Monday, October 29, 2012

Gimleteye: Will you be voting for the GOP extremists?

"In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life." (for the full editorial ...)


October 27, 2012
Why I Am Pro-Life
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
NEW YORK TIMES

HARD-LINE conservatives have gone to new extremes lately in opposing abortion. Last week, Richard Mourdock, the Tea Party-backed Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, declared during a debate that he was against abortion even in the event of rape because after much thought he “came to realize that life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” That came on the heels of the Tea Party-backed Republican Representative Joe Walsh of Illinois saying after a recent debate that he opposed abortion even in cases where the life of the mother is in danger, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would not survive without an abortion. “Health of the mother has become a tool for abortions anytime, for any reason,” Walsh said. That came in the wake of the Senate hopeful in Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, remarking that pregnancy as a result of “legitimate rape” is rare because “the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down.”

These were not slips of the tongue. These are the authentic voices of an ever-more-assertive far-right Republican base that is intent on using uncompromising positions on abortion to not only unseat more centrist Republicans — Mourdock defeated the moderate Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana in the primary — but to overturn the mainstream consensus in America on this issue. That consensus says that those who choose to oppose abortion in their own lives for reasons of faith or philosophy should be respected, but those women who want to make a different personal choice over what happens with their own bodies should be respected, and have the legal protection to do so, as well.

But judging from the unscientific — borderline crazy — statements opposing abortion that we’re hearing lately, there is reason to believe that this delicate balance could be threatened if Mitt Romney and Representative Paul Ryan, and their even more extreme allies, get elected. So to those who want to protect a woman’s right to control what happens with her own body, let me offer just one piece of advice: to name something is to own it. If you can name an issue, you can own the issue. And we must stop letting Republicans name themselves “pro-life” and Democrats as “pro-choice.” It is a huge distortion.

In my world, you don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and be against common-sense gun control — like banning public access to the kind of semiautomatic assault rifle, designed for warfare, that was used recently in a Colorado theater. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and want to shut down the Environmental Protection Agency, which ensures clean air and clean water, prevents childhood asthma, preserves biodiversity and combats climate change that could disrupt every life on the planet. You don’t get to call yourself “pro-life” and oppose programs like Head Start that provide basic education, health and nutrition for the most disadvantaged children. You can call yourself a “pro-conception-to-birth, indifferent-to-life conservative.” I will never refer to someone who pickets Planned Parenthood but lobbies against common-sense gun laws as “pro-life.”

“Pro-life” can mean only one thing: “respect for the sanctity of life.” And there is no way that respect for the sanctity of life can mean we are obligated to protect every fertilized egg in a woman’s body, no matter how that egg got fertilized, but we are not obligated to protect every living person from being shot with a concealed automatic weapon. I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax.

The term “pro-life” should be a shorthand for respect for the sanctity of life. But I will not let that label apply to people for whom sanctity for life begins at conception and ends at birth. What about the rest of life? Respect for the sanctity of life, if you believe that it begins at conception, cannot end at birth. That radical narrowing of our concern for the sanctity of life is leading to terrible distortions in our society.

Respect for life has to include respect for how that life is lived, enhanced and protected — not only at the moment of conception but afterward, in the course of that life. That’s why, for me, the most “pro-life” politician in America is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. While he supports a woman’s right to choose, he has also used his position to promote a whole set of policies that enhance everyone’s quality of life — from his ban on smoking in bars and city parks to reduce cancer, to his ban on the sale in New York City of giant sugary drinks to combat obesity and diabetes, to his requirement for posting calorie counts on menus in chain restaurants, to his push to reinstate the expired federal ban on assault weapons and other forms of common-sense gun control, to his support for early childhood education, to his support for mitigating disruptive climate change.

Now that is what I call “pro-life.”


5 comments:

Mensa said...

damn you are good and you have said it all. I do not need to comment further.

CATO said...

Every Politician is "Pro Life" because its hard to get elected being on the Pro-Death ticket.
What ever happened to common sense?
-If you have unprotected sex you run the risk of getting pregnant (only if your a Woman) or getting AIDS, Gonorrhea , Syphillis etc etc etc (Guys you can catch this stuff too).
-If you had one too many and had unprotected sex if your a woman (guys your only choice is to become invisible) you can go down to local DRUG store and get yourself a Morning After Pill (or get your "date" to pay for one).
- If your are to buzzed, stupid, lazy or catholic to use protection or take the morning after pill then try making up your mind in the first 6-8 weeks (but then again you are probably still getting buzzed, lazy, stupid or catholic (incurable conditions).

In a perfect world nobody would need a gun, the world is far from perfect (Lots of F^@^ed up, stupid criminals out there) so if you don't have a gun I suggest you buy one and learn how to use it to protect yourself and your family.

I'm Ok with the EPA as long as it remembers that Humans (Even the stupid, lazy and F$%^ed up ones) are part of the environment they are supposed to protect.

Gas is expensive only use it to go to the polls if you know who and what your voting for.

Anonymous said...

As always, I disagree with the bloggers view on "gun control". :)
Mr. Friedman's use of the phrase "common-sense" feels a little condescending. I'm sorry that my ideas of individual rights are not "common-sense."

That said, as a registered Republican, I continue to be saddened by the vomit that keeps being pushed out by these people. Once again, the Republican party FORCED me to vote for Mr. Obama. Let's face it, Mr. Romney has shown us so many faces in such little time, we have no idea who he is. At least I'm aware of my differences with the President.
To paraphrase a man who wouldn't survive a primary these days:
I didn't leave the Republican party. The Republican party left me. :)

Again, thanks to the bloggers here for working to keep me informed and asking nothing in return. G.o.d. can feel free to call me a moron. :) I can only imagine what he'll call me when the topic is the death penalty.

Cheers to all.

Anonymous said...

No, I am not voting for the extremists.

I am voting for Romney!

Anonymous said...

I am pro-life, Republican, and opposed to the government dictating who can and cannot receive an abortion. Abortions are going to happen whether they're legal or not. The government has no right to dictate the terms under which they will be performed.

That being said, any abortion performed after the first trimester unless it is absolutely necessary to save the life of the mother is anathema.

The other thing that upsets me about the pro-choice crowd is a phrase that's been repeated so many times it has become accepted as dogma; by body, my decision.

I submit that you didn't make that baby alone and any decision about whether or not the pregnancy is allowed to proceed righty should involve input from your partner.

Secondly, it is an intellectual act of supreme arrogance to assert " it's my body and my decision. We are not talking about a skin tag of a mole; we're talking about a fetus that if allowed to proceed to its ultimate conclusion results in the creation of another human being. To speak "my body, my choice" is to reduce the most beautiful, mysterious, and socially sacred process on par with removal of a polyp in your colon.

Religion has no place in this discussion. Morality does.