Letters to the Editor
Gwool
Published Letters: 366 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Glenn's Holding up a Mirror and some don't like it.
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn is making a perfectly valid point. Pro-life republicans get villified while Harry Reid gets a hall pass.
It is always fun to point out the logical inconsistencies in a zealous argument. Republicans for years complained about Democrats using Fedeeral power to impose their world view on citizens. Once they got into power they were very quick to want to use federal power in their own way.
If federal power were a gun turret, it was not that either side wanted the turret dismantled, they just wanted to take it over and turn it 180 degrees and fire it in a differnt direction.
There are tons of these in political discourse. If you truly believe abortion to be the unfettered right of a woman, then, by God the responsibilities associated with that unfettered right should also be solely the women's purview. In short, stop asking men for child support in that case.
If you truly believe abortion to be anathema, then be ready to increase spending for child welfare. Statistics show the disproportionate number of abortions taking place with economically disadvantaged women, so be ready to change your stance on child welfare programs.
If you think a CEO who has relations with an entry level recent college grad interning at the company is an uneven use of power for sexual advantage, then where were you when our Government CEO was engaged in such an uneven power arrangement in his extramarital affair? (Do not confuse that with whether it was an impeachable offense.)
This is why guys like Ron Paul confound people. He has a rather consistent view of governing principals regardless of the way in which that will effect an outcome. He values adherence to constitutional process over policy outcome.
Barry Goldwater got hammered on that late in life. He'd been against the civil rights act on states rights grounds. Republicans loved him for it. Later he was against a constitutional amendment on abortion on states rights grounds and even came out tacitly in support of gay rights, believing it a state matter. Those very same republicans then villified him as senile and a sell out. He hadn't sold out. He applied the same constitutional principals to different issues resulting in outcomes the ideologs who liked his earlier positions found unpleasant. Boo Hoo. It's awful when a principal gets in the way of a desired outcome.
Bashing republican pro-lifers and staying silent on democrat pro-lifers is an inconsistency driven by partisan politics. That's all Glenn is saying, and he is dead nuts on.
Don't look in the mirror if you don't like the image.
-
Gator90 ... MEOWWWWWWWW!!!
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And, odd though it feels to agree with Bethincary, to the extent that people equipped with penises have a problem with abortion, they really should just STFU."
Nothing like a debate on abortion to bring out that old christmas spirit of compassion and forgiveness.
Part of life is playing the cards mother nature deals you, and one of those happens to be whether or not you are equipped with a penis or a vagina.
*IF* you think abortion murder, then are you supposed to be quiet if you are a man? Does this mean only men should address homicide penalties for men and women homicide penalties for women?
*If* you think abortion a medical procedure, should male medical issues only be discussed by men and female medical issues only be discussed by women? Let's have all male doctors stop working on breast cancer research and all female doctors stop working on prostate cancer research.
With rights come responsibilities. We have the right to do what we want and the responsibility to accept the consequences. Make the choice to have a child all on your own and be ready to accept the responsibility for that choice all on your own. I am sure tons of men would line up to support that premise. And besides, single parent households have been such a boon to early child hood development and education attainment that we should just do away with marriage entirely.
Women control reproduction due to mother nature. I say we guys all go into the woods to grunt around fires with face paint on and wait to be called upon to service the cervix of the human incarnate of the fertility goddess on demand be it recreationally or procreationally driven and then return to the woods to live simply while the women make the final decision as to the further advancement of the species.
I mean, it worked for Thoreau, didn't it? I wonder if I can retroactively get out of having to pay to support my four children. If I can I can retire early!
We do this and we can kiss our technological edge good bye. We'll be putting a group in charge of raising our children who represent 51% of the population and yet still clamor they are a minority which just proves what Harvard President Larry Summers thought all along. Women really do suck at math.
Extreme views are so much fun to parse.
With tongue firmly planted in cheek ....
-
Devolving into ridiculousness
[Read the article: Harry Reid's pro-life stance vs. Ron Paul's ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can always tell when an argument has run its course when into devolves into wordsmithing. Liked or not, pro-choice and pro-life have stuck as labels that easily convey who is on what side. I could give a fiddler's damn about the shorthand associated with it. It's commonly accepted language, and it beats the hell out of Baby Killer and Repugs.
But, hey, when you are backed into a corner, what better thing to do than to divert attention away from the substantive argument you are losing by taking high dudgeon over the word choice.
What's next? An exit stage left to the fainting couch with a case of the vapors?