litmus tests
I hate thinking that my vote has a litmus test...one issue on which it all hinges. I don't believe it does, but I know there are some things on which it's real close, and one is abortion.
I know when Barak Obama last night said the court got it right in Roe V. Wade, I bristled. I believe abortion is murder. That fact was never more clear to me than when I saw the first sonogram of the youngster, and realized that this was a living person, and yanking him out of the womb and round filing him would be criminal.
I believe we're killing babies, and to say that's a moral issue is just as ridiculous as calling rape a moral issue...or robbery...or drunk driving...or anything else we have a law against because it's freaking wrong. Ted Bundy killed women across the country and went to death for it. We kill babies every day and that's a "moral issue." The only opposing argument I hear is.."Well, would it be better to have unwanted pregnancies? Do you think it's OK for 13 year old kids to be mothers?" and as soon as you go there, you're conceding that it's murder and saying....it's OK to kill people out of convenience. Is there a more inconvenient truth? I have yet to meet someone who has the balls to actually verbalize that, but it is, in effect, what they're saying. In order to prevent a 13 year old girl from being a mom, we advocate killing people. Do people actually believe that? They try to rationalize it away, by convincing themselves it's not really a person, but every one of them, in their heart of hearts, knows better. They smooth that over with "Well, I think it's wrong, but I don't want to force my beliefs on someone else." Why, how "holier than thou" of you. What's the difference between that and a mother who sends her kids into a lake to drown in the family car? "Well, I think that's wrong, but..." my ass. For the record, I don't think it's OK for 13 year old kids to have children, but I don't think murder is an acceptable alternative.
Foreign policy is another that's pretty close. I think a short term view of our place in the world and whether or not we can live in peace is disastrous in the long term. We can survive those disasters, but why should we? I don't know anybody that doesn't want the world to live in peace, but I don't know any terrorists, either. People want to use the amount of lives lost in Iraq as an argument for abandoning that effort, but you have to realize that you're looking at it through the eyes of a person who values human life more than freedom, and you're dealing with an enemy who values human life so little, that the justification for ending their own is how many others they can take with them. In the short term, you'll save a few lives. In the long term, you'll lose more lives and the freedom you gave up to save the few in the short term. That enemy looks at the fact that you hold human life in high regard as a weakness to be exploited. That doesn't mean you sink to their level, but it does mean they have to be stopped.
Taxes and the whole class envy topic, which Obama loves to exploit. Why do people making $250,000 a year have to be taxed at a higher rate than people making $100k a year? Let me first add that the wife and I combined don't come close to making $250k a year, and don't expect to anytime during the foreseeable future. Just because it's not me, though, doesn't make it fair. Why is it OK to penalize people for being successful? Is it just...you have more than I do, so we should take more? I don't see what's so fair about that, and it's a disincentive to achieve. Why bust your ass and try to be more successful just so you can give more to the government? Let's also be clear that people making $250k a year already pay more in taxes that people making $100k a year, or $35k a year, or $200k a year, for that matter. When they pay 36% of $250k a year, that's already more than 36% of $240k a year, or anything less. These folks are already bearing a larger share of the tax burden than I am...or just about anyone I know. Why is it "fair" to ask them to bear even more? That whole "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need" thing doesn't work. It sounds noble, but human nature isn't noble. If you just give to each according to their need, you'll never see anyone realize the full potential of their ability, or anything close to it.
For example, let's say I'm a successful guy, making 200 thousand dollars a year. Me? I ought to quit right there, but let's let the imagination run wild. I'm this successful guy, and I have this great idea. If I run with this idea, I'll start a new company. If it's successful, I'll hire 500 people who will in turn support families and pay taxes. They'll buy homes, and cars, and flat screen TVs, and keep the economy going. To do this I'll have to bust my ass and work nights and weekends to get it off the ground, and it's still a gamble. Maybe it'll be successful. Maybe it won't. If I'm wildly successful, I project my profit after the whole mess will be about 51 thousand dollars a year, but then after Obama taxes even more of my income, it's a wash. If I'm successful, I end up taking home exactly what I take home now. Why take on the risk and the extra work?
Now, I know John McCain isn't exactly Mr. Pro-Life. He supports the Pro-Life movement more than Obama does, but hasn't always. If Jerry Falwell was running though, I don't think I'd vote for him just because of this issue. I actually would have a hard time voting for him at all. I need more information on other issues regarding the economy, foreign policy, taxes, what or who you use as a humidor, and so on.
Together though, all the issues do come out as a litmus test, and they determine my vote. No amount of posturing on half truths in a "debate" and commercials that pretend to address issues will change that.
Based on all that, I see the priorities of your typical pro-choice Obama fan looking something like this:
1) convenience - if it's easy and gets me out of a jam, it's better
2) human life - it's important, as long as it doesn't interfere with convenience, or Suzie's clubbing schedule, or her friendship with benefits with that hot guy in 3rd period English that might be the father of her baby..oh, excuse me, what baby?
3) freedom - it's important, but it's not worth dying for
4) entitlement - if you can let me keep what's mine, and give me some of someone else's who has more than me, and make me feel like I somehow deserve that...sign me up
Please, someone show me where I'm wrong, because that's what I'm hearing and I think it's pretty pitiful.
I'm John of the Lumberyard, and I improved this message.
I know when Barak Obama last night said the court got it right in Roe V. Wade, I bristled. I believe abortion is murder. That fact was never more clear to me than when I saw the first sonogram of the youngster, and realized that this was a living person, and yanking him out of the womb and round filing him would be criminal.
I believe we're killing babies, and to say that's a moral issue is just as ridiculous as calling rape a moral issue...or robbery...or drunk driving...or anything else we have a law against because it's freaking wrong. Ted Bundy killed women across the country and went to death for it. We kill babies every day and that's a "moral issue." The only opposing argument I hear is.."Well, would it be better to have unwanted pregnancies? Do you think it's OK for 13 year old kids to be mothers?" and as soon as you go there, you're conceding that it's murder and saying....it's OK to kill people out of convenience. Is there a more inconvenient truth? I have yet to meet someone who has the balls to actually verbalize that, but it is, in effect, what they're saying. In order to prevent a 13 year old girl from being a mom, we advocate killing people. Do people actually believe that? They try to rationalize it away, by convincing themselves it's not really a person, but every one of them, in their heart of hearts, knows better. They smooth that over with "Well, I think it's wrong, but I don't want to force my beliefs on someone else." Why, how "holier than thou" of you. What's the difference between that and a mother who sends her kids into a lake to drown in the family car? "Well, I think that's wrong, but..." my ass. For the record, I don't think it's OK for 13 year old kids to have children, but I don't think murder is an acceptable alternative.
Foreign policy is another that's pretty close. I think a short term view of our place in the world and whether or not we can live in peace is disastrous in the long term. We can survive those disasters, but why should we? I don't know anybody that doesn't want the world to live in peace, but I don't know any terrorists, either. People want to use the amount of lives lost in Iraq as an argument for abandoning that effort, but you have to realize that you're looking at it through the eyes of a person who values human life more than freedom, and you're dealing with an enemy who values human life so little, that the justification for ending their own is how many others they can take with them. In the short term, you'll save a few lives. In the long term, you'll lose more lives and the freedom you gave up to save the few in the short term. That enemy looks at the fact that you hold human life in high regard as a weakness to be exploited. That doesn't mean you sink to their level, but it does mean they have to be stopped.
Taxes and the whole class envy topic, which Obama loves to exploit. Why do people making $250,000 a year have to be taxed at a higher rate than people making $100k a year? Let me first add that the wife and I combined don't come close to making $250k a year, and don't expect to anytime during the foreseeable future. Just because it's not me, though, doesn't make it fair. Why is it OK to penalize people for being successful? Is it just...you have more than I do, so we should take more? I don't see what's so fair about that, and it's a disincentive to achieve. Why bust your ass and try to be more successful just so you can give more to the government? Let's also be clear that people making $250k a year already pay more in taxes that people making $100k a year, or $35k a year, or $200k a year, for that matter. When they pay 36% of $250k a year, that's already more than 36% of $240k a year, or anything less. These folks are already bearing a larger share of the tax burden than I am...or just about anyone I know. Why is it "fair" to ask them to bear even more? That whole "from each according to their ability; to each according to their need" thing doesn't work. It sounds noble, but human nature isn't noble. If you just give to each according to their need, you'll never see anyone realize the full potential of their ability, or anything close to it.
For example, let's say I'm a successful guy, making 200 thousand dollars a year. Me? I ought to quit right there, but let's let the imagination run wild. I'm this successful guy, and I have this great idea. If I run with this idea, I'll start a new company. If it's successful, I'll hire 500 people who will in turn support families and pay taxes. They'll buy homes, and cars, and flat screen TVs, and keep the economy going. To do this I'll have to bust my ass and work nights and weekends to get it off the ground, and it's still a gamble. Maybe it'll be successful. Maybe it won't. If I'm wildly successful, I project my profit after the whole mess will be about 51 thousand dollars a year, but then after Obama taxes even more of my income, it's a wash. If I'm successful, I end up taking home exactly what I take home now. Why take on the risk and the extra work?
Now, I know John McCain isn't exactly Mr. Pro-Life. He supports the Pro-Life movement more than Obama does, but hasn't always. If Jerry Falwell was running though, I don't think I'd vote for him just because of this issue. I actually would have a hard time voting for him at all. I need more information on other issues regarding the economy, foreign policy, taxes, what or who you use as a humidor, and so on.
Together though, all the issues do come out as a litmus test, and they determine my vote. No amount of posturing on half truths in a "debate" and commercials that pretend to address issues will change that.
Based on all that, I see the priorities of your typical pro-choice Obama fan looking something like this:
1) convenience - if it's easy and gets me out of a jam, it's better
2) human life - it's important, as long as it doesn't interfere with convenience, or Suzie's clubbing schedule, or her friendship with benefits with that hot guy in 3rd period English that might be the father of her baby..oh, excuse me, what baby?
3) freedom - it's important, but it's not worth dying for
4) entitlement - if you can let me keep what's mine, and give me some of someone else's who has more than me, and make me feel like I somehow deserve that...sign me up
Please, someone show me where I'm wrong, because that's what I'm hearing and I think it's pretty pitiful.
I'm John of the Lumberyard, and I improved this message.
Labels: Politics
John put this out here at 7:47 AM
15 Comments:
Boy, John, I sure wish I hadn't read that post.
Best post ever. I'm forwarding it to my husband. He may want to marry you. :)
I'm pro life too John. My moral compass seems pretty well alligned with yours.
But the thing is I don't think the government has any place in making Suzie's decision. That decision is between Suzie and her beliefs, not Suzie and our beliefs.
The court got it right - deal with it.
OK, so...show me where I'm wrong...please, because I would like a reason to think the whole thing is not pretty pitiful. What is the difference between Suzie's "choice" and Joe the home invader's (because I'm way tired of Joe the plumber) "choice" of crashing into someone else's house, killing everyone inside and taking their stuff? I mean, I think they're both wrong, but those are just my beliefs. What right do I have to project my morals on Joe the home invader any more than I do Suzie? Why do we have laws that make anything illegal? Why is it OK to let the government have a place in people's lives when they say rape is wrong, but we banish them when we say the same thing about abortion? Where do we draw that line? Calling abortion a "moral issue" is a load of crap....or is it? Please don't just tell me I'm wrong. Give me a lucid argument that tells me where I lost my way. If all you want to do is tell me I'm wrong, get in line (right there, behind the wife, please). I've got plenty of those people. Give me some decent reasons why I'm wrong and you'll have something. That line's a bit shorter.
Also, I am pro choice. I do believe Suzie has a choice. She and her partner make the choice...whether or not to have sex. Once they make that choice, the choosing stops, and the dealing with the consequences begins. It's called living with the consequences of your decisions. It's not called kill a kid, because you don't want to take responsibility for your actions.
oh, and sorry Lyns...your husband can't marry me (although maybe we could have a beer or two together some day). You see, I'm already married :)
I'm sure you've heard all the arguments John, but comparing Suzie's actions to Joe's is idiotic. Suzie is aborting a fetus, not killing a person. A fetus is dependent it’s host and can not survive without. A fetus is a potential person sure, but not a person. Since it is Suzie’s body, it should be her choice to accept the responsibility (or not) of bringing her fetus to term.
In Joe’s case, his victims are not dependent on Joe. Joe’s victims are not part of Joe’s body. Joe’s victims are people, not potential people.
I have kids too and I agree would be criminal to abort those tiny babies and I think there are laws preventing that (abortion is not legal past 24 weeks and I think that’s too long, my choice would be 12 weeks). If your experience was like mine, you first saw your youngster at 20 weeks.
To the best of my knowledge, and I'm no expert, more than 80% of abortions happen prior to eight weeks and most of those are performed on women between the ages of 18 and 25.
Using the 13 year old girl as your example is cute, but statistically pulled from the RDB (rectal data base).
I know nothing will change your mind, and I'm ok with that. In a perfect world, Suzie will make the correct choice.
It's easy for you, being a man and all, to take your position. When the government decides to make a law that subjugates your body, I'm sure you will support that too.
We need you on our side John. Suzie listens to those who support her right to choose. Guidance can be given only to someone who will listen.
Pro Choice (is) For Life
not to start a comment war, but why do you allow anonymous users to argue with you? To me, posting as anonymous is such a cowardly thing to do. It's like putting duct tape over someones mouth, then rambling on and on, without allowing the other person to say a word. They leave their unwanted comments and then disappear into space, or onto the next blog, because they don't have a blog to show of their own. At least the lumberyard has something to show for himself, and doesn't have to hide who he is.
Come out, come out, wherever you are, Mr. Anonymous, and show us what YOU have to offer the world.
Nothing?
That's what I thought.
4 points and I'm all done.
1) It's OK Linsey...if people want to stay anonymous, as long as they aren't abusive, I really don't care.
2) a fetus isn't a "potential" person. It's a person. If it isn't, when does it become one? Where do you draw that line? You can't, but people try, to the best of their rationalized convenience. The fact that I made my example a 13 year old was actually being nice...because it makes her immature and possibly ignorant. If the woman is 18 to 25, it just makes it all the worse, because she really ought to know better, and she does. She just doesn't want to admit it to herself, and this society is right there, giving her all the feel good, conscience soothing, responsibility absolving excuses she needs, with phrases like "you have a right to choose" and "potential person". My comparison with Joe the home invader is extreme to make a point, but it's not idiotic. The fact that a baby is dependent on his or her mother doesn't absolve her of the crime. Again, it just makes it all the worse.
3) The man thing...that unborn baby is the responsibility of both parents. it shouldn't be any easier for a man than a woman. That the government doesn't regulate what happens inside my body comes with the fact that I can't give a person life. That's a gift, not a regulation, and it doesn't come with a license to kill.
4) the fully dependent on the mother thing...is no different for a newborn than it is a fetus. Both, left to their own devices, would die. Killing one is murder, and we all ask how a mother could do such a thing. Killing the other is a choice, hailed by Planned Parenthood. Does a difference in geography really make one wrong and the other OK? Is timing the crime? Please.
Sorry, just looking out for my favorite lumberyard! :)
Lynsey - John asked, he even said please.
We disagree on when a fetus can be considered a person then. I draw the line at 22 weeks which is the time at which a fetus has a small chance to survive out of the womb. How, when, and why exactly do you consider a fetus a person? Please explain that to me. I would really like to know.
I never said a newborn would survive "if left to it's own devices", I'm saying only suzie can turn a fetus into a person and therefore she should have that choice. An newborn can be cared for by anyone.
Please keep in mind I'm not advocating killing babies or fetuses, I would prefer there were zero abortions. I just feel, based on the reasons I stated, that suzie should have the choice.
That's where we disagree, and neither of us have any shot at changing the other's mind, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Where does life begin? It's the immortal question that Barak Obama considers above his pay grade, and I think has nothing to do with a pay grade.
Life begins at conception. Anything else is a rationalization based on how comfortable someone feels along the slippery slope, or how good they want to feel about a "choice".
At conception, cells start splitting and a human being begins its life. To give it some other status, again, is a rationalization with no purpose but to make it feel better if you choose to kill it. Nobody even considered this smoke and mirrors angle until we started legally killing babies and our collective conscience needed to be assuaged. How about if we say they're not really babies yet? Yeah, that's the ticket. Meet my wife, Morgan Fairchild.
People have their own reasons for saying it's farther down the road, and yours is no exception, but then the nit picking begins. How about 21 weeks and 6 days? How about 21 weeks and 4 days? No? Show me what happened in those 2 days, or three days where presto change-o..it's a person now and wasn't yesterday...or 10 minutes ago. It started becoming a person on day 1, regardless of its chances of surviving outside the womb. If you intentionally end that process, you killed something, and that something isn't anything less than human.
There's what I know and why. Like I said...I know there's no convincing you and visa versa, but there it is....and 11 really is too many comments for any Lumberyard post.
You want the real kicker? I think deep down, you know I’m right, and that really bothers you, because it goes against everything you really want to believe.
I'm totally with Anonymous. And glad s/he had the wherewithal to say it.
Don't legislate my body, friend, till you've lived in it...and don't position yourself to make my choices. Sorry Lyns. Sorry John.
And please don't think for a minute that either I or Anonymous think you're right and that what we're (Anonymous) is saying somehow goes against what we believe in -- because that's just not so.
Agree to disagree, and move on. You won't win this one.
Legislate???? Legislation's got nothing to do with it. It's part of the reason we got to where we are, on abortion and a few other issues. Nobody ever legislated anything to do with this topic....because as we all learned in civics class, it's the judiciary that makes the laws.
You can convince yourself all you want that a fetus isn't considered a person until 22 weeks. But try telling that to someone who's been trying to conceive for months, or years, who finally gets pregnant. What would you say? "Congrats but gee whiz, don't get your hopes up just yet, it's just a fetus!" Or when someone miscarries at 12 weeks, should they not get too upset since it wasn't really a person to begin with??? It's a person from the moment of conception! What is it otherwise? A monkey???
The excuses people come up with for abortion to try and make themselves feel better about it are endless, and rather disturbing.
On a final note, I felt my son kick at just 20 weeks, tell me he wasn't a person "just yet."
Post a Comment
<< Home