all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Jan 29th 2007

democrats: kill all the fetuses you want, just don’t discipline them!

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.
:::::
The bill, which is still being drafted, will be written broadly, she added, prohibiting “any striking of a child, any corporal punishment, smacking, hitting, punching, any of that.” Lieber said it would be a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail or a fine up to $1,000. [source: craigdeluz.com (also recommended is his article on abortion and black babies)]

not surprisingly, conservatives and libertarians believe this is none of government’s business. glenn beck commented wednesday on his TV show that, while he has never spanked any of his children, he doesn’t think the state should tell him how to discipline them. he notes that there are already laws that would allow the state to prosecute people who beat children. beck went on to say he would like to have the freedom to swat his child if he thinks it is necessary.

this argument, while almost identical in form to a common liberal argument for abortion (“we’re not for abortion, we’re for the freedom to abort!”) actually holds up if you try to balance the rights of those involved. the far-from-lethal, time-tested ‘swatting’ technique balances a parent’s interest in discipline with the child’s right to life (unlike abortion, where i think we can generally agree that the consequences are profoundly negative for the child, much more so than even a spanking).

which brings us to the democrat side: kill all the fetuses you want, just don’t discipline them! pro-abortion liberals dig deep, find the inner hypocrite, and gallingly criticize people who point out this hilarious inconsistency. at doc’s sunrise rants, a lesbian parent (who believes all hetero parents are stupid texas cave-people and who laments that she has had to spend all morning arguing with a bunch of “ignorant christian women”) has this to say:

From a message board, in response to someone defending the no spanking stance: “Well if we’re concerned with protecting small, defenseless citizens, I’d like to see the unborn included in this line of thinking.” Gak. “Okay, if you can rip babies out of your uterus, then I can beat mine” Yeah, that makes sense.

just. ignored. the point.

the ignorant christian didn’t ask for the right to beat the kid, she just asked that the same protection you want to extend to 0-4 year-olds be extended to the hundreds of thousands of helpless kids terminated every year while still in the womb.

it is hard to argue with a political party that does not understand the irony in this situation.

even assuming roe v. wade (which only prohibits state intervention into the first trimester of a pregnancy – a decent political compromise) is valid, your party has gone way beyond this. the current democrat position is this: it is okay to kill an unborn child at any time before natural birth for any good reason or no reason at all (after all, its the woman’s womb, not the baby’s, and therefore the woman’s prerogative).

just as with convicted murderers on death row, liberals are much more eager to extend immunity from even minor disciplinary action to an arguably blameworthy toddler with the “terrible twos” than to extend immunity from a very major and, indeed, irreversible action to a completely innocent child sprouting up in a womb somewhere. in the former two instances, the person receiving punishment is capable, at least to some extent, of expressing his wishes and receives some protections. in the latter case, he has no input, is given no due process, and has no advocate.

getting back to the proposed swatting law: the law would be redundant. parents who beat their kids get sent to jail. parents who abuse their kids get sent to jail.

in contrast, parents who decide to kill a viable child during gestation get flack from christians with signs, and then get all huffy in defending a law prohibiting disciplinary ‘swatting.’

here’s an uncouth (but probably relevant) inquiry: let’s ask the proponent of the bill, childfree democrat sally lieber, how many abortions she’s had. that might help us understand her stance on this issue. (my prediction: she’s had multiple abortions, while her only interaction with children has been while watching reruns of full house. “child acting disobedient?” she thinks, “well, just call uncle jesse.”)

i think the only conclusion to draw here is this: liberals are hypocrites if they support this redundant spanking law while continuing to oppose any and every abortion limit ever.

get a conscience, losers.

and mark my words, if california takes away the right to discipline children with light swatting today, it will not be long before other methods of child control will also be taboo in that freak state, such as angry shouting, timeout, and being sent to bed without dessert.

12 Responses to “democrats: kill all the fetuses you want, just don’t discipline them!”

  1. If you’re going to assign attributes to me, or quote what I “think” link it, not an out of context quote from my coments. Otherwise, you’re just another cave dwelling ignorant liar.

  2. Mike

    Doc:

    I followed the link THAT TRAVIS PROVIDED and read the thread. I found it to in exactly the context that Travis implied. And I happen to have seen at least one of Travis’ dwellings, and, while it wasn’t the Riviera, I must say it was only very slighty cave-like.

  3. If you’re going to assign attributes to me, or quote what I “think” link it, not an out of context quote from my coments. Otherwise, you’re just another cave dwelling ignorant liar.

    and

    I’ll pay any of my readers to find ANY reference to the following, in ANY of my blog entries:

    My political affiliation.
    Any mention of Texas in a negative way.
    The words “cave dweller”.
    My dislike of hetero parents, or any discussion of heterosexuality in a negative way.

    other than about three sentences, my post (with its sweeping conclusions about liberals) wasn’t about you. it was about the democrat party. (title “democrats: kill all the fetuses you want, just don’t discipline them!”). i didn’t write, “doc: kill all the fetuses you want….”

    i found your site while searching for websites mentioning sally lieber and abortion. i quoted you because i found your remarks to be a particularly telling example of the hypocrisy that i was trying to highlight. i didn’t intend for my whole post to be some kind of refutation of your lifestyle, methods of discipline, or lack of love for texans. so i quoted you briefly. and i tried to put your perspective in context with a bit of a caricature of you: texas-hating, christian-despising, enlightened, homosexual.

    my first draft read: “who apparently believes all hetero parents….” when it came down to the final cut, the simile (a simple linguistic tool) was less clear. my bad. i also provided a link so people could read your whole post (unlike your reference to the message board comment, devoid of any link).

    just so i can clear things up

  4. what is your political affiliation? was i wrong to lump you in with liberals?
  5. what are your true feelings for texas and texans?
  6. are any of these people (topics on your blog) from texas:

    most people are so stupid, they do need the government to provide them with an outline for living. [link]
    :::::
    Spanking has become the vanguard of way too many Christians; a trend to be followed, like denim skirts and big Ford vans. [link]
    :::::
    who is [focus on the] family as an example? Ha, the Christians? Only as far as hoping to make it illegal for someone “like me” to raise children OR marry. I wish just one of those ignorant women would do a bit of research into what a “time out” should be. [link]

    continuing with the clearing up:

  7. do you think homosexual parents would raise a child better than heterosexual parents? that is the sense i got from reading your website. would you say that my understanding of your beliefs is incorrect?
  8. cave-dweller. i have used yet another literary technique called hyperbole. i reacted to your labeling of seemingly all christians as “stupid” by implying that you believe they live in caves.
  9. i wouldn’t have expected these simple techniques to have stumped such an enlightened person. perhaps they just caught you off guard because you weren’t expecting a literate response from one of the primitive monotheists to the south.

    I was reading message boards. I never responded to any of them.

    i’m sorry if i misinterpreted your morning schedule. i read your posted reactions to several comments; i read about your intention to ban certain IP addresses; i put two and two together (a debate is going on!, i thought), but obviously this conclusion was incorrect. thankfully, you have helped clear it up. you were just reading comments written by ignorant christian women, debating them in your head, then typing your thoughts out into cyberspace. i see.

    switching gears, i want to thank you for the link from your site to ours, and for your assessment of my abilities and intelligence. you are certainly not alone in holding this opinion of me.

  10. […] See also Black Prof, USA Today Blog, All-encompassingly, Slate […]

  11. Jay

    Travis,

    OK, I have you figured out. I have diagnosed your mental ailment. You are a quintessential example of what I will call a “Campist.” You believe the world is divided into two camps. Let’s call these camps Us and Them. Now, you might be relieved to know that many people are Campists. Campism has existed since the first clan of cavemen sitting around their camp fire had to grapple with the knowledge that another group (a DIFFERENT group) was sitting around a different camp fire somewhere else.

    One of these groups traditionally ate Mammoth meat every Friday. The other group enjoyed a nice slab of giant prehistoric sloth on the same day. One of the dumber individuals in this clan noticed the difference and commented to his friend “They eat Sloth. They BAD! We should kill Sloth Eaters.” The other members of the clan weren’t convinced that conflict was the best path to take so they marginalized the dumb one. The dumb one couldn’t let this go, so he began to spy on the Sloth Eaters.

    One day the Dumber one from group one saw a member of group two. Now, he didn’t realize that the person he was looking at is his counterpart in the other group, the dumb guy from group 2. He didn’t care to know the standing of this individual in his own group. All Dumb man number 1 needed to know is that dumb man number 2 is from “Them.”

    So as he observed dumb man number 2, dumb man number 1 witnessed something horrible! Dumb man number 2 has just killed a puppy! A cute little Puppy! Dumb man number 1 ran back to his camp as fast as he can. As soon as he got there he yelled “They’re puppy killers! They’re puppy killers!!! We have to kill them! Or at least malign them and characterize them unfairly!” Everyone else knew that he saw the dumb guy from the other camp doing something stupid, so they just kind of ignored him. The smart ones knew that this wasn’t a representative sample of group B, besides; their own village idiots had a penchant for killing kittens.

    Hopefully you get the point of this story, but allow me to connect some of the dots for you. The variable in Campism is what factor determines who is which category. For some people it is merely based on skin color, religion, geography, tribal affiliation, etc. You have drawn your camp along political ideology lines. You use examples of extreme examples (a State Representative from California, come on) to show an apparent hypocrisy in all Democrats. I know Democrats who support the right to obtain an abortion, but who think this idea of banning spankings is ludicrous.

    I am not going to debate the morality of abortion or of the right to have an abortion. I am specifically bringing into question the fairness of the way you categorize. Democrats are not categorically bad. Liberalism is not a categorically bad thing. You are just a loud disingenuous voice that really has nothing important to say.

    On a more personal note, Travis I am surprised that some can know so much and actually think as [l]ittle as you do.

  12. Jay

    PS- I apologize for the awkwardness of some of the sentences in the last couple of paragraphs. I had to write this on a break at work ( e.g. “You use examples of extreme examples “).

    And the politician in quesiton may have been a state senator, not a representative.

  13. travis

    Hopefully you get the point of this story

    actually, i couldn’t bring myself to read all of that crap. let’s just get to your moot point:

    I am not going to debate the morality of abortion or of the right to have an abortion. I am specifically bringing into question the fairness of the way you categorize.

    fabulous. in the original post i made the categorization as clear as i could, but i guess i need to dumb down my posts so you can understand them. here is step-by-step, “reading comprehension for kids” summary of what i said:

    …. a common argument for abortion ….
    :::::
    …. pro-abortion liberals ….
    :::::
    i think the only conclusion to draw here is this: liberals are hypocrites if they support this redundant spanking law while continuing to oppose any and every abortion limit ever.

    notice several things: (1) i said “a common argument for abortion,” not the only argument for abortion. (2) notice how i said pro-abortion liberals, not all liberals. (3) finally, notice how i used the word “if.” the only liberals i’m criticizing are the ones who “support this redundant spanking law while continuing to oppose any and every abortion limit ever.” you seem to believe that number is small. i believe it is large. that is not the point. my conclusion was a CONDITIONAL STATEMENT. all i did in this post was make an argument for what hypocritical behavior is (in a sense creating a sub-class of people within the larger population of “liberals”), and leave the door open for any willing democrat to walk through it.

    Democrats are not categorically bad. Liberalism is not a categorically bad thing. You are just a loud disingenuous voice that really has nothing important to say.

    what, exactly is disingenuous in saying:

    liberals are hypocrites if they support this redundant spanking law while continuing to oppose any and every abortion limit ever.

    please explain. remember, i think very little so i need your help figuring this out.

  14. Jay

    Thanks for your reply. I did notice that you did caveat your categorization in some places in your original posting. I’m happy about that. You gave some great examples of this in your rebuttal. However, here are some disingenuous comments in your posting:

    1st, the title:

    “which brings us to the democrat side: kill all the fetuses you want, just don’t discipline them!”

    Now, for #2:

    “the current democrat position is this: it is okay to kill an unborn child at any time before natural birth for any good reason or no reason at all”

    And another one:

    “just as with convicted murderers on death row, liberals are much more eager to extend”

    And one more (baseless and Coulter-esque):

    “my prediction: she’s had multiple abortions, while her only interaction with children has been while watching reruns of full house. “child acting disobedient?” she thinks, “well, just call uncle jesse.”

    Also, too bad you didn’t like my posting. I thought the story of the ignorant caveman was pretty good. The guys at my office had a good laugh at your expense.

  15. briant

    jay, i really liked that part about the sloths. i now see the world in a different light. i could never pin down the origin of my hatred for people who call pork “the other white meat.”

  16. doug

    However, here are some disingenuous comments in your posting:

    1st, the title:

    “which brings us to the democrat side: kill all the fetuses you want, just don’t discipline them!”

    Nice gotcha, except Travis followed that sentence up with this:

    pro-abortion liberals dig deep, find the inner hypocrite, and gallingly criticize people who point out this hilarious inconsistency. at doc’s sunrise rants…

    He is referring to the hypocritical liberal argument, which he is about to provide an example for. Geez…

    Now, for #2:

    “the current democrat position is this: it is okay to kill an unborn child at any time before natural birth for any good reason or no reason at all”

    Uh, that is the Democratic position. The last Democratic President vetoed the partial birth abortion ban, which is pretty much as close to natural birth as you can get (yet still legally destroy the baby blob of non-human tissue).

    And another one:

    “just as with convicted murderers on death row, liberals are much more eager to extend”

    Dude, when you spot a conservative Republican wearing Free Mumia apparel, let us know.

    And one more (baseless and Coulter-esque):

    “my prediction: she’s had multiple abortions, while her only interaction with children has been while watching reruns of full house. “child acting disobedient?” she thinks, “well, just call uncle jesse.”

    Yup. You got Travis there.

  17. It seems like Jay and others tellingly fight to preserve the perception that nonuniformity of thought and opinion significantly diversify the political landscape in the Democratic party.

    However, like Doug points out, that is not the case.

  18. Phil Bond

    [comments need to make some sense in order to remain here. this comment fails that minimal standard, so it has been removed – eds]