Close Your Eyes And Think of Georgia

Repulsive as he can be, Boortz is a feminist’s BFF on the male-dominated talk radio airways. He went off just this morning on one of his bi-annual rants against “aborto-centrists,” declaring reproductive rights a conservative value.

Too bad that memo hasn’t made its way to the Gold Dome, where idiot-based legislation to restrict women’s reproductive rights is chronically floated around like the place was a freakin’ race track. From today’s AJC:

A Georgia lawmaker demoted over an election for the state Department of Transportation board had talked beforehand with Speaker Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) about a deal to trade his vote for the House leader’s backing on anti-abortion legislation.

A Richardson aide on Wednesday confirmed that state Rep. Martin Scott (R-Rossville) and the speaker had discussed —- and dismissed —- the idea briefly a few hours before Scott and other lawmakers re-elected Mike Evans chairman of the state DOT board.

Full article here. One day I hope reproductive rights advocates will add some fuel to their often impotent tactical fires, chronic email newsletters and petitions and such, and adopt a more Boortz-esque rhetorical approach. Talk about your wishful thinking.

Am I the only one missing Giuliani in the race about right now?

28 comments

  1. I hate talking about abortion because it’s such an emotional issue. You can rarely have a civilized discussion of the issue. This thread will probably get hateful very soon so I’ll only post this:

    I’m pro-life and I’ve become even more pro-life since being present at the birth of my three daughters. To be sure my religious beliefs impact my thinking on the subject but I also think our laws (including death penalty laws) should err on the side of protecting life. While science may not prove to some people’s satisfaction that a pregnant women’s fetus is viable from the time of conception, the cell mass we’re talking about is not going to become anything but a human baby. Therefore it deserves a chance at life.

    The Declaration of Independence claims we’re all endowed with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think our laws should keep that in mind and protect the unborn. I think Bootrz is wrong on this issue.

  2. >>Boortz is a feminist’s BFF on the male-dominated talk radio airways.

    He says he’s pro-choice.

    Yet he consistently supports politicians who are anti-abortion, while consistently bashing the ones who are pro-choice.

    He’s only a “feminist’s BFF” if your definition of BFF is to smile at people while you kick them.

    The Gods of Peach Pundit are geniuses for giving you front page access. You say and do as much to discredit progressives as anyone else who writes here.

    You are the Colmes of Peach Pundit.

  3. Paul Shuford says:

    He consistently supports politicians who are anti-abortion and consistently bashes those who are pro-choice because, usually, the ones who are anti-abortion are fiscal conservatives, and the ones who are pro-choice are usually tax-and-spenders. It’s a matter of what’s more important to you. Are reproductive rights important? Certainly. Is protecting ourselves from confiscatory taxes and the spending programs that beget yet more confiscatory taxes just as, if not more, important? Yes.

    Boortz’ priorities are simply different than yours, he views fiscal conservatism as a more important issue than abortion. But you know that already, you simply wanted to come here and misrepresent things, didn’t you?

  4. Paul-

    I’m not criticizing Neal Boortz (not right now, anyway). You and I apparently agree about what his political priorities are.

    I’m criticizing Grayson “SpaceyG” Daughters’ ridiculous assertion that Neal Boortz is a friend of feminism, feminists or reproductive rights.

  5. SpaceyG says:

    And yeah, let’s not talk about abortion. That’s a young woman’s business anyways. As I always say, abortion is like trial lawyers: everybody loves to hate ’em… until they need one. Enough on that unpleasant matter. Now back to me and my new hairdo…

  6. jsm says:

    And yeah, let’s not talk about abortion.

    And then you make a flippant case for it. Please.

    The only way you can have such a view on abortion is not to face the reality of it.

  7. megan says:

    Buzz – the problem is, abortion is never as morally clear-cut as your argument presents. Unfortunately, that mass of cells which may become a human baby is inextricably linked to another human life. What happens when those two lives are in conflict? And I don’t mean a subjective argument about a woman’s right to make decisions about her life (which I fully support but realize I will never convince some people). I mean when one life literally endangers the other. It is of course tragic and sad and complicated when this happens, but who is to decide on a course of action when it does? Personally, I always want that decision to be made by whatever combination of the woman and her doctor and her loved ones she chooses. Who am I to presume to know what’s best for her?

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Megan,

    I presume you are new around these parts. Apparently you haven’t been exposed enough to the animal known as the Righteous Republican. “RR” for short.

    You see, the RR KNOWS what’s good for you womenfolks, and you cannot reason with them through logic or commonsense. Those two concepts DO NOT exist in the mind of a self-RR.

    Only two things exist in their minds: 1) Christianity is the only religion that should be practiced in this country, and any failure to mention this in the written form of the US Constitution was just a minor oversight.

    2) The RR seeks all the power they can handle and weilds it with an iron fist…but, as long as they talk softly to you about being a “compassionate conservative”, you should beleive that EVERYTHING they do is for your own good…and, you should not protest at all.

  9. megan says:

    Thanks Bill. Alas, I have met far too many RRs, but I keep trying to engage them in thoughtful discourse. What’s that Benjamin Franklin quote about doing the same thing over and over again…?

  10. Bill Simon says:

    Rugby,

    Just wait…I’m going to setup a “Rugby Watch” to take advantage of any and every opportunity to slice your posts down with my rapier wit. 🙂

  11. megan says:

    Bill – I may have nearly purchased a nightgown that claims I only sleep with Dems, but nevertheless, I’m happy (eager!) to engage in thoughtful debate with all kinds of political junkies. Indeed, what merit do my opinions have if they can’t withstand a challenge, and how boring would I be if I were to refuse to change my mind in the face of convincing rhetoric?

  12. jsm says:

    What happens when those two lives are in conflict?

    Which life is more valuable? Who is going to argue for the life that the woman and her partner chose to initiate inside her?

    We should endeavor to save both lives.

  13. megan says:

    jsm – I totally agree, but unfortunately, sometimes we’re just not going to be able to. So I can’t see how we can possibly legislate a decision like that.

    And, for me, that’s where the logic of that particular argument falls apart. If abortion is murder, then how can we morally defend making legal exceptions for the health of the mother? Does that mean that most of the time it’s murder, but there are exceptions? Or sometimes, under certain circumstances, murder is ok?

    But if we don’t make exceptions for the health of the mother, then we are legislating moral decisions about the value of one life over the other.

    And we haven’t even gotten to cases of rape and/or incest.

    I’m not trying to convince you that abortion is ok, I’m just trying to establish that the moral argument that fits so neatly for some because of their own personal beliefs appears, at least to me, to be impossible to consistently legislate.

  14. jsm says:

    I follow your logic, Megan, and I see the dilemma. However, I represent that pro-life segment that sides with protecting life in every instance.

    The issues we’re discussing represent approximately 5% of abortions in this country. The other 95% are performed for convenience. This statistic, to me, represents people who are not willing to take responsibility for their actions and choose to assign zero value to a separate, growing life inside a womb. The fact that more than 75% of abortions occur after 6 weeks gestation suggests that the presence of life and form are unimportant in most abortion decisions.

    These are signs of a troubled society that lacks respect for life altogether. Obviously, there are many other signs seen in the movies we produce, the gang & mob violence occurring on our streets, and even home videos posted on the internet. I think it all fits together, and we must find a way to bring back some sensitivity to this society. The seemingly insatiable appetite for shock value has desensitized us and will lead to further disrespect for life if not dealt with.

  15. megan says:

    But how can you protect life “in every instance” if you’re willing to disregard a life 5% of the time, for the sake of preserving another 100% of the time? (I disagree with your numbers, but operating within your paradigm)

    Additionally, I am troubled by how desensitized you seem to be about the choice to have an abortion. I think implying that it is ‘convenient’ and chosen with ‘zero value’ assigned to a fetus/growing baby is both offensive and inaccurate. Just because people weigh moral decisions differently than you does not mean that they don’t value life or make difficult decisions with ease.

    And this, frankly, is another problem I have with so many pro-life positions. It implies that you have considered a specific woman’s circumstances more thoughtfully, and with ‘better’ morality than she has, and that you are more capable of making that decision than she is. More than that, it implies that you can read her mind and know with what intention she is making an incredibly difficult decision.

  16. jsm says:

    The sources for my numbers are cited in the comment I linked above.

    To me, any reason for an abortion that does not fall within one of the “three exceptions,” falls into the category of convenience, meaning that ending the pregnancy is solely for the purpose of ridding the mother of a responsibility she does not want. My moral views put the value of that life ahead of the value of the mother’s plans. Obviously, that’s where you and I have clear disagreement. At least I think we can agree that more work should be done to reduce the situations that cause unwanted pregnancies.

  17. megan says:

    At least I think we can agree that more work should be done to reduce the situations that cause unwanted pregnancies.

    I will gladly agree to that.

  18. Jace Walden says:

    Good God, are we seriously talking about abortion again!?!?!?!?!?

    Look people, I thought I had settled this matter a while back once and for all. Apparently not. Allow me to once again set the record straight on abortion:

    We need MORE abortions, not fewer abortions. Abortions help prevent the birth of murderers, child molestors and terrorists. Just imagine if Osama Bin Laden, Ted Bundy, and others had been aborted. No mass murder, no 9/11.

    I would go as far as to say that we need retroactive abortions.

    That should settle it.

  19. Icarus says:

    Thanks Jace.

    I’m glad this issue is finally settled.

    Now we can concentrate on really important things, like the Great War with Tennessee…

Comments are closed.