And all this time I thought Randall Terry and his mob were just Troglodyte Fascist buttinskies.

What part of pro-death penalty, any war is worth fighting because it's a war culture of life don't you understand?

I can't help but let Iraq immediately come to mind whenever I read or hear the "culture of life" talking point because I'm still wondering what kind of culture we're building in Iraq. 

Oh, I forgot the screw the poor, pro-torture culture of life.

Well, the imprisoned enemy combatants still have life, it may be a little torturous, mentally destructive and physically inhumane, but it's still  life. 

The party of moral values. Our morals, their values.

War is often times necessary in order to save more lives in the end, and the death penalty is simply justice. Supporting a culture of life means valuing innocent life and ensuring that innocent people are not killed. Administering the death penalty for people who have MURDERED another human being sends a message that we won't tolerate people who destroy innocent human life. It's actually a pro life policy.

Rino, does it trouble you that the death penalty has never been shown to reduce the crime rate and some stats show that it may actually do the opposite?

Some psychiatrists have speculated that in places where the government has the power to kill, people with a sick violent wish for death themselves may be more likely to kill someone. They eventually get what they 'want' at the hands of the state. It's sort of like the 'suicide by cop' thing where someone draws on the police looking for a ticket out. Only more complicated.

Sure, it's speculation. Some simply maintain that the government killing people to show that we shouldn't kill people just makes us more violent as a culture and leads to more murders not less. No way to really show that except that the statistics support it at least as well as any notion that the death penalty saves even one life ever.

Does any of that matter? I mean if it's really about a culture of life, shouldn't we consider factors like that? Or is it just more a culture of Justice? Or Revenge? Seems weird to me that so many people who claim to follow Jesus are so keen to support this. The Jesus I was raised with probably wouldn't have been pulling switches on anyone and hey, come to think of it I think he got executed by the state. Weird huh?

Seems like maybe, just maybe there's something more to all this than some desire to preserve life.

"Rino, does it trouble you that the death penalty has never been shown to reduce the crime rate and some stats show that it may actually do the opposite"

The studies have been mixed on this issue. Some studies show that the crime rate has gone down a little bit and other studies have shown that there's been no effect. But the reason I support the death penalty is that I believe that it's a just punishment. The punishment fits the crime. It you kill someone you deserve to die yourself. The Bible makes it clear that the innocent should be protected and that there's nothing wrong with putting the guilty to death. I realize that you may not get your views from the Bible, but many pro life people oppose abortion and support the death penalty because those two positions are supported in the Bible.

So is stoning women for adultery. Over thousands of years one of the many people writing one of the many books that we now group together into what we call the bible probably had something that would have condemed just about everyone here for something or other. Even you. Not sure we really want to use that to design our government. Works ok for the Taliban and the old Spanish Empire I guess, but I grew up in a small town called the US OFFREAKINGAMERICA! It's fundamentalist religion or patriotism. You guys can't have both. It's way way too goofy.

I don't want our government based off the Bible either. I was simply pointing out why many conservatives oppose abortion but support the death penalty. To me it doesn't seem inconsistent, but apparently it does to you. We just disagree.

Why do people use the term "pro-life"?  The folks in question are "forced-birthers".  This is entirely consistent with the so-called "conservative" philosophy bandied about these days.  Most advanced societies consider such positions a crude, primitive and reactionary response to things they don't understand as such a position (forced-birthing) compels others to conform to a type of morality based on fantasies espoused in ancient texts compiled by individuals left out in the sun way too long...

Looks like Rino went to Jesus Camp. Oshkalabooshabacadabra Jesus!

Sorry. Meant "pro life" people, not conservatives.

Understandable slip. I just think the issue is getting confused. Give the pro-life crowd exactly what they want. A fetus is a child that deserves equal protection of the law. Think about it. It flat out doesn't work, no matter what our sensibilites say. We simply cannot have a nation of people free to pursue life liberty and happiness and try to codify into law that a fetus shares the same right. I think as a nation we are arguing about two different things. Pro-choice is really what it says to me. It's not pro-abortion. It's simply that the government cannot have the power to ban a woman's right to choose to abort a fetus. It's not that anyone is happy about any of it. There simply is no other way. Not in this country.

Ummmm... abortion is not mentioned in the bible.  Specifically speaking, abortion has been practiced chemically (specifically, herbally) for millennia, so the writers of the tome certainly would have known that it existed although, it being a "woman's issue," they likely didn't care much about it.

Think about it - a society that obsesses over family lineage through pages and pages of "begats" doesn't bother to write down one rule about a woman aborting an unwanted pregnancy?  They write laws against mixing clothing fibers, but can't find the time to take on an issue that so many conservatives think is key?

The conservative base is not obsessed about abortion because the bible tells them to be - they are obsessed about this private woman's health issue simply because they've been told to be by those who find it to be politically expedient to pick an issue that only effects a historical political minority.

The conservative base is not obsessed about abortion because the bible tells them to be - they are obsessed about this private woman's health issue simply because they've been told to be by those who find it to be politically expedient to pick an issue that only effects a historical political minority.

Baloney!  The conservative base believes that the point of conception is when life is created.  They believe that it is wrong to make the distinction between a fetus and a child since they both meet all the criteria, short of breathing air on their own, necessary to be described as living. They believe that to destroy a fetus is the same as killing a child.  They believe that like a child, the fetus is helpless and defenseless and deserves to be protected.  

I believe that in our modern world, especially in the United States, there is no excuse for not taking precautions to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place.  I know sex feels good.  I know people are going to have sex.  I believe the fact that a large part of society accepts abortion is sending the wrong message to people and causing them to not take the precautions they should since they can always just get an abortion after the fact if they get pregnant.  Heaven forbid we should expect people to act responsibly!

The human potential that is destroyed thru abortion is obscene...It has nothing to do with politics.    

That would be nice CB if it had nothing to do with politics. But it does because people want the government to enforce the morality you're describing. No one is saying you shouldn't have those values or preach them in your church. It's the other 'side' saying the government should make it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. I maintain that it is sanctimonious to accuse people who recognize the needs of a free society with murder.

"The human potential that is destroyed thru abortion is obscene"--cb

I don't understand. You don't think "human potential" is destroyed when you wear a condom, but abortion is obscene?  Have you compared the numbers there?  It looks like you are just being arbitrary here.  Sperm is arguably human life as well.  It galls me to see you treat the use of a condom to destroy that human potential so casually.  Every sperm is sacred.

backup link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Sperm is not human life.  It cannot develop on its own.

Sperm is indeed human - it is a part of the human life cycle and it is alive as anyone can see by its movements.  Your point is moot regarding the human life question.

Yes, sperm is alive but cannot develop into a human being without the egg.  It is only half of the dna structure of a human being.  It's not really worth arguing about.  A fetus is entirely different than "just" the sperm or the egg.  It's genetic code is complete.

You are changing from the original argument however slightly, but importantly.  The original argument is whether a sperm is indeed "human life" or potential "human life".  Not whether it is a human "being".  Perhaps you have somehow conflated the two distinct arguments in your mind.

Of course it is inarguable that if you accept that a zygote, embryo or a fetus is "human life" then you necessarily must accept the same about a sperm and arguably even an egg. 

If you are going to start changing the argument to being about human beings, that is a whole other can of worms with its own set of logical problems.

Very well.  All human beings are also human life.  Not all human life are human beings.  I get that.  I just reject the leap that because a fetus is to be protected in some peoples mind that that protection logically extends to sperm because it does not.

Bruce,

I agree with you as you have stated it.  The problem I had was with the way CB presented the abortion argument as "The human potential that is destroyed thru abortion is obscene".

My point is that "human potential" is treated pretty casually as it is if you consider sperm "human potential".  CB was being pretty vague and sanctimonious IMO and I was specifically targeting that part of his argument to demonstrate my point.

We all can differ about when one becomes a human being.  It appears to me to be a judgment call.  It kind of depends how you want to define "human being".  I have not seen a single satisfactory scientific definition of that term that has successfully either excluded what we might consider human beings or included things that are obviously not human beings.

It is a philosophical question that should be left minimally to the individual and her physician as far as I am concerned.

I don't approve of it personally and I hope one day medical advances and possibly improvements in education can make it rare or obsolete as I believe you have stated as well in the past.

Neither can a fetus without a mother.

People can believe anything they want including that the TV schedule is controlled by Reptilian aliens from Zeta Reticuli. There is NO scientific evidence ANYWHERE that supports that claim nor does the bible say ANYWHERE that a seperate life is created AT CONCEPTION. So your BELIEF based on YOUR BELIEF is NOT a solid basis on which to make LAW.

Besides the fact Solon, that it's absolutely impossible to guarantee equal rites under law to a fetus. If that were the case, when my wife and I had already had two miscarriages, we should have been barred from conceiving again. Because the odds of another miscariage was at least 50% at that point. Who could possibly, knowingly put a child at a 50% chance of dying? When we did miscarry again should we have been charged with manslaughter? Should the nice Christian nurse who encouraged us to try again have been tried as an acoomplice? Actually it was a double homicide of sorts because it was twins. I saw the two hearts beating. I know just how real and how human a fetus is. But we make different choices regarding fetuses and children all the time.

The Right are just a bunch of sanctimonious jerks on this issue when they try to put how nasty abortion is on those who would protect our Constitution and our way of life. There is no way to make a fetus on equal legal footing as a child no matter how much we recognize our humanity at that stage of development. Grow up and deal with it. (Not you Solon, I'm going off here)

In this 'pro-life' world a husband could intentionally screw up contraception in spite of his wife's wishes and make her have his baby. A psychopath could rape your 15 year old daughter because he wants to see his seed in the world and she would have to give birth to his child. The feminists of a generation were dead right on this. They are proposing a misogynistic society on the level of the Taliban. Every one of these sanctimonious goofs should just take all the flag decals off their cars because they are about as un-American as you can get.

My mother became toximic with each pregnancy. They monitered her closely the pregnancies ruined her kidneys not completely she wasnt on dialysis but they caused her problems the rest of her life. And she was closely monitered. Had her toxic levels gone too high, which she was close to a few times the Doctors told her she would have to abort or lose a kidney. Would the pro life group DEMAND she take the pregnancy to term and lose that kidney and maybe 10 years off her life? This issue is far to complex for simple answers. Far too little is known about exactly what life is or when a seperate life is created. Health issues are rarely either/or. I have little patience with people who see everything in Manichean terms and leave no room for the obvious fact that complex problems RARELY have simple answers.

This is why their thing is bs, it can never work.  There is no way to parse this down into levels of legality.  Not much beyond setting time limits on how far into term.  It just doesn't work because I don't think you can get American women into that tight of a box any more.  (just deal with the pun, I'm leaving it)

They've been tweaking this thing for decades now and guys like Rove use them for now.  But there's a point where they'll push to far and then they'll feel how diferent we are from the 1950's.  This really is about American women and I predict that you can't really f#@! with her as bad as this.  They're talking all kinds of smack, they're very sure of themselves and organized but they're also confused as hell.  Most of them don't even know what they're demanding.  They confuse demanding morality from their fellow citizens with what a law should look like.  And most folks aren't alarmed because they haven't bothered to think too clearly about exactly what they're demanding of the law.  But if they ever get that close and it's a matter of passing real bills people and especially women are going to be blown away by what they're trying to do.  Because it's the freakin Taliban.  You can't stop part way when you give a fetus equal protection under the law.  Rape?  Incest?  People think there will be acceptions?  Should she bring a note from her rapist?  Does there have to be a conviction?  Did her husband jump her in her sleep because he really wanted a baby and he knew she'd come along once it was born?  Did he poke a hole in a condom for that reason?  Is that rape?  Does she have a case?  Or is it just time to baby up?  Show the 21'st Century American woman the possibility of a scenario like that and then we'll have one of those clear moments where we see how different things have become. 

There's a reason the GOP only accomplishes so much in this regard.  Why kill the hen with the golden eggs?  And I think some of them might be bright enough to know that if they get too close to the sun they're gonna get burned. 

Exactly so, I mean I believe Rino is honest and wants something like this but the GOP would MUCH rather have the issue than do anything about it, which is why they never even TRY to abolish abortion.

They may eventually overturn Rove if we keep letting them nominate Justices. Then folks will get to see how fun it is to live in a red state. I could see a piece-meal mess of different states with different restrictions. I think eventually after causing much pain and strife (how Christian!) it will lead us to do what we need to do, namely pass an amendment to finally guarantee a woman's right. That's what the Constitution does after all, guarantee rights, not take them away. But that's in America which seems to be challenging for these folks. Aside from the pie and guns, they don't seem to want the rest of it.

I like the slip SunDog ;).  I hope they overturn Rove too!

Overturn Rove. I picture a pale white bloated thing feebly kicking it's legs in the air as some weird turtle.

I picture the nursery rhyme about Humpty Dumpty.

That's a nice image. Mine was more of a Naked Lunch kind of nightmare thing.

"short of breathing air on their own, necessary to be described as living" CB

One would think that breathing on your OWN is pretty damn important!.

One would think that breathing on your OWN is pretty damn important!. P.S.

It is important but necessary to be alive.  There are plenty of people who are alive but unable to breath on their own.  Do you think it would be alright for a family who no longer wanted the burden of caring for a family member who could not breath on their own to just unplug them to avoid the hassle?  That is the reasoning behind many abortions and I personally believe it is wrong.

I believe that if the mother’s health is in danger abortion is ok.  Like many complex issues there is no absolute right course of action for every case.  All things have to be considered.  Logic must be applied. The abortions that bother me are the ones that are a direct result of irresponsibility.   That is by far the biggest reason for abortions in this country and those are the abortions that should not occur.

CB, you put it well and clearly here. The ones that bother you. They actually bother just about everybody. But what are you guys asking for? A law that says a fetus is a child guaranteed of equal protection except sometimes? I keep asking, how is that going to work? Will we define rape more clearly as in maybe a husband getting his wife pregnant when she doesn't want to? Maybe a young girl is raped because someone knew he could make her have his child? There are a thousand scenarios that are a total mess under your ban.

And if a fetus is no different than a child, way too many of them are being put in serious jeapordy simply based on who conceives and when. How far should the government go enforcing child endangerment laws regarding fetuses? Is there a different standard? Doesn't that refute your equal protection under the law rule?

It's easy to preach about how people should act. No one is trying to amend the Constitution so you can't preach what you want. But to tie it in with this fantasy of the government enforcing your standards is just confusing issues. I may agree with you completely on a personal level but you would paint me as pro-abortion simply because I think through the implications of what the 'pro-life' side is proposing. It's sanctimonious to do that. The whole movement is creating pain and confusion and doing far less to prevent unwanted pregnancies than some good programs that have come out of organizations that the 'right' side demonizes.

There are paradoxes here. Deal with it. Pro-choice could be seen as pursuing a far more Christian society than what the 'right' is clamoring for. If what is Christian still means a compassionate society. It aint perfect but we're still biological animals as well as spiritual. It makes things complicated. That's the hand your God dealt you, can we start trying to deal with it with a little more grace and thoughtfulness?

One would think that breathing on your OWN is pretty damn important!. P.S.

It is important but necessary to be alive.  There are plenty of people who are alive but unable to breath on their own. 

I can't let this statement go.

A fetus before 20 weeks can't breath outside the womb, even with help. They're not the same as "people" who can breath, but only if they get help.

Abortion is not the same as euthanasia.

Fetuses who cannot survive outside the womb should not have the same rights as people who are surviving outside the womb.

Yes, but the purpose of breathing is to receive oxygen. Oxygen is delivered via the mother’s blood before the time regular breathing can be performed.  Fetuses do have brain function, they do feel pain and are basically alive inside the womb in the same way we are alive outside the womb.  Like an infant after birth they are defenseless...unable to take care of themselves.  And by the way, a child who is born and is alive and breathing on their own can not survive on their own outside the womb without assistance anymore than a fetus could.    

I don't remember when I started being aware that I was alive.  I don't remember when I started hearing that voice in my head that everyone hears as a normal process of being alive. But I believe life begins at conception and I believe to stop a beating heart, or stop the internal voice that is life at the most basic level should not be allowed without a very good reason. 

I’m glad my parents didn’t find my pending arrival too inconvenient or expensive or too much of a hassle and I bet you feel the same way…just glad to be here…glad you had a chance at life.  Once conceived, everyone should have a chance.   

CB,

Interesting points.  What do you think about pregnancies due to rape and incest?

Since you think every conception should have a chance, are you for guaranteeing health care for mothers who don't have it so the baby born to a mother that does not want it has a chance?

Once the baby is born, is it on its own if the mother and father lack the resources to take care of it?

Considering the numbers of children waiting to be adopted, what do you propose for all of the children will be born if abortion is abolished?

I would hope that you would show the same level of compassion for the born and living children as you do for the fetus.

Since you apparently would have a child be a legal entity at conception, do you want to change the emphasis we now have on birthdays in favor of conceptiondays?

Should couples start filming conception moments instead of the birth, which according your apparent reasoning is merely relegated to an insignificant event.

Should it be considered murder to take birth control - the pill - that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg (which according to your reasoning would be a legal entitiy at that moment)?

It is nice that you believe life begins at conception, but to me it looks like you are simply picking an arbitrary part of the life cycle where nothing more happens then the combining of genes between a sperm and egg to make a new organism.  True that is a significant point in the cycle, but is that where life actually begins?  We will never really know for sure.  It is nice to know you are so ready to legislate your beliefs on everyone else though.

If life begins at conception, shouldn't we have death certificates and funerals for all mis-carriages?

Looking at the statistics for mis-carriages, it certainly would be an economic boom for funeral homes. Do you own a funeral home?

And explain why death certificates should not be a legal requirement for mis-carriages and funerals a moral requirement.

The Bible makes it clear that the innocent should be protected and that there's nothing wrong with putting the guilty to death. I realize that you may not get your views from the Bible, but many pro life people oppose abortion and support the death penalty because those two positions are supported in the Bible. Rino

Rino the bible also says "Judge not lest you be judged" .

When you star using the bible as your reference make sure to use all of it not just the parts that support your argument.

RH,

I get most of my views from the Bible and that is why I am completely opposed to the death penalty.

If there is any chance at all that a mistake will be made and an innocent person killed, that blood is on the hands of the society that accepts this form of punishment which makes us murderers.

If it stays around, its administration needs to be changed drastically.  The death penalty predominantly goes to non-white people who kill whites.  The system is deeply, deeply flawed.

I respect your opinion. I think that Christians can have either view when it comes to the death penalty. Each person has their own convictions. I respect your position on the issue, and I hope that you can respect mine.

Of course I do, RH.  I see below that you really don't care too much about the death penalty so I can leave it at this:  If you do become passionate about the death penalty and work for its permanence, I hope you work to fix the fundamental fairness flaws it has had over the years.

But those that disagree with you on other things, such as when a fetus becomes a human being worthy of rights... we get no such respect and should have to live by your laws, right?

You get to vote for people who share your views and your values. I then vote for people who share my views and my values. Whoever gets the most votes implements their agenda and gets to put their political views into law. It's called democracy.

Your argument is ludicrous on the face of it. Life in prison without parole STILL sends the message we dont condone killing.  Saying that we KILL people to show we dont condone killing people and that means we KILL people because we have to show a respect for life cannot withstand one seconds scrutiny. There is no possible way to claim we saved more lives in Iraq by invading that is beyond dumb. According to HRW Iraq was seeing about 300 deaths a year attributable to the government. Since the death toll in Iraq is well over 600,000, it would take more than 2,000 years to get anywhere near that figure. I just dont think the Hussien regime would have been in power that long. Do you spend, I dont know, even one second thinking whether or not the nonsensical talking points you are about to spew make ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER?

I didn't say that the Iraq War has saved more lives. I'm just saying that war can SOMETIMES save more lives. For example, when we used the atomic bomb in WWII we probably ended up saving lives by ending the war early, even though the bomb killed a lot of people. If Saddam had actually had WMD's and had sold them to terrorists who then used them here in the U.S., that could have costed us millions of lives here at home. I believe that that was what we were thinking when we went into Iraq. I don't buy the idea that Bush lied to get us in there. I think we just got bad intelligence. And I don't really care that much about the death penalty one way or the other. It's not an important issue for me. I just think that the punishment should fit the crime. So if you take someone's life pre-meditatively, you deserve the same fate yourself. But again, life in prison is a pretty bad fate too. I really could care less about the death penalty.

If Saddam had actually had WMD's and had sold them to terrorists who then used them here in the U.S., that could have costed us millions of lives here at home.

Except of course he didn't, hadn't for a long time, and the inspections were proving that.  And yet this culture-of-life President chose to lie about that and invade anyway, killing what may be over a million people now and displacing over four million people.

That argument is often made however the Nuclear attack on Japan is unlikely to have saved lives. That is what the right likes to say. It is not extreme to figure around 300,000 people died due to the bombings. 70 and 90 thousand in the initial blasts alone. Japan was done, the war was essentially over and they were already negotiating surrender terms when we dropped those bombs. I dont think the idea lives were SAVED by dropping them can be supported.

As for Saddam if he had MAGICAL powers things would have been different too. Such hypotheticals are basically worthless since the CIA was telling us they didnt BELIEVE he was a threat to give any weapons he DID have to terrorists. Yeah we all know you refuse to accept reality. I have PROVEN over and over and OVER that Bush told DEMONSTRABLE LIES about Iraq. You havent even come close to refuting them you just slink away then come back another day and say you dont think he lied. Perhaps you dont think the sky is blue or water is wet either. That doesnt change the color of the sky or the wetness of water.

As to the death penalty my argument against it has nothing to do with what some people deserve. I believe there are monsters out there. Some people do things that mostly likely make them deserving of things no civilized people would do. The way you treat someone is a whole lot more about who YOU are than who THEY are. So I just think we shouldnt be the kind of people that want to kill people. The danger of convicting innocent people also has me queazy. If they are in prison for life and I support life without parole, then if we find we made a mistake a miscarriage of justice has happened but at least we can then let them go. Once they are DEAD thats it.

Maybe they should have had a graphic of Dr. Kevorkian's cadaverous face in that spooky negative, sepia tone while she was saying this. I think someone in the back of the bus might have missed the implication. Spooky music too? That might have helped. Perhaps follow it up with a shot of Bush in the Rose garden on a sunny spring day with some children? I think they're getting too subtle.

Sundog, weren't you commenting on the Republicans courageous stance on winning a Victory? I think they're goiing out on a limb with the "life is better than death" position, too.

Har har, I thought of that too.

So, let's review. The Democrats are scum because they want to take all your money. The Republicans are going to take a position in favor of Winning and Victory and yes..... Life! It is just another brave new ititiative on their part isn't it? I mean, are you AGAINST life? Tune in next week when they drop a bombshell and come out in favor of kittens and sweets that don't rot your teeth.

If they come out in favor of kittens I'm leaving.

;-) 

More of a Sunrise kind of guy huh?

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

"It's not what you say, it's in the way you say it!" This is the finest of Republican Values, not exactly altruistic, or maybe so??

The "culture-of-life conservatives against right-to-die civil libertarians," could by others be call the "evangelical anti-abortion fanatics vs the freedom loving civil libertarians."

The Republicans interupting of a vacation to have a "emergency session" for the purpose of saving a "brain dead" woman waiting for her turn to die at the consent of her spouse after years of protracted legal maneuvering that would disturb any rational person was the most bizarre episode in Congressional history!

The most disturbing part was the near deafness to a 5 day warning to a pending categorie 5 hurricane off the shore of New Orleans, and the 4 days the President waited to finally fly over New Orleans and patting the back of "hell of a job" Brownie as a Republican's best response!

A media that actively distorts critical issues facing the nation for the continued power of the Republican scoundrels!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

MMFA, if anyone who can do anything about it can read this - this poor woman's twisted visage was used for political purposes enough as her life ended, is it really necessary to use it as your primary source photo here?  Use a picture of the person you're criticising, please.

BLR - I second that sentiment as well.

That's not a bad suggestion BLR. I didn't need to see her to understand this story. Especially after realizing a little bit what she was like and how mortified she would have been to have this be the lasting image of herself. This was such a sick episode in our politic. The subject deserves mentioning because of what it reveals but I appreciate the perspective to let this woman be on her way with some dignity at last.

I agree with you all.  I think the pictures and videos put out there for public consumption were a total invasion of this womans privacy.  I would prefer if MMFA showed respect for this woman's privacy and removed the picture also.

Interesting perspective. Do you feel the same way about showing the caskets of slain military?

Just wondering.  

A closed, flag draped coffin...no, don't see any invasion of privacy there. 

No no, we should hide all those dead soldiers.  It's the only way to honor them.  To look at them would just part of all that 'negativity' that's losing the war. 

Sundog wrote, "I didn't need to see her to understand this story. Especially after realizing a little bit what she was like and how mortified she would have been to have this be the lasting image of herself."

I simply wondered if the same held true with our fallen heroes. Apparently you are not giving them the same consideration you feel for poor Mrs. Schaivo.   

He's giving them more consideration for their duty to this country. Somebody ought to tear you a new one for that dismal remark.

Julia,

So you think it is okay for Sun to say "No no, we should hide all those dead soldiers..."  is respectful?

Uh ok.

In my opinion it is not. Tear away.  

He's being sarcastic to you, not disrespectful to them you eejit. Sheesh.

Ahh your not so subtle outrage and putdown notwithstanding...

so now his supposed sarcasm to me is acceptable and my reply only saying his sarcasm is not respectful as his his original remark about Mrs. Schaivo makes me the bad guy.

Apparently it is okay in your mind for you to toss out invective and hurl misspelled insults at me while I cannot point out what I see as an inconsistency in Sundog's posts.

Outrage...I thinks you might project too much. Eejit is idiot, eejit. But I understand you can't attack the argument so you opt for obsfucation. Good try though.

Pardon me. I didn't know you were making an argument?  I thought you were just engaging in some simple name (eejit) calling and putdowns (tear you a new one).  

Next time I'll have to remember that is what you think constitutes  an argument.

Actually, she began by pointing out a flaw in your argument.

You are the bad guy for making such a disengenuous and ludicrous argument. Conflating seeing HER PICTURE with seeing an anonymous coffin is not even apples and oranges its gnats and Planets.

point out what I see as an inconsistency in Sundog's posts.

So how about pointing out the inconsistency of all the posts that make up this topic from guys like Rino?  This whole topic is about inconsistency of the supposed "culture-of-life" that has to date killed as many as a million in Iraq.

Our fallen heroes are typically not shown dead or dying, ad nauseum.  You see no mask of pain or severed limbs, unless the US military is now using glass coffins.

when did conservatives grow squeemish at the sight of a coffin, let alone a dead body? Geez, during WWII we used the malmedy massacre to rally the troops, the gas chambers to drive public sentiment against the nazi's, and gave pulitzer's to photographers like ernie pyle for great pictures showing soldiers at the moment of getting shot. That sure didn't bother them...

I understand the difference. War is indeed hell and I grieve over all the noble soldiers who gave their life for our country. I also grieve for those who suffer the loss of family members.

The only consolation I take is my belief that we may one day be reunited in Heaven with our loved ones who have gone on before us. 

AA, you have got to be kidding me. You really want to pursue that analogy? Honorably burying our veterans in dignified funerals in view of the public is the same thing as putting videos of a helpless, brain-dead woman on the air a thousand times in order to try to stir emotions about her plight and confuse the public and score points politically? You really see that as analagous?

Them hiding our war dead is a very specific and recent policy intended to keep people from thinking too much about the costs of war. That's really healthy huh? The action wasn't taken by 'lefties' trying to manipulate the public. The action was taken during the administration of Old Bush. The government ordering that the 'free' citizens of this democratic repubulic shouldn't see the flag draped coffins of the people who died fighting for us. As a patriotic American I find this to be disgusting. I'm not clear on how the patriots on the Right are digesting it. Maybe you can explain it to us?

Sundog,

My opinions are my own. Others are free to agree and/or disagree.

I understand your point. I simply asked the question because to me there are similarities between your stated desire to provide privacy for the members of Mrs. Schaivo's family and the expressed intention of our government to protect the privacy of grieving family to those killed in war. 

I do not believe that I mentioned anything about honorable funerals in front of the public. The issue, I do believe, was showing the caskets as they returned from overseas. 

I know it is a fine line with regards to showing those images and people of good will can disagree. Some here are arguing that it is okay to take pictures and video of the fallen precisely because it is political. Because they believe showing these pictures will influence the public. That is fine. One can hold that view. 

However it seems inconsistent to me to want to show the returning coffins, for what I would deem a political purpose that you agree with and at the same time object to seeing a picture of Mrs. Schaivo because it conveys a political stance with which you disagree. 

If you feel there is no inconsistency, go right ahead.  

Again AA I have to point out that we are free citizens. We inherently have rights unless the government can show cause to restrict them. That's the set up. Our own soldiers coming home from war. Someone wants to take a picture of them for WHATEVER reason. Maybe they just think it's more respectful that we see some of the reality and pain caused by war because that's how you honor people who make this sacrifice. THAT's where the government has stepped in. In between us the people and our fellow citizens who died for us. What is the due cause that outweighs our inalienable rights? Being polite to the families?? That's what you're buying? I'm guessing there are some families who would like the country to be weeping with them over the loss. What of their consideration? Is this really necessary or was the government trying to sway public opinion by diminishing certain realities? Pretty reasonable questions for a free citizen to ask.

This is part of the historic record and it's recent. The ones trying to sway public opinion are the government by choosing to deny us yet another right. THEY took the action to do this. It's not up to us to explain why we have a right to see our fallen. It's up to them to explain exactly why they have the power to deny us the right.

This stuff kind of cuts to the core of what we're supposed to be about. The lack of a freedom instinct Americans seem to have these days seems really disturbing to me. Sometimes I see all the flags plastered all over the cars and the words FREEDOM LIBERTY and all the symbols and it looks like grasping at something, not confidence in its existance.

You are good Sundog. That was very incisive

I would respect the "right's" opinion more if they were to say this is demoralizing to the soldiers instead of saying it demoralizes america. I would agree the way we did it in the past was rather barbaric, having new recruits boarding ships bound for war on one side of the docks while the coffins returning from the same conflict in question piled up on the other side of the docks. I'm sure that was quite demoralizing to the troops. But that isn't the argument being presented, is it?

Snoop, I would maintain that it's absolutely essential that the public has to deal with a certain level of war's reality.  Should only the families of the dead and maimed have to deal with the toll?  I thought we were all so proud of all the Freedom and Sacrifice and Honor of it all?  Are we fighting a war where the public really wouldn't think the sacrifices are worth it?  And if that's the case, in a free society, are the sacrifices worth it?  Is it really appropriate for the government to be allowed to sanitize a war to make it a more palateable 'product?'  It's actually really disgusting if you think about it for half a second. 

People passed out when the first battlefield photos went public.  It was the Civil War when it first happened in America.  It deepened the country's sense of sacrifice even in a war where every town was losing many of it's boys already.  I ask, if a war is just, what is wrong with that?  The Right can just shove all their little yellow ribbons right up their tailpipes as far as I'm concerned.  They don't put their money where their decals are.   

Sundog, we are so on the same page! I mentioned earlier how our WWII photo's were to die for (pardon the pun!). Methinks the right only want's to see the dead if they can politically benefit from it. That's why they replayed the jumpers from the world trade towers over and over again. They are clearly two faced on this subject.

BTW, those decals are made in China. Conservatives buying them in mass supports a communist nation they hate. Waaaay to funny!

Sundog, AA is having a "whale" of a time coming up with "crappy"analogies. Or maybe he's just being a "bass".

JJ, that was a fishy post. What are you angling for?

Reading all that has got me perched. I think it's time to drink like a fish.

I often disagree with those that I generally find on the same end of the political spectrum as myself.

This is one of those situations, and I can't sit by quietly.

Whales are not fish.

Thank you.  Please proceed. 

Yes, I realize whales aren't fish and was prepared for someone to say so. But it was a pun after all.

IF coffins were made of transparent plexiglass and you could IDENTIFY who they were you would have a point. They arent. You dont.

A pro-war conservative who runs a joke list (with some of the filthiest jokes, btw) sent me those forbidden pictures of caskets on the plane home with messages about supporting the troops.  Lots of other pictures in that email of guys kneeling before the gear of fallen comrades, etc.

Pro-war folks are pretty good at trotting out casket laden coffins when it suits their needs.

Personally, I think we should see every coffin that comes back from Iraq on the nightly news and on the front page of every major newspaper.  One would think those deaths should be big stories. 

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

BLR / Thursday September 20, 2007 12:55:56 PM EST

Who chose the photo, MMFA?? Not at all, MMFA presents the clip, they don't produce it!

You nee to make the distinction since that is the core of the MMFA mission, debunking the failing 4th Estate!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

I understand the difference, but MMFA has multiple screenshots to choose from.  Apparently, someone agreed that the woman deserves some dignity, as the photo was changed, and for this I am thankful.  If FOX wants to use her for political capital, it is not MMFA's obligation to mirror FOX's lack of tact, respect, or dignity while reporting the story.

BLR, I just noticed the picture of Mrs.Schaivo has been replaced. I think they heard you. :-)

I hope they realize that I truly do appreciate it.  It pains my heart to see her in that state.  I could not understand the media's obsession over showing her over and over again as a brain-dead shell, and I still don't understand it today.  Perhaps it's the vanity in me, but I would be horrified to be used that way if something similar happened to me.

BLR, from what was said about her, it sounds like she was exactly the type of person who would have felt just as you described. It seemed like yet another needle in the whole painful episode to hear how shy she had been in life.

Yes, the few times the shows produced pictures of Terry while she was still active and happy made it clear just how much her body had changed as her brain deteriorated into nothing.

Perhaps a hallmark of being a leftist, then, is being intelligent and vain enough to want to expire if you lose your ability to think and reason?  I fully accept that it is a significant amount of vanity on my part that makes me feel this way.  I'm an exceptionally proud person, and while I could deal with exceptional physical disfigurement if I could communicate effectively, losing my appearance, my communicative ability, and my ability to reason would be hell for me.  I cannot fathom willingly forcing my husband, my mother, or anyone else I love to live in that prison.

No, Carl. It pitted people who don't want government interfering in their affairs against people who think every life is precious when they're an embryo or brain dead and at no point in between.

Kev - once you're past the embryonic stage and out of the womb, they could care less if you aren't wealthy...

Once you're out of the womb conservatives simply want to leave you alone and let you live your own life. You don't need the government to drag you along your whole life. The best government is one that you can barely even tell is there.

Once you're out of the womb conservatives simply want to leave you alone and let you live your own life.

What if that life is destined to be lived in a drug infested high crime area with crappy schools. Do you want to help the borned cope with that?

Lynn, hate to say it but sound like your SOL. Republican right wing evangelicals are only concerned with a fetus and when your dead. Of course if THEY decide to kill you (death penalty) that's a different story.

Based on the Shaivo case I'd say they want to keep you alive as long as possible. Can't filch money out of the dead or something like that.

What I said was basically just a general rule. In regards to education conservatives supporting giving vouchers to poor people so they can afford to send their kids to private school. But that's an issue for another day on a different thread.

"Culture of Life" and the present crop of neo-cons....

 Would that qualify as an oxymoron? 

yup, it ranks up there with compassionate conservative.

We've got a compassionate conservative in the White House who is gonna demonstrate his compassion by vetoing a bill that provides health care for children.   Overwhelming, his compassion.

"Pro Choice" and the present brand of big government liberals.

Would that qualify as an oxy-moron?

Big government liberals? That's pretty funny considering it was your ultra conservatives under Bush who just created the biggest government in the history of the US.

Bush is more of a liberal on fiscal issues than a conservative. He certainly isn't an ultra conservative. He's never been a traditional conservative. Bush doesn't represent traditional conservatives on spending issues, because he isn't one.