TheAgitator.com
Shooting Flares
Thursday, July 8th, 2004Two links I picked up from the kids over at Pieces of Flare:
1) Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamera has some provocative questions for John Kerry on the abortion issue, and some scorn for her pro-choice comrades for their partisanship.
2) Is European soccer more “American” than baseball? Slate’s Daniel Gross says the economics of soccer bustle with capitalist incentives, while American baseball reeks of socialism.
The Wall Street Journal made a similar observation today regarding Kerry’s abortion contradiction:
“Mr. Kerry seems to be trying to re-assure voters that his personal religious beliefs on abortion will not influence his policy-making … We only wish that he and many of his fellow Senate Democrats would give the same benefit of the doubt to President Bush’s judicial nominees who are privately opposed to abortion but say they will uphold Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. … If Mr. Kerry’s Catholic beliefs don’t disqualify him from becoming President…then the same religious beliefs of conservative judicial nominees shouldn’t disqualify them from serving as federal judges.”
Gross’ piece was interesting, but I think it’s inaccurate to classify the problem with baseball’s economic model as being “socialism.” It’s really a reflection of conservative economic theory–the principles that once promoted mercantilism and today support ideas like the antitrust laws.
Our elected representatives are there to represent our interests. If Sen. Joe Schmoe believes in Issue A, but 75% of his constituents don’t should Joe Schmo vote for or against Issue A?
If he votes with his conscience, then his vote really isn’t representative of his contituency.
But we’ll all applaud him for his choice?
But Super…didn’t he get elected to represent those constituents by at least pretending to be their guy on that issue?
Or did he say, “I don’t believe in abortion, I find it morally wrong. But if you elect me, I will support it in all ways.” and they bought it?
It would be hard to gain the pro-choice vote by saying to them, “You are morally wrong, but I will support you, without feeling morally guilty.” It sounds like a total lack of conviction in your own stated principals. The flip flop of the moment.
That’s a shame since his opinion as stated in this article is actually pretty defendable and probably attractive to many of the undecideds on the issue. Abortion is wrong, but it is not an issue that should be handed over to the government to legislate. That is a legitimate position to take, but can anyone trust that is his real position since he has a reputation for being all over the place on the issues?
btw, that is about the only thing I agree with him on. Regardless of anyone’s personal feelings on abortion, it should not be handed over to the government to control. It is just not the sort of issue that should be legislated that way.
I had no idea European soccer was structured in that way. If professional football were structured like that I may actually watch a full game.
I fail to see the contradiction in believing that abortion is morally wrong, but declining to attempt to make it illegal. For all I know, Kerry may think (in line with Catholic teaching) that artificial birth control is morally wrong, but that does not obligate him to support making the pill illegal.
I’m an atheist who finds late term abortions to be morally wrong (except to save the life of the mother), but since I don’t believe fetuses can have rights I can’t support making ~any~ abortions illegal.
Gross’ piece was interesting, but I think it’s inaccurate to classify the problem with baseball’s economic model as being “socialism.” It’s really a reflection of conservative economic theory–the principles that once promoted mercantilism and today support ideas like the antitrust laws.
Mercantilism and national socialism, the nazi kind, are one and the same.
As far as national economics go, you might as well have called him King Hitler.
The US also practices mercantilism, although we have no discernible despot, rather we have a democratically elected snake pit of leaders from one party, the Statist Party of Republicrats (SPoR).
So we’re actually closer to the present day ChiComs than Hitler’s monarchy.
I must agree with Mark. I personally find abortions at ANY stage abhorent, but would never support the use of the state’s force to restrict them. It is solely a decision between the mother, the father (hopefully), and her/their God (if they have one); not the state, not Kerry, not Ms. Gross, and certainly not me.
As with several others, I don’t understand the problem with Kerry’s position here. The idea that elected officials should always and only legislate their own moral judgement is completely at odds with the concept of representative democracy.
I’m adamantly opposed to the recreational use of hard drugs, but equally adamant in my opposition to prohibition.
Is this hypocrisy? Anyone who thinks so is really going to need to make a persuasive argument to convince me.
The issue with Kerry’s statement is that if life begins at conception, then he must view abortion as murder and is therefore voting to legalize murder.
We had a friend give birth at 5 1/2 months–the baby is now a year old and doing well, if his mother had decided 2 months after he was born that she really didn’t want to deal with a baby could she “abort”? after all it wasn’t nine months from conception so it wasn’t alive yet–right?
George, murder is defined as ‘illegal killing’. ‘Abortion is murder’ is not a viewpoint, it’s a misunderstanding of the current law. ‘Abortion should be murder’ is a valid position, though as I’ve previously pointed out, it’s easily possible to dislike abortion without wanting it to be prohibited by law.
I didn’t say that legally abortion is murder, but if you consider a fetus to be life and then kill it what do you call it?
Woah, I appear to be arguing with myself. The asylum can’t be far off.
I’m going to assume that’s you George :).
First off, there’s a difference between ‘life’ and ‘human life’, though we’ve had this debate several times in here before, and I’m not too keen to reopen it.
Second off, on your question, when an abortion takes place I call it an abortion. Now that you’ve correctly pointed out that it isn’t murder, I don’t really see what other answer is required.
Again Bernard–you’re mixing legallity with morality. My problem with Kerry is that if he feels that life begins at conception accorrding to his beliefs, then those same beliefs make abortion morally murder. What you are saying is the equivelent in 1858 as saying that because the Southern states said it was legal for whites to own slaves made it right and no one should oppose.
You also didn’t answer my question concerning the “abortion” of a child if it happens before less than nine months after conception. The child is still helpless and can’t survive without help–when is it moral murder?
It was legal in Germany to take property from Jews–could a politician say I’m morally opposed but have to give me free choice? If one believe a fetus has life (life vs. human life? come one what kind of inane arguement is that? If it’s a life, and it’s in a human womb, what kind of life would it be?) then killing it is moral murder.
Kerry is trying, as usual, to be on both sides of the fence.
What you all are defending is the idea that being a congressman or senator is a career title. It is not. It doesn’t make any sense for a senator to stay in office while his conscience goes against the conscience of the people. In effect, a representative should HAVE the conscience of the people, and if his mind changes, he should be taken out of office.
This is more a problem of the two-party system than anything else. Two parties limit us to voting for career politicians, and not for people who actually give a shit about the issues they are defending. If you live in an uncontested place, go ahead and vote for that third party. Your vote makes as much difference (read, infinitesimal) in any case, but you might as well flex your voting muscles. We need to try to vote representatives in who actually represent the constituents and aren’t there only because politics is the family business.
So James, a senator has to agree with the majority opinion on every issue facing them or they should resign from office?
I can’t see too many honest candidates following those rules.
“following those rules”? Who cares if they follow them. We should elect someone in their place if they don’t.
ooh.. Sorry, didn’t see the word “resign”, Bernard. No, I don’t mean they should resign. The next election they face should be their last though, unless the differences of opinion are negligible enough to let slide.