Some days I think I need to become a Libertarian... What are your thoughts regarding this new Conservative meddling in the personal lives of women and their Doctors? Or Gary's portrayal via comic.
Personally I am very thankful that I am not required to have a mandatory colonscopy before making a very important personal medical decision... And here these are the people that say they want the government out of our personal lives. Please link this to your Facebook if you support Gary's view.
Doonesbury 12Mar12
Doonesbury 13Mar12
CNN Opinion Doonesbury takes on Texas Abortion Law
Washington Post Doonesbury
Fox News Doonesbury
Religion Dispatches Doonesbury
EWTN News Doonesbury
G2A Abortion and Conservatives
G2A AW - Proof of Fascism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
The part of this issue that has surprised me is that I never see mentioned the cost in time and money for this invasive and unnecessary procedure. I assume there is a wait period between the time the women is shown the picture and when she is allowed to abort the embryo. Since the state is requiring it they should be footing the bill (and reimbursing related costs)
Excellent point! !!! This is definitely going to be hardest on the poor women. Ironically the women that can least afford the child...
And weren't these Conservatives just saying it was unfair to force them to offer basic birth control in their insurance plans.
Then they dare to demand this of others who want to exercise their legal and religious rights. I think the word hypocrites definitely applies.
Wow. These poor women who can't afford the inexpensive $5/month birth control at Walmart, and don't have it covered by their husband's insurance plan at work, and refuse to use the "Bayer aspirin" method will just have to bear the personal responsibility for the consequences of irresponsible sex.
I guess you can call religious people and conservatives hypocrites if you want, and with impunity. Hypocrites, at least, have some values with which their behavior can be compared, while liberals have no standards whatsoever. And you can tell them I said so.
J. Ewing
You may also want to check an (uncorroborated, at this point) report that EVERY Planned Parenthood abortion begins with EXACTLY the "vaginal ultrasound" procedure being discussed. Doonesbury is entertainment, a "comic," and it is often funniest when you know that he is coming out of left field rather than actual news reporting.
J. Ewing
I find the Liberals much more consistent in their values. (ie more like the teachings of Jesus) They just want to use someone else's money all the time.
The Conservatives seem to want Government interference only when it fits their Relgious agenda. (ie do as I believe) And Lord knows they don't want to pay for it.
John, I take your comment as a compliment. As as a spokesperson for the liberals let me say that we want everyone to make a fair contribution to a society that exhibits some basic level of decency and compassion. We believe, as Paul Wellstone used to say, that "we all do better when we all do better." btw, liberals pay taxes and are quite generous with charitable contributions as well.
It was meant as a compliment, though I am still looking for better solutions from the Progressives than just keep writing bigger and bigger checks to poor people... (via the Rich guys checkbook) Thus conditioning them to grow even more dependent... Here I go confusing the Conditioning and Doonesbury posts... Oh my my...
Laurie, I understand why you are a liberal now. You believe that liberals pay taxes and give more to charity (than conservatives, I assume). But you would have it backwards. Rich liberals tend to be trust fund rich, so pay few taxes, while conservatives tend to be self-made rich and pay a LOT of taxes to feed the welfare state liberals create. The rich liberals believe in compassion with somebody else's money, while rich conservatives want everybody to succeed free of government and are willing to help through private charity. It's just the nature of the beast, and the studies confirm it. Sorry.
It is the fundamental problem of the previous post, that liberals believe "society" should be "compassionate to the poor" and then turn around and substitute GOVERNMENT for society. That turns a voluntary, all-in-this-together "society" into an "us vs them" system, with forced extractions of wealth on the one end turned to a wasteful "entitlement" on the other, accompanied by even more waste in the middle. If what we spend on means-tested government programs were handed out as a check, a single mother with two kids would take in $56,000/year with no other income. Where did the money go, and what did that money BUY in terms of self-sufficiency, personal pride, human dignity and contribution to the society, socially and economically?
And why does she have those two kids in the first place, that is, why isn't it a family of FOUR? Conservatives want more personal freedom and more personal responsibility. Sexual abandon and then asking society to bear the consequences, not to mention killing the product of conception, aka the baby, would seem to be an undesirable model for society, and government shouldn't be contributing to it.
J. Ewing
Oh don't start that "baby" stuff again... Remember our viability discussion.
If Conservatives want more personal freedom and more personal responsibility, then they should stop trying to legislate everyone's personal morality.
As for Gov't charity being different from Church and Other Charities, I somewhat understand however I am not convinced there really is a significant difference on the giving/receiving side. Though there is definitely a difference on the donation side.
The donation side is easier, people only give money to charities that have common beliefs. And they stop if that organization does something to annoy them. Whereas the only way to stop paying taxes is to find a new State or Country to live in.
On the giving side, they both have a bureaucracy that needs to be funded, rules that must be created, criteria that must be met, and benefits that must be doled out. The recipient rarely deals with the original donor, so I am not sure about any difference in rewards or dignity.
It is really hard for me to see much difference between the Church society and Gov't society bureaucracies. Lots of hands needed to manage the money, manage the programs and prevent fraud.
A humorous flashback:
USA Today Statues
"Oh don't start that "baby" stuff again... Remember our viability discussion."
Oh, I remember the discussion well, but at minimum you have to concede that the product of conception is a "potentially viable" human being and we should not be disposing of them for the purposes of birth control. It isn't a good idea from a societal survival standpoint, and there are a lot of us who argue that it is immoral.
"If Conservatives want more personal freedom and more personal responsibility, then they should stop trying to legislate everyone's personal morality."
What is the law if it is not the codification of society's shared morality? There are governments in this world that do not outlaw rape or honor killings, but have the death penalty for homosexuality. Some do not allow women to drive an automobile. OF COURSE conservatives want to legislate morality, and so should everybody else! There is a personal morality we each live by, and then there is a collective morality that we codify into law. We just have to collectively decide what that law should be.
" As for Gov't charity being different from Church and Other Charities, I somewhat understand however I am not convinced there really is a significant difference on the giving/receiving side. The donation side is easier, people only give money to charities that have common beliefs. And they stop if that organization does something to annoy them. Whereas the only way to stop paying taxes is to find a new State or Country to live in."
But that is all the difference in the world! Things that annoy a charitable giver would include things like being ineffective, serving the same poor person for generations with no change to their circumstance, forgetting to demonstrate gratitude or spending too much in overhead and administration. Government does these "annoying" things constantly and with impunity. Above all, a charity must fulfill the purpose for which donations to it are given, i.e. food programs must feed the hungry, transitional housing programs must transit people into permanent housing (a difficult and multifaceted process). There is absolutely no such constraint on government welfare programs, and in fact they seem to exist to expand without limit, and without regard for whether they serve their stated purpose (and they do not).
"The recipient rarely deals with the original donor, so I am not sure about any difference in rewards or dignity."
Most of the charitable organizations I deal with have a "hands on" component. You follow the money into service, which puts you in direct contact with the recipient. Most others show you clearly visible and tangible results, especially if your gift is large enough.
"It is really hard for me to see much difference between the Church society and Gov't society bureaucracies. Lots of hands needed to manage the money, manage the programs and prevent fraud."
Again, the difference is night and day. There is no check on the amount of government bureaucracy that can be involved, and in fact some estimates run as high as 80% "overhead" in these bureaucracies. Many charities operate on just a few percent overhead and use volunteers for many of the other tasks. As for fraud, government simply cannot create enough rules that somebody will not find a way around them. Charities, on the other hand, are usually close enough to the people they serve that what few rules they have are in the best interests of both parties. For example, the Catholic transitional housing program in Minneapolis added a rule a few years back that you cannot stay with them if you are using drugs or alcohol, and fail to make adequate progress towards finding a job (all with their assistance). Compare that with the rules and results for government housing. Charities have full accountability to givers and from receivers; government has almost none.
J. Ewing
Of course it is good for societal survival, people who don't want to be a parent don't become a parent. Sounds good to me. (ie for the parent, child and society)
If you want "shared morality" then maybe we should have the Gov't more involved in guns, smoking, helmut laws, alcohol, food choices, insurance choices, etc. Yet the Conservatives / GOP resist these controls and calls them big Gov't control intruding on our personal decisions...
And currently abortion is a right that is supported by the Constitution, yet they can't let it be. Kind of like the Liberals / DFL and gun control.
Gov't does not spend with impunity... We have elections in which we can control their spending if we so choose. If it is not being controlled, that means the majority of us are supporting that spend.
And since Religious Conservatives give mostly to Churches, I can guarantee that very little cash makes it to a true charitable recipient. After the building, staff, synod, etc costs, I am pretty sure they are about as efficient as the government...
I do agree that some charities are very lean and give openly, the majority of my donations bypass the church and go directly to these organizations.
John,
I appreciate your arguing against some of the points J makes as I don't have the energy or the interest but this point you made is quite lame:
"And currently abortion is a right that is supported by the Constitution, yet they can't let it be. Kind of like the Liberals / DFL and gun control."
Liberals might like slightly tighter gun controls, perhaps outlawing or making it more difficult to own automatic weapons, but this is in no way comparable to single issue anti abortion voters or their reps who introduce lots of bills to restrict and ultimately outlaw abortion.
I have a tiny bit of agreement with J. that charities can be very effective on a small scale, but thinking they can replace medicaid, housing subsidies and food stamps seems absurd to me. Also, many people who benefit from these programs are the working poor. major part of the problem is an economy that creates to few living wage jobs.
Being a farm boy who loves his guns, I will disagree...
John,
your brief explanation of why you are in favor or the right to own assult weapons is also lame. Your kids are as likely to be a victim in a school shooting as anybody's (rare, but why not decrease the risk even further)
Would you draw the line at the right to own a machine gun or perhaps a surface to air missile?
Also, you missed my main point which was false equivalency.
How does that go again? "I think you protest too much..." My equivalency may not be as false as you claim.
And falling back on the Conservative argument, I can guarantee a potential life ends with an abortion. However the risk of death from people owning guns is much less likely... Even from owning automatic weapons...
To a quasi-libetarian like me they are both unnecessary meddling by gov't.
Somewhat related, at least in concept...
MSNBC Porn Ind to Santorum... Butt Out
John,
It may be a dumb side argument but I find the stupidity in your sticking to your false equivalency annoying, as you can be rational. I have noticed that you don't like to concede a point.
Conservatives spend huge money, campaign on the issue, and introduce and pass many laws restricting abortion. Liberals have a weak preference to have slightly stricter gunlaws and pass little to no legislation. To my surprise there was one line in the DFL platform which is as follows:
We support reasonable firearm policies that promote public safety and crime prevention without infringing on the rights of hunters and other sports enthusiasts.
The GOP gives nearly a page specifying their right to life views .
Pursuing this silly side argument almost has me ready to donate to a group lobbying on gun control issues but the only one I can think of is the NRA.
Okay okay already... I yield the point that the pro-choice gov't control folks are much more annoying and in our face than the pro gun control folks.
And if you feel the need to help them, here is an organization for you. Brady Campaign And please note that they show basic hand guns on their site. No machine guns or missile launchers.
John
Thanks for the link and partially conceding your point. (I was hoping for something like "you're right, advocating to keep assult weapons off college campuses is common sense while trying to pass legislation that would ban most forms of contraception is an insane level of govt intrusion."
Sorry, but I'm sticking to this side topic a little bit longer with a question? How would you vote on the issue of allowing guns on campusif you were a legislator.
I guess I would say the State's Public laws should apply to all locations within the State. If they allow them in Libraries, Government Buildings, etc then they should be allowed on campus.
If they are not allowed in these public buildings, they should not be allowed on a Public campus.
The next challenge would be what age should people be considered an adult with regard to firearms? 18 or 21...
The spate of campus shootings a few years back raised a great cry for more stringent gun controls. What got overlooked was that the crazy perpetrators HAD guns, and in some cases were only stopped by other armed students who also had guns, in violation of campus policy.
J. Ewing
But nobody wants to ban contraception, certainly not in law. But that's what happens whenever anyone wants to discuss right to life issues, it right away gets blown out of all proportion and the reality seems to get lost. Heck, even legislation codifying the Roe v. Wade decision into State law would be unacceptable to these radical pro-choice activists. Lately their was a serious discussion in Democrat circles of abortion up to the "15th month" of pregnancy as OK.
So, how about this: "We support reasonable policies that promote the human life potential of unborn children without infringing on the rights of hunters and other sports enthusiasts."
If you read the DFL plank on gun control, you have to recognize that what it says is that self-defense or defense of family is NOT a legitimate reason to keep and bear arms. That's extreme.
J. Ewing
J-
I teach reading and the dfl platform does not say this:
"..that self-defense or defense of family is NOT a legitimate reason to keep and bear arms."
Also, didn't conservative news sources cover the Mississippi personhood amendment which was voted on last fall. It would ban the pill along with all abortions. Even the voters of Mississippi turned down legislation this extreme.
John, you forgot to share how you would vote on allowing concealed assault weapons into govt buildings such as courthouses, libraries and college dorms.
If push came to shove and I had to vote, I would vote to allow conceal and carry on campuses, in libraries, etc. Which is funny since I don't even own a handgun.
I would keep guns out of Court Houses, Capitol buildings, etc, beacause there should be no security concerns and there are enough other issues playing out in that environment.
I guess my rationale revolves around the old saying... "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". What would we keep off campus next? Cars, knives, rope, scissors, etc?
I would keep guns out of Court Houses, Capitol buildings, etc,
If we are going to have conceal and carry, the laws should apply to lawmakers. It's important that they be subject to the same risk that everyone else.
--Hiram
banning scissors? This side topic is ending with with an arguement as lame as it began.
as for people killing people, a mentally ill young man with a semiautomatic weapons kills lots of people. Though I think given the widespread depression in students an increase in suicide is the greatest risk
Hiram,
Probably makes sense... Though I think we can agree to keep them away from the courthouses...
Laurie,
I am thinking that mentally ill man could go to the trunk of his car at anytime and get his gun. Though he may think twice if he thinks he may only get one shot off before some legal and sane gun carrier stops his dream rampage.
It isn't an ideal situation, however it is our modern reality. If my daughters so choose, I'd like them to have the freedom to carry a gun. Since Lord knows the whackos do...
As for suicides, where there is a will there is a way. Maybe even with a scissors across the wrists...
Laurie said...
" I teach reading and the dfl platform does not say this:..."
God bless you for teaching.
(quoting me) "... that self-defense or defense of family is NOT a legitimate reason to keep and bear arms."
Oh, but you don't teach reading between the lines. It says "without infringing on the rights of hunters and sportsmen." Because it is clearly excluded from the list means that the individual right of self-defense MAY be infringed, particularly if it contributes to "public safety" as the liberals say (with terms like "Wild West" and "OK corral"). Criminals with guns aren't the problem, in the DFL mind, it is all of those law-abiding citizens and THEIR guns.
A lot of us "gun nuts" cheered when the DFL passed legislation allowing posting of those "No Guns allowed on these premises" signs. There hasn't been a single convenience store or liquor store stickup or shooting since. :-^
J. Ewing
J-
You can infer whatever you want but that does not make it true.
"You can infer whatever you want but that does not make it true."
No, but you as the teacher should then be telling me why my inference isn't true. Or are you telling me I am not allowed to follow what people tell me to the reasonable and obvious conclusion? OK, 3rd graders aren't into "critical thinking," but adults have to be or the word-twiddlers and brilliant liars that populate our politics will fool us every time. I am not fooled; the DFL does not want ordinary law-abiding citizens to have guns for self-defense, and believes in so doing they can prevent criminals from having guns. Typical liberal fantasy.
J. Ewing
J-
I have no interest in attempting to educate or persuade you of anything. If you want to provide evidence of why your inference is correct go for it. By evidence I mean a news story with link about something such as a bill introduced and supported by the dfl or a vote breakdown on relevant legislation.
Homicide or self defense?
The Trayvon Martin Killing, Explained
Once the Dispatcher told Zimmerman "that they did not need him to follow the stranger" and Zimmerman acknowledged, I think this became man slaughter at the very least. I would need to know more before I would vote for homicide.
my terms were not right. I think self defense is justifiable homicide and the criminal charge would be manslaughter. Seems to me the guy should be charged and leave it to a jury to decide his guilt.
I agree... I think "Neighborhood Watch" should mean "Neighborhood Watch", not "Neighborhood Chase Down Suspicious Fellow and Get in a Fight"...
"By evidence I mean a news story with link about something such as a bill introduced and supported by the dfl or a vote breakdown on relevant legislation."
Look at who opposed concealed carry legislation with terms like "streets run red," "wild west" and talk of putting their kids in flak jackets. Look who voted against that, later to be proven 100% wrong.
Look who opposed the "stand your ground" bill this year, with talk of shooting sprees and "open season on strangers." It's a wholly DFL phenomenon. If they were that out of step with the Party platform on this, you would think the Party would be issuing a press release on the subject, at minimum, but they don't.
Most Party platforms have things like this, put in to disguise the extremes of the Party activists who write them while being weasel-worded enough to avoid the general public seeing through it, but the actions of their elected officials quickly enough show their true "principles." Do you need more? Do you really believe that self-defense is NOT a legitimate reason to Keep and Bear Arms?
J. Ewing
Post a Comment