Comparison Follow-Up
I must confess that I had an ulterior motive when I posted A Comparison Conservatives and Liberals. I wanted to get some liberal reactions before I wrote this article. I hope no one feels used. I did it for balance.
The fact is that this is the way a large number of conservatives perceive the difference between conservatives and liberals. This view is justified as demonstrated by the following:
1- Howard Dean being the head of the Democratic Party.
2- Ted Kennedy.
3- Al Franken.
4- Hillary Clinton.
5- Nancy Pelosi.
6- Barbara Boxer.
7- John Kerry.
8- All of those people caught on film at www.zombietime.com
9- Moveon.org.
10- Michael Moore.
11- The New York Times.
12- The LA Times.
13- San Francisco.
14- The ALCU.
15- NOW.
16- Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
17- PETA.
18- Planned Parenthood.
19- The Gay Straight Alliance.
20- The public school system.
21- Justices Suitor, Bader-Ginsberg, and Stevens.
22- Louis Farrakhan.
23- Al Sharpton.
22- Greenpeace.
I could continue, but you get the picture.
It is these highly visible examples of left-wing lunacy that give conservatives the view of liberals and liberalism that we have. Catastrophile posted a thoughtful article in response on his site called Red Think Versus Blue Think. I encourage you all to read it and post your thoughts on it. The best challenge that was raised to this here was by Dan Trabue who stated “Many liberals vote for the aforementioned but only because that is the best the Dem party offers.”
This raises a question for me.
If these are the best the Democrats have to offer why do you vote Democrat if you are so opposed to these people?
It seems to me that people are best served by voting according to their beliefs, not the party line. I, for example, did not vote for Lisa Murkowski for the Senate during the ’04 election. I didn’t vote Democrat either, I voted for an independent candidate who lost horribly, but was the candidate closest to what I think is right. It was the best way for me to vote according to what I hold dear.
So why don’t liberals have the same courage with their vote?
Sure they would lose a lot of power initially, but it could mean enormous long-term gains for them if it moderated the party line.
Then there is the matter of all of these left-wing organizations whoring themselves all over the media. People see these fruitcakes and decide that they must represent the core beliefs of the left. It is a justifiable perception based on the fact that these groups are what are perceived far more than more moderate people. Why? Because these are the people the MSM want us to see. Why? So they can influence into thinking like they do.
Which brings up another point; The MSM is not a friend to the liberals if liberals are truly not aligned with the groups and causes the MSM is promoting. However, some 96% of people involved in the MSM admit to voting Democrat during the last election according to a poll. The Democrats are the liberal party, the MSM votes overwhelmingly Democrat, you do the math.
This said, I am issuing a challenge to all liberals to stop supporting groups and people who you say do not reflect your views. Do this and you will truly change the way you are perceived. Do not do it and you reinforce all of the stereotypes that conservatives have of you.
The fact is that this is the way a large number of conservatives perceive the difference between conservatives and liberals. This view is justified as demonstrated by the following:
1- Howard Dean being the head of the Democratic Party.
2- Ted Kennedy.
3- Al Franken.
4- Hillary Clinton.
5- Nancy Pelosi.
6- Barbara Boxer.
7- John Kerry.
8- All of those people caught on film at www.zombietime.com
9- Moveon.org.
10- Michael Moore.
11- The New York Times.
12- The LA Times.
13- San Francisco.
14- The ALCU.
15- NOW.
16- Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
17- PETA.
18- Planned Parenthood.
19- The Gay Straight Alliance.
20- The public school system.
21- Justices Suitor, Bader-Ginsberg, and Stevens.
22- Louis Farrakhan.
23- Al Sharpton.
22- Greenpeace.
I could continue, but you get the picture.
It is these highly visible examples of left-wing lunacy that give conservatives the view of liberals and liberalism that we have. Catastrophile posted a thoughtful article in response on his site called Red Think Versus Blue Think. I encourage you all to read it and post your thoughts on it. The best challenge that was raised to this here was by Dan Trabue who stated “Many liberals vote for the aforementioned but only because that is the best the Dem party offers.”
This raises a question for me.
If these are the best the Democrats have to offer why do you vote Democrat if you are so opposed to these people?
It seems to me that people are best served by voting according to their beliefs, not the party line. I, for example, did not vote for Lisa Murkowski for the Senate during the ’04 election. I didn’t vote Democrat either, I voted for an independent candidate who lost horribly, but was the candidate closest to what I think is right. It was the best way for me to vote according to what I hold dear.
So why don’t liberals have the same courage with their vote?
Sure they would lose a lot of power initially, but it could mean enormous long-term gains for them if it moderated the party line.
Then there is the matter of all of these left-wing organizations whoring themselves all over the media. People see these fruitcakes and decide that they must represent the core beliefs of the left. It is a justifiable perception based on the fact that these groups are what are perceived far more than more moderate people. Why? Because these are the people the MSM want us to see. Why? So they can influence into thinking like they do.
Which brings up another point; The MSM is not a friend to the liberals if liberals are truly not aligned with the groups and causes the MSM is promoting. However, some 96% of people involved in the MSM admit to voting Democrat during the last election according to a poll. The Democrats are the liberal party, the MSM votes overwhelmingly Democrat, you do the math.
This said, I am issuing a challenge to all liberals to stop supporting groups and people who you say do not reflect your views. Do this and you will truly change the way you are perceived. Do not do it and you reinforce all of the stereotypes that conservatives have of you.
posted by Daniel Levesque at
11:34 AM
38 Comments:
But those groups and individuals that you cited as the reason that some conservatives perceive the Left as you described in your list, do NOT believe even half the stuff on that list!
I'll say it again: I think the reason some conservatives think as you suggest about liberals is because of the Rush Limbaugh's and other's who MISrepresent what these people stand for. How else can you explain something that doesn't exist within the realm of reality?
By
Dan Trabue, at 12:18 PM
As to your challenge (don't support those who you don't agree with), I personally don't, usually. I'll vote Green or independent most elections.
But there IS a serious problem with the way our system is set up. In many ways, those who say "a vote for a third party is a wasted vote" are correct. Many of my friends voted for Kerry not because they liked Kerry but because they think W is a war criminal and HAD to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat him.
I contend that, under the current system, I have no representation because my elected representatives never represent my values. This is true for Libertarians as well as Greens.
If we would change to Instant Runoff Voting (IRV, look it up) or Proportional Representative Gov't, we'd have a lot more folk on the left and right able to vote their true beliefs instead of the lesser of two evils (which will always be, by definition, "evil").
By
Dan Trabue, at 12:28 PM
What Dan said.
People don't support the ACLU because the ACLU took a case defending NAMBLA, they do so because the ACLU will take any case in which they see a threat to our civil rights -- as evidenced when they joined with the NRA in opposition to the USA-PATRIOT Act.
You can go down the list in this way; we don't support these people for the things you criticize them for (well, in some cases we probably do), we support them because they oppose the much-more-destructive things -- monstrous deficits, erosion of civil rights, aggressive wars -- that some others are notorious for.
Many of us did go and vote for Nader in 2000 -- and we were told over and over again, before and after that election, that we helped Bush win. Count Michael Moore among that number as well. In retrospect, many of us realized we were wrong to think it didn't matter which of them won.
Did I like Al Gore? No. Do I wish he'd won? Hell yeah, because he'd be compelled to govern from the middle, rather than insisting on an extremist agenda or nothing at all the way this administration does. You can say what you'd like about Clinton -- I'm not fond of him either -- but the fact is that he was prepared to compromise with his rivals to get things done. This administration gives lip service to compromise and talks like a moderate, but rules from the extreme right and only keeps promises when it benefits his base -- the haves and the have mores.
Remember the notion that so many 'wingers were pushing during last year's campaign -- that many Kerry voters were just voting against Bush. This was supposed to suggest that Kerry wasn't worth voting for, but it also speaks volumes about Bush, doesn't it?
To fall back on my blog post, our Duopoly system is predicated on RedThink -- you're either with Us or against Us, because there are only the two practical choices. We're left to decide which we dislike least. People may buck that system in times of peace and prosperity -- like fans of Perot and Nader in the 1990's -- but in times of crisis, RedThink prevails.
By
catastrophile, at 1:39 PM
So does this mean you're happy with Howard Dean, Al Franken, etc.?
As for getting wrong impressions, I saw the tape where Howard Dean said Most Republicans "have never done an honest day's work in their lives". I've seen Al Franken's books. I've seen the evidence of Chappaquiddick. Moveon.org? Seen their site and commercials, too. Hillary - "We are the President" - Clinton? Yep. Ditto for PETA and most of the rest.
By
Rebekah, at 2:29 PM
Amusingly, Rebekah, as you were explaining that you don't have the wrong impression about liberals, you misquoted Dean.
The line was that Reeps might be able to stand in line all day on a Tuesday to vote, because "a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives." The worst thing you can honestly say about that statement is that it's true of a lot of Dems as well.
Of course, since the whole point of focusing on that line was to draw attention away from the real subject of his comment -- the withholding of voting machines in Dem-voting areas to reduce effective voter turnout there -- I can understand why so many conservatives seem to have heard it wrong.
By
catastrophile, at 2:38 PM
The Howard Dean comment sounds worse in context than out of context!
By
Rick's Corner, at 4:49 PM
That's an interesting assertion. Care to elaborate?
By
catastrophile, at 5:57 PM
Simple,
He is still saying the core of his loony argument, and that is that Republicans are a bunch of worthless bums.
I seem to recall Democrats howling in outrage when a certain prominent Republican commented that the strenght of the Democrat's voting base is in the unemployed welfare people who rely on them for their free livelihood. Who also, incidentally, have PLENTY of time to wait in line and vote for their favorite socialist.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:31 PM
In the out of context 'never worked an honest day in their lives' gives the impression that Republicans are crooks.
'Republicans can stand in line all day to vote because they never did an honest days work in their lives' adds the dimension of voter fraud, or the possibility that they are so rich that they don't have to work and can stand in line all day.
Having worked on campaigns for both sides, I have found this more true of the Dems. Here in South Florida there are so many retired NE Liberals, they have the time to stand in line all day, and historically most of the Poll Workers and Poll Watchers are Dems. In fact it's already been proven that many voted twice. NY or NJ and then Fla.
By
Rick's Corner, at 6:36 PM
"a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."
versus:
"Republicans can stand in line all day to vote because they never did an honest days work in their lives"
So when you say "in context" you mean "still inaccurate, but with more words thrown in" . . . ?
The comment was hyperbole, there's no question of that, but the image that it evoked -- that Reeps are the party of fatcats and robber barons -- is not without foundation. You guys would really like it if he'd said what you say he'd said, without qualification, but that's not what happened. Sorry.
By
catastrophile, at 7:13 PM
Many would argue that W (certainly pre-9/11 W) is not as conservative as they would like, especially because of his allowing the size of the government to balloon and his stance on illegal immigration, among other things. I admire the man's ability to stick to his guns and use principle-centered leadership, rather than trying to please everyone from a "centrist" political position. You can't put your finger on the problem if you're sticking it in the wind.
One's interpretation of the political center depends on how far out of thefringes one lies. I'm curious to know what a centrist would believe; this is honest curiosity, I have a difficult time trying to think about how one could take a stand on anything important.
Clinton spent a lot of time behind a facade of centrism; in other words, trying to be someone he's not. You just can't fake it if you're the most powerful man in the world. I think it's a fair bet that Gore would've tried to do the same thing, as Kerry would have. Bush has his flaws, but at least he's a leader and that's what we need.
By
Anonymous, at 7:23 PM
catastrophile - that stereotype of Republicans is just as meaningful as the stereotype of Democrats as trying to help poor people and minorities. It's just an easy way for people to catagorize others when they don't want to think about what they really believe.
Fat cats and robber barons? Good Grief! Maybe in the 1920's, but it's not that simple anymore. and the only reason Democrats got the stereotype I mention above is because of FDR's policies during the Great Depression. People like handouts.
I'm with Raving Dan, here. Vote your conscience. Research the candidates, do the diligence. I did it last year and I felt like I made an informed decision. I didn't vote Libertarian, even though I tend to lean that way, because their foreign policy ideas are completely unrealistic, but would mostly be great in the land of make-believe. If I didn't think that, I would probably have voted that way. Then again, in 1998, I voted for Jesse Ventura...
By
Anonymous, at 7:32 PM
Tell me again; which party is currently under the patronage of several billionaires?
Oh yeah. The DEMOCRATS!
Republicans are fat cats and robber barons my ass.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 8:04 PM
Vote your conscience.
Sage advice.
That's why I voted against my senator (who is a RINO).
By
The Conservative UAW Guy, at 4:19 AM
I'm sure Mild, that you don't want us to start bringing up stupid statements made by Republicans?
In reading these comments, I have to return to much of what Catastrophe has written: Dean made a statement, y'all misquoted it. Catastrophe corrected your quote, you misquoted it again and again.
It reminds me of that study that came out last year that said the conservatives and liberals could watch the same news and hear two totally different things and, according to that study, it was the Republicans who were plain HEARING THINGS WRONG.
It makes debate difficult, to have to rehash statements over and over.
By
Dan Trabue, at 5:22 AM
Well Daniel, you have indeed written an interesting post, and the comments here have been interesting reading as well. As for me, you know where I stand: I am a conservative through and through. I disagree with the liberal agenda totally and completely, but no one here is surprised by that, I'm sure.
It occurred to me quite some time ago that there is no way we (liberal and conservative Americans) are going to reach agreement. We simply do not see things the same way. It's really tragic there is such a great divide in this country but it is what it is. I don't see it changing any time soon. :(
By
Gayle, at 6:03 AM
"It reminds me of that study that came out last year that said the conservatives and liberals could watch the same news and hear two totally different things and, according to that study, it was the Republicans who were plain HEARING THINGS WRONG."
Was this study done by liberals?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:17 AM
Come on Miss Gayle, surely we can agree on something?
How about personal responsibility? That someone should be responsible for what they say? This is a liberal philosophy that conservatives should be in agreement with, yes?
Can we agree that we shouldn't say that Mr. Jones is a traitor because he loves terrorists when Mr. Jones never said he loved terrorists?
That we should debate about what Howard Dean actually said and not a distorted version of what he said?
Would it be reasonable to think we could come together around honesty and responsibility?
I think we can.
By
Dan Trabue, at 6:48 AM
"Can we agree that we shouldn't say that Mr. Jones is a traitor because he loves terrorists when Mr. Jones never said he loved terrorists?"
Actions speak louder than words.
Dan,
I wouldn't reccommend questioning the honesty of coservatives, at least in a conservative format like this one. One of our problems with liberals is a percieved widespread intellectual and general dishonesty with a vast number of the left, especially among the leaders among the left.
I am fuly aware that there are those on the left who percieve the same thing about conservatives. It's just that the bulk of the evidence is in favor of the conservative viewpoint most of the time.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 7:22 AM
How'd that quip go about Reagan and the poor? He must love them...he's creating so many of them?
Could the same be said about W and terrorists?
Of course, that would be wrong and I wouldn't say it beyond a joke. But actions do speak louder than words...
As to intellectual dishonesty on the left, I'll have to ask again for examples and evidence instead of blanket statements. To do otherwise would be, well, dishonest.
By
Dan Trabue, at 7:27 AM
Daniel: Some very good points. I remember watching Hannity & Colmes once and they played a clip of Gore losing it. Ann Coulter was on talking to Sean and critizing Gore. Alan Colmes spoke up and said it wasn't fair because Gore wasn't a mainstream Democrat, they should criticize someone who was more mainstream. Ann started laughing and said well you should've told us that before you had him run for president.
By
Dionne, at 9:36 AM
Dan,
Just a few example from various liberal leaders and groups:
"Most abortions are performed for the health of the mother."
"There are no health detriments to the homosexual lifestyle"
"10% of the population is homosexual."
"Smoking is evil and shold be banned."
"George W. Bush is a war criminal/terrorist."
"Republicans are racists."
"The right to bear arms only apllies to state militias."
"Seperation of Church and State is in the Constitution."
"Man is proven to be having a dramatic effect on global warming."
Need I continue?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:30 AM
Daniel, you asked:
Need I continue?
I'd suggest so. I'd suggest your list is mostly propaganda and not reality. Point by point:
"Most abortions are performed for the health of the mother."
You may be right here, but here only. I'll give you a "maybe" on this one.
"There are no health detriments to the homosexual lifestyle"
I know of no liberals who do not acknowledge there's a serious AIDS and STDS problem out there, especially among the more lascivious of our gay and straight brothers and sisters.
"10% of the population is homosexual."
Studies show between 2 and 10%. You may have a problem with the 10% studies, but they are out there and it is not intellectually dishonest to quote them. For what it's worth, most liberals I know, my gay friends included, acknowledge the questionable nature of the 10% figure.
"Smoking is evil and shold be banned."
The folk that taught me about the evil nature of smoking were my traditional conservative church teachers growing up.
There are plenty of Justice and Health-related reasons to back the notion of trying to encourage people cutting down or out smoking. To advocate to do so is not dishonest in anyway. You may disagree with anti-cigarette folk, but that does not make their arguments dishonest.
Most liberals I know are in favor of decriminalization of drugs and tend to think that prohibition doesn't work.
"George W. Bush is a war criminal/terrorist."
I think there's evidence to back this notion. To say, based upon evidence, that you think W is a war criminal is not dishonest. You may disagree with the interpretation of that evidence, but that does not make us dishonest.
"Republicans are racists."
Again, no one serious is saying that all Republicans are racists. Some republicans certainly are. As are some dems.
"The right to bear arms only applies to state militias."
That is one interpretation of the constitution. Disagree if you wish, but it is NOT dishonest to have a different opinion than you! (in fact, those who want to interpret the Constitution literally would probably have to agree with this statement)
"Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution."
Again, no one serious is suggesting that this phrase is in the Constitution. Some interpret the Constitution to include some variation of this idea, but we all know that the constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Period. Because of the rocky history states have that become too entangled in religion, I think it wise to approach this area cautiously.
"Man is proven to be having a dramatic effect on global warming."
Many people might say something similar to this out of laziness, but we all know that studies have suggested that humanity is having an impact upon climatic conditions. This is not proof positive but studies making this suggestion. To cite these sort of studies is not intellectually dishonest. To say something like your phrase above is not dishonest...lazy maybe, but not dishonest.
Daniel, your suggestion that these ideas are prominent liberal positions is a bit dishonest in itself, don't you think?
These are the kinds of comments you might find amongst more emotional liberal arguers out there in the rank and file, but not amongst the progressive writers and leaders.
By
Dan Trabue, at 11:48 AM
Dan,
These arguments that I listed come ONLY from the left. Well, with a tiny pinprick minority of conservaives mixed in. These are ALL arguments liberals have presented to me personally. I will take my firsthand experience over secondhand assertions and anecdotes any day.
inally, I want to address the homosexuality statistics you mentioned. There is only one study that showed a homosexuality rate of greater than 3%, and it has been fully debunked for being flawed in methodology, sample population, and bias. However, many people remain convinced of the validity of this study due to the intellectually dishonest of the activists who, despit knowing this statistic to be false, trumpet it triumphantly as a way to validate themselves. Do some research on this and you will find what I have said here to be true.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 12:03 PM
Show me somewhere where a prominent progressive speaker or writer has said any of these (with the possible exception of the abortion line).
I mean, I hear all sort of wacky stuff from conservatives, but I don't say that such defines conservative positions. I prefer to get more authoritative positions from more authoritative voices.
For instance, just because a conservative has written me saying that "we ought to turn Iraq into a crater," I don't assume that to be the dominant, definitive conservative position.
Are there a bunch of non-authoritative wacky liberals running around? Perhaps. But no more than non-authoritative wacky conservatives (fewer, in my experience).
By
Dan Trabue, at 12:11 PM
"Republicans are fat cats and robber barons my ass."
That's the party of Ken Lay and Duke Cunningham you're talking about. The party of Dick "KBR" Cheney and Don "Tamiflu" Rumsfeld. The party of the MediCare Drug Company Benefit. The party of "trickle down" economics.
Granted, none of this makes the Dems any better, but between the two branches of the Duopoly, the Reeps are much friendlier to billionaires than the Dems. And it shows in the policy.
By
catastrophile, at 6:00 PM
Again, it's the Democrats who are currently under the patronage of billionairres, not the Republicans.
Any guesses as to why?
By
Daniel Levesque, at 11:48 PM
Is this a trick question?
Incidentally, I came by because I was reading the Regas sermon which the IRS is investigating as a possible Kerry endorsement, and I tripped over this line -- a very apt expression of the liberal position that Dems never manage to boil down to a soundbyte:
"Under George W. Bush the number of abortions increased substantially. To anyone familiar with why most women have abortions, this would be no surprise. Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite inability to afford a child as their primary reason. Job losses and decreased average real income have added to the serious impact. Over the last three years, 5.2 Million lost their health insurance and women of childbearing age are over-represented in those 5.2 million. Abortions increased because many more prospective mothers cannot afford the costs of hospital and of caring for a child. Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative." --George Regas, 10/31/05
By
catastrophile, at 1:41 AM
Oops. 10/31/04 I mean, hard to believe it's been more than a year already.
This Gee-Dub thing will be over before we know it. :D
By
catastrophile, at 1:54 AM
Catastrophile,
Money problems are NOT health and ife issues, medically speaking. What you have provided, by definition, is an elective reason to kill an unborn child. Parents sacrifice for their children, they are not supposed to sacrifice their cildren for themselves. These women need to be smarter with their money so they can provide for their children, period. If they are unwilling to do that I can guarantee that their baby will be adopted before it is even born if they choose to give the child up.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 6:08 AM
"These women need to be smarter w/ their money so they can provide for their children, period."
Great point! I'd like to add, they need to be smarter about their own bodies as well so they don't put themselves in that position in the first place!
By
Corie, at 7:34 AM
"Money problems are NOT health and ife issues, medically speaking. What you have provided, by definition, is an elective reason to kill an unborn child."
Yeah. And it came out of the mouth of a liberal -- a big one. Regas didn't argue that most abortions are performed out of medical necessity -- in fact, I've only ever heard that argument applied to late-term abortions.
"These women need to be smarter with their money so they can provide for their children, period."
Actually, I agree with Corie, the most important thing is that people (men and women) learn to behave in a manner that precludes unwanted pregnancy in the first place -- which is why all the screaming and yelling from the theocratic right about sex ed and condoms in schools baffles the left.
The problem, however, is this: Once a person has failed to arrange their life responsibly enough to be able to afford a child, and failed to take appropriate actions to prevent conception, what leads you to believe that they are going to spend 9 months behaving responsibly enough to bring to term a child that they have no intention of keeping? And how do you propose to enforce that responsibility?
Doesn't seem feasible at all. All you're going to accomplish is pushing the industry -- and I hate the fact that it's an industry as much as you do, believe me -- back into the black market. You can't legislate away stupidity.
I hear a lot about "why should we feel sorry for them?" when it comes to people who feel -- for whatever reason -- that they can't bring a child to term. But the question I have is, what if the "cure" is worse than the disease?
By
catastrophile, at 5:56 PM
Catastrophile,
I understand what your saying, but what if abortion was not an option?
Women do not take responsibility for themselves because they know they don't have too. They know there is a way out w/ an abortion. Take that option away, I believe women would make much wiser and responsible choices. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. There will still be some that won't change, but it would change the mindset of most women and cause them to re-think their behavior and in turn cause far fewer abortions. That's just my thinking though.
By
Corie, at 8:34 PM
"I understand what you're saying, but what if abortion was not an option?"
A question so hypothetical as to be pointless. Abortion has been an option for a lot longer than it's been a medical procedure. (Don't take my word for it.) And if the traditional "remedies" aren't obtainable, other methods exist which I needn't go into.
And, again, I have to question whether anybody could ever casually undergo an abortion, or base their behavior on the idea that they can always run down to the abortion clinic if any problems arise. I can't claim expertise on the topic, and I hear this claim made constantly, but I have trouble imagining that anybody could actually make the decision that trivially -- or in advance.
By
catastrophile, at 5:26 AM
Catastrophile,
What you have just stated about you inability to believe that so many women would make a casual, elective choice to kil their babies is exactly why planned parenthood, the ACLU, and their ilk fight so ardently against the reporting of abortion statistics. They say it's a bout privacy, but it's really about suppressing the truth.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 10:59 AM
catastrophile,
You say that my "question is so hypothetical as to be pointless," to respond. Well, the fact that you wouldn't respond leads me to believe that you DO see the point and just can't argue it because it's true.
As to you questioning whether anyone could ever casually undergo an abortion, I had one friend that had two abortions before she ever even graduated high school.
When you have clinics such as planned parenthood and their doctors, and pro-abortion people telling women that they are not killing their unborn child, but just having a "bunch of cells" or "small amount of tissue" sucked out, why wouldn't it be that casual for a women to make that kind of decision? Clearly if a women believed that an abortion kills an unborn child, she wouldn't have one done!
The fact is that women do participate in riskier behavior because they know there is a way out, especially younger women! I've seen it happen over and over again!
By
Corie, at 7:54 AM
"Well, the fact that you wouldn't respond leads me to believe that you DO see the point and just can't argue it because it's true."
Corie, I did respond. Abortion will never be "not an option" is my response. You can make safe abortions harder to obtain by criminalizing the practice, but you can't eliminate the option that way, and you never will.
And as far as people getting abortions casually, I can't buy the notion that it's that widespread. I'm not aware that anybody's suppressing the numbers, though there have been quarrels over Reeps wanting access to specific patient records -- to do with late-term abortions, as I recall. I don't know anybody who's casual about the idea, even among people who acknowledge having had one. But if attitudes toward abortion are that callous, it's something that needs to be worked on separate from criminalizing the practice, don't you agree?
By
catastrophile, at 3:46 PM
"But if attitudes toward abortion are that callous, it's something that needs to be worked on separate from criminalizing the practice, don't you agree?"
Absolutely. I will defend abortions performed to save the life of the mother. Why let 2 people die when you can save 1? As for the rest, I am opposed.
By
Daniel Levesque, at 4:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home