# "Party of Death" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2006, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810 "2006-06-15T15:35:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/101 "2006-06-18T13:59:38Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > If you read the thread, I was talking about people in my parish who are self described as being Catholic AND pro-life, but who also are self described as being liberals. They do not volunteer. We have many requests in the parish bulletin for volunteers, and they never, ever do. They volunteer for the anti-war groups, which is great. But they do not volunteer to help these mothers. And again, i’d point out this; being a Catholic, pro-life liberal can be quite a long way from the general category of liberal. If you imagine it as a scale, these people are liberal if we’re just looking at the Catholic population; with the population as a whole, they’re likely quite conservative. “Liberal pro-life Catholics don’t volunteer as much as conservative pro-life Catholics” would be a statement borne out by your evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/102 "2006-06-18T14:03:13Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > And, additionally, my point was that if liberals care so much about women’s choice that they work tirelessly to be sure that abortion remains legal, maybe they should also work tirelessly to help the women who CHOOSE to keep their babies. And I don’t mean voting for Democrats who create social programs. I mean REALLY HELPING women in THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD who need and want help. Interesting. Work at the government level isn’t as good as work at the local level? I’d argue that it can be; what makes you so sure it can’t? Anyway, I believe the point others were making was if conservatives care so much about life, why do many have a pro-war stance, or indeed join the armed forces? There are people of both sides who don’t follow their idealogy logically; but then, idealogy really isn’t logical, at times. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/103 "2006-06-18T14:05:28Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > This, ladies and gentlemen is the crux of the entire dispute. > > If you think that fetuses are not human, you may do with them as you wish. > > If you believe that fetuses are human, they deserve protection from those able to give it, no matter how they were conceived. > > A bit from the Bible, and a bit from DNA, I can’t see my way clear to see fetuses as “not people”. What else are they, then? You can’t distinguish genetically between them and us. “Not developed” in my mind is equivalent to “let’s kill the retarded”. > > Yes, I realize that there will be a dogpile on this post, since the general trend on this board is toward a bit of a leftist tilt (please don’t try to deny it, just go with it). But my opinion is not made from popular sentiment, and there you have it. > > I would appreciate it, though, if for ONCE, I could not be demonized for this idea (unfortunately, I’m not kidding, much). IMHO we simply don’t know what the status is. From a spiritual point we don’t know when the soul might enter the body. It also occured to me that no spirit intended to come into the world will be denied. We do know that every embryo has the potential of human life and in that potential is something wonderous that should be given serious consideration. In honoring that potential I greatly respect the work **Sarahfeena** is doing. The problem is with those who seek to remove choices from others because of their own beliefs. No woman is denied the right to cherish the life inside her. Some are denied the assistance that allows them to feel they can successfully do that. There are those who want to try and legally compel women to have children they may not want or whose emotional or physical health is threatened by a pregnancy. You must be able to imagine how women can see that as an incredible invasion of their privacy, freedom of choice and their very bodies. I can understand the notion that some people truly sincely believe that an embryo is a person. I have NP problem with that belief when it comes to them making their own choices. I honor that. However IMHO those who seek to remove that choice and force women to have children under the cloak of “the sanctity of life” better dam well be doing everything they possibly can to care for the many many children in our country that are in need right now today, not nine months from now. In fact those who complain that the conservatives aren’t doing enough to help those children should put their money where their mouth is. I guess that means me. I have little respect for those who stand across the street with huge posters of bloody fetus to condemn the choice of others. “What I firmly believe” is a reason to make your own choices. It is not a good reason to force your choices on others unless you can offer some real evidence that the choice is best for the individual and our society. I have little respect for those like Pat Robertson who have the audacity to claim they know God’s attitude about this issue. As I said, IMO the answer is to allow the choice but do everything in our power to offer real viable solutions, support and education to those who want to have the child. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/104 "2006-06-18T14:05:38Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > That’s fair, i’m sure i’d feel the same way, if I had your views. Actually, “small bundle of cells” is an accurate description; whether or not you ascribe a soul or consciousness to a baby/foetus/whatever in that position, it is without a doubt a small bundle of cells. Humans are a large, complex bundle of cells. These are, at the least, facts. That is true. Allow me to amend my statement to say that reducing a baby to ONLY a small bundle of cells, and nothing more, disgusts me. And I’d like to add that I in no way consider the retarded or otherwise disabled to be anything less than fully human, and deserving of all the respect that a human should be afforded. There are, however, people who don’t see it this way (Peter Singer, for example), and this I find truly disgusting, not to mention scary. > [@](#): > > If I may, I’d like to understand your position (since there can be so many); at what point, to you, does life begin? Fertilisation? I kind of hate to take this thread in that direction, since a couple of weeks ago I was involved in a very in-depth and detailed discussion of abortion on this very board! I don’t know if I can go through it all again. I believe that feritilization is the moment that humanity begins. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/105 "2006-06-18T14:08:51Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > And again, i’d point out this; being a Catholic, pro-life liberal can be quite a long way from the general category of liberal. If you imagine it as a scale, these people are liberal if we’re just looking at the Catholic population; with the population as a whole, they’re likely quite conservative. Actually, I live in one of the most liberal communities in the entire country. Compared to much of the population, they are likely quite liberal! Seriously, I know these people. I have worked with them on committees. They are liberal in just about every sense that you could possibly define it. They call themselves pro-life, but some of them \*\*got up and walked out \*\* of a pro-life sermon delivered at mass. They claim to be pro-life, but they do not walk the walk, that is for sure. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/106 "2006-06-18T14:13:34Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I kind of hate to take this thread in that direction, since a couple of weeks ago I was involved in a very in-depth and detailed discussion of abortion on this very board! I don’t know if I can go through it all again. I believe that feritilization is the moment that humanity begins. Ah. Well, I apologise for carrying on this line of debate, then. Really, my reason for my question is this; do you support the use of the birth control pill, since that acts to prevent fertilisation in the first place? Would you recommend it to the women who come to your organisation for future use? > [@](#): > > They call themselves pro-life, but some of them got up and walked out of a pro-life sermon delivered at mass. They claim to be pro-life, but they do not walk the walk, that is for sure. Eh, you can’t really say that’s because they’re not actually pro-life for certain, though. It may be that your (priest? preacher?) guy was using faulty or flawed arguments in his sermon; there’s been a few stories on these boards of religious Dopers being annoyed at the flawed content of sermons. I’m anti-war, for example, but I’d walk out of a lecture on those sentiments if the lecturer was arguing war shouldn’t occur because it’s just what the space aliens want. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/107 "2006-06-18T14:19:41Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Interesting. Work at the government level isn’t as good as work at the local level? I’d argue that it can be; what makes you so sure it can’t? What I am saying is that they want tax dollars to solve the problems. They think MY tax dollars ought to pay for abortions, even though I vehmently disagree with it. This is the solution, pay taxes and someone else will make these unwanted babies go away. I would love to see people who really want there to be choices to get in there and help these women. Put their actions where their mouth is. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I believe the point others were making was if conservatives care so much about life, why do many have a pro-war stance, or indeed join the armed forces? There are people of both sides who don’t follow their idealogy logically; but then, idealogy really isn’t logical, at times. True enough (on the logical part). There is another thread where I went into detail about why I feel that war is a different animal than abortion, embryonic stem cell research, etc, so I am just going to quote one of my posts here (please keep in mind that this is in no way supposed to be a comprehensive overview of the pro-life postion…I am by no means an expert. I am just trying to give examples to show that these issues are not black-and-white to pro-life people, any more than they are to pro-choice people): > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Pro-life philosophy/theology is a little more complicated than “all killing is wrong.” It’s a nice idea in theory, but in practice in the real world, it’s not nearly that simple. Not only are all the ideas not analagous, but as you are showing by your post, reasonable people can disagree about what is or is not morally justified. A few considerations that may be taken into account might be the following: > > (Please note that I am not proposing that we debate whether or not fetuses are babies, or whether or not the war in Iraq is justified, or whether or not civilians are being deliberately targeted in the war, or whether the death penalty is applied fairly, etc. etc. etc. There is no point in challenging any of these premises in this thread. You may or may not agree with any of them. The question was how are these perceived moral contradictions resolved. John Mace made the point already that you have to understand that various premises may be at work, and I am attempting to explain a few of those premises.) > > Innocence: In capital punishment, the innocent are not being killed. Completely different to punish someone for taking a life, vs. killing innocents in war and/or for medical research. > > Deliberateness: In a war, innocents may or may not be killed, and more importantly need not necessarily be killed in order to be successful. In additon, war is waged directly against a specific group of people who presumably mean harm to others. In fetal stem cell research, innocent lives who clearly do not intend harm to others are specifically and deliberately created and destroyed. > > Purpose & Outcome: In a war, saving an entire nation (or, frighteningly enough in this age, the entire world) may be at stake. In fetal stem cell research, saving a finite and relatively small number of people is the desired outcome. While this is a noble purpose to be sure, it is not an analagous situation. > > One last note: although some of the posts here seem to assume that all people who oppose fetal stem cell research are in favor of the Iraqi war, this is far from the truth. The previous pope came out against this war. Although the Catholic Church does not condemn justified wars, apparently JPII did not feel that this particular war IS justified. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/108 "2006-06-18T14:24:26Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Ah. Well, I apologise for carrying on this line of debate, then. Really, my reason for my question is this; do you support the use of the birth control pill, since that acts to prevent fertilisation in the first place? Would you recommend it to the women who come to your organisation for future use? I don’t have a problem with the pill, at least for purposes of birth control. We refer women to doctors for their birth control needs. > [@](#): > > Eh, you can’t really say that’s because they’re not actually pro-life for certain, though. It may be that your (priest? preacher?) guy was using faulty or flawed arguments in his sermon; there’s been a few stories on these boards of religious Dopers being annoyed at the flawed content of sermons. I’m anti-war, for example, but I’d walk out of a lecture on those sentiments if the lecturer was arguing war shouldn’t occur because it’s just what the space aliens want. OK, you don’t know these people, and I do. They claim they are pro-life BUT they are liberal in every other way. They vote liberal, the organizations they join are liberal, they describe themselves as liberal. How much more liberal do they need to be? And in any case, whether or not they are is beside the point. Whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, is there a good reason why they should not get involved in an organization that helps mothers who want to keep their babies? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/109 "2006-06-18T15:17:07Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Yes, it really would be great. I have to say that the deafening silence towards this program towards liberals in my parish has really left a bad taste in my mouth. If people REALLY cared about choice, it seems to me they would help to give women real choices. I can understand why it would. It might be interesting to find some way {maybe an opinion poll or questionnaire} to discover the liberal view of the program and why they choose not to participate. It would appear that to some protecting the choice to have an abortion is more important than offering real support for the choice to have the child, just as to some denying the choice is the important issue. not to hijack but IMO I see the need for social programs but I think as a society we want to much for the government to handle it with programs rather than to get out there and do it ourselves. I also think that dehumanizes the issues too much and it becomes a mental exercise in ethics and morals, We become better people and a better society if we actually get out there and do it eyeball to eyeball and really touch and are touched. The government seems to have proved that it is fairly incompetent and wasteful when it comes to these programs. I wouldn’t want to see them go away but I’d love to see them replaced by private organizations made up of some employees and plenty of volunteers like yourself. > [@](#): > > I am not too involved with this part of it, but I will try to answer your questions. I believe they are generally referred to us by some other social-service organizatin. > > Well, I’m sure you realize that as a Catholic organization, our mission is to help people who want to find an alternative to abortion if they can, thereby hopefully preventing abortions and bringing babies into the world. 🙂 > > Both. We fundraise as well as take donated items to help the mothers, but we also hook them up with the appropriate social programs, such as WIC and things like that. Thanks It makes me wonder if there are similar programs in Nashville. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/110 "2006-06-18T15:20:43Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > There is a quite vast distance between a small bundle of cells and a retarded person. If anything, that you would compare the two and believe equivalency disgusts me, especially coming from a person who claims to care more for life. What the hell?? I can see why you might not agree but I can’t understand disgust Why is it hard to imagine someone having equal reverence for the potential in that small clump of cells and a fully developed clump like you or I? Why would that reverence evoke disgust? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/111 "2006-06-18T15:30:47Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > And I have to reply that this is to the the horrible, horrible equivalency of “unwanted” (according to whom?) and “should be dead”. Jocelyn Elders was apparently a horrible person. No, I’m not backing down from that. Google her statements on Down’s Syndrom kids if you like. I remember seeing a report on ORiely about a woman who had a boatload of kids who were neglected and abused. I had to wonder where the sanctity of life people were for those children. If someone keeps having kids and then neglects and abuses them I would say they are unwanted. Even woman who decide they can’t afford another child or the timing is wrong and would not abuse a child that was born. I think it is wrong to insist through laws that those women have the child, and morally repugnant to insist without offering every assistance we can. I think it is correct to offer aide and education so that no woman feels abortion is her only choice. ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/112 "2006-06-18T15:33:46Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Folks- > I started this thread to discuss the fellow’s book. I appreciate all the comments on it, and I may buy it when I get back to the US. > > I did not mean to start an abortion debate. It is not amiable to discussion, each of us must make a personal decision. While you are certainly free to talk about this, I wanted to apologize for stirring up emotions. That was certainly not my intent. I am listening to the radio interview now. Ramesh’s own verbal presentation of his own ideas suggest to me that he’s your basic vanilla reactionary fundamentalist who has acquired the ability not to froth at the mouth while delivering his overly-simplistic analysis, designed for partisan rhetorical victories, of complex issues. Unfortunately, he is not media-savvy enough yet to be able to confidently stand behind the bottomless hypocrisy that represents current the hardcore conservative political thought that he respresents. When I saw him on “Daily Show”, Jon Stewart did not give a basic rundown of the book, and began to attack the hypocrisy straight off. It struck me as something of an ambush at the time. But in the “On Point” radio interview, where Ramesh has been given more time to communicate his own ideas. it is now clear to me that Stewart was right on target. I’m only part way through the interview, but here is my take on what Ramesh is saying so far: Support for a woman’s legal access to abortion? Party of Death. Support for the idea that families should make their own very difficult decisions regarding euthanasia without the government stepping in? Party of Death. Bush, when as governor, he proposed an “electric couch” to execute more than one death row inmate at a time? …Nnno, not Party of Death. A laundry list of right-wing pundits, when their proposed solution to the threat of terror is essentially, “Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out”? Well, that’s not realy what I’m addressing in my book… Ramesh’s youthful appearance and childlike voice only serve to reinforce the impression that he is a coddled child who has spent the entirety of his developing years in a neo-conservative Republican echo chamber, and his first venture into the big big world is this book tour. In both interviews I have encountered, he comes across as shocked and crestfallen that, not only are there people who do not wholeheartedly agree with him, but they are having a very easy time poking holes in his bullshit. There is no way to address a concept as shitheadedly conceived as the notion of an exclusively liberal and Democratic “Party of Death”, that attacks abortion-rights supporters, without starting an abortion debate. You had to see this coming, Paul. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/113 "2006-06-18T16:12:20Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > This is what bugs me the most. It seems to be beyond the ability of some people to understand that there are people who sincerely, genuinely, believe these unborn babies are…PEOPLE! And that we want to protect them as such. Statements such as this one by **volvelle** (speaking on the same subject, but in another thread): is not only inflammatory, it’s just plain wrong. I can accept that many people **do** see a fetus as a person. I don’t completely understand the insistence that it _is_ a person. I can see that those who see a fetus as a person most morally support protecting them as such. The question then becomes what can we realistically do that doesn’t violate the rights of others. That’s the really tricky part. Making abortion completely illegal then says to a woman that once they conceive that fetus within them as all the legal rights as any existing person. Is that where we want to go. Right now anyone, responsible or not can have children. We have to draw realistic lines we can live with when it comes to neglect and abuse and when we decide a person is unfit to have children we have to be willing and able to assume the responsibility for those children. The same for outlawing abortion. Even putting aside the invasion of the woman’s rights and her physical body, if we as a society declare abortion illegal then we have to assume responsibility for those children. Perhaps we should work harder at doing exactly that before we seek to pass laws prohibiting the choice of others. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/114 "2006-06-18T16:14:34Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Exactly. Who are we to say that those who are unwanted by their parents are not worth anything as individuals, and not worth anything to society? Nobody is saying that AFAICT. We are saying that a woman has the right to choose the abortion option without condemnation. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/115 "2006-06-18T16:16:40Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > And, additionally, my point was that if liberals care so much about women’s choice that they work tirelessly to be sure that abortion remains legal, maybe they should also work tirelessly to help the women who CHOOSE to keep their babies. And I don’t mean voting for Democrats who create social programs. I mean REALLY HELPING women in THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD who need and want help. Strongly agree. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/116 "2006-06-18T16:25:19Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Interesting. Work at the government level isn’t as good as work at the local level? I’d argue that it can be; what makes you so sure it can’t? I’ll say it again. I think our government has shown that for the most part it is wasteful and somewhat incompetent when it comes to administering programs like this. I also think we as a society have come to a place where we want to throw money at a problem and have some “professional” government worker handle it rather than help the needy eyeball to eyeball. IMO We are the poorer for it. I think what’s being said is that voting Democrat and paying your taxes may not be a good enough response. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I believe the point others were making was if conservatives care so much about life, why do many have a pro-war stance, or indeed join the armed forces? There are people of both sides who don’t follow their idealogy logically; but then, idealogy really isn’t logical, at times. and **Sarahfeena** has done a marvelous job of showing us the equal and opposite side of that coin. I for one really appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/117 "2006-06-18T18:05:38Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > I don’t have a problem with the pill, at least for purposes of birth control. We refer women to doctors for their birth control needs. Cool. I don’t agree with your views, but I can respect your position. > [@](#): > > OK, you don’t know these people, and I do. They claim they are pro-life BUT they are liberal in every other way. They vote liberal, the organizations they join are liberal, they describe themselves as liberal. How much more liberal do they need to be? And in any case, whether or not they are is beside the point. Whether they are pro-life or pro-choice, is there a good reason why they should not get involved in an organization that helps mothers who want to keep their babies? No, I guess not. We’ll have to do something about those damn baby-killing Catholics. 😉 > [@cosmosdan](#): > > What the hell?? I can see why you might not agree but I can’t understand disgust Why is it hard to imagine someone having equal reverence for the potential in that small clump of cells and a fully developed clump like you or I? Why would that reverence evoke disgust? Firstly because they aren’t equal, even from the strictest pro-lifer’s view. Potential does (in their view) lend equivalence, but that potential takes time to become the fully developed clump like you and I. During that time, many things can go wrong; that potential still requires input from the mother until it can become fully developed, for example. Secondly, and here’s the point where I get into the specifics of my own view, I don’t believe potential comes into the equation much. The small clump of cells can pretty much be replaced at any point (although this lessens as time goes on). For me, to compare a fully developed large clump of cells like us with a small clump of cells like a foetus, is pretty much the same as comparing a person to a finger, or a nose. I’ll understand that you disagree, I just want to hopefully show you why disgust is the reasonable emotion for me. In response to people saying that government work isn’t the be all and end all; I agree. But I still don’t see why it’s _less_ important. Both federal/state level and local work are both important. > [@cosmosdan](#): > > …and Sarahfeena has done a marvelous job of showing us the equal and opposite side of that coin. I for one really appreciate it. Me too, but it isn’t really a revelation. ---
**Author:** ![volvelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e0b2c6/32.png) [@volvelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/volvelle)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/118 "2006-06-18T18:29:16Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Statements such as this one by **volvelle** (speaking on the same subject, but in another thread): > > > [@volvelle](#): > > > > The anti-abortion movement has little to do with “saving babies” and a lot to do with keeping women in their place., > > is not only inflammatory, it’s just plain wrong. If the anti-abortion movement were truly interested in reducing the number of abortions, they would be at the forefront of the people trying to get comprehensive sex education taught in school, making sure birth-control is legal and available, and getting plan-b through the FDA. As the exact opposite is in fact true, I find it hard to see as anything other than an anti-woman movement. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/119 "2006-06-18T20:41:29Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I can understand why it would. It might be interesting to find some way {maybe an opinion poll or questionnaire} to discover the liberal view of the program and why they choose not to participate. > It would appear that to some protecting the choice to have an abortion is more important than offering real support for the choice to have the child, just as to some denying the choice is the important issue. I really think that it is just having different priorities. Parishes have lots of different ministries, and people have to choose which ones are most important to them. I understand this, of course, but it would be nice to see a little action from them as well. 🙂 > [@](#): > > not to hijack but IMO I see the need for social programs but I think as a society we want to much for the government to handle it with programs rather than to get out there and do it ourselves. I also think that dehumanizes the issues too much and it becomes a mental exercise in ethics and morals, We become better people and a better society if we actually get out there and do it eyeball to eyeball and really touch and are touched. The government seems to have proved that it is fairly incompetent and wasteful when it comes to these programs. I wouldn’t want to see them go away but I’d love to see them replaced by private organizations made up of some employees and plenty of volunteers like yourself. That’s basically my feeling, and you said it much better than I could have (posting too early this morning…I was still half asleep! 🙂 ) > [@](#): > > Thanks > It makes me wonder if there are similar programs in Nashville. I’m sure there are…a lot of them are run through Catholic Charities, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810/120 "2006-06-18T20:50:08Z")
> [@scotandrsn](#): > > I am listening to the radio interview now. > > Ramesh’s own verbal presentation of his own ideas suggest to me that he’s your basic vanilla reactionary fundamentalist who has acquired the ability not to froth at the mouth while delivering his overly-simplistic analysis, designed for partisan rhetorical victories, of complex issues. Unfortunately, he is not media-savvy enough yet to be able to confidently stand behind the bottomless hypocrisy that represents current the hardcore conservative political thought that he respresents. > > When I saw him on “Daily Show”, Jon Stewart did not give a basic rundown of the book, and began to attack the hypocrisy straight off. It struck me as something of an ambush at the time. But in the “On Point” radio interview, where Ramesh has been given more time to communicate his own ideas. it is now clear to me that Stewart was right on target. > > I’m only part way through the interview, but here is my take on what Ramesh is saying so far: > > Support for a woman’s legal access to abortion? Party of Death. > Support for the idea that families should make their own very difficult decisions regarding euthanasia without the government stepping in? Party of Death. > Bush, when as governor, he proposed an “electric couch” to execute more than one death row inmate at a time? …Nnno, not Party of Death. > A laundry list of right-wing pundits, when their proposed solution to the threat of terror is essentially, “Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out”? Well, that’s not realy what I’m addressing in my book… > > Ramesh’s youthful appearance and childlike voice only serve to reinforce the impression that he is a coddled child who has spent the entirety of his developing years in a neo-conservative Republican echo chamber, and his first venture into the big big world is this book tour. In both interviews I have encountered, he comes across as shocked and crestfallen that, not only are there people who do not wholeheartedly agree with him, but they are having a very easy time poking holes in his bullshit. > > There is no way to address a concept as shitheadedly conceived as the notion of an exclusively liberal and Democratic “Party of Death”, that attacks abortion-rights supporters, without starting an abortion debate. You had to see this coming, Paul. I have not seen any interviews with him, but I am so amazed to hear so many reports about how poorly he comes off. The book, despite its inflammatory title, is very well-reasoned, and has helped me immensely in grounding my own pro-life philosophy. Interestingly, he says right in the forward of the book that the title does NOT refer to the Democratic party. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/party-of-death/360810.md?page=7)