Comments on: John Stossel vs business bashing meddlers at Emory – part two

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:25:57 +0000

the numbers that would otherwise not take place, is it puny. Clearly any number is bad and the concept of govt paying for “rights” is a huge concept that is one of the main ones that has us slouching towards Gomorrah.

agreed

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:07:32 +0000

There are people who believe that a woman has a fundamental right to choose an abortion in the same way as the fundamental right to legal counsel. To paraphrase Miranda…You have a right to an abortion, and if you can not afford an abortionist then an abortionist will be provided for you.

You are talking statistics instead of concept.
I don’t know how many abortions were performed in the US before the Roe decision in 1973, but it wasn’t a puny statistic. I am against abortion on demand, and John Stossel’s views on the issue trouble me less than Rudy Giuliani’s views.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:00:08 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:55:58 +0000

Yes, I am happy that JS is against govt funding for abortions, but that is a puny distinction given that we have had 49 million+ abortions since 1973, a small % of which have been paid for by the govt, and even fewer of which would not have occurred but for govt funding.

One of my great fears in the health care debate is that more dems cave on socialized medicine just because they can wave around a flag that they saved babies lives from govt funded abortions, when all they have done is posture over a provision that saves ZERO baby lives but vote for a bill that ruins the lives of us all.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:51:54 +0000

in Roe v Wade, Pandora’s Box was opened for barbarism against really small people. It shows how barbaric we are.

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:28:09 +0000

My main concern is the intolerance the Left has for us Social Conservatives. If it comes down to allowing the states to control these issues, then one can certainly choose to live in a state which most acceptable to their way of life. The critical issue for me, is the infringement on my right to adhere to my beliefs.

The Social Conservatives have not only abortion to struggle against, but the idea of forcing us to accept practices that go against our faiths. For example, Catholic Charities in Mass. have to give up doing any adoptions because the state was trying to force them to allow gay couples to adopt, or the threat that Catholic hospitals or physicians face on having to perform abortions, etc. I know there is current protection by law, but we have to constantly battle for our right to not participate in something against our conscience. If that can be resolved, I have no problem limiting my thinking on what others do in their lifestyle, only in the context that the viciousness of the Left is imposing their will against my freedom to choose otherwise. If Libertarians can accept Social Conservatives in the context that we frame our lives, I certainly can accept theirs. At least I think we have more in common with them and we can work together.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:05:19 +0000

Let us reason together at the federal level and compete over social issues at the state level.

I think we need to grow our numbers to fight this radical power hungry group with an agenda that currently occupy WH and a majority in Congress.

By: penguin2

penguin2 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:53:59 +0000

The problem I see happening is a lot bigger than meddling. The Radical Left is intent on a Socialist takeover of the country. Their tactics are fascist. In other words, meddling is too mild a word for what is happening. Maybe it is as Rockefeller is quoted in your diary, disregarding state and federal rights, he goes on to say “I care about results.”

This is what we are dealing with, a radical Socialist power hungry group with an agenda that is so foreign to the average American, they have no idea of the extent of change destined for their lives. Perhaps it can be equated with the extreme scenes of the 60′s, only we have extreme without the violence.

By: pilgrim

pilgrim — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:13:59 +0000

It is important to remember that he can be pro-choice and against meddling by the government to have to pay for a woman to get an abortion. In other words he believes a woman can choose a legal medical procedure of abortion, but she does not have an extra entitlement right to have her abortion paid for by taxpayers if she doesn’t have the money for it. This is in stark contrast to Rudy Giuliani who believes and said during the last primary that a woman has a fundamental right to choose abortion, and since it is a right then a poor woman should have public tax dollars pay for it. It made me wince when I heard him say that.

As a social conservative I gladly accept John Stossel’s company in taking on the fight against the big government meddlers in DC who are dismantling the US economy.

By: tankertodd

tankertodd — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:12:02 +0000

One of the impacts of Obama and Big Government is that I question more the role of government in our lives. That leads me to question legislation around marriage and drugs. I would favor liberalizing both since the government that can tell you you can’t take this drug or that drug is powerful enough to take your property or enroll you in a stupid ponzi scheme against your will. It’s all a question of degree for me at this point. I don’t want the government in our lives, and to what extent we can safely pull that off we should at least consider. Legalizing all drugs tomorrow would be a catastrophe. Legalizing gay marriage tomorrow would be a mess but we could work through that.

Abortion is the big exception. An abortion affects another life. I define a life as a human being with its own DNA and blood supply. A fetus has both. How people don’t make that argument with respect to abortion is beyond me. It isn’t the woman’s body – it’s someone else’s. You can’t mess with it any more than you can mess with another person.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:15:09 +0000

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:55:32 +0000

By: Steph C

Steph C — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:46:29 +0000

their meddling is the cause of their failures. It will ever be “someone else’s” fault.

Glad to find myself in such good company as John Stossel.