Defense Secretary Wants Defense Spending Cuts… Really

Categories: ,

You know what we value most as a nation by what we are not allowed to take on without widespread hysteria. The illuminating metaphor is known as the “third rail” of politics. Lose your footing and step on something we as Americans hold dear and ““ ZAP!

Cartoon by Adam Zyglis - Buffalo News (click to purchase)
Cartoon by Adam Zyglis – Buffalo News (click to purchase)

Our most lethal third rails are cutting Medicare, cutting Social Security, cutting defense spending, and raising taxes. So, we can’t cut anything and we can’t ask citizens to pay for it. USA! USA!
Our third rails have us painted into a mixed metaphor corner.

This all could be a quaint ideological tug-o-war between Left and Right: Left wants to spend and tax. Right wants to cut and cut. If that were actually true, it would be as simple as choosing your side and making your case. Do you want to be taxed more or do you want the government to spend less?

What’s clouded this question is what the dreaded government actually is. For example: the slogan often used by right-wingers, “We are a nation of laws,” is singing the praise of the government. Who makes the laws? Enforces them? Alters them? The government. Private industry isn’t deciding case law (not yet anyway). It’s not bringing criminals to justice. It’s certainly not regulating businesses to work for the public good. That’s what government employees do. Or in the case of the banks, are supposed to do. Government makes us a nation AND makes our laws.

Saying you have a “legal right” is saying the government agrees with you that you’re entitled to a said action. Legality is what the government decides based on the will of the people.

But you’ll hear people confess they hate government and are exercising their legal right to say so. And they’ll say it without irony. What do they think the government is?

The phrase “government spending” is always a pejorative. It’s a nasty phrase for excess. According to conservatives government spending is always “out of control,” unless it’s on the military. If it’s the military: We support our troops. Wave flags. Apple pie. Debate over.

The military is the government. It’s government funded and government run. Big military is big government. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. You can’t be against government and be pro-military. That’s like being anti-rain but pro-precipitation.

“I’m for fiscal responsibility and a strong defense,” is a weathered battle cry. The two concepts are at odds with each other. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute in 2008 the U.S. spent 41.5% of the world’s military expenditures. That’s of the entire planet. The second on the list are the Chinese who spend 5.8%. So what are we spending over $600-$800 billion a year on? Who are we protecting ourselves from? What enemy of ours has had a submarine in the past 20 years? Why do we still have those billion dollar programs?

Going largely underreported, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates spoke at the Eisenhower Library (named for the president who coined the term “military-industrial complex”), last week calling for cuts in the Pentagon’s budget. Gates asked, “Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?”

Gates’ speech highlights the fact that we’re in a solo arms race. Every other nation quit the competition and we’re still sprinting to be on top. For the first time we disclosed the exact amount of nuclear warheads in our arsenal: 5,113. That enormous stockpile has to be maintained and by some estimates we spend $29 billion annually on it.

That’s right, we spend $29 billion a year maintaining weapons we only have so we will hopefully never use them. But bring it up and you’re a thumb-sucking pinko.

We have two current wars we are waging and we are still preparing for other wars our grandparents already won.

Military spending is a third rail hopefully made less charged by Secretary Gates, but not likely. For American politicians speaking about it is taboo. To incorporate the always colorful, currently incarcerated, former governor of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards, he said the only way he could lose the election against David Duke was to be caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy. I’ll add: or admit plans for defense spending cuts.
“””“

Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer, editor and columnist for Cagle Cartoons. Follow Tina on Twitter @TinaDupuy.

Want to run Tina’s column in your publication? Contact Cari Dawson Bartley. E-mail [email protected], (800) 696-7561.


Comments

39 responses to “Defense Secretary Wants Defense Spending Cuts… Really”

  1. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    Great accompanying cartoon. Too bad reflects reality so well or it would be funnier. As it is, it just highlights the hypocritical state the republicans find themselves in. That's always sad.

    "The military is the government. It’s government funded and government run. Big military is big government. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military. You can’t be against government and be pro-military. That’s like being anti-rain but pro-precipitation."

    She's really good at demonstrating the depth of republican hypocrisy today! Thanks Tina!

    If every President, Congressperson and military command staff that ordered our young men and women off to war had to actually join them on the front lines…. I wonder how many wars we'd get into?

    Yes, that includes President Obama.

    Time to bring them home.

  2. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    It's one thing to invest in a modern and efficient military. It's an entirely different thing to throw money away on glorified toys. Case in the point, the F-22 raptor. It's a waste on two levels. First, the military is moving more towards unmanned, remote strikes. It's clear that drones and smart missles represent the future, not air superiority fighters. Second, it's role is to replace the F-15 Eagle which is considered the most successful of the jet age air fighters. In countless engagements, in the hands of countless pilots of different nations, it has yet to be shot down by an opposing fighter plane. It's an unnecessary upgrade especially considering it's only possible rival is in still production (the Sukhoi T-50) which is itself a completely untested. I mean "Soviet equipment" doesn't exactly have a strong name brand. On top of all that, the F-35 Lightning II functions as a far more cost effective replacement fifth generation fighter.

    Even will all this said, and a vast majority of military brass siding against the F-22, we were still treated to demonstrations on the right and claims that this was weakening America. On a trip to see some family members I was able to take in an airshow (the name escapes me, but it's a local competitor with Osh Gosh). As fate would have it they had two F-22 scheduled to go on at the end of the show. They were also selling "Save the Raptor" T-shirts for about 20 bucks a pop. Well about 1/2 an hour before the show started we were informed that one of the Raptors was being shelved due to mechanical issues. Oh well, at least we had two. Finally, the second Raptor got into the air, performed an impressive flat belly climb (apparently unique among jet planes) and then promptly rolled right and landed. It suffered mechanical damage as well. Ooops. Those T-shirts were funny before, they were hysterical after.

  3. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Amilam. Well said. I disagree with you on one point and will offer a counter on another. The counter is we have no idea whether or not we'll end up at war with either Russia or China. It's important that we always have the best in every area of procurement from a first-class fighter, to long-range bombers, to ballistic missile and fast-attack submarines, to tanks, and small arms. Keeping the edge in both technology and equipment is essential in the event the world situation changes quickly and we find ourselves trying to fight with either outdated equipment or at parity with an enemy.

    My second point of contention is with saying "I mean “Soviet equipment” doesn’t exactly have a strong name brand." As I've said I spent several years conducting START treaty inspections on Russian nuclear weapons and have been to their air and naval bases, as well. I can tell you that Soviet/Russian-made nukes, planes, and other hardware is absolutely top notch. We used to joke that the Soviets/Russians only did three things well, Vodka, sausage, and military equipment. Some of their older BMPs aren't cutting edge but their nukes (especially the SS-27) and their aircraft are.

    Is there room for cuts in defense? Of course. Do we HAVE to have the F-22 right now? Probably not. In fact, we could probably reduce the military by half or more IF we were willing to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent. But that's not only unlikely, it's just bad policy. As I tried to tell Stug, every dollar the US spends is a drain on the economy. From tanks to IRS employees to Medicare, every dollar spent by the government comes out of the private sector and reduces wealth. The government does not and can not produce wealth. It can only consume it. So each nation must collectively decide how much is too much on the military, entitlement programs, education, and everything else that falls under the rubric of government.

    Where to draw the lines is yet another in the many disagreements between Left and Right. So Amilam may in fact be correct on the F-22 at this point. But when I look at the cartoon in the Dupuy article that says "unnecessary wars" I think of 27 million Iraqis now living in a country where they have a chance to use their newly acquired freedom. That, to me, was a very worthwhile investment. But spending a trillion dollars to add 30 million people to our health care roles with NO plan to add doctors or nurses is a recipe for disaster. It's humane, it's compassionate, and it's fair on paper. In practice, it will have the opposite result creating HUGE waits for care, massive denials to contain costs, and increased ER visits because you can't get an appointment with your FP to take care of the sinus infection you've had for several days already. (That's exactly what's happened in Massachusetts, btw. ER visits are UP, not down.)

    So we're back to the issue of drawing lines. I don't see Left and Right coming to an amicable solution any time soon and that means elections have very real consequences. It'll be interesting to see how the elections this November turn out.

  4. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    This health-care plan may indeed fail. I wish the GOP would have come to the negotiating table and tried to make the bill better with the promise that if they ever gained enough control in Washington they would overturn the legislation. That's the funny thing about drawing lines in the sand, political winds have a way of sweeping them away. I think, and many prominent right thinkers would agree with me, that if McCain would have won the election we would have a heath-care package of some kind being passed. It is a matter of record that before the 2008 election a lot of Republican congressmen were talking about health-care reform in an eerily similar mode. Regardless of how the coming election shakes out, there is no chance that the Republicans will be able to overturn this legislation. Then it all comes down to the reelection year and the last three incumbent presidents have won reelection. Maybe the Republicans will win, maybe not. There may come a time when the right really regrets they didn't take the opportunity to at least trim some of the parts of an unsavory bill. Still, that's how things work in Washington for both sides. Better to create an entertaining fight narrative.

    What I know from my time living overseas is that national heath care can work, or at least work better than the structure currently employed in America. Whether it will or not remains to be seen.

  5. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Just to touch quickly on the possibility of war with Russia and China. If, god forbid, that did happen having a million F-22 Raptors wouldn't make any difference. I have heard the idea of a controlled war in scenarios with Taiwan (which again seems moot since even if we maintain a distinct technological edge we would never be able to station enough of our forces remotely to fight against the entire Chinese army), but in the concept of absolute war jets would be of little concern.

    A more likely scenario seems to be the Soviet Union selling the Sukhoi T-50 to non friendly nations such as Iran and North Korea. Now if Israel or Taiwan wanted to remotely contract the creation of more F-22 and absorb all of the cost (there has been some interest in Israel doing just that), then I would have no problem with production restarting on the F-22. In the meantime, I would like to see more emphasize put on smart/controlled missile strikes. Improved missiles and radar seem a very cost effective counter to new age fighters, though not as big a draw at an air show.

  6. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Syncopation: "You can’t be against government and be pro-military. That’s like being anti-rain but pro-precipitation."

    Yea, that's like being anti-death penalty but pro-abortion. Can't be.

  7. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    Actually I'm all for the death penalty Art. But it is certainly not equivalent to abortion. Unless you're letting your religion do your thinking for you.

  8. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Yea, that’s like being anti-death penalty but pro-abortion. Can’t be."

    – I would agree, except I don't know of anybody that is pro-abortion. I know lots of people that are pro-choice. They all believe that abortion is a horrific thing, but that a woman has the right, or should to a certain extent, to choose.

    I understand that that is a subtle distinction that is probably beyond your understanding, as is the fact that many supposed "pro-life" people are actually merely pro-birth. Whether the child has any kind of life after the fact of the birth is not their concern as long as their religious sensibilities aren't offended and, of course, that they aren't taxed in any way to help provide for the child whose mother probably isn't in position to appropriately take care of or she wouldn't be seeking an abortion in the first place.

    That the religious conservative position that abortion should be illegal is incompatible with the economic conservative position that there should be no social safety nets, and that both are incompatible with reality, is just one grouping of the cognitive dissonances that the GOP has to deal with in order to cobble together a semi-functional party.

  9. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Stug: "They all believe that abortion is a horrific thing, but that a woman has the right, or should to a certain extent, to choose."

    What do you mean . . . "'to a certain extent"? Should a woman have the right to snuff out life or not?

  10. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    I snuff out life when I scratch my arm, Art. Cells die.

    You very well know that there is a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a full term baby. Everything in between is on a scale of viability. You make it sound like abortions are the destruction of toddlers, which, of course, they are not. I'm opposed to all abortion of course, but I would never DREAM of telling a woman what to do with her body and her fetus. I'm not that arrogant. Apparently YOU are.

  11. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Syn: "Actually I’m all for the death penalty Art. But it is certainly not equivalent to abortion."

    No. It's worse. In a death penalty scenario, the condemned has rights. One of them is the right to a defense attorney, to plead his case and try to save his very life.

    Who speaks for and defends the unborn child?

  12. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    >>Who speaks for and defends the unborn child?

    Who better? The potential MOTHER.

  13. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Syn: "I would never DREAM of telling a woman what to do with her body"

    In your opinion, at what point along the timeline of "viability" is the infant no longer "her body"? When it has eyes, ears and a brain? When it can smile? When it can feel pain? When it gets a drivers license? By the way, how old are you? Maybe it's not too late.

  14. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    >>Who speaks for and defends the unborn child?

    Sin: "Who better? The potential MOTHER."

    Right. Of course. The one who wants to snuff out the life should be the one to defend it. Makes perfect sense . . . to a liberal.

  15. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    >In your opinion, at what point along the timeline of “viability” is the infant no longer “her body”? When it has eyes, ears and a brain?

    I'm not female, I've never had sex with a female and I never will have sex with a female. It's not something I'll ever have to deal with. It seems to me it would be a very difficult choice. But it is clearly not MY choice to make for someone else. Nor is it yours.

    Just my opinion.

  16. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Syn: "It’s not something I’ll ever have to deal with."

    Then it is perfectly ok to stick your head in the sand and take the "it is above my paygrade" stance. The Obama school of caring. It is Obama, you may remember, that voted to refuse abortion surviving infants any medical treatment. Yup, they lay the baby on a towel and walk right out of the room. Sweet and caring liberals. Think I am making it up?

    People like you make me sick. You've got so much to say about something you know nothing about and, frankly, do not really care at all about . . . because, after all, "It’s not something I’ll ever have to deal with."

    On that note, I think I'll go home and hug/kiss my two kids.

  17. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    And the award for the most sacrine and cloying post goes to… (drum roll please)

    *da da da da da da da*

    ArtW!

    Congratulations! It's no wonder that he feels sick; his little performance brought out the gag reflex of the entire room!

    Stand up and take a bow, you earned it!

    Hey, good job on "hug/kissing your kids." Feel free to show them affection when not hysterically grandstanding on the internet too.

  18. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Obama, you may remember, that voted to refuse abortion surviving infants any medical treatment—-could I see a legitimate source for this contention? A real source, one that can be relied on.

  19. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Good Life: "Obama, you may remember, that voted to refuse abortion surviving infants any medical treatment—-could I see a legitimate source for this contention? A real source, one that can be relied on."

    Are you serious? This was a fairly well reported item. maybe you were still on a kool-aide bing. Obama's voting record on pro-abortion (sorry, pro-'choice') is crystal-clear . . . and according to Planned Parenthood, his record stands at 100%.

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/summar

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/200

    Oh sure, Obama is a clever cat . . . he votes 'present' where politically expediant. In Illinois, a 'present' vote is the same as a 'no' vote – as only 'yes' votes count towards passage of a bill.

  20. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    As with most threads this one got off topic pretty quickly. But that’s fine. We’re a small group of dysfunctional family members. But what was a decent, if somewhat heated exchange, was met with the standard bill of fare. I found Amilam’s posts on military hardware a breath of fresh air, but the immaturity won out and took center stage.

    Rather than intelligently discuss a hugely important issue on life and abortion, he had to go straight to his usual repertoire. I’ve played along with it long enough. I think it’s time to try something new like ignoring the ignorant. If we can have more posts like the one on the need for the F-22, I’ll chime in. But I’ve had my fill of playground time.

    Sync. One question for you. When a woman is not _for_ abortion but only for _choice_, what is the result for the child developing inside of her when she makes her “choice”? What happens to him or her every time without exception? As to it being a “clump of cells” it seems to be the only clump that left to itself will turn into a human being every time. Tumors don’t. Cells on our arms don’t. But without fail, fertilized eggs that attach to the mother result in human beings unless nature or a vacuum cleaner intervenes.

    Personally, I don’t believe life begins at the moment of conception (I don’t believe fertilized eggs in a petri dish is “life”) but it begins when the fertilized egg attaches to its mother. At that point, we have life. Not just a clump of cells, but life. It can’t live outside the mother’s womb but that’s not “proof” it isn’t life. I’m not “religious” but I don’t think science has offered anything of real substance on viability, etc. I’m with the innocent unborn child on humanitarian grounds rather than with the mother who seems to almost always make her choice out of convenience for herself. The percentage of abortions for rape and incest are always touted as justification to keep abortion safe, legal, and “rare”, but it is likely VERY small. I also agree that while you’re under no obligation to take a stand, claiming it’s out of your league because you’re a guy is like saying you can’t comment on defense spending because you’re not military.

  21. SJ Schiffman Avatar
    SJ Schiffman

    As always, your columns are wonderful and thought-provoking. To all those politicians who want to talk about military spending but who feel they can't, I suggest that they come to Israel. We talk about military spending all the time.

    As an aside, if you have any more " foul-ups" by Ms. Napolitano on domestic security and terrorism, I venture to guess that you will be talking about military spending alot more often.

  22. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    "I found Amilam’s posts on military hardware a breath of fresh air, but the immaturity won out and took center stage."

    Pot meet kettle. I'm sure if Sync had ended it with some chest beating about valuing a woman as a human being and that he was going to go home and kiss his wife that you wouldn't have responded at all. *Sigh* What can you do with such people?

    That fact that something eventually "turns" into a human being is proof that it isn't a human being yet. Kudos on having a more intelligent position than life begins at conception (drat, and here I was hoping to work in a George Carlin quote), but failing to draw a distinction between this:
    http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0032/gentherp/blas

    and this:
    http://cordelia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8345269c569e2

    is problematic. See unlike the "thoughtful and levelheaded" responses of Art, libs (oh no, an abbreviation!) are not sure when life begins. It's one of these things that Cons "just know", but we look at the science and no one is quite sure, The difference between a blastocyst and a viable fetus in terms of cell structure is far greater than a baboon and an adult human. Culturally we as a nation and a collected race aren't sure either. We recognize the immense difference in a miscarriage in the first and third trimester. We recognize the difference between a still birth and a toddler's death. I mean only one of these would it be culturally normative to have a funeral. So yeah, unlike Art we don't just know when life begins, and thus we can't grandstand on the internet about "snuffing it out". A pity that.

  23. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Amilame: "So yeah, unlike Art we don’t just know when life begins, and thus we can’t grandstand on the internet about “snuffing it out”."

    I made no distinction regarding when I, personally, believe life begins . . . I simple asked someone else's opinion – given the person's post.

    Suffice to say that I surely believe 'life' has begaun by the time the baby has eyes, ears, a functioning brain, arms, legs, hands, feet, hair, etc. along with the ability to smile, kick, flex its fingers, feel pain, etc.. Even though the baby inside the womb can do all these things and more . . . you still aren't sure 'life' has begun? Like I asked Sync; how old are you? Maybe it's not too late for a really later termer.

  24. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Gee, more of that thoughtful commentary from AW that Cal was toting so highly. How could I spoil such thoughtful and carefully crafted intellectual conversation? Shame on me!

    I'm a bit worried that I've picked up another pun maker. Don't get me wrong, it's truly the height of wit and intelligence. I mean it's no mystery that all the great comedians are known primarily for their puns. However, as clever and crisp as your humorous styling maybe, it does provide me with a problem. You see it's hard to tell you trolls apart. You're infringing on Ca's territory (though to be fair you're doing it on par with his work). Please stick to grandstanding like an idiot about kissing your kids. It's something I can associate you with. If you could put it in caps and add some more exclamation points it would really help me out.

    It is pretty impressive how completely you botched my post. I said that Libs don't have a uniformed opinion from when life begins because we didn't get it handed down directly from God. It's clear you aren't looking for an answer, but rather a chance to rant, but I'll play your game if only to insure you show some affection to your children.

    For me and only me it's at some point between Week 11 and 12 because most of the organs have formed and are beginning to function. When you guys finally get around to sharing God's personal number I'll give him a ring and we can both enjoy having opinions from divine mandate.

    On a sidenote, I'm disappointed that no one has called abortions more heinous than the Holocaust. Don't be shy just because you aren't talking in an ideological vacuum. Pick up the slack!

  25. Phineas Avatar
    Phineas

    "Maybe it’s not too late for a really later termer."

    A pro lifer advocating murder. Ah, the power of Christianity.

  26. geoff Avatar

    Hey, Art: ever wonder why I'm kind of down on Catholic charities and support a woman's right to choose for herself?

    My wife was born in Ireland. Not a very wealthy family, and when her mother got pregnant for the third time her father refused the usual alternative, knowing what the Catholic-run orphanages were like (wasn't any big secret, was it?). As a result of a botched illegal abortion, my wife grew up without a mother. Something we both have to deal with all the time, dude.

    "You’ve got so much to say about something you know nothing about."

  27. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    Art: "What do you mean . . . “‘to a certain extent”? Should a woman have the right to snuff out life or not?"

    – It isn't a black and white issue to all people Art, not everyone is that simplistic. I would have thought that "a certain extent" would be self explanatory in that I feel that there are circumstances when abortion should and should not be permitted, thus the mother would have the right to choose to a certain extent. Extenuating circumstances exist, individual cases will be different for various reasons.

    Mandating that all viable pregnancies be carried to term is not a realistic vision unless and until the social support structures exist to ensure that the child will be adequately fed, clothed and given educational opportunities. The financing of these structures by tax dollars is opposed by the same party that wants to enact the birth mandate in the first place. And no, I'm not saying that anyone should have to pay to raise anyone else's child, I'm saying that unless you are willing to pay for those services then you have no viable alternative to offer.

    Cal is correct that the vast majority of abortions are done because the child is unwanted or inconvenient, with only about 6% being done for health reasons and 1% for rape/incest. If you look a little deeper you find that 65% are for unmarried women vs married or divorced, 30% are for women with incomes under 15K with another 20% for women with an income between 15K and 30K. Regarding age, better that 50% are for women under the age of 25 with 20% being for teenagers. So the big picture is that the majority of the abortions that you want to make illegal are for young, poor, single women who don't want, or realize that they can't properly take care of, the child in the first place. At the same time the conservatives want to defund the social support services that a woman in these circumstances would depend on. Cal claims to side with the child for humanitarian reasons, doesn't sound very humanitarian to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like legislating your morality on others on the basis of religious faith instead of scientific facts, and with very little regard to the further life prospects of either mother or child.

    As to the pro-birth (sorry, pro-'life') movement's reliance on graphic descriptions of abortions to elicit an emotional reaction instead of a rational one, I don't know at what stage of a pregnancy those become necessary but I would imagine it is in the later stages. The facts are that 52% of all abortions occur before the 9th week of pregnancy, 25% happen between the 9th and 10th weeks, 12% happen between the 11th and 12th weeks, 6% happen between the 13th and 15th weeks, 4% happen between the 16th and 20th weeks, and 1% of all abortions happen after the 20th week of pregnancy. Given this information, that puts 89% of abortions within the first trimester and 99% before the 20th week, well before the fetus reaches the 50%-70% probability of being viable outside of the womb, at about the 24th week. So, once again, the big picture is that the vast majority of abortions simply don't fit the model that you hold forth, for emotional as opposed to factual reasons, as being stereotypical.

    To answer your question, so tactfully put cosidering the subject matter, "Should a woman have the right to snuff out life or not?" In my opinion, they should, until the 15th week. The potential benefit to society of enabling a young woman to terminate a pregnancy she doesn't want, which would enable her to continue her education and therefore improve the likelihood that she will be better able to provide for any children she has later, outweighs the potential cost to society of your outraged, outdated and irrelevant morality power play. Between the 15th and 24th weeks I think it should be dependant on extenuating cicumstances such as proof that the child will have severe physical or developmental disabilities. I see no benefit in forcing a woman to accept that level of responsibility if she doesn't choose to. Beyond the 24th week, abortion should only be available in cases of medical necessity.

  28. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Abortion is a legal, social, and scientific issue. All sides stress different factors to make their points. There really is a bottom line here. Is abortion murder or a choice? Legally, Roe v Wade is now considered "stare decisis" or settled law. Women have the legal right to choose to end their pregnancy. From there, the issue gets murky. We have scientists with various opinions, ethicists with ideas of morality defending both fetus and mother, and those who are religious attempting to settle the discussion with scripture. I have nothing but respect for nearly all of the established religions in America and I’m 100% for their right to practice and preach what they believe. They also have every right to vote their conscience politically. But for those who don’t believe in God or that He’s involved in our daily lives, there needs to be better evidence. That takes us back to our ideological prisms that tend to search for whatever supports what we already believe.

    For me, the developing fetus, from clump of cells/blastocyst, to “viable” fetus to birth, IF left alone, that “thing” will become a living, breathing human being 100% of the time unless nature intervenes or someone sucks it out in a D&C or pierces it’s tiny skull and sucks its brains out. You can call that “an abortion”, “a choice”, or call a growing child “a fetus” or a “clump of cells” but it’s human life in an early stage. The “choice” the mother makes is ALWAYS death for the child and the “choice” is almost always just to save the mother from “an inconvenience” rather than from a pregnancy that resulted from rape or incest. I’m on the side of the innocent life that didn’t ask to be created and would, in 100% of the cases, ask not to “terminated.”

  29. geoff Avatar

    Stug: "I see no benefit in forcing a woman to accept that level of responsibility if she doesn’t choose to." Especially since that "level of responsibility" is not shared equally by all parties involved. How many guys are prepared to carry a fetus around for 9 months?

    "The “choice” the mother makes is ALWAYS death for the child." Cal being omniscient again.

  30. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Should a woman have the right to snuff out life or not?—————This is the wrong question. We all know that when abortion was illegal the rich went to Europe and the poor went to back door butcher shops or self induced.

    The question should be "What works the best to encourage women to not have an abortion?" There are statistics that tell us what works and what doesn't, but if I mention math or science Cal says I'm close minded, so I would ask all of the pro-life people….What works? Since we know that making it illegal DOESN'T. Been there, Done that.

  31. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Stug: "To answer your question, so tactfully put cosidering the subject matter, “Should a woman have the right to snuff out life or not?” In my opinion, they should, until the 15th week"

    So, for Amilam, the magic number to save a child is week 11 or 12 and for you it is week 15. I am at least happy to see you both are willing to pffer your opinions. I had typed up a rather lenghty response to Amilam's snide post, but the site crashed and the post lost (perhaps it worked out for the best). The Cliff's notes version: why week 15? Why not 14, 11, 8 or 5? Is it a conscience issue (i.e. the unborn baby has reached a certain stage of formation and looks more "human" – more like a "baby" Or is your basis a more scientific one (i.e. it is not "life" until X week)? For Amilam, "life" begins when the major organs are formed. Most people I talk to have a 'feeling' of when life actually begins and, before which time, it is 'acceptable' to abort (kill) the fetus. A quick fetal timeline leading up to your Week 15:

    By DAY 22: Heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood. (Not life yet?). By the end of third week the child’s backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

    Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands are developing.

    Week 6: Brain waves are detectable (still not life?); mouth and lips are present; fingernails formed.

    Week 7: Eyelids and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

    Week 8: Every organ is in place (yes, Amilam – at week 8), bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear (still not 'alive'?).

    Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup. (and, in you and Amilam's opinion, it is STILL ok to terminate this baby?)

    Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

    Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience PAIN, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb. (still ok to go in and hack it to pieces, huh?).

    Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

    Week 15: The baby has an adult’s taste buds.

    "In fact, it sounds a lot like legislating your morality on others on the basis of religious faith instead of scientific facts, and with very little regard to the further life prospects of either mother or child"

    What "scientific facts" are you referring to? When 'life' begins? Please quote the source.

    Listen up Stug. I was once in your camp – so I understand exactly where you're coming from. I argued wiith my, then fiance, about this at great length. She was part of a pro-life committee with her church. I happened upon one (and then many more to follow) care group session for mothers who had abortions. In the vast (as in nearly all) instances, the reasons the mother had for aborting the child ran a typical gambit from 'I didn't want to be pregnant for the prom' to 'it was just not the right time to have a baby (i.e. boyfriend issue, wanting to be able to party, career issue, etc.)'. It was not an affront to putting the baby up for adoption or not having the means (though many were very poor) . . . it was the simple fact they did not want to be pregnant. These woman now carry a heavy emotional burden and strong sense of loss by their decision and, no, they did not realise it would be so at the time they had the abortion. One described it this way: 'It was easier at the time, emotionally, to have the abortion than it was to buy my first car. Having the abortion was an easy decision, the procedure quick and I left with a sense of 'phew, glad THAT's over . . . whereas I stressed for days on end whether to buy a red mustang or yellow mazda – worried what my friends would think'. I could tell you many such stories and while I know there are also far more serious reasons such as incest and rape (I've heard many of those as well), I can tell you the vast majority were primarily ones of vanity and the desire to just keep on – keepin on.

    I appreciate your candor and opinion. Debating abortion is even worse than debating Global Warming. At some point, even you will have to admit to yourself MMGW is bogus science and the planet is not going to turn into a raging ball of fire . . . LOL.

  32. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Gee, all that work copy/pasting the timeline of fetal development (don't take it personally, I cribbed off exactly the same site), but I still don't see Art saying when he thinks life begins. His timeline starts at Day 22 so I guess that's the minimum, but we really shouldn't have to guess now should we? Hardly debating in good faith.

  33. geoff Avatar

    Are sperm alive? How about ovaries?

  34. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    geoff—–Actually some religions feel that sex should only be for reproduction because all sperm and eggs are life and holy. I could easily give support for that from the OT but if the Bible says something different than some want it to say I would be warping what it actually says. After all both the bible and constitution only say what certain people want them to say.

  35. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    What week the line should be drawn is still a silly question. The question should still be “What works the best to encourage women to not have an abortion?”

  36. geoff Avatar

    Good Life: "The question should still be “What works the best to encourage women to not have an abortion?”"

    Yep. The "Reductio ad absurdum" was just thrown in there to confuse the wingnuts. We all know "Every Sperm is Sacred" and sing it quite often.

  37. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Good Life asks, “The question should still be “What works the best to encourage women to not have an abortion?” In an earlier thread you said, “We know making it illegal doesn’t work.” No, we don’t. Like drugs we’ve never as a nation had the will to REALLY make something “moral” illegal and we never will. But I will stipulate we can’t end abortion by passing laws.

    My question to you is this. “Is abortion murder?” If your answer is “no”, who cares how many we have or don’t have? Rock on! Party down. Kill the clump and buy the car. It’s a no-brainer. In spite of a not-so-clever dodge, Amilam refused to answer a direct question by making a snide remark to ArtW and avoided the issue. If it IS human life but only after a certain number of days, then asking “how many days?” is critically important. When does the “clump” become a life? Who decides? Seems pretty relevant to me.

    "Sadly", I’m out of Cagle time for today.

  38. Amilam Avatar
    Amilam

    Well I don't think Cal can top his earlier snafu where he spends a substantial paragraph berating me for points that I clearly posted were tongue in cheek, but he seems determined to try.

    "In spite of a not-so-clever dodge, Amilam refused to answer a direct question by making a snide remark to ArtW and avoided the issue. If it IS human life but only after a certain number of days, then asking “how many days?” is critically important. When does the “clump” become a life? Who decides? Seems pretty relevant to me."

    Actually, I did respond to that point in an earlier post, to again quote myself: "For me and only me it’s at some point between Week 11 and 12 because most of the organs have formed and are beginning to function." Even Art recognized that I answered the question. I'm not sure how me asking Art to define when he believes life begins is a dodge, but maybe you're just really tired and having a bad day. I'll give you a chance to admit your mistake and we can start again with a clean slate.

  39. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    ArtW: "The Cliff’s notes version: why week 15? Why not 14, 11, 8 or 5?"

    – A combination of factors.

    Why the 15th week? If we aren't going to ban abortions, and I don't think we should, and we don't want them to be done "on demand", as the pro-birth faction is so fond of incorrectly intimating of the pro-choice, then there needs to be some sort of cut-off line. Statistically speaking, 95% of all abortions are done before the 16th week. The fetus doesn't reach even a 50% chance of being viable outside the womb untill around the 24th week. That leaves a pretty large, 8-9 week, buffer zone between the cut-off date for the procedure and a reasonable chance of viability.

    Your listing of the various stages of development in an effort to elicit a purely emotional response instead of a rational one is a typical appeal of the right. I agree with you, that it is a terrible thing to end a pregnancy at any stage. I also believe that a woman has the right to control, up to a point, what happens to her own body.

    " “In fact, it sounds a lot like legislating your morality on others on the basis of religious faith instead of scientific facts, and with very little regard to the further life prospects of either mother or child”

    What “scientific facts” are you referring to? When ‘life’ begins? Please quote the source. "

    – Yes, well that was the point wasn't it. When you impose your morality on others based on a belief in bronze-age mythology, there aren't any facts to refer to.

    The argument over when life begins is idiotic. The egg is a living cell, as is the sperm, prior to the conception. Life doesn't begin, it continues. After the egg is fertilized it has the potential to become a separate individual, but there are still many things that can go wrong, something like 15-20% of all pregnancies self-terminate within the first trimester for various reasons.

    "At some point, even you will have to admit to yourself MMGW is bogus science and the planet is not going to turn into a raging ball of fire . . . LOL."

    – Are the deniers still telling you that GW is going to turn the Earth into a raging ball of fire? No wonder ya'll have such issues dealing with reality if your information isn't any better than that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *