Forget it, Jake. It’s Alabama

14 Comments for “Forget it, Jake. It’s Alabama”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    This is what you get when both parties nominate social-issue extremists.

    Alabama Senate candidate Doug Jones: “I am a firm believer that a woman should have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body. And I’m going to stand up for that and I’m going to make sure that that continues to happen. … I’m not in favor of anything that is going to infringe on a woman’s right and her freedom to choose. That’s just the position that I’ve had for many years. It’s a position I continue to have.”

    I agree with him. I think that the abortion decision is between the parents, their doctors and clergy, and God. The government has no role in making the decision, as I see things.

    Conservative Christians and their political allies have long stood for the principle that the government, rather than individual citizens, should be the arbiter of moral decisions, no matter how personal the decision and regardless of the moral/religious convictions of the individual citizen. I don’t agree with that position. In fact, I think that position is abhorent.

    Count me in as a “social-issue extremist”, I guess. Bring it on. I’ve been called a lot worse than that shit.

    With respect to the upcoming special election, relax, Stephen. Judge Roy Moore’s positions on almost all culture war issues line up with the 2016 Republican Platform, and he’s going to win the special election hands down.

  2. posted by Jim Michaud on

    Yep, Guy Benson’s article is commendable. A gay conservative speaking out against Roy Moore. But Stephen, you’re not fooling me. You’re trying to portray this as gays making headway in today’s GOP. Read the comments for this article, buster. Most of them are condemning Mr. Benson and/or making snide remarks. So how’s that great GOP outreach to the GLBT community going?

  3. posted by JohnInCA on

    I think the part I like the most is where he acts like wanting to lock people up because they’re gay is just as bad as not wanting to lock women up for having an abortion.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Huh? Are you reading something I’m not? He doesn’t write about locking women up.

      The way you enforce bans on illegal abortions is to lock up doctors and ban them from practicing medicine. This leads to women traveling to other countries or states to have abortions, having miscarriages as a result of domestic violence, or performing self-injurious behaviors–some of which may actually lead to a live birth, resulting in homicide charges when the child dies. I am not at all convinced the former two situations are less common than the latter.

      • posted by JohnInCA on

        “Are you reading something I’m not?”
        Real news articles for the last fifteen years regarding what happens to women seeking abortions, mentioning that they might be interested in an abortion, or having self-administered an abortion in various states of the union?

        Just ’cause someone doesn’t talk about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. And when it happens as a direct consequence of policies they support? They’re either an ignorant idiot, or they consider it acceptable collateral damage.

        • posted by Jorge on

          I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Abortion has been legal in this country for the past 40 years. To review, in your words:

          “I think the part I like the most is where he acts like wanting to lock people up because they’re gay is just as bad as not wanting to lock women up for having an abortion.”

          When I ask if you’re reading into something I’m not and point out he doesn’t mention anything about locking women up, you allege that in the past 15 years, women have in fact been locked up for “seeking abortions, mentioning that they might be interested in an abortion, or having self-administered an abortion in various states of the union” based on media articles that you imagine I can look up.

          You further attempt to shift the burden of proof by alleging that the mere absence of discussion on the subject does not mean it does not happen. You thus present a claim that defies history and common sense, allege that it can be verified, refuse to verify it yourself, and demand that the other party prove you wrong when you haven’t even begun to prove yourself right.

          That would be unacceptable enough, but you further allege that anyone who shares the author’s position on abortion is either ignorant of or believes as fact and considers acceptable this unverified claim of yours that based on events in the past 15 years, women who seek abortions that are illegal are imprisoned. That’s an ad hominem personal attack in the place of facts and logic.

          I will not grant you the deference you are asking for. I think your accusation that the author is presenting a desire to lock up women who want to have an abortion is disingenuous. I think your allegation that women have been locked up in the past 15 years in the United States for seeking illegal abortions is disingenuous in fact and presentation. And in linking a false myth to a motivation that appears nowhere in the article, I believe you’re emulating the bait-and-switch, slippery slope tactics of the worst among the anti-gay religious right, and proving exactly what Mr. Miller and the author are alleging about far-left extremism masquerading as pro-choice politics.

          • posted by JohnInCa on

            So I want to be clear… when you ask:
            “Are you reading something I’m not?”
            you don’t actually want an answer? Because you got awfully offended that the answer was “yes”.

            And really, I never tire of folks getting offended that I don’t give citations to off-hand comments that I write in 30 seconds.

          • posted by Jorge on

            Because you got awfully offended that the answer was “yes”.

            Well, I hope I’d have been unhappier if you’d said no or refused to answer the question.

            Anyway, you’re engaging in another personal attack rather than trying to answer my concern. The reason “I got offended” is because you tried to pass off something that does not seem to be true (you’ll notice I’m not that skeptical of the part about self-induced abortions) .

          • posted by JohnInCA on

            “[…] you’re engaging in another personal attack rather than trying to answer my concern.”
            … and?

            Which do you think is more likely:
            (A) that I’m going to take a day off to dig up articles, reports, and research over the last couple of decades about the real-world consequences of anti-abortion legislation, meticulously cite and source everything, and then hand that all to you on a silver platter.
            (b) that I’m going to laugh at your disproportionate reaction and your unreasonable expectation that I’ll do (A)?

  4. posted by Jorge on

    “Moore’s rap sheet is filled with distasteful and abhorrent items. Knocking him for correctly stating that our fundamental constitutional rights stem from God, not from government, is a telling misfire. In this case, Moore echoed the explicit beliefs of our founding fathers, who spoke the “self-evident” truth that human beings are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

    Roy Moore vs. abortion on demand, eh? I’m not pro-life, but I must admit this author has a harder task ahead of him than I ever have.

    Political power does not only exist for 1-2 votes a year. Is there someone out there who’s better than Moore (of course there is) or Jones (like the fellow Bernie Sanders found)? You give money to them. You write to them. Reward or punish politicians as events happen. I’ll probably never vote for Chuck Schumer so long as the Supreme Court and Obamacare are issues for me. There are other things I count on him to do, and he does them, whether it’s because he’s a Democrat or out of bipartisanship. I will hold him accountable for them. I happen to think he’s a great Senator.

    • posted by Jorge on

      Ouch. I thought I had italicized the whole quote.

  5. posted by Tj 3rd on

    Federal abortion law – not supreme court case law – is very unlikely going to substantially change.

    Federal gay rights law is certainly in play. Their is a real possibility of getting certain equal opportunity protections put in place.

    So, when dealing with election for US Senate, your vote is unlikely to shift federal abortion law , but may impact whether congress views anti-gay discrimination as a civil rights issue or a prelude to locking them gays up.

    • posted by Jorge on

      That doesn’t break the impasse for everyone. If the guy doesn’t want the stain on his conscience of helping elect Moore even if he’s 1 out of 99 Senators who votes against gay rights protections, he’s not going to want the stain of helping to elect someone who will vote in another unlikely to pass scenario to allow into law the slaughter of late-term fetuses.

  6. posted by Doug on

    So now AG Sessions reverses Obama’s transgendered policy on workplace discrimination.

    You certainly backed a winner, Stephen, Trump is taking care of LBGT folks just fine.

Comments are closed.