Could you clarify that? I'm not sure if you were clear enough..
If South Dakotans weren't clear about Congresswoman Herseth's position on abortion, I think there's little room left for argument now. In an article in today's Rapid City Journal generated from a Whalen campaign press release, Herseth is on tape talking about all the pro-choice groups that have endorsed her:
There will be more to come on this, as I hear there's more on the tape that's a little less flattering - including her apologizing for representing a conservative or 'red state.' I'm working on hunting this down. Stay tuned.
Read it all here.Republican U.S. House candidate Bruce Whalen says Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth revealed her true feelings on abortion rights in a statement she made to pro-choice groups.
The Whalen campaign issued a news release this week that contained quotes from Herseth taken from an August telephone conference call with Planned Parenthood officials and former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle. The conference call was aimed at defeating Referred Law 6, the near-total ban on abortions to be decided Nov. 7 by general-election voters in the state.
The Whalen campaign pointed to excerpts from the conference call, which were posted on a Web site, as proof that Herseth has a more extreme abortion-rights position than she displays publicly in South Dakota. In one comment, Herseth said she was proud to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights and Reproductive Freedom Action League and Emily's List - national leaders in defense of abortion rights.
She also said the defeat of Referred Law 6, which was approved by the state Legislature as HB1215 but referred to a public vote, in South Dakota would be a boost to abortion-rights activists and candidates througout the nation.
"We have a very real opportunity to hand a very public, very clear defeat to the anti-choice crowd in the very state that they claim is the most pro-life in the country, and doing so would send shockwaves to red states and will define the way this issue is perceived," Herseth said.
and..
Herseth responded to the Whalen statement through her spokesman, Russ Levsen. Levsen rejected the assertions that Herseth is out of touch with South Dakotans on abortion or that her conference-call comments revealed an extreme position on the issue.
"Representative Herseth has consistently said that the South Dakota abortion ban, which lacks exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the pregnant woman, goes too far," Levsen said.
There will be more to come on this, as I hear there's more on the tape that's a little less flattering - including her apologizing for representing a conservative or 'red state.' I'm working on hunting this down. Stay tuned.
Comments
If it were dead horses we were talking about, yes, I'd quit beating it. Unfortunately, dead babies are the topic of this discussion.
Calling those trying to save babies from being hacked to death in the womb Taliban shows just how devoid of rational argument your side is.
Miss Herseth even thinks it is okay for a total stranger to take my minor daughter across State lines to have a surgical procedure, without my permission or knowledge. This is absolutely outrageous! I can't believe everyone isn't upset over this.
What justification is there for this line of thinking? I would like to hear the response to this from you liberals out there.
Yes, we know that Herseth is pro-abortion. Unlike Sen. "with exceptions" Thune, who needed the pro-birth support to get elected, Herseth has never pretended to believe in something she does not.
No, I'm not going to try and explain anything to you. You said it yourself: You can't fix stupid.
She is beginning to sound like Daschle in the last election regarding abortion. Try to soft pedal her stance here in SD, but in reality firmly support NARAL, Emily's List, Planned Parenthood, etc etc.
And a final thought, if a person resorts to calling another Taliban, Nazi, etc, that person has already lost their argument. Period.
Again, where can we hear the tape? This should be in TV ads if it's as bad as claimed. Voters deserve to hear it.
She is likeable and could probably get re-elected regardless of what she stands for.
But she refuses to stand up for what she believes in. Be proud of your beliefs. Don't soften them or spin them to get elected. People would much rather elect someone of principle they disagreed with than someone who told them something they wanted to hear. (Wellstone and Reagan come to mind.)
If your beliefs are that great, do your damndest to try and convince the doubters otherwise.
Anything less is just mush.
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines a BABY as a very young child or infant; a FETUS, in human beings, as the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier EMBRYO; LIFE as the interval of time between birth and death.
Because a fetus or embryo was not born, it cannot be called a baby.
Because it was not born, it never lived.
Because it was not born and it never lived, it did not die.
Because it was not born, it never lived and it did not die, it cannot be called a dead baby.
This is applied logic. This is rational.
This is not what you wanted to hear.
A unborn baby has a heart beat and a brain wave. I believe that indicates the unborn baby is alive.
So your position is that a unborn baby that is 1 day away from being born that can kick and move is not alive?
That is where things fall apart.
"Because it was not born, it never lived."
The fetus/embryo/whatever is most certainly ALIVE. It is living entity, of species homo sapien, with a DNA code separate and distinct from the mother.
Crudely, it is a parasite: a separate entity affixed to another and deriving food from same.
This by the way is why the notion of this being about a "woman's body" is only partially acurate. The embryo or fetus is most certainly NO a part of the mother's body, it is affixed to the body and unable (up to viabiltiy) to survive without that link.
All this is a round about way of saying that biologically an embryo or fetus is alive and is homo sapien.
That is the end of biology. Everything past that point, whether this is a "human life" and/or a "person" are NOT biological definitions but legal and social ones.
The Supreme Court said in Roe no, that living embryo or fetus with its own DNA is no "human life" but "POTENTIAL human life". Never in Roe on in any medical textbook is it denied that an embryo or fetus is ALIVE however.
Moreover, Roe makes the statement that a "human life" = "person" subject to legal protection. Again, it does not deny there is a LIVING thing called an embryo or fetus, only that it is not a HUMAN LIFE.
Generally, those who oppose abortion contend that any living homo sapien is a human life and therefore a person.
To borrow your syllogism then:
Roe held that:
If and only if you are a human life, then you are a person.
Embryos and fetuses are not human life.
Ergo, embryos or fetuses are not persons.
Those oppose to Roe have one of the two following:
If and only if you are a human life, then you are a person.
Fetuses and embryos are human life.
Therefore, fetuses and embryos are persons.
OR
If you are a living homo sapien, then you are a human life.
If you are a human life, then you are a person.
Ergo, ANY living homo sapien is a person.
I didn't say that was MY theory. That's not the case at all. Anon 10 AM asked for a rational argument, and that uses logic, which is rational.
It's a case of be careful what you ask for.
I personally am opposed to abortions in the final trimester unless there is solid evidence that the fetus cannot survive once it is born (e.g. no brain or lungs) or if the mother's life is in grave danger. Beyond that, I cannot understand why anyone would consider terminating a pregnancy when the baby is viable or very close to being viable.
Yes, I do refer to it as a baby when it has reached that stage. Maybe that is because our neighbor was born prematurely at six months. It was touch and go for a while, but she lived to be perfectly normal in every respect.
I am not comfortable with abortions in other circumstances, but I realize that there are situations where the mother's well-being has to be the overriding concern. Whether that is right or wrong is not anyone else's place to judge.
We will all face our final judgment some day. Perhaps God will frown as much on people who take it upon themselves to judge other people as he does on someone who believes compassion for women and girls in crisis is sometimes warranted.