Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Finally..an Answer

Sorry I doubted President Bush. Seems Harriet Miers isn't so liberal after all.


At 10/18/2005 04:57:00 PM, Anonymous Kevin Allen said...

Just because she supports the HLA does not mean that she will vote to overturn Roe. How she would vote on legislation is not necessarily indicative of how she would vote when on the Supreme Court.

For example, I would vote to abolish the income tax if I were in Congress. However if I were on the Supreme Court (stop laughing-- I know it will never happen) I would say the income tax is constitutional.

At 10/18/2005 05:37:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, it's good to know that if I am raped and get pregnant, Harriet Miers (and Bob Marshall) would REQUIRE me to have the baby.

I guess they'd be willing to pay for the lifelong psychiatric services, too.

At 10/18/2005 05:57:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

if you are raped, it is not the baby's fault. why punish two people for one person's crime?

At 10/18/2005 08:43:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

so a woman who is raped has to sign over her body to the State for nine months to bear a child planted by force and violence? Is that what it means to be pro-life? I think of myself as pro-life, but that circumstance is pretty extreme.

At 10/18/2005 10:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed why punish two people!

Why not punish THREE!

Send the criminal to jail.

Destroy the woman emotionally, perhaps for a lifetime.

And have a baby carried to full-term to likely spend its entire life in foster care.

BRILLIANT plan! Yea right wing zealots!!!

At 10/18/2005 10:39:00 PM, Blogger too conservative said...

BRILLIANT plan! Yea right wing zealots!!!

-Ah...I love how this blog gets called every nasty political name in the book. RINO's, Liberals, and now Right Wing Zealots.

It's because we are thinking people.

At 10/18/2005 11:48:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thinking?? Thinking?? Of WHO?

Certainly not of the woman!

At 10/19/2005 12:59:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 10:03:

Why not wait until the baby is born, let it age a couple of years, and if it seems sad we can just put it to sleep. At least then we had a chance to make an informed decision. Or better, let it grow up enough to where it can decide if it's own life is worth living, rather than assuming that it would rather be dead than live in foster care.

At 10/19/2005 03:30:00 AM, Blogger James Young said...

Kevin is, of course, correct on the question of Roe v. Wade, and TC, I still believe that legitimate questions can be raised about Miers judicial philosophy. That having been said, Fred Barnes has made the good point that, to believe that Miers is a bad choice, you have to believe that Bush elevated cronyism over, and/or betrayed, his demonstrated commitment to the appointment of constitutionalist judges.

As for the various Anonymous postings, it's good to know that you'll permit the continuation of a holocaust in order to "protect" an almost infinitessimally small minority of abortions. For once, I agree with neocon22, who gets it exactly right: the question is whether you deprive an innocent of life because of the sins of the fathers. And, of course, the notion of the psychological damage to the mother is Chicken Littlism of the worst kind, since there is plenty of evidence of the psychological scarring caused by abortion.

At 10/19/2005 08:24:00 AM, Anonymous marty nohe said...

I take exception to the notion that children who would otherwise have been aborted will face no alternative other than foster care. Young children rarely end up in a foster care placement other than in the context of a very temporary legal status until a voluntary entrustment can be converted into a permanent adoptive situation. The role of foster care is to serve as a temporary transition between an unsafe environment, and a different permanent environment.

However, I take FAR further exception to the implication that foster care is somehow "a fate worse than death." Most of you who know us know that my wife Kris and I are foster parents to two of the most wonderful children in the world and that, without question, we have found it to be among the most rewarding experiences that we could ever have had. While I will be the first to say that living in a safe and happy home with one's biological mother and father who love them is the best scenario imaginable, it is simply but sadly not always possible. When it is not, foster care often provides a safe and loving alternative that facilitates eventual transition to a different safe and loving, but permanent, home.

Not everything you see on Lifetime network movies are fully representative of the whole truth. Arguing that foster care is somehow undesirable relative to being aborted does a diservice to the many extraordinary foster parents who open their homes to far more children than I do, and it weakens your argument in favor of abortion by presenting you as either ill-informed or closed-minded.

At 10/19/2005 09:48:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well then. That puts her to the right of Jerry Kilgore on the abortion question.

At 10/19/2005 10:01:00 AM, Blogger neocon22 said...

the label of being pro-choice, is in itself, false. it is false because those who advocate for the choice to take away another life, is in effect, taking away every choice that life will ever make. also, why would a child born of a rape be any less valuable a life than one who isnt?

At 10/19/2005 02:00:00 PM, Anonymous George Croft said...

Well put, Marty.

At 10/19/2005 06:03:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet none of you men have been raped who say the trauma is chicken-littleism compared to abortion. The after-effect of rape is a fear and terror that resides in your soul forever.

But why should I be surprised, since if given the choice between your wife living or dying, some of you of the Bob Marshall school of thought on abortion, would choose your wife's death.

At 10/19/2005 06:14:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I in no way meant that foster care was a "fate worse than death"! The previous poster said why punish two people (criminal and fetus) and I said, yes, why stop at two - let's punish 3! The criminal, the fetus, and the woman.

Yes, of course foster care is better than being dead! But in none of the equations is the value of the WOMAN being considered. The value of a zygote is put above that of a living, functioning woman. That was the only point.

And from the foster families I know, you and Kris are the exception, not the rule.

And if the child is of mixed race, it is far more likely to spend its life waiting to be adopted. But white babies get adopted very quickly.

And as for identifying folks as right-wing zealots - yup, it fits a few of you. It has nothing to do with your stand on taxes. It is because you feel compelled to push your religion on everyone in the US. It's like the Puritans have arrived and are going to conquer the country all over again.

At 10/19/2005 10:57:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

bearing a child that is the product of the rape is not devaluing the mother. again, this is not about religion. the constitution guarnatees the protection of life.

At 10/19/2005 11:09:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Help me, friends. I am pro-life in that I oppose the termination of conceived embryos (i.e., really, really little people). But how can it be that the state can tell a woman that if a rapist violates her, she has to carry the foetus to full term? This is extraordinarily Orwellian. I cna see limits on when the decision can be made to abort, but how can it possibly be that a criminal can enlist the state to compel his use of an innocent woman's body for nine months?

At 10/20/2005 08:08:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...from the foster families I know, you and Kris are the exception, not the rule."

How many foster families do you know?

At 10/21/2005 04:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody said bupkiss about "devaluing the mother". Where the heck did you get that crap from. I'm talking about killing her soul by forcing her to bear the child of a rape.

Foster families I know of that are friends - 3. Foster families that I know of through my work that are in it for the cash in their pocket - about 60.

At 10/21/2005 08:00:00 PM, Blogger neocon22 said...

"But in none of the equations is the value of the WOMAN being considered."
thats where i got it


Post a Comment

<< Home