Michael Steele: We need to reach out to pro-choice Republicans
posted at 7:06 pm on December 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
The question of the day, as posed by former Giuliani speechwriter John Avlon in NRO: Should the GOP have a litmus test of social conservatism? David Brody put it to Steele in the context of his membership on the board of Republican Leadership Committee, Christie Todd Whitman’s outfit for “a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.” I like his answer; most of you probably won’t. Or maybe you will. I can’t keep track anymore of which RINOs should be purged and which merely reformed.
Lots more goodness where this came from, with clips at CBN of Steele on the federal marriage amendment (he’s against it), kicking toxic incumbents like Ted Stevens out of office before they can destroy the party (he’s for it), and the media’s adulation of He Who Came From the Sky to Deliver Us (“This is their creation. He is their creation.”). Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next »
What “rational consideration” could possibly trump upholding the intrinsic value of human life?
Covering your *&^ ? That is, as statistics bear out, the primary reason for abortion (rape and medical reasons comprising less than 3% combined, leaving everything else). So why can’t people choose to cover their *&^ before their *&^ is er, uncovered?
Oh, that would require personal responsibility. And in this day and age where we are constantly being brought into modernity by kinder, gentler, smarter progressives than we, personal responsibility is the relic of an archaic age where illiterates and incompetents were in charge of government and not today’s enlightened sages of smart.
Abortion is irrational. How can a country that claims to be founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness categorically deny a class of human beings the right that is prerequisite of all other rights?
Get your secular humanistic garbage out of our laws, you theocratic bigot.
BKennedy on December 9, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Yes, I agree. But my original point was that social conservatives tend to focus on abortion to the exclusion of other issues. But perhaps thats because its difficult to find agreement on other issues. If you throw libertarians into the mix its well nigh impossible.
aengus on December 9, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Well, if there’s nothing I can say to convince you to lower taxes and cut spending, I guess that’s that.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 1:14 AM
DaveS, there’s no nuance. I believe that life begins a conception. I believe it’s proven the child feels pain. And while I’m encouraged to see that you seem to harbor a modicum of consideration to a late-term child, to me there is simply no difference. I believe science backs most pro-lifers assertions. But I’m lazy. I just use the Book of Luke. Elizabeth’s unborn child leapt when it knew it was it was in the presence of the yet unborn savior.
Like I said, I get non-believers who support abortion. I don’t get fellow Christians.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:16 AM
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Apparently, it’s YOU who don’t know what I am talking about. (Either that, or you, like Fundamental Fred, have an affinity for strawman arguemnts.)
Again, my point is, quite f’ing simply: reasonable people disagree and will have to come to some legislative consensus on the matter. People who are completely opposed to abortion of any type, including the morning after pill, are either a) irrational or b) trying to shove their religious views down everyone else’s throats.
I think I’ve been pretty clear.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Well, Im a pro life libertarian.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:18 AM
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Then we pretty much are in exact agreement. The only difference we have is, ostensibly, the legal aspect of it.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:19 AM
I doubt you would even come close to my idea of property rights.
Care to test yourself?
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:20 AM
This is of course untrue.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Yes, and now I am asking you to tell me what you suggest? When do you think it is not moral to kill an uborn human life? After 8 weeks? 20 weeks? 4 weeks? When? What is your suggestion? What consensus do you suggest?
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 1:21 AM
Dave realize that these people believe life begins at conception, and in their minds they aren’t shoving their religion down your throat, but they are opposing Nazi Germany. I personally don’t know when life begins, but I don’t want to be wrong, and there’s only one way not to be wrong on this.
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 1:23 AM
Why don’t we start with the Conservative Base first, lock them in, and then if anyone else wants to join us……………
………… by all means, it’s your turn to walk across the isle.
Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 1:25 AM
That’s redundant.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:25 AM
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:16 AM
A) Unborn babies feel pain after they develop the capacity to do so. A sperm buried in an egg doesn’t. At some
(known, specific) point between then and birth, it develops that ability.
B) If the baby is “leaping” it is sufficiently developed that 99+% of people would be firmly on the “murder” side.
C) You’re conflating “supporting abortion”, with opposition to a complete, 100% ban in all circumstances. There is a MASSIVE space between the two ends of the spectrum.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Who cares? I’m not pro-life.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 1:27 AM
You…selfish…b*stard. ;-)
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:28 AM
So at what point does it become “wrong”? How many weeks? Why can’t you answer this question?
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 1:28 AM
But, you’re pro liberty and pro pursuit of happiness, no?
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:29 AM
The positions you take will never be easily digestible.
Many Libs don’t oppose late term abortion and regard even partial birth abortion as “reasonable” and perhaps even “moral.”
Go figure.
No, it’s isn’t unreasonable (and that’s even given that religious beliefs are set aside) to appose any abortion for any reason and many do oppose even “very, very early term” abortions on the grounds that baby murder is murder, regardless of the age or stage of development of the baby.
The one thing we cannot know is when a fertilized egg “becomes” a human being.
The Bible tells us that the baby is a person to God even before it is conceived.
-
No. Not true.
Rather making all abortions legal and nothing more than a “medical procedure” is trying to write the atheist “religion” into law.
You’d love to believe that only religious “bigots” hate abortion, but it isn’t true–most of us-Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and even agnostics-consider it murder.
Not really, because there is no point between conception and birth when we are able to know with absolute certainty when life begins (Hence, NObama’s “above my pay grade” lame-o answer to the question).
Regardless of our pay grade, we are required to come up with an answer that we call can live with morally because some devil doctor possessed by Satan invented the procedures to effect these baby murders!
(Personally, I don’t ever want to meet the guy who “invented” the partial birth abortion–I can’t imagine any man who had pledged to “First, do no harm” actually coming up with this infernal procedure.
I’m sure he’s damned in hell.
Nor do I ever want to know any woman who says she’s had that procedure.)
All the women I know who’ve had an abortion have lived to regret it deeply and perpetually.
Jenfidel on December 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 1:21 AM
I don’t see how it’s relevant, but if you’re curious…
– I am decreasingly comfortable with the idea after heartbeat and brain activity begin (5? weeks)
– I am pretty much opposed after fetal viability is reached… if there were actually a serious health risk to the mother, I think that is a difficult decision that people could make.
– I don’t understand the late term abortion need at all.
By the way–purely out of curiosity–can someone point me to where the Bible supposedly takes a position on this? Or is this one of those things like “you have to have a wedding and get married” where everybody just thinks it says something, but it actually doesn’t? :-)
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM
Jenfidel on December 9, 2008 at 1:33 AM
You have a very “binary” world-view, and you are having an argument with someone who doesn’t exist.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Only for persons he deems to be classified as human. So the question is…who is human?
Aparently not some unborn children, but this can easily be expanded to further particular interest groups power….and simultaneously disempower other people that are deemed nuisances and in the way of further empowerment of the interest groups that support my political power.
LOL!
Hitlerian.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:37 AM
That’s not the only argument I’m making but it is a key point. Its interesting to me how much energy and effort theists devote to forcing women to have unwanted babies and once they succeed you never hear from them again.
Who’s going to pay to raise the child if the mother can’t afford it? What is the child’s fate if she gives it up for adoption? As I stated abortions are undesirable but the consequences of having the baby can be worse, not just for the mother but the baby also.
Christian fanatics focus on the narrow question of abortion and throw all other valid concerns out the window. I think we should have a law, if Christians want abortions to be banned then they should be forced to raise the unwanted baby until its an adult.
A Christian who believes in an invisible unprovable magic skyman is telling me my legitimate questioning of his unfounded beliefs is ‘not rational’. Anyone that understands what ‘rational’ means would not place his faith in 2000 year old desert fairytales.
thinkagain on December 9, 2008 at 1:38 AM
Although, Jenfidel, I do agree with your last section, for the most part.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:39 AM
thinkagain on December 9, 2008 at 1:38 AM
I just meant to point out that your comment had a very religious tone to it, despite your claimed disdain of religion.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Don’t forget the atheists, Jen.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:41 AM
I never mentioned the bible, you did. I don’t need to know what the bible says to discuss this issue.
So a heartbeat and brain wave activity seem to be the litmus test for you? Is that correct? Yes, that’s 5 weeks. And that’s when the vast majority of abortions in this country take place.
Welcome to the pro-life movement! ;-)
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Well, I vehemently oppose slavery.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Again, if I’m not pro-life, who cares? You’ve made it pretty clear that the only bedrock conservative principle is being pro-life. Well, I’m pro-choice. That’s that.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 1:43 AM
At what point? And prove it begins at that point.
Many think even at this point, aborting the child is okay. Is a Christian allowed to think it’s okay at this point? If not, why should Christians be treated different in their beliefs?
I am certainly not. To me life begins at conception because my Bible teaches me that. I’ve never made one point that the safety of the mother can ever be ignored. In fact, in an earlier post I described a personal instance where my wife choose to carry a child to term we were told had no chance for survival at risk to herself. I said no man or woman has the right to tell a woman in that situation she doesn’t have a right to protect her own safety.
That’s not what statistics bear out though. The vast majority of aborted children are done for the convenience of people who are not responsible enough to take whatever precautions are necessary to prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:43 AM
I got a better compromise for you Dave. It doesn’t immediately outlaw abortion, but as time advances it would, and generally it would allow a woman the right to choose. We don’t know when life begins, but we do know at what point a premature baby can be sustained outside the womb, and that point moves lower every year. We could make the mandatory cut off for abortion the 50% survivability rate for premies. Eventually science will be completely able to support a fetus outside the womb making an abortion completely unnecessary, and thus illegal except to protect the mother’s life.
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 1:44 AM
At no point does a belief in God point to an intellectual deficiency in any other area.
But then, I don’t presume anti-theists are capable of believing anyone but they have the keys to enlightenment based on their doubt in someone elses’ deity.
Question: If God does not exist, why do you care? “Enforcing religion” is an irrational response. At it’s base level it is about differing policy preferences. Your claim they are unfounded because their basis is in an overriding moral code is ridiculous.
Your beliefs get pulled out of your sphincter, yet we are supposed to value your crap more why? Because according to you, it smells better? Even I can’t take that leap of faith.
BKennedy on December 9, 2008 at 1:45 AM
I’m just sayin’…………………
….. the MSM, Hollywood, Labor, Government Employee, Teacher’s Unions, RINOs, CINOs, Oprah, the View, the NY Times, Time Magazine, 60 Minutes, La Raza, ACORN, Jay and Dave on Latenight, Saturday Night Live, the bureaucrats that infest the beltway, and every Democrat in between picked John McCain as the Republican canidate in the 2008 Presidential election for us…………. and look what happened?
………….. why not let the Conservative Base give it a try next time, and tell the former to Foxtrot themselves?
Look at the effect Gov. Sarah Palin had……… even though we lost, the smirk on my face is seeing the weakness in their armor……..
Mr. Steele………… Conservative first and foremost, let the rest come to us……….
:O)
Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 1:47 AM
No, I didn’t mean to imply that you mentioned it. I asked as an afterthought.
I wouldn’t call it a litmus test. That’s just the point where I think, for the first time, there are serious questions involved that need to be thought through. A heartbeat and neurological activity on par with a housefly don’t necessarily mean you’re killing a “person” in my view, but it’s certainly the point where you have some integral human life-functions firing up, and I think you need to make a choice one way or the other… every week after that it becomes more and more morally ambiguous to me.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:48 AM
1 O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.
5 You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.
9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me,
your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me
and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you;
the night will shine like the day,
for darkness is as light to you.
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
17 How precious to [b] me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.
19 If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!
20 They speak of you with evil intent;
your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
and abhor those who rise up against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them;
I count them my enemies.
23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:50 AM
The answer to when personhood begins is when mommy flips the “person mode” switch on the baby’s back to the “On” position.
“Engage person mode, doctor!”
BKennedy on December 9, 2008 at 1:51 AM
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 1:43 AM
The only thing that I believe I’ve made clear is that you would make a great fiscally conservative Democrat.
It might just help this country if people of your disposition would realize that and reform the Democrat party.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:52 AM
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:42 AM
What are the “shades of gray” with slavery?
This should be interesting, actually, if you define “slavery” as broadly and inflexibly as some define “life” or “person”.
Can people borrow money, for which you must work to make payments? Or does that enslave a person to a life of servitude to the lender? We can’t have that.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Bingo baby! I would love to have an actual choice.
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 1:54 AM
Just because you have no concerned yourself with visiting a Crisis Pregnancy Center or finding out what pro-life activists are actually up to does not mean that their activities are not taking place. Any women who finds herself in a less than ideal situation can pick up the phone right now and reach a Crisis Pregnancy Center that will give her financial and emotional assistance to have the baby. If she wants to keep it, we’ll help her. If she wants to put it up for adoption, we’ll help her. We have five year waiting lists for people who want to adopt a newborn baby.
Your flippant attitude about the concern that the pro-life movement shows towards women in crisis pregnancies belies your lack of seriousness about this issue. You don’t care about women and you don’t care about babies. We care about both.
ramrocks on December 9, 2008 at 1:54 AM
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Cont’d…
And, that trying to convince Democrats to cut taxes and spending would be easier, and much more effective, than trying to persuade the majority of Republicans to give up their obligation to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 1:55 AM
If you missed my sarc/ I am firmly esconched in your opinion that starting with the base and moving out is way to do it.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:57 AM
I can actually make that argument DaveS(not that it is one I hold), but the point was to mock the shades of grey argument.
If you would like, I will make the pro-choice(slavery) argument so that you can have a good laugh at how it parallels the pro-choice(abortion) argument.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:59 AM
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 1:50 AM
That doesn’t seem to take a position, to me. It doesn’t say at what point “you knit me together in my mother’s womb”… that’s very clearly a metaphor, acknowledging the creator, and maybe even more than that, but certainly doesn’t take a specific position on when “personhood” is achieved.
And “all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be” presupposed birth. Perhaps the book accounts for those who are never born–pre-ordains it, so to speak.
And, of course, the obvious point: those aren’t God’s words.
I’m curious where the Bible actually takes a clear position on this, because that ain’t it.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:00 AM
A fetus in its early stages is nothing more than a clump of cells and not a “human life.” I’d recommend studying some biology textbooks so you can differentiate between a tiny handful of cells and a fully formed human being.
Pencils have erasers for a reason. Speaking of which, why are Christians waiting for a god to liberate their from their miserable lives? What about taking personal responsibility instead of counting on a magical savior to rescue you?
Since when are fetuses ‘a class of human beings’? What class are they known by and how can we prevent them from becoming our overlords? :)
Get your delusional fairytale beliefs out of our secular laws-this is still a secular country you theocratic lunatics.
thinkagain on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Didn’t miss it………………….
………….. and I will always have your six!
:O)
Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Dave I think that was called indentured servitude, and yes many considered it a form of slavery.
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 AM
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 1:59 AM
Yes, I’d be quite interested. Because there are obvious shades of gray in the development of an unborn child. Hell, we stratify them into zygote->embryonic->fetal etc., so obvious are the “shades”.
In terms of “a man owning another man”, I can’t see much in shades there.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:02 AM
In fact, I would say the pro slavery argument has more merit than the pro abortion argument.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:03 AM
And his ignorance. Christians were excoriated for mentioning orphanages in the times of Newt and the Republican revolution because the media allowed it to be framed thats where Conservatives would put them and forget them. It is an institution much better suited to establish permanent child placement into a family that wants them than foster parenting is. Gods grace to foster parenting, but it was never established to be a permanent solution to unwanted children.
I would have died when the wife and I were younger to have the ability to adopt any of the children that are entered into the foster system and become passed around until they ultimately possess all the baggage that type of beginning in life promotes.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:05 AM
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 2:01 AM
Right, so we’ve identified some shades there that we all agree on. You can be obligated to work in servitude to the lender in some respects, but we drew a line. We are able to borrow money and be legally obligated to pay it back, but we put reasonable restrictions on it to make sure that it doesn’t cross a line into clear “ownership” of another person. Countrywide get’s X hours per week of my time, and I get to own a house.
So the comment mocking shades of gray, using what was meant to be an absurd comparison (if not a red herring), turns out to be the butt of the joke. :-)
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:05 AM
I think there’s a better chance of convincing Republicans to return to fiscal conservatism. But I could be wrong.
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 2:06 AM
Argument starts.
Im not pro slavery. I just oppose making slavery illegal.
Free labor in the North is treated with less care than slave labor in the South. Poor immigrants come in and are promised free land in the West when they make up enough money to go…however very few ever make enough money….and employers treat employees very badly and have no concern for their feeding, shelter, and general well being. Slaves however are very valuable, and they are fed, housed, and given free health care!
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:07 AM
Roger on the 4th point of contact coverage!
:-)
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:08 AM
I’m pretty sure this shade of gray is illegal, but hey you got a whole gray scale to work with, so keep plugging.
DFCtomm on December 9, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Even in that case, though, there is a pretty clear line being crossed.
I guess I should re-state my view of this: the slavery issue does have shades of gray, but they are all on the wrong side of a very clear line.
That isn’t the case with the abortion argument. The line is in a different place for everyone.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:13 AM
Argument continues…
You damn Christian zealots pushing your religous beliefs and morals on others concerning commercial interests is appauling.
People should be free to choose to own slaves or not. If you are personally opposed to slavery, then dont own slaves. Stay out of my business!
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Why do intelligent Christians disobey Jesus?
A little food for thought for my Christian friends before I sign off for tonight.
thinkagain on December 9, 2008 at 2:15 AM
LOL, no it isn’t. It’s called a mortgage.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:15 AM
You’re kidding right?
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
The Bible is the word of God handed to humans. He said it, they wrote it. There’s no question what he’s saying in this psalm. You can choose to not believe the “2000 year old fairy tale” (No offense to my Jewish brothers and sisters, their words, not mine) as a non-Christian. Just don’t ask me, as a Christian, to dismiss as metaphor, a clear definition of Gods assertion that his hand is on the very beginning of me in the womb. He knew me even before I was placed there. In military terms, we call that H-Hour. Events even before the main event occurs.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:16 AM
Not historically.
Perhaps a 100 years in the future Pro Abortionists and Radical Feminists may be villified for the horrors of the late 20th and early 21rst century.
But in 19th Century America, the slavery issue was very much not all on one side of wrong according to the people of the day. Black inferiority was accepted nearly universally…..just as we argue about fetus inferiority.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Most Republicans are stalwart fiscal conservatives. The problem is that the people that run the party control the purse strings. And they like power. And they think the key to maintaining that power is an appeal to the left, because the left loves government power.
The best thing this country could hope for are the two major parties competing to see who can cut taxes and spending faster.
You’re missing your calling in the other party. DON’T YOU REALIZE WE CAN BE FRIENDS?
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 2:17 AM
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:14 AM
If you are doing what I think you are doing, and fishing for a particular response, we are headed right back to this comment I made earlier.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:17 AM
Gee, thanks for cherry-picking what you want Christians to obey from our Bible while ignoring the tenets of it morality. Ask your non-Christians friends to try to live up to those standards first. Why don’t you just outlaw it instead? You’d be a lot less hypocritical.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:21 AM
I just did equat that with that.
More to the point….I equated it with this.
http://www.lifebeginsatconception.com/abortedbaby05.jpg
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:23 AM
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:16 AM
LOL, really? So, this is god talking to his creator? No. This is some person (possibly my namesake) speaking to God. I think that’s pretty clear.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Then you missed the point. The first one–the one that looks slightly less sophisticated than a brine shrip–isn’t quite so emotive, eh? There are shades between the one and the other, in terms of emotive power and in terms of biology, human development, and ethics.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:27 AM
Lets face it sharecroppers were not better off than slaves. They often lived even poorer existance. We should have never outlawed slavery until we could garauntee that African Americans would have quality life outcomes. (Another abortion argument parallel)….not to mention that slaveholders would be gauranteed good economic outcomes.(like mothers who choose to abort or economic reasons).
I can do this all day.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:30 AM
And I can produce a picture of happy smiling slaves at Christmas feasts.
LOL!
There goes your point.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:31 AM
There are also shades of grey with regards to “biology, human development” when talking about race and culture.
You are making the same argument as the racist colonial slave holder, with regards to unborn humans. Next youll be whisking out the calipers to measure nose width and forehead angles.
LOL!
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:34 AM
Huh? God talking to God? Where did you get that I was saying that. Look, you asked where we Christians get the idea that life begins at conception. I don’t know how much more definative this can be.
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
You dismiss it from the Psalmist from the point of view of a non-believer. Fine. What part of “you knit me together in my mothers womb…and …All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be…would be hard to understand for a true believer who accepted the literal world of the Bible?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:35 AM
Well, I admit you’re clever. :-) But the 2 simply aren’t comparable. If it were a valid argument it would be a powerful one, but the reason so many people oppose slavery but support abortion with restrictions is because they are not comparable. It isn’t simply a matter of “abortion today is slavery 150 years ago”… slavery very clearly involved ownership of a living, breathing human being.
There is a very bright, clear line there.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:35 AM
The people who control the party are pro-life religious conservatives. Every single one of them. Do you think that the insistence on only promoting social conservatives within the party has something to do with the Republican Party’s recent and complete lack of fiscal responsibility? I do. Look at the time. Have a good night…
RightOFLeft on December 9, 2008 at 2:37 AM
Science and scientificy definintions in the justification of oppression and the establishment of inferiority isnt new, partner.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Gotta go DaveS.
EscapeVelocity on December 9, 2008 at 2:43 AM
I see no reason that indentured servitude should not be allowed, using modern standards under the law.
Like, perhaps, the lender would have to ensure that the indentured servant receive guaranteed access to good hygiene, three squares, and a clean, safe and humble place to stay out of the elements and sleep at night. And a little time for holiday.
Hell, where do I sign?
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 2:43 AM
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:35 AM
[A] does not take a position on when, precisely God knits us together. In terms of the abortion debate, in religious terms, this would seem to make VERY clear that life begins before birth, but to say it starts at conception is putting words in God’s mouth. Is it implied? Eh… I don’t think I would even say that.
And [B] is basically a statement of “determinism”. A living person says that his/her existence was preordained by God, before conception even. That doesn’t logically translate, however, to any position at all concerning any aspect of the abortion debate. In fact, it could be reasonably interpreted to imply that in God’s deterministic universe, abortions are pre-ordained as well. Maybe God just saw the unformed body of those who actually were born to praise his foresight.
Now we get into the fallibility of God, etc., unless God pre-ordained abortions.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Right here.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:46 AM
You asked about Christian beliefs. I told you. You can explain to yourself your own non-Christian beliefs and theories about the fallibility of God. I’m not interested in them.
No offense but this is why I don’t do visitation. Casting pearls isn’t my bag.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:49 AM
You think the Army are indentured slaves?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:54 AM
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 2:49 AM
Who said I had non-Christian beliefs? I just asked what in the Bible justified what people claim to be Christian beliefs.
I mentioned another one earlier: a lot of Christians seem to think that a couple is “living in sin” unless they have a “wedding”. I never understood that one either. I think over the years everyone just convinced themselves that the Bible actually said something about that, and they forgot to actually read it.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:56 AM
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:58 AM
Crap, I screwed up my quotes.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 2:59 AM
Right, you have Christian beliefs. That great. I’m happy for you. Nothing else to discuss on that subject.
What’s your beef with the Army and how years did you put in to come to the opinion that it’s anything like indentured slavery?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:00 AM
Fix your quotes. I have no idea what you were trying to say.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:01 AM
My previous comment, reformatted. As you can see, I have no beef with the army. :-) It’s just that it pretty much perfectly meets the definition of such.
Um… no. I think you just now said that. I think “indentured service” is pretty darned accurate, though, yeah. And it certainly fits the description to which I was replying:
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Um no, I think “you” said that when you answered Salty Daves question of where he could sign up with both his and Escape Velocities descriptions of share croppers and indentures slaves by posting a link to the Army recruitment page as if we were something equivalent. No?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:09 AM
How many years were you in?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Did you not like it?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:10 AM
What did you experience during your time in that made it…”darned accurate?”
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:11 AM
Dude, first of all, the term is “indentured servant”. Second of all, if you just scroll up a couple of hundred pixels you can actually read the comments in context.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 3:12 AM
Got nothing else to say?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:12 AM
HOW LONG DID YOU SERVE?
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:12 AM
I don’t recall saying that I served.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 3:14 AM
That’s just not the case. Maybe where you live, in a provincial sort of way, you’ve come to see it that way, but it is just not the case.
Social conservatives are a huge part of the party faithful, though. And the idea that sending them to the woodshed will result in succeeding over the socialist democrats is either myopic bravado or youthful naivete.
But, on another note. I’m seeing a pattern in your thinking. You see social conservatives and fiscal conservatives as oil and vinegar…you cannot be one, and also the other. This, also, is just not the case.
I’ve been to a few GOP platform battles. The “only” fiscal conservatives are a small minority. The most prevalent conservatives in the party are the three legged stool variety. The GOP platform is what it is because of this.
I’ll say it again. The people running the party pay lip service to the platform they get dealt, but their most common interest is power. They control the purse strings for candidates at local, state, and national elections, and they believe an appeal to the left is the way to maintain their grip. They’re wrong, of course, but they relate to the left’s love for government power more comfortably…they see this game from the inside-out.
They think the principles of liberty are dated, but they know they have to feeds the hoards every four years.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 3:20 AM
That’s what I thought. Don’t presume you understand what it means to be a soldier because you can link to the page. You know less about being a serviceman than you do about being a Christian.
We don’t volunteer for the hardships because of the money. I could make twice as much as a pilot on the outside. I chose to hold off on a retirement 4 years and two deployments ago to support my brigade because we weren’t getting a whole bunch of other folks who thought enough of the country to sign on. You save your crass characterizations for topics or people you understand. To paint the kids I’ve seen give it up so you can sit and smugly generalize what we serve for from the comfort of your keyboard is a disgrace to their memory. They’re patriots every one of them. You ask me, you liberals who believe you can vote you lives away for a handout from your government are the ones living in servitude.
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:25 AM
Abortion isn’t going away. Get over it, and vote on issues that will actually impact the quality of your life, and the future of the country.
Steele rocks.
therightwinger on December 9, 2008 at 3:26 AM
hawkdriver on December 9, 2008 at 3:25 AM
Hawkdriver, I have never seen a better caricature of a strawman argument. That you pretend to know what my religious beliefs are, you call me a “liberal” (literally LOL at that), and then–the icing on the cake–pretend that I was making “smug generalizations of why [you] serve” is ironic in light of the fact that you made a point of lecturing me about what I “presume to understand”.
Nonetheless, I sincerely thank you for your service. I am friends with quite a few pilots who can, indeed, make more “on the outside” (and some who went on to do so), so I know what you’re sacrificing in that regard. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was less than respectful of the military (hell, my brother, dad, grandfather, 2 cousins, an aunt have served). I think if you go back and read the comments you will see that I made a pretty clever joke, not an insult.
DaveS on December 9, 2008 at 3:36 AM
Yes, I agree. The quality of my life was impacted from being nurtured in my mothers womb.
And I must say, fighting for the rights for those living in the womb has dramatically improved the quality of my life.
I often wonder what our present lives would be like if the brave had not fought so valiantly for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the past.
I’m particularly curious to know what the future of this country will be like if we brush off our obligation to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity.
Saltysam on December 9, 2008 at 3:46 AM
So say you, but you’re not the ultimate authority on when Life begins.
Better preach to yourself!
If human life doesn’t begin at conception, why do people use birth control to prevent conception from taking place…which leads to a birth…of a human being.
People aren’t pencils and this comment is so offensive, I can barely bring myself to reply to the rest.
Too bad I can’t slap your face in person.
Christ’s mercy rescues us from the misery of Life and makes it a lot less miserable and infinitely more meaningful.
Yes, it is.
These “delusional fairytale beliefs” are held by about 90% of our population
(abortion was condemned in the Old Testament as well as the New, so Jews are included) and it’s allowable for a pluralistic, secular society to ban murder in any form without reference to the Bible or religious beliefs.
Abortion is infanticide and murder.
Straight up.
Jenfidel on December 9, 2008 at 3:49 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Next »