Skip to comments.Anybody Else on Here Think Boortz's Statements on Life Issues Are Contradictory?
Posted on 10/06/2009 12:28:26 PM PDT by Debacled
During today's show, Boortz addressed his comments that he made on Monday regarding the alleged hijacking of the GOP by the pro-life wing of the party. Boortz claims that this faction of the GOP has caused the Party to lose the popular vote in the '96, '00, and '08 Presidential elections.
While the radio show host did not explicitly state his personal opinion on the abortion debate, I perceive that the so-called libertarian is pro-choice in that he talks about a "woman's right to choose" and divides the players in the abortion debate into 2 camps: the pro-choice camp and the anti-choice camp.
While I disagree with his assertions, he has every right to say what he says. But the thing that scalds me is his double standard on life issues.
He gives the impression that he is pro-choice on abortion, but yet he is vehemently against the rationing of healthcare away from the elderly and terminally ill. Aren't these opinions mutually exclusive? So, according to Neal, the termination of unborn children is perfectly fine (it is a woman's right to control her body, right?), but yet the passive euthanasia of the elderly and terminally ill is murder? Is anyone else disturbed by this?
Boortz is one of my favorite shows, he (along with Savage) are the smartest, most informed, and most intellectually honest right of center talk show hosts, but his cowardice/ignorance on the abortion issue is costing him in ratings and name value.
“I think Boortz feels that it is more of a control issue with many pro-life people.”
Then he would be wrong.
I did not say I agree with it, just what I think his reasining is.
Regardless, one good thing came out of this whole debacle. I remember a line in the old Star Wars Trilogy.....it was something like "There is Another!"
In reality, there is another. She wears a skirt.
Why is it anymore of a tragedy than an abortion in the 2nd or 1st trimester. This makes no sense. The full term baby isn't anymore human than the 1rst or 2nd trimester baby.
It isn't anymore of a tragedy if a person goes up to someone and blows their head off at point blank range or if they shoot into a crowd and achieve the same result but doesn't actually see the carnage. Either way the person's life is lost senselessly and both are tragic.
Please don't fall for the lie that somehow a younger baby is any less human.
Oh spare us...
Understood. I also did not say that you agreed. I included myself in the “We”.
It isn’t a “tragedy”; it’s a baby, and abortion is murder.
Unfortunately it's not a one-issue world.
In Mass. there's special dispensation if the dem's name is Kennedy.
Really? Being a conservative Catholic most Catholics I know did not vote for Obama. But we do have a lot of liberal Catholics for whom abortion is no big deal such as Catholics for Freechoice. Most of those don’t even like the church, they want to make it into their own image.
He is completely against Planned Parenthood and associated groups receiving one dollar of tax money from local, State, or Federal sources. He also thinks Roe V. wade should be overturned and the issue decided by the State.
Typically libertarian view. It'd do more than all the bloodied placards have done to date, but doesn't go far enough by far for some on the Religious Right. Too bad as those two little things would be a lot easier than any Amendment possibly could be.
Maybe it isn't a one issue world but I refuse to vote for any candidate that is not vehemently opposed to abortion, no matter what their stand is on the other issues.
Boortz claims that this faction of the GOP has caused the Party to lose the popular vote in the '96, '00, and '08 Presidential elections.
He does, and this is utterly ridiculous. Abortion was hardly on the radar in the 2008 race -- it was mainly economic issues + a referendum on Bush. There probably aren't three people in the United States who said to themselves, "I desire personal liberty, fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, and Constitutional governance, and I know Obama is an opponent of all those things, but I'm voting for him anyway because he supports abortion rights."
Just because the federal government can stick it's nose into this most personal of decisions doesn't mean it should.
Exactly! Roman Polanski, for instance. What business is it of mine who he rapes?
Boortz’s contention that the Pro-life movement is driving ordinary people away from the GOP is based on a 1970’s and 1980’s understanding of the abortion issue. Then, the fight was over whether a women may legally have an early abortion. In a legal sense, that fight is over and the abortionists won.
What Boortz does not understand is that the abortion battle today is being fought over:
a) taxpayer funded abortions here and abroad
b) forcing religious hospitals and doctors to carry out abortions
c) partial birth abortion
d) unrestricted abortion opportunities to persons not old enough to even get a tatoo without parental consent
e) exempting abortion clinics from the same licensing, sanitary and safety rules all other medical facilities must abide by
f) providing women in crisis pregnancies information about alternatives to abortions and proven consequences thereof
These issues are being fought in front of a public that is becoming more and more pro-life.
Like all libertarians, Neal follows his own thinking rather than walking in lockstep with a specific so-called libertarian platform.
He is hated by some libertarians for supporting Patriot Act and specific military expeditions. He is hated by religious dogmatists because he demands separation of church and state. He is hated by the left because of his opposition to big government. But in all things, Neal is Neal.
A quick look into libertarian websites show most libertarians believe the government has no right to decide for you what you do with your body. However, they also argue that the government has no right funding what you do with your body. And the government has no right forcing abortion, such as seen by the ChiComs. If your doctor is the person prescribing and deliberating on your health, compensated by your money, then your doctor should do what is in your best interest. The government has no say.
I’m not Neal Boortz but I think he follows the idea that people have freedoms to choose many things but he seems to keep a rational outlook. The Bible should be exercised or ignored by a freely practiced electorate.
As for the assertion that the GOP lost ground on social issues, I agree. GOP candidates demand the government remove themselves from their lives but they’re the same people that demand the government intrude in other portions of our lives. I don’t think the government has a right to tell me my girlfriend is committing an offense by performing fellatio because the government defines that as a crime based on some religious dogma. This is the sort of thing that stops people from supporting you if you (being a imperfect human) demand faith-based perfection on others. It’s unconstitutional! And it loses elections. Same goes for a number of other social activities that conservatives stereotypically oppose and liberals say, “Oh yeah, gives us unlimited power and we’ll let you be X, Y, or Z” Most people I know understand libertarianism but fear GOP telling them how and who they can and can’t boink, can’t get drunk in some dry county, or they cant get a divorce.
I think that’s what he’s trying to say. If you believe in limited government in one part of society you shouldn’t be a hypocrite by demanding government intrusion in other parts.
Would you rather continue on the current route and allow our leaders to lead us further toward a fascist or even communist state (like China) where the government can regulate how many children you may have? And then if you choose to become pregnant again, they can legally pick you up against your will and take you to the nearest abortion clinic? Worse yet, if you live too far away from said clinic, they can perform one right there on your dining room table.
I prefer to work within our current system to right society's wrongs, and the number one priority of all of you should be to oust the liberals from power. If you don't vote for a candidate based on your one issue, then you've voted for the opposition. What good is that going to do us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.