As both an anarchist and a pro-abortionist, I fully support Herman Cain's position that every individual should be able to nullify any existing law.
This isn't Nam, this is blogging. There are rules.
Cain's view seems to be nothing more than the "personally opposed" stance traditionally taken by Democrat politicians, but expressed with the umph degree of hypocrisy and confusion to make him sound more like a Republican and less like a Democrat.
On the subject of law...Here you go, good buddy.In lieu of the rule of law -- the equal application of rules to everyone -- what we have now is a two-tiered justice system in which the powerful are immunized while the powerless are punished with increasing mercilessness. As a guarantor of outcomes, the law has, by now, been so completely perverted that it is an incomparably potent weapon for entrenching inequality further, controlling the powerless, and ensuring corrupted outcomes....That is what has changed.Oh boy, Glenwad has gone full normative on us. I forget, which one was logjammin? And what's that French saying again?
It sounds to me like he has an instinctive feel for the impotence of the executive on this particular matter, and he is somewhat glad the decision is not his (whether to abort a child conceived by rape or incest). He handled the question pretty poorly though. I think it would be darkly amusing to see the number of rape claims explode once the Christianist take over is accomplished and they compromise by saying abortion is only legal in those cases. The condom manufacturers would be happy though. By the way, I'm glad your prediction about the Ravens' ascendancy appears to have been premature.
MORGAN: But by expressing the view that you’ve expressed, you are effectively telling them. You might be president. You can’t hide behind the mask of being the pizza guy. You might be president of the United States of America. So your views on these things become exponentially massively more important. They become a directive to the nation.CAIN: No they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.MORGAN: That’s very interesting, that’s a very interesting departure from the normal politics.(my bold) My God! Piers Morgan actually believes that all of the President's views become a directive to "the" nation. And she also believe that everyone else believes that!
Although the "Fact Checker" seems to be unable to understand it, Cain's position seems clear enough to me. Cain is:(a) personally opposed to abortion -- so he won't have any abortions himself. Presumably he would also council his hypothetical raped granddaughter about the value of life, or whatever, and(b) a Federalist, who thinks the Federal government was not granted and therefore should have no power to make laws about abortion.These are perfectly consistent positions.And no, these positions do not imply anything like what our host suggests.
Piers Morgan actually believes that all of the President's views become a directive to "the" nation. And sheAhem.
Cain: "So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat."That's the pro-choice position. That's exactly the pro-choice position. Piers Morgan calls it "a very interesting departure"; maybe someday his head will embark on a very interesting departure from his sphincter.
Cain told Stossel, and I quote, "Abortion should not be legal," in the very same minute that he told him government should not make that choice. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/97082.html) Cain strikes me as a complete retard. The real question, which I'm not sure he's answered yet, is what kind of SCOTUS justices he'd nominate.
Gabe Ruth said: "I think it would be darkly amusing to see the number of rape claims explode once the Christianist take over is accomplished and they compromise by saying abortion is only legal in those cases."The pragmatics of this situation is precisely what led me to revise my position from pro-life to "pro-choice," at least during the first semester, though I resist the label pro-choice because abortion is a bad choice and it makes no sense to describe one's self as being "for" a bad choice.
Why is abortion a "bad choice"?
The pragmatics of this situation is precisely what led me to revise my position from pro-life to "pro-choice," at least during the first semester...I also hear that 10 pounds of the freshman 15 are usually gained during the first semester. That first one can be a tough one, the learning curve flattens a bit after that though.
it's not a choice, it's a human parasite that shares half the mother's DNA
Jack Crow asked "Why is abortion a "bad choice"?The usual reasons: there being no point in the life of a 7 year old child back to her conception in the womb at which we can say today she's a person but yesterday she wasn't. Certainly there's no difference between that child when she's one day old and that same child one day before her birth which would make terminating her inside the womb okay and terminating her outside the womb not okay.
What are you, some kind of misogynist? Think of the coat hangers!
Gabe Ruth said: "What are you, some kind of misogynist? Think of the coat hangers!"I've already said I was "pro-choice." What more do you want?
Well, women have a God-given right not to be hectored about their choices by the likes of you. I am not being serious. I am not of the euphemistic persuasion known as pro-choice. Another way of saying what you did above is you are either with Peter Singer or not, and for most everyone here, the choice is personal and arbitrary.
"there being no point in the life of a 7 year old child back to her conception in the womb at which we can say today she's a person but yesterday she wasn't."With rock solid facts like that, I see your point. (Male) Masturbation is murder!
"You can’t hide behind the mask of being the pizza guy."
If your argument rests on a seamless and predictable continuity between potential and kinesis, John, it would do well to at least do better than assert it, no?Could you, perhaps, demonstrate the immediate, necessary and inviolable contiguity from zygote to seven year old, such that any termination, obstruction or interruption of this contiguous chain of being is a universally verifiable, actionable and - dare we say it - absolute injustice?
Jack, I'm not sure that my argument rests on the assumption that the zygote will in fact become a seven year old (although the regret and negative psychological effects some but not all women experience after an abortion is presumably associated with this lost potentiality), as there are intervening circumstances (not the least common of which is miscarriage) which can certainly prevent this eventuality. I admit the weight of the argument that a zygote is not a person in the way that a one-day old child is a person (even though there's still not a point at which we can say today she's a person but yesterday she wasn't), which conveniently coincides with my pragmatically-based "pro-choice" position through but not beyond the first trimester. The same pragmatic reasons might even lead me to accept abortion much later than that, though I don't have to like it, and I don't have to find fault with a hypothetical society of anarchists who said "not in our village."
I'm trying to remember which philosopher made the same point 30 or so years ago as a reductio ad absurdam, but with the opposite implication: since there is no clear demarcation point at which the fetus becomes 'human,' attempts to legislate such stages are invalid, and even infanticide should be legal (on that logic, anyway). Maybe it was Peter Singer, but I think it was someone else. The point is that the slippery slope works both ways.John Kindley offered this slippery slope when asked why he'd declared abortion a "bad choice," but it doesn't work; it could even mean that killing a 7-year-old would be a good choice. But there are other demarcations that could be relevant, such as the fact that a 7-year-old, or even a newborn, is not dependent on its mother's body to go on living.Kindley then protested, in medium dudgeon, that he'd declared himself "pro-choice," so why was Gabe Ruth picking on him? It seems to be because Kindley had sophistically tried to establish that his pro-choice was only one choice, bearing every pregnancy to term. Which is no-choice. Nice try.There is a difference between (male) masturbation and abortion, in that sperm cells can't produce offspring by themselves, they must fertilize an egg. But since, to use a popular buzzword of the anti-choicers, they could potentially do so, as every egg could potentially be fertilized, it is vital that the state intervene to protect this potential life. There will be a problem in that males produce millions of sperm for every egg a female produces, but I'm sure faith in God can work that one out.
. . . Kindley said he was down with abortion through the first trimester. Nice reading comprehension. This little skirmish is dumb. No one here wants to allow killing a fetus that is hours away from being born, and likewise no one wants to prevent abortion completely. So we all have to figure out the line after which abortion isn't ok. Kindley described his line, which seemed reasonable, and y'all jump on him even though you have your same line, and your position isn't functionally different than Kindley's. It's puzzling why Kindley got jumped on. But in the spirit of consolation and unity, I offer something on which we can all agree: "Every Sperm is Sacred" is a wonderful song. And the movie it comes from, Monty Python's Meaning of Life, is a great anarchist work. It demolishes every source of authority: religion, family, business, schools, the military, government, medicine, Western civilization, even reason itself. Fantastic.
My reading was that he was down with abortion as long as it was performed before x-mas break.
This little skirmish, which I admittedly provoked, is dumb primarily because the arguments are as old and familiar as the arguments about God, which is the last skirmish here for which I was responsible. Apologies to Gabe Ruth: I realized after I responded that he wasn't necessarily being serious in his response.
The Marquis de Sade was a proponent of abortion and infanticide, saying that Plato also recommended the latter (true? I never read Plato.)A newborn cannot survive without its mother (or someone else) to take care of it, (could most adults?) but the breastfeeding/nesting environment is easier to imitate than the womb. Birth is a fairly arbitrary step in the process from conception to bingo hall. The logic of abortion leads to infanticide, but in practice it rarely does, because none of this is logical to begin with. Not being able to see the fetus surely affects our sympathy toward it, especially in the early stages when the site of infection is not yet swollen. I'm fine with a mother killing her offspring. The tragedy of death is born by those left behind to grieve.
" I think it would be darkly amusing to see the number of rape claims explode..."Oh, the ol' Lying Bitches routine. I was wondrin' when some dude was gonna get round to equating abortion with lying-bitches-rape-culture-is-a-lie. LOL at Gabe Ruth with his wobbly non-pro-abortion all choices are bad shtick. Damn, IOZ, you've got a shitty fucking commentariat.
"although the regret and negative psychological effects some but not all women experience after an abortion is presumably associated with this lost potentiality"For "regret and negative psychological effects some but not all women experience after an abortion is presumably associated with this lost potentiality" read: relief.
Anon, you haven't made anyone a statistic today, have you?
Wait there's a blackman running for president who advocates 666?
Abortion should be legal until the child is 18 years old, or at least out of the house.
IOZ, are you pro-abortionist, or pro-choice?Yes, I know what you wrote. I'm just curious enough to ask to the point, though.This is an older post. I don't expect an answer.
Alls he cares about is the abortionist. The woman in the picture, so to speak, can go fuck herself. Now if it's a female abortionist... Well, it's up to the terrorist's conscience, I suppose.
Post a Comment