The Republican National Committee has come up with a 100 page report, making clear that the party is in deep trouble because it is seen by the general population as “too old, too white, too insular”, and that a change of “tone” is needed!
Actually, the report does not go far enough, as the party is also seen as a party that is against women, against Hispanics and Latinos, against African Americans, against Asian Americans, against the younger generation, against gays and lesbians, against the poor, against the working class, against the middle class, against the environment, against labor unions, against science, against the environment—while being pro the top two percent, pro corporation, pro foreign policy interventions overseas, pro extreme right wing evangelical Christianity, pro gun rights, and condemning of the news media, the universities, and the entertainment industry!
The GOP has a need to change a great deal, but based on the Conservative Political Action Conference display of its motivations and statements, and the embarrassment of many of the speakers, including Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann among many others, their road back to majority status is a very long one, and possibly will never occur!
So the people that took the Republican party to defeat by nominating and promoting the moderate Republican version of Obama, that is Romney with his Massachusetts healthcare plan, the people who gave us “pro-amnesty – across the aisle – never attack Obama” McCain, the people who just want to be loved by the media and establishment are now going to lecture us? They have no clue. If the McCains, the Romneys, the Roves and the Grahams of the RePUBICan Party would have attacked the most attackable President in history as they constantly attack conservative/classic liberals Republicans , then maybe just maybe the results would have been different. But a RePUBICan establishment leadership that failed to have the base of the party come out and vote has no authority to decide anything!They are losers, they are the media and Democrats favorite because they are losers. Thus they must be defeated, and sent home as failures. This is just another example of the “ruling class’ that belong to the “DemoPublican” Party, that just wants to sustain the status-quo that is taking us down a path of economic and fiscal destruction. They as the “DemoPublican ruling class” have taken the country down fiscal insolvency, and now they want to lecture? We need to lead, not follow polls or focus groups. We need to explain and show the way. We need to show principles and commitment not bend over backwards to satisfy every trendy fad that the media together with the ruling class puts out there so we don’t pay attention to whats really going on! The EU just confiscated, stole 6 – 10% of the people of Cyprus deposits, a flagrant attack on freedom on private property, and what does the US government say? Nothing. The EU said we are just going to do this one time only,now they are thinking of doing it in Italy. Do you think that cannot happen here? Do you think its impossible when the government already has studies to take over our 401k! In the meantime we are following the master like sheep on secondary issues, gay marriage, immigration reform , gun control, and so on. They are so incompetent that they never think things through. The establishment RePUBICans tells us the Hispanics are Republicans in the waiting, that they have conservative traditional family values, but on the other hand they are now saying that we have to go along with gay marriage? How is that going to attract the so called Hispanic Republicans in the making? It’s nonsense and irrational! Makes no sense whatsoever.And by the way all this Hispanics are really conservative traditional family crap is a bunch of BS. Hispanics which are 65% of Mexican heritage vote 70% Democrat because they believe in the big government Democrat party values! They believe as Hispanics that government is the provider and creator of wealth! So they will never vote for strong small government conservative/classic liberal ideas! It’s nonsensical! It’s irrational. Yet there you have some Republicans and even conservatives talking about amnesty for illegal immigrant! As if that is going to help the Party! The only party it will help if the Democrat Party.Yet the establishment RePUBICans always promoting amnesty, even after Reagan, in one of his few mistakes, went along with it and proved it was detrimental to America and only favored the Democrat Party. But did that ever deter the McCains, the Bush’s and the Graham’s? No they just keep pushing for a suicidal solution for America. And now they want to eliminate any opposition to their establishment DemoPublican ruling class. Well guess what? It ain’t gonna happen!
Reince Priebus is incompetent.
Under Michael Steele, the Republican party won the 2009 gubernatorial races, in pickups, with New Jersey and Virginia. There was the January 2010 special Senate election in, of all places, Massachusetts (pickup). There were six Senate seats and 65 House seats which were 2010 Republican pickups. (Obviously this included winning over majority control of the House.) So Steele’s reward was to that he was ousted.
Under Reince Priebus the Republicans lost, in a special spring 2011 election, New York’s 26th Congressional District which is nearly the reddest in the all of the Empire State. Under Priebus, the party had a ridiculously prolonged period of overkill of debates (let’s not pretend he is immune to that!). Under Priebus, the Republicans lost in 2012 the Senate seat in Indiana (in spite of Mitt Romney having flipped the state). Under Priebus, the Republicans lost two Senate seats and nearly ten House seats (and failed to nationally win the popujlar vote with the House despite the built-in advantage of gerrymandering).
This Republican party thinks Reince Priebus was what they needed and rewarded him, after his string of electoral failures, another term as the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Very good point you make, D! Thanks!
The Republican party won the House and gubernatorial races in 2009/10 in spite of the Republican establishment leadership. With Steele, during the primaries the leadership of the party went against Rubio in Florida, against Rand Paul in Kentucky, against Allen West, against Mike Lee, and against every single conservative candidate that went up against an establishment RePUBICan type candidate. Republicans — needing a gain of 10 seats to win Senate control — picked up at least six, with the race for a Democratic-controlled seat in Washington state remaining too close to call. The party lost three Senate races — in Delaware, Colorado and Nevada — that featured Tea Party-backed candidates who had won primaries over candidates whom most Republican officials considered more electable. The most painful Nov. 2 Senate loss for Republican leaders occurred in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid fended off a challenge from Sharron Angle, a Tea Party darling. But what did McCain and the Republican establishment do? The conspired and rallied against her, as they did in Delaware and Colorado and with every conservative candidate. At the same time the 28 Republican candidates endorsed by FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express or former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin won House races across the country, 22 Blue Dog Democrats were going down to defeat. Six of the group’s 53 members had previously said they would not seek re-election. At least 10 of the seats held by Blue Dog Democrats were won by Tea Party Republicans. In Colorado, for example, Tea Party-backed businessman Scott Tipton beat three-term Blue Dog Democrat John Salazar. In Florida, Steve Southerland, a Republican who co-founded a local Tea Party group, defeated seven-term Democrat Allen Boyd, also a member of the Blue Dog Coalition. Businessman Jim Renacci, who was endorsed by FreedomWorks, the Tea Party Express and Palin, defeated Representative John Boccieri, an Ohio Democrat who was part of the freshman class that rode into office as part of President Barack Obama’s 2008 victory. And I could go on and on regarding that period. So the Tea Party Reagan conservatives gave Boehner the speakership and what did the Party do? Conspire again against conservatives like Ted Cruz, in the 2011/12 primaries, but this time with Priebus who was more successful than Steele in defeating conservatives within the party and handing Obama his reelection.And to reward him the establishment RePUBICans reelected him as Chairman, as good little foot soldiers of the “DemoPublican” Party. At least Charlie Christ is more honest and revealed his true colors!
The History Channel program, The Bible, has caused some controversy.
Surprise, suprise that I actually agreed with Glenn Beck on this one, although my reaction to it was different from his. (Me = angered, shocked, outraged. Him = excited)
It’s very obvious that the producers of the show deliberately picked out some guy who looks like Obama to play the Devil in the program.
It is outrageous, and shows that the History Channel has become a channel not worth watching most of the time, since most of what they present now is junk!
Yes Hollywood does sometimes controversial things. But hey, I don’t know what the fuss is about? I didn’t hear any liberals a few years ago complain about the beheading of “Bush” in a Game of Thrones episode (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/fake-head-of-george-bush-in-game-of-thrones-sparks-ire/). Or when they made a movie about Bush being assassinated, the media and liberals defended it as free speech and even awarded it.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5333220.stm) & (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB1o13YE0bo). In this case, well I’m not that sure it was done on purpose. I mean they chose and actor that looks nothing like Obama, the guy has long hair really when compared to Obama, but when the put on the makeup and he puts on his hood, then…Oops. What are you going to do? Fire the actor?
Juan
Considering the fact that I never heard of those supposed Bush controversies before, I have a very hard time believing you.
Southern: Is it so difficult to check the links I posted? I don’t doubt you have never heard of them before, if you only watch the liberal mainstream media that would not be surprising. In any event I have posted an ABC link to the “War of Thrones” episode and a link and clip from the movie of the Bush assassination. But as we say in Argentina, “The only thing worse than a blind man is someone who does not want to see.”
@Juan
LOL!
Now, now, Juan and White Female Southern Christian Progressive, let’s try to get along! LOL
Actually, Juan is correct in what he said about the ABC series and the film, and I think that was totally uncalled for in both cases, just as this person looking much like Obama might be accidental, but is certainly in poor taste. The media and entertainment industry has gone downhill rapidly, and this is all very disturbing!
Professor,
I guess the reason I never heard about it is because I wasn’t a political junkie at the time. I didn’t hang out on political blogs at the time like I do now. I didn’t watch anything like MSNBC at night like I do now.
@ Juan
I have learned that much of the media is conservative, not liberal/progressive.
For more info, read this: http://www.winningprogressive.org/to-win-progressives-must-speak-out
Southern, your story regarding the Pew study is old and has been debunked. This is the original study which I had on my files, ( http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/cr?src=prc-headline ) If you are an “open-minded liberal” please take your time and read thoughtfully and objectively the following explanation of why the study is flawed. See: ( http://www.mrc.org/bias-alerts/debunking-claims-anti-obama-media-bias ). Basically Pew’s methodology is seriously flawed: “First, they didn’t study what most people would consider ‘the media.’ Second, their definition of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ press doesn’t match what media experts consider ‘favorable’ or ‘unfavorable’ coverage. And, third, the researchers didn’t really even look at the stories — they let a computer… churn through the words and determine whether an assertion was pro- or anti-Obama.”
In other words, Pew is not actually tracking how the press — journalists, reporters, commentators, etc. — are evaluating, ranking, spinning, etc., the campaign. Their sample is so heavy with redundant Web posting of the same horse race results that it completely masks the spin that journalists impart to the coverage.Think about it this way: Can any serious media observer argue that the media elite have been more positive towards Christian conservative Rick Santorum than Barack Obama? On its face, this study is not measuring what it purports to measure, i.e., the tone of campaign journalism.
Just look at NYT headline regarding CPAC “GOP divisions fester at conservative retreat.†George Will, a man who actually knows a thing or two about conservatism, responded to the NYT’s use of the word “fester†on ABC News’s This Week. “Festering: an infected wound, it’s awful. I guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, the New York Times’ headline would be ‘Healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.’†http://www.mediaite.com/tv/george-will-proclaims-libertarian-ascendance-at-cpac-trashes-new-york-times-coverage-of-conference/
@Juan
ROFL!
@ Juan
That Winning Progressive blog posts the truth. I trust them more than I trust your comments.
Southern: Again: “The only thing worse than a blind man, or woman in your case, is someone who does not want to see.†All I am doing is putting forth a rational explanation using the Pew Study’s own polling data and mechanism to demonstrate its shortcomings. Instead of responding with more data and another rationale to refute what I have posted, you respond first with; a) an unconditioned response (ROFL),- I don’t think you are even capable of a Pavlovian conditioning by the way-, and then with b) an act of faith,”That Winning Progressive blog posts the truth. I trust them more than I trust your comments”,-which by the way are not “my” comments. Maybe I was just asking to much of you. If that is the case, then I apologize, it was not my intention to cause whatever synapse you may have to short-circuit.
@ Juan
LOL! I reassure you that no “synapse” has short circuited. I simply find your comments to be like too many other conservative talking points I’ve encountered in my blogging experience – laughable and untrustworthy.
I very much agree with what another poster, Maggie, said in another post. You’re predictable. You wait for the Professor to post something, then you try miserably to educate us with your obviously regurgitated crazy conservative talking points. Just like other posters here, I can’t take you seriously. Good day to you.
Some info about Republicans more likely to hold false beliefs:
http://www.winningprogressive.org/the-republican-brain-part-i-what-we-know-that-aint-so
http://www.winningprogressive.org/the-republican-brain-part-ii-politics-psychology-and-biology
http://www.winningprogressive.org/the-republican-brain-part-iii-changing-minds-a-qa-with-chris-mooney
A little bit of humor. Oh yes, they walk among us…..and they vote! This will increase your feelings of “All is fine and secure” within our country! BUT – they know ALL ABOUT JayLo and her tattoos, really important stuff like that! Meet the average drone. Do you want to know how Obama got elected and why our country is in the shape it is in? Watch this… http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=3gXOV_XWJck
Southern: Try reading “A conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. You may learn something. Good day.
I’ve been lurking here but had to come out and state that I am also very much agree with everything Southern has said. I think it’s also amusing how Juan comes here just to be argumentative.
Now, to combat his falsehood about the sequester: http://www.winningprogressive.org/if-the-sequester-had-been-obamas-idea-it-wouldnt-exist
Did a bit of searching about Thomas Sowell. The guy is conservative and libertarian.
I counteract Juan by recommending Tom Allen’s book, Dangerous Convictions, to understand the two parties’ very different worldviews.
Here are some links:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/dangerous-convictions-tom-allen/1111950252
http://www.winningprogressive.org/dangerous-convictions-part-i-two-parties-two-worldviews
http://www.winningprogressive.org/dangerous-convictions-part-ii-two-principles-four-cases
http://www.winningprogressive.org/dangerous-convictions-part-iii-investing-in-pie
Pragmatic: What you write is amusing, “Did a bit of searching about Thomas Sowell. The guy is conservative and libertarian.” . So? Does that disqualify him?It’s amazing that you did not know who Thomas Sowell is. I bet you do not know who Walter Williams is either. This just proves what I have said many times, in essence progressive leftist liberals do not know who we conservatives/classic liberals are or what our principles are. Whatever you think you know about is comes through the filter of progressive liberal view, like Tom Allen. You may know of Hayek, Friedman, Burke, Locke , Madison or any other conservative/classic liberal, but I doubt you have ever read them, though you might have read what progressive/liberals taught you about them. We on the other hand know progressive/liberalism quite well, we have been spoon fed their ideas all our life, had to read their books all throughout our education and have been bombarded by progressive ideals 24/7 by the media, Hollywood and so on. Progressives/liberals on the other hand have no idea nor never had to read or study the Sowells and Hayeks. And if you did, you were presented a caricature of conservative/classic liberal thought. Which is what your links promote, a caricature of conservatism/classic liberalism.
@ Juan
Ha. Ha. Ha. It’s so obvious that you don’t know anything about liberals and progressives.
What makes me, Southern, the Professor, and other liberals and progressives who post here liberals and progressives is our shared belief in the values expressed in the Pledge of the United States – freedom and justice for ALL. Our liberal and progressive beliefs date back to America’s founding.
You can read more info here: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2010/10/08/8489/the-progressivism-of-americas-founding/
Southern: I know all about Croly and have read Beard’s Economic interpretation of the Constitution. I used to be a die hard leftist. So sorry, I used to stand where you stand now on politics. And by the way, there are just to words that are the basis for all the analysis of the left which I do not agree with nor believe in as a manageable concept, “social justice”.
LOL Juan! Can’t you read? It was I, Pragmatic Liberal that posted, NOT Southern.
Juan
My religious beliefs have been part of what has helped shape my political beliefs. I believe in helping the least of these, as the New Testatment teaches.
Here’s some info about how religion has shaped liberal and progressive beliefs:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/report/2010/10/08/8490/the-role-of-faith-in-the-progressive-movement/
Like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and other founders, I also strongly advocate freedom of conscience, religious tolerance, and strict separation of church and state as represented in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Juan
I started out conservative simply because my family was and all my Christian friends as well. It wasnt until the last 10 years or so that I literally felt like I woke up as I really listened to the messages of the right-wing…and I truly felt something was not sitting well with me. Thus began my journey to being a liberal.
@ Pragmatic
First, I would like to say, Bravo! to you! 🙂
Second, I also had a similar conversion.
Pragmatic: Well good for you. I was more inclined towards statism/leftism, progressivism/socialism/Marxist inspired world view of the issues. I also not only believe in helping those in need, but I have, do and will always help those in need. Preaching is easy, doing is another issue. Being committed to helping is quiet different than copping out because “I pay my taxes thus the government should take care of it”. It is a totally different level of commitment. Thus I don’t see where some people get off assuming that to care for those less fortunate than us you must be a leftist liberal. I see no compassion in statism, in big government. I see no compassion on the left, which today calls itself “liberal”. To the rest of the world , those of us who are called conservatives in the US are called Liberal. In other words, liberal in a classical sense. Thus we are truly the tolerant and open to discourse. We do not believe in a one fits all solution because each of us in unique and unrepeatable. But you know all this. Regarding the First Amendment, when you say you believe in “strict separation of Church and State” you seem to confuse, as well as Justice Black did, French Laicism with Secularism and we all know where Black got his “wall of separation” phrase.From a letter Jefferson wrote years after the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson by the way was not at the Convention. Our system does not bar religious conduct in public places or by public servants. Also for example the military includes government-paid religious chaplains to provide for the spiritual needs of soldiers. By your tone, you give the impression that you would believe that this is wrong.
In US politics, since you are right-wing, you are not a liberal.
Of course not, since the “modern liberal” in the US is actually the left which is in reality “anti-liberal” in the world of political thought. Thus I am a proud classic liberal/conservative!
Well, you’ve been spoon-fed the wrong information. Here’s the truth: The US Left is not “anti-liberal”. It is the US Right that is “anti-liberal”. With that said, I end this conversation.
Excellent post Pragmatic! 🙂
@Pragmatic: The left can never be Liberal in a classical sense. So if the modern day “American Liberal” is Progressive, is leftist , I am sorry but that is the antithesis of what classic Liberalism is and today “Modern day liberalism” has practically nothing in common with Classical Liberalism (known today in the US as Conservatism). Progressivism was and is the opposite of Classical Liberalism.
Juan
Pragmatic has ended the conversation with you. However I will reply only one time to correct you. Liberal is liberal, whether it is “classic” or “modern”.
Professor,
I’ve shortened my name from A White Female Southern Christian Progressive to just Southern Progressive. Sorry for the duplicate posts above Juan’s most recent post. You may remove one if you wish.
Juan
I now end the conversation with you.
@Southern: As always no intellectual back-up for what you state. Cheers!
Juan is a radical libertarian. Here is some info about radical libertarianism: http://www.winningprogressive.org/we-the-people-part-i-what-are-we
We the People are all here, together, on this pale blue dot. The Earth is our lifeboat, our home and not our trash can. Progressives know it’s immoral to throw people over the side. Each person in the lifeboat matters.
Progressives have little problem throwing the millions of waiting to be born in the trash Can.
Dave,
If your wife or daughter were raped, would you want her to have the rapist’s baby?
If you knew that your wife or daughter might die due to complications of childbirth, would you want her to still have the baby?
Those are perfectly acceptable reasons for a woman to have an abortion.
Teen pregnancy is yet another perfectly acceptable reason for an abortion. Would you want your daughter to drop out of school to take care of a baby or would you want her to graduate?
The bottom line about abortions is is that it is a myth that women have abortions for selfish or frivolous reasons.
I totally agree with you, Young Progressive! And it is NOT the job of ANY MAN to tell a woman what to do with her body, anymore than a man would want someone to tell him what to do with his body. After all, the man causes the pregnancy by his actions, and no one stops him from his decision to engage in sex, and too often, women get put into a position where they are put into poverty by a man making her pregnant and then leaving the scene, OR a woman being raped, much more than many people realize!
Ron: Abortion is definitely not an easy issue. Nevertheless I do not believe that we as men have no say on the issue. It is not simply about a woman’s body, it is about an innocent life. Women hate to hear this, but it’s the truth. Its not an appendix they are doing away with its a life. In any event both man and woman are responsible, and the underlying problem is that we have created now for decades generations that to a large degree have not been taught personal responsibility. So men get women pregnant and they leave, women get pregnant and somehow it is not their responsibility either. Everything is the same, no distinction between what is right or wrong because God forbid you are imposing your morality on someone and so here we are now. We have teen pregnancy yet great part of the “culture” encourages teen to have sex, then when they get pregnant we say have an abortion and don’t tell your parents. And so on. I understand the case of rape and when the mother’s life is in danger. But we know full well that the majority of abortions are not due to those causes. Decades of encouraging behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success have created this mess. Given the choice between promoting teenage abstinence and teenage promiscuity part of the culture used their movies, their TV shows, their songs, even the schools to promote teenage promiscuity as if it’s cool: like the movie American Pie, in which you are a loser unless you’ve had sex with your best friend’s mother while you’re still a child. Conversely, NARAL, a pro-abortion group masquerading as a pro-choice group, will hold a fund-raiser called “‘Fuck Abstinence.” There’s a brilliant book out there called The ClosÂing of the American Mind by Professor Allan Bloom. Professor Bloom was trying to figure out in the 1980s why his students were suddenly so stupid, and what he came to was the realization, the recogÂnition, that they’d been raised to believe that indisÂcriminateness is a moral imperative because its opposite is the evil of having discriminated. In other words, in order to eliminate discrimination, the modern liberal culture has opted to become utterly indiscriminate. Indiscriminateness of thought invariably leads to side with evil over good, wrong over right, and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Because in a world where you are indiscriminate, where no behavior is to be deemed better or worse than any other, your expectation is that all behavior should lead to equally good outÂcomes. When, in the real world, different behaviors lead to different outcomes, you (I hope) and I know why– because we think. We know why communities that promote teenage promiscuity tend to fail at a greater rate than communities that promote teenage abstiÂnence: Teenage promiscuity and teenage abstinence are not the same behaviors. Teenage abstinence is a better behavior.
Forget the moral component for a moment; let’s just talk practicalities. If your boy’s out messing around, he’s not home reading a book. If your daughter’s down at the abortion mill again, she’s not at the library studying for the SATs. If your son’s in a hospital bed somewhere dying of AIDS, he’s not putting together his five-year plan. You and I recognize why communities that proÂmote teenage abstinence do better than those that promote teenage promiscuity in their music, in their movies, in the schools. But some in the culture and those that make policy cannot make that judgment–must not make that judgment–because that would be discriminating. They have no explanation for behaviors that lead to success.Therefore, the only explanaÂtion for success has to be that somehow success has cheated. Success, simply by its existence, is proof positive to for them that some kind of chiÂcanery and likely bigotry. Failure, simply by its existence–no other evidence needed, just the fact that it has failed–is enough proof to them that failÂure has been victimized.
Juan, I cannot disagree with much of what you have said, as I believe in morality and ethics above all, but there are still too many people who should not have kids when they are not ready or prepared. Ideally, abstinence would be best, no question about it!
i am pro-choice on the matter because I believe that morals and ethics are an individual thing, not something that should be dictated.
The same old progressive rationalizations for mass genocide. We are all paying the price of decades of progressive social experimentation.
@Young: So in the following hypothetical lets say a couple decides to have sex in front of everyone while traveling on a train.(This actually happened in England a few years ago) Should they be detained or should they be allowed to proceed because ” morals and ethics are an individual thing”? Should there be no “social outrage” towards that behavior because morals and ethics are not something that should be dictated? You are free to choose your own morality, and man has always been free to choose his morality, but does that mean that there should be no social outrage towards any behavior? Do you believe that “social outrage” toward certain behaviors are “dictatorial”?
The word “genocide†is a relatively recent construct, drawing from the Greek genos for “race, kind†and the Latin -cide for “killer.â€
A man named Raphael Lemkin coined the term. As a Polish Jew and scholar of international law, Lemkin’s studies assumed much more personal significance when he witnessed Hitler invade Poland, demonize his religion and murder his family on the grounds of a twisted theory of racial superiority.
Surviving World War II, Lemkin emerged as a leading proponent of a legally binding international agreement prohibiting genocide. In 1948 the nascent United Nations unanimously adopted the landmark Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — the product of Lemkin’s activism and a triumph for untold millions of victims.
Labeling abortion “genocide†is wrong. That’s not my opinion — it’s etymological fact. Lemkin arrived at the term genocide precisely because its roots, genos and -cide, capture the nature of the events that he sought to illustrate: the purposeful extermination of an ethnic group. In Lemkin’s lifetime, this meant Armenians and Jews. Over the next several decades, that list of victims would tragically come to include Muslims in Bosnia, Tutsis in Rwanda, East Timorese under Indonesian occupation and other groups victimized for their shared heritage, common social identity or expressed beliefs. Sorry, but fetuses don’t qualify.
Juan
I believe that “social outrage” towards LGBT people and towards people having abortions is dictatorial.
I believe putting LGBT in the same category as “abortion” is in itself outrageous!
Professor,
Regarding abstinence-only sex education:
Studies have shown that it doesn’t work. Here’s some info: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/14/482665/birth-control-misinformed/?mobile=nc
@Young: Whenever a woman is pregnant. Do we ever say to her, “How is your fetus?” or do we say, “How is your baby?”
Juan
Many right-wingers I’ve encountered consider them both “evil”.
@Young: Of course abstinence programs will not work when teens are engulfed in a culture that promotes promiscuity in teens! This is just one more example of having a government program trying to solve an issue. Just because an abstinence program does not work does not mean that the “practice of abstinence” in teens does not work! You are confusing a government program with individual behavior. I am all for awareness and education , but that in a society that has lowered its moral threshold leads to the results we have.
@Young: In any event there is a difference of degree. As a Catholic I believe that homosexual conduct is a sin, as well as adultery and many other sins, but Christ enjoins us to love the sinner even more strongly than we hate the sin. Abortion is also a sin because it is murder. Thus both are evil behaviors. But there is a degree to everything and not being able to distinguish between a sinful sexual behavior and murder, as you imply, is preposterous!
It has the potential to become a baby, but it is not yet a baby until it can survive out of the womb, unaided.
How about women who miscarry? That’s natural abortion. I guess they’ll be charged with involuntary manslaughter.
@ Young: When its a natural abortion there is no action being taken by the mother. Thus there is no analysis of intent at all. In an involuntary manslaughter there is an action being taken by the person who without intent kills someone.
@Young: Therefore you say to your friends who happen to be pregnant, “How is the fetus?” , “How is the potential baby”? May I ask, what value does the “potential baby” in your opinion have? Zero?
I am a Unitarian Universalist. Unitarian Universalism was formed from the merger of the Unitarian and Universalist Churches. Unitarian Universalists have long been active promoters of equal rights for all, having been very prominent in the fight against segregation, for access to abortion, and for equal rights for women. They continue this tradition by advocating equal rights for gays and lesbians, including the right to marry.
Good for you Younger. But you have not answered my question. Do Unitarians ask a pregnant woman “How is your body?” or “How is your baby?” . May I ask again, what value, if any, does the “potential baby†in your opinion have?
Legally and scientifically, a fetus is not considered a human being. Some religions claim they are human beings while other religions do not. However, from a medical view, a fetus is simply a group of cells and nothing more.
@Young: Therefore in your opinion it has zero value? The human fetus has no worth whatsoever in your opinion. Correct?
“Baby” is a politically charged term, because it is something to be protected and cherished, and when used in the abortion debate context it brings an emotional context.
As I educated you about, scientifically an unborn child is not a baby.
Now, I have some errands to run this evening, so I will be exiting the conversation now.
Juan
You need to watch Cider House Rules. It brings up the topic of abortions, when they were illegal.
@Young: I ask you if a “Human Fetus” had any value for you. I did not say baby. Good night.
Juan
You need to see Cider House Rules. It brings up the topic of abortion and points out that it’s not an easy decision to make.
Juan
This is Young Progressive’s husband. My wife and I have been through the experience of an abortion. We did so because we weren’t financially ready to have a child at the time. It wasn’t an easy decision to make. If it were possible to change some other life circumstances to make having a baby a realistic option, then my wife would have chosen to carry to term.
Idol: I saw the movie and I know from a close relationship I have with one of my best friends that abortion is not an easy decision generally speaking. But on the other hand I have another close friend , a coworker, who has had about 3 abortions already and for her its like going to the dentist. In any event I never said it was an easy decision , especially for those that realize the moral implications. And I am not nor was I talking about the legality of the issue either. As for Young Southern and her husband, I am truly sorry about the situation they went through, and please understand that my questions were for the sake of clarifying and comprehending the other sides point of view not for accusing or judging anyone.That’s why I ask the question, what value , if any , does a human fetus, and I grant you its not a baby, cluster of cells or whatever you wish to call it have? If for you it is zero, nothing, because it is just a group of cells, well then I accept your point of view. But I would then ask, is it a group of cells up to the time just before birth? If so, then would it be ok to have an abortion on the 8th month? Bear in mind I am not talking about a case in which the life of the mother is in danger or if she got pregnant due to rape.
Juan
First of all, it’s Young Progressive, not Young Southern.
My husband and I don’t consider the fetus to be a baby until the abortion time limit has passed, which is around 20-24 weeks.
Juan
Beliefs about personhood varies from person to person. You can read more about that here: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_is_a_fetus_considered_a_baby
What Young Progressive seems to be doing is educating you about that fact.
iJuan,
Idol Girl is correct. Here is some of the information I was posting here to educate you about: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/F%C5%93tus
That link should read: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Foetus
Some Unitarian Universalist information about abortion: http://www.questformeaning.org/reflecting/post/abortion
Some Unitarian Universalist information about LGBT: http://www.questformeaning.org/reflecting/post/marriage-equality-and-lgbt-rights
“The defining moment for me leaving my job as Director of Planned Parenthood was assisting and witnessing a live ultrasound abortion procedure and seeing a 13-week old child struggle for his life inside his mother’s womb. For the briefest moment the baby looked as if it were being wrung like a dishcloth, twirled and squeezed. And then it crumpled and began disappearing into the cannula before my eyes. The last thing I saw was the tiny, perfectly formed backbone sucked into the tube, and then it was gone. It was really shocking for me to witness that mainly because I had been told by Planned Parenthood that the fetus didn’t have any sensory development until [later].†– Abby Johnson, Planned Parenthood “Employee of the Year” in 2008.
Juan
You can post as many quotes, etc. as you want but it’s still not going to change viewpoints of progressives and liberals posting here.
Maybe your better bet would be centrist blogs.