As US Senate hangs in the balance, IL GOP nominee Mark Kirk mocks pro-lifers
According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Republican pro-life IL gubernatorial candidate Bill Brady is trouncing incumbent Democrat pro-abort Pat Quinn 48% to 35%, maintaining a strong lead as we head into the final stretch before the November 2010 election.
Meanwhile, Rasmussen reported only yesterday Republican pro-abort US Senate candidate Mark Kirk (pictured right) is losing by 2 points at 40% to Democrat pro-abort Alexi Giannoulias‘ (pictured below left) 42%.
There is no excuse for Kirk not to be as ahead in the polls as Brady since Giannoulias is such a well-known slime dog, and Illinoisans should be good and sick of slime dogs.
But 1 of Kirk’s big problems, aside from the fact he keeps getting caught lying about his resumé, is social conservatives can’t stand him. On the life issue Kirk slinks among the worst.
Kirk’s best bet, knowing he couldn’t woo us to put his signs in our yards, would have been to just shut up about it until after the election, so at least the bulk of us, energized to vote by national circumstances, would hold our noses and pick the Republican over the Democrat. That’s what the GOP counts on from us at times like this, and frankly, that’s what many if not most of us do.
But Kirk couldn’t shut up about it. He somehow thinks out pro-aborting the pro-abort will help, even though our counterparts do as we do. When it comes to a toss-up, they vote for the despicable Democrat for the same reason we vote for the despicable Republican: We all know the congressional majority gets or loses our issue power.
But as IL Review reported August 23, Kirk’s pro-death ideology compelled him to condemn a federal judge’s decision temporarily restraining Obama’s executive order funding embryonic stem cell research. Furthermore, Kirk abandoned his party and encouraged Democrat leaders to spearhead a legislative effort to surmount it:
… I disagree with today’s court decision and hope the Dept. of Justice will appeal it immediately. In the meantime, I urge Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid to send the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act to the President’s desk when the Congress returns from recess.
Pro-lifers can only take so much, and Kirk needlessly poking that stick at us lost some tepid support.
But the last straw for me was a June 2010 memo we received today, written by Kirk to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, seeking its endorsement.
Both NARAL and PP IL Action have already endorsed Giannoulias, and the PPAF lists Giannoulias as an endorsed candidate, so Kirk lost his bid, unless PPAF determines at some point Giannoulias has acquired too much baggage, which I doubt. There are no Republicans on its endorsement list, so it must be willing to tolerate a lot.
But reading Kirk’s list of pro-death accomplishments is sickening. Also note how many times Kirk brags about battling his own party’s president on the life issue.
Even anticipating a Republican Senate majority isn’t worth electing another Collins, Snowe, or Specter for the next 6-24+ years.
If Kirk wants to do this without us, by getting help from pro-abort ideologues, supporting Democrat pro-death measures, and betraying the GOP platform and leaders, he can be my guest. All those points considered, I’m taking my lead from Kirk and not butting in where my vote isn’t wanted.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow! I wonder when these guys strattling the aisle will learn they can’t win? Newsflash: The hard left is beating you….move right!
Can I get an “Amen!!”?? LOVE it, Jill. Thank you, thank you, thank you!! The question becomes…for whom do we vote, if at all?
Where are the real men?
Is it an indictment against our once great country that good leaders are so hard to find?
Is it scarcity of good men? or is it that our populace is so depraved that good men are unpopular?
Everyone I vote for in IL never wins an election. I must say this is the sorriest lot of candidates we have for a choice Senate seat. Although, is it possible that ANYONE could be better than Roland Burris who is an utter farce? What a laughing stock the state of IL continues to be. LL :o/
Kirk should be cleaning Ginnoulias’s clock. Maybe he needs to start handing out some copies of this book so slow people can understand it. http://www.obamaparody.com/index.php?id=T1
When Kirk got the nod in the primaries, I was disgusted.
For whom do you vote – a liberal with ties to the Mob or the wannabe?
Forget it Kirk you are done. I wouldn’t waste my vote on this RINO anyway but since he doesn’t want my vote I will oblige.
Rasmussen polls…remember to take the numbers and adjust by about 6% points…
I DO NOT VOTE FOR PRO-CHOICE CANDIDATES. I will never pull a lever for a pro-abort. If there is no pro-lifer candidate I don’t vote. I will not give them the satisfaction of numbers.
It is time to think third party I think. The Constitutional party is 100% pro-life no exceptions, unlike the Repubs.
Randy Stufflebeam is the Constitution Party candidate for US Senate. He’s an excellent choice! 100% pro-life without exception, pro-traditional family, pro-Constitution, and an ex-Marine besides. He doesn’t have to lie about his military record. He’s a real patriot.
A little education on political sleaziness: Right now the Constitution Party is battling the Republican Party (surprise, surprise!) in court to remain on the ballot. While the Republicans and Democrats need 5,000 signatures for a state-wide office, third parties need 25,000. (Guess who wrote that law.) And even though the Constitution Party got almost 33,000 signatures, Republican Party representatives challenged the signatures fraudulently. When over 25,000 signatures were verified, overturning nearly half the objections, the Republicans still weren’t satisfied. They continue to look for more ways to eliminate the competition. So what are they afraid of? How about REAL conservatives for a change?
Seriously, check out the Constitution Party, especially where the Republicans are offering pro-abortion candidates: Randall Stufflebeam instead of Mark Kirk for US Senate; Timothy Becker instead of Judy Baar Topinka for Comptroller; Gary Dunlap instead of Enriquez for Secretary of State (can’t find a record of Enriquez’s views on abortion anywhere, but some conservative political insiders I know don’t think highly of him; on the other hand, Dunlap is an extremely intelligent, Constitutionally-minded, pro-life Christian).
And to those who say, “Third parties can’t win”, remember that Abraham Lincoln belonged to a third party. It’s the 2 major parties that keep selling that lie. If enough of us vote on principle, third parties can indeed win. When will pro-lifers band together, get out to vote, and declare that we’ve had enough of the lousy, pro-abortion, anti-family candidates that are shoved down our throats? Stufflebeam for US Senate!!! “It’s no longer time for a change, it’s time for a revolution.”___Randy Stufflebeam (Check out his website at http://www.runrandyrun.com)
I could not believe that Kirk won the primary. No one I knew voted for him and most despise him.
If I do vote for him in November I will have to go home and take a bath. He is a despicable human being.
I will be looking at the Constitution Party and will pass the word along.
We had a contested primary here in Illinois and unfortunately our guy lost. There are many reasons for this–money, endorsements, a relatively unknown opponent…these are a few. But the biggest factor is Illinois politics. Sorry to say our state is dominated by the liberals in Chicago and the collar counties. Take those out of the equation and for the most part we have a red state.
The problem facing Illinois voters in November is do we send a Chicago/Obama/Daley/Emmanuel anti-life democrat to D.C. or do we send the democrat called Republican Mark Kirk.
If sending the Chicago machine democrat to DC means that the control of the senate stays with the Dems that would be a disaster. The name of the game is 50% plus one. If the Dems retain a majority status they will continue to determine the legislative agenda–which means we pro-lifers have NO chance.
On the other hand if the Republicans–despite all of their imperfections–if they gain majority status then it is they who will control the agenda. If you liked Obamacare, which only happened because of Dem control, then vote for the Dem because you will get more of the same if they retain control.
In the end we are not voting so much for an individual as we are for regaining control of the legislative agenda.
I do not vote for anti-choice politicians.I will not pull the lever for some self-righteous idiot who wants to make abotion illegal. I would never vote for the hypocrites in Washington and local government who want to force women to bear children against their will,even if they
lack the means to provide decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care for their children,born or unborn,or if a preganacy would kill them or ruin their health.
I would never vote for a politician stupid enough to believe that making abortion illegal will”end” abortion or in any way stop women from seeking and obtaining abortions,or one stupid enough to believe that laws against abortion can ever be enforced. And since I don’t know of any anti-choice politicians who support providing greater financial help to poor pregnant women and the poor in general, this is another reason not to vote for anti-choice politicians.
“I would never vote for a politician stupid enough to believe that making abortion illegal will”end” abortion”
Not that I find anything at all wrong with the theory behind this idea, Robert. Just wanting to point out that it’s not just the pro-lifers who are one-issue voters, which is of course fine.
I’m voting for Randy Stufflebeam of the Constitution Party for U.S. Senator. Thanks for the information, Sylvia.
I’m as torn as everybody else….I’m definitely not voting for Giannoulias. I’d like to vote for the Constitution party BUT if Stufflebeam loses…we just took votes away from the RINO Kirk and Giannoulias could still win because of this.
I will check Randy out and spread the word, too….it looks like he’s gonna need it, I haven’t heard his name before and I’m usually pretty aware of what’s going on locally.
And, oh, Robert B….we already who you’re gonna vote for, no need to tell us :-)
Another reason I would never vote for anti-choice politicians is because many of them want to see contraceptives made illegal, which is absolutely imbecilic.
This is like wanting to make seat belts and air bags illegal in cars and then expecting people not to be killed or maimed in auto accidents.
And if the US government were to do something this stupid it would only make the abortion rate skyrocket and create a black market in contraceptives.
Robert, you’re equating birth control pills with seat belts and air bags???? Really? Now you’ve just lost me cause I don’t follow that ridiculous analogy at all.
Sadly it does not matter politically whether the next Senator from IL, or anywhere else, is pro-life or or pro-abortion. Not as long as they are considered Democrat or Republican by their national party leadership.
There will be no change to existing abortion law coming from any Congress that has a majority of Republican/Democrats.
Being pro-abortion just shows us all that he puts political expediency ahead of ALL else.
While it may seem an advantage to elect Kirk because he has an “R” after his name, increasing the chance of having a “Republican” majority, what good is a majority if Kirk joins Snowe, Collins, and other RINOs in voting with the Democrats most of the time? ESPECIALLY WHEN THE VOTE IS ON LIFE ISSUES?!
Here’s the bigger problem as I see it: Incumbents enjoy an enormous advantage when it comes to reelection, with House members being retained at well over 90% and Senate members over 80% ( http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2008 ). Media coverage (free for incumbents, spanning 6 years for a Senator) and vast funding sources are some of the perks. If Kirk were to be elected, it’s statistically likely that he would be enshrined in the Senate for several terms. No good, real, pro-life, conservative Republican would stand a chance against him in a primary. (For those wondering how he could win the primary, it was because he had the name recognition from his tenure as state representative, free media publicity, money for commercials, and the support of the Powers That Be. I’d bet the majority of those who voted for Kirk had no idea what he stood for.) It could be decades until we get rid of him. If Giannoulias were to be elected, there would at least be a better chance for a good Republican candidate in 2016.
Yet neither Kirk nor Giannoulias have enthusiastic support. There are lots of people on both sides who will hold their noses and vote solely because of the labels “Republican” and “Democrat”. However, there are plenty of Rs and Ds who are looking for a better candidate. So maybe it’s time for a groundswell of opposition to the lousy offerings of the major parties. It’s time to elect the good citizens who have the courage to fight the 2-party system and offer their service to our country. But for that to happen, they need people like the readers of this blog to take action to help by spreading the word of lesser-known candidates through emails, yard signs, passing out voters guides, painting vehicles with washable paints, donating money to candidates for commercials, etc. Think about what kind of help you would want if you were to run for office (because those like the Constitution Party candidates are not career politicians, but ordinary citizens like you), and then offer that help as much as you can.
What it comes down to for me is, how would I feel if I were to vote for Mark Kirk and then he voted to fund embryonic stem cell research, reinstate partial birth abortion (which he supports), or vote in another Supreme Court Justice like Elena Kagan (whom he approved)? I wouldn’t want that guilt on my conscience. I’d rather tell God I’d fought the good fight and did all I could to try to help a godly man win. As Mother Teresa had said, God calls us not to be successful, but to be faithful.
“their children,born or unborn”
Look! Robert admitted the unborn are children.
Good luck to those with difficult choices; may God give you wisdom.
The first election I could vote in was the MA Governor’s race Romney won. I stayed home because there weren’t any republicans running.
Great point YCW, and rather enlightening when you look at the context:
“and medical care for their children,born or unborn,”
What “the astute” Robert Berger is inferring, (unintentionally) is that when you want a child, or “can afford” a child, then said child is in fact a child, even when still in the womb. And if the child needed say, life-saving surgery in utero to correct some physical defect, then that child would definitely be a child.
However, if you don’t want the child, or can’t afford the child…
just kill it.
So in Robert Berger’s world, what defines a child, and that child’s right to life, is the preference or mood of the mother, on any given day…
and of course the current value of the mother’s 401K as indicated by the most recent Dow Jones Industrial Average…very objective and very scientific.
Brilliant!!!
My comparison between contraceptives and seat belts is entirely apt. Seat belts prevent many people from being killed or badly injured.
Contraceptives prevent many abortions. That’s why contraceptives MUST remain legal and easily available.
Being opposed to abortion and wanting to make contraceptives illegal is unbelievably stupid,
because this would only INCREASE the abortion rate enormously.
And saying that contraceptive”kill babies” is beyond ludicrous. It’s not an abortion unless it’s the surgical removal of a partially formed fetus. A cell is NOT a baby. There is no such thing as a pill which causes an abortion.Period.
And to say that you should not use contraceptives because they don’t always work is also asinine.Seat belts don’t always prevent people from being killed either,but that’s no reason not to use them.
It’s just that many anti-choicers are so puritanical and such insufferable busybodies that they don’t want any one to have sex for anything ut procreation. What business is this of theirs?
What right do they have to tell other people what their sex lives should be like?
Abortion is not a question of preference or mood. The decision to have an abortion is anything but a matter of caprice, but a desperate one.
It’s a question of being able to provide for that unborn child. And many women are too poor to do this. And please don’t give me all this B.S about help for them being so easily available.
That just isn’t true in America. If there were more help for poor pregnant women,there would be far fewer abortions here.
Robert,
You maintain that help is not easily available. I think I read somewhere that the number one health problem in our country right now is obesity. There are a lot of good charities out there, in addition to governmental services, that provide food, shelter and clothing for the indigent.
The answer to poverty is not: kill the child.
I hear where you’re coming from. You think abortion is an easy fix for someone in a difficult situation. You assume my position is rooted solely in a puritanical belief system. It’s not.
If you’d like to understand how i arrived at my Pro-life position, you’d need to do 5 minutes of research here and here.
The wide gulf seperating the abortion debate is not difficult to understand. Pro-choicers want a way out of a difficult situation, very understandable. No one is minimizing the plight of a poor unwed mother.
The problem with Pro-lifers is that we imagine our best friend or family member as a baby one day before birth and consider the dismemberment, mutilation and murder of that friend/family member barbaric, heinous, cruel and evil. The picture for us doesn’t change if it’s 2 days before birth, or 2 days after conception, that’s our loved one, and we are honor-bound to protect him or her.
In fact, by extension, it doesn’t have to be our loved one. We believe every human person deserves the right to life. If you were of 14 weeks gestational age, we would even fight for your life Robert.
Call us puritanical, but we will never stop defending innocent, vulnerable children from abortion.
It is quite interesting the Term “Anti-choice” being tossed around willy-nilly.
I’m about as pro-Choice of a person as you can possible get — until it comes to the choice of taking the life of another human being.
Seat belts, helmets, bungee jumping; all my choice!
The killing of another human being without the due process of the law is called murder. According to the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution, “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This is the very reason why I support the “Personhood Amendment.” It takes the definition out of the hands of the court.
You can checkout my specific stance on the Sanctity of Life at:
http://www.runrandyrun.com/Issues/Life/Life.htm
”Right ot life?” Mr. Stufflebeam? What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care? Unless we can guarantee this we have no right to demand that women give birth to children against their will.
And Mr. Stufflebeam,since you are opposed to abortion, are you also opposed to government subsidies for poor pregnant women so they will be able to provide for their children?
If not,you are a hypocrite. Like all anti-choicers,your concern for the unborn ends at birth.
Robert–the constitution is our guiding document. Where does it say that we must provide subsidies for anyone?
Socialism, communism, collectivism–they all promise a form of nanny state security but in the end all they deliver is misery. The best solution for the poor pregnant woman wishing to provide for her children is a great job. Socialism and the nanny state are by their very nature anti free enterprise which is the only engine that creates prosperity and a large middle class.
“Like all anti-choicers,your concern for the unborn ends at birth.” You may wish to believe that if you wish. Unfortunately, you are only fooling yourself.
Robert Berger wrote:
”Right ot life?” Mr. Stufflebeam? What about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care?
You’ll note that none of these rights, valid as they are (though the means by which they are offered is a topic of legitimate dispute), will be of any use to a person who is dead. Life is the right which has logical priority over all others; without it, the rest cannot even exist. Surely you see this?
Unless we can guarantee this we have no right to demand that women give birth to children against their will.
(??) Even from an abortion-tolerant position, that makes no sense; are you suggesting that, if all social benefits were readily available, you’d “be okay with demanding that women give birth against their wills”? I’m genuinely curious, here.
And Mr. Stufflebeam,since you are opposed to abortion, are you also opposed to government subsidies for poor pregnant women so they will be able to provide for their children?
Jerry answered that as well as I could have; you have no reasonable basis for saying that “government subsidy” is the only possible venue by which necessities are gained. Do you demand a government-subsidized dentist to brush and floss your teeth every day, as well?
If not,you are a hypocrite.
Look up the “false dilemma fallacy”, when you get a chance. In the above example: if you’re not in favour of government-subsidized dentists coming in to brush the teeth of citizens who cannot afford such private “personal hygiene servants”, then you’re a hypocrite who doesn’t care about the agony of a person with periodontal disease, jaw abscesses, trench-mouth, and the like, eh?
Like all anti-choicers, your concern for the unborn ends at birth.
Forgive me, friend, but this is sheer, bigoted nonsense.
Your comments about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care show just how hypocritical you are.
You say the government has no obligation to provide people with these things,and yet you insist that women give birth to children they are unable to support.
That’s why abortion is common. Unless the government is willing and able to provide help for those in need,it has absolutely no right to try to force women to give birth to children.
I’ve never been a Marxist or a communist. But I don’t like the opposite kind of government,which allows people in need to go helpless and doesn’t give a you-know-what about poor people.And please don’t give me all that self-serving and disingenuous poppycock about private charities and not the government being the ones who should help those in need.
It’s absolutely impossible for private charities to do this for all people.They can only do so much. It’s wrong to force children to be born who are doomed to lives of abject poverty, hunger,malnutrition, lackof education and opportunity in life. This is infinitely worse than being aborted. That’s why I’m opposed to politicians like Mr. Stufflebeam who hypocritically demand that women be forced to bear children they will never be able to care for.
If you are opposed to the government helping those in need,you have absolutely no right to be opposed to abortion. Pro-choicers like me don’t like abortion and don’t want abortions to happen. But we realize that women MUST have this choice to prevent catastrophic conditions in society.
Robert,
If your daughter was 8 mo. pregnant, and her husband lost his job, and there was some question as to whether they would be able to provide for their new child, and they decided they would rather start having kids after they had found gainful employment again, would you support her decision to abort?
Mr. Berger.
It is poignantly obvious that you did not read through my position on the issue of the Sanctity of Life.
If it weren’t dealing with such an important issue as the Sanctity of Life, I would have been reduced to laughing. However, I consistently find myself appalled at such ignorance that has been display by you and so many others that demand the death of innocent unborn children as the only possible solution.
FIRST: To say that I “demand women to be forced to bear children” is absolutely ludicrous. Have you ever heard of the word “Abstinence?” Is it too much to ask that women just stop having babies they can not take care of??????? Oh yeah. That’s right we live in a world where immorality is the supreme virtue to be sought after.
SECOND: Again, you said, “yet you insist that women give birth to children they are unable to support.” NO, Absolutely NOT!!! I say STOP PRO-CREATING if you can’t support your offspring! But again, I just guess it’s too much to ask people to be responsible.
We have let men who have fathered these children get off scott free. NOT IN MY WORLD! It’s time that men who father these children be made responsible for them. We live in a world that wants to take no responsibility for their own actions. I am absolutely fed up with my tax dollars having to make up the difference because of it. I want to hold people responsible for their own actions. I’m responsible for mine. How about you?
THIRD: Adoptions need to be made easier. There are many couples who would love to adopt a new born. I can’t tell you how many people that I know of that have adopted foreign babies because the process is too painful and prohibitive here in the good ole U.S. of A.
By the way, you can scream “anti-choice” till your blue in the face, it doesn’t make it any more true. I’m not anti-choice, I AM ANTI-MURDER!! There are many, many, many choices that can be chosen before and after the conception where the murder of an unborn child does NOT have to one of them. Abstinence, Birth Control (that prohibits conception, not kill the embryo), adoption, holding fathers responsible, etc., etc., — I’m for those choices. I just don’t happen to have any tolerance for the choice to kill an innocent unborn child.
Mr. Berger, you said that charities alone can’t support the needs. You’re right. We have an epidemic of men fathering children they are not being held responsible for. It is time to stop that particular bleed and hold these men and women responsible for their own offspring. (That, and stop the government from taxing the people to death, maybe they could begin to afford to raise their own children. Gee… could that be another choice?.) I have been responsible for mine. I suspect you have been responsible for yours (Maybe). It could if we started holding people responsible for their own actions, charities could plug the holes.
The person who compared the plight of poor pregnant women with the government providing
dental care for all made a truly asinine comparison.
I’m not talking abour dental care.I’m talking about the basic necessities of life.
Unless we can provide these for the poor in America we have no right to demand that poor women give birth to children who are doomed to grow up in abject poverty.
We already have too many of these,and what are the costs of this? More poverty,crime and unemployment. More unwanted children,more abortions, more lack of opportity for children because of woefully inadequate education.It’s a vicious cycle.Just telling people,male or female,to be abstinent, won’t cut it.
It’s necessary to change conditions in America so thatpoor women will be much less likely to seek and obtain abortions. Just making abortion illegal will only make a bad situation far worse,and calling abortion “murder”,particularly when a cell or cells is involved,is hjust plain stupid.
Mr. Stufflebeam, what you advocate for America will not work.You may mean well, but you are barking up the wrong tree.
If conservative politicians get their way in America, they will destroy the safety net for the unfortunate in America in the name of supposedly creating greater prosperity for all.
But this is the wrong approach. We can’t just tell all those who are unemployed or on welfare to “go out an get a job you lazy bums”. This will never work. In order to get people off of welfare, you must make it POSSIBLE for them to find employment which will enable them to become self-sufficient.
But this is more easily said than done. The vast majority of Americans are NOT lazy bums who want the government to support them and provide everything for them for life.
Most Americans want to earn a decent or better living and to be secure for life. But social and economic conditions in Americ amake this extremely difficult for too many of us.
But there are so many honest,hard-working Americans,including many with conservative views,who are out of work through no fault of their own and struggling to keep their heads above water.
We don’t want a “welfare state” or a “nanny state”. But to deny help to those in need
will cause nothing but disaster for America- a more abortions,legal or illegal.
“and calling abortion “murder”,particularly when a cell or cells is involved,is hjust plain stupid.”
Cells are involved in the killing of all things.
That should read “and more abortions” at the end of what I wrote.
And I ask you,Mr. Stufflebeam, if as you advocate,abortion becomes illegal again in America, how will the government enforce the law? As a conservative,you claim to want “smaller government” and “limited government”.
But how much money will it take to try to enforce the law if abortion becomes illegal again?
Billions and billions of taxpayer dollars . And how will we go about enforcing the law?
Will the government appoint a force of thousands and thousands of anti-abortion agents who will scour every inch of the 50 states 24/7 to m,ake sure that no abortions are taking place?
Who will pay for them? And will this anti-abortion force be effective? I doubt it very much.
Not only that, you who want “limited government” would advocate a huge and expensive force of agents who would merely cause a massive and egregious invasion of the provacy of American citizens and create a police state in order to supposedly prevent abortions.
Is this what America was intended to be by the founding fathers?
This sounds more like the nightmarish world of Orwell’s 1984 than the “free” America conservatives claim to want.
Will there be surveillance camers in every home and elsewhere to make sure that no abortions are taking place? Will women who have miscarriages be investigated for possible abortions? I would not want to live in an America like this.
And how will we stop women who can afford it from flying off to other countries for safe,legal abortions? Examine every woman of childbearing age at airports for pregnancy?
Will women constantly have to report to doctors for examination all over the USA? Will teenage girls inschool be under constant surveillance by government forces.
And if there is no help available to the poor, how will we stop abortions? Poor pregnant wemen will be even worse off than they are today.
As the saying goes, be careful what you pray for.
At the risk of feeding trolls–
most crimes don’t require vast armies of agents to make sure they aren’t being broken. But when there is reason to believe someone is breaking a law, it’s investigated. DSS does not come into my home, or install a video camera, to see that I’m not beating my children. But if someone reported seeing me beat my daughter, or she went to a doctor with suspicious injuries, someone might be sent to investigate. Those who want laws against child abuse didn’t advocate a massive invasion of the privacy of American families. If I did hit my daughter, likely no one would know about it–but it would still be illegal. And if I abused my daughter and it were not illegal–say, I had her limbs ripped off and her skull collapsed 2 and a half years ago–it would still be wrong.
Mr Berger, your partisanship is showing.
“But how much money will it take to try to enforce the law if abortion becomes illegal again?”
Are you similarly concerned with the amount of money it will take to enforce the law when a lack of health insurance becomes illegal under Obamacare?
“Not only that, you who want “limited government” would advocate a huge and expensive force of agents who would merely cause a massive and egregious invasion of the provacy of American citizens”
But a massive IRS force which shares household financial information with employers under Obamacare is not an invasion of privacy, right? Those of you who supported Obamacare lost all credibility on the privacy argument, Robert. Women no longer have the “privacy” to make decisions about health insurance without government interference. They no longer have a right to decide on health care matters with a physician without government interference under Obamacare.
Perhaps you can base your argument on something more credible than the ”right to privacy” your side sacrificed in support of Obamacare?
Randy wrote:
By the way, you can scream “anti-choice” till your blue in the face, it doesn’t make it any more true. I’m not anti-choice, I AM ANTI-MURDER!!
Wow… I need that as a slogan, printed on 5000-point font, plastered on the door of every house in America. :) Well said.
Robert wrote:
Your comments about the right to decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care show just how hypocritical you are.
Care to explain how? I was pointing out your inconsistency in thinking that abortion and such “health care” are somehow compatible… which is blithering nonsense. Had you merely supported government-run health care without abortion, I’d still disagree with your methods (I don’t think they’re feasible or wise), but I probably wouldn’t say one word of objection to you on moral grounds. Care to try that approach?
You say the government has no obligation to provide people with these things,
Where did I say that? I’m condemning abortion, and I point out the inconsistency of saying that “health care, etc.” somehow requires the allowance of abortion: nothing more. Murdering a child in order to try to improve the “quality of life” for someone else is grotesquely immoral.
and yet you insist that women give birth to children they are unable to support.
And where did I say THAT? Good heavens, man, are you reading the same blog?
That’s why abortion is common. Unless the government is willing and able to provide help for those in need, it has absolutely no right to try to force women to give birth to children.
I see. So–going on your *ahem* “reasoning”–you believe that, unless the government supplies welfare-type handouts, it has absolutely no right trying to force people not to slaughter every last poor or homeless person in the nation? There’s the small matter of preventing murder by dismemberment, Mr. Berger; or doesn’t that concern you?
I’ve never been a Marxist or a communist.
I’m glad to hear that.
But I don’t like the opposite kind of government, which allows people in need to go helpless and doesn’t give a you-know-what about poor people.
Again: there are many morally acceptable views about political systems; your (politically liberal) view is one of them (though I think the principles are politically and economically unsound), so long as you don’t use, advocate, or enable murder (or other moral evil) of those “poor people” (and others) in the process.
And please don’t give me all that self-serving and disingenuous poppycock about private charities and not the government being the ones who should help those in need.
I didn’t… but why do you find that to be “poppycock”? That’s how things were done, for hundreds of years before F.D.R. was even conceived in his mother’s womb…
It’s absolutely impossible for private charities to do this for all people.
You have no way of knowing that; that’s your own opinion-based conjecture (and a wild one, at that). There’s a truism from philosophy which applies, here: “That which has happened, is therefore possible.” The fact that charities carried the “entire load” of–well–charity, for hundreds of years before Karl Marx, et al., ever introduced political socialism (“contributions according to ability; support according to need”), proves that it’s possible.
They can only do so much.
Of course. The same can be said of any government (much less a lumbering, inefficient behemoth like the federal government of the United States). You didn’t think otherwise, do you? Or did you seriously think that the U.S. Government is free of all inefficiency, corruption and error?
It’s wrong to force children to be born who are doomed to lives of abject poverty, hunger, malnutrition, lack of education and opportunity in life.
First, your wild portrayal has no proportion to reality at all; in no possible way can you say that anyone–even the person in the most dire circumstances imaginable–is “doomed” to anything.
Second, you (perhaps unintentionally) are starting to sound incredibly elitist. I, personally, have lived in poverty in earlier stages of my life, I suffer malnutrition right now (due to an immense number of food allergies), and I know very well what it’s like to be hungry. By your argument, I don’t deserve to live, and it’d be best if someone shot me. That, sir, is insanity itself. You have NO RIGHT to declare the “quality of life” of someone else to be “below the level at which we allow you to live”; how arrogant of you! If someone doesn’t fit your middle-class view of “contentedness” (whatever that means), you approve of the government ripping that person limb-from-limb?
Third: your position far outstrips your intended “pool of death-applicants”: it would apply to anyone currently BORN, and living in such conditions. Do you seriously think that all the homeless, all the hungry and under-educated, should be rounded up and dismembered? After all: saying that a baby will “certainly suffer such hardships” is mere guesswork; wouldn’t it be better to wait until you’re sure… and THEN dismember the people in question? Why kill someone who MIGHT rise out of the “squalour of (I shudder to mention the word!) poverty? Barack Obama did, I understand…
This is infinitely worse than being aborted.
That, friend, is about as much concentrated insanity per word as I’ve ever seen in a sentence. I’m morbidly impressed.
That’s why I’m opposed to politicians like Mr. Stufflebeam who hypocritically demand that women be forced to bear children they will never be able to care for.
You might read his post (and response) again, with a bit more care. He said nothing of the sort.
If you are opposed to the government helping those in need,
I’m not, by the way. I merely suggest that there are many ways for that “help” to be enacted–ways beyond mere “handouts”. But even that is an issue with which someone could disagree, without violating sane morality. The prevention of murder, however, is not such a “discretionary” issue.
you have absolutely no right to be opposed to abortion.
That, again, is pure insanity. I have every right to oppose the murder of children, no matter how much you think they should die. Have some sense!
Pro-choicers like me don’t like abortion and don’t want abortions to happen.
I’m sure you wouldn’t like the dismemberment of street-children, either; and I’m glad to hear that. But your tolerance and advocacy of the “option” (or, if you like, “choice”) is morally evil, as could easily be seen with 20 seconds’ rational thought.
But we realize that women MUST have this choice to prevent catastrophic conditions in society.
That… is simply too bizarre to merit a reply. “We must keep the option to dismember street-children safe and legal, or else society will crumble!” Wow.