State of the Republican Party

So it appears as though it's time for the Republican party to assess itself. I opened today's mail to find the "2009 State of the Republican Party Survey". Michael Steele apparently wants this back pronto, I've been given two weeks to fill it out and mail it in. So I figured I'd comment about it here while I'm doing that. Part 1 consists of "Agree" "Disagree" and "Undecided" for answers. Part 2 is "Yes" "No" "Undecided", and Part 3 looks to be multiple choice with one short answer question. So with that out of the way, let's get started!

Part I: Domestic & Social Issues

1. A recent national poll reported that nearly 25% of Americans want the government to pass more socialism. Do you agree or disagree?

I should think it would be fairly obvious to anyone who visits here frequently that I most definitely disagree with wanting more socialism. I'm pretty solidly in favor of less, A LOT less. I often wonder who they ask and can only conclude the pollsters tend to hit up places where libs congregate to get statistics like this. Mainly because 99% of everyone I know and live near wants the government to go die in a fire for making them lose their jobs and 401Ks.

2. Which do you believe creates more jobs for the American economy: Government Programs and Spending or the American Free Enterprise System?

Alright, gee, let me think..... uh.... since the government is spending like drunken sailors under Obama and unemployment is on the rise at an alarming rate, I'm going to have to say that Free Enterprise creates more jobs. Should that even need to be asked? Are people so stupid as to think that government spending which requires increased taxes to sustain it would cause rich people to hire more people? It appears as though too many people have forgotten the disaster that was Jimmy Carter.

3. The Obama Administration has proposed spending as much as $1.5 Trillion to bail out the banking industry. Do you agree or disagree with this proposal?

No-brainer. I strongly disagree with this proposal. The Democrats created this problem back in 1977 under Carter by passing legislation known as The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. That legislation required banks to make bad loans to people who they knew couldn't afford it. While I can see the logic in now saying that because the Dems blew it up they should fix it, do it without my tax money if you don't mind. The banks are not blameless here either. They could have told the government to shove off and dealt with being fined over it. It would have cost less in the end to pay those than fail utterly like they are now. Instead, the banks cooked up the devious mortgage backed securities market crap and here we are. The cycle must be broken. They should have all been allowed to collapse 2 years ago after Congress started down the road of destroying everything Bush built up.

4. Do you oppose so-called "card-check" legislation, which eliminates secret ballot elections during unionization drives and puts workers at risk of intimidation by labor bosses?

Well I oppose unions in general because they steal money from their members in the form of dues and then use it to lobby for left wing radical agendas their members usually don't want. But if you're going to have unions, I'm opposed to outing anyone who voted in favor of forming one. That sort of thing reeks of Nazi Germany and more left wing voter intimidation tactics. So I guess I oppose "card-check" legislation.

5. Should Republicans unite to block new federal government bureaucracy and red tape that will crush future economic growth?

I'd have to be a fool to say anything but YES here. The only thing more government will bring is more misery. As Ronald Reagan once said, government is not the solution, it is the problem.

6. Should Republicans in Congress oppose the new wasteful government spending programs passed in the recent "stimulus" bill by the Pelosi-Reid Democrats designed to "spread the wealth?"

Uh, yes? I mean, my God man, why would you even need to ask this question? Everything those damn Democrats do is wasteful. The entire porkulus bill was nothing but government waste. There's not one stimulative element in it, anywhere. And they would all have known that had they bothered to read the thing.

7. Do you agree that we must secure our borders to stop illegal immigration?

Yes. I do indeed. I think the president should declare a 10 mile wide martial law zone and activate federal troops along the border with the authority to shoot to kill anyone who tries to cross illegally. This is an invasion and we should be treating it as such. Especially now with the Mexicans engaged in a bitter drug war with attacks spilling over into the US on a regular basis. Posse Comitatus can kiss my ass when it comes to the national security of our southern border. And yes, I'm specifically going to single out our southern border with Mexico. I don't read about violence spilling over from the Canadian side of the northern border on a daily basis and frankly I don't think anyone can seriously claim we have an illegal alien problem from Canada. The two big oceans provide enough barrier against everyone else.

8. Should we do everything we can to block Democrats who are trying to shut down conservative talk radio with the so-called "fairness doctrine?"

Again, a pretty obvious yes. Anyone with even a shred of respect for the 1st Amendment should be opposed to the "Fairness Doctrine" as it's been referred to. It's not about fairness at all because if you corner anyone supporting it and ask how soon the conservatives will be brought on to the evening newscast to offer their side of the story you'll be told that's not going to happen. Give us a break. We sort of have Fox News and some AM talk radio shows. You liberals have everything else on national TV, cable, and in the print media. Stop trying to shred the Constitution because it's inconvenient to you.

9. Should we resist Barack Obama's proposal to spend billions of federal taxpayer dollars to pay "volunteers" who perform his chosen tasks?

I should think so. If they're "volunteers" they shouldn't be getting paid at all. If they are being paid, then they should be listed on the payroll and have to pay taxes. Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that these people are not properly listed on the payroll and aren't paying taxes on this income.

10. Should Republicans unite in opposition to judicial nominees who bring a personal, left-wing agenda on social issues to their jobs as judges?

Hell yes. Activist judges are the downfall of modern America. And I'll take this one step further. We don't need any right-wing agenda toting judges either. We need judges who will look at the law and interpret it in a strict Constitutional manner and leave their personal politics out of it.

11. Do you want Republicans to vigorously defend the recently passed partial-birth abortion ban from attacks by the Democrat majority [in Congress]?

Yes. As far as I and any sane medical professional is concerned, partial-birth abortion is murder and anyone carrying out such a procedure should be tried in criminal court for baby killing. The entire abortion on demand movement has killed 40 million or more US citizens since the Roe v Wade decision came down. That puts them right up there with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot in my book.

12. Should bureaucrats in Washington DC be in charge of making your healthcare choices instead of you and your doctor?

The fact that this even needs to be seriously asked is a scary thing. Heatlhcare should ALWAYS be a decision between you and your doctor. The feds should keep their noses out of it, and so should all the greedy private insurance companies too. This isn't just a problem with Washington liberals interfering in our lives.

Part II: Homeland Security & Defense Issues

1. If Barack Obama tries to gut the USA Patriot Act and other important laws that promote the safety and security of all Americans, should Republicans in Congress fight back?

Yes, most definitely yes. Those laws freed up a lot of the problems with the existing infrastructure that prevented the CIA, FBI, and NSA from being able to share information and coordinate on matters of national security. It's been identified as one of the reasons the 9/11 attacks were successful. There has also been no documented evidence of anyone having had their rights suppressed under the Patriot Act despite numerous claims by the liberals to the contrary. I'm still waiting to see one instance where this was true of a US Citizen.

2. Should we stop Democrat leaders from cutting funding from our intelligence agencies or bringing back Clinton-era restrictions on inter-agency communications?

Yes. We should stop them, primarily for the reasons given in the last response. That kind of inter-agency communication makes it easier to prevent attacks, and has been documented under Bush to have prevented several attempts to attack us. If we go back to the Clinton way of doing things, we go back to regular news reports of Americans dying in bombings overseas and risk another 9/11 or Oklahoma City here at home.

3. Do you support the use of air strikes against any country that offers safe harbor or aid to individuals or organizations committed to further attacks on America?

I do. You just need to be very careful about how you go about it. The way Obama bragged about wanting to bomb Pakistan? Not the right way. Sending in the black ops teams with plausible deniability? The right way. We should have slipped into Iraq in the dead of night with no fanfare and had those guys assassinate Saddam Hussein. It might even have been useful to get Iran blamed for it, then you take care of two problems at once without having to use our own troops to topple them too. But, that's not what we did, and liberals like Obama would have preferred we bury our heads in the sand instead. Iran needs to be bombed into the stone age now as a result of it.

4. Should Republicans unite in support of full funding for border and port security when Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid try to make cuts in these areas?

Yes. The federal government's responsibility is national security. Not being a welfare state. So I support any effort made to force them to spend the money on their appropriate Constitutional duties and always have. It might be nice if the Republicans believed in this too, but the ones under Bush didn't. We need some who do, and we need them yesterday.

5. Do you think US troops should have to serve under United Nations commanders?

Sadly this question lacks a "FUCK NO" option so I'll settle for no. The UN can go die in a fire for all I care. They're a joke and always have been. They've no spine to enforce their own resolutions. Look at Iraq. 14 years we danced with Saddam passing resolution after resolution. He violated them one by one all the way down the line and nothing happened to him. So if the UN thinks they have any authority to place our troops under its command, they can go to hell. If it were up to me I'd have cut our funding and expelled them from the country 20 years ago.

6. Do you agree that our top military priority should be fighting terrorists?

Our TOP priority? Perhaps not. But as a function of general national security, yes. Since there's no qualified yes/no answer to this I'll go ahead and bubble in yes. I think our military's top priority though should be securing our own borders from the invasion from Mexico. Of course if Mr. Steele would like to clarify this and include border security as part of fighting terrorists....

7. Should we fight military-cutting efforts in Congress, such as the proposal from liberal Barney Frank to slash the Pentagon budget by 25%?

Well of course we should. Because once again it's not the federal government's responsibility to become the nanny state. It's to provide for our common defense, which by definition means military spending is their primary function. Any effort to cut that spending should be seen as treason. It's also not particularly good for growing the economy to cut defense spending when so many towns depend on their military-industrial complexes.

8. Even though Barack Obama pledged to meet personally with the likes of Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, should Republicans continue to focus on supporting democratic movements in oppressive states like Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran?

Yes. And Barack Obama should be impeached for meeting with any of those three. They are our enemies and should be treated as such. That said, if there's any chance we could foment a revolution in even one of those countries we should do all we can to see to it that it happens.

Part III: The Republican Party

1. Why did Republicans lose the White House and Congressional seats in the 2008 elections?

Primarily because of the liberal media. Their constant drumbbeating of "No more Bush" and describing McCain as "just another Bush" convinced a lot of stupid people that we'd be in for more of the same. Not to mention they spent the last 8 years spreading lie after lie about Bush. Eventually such lies wear people down. The second reason is because the Republicans under Bush lost their hold on conservative values and began behaving like a bunch of drunken spenders. It's probably an absolute miracle that we didn't see the economy collapse a lot sooner, but then tax cuts really do work wonders to stave off recessions. McCain as our candidate did not help matters one bit either. He wasn't right for us and we paid the price when too many of us ended up staying home and not voting ( I wasn't one of these btw ). Anyone who can still sit there with a straight face and say the only reason we lost was because of Sarah Palin doesn't deserve the right to vote.

2. What are the key strengths and beliefs of the Republican Party that we can build on?

Traditionally: fiscal discipline, limited government, national security, personal responsibility and lower taxes. The Repubican Party needs to get back to these core principals of conservatism if we expect to have any chance of taking back the White House and putting a stop to all this crazed liberal money spending that's dragging our economy into the toilet as we speak.

3. What are the weaknesses of the Republican Party?

Currently: We're acting like Democrats. Spending got out of control under Bush largely due to the massive increases in revenue. They let it get to them. We apparently also suck at getting our message out to people. We need to find someone in the party who can articulate our core conservative values and explain why those values are superior in every way to liberalism. Michael Steele, this is not you btw. We need leaders in Congress who will stand up for America and not bend to the will of the UN and other world bodies when it comes to what's in our own best interests. To put it simply - we need someone like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to take the reigns.

4. What is the best way to encourage and register new voters in your community?

Good question, because I don't know. I suppose that's why I'm not a party organizer. However, I think it would be very helpful if more candidates for office made appearances on campuses in the area, held community events, rallies and such. Advertise on local media and on major networks serving the general area. For the love of God though, don't use telephone campaigns or door to door methods! We Republicans value our personal privacy and such invasive tactics actually work against candidates who do that!

5. What technological innovations should the RNC employ to grow our Party?

There's this thing. A bunch of computers connected together. Someone told me it's called the internet. Find some way to use that. Just don't get caught up in ridiculous dumb fads like Facebook and Twitter because nobody with real brains uses those services anyway and people with real brains are who the RNC should be targeting. Youtube videos have proven to be fairly effective though, so why not. People watch endless amounts of those, brains or no brains, and if it's done right and in an entertaining way, people will listen to what you have to say.

6. What can the Republican Party do to earn your trust?

Oh boy. I can only imagine some of the responses you'll be getting from this one Michael!

Stop supporting nanny state style legislation like the Prescription Drug Program. Reign in spending except for what the federal government should be spending money on. Fight for the middle class with permanent tax cuts. Demonstrate with your votes and your actions that you are prepared to follow the will of the people instead of the will of the liberals in the media. Stand by the core principals of conservatism. Don't cave in at the last minute because some liberal sweetened the deal with pork in your district. If something the Democrats do is wrong, stand up and say so. Voice your concerns loudly and openly.

7. Will you help the RNC implement your ideas and help keep our party-building programs for the 2009-2010 elections moving forward by making a contribution today?

See above answer to #6. Demonstrate that you are worthy of the donations and you'll likely see more of them come in. Until then, count on getting less than you'd like. For the personal amusement factor alone, I dropped two pennies in the envelope with my response to represent "my 2 cents" on all of this.

The italicized questions in the preceding survey were directly quoted from the material. Yes, the questions are biased, but then what political solicitation isn't? Feel free to post your own responses. Maybe by some remote miracle the RNC will actually visit here and take notice. But I'm not holding my breath.
.........................
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

       
« Knowing
Iran Attacks Israel »

Posted on Mar 27, 2009 12:43 am by Samson in: | 14 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
I'll simply agree with most of what you've already posted without further elaboration with only three exceptions...

On the partial-birth abortion issue: While I don't support abortion, I do support the right of a women to have one. As for partial birth.. can that really be any worse than the legislation currently being considered for Texas (and already in effect in something like 29 other states) which would excuse a mother for killing her children as long as they are under a year old and she's able to claim that she was suffering from post-partum depression at the time?

On the issue of The Patriot Act: Sorry, while I think the intent was in the right place on this one, I don't endorse the patriot act itself as it stands at all. In my opinion it has been carried too far and now the Department of Homeland Security is slowly being given more and more freedom to become the new gestapo, which I find deeply disturbing. Sure there's been no documented evidence of anyone having had their rights suppressed under the Patriot Act, who'd allow that to be documented among those within the Department of Homeland Security?

Finally, on the issue of Obama meeting with known enemies of the U.S. like Hugo Chavez: Is it not the President's job to meet with our enemies as well as our allies? (Otherwise I agree, these are folks who should be dealt with as enemies, not diplomatic opportunities...)

On an entirely separate note, Samson, when you get a chance, visit my blog, there's some new news posted... ;)

       
You might be surprised at how many of your answers to Part 3 I agree with...

       
@Conner:

Well, as I stated, I consider abortion an act of murder. I am clearly in the minority here, but with advances in medical science and modern adoption systems, I can see no valid excuse other than a threat to the mother's health for terminating a pregnancy. As for your Texas example, clearly any civilized people sees killing a child as murder. If that law goes through it'll open the floodgates to slaughter and then getting a slick lawyer to claim the mother was depressed.

Clearly your stance on the Patriot Act is driven more by fear than much else. What Obama is now doing really has nothing to do with it. The things he wants were clearly documented and not based on things he could theoretically get away with under that law. As far as being documented, if such a case of abuse happened it wouldn't matter if the courts tried to suppress it. Someone would be out there making waves. Certainly the ACLU would have given their hardline anti-Bush feelings. They wouldn't have hesitated. DoHS isn't any more of a threat to you and I than the FBI+NSA was before the Act.

It may be his job to meet with our enemies, but not to sell us out to them in exchange for false peace. That's appeasement and it failed miserably in Europe before WWII. We don't need a spineless liberal president doing that in our name today.

@Regina:

Are you sure you're a liberal then? Everything I responded to Part 3 with is core conservatism :)

       
I don't consider pre-term abortion to be murder, but I don't outright encourage or even condone it per se either, I just feel that prior to the third trimester it should be the women's right to have the choice because there are valid reasons not to want to have a child beyond those that threaten the would-be mother's life.. and we have far too many poor children already in orphanages and foster care already. I agree with you on the proposed law in Texas, sadly, as I understand it, 29 other states already have similiar laws on the books though.

Perhaps my concerns are fear driven, but those of us who choose to ignore our history are doomed to repeat it and Hitler's examples of private police without authority limitations in the name of national security set a pretty clear precedential example in my mind...

Agreed, he shouldn't be trying to appease them, but he told us before he was elected that he intended to try that route despite what history should have taught him about that approach and "we" elected him anyway.. Mind you, it wasn't my vote that put him into office, but... *sigh*

       
Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the abortion thing again. There is no valid reason in my book to just one day decide to slaughter an innocent child who had nothing to do with it. Having a child is a decision of great responsibility. Making that decision is something that requires the commitment that goes with it. All too often these days an abortion is performed because the mother doesn't like the back aches, or the morning sickness, or has a headache one day because of it. Or, and I've heard of cases of this, they didn't like getting fat! The solution is dead simple. If you don't want a baby, don't screw.

I agree that a private police in the same vein as Hitler's Gestapo would be a bad BAD idea. Honestly, despite Obama's indications in that direction, we're not there yet. Though I don't trust that the liberals would see it coming if he went forward with his civilian youth idea he talked about last year during the campaign. They'd probably endorse it just because their tin god president said it was a good idea.

54% of registered voters elected him. Some of those were falsified as the result of ACORN and their bogus registrations. Unfortunately the courts chose to ignore all that. So we're stuck with an appeaser for a president who has no clue what our history was because he's not even a US citizen and wasn't schooled here. We Conservatives have ourselves to blame, or at least those of us who didn't go vote because of McCain. What we're seeing happen today is exactly what I was telling people would happen.

       
Superman [Anon] said:
Comment #6 Mar 31, 2009 6:35 am
Unless you're a bio-egalitarian there's no reason to be against abortion. Irresponsible parents will generally have irresponsible children, so the ideal solution is to make abortion freely available, especially for those who want to use it as a form of birth control. The other option is to restrict it, and cause the number of irresponsible people to increase with all the negative consequences that entails.

The conservative stance on abortion might be righteous, but it's impractical, unrealistic, self defeating, and a cry out for a big powerful government that will regulate morality - which is no different from what the liberals envision. Needless to say that the Liberals already won the morality battle by stamping any sense of heritability out of the minds of the masses, heck, the word heritability isn't even in my spell-checker!

       
I'm not sure I'm a liberal, but then again, I'm pretty sure I'm not much of a conservative either. But I'm all for the Republicans actually being conservative as a matter of principle, as opposed to yelling "Fiscal responsibility!" when they're out of power, then driving the country off the rails with spending when they're in office. I like conservativism a lot more than I do the GOP. If the two become synonymous again, I'll be a lot happier.

And I'm probably gonna regret touching this hornet's nest, but here goes:

There is no valid reason in my book to just one day decide to slaughter an innocent child who had nothing to do with it.


You gave one above though. The health of the mother.

Now, most pro-lifers agree that abortion is acceptable to save the life of the mother, because at that point it comes down to a question of one preventable death versus two preventable deaths. However, the line between what is necessary to save life and what is necessary to save health can be heartbreakingly thin. If, for example, a woman experiences dangerously high blood pressure as a result of a pregnancy, must a doctor wait for it to spike so high she is in danger of death before performing an abortion (at which point the surgery will be much riskier to the mother as well), or may he act preventatively and perform an abortion before she is in the danger zone (but while the possibility that she will enter it is non-negligible?) If lawmakers differentiate between life and health (which I know you didn't), then they're legislating into the area of a doctor's medical judgment. I'd say it's a perfectly conservative - not to mention sensible - argument to say that lawmakers shouldn't be touching that area. If a doctor thinks an abortion is the best procedure to avoid a life-threatening situation or preserve the mother's health, and the woman/family agree, I don't think any set of legislators should be able to interfere with that judgment. I think that's small government and personal responsibility at its best and most sensible.

There's something else to consider, though, at that point. If you allow abortion for matters that are very serious, but not EXACTLY the same as a simple "two deaths are worse than one," are there any other reasons of equivalent gravity for ending a developing human life?

There may or may not be. But some people pretend that that's a question not worth asking, and that annoys me.

       
Unless you're a bio-egalitarian there's no reason to be against abortion.


Never heard the term before, so I'm pretty sure that's not me. I'm against abortion as it's presented to us - a form of birth control. They have these things, they're called pills. Take them if you don't want a kid. Get your tubes tied. Make the guy wear a condom. Whatever. If the woman gets pregnant anyway, well, guess what? The kid can be given up for adoption.

@Regina:

I think you missed the point of my statement. There is no valid reason to just wake up one morning and decide being pregnant is no longer for you and then march to the clinic and slaughter the child. If I failed to make it obvious that the life of the mother *IS* a valid reason, then I'll make it clear. It *IS* a valid reason. but it isn't a valid reason to kill the child because the mother barfs a few mornings a week or gets back aches, or doesn't like how she looks all fat and rounded.

If the doctor makes the determination that abortion is the only medical option to ensure the mother's life, then that's a decision they need to make together and after careful consideration. Lawmakers should indeed stay out of it, but they should also explicitly protect that decision making process. They should not condone murder though.

       
Oh, I think there are a whole host of reasons for having an abortion that are not equivalent to mother's life/health, but are a lot more serious than not liking the morning sickness, and shouldn't be trivialized. You know, such as "I'm still in middle school/high school/college and won't be able to finish school if I have to take care of a baby," or "we can't afford to care for another kid," or "I have substance abuse problems and will be a danger to my kid even while they're still in the womb," or "the baby has a major genetic disorder," or "I was raped."

Are they also worth a developing life? I don't know, and obviously, reasonable (and non-reasonable) people can disagree . But I think those are questions worth considering.

       
"I'm still in middle school/high school/college and won't be able to finish school if I have to take care of a baby," or "we can't afford to care for another kid," or "I have substance abuse problems and will be a danger to my kid even while they're still in the womb,"


These are examples of irresponsibility. Murder is not a solution to irresponsibility. Otherwise I'd have had good reason to kill a lot of people in my life. Substance abuse while pregnant is recognized as child abuse in many states even where liberal abortion laws exist. How exactly does one resolve that paradox?

"the baby has a major genetic disorder,"


This is likely still up for debate. I'm not exactly cut and dry on this one myself. It goes more to the same issues the assisted suicide people point at. We obviously would need to define "major genetic disorder" and not go around killing babies that have 6 fingers and toes just because they're "freaks".

"I was raped."


While clearly not the mother's fault, is it right to kill the child for something it had no control over?

We haven't even touched on another paradox in criminal law. Murdering a pregnant mother. There are several states where the attacker will be charged with two homicides even if the mother would have been otherwise unable to deliver a live birth. Some of these states are "abortion on demand" states too. It sends a dangerous mixed message. Is it ok to kill the baby or not?

If the mother can elect to get a doctor to drill holes in its head and suck the dead corpse out the vagina, why should it make a difference if the father does this instead using an icepick to jab holes in the mother's stomach because *HE* didn't want the baby?

Speaking of father's rights, why does nobody even begin to consider what he wants? A normal pregnancy requires the act of sex between a man and a woman, and barring any of the aforementioned irresponsibility, what if the father wants the child? Should he simply have no say in the matter at all? What about his emotional well being after finding out his girlfriend or wife went off and had the child murdered without even discussing it with him?

This issue is not as simple as the liberal media makes it out to be. It's not about reproductive control. There are numerous methods that exist to handle that aspect of it. It's about population control through government sponsored mass murder. 40 million children and counting. The United States is guilty of the most hideous atrocity known to mankind.

       
On the subject of notification to the father: In Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, the 1992 case which allowed restrictions on Roe and replaced the trimester framework for legality with a system of balancing "legitimate" and "compelling" interests (the mother's, the child's, the state's, etc.), Sandra Day O'Connor struck down a requirement that the father be notified as unconstitutional. The rationale was that a significant proportion of the times when the woman didn't tell the man, she didn't do so because she ran the risk of abuse. (Parental notification requirements were upheld as constitutional).

And I always had a wry fondness for this line of P.J. O'Rourke's:

"Get a pro-life friend drunk to the truth-telling stage and ask him what happens if his 14-year-old gets knocked up. What if it's rape? Some people truly have the courage of their convictions. I don't know if I'm one of them. I might kill the baby. I will kill the boy."

(From an article that is, as it happens, apropos of what's wrong with the current conservative movement, written by a man who's very much a conservative. It's wonderful and very funny. Sadly, it's behind a subscriber firewall at the Weekly Standard.)

"I was raped."

While clearly not the mother's fault, is it right to kill the child for something it had no control over?


I think on the individual level (as the pregnant woman, as part of her family, etc.), you have to ask "Is it right?" But on the societal level, you have to ask "Should it be allowed"? And I think those really are related, but different, questions.

       
Sandra Day O'Connor is a lunatic, and her logic is completely screwed up in that ruling. If an underage female can be required to give parental notification ( which I support btw ) then I see no logical difference in being held to the same requirement for notification in the case of the child's own father. In fact, I'd have to say the father has more standing than the woman's parents. You've simply provided me with another paradoxical situation in the law that needs to be corrected - in favor of the father.

The example of getting a pro-lifer drunk to the point of truth telling is not inconsistent with conservative beliefs. Many of us support the death penalty for violent offenders, of which rapists qualify. So while it may be true that most of us would balk at slaying the child, we'll be more than happy to meet justice upon the rapist for his crimes. It's not even counter to any modern western religion either, so you can't pull the fanatical Christian card on this one. Jesus supported stoning adulterers, and he made no distinction between them, rapists, and their victims.

       
It's not a question of whether the father has more standing, it's a question of how much danger the mother is in. The relevant portion is only a few pages - if you're curious, go here and read sections V.C-E.

Also, what passage are you thinking of in which Jesus supports stoning adulterers? I remember places where Jesus upholds the prohibition against adultery as part of the Ten Commandments (e.g. Matthew 5:27-32, which say that divorce and looking at a woman lustfully are equivalent to adultery), but the two places in the New Testament where Jesus meets adulterous women are the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" passage (John 7:53-8:11), where he saves the woman from being stoned, and the passage (John 4:7-29) where he offers "living water" to the Samaritan woman at the well and reveals himself to her as the Messiah. (This is particularly interesting because Jews did not associate with Samaritans, as the passage points out.)

       
Superman [Anon] said:
Comment #14 Apr 2, 2009 8:47 pm
Never heard the term before, so I'm pretty sure that's not me. I'm against abortion as it's presented to us - a form of birth control. They have these things, they're called pills. Take them if you don't want a kid. Get your tubes tied. Make the guy wear a condom. Whatever. If the woman gets pregnant anyway, well, guess what? The kid can be given up for adoption.

A bio-egalitarian is someone who strongly believes that nurture trumps nature, this may not even be a conscious decision as it's believed to be the universal truth by most people who've never given the issue any thought. The logical consequence of bio-egalitarianism is the notion that 'all children are innocent', and hence expensive social intervention of all kinds is justified to save and help the innocent children. If these programs fail to help the innocent children, a scapegoat is generally sought, most often a lack of funding, lack of a father figure, discrimination, you name it, the list is endless. The unthinkable is to suggest that the lower class is a genetic, rather than a social class.

The split between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives consider adults to no longer be innocent, and to be responsible for their own actions, and hence can be punished harshly (even by means of the death penalty) where as liberals believe that criminal adults are still innocent victims of their bad childhood.

So you may very well be a bio-egalitarian, since a hereditarian views rape as a reproductive strategy, and that the only way to get rid of rapists is to stop them from reproducing.

       
<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31