• crowepps

    Joe Miller managed to win the primary because there was an initiative on the ballot about parental notification for abortion and the pastors organized to get all the anti-choice zealots and religionists to the polls.  For the main event, they have now started a whisper campaign to get the same back to the polls by insisting that Judge Fabe needs to be voted off the bench — teh GAYZ!  teh SLUTS/BABYKILLERS! teh LIBERAL!!

     

    Sigh.  Alaska ain’t what it used to be at all.  Sometimes it seems like every whackaloon pastor in the country is bringing his ignorant cult up here so they can attempt to institute ‘Christian government’.  Which is why they don’t like Judge Fabe — aside from their outrage that a woman is in a position of power, she thwarts their attempts to institute a theocracy by insisting laws conform to our State Constitution.  But the REAL point of the ‘movement’ is to give all the loons a reason to show up at the polls.

  • bebe

    You forgot to add Kristi Noem to your list of GOP extremists……she’s running for South Dakota’s lone House seat as a tea party conservative who is proud to extol her “Right to Life” credentials……. she voted for an extreme abortion ban proposed by our state legislators…….our current House member, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, is a big supporter of women’s reproductive rights……the polls show the race is too close to call……..

  • andenakker

    The 2010 crop of GOP candidates is a group with more extreme stances on reproductive rights issues than we’ve seen in a long time.

    If society is moving in a particular direction, and you simply stand where you are long enough, eventually you will “become” “extreme,” even though you haven’t moved an inch since you were right in the middle of the mainstream.  Of course, the real fallacy in a statement like this is the implication that there is some plot of middle ground that is occupied by the vast majority of people, when in fact such a middle ground is practically nonexistent – polls show that only about 2% of people take a decidedly neutral position on these issues – making pretty much everyone “extreme.”  In fact, since those same polls over the past 2 years have consistently shown that more Americans identify as “pro-life” than “pro-choice” – often outnumbering the pro-choice and neutral crowds put together – it’s a skosh more reasonable to suggest that those on the pro-life side are mainstream and that everyone else is extreme than anything to the contrary.

  • crowepps

    Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice isn’t the question, though, is it?  The question is, under what circumstances should the LAW allow abortions to be legal or restrict them?

     

    Polls pretty consistently reveal that ‘no abortion under any circumstances whatsoever’ is an extreme position held by approx. 15% of the population.

     

    Polls pretty consistently reveal that ‘abortion should be available not matter what the reason is a position held by approx. 35% of the population.

     

    The rest are at some intermediate stage, some abortions, under some circumstances, at some times.

     

    http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

     

    It is possible to be SIMULTANEOUSLY ProLife and ProChoice, as in ‘I would never personally have an abortion BUT I don’t think they should be illegal.

     

  • arekushieru

    Pro-Choice IS the middle ground, though.  Pro-Abortion and Pro-Life are the extremes on either end.

  • andenakker

    Pro-Choice IS the middle ground, though.

    Pro-choice is a convenient position for those who’ve never had to or been willing to deal with the reality of what abortion is in a physical sense.  When pressed to defend their position, inevitably they either become pro-life, or they begin to deny basic biological facts about embryos or fetuses or abortion, in which case they become pro-abortion.  “Pro-choice” cannot be the middle ground, for the simple fact that there is nothing there to stand on.

  • andenakker

    Polls pretty consistently reveal that ‘no abortion under any circumstances whatsoever’ is an extreme position held by approx. 15% of the population.

    Of course, another category in the same polls is “Only legal in certain circumstances” – the position taken by about 44% of respondents – which includes those who say that “abortion” should be permitted only to save the life of the mother.  In those few polls that actually differentiate between those who take that or the aforementioned “extreme” position of accepting no abortions at all and those who accept abortion for other reasons (rape, physical health of the mother, etc.), about 27-30% accept “abortion” only to save the life of the mother or do not accept abortion at all (which really means that they accept medical intervention to save the life of the mother, even if an undesired but unavoidable side effect of that intervention is to end the life of her baby, which they do not call abortion).  That’s not significantly different from the number of people who take the extreme position of accepting practically no restrictions on abortion whatsoever, which is effectively the status quo.

     

    It is possible to be SIMULTANEOUSLY ProLife and ProChoice, as in ‘I would never personally have an abortion BUT I don’t think they should be illegal.

    To call that a “pro-life” position is like suggesting that I’m pro-public protection by saying that I wouldn’t commit manslaughter myself but don’t think that it should be illegal.

    On a more practical level, many of those who take this position – including most of those who’ve taken it publicly and famously – are either men or past childbearing age, in which cases the position is meaningless.  For anyone else, it’s an incredibly arrogant and even classist and/or eugenist position to take.  Pregnancy isn’t always planned, even for those who make a near-religion out of planning them.  Nor can the negative impacts that pregnancy may have on one’s health or other threats to health that can develop anytime including during pregnancy always be foreseen.  What these people are saying is that despite the possibility of such unpredictable circumstances, their baby would be worthy of life, even though they may have to make some personal sacrifices to preserve it.  By saying that abortion should not be illegal, however, they’re effectively saying that the lives of others’ babies may not be so worthy that they ought to be protected.

  • arekushieru

    Actually, ProLife has proven over and over, again, that they are just there to control women’s bodies.  When you ask them to grant the same right to life to others that they would grant to feoti, they, inevitably, retract what they said and fall back on the conclusion that Pro*Choicers* have promoted from the beginning, that everyone owns their bodies and they are the ones to decide who can and is able to use their bodies.  Of course, the only possible conclusions that ProChoicers can draw from that are that ProLifers can’t stand the idea of being forced to have someone else use their body in order to save their lives but don’t mind forcing others to have their bodies be used in the same manner (iow, hypocrites), that they want to punish solely the women of their own community (since the ProLife movement, for the most part, supports war in foreign countries which directly lead to the death of pregnant women and, thus, the fetuses) who refuse to collaborate with the patriarchy (since ProLife women abort their unwanted pregnancies, too), especially women of visible minorities and that they just are (had been)  really ignorant ProChoicers.  Which, in turn, can only lead us to believe that those ‘ProChoicers’ who become ProLife weren’t really ProChoice in the first place, otherwise they wouldn’t be so seriously deluded into believing that the unborn deserve more rights than anyone born, simply because of their less developed anatomy.  Weird that I understand that I am equating someone with a less developed anatomy and social function to someone with a more developed anatomy and social function while you don’t, yet you are claiming it is ProCHOICERS who deny basic biological facts. 

    Never met a ‘true’  ProChoicer who became anti-choice in either direction (meaning Pro’Life’ or ProAbortion, OF course), btw.  A ‘true’ ProChoicer meaning one who recognizes that NO one deserves more rights than anyone else.  In one extreme, the woman is denied basic rights while the unborn is given more rights than ANYone born (Pro’life’) and, in the other, both the fetus and the woman are denied basic rights, while all other classes of born humans retain them (ProAbortion).  So, I’m sure you can CLEARly see, now…?  I was right.  ProChoicers ARE the middle ground.  Thanks.

  • arekushieru

    To call that a “pro-life” position is like suggesting that I’m pro-public protection by saying that I wouldn’t commit manslaughter myself but don’t think that it should be illegal.

    So, my mom giving birth to me means I’m not alive.  Wow, you guys just get more and more ridiculous, every day.

    ‘Which they do not call abortion’…?  Abortion IS the termination of a pregnancy.  Last I checked, from implantation until birth, there IS a pregnancy.  A miscarriage is spontaneous aBORtion.  Really, when you ProLifers can FInally come up with some FACTS, maybe, then, I’ll listen to you.

    (which really means that they accept medical intervention to save the life of the mother, even if an undesired but unavoidable side effect of that intervention is to end the life of her baby,

    Then the fetus DOESn’t have a right to life.  Either it does in all cases, or it doesn’t in all cases.  WHEN will you ProLifers realize you CAN’T have it both ways…?  Oh, right, I forgot, this is the group that figures that the only time that the right to bodily autonomy doesn’t apply is when you’re a woman so they must figure that rights can be rights even when they’re applied unevenly.  I never could understand how one could live so illogically.

    Fetuses lives ARE protected.  You, and all other ProLifers, simply want them to be protected MORE than ANYone born.

    I have never heard of a ProLifer that continued a pregnancy that they didn’t want.

    And, of course, you are unable to make the distinction, once again, between those who are morally/legally opposed to abortion yet are even more opposed morally/legally, for whatever reason, to placing those same kinds of restrictions on abortion.  EPic fail is all that is.

  • andenakker

    Not that your comments merit a response, but for the benefit of those in the audience I feel the need to point out a contradiction in your statements as well as clarify a point on which you’re apparently still confused.

     

    You, and all other ProLifers, simply want them to be protected MORE than ANYone born.

    That’s not true, as proven by my own identification of circumstances in which it’s permissible to take the life of an unborn baby.  However, it’s clear that you don’t want to permit me to accept such a reasonable course of action when you say things like:

    Either it [the fetus] does [have a right to life] in all cases, or it doesn’t in all cases.

    You make your arguments, and I’ll make mine.  Thank you.

     

    ‘Which they do not call abortion’…?  Abortion IS the termination of a pregnancy.

    It’s not a question of what actually occurs, it’s a question of intent.  If the intent is to save the life of the mother, then that’s the proper way to describe what was done.  The fact that saving her life entailed the undesired but unavoidable side effect of ending the life of her unborn baby is no reason to call it an “abortion” instead.  I used to call these instances “abortion to save the life of the mother” myself, but have since adjusted my terminology to match the true intent.  I suspect that most of those who still identify with the idea that “abortion” can be done to save the life of the mother would make the same adjustment were they to think about it enough.

  • forced-birth-rape

    ~ No ones right to life gives them the right to use a womans, little girls, or pregnant rape victims body against her will, no ones right to life gives them the right to cause women, little girls, or pregnant rape victims vaginal pain against the woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victims will, no ones right to life gives them the right to terrorize any woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victim with anticipation of future vaginal pain against the woman, little girls, or pregnant rape victims will. Any woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victim who can not get an abortion, does not have custody of her own vagina, life, or body. Forced birth, is forced vaginal pain on females against their will. Forced birth is emotional terrorism on pregnant females. I speak from experience, there is nothing worse then having to anticipate unwanted vaginal agony. I would rather be aborted then have you for a father Kevin. ~

  • crowepps

    Pro-choice is a convenient position for those who’ve never had to or been willing to deal with the reality of what abortion is in a physical sense. 

    Just as Anti-Abortion is a convenient position for those who’ve never had to or been willing to deal with the reality of what PREGNANCY is in a physical sense.

     

    I sure am tired of being lectured by men on what women should do, think, believe, want.

     

    If men really, truly want to stop all abortions, they should be directing their efforts towards OTHER MEN to make sure there are no unwanted conceptions.

  • jessg210

    Hey there. While I’m disgusted by Rand Paul’s radical positions on abortion and contraception (against abortion in cases of rape and incest, opposed to certain forms of contraception, etc), I do want to clarify something. I did some research, and I’m pretty sure that Paul is not opposed to abortion when a mother’s life is in danger. (See his response to question number two on the Northern Kentucky Right to Life 2010 Election Candidate Questionnaire.) I could be wrong, though.

Mobile Theme