Stanek weekend question: Which five living people from the other side would you most like to have dinner with?
This weekend’s question is straightforward: What five living people from the other side of the ideological divide on abortion would you most like to have dinner with?
I can only think of four at the moment. I should leave myself space anyway to add one of yours I expect I’ll read and say, “Ah, yes.” My picks right now, in alpha order, are:
LeRoy Carhart, Amanda Marcotte, Barack Obama, Cecile Richards
Next weekend I’ll ask the same question but about deceased abortion proponents. So you can begin jotting down your responses to that now.
Oct.02, 2011 12:41 pm |
Weekend question |
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.
(*shudder*) I’m afraid I’d only be comfortable meeting the people on Jill’s list “on the other side of the divide” if I were meeting them “on the other side of the veil” (i.e. after death, if we were all in Heaven and they’d repented and been cleansed)…!
Yes, Paladin, but it would be better to reason with them to repent now… :)
LeRoy Carhart, Curtis Boyd, Barack Obama, Cecile Richards, and Hillary Clinton
Living? That makes it tougher:
Obama, Clinton, George Bush Sr, George Bush Jr, Carter
Would have loved to swap Reagan with Carter.
Got that right, Paladin. I would need a special anointing of the Holy Spirit (and people praying for me) to stay calm and give wise (not emotion-laden) responses. If I could bring a few “friends” such as Ray Comfort, Father Pavone, Gregg Cunningham, I’d feel better. You’re so right, Jill – they need Jesus!
Maybe Charlotte Taft, who at least wants women to work through how they really feel about abortions before going through with them, and Dennis Miller, who seems to have a capacity to listen and learn. I can’t think of anybody high profile whose “The only bad abortion is one that doesn’t happen” attitude wouldn’t put me off my food. It was bad enough ending up sitting at the same lunch table with Liz Hrenda-Roberts of the Harrisburg Planned Parenthood. That woman exuded creepy evil.
I would add Nancy Pelosi.
Hillary Clinton seems like she would be be a good dinnertime conversationalist (Bill would have to be otherwise engaged though).
Pelosi and Biden’s talk would at least be good for a laugh.
I suspect Amanda Marcotte would be as much of a pill in real life as she is on the Internet.
But eat with an actual abortionist – a blood-soaked butcher like Carhart? Gag (literally).
On the other hand, if the thing is going to be not about fun, but about conversion. . .
Hillary is the best bet. I’d like to try that.
My picks? Various pro-choicers who I’ve politely debated with over the internet for a while and consider friends. I’d love to meet them in real life! I don’t have as much interest in meeting with “high-profile” people on the other side– although William Saletan from Slate would probably make a great dinner conversationalist.
I thought George W. was pro-life?
JillR – I’m assuming you are pointing towards my post? I’m just saying that each of those Presidents have had thousands of abortions happen under their watch, and none have put out a bill or order to eliminate abortions. Maybe their words say something else, but they are all equal in my book.
Ex-GOP, you’re wrong. GW Bush signed the Partial-birth Abortion Ban into law during his first term. After Clinton had vetoed it twice. Bush also nominated two good Justices to the Supreme Court, and thank God he did. We better pray like crazy that President Abortion doesn’t get the chance to put any more judges up there.
Darn hard to narrow it to 5. No particular order:
Carla, Bethany, Bobby, Xalisae, Paladin.
I’m surprised no one has said Frances Kissling.
My no 1 pick? Rachel Maddow
I want to ask her the questions I scream at the laptop screen whenever I watch her do a segment of abortion. :) I can’t believe she’s never had a pro-life guest on her show.
Most pro-choicers would not be willing to have dinner with us anyway. The hard core pro-aborts try mightily to demonize us and they tell their people to NEVER associate with an “anti,” as they call us. They have several excuses for this, but the real reason is because when some pro-choicers get to know some pro-lifers personally, they see that they’re nice, caring people (contrary to the carefully crafted stereotype that the pro-aborts try to portray of us). They also see that the pro-lifers have valid points to back up their arguments against abortion. If too many people see that, the number of pro-choice people in the general public goes down. In a democratic society, such a process could eventually spell the death of Roe v Wade. So a lot of “pro-choicers” wouldn’t want to eat with me anyway.
The ones that do, well, discussing the violence of abortion isn’t a very appetizing subject. So maybe, I’d want to discuss it with them after dinner, quite a while after dinner. I’d point out to them the violence inherent in abortion and explain that’s why I can’t support it.
:) I’ll host the barbecue, Doug!
(Bring your own buns, though; I have a wheat allergy, so I don’t stock them!)
I’d envy Doug’s dinner table. :)
Meanwhile, at mine, I wouldn’t pick any of the usual pols, who not only haven’t thought through the topic, but don’t care. I mean, Obama and Hillary Clinton? They only care about the game of politics and all the trappings that go with it.
I certaintly couldn’t pick any true abortion fan, as xalisae puts it. With people like Carhart, the menu better be just water, or it could get messy.
No, I’d choose a guest you could reason with, like Dennis Miller, as has been mentioned. Also Greg Gutfeld, Rudy Guiliani, any celebrity, pundit, or pol who are mostly conservative, but are “socially” liberal or neutral. Going along to get along seems like a good way to go. But in the end it’s gutless and ignoble to stand on the sidelines.
Jen – 1.2 million abortions under his watch a year. If you call that success, you have too low of standards. Bush stays at my table.
I can’t think of any high-profile individuals I’d like to dine with because most have hardcore views, and I feel like any attempt at breaching the issues/challenging their views and their defenses would likely go up and it wouldn’t lead to a productive discussion. Heck, I would think trying to discuss anything short of polite conversation at any casual dinner would create for an uncomfortable atmosphere in which dinner/drinks and further conversation would be unappealing (one of those situations where you’re thinking to yourself ”Oh my gosh I can’t wait to get out of here!”). But if we instead try keeping the conversation light & social it could be a way to socially connect & move past the negative perceptions, stereotypes, and hostilities each side we have towards each other (instead seeing other perhaps as human beings), and we could start from there.
EGV,
At the risk of walking a well-worn path… you wrote:
I’m just saying that each of those Presidents have had thousands of abortions happen under their watch, and none have put out a bill or order to eliminate abortions. Maybe their words say something else, but they are all equal in my book.
Every time you say this, I have to shake my head in disbelief; surely you’re not serious? (1) What sort of “kingly decree” do you think any of them could have made which would stop abortion in its tracks, especially given a hostile (or at least a non-filibuster-proof) congress? (2) Do you think that, since tens of thousands of rapes, murders, traffic fatalities, etc., happened under every last one of their “watches”, it is therefore appropriate to categorize them as “pro-rape, pro-murder, indifferent to traffic fatalities, etc.?” I can also hope that you were using rather wild hyperbole when you said that “they (esp. including Obama!) are all equal” in your book. Are you psychologically incapable of seeing a difference between “imperfect resistance” to abortion, and “rabid promotion” of abortion”? Have some sense, man.
Paladin -
If rape and murder were legal, and the President only said “we’re not going to pay people who do it” – yes, of course I’d say they were pro-rate and pro-murder! Wouldn’t you?
Answering your questions backwards…are you saying there’s nothing a President can do? No bills to present, even to make a stand? No hard lines to take? If the President’ can’t do anything, as you claim, then why does this site get so upset all the time?
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
If rape and murder were legal, and the President only said “we’re not going to pay people who do it” – yes, of course I’d say they were pro-rate and pro-murder!
I’m very interested in hearing how you think that’s at all comparable to, say, the actions of George W. Bush. “Using the bully pulpit” (which you’ve somewhat dismissively called “mere words”) is one way to influence… and he did that, in more ways than I can count. He chose (as Jen mentioned, and you seemingly ignored) pro-life supreme court justices for the court, rather than abortion-tolerant or indifferent justices; and how/why you think, with the current 4-3 split, this is irrelevant escapes me. He re-enacted the Mexico City Policy, by which we cut off tax-payer subsidization of foreign abortion-on-demand; but you also dismiss this (for reasons unknown) as being beneath your notice and/or your exacting (though one-sided and shifting) standards. He signed the ban on partial-birth abortions (as Jen also mentioned, but you brushed that off with nary a comment, as well), which not only stopped the practice itself, but it drew a psychological and legal line in the sand that had not existed before (else, why was the pro-abortion crowd so upset, if it was as middling as you insinuate?). He made no secret of his own dedication to the sanctity of human life; and if he was imperfect at that, I think your efforts could be more fairly directed toward exhorting him to greater perfection, rather than “running cover and interference” for pro-abortion apologists and politicians (as most of your comments invariably do).
Wouldn’t you?
No. See above.
Answering your questions backwards…are you saying there’s nothing a President can do?
No. See above.
No bills to present, even to make a stand?
I agree, he should have done more in that regard. I do hope, though, that you see how outrageously distant this is from your flippant, hyperbolic, and literally irrational categorization of “pro-abortion”; such a label is either pure rhetoric, or blitheringly insane, or both.
No hard lines to take?
You’d have to be far less vague in order for me to comment on that point.
If the President’ can’t do anything, as you claim,
Your reading skills cannot possibly be that bad. Please go back and read again; I claimed nothing of the sort. For a relativist, you’re certainly fond of speaking in absolutes when characterizing your opponents…
then why does this site get so upset all the time?
“This site” gets upset when babies are murdered. You, apparently (and according to your own words), do not… and you place mere political preferences above the unborn when going into the voting booth. If you were truly and unequivocally pro-life (a label you sneeringly deny to President Bush, and all others with an (R) after their name, though you seem to give the blessing of silence to those with a (D) following their name, no matter how vehement their zest for abortion legalization and promotion), you wouldn’t need to ask.
First off – I think it is more than a little funny that you take me to task about my reading skills regarding statements that you make on the very post you are asking the question in. If you think you gave proper support that a President can do a LOT in your statement that began this conversation, then I think you should re-read your first post. Yes, you support yourself better in your last post. Don’t think that I can read as you write. The internet doesn’t work that way.
Paladin – look – let’s just not go in circles and circles again. The GOP has the white house 20 of 28 years. From when I could vote, I voted GOP. Abortion was one of the issues I voted over. And you know what, those subtle shifts in funding weren’t enough for me. They are for you. That is difference number one between us.
Furthermore, at my age with kids the age I have, I think the Democrats are much better for solving the issues that actually will get dealt with. Again, we could go round and round on this – things like eduction and health care – but again, I just see the answers differently. So that is difference number two.
So as long as abortion is a back seat issue to the GOP, it takes the back seat with me as well. If you think I should throw away every other component of my voting beliefs because there is a slight chance that if the GOP gets office another 20 of 28 years, that they might actually do something with it…well, count me out.
I’m guessing you and I would get a lot pretty good if we knew each other. I’m actually a heck of a lot more moderate away from this board (the fringe elements get me going sometimes) – I’m just saying that you see it in politics a lot – a group of people who say “hey, why are we continuing to blindly support this party and not getting anything in return?” That is where I am – and again…I think we see the “progress” much differently. And I’m cool with it – if you are happy with Bush’s progress, then I can do nothing but applaud you.
I shared this with the Secular Pro-Life supporters on facebook, and one of them gave the best answer ever: ”Five pro-choice Supreme Court justices. I only need to persuade one or two, right?”
I would invite Obama and Cecile and Carhart and Hodari and Sebellius and I’d skip dinner and invite them into the TV room to watch EWTN and serve them popcorn popped in chrism oil.
Tony Blair
Obama. Just Obama. I’d love to talk to him and find out why he’s so fanatically pro-abortion… And hopefully at least get him to rethink it.
I have no desire to meet with any demon. These people have been warned a thousand times.
Cecilia: Most pro-choicers would not be willing to have dinner with us anyway. The hard core pro-aborts try mightily to demonize us and they tell their people to NEVER associate with an “anti,” as they call us. They have several excuses for this, but the real reason is because when some pro-choicers get to know some pro-lifers personally, they see that they’re nice, caring people (contrary to the carefully crafted stereotype that the pro-aborts try to portray of us)
Well, Cecilia, if it’s “demonization” you’re wanting to see, you need go no farther than this very site to see a whole slew of it, usually with pro-choicers as the object. Everything you said about stereotypes and there being nice, caring people “on the other side” certainly applies to pro-lifers as well.
___
Jasper: I have no desire to meet with any demon. These people have been warned a thousand times.
Oh Jasper… :: laughing ::
Amen Doug – I’ve been off and on a death penalty board for years – people in favor of the dp – and those folks spew a lot less venom. I’m not saying everyone on this board is mean, and i”m not saying I’m an angel about it – but the overall tone on this board is MUCH darker than I’ve seen elsewhere.
Din din with Doug?
Awesome!!
Ex-RINO and Doug, if you are troubled by people shedding light on the reality of the demonic actions of pro-aborts as being dark, then I guess you could say this site is midnight without a moon.
I see no one has mentioned Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Gloria Steinem, Rosie O’Donnell or Kathy Griffin. Just the thought of all 5 of them in one place at the same time sends shivers up my spine.
Amanda Marcotte ? Don’t make me laugh. Why bother?
Thank you, Doug, for inviting me to your table. I’m flattered. Raw goat for me, and I promise I’ll be on my best behavior…(“my best behavior” may or may not include instigating a food fight…) *devilish grin*
Correction. It is, of course, ninek who refers to “abortion fans”. They are not good dinner companions for most of us. There is only One I know Who could stomach their presence. They would be sitting next to the tax collectors and prostitutes. :)
none really. id rather eat with my pro lifers or eat nothing.. ~unless i was bringing my barf bag. i guess maybe gloria steinem to ask her why shes remained such a staunch supporter of abortion all these years. we spoke about some abortion patients being victims…gloria has never acted like a victim nor would i ever put her in that catergory. and maybe gwenneth paltrow and her mom to see why they pimped abortion on mothers day.
george bush sarah palin nancy grace and the supreme court pro lifers
speaking of gwenneth paltrow i guess she runs a web site called goop. she recently complained “nobody likes me.” ding ding ding. ~ gwenneth whats to like you abortion pimp? your only claim to fame is that you are friends with madonna and dated brad pitt. you cant sing or dance and in my opinion you arent attractive so count me in on one who doesnt like you. shut up and act. at least youre half good at that. and you and your mom need to stop pimping abortion. perhaps your popularity will pick up.
Burning Question: How do you eat dinner with someone who makes you wanna HURL!???
Just askin….
Maybe you snack and slam a couple? :)
I’d invite Josephine hull, Jean Adair, Obama, Cecile Richards and any one of Obama’s poor relatives from Kenya. It would make for an interesting movie.
Linda Coffee, Sarah Weddington, Margie Pitts Hames and other principal attorneys from Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Norma McCorvey and Sandra Cano can join us for dessert and have a long overdue reunion.
That and 8mg ondansetron might do it, Carla.
Had to look ondansetron up but yeah..that might work. :)
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
First off – I think it is more than a little funny that you take me to task about my reading skills regarding statements that you make on the very post you are asking the question in.
Er… not quite, friend. You wrote this:
If the President’ can’t do anything, as you claim,
Now… please go back to my original comment to you, and quote for me (with highlights in bold, italic, etc.) where I claimed that the “president can’t do anything”. Your claim is flatly false, as anyone who reads my comments can confirm. You, apparently, misread my comments. I said: “(1) What sort of “kingly decree” do you think any of them could have made which would stop abortion in its tracks, especially given a hostile (or at least a non-filibuster-proof) congress? Unless you have (for some reason I don’t understand) taken “He can’t end abortion by decree” to mean “he can’t do anything”, I have no idea where you’d get your original idea, or your misunderstanding about my claim.
Mind you, I’m being generous, and assuming that your false statement was due to careless reading, and not to dishonesty or duplicity.
If you think you gave proper support that a President can do a LOT in your statement that began this conversation, then I think you should re-read your first post.
No, I didn’t make any such claim in my first post; I merely objected to your nonsensical/illogical statement that I “claimed the president could do NOTHING”. (Look up “fallacy of the nonexistent middle”, when you get a moment; you may find it illuminating; most people do (reasonably) see a rather a big distance between “[x] can do anything by decree” and “x can’t do anything”, you know.
Yes, you support yourself better in your last post.
Ah. So you now think that George W. Bush “did a lot” to try to end abortion, and you’d no longer give him the bizarre (and hyperbolic) label of “pro-abortion”?
Don’t think that I can read as you write. The internet doesn’t work that way.
I’d settle for you reading what I actually *did* write, friend; that’s not an unreasonable request. See above.
Paladin – look – let’s just not go in circles and circles again. The GOP has the white house 20 of 28 years. From when I could vote, I voted GOP. Abortion was one of the issues I voted over. And you know what, those subtle shifts in funding weren’t enough for me. They are for you. That is difference number one between us.
Yes, we’ve been over this incessantly; and I’ll repeat my standard reply for you: your utter inability to distinguish between “inadequate resistance to abortion” and “full-throated and slavish devotion to the promotion of legalized abortion on demand” is enough to make even the most patient and generous students of logic weep in despair, over you.
Furthermore, at my age with kids the age I have, I think the Democrats are much better for solving the issues that actually will get dealt with.
I see. If that party ritually slaughtered a few thousand toddlers per day (and the GOP was somehow ineffective in stopping them), you’d still vote for them, since you’re so fond of their plans for social security, welfare, health insurance, and the like. Some of us, on the other hand, simply cannot in good conscience vote for explicit champions of such a horrific evil.
So as long as abortion is a back seat issue to the GOP, it takes the back seat with me as well.
With all due respect, dear fellow: I really have a difficult time believing that you can be this obtuse. Do you not see that, even if one were (hypothetically) to grant your premise that “abortion is a back-seat issue for the GOP”, the issue is most certainly NOT a “back-seat” issue for the Democrats? They will literally die, rather than give up one inch of the territory which they’ve stained with the blood of 50+ million children. And yet you shrug that off with an incomprehensible “Meh… I’ve got more important concerns.” Unbelievable.
Re: your comments on our potential personal interactions: I don’t doubt that you’re right. I do not condemn you, sir, but your barbaric beliefs. There *is* a distinction, you know.
And I’m cool with it – if you are happy with Bush’s progress, then I can do nothing but applaud you.
One last distinction: I was relatively happy with the efforts of President Bush, in this regard, though I was not totally satisfied; I was less happy about the progress that was made while President Bush was president… which is a very different and distinct matter. (Please tell me you see that?)
Paladin -
I’m tired of these circles.
I think you see a much bigger fight than what exists. Both sides seem to agree abortion is legal, and that it is legal in a lot of cases. There’s the occasional fight over something regarding funding – but again, in light of the massive numbers both sides seem okay with, it this something to put labels like “full-throated and slavish devotion to the promotion of legalized abortion on demand”?
I mean, again, if there were actual big fights like I think you make it out to be, that would be something – but the two sides seem pretty well content with where the pocket of legality is. They just bring in the occasional fight to show their sides they are still worth paying money to.
Abortion has had some quick lip service at the GOP debates. The presidential sites all have the standard boiler plate answer they need to have. But do you really think, at the end of the day, that in regards to abortion, the presidential choice is going to matter?
Heck, answer me this one – do you think abortion gains that have been made would be even farther, about the same, or less if McCain would have won?
I’m sorry to keep being ‘obtuse’ – I just feel a bit like you’re the soccer fan yelling at the American’s about how cool soccer is and how great everything is and how big it should be…and quite frankly, it gets a little play every few years, but really isn’t as big a deal as I think you want it to be.
Hal’s daughter.
Ex-Gop
Of course at the end of the day it’s going to matter. Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion. And I’m not sure if you’ve been paying attention but the fight for the unborn has been experiencing some major victories imagine how much more will be done to protect them when we have a Republican president or a democratic president who decides that the killing of pre-born babies is so not cool.
Sorry to get off thread but tomorrow I have a test in World Politics and prayer would be appreciated.
Myrtle -
Good luck on your test!
On your question, we don’t have to imagine – the GOP had a President in charge for 20 of 28 years.
“What five living people from the other side of the ideological divide on abortion would you most like to have dinner with?” – I guess it would have to be from amongst you good people because there are no true anti-choicers with any real power or ability to actually change the paradigm.
I could easily ask at least a dozen of you but on an easily interchangeable list I’d include Sydney M, Paladin, Ex-GOP, rasqual (a free dictionary at every place-setting!) and hippie (bring your own incense).
I’m no chef but I’m an ok cook and am happy and well able to cater for vegetarians.
Reality wrote:
rasqual (a free dictionary at every place-setting!)
:) Good thought! I consider my own vocabulary to be respectable, but good Mr. Rasqual has sent me scurrying to the dictionary, at least once!
EGV wrote:
I’m tired of these circles.
I don’t blame you. But (and I honestly don’t mean this as any sort of “jab” or denigration): wouldn’t it help matters if you stopped perpetuating them? Rare is the point made to you by any thoughtful listener which wasn’t soon met with a flurry of red herrings, evasions, topic-shifts, and other distractions.
I think you see a much bigger fight than what exists. Both sides seem to agree abortion is legal, and that it is legal in a lot of cases.
You’ve just drifted away, rather quietly, from some of the fundamental points (as–forgive me–you do rather often, when challenged: you wander away from the easily-strained camels, and you start easing your way toward the filtering of the less-easily-strained gnats). I’m talking about the fundamentals of morality: living and working and believing on principles, not simply on what effects happen to occur! A man, for example, who intends and attempts murder 100 times, and fails, might well invite ridicule… but it’s beyond question that the man is immoral, and that he should be opposed and punished, and certainly not trusted or supported. A soldier (think of Don Quixote) who has a noble heart, but who fails incessantly at protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty, is to be pitied (and perhaps removed from positions of authority), but it’d be insane to assign complicity or blame to him, or to assign him moral parity with villains. Do you begin to see my point, at last? You seem utterly unconcerned with motives, but only with rough estimates of past success; you strike me as one who, having played “Russian Roulette” three times and survived, concludes that it’ll be safe to play it indefinitely (i.e. support those who champion
There’s the occasional fight over something regarding funding – but again, in light of the massive numbers both sides seem okay with, it this something to put labels like “full-throated and slavish devotion to the promotion of legalized abortion on demand”?
I note that you use soft, pacifying, minimizing words to describe the points which are not in your favour: “the occasional fight”, etc. To your question, I can only ask: where on earth have you BEEN, that you do not recognize the single-minded, fierce determination of Democrats to protect, keep and expand so-called “safe, legal abortion” (a diabolically twisted, Orwellian phrase, if ever one existed)? Do you honestly consider them to be blase and indifferent to the topic?
I mean, again, if there were actual big fights like I think you make it out to be, that would be something – but the two sides seem pretty well content with where the pocket of legality is.
That is an incredibly naive statement to make, friend; and I’m honestly at a loss as to how to convince you otherwise, at this point; it seems that you simply don’t want to hear anything which contradicts your “anti-GOP, abortion-apathetic” boiler-plate. If you don’t see the attempts to force religious institutions to supply abortions and contraceptives in violation of their beliefs… if you don’t see appointments such as the rabidly pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius to head HHS (I’ll leave the proof of “relevance of the HHS to human-life, abortion, contraception and euthanasia issues” as an exercise to you, dear reader)… if you don’t see the relentless efforts of Secretary Clinton (another Obama appointee) to promote “abortion as a human right” overseas… if you don’t see the efforts to implement FOCA (either whole, or piece-meal)… and more such efforts than I can easily count, then I challenge anyone to convince you of anything which you’re not prepared to like or believe.
They just bring in the occasional fight to show their sides they are still worth paying money to.
Tell me, my dear fellow: how did you get through the USA civics training in your public schools, without learning about the vast importance of the “non-explicit, non-dictatorial” powers of the President and Congress (e.g. appointing pro-abortion heads of departments, czars, judges, etc., the latter of whose effects will be felt for decades)?
Abortion has had some quick lip service at the GOP debates.
You emphatically and enthusiastically miss the point, yet again. Forget the GOP; I’m quite willing to concede (and I’ve done so incessantly, every time I’ve mentioned this topic to you) that the GOP is often support-worthy on this issue only as the lesser of two evils. If you’d thrown off the GOP in disgust (which is somewhat understandable, though I think it’d be an over-reaction) and gone to support the Constitution Party, or Donald Duck, or whomever else with your vote, you’d get nary a peep of complaint, from me. But when you read the same platform of the DNC, hear the same abortion-supporting rhetoric coming from bully pulpits of Democrat elected (or appointed) officials, and feel the same “abortion-friendly, pro-life-unfriendly policies” implemented by HHS and the like, and you can still manage to support them as “trustworthy enough to have your vote”, then I can only conclude that you do not believe abortion to be any significant evil, at all. Certainly, your excuses about the pragmatism of supporting “the most useful party” (an insane statement, even by economic standards), even in the face of their stead-fast conviction that the direct killing of an unborn child is quite all right, and empowering to women, is absurd on its face.
The presidential sites all have the standard boiler plate answer they need to have. But do you really think, at the end of the day, that in regards to abortion, the presidential choice is going to matter?
Well… if you find the Supreme Court, every lower court, every last appointment of every last cabinet member and department, every last grant and denial of financial and/or other aid-based grant to foreign powers (contingent on their abortion positions), every last executive order (including the Mexico City Policy), and all related things “don’t matter”, then I can hardly argue with you; I could only (hypothetically) say that you’ve detached yourself rather completely from political reality.
Heck, answer me this one – do you think abortion gains that have been made would be even farther, about the same, or less if McCain would have won?
I rather doubt that McCain (for whom I’d never vote, unless the alternative were utterly intolerable–I voted for Alan Keyes over McCain, in the primary) would have repealed the Mexico City policy; I rather doubt that he’d have nominated the abortion-tolerant Justices Sotomayer and Kagan to the Supreme court (I’ll leave the usefulness and relevance of a 7-2 pro-life SCOTUS to the abortion issue to you as another homework exercise); and I rather doubt he’d have filled his administration with pro-abortion heads of HHS (with the power to pressure health care officials to dispense abortions and/or contraceptives) and czars. If you find these to be beneath your notice, then again: I’ve no idea what to say to you.
I’m sorry to keep being ‘obtuse’ – I just feel a bit like you’re the soccer fan yelling at the American’s about how cool soccer is and how great everything is and how big it should be…
Your belief that abortion and soccer have approximate moral equivalence and importance is noted and logged. But let me try, one last time, to get through your determination to be “pragmatic”:
We are alive, on earth, in order to fulfill our final end: to grow in virtue, goodness and perfection. This is done through CHOICES… not through watching any individual choice is successful (by whatever utilitarian standards) or not. If I dedicate my life to normalizing and protecting the slaughter of innocent, unborn children, for example, then I will have become a vicious (in the classical sense of vice-ridden), corrupt and loathsome person in that regard (aside from any possible good and praiseworthy points in other areas)… which is precisely what we are on earth to AVOID. It is really rather irrelevant, morally speaking, whether or not one’s evil intention SUCCEEDS or FAILS (through forces beyond one’s control), and it is equally immoral to be heedless of these facts while making moral decisions, say, at the voting booth. When I stand before my Lord at the end of my life, I do not expect Him to ask, “How much money did you save?” or “How successful were your efforts?” Rather, I expect Him to ask, “How did you love? Did you choose the good over the evil, even when it was unpopular and/or unsuccessful and/or expedient?”
Paladin -
This conversation is very disappointing. The very fact that you make the note “your belief that abortion and soccer have approximate moral equivalence…” – I’d be disappointed if my THIRD graded couldn’t see that an analogy was being made and no moral equivalence was being argued. That you would get hung up on that shows me you are either getting way too worked up in this conversation, or looking for words that aren’t there. Either are dangerous in conversation, and it is frustrating trying to hold a conversation with somebody who is accusing me of dodging issues, while at the same time picking statements and beliefs that aren’t there and simply treating them as fact. At this point, I should just step away and let you argue with what your belief of me is – because I feel that is what you are doing.
I look now and think that we are saying the same thing. I started off this whole thing by saying that Obama = Bush, and both were on the other side. I didn’t say ‘I support Obama’s view of abortion’, rather the push button statement that I made was that Obama and Bush were both bad on abortion.
In your last post, you concede that the GOP is the lesser of two evils – which I say warrants them being on the other side. If one man shoots me and the other man simply stabs me, the one who stabs me is the lesser of two evils – but that doesn’t put him on my side.
(note to Paladin – what I just used was an EXAMPLE – in no way is somebody getting shot or stabbed, nor do I wish that I would get shot or stabbed. I’m speaking nothing on the morality of shooting or stabbing or the relation to abortion.)
Again, for the fifteenth time – you see the steps that Bush made and the GOP makes as more noteworthy than me. A quick recap:
– I say that both parties seem fine with the million plus abortions a year. You think the Dems are excited about the number, while the GOP is simply passive about the number.
– Mexico City policy – you think it is a big deal? I don’t care which bucket of money the clinic in another country reaches into at the end of the day. Plus, MCP only applies to clinics that promote themselves as “family planning”. If they change their reasoning on what they are and do, they can offer abortions and still get federal funding.
– Supreme court justices. R v Wade was what, a 7-2 decision with mostly GOP appointed folks making the decision? What were the numbers on that?
Look – I’m not happy about how the DEMS treat abortion. I’m not happy about how the GOP treats abortion. However, I still see it treated as the tenth bullet point by both parties – the things that actually will get acted on are immigration policy, health care, the economy – things that I believe the Dems are better on.
On a similar note, or for comparison’s sake, I wouldn’t rule out Bush (in the past) or Perry just because they headed over a state with so many executions. Yes, I don’t like it – but it is pushed so far down the list of actual issues that to give it too much exposure or thought in the whole dynamic would be unfair to the actual issues that do come up.
Thanks – have a great day.
Pardon the delay… swamped with tests, meetings, and the like; I’ll try to reply tomorrow, as time allows!
No problem Sir – hope all is well.
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
The very fact that you make the note “your belief that abortion and soccer have approximate moral equivalence…” – I’d be disappointed if my THIRD graded couldn’t see that an analogy was being made and no moral equivalence was being argued.
I was well aware that you were using an analogy; but when you dismiss my position (i.e. anti-abortion) as “a soccer fan yelling about how great [soccer] is”, after I took great pains to describe (for the umteenth time, as you say) my position based on PRINCIPLES, and not on thus-or-that political outcome, I really was led to believe that you saw the anti-abortion position as something provincial, private, and “nice, up to a point, so long as one doesn’t go over-board about it”. In short, you seem to be saying that anyone who votes against any given pro–legal-abortion politician (and need I remind you that this has nothing, specifically, to do with the GOP? I’d never have voted for Arlen Specter, for instance) is being rather silly, naive, and engaging in an overly-grandiose and megalomaniacal approach to their own “pet project” (as would be the case if I were trumpeting the moral necessity of forbidding American foot-ball, or the moral imperative of wearing only woollen socks). Do you see my point? When you’re flippant and dismissive about an opponent’s views, it really isn’t reasonable for you to act surprised and indignant when that opponent calls you out on such foolishness.
For the record, dear fellow: my temper has not flared, even once, during our conversation (which seemed to be a concern of yours); and I certainly have never felt even the slightest inclination to think ill of you, as a person, even in cases where you *had* exasperated me in the past. Does that reassure you, on that point?
I look now and think that we are saying the same thing.
With all due respect, friend: I hardly think so. We have some similar views on some select issues, yes; but that’s quite a different matter.
I started off this whole thing by saying that Obama = Bush,
And I replied that this statement, as it stands, is ludicrous, and it’s a text-book example of “painting with a broad brush” (frankly, I know of few commenters whose brushes are bigger than yours, in discussions such as this!)… or, if you prefer the technical logical term: “equivocation”. I do not even refer to the obvious literal meaning (e.g. they are different people, by definition); I refer to your silly and bland exaggeration which sees no distinction between the two.
One question, which might cut to the heart of this matter: do you view pragmatism (i.e. judging moral matters only by their results) as the only reliable guide for your political and moral choices? That certainly seems to be the case; so long as an unequivocally pro-life politician (by his/her own claim) does not produce any noticeable results (to your satisfaction), you’re content to call him/her a liar, a farce, a fake, and/or “on the other side” (by which I assume you mean “pro-abortion”… though I’ll discuss that below, vis-a-vis your own position); and so long as the most vehement promoter of Planned Parenthood and pro-legal-abortion fails to change the macro-land-scape of the abortion battle, you’re content to call him/her a sham, a mere posturer, a phony, and/or (seemingly according to your reasoning) “on the same side as us” (i.e. pro-life). I hope you can see, by this illustration, why your own position seems… rather confused. Your definitions are as plastic and malleable as is wet clay, and they seem guided by a rather near-sighted, blurred approach to the political and moral scenes which abstracts completely from the INTENT of the individual people (which is the very basis for morality–you’re aware of that, yes?).
I didn’t say ‘I support Obama’s view of abortion’, rather the push button statement that I made was that Obama and Bush were both bad on abortion.
…and you find their positions on that topic to be irrelevant, when casting your vote… despite all the evidence anyone has ever given you to the contrary. (As much as I appreciated your earlier [though misplaced] compliment about “supporting myself better in my argument” [see your comment on October 2, 2011 at 6:59 pm], I’d have appreciated some acknowledgment and engagement of the content, far more.)
In your last post, you concede that the GOP is the lesser of two evils
You missed the qualifying word “often”; you really do have a bad habit of commenting in absolutes where they aren’t warranted, friend… and then, when specific examples of this are pointed out (I think especially of your claim that I said “Bush could not do anything”, and others), passing over the matter in silence and moving on to other points. I’m not so much wishing that you’d acknowledge past errors (though that really is a good and honest thing to do), but I’d at least wish that you might avoid making the same mistakes, over and over, in the present and in the future!
which I say warrants them being on the other side.
Given that I really don’t know what “side” you claim as your own in this matter, it’s rather hard to comment on that. Yes, I know that you’ve stated your own personal opposition to abortion (as would many abortion-tolerant people: “I’m personally opposed, but…”); but do be fair and consistent, here: if you see fit to judge politicians only by their results (and not by their intent), to the extent that you’d call a pro-life politician “pro-choice” (or at least “not-pro-life”) if he/she failed to re-shape the abortion scene, then you must accept our judgment of you as “pro-abortion” (or at least “not-pro-life”) based on your complete (and self-admitted) inaction on the topic in the voting booth, absence at pro-life marches and protests, failure to support or volunteer as help at a CPC, and the like. Yes?
If one man shoots me and the other man simply stabs me, the one who stabs me is the lesser of two evils – but that doesn’t put him on my side.
I do wonder why you’d liken a supposed “do-nothing pro-life politician” with one who “stabs you”; would he not be more akin to one who stands idly by as the first person shoots you, but who offers innocuous words of comfort? (Even that would not describe George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, and the like; but I speak only of your metaphor.)
(note to Paladin – what I just used was an EXAMPLE
:) Yes, thank you; I know. It was merely a bad, equivocative one.
Again, for the fifteenth time – you see the steps that Bush made and the GOP makes as more noteworthy than me.
I do, but you seem absolutely blind to my main point, which I’ll make for you again… in all-caps, in bold-faced type:
I DO NOT SUPPORT THOSE WHO ESPOUSE/SUPPORT LEGALIZED ABORTION, BECAUSE ANYONE WHO DOES SO IS TOO MORALLY DERANGED TO BE TRUSTED WITH ANYTHING (much less issues dealing with life and liberty).
For you to vote for pro-legal-abortion politicians (and deny your vote to pro-life politicians), simply on the sweepingly exaggerated premise that “they’re too inept and apathetic on the matter to change anything of substance”, is foolish in the extreme; it’s akin to declaring a man’s attempts to shoot you to be “safe” simply because he has attempted it 5 out of 6 times (with a 6-bullet revolver, without reloading) without harm! Is it still utterly beyond you to recognize that he is TRYING to kill you? Is it utterly beyond you to realize that the pro-abortion politicians are TRYING (with whatever degree of success or ineptitude) to safe-guard the practice of ripping unborn children limb-from-limb? “Over-confident” and “heedless” are two of the gentlest terms I could use to describe such a mentality.
I say that both parties seem fine with the million plus abortions a year.
And I say that this is a caricature, a broad-brush exaggeration, and utterly absurd.
You think the Dems are excited about the number, while the GOP is simply passive about the number.
(*sigh*) Your penchant for carelessness, straw-men caricatures, extremes, and lack of qualifiers leads me to the odd position of defending pro-legal-abortion people, on this point! I have never said that the Democrats, per se, are “excited about the number” (though the abortion industry probably is); many Democrats probably do sincerely wish abortion to be fully legal, regardless of the vastness or the paucity of abortions actually performed; frankly, you should be ashamed of your careless and reckless portrayals of both sides, in this matter!
I do also admit that many GOP members (and many Dem members, for all that) are relatively passive about the issue (which is very bad). I’ll also remind you that I have never been an apologist for the GOP, per se (please tell me, at least, that you remember THAT?), and that I find it untenable to paint every last GOP member (or Democrat) with the same broad brushes as you use.
Mexico City policy – you think it is a big deal?
Yes.
I don’t care which bucket of money the clinic in another country reaches into at the end of the day. Plus, MCP only applies to clinics that promote themselves as “family planning”.
All right. So: by your own reckoning, an absence of the Mexico City Policy would allow institutions (i.e. those who do promote themselves as “family planning”, in your words) access to funds for abortions that would not otherwise be available? To say that the policy is not perfect is self-evident; to say that it is inconsequential is silly.
Supreme court justices. R v Wade was what, a 7-2 decision with mostly GOP appointed folks making the decision?
May I please remind you, yet again, that “GOP” does not necessarily imply that an individual adherent is pro-life? I don’t know how else to explain this to you, who think in utterly black/white, GOP/Dem, all-or-nothing terms about virtually everything you discuss here: I vote for pro-life candidates first, and other issues secondly. I’d add, as well, that neither party had solidified its position on abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade (how could they, since it hadn’t yet been broached in such a significant way?): the Dems officially embracing abortion as a “positive right” on their platform, and the GOP officially embracing a rejection of abortion on their platform. Cite exceptions or nonconformists from each party, if you like; but there you are.
Look – I’m not happy about how the DEMS treat abortion. I’m not happy about how the GOP treats abortion. However, I still see it treated as the tenth bullet point by both parties – the things that actually will get acted on are immigration policy, health care, the economy – things that I believe the Dems are better on.
As tempting as it might be to argue that point (and I do wonder at your blind trust in the Democratic penchant for spending money that we do not have, on such things as you describe), I will not do so, here… since they are morally legitimate (though perhaps politically foolish) options… whereas abortion is not. So long as someone assents to the routine murder of an unborn child for any reason whatever, they are not trustworthy enough to be given stewardship of the lives and health of anyone else. In a sane world, that would be self-evident to everyone and anyone.
On a similar note, or for comparison’s sake, I wouldn’t rule out Bush (in the past) or Perry just because they headed over a state with so many executions.
I think you can see the distinction between capital punishment (which I also do not support, but which is not morally equivalent to the direct dismemberment of a provably innocent unborn child) and abortion, yes? We’re not simply talking personal preferences and/or niceties, here: we’re speaking of objective, iron-clad moral imperatives and principles.
Thanks – have a great day.
…and to you, sir!
Paladin -
First off, if you are keeping a list of questions you ask me and getting ‘disappointed’ when I don’t answer them, then you’ll be disappointed a lot. You and I handle these boards distinctly different. You chop up a response and answer it point by point. I read through it a few times and answer it in its entirety. My way is, quite frankly, sloppy and lazy – but with three young kids, it isn’t going to change for a few years.
The bold point you make makes it clearer to me our difference.
You see abortion as the trump card in your political views – if you agree with the majority of what a politician says, but not their abortion views, you won’t vote for them.
I don’t see abortion as the trump card in my political views. It isn’t that it isn’t important to me – I just remain unconvinced that the actual byproducts, in relation to abortion, are going to be much different between the various candidates.
Furthermore, given that I don’t see abortion becoming illegal anytime soon, I think the best (statistically) to reduce abortion is to expand access to health care and to work to reduce poverty (or better stated, put women in a situation in which they are less likely to feel that abortion is the best choice). Again, we would certainly debate this point, but I feel the Dems are stronger in these areas than the GOP.
So again, without that trump card in my political ideology, the decision almost becomes math.
One more point – while I don’t put the death penalty on the same moral plane as abortion, I do think that things like the death penalty, health care, and views on wars are big pieces of the “life” equation. I don’t feel warm and fuzzy when a politician says we should “choose life”, and then changes the words of beach boys songs to mock the next country we should ban…or mock the pleas of a person condemned to die…or argue that the poor and elderly should face health care cuts because we can’t stomach raising taxes a bit.
Hope I didn’t skip too many of your individual questions – if so, write a short post with just that question and I’ll get to it.