Pro-lifers get a real Olympia welcome, and we're not talking about the legislature. Via the Spokane Spokesman-Review's Eye on Olympia blog.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at January 20, 2006 01:58 PM | Email ThisThat screechy woman's behavior was...well...... almost humorous?
Posted by: Michele on January 20, 2006 02:27 PMJust like Pat Robertson, Gerry Falwell and some of the other right wingnuts.
Let's hope civility/decency drowns them out.
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 20, 2006 02:30 PMAll too common down here, I tell you. Wish they'd start their long-promised revolution.
And 'Dog? If Robertson, Falwell or any of your other so-called right wingnuts were to do what this woman did, they'd get the exact same response from me. Problem with your attempt is ... they don't, so knock it off. It's not even close to the same, and your attempt to minimize this behavior will only make things worse in the long run.
One of these days, the wrong people are going to confront the wrong people and it's going to be messy.
Posted by: jimg on January 20, 2006 03:07 PMThese are sick times we live in....
Posted by: Deborah on January 20, 2006 03:45 PMIt figures you would rush to the side of the whacko screaming at people. So much for "dissent is patriotic". Is there no concept of open debate you all understand?
You guys are all for open debate and discussion...as long are you're the only ones talking. Sing your song somewhere else.
Posted by: Steve_dog on January 20, 2006 03:47 PMWould that apply to a personal decision of someone who wanted to kill you?
There's a lot of things government has no business in, but has been doing anyway for many years. Protecting the unalienable right to life however, is one of the few things government is authorized to do and doesn't. That's what a few thousand people were there to say at Olympia on Wednesday, including myself.
Posted by: Republcan In Exile on January 20, 2006 03:54 PMSomeones version of morals is always being crammed down the throats of all of us.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 20, 2006 04:06 PMThe LLL's are only pro-choice when it comes to killing an unborn child and killing the sick and elderly. Witness their elation at the SCOTUS decision for the OR euthanasia law.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to my health care?
No.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to education?
No.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to smoking?
No.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to my retirement?
No.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to my property?
No.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to my speech?
No.
Are they pro-choice when it comes to my guns?
No.
Are they pro-choice?
No.
They are pro-death.
For Left Foot and others. I repost a pervious comment on abortion.
It is not just a personal decision there is another living individual involved, one with no voice and the target of the LLL death cult.
The Biological Definition of Life:
The four main types of biological entities described above share some unique characteristics that can allow us to distinguish them from non-living things. These characteristics are:
(1). Organisms tend to be complex and highly organized. Chemicals found within their bodies are synthesized through metabolic processes into structures that have defined purposes. Cells and their various organelles are examples of such structures. Cells are also the basic functioning unit of life. Cells are often organized into organs to create higher levels of complexity and function.
(2). Living things have the ability to take energy from their environment and change it from one form to another. This energy is usually used to facilitate their growth and reproduction. We call the process that allows for this facilitation metabolism.
(3). Organisms tend to be homeostatic. In other words, they regulate their bodies and other internal structures to certain normal parameters.
(4). Living creatures respond to stimuli. Cues in their environment cause them to react through behavior, metabolism, and physiological change.
(5). Living things reproduce themselves by making copies of themselves. Reproduction can either be sexual or asexual. Sexual reproduction involves the fusing of haploid genetic material from two individuals. This process creates populations with much greater genetic diversity.
(6). Organisms tend to grow and develop. Growth involves the conversion of consumed materials into biomass, new individuals, and waste.
(7). Life adapts and evolves in step with external changes in the environment through mutation and natural selection. This process acts over relatively long periods of time.
A fertilized egg meets all the parameters with the arguable exception of (2) the embryo is dependent on the mother for nutrients, the embryo unquestionably has metabolism. However an newborn is also completely dependent some one to feed it. Many organism require very specific parameters to live.
I would contend based on the definition of life as set forth biologists, a fertilized egg is alive.
Second issue "part of the women's body."
Biology Online defines individual as:
Individual
Marked by a distinctness and a complexity within a unity that characterizes organized things, concepts, organic beings and persons.
A fertilized egg is genetically distinct from the mother. This genetic distinct by definition classes it as an individual.
By scientific definition a fertilized egg is a living individual. Just as a person at the end of life is a living individual.
Abortion and euthanasia are the killing of the weakest and most helpless among us.
Posted by: JCM on January 20, 2006 04:15 PMShe was sick of their kind, she told them, cursing them
-------------
Maybe when she saw the toddler and the two fatherly men, her own sense of loss and regret gushed. I wonder how old her baby would be now. She already knows.
Posted by: Concordbridge on January 20, 2006 04:23 PMYou can smoke outside, in your car, in your house, on a boat and at your mom's house if she will let you. You just can't smoke where the public is. Where the public breathes. Why would you want to force anyone to breathe your smoke in a PUBLIC place. We ban lots of things in public places. Nudity, sex, public drunkeness, excessive noise, urinating, defecating, etc etc... each for a valid reason. Now back to the issue.......
I agree with you up to the point of legislation. This is an area left to the individual. That is all I am saying.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 20, 2006 04:33 PMIt's amazing that in both your story and the Oly one that the shouters didn't merely disagree; they were both trying to STOP others from expressing a different point of view. When will the left figure out that they are the least 'tolerant' of all?
Posted by: Michele on January 20, 2006 07:31 PMHe'll prolly be back to his cheery self in the morning....
(or not ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 20, 2006 08:32 PMEnjoy your evening, twit.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 20, 2006 08:40 PM(So, do they go "squish squish" when you walk? Or do you just sit and squirm?!!
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 20, 2006 08:45 PM"Government has no business in the personal decisions of women or men so no man should sign up for the selective service. This is just another example of RightWingNuts trying to infuse their "morality" into the rest of us, unlike the Left, which never makes people feel guilty for anything, such as owning an SUV, not recycling, having success, etc.... thus we have the right to shout at others that they're not welcome here. Those Rightwingers have no right to protest in public, to share their opinion in any way. End free speech, when it tries to infuse morality!
While I personally think abortion is wrong... I don't care enough about the essence of why I think it's wrong to ever tell someone else. I would not propose my view be law to force someone else to conform to my morality, and we all know that walking with a sign and a cross is tantamount to forcing someone to conform to my morality-- so thus they were RightWingNuts. We are moving ever closer to theocracy when we allow government to dictate moral decisions especially when it's done through a democratic process like majority rule and legislation by representative. This is a deeply personal decision, one that none of us has a right to judge at least until 8 months, 28 days into pregnancy. I'm pretty sure that's morally / legally wrong, although I don't have clear scientific criterion why it's morally right at 5 months.
There, that fills in what you left unsaid.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 20, 2006 09:29 PMNice try. I simply stated my view. I tell anyone who asks or when the conversation calls for it. My family has an extemely strong military service history. (I won't detail it to save Soup and Amused from denigrating said service. I have previously said that I am in favor of conscription. Every young person should serve a minimum of two years). I own an SUV, I don't recycle as much as I should, I am sucessful. Protest all you want. I am opposed to laws restricting abortion and courts loaded with justices based on their abortion views.
The essence of why I believe it is wrong is because I believe it is a viable life at conception. That is MY belief. Other believe differently. I choose to respect that. Just as you lumped me in with the tree hugging, Birkenstock wearing Pacifists, I have lumped abortion protesters into the RightWingNut category. You also fail to recognize the Republican party's undisguised attempt to forge law and court decision to prohibit abortion.
Appointing supreme court justices to further a political agenda is wrong for both parties and it has nothing to do with fair and duly elected representaion. If the majority wants to ban abortion, why aren't there more laws banning it. If the majority abhors gay marriage, why are more states allowing it? Your argument sounds good, makes for good reading and yet it really holds no water.
As for judging folks, you RightWingNuts do it all the time. Soup and Amused are the kings. Everyone of you assumes that a woman who has an abortion is a slut, whore or prostitute. There are what some people would call valid reason for abortion. A 14 year old girl who makes a hormone based mistake, a woman who emotionally is not ready to carry a child to term and give it up for adoption (you and I can argue until we are blue in the face but she may feel that for her, adoption and having a child out there in the world, is worse for her emotionally).
I ask you, where is the line? Only the mother knows. And you and your self-Righteous Wingnut clan just can't get around the "life that is not being spoken for". I say the life is spoken for. If you are correct in your belief that there is a God, then surely the unborn is comfortable with our maker and the mother will pay for her sins, either here on earth or when she meets her judgment day. I believe in God, I also believe that it is not for me to judge or decide for other. Being pro-life is not a ticket to heaven, it is not the noblest of causes, guaranteeing that you are better than those who take the opposing view.
I did not even mention the RightWingNut Extremists who believe that terrorists acts carried out on abortion clinics are justified, sometimes killing doctors and patients. Somehow their lives are not as important as a fetus. That is truly at the top of the list for hypocrisy.
The next time you wish to speak for me, don't. You aren't me. Don't twist my words to fit your agenda.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 21, 2006 12:31 AMGrow up.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 21, 2006 12:49 AMNow there's a pantload worthy of the likes of no-nutz himself (if only he could articulate it ;'}. Conflating the unhinged rantings of a lunatic with the targets of her assault, and then somehow lumping them all together into some sort of negligence of the child is the height of urnalistic dishonesty.
Too bad the child's mother didn't have the presence of mind to assure her kid: "And that, my boy, is the face of liberalism!"
(Ugly, isn't it?)
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 21, 2006 08:24 AMThere are millions of abortions performed each year that these liberals obviously support. Yet 2100 soldiers who volunteer their service to our military in order to protect freedom and they squeal for impeachment of our President!
Give me a break.
It also amazes me as to how disconnected their thinking is. Dismembering a defenseless infant in its mothers womb is far more brutal a death than getting hit by an IED serving the County you love.
Posted by: SP Fan on January 21, 2006 10:09 AMDoesn't she know that coffee is bad for you?
Posted by: ewaggin on January 21, 2006 12:03 PMIf it universally true that taking a life is wrong...
and if it is true by your belief system that a fetus is a life...
...then it is true that you're willing to let someone else take a life, rather than be seen as moralistic. You're putting one belief, that you shouldn't interfere with another's choice, over the contradictory belief that taking a life is wrong.
So then your values are inverted. You would rather be seen as a good person due to the expectations of your peer group, than stand up against an obvious evil, taking a life.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 21, 2006 12:55 PMYou have a talent, like most RightWingNuts, for twisting and distorting my words and the truth. You have a set of beliefs that do not agree with mine. My peer group, white Jewish males, over the age of 40 has absolutely no bearing on my thoughts on this subject. Nor does the "pressure" of being a liberal. I think it is wrong to gamble. I think it is wrong to smoke, but I recognize that there are others who think the opposite.
You do not believe that it is universally true that taking a life is wrong, since you brought it up, let me take off the gloves.
The death penalty. according to the RightWingNut agenda. does not fit in your "universally wrong to take a life" category. This is cold blooded, state sanctioned murder. To what end? The family of the victim gets closure? Or is it vengeance? Don't even try to tell me it saves money. It does not. With court and attorney costs, paid for with my tax dollars, the cost far exceeds a life in prison sentence. I suggest you read Scott Turow's, non-fiction, Ultimate Punishment. You might learn something. Real facts about the death penalty.
How about the taking of lives in a war. (For the record, I know that war is a necessary evil, but for the sake of argument I am putting that aside). How is it that "collateral damage" of innocent civilians is just fine with you? This does not fit within your "universally wrong to take a life" category either. You can't have it both ways. The fetus is innocent you say, the civilians caught in a war are innocent, and statiscally there are innocent men on death row. My question is, which one?
So, Brian, Mr. High and Mighty, how do you justify these contradictions in your flawed platform? The truth is you can't. But you want to take the pious stand, with nothing more than your heartfelt opinion to back it up. The difference is that abortion is an emotional issue because "it is a defenseless baby", and lets just forget the mothers feelings and well being, because,BY GOD, we (RightWingNuts) know what is best for her. Whether she likes it or not.
You simply can't justify your position with fact. You are running on emotion.
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 21, 2006 04:22 PMAnd you're running on empty (rhetoric that is)
I wasn't aware that "Ultimate Punishment" came in a pop-up book there no-nutz. What, didja get somebody to read it to ya?
Still running around in lumpy drawers?
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 21, 2006 04:51 PMYou place more value on being patted on the back by fellow libs, by being seen as a decent good person, than you do in taking a stand against abortion. You have that right, but you don't have the right to call anyone who sees incipient life as worth defending a "nut." Such ad hominem says more about you than the ones you demean.
I find your arguments rather fatuous for a man your age. You dispense with the depth of the consequences of your "to each his own" rhetoric and forget that a society has a primary interest in protecting the young.
The proposition that taking a life is wrong was derived from your words. I think that killing is justified to protect and defend-- bel jus theory. I also think that the death penalty is justifiable although that is another debate and I see some need for major reform in the judicial system.
You call prenatal infanticide a choice, one that you can't judge. Obviously you believe there is a basis for law... what is it? If not to protect others from harm, what? If not to create an healthy and surviving society, what? What is law, and why should it mean anything?
I ask this because the basis of all law is a moral and social construct. Emotion has always played a role in law and always will. The most absurd fallacy modern philosophy contends with is the idea that "you can't legislate morality." An absurd case from the start-- when humans decide something is wrong, they forbid it. That evolved into law. To say otherwise is a fool's game, circuitous and illogical.
Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on January 21, 2006 06:33 PMIf you want abortion to be illegal, then pass the laws. Why can't you get the laws passed? Well, the majority disagree with you. But you continue to attempt to ram your minority morality down everyone's throat. It has not worked to this point. It will not work in the future.
You want to force women, who may or may not, be emotionally capable of carrying a child and giving child up for adoption, causing further emotional pain and damage. I would argue this is cruel and inhuman.
Tookie was not going to kill anyone else in prison either, Katomar. Your argument is baseless. As for consequenses, I guess on some choices we face those when we meet the maker. (Religion being your choice to base laws, you should have no trouble trusting the God of David to met out fair punishment at that time).
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 21, 2006 09:06 PMmore to the point: You're such a hypocrite: whining about how a "minority" (stats belie your summation) wants to "ram morality down everyone's throat"-- which is precisely what all your leftist protest groups are. PETA. NARAL. MoveOn. NPI. ELF. Greenpeace. They are all about forcing a morality down society's "throat"... are you so blind you can't see that everyone has a right to voice their opinion?
Instead of simply saying "I disagree with those gentlemen walking with a sign and a cross" you leftists have to invalidate the humanity, to demonize, and ignore the RIGHTS of others to hold an opinion other than your own. Very like a tyranny, you are.... And then you have the nerve call the other side that lets you spew all this venom "fascists."
Like all propangandizing leftists, you are prone to call fellow citizen's policy beliefs which you disagree with "theocracy" or "fascism." So be it.
The fact is the pro-abortion crowd is eager to see abortion stay off the ballot, and it does everything it can to keep all sensible restriction (partial borth abortion, parental notification) away from the legislative table. Do some research, you'll find that every democratic restriction has been upended by judicial overreach... which is more similar to theocracy (oligarchic) than democratic.
OF course people will vote according to the dictates of their consciences. When their consciences are stronger than yours and adhere to a rational and consistent cosmology that smacks of tradition and common sense, you call that "theocracy." Would you prefer people to violate their consciences when they vote, for fear they could be accused of following a religious value instead of wanting to please their peers?
Oh wait, if they did that, they'd be like you.
We can agree to disagree. I am not a propagandizing leftist. I just to left of center on some issues and just to the right of center. I belong to none of the groups you listed, nor do I support their causes. Extremists frighten me. On both sides.
My conscience is plenty strong, thank you. I stand up for what I believe. I have served and defended this country with pride and honor. I volunteered. I have helped make certain that another generation will enjoy the freedoms that our fathers insured for us. Imagine that, a leftist who believes in a strong, honorable America.
So take your sanctimonious attitude and kindly step back. You have no idea about my conscience. I love that you and I can have this discussion. I love that I can sleep at night knowing no one is going to knock down my door for expressing an opposing opinion. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Note for Katomar: The world is not black and white. There are many sides to an ethical discussion such as this. I am sure there is an angle we are all missing. Wonder if you can admit that?
Posted by: My Left Foot on January 21, 2006 11:06 PMBRING BACK THE BLOODY COAT HANGERS, AND THE DEAD AND DYING AND INJURED YOUNG WOMEN.
IF A WONAN CHOSES TO ABORT, LET IT BE DONE WITH MEDICAL SAFTEY NET. PERIOD.
NOBDDY I KNOW LIKES ABORTIONS, AND THEY ARE ALL PRO CHICE. SEE ABOVE.
Posted by: Urba Smith on January 22, 2006 12:27 PMOh, and that was in Olympia.
Posted by: TaintRanger on January 22, 2006 01:32 PM