PDA

View Full Version : The war on women



Matt McKenzie
03-16-2012, 06:51 AM
I need to apologize to my wife, mom, grandmother, aunts, nieces and female friends. I was unaware that because I believe itís wrong for the Federal government to force Catholic Universities to supply free contraceptives to employees and students, Iíve declared war on women. I thought that I was supporting a private religious organizationís right to make choices based on their personal convictions, but it turns out I might just as well have planted an IED at Victoriaís Secret. Evidently pro-liberty = anti-women. Who knew? But if Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi say it, it must be true.
On the other hand, although I think abortion is wrong, I'm not convinced that outlawing it is the right answer. It looks like I've declared war on children, too. Dammit! I guess I'll spend the rest of my life hanging out in a sports bar to avoid contact with the enemy.

road kill
03-16-2012, 07:47 AM
I need to apologize to my wife, mom, grandmother, aunts, nieces and female friends. I was unaware that because I believe itís wrong for the Federal government to force Catholic Universities to supply free contraceptives to employees and students, Iíve declared war on women. I thought that I was supporting a private religious organizationís right to make choices based on their personal convictions, but it turns out I might just as well have planted an IED at Victoriaís Secret. Evidently pro-liberty = anti-women. Who knew? But if Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi say it, it must be true.
On the other hand, although I think abortion is wrong, I'm not convinced that outlawing it is the right answer. It looks like I've declared war on children, too. Dammit! I guess I'll spend the rest of my life hanging out in a sports bar to avoid contact with the enemy.

The Obaman's created a victim and rushed to their rescue.
And those who kneel at the altar of Obama/progressivism lapped it up!!!:D


RK

Franco
03-16-2012, 01:37 PM
I need to apologize to my wife, mom, grandmother, aunts, nieces and female friends. I was unaware that because I believe itís wrong for the Federal government to force Catholic Universities to supply free contraceptives to employees and students, Iíve declared war on women. I thought that I was supporting a private religious organizationís right to make choices based on their personal convictions, but it turns out I might just as well have planted an IED at Victoriaís Secret. Evidently pro-liberty = anti-women. Who knew? But if Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi say it, it must be true.
On the other hand, although I think abortion is wrong, I'm not convinced that outlawing it is the right answer. It looks like I've declared war on children, too. Dammit! I guess I'll spend the rest of my life hanging out in a sports bar to avoid contact with the enemy.

The Dems' message about the War On Women has several issues, not just the contraception mandate coverage.

Roe V Wade is being underminded in many states. Add to that the attacks on Planned Parenthood and the GOP has eliminated most of the female support in this country outside of the Bible Belt. For every Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi the GOP wins the Dems will carry states like California, New York, Michigan etc.

All of which will get Obama reelected and the opportunity to stack the Supreme Court. The Repub candidates should have stuck to the economy, jobs, balanced budget, deficit elimination and energy.

roseberry
03-16-2012, 02:47 PM
franco is right again! republican's should avoid the issue at the national level at all costs or they lose.

i always find it ironic that:

one party's litmus test for candidates is "right to life"(anti-abortion). in support of the issue they lose a majority of women voters nationally in every election.

one party's litmus test for candidates is the support for a woman's right to chose(abortion). had the court decision they support never been passed there could be up to 20,000,000 more democrats voting in national elections annually.(i made that number up) democrats would likely never lose a national election but for their support of this issue.

it appears at least on this issue, both parties actually belive in their positions. otherwise why would they support it?

Gerry Clinchy
03-16-2012, 06:35 PM
Just when you think, you've got it all figured out ...

Caught a clip of Ed Rendell telling someone that many Dem women have been calling him and telling him that the Dems should give back Maher's million-dollar donation. Not what most would have expected.

Then Axelrod making the dumbest statement saying that Rush Limbaugh was "the de facto head of the Republican Party", and that was why his statements about Fluke were more reprehensible than Maher's comments about Palin and Bachmann. He sounded so very lame trying to spin why one was ever so much worse than the other.

Could this have been one instance where the "outrage" actually back-fired on the Dems?

Matt McKenzie
03-16-2012, 06:42 PM
I agree that Republicans should stay out of the social issue quagmire. To me, the Dems played this perfectly. They took an issue about liberty and changed the conversation to a social issue. We went from the scope of control of the Federal government to the morality of birth control. Rush screwed up and helped them make the narrative that Republicans are trying to take away women's birth control. And what's terrible is the Republicans follow right along with the conversation and the average American believes it to be true. So we've completely lost the issue, which is religious liberty and the power of the Federal government. What a shame. That's why Santorum is our worst nightmare. If he becomes the nominee, the election will be about abortion, gay marriage and birth control. The Dems and the mainstream media will ensure that it is. Then we'll get 4 more years of Obama.

BonMallari
03-16-2012, 07:02 PM
I agree that Republicans should stay out of the social issue quagmire. To me, the Dems played this perfectly. They took an issue about liberty and changed the conversation to a social issue. We went from the scope of control of the Federal government to the morality of birth control. Rush screwed up and helped them make the narrative that Republicans are trying to take away women's birth control. And what's terrible is the Republicans follow right along with the conversation and the average American believes it to be true. So we've completely lost the issue, which is religious liberty and the power of the Federal government. What a shame. That's why Santorum is our worst nightmare. If he becomes the nominee, the election will be about abortion, gay marriage and birth control. The Dems and the mainstream media will ensure that it is. Then we'll get 4 more years of Obama.


Very fearful of that scenario

featherqwest
03-16-2012, 07:17 PM
So what do you all think about women fighting on the war front? It is kind of in the same camp. Being a women who worked in the technical field for over 30 years I often was with men and very few women. I won't go into the other details because I was in the Army then a government contractor. Most men don't think women should be with a gun. Well being from a long line of strong pioneer women who held up the bootstraps of the farm while their husbands were at war is quite a challenge during when they had no social programs. My grandmother scraped to feed her family. She lived to be 100. I will not give my side on any matter because everything is a personnel choice. Most of my close friends were Catholic growing up. I grew in Western Nebraska.

BonMallari
03-16-2012, 07:33 PM
So what do you all think about women fighting on the war front? It is kind of in the same camp. Being a women who worked in the technical field for over 30 years I often was with men and very few women. I won't go into the other details because I was in the Army then a government contractor. Most men don't think women should be with a gun. Well being from a long line of strong pioneer women who held up the bootstraps of the farm while their husbands were at war is quite a challenge during when they had no social programs. My grandmother scraped to feed her family. She lived to be 100. I will not give my side on any matter because everything is a personnel choice. Most of my close friends were Catholic growing up. I grew in Western Nebraska.


I have no problem with women fighting on the war front, nothing more dangerous than a woman with a gun, especially if she knows how to use it, or if you give her a reason to do so....

I am also pro life..but as Gov Mitch Daniels has said..you take the White House and take back the Senate, then you win the social issues in the courts

This election is not about the social issues that plague this country....getting a R president in the WH and taking back the Senate so they can appoint strict constitutional judges is what is at stake...getting the country out of debt,reversing the recession and the economy are of utmost importance

HPL
03-16-2012, 09:07 PM
I was watching one of Newt's talks a while back (I wish I could remember the link to that talk) and one of the things he was talking about was that there are several issues where the conservative position is a 75-90% NATIONAL position and his advice was for the GOP candidate to go to those issues, stand by them, and smile. I realize that that is a simplistic approach, but it makes perfect sense to me. I want to scream, "stay away from the third rail issues!" (abortion being the really big one). "Don't shoot us in the foot!!" "I don't want to see what Obama will do as a Lame Duck!!!"

Matt McKenzie
03-17-2012, 06:29 AM
I was watching one of Newt's talks a while back (I wish I could remember the link to that talk) and one of the things he was talking about was that there are several issues where the conservative position is a 75-90% NATIONAL position and his advice was for the GOP candidate to go to those issues, stand by them, and smile. I realize that that is a simplistic approach, but it makes perfect sense to me. I want to scream, "stay away from the third rail issues!" (abortion being the really big one). "Don't shoot us in the foot!!" "I don't want to see what Obama will do as a Lame Duck!!!"

That's exactly how you win. Most people in this country believe in basic conservative values. Many just don't know it. And most are easily manipulated.
It's easy to be a liberal, because no critical thinking is required. You don't have to educate yourself. You just have to "feel". I feel bad for homeless people. I feel bad for people without health care. I feel bad for people who don't make much money. I feel bad for young women who get pregnant when they didn't intend to do so. Those types of things are areas most of us agree on. We all "feel" bad for those people. The issue is what do we do next. Too often, the liberal approach is to apply government to "fix" the situation that we feel bad about. The more rational and adult approach is to ask some questions.
What caused the situation? How bad is it and how many people are affected? SHOULD something be done to change it? CAN something be done to change it? If so, WHO should do something to change it? Am I willing to do something to change it?
The absolute last resort should be to get the Federal government involved. Why? Because each time we give the Fed another power, we get one step closer to tyranny. Also, more practically is the fact that the Fed can do nothing effectively and efficiently. It can sometimes do one or the other, but never both. Take the military for example. Very effective, very inefficient. Same for the USPS. AMTRAK, ineffective and inefficient. Medicare/Medicaid - ineffective and inefficient. You get the idea. For that reason, we should entrust the Fed only with things that CANNOT be accomplished by the private sector, local or state governments.
Just as it is easy to be liberal, it's even easier to be "non political". Then you don't even have to pay attention to what's going on around you and come election time, you can be easily manipulated by those who show you how you should "feel bad" for someone or something. That's how the Democrats win. They make victims, show the public the terrible situation, and then promise to "do something about it" if elected. That's what's happening right now with this "war on women". It's brilliant strategy, but slow death for our country. One man's opinion.

Franco
03-17-2012, 07:17 AM
That's exactly how you win. Most people in this country believe in basic conservative values. Many just don't know it. And most are easily manipulated.
It's easy to be a liberal, because no critical thinking is required. You don't have to educate yourself. You just have to "feel". I feel bad for homeless people. I feel bad for people without health care. I feel bad for people who don't make much money. I feel bad for young women who get pregnant when they didn't intend to do so. Those types of things are areas most of us agree on. We all "feel" bad for those people. The issue is what do we do next. Too often, the liberal approach is to apply government to "fix" the situation that we feel bad about. The more rational and adult approach is to ask some questions.
What caused the situation? How bad is it and how many people are affected? SHOULD something be done to change it? CAN something be done to change it? If so, WHO should do something to change it? Am I willing to do something to change it?
The absolute last resort should be to get the Federal government involved. Why? Because each time we give the Fed another power, we get one step closer to tyranny. Also, more practically is the fact that the Fed can do nothing effectively and efficiently. It can sometimes do one or the other, but never both. Take the military for example. Very effective, very inefficient. Same for the USPS. AMTRAK, ineffective and inefficient. Medicare/Medicaid - ineffective and inefficient. You get the idea. For that reason, we should entrust the Fed only with things that CANNOT be accomplished by the private sector, local or state governments.
Just as it is easy to be liberal, it's even easier to be "non political". Then you don't even have to pay attention to what's going on around you and come election time, you can be easily manipulated by those who show you how you should "feel bad" for someone or something. That's how the Democrats win. They make victims, show the public the terrible situation, and then promise to "do something about it" if elected. That's what's happening right now with this "war on women". It's brilliant strategy, but slow death for our country. One man's opinion.

I couldn't agree more!

That is why it is so surprising to me to see the GOP front-runners are all big government/big government spending types. The bigger our government, the less freedom we the people have.

Matt McKenzie
03-17-2012, 08:04 AM
I couldn't agree more!

That is why it is so surprising to me to see the GOP front-runners are all big government/big government spending types. The bigger our government, the less freedom we the people have.

It shouldn't be surprising. Politicians are politicians, no matter what party. Only a small percentage of people will vote for liberty (see Ron Paul's polling numbers), but plenty of people will vote for what appears to be their own financial self-interest. So both the Dems and Republicans buy votes with tax dollars. They just buy them from different people with different financial interests.

Uncle Bill
03-17-2012, 04:17 PM
Roe V Wade is being underminded in many states. Add to that the attacks on Planned Parenthood and the GOP has eliminated most of the female support in this country outside of the Bible Belt. For every Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi the GOP wins the Dems will carry states like California, New York, Michigan etc.




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...How prescient, Mr. Bootay. The only way the GOP could EVER carry those states is using the "Ice Cream Promise".

It might be better to stick to prognosticating football.:rolleyes:

UB

Gerry Clinchy
03-17-2012, 05:06 PM
Interesting ... a NYT's poll was cited on radio today showing that Obama was NOT doing well with women's approval ratings ... R or D women. Maybe a lot of women who use contraception realize that Ms. Fluke was embellishing the truth, while Mr. Obama congratulated her on doing so? Maybe I was right about the backfire?

Meanwhile, in deference to Native American religion, a permit to kill bald eagles by the Northern Arapaho tribe, was signed/granted by Obama ... based upon 1st amendment right of freedom of religion. That ought to cause a bit of a ripple with the environmentalists.

charly_t
03-17-2012, 06:43 PM
[QUOTE=Gerry Clinchy;940062............

Meanwhile, in deference to Native American religion, a permit to kill bald eagles by the Northern Arapaho tribe, was signed/granted by Obama ... based upon 1st amendment right of freedom of religion. That ought to cause a bit of a ripple with the environmentalists.[/QUOTE]

People who are mad about it on one news sight comment section are running about 90% mad about that to about 10% who are in favor of letting Native Americans kill a couple of Eagles ( for that one tribe ). Yep, Indians are in the wrong as usual. We still aren't accorded full citizenship in our own country by many people. Anyhow,I think ole Ben Franklin had the right idea and it should have been a turkey as our symbol ( it fits better at times ). And it tastes very good if it's shot on a hunt. :-)

Gerry Clinchy
03-17-2012, 07:06 PM
Charly, I have nothing but respect for Native Americans ... but not fond of a double standard applied by POTUS on the matter of freedom of religion.

charly_t
03-17-2012, 11:34 PM
Charly, I have nothing but respect for Native Americans ... but not fond of a double standard applied by POTUS on the matter of freedom of religion.

Agree 100%. A double standard is not fair or right. The prez does a lot of things to get votes. I for one am not impressed in the least.

Gerry Clinchy
03-18-2012, 09:20 AM
It's kind of interesting to mull over ...

Obama is running an ad that features attacks on Sarah Palin; and Axelrod has called Limbaugh "the de facto head of the Republicans" ... are these people nuts? Neither of these two are candidates. Among Republicans (and/or conservatives) there are certainly large numbers of people that do not consider these two figures as being representative of their conservative views; nor would they even consider voting for them if they were candidates.

I suppose the strategy of the Obama camp is to focus on these two people as high profile, emotional "lightning rods", so that if, or when, either of them endorse a candidate they will make some hay about how nobody could possibly vote for a candidate endorsed by Sarah or Rush. Do they really believe that strongly in the ignorance of the voters? It's like saying that Al Sharpton or George Soros is the defacto head of the D party, for God's sake. Actually, neither Sarah nor Rush have as much $ as Soros to donate :-)

They might get a lot of D voters to buy that line, but I don't think that the Independents will fall for it. If we think that the R primaries have been down and dirty, I can hardly wait to see what Obama's fellas do with the general election.

Meanwhile, I do give credit to Rush for pointing out that in 2008, Hillary seemed to be a shoo-in for the D candidacy ... after her years of loyalty to the party & even to her unflagging solidarity when Slick Willy was making that extremely difficult for her personally. Yet the D's were quick to throw Hillary under the bus for an inexperienced Obama. The party FOR women? Ideologically, Hillary is not much different from Obama, but the D's put their money on race, rather than gender.

Truth likely is that Hillary could have as easily won the election as Obama ... back in 2008, as almost any reasonable D could have hammered McCain, as voters were in an uproar over GW.

mngundog
03-18-2012, 10:42 AM
It's kind of interesting to mull over ...

Obama is running an ad that features attacks on Sarah Palin; and Axelrod has called Limbaugh "the de facto head of the Republicans" ... are these people nuts? Neither of these two are candidates. Among Republicans (and/or conservatives) there are certainly large numbers of people that do not consider these two figures as being representative of their conservative views; nor would they even consider voting for them if they were candidates.
How soon we forget, four years ago the Repubicans made Palin the "representative of their conservative views". I believe you will find that Nancy Pelosi's name will come up often by the Republican candidates yet she isn't running for President. Quite honestly all these figures are fair game, the parties embrace these people when it does them good and don't want to be associated with them when they could bring them down.

BonMallari
03-18-2012, 10:43 AM
It's kind of interesting to mull over ...

Obama is running an ad that features attacks on Sarah Palin; and Axelrod has called Limbaugh "the de facto head of the Republicans" ... are these people nuts? Neither of these two are candidates. Among Republicans (and/or conservatives) there are certainly large numbers of people that do not consider these two figures as being representative of their conservative views; nor would they even consider voting for them if they were candidates.

I suppose the strategy of the Obama camp is to focus on these two people as high profile, emotional "lightning rods", so that if, or when, either of them endorse a candidate they will make some hay about how nobody could possibly vote for a candidate endorsed by Sarah or Rush. Do they really believe that strongly in the ignorance of the voters? It's like saying that Al Sharpton or George Soros is the defacto head of the D party, for God's sake. Actually, neither Sarah nor Rush have as much $ as Soros to donate :-)

They might get a lot of D voters to buy that line, but I don't think that the Independents will fall for it. If we think that the R primaries have been down and dirty, I can hardly wait to see what Obama's fellas do with the general election.

Meanwhile, I do give credit to Rush for pointing out that in 2008, Hillary seemed to be a shoo-in for the D candidacy ... after her years of loyalty to the party & even to her unflagging solidarity when Slick Willy was making that extremely difficult for her personally. Yet the D's were quick to throw Hillary under the bus for an inexperienced Obama. The party FOR women? Ideologically, Hillary is not much different from Obama, but the D's put their money on race, rather than gender.

Truth likely is that Hillary could have as easily won the election as Obama ... back in 2008, as almost any reasonable D could have hammered McCain, as voters were in an uproar over GW.


absolutely : I work with a group of people who by and large are less educated and easily manipulated and fooled by the media, the union, and by their peers who perpetuate many of the half truths,lies and manipulations that most on here would laugh as being absurd

you would be shocked and saddened to hear how many believe(d) that BHO would take care of them, that the union would "guarantee" their jobs and their hours, despite a recession in the tourist industry..

But I have learned is that it is very hard to educate those that dont really want to be educated, you cant reason with them, because they dont understand reason...what is even scarier is that many of these uneducated masses are eligible voters

mngundog
03-18-2012, 11:29 AM
absolutely : I work with a group of people who by and large are less educated and easily manipulated and fooled by the media, the union, and by their peers who perpetuate many of the half truths,lies and manipulations that most on here would laugh as being absurd

you would be shocked and saddened to hear how many believe(d) that BHO would take care of them, that the union would "guarantee" their jobs and their hours, despite a recession in the tourist industry..

But I have learned is that it is very hard to educate those that dont really want to be educated, you cant reason with them, because they dont understand reason...what is even scarier is that many of these uneducated masses are eligible voters
Its amazing how the same guys who think Unions can do nothing for employees also believe that by crushing Unions States can save 100's of millions. Seems pretty absurd to me, yet trying to educated the uneducated masses is impossible. In my last job I worked with a group of people who by and large are less educated and easily manipulated and fooled by the company and management many of the half truths,lies and manipulations that most on here would laugh as being absurd you would be shocked and saddened to hear how many believe(d) that the company would take care of them, in the end it took a mere 70 cents an hour buy the company a Non-union vote. I wish I still had the letter that arrived a week before the election that told of how this pay "catch-up" raise was long over due and and been in the works for the last 8 months and it was a mere coincidence that it came the week of the vote.

Gerry Clinchy
03-18-2012, 12:27 PM
How soon we forget, four years ago the Repubicans made Palin the "representative of their conservative views".

While she was popular with many, she didn't win them the election, though ... so maybe people thing Sarah is fine as a "burr under the saddle", but not riding in the saddle?

I believe you will find that Nancy Pelosi's name will come up often by the Republican candidates yet she isn't running for President.

But Nancy is in Congress, and is quite powerful there. Sarah holds no office at all; and never had the power that Pelosi has wielded on the course of policies. Even as Gov. of Alaska, Sarah never had the kind of power that Nancy still has.

Quite honestly all these figures are fair game, the parties embrace these people when it does them good and don't want to be associated with them when they could bring them down.

The parties may be fair game for public critique ... but why would the D's focus more on those two figures (Rush and Sarah) rather than the candidates themselves?

If Obama really has "cut deals" with Cameron to time a release of oil reserves; and with Israel WRT any action against Iran ... and that is validated before the election ... the "transparent" administration would truly become "transparent", and I would think lots of voters would be royally ticked off by such obvious manipulation; mostly for the oil reserves release that was delayed while the economy and all consumers of energy suffered, while the elite installed their "green" $50 light bulbs.

BTW, did you know that you will still be able to by "general service" (or "full service" ... I forget exactly the terminology mentioned) incandescent light bulbs? Supposedly a slight difference between those and the ones mf'd for general consumers; and only the consumer "version" of incandescents is affected by the "ban". A couple of companies have been given a "license" to continue to produce the other form of incandescents.

road kill
03-18-2012, 12:29 PM
Its amazing how the same guys who think Unions can do nothing for employees also believe that by crushing Unions States can save 100's of millions. Seems pretty absurd to me, yet trying to educated the uneducated masses is impossible. In my last job I worked with a group of people who by and large are less educated and easily manipulated and fooled by the company and management many of the half truths,lies and manipulations that most on here would laugh as being absurd you would be shocked and saddened to hear how many believe(d) that the company would take care of them, in the end it took a mere 70 cents an hour buy the company a Non-union vote. I wish I still had the letter that arrived a week before the election that told of how this pay "catch-up" raise was long over due and and been in the works for the last 8 months and it was a mere coincidence that it came the week of the vote.
I wonder if the number compares to those in DA UNION that think they care about them???


Just askin'.........

RK

mngundog
03-18-2012, 12:40 PM
I wonder if the number compares to those in DA UNION that think they care about them???


Just askin'.........

RK
In most business situtations I could careless if the business cares about me, its about if I get my moneys worth out of them. If I go to Applebees, Wal-mart, NAPA, or BurgerKing it never crossed my mind if the companies truely cared about me, I pay them for a service, that is all.

mngundog
03-18-2012, 12:53 PM
But Nancy is in Congress, and is quite powerful there. Sarah holds no office at all; and never had the power that Pelosi has wielded on the course of policies. Even as Gov. of Alaska, Sarah never had the kind of power that Nancy still has.
I could of swore that the tea party was a pretty influencial during the last elections and Palin was a key figure there. How soon we forget.

menmon
03-19-2012, 10:27 AM
I need to apologize to my wife, mom, grandmother, aunts, nieces and female friends. I was unaware that because I believe itís wrong for the Federal government to force Catholic Universities to supply free contraceptives to employees and students, Iíve declared war on women. I thought that I was supporting a private religious organizationís right to make choices based on their personal convictions, but it turns out I might just as well have planted an IED at Victoriaís Secret. Evidently pro-liberty = anti-women. Who knew? But if Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi say it, it must be true.
On the other hand, although I think abortion is wrong, I'm not convinced that outlawing it is the right answer. It looks like I've declared war on children, too. Dammit! I guess I'll spend the rest of my life hanging out in a sports bar to avoid contact with the enemy.

Self-evaluation is good....at least now you are realizing other have issues too, so there needs to be compromise to make sure we all work well together. What is important to me is not important to my wife and vice versa.

HPL
03-19-2012, 11:27 AM
What is important to me is not important to my wife and vice versa.
Sounds to me like you need to re-evaluate your relationship with your wife. Perhaps you meant "some issues that are important to my wife are not important to me and vice versa"?

HPL
03-19-2012, 11:31 AM
In most business situtations I could careless if the business cares about me, its about if I get my moneys worth out of them. If I go to Applebees, Wal-mart, NAPA, or BurgerKing it never crossed my mind if the companies truely cared about me, I pay them for a service, that is all.

mngundog, I believe you have misunderstood the post that you are referencing. I'm pretty sure that what was actually being referenced vis-a-vis the business caring about people was the company's relationship to its employees, not customers, as it was in response to a comment about whether unions actually care about the workers or not.

HPL

road kill
03-19-2012, 11:42 AM
mngundog, I believe you have misunderstood the post that you are referencing. I'm pretty sure that what was actually being referenced vis-a-vis the business caring about people was the company's relationship to its employees, not customers, as it was in response to a comment about whether unions actually care about the workers or not.

HPL

Thanks HPL, but it's doubtful this helped!!;-)


RK

menmon
03-19-2012, 12:50 PM
Sounds to me like you need to re-evaluate your relationship with your wife. Perhaps you meant "some issues that are important to my wife are not important to me and vice versa"?

correct...............

Gerry Clinchy
03-29-2012, 08:26 AM
Whatever your position on "typical" abortion, the following is pretty scary stuff as to where such logic would ultimately lead.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/declaring-war-newborns_633421.html
Declaring War on Newborns
The disgrace of medical ethics.
Andrew Ferguson

March 19, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 26

On the list of the world’s most unnecessary occupations—aromatherapist, golf pro, journalism professor, vice president of the United States​—​that of medical ethicist ranks very high. They are happily employed by pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other outposts of the vast medical-industrial combine, where their job is to advise the boss to go ahead and do what he was going to do anyway (“Put it on the market!” “Pull the plug on the geezer!”). They also attend conferences where they take turns sitting on panels talking with one another and then sitting in the audience watching panels of other medical ethicists talking with one another. Their professional specialty is the “thought experiment,” which is the best kind of experiment because you don’t have to buy test tubes or leave the office. And sometimes they get jobs at universities, teaching other people to become ethicists. It is a cozy, happy world they live in.

But it was painfully roiled last month, when a pair of medical ethicists took to their profession’s bible, the Journal of Medical Ethics, and published an essay with a misleadingly inconclusive title: “After-birth Abortion: Why should the baby live?” It was a misleading title because the authors believe the answer to the question is: “Beats me.”

Right at the top, the ethicists summarized the point of their article. “What we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.”

The argument made by the authors​—​Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, both of them affliliated with prestigious universities in Australia and ethicists of pristine reputation​—​runs as follows. Let’s suppose a woman gets pregnant. She decides to go ahead and have the baby on the assumption that her personal circumstances, and her views on such things as baby-raising, will remain the same through the day she gives birth and beyond.

Then she gives birth. Perhaps the baby is disabled or suffers a disease. Perhaps her boyfriend or (if she’s old-fashioned) her husband abandons her, leaving her in financial peril. Or perhaps she’s decided that she’s just not the mothering kind, for, as the authors write, “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus.”

The authors point out that each of these conditions​—​the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome​​—​​is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?

“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either. Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.

As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time.

The article doesn’t go on for more than 1,500 words, but for non-ethicists it has a high surprise-per-word ratio. The information that newborn babies aren’t people is just the beginning. A reader learns that “many non-human animals … are persons” and therefore enjoy a “right to life.” (Such ruminative ruminants, unlike babies, are self-aware enough to know that getting killed will entail a “loss of value.”) The authors don’t tell us which species these “non-human persons” belong to, but it’s safe to say that you don’t want to take a medical ethicist to dinner at Outback.

But what about adoption, you ask. The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.” But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression. A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.”
By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.” And for a very simple reason: These mothers “often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.” It’s simpler for all concerned just to make sure the loss can’t be reversed. It’ll spare Mom a lot of heartbreak.

Now, it’s at this point in the Journal of Medical Ethics that many readers will begin to suspect, as I did, that their legs are being not very subtly pulled. The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian​—​a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.

They get you coming and going, these guys. They assume​—​and they won’t get much argument from their peers in the profession​—​that “mentally impaired” infants are eligible for elimination because they will never develop the properties necessary to be fully human. Then they discuss Treacher-Collins syndrome, which causes facial deformities and respiratory ailments but no mental impairment. Kids with TCS are “fully aware of their condition, of being different from other people and of all the problems their pathology entails,” and are therefore, to spare them a life of such unpleasant awareness, eligible for elimination too​—​because they are not mentally impaired. The threshold to this “right to life” just gets higher and higher, the more you think about it.

And of course it is their business to think about it. It’s what medical ethicists get paid to do: cogitate, cogitate, cogitate. As “After-birth Abortion” spread around the world and gained wide publicity​—​that damned Internet ​—​non-ethicists greeted it with derision or shock or worse. The authors and the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics were themselves shocked at the response. As their inboxes flooded with hate mail, the authors composed an apology of sorts that non-ethicists will find more revealing even than the original paper.

“We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened,” they wrote. “The article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments.” It was a thought experiment. After all, among medical ethicists “this debate”​—​about when it’s proper to kill babies​—​“has been going on for 40 years.”

So that’s what they’ve been talking about in all those panel discussions! The authors thought they were merely taking the next step in a train of logic that was set in motion, and has been widely accepted, since their profession was invented in the 1960s. And of course they were. The outrage directed at their article came from laymen​—​people unsophisticated in contemporary ethics. Medical ethicists in general expressed few objections, only a minor annoyance that the authors had let the cat out of the bag. A few days after it was posted the article was removed from the publicly accessible area of the Journal’s website, sending it back to that happy, cozy world.

You’d have to be very, very well trained in ethics to see the authors’ argument as a morally acceptable extension of their premises, but you can’t deny the logic of it. The rest of us will see in the argument an extension of its premises into self-evident absurdity. Pro-lifers should take note. For years, in public argument, pro-choicers have mocked them for not following their belief in a fetus’s humanity to its logical end. Shouldn’t you execute doctors who perform abortions? Why don’t you have funerals for miscarriages?

As one pro-choice wag, writing about the Republicans’ pro-life platform, put it in the Washington Post a few years ago: “The official position of the Republican Party is that women who have abortions should be executed.”

And now we know the pro-choice position is that children born with a facial deformity should be executed too, as long as you get to them quick enough. Unwittingly the insouciant authors of “After-birth Abortion” have shown where pro-choicers wind up if they follow their belief about fetuses to its logical end. They’ve performed a public service. Could it be that medical ethicists really are more useful than aromatherapists?


Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

luvmylabs23139
03-29-2012, 06:00 PM
BTW, did you know that you will still be able to by "general service" (or "full service" ... I forget exactly the terminology mentioned) incandescent light bulbs? Supposedly a slight difference between those and the ones mf'd for general consumers; and only the consumer "version" of incandescents is affected by the "ban". A couple of companies have been given a "license" to continue to produce the other form of incandescents.


I can't remember the exact name but they are the sturdy ones used in subways and stuff. They aren't that cheap though.
The new floodlight bulbs they sell at Sam's that look like a regular outdoor floodlight absolutely SUCK!!! I bought some thinking I was getting a "normal" bulb. Stupid things take at least 5 minutes to warm up to full brightness. Rather useless at 3 am when my old gal decides she needs a middle of the night piddle. I'm just waiting for the night she ends up getting skunked.