Ridiculous @ MindSay

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.

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

Now, on one hand, you've got to admire the effort to combine 2 things that someone loves so much. I mean, those Thin Mint Blizzards at DQ are the greatest testaments to that fact.  This however, is quite possibly one of the most wack-tastic things that I've ever seen. Now I've heard of going a little overboard with things, but this is just ridiculous.  Disappointing even. If I were Maserati I would repo the car based off of the blatant disregard of respect for the brand.  Now it may not be well known, but Maserati is one of my favorite historic automobile brands.  It hurts my heart to see one of it's most historic lines, the Quattroporte, made to look so silly.

I recently found this in a reply on another blog:

 

"For the same reason, you will not find me supporting a Ron Paul simply because he is the political celebrity du jour, he is archaic and dangerous.  There HAS to be a middle ground led by a strong leader - its a shame that person won't be elected."

 

I underlined dangerous. Ron Paul is dangerous? I consider someone who constantly subverts the Constitution to be dangerous. Someone like our current president. Presidents like G.W. Bush are truly dangerous.

 

Take note that he doesn't mention why Dr. Paul is dangerous. Also, he doesn't mention which candidate is in the "middle ground".

 

Following the Constitution is not dangerous. It is necessary for the survival of this nation.