Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: The pro-life challenge of George W. Bush 32

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
There is little or no doubt on the left that a large percentage of Bush Voters on Tuesday were indeed pro-life single-issue voters- and by pro-life, I mean the rabid pro-life people who believe that the ONLY people who get the right-to-life are the unborn; after birth you're on your own.

Due to that- I offer the following five challenges to right wing Republicans, and to George W. Bush especially, to fullfill promises made to this very narrow voting group that ended up 22% of the people voting Tuesday:

1. Give up on the silly campaign promise made in the third debate, and make pro-life a litmus test for judges to the Supreme Court.

2. Get your congresscritters that you helped get elected on Tuesday to create a constitutional ammendment guaranteeing everybody a Right to Be Born.

3. Make monthly Early Pregnancy Testing a requirment for every woman aged 8-59.

4. Any woman who tests as pregnant is required to make pre-natal visits. If she cannot afford health insurance or a doctor, the federal government will provide for her unborn child. She will be required to give birth unless doing so would endanger her life- and even then in any case other than ectopic pregnancy she will be required to carry the fetus until 26 weeks and then give birth by cesarian section. Not doing this or missing even one pre-natal appointment will require the district attorney to open a child neglect and endangerment case on behalf of the fetus.

5. Corporations will be required to hire unwed mothers for on-site child care duties. No business with more than one employee will be allowed to shirk it's duty to the children- if they do, cases of child abuse will be opened against the stockholders and principal managers of the corporation.

------

Do all of this- and you will have fullfilled the promise made to the Catholic Bishops and Conservative Christian Pastors who turned out the vote for you by making voting for a pro-choice politician a sin. Don't do all of this- and you'll be damned to hell for all eternity because you will be commiting the sin of being pro-choice yourself.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The pro-life challenge of George W. Bush More

The pro-life challenge of George W. Bush

Comments Filter:
  • ...would be like implementing prohibition.

    You'd immediately start building the wealth and power of anyone willing to profit off of that which is no longer illegal.

    You'd also run into some tax issues...if a fetus has a right to be born, shouldn't the parent mother or couple be subject to tax benefits and penalties?
    • ...would be like implementing prohibition.

      Yes- that's the point. A majority want a prohibition on abortion- but are we willing to give it to them regardless of the economic costs?

      You'd immediately start building the wealth and power of anyone willing to profit off of that which is no longer illegal.

      Depends on how completely it's implemented- if all 5 items are implemented, then very few poor women who would otherwise get an abortion would actually want an abortion- because there'd be a job waiting at
      • A majority want a prohibition on abortion..

        Is that really true however? What I think that we need to do is have two nationwide bonds called "The abortion reduction bonds" (maybe on the next ballot) asking if society should bear the burden of taking care of unwanted children and any medical costs associated with a child's birth. Abortions would be illegal, but services such as a national daycare system for working moms, prenatal care for uninsured moms, programs to take care of seriously handicapped childre

        • If the pro-lifers aren't willing to help pay for all this, they should just shut up and let women have the choice and we should quit revisting this issue and leave it the way it is now. I reallllly doubt enough votes would be mustered to pass this one.

          I'm not so sure anymore. I thought this would shut up the pro-lifers; but with 79% of pro-lifers voting against their own pocketbooks for Republicans, I'd say there is a fair chance of paying for all this passing.

          The other bond would be a contraceptive bo
          • like that one as well- stupid enough to have sex when you shouldn't, you lose the right to have sex.

            Well now you can now have sex all you want, without the risk of getting pregnant :-) I don't know the numbers but I get the feeling the anti-abortion folks aren't in the majority. The second bond would appeal to moderates alot more than the first bond, so I bet it would pass. And the sterilization only happens to people who have an abortion, so again the anti-abortion folks have nothing to whine about.

            • Well now you can now have sex all you want, without the risk of getting pregnant :-)

              Ah- but you see, that isn't really sex from the pro-life point of view....sex would result in a pregnancy, and the only reason to have sex is to procreate.

              I don't know the numbers but I get the feeling the anti-abortion folks aren't in the majority.

              Unlike you, I know the numbers- 75% want some form of regulation on abortion, 50% want it outlawed to the point that the Bush/Cheney supporters in the Catholic Church would
              • Obviously there are differences in polling methodology:

                http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_poll5.htm

                The numbers I see are that 79% want some regulation, but only 32% support the Bush/Cheney/Catholic Church position.

                I recall that the trend from Gallup polls - which can be ascertained even if you don't agree with the numbers for any particular year, since the methodology from year to year is consistent - is that every year the Bush/Cheney position loses support, and so does the NOW position (legal in
                • I would point out that the Bush/Cheney and Catholic Church positions are different from this point of view- Bush and Cheney support abortion after birth, for instance, in the cases of the Death Penalty and War.

                  Likewise, the Bush/Cheney position is very different from the "Charity is our best weapon against abortion" point of view of the Knights of Columbus, for instance.

                  My point in this journal entry was to point out that the difference between the Catholic Position and the Bush/Cheney position could be e
  • 5. Corporations will be required to hire unwed mothers for on-site child care duties. No business with more than one employee will be allowed to shirk it's duty to the children- if they do, cases of child abuse will be opened against the stockholders and principal managers of the corporation.

    Could you explain this one. I'm a retard sometimes, and can't divine its meaning.
    • Simply put- not only are mothers required to pay with their freedom for being mothers- so are corporations required to pay for having a larger labor force. This is basically a private-industry mandated welfare tax; but slightly more direct in that the tax is paid directly to the welfare recipient instead of going through government. Basically- any business with more than one worker MUST also hire a 2nd worker, preferably and unwed mother- for onsite child care for the first worker. Expand as necessary.
      • Oh, so the mandated hire (the unwed mother) would not work as a standard employee, but as a baby-sitter for herself as well as any other employees that are parents. (Not meant to demean or belittle babysitters or the unwed mother)

        Even without the tie-in with abortion, that sounds like a sound plan for generating jobs and relieving the strained and inefficient wellfare system.
        • Oh, so the mandated hire (the unwed mother) would not work as a standard employee, but as a baby-sitter for herself as well as any other employees that are parents. (Not meant to demean or belittle babysitters or the unwed mother)

          Yep- neat idea isn't it?

          Even without the tie-in with abortion, that sounds like a sound plan for generating jobs and relieving the strained and inefficient wellfare system.

          It is indeed- but without the tie-in to abortion, it will never become mandatory, and what CEO would ac
  • To make it all work, need to add:

    6) Permanent reversible sterilization at birth, and a new Dept. of National Unsterilization. This new agency will accept applications to allow a Christian, maried, family that signs a document guaranteeing support of the Republican party from the family and the to be created child a temporary right to have a child. Immediately after birth, sterilization will be re-implemented. And remeber, don't suspect your friends, turn them in.


    As you cleverly point out, he can't d
    • I'd point out that this isn't very compassionate- at least not from the point of view that the purpose of sex is procreation rather than recreation (which is the point of view of the extreme right pro-life movement to begin with).
      • Yes, my compassion must have left me...

        You know, this entry got me thinking. Every since Roe v. Wade, the country has been on a slow shift to the right, but this year (~20 years later), it was more like a jump. Think maybe that liberal practices of birth control and abortion are slowing their population rate?
        • You know, this entry got me thinking. Every since Roe v. Wade, the country has been on a slow shift to the right, but this year (~20 years later), it was more like a jump. Think maybe that liberal practices of birth control and abortion are slowing their population rate?

          To a certain extent, yes- in fact, that's the very problem that has the Vatican so forcefully in the issue. You see, when the Pope was growing up, between genocide, birth control, and invasions from Germany and Russia, it very much looked
          • The "Population Implosion" theory (where economic concerns overtake procreative and pro-life concerns to the point that the human race dies out due to their own greed)

            Sort of a semi-Malthus. The richer nations face implosion while the poorer face famine, disease, and war.
            • Sort of a semi-Malthus. The richer nations face implosion while the poorer face famine, disease, and war.

              Exactly- the Rome Project numbers show that we'll hit asymtopic pollution before we hit asymtopic population growth- thus triggering a major die-off. That's why ecological concerns are a part of the seamless garment of life.

              There's also the fear that only the richer nations are rich enough to find a scientific/technological solution to infinite pollution in time- and if they all die off from a lack o
  • I gotta find more, but I noticed:
    this [capwiz.com] and am looking for more. It seems to be bi-partisan too, which is nice.
    • Yeah- but it's missing the all important Buzzword. Perhaps they can change the title to "The Prevention of Abortion Act of 2004". Nevermind the fact that it prevents unwanted pregnancies as well- that's just an additional plus.
      • This reminds me of my favorite bumpersticker (I gotta find one):

        ___ Pro Choice
        ___ Pro Life
        ___ Prophylactic (which is checked :-) )
        Actually I have a hard time referring to them as "Pro Life" ever since they started bombing clinics and shooting doctors who performed abortions. I realize that not all people who are against abortions feel that is right either but still...
        • True pro-life people support protecting human life as much as possible between conception and natural death- and it doesn't matter what the life in question has done.

          But I suspect that out of the 75% of Americans who call themselves pro-life, less than 24% (basically, only the Roman Catholics) subscribe to this point of view.
  • The morality voter is a lie. [boifromtroy.com] A story made up to give an out in case of a Democrat loss. You have been fooled once again by the MSM. As I stated elsewhere, I hope the Democrats actually convince themselves that this was the issue. They will be in for many more defeats in the future.

    The President owes noone anything on abortion or gay marriage. Constitutionally they are state issues anyway. But keep blaming those evil boogie man christians. They'll jump out from under your bed and getcha!

    Dennis
    • Thus, since the morality issue is a lie- then the late pollsters who showed the large morality vote turnout (what, did all the evangelicals fail to set their alarm clocks on election day?) must have been bribed, to give an alternate explaination to why all the votes from the Diebold machines were for Bush.

      So you really can't win- if the morality voter is a lie, then the Diebold machines were rigged and the entire election is a lie. If the late-sleeping morality voters are the truth, then you've opened up
      • False dilemma. Just because people didn't vote on "morality" as defined by the television networks, doesn't mean they didn't vote for Bush. You have created this scenario in your head to cope with the results. Noone was bribed, they just worked for the networks. That much is not conspiracy theory, this is well known fact. The exit polls prove nothing, but that the networks want to influence the election.

        Just more numbers. [andrewsullivan.com]

        And since we are making wild assumptions here. another possibility is that
        • False dilemma. Just because people didn't vote on "morality" as defined by the television networks, doesn't mean they didn't vote for Bush.

          Prove it. Especially given the statement that the CEO of the largest voting machine company was planning to do whatever it took to give Bush the election.

          You have created this scenario in your head to cope with the results.

          Not at all- the doubt is real and exists and if you were actually an honest man you'd admit to it.

          Noone was bribed, they just worked for the
  • If pregnant women were not allowed to abort their babies, what do you think would happen? Apart from appearing of unauthorised practitioners, suppose women have to have their babies, suppose women haven't enough economic power to raise their children, in case their fathers were not known, women who didn't want their kids but are forced to have their children by law, just would start sending them to fosters or orphanages, would treat them badly, and worst of all cases they would kill them after their birth
    • A certain percentage would miscarry. But close to 1.6 million more children a year would be born. The point though is to use the great power of the anti-abortion movement to give these women enough economic power to raise their children- that's the whole point of #5, the workplace child care law. They wouldn't be sent to fosters or orphanages- by the very viture of giving birth, the mothers would be given the jobs of caring for their own children and the children of others.
      • Amazing...1.6millon is quite a few (I mean it's a lot). It is true we have to re-think about the value of life. We can't ignore that... Rouseau tells us there are two births for us. ..One is a delivery and the second birth is after we aquire Self usually after we come of age. Life ought to be a biological concept at any moment, however, according to various phases life faces, as a matter of fact the value of life varies. Biologically life is equal, but the value of it differs according to stages of developm
        • we hope we shall have a better society where we don't have to abort our babies any more

          This, to me is the key- it's the compromise between the two sides that no politician seems to want to accomplish. Nobody on the pro-choice side would argue that abortion at these rates is a moral good. Nobody on the anti-abortion side wants women to live in poverty and die from back-street illegal abortions. 21% of abortions are due to the mother not having the economic ability to raise the child. 37% of abortions a
  • My understanding is the Catholic Church is the only pro-life organization that is not pro-abortion in some fashion, and that they are completely consistent in opposing all abortions, even those where the life or health of the mother are involved.

    Personally I think such a stand is correct even if I disagree with it.

    No, I'm not being strange or crazy - well, maybe I am, but that's your opinion - but simply expecting people to hold to the results of what they believe in or realize they are hypocrites.

    Any o

    • My understanding is the Catholic Church is the only pro-life organization that is not pro-abortion in some fashion, and that they are completely consistent in opposing all abortions, even those where the life or health of the mother are involved.

      Not 100% true. Like in other forms of logic, in Theology there exist certain principles that create loopholes. Abortion when the life of the mother is in jeprody is one such loophole- it's called the Principle of Double Effect. It doesn't remove the sinfull nat

Slashdot Top Deals

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Close