Washington — Assisted Suicide Law
July 12th, 2008 | by Tom Harper |Washington will soon become (if there’s a God) the second state to have an assisted suicide law. Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act has been in effect since 1997.
The initiative has already gotten more than enough signatures. Assuming enough of these signatures will be valid, the assisted suicide law will be on the Washington ballot this November. It’ll be known as Initiative 1000.
Under this law, if a person is terminally ill (two doctors would have to agree on the diagnosis) and wishes to end his/her suffering, a doctor can prescribe lethal drugs with which the patient can end his/her life.
And the battle is heating up. The State of Washington requires that people be identified when they contribute money to a political campaign. Who could possibly have a problem with that? I’m not in favor of campaign finance regulation (I used to be, but then Freakonomics changed my mind). But if a person or group has the right to make a huge campaign contribution, the public has the right to know about it. The best way to make an informed decision is to follow the money and see who’s financing whom.
But Washington’s election law seems to be a huge problem for Neurotic Busybodies With Too Much Time On Their Hands Human Life of Washington. The name sort of gives them away. Yes, even the liberal Pacific Northwest has a few of these wacky cult groups who think your life is sacred when: A) you haven’t been born yet; and B) you’re terminally ill, wracked with unbearable pain and would like to put an end to your misery.
Here’s the website for Human Life of Washington. Maybe these fetus-worshipping snakehandlers are actually concerned about war, poverty and disease; but if they are they don’t mention anything about it on their website. Mostly they just talk about saving fetuses and fighting the assisted suicide initiative.
Several wealthy opponents of this initiative have donated large amounts of money to Human Life of Washington. Actually, nobody knows yet how many donors there’ve been, who they are or how much they donated. Human Life is trying to make it their little secret. A federal judge has ruled against them; they must disclose this information in compliance with Washington law.
Human Life is claiming that they will suffer “irreparable injury” if they’re forced to disclose their contributors. WTF??? This makes it even more intriguing. Who ARE these mysterious donors? Who WAS that masked Biblethumper?
62 Responses to “Washington — Assisted Suicide Law”
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
recon this calls for a little study. i think its about 24-25 sessions in but its worth the watch. will put this whole thing in prospective.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/death/content/class-sessions
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
i think its about the 24th session you need to watch.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/death/content/class-sessions
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
thing don’t seem to be working tonight. maybe it is the storm.
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
here it is. i think it is about session 24-25. give it a watch.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/death/content/class-sessions
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
one more time. session 24 o4 25 as i recall.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/death/content/class-sessions
By emmet on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
Funy thing is I believe in Assisted Suicide and disagree with abortion a.k.a. FETUS.
I hope the Assisted Suicide Law goes through.
I hope Abortion, for the most part is over turned.
I have a choice to terminate my life whether it’s suicide or Assisted Suicide a baby doesn’t.
As for the Human Life, NAME the CONTRIBUTORS!
By Jersey McJones on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
So you’re cool with assisted suicide but not the right of woman to choose he own destiny?
What a strange position.
JMJ
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
seems to be working now. check out 24 or 25. good stuff about this sort of thing.
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/death/content/class-sessions
By rube cretin on Jul 12, 2008 | Reply
http://oyc.yale.edu/philosophy/death/death/content/class-sessions
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Why? Right to kill one’s self, fine. Right to kill someone else? Not fine. Okay, sure. You don’t think of a fetus as a someone else. Some people do. Hence, they don’t think anyone has the right to take the life of another person. You know…the whole “We hold these truths to be self evident…” thing. The first of the inalienable rights is that of Life. It is easy enough to think that the right holder, person X (terminally ill person in excruciating, unrelievable agony) let us say, has a right to give up his own life while, at the same time thinking that person Y (mother of prospective, to-be-live-born person Z) does not have the right to take the life of prospective, to-be-live-born person Z.
As I say, to the person who views a fetus as of no more value than a hang-nail, that seems strange but to a person who views a fetus as a living human being, it’s not strange at all.
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Killing a fetus is severely fucked up!!!
As far as assisted suicide…eh… we take old dogs in to be “put to sleep”.
For those women that had sex that didn’t want to get pregnant… don’t have sex. It’s called abstinence… when you are ready… you are ready. And if you are a liberal, no glove…no love!!!
Why is so hard for people to understand?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Steve,
Some women get pregnant from sex they didn’t consent to. It’s called rape. Some women get pregnant from sex they had a reasonable expectation that they wouldn’t get pregnant from, i. e., sex during which they used some sort of birth control that simply failed to prevent the pregnancy. Not every woman can abstain for the simple reason that the man won’t let her.
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Craig…
Sorry I was being a bit sarcastic… This blog just beats the abortion thing to death. Of course there are circumstances out there where a pregnancy is undesired. I know that!
It’s funny because this post links back to abortion via assisted suicide like the two are equal. Then the whole violence and “what aabout the war?’ thing. I bet the true blue (probably red) right to lifers out there are not only against abortion but most likely against assisted suicide (Terry Schiavo…though did she have a choice or a mean ole husband)but probably against any death or killing in the war as they support it. The war is probably lower on the list of things to speak out about.
And also, if you are against abortion and this suicide thing, you are immediately considered a fundamentalist by some kooky liberal with a blog who thinks they are of some “higher standard of human development”. I swear, drink beer and smoke out at the Dave Matthews Band concert like the rest of the liberals on this blog… I just have another take on life than the rest of you all.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Okay, a bit weird but this, I think, violates not only the right to religious expression clause of the first amendment but also whatever clause of the Constitution defenders of the ‘right to die’ use to claim that right.
Let me clarify. The state laws that outlaw handling of poisonous snakes by believers abridges their right to religious expression and the right to buy and handle such snakes by purchasers of poisonous snakes abridges the right to assisted suicide (in this case, assisted by a poisonous snake rather than by a doctor).
The Supreme Court should take up both these laws and overturn them as unconstitutional abridgment of the rights of the people.
By Paul Watson on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
Only as much as the peyote religious right is infringed by the anti-drug laws. That has been ruled on, I believe, and found legal, so this is no different. If you can’t take drugs because of your faith, I fail to see why you can smuggle animals.
By manapp99 on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
I agree that a person should be able to terminate their life if they wish to do so. The government should have no say in this matter. I also agree that abortion should be illegal as the life in question has no ability to give it’s consent.
JMJ, it is not a woman having the right to chose HER own destiny that is in question in the case of abortion. It is her right to chose the destiny of the baby she is carrying that is the problem. For instance, if a pregnant woman wants to commit suicide, she should make sure the baby is born first before doing so. This is the same principle as taking your life by jumping off a cliff. That is o.k. as long as you don’t kill someone else by landing on them.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Paul,
I speak of what, in my opinion, ought to be done (notice I said “The Supreme Court should take up both these laws and overturn them…”) rather than what I would expect the court to do in light of precedent. In point of fact, I don’t expect that either law would be overturned.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Also, I didn’t mention anything about smuggling. I mentioned handling, buying and selling.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
In investigating, I find that in 2006, the Roberts Court ruled that a church could use an hallucinogenic tea in its services so that precedent wouldn’t negatively effect what I’m talking about. From MSNBC:
On the other hand, the tea, though illegal and hallucinogenic, doesn’t appear to be lethal as are the snakes of which I commented so while I think the principle is the same (freedom of religious expression), I recognize that the consequences are quite different.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
“JMJ, it is not a woman having the right to chose HER own destiny that is in question in the case of abortion.”
Legally (and ethically) speaking, Manapp, that is EXACTLY what is at question. RvW was decided based on the implied “right to privacy” of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution - that the government, both state and federal, may not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. An inviable fetus is NOT a full human being. Period. It is purely a religious position to say that an inviable, insentient zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus has the same or even greater rights than a born, living, sentient woman. It should have no place in law. This isn’t Iran, Manapp.
“to the person who views a fetus as of no more value than a hang-nail,”
Craig, let’s keep this debate in the sphere of the sane. No one is comparing fetuses to hang-nails here. On the other hand, you guys are comparing an insentient, inviable pre-human being to a fully developed human being! In fact, you want that insentient, inviable pre-human being to have MORE rights than a fully developed human woman! It’s the heighth of misogyny!
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
I certainly am not talking about an insentient, inviable pre-human being having MORE rights than a fully human woman. My position is not mysogyny, your statement of my position is misstatement. All I’m saying is that to a person who, with biologists, recognizes that a fetus is a living thing that is wholly distinguishable from the mother and who, with geneticists, recognize that the fetus is human, there’s nothing inconsistent about a person holding a positive position on the right to choose death for one’s own self and a negative position on abortion. They are not mutually exclusive positions to take. They are logically coherent.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
To further clarify the point that I am not trying to give fetuses more rights than a woman, all I am saying is that both should have an equal right to live but when the continued existence of the fetus endangers the mother’s life, I think abortion should be legal. The reasoning is this: people have a right to use lethal force to protect their own lives when threatened by lethal force. Likewise, a woman whose life is threatened by the continued pregnancy, she should be able to remove the threat to her life via abortion.
Since I am not advocating the use of lethal force to protect the lives of fetuses that would be killed in abortions, I am actually advocating LESS rights for the fetus than I am for a woman.
By manapp99 on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
“Legally (and ethically) speaking, Manapp, that is EXACTLY what is at question.”
Legally I will agree, ethically I do not. You say a fetus is not sentient.
However there is considerable debate on this issue. It is unknowable the degree to which a fetus can feel pain or is aware of it’s existance. It is clear however that if left to gestate the result WILL be a sentient being. There is no mystery to the process.
If a person is in a coma he/she is not responsive to stimuli and is unconcious however we still place a value on their life base on future recovery. In the case of a fetus gaining response and conciousness is a vitual certainty. Why not the same value base on future expectations?
By Paul Watson on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Craig,
The article you linked to mentioned ‘illegal’ animals. The only way to make an animal illegal is if its endangered or smuggled. In neither case, would religion be a good defence, IMHO.
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
“No one is comparing fetuses to hang-nails here. On the other hand, you guys are comparing an insentient, inviable pre-human being to a fully developed human being!”
Last I checked Jersey, babies don’t come up capable of feeding and caring for themselves without shitting all over the place. We as human beings are deciding what a human is as a culture not by nature. We have laws that prevent minors from drinking and driving. Isn’t that a reasonable violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment too, since you classify a fully developed person to be outside the womb? Where do you start? Do you have kids? I have a two year old. To me, he has been human since conception because I have seen his development from day one. So why would you impose your beliefs on mine, as somehow being better?
By Jersey McJones on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Craig, do you advocate forcing fetuses carrying children to term against their will? Because if you don’t, then you advocate giving more rights to insentient, inviable, pre-human fetuses than developed human woman.
Manapp, a person who is in a coma is a born, developed person, with family and friends, a name, a past, a history, and an uncertain future and present state. You can’t compare an unborn, insentient, never-was-sentient, inviable, pre-human being to a fully developed person who happens to be in a coma. Apples and oranges.
Wow. Has it been two years already, Steve? Man, does time fly. I am not imposing anything on you, Steve - you are the one who wants to impose your will on others. I get the distinct feeling, after all, that you personally will never have need of an abortion.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Paul,
I tried to make clear exactly what it was in the article that I was referencing. I did this by writing, and I quote:
As I said, I didn’t mention smuggling. My comment was not a blanket approval of everthing mentioned in the article. My comment was about those two specific aspects that I singled out from the article.
By Mateo Giovanni on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
I’ll tell ya’ what I do live in Washington State. That is when in the States. I have Muscular Dystrophy. I fully plan on when I become to incapacitated; in offing myself. I am creative though.
I plan to sell it to what ever site wants it, and I am going to simply bleed myself out like giving blood. The difference is I am thinking about leaving a design. Truly!! Maybe a design that means something, or a political message. Three liters goes along way.
I am extremely glad they are considering the humane nature involved with this!
Peace and Freedom
By Jersey McJones on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Mateo, you are one cool and interesting character! Good luck, man.
JMJ
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
He’ll be two next month, Jersey. Wild man last night at Opa’s house in the pool. Won’t get in with the life vest, swim diaper or all the other safety shit. My dad gets in and he decides to jump in full clothed.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
Let’s try, as you said above, to stay within the realm of sanity. Fetuses cannot get pregnant and therefore cannot carry babies to term. Since that is some fevered fantasy of your mind, it is irrelevant to a discussion of whether I am granting fetuses more or fewer rights than an adult woman.
At least try to stay real, won’t you?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Paul,
I’m not at all certain of what necessary logical connection smuggling has to do with anything. Most of the snakes involved were indigenous and were not smuggled (although several were). Apparently, even if I found the snake crawling in my own basement, it would be illegal to keep it or to handle it in a religious rite. The smuggling aspect is irrelevant to my discussion.
By Alex on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
It would appear that you are concerned with sentience, therefore, this begs the question: Do you place a barrier between human sentience and nonhuman sentience? If yes, on what principle do you appeal as a justification for this discrimination? If no, do you consume meat?
Manapp99,
Quote: “If a person is in a coma he/she is not responsive to stimuli and is unconcious however we still place a value on their life base on future recovery. In the case of a fetus gaining response and conciousness is a vitual certainty. Why not the same value base on future expectations?”
This is not accurate. We begin on an assumption that human life ought to be valued, and then when asked “Why?” in case X, Y, and Z we attempt to defend such an assumption by an appeal to “future recovery.” This is the reason why we end up with such absurdities as Terri Shiavo. It wasn’t rational, but it follows from our irrational over-valuation of certain lives.
We know that we must defend the assumption that human life, in all cases, ought to be defended - even at the expense of billions upon billions of nonhumans, and the planet - therefore we appeal to what is as intuitively irrational as “future expectations” guised as a ‘desire’ of a non-sentient being incapable of having desires. We impute desires to justify our assumptions, which is what you are doing in the case of fetuses manapp99; however, it doesn’t follow as a matter of logic or ethics.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Steve - I love that pic! But he stole my hat!!! He sounds like a blast, man.
Craig, I was making a simple point here - of all people, one would think conservative/libertarians like you wouldn’t want to create special rights for people above the rights of other people. It was a HYPOTHETICAL.
Alex, if you study the biology of the developing fetus, you’ll note that (and for good natural reason) the nervous system of the fetus does not develope into functioning order of any kind until at the very least the 16th week. Therefore, sentience of any sort is impossible until at least that point. Even then, the thalamus is not formed or connected up to the third trimester. The fetus, prior to this point, is far less sentient than a chicken, fish or cow.
JMJ
By manapp99 on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Alex I begin with the belief that human life ought to valued based on the fact that it is your life. I also believe that I have no right to any of your other possesions. Be it your car, your house, your cat or your life. I further believe that the life of the fetus belongs to that entity and none other.
I have not imputed and desire to justify anything. I just believe that what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. That includes yours, mine and baby John/Doe lives. Pure and simple. You want to take your own life, go ahead. You want to take the life of another and I object. And no, I do not extend this right to cows.
As far as Shiavo goes, we did not take her life we allowed her to die. In the case of abortion you are taking the life and not allowing it to live as it almost surely would do if you leave it alone.
We left Terri alone and she died. If you leave a fetus alone it will live to argue with you about eating meat in a few years.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Alex, are you saying it’s okay to eat fetuses? LOL!
JMJ
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
“The fetus, prior to this point, is far less sentient than a chicken, fish or cow.”
Wow!! Then lets look at the otherside of the proverbial liberal coin: PETA
These are the people who want to put their own belief of animal rights over humans. They want to rip the steak I enjoy out of my mouth to save a cow who was bred and raised to be on my plate. We make a bigger deal over killing a cow sometimes than over human life, born or not.
I remember my son jumping around in the womb during the 2nd trimester. It looked like he was having a lot of fun. We have no distinct memories of our first years really anyway, though I remember being at Disneyland when I was 1.5 years old.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
No, Jersey, it wasn’t hypothetical. It was impossible. Therefore, since a fetus cannot carry a pregnancy to term, it cannot have a right to carry a pregnancy to term. Therefore, it is impossible for me to advocate either giving such a right to a fetus or to advocate denying a fetus such a right.
I have no objections to hypotheticals. I object to injecting impossibilities into a rational discussion and then pretending to make a point based upon said impossibility.
Since a fetus can not have a right, even a hypothetical right, to carry a pregnancy to term, I can neither give or deny a fetus such a right.
You are talking insanity here. Stick to the sane and possible. I don’t attempt to have rational discussions with those who insist on calling insanity rationality.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
But at the risk of giving some semblance of sanity to your hypothetical, I insist that fetuses must carry any pregancy they may experience to full term unless, of course, the fetus’s pregnancy endangers the pregnant fetus’s life, in which case, the fetus can get an abortion legally.
Now can we get back to sanity and rationality?
By manapp99 on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Wait a minute Craig, what about in the case of rape of the fetus? Do you intend to make the fetus carry the unwanted rememberance of a traumatic experience? You really are a uncaring, unfeeling misogynist aren’t you?
Did I mention insensitive?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Manapp99,
Yeh, you pegged me. I’m that sleazy con that Jersey’s always going on about.
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
But what if the pregnant fetus’s fetus gets forceably raped by it’s evil redneck twin brother. That is another clear cut case of fetus on fetus, within a fetus incest, or are they just 2nd cousins and is it okay?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
What I want to know is, where does a pregnant fetus’s pregnant fetus go to procure an abortion?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
In other news, pigs fly.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
A comment of mine seems to have gone into the ’suspected blog-spam’ black hole to hell. It is short, links to a legitimate news article about a state ACLU affiliate being the first such ACLU state affiliate to declare its intent to defend an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The only text it contains is, “Pigs fly”.
By Alex on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
I agree with you completely. Therefore, as you are appealing to sentience as a matter worth your ethical concern - your argument here implies this - do you eat meat? If you do not, what principle makes the non-sentience of a fetus a contributing factor to your ethical decision making but not the sentience of the billions of animals we kill and eat annually because they taste good? If you can’t define a principle, then perhaps you ought to reconsider your argument.
This is the point I originally made; sorry for the confusion.
Steve,
Quote: “These are the people who want to put their own belief of animal rights over humans. They want to rip the steak I enjoy out of my mouth to save a cow who was bred and raised to be on my plate. We make a bigger deal over killing a cow sometimes than over human life, born or not.”
This is absurd. What you are saying is that your “right” (what right?) to consume a cows flesh because it tastes good trumps a cows interest in merely being able to live a life free of suffering. Does it matter that we bred and raised the cow so you could eat him any more than it mattered that we bred and raised Africans so they could be our slaves? Does that make something morally justifiable, Steve?
Indeed, the suffering experienced by the cow just - and only just - because you think he tastes good is far greater than the sentience of a first and second term fetus. And yet, this massive degree of suffering causes you to loose little sleep (because you enjoy the taste of charred cow body parts); it doesn’t make you think that perhaps you should re-consider your choice.
By Matthew O'Keefe on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
I’m as Liberal as the day is long but I don’t honestly believe in abortion or assisted suicide by prescription or any other method. Call me a jerk or worse but I believe that all life is put on this earth for a reason even if it is to piss off my fellow liberal friends.
Great post Tom!
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Think of it as the cow having a right to die…and we’re assisting. Dude, all it does is eat grass and crap and make more burgers on legs. It’s a cow. Get over it.
I’m happy for you that you’ve chosen another path and I hope it makes you happy. May you live long and prosper and all that. By the way, the Africans that were enslaved were, when all is said and done, our fellow human beings. Shame on us. Cows are cows.
And without domestication, do you really think cows would know no suffering? Here’s a clue: in the wild, life is hard, short and brutal. For those with only molars, who can’t run very fast or defend themselves well, well, what do you think cows would end up as? Another clue: they end up as food, ripped apart raw and alive and consumed.
They’re cows. Like every other living thing, including human beings, they exist to be food for something. I’d just as soon they be food for me.
By emmet on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
What planet are we living on? And what species are we? I thought we were the smartest of them all. What happened to common sense?
Woman’s right? I thought two had sex? Doesn’t that mean Man and woman’s right? Woman can choose to abort and the man has no rights. A man tells the woman to abort, she doesn’t and he’s frucked for 18 yrs. Go figure.
Except for the rape and a few other circumstances abortion is just wrong. And I’m not even religious.
By steve on Jul 13, 2008 | Reply
Alex,
There is nothing like sticking a knife into a medium rare cooked, juicy Filet Mignon at Delmonico’s and seeing the blood run across the plate into your mashed potatoes. It’s a better bonus knowing that the bottle of Silver Oak on the table was made from grapes picked by underpaid transient labor. And when you get the bill for 4 people that is over $500, there is nothing like whipping out the AMEX Black to pay for it in front of your friends.
There is nothing like living on the top of the food chain. Live it, breathe it… Love it!!!
Vote Republican and you can have it all too!!!
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
Matthew,
I like that. All life is put on this earth for a reason.
But who or what is it that gives it that reason and who decides what that reason is? Shouldn’t one have the right to decide that one has fulfilled one’s purpose and one’s body just hasn’t received the message yet or to decide that suffering excruciating pain for months until death isn’t a part of any purpose anyone should have to endure?
Or are you one of those theists?
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
Steve,
You’re just being cruel!
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
Heh! The New Yorker gets it about Obama!
[Yeh, yeh. I know. It's a slam against Obama's critics, not a substantive statement of the magazine's image of the true Mr. and Ms. Obama.]
Still. Man. How long do you suppose before the guy who made the ultimate decision to put THIS on the cover of their magazine gets shit-canned…er, layed off due to the effects of the economic downturn…permanently?
Some decisions just epitomize the dictionary definition of ’stupid’.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
Didn’t they get the memo? All magazine covers are to have Obama in a charming, resolute, thoughtful pose with at least a hint of a halo over his head.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
And the viewer must, and this is absolutely crucial, come away with the overall impression that Obama is presidential, the only right choice in November…
Or does Bill Clinton own controlling stock in The New Yorker?
By Jersey McJones on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
Steve, the GOP ran this country as alomst a one party state for 6 years - and now I can barely afford a steak once a week! They tore the regulatory state to pieces and now the food’s not even safe anymore! Have it all? I can’t even have a damned steak and veggies anymore!
Emmet, a man should no more be able to force a woman to carry child than a woman should be able to force a man to do so. Yeah, yeah, I know men can’t have babies, but the point is valid - forcing people to do things against their will is nothing less than totalitarianism, fascism. It is truly un-, no anti-American.
JMJ
By manapp99 on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
“Still. Man. How long do you suppose before the guy who made the ultimate decision to put THIS on the cover of their magazine gets shit-canned…er, layed off due to the effects of the economic downturn…permanently?”
I don’t think it will take long. This from the Obama campaign today:
“Barack Obama’s campaign lashed out Sunday at the editors of The New Yorker magazine for a cartoon cover that depicts the Democratic candidate and his wife as fist-bumping terrorists.
The magazine’s editor described the cartoon, called “The Politics of Fear,” as satire. The Obama campaign called it “tasteless and offensive.”
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
We, as a society, seem to be just fine with people choosing to rip them apart, bit by bit or delivering them complete except for the head and then crushing their skulls and then, after that abjectly barbarous behavior tossing them in the trash. On the basis of what possible principle could we object to people deciding to eat them? That we’re too civilized to countenance such behavior towards fetuses?
That’s the joke.
By Gloria on Jul 14, 2008 | Reply
Visit http://www.itsmydecision.org to make a donation and support the Washington death with dignity campaign.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 15, 2008 | Reply
Craig, you conservatives do that to poor brown people all over the world without a problem. But no, I guess white fetuses are more human than brown born people.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jul 15, 2008 | Reply
Jersey,
Okay. Warfare is certainly not an example of civilized behavior at its apex. But other than reinforcing the very point I’ve made there with a totally irrelevant distraction (man is that herring red!), that we’re not nearly as civilized as we pretend to think we are, you haven’t actually refuted my point.
My point was a societal one, not an anti-liberal or pro-conservative one. As a society, we are still quite barbaric, no matter what fine wines or exotic micro-brew we may drink over discussions of the latest Broadway play or masterwork of art that’s all the vogue. We still countenance barbarity and enshrine it under the guise of “fundamental human rights”.
By Jersey McJones on Jul 16, 2008 | Reply
Barbarity is forcing litle girls to have babies. It’s child abuse.
JMJ