Julia Roberts to Diane Sawyer on why she avoids killing spiders:
"You think, that’s a person, or somebody’s Mom or somebody’s best pal.” Good Morning America, 12-13-06
I trace the beginning of my evolution from pro-choice to pro-life to a comment I heard on the radio a decade or so ago. It might have been Rush Limbaugh who made the point that many of the people moved to tears at the thought of the killing of baby seals are the same ones who "celebrate" a woman's right to have an abortion.
Something clicked. What kind of moral compass is that?
I think back to that moment when I hear pro-choice advocates such as Julia Roberts express their tender concerns for various members of the animal kingdom. A good example came on this morning's Good Morning America. Diane Sawyer interviewed Roberts regarding her role in the movie version of Charlotte's Web, in which Roberts provides the voice of the eponymous spider. Sawyer asked Roberts whether as a result of being in the movie she now likes spiders:
Roberts: "I kill them less now."
Sawyer: "Because of the solidarity?"
Roberts:
"It kind of is. You think, that’s a person, or somebody’s Mom or somebody’s best pal.”
So how about it, Julia? When you consider an unborn baby, do you think "that's a person," too, or is a baby less human to you than a spider? If you spare the spider's life, how about the baby's? Why shouldn't babies have the same right as spiders to be somebody's Mom or best pal?
Big H/T to Rich Noyes and MRC for firming up the transcript of Roberts' remarks.
View video and ABC transcript of Roberts 'it's a person' remarks here.
VOTE FOR NEWSBUSTERS! If you look to NewsBusters as your best source for liberal-media busting, please vote for us here in the 2006 Weblog Awards as the Best Media Blog. Thanks!
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
I also think understanding ch
December 13, 2006 - 13:31 ET by TruthMongerI also think understanding changes when unborn babies are seen as the persons that they truly are...
...so if you are "pro-choice" then what do you suppose a baby would "choose" to do if you tried to kill it? Would it fight to live like any other living organism? I believe so...
I'm pro-choice as well - therefore I believe in a babies right to choose, therefore I oppose abortion...
I think all Liberals should b
December 13, 2006 - 17:50 ET by mattmI think all Liberals should be aborted. Of course, you can't tell if they're Liberals while their in the womb so you have to wait 20 or 30 years, then do a retroactive abortion.
(I'm just illustrating a point.....)
Abortion does kill more libs
December 13, 2006 - 18:21 ET by TruthMongerAbortion does kill more libs than conservatives as it's the libs who have most abortions and would otherwise likely raise these children to be libs - and so ironically, from a political standpoint, conservatives should actually be FOR ABORTION - but that's how compassionate we conservatives are - our anti-abortion laws would really FAVOR LIBERALS if it were to actually be implemented - and yet we oppose abortion anyway - but we're essentially TRYING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF LIBERAL CHILDREN!
TM...
December 13, 2006 - 18:23 ET by Clear thinkerYour comments may make me change my mind about abortion ; )
...thanks but I can't take al
December 14, 2006 - 10:10 ET by TruthMonger...thanks but I can't take all the credit...it's a gift!
WELLLLLLLLLLLLL!
December 13, 2006 - 18:26 ET by misterbillWELLLLLLLLLLLLL! If you guarantee it's Libs only and it's up to age 50, I could be talked into it.
What would Ms. Roberts and co
December 13, 2006 - 13:40 ET by GalvanicWhat would Ms. Roberts and company say to a procedure in which pregnant seals are captured and brought to a veterinary center, where their labor is induced, and just before the head of the baby seal comes out, the vet jabs a sharp object into the base of its head and sucks the brain out with a device?
Would she call that humane?
So, when does life begin?
December 13, 2006 - 13:45 ET by Evil CapitalistSo, let me just get it straight... At what point does "unborn baby" begin? Would it be conception?
Spiders never become human
December 13, 2006 - 13:50 ET by Mark FinkelsteinSpiders never become human life yet Julia doesn't want to kill them. We can debate when human life begins. It's surely sometime way before Roberts would acknowledge it.
I always forget that those th
December 13, 2006 - 14:06 ET by Evil CapitalistI always forget that those that can't articulate their position can never formulate definitions coherently. Let me spell out definition so we can have some basis for the discussion:
"In a universe of discourse, a point in time when intercourse occurs shall be known as t0. A time in point when a group of cells becomes an 'unborn baby' shall be known at t1. It is given that t1 can't be less than t0.
Please define t1 as a range in its relationship to t0."
Evil,If you are a strict Ca
December 13, 2006 - 15:10 ET by MightyMouthEvil,
If you are a strict Calvinist, t1 and t0 are meaningless, as God would have predestined the outcome.
If on the other hand, you have a more traditional view, God would have created the soul of the baby at or after conception.
No one knows for sure when that is. But we can at least agree that it occurs in the womb. Since no moral human being would even consider deliberately killing an innocent baby, you must reject abortion on the mere possibilty that a human life is being taken.
Opponents of the death penalty use the same agrument to protect innocent persons from being put to death unjustly. The difference being of course, that an unjustly convicted death row inmate, is the victim of circumstances. The innocent baby is the victim of a morally corrupt culture.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Nah, I'm a simple person. I j
December 13, 2006 - 15:16 ET by Evil CapitalistNah, I'm a simple person. I just want you to define that t1 vs. t0 relationship so I can be clear. So lets try again, you only get to operate with the following variables:
t0 - time of intercourse
t1 - time when the group of cells becomes an "unborn" baby.
You can even introduce new variables as long as you define them in relationship with t0 and t1. After we establish a base we can talk about abortion/death penalty/etc. If we have no base, talk about abortion or death penalty is meaningless.
Sorry bud, I'm all used up
December 13, 2006 - 15:21 ET by MightyMouthSorry bud, I'm all used up on the subject. Maybe someone else can take a crack at the trap you're trying to setup...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
The time at which the baby i
December 13, 2006 - 16:45 ET by TruthMongerThe time at which the baby is created is BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED...
So where would that go in this formula? Well before t0 I believe...
So what happens next there, evil? I'm waiting...
t1 = g1 = c1 = o1.g1 = time
December 13, 2006 - 16:23 ET by ELCoret1 = g1 = c1 = o1.
g1 = time when "group of cells" becomes an unborn gorilla, intercourse g0 having occurred between a male and female gorilla.
c1 = time when "group of cells" becomes an unborn chimpanzee, intercourse c0 having occurred between a male and female chimpanzee.
o1 = time when "group of cells" becomes an unborn orangutan, intercourse o0 having occurred between a male and female orangutan.
What's my point? My point is that nobody would argue about the "gorillahood" or "chimpanzeehood" or "orangutanhood" of any unborn of their kind no matter what its stage of development. A being belongs to its species from the moment it exists as a being; otherwise, we have the absurd situation of every individual organism belonging to different species at different stages of its development.
Real dispute about when a human becomes a human arose only when some humans (those already born) decided that some other humans (those not yet born) weren't really humans if some circumstance in the mother's life (marital status, financial status, or whatever) didn't meet some arbitrary standard.
Convenience....
December 13, 2006 - 16:27 ET by Timothy HThat standard being convenience......
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
ELcore,I could swear i've see
December 13, 2006 - 16:44 ET by BrownCowELcore,
I could swear i've seen in the supermarket line where a woman gave birth to a litter of kittens. Thus being the truth would surely demonstrate that we can never be sure when its a human life and ok to abort at anytime cause HEY it just may be a kitty cat or puppy dog . . . LOL !
Your simple
December 13, 2006 - 16:35 ET by exLibYour simple?
You want some pointless "variables" and "formulas" so that your heart stays disconected to the fact that we are talking about LIFE.
When you realize it's LIFE the whole thing becomes simple.
Abortion at ANY TIME = MURDER.
WOW!
December 13, 2006 - 16:55 ET by misterbillYou must be some fun in bed!! Can I see your t1 dear?????
Set the clock!!!!
KMA
Julia
December 13, 2006 - 13:48 ET by Jerry MackIt is obvious to me that Roberts values animals and spiders more than humans.
"It is obvious to me tha
December 13, 2006 - 13:58 ET by Jerry"It is obvious to me that Roberts values animals and spiders more than humans."
Unless they are convicted mass murderers.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
I wouldn't mind getting caugh
December 13, 2006 - 13:57 ET by Roger the ShrubberI wouldn't mind getting caught in Julia's web. *cue cymbol rimshot*
Sorry.
Be sure and tape her mouth sh
December 13, 2006 - 14:12 ET by RunningBeerBe sure and tape her mouth shut!
Sorry.
"Be sure and tape her
December 13, 2006 - 14:29 ET by MightyMouth"Be sure and tape her mouth shut!"
What? And take half the fun away?
sorry.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM, quite being on my wavelen
December 13, 2006 - 14:54 ET by Roger the ShrubberMM, quit being on my wavelength :p
(edit: poor spelling needed fixed)
Sorry Rog, but like you, I
December 13, 2006 - 15:27 ET by MightyMouthSorry Rog, but like you, I was educated at the Monty Python School of etiquette. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Choice and abortion are Women
December 13, 2006 - 14:28 ET by bk1955Choice and abortion are Womens Rights issues. The legal fact is that a woman has the same right to dominion over her body as a man does over his. Yes, that means the unborn have no rights, including the right to life.
A man is definely involved in the creation of human life, but woman needs to be committed. The difference between being involved and committed is deomonstrated by the creation of a breakfast of ham and eggs, a chicken was involved, by the pig was committed. Men are interested bystanders in this issue and should leave the decision making and availability of this medical service to those who are participants.
When men take a strong stand against abortion rights I wonder if their concern for the quality of life the unborn is demonstrated by a committment of their treasure to unmarried mothers and orphans?
bk1955 - take your horseshit
December 13, 2006 - 14:36 ET by paperheadbk1955 - take your horseshit views over to some liberal blog - so you claim to be a family man and a working stiff? That is a huge lie! So the unborn have no rights until they are born? So abortion is not murder? Then why don't we just start killing the unborn outright to harvest the stem cells? They have no rights. Ukraine is already doing this. Is this what you want our nation to become? Better yet, I wish you were aborted by your mother, you worthless sack of shit! Get lost!
That’s precisely correct. T
December 13, 2006 - 14:47 ET by Agnostic frontThat’s precisely correct. The unborn have no rights because they are "unborn." Just a gloop of cells. (I know you like that one.) When they are "born" they are then people with rights, like you and me.
Unborn....
December 13, 2006 - 14:55 ET by Timothy HSo you would justify partial birth abortions the same way? What about someone who murders a pregnant woman in the eighth month. Should they be charged with one or two counts of homicide?
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
I have already asked this but
December 13, 2006 - 15:01 ET by Evil CapitalistI have already asked this but it seems my question is way too difficult for the author of this article to answer - maybe you can help:
"Please define the relationship the time (t1) when cell(s)/blob of cells become an 'unborn baby' in relationship to time (t0) of the intercourse. It is given that t1 can't be less than t0."
Relationsip between (t0) and (t1) defined by (f1). Or.....
December 13, 2006 - 15:26 ET by Timothy HScientific Answer:
(f1), when fertilization takes place, generally happens 15+ minutes after ejaculation, forming a Zygote. Once a zygote, the cells in question exhibit traits that define "life" in the scientific term. At that point, the Zygote, soon to be an Embryo, becomes an "unborn Baby. This means that from a scientific standpoint, the relationship between when (t0) and (t1) is defined by (f1).
Moral Answer:
Scriptures acknowledges existance prior to formation in the womb. Thus the Theory that (t1) cannot predate (t0) is flawed and wrong.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
How is this relevant? It wo
December 13, 2006 - 17:15 ET by TorqueHow is this relevant? It would seem the difference between t0 and t1 would be dependent on the life span of the male zygote (~48 hours), as the female zygote lasts longer, if I remember my biology and human physiology.
Why isn't it a question of risk? it's a risk, and one knows that going in, like Seinfeld said of buying fruit. You commit an act of procreation (AP), you face a certain risk of emerging cell blobs. Surely we can then ask, "did you take precautions to prevent this?" I say the question should be, "Were you aware that a blob could result from AP? You know, when you bebop horizontally, a blob can result, one that will grow to take your stuff without asking and leave the lights on." As such, one would do well to know that only surgery and/or abstinence provide protection from blobs.
By the way, how long till a woman sues because a cell line is patented from her articles of conception and she now wants a cut from that which she abhorred in the first place?
Partial birth's fine with me
December 13, 2006 - 15:02 ET by Agnostic frontPartial birth's fine with me and one count of homicide.
Proof of AF's Ignorance
December 13, 2006 - 15:33 ET by Timothy HThank you for proving your ignorance and your vileness. Partial Birth abortion is an abomination and involves causing pain and suffering to the most innocet amongst us.
As to the second responce. If this childs life is the woman's choice, than doesn't the killing of that life, against the mother's wishes constitute murder? Well thought out, AF.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
One Count a piece for all inv
December 13, 2006 - 17:26 ET by bigtimerOne Count a piece for all involved...especially the mother and her DR.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Timothy, don't mind AF. He's
December 13, 2006 - 15:02 ET by Roger the ShrubberTimothy, don't mind AF. He's still pissed that, being a soy milk drinker, he might be gay.
Stumpy, you are correct. When
December 13, 2006 - 15:09 ET by Agnostic frontStumpy, you are correct. When I drink soy, I really want to go to broadway. I also feel compelled to listen to Babs. That doesn't make me gay, though, does it?
Wanna know how I know you're
December 13, 2006 - 15:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberWanna know how I know you're gay? You listen to Coldplay.
:p
Wanna know how I know you're
December 13, 2006 - 15:43 ET by Agnostic frontWanna know how I know you're gay? You're hugging a man.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
December 13, 2006 - 17:03 ET by misterbillMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm! Maybe not???? Then again?????
A "gloop of cells"?
December 13, 2006 - 17:47 ET by mattmA "gloop of cells"? Isn't that all any of us are? You can't possibly be serious.
If unborns have no rights, ho
December 13, 2006 - 15:02 ET by RunningBeerIf unborns have no rights, how can they charge someone who kills a pregant woman with a double-murder? Some women kill their unborns for convenience and that's legal. Way too much hypocrisy here. Either charge them both with murder or reduce the double-murder charge to murder and involuntary abortion.
I guess I upset you. You se
December 13, 2006 - 15:06 ET by bk1955I guess I upset you. You seem rather hostile to views in opposition to your own. My claim is truthful. I have children and I live from the salary I earn with my labor.
I want our nation to become a civilization where women share equal rights with men. A right to an abortion is required to achieve this.
Your wish is unrealistic, your name calling childish. The issue of abortion invloves the right of two individuals. The question is whose rights prevail. It appears your opinion is that the unborn foetus rights trump the rights of the fully developed woman. I believe the womans right take precedence. The anger and vulgararity you express make your invalid arguement of murder appear irrational.
BK the rights of the unborn d
December 13, 2006 - 15:17 ET by RunningBeerBK the rights of the unborn don't "trump" the rights of a fully devloped woman. But a fully developed woman, after exercising her rights in the sack, now has both the responsibility AND an obligation to protect the unborn child. If the mother refuses to care for her child then it's left to others to look out for them.
Theology problem
December 13, 2006 - 15:25 ET by dagdaNot sure where the Catholic Church is today, but when I was growing up, if it was a choice between the mother and the child, the child won. If the choice was the child was killing the mother, the mother won.
Of course this was a time when divorce was not only uncommon, it was shocking and a moral failure in the family structure. My how we have changed!
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
I apolgize for blowing by lid
December 13, 2006 - 15:18 ET by paperheadI apolgize for blowing by lid earlier. I certainly do not agree with you but answer this question - why do hospitals issue death certificates for still-born births but not birth certificates? If an unborn baby dies why bother with the death certificate? Death certificates signify that a life has ended right? Well, should they issue birth certificates as well?
I accept your apology. I'll
December 13, 2006 - 15:33 ET by bk1955I accept your apology. I'll try to answer your questions. I imagine Hospitals document births and deaths because of local, state and federal legal requirements. The forms they use are typically issued by the county where the event takes place. If I remember correctly, the official birth certificate is delivered by mail. If you had a personal experience of a still birth, I am sincerely sorry for your loss. Was your experience that a copy was given to you at the time?
I am not sure what a still birth will prove concerning women's rights. I am in agreement with you that abortion results in a death. Abortions are personal tragedies. I accept this reality while harboring my opinion. None the less, I believe women deserve the right to a safe abortion if they choose.
F***n wrong again
December 13, 2006 - 15:22 ET by misterbillTwo people--you prejudiced fool. I am a father and a grandfather. I had rights in the birth of my children. That's three induviduals you dolt! ?I am holding my granddaughter as I enter.this. I am upset by idiots like you andwant to spend time with my granddaughter. i honestly believe you will burn in hell!
Please enjoy your grand child
December 13, 2006 - 15:59 ET by bk1955Please enjoy your grand children. They are a blessing. Your name calling is uneccessary. It presents you as irrational. Your post demonstrates that rational and irrational people can honestly disagree. I hope your grand daughter grows up in an environment where she has access to equal opportunity and reward. You might work on your tolerance of opposing viewpoints. I guess I'm lucky that you don't get to decide about who goes to hell. My God doesn't punish people for thier opinions.
Well Mr. Holy Holy is here to
December 13, 2006 - 16:20 ET by BrownCowWell Mr. Holy Holy is here to have an open mind . . . give me a break! You blow out your airhole continuously and when someone represents their passion for a subject all you can do is pretend to be a bigger person . . . I think not ! I'm not sure what GOD you are talking about but you should clear that up. The GOD of Judaism and Christianity judges you on the type of life you have lived. Holding ill or idealistic opinions does shape you as a person and the way you live. i.e. abortion for the most part equals a selfish irresponsible position in life. I said most of the time before you even try it. So quit your preaching and argue your point if that is what you are here to do.
I recognize sarcasm when I se
December 13, 2006 - 17:26 ET by bk1955I recognize sarcasm when I see it.
You are mistaken. I have participated in a dialogue, by keyboard, no blowing or airholes involved. Would you use that language if I told you I have a tracheotomy?
I disagree that insults and name calling demonstrate passionately held beliefs. I believe they demonstrate an arguement overcome by anger. Typically, people don't do their when they are angry.
My God will judge me on the life I have lived, what use I made of the gifts I am given, and how I treat others.
You argue abortions only result from selfishness and irresposibility. I agree that people can selfishly choose abortion, they can also choose an abortion to sustain the life of the mother, or to withdraw from the responsibility of raising a child of rape or incest.
Thank you for your permission to argue my point.
Oooooh you are so nice!
December 13, 2006 - 17:32 ET by misterbillNOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bk...you say........they can
December 13, 2006 - 17:33 ET by bigtimerbk...you say.....
...they can also choose an abortion to sustain the life of the mother,
Give me one example of that choice where the mother would not live.
A proven one.
A mother would give her life for her child anyday buddy.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Ectopic pregnancies and preec
December 13, 2006 - 18:40 ET by bk1955Ectopic pregnancies and preeclampsia can result in the death of the mother. For more information try webmd.com.
Your expectations for motherhood is very high. Why not let her decide which life has more value?
Ectopic pregnancies occur whe
December 13, 2006 - 19:14 ET by saw the lightEctopic pregnancies occur when the embryo is not implanted in the uterus, but, most often, in the fallopian tubes. The embryo cannot survive this, and neither can the mother. There is no choice.
Pre-eclampsia can be controlled by medication. Eclampsia is the more serious medical condition.
As for rights, why do the rights of the mother to be inconvenienced for 9 months trump the child's right to a life? Nine months as opposed to 75 years?
"People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news." - A.J. Liebling
I don't have a medical degree
December 14, 2006 - 13:05 ET by bk1955I don't have a medical degree, but I'm doubting you do either. You may be correct, but typically there is not certainty in 100 per cent of all cases. Do you claim these results in 100 per cent of the cases? I am arguing to let the woman decide what is best for her.
You are arguing for coercing a woman to give birth, but you're not arguing to force her to raise the child. We have common ground there. Do we have common ground that a woman should not be forced to give birth in the case of rape?
Well bk I see you have no cre
December 13, 2006 - 17:50 ET by BrownCowWell bk I see you have no credible reason to judge and posture yourself above other blogers because you can only make childish what if’s and phony hypothetical’s. You called out one person for posting his feelings and have no reason for being a judgmental half wit ?? Oops . . I called you name. . .
I realize you disagree that name calling and insults demonstrate passion. That is apparent by your blind lemming approach to life’s issues. You can only “empathize” and “feel” for others situations. You have no thoughts on your own, that is clear. You are a liberal with no solid belief in anything and nothing to stand up for.
Please do me a favor and get me statistics on abortions that are necessity vs. want. I am curious.
Good.
December 13, 2006 - 16:21 ET by Timothy HYou seem good at the old propagenda tactic of remaining calm while spewing ridiculous and inflametory statements for the purpose of discrediting your opponents as irrational without ever addressing the issues. While that might make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, it does nothing for your argument and exposes you for what you are......either and idiot or a troll. Have nice day.
- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints -
MR. T, I will vote . . . Idio
December 13, 2006 - 16:35 ET by BrownCowMR. T, I will vote . . . Idiotic Troll.
I see a contradiction in your
December 13, 2006 - 17:11 ET by bk1955I see a contradiction in your statements. I see remaining calm and spewing as mutually exclusive. My intention is to demostrate people can strongly disagree on moral issues and not resort to name calling and personal insults to validate thier opinions. I don't agree that I haven't addressed the issues. I see the issue of abortion as one of womens rights. What is your opinon? Why do you believe what you believe? I don't agree with your assumption and conclusion. I am not hurt by your insult, your choices are childish. Best of luck to you.
bk1955...Does it not bother y
December 13, 2006 - 16:49 ET by Clear thinkerbk1955...
Does it not bother you that millions of lives were snuffed out before they got a chance to experience the world?
BK1955
December 13, 2006 - 16:58 ET by Clear thinkerPlease answer my above question.
Yes, it does. It is not an
December 13, 2006 - 18:43 ET by bk1955Yes, it does. It is not an option for all cases. It also bothers me that millions of children experience neglect and abuse. Do you believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to a person in all cases?
Wrong group is being counted
December 13, 2006 - 18:49 ET by dagdaYou subsume that those you are not aborted will be abused and neglected. However, that is an assumption that is not valid. Those most likely to get an abortion are middle-class and educated, those lest likely to abuse or neglect. For them it is elective birth control.
The type of social control that you are advocating is a type of eugenics and you should be ashamed of yourself. Margaret Sanger pushed birth control on the poor for the same reasons and she was dead wrong. You should be aware that eugenics is no longer in fashion. It went out with the Nazis.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
You are arguing against a cas
December 13, 2006 - 19:06 ET by bk1955You are arguing against a case I didn't make. I have no way of knowing what will happen to a child whose mother is forced to raise him or her. How can you be confident that women who are forced to raise an unwanted child will remain in the middle class? Do you believe that middle-class and educated people are incapable of abuse and neglect? I make no such assumptions. I was asked if it bothers me that potential life is wasted. My intention is to communicate that there are many ways lives can be wasted and many of them bother me.
I feel no shame because you misinterpret my statements. Why not ask for clarification? Are you arguing against abortion or against birth control? You make the connection between abortion and eugenics and then imply I am a Nazi? Should I conclude that you believe only Nazi's support equal rights for women?
Silly silly silly
December 13, 2006 - 19:18 ET by dagdaActually I argue against both abortion and birth control. But Sanger's urge for birth control was eugenically inspired. Generally I am confident that most people who are middle class will stay middle class. This is a general rule, not a specific one. There are always exceptions, some will become upper class and some may move to the lower class. So, generally speaking, women who have abortions are able to financially support the babies they are murdering.
Your argument, as I have followed it, does follow the eugenics model and for that you should be ashamed. I know that you have no shame, but if you had a moral compass, you would be.
Abortion is not equal rights for women. Abortion is murder regardless of the reason behind it. Nazis believed in eugenics to make a purer gene pool. This is what you seem to be saying.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Your opinion against birth co
December 14, 2006 - 13:30 ET by bk1955Your opinion against birth co
December 14, 2006 - 13:31 ET by bk1955Your opinion against birth co
December 14, 2006 - 13:31 ET by bk1955Your opinion against birth control is extreme. Most Americans practice bith control and don't consider condom use murder. Do you believe masturbation is murder?
Your confidence in class stability is misplaced. Movement between classes is subject to change depending on economic trends and the particulars of individual cases. Your judgement of women is harsh. My argument is the woman involved be trusted to make decisions concerning the dominon of her body. As am man I have the right to interfere only in the case of a committed relationship.
General statements are generally not useful for making public policy. You may be correct that a certain, even a high percentage of women who seek abortions are financially capable of providing financial support for an unwanted child. I question the states right to coerce her to do so. Should abortions be outlawed if 20% of the women can't provide financial support, if 10% can't, if 1% can't. Should abortions be outlawed whether or not the woman was raped, whether or not her health is endangered.
If you believe my arument follows the eugenics model then you haven't followed my argument or don't seem to understand eugenics. You misunderstand me if you believe I am in favor of abortion to make a purer gene pool. I am saying women deserve the right to dominon over their own bodies and shouldn't be punished for mistakes men have made historically with no negative outcome.
You opinion of the existence of my moral compass is mistaken and irrelevent.
I agree aportion is not equal rights for women. Men don't get pregnant so we can't get abortions and therefore don't get the right. It would be like having a right to breath under water without gills. Abortion is a right women need in order to enjoy other civil and human rights.
How do your define murder? Should I understand that you are opposed to the taking of all human life regardless of the reason behind it, or do you make exceptions in the cases of capital punishment or war?
bk1955
December 13, 2006 - 22:06 ET by Clear thinkerbk1955....
Your reply to my question was "yes it does" when I asked you if the millions of lives that have been snuffed out bothered you. At least you replied honestly.
Your answer brings up an obvious question....if those lives lost bother you, why would you support the right to choose? This is an absolute contradiction if you have any moral clarity, how do you defend this dispicable contradiction?
I accept a world of paradox a
December 14, 2006 - 17:15 ET by bk1955I accept a world of paradox and contradiction. I accept ambivilence in moral decisions. Morality in human life is seldom clear and often a choice between lesser evils. The morality I propose includes using scientific development and improved understanding to use free will for the reduction of human suffering in the world.
I support a woman's right to choose because I believe women should have equal dominion over their bodies to men. Especially in the cases of rape, incest and health, physical and mental. Is it not dispicable to sentence a woman to physical and emotional suffering for a lapse in judgement that would leave a man unscathed? The contradiction of those rights is more despicable to me than abortion.
I admit that the legality of abortion creates moral dilemmas. We are free to judge each other on how we resolve or accept those dilemmas. Is not an equal or worse dilemma created in forcing a birth that will result in the death or disability of an adult person?
Women have "equal domini
December 14, 2006 - 18:57 ET by winston smithWomen have "equal dominion" with respect to their own bodies, but not to the separate life of the unborn child. How is a woman "sentenced" (and by whom?) to physical and emotional suffering for giving birth to a child? She can also give the child up for adoption and allow the child to have a shot at life -- the same shot you had. Adoption services are now much better and more sophisticated than ever before. The backround screening processes and legal services are now down to a science and adoption is no longer the murky procedure it was a decade ago. Why not give the baby a chance? And the fact that a man is left "unscathed" in an unplanned pregnancy is problem of our system we need to fix. You're too cynical about the problem, and resort to absolving the man (an equal partner in the matter) of any responsiblity and take the extreme feminist position that in the end, it's only a woman's issue which is entirely incorrect.
To grant the unborn child dom
December 14, 2006 - 19:38 ET by bk1955To grant the unborn child dominion is to deny it to the woman. They are mutually exclusive positions. The woman is sentenced by those who deny her rights.
I agree adoption is the best solution, but is to always reasonable in the case of a woman's health or rape? Would you expect someone to knowingly adopt the child of incest? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me, but some might object. Would you refuse full disclosure? All children should have the chance to equal opportunity to all the blessings life can bestow. Why limit it to unwanted children. How do you propose to provide it? How do you propose to fix the problem of unscathed men? Your sentiments are commendable, how do you propose to develop public policy to embody them? Am I too cynical or too practical? Outlawing abortion would be the first step, where would you take it from there?
I don't believe abortion is only a woman's issue. I do believe we should defer to their better judgement, what ever that may be. Legally and physically, men are hardly equal partners in the problem. Pregnancy typically takes about three minutes for a man. The womans participation is greater by at least five orders of magnatude.
I just have to say it
December 13, 2006 - 16:51 ET by misterbillI just have to say it. "OooooH look at me, what a nice tolerant guy I am. I'm a man but I stand up for women's rights. When I look in the mirror I see a model for all men. I am Mister Wonderful." Let's pass a law to make murder by women legal.
I've been around a long time. I have met a few others like you.They are usually Liberals who will kiss up to anyone and anything to have their way.I may seem irrational to you, I may even be irrational because I am angry. You are a toady,a sycophant. You don't know squat about women's rights. And you sound whipped!!!!!!!!!! My wife looks at me as a full partner not a serf at her wishes nor a sire for her when she CHOOSES to have a child.
Misterbill,His self riotous b
December 13, 2006 - 17:01 ET by BrownCowMisterbill,
His self riotous blow hardy response to your comment proves his insincerity to the subject. You show your passion and love for human life. He shows his close minded sneakily judgmental better than all attitude. The only reason to display this attitude is to overcompensate for an obvious lack of intelligence and capacity to create a thought beyond the liberal ready answers.
BrownCow
December 13, 2006 - 17:06 ET by misterbillSincere thanks.
Also I am a silly ass sometimes so---MOOOOOO!
Sincerely,
The purple cow
Thanks for comforting Misterb
December 13, 2006 - 17:36 ET by bk1955Thanks for comforting Misterbill and for sharing your opinion. I assure you I am quite sincere in my support of women's rights. Instead of personal attacks, you might consider identifying which of my answers are ready made and demonstrate your own intelligence by offering a sincere and reasoned opposing argument.
I’ll refrain from personal
December 13, 2006 - 17:55 ET by BrownCowI’ll refrain from personal attacks as soon as you can refrain from your piety.
Thank GOD I wont have to refrain from personal attacks ! LOL
So, I take it piety is not a
December 13, 2006 - 18:46 ET by bk1955So, I take it piety is not a positive value for you. I really don't think of myself as particulary pious. IT appears personal attacks have more value for you than open dialogue. At least it appears you can keep yourself entertained.
Wrong women for women's rights
December 13, 2006 - 19:14 ET by acumen"I assure you I am quite sincere in my support of women's rights."
Except for women that are still in the womb of course.
You seem to be "equally sincere" that those women have NO rights which nicely balances your support of the right to hypocrisy. Please forgive me if I am making you feel uncomfortable positioning this as a life and death issue; I am simply honestly sincere in my support of all women's rights - not just the ones I deem worthy.......
We all have a right to hypocr
December 13, 2006 - 19:33 ET by bk1955We all have a right to hypocracy. I am not uncomfortable, this is a life and death issue. That's why I believe it should be discussed openly, without sarcasm and name calling.
I can't decide whether your exception is ludicrous or mythical. My definition of woman is a female human who has passed menses. Your exception does not conform to my definition.
By my definition, an unborn female human does not have equal rights with her mother.
bkYou're cold as ice."On
December 13, 2006 - 19:49 ET by bigtimerbk
You're cold as ice.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Thumbs up or thumbs down?
December 13, 2006 - 20:18 ET by acumen"We all have a right to hypocracy."