On Roe v. Wade Anniversary, Rep. Hunter Calls For Judicial ‘Sonogram Test’
On Roe v. Wade Anniversary, Rep. Hunter Calls For Judicial ‘Sonogram Test’
Yesterday was the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Conservatives use the anniversary to hold an anti-choice demonstration on the Washington Mall.
Appearing at yesterday’s rally, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) declared that judicial nominees should be given a sonogram test before being confirmed. “If we have a judicial applicant…who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life,” then “he will not receive a judicial appointment,” Hunter announced. “I tell you what you he will receive, he will get an appointment with an optometrist so he can get a pair of eye glasses.”
Watch it:
Also yesterday, Hunter reintroduced the “Right To Life Act,” which he claims “specifically acknowledges the personhood of the unborn as supported by the U.S. Constitution.”
UPDATE: Feministing has photos from yesterday’s events.
Full transcript:
I’ve looked carefully at the responsibilities of the president, and one of those responsibilities is to appoint judges, and we need judges who have a respect for life. Now, if we have a judicial applicant, a judicial nominee, who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life, then from this person, if I should become President of the United States, he will not receive a judicial appointment. I tell you what you he will receive, he will get an appointment with an optometrist so he can get a pair of eye glasses. Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for everything that you do. Thanks for your effort. Thanks for being out here on this cold day. We’ll see you down the line. God bless you.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
127 Responses to “On Roe v. Wade Anniversary, Rep. Hunter Calls For Judicial ‘Sonogram Test’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Hi. I'm Duncan Hunter, and I'm a complete idiot.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:22 amAny country that discusses if abortion is right or wrong is a country where women are seen as inferior. In Mexico, abortion is forbidden. Hundreds of women die each year due to bad surgeries in clandestine clinics. There is a high religious component in the discussion, sadly. Again, in Islam, Christian and Jewish religions, women are seen as inferior.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:27 amTranslation - we need judges who can be politically/religiously influenced into believing what we say they should believe, and the heck with the Constitution and rights for all Americans.
Zooey, thanks for the LOL.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:29 amMore republican litmus tests for judges. Totally out of touch with America and the constitution, as usual.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 amHunter needs to be given a colonoscopy of the cranium to confirm what is painfully obvious. His brains have been replaced by fecal matter.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:30 amIf there was ever an arguement to abort a fetus all one has to do is look at Duncan Dipshit's picture here.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:32 amWell, since this right wing idiot is running for President, I bet we're going to see more of this kind of grandstanding.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:35 amWhere did they take that picture?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amIn front of Wal-Mart?
Is he saying that we need more mullahs sitting in the courts? Why does he hate the secular judicial system of America?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amFU DUncan HUnter
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amHunter is crying over 'Human life'...!!. I think the test that should be taken is a presidential candidates test to show how much knowledge they have about the world before they try to become presidents...I recommend that.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:37 amWhat's a "duncan"? I've heard of deer hunters and rabbit hunters and duck hunters. I've never heard of a "duncan" hunter.
The simple answer to abortion: make it legal and safe but work like hell to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Making abortions illegal does not make them less frequent.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 amHunter will never be president. We do not need another Right Wing nut as president. Heven help us all.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:40 amI propose that we give our Congressional representatives the 'war is hell' test before they are allowed to take office.
If we have a candidate for Congress who can look at pictures of civilian casualties from war torn regions (such as Iraq), and not see the value of human life, then he will not be allowed to take office.
I tell you what he will receive, he will get an appointment at the nearest Army recruiter's office so perhaps he will be able to see in person what he failed to see in the pictures.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:43 am"duncan" is a corruption of the original "dumb can", otherwise known as a Busch lite beer can.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:44 amIn use, it quickly became 'duncan' after emptying several cans.
A Duncan Hunter is a hunter who drives down dirt roads, gets out to stick the empty duncans on tree branches, gets back into the truck, and shoots at them out the window.
Hunter makes a case for mandatory abortion and with him and DUHbya abortion should be retroactive.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 amPeople like Rep. Hunter would have a great deal more credibility on their "pro-life" stand if they were also opposed to the death penalty and war, especially a preemptive and unnecessary war. People like Duncan have great care and love for the unborn, but once they are out of the womb, to hell with them.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 amI agree that if you can see a baby in a sonagram... and its looks quite similar to how it will look once born, you've waited too long to get an abortion.
Maybe Bush should have a look at.. hmm.. X-Rays of all the kids hes sending to war, and if he sees a human, well shouldn't they have a right to life too then?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 amAlso yesterday, Hunter reintroduced the “Right To Life Act,†which he claims “specifically acknowledges the personhood of the unborn as supported by the U.S. Constitution.â€
'Conn-sti-tuu-shun'? What' s that?
Hunter must have balls of brass and platinum to talk about rights protected by the Constitution, seeing the damage his party (led by the Commander-in-Chimp) has done to that noble document over the past six years.
But then again, hypocrisy is the Repukes' bread and butter.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 amCould Hunter Duncan be guilty of sperm-murder via masturbation?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 amIf so, I recommend we institute the death penalty.
And you gals don't get off so easy either.
The death penalty would also have to be enforced for having a period, wherein all those unused blastocytes go bye-bye.
After all, they are all potential life. And to kill potential life surely must be murder, right Dunco?
I love the way these right-wing wackos talk about the "value of human life" "respect for life" and they are the first ones to put our men and women in the frontlines everyday getting killed for oil.
No, Dipshit Duncan we won't "see you down the line."
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:48 amAmen, Rep. Hunter.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:49 amI've been saying for years the reason this debate persists is because of the right's framing the arguement as being one of pro-life vs pro-abortion, and the way for the left to finally get understood is to reframe the issue for what it really is...pro-choice vs anti-choice.
Kudos TP for doing exactly that.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 amRaven
Excellent! LOL.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 amThe simple answer to abortion: make it legal and safe but work like hell to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
Stop using logic, you are confusing me.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:53 amWhat a brave American, tackling the TOUGH issues.
Why do men feel obligated to interfere in the lives of women?
Inferiority complex?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 amNothing like letting your personal religious views shape your outlook on creating laws that affects millions of people who have a different religion than you.
Wait...
Dear Duncan Hunter, if you and your family are against the right to choose, fine, don't have one or counsel your family never to have an abortion. Please don't legislate your morals on the rest of us. I've had more than enough 'morals' rammed down my throat by the 'moral right.'
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:57 amRepublicans scream that they want big government to stay out of their wallets. I want big government to stay out of my wife's womb.
Which is more invasive?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:59 amAlmond, Daryll.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 amAbortion in Europe.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 amAnd I've got an idea for a test that we can give right-wing anti-choice bible-thumpers. Place a human blastocyst, a monkey blastocyst, and a dog blastocyst next to each other, in unlabeled petri dishes. Give the candidate a hammer and tell him to smash the two that aren't human. Shouldn't be a problem, since only human life is sacred to someone like that. We'll see where his confidence level is about what constitutes a "human life".
If that's too tough, we can always let him try it again with four-week-old embryos.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:03 amThe abortion issue will largely take a back seat to Iraq, and the foreign policy nightmare facing this country. This is a sad attempt to turn the attention of this country away from the incompetence, and stupidity of President Bush, and the republican led minority, and an attempt to stay relevant. The biggest problem is, aside from the hard 30% such as Daryll, it is an issue that most are not going to care about.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amDaryll! How was your UML class>?
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 amPretty bold move with Democratic Congress to propose a bill that won't pass.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 amWhy hasn't he proposed this bill in the last 6 years? Because The R's need abortion as a straw man argument?
If women would use birth contol and men would use the condoms maybe there would be no need for abortion. I beleive a women has that right to choice. There might be a reason she has to decide this as Rape, incest or health. Than there is these religious nut pharmacist that won't give out birth control pills. If they can't do this he or she should fine another job.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 amTP should correct it self. it was a Pro-life demonstration. Lie all you want, that's their view. They are entitled to it. Just as the Pro-choice (or I guess TP would call them Anti-life) folk are entitled to yours.
I for one would settle for no government paid abortions. I would be happy with parental notification for underage kids. You know, report statutory rape to the parents at least.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 amWe need to submit judges to a religiously politically correct test in order to appease the Talibangelicals.
F-dat Catfish Hunter.
-GSD
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 amA blastocyst merits civil rights protections, but same-sex couples don't?
Just what in the hell do you have to do to get treated fairly by the laws these days? Are we gays going to have to get married in the womb to make it "OK" for these wingnuts?
Do you think that Hunter and his ilk would be OK with aborting a gay child?
Give. Me. A. Break. Don't let this man anywhere near the White House or the Constitution.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 amSo, by contrast, we should, say, show all the judges, politicians, military, citizens, etc photos of dead soldiers, maimed soldiers, along with a picture of what they used to look like before the war, and make sure they view these imagies before making boneheaded decisions about Iraq, right?
Sure, just like we can see flag dropped coffins in the media. Gotcha
Right to life only applies to some in America - in this case, fetuses. Apparently, living humans do not matter.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:11 amit was a Pro-life demonstration.
Comment by Kevin
Oh, they should have done it in Iraq, then. Im sure iraqis can use some help over there.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 amHYPOCRITES...
...defending the rights of the unborn...
...while supporting the wholesale mass murder of the living in Iraq...
...and denouncing society's responsibility to help the poor...
...after they're born...
...HYPOCRITES...
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am“specifically acknowledges the personhood of the unborn as supported by the U.S. Constitution.â€
Once you do that, it is a short step to charge women who miscarry with negligent homicide.
The same would go for thier Ob-Gyn's.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 amTalibangelicals.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:19 amGSD - I like it. You oughta trademark it.
Hunter - such a dumbass even a caveman could beat him in a debate.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:21 amIsn't this Hunter character supposed to be in jail with Duke Cunningham? He looks like a big'ol drunk that's out pandering to the poor naive church-folk.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 amThis kind of rhetoric really makes me sick to my stomach. Duncan Hunter seeks to indenture my granddaughter to male control... else he would be talking about the sanctity of real lives (live people)....not potential lives. If he really gave a damn for life he would be out pounding the pavement for birth control; he would be protesting against our corporate war that kills our sons & daughters; he would come out strongly against capital punishment. The hypocrisy is overwhelming. I feel ill.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:23 amI never heard him saying one word about Iraqi civilians killed...a good percentage are children and women...so he cares for the 'unborn'..but he doesn't care for the 'born'...
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 amAll Hunter is doing is raising money for his Defense Fund,cause he know's that he doesn't stand a chance of even making past the first primary.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:27 amWhen the legal connections are made with him and Cunningham it's all over! These grass-root fund raisings he's having, is all about him making money to pay his attorneys and beating the approaching legal problems.
#36, it wasn't a "pro-life" demonstration. It clearly is an anti-choice demonstration.
No matter how you dress it up, those who oppose safe, legal abortion on demand are supporting dangerous, illegal and back-alley abortions that will lead to the deaths of millions of poor women. (Rich women will just fly to Europe or elsewhere where sane, reality-based people are still in charge and safe abortions are still available.)
A "pro-life" demonstration would value the life of the woman at least as much as the blastocyst she may carry within her uterus. A "pro-life" demonstration would be concerned with more than state interference in the life of a woman or the family planning of a couple. Does a blastocyst outrank the women who carries it?
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:28 amDaryll! How was your UML class>?
Comment by RUCerious — January 23, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Perfect, I learned alot even though San Diego was cool. That's the reason why I haven't been on the blog for awhile. Oh, if you ever travel to San Diego, visit Coronado Bay.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:29 amKevin:
As usual your talking points fail logic....
$1000 for an abortion or just guessing here....
$500,000 caring for an unwanted baby, social programs supporting him and mother. hmm unwanted baby grows up murders someone, then we pay millions to convict, jail, etc...
Yah lets not have govt funded abortions so we keep unwanted babies...
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 amHey, Dunk'n Dough Nuts,
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:36 amHow's that investigation going?
Was it your office that got Lam out of the Attorney's office?
Well, that was just temprorary.
Wait 'till Waxman waxes your sorry old ass!
Duncan Hunter should be forced to look at the pictures of iraqi children and babies that had their skin melted off by white phospherous attacks.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 amAll these hypocrites talk about sanctity of life and yet most of the politicians who do are also pro death penalty. Life is sacred until birth and then it's open season?
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:39 am#36 Kevin
I would be happy with parental notification for underage kids. You know, report statutory rape to the parents at least.
And who should incest be reported to?
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 amI think all future presidents should be forced to view combat footage and casualties before being given the opportunity to run.
Or perhaps the candidate should be forced to care for a foster child for a month? Or maybe the candidate should help support single moms... or have the candidate watch someone die of a disease that stem cells could cure. Perhaps some time spent with someone's neglected great-grandfater in a nursing home?
As the illustrious Mr. Hunter says, if they cannot "see the value of human life" they should not be allowed to serve.
Why not? This idiot is setting arbitrary standards for his tests, so do it across the board. There's no judgement like personal judgement.
"Party of life", my a$$...
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:42 amRepublicans believe in the sanctity of life from conception all the way to birth.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 amWhen will Duncan Hunter...
...be brought to justice?
...he's a Duke Cunningham...
...co-conspirator...
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 am#50 Daryll - wait till you get a really complex call stack and try a sequence diagram with it.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 amJoys!
As it happens, it can be argued that we already have a law on the books which grants some degree of personhood to the unborn -- the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (informally known as Laci and Conner's Law) signed into law by President Bush in 2004. Anyone who doesn't already know can probably guess that the catalyst for this law was the murder of Laci Peterson, who was seven months pregnant at the time of her death. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that anyone who is accused of violently attacking a pregnant woman can be charged on two separate counts, one against the mother and one against the unborn child. However, this law apparently only applies to federal crimes -- those committed on federal properties or against federal officials. It doesn't apply to crimes prosecuted by the states and contains a specific provision exempting abortion, so some people have argued that this law was unnecessary since very few assaults or murders are tried in federal courts. However, it cannot be argued that one thing which this law does do is grant some degree of personhood to the unborn -- and it's hard not to suspect that this was in fact the real reason why this law was passed, since it wouldn't actually be applicable in the vast majority of assault or murder cases which are tried by the states.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 amAlso yesterday, Hunter reintroduced the “Right To Life Act,†which he claims “specifically acknowledges the personhood of the unborn as supported by the U.S. Constitution.â€
Yes, supported by the Constitution but the fetus will not have a right to habeas corpus.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:22 pmMay the fetuses they save be gay and proud.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:23 pmWait a sec....."Pro-Life Rally"????? Does this mean they're protesting the WAR!???!?
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:25 pmAhhh, the endless line of sanctimonious, dim-witted bigmouths. I wonder how they manage to keep track of all their standards?
62 - don't forget may they also be Muslim. And speak Spanish as well. And vote Democrat.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pmBetter yet, preznits should be given photographs of living, breathing, self-sustaining young Americans before they're sent to an illegal war. That would be an interesting "test."
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 pmI agree with PLC. The way to reduce the abortion rate is through education concerning birth control. The U.S. is 20th on the list of countries as far as the abortion rate goes. Almost universally, the countries with the lowest abortion rates have ready access to birth control and knowledge concerning the safe use of contraception. Even Tunisia with its limited resources has a much lower rate than the U.S. Conversely, countries where abortion is illegal, such is in the Latin American region, have much higher abortion rates. The failed abstinence-only approach increases the abortion rate. Therefore, Hunter is pro-abortion. This is similar to the failed war in Iraq, which has increased terrorism in the world, despite a lot of overheated and empty rhetoric to the contrary.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 pmAlso, Hunter is supported by Titan Corporation, a private torture company based in San Diego, which has been implicated in human rights abuses in Iraq. So much for "human rights".
Duncan Hunter is one of the most corrupt GOP members in the Congress! GOPers claim to believe in sanctity of the unborn, but they love to kill children in wars for oil, so they are disgusting putrid hypocrites!
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:38 pmIt's important to finally start challenging "pro-life" people on just how their perfect world would work. Would they force pregnant women to carry babies to term against their will? How would that work? Would there be "pregancy camps?" Armed guards? What would be the penalty for performing an abortion. Would a doctor be guilty of murder and face life in prison? Would the woman be charged with accessory to murder and be put in prison? Would we need a new branch of the Justice Department for insuring fetal rights and incarceration of abortion providers and requesters?
The right wing has been given a free pass on these questions for far too long. It's time for anti-choice people to explain how government would work if they got everything they wanted.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:39 pmI think that with a little effort we have the technology to remove the placenta and fetus from a woman and attach it to a blood supply of Duncan Hunter to carry to term. How do you think that would affect anti-abortion potential fathers? I suspect they would become.... less vocal.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:46 pmWould a doctor be guilty of murder and face life in prison? Would the woman be charged with accessory to murder and be put in prison?
Comment by Bluedog49
That would be first degree murder for both (premeditated murder) which could carry a sentence of the death penalty. An ultra right-wingers wet dream.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pmAbsoluetly Bluedog49. Will they begin to incarcerate women who seek and or have abortions? Will they charge anyone who helps her finance an abortion as a conspirator? What about women who have health problems and become pregnant due to the failure of a botched tubal (1 in 500 tubes "grow back" and result in a pregnancy), will they jail a sick woman simply for trying to save her life? Who will pay for jailing and prosecuting women and doctors? We already have the highest incarceration rates in the entire world.
They need to answer these questions and more. Long past time they got a free pass.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:49 pmAn additional comment. According to my own philosophy I am pro-life. I oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I oppose the death penalty and, as indicated in my previous post, I favor ready access to contraception, which will reduce the abortion rate. We need to reclaim the term pro-life and stop being on the defensive by accepting a false Orwellian frame concerning respect for life.
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:55 pmI think we should all get behind the “Right To Life Act". Then we can have the discussion about imprisoning women who have miscarriages because of their neglect for the care of an unborn protected under the U.S. Constitution.†After that, we can have the discussion of "choice" versus "will of God", and find out how these people can be so sure that its not the will of God that allows a young girl to make this difficult decision.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 pmI saw Kevin's comment that he "would settle for no government paid abortions". I always see that comment from those in favor of "Pro-life". I wish I could specify on my income tax return that I didn't want the money to be spend on war, but we don't get to make that distinction. Too bad, because we could reduce our taxes by 50%.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pmI think it's pretty simple: if you want to make abortion illegal, then explain the consequences of breaking that law. How will the government insure that all pregnant women carry their babies to term? How does a government forcing women to carry babies to term square with the conservative mantra of "small government?"
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:29 pmOK, I am against abortion IN MY OWN HOME yet once it effects people not in my home, I feel it is a womans right to chose.
Now those of you that compare abortion to soldiers in Iraq. Here is where your logic fails. The soldier volunteered for service. After 9/11, they knew that could involve going to war. The fetus did not volunteer to be concieved.
Just a point to think about.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pmBob, if someone in your home gets an abortion against your will, should they go to jail? Should the doctor who performs the procedure go to jail?
You see, I think THAT'S the issue, because the truth is nobody likes abortion. Nobody is "pro-abortion." At least no sane person is. People are for family planning. People are for allowing women to have a choice over the future of their own bodies. People are for more sex education and access to birth control.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pmJust let the states decide. Why take these freedoms away from us. Very communist if you ask me. Bring the power bake to the state and let us vote on in.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:42 pmRoger_Roger, It shouldn't be the State's decision either; the decision is not up to ANYONE in government, its up to the patient.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:45 pmI guess this ignorant clown didn't realise when he looked at a sonogram, that's it's not his womb. Control Freak. It's a mental illness.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:46 pmif someone in your home gets an abortion against your will, should they go to jail? Should the doctor who performs the procedure go to jail?
No, if someone in my home gets an abortion, they should not got to jail and neither should the doctor.
If someone outside of my home gets an abortion, the same "rules" apply.
In short, let me dictate the morality in my home and I will let you dictate the morality in your home.
Legally, the government needs to stay out of my business.
Religously, if there is a God, you have to settle the score with him, not me.
Hope that made sense.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:48 pmI just watched that video at the rally, and what I see is fascism taking root.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmThe soldier volunteered for service. After 9/11, they knew that could involve going to war. The fetus did not volunteer to be concieved.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
The invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. The occupation of that country continues as Pres Bush's choice.
He could have avoided the unnecessary deaths of countless Iraqi lives by not invading that country to begin with. He could also end the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers by simply withdrawing the troops.
If Pres Bush (and his followers) really were pro-life they'd support withdrawing the troops, and the abolition of the death penalty. The logic is not faulty.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:51 pmThe Death Penalty is just as bad as aborting babies. Taking life, outside of self defense, is always wrong.
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:55 pmComment by Gregor Samsa
But the soldiers made a CHOICE knowing the consequences, right. No one forced them to go into the military.
The fetus did not make a CHOICE to be concieved.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pmOf course a few undifferentiated cells could not make a choice about anything. And our soldiers could have made better choices if they weren't lied to.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:15 pmBut the soldiers made a CHOICE knowing the consequences, right.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
And now it is your logic that is faulty. Since they volunteered to serve, they're fair game to whatever the Dear (mis)Leader throws at them? Including invading a country that posed no threat?
And now that the so-called threat has been found to come to naught, isn't it Pres Bush's responsibility to get them out of harm's way -regardless of whether or not the volunteered originally?
And we haven't even started talking about the Iraqis, who couldn't posibly have volunteered to be bombed, shot, maimed, and killed...
Or the death penalty...
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:16 pmWhy is it that these bible-thumping, anti-abortionists think birth control is so wrong, yet endorse and support the war in Iraq? Whose life is it that they determine is so valuable, anyway? Is it the life of the undeveloped fetus or the stem cell in the lab dish? It certainly isn't the life of the young man or woman once they reach the age of eighteen. At that point, they are sent off to fight in a war for oil profit and I guess a whole country of brown-skinned Muslims doesn't count, either. After all, they aren't white-skinned, voting age Christians that can count as a party base. Rep. Hunter, you had better get with the real human rights program.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:17 pm#85 Comment by Gregor Samsa
But the soldiers made a CHOICE knowing the consequences, right. No one forced them to go into the military.
The fetus did not make a CHOICE to be concieved.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
CHOICE? CHOICE! Can the fetus do an INFORMED CHOICE? No? Why? Because it has no brain to think?
Well, well, well, we have something here. If a fetus can't think, it is as a limb or an organ of the mother, until he becomes a thinking being, isn't? Has the mother the right to authorize the amputation of a limb if it represents a danger to his health, or the right to cut his own finger (insane, but hey, it's her finger).
And, have the inmates in the death row had a choice if they were wishing to die or not?
And, if all the soldiers in a company died due to a superior's flagrant mistake, you'll say "no one forced them to be in the military"? Or would you seek justice, even in a military court?
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pmAppearing at yesterday’s rally, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) declared that judicial nominees should be given a sonogram test before being confirmed. “If we have a judicial applicant…who can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see the value of human life,†then “he will not receive a judicial appointment,†Hunter announced. “I tell you what you he will receive, he will get an appointment with an optometrist so he can get a pair of eye glasses.â€
How much time Gonzo stayed in a Guantanamo Cell?
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 pmAnd, have the inmates in the death row had a choice if they were wishing to die or not?
The inmate made the choice to commit the crime that got him sentanced to death, right?
And, if all the soldiers in a company died due to a superior’s flagrant mistake, you’ll say “no one forced them to be in the military� Or would you seek justice, even in a military court?
You are correct, we should all seek justice.
Here is what I was trying to point out in the ORIGINAL statement. You can not compare abortion rights to the war in Iraq. They are two completely different things. A soldier, who is an adult, can make a choice, can think. A fetus can not think or make a choice about anything. Therefore you can not compare a fetus to a soldier.
You can say the soldiers that die in Iraq are victems of the administration, and in most cases I would agree with you. But then you would have to concede that aborted fetus' are victems of the host/mother. If you do that you have just personalized the fetus.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm#91 You can say the soldiers that die in Iraq are victems of the administration, and in most cases I would agree with you. But then you would have to concede that aborted fetus’ are victems of the host/mother. If you do that you have just personalized the fetus.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
Nope. I'm stating that a fetus isn't an independant, or thinking being, so he's the one who has no choice. It's the mother who has the right to decide.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm#91 And, have the inmates in the death row had a choice if they were wishing to die or not?
The inmate made the choice to commit the crime that got him sentanced to death, right?
No. They are there because a trial made by (fallible) humans decided that they had to be put to death. As demonstrate many recent cases mistakes have been done, and not infrequently.
So, why pro-life groups only focus in not thinking fetuses and not in judiciary mistakes or bad procedures or too emotive juries?
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:46 pmNope. I’m stating that a fetus isn’t an independant, or thinking being, so he’s the one who has no choice. It’s the mother who has the right to decide.
I agree that the mother has the right to decide. But trying to tie the two together (abortion and war) is rediculous.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:47 pmNo. They are there because a trial made by (fallible) humans decided that they had to be put to death.
Remember fallible humans have also set murders free on technicalities as well.
That is why there is an appeals process.
I will not go too deep with the death penalty being right or wrong as that is not the topic of the thread.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:52 pmComment by hacker bob
You should worry about abortions when you start getting pregnant, otherwise is not your right to decide a thing.
About the life discussion: if you eat meat, you are indirectly responsible for the death of an animal, cuz its not like food companies or sailors waited for the animal to die. If you eyaculate, you kill life. If you cure some viral or bacterial desease, you kill life.
My opinion is that I rather remove some organized group of cells while it has not yet nervous system, than condemning the future individual to a life he wasnt expected to live by the parents. But then again, I am not a woman. I cant decide for them.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmIf you do that you have just personalized the fetus.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
I cannot speak for Evil Spaniard, but I didn't. I am arguing the pro-life perspective is inconsistent, and certainly not comparing a fetus to a soldier.
I am talking about the person who sends people to kill and die in a war of choice, those who support it, but then pontificate about how important life is to them to the point of opposing abortion.
Your argument that soldiers volunteered is tantamount to arguing that, by doing so, their lifes have become expendable. I would counter that precisely because they volunteered, their lifes are even more precious and the commander in chief has the paramount moral responsibility to see they don't die in a futile, needless war -such the occupation of Iraq.
To support the occupation of Iraq, in light of the fact that it was never a threat, while opposing abortion on pro-life grounds is deeply hypocritical.
This is not about comparing soldiers to fetus; this is about the people who claim to be pro-life and oppose abortion, but support an occupation that is terminating countless lifes -both Iraqi (most of them) and American.
Last but not least, your argument revolves around American troops. How about Iraqis? Don't their lifes count too? Shouldn't we be talking about the Iraqi death toll as well, you know, the ones who didn't volunteer? Why isn't anyone defending their right to life?
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:58 pm#94 I agree that the mother has the right to decide. But trying to tie the two together (abortion and war) is rediculous.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
Then we agree in one thing, that the mother has the right to decide. And if the mother decides to carry his son until the end, even if has malformations or product of a rape, or her life is at risk, well, it keeps being her decission. I'm not entering here and wanting a law to mandate every woman to have babies only under the parameters decided by the government.
But the ones using the "pro-life" moniker are the ones ridiculous, because they contradict themselves, because they tend to be "pro-war" too. Either of the self elected monikers are hypocrite, if not both.
If they had not looked for a PR-friendly moniker, calling themselves what they are, "anti-abortion", the ridicule they are doing calling themselves "pro-life" wouldn't be so blatant.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:01 pmAnd don't forget the even more ridiculous fact that there exist a series of "pro-life" terrorists planting bombs in abortion clinics.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pmYour argument that soldiers volunteered is tantamount to arguing that, by doing so, their lifes have become expendable.
Come now, this is me, robert. Active duty Marine. You know I would never say that any soldier is expendable or an acceptable loss. I am saying that people that join the military know that it comes with a risk.
Last but not least, your argument revolves around American troops. How about Iraqis? Don’t their lifes count too? Shouldn’t we be talking about the Iraqi death toll as well, you know, the ones who didn’t volunteer? Why isn’t anyone defending their right to life?
Comment by Gregor Samsa
I fully support the Iraqis right to life. Right up to the point where he tries to end my life, then I have the right of self defense. See, I never fired until I was fired upon.
Evil Spaniard, I agree that the term pro-life is rediculous unless it is an all or nothing statement. You can not be against abortion and for the death penalty. That is kind of like being a Christian against Christ.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pmYou should worry about abortions when you start getting pregnant, otherwise is not your right to decide a thing.
Comment by Juan C
Well, I almost agree with you. It is my right as a husband to be involved in the decision if my wife were wanting an abortion.
But I have no business being involved if my neighbor wants to have an abortion. That is between them and, if they are religous, their God.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pmLast but not least, your argument revolves around American troops. How about Iraqis? Don’t their lifes count too? Shouldn’t we be talking about the Iraqi death toll as well, you know, the ones who didn’t volunteer? Why isn’t anyone defending their right to life?
Comment by Gregor Samsa
I fully support the Iraqis right to life. Right up to the point where he tries to end my life, then I have the right of self defense. See, I never fired until I was fired upon.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
But not all the people in the USA military is like you, Robert. And you use automatic weapons and explosives. And before a ground force comes in action, in a great offensive, there are a lot of hellicopters and/or planes bombing the target zone.
Too much loose shots, and too much innocent iraqis dead. And you can't put all the blame in the d*ck heads in Washington or your chain of command, or the "war is hell" mantra.
I understand your good behavior, as long is I know you (a little) based in your posts, and you look as a decent man, but defending the indefendible... well, everything has a limit.
Evil Spaniard, I agree that the term pro-life is rediculous unless it is an all or nothing statement. You can not be against abortion and for the death penalty. That is kind of like being a Christian against Christ.
Exactly, we agree in that too. Anyhow, I see that you're not backing a single step in the main issue, the legality of free abortion ;)
#101 You should worry about abortions when you start getting pregnant, otherwise is not your right to decide a thing.
Comment by Juan C
Well, I almost agree with you. It is my right as a husband to be involved in the decision if my wife were wanting an abortion.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
And here comes the hard question: what if your wife decided to abort against your wishes?
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pmUntil a man grows a uterus, he is in no position to make decisions for a woman.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmThe abortion issue is not up for the state or federal government to decide. It is between the woman and her husband or boyfriend. I think a woman is in control of her body, so therefore, she should have a right to do what she wishes to it.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pm#104 The abortion issue is not up for the state or federal government to decide. It is between the woman and her husband or boyfriend. I think a woman is in control of her body, so therefore, she should have a right to do what she wishes to it.
Comment by Brandon Harris — January 23, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Exactly. And the only role that has the government here, is to secure the rights of the woman and her health.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:37 pmCome now, this is me, robert. Active duty Marine.
Comment by hacker bob — January 23, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
Ah, right. Your moniker change still thows me off. Must be the old age ;-)
I am saying that people that join the military know that it comes with a risk.
Of course they know. I am going to go out on a limb and say that when you signed up, you expected to be put in the line of fire if, where, and when it was needed so your sacrfice would me meaningful for your country, your family, your friends, etc. Ideally your sacrifice would be made in the defence of your homeland.
Did you ever think you'd be thrown into a war of choice in a foreign land? Is that what you volunteered for?
I fully support the Iraqis right to life. Right up to the point where he tries to end my life, then I have the right of self defense.
Absolutely, I agree. Except the bulk of the death toll is made up by innocent Iraqi civilians. Again, they didn't choose to be invaded, bombed, and shot to death.
If, from a pro-life perspective, abortions terminate lifes then war and death penalty should both be abhorrent too because they also terminate lifes. Pro-lifers cannot be against abortion and support the occupation of Iraq (regardless of whether or not the troops are volunteers) if they want to be consistent, as both terminate lifes. That also goes for Pres Bush, the chief proponent of this military disaster. Otherwise their stance is hypocritical.
I don't know how to explain it any differently to you. If I had to come up with a easy-to remember slogan, it would be something like "You cannot be pro-life AND pro-war of choice, let alone pro-death penalty. Get a clue."
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:40 pmAnd here comes the hard question: what if your wife decided to abort against your wishes?
Comment by Evil Spaniard
It would depend on the circumstance. Was is for a health reason? If so, I would first see if there was an alturnative treatment.
Was it as a result of an affair or simply a matter of conveniance? Then I would seek a divorce.
Fortunately, I do not have to worry about that. I have 3 wonderful children and now my wife has had her tubes tied (by her choice, not mine. I wanted a vas)
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmUltimately, beyond comparing abortion and war/death penalty, abortion is legal and should remain so.
All these bloviators and blowhards -like Rep. Hunter- can pontificate all they want, but fact remains they cannot, should not be allowed to control a woman's body and force her to carry a pregnancy to full term.
Rep Hunter -and others like him- is a hypocritical weasel who doesn't value human life as much as he claims. Or at least if that life is Iraqi. Maybe we should have the same test before voting an authorisation for the use of military force: Let's make Congressmen see pictures of all the lifes (men, women, children, and the elderly) that will be terminated when the bombs start raining on them.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmDid you ever think you’d be thrown into a war of choice in a foreign land? Is that what you volunteered for?
Hell, No.
I don’t know how to explain it any differently to you. If I had to come up with a easy-to remember slogan, it would be something like “You cannot be pro-life AND pro-war of choice, let alone pro-death penalty. Get a clue.â€
Again, I agree with you. It is like being a Christian against Christ. It contradicts itself.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmNo politician should be able to control a woman's body and tell her what to do. Also, here is my favorite, the politicians will say that abortion causes breast cancer. That is far from the truth. There is no evidence that states abortion causes breast cancer.
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 pmIf men got pregnant, abortions would be in drive-throughs. Pigs.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmThose fetuses are worth more before they are born, according to these morons
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmI cannot understand why unborn fetuses have a right to life and Iraqis don't? Why do right-wingers kill and torture middle easterners and yet try to protect some of the unborn (certain ethnicities excepted, apparently)? Their hypocrisy is incomprehensible.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pmThese are the same people who look at an ape but can't see evolution.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pmThey want those unwanted fetuses to born so they can rejoice at the thought of those people being waterboarded.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pmThose fetuses are worth more before they are born, according to these morons
Comment by ForTruth
Low overhead costs and zero investment. Well ceptin for the love liquid. These repubs will find some way to corner a good market on fetuses.
Frist is probably low on fresh fetus meat for his basement lab by now.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmHe gave the cats up. He wants to move up and study humans now.
These are the same people who look at an ape but can’t see evolution.
Comment by Daniel K.
That is what I see when I look at my wife. Ha.
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmI find it revealing that Dumbcan Hunter visualized all candidates for judge/justice as "he."
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm#2
Any country that discusses if abortion is right or wrong is a country where babies are seen as inferior. In Mexico, abortion is forbidden. Hundreds of babies die each year due to bad surgeries in clandestine clinics. There is a high religious component in the discussion, sadly. Again, in Islam, Christian and Jewish religions, babies are seen as inferior.
Comment by Juan C
#20
Could Hunter Duncan be guilty of sperm-murder via masturbation?
If so, I recommend we institute the death penalty.
And you gals don’t get off so easy either.
The death penalty would also have to be enforced for having a period, wherein all those unused blastocytes go bye-bye.
After all, they are all potential life. And to kill potential life surely must be murder, right Dunco?
Comment by RUCerious
No your talking about Juan C. He masterbates all the time. He cannot figure out that a girlfriend could help him.
RUCerious u r an Idiot no doubt!
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pmThese are the same people who look at an ape but can’t see evolution.
Comment by Daniel K.
That is what I see when I look at my wife. Ha.
Shit EX wife sorry.
January 23rd, 2007 at 7:39 pmI am liberal, I do not thumb bibles, I believe in evolution, and I believe in respect for life in all its stages.
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pmLearn the FACTS about Mitt Romney:
http://www.mittreport.com
www dot mittreport dot com
January 26th, 2007 at 9:22 amWhen a fetus is far enough along that it resembles a baby, I just don't understand how it can be legal to kill it, I have been a democrat my whole life, but I have some really serious issue supporting that type of abortion. Obviously, there are exceptions when a woman's life is in danger, but in other case if she carried the fetus to that point, she needs to take some responsibility deliver the baby and put it up for adoption. The kid deserves a chance.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:01 amWOW. The complete ignorance of people. Running for president huh? haha. Are you one of those women hating control freaky people who insists on controlling every aspect of peoples life, even when it has absolutely nothing to do with you? Can you get pregnant jackass? no i didnt think so, are you gonna be carrying my fetus for nine months? and when it comes out am i gonna hand it right over to you because you will take care of it since you care so much.
Will you also bring back all the lives of the soldiers and Iragis who were killed based on the idiotic decisions of the "high powers". Will you also be appealing every single case that has put someone on the death penatly list?
You have alot on you plate you jerk, so where will you find time to be the mother and father to all of the children of the people you didnt want to abort?
just a thought.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:21 amOh and one more thing....
what right do you have to take away the CHOICE of women? Do you see us telling you that you have no choices and that you cant make your own decisions about YOUR body and YOUR life.
Why do you even care? In the end its not going to affect you at all, it has nothing to do with you, and im sure you certainly dont lose sleep over it.
A woman has every right to decide if she wants to have it, put it upo for adoption, or abort it. NOT YOU!
February 12th, 2007 at 11:25 amI am a 59 year woman who lived in a time where there was no Choice. I have witnessed first hand the horrors of a unwanted pregnency ,. and my heart goes out to the familys who's daughters have died as a result of back ally abortion.
I lived in a time when the world was changing and young people dared to question The rules by which we lived.. And because of that time period ( The late 60s) The changes in America today is a direct rusult of of everything that was started then , I am proud to say that i lived in that time peroid , and it truly was the most inportant part of my life.
Back in the day the rule's were different for women then men. Women were raised from birth to marry and have children and to be the care taker. As little girls we got our dolls and learned parrenting skills .... We got nice big doll houses so we could learn early on how to care and decorate our future home..and if we were really good we got the ''Suzie Bake Oven'! now we could learn to cook too !!!
Boys were taught to go to school and get a good education because one day they would have to support the wife and children. that was that.......
If the wife was beaten by her husbent that was ok. the law did nothing.
If the man had a mistress that was ok too, ( a man thing) .....
Men went and did what ever they damed felt like and the woman stayed at home and tended home and children and turned a blind eye because there was nothing she could do. Even when it came time to vote in our Elections .. a right we women once didnt have . We were told how and who to vote for by our hubby. I seen this growing up in my own home with my parents. and that was very natural, no one ever questioned anything... It just was!
then the changes started to come ...
and when Roe v Wade won in the courts it was a day in history that will live in my heart forever.... Jane Roe not only gave women the right to choose... but the right Peroid... That i do belive is when women all over realized that they do have a say..... and its more than abortion.... Its about them who we are .. and it gave us power for the first time.... Women left long term bad marrages..... and ..wanted to get a Edication and to go out in to this wonderfull new world.... and a wonderfull new world iit was,,and still is..
There was a saying on tv back then ' youve come a long way baby" and it showed a women smoking in public.
Well yes we have come a long long way for the first time in history there is a WOMAN in the Sennet as speekler of the house .. Go Nancy !
and in the next Presidentl election we will be having a Women running. Hillery
there was a time when this was inconcivable..... All these changes are a direct result of Roe V Wade... Women realized then that we had CHOICES...
choices to to with our lives as WE wanted. And once the chane's were brokenI dont beleve anyone thought that women would come out with the power , Knowlage... Demands..... ( of respect...) and would go this far...
Insecure Men do not like this...... And it is those very people who want to reverse Row V Wade .... Because this whole idea that they do not have a say in our Choices is something that they can not handle.... And these people are still Bush lovers and still support the war If thats not MERDER of our people nothing is..
So maybe the old way wasent all that wronge. Parents preparing us for our future. They just didnt know the house we wanted to be in charge of was
THE WHITE HOUSE !!!!!
Good thinking miss Becky.....Keep on thinking......
Dont Ever STOP.... Your Choices are your's alone ....and if it feel's right to you,, THEN IT IS !!!
With all my love
Johanna
Siz
February 12th, 2007 at 2:32 pmWhen my sister in law was pregnant with her first child she showed me the sonogram lol I remember she was like "its this little dot you can hardly see it its not even a baby right now" LOL how come when there are anti-abortionsts why is it always the men that are so hung up on the embryo being alive? my Goodness, he needs a reality check, he should be shown pictures of soldiers killed in Iraq and I would ask him, are they human to you or not?
February 15th, 2007 at 12:52 pm