You gotta admire the devious creativity of whomever wrote the Constitution. Anyone who opposes it can be made to look like they SUPPORT DIMINISHED FREEDOMS AND HUMAN RIGHTS!!!
In other words… “Duh”.
I’m a pro-abortion Republican, so I guess I’ll piss everybody off.
I have to agree that this is an attempt to erode abortion rights–otherwise there is no justification for trying to make it a federal rather than state law. It’s not a bad idea as a state law–those who attack other people should get hammered with everything, including the kitchen sink–but I can’t support it as a federal matter.
Sofa King said:
Which ones, Mr. Sofa? Republicans who “threaten [my] point of view” on abortion (and various other matters), or Democrats who “threaten [my] point of view” on assorted other things? I’m firmly pro-choice on abortion…but if I’m gonna start being a single-issue voter, abortion won’t be the single issue.
magdalene said:
You suppose the right-wingers learned this trick from the left-wingers who do the same thing with regards to pushing anti-gun legislation (“THE NRA SUPPORTS SCHOOL SHOOTINGS! HORRORS!”), or vice-versa?
I’d like to respond to Chronolicht’s reasonable, well thought-out statement. If he ever posts a reasonable, well thought-out statement, somebody let me know.
I broached this whole debate with my mother last night. She’s a Minister (Republican), and has been a political activist as long as I can remember. She informs me that this piece of legislation has been raised about once a decade ever since Roe v. Wade. It has never, to date, seen the light of day because it is an unconstitutional violation of States Rights. Further, She points out if a fetus, viable or other-wise, is killed by criminal activity, there are other options available for criminal sanction, such as prosecuting the assailant for violating the parents’ Civil Rights. She also brought up the issue of ‘what do you do when a pregnant woman does something inadvisable, and her fetus miscarries’? What about the case of a seperating or divorcing couple, where the father wishes the child, but the mother does not? What about the similar case where there is conception without marriage, the woman doesn’t wish a child, but the man does? Already we’ve had prosecuters playing ‘Baby Police’. We don’t need to give people already inclined to butt into other’s business any more opportunities.
The other point I’ve got here is, It’s mighty ironic that my party, the party most often associated with supporting States Rights, contains any number of people willing to infringe on States Rights, when doing so fits their personal agenda.
I’ll be back tomorrow to see if there’s any usefull developments in this thread, which is turning into a great debate.
Chronolicht said:
blah, blah, and blah.
Fill us in Chrono, what did “you” win? The White House? The House? The Senate? None of the above, perhaps?
[minor hijack]In regards to RT Firefly’s thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=63888, can we also have DNFTAYR? Can’t see why not, and it would apply here. [/minor hijack]
Scylla, I’m trying to gracefully exit this monstrosity I’ve created, and you continue to throw feces about like an alpha baboon. We are dirtying each others’ cages. Specifically:
- “‘Once the woman has decided to have the baby, we are trying to protect it like any other member of the human family,’ Graham said. ‘I think we get 70 percent plus support for that.’”
You use this quote to claim that this panoply of carefully constructed bills designed to restrict a woman’s right to abortion (a fact admitted to by the bills’ creators) is approved of by the American people. And then, speaking only to that bill, you claim that this component of a concerted action to deny abortion to women “protects their reproductive rights.” Yeah, just like this sentence is true: “you have the right to pay taxes.”
- I said, “I think it is disingenuous in the extreme for a party that claims to want the government to get out of the lives of the people to intrude directly into the personal lives of women, against the will of the majority of Americans.”
You say this is a bullshit statement.
I suggest you do a word search for the term “lives” in these links.
What part of my statement do you think is bullshit, besides what I conceded above? That Republicans do not claim on a regular basis that they want to have less intrusion in peoples lives, or that this sort of bill does not intrude into people’s lives? How does involving the Federal government in domestic disputes and the violence that results from them, when a state so inclined can easily do the same, constitute a retraction from people’s lives? Perhaps you mistook my statement for bullshit, rather than baboon shit.
- You next claim that my following statement about justification in your own mind is “so stupid it’s laughable.” An example of stupid, my friend, is to defend a conservative party which claims to want minimal Federal involvement in the lives of the people, yet supports Federal involvement in what are clearly state and local issues, possibly outside of the boundaries set forth in our Tenth Amendment, but carefully designed to skirt, and therefore erode, that amendment, as well as a woman’s “reproductive right.” Let me put this in the most basic terms: this is a Federal attempt to redefine state laws. Try inserting “Republican” into that prior sentence anywhere with a straight face. I know. We baboons are always smiling.
Pull off the human mask and reveal your inner baboon: you are not saying it, but what you have written implies to me that you don’t want abortion to be legal, and you will support any method which will get you to that point, even if it directly conflicts with your own party’s ideology. That’s not wrong. I might be wrong, but I’m gonna need to see something other than stonewalling, self congratulatory posturing. Bob had the fucking stones to honestly state his wife’s position and to give a good rationalization for it. You had a good argument to make about that single bill, that reproductive rights should work both ways. But RTFirefly and magdalene both pointed out to you that if such a bill were so innocent as you apparently think it is then why is the prescription of RU-486 also restricted in the same bill? You have yet to address that question.
Instead, you have thrown poop. But I threw the first chunk, so I fully expected having it thrown back. But let’s not air-mail it in the form of dismissive debate, as we have now both attempted. Let’s call each other troll-felching gerbil-smuggling simians instead.
Throughout this poop thowing on your part and my own, you have denied by omission the stated intent of these actions. You and others have ignored the attempt to redefine “life,” to a point which would be considered riduculous in other debates about other issues. If AK-47s were called “unborn children” and were in danger of being outlawed, and I suddenly redefined “unborn children” as “any projectile-throwing device that is potentially harmful, down to a paper clip shot by a rubber band” and then ignored or casually dismissed that part of the discussion, you might be called a silly baboon. At least you would if you could understand my own pre-sentient shrieks.
The people who wrote this shit are not denying their intentions. I want to know what yours are, so that we can honestly cover each other in our own feces to the enjoyment of other readers. In the meantime, I’m taking my arguments here, where poop-throwing is strictly disallowed, and you have an opportunity to respond to my less-inflammatory comments. Frankly, I want to stick to irresponsible name-calling and the f-word here. As I’m sure you will gladly concede, I’m much better at that.
(And to apply some self-congratulatory fecal war-paint to my own self, when’s the last time you saw someone try to drag someone else out of the Pit and into Great Debates?)
Your repeating yourself. As I’ve said before, clearly the people behind this proposal are pro-life. You won’t get an argument from me on that.
Your basic argument seems to be that because they are damn Republican pro-lifers, they couldn’t possibly have a point.
Bottom line though, is that a pregnant woman is a particularly vulnerable target. Those that would prey on such a woman should suffer the most severe consequences. This should have been a law a long time ago. This in no way impinges the freedoms of a woman. It protects them. If the states haven’t done it, the Fed should. That you would allow your fears of evil Republicans color your perceptions in this belies the premise of the O.P. which is that your sacred heart’s desire is simply to protect women.
Magdalene confirms my fears concerning the Ru-486. I hope that part gets thrown out.
You’ll get little argument on transporting minors across state lines from me.
I’m also sorry to say, that all this baboon shit around here belongs to you. I am simply the fan you throw it into.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Barked like a true Papio, my friend.
Ummm. No. That was you saying “Blah. Blah. Blah.”
I used the quote tool, and labelled it as being posted by Sofa King, so that even you with your fallacious and inferior liberal perceptions you could not possibly misconstrue it.
Alack and alas, you’ve exceeded expectations im this.
Had Iactually said something, it would easily be recognizable by the clear logic and the shining light of truth with which it had been imbued.
Unfortunately, they’ve turned the [img] code off, as I know you’d find it easier if you could just look at pictures.