Pro-abortion groups freak out over license plates
posted at 9:32 am on March 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
One might think that a license plate that emphasized choice would please the people who style themselves as “pro-choice”. Not in Virginia, though, as Democratic Governer and DNC chair Tim Kaine has discovered. Kaine approved a new option for license plates that displays the phrase, “Choose Life”, and pro-abortion groups have hit the roof:
Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama’s hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes a long-sought victory.
Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting “Choose Life” specialty license plates. …
“It is surprising that Governor Kaine would do this, but it’s all the more surprising that he would do it as chair of the DNC,” said Paulette McElwain, the president of the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood.
McElwain exchanged numerous calls with the governor’s office over the license plates and organized a grass roots effort that logged more than 2,000 calls to the governor’s staff.
“We provided him with abundant information,” she said. “We’re terribly disappointed that he decided to sign it.”
In Washington, NARAL/Pro-Choice America channeled more than 17,000 emails and 200 calls to the DNC urging Kaine to veto the bill.
“It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women’s health,” NARAL/Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said in a statement.
The license plate doesn’t say, “Stop abortion” or “Make women sick”. It says “Choose Life”, and shows a simple drawing of the faces of two children. How is that a “divisive political ideology”? Successful gestation is an ideology?
More to the point, why is the phrase “Choose Life” such a threat to NARAL and Planned Parenthood? At least for the latter, convincing fewer women to have abortions cuts into their revenue stream. They’re going to lose money if women “choose life” and they’ll get to kill fewer fetuses.
And isn’t more than a little ironic that NARAL/Pro-Choice America has such a heated reaction to the phrase “choose life“?
Many states now have specialty license plate programs that allow various groups to promote their mission. Kaine noted when he signed off on the Choose Life plate that Planned Parenthood could come up with its own, but that he had little choice but to approve the request on his desk. All they need is 350 people to prepay a $25 fee for a plate that says, “Kill your fetus,” and they’re good to go.
Kaine himself is a moderately pro-life politician, alhough he promised not to actually act on it as Governor. The pro-abortion lobby feels betrayed by a license plate. Nothing proves their radical absolutism in pursuit of abortion better than this kerfuffle.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 2 3 4 5 Next »
They own the “pro-choice” but there are other forms of the word “choice” they haven’t successfully trademarked. We now own the verb form (choose), as in “choose life”.
Our opponents are obviously upset that we’ve muscled in on their branding scheme.
I use “pro-abortion”. That is truth. Again, “pro-choice” is ThinkSpeak, because the truth is that it denies any possibility of choice from the smallest and most innocent humans in our society.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 11:35 AM
They are players on the field, and you have to be aware of them. I use the precise term “pro-abortion”. There is no way ThinkSpeak can spin that term. If you want to call yourself “pro-choice”, go ahead, but everyone else on this thread will understand that term differently from how you want it understood. Check the votes above in my favor.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 11:38 AM
If that were the criteria, it might have the opposite effect for abortions that occur within the first two months.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 11:39 AM
The biggest outrage over all of this?
That license plate is ripping off Trainspotting.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Thanks for the post! Added to my Amazon Wish List.
Good for you Vince….Chekote, being a lib, cannot imagine taking responsibility so assumes all others are like it.
ex-Democrat on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM
I’ve seen discrimination. And its identical (but misnamed) twin “reverse discrimination”. So I’m not living in dreamland at all. I have seen the word used in unwarranted places, but not nearly as often as I’ve seen it used in warranted places.
I’ve never seen “pro-choice” used in a warranted way, which is why I call it ThinkSpeak.
unclesmrgol on March 31, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Good question……….
………. what are they afraid of?
Seven Percent Solution on March 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Is that true of all the Muslims up in Canada?
Stats?
Sapwolf on March 31, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Tough. Let them freak all they want. Free speech.
ErinF on March 31, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Agreed (no sarcasm here). It’s a perfectly reasonable slogan. One that would support myself. Choose life whenever you can.
radiofreevillage on March 31, 2009 at 12:03 PM
That would probably mean you have not checked the status in 30+ years.
Maxx on March 31, 2009 at 12:05 PM
I don’t know about that. The first thing new parents do is count their baby’s fingers and toes. Count the toes.
Y-not on March 31, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Move to Colorado, and you will be able to. It’s funny how you cross the border going from Nebraska or Wyoming, no speed limit change, and yet everyone accelerates by at least 10 mph.
radiofreevillage on March 31, 2009 at 12:10 PM
Nope. Choice, as you have been arguing, is about having a choice to do either. Pro-abortion is the opposite of Anti-Abortion. Choice is the opposite of anti-choice. You can’t have it both ways.
keep the change on March 31, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Virginia joined 23 other states that offer similar license plates.
Maxx on March 31, 2009 at 12:16 PM
See, this is how the Donk Party is succeeding in the South. They appear pro-life for meaningless crap like this which fools a certain amount of the Religious Right while still being pro-choice for what matters to keep the Naral votes coming.
Speedwagon82 on March 31, 2009 at 12:16 PM
When pro-abortion activists (that also happen to be public school teachers or administrators) say, “our kids are not able to live up to their full potential because we don’t give our public schools (meaning teachers and administrators) enough money,” they always seem to miss the irony.
RBMN on March 31, 2009 at 12:17 PM
I was born and raised in Richmond, Virginia and worked with Tim Kaine in a law office shortly after graduating college. He was one of the nicest lawyers who worked there and everyone liked him. He was heavily involved in Democratic politics and was a conservative Democrat when I knew him. I am glad he made this license plate available to Virginians. I’d like to see what Planned Parenthood comes up with for a plate … Pro-Choice with a picture of a dead baby perhaps? They can advertise their cold blooded mentality for all to see.
tnmama on March 31, 2009 at 12:17 PM
As several others have pointed out, VA has a wide variety of symbols and phrases available on their plates. And, with vanity plates you can spell out any number of things. Many of those I’ve seen are religion oriented. So this can of worms was opened a long time ago.
To those who don’t like it, tough. As long as it is within the community standards of decency it’s free speech. (I don’t believe the state should be forced to put profane language on a plate) I have a Marine Corps symbol on my plate. If it offends you feel free to STFU.
I will say that one of the options offered is to have your university symbol displayed on your plate. At one point I resolved to “cut off” any car displaying the University of Florida symbol since they beat us in the National Championship. But, as I reflected on how many people have beaten for the National Championship recently I gave it up as too big a task. Oh well.
SoonerMarine on March 31, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Look at the plate. It’s a couple of happy kids drawn in crayon, and the saying “choose life” which associates abortion with killing happy kids, who may at some point use crayons. It’s bad for their product which is dead kids, and so has to go.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Sure. The link shows a fetus just beyond the time frame I indicated and is about the size of a postage stamp. At the two-month mark there is a big visual change. If you move 10 days earlier to about 46 days the visual effect changes greatly.
My point is that an argument based on the visceral feeling created by a visual attribute loses its power as you move in from the two month mark.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 12:25 PM
I know Tim Kaine and, believe me, he didn’t do this for any other reason other than that he couldn’t figure any way out of it. He is not moderatly “pro-life”. He is just as pro-death as your usual crop of dems. I’m sure he had no choice. He raises funds with scum like Jim Moran. His is just another pro-death phoney catholic who goes to mass to campaign and then votes pro-murder.
Haunches on March 31, 2009 at 12:28 PM
They will come up with something intellectually dishonest like, “Protect Women’s Health” or “It’s YOUR Life, Your Choice”. Perhaps Obama will lend them “Don’t be punished with a baby.”
Haunches on March 31, 2009 at 12:32 PM
And you think a 30% drop out rate in high school, rampant teenage mothers is progress?
You liberals have an interesting take on progress…it is, “take what you can, and we will continue to suffer”.
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 12:36 PM
…and the plate in question is “Choose life”. The opposite would be “Choose anti-life”. Doesn’t really make sense, so we could say “Choose death”. However, we could be honest about it. Like you said, the choice is either give the baby life, or give it an abortion. Therefore, it would be “Choose abortion”.
What you miss is that “Choose life” is a pro-choice statement.
MadisonConservative on March 31, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I find myself marvelling at our visiting libcritter, Chekote…
and
In an exemplary case of liberal hypocrisy, Chekote wants to inquire into our bedrooms, but wants us to stay out of his. In other words, HE gets to be the judge of right and wrong. Only attitudes HE deems worthy are to be spoken on license plates. And HE judges what we _really_ mean:
Chekote, what goes on in YOUR bedroom that you want to hide? Do you really think the government has no interest in “private” behavior? Where would you stop? Prostitution, drugs, incest, bestiality, domestic abuse, child abuse? These are all things that happen in bedrooms.
Do I really need to pledge to live up to your expectations before I can state a political opinion?
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 12:41 PM
I thought his point was that the babies at that stage still have toes, and according to your chart, after 53-54 days (which would still be within a two month period, albeit barely), they do have toes.
Now, within the first month, I’d agree. I don’t see how those images would change a person’s mind. It would impact me, but I already believe abortion is wrong.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 12:42 PM
That is a perfect description.
This is proof that abortion is now an industry on which livelyhoods and political careers depend. It is a symptom of sickness in our culture.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
‘Not sure what your point is. Gestation is described in terms of days post-ovulation, not in terms of months, so I took your time-frame (”first two months”) and tried to map it to the correct physiological time-frame (my link was to 56 – 60 days post-ovulation).
Perhaps the real problem is that most people have such poor instruction in science that they are unable to recognize the features visible in human developmental stages. But, I find it odd that expecting parents make such a fuss about the ultra-sound images that are taken early in pregnancy, but they make no connection between their developing child and the embryos and fetuses that are aborted each day.
Y-not on March 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Dubya Bee…..Trust me, I have zero interest in what goes on in your bedroom. LOL*
This issue has become the “defining” one for Republicans. Too bad, since it is truly passe.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Seriously, this issue is the key one Republican partisans need to change.
I saw many people interested in McCain/Palin, but they turned away at a key moment over the right-wing stance on this.
The country is simply uninterested in allowing pro-lifers to control the agenda.
It was a strong movement. It has lost.
And the sooner Republicans detach from them, the sooner they have a shot at renewing the party.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I wish I could get one.
ErinF on March 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I picked 8 weeks because about 50% of abortions are performed before that point (about 85% before 12 weeks). I think 6 weeks is about the stage where it begins to resemble a baby, but I don’t think that should be the criteria.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Yes, I’m sure the abolitionists were told that once as well. Such a shame we let them define our party at it’s inception.
Thing is, either you believe it’s a life, or you don’t. If you believe it is, then most want that life protected from harm, the way we treat all other creatures who cannot protect themselves.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM
My suggestion would be: pay attention to that “visceral feeling” don’t ignore it.
The more you allow that normal repulsion at killing to become dominant in your thought process the happier you will be. Doing the right thing has it’s own rewards.
CHOOSE LIFE! Because it is the better choice.
petunia on March 31, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Oh, DubyaBee, the hypocrisy is worse than that. When presented with the views of individuals who do in fact observe Catholic doctrine concerning pre-marital and extra-marital sex (thereby meeting the criteria this chump sets), one finds that their moral standing is not sufficient. I detected no enhanced sense of “respect” for the views of the Catholic bishops, cardinal, and lay people who are angry with Notre Dame over the Obama invite. S/he’s not worth the pixels.
Y-not on March 31, 2009 at 12:53 PM
A lot of people hold the same view as you do. However, if you look at party history, GOP won elections when we held close to pro-life, pro-liberty values, and promoted/fought FOR them. When we started giving up on values, we started losing elections.
ErinF on March 31, 2009 at 12:53 PM
What was the key moment, in your view?
Y-not on March 31, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Ann – If The GOP embraces the relative morality and ethics of the Democrats, they will never win another election. They will be the Democrat-Lite Party. Abortion ends one life and scars the other. That is not a trivial matter, nor is it passe’. Just because a certain culture says something is acceptable does not make it so.
kingsjester on March 31, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Y-not, no.
I voted for McCain, oddly enough, due to his economic plan.
I still agree with him.
Palin was the VP candidate, and I felt she was excellent at supporting him. That was her job. She executed.
I’m big on respecting how someone actually executes the assigned job.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I agree but must admit that if people were convinced to give the child a chance after seeing an image like that, I wouldn’t be sorry.
Your story has a ring of misinformation. Palin was picked precisely for her pro-life stance to help bolster McCain’s cred with the base. Anyone who didn’t realize that the first weekend she was picked, probably shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Too bad, king.
A party that is that locked in has relatively little to offer contemporaries.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:00 PM
Let them eat cake.
ral514 on March 31, 2009 at 1:01 PM
A party with no values has little to offer anyone.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM
Why get angry, why don’t they just go out and get their own version of the license plate that they can proudlyly display on their cars?
“Choose Slaughter” (picture of a bloody fetus on the floor)
I’m sure that would draw lots of people to their side.
Scrappy on March 31, 2009 at 1:04 PM
That says it all
The perfect opposite would be:
“Choose Death” with an X over one happy face
Too bad for what purpose? With whom is it ‘passee’, as in ‘demode’:
C’est tres ‘demode’, n’est pas?
entagor on March 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Oh goodness, I disagree totally. Palin’s actual record is not at all scary on pro-life stuff.
She governed moderately on this issue, and her position was identical, in stance, to Obama’s.
Now, once the left managed to turn it into a race between Obama and Palin?
All bets were off, and most of my normie girlfriends were scared of her judicial appointments.
They are fierce about not allowing Roe VS. Wade be overturned.
It is not “passe,” in that this is a key factor for many moderates by-passing Republican candidates.
I have never been a part of the Republican party. Straight Democrat here, until this year. And no, it’s not a race thing.
But I think the Republican party has to decide.
If they wish to continue this far-right effort, that’s OK.
I’ll just avoid them, since I’m definitely not interested in that agenda.
I’m convinced something new will emerge instead. If the Republican party is that stuck on this, OK.
Then, the rest of us will just move on.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:05 PM
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:00 PM
[Luke 12:20 ]
I guess it matters whether you value life and realize that there are consequences for every action.
kingsjester on March 31, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Maybe it is due to the life that they’ve imagined for the child before it was even conceived. A couple who wants a child has probably looked at baby clothes and toys, maybe prepared a room, made career decisions in order to be live in a good location and pay for education. The sonogram is a tangible realization that what once was dreamed is becoming reality. For a woman who was hoping to avoid pregnancy and who was planning dozens of things, none of which involved babies, the fetus lacks those projected qualities.
How does the first couple rationalize their affection for the sonogram with, perhaps, a pro-choice position? Perhaps cognitive dissonance.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:06 PM
You continuously state that.
So you think fighting for life is “passe”? You think fighting for choice is “passe”?
Don’t you realize that for someone who is fighting for the life of another, it is never “passe”.
It is only minor for someone not interested in life…is there any greater “choice” or decision as to who lives and who dies?
When you think that fighting to save a life is “passe”, then look in the mirror and ask “why are you fighting to stay alive?” What gives you the right to live and others to die? And if you had a child, would you be willing to sacrifice it for the state?
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 1:06 PM
My principles, Ester, are simple.
Mind your own business.
Stop dictating to others.
That’s the biggest offense of the pro-life.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:06 PM
right….yes, I do think it’s passe.
The ultimate spokesperson for the right-to-lifers is Octomom, who thought she shouldn’t waste a single egg.
It’s obscene thinking.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:08 PM
So all laws that dictate morality are to be repealed…. murder’s cool now? and theft? Hey don’t dictate to me that I can’t murder and steal…. mind your own business, right?
Scrappy on March 31, 2009 at 1:09 PM
I use to believe that a cell that has only divided a few times is not a child, and it is acceptable to remove it before it becomes a child. I still do actually, but I ran into a rational problem that made me rethink my position, and that problem was the fact that we cannot determine at what point it becomes a child. If we cannot determine when it becomes a child then we must err on the side of caution as we do in all other cases involving human life. Making abortion illegal is simply upholding the values that we as a society live by everyday.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 1:10 PM
Palin did not embrace partial birth abortions, as Obama has. Obama has no problem with killing the baby once removed from the mother, as most of the other democrat leaders. So you are seriously misguided in this statement.
Only a off the wall extreme liberal state that trying to save child’s life is a “far-right” effort.
Tell me, do you mind it at all if a healthy baby is removed from the womb with forceps, or a vaccuum, then lain on a table to die?
Tell me you have no problem with a crying baby left to die…I have always wanted a far left liberal to admit that that dying baby is insignificant.
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Well, that is your party motto, lest actions, like breaking federal law, have consequences.
And that argument only makes sense if you view the fetus as not being a living being.
If it’s not really alive, then I have no interest in protecting it.
If it is, then for you to pretend this is a personal matter is as offensive to me as if Andrea Yates had made that her opening and closing statement, and at least she’d be right in that it happened in her own bedrooms, at least that’s where she laid them all to rest.
In reality, it’s the pro-choicers who are deciding for someone else, not the pro-lifers. We’re the ones who believe the child should be given the choice of life or death, not that the mother who is deciding on behalf of someone she’ll never meet nor care to meet.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:13 PM
It depends what triggers the repulsion to killing. We’d agree that there is a natural repulsion to seeing a fetus of, say, 26 weeks killed. So ergo it is wrong? OK.
However, a medical abortion via Mifiprex would likely trigger repulsion for fewer people. So ergo it is not wrong? To persuade people against abortion in the first 6 weeks you’d likely need to apply a different argument.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:15 PM
No, she’s the ultimate spokesperson for Obama, believing she’s owed so much in life while being mentally unbalanced.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Certainly, but if we were able to limit abortions to only the first six weeks, it would be worth the compromise.
As it is, we already allow abortions past the viability stage at which point the “it’s my body” argument is torn to shreds.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I think that is more persuasive than a “looks like/is like” argument.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:18 PM
No, your problem is you have no answer to someone who wants to save a life…so you say “don’t tell me how to live”.
What you don’t comprehend, we aren’t telling you how to live, we are telling liberals to “let live”. Let the child have a choice whether to live or not.
Because someone is weak, you have no problem destroying them…that is a typical liberal.
Ironic isn’t it, the group that says “equality for all”, take care of the least among us, ends up being the group who has no problem killing the weakest and most defenseless…a bitter irony, how sad.
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Shouldn’t these groups just be thankful that they were born?
elderberry on March 31, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Please, respond…I want to have your answer to remember what a liberal is.
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Very few (I think about 1%) are performed past the point of viability.
Putting a limit at 6 weeks would make some sense, but since both sides would hate the idea it would have little support.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Unless they’re opposed to abortion, then dictate, dictate, dictate.
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Stop dictating to others.
Unless they’re opposed to abortion, then dictate, dictate, dictate.
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Exactly. So many of these “Don’t tell me what to do” people sure are happy to tell everyone else what to do.
Scrappy on March 31, 2009 at 1:30 PM
We know a fetus will become a child, so I don’t have to prove that. The burden of proof should lie on the people who support abortion. When they give a definitive answer to the “when does it become a child” question then it can become an issue for rational discussion.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 1:31 PM
At 1.2 million abortion a year…that alone is 10,000 children.
That is 10,000 children that could be alive, every year.
*
BTW: Women who have never married obtain two-thirds of all abortions.
A direct effect from the dems “Great Society”…
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 1:32 PM
So pro-lifers are supposed to just shut up when our tax dollars go to Planned Parenthood or to fund abortions overseas? That’s exactly what I would call dictating to others. Oh wait, I get it. We need to stop voicing our opinion, but have our pockets emptied to pay for what we believe is murder? How very progressive. The day someone on welfare cannot get an abortion, or when Planned Parenthood stops getting government funding is the day we can discuss how people can mind their own business on this issue.
BakerAllie on March 31, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Brain activity is one of the criteria sometimes used.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Small percentage, big in absolute numbers. Moving the limit to the age of viability (say 21 weeks) might save over 10,000 lives but still allow over a million terminated lives.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Well, there’s that argument, too, Estheir. The state obviously looked good to her as a source of income. *haha
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Do you feel completely confident with that criteria? I mean put an empty gun to your head and pull the trigger confident. I don’t.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 1:40 PM
I’ve posted this before, but will repeat it as it is pertinent to the discussion.
This is from the American Academy of Medical Ethics.
This is from a paper they did regarding ESC research, but the biological background is certainly applicable here.
Cell biology:
INC on March 31, 2009 at 1:41 PM
The fact that they only account for such a small percentage is more due to the overwhelming number of abortions performed not because it’s all that rare.
According to NPR:
And there were apparently 1.3 million abortions that year, making both numbers a small percentage (around the 1% you mentioned when combined), but not necessarily small numbers.
I don’t know that both would hate it. I’d like to think some pro-lifers would find it a useful compromise.
They wouldn’t give up trying to get rid of those last six weeks, but I’d personally take anything. If I had the money, I’d even bribe women to choose life. I’ve never been able to fully wrap my brain around the concept that mothers are ending their own children with a “choice”.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Well, I leave the Republican party to the right-to-lifers.
My point is?
You want to renew this party?
Then change.
If not, don’t.
But the season has passed, and the referendum, even by Catholics, has been taken.
Nobody is willing to back a party based on this intrusive and outdated principle.
I think it’s perfectly fine for any woman to choose life or otherwise.
It’s her choice.
AnninCA on March 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM
This is their statement regarding Human Personhood: (their emphasis)
INC on March 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM
I hate to say it, but I think AnninCA is a moby. S/he makes contradictory statements within the same posts — and across threads. I think the purpose is to plant one thought: that this is a moderate Republican who is being pushed to being a Blue Dog democrat by one issue, abortion.
Y-not on March 31, 2009 at 1:43 PM
I don’t believe she intended to be a ward of the state. I think that “John & Kate plus 8″ looked good to her as a source of income. I realize that most of you are going to say that it’s a hair brained scheme, but does she appear to be anything other than hair brained?
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Since 1970, there have been about 40 million abortions in the United States, with a rate of abortions after 20 weeks at 1.4%. And given the legal restrictions on late term abortions, there may be incentives to underestimate gestational age, so these numbers might well be higher.
But even using these numbers, this means that about half a million babies have been aborted in our country over the past 40 years, who might well have survived a C-Section, instead of an abortion, and have been adopted.
Loxodonta on March 31, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Ah, another abortion thread. Here’s a rather simple battery of questions to figure out on what points a discussion about abortion should be held.
1) Do you think that abortion is murder?
If ‘yes’, go to 2. If ‘no’, go to 3.
2) Do you think that abortion should be held to the same legal standard as murder?
If ‘yes’, this confirms pro-life views in its totality. If ‘no’, then a discussion regarding the cognitive dissonance involved in maintaining these positions can be fruitful.
3) Murder is defined as the intentional taking of human life of one undeserving of the fate (an ‘innocent’). Proceed to 4.
4) Do you believe that murder is intentional?
If yes, go to 5. If no, then a discussion regarding ‘intention’ may be helpful.
5) Do you believe that abortion involves the taking of human life? I.e., do you believe that the fetus is human?
If yes, go to 6. If no (and this is generally where the no occurs), a discussion on the biological principles of life (as Ed pointed out, mitosis) as applied to the fetus can be instructional.
6) Do you believe that the fetus deserves its fate?
If ‘no’, then there is a contradiction somewhere in the answers. If ‘yes’, go to 7.
7) What has the fetus done to deserve its fate?
If you drill down to this point, the response in the overwhelming percentage of cases would be, in essence, ‘because it’s there.’ IOW, ‘because it’s alive’. This is tantamount to depriving the rights of another human being simply because it inconveniences you. The statute against murder exists precisely to stop this. Thus, the conclusion is fairly obvious.
Scott H on March 31, 2009 at 1:47 PM
I didn’t know that, but am not surprised. Maybe the most readily available way to reduce abortion is to support the formation and stability of families.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Yes, hers, not the life she will either take or let live. And yet, I thought you didn’t want people to decide something like this for another person?
That’s becoming common these days. And if any family is “too big to fail” it would certainly be hers.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:50 PM
AnninCA: So, you believe in infanticide? I’m not making a ‘very late-term abortion’ hyperbole here. That’s an honest question.
Is it acceptable for a mother (but not the father) to kill a 5-year-old child of theirs?
Realize, as well, that Roe vs. Wade is completely destructable on precise legal grounds.
Up until Roe vs. Wade, all legal precedent stated that in cases where human life is not known, for certain, whether it exists, you must err on the side of caution. If you do not, then you are liable in the event that human life was present.
For example, if someone commits arson, and didn’t know that a person was inside the house, and that person dies due to the arson, the arsonist is liable for manslaughter charges.
Roe vs. Wade states that _it is not known when human life begins_, and then proceeds to state that it is acceptable to take a life that is potentially human.
The legal argument is hopeless.
Scott H on March 31, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Certainly, but it’s hard to say how readily available that method is. Supporting the family is something that takes years to achieve any real results, and it’s hard to argue that, that isn’t already being tried without success.
Esthier on March 31, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Nobody = Not me, so no one else should either.
Intrusive = stopping people from killing something.
Outdated = I’m tired of arguing so you should give up so I can win.
Great arguement there. /sarc
Scrappy on March 31, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Yet even a justice like Alito has described it as precedent that he’d worry about changing.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 2:06 PM
Liberals are just mad that these license plates are breaking into their territory. Witty Bumper Stickers and such are their primary form of communication.
Grafted on March 31, 2009 at 2:09 PM
So you have no problem with a doctor allowing a baby to be born, then killing it?
I just want to see you post what you are dancing around…be direct.
right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 2:09 PM
A lower criteria of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is asked of jurors deciding the fate of an individual on trial.
The state will declare someone dead who has no brain activity. There would be some consistency in using that approach at both the beginning and end of life.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 2:15 PM
There’s no irony at all. I believe that you have a right not to be killed. It doesn’t follow that I ought to believe in supporting you as well. Moreover, the issue isn’t about caring; it’s about not killing.
Bill Ramey on March 31, 2009 at 2:16 PM
You ignored my point that the government has an obvious interest in private behavior. Is it definingly Republican to ban crack cocaine smoked in private, for instance, or incest or child abuse?
Just because you would close the door on reprehensible behavior doesn’t excuse it or make it acceptable.
Government has the duty to protect the innocent. One poster above suggests that starts with brain activity.
That ignores the fact that, unmolested, the vast majority of fetuses of ANY age WILL DEVELOP brain activity.
Dubya Bee on March 31, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Will the fetus get as many appeals as the convicted? It is difficult to overturn an abortion.
The state may declare them dead but does not mandate their removal from life support. It’s a decision left up to the family. The removal of life support is about quality of life, and not life itself. The person may have at some point, as many have, made his wishes known to his family. A fetus hasn’t communicated any wishes, and can expect the opportunity for a full and fruitful life.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 2:23 PM
It shows that in their mind, pro-choice means pro-abortion. It’s definitely shows Planned Parenthood has a conflict of interest since they profit from having abortions continue.
The founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist (more like sedated genocide), purposely putting their clinics in black neighborhoods because they weren’t the “master race” as Hitler likes to put it. He was a eugenicist too. From what I can tell, they haven’t formally renounced the founder’s beliefs on this issue. Also, where is the outrage of the civil rights movement on this HUGE issue?
threeCents on March 31, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Last week Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for her advocacy of “women’s health and rights throughout her public service career.”
It’s amazing the PP has the audacity to continue an award named for their eugenicist founder.
INC on March 31, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Their concern for the child extends up to delivery. After that, sorry you are on your own.
Chekote
After the child is born, their welfare is generally up to the parents. Normal people expect parents to care for their children. Most pro-lifers also support homes for unwed mothers and adoption services, religious and otherwise, for those who cannot care for their children. And this support is not just words; it is in deeds and dollars.
To suggest that our concern ends at delivery is specious and, well…just stupid. But that’s what we’ve come to expect from you.
SKYFOX on March 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM
shhh! Not many people know that, and that’s the way PP would like to keep it.
DFCtomm on March 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM
The state stops protecting the person after brain activity ceases. Before then, if the family wanted to, say, harvest organs the state would be more likely to stop them.
dedalus on March 31, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Where to begin? How about we start with the fact that Obama’s worst performance in the polls seems to have coincided with his idiotic “above my pay grade” punt at the Saddleback debate.
Pro-life will triumph as soon as conservatives rally behind the State-sovereignty flag. Bottom line is that SCOTUS illegitimately stepped in on this issue (as with many others) to impose abortion from the top-down. You can dream about a constitutional amendment, but it won’t be forthcoming real soon. To put it in context, it took the Civil War to create the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
There are numerous other issues on which SCOTUS is dead wrong, but here someone winds up dead. This is a constitutional “crisis” waiting to happen, and I for one will rally behind the first governor & state legislature which unite to flip SCOTUS the bird. Does anyone really believe the president (even the Obamessiah) would send in federal troops to facilitate an abortion?
cackcon on March 31, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »