February 24th, 2006

Why such a deafening silence in right wing bloggosphere regarding the South Dakota Senate’s new abortion ban law?

We yeild the Friday Stage to the Gun Toting Liberal and the tepid topic of abortion…

Actually, it is not all that surprising, at least not to moi. After learning yesterday that South Dakota Senators have voted to ban (source: Washington Post) all abortions unless the mother’s life is directly threatened by going through with the childbirth, I couldn’t wait to see what the bloggosphere of the right would have to say about it.

Obviously, the lefty bloggosphere is having a field day with this obvious assault on the Roe v. Wade SCOTUS decision, fearing the end of the world over this new legislation coming out of South Dakota. And just as obviously, the wacko far-right bloggosphere is pretty much all excited that Jesus Himself is decisively, firmly placing His righteous hand to the wheel of American politics and taking America back from the “pits of hell”. But what about the average conservative blogger? Why is he and she remaining largely silent on this issue thus far? I’ll get to that in just a second.

I surfed through a handful of the top ranked right wing blogs in the TTLB Ecosystem today, and before finally getting bored with looking any further, only the Captain’s Quarters had weighed in on the topic at all. Even so, he only speculated upon the legislation’s chances of defeating Roe v. Wade, but failed to voice his opinion on whether or not he agreed that all abortions should be illegal as the legislation has dictated.

Here is why I think the popular right wing bloggers are remaining largely silent on whether or not this was the right thing for the South Dakota lawmakers to do: if a large number of voices from the right were to begin weighing in with “yeah, let’s ban all abortions” type opinions, you can just kiss the Republican Party and the conservative movement goodbye. It would amount to political suicide for them because I firmly believe that countless conservative women would suddenly move away from the Republican agenda to stand solidly with the left to defend a woman’s right to choose.

Take a look at this legislation and you’ll note that there are no other exceptions for legal abortion - none. If you are a woman and you get raped, tough, you are still going to give birth to the child, even if it is a case where incest is also involved. Giving birth to the child is going to cause a health problem for the mother? Tough; you’re still going to give birth to the child, period, end of story.

Make yourselves look like a bunch of “Roy Moores” to moderate America, and you’re going to pay dearly in the elections, isn’t this correct, my right wing bloggosphere friends? I would tell my fellow liberal bloggers to relax; this legislation doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of toppling Roe v. Wade. It is nothing but a feeble attempt by the far right to do so, but again, it will never fly.

I am assuring you right now that the Republicans do not really want Roe v. Wade overturned deep down. If the GOP were ultimately, responsible for toppling Roe v. Wade, I promise you it would spell doom for GOP domination when they are already doing a fine job of committing political suicide anyway with their failure to seal our borders and their assaults upon most of our other civil liberties at this time. At the very most, the GOP’ers will give this issue roughly, the same amount of lip service and the same amount of actual action that they give to the “borders” issue (i.e., virtually zero), so relax, lefties…

It’s going to be a-okay - this is a guaranteed “W“, and I’m not referring to our President either.

Cross posted at Gun Toting Liberal

Technorati Tags: South Dakota abortion abortion ban Roe Roe v. Wade

Posted in General, Politics, Current Affairs, DailyFeatured



25 Comment(s)

Leave a response »

  1. Tom Harper Says :

    Good post.  I think you’re right, that keeping the abortion issue alive is the Right’s top priority.  People accuse the Democrats of not giving a shit about working people, but just playing Good Cop to the Republicans’ Bad Cop.  Whether that’s true or not, I think this is the Right’s motive with abortion.  They’d rather keep the issue on the front burner than actually ban abortions.

     

    About the silence among rightwing bloggers:  It’s just more evidence of what we already know — they think and act in unison.  There’s gotta be some sort of headquarters where thousands of rightwing bloggerbots get their daily instructions.


             
    Comment unrated
  2. ken grandlund Says :

    Pretty good analysis GTL, but consider this…

    From the rhetoric that has been blown from the right for decades on this subject, and from the imperious attitude coming from the top down in the Republican party, and with a largely complacent minority party pretending at opposition, and with a seeming inability to consider any positions other than their own, especially when they can wrap God into the mix, and the fact that today’s incarnation of the Republican party would rather go down clinging to their chosen ideology even it it means failure (so sure they are that they cannot fail), that they may just be crazy enough to push for the whole enchilada.

    It may be their undoing, but boldly going forward with ill conceived and ultimately harmful policies has become the hallmark of Conservative politics.


             
    Comment unrated
  3. icoman Says :

    Yes, they are getting bolder. We now have 65% of Americans attending religious serices regularly which means at least once a month.  This figure has been steadily increasing over the past 20 years. I can see why the Right is getting bolder.  They’ve also thrown in an extra factor recently and that’s the fear smear that the Muslims are procreating like crazy so, in order to save Western civilization, the Christians have to make more babies too.  This is their control mechanism and it’s gotten totally out of wack in the U.S.  The Bible thumpers are doing everything they can to promote more births and that means ruling out abortions, sex education, the Pill and contraceptives.   This also means more sex on TV which is resulting in more teen pregnancies.  They are pulling out all the stops.  I see them walking by in the mornings taking their brood to school. More and more of these women are herding six or seven kids in front of them.


             
    Comment unrated
  4. Benjamin Solah Says :

    I was shocked to see this actually passed. It seems we are turning back to the dark age, with Women’s rights down the drain.

    In Australia, we just overturned the Health Minister’s veto right on the abortion pill, RU486. He’s opposed to abortion and would love to ban the bill, but a private member’s bill proposed by three women from opposing parties, overturned his right to ban this pill which will allow women the right to have a safe abortion.


             
    Comment unrated
  5. GTL Says :

    Tom, I agree!  My best guess would be to look to Michelle Malkin and LGF and there is where you’ll find the latest conservative blogger agenda… same as with Kos and DU… it’s all there.  They are afraid of losing PageRank for speaking their TRUE sentiments on their own blogs. 

    Ken, I have considered that, and you are SPOT ON, brother.  No need to elaborate futher…

    Icoman, “Yes, they are getting bolder”….  indeed they are, and they have had the world’s stage for a few years now, and I fully believe they are shooting themselves in the foot in every way they can, demonstrating to the entire country what exactly happens when you turn every aspect of your Government over to the NeoCons.  The reason the right wing bloggers are largely silent on this issue other than their usual mulligan of “state’s rights” is because it IS a NeoCon agenda, and about as popular as the fully socialist agenda is to the average, Liberal American.  No GO.  Ain’t gonna sell.

    Benjamin: “In Australia, we just overturned the Health Minister’s veto right on the abortion pill…”  Interesting.  We’re going to cross that road here soon, too.  You just wait… sooner or later, one of these dolts is going to push to make whacking off illegal because a human’s life begins the second a man thinks of spreading his seed, or a woman contemplates spreading her legs.  It is only a matter of time before SOME frigging NeoCon steps up to cry out for the incarceration of a woman for deciding against putting out at the last minute - after ALL, a “child’s” life was just thwarted.

    I don’t expect everybody to see things my way, but the news out of South Dakota was great news for anybody who is tiring of the assault upon common sense and “live and let live”. 

    Great points, y’all.  Blog ON…!


             
    Comment unrated
  6. Jet Says :

    I think there are a large number of women who, in the privacy of the voting booth, would NOT be voting to give up control of their bodies and health choices, regardless of the message from their husbands or the pulpit. Not only for themselves, but for their daughters and grand daughters.

    Beyond that, forcing a term pregnancy on a rape or incest victem is barbaric, condescending and akin to slaveholder mentality. Women are not broodmares, and this legislation implies that the value of her breeding ability outstrips her measure of worth as a human being.


             
    Comment unrated
  7. LiberPaul Says :

    Speak on Jet!  It is concern for my daughter’s future that outrages me over the whole abortion/sex-ed right-wing nuttery we are seeing today.  I just don’t understand why they think having an abortion is wrong but at the same time think that retro-active abortions are OK, ya know like the Death Penalty and the War in Iraq.  Cognitive Dissonance is a tough thing to live with, I just don’t know how they do it….

    from dictionary.com

    Main Entry: cognitive dissonance
    Function: noun
    : psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful) [or believing that “killing babies” is wrong but killing adults isn’t] 


             
    Comment unrated
  8. Jamie Beu Says :

    I would have to disagree with the notion that conservative women would leave the Republican party, in order to defend their “right” to an abortion.  I believe that most conservative women are in the Republican party for just that reason - because they oppose abortion.

    I think it’s more accurate to say that moderate Republicans (the so-called “average conservative”, whatever that means) are afraid to speak out about this because they are unsure of what it means for the party.

    Consider this - much of the support for the Republican party comes from Catholics who are loyal to the Church’s pro-life position.  If this position is suddenly resolved when it comes to abortion, what else does that leave for the Republicans? 

    - The Republicans still favor the death penalty (an increasingly less popular position in Catholicism, especially since “Evangelium Vitae” pretty stated that, in the modern world, there is no more need for capital punishment). 

    - The Republicans also tend to be more pro-business than pro-poor, which also goes against Catholic social teaching, i.e. capitalism is good, but too much capitalism is bad.  (G. K. Chesterton wrote, “Too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few capitalists.” - The Uses of Diversity, 1921)

    - The Republicans tend to be for the War with Iraq, on the grounds that this is part of the War on Terror.  Although the War on Terror is considered by many Catholics to be a “just war”, some have reservations about the War with Iraq being a legitimate part of that war (just as the late John Paul the Great had doubts about it, and tried to convince Bush to continue with diplomacy).

    If the abortion issue goes away as a plank of the Republican party, many Catholics will return to the Democratic party.  This is something that the Democrats tend to not notice, but the Republicans are only paying lip service to, because of the fear that it would be the end of the party’s power.  If “Democrats for Life” or “Feminists for Life” ever became dominant factions of the Democratic party, there would be a similar exodus of Catholics from the Republican party.

    Hopefully, God will bless our country by removing abortions, while retaining the 2-party system.


             
    Comment unrated
  9. Pia Savage Says :

    I want so badly to agree with Jet.  But some of the most vehement anti-abortionists I have seen are women, while I have known many men who feel like lieberpaul

    I would hope that people will understand that whether or not abortions are legal, people will find abortionists–and these abortions many times won’t be performed under sanitary conditions.  I used the word “people” on purpose as often men try to force their wife or girlfriend to have one. 

    Legal abortiions are usually performed after some type of counseling.  Not enough to usually make a women say “he’s making me do it,” but that does happen sometimes.

    With coat hanger abortions, women will be forced by their partner to go through with it.

    And I’m not even going to go near the unsanitary conditions, etc that can be found at coat hanger abortionists

    Thanks GTL–think the right is going to have much to say about this; they’re just waiting to see how to gloat without seeming to, and how this will set a precedent for Roe to be overturned


             
    Comment unrated
  10. GTL Says :

    Jet, well PUT, my friend!!!!!!!!!

    LiberPaul: “I just don’t understand why they think having an abortion is wrong but at the same time think that retro-active abortions are OK, ya know like the Death Penalty and the War in Iraq.

    You know, I’ve never understood that either.  It’s only “pro-life” for the innocent.  The conservatives want to fight tooth and nail for a potential murderer to be born, then reserve the right to murder him or her at a later date.  This has ALWAYS puzzled me!

    Jamie Beu: “I think it’s more accurate to say that moderate Republicans (the so-called “average conservative”, whatever that means) are afraid to speak out about this because they are unsure of what it means for the party.

    Jamie, I will agree with that statement.  I will just go a tad further to say the “average conservative” woman doesn’t want a prohibition/ban under ALL circumstances on their abortion options, especially as brutally as the South Dakota legislatiure has narrowed them down.  It is archaic and it would serve to create many more attrocities and victims than it would protect.

    Pia: “I would hope that people will understand that whether or not abortions are legal, people will find abortionists–and these abortions many times won’t be performed under sanitary conditions.

    Exactly dead on, Pia!  Leave it to the Republicans to come up with any type of law they can conjur up to create more criminals so they can incarcerate even more Americans.  Drugs, abortion, prostitution, pornography…  anything these people can conjur up that will turn common people into jailable criminals, and they’re all for it.  All they have to do is play their cards to point to the Democrats’ tendency to want to do the same thing in ONE arena: guns, then the discussion’s over, and the focus is shifted again away from freedom, liberty, and civil rights.


             
    Comment unrated
  11. Jet Says :

    A slight clarification. I do not think women will leave the Republican party in droves. But I do think that there are more than a few women, moderate republicans specifically, who would vote this issue differently than the party line — and probably not discuss it. Mother’s have a hard time seeing a daughter’s horizons shrunk while some other mother’s son keeps moving on.


             
    Comment unrated
  12. Liberal Army Wife Says :

    I will agree that many of the more rabid anti choicers are women.  But I wonder, if push came to shove, if they were raped, what would they do?  more importantly, if their daughter or grand daughter were raped or subjected to incest, what would they do? 

    It has always amazed me, that the same group that wants to “save the unborn” will willing send young men and women to die for the sake of a lie, approve the death penalty, and are willing to allow women to die of infection, septicaemia and who knows what other kinds of diseases after “coat hanger” abortions, or go through a birth that will ultimately either injure them for life, or may even kill them.  So I guess that shows US what we are worth to them huh?  And there are still women who are proud to be anti choice…  I personally don’t want to be part of a group that values MY life less than that of a fetus.  And when they even include  the “morning after pill” or birth control pills as being “abortion”…. they leave me totally bemused.   

    ~LAW~


             
    Comment unrated
  13. jurassicpork Says :

    You’re right, Jet. I haven’t seen the Right Blogosphere this silent since Ken Mehlman’s fax machine broke down.


             
    Comment unrated
  14. chris b Says :

    ummm
    does that mean that we should probably INTRODUCE such legislation in each of our states… you know, get the vote out?

    i know it seems a bit rove-esque and evil, but seriously, if anti-abortion referenda are on every state’s ballots, then there will be a HUGE swing for libs and progs.


             
    Comment unrated
  15. Bonnie Says :

    It won’t matter for those with money because they can cross the state line and get an abortion. Heck, if it comes to that, they can go to Canada to do the same thing… it’s the poor women who will suffer.

     Many of these same anti abortion activists would completely do an about face if it was their daughter and she was underage or raped.   There’s this nice little bubble that this is how the world SHOULD be without really taking into account how the world is.

    I’m glad to see this on the blog. I read a little yesterday over at RenaF’s blog but haven’t seen much anywhere else.  This is an issue that everyone should be concerned about.


             
    Comment unrated
  16. cooper Says :

    “Mother’s have a hard time seeing a daughter’s horizons shrunk while some other mother’s son keeps moving on.” Excellent comment on an intersting post.
    Not talking about mother’s here but daughters I have personally while in college known two girl that were vehemently against abortion, the day after pill ect. They were not shy about letting others know there feelings and were stuand members of the republican group here at school…

    Both of these girls has cause to eventually put their money where their mouth is so to speak and both put their money into 1. an abortion 2. the morning after pill.

    cie la vie


             
    Comment unrated
  17. Harry Says :

    The SD law has forced the Republican party to clarify its position on Abortion. No one, right or left, is for abortion, that has never been an issue. The central issue is who decides maternity, the individual woman or the State. The SD legislature clearly believes that a woman is not a person with inherent rights of self-determination. Once pregnant, through any means, her life is subordinant to the fetus and by extension the man that put it there.
    That is a loser issue for the Republican.


             
    Comment unrated
  18. GTL Says :

    Jet, I knew what you meant, and that is also part of what I was saying.  Enough (R) women voters to swing the vote to the left though, at least I would bet on it.

    LAW: If “push came to shove”, they’d go get the abortion of course.  Just like all the hypocritical pot smokers and cokeheads both in Government and the electorate keep voting again and again to make themselves criminals by financing the “war on drugs”.

    Jurrasicpork: LOL!!! I do admire the GOP bloggers for standing up against the ports/U.A.E. deal, but that issue is not nearly as devisive and deadly to the party as the abortion issue is.

    ChrisB, that is a very tantalizing idea, and perhaps one worth exploring.  After all, it worked for the GOP when they put a vote to the floor to exit Iraq right now, didn’t it?  I  have this funny little feeling that a whole bunch of GOP Senators would be voting “nae”, then citing “states rights”, or some other B.S. as the real reason behind their “nae” votes.

    Bonnie - exact-a-mundo!

    Cooper: Agreed - see my response to Liberal Army Wife above.

    Harry: “Once pregnant, through any means, her life is subordinate to the fetus and by extension the man who put it there..”

    That is an excellent way to put it, Harry.  What a selling point for the pro-death (penalty) / pro-life movement to jump out to defend.


             
    Comment unrated
  19. Mimi Schaeffer Says :

    I consider this a gift of mana from above.

    Same as the California ruling on gay marriages, I think Democrats with control of the legsilation should put forth a referendum enacting state laws that guarantee a woman’s right to choose.

    Yes, siree, that’s what I would do in states like Maryland and Calfornia.  As for Ohio and Missouri, if referendums can be brought by citizens, I say, to quote from your blog, “Bring it on.”


             
    Comment unrated
  20. Mimi Schaeffer Says :

    Oops, I meant “manna.”

    Yikes.  Gotta spell check, gotta spell check. 

     


             
    Comment unrated
  21. Hattie Says :

    The pro-choicers I know, often social conservatives,  are older woman who had abortions in college or who had to help arrange them for their sorority sisters. After marriage, they may have had one or two more children than they really wanted, since it seemed easier and safer to let things slide  than to seek out an abortion doctor, at a time when it was illegal.  I also know a few anti-choice Democrats. These anti choicers who consider themselves to be social liberals are young and very much influenced by church propaganda. They tend not to have a lot of formal education and may be struggling financially. Often they are on public assistance. They are  reluctant  to use birth control (boyfriend won’t like it and will leave them) with the resultant pregnancies.  The other pro-choicers I know are liberal women like me who have taken control of our reproduction, as our mothers before us did. My mother had an abortion in the 1950’s. Her contraception failed. She never regretted the decision. I know there are women out there who have had abortions although they thought it was a “sin.”  Some of them may be seen picketing outside abortion clinic doors, making things difficult for other women. What is wrong with them, I wonder?
    Conservative men, although they consider women secondary in political life as in all aspects of life,  had better not forget that women have the vote. Yes, the Republicans will lose if they take a hard anti-choice position. I will not support or work to elect any candidate of any party who does not state that women have the unequivocal right to choose.


             
    Comment unrated
  22. Jamie Beu Says :

    Absolutely amazing - the number of generalizations and intellectual vacuity in the comments is absolutely amazing.  Enjoy my responses… they’re sure to be a hit!

    Bonnie: it’s the poor women who will suffer.

    It’s the poor women who already suffer.  “My people perish for want of knowledge!” (Hosea 4:6)  How many times have poor women been B-S’ed into believing that an abortion will solve their problems?  How often do these same women end up having physical, emotional, and mental trauma after an abortion?  But no one cares about them *after* the abortion.  Planned Parenthood just wants their money to take their baby, so they can sell the parts to Merck and other embryonic stem cell “researchers”.

    Bonnie: Many of these same anti abortion activists would completely do an about face if it was their daughter and she was underage or raped. 

    Nice generalization.  Care to back that up with any hard facts?

    How about this generalization: most pro-choicers are anti-Christians and Catholic bashers that think that everyone is as hypocritical as they are.  They refuse to believe that there are actually people out there that stick by their beliefs.

    Pia Savage: Legal abortiions (sic) are usually performed after some type of counseling…

    Really?  What kind of counseling is this?  The kind where they convince those with concerns that it’s not really a child, even though it has distinct DNA and it’s own heartbeat (by the time most women find out they’re pregnant, the fetus is already developed enough that there is a heart and brainwaves)?  If this is good counseling, then why do they always oppose legislation that requires a sonogram to be shown to the mother?  Why do abortion clinics always oppose any crisis pregnancy or abortion alternative centers to be built anywhere nearby?  My guess is they fear competition by the truth.

    Pia Savage: I’m not even going to go near the unsanitary conditions, etc that can be found at coat hanger abortionists

    How about the cases of disease, unsanitary conditions, unqualified “doctors” and “nurses”, and waivers of medical practices at legal abortion clinics across the country?  This doesn’t even touch on the number of deaths attributed to “safe, legal” abortions.  Abortion clinics treat their victims patients in a rotating door fashion - come in, get your insides cut up, sit for 30 minutes, and get out because we’ve got more babies to kill.  You can’t get your broken finger mended without at least a 2 hour stay in a hospital bed, but you can get your uterus sliced (by someone who may or may not be a registered nurse) and you’re out the door inside of an hour.  (I know this, because I have seen the women come and go from a clinic in Orlando while I’m saying 3 decades of a rosary, which takes no longer than an hour to say.)

    LiberPaul and Liberal Army Wife: (comments saying that pro-lifers are also pro-death penalty)

    This is not at all the case.  This is the Republican party platform, but it is not the position of true, rank-and-file pro-life people.  The Catholic Church is neither Republican nor Democrat - it is pro-life, and this means all life: unborn, convicted, elderly, and all in between!  I wrote about this when the execution of Tookie Williams came up in the news.

    Hattie: I also know a few anti-choice Democrats. These anti choicers who consider themselves to be social liberals are young and very much influenced by church propaganda. They tend not to have a lot of formal education and may be struggling financially.

    Really? Patricia Heaton is stuggling financially?  I thought she made quite a bit of money from “Everybody Loves Raymond”.  I’m guessing that you had never heard of the growing “Feminists for Life” movement - hardly sounds like a group that would be bullied by their boyfriends’ into not using birth control.

    Hattie: Conservative men, although they consider women secondary in political life as in all aspects of life, had better not forget that women have the vote.

    Another patently wrong generalization.  I am a conservative man, and I do not consider women secondary in political life, or any other aspect of life.  How can I?  I have a mother, 6 sisters, a wife, and a daughter.  I love every one of them, and I would defend the legitimate rights of any of them to the death.  This does *not* mean, however, that I would defend nonsense rights.  If my sisters were given the right to shoplift, I would not support that.  If my wife were given the right to beat my daughter, I would not support that.  If my mother were given the right to kill any of us, I would not (and abortion is just that, so I do not) support that.  This is not misogyny - this is reality.  “Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” (G. K. Chesterton)

    Harry: No one, right or left, is for abortion, that has never been an issue. The central issue is who decides maternity, the individual woman or the State.

    Really?  No one is for abortion?  Then who is NARAL?  Who is Planned Parenthood?

    The issue is not who decides maternity - that’s a basic definition.  Maternity is defined as being a mother.  The issue is life - when does human life begin? 

    If it is believed that life begins at birth, well when is birth feasible?  There have been pre-mature babies born at 5 months that weigh less than a pound.  This defeats the whole “2nd or 3rd trimester” argument as well.

    If it is believed that life begins when that life can sustain itself, then the next question is “define sustain”.  Babies can hardly feed themselves, keep themselves safe and warm, etc. before at least 3 years old.  If we make “self-sustaining” the rule, does that mean it’s right to kill a 2 year old baby for the same reason?  Of course not!

    If it is believed that life begins when there’s a hearbeat or brain waves, again, 90+ % of women find out their pregnant after the baby has a heartbeat and brain waves.

    If it is believe that human life begins when the fetus resembles a human, then define “human”.  I say a distinct human life is one that has distinct human DNA.  (Sperm and egg don’t fit this definition, because they only have one half of the DNA strands.)  That means that life is at conception.

    Harry: Once pregnant, through any means, her life is subordinant to the fetus and by extension the man that put it there.

    Well this is a mixed-bag.  Once someone has a baby, both mother and father are (supposed to be) subordinate to that child - that’s what being a parent (and a loving adult, not a spoiled child) means:  delayed gratification; putting your wants and desires second to another’s!  If this were not the case, then why are paternity suits and alimony and child-care all provisions in the law?  Obviously, the law is written that both parents have an obligation to the child.  I will admit that in practice, this is much less the case (what with deadbeat dads and all), and this should be addressed much more seriously than it has been. That does not mean, however, that the solution to deadbeat dads is to kill the kid!  That’s like saying that the solution to rapists is to kill the woman.  Total nonsense! 

    Yes, parents should be subordinate to the child.  However, this does not mean that the man owns the woman.  It means that when people have a child, it is really the child who owns them - they are the child’s parents.

    Jet and Cooper: “Mother’s (sic) have a hard time seeing a daughter’s horizons shrunk while some other mother’s son keeps moving on.”

    Fathers have a hard time seeing their precious daughters horizons shrunk to “you got pregnant - kill it!”  This seems to be the preferred choice of pro-”choice” people.  If this were not the case, you’d see more pro-choicers opening pregnancy counseling centers,

    Fathers also have a hard time seeing their daughters inundated with a message that their bodies are to be used for sex, but not procreation.  “Honey, you go have as much sex as you want - but take this pill, make him wear this condom, only give him oral sex, and if you get pregnant anyway, kill it!”  Yeah - that’s a great message for fathers to teach their daughters.

    How about teaching sons and daughters that their bodies are a mere casing for thier eternal souls?  How about teaching them that sex should be saved for marriage, where the privacy of the act becomes a special gift for the one they love - the only gift that they can truly give only one person?  How about teaching children that they are worth more than someone else’s source of pleasure, which can be bartered for popularity?  How about teaching them that a child is a gift, not just a crying burdensome ball of tissue that can be discarded like a Kleenex?

    Oh, but does this mean that freedom comes with responsibility?  Does this mean that, “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”  (G. K. Chesterton)  Does this mean we actually have to be responsible parents who actually teach our children morals, instead of just letting them learn it on the playground or from teachers?

    Imagine that…


             
    Comment unrated
  23. GTL Says :

    Jamie Beu:

    First off, I admire the fact that you are truly “pro life”.  You are a rare bird, at least in the bloggosphere… perhaps every bit as rare as an “anti abortion” liberal, and I’m speaking from the political sense, not the fact that you can be “anti-abortion” AND “pro life” at the same time, which I firmly believe you can be.

    I suppose you are expecting me to disagree with everything you’ve said.  If so, you are mistaken.  You are obviously a spirited, “pro lifer” by the very definition of the term.

    We mainly disagree on the Government’s role in a woman’s life, and on whether or not science (not God, not the right leaners in Government, but science) has yet aptly defined when an “American Citizen with unalienable rights” rights has been created.  But since this isn’t the actual topic of the main post, and since you’ve already heard the “other side”, I’ll refrain from going there right now.

    See, Jamie, I don’t think you’ll be attacked here like you might be expecting.  After all, you didn’t attack anybody personally today, you attacked their opinions and points of view with a reasonable amount of respect, unlike OTTMAN and some others do when they visit here.  I mean, how the hell are we going to figure this thing out if we don’t discuss it civilly, right?

    Nothing wrong with civilly agreeing to disagree every now and then.

    Blog ON…


             
    Comment unrated
  24. Bonnie Says :

    Jamie,

    I can only speak for my exhusband and his group of friends about what they would do for their daughters. All anti-choice. They don’t even want to discuss what would happen if it was their daughter, or in the words of one, “I’m so glad I only have boys.” So yes, that was a poor generalization based on conversations I had with anti-choice folks in the past asking what they would want for their daughter if she were raped as a teenager and got pregnant.

    As for the poor women–abortion isn’t for everyone. Not everyone MUST have an abortion. However, she needs to have a choice. What if this woman has a job she wants to keep? Or if she’s in school? What if she knows she just doesn’t want to be a mother? This is HER life, not yours. You can’t walk in her shoes so you shouldn’t be making that decision for her.

    I am not Christian. I do not believe that life begins at conception. Why am I forced to carry a child because of your BELIEF. It is not a scientific fact–it is a belief.

    I firmly support the right of every pregnant woman who doesn’t want to have an abortion to NOT have one but I also support the right of every woman who wants to have one to be able to make that choice as well.


             
    Comment unrated
  25. The Gun Toting Liberal » Blog Archive » Why such a deafening silence in right wing bloggosphere regarding the South Dakota Senate’s new abortion ban law? Says :

    […] ***** Salon’s Daou Report has linked to this post today, where Jet had cross-posted it to Bring It On […]


             
    Comment unrated

Leave a Reply

Note: if you are typing html tags into the comment area manually (i.e. not using the editor) please use the "toggle html source" option above.

Fact-check it!

Enter a keyword, click the button below. Search result opens in new tab / window





Fish.Travel