What's the Motive?
Posted by Mr. Naron, Jul 6 2006, 07:24 PM
I like to think I'm not conspiratorial, but every time I read or hear the words of a liberal, I can't help but discover hidden motives. For instance, I can't believe for the life of me that feminists want women in combat in order to help us win wars. Sure, they want equality with men, but there's no way they want their service in the military to benefit the evil U.S. of A..
I've never bought the "Pro-Choice" argument that abortion is bad, yet it should remain legal because it's a private matter between a woman and her doctor. So what's the motive? Maybe it runs pretty much along with what Ann Coulter outlines in Godless: Liberal women want the constitutional right to have sex with men they don't like enough to have children with.
But my cynical mind sees something darker. I think liberals want our whole culture to fail, and what better way to pull that off than a massive murder/suicide pact--only liberals are so gutless, they're not willing to go through with the suicide part themselves. They leave that to the culture in general. Lucky for us, conservatives and libertarians breed like well-behaved rabbits, so there might not be any cultural suicide afterall.
Probably the easiest motive to dig out can be found in the public education debate. Ann has a wonderfully telling quote from John Dewey, the biggest liberal turd ever flushed down history's crapper:
QUOTE
You can't make Socialists out of individualists -- children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.
We send our kids to the schools founded upon his philosophy every day. And we know what kind of "thinking" teachers are trying to get kids to do, don't we? Remember Colorado teacher, Jay Benish? He was teaching kids to not think while claiming to do the opposite. Reciting the liberal mantra Bush is Hitler! is not going to get neurons firing in young skulls any more than having them memorize the names of women Clinton raped.
I'm telling you as a teacher that we're not trained to teach kids how to think. We're taught how to teach them what to think. What passes for critical thinking skills is nothing more than techniques to break down traditional values, morality and pro-US history. Unless you can get them into my classroom, you're taking a big risk. (Or WFAN's, Dodgerking's...
)Finally, Ann brings out a great point about how liberals just about worship teachers while demonizing the clergy. The truth is that a teacher is thirty percent more likely to molest your child than a priest or pastor. One would think a parent, upon hearing this fact, would start sending little Johnny and Sally to church five times a week and to school only once or not at all.
My Mind is Clean
Comments
Mr. Naron, Jul 7 2006, 12:23 AM
QUOTE(Coach @ Jul 6 2006, 07:00 PM)
I was first exposed to the Dewey bull crap when I switched my major from petroleum engineering to education because I decided I wanted to become a coach. I had an on going battle with the professor for the entire semester and got my only C from that old Unitarian in four years of undergraduate school. That was 50 years ago. Imagine the damage done in the ensuing years.
Let me add, at the time friends of mine in the same class kept telling me to just be quiet and let it go because he was so whacko his ideas would die in his classroom. How wrong they were. The devil works in insidious ways, and never rests.
He probably wasn't even the exception to the rule then. Just try to imagine what would happen to a conservative in an education program. I knew one, and she was the most reviled person I've seen since GWB. All because she dared to challenge the assumptions behind constructivist pedagogy. How dare she! (IMG:http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
Adam Smithee, Jul 7 2006, 10:01 AM
QUOTE
I'm telling you as a teacher that we're not trained to teach kids how to think. We're taught how to teach them what to think. What passes for critical thinking skills is nothing more than techniques to break down traditional values, morality and pro-US history. Unless you can get them into my classroom, you're taking a big risk. (Or WFAN's, Dodgerking's...)
But the school system - at least the public school system as we know it - has always been more about indoctrination than about teaching real critical thinking.
Having been of school age in a variety of very conservative schools, including one quaker-run school, in the midwest in the '60s and '70s - when the right was still running the show, at least in those areas - I'm here to tell you that critical thinking was no more appreciated back then than it is now. What passed for critical thinking was merely following the same logic to reach the same conclusion and anything outside those bounds quickly got a person labelled as a smartass or a troublemaker.
It seems to me that when the right complains about the indoctrination in the institutions, we're not really concerned about indoctrination per se but only that we're not the ones doing the indoctrinating.
Adam Smithee, Jul 7 2006, 10:35 AM
QUOTE
I've never bought the "Pro-Choice" argument that abortion is bad, yet it should remain legal because it's a private matter between a woman and her doctor. So what's the motive? Maybe it runs pretty much along with what Ann Coulter outlines in Godless: Liberal women want the constitutional right to have sex with men they don't like enough to have children with.
As a small-government conservative, I have no problem getting my mind around either of these concepts. It's not about whether a woman has a "right" to an abortion, or to have sex, or the right to anything for that matter, it's about whether the government has the constitutional authority to interfere.
All rights - even those yet to be enumerated - exist by default in an individual unless the government has sufficient constitutional authority to say otherwise.
Mr. Naron, Jul 7 2006, 01:59 PM
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 08:35 AM)
As a small-government conservative, I have no problem getting my mind around either of these concepts. It's not about whether a woman has a "right" to an abortion, or to have sex, or the right to anything for that matter, it's about whether the government has the constitutional authority to interfere.
All rights - even those yet to be enumerated - exist by default in an individual unless the government has sufficient constitutional authority to say otherwise.
The problem is with the assumption that the only "rights" in that situation belong to the woman. What about the father's rights and the child's rights? The right to life is in the constitution plain and simple. I see no such right to have consequence free sex.
Mr. Naron, Jul 7 2006, 02:01 PM
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 08:01 AM)
But the school system - at least the public school system as we know it - has always been more about indoctrination than about teaching real critical thinking.
Having been of school age in a variety of very conservative schools, including one quaker-run school, in the midwest in the '60s and '70s - when the right was still running the show, at least in those areas - I'm here to tell you that critical thinking was no more appreciated back then than it is now. What passed for critical thinking was merely following the same logic to reach the same conclusion and anything outside those bounds quickly got a person labelled as a smartass or a troublemaker.
It seems to me that when the right complains about the indoctrination in the institutions, we're not really concerned about indoctrination per se but only that we're not the ones doing the indoctrinating.
That's the flaw in public schooling. We know education is indoctrination, yet we go on quibbling about whose indoctrination kids are going to get.
Adam Smithee, Jul 8 2006, 12:40 AM
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 7 2006, 11:59 AM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 08:35 AM)
As a small-government conservative, I have no problem getting my mind around either of these concepts. It's not about whether a woman has a "right" to an abortion, or to have sex, or the right to anything for that matter, it's about whether the government has the constitutional authority to interfere.
All rights - even those yet to be enumerated - exist by default in an individual unless the government has sufficient constitutional authority to say otherwise.
The problem is with the assumption that the only "rights" in that situation belong to the woman. What about the father's rights and the child's rights? The right to life is in the constitution plain and simple. I see no such right to have consequence free sex.
I'm leery of the government trying to bestow constitutional rights on children, especially yet-to-be-born children. It opens the door too wide for governmental interference in all areas of parenting.
Mr. Naron, Jul 8 2006, 12:43 AM
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 10:40 PM)
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 7 2006, 11:59 AM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 08:35 AM)
As a small-government conservative, I have no problem getting my mind around either of these concepts. It's not about whether a woman has a "right" to an abortion, or to have sex, or the right to anything for that matter, it's about whether the government has the constitutional authority to interfere.
All rights - even those yet to be enumerated - exist by default in an individual unless the government has sufficient constitutional authority to say otherwise.
The problem is with the assumption that the only "rights" in that situation belong to the woman. What about the father's rights and the child's rights? The right to life is in the constitution plain and simple. I see no such right to have consequence free sex.
I'm leery of the government trying to bestow constitutional rights on children, especially yet-to-be-born children. It opens the door too wide for governmental interference in all areas of parenting.
Uh, you have constitutional rights at any age. Like when parents can't kill you because of that whole right to life thing.
Adam Smithee, Jul 8 2006, 08:01 PM
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 7 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 10:40 PM)
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 7 2006, 11:59 AM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 08:35 AM)
As a small-government conservative, I have no problem getting my mind around either of these concepts. It's not about whether a woman has a "right" to an abortion, or to have sex, or the right to anything for that matter, it's about whether the government has the constitutional authority to interfere.
All rights - even those yet to be enumerated - exist by default in an individual unless the government has sufficient constitutional authority to say otherwise.
The problem is with the assumption that the only "rights" in that situation belong to the woman. What about the father's rights and the child's rights? The right to life is in the constitution plain and simple. I see no such right to have consequence free sex.
I'm leery of the government trying to bestow constitutional rights on children, especially yet-to-be-born children. It opens the door too wide for governmental interference in all areas of parenting.
Uh, you have constitutional rights at any age. Like when parents can't kill you because of that whole right to life thing.
The "right to life" is not enumerated in the constitution any more so than the "right to privacy" is; it is a commonon-law tenet that can also be inferred in the constitution but it's not directly stated as such. However for the sake of this discussion I'll stipulate that it does exist.
The 'right to life' is bestowed by the creator onto persons, and the constitution protects persons. While life may begin at conception, that is irrelevent, because person-hood and therefore constitutional protection don't begin until some point further. Even at the time of birth, person-hood and constitutional protection exist only on a sliding scale; A person is not even fully a 'person' for constitutional purposes until the age of majority.
Mr. Naron, Jul 8 2006, 08:34 PM
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 8 2006, 06:01 PM)
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 7 2006, 10:43 PM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 10:40 PM)
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 7 2006, 11:59 AM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 7 2006, 08:35 AM)
As a small-government conservative, I have no problem getting my mind around either of these concepts. It's not about whether a woman has a "right" to an abortion, or to have sex, or the right to anything for that matter, it's about whether the government has the constitutional authority to interfere.
All rights - even those yet to be enumerated - exist by default in an individual unless the government has sufficient constitutional authority to say otherwise.
The problem is with the assumption that the only "rights" in that situation belong to the woman. What about the father's rights and the child's rights? The right to life is in the constitution plain and simple. I see no such right to have consequence free sex.
I'm leery of the government trying to bestow constitutional rights on children, especially yet-to-be-born children. It opens the door too wide for governmental interference in all areas of parenting.
Uh, you have constitutional rights at any age. Like when parents can't kill you because of that whole right to life thing.
The "right to life" is not enumerated in the constitution any more so than the "right to privacy" is; it is a commonon-law tenet that can also be inferred in the constitution but it's not directly stated as such. However for the sake of this discussion I'll stipulate that it does exist.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Is that not clear enough?
QUOTE
he 'right to life' is bestowed by the creator onto persons, and the constitution protects persons. While life may begin at conception, that is irrelevent, because person-hood and therefore constitutional protection don't begin until some point further. Even at the time of birth, person-hood and constitutional protection exist only on a sliding scale; A person is not even fully a 'person' for constitutional purposes until the age of majority.
That is a completely arbitrary distinction made by those who wish to keep abortion legal. There is no concrete definition of personhood in the constitution. There is, however, a clear right to life. In the crazy world of modern jurisprudence, anything clearly enumerated in the constitution is suppose to receive "strict scrutiny" before it is limited. One would think that life, long having been considered one of the three natural rights, would be considered a "fundamental" right and deserving strict scrutiny. However, the modern court would rather save strict scrutiny for the invented right to privacy and the nebulous right to free "expression".
Until one can prove when personhood begins, it's only logical within even a moderate moral framework that an unborn child would get the benefit of the doubt--something strict scrutiny is supposed to provide.
This post has been edited by Chris Naron: Jul 8 2006, 08:34 PM
Adam Smithee, Jul 9 2006, 03:07 PM
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 8 2006, 06:34 PM)
That is a completely arbitrary distinction made by those who wish to keep abortion legal. There is no concrete definition of personhood in the constitution. There is, however, a clear right to life. In the crazy world of modern jurisprudence, anything clearly enumerated in the constitution is suppose to receive "strict scrutiny" before it is limited. One would think that life, long having been considered one of the three natural rights, would be considered a "fundamental" right and deserving strict scrutiny. However, the modern court would rather save strict scrutiny for the invented right to privacy and the nebulous right to free "expression".
Until one can prove when personhood begins, it's only logical within even a moderate moral framework that an unborn child would get the benefit of the doubt--something strict scrutiny is supposed to provide.
But we do have a definition of personhood, in both the words of the founding fathers and in the common-law jurisprudence that existed at the time. Persons are those to whom certain inalienable rights have been granted by the creator. (Jefferson actually said Men have these rights, but I think we can construe Men in it's broadest possible sense.) Life, then, exists as a right from the point that it's bestowed by the Creator. But when does Life, as an endowment by the Creator and as a legal 'right' begin ? Common Law had the answer, from the prevailing common law of the colonies back through the common law of england, even back to the days of Aristotle: At the point of quickening, roughly the 15th week.
"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger" - James Wilson, signer of both the Consititution and Declaration of Independance and Supreme Court Justice 1789 to 1798.
“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb." - Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
Some would argue that the founding fathers and common law took that viewpoint because of the lack of biological knowledge of the day; they simply didn't know any better. However, this doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. A minority of legal scholars going back at least as far as the roman jurist and early christian scholar Tertullian took the viewpoint that life began at conception. Any learned scholar of Blackstone's or Wilson's day would have been at least aware of this possible stance, but they didn't adopt it.
Mr. Naron, Jul 9 2006, 09:47 PM
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 9 2006, 01:07 PM)
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 8 2006, 06:34 PM)
That is a completely arbitrary distinction made by those who wish to keep abortion legal. There is no concrete definition of personhood in the constitution. There is, however, a clear right to life. In the crazy world of modern jurisprudence, anything clearly enumerated in the constitution is suppose to receive "strict scrutiny" before it is limited. One would think that life, long having been considered one of the three natural rights, would be considered a "fundamental" right and deserving strict scrutiny. However, the modern court would rather save strict scrutiny for the invented right to privacy and the nebulous right to free "expression".
Until one can prove when personhood begins, it's only logical within even a moderate moral framework that an unborn child would get the benefit of the doubt--something strict scrutiny is supposed to provide.
But we do have a definition of personhood, in both the words of the founding fathers and in the common-law jurisprudence that existed at the time. Persons are those to whom certain inalienable rights have been granted by the creator. (Jefferson actually said Men have these rights, but I think we can construe Men in it's broadest possible sense.) Life, then, exists as a right from the point that it's bestowed by the Creator. But when does Life, as an endowment by the Creator and as a legal 'right' begin ? Common Law had the answer, from the prevailing common law of the colonies back through the common law of england, even back to the days of Aristotle: At the point of quickening, roughly the 15th week.
"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger" - James Wilson, signer of both the Consititution and Declaration of Independance and Supreme Court Justice 1789 to 1798.
“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb." - Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
Some would argue that the founding fathers and common law took that viewpoint because of the lack of biological knowledge of the day; they simply didn't know any better. However, this doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. A minority of legal scholars going back at least as far as the roman jurist and early christian scholar Tertullian took the viewpoint that life began at conception. Any learned scholar of Blackstone's or Wilson's day would have been at least aware of this possible stance, but they didn't adopt it.
Then why does the pro-abortion party want it legal past 15 weeks? Because they don't really care when life begins. It's only important once you've gotten to the point where you have to concede that the right to life exists in the constitution but the right to privacy does not.
And if you're going to go all the way back looking for historical examples, why not also take into consideration the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't figure out a constitutional right to abortion until 1973. Common law definitions of personhood were not determined for the purposes of legalizing abortion. Either way, we're getting our definition of when life begins from judges, and that's been the whole problem. A judge in the 1700s is no more qualified to determine when life begins than a judge in 1973 or 2006.
Adam Smithee, Jul 9 2006, 11:27 PM
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 9 2006, 07:47 PM)
QUOTE(MetroWhig @ Jul 9 2006, 01:07 PM)
QUOTE(Mr. Naron @ Jul 8 2006, 06:34 PM)
That is a completely arbitrary distinction made by those who wish to keep abortion legal. There is no concrete definition of personhood in the constitution. There is, however, a clear right to life. In the crazy world of modern jurisprudence, anything clearly enumerated in the constitution is suppose to receive "strict scrutiny" before it is limited. One would think that life, long having been considered one of the three natural rights, would be considered a "fundamental" right and deserving strict scrutiny. However, the modern court would rather save strict scrutiny for the invented right to privacy and the nebulous right to free "expression".
Until one can prove when personhood begins, it's only logical within even a moderate moral framework that an unborn child would get the benefit of the doubt--something strict scrutiny is supposed to provide.
But we do have a definition of personhood, in both the words of the founding fathers and in the common-law jurisprudence that existed at the time. Persons are those to whom certain inalienable rights have been granted by the creator. (Jefferson actually said Men have these rights, but I think we can construe Men in it's broadest possible sense.) Life, then, exists as a right from the point that it's bestowed by the Creator. But when does Life, as an endowment by the Creator and as a legal 'right' begin ? Common Law had the answer, from the prevailing common law of the colonies back through the common law of england, even back to the days of Aristotle: At the point of quickening, roughly the 15th week.
"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger" - James Wilson, signer of both the Consititution and Declaration of Independance and Supreme Court Justice 1789 to 1798.
“Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb." - Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765
Some would argue that the founding fathers and common law took that viewpoint because of the lack of biological knowledge of the day; they simply didn't know any better. However, this doesn't stand up to historical scrutiny. A minority of legal scholars going back at least as far as the roman jurist and early christian scholar Tertullian took the viewpoint that life began at conception. Any learned scholar of Blackstone's or Wilson's day would have been at least aware of this possible stance, but they didn't adopt it.
Then why does the pro-abortion party want it legal past 15 weeks? Because they don't really care when life begins. It's only important once you've gotten to the point where you have to concede that the right to life exists in the constitution but the right to privacy does not.
And if you're going to go all the way back looking for historical examples, why not also take into consideration the fact that the Supreme Court doesn't figure out a constitutional right to abortion until 1973. Common law definitions of personhood were not determined for the purposes of legalizing abortion. Either way, we're getting our definition of when life begins from judges, and that's been the whole problem. A judge in the 1700s is no more qualified to determine when life begins than a judge in 1973 or 2006.
I think there's a large number in the pro-abortion party that would settle for a 15-week cutoff (or 12 week or whatever), but the radical NARAL types keep pushing the idea that a restriction on any abortion is an attempt to restrict all abortions.
I personally don't like the concept of abortion, I've never been party to one and never will be. But I can see the historical and theological reasoning behind believing that "Life", and the Government's interest, begins not at conception but at some point afterwards. And I can see the constitutional reasoning for a right to privacy that exists at least up until this point. Believing in the right to privacy doesn't necessarily mean believing that abortion is 'right', it just means believing that it's a matter between a person and The Almighty and not (yet) a matter of government interest.
Let me add, at the time friends of mine in the same class kept telling me to just be quiet and let it go because he was so whacko his ideas would die in his classroom. How wrong they were. The devil works in insidious ways, and never rests.