To help fund adoptions, Oregon lawmakers are proposing selling an optional "vanity" plate design, already in use in other states, that reads "Choose Life."
This upsets the ACLU and NARAL, who contend first amendment freedoms don't apply to license plates.
Although this is in Oregon, an insider tells me the same bill will be coming before the Washington legislature next session:
"One of the things we're struggling with, of course, is providing funding for adoption down in the counties," said Rep. Brian Boquist, R-Dallas, one of the bill's sponsors. Boquist said Rep. Mac Sumner, R-Molalla, came up with the idea as a way to help fund county commissions on family and children, which help with adoptions, among other things....Earth to Roche: a pro-choice person can say "choose life," too. The phrase advocates one decision (not aborting) over the other, which is hardly "anti-choice."Representatives of the American Civil Liberties Union and NARAL-Pro-Choice Oregon joined in testifying against the bill.
"This legislation penalizes organizations like Planned Parenthood, while masking an anti-choice agenda as the promotion of adoption," Roche said.
The plates would be paid for by the Choose Life organization and not the state: this does not violate any civil liberty. So why is the ACLU weighing in? And how does supporting adoption funds "penalize" Planned Parenthood?
If Choose Life is unacceptable, they're certainly free to compete in the market with an alternative plate: "Don't Choose Life."
Hat tip: Orbusmax
Posted by Brian Crouch at April 30, 2005 12:28 PM | Email ThisChoose Infanticide.
I write this with an 8 month old on my lap flogging my keyboard with a wet teething rag.
Posted by: JCM on April 30, 2005 12:40 PMIf we wanted to get really graphic, we could suggest "Choose turning the baby around and birthing it feet first just before the head comes out and then punch it with scissors while it flinches in agonizing pain".
Hey, it's honest.
Posted by: Michele on April 30, 2005 01:53 PMWhy aren't anti-choice advocates honest in their alternatives? Why not "Against Choice" or "Anti-Constitution" instead of the misleading "Choose Life?"
Posted by: Christine G on April 30, 2005 05:11 PMChoose life -- which begins at birth.
Posted by: Ivan on April 30, 2005 05:15 PMHey, it's honest.
Posted by: Michele on April 30, 2005 07:14 PMLife begins in the mother's womb far before birth. A simple video of any early term fetus, or more graphically any partial-birth abortion, makes this quite clear. For someone to say otherwise shows a severe lack of compassion and ignorance of fact.
Those who insist on a culture of death are morally, spiritually, and ethically wrong. This isn't about restricting medical care or even, heaven forbid, preventing abortions. It is all about giving mothers the choice of adoption.
It's far past time for the pendulum to swing back to conservatism and a culture of life. And it will take the efforts of each one of us to make this happen.
May it be so.
Posted by: zapporo on April 30, 2005 07:34 PMOf course, I also think that they Seattle Channel and the King County Channel on TV have no business running their political ideology in their special programming. They should simply stick to broadcasting the Silly Council's in debate, and perhaps running a TV camera always on in Ron King's office. That would be some fun reality TV for a change.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 30, 2005 08:44 PMChristine G...
Why aren't the *choice* advocates honest?
Why not, like the "Choose Life" crowd,....you make an honest statement......to "Choose Death"...? Or maybe..."End Life" ?
I don't understand what the problem is? If it's honesty you're concerned about..then go for it!
Posted by: Deborah on April 30, 2005 10:21 PMHow about "Dead set against killing babies"? Would that make you happy? Cuz thats all that really matters, making libs feel happy and comfy all the time.
Posted by: Julie on April 30, 2005 10:30 PMBut the irony of this that I see, is the discussion about choosing life in Oregon, considering that State's position on Assisted Suicide.
Put a beaver or a tree on it and call it a day. Putting political slogans on it opens up a rat's nest we don't need to go down.
Posted by: Karl on April 30, 2005 11:02 PMSaying 'choose life' doesn't mean someone still can't choose death. (I thought that was kind of obvious.)
Posted by: Michele on April 30, 2005 11:03 PMNo brain, no pain.
You say: “Why not "Against Choice" or "Anti-Constitution" instead of the misleading "Choose Life?"
Hold on:If I wasn't pro-life, I might be mislead to agree that you are an example for the notion that abortion should be retroactive.
You must be saying, it is against the constitution to choose life?
Or, it is constitutionally permissible to choose the murder of infants?
Choosing life is misleading?
Thanks for the fun.
I thought that looked wrong...
Posted by: Michele on May 1, 2005 01:12 AMUnless we are willing to let every one choose whatever phrase he/she wants on his/her license plate,
this is simply not a good idea.
That's what bumperstickers are for:
Choose life -- which begins at birth.
Choose Life!
Life begins in the mother's womb far before birth.
To Amused Liberal:
Are you suggesting that the people who want to buy this plate are in favor of "choosing" life? They want to legislate the question, not allow "choice." To pretend otherwise is absurd.
Posted by: Christine G on May 1, 2005 10:50 AMWe Pro lifers resent the USE of the word "choice" this ain't Baskin Robbins - this is the life a child and no one should be allowed to "choose" kill another human being - regardless of it's age or status.
Posted by: Julie on May 1, 2005 01:50 PMIt must be difficult to adhere to a doctrine wherein the only "choice" permissible is whether one should sucks its brains out, or murder it with chemicals.
Anything else is "intolerant".....
(Anyways, it isn't a political question - it's a cultural one that has political overtones)
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 1, 2005 03:13 PMYou think that it is murder. So "choice" has nothing to do with it. Nevertheless, some of you pretend, and adopt the use of the word choice, as if you recognized the values of the pro-choice position.
But you don't recognize those values - so don't use "choice."
Posted by: Christine G on May 1, 2005 06:17 PMYes, I think of it as murder - the deliberate taking of another innocent life.
Yes, I do understand that it is a choice. I also understand that it is a choice with consequences, consequences that most leftists don't (or won't) face up to.
No, I do not conflate murdering babies in any way with "values".
I pity your "understanding".....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 1, 2005 09:03 PMIf you take the position that it is murder, it is silly to talk about choice, right? I don't see how you can disagree with that.
So, I think we are in agreement, but you still want to get a dig in at me for some reason that I really can't fathom.
Don't bother pitying me; I can assure you it's a waste of your time and entirely unappreciated.
Posted by: Christine G on May 1, 2005 09:41 PMI can honestly say - I hope they choose to let the baby live. I hope they "Choose Life".
All that said - I really doubt if anything you could put on your car would change the heart of a mother set on taking the life of her child - it would only serve to identify the conservatives among us.
Posted by: Julie on May 1, 2005 09:45 PMIt has to make one wonder why, if they are so sure and proud of themselves, why they run fast and far from the words that define them so perfectly.
Posted by: Cheryl on May 1, 2005 09:52 PMNext time I run into a woman who is considering abortion so she can fit into her swimsuit, I'll send her your way
Hi Cheryl:
Three comments:
1. It is the pro-life people in this case who are talking about "choice" which should offend (and apparently does offend) other pro-life folks.
2. Pro-choice is perfectly accurate. Pro-bort isn't even a word.
3. I know of no one who has a problem with the word homosexual. I'm not sure where you got the idea that someone did have a problem with it.
Posted by: Christine G on May 1, 2005 10:23 PMYes, indeed I want the right restored to citizens of states to legislate the question of abortion, and prohibiting this right is unconstitutional. The fundamental right to life clearly rests within the constitution and a woman’s (nor anyone else’s) “choice” to murder infants does not. I would abide a sensible constitutional treatment of the subject based on a reasonable interpretation of law, but to consider “choice” a “fundamental right” thus prohibiting laws in this context is shamelessly deceptive and depraved.
It is clear that you “feel” that you have all of the problems associated with abortion resolved to your satisfaction and that you find the only moral dilemma associated with it is any threat to your right to “choose” whatever you like. Given the sloppy irrational and desultory content of your comments, it is not surprising that you would assume the tenuous ill-considered positions you take. You are one of the many shallow people who inhabit our society that considers things from a purely self-centered view without regard to responsibility or consequences. The problem you overlook is that fundamentals are inextricably interconnected and you cannot escape consequences, even of they are unintended.
Given a world view that observes fundamental rights such as the “right to life” as solely subject to human consensus, how do you defend the future of society should your views persist? What would you say when a sufficient number of your fellow citizens regard your life as expendable? Do you say it is absurd to observe that there are those who would take your life just for fun, and the only defense you may have is the tepid sanction of those who regard the sanctity of your life just as you do those of little unborn children? Who will defend you when along with your liberal comrades you have sufficiently “chosen” to abandon the fundamental rights in enough different ways for the sake of “choice” such that choice is no longer an option?”
Nah, that will/could never happen!!
Several places in the world have your scale of regard for choice about others lives but they have different specific social aims and putative victims of their selections. It would be fun to drop you off there and observe your reaction to them . . . if you survived long enough to have a retort.
I don’t have much interest in people like you for reasons that you are obviously unable to understand, but I would defend your right to life and I don’t believe in murdering babies either.
Thanks for the tutorial on arrogant careless depravity.
Sorry you wasted time with your little lecture inside your head. I'm out here. If you prove yourself capable of reasoned discussion, I'm happy to chat.
Talking to yourself isn't a very appealing quality.
You know nothing about my world view, since you haven't asked. Unfortunately, you seem to lack the social skills - even those rudimentary skills necessary for the internet - to have any discussion at all with anyone of an opposing view. Surely you know that you're wasting your time by simply indulging in name-calling and presupposition, rather than discussion.
Talk about arrogant - you call me "depraved" "sloppy" "irrational" and "shallow." Is that the way you always conduct yourself? You should be embarrassed.
Just for fun, since I have a few minutes, you say:
"Yes, indeed I want the right restored to citizens of states to legislate the question of abortion, and prohibiting this right is unconstitutional. The fundamental right to life clearly rests within the constitution"
IF a right to life for the fetus were in the Constitution, it wouldn't be a question for the states - nor should it. Which is it? Is it a question of the will of the majority, as you first suggest, or is it "fundamental?" If it is the first, then you hardly have any basis to criticize anyone else for having a wavering commitment to the scantity of life, since you're willing to give the question to state legislatures.
"I would abide a sensible constitutional treatment"
What do you mean by "abide?" The question has been determined by the properly appointed Supreme Court.
"to consider “choice” a “fundamental right” thus prohibiting laws in this context is shamelessly deceptive and depraved."
I presume your discussing Roe v. Wade - however, you seem to have no idea what it says. No: it does not say "choice" is a fundamental right. No: it does not say laws in this context are prohibited. Since you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about, your judgment that it is depraved is worthless.
"It is clear that you “feel” that you have all of the problems associated with abortion resolved to your satisfaction and that you find the only moral dilemma associated with it is any threat to your right to “choose” whatever you like."
How is that clear? I said nothing of the sort.
"Given the sloppy irrational and desultory content of your comments"
It seems to me I've said a couple things. First, I said the pro-life position is antiConstitutional. Under the law as it exists, this is true. Second, I have said that "choose life" is misleading, because the pro-life movement doesn't want choice. That's true as well. And I said that if the state wants to enter into this debate, it should offer a "Pro Choice" or similar plate.
Can you tell me what is irrational about these statements? It seems that they are logical, regardless of your view of abortion.
"You are one of the many shallow people who inhabit our society that considers things from a purely self-centered view without regard to responsibility or consequences."
You know nothing about me. Is this really how you conduct yourself? I find this incredible. Is it at all possible in your world that people simply disagree? Is it possible that good people are honestly mistaken about important questions? Apparently not.
"Given a world view that observes fundamental rights such as the “right to life” as solely subject to human consensus"
I never said this, either, or remotely implied it. You're the one that wants to turn it over to state legislatures.
"Who will defend you when along with your liberal comrades you have sufficiently “chosen” to abandon the fundamental rights in enough different ways for the sake of “choice” such that choice is no longer an option?” "
This, Mr. Amused, is why we have a constitution, with notions of due process, equal protection, and privacy. Unfortunately, YOUR side of this debate doesn't really care for the Constitution - it only wants to support rights that don't exist in the Constitution (rightly or wrongly omitted as they may be).
Since you brought up the notion of liberals being against life, can I ask what the conservatives are doing to promote life? I see precious little. Conservatives value only the rights of people who can't speak - they couldn't care less about people they need to interact with. They remind me of the old joke: I love humanity - it's people I can't stand. The supposed concern for the unborn often masks complete indifference for everyone else. I don't know this is true of you, but it is true of many people - for example James Dobson.
I can't for the life of me figure out how Dobson can rail against abortion AND against the Supreme Court's decision to prohibit execution of those who committed crimes as minors. He's supposedly a Christian who believes that grace is a gift that is available to us all - like his buddy Chuck Colson, he believes that salvation of criminals in prison is possible. How can a Christian possibly condone execution of a young person, depriving them of the opportunity of salvation? It's appalling, and he loses any moral authority by taking that stance.
At any rate, your post drifted so far afield that there isn't any point in continuing to deconstruct it.
Yes, Christine G, I do quite obviously refer to Roe v. Wade. A right to life exists for human fetuses regardless of the interpretation of a few liberal judges, and that is the essence of the whole polemic. Just as I am “abiding” your slippery mishandling of the subject by responding, I would abide the will of my fellow Washington State citizens should they decide to legally allow abortions here, but because of Roe v. Wade they are not allowed to do so. Until very recently, partial birth abortions were legal. If you do not consider that murder, then the sanctity of your life is diminished as well. Around the world cultures devalue women and murder them by the consensus of men. Why not join them?
You would do well to step back from your prejudices and consider others views more carefully before pretending to blast them so easily out of the water. This time you shabbily slapped a fake target of your own making.
I didn’t say that Roe v. Wade said that "choice" is a fundamental right.
You say that “the pro-life position is antiConstitutional,” [sic] and that “the pro-life movement doesn't want choice.” This clearly indicates your “feeling” certain about abortion, and that you find the only relevant moral dilemma associated with it is any threat to your right to “choose” abortion." You are not “thinking,” you are mouthing liberal feminist talking points without regard for their implications, or concern over facts.
Under the American Constitution, fundamental rights can never be bargained away for any reason.
The decision in Roe v Wade abandons the pretext of fundamental rights in favor of a broad interpretation of rights and “privacy.” This allows the Supreme Court to enforce the right of privacy against the will of those who would make State laws prohibiting abortion -- protecting life in the womb. The so-called pro-life position insists that the constitution protects innocent life as the fundamental rights of the unborn and those who disagree have devalued fundamental rights by creating privacy as a fundamental right and then classing it above that of life. They conjured/constructed a penumbra (bu22$hit) out of the constitution that does not exist, to create a right to “privacy” within the constitution. You might read Roe v. Wade some time instead of taking the words of your feminist cohorts for what it might say.
YOU TRAPPED YOURSELF. If you believe that “the pro-life position is antiConstitutional,” and if you understand the decision in Roe v. Wade, then you have expressly admitted that you believe that the “right to life” is growing to be solely subject to human consensus. Consensus of judicial activism devaluing individual fundamental rights is how the Supreme Court arrived at the decision in Roe v. Wade.
Your appeal to personal histrionics is amusing but it misses all relevant points. I read your representations about yourself, and the response you provided here proves that my assessment of you is quite accurate. It is possible that people are honestly mistaken about important questions, and you are definitely mistaken, but I am also mindful of the reality that you will not be persuaded by facts. Nevertheless, this is still fun.
You say that I want to turn it (presumably the legality of abortion) over to state legislatures. Your understanding of the Constitution is shallow, and clichéd. Roe v. Wade is more about the right of states to make laws respecting family matters than abortion per se. In effect, they said that “privacy” alone is more important than any other fundamental right even though it doesn’t exist in the constitution, and -- the principle as-it-were -- should be applied only respecting a “woman’s right to choose.” The so-called “right to privacy” is being expanded to encompass other ideas like homosexual marriage and assisted suicide. Eventually, rights will be dispensed according to a consensus of “experts” based on the objectification of personhood.
I ask Christine: "Who will defend you when along with your liberal comrades you have sufficiently “chosen” to abandon the fundamental rights in enough different ways for the sake of “choice” such that choice is no longer an option?” "
Perfect liberal non-sequitur: This, Mr. Amused, is why we have a constitution, with notions of due process, equal protection, and privacy. Golly, what a cogent argument.
Your last paragraphs of yakitty-yak stereotyping conservatives is characteristic of the many shallow people who inhabit our society that consider things from a purely self-centered view without regard to responsibility or consequences. You have contributed nothing of any substance to the dialogue – because you have nothing of substance to contribute.
Thanks for reminding me why I am very happy to be a conservative, and amused by liberals like you.
You see precious little because you aren't looking. Approximately 30% of the devoutly "religious right" give a full 10% of their monetary income to help others. They get zip from it. Not even recognition - because it is done in private. As far as James Dobson, you know nothing but what you hear from your liberal fascist friends who are terrified of his "agenda". He gives an astronimal amount to the needy. He just doesn't brag about it.
Just because people don't foam at the mouth ranting and raving about their do-good deeds doesn't even begin to say they don't do them. When was the last time any of your friends got off a full day at work to donate the food and cook it for a group of 80 hungry people in the community?
How many times have you sat down at the PIC and held babies born to drug addicted mothers?
How dare you spout off about Christians who do nothing for people. Keep on talking about murdering babies if you must - since that is something near and dear to your heart - but if you want to start talking about Christians, you've got some learning to do.
Posted by: Julie on May 2, 2005 01:17 PMDo you want to turn the question of abortion over to state legislatures or not?
If you do (and clearly you do), you are ceding "fundamental rights" to "human consensus" as you put it. That observation has nothing to do with feminism, and nothing to do with "feeling." It is logic.
What about the notion that the due process clause of the Constitution protects my life is somehow a non sequitur to you? That comment mystifies me.
I'd appreciate it if you could clear up those two points, rather than calling me names. Thanks.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 02:31 PMYou're talking past my points. I'll give an example:
The Catholic Church cares about life issues. They oppose both capital punishment and abortion. They oppose economic exploitation, and the lack of assistance from wealthy countries to the third world.
James Dobson does not. He has railed against the recent death penalty decision - I can find it in his writings and link them if you please. I asked how a Christian who believes that salvation is through grace alone and being born again could deprive a person in prison of the opportunity be saved. Do you have an answer, or am I misunderstanding his position?
When I said I see conservatives doing precious little to promote life, I said nothing about churches. Other than abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research, what conservative position is pro-life. Please name a couple of conservative policies that help prolong the lives of people who are born, and not at the end of life. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 02:45 PMSo if you think there should be alternative plates, who pays for those? Are you going to require private citizens to pay for them?
I really don't understand what you want here.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 2, 2005 02:51 PMOr a "Pro Choice" option could be offered.
I don't think it matters who pays for the plates. What if the DNC offered to pay for plates saying "Bush Lies?" Would it be incumbent on the RNC to put up money for plates saying "Kerry Flip Flops?" I think not. It is best for the state to stay out of the issue entirely.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 03:11 PMIf you think it doesn't matter, why don't YOU pay for them? That would solve the problem, would it not?
Posted by: Bostonian on May 2, 2005 03:26 PMYou're saying that this isn't fair and that this should be counterbalanced by some other plates. So who pays for them?
Posted by: Bostonian on May 2, 2005 03:45 PMFigure it out. It's not that hard.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 03:52 PMSomebody else IS free to come along and do the same thing (as you noted with the DNC/RNC), so there's no problem.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 2, 2005 03:59 PMYou apparently think the government is required to enforce that all messages get an equal say, even when someone else (not the government) is footing the bill.
But that's just not how the First Amendment works.
I was waiting to see if you understood what you were saying enough to voice that underlying assumption. Hey, I tried.
Posted by: Bostonian on May 2, 2005 04:18 PMNo. Try again.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 04:23 PMThe State may do a couple of things:
1. It may create a viewpoint forum that takes in all sides; or
2. If advocates on both sides of an issue agree to pay money to create that forum, those advocates can jointly fund it.
If one side wants to fund, and the other doesn't, then the state can't create the forum.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 04:38 PMThe Rose case, which I can't find online, dealt with the question of whether Planned Parenthood could challenge the plate scheme. A couple of courts found they couldn't - I think Florida and Louisiana.
The Rose court found, along with the other courts, that Planned Parenthood didn't have a free speech right. It wasn't a question of whether Planned Parenthood could get the word out. It was a question of the buyer of the plate, who walked into the state office, and could buy a prolife plate but not a prochoice plate. His or her free speech right was at issue, not Planned Parenthood's.
I think the answer to that was essentially that the citizen could just buy a bumpersticker instead of a plate - but the court decided that this was part public, part private speech, and that a equal option needed to be offered by the state.
I can't remember how Planned Parenthood got standing in the S Carolina case, and I can't find a link right now.
Posted by: Christine G on May 2, 2005 05:57 PMChristine G is NOT female! Christine is *Christopher* ......(Don't ask me how I know....I won't tell you.)
Why bother getting pulled into a feminine issue like abortion.....with a man?
Men are the ONLY winners in an abortion...
Rapists, Child Molestors, Non-committing boyfriends and Bad Uncles are abortions biggest supporters! They are advocates for the right of women and girls to quietly destroy the evidence of their deeds...!
Posted by: Deborah on May 2, 2005 07:07 PMThanks for pointing that out Deborah - I would have to agree that you are probably right on that... but I have to ask - do you "think you know" or do you "know"??
Cuz Lucy really is a man. For sure - well - I guess he could have crossed over - at some point ???
Posted by: Julie on May 2, 2005 07:46 PMI just know. Though I've personally never met him..
Posted by: Deborah on May 2, 2005 09:39 PMThis board is always so enlightening.
Christine G (whoever),
I want Roe v. Wade overturned because it is bad law.
I want the states to follow the prescription of the founders and make their own laws respecting abortion. I seriously doubt that many will make stringent laws but if so, so be it.
When a state or states make law[s] that can be viewed as violating the fundamental right of life, then I want them to use the system as designed and appeal to the Supreme Court.
Then I want Supreme Court Justices to use the system as designed, and rule on the LAW based on an unembellished interpretation of the Constitution and legal precedence to determine the outcomes. That is I want them to use the system as designed, and follow stare decisis.
I want those who use misleading terminology blurring the debate about abortion to be exposed for the true intentions behind the things they say respecting fundamental values.
Being pro life means that you choose life (except the death penalty or war).
Being pro choice means that you want the right to kill or murder for justification, and you want to be the one who establishes the rationalization.
The really interesting thing about pro choice abortion logic is that the victim has no say in the matter, because of the absurd conflation of their flesh as part of that of the victimizer. The liberal way to rationalize surgical discard of a human being.
Liberals bandy shallow appeals to speculative sentimentality in substitution for actually promoting life.
Conservatives are the only ideologues today that promote life.
Among many other things, conservatives promote life around the world through a strong national defense, free markets where anyone can compete and win based on their own initiatives, limited government that leaves citizen’s free to pursue happiness, freedom from the establishment of a state religion allowing citizens to worship as they like or not at all, freedom to own firearms to defend themselves and their families and property from other citizens who decide to break the law, freedom to vote equally and speak freely about issues so long as they do not directly injure others without due cause. Mostly conservatives believe in and promote fundamental rights that can not be removed because they are enshrined in the constitution and interpreted by Supreme Court Justices who are duty bound to interpret the law only in view of the constitution.
Liberals are doing everything they can to oppose all of these things. None of them can show where any of their "solutions" have evr worked before, but who cares -- just take their word for it. They are working deliberately toward a socialist communist form of government while shrouding it in appeals to unlimited rights, total equality of outcomes, environmental panic based on pure pseudo-science, one world government, and multi-lateral foreign policy. They only believe in free speech so long as it is approved by the soi disant liberal intelligentsia (no one should ever be offended but Christian conservatives). They want confiscation of firearms on the premise that firearms cause crime, and they insist that it is the job of police to defend us from each other - the most conspicuously disingenuous bu22$hit ever contrived. Voting should be equal (one man one vote) so long as liberals (democrats) are allowed a distinct advantage from the so-called disenfranchised – illegal aliens through internalized payola – all mail voting. Liberals like Al Gore (a great genius in his own right) openly insist that rights are conferred by men not god, thus disentangling all of us from the need to care about the Bill of Rights. Oh well it was old anyway and Christine G doesn't understand it so lets just discard it.
First you say you want the power in the states. Then you say you want it decided in the Supreme Court. Which is it? Apparently it's the later, which makes the former irrelevant.
I think that's the answer to my question. Although you then profess to respect stare decisis - which again undercuts your position. But leave that aside for the time being.
Now, can you answer another set of obvious questions? What on earth does abortion have to do with guns? How do you know my position on guns? How do you know my position on the establishment clause? And please tell me exactly where, in my posts here, I have appealled to sentimentality? How can I simultaneously appeal to sentimentality, and insist on rigid logical thought?
Or, to ask it another way: are you willing to stop talking to yourself and actually understand another point of view?
And, can somebody - anybody - defend Dobson's rejection of the recent SC decision on the death penalty by appealing to Christian principles?
I'm really very puzzled. Can you point me to any statement that I made here that displays poor reasoning ability?
And, if you want to respect stare decisis, how do you propose the court handle Roe and the cases it relied on? Is that an unreasonable question?
Is my question about Dobson - which, I repeat is how can someone who believes in salvation through grace alone can condone killing a young sinner, no matter how heinous his crime - irrational? Unworthy of response?
Posted by: Christine G on May 3, 2005 01:48 PMYou are not puzzled, and neither are most of the readers of this thread.
You are however embarrassing yourself in front of your adversaries.
No matter for you - liberals have no shame - but your cheesy tactics are amusing to us.
Keep it up.
No, I'm puzzled. I've asked several questions. I'm not sure why you bother to post if you don't want to engage others in debate. I hope you reconsider your approach. I am interested in your opinion.
Posted by: Christine G on May 3, 2005 03:03 PMBecause life has such immense value - the taking of such should cost someone an immense price. In our society - that calls for death (far too infrequently) .Liberals opposing the death penalty is just further pushing their agenda - that life is of little value - therefore - the taking of such is "no big deal".
Posted by: Julie on May 3, 2005 03:19 PMI understand that murder should carry a high price. But, what about the murderer's chance for salvation? Isn't that taken from him? Isn't this a greater problem when the murderer is young?
Posted by: Christine G on May 3, 2005 03:24 PMHow does teaching Social Darwinism promote life?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on May 4, 2005 09:29 AMTeaching social darwinism doesn't promote life.
Posted by: Christine G on May 4, 2005 12:05 PMThank you for answering my question. Are you talking about a Christian or secular vision of social justice?
I have very little problem with executing someone like Ridgeway, who, alas, will live. He spent his entire life pursuing his crimes. He isn't going to change. When it comes to someone who commited his crimes before eighteen, it seems to me that a lot can happen, especially with decades to think about it in prison. That is why Dobson's position disturbs me. I think that we as a society can write certain people off as wasted and beyond hope, but it seems uncompassionate to me to be so rigid about insisting that someone be written off so young.
Posted by: Christine G on May 4, 2005 12:13 PMWrong!
Of course teaching Social Darwinism promotes life!
It opens the way for a useful discussion of human nature and their potential relationship to the natural environment, a clear discussion of the genus of congenital syndromes, a scientific understanding of trends in well-being and disease including clues to the development of the basic understanding of the germ theory of disease, cures to many diseases including polio and other debilitating disorders, and guess what – Social Darwinism provided part of a theoretic basis for the discovery of DNA!
Are you just jerking around or do you really think that teaching Social Darwinism doesn’t promote life?
Why bother to post if you don't want to engage others in debate?
Do you believe that liberal socialism promotes life?
I'm not sure why you are suggesting that I don't want to engage in debate. You asked a question, I gave an answer.
I'm not sure what you're talking about by Social Darwinism. The term has a number of definitions. There is economic Social Darwinism, there is eugenics, there are "master race" theories, and there are other variations. As a general rule, Social Darwinism is based on a false application of evolutionary principles to the social realm.
As a rule, these theories rest on an the notion that these principles must be practiced to ensure the survival of the race. Because they tend to be based on a false understanding of evolutionary principles, they do not further that goal.
As to your list of supposed benefits, I think you are engaging in several fallacies. First, medical advances don't spring from or validate political theories, even though incidentally they were developed under the auspices of a particular government. For example, the experiments of the Nazis have contributed to medical understanding, in some areas significantly. To ask then: did the Nazi party promote medical research? would be absurd, as medical research was an incidental part of the policies. Second, if you see a policy as social darwinism, that doesn't mean you are correct to label it as such - you need first to at least explain the premise that the policy is social darwinism.
Now you have rephrased the question to "liberal social darwinism." I'm glad to answer if you tell me what you mean. Thanks.
Posted by: Christine G on May 5, 2005 10:54 AMSo Christine G, are you really that dim, or are you just drawn that way?!!
You dance around a question like no one I've ever seen!
Now that you've restated the question in response to the question he answered in response to the question you answered in response to the question he answered in response to the response to the question you answered.......
Well done! (In a non-responsive sort of fashion) ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 6, 2005 08:25 PMI answered the question, not once, but twice: social darwinism doesn't promote life.
Tell me how that's nonresponsive.
Thanks.
Posted by: Christine G on May 6, 2005 11:47 PMI asked you, "Do you believe that liberal socialism promotes life?"
I've made numerous consistent reciprocal cases on this thread and you utterly failed to counter them in any way instead choosing to play smart-a$$ games.
One thing I must admit to be in agreement with you about. You really are very puzzled, bewildered and perplexed. Nevertheless, I’m bored with your air of innocent inquiry masking indolent mulishness, and I won’t waste time playing your cheeky passive aggressive games.
Don't dispair though, it was very amusing to watch you dance around and play your little mock-sincere liberal gaffe.
Thanks for the comments.
I answered your question. Twice.
Social darwinism doesn't promote life.
I have no idea what you mean by "liberal" social darwinism. If you want to explain yourself, I'm happy to elaborate.
I have not played smart-a$$ games. If you are unable to engage in conversation, don't blame me.
If you want to have a conversation, I'm open to it.
However, if you want to name call, I wonder why you bother.
Thanks.
Posted by: Christine G on May 7, 2005 12:26 PMI explained my understanding of the term. Perhaps Amused has a different one.
Posted by: Christine G on May 7, 2005 05:10 PMI explained my understanding of the term. Perhaps Amused has a different one.
Posted by: Christine G on May 7, 2005 05:10 PMI guess it doesn't take much to be a troll on this board.
What is your understanding of the term?
Posted by: Christine G on May 7, 2005 07:43 PMIn order to engage in dialogue it helps if you know how to read.
I Asked: Do you believe that liberal socialism promotes life?
I already know your answer -- another incomprehensible mish mash of circular silliness.
Who cares.
Does liberal socialism promote life?
As opposed to conservative socialism?
Liberals promote life.
At least when they're convicted murders.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 9, 2005 03:19 PMI have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: Christine G on May 9, 2005 04:40 PMI could find some pro-life activists who are convicted murderers, certainly - however, I wouldn't assert that was proof that conservatives don't promote life.
Posted by: Christine G on May 12, 2005 01:31 PMThat brings to mind the notion that, if you could have an infinite number of monkeys pound on an infinite number of keyboards for an infinite period of time....
(they still couldn't type anything stupider, less comprehensible, or less germaine than what you posted)
(but please feel free to try again! ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 13, 2005 07:37 PMYou have nothing to offer but name-calling, it appears.
What exactly do you get out of that?
Posted by: Christine G on May 14, 2005 08:28 AMI also have insults, invectives, insinuations, and innuendoes.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 14, 2005 09:58 PMBad childhood? Time to get over it.
Answer the question.
Posted by: Christine G on May 17, 2005 12:24 AMKiss my grits.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 17, 2005 09:52 AMBut, why not answer the question?
Posted by: Christine G on May 17, 2005 01:23 PMWhat's your point?
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 17, 2005 02:17 PMHardly what I would expect in matters of life or death.
Posted by: Christine G on May 17, 2005 06:42 PMI am not the one who would think to "trivilize" (sic) the act of vacuuming a human being into oblivion...but then it's only tissue, right?
I seriously doubt that you are in any way familiar with "matters of life & death", except in a detached, pseudo-intellectual sort of way.
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 17, 2005 08:02 PMLicense plate frames as a way of resisting/calling attention to the murder of millions of innocents? Pathetic.
Millions are being killed...and the religious right is going to save them by...eliminating the judicial filibuster? They're either spineless or they don't believe their rhetoric. Talk about detached.
Snide comments, lumping abortion with taxes and other minor issues - you aren't serious. You don't treat this as a life or death issue. You don't think it's murder any more than I do.
Had I said, anywhere, that it's just tissue?
Posted by: Christine G on May 17, 2005 09:51 PMSo you insist that I play your game. Fine. I'll play. Quid pro quo.
Yes or no.....
"You have nothing to offer but name-calling, it appears.
What exactly do you get out of that?"
I offer more than that, but you must look, and you must be able to see.
What I get out of this is what I put into it. SP (in case you hadn't noticed) caters to the right of center. I came here to find info on the 2004 elections, and discovered much more. I find considerable amusement from the commentators - especially the leftist ones.
And now for me: What do you get out of the SP experience? What draws you here? You are obviously intelligent, and equally possessive of an agenda that runs diametrically opposed to that of SP. What keeps you here?
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 18, 2005 11:33 AMI'm actually interested in understanding what conservatives really think, in their heart of hearts. Normally I just see speeches on very predictable themes. I think this is a part of the echo chamber conservatives have set up for themselves. I wonder how much independent thought actually occurs.
Posted by: Christine G on May 18, 2005 02:01 PMSurfing hotkeys and what do I find! Christine Gregoire wannabe is still trying to play the droll cheeky liberal game on Soup. Doesn’t appear she is any further than she was a month ago. And no more cogent, reasoned or appropriate.
Soup, what do you think? This sound like more vintage liberal manipulation masquerading as an honest plea for information. CG is about petty tactics in substitution for ideas, claims or counter arguments. She hasn’t made a single argument on this thread, do you suppose she ever will?
Liberals don’t care about facts. CG doesn’t care about the fact that no one ever gets anything sensible by attributing their own foibles to others, but that is all she has. CG believes that emotional responses to political issues produce something positive, when it can only produce idiotic irrational and counterproductive results. The fundamental liberal inability to trace cause and effect is childish. No human ever thinks, in their heart of hearts. Humans feel in their hearts, but they think with their cognitive ability, and emotions are what one is trained to believe they should feel. If you want to survive in life, you must develop a cognitive ability that rules your decision making. Because liberals believe that they are thinking when they are emoting, they don’t ever get the point.
NOTHING QUITE LIKE HEARING A LIBERAL DISCUSS HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT AN ECONOMIC FORECAST
It's sort of like someone describing their emotional attachment to a group of integers.
Children and liberals cry about bad news, and make up reasons to be unhappy. Conservatives pick up all of the peices and make things work properly. Liberals make nice birthday parties, but if you want anything substantive from life you must be a conservative. The fact is that all people are conservative’s – even liberals; they simply cover that part of themselves up with pretense, in order to evade responsibility. Nothing is new under the sun. Conservatives understand that life works better when one observes the facts first and takes responsibility to make things happen while liberals believe that being responsible means satisfying their emotional need to feel good about themselves. Conversely, everyone has a liberal part of their personality, the part that is whimsical, carefree, and appropriate when the work is done.
All one would ever have to do to prove the theory, is travel anywhere in the third world. Imagine Seattle’s liberals without heat, lights, or transportation for a month. There would be pandemonium like Beirut. If such things happen, I’m ready. Liberals are NOT.
Everything worth doing, thinking, having, or feeling is based in what has come before. Build upon what you learn, but learn first and then build, and observe facts as you go. As carpenters liberals would nail two sticks together and expect to sell it because they want the money. That is because liberals believe in anything nice for them so long as it bears no relationship to facts. Learn from life or fail at your own peril. Liberals insist that I must ignore or forbear reality and allow them to fail at my peril.
Most comical is the liberal canard about “independent thought.” As an example, nothing that resembles thought, let alone independent thought is being currently used by the left about the so-called “NUCLEAR OPTION.” Liberals attach an apocalyptic name to a Senate rule change, lie through their teeth saying that somehow “minority rights” are somewhere in the constitution and then expect to be treated with respect. No such thing exists in the constitution but that doesn’t slow the liberals down. No part of the liberal argument about filibuster and “advice and consent, bears any rational relationship to the constitution, except my constitutional right to a simple up or down vote, but liberals appeal to emotion and sentimentality to enforce an abridgement of the constitution. And all in the name of protecting the constitution. How sublimely insane, and the examples are endless.
Abortion is not murder because the fetus is part of it’s mother, and murderers have a right to life because life is sacred? Who’s confused here? No sense or rationality can come form a person who honestly believes this.
The only echo chamber apparent in politics today is the one liberal’s have set up for themselves, and the only independent thought that goes on in the larger arena of ideas is conservative thought. It is hard work to seek solutions and attempt to improve things, but easy to bitch, moan and obstruct. Conservatives are improving things, and liberals are throwing rocks, committing treason, making preposterous claims, enacting insane policies and corrupting the fabric of America with liberal activist judges.
Liberals are all about pretense – nothing more nothing less.