Democrat Hypocrisy on Abortion, Privacy Rights

Reader Comments
Back to blog

And, I hope that all small government conservatives will stand with me to oppose both of these measures.
Don't get me wrong, I'm an organ donor. And, I think refusing to donate your organs is selfish and ignorant. But, that doesn't change the fact automatically signing people up for it is an overreach by the government.
And, don't even get me started on the paternalistic ultrasound law. The implication of course being that a woman has a right to choose but not the brains to make the "right" choice.
There is no bigger government than one that reaches into our personal, private lives and dictates what we must and must not do.

M of CA 2:45PM May 04, 2010

I believe that all new york democrats should be subjected to repeated involuntary proctoscope exams. Doubtless, some would enjoy the process, but it should be done so that we can find anything bad there which would require rectification.

Mayor Bloomberg of NY 12:16PM May 03, 2010

I mean what are they afraid of? Liberals want to keep women in the dark as the abortion issue is concerned. They want to teach school kids about masturbation and condoms but they staunchly oppose any measure that would teach a young girl about the growing fetus or the abortion procedure. This is why liberals hate the ultra-sound idea because it will reveal a living person who is dependant on the person who is about to kill it. Shine the light and the rats will run for cover. Liberals are cowardly and very shameful.

smittty of IA 11:56AM May 03, 2010

According to the Associated Press, "The person who performs the ultrasound must describe the dimensions of the fetus, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether the physician can detect cardiac activity. He or she must also turn a screen depicting the images toward the woman so she can see them."

S 11:32AM May 03, 2010

Dear Marjorie Cleggs:
If we give organs first to registered organ donors, more lives will be saved because more people will donate. There is nothing unethical or morally repulsive about saving lives.
When you die, you can donate your organs or you can bury them or you can cremate them. Those are your only choices. If you're not willing to give, why should you be at the front of the list of those who need to get? Aren't you playing God by refusing to donate organs that could save your neighbors' lives?
Anyone who wants to donate their organs to other organ donors can join LifeSharers at www.lifesharers.org.

Dave Undis of TN 9:42AM May 02, 2010

David Undis has it all wrong. Yes I agree there should be incentives to encourage people to opt in or not opt out. But NOT at the risk to their own health by sending them to the bottom of the list if they opt out. That is barbaric, morally and ethically just so wrong. You cannot play with people's lives, you are not God! Our body belongs to us and it is up to us what we do with it. Do you deny the drunkard a liver transplant? Do you deny the person who eats so much sugar they are now diabetic and need a new kidnay - do you deny them a kidney? Why not penalise the people who live unhealthy lives that then make their organs fail? Tell them they have to go to the back of the list and people who have inherited diseases or transplants not due to a badly lived life go to the top of the list. Why penalise people by saying they will die if they do not sign up to give their organs, as being put to the bottom of the list (and obviously staying there) will eventually lead to their death.
David Undis I find your idea repulsive.

Marjorie Cleggs 3:26AM May 02, 2010

I can imagine many things;
Imagine a world where honor and responsibility were more important than choice.
Imagine a world without millions of the unborn being torn from their mothers wombs.
Imagine a world where couples actually have to exercise self restraint, planning and judgment instead of using abortion as birth control.
Imagine a world where convenience and scheduling weren’t as important as human life.
Imagine a world where there are enough babies for those who desperately want to adopt.
Imagine a world where both partners accepted the consequences of their behavior instead of killing the unborn to avoid the consequences for their selfish mistakes.
Imagine a world where the Constitution wasn’t warped and misshapen to conform to popular social and political attitudes. .
Imagine a world where a nurturing womb wasn’t turned in a slaughter house at the whim of irresponsible parents.
Imagine a world where the value of human life wasn't determined by the "wanting" of it.
Finally, imagine a world where mothers, when looking into the faces of later children, weren’t haunted by the specter of the one earlier swept away and the ghosts of what might have been.
That’s right Ms. Erbe, imagine...

R.L. Schaefer of CA 12:10AM May 02, 2010

According to the new Oklahoma bill, every woman must submit to an invasive, medically unnecessary procedure before getting even a medically necessary abortion. There are no provisions or exceptions. Let's forget that this assumes that the woman is incapable of making this decision on her own for a moment - this means that a woman that has been raped has the same measure of control during the procedure as she did the rape - close her eyes and pretend it's not happening.
But a dead body gets more consideration. Yeah, excellent comparison.
Just hand me the burka now so we can get this over with.

the "irrational" sex of CA 9:14PM May 01, 2010

Notice how aura attacks religion instead of confronting the problems of her own worldview. As Rich and I have commented, atheists like any ethical "compass" or standard by which they base their moral judgments. Instead, she tries to make a moral argument that God is evil. But because she holds to an atheistic worldview where "might makes right" or morality has no definition, how does her argument work? It doesn't. For sake of argument, let's say God is evil and wicked. But He is omnipotent and therefore "makes right" His actions. Therefore, God is morally right. But if morality has no definition and is simply a chemical imbalance within the human mind, then God can not be as immoral as she tries to make Him out to be. So in the end she can not even support her own argument because atheism can't define morality.
If anyone is truly interested about topics like the conquering of Canaan and so forth and how that can be reconciled with a loving God, I suggest talking to a pastor or reading "A Case for Faith."
See how aura uses a select few to represent an entire group? Not all Christian ministers, preachers, and pastors receive an income through tithes. Those that do are often paid in a small amount. Preaching doesn't pay very well overall. Rick Warren, though he preaches at a large church, gives majority of what he earns back to the church! Mother Teresa did not take donations for her charity work and make it into a huge mansion. The early church actually sold their belongings in order to use the profits to meet the needs for the poor. Tithes support summer camps for children, mission trips to build houses or to give medical aide, etc. Also, if you read the Bible, you'll find that Christianity isn't about money.
Notice how willing aura is to have women kill the unborn. The unborn deserve life as anyone else. But does aura really care about the poor (financially) women? No! She is more concerned about her money and taxes than humans. She doesn't promote supporting charities or churches that are focused on helping the poor so that abortion doesn't need to become a financial necessity. Instead, she would rather attack Christians and twist their religion in order to save a few bucks.

Patrick of KY 1:00PM May 01, 2010

If we're going to presume people are organ donors unless they opt out, there needs to be a reward for not opting out. Donated organs should be allocated first to those who haven't opted out. People who opt out of organ donation should go to the back of the transplant waiting list. The United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the national organ allocation system, has the power to make this simple policy change. No legislative action is required.
Americans who want to donate their organs to other registered organ donors don't have to wait for UNOS to act. They can join LifeSharers, a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
According to a new survey by Donate Life America 43 percent of people are undecided, reluctant or do not wish to have their organs and tissue donated after their deaths. Is this because Americans don't know there is an organ shortage? No. The survey also reports that 78 percent realize there are more people who need organ transplants in the U.S. than the number of donated organs available.
Just about every single one of the 43% of Americans who aren't willing to register as organ donors would accept an organ transplant if they needed one to live. As long as we let non-donors jump to the front of the waiting list when they need transplants we'll always have an organ shortage.
David J. Undis
Executive Director
LifeSharers

Dave Undis of TN 8:02AM May 01, 2010