At least 5 senatorial candidates have gone on record, very recently, (no blaming the past) as being very much in favor of what the rest of us would call big government–government intrusion into people’s personal lives–the kind of government intrusion that heretofore has gotten people labeled part of the reactionary fringe. These 5 candidates have stated that they are opposed to abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
Even those politicians in the pro-life movement, with the except of only a couple of people, have not stated that they think a woman should be forced by the government to bear the child of her rapist. This position is extremism and it certainly isn’t getting government out of people’s business.
Shame on these 5. Women and girls are attacked and sexually abused daily. Those who are exposed to incest have an increased chance of pregnancy because of the repeated behavior. And yes, it does happen, horrifying as it sounds.
This kind of intrusion goes beyond the pale and illustrates that real everyday people aren’t running for office. These people are idealists and social busy bodies who are clueless about some of the hardships of life that face some people daily. If they truly are against big government, they will pull in their horns on this issue. Otherwise they are just as bad as the people they so desperately want to replace or worse.
Not only will pro choice women shun these candidates, but some who generally consider them pro-life will do the same. Most people want a safety net in there. No exceptions for rape and incest is hardcore extremism.
Those 5 need to have their heads examined and thrown out of office. What kind of rational person thinks a victim of a rape should have to carry a baby for nine long months?
Way to make my head darn near explode in the morning, Moon.
😡
Shoot! I need an ANGRY face emoticon inserted.
Moon, do you know how to make that face on the blog?
Looking now.
check your email.
😈
I think I like this one better. It’s for evil and/or twisted. Thanks, Moon. I will be using that and others more often.
MSNBC thanks you for being one of the 27 people who watch the Richard Maddow show. My guess (without looking) is that many of these candidates are just that, candidates, not elected officials yet, so they can’t be thrown out of office yet.
On a serious note, if these candidates want to be elected, I would advise them to lay off the social stuff and focus on the core issues, size and scope of government, taxation, and the economy.
Slowpoke, I agree with you in #8. When people start that social issue crap…my hand goes in my wallet to support the opponent. As you value your 2nd, I value my 1st.
Actually, quite a few people listen to Rachel Maddow. You probably don’t talk to them because they aren’t your kind. There are several times to catch her. And finally, is it all about numbers? Only in an election when the votes are being counted.
The thing I’m amazed at is that 3 of those 5 are women.I’ve never been on the giving birth side but it doesn’t look pleasant even if you want the child. I can only imagine what it must be like if it’s a product of rape/incest, besides the physical pain there is emotional pain.
And the final decision is always the woman’s, whether the decision is legal or illegal.
Bear you and I can both remember when abortion was not legal. Your state became a mecca for those women who wanted legal abortion because it was the first state to make the procedure legal without serious hurdles.
The very people who are opposed to abortion are often opposed to contraception.
Moon-howler — So being against abortion is now extremism. If that is the case, why do have to explain (with extreme examples) why it is so extreme? When these people have supposedly already labeled themselves as extreme by firmly opposing abortion, why do you have to call them names. Wouldn’t pity be more appropriate? 🙁
People use to take a moral stand and then negotiate and compromise. The compromise, because that was the only politically feasible solution, became the law. Now, however, we expect people to compromise their principles in advance. Otherwise, they are extremists.
What is funny is the unintended irony. If people consider abortion murder, then trying to stop abortion is a legitimate function of government, even limited government. Yet you would have us believe that laws against murder are an example “big government.” 🙄
What is big government? Big government happens when government sets out to deprive people of their rights. Do the unborn have the right to life? God knows. I do not. At what point can we definitely say the unborn deserve the protection of the law? You know? You are so wise? Would you care to explain how you got to be so wise? ❓
What I do know is that government has gotten too big when it forces people to pay for and participate in abortions. That is particularly true when so many believe that abortion is murder. I wonder. Does that kind of big government bother you?
@Slowpoke Rodriguez
Slowpoke, when you suggest candidates lay off the “social stuff,” I doubt you have considered the full implications. That is probably because of the news media. What really is the “social stuff?” Would “social stuff” have anything to do with all that spending our government is doing?
For years we have been conditioned to accept the Liberal media’s definition of social conservatism. It is about time social conservatives explained their own movement. For example, don’t parents have the right to raise their own children in their own religious beliefs without government interference? Yet if parents choose to send their children to a perfectly good and relatively inexpensive private school, our government has a hissy fit and penalizes them. Then the Liberals pretend government applies no pressure on parents to send their children to government-run schools.
Add Paladrino to the ‘no exception’ crew. Nice for a guy who has so much disrespect for women he forwards emails depicting women sodomizng horses. Sort of brings a new dimension to being an incubator.
Citizen Tom, I don’t argue about abortion with people. You may think what you want. You will never become pregnant so you have nothing to worry about.
Where do you stand on the rights of the father? If the woman has complete control over whether she will or will not have a baby, does the father have any say? If the woman wants to terminate against the father’s wishes, who is willing to care for the baby, does he have any rights to his child? If he wants to terminate and the woman is not willing to, should he pay child support?
If one does not have rights, must one be saddled with the responsibilities?
Moonhowler – You don’t argue about abortion? 😆
No, I never will become pregnant. Yet I do have something to worry about. I have children, and I have grandchildren. And there are still others I care about.
There is an old poem by John Donne. Some lines of it are deservedly famous, but whole of the poem is even better.
http://isu.indstate.edu/ilnprof/ENG451/ISLAND/text.html
Cargo, in a perfect world, and even in an imperfect world, hopefully men and women in a relationship would agree on the pregnancy. However, if they don’t, then I would say the woman has the final rights.
Pregnancy is unique to females. As it has been used to deny women professional jobs and employment, it also is uniquely hers to continue or discontinue.
CT,
I also have children, step children and grandchildren. Obviously neither of us is unque in that regard. I am pro choice. That is my political position. My personal feelings on the matter are just that…personal.
I have no problem with churches establishing moral behavior for their congregations. I do have a huge problem with churches tampering with public policy.
While Donne’s work may have special meaning for some, especially Catholics, it may have little if any significance for others.
It is best to leave religious opinions in the church and out of public policy.
And no, I don’t argue abortion. As I said, its a personal decision. I trust American women to make their own morally appropriate choices based on their own sense of ethics, religion, and circumstance.
@Moon-howler
It seems to me that your “huge problem with churches tampering with public policy” is disingenuous. What are people doing when they advocate for government solutions to poverty, education, health care, housing, drug addiction, and on and and on — and dollar after dollar after dollar. If they are not imposing their religious values upon others, what values are they imposing?
You want to keep churches out of the business of government? Then why don’t you advocate keeping government out of the business of churches? Is it because you don’t mean it? Do you rationalize? Is what you believe is not religion? It is just so true you don’t even have to defend it? Is there is just something wrong with those who disagree? Do they need to be silent, just listen, and pay the bill?
Well, I will argue about abortion, particularly when so-called opponents of religion in government piously insist I should pay for other people’s abortions.
I have no confusion about abortion being a personal decision. If that were so, then abortion proponents would not cover their shame by forcing others to participate.
It takes two people and God’s blessing to make a baby. And when that baby is aborted, it looks to me like murder. Murder is a public matter.
Wanting an educated society is a religious value? bwaaaahahahahahaha
Ok, whatever. That was quite a rant.
Argue about abortion with someone else. I am not sure why you think you are paying for someone else’s abortion.
Let me tell the posters on this blog who own penis’s and will NEVER EVER EVER get pregnant or give birth, leave this discussion to women. That is how I feel. No woman WANTS to go through an abortion, it is a difficult painful decision. Now, add rape or incest, and how DARE any person judge a woman for not wanting to carry that unwanted pregnancy to term. So, what “some” people are saying is that a man can have the freedom to rape a woman against her will, but she can’t have the freedom to abort the pregnancy. Hmmm, so rapists have more freedom than women. Now THAT is morally incomprehensible.
Where is your outrage over a 12 year old boy dying of an abcessed tooth because his mother does not have dental healthcare? Where is your outrage over abused children who die because social services is not funded enough to deal with the care of children when neglect is suspected? Where is your outrage over the level of children in poverty??????????????????????
Elena is referencing an article written for the Huffington Post by Moe Davis.
hittp://www.huffingtonpost.com/morris-davis/treating-kids-like-dogs-i_b_721759.html
Moonhowler – How people of different faiths regard education depends upon the faith. Christians generally have a high regard of education. Consider that the teachings of Christianity have been written down. If we cannot read, we cannot read the Bible. We cannot study history and understand the historical context of the events described by the Bible. Moreover, we cannot train archeologists to search the remains of ancient cities to further improve our understanding.
Have you ever considered the history of schools such as Yale and Harvard? Do you know how they got their start?
There was a time that scientists regarded their work as a form of worship. Some, no doubt, still do.
Elena – Incoherent rage rarely produces thoughts of any use.
When one of us commits a crime, part of the problem is that we cannot take it back. Restitution has its limits. If a criminal maims someone, doctors can only restore so much. If a murderer kills someone, a life has stopped. We can only bury and mourn over the remains.
Rape rarely results in pregnancy, but sometimes it does. Can we take it back, or can we merely commit another crime?
Where is my outrage for Geechy-Goochies suffering tentacle rot on the planet Welterhole on the fifth planet from the star Faraway in the Whoknowswhere galaxy? Darned if I know? Do greedy politicians have the right to take half of what we earn just to prove they — and you — care?
You got a holy cause? That is nice, but it does not give you the right to rob your neighbors. Why can’t you do something about it with your own time and money.
@Citizen Tom
And you do not have the right to make deeply personal decisions for the women of America.
Typical of the some of the anti-abortion crowd…you know, that old cradle to grave missing factor. You worry more about non-sentient embryos than about living breathing kids with rotten teeth. Don’t get holier than thou with us.
And Harvard trained unitarian and congregational ministers in its early day. What does that have to do with this discussion? Have you not said you don’t like the government providing schools? Must have been someone else.
I wish I could have this conversation face to face with you, I would hope your condescending tone would not be as obvious. Your point about rape being rare actually proves my point. If pregnancy by rape is so rare, why should the government intercede? Do you know someone who was impregnated due to a vicious rape? I do, in fact she is very close. Let me tell you something “Tom”, you should step down from your high horse and have a conversation, one on one, to a woman that was raped. She may tell you how not only the violation of rape was almost to much to overcome, but then the subsequent unwanted pregnancy was simply unfathomable to comprehend. It’s called empathy “Tom”, you may want to figure out how to get some.
moonhowler, please remove my comment above, thanks
done. My pleasure.
A friend of mine did homebound instruction for a 14 year girl, many years ago. The girl and her family lived mid county, where many ritzy homes are now located. The family had chickens running throughout the small house.
The friend was ill at ease about 2 men who were coming in each night as she left. She felt they were leering at her. She called the county and they said perhaps they should send a male out to do the homebound instruction rather than a woman. Then they dropped the bomb shell. Neither social services nor the school system knew if the father or the brother (the 2 leerers) had impregnanted the girl.
Right here in Prince William County–and yes it does happen. Sexual abuse is more commonplace than many of us think. Pregnancy is more likely with incest because of frequency. This girl didn’t have an abortion. Abortion was illegal and she would not have had the means to go where it wasn’t illegal. Who knows what she would have done if all options were open to her. That would have been her choice.
Moonhowler and Elena – Why do you both insist upon making this about me. Tom is on a “high horse.” Does somebody have to be arrogant just to disagree with you?
Why change the subject? Why do we have to talk about kids with rotten teeth and how I don’t care? How do we know I don’t care? Because I think it is ridiculous to call people extremists just because they are against abortion?
And why do we have to talk about how condescending I am? 🙄
I am perfectly willing to let both of you run your own lives. So long as they have to accept responsibility for their own decisions, I think the vast majority of people can and will make good decisions. That includes you two. I don’t think you are stupid or that I am any better. I just think you are wrong to insist that government run so much.
I want to keep religion out of government. What bothers you is that that includes your religion. Throughout history, theocracies have been quite common. Just because we label something secular does not make it secular.
Practice what you say you preach. Let churches do what they are suppose to do, and government do what it is suppose to do. Charity is not a government function. When government forces people to contribute to charity, there is nothing charitable about it, and that is the problem. Politics attracts ambitious men and women. When we give politicians the power to tax and spend without restraint and HOPE they will spend our money appropriately, we invite waste, fraud and abuse. Don’t you understand what it means to buy a pig in a poke?
And your paranoia about abortion is ridiculous. To succeed, any law requires three attributes:
1. We have to understand the law so we can obey it.
2. The public has to support the law.
3. Enforcement must be feasible.
An outright prohibition of abortion would fail on attributes 2 and 3. Because not enough of the public would support an outright prohibition of abortion, an outright prohibition of abortion fails on attribute 2. Even when abortion was illegal, people looked the other way. Because nature has made the mother an unborn child’s primary protector, an outright prohibition of abortion also fails on attribute 3. So best the best we can do is regulate abortion. Unfortunately, some people have made such a sacred cow out of killing babies they fight even that. When a woman can bring a baby to term and then kill it, that is sick.
Sounds like a high horse to me.
Actually no one turned a blind eye on abortion before Roe v Wade made it a legal medical service in all states. Illegal abortion was dangerous and women died or were maimed. Desperate women took ridiculous risks. Keeping abortion illegal was just one more way to control women.
There used to be lots of ways women were controlled. Shall I ennumerate?
I still would like to know if a father has any rights to an unborn child. And if said father wanted the pregnancy terminated, and the mother did not, should said father have to pay child support? I mean, isn’t that the same as a father being denied having the child to support when the mother wishes to terminate?
I’m not talking about rape or incest. I’m talking about to adults who decided to have sex. Does the male of the pair have ANY rights at all?
Legally, I do not believe so.
Moonhowler — Keeping abortion illegal was just one more way to control women? How do you reach that conclusion? Is everyone who disagrees with you evil? What about the women who adamantly oppose abortion?
How would have fifty different states resolved the matter of abortion on their own? I don’t know, but the problems with attributes 2 and 3 still apply. Unfortunately, some judges decided to take the matter into their own hands. Were those judges on a high horse? The Supreme Court, a bunch of old males, exceeded its authority.
When authorities make up the law to suit their own purposes, that is tyranny. Is a tyrant on a high horse? If someone forces people to do something they do not want to do and then pretends they have the right to do it, what should we say about that person? They are a good social engineer?
It appears you are highly concerned about women’s rights. If the People have no rights, what rights do you think women will have?
To protect our rights, we have a Constitution. Should what that Constitution actually says make a difference? If it does not, then what good is it?
When women have very little control over reproduction, they are second class citizens.
Check out countries where women has no control over reproduction and compare them economically to women who have choices.
For the record, I am opposed to a patchwork of aborton laws over 50 states.
Now. Tom, again, I am not going to argue with you about the morality of abortion. You are entitled to your own opinion and I am entitled to mine. I not sure what points you are trying to make but that’s ok. The only high horse we have spoken of is yours. And no, it isn’t all about you. You have chosen to draw attention to yourself.
Moonhowler –
If you care you list the countries in question, I suppect you would find rather quickly that most of the males are also second class citizens. Tyranny tends to have negative effects on everybody.
The Constitution chartered a republic of republics. That means each state has its own government and its own laws. If you want to change that….well, you do know that amending the Constitution requires a certain process?
Look at your post. After almost two hundred years, the Supreme Court suddenly evolved the Constitution and legalized abortion. You won’t discuss the morality of abortion, but you have no problem calling people against abortion names. If abortion is not a moral issue, what kind of issue is it?
You oppose busybodies in government, but you and other Liberal Democrats no problem using government to institute hugely expensive social programs that impose your own religious values on everyone else.
While I doubt the candidates you called names will be able to end abortion, it is possible that they will help our nation return to our traditions of republican (little r) government.
What point of am I trying to make? Yesterday was Constitution Day. I am a day late, but this seems as good a way as any to celebrate.
It took the Supremes a long time to come up with Brown vs Board of Education also. That’s the nature of the ball game with those Supreme Court Rulings.
I am under no obligation to discuss anything with you. Furthermore, I am not a Liberal Democrat. I haven’t imposed my religious values on anyone. I expect others to afford me the same courtesy.
Repeating: I have no problem with individual churches defining morality for their parishoners. That’s their job. They do not have the right to impose their morality on those who are not members of said church.
Tom,
This statement was quite arrogant in my opinion. You said:
“Elena – Incoherent rage rarely produces thoughts of any use.
When one of us commits a crime, part of the problem is that we cannot take it back. Restitution has its limits. If a criminal maims someone, doctors can only restore so much. If a murderer kills someone, a life has stopped. We can only bury and mourn over the remains.
Rape rarely results in pregnancy, but sometimes it does. Can we take it back, or can we merely commit another crime? ”
How about this statement regarding rape if you want to go along the lines of two wrongs don’t make a right. FORCING a woman to carry a fetus to term after rape is ANOTHER act of violation of her body. Are the RAPE and the FORCED pregnancy not two wrongs also?
I love it when anti choice people espouse their loathing of abortion and their love of life and yet say in the same breath that government needs to stop funding entitlement programs and stop “stealing” their money and “giving” it to others. Hmm, you must be EXCLUDING those women that you suggest should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and forcing them to financially support that baby also. THOSE women that you have no problem FORCING to carry an unwanted pregancy to term should also EXPECT YOUR financial help since you insisted on INSERTING yourself DIRECTLY into their lives.
‘No exceptions’ is probably one of the most insulting things I have ever heard. It forces women to become human incubators. And yes, it is extremism in its ugliest form.
No one is forcing an abortion on anyone as things stand. However, to even suggest ‘no exceptions’ as a law of this country forces motherhood on women, regardless of the sperm donor. I
@Elena
I am concerned about the lives of living children, as well as unborn children. So I read the Washington Post article referred to by Moe Davis. Once again, he left out some important facts.
It turns out that the boy with the abscess tooth should have been covered by Medicaid. Coverage for the boy lapsed because the mother did not follow through to get paperwork confirming eligibility. The family also had difficulty finding a dentist who accepted Medicaid, due to government bureaucracy and low payments.
But the point is this: the boy was supposed to be covered by government dental-care. I am EVER so certain that Obamacare will fix these problems and work so much better than Medicaid.
See the story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022702116.html
Somehow I am looking for why anyone should excuse any of this.
Would things have been different if he had dental care? We don’t know. I wasn’t in this fight…but I fail to see what health care coverage has to do with any of this. Obviously this family qualifies for govt. medical assistance. Does it matter if it is medicaid or ‘Obamacare?’
@Moon-howler
You’re missing the point. When the poor boy was mentioned, it was said that he had no health care. He had health care. It was the parent that failed to do paperwork, and the government that has made it TOO EXPENSIVE for the providers to provide the health care through the government programs.
Doing more of the same through “Obamacare” is the travesty. That’s why there was snark that “Obamacare” would be “so much better.
If a man has no legal rights to his children and no control over their birth, then men should also have no responsibilities that have not been negotiated before hand. One cannot have obligations without rights. Since it takes both to make said children, and the woman has ALL of the rights, then, why should men be forced to accept any obligations automatically?