What a tool.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
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.
Boortz is a Libertarian (capital L, as in member of the Libertarian party.) He buys into the extreme positions you see in the Libertarian party plank (even if he doesn’t push them too hard.)
He is pro-choice. Not because he doesn’t believe the fetus is a human being, but because he doesn’t recognize that an unborn child has any rights. Only the mother has rights. If you could convince him that Singer’s arguments about a baby not having any legal rights until age 2, Boortz would be right on board with post-natal abortion.
In the 1980s and 1990s Libertarian candidates consistently drew about 5% of the vote statewide in GA. Due mostly (imho) to Bootzes influence on the radio. Of course, during that time Republicans were losing statewide offices to Democrats by 1-2%. All Boortz and the Libertarians in the state managed to do was gurantee Republican wouldn’t start winning statewide races in GA until 2002 instead of starting in 1986 (for those that don’t know, every GA govenor from the Civil War until 2002 was a Democrat.)
He said the AM that the Libertarian party should put all their effort into electing a Libertarian in Fla. to replace the nut case Democrat. Of course, the only thing that would do is draw enough votes away from any Republican to gurantee the nut case Democrat gets reelected.
What a tool.
I quit listening to him in 2006 when he told his audience to vote democrat and teach the GOP a lesson..
You have seemingly bought into the false media portrayal (unfortunately reinforced by many not-very-bright pro-lifers) that the abortion issue is somehow religious in nature. It is not. In reality, any ethical libertarian atheist ought to oppose abortion.
While it is not a one issue world, there is only one political issue that matters in the womb. For the unborn, it IS a one issue world that has life and death implications. When you view it from their perspective, this one issue eclipses all others.
The reason we are headed down this road you describe is because people like you and others cavalier attitude towards life. I don’t care what party a candidate represents, if he is unaffected by abortion he is unfit to serve in any capacity. I have heard your argument endlessly over the years and the situation just keeps getting worse. Sorry, you are responsible for a liberal getting elected because you refuse to stand up on principle and demand a decent candidate.
I'd go so far as to suggest that most people are primarily one issue voters.
I agree with you. While personally I abhor abortion, I don't think my beliefs give me the right to impose them on others. That completely changes though once the fetus is viable. And it pretty much changes for me after some short, reasonable period for the mother to make her decision.
The problem with the pro lifers is they scare off otherwise conservative voters who don't like having a bible waved in their face.
I listen to Boortz but I don’t agree with him on this issue. He doesn’t like Republicans so he is going to blame them for something.
He doesn't weasel around it on the radio.
He's pro-choice and occasionally goes into a rant about it. At that point I change stations.
I listen a lot, like him but that issue I vehemently disagree with him on.
There are a few other issues I disagree with him on (I'm not gung ho toward the Fair Tax) but all in all I like him.
I listened to him today on the topic, much as I did not want to do so. I have long known about his position vis a vis abortion and it is the main sticking point against him, in my mind.
The problem for him is exactly as he outlined it today: the question is who owns the pregnant woman’s body, herself or the government? That seems a reasonable question but begs a larger issue. If the woman owns her body, then she is sovereign and can do whatever she wants with whatever part of it she wishes. There is a certain consistency about that, taken by itself, but the problem emerges when she gets herself pregnant (note how I phrased that, it was deliberate). She is now the vessel of another person, just as human as she is and only having half of her DNA makeup (hence, the child is not simply another bit of her body). Once this is true, then the same rights that attend her own self-ownership also attend to the child, even as it is in her womb. Boortz suggests that she still owns the fetus because it is, in his mind, still under her sovereign control as being part of her. As I just pointed out, if there is foreign matter in the child (the DNA from the father), then the child is not an integral part of the mother and she has no unilateral right of disposal over it.
This is the problem Boortz never addresses. He places the dichotomy between person and government. Both are inferior authorities in reality, because both are creatures. Only a Creator has sufficient authority and perspective to correctly determine when a person’s life may be terminated without due process (He actually does such a thing, we just don’t see it). The moral law which underpins the authority of the woman and the government both are underpinned by the authority established by God. So long as Boortz keeps God out of the equation, the problem will never be solved: the two creaturely authoritiess will forever conflict and are always subject to revision, depending on perception and desires. God’s law never changes. That is its greatest advantage is such cases.
Now the more interesting question revolves around the DNA contributed by the father. If he refuses permission for her to destroy what he contributed, then she should be estopped from having the abortion. What to do with the born child is another issue, but that will become part of the process sooner or later.
Near as I can tell the two are tangentially related at best.
What I choose to believe is right or wrong is inconsequential to the conversation, since it was asked if Boortz—not me—supports a pro choice position. My personal belief is that abortion is wrong. Yes, I am not for abortion as a libertarian. I also vote Republican unless a Democrat is an honorable rational person that is the better choice (a very rare activity).
I was stating what most libertarians seem to believe, based on googling libertarian websites. But since libertarians can range from anarchists to conservatives, putting Boortz, libertarians, or me into a box is a mistake.
Regarding my freedom to ignore or exercise religion—that’s my right and prerogative NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. No one can constitutionally impose religious dogma, especially when there are 100,000 sects in christianity alone— there’s even two different versions of the ten commandments. And one of my examples is how I perform sexually with my girlfriend or wife or girlfriend and wife. Nor is it your constitutional right to impose dry counties based on a misunderstanding of several scriptures in the Bible. Nor is it wrong to teach that masterbation is a form of birth control, which it is.
I mention this because religious intrusion seems to the habitual act of the GOP when they get into power... something that isn’t conservative or constitutional by definition. And that is what turns many people off.
You usually don't. But polls show it.
Boortz, like all Libertarians, is good on fiscal issues, but on moral issues? Forget it. The abortionists, “Queer Nation” people, and perverts of every stripe, must love the support they get from the Liberaltarians.
Boortz is not only pro-abortion (what’s with all this “pro-choice” I see on this thread? The left puts these terms in your mouth), he is also an atheist - he has said as much on his show. No wonder he is a Libertarian.
I have only a slight more respect for Libertarians than the Dems. On moral issues, they are no better.
But I digress, Boortz is simply stating his opinion that certain social issues that have no basis in constitutional discussion and when the GOP rises to power, demand government intrusion in certain areas they have no business being in. Democrats intrude differently.
Is abortion one issue? It is not my position. Is Boortz being contradictory? I don’t think so. Would be nice if we stick to constitutional issues rather than making the government an overbearing Karl Marx, overbearing Hitler, or overbearing Billy Sunday. Stick to basics and idea of limited government will return in all areas.
It’s because you can see their little faces, little toes, little fingers by then - if you can’t SEE them, they don’t really exist! /s/ *sigh*
Libertarian = gutless wonder
I consider life inside a womb to be a person who has just as many rights provided by the constitution as the person carrying them. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like the mother does.
I believe it is a horrible intrusion by government to revoke the rights of one of it's citizens simply because that citizen lives in the wrong place at the time.
Could we not use the same logic simply state that people who reside in Hospice care have no rights and we are free to do as we wish to them? We can declare via Supreme Court decision that they have no rights by virtue of their physical, mental and logistical condition. Which is exactly what we have done with the unborn.
Is it really that great a leap from one to the other? This is not a religious issue, it is a moral issue which becomes fuzzy only when we place our own rights in higher regard than the rights of others.
Government intrusion has no place in the womb or in the private life of the unborn. It is their right to live, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS right to dehumanize them.
“Commitment to protecting our constitution” while offering tacit approval of the most blatantly fabricated decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Doesnt work.
I dont care if a pol is pro-choice or pro-life but if I cant trust you on Roe I cant trust you on Kelo.
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.