Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,949
63%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by BearArms

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Thiel urges Republicans to back off 'culture wars

    07/21/2016 11:25:45 PM PDT · 49 of 261
    BearArms to Berlin_Freeper
    Look, the man has a point. It can only hurt the GOP to continue to push the culture war, at this point. It's over anyway, but apparently many social conservatives don't know it yet.

    The window of opportunity to turn back abortion, gay rights, sexual liberation was in the 80s. Reagan was president and he had the opportunity to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices. He appointed one conservative, and two pro-Roe liberals. That was it, that did it. It was over at that point.

    Abortion has been legal for decades now, and it's considered a basic right by the large and growing population of single women in America. They consider abortion rights a fundamental element of their personal dignity and they're never going to give it up. Despite the polls continuing to show conflicted public opinions on abortion, voters (even in very conservative states like MS and SD) reliably reject even the most modest abortion restrictions at the ballot box.

    Similarly, support for gay rights has taken off like a rocket ship in recent years. It's now a virtual consensus among young people that gays should have every protection other minorities have, should have the right to marry, etc. I've personally been astonished how fast liberals have routed conservatives on gay issues, and their charge is not letting up.

    So, like it or not, the culture war is over. You can continue to preach in your churches, if you'd like. You can continue to picket clinics, you can continue to try to persuade. However, if you continue to demand that the GOP carry your water against the "sickos" or whatever, you're just helping to further cripple the party in future elections.

  • Trump 'unlikely' to pick Christie, according to sources

    07/08/2016 6:55:55 AM PDT · 64 of 95
    BearArms to usafa92

    A BIG YES on Newt. I don’t like any of the others that are being mentioned.

  • **DRUDGE POLL** WHO SHOULD BE TRUMP'S VP?

    07/05/2016 10:15:28 PM PDT · 38 of 49
    BearArms to Hojczyk

    Newt all the way home.

  • GAME OF THRONES S06E10 SEASON FINAL DISCUSSION THREAD

    06/27/2016 8:16:55 AM PDT · 20 of 164
    BearArms to martin_fierro
    I have to admit, the faith militant going toasty was satisfying in the extreme, but I hate that we lost Queen Marg in the conflagration. Loved that character.

    Tommen, on the other hand, was too much of a naive impressionable wuss to lead a boy scout troop, much less a kingdom. Best trip he ever took, IMO.

  • SWEDISH POLICE CHIEF Warns Women And Girls: “Don’t Go Out After Sunset Or You Will Be Raped Or Worse

    05/12/2016 11:42:53 PM PDT · 54 of 54
    BearArms to Mr. Mojo

    This is a disgrace.

  • Donald Trump Is Clueless on Abortion – But So Are Many Americans

    04/11/2016 8:57:01 AM PDT · 19 of 19
    BearArms to Kaslin

    Yes, thank you Kristan Hawkins, we understand that you, and most “pro-life” writers, support a blanket license to abort for all American women once a ban is in place. Fun fact — your position is considered essentially pro-choice in countries where abortion is illegal and women actually ARE imprisoned for it.

  • 6 Big Takeaways From Ted Cruz's Wisconsin Blowout

    04/06/2016 12:26:45 AM PDT · 11 of 33
    BearArms to Berlin_Freeper

    Trump has been hurt by the lack of debates lately. That’s what he was always really good at it — dominating everyone else on the stage with a massive TV viewership to watch it happen.

  • Bye-Bye, Distinct American Culture! The Left's Massive Demographic Shift

    04/03/2016 6:48:11 AM PDT · 46 of 53
    BearArms to Jack Black
    The Philippines is much more faith oriented than the USA. Abortion is illegal in the Philippines, for instance.

    And is punishable for the woman getting the abortion, to boot. Up to 6 years in prison. I guess they take it far more seriously than the American pro-life movement does.

  • Trump's Abortion Mess Was a GOP Disaster and a Win for the Moribund Democrats

    04/02/2016 9:02:42 AM PDT · 66 of 68
    BearArms to Kaslin

    What we’ve discovered out of all this is that the mainstream pro-life movement is actually pro-choice. Sorry, but if you support giving women a free pass to abort at will, you’re pro-choice, and you obviously don’t really believe that an embryonic life is equivalent to a born life.

  • With abortion answer, Trump showed that he never studied for his Conservatism 101 finals

    04/01/2016 7:30:24 PM PDT · 213 of 215
    BearArms to Trumpinator
    What the Cruz side is really saying is they use abortion to suck money out of pro life people but have no intentions of really making it illegal. Trump ruined their scam. Sadly, Trump has no choice but to tow the GOP official line on abortion because banning abortion is as popular as eating anthrax to the American electorate = it pains me to say it as a pro lifer but it is true.

    I think you may have nailed it.

    What we're finding out right now is that, essentially, the pro-life/conservative establishment is, and has been, functionally pro-choice.

  • With abortion answer, Trump showed that he never studied for his Conservatism 101 finals

    04/01/2016 7:10:21 PM PDT · 212 of 215
    BearArms to tophat9000
    boy when’s the last time you ever heard someone being called NOT conservative because they were TOO restrictive on abortions?

    Tell me about it, this election cycle has been complete BizarroLand.

    We're finding out "real conservatives" support women having the right to abort with impunity, regardless of whether it's legal or not. The Republican Party is on course to nominate a reality TV star who just recently warmed to conservatism, has been a donor to major Dems for years, and is close friends with Howard Freaking Stern (a radio jock whose favorite on-air subjects are anal sex and lesbian twins). The main Holy Roller candidate this year, Cruz, is possibly in the process of being exposed as a serial adulterer who's into "sapiosexuals." The Repup establishment is desperately trying to find a way to steal the nomination from the guy who got the most delegates and votes in the primaries, even as the party's base electorate is in near full revolt.

    I mean, should I go on? Interesting times.

  • With abortion answer, Trump showed that he never studied for his Conservatism 101 finals

    04/01/2016 6:21:55 PM PDT · 211 of 215
    BearArms to Kaslin

    If you ask me, the real news here is that the mainstream pro-life movement supports women having a license to abort with impunity even after a ban is in place. Strange.

  • Trump Says Abortion Ban Should Carry Punishment for Women

    03/31/2016 1:29:43 PM PDT · 684 of 687
    BearArms to boatbums
    No they weren't, abortion was essentially decriminalized. Illegal by law, but widely available and not punishable. If we went back to that today, it would be both available and safe, thanks to the abortion pill and modern medicine.

    If that's the extent of the pro-life movement's ambitions, then great, but again -- I fail to see how that changes much. Women will still have a license to abort, abortions will still be common (perhaps MORE common, since current pro-life laws like informed consent would be gone), and the law will still treat abortion as something less than murder.

    If this is all the pro-life movement is trying to accomplish, then it would be far more effective if it became a purely cultural, not political, movement.

  • Trump Says Abortion Ban Should Carry Punishment for Women

    03/31/2016 11:35:54 AM PDT · 679 of 687
    BearArms to GIdget2004
    The bottom line here is that if a pro-lifer supports only prosecuting abortionists, that pro-lifer is essentially supporting a blanket "License to Abort" for all American women. They would be able to abort with impunity, while others are punished for the crime.

    Actually, in most cases, there probably won't be anyone to punish at all, since RU486 (which would allow for easy self-abortions, and would presumably become as easy to buy as pot) will most likely be the abortion method of choice in the event a ban is passed. Unless, of course, pro-lifers decide to support prosecuting women for illegally obtaining the drug, but that would present an embarrassing oddity. Punish the woman for acquiring the murder weapon, but not for killing her unborn child? Is there any planet on which this could be taken seriously?

    Honestly, those who claim to be against abortion, but who don't support prosecuting women for murder, are virtually NO DIFFERENT than "personally opposed" pro-choicers. I fail to see what would actually change for women contemplating abortion.

    It's either murder under the law, or it isn't. If it is, that has logical and necessary consequences. Otherwise, this is just a joke.

  • Trump Says Abortion Ban Should Carry Punishment for Women

    03/31/2016 9:50:08 AM PDT · 675 of 687
    BearArms to GIdget2004
    Rush currently is basically implying that the pro-life movement is not about banning abortion (something that will never happen, according to him), and that the media doesn't understand this fact. Therefore, the question to Trump was unfair.

    Given this and some of the posts in this very thread, I'm now honestly a bit confused. Is the pro-life movement actually about making abortion illegal and punishing the lawbreakers, or just about talking up the sanctity of life?

  • Trump Says Abortion Ban Should Carry Punishment for Women

    03/31/2016 6:19:42 AM PDT · 644 of 687
    BearArms to GIdget2004
    I would think it only logical that a woman would be charged with premeditated murder if she were arrested for having an abortion when it becomes illegal. This whole idea of only prosecuting the abortionist I find quite strange, to be honest.

    The woman is clearly the chief person responsible for the crime. She's the one arranging the abortion. Should she also be given a pass if she takes out a hit on her 3-year-old? Can anybody cite a single useful analogy of an automatic amnesty being granted to the principal in a premeditated homicide?

    And this idea that women these days are "brainwashed" to think abortions are morally innocuous, and therefore should be held harmless is weak. Apart from being fantastically sexist and infantilizing, the argument, when taken to its logical extent, would mean that only women who were raised in secular households where they were taught that abortions are simply the removal of a non-sentient embryo should be given the amnesty, since they didn't realize they were killing an actual baby. Meanwhile, women who were raised in scripturalist Christian homes and were taught that abortion is murder would be the ones prosecuted for committing homicide. Does that make any sense?

    If the woman is brainwashed, or pressured, or a victim, or insane, then that should be determined at her trial, same as in every other 1st degree murder case. Any pro-lifer who would disagree with this is engaging in some very contorted thinking.

  • Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe, phone conversations reveal

    01/07/2016 6:46:09 AM PST · 20 of 32
    BearArms to don-o

    These secular dictators in the Muslim world have been keeping the dark age beasts at bay for some time now. Why we decided it would be wise to remove them, starting with Saddam Hussein back in’03, is frankly beyond me. Yes, their tactics were brutal, but now the whole world sees exactly why.

  • Planned Parenthood Killer Was A Deranged Pothead

    12/03/2015 11:21:19 PM PST · 36 of 40
    BearArms to HomerBohn

    Yeah, it was obviously legal Marijuana that caused this guy to go over the edge. Too bad his vice wasn’t alcohol, which we know causes much less violence, murder, and mayhem.

  • There's no such thing as a 'male brain' or 'female brain,' and scientists have the scans...

    11/30/2015 9:41:03 PM PST · 66 of 74
    BearArms to dfwgator

    LMAO!

  • Atheist: Okay to Disparage Christians, But Islam Off-Limits Because of ‘Fear’

    10/31/2015 4:54:09 AM PDT · 49 of 50
    BearArms to Slambat
    First Atheist are cowards.

    While this individual (who is virtually unknown, btw) may not have the cojones to attack Islam, other far better known atheists like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins seem to have no problem finding the intestinal fortitude to do it -- and to do it in rather devastating fashion, I would add.

  • Water Is Flowing on Mars

    09/28/2015 4:37:36 PM PDT · 58 of 61
    BearArms to jimmygrace
    Can we send Matt Damon there to verify this?

    LMAO

  • Religious Belief and the Rule of Law

    09/10/2015 7:42:04 AM PDT · 12 of 37
    BearArms to Kaslin
    Suppose her religion forbade interracial marriage (as some Mormon Churches do). Could she deny a marriage license application to an interracial couple? Or, suppose she was a traditionalist Roman Catholic, who believed that Catholics should only marry other Catholics. Could she deny a marriage license application to a Catholic planning to marry a non-Catholic? Or, suppose her religion condemned the private ownership and use of guns (as some Quakers do). Could she refuse to issue applications for gun permits?

    Or, suppose she saw remarriage after divorce as adultery. Could she then deny a marriage license to heterosexual couples who've had a previous spouse?

  • I Believe That We Can Win [Court rulings animate dysfunctional Democratic Party]

    06/28/2015 5:05:22 PM PDT · 18 of 24
    BearArms to Sans-Culotte
    When did Limbaugh go into freefall?

    Apparently his ratings have been falling out of bed over the last few years. Just learning this myself.

  • Malkin: Holy Hypocrisy and Hot Air

    06/24/2015 4:00:50 PM PDT · 33 of 35
    BearArms to jazusamo

    I, too, approve of air conditioning. Much more useful than anything that ever came out of the Vatican, that’s for sure.

  • Probing the Libertarian Mind

    05/26/2015 4:43:50 AM PDT · 16 of 19
    BearArms to fwdude
    Libertarians believe we can have a robust, free-market economy without that pesky “moral foundation.” How wrong they are.

    No, they simply believe that this "moral foundation" you speak of ought not be laid and maintained by the state. Social conservatives, on the other hand, seem quite inclined to support use of the state to compel moral behavior.

    Liberals also support use of government force to compel their idea of moral behavior, which has led to Christian businesses being forced to pay for abortifacient birth control, serve gays, etc.

    Lovely philosophy.

  • Len Anthony: The Bible is wrong on homosexuality

    05/24/2015 5:14:39 PM PDT · 87 of 105
    BearArms to MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
    He is citing from Old Testament law on slavery and it does NOT condone slavery...

    Yes, the common apologetic is that God was making an allowance for slavery due to the wretchedly sinful nature of the people of the time. I suppose he would do the same today regarding abortion.

  • Len Anthony: The Bible is wrong on homosexuality

    05/24/2015 2:16:41 AM PDT · 40 of 105
    BearArms to NetAddicted
    Len Anthony: The Bible is wrong on homosexuality

    I would guess that most here think the Bible is wrong about the American Revolution (Romans 13). I certainly do.

    Every believer cherry picks from the Bible.

  • Meet the Bill Maher From the Right Who is Changing Entertainment

    05/23/2015 5:04:34 PM PDT · 25 of 25
    BearArms to Kaslin
    "After 9/11 happened, the liberals took the side of the terrorists. They said we deserved the attack and provoked it..."

    Actually, social conservatives did the same thing, as I recall. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blamed 9/11 on us having too many abortions, feminists, and gays, if memory serves.

    Also, he mentions the "South Park conservatives." Stone and Parker are libertarian atheists, not conservatives. Big difference.

  • No, Christianity is Not Actually in Decline

    05/14/2015 4:07:17 AM PDT · 28 of 28
    BearArms to robowombat

    So, he’s basically saying that Christians need not worry because America was never a Christian nation to begin with?

  • America’s Changing Religious Landscape (Christians Declining)

    05/13/2015 4:08:06 AM PDT · 22 of 23
    BearArms to yefragetuwrabrumuy
    The real question is how many tepid and passive individuals who called themselves Christians have finally thrown in the towel and given up on the pretense?

    That's what I've been saying for a long time. This absurd figure of "2 billion Christians" that gets constantly repeated is a crock. I'd be surprised if there were actually 500 million practicing, believing Christians in the world.

    The church attendance figures for the US are also heavily suspect. Some argue that actual attendance is about half of that claimed by people being polled.

  • Marco Rubio: I’d attend a gay wedding

    04/17/2015 4:20:57 PM PDT · 245 of 260
    BearArms to Hatteras
    The "gay marriage" question is only important to the left because it allows them to distract from real issues that matter for which they have no credible candidate. Holier-than-thou Conservatives are so easily played. It's embarrassing...

    Bears repeating.

  • Freedom of and from Religion

    04/15/2015 6:49:13 PM PDT · 24 of 33
    BearArms to Kaslin
    Iannaccone argues that religion is more vibrant in the U.S. because the American government has mostly left religion alone. In Europe, governments subsidized religion or set the rules.

    Except that the federal government DOES indeed essentially subsidize religion through the tax exemption policy. It's part of the reason groups like the Church of Scientology can continue to rake in vast sums of cash pushing all its nonsense. It's also made the Christian "megachurch" business extremely lucrative.

  • Boy Says He Didn't Go To Heaven; Publisher Says It Will Pull Book

    01/16/2015 1:22:21 PM PST · 50 of 51
    BearArms to LucyT

    It’s amazing the kind of tales people will believe on so little evidence.

  • Billy Graham: In ‘Lawless and Wicked Age…We've Taught Philosophy of the Devil--‘Do As You Please’

    11/20/2014 12:22:37 PM PST · 33 of 33
    BearArms to Mmmike
    End public schooling, and that perennial tug-of-war will vanish.

    Amen

  • Massachusetts town weighs nation’s 1st tobacco ban (Westminster)

    11/10/2014 9:50:08 AM PST · 53 of 55
    BearArms to Nuc 1.1
    I would hope we all would reconsider using the heavy handed power of government to punish fellow citizens.

    What depresses me is that social conservatives are just as likely as liberals to support sicking the government on people for behaving in ways that they disapprove of. Tobacco bans are an outrage but, by all means, let's continue the insane drug war.

    Maybe this is about the unfortunate "freedom for me, but not for thee" philosophy so many subscribe to. What's the harm in smoking a nice cigar in the den after dinner, but marijuana? Well, that's what those hippies smoke...ban that.

    I hope for a time when all Americans -- liberal, conservative, and otherwise -- can understand and consistently support the concept of liberty.

  • Ten years after his death, Pat Tillman's spirit lives on in a military scholar program

    04/20/2014 2:05:25 PM PDT · 6 of 8
    BearArms to goodwithagun

    I would imagine that quite a few men who joined the military after 9/11 did so because they wanted to kill some radical Muslims. But, as to your comment, Pat Tillman isn’t here to defend himself, so I don’t see why you would see fit to mention this. He went and (voluntarily) did some very dirty work for this country, and for our way of life. Lost his life doing it, in fact. If that’s not a hero, I don’t know what is.

  • Do Americans Trust in God?

    01/01/2014 11:37:21 PM PST · 23 of 23
    BearArms to cornelis
    In politics today, half of the American people are not trusting reason. This administration is probably the most unreasonable administration ever. Half of the population prefers it that way.

    Half the population has values fairly consistent with those of the Obama administration. Many of its policies are "unreasonable," yes. However, no election is ever a straight choice between reason and irrationality. People tend to vote for candidates who possess values closest to theirs, and so we have president Obama. I found George W. Bush's spending orgies to be exceptionally unreasonable, so I hope you're not implying that voting Republican is always the reasonable course.

    Reason is not what separates. What separates is a preference for the body over the soul and an temporal life over an eternal life. You think the ancients didn't trust in reason.

    What separates is credulousness versus evidence based belief. Some ancients did trust in reason...far more trusted in superstition. These days, superstition has a far tougher time of it. I expect it will get tougher.

    Sorry. You stepped in it.

    I don't think so. You might be smelling something on your end.

  • Do Americans Trust in God?

    12/31/2013 3:13:53 PM PST · 20 of 23
    BearArms to cornelis
    "Wrong."

    LOL...I love it when people do that. Have a great new year!

  • Do Americans Trust in God?

    12/31/2013 2:58:56 PM PST · 18 of 23
    BearArms to Kaslin
    I think Americans are increasingly trusting in reason. With the internet, people can now weigh religious claims much more efficiently than ever before. They can examine Christianity (its theological statements, its purported miracles, etc) and compare it to other religions, like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or what have you.

    They can look at the evidence for each and decide if there are good reasons to choose one faith over the others. They can debate those with different cultural and philosophical perspectives and see if, by putting on someone else's shoes, they can better understand why others come to very different conclusions about religion and God(s).

    It seems to me, if Christianity can stand up to this critical examination at the hands of the "everyman" that information technology is now facilitating, then America will continue to be religious. If it can't, America will become more secular. Either way, reason (which is responsible for an incalculable amount of good in our society) will have won out. It will mean America has chosen what to trust wisely, and that will be a good thing.

  • Do Atheists Exist? A new “godless” church makes you wonder.

    12/28/2013 11:41:28 AM PST · 18 of 31
    BearArms to VanDeKoik
    They do not attack Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists or ingeniousness religions.

    Have you heard of Sam Harris? He's probably the most renowned of the currently active anti-theist intellectuals. He regularly infuriates the left by attacking Islam, believing it to be a greater threat to women, reason, and modernity than Christianity.

    From his blog:

    I have long struggled to understand how smart, well-educated liberals can fail to perceive the unique dangers of Islam. In The End of Faith, I argued that such people don’t know what it’s like to really believe in God or Paradise—and hence imagine that no one else actually does. The symptoms of this blindness can be quite shocking. For instance, I once ran into the anthropologist Scott Atran after he had delivered one of his preening and delusional lectures on the origins of jihadist terrorism. According to Atran, people who decapitate journalists, filmmakers, and aid workers to cries of “Alahu akbar!” or blow themselves up in crowds of innocents are led to misbehave this way not because of their deeply held beliefs about jihad and martyrdom but because of their experience of male bonding in soccer clubs and barbershops.

    And this, commenting on a Youtube video of an ecstatic muslim prayer recitation concerning the hellfire that awaits us nonbelievers (Christian, Jew, Buddhist, and Atheist alike).

    This video has everything: the power of ritual and the power of the crowd; tears of devotion and a lust for vengeance. How many of the people in that mosque are jihadists? I have no idea—perhaps none. But their spiritual aspirations and deepest positive emotions—love, devotion, compassion, bliss, awe—are being focused through the lens of sectarian hatred and humiliation. Read every word of the translation so that you understand what these devout people are weeping over. Their ecstasy is inseparable from the desire to see nonbelievers punished in hellfire. Is this some weird distortion of the true teachings of Islam? No. This is a recitation from the Koran articulating its central message. The video has over 2 million views on YouTube. It was posted by someone who promised his fellow Muslims that they, too, would weep tears of devotion upon seeing it. The reciter is Sheikh Mishary bin Rashid Alafasy of Kuwait. He has as many Twitter followers as Jerry Seinfeld and J.K. Rowling (2 million). In doctrinal terms, this is not the fringe of Islam. It is the center.

    Islam marries religious ecstasy and sectarian hatred in a way that other religions do not. Secular liberals who worry more about “Islamophobia” than about the actual doctrine of Islam are guilty of a failure of empathy. They fail not just with respect to the experience of innocent Muslims who are treated like slaves and criminals by this religion, but with respect to the inner lives of its true believers. Most secular people cannot begin to imagine what a (truly) devout Muslim feels. They are blind to the range of experiences that would cause an otherwise intelligent and psychologically healthy person to say, “I will happily die for this.” Unless you have tasted religious ecstasy, you cannot understand the danger of its being pointed in the wrong direction.

  • Why Pro-Lifers Shouldn't Despair over Albuquerque

    11/20/2013 2:08:35 PM PST · 16 of 24
    BearArms to aimhigh
    What a strange article. It tells us to not be discouraged because failure is the norm when it comes to anti-abortion measures.

    It is quite remarkable how high the failure rate for anti-abortion ballot initiatives is. Even in very conservative states (like South Dakota, for instance), voters seem to reliably reject any serious restrictions on abortion at the ballot box. Just about the only pro-life initiatives that have achieved any success are those dealing with parental involvement for minors.

    From my observations of the last couple decades, I think it's clear that polling data isn't terribly accurate on this particular issue. While many Americans do continue to tell pollsters that they support restricting abortion, especially in later stages of pregnancy, not many of them actually vote for such restrictions when given the opportunity.

  • Celebrity bad science: Dried placenta pills and oxygen shots

    12/30/2012 4:23:27 PM PST · 28 of 33
    BearArms to EEGator
    They are tasty...

    Exactly what I meant! LOL

  • Celebrity bad science: Dried placenta pills and oxygen shots

    12/30/2012 2:23:21 PM PST · 3 of 33
    BearArms to Vince Ferrer

    Airheads...gotta love ‘em!

  • Piers Morgan Wants to Amend Moses

    12/28/2012 2:33:59 PM PST · 25 of 29
    BearArms to lurk
    Warren’s answers to Morgan were wrong all over. He doesn’t know his Bible.

    Judging from his comments on the Bible and slavery, I would definitely agree.

  • 'Gaza ceasefire gave Morsi green light for drastic action' (Just another terrorist dictator)

    11/23/2012 2:07:55 PM PST · 23 of 27
    BearArms to tobyhill

    The Arab Spring is about replacing relatively moderate Muslim dictators with radical Muslim dictators. Sure, some elections happen in the middle of the process, but that’s the way things inevitably end up. Those people are in a fundamentalist medieval phase and will be for some time. They are not, in the least bit, ready for democracy.

  • Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

    08/22/2012 7:04:56 PM PDT · 287 of 291
    BearArms to Boogieman
    No, since that act is itself an act of killing, unless the child is old enough to survive outside the womb, and even then, it would be a crime to let the child die due to neglect.

    No, the act is simply intended to remove the being currently using the woman's organs. The fact that it will die without the woman's body is unfortunate, but is not something that she can remedy without enduring an unacceptably taxing, and traditionally unrequired, physiological burden. The fact that medical technology cannot help the embryo is not the woman's fault, and can therefore not be considered neglect.

    The conflict is pretty simple. The child has an inherent right to life, regardless of how it got here. The woman has rights as well, which she may be impeded from exercising while she is pregnant with the child.

    This may be your view, but that has not been the tradition of this country in any other area besides pregnancy by rape. I can think of no other case where someone is, or has been, compelled by the state to provide physiological life support to a being for which they have absolutely no responsibility.

    Just don’t kill the baby, since we are not allowed to go around killing people because we feel like it, or because they inconvenience us.

    We are allowed to kill people when they present a direct threat to us. A forced pregnancy, created entirely without any kind of invitation, is a particularly aggressive form of physical assault (one that lasts for 9 months and could cause the woman any number of health problems). The woman is more than justified, according to our traditions of personal liberty, to have the being effectuating the assault removed from her body.

    It’s about having your rights abridged in order to minimize the harm caused by the rights of two persons being in conflict.

    The woman, a person with rights who existed before the embryo, is in a state of being, essentially, assaulted by the embryo. Again, the law allows use of force in cases of self-defense. If that force ends up being lethal, one is still generally justified in using it, if it is necessary to stop the assault. So, I still fail to see how your position is consistent with our traditions regarding personal liberty and rights of self-defense.

  • Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

    08/22/2012 3:52:14 PM PDT · 285 of 291
    BearArms to Boogieman
    As I said before, the person needing the transplant’s right to life isn’t interfered with in the least if they do not receive a new kidney, since they will simply continue to live out their natural lifespan unimpeded. Not providing someone with the means to extend their life is simply not equivalent to depriving them of their life.

    This implies that your objection is that the woman seeking the abortion is acting to kill the embryo. I would agree, she should not have the right to strictly kill it, but she has full right to remove it from her body, to stop it from using her womb against her will. If the embryo is simply removed from her womb intact and set aside to continue out its natural life for as long as it can, would this satisfy your concern?

    Another case that that is much more germaine to this situation would be Good Samaritan laws. The reason those laws are just is because in this conflict, the harm caused by obligating the Samaritan to try to help is usually quite minimal, while the harm caused to the party in distress if the Samaritan is not obligated to help can be extreme, to the point of death. Therefore, the proper resolution of the conflict is to say that the rights of the party in distress temporarily take precedence over the rights of the Samaritan.

    Yes, but Good Samaritan laws do not apply to the donation of bodily resources (blood, organs). Again, the state has generally respected the bodily integrity of the people. Giving blood can be a fairly simple process and be minimally inconvenient, but no one, that I'm aware, is required to give blood.

    Now, this doesn’t mean you must drive around looking for people to help; the laws only come into play when a situation arises that creates the conflict that it addresses. That is why your hypothetical “forced organ donation” scenario is ridiculous. There is no actual conflict between parties that would create a need for such a law to resolve the conflict. If I forcibly removed your kidney, then I would be infringing on your right to life, but simply not providing you with my kidney does no such thing.

    I have to say, I honestly do not see a legitimate conflict between the raped woman and the embryo. The woman, who existed first, was forcibly impregnated. The embryo is now using her organs to survive. How can the law require her to continue to allow the embryo to grow inside her, using her bodily resources and putting her body through the normal stresses and health complications that often accompany a full term pregnancy? This burden can, in no way, be seen as minimally inconvenient and is a clear violation of her bodily integrity.

    The reason I continue to bring up organ donation is that a law such as you propose would raise the bar so radically as to what innocent individuals in society should be expected to provide other individuals in need that it could conceivably affect all of us (and should, if we're to have a fair application of the principle). If a rape victim is required to help the embryo, why shouldn't you or I be required to help the kidney patient down the street? We're not responsible for his predicament, but the woman is certainly not responsible for that of the embryo either.

  • Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

    08/22/2012 12:17:04 AM PDT · 265 of 291
    BearArms to Boogieman
    I am making an appeal to the inherent, natural rights that both parties in the dispute have claim to. They don’t derive these from society, so really, society has nothing to say in the matter of any importance. The society could be China, which places less value on the lives of children, or some society that places greater value on them, and the argument would still be exactly the same. Morality and justice don’t change depending on the standards or prevailing attitudes of the populace.

    When discussing what American law should be regarding this issue, it's important to consider the broader application of our society's traditional respect for the bodily integrity rights of its citizens. All I'm saying is that, in other areas of American law, the interest of protecting innocent life is routinely subjugated to other important interests, out of respect for personal liberty. A rape exception to an abortion ban is more than justifiable, in my opinion, when you take this into account.

    Now, if you wish to make the case that a raped woman has an obligation to save the embryo forcibly implanted in her womb anyway, you have to realize that there will be inevitable consequences to personal liberty generally, when the logic behind that argument is applied to other issues. I would expect that a country with such a law would be very close to mandating blood, marrow, and organ donation. After all, in a society where the protection of innocent life is the preeminent state interest, how could it be any other way?

  • Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

    08/21/2012 8:50:06 PM PDT · 262 of 291
    BearArms to Boogieman
    In this case, there is no compromise possible, since the child cannot live unless the mother is restricted from exercising unfettered rights over her own body. One or the other party’s rights must be judged to take precedence over the other. That’s where the argument for the mother’s rights breaks down.

    You're making the assumption that the life of an innocent child is more precious to society than the bodily integrity of an innocent woman. I would argue that this is not true, since we don't have a history of forcing even parents of dying children to donate blood or organs to save their lives. You can certainly argue that it should be, but it has not been, traditionally.

  • Romney says Ryan won't oppose abortion in rape cases (Romney supports both rape & incest abortion)

    08/21/2012 7:32:14 PM PDT · 255 of 291
    BearArms to Boogieman
    Your analogy is flawed. Nobody is depriving the kidney patient of their life, or right to it, they will simply die in the natural course of events, barring some action that can’t be legally compelled of others.

    The principle here is that individuals in our society do not have an obligation to give of their bodily resources to help others survive, especially when they bear no responsibility whatsoever for the predicament of the person in trouble. This principle has been pretty consistently applied and respected in American law and tradition. It's the reason there is no forced organ or blood donation and women aren't forced to carry unused lab embryos to term.

    In the case of a rape pregnancy, it seems to me that the victimized woman seeking an abortion has a very strong case. She had nothing at all to do with the creation of the embryo she now carries, so shouldn't this principle apply to her? Isn't she justified in seeking to end the violation of her rights? The only way for her to cease the use of her body by the embryo is to have an abortion. The innocence of the baby is not relevant in this scenario, just as the innocence of unused embryos is not relevant to their situation.