The Human Life Amendment

It got tabled in the House. The Macon Telegraph has an editorial up today accusing the House of wasting time considering the matter at all.

I oppose the Human Life Amendment as presented, as does National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, but I think it is safe to say that the Telegraph’s problem is that the House dared to consider pro-life legislation at all.


  1. Doug Deal says:


    I wonder how many people pushing this type of legislation actually support these abortion restrictions. It hurts “the cause” a whole lot more than it helps to go to such extremes.

  2. mocamarc says:

    Georgia’s ranking for child well being is in the bottom 10 of the 50 states in terms of health, safety and education. Why must our legislators have to barge into personal lives so that more unwanted kids can be born, if we can’t take care of the kids who are already here?

    And since men can’t get pregnant, we don’t have a dog in the hunt. Let women decide this issue once and for all.

  3. Dan Becker says:


    I am sorry to hear that you are pro-life and yet opposed the Human Life Amendment. Our opponents were able to set up a number of “strawmen” that we were not able to adequately address in the media and among the legislators. I would like to hear your objections as a pro-lifer and document the truth and dispel some of the myth associated with this proposal.

  4. profg says:

    That dang Rep. William Lloyd Garrison from Rossville. Waste of time. Unless you think pandering to The Christers ™ is productive.

    I oppose the Thirteenth Amendment as presented, as does the American Colonization Society and other anti-slavery groups. I wonder how many people pushing this type of abolitionist legislation actually support these restrictions on slavery. It hurts “the cause” a whole lot more than it helps to go to such extremes.


  5. Doug Deal says:


    Besides being incoherent as written, your post can be described as myopic at best.

    John Brown was an extremist and hurt the anti-slavery cause, not unlike the rabbid anti-abortion warlords of today.

    No wonder you guys are losing so badly and abortion is and will remain legal from sea to shining sea, as long as this sort of tactic is used. The anti-abortionist warlords have no one but the anti-abortionist warlords to blame for the failures to overturn Roe V Wade. Quite simply put, no one wants to elect extremists to office except their 2-3% base support.

  6. profg says:

    John Brown? Who said anything about John Brown?

    And it doesn’t surprise me at all that you found my post incoherent and myopic, Doug. You would have done well at Western Reserve College. “Those who cannot remember the past,” and all that.

  7. Romegaguy says:

    It is always someone else’s fault when a flawed piece of legislation doesnt pass (or make it out of committee).

  8. Doug Deal says:


    John Brown? Who said anything about John Brown?

    You are the one with the flawed analogy between abortion and slavery. I was pointing out the flaw. The 13th amendment was not controversial to the states that enacted it (i.e. the winners of the Civil War). John Brown was an extremist, much like the abortion warlords of today.

    Lincoln called him a “misguided fanatic”. The result of his activities was to strengthen the resolve of the South, not move toward abolition. Anti-Abortion warlord extremists are the same in that they are scary to normal Americans.

    People can come together on SOME common ground on this issue, but not with idiotic legislation like that which is proposed above.

    Your type of word search argument is about as effective the one employed when liberals call conservatives “Hitler”.

  9. Dan Becker says:

    “Quite simply put, no one wants to elect extremists to office except their 2-3% base support.”

    Doug Deal,

    When Sonny Perdue was elected Governor in 2002 Fox News did an exit poll. It found that 6% of ALL Georgia’s voters, voted for Perdue SOLELY because he was pro-life! That is the hardcore base. His margin of victory was less than 6% . . . and remember this was a candidate that doesn’t believe that abortion should be legal in the cases of rape and incest.

    Since that time we have elected a Lt. Governor, 53% of the Senate, 41% of the House and 6 Congressmen that also hold to only the single exception for abortion . . . the life of the mother.

    It sounds as if your position is increasingly extreme and out of touch with the general population of Georgia.

    Forgive me in advance for injecting facts and hard data into this discussion.

  10. Doug Deal says:

    Dan Becker,

    What exactly is my extreme stance? That the people of Georgia are tired of anti-abortion warlords like the supporters of this bill? Even the Catholic church opposes this legislation.

    If you think 6% is a mandate, you have a little to learn about politics.

    The turnaround in the political alignment in Georgia has nothing to do with abortion. As many people who vote one way solely on this issue, vote the other way, solely on this issue. Where it hurts is in the primaries, where horrible candidates get picked over decent ones because the extremists hold more sway in the both parties.

    But go ahead, continue. Fight to keep abortion legal from sea to sea with your extremist positions. Roe v. Wade will never be overturned if people fear giving you the keys to power.

  11. Jane says:

    Rino’s said the Marriage amendment would never pass, but it did. It even passed in Urban Democrat areas. The Human Life Amendment deserves the same chance.

  12. Bill Simon says:

    I agree, Jane. I agree that it deserves a chance to be voted on.

    I wish it was on this November’s ballot…right along with Sunday alcohol sales.

    Dan Becker…can you think outside the GRTL box?

    How do you feel about allowing people to choose whether or not they want their municipality to be able to sell alcohol on Sundays? Do you believe in freedom like that?

  13. Jane says:

    While I may vote yes or vote no on Alcohol sales and I may vote yes or no on HLA, I, like Bill Simon, beleive the issue should be debated and vote on in public.

  14. Bill Simon says:

    Dan Becker, on the other hand, has no allowance for the possibility that there might actually be people who do not always box things into only two possible extremes.

  15. Dan Becker says:


    As far as” thinking outside the box”, I personally am NOT single issue and you might be surprised to find that we hold common ground in some areas, but as president of GRTL I WILL limit my public comments to the issue of Human Dignity and human rights that are under assault through advances in medical technology.

    I believe that the abortion issue will “go away” as soon as the scientific field of ecto-genesis (artificial womb) is perfected (predicted to occur this decade). After all, Roe vs Wade was predicated on two premises . . . the “right to privacy” and the “viability of the (zygote, embryo, fetus, baby).” If through an artificial womb, viability is extended to fertilization, then the State can have it both ways and abortion becomes moot. But unfortunately a whole host of new issues emerge.

    “It was enough that in the 20th century we were “pro-life, but in the 21st century we must also be “pro-human.” The two topics that are the emerging new battlegrounds are “trans-humanism” and “eugenics”. I would like to hear your perspective on these issues.

    Eugenics is the “genetic manipulation of the human species” to produce “superior humans”. Where have we heard that before? Who decides what traits are desirable? Who controls the decision making process . . . the State?

    Trans-humanism is the medical philosophy that is attempting to construct a “post-human species.” Medical science, the UN Committee of Health and Science and a whole bevy of bio-ethicists are grappling with the same questions posed by the current push for eugenic and transgenic policies at a governmental level. Do these concern you? They should!

  16. Jane says:

    Do not be too hard on Dan Becker. He is a true seeker like Elijah or even Cassandra. True Seekers are needed to keep us honest even if we are too practical to change our life or our opinions. Most people have a problem with Abortion, but are unwilling to support anything but the most minor restrictions. Only though public debate and the passing and the failing of referendums will the rest of us come to a point were we have to decide on the issue. Even if the HLA fails it will create an atmosphere for debate where voters will have to decide between the moral and the practical. Both sides argue from a moral position and have a right to argue their points. As for me, I will enjoy the debate and have at various points in my life been on both sides.

  17. Bill Simon says:


    If you do not believe there IS a right to privacy, then the door you open-up by overturning Roe v. Wade is to invite the government in to spy on you for any number of other reasons…and, if the “right to privacy” is erased by overturning R v. W, then all those “privacy laws” that affect all of us right now will be repealed/ignored.

    The Law of Unintended Consequences will kick more people’s butts by the Court rejecting the concept of a “right to privacy” than ANY number of abortions that have occured in the past 100 years.

    Think a little further in your game plan, Dan. Imagine a life without a “right to privacy.”

  18. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Doug Deal,

    You were talking to Bill Greene (profg)…the fake professor. He was really just a glorified teachers assistant.
    He is incoherent…in every aspect of his life. He is a crook as well. My dear friend “Federalist,” before his passing, would compare bill greene to david koresh. bill greene has no conscious and no ethical code. his moral compass is so screwed up I am suprised that he can find his way to the masses to spread that infectious propaganda that he calls reasoned argument.
    his ideology is more aligned with national socialism than it is with anything that can be considered American.

    Oh yeah, the human life amendment…come on. Is this what are taxes are paying for? I am tired of being taxed and not represented.

  19. bowersville says:

    Ditto, I hate to hear this about “Federalist.” I enjoyed the “Federalist’s” comments.

    Tell me you jest GC.

  20. profg says:

    GC, I know Goldwater Conservatives. I am close friends with a good number of Goldwater Conservatives. And YOU, sir, are NO Goldwater Conservative.

    I’m talking about REAL Goldwater Conservatives. The ones who headed up the “Youth For Goldwater For Vice President” organization in 1960, the ones who passed out thousands of copies of “Conscience of a Conservative,” the ones who were there in Chicago for his 1960 (not-as-famous) “Grow Up” speech (and took his advice, handing him the Presidential nomination 4 years later), the ones who formed the original YAF, and then created the New Right, and then led the Reagan Revolution.

    These people are all old now, and soon will be gone. But I am proud to count them among my friends, and proud that they supported my candidacy last year. They are the REAL Goldwater Conservatives. And you, sir, are NOT.

  21. profg says:

    Doug, it would appear that you would have called William Wilberforce an extremist, someone who was “scary” to normal Britons, “much like the abortion warlords of today.” Your opinion, therefore, holds no weight with me.

    You would likely have claimed in the 1800s, “People can come together on SOME common ground on this issue, but not with idiotic legislation like that which Wilberforce introduces year after year.”

    The analogy is clear, and consistent. Deal with it.

  22. profg says:


    Would you say that 57% = the general population of Georgia?

    Because that is the percentage of citizens of Georgia who SUPPORT the Human Life Amendment.

  23. Doug Deal says:


    I heard about Federalist as well, and I think few people even knew that he was sick.

    As for profg, before your comment, my thought was that he was the just GodHatesTrash opposite but equally evil twin.

  24. profg says:


    During the week of November 2-4, 2006, Strategic Vision, a national polling company, conducted a survey of 800 voters in Georgia and asked a number of questions. One of the questions relates to this issue. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points.

    “Would you like to see the United States Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that makes abortions legal in the United States?”

    57% said yes.

    So, depending on how you ask the question… if you ask if you want to see Roe v. Wade overturned (which HR 536 was explicitly written to do), 57% you shouldn’t doubt.

  25. profg says:

    By the way, during that same period the same question was asked in several other states with a much lower favorable response. The “Yes” responses are as follows:

    Washington: 26 %
    Pennsylvania: 33 %
    Michigan: 35 %
    New Jersey: 35 %
    Wisconsin: 37 %
    Florida: 38 %

    Georgia’s population is one of the most protective in the nation.

  26. Tea Party says:

    @GoldwaterConservative ‘tax w/o representation’ Ditto That (;>)

    Why is the infernal red herring issue of R v. W still being contested?

    True, abortion is an abomination to many. However, recreating a scenario where a young women in trouble, in a State that makes abortion illegal is even worse. An no ‘hellfire and brimstone’ for her ‘self-made’ troubles, either. It will happen and we cannot go back.

    Push for open adoptions, sex-ed, etc. and let’s move on to the critical issues of State, such as the medicare mess, deficits, Federal use of the social security trust fund. Oh, I don’t know, new energy policy, campaign finance, addressing the value-gap in education spending.

    Gee, its’ not as if there is a lack of serious issues.

  27. Tea Party says:

    profg your same 57% thinks that the universe was created 6,000 years ago. I am unimpressed with the majority, sir.

    “Beware the zealots”

  28. Dan Becker says:


    We hear this a lot. But it is a “strawman” argument. “If you do not believe there IS a right to privacy, then the door you open-up by overturning Roe v. Wade is to invite the government in to spy on you for any number of other reasons…and, if the “right to privacy” is erased by overturning R v. W, then all those “privacy laws” that affect all of us right now will be repealed/ignored.”

    Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

    “The Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process, and the “liberty” it protects includes more than the absence of physical restraint. In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the “liberty” specially protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion. We have also assumed, and strongly suggested, that the Due Process Clause protects the traditional right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment.”

    The only dispute we have with this is “and to abortion.” Some in the pro-life movement object to contraceptives, we don’t. We would agree that there is a “right to refuse unwanted lifesaving medical treatment” as long as we avoid euthanasia or assisted suicide. We believe that it is wrong to prolong the terminally ill process of dying so as to increase and prolong suffering.

    The right to privacy is so well entrenched and protected by our Bill of Rights and court rulings (see next message) that it will NOT suffer collapse due to one aspect of it being challenged. We are simply saying that all rights are NOT equal. One does NOT have a right to privacy to do whatever one wants (ie illegal drugs, etc.) . IF the right to life becomes paramount, then the “and to abortion” clause is struck from Glucksburg.

    After all . . . without a paramount right to life . . . all other rights are moot, wouldn’t you agree?

  29. Dan Becker says:

    This is why the right to privacy will NOT fall if the right to life is established as the paramount right.

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
    — Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    — Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
    — Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    “Technological developments, as well as social and cultural evolution, may affect how we think of particular rights, and these changes may also determine how those rights are defined. No better case exists than the right to privacy, a right that is not mentioned in the Constitution, and yet a right that the courts and the people have invested with constitutional status.”

    From the US Government Office of Information

    So once again I return to my original premise, Has medical technology reached the state where it is time to redefine “personhood” under our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? When was I NOT me? When did I become me?

    I think it is past time that we engaged in this discussion.

  30. Jason Pye says:

    Roe has to be overturned before Georgia can take any action. The HLA is misguided given the current state of constitutional law.

    I can agree that taxpayers shouldn’t fund the practice of abortion or pro-abortion groups (nor should they fund pro-life groups). The stance on the three typical exceptions by GRTL is troublesome.

    Assisted suicide should be legal. An individual should be allowed to die with dignity.

    I can’t help but believe that if GRTL had their way, Terri Schiavo would still be suffering.

  31. profg says:

    The question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical, not a scientific, question. (The use of massive historically incorrect and theoretically indefensible philosophy in the “delayed personhood” arguments has been addressed in Dianne N. Irving’s doctoral dissertation, A Philosophical and Scientific Analysis of the Nature of the Early Human Embryo [Georgetown University, Department of Philosophy, 1991]; see also several of her previously published articles in his book, co-authored by C. Ward Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth [Gold Leaf Press, 1995] ,which gives extensive references pro and con these bioethics arguments.)

    Philosophically, virtually any claim for so-called “delayed personhood” – that is, “personhood” does not start until some point after fertilization – involves the theoretical disaster of accepting that the idea or concept of a mind/body split has any correlate or reflects the real world. Historically this problem was simply the consequence of wrong-headed thinking about reality, and was/is totally indefensible. It was abandoned with great embarrassment after Plato’s time (even by Plato himself in his Parmenides), but unfortunately resurfaces from time to time, e.g., as with Descartes in his Meditations, and now again with contemporary bioethics. And as in the question of when a human being begins, if the science used to ground these philosophical “personhood” arguments is incorrect (as has been shown ad infinitum), the conclusions of these arguments (which are based on that incorrect science) are also incorrect and invalid.

    If, as BS, Bubba and others seem to assert, a “person” is defined in terms of the active exercising of “rational attributes” (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of “sentience” (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure), then one should consider simply the logical – and very real – consequences if a “person” is defined only in terms of the actual exercising of “rational attributes” or of “sentience.” What would this mean for the following list of adult human beings with diminished “rational attributes”: e.g., the mentally ill, the mentally retarded, the depressed elderly, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s patients, drug addicts, alcoholics – and for those with diminished “sentience,” e.g., the comatose, patients in a “vegetative state,” paraplegics, and other paralyzed and disabled patients, diabetics or other patients with nerve or brain damage, etc.? Would they then be considered as only human beings but not also as human persons? Would that mean that they would not have the same ethical and legal rights and protections as those adult human beings who are considered as persons? Is there really such a “split” between a human being and a human person?

    In fact, this is the position of bioethics writers such as the Australian animal rights philosopher Peter Singer, who was appointed Director of the Center for Human Values at Princeton University. Singer argues that the higher primates, e.g., dogs, pigs, apes, monkeys, are persons – but that some human beings, e.g., even normal human infants, and disabled human adults, are not persons. Fellow bioethicist Norman Fost actually considers “cognitively impaired” adult human beings as “brain dead.” Philosopher/bioethicist R.G. Frey has also published that many of the adult human beings on the above list are not “persons,” and suggests that they be substituted for the higher primates who are “persons” in purely destructive experimental research. The list goes on.

    Do you really want to come down on the same side, guys?

  32. profg says:

    Jason, Terri Schiavo only suffered the last few weeks of her life… when she was starved and dehydrated to death by judicial fiat in a murderous nanny state.

  33. Jason Pye says:

    She was brain dead long before she was taken off life support. Keeping her soul trapped in her body any longer than it should have was the real moral issue.

  34. profg says:


    A) She was never brain dead, by any medical or scientific definition. No one even claimed she was. They claimed she was in a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS), which is a highly-disputed classification within the medical field.

    B) A large bevy of doctors actually disputed whether Terri was even PVS, but was instead simply severely disabled.

    Woe be unto us when we start starving people to death because we think they are “suffering” from their disability.

  35. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Yes Mr. Simon and bowersville. Federalist passed away a few months ago. He had been suffering from a couple of things, but succumbed to cancer.
    Mr. Greene, you could not be more incorrect. I did work for Barry…not handing out his book, but was a senior staffer on his campaign. I actually know what I am talking about…you sir, well…are a bitter man whose beliefs have been proven to represent one of the few serious ailments that our nation suffers from. Namely intolerance and to second that one particular problem…you are very ignorant.

    Furthermore, Mr. Greene, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not going to trouble myself to read all that garbage you decided to post…it all says the same thing. That you are ignorant, intolerant and are a crook.

    Bill Greene is the true Catiline of America.

    Mr. Greene, this is a nation of law…not a nation of your belief or perverse distortion of a popular religion while marching around with a blinded flag. Manufacturing consent is the name of the game, right?
    The only reason you really wanted Terri Schaivo to continue living was so you could raise money for your pathetic PAC and publicize the end of that woman’s life to increase your political stock.

  36. Bill Simon says:


    The autoposy reported that her cortex had melted away…without a cortex (I seem to remember hearing about this cortex-concept somewhere before), one cannot discern pain or suffering.

    Of course, I know you know EVERYTHING about medicine, having learned on Dr. Bill Frist’s knee while he conducted a physical by viewing a video-taping of Terri Schiavo.

  37. BubbaRich says:

    Dan Becker and Prof Greene:

    You can eliminate a lot more abortions AND
    create a better group of freer people IF YOU JUST DO BETTER SEX EDUCATION. The very fact that you aren’t pushing this more than your unconstitutional laws to protect imaginary people (zygotes) tells me that you are much more interested in controlling real people and ruining their lives, and creating new people and ruining their lives, than you are in preventing abortions.

    Prof G: You’re not the guy behind the group “” that tried to get congress involved in the Schiavo case, are you?

  38. profg says:

    BS is incorrect, but as is the case with others like him, a little truth can make a big lie seem true.

    The autopsy did not report “that her cortex had melted away” — diagnose much, do you? — and that scan certainly doesn’t prove anything of the sort. Contrary to what you apparently have concluded without researching it, not one doctor ever diagnosed Terri as being “brain-dead.” This includes those who wrote her autopsy report. All of this information is easily available and accessible.

    In the United States brain death means whole brain death, including the death of the brain stem, which controls respiration and circulation. The definition of brain death was codified in 1980 in the Uniform Determination of Death Act, which has been adopted by most states. The UDDA noted that the “concept of ‘entire brain’ distinguishes determination of death under this Act from ‘neocortical death’ or ‘persistent vegetative state.'” A brain-dead patient will show virtually no electrical activity in any part of his or her brain. The concept of brain death was developed because advances in medical technology allowed physicians to maintain the respiration and circulation in patients who previously would have died from damage to their brains.

    Rarely, if ever, mentioned in media reports are the more than 40 doctors’ affidavits submitted to the court that either contradicted that Terri was in a so-called PVS or stated that she could have been helped with proper rehabilitation.

    The media also fails to report the medical records confirming that Terri at one time was beginning to speak, or the videos of Terri interacting with her family and her surroundings, all of which prove that she was very much alive, and very much responsive

    This has been a major problem with those ignorant of the facts – not just that they keep repeating the big lie that Terri was brain dead, but that they continue to inaccurately and irresponsibly report blatant falsehoods regarding Terri Schiavo’s condition.

    Schiavo’s autopsy itself proved that, prior to her death, she was never dying, was physically healthy and would have lived a long life had she not been dehydrated over a period of two weeks. Furthermore, the autopsy was unable to determine whether or not Terri was actually in a persistent vegetative state, as her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, and his attorney claimed in their quest to have her killed.

    The findings in the autopsy of Terri Schiavo leave the central issues in her life and death unanswered.

    For example, contrary to articles stating the autopsy report “supported” the diagnosis of “persistent vegetative state (PVS),” a neuropathology expert was careful to say that PVS is a clinical diagnosis rather than a pathological one. He added that nothing in the autopsy was “inconsistent” with a PVS diagnosis.

    The real elephant in the living room, of course, is whether or not we can really know how conscious anyone labeled “PVS” really is. Several studies have revealed high misdiagnosis rates, with conscious people being mistakenly regarded as totally and irrevocably unaware.

    The autopsy also documented significant brain atrophy, and the medical panel called the damage “irreversible.”

    This is NOT the same as saying she had no cognitive ability.

    PVS isn’t really a diagnosis; it’s a value judgment masquerading as a diagnosis. When it comes to the hard science, no qualified pathologist went on the record saying she couldn’t think or couldn’t experience her own death through dehydration.

    The core issues remain the same. Protection of the life and dignity of people under guardianship, and a high standard of proof in removing food and water from a person who can not express their own wishes. These are issues of great concern to the disability community – evidenced by the 26 national disability groups that spoke out in favor of saving Terri Schiavo’s life over the past few years.

    Terri Schiavo was simply a woman living with a disability, just like the 50 million persons living with a disability in our country today, and was in need of only love and compassion. This morbid desire to somehow justify her death is offensive to her memory and even more offensive to the tens of thousands of people who live with cognitive disabilities similar to Terri’s.

    Terri was guilty only of having a brain injury and being dependent on others for her care. Sadly, in today’s culture, this was not enough to save her from being killed. She fell victim to an ever-growing and dangerous “quality of life” standard used to decide whether one should live or die.
    The same standard being used to relegate the preborn to non-person, and even non-human, status (to bring us back to the actual topic of this thread).

  39. profg says:

    “Goldwater Conservative”, you say you “worked for Barry” on his “campaign”. Which one? What year? In what capacity? You know my name, but nobody seems to know yours, so you could certainly be lying (and are definitely doing so in your attacks on me).

    I can name the names of my friends who not only “worked on Barry’s campaign” (in 1960 AND 1964), but created YAF, wrote the Sharon Statement, helped ghost write his books, and much much more.

    You are definitely not a “Goldwater Conservative” if your methodology is to divert attention from the actual discussion at hand, by use of lies and false innuendos, to advance an agenda without bothering to even TRY to understand the issues that are being dealt with.

    The fact that you admit your refusal to read what is actually posted here belies your true self-imposed ignorance. And your reference to Catiline proves it: you’re willing to swallow whole the invectives of the mainstream media (whether it be David Fitzpatrick at the New York Times or Marcus Tullius Cicero in the Catiline Orations).

    Just to offer you a bit of much-needed instruction, Catiline is often presented to those ignorant of history as though he were Judas Iscariot’s younger and more wicked brother. Unfortunately, the historian has always to remember that the victors get to write history, and documents presenting the losers’ side are frequently suppressed. Accusations leveled against Catiline were (and still are) political commonplaces, and should not be taken at face value. Sallust’s description of Catiline is written with breathless indignation, but recent exploits by American politicians sound very much like Catiline’s adventures. Just pay attention to the news during any election year, and you know I mean. Roman politics in this period shared much of the flavor of Chicago in the ’20s. Cicero and his supporters gave as good as they got, and were often tried for the same things as Catiline (remember the Pro Milone? Probably not).

    Catiline clearly enjoyed support in various corners of the Senate, and not simply among the profligate. Even Julius Caesar was sufficiently sympathetic to Catiline’s agenda that he had to talk fast to dissociate himself from Catiline when talk in the Senate turned to accusations of conspiracy. Cicero himself had backed Catiline for some time, and the claims made by Cicero in the Senate came very late, after years of support. Catiline was also generally acquitted of the charges against him. These facts are of great importance in controlling the slanders thrown by Cicero and by subsequent ancient historians.

    All of this goes to show, “GC”, that I actually know what I am talking about, while you sir, are exposed as a bitter man whose beliefs have been proven to represent two of the most serious ailments that our nation suffers from: self-deceived blind intolerance of strongly-held faith beliefs, and self-imposed blind ignorance of the most basic of facts.

  40. profg says:

    Bubba, I ALREADY DO GOOD SEX EDUCATION (to use your Bubba-grammar). My middle- and high-school students, whom I have been co-educating since pre-K, are well-versed with age-appropriate information. That doesn’t change by one iota the fact that murder is wrong, no matter how old the victim is. Get your priorities straight.

  41. Goldwater Conservative says:

    Holy Crap! Bill Greene actually thought that I would not check wikipedia following his little history lesson about Catiline. I studied the classics sir…not wikipedia.

    Get a different life.

    I worked for Mr. Goldwater in his reelection campaign to the Senate.

  42. profg says:

    Wow, I’ll bet that’s the only way you know how to use the word Holy, isn’t it? GC, you studied the classic… lies. What was your degree in again? BS in Prevarication?

    Goldwater was in the Senate five terms. Let me guess: 1980? Was it YOUR fault he almost lost that one? No doubt, since you were surely in the upper echelons of campaign management. Right?

  43. Goldwater Conservative says:

    His first reelection in ’58. Stop attacking other people doing important things…like working.

    Fundraising…not political. You wouldn’t know much about fundraising though…if you did you may have pulled more than 3% of the vote.

    Federalist and I were classmates at one time. We studied political philosophy together at Chicago. He finished and went to teach at Harvard. I left to teach at Oregon…but this was during a hiatus that I took from political work.

    Where did you get your PhD. again? Wasn’t it that unaccreditted internet college?

    Do us all a favor Catiline. Stop taking out your inadequacies on other people. Envy is a sin, is it not?

    My beliefs do not matter…neither do yours. Fortunately most of the people in our country are reasonable enough to let people live their own lives. We do not need any more Big Government Evangelists like you telling us what is moral and that we should have a constitution more in line with the Bible.

    Leave us alone Mr. Greene.

  44. BubbaRich says:

    Prof G:

    First of all, I assume you really are the man behind “” based on your posts here. So I am REALLY not trying to convince you with the truth, you seem to be quite resistant. But other readers (if they exist) might care more about reality.

    I hope you really have done good sex education, whether you like that wording or not. You are using “co-educating” with an unfamiliar meaning, too, unless you are just bragging that they have boys and girls at their school. As long as the high school students know how to use contraceptives and condoms, then you might actually be helping the problem get better.

    “Murder” does not apply to zygotes or to Terri Schiavo. Your willingness to force everybody to agree with you and punish acts like these, possibly with judicial homicide, is why you will remain a fringe lunatic. As long as we’re responsibly educating the populace about human beings and brains.

Comments are closed.