Refuse @ MindSay


 

   
Palin's "Pro-Life" Position
From Freedom and Reason

Palin's Pro-Life Position

by Andrew Austin

Sarah Palin is an outspoken opponent of abortion. She believes the only exception is in cases when the mother's life is in danger. Her position is one of only two relatively-ethically consistent positions on the abortion question, mine being the other (and enjoying the additional status of being the only universally-morally acceptable position).

Her position is that the fetus's life is worth more than the mother's freedom, and that, therefore, there is no right to personal sovereignty; however, the fetus' life is not worth more than the mother's life because, since, if life is held up as the central concern, the mother's life becomes the central concern. Abortion in the cases of incest and rape provide no exception. There is one caveat to this: this position can only be relatively-ethically consistent if its proponents also oppose all other acts of killing except where another person's life is in danger, which rules out the death penalty, as well as most military actions the United States has taken.

My position is that the state cannot force a woman to have a baby, therefore, whatever the reason the woman has for obtaining an abortion, it must be legal, for making it illegal would represent state coercion, thus undermining the right to personal sovereignty, the fundamental right from which so many of our organic rights flow. I believe killing can be justified on broader grounds than just immediate personal endangerment. I believe killing can also be justified on the basis of protection of innocents, escape from captivity, and overthrow of oppressive conditions. I oppose the death penalty because it falls into none of these categories.

While Palin's position is potentially-relatively ethically consistent (what is her view on the death penalty?), it represents in practice a form of tyranny and is therefore absolutely immoral from the perspective of universal human rights.
 
 
   
 

continuation from 'cowards' (a bit ranty)
I guess you can choose to be agnostic because it's all culturally relevant, right?

Yeah, just like you'll be juuust fiiiine as long as you: Love Jesus, a man who was executed for advocating social justice and grassroots power... and FUCKING BR00T4LK1D5 SC3N3 GRINDCORE at the same time; be sure to wear the latest, fadacious clothing from capitalist establishment malls, regardless of how much it costs. Don't mind that the 12 year old seamstress who made it lives in conditions you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. Oh wait, yeah, you would, wouldn't you?

Afterall, we need to punish people for having sex because people don't control their bodies, the government does! And don't give welfare to anyone, because racism is wrong but it's okay to ignore the structures and institutions in this country that control your thoughts. Don't forget John Kerry is a liberal pussy coward who never put his life or money on the line, and our current commander in chief is a good, Christian man.

We always need to make sure to elect a religious conservative because atheists hate America and in the god we trust on our money, which you kindly ignore the worthlessness of since inflation is through the roof due to a $ 4 TRILLION war fighting sheepherders in desert caves who live on less than $1 a day.

I'll probably add more later
 
 
 

   
Doesn't anyone else see the problem with this?

FROM THE PROGRESSIVE POINT OF VIEW

A Grave Infringement on the Right to Choose, and Ridiculous Meddling into the Practice of Medicine

By Matthew Rothschild, August 22, 2008


The new Bush reg on abortion just came out, and it’s astonishingly sweeping.


The regulation would give the President the power to yank funding from “more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, and doctors’ offices . . . if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral, or religious grounds,” the Washington Post reports.


So say a young woman has been raped and she comes in either for emergency contraception, or eight or twelve weeks later an abortion.


Any health care employee can refuse to help that woman, and can even refuse to offer her a referral. If the hospital or clinic tried to fire that employee for not assisting a patient in need, they’d lose federal funding.


This is a ridiculous infringement of a woman’s right to choose, and it’s ridiculous meddling into the practice of medicine.


How are you supposed to run a hospital when any employee can refuse to participate in medical procedures?

One person may be opposed to tubal ligations, another to vasectomies, a third to circumcisions, and yet another to infant inoculations.


What are you to do? Have two sets of employees—one team that’ll do everything and another that picks and chooses?


How ’bout something simpler?


Like the idea that if you’re in the health care business, your job is to give the patient get the best and safest treatment possible, as defined by prevailing medical standards.


Not as you, or George Bush, define it.

 
 
   
 

It’s Easy Being Green, 10-4-07

            Never mind Rudy Huxtable.  Forget that silly frog.  Being green is easy!

            Don’t get me wrong.  I’m no Green Peace terrorist out to blow up whaling ships; I’m as worried about global warming as my father and grandfather were about global cooling in the ’70’s and ’40’s; and the earth is not my mother...but it is my home.  I think it is our duty to be good stewards of the earth, and there are some simple things we can do that require little time, effort, or expense, and are good for the environment at the same time.

            We use energy efficient light bulbs in our house.  They’re rather expensive—at least by unemployed student standards—but they save us money on our utility bills and last longer than incandescent bulbs.

            Perhaps the easiest thing we can do for the environment, as pointed out in Tuesday’s Southerner, is recycling.  I became interested in this when I learned of those monthly fees on our utility bills whether we use our curbside recycling bins or not.  The wife and I didn’t even have a bin, so I called and had one delivered.  It’s a paltry amount, but if we’re being charged at all, it’s stupid not to use it.

            How many plastic drink bottles and steel food cans does your household go through in a week?  We eat three meals a day and have something to drink with each one.  It adds up.  Why send all that perfectly good refuse to the landfill when it can be used again?

            We recycle our plastic grocery bags.  We use some of them again for lunch bags and trashcan liners, and the rest we take to the recycling barrel outside Food Lion.  Perhaps I should check to make sure they really are recycling those bags.  When I worked at Harris Supermarket, we had a barrel that the store manager would have someone go empty into the dumpster when it was full.

            If you’re reading this, you have a newspaper to recycle.  My bin contains almost as many newspapers as it does bottles.  Cardboard can be recycled, as well as the reams of junk mail we all hate.

            At least once a week, our mailboxes are stuffed with the same coupons, circulars, and insurance ads that are stuck in our newspapers.  Those of us with P.O. boxes get triple the aggravation.  Throw in the daily credit card offers, and that’s a whole lot of trees dying needlessly.

            Each time I check my box, I see the trashcans in the post office overflowing with junk mail, so I came up with a simple solution: requiring the U.S. Postal Service to provide recycling bins in their facilities.

            I wrote to Rep. G.K. Butterfield, Sens. Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, and Postmaster General John Potter, as well as Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), who chair their respective chambers’ subcommittees dealing with the USPS.  I shared my idea with each and pointed out how this would be a good opportunity for the federal and local governments to work together since most municipalities have some sort of recycling program already.

            Three months later, I have only received a response—if you could call it that—from Dole.  She never once mentioned my issue, but did thank me three times for sharing my concerns.  I didn’t expect much from her or Burr, though any acknowledgement is better than none.

            I’m really disappointed in the three Democrats, especially Butterfield.  My own representative—the first line of defense, so to speak—should have the gumption to respond in a timely manner.  I thought any green issue drew Democrats like an outhouse draws flies.

            I voted for Dole, Burr, and Butterfield, and they can count on my remembering their shoddy constituent service when they come up for reelection.  But, even without the help of the government, I can still have an impact on the environment in my own small way.

            Go thou and do likewise.

 

© 2007 by J.D. Lewis

 
 
 

   
refuse
 



Blog
refuse by
OneWalrus

Nom de Plume'
Email Address:
Comments:
Are you Ok with this?
 
 
   
 

Showing 1 - 5.   [ Next ]
 
Latest Comment
Re: Thank You and Apologies. - Dawn, I know I'm not replying in the correct place because my inbox has been...

Read...


 
© 2005-2007 MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
My Account
Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Logout
Blog
Update Blog
Edit Old Entries
Pick a Theme
Customize Design
Modify Plugins
Community
Your Profile
Wiki Pages
MindSay Tags
Video & Photos
Geographic Directory
Inside MindSay
About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
Report Spam
Contact Us
Help