From a pro-life point of view, America is murdering on the order
of a million unborn children every year--infanticide to the tune of
about 47 million since 1973. Gay marriage, on the other hand, seems
unlikely to result in the death of anyone. Even if it's immoral and
socially harmful, as many opponents believe, it doesn't victimize
anyone, much less kill them. So it was eye-opening when Tony
Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council,
told Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard that gay
marriage has "reached the same plane as the right to life issue"
among Republican voters.
Unfortunately, he's probably right. Religious conservatives seem to
be as outraged by men marrying men as they are about men murdering
children. Even if Perkins isn't implying moral equivalence (it's
not exactly clear), the very fact that these two issues are
"coequal" as political priorities suggests that conservatives have
either lost all sense of moral proportion or aren't all that
serious about abortion being murder.
In fact, the two issues aren't "coequal" where legislative action
is concerned: Conservatives are actively pushing a constitutional
amendment to ban gay marriage, but they've shelved their drive for
a constitutional ban on abortion. Though that may make sense as a
purely political decision, it's morally unintelligible--especially
given that neither amendment can pass right now. As a symbolic
gesture, it's worth trying to ban same-sex matrimony that exists in
only one state, but not industrial-scale mass murder all around the
country?
I understand that some people of good conscience oppose gay
marriage on moral grounds, and that's fine. But someday social
conservatives will look back on their panicky response to gay
marriage as an occasion when they let hysteria get the better of
them.
Moral Hysteria on the Right
ADVERTISEMENT
33 Comments for “Moral Hysteria on the Right”
posted by Scott on
Okay look – a lot of Republicans are concerned about gay marriage. But a lot of Democrats are too and yet we always seem to obsess about the GOP on this issue. I know a large number of Democrats in my area who are staunchly opposed to gay marriage for moral and religious reasons. Yet they vote for candidates who tend to either tepidly support it or never bring it up. Democrats, at least according to polling, are basically split down the middle on this issue, much like Republicans are on abortion. The perception is that the Dems are overwhelmingly in favor and perhaps that’s true when you look at select national polls. But break it down by region and you find a major difference. I live in the South and believe me when I say that BOTH parties are not exactly supportive of gay marriage. Tony Perkins speaks for the evangelical, traditional values sect of the GOP. I represent those who feel that you can be a loyal Republican and support full marriage rights for gays, that you can be a Republican and oppose the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, you are a good Republican even though you believe that the Employment Nondiscrimination Act should be passed to protect gays in the workplace. When did we stop allowing people to have their disagreements on individual issues yet still be able to work together on those they share a belief in? I serve on a board that provides medical and other services to HIV/AIDS patients in the region where I live. We have some strongly conservative Democrats on our board who undoubtedly oppose gay marriage yet believe in compassion with regard to those suffering from AIDS. Applying the rigid standards that many here seem bent on doing would render my working with these folks impossible. See the problem here? Let’s just remember that gays aren’t on the priority list for either party now, and no, the Libertarians aren’t jumping up and down for us either!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Scott: “The perception is that the Dems are overwhelmingly in favor and perhaps that’s true when you look at select national polls. But break it down by region and you find a major difference. I live in the South …”
I hadn’t thought about it before, but I wonder whether the difference in tone and approach in the comments to this blog over the years have been grounded in regional differences.
In Wisconsin, where I live, the differences between the parties are much more clear-cut.
The vote on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnership, and other similar legal status in Wisconsin showed marked differences between the parties.
In the State Assembly, the Republicans voted 55-1 in favor of the amendment, while the Democrats voted 30-4 against the amendment. In the State Senate, Republicans voted 19-0 in favor of the amendment, while Democrats voted 14-0 against.
State polls show material, if not marked, differences between the parties among voters’ attitudes toward same-sex marriage and civil unions, too, although age differences are more signficant within party than party affiliation.
The difference becomes more marked, however, when two subgroups — voters “strongly opposed” of same-sex marriage and civil unions (roughly a third of Wisconsin’s voting population) and voters “strongly in favor” (roughly a quarter of Wisconsin’s voting population) are compared by party affiliation. The “strongly opposed” voters very heavily affiliate with the Republican Party and the “strongly in favor” voters very heavily affiliate with the Democrat Party.
As I think about this, it is not surprising, perhaps, that a number of us from regions where the divisions between the parties are sharp tend to, as you put it, “obsess about the GOP on this issue”.
And our “obsession”, at least in my case, is accentuated by the fact that I am a conservative, in the traditional sense of the word, who was once aligned with the Republican Party. I feel betrayed by the Republican use of “faggot, faggot” to “energize the base” — and, to be blunt, but the whole “culture wars” agenda of the Republican Party.
Whatever, I guess. But the “faggot, faggot” tactic is so transparent in Wisconsin that not even the Republican leadership bothers to deny it.
So, as I look at the issue from the perspective of this state, Wisconsin, the Republican Party is rock-solid in opposition to GLBT equality and thinks that GLBT citizens are fodder to be used to “energize the base”.
I beg to differ. I am not a play toy to be used for political advantage by the Republican Party. Not for a minute. And I am fighting back from outside the Republican Party.
I don’t have a problem with GLBT Republicans who have chosen to fight back from the inside. More power to them. I hope you are successful in restoring the party to sanity.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“we always seem to obsess about the GOP on this issue”
Actually, some of us simply choose to call a spade a spade.
Republicans are the ones actively campaigning against equal rights for gay people under the law. Democrats vary between craven agreement for political benefit, agreement, or opposition. The latter party is far from admirable, but the role of the former in its effort to create sexual orientation apartheid is difficult to deny.
I tire of the notion that when one criticizes either of the old two parties, he must automatically also mention that the other does the same thing. As is obvious in a national, averaging view, both parties differ little on most areas of substance anyway. Such an observation should be self-evident and shouldn’t divert the attention of the non-old-party-aligned plurality from the real issues at hand beyond their team-sports approach.
posted by Lori Heine on
Why the new emphasis on gays instead of abortion? Simple. There are a hell of a lot more straight people than there are gay ones, and they always manage to find a way to allow themselves and one another anything they want. Moral outrage is safer when directed against somebody else.
It is a sign of how utterly depraved our society has become that we now define “sin” as being whatever we don’t want to do anyway, while what the heck — we’re being moral just by doing what comes naturally.
The comment on Libertarians not “jumping up and down” to support us, this betrays a big-party, statist understanding of politics. I don’t care how other Libertarians feel about homosexuality. They think that everybody should get equal treatment under the law, and that the personal religious beliefs of some should not be allowed to rule everybody’s lives. That’s quite enough for me; I don’t need Libertarian leaders to stand up and deliver touchy-feely messages tailor-made for my own particular group, simply to bolster my self-esteem.
posted by D.S.H - The Gay Species on
As I scrolled reading the message, I thought Stephen H. Miller had yet another epiphany about the Right, only to discover it was written by Rauch in his usually perspicuous self. Good to see Jonathan posting direct. A little libertarianism is a great antidote to \\\\\\\\\\\\\\”social conservatism.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\”
posted by Scott on
Tom, I think you make an excellent point in that certain regions of the country are far more partisan in terms of where the parties stand. In the South the Dems are often as conservative across the board as the GOP and in some cases even moreso. I choose to keep my faith in the Republican Party because of many other things outside of “gay rights.” Whether the Dems in Southern states would ever support gay marriage is something I doubt many people outside this region have ever thought much about. The black community is almost completely Democratic and anti-gay overall. Why aren’t we talking about that fact?
posted by Bobby on
Well, maybe if gays weren’t so quick to lump abortion rights with gay rights, the religious right would be able to tell us apart. I’ve said it a million times, HRC and NGLTF should ONLY concern themselves with gay rights.
The more the gay community shifts left, the more embarassed I am. I have an idea, why don’t we stop using terms like “gay” and “queer” and simply call ourselves “democrats.”
That’s right, if we’re gonna be so goddamm leftwing, let’s just call ourselves “Castro’s” or “commies.” Maybe we can invent a new word, Gaymocrat or Lesbocrat.
In fact, here’s something better. Since we can’t separate abortion from gay rights, why don’t we hold the Fetus Party? It will be like the White Party, but with abortions on sight. Imagine, sexy men dancing in underwear while straight women have their abortions. Woudn’t that be fun?
Or he’s a better idea, why don’t we all gay men have unsafe sex with women? It will be disgusting, but it would prove how pro-choice we all are. That way they can get unwanted pregnancies and we can pay for even more abortions.
In fact, let’s have an abortion parade! We can throw plastic fetuses to the crowd! Wouldn’t that be fun?
Long live the gaymocrats! Long live conformity! Why have different opinions when we all can think alike? All we need is our good gaymocratic community fuhrers to tell us how to think.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Bobby, while I agree with you that GLBT organizations would do better to focus on gay and lesbian issues, being pro-choice is not necessarily a “goddamn leftwing” or “commie” position. Barry Goldwater, for example, strongly believed that abortion was not a proper arena for government intervention. I agree with him.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Scott: “Whether the Dems in Southern states would ever support gay marriage is something I doubt many people outside this region have ever thought much about.”
My own view is that if the issue of same-sex marriage/civil unions were allowed to run its natural course, without a federal amendment or US Supreme Court decision cutting off the political and legislative process in the several states, we will see a pattern emerge much like we did on sodomy — about two thirds of the states recognizing same-sex marriage or equivalent civil unions, and about a third refusing to recognize either.
Ultimately, through, I think that we’ll see a Supreme Court decision that holds in favor of same-sex marriage on a national level, on equal protection grounds.
As ill-tempered as Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence was, I think that he was right — when the states’ right to criminalize sodomy was removed, the constitutional basis for denying equal protection in marriage dissolved, and the states will have to demonstrate that they have a strong reason to discriminate against GLBT couples.
The question has been tested in four states now (Alaska, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Vermont) and in each case, the decisions were remarkably similar. The pattern of decisions will, I think. hold as more and more state courts take up the question, because the states’ justifications for confining marriage to opposite-sex couples do not stand up to equal protection scrutiny.
But the part I’ll never understand is why so few traditional conservatives are willing to make the constitutional and cultural arguments for same-sex marriage. Barry Goldwater would do so, I believe, were he alive. Same-sex marriage is a natural issue for conservatives, both from a constitutional standpoint and a cultural standpoint, as Jon Rauch and many others have pointed out.
posted by Bobby on
There’s nothing wrong with being pro-choice. I am pro-choice. But there’s something wrong and very leftwing about every issue not related to abortion is being framed in pro-choice and pro-life terms.
I’ve met homophobic pro-choicers and gay friendly pro-lifers.
Also, the pro-choice movement has become too radical. Now they want the state to pay for the abortions of the poor. They don’t want parental consent, waiting periods, or anything to give a woman a chance to think about the choice she’s about to make. That is simply not acceptable.
And as an openly gay man, I don’t want to be associated with that movement. I support abortion for purely economic reasons, and it’s not something I’m gonna brag about in public.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“They don’t want parental consent, waiting periods, or anything to give a woman a chance to think about the choice she’s about to make. That is simply not acceptable.”
Why is it the role of government to force people to get others’ consent, not get medical treatment, or have to “wait” to get it?
Why is someone’s private medical and reproductive decision the domain of government to regulate, rationalize and involve itself within?
posted by Lori Heine on
There is a tremendous amount the pro-life movement can do to stem the tide of abortion in this country without having to resort to using governmental force.
As a matter of fact, their very insistence upon force makes it look as if they are not capable of winning the argument — as if their case would not stand on its own. I think they are very wrong.
Like many Americans, I am personally opposed to abortion, yet I believe that simply waving a legislative or judicial magic-wand to get rid of it will not work.
And this is the primary argument against making abortion illegal: IT WILL NOT STOP ABORTION.
Gay people have as much right to take a stand on abortion as does anybody else. And we should not let the Democratic Party dictate to us what our stand, as individuals, ought to be. But women are pretty sick and tired of being pushed around, and the notion that another law to push us around will be a beneficial thing is just plain stupid.
Anybody who thinks those of us who oppose government intervention in what we believe to be private and personal matters is a “commie” has no understanding of what a “commie” is.
posted by Bobby on
I know exactly what a “commie” is, and while I might use that word too much, many people are communist without even being aware that they’re communist. Proof? Well, communist are by nature totalitarian, hate the rich, hate private industry, hate free speech, hate organized religion, hate private ownership of guns, etc, etc, etc. I’ve seen many people who support all of those positions exactly.
Regarding the other subject:
“Why is it the role of government to force people to get others’ consent, not get medical treatment, or have to “wait” to get it?”
—I have to wait to buy a gun. A child can’t even get a tatoo without parental consent. If you work in government, you have to wait to get a security clerance. If you apply to the military, you have to wait to get accepted or rejected. If you want to film in a public street, or demostrate, you have to wait to get a permit. Making a woman wait 3 days is not unreasonable. What do you want? Express abortions? Drive-through abortions? Come on, it’s not about health, this isn’t Mexico, even if you’re buying prozac you have to wait for a prescription.
“Why is someone’s private medical and reproductive decision the domain of government to regulate, rationalize and involve itself within?”
—Here’s one reason. Statutory rape. Many of the young girls who are getting abortions might have been the victims of rape by adult males. The people expect the government to capture rapists, it’s a public safety issue.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have complete unregulated freedom for abortion and not for everything else. Either you’re a complete libertarian and help us get the government out of our lives in every issue, or you make compromises. But it’s insane for the pro-choice movement to want us to respect their choices while they don’t respect ours.
I miss the old days, when liberals would fight for everyone’s freedoms. Like the jewish lawyer, appointed by the ACLU, who fought for the American Nazi Party’s right to march in Skokie, IL. That was when speech was speech and not “hate speech.” When we had diverse opinions without talking about diversity. When the media reported the news and didn’t try to promote an agenda.
posted by JimG on
To Northeast Libertarian: “Why is it the role of government to get others consent….” I guess for the same reason that if you’re driving faster than the speed limit, the Highway Patrol pulls you over. Or because if you have a contract with somebody and they break it, you can haul them into court and have the government force them to honor it on your behalf. Yes, this is a VERY fine line but all we can do is collectively, as a society, decide which items we are willing to allow the government to intervene in. Remembering that this is supposed to be on our behalf (and hold the government to that) And as the experiment progresses toss out the ones that don’t work. That way big business or big government or your big neighbor has something that can stop them from steam rolling over you. To take one example: there is nothing wrong or odd, in my mind for a government to force a woman to tell her husband that she is planning an abortion. He has equal rights regarding that unborn child. So that situation brings up the question: How do you rely on individual freedom to solve this situation when two individuals are pulling that situation in two entirely different directions? Who do we turn to to solve it? Someone’s great aunt? Or the government? At least when its the government we have recourse through the ballot box if we determine that someone has made a bad decision. With auntie, well….
posted by Lori Heine on
“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t have complete unregulated freedom for abortion and not for everything else.”
That is logical. But don’t assume those of us who are libertarians do support “complete unregulated freedom for abortion and not for everything else.”
Actually, most of us believe that government does have a proper role — but that it should only do those things it does well, which is to say, not very much.
One of the reasons the government sucks at most of the things it tries to do is that it spreads itself way too thin. It isn’t content to handle the tasks it is suited to take on, and busies itself on a thousand different things that are none of its business.
I’m trying, at this time, to bring to justice a caregiver who stole tens of thousands of dollars from my father when he was too old and sick to do anything about it. Get the authorities to prosecute her? Fat chance. They seem to expect me to hire my own attorney to do that.
This woman is a criminal. There’s a very good chance she’s a part of a crime ring, of people from Eastern Europe, who come over here and prey on helpless elderly folks. Especially in a state like mine (Arizona), which has a high concentration of retirees in its population, one would think the attorney general’s office would make a high priority of locking these scumbags up.
One would think.
But no, Arizona can’t be bothered with petty little matters like protecting its elderly. Far more important to spend their time dithering about amendments to the state constitution robbing same-sex couples of every possible legal protection.
If I’m a militant Libertarian, I’ve got at least a few good reasons for it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“I guess for the same reason that if you’re driving faster than the speed limit, the Highway Patrol pulls you over. Or because if you have a contract with somebody and they break it, you can haul them into court and have the government force them to honor it on your behalf.”
In both those examples, the individual in question has violated the rights of others — fellow motorists on the road who are endangered, or someone with whom the person has contracted (yet violated the terms).
In abortion and other private medical matters, the only person involved is the individual making the decision about her medical treatment. If you accept that the state has a role in forcing people to delay or alter their own medical decisions, you’re effectively arguing that your body belongs not to you, but the government.
posted by kittynboi on
Well, communist are by nature totalitarian, hate the rich, hate private industry, hate free speech, hate organized religion, hate private ownership of guns, etc, etc, etc.
Well, of those five positions, I only meet #4, so I guess I’m not much of a communist.
What do you want? Express abortions? Drive-through abortions? Come on, it’s not about health, this isn’t Mexico, even if you’re buying prozac you have to wait for a prescription.
There are arguably more legitimate reasons for those other waiting periods, while three day waiting periods for abortions are just government mandated guilt time to make the woman reconsider.
Here’s one reason. Statutory rape. Many of the young girls who are getting abortions might have been the victims of rape by adult males. The people expect the government to capture rapists, it’s a public safety issue.
Then how about waiting periods for only those under 18? See, problem solved.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””They don’t want parental consent, waiting periods, or anything to give a woman a chance to think about the choice she’s about to make. “”””
Since when is it the governments job to mandate time to think about anything in particular in the first place?
posted by Scott on
The more I read the comments of libertarians here the more I see that they really are on the outer limits of the fringe. Irrelevant at best.
posted by Scott on
Most Americans believe that abortion should be legal but under very tight and rare circumstances. The polls always illumunate that fact. I was once pro-choice, back at a time when I had no responsibilities as a parent and no moral reason to see it as a literal life issue. My partner helped change my mind about it and now I am most definitely pro-life. It is about taking innocent life in the vast majority of situations. Folks who advocate totally unrestricted access to the practice of abortion never want to talk about the moral aspect of it because that inconveniently gets in the way. And then there’s the ridiculous argument that gay rights are somehow linked to abortion rights. Yeah, whatever. Kinda like suggesting that gays and blacks share a common heritage of bigotry. Let’s see – how many gays have been denied the right to vote? How many gays cannot live where they choose? How many gays have truly been denied job opportunities because of their sexual orientation? When I look at abortion I see a moral issue. When I look at affirmative action I see hyprocisy in that we’re replacing discrimination with discrminiation. When I look at gay marriage I see a reason to make it a reality on moral grounds but also because of the economic and social realities of it, NOT because it is linked to a woman’s decision to snuff out the life of her unborn child.
posted by Randy R. on
Maybe there should be an amendment that requires a waiting period for all marriage, just like the abortion and gun laws. Most people tell me that after about 8 months of dating, you either decide to go forward with the relationship, or you drop the person. So that would be a good yardstick, eh? File for marriage, wait 8 months, and then you can get married. That would prevent a Britney Spears-type marriage….
posted by Lori Heine on
“The more I read the comments of libertarians here the more I see that they really are on the outer limits of the fringe. Irrelevant at best.”
And the more we read your comments, Scott, the more we see an angry, bitter and belligerent person who get his opinions from Rush Limbaugh and his social skills from The Jerry Springer Show.
Okay, so independence and noncomformity are not your strong points. We get that.
All you need is a few hours a day in front of the TV watching FOX and you’re as informed as you’ll ever want to be. To think of how many people there are out there who are just like you is unfathomably depressing.
Given your apparent contempt for other people, one would think you would love abortion. Think of all the terribly tiresome and totally stupid people abortion spares from ever taxing your superior intelligence with their “irrelevance.”
posted by Bobby on
“There are arguably more legitimate reasons for those other waiting periods,”
—Not really, they’re based on liberals fearing law-abiding citizens whose lives are in danger, which is why they might need those guns right away. I mean, dude, if I’m a criminal and I need a gun, I can get it from a crackwhore or anyone who knows a drug dealer. Don’t think your gun control laws are gonna disarm me.
“while three day waiting periods for abortions are just government mandated guilt time to make the woman reconsider.”
—And what’s wrong with that? There are women who have abortions and live to regret it, some wish they had been given time to reconsider.
Until we live in a libertarian country where we can buy a gun, get an abortion, and go gambling without a permit, ID, and paperwork. Then don’t expect the government will get a little involved.
The only reason some activists fight against the abortion waiting periods is because of principle, not because of need. Waiting 3 days to have an abortion isn’t a matter of life and death. It’s not like the baby is gonna be born in 3 days. And we all know that if the life of the mother was in immediate danger, she might not even have to wait 3 days to get that abortion.
posted by Jimg on
Sorry Northeast Libertarian. Abortion is not just about the woman and her body. Daddy has a right in this matter and THAT is why the state needs to step in because it IS about more than one person. It’s about mom AND dad. That was my point. Otherwise I agree with you, the State has no business interfering.
posted by Scott on
Lori: you, my dear, are only proving my point about fringe people like yourself. So keep it up. Yes, I watch Fox but also watch many other programs and read a great deal as well. If you want to be a Harry Browne kool-aid drinker, then by all means go for it. You and NEL are prime examples of so-called independent thinkers who are the most obvious pseudo-elitists. You smack of your outside-the-norm intelligence and attempt, emphasis on that word, to attack those who happen to be Republicans or Democrats based on your OWN bias and prejudicial thought process. It’s funny how much you’re like the very folks you claim to be so offended by. I’m glad I offend you. It’s a badge of honor.
posted by Bobby on
Daddy doesn’t matter because he had all the fun getting his girlfriend pregnant. And he’s not gonna have to carry that baby to term. The woman might be guilty for getting involved with a piece of human scum. But in the end, pregnancy will always be more of a woman’s problem than a man’s problem. And unless you want to pay higher taxes to raise babies nobody wants to adopt, we’re better off letting women abort.
Of course, in a free country, you’re free to protest at the clinics and offer women money to have their babies and keep them, or give them to you or to others.
If however, a woman tricks a man into getting her pregnant, by lying about taking the pill or punching a hole in her diaphram, the man should not be forced to pay child support.
posted by Lori Heine on
Scott, you must be truly talented. You can completely psychoanalyze somebody on the basis of a couple of comments on a blog thread.
Pardon me for not being too terribly impressed. It takes no courage whatsoever to trash somebody in cyberspace. Thousands of brash, chest-thumping young blowhards do it daily.
You claim to be a conservative? Most of the real conservatives I know are polite, respectful folks. They believe in restoring some civility to American life. By contributing to the swinish, ill-mannered behavior so common on the Internet, you have shown how little your “conservatism” is worth.
Your behavior to several of the commenters on this blog has been boorish. At least one other person has gently hinted, on another thread here, that you might want to try engaging your brain before your fingers.
The next time I need a lecture from somebody half my age, I’ll ask for it. And if you aren’t only half my age, you certainly act like it.
One of the reasons Bushite pseudo-conservatism is getting old with people so quickly is that people are getting sick and tired of all the rudeness and the strutting cowardice that tries to masquerade as bravery.
If you’re bucking to become Bill O’Reilly’s eventual replacement, you’d better hope that, by the time you’re big enough to wear a man-sized suit, there’s still a public demand for infantile behavior by adults on television.
posted by JimG on
At the risk of taking this totally off topic I would just reply to Bobby: So the woman had no fun, eh? She didn’t want it as well, huh? She has NO responsibility for her actions at all, and he’s just scum? If you read my original post this issue came up in the context of a woman being required to tell her husband that she is considering an abortion, which in my mind should be legally approved by both parents before it can be allowed.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Abortion is not just about the woman and her body. Daddy has a right in this matter”
No he doesn’t. Daddy’s not the one who has to carry a fetus to term for nine months, endure morning sickness, endure the pain of childbirth, or face the strong possibility that if the other parent just walks away that he’s the one stuck with the child. Mommy, on the other hand, faces all of that.
Daddy doesn’t have a legal right over her ovaries, uterus, vagina, etc. He doesn’t have ownership of the woman nor the right to force her to endure the rigors of childbearing in order for him to get what he wants. His entire “suffering” in the ordeal is a loud groan and some squirting.
“a woman being required to tell her husband that she is considering an abortion”
It’s none of her husband’s business. You seem to regard a woman as the property of her husband, with which he can do whatever he wants at any time.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Scott, you must be truly talented.”
I don’t know what’s funnier, Lori, Scott’s general trolling, or his insistence that those who disagree with a campy gay neoconservative like himself are from a “fringe” (but that he’s mainstream). 😉
posted by JimG on
The only thing I can say to you N.E. Libertarian, is that if when my momma was pregnant with me and she was thinking about having an abortion I sure as hell am glad you weren\\’t my daddy. This has nothing to do with the husband having \\”ownership\\” of his wife. Your statement that that is what I am saying is bogus. The father has a right to his child. Whether it is born or not. And as far as I am concerned it is YOUR way of thinking that results in father\\’s having so little rights in regards to their children and their children\\’s welfare. Your comment about a groan and a squirt is an insult to fatherhood. I suppose you applauded when Murphy Brown had her single mommy baby? And that\\’s a serious question.
posted by Lori Heine on
Totally lost, on those so outraged at the idea that women might actually choose to have abortions is that they might choose NOT to have them.
Amazing, how mesmerized we’ve become by government power. Making something illegal is seen as a sort of wave of the magic wand — voila’! — it will automatically make it gone!
Simply because some of us believe abortion should remain legal, that does not warrant the hysterical assumption that we think it’s a great idea. Many of us believe there are better ways to reduce the number of abortions.
A few, like myself, believe that the magic-wand approach might even increase the number of abortions that take place.
Pro-lifers are so madly in love with the notion that their magic wand can be powered-up to work that they have underutilized the other abortion-fighting methods at their disposal.
If a baby dies in a back-alley abortion, it is, after all, every iota as dead as one who dies in a legal abortion. If the people out there screeching about “the poor little babies” actually gave a damn about them, maybe they’d stop to think about that.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Lori has once again hit the nail on the head. All that I’ve got to add is that the misogynist, sneering, “man owns the woman” ethos which is so prevalent in the anti-choice-through-government-edict crowd is unlikely to convince many women to not have an abortion. I see many busybodies lining up to regulate womens’ vaginas… I see very few ready to assist with diaper changing, food, education expenses, pediatric care, career training, etc. If they’re not willing to engage in charity to assist the newborn and his mother, that’s as good an indication as any that those advocating government interference don’t care about the child but more about controlling women’s most intimate matters.