Scott Walker not looking for rape or incest exemptions in Wisconsin 20-week abortion ban

[osan]

The church should be taking care of children that families cannot take care of on their own to the extent that they are able.

And what of the rest? HELLO? Anyone home?

Plus, in a free market, poverty would be much less of a problem anyways. If our government followed Romans 13:4 and limited its role to punishing overtly and abominable wicked acts (like murder of the unborn) and stopped trying to screw with the economy we wouldn't be in the mess we're in economically.

With friends like this, liberty needs no other enemies.

I'm not for punishing people for being unable to provide. I don't believe in compulsory taxation.

You do, however and apparently, believe in planet Bizarro where nothing makes sense.

 

[osan]

Well, the number one priority of Christian churches should be to share the gospel...

No. The number one priority of people calling themselves "church" is to respect the basic rights of their fellows. The number one priority of all men: Do as thou wilt, but trespass not upon thy brethren.

 

[osan]

Because the lives of 50 million children is more important than winning a stupid election?

Do you people really think that God in Heaven will ever bring our nation revival and freedom if our way of getting it is "oh, let the welfare queens just butcher their kids".

This is repulsive and disgusting. Bryan should be ashamed that it exists on his site.

And you should be ashamed of your childishly and stoopidly parochial world view.

See how easy it is to spew bullshit? Anyone can do it. It takes neither effort nor any brains at all.

You invoke "God" as if you had the first clue. You are no different than the evil progressive, each thinking he has the answers for all men and are willing to put people to death to see your twisted, rotten vision of hell on earth realized. And you dare speak of anything "repulsive and disgusting" aside from yourself? Yeah, that's credible.

You seem typical of those who want the world according to their own narrowly envisioned personal ideals but who would in the same breath deny the same courtesy to others. You would shove your one-size-fits-all rubric up every human orifice and murder everyone who balked at your trespass. I don't suppose you perceive the terrible defect there at all.

Oh, and before you come back at me with lies and other bullshit, you have your very self advocated murder for those who disagree with your personal positions. To wit:

Originally Posted by Christian Liberty

It should be 0 weeks. And a mandatory death penalty for any offense.

Yes yes... this will make the world so much better a place for everyone. Only the good people will live and the bad will be eliminated. We see how well your world view approach has worked out in the past 100 years.

 

[Todd]

Gosh, that couldn't possibly backfire, could it? What'll we have? Pregnancy police? Period police?

Simply from a political point of view, people who would have the gov't get involved in such matters are ridiculous. How many thousands of pages of regulations would come from having a law? How many women would be in prison for miscarriages beyond their control? Does this extend to mandates of prenatal vitamins? Would a woman be found guilty if she can't afford the vitamins?

I came to being anti-abortion, not because of fear of our gov't, but because I do now find it unethical, philosophically. If you truly want to change hearts and minds, attempting to do so via threat of death/prison/fines/whatever will not be a long-term solution. It never has been and never will be.

Yep. And I'm going to agree with FreedomFantic. If Christians were more worried about preaching and teaching the Gospel and making better moral people, then their would be less people wanting to kill the unborn.

 

[osan]

Freedom's messy business.

/thread.

Could someone pony up for me on this one, I'm outta rep at the moment for Tod.

THIS is the bit about freedom that makes people run, as if from a pyroclastic flow racing toward them. People want the nice bits but reject the ugly with such violence that they end up choosing pretty slavery while having the unmitigated temerity to call it "freedom". That, more than anything else, impels me to slap such people that they would spit out their teeth. I find few things as all-consumingly disgusting as this particular brand of willfully ignorant cowardice. It is so lacking in any art whatsoever that nausea and other disgust are the only responses I can muster in its wake. Such people do not even make the least credible pretense to hide it, exposing themselves as the buck-naked poltroons, dastards, and recreants that they truly are, while thinking they have fooled smart men into seeing them otherwise. There are few things that I can barely stand from others and this is right at the top of the list. It is one of those few things that challenges my commitment to true liberty for all. That is the depth of my contempt for people of such bottomlessly willful stupidity.

When you are willing to tolerate people who move you to desire their destruction for no better reason than you find them distasteful, then have you made the commitment to proper human freedom. Short of that, you are a poseur and perhaps worse yet, a self-deceiver and. worst of all, a hypocrite.

If anyone thinks that freedom is a cakewalk, they fool themselves. Here is but one example taken from my own set of "issues". There is a part of me that, were it possible, would gather up all the ghetto people into one place and put them to the sword. Why? Because I grew up in that environment and I know how awful it is; how utterly rotten at its core. That part of me would throw the switch and have no regrets in ridding the world of such vermin. That same part of me would rid the world of plenty of others, too. But there is the side of me that is committed to the notion of proper human freedom and it holds the other in check because it knows that the monster must never be loosed upon the world. We have seen what happens when the monster is set upon the earth to roam. We see it every day, in fact, and it is a non-solution, save to see the race of men destroyed.

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of it is the fact that I would do all of this with nothing but the best of intentions for myself and, presumably, the world. A side of me would exterminate perhaps billions of people for the good of "right and decent folk". Sound familiar? If not, you need to crack a history book. For 1500 years the Roman church attempted to butcher its way to a "better world". How'd that work out? Hitler was no different, nor Stalin, Mao, Pot, Amin, and so on down the depressing list of ostensible do-gooders who thought they knew what was best for all and were willing to do what it took to make perfect the world. We now stand in sadder shadows than ever before in all human history. Our grand technologies have availed us nothing. Why? Because we remain committed to narrow, parochial visions of what the race of men should be. We remain married to one-size-fits-all thinking applied at the wrong levels and in the wrong ways. They are "wrong" because we consistently fail to achieve freedom, happiness, equality, prosperity, and good health. Nothing we do politically is life-affirming; rather, we have fallen into a vicious cycle of life-destroying insanity wherein we apply "solution X" and when the desired result is not obtained we apply more of the same.

What madness has grabbed the world by its balls that we refuse to stand back from that which we have wrought, examine it with a coldly reasoning eye, and call it what it truly is: death and disease and misery and poverty? The madness is raging and rampant and virile and moving across the face of the earth such that no corner is left untainted by its infection. We cut off a joint of the human finger, wince in pain, shout at the injustice, and proceed to cut off the next, expecting the finger to be made whole once again. This is what we have been doing for an age, only with ever deeper roots and wilder refusal to call the result what it is. That's some brand of crazy there, I tell you.

Anyway, if I am to spare myself the sin of hypocrisy, I must cowboy up and get real about certain truths and make a decision. I have made my choice, and in some ways it pains me daily. That is the price I pay for my belief in, and advocacy of, freedom and rights for all men, no matter how a given individual or group thereof may send my constitution into somersaults of nausea. I have chosen freedom for all because I choose it for myself.

 

[RonPaulMall]

Good, the only exception in my opinion should be the life of the mother. (Or of course if the child will die even if born).
I know that isn't a popular position, but I think it is the most consistent. Why should the circumstances of how the pregnancy originate relate to whether killing the child is acceptable or not? Now however if the mother will die if she goes through with the pregnancy, then I think there room for a choice to be made.
.

I support abortion 100%. But if I were on your side of the issue, the argument for why the circumstances matter is simple political expediency. Consider a woman who gets trapped in a bad part of town and is abducted, then kept in someone's crib and gang raped for the better part of the next two weeks. Should pro-life people argue that she should be legally forced to keep the child of her attackers? From a practical perspective what the law is doesn't even matter in such a scenario since most women in that situation are getting the abortion whether it is legal or not. So what do you gain by such a position? Absolutely nothing, other than giving your "enemies" the perfect talking point to obliterate you in the media and among the voters. The number of pregnancies created through rape is a trivial percentage overall. Why push a position that is such political poison if it represents such a minuscule percentage of the thing you are trying to prevent?

If God really wants you to work to make abortion illegal, wouldn't the truly holy course of action be to focus on getting the 99.9% of non-rape induced pregnancies covered first, and then work on the politically daunting task of convincing America that rape babies are to be treasured?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I support abortion 100%. But if I were on your side of the issue, the argument for why the circumstances matter is simple political expediency. Consider a woman who gets trapped in a bad part of town and is abducted, then kept in someone's crib and gang raped for the better part of the next two weeks. Should pro-life people argue that she should be legally forced to keep the child of her attackers? From a practical perspective what the law is doesn't even matter in such a scenario since most women in that situation are getting the abortion whether it is legal or not. So what do you gain by such a position? Absolutely nothing, other than giving your "enemies" the perfect talking point to obliterate you in the media and among the voters. The number of pregnancies created through rape is a trivial percentage overall. Why push a position that is such political poison if it represents such a minuscule percentage of the thing you are trying to prevent?

If God really wants you to work to make abortion illegal, wouldn't the truly holy course of action be to focus on getting the 99.9% of non-rape induced pregnancies covered first, and then work on the politically daunting task of convincing America that rape babies are to be treasured?

As a matter of political expediency, conceding the hard cases HAS NOT WORKED in 40 years to make progress in restoring legal protection to the unborn, so the entire basis of dwelling on them is moot. The chief legal issue is that Roe vs Wade threw out 181+ years of established precedent in all states regarding abortion bans, and ruled all the state laws, no matter how conservative (no exceptions) or how liberal (many exceptions), were somehow all equally unconstitutional.

Hence, a pro-life stance that tries to bring back the laws by making them full of exceptions is not going to hack the problem, as it hasn't for decades. The issue is the absolutism of the pro-choice side, as currently codified by the Supreme Court in the case law, where the mother by default has a 100% overriding right to kill, and the unborn has 0.0% right to life, no matter what law is under consideration.

Roe has to be overturned by the court, or the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to rule on abortion has to be removed by Congress, in order for either a liberal or conservative abortion ban to be reestablished in any state. Either way, the rigidity of Roe is the problem. But until that extremist legal situation changes, there is no pro-life way back to protecting the unborn.

 

[alucard13mm]

I think abortion should be allowed before the neural tube of the zygote is formed for any reason. The neural tube is like your future spinal cord and brain. Before that, it is just a sphere of cells. If i remembered from human bio class, that id about 2 weeks, although correct me if im wrong about the time frame. No brain/neural network, thus no pain or self awareness.

after neural tube is formed, it still takes time to form the brain. The neural tube is still indistinguishable from the rest of the blob of cells.

 

[RonPaulMall]

As a matter of political expediency, conceding the hard cases HAS NOT WORKED in 40 years to make progress in restoring legal protection to the unborn, so the entire basis of dwelling on them is moot. The chief legal issue is that Roe vs Wade threw out 181+ years of established precedent in all states regarding abortion bans, and ruled all the state laws, no matter how conservative (no exceptions) or how liberal (many exceptions), were somehow all equally unconstitutional.

Hence, a pro-life stance that tries to bring back the laws by making them full of exceptions is not going to hack the problem, as it hasn't for decades. The issue is the absolutism of the pro-choice side, as currently codified by the Supreme Court in the case law, where the mother by default has a 100% overriding right to kill, and the unborn has 0.0% right to life, no matter what law is under consideration.

Roe has to be overturned by the court, or the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to rule on abortion has to be removed by Congress, in order for either a liberal or conservative abortion ban can be reestablished in any state. Either way, the rigidity of Roe is the problem. But until that extremist legal situation changes, there is no pro-life way back to protecting the unborn.

Even more reason to follow my advice. If Wisconsin's law is going to get struck down by the Court anyway, what is the point of including highly unpopular provisions?

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Even more reason to follow my advice. If Wisconsin's law is going to get struck down by the Court anyway, what is the point of including highly unpopular provisions?

Because it reflects the will of the people of that individual state concerning how abortion will be regulated. This or that provision is not "highly unpopular" depending upon the state that debates it. There was a range of different provisions on abortion per each state before Roe, and there will be a varied range after Roe. Provisions are not the issue, the nationalization of the abortion issue along absolutist pro-choice lines is the issue.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not really going to bother with Osan's post since there are too many things to deconstruct for anything to go anywhere. I'm a presuppositional, Christian theonomist who believes very strongly in liberty but liberty limited by God's Word. Osan is an autonomous, agnositc, absolute libertarian. I'm interested to see if he's willing to admit to the presuppositions that make up his worldview, as I certainly am.

 

[tod evans]

FF,

Since you're back would you care to address this issue?

If, and I use "if" on purpose because you obviously haven't thought this through, you want to apply the states powers regarding murder to abortion then start by addressing corpus delicti.

There are many other facets that must be explored but I figured the big obvious one would be a good springboard.

 

[Christian Liberty]

FF,

Since you're back would you care to address this issue?

Sure.

Innocent until proven guilty is a Biblical concept and should always be upheld. Which means some people will get away with crimes. That doesn't mean those crimes should be made legal, however.

Some crimes are very difficult to prove. Like spousal rape, for example. Its going to be hard to tell if the crime was actually committed. Most often the man likely gets away with it. It should still be illegal.

At the very least, outlawing abortion would allow two things

1: Every current abortion doctor would either have to flee the country or be executed (following the example of the good kings in the OT who killed the pagan priests who had been in charge before they took office.)

2: Every abortion clinic in the country would be shut down, and trying to openly open one would be very easily a prosecutable, capital offense.

Will people still get abortions somehow? Of course they will. But there would be less of it. Most people are sheep. Even making it illegal would in and of itself discourage a lot of people, because most people are sheep.

 

[tod evans]

So what you're pushing for then, in reality, is passing legislation outlawing state sanctioned abortion and seeking death for physicians who provide abortion? (Punishment by the state without fully defining the crime being punished)

It's "merely" a simplification on your part when you state;

My point is that if abortion is murder, and murder should be banned, then it logically follows that abortion should be banned.

My querry asked you to address equating murder as it's defined for the sake of prosecution, in the context of applying it to abortion...

If.......Big if........You're able to overcome the hurdle of corpus delicti there are a few more issues to discuss before moving on to your idea of;

Every current abortion doctor would either have to flee the country or be executed

I'm afraid you've become so used to parroting what you've learned in church that you're having a hard time trying to actually apply it in reality....And doing so will not serve your ideas well when trying to present them to others who might have been taught differently...

At this point you can continue to parrot and scream for retribution or you can begin trying to suss out logical arguments in support of an emotional position...

 

[Christian Liberty]

So what you're pushing for then, in reality, is passing legislation outlawing state sanctioned abortion and seeking death for physicians who provide abortion? (Punishment by the state without fully defining the crime being punished)

It's "merely" a simplification on your part when you state;


My querry asked you to address equating murder as it's defined for the sake of prosecution, in the context of applying it to abortion...

If.......Big if........You're able to overcome the hurdle of corpus delicti there are a few more issues to discuss before moving on to your idea of;


I'm afraid you've become so used to parroting what you've learned in church that you're having a hard time trying to actually apply it in reality....And doing so will not serve your ideas well when trying to present them to others who might have been taught differently...

At this point you can continue to parrot and scream for retribution or you can begin trying to suss out logical arguments in support of an emotional position...

BTW: I wasn't taught this in church. Too many people in church are utterly disinterested in trying to fix our political system and/or woefully inconsistent on the issue of abortion.