I think) is an overreach of the government into my personal choices regarding my health as you believe that government restrictions (or the outlaw of abortion) is an overreach of the government into a woman’s personal choices regarding HER health?

      • I think the mandate is bad in principle, but why would anyone want to go without insurance? There are a lot of good things in the bill so I’m not for repealing anything other than the mandate. As far as abortion, that choice should be left up to the mother.

      • Figured that would be about what you would say. Presumably even you can see the glaring inconsistency.

        [why would anyone want to go without insurance?] Some do. Perhaps they are very wealthy and want to self insure. In any case, there are some that choose to do that. But then, I ask, why would any mother intentionally want to kill her baby? Same logic.

        There are a lot of good things about babies, so I am for repealing Roe.

        Asd far as insurance, that should be left to the individual.

        And don’t forget, if this Obamacare has ANY chance to work the mandate is required. So you are left supporting a law which violates MY rights as a citizen all the while supporting a woman’s right to choose to protect your sacred “government get out of women’s health decisions” principle. Glaring inconsistency.

        But the discussion has been good. Thanks.

  17. Mr. Hoffman,

    “Good question. The argument is: a fetus is part of the mother. Therefore, it is the mother’s choice to abort the fetus.

    ” An analogy might be: If someone intentionally chops off his own finger, that’s not a crime. But if someone else intentionally chops off someone’s finger without his consent, that is a crime. ”

    That’s an analogy, but a very poor one . The fetus is a separate being . It is not part of the mother . It lives with in the mother as you live in your house . Someone coming in to your house and murdering you is not the same thing as a vandal smashing your picture window with a brick .

    It all comes down to who should make the decision: the mother or the government. I think it’s better to leave it up to the mother (or the host… whatever) ”

    The only issue on which you are not on the side of BIG Government .

    Ms Holland,

    ” but we’ll never get what we want – which is agreement that the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean individual gun rights.

    Way it goes. ”

    Very clever the way you slid in a totally separate issue . Kind of the way the Democrats slid in their take over of Student Loans into their take over of the American Health care industry .

    Ever think of running for Congress ? 🙂

    • You’re doing a funny again. So making a comparison is sliding in a sep issue?

      You know the student loan story don’t you? Bush took it out of govt and gave it to the banks directly so they could make more money and the loans got all sorts of more expensive for students. Surprise!! Just restoring equilibrium, bringin’ it all back to normal.

    • [That’s an analogy, but a very poor one . The fetus is a separate being . It is not part of the mother . It lives with in the mother as you live in your house .]

      Oh, yeah? Well, can a fetus get up and get itself a beer whenever it wants or make tacos? Can a fetus build a table in the garage? Can a fetus play fetch with the dog?

      See, my analogy was much better than yours. 🙂

      • Ben you are just too easy.

        Oh, yeah? Well, can a one month old get up and get itself a beer whenever it wants or make tacos? Can a one month old build a table in the garage? Can a one month old play fetch with the dog?

        Heck no. Kill it you liberals should be willing to say.

        I’ll say this for you libs…you are consistent…in your inconsistency.

      • F&L, have you ever considered getting a hobby?

      • I do in fact have several hobbies. Chief among them is spending time with my wife and our five children and four grandchildren (one whom is still in the womb).

        Do you have children? They’re wonderful. I’ve had the opportunity to see all children and two of the four born. Life is a beautiful thing.

        BTW, one of our daughters, who has given us two of our grandchildren, is alive to day in part because we rejected the doctor advice that my wife have an abortion (1985). There had been some complications and they were virtually she would be born with severe disabilities and if she survived very long after birth she would likely be vegetative.

        Well that didn’t happen. 25th birthday coming up.

        Have a great day. I’m off with friends for an ATF weekend.

      • [Have a great day. I’m off with friends for an ATF weekend.]

        Sounds like my days in Texas. 🙂

        Since I don’t drink any more, I’ll be working in my wood shop and playing tennis.

  18. Ms. Holland,

    ” You know the student loan story don’t you? Bush took it out of govt and gave it to the banks directly so they could make more money and the loans got all sorts of more expensive for students. Surprise!! Just restoring equilibrium, bringin’ it all back to normal. ”

    Actually I did not know any of that . I will have to look in to it . I am kind of surprised . Your Democrats were able to stop Bush on Social Security Savings accounts for younger workers by lying to Seniors that their SS money would be lost in the Stock Market . They blocked new oil Refineries and offshore drilling . They blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie until they blew up the economy .

    To think that they could not stop President Bush on privatizing student loans is truly amazing . I mean it’s not like Republicans had a bullet proof Congress or anything .

    • [Your Democrats were able to stop Bush on Social Security Savings accounts for younger workers by lying to Seniors that their SS money would be lost in the Stock Market .]

      My god! Your point is? (I say that as a senior who will be eternally grateful that her SS wasn’t in the sotck market!!)

      • Alan could save a lot of typing by just referencing right-wing talking points by ID. (See RWTP #74)

      • Ms. Holland,

        My point is… Your Democrats lied and lied and lied . They scared the old folks . Easy to do . First of all, you Seniors were not eligible for the private accounts . Second of all only something like 5% of younger workers ” contributions ” were eligible for private accounts .

        I don’t know if you are educated as to the problem with SS . The problem is unfunded liabilities . That is promises made with no money to pay . It’s not a problem for you . You will be fine . The people behind you in this Ponzi Scheme are paying for you, as you paid for those who came before you . All of those paying in now are royally screwed .

        Please research it yourself and tell me what you come up with . Bush’s plan would have gone a long way towards solving that problem, but as always Democrats were more interested in politics than saving SS . What do they care ? It will last until they are out of office . Just as many Seniors feel that as long as it lasts until I’m dead, I don’t care about my kids and Grandkids .

      • Alan
        The weekend is here so I’ll be joining you and Ben doing something else (anything else!!), but before I go I do need to note that you sometimes say the most remarkable things.

        Like:
        [Democrats were more interested in politics than saving SS . What do they care?]

        What do they care? Are you kidding? SS was, is and always will be a Democratic program. The GOP has fought it tooth and nail from Day 1. Really, Alan, was that just an inartful way of saying something else?

      • My god! Your point is? (I say that as a senior who will be eternally grateful that her SS wasn’t in the sotck market!!)

        Whoa nellie. Who says that as a senior you HAVE to have your SS in the stock market? To me, it sounds as if you don’t understand the proposal that was made.

        Today I contribute 6/.5% of my income to SS, my employer also contributes 6.5% [really I contribute ALL of that because as far as my employer is concerned, that 6.5% is what it costs to hire someone. Doesn’t matter to him if that 6.5 goes to me or the government].

        And, all of that money goes to SS and sits. Well, sits for a New York second and then gets spent.

        The propsal was that each continues to contribute the same 6.5%. But instead of all that money going straight to the government, 2 of that 13% would be given to you through an account.

        You could choose to keep it in “cash”. You could invest in individual stocks. You could buy mutual funds, or bonds, or gold. Or whatever.

        That account would be YOURS! You could spend it or keep it. You could pass it to future generations if you wanted or donate it to the library. Or, OR, if you wanted, you could keep it in the traditional SS program.

        How is THAT a bad thing?

        Serious. If you argue against this plan, you are simply drinking the kool-aid.

  19. Ms. Holland,

    ” Really, Alan, was that just an inartful way of saying something else? ”

    Sometimes I’m not being clever or inartful.

    ” What do they care? Are you kidding? SS was, is and always will be a Democratic program. The GOP has fought it tooth and nail from Day 1 ”

    We could argue about it’s founding, but I would rather argue about it’s future . Like every Government program, it morphed into something it’s founders would not recognize . It always, always, always cost a lot more money than it was supposed to .

    It was also based on demographics from the 1930s. Many people paid in and never lived to collect . Now many collect who paid very little in . Plus nowadays you can expect to collect for at least 30 years instead of 5 years .

    I say that Democrats do not care about SS’s solvency, just like they really do not care about race intolerance . Those are just political weapons .

  20. pino,

    I kept my 401k in stocks the whole time it looked like the end of the world . I rode it to the bottom in March of 09 and am trying to ride it back up . I was jumping in and out in 07 and 08, but got blind sided by the crash and decided that to get out at the bottom was stupid . The good thing is that I’ve bought cheap and my total is now above the peak I was at in 07 . I still figure I’m behind on my old shares .

    I agree that having control of your own SS money is a no brainer . One of Chris Mathews, of MSNBC infamy, word games is to ask critics of SS to pledge that they will not take money from SS, since they say it is a fraud .

    I would answer yes, but I want all of the money extorted from me and my employers back with tax free compounded interest . If I had that and invested in the stock market, even with the crashes, I would take early retirement .

  21. Just doing my part to help this post reach 100 comments. 🙂

  22. I guess the anti-choice representatives got tired of losing arguments. 🙂

    • How could we anti-abortionists lose an argument with you pro-abortionists when you don’t actually HAVE and argument?

      • How could we anti-abortionists lose an argument with you pro-abortionists when you don’t actually HAVE and argument?

        I’m curious, did the syllogism provided (see below) not meet your rigorous standards of argumentation? I would be happy to explain or broaden my explanations for you to better enhance your understanding.

        Arb:
        1. Women possess fully body autonomy.
        2. Women’s bodily autonomy includes the contents
        of their uterus.
        —-
        3. Therefore, the woman is ultimately responsible
        for making choices about her body, including
        the choice of what happens to be inside her
        uterus.]

        FAL :So you say. I say differently and as above will never stop trying to prevent women from murdering their babies.

        Based on your ‘debate’ behaviour so far, I would have to say that it is you who are not really answering arguments properly. “Because god says so… or my magic book says so… or even “I say differently…” is not debating. It is equivalent to repeating your same (erroneous) assumption, just louder.

      • you don’t actually HAVE and argument?

        Hmmm… I thought so.

  23. the arbourist,

    ” I guess the anti-choice representatives got tired of losing arguments. 🙂 ”

    How have we lost when you guy choice guys and dolls have not even answered our arguments ?

    • How have we lost when you guy choice guys and dolls have not even answered our arguments?

      Which arguments would you like answered Mr.Scott?

      As always Mr.Scott I am happy engage with you.

    • Seems to me Alan, that your ‘arguments’ have been addressed over and over in this thread and others. And usually you come back and just deny what’s been said. What do you look for in a counter argument?

  24. BTW, today I am a Cornhusker! Way to go Nebraska!!

  25. I heard/read something interesting the other day, that the Hebrew word for soul/spirit is similar to the word for “breath”. There are some that argue it’s when a child takes its first breath that they are endowed with a soul.

    I’m not a doctor, religious scholar, or anything like that, but it’s an interesting argument. Animals have personalities, yet we drop them left, right, and center for “humane” reasons. When people are fighting for the unborn, are they fighting on behalf of their soul?

    • When people are fighting for the unborn, are they fighting on behalf of their soul?

      We can add that to the list of silly arguments the deluded make. 🙂

      The fight is about reproductive freedom, the anti-choice crowd tries to frame the argument away from this idea, but it is what the debate is about.

      • Perhaps, but thinking we’re soul-less may also turn out to be just as delusional. I have not taken a position on abortion, but I do think there’s more to us humans than just “science” and I respect people’s faith.

    • Interesting comment Vern. From my own observation re the pro-life segment of our society, their position comes out of a religious sensibility. Not just a moral sensibility, but one informed by religious faith.

      And I assume it has to do with the belief that a ‘soul’ is not dependent on the body, since it can survive physical death.

      And lik,e you and Arb, I respect people’s religious beliefs but I’d say only up to the point where they want to impose their beliefs on me and onto secular law. Then it affects me, and I object. All too often, one hears religious peopke sat that without religion, we’d have no moral compass. That’s obviously not true, as moral and civic virtues come from our social nature and are seen in everyone, not just the religious.

      To the religious, I would say go ahead and condemn behavior for yourself and your brethren, but leave me alone.

  26. Perhaps, but thinking we’re soul-less may also turn out to be just as delusional.

    Perhaps Vern, but I will change my tune once there is evidence of a soul. Turning off reasonable expectations of proof just because someones religious delusion says differently is not a particularly rational policy.

    There is no credible evidence indicating the existence of anything resembling a soul.

    but I do think there’s more to us humans than just “science”

    I’m not sure what this means, other than to pacify perhaps lingering doubts about metaphysical issues. It smells kinda Pascal Wager-ish, but again I am extrapolating a fair bit here.

    and I respect people’s faith.

    I do as well, until a certain point, when it begins to interfere with the rational decision process then faith needs to go, or at least be put on the back burner, because it has no place in logical argumentation or debate.

    • [I will change my tune once there is evidence of a soul.]
      I guess it also depends on who one feels they have to present that evidence to in order to be validated, themselves or others.

      Not to get too flowery, but one can say the same about “love” – whether it truly exists for one, and whether it is anything beyond a biochemical equation for another.

      I personally believe there are things that science either cannot, or will not explain in my lifetime, and I don’t wait for science to diminish my appreciation or enjoyment of them. I don’t have all the answers, but that’s ok. As much as I like to know things through and through, I still find some bliss in ignorance (very little!)

  27. One hundred!!!! I win!

Leave a Reply

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

%d bloggers like this: