COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • throwback59

    A) I know how He feels
    B) He thought He had it tough
    C) He only had to deal with Romans, not Republicans
    D) He was only crucified once
    E). H’mmm, instead of B.C, A.D. maybe B.O., A.E. (Before Obama, After
    Election)

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    n/t

  • dogfan

    that contraception is very bad? That everyone is much worse off for having the option of contraception? Help me out on this.

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      on his site here. Below are a couple of his comments.

      Toby – Feb 16 2012 – 10:20am
      The implication is that this president has made the statement in the past that a baby is a punishment that he wouldn’t want his daughters to have to face (if she were to make the simple little mistake of having sex before she was married).

      If he sees a picture of a woman (one that didn’t even have sex in the first place if you listen to us ‘wingnuts’) with a baby (aka little bundle of punishment), he wouldn’t think of what that baby could’ve become and meant to the world, he would think of how government missed its opportunight to provide the mother with an RU-486 pill.

      He doesn’t see the virgin mother and Jesus, he sees a mother with a punishment.

      • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

        I’ve been having to explain stuff all morning on my site. Haven’t had much time to get back here.

      • dogfan

        He thinks SOME women or girls, as in the case of his daughters would be worse off if they became pregnant and had a baby. It’s hardly inconceivable that a teenage girl could be much worse off in life if she has a baby at that point in her life. Sure, it’s possible that the teenage girl will be better off if she has that baby than if she doesn’t get pregnant in the first place (or has an early abortion), and others could be better off if that person comes into existence, but that’s not necessarily the case, and I don’t think many would argue that we should encourage teen pregnancy for everyone’s supposed betterment. Nor do I think it’s sensible to assume that all adult women (and all others involved) would be better off without contraception.

        It’s a non sequitur (and quite silly) for anyone to take that view expressed by Obama as implying that Obama thinks that ALL babies are punishment to their mothers. After all, do you really think he would say that about his own children? Of course not.

        I think it’s a good thing that people have the option of contraception. Some people who use it would have been better off without contraception and others perhaps would be better off too, but I’m sure glad each person can decide if she/he wants to minimize the chance of pregnancy.

        As for RU-486, that gets into the issue of abortion, and particularly the matter of the morality of early abortions and whether or not it should be legal. But even in that case, it’s silly for anyone to think that just because Obama thinks SOME women should have the option of aborting an early embryo/fetus, that means he thinks ANY and ALL those who are not aborted and are born are punishment to the parents.

        So basically, the point of the cartoon seems to be just an absurd non sequitur.

        • Tbone

          nt

        • Aaron Gardner

          Just thought you should know that.

          • dogfan

            …is that it doesn’t follow logically that if someone says that some teenage girls would be worse off if they became teenage mothers, it means he is saying that ALL parents (and the world) are worse off for their becoming parents.

            And I’m saying I think it’s a good thing that people have the option of contraceptives.

            I also support the legality of early abortion (because I don’t think an embryo/fetus devoid of much/any brain activity can be considered a person), although I am more strongly opposed to late abortion than even many people who call themselves “pro-life”. I do not think rape even makes sense as a rationale for abortion legality if the premise is that the fetus is a person. And even threat to the life of the mother as an rationale for abortion legality in such cases is a difficult argument to make convincingly (we don’t let one person murder another innocent person just because the latter represents a threat to the life of the former).

            I hope you don’t think my expressing such views is a reason to ban me from RS. If you want to see an overview of my overwhelmingly conservative views, please see my RS profile. Hopefully RS tolerates from a participant some difference of opinion on a couple of issues (vs. absolute conservatism across all issues).

          • Aaron Gardner

            I was underwhelmed. Obama support infanticide, this isn’t a matter of a difference of opinion on a couple issues. You are defending a guy who favored late term abortions. If you want to have a nice long tenure here, I suggest you stop doing that.

            Take it or leave it.

          • dogfan

            First, as I said, I am more against late term abortions than many people who call themselves “pro-life”. And my point isn’t to be some apologist for Obama on anything. I just saw a cartoon that seemed to have faulty logic, and I wanted to ask about that (I was interested in the matter of logic, not in defending Obama), and I also wanted to express that I favor legality of contraception (as I assume many others here do). (And by “contraception” I’m NOT including RU-486, which I don’t think should be called “contraception” since it’s an abortion).

            Are you saying I am not allowed to say that I believe early abortions should remain legal, and to explain why I don’t consider them “infanticide”? If not, I won’t do it, but please tell me if that’s a restriction I must accept if I’m not to be banned.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I have come to this conclusion because in your 11 days here you have only commented on posts that deal with the one area you disagree with the site.

            There are plenty of opportunities for you to focus on defense and fiscal issues, but that isn’t really your focus, instead you have decided to focus on the point of disagreement, like a troll.

            Just so you know, I am not a moderator, I am a contributor. I don’t have the authority to ban you, only to provide some advice on how to make your stay here more pleasant. The way you choose to respond to that will largely determine your fate here.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            http://www.redstate.com/dia0420/2012/02/16/contraception-services-whos-your-daddi/#comment-3495

            The key is balance and intensity. I’ll await his comments on fiscal and defense issues – or watch another moth immolate himself.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …though as a retread, it was only a matter of time anyway.

            >a href=”http://www.redstate.com/dia0420/2012/02/16/contraception-services-whos-your-daddi/#comment-3503″>http://www.redstate.com/dia0420/2012/02/16/contraception-services-whos-your-daddi/#comment-3503

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            It’s liberal spin that conservatives want to ban contraceptives. Contraceptives are legal and readily available in a variety of methods, many of which are not of the abortive nature. You and others are free to choose and use them as you see fit. However, it’s certainly not a conservative position that I should have to pay for anyone else’s. Same goes for abortion.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …or more generally utilitarian reasoning. This does often dovetail with benefit/cost approaches.

          • dogfan

            But “utilitarian reasoning” as people think of it is often fundamentally different from my approach to morality, and much of that “benefit/cost approach” that people think of implies assessments of morality of a given act that I would find outrageous.

            I do believe that something can only be immoral if it harms people (or animals). That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily immoral even if it does do harm, only that harm is a necessary element and that the case that something is immoral must be based on an argument that harm is done. There is, of course, a calculus involved, attempting to consider all harms and benefits, but the utilitarian stuff you may be referring to includes approaches that are not at all what I’m talking about.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …keeps you out of the swamp of introducing “good of society” terms into the calculus. That’s the historical path to totalitarianism and its progeny.

            And certainly we need to keep a healthy skeptism about enlisting the coercive power of the state to enforce a moral position.

        • jamesm

          to say that Obama thinks all babies are a punishment to their mothers. Nobody thinks that and it would be totally illogical. So Obama thinks “he” was a punishment to his mother? LOL

          • dogfan

            I’m just trying to see the reasoning in the cartoon. And based on the quote provided as explanation, it seems that (1) the premise is that Obama thinks that ANY baby is punishment to his mother (and also that he doesn’t see the good the baby can eventually do for the world), and (2) the basis for that premise is that Obama said that he thinks if his daughters ended up (against their wishes, presumably) with babies as teenagers, it would be a bad thing for them (“punishment” for having had sex).

            That’s not a straw man by me. It seems to be the reasoning of the cartoon and the explanation provided by the cartoonist.

            And I’m saying I think it’s illogical to conclude #1 based on #2, and apparently you agree.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          …doesn’t matter if it’s “some” or “all” – the sentiment itself is being criticized. Babies are gifts, not burdens. And there are options for those who can’t handle the responsibilities, but that still doesn’t make the baby a punishment.

          Not to mention, if babies are “punishment’ – who’s doing the punishing?

          • dogfan

            …but if his point was that it’s quite possible that a teenage girl would be worse off with a baby at that point in her life than without one, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable point, do you?

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …especially as he states that his moral system is rooted in Christianity not benefit/cost analysis.

            Obviously there those who would agree and disagree with his description of his moral system as “Christian”, but that’s a whole different matter that doesn’t impact here.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            The reference points for the comparative “worse off” in relation to a teenage girl are categorically different depending on her state of pregnancy. Prior to “that point in her life” she is capable of not having a baby without an abortion, and it is generally agreed that having a baby in that state would make her “worse off”. The equivocation (and resultant false dilemma) comes with the implication that, at “that point in her life” when she is pregnant, having the baby in state would make her “worse off” than if she did not.

            It’s quite possible that a teenage boy would be worse off if arrested for shoplifting than not being arrested. By your logic, he could at least attempt to escape the first condition by offing the cashier. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable point, do you?

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Just read a little further down.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Thanks. I’m always the last one into the sandbox.

    • lineholder

      it’s about causal analogies, actions versus consequences, and acceptance or denial of individual accountability.

      The left likes to paint people as victims, because it lets them be the champions of the victims and impose measures across society as whole intended to alleviate or minimize the perceived consequences of the actions for the so-called victim. It also tends to give way to a general point of weakness in character for those victims, i.e. they get to wallow in self-pity and they don’t have to develop the level of maturity that allows them to accept responsibility for their actions.

      The right is more likely to approach it with an attitude of encouraging individual accountability to begin with…character development, learning causal circumstances, accepting responsibility, learning how to make wise choices, etc. Plus, we tend to look at things more in the context of blessings and opportunity than consequences and punishment.

      • dogfan

        First, none of that has anything to do with the non sequitur implied by the cartoon (jumping from SOME to ALL, as I’ve explained).

        Second, why does it reflect less individual responsibility for someone to try to avoid pregnancy by using contraception.

        As for early abortion via RU-486, I don’t think that should be called “contraception” so I don’t know if it really is what the cartoonist had in mind when drawing the cartoon or if it was just an additional point made later in discussion on his site. But in any case, I don’t expect we’ll see eye-to-eye on whether or not usage of RU-486 reflects a lack of individual responsibility, because you consider the embryo a person and I don’t, and I assume we’re not likely to reconcile that difference.

        • lineholder

          Why are you really here at RS, dogfan? You have socially moderate/liberal viewpoints on issues, not socially conservative viewpoints. Surely you must have been objective enough to realize that trying to present socially moderate/liberal viewpoints at a site that is rather strongly socially Conservative would be an uphill battle at best?

          • dogfan

            I am a strong Defense conservative.
            I am a strong fiscal and economic conservative.
            I am mixed on social issues. Conservative on schools, law & order, anti-affirmative action, extremely opposed to late-term abortions (more so than many who call themselves “pro-life”), etc., but I support SSM and legality of early abortions.

            That said, I’ve asked a mod if I’m not allowed to express my views re: early abortion here, and if I’m not allowed, I’ll abide by that rule.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And no you’re not.

            You’re also banned. Again.

          • Aaron Gardner

            *puts cigar in mouth*

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            P.S. Good morning from the greater Los Angeles area underground.

          • westcoastpatriette

            Trying to hone my troll skills.

          • Aaron Gardner

            nt

          • westcoastpatriette

            but I’m glad he got blammed as he was really getting on my nerves last night pushing same sex marriage.

          • rogsterling63

            yeah!

          • Aaron Gardner

            If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned. If you don’t like that, get bent.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …and if he can stay balanced in terms of the diaries he posts on at RedState and avoid pointy sticks (which he most has so far) I don’t see a problem with his holding a minority viewpoint. And I think he has been pretty clear when questioned in explaining the basis of his reasoning, better than most on this site.

          • lineholder

            that dogfan seems to articulate that I’m simply struggling with it personally.

            I’ve gone down the path of following society’s lead on what is considered to be “acceptable” behavior, and I learned the hard way that if society deems as “acceptable” a type of behavior that in the context of moral absolutes is defined as being immoral, then the person is leaving themselves wide open for a miserable life.

            I’d just as soon other people not have to go through the experiences of learning the hard way like I did, CT. And a portion of what I say has to do with hoping that they might listen to the words of someone who can genuinely and sincerely say “been there, done that”.

            My general impression at this point is that things of this sort don’t matter to dogfan one whit. I probably should just go with my instincts and stay out of the conversation.

          • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

            …as it’s too lightweight to stand against the reality of living in God’s universe. But change will take an awareness of the limits of human reason and humility in the face of mystery. It’s painful to watch others go down a path one’s experience teaches is a dead-end or worse. Not sure that dogfan has ears to hear at this point.

        • avgjo

          logic, dogfan (specifically FOL), you’re right. Obama specified his daughters, not an abitrary pregnant girl, so it equates to an existence statement, not a universal.

          HOWEVER -

          Politics as a whole is not governed by logic. Portions of the universe of politics are subject to logic (specifically, anything that can be expressed in terms of a variable or variables ranging over individuals). However, real-world politics includes far more than this. Aside from considerations of extending FOL, we have to leave logic altogether and deal with rhetoric and questions of character. Obama voted against protecting survivors of abortion in Illinois. He is purely ‘pro-choice’. Logically, I concede we cannot legitimately go from ‘there exists’ to ‘all’, but practically with this man, we can come close. His rhetoric and his history bear this out.

          I went into some of the specifics of the limitations of logic re: human affairs because I notice in my admittedly limited discussion with you, that you seem to approach problems primarily through the lenses of semantics and logic. that works well for math, science and technical fields, which deal primarily in univocal terms with clear referents, but not so much for human affairs which does not often deal with such things.

          • avgjo

            should have been ‘clear and relatively invariable referents’

  • Tbone

    but it certainly has been a punishment to us.

    • kcdude

      Spot on.

  • http://www.tobytoons.com TobyToons

    stem from this one statement…

    “because you consider the embryo a person and I don

  • Kyle-MI

    “But note how the narrative in the press has shifted. The Obama Administration says that churches who oppose contraception still have to pay for it. And then, when people object, suddenly the talk shifts from who pays for contraception to whether someone wants to ban it.

    It

    • aesthete

      is that we have fools like Santorum, who keep kinda-sorta pushing this issue into the periphery of politics, and who have made a hash of explaining where they stand or why people who don’t share their views on contraceptives should still be concerned.

      To borrow your analogy re: bacon, it would be as if a Muslim posturing for President, who had a record of wanting aspects of his faith enforced and put great emphasis on Islam’s importance to the governance of this country, started yammering about how we need to have a “national conversation” about bacon — with him leading the conversation. Even if the Muslim dude clarified that he didn’t want a federal ban (but maybe one on the state level), people would be either confused or angry — certainly, focus on government compulsion would be lost in the wake of this nonsense! That is what fools like Santorum have wrought: they’ve turned a straightforward issue about religious compulsion into whether one is for or against contraceptives: an argument that we will lose, if we’re seen to be on the anti-contraceptive side of the argument. For every clip of someone level-headed like John Hoeven talking about this issue, there’s a repeat of Santorum’s statements on the campaign trail about contraceptives.

      Someone really needs to tell Santorum and his groupies exactly what it is that the President is responsible for (hint: it’s not our sex lives). He’s making a damned botch of a simple issue which should be laid out in the way that you just did.

      • Kyle-MI

        I agree with you, aesthete. May I add that this is another reason to like this quote. It clarifies that argument and puts it in a situation that everyone can easily grasp.

        Hopefully someone from the Santorum campaign reads Instapundit and gets the candidate to memorize this (and not deviate from it).

  • snowshooze

    That is a real hall of fame job.
    Thanks!
    Mark

  • Scope

    I completely agree with George Will on this issue I grew up as a Catholic, and understand the belief in charity and taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves. I just don’t buy that the government is responsible, in any country, to demand that the government be the tender of that charity. Didn’t God use the charitable aspect of each human individual to judge who was the one to be charitable, or not. Joe Biden is a Catholic, but his charitable contributions have been something like $200 per year. The Catholics has also been very much in favor of open borders, and have harbored illegal immigrants in their churches. Again, I grew up with Catholic teachings, but they don’t seem to be able to separate the difference between individual charity and government charity. I long ago accepted the fact that the Catholic church is very much into the redistribution of wealth, as in any socialist system. But, like I said, I don’t think they anticipated that the Obama administration would turn their guns on them, even though there were many open blank passages in Obamacare to be filled in later.

  • Locked and Loaded

    is there any doubt that hearing their father’s statement could cause Malia and/or Sasha to reflect on whether their dad thought of them as punishment, regardless of what their mother might say about it?

    Which brings up another point, fathers have no rights in the matter of abortion. If the mother wants to abort the baby, it is her decision alone. But if the baby’s life is taken by someone other than the mother and her abortionist, it is murder in some jurisdictions. In concert with any other actions to curtail this carnage, I would like to see any father stand up for his rights and insist on murder charges against those who exterminate his developing offspring.