Party of Family Values: Foley Resigns

Parent Cafe
1001

<p>It’s anecdotal, but I was talking to a fundamentalist about the Diebold scandal, and she said that the only issue she cared about was abortion. As far as she was concerned, if the Republicans had to rig elections and steal votes to win, she was in favor of that, because to her it was of lesser importance than the abortion issue.</p>

<p>This wasn’t a dumb person, wasn’t a crazy or evil person, wasn’t a person who is in politics or stands to gain personally in any way from the outcome of an election…just an ordinary citizen who believes that her favored candidates should be above the law, and that no one who disagrees with them is entitled to a vote that counts. I have to wonder how many others like her there are.</p>

1002

<p>I have twisted no one’s words, and resent your accusations. Please retract your statement.</p>

1003

<p>The “you” refers to above posters who have leveled unwarranted attacks agaist me. Resent away. No retraction. Don’t like the conversation going downhill? Stop it where it starts - with the personal attacks leveled against SJMom and myself. Your complaint is like punishing the scrawny, nerdy kid on the playground who finally punches out the bully; a complaint based on the fact that the punch disturbs the playground peace (all the while ignoring kids who get pushed off the jungle gym). Playground peace has been gone for a while. Tell your own side to stop the cheap attacks and get a basis for their stance.</p>

<hr>

<p>I would honestly, truly LOVE to hear a thoughtful, reasoned pro-choice argument. I’ve only heard personal attacks, vague mentions of hypocrisy, and twittering about “choice” without any mention of the fact that there’s a dead baby at the end of the exercise of that choice. People, if this is the best you’ve got, I’m going to send this thread to every pro-life candidate and say, “Hey, you’re battle is almost over!” From what I’ve read, there are no moral issues on the pro-choice side; no philosophical justifications for abortion rights; no legal arguments; just “choice is good.” Yes, for ketchup, it’s excellent, but we’re talking human life and reproduction and health and mental health and morality.</p>

1004

<p>I think the basis for the stance has been spelled out pretty well, if not here than elsewhere. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Making abortion illegal results in girls and women dying in back alleys because they don’t have access to licensed facilities. Black market abortions will once again be a booming business, and the death rates will skyrocket. </p></li>
<li><p>Making abortion illegal takes away the safeguards that currently exist. Remember the parents who kidnapped their adult child to try to make her have an abortion? A licensed health care provider would have called the cops. A black market butcher would have taken the money and done the job, consent or no. Look at the large number of men who go to great lengths to avoid paying child support; if there was a flourishing business where they could get an abortion done on an unwilling person, don’t you think many of them would be tempted? Removing the legal safeguards for women won’t stop people from choosing abortion–it’s just that in many cases, it won’t be the woman making the choice.</p></li>
<li><p>The efforts and millions of dollars that have gone into trying to overturn Roe v. Wade would be better spent changing the circumstances that are associated with women having abortions. Back in the 80s, my state had no provisions to help working women who couldn’t collect child support. If you had disposable income (which most working single moms in a high poverty state don’t), you were free to take your ex to court, but the most likely result was that you would spend more in legal fees than you would ever collect. It was easier for a guy who worked on a dad’s car to collect what was owed than a desperate mother and child–the mechanic could file a lien; the abandoned child couldn’t. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>I called my state legislator who was sponsering a bill restricting abortion and asked him to add an amendment to his bill calling for greater enforcement of child support, so that the babies brought into the world as a result of the legislation would at least have their basic needs met. He flatly refused, was completely uninterested. Though the situation has vastly improved since the 1980s, men have financial abortions every day and there is no national outrage, no massive protests, no demands for consitutional amendments; I haven’t even seen one neocon bumper sticker or talking point that even addresses the issue. Justice and equity for children whose fathers walk away would probably do more to stop abortion than the current machinations. But that’s not high on the radar of most neocons, because they aren’t interested in increasing government control over male behavior, only female behavior. </p>

<p>I already posted a link to a study about the large number of unplanned pregnancies caused by adult men having sex with teenagers. Considering that at least some of these pregnancies are likely to end in abortion, prosecuting males for these crimes would also lower the abortion rate. But again, that would be about controlling male behavior, and that’s not going to win conservatives any votes.</p>

<p>For the record, I hate abortion and wish it didn’t exist, would be devastated if any young woman I knew well had an abortion, but these arguments make sense to me. I have a hard time accepting that any politician is truly pro-life, when that person turns a blind eye to statutory rape and financial abortion. And I don’t think that women who have abortions should be required to pay for them with their lives.</p>

1005

<p>This campaign ad has to beat them all:</p>

<p>(Click on the download to view)</p>

<p><a href=“http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/sure_about_sher.html[/url]”>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/sure_about_sher.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>That “allegation of abuse?” Sherwood (age 64) got caught by the cops strangling his 29 year old mistress. After charges were dropped (neither would cooperate) she sued him for $5.5 million and settled out of court. But at least he’ll keep the taxes down!</p>

<p>The gift that keeps giving.</p>

1006

<p>Aries, quite frankly I expect more from you. Right now, the only sputtering is your own…plus your “baby killer” accusation, because…waaaaahhhh…you don’t like the alternative point of view. </p>

<p>I offered a well reasoned argument, which is that more poor women will die if abortion is outlawed. It’s a fact. Women will never stop trying to abort unwanted babies. Your “side” needs to deal with the facts: that poor women will die, that millions of unwanted babies will be born in poverty or on the dole. Those are the facts. Deal with them. No one is PRO-abortion. I am pro women and pro health, and safe and legal abortions are in the best interest of women and the wanted children they bring into this world.</p>

1007

<p>I think what it’s about for many of the “pro-lifers” (and I don’t mean anyone here particularly) is that they don’t think that poor women and women who don’t have the security of a loving husband are worth very much. So who cares what happens to them? I think that’s the same reason they aren’t very concerned about financial abortion: kids who are less fortunate just don’t deserve the same things their kids do.</p>

<p>A page or so ago I posted about a person I know who said that it’s OK if people not on her side of the abortion debate have their votes taken away from them. This is truly how she feels; that people who don’t share her religious beliefs and her financial prosperity don’t deserve the same rights as other citizens. </p>

<p>Again, this is not directed at anyone here, just what I see as a trend in our society.</p>

1008

<p>This is so off topic, it’s not even funny. The original issue is the coercian between an underage Page and an adult who was in a position of power over the Page. Nothing to do with pro-choice or pro-life as the people in question are all males and obviously can’t get pregnant from one another.</p>

1009

<p>AllMusic, I had honestly missed that statement. That, however, was the lone statement of reason in a jungle of nastiness by the pro-choice sides. I have posted numerous explanations of the pro-life side; intellectual discussions of why anti-abortion stances and the death penalty are not mutually exclusive; and I’ve tried to respond rationally and thoughtfully to other posters. I’m sorry that your anger and lack of perspective blinds you to that. </p>

<p>

If that is truly your analysis of my thoughtful, reasoned posts… then you probably don’t belong on a discussion board. The pro-choice blogs would love to have you - sound off in an echo chamber where intelligent discussion does not strike you as whining. I’ve discussed the philosophical implications of the pro-life position (not anti-choice; merely elevating life about exigency, convenience, or stretch marks). It is YOU who does not like what we have to say. The “anti-choice” derision and “moral high ground” talk was ridiculous and warranted a strong response. If you hated my response, try one of your own, but don’t complain about me. Clear?</p>

<p>My responses to other arguments applies, though - abortion creates its own exigency. There will only be millions of babies on the dole if we pretend that abortion rates don’t go down when it is illegal. Poor women will die? Who is killing them? Do pro-lifers run around the streets with machetes and kill poor women when abortion is illegal? Um, no. Illegal abortions kill people, yes; but it’s tough to argue that the woman’s health is of greater import, considering what she was doing in the first place. It’s tough to say that a woman is victimised in the act of ending human life. I simply do not find that argument compelling. The rich are better able to afford legal representation in criminal trials and better able to avoid the legal consequences of their actions; should we stop prosecuting crime because of the inequity?</p>

<p>What irks me about those arguments is that your side (you are entirely confused about what my side is, by the way - I can argue aspects of sides that I believe in, argue philosophically, and have made many pro-choice arguments on this board), no one acknowledges that these women are choosing to have sex in the first place. Choices have consequences - we all saw that episode of Sesame Street. If it really is so important for a woman to not have a baby at a particular point in her life (so important that she would rather allow infanticide), she can avoid having an abortion by not having sex. If she has sex, she is making the choice that, quite plainly, screwing is more important to her than whatever obstacles are present to having a child.</p>

<p>Pro-abortion stances are held, as a FACT, by young men. They are the strongest supporters of your position. Want recruits? Get college-aged men. They know that abortion is the greatest thing going for them - more sex, fewer consequences. Did you miss where a man argued that, because women have the option to abort, men should have the option to avoid paying child support? This isn’t joking stuff. Abortion isn’t about women - it’s about MEN. You can choose to ignore the fact that men have said that I should have sex with them because, as I don’t want a baby, I can “just have an abortion.” The fact that our society thinks that way is about as anti-woman as it gets. We aren’t going to be pro-woman until we recognize how very anti-woman the abortion on demand scenario is.</p>

1010

<p>Considering that people are adopting babies from China and there’s a six-month waiting list, I think we can manage to find homes for newborn babies of poor women. I don’t think any rational person would argue for the right to commit abortion being acceptable but being unable to exercise the adoption option.</p>

<p>Catholic Charities will support any woman who is in an unplanned pregnancy crisis, so long as she gives her baby to a Catholic home.</p>

1011

<p>Keith Olbermann (that heartthrob) spent his “Friday Funnies” segment tonight showing clips of all the jokes by the late night comedians during the past week about the “abuse” of the page by Foley. Leno, Letterman, O’Brien, Stewart et al. One example which was repeated three different ways (for even more yuks, I guess): “Foley signed himself into rehab, but promises to turn over a new page when he gets out.” They even had two actors reenacting one of the email exchanges. This went on for a full 10 minutes. Keith could hardly control his amusement. A real laugh riot.</p>

<p>Twenty minutes prior to that he had his stern face on and all his guests (better known as his lackeys) called for the purge of all Republicans who “covered up” Foley’s “abuse” of a minor, and expressed extreme moral outrage that such “abuse” occurred under the watch of the Republicans.</p>

<p>How stupid does Keith think the public is, anyway?</p>

1012

<p>Motherdear, you’re right, and I’m sorry, but I can’t resist addressing this last. </p>

<p>Ariesathena, if I understand you correctly, your position is that women who become pregnant as a result of consensual sex and then decide to have an abortion deserve whatever happens to them as a result, even death.</p>

<p>So my question is, are we going to have an equivalent death penalty for men in our society who want their sex partners to have abortions? How do we make it fair? If say, 1000 women a year die from illegal abortions, do we put to death each of their partners, if he agreed with the abortion? Or do we just pick 1000 men at random from the total pool of men whose partners had abortions, since it’s kind of luck of the draw who lives and dies on the female side? Or should we also draw from the pool a certain number of men who have financial abortions, since they are pretty culpable too?</p>

<p>Or, as I suspect, is it only the women who deserve to die?</p>

<p>And on a side note, you wrote: </p>

<p>“If she has sex, she is making the choice that, quite plainly, screwing is more important to her than whatever obstacles are present to having a child.”</p>

<p>So does this mean you support safe, legal abortion for women who don’t have a choice in whether to have sex? Or do rape victims just not exist for you?</p>

<p>Motherdear, come to think of it, to me the issues are related. When I look at the most extreme “pro-lifers” I see the same thing I do when I look at Foley and his apologists. Both are all about power and control, and both are indifferent to the suffering of anyone they perceive is different from them.
I think the people who lied for Foley, who covered up for Foley, who now make the most ridiculous excuses for Foley, feel confident in doing so because they believe deep down, that they are so inherantly superior to the rest of us that “their child” would never be approached like that, so they can’t summon any interest in protecting the children who are.</p>

<p>Hereshoping, sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying. And satire has long been an effective and appropriate means of political debate. Read Jonathan Swift sometime, or look at the political cartoons during the American Revolution. Sometimes pointing out the absurdity of the other side’s position with wit and humor is way more effective than a diatribe.</p>

<p>Wouldn’t you find me easier to agree with, if I were at least entertaining?</p>

1013

<p>Keith is NOT outraged by this, trust me! Leno, Letterman and the rest are laughing to keep from crying? “Turning over a new page” is pointing out the absurdity of what? You are kidding, I hope. Remember the glee expressed by some members of our own cc forum? It was glee, pure and simple, and some were even proud of it. There is no outrage among liberal Democrats; it is all a sham.</p>

<p>That is why this is so sickening.</p>

1014

<p>Oh bull. I am a liberal Democrat and I am outraged. Those same comedians made the same jokes about Monica. Political satire cuts both ways.</p>

<p>What’s sickening is what was done to those pages. Not the fact that it likely will cost Republicans votes. It’s funny how you save your outrage for the people who dare to criticise what Foley did.</p>

1015

<p>Read some of our earlier liberal posters, conyat. I did not mean you. :)</p>

1016

<p>“There is no outrage among liberal Democrats; it is all a sham.”</p>

<p>That sweeping and unfair generalization is what I was addressing.</p>

<p>ETA: Come to think of it, I’ve probably been guilty of a few sweeping and unfair generalizations too (though not about anyone here, I hope). </p>

<p>Going to bow out of this debate for rather a long time, since I don’t think I’m doing anyone any good, least of all myself. Best wishes to all of you, whatever you believe.</p>

1017

<p>How anyone can say I save my outrage for those who criticize what Foley did is beyond me. The man resigned immediately; as far as I can see there is not much more he can do. He has been disgraced forever. What more should he do? Do you want to form a vigilante group and gun him down?</p>

<p>Hastert has called for an investigation. What more do you want?</p>

<p>I know what most Democrats want: they want to take down the Republican party. Yes, I think that is an outrage. I think to play politics with the personal lives of human beings is outrageous. </p>

<p>And don’t bring up Clinton since he did not have the integrity to resign, even though he disgraced his position and his country.</p>

<p>I am not directing my comments at you or most posters here; I should specify that I’m directing them at the Democrat leadership.</p>

<p>I was just thinking the same thing, conyat! I just wanted to mention the Olbermann thing, since I found it particularly disgusting.</p>

1018

<p>hh, do you find the response of the house republicans sickening</p>

<p>did you find Bush walking around his office looking of WMD under his desk sickening?</p>

<p>did you find Snow’s comments about naughty emails sickening?</p>

<p>did you find all the hedging, and changing of stories sickening?</p>

1019

<p>And Hasterts call for investigation, wow just a few years late</p>

<p>As for democratic leadership…why are you mad at them in this mess…you have lots of republicans out there asking for investigations and wondering what happened here</p>

<p>to play politics with the personal lives of human beings is outrageuos? looking at the personal lives of human beings in the gop mantra</p>

1020

<p>No, I don’t, cgm. Foley is gone. The tortured soul (as I believe he probably is) is paying a price for whatever he did. If it is found he broke laws he will pay a further price. I can’t see anything funny in his situation as all the late night comics and Keith do.</p>

<p>I did find Bush looking under his desk in very poor taste, as a matter of fact; however the Bushes are not known for their keen senses of humor. I didn’t find Laura’s reference to Desperate Housewives funny either, although I love Laura Bush.</p>