Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The civil rights issue of our time

The civil rights issue of our time

From Amy:

I know you don’t usually address abortion topics on your blog, but in the off-chance you do, here is a car for you. I saw it in a Wendy’s parking lot here in Aurora, CO, a few weeks ago.

Also, I know you normally black out the license plate, but I was wondering if you or your readers could decipher this one?

As always, love the blog.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

southcentralpa | November 9, 2012 at 8:21 am

Forget the license plate, I wonder how Bozarth Chevrolet feels about getting dragged into this …

That is a puzzler. SCNC would seem to be a non-starter, I mean who has a beef with the nutritional society of Canada (Société Canadienne de Nutrition Clinique) ?

Since the Colorado plates have mountains, perhaps they’re disparaging the mountain in SC and NC (the Carolinas) ?

or maybe it’s scba dnc, they are encouraging dnc as a scuba destination?

Last guess, since dnc (dilation and curettage) is a method of abortion, perhaps there is a group SCB A[gainst] DNC

Okay, I’m done…

Like slavery, abortion under Roe requires that a class of human beings be denied their humanity under the law.

Roe, like Dred Scot, creates an extra-Constitutional class of human beings. Like slavery, we will be paying for Roe a long time.

On the plate…S. Carolina Bad-nic…???

Too bad my fellow Catholics can’t seem to remember the unborn when they enter the voting booth. The Sunday before the election our pastor let it rip on violations of religious liberty and protection for the unborn. He is a notoriously uninspired boring speaker yet he got a standing ovation – a first. Still I know quite a few who present themselves as pillars of the Church who also voted Obama two days later.

I think I was numb these past few days since the election. Today I don’t know whether to be angry or scared out of my wits. The implications of how Obama was re-elected are more frightening to me than how he was elected in 2008. The current administration cares nothing for civil rights or political rights except for how they violated to manipulate their own political gains.

Strictly from a common sense, non-religious perspective put forth by an agnostic but profoundly pro-life conservative. To everyone wanting free stuff. Who’s going to pay for all of that free stuff down the road? We’re barely replacing our population. Think, people, think.

Midwest Rhino | November 9, 2012 at 9:52 am

Civil rights for zygotes and blastocysts … that’s what the party was missing.

No blood or brain till 20 days, can that fetus still have civil rights? If the party decides imprisoning women that have a very early abortion is in their platform, I have to find another party. Republicans would be showing suicidal tendencies.

At two months the fetus is the size of a kidney bean. Civil rights yet? There is no awareness till 20-28 weeks.

I think any solid stance on civil rights before the current 23? weeks or so is suicide for the party. But we should be clear now, before we gestate more Akins and Mourdochs.

Can we be clear? When do “WE” believe civil rights start?

    Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | November 9, 2012 at 11:38 am

    At conception, a human being is a human being according to biology.

    Note your resort to the language of dehumanization…

    blastocyst, zygote, fetus.

    And note your silly straw man about jailing women.

    Any argument you make about some arbitrary “number of days” standard is both morally and rationally bankrupt.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      Using your “biological” terms, killing a human being is murder. Prison is what women get in Chile, for abortions. If you want to claim the morning after pill is murder, and want to force that (religious) belief on others, good luck ever winning an election.

      Zygote is an accurate term. Two cells have potential, but are not a child. If religious zealots grab even more control of the Republicans party, they can join the RINO’s and take it, it will be dead.

      I know a LOT of church going Christians that feel yours is an absurd position, but good luck cramming it down their throat. I just asked another very Christian worker here about it .. she just rolled her eyes … she’s got a lot of kids and grandkids … agrees with me. At some point there may be civil rights … not at conception … not with no blood or brain.

      We really have to separate civil liberties from religious belief.

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | November 9, 2012 at 2:53 pm

        My position is purely NOT religious, but rational.

        Biology is a science. It says that human beings have certain characteristics that separate them from every other living thing. You are ignoring the science of biology.

        You resort to the fallacy of what other people roll their eyes at (according to you). As I said, your position is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

        You have the potential of living tomorrow. Should I be allowed to kill you on that predicate? Or do you have the right to life?

        Would owning another human being be OK until they were 21?

        The morning after pill exists. Nobody is going to make it illegal. That is different than going to a clinic and having an assisted killing.

          CalMark in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2012 at 3:00 pm

          Rags,
          This guy is a pro-abortion/anti-religious crank.

          Don’t know what his problem is, but it seems to me that most of his posts deal the awfulness of inherently bigoted religious people, especially since they refuse to “compromise” on abortion.

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | November 9, 2012 at 2:58 pm

        “Two cells have potential, but are not a child.”

        They will be…all things working as nature intends…given only one thing…

        time.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | November 10, 2012 at 10:11 am

          That same logic is why Catholic doctrine is against contraception. Your line in the sand is not so absolute. Killing sperm kills human potential on a regular basis. Your absolutism is why so many were easily convinced a Catholic president would want to make birth control illegal.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 10, 2012 at 11:37 am

          That is a frankly stupid shot at an argument.

          It isn’t “potential” we are talking about, but an ACTUALITY.

          Not something that nature PLANNED would be wasted most of the time (i.e., sperm and ovum), but a human life REALIZED.

        We really have to separate civil liberties from religious belief.

        Any decent human being, who understands the full moral and philosophical implications of such a pronouncement, should shudder at the thought.

        You clearly have no knowledge of how our notions of liberty came to be.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to ThomasD. | November 10, 2012 at 10:19 am

          Catholic doctrine is against contraception. That is the sort of separation I’m talking about. Assigning civil rights to a fetus with no blood or brain seems to fall in that category as well.

          Of course you would surely agree it should not be law to force purely religious doctrine on the general population … ie. no state religion. So lines have to be drawn, and have been. Calling for civil rights for a two month old fetus would help label Republicans as out of touch religious cranks, as if the label isn’t already pretty well stuck.

          I’m not pro abortion or anti-religion, except when religious zealots try to push religion into law.

So long as GOP candidates don’t plan for the ‘gotcha’ questions that the media WILL constantly troll on the topic of abortion and gay rights, they will continue to embarress themselves and lose races. Planning for these probable attacks (disguised as journalism) is what the smart people do in business and personal lives–why can’t the candidates? Of course, if they truly were conservative, they’d have the power of their principles to fall back upon and would survive the onslaught.

    Ragspierre in reply to princepsCO. | November 9, 2012 at 11:44 am

    “Of course, if they truly were conservative, they’d have the power of their principles to fall back upon and would survive the onslaught.”

    Akin was a very conservative guy. How’d that work out for him?

    When you are an arrogant dummy who runs a bad campaign and you fail to prepare yourself to answer the predictable questions of the propaganda arm of the Collective, you WILL lose.

      +1 Roger this.

      The other side regularly lies through its teeth. Why don’t we just tell everyone “I’m not for making abortion illegal and I have no comment about rape” and then get through the election before we have to start peddling nuance?

        Better (I think)…

        I support the rights of all humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I trust our states and courts to weigh those rights, as we have always done under our Constitution, even in very tough situations.

          Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          That is better, and was basically how Susana Martinez stated it. But at the presidential level, they will eventually get drilled down to what kind of judges they would appoint. That got asked very directly of Paul Ryan in the debates.

          Being evasive or dishonest doesn’t seem like the way to go. Santorum seemed more rational, willing to say he would not impose his personal belief. Moderates still thought he was crazy for saying his hypothetically raped daughter should look at the baby as a gift from God, but at least he wouldn’t impose his religion on them.

      ThomasD in reply to Ragspierre. | November 9, 2012 at 3:20 pm

      Akin was a guy who lacked the courage of his conviction so instead attempted to elide the heart of the matter by spouting off some pseudo scientific nonsense, for which he was rightly ridiculed. He was gutless and it showed. The left smelled blood in the water and came in for the kill.

        ThomasD in reply to ThomasD. | November 9, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        A more correct answer for Akin was ‘it’s an innocent human life, and I don’t feel comfortable killing it. That would be making two victims out of one crime, while also unjustly rendering the ultimate punishment on the child for being guilty of nothing more than having the wrong father.’

        ‘Am I happy that the mother will have to carry the child to term? No, but that’s one of the main reasons why rape is such a horrific crime, and I’m intent on seeing it punished severely.’

        ‘If the mother, understandably, does not want the child then the state should make it a priority to find suitable placement, he or she being a victim too.’

          9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to ThomasD. | November 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm

          There are an enormous number of waiting adoptive parents who would love and cherish a child regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception.

So, we just lost 4 more years of our Constitutional, Economic and Property Rights because we didn’t make abortion more of a defining issue of the GOP. Is that it?

To me, the bottom line is finding a way to successfully work with conservatives whatever their beliefs might be. On abortion maybe both sides need to tame the rhetoric as it’s unlikely either side will ever agree and it serves only to further divide an already divided conservative movement and these cracks fuel the true opposition.

The focus must be on how to deflate or deflect D’s use of abortion as a wedge issue which they’ve done in every election in memory. Because whether or not it is an issue they will make it one. When they bring it up, ignore them. Instead, start pounding and never stop pounding them about the unsustainable trajectory they’ve put this country on. Get really really good at breaking it down into digestible sound bites that effectively connect its direct impact on every single wallet in this country.

    McNaughton in reply to McNaughton. | November 9, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    And, I’ll add this—as mentioned above, I truly am profoundly pro-life. Nothing will ever move me away from that. But I also realize the security of the country that protects my unalienable right to hold on to those beliefs is greatly at risk and I am not willing to stand by and watch it happen because of this single issue.

      CalMark in reply to McNaughton. | November 9, 2012 at 3:03 pm

      Some things are worth taking a stand on. Abortion is one. Euthanasia is another. These are hills I would choose to die on.

      “Compromise” on abortion is akin to “compromise” on secret police, secret trials, torture and gulags: all are intimately related aspects of human dignity and the worth of human life.

      Compromise on one bad thing, they’ll tell you “just one more time,” and down you go.

        McNaughton in reply to CalMark. | November 9, 2012 at 6:29 pm

        What you term compromising I call prioritizing. Our ability to defend this country depends on our fiscal well-being. Without that all lives, born and unborn, are at risk.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to McNaughton. | November 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      right .. that’s why I’m trying to get specific about what stage of development this fetus acquires “civil rights”. These are often related to “birth rights”, yet now we are talking about changing that to “conception rights”. The Bible talks about birth rights, I can’t think of any case of “conception rights”. If we’re using the Bible as foundation, I don’t see anything rewarding citizenship or “birthrights” at conception. The conception is more promise, or “hope”.

      Remember Joseph was considering whether to put Mary away privily for her (he presumed) adultery. Some argue this but I think OT law was that meant to put her to death. Remember the woman the Pharisees brought to Jesus caught in the act of adultery, the law says we stone her, what say you? So Mary and fetus/child would have been murdered together, according to Biblical law. So I wish people would give up with the “no exceptions ever, I’m holier than thou” pretenses … but they won’t.

      30 years ago I used to teach this stuff, and “evangelize” door to door, learned a little Greek and Aramaic. I often found the most hard core Bible zealots were often the most ignorant. It seems not much has changed. Of course there are a host of televangelists to make my point, and not a few Catholic priests. Reasonable Christians are the salt of the earth. Often the zealots are very destructive.

      Has SCOTUS basically ruled on this already, so is there precedent? I’ll leave that to the lawyers.

It is the preeminent human rights issue. Elective abortion, other than in cases of a pregnancy threatening the life (not welfare or livelihood) of the mother, is the premeditated murder of an innocent human life. It is arguably a greater moral violation than slavery.

The pro-choice and pro-abortion supporters are incapable or unwilling to moderate their own behavior. Liberty is only suitable for individuals capable of self-moderating behavior.

Midwest Rhino | November 9, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Israel seems rather tolerant of abortion, though not approving.

Such circumstances include the age of the woman; the pregnancy deriving from rape, incest, or an out-of-wedlock relationship; and fetal disabilities and physical or mental danger to the mother posed by continuation of the pregnancy. In spite of these restrictions, in reality, abortions are performed in Israel, with and without authorization. The penal provision that prohibits unauthorized abortions does not appear ever to have been enforced.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/israel_reproduction_law_policy.php

Self-contained Breathing Apparatus Democratic National Committee. Being on SCBA in fire service is called being “on air.” Hmmm….

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend