Thursday, February 17, 2011

a video (WARNING: Contains Politics)

Presented without commentary.


The Beard said...

Wouldn't you consider the title of the post commentary?

Nitpicking aside, that is a very visually strong commercial that delivers the message both efficiently and effectively.

Bob said...

Y'know what? You're right. Consider that fixed.

Sarge said...

Lisa Edelstein's performance is pretty good too.

Euler d'Moogle said...

Oh wow.... a very typical successful American political advert.

- Emotional,
- To the point,
- And completely lacking any sort of context.

Is there an upcoming bill I'm supposed to be angry about? Does it actually do what the advert suggests, that is make abortion illegal or does it do something entirely different. (For example, the health care bill "Death Panels" were about offering end of life counseling, not deciding who lives or dies despite the rhetoric.) Is this an important turning point or just more bureaucratic shuffling? The lack of context here is staggering.

If you're linking of this video part of a discussion on film making techniques, I'm all ears. This is an incredibly effective piece of propaganda, much like the "Daisy" advert of Lyndon B. Johnson. On the other hand, if there's a political point to be made here, colour me unimpressed.

Arman said...

This entire commercial is a bald faced lie.

What the Republicans have done is propose that taxpayer money, (a.k.a your money, my money, our money) doesn't find its way in the hands of Planned Parenthood a. The bill doesn't make abortion illegal. What it does is makes it so that if you want to murder your offspring, you gotta do it on your on dime, not my dime.

To even HINT that this is some sort of an assault on women's right is intellectually dishonest. Especially when we're discussing cutting funding to an organization caught giving advice to 14 year olds in sex rings how to avoid law enforcement.

Short version: This is Bullshit!

Nick said...

Especially when we're discussing cutting funding to an organization caught giving advice to 14 year olds in sex rings how to avoid law enforcement.

Oh, you mean in those blatantly faked videos?

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...


please think before you speak.. murder your child?

Do you really think any woman would ever want to go through an abortion? Do you have any clue what the emotional torture is?

And what if the woman is just not ready to have a child! Then you have ruined two lives, the woman and the childs.. to have an abortion does not equal not having children, often it just means to have them at a later time when the time is more right.

Do not pretend you have the faintest idea what it's like to even consider it, especially when your so carelessly throwing around words like that.

And by the way, it would cost both you and your goverment so much more to have not ready women get bunches of children so you will have to pay for these women getting back on their feet's from suffering trauma and devastation, and it's your money who will pay for these children growing up in neglect and probably end out in all kinds of shit which could have been avoided had they been born at a later time.

Think about that will you?

Arman said...


Media Matters=No credibility. Its a Soros funded, left wing, waste of bandwidth obsessed solely with shutting down conservative speech on TV and internet. Presenting me with "Evidence" from Media Matters is like presenting me evidence from the mob. It just doesn't hold up.


If a woman is not ready to have a child, then she should not engage in the remarkably specific set of behaviors one is required to complete in order to be rendered pregnant. That, or accept the risks and consequences. That's all I really ask.

That said, the child's life does not have to be ruined, neither does the mother's. There are plenty of loving parents out their ready to adopt.

And why would the government have to pay anybody for anything exactly? I despise entitlement programs. I despise welfare.

rob said...

There are currently 3 different HR's being made to affect Healthcare/Abortion policy. 1 of which is indeed, to keep public funds out of the matter.

In between the other measures, are for instance the redefinition of rape and forcible rape. So that abortions will be allowed in far less circumstances. These people will then indeed be forced to other measures.

The US government goes overseas to fight and liberate countries, and among praised results: give women in other countries sexual and reproductive freedom.
But are being completely hypocritical by taking those rights away from the people at home.

Bob said...

For my "libertarian" readers:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."
-- Ayn Rand

Reverend Allan Ironside said...

Oh cry me a river, Cuddy. always with the goddamn coathanger excuse, excusing what is basically last resort birth control for the apathetic woman.

Shark said...

Because Republicans are Chaotic Stupid.

rob said...

Well, reverend, please share with us your sermons on abortion. How do you indoctrinate your flock?
(yeah, a happy atheist here. I only preach from the gospels of Adams, Dawkins and Hitchens)

Arman said...


From Politico

"But a spokesman for the bill’s author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier “forcible” will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother."


Wise of the G.O.P ultimately. No reason to get into a fight over a poorly worded phrase when the real goal was never redefinition of rape, but rather cutting off tax money to abortions.

Mark said...


congraturations, you've relocated the abortion debate to your blog. if that was your goal, then as a famous banner said: "mission accomplished"

@shark - that is jilarious. i have been wanting to mix d&d with my political beliefs and now you have helped me to do so.

I'll spare you all a dissertation on *my* views on the subject (hint: they are the correct ones). What I will do is point out a few things:

@ all the pro-choicers here (apparently the majority): do you really think it will be made illegal? Certainly many people would love that to happen, but if the great historical movement from living in caves and whatnot through universal suffrage and the gay rights movement, i'm not sure, even if abortion were made illegal, it would stay illegal for long.
@ Arman and the other pro-lifers: you seem upset by this add, and very adamant that the bills in question will not make abortion illegal... yet you seem to greatly desire the illegality of abortion. So, I ask: what's your point? Either advocate for what you want, or don't. it seems like you're sticking up for a bill that doesn't even do what you want.

Jacob Beck said...

First response: HOLY FUCK!!!!

When it comes to the abortion issue, I'm indifferent. Being a 17-year-old whose never had a girlfriend, this doesn't really affect my life.

dkh said...

Arman, considering that the crunched numbers actually come out that tax payers pay, what is it? Less than a cent to cover all those oh-so-awful-money-sucking abortions in the country, it feels disingenuous how much they're raging against it.

The implication is that abortions are a massive economic drain on the economy, when quite frankly, they're not. If you raised the taxes over income over $1,000,000 at just 1% that would undo the damage innumerable times over, for instance. Think conservatives would even consider that? Of course not.

Euler, there is one Hell of a war on the issue. One of the chief problems is availability, for instance. Just a few days ago, the South Dakota legislature began moving to expand the term "justifiable homicide" to include killings designed to prevent harm to a fetus.... in other words suddenly killing an abortion provider becomes justifiable homicide. When you consider that South Dakota only has one abortion clinic, that means only one single person with a gun has to do the deed and suddenly, in the eyes of the law, it would be justifiable.

There was nationwide outrage and backlash and the bill is being modified to exclude doctors that provide abortions, but the point stands.

dkh said...

Lass than a cent per taxpayer, that is.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

I've always considered the issue of abortion much simpler then most people like to think it is... the fetus is either a person or it isn't. If the fetus is not a person, than the woman can obviously do with it whatever she wants. If the fetus is a person, then it has all the same rights everyone else has regardless of any other extenuating circumstances. That's it... there is nothing else. Any excuse or reasoning beyond that is all just a red hearing trying to distract from the only question that should be asked... is the fetus a person?

As far as I'm personally concerned, since medical science is consistently making the actual point of birth more and more biologically arbitrary, the moment of conception seems the most reasonable point to say it's a person. I get the argument that the determination should be based on brain activity/ability, but since that's still very poorly understood and damn near impossible to actually test with the fetus still alive, I just can't see that as a viable alternative for now.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Bob

Ya know, the more I learn about Ayn Rand and her writings, the more I think she was a bit of a crazy bitch.

Joseph Valencia said...

I often wonder what pro-life people think about fetsuses that absorb their twins, or twins that get absorbed by the "alpha fetus" and continue existing as a parasite.

Joseph Valencia said...

That Ayn Rand quote is actually one of the saner things she wrote/said. The notion that people should accept having parenthood suddenly thrust upon them is insane. That people argue this for the sake of something that is essentially a non-human is even more insane.

Kent said...

I still maintain that if pro-life supporters spent 1/10th the effort they put into killing people and proposing bills that will never pass towards providing assistance to single mothers or adoption the abortion statistics in the country would fall much more significantly.

Jonathan said...

Coat hangers...

If abortion where only an act of desperation, I am sure the rate of terminated pregnancies would be one-twentieth what it is now, if not less.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Joseph Valencia

I hadn't really thought about that before... I suppose since it's a natural biological phenomena that just happens, it's really a non issue.

@ Joseph Valencia again

How is it "essentially a non-human"? It's genetically and biologically human... what else should matter?

@ Kent

I would completely agree.

Reverend Allan Ironside said...

Why bother keeping that little bundle of unintended consequences?

Well for me, it was so I could teach him this:

Yes, that is my son, finishing Mario, world 1-1, Sonic 2's Green Hill Zone, and crashing cars in Burnout. You'd have to be a cold-hearted SOB to think this isn't the most awesome thing in the world.

Smpoza said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Smpoza said...

It's always hilarious to me that so many conservatives are adamantly against abortion, calling it murder and an atrocity...and then oppose funding social programs (health care, welfare, etc) that would give (in the case of unplanned teenage pregnancies) the mother and child a much better chance of surviving.

Also, @Arman:
I'm hoping you support comprehensive sexual education; otherwise arguing that "they shouldn't have had sex, let them rot" is remarkably cruel considering that so many schools will only teach abstinence, which relies entirely on trusting teenagers not to have sex with each other. Not a very good strategy. Also, I don't know if you actually looked at the MediaMatters link, but it's not just rambling. They have video evidence. That makes it a matter of facts, not left versus right.

Joseph Valencia said...


I simply don't get what it is about fetuses that religious people find so endearing. They're not "human" in the sense of being intelligent or empathic or having any other traits we admire in humans. They're a low form of life: hard-coded for self-preservation and nothing else. They'd eat their fucking twin without missing a beat. The only thing I can think of is they look kind of a cute, in a creepy alien sort of way. Not sure if that justifies killing abortion doctors, though.

Smpoza said...

(Probably indecipherable rant incoming)
Might I also add why it is only at the moment of conception that blobs of genetic material become human life? I mean, after conception, the embryo is essentially a cell, and most of the important bits of the cell (what will become the embryo's nucleus and nucleolus) are in the egg. If full-grown people that cannot use many of their internal organs (brain-dead people in comas, people who need multiple organs removed for surgery) are still considered human, and embryos are considered human, is it really that far of a jump to call the ovum a person by itself? Does that mean that women commit murder on a monthly basis until they go through menopause?
(for the record, I absolutely consider disabled people human, I'm simply pointing out the nebulousness in determining when microscopic lumps of goo achieve sentience)

untra said...

My expression when I see it's Lisa Edelstein: Hot damn! I love Lisa! She's a fantastic actr-

My expression when I see the coat hanger: WTF?! Damn that is dark...

Is this a serious ad playing on TV? I'm all pro-choice, don't get me wrong, but thats excessive for even my standards. The fact that it even points out the entire GOP as the "bad guys" is just too politically charged.

Still, damn...

The Fedora'd Samurai said...

This is why I follow the Lemmy Kilmister school of polotics. I.E. I hate it.

Willingdruid said...

*reads through comments*

America sure is weird.

Nick said...

Media Matters=No credibility. Its a Soros funded, left wing, waste of bandwidth obsessed solely with shutting down conservative speech on TV and internet. Presenting me with "Evidence" from Media Matters is like presenting me evidence from the mob. It just doesn't hold up.

Ah, ad hominem attacks, right on schedule.

*reads through comments*

America sure is weird.


Sofie Liv Pedersen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sofie Liv Pedersen said...


A; if there really are oh so many people out there jumping at the opportunity to adopt, why do we have so many orphanage filled with children then? For that matter, why have the U-countries so many children living on the streets? In China they tend to throw babies in the trash cane for crying out loud.

Sorry, there are way more children ready for adoption all ready now then there are people wanting to adopt, just to make matters worse, people who can't have children by natural means tends to prefer the surgical slightly less natural way so it becomes their own child rather than a adopting child.

B; Sex is a natural thing which is the product of very human drives. Why is it bob constantly make jokes about hot women? Because he likes hot women of cause, I am pretty sure you do to.

Now I am not saying everybody should rush out and have sex right now, that's stupid, because it's really not that big a deal. And I am differently saying that you should always use a condom, not only to ensure not becoming pregnant, but also to avoid all the illness's.
And from my standpoint if you deny an sixteen year old to go watch boobies, he will undoubtedly go out of his way to have a look at those boobies, if the parents treats it like it's not big deal and let him have that look on his own, it's just not interesting anymore.
In the same way a 21 year old who knows that sex is a natural thing and no big deal is less likely to go out and go wild than a 21 year old who have been denied to even think about it. because these are just integrated drives in our system, there is nothing wrong about it.

Not to mention, Sex is both fun and nice. You should always use protection but I see no reason not to have it.
And even with protection, pregnancies can happen.

For those who are stupid enough not the use protection, it is usually those men and women all ready out in trouble you would really not want to have a child.

And even putting any sex issue aside, to just think what to do with that all ready troubled woman who are suddenly pregnant? And then deny her abortion? That's stupid, And you can't just take the child away from her once it's been born unless you have prove she is unstable, and in the end if the woman don't have an option, because she is all ready in trouble, is poor and so on, it is very much your who are going to pay for that child and what ever trouble the child would finding itself in in the future. So on a larger scale, it really is for your own countries sake.

AngryLemming said...

First off, I identify myself as Catholic. I do so more in the vein of the idea behind "catholic", but that is linguistics.
To adress the ad and my understanding of MovieBob putting it here: The ad is moving, well framed, reveals a known/trusted character... basically, it is near perfect. But, it lacks a universal character. Here's what I mean: An assumed ideal is being given form, not an universal one. This is both exalting to the filmmaker and detrimental. Battlestar Galactica, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.... wouldn't have caught on, if not for translatability of human experience. The advert showcases a wonderfully evocative experience, however it has a particular view to portray.
This doesn't withdraw from the artists involved, but sings their praises; although, it does mean a backlash is coming. Risks are, indeed taken - assuming people like me (who think abortion is the height of irresponsibility, or the result of *unspeakable* torture [i.e. regime-endorsed-torture/rape]).
The end result is this: abortion seems to fall into two fields: abandonment (I know, I'm Freudian); or indulgence (I know, I'm Freudian): Basically, the issue is case-by-case, but there is an underlying issue of ethics. The two may never meet in person, but they are there. The advert is moving, as well filmed as any S.Korean movie. But, lacks a pithy enough center to lodge either an attack or a defense. It is what it is. And it may be effective at it.

rob said...

@Arman, no, I'm not. Again, you're looking at 1 bill, not all of the proposed resolutions. This thing is handled from different sides and different angles.

AngryLemming said...

Sadly, you probably never should have mentioned the high-schooler's second fav pseudo-philosopher (Rand).
Independance is more intellectualy costly/challenging then (Rant's followers) are willing to go. I'll level my "religion"-faith if Kant is right, also I'll follow phenomenalism is Ponty is more rational. That's how I roll. Bu, when it comes to murder (justified or not) of vegetable, animal, or obviously conscious) I side on eat-them-or consider-them-equal. I don't care if dogs, cats,rats, etc are considered game, I'll eat people (given the chance) I just want a God-damned line drawn. Y/N. Maybe it is my generation. I don't care... I just find it frustrating to identify my general viewpoint on (basically) EVERYTHING since I thought (95) we had been given a voice...

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...

You know people.

I am just so exstremely tired of all of these abortion discussions all over the net, and they are bassically the same. It's a bunche of guys talking about it. Never do they try to see it from a young pregnant womans perspective.

I am all for equallity between men and women, and I realise this also means that often women have to back off, and the card. "I am a woman therefore I need special understanding or service." is something that is used to often and needs to go if you really want equality. The world is not only consistent by women supressed by men, but women using their. "Move away I am woman so you don't want to surpress me." way to often.

That being said, this is a touchy subject, and it's a womens subject. in around 60% of all these abortions cases, the dude who was just as much a part of the pregansie as the woman, are not going to take responsibility. And it's also easy for him to say. "Take an abortion bitch." or "Do not take the abortion and put the kid up for adoption bitch."

Any sane woman would never want to do either! And it really isn't a question about wanting, it's about what needs to be done and what is best for everyone.

I am sick of guys saying "Murder the child." and be preaching about. "Irresponsability." Don't you think the woman in question knows that she is putting out a life? her own child even? Don't you think she fells the strain? Do you really think any sane woman would ever want an abortion? Don't you think that they wish they had just never been impregnanted in the first place?

And the world is not just black and white! you can't talk issues like this and act like the world is.. it's not! it's a big slur of grey.

And some of you people, I wouldn't normally make such a rude comment, but some of these comments makes me sick.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Joseph Valencia

"Intelligent or empathic" are impossible to discern in embryos, and are pretty subjective anyway. I would have to be against that as a way of determining whether someone's a person or not. I mean... dog's are empathic and moderately intelligent, should they be considered persons? Sociopath's have no empathy... are they not?

And, I would have to be on the side that it is completely unjustified to kill abortion doctors.

@ Smpoza

Ovum are not complete organisms in and of themselves. They lack a complete genetic code and are unable to acquire any more energy then they already contain without being fertilized.

dkh said...


if I may offer some of my experiences? I'm a man and, quite honestly, there's nothing I can do about it. I was born that way, I'll die that way. I have no strange quirk in my genetics or neurological makeup that makes me feel that I should be a woman or anything like that.

To be fair, it's been pointed out to me that I tend to think about things like a woman - on a largely social level, for instance, and that I often use examples that feature relationships (such as "a man and woman in an abusive relationship").

Right off the bat, there's no perspective I can ever truly have other than a man's. But more than that, there is balance. You're right when you say these are women's issues, but they do involve men.

A few months ago I was talking with a man on the subject of abortion and lamented about how an ex of his had an abortion that he wanted to keep. "That child was a part of me" were his words. I remember where I was about four years ago when I got a call from a girl telling me she had missed her period. We had broken up by then, but it was recent. I was terrified and neither of us were nearly ready to be parents. Yes, I convinced her that if push came to shove an abortion would be a good idea. I was extremely ashamed of myself, but I don't actually blame myself. I did what had to. Thank God it turned out to be a false alarm.

When I was in college, I remember trying to talk to the big feminists on campus about how various issues affected men, and they were completely disinterested. They ALWAYS had time to talk about these issues affected women, but men? Oh no. One of them was the type to say all rapists should be behind bars, no forgiveness, etc. etc. etc. Then a girl was revealed to have falsely accused a man of raping her to hide an affair she had. It came out that the accusation was false, but the feminist didn't let this bother her and remained friendly with that girl. If rape is such a serious crime, shouldn't false accusations of it be considered serious?

These are womens' issues, yes. But they DO have effects on men. I can't apologize for the callousness of all men, but I can say we're not all Arman at least.

Nixou said...

To Arman and all the pseudo "pro-lifer" who pretend that they just want to preserve the american taxpayer money from the dirty hands of poor "irresponsible" women...

You lie.
I know that you lie
Everyone one here knows that you lie
And you fucking know that we know that you lie

You lie about everything, including about your motivation.

Because its not about the "life of the unborn". None of you give a shit about the "life of the unborn", your aloofness toward the ordeals of women living in the poorest corners of your own country has already denounced and proved that past your lip service toward the "sanctity of life", you feel nothing but this despicable disdain toward the non-fictional, already born and breathing on their own kids that are not part of you own exiguous social circle.

Its all about sexual freedom.
Sexual freedom includes among other things having sex without having to raise unwanted children. And this used to be a privilege for the wealthy and the blue blooded, except that two centuries of ongoing progressism have eroded this privilege, turning it into an universal right, and you just cannot stomach it. You all want to come back to the day when your social class (or at least the social class you identify with) was the only one with access to sexual freedom.

Simone Veil, the former french health minister who was instrumental in making abortion legal in France, told the press that during the debate about the legalization of abortion, most of the opposition did not come from the most conservative politicians, but from those who had the money to provide abortion to their teenage girls or to their very young mistresses. They were for abortion, alright: as long as they were the only one to have access to it.

Yeah, even 40 years ago you were not fooling anyone: it's just that most non sociopathic people are too polite to tel you up front that they know that you are full of it.

Its about sexual freedom, and you want it to be your exclusive dispensation.

So you can go on faking outrage and pretending to be rightous principled men, you can act like wanking with one hand while writting Soros' name with the other was a sign of intellectual and moral superiority, in the end, you know as well as I do that your "love for the life of unborn children" is as fictional as Santa Claus and that you are nothing more than shit-spewing member of the pro-rape tribe.

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...


I agree with you. I totally do.

And my post was very harsh, I know that. But to get my points across in cases like this I need to be harsh, if it makes me appear like a bitch, so be it. At least I made an impression.

Yeas, your right, it will be hard for everyone, and my post was also targeted towards young guys who havn't been through any thing like that, because they just spit out such points that easely. And it honestly is always the same with all these abortions threats, I am always the only woman taking a stand and try and say "What is best for society, what is best for the people? what is best for the pregnant woman?"

Why I am always the only woman present.. I dunno, perhaps it's because write at nerdy movie forums mostly which tends to be dominated by men, perhaps it's because the subject is so touchy that most women don't want to talk about it and I just need to learn how to keep my big mouth shut and stop taking offence.

But it just gets to me right away whenever a dude calls it "Murder" so easely, and don't assume that the pregnant women in question doesn't have similar feelings! That the man in question probably also have it if he has a soul, and every single one who ever had their child aborted had these feelings, unless there were something very wrong in their head.

Yet, most often. It's just something that needs to be done, for everyone sake.

And that money argument is probably the stupidest argument I have ever heard. "I don't wanna pay for her abortion"

Fine! Then your tax money will go to the child she wont be able to raise instead, try and do a math piece and see which one is more expensive and which one will damage your society more on a long term basis.

Also, there is to many people in the world, you can't deny this. We are destroying our planet because we are to many, and there is a million more every year. Will you really put children into the world when you know it's going to be unwanted by pretty much everyone? That because mom and dad wasn't ready the child will suffer all of her or his life.. how heartless is that?

Just Gavin said...

Got half way through comments and had to take a Batman break. But anyway:

In the case of rape, or the other tragedies of course abortion should be available, however in today's society where protection is readily available, if you end up getting pregnant through an "accident" (I don't like that term but it was the only one I could think of), you're pretty stupid.

Maybe you should be allowed an abortion within the first three months as Bob has wisely mentioned, but I'd rather it'd be on your own pence (or dime) than mine. I'm stupid enough on my own, why should I have to suffer for your stupidity as well?

As for the advert, from a neutral perspective it did a good shock strategy, but when you think about it, it's like equating removing the death penalty to letting murderers free without punishment, or not going to a strip club to being gay.

There is room for middle ground Cuddy!

Mark said...

wow, this certainly has grown since my last post.

@Nixou and dkh
try not to personally attack people, even if you may have good points. many may agree with you, but yes, they are too polite to say it... that's probably because it shouldn't be said.
True that perhaps many people feel as you have described, but to presume that nobody actually believes in the pro-life cause for its own merits is going too far...

I'd be careful with the whole "the children will get raised unwanted and will suffer" argument. There are many cases of people (anybody think of a high profile NFL player) who are very success and happy despite being nearly aborted. To assume that every child born unplanned will be unhappy and poor, is really feeding into a bad stereotype.... so rich white teenagers whos parents can afford Nannies don't get have abortions. My point is you shouldn't be so categorical about all this stuff. True, extra children are a "drain" on society, but also, some of those children could be future presidents, artists, or bloggers. I just don't think that's a good argument to be using.
Also, you claim that NO woman has an abortion without feeling guilt and sadness. Again, I'm sure people could dig up newspaper articles or testimonials proving just the opposite. Sure, most woman feel as you would, but that doesn't mean *all*.

@ Gavin
The whole "not on my dime" thing is also kind of faulty. You live in a quasi-socialistic society. You pay for plenty of stuff. When a criminal is tried, convicted, and sentenced, you pay for all that. a LOT of money. Even though it's "his" crime. Clearly, the criminal was engaging in really stupid behavior - and you're paying for it. Should it be illegal for tax money to be spent on police? its just a part of being a member of the body politic, yes?

Sofie Liv Pedersen said...


I'm not.

I know the world is not black and white, I know each and every case is extremly different and there is no catogerising nor right or wrong regarding this issue which is why it's so hard.

Yeas, I am very harsh and very rude when it comes to this issue, I have to, otherwise my points will never have a change of coming across, I will just be miss Indecisive in the corner saying "Well I think it's sort of like that but not always, it's also like this but not really, I guess I think."

And no, I am not that person. I need to make a firm starting point and then elaborate later. It's the only way for me to deal with this issue and getting heard.

Yeas it's extremely harsh and I can come across as a reversed Sarah Palin, but hey, three people have responded to me which means they have taken my words into consideration. That is a victory for me.

Let it not be said that I can't argue my case.

Nixou said...

Mark wrote:
but to presume that nobody actually believes in the pro-life cause for its own merits is going too far


That's precisely why I started with «To Arman and all the PSEUDO "pro-lifer"»

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Sofie Liv Pedersen

The problem is that you're arguing ad consequentiam here. If taken as a given that the fetus is a person, then every other extenuating factor is moot. The fetus has a right to live, and the mother's situation, no matter how dire, doesn't in any way change that. (and obviously, if taken as a given that the fetus is not a person, the mother's situation is still moot because she can do whatever she wants anyway)

I appreciate the imposable situations and choices a woman must go through during an unexpected pregnancy. I do. No one should ever have to go through that. And hopefully one day medical science will bring us to a point where that sort of situation is virtually unheard of. However, this is in fact a very black and white issue. The fetus is either a person or it isn't, and that's in no way effected by what the consequences of that are.

Arman said...

Wow, I've been given a lot to respond to. Fun, fun fun. Apologize if I don't get everyone. Gonna try my best.


I am sticking up for a bill that does what I want. It ends taxpayer funded abortion, so it scratches two of my itches per say. The first being that it cuts spending, the other being that it no longer makes me a financial tool of abortion. I don't have to help fund something I hate anymore. I'll take what I can get.

And I'm not upset at this ad for being pro-abortion. Everyone has a right to make their opinions known. I'm upset about this ad for BLATANTLY lying about the purpose of the bill.


The government has no business funding planned parenthood. I oppose giving a SINGLE penny to that cause.

And when our government is BANKRUPT, its time to start questioning how tax money gets spent. 75 million now no longer to planned parent hood, and instead going to pay down our debt, is a considerable amount of money. And no, we're not raising taxes. You people have taken enough.


I'm often puzzled by the reaction abstinence gets from a lot of people considering that when applied it guarantees that no pregnancy will occur.

I recall my sex ed class, and I recall being explained by the educator that in reality, I was nothing more than a wild dog who couldn't possibly be expected to control my urges, and that regardless of whatever discipline I might have learned through the years it was inevitable that I'd fornicate with the first woman willing to take her clothes off for me.

I rejected that. I am a man, not an animal. I make choices. I live with the consequences of those choices.


I don't respect the source.


The author of the law that included the phrase you found objectionable has dropped the phrase. Figured you'd be more relieved.

at the same time, the Democrat's attempt to make this into a semantical argument failed. Woohoo.

@Nixou....ooooh, boy.

I'm not lying. I do believe what I believe, genuinely just as you likely believe what you believe genuinely.

Sorry if I missed anyone.

Chris Evans said...

It's a partisan video made by a far left wing group. It's propaganda and both sides do it. It's always a little sad to be reminded of Bob's political leanings since it detracts from my enjoyment of his other wise good show, but he can post what ever he wants. This kind of add isn't going to convince anyone of anything deep down both sides know it's just a giant straw man and little else.

Mark said...

@ Chris

Amazing that a mostly libertarian political viewpoint could harm your enjoyment of bob's product. I may not agree with all of the libertarian viewpoints, but its hard to get worked up about a philosophy that pretty much amounts to "don't make laws about stuff you shouldn't make laws about."

Smpoza said...

I agree. Abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy. However, if kids are going to disobey anyway (Bristol Palin was solely educated about abstinence; oddly, she still encourages abstinence=only education) why not give them the ability to protect themselves? Furthermore, either you had a much worse teacher than I could think possible, or you might have misinterpreted what the intent of sex-ed was. Giving you a safety net in case you screw up isn't the same as encouraging you to screw up; automobile makers don't give you a seatbelt as an insult to your intelligence or judgement.
Also, it's spelled per se. You're not quite using it in the correct context per se, but I see what you mean (it makes more sense before the thing that does what you want, not after.) Latin is tricky.
For Christians in favor of abstinence:
Wait. So the Virgin Mary didn't have sex with anyone, but got pregnant anyway? If God can just knock you up whenever he wants, doesn't that mean abstinence isn't always effective even when properly practiced? I mean, there are worse things than having an all-powerful, immortal wizard-baby, but still...

Smpoza said...

Also, the "I don't want my tax dollars paying for this" argument is really starting to get annoying. Even ignoring that (last time I checked) government funded abortions would cost each tax payer approximately .2 cents annually, having to begrudgingly allow your tax dollars to go to things you don't necessarily want them to go to is a tenant of democracy. People in the 1930s were probably infuriated that they had to fund FDR's new deal, just as I'm furious that my tax dollars will have to fund the Bush era tax cuts and the Iraq war. And I'm going to be paying WAY more than .002 dollars per year on those things annually. It's fine to not like that your tax dollars are funding something you disagree with, but to mention that as an argument in and of itself seems redundant to me. You could make that point about almost any other government policy you disagree with, only it would make much more sense because things like the Iraq War, Health Care, Tax Cuts, and the Stimulus Package are actually a significant drain on taxpayers.

Bob said...

Abstinence is 110% effective in cutting down on the unwanted pregnancy problem. This is true.

HOWEVER, it also adds to the "crazed, sexually-frustrated nutcase" problem.

Here's the thing: The sex-drive - because it's wired-in to the basic "make more of you" species-survival part of our biology - is THE most powerful tangible driving force of our psychology. Yes, more innately powerful than love, honor, morality etc because it's not a purely esoteric concept; it's real. It's chemical.

Whether we want to admit it to ourselves or not, historically it's undeniable: Sexual desire moves the human world, and needlessly suppressing that part of our biology by attaching imaginary moralistic gobbleygook to it is responsible for MASSIVE amounts of our societal AND personal/psychological problems.

Today, in the 21st Century, we have for the first time in human history - thanks to the medical MIRACLES of contraception and safe abortion - for all citizens of a free society to engage at their mutual whim in nearly consequence-free recreational sex. Imagine how much more productive and content so many people would be - how much less combative and on edge we'd be.

By WHAT twisted logic does a supposedly-rational modern civilization REJECT that kind of potential future in order to coddle the superstitions of only SOME of it's citizens?

Nick said...


I don't respect the source.

Because the fact that you don't "respect" them (whatever that means) automatically invalidates everything they have to say? Thank you for confirming exactly what I just said.

Abstinence is 110% effective in cutting down on the unwanted pregnancy problem. This is true.

And if Abstinence-Only education was actually successful in promoting abstinence, that would matter.

But you probably already knew that, Bob, so I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

Smpoza said...

Most people say the sky is blue, but I don't respect them. Sky is obviously orange.

tyra menendez said...

How to start a shit storm:

Post anything about creationism/evolution, abortion, assisted suicide, religion, homosexuals, or children. It does not matter what side of any debate you take, if you post it on the internet, it will become a shit storm.

By the by, anyone in favor of small government, can't be against gay or abortion, as interfering in civil matters, such as those, is an act of big(ger) government.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Bob

So, your argument is that the rights of a fetus are irrelevant as long as it makes everyone else's lives better and only a few of people think it's important anyway?

You realize that's essentially the exact some argument someone would use to support something like slavery, right? Ya know... blacks aren't really humans, and it makes everyone else's lives better keeping them as slaves, and only a few crazy rednecks are against it.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

Let's be frank about something here... "pro-life" is infact a pro-human-rights stance. We just have a broader definition of what a "human" is. And ya know what? I think human-rights should always assume a broader definition of "human".

Arman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arman said...


Regardless of the amount of money each individual taxpayer pays, here is an unavoidable reality: The Federal government is broke. Its over a trillion dollars in debt. So the LAST thing the U.S government should be doing is to give 75 million dollars a year to Planned Parenthood.

Completely stripping away any moral argument here, we simple don't have the money. It makes NO sense to continue to fork cash over to these organizations when the government is in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Cutting spending where its easiest (arbitrary funding of non governmental groups for no discernible reason) makes sense.


As far as I'm concerned, Media Matters is a skewed, unreliable dispensary of information. If you insist on proving to me that the footage was indeed faked, perhaps you should find a secondary, more partial source to help validate that. Otherwise I will simply assume that Media Matters, like with most things, just pulled this out of their ass.


How, exactly? As of right now, its the pro-abortion lobby that has essentially enforced big government rule in order to insure that the practice stays legal, and taxpayer funded. Roe v. Wade is the pinnacle of federal overreach, essentially circumventing state rights and declaring, without vote, via judicial fiat that abortion will be legal in all 50 states.

If you want the government "out of the bedroom", why don't you put your money where your mouth is? If you want government not to outlaw abortion, you should also not want government to ENDORSE abortion. Ending taxpayer funding IS "getting out of the bedroom", in the purest, truest sense.

Mark said...


Your logic regarding the broke federal government is flawed, for the main reason that, while you claim to be "stripping away any moral argument," you are making clear value judgements.

You say (in caps, no less), that .02 cents per person (which has been claimed numerously above) is the LAST things the US should be spending their money on. How, stripping away moral arguments, have you arrived at that conclusion? Couldn't you just as easily say "stripping away moral arguments, its the FIRST thing"?

You reinforce your lack of stripping-away-the-morality by your description of "arbitrary funding of non governmental groups for no discernible reason).... Arbitrary? Isn't it perhaps the amount that was decided was necessary to make planned parenthood run appropriately. And as for no discernible reason, it seems to me that numerous folks in this comment thread seem to think there's a pretty damn good reason for it to be funded. So how, whether you agree or not, can you really claim that it is without reason or purpose?

Again, if you want the "Easiest" route to more money, that would be a tax raise on the rich, yes? That's the "easiest" - would happen rather quickly, would raise a crazy amount of money, and affects the smallest proportion of americans. So, what's that about cutting 75 million that's going to solve our fiscal crisis?

My point is that just because something is "spending" and "non-governmental," certainly doesn't mean it's bad and doesn't deserve money. There are many people who would suggest military spending, foreign aid, and other non-domestic things should be cut BEFORE social policies. Nothing in your argument really shows that PP and similar organizations should be the ones to get axed (aside from the morality argument, which you yourself put aside).

Omnikus said...

This commercial has touched my heart.

You know who I also can't stand? DEMOCRATS. With their restrictions on gun ownership and all that nazi idiocy. How DARE they make it harder for murderers to access the means with which to carry out their crimes.


1. I'm pro-life as hell, and I still wouldn't vote for a Republican at gun point. American politics is worse than American morals. Sometimes. And American conservatism is a joke. Glenn Beck? Have yet to find a bigger douchebag.

2. @ Ayn Rand: I've never been so disgusted in my entire life. I hope, Madam, that you won't desecrate this world with your presence much lon... oh wait, she's already dead. Well, that's a stone off my heart.

3. Heck, am I an idiot, right? Conservative thinker, and I watch these liberal shows and blogs? Well, ain't I a hypocrite -.-

4. Free speech is awesome. Go on chanting for abortion all you please. Eventually, all will see where it leads.

Arman said...


I'm stripping away moral judgements in the sense that I'm not getting into an argument about whether or not abortion is immoral. The real argument here, the real issue this bill is addressing, is whether or not tax money should go to Planned Parenthood.

You fail to make the case as to WHY PP should get government subsidies? Isn't it PP's job to raise the money to keep PP operational? Why is that burden placed on the federal government? Additionally, if you are correct, and there are plenty of people who REALLY think PP should continue to exist, then PP will be fine...because there will be plenty of money through doners. Maybe PP could start charging for their services too. (Gasp! The horror)

Raising a tax on the rich, the definition of which grows broader every time someone decides to tax them, is not a solution to our fiscal crisis. It may be easy, but it would not raise revenue and it would effect ALL Americans. Why? Because raising taxes on the rich is Uroborus-the snake eating its own tail. Works like this:

You raise taxes on rich
Rich have less money
Rich invest less
Business shrink from lower investment
Jobs are lost because businesses shrink
Taxpayer pool shrinks because of loss of jobs
Tax revenue shrinks from lack of taxpayers

and then to recover from this loss of

raise taxes on the rich
rich have less money
rich invest less....

Until eventually we find ourselves in economic stagnation, or worse, decay.

or, to put it shortly:

Higher taxes mean less productivity. Less productivity means less taxable income. This otherwise known as the Laffer Curve.

And of course, 75 million is hardly going to put a dent in our debt, however its money that doesn't need to be spent. This is called "tightening your belt". When you don't have a lot of income in your own household, you focus on the most important bills: Mortgage, Utilities, Transportation. You don't go and buy a new plasma TV, or a fancy new car. Its not wise. In the same way, the Federal government needs to focus on the basics: Military, Roads, Courts, etc. Not shelling out funds to a private organization like Planned Parenthood, or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or NPR.

And of course there is plenty of wasteful spending in foreign aid to countries that hate us, and atrociously expensive military projects that the military doesn't even want. However, the majority of our expenses our domestic, not foreign. The two largest chunks of the U.S budget is Social Security and Medicare. That's gonna take ALOT of work to get under control.

But in the mean time, this bill, which thankfully passed in the house, will have to do.

Smpoza said...

Raise taxes on rich (incidentally, the group in question is only about 2% of total US population)

Executives need to consistently earn goodwill and think of new ideas to earn money

Goodwill kept by trying to benefit consumers/employees slightly more

Benefits result in mobility, further increasing competition within ranks to stay efficient and innovative
While I can't be sure that this is the effect higher taxation on the wealthy has had, I do now that the income tax for people who earn more than $1,000,000 annually during the Clinton years was 50% (I.E, one who earns$1,500,000 in a year would lose $250,000 to taxes) I also know that during the Clinton administration the economy was WAY better than any point in the past two decades:

Also, I don't respect the gif you linked to, so I'm going to arbitrarily dismiss it without really explaining why. As far as I'm concerned, it's a skewed, unreliable gif image. If you want to convince me it is real, you should reference a secondary or tertiary source, preferably one where the curve is an actual function instead of a Y=sqrt(X), Y=-sqrt(X) monstrosity like the one shown.

Bob said...

The argument for the government (partially) funding ANY medical effort is that said effort contributes to the common good. Planned Parenthood, overwhelmingly, fulfills this requirement.

If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be in the medicine business AT ALL, fine - that's a reasonable position. But so long as we're spending ONE cent on medical procedures, there's no logical or reason-based argument for denying funds to PP.

Arman said...


I'm not quite sure how raising taxes encourages more employee/consumer benefits. Raising taxes tends to increase the price of doing business.

When looking at the Clinton years, you have to take account a few important factors. First, you just came out of the Reagan years, which had some of the largest tax cuts of the time. Business was beginning to boom, and its not unreasonable to point out that the U.S economy essentially rode that wave through the nineties. Second, spending was not nearly as high as it is today (not by a long shot), thanks in part to a Republican congress and a more moderate Clinton administration.

In regards to the gif. What you are looking at is the Laffer Curve, a theoretical representation of taxation and revenue. There are dozens of historical precedents and plenty of empirical data that support it.

What it argues is that there is a certain range in taxation, the number varying from country to country, where you can maximize revenue. If you tax at 0%, obviously you get nothing. However, if you tax at 100%, you also get nothing because there is no incentive to be productive.

Its pretty solid stuff, and I'd encourage you to look into it if you have the time and don't already plan on taking economics.



I would disagree vehemently that Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by a racist, and eugenicist, contributes to the common good, especially given recent, and incriminating footage regarding their clinics.

I don't have much hope of convincing anybody who's concluded that this practice is beneficial. Either way, its irrelevant. The bill doesn't address wether abortion should be legal or illegal. Which is why, going back, the commercial you posted is purposefully misleading.

That said, I would argue that the government shouldn't be in the medicine business at all. Cutting PP off should only be the start. I would hope that Obamacare repeal is as successful, and I'm glad to be found reasonable.

However, arguing that the federal government should spend money it does NOT HAVE on a non-essential like Planned Parenthood, is unreasonable. It is like a child demanding an iPhone when he knows his parents are flat broke and in debt.

(Incidently, you know what Ayn Rand would have REALLY hated....Government subsidies for Planned Parenthood. Just sayin'.)

Bob said...

Ayn Rand hated government subsidies for ANYTHING - she and others of her outlook generally wouldn't have distinguished between a government-funded abortionist and a government-funded dentist.

As to whether or not legalized abortion contributes to the common good... do you really want to do this dance? I mean, SPOILER WARNING: I'm gonna toss out the Freakonomics abortion-cuts-crimerates data, you'll respond with a link to some "unbiased" source "debunking" it, I'll raise the issue of overpopulation, you or someone else will call me a "eugenicist," etc. For me, it's a simple calculation: Does legal/funded abortion make individual full-fledged human citizens more free to fulfill their pursuit of happiness? Yes it does. Does it directly HARM any individual full-fledged human citizens? No, it does not. Thusly, it is A Good. 1 + 1 = 2.

Credit where it's due for ideological consistency re: getting the government 100% out of the medicine business - though you do of course realize that regardless of whether or not it's the "right" position it'll never, ever happen, right?

See, this is why - even when in areas where I can honestly call myself a "libertarian," I have to attach the addendum: "that acknowledges the real world." Every government that has EVER existed in the history of the world has been involved in funding and/or regulating medical care to some degree, and you will NEVER completely seperate the two. As such, because we have a specifically non-religion-based system of laws, there is NO argument for not funding abortion in the same manner that any other necessary medical procedure is funded.

Smpoza said...

@ Armand:
(This is going to be long and rambling. Sorry. If it gets annoying, follow this link. Always calms me down.)

1. Although Reagan initially decreased taxes, about halfway through his term he collaborated with congress to raise them to fund TEFRA, Social Security, and the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, along with other programs. Even though TEFRA alone was, to quote Forbes, the "largest peacetime tax increase in American history," nobody seems to remember this about Reagan. Still, these policies, combined with Clinton's tax-the-rich-and-cut-spending-instead-of-claiming-to-cut-spending-and-then-deciding-screw-it-I'll-just-wear-a-flight-suit policies, help explain the rapid financial growth of the 1990s. Conversely, the claim-to-reduce-spending-but-radically-increase-it-through-deregulation-and-tax-cuts-and-flight-suits policies of Bush Jr. led to the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression (incidentally, the strategy of the President leading up to the great depression was the deregulation-and-zoot-suit policy.) This suggests that Bush's policies of regressive taxation and deregulation were responsible for the crash, just as Clinton's progressive tax policies and sound financial policies were the cause of economic growth.

2. Reagan wasn't a stranger to massive spending either. The Deficit was 2.6% of the GDP when Reagan entered office and 6% when he left. Adjusted for inflation military spending alone was around half a trillion dollars, about 6% of all military spending during the entire Cold War. Again, nobody seems to remember this. Dick Cheney once told Treasury Secretary O'Neil that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." I'm of the opinion that spending is less abominable if looked at as an investment. If I was faced with a large deficit, but knew that the spending that caused it gave us an improved education system, infrastructure, health care system, and military, I'd feel I had the tools to pay it off. A deficit based almost entirely on tax cuts for the wealthy and a war born out of stupidity and greed, not so much. I agree that we are spending too much though, which is one of the reasons I want to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts, especially for the top 2%. The projected deficit is currently 14 trillion dollars (unless I'm wrong), and eliminating the Bush Tax cuts would save 3.7 trillion dollars over ten years. That's a fifth of the Deficit right there (assuming other spending is cut accordingly).

3. I am aware of what your gif represents; I was mocking your previous word choice, like a child or bitter computer owner. I suppose you were too busy being a mature adult to notice it. I agree with the principle, but I think the main point of contention is how much taxation is too much. For my money, people overestimate just how many yachts the wealthy really need, especially considering that losing a large chunk of your yearly earnings as a billionaire is VERY different than losing them as one of us lowly thousand-aires. If you had 10 billion dollars but suddenly lost 4 billion, would you really be very likely to dramatically change your spending habits? Incidentally, PLEASE use a graph that expresses the Laffer Curve as a proper function; I googled it and found, like, five that are actual functions instead of mathematical pains in the ass.

4. If you're going to argue you aren't against planned parenthood ideologically, mentioning that the founder is a racist and eugenicist doesn't help your case. If I was to argue that I opposed Ayn Rand's philosophy from an economic standpoint as opposed to an ideological one, mentioning that I disliked her eerie admiration for 1920s serial killer William Hickman would not help my case. By the way, does the name Ayn O'Connor mean anything to you?

Smpoza said...

Whoops-that's O'Neill with two l's.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Bob

"Does it directly HARM any individual full-fledged human citizens?"

Yes, yes it does. Or, at least it would if every any any attempt to give fetuses more rights wasn't quashed by those trying to protect abortion at all costs. There is no reasonable or biological reason for fetuses not be considered persons (or, in your words, "human citizens") and thus have all the same rights as the rest of us.

Mark said...


Smpoza certainly did enough to counter back on the necessary Reagan-Love-Fest, but I thought I'd add merely one point:
There was a president between Reagan and Clinton. Bush Sr. Do you remember why Clinton got elected? Because the economy was in shambles! To say that Clinton's economy was good because of Reagan is saying that such policies took even TWELVE YEARS (1980-1992, or, say, 1984-1996) to take effect. We know Bush Sr. largely continued the Reagan stuff, and as said, the economy was in shambles.

Let's extend the fetus-as-person-with-full-rights thing. I want to see how far it goes:
1 - Parents of said child have sex while child is in womb = childmolestation, lewd acts with child?
2 - Mother commits crime while pregnant = Contributing to delinquence of a minor?
3 - mother does anything "stupid" or unsafe = child negligence?

so let's hear it.

Smpoza said...


Wait, if a fetus is a child, isn't it a dependent? Shouldn't they have to list the fetus on taxes and such?

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Mark

1 - I would assume the child wouldn't aware of it and wouldn't be effected in any way, so the child's not really being victimized as all. It would be like if an infant was sleeping in the same room.

2 - Again, the child isn't aware of what's going on and isn't directly effected at all. What's it considered if the mother commits crimes while an infant's at home?

3 - Absolutely.

Smpoza said...

How does the child being unaware of what's happening to it make it okay? To use a really, really extreme example, if I were to rape somebody while they were asleep and they never found out, would that make it okay? Considering that the act in question we're talking about is basically thrusting genitalia inches away from the child, even if it's unaware, wouldn't that be a little sketch legally?

Smpoza said...

Also, if fetuses are people, what's the deal with the census? When calculating population numbers, we usually count people who are already born, but isn't that missing a huge percentage of the population? And if we're recording them into the census, I guess we have to name them basically right after conception, right?

Also, what about social security numbers? Again, we usually wait until people are born to give those out, but if fetuses are people, they should be given one as soon as possible. What happens if a fetus has been given an SSN but surprise! it's twins! That would be really annoying, huh?

Also, what if a pregnant woman is arrested? Then they're jailing the child too, even though it didn't do anything. I don't really see a way around this, so if the fetus is a person I guess we'd have no choice but to violate its rights.

Also, what if during the very early stages of pregnancy (first few days or so) the mother accidentally falls or gets in an accident, and the fetal cells become dislodged and die? Would the mother be charged with child endangerment or manslaughter because she tripped? What if she didn't even know she was pregnant?

Smpoza said...

Oh god, I just realized I called Arman Armand. Sorry, really early in the morning when I wrote that post.

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Smpoza

Well, if you rape someone while they're asleep they're absolutely going to be effected whether they're aware of it or not. Even without the psychological effects, rape tends to have a variety of physical effects ranging from vaginal damage, STDs, or even pregnancy. As for an infant in the womb... sketchy legal maybe. I'm honestly not very familiar with the law in that regard and what exactly it takes to be considered victimized.

As for census and Social Security... Obviously, some one can be a person with out being a citizen per se. Immigrants for example. Whether infants should be considered citizens at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between is something that would have to be sorted out when the unborn are given the rights they deserve. I, personally, don't really have much of an opinion on that, though.

Let me ask you this... if one of a pair on conjoined twins commits a crime, but the other is completely innocent, how would that be handled?

That depends on the conditions of the accident... it could be criminally negligent manslaughter if she were aware of being pregnant and was doing something particularly dangerous. But, if she was unaware or wasn't doing anything that should have been dangerous, then it's just an accident. The law allows for that.

Smpoza said...

Let's say we have a mother who's two weeks pregnant and aware of it. She decides to "live it up" before motherhood and goes bungie jumping, a fairly risky activity. For argument's sake, let's say the woman is an expert in bungie jumping and does all of this herself-no organization to complicate things legally (i.e who to sue). An accident occurs and the mother is okay, but the two-week-old embryo died.

Now take the exact same scenario, except the mother wasn't pregnant and instead takes her three year old daughter with her. An accident occurs, and her daughter dies. Should both women be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Smpoza

Yes, all other things being equal, I would consider both criminally negligent.

Smpoza said...

But should they be tried for the same thing and receive the same punishment? In essence, did both women commit the same crime? From an ethical standpoint, do you feel that there is no difference between what each of these two women did?

TheAlmightyNarf said...

@ Smpoza

Yes, I would feel there is no difference.

Arman said...

Oh god. This is what happens when I have work. So much to reply to and so little time :p

And no problem Smpoza, its a common mistake. I really didn't mind.


Indeed, Ayn Rand didn't want subsidies. That was my point. Her views on abortion would not have mattered, she would have supported Republicans on this bill.

As for abortion harming full fledged human beings, well that's what the debate was always about. To a person like me, there's little moral distinction between a 6 month old fetus, and a six month old infant. I see a few differences between the two: Size, age, level of development, perhaps intelligence....But none of those reasons seem like legitimate rationales to kill a person. If I'm correct, and I think I am, then abortion is an unspeakable evil.

I'm not a believer in utopianism, Bob. Therefore I acknowledge that perfection is not attainable. So I'll take what I can get. Cutting PP gets me closer to a society in which government is smaller. Good enough for me.

And there certainly is an argument for defunding PP. It goes: There is no money. PP is a private organization and this is a non essential expenditure. Cut it.

Nothing religious about that. Your argument here is a bit bizarre:

Religious people dislike abortion
Planned Parenthood does abortion
Our government is not religious
Therefore the taxpayer should fund Planned Parenthood?



I apologize for my brevity. I acknowledge you probably deserve a longer reply but I'm strapped for time.

1. Reagan had a Democrat congress to contend with that did not want to cut spending. Its important to realize that the Congress has an even bigger effect on taxes and spending than the President. Clinton had a Republican congress. In addition, Clinton ended his Presidency with a small recession that the Bush tax cuts did pull us out of. Nobody seems to remember that.

This current fiscal crisis, was not the result of deregulation. It was the result of a mixed market economy and inappropriate government meddling in housing. Went something like this:

Community Reinvestment Act says, "You have a right to a home! Regardless if you can afford it! Just get a loan!"

Which meant banks were encouraged to give out loans they KNEW were bad. These bad loans got bought up by government run companies like Fannie Mae which would inevitably collapse because those loans couldn't be paid back. That's the simple version. Incidentally, Bush Jr. warned congress about this 17 times in 2008 alone.

2. You can run a small deficit without much consequence, especially when you're attempting to topple the Soviet Union. Its not ideal, and 6% was definitely a lot, but here is the thing. I grow tireless of being reminded of Reagan's 6% deficit or Bush's 3% deficit...when your guy's deficit is triple his predecessors. The problem isn't that the administration is running a deficit. Its that its running a huge ass deficit.

^Handy dandy Chart.

3. I recognized the thinly veiled mockery and chose not to indulge. Mockery and name calling is in the left's playbook.

4. But its worth mentioning if only for the irony of seeing Democrats adulate an organization who's original purpose was to prevent "minorities" and "immigrants" from adding to the gene pool.

The name doesn't ring a bell.


Free economies fluctuate. You have highs and lows. The recession under Bush Sr. lasted 6 months.

Since we're discussing legal stuff.

When Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, do you know what he was charged with? Double homicide. So to that extent the law recognizes that the murderer ended the life of two individuals.

Smpoza said...

This will probably be the last post I do for two reasons:
1. If I've learned anything from this it's that no matter how well we argue for our respective sides, NOBODY'S MIND WILL EVER CHANGE, and
2. I just got Bulletstorm, and I can already feel myself becoming a psychpathic, baby-raping nazi.

Now then:
1. There was indeed a small recession that began in 2000-2001; however, considering that (a the recession didn't really affect the US until 2002 to 2003 (and that was mostly due to the shock of 9/11) and (b as you said, Clinton had a Republican congress, it's a bit of a stretch to blame it all on Clinton. However, the Bush tax cuts did help us out of that recession-I’m not opposed to all tax cuts, just all tax cuts all the time no matter what the situation is. Also, the law you mentioned allowed banks to give out subprime mortgages, and in doing so overturned federal laws and regulations that prevented them from doing that. Basically, it “de” regulated that sector of the economy. That’s what deregulation is. Incidentally, all of the laws that overturned federal regulations and limits on the banking industry were passed during the first ¾ of Bush’s presidency, when he had a Republican-dominated congress. So I don’t think the Democrat’s 2 year majority in congress (which broke records in how little was accomplished; Republicans are literally filibustering EVERYTHING) is to blame. I guess I also have to give some credit to Bush Jr. for at least ADMITTING that there was a problem, although I don’t think he’d like to mention that he encouraged and signed into law the tools that brought about the problem. In fact, Bush believes his biggest mistake was failing to get Social Security privatized, meaning it would be tied to companies like Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It’s a darn shame so many people’s pensions weren’t tied to those two giants, huh?

2. I repeat my initial statement about spending; I'm less opposed to Obama's deficit because he's run it up on things like health care; that and a good chunk of it is stuff Bush Jr. added anyway. I consider Bush’s deficit worse because, while smaller, it’s spent on tax cuts for the absurdly wealthy and a pointless war in the middle east; on the whole, not very good investments.

3. I preferred to think of it as good-natured banter, especially as I haven't done anything as mean-spirited as, say, accusing the entire other side as being mean-spirited, petty, and worthless. If you want to play the “this guy’s being a dick so everyone of his views is also a dick” game, I'd remind you that as a right-leaning guy, YOU CAN'T WIN THAT FIGHT RIGHT NOW (link below explaining why)

4. While it helps your argument against planned parenthood morally, it exposes it as just that: a moral argument. If you want to argue that, fine, but don't claim you're doing it because you want to cut a tiny amount of money off of the federal deficit. Just come out and say "I don't like planned parenthood". By the way, Ayn O'Connor was the name Ayn Rand used near the end of her life when she accepted social security checks-she was a heavy smoker, and didn't have the money to pay for medical treatments, so she begrudgingly used one of the social programs she so vehemently opposed. I don't think she really compromised herself though; she was still acting in her self-interest, which is the core of objectivism. That’s what honestly bamboozles me about people the most: social programs aren’t just creating a safety net for some stupid idiot you don’t even know; they’re creating one for YOU, too. There’s no way for any of us to know how idiotically stupid we could become in the future.

That's my take, anyway. Well, it's time to play a videogame and eat some puppies.

Arman said...


Well, I acknowledge that we can't do this forever. Either way, its been fun.

1. The Community Reinvestment act was a regulation. It prevented redlining, which necessitated sub prime mortgages. The CRA was passed in 1977, by Carter. Was later renewed by Clinton, and yes, Bush Jr. as well.

Either way, it was an example of mixed market stupidity. The Government encouraged bad loaning practices, and corporations were afraid to object because the CRA was a "civil rights law".

2. So your argument as follows: "Its okay to drive us into financial ruin, because it gets me stuff I like". War spending, is a drop in the ocean compared to amount of domestic spending this administration is engaged in. Its incomparable.

And I don't think the war was pointless. If Iraq becomes a functioning democracy, it would have been worth every penny. Also, enough with the "Tax cuts for rich" myth. Its a campaign slogan, and its not true. The rich shouldered more of the tax burden than the poor after the Bush Tax Cuts. Yes, the wealthy saved more actual dollars, but only because low income households already pay diddly in taxes. A 1% cut for a millionaire saves them more money than a 1% cut for a middle class worker. For a good illustration as to why, look up "Barstool Economics".

3. I wasn't offended. I simply did not care. I don't mind a little harshness in political discourse. However, I do hold to the notion that in general the left is more likely to engage in ad hominem than the right. Its just my personal experience on the matter.

4. I don't like Planned Parenthood. That's not a secret. However, I also want to cut spending and I see no rational justification for continuing to fund a private organization while the government is broke. There is nothing disingenuous about that.

Benfea said...

Very thoughtful and well-considered arguments, Arman.

Now go move to Saudi Arabia if you want to treat women like that. I hear they have a fairly high suicide rate among women.

rob said...

Can I just throw 1 little factoid in here: I'm dutch. In the Netherlands, abortion is completely legal. And everything is going just GREAT here!

The Netherlands also has one of the higher deathrates of newborns in whole of Europe, about 1%. This is because a lot of people live in small villages and don't get to the hospitals in time.

And still our population is growing steadily.

Stop being so worried that civilisation will crumble.

Smpoza said...

Back from Bulletstorm. IT'S AWESOME. I highly recommend it; it's violent, goofy, and a good kick in the ass that the FPS genre desperately needs right now. Anyhoo:

1. You're right! The community reinvestment act was passed in 1977 specifically to end racial discrimination by the banking system. However, in 1980 congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulatory and Monetary Control Act, which eliminated interest rate caps and other regulation, which had previously made sub-prime mortgages unfeasible for banks and savings and loan institutions. Throughout the 80s, Reagan dramatically cut funding to low-income housing and drained the FHA (Federal Housing Administration) of more and more of its regulatory powers, which made sub-prime mortgages more profitable and less frowned upon. The deregulation continued through the Bush Years. This makes more sense than simply "this one law passed thirty years ago and left completely alone caused the current financial situation" theory, don't you think?

2. You're not quite getting what I said. I'm in favor of spending if it will make it easier to pay the debt off later; I think the remarkably fast switch from the multi-trillion dollar surplus of the 1990s the the multi-trillion dollar recession of now seems to show that tax cuts and wars don't do wonders for the treasury. Furthermore, is spreading democracy sufficient cause to invade a country now? Why not invade China? Or North Korea? Or Venezuela? Or Saudi Arabia? Or Nigeria? Also, how can you support limited government if you think we have the right to impose our form of government on other countries?
Even if the rich still shouldered the majority of the tax burden, a) they shouldered more of it under Clinton, when the economy wasn't in the tubes, and b), THEY SHOULD. They make more money, so they pay more money. And don't start with the "taxation reduces productivity" argument; a multi-billionaire losing half his money to taxes still won't think twice about dropping a few million in investments, because he'd still have BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and probably be eager to earn them back. In fact, the graph of the Laffer Curve you showed me puts the ideal tax rate at around 50%, just by eyeballing it. This was the rate, approximately, before the Bush tax cuts.

3. I don't really take issue with much of what you said here.

4. If you want to argue that Planned Parenthood is superfluous spending, fine. Then don't mention your ethical/moral views on the issue because it diverts focus from your argument. The fact that you would mention the planned parenthood's founder was a racist when it wasn't really relevant seems forced, which makes it seem as though you have more motives than simply financial ones.