READER COMMENTS ON
"Buchanan Gets it "Right""
(37 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
said on 8/22/2004 @ 6:14 pm PT...
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
said on 8/22/2004 @ 6:14 pm PT...
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
said on 8/22/2004 @ 7:02 pm PT...
Swift work, Brad. I was just about to blog on this.
Congratulations Paul, you have aligned perfectlylock step with the other Bush Apologists. If George Bush nuked Montreal, you'd be praising the Righteousness of the move. You are just another bullshit conservative who's ideals shift whenever party leadership dictates. I see your being a good boy and taking your marching orders to savage yet another real conservative/ intellectually honest Republican who dares question Bush.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
said on 8/22/2004 @ 7:18 pm PT...
Pat is also Catholic, so he won't be assumed bodily into heaven along with Paul and the rest of the lock step Bush apoligists.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
said on 8/22/2004 @ 7:56 pm PT...
Earlier topic on politics and religion and our laws being based on the 10 commandments: (for all of you who "think" you know what the first amendment means)
"It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible."--- George Washington
"O most glorious God ... Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb, and purge my heart by thy Holy Spirit.... Daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy Son Jesus Christ.... Thou gavest thy Son to die for me, and hast given me assurance of salvation...." --George Washington
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gift of God?"--- Thomas Jefferson
"With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right."---Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865
"We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government: upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."--- James Madison
"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth --- that God governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire cannot rise without His aid? We have been assured in the sacred writings that, 'except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.'"--- Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His Kingdom come."--- Samuel Adams, as he signed the Declaration of Independence
"Our Fathers were brought up by their veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles within the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions --- civil, political, or literary."--- Daniel Webster
"To the distinguished character of a Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of a Christian."--- George Washington
"A patriot without religions is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God...The scriptures tell us 'righteousness exalts a nation.'"--- Abigail Adams
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."--- John Quincy Adams
"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped...As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see."---Benjamin Franklin
"No power over the freedom of religion...[is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution."---Thomas Jefferson
"Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."---Leviticus 25:10, inscribed on the Liberty Bell
"We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us." ---Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation
"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."---George Washington, in his farewell address
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"---Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Convention, March, 1775
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time."---Thomas Jefferson
"Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is Just,"---Thomas Jefferson
"Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens."---Daniel Webster
"Thank God! I--I also--am an American!"---Daniel Webster
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it."---Daniel Webster
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
said on 8/23/2004 @ 5:07 am PT...
here is what jefferson actually wrote on the relationship between church and state:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
said on 8/23/2004 @ 1:23 pm PT...
All I know is that the GOP is in trouble when Buchannan starts making sense. That should be the blinking sign to the neo-cons that says "TURN BACK NOW"
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
said on 8/23/2004 @ 2:28 pm PT...
Thanks John. You know why I like the founding fathers Paul?
They could hold two opposing thoughts in their head at the same time.
Believing in God does not preclude one from using common sense, nor does it follow that all laws have to be based in God's commandments simply because the proposers found strength and wisdom in God. Moral compasses find north through all sorts of ways; there were also a great number of secularists who had a hand in shaping our constitution as well.
It's not expected for you to understand the distinction, nor is it suprising that you don't, or won't acknowledge it. Thankfully the founding fathers thought ahead, so you don't have to...
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
said on 8/23/2004 @ 6:37 pm PT...
i agree it's pretty scary when a guy once thought to be a fringe candidate is almost normal. i remember watching patrick J in 1992 witha republican friend in 1992. That was the year she left the party.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
said on 8/23/2004 @ 6:41 pm PT...
i agree with you about laws and such with a couple of exception. i like the death penalty for people wearing cloaks made of two different materials. But thats just me.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 5:55 am PT...
What Jefferson said does not disagree from what I said.
> no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
That means that a bible class can happen on school grounds. They [congress] are not establishing a religion and they are not prohibiting the exercise of one.
> national church
Baptists were concerned that the government was going to establish a national church and that church was the Congregational church. Jefferson's response was in a letter.
> there were also a great number of secularists who had a hand in shaping our constitution as well.
Give me some names please.
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 8:56 am PT...
You are completely wrong about the context of the letter. it was written in response to a letter asking why he would not proclaim a national day of fasting. The "wall" was his response.
Can a school be used for bible classes? School buildings are used for many functions. A congregation renting facilities for any purpose would not be an establishment as long as such a possibility of facilities were open to all types of groups. Under those circumstances i see no establishment as Jefferson obviously understood it. On the other hand if a class of bible study were part of the curriculum and its purpose was religious instration thats a zebra of a different stripe.
On the other hand, a study of the Bible, Koran, Tanakh, and so forth in order to understand academic subjects (history politics, etc) is clearly within the mandate of public schools as long as such subjects do not become catechism.
As for secularists, i am not sure what the term means. Does it include people like Washington who in all of his thousands of letters NEVER mentions Jesus? Does it include John Adams who wrote that "thirteen governments [i.e., the colonies] thus founded on the natural AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE ALONE, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind." Would it include Jefferson who wrote that we should "question with boldness even the existence of a god." How about James madison? He wrote: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." Ouch. But he also wrote this: "What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." What about old Tom Paine? He wrote: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church." he also wrote: "Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
And let's not forget the Treaty of Tripoli in which Adams sought to assure the Muslims in power that the US would deal with them fairly. The treaty opens with this clause:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"
Secular in terms of a government not founded on religious principles? Certainly.
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 1:38 pm PT...
Benjamin Franklin, off the top of my head. Would you like me to dig?
John, I admit I tossed secular in there. I think of secular in musical terms, as non-sacred. Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly in categorizing a person, or group of people.
And I could just use a dictionary, but that would require me to learn. The gist was that it was someone who, spiritual or not, was not adopting a particular religion.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 6:35 pm PT...
i knew that you had used secular but i thought i would answer the question anyway. i think in terms of government it refers not to the beliefs of individuals but the relationship of the State to the Church.
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 8:14 pm PT...
I wish I could find the very old article (I think it was Sidney Harris) in which the columnist worte of the wisdom of our founding fathers ,aking the laws of man the highest in the land. Being laws of men, they would always be open to being questioned.
And man, it's a kick reading "liberals" sticking up for Pat Buchanan.
And I agree, Bush is an enemy of any real conservative. But, if you are a conservative, what other candidte do you have to vote for this year? Even if you don't care about voting for someone with a chance at winning (and sad to say, it looks like Bush has a really good chance), who can a real conservative vote for?
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
said on 8/24/2004 @ 8:34 pm PT...
Sorry for my typos on the previous post.
I got myself thinking about Sidney J. Harris, the late great columnist. I found some quotes of his, these first two apply well to the current Bush administration:
"We have not passed that subtle line between childhood and adulthood until we move from the passive voice to the active voice --- that is, until we have stopped saying "It got lost," and say, "I lost it."
"The greatest enemy of progress is not stagnation, but false progress" In my opinion, the perfect statement on the war to kill Iraqi babies in their beds affect on the war against terrorists.
And these two remind me of what I see every time I read on-line arguments like the ones here:
"Intolerance is the most socially acceptable form of egotism, for it permits us to assume superiority without personal boasting. "
"The most important thing in an argument, next to being right, is to leave an escape hatch for your opponent, so that he can gracefully swing over to your side without too much apparent loss of face."
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 5:57 am PT...
"I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth --- that God governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire cannot rise without His aid? We have been assured in the sacred writings that, 'except the Lord build the house they labor in vain that build it.'"--- Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, June 28, 1787 [Doesn't sound like a secularist to me]
Invoking God is not establishing a religion. Religion will always be a part of politics because the government equals people and people are religious, one way or another. One can invoke God and still have separation of Church and State because the government cannot establish a national church (like the Church of England) and the government cannot stand in the way of the free exercise of religion. Having "In God We Trust" on our coins and our motto and "one nation under God" are not establishing a religion and are not unconstitutional.
My German ancestors came to America on 9/3/1639 because they were Lutheran and were being persecuted by Catholics. They came here for religious freedoms.
I will get the quote and the person who said it but someone said that it is because of Christianity, that all other religions in this country are free to exercise their faiths. If this country was mainly Muslim, that would not be the case. We will have to wait and see.
It appears that Muslims are trying to eradicate Christianity from all Muslim lands. France may one day fall from within. They are already experiencing problems with radical Muslims being elected in some areas.
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 6:16 am PT...
"Religion will always be a part of politics because the government equals people and people are religious, one way or another"
Omigod. That was just the BEST pile of crap I have ever read. Honest Paul. You have a gift. You really do.
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 8:05 am PT...
The government is not some object or entity. It is made up of people. A corporation is not some object; it is made up of people. People make decisions, not objects. A decision in the government or a corporation can be traced to a person. Think Ken Lay of Enron. Think Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom. Think Martha Stewart.
Is Bush the president? Is Bush religious? Are people religious? Christian? Catholic? New Age? Muslim? Atheists? Politicians make decisions based on their beliefs, a belief that comes from God or from Secular Humanism or somewhere else.
Al Gore was once a confessed Christian. He used to be Pro-guns and Pro-life. However, when he ran for a national office, there is no room in the Democratic Party for a Pro-lifer. Hence. Gore had to change what he believed in. Democrat Senator Zell Miller wrote a book about the Democratic Party. I suggest you read it. I am not sure what Gore believes in anymore and some of his beliefs are just plain New Age religious beliefs. He could not even win his own state in the 2000 election. He is out of touch with mainstream America as are most liberals/socialists. Gore and Clinton have some kind of religious beliefs and it drives then to make decisions or at least run to the church when they get in trouble (Clinton).
Johanna - you lack common sense.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 8:33 am PT...
You're playing with fire. And you need to get out of your house more.
"The government is not some object or entity."
Holy shit, really?! Brad, Jaime, JHP, do you hear that? Holy shit !! I can't believe it. Here I am, sitting in my igloo, thinking the government of the United States is just a fucking shoe that makes decisions.
"It is made up of people. A corporation is not some object; it is made up of people. People make decisions, not objects."
OKAY WISE ASS. Let me ask YOU something. Is the democratic party an entity? No? Isn't it? A government is a government. Why not vote for the democrats then? THey're people too. People who are making decisions based on their beliefs. Not objects. People.
So why not vote for them?
I'll tell you why. Because you like your government to believe what you believe. And you like power. You can't stand the concept that someone like Gore who is pro-life will be President and say: "Hey. Some of you believe in life. Some believe in abortion. I don't agree with the latter, but I'm not gonna control you and make you think MY way. Because it's a BELIEF."
Oh. And did I mention he's a man who's never gonna get pregnant? Did I mention women aren't incubators? Did I mention it's a WOMAN'S choice?! You hate that don't you. You want to control women. You really do.
"A decision in the government or a corporation can be traced to a person."
Yet, Bush isn't responsible then for killing the innocent people of iraq? He made a decision to start this war. Paul. HONEST. Stop contradicting yourself and stop with the nonsense. You're really pushing it now.
"Is Bush the president?"
"Politicians make decisions based on their beliefs, a belief that comes from God or from Secular Humanism or somewhere else."
If JFK is elected, you have NO right to bitch about anything. EVER. I will sit here on this blog and reply back with "He's just making a decision. He's a person," to every one of your complaints.
Remember this conversation please. Because I'll throw your words right back at you. You'll get a taste of your medicine . I can't wait. I'll tell you that it's okay for an elected President to make his people do things they don't want to do because "politicians make decisions based on their beliefs". Fuck the rest of the world. Politicans run the world, so we better shut the fuck up or run for fucking President. That way, we can do things OUR way.
"Hence. Gore had to change what he believed in. "
Or maybe he decided to let bygones be bygones. That's a strange thought, eh?
" He is out of touch with mainstream America as are most liberals/socialists."
Right. Because YOU'RE mainstream America. Please. I already puked yesterday. Don't make me do it again today.
"Johanna - you lack common sense. "
Paul. You're a sick puppy.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 8:36 am PT...
Omigod. I realized I just got sucked into the abortion thing again.
What's a girl to do?!
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 9:09 am PT...
> Why not vote for the democrats then?
Because my beliefs line up more with the Republicans.
Yes, I line up more closely with mainstream America than a leftist does. Remember what I said - Put your money on Bush to win.
Have you had an abortion Johanna? That topic really lights you up.
What is your opinion on world population?
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 10:17 am PT...
Of course that topic lights me up. You're a guy who's trying to control something you will never experience. How many bloody times do I have to say it?
"What is your opinion on world population? "
Obviously you need things to be told to you more than once in order for it to sink in (if ever). I told you I don't want to get into this discussion with you.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 11:16 am PT...
Is the whole abortion thing just a matter of control? I don't think abortion will ever be legal again. Certainly not in the Great White North. The scientific part does not seem to matter to you. You just don't want a man telling you what you can do with your body. Hence my argument for making rape legal. That is just as ridiculous as your argument. There are women who will be mentally scarred for life because of the abortion they had yet you treat it like getting a haircut. Go ahead Johanna get your hair cut however you wish when you wish. But don't treat thousands of innocent lives like they don't matter. Yes they are lives, just like the ones in Iraq.
COMMENT #25 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 1:03 pm PT...
Do you have your own blog or not?
And haven't we exhausted this topic? No. It's not a matter of control, but it's a valid point.
" You just don't want a man telling you what you can do with your body. "
That's definitely part of it , yes. Look. Once and for all. I don't "condone" abortion by any means of the word. I think educating people on practising safe sex is more pertinent an issue. And I think there are cases where an abortion may be necessary (rape being one of them).
To me. If a woman takes the morning after pill or waits a week and gets an abortion , it's the same thing. But overall, she should be on birth control. How do we ensure this? We educate people. We don't FORCE them to have babies if accidents or incidents happen.
"Hence my argument for making rape legal. That is just as ridiculous as your argument. "
No its not.
"There are women who will be mentally scarred for life because of the abortion they had yet you treat it like getting a haircut."
No I don't. I don't have time to get into this right now.
"Go ahead Johanna get your hair cut however you wish when you wish. But don't treat thousands of innocent lives like they don't matter."
*sigh* You're so clueless..
COMMENT #26 [Permalink]
said on 8/25/2004 @ 5:49 pm PT...
"it is because of Christianity, that all other religions in this country are free to exercise their faiths."
There is truth to this, in modern years.
"If this country was mainly Muslim, that would not be the case." Well, now, that depends. Some of the most religeously tolerant nations were Islamic. Spain, for example. (Compare Moorish Spain to the Spanish Inquisition and tell me who has a better history of religeous freedom) Jerusalem under the Egyptians right before the first crusade, for another.
What was it the prez said? That the only reason Islamic terrorists are against us is that they hate freedom? I guess those 1,000 years of attempted genocide and oppression by "Christians" don't figure anywhere into their feelings.
COMMENT #27 [Permalink]
said on 8/26/2004 @ 4:11 am PT...
i think it has a lot more to do with the wests foreign policy for the last 80 years.
COMMENT #28 [Permalink]
said on 8/27/2004 @ 7:36 am PT...
I agree with Johnhp and disagree with Bush. Terrorists do not hate freedom, they hate Israel. They hate anyone who supports Israel. Who supports Israel? Let's see...hmmmm...how about the United States! How about 1948 and beyond!
The purpose of the Koran in the 600 ADs was to unite the Arab world against their real enemy - Jews!
The US could walk away from Israel, after forcing Israel to give up land for the Palestinians, and the Arab world would like us just a "little" bit more.
They would like us a lot better if we completely physically left their lands.
Bottom line - Islam has three categories of land - land already owned and run by them, land owned by them but run by someone else (Israel and the Jews, which really pisses them off), and all future lands that will be under Islamic Rule.
COMMENT #29 [Permalink]
said on 8/27/2004 @ 5:19 pm PT...
You're not agreeing with me at all. i think Israel is part of it, as a geo-political and not religious or ethnic principle, but the bigger picture has to do with the aftermath of the 1st World War. Putting autocrats in charge of the Arabian Penninsula, for example. Think about that. One of the most autocratic regimes on the face of the earth lives in absolute opulence, well beyond the excesses of Crassus, yet a third of their population is unemployed and even more are steeped in absolute poverty. And yet they are our friends; we support the regime and help keep them in power. As Americans we do so through funding. American security corporations also do so through private contracts with the Saud regime. They don't hate our freedom; they hate the fact that we prop up these thugs. Think about the Iranian regime. Prior to the putsch that put the dictator Pahlavi in power Iran had a elected parliament. because they wanted a little bit more of the black gold to pay for healthcare, education and other public works (rather than filling the coffers of Aramco) the British and the US spooks decided democracy in Iran was too expensive. They dont hate us; they hate the thugs we put into and keep in power. During the 1980s when Iran and iraq were at each others throats, the Reagan Administration thought it was hunkey dorey to give Hussein the building blocks of biological and chemical weapons (historical side note: this is a technology the USSR refused to give Hussein) while he was filling mass graves. A decage and a half later, we use the weapons he no longer has and the mass graves we previously ignored as a pretext for a war that kills more than 10,000 civilians. they dont hate us because of our freedom; its a foreign policy that treats people like fodder.
Reagrding Israel: its not about their faith. jews live relatively peacefully in iran and iraq to this day and have done so for hundreds of years (more so than they did in, say, Europe for considerably less time). its about establishing a European colony in a land largely populated by Arabs. Its about the hypocricy of uprooting a native population and establishing a colony of Europeans in a land because the Europeans couldnt get beyond their anti-Semitism and let Jews live in peace. Its about making Arabs, and not all Arans are muslims by the way, pay for Eurpeam guilt.
paul, your comment was a monstrosity. Please doo not begin that type of crap by suggesting you agree with me.
COMMENT #30 [Permalink]
said on 8/28/2004 @ 8:51 am PT...
No I don't have a blog, If I start one I will let you know.
We both know the pill is not 100% effective nor is anything except abstinance. I totally agree with you in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother. I don't really have a problem with the morning after pill either. So what are we arguing about?? A womans right to choose. I wonder how you feel about this?? Lets say a woman is 4 months along, her husband leaves her I don't believe she should be able to then get an abortion. That to me is murder. What do you think??
COMMENT #31 [Permalink]
said on 8/28/2004 @ 12:32 pm PT...
I agree with you johnhp that Israel is a problem to the Arab world.
COMMENT #32 [Permalink]
said on 8/28/2004 @ 5:33 pm PT...
For the record, I'm really getting tired of this conversation. But here it is.
"We both know the pill is not 100% effective nor is anything except abstinance. I totally agree with you in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother. I don't really have a problem with the morning after pill either."
Well see, to me it's obvious that you're totally making your decisions based on what YOU believe. Which is fine Ed, don't get me wrong. But since (for instance) the morning after pill is okay, rape & incest are okay, but anything beyond that is not, that doesn't really make it an exact science , does it? As you can see the line is soooo very fine.
" Lets say a woman is 4 months along, her husband leaves her I don't believe she should be able to then get an abortion. That to me is murder. What do you think?? "
You see Ed, *I* would not abort in this situation. That's me though. As we've proven with the morning after pill scenario, the rape scenario and a handful of others, it isn't all about an egg being fertlized and Ta-da, baby makes three and "we white men say you can't abort". It really isn't.
Maybe the 4 month pregnant woman wants to spare the child a father-less life. I don't know. I don't agree with it, but because the line is so fine and because it's such a "grey" area, I say let her do what she sees fit. Let her doctor educate her and ultimately, let her make the decision.
Side note. I just realized something in your scenario. The father says "See ya. I don't feel like being a daddy anymore, I'm outta here," but the mother's supposed to stick it out for another 5 months because it's "murder"? What a double standard. And it makes me think that a lot of men really do see women as incubators.
But listen, there are many "wrong" things that go on in this world. Drugs for instance. Legal or illegal? Should we legalize it and educate people on the harm it does or do we illegalize it and make people want it even more?
All in all, I think what you don't get is that it's really none of your business (or the government's). It really is all about a woman's right to choose. And you should go out and find yourself a wife that will choose NOT to abort. You can teach your daughter's NOT to abort. You can teach your sons (hopefully) not to ditch a poor girl they may have gotten pregnant. And you can also teach your sons, that should that poor girl decide to get an abortion, it's her right to do so. If he doesn't agree with it, then he shouldn't get her pregnant in the first place.
COMMENT #33 [Permalink]
said on 8/29/2004 @ 1:55 pm PT...
Paul, you don't support Jews...they're all going to rot in Hell with Al Qaeda, Mohammed, Hitler, and Ghandi. You support AIPAC and their spies.
COMMENT #34 [Permalink]
said on 8/29/2004 @ 3:29 pm PT...
You do not agree with me please stop pretending that you and i share your bias against Jews, Arabs and Muslims
COMMENT #35 [Permalink]
said on 8/30/2004 @ 1:31 pm PT...
One final item Johanna,
What about adoption for the woman in my example? Thousands of people would adopt that child given the opportunity. You tell me I can never be in that situation but my daughter was. She got pregnant as a senior in high school and could have aborted and I would never have known about it. Planned Parenthood tried to talk her into it but she got the hell out of there. Now 3 years later she is married to great guy and I have a really cute granddaughter. I did talk to her about adoption but she wouldn't consider it and now I'm glad she didn't. So what do you say we talk about anything else from now on??
COMMENT #36 [Permalink]
said on 8/30/2004 @ 3:52 pm PT...
YES! Thank you. I welcome other topics.
COMMENT #37 [Permalink]
said on 8/30/2004 @ 5:36 pm PT...
I'm about a week late in making it through the comments on this topic. So just one reply. To Paul who said:
"One can invoke God and still have separation of Church and State because the government cannot establish a national church (like the Church of England) and the government cannot stand in the way of the free exercise of religion. Having "In God We Trust" on our coins and our motto and "one nation under God" are not establishing a religion and are not unconstitutional."
Then, I must presume, you'd be just as fine having "one nation, praise Allah, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" in the pledge.
I must presume that, because to you "under God" is not the "establishment of a religion" and therefore, neither would be "praise Allah"?
I have a feeling you wouldn't much care for that. Why? Because it would be a government establishment of Islam into National policy.
So is "under God" to those of us who think there is no place for the establishment of Christianity, Judaism, Islam or any other religion, monotheistic or otherwise, in our National Policy.