This fellow has such a screwed reasoning system, check out this article
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … c#comments
Does he really believe that the indiscretions of a former President almost 20 years ago is a point in logic to attack the accusations from the left and center that the GOP through its policies is waging a War Against Women?
However you feel about the term, Paul's logic is frayed on two counts
1. Clinton's indiscretions were notable as an individual and ill advised, but it happened almost 20 years ago.
2. The GOP is being attacked over a series of policy stances that are not well received by American women, from a number of its candidates and office holders over several states and over a variety of issues of concern to women. This certainly rises above a past indiscretion of one man from the other side.
I am upset at Paul because he actually believes that this hair brained reasoning of his going to resonate with any thinking person.
What are your thoughts?
What are our thoughts? Great! Now you want us to think before commenting? Next I suppose you will be asking for sources and back-up data?
But, since this is such a subjective post, not really needing facts to weigh-in, I suppose I could offer that I think it is just more political pandering - part of an apparently newly-devised Republican strategy to refute their "war on women" image. Which I happen to think is a Democrat misnomer, also politically intended to distort the "general conservative views" on abortion and birth control issues.
I may have caught the "prediction" bug from an exchange with Mighty Mom, but I will go out on a limb here saying that we will be hearing a lot more such statements from Republicans leading up to 2016 - and my prediction is that the Republican politicians are going to screw it up with more "...a woman's body can..." type statements.
ps. I don't think it is "thinking people" that Paul is aiming for.
pss. I am surprised you did not also tie this to Hucklebee's recent "... women's libido..." statement (careful this is a trap)
Yes, GA, as for Hucklebee, I am not attacking an opinion only reasoning and logic that is askew in regard to Paul's comments. The concept of "War on Women" is anything but subjective (see Wikipedia), solid policy initiatives are behind this and it is more than just a false perception and smoke and mirrors. The GOP falling short with women on election day has something do with these things. Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes? Advocacy of no abortion even after rape or incest, next they will say that the life of the mother, herself, is of secondary concern.
The conservatives deserve being linked to this idea of the 'War on Women' and the bad press associated with it.
The views from the loudest voices on the right regarding women's reproductive issues are strident and outside the realm of reasonableness. The GOP is acknowledging problems with female voters, do you think that this might just have something to do with it? The radical wing of the GOP makes it own problems, so who needs to distort anything? Hucklebee simply made a statement that I disagreed with, not distorting the facts and logic like Paul does.
As you imply, perhaps it is best that the GOP keep its mouth shut in regards to these sensitive issues or continue to pay the price at the polls.
The "subjective" part was relative to your request for "thoughts," as in opinions, which are always subjective. And I have already agreed that I think Paul's statements were pure political pandering - as in pure balderdash.
As for the "war on women" issue... I disagree with this characterization, but, (as you say), the loudest voices, and most ardent party core, do make it too easy to come to that conclusion.
Now, it may just be a case of semantics, but if it were described as a "war on women's rights" I could be on-board with that - on most of the issues, (like the ones you mentioned), but I can also see the contextual truth in Hucklebee's statement.
I am still an advocate for a 3rd "purple" party because I do not see the Republican party - as defined by its religious base, as any longer representative of us "normal" conservatives.
ps. In my opinion conservative and Republican are not one and the same.
pss. I just noticed you title word play, "war on women" and "groped" in the same sentence - how cute. LOL
psss. I can see the line to ask what a "normal" conservative" is, forming now.
Bill Clinton is heralded and routinely feted by lefties, yet he was a brutal user of women. What does that say about those who continue to elevate him?
The Republican policy positions you refer to are disliked by women dependent upon the largess of the American people and the Daddy State. Married women are far more conservative. The misidentified "gender gap" has always been a marital status gap.
Well, that strident condemnation certainly leaves no doubt how you feel about the man, but does that also include him as the president? And does that connect the dots between the two issues as Rand's statement implies, as Credence2 asked?
Are you sure you are comfortable with that "women's group" statement? I agree that the group you describe probably does dislike them, but you infer that is the only group that does. How can you be so confident about that? Personal experience? Studies? Polls? Focus groups? Or Republican talking points?
Couldn't it also be intelligent, independent, and financially secure women that may think politicians don't have any right to tell them what they can do with their reproductive systems? And do you suppose there might be married women that feel that way too?
I can see you feel strongly about this issue, and of course, you are welcome to your own opinion. which is fine with me, you can keep it, because I certainly don't want it.
whoa, GA! I am impressed, to see you express a clear delineation between red and purple in your last post, goes a long way for credibility as a gentleman truly looking for a middle course. Standing up to retief, as red as they come, allows me to see that moderate conservatism is possible.
Hey there G.A.
Not only do I agree with what you said but also I am overwhelmingly in favor of the way you said it.
*I tip my fedora to you*
Greetings Quill, good to see you around the forums again. and thanks for the compliment, but...
... my stance on this "war on women" issue is not red or blue. I do not think the Federal government should be involved either way. Not mandating free contraceptives, nor regulating a woman's rights to her body - Re. reproduction.
I have less problem with state government involvement, (even if I disagree), because citizens can vote with their feet - and still remain citizens. Which is not an option with Federal involvement.
But, back to Cred's point, Rand Paul's statement strikes me as nothing more than political theater. It appears the Republicans realize they need to push back against their image of being anti-woman, and Paul and Hucklebee are just the first ones off the blocks.
I believe the thrust of Hucklebee's statement, (although terribly worded), is much more accurate than Paul's. I hope the moderates of the Republican party can see the danger of Paul's approach. (and get Hucklebee a better editor)
Question, GA, re: "... regulating a woman's rights to her body"
Do you find government has a place in regulating, allowing or prohibiting abortion? Specifically, say, a 36 week abortion? A 2 day old fetal abortion?
I will not hijack Cred's thread and turn it into another abortion thread. I am comfortable with my personal position on abortion. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on the issue, and I have given it enough thought to know that no one is going to change my mind. *barring some revelation that has never occurred to me of course
But, to answer your question generally, and as already stated above; I do not have a problem with state regulation/involvement as promoted or supported by the residents of a state, regardless of whether I agree with them - because a state resident can move to another state and still remain a U.S. citizen. That is not an option when the control is from a Federal level.
That is a general position that can be fairly countered with the "sure the wealthy can move, but what about the poor..." argument, to which I would reply, as with all things in life, "it is a matter of priorities."
I am a firm believer in the old adage: "Where there is a will there is a way." The history of the U.S has shown this to be a truism over and over, generation after generation - for good and ill.
But, to steer you back to Cred's question, Do you believe Rand Paul's statement is a valid linkage? I don't believe the Republicans are waging a "war on women," but the public perception sure makes it look like it.
ps. believing I know a little about your perspectives, from reading you in the forums, and past interactions with you - Wouldn't you have a problem honestly answering that, other than in a relationship between husband and wife, any man has any right telling a woman what she can do with her body?
As you say, to answer your final question would rather hijack the thread, but I would say in general that I am not comfortable giving one parent total control over a new life, particularly control over whether that life continues or terminates. So I do have a problem answering, either way.
And that is in line with why I ask the question in the first place: I personally find that the claims of controlling what a woman can do with her body are irrelevant to the question of abortion. I recognize the the far right, religious, segment of conservatism has declared that (human) life occurs at conception, and that abortion is thus murder. Control of the reproductive system does not even enter the equation to them; only the question of murder, and that in turn means that the claims the right wishes to "wage war on women" is nothing but a political ploy to gain power with no substance or truth to it.
And sooner or later the furor is going to die a little and thinking heads will prevail. The question of "humanness" will prevail, will be discussed and, just maybe, a compromise may be reached. As long as the two sides refuse to recognize the reasoning of the other it will continue, along with the stupid claims of waging war on women because that's about all I ever see - the abortion issue. Oh, sure, some will claim that society must provide contraception or they are waging war, but that is so transparent as to be laughable - it is, and cannot be, anything more than another try at getting something for nothing. Of getting someone else to foot the bill for what you want.
...But what about the thread topic - the Rand Paul question?
Rand Paul, nothing. Just a response to the silly claim that conservatives are waging a war on women.
Actually, I find Paul's comment to be just as much crap as the accusation from the left: Claiming that Clinton "took advantage" of a grown woman in the oval office is stupid. If anything, Lewinsky "took advantage" of his known weakness for sex, not the other way around. That he then ties Hillary to Bill (and his indiscretions) is laughably predictable - it is completely obvious the entire statement is nothing but a political ploy without an ounce of truth in any of it.
The public hears those silly claims about a war, and the far left may actually believe the nonsense. As always the loud ones are the ones you hear, and as always they will eventually convince millions that such nonsense is true if they just keep saying it. Paul's statement is just a little wrench he's trying to throw into the machinery and stop the madness. That he finds it necessary or desirable to lie on his way, well, that's politics. The truth is not in them.
Wilderness, are you in self induced state of denial?
I quote from an earlier comment: The GOP is being attacked over a series of policy stances that the GOP itself admits are not being received well by American women. from a number of its candidates and office holders over several states. and over a variety of issues of concern to women.
Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes, no right to abortion even after rape or incest. All of this is coming from the Republican right. You can get on a soapbox and advocate this as smoke and mirrors from the left, but I think that it is quite valid and substantive. I really hope that the GOP continues on this ill advised course as it is a certain path to defeat in subsequent electoral contests in the future.
You're right - "Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes, no right to abortion even after rape or incest", all from the right. And ALL about protecting a helpless child from being murdered.
We've been around this before, haven't we? Still ignoring the root of the problem, still making wild claims (about the supposed war), still refusing to even discuss the issue at hand. Just political claims without any basis in fact while pretending that the real issue is nonexistent because you don't want to discuss it.
Which is what I said, after all - the left doesn't want to discuss the problem, doesn't want any real solution, just to get their way no matter what. Whereupon irrelevant claims about a war are made and shouted to the heavens in an effort to gain followers by burying the issue beneath a mountain of emotion. Same as the far right when they scream "MURDER!" and kill abortion doctors.
I will tell you once more that the issue is murder of unborn children. Murder, not mercy killing, not disposal of parasite, not removal of an unwanted growth - murder. And until you are willing to discuss the issue in those lights you aren't going to change the opinion of a single far right Christian - the ones making the "war". And speaking for someone leaning to the right, I'm getting awful tired of the two radical sides absolutely refusing to even look at what the other side is saying.
Well, you lean right and I lean left and I say that Roe vs Wade is satisfactory as established law and you and the rightwing folk say otherwise. We cannot successfully discuss this as my views are going to differ from yours in this and many other issues.
This is not about abortion but the perception that is turned in to reality at the ballot box of this gender gap and how Paul and Huckebee are feeding fuel to fire. Do you think Roe vs Wade is radical, or is it ok for the political right to turn women into nothing more than incubating machines? There needs to be a balance and since it has been obvious over the last election cycles that women, over 50% of the population lean democratic as opposed to men, if the GOP want to stand on that soap box, they need to be prepared for larger portion of the audience that will not be in attendance.
Instead of the trick of mis-direction, the right needs to be honest enough to admit that its stance on this issue is costing them votes. If they are ok with that, that is ok with me.
Not really - I fully accept Roe vs Wade and find it satisfactory. You are confusing my recognition with the stance of the far right with accepting that stance as correct. I emphatically do not.
So let me play devil's advocate for a moment and reply to this paragraph. Incubating machines? Yes, women that practice unprotected sex open themselves to becoming an incubating machine, but that DOES NOT give them the right to commit murder. Balance? You've got to be kidding - either that child is killed or it is not, and there is nothing to "balance" here! Nor can you turn murder into a political ploy at the ballot box, except to say that anyone voting for abortion is also voting for murder. You want murder to be accepted, but it won't happen in THIS country! Even if Satan's liberal minions manage to stuff the ballot box to an illegal conclusion, God will seek vengeance and you will pay the price!
See what happens? Everything you say is turned into something else, with God having the final word. You CANNOT win a debate under those circumstances; the only chance you have of convincing these radicals is to convince them it is best to compromise on when that fetus becomes a person. Not an easy job, and maybe not possible, but I absolutely guarantee that shouting about a war on women, that Republicans hate women or want their women as incubating machines isn't going to do it.
Once more, there is no misdirection from the far right. They are clear in their words and their aims: abortion is murder and must be stopped. Votes are immaterial, politics is immaterial, and women's wombs are immaterial. The only thing that matters is that millions of helpless children are being murdered at the hands of evil liberals and God prohibits that. Either deal with the reality here, that half the country feels this way, or nothing is ever going to change. Manage to get a decent set of laws passed and I would predict you will see more clinic bombings. Protect the clinics and more doctors will be murdered, at home if necessary. Protect them and the nurses or even patients will be killed. You want a real solution to the abortion question you're going to have to change an awful lot of minds, and emotional chants about wars on women or female incubators isn't going to do it.
I think you nailed it. Especially about the Lewinsky part.
Yeah - just look at the final results. A man who lost his political career and is disgraced vs a woman getting rich from publishing the story. Who got the better end of the deal? Who took advantage of who?
They both participated in the same thing - consensual sex in the oval office - but have sure had differing results from it.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/vie … omens_vote
I don't do talking points. If I don't believe it, haven't experienced it or haven't researched it - I don't say it or write it.
As for "reproductive systems," is that actually the issue or the usual deception? It isn't "reproductive systems" that is the thorny issue, at all, ever, it is once reproduction has taken place. It is not the decision to be fertile or to freely engage in the reproductive act, the issue is abortion.
I did read your link. It seemed a reasonable article.
But I still disagree with your characterization of the group(s) of women that are against the Republican's "war on women" issues - and that they are the only ones. Sounded/sounds like demagoguery to me.
You may be mostly right that abortion is the real issue, but I think the contraceptives part of it is symbolically important too. I do not believe it is the government's place to provide or force provision of contraceptives. I say this is a symbolic issue because the extremely low cost and ready availability of contraceptives does not seem to support it as an economic hardship issue.
I think that GA response to you pretty much reflects how I would have answered you if he had not arrived first.....
Here, I think is a good illustration of the "war on women" problem - both sides talking past each other instead of to each other.
"Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes, no right to abortion even after rape or incest. All of this is coming from the Republican right. You can get on a soapbox and advocate this as smoke and mirrors from the left, but I think that it is quite valid and substantive..."
"You're right - "Mandatory ultrasounds, vaginal probes, no right to abortion even after rape or incest", all from the right. And ALL about protecting a helpless child from being murdered."
And here is me appearing to want my cake, and eat it too...
First, the mandatory stuff is coming from the state level, (Texas I think), not the Federal level, which as I have explained, makes a difference to me. (right or wrong)
Cred's stance appears all about a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. Sounds right to me.
Wilderness counters that no, it is not about that, it is about saving a life. This also sounds right to me.
Regarding the "war on women," what I don't hear is any talk on woman-specific; banning cosmetic surgery, hair styles, dress codes, job/career restrictions, travel restrictions, etc. etc.
If you want to see a real "war on women" - look to many of the Middle East cultures.
I mentioned earlier that this may just be semantics. Maybe if the two sides discussed it as a "war on pregnant women" they would be more likely to discuss the real issues rather than shouting past each other.
Both sides have valid points - based on their personal beliefs - so the question is... who has the right to over-rule the other?
That is why I think the issue should be dealt with on a state level. If I feel strongly enough about something I disagree with - then I can move to a community of people, (a state) that feel as I do.
Which leads me full circle back to my original thoughts that this "war on women" mantra is a Democrat manipulation of an issue. Aided by some really dumb Republican political statements.
What say you Democrats... would you be comfortable changing your charge to "war on pregnant women?"
Or do you have examples of non-abortion Republican attacks on women?
GA, it is as you say, we should stay on topic. Nobody should have the right to rule over anybody else regarding this issue of woman's reproductive rights. While I lean left, I am not unreasonable. There is a balance between the desire to protect and preserve life, while acknowledging that the woman has something to say and have rights in the process. That is Roe vs Wade, the ruling that the GOP has been trying to undercut since its beginning. What compromise is there in saying that at conception the woman has to jump through hoops to terminate a pregnancy?
When you talk about all this being within the purview of the states, I think about slave states verses free states. What happens when some states will accept marital status of gay couples and some do not? I certainly remember almost 50 years ago when it took a Supreme court ruling to permit interracial couples to consummate a marriage arrangement in Virginia and probably other southern states as well. When you say if you don't like the laws in a state move away, what about what is going on in Colorado where the prairie northeast portion of the state wanted to create a new state within a state as they did not like the increasing blue pattern of the state's politics? They did not see moving to Kansas or Wyoming as a viable solution.
Of course, this is not the Middle East, they are not the yardstick that we use as the world's oldest democracy.
There is the GOP opposition, particularely house GOP regarding renewal of the "Violence Against Women Act" a couple of years back, there are also pay and work parity issues that the GOP takes a regressive tack on such as Fairness in Paycheck Act. Regardless as how you view these initiatives, women struggling to survive in a challenging economy are going to look to see who is helping and who is hindering, which again works against the GOP and is not related to reproduction issues.
You can't just have a war against pregnant women, as anything that affects this group is likely to have a resonating effect as to how all women interact with society as a whole and the image of overbearing paternalism will not help the GOP brand. Besides, the reproduction issues are at the forefront as they get to the heart of the differences between men and woman as other issues do not. So it is not a piece, but a swath, which composes the lion's share of difference in the gender gap distinction.
So there is my rebuttal, GA
Worlds oldest democracy?
I am still not sure about the OP and the statement of a "war on women" and what that actually means.
Does it mean the federal government is advocating the enslavement of women in the US or cant they make their minds up about what rights a woman has?
Yes, the U.S have operated in its current manner for longer than any other nation on the globe.
Well, there are numerous examples as to what this means throughout the web.
As for the last paragraph it may well be a mixture of both, it not a matter of making up minds but stern debate between differing political ideologies as to what lines are being drawn and where.
I thought democracy would have included all Americans the vote, which as you know didn't happen until 1964.
The only real examples I can find is ones of name calling by politicians.
I am not fond of the language "war on women" because like the language of "global warming" (which is not about warming, but climate change) it misconstrues the issue.
What IS happening in the United States---and what IS being promoted by Christian right-wing politicians NOW (in the present moment and as we approach a pivotal election) is an effort to roll back access to contraception. My sense is that such a roll back will have as much a negative effect on heterosexual men as it does on heterosexual women.
As such, this is not a "war on women", but a war on sexual privacy; sexual privacy that most Americans had reason to believe was fought and won by 1972.
I see this war on sexual privacy as part of a larger effort to impose conservative Christianity on the US as a matter of policy and law.
What I don't get it is why anyone in their right mind would think that American men and women---particularly heterosexual men and women, would embrace a roll back of sexual privacy when it could mean loss of access to contraception.
And what I really don't get is why when the Republican Party has an excellent chance of retaking the White House it is allowing some of its members to go out in public and repeat (and they are repeating) calls for legislation to roll back access to contraception.
I was al little miffed (being a Brit) as to the statement " war on women" as there is no mention of it in the UK media (or maybe I just missed it).
The only real attention the "war on women" is getting here is from just about anyone in "the media" (print, electronic, etc.) from the right and left and everything in between who thinks they can use it to either (a) mock the religious right and its legion of politicians who are saying some really bizarre things lately about women---like there is something called "legitimate rape" and if it happens women's bodies do some magic that precludes pregnancy OR (b) to express support for politicians who think that it is high-time in the US to deny women (and therefore men) access to contraception, to outlaw abortion, to outlaw divorce, and to embrace a Putin/Russian-style approach to gays and lesbians---all so that we can get back to our "traditional values".
Interesting stuff in a country where about 99% of women have used contraceptives at some time in their lives.
Do they believe then that this sort of rhetoric will get them votes? I would have thought it would lose them many votes.
Part of me thinks that they are deluded and think it will get them votes, but part of me is at a total loss to explain what is motivating them.
There is basically NO support in the US for any roll back of access to contraceptives and little support for any significant roll back to access to abortion.
Last week a former Republican candidate for president said that Democratic Party support for women's access to birth control is, essentially, a function of the Democratic Party believing that women have no control over their "libidos" (the Republican's word). When he wasn't being utterly mocked, he was being held up as the marker of all that is wrong with Republican Party thinking and as a marker of the Republican Party's "war on women".
Add this words like "legitimate rape" and ideas like women who become pregnant in the course of a rape need to chalk it up to "God's will" that they be raped/become pregnant and it is no wonder that the Republican Party cannot seem to get many women to support its agenda and its candidates.
It was a comment on the continued exploitation of women by keeping them dependent on Democrats. It is the infantilization of women and minorities that keep Democrats in power. Democrats have lured many into a public preserve and now keep them there as wards of the State. This dependency on Democrats will end, eventually and will be terribly painful when it does.
As for the roll back of abortion not being supported, that depends on where one looks for proof.
As for the women's vote, it is hardly monolithic. Single women turned out in big numbers for Obama. Obama lost among married women by 7 percentage points.
Let us not forget that great social thinker and anything-but-a-religious-right-zealot, Whoopy Goldberg justifying her support of the rapist, Roman Polanski, by calling his monstrous assault on a 13 year old by saying, "it wasn't rape-rape."
And there is hardly a legion of foolish politicians tripping over their own tongues regarding rape, it was one in Missouri. It just feels like a legion when the lefty media drum beat is unending.
Her comments were inexcusable and demonstrate that she does not understand the concept of "statutory rape" OR why it's on the books.
The truth is it was more than one politician in Missouri who made comments about rape. Here is the list:
Todd Atkin and his "legitimate rape" language and theory.
Richard Murdock and his rape, pregnancy, and god's will theory.
Tom Smith who minimized rape and a subsequent pregnancy as no different from any out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Roger Rivard who commented that "some girls rape easy".
Joe Koster who used the words "rape thing" when discussing rape.
And this is just from 2012.
Some other choice comments made by Republicans about rape:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/16 … -remember/
I bow to your information, but let us admit that rape is a BOMB of an issue. It is so horrifying that the emotions it stirs cannot be discussed with reason. Rape is frequently used to load a question. "Have you stopped beating your wife" pales compared to adding rape to any discussion. I would suggest that Republican men are damned by the media, no Democrat would ever face questions about rape because pro-life Democrats have been all but expunged from the party. If the choice is between a pro-life Democrat(now an oxymoron) and a pro-life Republican, the rape/abortion question will NEVER be asked.
I totally agree that either side using rape as an issue in any campaign is disgusting and serves no purpose, but I do not agree that there are no Democrats who are pro-life.
Here is some information:
http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/07 … and-2.html
And some better-known pro-life Democrats:
And one more that I can vouch for with 100% surety: me...
Well you and I have something profound in common, I am so pleased to meet you. I laughed just reading the name of the "catholickey" blog, because I read it as catholickey not Catholic Key. As a faithful Catholic man I often laugh at myself.
Yes, we do.
I too am a Catholic. Some things the Church taught us are with us forever and central to our worldview and our being. There is right and wrong---and abortion is wrong.
Much of what is wrong is placing the material nature of Man above the spiritual nature of Man. It becomes simple when one understands this.
Why? God didn't address it, Jesus had nothing to say about it and neither did any of the bible authors. So what makes you say it is wrong?
It is impressive when the sound of a mind slammed shut can be heard over the internet. There are atheists who oppose abortion. Which knots your panties faster religion or pro-life because they are not materially equivalent, just as atheism and pro-life are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would bet there are plenty of Biologists and Geneticists who would be glad to argue with you about the life cycle. In fact, I was looking at a rather weighty tome the other day and it did say the life cycle began at fertilization and it wasn't the Bible - it was a High School Biology text ( and not one from the retrograde South). If you were to open your mind just a sliver and do some hard thinking, you might be surprised at what sneaks in.
As for what the Bible says, it says quite plainly that God knew Jeremiah long before he was even formed in the womb.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth."
"Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be."
"Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my mother's womb he has spoken my name."
And Paul writes,
"But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased"
All consistently refer to a life known to God before the physical aspect comes to be. The Bible does address life, it calls intentionally ending a life murder and it does say that a real life is in the womb.
Believe or not, that is your business but there is a consistent underpinning to a Catholic opposing abortion, it is not merely a whim.
So God is reported as saying he knew the soul of someone before they were born. What does that have to do with removing a soulless lump of flesh, growing parasitically inside someone? Even if you believe that God personally spoke to Jeremiah (I don't) there is no indication as to just when God did that "forming" - when he put the soul that was to become Jeremiah into that soulless lump of flesh. The one as yet incapable of carrying or being a person, a human being.
In addition, you have to know that not everyone shares your personal and specific God myth. What gives you the right to impose that myth on anyone else? What gives you the right to claim as FACT what can only be opinion, faith or belief? If you claim that right (to determine how others must live), all others also have it regarding how you must live - will that fit well in your world view?
For when life begins I do not lean on your belief that a human life is some how not a life, I lean on science.
As for the soulless lump of flesh thing, I will have to take your word for when such a "mythic" thing as a soul comes to occupy that flesh.
Revealing answer. Can you point to anything outside of simple definition where science has determined a fertilized egg is a human life? Because life isn't enough; we kill life every day for reasons varying from hunger to irritation or dislike to not knowing we're doing it.
What makes a person, then, and when does science decide it happens, again outside of a simple definition anyone can (and does) make?
So even logic is a problem, sexual reproduction a problem? How can it not be a human life? As far as Hume and I are concerned none of you are real anyway since my senses do not tell me you are real. So the simple isn't plain enough. Sounds absurdly and needlessly complex, beg the question much?
What logic would that be? The claim that science knows when a dog's life has begun? Something totally irrelevant to the question? I don't think so.
If nothing is real it cannot matter if an abortion occurs or not, yes? We do not need any laws on the matter at all if that is the best response you can give.
Science places the beginning of life at fertilization.
As for the you not being real, it is part of the question of life, person and human. One need only deny that others are alive, a person, a human to justify any horror - slavery, genocide, infanticide, etc.... So your personhood is in doubt because I have no sensory evidence that you are real and yet you are. How can this be said unless faith, not evidence, contributes mightily to our apprehension of reality.
Sorry, science defines the beginning of life at conception. Not looking for any kind of man made definition, but rather a scientific discovery of some kind of natural law or something. As I said, we can and do define things all the time, but a definition is nothing more than a word. Certainly not something useful in determining whether an organism shall live or die.
Not interested in a philosophical discussion, but in reality. A reality we can see and measure, that I would use for a legal definition of murder vs abortion. Are you up for it or is any destruction of a soulless bit of organic matter to be called murder?
I am puzzled by your continuing to use magical terms like soulless.
Most people that claim that a single cell can be a person attribute the claim it to the possession of a soul. Do you disagree? If so, what ARE you basing that definition on?
We are arguing over something that bares no weight for you, why? Sounds like an absurd waste of effort by both of us.
Bares no weight? You're insinuating that I find nothing wrong with, or don't care about, either the murder of children OR the taking of personal rights/freedoms? I would highly disagree with that statement.
From Martin Neimoller:
“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
When we as a nation have forgotten the inner meaning of this, we are doomed for we are a single society, not a land of disconnected individuals. I need to be neither a woman nor a child to be concerned about abortion and the effects the abortion question has had and will have on our country and society.
In regards to Retief's statement and I quote, "much of what is wrong is placing the material nature of Man above the spiritual nature of Man . Most profound and I agree, but the problem is that there are many that do not see it that way and until God returns to set us all straight, the opinion of those that do not see the truth of this profound comment is just as valid as yours or mine.
Retief, Say what you will, but you are not God and you cant prove your point in any objective way. So why waste perfectly good bits and bytes with this kind of argument. That is the problem with rightwingers, strident to the end. Who decides whose opinions are valid and whose are not, is it you? I had no idea that you are so 'formidable'.
Opinions are subjective and those that believe that certain groups be relegated to second class citizenship have a right to their opinion and there are plenty of them, that don't want to be identified because it is an opinion abhorrent to the rest of us, at least most of us. Fortunately, the opposite opinion the second option in your post is the one that prevails today in custom and law, but such was not always the case. An opinion is a belief which by its nature may well need not be substantiated. Just because an abhorrent opinion does not have the support or number of adherents does not mean it is not valid, does being in the majority in a train of thought make an opinion more or less valid? I like to think that the opinions that I pay attention to, have some basis in fact. I don't know of any group or entity whose opinions are infallible, so this idea of more absolutes than not is merely an opinion, that I can choose to subscribe to or not depending upon my predisposition.
...and a damn good one it is. I did say I was trying to have it both ways
You make very valid points relative to a very challenging issue.
One of my problems in trying to defend a lot of Republican issues is that to my mind the religious right of the party is not the whole of the party, but that perspective is getting much harder to maintain.
I do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned, but I also do not condone 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. Whether right or wrong, I see a grey area in this issue, but I don't think most Republicans do.
As for the states issue... my position is a squishy one trying to find a middle ground between my absolute belief that the Federal government should not be involved beyond the scope of Roe v Wade, and my belief that a community of citizens, (a state?), should be able to make the rules they want to live by. Slave state vs. Free state, Virginia's interracial marriage issue - good points.
Colorado? hmm... your best example. I guess it is back to the drawing board for me - I see my statist solution crumbling before my eyes.
Of course I was not promoting the Middle East as yardstick for social issues - but it does work to illustrate what a real "war on women" would look like. To me at least.
As for your other examples, "violence, fairness... Acts - I don't know enough about them to comment. But I will. And when I do I will come back and chop your legs off. Or admit you are right. We'll see.
I may stand battered and bloodied, but I stand. And am appreciative that I am forced to ditch the mushy thinking I tried to get away with. It is not an easy issue for an honest person.
Thanks, GA, praise from a master is most gratifying. Have you seen Wilderness the Red's latest reply to my post? You talk about failure to communicate, so where is the impediment to communication in the exchange of opposing views.
Wilderness' reply? I did. And if we are talking about the same one, I think you may have missed a bit of his satirical sarcasm. At least that is the way I read it, and I hope I am right because I think he made some very good observations.
I read Wilderness as being very "Red" (to use your description), and sometimes overly simplistic, (I do not live in a black and white world), but more often then not I think he presents very realistic views that represent very real life circumstances.
ie. it is not pro-life vs. pro-abortion, it is (to the group he was speaking of), pro-life vs. pro-murder.
I read his "God" exhortations as semi-exaggerated examples of the religious right's thinking. Not his perspective.
Of course I could be wrong. Or we could be talking about different replies. I'm sure he will let me know.
You got it. That reply would never come from MY lips; Not only did I clearly say I was playing Devil's Advocate, but I've made it very clear that I support Roe vs Wade, and pretty much fall into line with what you said earlier (I think it was you and I'm too lazy to spend any more time looking) in that abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimester become questionable, but the first is always fine.
It's still about finding a solution, though, more than what that solution is (In line with this thread). It's still about the left screaming to high heaven about a war on women with the far right turning as deaf an ear as the left does to a mention of murder in the womb. And, just as Credence says, there is a failure to communicate because of that; witness the hash made of what I was trying to say, which I thought was pretty darn plain.
I have to say, too, that a "red" Wilderness is 1/2 right. I am indeed quite red, fiscally. But bluer, if that is possible, than even most democrats in the social field. Which ties with supporting Roe vs Wade, gay marriage, and all the other individual freedoms the far right would take away in the name of religion.
Sorry Wilderness, I was broadsided by your satire, and honestly did not recognize it for what it was. There are so many of this type for whom the ideas expressed in your Store Front Preacher, burn in hell litany would be quite real. I should have known after our many debates that you would not deevolve in this way.
But, where is the leftwing equivalent to this group. I don't hear anybody on the left advocating a more lenient approach to this issue than that provided in Roe vs Wade
The leftwing equivalent? Those that simply shout about a womans right to an abortion while pretending that it doesn't mean murdering a child to some people. Those that forever tell the lie about the right wanting a war on women, again pretending that that's what it's about.
Those, in other words, as adamant that there is nothing to discuss except a woman's right to control her body as those that claim there is nothing to discuss except how to limit the murder rate. I've said it and said it; until both sides at least recognize the stance of the other, there really IS nothing to discuss. Neither side will listen, neither side will discuss the concerns of the other.
You're right - the "war on women" is a dumb democratic phrase, coined with the intent of diverting the issue to something it isn't.
Just as the Republican far religious right, insists it's all about murder of children, instead of a woman's right to control her body - you can see it in the very phrase "pro life".
It is both, and until both recognize and deal with that fact nothing is going to change. We'll just keep swaying back and forth with the political winds, forever at each other's throats and forever hurting those that need help the most.
One thing should be patently obvious:
Mr Paul's comments have key purposes:
(1) To remind the American electorate that Hillary Clinton is Mrs Bill Clinton;
(2) To remind the American electorate that Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill Clinton despite his sexual transgression with a female intern.
And of course in doing each of these to suggest to the American public that Hillary Clinton is a tacit partner in the so-called "war on women"---a war which Mr Paul wants to define as not about abortion or contraceptives, but as about male sexual transgression.
Remember, this is the same Senator Paul who is working closely and very publicly with female and left-leaning New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on a bill that would really hammer anybody in the military who in any way sexually abuses or exploits.
I think Mr Paul is on to something---particularly as we approach 2016.
Holy Cow Cred! Now look what you have done - created another God thread in the politics forum. tsk. tsk.
Gotta be careful, don't want to inadvertently open up a 'pandora's box'
"I am still an advocate for a 3rd "purple" party because I do not see the Republican party - as defined by its religious base, as any longer... "
Are you sure it was Credence that made it a God thread?
by Credence24 years ago
How wide spread is the message that seems to come from the Republican Right that among the parties involved in a rape crime, the status of the woman is less important that that of the offender or that of the unborn...
by R. Fritz23 months ago
Is it right or wrong even though it is legal?
by Credence211 days ago
Most interesting: seems to be a fundamental difference in how men and women see things.http://www.salon.com/2016/10/12/repealt … men-voted/Seems like the real differential for party or political preference is...
by JOC6 months ago
With his numbers crumbling with women, the Republican Establishment realizes that there's no way they can give him the nomination of their party. He finally offended one group too many with his statements against...
by Greensleeves Hubs2 weeks ago
The Conservative Party has always been the major right of centre party in the UK - the party of Churchill, Thatcher, Cameron and current Prime Minister Theresa May. A party which believes in strong fiscal policy and...
by Tim Lajoie8 months ago
Trump is not a conservative...so what? His positions have changed over the years...so what? My parents were liberals and became conservatives who voted for Ronald Reagan. People hold views that change...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.