Sunday, February 18, 2007

It Has Already Started

It is with no small regret that I turn my attention to presidential politics. Are we not to have peace from the incessant quest for power, will we never be able to set aside politics long enough to save and run our country? NO.

With this understanding in mind it must be worth our time to consider the agenda and motives of the political parties involved and assess the candidates.

Democrat Party, the pro-Slavery, pro- Abortion party, pro-Tax party.


1. The killing of the unborn. This is still the overriding Democrat goal. Angry women are the largest single constituency of the Democrat party, and they must be coddled at any cost.

2. Appeasement. Anti-war affectations are more a political tactic than a core conviction. Since a strong national defense is an item on the Republican agenda, Democrats must be for the opposite position. Contempt for the Military and a blame America first attitude e form the basis for Democrat talking points in this. The fate of Joe Lieberman is instructive when considering this aspect of the Democrat agenda.

3. Environmental stagnation. Again this issue is forced upon the Democrat party by the size and power of this special interest group. The fiction of Global Warming – made laughable by this winter’s record cold snap, has formed a rallying point for socialists, Luddites, and human haters.

4. Racism. Maintaining a division of America along racial lines is also a source of votes for Democrats. Blacks are kept on the plantation by the exploitation and creation of victim hood. The Duke “rape” accusations are instructive here. Ginning up divisions between Hispanics and other whites is also a key strategy in maintaining racism as a source of Democrat power. Thus the media push to redefine illegal alien as representative of the American Spanish speaking population has become an incessant drum beat.

5. Socialism. As people become wealthier and more independent, they become less susceptible to the Democrat political machine. Thus maintaining as many poor and uneducated people as possible is an overriding Democrat goal. This is best achieved by redistributing wealth from those who work to those who don’t. When there are more welfare recipients than taxpayers in America, the indigent will form the permanent entitlement driven majority the Democrats need to maintain their power.

6. Maintain control of the mainstream media. This is the source of power for both the media and the Democrats in America. The manipulation of the mindless mob is the key to getting the votes of the masses. Thus we have the Democrats pushing a “fairness” doctrine that would give lies equal play with the truth.

By the way – I would like to go on record – I do doubt the patriotism of many Democrats.

Now a look at the major Democrat Candidates. The first thing to note is that there are no Major Democrat Candidates. This is an assembly of character mites. But these are the ideal figure heads for the agenda above.

1. Hillary Clinton – Who in some years in the U.S. Senate has done exactly nothing. She is proclaimed the world’s smartest woman by the left wing media machine but the only demonstrated measure of her intelligence is that she lived with a cheating husband for years and had no idea of how abused she was. Her constant vacillation on the war in Iraq and the War on Terror show her total lack of conviction on this issue. She stands for abortion and racism. Having never done anything Hillary is safe from any criticism of her record and indeed the perfect Democrat to head their ticket.

2. Barack Obama – As a complete political unknown Obama has the only resume more appealing to Democrats than having a do nothing record. Let me repeat - no record at all is the only superior position from a do nothing record. Democrats love the blank slate. They can then write Obama to be whatever the moment requires. Here is an interesting aside on Obama from Key Black S. C. leaders back Clinton. They say Obama would ‘doom’ Democrats if he were to win nominating.” State Senator Robert Ford said, “Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed. Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he’s black and he’s at the top of the ticket – we’d lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything.” If a white republican would have said something like this he would be politically destroyed. (See Senator Trent Lott) Democrats here demonstrate a trait that Republicans lack, they are willing to abandon almost every core belief in order to gain political power. (Recall their attacks on the last woman nominated to the Supreme Court) By the way the Democrats’ willingness to lose a war to terrorists is the ultimate proof that anything but abortion is on the table if it gets them power.

3. John Edwards – Don’t make me laugh, again.

4. Al Gore – He will soon have an Oscar and a Noble Peace prize. The nomination as the Democrat Presidential Candidate would give him the triple crown of vacuous acclaim. The fact that he is a proven loser only heightens his victim status. Watch out for this one.

Republican Party – The pro-war on terror. Pro-liberation of Iraq, pro-life, pro-conservation of recourses party.

1. Victory in War – It is a difficult task to support war, everyone hates war. With terrorism checked in the U.S. and on the run in the rest of the world America is wondering why we have to keep fighting.

2. Cutting taxes. The tax cuts were the salvation of the American economy seven years ago. The Republicans have literally built a golden egg laying goose. It is now tempting to cut that goose open. Republicans will find it increasingly difficult to deny the growing demands of the “want mores” in the American electorate. I myself am looking at retirement and free health care for my hopefully long and golden years. As I consider having it paid for by young folks who work but don’t vote; four years without Republican restraints on entitlement spending begins to look pretty promising.

3. Racism. Republicans refuse to recognize the important racial divisions in America. They disagree with the “affirmative action” programs put in place to exploit race and challenge the stereotypes that provide identity for large sections of the American population. Some are foolish enough to confuse language with national identity. Republicans must learn that it is our ideas not the words that express them that make us a nation.
4. Exploitation of natural resources. Republicans are for opening up domestic oil reserves and for the managed use of natural resources. That the media and the well funded enviro Nazis are geared up to defend “wilderness” at any cost will surely provide plenty of mud to fling at the greedy Republicans who seek to reduce our dependency on foreign oil at the pretended expense of caribou and spotted owls.

5. Capitalism. The Republicans are locked into a philosophy that requires hard work to produce wealth. This policy leaves out the growing number of Americans who have been taught that they don’t have to work. The Republicans will soon find themselves in trouble with a growing population of entitlement dependent voters. “Tax the rich” sounds very good to the poor who hate the owners of the business for which they work just like they hate the teachers who forced them to study to get passing grades in school.

6. The New Media is increasingly pulling away from left wing control. But even as people listen to right wing talk radio, the radical antics of some on that front damage the causes they claim to support. As right wing radio grows in influence it too will be tempted to pander to the more radical elements of its listener base. Becoming a mirror image of the left will not advance the ideas that are needed to strengthen America. Fox NEWS is a promising bastion of fair and balanced information but it too must beware of pandering either to rightwing kooks or to the establishment for acceptance.

By the way I would like to go on record that turning on the President and the war by Republicans in order to garner the support of the left wing media or to attempt to soften the anger of the anti-war constituents will help neither their country nor their political aspirations.

Now a look at the Major Republican candidates. The biggest problem facing the Republican candidates is that the Democrat controlled, and controlling media, will be defining them. Watch to see how this insidious process has already started to divide Republicans. Republicans are made weak by the very dedication to principles that are also their strength. They will shoot themselves in the foot in order to hold a perceived moral line. They are more that willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, if that water makes them mad enough. The Democrats on the other hand will swallow almost, ALMOST any bitter pill in order to gain power.

1. Rudy Giuliani. He has done great things. He saved New York when it was in debt and crime ridden to the point of decay. He was there to strengthen his city and his nation when both needed him most. His weakness is that he is being defined by the liberal press by his failed marriages and his stance on abortion. These are the very bitter pills that some conservatives will hesitate to swallow. They will not listen to Giuliani’s words but to the slogans of his enemies magnified through the media and allow the election of a Democrat who will actively scuttle all the things they are seeking. I myself wish Giuliani were more clearly anti-abortion, but I can wait and realize that the judges he will appoint are the key, not his personal opinions. Does this mean that I am willing to abandon my most cherished cause to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton? It means that I know that a Hillary presidency would lead to far more infanticide than the election of a pro-choice Republican.

2. Mitt Romney – Promising; he has been a most successful governor, he is NOW strongly pro-life, and he looks good. The challenge that faces him is again that the Media will convince conservatives that Romney’s Mormon religion disqualifies him from their support. Thus the lie that Mormons aren’t Christians will be turned against Christians. The will eat each other like dogs while the wolves devour the flock.

3. John McCain. Don’t make me cry, again. McCain is a do nothing bomb thrower, who was invented as a candidate by the left wing media. He was the media’s attempt to create another Ross Perot to divide the Republican vote and sop up President Bush campaign war chest. He did.

I am now left to lament that the man I would most like to see running for President has no chance. I am for Joe Lieberman. How I would love to vote for a Giuliani/Lieberman
Ticket?. Wouldn’t it be great if America could come up with a sort of unity presidency ticket? But wanting what’s best for America as long ceased to be the dominate issue in politics. And in a nation full of people who are taught not to think there seems to be less and less hope as time goes by.

I am hopeful for a nation that has the courage and wisdom to elect men like George Bushes one and two and Ronald Reagan But then I remember that the same people elected Bill Clinton twice and Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter was the Barack Obama of his day. A pig in a poke that America, weary of war and driven mad by years of Anti-American, anti president media blitz. America bought Jimmy Carter hook line and sinker. Carter went on to preside over double digit inflation and interest rates, to see the spread of Communism across nations in Africa and Latin America, the rise of Islamic fanaticism in Iran, now the world’s worst terrorist state, the lynch pin in the axis of evil, and America tumble into Malaise and long for a painless suicide. I am afraid that course opens for us once again. I wonder if we will survive this time, or will the ignorance induced stupor get us to drift off before someone shows up to open the windows.

Oh, and by the way – Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize. He is still “alive”, can an Oscar nomination be far away?


Dan Simpson said...

This is where we must part. While my own opinions and values are more closely in-line with the Republican party, I will never again have any desire to be affiliated with, or considered a member of that group.

As a group the republican party is deplorable, corrupt, and driven by a desire for power. As individuals, there are wonderful men and women who are republicans, the same could be said for democrats.

Being the better of two choices, does not make the Republican party good.

And your long list of praise, in my opinion, is fairly blind allegence.

I will post with more concrete examples later, no time right now.

Lysis said...


Examples of:

1. My long list of praises showing my “blind” allegiance.

2. Republican corruption and the manifestations of the Republican Parties drive for power. That any party seeks power is a given – it is the corruptions that I am interested in.

3. And I would an example of the “better” you intend to choose in lieu of the lesser of the two evils.

I am as willing as anyone else to expose and deal with the weaknesses of either major party, but to abandon the lesser of two evils in a system which will inevitably place the greater evil in power seems fool hardy at best.

Aeneas said...


I think the "pro-slavery" comment pointed toward the Democratic Party is a litte too over the top. Unless you can clarify what you mean by this comment, I will have to accuse you of falling into the same mistake I describe below that Dan made regarding drawing of present conclusions based on narrow events or even past events. (See below). Otherwise, good post.



Surely you do not mean to accuse the National or one or all of the State or local Republican Party committees of illegal activity? Do you? If so, I would certaintly be interested in seeing the evidence you possess as would I'm sure your nearest U.S. Attorney. Or, are you accusing either the National or one or all of the State or local Republican Party committies of moral rather than legal corruption? If so, which committee and of what? Or, are you not referring at all to any particualar committee, but to Republicans in general, of either legal or moral corruption. If it is the later, then you have of course made a classic logical fallacy, i.e., you have made a conclusion about the whole, based on the actions of a few. Perhaps you disagree with certain or all tenents of the Republican plateform. If so, which ones? Or, are you simply dissatisfied with the Repubicans in Congress. If so, who, why, and when did they serve?

I think you get the point. Over a hundred years ago, members of the Mormon Church committeed mass murder in Mountain Meadows. Whatever that "corruption" may have said about individual members of the church or even about a large number of members of the Church at the time, does that act of "corruption" define what the church actually stood (stands) for as an organization? You decide. I believe the Republican Party, as a whole, like the Church, as a whole, is based on sound principles. It is its members who act stupidly. On the other hand, there are many tenants of the Democratic platform/philosophy that I don't believe are sound principles upon which to sustain a sound government and economy. I agree with Lysis, better to support the stupid who are trying to govern based on sound principles than the clever who are trying to govern based on unsound principles.

As for your accusation that the Republican Party is driven by a desire for power...I say, so what! That is the point of political parties, to gain power. The same accusation, I suppose, could be leveled at President A. Lincoln, who clearly ran for the presidency motivated by a desire to win power. Despite the old adage, "power corrupts", power doesn't corrupt, choices corrupt.

Give us more Dan, give us more.

Lysis said...


My editor also pointed out that she couldn’t see the pro – Slavery point. Remember hat the very Lincoln you invoke above ran against Democrats desperate to maintain slavery. Maintaining slavery was the key plank of the Democrats in the 1850’s and 1860’s. When the first Republican – abolitionist – was elected, the Democrats of the South united to succeed from the Union in-order to maintain slavery. Have times changed? Yes they have, it does little good to be pro – slavery, not many votes in it. But I have always felt that it is important to remember and remind who was for slavery when they had a chance to be meaningfully against it.

In another way – Democrats are still pro-slavery. They want to enslave us all, the working people to and endless tax and spend entitlement demand which devalues their labor and reduces them fortunes to pay check to pay check subsistence, the non-working, an ever growing mass of Americans, are likewise enslaved to those who reward and enable their laziness. The fetters the Democrats would forge for Americans are not of iron but of communal obligation and need. This slavery is not rooted in debasing a race but in devaluing the individual.

So, although twice chastened, I stand by my claim that Democrats are pro-slavery, at least until these arguments are addressed.

Aeneas said...

Aside from being an interesting historical point, the fact that the demo's were pro-slavery in the 19th c. says as much about the current character of the modern democratic party as does the fact many republicans in the 20th c. fought against the equal rights of African-Americans says about the current character of the Republican Party. Not much.

I will, however, give you your second argument that demo policies act to subjugate individual opportunities and success, thus, creating a sort of "new slavery."

Oh, by the way, Pres. Lincoln did not run on an abolitionist platform. He did eventually do the right thing and emancipate the slaves. Do we judge Lincoln on what he failed to do when he ran for president or for what he eventually chose to do once he became president.

Lysis said...


Point well made on those Republicans that attempted to block de-segregation, but that point only emphasizes the dastardly nature of the liberal spin machine which never fails to indict the actions of a few Republicans while vindicating the equally large numbers of Democrats that were “Jim Crow”. The sad fact remains that typical discussion of the Democrat party never admits to their even darker past, which they are now all-to-eager to burry.

As for Lincoln’s abolitionist agenda; I reference the Lincoln Douglas debates; in which he came out four-square against the compromises pushed by Douglas to entrench and spread slavery. It may be true that Lincoln was not radical enough an abolitionist to satisfy some anit-slave newspapers, but his reputation for being against slavery was strong enough to get the votes of the anit-slave majority and to spark the secession of the South. They did not leave the Union because they did not like Lincoln’s looks, they left because they believed he would fulfill his party’s goals and end slavery – something which he eventually did.

MindMechanic said...

Color me conflicted...In a lot of ways I agree with the original posting and in a lot of ways I agree with Dan.

I have said it numerous times...both parties are so polluted with their quest for power that I dont believe their is a dimes difference in what either do, though there is a significant void in what they say.

I think republicans and democrats...people...not politicians...are in most ways very similar. I think we all want what is best for the country, what is best for the people. I think we are all disgusted by the partisanship and the posturing.

I also think a significant percentage of people have just given up. I think they roll out and occasionally vote, but they vote mainly party affiliation without giving much thought to the issues.

And of course...there are the positive and negative extremes on both sides...and that includes both politicians and civilians.

At the end of the day...when we go to vote we are left with a one main question...which party leadership will most directly benefit the American people (or...which ones wont screw us up the most).

The democrat party is void of anything resembling a plan. I do agree that the politicians have for years enslaved minorities and poor people. I dont think for one second they give a rats patoot about the people they claim to champion. They offer just enough to keep them hooked...keep them dependent. The social programs they have sponsored for generations have proven that to be true.

I think the democrats are paralyzed with fear. They cant take a position on ANYTHING lest they might insult someone or disrupt their fan base. They CANT take an official position on immigration reform...if they are pro-crackdown they are anti-hispanic. If they are pro-legalization they are anti union/anti-labor.

Same goes for social security reform, education reform, and everything else. Their policies are designed only to not rock the boat too much and to target the people they know wont ever give them their vote...the wealthy. Never mind the irony that the democrat politicians and their main financial backers are the wealthiest people in the world (and somehow, being a multi-millionaire actor is better than being a multimillionaire industrialist).

John Edwards likes to talk about two Americas and people eat it up like he is just another guy. John Edwards America he builds a 12 million dollar home and destroys the surrounding environment to make way for his estate. Which isnt to say he shouldnt be able to...he just probably should lay off the hypocritical rhetoric. Or not.

The flip side though is that republicans by and large dont do much different. they know the dems have the poor and 'disenfranchised' locked up, so they target the middle and upper income. But their history isnt anything isnt like they dont have more than their fair share of corrupt congressmen selling favors.

But...the policies are different. At the core, the republcian policies WILL help the economy continue to grow. The republican policies WILL allow for anyone including the poor to change their future. The republican policies WILL take something of a stand on national security. To a point.

And all the dems have to offer is rhetoric, hatred, and higher taxes.

I DO understand Dans frustration.

Sadly, the Libertarians arent any better.

MindMechanic said...

regarding democrats and slavery...

I recommend thinking globally and not locally. Dont think slavery as in one mans ownership of the other. Think slavery as in executing policies designed to keep a people impoverished. Think social programs designed to destroy families. Think social programs designed to suck the life out of the workers. Think policy and programs designed to create dependent voters.

THAT affirms the charge of slavery by democrats.

And every once in a while you have a black man or black woman that rises up and leaves the plantation...and instead of being heralded as heroes and laying out a path to follow, they are denigrated and labeled. Let no one misunderstand your fate if you dare elevate yourself above what your station in life is meant to be.

Anonymous said...

newt gengrich?

Dan Simpson said...

To start, I don't disagree with anything Lysis said about the democratic party. I believe those things. This is merely arguing about his rousing endorsement of the competition.

Long post coming.

Things I don’t like about Republicans (any and all could be said of democrats, but I am specifically attacking republicans, not defending democrats.)

Ignoring their own platform when it is politically, and publicly expedient.

Terry Schiavo- The republicans claim to be states rights. They want the federal government to stay out of our business, out of our family. The want judges to rule according to the law and not their own opinions. They do not trust the federal government to make decisions regarding our health care, and health care options. Yet, when the Christian right comes out hard core about Terry Schiavo (and don’t be deceived this wasn’t about her, it was about abortion plain and simple). Republicans in Congress fall all over themselves to jump on this bandwagon. They stood in D.C. making pronouncments about her husbands motives, judgments about the doctors who agreed with the husband, and called into question the ethics of judges who ruled counter their own opinion. Note, not judges who had misconstrued the law, but judges who ruled differently than they wanted them to. Bill Frist, an actual medical doctor, actually went so far as to diagnos Terry by video feed. If that wasn’t a political/publicity stunt, I have never seen one by a politician.

Social Security. The party as a whole claims to want to fix it. When given the opportunity, they do nothing. Excuses I have heard, it would require to much ‘political capital’, whatever the heck that means. As if one can only choose to do so much that is right, based on how hard it will be to fight for.

Corruption/indiscretion. During the Clinton years the Republicans were strong on the idea that if there was a question, something should be investigated (a true principle), they were also strong behind the idea that a prosecutor doing an investigation was not on a ‘witch hunt’ merely because he was doing his job, and found misconduct along the way (i.e. Ken Starr). However, charge Scooter Libby with obstruction of justice, and perjury, and watch the republicans line up to charge the prosecutor with misconduct, partisan politics, making up charges, and investigating for political purposes (none of which have any substantiation in reality or fact). Hypocrisy at its best.

(Just for you Rumpole, to show that I do not stand by your notion that prosecutors are above question, I do believe the prosecutor in the Tom Delay case to have been way out of line, and believe he should have been brought before the ethics board in Texas, not because he charged Delay, but because of his own actions that were improper, and wholly against prosecutorial ethics.)

Benefits. Republicans talk about being responsible spenders. Without going into any other aspect of spending over the last 8-10 years, merely look at one thing. The benefits enjoyed by members of congress. Not merely the yearly raises, but the benefits upon leaving the job. The pensions that last indefinitely, the health care for life. These would be admirable and wonderful things for a private business to offer executives to try to lure the best and brightest, but when these ‘public servants’ set up this program for themselves, at the cost of the tax payer, it is disgusting. The only individual I have ever heard complain about the raises? Jim Matheson. I have never heard a congressman speak about the wild waste that is the pension and health care system. Of course they don’t have to rely on Social Security, so they don’t have any reason to fix it.

Natural resources. So, the republicans are for the wise use of our natural resources? So why have there still been no new refinery’s built? Why has there been no increase in nuclear energy? Why have vast numbers of existing oil wells remained capped? Why have the restrictions not been lifted? And on the same hand, new wells are being dug, exploration is shooting forward with little to no oversight to its effects on surrounding areas. My opinion, new exploration is a great way to appease the big businesses, and not lifting the restrictions helps the supply stay such that prices can be profitable.

We will have to disagree on the appropriateness of a political party’s goal being power. When the goal is power, then principles can be compromised in the search for that power, with the lie that once we get the power, we will fight for our principles, so the ends will justify the means.

The parties are broken, and they are merely groups willing to do anything to maintain, or gain, more power.

There hasn't been a true, principled, plan driven leader of the Republican party since Newt. And his principles left something to be desired. (the president doesn't lead the Republican party, clearly from his inability to get his agenda passed in a republican house, so saying he is one isn't a good response to that argument.)

Dan Simpson said...

To answer Aeneas. I would point you to my second paragraph of my first post. I know that my comments are generalizations. I know I am painting with a broad brush. I am speaking of the group as a group. As I already pointed out, there are individuals who do not fit into this.

I am surprised that is a thought you can't accept from me. You don't seem to have a problem with lysis doing the same thing. If Joe Lieberman fit under everything Lysis said of democrats, he surely wouldn't be so praised by Lysis.

Lysis said...


Newt Gengrich couldn’t even keep his position as head of the House under pressure by the press over a perfectly legal book deal. One dwarfed by the multi million dollar payoff Hillary Clinton took on her way to her New York Senate seat. Over the past couple of years Gengrich has become a talking head on Fox and other news stations. He has not stood up for the President Bush nor said the necessary things to strengthen the American people. Newt Gengrich, whose picture still adorns my classroom wall, has sole out to his desire to position himself as a presidential hopeful, or at least a media acceptable talking head. In either case he is exemplary of the flaws discussed above in both parties.


I don’t think we are much at variance in our appraisal of politics, its need and its failings. I am still waiting for specific examples from my post that indicate my supposed lock step support for the Republicans. I am eager to see the success of truth, justice, and the America way. Unfortunately, not being Superman, I must work within the flawed TWO party system this nation has adopted.

Dan Simpson said...

And just to answer one of Lysis' questions. 9 times out of 10, the republican is the better choice.

I agree with the majority of stances the republican party claims to stand for.

There is, unfortunately, no better choice most of the time. So, all I can do is try to find the candidate who is the best person, one who stands for what is right, and that I can trust will actually follow through on what he says he stands for. Then I vote for him/her, regardless of the letter next to their name.

Lysis said...


Good stuff, I’ll be back when I have time to give it its due.

Dan Simpson said...

I read a wonderful entry in a friends blog. He likes to write his feelings while serving in Iraq. One point he made I think pertains here. It is possible to be both the best, and be overrated.

I believe that of our current options, the republicans are the best. I also think they are severely overrated.

Dan Simpson said...

Let me retract one argument. I do not believe lysis to follow blindly. His post sounded so much like a pep rally for the republicans, that it was a knee jerk reaction to what came across as a syrupy sweet praise fest of a group I find highly lacking in integrity and purpose.

Blind, no. But I do still disagree.

Dan Simpson said...

I know, lots all at once. Just one thing about Newt.

Disagree with him as you like, but he has been consistent about his opinion on the war in Iraq from the start. He may not 'support pres. Bush' as you would like. You may disagree with what he says. But he has remained consistent over the last 5 years. Not something that can be said for too many politicians.

MindMechanic said...


You didnt get a 'lock-step' argument from me. I agreed in principle with both you AND Dan.

I think it is interesting and obvious to point out the attitudes here at the Agora. You would have to be blind to miss the obvious frustration. I think this speaks for a lot more than this assemby...I think it speaks volumes.

As for the two party system...

I agree with you that it is what it is and it is what we have. I tried the daliance outside of the two party system for 4 years. I use the analogy...its like peeing your pants in a dark gives you a warm feeling at first, no one else really notices, and after a while it just leaves you clammy, wet, and cold. (and for the record-no, I dont have actual hands on experience...that actually came from a 70's era Charlie Brown wall poster...).

Perhaps someday there will be a groundswell of change...but I doubt it. More likely, people will have similar experiences to mine...leave dems or reps and join a third party, realize they play just as many stupid partisan games, realize that they are surrounded by a bunch of angry unhappy malcontents that are just looking for a convenient place to gather and whine, and then realize they have ZERO power to affect change.

When it comes to voting, it really comes down to the lesser of two weevils. Sad...tragic...but true.

Lysis said...


On Newt; as your own arguments have often demonstrated, being constantly wrong does not make one any less wrong.

I apologize for the limited response time I have right now. Class break is only five minuets. I will be more attentive later, but let me present you with the natural result of your reasoning; Jim Matheson.

Jim Matheson, the elected Democrat in Utah, must cow-tow to the liberal base – (Utahan’s in rebellion against the Mormon Church) while at the same time playing the “good guy” to siphon off Republicans and just plane “good guy” voters line you. Hew then goes back to D.C. and is required by his party affiliations to march lock step with Nancy Pelosi. He didn’t even have the sand to vote against the diss the President, abandon the troops, let’s root for the terrorists, non binding resolution of last week!

How can Matheson be a good man when accepting his position as titular head of the Democrat party whose foundation platform plank is the unfettered murder of the unborn? And what does that say of those who are misguided enough to vote for or support him while claiming to disapprove of all he votes for?

SIMPSON said...

Check his voting record. Consistently pro-life.

You have highlighted what I see as one of the big problems.

If I refused to vote for someone because the man/woman that would become the speaker was bad, I would be unable to vote. Do you think Dennis Hastert was a great leader?

If my choice was between Pelosi and someone else, I would vote for someone else. But my choice was between matheson and that slob Swallow.

I chose who I believe was the better person. I studied his voting record, from your arguments, you studied. . .the republican ads against him.

"Jim Matheson, the elected Democrat in Utah, must cow-tow to the liberal base – (Utahan’s in rebellion against the Mormon Church)"

If this were true, then the liberal mormon haters of SLC (i.e. Rocky Andersen and his ilk), wouldn't have been up in arms screaming that Matheson decieved people by running as a democrat. They wouldn't have been falling all over themselves trying to find a 'real' democrat to run against him. They wouldn't be charging him with 'cow towing' (much as you do) on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

You are so up on Lieberman, what has his voting record on abortion been for the last decade? Do you even know? Or is it enough that he supports the president on the war.

Matheson is more clearly pro-life than Guliani, yet you support him.

I don't agree with Matheson's support of the recent bill passed by the house.

But I refuse to allow myself to be blinded, as so many others are, by the letter next to the individuals name. R does not equal good, D does not equal bad. I am curious, do you ever do so? Do you know anything of the personal stances of the democrats you vote against? Do you study what they say, or do you merely equate the national platform across the board to anyone stupid enough to run as a democrat?

It is clear you don't know much about Matheson, beyond what the republicans on tv told you, I wonder if you bother finding out about any of the others.

"On Newt; as your own arguments have often demonstrated, being constantly wrong does not make one any less wrong."

I know you think you are pithy, and witty. Sometimes, I just think you are condescending and arrogant.

Anonymous said...

". . . Democratic party's foundation platform plank is the unfettered murder of the unborn."

Fits on a large bumper sticker but it's NOT the truth -- not even close. It is a reductio ad absurdum statement that exists in Lysis' fantasy world and empowers his self-righteous indignation, but certainly represents NO ONE'S POSITION -- I have never read nor heard a Democrat say he/she is FOR abortion, let alone "unfettered muder of the unborn"!!!!

Let us clarify the Republican Party's platform plank about abortion and the possible "unfetters" IT traditionally does not find repugnant.

Do birth control pills abort potentialy fertilized fetuses? Is a woman who chooses this kind of device guilty of murder? Also, should the questions of rape/incest abortions, life of the mother abortions, and multiple birth fetal reduction abortions be judged by Lysis and future Republican planks to be murders also? Should Republicans formulate a plank that opposes birth control pills that "abort" potentially fertilized eggs in the U.S. rather than eggs in overpopulated third world countries?

Does Lysis think the "abortions" that Republicans typically and traditionally sanction any LESS "murder"?

Does a LITTLE leaven leaveneth the whole lump????

MindMechanic said...

Keep in mind that this comes from someone opposed to ending legal abortion in America...

I would call the defense of abortion on demand unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.
I would call support for late term abortions support of the murder of the unborn.
I would call the support of a right for irresponsibile behavior that results in 1.3 million babies a year executed over the willful teaching of and accountability for responsibility in reproductive rights unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.
I would call support for partial birth abortions...a procedure where mature infants are inches from delivery and self sustaining life... unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.

I would call support of the practice that has led to forty four million, six hundred and seventy thousand, eight hundred and twelve babies unfettered support of the murder of the unborn.

Wrap it up in celebrating a womans right to choose all you want. Confuse and disguise the argument in nonsensical ramblings about eggs and sperm. I suppose that makes it easier. It doesnt change the fact that we conduct genocide in America. It doesnt change the fact that every two years babies equalling the population of the entire state of Utah. Are slaughtered.

Kind of makes you many scientist, artists, doctors, teachers, etc have been lost. How many cures. How many great paintings. How many treasures.

MindMechanic said...

My personal position...

I am opposed to making the practice of abortion illegal. I think criminalizing abortion will lead to the affluent travelling to get safe abortions while the poor will get back alley abortions. It will make criminals of those who need more than anything else our love and support.

I think both sides (again...a party thing) are dishonest about their intent. I wont address the democrat intent...instead I will adress the conservative intent.

Abortion is a political tool. It is a way to inflame and spark passion. From a party standpoint it has nothing to do with love and caring.

If both sides REALLY cared about the unborn children and the frightened child scared half out of her mind, they would offer her love and support. They would offer her real options. They would make sure she was aware of the psychological repercussion this act will have on her for the rest of her life. Instead spending billions fighting abortion they would spend those billions providing health care, homes, surrogate support, etc. In short, they would provide real hope and real opportunities. And when those young women still ultimately decide to make the choice to abort they will embrace Gods plan and allow God to judge them while they love and support them.

I am sickened at the behaviors of both sides of the debate.

The only solace I take is found in the words of George Carlin..."you ever notice that the women who march in favor of abortion are women that man, you wouldnt want to have sex with in the first place?"

truth to power said...

"Do birth control pills abort potentialy fertilized fetuses? Is a woman who chooses this kind of device guilty of murder? Also, should the questions of rape/incest abortions, life of the mother abortions, and multiple birth fetal reduction abortions be judged by Lysis and future Republican planks to be murders also? Should Republicans formulate a plank that opposes birth control pills that "abort" potentially fertilized eggs in the U.S. rather than eggs in overpopulated third world countries?"

I call straw man!

The abortion debate is not about these issues. Where do the arguments happen, the court cases? Things like aborting viable babies, letting minors have abortions without the consent of parents who are legally obligated to pay for their medical costs, and "health of the mother" exemptions (because pregnancy and childbirth usually have no adverse health effects, and a doctor would only say it's necessary to protect the mother's health if it really really is!).

Maybe we should just enforce the laws against fornication and adultery.

Rumpole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...

Let’s compare the Democrat and Republican platform planks on Abortion.


Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay
Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004


Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 86

Note – Choice is a Democrat code-word for kill, for death, for the murder of the unborn. Life is a Republican code-word for life.

To answer your questions:

Do birth control pills abort potentially fertilized fetuses? No because a “potentially fertilized fetus” is not anything; preventing fertilizing does not kill a human being!

Is a woman who chooses this kind of device guilty of murder? No!

Should rape/incest abortions, life of the mother abortions, and multiple birth fetal reduction abortions be judged murders?

Yes/yes, NO, yes.

Abortions to save the life of the mother are no more murder than any self defense killing is a murder. The wonderful truth is that because of modern medicine, such killings of one human to save the life of another are almost never necessary.

On a side note: should a women be required to carry to term the baby conceived during a forcible assault? I would like much more discussion on this before I make up my mind. I do believe that everything should be done to convince the mother that the INOCENT child is also hers and has done nothing worthy of death. However these TWO REASONS can be allowed without allowing the million plus, that’s 1,000,000 +, murders of unborn children that are perpetrated in this nation every year.

You have reached “reductio ad absurdum” when you confuse prevention with abortion and unfertilized eggs with human beings. Once again birth control is not murder – no one is killed!!!! Abortion is murder – someone is killed!!!! It is a bright line, easily and REASONABLY drawn.

Your saying that birth control equals abortion is absurd, your putting words in the moths of others so you can debate them is foolish.

Rumpole said...


Re.: Jim Matheson

Matheson’s very affiliation to the Democratic Party defines him as a liberal. According to the Deseret News (August 25, 2006), Matheson voted liberal 54.5% of the time and conservative 45.5%. I would offer to you that Matheson’s voting record is irrelevant on two counts:

1. The inner workings of Washington:

You seem to have some understanding of those workings that you apparently chose to ignore in Matheson’s case. You post: “As a group the republican party is deplorable, corrupt, and driven by a desire for power. As individuals, there are wonderful men and women who are republicans, the same could be said for democrats.”

In the recent past (the current administration), which party has better held the party line when voting? You have posted: “the president doesn't lead the Republican party, clearly from his inability to get his agenda passed in a republican house . . .” I would agree that the Republicans have not followed their own leadership. The democrats consistently have.

Are Matheson’s conservative votes a demonstration of his conservative positions? They are absolutely not. Here is a rhetorical question for you: do you believe for a second that any vote hitting the House Floor has not been pre-determined? What are the whips for? What are work meetings for? The Democrats (and republicans alike) aren’t stupid. Pelosi knows exactly how any vote will turn out before it is ever taken.

The Democrats value every Congressional seat they have. Internal party leadership is more than willing to sacrifice votes on key local issues in order to hold that seat. Payment comes in the form of critical national issues that strike to the core of the debate; and make no mistake, when the time for those votes comes you better tow the party line. If I have not been clear, ask Joe Lieberman to explain it to you. Which side of the party line (or what “corrupt group” to borrow from you) was Matheson on when voting for the recent war resolution?

2. The Committee system:

Can I ask another rhetorical question? Who chairs the committees in Congress? Who sets the agenda for those committees? Who determines what issues even reach the floor for a vote? It certainly isn’t each individual Congressman voting his conscience.

The agenda is set by the “corrupt group” (your words) in the majority. It doesn’t have anything to do with Jim Matheson’s conservative voting record. At best, during its congressional term the minority party will be able to obstruct legislation counter to its own agenda. I shudder when I think of “at worst.”

Two side notes: In the recent past, traditional republicans have voted in their own self-interest; traditional democrats have voted party lines. The irony is that while being motivated by self-interest, republicans have set back their own agenda. The “I’m going to vote against the republican just to send a message” vote did just that. It changed the make-up of Congress to one that will promote the opposite of what those voters who used that methodology really want. But hey, they all have clear consciences!

Note Two: You post “Just for you Rumpole, to show that I do not stand by your notion that prosecutors are above question, I do believe the prosecutor in the Tom Delay case to have been way out of line, and believe he should have been brought before the ethics board in Texas, not because he charged Delay, but because of his own actions that were improper, and wholly against prosecutorial ethics.”

I never had the notion that prosecutors are above question, you did. I am glad to see that you now accept the truth.

Dan Simpson said...

Re: the abortion debate.

There was an interesting article in Time (I am pretty sure it is the current one, but I did just pick it up off the counter), about a type of clinic, usually funded by religious type groups, that offers a different kind of visit from an abortion clinic.

It seems that when the woman/girl comes in, they listen, discuss the problems (familial support/anger, money to support herself, prenatal care, etc.).

They then provide some immediate relief, in the way of money for essentials. They give the woman a free ultrasound, in the way of education, so that she can see exactly what it is inside of her at that moment. They have models of fetuses at varying stages (kidney bean size to thumb size, all with limbs etc.), again by way of education.

Though the article was definitely slanted (it must have quoted NARAL a dozen times, plus other abortion advocate groups), it was interesting to see some of the efforts currently ongoing trying to change minds rather than necessarily changing the law. Though it must be noted, all 'Pro-Choice' groups thought these places a horrible idea.

Personally, I think for real change there has to be a societal change. The stigma of adoption has to be removed. The stigma of the word orphanage needs to be changed.

While I can understand MM's stance i.e. poor people will have dangerous back alley abortions, it does not convince me that because of that abortion should remain legal.

There are many things that, because they are illegal desparate people are put into more danger as they attempt to accomplish the deed under the radar.

It would be better, as per MM's argument, for all the millions spent on both sides to be used to aid pregnant women in getting any help they may need, and removing those obstacles that are cited as the major reasons for abortion.

TTP brings up a great point, however, the real argument based on how things are now, not on how we may want them, is in the court cases.

Parental consent, late term, etc. It is an interesting study to read the SC cases that lead up to Roe. You move along nodding your head about the correctness of keeping the government out of certain private decisions and then BAM, what the crap? Where did that constitutional 'right' come from.


"I never had the notion that prosecutors are above question, you did."

I didn't mean that you did, I meant your notion that I held that idea. Others read the statements you gleaned that farcical notion from, no one else saw what you conjured up. If you want to keep beating the drum, have at it.

As to your more lengthy arguments. Most of it I am not in opposition to. I know how the system works, its dirty. I know how individuals play politics, its deplorable. I have no delusions that Jim Matheson votes exactly as I would, I have never found a representative that does.

You can cynically assume that all of his votes are carefully calculated to tread a thin line between holding his seat here in Utah and nefariously pushing forward the Pelosi agenda, you may even be right, I may be naive. But, I studied him out before I voted, and supported him. I would have in this last election as well, if I had lived in his district.

One of my points, however, was that Lysis made a claim about him that wasn't true, even though it was shouted by his republican opponent for months during the election a few years back. I do not believe that every D is with Pelosi, I do not believe that every R is with Bush (or whatever individual is associated as THE republican).

So, I will continue to study out the individual, and base my vote on what THEY, not the national talking head, say they believe in.

MindMechanic said...


I hate the thought of abortion...I just dont think it can be something that is legislated out of existence. I do believe that it is something that can be 'cared' out of existence, or at least significantly reduced.

The numbers I read show abortions around the 1.3 million per year mark. IF we were able to ban abortions (which I dont think will ever happen) How many would still occur in one way or another? How many lives would be directly altered due to aborted abortions or dangerous attempts to abort?

And that is IF.

Meanwhile, this battle has raged for 30 years. In the process of the two sides bleating their "you suck" : "no you suck" hatred at each other, 44 million babies have been aborted. I have stats for that. I have read stats and studies but cant find them (I'll keep looking) for the next comment so feel free to take them with a grain...about 2/3 of all women that have had abortions battle with major depressive episodes at some time in their life and just under 1/3 attempt suicide (the only question here is to the actual numbers...just about any source you read will show that women that have abortions go through the above symptoms). If it REALLY is about life and about the love of life (both the living and the yet unborn), then of those 44 million, how many lives could have been saved by offering real and viable alternatives? Most? Half? Who knows but most assuredly SOME. How many women would have been spared the emotional hell and torment that accompanies the act?

It is heartening to hear that there are SOME that are offering a different path. I hope that trend is so much more powerful. Ultimately the woman will still choose but maybe just maybe they can see a different possibility.

And here we are...two sides once again of the same coin. We may disagree somewhat but I think everyone here has the same intent. Just different ideas about how to accomplish it.

MindMechanic said...

regarding Jim Matheson...

I cant stand his commercials. He always comes across as whiny and self righteous. Maybe thats just me. I like his dad.

Whatever the reason (whether it is who he really is or if he is just walking the tightrope between party path and re-election) he does vote with enough of a balance that his constituency see's him as the best alternative. Call it the luck of the draw(as in the drawing of the district boundaries) or call it a failing on behalf of the opposition to submit a strong enough and viable candidate...or call it what you will. Maybe it is just that Utahs liberals tend to congregate in one main area...I dont know...strength in numbers?

I think this is one of those small picture big picture things...the small picture is that he is their elected representative. The big picture is he is one seat for the D's. If it came down to one vote I would think that it would matter. It doesnt...and doesnt.

Lysis said...

I am quite honored to be one of the judges of the Sterling Scholar Speech and Drama semi finals today at Wood Cross High. I am very grateful for all the good things that have been said, and look forward to making comment when I have time. I admit that I have no way of knowing if you look forward to that.

Just one pint on abortions in this country: The number is over a million a year in the United States, realize that at that rate it will take a THOUSAND YEARS of war in Iraq to kill as many American children as Roe v Wade will kill before next Christmas. Think about it!

mjl said...

The killing of potentially fertilized fetuses? Anonymous, do you know how birth control pills work? If I thought you were interested, I would give a brief explanation, but as it is, I won't waste the time. Ask one of several women who have gotten pregnant while using birth control pills about killing "potentially fertilized fetuses."

I know the arguments for this post are firmly set, and they are good and interesting. I would like to add one observation if I may.

It seems to me that Lysis' original post and indeed his general sentiment regarding abortion in the comments on this post and the blog as a whole, smack a bit of the larger hypocrisy I see among the right currently. Lysis, like so many other conservatives, abhors abortion and is strongy pro-life. Also, like many other conservatives, Lysis is willing to overlook Rudy Giuliani's stance on abortion while pointing out a change in Mitt Romney's stance on abortion. Though Lysis' post barely smacks of such hypocrisy, I see it loud and clear on the right. Mitt Romney changes his tune on the abortion question, and he is crucified for having ever said he would support Roe v. Wade regardless of the reasons he actually gave for that. Giuliani is pro-choice (rather strongly), and the same individuals can't wait to say how willing they are to overlook this. Seems that there are other issues at play here.

Finally as a side note to an early argument: A great former President who left his party and became a Republican, once stated that while he personally abhored slavery, he acknowledged its constitutionality and the constitutional rights of slave owners to have their slaves returned to them. He later became the great emancipator.

Anonymous said...


"He later became the great emancipator"

And many say that he did it not because he believed it but because it was both politically expedient and damaging to the Souths war effort.

Anonymous said...

The question is never abortion or not abortion.

Truthfully, the question is ALWAYS choosing which justifications for abortion are favored and which justifications are held repugnant --even Lysis would allow for SOME abortion!!!!

Well, if abortion is MURDER as some BEPZ (beady-eyed pettifogging zealots) claim, then allowing for even SOME abortions should incur an indictment of MURDER.

Conservatives cannot subdivide thier supposed moral high ground while denying an apportionment to others at the same time -- you cannot be a LITTLE pregnant -- either you ARE pregnant or you're NOT pregnant -- same with murder and with leaven -- even a LITTLE leaveneth the whole lump!!!!

mjl said...

"even Lysis would allow for SOME abortions."

The thing is anonymous, most conservatives truly believe in what the democrats say without thinking, that abortions should be safe and rare. In other words, of course there would be support for some abortions. Where to draw the line is the question.

My frustration lies in the fact that those who put abortion so high on their issues list seem to be speaking hypocritically in their analysis of the various Presidential candidates. It saddens me as much as anything.

Rumpole said...


I think your analysis of small picture vs. big picture when considering Matheson’s seat is accurate; however, I disagree that one seat is only important when it comes to a one vote margin when considering legislation.

I know I’m probably going to an extreme, but when that one seat is part of a larger trend, it turns a majority into a minority.

I am reminded of a comment that a liberal colleague at work once made to me. His position was that the congressional make-up of Utah ought to reflect representation for all, and an all-republican representation did not do so. I laugh when I think of that notion; in essence, his view suggested that elections were obsolete, and that congress should be determined by affirmative action.

I know that this analogy doesn’t directly apply to our conversation, but I do think it illustrates the importance of each house seat, especially to those who feel that they don’t have adequate representation; and unfortunately, congressional legislation votes are typically controlled by parties rather than by individuals.


You crack me up. Who is “beating the drum?” Who attempted to bring back the discussion on an old “farcical notion?”

Read the archives, Dan. The information is in there twice now.

Lysis said...

So much to talk about.

Mostly Just Listening;

As to the Hypocrisy on the right; first Romney has clearly stated he is pro life. I choose to believe him. Giuliani has said he will appoint pro-life judiciary, now there is a promise with some real potential. The only way a President can stop the infanticide in this nation is by appointing a court with the courage and conviction to overturn the Abortion on demand interpretation of Roe v Wade, a ludicrous idea that says women can murder their own children as long as they do it in private. Where is my hypocrisy in supporting either of these candidates when they will clearly advance the cause I hold most important; while all the Democrats in the race are stridently pro-death?

I see real hypocrisy in the left’s eagerness to forgive Clinton, Edwards, and others for changing their position on the war, but not allowing that Giuliani and Romney could change their minds on the killing of the unborn. It is not the candidates whose change of position makes them hypocrites; it is the lefts willingness, even eagerness to accept their change of heart while preaching through their media outlets that pro-life supporters cannot find common ground with Giuliani or Romney.

No one is overlooking Giuliani’s pro-choice errors, what we are seeing is a commitment to move away from abortion on demand which NO Democrat espouses. Again the save cheep and rare dribble in the Democrat Platform are meaningless smoke and mirrors. It like the work “choice” in the first place. Choice to do what? To kill another human being.

As for Lincoln’s position on emancipation, he was always for emancipation; he just wanted to do it without destroying the rule of law. When the South Moved to destroy the rule of Law to preserve Slavery, Lincoln was up to the call.

Anonymous “damaging to the South’s war effort” claim is more smoke and mirrors. The war was to defend slavery; ending slavery was its inevitable outcome when the Union Won. The South knew this and fought for long and bloody years to defend this abomination. The South could have spared themselves the whole of their war effort, damaged or otherwise, by giving up Slavery.


Let me try once more to explain this. I am against killing all the time, but that doesn’t mean that all killing is unjust. Killing terrorists in the War Against Terror is always a good thing, which does not mean I condone the murder of innocents perpetrated daily by the terrorists. There is a reasonable difference – even you can see it, you just don’t want to admit that such lines can be justly drawn. You prefer to live in a world without lines. If an attacker comes to my home or classroom and must be stopped from killing people by being killed, then I would myself do my best to kill him. When this Muslim kid in Salt Lake launched his own personal jihad against innocent citizens the policemen who shoot him down were not only justified they were heroes.

Your LITTLE pregnant LITTLE leavening spew is so much empty words. Yes I would allow some abortions – to save the life of the mother, a probably nonexistent contingency, I am still against abortion. Yes I would shoot down even a teenaged terrorist in the Trolley Square Mall, but I am against shooting people down. That is how Reason divides the moral ground. How would you divide it? Kill everyone. Why stop killing children that incontinence their parents at birth? Why not allow parents or at least mothers to privately kill their children at anytime. Why draw the line at mothers? Perhaps social workers could more fairly judge when a child should be destroyed for the good of the whole community.

Lines must be drawn; I offer the reasonable line of self defense, what is your line? Is it reasonable?

I had a great day reviewing the portfolios of and interviewing seventeen of the most outstanding young people I have ever met. In the end my colleague and I had to draw lines, and advance only five of them into the final round of the Sterling Scholar competition. There are MANY possibilities for such lines; “the cutest boy always wins,” comes to mind. But there were far FEWER just lines, I only hope we had the wisdom and reason to find and follow them.

mjl said...

The hypocrisy I speak of Lysis is on the right not the left, though they have plenty of their own to be sure. Many on the right are guilty of severely criticizing Romney for the fact that he, how did you put it?, is NOW pro-life. The very next sentence is used to write or speak of their acceptance of the fact that Giuliani's pro-choice stance is acceptable to them given his record on national security. I don't fault either man or distrust that they would appoint appropriate judges, though I confess I am more certain of this given Romney's battles with the Massachusetts Supreme Court. My point was and is that I find acceptance of Giuliani's pro-choice stance by those who fiercely criticize Romney for having at one time said he would not stand in the way of Roe v. Wade, hypocritical. As to your post, I don't find it largely fits this description, but your statement with emphasis added that Romney is NOW strongly pro-life smacked of that to me.

As far as Lincoln, the fact is that when he was running for the Presidency, he did not intend to emancipate the slaves. He remarked that he could not see a solution to the problem of slavery. He was opposed to slavery to be sure. It is why in large part he left the Whig party to join the Republican party. I will agree that the actions of the South gave him a way to deal with the problem. We can continue to have this debate, but iIn the end it doesn't matter. He came to emancipate the slaves. That is what does matter.

Lysis said...

Mostly Just Listening;

Please recognize the purpose of my entire post. That, in spite of Dan’s lamentations to the contrary, we MUST choose the lesser of two evils.

I will accept that Romney flipped; now we must ask did he flip for the right reason. Did he change his mind or is he lying to get votes. I told you that I believed him. I do not believe that Hillary ever did everything for any reason but to get herself power.

You are right. I will accept Giuliani’s “pro-choice” stance because of his national security strengths, but the fact that he has courageously said he would appoint more conservative judges to the Supreme Court makes that bitter pill easier to swallow.

I much prefer George Bush on both of these issues and I am a strong supporter of the Republican Platform plank on this issue.

Lincoln was for the Missouri compromise. He wanted free states and popular sovereignty to provide the abolitionist majority in House and Senate necessary to end Slavery. He did not want Civil War or the destruction of our “nation, of, by and for the people”. You are right on the important point; he did end slavery, which is what matters. And in the end I see much more hope of Romney or Giuliani ending infanticide than I do of Clinton or Obama doing so.

If you will read my original post I said: “I myself wish Giuliani were more clearly anti-abortion, but I can wait and realize that the judges he will appoint are the key, not his personal opinions. Does this mean that I am willing to abandon my most cherished cause to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton? It means that I know that a Hillary presidency would lead to far more infanticide than the election of a pro-choice Republican.”

You may call that hypocrisy if you wish. I call it pragmatism. The best thing for America and the world would be a constitutional amendment allowing George Bush two more terms as President, but since that is NOT going to happen; I am ready to settle for almost any Republican who will move us away from the million a year murder rate.

If John Kerry were to come out tomorrow and say he is now once more for the Liberation of Iraq, I would, no doubt, point to his flip, but I would hardly agree with it. Since there is a right and a wrong position on abortion, I can only accept that any person who has changed from pro-death to pro-life is a reasonable person and worthy of support. It is the same with the liberation of Iraq. That polls this week show more and more Americans supporting the President and the “surge” does show a tendency in the electorate to flip, but it dose not make them hypocrites, it means that they are capable of reasoned thought. That is promising.

Dan Simpson said...

"That, in spite of Dan’s lamentations to the contrary, we MUST choose the lesser of two evils."

How was I contrary to this?

Read my posts, I vote for Republicans all the time. My point was that it was the lesser of TWO evils. My argument is that you have overrated the Reps, not that they weren't better, or couldn't be chosen.

MindMechanic said...


"I know I’m probably going to an extreme, but when that one seat is part of a larger trend, it turns a majority into a minority."

I dont think Matheson fits "the trend." He was elected and re-elected during times of conservative upswings. I think he is definitely the small picture kind of guy.

But I DO agree with your statement somewhat, though not in the way you meant. I DO think that across the country there was a trend. That trend was a rejection to a LACK of conservative values, to people not willing to take a stand, and of people rejecting bad candidates and blank ticket politics. I DO think people want a change, not just in the GOP but in ALL of congress. If there is a message to be sent from the last election, I think that was it.

People say that the last election was a rejection of the war. Really? Explain then how Joe Lieberman won re-election as an independent.

And BTW...just for clarification...which WAR is it that people are tired of? (general question...not asked of anyone in particular)

This last election was in my opinion a rejection of Washington politics, and I think people are already getting tired of the democrats, particularly because a-since they have taken over they have done nothing but play partisan games, b-you can only SAY you have a plan so many times...sooner or later you have to put up or shut up, and c-they are already tired of watching the democrats eat their own. I base that only on the fact that my liberal co-workers dont want to discuss politics anymore, and the same enthusiasm from my liberal colleagues at university have also stopped crowing and are back to their old, angry, pre-election ways. And here I was hoping the election would at least bring them some happiness...

Of course most people will be so uninspired by politics and politicians that they will allow themselves to be once again spoon fed sound bites from both the conservative and liberal media outlets and we'll likely get another uninspired election, uninspired representation, and uninspired results.

MindMechanic said...

running the risk of being off topic... tracks and reports on terror activities around the globe. This link is to a PDF chart of terrorist activities.

When you look at the terror attacks around the world and who is responsible for them, you have to acknowledge the common thread is NOT American foreign is muslim extremism...fundamentalists that think themselves fully justified in slaughtering others to impose their will.

Go ahead and run from this. Go ahead and ignore it. Go ahead and try to negotiate with them. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

"On New year's Eve 1930, the Roman Catholic Church officially banned any "artificial" means of birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps were defined as artificial,(later the pill) since they blocked the natural journey of sperm during intercourse. Douches, suppositories and spermicides all KILLED or impeded sperm, and were banned as well. According to Church doctrine, tampering with the "male seed" WAS TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER. a COMMON ADMONITION ON THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME WAS "SO MANY CONCEPTIONS PREVENTED, SO MANY HOMICIDES." To interfere with God's will was a mortal sin and grounds for excommunication.
-American experience

Now, the narrow, self-serving relativist interpretation of abortion that chooses for HIMSELF and his "party of opportunism" is left off THIS role call of abortion deaths, because Lysis shrugs at these deaths of "impeded sperms" and chooses to ignore the consequent "homicides" created by the pill and every other birth control device -- NOT, however, ONE BILLION Catholics.

Given the total "deaths and homicides" that Catholic MORALITY prevents; ie, 1 billion times how many sperms, times how many acts of intercourse? -- us' self complacent definition of preserving LIFE is NOT preserving
%99.99999999 of life -- hence a position of EXTREME infanticide!!!!

If or his "Party of life" REALLY wanted to preserve "life of the unborn" they should adopt the GREATER and more moral CATHOLIC STANDARD.

In reality,' moral standards are as "corrupt" as his "choice" opponents -- they ALL of them come down to "cost benefit analysis" and "collateral damage" and those "relativistic" moralities of making difficult choices!!!!

Dan Simpson said...

I agree with anonymous, but lets take it one step further.

Anyone NOT having sex is, following the logical path of his argumentation, preventing conception, therefore killing babies.

So, abstinence = murder.

Lysis said...


If abstinence is murder what an abomination celibacy must be!!!!


Apparently both the Pope and the Supreme Court can make mistakes. I am for correcting them all.

If the Catholics choose not to practice birth control they are not killing anyone, nor is their Pope by remaining celibate. Even a secular empiricist like yourself, should be able to count the chromosomes and tell the difference between a sperm, or an egg and a baby. It’s not choice it’s biology. In the light of science, religion, and reason your limp and lusterless display is reviled as what it is, mindless ranting.

The bright line of human life is not relativistic, it is reasonable. Something, you Flaccid, seem determined to ignore. How would you define someone who ignores reason in order to justify the murder of a million innocent babies each year? How about insane!

How desperate your position has become is demonstrated by the absurdity to which you have twisted and pushed your limp and lifeless stance.


I did, as always, read your post. I based my assumptions on your opening paragraph:

“This is where we must part. While my own opinions and values are more closely in-line with the Republican party, I will never again have any desire to be affiliated with, or considered a member of that group.”

I simply, and I guess erroneously, assumed that voting for the party would be considered affiliation. Your support of a Democrat in the Utah congressional delegation because you think the Republican candidate a snob, lead me to believe that you were one of many conservatives who were willing to cut off your nose to spite your face. I will except your clarification on this and not call you a flip-flopper.


Your link to the truth about terrorist threat is most related to this topic. It is the ability to recognize such dangers that makes our President the steadfast and determined hero he is, it is the ability to recognize this danger, and to act to counter it that should determine who our next President will be.

But then we have to deal with people that are so unreasonable that they are willing to equate celibacy to murder in order to win a slippery slide argument that borders on lunacy.

MindMechanic said...

"Now, the narrow, self-serving relativist interpretation of abortion that chooses for HIMSELF and his "party of opportunism"

What a comical line. tell me...what is YOUR self serving relativist line? You have no problem ridiculing others but be honest...what is YOURS?

Do you embrace the Catholic doctrine? If you do not and Lysis does not then what in the world are you blathering on about? If your position isnt predicated on the Catholic standard then what makes YOUR position any different?

...and I wonder sometimes why I have a hard telling between Flaccid and The Child...could it be the juvenile nature of your arguments?

MindMechanic said...

Just a little nudge for all those liberals getting paid 5 and 6 figure speaking engagement fees and then proclaiming their "lack of freedoms"...

This is what our opponents in the war on terror have to offer...

ALEXANDRIA, Egypt (Reuters) - An Alexandria court convicted an Egyptian blogger on Thursday for insulting both Islam and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and sentenced him to four years in jail over his writings on the Internet.

Abdel Karim Suleiman, a 22-year-old former law student who has been in custody since November, was the first blogger to stand trial in Egypt for his Internet writings. He was convicted in connection with eight articles he wrote since 2004.

Rights groups and opposition bloggers have watched Suleiman's case closely, and said they feared a conviction could set a legal precedent limiting Internet freedom in Egypt, the Arab world's most populous country.

So go all means...quit fighting terrorism. Lay down your arms. Support your local appeasement representatives...

Dust of your thobe and up on your Koran...and get some flexoril for your knees...because you may just be forced to kneel in prayer 5 times a day. does the sounds of the call to mosque being broadcast over Dearborn Michigan leave anyone with at least a little bit of a chill in your stomach?

What am I saying...there is nothing to worry about...its the religion of peace and the 'terrorists' are just its emmisaries offering us a more enlightened path.

Cameron said...


which WAR is it...

People are tired of the war in Iraq. I don't think that means they are giving up on terror. There has just been a failure to link Iraq to the larger struggle with terror.

rejection of Washington politics...

I think that's spot on, except for a group of very vocal and active Democrats. These are the ones that booted Sen Lieberman out of the party, and the ones so unhappy now. They have become one-issue voters, and aren't pleased with non-binding resolutions. They want withdrawal NOW, and impeachment proceedings immediately after.

Cameron said...


All that graph means is that the Iraq War has increased terrorism. It has angered Muslims around the world and make it easier to recruit more suicide bombers.

At least that's the word on the street...

Anonymous said...

MM sez-


I agree...people have been successfully confused by politicians and the media so that all they know is that we are at war in Iraq and they are tired of war in Iraq.

They dont consider the historical reality that we took 15 years following WW2 facing the same problems while helping West Germany become successful and avoiding a WW3.

They dont consider the fact that we are fighting terrorists there. Heck...we even hear politicians and the media bemoaning the fact we ARENT fighting a more aggressive war against terrorists in Afghanistan.

They dont consider that we are still in Bosnia, some 11 years after the war that Clinton declared there.

Because THATS not the little sound bites they are being spoon fed.

As for looking at the chart and blaming the war against terror for increased terror activities...I agree...people are hearing the message so of course without thinking about it...sure...why not.

Of is still hard to blame sadistic rape and murder in Tibet on the American presence in Iraq...but...why let little things like reality cloud their vision.

And of course if they REALLY wanted to test their theory the site walks you balk through terrorist activity from the 60's to current.

But I agree...people will say that.

Lysis said...

The word in the street is the bleating of so many sheep. You’ll notice that Lieberman wasn’t booted very far, and voted with the Majority of Republicans to support the troops, the President, and victory in the War in Iraq. The War in Iraq is, as the President and our military leaders have always explained the key front on the War on Terror.

The increased number of terrorists claim is vacuous speculation, the 5 and 1/2 years since a successful attack on America, and the many plots uncovered and stopped are empirical proof of the success of the President’s policies. The fact that the sheep don’t even know they are at war is proof of how successful our military is at winning it.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone NOT having sex is following the logical path of HIS (mine?) argumentation,preventing conception, therefore killing babies.
So abstinance = murder." -Dan

First, let me point out that I referrenced CATHOLIC arguments not MY arguments -- you and can mock Catholic sexual tenets and leaders all you want -- many Catholics find the sexual proclivities of horney-horned Mormon polygamists and funny underwear equally amusing, but, doing so is EQUALLY hypocritical.

Catholic beliefs about LIFE and about what constitutes MURDER/INFANTICIDE/ABORTION were exemplified by me because the "Republican Platform on Abortion" does NOT significantly prevent the infanticide of what One billion world-wide Catholics and 63 million American Catholics consider to be a MORTAL SIN --;ie, the "artificial prevention of birth and tampering with the male seed". (laugh till your sides ache, but it's true)

In comparison to the LIFE standard of 63 million Americans, the Republican Platform of LIFE is a mere political sham, expediency, and a parody of a REAL defense of the unborn!!!!

When becomes Pope he will set all to right and kindly redefine ABORTION for all Catholics as something more to his liking -- when he becomes Pope, Prophet, Mullah, Director of the National Republican Party, and all.
Right now he's just a BEPZ.

MindMechanic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MindMechanic said...


"First, let me point out that I referrenced CATHOLIC arguments not MY arguments"

Referenced? You cited the Catholic position, made a presumptive argument that the position was valid in relation to your opponents argument, and THEN used that as your foundation of an argument against him.

And yet again you display either your own cowardice or simple inability to present any position that you might have to actually defend. You must be a democrat.

Rumpole said...


You are right, Matheson was not a part of a larger national trend this past election. He was an incumbent in that election, and was indeed elected during times of conservative upswings. I still believe that trend to have existed even with the exclusion of Matheson. What I want to point out, and did not do so very articulately, is that every House seat has value, even in the event there is not a one vote division between minority and majority.

I agree with you that the foundation of that trend was that voters (specifically republicans) rejected republicans due to a lack of conservative values. I thought I implied that before (i.e. “I’m going to vote against the republican just to send a message” from an earlier post.), and I must not have been very clear.

As I mentioned before, I think Republicans tend to vote out of self-interest (i.e. sending a message), while Democrats tend vote according to party loyalty. Perot is a great example of that. Clinton won a first term because the Republican vote was split by Perot.

I’m interested in the next election to watch manifestations of this theory. The media has already tried to do it with McCain. Will another potential “independent” rise up?

Lysis said...


I don’t mock the Catholic Church; I say: “If the Catholics choose not to practice birth control they are not killing anyone, nor is their Pope by remaining celibate.” I find their position noble theology but their biology is flawed. Thomas Aquinas believed in spontaneous generation of flies form purification and the many Popes insisted the earth was in the center of the world. A position they did not officially abandon until the 1980’s. Let’s just put it this way, in theology the Universal Christian Church may well have the market cornered, in science they don’t have a stellar record. This is not a mock, it is a fact.

As for your comments on Mormons, I think here you have amply demonstrated mock. (horney – horned – polygamists with funny underwear) Glad to see you at least admit to your hypocrisy.

I was also amused to see you so aptly describe your own actions: To make a “. . . comparison to the LIFE standard of 63 million Americans, [and] the Republican Platform of LIFE is a mere political sham, expediency, and a parody of a REAL defense of the unborn!!!!” Two words and your position is revealed. I wonder Flaccid, are you the only one at the Agora that doesn’t see the fool you are making of yourself. Surely even you see it? Flaccid, you have shown nothing about my position; you have only demonstrated that you have no reasonable arguments and so, as you always do, you retreat to name calling.

Anonymous said...

In response to the Papal encyclical stating that
"tampering with the male seed is tantamount to murder", Lysis responds . . . "Apparently . . . the Pope can make mistakes. I am for correcting them all."

NOOOOO -- no insult to Catholics there!!!!

How could the ignorant insult directed at horney-horned POLYGAMIST mormons and people who wear funny underwear -- ALL underwear is kind of funny and personally I would never wear a thong -- be mocking current members of the L.D.S. faith?

No, I REFUSED to write something much MORE arrogant and blatantly disrespectful like . . . Apparently, the Prophet can make mistakes. I am for correcting them all!!!!

If I had foolishly written THAT, then obnoxious partisan, narrow minded religious bigotry would definitely be apparent!!!!

truth to power said...

This is a very strange sort of debate tactic Anonymous is using: If you hold a position, you must therefore agree with more extreme versions of it. If someone opposes abortion as the immoral killing of a person, he must also oppose birth control as murder. Weird! I could creatively apply this criterion to all manner of political, moral, and philosophical ideas, but what's the point? It would be silly, just as it is when Anonymous does it.

Anonymous said...

"We all existed in spirit form before coming down and entering the bodies of human babies being born on earth. During this 'compression' into the infant state, the memories of pre-existence is veiled."

Having children motivated by "spirit children needing to gain bodies" is not "sustainable Biology nor empirically sound" EITHER; but attacking the "irrational" religious tenets of others while having equally "irrationa" beliefs of your own is a very FOOLISH and ARROGANT kind of argumentation!!!!

truth to power said...

And another thing. How could "Apparently . . . the Pope can make mistakes. I am for correcting them all." be an insult to Catholics? It is an explicit point of Catholic doctrine that the Pope can make mistakes. But let's say, just for the sake of argument, that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility goes farther than it really does, that Catholic doctrine says the Pope can't make mistakes. OK. Then what? That just makes Lysis' remark equivalent to, "I don't believe in Catholic doctrine." Is that an insult to Catholics? Come on!

By the same token, the "much MORE arrogant and blatantly disrespectful" statement, "Apparently, the Prophet can make mistakes. I am for correcting them all!!!!" is no insult to Mormons.

Anonymous said...

Lysis proclaims that the Republican Platform sustains LIFE and is not relativist.

I proclaim that the Republican Platform accepts SOME kinds of abortion just like the Democratic Platform accepts SOME kinds of abortion -- they just do not agree on the kinds or conditions.

Lysis would like to argue numbers MURDERED by Democratic platform postitions are far greater than numbers MURDERED by Republican platform postitions. In fact he would assert that NO,NO,NO babies are murdered by the Republican platform position of LIFE, while maintaining Demo platform ALL black and Repub. Platform ALL white.

However, I see BOTH positions as allowing abortion and NOT sustaining LIFE . . . IF abortion is MURDER.

The Catholic moral position about abortion and birth control certainly seeks to ABSOLUTELY sustain LIFE by opposing ALL, ALL, ALL forms of abortion and "potential" infanticide.

SO, If a person wants to argue the EXTREME position that abortion is MURDER then it is necessary to ALSO accept the EXTREME Catholic position of the doctrine of tampering with the "male seed" being tantamount to murder", because THAT position accepts NO exceptions or forms of abortion.

It seems to me that the Republican Platform LIES because it never addresses the forms of abortion it DOES accept and allow for, while quitely sweeping all THAT death out the back door. It self-righteously PRETENDS to support LIFE, but winks, through the same back-door, all kinds of exceptions.

Of course, it is ALL political expediency when Lysis assumes a moral high ground of LIFE that is only fabricated on deception and lies!!!!

Anonymous said...

I can only point out that various times historically if a person had said or written that "The Pope can make mistakes, I am for correcting them all" it would have been so offensive to Catholics that they would start using words like heretic, infidel, or witch and start a fire to cleanse you of such thoughts.

Dan Simpson said...

It makes no sense to argue that if one believes abortion is murder that they must then accept any and all definitions of abortion no matter what.

That is tantamount to me saying those who support the right to abortion must accept my new definition of abortion which includes killing your baby within 10 hours of birth.

Both are ridiculous

Lysis said...

Truth to Power;

Thank you for your clarification; obviously someone needs things explained very clearly. I would, of course, add that while I am for correcting both errant Popes and errant Prophets, I would expect them to use their reason to correct their own mistakes; I would not presume to do so my self. However I am more than happy to provide the evidence they might consider. In some small way I begin to empathise with Galileo.


Thank you for continually providing the most absurd misinterpretations of ideas so as to allow for their careful examination and explanation. For the rest of you this will be redundant but Flaccid, this is for you.

I will begin with an analogy in hopes of opening your mind. I am against shooting criminals. For a policeman or a vigilante to round up people they suspect of criminal activity and kill them to save tax dollars and court costs or just because arresting them is inconvenient, is abhorrent. In fact policemen, vigilantes, and soldiers in Iraq who do such things need to be stopped, confined, tried, and punished for such crimes. However if a gun toting terrorist, murder, school or mall shooter, were to be wandering about randomly killing while sporting an arsenal of weapons capable of doing even more damage and a policeman, passerby, or solider shot, or brained with a brick the killer, stopping further mayhem. I should consider that policeman, passerby, or solider a hero. Yes in both cases a “criminal” would be killed, but in one case unjustly, in the other justly.

People who believe in truth and justice recognize the lines – they do not create them out of whim, convenience, or political expedience as Relativists do, and the truth enables them to act justly. To bring human action into harmony with Natural Law – you know Flaccid, the self-evident truths.

It is the same with allowing a mother to kill her unborn child to defend that mother’s life. It is a tragedy, and I imagine most mothers would rather die than kill their child, but such an abortion is reasonable and just. Not because I or the Pope, or the Prophet says so – not because I, like a relativist, draw arbitrary lines to enable my behavior, but because the preservation of your life is a justifiable reason to kill in self defense.

Since there will almost never be a case where abortion will be necessary to save the life of a mother, there will probably almost never be any abortions. Almost no abortion is a million times better than the present situation. It might well be a benefit of analysis, but it is also justice.

I anticipate your response will be that my line of self-defense is no more reasonable than a line of convenience, or the Catholic line of potential. You can say such things over and over again, in capital letters with many exclamation points, but your claim will not be true.

Your entire argument is the very pettifoggery you pretend to dislike. You concoct some absurdity and say it is the same as the truth because “you get to determine the truth if Lysis gets to”. But there is your mistake, and there was the Popes. A fertilized human egg is a human, a sperm or an egg is not. The earth goes around the sun; the sun around the earth goes not.

Killing a human to save a human life is a just if very difficult decision to make; killing a human being for other reasons is not just; it is murder.

Did you GET IT this time Flaccid?

Anonymous said...

Well, Dan, I did NOT contend "no matter what"! I DID offer a definition that 65 million Americans take seriously and that Lysis and the Republican Platform ignores -- I don't think that's as arbitrary and capricious as your "no matter what" hypothetical definition that NO ONE but yourself contends!!!!

*Even if you counted the whole Agora it would still be significantly fewer than 65 mil. Perhaps Pope Lysis could receive another dispensation of TRUTH.

Lysis said...


Above you say: “I can only point out that various times historically if a person had said or written that "The Pope can make mistakes, I am for correcting them all" it would have been so offensive to Catholics that they would start using words like heretic, infidel, or witch and start a fire to cleanse you of such thoughts.”

Isn’t it nice that the Catholics were able to be corrected, even correct themselves, in this error as well?

Lysis said...


By the way, if you think that the number of people that believe something is a measure of its truth perhaps you should figure out a way to accept the beliefs of a billion plus Catholic and a billion plus Muslims at the same time.

Can you at least admit that when millions of people believed that slavery was blessed of God it was still unjust to holed other humans in involuntary servitude, that when some tens of Millions of Germans believe that they had the right as Arians to kill off all the Jews, that when millions of Koreans believe that Kim Ill is a benevolent leader and on and on they are wrong. Do you really maintain that just because lots of people support something that makes it true?

You are indeed lost. But as they say – at least you can serve as a bad example, or should I say an example of the bad.

Cameron said...

John Noonan gives a good analysis of the Catholic stance on abortion, including the exception granted.

I understand why Anon would take exception to the exceptions many would grant in abortion cases. However, those exceptions make up just under 2% of the 1.3 million abortions done in the US.

On the other hand, one party's slogan is "safe, legal, and rare" but said party has done little to make abortion rare and in fact fights tooth and nail against any conceivable restriction placed upon it. This is the same party that has historically used the same fervor to fight against killing convicted murderers.

Bottom line, the debate is this: is the fetus a human, and under what circumstances can human beings be killed?

Dan Simpson said...


"SO, If a person wants to argue the EXTREME position that abortion is MURDER then it is necessary to ALSO accept the EXTREME Catholic position of the doctrine of tampering with the "male seed" being tantamount to murder", "

You said if one argued the one position they must accept the other. I didn't make it up, I just gave an equally ridiculous 'you must accept the extreme'.

You didn't just give the catholic position, which they are free to have, you claimed that anyone who felt abortion was murder MUST by neccessity accept that catholic extreme stance.

So, maybe stand by your words.

Anonymous said...

Killing a human to save a human life is a just, if very difficult, decision to make. -Lysis

It depends if YOU'RE the one being killed or saved.

Oh, I get it, Republicans kill, Democrats murder -- a distinction without a difference for a dead fetus!!!!

If I CHOOSE to sacrifice myself (die) for another's welfare that COULD be just -- however, if someone were to take that choice away and FORCE me to die for another, then I am not necessarily reconciled to the JUSTICE of that death, nor should I be -- I have been murdered/killed to satisfy the agenda of another -- as a means to an end -- and all the "cost benefit analysis" in the world will NOT make it JUST -- especially is it UNJUST to inflict such a fate upon the unborn.

This is a replay of my arguments about the morality of colateral damage from some time ago. Lysis argued that colateral damage was moral if the intent of the damager were JUST. I argued that intent, expediency and opportunism, no matter how "painfully or rationally derived, do not EVER JUSTIFY the killing/murder of innocents.

Cameron said...

Anon, are you arguing that abortion should be outlawed in every circumstance?

Anonymous said...

If ALL abortion is murder, then you cannot morally sanction
ANY form of abortion -- it is just logical.

The Catholic position is the ALL position.

If you morally sanction some KINDS of abortion while STILL claiming abortion is murder, then the consequence is you have defined YOURSELF as a murderer.

Catholics do not sanction ANY form of abortion.

I'm still standing.

Anonymous said...

A Catholic would argue that abortion is IMMORAL in every circumstance -- presumably contending that it should be outlawed.

MindMechanic said...

"If ALL abortion is murder, then you cannot morally sanction ANY form of abortion -- it is just logical."

I agree with this position (with one caveat-aborted babies are slaughtered...they are not murdered. It is not against the law, therefore they can not be 'murdered'. Sorry for the word play).

I think all abortion is wrong and for precisely the same reason.

I despise the milquetoast mindset of people that say "well...PERSONALLY I think it's wrong...BUT...its not my place to say." Garbage. If you believe it is wrong then stand for your values. It is WRONG. Who are you to say? Who are you NOT to say?

The problem here is this silly little battle allows the debate to devolve. We arent talking about 1.3 million babies being slaughtered because the mothers lives are at stake. We are not talking about the great majority being victims of rape or victims of incest. The vast and great majority of babies slaughtered are down so because they are 'inconvenient.'

Cameron said...

Which is exactly why I don't understand your position on abortion, MM. If a million people are being slaughtered somewhere, shoudn't that be against the law?

Cameron said...


So you're playing Catholic devil's advocate.

I wonder, though, what your stance on abortion is?

MindMechanic said...


I understand your disagreement with my position...let me make it as clear as possible.

If abortion had never been declared legal...happy days. Sort of. Abortions still occurred but it was much easier to ignore the ongoing pain.

But abortion WAS legalized. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Any movement now to simply BAN abortion will simply have devastating effects to many many people.

My position is simple...make it as absolutely unnecessary as possible. Those that claim they really care about the babies and victims...I say put up or shut up. ONCE that has been complied with...once national trends have been reversed, once we have displayed our humanity, not our faith, not our politics, but our simple humanity...THEN we can talk about the legalization portion. Not before.

I think if abortion were to be banned there would still be a LOT of abortions performed, a lot of criminals created, and a lot of pain. I believe there is a better way and it starts with both sides living their words.

My family discussed this issue tonight. Using my wife as an example the question was asked "what would we do if carrying the baby to term meant my wife would most likely die." My answer is this...I would pray. I would gather my family and pray. I would counsel with her parents, with her family, with our children, and most importantly (and obviously) with her. And in the end we would decide. I have no idea what that decision might be.

And I dont want a doctor or lawyer or judge or the law making that decision for my family.

Lysis said...


You’re not still standing, you never stood. You have failed to acknowledge the fact that sometimes people are justly killed. You never mention the policeman who justly shot a Muslim kid, someone’s beloved child, in a Mall in Salt Lake. This young killer, a possible terrorist, was surely forced to die for the benefit of others. What made that compulsion just – though against his will? It was that he was killing others. Surely all of us would have preferred to see the boy disarmed and rehabilitated, but he was killed as a means to an end, the sparing of the lives of those he sought to kill. This is justice.

I will give you another analogy in my efforts to lift you to some level of understanding. An innocent child is inside a burning house. The mother of that child, across the street at the neighbors, rushes up to the sidewalk outside her burning home; she hears the screams of her child caught in the raging inferno. Surely she has a duty to rush into the flames, to snatch her child to safety, but she realizes that the flames are too intense, that her efforts will prove fatal. She is justified in choosing not to die even in the defense of her own innocent child. Compare her tragic loss to murder committed by a mother who chooses to burn her child to death because that child is too expensive to care for, too much trouble to tend, an annoyance to her career, and interference in her dating and love life. Your refusal to see the difference between these situations is proof of your flop.

We have and enforce laws against mothers who kill their children for convenience, or comfort, or to make way for their careers. We do not punish mothers who fail to die in an attempt to save a child, rather we reach out with compassion to them in their life long suffering.

Your impotent claim is that the line between just self-defense and murder cannot be drawn and it is therefore it is impossible to legislate against any murder of children.

As Cameron and Mindmechanic have both pointed out, you are only making this argument to cloud the issue. Your sputtering is proof that your position just doesn’t stand up at all.


You ask Flaccid what his stance on abortion is. He has no stance on anything, his flaccid pose is always a knee jerk reaction to any Republican position and more sadly to any claim I might make. His compulsion is to be contrary; reason does not enter in.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...


The next time the opportunity presents itself try this conversation, if you please:

Using your wife as an example ask the question, "what would we do if razing our youngest child meant my wife would most likely have to give up her career, or lose an opportunity to go on a vacation, or to get a bigger house for the rest of our family, or a new car for our teenage son? Would it be okay to kill that child?" Would your answer still be;...I would pray. I would gather my family and pray. I would counsel with her parents, with her family, with our other children, and most importantly (and obviously) with her. And in the end we would decide. I have no idea what that decision might be.

If that is still the conclusion you would come to then I will disagree with you.

It is surely the place of the just laws to make such a decision for your family. As you have said, the question is – is an unborn child still a child. Is an unborn baby a human being? Since it is - reason and biology demand it is so – then the just laws of man must conform to the eternal laws, the natural laws, the mind of reason.

MindMechanic said...


"Using your wife as an example ask the question..."

Regarding your example...of course not and that is precisely the point I was making a few point s back. The debate gets polluted with histrionics and we end up ignoring the very real fact that the great majority of abortions are done because the pregnancy is inconvenient or worse, just an afterthought to reckless personal behavior and choices. Those lives do not need to be so easily disposed. I think an era of teaching consequence and personal responsibility, of modeling responsibility, of a willingness to educate for prevention sake, and of eliminating programs that encourage unwed mothers would have a dramatic impact...far more so than any legislation. I think a committment by community leaders to preach and teach responsibility would also have a dramatic impact.

"It is surely the place of the just laws to make such a decision for your family. As you have said, the question is – is an unborn child still a child. Is an unborn baby a human being? Since it is - reason and biology demand it is so – then the just laws of man must conform to the eternal laws, the natural laws, the mind of reason."

Which is MY problem with the people that take the "I believe it is wrong but it's not my place to say" stand.

The problem here is that definition...just laws. Several European countries are now adopting laws that all but mandate the extermination of children born with potential handicaps. In Italy recently a 13 year old was court ordered to have an abortion because her parents demanded it. Its not getting better it is getting worse. Human life is on the downswing in Europe and they are not fighting it, they are striking up the band to usher it out.

I remember the old Billy Joel song (how it pains me to use the word 'old' there...) "We didnt start the fire." Abortion became law some 30 years ago. We cant undo it...not without immediate and catastrophic damage. We CAN work together to bring about change.

So I guess in the end do you want abortion illegal or do you want the practice to end so that lives are saved. They will not both have necessarily the same results.

BTW...just food for wife's position (without having to actually face the choice) would be to have the baby...and risk her own life. Isn't that just like a mother.

MindMechanic said...

BTW...I think it is interesting how easily political discussions where abortion is involved so easily become dominated by the topic of abortion.

In the initial posting there are many valuable points and questions asked. What will be done with immigration reform? Race relations? The economy? Education? Taxes? Homeland security? The war on terror? What will the leading candidate from each party do about these things?

Cameron said...

MM, you've probably already posted it, but what exactly would you advocate doing in order to prevent abortions? I ask this in the context of what has just been written about the reasons given by women seeking an abortion.

Can't we have both? Can't we be caring and loving and respectful of women and children (and fathers!) through various means, but also seek the reversal of an unjust law?

MindMechanic said...


All good questions.

Just my personal opinion...

For the last 30 years there has been this pro and anti abortion battle waging. My opinion is that both sides have used it as a political weapon.

What can be done? Dedicate all the resources used to fight the political battle to actually do good. To set up birth clinics as opposed to abortion clinics. to show women there really is an option. To BE Christlike love and not Godlike judgment and wrath.

The best way to win a tug of war is to let go of the rope. Show your intent in actions. When given a contrast between love and support and blind hatred and anger...I can guess which side wins.

I have counseled young women that have had abortions and they are in incredible pain. Not just from the psychological damage of the procedure but from the feelings of scorn and hate they feel from people that purport to love and care for them. I KNOW that of course they are using it as a defense mechanism...but it doesnt make those feelings any less real.

Imagine the impact if people were there to hold comfort offer them love and hope instead of yelling at them, screaming at them, and calling them names.

I dont know...maybe my position is too simplisitic. I just think that the billions that are being used to picket and lobby could be better applied giving hope and help. If you change peoples hearts you have a legitimate hope of changing peoples minds. And THAT will at least reduce and hopefully bring an end to the practice of abortion.

I just wonder...of the 44 million lives lost, how many might have been saved if the woman had an option. How many abortions would have been prevented if prevention and responsibility was the message du-joir. If the men had been held to accountability and also been made responsible. If fathers had been available to teach their sons, to expect responsibility and to love through consequences.

Rumpole said...


I do not understand your definition of “just laws.” Are you suggesting the European law that mandates the extermination of children with potential handicaps is “just?” The “proposition” may have followed all procedures to become law; it may even be supported by the majority of citizens in its jurisdiction; but does that make it “just?”

You post “Any movement now to simply BAN abortion will simply have devastating effects to many many people.” While this is difficult, especially when discussing human life, it seems to lead to a discussion of collateral damage. In ordered to be persuaded to accept you position I need to be convinced that those “devastating effects” are greater than the murder of generations of unborn.

On the subject of slavery, Thomas Jefferson said:

“The bill on the subject of slaves, was a mere digest of the existing laws respecting them, without any intimation of a plan for a future and general emancipation. It was thought better that this should be kept back, and attempted only by way of amendment, whenever the bill should be brought on. The principles of the amendment, however, were agreed on, that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day, and deportation at a proper age. But it was found that the public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it bear it even at this day. Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt it, or worse will follow.”

Slavery has always been wrong. Jefferson knew it. Apparently he felt that the collateral damage created by waiting for future generations to deal with the slavery issue was necessary.

I don’t see the same application for abortion. Millions have died; millions more will die; should my government sanction those murders to prevent otherwise “devastating effects on many, many people”; heck, should I be forced to pay for those murders because the potential “devastating effects” to many people by ceasing them outweigh the importance, and the right to life of the unborn?

At the risk of being redundant, this is the critical question: What are these "devastating effects?" Do they outweigh the deaths of millions of unborn?

You post: “So I guess in the end do you want abortion illegal or do you want the practice to end so that lives are saved. They will not both have necessarily the same results.”

I want both. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but it seems to me that your implication is that if abortions are banned, abortions will continue at the same rate and be done in such a way that will not only murder the child, but also put the mother’s life (both physically and emotionally) in grave danger.

I would suggest that if abortions are banned, they will still probably continue on some level; however, to suggest they will continue at the same rate is debatable.

Irrespective of that argument, I have trouble with the thought of looking at an individual and telling him I sanctioned his death in order to protect the life of the one who have had him murdered.

Convince me otherwise

Lysis said...


Well stated. As Cicero said, “what is right and true is also eternal and does not depend on the statutes of men.

Just as just law bans other murders despite their persistence, just law must ban the murder of the unborn.

MindMechanic said...


"I do not understand your definition of “just laws.”

Ask the majority in Europe and they will tell you that their laws are 'just' which is why I emphasized the point. The plain and simple fact of the matter is we dont often get 'just' least not laws that most Christians would define as 'just'.

Want a better example? Abortion is is the law of the land. A large enough percentage of the people believe that it IS 'just' and that is why it still stands. Change THEIR hearts and you can change the law.

"Are you suggesting the European law that mandates the extermination of children with potential handicaps is “just?”

Of course not. I AM suggesting that that law is not some draconian leftover that has not cleared the is a NEW law passed by 'enlightened' individuals.

The simple fact is we dont GET 'just' laws...we just get laws.

"I need to be convinced that those “devastating effects” are greater than the murder of generations of unborn."

I would never try. Thats not the point. Lets try this. Abortion has been a political football for three decades. 44 million lives have been lost. Change peoples hearts and you can change peoples minds. Attack them and call them names and threaten laws they currently believe in and they simply stiffen their necks and resolve. And 30 years from now you will have another 44 million or so lives lost.

Surely people that work in the scouting program understand this concept. Try to FORCE a soul so rebellious and what are the results? Now...what are the results if you demonstrate by deed your love for that individual? In the are far more likely to get what you want...and for all the right reasons.

since you brought up the slavery issue...the north passed laws attempting to coerce the south and it had devastating impact. I personally believe (as has been pointed out by many that are much smarter than me) that if the north had worked with and continued to discuss the issue of slavery, that it would have run it's course and the impact on long term race relations would have had a far less devastating effect. Of course we cant know for sure...

But Maybe Jefferson had a point. Some states had already banned slavery before we became united. Laws and policies changed regularly banning the importation of slavery shortly after we became a country. Maybe there was a better way.

Your points, in order...

"should my government sanction those murders to prevent otherwise “devastating effects on many, many people”"

Libertarian federal government should revoke federal law governing abortion and allow the states to choose.

"should I be forced to pay for those murders because the potential “devastating effects” to many people by ceasing them outweigh the importance, and the right to life of the unborn?"

Answer HECK no...but then...this shouldnt be about money. The taxpayers have no business being forced into shouldering the burden for extra-constitutional practices.

But would you be willing to voluntarily contribute to an open book trust established to provide options and opportunities to women that faced the decision of having or aborting a child?

"What are these "devastating effects?"

Mental disorders. Crippling depression. Lowered self esteem leading to more pregnancies. Suicide. Back alley abortions. Children born and killed by parents. Children born and dying of malnutrition. Children born and dying because all the people that purport to care for them by fighting the abortion laws go back to their happy lives and ignore the impact.

"Do they outweigh the deaths
of millions of unborn?"

No comparison. One is not better or worse than the other. Both are tragic. I care about both. I'll let God take care of the judgment part.

"I want both."

Good. So do I. Has that message not yet sunk in? I think the answer is to work to create the environment where it becomes no longer necessary. Then, by all means, pass the laws.

"if abortions are banned, abortions will continue at the same rate and be done in such a way that will not only murder the child, but also put the mother’s life (both physically and emotionally) in grave danger."

I dont pretend to know at what rate abortions will continue. I do know that those of means will have private doctors perform abortions or will send their women to countries where it is legal. I know the poor will do what was done in the past.

I am sure some babies will be born. And THAT concerns me, and heres why.

I believe that (if) once abortion is banned, all those caring people will pat themselves on the back and move on to other causes. I believe those children will be born and will suffer. Am I wrong? There is a simple way to find out...prove it up front. Show the care and concern BEFORE you change the laws. If the intent truly is to care for the lives of the unborn then care for them when they are born as well.

"Irrespective of that argument, I have trouble with the thought of looking at an individual and telling him I sanctioned his death in order to protect the life of the one who have had him murdered."

Sounds to me then that this argument is with Lysis and those that stated that they accept the idea of abortion where the life of the mother is at risk.

"Convince me otherwise"

Not bloody likely.

MindMechanic said...

Please understand that I get the concept of 'just laws'.

I wonder if you get it that at least half the country doesnt agree with your version of 'just' and what you left with is an ideal...not a reality. Just laws...not 'just' laws.

SIMPSON said...

I understand MM's stance that the mind set must be changed.

At the same time, I think it is important to stand strong on the idea that the law should be changed. I don't think these two things must be considered separate fights.

Coincidentally, the best example of this idea that I can think of is in a movie that just came out on Friday.

I went and saw Amazing Grace, the story of William Wilberforce and the fight for abolition in England.

It is fantastic, I would recommend it to one and all.

Especially if you are already a fan of Ioan Gruffeld (Horatio Hornblower).

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lysis said...


I strongly feel that the number of people who disagree with the right does not impact the change the truth about it. I do appreciate your wisdom in finding a way to change rather than simply challenge those who are in “darkness”. I agree with the man who said, “We must be as gentle as lambs and as wise as serpents.” I am also reminded that the same man said we should be anxiously engaged in a good work.


I join with you in encouraging Mindmechanic and everyone else to see Amazing Grace,

Perhaps you and he would consider the Post I have just put up for discussion as an opportunity to continue these thoughts and to discuss the movie and the life of William Wilberforce.

Anonymous said...

what about Ron Paul? He is running on the Republican ticket.

Anonymous said...

I'm a creature of repetition, so I don't feel too terribly compelled to check the other comments to see if I'm just blathering on about something that's already been discussed to the point of tatters. But really... The fiction of Global Warming? I don't often keep up with the news, I'd rather like to keep my brains inside my skull, but if I remember correctly, the term "global warming" has been updated to a more accurate "global climate change". So cold snaps don't really dispel anything, in fact they might just confirm it. (Although I'm more inclined to think that this recent freeze is just weather being weather, as it will do from time to time.) I also seem to recall something about panels of scientists proclaiming this climate change to be very real and, at an "overwhelming probability", something to be blamed on human activities. I'm one for scientific evidence over propaganda, myself. Although, of course, sometimes those two do tend to meld together... Sorting things out can get a tad bit tricky.

My whining aside, I was a student of yours not too long ago, and we got to watch a little bit of "I, Claudius" in class. May I just say that this series is absolutely BRILIIANT?! Well, I just did, so there. I checked it out from the library, and the rest of the series is proving to be just as wonderful as those handful of episodes we students were exposed to in our studies. I think I may look for Robert Grave's books when I'm through. 'Course, as works of historical fiction, I imagine some of the details aren't entirely accurate, but nevertheless it is a fun way to get involved with ancient Rome. Thanks much!

Lord Of The Thems said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Colton McBride said...

I am a big hater of politics, as you very well may know, although I suppose there are times when the discussion of politics may be at times necessary and worthwhile.

I would like to say a thing or two about the killing of the unborn.

I am the most conservative person you will ever meet, as an Anarcho-Nordicist. From where I stand, it seems it doesn't get much more conservative than that, I beleive in the conservation of the unspoiled culture, traditions, and identity of my race and heritage, as well as the conservation of natural law.

However, I am a big fan and supporter of technology as well.

Abortion is a marvelous scientific advancement. Previous generations would be in awe if they could see that we have accomplished what many women throughout the earth's history have desperately hoped for, but never actually supposed possible. And that is, to abort an unborn fetus.

Abortion falls under some people's definition of murder. So what?

This is my statement reguarding my views on abortion:

No person's moral opinion, whether it be the voice of one or the voice of the popular vote, should ever get in the way of the advancement of science.

If you think abortion is wrong, don't get an abortion.

If you think abortion should be punishable by law, live your own life. BACK OFF and let people live their lives and make their own choices.