Politics and the Sexual Revolution

I don't deny that Obama has given varying explanations of his actions, but to claim that the bills in question would have saved anyone, or had any legal effect, is balderdash.

As factcheck botes: 'It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."'

Second, the claim that the Illinois bill was the same as the federal bill is bogus: both attempted to define the meaning of the term "born alive infant" as used in state or federal law respectively. So a bill that redefines federal laws (and regulations and court rulings) cannot, by definition , have the same effect as a bill that redefines the same term in state terms, under a different set of laws, rulings and regulations.

Third, no study was ever done of what the legal effect of the bill would be -- how the relevant Illinois laws would change under the new definition, or whether in fact any person would have to do or not do anything different under the new law. It was never staffed out and given a thorough legal review, officially or unofficially, for a simple reason: the bill was never intended to have any practical effect. It was described by some supporters as purely a propaganda (or "teaching") effort. It was designed to force a meaningless vote that could then be waved in the air to attack legislators like Obama. It was never about saving kids. It was about a cheap, cynical, shameless emotional stunt.

As I said, Obama hasn't handled this well. If I had to guess why I'd say he never believed people could seriously fall for this nonsense.

If the neoconservatives have us go to war with Russia, this won't really matter. If Republican corporate socialism bankrupts the country, this won't really matter.
Conservatives ought to start adopting babies, especially special needs children.

There's audio on YouTube of Obama during a debate in the Illinois legislature about one of the versions of the Born-Alive Protection bill that he voted against.

It's instructive to hear ... and chilling.

Far from the professorial cool-cucumber he tries to be on the electoral stump, in this clip Obama is emotive, slowly burning with contempt at the notion that a child escaping an abortion through the fault of a (fortunately) incompetent putter-down or culler of unborn children is a contingency worth taking any provision at all to provide for.

One truly gets the sense that Obama is very much more bothered by the prospect of abortionists having to be prepared to assume certain moral responsibilities in such a contingency than he is bothered by the prospect of a living, breathing, squirming child fight for its life being tossed into a trash-can or garbage disposal or other such receptacle fit for a "punishment" like itself.

It's Obama in his Kurtz-from-Heart-of-Darkness mode: "Exterminate all the brats!"

Before we get a bunch of liberals pointing out (rightly) that conservatives are just as guilty of sexual misbehavior as libs, I'd like to make a point. At this point in time, there is no cultural or societal support of traditional sexual morality. A person who as a youngster somehow comes to believe that traditional sexual morality is a good, necessary thing finds him/herself having to resist temptations and scorn which have rarely, if ever, been normal and pervasively present in human affairs. In order to actually live out his/her beliefs, someone who believes in traditional sexual mores must be a remarkable person of remarkable character. Most people are not remarkable. And few of us have truly impeccable character. So very few will succeed, much to the detriment of our society.

Conservatives believe that while we want to be and raise good people, it is a disaster to expect the majority of people to be unusually good and moral. Social norms and structures must exist in order to push and support the average person as they find their way in the world with a minimum of harm. A well functioning society is on where a person can stand inside societal norms and make a normal, productive life for themselves almost by accident. A dysfunctional society is one in which if the average person wants to make a normal, productive life for themselves, free of disease, divorce, out of wedlock childbirth, a person must step outside of societal norms. When the default status for the average person who just goes through life without trying too hard becomes single parenthood, divorce and disease, something is wrong with that social structure.

This is why conservatives are so upset over the fall out of the sexual revolution; not that we're so good and want to look down on everyone else. It's that we know that we and our sons and daughters are not good enough to survive well in the absence of some sort of social structure to help. The sexual revolution tore down the last social structure we had and replaced it with one which has left us hanging. The fact that social conservatives are no better at navigating this post-sexual revolution world than libs doesn't make us hypocrites - it just proves our point.

Muskrat, Stanek was at the center of the push for the bill, so it's rich that you would think she is "conflating the issues". (I also like it when people try to paint her as an antiabortion zealot. If so, why was she working as an attending nurse for late term abortions? Duh.)

Anyways, what happened was Stanek and some others saw things like babies left for hours to die in laundry rooms or a abortionist instructing a nurse to put a still living fetus in a bucket of medical waste. She was outraged and ended up contacting law enforcement, thinking that there must be SOME law being broken by this obviously inhuman behavior. It turns out that under IL law as it existed at the time, there was no legal protection for a fetus, viable or no, born in the process of an abortion. A fetus born alive, even a viable one, could be treated as medical waste under the law. Thus the push for this law was born.

My husband and I actually had a conversation with one of Obama's people about this. In large part it all came down to politics. Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups were pushing hard against it. There was a perception that the law's backers were trying to create a loophole which would open the way to greater limits on abortion. Which may even have been true. However, at the end of the day our question was why Obama (or any procoicer) didn't say, "We cannot treat living human fetuses/beings/babies like this. However the law the other side is presenting is unacceptable. We'd like to offer our own version of this legislation which would address the problem without endangering a woman's right to abortion." Now, that would have been a new way of doing politics. But that didn't happen. Mores the shame.

It is beyond infuriating that the left sees its stances on moral issues as "scientific," "rational," or "neutral" when they in fact are trying to impose their own moral (or amoral) and religious (or anti-religious) world-view on society.

Conservatives, in spite of many personal failings, are generally honest about their moral and religious views and acknowledge them to be moral and religious. Liberals are loathe to admit that the nature of their assumptions are as faith-based as any other. Thus they don't fight fairly, claiming their views are the product only of self-evident reason, not their own a priori moral and religious assumptions.

This fundamental arrogance and dishonesty is one reason conservatives get so angry and find mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin who can express this anger. If the most of the left played fairly, and we could have a real cultural debate on differing religious and moral assumptions and goods, these guys would gain very little traction. Instead, one side acts intellectually superior and the other shouts.

Will average Americans really vote for the Planned Parenthood/NARAL/Sexual Degenerates candidate?

Will average Americans really vote for the Focus on the Family/Pro-Life Action League/Theocratic Zealots candidate?

Surprise! Politicians are beholden to special interests. Obama favors Planned Parenthood and Palin/McCain favor the Colorado Springs Mafia. Obama took money from Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae and Palin/McCain employees K Street Lobbyists and lobbys Congress for handouts for Alaska.

Are you just now realizing that politics is ugly?

Loudon is a fool asks;
Will average Americans really vote for the Planned Parenthood/NARAL/Sexual Degenerates candidate?

And Rod criticizes the left for distorting our own position as being rational rather than moral. It's not that I disagree with Rod actually. It's more that when it comes to these kind of "meta-criticisms" about the way the entire debate is framed, he never seems to see the sins of his own side. Yes, liberals describe their positions as being rational...and actually think they are. But, to a large extent that's a response to those on Rod's side of the aisle who believe that your either with them, or your sexual degenerates.

But, to a large extent that's a response to those on Rod's side of the aisle who believe that your either with them, or your sexual degenerates.

That's not what I had intended to convey. To be sure, many, many, many, many Democrats are or want to be sexual degenerates. And to be a Democrat you must have certain tolerance for sexual degeneracy, in the same way that rock-ribbed Republicans must tolerate a certain amount of blood-lust and acceptance of corporate greed. But each party is an amalgam of interest groups. It's interesting to see, for each of the candidates, from which corner of the party they spring. McCain is not the Focus on the Family candidate but it appears that Obama is the "abortion on demand/let's have sex with a donkey" candidate. I find that unusual and interesting to see in a national race. Usually those candidates confine themselves to some local office in a coastal city.

McCain is not the Focus on the Family candidate but it appears that Obama is the "abortion on demand/let's have sex with a donkey" candidate. I find that unusual and interesting to see in a national race.

McCain is running on a GOP platform that is the most radically pro-life one ever seen. He picked Palin to appease the Colorado Springs mafia and the pro-life movement. McCain once called social conservative leaders "agents of intolerance," now he calls them for money and let's them pick the VP nominee.

Admittedly, I don't think McCain has much patience for the James Dobson and Arlington Group-types--which explains why he wouldn't attend the Value Voter's Summit--but the choice of Palin solidifies his desire to appease that wing of the party, regardless of the consequences.

Loudon is a fool,
Let me re-iterate what Brendan Moran said. Palin "bravely fought" against the chairman of the Alaska State Republican party. The Alaska State Republican party, and those holding national office (you know, the indicted Stevens and the indicted Don Young) have very little to do with each other. Not only have I seen this, it was confirmed to me by one of Don Young's main staffers.
As to those guys, she had Stevens campaigning for her for Governor. She only "bravely fought" against Stevens after he was not only indicted, but after she was nominated for veep. Great Morals candidate there.
As to your oh-so-rational claim that Obama supports sex with donkeys, do you actually have a citation or anything else to back it up????

Rod, whenever liberal posters get out of hand you shut them down or freeze them out. Is it okay to claim McCain supports sex with donkeys with no support?

Who was it who said that victory in the culture war gives you the right to have your assumptions invisible? Shelby Steele, maybe?