Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Commentary
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Saddam's legal team offers a priceless defense...
[Ramsey Clark] has submitted a motion recently claiming the judge "is not impartial and has a manifested bias against the defendant". [...] The defence says Abd al-Rahman is biased because he is a native of the Kurdish village of Halabja, the target of a 1988 chemical attack in which about 5000 people, including women and children, died.
I'm not sure why they thought that would be a productive angle.

Divider



Oliver Willis has recently discovered the threat of imprisoning doctors for providing health care...
Republicans Support Imprisonment of Doctors, Pharmacists, Etc.
[...]
George Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney all agree with this provision.

They all believe that a medical professional should be put in prison for up to five years for in any way dispensing health care to a woman if it relates to an abortion.
Democrats have a strangely uterus-specific interest in privacy, choice and freedom You know who else has supported the imprisonment of doctors for providing health care? The Clinton Administration! In the health care reform plan, they proposed prison terms of 5-15 years for doctors who took private payment in exchange for private delivery of medical services. So, if you don't like the government provided health care and want to make your own deal in a free market, well, there would've been "New criminal penalties [for health care and] for the payment of bribes or gratuities to influence the delivery of health services and coverage."

Democrats have a strangely uterus-specific interest in privacy, choice and freedom.

Divider



Via Decision '08, I see Bush has set out a metric for success in the Iraq war...
...the definition of prevailing is an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself, an Iraq that is not a safe haven for people like Zarqawi or al Qaeda and its affiliates, an Iraq which becomes an ally in the war on terror.
That seems like a reasonable definition of success. It would be helpful, though, if Bush would also lay out the metrics for getting from here to there. How can we tell if the Iraqi government is getting closer to self-sustainability and self-defense? So long as US troops are there in large numbers, that may never happen.

Divider



UPDATE:

One more item. The New Editor points us to a Howard Dean speech on the Democratic Foreign Policy ideas...
"The Democrats have a better idea. First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea. Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power. Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden and four, the authority and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by American companies."

The Reality Based Community is promising faith-based foreign policy.

  1. How can we "conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea" without a major, fundamental change in the attitude of Kim Jong-Il? We negotiated a treaty to end North Korea's nuclear pursuit 12 years ago, though that doesn't seem to have stopped them. What new leverage do the Democrats propose we deploy?


  2. If, "under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power", then does that mean that the Democratic Party proposes to somehow remove the Iranian Mullahcracy sometime between 2009 and 2016 (when Iran is projected to acquire nuclear weapons)? I mean, we'd certainly welcome a suddenly chastened, penitent Iranian regime, but is there any mechanism for achieving this policy other than determination and bravado?


  3. If a Democratic administration "will kill or capture Osama bin Laden", that almost certainly means said Democratic administration will move US troops into Pakistan. Do they plan a full-scale invasion, or just a temporary incursion? How do you suppose Pakistan will react to this? (if "badly", then would it be worth it to lose Pakistan as an ally in order to make a martyr out of Bin Laden?)


  4. Since US Customs and the Coast Guard are already responsible for US Port security, then isn't "the authority and the control of the ports of the United States" already effectively "retained by American companies"? Or is Dean proposing we privatize the Coast Guard and Customs?

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Have someone take the life of your child, be it called abortion, and see how you like it.
 
Written By: Carl
URL: www.takepity.com
Me-thinks you didnt quite get the point of the post carl.
 
Written By: Chris
URL: http://
Republicans Support Imprisonment of Doctors, Pharmacists, Etc.

And the Democrats support the forcing of private businesses to stock and distribute an item they may not want to....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I’m slow, but hope it doesn’t come across as obtuse. Are you saying you support Republicans criminalizing abortion-related medicine because Hillary wanted to socialize medicine or because the Republican focus on "uterus-specific interest in privacy, choice and freedom," which you would pin on democrats, is a good thing?
 
Written By: The Owner’s Manual
URL: http://gcruse.typepad.com
Democrats say there’s jail time for bribery. Republicans say there’s jail time for performing a medical procedure on a woman. In Henkeland, these are somehow ludicrously the same thing. It is to laugh.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Bribery? Volunteering to pay your own money in exchange for medical services is now bribery? Well, it would have been, had they had their way.

The Republicans in question want to criminalize a single, very controversial medical procedure. (about which I have no real opinion, though I may be the only person) The Democrats wanted to criminalize ALL OF THEM.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Are you saying you support Republicans criminalizing abortion-related medicine because Hillary wanted to socialize medicine or because the Republican focus on "uterus-specific interest in privacy, choice and freedom," which you would pin on democrats, is a good thing?
I don’t "support" the legislation. I don’t actually have any firm opinion on the matter, except that Roe V Wade was pretty poor constitutional law. I’d be ok with a "right to privacy" if it was not so uterus-specific. Hell, I’d like to see a Constitutional Ammendment to add it.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I think its hilarious you’ve got no position on the criminalization of a medical procedure... when it’s a Republican.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
I’ve got no firm opinion on abortion, Oliver. My intellectual and emotional views conflict and I’m not sure how to align them.

I believe that there’s no absolute morality at all, so what the hell do I care what happens to a cluster of cells? On the other hand, I do believe that we ought not kill human life. Unfortunately, I can’t find a clear, distinct, bright line to differentiate between those two positions.

So I choose to avoid the topic of abortion, because it brings out the assh*le in people.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
"Faith-based" is the perfect adjective for Howard Dean’s "plans." Just like John Kerry asked us to believe he had a plan, whose details he never divulged, Dean asks us to put faith in Democrats’ ability to do these incredible things. They must have something like a magic wand.

The more Democrats try to talk tough, the more we see that their "foreign policy" has no substance to it.
 
Written By: Perry Eidelbus
URL: http://eidelblog.blogspot.com
Besides "a major, fundamental change in the attitude of Kim Jong-Il", they would also need "a major, fundamental change in the attitude of" China. If China squeezed properly, Kim would sit up and beg.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Oliver who?
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I don’t "support" the legislation. I don’t actually have any firm opinion on the matter, except that Roe V Wade was pretty poor constitutional law. I’d be ok with a "right to privacy" if it was not so uterus-specific. Hell, I’d like to see a Constitutional Ammendment to add it.


Well said, and that is where I am at as well. Roe and its progeny are jurisprudential and intellectual crimes. Whatever else is true, abortion should never have been removed from the purview of the several states, however one feels they should legislate on the matter.

That said, I’d love to see the Constitution amended to include a right to privacy that would encompass the right of the individual, as opposed to the state, to decide what substances s/he will take into his/her own body. (Not that the state is vested with this right now, but the government doesn’t realize that.)
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
That said, I’d love to see the Constitution amended to include a right to privacy that would encompass the right of the individual, as opposed to the state, to decide what substances s/he will take into his/her own body.
Amen to that, sister.

The issue with abortion, however is a more difficult one. Does the fetus have rights? Why or why not? And if so, when? Unfortunately the left seems uninterested in addressing that particular question.

The Religious Right has addressed it and decided (wrongly, in my opinion) that the fetus should be granted rights due to the fact that (in the eyes of the Religious Right) life begins at conception. I disagree, but at least I see they have "thought" it through.

The Left, however, can’t stop screaming "keep your laws off my body" long enough to actually compose an answer to the question.

It’s a clump of cells. Yes, and so am I. At some point I am no longer dependent on a host organism for my nourishment. But when? When the umbilical cord is cut? When I’m 18? When does my life become my own? When does - or should - the State recognize my right to not be exterminated at the whim of another?


 
Written By: W
URL: http://
The issue with abortion, however is a more difficult one. Does the fetus have rights? Why or why not? And if so, when? Unfortunately the left seems uninterested in addressing that particular question.

The Religious Right has addressed it and decided (wrongly, in my opinion) that the fetus should be granted rights due to the fact that (in the eyes of the Religious Right) life begins at conception. I disagree, but at least I see they have "thought" it through.

The Left, however, can’t stop screaming "keep your laws off my body" long enough to actually compose an answer to the question.

It’s a clump of cells. Yes, and so am I. At some point I am no longer dependent on a host organism for my nourishment. But when? When the umbilical cord is cut? When I’m 18? When does my life become my own? When does - or should - the State recognize my right to not be exterminated at the whim of another?
The point at which you are no longer dependent on a host organism for nourishment is a scientific question, not a legal or a religious one. It may be a difficult question to answer, but then so are many scientific questions. Most of the left has accepted the notion that abortion should be legal until the fetus is viable outside the womb without the assistance of machines, with exceptions, of course.

As for the right thinking it through, WTF? National Right to Life (NRL) - a major pro-life organization - is against abortion, except in cases of rape or incest. Incoherent? Of course. After all, does a fetus have fewer rights if it is the product of incest or rape? Likewise, in vitro fertilization results in the destruction of embryos. Yet you never see the right to lifers picketing those clinics. Indeed, the NRL doesn’t explicitly oppose IV fertilization, nor do many so called right to lifers. And don’t even get me started about how many right to lifers support the death penalty.

The "right to life" movement is about as incoherent as can be. That will become abundantly clear now that Roe is on the chopping block.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"And don’t even get me started about how many right to lifers support the death penalty."

For sure. We don’t need to be treated to a feckless attempt at moral equivalence. Oh yes, the hypocrisy! No difference between an innocent person and a guilty one after all. Of course the ’left’ see’s it completely opposite - SAVE the murderer, CHOOSE (to kill) the unborn! Now there is some moral confusion.







 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
For sure. We don’t need to be treated to a feckless attempt at moral equivalence. Oh yes, the hypocrisy! No difference between an innocent person and a guilty one after all. Of course the ’left’ see’s it completely opposite - SAVE the murderer, CHOOSE (to kill) the unborn! Now there is some moral confusion.
(Overuse of feckless renders feckless feckless.)

Moral confusion is saying its ok to abort a fetus because its father was a rapist and the rape led to the conception of the fetus, but it’s not ok to abort another fetus, even if the father is a rapist, so as long as the the father did not rape the mother of the fetus, or, even if the father did, so as long as that rape did not lead to the conception of the fetus in question. Now that’s some moral confusion.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
For what it’s worth, I agree that the "rape/incest" exception is morally incoherent. I’d rather not get into the rest of the abortion argument, because I rarely see any evidence that either side understands and respects the premises of the other side. It always degenerates into proselytizing and abuse. Neither of which are helpful to me.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well, for what’s it worth (not much), not everyone who is against abortion thinks a victim of rape or incest should be getting an abortion either. For at least those people your incoherence argument is invalid.

Furthermore, I don’t see the value of cherry-picking extreme cases (just how many abortions are the result of rape or incest - I’ve seen numbers of 1-2%) as the debate around abortion is more properly centered on the other approximately 92% of the cases where the abortion reason given was not due to fetal or maternal health.

Finally, if ever there was an extreme case, Mkultra, it’s your silly rape scenario. Would that even account for 1 case in history?
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
The "right to life" movement is about as incoherent as can be.
Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that a large portion of the right to life movement does not support legal abortion for rape or incest. Our great legal scholar, MK, fails to pay attention to the actual law and develops a strawman. The proposed SD law does NOT provide an exception for rape or incest.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Our great legal scholar, MK, fails to pay attention to the actual law and develops a strawman.
And this somehow surprises you JWG?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
National Right to Life (NRL) - a major pro-life organization - is against abortion, except in cases of rape or incest.
Huh? Can you back that up, or is this another one of your made-up "facts"?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
"I think its hilarious you’ve got no position on the criminalization of a medical procedure... when it’s a Republican."

The world isn’t as black and white as you think it is, Oliver.
 
Written By: Brandon
URL: http://blog.xtremeramblings.us
Whats so incoherent about exceptions cases of rape or incest. This is normally refered to as the Pro-Choice Pro Lifer. The woman gets to choose whether or not to have sex, and then must live with those choices. In the case of rape or incest, no choice was made by the woman, and therfore abortion is an option.
 
Written By: John
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider