You could not be more wrong when you state that the pro-lifer necessarily believes that abortion must be punished as murder, or even criminalized at all. Lots of people want to do away with abortion, and will even say they think abortion is murder, but those who actually favor sending a woman to prison for terminating her pregnancy are an extreme fringe.
That assertion is easily backed up by the numbers. A point which is more speculation on my part is that it is sheer fantasy to believe that the pro-life movement will simply "accept defeat" as long as it occurs democratically.
Why is Roe v. Wade supported by such a large majority of the population? Why are there more people who want Roe v. Wade to be upheld than people who consider themselves pro-choice, a seemingly bizarre result? The answer is relatively obvious. The majority of Americans who occupy the political center on this issue understand very well that abortion is a complex and difficult issue that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Given that, they simply want to see everyone stop arguing over it already. They sense that overturning Roe would make things more contentious, not less as the "accepting defeat" scenario suggests. And they don't want to see abortion become even more of a political football in every federal, state and local election, as it seems it would if the Supreme Court put the issue back in play. What they want is for the issue to simply go away.
I've always wondered if the extreme anti-abortion types hate that abortions occur or merely that they take place legally. It would seem that the rest of their sexual rules agenda maximizes the rate of abortion, ie eliminating useful sex ed, fighting birth control being made available at low cost or even at all etc. Far less energy is expended on the unwanted kids sitting in state systems than on flapping over abortion.
I also doubt that the anti-abortion rights crowd would accept a defeat in a democratic vote. While they may place the blame on "activist courts" they fail to accept that for more than half of the populace, a first trimester abortion is accepted as a personal choice even if they personally feel it is repugnant. Most of us accept parental notification (with reasonable exceptions), Roe gives no rights now to late term abortions except where the life/health of the mother is involved so I suspect in an election where the public got to vote on the spread of options from full ban to no limits, we'd end up about where we are now. Do you really think the anti's would just fold up shop and go home if a vote were held and they lost? NFW.
The immediate counterfactual example that comes to mind, however, is how the civil rights movement took down Jim Crow.
Similarly, I don't believe that most pro-life voters view the US legal system as illegitimate. You pointed out the fact that the abortion debate was settled judicially. This indicates that they view as illegitimate judicial departures from the rule of law.
I've often said the Abortion Debate is eerily paralleled in the Slavery Debate. The Constitutional Convention thought to eliminate slavery, but many of the southern delegates refused to allow it to be mentioned. The issue was swept under the rug, to fester for many decades, leading at last to the Civil War.
Let's not forget the Dred Scott decidion was based on property law. Morals do change over time, and there are all manner of examples to describe the range of opinions on slavery, from John Brown's debacle in Harper's Ferry to the half-a-loaf Missouri Compromise which only put off the Civil War a few years, as history shows. The Civil War was not originally fought over the issue of slavery, Lincoln hemmed and hawed over the issue, and even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the slave states.
I do not take sides in the Abortion Debate, I believe it to be a women's issue, men really have no say in it. I'll have an opinion when I grow a uterus. Nor are all the anti-abortion folks united on their stance on abortion: the questions of rape and incest, medical necessity, and many others arise. The Roe decision itself speaks much of the historical grey areas in the morality of abortion.
Yet the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, yet the issues of civil rights were not addressed until the 1960s. We still have shreds of the old ugly past with us, to this day, the skinheads and neo-Nazis have not gone away.
History and literature show how little we change over time, yet we do change, and our laws change with us. It is to our lasting credit we have an amendable Constitution, for were it no su constructed, the ship of state should long ago have been foundered.
Anti-abortion forces are certainly entitled to try to overturn Roe but it is absurd to suggest they didn't lose legitimately or that the Court's decision was by fiat.
Roe has been consistently upheld. And it has been upheld with the help of Republican-appointed justices. If there is a frustration on the part of Republicans I suggest it is over their own inability to appoint justices who will vote to overturn.
An interesting way of viewing the issue, but there seems to be an incompatability between:
One side views that a particularly grisly form of murder is being systematically ignored by the criminal system
and the idea that
If Roe were overturned, the disposition of abortion law would of course revert to the states. The likely result would be a regionalization of legalized abortion.
would somehow deal with the issue. If one honestly equated abortion as a grisly form of murder, then a regionalization of legalized infanticide would be unacceptable. You'd see a continuation of the anger that would be reasonably analogous to the conditions leading to the civil war. If the pro-life movement actually did view abortion as murder, nothing short of a constitutional amendment or those 9 folks ruling that blastocysts were protected by the 14th amendment woudl suffice. The first isn't going to happen and the second would be a mirror image of what you describe.
Of course, actually dealing with the issue so fewer abortions occured might help, but that's hard work and doesn't turn elections.
It is also entirely possible that RU-486, which has been used by 500,000 women since the FDA approved it, will eventually make the issue moot for all practical purposes.
Question: If a woman takes RU-486, is that considered an abortion under the law? Or is abortion defined as a surgical procedure?
Apart from a gross exaggeration of the frequency with which the ?radicalization? process of pro-lifers reaches the terminal stage mentioned here (I will, for instance, place the destructive record of the most radicalized elements of the pro-life movement against the same record for the ecoterrorists any day),
that would be an interesting comparison. How many people have ecoterrorists murdered via sniper fire/bombings? (not that I have any sympathy for ecoterrorists).
One side views that a particularly grisly form of murder is being systematically ignored by the criminal system. In the event that the roles were reversed, the other side would doubtless think that an act basic to fundamental freedom had been unjustly criminalized. There is precious little room for ?meeting in the middle,? where this particular fight is concerned.
Does the anti abortion rights position fail to understand that the criminal justice system is limited to the law of the land? I get they don't like the law and view Roe as unjust, but it is the law. Blaming the criminal justice system is off base. As for bridging the gap, the zealots on both sides cannot/will not compromise. The rest of us are sick to death of the all or nothing approach.
It could possibly be that this regionalism would lead to the ultimate diffusion of tension, as the law would generally be in accordance with the wishes of those who live in a given locality, and what happens in other localities does not often rise in to the consciousness of the average citizen.
This is just wrong. Abortion is already unavilable in most counties in this country. yet the anti crowd are not appeased. If anything, the more success they have, the more they push for more.
The tool which might avoid the looming altercation and simultaneously finally resign the pro-life movement to the dustbin of history is the one they dare not grasp.
No one on the pro rights sides believes for one minute that winning a referendum would make the slightest difference to the anti side. And I doubt you do either.
Many good points written above. And the projected "Balkinization" that would result from a Roe v Wade being overturned by a Supreme Court would be what comes about. Just look at what the State Legislatures & Govenors (both Democrat & Republican) have already done in S. Dakota and now Louisiana.
So, would 50 different abortion laws change the current heat of the topic. No. Both sides, pro & con, would pick up steam from it and roil the boil even further. That's because both sides feel completely morrally justified to carry out their interpretations of the issue while at the same time giving no moral standing to their opponents.
Both sides you may ask? Yes, both sides. I can understand Leon's position that any abortion is murder. In his mind, the moment of conception, is the beginning of the ensouled life. Mind you, I don't share that opinion, and as such, I don't have a problem with abortions being preformed within a certain timeframe, also completely from my own moral perspective.
Do I expect others to share my convictions? Some will, some won't. Let's agree that abortion is a terrible form of birth control. It should never come to it as too many good forms of birth control are at hand. The exception to this is going to be the rape scenerio, which can not be ignored.
When is the point at which a fetus is "ensouled"? I don't know exactly. Some religions say immediately upon conception, Judiasm says upon quickening (when you can feel the baby kick), some say when the baby breaths it's first breath. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle, as am I, which is why I don't feel like early abortions are murder or morally wrong.
Do I expect those that disagree with a statute to stop fighting for what they believe in? No, which is why I expect the abortion issue to be with us ALWAYS, no matter what any current court or law says.
Depends on which law you mean, I guess. There's not a universal definition. But I doubt an abortion you procure by taking a pill is much different from one performed with bleach or whatever chemical means.
The reason the rape scenario should not be ignored, but is ignored by the reactionary prolifers, is because they really do not grant the woman any rights at all. Her consent to the pregnancy does not matter to them, their only focus is the protection of what they believe is an innocent person. When asked to explain how an unwanted embryo is 1) a person: they rely on abstractions like ensoulment or Platonic forms, and 2) innocent: they claim that pregnancy can never be a substantive harm to the woman, it is only a temporary burden to her.
The mental schism that I see is the view that God is creating the child (in the woman) vs the more biologically supported woman manufacturing the child. Rape or no, forcing the woman to complete the task strikes me as a form of involuntary servitude.
We should stop using the word 'labor' to describe the final act and use it to describe the entire pregnancy.
They couldn't beat his arguments, so they tried to discredit him personally, to no avail, but they have succeeded in barring his voice using reprehensible, totalitarian tactics.
I'd like to hear one good reason why this shouldn't devolve into tit-for-tat engagement.
As a lawyer I share your consternation over the naming of a client. I'm a sole practitioner dealing with individuals, not corporate clients, but it's the same deal, unless the client has otherwise given you permission you never heard of them.
I imagine that in this case NRO got the info from either the firm's Martindale-Hubbell listing or a federal court decision, assuming the info is even accurate.
In any case the lawyer in question can neither admit nor deny that the corporation in question is a client, and cannot in any way discuss his representation, assuming the corporation was a client, so he is in a very difficult position.
That is very unfair play. They take a shot at someone who is unable to respond in any way, shape or form. The victim of the attack is forced by professional responsibility to be totally silent on the matter.
Hey, why not punch out a quadriplegic while you're at it?
The actions that led to this incident have been extremely despicable. I am extremely saddened by what has happened. Such tactics do not belong in the blogging world. Unfortunately the intersection of blogging and political worlds means that such events will only increase in frequency on both sides.
That said I hope enough people voice their support for Armando to reconsider surrendering to these jerks, that is if it is possible to do without jeopardazing anything.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Okay. He. Now to the question: Why not go tit-for -tat every time this type of despicable thing happens, because the frequency of this type of encounter with some segments of society are increasingly brutal and unfair. There is no longer expectation of playing fair. So, why not go hawkish in response?
It depends on where it is coming from. If the pressure is coming from his non-blogging life, and if that is where he more truly identifies himself, there isn't much we can do but respect his decision (and periodically accuse one another of being a @#$! Troll! to vainly try and fill the gap that his absence will leave ;)
In the unlikely case that he feels pressure from the blogging world, well then yes, we need to support him.
Amen. This was a very, very scummy thing that happened to him. It could happen to any of us, and I find that quite frightening. It has a "chilling effect" on online free speech, in fact.
First because we have no info on the outer. Second it could just as easily be a purest troll from the left as the right. That being said the NRO hit piece is has little news value. Anyone who read his writing new that he was a lawyer and they also new he was more of a moderate or left of center liberal. (At least in foreign policy) .. Now terms are subjective to each of us and in some peoples eyes Rino's and Dino's are not really dems or repubs.
So I am not for tit for tat... Unless it is to delink from NRO and widen the standards or web blogging... That Josh and others signed up to....
Well, Leon, we just lost a lawyer, a damn fine one, and I don't see the validity of your argument. My whole point IS to take out lawyers on the other side as payback. That's what hawks do.
Yes, that is where it would go. A hawk's life is nasty, brutish, and short. But there is no sense in being a dove among hawks. Only a bourgeois strategy (tit-for-tat) can possibly be successful. Doves will surely die against hawks. My question stands.
So far, I am not convinced. Unfortunately, this argument is not just about blogging. It is analogous to any social contract including the law itself, which is also increasingly disrepected by some parts of society, namely the government itself.
No, becoming the enemy voids any value in 'winning'.
One thing that does seem to get at least some traction, is shame. See Gingrich, Livingston etc. Crappy way to do battle, but when facts hold no sway, what's left?
The problem originates with a poster on Wikipedia. Over a 16 day period more information about Armando was edited in then out again. Anyone can register and edit Wikipedia. Any registered user can then access the history of a page.
And that is the problem.
An outing diary on Daily Kos was deleted. From there the information was spread to Wikipedia. From there the National Review Online blog picked it up.
It is harrassment. It compromises the personal and professional life of someone we value.
In either case, it was effectively a political "assassination," in the case of the National Review, clearly a right wing group. This is not the first time. And it won't be the last. So the question of tit-for-tat remains.
Armando is getting screwed, but it was inevitable.
If your income/real job will be compromised by becoming a vocal, sharp elbowed, highly partisan blogger, you just have stay away or get ready to find a different job.
Once Armando took the front page role on DK and became so active, he had to know this was a likely scenario. partisan politics and the politics of personal destruction is a part of the current landscape.
If Leon thinks he'll be able to keep his vocal anti-abortion opinions and blogging activity from affecting his client base, he's living in a bubble.
Then it's time for baseball bats? I would like to hear that from the conservative bloggers, but will have to make my own decision if they have nothing to say.
there is no special, chilling effect on free speech here. In every other forum, you get held accountable for what you say or write. Blogging is no different unless you can find a way to stay 100% anon which is virtually impossible if you are active and someone really wants to out you.
People judge you based on your words and deeds. If you don't like the judgement, perhaps you need to reconsider the words and deeds. The obvious problem is the lunatic fringe may choose to hunt you down and do you personal damage. I'm sure abortion providers can relate.
The main problem is that conservative bloggers who rightly find this behavior unacceptable are unable to convince their fellow bloggers of the undesirability of the logical outcome.
It's time to chill out. Do you know how easy it is to become a target of nutcases interested in destroying your personal life? It seems it's quite easy. The answer is to ostrasize those who permit that kind of information to become public and let it spread. Make them pariahs in the online world. That is the only acceptable retaliation.
This is not a war or declared partisan agenda but acts of a few malicious individuals. We don't even know who was the original source and there is a good chance it originated on the left. If you want to end dialogue and increase the occurrence of these episodes, sure go out and try to attack your ideological opponents blindly.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You keep slinging mud without full knowledge. It is a fact that there exist people on your side who are very willing to cleanse their party of everyone who does not appear 100% pure.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
what you are hearing is the crickets chirping as those RW bloggers consider just how this sort of game works out for them once ALL the gloves come off.
Armando can be cold, cruel, arrogant and downright nasty at times. But he pales in comparison to the hate speech some of those guys bandy about.
I have to agree. It'd be one thing to go after the trolls and individuals involved, while remaining ethical ourselves, but simply going around and blindly striking out at those who happen to share some similarities to those truly responsible is not the answer, even if you do think the world would be better without them having such power.
Which brings us back to the Iraq war and why it was so stupid to invade instead of focusing on Afghanistan :)
This is not isolated. Michelle Malkin? NRO? One could make a long, long list of conservative hits more generally, including Plame?s outing, Kerry?s & Cleland?s swiftboating, even that revolting garbage that was spewed about McCain. I'd be quite glad to see very prominent liars and smear tacticians were disowned in favor of honest debate. Telling me to "chill" is frankly vacuous, as I see no end to political "assassinations." Ann Coulter slimes the 9/11 families. Juan Cole is denied tenure at Yale. There is no sign of this ending. It's only getting worse. Armando engaged reputably at all times. Wanting to bury his arguments with arguments is one thing, but political assassination is quite another. Armando was simply too hot to handle. I'm a long way from "chillin'."
if the main issue is hypocrisy (which I believe is the thrust of the attack on Armando for being a loud lefty while defending corporate america) the right is dead meat. Since we liberals are much more willing to live and let live up front, we've less exposure. Absolutists rarely manage to live up to their own standards.
so get busy and burn the MF down. Unf this plays into the hands of the "drown the govt in a bathtub theorists". But at least the "conservative" side will have to do some squealing too.
If this is "mutually assured destruction", then "we" just got nuked! The only response is to destroy all of the opposing side, or die here and now.
Of course, i don't think "mutually assured destruction" is the right way of looking at this mess. Consequently, and due to some other reasons of course, that's not the approach i would take.
God forbid someone calls out the clown who called the Rove indictment. That little creep goes off the deep end when anyone dares question his information.
Nuts come in all shapes, sizes and political stripes.
One note on that poster at truthout, though, Ender. The poster only had two comments EVER there, both in the diary exposing Armando. So it could have easily been some dipsh*t right wing hack who registered for one day at truthout to out Armando on a supposedly liberal website.
Covering their tracks and all...
So don't get cocky.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
pnuka, those were the only two comments the poster in question ever made at truthout. Same day, same thread, both outing Armando. Nothing before, nothing since.
Probably some a**hole covering his tracks by dumping the info on a liberal website.
Duh.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I'm watching the discovery channel program about human evolution right now. Alec Baldwin is the narrator. My mind has expanded and I've just become a liberal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
there is no special, chilling effect on free speech here. In every other forum, you get held accountable for what you say or write. Blogging is no different unless you can find a way to stay 100% anon which is virtually impossible if you are active and someone really wants to out you.
In other words, you support what happened to Armando?
People judge you based on your words and deeds. If you don?t like the judgement, perhaps you need to reconsider the words and deeds. The obvious problem is the lunatic fringe may choose to hunt you down and do you personal damage. I?m sure abortion providers can relate.
You're a moron. So, speaking one's mind with an understanding of the safety of relative anonymity should potentially result in the loss of one's career and the ruination of one's life? And this won't have a chilling effect on free speech? And just because abortion providers have problems means that no one else should get to enjoy anonymity in any other forum whatsoever?
Just what did Armando say that makes you so angry, anyway? I don't like his politics, but that doesn't mean I'm happy his career was threatened by some skulking troll. I wouldn't want it to happen to me, and I wouldn't want it to happen to anyone else. If you feel otherwise, I don't want to talk to you anymore, and no one else with any sense in their head should, either.
Perfectly legal comments made online with the assumption of anonymity should have the anonymity of their posters respected. Anyone who can't abide by that rule should go stalk abortion providers or something. This is not a forum where that rule can be violated, not without the death of the forum. Go find another forum in which to stalk people, if that's your thing. This is politics, nothing personal. People who can't make that distinction are a menace to the blogosphere, politics notwithstanding.
Here in a diary at Daily Kos I present my argument that it is actionable harrassment.
During these times of illegal warrantless domestic surveillance abuses by the present administration I am appalled at how quickly the "anonymous" mob mentality has jumped on this opportunity to "out" a person's identity, profession, and clients, with no other intent than to do him harm, cause him grief and hardship, and limit his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist.
with no other intent than to do him harm, cause him grief and hardship, and limit his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist
Web journalists have the right to blog anonymously.
And about journalists:
Journalists have a right to their body of work. This smear severs the person who used to write as Armando and the vast body of work he has created from whatever persona he writes under in the future.
Believe me, there's hardly a worse thing can happen to a writer or an artist than to lose their body of work.
And so now, we advance into the field of
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES
Intellectual property describes a wide variety of property created by musicians, authors, artists, and inventors. The law of intellectual property typically encompasses the areas of copyright, patent, and trademark law. It is designed to encourage the development of art, science, and information by granting certainproperty rights to all artists, which include inventors in both the arts and the sciences. These rights allow artists to protect themselves frominfringement, or the unauthorized use and misuse of their creations.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PUBLICITY
The right of publicity is the right of a person to control the commercial value and exploitation of his or her name and likeness. Because right-of-publicity laws promote artistic pursuits, they are included in intellectual property law. These laws are usually reserved for celebrities and other public figures whose name and image are important to their career. By allowing celebrities the right to control the commercial use of their name and image, right-of-publicity laws protect the commercial potential of entertainers.
Ender, just read your intro to the site, thanks for reminding me of a great scifi book!! I briefly relived the shock ending and must rush to the library to reread.
Comments :
You could not be mor
You could not be more wrong when you state that the pro-lifer necessarily believes that abortion must be punished as murder, or even criminalized at all. Lots of people want to do away with abortion, and will even say they think abortion is murder, but those who actually favor sending a woman to prison for terminating her pregnancy are an extreme fringe.
That assertion is easily backed up by the numbers. A point which is more speculation on my part is that it is sheer fantasy to believe that the pro-life movement will simply "accept defeat" as long as it occurs democratically.
Why is Roe v. Wade supported by such a large majority of the population? Why are there more people who want Roe v. Wade to be upheld than people who consider themselves pro-choice, a seemingly bizarre result? The answer is relatively obvious. The majority of Americans who occupy the political center on this issue understand very well that abortion is a complex and difficult issue that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Given that, they simply want to see everyone stop arguing over it already. They sense that overturning Roe would make things more contentious, not less as the "accepting defeat" scenario suggests. And they don't want to see abortion become even more of a political football in every federal, state and local election, as it seems it would if the Supreme Court put the issue back in play. What they want is for the issue to simply go away.
I've always wondered
I've always wondered if the extreme anti-abortion types hate that abortions occur or merely that they take place legally. It would seem that the rest of their sexual rules agenda maximizes the rate of abortion, ie eliminating useful sex ed, fighting birth control being made available at low cost or even at all etc. Far less energy is expended on the unwanted kids sitting in state systems than on flapping over abortion.
I also doubt that the anti-abortion rights crowd would accept a defeat in a democratic vote. While they may place the blame on "activist courts" they fail to accept that for more than half of the populace, a first trimester abortion is accepted as a personal choice even if they personally feel it is repugnant. Most of us accept parental notification (with reasonable exceptions), Roe gives no rights now to late term abortions except where the life/health of the mother is involved so I suspect in an election where the public got to vote on the spread of options from full ban to no limits, we'd end up about where we are now. Do you really think the anti's would just fold up shop and go home if a vote were held and they lost? NFW.
It's an interesting
It's an interesting thesis.
The immediate counterfactual example that comes to mind, however, is how the civil rights movement took down Jim Crow.
Similarly, I don't believe that most pro-life voters view the US legal system as illegitimate. You pointed out the fact that the abortion debate was settled judicially. This indicates that they view as illegitimate judicial departures from the rule of law.
I've often said the
I've often said the Abortion Debate is eerily paralleled in the Slavery Debate. The Constitutional Convention thought to eliminate slavery, but many of the southern delegates refused to allow it to be mentioned. The issue was swept under the rug, to fester for many decades, leading at last to the Civil War.
Let's not forget the Dred Scott decidion was based on property law. Morals do change over time, and there are all manner of examples to describe the range of opinions on slavery, from John Brown's debacle in Harper's Ferry to the half-a-loaf Missouri Compromise which only put off the Civil War a few years, as history shows. The Civil War was not originally fought over the issue of slavery, Lincoln hemmed and hawed over the issue, and even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the slave states.
I do not take sides in the Abortion Debate, I believe it to be a women's issue, men really have no say in it. I'll have an opinion when I grow a uterus. Nor are all the anti-abortion folks united on their stance on abortion: the questions of rape and incest, medical necessity, and many others arise. The Roe decision itself speaks much of the historical grey areas in the morality of abortion.
Yet the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed, yet the issues of civil rights were not addressed until the 1960s. We still have shreds of the old ugly past with us, to this day, the skinheads and neo-Nazis have not gone away.
History and literature show how little we change over time, yet we do change, and our laws change with us. It is to our lasting credit we have an amendable Constitution, for were it no su constructed, the ship of state should long ago have been foundered.
Anti-abortion forces
Anti-abortion forces are certainly entitled to try to overturn Roe but it is absurd to suggest they didn't lose legitimately or that the Court's decision was by fiat.
Roe has been consistently upheld. And it has been upheld with the help of Republican-appointed justices. If there is a frustration on the part of Republicans I suggest it is over their own inability to appoint justices who will vote to overturn.
qui tacet consentire
An interesting way o
An interesting way of viewing the issue, but there seems to be an incompatability between:
and the idea that
would somehow deal with the issue. If one honestly equated abortion as a grisly form of murder, then a regionalization of legalized infanticide would be unacceptable. You'd see a continuation of the anger that would be reasonably analogous to the conditions leading to the civil war. If the pro-life movement actually did view abortion as murder, nothing short of a constitutional amendment or those 9 folks ruling that blastocysts were protected by the 14th amendment woudl suffice. The first isn't going to happen and the second would be a mirror image of what you describe.
Of course, actually dealing with the issue so fewer abortions occured might help, but that's hard work and doesn't turn elections.
It is also entirely
It is also entirely possible that RU-486, which has been used by 500,000 women since the FDA approved it, will eventually make the issue moot for all practical purposes.
Question: If a woman takes RU-486, is that considered an abortion under the law? Or is abortion defined as a surgical procedure?
qui tacet consentire
a few points of disp
a few points of dispute:
that would be an interesting comparison. How many people have ecoterrorists murdered via sniper fire/bombings? (not that I have any sympathy for ecoterrorists).
Does the anti abortion rights position fail to understand that the criminal justice system is limited to the law of the land? I get they don't like the law and view Roe as unjust, but it is the law. Blaming the criminal justice system is off base. As for bridging the gap, the zealots on both sides cannot/will not compromise. The rest of us are sick to death of the all or nothing approach.
This is just wrong. Abortion is already unavilable in most counties in this country. yet the anti crowd are not appeased. If anything, the more success they have, the more they push for more.
No one on the pro rights sides believes for one minute that winning a referendum would make the slightest difference to the anti side. And I doubt you do either.
Many good points wri
Many good points written above. And the projected "Balkinization" that would result from a Roe v Wade being overturned by a Supreme Court would be what comes about. Just look at what the State Legislatures & Govenors (both Democrat & Republican) have already done in S. Dakota and now Louisiana.
So, would 50 different abortion laws change the current heat of the topic. No. Both sides, pro & con, would pick up steam from it and roil the boil even further. That's because both sides feel completely morrally justified to carry out their interpretations of the issue while at the same time giving no moral standing to their opponents.
Both sides you may ask? Yes, both sides. I can understand Leon's position that any abortion is murder. In his mind, the moment of conception, is the beginning of the ensouled life. Mind you, I don't share that opinion, and as such, I don't have a problem with abortions being preformed within a certain timeframe, also completely from my own moral perspective.
Do I expect others to share my convictions? Some will, some won't. Let's agree that abortion is a terrible form of birth control. It should never come to it as too many good forms of birth control are at hand. The exception to this is going to be the rape scenerio, which can not be ignored.
When is the point at which a fetus is "ensouled"? I don't know exactly. Some religions say immediately upon conception, Judiasm says upon quickening (when you can feel the baby kick), some say when the baby breaths it's first breath. Most Americans are somewhere in the middle, as am I, which is why I don't feel like early abortions are murder or morally wrong.
Do I expect those that disagree with a statute to stop fighting for what they believe in? No, which is why I expect the abortion issue to be with us ALWAYS, no matter what any current court or law says.
Such is life.
Depends on which law
Depends on which law you mean, I guess. There's not a universal definition. But I doubt an abortion you procure by taking a pill is much different from one performed with bleach or whatever chemical means.
The reason the rape
The reason the rape scenario should not be ignored, but is ignored by the reactionary prolifers, is because they really do not grant the woman any rights at all. Her consent to the pregnancy does not matter to them, their only focus is the protection of what they believe is an innocent person. When asked to explain how an unwanted embryo is 1) a person: they rely on abstractions like ensoulment or Platonic forms, and 2) innocent: they claim that pregnancy can never be a substantive harm to the woman, it is only a temporary burden to her.
The mental schism th
The mental schism that I see is the view that God is creating the child (in the woman) vs the more biologically supported woman manufacturing the child. Rape or no, forcing the woman to complete the task strikes me as a form of involuntary servitude.
We should stop using the word 'labor' to describe the final act and use it to describe the entire pregnancy.
If believe -- though
If believe -- though I am not sure -- that the Wikipedia entry is one of the things that led to the outing.
qui tacet consentire
They couldn't beat h
They couldn't beat his arguments, so they tried to discredit him personally, to no avail, but they have succeeded in barring his voice using reprehensible, totalitarian tactics.
I'd like to hear one good reason why this shouldn't devolve into tit-for-tat engagement.
As a lawyer I share
As a lawyer I share your consternation over the naming of a client. I'm a sole practitioner dealing with individuals, not corporate clients, but it's the same deal, unless the client has otherwise given you permission you never heard of them.
I imagine that in this case NRO got the info from either the firm's Martindale-Hubbell listing or a federal court decision, assuming the info is even accurate.
In any case the lawyer in question can neither admit nor deny that the corporation in question is a client, and cannot in any way discuss his representation, assuming the corporation was a client, so he is in a very difficult position.
That is very unfair play. They take a shot at someone who is unable to respond in any way, shape or form. The victim of the attack is forced by professional responsibility to be totally silent on the matter.
Hey, why not punch out a quadriplegic while you're at it?
The actions that led
The actions that led to this incident have been extremely despicable. I am extremely saddened by what has happened. Such tactics do not belong in the blogging world. Unfortunately the intersection of blogging and political worlds means that such events will only increase in frequency on both sides.
That said I hope enough people voice their support for Armando to reconsider surrendering to these jerks, that is if it is possible to do without jeopardazing anything.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let's not make this
Let's not make this into a "they" thing, okay?
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Okay. He. Now to t
Okay. He. Now to the question: Why not go tit-for -tat every time this type of despicable thing happens, because the frequency of this type of encounter with some segments of society are increasingly brutal and unfair. There is no longer expectation of playing fair. So, why not go hawkish in response?
It depends on where
It depends on where it is coming from. If the pressure is coming from his non-blogging life, and if that is where he more truly identifies himself, there isn't much we can do but respect his decision (and periodically accuse one another of being a @#$! Troll! to vainly try and fill the gap that his absence will leave ;)
In the unlikely case that he feels pressure from the blogging world, well then yes, we need to support him.
Amen. This was a ve
Amen. This was a very, very scummy thing that happened to him. It could happen to any of us, and I find that quite frightening. It has a "chilling effect" on online free speech, in fact.
Sorry, the "Amen" wa
Sorry, the "Amen" was directed at Ender's comment. Not Knocienz, although it is also a sensible statement. This is why I try to blockquote things.
First because we hav
First because we have no info on the outer. Second it could just as easily be a purest troll from the left as the right. That being said the NRO hit piece is has little news value. Anyone who read his writing new that he was a lawyer and they also new he was more of a moderate or left of center liberal. (At least in foreign policy) .. Now terms are subjective to each of us and in some peoples eyes Rino's and Dino's are not really dems or repubs.
So I am not for tit for tat... Unless it is to delink from NRO and widen the standards or web blogging... That Josh and others signed up to....
Because in about a d
Because in about a day, there would be no more lawyers who blogged. Which might be fine by some people - not me.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Well, Leon, we just
Well, Leon, we just lost a lawyer, a damn fine one, and I don't see the validity of your argument. My whole point IS to take out lawyers on the other side as payback. That's what hawks do.
Again - you don't un
Again - you don't understand, it'd be ALL lawyers, right and left. Mutually assured destruction, and all that.
"Our concern for human life must not be confined to the guilty." (Coker v. Georgia, Burger, C.J., dissenting.
Yes, that is where i
Yes, that is where it would go. A hawk's life is nasty, brutish, and short. But there is no sense in being a dove among hawks. Only a bourgeois strategy (tit-for-tat) can possibly be successful. Doves will surely die against hawks. My question stands.
Geez, we get Jimmy D
Geez, we get Jimmy Dale Guckert (aka Jeff Gannon) and they get Armando?
Not a fair trade.
Besides, Armando wasn't trolling for johns as a male prostitute on the Internet.
By the way, did we ever find out if Guckie was on call for anyone at the White House?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
frivolous.
Exactly. That's my
Exactly. That's my point. The right uses the Israeli retaliation strategy:
Take out one of our soldiers and we wipe out a nighborhood with air strikes.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
the point is to get
the point is to get information and use it against him, destroy him.
yes, it applies in both directions: a hawk is a hawk.
NRO has little news value? Stupid comment, because it took out Armando.
Subjective? see last sentence.
Not for tit-for-tat? Then die like a dove.
That is the state of
That is the state of war. that is my question. Only in this case, we aren't as weak as the Palestinians. It would be a real war.
By the way, there wo
By the way, there would be plenty of destruction, but I am little convinced that we would lose. I think there are more of us tit-for-tatters.
So far, I am not con
So far, I am not convinced. Unfortunately, this argument is not just about blogging. It is analogous to any social contract including the law itself, which is also increasingly disrepected by some parts of society, namely the government itself.
Is it time for the b
Is it time for the baseball bats?
No, becoming the ene
No, becoming the enemy voids any value in 'winning'.
One thing that does seem to get at least some traction, is shame. See Gingrich, Livingston etc. Crappy way to do battle, but when facts hold no sway, what's left?
Nice sentiment. Oop
Nice sentiment. Oops. Someone just smacked the back of your head with a shovel. Take comfort. You didn't succumb to their tactics.
The problem originat
The problem originates with a poster on Wikipedia. Over a 16 day period more information about Armando was edited in then out again. Anyone can register and edit Wikipedia. Any registered user can then access the history of a page.
And that is the problem.
An outing diary on Daily Kos was deleted. From there the information was spread to Wikipedia. From there the National Review Online blog picked it up.
It is harrassment. It compromises the personal and professional life of someone we value.
In either case, it w
In either case, it was effectively a political "assassination," in the case of the National Review, clearly a right wing group. This is not the first time. And it won't be the last. So the question of tit-for-tat remains.
Armando is getting s
Armando is getting screwed, but it was inevitable.
If your income/real job will be compromised by becoming a vocal, sharp elbowed, highly partisan blogger, you just have stay away or get ready to find a different job.
Once Armando took the front page role on DK and became so active, he had to know this was a likely scenario. partisan politics and the politics of personal destruction is a part of the current landscape.
If Leon thinks he'll be able to keep his vocal anti-abortion opinions and blogging activity from affecting his client base, he's living in a bubble.
Then it's time for b
Then it's time for baseball bats? I would like to hear that from the conservative bloggers, but will have to make my own decision if they have nothing to say.
there is no special,
there is no special, chilling effect on free speech here. In every other forum, you get held accountable for what you say or write. Blogging is no different unless you can find a way to stay 100% anon which is virtually impossible if you are active and someone really wants to out you.
People judge you based on your words and deeds. If you don't like the judgement, perhaps you need to reconsider the words and deeds. The obvious problem is the lunatic fringe may choose to hunt you down and do you personal damage. I'm sure abortion providers can relate.
The main problem is
The main problem is that conservative bloggers who rightly find this behavior unacceptable are unable to convince their fellow bloggers of the undesirability of the logical outcome.
It's time to chill o
It's time to chill out. Do you know how easy it is to become a target of nutcases interested in destroying your personal life? It seems it's quite easy. The answer is to ostrasize those who permit that kind of information to become public and let it spread. Make them pariahs in the online world. That is the only acceptable retaliation.
This is not a war or declared partisan agenda but acts of a few malicious individuals. We don't even know who was the original source and there is a good chance it originated on the left. If you want to end dialogue and increase the occurrence of these episodes, sure go out and try to attack your ideological opponents blindly.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
You keep slinging mu
You keep slinging mud without full knowledge. It is a fact that there exist people on your side who are very willing to cleanse their party of everyone who does not appear 100% pure.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
what you are hearing
what you are hearing is the crickets chirping as those RW bloggers consider just how this sort of game works out for them once ALL the gloves come off.
Armando can be cold, cruel, arrogant and downright nasty at times. But he pales in comparison to the hate speech some of those guys bandy about.
pretty amusing comin
pretty amusing coming from a Bush/Cheney apologist. I'm sure Valerie Plame would love to see you ostracise this administration.
agree. there are ha
agree. there are hard lefties who'd have no compunction either.
Human nature isn't pretty. Just predictable.
I have to agree. It'
I have to agree. It'd be one thing to go after the trolls and individuals involved, while remaining ethical ourselves, but simply going around and blindly striking out at those who happen to share some similarities to those truly responsible is not the answer, even if you do think the world would be better without them having such power.
Which brings us back to the Iraq war and why it was so stupid to invade instead of focusing on Afghanistan :)
I think he clearly u
I think he clearly understands.
not entirely accurat
not entirely accurate. Plenty of think tank types would continue their paid bloviation.
This is not isolated
This is not isolated. Michelle Malkin? NRO? One could make a long, long list of conservative hits more generally, including Plame?s outing, Kerry?s & Cleland?s swiftboating, even that revolting garbage that was spewed about McCain. I'd be quite glad to see very prominent liars and smear tacticians were disowned in favor of honest debate. Telling me to "chill" is frankly vacuous, as I see no end to political "assassinations." Ann Coulter slimes the 9/11 families. Juan Cole is denied tenure at Yale. There is no sign of this ending. It's only getting worse. Armando engaged reputably at all times. Wanting to bury his arguments with arguments is one thing, but political assassination is quite another. Armando was simply too hot to handle. I'm a long way from "chillin'."
if the main issue is
if the main issue is hypocrisy (which I believe is the thrust of the attack on Armando for being a loud lefty while defending corporate america) the right is dead meat. Since we liberals are much more willing to live and let live up front, we've less exposure. Absolutists rarely manage to live up to their own standards.
so get busy and burn
so get busy and burn the MF down. Unf this plays into the hands of the "drown the govt in a bathtub theorists". But at least the "conservative" side will have to do some squealing too.
http://forum.truthou
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/comments/2006/5/21/115826/135/230#230
Someone on truthout actually "outed" him first heh.
I think that's sort
I think that's sort of the point, actually.
If this is "mutually assured destruction", then "we" just got nuked! The only response is to destroy all of the opposing side, or die here and now.
Of course, i don't think "mutually assured destruction" is the right way of looking at this mess. Consequently, and due to some other reasons of course, that's not the approach i would take.
There are more than
There are more than two choices.
Idiot.
Heh come on! This mu
Heh come on! This must be a bunch of right wingers posing as leftists.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well, it wouldn't su
Well, it wouldn't surprise me if it was that numbnutz who claimed to have the goods on Rove's indictment.
He's a freaky, vindictive little sh**.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Exactly, Ender. The
Exactly, Ender. There are nuts everywhere. And it only takes one.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oh, please spare my
Oh, please spare my e-feelings....
There are loons on b
There are loons on both sides.
God forbid someone calls out the clown who called the Rove indictment. That little creep goes off the deep end when anyone dares question his information.
Nuts come in all shapes, sizes and political stripes.
One note on that poster at truthout, though, Ender. The poster only had two comments EVER there, both in the diary exposing Armando. So it could have easily been some dipsh*t right wing hack who registered for one day at truthout to out Armando on a supposedly liberal website.
Covering their tracks and all...
So don't get cocky.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
pnuka, those were th
pnuka, those were the only two comments the poster in question ever made at truthout. Same day, same thread, both outing Armando. Nothing before, nothing since.
Probably some a**hole covering his tracks by dumping the info on a liberal website.
Duh.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Ender acknowledged t
Ender acknowledged that.
Hard to say without
Hard to say without some serious investigation :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Not worth it. Now
Not worth it.
Now that you're posting here, I can punish you in revenge.
This will be fun.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Oh Lord no. I can't
Oh Lord no. I can't risk my Sierra Club membership!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Yeah, maybe it was K
Yeah, maybe it was Karl Rove.
Nah. He's too bus
Nah.
He's too busy making Bush memorize the five current things our esteemed Mumbler-in-Chief is programmed to say.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Have you ever chaine
Have you ever chained yourself to a tree?
I can arrange it if you'd like to give it a try.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Only if a beautiful
Only if a beautiful woman is already chained to it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Jeebus. Another con
Jeebus. Another conservative with a bondage fetish.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I think you've threa
I think you've threadjacked an otherwise deep conversation.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Banning is on the ho
Banning is on the horizon.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Whats worse, he's th
Whats worse, he's the mumbler-in-chief, or the fact you lost to him twice :)
That's the way it go
That's the way it goes. That's the great thing about America. Any rich idiot can grow up to be President.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
I'm watching the dis
I'm watching the discovery channel program about human evolution right now. Alec Baldwin is the narrator. My mind has expanded and I've just become a liberal.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Now there's irony fo
Now there's irony for you. Alec Baldwin narrating a socumentary on evolution.
On the other hand, a whole lot of folks from your team don't believe in evolution.
Alec Baldwin looks like Einstein by comparison.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Touche, I'd be sayin
Touche, I'd be saying the same if it weren't for Diebold.
Yeah, it's nice to c
Yeah, it's nice to count the vote counters as part of your team.
Reminds me of Teamsters Union elections in the old days.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
<blockquote>there is
In other words, you support what happened to Armando?
You're a moron. So, speaking one's mind with an understanding of the safety of relative anonymity should potentially result in the loss of one's career and the ruination of one's life? And this won't have a chilling effect on free speech? And just because abortion providers have problems means that no one else should get to enjoy anonymity in any other forum whatsoever?
Just what did Armando say that makes you so angry, anyway? I don't like his politics, but that doesn't mean I'm happy his career was threatened by some skulking troll. I wouldn't want it to happen to me, and I wouldn't want it to happen to anyone else. If you feel otherwise, I don't want to talk to you anymore, and no one else with any sense in their head should, either.
Perfectly legal comments made online with the assumption of anonymity should have the anonymity of their posters respected. Anyone who can't abide by that rule should go stalk abortion providers or something. This is not a forum where that rule can be violated, not without the death of the forum. Go find another forum in which to stalk people, if that's your thing. This is politics, nothing personal. People who can't make that distinction are a menace to the blogosphere, politics notwithstanding.
Wood or aluminum?
qui tacet consentire
Intelligence does no
Intelligence does not always rest on the belief in prevailing theories
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Are you saying you d
Are you saying you don't believe in human evolution?
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Fighting Back -- Wik
Fighting Back -- Wikipedia -- Armando
Here
in a diary at Daily Kos I present my argument that it is actionable harrassment.
During these times of illegal warrantless domestic surveillance abuses by the present administration I am appalled at how quickly the "anonymous" mob mentality has jumped on this opportunity to "out" a person's identity, profession, and clients, with no other intent than to do him harm, cause him grief and hardship, and limit his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist.
with no other intent than to do him harm, cause him grief and hardship, and limit his ability to function as a free and independent web journalist
Web journalists have the right to blog anonymously.
And about journalists:
Journalists have a right to their body of work. This smear severs the person who used to write as Armando and the vast body of work he has created from whatever persona he writes under in the future.
Believe me, there's hardly a worse thing can happen to a writer or an artist than to lose their body of work.
And so now, we advance into the field of
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PUBLICITY
I certainly do. But
I certainly do. But I am not ready to say that those who don't are not as intelligent.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Gotta' run, Have
Gotta' run,
Have a nice evening.
If you really believe this is the "fight of our lives," how come you're not in Iraq?
Ender, just read you
Ender, just read your intro to the site, thanks for reminding me of a great scifi book!! I briefly relived the shock ending and must rush to the library to reread.