Michele Bachmann doesn't have a chance at becoming president in 2012, and she apparently gets that. That's why she's using her last weakened speeches to convince potential voters on the evils of abortion. She also wants to convince you to vote for the farthest right of ideals and "not settle for moderate."
Naturally Michele Bachmann doesn't want a "moderate" government. Why have a moderate government when you can keep the middle class and lower uneducated, pregnant and without the protection that the current government assures its people? It was Michele herself that said she wants to march into the Department of Education and shut out the lights. Meanwhile, who's going to be responsible for the education of children -- her husband and his "pray the gay away" church nonsense? That's just ridiculous.
Bachmann claims that she has proposed an abortion hindering bill that would require all women to be forced to listen to the heartbeat of their fetus before making the decision to abort.
"As president, I'll put our government out of the abortion industry, once and for all," she said.
Fortunately, she doesn't have a snowball's chance in entering the oval office as anything more than a quirky court jester.
---~~*~~---
©2011 Chelsea Hoffman is the Author of "Chloe and Louis," and the "Fear Chronicles," series of books. She also covers a myriad of true crime stories online. Click here to visit Chelsea Hoffman's official blog and contact website. Be sure to like the page to become a fan!
---~~*~~---
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 95 ( 1 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
And it goes far beyond their attempts to outlaw abortion and in many cases even birth control, and to legislate abstinence-only sex education and mandatory prayer and foreign language credit for speaking-in-tongues* in public schools. If you want to understand where they're coming from in terms of the status of women, do a little googling for things like "Quiverfull" and "Christian Patriarchy Movement", and then do it again adding the word "abuse" to your search terms.
How does all that fit in with Michele Bachmann? I think this YouTube video answers that.
A quote:It seems to me that in Michele Bachmann's "Teabaggin' for Jesus" kind of worldview, women are not of equal status to men, and that the power of government should be used to control them in ways that it doesn't attempt to control men.
I don't think it's right to try to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will, and I don't think trying to use religion as an excuse to justify it is right, either. In fact, I think it's disgusting, pathetic, and cowardly.
I'm not all that interested in gods (or faeries or unicorns, either) but I am concerned about people who use their religious beliefs as an excuse to abuse others. Some of the things I've seen and heard and read are really, deeply disturbing. For example, some of the stories shared at Hillary McFarland's blog, Quivering Daughters.
Marx and Engels would be either livid or laughing if they could hear what some people think of as communist thinking. A long time ago the meaning of "communist" in political discourse in the US became the equivalent of "poo poo head."
I'm not sure, but I think it's a Glenn Beck thing.
I realize political thought is brought about by a variety of ways. Between 'We The People and the houses and the President we eventually come to a consensus . . . or not.
I wish the people thought just like me. But since they don't they have brought about a law that makes killing your unborn child ok. But even nnow if I was in government I would fight to make it a law that sex was to be considered a contract and the baby belonged equally to each person. It could not be killed unless both parents agreed.
You guys are letting yourself bow down to women as though that were a sign of a right attitude in men.
We are tough enough to allow you to be as important as we are now :) So Man up!!! That's your baby too.
There's nothing "manly" about forcing a woman to do anything, Glome. And that includes forcing her to remain pregnant against her will.
I had a very close friend who faced this situation back in the day, and I still believe the same thing now that I said to him, then. If he could share the responsibility of being pregnant and giving birth, then he could share in the decision.
There's nothing "manly" about treating women like property.
That's exactly what it sounded like you were suggesting when you said "I would fight to make it a law that sex was to be considered a contract and the baby belonged equally to each person."
"Real men and women protect their children."
Which they may very well be doing when a woman decides to have an abortion and a man doesn't try to force her to remain pregnant against her will.
I shouldn't have put in the word 'real'. I should have said men and women have the responsibility to protect their children and should be given equal rights in deciding to protect the life of their child.
But Wil, it seems like the philosophical thoughts that separate people really make it difficult to compromise today. Even when we would really like to split the difference with our opponent.
I know you would protect your children now if they were threatened in any way.
Our difference is the person hood of the child. That is a very uncompromisable subject :)
"Our difference is the person hood of the child. That is a very uncompromisable subject :)"
I don't understand the idea of granting full legal personhood to a fertilized egg and then using that to force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will. Especially when many of the people pushing for this also want to ban or severely limit access to contraceptives, and effective sex education in schools.
To get some ideas about what can happen when these things happen, I recommend reading about what happened in Romania under Nicolae Ceau?escu. For example, this and this.
Even though we both know what motivates the difference in our thinking there's nothing we would do to change it. You'll just have to wait till you out number us :)
Jeraldo had a good program on Fox. He was out with the crowd. It was fun. You can probably watch the video of him on his page on FOX. You're probably sick of reading about it. Also, John Stossel's program was about the crowd and talked to two people about where (Those two only) they got some money to help. Not a big deal. Oh, it's just coming on again. I'll change the channel.
BTW, I know one or two families that are against prevention for anyone but that's all. I know a huge amount of Christians and they think that way. That's extreme. Actually my son and his wife decided to let God decide how many they had. They recently had their 7th. Jeff said they just wanted to do that. Let Him decide. I love it! I think they hope He's through :)
I seriously doubt it, but if you've got evidence to support your claim, feel free to provide it.
An article from earlier this year the NY Times estimated that the US Communist Party had around 2000 members. That made it bigger than the Socialist Party at 1000, but smaller than the Democratic Socialists with around 6000.
"Of the 45 declared goals of the Communist Party..."
That's a list of goals published in a book called The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen, an guy so out-there and so far to the right that he's described in the National Review (a conservative magazine) as an "all-around nutjob". Which probably explains why you're posting URL from nutjob conspiracy theory sites like Rense and Uhuh. What's next? Undeniable proof provided by aliens from the planet Fruutluup that the Holocaust never happened and Elvis is managing a bowling alley in Shreveport, Louisiana?
Well, any party that's growing is one of the fastest growing parties, so that's not really saying much. I could start a political party today, and if I get one more person to join it, the membership would have doubled. That would be a pretty fast-growing, but still very small, political party.
"Gee Wil, it's funny that you didn't get the NEWS, it was presented to the US Congress before you were born...."
Yeah, but it still came from the nutjob's book.
"Your movement and "AGENDA" are and have been exposed."
It's not my movement.
"Ha ha ha ...mock on!"
That's the kind of stuff they publish on the conspiracy sites your referencing. I think they deserve to be mocked.
"McCarthy was RIGHT, CORRECT, NOT SOME KOOK."
McCarthy was right about there being communists in the US. He was wrong in the way he went around "making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence" (which is why they use his name for the word for doing it). The witch-hunts that were a part of American anti-communist hysteria at various times during the twentieth century were shameful. That people like Glenn Beck are trying to revive that hysteria as part of their media schtick is pathetic.
And I don't think many, many of the Catholics abide & don't think they would, for the most part, push for such a thing to be dealt with by the government.
To satisfy myself, I need to say that God called them children. I won't go into the biology of why the sperm HAS to be carrying the dead spirit of Adam in it's chubby little body which makes the child a human being.
I'll read this and this :)
Every case, huh? Feel free to prove it whenever you've got the time. Until then, I'll consider it even more ridiculous than your "45 stated goals", as published by "all-around nutjob" Cleon Skousen.
You're the one who seems to be a Skousen follower, quoting him repeatedly.
Good question, Drizzle.
I wonder how the ACLU of Colorado is promoting Cleon Skousen's 45 goals when they defend the right of Christian students in Colorado Springs to wear crosses and rosaries to school?
Or the ACLU of New Jersey's support for a Bridgeton High School student to wear a red armband that said "Life" as part of her participation in a day of solidarity against abortion.
Or the ACLU of Tennessee's successful defense of a group of Nashville students' right to hold Christian religious services in a public park.
And the list goes on and on and on. I think some people are so desperate to find "reds under the bed" that they see commie conspiracies just about everywhere.
Michelle is...
"If she is against any government involvement then this proposal in personal lives, then this proposal is against her own standards"
Murder is always against the law. If a parent killed their toddler the police would go straight to the family and get into their business and we would all agree. If they killed a 5 mo old fetus it is also murder. That is consistent thinking. Any time murder occurs all of us, Dems and Conservatives recognize that as reasonable cause for police interference.
I know we all think different and that's ok. but it isn't really a stretch for you to see the logic in how we see it. Nor for us to understand why you see it how you do.
(Actually, it is hard for me to understand how you guys can say yes to abortion which you are doing when you give away your vote in the act.) Unless you don't believe in God.
Be nice to us cause we'll never, never change till you outnumber us :):)
I've been having to delete a lot of spam comments. People make accounts, leave half a comment then say something like "check this out" or "get cheap purses and a penis enlargement here" you know what I mean?
Thought the comment was one of those and should've read it closer
I can usnderstand why you thought it might be spam. I should have written more about why I think everyone should view the 180 movie. It is very compeling video of college students changing their minds about the abortion issue. www.180movie.com
Abortion is restricted, but legal, in Comfort's native New Zealand, and there's not a lot of political or social debate about it. I guess that could limit the amount of money a guy like Ray might make peddling his DVDs, and explains why he left for the US instead.
He has given over 200,000 copies away, a DVD costs $5.00, and it can be seen on the internet for free. What does Ray have to do to show you he is not in it for the money? He wants to change lives and save lives from the American abortion holocaust.
I don't know, but for a start, he could stop begging for money and peddling crap.
"He wants to change lives and save lives from the American abortion holocaust."
Sure he does. Especially if he gets to hang out with Kirk Cameron and show off his banana. Too bad he didn't care more about saving lives in New Zealand, his homeland. But then, no Kirk Cameron. And apparently not that many people willing to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will. Bummer for Ray.
So no matter what evidence is provided nothing is good enough for you?
There is a word to describe people like that is often used ironically in attempts to discredit pro-lifers.
"And apparently not that many people willing to use their religious beliefs as an excuse to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will."
I find that statement humorous in many ways. But I won't go down that rabbit trail.
Ad hominem attacks on Ray Comfort does nothing to convince me that abortion is a good thing.
As I said, for starters he can stop begging for money and peddling crap. For money.
"Ad hominem attacks on Ray Comfort does nothing to convince me that abortion is a good thing."
I don't know anybody who's trying to convince anybody that abortion is a good thing. Abortion is an alternative to forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will, and lame attempts from Ray Comfort or anybody else to connect abortion to Hitler and the Holocaust does nothing to convince me that forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will is a good thing.
One thing it does do is remind me that Hitler and the Nazis outlawed abortion (for "Aryan" women only, of course) just like Ray Comfort and Michele Bachmann want to do.
In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared:
“ In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. [1] ”
I think it concerns most people why Hitler promoted abortion and not why he supposedly outlawed it for some.
Do you think forcing the Germans to stop killing the Jews was a good thing?
Not only was it outlawed on March 9, 1943 but one of the penalties for breaking the law was death.
"Do you think forcing the Germans to stop killing the Jews was a good thing?"
I think that it's good that the Holocaust was stopped, but I don't think everything that was done to stop it was a good thing. For example, I don't think it was good to bomb cities like Dresden, Hamburg, Darmstadt, Pforzheim, etc. were good things.
Do you think that forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will is a good thing?
If you saw a man beating his son to death would you force him to stop?
http://troll.me/images/dwight-schrute/your-argument-is-invalid-false-my-argument-makes-perfect-sense-and-youre-a-vagina.jpg
Because I'm not advocating for forcing women to have abortions against the will. Just like I'm not advocating for forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will. I'm advocating for recognizing that women have the right to decide for themselves whether or not their pregnancy is desirable.
And that has nothing to do with rape or incest. But since you brought it up, lets not forget that Bachmann was one of the people trying to change legislation to redefine rape in order to deny federal funding to cover the cost of abortions for some rape victims.
All the time. And I think the general consensus is that it's been doing so for about the last 3.5 billion years.
LOL! Brilliant, Chelsea!
But in any case, I don't think it's a question of innocence, or a question of when a genetically unique life starts. I think it's a question of legal and moral personhood, of physical independence (or lack thereof), and of competing rights.
It may not be something people like to think about much, but I think most people (consciously or unconsciously) look beyond the genetic uniqueness of a particular life to determine its value.
A person comes upon an between a fuel tanker and an SUV. Both drivers are dead, but there's a genetically-unique, living, human baby trapped in the SUV and a genetically-unique, living dog trapped in the sleeper of the fuel tanker. The fuel tanker could explode at any minute. Of those who would attempt a rescue, I don't think many would value the dog's life more than the human's and save the dog first.
Do we have any statistics on how many presumably-innocent, genetically-unique lives are "punished with death by the hands of man" for food?
But I don't think it's just about valuing some genetically-unique lives over others based on what species they belong to.
A person is the first on the scene of a burning building. Rushing inside, the person finds a genetically-unique, living six-month old human baby and a container with 1000 genetically-unique, living, frozen human embryos. There's only enough time to get either the container or the baby to safety. I don't think many people would save the embryos and leave the six-month old to die in the fire.
Out of curosity, would you be willing to tell me what human life you consider to be the most innocent?
I think for most people it becomes much less of a dilemma if the choice is between letting five adult humans die or killing a dog. Or even between letting one adult human die or killing five dogs. Or one adult human and 10,000 cockroaches or mealworms. Or one adult human and 1000 frozen human embryos.
I think, when push comes to shove, most people value the lives of humans over non-humans, and people over potential people.
Tell that to the 1800+ women who die from pregnancy complications every day. Oh wait, you can't. Because they're dead.
But in the vast majority of cases it's not about choosing one human life over another. It's about acknowledging the rights of the woman over the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside her body.
"Out of curosity, would you be willing to tell me what human life you consider to be the most innocent?"
I have no idea. Also, you didn't specify human life in the comment I responded to.
Not to either agree or disagree with either side here, but doesn't this leave us in the position of wanting to be careful about giving any authority in this matter to a government? And if that's the case, are we not currently in the best possible situation if the individual is afforded a choice in her decision regarding an abortion?
Remember, authoritarian government can work in both directions -- as "Eugenics" in the US during the last century so well illustrates.
Not sure what your point is here. Did someone force these women to become pregnant?
BTW. Where did you get this 1800+ number? The highest number of maternal deaths since 1950 was less than 800 in 2006.
"It's about acknowledging the rights of the woman over the rights of the zygote/embryo/fetus inside her body."
Why don't you explain the so-called right of the woman over the rights of the baby to the 40+ million aborted in the US. Oh, wait you can't. Because they are dead.
When does the woman stop having the "right" to kill her child?
I would have to say "no" this is not the best possible situation.
Would you destroy a building if you had no idea if someone was in it?
If we really don't know when life starts in the womb how can we make an informed and intellegent decision about abortion?
Would it not be logical if we don't know when life begins to be against abortion in order to error on the side of LIFE?
Is there really a "woman's right to choose" life or death of their child? And where did this "right: come from and who granted it? Did it come from judges in 1973?
I often wondered how the pro-abortion people say it's a woman's right to choose, yet if she chooses life then it's the man's responsibility to pay for her choice. Does the father ever have any say in the matter if it may mean he will have to pay child support? If not isn't this like taxation without representation? To my knowledge, a woman who goes to a sperm bank to be inseminated can't track down the donor and make him pay child support if she chooses not to kill the child. Yet, if she becomes pregnant naturally the man is required to pay child support and in many cases is not given much if any in the way of visitation and parental rights. How is it that once sperm enters a woman the man loses all choices yet if she becomes pregnant and chooses to let the child live the man is now legally responsible? Why is it that the woman can choose if the man is just a sperm donor or the legal father? If this is truly a private decision between a woman and her doctor then the woman and her doctor must be willing to pay for the consequences of their decision.
I hate to even mention these next topics because I think they could actually come to pass. But, if the man is financially responsible if the woman chooses to let the life live, what's keeping judges from making the man financially responsible for an abortion if she chooses death?
Can a couple sign a pre-intercourse agreement saying that in the event she were to become pregnant he has given up all rights and responsibilities (including financial) to the child whether aborted or not?
Don't get me wrong. I am angered when I hear about dead-beat dads not taking responsibility for the life they have brought into this world. But I am equally angered when I hear it should be a woman's right to choose life or death. The acceptance of abortion on demand has cheapened the value of human life.
In some cases, yes. Do women deserve to die from pregnancy complications because they chose to get become pregnant.
"BTW. Where did you get this 1800+ number? The highest number of maternal deaths since 1950 was less than 800 in 2006."
From the World Health Organization. Women die from pregnancy and childbirth complications outside the United States too, whether you choose to count them or not.
"Why don't you explain the so-called right of the woman over the rights of the baby to the 40+ million aborted in the US. Oh, wait you can't. Because they are dead."
Explanations don't do much good if they can't be understood.
"When does the woman stop having the "right" to kill her child?"
I'm not sure, but in most circumstances I think it's pretty hard to make a case for it being any time after she's given birth.
Good point, Ruta. And I agree that we do need to be careful about giving such authority to the government, but I think we also have to consider that governments aren't the only ones trying to control peoples' decisions and actions.
And again, it's not just about abortion. And even though it is to a large extent, it's also not just about controlling women. Because in many cases, in addition to banning abortion, they also want to ban or severely restrict contraceptives and sex education, regardless of gender.
If you are talking about rape I will gladly discuss that with you but it is only a red herring when it comes to the abortion issue. I have yet to find a pro-abortionist who would be willing to sign a petition to ban abortion except in the case of rape.
>"Do women deserve to die from pregnancy complications because they chose to get become pregnant."
I don't know anyone who thinks a woman desrves to die just because they are pregnant. I am not sure what your point is here.
Does the right to be not pregnant supersede the right not to be killed?
Also I would think the number of maternal deaths would be much, much higher world wide, if it is only just over 1800. I would be amazed that modern health procedures could have advance to that extent in 3rd world countries.
>"I'm not sure, but in most circumstances I think it's pretty hard to make a case for it being any time after she's given birth."
It appears you are against infanticide. Why?
Aren't those against infanticide forcing women to raise and take care of their child?
>"Explanations don't do much good if they can't be understood."
It appears that a "Woman's right to choose" can't be explained but it is used as the reason to make abortion socially acceptable.
You're the one who asked if anyone forced the women to become pregnant. The answer is in some cases is yes.
"I don't know anyone who thinks a woman desrves to die just because they are pregnant. I am not sure what your point is here."
My point is that just because a woman chooses to become pregnant, that doesn't mean that she wants to die from that pregnancy. Forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth will result in more pregnancy-related deaths.
"Does the right to be not pregnant supersede the right not to be killed?"
In the case of a woman and a fetus, yes I think it does.
"Also I would think the number of maternal deaths would be much, much higher world wide, if it is only just over 1800."
Then take it up with the World Health Organization.
"It appears you are against infanticide. Why?
Aren't those against infanticide forcing women to raise and take care of their child?"
I'm not necessarily against infanticide. If the mother doesn't want to raise and take care of the child herself, then I don't believe anybody should attempt to force her to do so. I believe that in that case, if someone else is willing to raise and take care of the child, they would be entitled to do so.
"It appears that a "Woman's right to choose" can't be explained but it is used as the reason to make abortion socially acceptable."
I think a woman's right to choose can be explained. But not to a blastocyst or an embryo or a fetus. And possibly not to those who are determined to use the power of law to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will.
Wow. That is an amazing admission.
When is it ok to kill an infant?
Why is it wrong to "force" a woman to carry a child to full term and give birth?
Do you believe in the existance of God?
When it can't take care of itself and nobody else is willing or able to take care of it.
"Why is it wrong to "force" a woman to carry a child to full term and give birth?"
For the same reason it would be wrong to force a woman to have an abortion. Because she has the right to make decisions about her own body, and you don't have a right to make them for her.
"Do you believe in the existance of God?"
I don't believe in the existence of any gods, demigods, deities, faeries, goblins, sprites, pixies, or any other mythic beings. Do you?
By whose or what authority does a woman or a man for that manner have any rights?
To you believe in a place called heaven or some type of afterlife?
That's the central question in all of this. And therein comes the dilemma, when as Drizzle pointed out, "...we live in a pluralistic society where the two styles of moral reasoning often come into conflict..."
And regardless of what an individual may most sincerely believe, there is no possible way to enforce that belief on another. Consequently, to enforce a morality-based decision on an entire population inevitably leaves some part of the population effectively repressed.
I think this is the reason that courts have most often come down on the side of individual rights with regard to the legal definition of "human life" in the case of abortion. This will invariably be distasteful to some, but it decentralizes governmental authority in a manner where that authority is least likely to act in an abusive manner. Authority is effectively deferred to the individual, and consequently no one is forced to adopt the moral position of another.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"Authority is effectively deferred to the individual, and consequently no one is forced to adopt the moral position of another. "
Sure we do. We don't let parents kill a child that is 2 because they don't want him. And everyone is forced to abide by that law. In face that is the very reason people have decided a tiny unborn baby isn't human.
But we can like each other anyway :):)
If you define an "infant" as 4-5-6 years old, then sure. I'm saying that at any age that a person can't take care of itself and nobody else is willing or able to take care of them, then it's morally okay to kill them. I don't see any other way around it. How are you going to force somebody to take care of another person if they don't want to?
"NOT when that woman's body contains another body, a human baby."
You still don't have a right to make decisions for that woman or for any other bodies her body may contain.
"You're sounding pretty cold-blooded Wil."
Forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will sounds pretty cold-blooded to me, Kidno.
What I think sounds insane is the notion that you can force a woman to remain pregnant and give birth against her will, and then somehow force her to care for her child for the rest of her life, whether she wants to or not.
Right. In which case the child is removed from the care of the parent (or other neglectful "care provider") and placed in the care of somebody else. But if there's nobody willing or able to take care of the child, and the child is incapable of caring for itself, then it's going to die. Either through an overt, purposeful act or through fatal neglect. Which is more morally acceptable?
Because healthcare is not a government entitlement, but a business subject to market forces; and the government has no right to force citizens to buy healthcare products, of course.
Not debating the merits of abortion or its legality, but your conclusion regarding her position seems way out of line.
Just a thought
The This past week we mourn the passing of a brilliant person. Steve Jobs touched just about every one of us with his contribution to humanity. Yet his mother did not abort him. She found that she could not take care of him and placed him up for adoption. How may abortions have there been, and how many of them were brilliant people with a life time of contributions that will never happen now. It is a shame…
Hmm...From what I read here on Gather and see and hear in the news media, conservative useful idiots are a valuable commodity these days. Many politicians depend on them.
BTW, what conservative pundit used the phrase "useful idiot" lately? I'm seeing it everywhere.
Hmm...Where was socialism actually tried? I can't think of anywhere. I can think of countries that described themselves as socialist or communist, but neither term applies to their economy or political system. Capitalism exists only in the abstract too. It's a distinction that has the same value as a precise determination of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
I forgot ... I was going to look up the great depression of the 20's and see how they handled things.