Thomas Friedman, "Why I'm Pro Life."
" “Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s ovary, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.
"The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.
"Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.
"Now that is what I call “pro-life.”
[Exerpt from Column by Thomas Friedman.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opini … ef=opinion
I want to see this aborted (not really).
Before anyone gets completely bent out of shape this is an elephant embryo.
On a completely unrelated note, if that is really is an elephant embryo, it's odd how it looks so much like a human one in the early stages.
He lost me at 'common-sense gun control'.
Ignorant of the facts about guns, coming from reputable private and government studies. Ignorant of the facts that these mass shootings invariably only happen at places where gun-control is in place, not where people can carry.
Ralph, such a great point, I have noticed how the right has very contradictory thinking...they fight for an unborn child, but not a born child who hasn't enough food to eat, clothes to wear, or decent education inwhich to change those factors
Jax, people do not need to carry assault weapons such that are military issued weapons, I don't believe the old arguement that liberals want to take guns from the people holds much water these days; people have the right to protect themselves, as well as hunt, or my favorite, target practice at a shooting range for stress release
I don't agree either with the idea of protecting a fetus at all costs, yet abandoning it when it is born.
As for the rifles... I don't want to derail the thread. Perhaps I'll make another
Yes, yes. I keep hearing this and wondering how anyone could make such a silly argument given the circumstances.
The Aurora shooting in particular was not the ideal scenario in which to "fire back." A darkened theater, smoke grenades into the mix, a shooter who because of the lighting and smoke is already hard to see, a panicked crowd trying to escape, Anyone carrying and firing back in that situation is likely to shoot and kill a fellow victim not the perpetrator.
Looking at the shooters though there's a common thread. Virginia Tech, Casa Adobes, Aurora Colorado. All of the shooters appear to have deep mental disturbances going on inside their heads. How, considering this, did these folks get weapons?
It's not the average citizen who is the problem. It's the citizen who should probably not even be driving a car who somehow gets a weapon who is the problem.
It's not gun control that is needed. It's controlling who gets the guns e.g. not just anybody.
My jackass GOP representative in the Michigan legislature proposed that public school teachers be allowed to "carry" in the classroom. Fortunately that was a bit much for our GOP governor, "Slick Rick" Snyder who wisely refused to sign the bill. We have more lunatics and gang bangers running around the Detroit metro area than you can shake a stick at.
The latest is our suburban highway sniper who has shot and hit 22 cars or so and one person. http://www.freep.com/article/20121028/N … y=nav|head
Not long ago a 60 some year old grandma went out and bought a Glock and shot her grandson in her care with whom she'd had an argument. He made it to the phone and she shot him a couple more times while he was on the line with 911.
Ralph, here in L.A. we have what I call "the spring freeway shooter." We don't know who it is, he's never been caught (I'm assuming male because it is almost always a male who does this sort of thing), and he likes to switch freeways with no particular corridor favored over another. He does seem to concentrate on the areas and freeways from downtown L.A. out to the Pacific Coast.
He's shot quite a few cars, fewer people, and, so far, hasn't killed anyone.
As a former soldier and a firm left-winger I have no problem with guns in responsible hands. I think where we've "fallen down" is in the area of enforcement. Many of the "crazies" who commit crimes with guns have been diagnosed as having mental problems, have been prohibited from buying or owning guns, but seem to be expected to "police themselves."
L.A. is full of less than mentally stable people. I've known a number of them. Their "madness" is a fleeting thing with most of their waking hours spent appearing and acting quite sanely. Disturbingly though, a large percentage of those people have a fascination with weapons and the moments of crazy can be random, have no apparent trigger, and onset can be quite rapid.
As usual, you're long on opinions, short on facts, and I don't recall you ever admitting you're wrong.
Does the Columbine, Littleton, Colorado massacre ring a bell?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_ … l_massacre
Here's an excerpt from the latest mass shooting in Colorado from the Christian Science Monitor:
"As a western state with an established gun culture, Colorado reflects this attitude.
"Police report that the weapons possessed by alleged theater shooter James Holmes – a Smith & Wesson AR-15 assault rifle, a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and two .40 caliber Glock handguns – all had been recently and legally purchased from local gun dealers.
"Like most states, Colorado law makes it difficult to deny the granting of permits allowing gun owners to carry them in a concealed fashion.
"One reason? The relative political clout of advocacy groups."
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder … and-Romney
Although "we" will likely never do this, it would be wise, accurate and appropriate to co-opt the term "pro-life" for those who are in favor of bringing children into the world wanted and cared for and nurtured through adulthood.
These radicals who proclaim themselves to be "pro-LIFE" are really "pro-FETUS."
They seem to believe life begins at conception and ends at delivery.
The notion that a woman (or young girl, especially) who is the victim of rape -- a violent CRIME of male domination and power -- would be re-victimized by the government, forced to carry her rapist's spawn to term for 9 months or else become a CRIMINAL HERSELF is inhumane and cruel.
How can anyone possibly square that posture with our Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
That is ENSLAVEMENT.
The right-wing will square any circle MM. There is no limit to their distortion of language.
I have been raging against the "framing" machine for a long time now.
What the f$@k is wrong with the Dems that they simply can NOT seem to get the concept of owning language?
Obama SUCKS at this.
It's not like we don't know what the right is doing or even how they are doing it.
Why do we continue to let them, is my frustration!!!
And, even allowing ourselves to engage in any conversation that mixes fetal rights with gun control puts us immediately on the losing end.
That is why I will NOT talk about both in the same thread.
Anyone wants to talk about rape, tho. BRING IT ON.
puppy pic didn't come across -- just as "x'd" link.
The kitty pic is fabulous! Is it a baby tiger?
Just thought it would lower the number of CAPS and !!@!!!!s in your posts
Lol @ tiger
ALL CAPS is faster for word emphasis than bolding a word.
I will try to self-censor on the exclamation points, limiting to 2 to signify more than usual enthusiasm or outrage, as the case may be.
Yeah, I've started CAPSING instead of bolding too... my pinky always messes up that /] jump.
Yeah. And it's under the pinky of my non-writing hand, too. No WONDER I can't get the darned brackets and forward slashes right! They're on the right!!!
At least they have their political affiliation down... now we need to work on those pesky a's e's and s's.
As soon as the words "the language," became common or at least obvious to me, I thought of "1984" Why don't we just say what we mean and mean what we say...
The right uses the term "pro-life" in order to label the opposition "pro-death." This is the way they consistently use language as a propaganda tool. So, if you are pro-choice that means you are someone who doesn't value human life. And they can label you a baby killer or the anti-Christ. Then they can continue promoting their pro-death policies while continuing to claim they have the moral high ground. I love Friedman's article. Kartika
This is the reason why in the case where the mother's life is in danger, shouldn't it be her CHOICE whose LIFE she is going to try to save? Her own, or her unborn? I've always said that I'm the real pro-life, but, in my definition, pro-life and pro-choice are a fine line apart.
Anti-choice = NO abortion, no exception.
Pro-life = No abortion for convenience, exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.
Pro choice = Legal abortions for rape, incest, life of the mother, preferably in the first trimester, but accept the consequence that other reasons will force the issue.
Pro abortion = Legal abortion at any time, with no consequence.
by SparklingJewel9 years ago
As author Jeffrey Bell says about Gov. Palin: "The simple fact of her being a pro-life married mother of five with a thriving political career was - before anything else about her was known - enough for the left...
by Mike Russo5 years ago
I watched Piers Morgan's show twice, once with Alex Jones as his guest and then again with Ben Shapiro as his guest. Both of these people believe that is necessary for citizens to have high capacity assault...
by Jackie Lynnley18 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Cindy Vine6 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by M. T. Dremer4 years ago
Why are guns so violently defended?I know why gun manufacturers defend guns (it's their business) but why do gun owners defend it more vehemently than any other topic? People that are completely silent on other hot...
by Useful Knowledge8 years ago
North Korea is threatening to "wipe the Us off the map." Do they have the weapons to do this? Do you think we can intercept thier missiles?
Copyright © 2018 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.