Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

If the pregnancy is at the point where she has the right to do whatever she wants with the fetus/baby, she has that right no matter how it came into existence. It's immaterial. If the pregnancy has advanced to the point where killing the fetus/baby is murder, that law exists to protect the rights of the fetus/baby, no matter how it came into existence. Again, it's immaterial.

I actually agree with this stance, but just to be contrarian, and I'm genuinely interested in what you think on the subject:
Assume a case that has proceeded past the stage, where it would be considered murder. What if the doctors determine that there would be a substantial risk to both mother and child in allowing the pregnancy to continue? What if only the mother would be at risk, but doctors were convinced the baby would be fine? And what if it were only a small risk (instead of a substantial one)?

Funny, it seems like only a few moments ago we were being told that we elitist liberals were being patronizing towards those Kansas voters who we allegedly thought were too stupid to know their own interests.

As I watched, I thought, "This guy is pretty shrewd."

The classic formulation was by Charles Krauthammer, who said back in 2002: "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

I think libertarianism would allow for the establishment of justice, the common defense, the insurance of domestic tranquility, and securing the blessings of liberty. The latter two can pretty easily be read as limited to allowing for the police function of government, in particular with regard to protecting property rights (if you're a libertarian, that is). That general welfare thing is a toughie, though.

* every donation would have to be public, named and directly from a single individual
* Every voter could donate to any candidate in their state's senate race and to any candidate in their district's house race. But only to those candidates
* Any pol who accepts a donation from someone who is not eligible to donate to them would be guilty of treason
* Any citizen who funnels money to another individual for the purposes of donating to a candidate they can't vote on would be guilty of treason
* Make all of the above a const. amendment

As libertarian as I am ..

I had never seen Hannity until I saw him talking to Lanny Davis (a geeky Hillary Clinton flack) on FOX a few months back. Hannity was very slick; he was talking about Ayers and Wright, and without making any direct, refutable, factual accusations, repeated their names, linked with Obama's, in various ways, about every 30-45 seconds. It was done very cleverly, so anybody channel-hopping had a good chance to run into it and anybody watching would have it drilled into them.

As I watched, I thought, "This guy is pretty shrewd."

I tried to watch Olbermann the other day and simply can't. What's with the angry-man rant? How can even people who agree with him watch him?

And yet, it is listed as a separate, additional item from "the common defense." I'm not arguing that the framers had the New Deal in mind when they penned those four words, but they sure as hell meant something besides the thing they'd just mentioned in the previous five words.

There is a baby aborted in this country about every 30 seconds. There have been 6 million babies aborted since the start of the Iraq war. Yet this is where the liberals have decided to hang their moral hat, incest/rape .. with not one concern for the other 6 million dead.

He's there to appeal to the enraged liberals... the ones RR says don't exist.

He is very good at the drip drip drip of the talking points, ticking them off on his fingers. I used to respect Olbermann (if disagree with him), but he is gone over the top. It is almost like watching Bill Maher now.

I don't find him that funny. His standup is just not that good and his ignorance about medical issues really bugs me, mostly because if I watch it with my wife (a doctor), she yells at the screen.

Agree completely with what Ray says about Hannity.

Hitchens gave him a good pranging on the death of Jerry Falwell.

I don't find him that funny. His standup is just not that good and his ignorance about medical issues really bugs me, mostly because if I watch it with my wife (a doctor), she yells at the screen.

I guess I wasn't clear. You can donate only to those folks running for an office for which they would represent you. You can contribute to your House race and either Senate race in your state and to president. You can contribute to every candidate running in those races or to just one, in your party or not. It limits your contribution only to those races where you could, in theory, cast a vote. You can't vote for OK senator if you live in TX. You can't vote in House race TX district 6 if you live in district 5. You could re-register for the other party and vote in the TX senate primary (no, you wouldn't have to). IT doesn't limit your speech. Say what you want, contribute as much as you want, but only in the races in which you are to be represented. It would also eliminate donations from abroad or from non-citizens. And, yes, if you won't bother to register to vote, you don't get to make a donation. That isn't a limit on speech so long as your ability to register isn't hindered by the state.

The incest/rape issue is a red herring - it has no basis on the science behind pregnancy.

A woman who has consensual sex is responsible for her pregnancy. She "chose" to get pregnant in the sense that pregnancy is a predictable consequence of sex.

Maybe Brother Farrakhan can resolve this by saying that liberals are wickedly stupid and conservatives are stupidly evil. Or vice versa.

The incest/rape issue is a red herring - it has no basis on the science behind pregnancy.

Agreed.

A woman who has consensual sex is responsible for her pregnancy. She "chose" to get pregnant in the sense that pregnancy is a predictable consequence of sex.

Then split the difference and implant the fetus in the dude. That'll be a hell of a delivery.

How about we give "the dude" a say in whether the baby is aborted?

This would give the dude a say. He could have it implanted in him. Why would he have any say in whether the little parasite is hosted in someone else's body?

Because he has to pay for it regardless once it comes out of that person's body? Because he also has concerns of privacy and convenience, as the woman does?

You really want to go there? You are right--this is just like them both owning a dog--if the dog lives inside of one of their bodies.

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

So. Where do I sign up to be a Libertarian?

If you say so. Maybe if you're reading it as criticism, but I intend it as a simple statement of fact. I don't know what's so silly about acknowledging that running on a national ticket requires a level of self-confidence that almost has to border on hubris.

I think Hagel and Lieberman should run together on the same ticket in '12.

The lack of a passport combined with no demonstrated interest in the outside world is another matter. Over the next few weeks maybe we'll see some evidence that Palin's shown any curiosity about the outside world beyond looking at Russia through her binoculars.

Maybe she has and maybe she hasn't, but it would certainly be nice to know one way or the other.

I am surprised that the passport thing generated posts.

I am surprised that the passport thing generated posts.

I'm not, specifically because Plain does seem incurious to the point of oblivious, and the lack of a passport is another, albeit minor piece of evidence of that.

This is just about the funniest thing I've ever read on this site.

The true nature of the experiment had to be kept from the subjects to ensure their cooperation. The sharecroppers' grossly disadvantaged lot in life made them easy to manipulate. Pleased at the prospect of free medical care—almost none of them had ever seen a doctor before—these unsophisticated and trusting men became the pawns in what James Jones, author of the excellent history on the subject, Bad Blood, identified as “the longest nontherapeutic experiment on human beings in medical history.”

By the end of the experiment, 28 of the men had died directly of syphilis, 100 were dead of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had been born with congenital syphilis. How had these men been induced to endure a fatal disease in the name of science? To persuade the community to support the experiment, one of the original doctors admitted it “was necessary to carry on this study under the guise of a demonstration and provide treatment.” At first, the men were prescribed the syphilis remedies of the day—bismuth, neoarsphenamine, and mercury—but in such small amounts that only 3 percent showed any improvement. These token doses of medicine were good public relations and did not interfere with the true aims of the study. Eventually, all syphilis treatment was replaced with “pink medicine”—aspirin. To ensure that the men would show up for a painful and potentially dangerous spinal tap, the PHS doctors misled them with a letter full of promotional hype: “Last Chance for Special Free Treatment.” The fact that autopsies would eventually be required was also concealed. As a doctor explained, “If the colored population becomes aware that accepting free hospital care means a post-mortem, every darky will leave Macon County…” Even the Surgeon General of the United States participated in enticing the men to remain in the experiment, sending them certificates of appreciation after 25 years in the study.

Assume a case that has proceeded past the stage, where it would be considered murder. What if the doctors determine that there would be a substantial risk to both mother and child in allowing the pregnancy to continue? What if only the mother would be at risk, but doctors were convinced the baby would be fine?

My frustration with many of the arguments made here comes down to a refusal to place principle and logic within the context of lived experience. In regard to abortion, you get arguments that don't take any real consideration of what it means to be a woman, of often having to take sole responsibility for the reproductive consequences of the sexual act, of treating a woman's life as secondary to some abstract principle of rights and responsibilities.

What if only the mother would be at risk, but doctors were convinced the baby would be fine?

I am curious as to what this situation would be. Are there times in which the mother is in risk and not the baby in which the only solution is to kill then remove the baby versus just removing the baby?

you get arguments that don't take any real consideration of what it means to be a woman

My frustration with many of the arguments made here comes down to a refusal to place principle and logic within the context of lived experience. In regard to abortion, you get arguments that don't take any real consideration of what it means to be a woman, of often having to take sole responsibility for the reproductive consequences of the sexual act, of treating a woman's life as secondary to some abstract principle of rights and responsibilities.

And if your starting point is the sacredness of innocent life, then the second position is also wholly tenable, since a murderer or other capital criminal is hardly innocent.

Just to toss another point out here, there's another judgment here--you also have to trust the state to be completely infallible in determining guilt. There are certainly existing capital criminals who are innocent.

When I was in college taking an Ethics course, I actually read an argument that killing someone wasn't murder unless the person was self-aware (that is, aware that they were a person who would not like being killed). They argued that, in that case, not only was abortion not murder, but infanticide wasn't, either.

Well, that's just a completely crazy argument then. Of course infanticide is murder. Everybody believes that.

everything else is really just haggling about the price

Yet this is Sarah Palin's stated position---she would force a rape or incest victim to bear the child.

It's worth noting that it wasn't that long ago that abortion was illegal in many places in the US. The evidence is quite clear that what happened was that upper-class women could get (basically) safe abortions, while lower-class women had access to much less safe abortions, or to none at all. People are right to say that one of the main effects of abortion criminalization in some states would be that more women would suffer or die as a result of unsafe medical practices in black-market clinics, but it should be further noted that this suffering and death would not be spread evenly on society, but would vary heavily as a function of class.

Roe v. Wade centrally held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable.’ The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health....

The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1]

That's true, but even if the age of consent didn't apply (let's say she's 16 and the age of consent is 15), I still think she's a victim.

The Court defined viable as being potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability usually occurs at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1]

But to your broader question, I'd once more refer to the Roe v. Wade guidelines above, again stressing that my position on this question hinges on the factors I spelled out in #1613 and #1618 above, and not because of any overall philsophical position I have concerning the morality of abortion. To me this latter question is but one factor among many to consider, while realizing that for others it may the only question.

Perhaps so, but you also don't have to be a genius to recognize the practical consequences of a repeal of Roe. As I said, this is what drives my position on the whole abortion question.

So if a father talks his 14 year old daughter into having sex with him (maybe by telling her that this is the only way she can show that she loves him), is she not a victim? Are you really claiming that the sex was consensual?

As I state above, what drives your position is an unwarranted assumption that the fetus is not life.