By resisting Capitol Storming Investigation
The Capitol was taken over insurrectionists for the first time in modern history, people died and the Crazy Folks in the GOP don't want to investigate what happened and went wrong. Really?
These are the hypocrites who wasted tons of time and money on Benghazi, Clinton emails, investigating the Trump investigations, and countless others.
And they will not even support the police who were attacked and killed by people who were trying to stop the lawful operation of the US Government.
Maybe McCarthy Fears Self Incrimination?
87 comments:
One of the practical problems with lies, and apart from any moral considerations, is that it is hard to keep them consistent. Truths have a natural consistency that lies lack.
--Hiram
Except that the liberal mind has this incredible ability to hold two entirely contradictory propositions as "the truth" simultaneously, or to believe as true whatever one says at the moment, regardless of what was proclaimed true 5 minutes prior, or 5 minutes later.
I do think true things can conflict. It's one of the advantages of relativism.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Please share some examples.
To me the Liberals seem more consistent usually...
I mean Conservatives:
- say they are pro life while being against helping young children
- say they are for balanced budgets while increasing deficits
- say they are for moral behavior while electing a philandering sexual predator
- say they support police / law / order while trying to avoid investigating the invasion of the US Capitol.
Liberals may be more irrational and idealistic, however I usually see them living in alignment with their form of "crazy". :-)
Very interesting. My general observation is that it is impossible for a liberal to be a hypocrite which, by definition, means to espouse something at odds with one's supposed principles. Liberals hold no fixed principles, but only "situational ethics" that float with the whim of the moment. For example, Biden claims to be a strong Catholic who supports abortion. Not a hypocrite, just a liberal.
And I notice that once again you define "consistency" only by way of your own remarkably twisted viewpoints. Nobody I know, and I know a lot of them, voted for a "philandering sexual predator." That's your definition, and the only thing consistent about it is its basic falsity. Same for your other points.
"For example, Biden claims to be a strong Catholic who supports abortion. Not a hypocrite, just a liberal."
Are you suggesting that a "strong Catholic" would want the Biblical law enshrined as statute as well?
Maybe Jerry supports Religious Fund mentalists running our country? (aka Taliban, Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Jews, etc)
Trump makes Bill Clinton look chaste"... :-)
List of Trump's Affairs
And let's not forget Trump's own admission of guilt.
"In September 2005, Trump was caught on tape telling "Access Hollywood" host Billy Bush that he was able to "grab" women "by the pussy" because "when you're a star they let you do it."
My general observation is that it is impossible for a liberal to be a hypocrite which, by definition, means to espouse something at odds with one's supposed principles.
I think it's very easy for a liberal to be a hyporite which is why the charge is always being levelled against liberals.Nobody ever calls Trump a hypocrite because it is generally understood that he doesn't have standards to fall short of.
"For example, Biden claims to be a strong Catholic who supports abortion. Not a hypocrite, just a liberal."
Note the assumption here. The author assumes that because Biden doesn't oppose making abortion a crime, he supports abortion. I don't support runners trying to advance from second to third on balls hit to the left side of the infield, but I don't think anyone should be arrested for it.
Church state relationships have been made complicated for Catholics. Back in olden times, anti Catholic prejudice took the form of a belief that Catholic politicians would be subject to dictates by church leaders. Jack Kennedy would be under orders from the pope. That's why Kennedy had to give his famous speech to the Houston Council of Ministers, a landmark in the political history of the Catholic Church in America. Surprisingly, and without my noticing, Kennedy's statement has almost been completely discarded by large portions of the Catholic Church. Many bishops and not a few cardinals are quite comfortable with trying at least to dictate political positions to Catholic politicians like Biden and Pelosi. I have a sense now is that if I said that it is wrong for Catholic leaders to dicate political positions, I would be the one accused of prejudice.
This is very much an American deal, by the way, where abortion has become so intensely politicized. Not all church leaders in America think they should be giving orders to politicians. Cardinal Gregory, a far more sophistical political thinker than many in the American church has made it clear that Biden will not be denied communion in Washington D.C. And the Vatican has made it clear, to the limited extent it ever makes anything very clear, that they are very committed to maintaining good relations with President Biden, and that they are very happy in having a Catholic layman as the president of the United States.
--Hiram
"Biden claims to be a strong Catholic who supports abortion."
Imagine understanding the First Amendment so little that one thinks that a religious tenet should be law.
Faith is personal. One can be against abortion personally but refuse to codify their own religious belief as the law of the land.
Moose
I am surprised at the lack of nuance being displayed here. When Biden "supports" abortion he makes no distinction between his personal faith-based position and what he would tolerate as a matter of law. That was, I believe, the JFK proposition-- "personally opposed, publicly neutral"-- I think. Pretty sure Biden and Pelosi are actively promoting abortion, including public funding, overturning the partial birth abortion ban and selecting "pro-choice" judges. It would be hypocritical if not so obviously politically expedient pandering to the far Left.
. When Biden "supports" abortion he makes no distinction between his personal faith-based position and what he would tolerate as a matter of law.
I am sure there are a lot of areas where he doesn't talk about personal faith based stuff. I think that's true for most people most of the time. I don't inflict my religious views on my neighbors, and they don't inflict their views on me.
I don't know of anyone who promotes abortion. I am a Planned Parenthood supporter, not because I want people to have abortions but because I believe they should have that choice. It is interesting to me that people find that a hard distinction to grasp but I guess it is.
There are many areas where I am hypocritical. It is an occupational hazard for liberals. But I don't see abortion as one of those area. What I find fascinating is that in this most personal and intimate areas of our lives, pro life advocates want people like Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump to have a role in how we make decisions, people who no one sees any sort of moral example to emulate.
--Hiram
It would be hypocritical if not so obviously politically expedient pandering to the far Left.
Support for abortion rights is hardly politically expedient. Peoples don't like abortion. When the subject comes up, nobody says "Great, I will have two." Supporting the right of people have that no one wants is not politically rewarding.
The fact is, abortion need not be a political issue at all. It isn't in most places in the world. If abortion opponents were successful in doing their job, persuading people not to have abortions, it wouldn't be an issue at all. But abortion was latched on to by the political right as a wedge issue, and they haven't let go of it. And it is a very good kind of wedge issue, because the people who oppose abortion care about it a lot, and the people who support abortion rights have a lot of other issues they care about. Indeed, one of the dynamics that most facor abortion opponents, is that their candidates often have considerable support from pro choice voters who cynically understand that even if anti abortion positions prevail in the courts, they will still have access to abortions.
--Hiram
Jerry,
This has to be one of your most strange incorrect comments.
"Pretty sure Biden and Pelosi are actively promoting abortion, including public funding, overturning the partial birth abortion ban and selecting "pro-choice" judges."
"promote: further the progress of (something, especially a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage."
1. I am not sure how reducing "unequal access" is promoting abortion? I mean wealthy and middle class women can afford birth control and abortions. It is only those who can least afford to raise a child that you want to keep away from services. No one is giving mom's gift cards for getting an abortion.
2. I find no news regarding anyone trying to end the partial birth abortion law.
3. "Pro-choice judges" says it all. No promoting involved... Just giving Americans the right to choose.
As usual, John, you have the oddest, most sideways way of looking at an issue. You claim that somehow "unequal access" is the issue? Yet black babies are aborted at about 5 times the rate of whites, and 79% of Planned Parenthood sites are within "walking distance" of black neighborhoods. Marget Sanger, ya-da, ya-da.
2. The newly confirmed HHS Secretary refuses to even acknowledge the law, repeatedly dodged the question of enforcing it, is known to oppose it. You can not "find" what you do not seek.
3. "There can be no right to choose that which is wrong." -- Alan Keyes
And Hiram, that's what I do not understand. How can you consider that anyone has the right to commit infanticide of their own child, or somebody else's? It is why I would accept compromise on the issue, along the lines of the original [wrongly decided] Roe v. Wade.
How can you consider that anyone has the right to commit infanticide of their own child, or somebody else's?
It's a rights in conflict issue. I don't have the moral standing to tell other people what to do with their bodies. And certainly Donald Trump doesn't. Nor do I want to turn that issue over to the criminal justice system. I don't, for example, want a system where pregnancies are monitored, where neighbors turn in neighbors. Let's always remember that what the Donald Trumps of the world are trying to do is make safe abortions illegal.
Let's recall that religious authorities are trying to turn over the abortion issue to the civil authorities because they have failed in their own mission to persuade. They want us to do the job at which they failed.
--Hiram
I was startled to read that liberals aren't routinely called hypocrites by the right. It's a charge I seem to hear all the time in one form or another. Don't liberals have limousines? Don't we dine on quiche? Are we not indifferent to the sufferings of people we claim to represent? Like air conditioner makers in Ohio? Why didn't we object to caged children on the Texas border when it was Obama who was caging them? Good questions all.
We see an example of this above in the area of abortion rhetoric. Liberals aren't supposed to be racists, right? But if we aren't racists, how come so many black women have abortions? Why are so many Planned Parenthood clinics located in poor neighborhoods? Of all the people who need health care, why have liberals chosen to provide it to people who couldn't afford it? And while we are at it, let's do something about the fact that Margaret Sanger was a Nazi.
Some of those questions are good questions. Some of the more tendentious questions have good questions within them. They raise concerns we should be concerned about. And certainly, I am in favor of policies, that while not telling people what to do, but do support the decisions they make for themselves.
Alan Keyes is profoundly in error. We do have a right to do things which are wrong.
--Hiram
Alan Keyes is profoundly in error. We do have a right to do things which are wrong. --Hiram
You know what, I have to agree with you. The STATE cannot confer a right. They can restrict a natural right, but that would be wrong, in the general sense. Which leads to the other point, is abortion a natural right? I say no. Even Roe v. Wade recognizes that, at least at the point of fetal viability, there are TWO "bodies" affected by the choice one of them makes. The State can have an interest in protecting one of them from the decisions of the other, under certain circumstances.
"...but do support the decisions they make for themselves." -- Hiram
Just out of curiosity, should wearing a face mask be mandated by the State, or left to [informed] personal choice? On so many issues, this "laissez faire liberal" position seems hypocritical at best, if not an oxymoron.
The STATE cannot confer a right.
What our constitution says is that political power comes from the people. The people who wrote that explicitly rejected the alternative that existed in their world, that political power came from God and was expressed through the divine right of kings. They had founght a revolutionary war against their king.
I hear a lot of "natural right" stuff. Because under our system political authority is sectarian, the argument that rights are from God doesn't really work, so instead they are supposed to be "natural". Meanwhile, in Texas, the state is providing financial awards for people who rat on girls they suspect of having abortions.
There are so many things you can argue about abortion, and that's another reason why the Donald Trumps of the world shouldn't be the ones to decide them.
If women could get pregnant by being breathed on, that's a pretty good reason for requiring masks.
--Hiram
Jerry,
1. Do you even try to learn before you type?
It is poor women who do not want another mouth to feed. And yet you would limit their choices to keep them poor.
2. And yes the Secretary was incorrect, what does that have to do with your false claim? Who is trying to over turn partial birth abortion law? Source?
3. You are funny... Alicia made her position clear.
Jerry,
As for infanticide, it is illegal and has been since for a very long time.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
If you don't watch FOX, who is filling your head with these incorrect ideas?
Gee, Excuuuuse me for having a modicum of common sense. What is "infanticide"? Is having a baby halfway out the birth canal and then sucking out its human brain just a simple "late term abortion" to you? Play with definitions all you want, but we are talking about millions of real human beings, sacrificed to a lie, on a whim.
Change the definition of "citizen" to begin at conception, and you get a whole different legal imperative.
And what is this "learn before you type" nonsense? Seems to me that your sources more or less prove my point, making your point, whatever it is, "non-operable."
What is "infanticide"?
That's a Merriam Webster question. Meanwhile is is used by people who want to create an entire criminal justice system around women's pregnancies.
The thing about Roe v. Wade is that it is low maintenance. Police are not involved in pregnancy issues. County attorneys need not get involved. Bounties do not have to be paid to people who snitch on their neighbors. There is no pretense that we are seeking moral guidance from the Trumps of the world. People want to change that. They want to turn girls into accomplices, doctors and those who support them into criminals. They want to create an atmosphere of fear around health care on this issue that has thankfully not existed for the last nearly 50 years. Millions of women have had abortions in that time. Should we tell them all they are all now criminals?
--Hiram
Putting "millions" and "late term abortion" in the same comments shows how incorrect your information is.
And a reminder: late term abortions are only allowed if the fetus or the mother will die without it.
"Change the definition of "citizen" to begin at conception, and you get a whole different legal imperative."
Well, that's certainly correct. Every miscarriage is a potential crime.
It's possible to use a lot of loaded words in this discussion. They have their role, I suppose, but it's important not to be too intimidated by them. I focus on the more practical issues. I have seen enough tv shows and movies from that era, of terrified girls in abusive relationships, being manipulated by the authorities to know that's not a world I have much interest in returning to.
--Hiram
Sean,
I am worried about Jerry, for years he seemed relatively tolerant of first trimester abortions and then now he snaps back to this Far Right Religious concept that 2 cells equal a human. :-O
How easily you jump to conclusions. I merely posit a hypothetical, simple change to the law, which upsets your whole equation. Late term abortions are SUPPOSED to be limited, but repeated courts have thrown out most restrictions. You are correct, late term abortions are few, but abortions in total have "killed" millions of potential human beings.
What I really support is that we follow the Texas law, (to skirt Roe v. Wade) and limit the ability to file suit until the arbitrary "point of viability" or ~20 weeks (consistent w/ RvW). Then a civil suit is entirely appropriate, with someone acting as "protector/advocate" of the unborn child. It wouldn't stop many, as you say, but it would certainly make sense rather than the legalistic mess we have today. It would still allow "abortion as birth control," "abortion for sex selection" and other such things that most find unsavory.
"late term abortions are only allowed if the fetus or the mother will die without it."
Snicker... I hate to tell you this, but the baby will die WITH it, too. It's almost 100% fatal, and Democrats occasionally want to allow the killing of the rare survivor.
I am always puzzled what Doctor you have ever met that ever condoned the death of a healthy late term fetus based on the mother's whim?
Especially since it is clearly against the law.
It must be a very dark disturbing world you live in... :-(
The Doctors and Nurses I know usually err on the side of excessive heroic measures to save every life. I mean that is part of why the USA's healthcare costs are so high.
I mean just look at the Neo Natal Intensive Care units...
Who would you trust on moral issues? Your doctor? Or New Gingrich?
--Hiram
What makes you think we are talking about moral issues at all? Some people think that morality has no place in "the law." And I am certain that a few doctors or medical practitioners believe they are above the "common morality" and WILL perform the killing of innocent children. As for the law, consider the morality of those who would protect these people by opposing laws meant to deter them.
For many, it's not a moral issue. For them, Texas is establishing a bounty for people who are willing to snitch on girls they suspect of having an abortion. For them, morality doesn't have to enter in on it.
==Hiram
Jerry,
As I said, you live in very unfortunate place if you believe we have to worry about baby killing Mothers and Doctors collaborating to kill babies unnecessarily.
And that we need to pass additional laws and regulatory over sight to prevent it...
I live in a very unfortunate place in which murder of innocent children is not only condoned, and excused as a simple "choice," but established as a "right" in the law. If we do not need a law to outlaw these murders, then why do we have a law that makes plain old murder a crime? Is there an explanation for this moral inconsistency?
I don't think its necessary to have to explain why murder is a crime.
--Hiram
That implies that a "non-viable" fetus is a child...
And that you know better than the Mother what should be done.
Both of which are definitely suspect.
It implies that a half billion American women are murderers, that should be in prison for life.
--Hiram
"I don't think its necessary to have to explain why murder is a crime."
No, but you do need to explain why the murder of an unborn human child is NOT.
"I live in a very unfortunate place in which murder of innocent children is not only condoned, and excused as a simple "choice," but established as a "right" in the law. If we do not need a law to outlaw these murders, then why do we have a law that makes plain old murder a crime? Is there an explanation for this moral inconsistency?"
I'm so glad we can finally agree that school shootings require a legislative response to the proliferation of guns.
Moose
Moose,
I was thinking a similar thing.
Jerry wants to legislate what a woman can do with help of her doctor. Even supporting involving the courts in this most personal decision. To stop something that likely never happens.
And yet he fight against people being required to register their weapons. And he fights against welfare for the children.
To me "pro-lifers" are definitely hypocrites. :-)
Wow, how little you know about me, but I assume it suits your need to feel superior, like a typical modern liberal.
I want you to make a distinction for me. There is a person standing between me and the promotion (or something) I want. I decide to kill that person and demand my "right to choose" to do so, under my "right of privacy." I've consulted my friend Guido, who is a trained expert in these matters, and he agreed to help. What law will I, or Guido, be breaking?
As for your silly gun control analogy, I point out that we already have strong laws against murder. Enforce those absolutely, and gun control will not be necessary.
"Pro-lifers are hypocrites." Yet they make distinctions that you do not. Killing an innocent child is not the same as the death penalty for killers.
Rationalize all you want...
You seem to be more concerned about a 14 week week old fetus than a 3 year old child...
And the idea that you want government in with the doctor and mother still amazes me. Talking about Big Government / Big Brother.
You blindly trust that gun owners will only sell to "good people". And close your eyes when those guns kill kids.
And yet you do not trust a Mother and Licensed Doctor to make the correct choice.
"While mass shootings caught fleeting public and policymaker attention, routine gunfire killed more children and teens every week than the Parkland, Sandy Hook and Columbine massacres combined. Children in America are under assault.
2014 reversed a seven-year trend of declining child and teen gun deaths. 2015, 2016 and 2017 continued that disturbing upward trend.3
In 2017, nine children and teens were killed with guns each day in America—one every 2 hours and 34 minutes.4
Gun violence was the second leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1-19 and the leading cause for Black children and teens, claiming more child lives than cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, HIV/AIDS and opioids combined.5
Since 1963, 186,239 children and teens have been killed with guns on American soil—four times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in the Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq wars combined.6
The relentless slaughter of children is a uniquely American phenomenon. Eddie was just one of 18 children killed with guns in his hometown of St. Louis last summer alone—more children than were killed in an entire year in 29 countries within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).7
Children and teens in the U.S. are 15 times more likely to die from gunfire than their peers in 31 other high-income countries combined.8
The child and teen gun death rate in the U.S. was more than 3 times higher than that in Turkey, the country with the next highest rate; 11 times higher than in Israel; 19 times higher than in Switzerland and 85 times higher than in the United Kingdom.
American children and teens accounted for a third (34 percent) of all children and teens in these countries but 88 percent of child and teen gun deaths.
Shamefully, gun deaths reflect only part of the devastating toll of America’s growing gun violence epidemic. Many more children and teens are injured than killed with guns each day in our nation.
For every child or teen fatally shot in 2017, another five suffered non-fatal gunshot wounds.9
An estimated 18,227 children and teens were injured with guns in 2017—a six percent increase from 2016.10
Children of color, boys and older teens are most likely to be killed or injured with guns. Black boys like Eddie are at greatest risk.11
Black children and teens had the highest gun death rate in 2017 (11.2 per 100,000) followed by American Indian/Alaska Native children and teens (5.6 per 100,000).
Black children and teens were four times more likely to be killed or injured with a gun than their white peers.
Although Black children and teens made up only 14 percent of all American children and teens, they accounted for 41 percent of child and teen gun deaths.
Eighty-six percent of children and teens who died from gunfire in 2017 were boys. Boys were six times more likely than girls to die in gun homicides. Black boys were 17 times more likely to be killed in gun homicides than white boys.
84 percent of gun deaths and 91 percent of gun injuries among children and teens occurred among 15- to 19-year-olds. Infants and toddlers were not immune, however. Guns killed twice as many children under 5 as law enforcement officers in the line of duty.12"
" Guns killed twice as many children under 5...."
I have identified your problem. Guns didn't kill anybody. It is preventing the solution to the problem to insist on that ridiculous proposition.
And I notice you failed to make the distinction about abortion, perhaps similar, that I asked you to make.
You do work hard to deny that you are supporting the murder of real living children...
"Gun violence was the second leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1-19 and the leading cause for Black children and teens, claiming more child lives than cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, HIV/AIDS and opioids combined."
Please clarify...
"And I notice you failed to make the distinction about abortion, perhaps similar, that I asked you to make."
"I want you to make a distinction for me. There is a person standing between me and the promotion (or something) I want. I decide to kill that person and demand my "right to choose" to do so, under my "right of privacy." I've consulted my friend Guido, who is a trained expert in these matters, and he agreed to help. What law will I, or Guido, be breaking? "
You said it yourself (quoting "sources"), "Gun violence was the second leading cause of death for children..."
Notice, gun VIOLENCE, not guns. Guns are inanimate objects, they are not "violent" by themselves. That seems a perfectly rational definition and distinction you refuse to make.
Since the "person" I assume is a living breathing viable human, it would be murder or conspiracy to commit murder. Your point?
I do not blame guns... I blame people who are against mandatory gun registration and holding gun owners accountable for keeping their weapons secure. Or maybe you think these criminals are building guns in their basements.
So, it is your contention that a baby halfway out the birth canal is NOT a "living breathing viable human being"? What is it, a camel? For that matter, a 24-week fetus is a living, "breathing" viable human being, the courts have said so. What distinctions are you going to try to make so that this murder is not murder?
So, you are "not blaming guns," but you are not blaming criminals, either. You are now blaming innocent, law-abiding gun owners, or by extension, those who insist that gun owners are NOT criminals. I want you to explain HOW the Parkland shooter killed so many kids (murder many times over), when he violated at least six different gun laws before he even got there. How many times must it be pointed out that having laws does not prevent people from breaking them, no matter how many laws you have. It's a people problem.
You are now blaming innocent, law-abiding gun owners, or by extension, those who insist that gun owners are NOT criminals.
Although people do have the consitutional right to bear arms, there is no constitutional right not to be in the presence of those who bear them, which I think is strange. The best we can do is stay away from places where people pack heat. Schools, grocery stores, places of work and entertainment, and of course IHOPs.
--Hiram
Jerry,
How many 24+ week fetuses are aborted each year? (<1% or 6,000 abortions / year)
Please remember that this is only allowed if the baby is dead or going to die anyway, or if delivering the baby may harm / kill the Mother. I am pretty sure one can not murder a dead fetus (ie not viable), and as far as I know self defense is an acceptable reason for murdering someone in most cases.
I blame the criminals and those who enable then to easily get guns... No change in my position.
And those of whom want to tie the hands of the police, prosecutors, etc...
"this is only allowed if the baby is dead or going to die anyway." More strange contortions of language. If the baby is going to be aborted it IS going to die, no two ways about it. It's like saying "so and so has to die" and that justifies my killing him. It's circular logic at the very best, moral ambiguity, possibility, and just not factually true. You failed to make the distinction you should have made.
So a woman is carrying around a baby with part of it's brain missing...
Or some equally fatal genetic anomaly...
You think she should be forced to carry it to term so that it can die then?
You truly are a cruel man... :-O
An interesting piece that showed up in my FB.
"Let’s get info from the people who do this for a living. Sena Garven, an Ultrasound Technician says:
“So here’s the thing:
This Alabama-abortion-ban is a big deal, in a very bad way. Ohio, Missouri, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kentucky… I’m looking at you too, but we’re going to focus on Alabama. If you’ve been living under a rock, let me catch you up. Alabama Governor, Kay Ivey, just signed a total abortion ban into law, the most restrictive law in the United States. The law will ban abortion at every stage of pregnancy for every reason.
This is not okay, not reasonable, and definitely not acceptable.
If you don’t know me well, maybe you don’t know what I do for a living. I’m an ultrasound technologist. My colleagues and I look at babies in every stage of pregnancy every day. I also work in a high risk unit. My unit and I look at babies and mothers in varying states of mental and physical health. If you think an abortion ban sounds good, then I am a good person to ask about why it isn’t.
So let me tell you:
About the woman whose baby developed with no skull, and the brain just floating around. Her baby still had a heartbeat, and she would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman whose baby has a rare chromosomal condition called T13. Her baby’s organs grew outside its body, and had a cleft palate so bad that there was no nose. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman whose blood pressure is spiking so high that she passes out and is likely to stroke out before her baby is born. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman with such a severe form of hemophilia that giving birth will probably be fatal to both her and the baby. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the 13 year old whose school isn’t allowed to teach her science-based sex-education, so she didn’t know how to prevent pregnancy or STIs, but whose body is not developed enough to carry to term without being damaged. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman who was raped by a friend who wanted to “make sure she got home safely”. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman who has PCOS so only has periods every 3-4 months and can’t find a birth control that works for her. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman whose abusive partner removed the condom without telling her (it’s called stealthing, and it happens more frequently than you’d think). She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman with the cornual ectopic pregnancy that isn’t reliably in the uterus, and could grow to a size that will kill her. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman who has two kids she can barely feed already, and whose birth control just increased in price. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the 18 year old who just started college and is going to be the first graduate of the family if she can just stay in school. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the woman whose IUD slipped slightly and is now endangering both her and the pregnancy it was designed to prevent. She would not be able to access abortion.
About the many, many, many women who just don’t want to be pregnant for reasons that are their own. Health issues, abusive relationships, financial issues, social issues. They would not be able to access abortion.
Some of these might sound like reasonable exceptions to you. And you would be correct. But no one should get to decide what happens with another person’s body, not even to save a life. You need written permission from a corpse before life saving organs can be taken from them. You cannot be forced to donate blood, no matter how dire the situation. And no one else should get to decide what a woman does with her body, end of story.
But it’s not the end of the story, is it? Because here’s the kicker: if you consider abortion to be a murder (and some people genuinely believe that!) then miscarriage can be second degree murder. And this is already happening all over the world - El Salvador, Ecuador, and the US of A. Women are being jailed for miscarriages and stillbirths because they might have done something to cause it. If you start down this path of jailing women and doctors for making healthcare decisions that affect no one but themselves, then you get women who don’t go to a doctor for a safe procedure and instead order pills online or use whatever metal instruments they can find to end their own pregnancies. Women who are honestly experiencing a miscarriage (which is medically called a spontaneous abortion, just fyi) will not go to their doctor for help. They will bleed out on their bathroom floors or die of septic shock. And I haven’t even talked about how this will disproportionately affect women of color, LGBTQA+ women, or trans men. This isn’t about the “sanctity of life” anymore. It’s about controlling women.”
Sena Garven
"no one should get to decide what happens with another person’s body, not even to save a life." So, the laws against murder do not apply. "We" are not allowed to outlaw what someone does with their body, even if they choose to take the life of another. Odd, that used to be called murder. Now it is a "post-birth abortion."
You are roundly condemning the notion of "no abortion for nobody at no time" while blithely accepting "any abortion, for anybody, for any reason, at any time." How about making some reasonable distinctions? Is that not possible for you, or will you continue to insist that any restriction whatsoever is grossly immoral "cruelty"?
If you think this is the current state in America...
"any abortion, for anybody, for any reason, at any time."
You are either delusional, lying or totally misinformed.
An interesting story
And you would apparently force her to carry her struggling fetus to term?
Wow. I am all that? Pick one. And then riddle me this. If States are restricting abortion, can we assume that some of those are "reasonable" and some are "unreasonable"? So why is EVERY restriction fought tooth and nail, first in the legislature and then in the courts? There seems to be an element of society which demands "no restrictions, at no time, for nobody." And it appears that is your position.
The difference between reasonable and unreasonable lies in the ability to make distinctions, which you refuse to make.
Why again do you keep trying avoid answering my questions?
Would you force a mother to carry a dead or dying fetus to term against her will?
I mean that is the vast majority of late term abortions since viability is the law in America.
Why do you persist in asking stupid questions? You are making a distinction for a dead or dying fetus, "against her will." Keep going, and eventually you will come to "reasonable." I'll meet you there.
And every so often, you state something that just isn't true. viability is not the law
If you read my links you will understand why the 6,000 to 8,000 mothers choose to end their pregnancies in the last trimester.
Their baby is brain dead, forming terribly abnormally, has a severe genetic flaw, etc.
And yes "against her will"... The Mother has a devastating heart breaking choice to make.
Her bundle of joy is suffering, dying or may be killing her.
And you want use "big government" to enforce your will upon her.
So again...
Would you force a mother to carry a dead or dying fetus to term against her will?
I assume you are also against people being free to commit suicide when they are suffering intolerable pain and a bleak diagnosis?
You want "big government" to control the freedom of citizens to an incredibly disturbing degree. :-(
Yes, I want "big government" to outlaw murder.
And there is no point in asking me a question you pretend to know the answer to, and then refuse to accept any answer except the one your prejudice has conceived. You have the choice to abort after conception. You should use it sometime. Maybe even entertain an alternative?
Would you force a mother to carry a dead or dying fetus to term against her will?
No. Your point? Is it that you think I would answer yes? I make distinctions, and do not have the same absolutist position you seem to have, so turn it around. Would you permit the killing of a perfectly healthy baby during or shortly after delivery?
No... And it is currently illegal in the USA.
Is it? See Gov. Northam's comments. You would THINK it would be illegal, but the new HHS Sec. denied that in Congressional confirmation hearings. You /DO/ seem to make distinctions, and then hide behind what you think is the law, while disregarding the furious attempt to avoid actually writing that law, where it does not exist, or abrogating the law where it does. Don't deny there are absolutists on both sides, with the general agreement, somewhere in the middle, nowhere to be found.
Please tell me where it is legal.
Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, New York
*Plus, the District of Columbia
Most other states have exceptions, such as the life of the mother, health (including mental health broadly defined) of the mother, rape, incest, gross fetal deformity. So, legal almost everywhere, under some circumstances.
How about we go back to the original topic? Which do you believe will have the greater effect on overall "law and order," political theater by Democrats in Congress, loosely predicated on a single minor event, or the widespread "defund, disparage and discourage the police" effort by State and local Democrats nationwide?
This is not an either or situation.
One can support "law and order" at the Capitol. With or Without pursuing other topics.
So then why is this topic devoted exclusively to only ONE of these?? Let us have some sense of proportion. On one side, a few people allegedly trespassed on the Capitol. On the other, we have insurrection, including long-term establishment of "autonomous zones" where no policing is allowed, where people are beaten, robbed and even killed, where police are assaulted, and federal buildings are attacked and fire-bombed.
And you are not really asking for the truth about either, but rather about some sort of Democrat propaganda exercise masquerading as truth-seeking.
"On one side, a few people allegedly trespassed on the Capitol."
Have you heard the term "gaslighting"? This is textbook gaslighting, telling us that what we saw with our own eyes didn't happen.
You're in bed with the traitors and think of yourself as a patriot.
You're disgusting.
Moose
Odd. What I saw inside the Capitol with my own eyes was nothing like how you characterize it.
I'm so glad I disgust you. That is what I was going for.
"On one side, a few people allegedly trespassed on the Capitol."
One more time, for the record. Your own eyes saw "a few people". Hundreds are not "a few".
And yes, you disgust me, as do all traitors to this Country.
Moose
Jerry,
Maybe you should look closer.
"There were 138 officers (73 Capitol Police and 65 Metropolitan Police) injured,[17] of whom 15 were hospitalized, some with severe injuries.[18] All had been released from the hospital by January 11.[390]
Oh, so another "mostly peaceful protest" then?
Post a Comment