Tag Archives: Abortion

Guns And Abortion

Spy vs Spy

If you wanna listen to a debate on policy that is all about form but is specific policy agnostic, listen to republicans and democrats debate abortion and guns.

  • Both sides feel that their cause is protected by the constitution
  • Both sides feel the others cause isn’t, as currently represented, protected by the constitution.
  • Both sides advocate policies that would eliminate the right.
  • Each side has taken to regulation, citing safety, to restrict access to the right.

Guns or abortion, the debate is the same.

And the true wacko’s are the loons on the extreme of both issues.

Abortion And Guns

Substitute one word for the other and you will be unable to distinguish the subject of debate.  Only the nature of the partisan will give you away.

On the right, they believe that the right to bear arms is given to us by the constitution.  Any attempt to regulate that right is really just a strategy to chip away at that right with the goal of removing all guns.  If sometimes bad people use guns in the wrong way and manner, that is the price of freedom.

On the left, they believe that the right to an abortion is given to us by the constitution.  Any attempt to regulate that right is really just a strategy to chip away at that right with the goal of removing all access to abortion.  If sometimes bad people use abortion in the wrong way and manner, that is the price of freedom.

Remember this when you are debating either guns or abortion.


Some time ago a friend and I were debating politics, life and people.  Wonderful conversations these, some of my most favorite.  Wonderful times.

This friend and I find ourselves at opposite ends of the spectrum.  I enjoy calling myself Libertarian and he Liberal; very Liberal.  And while I agree with his views, mostly, on the tender mercies of the social issues, we are in direct contradiction when it comes to things fiscal, economic or, strangely, on Liberty.

It was the topic of Liberty, actually an extension of what I think Liberty is, just the other night.  And, as so often as these conversations do, they begin rather pleasant and easy going and, unless cared for, degenerate into me in my corner and he in his.  So, this time, I asked that we stop and consider each others claim.

See, I see Liberty being extended to the person.  And, I see personhood being established somewhere between conception and actual live birth.  I’m open to the debate about the when, but really, I don’t think that’s the critical point.  The critical point is that you get someone to acknowledge that life begins sometime before actual birth.

Anyway, we were discussing abortion and I declared that I am pro-Liberty.  That is, before life is established, abortion should be at the discretion of the mother.  And after life is established, abortion is at the discretion of the mother is some cases:

  1. Life or health risk of the mother or the child.
  2. Cases where the mother is the victim of a crime.

As the conversation continued, we moved past this distinction and began exploring the right-wing nuts that refused to listen to any rational thought and held to a “no abortion ever for any reason period” position.  At which point I realized that I thought my friend was debating the wing nuts; not me.

So I asked him, “Given that there are extreme positions on the right – no abortion ever – what is the extreme position on the Left?”

His answer?

“There isn’t one”.



Now, when debating an individual about a topic and your going in position is that there are extremists, on YOUR side, that you disagree with, it normally sends a signal that you are somewhat moderate.  But when you’re debating partner refuses to acknowledge the same, it sends the signal that they are not; no matter what they claim they are.

Now, to be fair, my friend does not, at least I think does not, claim to be moderate.

Anyway, when faced with this interesting dilemma that extremism only exits on the “other side” I asked him a question that would cause his Liberal tendencies to collide.

“What if the mother decided to abort because the baby was black”?

Or disabled.

Or gay.

Or a girl.

Eugenics, it seemed, was the extreme.

In this case a person has to determine what to defend.  And in this case, the ugly ugly consequences of a genetic means test outranked the ability of a mother to choose.

Now, to be sure, in the specific I agreed with my friend on this.  I would think it horrible if someone decided to abort a child simply based on the fact that she was a she.  However, I am sure that our rational behind that conclusion would be very very different.

And I find THAT fascinating.

Anyway, I was able to make my point.  That there were extremes, on both sides, that we weren’t willing to go.  And just because I happened to add “Or poor” to that list didn’t make me any more vile than, well, anyone else who objects to abortion based on sex.

Only In a Leftist America

Only if you are a Democrat will you give someone the choice to take the life of a child but deny them the choice of belonging to a Union.

When Women Say They Support Women, They Mean They Support Democrats

The National Organization for Women.

Blessed organization.  Right?

I mean, from their own missions statement:

Since its founding in 1966, NOW’s goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women. NOW works to eliminate discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society; secure abortion, birth control and reproductive rights for all women; end all forms of violence against women; eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia; and promote equality and justice in our society.

Pretty good stuff.  For the record, NOW and I are in step on their stated issue pretty much 1 for 1.  I mean, who doesn’t wanna discrimination and harassment in the workplace, schools, the justice system, and all other sectors of society?

Nobody.  Noble goals indeed.

So, given that this organization of women is looking to promote equality and justice in our society, who do you think they support for Governor of California?

1.  Meg Whitman.  Successful CEO.    Woman.

2.  Jerry Brown.  Unsuccessful politician.  Man.

Easy, right?

OAKLAND – In recognition of his consistent support for women’s equality and reproductive freedom, the PAC for the National Organization for Women’s California chapter today announced its strong support for Jerry Brown for Governor and condemned Republican candidate Meg Whitman’s treatment of women in the workplace and her failure to support a woman’s right to choose.



You have GOTTA be kidding me.

Given the choice between a vibrant,powerful and successful woman, NOW endorses the man.

Maybe it’s Whitman’s stance on abortion?  Let’s see:

“I am pro-choice. Personally, I don’t want to take the choice away from women and their doctors. The U.S. Supreme Court has fully established a woman’s right to choose. I do however support reducing the number of abortions in America and believe there are limits that can be put in place to achieve this objective. I believe for minors parental consent should be required.”

They lied!

But that’s not all Jerry Brown has done:

Brown left a voice mail for a Los Angeles police union representative in September. When his voice message ended, a private conversation ensued at Brown’s end, but the call didn’t disconnect at the union end of the line, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Brown, currently California’s attorney general, was talking about public safety pensions and the possibility of losing police endorsements to Whitman because he wouldn’t promise not to pinch them.

“Do we want to put an ad out? . . . That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions . . . that they’ll go to Whitman, and that’s where they’ll go, because they know Whitman will give ’em, will cut them a deal, but I won’t,” Brown can be heard saying.

Then someone — it’s not clear who — says, “What about saying she’s a whore?” Well, Brown says, “I’m going to use that. It proves you’ve cut a secret deal to protect pensions.”

Nice.  Whore.

Now, it’s IMPOSSIBLE for NOW to continue to support Brown.  Right?


“Meg Whitman could be described as ‘a political whore.’ Yes, that’s an accurate statement,” Bellasalma, President of California NOW,  said.

Amazing.  The female President of a National Women’s Organization calls the woman in the campaign a whore.

NOW has never been an organization that supports women.  NOW is a liberal, feminist partisan organization made up of women.  But I could have got that had I read THIS part of their Mission Statement:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) is the largest organization of feminist activists in the United States.



Tar Heel —- Purple?

Check out this video of Libertarians discussing immigration, gay marriage and abortion.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Wherein Pino Flip Flops

Okay, so, some time ago I posted here on TarHeelRed that I was pro-choice.  I want to explain where I was and where I am now.

So, I think that the Government is horrible at what it does.  Especially when what it does is something that it should not do.  So, using that as a maxim, I found myself coming out as pro-choice.  And here is why.

See, I am anti-abortion.  Totally.  Except when the mother is a victim of a crime or her life is in danger.  In those two cases, I am in favor of allowing the mother to choose.  However, in ALL cases, I am against late term abortions; even in crime cases.  Because I am in favor of legislation that would prohibit abortions, an exception would require judicial review.  And because I adhere to Pino’s Maxim, in part because I am Pino, I acknowledge that the government must necessarily suck at:

  1. Quickly deciding the case.
  2. Deciding it correctly.

Therefore, I was left with no choice, heh heh, but to come out on the side of:  Pro-Choice.

However, since then, I have rethought my position and decided that rather than give my okay to abortions that I consider immoral, I must advocate better legal procedures.

Therefore and hereby, I am, Pro-Life.

Liberal Press: An Example

So, we have all heard about the Dr. in Kansas that was gunned down while serving as an usher at his local church.  The play in the media, the blogs and the talk shows has been understandably heavy.  In addition to the story itself, there has even been an increase in the whole abortion debate.  I would suspect, given our divide on the issue of abortion, that this could not be avoided.  However, the aspect that has really gotten me sideways is the whole guilt by association running parallel to this.

There are opinions on both sides of the abortion debate.  Additionally, each side runs heavy on emotion.  As with all charged debates that are fed with significant amounts of emotion, extremists emerge.  To hold one group of people who have an opinion on an issue responsible for the extremists is poor form in the highest degree.  The stories that are circulating that claim so and so contributed to the murder.  Or that this group and their HATE speech motivated this act, are stories of the worst kind.  I don’t any one single person that thinks cold blooded murder is the way to handle a debate, any debate.  Everyone I know thinks that this guy in custody is guilty of 1st degree murder and should be given the book.

But does that stop the stories?  The press and the whole “machine”?  No.

But the worst of this is in the coverage of the soldiers gunned down in Arkansas.  Literally the day after this Dr. was murdered, a Muslim extremist shot and killed a soldier; another was injured as well.  Not only is play of the news story far less than the Dr.’s, but the outrage is starkly missing.  I don’s see one single story screaming that it’s radical Islam, and groups that support it, being held responsible for this shooting.  I don’t see Anti-War groups being excoriated for fanning the flames of hate causing this to occur.  Nothing.  No where.

So it was that I was trying to find such a story last night.  I couldn’t.  But, near the end of my search, I just refreshed CNN.  And this is what I find:

NEW YORK (CNN) — A potential victim became a compassionate counselor during a recent robbery attempt, changing the would-be criminal’s mind — and apparently his religion.

This is the story, even compelling, of a shop keeper showing compassion to a would be burglar.  And during this moment of compassion, perhaps converted the man to Islam.  Now, don’t get me wrong, this story is the feel good news that I think we should see more often.  However, I can’t get over the double standard being displayed here.

On one hand we have Pro-Life organizations and individuals being held accountable for one man’s extreme views.  Ont he other, we have a feel good piece on Islam giving that particular group’s extremists a free pass.