In the closing moments of a segment on the June 19, 2007, episode of Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes asserted, "Most Americans are pro-choice."
The truth? Well, it depends what poll you look at. In the specific issue of "pro-choice" vs. "pro-life," Colmes might want to take a look at a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll from last month, May 4-6, 2007. 1,028 adults were questioned. The margin of error is ±3%. (source, scroll down)
"With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?"
Pro-choice 45% Pro-life 50% (Other answers comprised 5%)
To be fair, Gallup has been asking this exact same question for several years, and in a May 2007 survey, it has it 49% pro-choice and 45% pro-life (MoE ±3%). However, since August 2005, pro-life has been mostly trending upwards (and pro-choice always downwards) in the last three surveys.
PollingReport.com is a great place to peruse a lot of the different polls on this issue over the past few years.
Comments Policy
This (along with the obviou
June 20, 2007 - 15:47 ET by sarcasmoThis (along with the obvious racist legacy of the death penalty, which most supporters like me truly hope is finally over I'm sure as sincerely as most supporters of the drugwar hope it's similar racist legacy is over) is the most powerful argument against my pro-death position. As I've said, I respect this argument a lot, it's principled, and that appeals to me strongly. I certainly can't contradict it, either. I just want some people to be dead, in part because I'm evil & vindictive when jerks kill cute little kids, and in part because death is the ultimate deterrent. Theodore Bundy (the previous poster-child for the death penalty here in FL) had a very high IQ, and was easily able to escape from Florida's intellectual giants before the Chi Omega murders at Florida State. Killing him early would have prevented those girls' deaths.
JMR
Yes we're for the baby's choi
June 19, 2007 - 22:17 ET by TruthMongerYes we're for the baby's choice! When they are old enough to speak then ask them if they would like to be aborted. Most will anyway I'm sure...but at least they had the choice:)!
Next question...
I have a question:Is it tha
June 20, 2007 - 09:05 ET by doubledown552I have a question:
Is it that it's funded with government money the sore spot? Also, I'm curious how pro-lifers feel about rape leading to pregnancy. Talk about the psychological effects of a woman having a baby knowing that it was caused by someone who violated her. Every time she looks at the kid she's going to think about the rape. I honestly haven't done enough research to make an informed decision on this issue, and I'd like to get some feedback (even if in private messages). Thanks.
Morals....? Who needs those?
}}---->Gov funded abortion
June 20, 2007 - 09:15 ET by Cool ArrowYes, for starters I have a problem with paying for somebody else's promiscuity choices.
Who says you can't legislate morality? I know it's legal, but why must I be browbeaten into believing it's moral?
Oh, and could we please jump immediately to the outlying anomalies of rape and incest? Why that certainly justifies all the abortion for funand profit running rampant.
I wasn't trying to prove an
June 20, 2007 - 09:24 ET by doubledown552I wasn't trying to prove any points or objectives about the rape-pregnancy abortions. I was seriously asking what people thought (people who are pro-life). Please don't patronize me for asking questions I don't know the answers to, it's very disrespectful.
Morals....? Who needs those?
Double down, I agree with you
June 20, 2007 - 14:44 ET by BinxlyDouble down, I agree with you in the rape case. I think most would too if they stepped away and realized it *doesn't* mean you condone abortion. Their main worry, I believe at least, is that women who want to use abortion as a last minute birth-control, will someday claim rape or any number of nasty occurences in order to have the abortion. The sad thing is DD, this is an issue that will NEVER be settled. People will continue to argue over it, and although in my personal life I am pro-life, if I were a woman who was raped and became pregnant, I don't know what I'd do. I'm not sure enough people try and envision the situation from that position, and those who do tend to look too much through rose-shaded windows claiming 'id look at it as Gods blessing and I'd raise the child to be a good person.' Sure, some may do just that. However, until you're in their shoes, you've NO, I repeat, NO flippin' room to judge.
Also, as a libertarian, I find it repulsive anytime the government FORCES me to do something I didn't do by choice or forces me to live a certain way. Whether we like it or not, the child she carries is not ours. It's hers. It doesn't make it right for her to choose for the child to die, but what right do WE have to demand it live?
Not trying to draw flame here, just presenting an honest, *real* look at things. Sometimes I think *Everyone* can become a lil too self-righteous and think their way is the *only* way.
The baby is always innocent..
June 20, 2007 - 14:54 ET by TruthMongerThe baby is always innocent...
(crickets for leon)
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
TM,I like alot of your stance
June 20, 2007 - 15:02 ET by BinxlyTM,
I like alot of your stances, however, 'dickhead' and other words just make your opinion seem less valid to those who may not see past the sophmoric anger is a man who believes strongly in his convictions. However, that said, the world is a big place with alot to learn, I'd hate to think you believe you've got it all figured out and the rest of us are just 'dickheads.'
That said, you're right, the baby is always innocent, but if the woman is too, such as she was raped in broad daylight and did not put herself in any apparent risk aside from a usual everyday life, she is also innocent. Are you saying, because she is the elder, she should be the one to suffer? I'm not justifying rape as in my mind it is almost exclusively unjustifiable. Predicaments such as the one I just said above, however, muddy the water and make it hard to decide.
And Ill agree, the baby is innocent, but you must also understand, it is not your place to judge.
Hello Binxly
June 20, 2007 - 15:15 ET by TruthMongerIt is my place to judge. Yes they are both innocent. And everyone suffers - it's called "life." We're here, we suffer, get used to it. The baby is always innocent. And abortion kills an innocent human being. Call me judgemental if you like. Comprismising principles is the only thing that "muddies the water" on this rock...
And I don't need to use the term dickhead to have the dickheads here ignore the blatant truth of my posts. They did that anyway - so posting sophmoric words from time to time cheers me up, and I deserve it dammit with all the baby killing going on around here..
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
haha I supposed I can sympath
June 20, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Binxlyhaha I supposed I can sympathize, I too have days where just muttering curses seems to 'get the anger out' so I can understand there. my only issue is, what ever happened to 'judge not lest ye be judged?'
Now that isn't to say you don't have a right to an opinion, but to call *every* woman to ever have had an abortion a 'baby killer' is a bit extreme. Literally, sure, its true, but in that case I'm a fly murderer, a chicken cannibal, a sibling beater (as me and my younger brother had fought from time to time as kids) and a laundry list of other awful things. Again, you're right, life is pain, it is suffering, but while that word of 'advice' can be given to people feeling sorry for themselves in positions we've all been in is one thing, to use it on a situation many of has have never, and will never know, I believe it is wrong.
Perhaps we just simply don't see exactly eye level on this although I do assure you I am against abortion morally and I do believe people such as sarc and Leon are too. To think *anyone* advocates child murder is foolish, again, in my humble opinion.
Judge away binxly
June 20, 2007 - 16:06 ET by TruthMongerBinxly you're judging me right now - so you tell me what happened to it. That scripture quote tells us to be careful how we judge, not to refrain from judging. That's Christianity 101 stuff...
I don't go around calling women of abortion "baby killers." I say the baby is innocent. You make a compelling argument with alot of nice big words and clever phrases to work around that. Bully for you...
But if you don't like the resultant paraphrase or condensed versions then maybe you should re-think the logic instead...
I think your heart is in the right place. So what do the scriptures say about good intentions?
...it was hard but I managed to get religion into it:)...
Forgive me, admittedly as I t
June 20, 2007 - 17:05 ET by BinxlyForgive me, admittedly as I typed that I did realize it could be taken wrong and I should've clarified. I'm aware you never said 'baby killers.' As for the scripture, I'm not terribly caught up in religion myself, I prefer to say I'm a person of faith, not any real follower of a 'religion.' I am what is best described a christian because how Christ lived his life, be it truth as I know it to be, or utter junk and fiction as many others believe, the moral of his story still stands as what I believe to be the healthiest way to live a life for yourself and others. To treat others how they wish to be treated and to withold judgement unless we are to therefore subjucate ourselves to judgement. I know the scripture does not translate literally to 'do not judge.' but rather 'do not judge a situation unless you are willing to be judged of your own responses to said judged activity.'
My point was I don't think anyone who HASN'T been raped and carried child can hold judgement over one who is raped and *does* have an abortion merely because, being unable to 'understand' the situation from their viewpoint, we therefore are devoid of ability to pass judgement. you *can* feel they were wrong, and Im not saying you are condemning anyone, but for anyone to condemn a woman in that situation, not having lived through it themselves, is wrong in my humble opinion.
Binxly I really enjoy your po
June 20, 2007 - 17:09 ET by TruthMongerBinxly I really enjoy your posts. I'm not judging the mother at all. The baby is innocent. The baby is innocent. The baby is innocent...
Do I have to be an axe murderer before I can support it's illegality? Just want to clarify your logic...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
hah yes, go grab your axe! :-
June 20, 2007 - 18:01 ET by Binxlyhah yes, go grab your axe! :-P
Nah, I guess its not even at a debateable point anymore, I was just trying to convey that its a testy situation. The only time I would find it acceptable for someone to say 'you're wrong for aborting that baby, even if it is rape' in my own opinion would be a mother who was raped but kept hers. I guess my main point is we can never understand the mental strain and stigma being in such a situation presents. However, I do understand your stance better now I think. I realize its not an issue of judging, its just you believe that abortion is never a good solution for *any* situation. I can definately respect that.
Ok, just addressing the situa
June 20, 2007 - 10:15 ET by Challenger GrimOk, just addressing the situation of rape:
The answer is that actually VERY few women want to abort the child from a rape.
http://www.pregnantp...
http://www.lifesite....
"But in 1979 Dr Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape counselor, studied 37 women who had become pregnant through rape. (This was apparently all she could find. Pregnancy from rape is, in fact, extremely rare. The small numbers make the study less statistically significant. But we are certainly not going to hope for more rape victims just so we can get more reliable studies!) Of the 37, 4 did not complete the study. Of the remainder, 28 chose to continue their pregnancies, and 5 chose abortion. So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion."
"However, the WPSA members say abortion does nothing to help women pregnant through sexual assault, and in many cases is actually detrimental to them."
If one innocent life has already suffered from a horrible act, why then should a 2nd innocent? Abortion is a HORRIBLE act upon a woman. Talk to a lot of them that have had it done and they often regret it. How moreso then when it involves rape? If they abort the child they then don't "see a reminder of the act" but see in the mirror that they took a life that was truly innocent.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Thank you CG. It is good to
June 20, 2007 - 10:24 ET by doubledown552Thank you CG. It is good to see that some people can answer a question with dignity and respect and still get their point across.
Morals....? Who needs those?
Up yours dickhead...See I can
June 20, 2007 - 14:55 ET by TruthMongerUp yours dickhead...
See I can do it too:)...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
}}----> TruthMonger
June 20, 2007 - 15:09 ET by Cool ArrowYour command of the king's English is astonishing. Such prose!
I can't take credit - it's fr
June 20, 2007 - 15:17 ET by TruthMongerI can't take credit - it's from Shakespeare...
I also could have said "up your arse." I was thinking about it actually:)...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
}}----> Correction Truth
June 20, 2007 - 15:21 ET by Cool ArrowI believe that was a verse from Herman's Hermits song "Mrs Brown...daughter"
I could be wrong
1. The "very few"
June 20, 2007 - 14:28 ET by sarcasmo1. The "very few" argument was anticipated by my very first post on this subject. I know one example, she's enough for me. Individuals are important, even individual rape victims. Her individual rights are worth more to me than any of the imaginative idiocy I've seen so far on this subject.
2. I don't (and she didn't) care about someone's study of 37 people.
3. Abortion, when there's rape, is collateral damage. You people just dislike when I use the term, but it fits nonetheless. The RAPE was the deliberate act, the fact that the rapist does not deserve fatherhood or to spread his genes by force is collateral damage. Is it "wonderous"? Nope. Is it life, so therefore we have to deal with it until we've ended rape (something drugwar worshippers have not convinced me, from my various "Jessica Lunsford's killer should have been in jail instead of someone peaceful" rants, that they really want to do!)? Yep.
JMR
collateral damage
June 20, 2007 - 14:35 ET by LionKing"Abortion, when there's rape, is collateral damage."
Abortion is not war...it is murder. The baby is not collateral, it is just another victim. The baby has no choice who its father is, but now, you want to take the baby's choice of life away also.
[Pro-choice when it is convenient.]
Rape causes collateral dama
June 20, 2007 - 14:38 ET by sarcasmoRape causes collateral damage, period. Want to end it? Perhaps you people should have listened to me more carefully on the Jessica Lunsford rants. I was and am right about that, her killer was out of a cage so that someone peaceful could occupy it. Period.
JMR
sarc???
June 20, 2007 - 14:43 ET by LionKingWhat does a cartoon about smoking pot have to do with rape?
LK,His point is the same for
June 20, 2007 - 14:55 ET by BinxlyLK,
His point is the same for drugs that I make about gun control. 'If they want it, they're going to get it, illegal or not. Keeping it illegal just increases the violence surrounding it.'
Many sex offenders are 'let off' waaaay before their time and their sentences constantly reduced because for whatever reason, the government finds drug offenders equally as dangerous. Drug arrests/offenders are one of the largest, if not the largest, part of prisoners in our prison system today. Many of which are first-time offenders who weren't even in possession of anything but low level drugs such as pot. Sarc's point, I believe, is that instead of arguing abortion due to rape, eliminate the element confusing the issue, the rapist. We can't issue longer sentences and harsher punishment with the prisons already over-crowded. If we focused more on harsher penalties for *violent* crimes, and less focused on putting dopers into jail to claim we supposedly have our 'drug problem under control' we would have more, MUCH more room for violent criminals and therefore can KEEP them locked away. Most rapists are not one-time experimenters. Most convicted rapists have well over just simply one act of rape 'under their belt.' Sarc isn't saying drugs or that cartoon has anything to do with abortion, he is saying, if we eliminate rapists from the picture, the quagmire of 'what if a girl is raped?' will be greatly reduced as will the number of rapes and other violent acts.
The baby is always innocent..
June 20, 2007 - 14:57 ET by TruthMongerThe baby is always innocent...
(crickets for sarcasmo)
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
I don't care, and your &quo
June 20, 2007 - 15:01 ET by sarcasmoI don't care, and your "crickets" thing is wearing thin...I've already explained how to reduce the collateral damage with a cartoon, like it or not.
JMR
We know you don't care - with pride...
June 20, 2007 - 15:10 ET by TruthMongerAs long as your trying to save innocent kids...fabulous...
(you "wore thin" here a very long time ago dude)
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Funny in an unintentional w
June 20, 2007 - 15:12 ET by sarcasmoFunny in an unintentional way, but the drugwar some folks here worship made saving Jessica impossible. And I don't care if you're tired of me, I'm not going away, so deal with it.
JMR
Dear Sarc Buddy...
June 20, 2007 - 15:19 ET by TruthMongerI'll be happy to deal with you here ad nauseum - you've certainly earned it...
Get ready to become a Jesus freak, pal...the Holy Spirit is going to kick your ass from one end of this blog to the other...I think you'll like it...I sure did...
...it was hard but I managed to get religion into it:)...
The one thing I must say howe
June 20, 2007 - 15:38 ET by BinxlyThe one thing I must say however is sarc is correct on the drugwar overcrowding our prisons and therefore allowing other, violent, criminals to be let go early to make room for new offenders. I have family in law enforcement who worked narcotics for over 15 years, he has told me that most busts are for things such as weed and that these people were often cordial, scared, and above all and I quote 'looked and acted like the couldn't hurt a fly if they tried, they just wanted to get high and make some money off of it.' Also, the war on drugs although is keeping bad things such as Meth and Heroin in the public eye as awful things (which they are) its not working and our overcrowded prisons are VERY MUCH SO due to kids getting busted with weed and cops trying to 'prove a point.' Sadly that 'point' allows violent criminals to be released to make room for the new offenders and people like Jessie are the ones who pay. Not all rape ends in pregnancy. Many times it ends in death.
On that issue I'm whole-heartedly with you Sarc, good to see a strong libertarian stance you take on that particular issue.
Save the babies - smoke some weed...
June 20, 2007 - 15:48 ET by TruthMongerSolution: so we let the druggies go free, they dope up and rape more women, there are more abortions due to rape, sarc gets to smoke his weed while driving, consequently running over a pregnant lady wheeling her two-year old across the street...kills all 3 of them...he gets the death penalty...I guess I am starting to see the life-affirming positives of all this now that you mention it...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Binxly,Have you got any lin
June 20, 2007 - 15:48 ET by MightyMouthBinxly,
Have you got any links to statistics that support the claim that violent offenders are obtaining early release becasue of non-violent influx? And by early release, can you prove it's common for violent offenders to be released in spite of their sentencing? Or is the "early" release within the guidlines of their sentencing?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Look guys, I mean I appreciat
June 20, 2007 - 17:15 ET by BinxlyLook guys, I mean I appreciate the strong eye for facts, and while I do this on my downtime at work and don't have alot of internet access, I will do my best to dig up the old sites I found citing stats and facts which eventually began to get me into politics forever ago back when Al Gore still hadn't quite had the internet as widespread as it is now :-P
That being said, I think for today, since I'm almost done, I'll just say for the moment we agree to disagree. I may be wrong but, based off of your treatment of sarc, I worry perhaps even with facts, you are set in your own ways on this issue, and thats fine too. As for druggies, the majority of violence due to drugs is because its illegal, the sale of it is unregulated and therefore when rival dealers get their market saturated by others, violence allows them to 'remove' competitors and jack up prices. The other side is the addicted who can't afford such astronomical prices, but again, these are primarilythe 'hard' drugs and Im not quite sure how I feel about legalization of that.
Im not saying don't punish for drug violations, I'm saying, when a convicted rapist or sex offender has only served 25% of their already lax sentence, and they are let go early because of 'good behavior' or in otherwords 'they didnt start fights or try to seduce the guards,' simply to make room for some kid who got caught with weed and the state wants to 'make an example of them,' I think its wrong. Put the kid on house arrest. Make him do rediculous amounts of community service even. I wouldnt mind them in jail so much if low-level drug offenders weren't such a high percentage of our prisoners in an already over-populated system.
Ill try and find those links for you all tomorrow. Sarc, I'm sure you got a few, maybe you can hold the wolves off of me till tomorrow? ;)
Can we get some fries with th
June 20, 2007 - 17:39 ET by TruthMongerCan we get some fries with that:)?
...it was hard but I managed to get mcdonalds into it:)...
Sure, but no trans fat, Hilla
June 20, 2007 - 18:03 ET by BinxlySure, but no trans fat, Hillary made em take it out because she's afraid that, god forbid she win in 2008, her fat butt won't make it through the door :-P
Not just "many,"
June 20, 2007 - 14:59 ET by sarcasmoNot just "many," though. Jessica Lunsford's specific individual rapist wasn't in his cage because of minimum mandatory sentencing supported by the tax and spend drugwar's faithful worshippers. And whether or not the news media allowed voices like mine -- even one -- to be heard in the aftermath of Jessie's murder, I've made my voice heard right here -- on a media bias site -- in spite of their antilibertarian bias. Maybe the continual smackdown I've given them means they'll learn next time, and let all sides speak; but if not, I'm still here and I still have my keyboard as a weapon against bias. It's been workin' rather-well these days, too...
JMR
Sarc, I'm really starting to
June 20, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Challenger GrimSarc, I'm really starting to wonder about this perputal "victim" mindset you seem to lapse into now and then. Especially when you start crying "foul" even with someone else is intending none.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Were voices like mine allow
June 20, 2007 - 15:15 ET by sarcasmoWere voices like mine allowed into the TV media debate after Jessica's rape/murder, or were they not? If they were, please provide even one cite (I know, you can't). It's media bias, I'm complaining on a media bias website, and that's NOT anything about "victim," it's something about the PURPOSE OF THIS SITE (even if I sometimes bust the site itself for antilibertarian bias).
JMR
}}----> Binxly
June 20, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Cool ArrowI categorically resent the Government taking my tax dollars and using them to promote personally unfunded promiscuity and the abortion of unborn babies.
so...let me see if I've got this
June 20, 2007 - 15:06 ET by LionKingBecause the criminal justice system released someone early or failed to prevent a first-time offender from committing rape, in the rare chance that a pregnancy is the result of this act, victimizing the unborn is an appropriate response...okay, I think I got it. Thank God libertarians only care about themselves and the sovereignty of their own body...to hell with the sovereignty of the unborn.
This sounds like a lot of crap. Rapists, illegals, and drug users are all criminals and consequently subject to the criminal justice system. If you do not like, change it, but do not justify feticide because of some other perceived wrong.
LK,Thats a sad blanket view o
June 20, 2007 - 15:46 ET by BinxlyLK,
Thats a sad blanket view of libertarians. I'm by no means *only* about myself. Libertarian-ism is about freedom, what our nation was founded on. While I believe a woman has a *right* to choose, I don't believe the *choice* is always correct, certainly isn't when abortion is the choice. The idea of being a libertarian is to put the info out there and let YOU decide. Any institution that forces its own ideals onto the populace is one step closer to the big brother government that many on both the right AND left would secretly love to see. I'm just happy that here on NB, most conservatives here *are* open to differences on issues and willing to discuss it. Calling all libertarians selfish people who could care less about unborn children is as bad as me saying all conservatives bathe in 100 dollar bills and take turns spitting off their high rise, corporate-sponsored penthouse in hopes to hit an elderly woman or a minority. Both are gross distortions of stereotypes that only a minority of our parties represent.
liberalism or death
June 20, 2007 - 16:29 ET by TruthMongerGood one Binx - really enjoy your stuff - very thoughtful...I mean it...
Can you recommend any "info" on justifiably killing libertarians? I have some "choices" to make:)...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
binx...the selfish libs reponds to sarc's link
June 20, 2007 - 16:37 ET by LionKingThe selfish remark refers to the link sarc included (not the cartoon).
btw, I am glad you lump murder right up there with other ideals. My problem with libertarians is that they seem unprincipled...live and let live. Anarchy rules.
Oh no - it's about the rules
June 20, 2007 - 16:47 ET by TruthMongerOh no - it's about the rules only they like...those are OK...
The words liberal and libertarian share alot more than just spelling I think...
Liberty is about the ability to do the right thing, not to do whatever you like...
I enjoy hearing from Binxly - he's got his eyes and ears open - unlike like sarc and leon - just needs to put some more thought in - me too of course - hope he sticks around...
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Thanks for the kind words, ho
June 20, 2007 - 17:21 ET by BinxlyThanks for the kind words, honestly. I don't claim to have all the answers, if I did, I'd be in politics. I have my beliefs and convictions but if I don't learn something new everyday I feel I've failed. I'll admit, leave me alone in a pit of well-spoken liberals OR conservatives for too long and I'll begin to empathize with their position. That being said, I prefer the company of conservatives, only because as brash as some opinions may be that they have, they are open about it, unlike many liberals who want to dollop ice cream, sprinkles, and kind, PC words to distract from their main beliefs.
As for staying I like the dialog here, the article authors are top notch for the most part and as someone who's fed up with the MSM, this is a nice 'getaway' where I can balance out the one side I hear on the TV with the other side. Its a balancing act for sure but like ya said, nothing important in life is ever easy :-P
Take care binx
June 20, 2007 - 17:29 ET by TruthMongerGood stuff...please visit as often as you can Binxly!
TM
TM aand BinxlyI ditto those s
June 20, 2007 - 17:32 ET by bigtimerTM aand Binxly
I ditto those sentiments....
That's the problem, admittedl
June 20, 2007 - 17:49 ET by BinxlyThat's the problem, admittedly many a pothead Ive met has claimed to be libertarian merely due to the idea that 'hey drugs will be legal!' with know honest thought on how that would affect things. The problem is, I *also* know many a pothead who is also a libertarian but is concious of such touchy situations and realizes that no blanket policy will cover every situation as a libertarian. We can't just free every drug offender. We can't put heroin on the shelves next to bubbalicious. A real libertarian, in my experience and research of the constitution, is not too far off from a conservative. I believe in less government, less taxes, more personal responsibility. Thats where you can spot a 'RINO' version of a libertarian. When they get drugs legal, and smaller government, and squander all their money on drugs, lose their job cause they are so baked they forget to go, and they realize 'hey, Im screwed!' then they want help. Those are *not* libertarians, those are oppertunists who are taking that label because it helps further their own personal agenda.
For me, my profile sums it up well, but we are by and large believers that the government should provide *some* safety net for those who CANNOT support themselves (wounded soldiers, the handicapped, orphan children) and should spend our taxes on our roads and keeping our military strong to defend our great nation.
The only thing I think conservatives REALLY dislike about me is my 'if it doesn't affect anyone but you and those who are in your life willingly, its not my business to judge.' I don't necessarily find homosexuality 'evil' or 'wrong' I'm just a firm believer that perhaps people are all just wired differently. I never came to that understanding until a special case arose with someone close to me, but when you are there, experiencing the torture that person feels and pain they go through just to seem 'normal' on the surface, you begin to ask 'perhaps they should just follow their heart.' Now Im not advocating homosexuality, if it was promoted it would be like promoting the death of human kind as two men or two women can not procreate exclusively. I just think who are we as heterosexuals to force OUR opinions of lifestyle on to them?
That said, I *do* get mad and fight back when homosexuals push THEIR lifestyles on to me. If we just act like humans and keep our personal lives in the personal, I think we'd all get along much better. Sorry for the rant, just I'm new and I hope this conveys a bit of who I am and what I stand for, even if it is by now horrifically off topic :-P
Keeping peaceful pot smoker
June 20, 2007 - 14:56 ET by sarcasmoKeeping peaceful pot smokers (and that's not what the cartoon was about, it's about hypocrites-not-smoking, but let's keep going here) in cages is what let Jessica's rapist/killer out of said cage. Whether or not you people see the relationship, I do...
JMR
The baby is always innocent..
June 20, 2007 - 14:58 ET by TruthMongerThe baby is always innocent...
(crickets for leon and sarc)
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
So convincing...JMR (hey, m
June 20, 2007 - 15:02 ET by sarcasmoSo convincing...
JMR (hey, my 'nick is "sarcasmo"!)
Yeah thanks - and please fee
June 20, 2007 - 15:23 ET by TruthMongerYeah thanks - and please feel free to keep ignoring it - how's the air down there with your head so far up your *ss, "sarcasmo" :)?
...it was hard but I managed to keep religion out of it:)...
Sarc - I couldn't agree more.
June 20, 2007 - 15:12 ET by florida_chadSarc - I couldn't agree more. Did you see where couey is trying to avoid the death penalty? No one deserves it more than him. no one.......
I agree, but I'm pro death
June 20, 2007 - 15:21 ET by sarcasmoI agree, but I'm pro death penalty (my reasoning is that killing people is one of the few things big government is good at, but the intellectual giants of Florida's prison system have been busily trying to prove me wrong, with some success). I have great respect for those who are against the death penalty, even though I disagree. Especially in Couey's case. But I'm for a more traditional (and much less expensive/gruesome/medicalized) death penalty. Rope can be re-used over & over.
JMR
rope, bullets - either is bet
June 20, 2007 - 15:24 ET by florida_chadrope, bullets - either is better than the 20 year dance they do here in Florida. And both are easier than Jessica had................
"one of the few things the government is good at"
June 20, 2007 - 15:25 ET by RJ"one of the few things the government is good at"
That the government is so miserable at just about everything it does, is the reason I'm against the death penalty. I don't trust them to make the right decision about who dies and who lives.
It seems to me sarky, that you'd agree with that.....
understandable - but sometime
June 20, 2007 - 15:32 ET by florida_chadunderstandable - but sometimes the guilt is not in question and the crime deserves it. Couey's crime fits the death penalty punishment.
I understand, chad
June 20, 2007 - 15:38 ET by RJI understand, chad, but how do you decide about all the other cases that have questionable defense, unethical prosecutors, mistaken witnesses, etc, etc.
Besides, the large number of prisoners waiting to be executed continues to grow, as does the cost of their appeals, etc. In most cases, is a "death penalty" really a death penalty?
Best to set up some kind of a hard time prision for them.
I would only use the DP for c
June 20, 2007 - 15:42 ET by florida_chadI would only use the DP for cases like Couey's. Where the crime is horrible and persons guilt is not in question. For the other cases, hard time would be fine with me. You make a good point about the legal system. The DP cost alot of time and money now. If we reserved it for worst cases, it could be implimented quicker and less of a cost. Its a tough call.
Rape causes collateral dama
June 20, 2007 - 14:47 ET by MightyMouth"Rape causes collateral damage, period."
Agreed, but Abortion should not be one them, period.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
We'll need to simply disagr
June 20, 2007 - 14:53 ET by sarcasmoWe'll need to simply disagree on that idea. But I encourage a look at my late friend Harry's thoughts on the subject.
JMR
I must disagree with Harry's
June 20, 2007 - 18:00 ET by RESTLESS 1I must disagree with Harry's third point on your link. We humans are not unborn angels.
Yeah, and Harry's dead so h
June 20, 2007 - 18:04 ET by sarcasmoYeah, and Harry's dead so he's unable to explain, but my main point is the science-idea of freezing and saving eggs would have practically the same effect as aborting them, with way-fewer moral issues (still not 0, though, IMO).
JMR
A larger question is: What's
June 20, 2007 - 18:14 ET by Challenger GrimA larger question is: What's the difference between his idea and adoption? All you're doing is adding an extra middle man.
(plus... I'm wondering how exactly you'd do that without dragging the government into it *shudder*)
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Unfortunately, there are vain
June 20, 2007 - 18:31 ET by RESTLESS 1Unfortunately, there are vain women who don't want the strain on their bodies that childbirth causes. Some may be afraid of the pain, and still others may be too young to do so without increased risks. If someone can have an embryo removed, while keeping it viable for life at a future date, and can afford the procedure without my tax dollars, then I don't see the harm. As I stated above, I would like to see research done first to ensure the embryo is safe and can become a viable baby at a future date.
I agree that seems a viable o
June 20, 2007 - 18:14 ET by RESTLESS 1I agree that seems a viable option. I, unlike some, do not fear and detest scientific answers to moral questions. It seems such a procedure would be done in the same way as an abortion, therefor, safe to mother and baby, not that abortion is safe to baby as is, but could be extracted and kept viable. Would like to see some research first.
Btw, disregard post just below. I was posting it as you were replying to previous post.
Here's another link about ang
June 20, 2007 - 18:08 ET by RESTLESS 1Here's another link about angels.
Ok, first of all, down below
June 20, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Challenger GrimOk, first of all, down below it became such a sprawling mess, you'll have to link whatever stories you're referring to because I don't feel like wading through all that to find it.
now then...
1) Cliche alert! "2 wrongs do not make a right."
2) "Individuals are important, even individual rape victims." But the individual child that resulted from that horrible act is not? I don't think that the option needs to be cut off 100% from these poor women, but it should be considered a last resort option.
3) "Abortion, when there's rape, is collateral damage." No, it is not. Dictionary.com definition of collateral damage (that is relevant to this): "any damage incidental to an activity." What's the definition of incidental? "happening or likely to happen in an unplanned or subordinate conjunction with something else." Here's the thing. In military action, when dropping a bomb etc, you don't WANT for civilians to be caught in the blast. And we make every effort nowadays to get more and more accurate ordinance and to reduce the chance of that happening. By a clinical procedure, another life (fetus, whatever) is being taken BY CONSICIOUS DECISION. Miscarriage when there's rape is "collateral damage". To use your metaphor, abortion is like when a town is bombed, and then the survivors kill some of their own.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
2 wrongs are sometimes part
June 20, 2007 - 15:10 ET by sarcasmo2 wrongs are sometimes part of life, nobody said they make a right. A right would be taking rape more seriously by taking worship of a failed drugwar less seriously, but this bunch sure as hell doesn't want to think about THAT! And I'm not sure what links you've missed, but you have not convinced me that abortion in the case of rape isn't a form of collateral damage just like innocent deaths in war. Rape is a choice, just like war is a choice, and what a rapist or victim wants is totally irrelevant once conception happens. I'm glad when I finally wring a "last resort" admission, though...And note Harry's idea would solve the problem for both of us.
JMR
"A right would be taki
June 20, 2007 - 15:14 ET by MightyMouth"A right would be taking rape more seriously by taking worship of a failed drugwar less seriously"
What? Are you saying rapists are getting away with more rape because of the drug war? Oh please sarcasmo, you must provide some statistics for this dubious assertion!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Couey is a living statistic
June 20, 2007 - 15:50 ET by sarcasmoCouey is a living statistic which proves it, as discussed already. He was out so someone else with a mandatory minimum would be in, period. No other reason to loose his kind on little girls except the drugwar, IMO, whether or not the antilibertarian biased media ever allowed that truth to be uttered.
JMR
Not to defend Couey in any
June 20, 2007 - 16:11 ET by MightyMouthNot to defend Couey in any way, but his prior convictions gave no indication that he would be a violent offender and indeed was released because he wasn't a violent offender.
Now if Jessica's Law had been in place before Couey's crimes he may very well have stayed in prison no matter how many pot heads were arrested.
Got any other cases to "prove" the drug war is releasing rapists?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I disagree MM
June 20, 2007 - 16:15 ET by florida_chadCouey has an extensive criminal record that includes 24 arrests for burglary, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, and indecent exposure. In 1991, he was arrested in Kissimmee on a charge of fondling a child under age 16. During a house burglary in 1978, Couey was accused of grabbing a girl in her bedroom, placing his hand over her mouth and kissing her.
* from Wiki
Exactly why I mentioned Jes
June 20, 2007 - 16:20 ET by MightyMouthExactly why I mentioned Jessicas Law, which was not in force at the time. It still does not translate into being the "Drug wars" fault as sarc and others would have us believe. Until I see some hard stats on direct correlations between non-violent prision influx and "early" violent offender release. I'm not inclined to blindly blame the drug war.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
not about the drug was
June 20, 2007 - 16:25 ET by florida_chadI was referring to you saying "but his prior convictions gave no indications that he would be a violent offender...:"
He was getting closer to violence with his crimes.
Gotcha.But the parole board
June 20, 2007 - 16:31 ET by MightyMouthGotcha.
But the parole board saw it otherwise and the claim is being made that Couey was let out to let a pot head in. Pretty dubious at best. And incredibly weak as a proof that the drug war is at fault.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yeah, well the parole board w
June 20, 2007 - 16:36 ET by florida_chadYeah, well the parole board was wrong. He attacked kids before, twice that we/they knew of. He used guns before. The signs were there. Pedophiles need to be locked up for life. Hurt a kid, lose your freedon forever. You have kids yet MM?
But I do agree with Sarc - The war on drugs is as big a joke as the war on poverty. Poeverty is winning, so are druggies. We shoould focus on violent crimes first and formost. I don't care if you smoke pot, snort coke or shoot up herion. Murder and rape are far worse crimes.
I am not arguing the parole
June 20, 2007 - 16:44 ET by MightyMouthI am not arguing the parole boards decision. If I were on the parole board I would not have let him out. But think about the argument here: You are saying he was let out ONLY because of the strain the drug war has on the prison system. That should be easy to prove. Someone just prove it, please!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Prove it's not a strain! I
June 20, 2007 - 16:53 ET by sarcasmoProve it's not a strain! I don't need to prove the obvious, you instead need to disprove it!! Were they just itching to put that load of even-more-dangerous guys in a cage, or were they following stupid-ass tax and spend drugwar laws? Take a wild guess...
JMR
I never said the drug war w
June 20, 2007 - 17:05 ET by MightyMouthI never said the drug war was not a strain on the prison system. All I said was that you haven't proven that "violent offender early release" and the drug war are related. I tend to think (since I don't have an agenda in this discussion) that early release is on a case by case bases. You haven't convinced me otherwise. Just sayin it's so, don't make it so...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Well, "early release v
June 20, 2007 - 17:08 ET by sarcasmoWell, "early release violent drug war" (no quotes) gets about 1,120,000 results...Again, I want statistical proof from your side that the strain of the tax and spend drugwar doesn't cause early-release. A jail cell is a jail cell, they're fungible. You can waste them on the failed drugwar or use them to save little girls by not-releasing violent assholes. Your choice. And assuming I were to prove the obvious strain leads to obvious stupid release decisions like Couey's, would worshippers' opinions regarding their holy tax and spend drug war change one iota?? I doubt it.
JMR
What do the numbers of result
June 20, 2007 - 17:19 ET by Challenger GrimWhat do the numbers of results have to do with anything? Especially since 1) It does not give any idea as to pro/con position of each result and 2) it doesn't account for overlap. (what if that's 2 pages referenced by 500,000+ websites?)
Also, it is very hard (if not nigh impossible) to prove a negative.
Finally, why do you look at it as a zero-sum problem? You honestly believe that if the drug war was ended today, that our prisons would be spacious? Is there any chance that... maybe they might then fill with other people?
Look I agree with you that the drug war is screwed up and needs an overhall and revamping. But I do not agree that if it had been ended back in that day in time, that Couey would not have been released and poor Jessica would still be alive. There's just way too many factors involved that keeps such a claim from ever being more than wishful thinking/fantasy.
Be sure to get your daily Fred Thompson Fact!
Parole boards face a pressu
June 20, 2007 - 16:38 ET by sarcasmoParole boards face a pressure to incarcerate all possible prisoners and a limited number of slots to house them. A jail cell is a jail cell is a jail cell, and they let Couey out to have another empty one for a drugwar-victim, which led to Jessica's rape/killing whether or not you like that fact. And why, if the drugwar is such a great thing, do we need laws that limit the actions of judges & parole boards in the case of drugs? Why not, say, mandatory minimums in the case of sex offending career criminals, instead?? Couey got out early despite a long and scary record as a professional crook, and I blame the tax and spend drugwar's holy provisions for it. I know that's never gonna sit well with you folks, but it's not gonna change because of my arguments you've seen (again) today.
JMR