Posted on 10/08/2007 7:29:07 AM PDT by Dukes Travels
Wow, who would have pegged you for someone trying to divert attention from the "stained dress" by pissing and whining about "the violation of trust" that brought it to light.
Your questions are nothing but a rhetorical "rope-a-dope" to ignore the elephant of the shameful pervasiveness of this aspect of youth culture.
Your "let them eat cake" superciliousness deserves the same treatment as the author of that particular saying.
You don't trot out your "pro-life" resume because you do not have one. When you trot it out, I will start paying attention.
No you won't. Paying attention to me would entail admitting that you have squandered vast amounts of time, effort, resources, and lives pursuing an agenda that always was (and more importantly should have been recongized with the application of RICO laws to peaceful pro-life advocacy groups, and corrosion of free speech rights in sidewalk interventions as) doomed to failure.
That you still refuse to see your own failure, or entertain another perspective in light of that undeniable failure, is testament to the integration of your vanity and the very fabric of your personality. You can no more detect your narrow-minded chauvinism than a fish can feel wet.
The modern reader owes CS Lewis many debts. In my opinion, one of the greatest debts is his description from "The Screwtape Letters" of how a person who actually consumes very little can be demonstrably proven to be a shameless glutton as in the case of the patient's mother.
His is a teaching you should pay singular attention to.
As to foreign adoptions...
And your prattle contradicts what I've said regarding Americans adopting overseas, how? Could it be that despite your useless verbosity you're admitting I'm absolutely correct?
Usually, on this topic I come out four-square behind blackelk, whose colorful rhetoric sometimes comes across as more overblown than the principles behind it. I know blackelk for many years, and he is no holier than thou.
That said, I think papertyger has made an excellent point, but perhaps has unwittingly used needlessly a provocative to make it.
Actually, I believe that there are two separate arguments here, and that there is no need for this level of argument.
1. Papertyger does not think abortion can be banned, the society is too far gone. Blackelk disagrees.
2. Papertyger believes that the incidence of abortion, and the political momentum of the pro-abort movement can be curtailed by disengaging the ally of the feminist, the irresponsible sirer. PT proposes to do this by giving the sirer the ability to extinguish his rights (which are generally next to nil, anyway) and his obligations with what PT terms a “paper abortion.” BlackElk is not in favor of this.
I believe that these are two different issues. Being pro-life, and wanting abortion outlawed, is distinct from the question of whether it is a good policy to make the sirer able to shirk his responsibility.
A very good priest friend of mine told me that this was how the law used to be... with one exception. If the man in question was the woman’s husband, he is given both rights and responsibilities regarding his off-spring. Yes, a large number of abortions occur within marriage, many without the husband’s permission (whether it is his child or not), and many others without even his knowledge. If we limit the “paper abortion” to people who are not married to each other, and perhaps rename it to “unlilateral surrender of rights and obligations” (USRO), a number of things happen. the tomcats are off the hook, but the worst of them were never on the hook because you cannot get blood out of stone, and the possibility of that changing discourages them from EVER growing up. However, the girls and women in question, who typically do a lot more calculating, because they bear more of the results, now have a disincentive. Also, the feds lose one of the reasons they have for all the tracking they do on private citizens (the reasons usually being “deadbeat dads”, illegal immigration, drugs, and terrorism).
Historically, out-of-wedlock relations, pregnancies, and births are culturally tied to how the girls behave, not the boys. There are several reasons for this. But even if you have 99% choir boys, one tom cat among them can wreak a LOT of havoc.
This might put some of the onus on the women to think the responsible thing to do would be to get married first. We might have made the “A” a little too scarlet in centuries past, but a painting scarlet “V”s is even worse.
Note that this does not give the tomcat the ability to force or even request an abortion. Married men still would not have the right to force an abortion. Ideally, they would be able to prevent one, but that is almost as far away as overturning Roe.
Not that either of you asked for my opinion, but I will offer it anyway.
1. If we believe that there is no way within the system to criminalize the widespread slaughter of innocent babies, then the system is irrevocably broken, and the system MUST be changed by whatever moral means available to one where it is possible and a reality. Even the recent Supreme Court decision is useful, because for the first time it provided a tangible restriction on the act itself. Forty years seems like a long time. For some, it is how long it took to wander from Egypt to the Promised Land. For abolitionists, it was phase one. Heck, the Sodomites sure did not throw in the towel after Bowers v. Hardwick. And O’Connor stuck around long enough to reverse herself.
2. Those who work within the system or on its periphery to try to get good judges on the court, etc. do not undermine the effort of those who want to raze the whole system.
3. Our current system permnently marginalizes a bunch of men, some of whom might be persuaded to behave if given another shot. It definitely, provides more weapons than is needed for the girl or woman who wants a child but not the whole package of responsibilities that comes along with it.
4. I would be in favor of financial incentives to assist mothers who make their children available for an adopting family. (the money should not be put up by the adopting family, as that would give the appearance of buying the child.) If women can rent their wombs to gestate other people’s children for money, and they do, this is less offensive. Anything to encourage children to be raised by responsible parents would be a good thing, and necessary to break the cycle.
5. the opt-out clause would not apply to rape (including statutory). However, the statutory charge would have actually be entered and executed to get the guy on the hook.
I could go on. I guess, Elk, I just do not see a pro-abort agenda behind PT’s writing.
PT, I would only encourage you to make the ideal the goal, even if you cannot see when or how it can happen. Most of us did not see the Berlin Wall coming down in the ‘80s. Working intelligently towards the goal is productive even if the entire goal isn’t achieved. Or, as your parents probably pointed out, if you shoot for Cs you may wind up with Fs.
Don’t be surprised if by you saying “outlawing abortion isn’t possible” that some may reasonably surmise that you don’t care much if it is or isn’t. Half the stuff pushed by freepers of all stripes is VERY far from becoming close to reality. But the ideas still get put out and worked toward.
I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments. The problem is getting pro-lifers to shut up and listen long enough to realize we need to play this just like African-Americans did during the civil rights era.
Pro-lifers are Dr. King, those like me are Malcolm X.
We need both but these jackasses keep trying to shout down the "bad cop" instead of getting the "confession."
My rationale is workable because it is modeled on the pro-abort's own reasoning, catch-phrases, and philosophical infrastructure. (I just apply it to men instead of women, and maintain in a very matter-of-fact manner that nine months of carrying a child is nothing compared to eighteen years of servitude to a woman holding your child for ransom, thus dismissing the biological disparity) They have already agreed to all the principles in obtaining their goal; they can't very well renege on them now. But they haven't had to, because the pro-life contingent walks in lock step with killers and scream bloody murder if the possibility of cutting support for women raises its head.
I am STILL waiting for your non-existent resume.
His "paper abortion" is nothing more than fleeing from court-ordered child support payments. When the biodad abandons the child in utero, the child is still, to him, a mere abstract concept (the fictional status so cherished by the Sangerian mindset: "just a blob of tissues"). No child support payments and no relationship with or obligation toward the undefined child and lots more time and budget for the sports bar. If he really doesn't drink, he can order Diet Cokes. Thus PT proposes to financially reward the sexual hunter/gatherer male who wants a hit and run social life. He thinks of this as recruiting the wild oat sowers to the pro-life cause (apparently) as though that was a good idea.
I am pinging PT only as the customary courtesy and certainly not because I give a feather or a fig about such opinions as he may hold.
I think you are displaying unwarranted kindness to PT given his history on this thread. You are free to do so and I am free not to do so. As a movement, we have never been so hard up as to have to recruit those such as him without much better standardization of belief. Meanwhile, he can pursue the liberation of wild oat sowers, the impoverishment of women, the abandonment of babies who do manage to survive to be born to legally encouraged fatherlessness, yet another unnecessary and unwanted intrusion of superficial pop culture libertarianism into the prolife issue where it has no place and no discernible use.
It is better for the pro-life movement to harvest the flowers sown long ago than to regress to the stage of the Maoist slogan "Let a Thousand Flowers Bloom." We know what we want and what we want has no relationship to what PT wants.
Also the somewhat human tomcat has not been born who does not know how to press for that "liberating" abortion if he is aware of the pregnancy.
Dr. S.: God bless you and yours as ever.
And I’m still waiting for your non-existent accomplishment.
MY history on this thread! Are you a complete and utter solipsist?
2. Chaired Ronaldus Maximus' statewide campaign in my home state when he challenged feckless Ford.
3. Helped run Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., out off the US Senate.
Those are three examples. Your turn!
YOU are a complete and utter something but I would spell it differently.
So what you're saying is you get credit for doing pro bono work for other people who can infer some undefined number of "saves" according to what the pro-aborts tell their followers.
Yea.
I see lots of activity, but no accomplishments. Certainly not enough to offset your sanctimony, conceit, and intransigence.
I can't claim anything more than demonstrations, information booth duty, narrowly avoided wreckages in college and occupation (some still showing up), one pro-life conference attendance, local Right to Life activity, and publishing polemics,
Of course, I'm not an attorney, and I don't flatter myself by thinking I actually accomplished anything.
I can say I did learn, beyond any shade of doubt, if the pro-life movement ever actually starts to succeed in anything...the rules are going to get changed.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't fight to win, which should tell you what I think of you.
How would you spell it?
I don’t like it when my kids have access to that sort of stuff posted by others and I won’t cause problems forother people’s kids. We could substitute “It whose name shall not be mentioned.”
BTW, IIRC William Wilberforce spent nearly 50 years in Parliament, singlemindedly devoted to ending slavery and won as he lay dying. The abolition movement was even older here. In fact the RTL movement is second only to the abolition movement in seniority among serious movements. Roe vs. Wade is now 34+ years old not 40. And, lest I forget, you don't know what you are talking about.
You wouldn't be foaming like a rabid dog if you didn't think there was any chance of this idea catching on. Even your friend thought it had merit. You're just so whipped anything that threatens female privilege starts you screeching like a little girl.
Clearly, yours is a vivid fantasy life. You think I'm embarrassing MYself? All the posts we've traded and you have yet to counter my idea with anything but your "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE" routine.
You've been repeatedly shown to be a liar and fabricator (yeah, a lawyer. who'da thought). And your "not real men" chesnuts might have worked back in the fifties, but the only people who take that seriously today are the benighted types that still haven't figured out you NEVER let the other guy hit you first, or females who have discovered the philosophical fly in their reproductive ointment.
Yeah, Wilberforce spent a long time opposing slavery. That's why all the history books record William Wilberforce as the guy that ended slavery before he died, right?
But oh, let me tell you...you scored big on my math gaffe. Only 34+ years, and not forty. What was I thinking?
Well, at least you didn't correct my spelling; I'd need to get a new screen name.
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.