Victimization as a Claim of Entitlement

To what are victims entitled?

Does victimization give one dominion over someone else's life?

A woman is raped, and demands an abortion or she'll kill herself and unborn child. Presumably, a compassionate person grants her an abortion.

It's a 13 week fetus. Do you grant her demand?

It's a 20 week fetus. Does that change your position?

It's a 30 week fetus. Does that change your position?

Is her suffering inversely proportionate to the gestation of her pregnancy?

A woman is raped, and demands the execution of her rapist immediately, or she'll kill herself. Does a compassionate person grant her demand?

What if the accused already has been investigated and released on insufficient evidence?

I felt compelled to ask these questions by what I read in the comment thread on the March 24th post at chez Diva. Here is only a fragment of the comment by Nigel Humphries:

I recently saw a documentary about women who suffered in the “rape camps” in Serbia. One of these women dissolved into a weeping, bawling mess describing how, when rescued, she had yelled and screamed in a hospital in order to have a 3rd trimester abortion - eventually only
getting one because she informed the doctors if they did not do it, she would walk into a minefield.
I cannot even begin to imagine the pain and anguish in all of this.

The author of this comment claims he cannot imagine the pain and anguish. That's a cop-out. The implication of his comment is that if one has not experienced a particular tragedy, one must defer without question to those who have. Such irrational thinking cannot hope to find truth or promote justice.

Of course we can begin to imagine the pain and anguish. That's how we know it's appropriate to extend her our compassion. The woman did not have to convince us she's experienced pain and anguish from her rape, we can imagine it. That which we've experienced informs us on how to react to that which we've not. I've never been raped, but I've been treated with contempt. I've never been beaten, but I've been abused and credibly threatened with violence. I have believed my life was in danger, and I have been so depressed I felt ready to die. I've certainly experienced physical pain. All this and more I have experienced, and I have witnessed more still. I can apply my experiences to her situation, even though hers obviously is more extreme.

Besides, the demands of victims aren't automatically just. A victim has a right to justice, though it is not always found. A victim has no right to commit injustice, though it is often done.

An abortion is not justice. The woman's pregnancy may exacerbate her suffering, but the abortion will not cure it.

Once again, the argument comes down to whether a fetus has personhood. That is the only question that matters, but let's face the fact that we don't know when personhood begins. If a third trimester fetus is a person, then an innocent person was murdered to comfort a rape victim. If a third trimester fetus is not a person, then there is no right to deny any abortion. How arrogant it is to act as if we know . . .to grant or deny abortions based on, let's face it, popular opinion. The only moral position is to protect the very right to life that we all enjoy.

Ask yourself one more question: If a scientist could prove definitively that personhood begins at 11 weeks, would you still support abortion on demand?

Yet another reason to believe that Saddam had WMD

Fmr. Saddam General Georges Sada On The Daily Show; Says WMDS Existed, Were Moved (VIDEO)

We have been saying this from the beginning:

The Left, in fact must deny and work against any conclusion from the right since its existence threatens their epistemology. This is why they continue to deny the facts while they say loudly "there were no WMDs." Of course there were; it is just that understanding this is complex. The Washington Post had another article today putting this in question.

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.
The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

If you follow our link and read carefully you will find this (sourced from the Washington Times):

The highest-ranking Communist bloc defector, Ion Mihai Pacepa (defected from Romania when it was still Communist) has warned that Russia has an interest in having Iraq's WMDs disappear. He explains that Russia had a key role in Saddam receiving the weapons initially, and had a secret operational plan to make them disappear” should it become necessary. The plan was called “Sarindar”, or, “Emergency Exit. Pacepa played a key role in Operation Emergency Exit in Libya. The goal of the plan? To remove all WMDs from any third world ally that was being invaded by the West.

OK, so this idea -- that Iraq had WMDs removed before we could find them -- is not new at all. The fact that Stewart was clearly surprised by this idea is revealing. Liberals are not well informed. Here is a comment made on another blog:

If this were credible, and we're talking about viable weapons--not the expired crap from the late 80's and early 90's--then you'd think that this "vindication" would be all over the MSM.

(I'm sure Faux is doing it, aren't they? I can't bring myself to watch them to find out for myself.)

I guess that pretty much sums it up. They don't know because they do not want to know. As I have said before, conservatives consider all ideas but liberals refuse to actually entertain conservative ideas.

This explains why they ignore the mounting evidence that Bush was right all along.

[update 4/26/06] You should also check out Hitchens on Joe Wilson

Accounts And Accoutnability

Edwin Feulner, author of Getting America Right, in a lecture on C-Span's "Book TV", proposes that all appropriations bills should be posted on line at least 24 hours before they are voted on.

We think this is a good idea, but I say there should be two versions posted. One should be the detailed version that our leaders presumably read before voting. The other should look like a credit card statement. Read the statement, look up any questionable items in the detailed version, contact your representatives. If the detailed version is unreadable by lay people, then we citizens should demand otherwise.

It's outrageous how little we citizens know about how our money is spent. Would you use a credit card company that didn't send you statements? Would you send that company checks without knowing where your money went?

Mr. Feulner cited in his lecture, a waste of $110 million by the Pentagon on unused airline tickets that could've been redeemed, but were not. This is the nature of spending in a system where individuals are not accountable as they would be in the private sector. Of course, our military is not an example of the many govnt. programs that could be privatized, but how about a little disclosure?

We conservatives can moan about the democrats' support of big government programs. The democrats can whine about tax refunds and the cost of war. They fillibuster judicial appointments, but never spending bills. Nor has our President ever vetoed any. This is a bipartisan problem that can only be fought by a vocal watchdog citizenry.

Pressure your representatives to reduce government spending. Don't just speak with your vote. Call them. Blog against them. Tell them what it takes for you to elect them. Tell them you expect less spending, and for God's sake . . .not everything you like needs to be funded by the federal government.

Buckley, Money, a horrible monster and Catan

Townhall.com :: Columns :: Funding democracy by William F. Buckley - Mar 24, 2006

Bill considers the huge money already in Hillary's coffers. This must be in preparation for the Presidential election. Hillary as president is truly a frightening proposition - scary enough that I don't think it possible.

Anyway, he is worried that democracy is up for sale. No news there. But, as he says,

A few years ago we attempted financial reform, and more or less gave up, on the grounds that reform was inconsistent with individual liberties ... It all conduces to a queasy suspicion that the democratic ideal is up for sale.

This is akin to what Boortz has been saying for years. He thinks he got it from De Toqueville, but it seems to come from Alexander Tytler. I found it on Andrea Shea's quote page a site which I intend to examine further:

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787 Alexander Tytler, a Scottish history professor had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years prior:

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

This is the inverse but not the opposite of what Soros and the like do. They buy their special influence both political and social whereas the poor must vote it. But, in our system money is not really that different from votes. Money in some way represents the ordered chaos and so son in a free market of ideas. The rich are so because people make them so by giving them their money. To give money is in some way to give assent.

We play Settlers of Catan. If I trade my resources with you and then you use them to build a road to my severe disinterest, well, that is my problem. I tacitly gave my assent for you to use those resources to do whatever you will. I have no right to complain.

Soros is a moronic fool. But, he should be free to use his money however he wishes, even to our severe disinterest. If he wishes to try to elect the Medusa, so be it.

Like all heroes, good people must fight the monsters evil men conjure.

My tiny little cubicle

My cubicle at Central is smaller than the one I had at Days Inn Reservations. For scale, notice that the brown boxes on top are Kleenex.







Note too how many of these are packed into an already too small room. The chiar with the coat is mine.

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

Wow. Science is neat!

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter: Multimedia

She flies in beauty through the night of starry skies

This makes me so proud!
Tammy Bruce: What Their Grandmothers Couldn't Do

Liberals are more guilty than Cons

I am a bastard when it comes to plagiarism. I'll hand out zero's like there is no tommorow if I think students have plagiarized. It is serious. It seems that Domenech plagiarized. Michelle and NRO think so too. I can't tell what happened over the years, but that stuff at NRO is pretty bad. I say admit it and move on with your life. Your character and inner life are more important than any job or what people think of you.

Anyway, I have noticed anecdotally that political crimes are way more common among Liberals. I mean I watch alot of TV and I see shows about corrupt politicians. Of course, I have to go to the internet to find out when they are democrats -- republicans are usually identified in some way -- and I have found that they are more often democrats.

Malkin (again) has the latest example and it seems to put Demenoch's problem in perspective.
Michelle Malkin: DIRTY DEM TRICKSTER: GUILTY

apropos our abortion discussion

reading about the charge of plagiarism at redstate
led me to this post: chez Diva » Quiet Reflection

make sure to scan the comments wherein you will find the same old tired arguments so easily refuted but not killed. Liberals are like horror movie monsters.

Spring means Bunnies and Lowlands

I know it is spring, not because of our cold and rainy weather, but because I am drinking a Lowland Malt and I saw bunnies doing it in my backyard. I have discovered that these bunnies are squatting in my burn pile (pictured to the left). Now, I can't just burn it down since there could be baby bunnies in there, so I have to deconstruct it and look for them before I light it up. Oh, wait, I'm conservative and TV tells me that means I hate nature (despite the fact that conservation is conservative). I guess I can burn it down -- I will just do it while drinking my spring whiskey and everything will be just fine.

Whiny Kids study Grossly Biased

Wen we read this latest study here we knew it was biased. Take this line:

The grown-up liberal men, on the other hand, with their introspection and recognition of complexity in the world, could be seen as self-indulgent and ineffectual.

Here they are trying to be fair, but look how they view the world: "Recognition" of complexity. I have dealt with this before, but this pissed me off. Conservatives are not introspective. Give me a break.

No, better, just take a look at the last discussion here. Late Bloomer gave the issue serious and long thought whereas her interlocutors responded quickly and without even considering what she had said.

Worse, the implication is that the world is complex exactly in the way that liberals believe it to be, but not in the way the Conservatives do. Of course we know that thge world is complex -- that is one of the core reasons that we want to encourage free markets. We just also recognize the aspect of our world which are not complex. Specifically those parts which deal with morality. Evil is Evil and is fairly easy to spot and is not complex in itself. Yes, of course, the facts surrounding any event are complex. Wisdom is knowing how to weed out information (complexity) that is irrelevant.

But, we did not know just how stupidly flawed the study was. See This:

Michelle Malkin: SCOOP: WHO ARE THE WHINY KIDS?

Arbiters of Rights

Nobody knows when a fetus attains the status of personhood.

It's possible that the pro-choice community has drawn the line appropriately, at the end of the first trimester.

It's also possible that they have drawn it too late, and are killing persons.

If fetuses are persons, they have a right to life.

There is no right to choose to kill a person for their burdensome presence.

The right does not materialize, just because someone is willing to risk life and limb to make it happen (as in the case of the "back-alley" abortions.

It's possible that I draw the line too early (conception). I only do this out of ethical and intellectual humility, the admission that I know that I do not know. I can't say when it's okay to kill a fetus because I don't know when it attains personhood.

Those who support abortion laws based on developmental stages as determinants of personhood have assumed an arrogant role as arbiters of inalienable rights. Developmental stages are not proof of personhood, or the lack thereof. If you say that a woman has the inalienable right to choose what she does with her body, why should that be any different after 12 weeks. There's no proof personhood begins then. Either she has the right or she does not. If you draw the line, you are assuming you have enough knowledge of fetal personhood to revoke a woman's right to choose, or sentence a fetus to death, as you see fit. If medical science gave us the ability to fully gestate a baby independent of a woman's body, then what? No longer a burden to women, would it then have the right to life? Who would decide, and how?

You don't have to believe personhood or moral value begins at conception. The fact that you don't know should be enough reason to oppose abortion on demand. But to support abortion on demand, you must be willing to say to yourself,"It's okay to take the chance that persons are being murdered, so that women have the right to choose not to be burdened with them in their bodies".

Once you're willing to take that step, I don't see how you can limit or qualify that right. Why do women have to carry a 20 week pregnancy any further, if they don't want to? There's no proof a 20 week fetus has personhood, and people vary in their opinions. If some think 20 weeks is too late to have an abortion, why do they have the right to dictate that to any one else? For that matter, why should viability matter? Is that proof of personhood? Is it enough to revoke that inalienable right to choose to have an abortion?

I know a lot of people think my position is extreme. That doesn't bother me because I think most people put more careful thought into their cell phone plans than they do ethics. The right to life is for all men. That right does not hang on opinion, though obviously, its protection does.

Finally, My response to Burnyourtires Last Comments

"you'll have to show me what you mean because I made a point in my post not to change the subject from Dems are the party of abortion. I don't believe this is a valid statement Latebloomer.
You're taking up "the fetus is a life" argument. It is you who is changing the subject.

Fair enough. I went back and reread my Party of Abortion post, and I can see that it was more about me being perplexed about your reaction to the label than it was about how the label fits. Furthermore, I never made my arguments as to how Democrats are the party of abortion. As for taking up "the fetus is a life" argument, I did that because it's the only reason I can think of to regret the pro-abortion label. If it's a life, then abortion might be murder. If it's not a life, then it's no big deal. You've never told me why you bristle at the label.

When I said you changed the terms of the argument, it's because you chose the label you preferred rather than show that Dems are not the party of abortion. Also, you didn't address my argument that it's irrational for you to bristle at the label. Also, "The party for keeping government out of our lives" is extremely vague, and not well applied to the Democrats or the Republicans. If Democrats are not the party of abortion, it's not enough to just reject the label, or blow it off as pandering. You need to support your argument.


It doesn't matter what you or I . . .[say]. The courts (at this point) say abortion is legal, and therefore, rebutting any argument you have as meaningless.

I hope you don't really mean this, that one's ideas are meaningless if the courts have already handed down a decision. My arguments are not given meaning by other peoples decisions, nor are yours or any one else's. Arguments are valid, or not. Besides, courts decisions are made by people. They are neither infallible, nor above criticism; Nor are they unchangeable. Why would anything ever change if no one discussed their ideas? Galileo argued that the earth is not the center of the universe. His arguments were not rendered meaningless by the Church who opposed him, nor meaningful because he believed them. His arguments were valid and supportable. Also, they were important to the future of mankind, though that would have been difficult to see at the time.

Furthermore, this isn't about just my arguments. Anyone who participates in this discussion has the opportunity to change my mind.

If the Neo-Cons and their big donors (churchs) . . .

You should check into the history of Neo-Cons, and the Religious Right. They are two very distinct groups among conservatives. (Actually, the Religious Right are conservative in demeanor, but arguably conservative in political philosophy). They both vote Republican by and large, but that doesn't mean they have the same agenda. It just means that neither are liberal. Besides, one doesn't have to be part of the Religious Right or beholden to them to be pro-life. I am agnostic, and have no stake in the Religious Right's agendas. I, and others like me, have given the issue deep and rigorous consideration, and have come to our own conclusions. Your insinuation, that a politician who promotes pro-life must be either a zealous religiofacsist, or in their pockets, is beneath you and this conversation. The are a handful of pro-life Democrats, given 100% voting records by the NRLC. Do you also accuse them of pandering?

. . .have their own way, they will rewrite one's right to have an abortion.

No news flash there; that's the whole point of the pro-life movement, just as the point of the pro-choice movement is to preserve abortion on demand. Does that mean they're not playing by the rules? I get the feeling you think Reps have some sinister and insidious plot in the works. The pro-life agenda is quite out in the open.

Dems . . .do believe in one's freedom to choose to have an abortion. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter. What matters is not letting government decide for us what one does with their body.

Reps also do believe in personal freedoms, but not the freedom to take some one else's life just because it causes you a great degree of difficulty. It's easy to say it's all about the woman's body if you dismiss the possibility that a fetus is a person with a body of its own. You have yet to address the question of person hood within these posts. Do you think personating is a matter of personal opinion, or that even if it is a person, it has no right to live within someone else's body? Have you thought about whether it's a person?

Also, I'm going to need you to explain how right and wrong don't matter. Do you believe that right and wrong are not relevant to the recognition of one's rights?

It is the Right Wing that has labeled the Dems the party of abortion.

The legitimacy of a label is not determined by who issued it, or whether you like it. It's accurate, or it's not. I say there's no effective difference between being pro-choice, or pro-abortion. I see leading Democrats pushing to extend abortion rights even further by seeking tax payer funding of abortion, seeking to grant the right to minors to have an abortion without their parents knowledge, and supporting partial birth abortions. More Democratic politicians support such measures than not.

This is as fair as labeling Reporklicans deficit spenders.

Republicans are deficit spenders. I guess you mean that pejoratively, but that doesn't make it untrue. I don't reject the label, nor do I reword it to in a way I think sounds better.

I can't say it any clearer than this. It doesn't matter what you or I think about abortion. It is the inalienable right of a woman to do with her body what ever she pleases. It's not our right or the court's right, or the church's right to take that away from her.

You don't have to say it any clearer. My disagreement is not due to a lack of comprehending your point. But again, you do not address the possibility of there being another person's body to consider. By the way, no one has an unlimited right to do with their body as they please. It may please me to get plastered and drive a car, but I don't have a right to do it. It may please me to light up a cigarette in a school bus, but I don't have the right to do it. One's rights do not extend past the point that they infringe on the rights of others.

Reporklicans want to dictate to a person many things.

I bet I could make at least as good a list of Democrats doing this as you can Republicans. The philosophy of the modern Left is heavily influenced by the tenants of Karl Marx, not John Locke. If you're so for personal liberty, are you sure you're not a Libertarian?

Does that mean Reps are the party of Fascists and Dictators, deciding for Americans what laws will be enforced without acknowledging the wishes of the people?

Whoa, whoa! Be reasonable. The pro-life movement, and its support by Republicans (or Reporklicans, as you please) works within the system of our democratic republic. This is neither fascist nor dictative. Laws are written and passed by the legislature. Their constitutionality, if challenged by the people, is determined by the supreme court. Those in power to pass laws and choose the Supreme Court judges, are elected by the people. The people elected Bill Clinton and in doing so, entrusted him with the supreme court nominations. By electing a pro-choice president, they expressed the collective willingness for a pro-choice judge to be placed to the Supreme Court. The same goes for pro-life president, George W Bush. That's how the system works. (By the way, only three Republican senators voted againts the confirmation of openly pro-choice Ginsberg. So much for the litmus test).

If you want to label the Democrats the party of abortion, then so be it.

You use the word "label" as if it is a bad thing. All words are labels for the things to which they refer. Some Republicans find pro-abortion more descriptive than pro-choice. I happen to think pro-choice is adequate, since every body knows what it means. When people hear either labels, they can decide for themselves which are more accurate. If the label doesn't fit, tell me how.

Just like you chose to think you made a good argument in your last post...

I do not choose what I think. I examine the evidence before me, and accept the conclusion that seems truthful and real. If I could choose what I think, I would choose to think I am the talented and beautiful, Gwen Stephani. But given the evidence, it seems that I am actually a short, cute-ish, red-head of modest income and prone to sing off key.

Seriously, if you want to persuade me to your point of view, you'll have to provide me with evidence that you're right.

Don't you see? This is the real world, not some sterile think tank.

What do you think think tanks do? Do you think they occupy their time with trivia, making no contributions to the lives of real people, in the real world?

Women are gonna have abortions whether they're legal or not, and regardless of what you or I think.

I don't think laws should be determined by whether people abide by them . . .

Another reason for legalized abortion is to have a clean, safe place for a woman to have one.

. . . If I did, I'd say we need to create a safe transport system from Mexico to the USA, so that illegal immigrants don't get hurt or killed on their way here. Maybe we could give long range missiles to Jihadists, so they won't get hurt when they're killing infidels. People break all the laws we have, and enforcing them can be dangerous, even to innocent bystanders; maybe we should eliminate laws, to reduce the risk of high speed car chases and gun fights.

Surely you don't think I was unaware that women risked their lives getting back alley abortions. I used to find that argument compelling until I thought about it in more depth. The life of an innocent person is not forfeited just because another person is desperate to eliminate it, even if their willing to risk their own life.

Of course, if it is your opinion that a fetus does not qualify as an innocent life, with moral value, you probably find my argument non compelling. You appear to believe we have the right determine the moral value of a fetus and kill it, because its existence is a burden.

So much is vague . . .I believe a person has the inalienable right to choose whether or not to have [an abortion].

Exactly! So much is vague! I couldn't have said it better. But I'm only betting against 9 months in a woman's life; you're willing to bet some one's entire existence.

Before RvW became law, abortion was illegal in all states. What makes you think this won't happen again?

It's a chance I'm willing to take as long as no woman is forced to maintain a life-threatening pregnancy. Besides, do you think it's likely? People have gotten pretty accustomed to abortion on demand. Many people vote pro-choice. There's a large scale public voice in defense of choice (much of it by celebs). Our democratic republic will bear out the will of the people. Check out this fresh perspective on RvW. It's pretty interesting.

This is Gonna Take A While

I want to respond to all the comments you guys left on the last post, but it's going to be rather time consuming. I'll take it in installments, starting with Stephen's comments. Please wait to comment further until I have responded to all the comments. That way, I hope to avoid some insane, unworkable cascade of undressed points.

First you start off by confusing moral agency with human life

Actually, I don't. To be fair, you may have thought that by "moral agent" I meant to imply that a fetus could act with moral consequences. That would be stupid. You're right that I used that term incorrectly, but I have to say, it didn't occur to me that anyone would think that's what I meant. What I meant is that there is moral relationship that exists between a fetus and the rest of us, or that a fetus has moral value. I mean this in the same way that mentally disabled people are not moral agents, but they have moral value; we have a moral relationship with them. A six month old baby is the same; it is not a moral agent, but it has moral value, we have a moral relationship.

More importantly, I recognize that moral relationships or value are a matter of philosophical and/or religious point of view. Really though, I believe that a fetus is a human life, and that it has moral value, but it isn't my intention to convince you of that. However, you don't know, anymore than I do, at what point a human begins to possess moral value. I only hope to convince you that it is arrogant to draw that line based on opinion. It's possible I'm wrong, and if one day that is proved, I'll have no regrets. It's possible that you're wrong, and if you are, then you and our government have endorsed murder on an epic scale.

Inalienable rights are not opinion based. They are assumed for all humans.

There was a time in recorded history when slavery was not even considered a moral dilemma; in which it sucked to be a slave, but no one questioned whether it was right or wrong. Now we look back upon that history with shame and disgust.


Second, the projection of yourself onto a zygote or fetus is irrelevant.

I did not project myself onto a zygote or a fetus. It was an illustration of how one glosses over the argument by exclusively considering a woman's right to choose. It completely glosses over even the possibility of the fetus (or zygote) having any right to life. It presupposes that a zygote or fetus is equivalent to a woman's appendix, or ovaries. A fetus or zygote would be better described as a parasite. A parasite is not part of one's body. A fetus has its own DNA. It is not its mother's body part; it it's own body which is dependent on hers. I conferred a voice upon the fetus, not out of some cartoonish delusion that a fetus experiences it's loss, but as a simple means of making this point.

Third, the desire to overlook developmental stages doesn't change the fact that they occur. If potentiality is equivalent to actuality, then your argument becomes pointless.

Developmental stages occur, it's true. I don't desire to over look this fact; I looked at it, and found that it does not answer the question of when life or moral value is present. No one can deny there is a lot of difference between a clump of cells not even visible to the naked eye, and a 12 week gestation fetus. Again, that would be stupid. This is the second reference overall that you've made to developmental stages. I assume that you have come to a conclusion regarding fetal life/ moral value based on criteria drawn from the stages of development. I would be interested in knowing what criteria you used, and when you think a fetus should be considered to be a life or to have moral value.

As to the question of potentiality, and actuality, I'm guessing you mean that a zygote or fetus is a potential, not actual person. What I know is that it is a physical being with its own DNA. The potentiality or actuality of its personhood is a matter of one's philosophical or religious point of view. It is a matter of opinion. I have decided to assume actual personhood because I can't know for sure. Neither does the government know, and therefore should err on the side of the superior right to life over the right to privacy on which Roe v Wade is based.

Or perhaps you are referring to the potential right of a fetus to live vs the actual right of a woman to choose. That presupposes that a fetus' or zygote's rights are only potential. If a fetus or zygote has personhood, then its right to life is actual and cancels any right to choose to kill it.

Inalienable Right or Right Wing Bias?

Thanks, guys for the comments on my last post. As usual, they were very helpful. I am once again using a post to respond to the comments of the previous post (particularly Burnyourtires). I like this style of response, as it keeps the ongoing conversation very visible. Also, I'd like to define a term I'll be using for the sake of this discussion. I'll use "Human life" to include moral agency, though I recognize that these are not interchangeable. That is a deeper discussion beyond the scope of this post.

In my last post, I stated as a point of common ground that Americans believe life to be foremost among human rights, regardless of their political party. Burnyourtires wants to know "Where did [I] get this"? I get this from the the Declaration of independencee (Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and the UN Charter . What rights do we have if not the right to life? If you don't think life is the foremost among human rights, Burnyourtires, then I suggest you are not as mainstream as you think. Are there any moderated Democrats or human rights organizations out there that don't prioritize life over other rights? In the aftermath of genocides in Rwanda, did human rights groups lament the loss of religious freedom, free speech, or same sex marriage? No, the outrage was that these humans were robbed of their most precious right. For without the right to live, there are no other rights. Try practicing free speech after rigor mortis sets in, it's a bitch!

What are inalienable human rights? Let's start with the word " inalienable": incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another. Okay now,the word "right": something to which one has a just claim. Life is an inalienable human right. Without inalienablility, our rights are granted at the whims of people, which would be okay if good people always had the power. As we know, that is seldom the case. Without inalienability of rights, even democratic forms of government are nothing more than mob rule.

If a fetus is a human life, then it's rights are inalienable as are the rest of ours. This is not rationalization or speculation, it is simple logic. A plus B equals C. If (A) a fetus is a human life , plus (B), life is an inalienable human right, then that equals (C) a fetus has the inalienable right to life. If a fetus is not a human life, then this exercise of logic no longer applies to a fetus. Therefore, I must restate that the question comes down to whether or not a fetus is a human life with the status of moral agency.

Burnyourtires said that the point of this argument is "keeping the government out of our lives". First of all, the point of the last post was whether Democrats are the party of abortion. That's the only topic I took up in that post, and I think I made a pretty good argument as to how they are. You can't refute an argument by changing the terms of the argument. Burnyourtires still has not made an argument that the Democrats are not the party of abortion. If he means to use the words "keeping government out of our lives" to stand in for being pro choice, I think that's pretty misleading. The government interferes in our lives in a number of ways, some of which come from the Left. Let's try to be specific.

Besides, when you say "Keep the government out of our lives" whose lives do you mean? Here is your bias. You mean keep the govn't out of some of our lives, the lives you choose, which are non-fetus. You ask that the government find that others have the right to kill a fetus. If I were a fetus, and I could talk, I'd call that a pretty big interference in my life! The only way that is not a bias is if a fetus is not a human life. So which is it, burnyourtires, life or not life?

This brings us to another facet of our discussion. Who gets to decide whether a fetus is a life? Who gets to decide what a human life is? Should the government interfere in one's right to determine who has the status of a human life? Do you think you have the right to make the determination? I think government rightly interfered when slavers and bigots determined that other races were not human, as a rationale to deny them their rights. I say rationale, because they rationalized rather than use reason to determine the personhood of, for example, Blacks and Jews, in order to satisfy their own needs. They started with the outcome they needed, then picked the facts they needed to support it. I don't do that. I start with facts and reason, and let them determine the outcome. I don't start with the outcome that abortion on demand needs to exist or not exist. I used reason to guide me and have ended with this conclusion: a fetus appears to be a human life. It has its own human DNA. It's level of development or ablilty are irrelevant to me, because those are not factors I would use to judge someone outside the womb. It's capacity for thought or the experience of pain also are irrelevant to me for the same reason.

Since I believe life to be the greatest of our inalienable rights (for which I'd gladly accept the usually pejorative term "radical right winger"), and I have found no reasonable exclusion for fetal humans, I must protect their right to life.

If all humans don't have inalienable rights, then no humans do. Rights that are given by humans can be revoked by humans.

P.S. Overturning Roe v Wade wouldn't outlaw abortion. Abortion would revert back to being a state decision.

The Party of Abortion

My Democrat friend wants to assure me that his party is not the party of abortion.

This post is an exploration of his statement and what he means by it. I think he means to say that Liberals want abortion to be available as an option, but are not hoping for the opportunity to abort fetuses.

DUH! I don't think conservatives generally regard Liberals as having a blood lust for non-viable babies. I do think, however, that Liberals generally perceive Conservatives as overly interested in the reproductive rights of women. What conservatives actually are interested in, is protecting the lives of those they believe deserve protection. I'll address the legitimacy of that position in another post. Right now, let's stick with the issue of the characterization of parties if regard to abortion rights.

First, let me say that the two sides of the issue are aptly named. The pro-life movement is about protecting lives of fetuses. The pro-choice movement is about protecting the right to choose to abort fetuses. And let's agree for the sake of this discussion to lable each party as such, since generally that's how the voters allign themselves. We know that pro choicers and pro lifers cross party lines, but that's not helpful to this discussion. Each party represents one side of the issue, and the agendas will follow.

I like to think that regardless of party lines, Americans believe that the right to life is the greatest of human rights.

If you accept that a fetus is a human life, then you must treat it as such. For you, abortion on demand is not negotiable. Notice I wrote abortion on demand. Most pro-lifers do not demand a woman face death to protect her pregnancy, they just don't tolerate it as a form of birth control. The republican party represents this platform, regardless of the fact that not all Republicans are pro-life, and not all pro-lifers are Republican.

If you do not accept that a fetus is a life, then you must consider that abortion is an acceptable escape route for those with unwanted pregnancies. The Democratic party represents this platform regardless of the fact that not all Democrats are not pro-choice , and not all pro-choicers are not Democrats.

The democratic party may not be the party of abortion, but it is the party of abortion on demand. Now I ask you, what is the difference?

If you accept that a fetus is a human life, but you are pro choice, then you must accept that you have placed a greater value on the desires of the born than on the life of the unborn.

If you do not accept that a fetus is a human life, then you should have no qualms with abortion. In fact, it seems irrational for you to feel badly that abortion occurs. Therefore, it is irrational for you to object to the term "the party of abortion". Indeed, it makes more sense for you to convince others that abortion is not wrong.

I know it feels good to empathise with those who face unwanted pregnancies. An unwanted pregnancy is a heavy burden, and not always the result of irresponsibility. Regardless, it is not my position that the right to not be pregnant trumps the right to live? Is it yours? Have you rigorously examined your decision to be pro-choice? If you are troubled with the title "the party of abortion", then I suspect you have not.

Thank you, Burnyourtires . . .And Now My Response

Good comments, and very helpful. You see, I regard this site as a practice medium for what I hope will be my future career. Your comments , particularly expose the lack of clarity in my writing. My criticism is not that Democrats require investigation into Bush et al.'’s treatment of intelligence regarding Saddam'’s weapons programs. You were right to point out that the only investigation specific to that subject is still in progress.

However, can you explain why Reid called for a closed session of congress to demand what is already ongoing? That was the bee in my bonnet that day. It has resulted in yet another bipartisan commission, this one apparently to investigate the (bipartisan) investigation. Surely you understand that costs tax dollars.

I have a number of other responses to your comments;

Republicans spent more money chasing Clinton than Democrats have on Libby . Yes, I admit that Republicans were out to get Clinton. It cost a lot of money. However, it'’s unfair to compare the cost of a completed investigation with one that is ongoing; or a campaign against one man with many. While Libby's expenses are unlikely to exceed Clinton'’s, remember that there seems to be a campaign to indict Republicans wherever possible (how many grand juries did it take to indict Lott, four, or five?). This link regarding process in grand jury hearings is the most important one in this post).

For the 10 millionth time, the Clinton thing was not all about sex. In fact, Starr's investigation started with Whitewater which followed travelgate. There was good reason to investigate too, lest you feel inclined to just blow off these scandals. Don'’t forget that two of Clinton's Ark. pals died during the course of the investigation (one in prison just when he was announcing a willingness to talk). A third also spent time in jail rather than speak. At the time, Starr was convinced Clinton was committing perjury, but he had insufficient evidence of it. When Paula Jones brought her suit against Clinton, Starr extended his investigation into Jones' allegations, at which time Clinton proved himself a perjurer. He was censured, fined, and impeached in the House for that, not for sticking cigars up a subordinate's ying yang (it should be noted that while not all Republican senators voted "guilty" on Clinton's charge, all Democratic Senators voted "not guilty").

It is not my position that intelligence regarding the war should not be investigated. It is my opinion that the investigation is a red herring to avoid responsibility for giving the President authorization for use of force against Iraq. I think the Democrats saw that the outrage expressed by public officials against Clinton hurt the Democratic party. They have internalized that lesson and are using it now against the Republicans. But adding committees and calling for investigations are not without cost. So without letting Republicans off the hook for going after the Clintons, I think we can still examine the Libby and Lott issues.

First Libby: It is unclear that Libby broke the protection of identities law. First, Plame'’s status for protection under that law is unclear. Second, one would have to prove intent which is very hard to do. Considering the odds in grand jury hearings are so stacked against the defendant, I think if there was a chance of convicting Libby for outing Plame, the grand jury would have found it. As for the indictment for obstruction of justice, etc., it could be real; or Libby could have been tripped up. After all, the defendant does not have his lawyer present to defend him against badgering, or other tactics. I think that's something to consider. It's a far cry from a rehearsed lie stated on television and in a trial with defense representation present.

Now let'’s consider Tom Delay. There'’s no denying the Democrats have been after Delay for some time. Some of the allegations against Delay are ones that could be applied to the likes of that paragon of partisan Democrats, Nancy Pelosi. By the way how many grand juries did it take to finally come up with an indictment against Delay, four, or five? (And don'’t forget that indictments seem incredibly easy to get, and that grand jury shopping is extremely unusual). What do you think that'’s costing tax payers in Texas?


Regarding your comment that democrats are not the party of abortion. I no more consider Democrats the party of abortion than I do Republicans the party of anti-choice. But the result of one's actions are as important as one's intent. This is a topic for another post which will be forthcoming.

Misled into Iraq War

Bush lied to trick us into his illegal war with Iraq. That's what Demo-rat-tic leadership wants you to accept without proof. They don't need proof. By merely perpetuating conspiracy theories, they are off the hook for their own votes in favor of the " illegal" war.

They had to vote for the war. No reasonable leader would have continued to take the risk of letting Hussein defy the UN resolutions against him. The stakes were too high, and the evidence against Hussein substantial if circumstantial.

But Demo-rats can't take responsibility for that because they believe the anti-war moonbats speak for their party (maybe they do, I personally don't know any moderate Demo-rats). They need a defense for when their constituents threaten to take their votes to someone truly anti-war. (Note war-protestor Cindy Sheehan's speaking out against H. Clinton). There's nothing like the prospect of splitting votes with a third party candidate to make you listen to your base.

But if you think indictments and commissions are news in themselves, you are allowing yourself to be manipulated. They're just noise (expensive noise). The Wilson-Plame business has accounted to next to nothing, certainly no charges of conspiracy or treason. The 911 commission found no evidence that Bush's administration lied or exaggerated intelligence. It's all just noise to keep the myth alive.

I have a suggestion to reduce government spending. I call upon the Demo-rat-tic leadership to stop these government sponsored investigations that are nothing more than campaign projects. Instead, proudly proclaim what you've always stood for: socialism, condescending to minorities, protecting abortion, and yes, the occasional war.

What I've learned About Diversity

This month I got some good diversity training. I learned the difference between an efficiently run corporation, and a system mired in government bureaucracy. I work for the former, my husband for the latter.

I will receive my first pay check within 2 weeks of my hire date.
Nick will receive his almost 2 months from his hire date.

I have the option of declining benefits in return for a higher wage (Which I will use to buy the insurance I prefer).
Nick has no options; just a use it or lose it benefits package which includes an FSA. (No one likes FSA's; HSA's were created because FSA's are stupid.)

My diversity training acknowleged that prejudice is a natural feeling, but we individuals can and must behave appropriately at work. It made clear that intent is an important component in determining where harassment exists.
Nick watched this laughable scenario in a training video:
Man and pregnant co-worker accidentally back into each other:
Man: "Whoa! We should attach warning lights to you ! 'Wide load'. My wife couldn't wait to spit our baby out. Maybe we should put you on the fork lifts to shake that little tyke loose. Hang in there!"
Woman: uncomfortableble smile
Narrator: " That may seem to you like friendly banter, but that kind of banter could invite a law suit."

COME ON! A civil trial because some dork is tact-impaired? I wanted to sue over the film's implication that women are gutless and thin skinned to the point of incompetence.

My employer is providing aid to the victims of hurricane Katrina.
Nick's customers are providing aid to the victims of hurricane Katrina.

I am a registered nurse in the labor and delivery unit at Covenant Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center.
Nick is a Latin teacher for the Knox County school system.

Blame Anyone But New Orleans

I have long labored under the apparently mistaken notion that the president is not omnipotent. According to the numerous babble holes lapping up their 15 minutes of opportunism, it is President Bush who is responsible for the suffering in New Orleans. Not Mother Nature. Not the New Orleans city officials. Not the Louisiana state government. And most assuredly, not the able-bodied looters who continue to impair the rescue process.

Here's the thing. Not every problem can be laid at the door step of one man. This F"d-up dialogue convinces the ignorant masses that they have one central figure to blame, and that if they could just get the right guy, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. It is this kind of sophomoric thinking and scapegoating that has allowed New Orleans to become what it is. The remains of a community that placed its trust in parasitic bureaucracy.

P.S. While Bush was ruthlessly criticized for a 3 Minute pause after the 9-11 attacks, few remember that Kerry admitted that he was unable to even think for 35 minutes. If you work that out proportionately to the Katrina crisis, would there yet be a rescue in progress?