Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Lyon County Republicans meet, choose state delegates

March 3, 2014

MARSHALL — The Lyon County Republicans met on Saturday morning at the Marshall Area YMCA to select 11 delegates and 22 alternates to the state convention and adopt resolutions for consideration in......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(29)

SELyonCo

Mar-07-14 3:19 PM

Hartman, Republicans don't fund sex ed because they don't see sex as something fun to do. Sex is an obligation and of marriage and taking pleasure in sex is a sin. All those republican who've gotten caught with their pants down took no pleasure in what they were doing; in fact they felt terrible afterwards, especially the ones that got caught.

"Just Say No" is very effective as long as your kids aren't immoral deviants who think sex feels good.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-07-14 12:11 PM

So Crunchy, I'm curious. Is there any circumstance where you would permit a woman to choose. For example if the woman's own health were at risk or in the case of rape or incest?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-05-14 6:07 PM

I understand my assessment that Republican polices tend to restrict individual liberty and freedom is open to interpretation. Still, the Republicans stance on several issues are antithetical to what many Americans perceive as fundamental rights and liberties. Consider this, when an act is made legal as in abortion or gun ownership, Republicans crusade for conspicuous obstacles in one instance and prominent ambiguities in the other. Our Constitution only provides for what our government will allow.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-05-14 6:03 PM

Back to the differences between a fetus and a day old baby: Our Constitution does not recognize citizenship until after birth. A day old baby requires a passport to travel abroad, a fetus cannot obtain a passport; A baby can inherit property, a fetus can not. IF legal rights were extended to fetuses, could a miscarriage or complication related to pregnancy result in a prosecution of the mother? Could it put the woman’s Physician at risk for prosecution?

I was not trying to infer that “personhood” is determined by a certain level of “burden”. My comparison was made to point out one of the differences between a fetus and human being. A fetus resides in and dependent upon one human being whereas a human being is a separate person not dependent on any one specific individual for survival.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-05-14 6:02 PM

Yes Crunchy, a fetus is human but doesn't become a human being until birth. Even though a fetus has the potential to become a human being that doesn’t mean it should be afforded the same rights. A 6 yr old has the potential to become an 18 yr old but they are not afforded the same rights based on that principle. I’m not trying to split hairs, Crunchy - both science and law use specific distinctions to identify & categorize. A woman is a human being, as such reproductive rights can only belong to the woman, not the fetus. I would also argue that abortion was legalized to protect women. Abortions will continue, whether they are legal or not so providing a safe legal abortion is better than the alternative of a dangerous illegal abortion. That’s far removed from a noble justification however all to often we have witnessed the extreme suffering and physical and monetary cost of criminalizing actions in which significant numbers of individuals participate. (cont)

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Mar-05-14 3:23 PM

Baseless, shallow accusations are the work of a small mind. Tell me, Hartman, which choices of mine are immoral?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Mar-05-14 12:43 PM

Abstinence is 100% effective if you properly use it. Every other form of birth control is less than 100% effective. When abstinence doesn't work, it is because it is not in fact used. That is like leaving a ****** in your purse, and saying it's not working.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-05-14 12:13 PM

Addendum: on the contraception thing, first of all, plenty of Republicans have little problem with contraception, per se. And second, every method of contraceptive has a failure rate. So even if widespread contraceptive use would reduce the pregnancy rate (and there is scientific research on both sides of that debate) we will still have the fundamental ethical conundrum being discussed here of whether the fetuses that result from those failures have any rights.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-05-14 12:12 PM

Hartman, your conclusion on abortion is logically consistent w/ your initial premises. But so is mine (and any Repub saying the same). I'm just pleading, again, for a certain amount of space for ideas to be discussed without making unfair accusations.

From where I sit, fetuses have rights which our current laws are not protecting. Every time I hear a Democrat talk about the marginalized, I cringe, because here's a whole class of humans excluded from protections under Democratic policies. That being the case, it's not fair of me to accuse Dems of being all about denying rights, because *it only follows that fetus' rights are being denied if fetuses in fact have rights to begin with*, which is precisedly the premise that most on the left would not agree with me on. In the same way, I don't think it's fair to accuse Repubs about being all about denying liberties, because if they are right about *what liberty is* then they actually *protect* liberty.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-05-14 12:11 PM

cont'd: So it seems to me, if I understand you correctly, that the criteria you are using in determining "personhood" (and the rights that flow from it) really boils down to the type of burden that an individual is or is not placing upon another. You note correctly that fetuses are incapable of exercising the right to freedom of movement, thought, etc. But that is also every bit as true of a 2mo old (which you are willing to extend rights to). The only diff btwn a fetus and a 2mo old, then, is that a fetus' burden is, by necessity, placed squarely (and physically) upon one individual, whereas the burden a 2mo old creates could be swapped out to another adult(s) if desired. But think about that for a minute - what that's really saying, at a fundamental level, is that our dignity (and rights) as humans is dependent upon whether, and to what extent, we cause an inconvenience for another person. I think that is a flawed way of assessing rights.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-05-14 12:10 PM

Hartman - is a fetus a "potential human"? or is it *already* a "human, with great potential"? You say the former; I say the latter. A fetus already has its own unique DNA (which is unmistakeably human) and is already an individual organism, distinct from its mother. All it is receiving from its mother (through the placenta) are nutrients. Nutrients which, through the internally-controlled cellular activities of the fetus itself, it uses to further its own growth and development. Obviously the fetus's presense creates a great burden on the mother's body, which has to undergo major changes to provide the proper environment and nutrients, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the fetus' DNA that is causing its own pattern of growth. It is already self-directed, in that sense.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-05-14 12:10 PM

westline - graphic images of aborted fetuses rarely (if ever) cause a change of heart on this issue, for the same reason that images of slaughterhouses rarely (if ever) cause someone to think they committed a wrong by eating a hamburger the previous day. Just because something is gross does not mean it's evil. And if you're rationally convinced that something is ok, staring at a bloody picture of it won't change your mind. In fact, psychologically it'll probably make you dig in deeper in your opinion.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-05-14 11:33 AM

I’m not attempting to marginalize the opinions of those who oppose abortion. I support a woman’s right to choose but also believe better options exist. The paradox is that, while as a whole Republicans oppose abortion, they also fight attempts to include sex education in school curriculum and prohibit easy access to contraceptives. Preventing pregnancy is a sensible and effective option because sex is more than simply a means to procreate. There exists 20 different methods of birth control that do not include abortion, some being more effective than others. Republicans oppose all but one form of birth control – abstinence. That’s right, just say no! We know how ineffective THAT strategy has been. Rather than limiting access, Republicans should emphasize the importance of providing sexual health education and services for both men and women as a means to minimize the need for abortions. Their current strategy is unproductive, contradictory and undermines civil liberties.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-04-14 11:26 PM

Fortunately for you westline, you'll never be in a position to make that choice. You also lack the authority to pass judgement on others who may face that decision. Too bad some of your righteous indignation can't be channeled into promoting common sense gun laws. Who knows, perhaps one day it could prevent the shooting death of a two year old baby.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Mar-04-14 10:47 PM

Try this Hartman. Google abortion, and select "images". Look and learn. Then just try to come back here and making another pro-abortion post within 5 minutes.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Mar-04-14 10:43 PM

Immoral? I may be wrong about some things. Like maybe, just maybe raising taxes on fossil fuels, and regulating the coal industry to death, and trading "carbon credits" will make the world a better place. Maybe we should take even more money from the hard-working, and give even more to those who can come up with a reason to do nothing. Maybe Obama's 20 trillion dollar debt will be a good thing someday. But There is still nothing worse than killing your won baby.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Mar-04-14 10:30 PM

A mother hiring someone to kill her own baby.

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-04-14 9:42 PM

Any responsible person can care for a two month old baby - is does not need the mother to survive. A two month old baby is categorized as a human being, a fetus is not. So no, westline, a two month old baby does not meet the criteria of a fetus. In a court of law or science lab our opinions are not worth doodly-squat. I have no doubt, westline, there are individuals who would judge some of your choices as immoral.

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

westline

Mar-04-14 8:05 PM

Oh, come on, Hartman, bring a brain. You say "a fetus is dependent on a woman for survival. A fetus is not like human beings at other stages." A 2 month old baby also meets these criteria. Abortion, in my opinion, is the worst thing a person can do. Imagine a mother hiring someone to kill her own baby.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-04-14 5:31 PM

“If a human fetus is the sort of creature that, like humans at other stages, has rights…”

What defines a human being Crunchy? A fertilized egg represents a potential but not actual, human being. Human beings by definition are separate individuals while a fetus is dependent on a woman for survival. A fetus is not like human beings at other stages. Because the fields of theology, law, medicine and biology are not in agreement as to whether a fetus is a human being, the status of a fetus is in question. Since a pregnant woman is indisputably a human being with rights, only her opinion matters. Human beings have a fundamental right to self-determination, peaceably assemble, liberty, due process of law, freedom of movement, of thought, of religion, of expression and of association. Fetuses are incapable of exercising any constitutional rights which puts them in a different category than human beings. As it stands, civil liberties can only apply to human beings.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-04-14 3:40 PM

Interesting examples, Hartman. To respond to but one of them, how does a fetus experience "liberty" and "freedom" when on the receiving end of an abortion?

If a human fetus is the sort of creature that, like humans at other stages, has rights, isn't any policy that has, as part of its aim, to prevent some abortions actually *increasing* human liberty and freedom? (The debate over what policies are *successful* in reducing aborions is a separate issue. I'm just talking here about stated aims.)

If a human fetus does not have any rights, or if "liberty" is understood in such a way that the bodily autonomy of a woman trumps any rights that the individual inside her body might otherwise have, then you're right - decreasing access to abortion does limit liberty. But if that's a faulty definition of liberty (which is what many conservatives like myself hold) then its a false accusation.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Mar-04-14 12:10 PM

I would agree Crunchy, the concept of “liberty & freedom” differs among our populace. However, across the U.S., Republicans have sponsored or passed legislation that: limits the ability to vote by requiring voter ID’s; bans marriages between consenting same-sex couples; promotes discrimination by allowing business owners to refuse service to gays or other groups that offend their religious beliefs; restricts access to family planning and reproductive health services by defunding Planned Parenthood; imposes unnecessary procedures designed to restrict access to abortions. By any definition, or more importantly, by the courts definition, several Republican initiatives have been struck down as unconstitutional because they violated civil liberties.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CrunchyCon

Mar-04-14 9:55 AM

FWIW, I'm kind of impressed that they at least considered a proposal to raise the minimum wage. Some diversity of opinion on economic policy is a good thing, in my estimation.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Really

Mar-04-14 5:33 AM

Can't believe that they didn't have time to pass the resolution "Ronald Reagan, a extraordinarily handsome man". Calvin Coolidge? Really?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KaptainKrunch

Mar-03-14 10:29 PM

Calvin Coolidge had an abortion??? WOW!! And you liberals claim to be the smart ones..

Maybe tomorrow my male dog will have kittens..

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web