Democrats Would Let Foley Take Minors to Georgia for Abortions
By gamecock Comments (38) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Lost in the news even before the ABC October Foley IMs surprise, was the Senate vote to invoke cloture to end a Democrat filibuster and move to a vote on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The Act would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion without parental consent.
The vote took place the same day that the Senate passed the law authorizing military tribunals to try terrorists for war crimes. The Democrats did not filibuster that bill although much less than 50% of them voted for passage.
But on the issue of parental notification before one takes a child to another state to have an abortion, they so opposed it that they wouldn't even allow it to be voted on on the merits. It should also be noted that four republicans also refused to invoke cloture as well, and if they had, the filibuster would have been killed.
From the Catholic Fire:
Of the 14 Democrats who initially voted in favor of S. 403 on July 25, yesterday eight flipped and voted to kill the parental notification requirement: Ken Salazar (Co.), Tom Carper (De.), Bill Nelson (Fl.), Daniel Inouye (Hi.), Evan Bayh (In.), Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (both ND), and Herb Kohl (Wi).
The six Democrats who voted in favor of the bill on both occasions were Mark Pryor (Ar.), Ben Nelson (Ne.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Harry Reid (Nv.), Tim Johnson (SD), and Robert Byrd (WV). The four Republicans who opposed the bill were Lincoln Chafee (RI), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both Maine), and Arlen Specter (Pa.).
"It is remarkable that only six out of 45 Senate Democrats voted to require a parent to be notified before an abortion is performed on a young daughter in some other state," commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, who noted that the bill had exceptions for cases involving abuse, medical emergency, and judicial waiver of notification. "We commend Majority Leader Bill Frist for fighting to the end to free this legislation from the grip of a Senate minority, a minority that has preserved the ability of profiteering abortionists to keep parents in the dark."
read the whole story
http://catholicfire.blogspot.com/2006/09/eight-senate-democrats-flip-kil...
Democrat message: Congressman Foley, feel free to take my child from Tallahassee to Atlanta for an abortion, but don't send her any suggestive e-mails.
in the abortion debate is that we never get to hear the side of those most directly affected: The unborn child who is cut into pieces and ripped from its mother's womb.
Oh, did that sound judgemental? Sorry...
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
That's what I'm talking about: Neither side is willing to compromise at all. And you'll gag on this, I'm sure, but both sides are doing it from a moralistic point of view, too.
You think it's murder to terminate a fetus, and so you fight against it. The argument (one of them) on the other side, though, is that individual rights are paramount, and it is immoral to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body.
Again, I'm not saying one side is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that neither side is willing to compromise in any degree on those moral issues, for fear of the whole "slippery slope" thing, and so for that reason you will get people voting against the act mentioned in Gamecock's post.
You've mentioned the thing I simply cannot understand: How is the fetus part of the "mother's own body?" Certainly it is inside her body, and it comes from something that she produces. But the fetus has a distinct genetic code, its own circulatory and nervous system, and is connected only by a "feeding tube," for lack of a better description.
I will never argue that someone who is raped or is the victim of incest should ever have to go through with a pregnancy. But those who choose to have sex take a risk, and one of those risks is pregnancy. Using one irresponsible act to excuse another irresponsible act is no excuse!
It's not liberty. It's favoritism: Giving relieving a burden on one who will vote for you now by killing someone who can't vote for you now.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
...I'm not gonna discuss the merits of either point of view. I was just suggesting that those who voted against the Act in question did so out of a sense of morality that's just as strong as those who voted for it.
I'm sure Hamas is very moralistic when they strap a suicide vest on a kid and send him into an Israeli coffee shop. That doesn't make the act moral. Any more than providing a way for a minor to allow an unborn baby to be murdered because it's just not convenient.
The "individual rights" is just BS. I do not have the individual right to terminate my neighbor because they make my life inconvenient. I wouldn't dream of telling you or anyone else what to do with your body, if I did the piercing parlors would all be closed. On the other hand, a growing baby in her mother's womb is her "own" body and her mom has (or should have) no right to kill her for any reason other than to protect the mother's life (not "health").
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...doesn't make it BS.
Individual liberty means you have the right to do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Now, you consider a fetus to be a "life", so your argument would be that abortion actually DOES hurt others and so pre-empts the woman's individual rights. Others disagree with the life assessment, however, and feel it infringes on the woman's rights to force her to carry a fetus to term.
And yes, Hamas may feel very moralistic. Different groups have different moral codes, and the glorification of killing in the name of a supreme being is common in many religions, including Christianity. I'm sure the Rev. Paul Hill felt moralistic when he killed Dr. Britton outside an abortion clinic, for example.
That doesn't mean that other people have to agree with such actions, though.
How is he going to get one of them pregnant?
Foley's new admissions, via his lawyer today, are that (1) he was molested by a clergyman when he himself was young, (2) that he is in rehab, and (3) that he is gay.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Someone was lokoing for another source on this vote. You can find that here:
Senate Fails to Overcome Democrats' Block on Abortion Notification Bill.
Actually, though, I was looking for a more-objective source/description than the ones that have been provided -- sources that don't have an abortion-related agenda.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You missed my point about a description of the Act from a source that does not have an abortion-related agenda. That includes sources on either side of the debate.
Its simple. Should it be a crime to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion without parental consent?
Who do you want to describe it? Daniel Webster is dead!
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You know what I mean. A link to the actual text of the act, not the one sentence summary of it that you based on an anti-choice website's "news" article. Did you read it before forming your opinion? If so, show me where it is.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
...but you should be careful if you want to play the "let's see what fun words we can make out of someone's name" game...
If you don't have a link, just say so. I honestly can't belive we're still discussing this -- it was a simple question.
about recorded votes in congress???
But given Clinton lying about easily verified portions of Clarke's book our our own vivid recollections of the 90s, I am not surprised.
Follow closely: There was a vote in congress on the bill. Votes were recorded. I understand that the MSM has not reported this on a page number less than 17, nor advised readers of the party breakdown of the vote, but the vote did happen.
When trees fall, they make a noise, even if NBC hears no "evil."
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
As I've been saying all along, my opinion on that doesn't matter to this discussion.
Go back to the beginning and look at the points I made. All I did was point out that your interpretation of the reasons behind the votes against the Act you mentioned was just that: an interpretation. Then I offered that perhaps people on both sides (not just those who voted for it) were acting out of a sense of morality, because different groups have different moral codes. You may not agree with the code that the 'nay' voters are following, but I would wager that at least half the country does to a large degree.
Then I asked for a link to the text of the actual Act being voted upon. You haven't produced one, which suggests that you didn't read it, but instead relied on a synopsis provided by an anti-choice group. That synopsis is likely to be as slanted as one by NARAL, and so I don't trust it.
Also, at no point have I tried to make this an argument on the merits of either side of the abortion argument. Rather, I've just made a call for more logic and objectivity in the opinions being thrown around, and an understanding that perhaps both sides are fighting for what they believe is right.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Why do people always find that so compelling?
"...an understanding that perhaps both sides are fighting for what they believe is right."
So what if they are? Does the fact that someone thinks their argument is correct lend it more weight or push it closer to an objective truth?
Liberals make virtue of activity. The mere act of dissent, regardless of context or purpose, is patriotism of the highest order say the liberals (you know, unless you were dissenting against President Clinton), and now the fact that someone is fighting for what they believe is right is, regardless of context or the actual idea, a virtue worth lauding.
That's just after-school special, hippies-as-education officials nonsense. Fighting for what you believe is right is not a virtue if what you believe is right is, in fact, wrong.
...that I'm not preaching which side is right or wrong. What I'm saying, again, is that demonizing one side as evil and claiming that the other side has the lock on goodness and rightness is the same as putting on blinders, and is just illogical.
> "Fighting for what you believe is right is not a virtue if what you believe is right is, in fact, wrong."
Wrong according to whom?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Are you OK with propaganda, too, then? It's in the same vein.
Also, demonizing prevents any sort of compromise, which just creates more strife.
I'm guessing your question wasn't serious, though.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
If your moral code says it's ok to stick demonization and propoganda in your toolbelt, then have at it. My guess is that you'll be in the minority, but you could get a good job in politics.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Your point has no bearing on this debate, but if it makes you feel better to say it, knock yourself out.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You object to any discernment of right from wrong and good from evil, yet, you don't tell us upon what basis you determine that it is wrong to call one thing right and one thing wrong. Who says its wrong to call something wrong or evil? What is you all knowing absolute authority to say what someone else does is "wrong."? Who says its wrong to demonize?
eh?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
All I did was offer the alternate hypothesis that you were basing your opinion of those who voted against this Act on a slanted synopsis of the Act. I offered an argument for why that might be the case. I didn't call you a moron or tell you you were flat out wrong. I offered a different explanation.
I haven't seen you offer any counterarguments, just knee-jerk reactions to something that doesn't fit with your view of the world.
If you want to demonize, then have at it. Personally, I think it's lazy, but if it works for you, enjoy. I'll debate you on it, of course, like I did here.
"What I'm saying, again, is that demonizing one side as evil and claiming that the other side has the lock on goodness and rightness is the same as putting on blinders, and is just illogical."
It's not illogical. I challenge you to make the case that it is illogical.
And anyway, demonization and claiming a "lock" on goodness are immaterial to my point. You suggest that there is some value in "understanding" that both sides believe they are right. I said "So what if they do?"
In other words, who cares if they think they are right? What's so great about it? Why is that "understanding" worth so much of your effort?
"Wrong according to whom?"
Sigh. I have to go to bed. You can use the search function or Google to find the umpteen thousand discussions here and across the web about that question. There's no value in including it in this discussion.
The question is, why is the "understanding" that both sides of an argument believe they are right so vital? I ask again, who cares?
But I won't read your answer until tomorrow. It's umpteen o'clock.
"What I'm saying, again, is that demonizing one side as evil and claiming that the other side has the lock on goodness and rightness is the same as putting on blinders, and is just illogical."
It's not illogical. I challenge you to make the case that it is illogical.
Read my previous posts in this thread. Let's turn your question around, though: Is it logical for one group to think that it is absolutely correct on everything, that it has total knowledge of the thoughts behind the actions of another group, that all members of that other group think and act the same (whereas the initial group's own members are quite diverse), and that it's code of morality is absolute and all other codes are invalid?
Only a supreme being has absolute knowledge and awareness of another person's thoughts and motivations, to say nothing of the thoughts and motivations of all the members that make up an entire half-country.
But we're human, which means we only get bits and pieces of the "real story". Hence, claiming that your group has a lock on the "truth" or the "real story" is akin to claiming you're God. To claim anything less is to admit to imperfection, which opens the door to a wide range of alternate opinions that may be just as accurate or off-base as your own.
Also, as for the demonizing, another human tendency is to stereotype members of a group because it takes too much effort to think of those members as individuals. Google in-group/out-group mentality: It's a psychological phenomenon you might find interesting.
You can use the search function or Google to find the umpteen thousand discussions here and across the web about that question. There's no value in including it in this discussion.
And was the issue settled in those discussions? I would doubt it.
I think it's a perfectly valid question, and relevant to this debate. You said that fighting for something that you believe is right is doesn't matter if that fight is wrong. But "wrong" is in the eye of beholder. The divide in our country is ample evidence of that...
Have a good night.
I keep waiting for the opportunity to use that subject line. I got tired of waiting.
As to your summation of why that position is illogical, all you do was assert why you believe it is incorrect.
I doubt I would find any online position about a pyschological phenomenon interesting.
I don't think you are correct that the question of who decides what is wrong is relevant, at least not yet. You are jumping ahead of the debate.
The position we are debating is the one that there is value in observing, or in your words understanding, that both sides believe they are right. It is my argument that this information is of little or no value. Why devote so much time to arguing that both sides believe they are right?
I ask again, who cares?
Once you answer why there is any value in this determination, then it seems far more logical to address whether or not there is inherent virtue in believing you are right.
Then it would make sense to get into the question of who decides what is and is not wrong.
But you have to answer my question first. Why does it even matter if both sides believe they are right, or that they are "fighting" for what they believe?
...to the story that comes from a more objective source? Or a link to the actual Act? At any rate, here's a link from the other side (just as biased, of course, but in the other direction):
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/youth/12588prs20050413.html
> "Democrat message: Congressman Foley, feel free to take my child from Tallahassee to Atlanta for an abortion, but don't send her any suggestive e-mails."
Come on, I know you're trying to get readers by making such a comparison, but that's a bit much. You're greatly downplaying Foley's "suggestive emails" on the one end, and on the other end trying to smear the Dems by associating them with Foley.
You're also just offering your interpretation of why some people might have voted against the measure. My interpretation is that some people simply don't want to compromise on reproductive rights; giving just a little leads to a "slippery slope" in which abortion is suddenly outlawed. Many on the pro-life/anti-choice side are similarly uncompromising.
I'm guessing you have strong anti-abortion/anti-choice views, and that's your right. I'm not at all arguing the merits of one view over the other. I'm just saying that maybe your analysis was a little unfair.