Stephen, You are right. It doesn't make sense to show my views on someone without any documentation on what it is about them that causes me to come to that opinion.
With embeddeds I tried give facts to back up my view, and let the readers make up their own minds. It is silly to expect people to agree with my ideas just because I express them. (as best I could with my poor ability to put my thoughts into words).
So that's what I will attempt to do from now on. Show documentation and let others draw their own conclutions. Here is information on his voting record.
http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/John_Ashcroft.htm#Civil_Rights
John Ashcroft on Abortion
Opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest. (Dec 23)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 20)
Voted NO on allowing partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May 1999)
John Ashcroft on Budget & Economy
Helped balance budget; now pay down national debt. (Nov 7)
Pay off the national debt. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 5)
Voted NO on $500B Omnibus spending bill. (Oct 1998)
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)
John Ashcroft on China
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 19)
Voted NO on trade sanctions if China sells weapons of mass destruction. (Sep 13)
Voted YES on China in WTO. (Mar 1999)
John Ashcroft on Civil Rights
Against affirmative action. (Dec 23)
Blocked appointment of black judge in Missouri. (Dec 23)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 20)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
John Ashcroft on Crime
Click here for 6 full quotes OR click here for presidential candidates on Crime.
Oversaw 7 executions as Governor of Missouri. (Dec 23)
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
John Ashcroft on Defense
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May 1999)
Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May 1999)
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)
John Ashcroft on Drugs
Zealous proponent of the war on drugs. (Dec 23)
Tougher anti-meth laws. (Nov 7)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
John Ashcroft on Education
For Ed-Flex; against national testing. (Nov 7)
Send "direct checks" to local school districts. (Sep 9)
Voted YES on declaring that memorial prayers and religious symbols at sch. (May 1999)
Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (Mar 1999)
John Ashcroft on Environment
Voted YES on killing budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 6)
Voted NO on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
John Ashcroft on Families & Children
Fight the assault on the American family. (Sep 9)
Focus on kids: drug-free schools & good health care. (Sep 9)
Voted NO on restricting violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
John Ashcroft on Foreign Policy
Vehement opponent of the expansion of NATO. (Nov 7)
UN has no say in deployment of US forces. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (Apr 1998)
Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar 1996)
John Ashcroft on Free Trade & Immigration
Fair trade: partner with friends, challenge rivals. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 11)
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm work. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Voted YES on fast track trading authority. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
John Ashcroft on Government Reform
Make government smaller; cut corporate welfare. (Oct 1998)
Govt exists to help people prosper, not to grow govt. (Jun 1998)
Judicial activism means failing to defend the Constitution. (Mar 1997)
Voted NO on limiting funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999)
Voted NO on ending some agricultural subsidies. (Jun 1998)
Voted NO on cloture of 1998 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Feb 1998)
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
Voted YES on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)
John Ashcroft on Gun Control
Tough penalties for gun crimes, but allow concealed carry. (Dec 23)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted YES on requiring licensing & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
John Ashcroft on Health Care
Voted against penalties on tobacco companies. (Dec 23)
Medicare lockbox; more funding too. (Nov 7)
$150M for basic health care for uninsured. (Sep 9)
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 22)
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on increasing funds for Medicare prescriptions. (Mar 1999)
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Voted NO on medical savings acounts. (Apr 1996)
John Ashcroft on Juvenile Crime
Tougher school rules keep schools safe. (Nov 7)
More parental involvement to reduce juvenile crime. (Sep 9)
John Ashcroft on Kosovo
Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in Kosovo. (May 1999)
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
John Ashcroft on Principles & Values
Clinton should fully disclose about Monica & resign if true. (Mar 1998)
John Ashcroft on School Choice
Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2)
Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
John Ashcroft on Social Security
Repeal the Social Security Earnings Test. (Nov 7)
Architect of the Social Security lockbox. (Nov 5)
Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax reductions. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr 1999)
Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
John Ashcroft on Tax Reform
Eliminate marriage penalty; target child credits. (Nov 7)
Eliminate marriage penalty; make IRS more accountable. (Nov 7)
Cut tax rates to 10% for middle class & 25% maximum. (Oct 1998)
Abolish the death tax & other taxes as part of $1.7T tax cut. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 18)
Voted YES on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 14)
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr 1998)
Voted YES on FY99 tax cuts. (Apr 1998)
John Ashcroft on Technology
Microsoft has a monopoly share of the market. (Dec 23)
Fight off bureaucratic regulations to promote technology. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
John Ashcroft on Welfare & Labor
More focus on agricultural trade abroad. (Nov 7)
Allow states to contract with charitable organizations. (Nov 7)
Charitable Choice helps break cycle of poverty. (Sep 9)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)
Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Answers
Cherri:
This is excellent on the whole, but these thumbnail sketches probably
do frequent injustice to nuanced positions. You get a hint of this
problem from the following:
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on requiring licensing & background checks at gun shows.
(May 1999)
OK, now does Ashcroft want background checks at gun shows or not? The
first statement says NO background checks, the second says YES,
background checks should be required. So which is it? This is
disturbing because both of these "positions" seem clear and
unequivocal according to these descriptions, yet also seem to be
mutually exclusive.
This raises some question as to how many of these positions that ALSO
seem clear and unequivocal actually mean the opposite of what they
say (because ONE of the above positions can't be right). And some of
these positions don't seem very clear at all.
Furthermore, these descriptions are too brief to let us know WHY he
may have voted as he did. If there were any noxious riders attached
to any of these bills, we are not told. If there are TWO bills being
considered to (for example) reform campaign financing and only the
one he votes against is mentioned, this implies he opposes reform
without telling us about the other (and possibly better) bill. In his
6 years in the Senate, he voted on a lot more bills than are listed
here. Which ones are omitted, and why?
Nonetheless, this is a lot more than most of us offer, so thank you.
One thing that strikes me is that you can go down this long list of
positions (interpreted as best you can) and find that you agree with
some and disagree with others. Unless your political basket contains
only a single egg, you have to decide whether, *on balance*, this guy
is acceptable.
This is not an easy task. I personally agree with nearly every
position he takes, *except* for abortion and the war on drugs. But as
Attorney General, he's likely to have far more influence in these
areas than in health care or tax reform. On the other hand, I'm a big
supporter of his positions on affirmative action and gun control, two
other areas where he is likely to make a difference. And his
willingness to see more religion in classrooms is flat scary.
So I'm inclined to support him, but not very enthusiastically, and
only because any alternative might well be even worse. But that's
politics. Ashcroft ain't great, but he ain't quite intolerable either.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
You prove how stupid you are every time you put your fingers to a
keyboard. Why
would you post that without telling people exactly what you agree
with and disagree
with? I am not going to try to tell people to believe
what I believe. I will just post what i ind and allow people to
read and make their decision on their own.(Why is it when I
click on one of your posts it seems like I smell your dirty
armpits? I give up, why? Is it only because you do not
agree with me? Can you smell through your computer? Or is this
an atempt to insult me just because you do not like what I post?
Should we take up a collection to buy you some personal care
products
Cherri? Would you even use them if we did?) Should I hurl
childish insults back at you? Na... why lower myself down to your
leval?
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Flint, if you go to the site you will find hyperlinks to more
information on the votes. I believe there are were different votes on
the same subject, perhaps changed a bit.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Ashcroft as a Republican Senator used his position on the Judiciary
Committee to block Clinton's judicial appointment that would have put
the first Black on the Missouri Supreme Court. He distorted Ronnie
White's record and achieved a partisan 55-45 vote to reject the
nomination.
He supports an outright ban on abortion, even in the case of incest.
He supports life in prison for doctors that perform "partial birth"
abortions. He tried to ban all aid to unwed mothers in the 1996
welfare reform. He hailed Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and
Jefferson Davis as "patriots."
Jesse Helms is the only Senator with a more dismal voting record.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
“He distorted Ronnie White's record and achieved a partisan 55-45
vote to reject the nomination.”
Who says he distorted Mr. White’s record? If Mr. White were white,
would anyone care? Should Mr. White have been nominated because he IS
an African American? Should all African American’s be automatically
accepted because they ARE? Personally, when Jesse or Al speak out in
opposition to the likes of Sen. Ashcroft I will vote for that person
on principal. Never listen to pimps like Jackson and Sharpton…….trust
me on this………their agenda is NOT yours.
Cherri, are you currently on welfare or receiving any public
assistance? That would explain your insistant ravings.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Actually, I don't need to do this. As Flint said, if the People For
The American Way don't like Ashcroft, that's reason enough to support
him. :)
But here y' go: drum roll, please!
Opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest. (Dec 23)
I don't agree with this is in full, but he's hardly the only one with
this position.
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun
20)
Good.
Voted NO on allowing partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Good!
Voted YES on disallowing overseas military abortions. (May
1999)
Good.
Helped balance budget; now pay down national debt. (Nov 7)
Good. I'm glad.
Pay off the national debt. (Oct 1998)
Good.
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
(Apr 5)
Good.
Voted NO on $500B Omnibus spending bill. (Oct 1998)
Good.
Voted NO on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Good.
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar
1997)
Good.
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep
19)
I disagree with this one.
Voted NO on trade sanctions if China sells weapons of mass
destruction. (Sep 13)
I disagree with this one, but I also don't believe this one is
correct. It has the stink of spin.
Voted YES on China in WTO. (Mar 1999)
Ditto previous response.
Against affirmative action. (Dec 23)
This is spin, an oversimplification. But even taken at face value, I
agree. Hey, even *CLINTON* supported some of this stuff, didn't he? :)
Blocked appointment of black judge in Missouri. (Dec 23)
An oversimplification, and we've discussed this elsewhere.
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation.
(Jun 20)
I disagree with so-called "hate crimes" legislation in any form. If I
shoot you, it's hardly an act of love, anyway you swing it. :)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities &
women. (Mar 1998)
Hallelujah.
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned
business. (Oct 1997)
Hallelujah.
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation.
(Sep 1996)
I disagree with him here. But then, I'm not happy with affirmative
action in general, so this is a mixed bag.
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
I strongly disagree with this one. Freedom of speech and expression.
Oversaw 7 executions as Governor of Missouri. (Dec 23)
This one disappoints me. You mean, he could only find 7 people in his
entire prison system who deserved to die? :)
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program.
(May 1999)
Good. It was a boondoggle from the word "go."
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Hallelujah.
Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards.
(Mar 1996)
Hallelujah.
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Hallelujah.
Voted YES on repealing federal speed limits. (Jun 1995)
Hallelujah, amplified and echoed in the Grand Canyon! States should
set their own blamed limits!
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
(Oct 1999)
Because it would have restricted *US* to much. I agree with this one.
Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (May
1999)
To save money? Good.
Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May
1999)
To save money as well. Good.
Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
They deserved a lot more than that. What we pay our military is
scandalous.
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Hallelujah, with echoes and sound effects! :)
Voted NO on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
This is meaningless; I'd need more detail to respond.
Voted NO on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
Until everyone around the world agrees to the ban, I'm agin' it, too.
Good.
Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (Sep 1995)
Not specific enough. If he supports a strong military, good.
Zealous proponent of the war on drugs. (Dec 23)
I disagree with him here. The WOD is a waste of money and time.
Tougher anti-meth laws. (Nov 7)
Have no idea what this means.
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
See above.
For Ed-Flex; against national testing. (Nov 7)
A mixed bag; they cancel out.
Send "direct checks" to local school districts. (Sep 9)
I don't understand this one, either.
Voted YES on declaring that memorial prayers and religious symbols
at sch. (May 1999)
... the sentence was apparently cut off. If he voted for the
*required* observance of any religious ceremony in a public school, I
strongly disagree. But since this isn't specified, call this another
"huh?"
Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules.
(Mar 1999)
Don't know what this means.
Voted YES on killing budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 6)
Don't know what this means.
Voted NO on keeping CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (Sep 1999)
I have mixed feelings on this.
Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep
1999)
Good.
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
GOOD! About time we quit wasting money on that boondoggle. If
alternative energies are to be developed, let it be done by the
private sector.
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Don't know what this means.
Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests.
(Sep 1997)
Good. That way, I can drive through them and enjoy nature. That annoys
the tree huggers (who would rather I walked), but they can suck my
sweaty socks. :)
Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
Good. What were we supposed to do, let it sit and fester?
Fight the assault on the American family. (Sep 9)
Have no idea what this means.
Focus on kids: drug-free schools & good health care. (Sep 9)
Who would be opposed to this? Good.
Voted NO on restricting violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Interesting. But since this is a censorship issue, GOOD. That's the
parent's job, NOT some government agency's. (My definition of
"violence" might be different from someone else's -- what if I'm a
hunter who likes to take my kids hunting with me, and likes to show
them videos of same? Is that "violent?")
Vehement opponent of the expansion of NATO. (Nov 7)
A vehement HALLELUJAH from Stephen is the response.[g]
UN has no say in deployment of US forces. (Mar 1998)
An even MORE vehement HALLELUJAH from Stephen, complete with special
effects, is the response.[g]
Voted YES on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
A yet still even *MORE* vehement HALLELUJAH ... you get the picture.
;)
Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic
sanctions. (Jul 1998)
Good.
Voted YES on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary &
Czech. (Apr 1998)
Good.
Voted NO on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
Hallelujah.
Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (Mar
1996)
Good. One day, Castro might get the message. Until then, I'll smoke
Honduran cigars, thank you. :)
Fair trade: partner with friends, challenge rivals. (Oct 1998)
Hallelujah.
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 11)
... who would oppose this? Good.
Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the U.S. for farm
work. (Jul 1998)
I have no strong opinion on this either way.
Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
Good.
Voted YES on fast track trading authority. (Nov 1997)
I have no strong opinion on this either way.
Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
It would be impossible to describe the special effects on this
ear-splitting "HALLELUJAH," so I won't even try. :)
Make government smaller; cut corporate welfare. (Oct 1998)
Good.
Govt exists to help people prosper, not to grow govt. (Jun
1998)
Good.
Judicial activism means failing to defend the Constitution. (Mar
1997)
I agree.
Voted NO on limiting funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts. (Aug 1999)
This has to be a typo. He opposes the NEA, as do I.
Voted NO on ending some agricultural subsidies. (Jun 1998)
I disagree with this one.
Voted NO on cloture of 1998 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign
finance. (Feb 1998)
I disagree with this one, but Ashcroft is hardly the only one who
voted against this one.
Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign
finance. (Oct 1997)
See previous response.
Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar
1996)
GOOD.
Voted YES on replacing farm price supports. (Feb 1996)
GOOD.
Voted YES on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul
1995)
Double GOOD.
Tough penalties for gun crimes, but allow concealed carry. (Dec
23)
Triple GOOD.
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
See Flint's comments above. He caught this one before I did. Which
does he believe?
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May
1999)
I have no strong opinion on this one.
Voted YES on requiring licensing & background checks at gun shows.
(May 1999)
See above.
Voted against penalties on tobacco companies. (Dec 23)
GOOD. That is a legal product which some people chose to use of their
own free will. It is WRONG to come back to the tobacco companies and
make THEM pay because people freely chose to use their products.
Medicare lockbox; more funding too. (Nov 7)
?
$150M for basic health care for uninsured. (Sep 9)
?
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun
22)
It would take too long to give my opinion on this one.
Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul
1999)
I disagree with this one.
Voted NO on increasing funds for Medicare prescriptions. (Mar
1999)
See above.
Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
Good.
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
HALLELUJAH.
Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
Good.
Voted NO on medical savings accounts. (Apr 1996)
Be more specific.
Tougher school rules keep schools safe. (Nov 7)
Be more specific.
More parental involvement to reduce juvenile crime. (Sep 9)
Good.
Voted YES on allowing all necessary forces and other means in
Kosovo. (May 1999)
I disagree with our involvement in Kosovo, but if we're going to be
there, let's bring the whole toolkit and get it over with.
Voted NO on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
I disagree with this one. See the previous.
Voted YES on ending the Bosnian arms embargo. (Jul 1995)
I disagree with this one.
Clinton should fully disclose about Monica & resign if true. (Mar
1998)
I'm not ABOUT to re-open this can of worms. :)
Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2)
Good.
Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
Good.
Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
Good.
Repeal the Social Security Earnings Test. (Nov 7)
Good.
Architect of the Social Security lockbox. (Nov 5)
I have no idea what this means.
Voted YES on using the Social Security Surplus to fund tax
reductions. (Jul 1999)
This is spin. Ashcroft didn't do that.
Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (Apr
1999)
I have no idea what this means.
Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
Good.
Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
Good.
Eliminate marriage penalty; target child credits. (Nov 7)
Hallelujah.
Eliminate marriage penalty; make IRS more accountable. (Nov 7)
More special effects on this "hallelujah!" :)
Cut tax rates to 10% for middle class & 25% maximum. (Oct 1998)
Good.
Abolish the death tax & other taxes as part of $1.7T tax cut. (Oct
1998)
YES! Good.
Voted YES on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (Jul 18)
Good.
Voted YES on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 14)
Hallelujah!
Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
Too open-ended. Be more specific.
Voted YES on $792B tax cuts. (Jul 1999)
Good.
Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr
1998)
Please, Lord, let this one finally pass someday! Good for Ashcroft!
Voted YES on FY99 tax cuts. (Apr 1998)
Good.
Microsoft has a monopoly share of the market. (Dec 23)
I agree with him; they do. So, apparently, did the judge in the
anti-trust case.
Fight off bureaucratic regulations to promote technology. (Oct
1998)
Good.
Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
GOOD!
Voted YES on telecomm deregulation. (Feb 1996)
GOOD!
More focus on agricultural trade abroad. (Nov 7)
Good.
Allow states to contract with charitable organizations. (Nov 7)
Don't know what this means.
Charitable Choice helps break cycle of poverty. (Sep 9)
He's absolutely right. The government very rarely helps people get out
of poverty.
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov
1999)
Good.
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime &
comp-time. (May 1997)
Good.
Voted YES on welfare block grants. (Aug 1996)
Good.
Voted YES on allowing state welfare waivers. (Jul 1996)
Good.
Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (Sep 1995)
Fabulously good. (That's roughly equivalent to a "hallelujah."[g])
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Black Adder,
He hailed Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis as
"patriots."
They WERE patriots.
If you don't believe it, you should've asked my granddaddy. :)
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Stephen:
I looked up the vote on gun shows. The first vote is as represented,
against background checks at shows. The second vote is a YES vote in
favor of TABLING an amendment that would have required such
background checks. So Ashcroft has a straight NRA position here --
let us have our guns, and punish the hell out of anyone who abuses
the privilege.
I share your positions here on all but abortion, which I consider a
personal and NOT a government decision. Your position confuses me,
and always will. Why do you support someone who *forces* his religion
onto someone else? Would you like it if I forced you to have an
abortion? Do you only support force so long as your religion gets to
do the forcing? This is a double standard. Still, the legislature
exists to pass stupid laws as well as wise ones, and we learn from
experience and elect someone else to correct the damage later, over
and over. Let's hope Ashcroft doesn't push this intrusive nonsense
too hard.
And I do think there should be some licencing of doctors generally. I
won't go the whole Ayn Rand hog and argue that if you go to a brain
surgeon and he screws it up, just go to someone else next time. That
strikes me as a bit extreme...
All in all, except for abortion and drugs and religion in the
classrooms Ashcroft seems a pretty damn good choice. But for me,
those are BIG exceptions.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Stephen-
They were Confederate patriots. By their actions, they were anti-
American, though they may have regretted fighting the US. Calling
them patriots is only telling half the story.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Why do you support someone who *forces* his religion onto someone
else? Would you like it if I forced you to have an abortion? Do you
only support force so long as your religion gets to do the forcing?
This is a double standard.
Now theres some skewed logic, if I ever saw it. "Forcing someone to
have an abortion" isn't quite the same as laws AGAINST killing the
unborn.
We have plenty of laws, are we therefore "forcing" people against
their will, not to kill, rape, murder, and steal?
Just curious Flint, any problems with a mom or dad who elects to use
their personal choice to kill their three month old baby? Aren't we
kind of "forcing" them by having laws against such stuff? really....
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Clearing the itallics.
To further the discussion though, we have laws against killing, we
used to have laws that prohibited abortion. Now, we still can't kill
a born child, but if we insert scissors into its head as its exiting
the womb, we can call it partial birth abortion and its "legal." It
seems to me, that the inconsistancies are with those who support
abortion as a "choice."
So some say we should leave "religion" out of it. So what do you
suggest we use for our basis of laws, our collective beliefs and
feelings? Well, for many this includes religious beliefs. Are these
ok, or are only secular beliefs allowed, i.e., we are all equal but
some are more equal than others ala Orwell? If we exclude religous
beliefs, do we have to go with um, what I want? Or Tarzan? Or
Flint, or Stephen? Thats it, let US, the God Wannabes, decide for
ourselves what is ok, based on our individual needs at the moment. I
may plunder soon, may I have your addresses please?
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Poole:
He hailed Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson
Davis as "patriots."
They WERE patriots.
My great-grandmothers father is buried in a plot in Clarksburg,
WVa. You can figure it out from there. Good men, yes; patriots,
no. And we are talking about kin here.
I know John and I have to agree with CPR and Flint on this one.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
David correction; hopefully.
Z
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
David:
Well, we know the ancient Greeks waited even a bit longer. Lacking
abortion technology, they waited until the unwanted children were
born, then took them off into the desert and left them there. Same
problem, different religion, different response. That approach did
have some real advantages, come to think of it. And forcing people to
bear and raise unwanted children has some serious disadvantages. It's
all a big cost benefit analysis.
And religion plays a role, itself having costs but bestowing
benefits. The benefits, however, are inflexible and unsuitable for
everyone, while the costs, as you demonstrate, are crippling.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
"Right guy.....wrong job".
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=004MfF
OR:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/491164.asp
All-out blitz on Ashcroft planned
Activist groups coordinate attacks
on nominee for attorney general
MSNBC
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 — A day after George W. Bush’s nominee for labor
secretary came under sharp attack for housing an illegal immigrant,
liberal activists planned to launch a sustained assault Tuesday on
another of Bush’s most conservative Cabinet choices.
-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001
Flint,
Ashcroft has a straight NRA position here -- let us have our guns,
and punish the hell out of anyone who abuses the privilege.
I can't disagree with that. Good.
Your position [on abortion] confuses me, and always will.
Four points.
1. My position: since a majority of Americans want it to remain legal,
it should remain legal. I am personally opposed to it, but my task is
to convince others to agree with me. They can choose not to.
2. This isn't just a "religious" objection. There are plenty of
Christians (and churches) who are pro-choice and there are plenty of
people who aren't religious who are pro-life. Reducing this to a
"religious objection" is misleading.
3. Note, too, that my primary objections above are to the use of TAX
DOLLARS to pay for abortions. I *do* disagree with that.
4. Partial birth abortion is a heinous practice. Even many nominal
pro-lifers are opposed to it; there are any number of arguments that
I could use. Here's one: the original argument used to support
abortion in general was based on "viability." Since we have the
ability to save these children, they are therefore "viable."
Even though I disagree in general, I'll grant that you could make an
argument for the 1st trimester. The 2nd trimester is "iffy." Partial
birth abortion is just pure murder, in my opinion.
we know the ancient Greeks waited even a bit longer ...
Infanticide and abandonment were common practice in ancient societies.
The Roman father, for example, would examine the child; if he raised
it over his head and accepted it, the child lived. If he refused to
pick it up, the child was usually abandoned to die.
Whence comes our term for "raising" a child.
The original St. Nicholas made his name, and earned his sainthood, for
(among other things) fighting against abandonment, and for
establishing the first orphanages to care for these abandoned
children. That's how his name came to be associated with children in
general. He was a natural choice for the English "Santa Claus."
All of which, of course, begs the question: are we progressing or
regressing? Doesn't it strike you as ironic that, in the same
hospital, you might have one doctor aborting a pregnancy while across
the hall, another doctor is working feverishly to save a 5 or 6 month
"preemie" with all the means at his disposal?
David,
I took the liberty of clearing the wild italic for you. :)
Tarzan and Z,
I was speaking a tad tongue in cheek about those three gentlemen. I
don't know if I'd call them "patriots," but I do believe that the
historical revisionists who want to call them "slavers" and "racists",
a priori, are as wrong as the day is long. They were sincerely
committed to the cause of state sovereignty vs. an all-powerful
federal government.
CPR,
All-out blitz on Ashcroft planned ...
We see that now as you speak. :)
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
AHA! I have spent my time in places where others think like me. And
true to form, when I go to where other views are expressed, I find
information I have not seen before. Here is one example.
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/01/08/ashcroft/print.html
Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft.
John Ashcroft's big mistake
He denied Ronnie White a federal judgeship for being soft on crime,
when his grudge was against his pro-choice politics. Either
way, the move cost him his Senate seat -- and could block his
confirmation as attorney general.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert
Jan. 8, 2001 | He couldn't have known it at the time. But on Oct. 4,
1999, when Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft rose on the floor
of the United States Senate to oppose the nomination of a black
Missouri judge to the federal bench, the conservative Republican
was about to give the most politically damaging speech of his 25-year
career.
At that moment it represented a triumph for Ashcroft. He'd dropped
plans to win the 2000 Republican presidential nomination due
to little support, and he'd made an equally lackluster run to become
chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1993. So
Ashcroft's ability to convince every one of his GOP colleagues to join
with him in voting down the nomination of Missouri Supreme
Court Justice Ronnie White -- the first time Republicans had publicly
rejected one of President Clinton's judicial nominees --
signaled real influence within the Republican Party.
Standing on the floor of the Senate, Ashcroft seemed to go out of his
way to belittle and ridicule White. The Missouri senator
labeled the Democratic judge "pro-criminal," and cautioned colleagues
that White would substitute "personal politics" for the law,
and "improperly exercise his will" if confirmed. That, despite the
fact that White's judicial record was not all that different from
judges Ashcroft had appointed to the Missouri Supreme Court when he
was governor.
After the vote Ashcroft crowed that White's defeat was a victory for
Missouri law enforcement. Instead, the "victory" haunts
Ashcroft to this day. It ended his elected political career last Nov.
7, when Ashcroft lost his first statewide runoff in more than
two decades. And now it appears to be the only obstacle standing in
the way of him becoming George W. Bush's attorney general,
as critics prepare to use the White nomination to question both
Ashcroft's racial tolerance and his sense of political fair play.
That's a high price to pay for opposing a district judge, which is why
in retrospect Ashcroft's militant objection to White -- or his
"marathon public crucifixion," as one of Ashcroft's own fund-raisers
put it last year -- seems so puzzling, and oddly personal.
No doubt it was actually political. Ashcroft thought tarring White
with the pro-crime brush, and defeating his nomination, would
help him in his reelection battle with Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan,
who'd gotten into political hot water after he commuted a death
sentence in 1999 at the behest of Pope John Paul II.
While White's defeat galvanized African-Americans, who believe
Ashcroft's crusade had racial overtones, the Republican's
grudge against the moderate Missouri judge may have had more to do
with Ashcroft's extreme anti-abortion agenda than either
race or purported concerns about White's toughness on crime. Ashcroft
and White had battled over abortion in Missouri since the
early 1990s, when White was a state legislator and Ashcroft was
governor.
Why would the rabidly anti-abortion Ashcroft cloak his opposition to
White's nomination in terms of concern about crime? Politics.
In the normally collegial Senate, there's an unwritten agreement that
abortion won't be used by either side as a litmus test to block
nominees. Ashcroft may have also gambled, and lost, that a crusade
against White based on abortion would cost him more
politically than one based on concerns about crime -- which, when used
against a black judge, couldn't help but have racial
overtones.
Perhaps Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who will
certainly press Ashcroft about the White battle during
his upcoming confirmation hearing, will have better luck figuring out
exactly why the Republican fought his fellow Missourian's
relatively low-level nomination so fiercely. In fact, White himself
may appear before the committee. More than a year after
White's rejection, many political observers in Missouri, who doubt
that White is either a pro-criminal jurist or an anti-death penalty
zealot, are still scratching their heads over Ashcroft's ill-conceived
and ultimately self-destructive crusade.
"It's perplexing," says Ken Warren, professor of political science at
St. Louis University. "Republicans and Democrats alike cannot
understand Ashcroft's opposition to Ronnie White." For Ashcroft
politically, "it was like injecting cyanide into his veins," says
Warren.
White's defeat stunned Democrats and created a firestorm of
controversy, with President Clinton labeling the vote a "disgraceful
act." In Missouri, tempers flared for weeks, particularly among
African-Americans who were outraged Ashcroft not only opposed
White's nomination but, they insist, routinely and maliciously
misrepresented his judicial record.
"He demonized the nomination of an extremely well qualified jurist by
falsifying his record and by misrepresenting his ideology,"
says Yvonne Scruggs-Leftwich, executive director of the umbrella civil
rights group the Black Leadership Forum.
"I suspect Ashcroft underestimated what the importance was," says
David Bositis, senior policy analyst with the Joint Center for
Political and Economic Studies in Washington, a think tank focusing on
issues important to African-Americans. "He'd been able to
win elections as governor and senator with just a handful of votes
from blacks so he probably thought it wasn't going to be that big
a deal. Instead, it turned out to be why he lost reelection."
Indeed, blacks didn't just get mad, they got even. "Our efforts to
defeat the senator began on the day Ronnie White's nomination
was denied," says Rev. Sammie Jones, pastor of Mount Zion Baptist
Church in St. Louis. "Across the state we began making
phones calls and to make plans to let Senator Ashcroft know come
election time our voices would be heard. The Ronnie White
situation is kind of our Alamo. We will remember that every time we
hear Ashcroft's name."
In one of the clearest examples of retaliation voting,
African-Americans, whose Missouri voter turnout rate reached record
levels
last November, turned Ashcroft out of office despite the fact that his
opponent, Gov. Mel Carnahan, had died in a plane crash
three weeks before the election. "Maybe Ashcroft thought we'd take it
like we took it for so many years. He certainly didn't think
he'd lose the election," says the Rev. B.T. Rice, pastor of the New
Horizon Seventh Day Christian Church in St. Louis.
Rice claims Ashcroft had never been a friend to minorities. In a
now-famous interview with Southern Partisan magazine, Ashcroft
praised the "honor" of Confederate commanders and praised the magazine
for making clear the Confederacy was "not a perverted
agenda."
Ashcroft is widely known for opposing St. Louis' plans for school
desegregation, blocking the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head
up civil rights enforcement at Janet Reno's Department of Justice, as
well as Clinton's choice of Dr. David Satcher, the black
nominee for surgeon general. But it was the senator's opposition to
White that galvanized the black community. "We sent a very
clear message that that kind of demagoguery would not be tolerated,"
says Rice. (He concedes that having voted Ashcroft out of
office only to see him nominated for attorney general simply adds to
blacks' frustration.)
Conventional wisdom suggests Ashcroft lost because his dead opponent's
widow was chosen to succeed him and garnered
sympathy votes. But Bositis argues Ashcroft, thanks to passions
stirred by the Ronnie White saga, was headed toward a narrow
yet decisive defeat even if the governor's plane had not perished.
"The election was a referendum on the incumbent and he came
up short," he says. (Interestingly, Bush won Missouri by 80,000 votes;
Ashcroft lost by 50,000.)
Ronnie White was nominated in June 1997 by President Clinton to the
Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri,
based in St. Louis.
Ashcroft might have opposed White on various grounds, such as his lack
of experience. But Ashcroft himself was never a stickler
for seasoning when it came to selecting judges. Back in 1985 the
then-governor appointed his 30-something chief of staff to
Missouri's Supreme Court. The number of days his aide had served as a
judge before being sworn in to the state's highest court?
Zero.
And initially, Ashcroft gave little indication that he'd block the
appointment of his fellow Missourian. Both men owed their
ascension in Missouri politics to a fortuitous tap on the shoulder.
For Ashcroft, that tap came in 1973, when then-Gov. Christopher
"Kit" Bond handpicked Ashcroft, who at the time was a political novice
with one failed congressional run, to fill out the term of
state auditor. Even with the aid of incumbency, Ashcroft lost his
reelection bid as auditor. But he soon found a position in John
Danforth's state attorney general's office.
In 1976 the clean-cut Ashcroft became Missouri's attorney general, a
position he held until 1985 when he was sworn in as
governor, succeeding his political patron, Bond, who was off the
United States Senate. In 1994 Ashcroft captured 60 percent of
the vote and easily won a seat of his own in the Senate.
White's political good fortune arrived in 1989, when Democratic
officials needed to fill a state representative position after the
incumbent quit midterm to accept a judgeship. White, a little-known
attorney with the St. Louis Housing Authority, got the nod and
served out the term. Representing a heavily Democratic district, he
easily won reelection. Four years later White was tapped to
become the city's general counsel.
The very next year Gov. Carnahan named White to the Missouri Court of
Appeals in St. Louis. One year after that, Carnahan
tapped White again, this time to the Missouri Supreme Court. In just
six years White went from being a staffer at the St. Louis
Housing Authority to sitting on the Missouri Supreme Court.
His rapid rise continued; one year after White reached the Supreme
Court, Bill Clay, the congressman from St. Louis,
recommended White for a federal judgeship, a nomination he received in
1997.
Like most women and minority nominees to the bench, White's name
quietly languished for months in the Republican Senate
through 1997 and 1998. By then Ashcroft's opposition to White was
clear and most assumed he was the one holding up the
process behind closed doors. But it wasn't until 1999 when the senator
began his reelection run against Missouri's popular Gov.
Carnahan that Ashcroft's anti-White rhetoric began to heat up.
In the end, Ashcroft's central argument was that White was
"pro-criminal," a charge loaded with racial overtones. "It means
prisons are full of blacks and if you get black folks on the court
you're going to have anarchy," says Scruggs-Leftwich at the Black
Forum. "Those are code words understood by African-Americans."
But Ashcroft admirers like Kris Kobach, a professor of constitutional
law and legislation at the University of Missouri-Kansas City
Law School, point out Ashcroft has supported 26 of 28 black judges
nominated by Clinton, and as governor appointed the first
black judge to an appellate court as well as appointed blacks to his
Cabinet. "He trusts and takes advice from African-Americans,"
says Kobach. Other supporters note he backed the somewhat
controversial Martin Luther King Jr. Day holiday, and Ashcroft
himself denies the charge of racism, insisting "the same God judges
all of us by the content of our character, not the color of our
skin."
All that adds to the suspicion that this fight was really about
something else. Could Ashcroft's real motivation for opposing White
have been abortion? It would explain the animus Ashcroft held for the
nominee, since the two crossed swords over the hot-button
topic during the early '90s, when White was a state representative and
Ashcroft the governor.
In 1991, longtime Ashcroft foe and the Democratic Speaker of
Missouri's General Assembly Bob Griffin awarded White the
chairmanship of the Civil and Criminal Justice Committee. Griffin then
made sure to steer all anti-abortion legislation into White's
committee where he helped thwart it.
In the spring of 1992 an especially contentious anti-abortion bill
calling for prison terms for doctors was awaiting vote in White's
committee. The chairman called for a meeting on March 2, but promised
no votes would be taken. Halfway through though, a roll
call was taken and with one anti-abortion representative not present
the bill lost on a vote of 8-8, since a tie meant the legislation
died in committee. Proponents of the bill, including Ashcroft, cried
foul over White's tactics.
But to the dismay of anti-abortion activists in Missouri, Ashcroft,
who recently supported a constitutional amendment that would
outlaw abortions, including in instances of rape and incest, rarely
uttered the word abortion during his public fight against White's
nomination. Instead he emphasized the issues of crime and the death
penalty.
Why? Politics, says Warren at St. Louis University. "It would have
been unsellable to Republicans if Ashcroft opposed Ronnie
White based on abortion rights," he says. "Republicans and Democrats
have pledged an unsigned promise that when confirming
nominees a litmus test cannot be if he or she is for or against
abortion rights. Plus, Republicans are starting to become aware that
taking adamant anti-feminist positions will kill you."
Still, there are lots of clues that abortion drove Ashcroft's
opposition. What was the senator's first question to White in the May
14,
1998, hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee? "Justice White,
if the Supreme Court were to uphold a federal partial birth
abortion ban as constitutional, would you have any difficulty in
applying a decision of the Supreme Court which upheld such a
law?" White said he would not.
At the time, White's view of the death penalty did not seem to be of
paramount concern to Ashcroft. In fact, during White's May
appearance before the Judiciary Committee Ashcroft never even
questioned the nominee about the topic, nor about what Ashcroft
later dubbed White's "pro-criminal" leanings.
That same year during a televised debate, Kit Bond's re-election
opponent accused him of bottling up the White nomination. Bond
denied the charge but conceded that concerns about White's abortion
rights record were causing the delay.
When White's nomination finally passed out of Judiciary Committee on a
15-3 vote May 21, 1998, Ashcroft cast one of three
dissenting votes. At the time he could have raised a formal objection
that would have almost certainly doomed the nomination then,
but he did not. Instead, like a doctor examining X-rays, Ashcroft
announced he had detected "indications of potential activism" in
the judge's record and was voting no. He made little mention of the
death penalty.
So what happened to pique Ashcroft's interest in the death penalty
between May of 1998 and October of 1999 when White was
defeated? The Pope paid a visit to St. Louis.
In December 1998 the Missouri Supreme Court scheduled the execution of
convicted murderer Darrell Mease for the night of
Jan. 29, 1999. That just happened to be the same day Pope John Paul II
was going to be in St. Louis during his historic visit. The
court quietly changed the execution date, but aides at the Vatican had
already taken note.
On Jan. 29, Carnahan was asked to meet with the Pope's emissaries at
the home of St. Louis Archbishop Justin Rigali. There,
they urged Carnahan, a Southern Baptist, to spare Mease's life. Later,
at a prayer service at St. Louis' Roman Catholic Cathedral,
the pope, a crusading death-penalty opponent, approached Carnahan
sitting in the front pew and asked him to "show mercy" on
Mease. That night Carnahan created his own political firestorm when he
signed papers commuting Mease's sentence to life in
prison without parole.
Ashcroft, who received an honorary degree from controversial Bob Jones
University, which has equated Catholicism with a cult,
wasted little time tying Carnahan's decision to honor the papal
request with a charge the governor was soft on crime. Ashcroft
embarked on a victims' rights tour of Missouri, even inviting
relatives of those murdered by Mease to testify. (The charge
Carnahan was soft on crime never did stick, partly because he'd signed
off on 26 executions as governor.)
Simultaneously, White's judicial record came under new scrutiny from
Ashcroft, who warned that the Carnahan appointee would
use the federal bench to "push the law in a pro-criminal direction,
rather than defer to the legislative will of the people and interpret
the law as written."
The record shows that as a justice on the Missouri Supreme Court White
voted 41 times to affirm death penalty cases, and 18
times to reverse execution sentences. In many of those 18 rulings
White joined the majority with justices appointed by Ashcroft.
Five of those 18 decisions striking down death sentences were
unanimous, where White was joined by conservative Missouri
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Limbaugh, cousin of Rush Limbaugh. Just
three times in nearly 60 death penalty cases did White
write solo dissents urging death row prisoners be granted new trials.
And in none of White's decisions did he argue the death
penalty was unjust or unconstitutional.
In what may have been an unprecedented standard for nominees facing
federal confirmation, in the final days of his campaign to
defeat White, Ashcroft and his allies based their entire opposition
around a single "shocking" dissent written by White while his
nomination was pending. (The conservative press now clings to the same
one dissent to justify Ashcroft's crusade.)
It involved the 1991 killing spree of James Johnson, a helicopter
mechanic from California, Mo., who, during a 24-hour frenzy,
stalked and murdered three sheriffs and the wife of another. Johnson
was sentenced to death. In 1998 the Missouri Supreme
Court heard Johnson's plea for a new trial. He lost by a vote of 6-1,
with White being the lone dissent. White never suggested
Johnson was innocent or that his crimes did not warrant the death
penalty. "If Mr. Johnson was in control of his faculties when he
went on this murderous rampage, then he assuredly deserves the death
sentence he was given," White wrote.
Instead, White argued Johnson's "unprofessional" counsel botched his
defense by badly exaggerating, in the trial's opening
statement, the post-traumatic stress disorder syndrome symptoms
Johnson was supposedly suffering at the time of the killings.
They were exaggerations counsel never backed up in court.
"I find it is reasonably likely that a jury that had not seen the
defense destroy its own credibility would have been sufficiently
receptive to the expert diagnosis of a mental disease or defect to
permit a reasonable likelihood of a different result."
White wrote that opinion in April 1998. Sixteen months later in August
1999, Ashcroft held a press conference to criticize it.
At the time, Ashcroft also insisted Missouri law enforcement was up in
arms over White's nomination and that he was responding
to their groundswell of concern. But the groundswell, such as it was,
had been entirely concocted by Ashcroft. Two police groups,
the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police and the Missouri Police Chiefs
Association, declined to oppose White's nomination, even
after they were lobbied directly by Ashcroft's office. The Missouri
Sheriffs Association did object to White, but two years after he
was nominated, and only after a member read about Ashcroft's August
press conference in the newspaper. So much for a
grass-roots movement against White.
If Ashcroft's behavior during the White nomination was puzzling, Sen.
Bond's 11th-hour flip-flop bordered on the bizarre. The
senior, and more moderate, Republican senator from Missouri originally
gave White his blessing, and even introduced him to the
Senate Judiciary Committee, where he urged members to "act favorably"
on a nominee "of the highest integrity and honor." As the
process dragged on and White's nomination languished for months and
then years, Bond reportedly pleaded unsuccessfully with
Ashcroft to ease off the judge.
During Bond's 1998 reelection campaign he met with 100 black Missouri
ministers at Roberts Steak House in St. Louis. During a
question and answer session the Rev. Rice stood and asked Bond if he
would support White's nomination. According to Rice, "He
said, 'Most certainly I will.' All those preachers heard him say
that."
Bond won reelection handily, thanks in part to winning roughly 30
percent of the black vote, an astonishing showing for a
Republican candidate.
In January 1999, with no action taken by Congress, Clinton had to
re-nominate White, and Bond again said he would support him.
Nine months later though, and one day after Ashcroft rose to oppose
White on the floor of the Senate, Bond addressed members
of the Republican caucus during its weekly meeting. There, behind
closed doors, in a 20-second briefing, he announced he was
now opposed to White's nomination. Two hours later the vote on White
became a hard, party-line effort. Why? "To back up a
Republican in a close Senate race, they all rallied behind Ashcroft,"
says one congressional aide who dealt with the White
nomination.
Why, for a nomination that had been languishing for over two years and
one that he initially sponsored, did Bond wait until the day
of the vote to change his mind? At the time, he claimed he "did not
have an opportunity to look at this [matter] sooner."
Since both senators from White's home state were voting against him,
his confirmation, according to Senate protocol, was doomed.
But unlike virtually every other scuttled judicial nomination, White's
was voted down in public, a particularly humiliating defeat.
(Today, the battle for judicial nominees is simply to make it to the
Senate floor for an up or down vote; once there, they usually
pass overwhelmingly.) In fact, White became the first District Court
nominee voted down by the full Senate in nearly half a
century.
"Senator Ashcroft could have killed the nomination in committee but he
chose to do it a way that Justice White cannot ever be
rehabilitated as a nominee again," says Rice. "That was to add insult
to injury."
As Ashcroft prepares for his own confirmation hearing, his Missouri
opponents want to make sure his colleagues understand what
happened to Ronnie White. To advance his extreme anti-abortion agenda,
as well as his own career, a United States senator
denied a federal judicial nominee confirmation by grossly distorting
his record. And if Ashcroft's rejection of Justice White leads to
his own rejection by the Senate, so be it, his opponents say.
Either way, says Rice, "It's a decision John Ashcroft needs to live
with."
- - - - - - - - - - - -
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Cherri, I don't believe that article on his opposition to White.
White challenged a verdict for a convicted white murderer. Ashcroft
objected to this and his "soft of crime" attitude.
Here's another side of the story:
show
s his attitude towards blacks
I can't find the story on the real reason he opposed Ronnie White but
it had to do with a murder case of a white guy who murdered a white
cop and a few other white people. Nothing to do with blacks, Ronnie
just didn't want to see this guy get the appropriate sentencing.
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Maria, As I dig deeper I find that the idea that he opposed White was
not because he was black,
it is because of his stand on abortion. At least that is the
conclusion I am coming to the more I
read. As it is political suicide to go in that direction, he had to
focus on other
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Thanks for the correction Stephen, I wished that I could have "backed
up" at the time, but you did it for me!
I support Ashcroft, and oppose those who engage in character
assasination against him such as labeling him a"racist" (the evidence
is clear that he is not).
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Cherri:
I think that's a big piece of it, but not all of it. I think race is
a symbolic part of it, and attitude toward crime is another part of
it. And all of this made White a political football in a game being
played between Ashcroft and Carnahan, since Ashcroft could be fairly
sure he'd be facing Carnahan in the next election, and he wanted to
draw distinctions between them that would be in his favor for the
votes and voting blocs as he counted them.
Unfortunately for Ashcroft, he miscalculated. His constituency wasn't
nearly as conservative as he thought, and he ended up garnering more
disfavor than favor among the voters.
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Maria:
You have the case totally wrong. You have been listening to
Rush too much. Actually the Salon article is very close to what I
know.
David:
I don't think that John is a racist. I do believe that he is a theocrat.
I don't believe his actions on White had anything to do with race.
Still, I don't think that he is the right person for the job. First, his
philosophy requires increased government intervention in
peoples private lives. I don't agree with that. Second, he has very
frozen and non-mainstream opinions on social issues [you
know what those are] that he would be required to litigate. If he
brought cases [even for good reasons] which appeared to be
pandering to those backers that you love [like Dobson], he would
not be believed by a majority of the population. This wouldn't be
good for public respect of the legal system [which is in trouble
now]. If Bush wants a conservative, there are many more out
there. Bush can find other uses for John's talents.
CPR and Flint have this right; IMHO.
Best Wishes,,,,
Z
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Z,
Just for fun, what cabinet position would you recommend Ashcroft for?
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
If Ashcroft is a Theocrat.... he belongs out of US Politics...,
period.
There is a story in the media that all times on taking his oath of
office for public service he first annointed his head with oil as if
he were some "patriarch" or "Judge" from 3,000 years ago. I find
that "too much" and as noxious as Gore's Senator-Saint Joseph,
V.Papabile.
I don't know if Ashcroft is Cabinet material either. He needs a job
where like Jack Kemp did at HUD,,,,,, he can see where didactism
leads. Kemp found his Epiphany at HUD where he understood clearly "we
are all in this together" and giving the Poor and uneducated the
tools to climb out of poverty solves "the housing problem". Putting
business into minority areas tends to solve the job problem one job
at a time. Tax breaks to entice business into those minority areas
works. Kemp's 'enterprise zones' did and do that. Kemp moved from the
Reagan Fringe to the central while continuing as a card carrying
Conservative and Believer in Free Enterprise.
Since Ashcroft seems to have such strong views about "morality" and
absolute rights and wrongs, he needs to see where they can lead.
Perhaps if he were Surgeon General he would have to face the reality
that:
1. 40% of all females under the age of 20 get pregnant, married or
not. Before abortion was permitted, a large percentage of those DIED.
For this case, I define "large percentage" as "greater than zero".
Currently, the rate of STDs continues high in part because of the
absolutists who think that "sex education" belongs in the home.
2. The massive costs of drugs on society demand a new approach.
Legalizing drugs would eliminate the profits and I suspect, the
source of funds to many Politicians, War on Drugs Enforcement job
holders and the go betweens.
3. Tobacco KILLS. It should have been eliminated 50 years ago.
4. EtOH KILLS. It is one of the most lethal of DRUGS.
5. AIDS kills. Across the world 50% of the victims are females.
6. Ignorance insures disease and poverty here and off shore.
Ignorance of birth control measures insures continued generations of
disease and poverty here and off shore.
-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001
Hey all, I am not sure how many of you knew I am from Missouri, but I
am. Anyone getting the idea yet why we elected a dead guy over
Ashcroft?
Rick
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
I was adopted at 6 weeks of age. Was born to a couple of unmaried college students who realized they couldn't properly raise a child.
So was my sister, to a different couple, a few years later.
If abortion had been as prevalent in 1957 and 1960 as it is now, guess where my sister and myself would have ended up? If you guessed, "dead in a trash can", you'd be correct.
My soon-to-be-4-yr-old nephew, who is the joy of all our lives, would never have been born.
Abortion is 1st-degree, premeditated murder, and should be treated as such, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not here to defend John Ashcroft. I'm here to offer a viewpoint on the legally-assisted infanticide which passes for "womens' choice" these days. It stinks to hell.
By the time any doctor on the planet can tell a woman is pregnant, that fetus already has a heartbeat, brain waves, and fingerprints.
That's not some indefinable blob of protoplasm. That's a little human being.
I don't advocate anyone's murder. But those butchers who do it every day -- if they happen to meet with someone who's really upset with what they're doing; I'm not too unhappy with that result.
Better the butcher than me. Or my sister.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Chicken Little, I am happy to hear that you and your sister ended up
in a family that loved and cared for you.
There are 500,000 abandoned children across the United States ("Time"
did a story on this two months ago.) If they are *lucky*, they
languish in the foster care system, which is also rife with abuse and
neglect.
You are free to believe that abortion is "murder", but I have a
question for all of you: Since social programs have been dismantled
and a further gutting is on the way by the "compassionate
conservatives," who will pay to take care of these children? Their
parents obviously are incapable of caring for them. Churches and aid
organizations are already stretched to the breaking point with the
working poor and chronically unemployable.
Please don't tell me that these kids will be adopted, or that there
are thousands on waiting lists to supposedly adopt. Everyone's
interested in the unborn, but nobody gives a damn about them
afterwards. The latest trend in infant adoption? Outside of the USA.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Julie,
What you say is true -- to a point. You give me a chance to make a few
points in return, so I mount your shoulders as a convenient soapbox.
:)
(I won't stay there too long, don't worry.[g])
First, most people are unaware that people like me who are opposed to
abortion on demand *DO* support charities that help just the kids
and mothers you're talking about. In fact, my favorite ministries are
those which work with the pregnant mother, give her job counseling,
pre-natal care, day care, and then help her return to the workforce
as a productive citizen while caring for her child.
I know YOU didn't say this specifically, but one of the most common
attacks on people like me is that we just want to "do away with
abortion" without trying to solve the larger problem. That is
something that our opponents have managed to spin marvelously; it
happens to be a flat LIE.
Second, if you were to ask the children if they would prefer to be
dead rather than alive, the vast majority (over 98%) would say
"alive." What in the name of God gives ANYONE the right to decide for
someone else whether they'd be better off having never been born?
Third, if there's a problem with the way these children are being
cared for, let's FIX it. The fact is, conservatives have tried many
times to get bills passed in Congress for greater funding for
orphanages and the very types of programs that I just mentioned.
Pro-choice groups would rather see the money go to fund Planned
Parenthood and the clinics.
My position on this is consistent. I am an American who believes in
Democracy; if the American people want abortion to remain an option,
it should. But on the other hand, as I said to Flint, I will try to
convince people otherwise.
More to the point, people like me *DO* support alternatives,
wholeheartedly. We put our money where our mouths are. We don't just
preach AGAINST abortion, we work *FOR* the sanctity of all life --
from zero to 130 years of age.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Ignore the anti-abortion, right-wing, xian a-holes, Julie. The only
real reason they are against abortion is because they
look like a three-month-old fetus. They identify and relate
to underdeveloped human beings. Did you see Poole's picture in the
"about" section?
'Nuff said.
(Say Buh - Bye to this post!)
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
This one thread on this obscure little forum demonstrates the
futility of the abortion issue. Each side is certain of their
position and will NEVER agree with the opposing view, so why bother
to preach at all. Hold on to your beliefs and support the elected
officials that align with your doctrine. To engage the ‘other’ side
will not be productive or change anyone’s mind.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Stephen,
I'm so glad that you availed yourself of my "soapbox," but the fact
is, I, and the other 70% of American citizens that support
reproductive choice will outshout you, and continue to outshout you.
It always amazes me that, for the most part, those who wish to
dictate to me about what I can do with my reproductive organs are 1)
men, and 2) Republican. Since most of these Republican men will never
know what it is like to discover the fact that one's period is six
weeks late, I wonder to myself exactly what interest it is of theirs
what any woman can or cannot do with her womb. "Murder"? Spare me. If
there's one thing I learned during my adolescence in the Assembly of
God church, abortion is simply an issue of haves and have-nots.
The "haves" of our church and their pregnant teen daughters made an
appointment with Mummy's ob/gyn's offices. No scary protesters, no
wondering where the fees would come from. No more pregnancy. No
problem! (Since this happened several times to those I knew in my mid-
to-late teens, I believe that my experience is not anecdotal.) This,
of course, will never change for the "haves". If abortion rights are
further restricted, the doctors in the nicer part of town will become
more discreet about it, but the "haves" will still be just fine.
The "have-nots" were either forced to bear and raise children they
did not want, or to walk through throngs of screaming protesters to
obtain a pregnancy termination. They have anti-abortion literature
show up at their homes for months afterwards, or even have a police
officer pulling them over for speeding on the way to the
clinic "escort" them to the local church-sponsored "unwed mother's
home" against their will. I'm always going to stand up for
those "have-nots," because they are the ones who suffer when birth
control fails, Daddy is long gone or one of the "haves", and those
who are so desperately concerned with the unborn they so valiantly
defended have a Bible study to attend, and couldn't possibly be of
any help.
For all of your insistence that there are organizations that will
assist the pregnant and unwed teen, what happens to that unwed mother
when she discovers that she will NEVER, with her limited education
and resources, be able to adequately feed, clothe and shelter the
child? Where is she to turn? Maybe she is loath to go to the local
church because she doesn't care for religion, and that "help" comes
with strings attached. Isn't there religious freedom in this country?
Again, those government social programs are gutted. Five hundred
thousand children and teens in this country have nowhere to go, so
who's going to watch that baby while Mommy is working two or three
jobs to keep a roof over her head?
The insistence that anti-abortion supporters care for all life is a
LIE as well, since most of them are fervent believers in the death
penalty. You can continue to insist that those who believe in
choice "spin" the truth, but we all know the truth: As long as the
child is unborn, they must be saved at any cost. The minute they
emerge from the womb, it frankly doesn't matter what happens to them.
They are someone else's "personal responsibility", especially if that
someone else is a "have-not".
I believe that Newt Gingrich first brought up the idea of orphanages.
How touching. Has Gingrich spent even one hour at his local DSHS or
whomever is in charge of child welfare in the state he lives in? I'll
bet he has no idea that most of these kids not only need a home, they
need somebody who gives a damn whether they can stand on their own
two feet as adults. Here's another question: Who's going to staff
these orphanages? Foster programs beg people with cash in hand to
take some of these kids, and it's unsuccessful. If there's no
monetary benefit, I don't see a big ministry in orphanages. It's too
saaaaad. It's much more sexy to trot around the world "preaching the
gospel." Plus, trying to feed, house, clothe and educate these kids
would be a staggering amount of money, and the GOP has already shown
they're not interested in spending that kind of money on social
programs.
My husband and both SIL's were wards of our state as children. My
husband ended up being raised by his uncle and uncle's partner. One
of the more interesting points of this to me has been the fact that
gay couples are the first in line to adopt what is euphemistically
called "challenged" children, and do their damnedest to provide a
loving and supportive home for kids whose hetero parents couldn't be
bothered. Gay parents, of course, are painted as perverts or worse.
Isn't it funny that they turn out to be the most "compassionate" of
all?
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Bravo, Julie.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Stephen:
[More to the point, people like me *DO* support alternatives,
wholeheartedly.]
So long as abortion is one of those alternatives, excellent! But
Julie has fortunately brought the real world into this discussion,
rather than simple indoctrination. I agree no decision should be
hopelessly impractical or devastating to anyone. Charities and
churches really should contribute much more than they do toward the
support of the unwanted children they do so much to encourage.
And support for alternatives doesn't mean forbidding them. That is
pure doublespeak.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
I'm so glad that you availed yourself of my "soapbox," but the
fact is, I, and the other 70% of American citizens that support
reproductive choice will outshout you, and continue to outshout you.
It always amazes me that, for the most part, those who wish to
dictate to me about what I can do with my reproductive organs are 1)
men, and 2) Republican.
Jule, the only thing left out of your post were the facts and the
truth, the first casualty of a spin war. 70%? I don't think so.
Men? I saw a poll some years ago, and in that one women were more
pro-life than men. "Reproductive choice"? What a ruse, the time for
choosing whether to reproduce or not is prior to conception, not
after you've started it and have to resort to killing the fetus to
stop it. Your not shouting anyone down here, but you are shoveling
up a load ;)
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Julie,
To follow up with one fact, here's a poll that shows just how false
your claim that "70% of Americans that support reproductive choice"
is:
http://ww
w.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indabortion.asp
This gallup poll
indicates that the percentage of "pro-choice" Americans has decreased
significantly over the last five years, and now 48% consider
themselves "pro-choice" while 43% consider themselves "pro-life."
Other polls will show some differences, but you have to go to the
spinmeisters to find your mythical figures.
In any case, using percentages to "prove" that one is "right" in
their views of abortion is ludicrous, unless one bases his/her moral
stands on what everyone else believes.....
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Julie,
I'm so glad that you availed yourself of my "soapbox," but the fact
is, I, and the other 70% of American citizens that support
reproductive choice will outshout you, and continue to outshout
you.
First, I'll say this: on the issue of tax money going to pay for
abortions, yeah, you and I might disagree. But did you read what I
said? I am personally opposed to abortion, but think that it should
remain a legal option. So, to start with, we are not quite as opposed
as you think.
But since you made specific contentions, I'll specifically address
them.
A recent Los Angeles Times poll demonstrates that support
is slipping. More importantly, that 70% figure refers to those who are
simply asked, "should it remain legal?" (And actually, it's not 70% in
that case, it's more like 85-90%).
That figure obscures the fact that most of us (including me) grant
that it should remain a legal option, but should only be used as a
last-ditch resort, or in cases of rape, incest, etc. Most Americans
also believe that there should be strict and severe limits on it. Most
Americans are OPPOSED to taxpayer money being used to pay for it,
except for the extreme cases mentioned.
So ... MY position, and NOT that of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, is
the norm. THEY are the ones outside of the mainstream, not ME. :)
As NORC
(Chicago University) puts it,
Support for legalizing abortion varies greatly according to various
circumstances. Support is high (typically 75 to 90%) when the
pregnancy threatens the woman's health, involves a serious birth
defect, or resulted from rape (See Table 1). But the public is about
evenly split (typically 40-50% for allowing abortions) when the
abortion is sought because the woman is unmarried, unable to afford
more children, or when the woman is
"married and does not want any more children." Approval is the lowest
(33-45%) for when "the woman wants it for any reason" (Table 2).
It always amazes me that, for the most part, those who wish to
dictate
to me about what I can do with my reproductive organs are 1) men, and
2) Republican.
Define "dictate." Figures from NORC show that support for abortion is
strongest among black males (who are mostly Democratic[g]), followed
by (in order) white females, then white males, with the least support
among black females. Only among black males is support for
unrestricted, state-funded abortion well over 50%, too.
Since most of these Republican men will never know ...
I am endlessly amazed at how successful Democratic spin against
Republicans in general, and right-wingers in particular, has been. My
hat goes off to them; they've done a marvelous job at painting
conservatives like me as neanderthalish theocrats (and worse). They
should give lessons. :)
Having made an a priori assumption -- that it is primarily
Republican men who oppose abortion -- you proceed to lecture on that
basis. As I just showed you, your assumption was incorrect to start
with. It was based on perception (and spin from pro-choice forces).
If there's one thing I learned during my adolescence in the
Assembly of God church, abortion is simply an issue of haves and
have-nots.
It is not. It is an issue of right and wrong. You may try to force it
into any venue of discussion you like, but that's what we always come
back to.
On your specific contention: it is also true that the "haves" usually
go to better schools, eat better, drive nicer cars and live in nicer
homes. On the down side, the "haves" are much more likely to
prevail in court (because they can afford a better attorney), they are
much more likely to be able to get out of legal trouble to
start with (because their parents are "connected"), etc., etc.
It stinks to high heaven in general. But that doesn't remove the key
question -- the ONLY question -- the REAL question -- and the one that
most pro-choicers refuse to consider in any depth: "IS ABORTION
WRONG?"
If it's wrong, then the answer is to punish the "haves" when they
engage in that practice. By your logic, if the haves are more likely
to get away with murder (ask OJ about that![g]), we should therefore
permit everyone to murder.
For all of your insistence that there are organizations that will
assist the pregnant and unwed teen, what happens to that unwed mother
when she discovers that she will NEVER, with her limited education and
resources, be able to adequately feed, clothe and shelter the
child?
Julie, that's a problem NOW. That was a problem BEFORE Roe V Wade, and
it has ALWAYS been a problem. That's why I said: let's FIX it.
You are just assuming that it can't be done because it helps your
argument. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about above: "oh, it's
overwhelming." "Oh, look at these poor, unwanted children." And your
solution? "Prevent them from being born to start with." Some solution.
Besides, I disagree with you in the main. The vast majority of these
women CAN be trained and CAN get meaningful employment. Here's an
example from personal experience: Easter Seals works with the
disabled, trains them and helps them get GOOD jobs.
Thanks to them and the Alabama Dept of Voc Rehab, my wife got a very
good job with a government agency -- in SPITE of being visually
impaired. How much more could we do, then, for people who are
impaired, not by their physical bodies, but only by economic status?
It's a matter of will, Julie. It's a matter of us deciding that we
WANT to do this. We CAN do it.
The insistence that anti-abortion supporters care for all life is a
LIE as well, since most of them are fervent believers in the death
penalty.
Another non-sequitur. I support the death penalty BECAUSE I respect
the sanctity of life -- the life of the **VICTIM**. If you take a
life, you should pay with your own.
Nor should you believe that all pro-lifers support the death penalty;
Catholics, in particular, are likely to be anti-execution as well.
I believe that Newt Gingrich first brought up the idea of
orphanages.
Why would you believe that? It's not true. Christians were supporting
these orphanages long before Newt Gingrich even entered politics --
even before he, or his grandparents, were BORN!
MY story, from MY childhood, is of girls who got pregnant, disappeared
for several months, and then came back a bit sadder and a lot wiser.
They had the children who were then placed with these orphanages.
In the rural, conservative South, that's how it was done. Abortion
wasn't even an option. I had never even heard of it until I was in my
teens, and didn't know a single girl who'd had one (legal or
otherwise).
Julie, I'll keep this short (it's already too long as it is). The
bottom line is, we need to decide if abortion is WRONG. If it is (and
I believe this), then we need to FIX the problems that you describe.
We can do it if we want to. Do you really WANT to?
My contention is that pro-choice forces don't WANT to ... in many
cases, because there's MONEY in abortion. Simply put, they want the
business.
On the issue of adoption: Julie, you are disconnected from reality.
My wife and I can't safely have children, and would love to adopt.
The problem is that the requirements are ridiculous, the waiting
period is scandalous and the process is VERY expensive.
That might explain why so many are adopting these overseas kids. But
in any event, the fact is, this is also something that can be FIXED.
The real problem is that the pro-choice crowd isn't interested in the
adoption angle. The media is giving it little attention (there are
far more PSAs on late-night television for little starving children
overseas than there are for lonely little kids here in the US to be
adopted).
It all boils down to money. Abortion is big business. That's cold, that's cynical, but it's also a FACT.
-- Anonymous, January 10, 2001
Chicken said:
"if they happen to meet with someone who's really upset with what
they're doing; I'm not too unhappy with that result."
So, you advocate violence against human beings performing a legal
medical act? Shame on you. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot
say out of one side of your mouth "though shalt not kill a 'child'"
and out of the other "though shalt kill a doctor performing a medical
procedure". This is a perfect example of your hypocracy, and of your
theocratic ideas as a whole. You would have our country run by
Christians, and have that Moral absolutism be the law of the land.
Moral absolutism is a plague on our land, and unfortunately, Stephen,
your views are definately in this category. You and others of your
ideaology feel that all the people who rightfullt live in this
country need to bow before some specific religion's idea of what is
absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Forget the buddhists. Forget
the unitarian universalists. Forget the atheists. Forget the Jews.
Forget the Hindus, the theosophists, the muslims. You all seem to
think that you have some right to control this country, some
ridiculous idea that we have to be a christian country.
What gave you the right to dictate law by your moral absolutes alone?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Poole asks, "Is abortion wrong"? To answer that, one has to ask at
what point is it death, and what are the future ramifications.
I'm to lazy to do a search for a link, but I believe the heart of a
fetus doesn't start to beat until the second trimester. IMHO (and
millions of others) life doesn't start until the heart starts to beat.
It is only at that point that there should be any disagreement as to
whether or not it is "murder".
Now, let's consider the personal and social consequences. Would you
sentence a couple to a lifetime of poverty because "nature" faked them
out? Because they made a mistake or miscalculation? How loving would
those parents be when they didn't want the child in the first place? I
would hope they would give them up rather than risk a lifetime of
agony for everyone involved.
Let's say abortion is illegal or discouraged (as Poole would have it)
and they did give up the child. We would
be left with millions of unwanted children every year and guess who's
going to have to pay for them? I don't know about you, but my taxes
are too high as it is. (Forget it tax spammer. I'm proud to pay my
taxes regardless.)
Since government agencies are required to maintain high standards when
selecting parents, it will be very difficult to house all these kids.
(Poole is an excellent example. Of course he can't adopt a baby. He
spends all his time arguing on a internet bulletin board instead of
working or doing something useful. People probably think he's nuts.)
From what I've seen, it is only the religious nuts who receive radio
signals from their fillings that are against abortion. We will never
again be forced to the back alleys or foreign countries. We will never
again suffer the sight of hungry children at our doors or in
institutions saying, "Please sir, may I have some more?"
And, to really get your xian-ass goats. We are Mr. and Mrs. Nash. We
had a test tube baby just so we could provide out daughter with the
bone marrow she so desperately needs. As you are so fond of
saying, Poole,,,,, Deal with it.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
My
living children
"Finally, in the fertility cycle initiated late last year,
two of the couple's 15 embryos tested free of the
disease and as having a perfect match for Molly."
The other fetus's died which (from your POV) would make that murder,
right?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
As you are so fond of saying, Poole,,,,, Deal with it.
In that case, one life was given to save another. I'm sure that was
a very hard decision to make, and I'm not going to criticize it. In
fact, I think it was very brave.
But it has nothing to do with the argument about unrestricted
abortion-on-demand. That's a completely separate issue.
I'm to lazy to do a search for a link, but I believe the heart of a
fetus doesn't start to beat until the second trimester. IMHO (and
millions of others) life doesn't start until the heart starts to
beat.
Next time, don't be so lazy, or you'll shoot your argument in the foot
again. Do the search.
Under your guideline, you would become pro-life no later than 21 days
after conception; by that time, the heart has formed and is beating.
In fact, by 9 weeks, doctors can usually hear the heartbeat through
the mother's belly; it's one of their standard tests.
At 47-48 days, brain waves can be detected. By that time, the kidneys
have formed as well, and are producing urine, showing independent
function. Just for fun, here's a fetus at 18 weeks sucking his thumb.
The rest of your diatribe is just more of the same: it would cost too
much to care for them, yadda, yadda. To start with, this is not an
"either-or" thing: either we abort or are faced with millions of
unwanted children. The solution is manifold, including education,
birth control, etc., etc.
This is a matter of *WILL*. If we WANT to, we can solve this problem.
No one solution will work; it'll take a bunch of different approaches,
all applied intelligently.
But by your logic, we should let the elderly die, too. After all, they
are the biggest drain on our health care system, and we're spending
billions (soon to be trillions) just to keep them alive for
another decade or so beyond the ol' Biblical "three score and ten."
Right? (Pardon my sardonic humor; surely you get my point.)
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
The heart starts beating very early in development, the brain waves
don't develop until the middle of the 2nd trimester.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Tarzan,
I'm not picking on you (after all, you're a fellow coffee lover[g]),
but your response underscores something that I've become convinced of:
that part of the problem, from the pro-life perspective, is that
people truly aren't aware of just how developed the fetus is by the
2nd trimester.
Anyway, brain waves have formed and are detectable by the 6th-7th WEEK
after conception, as I stated above -- well within the FIRST
trimester.
Most abortion supporters really do believe the stuff about the fetus
being a "non-viable" lump of protoplasm, or a mass of tissue, or
whatever, often because their consciences keep them from investigating
further.
The fact is, with modern medical techniques, the fetus can be saved
well into the 2nd trimester, and as we improve those techniques in
the coming years, this will probably go all the way back to
fertilization.
So much for the "viability" argument. Which is why I pointed out the
irony of a given hospital, where one doctor might be performing an
abortion while another, across the hall, is saving a baby at the same
stage of development.
And you can't see the inherent logical fallacy in the argument?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
I said, "life doesn't start until the heart starts to beat." Well,
I'm different because I personally don't care if the heart is beating
or not. Until it is out of the womb or has the ability to live and
function on it's own, it's fair game to me. It is the woman's
body, it is her choice.
No, I don't extend this opinion to the elderly. Quit trying to make
an argument for me that doesn't exist. Although I do believe in the
individual's right to die when and how they please.
I have to get back to work now (unlike yourself) but you can be
assured I'll be back tomorrow :)
Just living and breathing isn't the greatest reason to live and you
can't understand that until you've
Do you think all life is sanctified? Why aren't you out complaining
about the murder of Jews and Palastinianss? harsh condition and
treatment of people in third world countries? Because it's a losing
battle, that's why.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Awww, crap. When I wrote
"Just living and breathing isn't the greatest reason to live and you
can't understand that until you've
Do you think all life is sanctified? Why aren't you out complaining
about the murder of Jews and Palastinianss? harsh condition and
treatment of people in third world countries? Because it's a losing
battle, that's why."
I was just writing down some thoughts I forgot to erase. I don't
think that unborn life is important though and arguing about it is
like farting in the wind.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Do you think all life is sanctified? Why aren't you out complaining
about the murder of Jews and Palastinianss? harsh condition and
treatment of people in third world countries? Because it's a losing
battle, that's why."
NOW who's trying to give someone an argument that they don't use? :)
I DO complain about the Jews and the Palestinians (but unlike the
digerati, politically-correct and paparazzi, I place the blame more on
the latter than the former). And I have complained here -- loudly --
about the treatment of people in other countries, most notably the
genocide that's going on in the Sudan (with nary a peep from the
current administration).
In fact, I believe I made the point earlier that the same people who
argue that we are "saving the innocents" in Bosnia conveniently ignore
the same thing in other parts of the world. I guess the little brown
babies in the Sudan just aren't as important as all those white
babies in Bosnia, are they? :)
(That's more sardonic humor, in case you've missed it.)
(And by the way, to everyone else here: if my initial reply seemed
cold -- after all, this person claimed to be "the Nashes" -- rest
assured, this person is NOT "the Nashes.")
(In fact, it's probably the same person I deleted earlier in this
thread.[g])
(As long as he doesn't try any more silly games with Javascript, he
may continue to post as well.)
(Now: the reason I'm NOT at work is because I have to take Sandy for
an emergency procedure at the hospital. Her sight has begun failing
again. Those of you who are the praying kind, I would appreciate your
prayers.)
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
FutureShock,
More spin.
I didn't make those poll numbers up, they represent a scientific
sampling that cuts across racial, party and religious lines. Do you
believe in representative democracy, or not?
I am NOT "imposing" my beliefs on anyone if I try to persuade them to
vote a certain way. They can always say, "take a hike" and mark
whatever names they choose on the ballot (and more often than not,
that's precisely what they do).
And I have to say something about this.
Forget the buddhists. Forget the unitarian universalists. Forget
the atheists. Forget the Jews. Forget the Hindus, the theosophists,
the muslims. You all seem to think that you have some right to control
this country, some ridiculous idea that we have to be a christian
country.
We debated this at length at the old Poole's Roost and I pointedly
said that this is NOT a "Christian nation." You should also be careful
in assuming that these other religious groups are automatically
pro-choice; nothing could be further from the truth.
Muslims, in particular, consider it an abhorrent practice. So do many
members of the other religions you name.
You may try as desperately as you like to make this a "Christian Right
vs. Sensible People" thing, but it's simply not true. The fact that
you'd believe this demonstrates that the spin has been effective in
your case.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
It's your lucky day :) My boss gave me some time off.
Praying are for suckers with time to waste, but I'll keep a good
thought for your wife.
Of course I am the guy you deleted. Meathead! I don't know what it is
going to take for you to believe that I didn't mean to crash that
thread. I mixed up a little java script for html and that's an easy
thing to do. YOU went overboard when you deleted the whole da*n post.
Everybody knows all you had to do was fix it or simply wipe out
just that command. You didn't have to wipe out the whole
stinking thing and you sure as he*l didn't have to delete the other
one. Don't tell me you don't have the time to be fixing everyone's
mistakes because you took the extra time to go to the other thread and
delete it. You already showed your hypocracy and character with your
little hissy fit.
Now, down to business. It doesn't matter if I'm Mr. Nash or not. The
fact remains that you seem to ignore "murder" if it is in the best
interest of a live child because you haven't commented on it and
neither have the other namby pamby anti-abortion
let's-hold-hands-and-protect-all-children people. So where do you
people draw the line?
You said earlier that there isn't one perfect way to eliminate
abortion. You said that education would be needed. Let me ask you
this:
1. What would you teach.
2. To whom would you teach.
If you are going to tell me you are going into high schools to warn
horny hormone-raging adolesents about the penalties they will have to
pay if they engage in sex, spare me. We live in a pleasure-oriented
society with instant gratification as the over-arching
pasttime. Teaching teenagers there are consequences is difficult or
impossible without the benefit of experience. Once a girl is pregnant,
the couple may learn they made a mistake, but the end result is still
a baby. When you multiply this scenario a couple of million times a
year you have a nightmare for the taxpayers. The cycle mushrooms
because children very often make the same mistakes their parents did
and it doesn't take very long to see the birth rate rising
exponentially. I think reasonable understood this in the late
'60's and that is why abortion was legalized. It is mostly
fundamental xians that would have us still living in the dark ages.
Education might work with a few people, but it can't hold back the
baby flood gates.
Now, let's take the example of us adult married couples. You are
deluding yourself if you think your mere words are going to make
anyone change their entire lifestyle to suit your "philosophy".
When we get up in the morning it's difficult enough to take care of
everyday pressures without the added burden of another child. Children
are an 18-21 year committment that many of us don't want or can't
handle. If my wife gets pregnant again will you raise our baby? Will
you let us see him when we want? We will want to because we know he's
on this earth, ya know. If he's aborted the subject is over and done
with. You won't have to muddy your life with us, and we won't have to
worry about him. Abortion allows everyone to live their life as they
chose.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Except for the person it kills.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Stephen, you seem to have quite an affinity for the word "spin,"
don't you? Everything you disagree with is "spin".
>>I am endlessly amazed at how successful Democratic spin against
Republicans in general, and right-wingers in particular, has been. My
hat goes off to them; they've done a marvelous job at painting
conservatives like me as neanderthalish theocrats (and worse). They
should give lessons. :)<<
Oh, but we learned from the Far Right, who have been broadcasting
their rhetoric on hate radio and in the press for twenty years.
"Neanderthalish theocrats?" Hey, if the shoe fits.
Again, Stephen and David, you are both men, and will NEVER sustain an
unwanted pregnancy. When your period is six weeks late because your
birth control has failed, you're a secretary making $10.00 an hour,
and your health insurance doesn't have maternity coverage, why don't
you give me a call? I'm sure that you'll both have all the answers.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
Stephen, we aren't having kids, either. Does this make my opinions
any less valid?
Frankly, I believe that birth control should be in the water supply,
and prospective parents should undergo counseling and psychological
testing to receive the antidote. Too many abused and unwanted kids,
too many parents who dump their responsibilities on others. Five
hundred thousand unwanted kids who will have NO skills at all to
become functional and successful adults.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
You tell 'em, Julie.
"...As Long As We Can Live Our Selfish Lives The Way We Want
(lets@play.God)"
You bet I'm selfish. It ensures the comfort and survival of my
existing family. It also ensures that my family won't put a
strain on the environment or your taxes.
Oh yeah,,,,I am not playing god --- I am god in my world, and I
accept all the responsibilities that go along with that.
Is anyone going to answer my question regarding Nash and where to
draw the line?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Julie:
A few points.
(1) I'm not trying to dictate to anyone what they should do. I'm
stating my opinion. My adoptive mother (who's the only mother I've
ever known) shares that opinion, and she's (1) female and (2)
Democrat.
(2) It's simply not true that people who oppose abortion don't care
about people after they're born. My family donates to the Children's
Home Society of NC, located in Greensboro, each and every year.
That's the organization that set up both my sister's and my adoptions;
and they do a lot for orphans as well. Not just newborn babies.
(3) Abortion on demand IS murder. Flat-out simple. I don't oppose
abortion when it threatens the mother's life. But abortions of
convenience, which are the vast majority, I consider to be murder,
out-and-out. There's nothing anyone can say or do to convince me
otherwise. You might as well try to tell me the sun isn't yellow, or
that the sky isn't blue.
(4) Your tirade about the "have-nots" is just so much fluff. Any
woman in this country who doesn't feel she can adeqautely care for a
newborn can give the baby up for adoption. There are thousands of
couples nationwide, as we speak, who are waiting for adoptive babies.
But they can't get them, because most women who have unwanted
pregnancies are more interested in having abortions than in carrying
the baby to full term, letting it live, and then giving it up for
adoption to a couple that's able to care for it.
========
Patricia: sorry that you agree with Julie. Thought you had more
human sensibility than that.
========
FutureShock:
If you'll read what I originally said --
"I don't advocate anyone's murder."
I don't "advocate violence against human beings performing a legal
medical act", as you say.
But I'm not too unhappy when a butcher gets offed. Neither would I
have been too unhappy had I been alive when Adolf Hitler died.
Just because something's legal doesn't make it right. It was once
legal to own slaves in this country. Was that right, because it was
legal? It was legal in Germany to herd Jews into concentration camps
and kill them by the millions. Was that right?
Don't talk to me about something being right just because it's legal.
And once again, I'm not dictating anything.
I'm stating my opinion. Period. Get your terms straight.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
C.L.: Sorry that you disagree with Julie. Thought you had
considerably less self-righteousness. How "christian" of you to judge
me as you have. I expected better of you.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Pat --
It's self-righteous to disapprove of the intentional killing of little
humans? (when myself and my sister were once under that same gun)
Oh my. Need to update my dictionary.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Stephen:
My point was not to say that other religions, other ideologies, are
pro-choice. My overall point concerned moral absolutism-the idea that
we can come up with a set of all things right and all things wrong
based on one particular theology. I admit that sometimes I am
debating not your position, but the whole christian right position. I
would also defend your right to your opinion and your private call to
action. My concern is having a religious faction push through
legislation based on these moral "absolutes" which may be the
antitheses of someone else's belief system. I am a moral relativist-
that situations dictate morals, and that there are no absolutes. We
will never see eye to eye as I belief "Hitler is going to heaven". We
have irreconcilable differenced.
I think all we can strive for is to better understand one another's
position, and try to have some respect for it. I struggle with having
respect for your position, but I am in this thread to give it
credence.
As far as statistics, I guess the only way we will ever know is if
the issue comes up as a constitutional amendment. I suspect it would
fail, as I believe you would see up to 80% turnout, and I beleive the
higher the turnout, the more pro-choice it will be. Polls prove
absolutely nothing. Polls had Bush winning the popular vote by
anwhere from 1% to as high as 8%(voter.com). Quoting the statistics
lends very little credence to how the country as a whole would vote
on this issue.
Chicken:
Welp-I apologize if I said dictate-surely your opinion is as valid as
mine as far as it goes. I do not see a distinction, however, between
advocating violence against clinicians(as you say you do not) and
thinking that it is a good thing when it happens. You fail to respond
to my claim of your double standard-Is life sacred or not in your
book? Cold-blooded murder of a clinician is still a murder-so what is
your point? If murder is bad, all murder is bad. How do you get out
of this conclusion?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
There are thousands of couples nationwide, as we speak, who are
waiting for adoptive babies. But they can't get them, because most
women who have unwanted pregnancies are more interested in having
abortions than in carrying the baby to full term, letting it live,
and then giving it up for adoption to a couple that's able to care
for it.
No offense, but that's just not true. I'm looking at the 1998 Annual
Summary of State Child Welfare Data. You are correct, there are
thousands of couples waiting to adopt children. However, there are
five times the number of children waiting to be adopted. In
1998, there were 23,000 children adopted. There were another 100,000
still waiting for homes. Another 500,000 are in foster care (though
admittedly mnany of them are not available for adoption). The
problem is certainly not a lack of children to adopt. The problem is
a lack of couples who wish to adopt.
Here's a link.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/outcomes/childwelfare/Sec4/summary
.html
Stephen-
I couldn't find two web sources that agree with one another on the
web, so I turned to my fiance's brother's Human Biology textbook,
which says that fetal brainwaves begin to develop during the 12th week
(at the end of the first trimester) and are fully developed by the
24th week (end of the second trimester). The fetus has a heart beat
by the end of the 4th week. The text is called "Human Biology and
Development" and is a college-level text. I didn't write the names
of the authors down, sorry, but I've sent him an e-mail so we can
share the citation. It's not fair to expect you to discuss something
you can't examine.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
It was legal in Germany to herd Jews into concentration camps and
kill them by the millions. Was that right?
I hearby invoke Godwin's Law. In brining up the holocaust, Chicken
Little has lost this argument.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Julie,
The "spin" is the part that is precisely as I described it in that
other thread. The "spin" in your post is the assumption that
Republican males, or that the Christian Right, are the only people
who are opposed to abortion, or who would try to tell you whether or
not to have one.
Of course I don't consider anything I disagree with to be "spin."
Just Honest,
Then why don't you just stop playing games, pick a handle and use it?
There's nothing wrong with being anonymous or with posting strong
opinions. Have at it and have fun.
And since you asked, I'll tell you: the main reason why I deleted
your posts is because your javascript thing had disabled the admin
page view, too. The ONLY way I could remove it was to delete, which
is what I did.
FutureShock,
My concern is having a religious faction push through legislation
based on these moral "absolutes" which may be the antitheses of
someone else's belief system.
You might be surprised to find that we agree there -- strongly. Even
though I share their core beliefs, I'm not a "card carrying" (is there
such a thing?[g]) member of the Religious Right. If you had to pin a
label on me, you'd call me a Christian Libertarian or something like
that.
As long as I'm free to say my piece (and peace[g]), I'm satisfied.
And I've said my piece. I'm leaving this thread. Except for ...
Tarzan,
Actually, I'm different from some of the people that you'll debate. If
I'm wrong, I want to KNOW. If you can provide an authoritative cite on
that, I'm all ears.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Stephen-
Sure thing. BTW- where did you get your calculation of fetal
development? After I saw yours I did a quick search for info on
fetal brainwaves. I found plenty of assertations of development, but
they all disagreed rather wildly. I even found one pro-life site
that claimed brainwaves start just after the zygote stage. I think
we can both agree that that's ridiculous.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Tarzan,
Try http://www.visembryo.com.
If anyone wants to continue this, let's start a new thread. This one
has not only drifted radically, it's too blamed long for us dinosaurs
on dial-up connections. :)
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Tarzan --
Tried the link, but all I could get was a "404 Not Found".
Try again please? I'd be interested in reading that, though it would
run square contrary to the info I have from CHS-Greensboro.
Though there is the problem of 'crack babies', etc. I realize not
many people want to adopt kids with such pasts/liabilities. Which is
indeed sad. But org's like CHS try to help them too.
Godwin's Law? Heh. I guess the Holocaust is an invalid comparison
forevermore, just because of what Mike Godwin said. I say, Bull.
Many more millions of unborn humans have been killed since Roe v. Wade
than the numbers of Jews that were killed in WWII. If you say, that
comparison is invalid, I say, you're trying to sweep something under
the rug. Facts are facts. The whole thing comes down to, how you
define 'what is a human being'. I say a fetus is, from conception on
up. Pro-abortion people deny that.
I've lost no argument whatsoever. You've misapplied "Godwin's Law".
I don't bow to Godwin, whomever he may be.
FutureShock --
I don't think it's a good thing when anyone dies. No matter
what the reason. But some people do things that are more deserving of
death than others.
People who make a living out of killing unborn children are more
deserving of death than your average Joe who harms no one, methinks.
That's all I mean by what I've said. Nothing more, nothing less.
And I stand by that. And always will.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Well, I can tell y'all that [at least until sometime during the
latter portion of the second trimester],
a fetus LOOKS like a little blob of protoplasm, and since it can't
sustain life on it's own, that's ALL
it is. We're talking about something smaller than my thumbnail
here, and when it FALLS out into
the toilet [like my first unsuccessful pregnancy did], or when it's
removed by a doctor, it's STILL
an unviable life form.
I'll defend to my death a woman's right to an abortion, because I've
BEEN in a position where I was
told that my fetus could be grossly deformed. I don't want ANY woman
to have to decide whether
to break a law AND risk death by the hands of backalley abortionists
or bear something that doesn't
even resemble a human. *I* was lucky. My second rubella test showed
that the first was a fluke, but
the titre testing kits didn't come in for the retest until I was in
the second trimester.
You can't be the arbiters of someone else's family, as much as you'd
LIKE to be.
Regarding Ashcroft, he's opposed to anything he considers an
abortifacient. This includes birth
control pills, the IUD, and those shots that are common these days,
basically ANYTHING that
interferes with the fertilized egg implanting in the uterine wall.
He could also be against condoms,
diaphragms, sterilization, and masturbation [solo or mutual], but I
haven't heard this about him.
You can talk all you want about when life begins, but I'm probably
the only one here who spent three
years trying to get pregnant, dropped the first in the toilet, and
got a REAL scare before bearing three
children who lived to adulthood. To ME, life begins when they pop
out of the womb.
I didn't drop by to discuss abortion, however. I dropped by because
I had some time and read some
stuff that just wasn't true.
By the time any doctor on the planet can tell a woman is pregnant,
that fetus already has a heartbeat, brain waves, and fingerprints.
And here began the amature embryologist statements. While Stephen's
statement regarding a heartbeat at 21 days is true, this "beat" is a
function of two heart tubes having combined into one to form cardiac
muscle contractions in an organ so rudimentary that it resembles
NOTHING like a heart. The fetal heart isn't even out of its critical
stage of development until almost the end of the first trimester, and
it still has a ways to go after that.
The same holds true of "brain waves". What exactly does a brain wave
mean to you?
At about 48 days, a bit of electrical activity can be detected in
what passes for a fetal
brain at that stage, but it isn't until 24 weeks that those "brain
waves" activate senses,
not until 26 weeks that those "brain waves" resemble a full-term
baby's brain waves, and
not until 28 weeks that those "brain waves" control breathing and
body temperature.
Fingerprints don't develop until 16 weeks.
No doctor on the planet, eh? Guess you never studied Biology, John.
Ever heard of HCG?
Pregnancy
Tests
I'm not so sure that medical science will ever be able to perform
the "miracles" you'd
like to see, Stephen. Besides the things I mentioned above, blood
vessels don't start to
develop in lungs until 24 weeks. These are required to breath air.
In addition, the size
of a fetus is equal to my thumb-nail until after the first
trimester. I don't see many parents
interested in viewing their fetus through a microscope.
Visual Embryo
Mo
re on Embryonic Development
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Tarzan -- Tried the link, but all I could get was a "404 Not
Found". Try again please? I'd be interested in reading that, though
it would run square contrary to the info I have from CHS-
Greensboro.
Here's a hotlink.
Annual Summary of Child Welfare Data
Though there is the problem of 'crack babies', etc. I realize not
many people want to adopt kids with such pasts/liabilities.
No, crack babies do not account for 75% of all children available for
adoption. In fact, according to these statistics, disabled children
accounted for 18,166 children available, or less than the number of
adopted children for the year.
Which is indeed sad. But org's like CHS try to help them too.
I'm a big believer in adoption. My younger brother is adopted, my
fiance is an adoption counselor, and we have always planned to adopt
at least one child ourselves once we're married. However, rates of
adoption seem to have declined as reproduction technology becomes
more accessible. We seem to have a cultural bias for "having our own
children". People go to ridiculous lengths to defy nature and give
birth where they lack the physical ability instead of opening their
families to the tens of thousands of children who need parents.
Godwin's Law? Heh. I guess the Holocaust is an invalid comparison
forevermore, just because of what Mike Godwin said. I say, Bull.
No. The holocaust is an incredibly emotionally charged, horrific
event that stands out even in the sad history of genocide. The idea
behind Godwin's law is that people use comparisons to the holocaust
and Nazis as a cheap emotional ploy and if their argument isn't
strong enough to stand without such a low tactic, the argument has
failed. Either your argument can stand without such hyperbole or it
can't stand at all.
If you say, that comparison is invalid, I say, you're trying to
sweep something under the rug. Facts are facts.
Yes, and the facts are that you would use the deaths of those who
were tortured and died at the hands of the Nazis to strengthen your
position. Shame on you.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Stephen-
Any interest in a thread about the RHETORIC surrounding the abortion
debate, rather than a rehash of the old "it's murder" "no it's not"
dialectical?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
While I was still here, I wanted to add something regarding "those
crack babies."
Crack
cocaine...Are there REALLY crack babies?
It looks like the studies that were done in the 80's, [when crack
babies were all over the news] didn't take into account the OTHER
drugs that the mothers used.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Anita, where you been? After your last post on Unks place I feared
we'd never see you again!
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Again, Stephen and David, you are both men, and will NEVER sustain
an unwanted pregnancy. When your period is six weeks late because
your birth control has failed, you're a secretary making $10.00 an
hour, and your health insurance doesn't have maternity coverage, why
don't you give me a call? I'm sure that you'll both have all the
answers.
Well, actually my wife is more involved in the issue, she volunteers
with a crisis pregnancy center. It is amazing how many women choose
not to abort their baby after seeing it on ultrasound. We donate
things to mothers to be, my wife sometimes counsels those who have
had abortions, etc. All in all, a tough thing for all, babes, women,
and my heart goes out to all of them.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
(Amazing, how slick/diabolical some of this contrarian reasoning can
be. People like Poole and me come out against the prevailing
wickedness that permeates the land, and the harpies come out in full
force with all their twisted arguments!)
Excuse me -- that was a fictional imaginary interlude, a la Groucho.
============
Anita -- you just quite simply have NO idea what you're talking about.
I work on PC's for the 2 most prominent/prolific OB/GYN doctors in
this part of the state, and they confirm what I say about prenatal
development. Check your sources. These guys got their MD's from Duke
University, (heard of it?) have been in practice since the 1960's.
Real-life testimony vs. web links.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
And if you can't believe an anonymous internet poster who claims to
be a PC technician for two anonymous doctors, who can you believe,
right?
Look, I'm not saying you're a liar, I'm just saying that in this
case, your word isn't enough. Since we're all more or less anonymous,
I don't think ANYONE should be taken at their word alone. As Ronald
Reagan said, "Trust but verify," Anyway, as I said to Stephen, it's
not fair to expect someone to discuss a citation they can't see.
Since we haven't met your doctors and don't know what material you've
read or discussed, it's a dead-end.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Tarzan --
If anyone should be ashamed, it should be you, at how you try
to twist my words.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Well, I can tell y'all that [at least until sometime during the
latter portion of the second trimester], a fetus LOOKS like a little
blob of protoplasm, and since it can't sustain life on it's own,
that's ALL it is.
Anita,
I do understand the need to "dehumanize" the baby in the womb in
order to justify the killing of it, but here you go to extremes.
Looks like a blob of protoplasm until the latter portion of the
second trimester? Toward the end of the 6th month, are you kidding?
Did you mean toward the end of the second MONTH???? Even that is
wrong, but at least its not QUITE as big a lie, lol.
Seriously, I wonder what it is that makes people distort the truth to
such extremes about abortion. I guess you have to do it, or you
couldn't stomach it, all in all, I find it rather sad.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Chicken Little-
I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you provide an
example?
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
True enough, Tarz. (regarding your last post - my last was dealing
with yours before that -- the ol' time factor)
But BTW -- I don't understand how your close folks can be so
intimately involved with adoption and such -- yet you can support the
abortion platform.
Do tell. Though it upsets me, I do want to try to understand how
people think that way.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Chicken Little-
I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you provide an
example?
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net),
January 11, 2001.
============================
Yes, and the facts are that you would use the deaths of those who were
tortured and died at the hands of the Nazis to strengthen your
position. Shame on you.
-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net),
January 11, 2001.
==============
Tarzan --
If anyone should be ashamed, it should be you, at how you try to twist
my words.
-- Chicken Little (calmnow@finished.com), January 11, 2001.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Unless women have the right to determine what happens to their
bodies, they can never truly be equal.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
It was legal in Germany to herd Jews into concentration camps and
kill them by the millions. Was that right?
Sorry Chicken, but it's not twisting someone's words if you quote
them in context. You meant to use the holocaust to bolster your
abortion argument. Shame on you.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Okay. Let's get down to brass tacks.
"Unless women have the right to determine what happens to their
bodies, they can never truly be equal." -- you're using the old
"so when did you stop beating your wife?" tactic.
There's a very huge component you leave out. When "women get to
choose" -- what about the living organism within their bodies? What
about THAT little person's right to choose? HUH? That kinda gets
left right out, now doesn't it.
And don't hand me Anita's crap about "a fetus isn't a human". I was
once a fetus. So were you. How would you feel about the possibility
of you being aborted? HUH?? Yeah, it becomes pretty personal, when
you think about that aspect.
Women have a biological function ordained by God Almighty, which is
the bearing of children. (Hope nobody argues with that.) Abortion is
an unnatural interruption of that natural process. By definition.
Anything unnatural...is just unnatural.
Abortion....homosexuality....bestiality....child pornography....all
fall into the same classification.
Things that should not be allowed.
Again (before the Thought Police kick in), I'm just stating my
opinion.
Happy January.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
I highly recommend the book "A Child is Born" by Lennart Nilsson for
those who want to see actual photos in the womb of fetal
development. By 8 weeks, it has developed from an "embryo" to
a "fetus", and it looks human in the color photograph I'm looking at
right now. By the middle part of the second trimester, at 4 1/2
months, it is moving its hands, sucking its thumb, and looks like a
small baby to me!
About abortion, I say again that I don't want to play God, others
may. I do wan't people to understand what they are killing, and its
not the image some present. I understand and stand up for AND
SUPPORT those who want to outlaw abortion as a means of birth
control. I believe considerations should be made for those RARE
instances where the mothers LIFE is truly theatened (as opposed to
the "health" thats just the leftist license to abort for birth
control due to "mental state of health")or cases of incest, or
perhaps severe deformity that would not have allowed any meaningful
life, as it appears that Anita may have been faced with(in rereading
that, I know that was hard, sorry you had to deal with that Anita.)
I had a cousin whose life was threatened as she carried a child and
was diagnosed with cancer midway or so into her pregnancy. She chose
to delay some of the treatments. She gave birth to a healthy baby
boy, and then died just a few days after the delivery. I don't think
she ever left the hospital - what she did leave behind were twin sons
about 3 years old, and one newborn baby boy. She gave probably a few
months or years of her life for her life within. There was hardly a
a dry eye in the church at the funeral, not her Christian mother, not
her Jewish father, not the Christians and Jews who sat in pews. Only
the two Presbyterian ministers, one male, one female, had the
calmness and love and peace that only comes from God in their faces,
the rest of us just drowned in our grief every time we looked at the
boys. Now this is love, this is courage, to do something like this
in spite of your own life.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Just to add another twist-My wife and I recently tried to go through
a "fost-adopt" process, where we dealt with a social services agency
representing the state office of youth and family services. We truly
wished to get on the road to adoption, but were met with a social
worker who was unprofessional and unethical. We put up with months of
obvious incredulity on her part(she truly hated that we did not have
a declared religion, and she could not fathom Bok's Grokkers-had no
idea about a prayer group on the internet), months of her outright
insulting my wife, and other transgressions.
We checked with the national association of social workers, and this
women indeed breached several points of ethics. Complaints to her
supervisor AND the state coordinator in our region fell on deaf ears.
My wife is an attorney and I am a Sales manager-we made six figures
last year. Neither one of us has a criminal record. We are both
gainfully employed. We are perfectly suited for parenthood-but the
red tape and ineffectiveness of this women soured our desire to work
within the state framework. Private adoptions are extraordinarily
expensive, even with our income.
We called several christian organizations, and we were turned down
because we were not declared christians-now what about that? They
would only consider us if the child was being sent to "good christian
home". Is that REALLY in the best interest of the child, all things
considered?
It is not an easy task to adopt a child. It can be expensive and
extremely frustrating. In a world of no choice, will it become any
easier? This is one reason why some many children are still waiting,
and why many folks drop out.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
David:
Sorry that the big blood-clot-looking thing that *I* scooped up out
of the toilet bowl doesn't fit your bill.
John:
I get my information from my text books in Biology. I provided web-
site information only because that's the only reference you can see
from me.
Tarzan:
I'm not interested in arguing with these right-wingers. As I said, I
had some time, peeked in, saw inaccuracies, and spent the time. E-
mail me if you have time.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
David --
that's.....absolutely beautiful. And right on target.
-- Anonymous, January 11, 2001
Future Shock --
Wow. You've got your heart in the right place. Forgive my former
unkind comments, I'll forgive you yours.
Wish you could talk to my sister, but location is the thing, huh.
She's become an MSW, and CCSW. Her husband too, And they're real good
at what they do. (Which sometimes involves adoptions.)
Good luck.
CL ("John", Anita calls me...and she's right HEH)
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
OK, it's official: this is The Thread That Won't Die. :)
Anita,
It's good to see you again, even if you do feel that you're slumming
amongst the evil right-wingers. :)
I'm not so sure that medical science will ever be able to perform
the "miracles" you'd like to see, Stephen.
Sure they will. Here at UAB, they're already saving babies well into
the 2nd trimester with CURRENT technology -- babies whose lungs and
other internal organs HAVE NOT fully developed (just as you say).
There is no question that these children would die if it wasn't for
external life support. But there is also no question that we are
developing, and will continue to develop, machines that will
essentially duplicate all of the key functions of the womb in the
coming years.
(In like manner, I can see the day when we'll have truly effective
artificial hearts, kidneys, lungs, you name it. It's just a matter of
time.)
And yes, that's going to raise a whole NEW set of ethical questions
and open a whole new can of worms. You have been warned. :)
The "wide-open" pro-lifers -- ie, those who believe that abortion
should be unrestricted, period, get out of our way and HUSH -- had
better learn how to convince people like ME. Declaring us ignorant
isn't a terribly effective selling method.
I should think that the poll numbers that I posted above from NORC and
the LA Times would give ANY pro-lifer pause. I posted them for a
reason. If nothing else, they DO illustrate that it ain't just the
"Christian Right" who wants to restrict abortion.
Know thy enemy; assumptions can be expensive.
Me? I cannot, and will not, question any individual woman's choice in
the matter. I will try to make her see that there are alternatives,
and that you never know how things will turn out. But when it comes
down to cases, it's between the woman, her doctor and her God.
But you and I both know that this represents a bare fraction of all
cases. The vast majority of abortions are performed on demand as a
means of retroactive birth control (primarily on teens).
Tarzan,
Rhetoric, spin, choose your label -- and yeah, that would probably
take about THREE threads[g]. The real problem is that both sides are
so convinced that they're right, facts are an inconvenience.
(Note that I said BOTH sides -- mine included. For example, I've had
pro-lifers tell me that a woman can't get pregnant from being raped.
That's ludicrous, of course, but I could not convince them otherwise.)
Unless women have the right to determine what happens to their
bodies, they can never truly be equal.
I'm not going to disagree with that. Women have been property for most
of history. But it's also true that, for most of history, children
have been considered a blessing, and not an inconvenience.
My job, as I said above, is to convince the woman that she should
*want* the child. Children are a treasure to be cherished, protected
and loved.
On adoption (this thread is so long, I've forgotten who said what!):
MY contention is that adoption should be made easier. It is
ridiculously difficult at present. THAT ALONE would help solve the
problem.
To all in general:
I am surprised that so few people would touch Chicken Little's main
point. Yeah, he might have gotten a little acidic with his rhetoric,
but frankly, he had a RIGHT to: he was adopted. Had he been born
recently, rather than a million years ago (like me[g]), he might
might not be around today.
That's something to think about. As far as I'm concerned, he can be
forgiven for getting a little emotional about the argument that
kids should be aborted because there are already too many waiting for
adoption. :)
And in a non-rational, emotional vein, I'll finish with my favorite
example: here's a woman who has chronic syphillis and is pregnant.
She's already lost one child; another was born deformed. Surely she
should have an abortion?
If you said "yes," congratulations: you just killed Beethoven.
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
CL, you said: "Thought you had more human sensibility than
that." THAT is the statement to which I was referring.
It is self-righteous of you to sit there in judgement of others
(which is exactly what you've done to me, to Tarzan, to FS). I always
thought that was a big "no-no" in Christianity. Should I change MY
definition of "Christianity"?
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
There's a very huge component you leave out. When "women get to
choose" -- what about the living organism within their bodies?
You might as well ask a woman's breasts how they feel about being
augmented or a man's nose how it feels about being surgically
restructued. Just because something is alive doesn't make it a
seperate being in and of itself.
And don't hand me Anita's crap about "a fetus isn't a human". I
was once a fetus. So were you. How would you feel about the
possibility of you being aborted? HUH?? Yeah, it becomes pretty
personal, when you think about that aspect.
I was once a sperm and ova too. In fact, who knows how many
potential brothers or sisters were lost every time my father whacked
off as a teenager? What a tragedy.
I think you're making it too personal. If you were never born in the
first place, it wouldn't make a difference to you.
Women have a biological function ordained by God Almighty, which
is the bearing of children.
Oh please. If the women of your religion want to limit themselves to
being nothing more than broodmares, so be it. I'm pro-choice, even
if that choice involves one I wouldn't choose for myself or the women
in my life. But don't try to impose your value system on every woman
in the world, especially when your own holy book doesn't even condemn
abortion.
Abortion is an unnatural interruption of that natural process. By
definition. Anything unnatural...is just unnatural.
I guess you've never eaten Lucky Charms cereal, eh? Sure it's
unnatural, but it's magically delicious!
Abortion....homosexuality....bestiality....child
pornography....all fall into the same classification.
Abortion- the choice of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a
particular child. Homosexuality, a consensual relationship between
two members of the same sex. Bestiality, the focus of human sexual
desires on to animals who can neither consent nor understand. Child
pornography, the focuse of adult sexual desires onto children who can
neither consent nor understand. All of these things are completely
different. You are lumping them together for the same reason you
tried to use the holocaust to make your point, because you can't make
your argument stand on it's own merits.
David-
When I was a young college kid, I had a summer job in agriculture
that involved being around a lot of people who weren't very educated,
many of whom were migrants. I spent that summer practicing my
Spanish and getting to know those folks. They were nice. One young
woman in particular spoke to me often of taking adult education
classes (she was married with three children at the age of 20). One
day, she stopped coming to work. I asked everyone where she was, and
finally her sister told me. My friend had gotten pregnant again and
did not wish to have a fourth child, since she could barely care for
the three she already had. She tried to get an abortion, but was so
intimidated by the screaming protestors that she couldn't go through
with it. Instead, she got a neighbor to help her with knitting
needles. Predictably, her uterus was perforated and she very nearly
bled to death. She survived.
Outlawing abortion will never remove the need for abortions.
Abortion has existed throughout human civilization. Some
hieroglyphics in ancient Egypt refer to abortion methods. If you
outlaw abortions, women will continue to have unplanned pregnancies,
just as they've always done, and they will continue to choose to
terminate them, just as they've always done, and when they are
outlawed, women will sustain serious injuries or die, just as they've
always done.
FS-
I mentioned your story to my fiance. I don't know what state you're
in, but most states favor foster parents for adoption. Try becoming
a licensed foster home.
Stephen-
Unfortunately, throughout history, children have also often been
unwelcomed. In ancient Greek, infanticide was perfectly acceptable
(remember the story of Oedipus?). Early American newspapes often had
advertisements for abortifacient herbs, such as Pennyroyal, sold as
abortifacients. As I mentioned above, ancient Egyptian texts refer
to methods of abortion. Outlawing abortion won't change a thing,
though it might help a few people to sleep easier at night.
Here's an answer to your situation. A very strong-willed farm woman
already has one son, a weak and ineffectual boy. She is pregnant. Her
husband will soon die and she will be left to run the 160-acre
Wisconsin farm with two small children. Would you recommend abortion
in the case?
If you said no, congratulations! You're responsible for the birth of
Ed Gein, who murdered and dismembered at least 15 people. He ate some
of the remains and fashioned others into furniture and clothes. When
he was caught he had a beheaded, gutted woman hanging by her ankles
from meat hooks in an outbuilding. His story is so gruesome that is
the basis of 'The Texas Chain saw Massacre,' 'Psycho,' and 'The
Silence of the Lambs.'
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
Stephen,
You posted:
A recent Los Angeles Times poll demonstrates that support is
slipping. More importantly, that 70% figure refers to those who are
simply asked, "should it remain legal?" (And actually, it's not 70%
in that case, it's more like 85-90%).
I agree with many of the opinions you hold in your post above,
Stephen, but I must say that you appear to be quite capable of
abusing poll results as bad as the rest of us ;) I visited the site
you linked to for the LA Times poll, and nowhere did I find that 85-
90% of people surveyed said yes to "should it remain legal?." Do you
have a link to the LA times poll that shows this? Common sense and
many other polls (such as the Gallup poll I linked to earlier)
indicate that you are misreading the LA poll QUESTION and results
here. The only thing close to what you have posted at the link you
provided, LA Times Poll, is as follows:
"While 85% support abortion when a woman’s physical health is at
risk, the level of support drops to 54% when only her emotional
health is at stake."
Thats not quite the same as claiming the poll indicates that 85%
believe abortion "should remain legal", its more like 85% believe
abortion "should remain legal in the case where a womans physical
health is at risk." There is a difference, which is quite clear if
you read all the results provided at the LA Times poll link.
Interestingly, the same poll shows:
"57% consider abortion to be murder" - I could stop there, but thats
what people do when they want to present only a selected view of the
big picture - the rest of it says "but more than half of that group
believe a woman should have the right to choose an abortion."
Also from the same poll:
"2/3 say that abortion should be illegal after the first three
months of pregnancy."
Basically, the fact is that most poll results, including the Gallup
Poll on Abortion
will show that most citizens want further restrictions on abortions.
So ... MY position, and NOT that of Planned Parenthood and NARAL,
is the norm. THEY are the ones outside of the mainstream, not ME. :)
While I am glad that most americans see this issue close to how I do,
I personally find no honorable solice in being "right" due
to "popular opinion", since history is replete where the masses have
supported regimes that committed attrocities. My beliefs on the
subject are grounded in my faith, as I am sure yours are based other
comments you have maded in your post.
Julie,
You again posted:
Again, Stephen and David, you are both men, and will NEVER sustain
an unwanted pregnancy. When your period is six weeks late because
your birth control has failed, you're a secretary making $10.00 an
hour, and your health insurance doesn't have maternity coverage, why
don't you give me a call? I'm sure that you'll both have all the
answers.
From the LA Times poll results linked to above:"Interestingly, more women than men feel that second-trimester
abortions should be illegal (72% to 58%)."
If its a "men vs. women" thing, then please note that this poll
indicates that women tend to be more against abortion than men, which
bears out what I said in my earlier post about a poll I saw a few
years ago. In any case, I do not think that a job description, an
hourly wage, and whether your birth control "fails" should be a
factor as to whether to kill your own offspring or not. I would
suggest throwing in whats right and whats wrong and the fact that you
carry an innocent life thats a part of you into the equation.....
Frankly, I believe that birth control should be in the water
supply, and prospective parents should undergo counseling and
psychological testing to receive the antidote.
I think you
are kidding here, but if not Julie, please seek counselling ;)
Also, you may find China a fun place to live since they often force
women to have abortions.
Five hundred thousand unwanted kids who will have NO skills at all
to become functional and successful adults. br>
Now I see your point and agree we must kill them all immediately with
the preferred method of abortion, THAT will make them "functional and
successful adults."
Future Shock
You addressed this question to chicken little, but I am moved to
respond as well:
What gave you the right to dictate law by your moral absolutes
alone?
I don't think that cl is dictating law here, I believe he is
expressing his opinions as we all are. And what gives you the right
to dictate laws by whatever abosultes, gut feelings, beliefs, that
you hold? What gives you the right to try to prevent others from
including their religious faith and freedom in determining what laws
we should have? What gives you the right to insist that only
secular, or immoral beliefs must be in our laws? I know that I'm
putting words in your mouth here, but thats exactly what you are
doing to cl, and its also a bit of fun for me ;)
Basically it works this way, we each are a product of our beliefs,
whatever they may be, and these beliefs will be a part of the
decisions we make, about laws, about whatever. For you to imply that
religous views should not be a part of our decisions is like us
insisting you leave out whatever views you hold in making your
decisions. Thats just plain silly.
Tarzan,
I realize that you are never wrong, like Stephen, myself, and most
here, lol, but your claim that Stephen's statement concerning
thousands of couples waiting to adopt babies is "just not true" is,
well, false. You grab a book of stats to prove your point, but what
you aren't looking at is the number of newborn babies available
for adoption. Stephen is correct, thousands of couples are
waiting (which you conceded), for babies, which are in short supply
for adoption, where there are more couples waiting than newborns
available. I think that most of the children available for adoption
are older children removed from homes for various reasons.
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
Tarzan,
"especially when your own holy book doesn't even condemn abortion. "
Tarzan, you are absolutely wrong here. It condmens killing, which
abortion IS. Nuff said.
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
David,
I was referring to NORC's numbers, not the LA Times poll. The point,
of course, was that a majority of Americans do want abortion to remain
a legal option. They also, however, are apparently willing to accept
some restrictions -- some strict limitations, in some cases -- on the
practice.
Read the NORC numbers in my post.
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
Julie,
In your initial post to me, you were quite prepared to use that "70%"
to indicate that I was out of the mainstream. Now you're saying that
you don't care what the majority wants? :)
Do you believe in representative democracy? If a majority of Americans
should decide someday that abortion should be outlawed, it WILL be
outlawed -- by Constitutional amendment, if need be. At present, that
seems quite unlikely, but under our system of government, just about
anything is possible in the long run.
And I repeat: you should be concerned about those poll numbers.
What I was trying to tell you was -- and I'm not picking on YOU here,
but on your more radical feminist brethren (sistren?[g]) -- you catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar. Yelling at people and calling
them names does very little to win them to one's point of view. :)
To whit and in specific: when people like me uses things like the
Beethoven example, whether you like it or not, it DOES have an
effect (sometimes a PROFOUND effect) on fence-sitters.
The radical pro-choicers have, in the past, been able to get away
with just blowing off these objections. "Aw, that's just Christian
Right propoganda." But in the future, you will have to start
addressing some of these objections head on, instead of just
pretending that the only people who HAVE such objections are
right-wing nutsos.
Tarzan,
A lot of people -- like us -- checked into adoption and gave up when
we saw that we probably wouldn't meet the requirements (in NC --
primarily for income). We plan to try again here in Alabama; maybe
it's easier here.
The figure that you cite is for those who are actively in the process,
waiting for children. There are many, many more couples who are NOT
officially on the waiting lists because they can't pass the
ridiculously stringent requirements in many states.
Which is why I said: let's FIX this problem. Make adoption easier and
more available. I guarantee you that the number of adoptions would skyrocket in
short order.
(See? I'm repeating myself. "Which is why I said ... which is why I
said ..." it's like a skipping CD.)
(You know, ya'll can certainly disagree with me, but if you carefully
read what I write, you'll see that I GENERALLY don't just blow smoke
and make things up. :)
(Doesn't mean I don't make mistakes, or that I'm never wrong. But in
general, I DO try not to just shoot from the hip.)
(End of parenthetical roll mode.[g])
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
David:
I am far from a biblical scholar. But my reading of the Old Testament
is a whole lot of bloody victories in one battle after another, while
God smites the heathen when required. Saul and David were
mercenaries, as I understand it. For a book that condemns killing,
the Bible sure spends a lot of time detailing and glorifying it. And
as Stephen points out, infanticide was a fairly common practice at
the time, common enough so nobody saw fit to condemn it.
Your reading is both selective and self-serving. You may have been
trained since childhood to believe abortion is wrong, but remember
that your opinion is an artifact of your training. As such, it's as
arbitrary as anyone else's, and somewhat less practical.
-- Anonymous, January 12, 2001
"What gives you the right to try to prevent others from including
their religious faith and freedom in determining what laws we should
have? "
Constitutional seperation of church and state. David, tell me how you
seperate religious belief from "church". It may be difficult for you
to accept, but I am protected from your religious beliefs by the
constitution.
Stephen, I know I am going to hell, but I actually LAUGHED at your
Beethoven example. I mean LAUGHED.
Tarzan-
The agency I was working with places children who are predominantly
about to have parental rights severed. So the "fost" part of the
program is at most a year and usually six months.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
Back From Vacation...
Re: non-Christian organizations that oppose abortion: atheists for
life, LeftOut and Plagal (Pro-Life Alliance Of Gays And Lesbians) all
approach the pro-life approach from a nontheistic perspective. Nat
Hentoff, a pro-life atheist columnist for the Village Voice,
sometimes argues that the pro-life approach is the only consistent
progressive interpretation. However, Plagal's is probably the most
relevant approach: as genetic tests become more sophisticated, and
assuming some degree of genetic determinism, is it fair to assume
that a couple will terminate the pregnancy of a fetus determined to
be homosexual? Eugenics has had a bad name since World War II, but
the idea of selectively aborting and sterilizing undesirable chunks
of the population was one of the original impeti for the birth
control movement (check up on Sanger, or consider the laws for
sterilizing the retarded that showed up here and there in the
south).
This situation has already occurred in Southeast Asia. India
discovered that shortly after introducing prenatal gender tests,
female fetuses were aborted at a considerably higher rate than male
ones. If memory serves me right, the normal male:female gender ratio
at birth is 104:100 or so (more males are born, but more die at an
early age). After introducing gender testing, the ratio went to
something like 118:100 or so. India's since restricted gender
testing, but I believe something similar is occurring in South Korea
now.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
mpc,
It has been happening in China for years, too; more boys are being
born than girls. China also enforces a strict population control
policy under which "excess" children are forcibly aborted.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
Stephen,
Yeah, Chinas 1-child policy has also led to a particularly high of
number of sex-selective abortions. I was trying to find examples of
more open societies though, primarily to point out that it's not so
much a government edict on high, though.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
Don't know how this one slipped by me. C.L. wrote: "Women have
a biological function ordained by God Almighty, which is the bearing
of children."
I believe this should cover it:
I will choose what enters me, what becomes
flesh of my flesh. Without choice, no politics,
no ethics lives. I am not your cornfield,
not your uranium mine, not your calf
for fattening, not your cow for milking.
You may not use me as your factory.
Priests and legislators do not hold
shares in my womb or my mind.
This is my body. If I give it to you
I want it back. My life
is a non-negotiable demand.
-- Marge Piercy
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
Nope, David, sorry, I have no interest in living in China. You might
find it enjoyable, though.
By the way, that's a whole new debate tactic I'm sure those you know
find riveting: If you disagree with your opponent, just imply that
they are mentally ill.
Also, David, just a question, since you know so much about gestation:
How long is a pregnancy trimester? Since a human pregnancy is nine
months in duration, the example I cited in my post would have made
the woman in question two months and two weeks pregnant, still within
the first trimester.
Any woman's circumstance in life directly contributes to whether or
not she continues a pregnancy. A woman who barely has enough to
support herself is not going to have the resources to pay for a
delivery. A routine delivery is $10,000 or more; most hospitals won't
admit folks without insurance coverage. If she manages to find a
hospital that will admit her, whether or not she subsequently gives
that child up for adoption is immaterial, because she still will be
faced with a bill that she cannot pay.
As far as your smart-ass comment about doing away with the 500,000
abandoned or unwanted children currently in the United States, while
you're crusading to save the unborn, who is caring for the unwanted?
You don't seem to want to address that question with anything
remotely practical or workable. After all, if pro-lifers spent more
time working with these unwanted children to ensure that they would
be able to develop into functional adults, they wouldn't have much
time to be harassing, badgering, and humiliating the "have-nots" at
the abortion clinic, would they?
Here's a question for you, David, and you might want to think hard
about the response: What would Jesus do?
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
You grab a book of stats to prove your point, but what you aren't
looking at is the number of newborn babies available for adoption.
Stephen is correct, thousands of couples are waiting (which you
conceded), for babies, which are in short supply for adoption, where
there are more couples waiting than newborns available. I think that
most of the children available for adoption are older children
removed from homes for various reasons.
So what you're saying is that all those wonderful people out there
who want to adopt WON'T because the children available are three
years old instead of three months old? Maybe your wife and her group
should spend some efforts on trying to teach prospective adoptive
parents that a child is not "broken" because s/he is no longer an
infant. Maybe they could begin a media campaign to convince
prospective adoptive parents to open their minds and their hearts
just a little to a child who's already taken their first step. Maybe
they could call it "Tots are Terrific!" or "There are no broken
children, only broken homes,"
I think any child would be better off in a loving foster situation
than with a set of parents who would turn him or her away because he
or she is no longer in diapers. And if I were a pregnant teenager,
hearing such an attitude would certainly not encourage me to continue
my pregnancy. Human beings, no longer what their age, don't come
with a new car smell. If you want a factory warranty, adopt a Honda.
There are many, many more couples who are NOT officially on the
waiting lists because they can't pass the ridiculously stringent
requirements in many states. Make adoption easier and more
available. I guarantee you that the number of adoptions would
skyrocket in short order.
No offense, but states have stringent requirements for a reason.
Prospective parents have to prove that they can financially care for
a child and that they will continue to be financially able to do so
(in other words, are they in debt up to their eyeballs with a TRW
report that looks like a rap sheet?), that their existing family will
welcome a child, that they do not have a criminal history that will
impact the child, and that they are healthy enough to be good
parents. Exactly which of these requirements should be relaxed?
Patricia-
Excellent post.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
I was referring to NORC's numbers, not the LA Times poll. The
point, of course, was that a majority of Americans do want abortion
to remain a legal option.
Stephen,
Again your blanket statement as worded is an inaccurate reflection of
poll results I have seen, whether LA Times, the "NORC" results, or
the Gallup poll. I did read the "NORC" numbers, they just don't bear
out your statement as worded - if you had ended with "under certain
circumstances", then that would have been correct, but still not
presenting the "big picture". I think more accurate statements
reflecting the LA Times and Gallup and even the NORC poll results
would be "a majority of Americans want abortion to remain legal under
certain circumstances", "a majority of Americans want abortion to be
illegal or allowed only for cases of severe threat of the mothers
health, rape, incest, severe birth defects.", "a majority of
Americans don't approve of abortion for just 'any reason'", etc.
My point about these polls is that you have to read all the questions
and look at the actual responses to get the big picture of current
popular opinion, thats why I posted the Gallup link, where the actual
questions asked are available for all here to review. For example,
If one takes the overly simplistic (and IMHO very incorrect)
statement that "a majority of Americans do want abortion to remain a
legal option", they might be suprised to learn that the actual
results included tidbits such as "2/3 say that abortion should be
illegal after the first three months of pregnancy."
And let me as usual end with my thoughts that while poll results are
interesting, they don't make anything right,wrong, or moral,
just "popular."
Flint,
Reading the words of Jesus Christ in the new testament, and referring
to Gods commandment that "Though Shalt Not Kill," I'm not having any
trouble understanding how a Christian would consider it to be wrong
based on the bible. Neither am I a biblical scholar, but here are a
few comments that put it quite well:
The fact that the word "abortion" does not appear in the Bible
does not mean God is silent on the subject. Rather, one must probe
the Scripture in deeper and broader context to discern His will
regarding this matter. One doesn't find "heroin, LSD, crack, arson,
bombing, machine-gunning, extortion, torture, hijacking or child
abuse" mentioned either, but it is not difficult to for Christians to
decide they are not part of God’s will. The basic question
remains, does God consider the unborn to be a person. If the
answer is "no," then perhaps we have the right to dispose of the
unborn as an unwanted appendix or tumor. If the answer is "yes," then
we must treat the unborn with all the love and concern due another
person that God requires of Christians. How can we love God and not
love our unborn brother whom God has clearly loved from before the
foundation of the world?
I'm not sure of the author, but the site also has interesting
comments on abortion from some early Christians and Jews:
Your reading is both selective and self-serving. You may have been
trained since childhood to believe abortion is wrong, but remember
that your opinion is an artifact of your training.
This statement could be said of you or anyone! But it too isn't the
big picture, now is it. Whose readings, interpretations, and
training should I rely on when I voice my opinion (which is what we
all are doing here) yours? Pass...;)
Future Shock,
Constitutional seperation of church and state. David, tell me how
you seperate religious belief from "church". It may be difficult for
you to accept, but I am protected from your religious beliefs by the
constitution.
Yes, the first amendment to the constitution, "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion....." No problem, I
have no desire to institute a religious organization by the
government, thats why Christians and others came to this country in
the first place! But somehow you take it that I can't let my views
include religious beliefs, when it comes to law? You're forgetting
the second part of the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". You can't use
the constitution to INHIBIT my right to consider my beliefs,
especially religious ones, when I decide which laws to support or
oppose. Have you noticed that we already have laws that prohibit
killing? Any thoughts as to whether there might be some religious
views expressed in such laws? If laws are passed instituting a New
World Order Presbyterian Church under the jurisdiction of the United
States, then we have a violation of the first amendment. Allowing
people to exercise their faith in all aspects of their life, whether
reading, voting, or supporting or opposing laws, is not.
Julie,
What would Jesus do?
About the poor, about the unfortunate, about infants in the womb? A
very, very, good question.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
Yai! I just realized how that last post may have sounded to
Stephen. I am NOT trying to say that you wouldn't have made a good
adoptive parent, but I do think that adoption laws should continue to
be stringent to ensure that only qualified folks become adoptive
parents. However, adoption decisions currently rely on home visits,
background checks, and extensive interviews. The ultimate decision
is made by a foulable human being. While I think that adoption laws
should have very stringent standards, I do think that they should be
subject to stringent reviews as well to ensure that prospective
adoptees who would make excellent parents don't lose out to an
inexperienced, overloaded, or even biased caseworker.
In your specific case Stephen, I did a quick check of North Carolina
adoption laws (remember my fiance is an adoption caseworker) and
found that there is no hard and fast income requirement, only that
financial history be stable and the prospective parents show the
ability to support a family. This indicates a judgement call on the
part of your caseworker. I think you should have the right to demand
a review (which you currently don't under North Carolina law).
Good luck in your quest and kudos to you for wanting to adopt in the
first place.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001
clean up, I hope, sorry about that, will start using my
editor on long posts.
-- Anonymous, January 13, 2001