The Queen's Court

Subscribe

Titles RSS

Get Posts by Email

Will We Ever Have A Candidate...

That isn't afraid to say that allowing gays to marry is fine. Even Sir "Hope and Change" can't mange to be in favor of full marital rights for same sex couples. It's always the same civil union canard.

If you are fine with 14 year olds having abortions without parental consent; how much worse do you think being pro-same sex marriage will be for you?

Seriously, in my mind, I find it offensive that people think that parental rights stop when their pet political issue is on the line. And while I understand that people have "issues" with same sex marriage, I don't give a rat's ass. Two loving adults want to make a commitment to each other, to spend their lives in a faithful union...I just don't understand how promoting family, fidelity and love is worse than underage abortions and gun bans.

I just don't get it.

Posted by Rosemary on 04.07.2008
TQL:
If you are fine with 14 year olds having abortions without parental consent; how much worse do you think being pro-same sex marriage will be for you?

Honestly, with Obama the civil union vs. gay marriage thing is really an issue of semantics - weenie semantics. He would extend the same legal protection to gay and lesbian unions, he just wouldn't call it marriage. It's a weenie move, but I see where he's coming from, and as long as civil unions have the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, I'd be willing to make that compromise. What I don't agree with is how he can support striking down DOMA, but then turn gay marriage/civil unions into a state's rights issue. We've already seen what a disaster that is here in Michigan...
4.7.2008 10:13am
Ara Rubyan (www):
Even Sir "Hope and Change" can't manage to be in favor of full marital rights for same sex couples.

"Even?"

Since when did he become the Green Lantern?
4.7.2008 10:18am
Rosemary, Queen of All Evil (mail):
TQL,

The problem is that with politicians it's always semantics on the gay marriage issue. That's what pisses me off. They have no problem being for things that are abhorrent to most people but on an issue of basic fairness - they wuss out.
4.7.2008 10:35am
TQL:
Rose:

True. And he's not the only one of the Dems to wuss out on this issue. Hillary does as well. I think part of it is them trying to appeal to the Dems, like me, who are also strong Christians. It ain't cute to me...
4.7.2008 10:39am
shep (mail):
"The problem is that with politicians it's always semantics on the gay marriage issue. That's what pisses me off."

What about the word "politician" do you still not understand?

Oh, and when did you become so all-fired anxious to see fourteen-year-old girls have babies?
4.7.2008 1:00pm
Rosemary, Queen of All Evil (mail):


I'm fired up at the idea that parental rights are subordinate to the liberal agenda.
4.7.2008 1:09pm
shep (mail):
"I'm fired up at the idea that parental rights are subordinate to the liberal agenda."

In this case, the “liberal agenda” is the future of a fourteen-year-old girl who might have parents who think that their rights or the rights of a clump of cells take precedence. Hard to believe, I know, but they’re really out there.

And on the civil unions thing, it’s up to churches to decide if they want to marry gay people, it’s up the government to provide equal protection under the law. Civil unions fits the bill, especially for a politician; no semantics required.
4.7.2008 1:43pm
TQL:
"I'm fired up at the idea that parental rights are subordinate to the liberal agenda."

Not supporting parental consent for abortions is not about negating parentalal rights, it's about maintaining the autonomy of the girl who seeks to have an abortion, but her parents will not allow it. After having to jump through hoops to help someone get an abortion in a parental consent state, I realize the laws are a smokescreen for pro-life people to restrict abortion access. Plain and simple.
4.7.2008 2:41pm
Ara Rubyan (www):
The government needs to privatize marriage. Get the government out of the marriage business.
4.7.2008 3:22pm
Rosemary, Queen of All Evil (mail):
Not supporting parental consent for abortions is not about negating parentalal rights, it's about maintaining the autonomy of the girl who seeks to have an abortion, but her parents will not allow it. After having to jump through hoops to help someone get an abortion in a parental consent state, I realize the laws are a smokescreen for pro-life people to restrict abortion access. Plain and simple.

A minor has no autonomy. That's what being a minor means. Unable to consent. Plain and simple.
4.7.2008 3:54pm
Ara Rubyan (www):
Even if her own father is also the father of her baby, right?

Because that NEVER happens.
4.7.2008 4:09pm
IB Bill (mail):
You got me confused on this one, Rosemary.

I just don't understand how promoting family, fidelity and love is worse than underage abortions and gun bans.

Let's parse this. Essentially, what you're saying is you don't see how "gay marriage" is worse than underage abortions and gun bans. So because other things are wrong and aren't changed, this thing should be allowed, too.

*****

Personally, I don't think fetus' should be allowed to carry underage guns, and I don't care what the conservatives think about it.
4.7.2008 4:44pm
Rosemary, Queen of All Evil (mail):
No Bill. What I'm saying is that Liberals seem fine with chucking the 2nd amendment and allowing children to abort babies but somehow they don't have the stones to stand up for two same sex adults who want to have a loving, faithful union.

Seems a bit strange to me.
4.7.2008 5:02pm
TQL:
A minor has no autonomy. That's what being a minor means. Unable to consent.

But, she consented (and yes, I use that term loosely, but still...) to have sex. When motherhood, or potential motherhood, enters the pictre, their status as a minor is minimized because she has very adult decisions and responsibilities ahead of her. Ones that she should be able to make with coercion from family to either continue or terminate a pregnancy.
4.7.2008 5:12pm
TQL:
whoops... supposed to read without coercion.
4.7.2008 5:34pm
McKiernan:
You had it right the first time TQL.
4.7.2008 5:38pm
TQL:
Only when the coercion suits your needs and wishes as a parent, right McK?
The ends justify the means, I suppose...
4.7.2008 6:00pm
McKiernan:
You know TQL, you may have it slightly incorrect.

I never counselled my dtr, even when she was a preg, until she called me one day and asked my opinion on abortion.

I merely told her, that there was more than one human life under consideration.

I never wished for a black grandson, but he is now welcomed in my home and we support him.

If that be coercion, then, so be it.
4.7.2008 6:14pm
TQL:
McK:
My comment wasn't a personal attack against you and your daughter's decision. And Thankfully, she felt safe and comfortable to ask you your opinion. But that type of concern and grantng of opinion in the way you described it doesn't always happen.

You do know that, rig ht?
4.7.2008 6:23pm
McKiernan:
Well, perhaps, but I often wonder why she asked me
the question and not her mother whom she initially phoned.

You seem to present the situation as non-negotiable territory that only the less than adult-child can validly determine.
4.7.2008 6:31pm
TQL:
McK:

No, I'm saying that I trust a girl to not only make a personal and emotional decision but also knows the dynamics of her family in whether or not her decision to have an abortion will be supported and that she won't be *punished* by her family for getting pregnant.

That is great that you have the relationship with your daughter where she felt safe and comfortable to ask you what you thought and hopefully thought you would've supported her decision regardless. But, that is not the case with all, dare I say many, families. And I would rather not have parental consent laws than have girls, who often have few resources or support, be forced to jump through all kinds of legal hoops to have an abortion and continue with a pregnancy they are not equipped to handle.

...but really, I have a sense that we are on different sides of this issue generally speaking.
4.7.2008 9:37pm
shep (mail):
"You seem to present the situation as non-negotiable territory that only the less than adult-child can validly determine."

Um, no. It is parental notification laws which make the pregnant minor's future non-negotiable territory, if the parent so wishes. That's what they're designed to do - make a choice at the expense of a young adult person for the benefit of a zygote.

OK, that's not quite right. They're really designed for the benefit of "pro-life" politicians. Perhaps a distinction without much of a difference.
4.7.2008 9:48pm
IB Bill (mail):
What I'm saying is that Liberals seem fine with chucking the 2nd amendment and allowing children to abort babies but somehow they don't have the stones to stand up for two same sex adults who want to have a loving, faithful union.

OK, I get what you're saying. Abortion and the second amendment are about natural rights, and pro-choice and gun bans are about taking away someone's natural rights. Similarly, "same sex" marriage is about expanding the definition of marriage to remove gender and changing it into a "loving faithful union (with sodomy to distinguish it from mere friendships), and thus weakening the entire concept of natural rights. It's a bit of a stretch, but I'll go with it.

I mean, if you're gonna be on the side of disarming the population and declaring unborn to be property, why not destroy the definition of marriage while you're at it?

It's a consistent position, Rosemary. Thanks for the clarification.
4.7.2008 10:10pm
shep (mail):
“It's a consistent position, Rosemary. Thanks for the clarification.”

Good lord. This is where I’m always right (when you spout a bunch of doctrinaire nonsense) and no one (meaning you) could possibly offer any reasonable (meaning totally unreasonable) alternative opinion.

“Natural rights,” meaning those rights we are born with (the operative words being born with) are the rights to be free of coercion by others, especially government, in our exercise of free choice. They include the right to love whom we choose to love in the way that we choose to love them, the right have children (if that’s an option based upon whom we decide to love) or not if we so choose, or the right to own a firearm – though insignificant relative to the previous examples.

Real, non-doctrinaire “natural rights” define our rights to live our lives as we choose without interference from government, other people (including wacko religious nutjobs who wish to use governments as their instruments of tyranny) as long as we do no direct harm to others (meaning actual thinking, living-outside-someone-else’s-womb people). So: choice not to bare a child – natural right; choice to have a gun – natural right; choice to marry someone of the same gender – natural right; choice to fuck that person if they’re good with that – natural right.

That’s a consistent position and you’re just as clueless as Rosemary about the concept.
4.8.2008 12:46am
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I think what you're saying shep, is that consistency in determining what is a natural right should come ... naturally, right? It shouldn't seem remotely like a stretch.

So while we're at it, if it's a natural, or inalienable right, it's bestowed upon conscious human beings (choose your own trimester or wait birth -- that's another argument). Government setting the age of maturity at an arbitrary date, denying your freedom of choice even if you're 13 -- as long as that choice is one of those natural rights -- violates the inalienable nature of that right to choose.

But (to borrow Timothy Leary's argument) we don't let 12 year olds play with chain saws, or drugs. They're too young, they can't handle it.

I hate this issue, always have. I think it's stupidly irresponsible to only fund abstinence only education, and we should make them aware of all sorts of contraceptive methods, and make them more available to young horny folks. And yep, that'll lead to more fucking, and they're too young, and can't handle it.

But they will and they do and they will get themselves knocked up and then it's a moral, very personal decision for a young lady whose too young and can't handle it.

And kids raising kids sucks too, and is cause for a downward spiral of more of the same.

My bottom line, in any regulation of abortion, there must, must, must be exceptions beyond mere health of the mother, but also for rape, incest.

Besides, they're just kids. From the Zygote Americans to the little 15 yr old trollop seducing vulnerable 50 year old men trying to recapture a misspent youth, they are messy, whiny little pains in my ass.

If they weren't so damn cute and there weren't laws against it, there'd be a lot less of them, cuz they can really get on yer nerves. [wink thing]
4.8.2008 1:23am
IB Bill (mail):
Well, Shep, that's actually a fairly collegial answer for you, I suppose, even though you called it doctrinaire nonsense, clueless, and if I understand the last part of your second sentence, totally unreasonable.

To stick with abortion, exactly what magically happens exactly at birth that confers natural rights? That is, the hour before birth, when a healthy baby is ready to go, and could survive outside the womb, has no natural rights according to you. We can kill it, according to your position, and call that "freedom of choice." The baby has no "natural rights." I guess I'd ask you not only the question above, but what is the source of these natural rights?
4.8.2008 6:54am
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Bill, you don't have to be a believer to follow the logic chain of natural rights theory. Indeed, it probably helps keep it theoretically pure if silly things like faith and doctrine don't get in the way. Jefferson, who despised the priest riddled culture, was exceptional at expressing it.

Keeping to abortion, as you suggest (and not put words in shep's keyboard since he can write for himself very well), legal recognition of a natural right, be it life of the blathocyst through maturity or right to live life freely including choices about pregnancy termination denied due to immaturity are obviously arbitrary. Granting government sanction or protection of these rights does not alter their inherent grant from nature itself.

Hence the balance we find in Roe and the Akron Reproductive Rights case on parental notification between conflicting natural rights. I've seen so many conservatives take it on faith to say that Roe was somehow decided wrong. That's bull. It was a thoughtful compromise based on the technology at the time. O'Conner pointed out in Akron that Roe was on a collision course with itself as viability (the arbitrary point the court decided it would recognize fetal rights) becomes possible earlier and earlier. That didn't make Roe wrong, just not permanent.

But it's really not the philosophical that is the problem, it's funding. Funding rational contraception education, funding robust and safe foster care systems, funding prenatal care and children's health insurance, funding job training and parental training and day care for all too young moms, and educating young men that they bear responsibility for raising their offspring too -- and providing the tools and assistance for them when needed.

The anti-abortion crowd is all about overturning Roe in the courts. But courts don't fund the necessary consequences such a ruling would demand, or at least should demand if the cheap greedy bastards (conservatives) weren't the one's pushing that result.
4.8.2008 8:34am
IB Bill (mail):
Keeping to abortion, as you suggest (and not put words in shep's keyboard since he can write for himself very well), legal recognition of a natural right, be it life of the blathocyst through maturity or right to live life freely including choices about pregnancy termination denied due to immaturity are obviously arbitrary. Granting government sanction or protection of these rights does not alter their inherent grant from nature itself.

I had a little trouble with this sentence. (That's not a criticism.) Is the subject-verb-object essentially, "[L]egal recognition of a natural right ... [is] obviously arbitrary."

If so, that's the logical concession that I was looking for. If natural rights are arbitrary, then they're contingent, fluid, subject to the whims of public opinion, and thus, ultimately, don't exist a priori.

That said, I think you contradict yourself when you say "inherent grant from nature." Are you a pantheist? Nature doesn't grant you any rights except that life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

With your concession that there must be recourse to some kind of thing outside the system, you agree (rightly) that you can't define a system within a system. Kurt Godel demonstrated that conclusively in his incompleteness theorem. Natural rights cannot be protected within this system. Hence, Jefferson, presciently, wrote, "and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

But I don't think "nature" is an adequate source of rights outside the system. We follow nature, what we get is something akin to survival of the fittest. Which I think we would all agree is not the best source of morality.

BTW, could've done with the "cheap greedy bastards (conservatives)" line. Cheapness and greed are widely distributed character flaws and not limited to one political party.

I also agree with you that should Roe be overturned, there needs to be a plan for dealing with the consequences of it. Roe would only send the issue back to the states ... and would no doubt be dealt with on a state-by-state basis.
4.8.2008 9:44am
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Stop the victory dance Bill. You were overreaching when you said,

If so, that's the logical concession that I was looking for. If natural rights are arbitrary, then they're contingent, fluid, subject to the whims of public opinion, and thus, ultimately, don't exist a priori.
you're missing the important qualifier.

Natural rights are not arbitrary. Legal recognition and/or limitation of them are arbitrary modification of a right that does indeed exist a priori merely because that is the state of existence. Corpses don't have any more rights than rocks. Legal rules are subject to the whims of legislators, capricious executives, the prejudice of the courts and pressure from public opinion. Putting rules on when and where you can build a dam doesn't stop water from flowing downhill pursuant to it's nature.

No concession. Your confusion is a result of my poor writing style and possibly wishful thinking on your part. ;-) BTW, I submit that conservatives as a group are a completely enveloped subset of cheap greedy bastardism. YMMV.

Nature is also not a recourse, not something we defer to. Not something higher or more lofty. It's merely a state of being. If you have the right to exist, you have the right to make the most of that existence. Nature in this sense isn't "something else." It just is.

You are here. I have to deal with your cheap greedy bastardly nature since your right to exist and live the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish" way you prefer (the choice of your natural disposition) is no greater than my right to choose a benevolent and socially responsible existence.

Nature grants you the rights recognized by Jefferson -- and I would add the right to the occasional ice-cream sundae to the list. Cognito ergo sum, says nothing of the quality of that existence but the right to attempt to find the perfect frozen confection.

It doesn't take a lesson in morality, however, to understand that IBBill-blood flavored frozen yogurt is unacceptable merely because it violates your right to exist and not be sacrificed to my frozen margarita machine. It only takes an acknowledgment that your right to an insufferably miserable life is no greater or less than my right to exist in perfect tranquility with all those with who I have contact and making your life better just because I exist.

It has nothing to do with one's morality, which is different than ethics and not something required in a legal system, while ethics are essential to proper administration of the law. Morality is a judgment that differs from person to person. People have a right to think differently since thinking proves their existence as a unique, different person.

Unlike ethics which looks at conflicts of interest, morality is rife with contradictions and thus unsuitable for basing a legal system upon. Morals differ from person to person. Holding to one's own moral code is based on personal values, not objective criteria. Your morality may be internally inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy and wholly at odds with my values, which are mine and are part of what make me (and everyone fortunate enough to know me) happy. I have no right to force you to be happy (although the sheer force of my natural gestalt makes happiness nearly irresistible since I can be a force of nature at times.)

Only someone who believes that nature is more than mere existence and equivalent to a divinely inspired "grant from above" needs to interject a benevolent godhead into a legal system. It can function perfectly well without resorting to the moral doctrines used to make children behave who cannot grok higher concepts of rights you have and wrongs you commit against your neighbor's rights.

Also, I didn't put words in shep's mouth, don't put ones in mine. I didn't say Roe should be overturned. I said I agree with Sandy Day O'C, that it is on a collision course with itself as technological means to make viability earlier in the pregnancy is chipping away at Roe's rationale. Not the same thing. Roe is being overturned by science, not politics.
4.8.2008 11:08am
shep (mail):
"To stick with abortion, exactly what magically happens exactly at birth that confers natural rights? That is, the hour before birth, when a healthy baby is ready to go, and could survive outside the womb, has no natural rights according to you."

Actually, I may be one of the six people on the planet who thinks that Roe got it pretty close to right. Viability matters when it comes to human rights. In other words, something that essentially part of the woman is dependent upon her rights but a viable-outside-the-womb infant has, practically and morally, greater individual rights.

I admit, it's a messy and imperfect solution to a messy and imperfect problem. Giving the rights of a clump of cells or a non-viable fetus primacy over the rights of an adult woman is far beyond merely imperfect.
4.8.2008 1:04pm
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Count me as one of the six, shep. However, the trimester formula is becoming obsolete. One can conceive of a point (if we're not already there) where viability is arguably achieved at conception.

If tissue fertilized in a petri dish can be implanted and grow to maturity, we may be at the point were a fertilized tissue mass may be safely removed, preserved and implanted where it's more wanted instead of the womb attached to a young lady who would rather not be a mommy right now.
4.8.2008 6:10pm
shep (mail):
I take your point Mark but a petri dish has no countervailing rights so that's an easy call. In any other human "host", there will always be a point where the developing human being becomes capable of living independently. That's an important stage of development in considering its relative right to life.
4.8.2008 6:57pm
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Eventually, the host may become unnecessary.
4.8.2008 10:31pm
shep (mail):
"Eventually, the host may become unnecessary."

Yes, I suppose that The Matrix will make all of these pesky moral questions moot. Long live Pfizer-LaRoche-Johnson &Microsoft!
4.8.2008 11:34pm
matoko_chan (mail):
The Founders were absolute geniuses.
Certainly they never foresaw samesexmarriage or abortion rights.
But I do think they totally believed that a religious majority might someday attempt to deny the rights of citizen minorities.
t
The Founders were very sensitive on the issue of freedom of religion.
Thus the judiciary.
The separation of powers is like a failsafe for citizen rights.
So eventually samesexmarriage will be made legal by judicial fiat, like abortion rights.

People are not shaped by culture, they shape culture according to their needs.
My cousins in middle school have gay friends, emokids are notably bi-curious.
The old taboos fade and grow faint for the next generations.
4.9.2008 11:21pm
matoko_chan (mail):
and the j-womb is prolly another few years out.

then GW could raise all those 400,000 snowflake embryos that are cryostasis, lolz.
4.9.2008 11:35pm
Account:
Password:
Remember info?

Pay Tribute to the Queen

Tip Jar

Amazon Wish List

QOAE's Amazon Wishes


R.I.P. Steven Malcolm Anderson

/archives/flag_half_mast.gif

November 27, 2005

Minion of the Week



QOAE's Favorite article or person

Most Recent Proclamations

Who Is The
Queen of All Evil?

Email Policy

© 2004 Rosemary Esmay & QOAE.net
© 2004 Alice Kondraciuk, web design