America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
The man obviously knows what he´s talking about in this well-written piece, though I loved more his use of metaphor/analogy in a previous article, even though irony did win with an upper cut. :-)
The man obviously knows what he´s talking about in this well-written piece, even though I liked his previous article more and his use of metaphor/analogy, and though irony won with an upper cut. :-)
I always enjoy reading this man´s commentary. He has such good sense and seems to realize better than some in Congress that the only way anything ever does get done is with bipartisanship and some compromise. And he certainly realizes it better than the more ultra-conservative partyliners in the general Republican population who seem to expect the same of Congress. I´m one person who believes that at least a ban on all late-term abortions might have been enacted by now if more in both parties were willing to compromise. But then, what do I know? I´m simply a former pro-choice person who became pro-life only after I had an abortion between five and six weeks into the pregnancy. I now believe that the next step to complete illegality, after a late-term ban, is to make all abortion illegal past six weeks into the pregnancy. And the father of the baby, if known, should be forced to participate in the decision. There should be not only the right for him to have a say, but the expectation that he will. My how I´ve always regretted that I never called the number listed on a bus-stop bench in Spokane some time after I had the abortion with the message "Had an abortion? Call 1-800-Let´s Sue."
"We shall see. I like to think that Americans have enough common sense to step back from the abyss, but I´m not betting on it, either."muddydog, as someone who is living solely on my low Social Security entitlement that I helped pay for through the years -- and that only with an additional form of welfare from the federal government -- it takes not only common sense from many of us who depend on entitlements and welfare, but private-sector welfare and a number of family members willing and able to provide assistance in the face of deep cuts to those entitlements. But I have enough common sense to see that it is unlikely in the face of constant reminders that people here and around the world would believe that it´s unimportant whether or not the dollar is sound, only that the people believe the dollar is sound, which is what liberals seem to believe. Me? I believe there is likely to be means testing of Social Security benefits whichever candidate wins.
I assumed as much about the ectopic pregnancy, but obviously that´s one of the reasons why I´m against a personhood amendment. It must be one of those rather odd facts of female biology though, that the developing embryo would gain enough nourishment outside the uterus itself to grow big enough to rupture before it died and/or miscarried. Interesting. As for the ultrasound requirement, if it´s unnecessary, maybe a better tactic the pro-life cause should require is a more thorough discussion of the emotional effects some women suffer after having an abortion, as I did many years ago. And that´s not only the issue that pro-choice people always want to avoid, but something maybe the male biology you learned didn´t cover any better than the fact that it takes two to tango, and two to make a decision to abort the child two of you created together, usually quite willingly. Many men, I´d wager, often ignore the issue if it´s broght up by saying "That´s YOUR decision."
As to your questions, rmaynord, at no time did I say in my statements that any politician of any stripe doesn´t play to (s)his audience. Obama campaigned for Obamacare decryiing the individual mandate and we see what happened when it passed.Congress (except those who ask for funding from anyone who appears on a given political party´s congressional or senatorial committee, such as Michelle Bachmann) generally plays to individual constituencies, while presidents obviously have to appeal to the wider national audience. Nethercutt campaigned as pro-choice as I recall, while most of us doubt that he didn´t vote the party line once in office. Big news, right, that they all do what they must to win.As for your statement that "real" conservatives don´t support Romney, it´s doubtful that conservatives of any stripe would prefer Obama to win to voting for Romney regardless of how strongly they disagree with the latter´s flip-flopping.
rmaynord: First of all, when politicians talk about the 47% who pay no taxes, they specifically refer to federal income taxes, not the sales and gax taxes that almost all of us pay. Second, the accusations that Romney makes no exceptions for health of the mother, etc., is simply untrue, as he has stated many times before.Your comment about a Personhood Amendment, however, is quite true, and I´m against any such amendment, even though I think it would be nigh-unto impossible to get it through. I was thinking of my pro-life beliefs, along with Planned Parenthood´s stated wish for abortion for any reason and their constant scare tactics they use in their requests for contributions, and their apparent fear of their bodies and lives being controlled, not the quagmire of legal questions and entanglements that obviously would ensue if the Personhood Amendment actually were adopted.I am puzzled, however, as to why you include miscarriage in your belief that the government would be overreaching in simply making abortions for any and all reasons illegal, as they were as recently as 1966. Obviously they could and would not include ectopic pregnancies, which likely would end in miscarriage anyway, though I´m not a dotor and not familiar with what happens.
All Comments »
Website powered by Foundation