It is interesting to note the seeming contradiction when schools find it necessary to teach all the best ways to have “safe” sex to minors who cannot legally consent to have sex in the first place and yet also find it necessary to suspend students for legal handholding or hugging. The same contradiction is observed in schools allowing profane t-shirts as “freedom of expression” but suspending a student who used the word “noose” as a racial slur.
However, it really is part of the Nannystate mindset, the continued infantilization of American society, lead in no small part by the contemporary American Left which, above all else, defines their own brand of “freedom” and demands it be divorced from obligation and responsibility.
Please take at least 10 minutes to listen to the first part of this 34 minute segment of Dennis Prager’s show with Dr. Stephan Marmer, UCLA clinical psychiatrist about the making of happy adults. The biggest obstacle to happiness is the refusal of adults to actually grow up. He states that the majority of the patients he sees, people already into their 30’s, have refused to let go of their child-like expectations. The expectation of being taken care of, of having all needs met, of unconditional love and acceptance and never being required to do anything in return. This is the proper expectation of infants, but we wean infants from the breast long before they start school.
As Dr. Marmer further explains, part of this is a generational problem. Those that grew up during the Depression wanted to spare their children the pressure of not having money. So the baby boomers were raised with all their material needs met but were expected to achieve and that achievement was under the pressure of time. The Boomer parents wanted to spare their children of the pressures of money and time, so we have increasing numbers of 30, even 40 year old adults living with their parents. Current parents are now trying to spare their children even the pressure of achieving. From “no score” sports, to “no grading” report cards, to “no valedictorians”, to “everyone gets a trophy” the movement to cocoon children and adults from the merest disappointment in life is endemic. Ban dodge ball or tag because someone’s feelings might be hurt. Ban monkey bars and swings, even recess itself least a scraped elbow or bruised shin cause undue pain … and you are raising people unequipped to deal with the vagaries of adulthood.
Look at the sheer volume of unhappiness and vindictiveness manifested on leftist blogs. There are demands that medical care is an unfettered right, along with homes and jobs (that pay a “living wage”) and education. All to be provided by Big Mommy Government (i.e. someone else). Observe the shrill demands for the revival of the [un]Fairness Doctrine that are decorated with claims of controlling “hate” and “offensive” speech — translated: a childish demand that means “Spare me the pain of having to listen to a point of view I do not agree with.”
And few words are more “offensive” to the childish Left than responsibility. Like a child that throws a tantrum, screaming at the parent “you’re nothing but a big meany!” after being told no TV because s/he hasn’t picked up his/her toys, the Left demands license to engage in any behavior without risk. Point out the risks, point out the relevant factors outside of the chorus of “me me me” and one will have attributed to them all manner of dark and nefarious motives.
Pandagonian St. Amanda declares a price increase of contraceptives on college campuses a conspiracy to control females’ sex life. Quest-poster Cara on Feministe has made up her mind that it is wrong to have laws that consider a fetus a separate entity worthy of a count of murder when the fetus is killed during the assault or murder of the mother because that “takes away” from a woman’s “autonomy”. Indeed, in that threads comments, zuzu declares fetal murder laws are the “thin wedge” to deprive women of their rights.
We expect silliness of babies and small children. It’s disturbing when seen in ostensible adults and it is alarming when it is promulgated as public policy.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 2:50 pm #
Well said … well said, indeed.
Comment by TheGeezer on 11/26 @ 2:52 pm #
Appearances are deceiving.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/26 @ 3:01 pm #
Leftist mantra:
mememememememe … Bushitlerburton!!! … memememememememe
The far left has always been populated by non grown ups. They still believe that those deep Marxist tomes they read in college, extolled by their cool, hippie professors, have real application in the real world if only the smart people could convince and/or force the yahoos to see the light of a benevolent if dictatorial nanny state.
It reminds me of when I was about seven years old and belived that someday I would attend a circus like the Circus McGurkus.
Then, of course, I grew up and found rock and roll.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 3:03 pm #
BJ – I could not tell if you were trying to say meme meme meme meme or me me me me me. Either way, right on target.
Comment by Education Guy on 11/26 @ 3:08 pm #
Wait, there will never be a Circus McGurkus? Eh, at least I’ll always have my mother the steam shovel. Snort.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/26 @ 3:17 pm #
JD: HA! I never even thought of the meme thing, but it works either way!
EG: Political systems come and go but Dr. Suess is forever.
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/26 @ 3:22 pm #
They may decide to sing a different tune when their own teenage kids they have selfishly decided not to abort start mouthing off to them, misbehaving and getting into typical teenage trouble at school and with the law.
Comment by Cave Bear on 11/26 @ 3:23 pm #
I have no doubt that the proggies would be unable to discern that “seeming contradiction” you mentioned. Sort of reminds me of a joke I heard some years ago that went something like this, “You can have sex with whomever you want, wherever you want, and however you want, but by damn you better not smoke a cigarette afterwards”…
As for the “noose” thing, as I can say is that you have got to be fucking kidding me. I thought I’d heard it all when that Washington DC city employee was forced to resign for having been overheard using the word “niggardly”, but this takes the cake.
Comment by keninnorcal on 11/26 @ 3:30 pm #
Funny I should read this a few minutes after having finished Conrad’s “The Shadow-Line,” a tale of at least partially crossing from youth to maturity. As well as other usual Conradian themes, responsibility and being prepared for both your role and adulthood are stressed much more than usual.
A totally useless comment, but the timing gave me a nice little frisson.
Comment by Cowboy on 11/26 @ 3:38 pm #
Great post, Darleen.
Comment by Jim in KC on 11/26 @ 3:47 pm #
…zuzu declares fetal murder laws are the “thin wedge†to deprive women of their rights.She’s probably right about that, as far as intent goes.
Comment by Jim in KC on 11/26 @ 3:48 pm #
So I guess blockquoting is not working yet on the new host, huh? Ah well.
Comment by Alec Leamas on 11/26 @ 4:26 pm #
“…zuzu declares fetal murder laws are the “thin wedge†to deprive women of their rights.She’s probably right about that, as far as intent goes.”
Upon information and belief, zuzu is one of your more “ample” women whose favorite “wedge” is neither thin nor lacking in pork products and/or Havarti cheese.
Comment by ck on 11/26 @ 5:10 pm #
Being a member of the “worthless generation”, I’m 54, your assessment is right on.
Comment by JHoward on 11/26 @ 5:22 pm #
Nicely reasoned, Darleen.
Speaking of behavior law and the politics behind it, http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/11/should-spouses-who-kill-their-children.html
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 5:23 pm #
I have never understood the fetal murder laws. If it is not yet a child, how can it be murdered? If it is a child, why isn’t abortion murder as well? Just another one of those conundrums that the Leftists are willing to overlook in pursuit of the Narrative.
Pingback by “This is the proper expectation of infants” : The Sundries Shack on 11/26 @ 5:29 pm #
[...] Interesting stuff from Darleen Click at proteinwisdom. The biggest obstacle to happiness is the refusal of adults to actually grow up. He states that the majority of the patients he sees, people already into their 30’s, have refused to let go of their child-like expectations. The expectation of being taken care of, of having all needs met, of unconditional love and acceptance and never being required to do anything in return. This is the proper expectation of infants, but we wean infants from the breast long before they start school. [...]
Comment by Jimmie on 11/26 @ 5:30 pm #
I think this is a brilliant post, Darleen.
Comment by RMN on 11/26 @ 5:35 pm #
self-made conservative…
“If he goes to anyone else,” says Lucianne Goldberg, “I’ll kill him.”
Comment by B Moe on 11/26 @ 5:39 pm #
Does RMN stand for Rather Meaningless Nuisance?
Comment by daleyrocks on 11/26 @ 5:42 pm #
Darleen – When these people are finally forced to confront real life on life’s terms with all its attendant problems, shock, confusion, disorientation, depression, or a host of other issues can often be the result. For their families, dysfunctional is frequently the treatment goal of therapy programs.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 6:09 pm #
RMN – Is there a fucking point to be made? Or, is it alright for your lefties to become a media personality, but not somebody on the right?
Comment by RMN on 11/26 @ 6:15 pm #
wingnut welfare…
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 6:18 pm #
RMN – I ask again, do you have a point. If so, make it. If not, be gone with you. You are turning into simply a tiresome troll. I guess this is to be expected, since many attempted to engage you, rather than simply mocking you and your Twoofer ways.
You, get off my planet.
Comment by RMN on 11/26 @ 6:28 pm #
sinecure n. position that requires little or no work but usually yields profit or honor.
Comment by Pablo on 11/26 @ 6:40 pm #
Al Gore = sinecure! Thanx RMN. I get it!
You can go away now.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 6:42 pm #
As I suspected, blatant trolling.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 6:44 pm #
Pablo – algoracle is the textbook definition of that word.
Comment by B Moe on 11/26 @ 6:52 pm #
Another glaringly, to most of us, example of this mentality is in the schools. How many stories do we see now of school officials meting out ridiculously inappropriate punishments because of zero tolerance type rules that abdicate them of any personal decision making and the attached responsibility?
Comment by Repulsive Moldy Nutsack on 11/26 @ 6:54 pm #
There ya go. Red meat.
Pingback by "...lowest estimates are in the tens of thousands." [JHoward] on 11/26 @ 6:54 pm #
[...] to pile on poor defenseless Nanny State or anything, but Darleen’s post prompts a thought about another level of bad statism. What’s interesting here, beyond the [...]
Comment by Really Mostly Noxious on 11/26 @ 6:58 pm #
Better?
Comment by RMN on 11/26 @ 6:59 pm #
“The political lesson here is that special interests are in the eye of the beholder: [He} thinks that janitors who clean buildings for eight dollars an hour are a special interest, while I tend to think that middle-age white guys whose cushy sinecures at conservative think tanks nicely insulate them from the vicissitudes of the same free market they so fetishize are a special interest.”
Christopher Hayes…
Comment by andy on 11/26 @ 7:33 pm #
This post deserves a presidential medal of freedom. Who ever heard of liberals supporting accountability and oversight?
Comment by Moops on 11/26 @ 7:41 pm #
If it is not yet a child, how can it be murdered? If it is a child, why isn’t abortion murder as well? Just another one of those conundrums that the Leftists are willing to overlook in pursuit of the Narrative.
JD, it isn’t Leftists who advocate for these fetal murder laws.
Comment by Pablo on 11/26 @ 7:57 pm #
Right.
Gerardo Flores was unavailable for comment.
Comment by Really Mostly Noxious on 11/26 @ 8:06 pm #
RMN – Make a fucking point !!!!!!!!! Is there anything worse than trolls that just copy and paste other people’s words, or links without comment ?
Comment by mishu on 11/26 @ 8:20 pm #
Who’s this RMN douche bag?
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 8:29 pm #
mishu – The correct term is douche nozzle. RMN is a douche nozzle. RMN is not a douche bag.
Comment by Rob Crawford on 11/26 @ 8:36 pm #
Douche nozzle? Nah, RMN is enema backwash.
Comment by Pablo on 11/26 @ 8:36 pm #
What’s really sad is that he’s thinks he’s clever.
Comment by McGehee on 11/26 @ 8:39 pm #
What’s really sad is that he’s thinks he’s thinking.
Comment by The Lost Dog on 11/26 @ 8:51 pm #
Wow!
You have touched the core. I hope you didn’t burn your hands.
I’ve been looking for those words for a long time, but seem to go off on a rant every time I approach them. I guess I get angry when I realize that these people are actually taking over the most free society ever seen. “Seen” being the operative word here. Referring to the freedoms that we grew up with, past tense has almost become a reality…And it boggles my mind that these petty elitists dare to blame Bush for the oppression that THEY have visited upon this country. Jeebus!
Thanks, D.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 9:08 pm #
geez andy I didn’t say a thing about liberals.
And the Left is all about “accountability” … of others who don’t fulfill the Left’s infant fantasies of How Things Should Be(tm)
Comment by andy on 11/26 @ 9:11 pm #
“geez andy I didn’t say a thing about liberals.”
Sorry I misread ‘leftist blogs’ and ‘pandagonians.’ I still think this deserves a presidential medal.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 9:14 pm #
Moops
JD points out the conundrum and rather than facing up to the reality that a fetus is, indeed, a separate entity from the woman (as even Roe v Wade acknowledges as having increasing rights that the state can intervene to protect) the pro-abortionists are unwilling to even consider the rationale behind fetal harm/murder statutes.
California has had a fetal murder law on the books for over 35 years.
Comment by Merovign on 11/26 @ 9:19 pm #
Well, it’s always nice to see visits from “It’s all about changing the subject” RMN and “It’s all about me! Me! Me1″ Andy.
It’s sure been nice.
It sure HAS BEEN nice.
Didja need me to go fetch yer jackets?
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 9:19 pm #
#23 RMN
Funny how you conflate private enterprise with government.
Advisor to Hugo Chavez?
Comment by RMN on 11/26 @ 9:38 pm #
Funny how you conflate private enterprise with government.
Advisor to Hugo Chavez?
The sinecured authors suing Regnery are the ones conflating…
“It suddenly occurred to us that Regnery is making collectively jillions of dollars off of us and paying us a pittance.†He added: “Why is Regnery acting like a Marxist cartoon of a capitalist company?â€Â
too funny…
Comment by mishu on 11/26 @ 9:38 pm #
re: #33 RWN
Usually $8/hour janitors aren’t citizens who can’t vote. Whereas “middle-age white guys” [ed. RWM's a racist? an ageist? -- you betcha.] may or may not be citizens who could vote. Besides, it’s up to the think tank to determine whether the “white guys” are sinecures or not. The opinion of some douche nozzle on the interwebs doesn’t matter one bit.
Comment by mishu on 11/26 @ 9:41 pm #
The douche nozzle learns a word and he can’t stop repeating it, like a three-year-old. What was the topic of this post again?
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 9:42 pm #
You blamed alot of the right people, but you forgot to blame those who selectively take complex problems in society and ham-fistedly reduce them down to political-party advocacy.
Those people are the worst!
Comment by Mike C. on 11/26 @ 9:42 pm #
It’s a case of written Tourette’s.
Comment by Mike C. on 11/26 @ 9:43 pm #
RMN’s that is.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 10:06 pm #
steve
like andy you confuse ideology with partisan politics.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 10:21 pm #
RMN
I see a contract dispute … on the lines of those other writers walking the picket lines in So Cal
I would assume from the smugness you find writing beneath you.
So why are you here?
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 10:33 pm #
Darleen – I absolutely refuse to follow his links, but given the prior one about Regenery, is it safe to assume that there is some dispute between Regenery and some of their writers? Mental midgets like RMN would likely find glee in anything that suggests some type of internal conflict amongst the Right, especially if it involves the likes of Regenery Press. Otherwise, the voices of the right would never be heard, and the moonbats would never have to concern themselves with cognitive dissonance.
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 10:46 pm #
“like andy you confuse ideology with partisan politics.”
Yeah, because lib and con aren’t something more than a proxy for political affiliation. I mean, what could be a richer depiction of one’s ‘ideology’ than some forced binary that maps almost perfectly onto our country’s political parties.
Keeping that in mind – you wrote:
“However, it really is part of the Nannystate mindset, the continued infantilization of American society, lead in no small part by the contemporary American Left which, above all else, defines their own brand of “freedom†and demands it be divorced from obligation and responsibility.”
Maybe if I saw all the libs I knew not paying attention to their kids, not paying their taxes & bills, not obeying the law, etc. (and saw cons doing th opposite) I’d buy all of this nonsense.
Considering that this isn’t the case, and ‘ideology’ (i.e., political affiliation) don’t really explain any of this behavior, I find your attempts (as well as many by your dopplegangers on the left) nothing but dressed up political advocacy.
Comment by McGehee on 11/26 @ 10:55 pm #
Chicken…? Egg…?
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 10:56 pm #
Darleen – You can lead a horse to water, but thanks to those fucks at PETA, you cannot hold the horse’s head underwater for 5 minutes, forcing it to drink.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 10:57 pm #
McGehee – With the likes of steve and RMN, I vote for scrambled chicken eggs.
Comment by B Moe on 11/26 @ 11:04 pm #
“Who ever heard of liberals supporting accountability and oversight?”
Who ever heard of a liberal who understood the difference between personal freedom and responsibility and oversight.
Comment by B Moe on 11/26 @ 11:06 pm #
“Maybe if I saw all the libs I knew not paying attention to their kids, not paying their taxes & bills, not obeying the law, etc. (and saw cons doing th opposite) I’d buy all of this nonsense.”
What the fuck does that have to do with Darleen’s point?
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 11:10 pm #
B Moe – You know better than that. It has nothing to do with her post, but steve and RMN are doing everything they can to talk about anything but Darleen’s post.
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 11:11 pm #
“Chicken…? Egg…?”
What I’m saying is that it’s reductionistic, and anyone’s ‘ideology’ that maps neatly onto Democrat and Republican is nothing but a fan. What’s the alternative? There really are just two types of people?
Yet we have people who dutifully point their finger and say “It’s THOSE peope who are to blame for everything!” and actually say that I’m the one confusing ideology and political affiliation.
Comment by JHoward on 11/26 @ 11:14 pm #
Or between Socialism and that crisp, clean, clear combination of State-sanctioned envy and theft? Why, when you avoid the character disorder, they’re positively effervescent.
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 11:15 pm #
“What the fuck does that have to do with Darleen’s point?”
That (as I said) her notion that:
“However, it really is part of the Nannystate mindset, the continued infantilization of American society, lead in no small part by the contemporary American Left which, above all else, defines their own brand of “freedom†and demands it be divorced from obligation and responsibility.â€Â
OK – if the American LEft is leading this, then shouldn’t they be exhibiting this lack of responsibility?
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 11:21 pm #
“Who ever heard of a liberal who understood the difference between personal freedom and responsibility and oversight.
Or between Socialism and that crisp, clean, clear combination of State-sanctioned envy and theft? Why, when you avoid the character disorder, they’re positively effervescent.”
OK- then how come this doesn’t come out in the wash? How come,as I said earlier, liberals pay their bills, raise their kids, go to work, etc? Why is that? Wouldn’t town like Boston not need the T? We’re all a bunch of libs – how come the city runs with all these ibs?
Becasue it’s all a bunch of BS. And BTW – I don’t belive that cons are all a bunch of inbred racists. Geuss what – that’s nonsense too. But it keeps things MUCH simpler if we stay with our ‘ideologies’. Such crap.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 11:21 pm #
then shouldn’t they be exhibiting this lack of responsibility?
Steve, how is “zero-tolerance” demonstrative of responsibility?
If you can stop your tantrum because I’m saying things that are uncomfortable for you, try and actually read what I’m writing rather than what you feel I’m writing.
Comment by B Moe on 11/26 @ 11:21 pm #
“OK – if the American LEft is leading this, then shouldn’t they be exhibiting this lack of responsibility?”
They are leading the abdication of personal responsibility to the the nannystate, as Darleen explains rather eloquently. I am frankly wondering if you are seriously missing the point that badly, or if I have misjudged your seemingly good faith arguments up to now.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 11:23 pm #
Universal healthcare, (insert group being pandered to) Bill of Rights, social security … Hell, the list is practically endless, steve. That you choose to read without comprehension does not place upon us some duty to spell it out to you. My 6 year old daughter could have figured out the gist of the passage you quoted.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 11:28 pm #
and I know its a bit too nuanced for your to grasp, Steve but when I said “in no small part” I’m not laying full blame on the Left (not liberal) for there are those on The Right who also buy into Nanny State cocooning.
I absolutely am speaking in generalities … because if I caveat everything and spend all my time offering every exception I’d never get around to finishing my broad, general points
but that might be your real reason for demanding the endless list, eh?
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 11:30 pm #
“They are leading the abdication of personal responsibility to the the nannystate, as Darleen explains rather eloquently. I am frankly wondering if you are seriously missing the point that badly, or if I have misjudged your seemingly good faith arguments up to now.”
Again, I ask SOMEONE to reply to me:
If liberals are so lacking in responsibility, how come liberals do not show this trend? If liberals are SO irresponsible, why do they MEET their personal responsibilities at about the same clip as conservatives?
Surely, some can see the point I’m making here, right?
Comment by JHoward on 11/26 @ 11:34 pm #
Holy shit, steve, communism “runs” too…
It’s anything but “a bunch of BS”. It’s a question of perspective, expectation, degrees, and those fundamentals some have called natural law, although I’ll leave that aside for now.
The stereotypical leftist lacks perspective (which, speaking personally, I always put on the same shelf as a common lack of irony, humor, and those somewhat more crucial attributes, respect, responsibility, and good ole common sense. But whatever.)
Sure, all forms of government work. In degrees. To differing expectations. And surely as defined by unlike perspectives.
Until they don’t, of course, with that latter state highly aligned with collectivism, as coincidence has it.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 11:36 pm #
No, steve, we do not see your point. Darleen notes exactly what she was referencing in her prior comment, 72. We are not talking about individual households. You are. Your question is so far from germaine that it is in Newfoundland.
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 11:37 pm #
“and I know its a bit too nuanced for your to grasp, Steve but when I said “in no small part†I’m not laying full blame on the Left (not liberal) for there are those on The Right who also buy into Nanny State cocooning.”
What an absolute crock. Sorry – but let’s be honest. Where in this pice did you say that? No where. On the other hand, you did say:
“Look at the sheer volume of unhappiness and vindictiveness manifested on leftist blogs.”
“And few words are more “offensive†to the childish Left than responsibility.”
“lead in no small part by the contemporary American Left”
and let’s put a little more of that quote in there:
“the Left demands license to engage in any behavior without risk. ”
LEAD, Darleen. don’t back away from your words now.
Comment by JHoward on 11/26 @ 11:38 pm #
About #73, steve, your assumption needs a foundation in statistics. One could just as easily (and probably more reasonably) assert that all welfare dependents are, by dint of self-interest, going to vote Democrat.
Blam, “liberals” are anything but functional: Liberals are dysfunctional.
I can see your point a mile off. I just don’t think it’s supportable.
Comment by steve on 11/26 @ 11:43 pm #
When you say that typically liberal placed like San Fran and Boston are like communist countries, you again engage in this nonsense where your point rests on something that is absurd on it’s face and is directly contrdicted by empirical observation.
Liberals are deadbeats and lib cities are communist. Don’t let a little thing like the fact that these things are wildly absurd get in the way of thinking this – keep on thinking it! Rationalism trumps empiricism. I like it.
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 11:44 pm #
steve – Which mindset thinks the government knows how to spend the individual’s money better than that person? Which mindset thinks that the government will be better situated to provide universal healthcare? Which mindset advocates for issues like zero-tolerance? Which party preaches of sex education and how to put a condom on a banana with your mouth yet punishes students for innocent signs of affection? Which mindset advocates that the government will be better able to provide for the retirement of people than the people themselves?
Comment by JD on 11/26 @ 11:47 pm #
steve – Do you intentionally miss the point, or are you really that dumb? Darleen reiterated what she said and what she was trying to say. I just read Darleen’s comment to my better half, who hates politics, and she understood the gist of what Darleen was saying.
I am betting on willfully obtuse for steve, because I suspect he is a few pay grades above stupid.
Comment by Darleen on 11/26 @ 11:48 pm #
Jaysus H Keerist Steve
I’m not backing off on anything.
WHO is pushing for the “Fairness” Doctrine? Who is pushing for nationalized medicine? Who refuses any privatization of Social Security? Who is demanding wealth “redistribution”? Who demands that parents be legally barred from knowing what their own children are doing sexually? Who demands banning handguns with the attendant “zero-tolerance” policies that suspends 7 year olds for drawing a picture of a gun? Who demands zero-tolerance for cigarette smoke but demands decriminalization/legalization of addictive drugs?
SOMEONE is demanding all that and more, regardless of how they themselves are going home to dinner and tucking the kiddies in at night.
Comment by JHoward on 11/27 @ 12:05 am #
About #78, steve-o, if you refer to my comment, you can kiss my ass. If you want to say I said liberals were communists, well, have a ball with that.
What I said, Einstein, was that everything “runs”, even Soviet experiments and banana republics destined for miserable failure. Ergo, Boston’s T, to use your example, or any other machinery running on the collective hub “runs” too. Just not well, or not as well as could otherwise be expected, etc.
See, if you could conceive of a country that had literally no domestic policy aside from basic law and order from it’s hands-off government, you could then also envision tremendous prosperity, great personal responsibility, a ton of private-sector safety nets, and all that other good, normal-human stuff. If.
Instead, we’ll all content ourselves with the left institutionalizing envy so as to legalize theft, and the rest of us keeping it under as much check as we possibly can. Politics isn’t left versus right on a neat little linear, horizontal scale. Mostly it’s greed and corruption hammered back just shy of chaos by normal folks with common sense and a touch of perspective.
If you’re not that couple pay grades above stupid, you’re certainly none above honest.
Comment by andy on 11/27 @ 12:46 am #
“See, if you could conceive of a country that had literally no domestic policy aside from basic law and order from it’s hands-off government, you could then also envision tremendous prosperity, great personal responsibility, a ton of private-sector safety nets, and all that other good, normal-human stuff. If.”
Its like a john lennon song.
Comment by Rusty on 11/27 @ 6:03 am #
If liberals are so lacking in responsibility, how come liberals do not show this trend? If liberals are SO irresponsible, why do they MEET their personal responsibilities at about the same clip as conservatives?
Because they have government jobs? Just sayin’.
Comment by Education Guy on 11/27 @ 7:59 am #
steve is wrong, btw, about the ideologies of liberal and conservative lining up nice and neat with the 2 parties. It’s actually a lot more complicated than that, as far as what people consider themselves.
Liberals are outnumbered by conservatives by about a 2 to 1 ratio. Slightly more people consider themselves independent than conservative. As far as the parties go, Democrats hold a slight majority.
Nice work Darleen.
Comment by Andrew on 11/27 @ 8:41 am #
“Because they have government jobs? Just sayin’.”
CLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAPCLAP
Here in the People’s State of Baltimorea, the ratio of federal employees to rest of population is stratospheric. The state’s lefty tendencies are likewise.
As anecdote, Pop went to work for the IRS (you have one second to hiss) after 28 years in the Coast Guard. Every day I talk to him he expresses a generous serving of dismay and frustration at the vast majority of people there who are there simply to suck a teet and do absolutely no work, yet demand Outstanding Performance ratings, and are basically un-firable. Democrats, to a man.
But let us take up steve’s point about these wonderfully responsible liberals who take care of their kids and never get divorced. Let us ignore the ethnic underclass who are routinely roused to vote Democrat (presumably, they’re all conservatives), and focus on the upper-middle to upper-class middle-management urbanites and suburbanites who love taxes and bureaucracy like they love secularizing holidays.
They may be personally responsible. They may always do what they consider their duty. And good for them, such things keep society going. But Darleen’s point was political, that Lefties cannot accept the notion that what those ethnic underclasses and formerly oppressed folk need is the very same culture of do-your-duty, mind-your-P’s-and-Q’s, and Control Yourself. Instead, the Other gets to be the modern Noble Savage, whose purity and rebellious sexy truth-to-power will liberate us all via limit-experience. To expect the lower classes behave in the manner that we know will bring them individual success is racist, classist, phallologocarnocentrist, etc.
Ah, but “easy for me to say.” “You just don’t understand.” “If you’d lived through what they’ve lived through, you wouldn’t say that.” “You’re ignorant, and narrow-minded.” Ad infinitum. Fine, fine. I suppose my point of view has its limits, being finite as I am. It’s probably harder than I think to work your way out of dire straits.
All the more reason to harden their resolve, not soften it with low expectations. All the more reason to celebrate the goal rather than disparage it.
How responsible is someone who, though he poops not in his own house, encourages someone else to poop in his, and actively attacks anyone who complains about the stench?
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 8:54 am #
Pablo,
In fact, many abortion rights groups, feminist organizations and domestic violence associations opposed the California law that makes it a crime to kill a fetus, a law that’s on the books in some form in 22 other states.
Right.
Darleen, I’ll try to keep it simple since you have some difficulty understanding the point. JD’s “conundrum” is premised on two assumptions (1) that leftists, as a rule, support fetal harm laws and (2) leftists, as a general rule, support abortion rights. Since (1) is not true, there is no conundrum.
Return to your regularly-scheduled flaming.
Comment by JD on 11/27 @ 9:13 am #
Yes, Moops, killing it is a form of “harm”.
Comment by JHoward on 11/27 @ 9:20 am #
Not even a little bit.
Today’s question: Does your being an intellectual churl ever serve a point, actus?
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 9:39 am #
I have to agree with moops on this one. Leftists want to be able to kill those damned inconvenient (whether to the state or the individual) babies whenever they can, and those fetal harm laws just get in the damn way. I appreciate your honesty, moops.
Oh, and Andrew, I greatly empathized with your comment. I work for a large County government and there really aren’t too many liberals, but it is, by a wide margin, run by democrats. A good number of the workers are also on the county teet. It’s truly funny.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/27 @ 9:45 am #
moops, you are desperately trying to change the basics of the argument to win some kind of a debating point. In fact what Darleen wrote makes all the sense in the world and I’ll attempt to explain to you, flame off.
Yes, those groups have ultimately, for the most part, come down against fetal murder laws. But if you read about the statements issued and the debates, they are quite conflicted about it. On the one hand they see a law that fortifies their crusade to fight violence against women by providing an additional punishment for the rather heinous act of murdering a chose-to-have-a-baby empowered female. It’s rather inconvenient for them to oppose legislation that provides potential stiffer penalties against perps who perpetuate what is a gender specific act of violence. Should be right up their alley, no?
Well, no! Those groups are so invested in the “inalienable” right of reproductive choice that they have to remove themselves from this additional protection against violence specifically committed against females. While they will wring their hands about the slippery slope of reproductive rights, there is a darker, more “dangerous” concern of our feminist sisters.
The very definition of life itself.
From the famous “A Fetus is Not a Life” poster at a national rally to my MIL’s contention that a fetus is merely a “parasite†most reproductive rights ideologues champion the empowering right of choice while being willfully ignorant or dismissive of the whole question of life. They know that if states continue to establish the fetus as a “real†human life whose termination by violence to the pregnant woman represents an additional charge, then the spotlight falls back on the whole question of what is life. These laws do not consider viability as a mitigating circumstance (somebody correct me if I’m wrong) so the whole question becomes far more complicated than our gender warriors are willing to handle.
For those of us who are opposed to the whole abortion as constitutional right, this playing loose and fast with the definition of life is at the core of our argument. The worse aspect of Roe V Wade was the basic establishment of “viable life” as some kind of separate category of life, less important or valuable. This has never made a lot of sense to me and fetal murder laws bring that argument back to the forefront. It is an argument that the Abortion Rights people, for the most part, would rather not have as they are invested too heavily in gender empowerment rights. It’s easier to say that those “inalienable” rights are more important than a fetus than to say they are more important than a life.
Now that’s an inconvenient truth. Great post, Darleen!
Comment by Joe on 11/27 @ 10:13 am #
Thanks for the great post Darleen :)
Too many folks fail to realize that we lose the freedom to make our own choices as we surrender personal responsibility to the state.
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 10:30 am #
Yes, BJTexs, pro-choice people supporters support the right to choose abortion and fear fetal harm laws may erode that right. This position isn’t, however, self-contradictory.
Since you appear take the position that fetal life is morally equivalent to other human life, do you think that abortion is murder, and if so, do you think that a woman who procures an abortion is guilty of murder and should be punished accordingly?
Comment by Techie on 11/27 @ 11:07 am #
Do not allow Moops to threadjack.
Comment by JD on 11/27 @ 11:11 am #
BJ – Well said.
Comment by Andrew on 11/27 @ 11:50 am #
Is moops leading us down the primrose path of suggesting that women who procure (what prim verb) abortions should be executed? Is he expecting to uncover the clinic bomber flagellating himself with a cross dipped in powdered sugar?
How…linear.
Comment by Education Guy on 11/27 @ 12:38 pm #
Chickenabortionistexecutioner!
Comment by BJTexs on 11/27 @ 12:40 pm #
Right, moops! Nice try. I’d like to bring a little more nuance to the table than a “yes! or No! question on legal style. The fact is that most people I’ve talked to who support unlimited abortion rights would prefer that the fetus be considered as something of a different category than human life. Those of us who believe differently would like them to at least acknowledge the reality of life taking even as we might argue for that life against unlimited pro-choice. Your statement about a fetus being “morally equivalent” to human life indicates you have a prefered category in mind. What is it? Prelife? Parasite? Non viable embryo? Which one works for you while allowing you to duck the question? Just like the organizations I noted above.
Your attempt to make me out to be some kind of pro life fanatic who would execute women who have abortions is duly noted. Here’s one for you, moops. What’s more morally valuable to human beings: human life or a civil right?
Take your time…
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 12:44 pm #
No. JD pointed out what he took to be an inconsistency in the “Leftist” position w/r/t fetal harm laws and abortion. I pointed out that there is actually no inconsistency. I then brought up what is, in my view, an actual internal contradiction in the position of many on the pro-life side of the debate: that abortion is murder but a woman who procures one should not be punished accordingly.
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 12:55 pm #
Your attempt to make me out to be some kind of pro life fanatic who would execute women who have abortions is duly noted.
If you take the position that a fetus is a living person and killing it is murder, I don’t see how the person who arranges for it to be killed is not guilty of murder. Must be the nuance.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 12:55 pm #
What is accordingly, moops? You’d kill the killer? Or, to you and yours, is that little mass of cells the same as a second appendix that the woman can lop off at will because after all, “it’s her body”. Even though, that little mass of cells isn’t actually, you know, her body.
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 12:57 pm #
What’s more morally valuable to human beings: human life or a civil right?
It depends on the right I suppose. Many people think that the right to be free outweighs many human lives.
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 1:00 pm #
What is accordingly, moops?
In accord with the punishment typically inflicted on murderers – a lengthy prison term and sometimes even death.
Even though, that little mass of cells isn’t actually, you know, her body.
Establishing this proposition requires a little more work than simply asserting it.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 1:06 pm #
Oh, I see…ALL pro-lifers are also pro-capital punishment, too. Got it.
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 1:14 pm #
Your comment would make a lot more sense if I had actually said that all pro-lifers are pro-capital punishment.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 1:16 pm #
“Establishing this proposition requires a little more work than simply asserting it.”
Hey, moops, if you can prove that that little mass of cells is, indeed, just like a second appendix for the woman (coincidentally created with the sperm of a MAN), then by all means, please do.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 1:19 pm #
“Your comment would make a lot more sense if I had actually said that all pro-lifers are pro-capital punishment”
Oh because you didn’t infer it or anything like that, now did you? You’re as bad as andy right now. Pssttt…that’s a bad thing. Hey, as you’re just simply a piece of your mother, can you tell what she’s thinking right now?
Comment by Old Texas Turkey on 11/27 @ 1:21 pm #
Steve, et. al.
How many hippy communes from the 1960s remain as viable micro-societies? Here were liberal establishments created with the sole purpose of living under a hippy utopian, communal , “it takes a village” metality that held amongst its primary goals, the subjugation of personal responsibility in favor of community well being.
Essentially the core credo of the liberal establishment. You cannot be left to decide whats best for you as an individual, you must act in what is in the best interests of your village/community/tribe/nation, which the elders will tell you. The same warmed over agenda being prescribed by Hillary and othe nanny-statists.
Well as a policy experiment, how many remain as fully functioning, heck even barely functioning viable communities?
Why?
Comment by matewan on 11/27 @ 1:33 pm #
Great post, tasty brain food to be picked over carefully for shells.
I love Prager; he’s a thoughtful guy who intelligently discusses salient cultural and political issues. It would be a crime for him to be silenced by the unFairness doctrine.
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 1:35 pm #
Hey, moops, if you can prove that that little mass of cells is, indeed, just like a second appendix for the woman (coincidentally created with the sperm of a MAN), then by all means, please do.
Actually, your assertion was that it is not her body, not that it is not “just like a second appendix.” Despite your goalpost-moving, I’ll indulge you. The fetus is physically attached to her body and derives all of its nutrients from her bloodstream. Without the rest of her body the cells would die.
Oh because you didn’t infer it or anything like that, now did you?
I certainly didn’t infer it – you did. I also didn’t imply it. Whether pro-lifers are pro-DP or not has no bearing on the point I’m making. That you think it does strongly suggests you are unable to comprehend the issue under discussion.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/27 @ 1:53 pm #
So, moops. Let me get this straight. Pro-lifers are inconsistant because most of us don’t actively advocate for the jailing/execution of women who have abortions. However pro choicers are perfectly in tune with opposing fetal murder laws beacuse the fetus is not really a life, just a collection of cells that gathers it’s nutrients from the mother.
Hmmm.
So why do we even bother with viability? What makes it a life just because, at some not quite known point in time, the collection of cells may just survive without the parasitical umbilicus? Perhaps we should, under your inferred standard, adopt the Chinese method of up until the first breath. Let’s do partial birth abortions right up until just before birth to declare a victory of freedom for personal choice.
Way to duck the question, slippery. Does the right to choose and have complete reproductive freedom have a higher moral standard than the protection of a human life?
Of course, if you cling to the notion that a fetus is just a parastical collection of cells, then I guess the question is moot, isn’t it? While I would disagree I would have more respect for the pro choicers if they would just declare that they are unapologetic about choice being more important than life rather than trying to hide the reality by playing life games.
Comment by eLarson on 11/27 @ 2:11 pm #
Andrew in #86: “Here in the People’s State of Baltimorea, the ratio of federal employees to rest of population is stratospheric. The state’s lefty tendencies are likewise.”
See also: Northern Virginia, in particular Fairfax and Arlington Counties.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 2:13 pm #
“The fetus is physically attached to her body”
Yeah! We have a winner. It is NOT a part of her body. It is a separate entity that is given life giving nutrients by the host, the mother. We can thank God or nature, if you would like, for that, too. They chose the mother to do the carrying/life giving for a SEPARATE organism. I know you think you’re cute at times. But, nuh-uh, this ain’t one of those times.
As for this beauty…”I certainly didn’t infer it – you did. I also didn’t imply it. Whether pro-lifers are pro-DP or not has no bearing on the point I’m making. That you think it does strongly suggests you are unable to comprehend the issue under discussion.”…Bullshit, moopsy. I’ll quit debating a liar, now.
Comment by eLarson on 11/27 @ 2:19 pm #
The fetus is physically attached to her body and derives all of its nutrients from her bloodstream. Without the rest of her body the cells would die.
The fetus is genetically distinct from both parents. That’s about as individual as you can biologically get. That the fetus is dependent for food and oxygen is simply to say that it is utterly helpless.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 2:20 pm #
“However pro choicers are perfectly in tune with opposing fetal murder laws beacuse the fetus is not really a life, just a collection of cells that gathers it’s nutrients from the mother.”
Good question, BJ. So is it the moment that the baby is born? Is that when it is a human life? Moopsy is hung up on the mass of cell stuff that is actually just part of the woman (I guess the man had nothing to do with it!), but what about when it becomes in all physical manner, a little human? Is that still only a part of the woman? A second appendix? No goal post moving there, moopsy, just a comparison.
Comment by Pablo on 11/27 @ 2:49 pm #
Moops, referring to the case I linked above, what are your thoughts on the justice of that outcome?
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 2:50 pm #
Pro-lifers are inconsistant because most of us don’t actively advocate for the jailing/execution of women who have abortions.
No. Pro-lifers who believe abortion is murder and don’t also believe that a woman who aborts should be prosecuted for murder need to explain why. That’s all. Active advocacy doesn’t have anything to do with it. I’m just interested in how those two positions are reconciled.
However pro choicers are perfectly in tune with opposing fetal murder laws beacuse the fetus is not really a life, just a collection of cells that gathers it’s nutrients from the mother.
Yes. Those positions are consistent.
So why do we even bother with viability?
I don’t know. That was Justice Blackmun’s decision, not mine.
Way to duck the question, slippery.
I didn’t duck the question. You asked it at a level of abstraction that made a definitive Yes or No answer impossible.
Does the right to choose and have complete reproductive freedom have a higher moral standard than the protection of a human life?
Now you’re being more specific, but your frame is still too vague. How about this: does a fetus’s right to life trump the mother’s right to control her body?
they would just declare that they are unapologetic about choice being more important than life rather than trying to hide the reality by playing life games
Me too. Judith Jarvis Thomson’s seminal article is a good place to start thinking about the issue in this context:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm
.â€Â…Bullshit, moopsy. I’ll quit debating a liar, now.
OI, now your inability to understand the issue has led you to call me names. How embarrassing for you. Look: the inconsistency is NOT, as you seem to have erroneously inferred, that some pro-lifers favor the death penalty, but rather that some pro-lifers claim that a fetus is a person but are not willing to punish a woman who aborts in the same way they would someone who murders a non-fetal person. The death penalty has nothing to do with anything. Now either read more carefully, think more clearly, or please just shut up and let the grown-ups talk.
That’s about as individual as you can biologically get.
Clearly not. A person who is not physically attached to another person to the point where their blood co-mingles is more individual, in this sense, than a person who is so attached.
That the fetus is dependent for food and oxygen is simply to say that it is utterly helpless.
This is a misleading frame. The fetus is not just dependent on the mother for food and oxygen, in the sense that an infant requires an adult to care for it. It is utterly dependent on the mother’s blood and body to sustain it.
Pingback by An Aphorism which takes seriously the problems of 'modern' immaturity on 11/27 @ 2:51 pm #
[...] can’t have it all, now.* Neither can you eternally put off getting things that belong or are come to you. There’s [...]
Comment by Darleen on 11/27 @ 2:53 pm #
Moops
I’ll make this simple. Read gender feminist sites and you’ll see (outside of the sex/gender thing) a lot of other leftist boiler plate… that individual rights are “under assault by the fascist Rethuglicans”. If nothing else that runs smack up against balancing the rights of nascent human life with the “my body my decision CARTE BLANCHE” meme.
And NO there is no “conflict” nor “slippery slope” with fetal murder statutes. Here’s a good analogy: I have every right to take my dog to the vet and authorize euthansia. That doesn’t absolve my neighbor criminal charges if s/he enters into my yard and beats my dog to death.
Indeed, here’s a little thought experiment. Be honest. What is more valuable in today’s society … the life of a dog or of a fetus?
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 2:54 pm #
Pablo, I believe we discussed this case at length at Patterico’s. My view is that the outcome is unjust. If a fetus is a person, both Flores and Basoria are murderers. If a fetus is not, neither of them are.
Comment by RiverC on 11/27 @ 2:59 pm #
Geez. Isn’t it obvious why these women (ostensibly murderers or accomplices to the crime) are not charged for their crime?
Because at its root, society values women. It shows mercy to them.
But hell, we need more of this ‘letting psychos go free’ and less of this ‘mercy towards women’ stuff. I mean, its just more consistent, you know?
Comment by eLarson on 11/27 @ 3:08 pm #
“It is utterly dependent on the mother’s blood and body to sustain it.”
No argument on that point. However, dependency doesn’t make you less than human. It isn’t a license to kill. Or is it, in your view?
“If a fetus is a person, both Flores and Basoria are murderers. If a fetus is not, neither of them are.”
When we can define “person” to be whatever we want, we are on the brink of being able to declare anyone we want to be a non-person, and therefore as good as dead.
So who decides? Wanna leave it up to the Supreme Court? What happens when the composition of that body changes?
Comment by Darleen on 11/27 @ 3:24 pm #
oh, btw Moops
My point with bringing up the fetal murder thread by Cara is that the leftists have to maintain a FICTION that a fetus, until the cord is cut, is a non-entity to avoid responsibility for their own behaviors.
“let me do whatever I want, whenever I want, but I demand that nothing stressful happen to me”
Comment by BJTexs on 11/27 @ 3:37 pm #
Darleen: EXACTLY!!!
Every argument made by moops is still dependant upon the fetus being some lower form of life. He/she doesn’t want to admit it might be life but for the noble reason that OH MY GOSH THEN WOMENS WOULD BE MURDERERS!!!
Lost from his/her characterizations is any kind of moral consideration for life itself. Only that which is convenient and won’t cause any moral conundrums will be accepted.
And notice how moops completely ducked the whole viability issue by blaming it on Blackmun. What up wid that, moops? Should reproductive rights extend through the Chinese standard? Come on, moops! Inquiring minds want to know!
I must say that even though moops bobs and weaves like Ali in his prime, he still is a world better than the obtuse andy!
Comment by B Moe on 11/27 @ 4:28 pm #
“The fetus is physically attached to her body and derives all of its nutrients from her bloodstream. Without the rest of her body the cells would die.”
Agreed. My position is that abortion should be based on brain activity, just as if the fetus were on artificial life-support. We base the legality of removing artificial life support from an otherwise viable human on brain activity, and other signifiers in some cases, so why not treat a fetus the same way? And what to do about late term, when the fetus could survive without the mother in most cases?
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 4:54 pm #
Every argument made by moops is still dependant upon the fetus being some lower form of life.
Not it isn’t. In fact, I linked a paper defending abortion that took as its premise that a fetus is a human life.
I’ll try again. I take it you believe a fetus is a human life. If you don’t believe that, please let me know. Now, assuming that is true, do you think women who get abortions should be treated as murderers. If not, why not?
He/she doesn’t want to admit it might be life but for the noble reason that OH MY GOSH THEN WOMENS WOULD BE MURDERERS!!!
Uh, no. Whether a fetus is a human life is actually beside the point. My point is that many pro-lifers want to have it both ways: they want to declare the fetus a living person, but lack the courage of their convictions because they know that punishing women who get an abortion with lengthy prison terms would be wildly unpopular.
And notice how moops completely ducked the whole viability issue by blaming it on Blackmun. What up wid that, moops?
What’s up wid that is that I don’t think viability is a very good grounds to distinguish between permissible abortions and impermissible ones; I didn’t come up with it and therefore I’m not terribly interested in defending it.
Oh, and Darleen?
the leftists have to maintain a FICTION that a fetus, until the cord is cut, is a non-entity to avoid responsibility for their own behaviors.
See, just because you declare it a fiction (in all caps, no less), doesn’t mean that it is.
Comment by Rusty on 11/27 @ 5:05 pm #
#
Comment by Moops on 11/27 @ 12:57 pm #
What’s more morally valuable to human beings: human life or a civil right?
It depends on the right I suppose. Many people think that the right to be free outweighs many human lives.
Well. Since our constitution recognizes the right to life as a ,er ,right. Where does that leave us.
Moops also said,
If a fetus is a person. What the hell else would it be? A giraffe?
This would be an interesting debate except for the very sad fact that abortion has become the preferred method of birth control among certain segments of our population. The law rewards bad behavior.
Comment by B Moe on 11/27 @ 6:26 pm #
“We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say “before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person” is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason can be given.”
I just gave you a reasoned line in #125, moops. Care to comment?
Comment by Rusty on 11/27 @ 7:20 pm #
Well. Moe. As soon as that egg is fertilized and divides it has all the genetic information of a completely new person. It is unique. Unless it is the egg of a giraffe. I which case it has the all the genetic information to be a completely new giraffe. Giraffes are the new penguins, you know.
I guess Moops is busy being cool somewhere.
Comment by JD on 11/27 @ 7:30 pm #
“If a fetus is a person”
What the hell else would it be, moops? What the hell else could it be?
Maybe you can point out where a human gave birth to an elephant, or a chimpanzee, or a duck bill platypus (great animal).
I watched a sonogram of my 4 month old daughter, where I could listen to her heartbeat, watch he kicking, and see her sucking her thumb. I guess in that world that moops inhabits, there is still a chance she could turn out to be a bat, a moonbat no less.
Comment by Darleen on 11/27 @ 8:32 pm #
Moops
If it non-entity were not a fiction then the pro-abortion advocates wouldn’t be so worried about fetal murder statutes for the reason I gave via my analogy.
Abortion isn’t about the fetus but about a condition called “pregnancy”. Roe v Wade specifically and clearly says they will not rule on when life begins. It also includes language that recognizes the fetus as nascent human life worthy of state protection in balance with the right of the woman not to be pregnant. It is why the language is to give the woman full rights in the first trimester and then increasing rights to the fetus as it approaches viability.
But to contemplate that a fetus is an actual entity might mean women who avail themselves of abortions for convenience will suffer the uncomfortableness that comes with doing something immoral, even if it is illegal. It’s called the consequence of conscience. That is something pro-abortionists cannot stomach and that is why they would rather pretend a murderer who is motivated to murder a pregnant woman to kill her and her unborn child has only killed one person that be confronted with the moral realities of what they advocate.
Have you ever talked to someone who is envolved in adultery? They go to all sorts of lengths to justify their immorality.
What they do is not illegal. But that doesn’t make it moral. Ditto the vast majority of abortions.
Comment by Darleen on 11/27 @ 8:35 pm #
typo!
should be:
But to contemplate that a fetus is an actual entity might mean women who avail themselves of abortions for convenience will suffer the uncomfortableness that comes with doing something immoral, even if it is not illegal.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 11/27 @ 9:23 pm #
Blow me moops. You haven’t said shit yet. You think that the mass of cells created by the man’s sperm and the woman’s egg is a part of the woman’s body. Guess what you fucking dumbass, you’re wrong. I now know you to be an unserious douchebag from now on. You’re more articulate than the average trollish douchebag, but yet a douchebag you are. A fucking liar and bad one at that.
Comment by Moops on 11/28 @ 1:22 pm #
What the hell else would it be, moops? What the hell else could it be?
A fetus. Something that has some characteristics of a human, but not all of them.
Also, some people seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I claim fetuses are not people. I have not taken a position on that, rather I am just pointing out that it is not entirely obvious. I think abortion can be justified even assuming a fetus is a person.
I just gave you a reasoned line in #125, moops. Care to comment?
I don’t think the line is necessarily arbitrary. The line can be drawn and justified (though you may not find the justification persuasive) at viability, or when brain activity begins, for just two examples.
If it non-entity were not a fiction then the pro-abortion advocates wouldn’t be so worried about fetal murder statutes for the reason I gave via my analogy.
I doubt it. Abortion advocates are afraid of the fetal murder statutes because they establish a legal precedent that a fetus is a person, and the abortion advocates think that precedent is wrong. It’s not because deep down they actually agree that a fetus is a person.
That is something pro-abortionists cannot stomach and that is why they would rather pretend a murderer….
That clairvoyance must come in handy. I prefer to argue based on what people say, not based on the hidden motives and psychological motivations I think they must possess.
Thanks to all the people who replied like thoughtful adults. And congratulations to OI for setting a new internets record for most uses of the word “douchebag” in a single comment!
Comment by JD on 11/28 @ 1:39 pm #
So, moopsy. When someone looks at a sonogram, they are not looking at a person, only a fetus? Only when they are “viable”. Alright, I will play your semantic games. Clearly define viability, and what it would require for a fetus to become a person.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 11/28 @ 1:59 pm #
Interesting. What else can be justified, for people?
Not to make anything resembling a point, here; mostly rambling, actually, but: I’ve lately been pondering this back-and-forth about abortion, looking for something else to compare it to. And, of all things: socialism. I’ve had any number of conversations with people about abortion, and if I take any sort of opposition to abortion at all, I immediately get accused of wanting women to die. See, the inevitable by-product of the lack of cheap (possibly even free), legal abortion is, apparently, women being slain in back allies by coathanger-wielding quacks. Women’s health, you know.
Many of these same people are admitted socialists, claiming that true socialism hasn’t yet been tried. So all of those people killed in the pursuit of socialism/communism/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit: practice.
I’m left wondering whether it’s not more sensible to pursue getting contraception right, than to pursue the pipe dream of socialism. Certainly, in the sense of saving human lives, born and unborn, it’d make a great deal more sense. If we could only harness some of these aspiring, but well-meaning, socialists to get people sharpened up on birth control, it’d be double bonus points all around.
Now, back to your well-considered volley.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/28 @ 1:59 pm #
JD: You missed the fact that moops ducked the whole viability issue. He/she is arguing around it, trying not to actually take a stand on what place viability has in determining whether or not abortion constitutes taking a “human” life. In fact, Darleen explained viability as part of Roe v. Wade but even that explaination didn’t move moops to take a stand.
My problem with this whole discussion is moop’s persistant ducking and weaving. Darleen, you, me and others have been willing to clearly state our positions and attempt to support them. Moops asks plenty of provocative questions and dances around some links but answers the question of viability by saying he/she “isn’t interested in that issue.” The counter question remains unanswered or, more accurately, ducked. I’m guessing that this is why OI went ballistic. I can’t say that I blame him.
This, however is illustrative: “Abortion advocates are afraid of the fetal murder statutes because they establish a legal precedent that a fetus is a person, and the abortion advocates think that precedent is wrong. ” moops never comes right out and says it but deep down he/she seems to think a fetus is not a person right up until birth. That would explain the lack of “interest” in tackling the whole viability issue.
I think we’ve plumbed the depths of this discussion with moops, if by depths I mean the rhetorical equivalent of a toddler wading pool. No further good will come of it.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 11/28 @ 2:05 pm #
Ok, let’s look at that some more.
Pretend you’re an expectant mother. You’ve been carrying this baby around for, say, six months, now, and you’ve got clothes picked out, and the baby’s room redecorated, and the like. Then some mug shoots you, intending to kill you, but only killing your baby. Which, if you’d miscarried at this stage, would make you feel as if your child had died. But you didn’t miscarry, so it makes you feel, if you’ve got feelings, as if your child has been killed.
What should the law say, under this scenario? Should the guy go down for attempted murder, or murder? After all, it’s only, like, a fingernail paring that this guy wiped out.
Comment by BJTexs on 11/28 @ 2:10 pm #
but …but … but … WHAT ABOUT THE VIABILITY????
I would expect a moops bob and weave in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Comment by JD on 11/28 @ 2:18 pm #
BJ – Agreed. Any discussion of viability requires a clear definition or it is pointless.
Why do you people hate pregnant women so much?
I know it is anecdotal, but it is practically impossible to watch a sonogram of your yet unborn child and see it as anything less than a child. Unless you have no heart.
Comment by Slartibartfast on 11/28 @ 2:55 pm #
I fully expect that arguments of this sort will be countered, at some point, with something to the effect that I’m a heartless, brown-person-murdering neocon, and therefore I’m making the argument in bad faith.
But it’s more of a discussion point than an actual argument, so I don’t really give a crap. I just want to know what the thinking is, here.
Comment by Andrew on 11/28 @ 3:00 pm #
Um, wouldn’t the whole concept of ex post facto pretty well cover anyone who got an abortion, should it suddenly become illegal? So isn’t the whole question of “why don’t you want to jail and/or execute women as murderers?” argument basically, entirely, moot?
When abortion was illegal, I do believe women were routinely jailed for enabling or procuring them. Don’t know about executions, but we don’t execute all murderers in this country, do we?
But I guess moops ran away. Pity.
Comment by eLarson on 11/28 @ 3:34 pm #
Q: What the hell else would it be, moops? What the hell else could it be?
Moops’s A: A fetus. Something that has some characteristics of a human, but not all of them.
That doesn’t sound very scientifically supportable, does it? Does Moops know what all these characteristics are? And who decides how complete the list is?
Comment by Rusty on 11/28 @ 4:13 pm #
Got news for you Moops. As soon as that cell divides, it’s viable. Unless her body at some time during her pregnancy spontaneously aborts it, it’s a kid. But hey. Whatever eases your conscience.
Comment by B Moe on 11/28 @ 4:30 pm #
“I don’t think the line is necessarily arbitrary. The line can be drawn and justified (though you may not find the justification persuasive) at viability, or when brain activity begins, for just two examples.”
Well then you just disagreed with the fundamental premise of the link you cited as a starting point. It is not unusual to move the finish line in these discussions, but you are the first to move the starting blocks. Congratulations.
Comment by Moops on 11/28 @ 5:01 pm #
Some, BJTexas in particular (when he’s not engaged in mindreading or tortured metaphors about toddler pools ) seem to think that I have taken the position that viability is what separates a fetus from a person. Viability is irrelevant – see the Thomson article I linked earlier.
It is not unusual to move the finish line in these discussions, but you are the first to move the starting blocks.
Please to distinguish between “can be” and “should be”. Congratulations.
As soon as that cell divides, it’s viable.
Really? A two-cell blastocyst can survive outside the womb?
I understand why you guys want to discuss viability and little else, because you recognize that it is the weakest link in the pro-choice case as set forth in Roe and its progeny. I’ve tried to point out that it doesn’t really matter for the reasons set forth in the Thomson article, but that seems to just make you angry.
I would note that despite all the accusations of bob-and-weaving, few of my interlocutors have been willing to say whether they think women who get abortions are murderers, the point I raised in my very first comment.
Um, wouldn’t the whole concept of ex post facto pretty well cover anyone who got an abortion, should it suddenly become illegal?
It wouldn’t cover anyone who tried to get one going forward, so your assertion that the issue is moot doesn’t, um, make any sense.
Comment by JD on 11/28 @ 5:03 pm #
They are not murderers, because abortion is currently legal. How is that?
Now, you address viability, or there is no point discussing this with you any further.
Comment by B Moe on 11/28 @ 5:22 pm #
“Please to distinguish between “can be†and “should beâ€Â. Congratulations.”
From the piece you cited, and I quoted:
“We are asked to notice that the development of a human being from conception through birth into childhood is continuous; then it is said that to draw a line, to choose a point in this development and say “before this point the thing is not a person, after this point it is a person†is to make an arbitrary choice, a choice for which in the nature of things no good reason CAN be given.â€Â
(emphasis added for moops)
I know the difference perfectly well. The piece you cited is making the case that the line can’t be reasonably defined. Do you stand by this, if so how would you rebut my assertion? If you are now changing the premise to it shouldn’t be reasonably defined, you need to come up with another cite or elaborate.
Do you understand the difference between can’t and shouldn’t?
Comment by JD on 11/28 @ 5:36 pm #
The legality of the act in no way effect the morality of the act.
Comment by B Moe on 11/28 @ 5:49 pm #
And we don’t base the legality or the morality on public reaction to an arbitrary punishment.
Comment by Rusty on 11/29 @ 5:59 am #
Really? A two-cell blastocyst can survive outside the womb?
No. Dumbass. It’s another human being. Do try to pay attention. You may call it whatever you wish. A woman can do with it whatever she chooses. But don’t delude yourself into thinking that abortion is not taking a life.
Comment by http://musicdownloads.tripod.com/music-downloads.html on 12/10 @ 6:59 am #
Hi, my sites:21397be5942cd6e3d123706eee0b632d
Comment by Hi boys! on 1/31 @ 9:08 am #
Yhanks you479728c6d255d70c9ea21d19bfe35370
Trackback by Jack on 2/14 @ 6:31 pm #
Jack
I appreciate your effort and the quality of the information you provide. I certainly will folow these recommendations!
Trackback by apprendre les regles du poker on 5/28 @ 11:18 pm #
tournois poker casino…
In other words jeux poker en ligne gratuites regle du texas holdem jouer streap poker street poker gratuites wam poker…
Trackback by online poker f on 6/2 @ 1:21 pm #
…
Il jeu poker gratui seven card stud roulette europea play baccarat online party poker software…
Trackback by fair poker bonus on 7/5 @ 5:44 pm #
party poker no deposit…
Consolidar party poker games partie poker net fair poker bonus texas holdem blatt pai gow poker portal…