The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Republicans and social issues

As we prepare for the upcoming Legislative Session in Pierre, and as we continue to watch the current calamity that is the Republican primary debates, on thing appears clear: The Republicans are once again focusing their efforts on social issues – primarily abortion and same-sex marriage.

I have said on this blog before, and will repeat it here: People who are not in possession of a womb, should have no say about what is contained in those possessed by others. People who do have a womb, should be concerned with what theirs – and only theirs – contains.

Repubicans who spend one moment of their precious time arguing about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry are wasting that time and do so at the peril of this country.

The Obama Administration has about ruined this country. Republicans need to be concerned about the economy, education and war. Continued focus on social issues will assure a Democratic win in November and four more years of economic holocaust.

(I don't usually do this, but comments by Bob Ellis and his ilk will be removed from this thread unless they contain intelligent arguments, rather than name-calling histrionic rants. If you cannot comment and be an adult at the same time, don't come here, Bob.)


Bob Ellis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Michael Sanborn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill Dithmer said...

Here we go again. The money being used to defend the other abortion bills is being misspent.

There is another way to decide the fate of a fetus and that would be a transplant. When the pregnant woman comes in for what would have been an abortion have a transplant performed. I know things like that aren't done every day right now but if those that are so worried about the fetus would spend some of that money used to defend “mind rape” bills among others maybe it could become common place.

Why not give USD some of that money to start a program for the easy transplant of a human fetus? Then when the operation is perfected bring it back in front of the legislator for passage of a bill. Lets face it here if you are so worried about a fetus then this is a way to give it life.

Bill Dithmer said...

Ok heres the other part of the equation. When the procedure is performed the state must guarantee that they will have a woman standing by to except the fetus no mater what. That would mean no mater if there is something genetically wrong, a known disease, incest, color, or missing a body part it wouldn’t make any difference that female that was on the receiving end would have to take that particular fetus. The cost for the procedure to the pregnant woman would be equal to the cost of an abortion now, no more. The state, that seems to be so worried about these things that doesn’t have anything to to with anyone but women, would then have a stake in that fetuses life. The former pregnant women goes on her way and the transplant recipient assumes all responsibility for the birth of the baby no mater what that birth brings. Im sure that the state would love to take on some further responsibility in this mater. After all its for the fetus.

Bill Dithmer said...

No forget what I just said. Something like that has already been tried. Its called adoption. Unfortunately there are thousands of kids that are left waiting because there is something, genetically wrong, a known disease, incest, color, or missing a body part, or they are just to dang old.

Man I just wasn’t using my head again. Excuse me!

The Blindman

DDC said...

There is a pretty simple solution that could greatly reduce the number of abortions performed in this state, and it isn't a ban.

First, greatly simplify the adoption process. There are a lot of people that would love to adopt a child (especially a baby), but aren't able to jump through all of the hoops required by the state. Reducing the requirements imposed by the state would help kids get into loving families.

The second would be to allow people to actually pay women to carry their child to term and give them up for adoption. I'm guessing that a lot of women would be willing to go through the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption if they were well compensated.

A lot of money gets spent by anti-abortion groups trying to get bans and other restrictions put into place. If that money could instead go to paying women to carry the baby to term and get adopted, that would prevent a lot more abortions than any kind of ban would.

I'm not naive enough to think that this would prevent all (or probably most) abortions, but that's never going to happen.

repete said...

Come on Mike, "The Obama Administration has about ruined this country." Really? How so?

Do you really believe the GOP had so little to do with this and it all happened over the last 4 years? Obama ruined the country... God no wonder the GOP is losing so damn bad. They are in denial.

We are all the government that we question. Yin Yang

Michael Sanborn said...


Surely you'll admit that the Obama Administration has done nothing but harm the country's economy since taking office. True enough George W did plenty to hand him a turd when he took office. But he had help from the Democrats.

Remember Obama's promises: Health care for everyone, end of wars, closure of Guantanamo, unemployment would peak at under 8 percent.

Then there are the trillions in taxpayer give-aways to banks and companies that have squandered the dough.

Where are the "shovel-ready" jobs that were in the bag prior to the stimulus?

Obama learned nothing from W's mistakes, and rather than correct them, he repeated them at more than triple the cost to our children and grandchildren.

No. Obama is not solely responsible for the economic ruin of the the U.S. But he most certainly is the quarterback in the game.

Smart Republicans aren't denying anything. They know the most dire issue facing the U.S. is the economy. And, they know that congress and the executive branch need to be concentrating on solutions for improving the economy first, before there is any discussion of "social issues."