Dr. Ben Carson makes another nutty comment...

[whitepug6]

On Meet The Press on Sunday, Carson said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. He went on to compare abortion to slavery:

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it. During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?”

So, um, Doctor...are you saying slaves FORCED themselves inside other people's bodies...wait...slave owners IMPRISONED slaves inside their bodies and forced them to...um...wait...WOMEN are ENSLAVING FETUSES!!!!

Every time Ben Carson attempts to speak on public policy or make historical analogies, he destroys his reputation.

 

[UgaTom]

On Meet The Press on Sunday, Carson said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. He went on to compare abortion to slavery:

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it. During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?”

So, um, Doctor...are you saying slaves FORCED themselves inside other people's bodies...wait...slave owners IMPRISONED slaves inside their bodies and forced them to...um...wait...WOMEN are ENSLAVING FETUSES!!!!

Every time Ben Carson attempts to speak on public policy or make historical analogies, he destroys his reputation.

Not that I agree with him, but you missed the point of the analogy. He isn't comparing slaves to fetuses; he's comparing slave owners to people who support abortion. He's saying that in both cases, human beings are being defined as something less than human.

 

[HeulenHund2]

On Meet The Press on Sunday, Carson said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. He went on to compare abortion to slavery:

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it. During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?”

So, um, Doctor...are you saying slaves FORCED themselves inside other people's bodies...wait...slave owners IMPRISONED slaves inside their bodies and forced them to...um...wait...WOMEN are ENSLAVING FETUSES!!!!

Every time Ben Carson attempts to speak on public policy or make historical analogies, he destroys his reputation.

I see what He was trying to say. He was comparing those who feel abortion is morally reprehensible to abolitionist.
I'm actually sympathetic to those with honest feelings against abortion. I also think SOME who support abortion rights have no conscience. I'm referring to those who seem to have no problem with late term abortions and act as if a fetus is NOTHING but a choice up till it's expelled from it's mother's womb.

 

[whitepug6]

Not that I agree with him, but you missed the point of the analogy. He isn't comparing slaves to fetuses; he's comparing slave owners to people who support abortion. He's saying that in both cases, human beings are being defined as something less than human.

I didn't miss the point. It is a poor analogy, and one which can easily be turned back on him: I would argue that the word "slavery" could equally apply to Dr. Carson when he insists that women and girls be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. A forced pregnancy is as equally repugnant as a forced abortion since both force a woman to do things to her body she does not wish to be done. That is the definition of slavery.

 

[HeulenHund2]

I didn't miss the point. It is a poor analogy, and one which can easily be turned back on him: I would argue that the word "slavery" could equally apply to Dr. Carson when he insists that women and girls be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. A forced pregnancy is as equally repugnant as a forced abortion since both force a woman to do things to her body she does not wish to be done. That is the definition of slavery.

How about a parent being forced not to kill a newborn ? A 6 month old fetus shouldn't be shrugged off as a ''choice''. That is a euphemism used to avoid thinking of it as a living being. I think there should be strong laws protecting a fetus after the first trimester.

 

[whitepug6]

How about a parent being forced not to kill a newborn ? A 6 month old fetus shouldn't be shrugged off as a ''choice''. That is a euphemism used to avoid thinking of it as a living being. I think there should be strong laws protecting a fetus after the first trimester.

The US Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. What are you waiting for?

Could it possibly be the fact that anti-abortion advocates can't get a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate? Or could it be that anti-abortion advocates can't get two-thirds of State legislatures to call for a constitutional convention? Or both?

My opinion is that a large minority of Americans are pro-choice and your side would fail to obtain a Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. I also believe your side doesn't have smart enough lawyers with the legal chops necessary to mount a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

 

[HeulenHund2]

The US Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. What are you waiting for?

Could it possibly be the fact that anti-abortion advocates can't get a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate? Or could it be that anti-abortion advocates can't get two-thirds of State legislatures to call for a constitutional convention? Or both?

My opinion is that a large minority of Americans are pro-choice and your side would fail to obtain a Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. I also believe your side doesn't have smart enough lawyers with the legal chops necessary to mount a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

We all know the politics of abortion.
What is your personal belief on what if any restrictions should be in place on abortions ? You do know there are already restrictions on late term in cases other than health, rape or incest.
Also you might try reading my post over. Nowhere did I advocate banning abortion outright.

I am curious though, what IF ANY restrictions would you favor ?

 

[oletex]

On Meet The Press on Sunday, Carson said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. He went on to compare abortion to slavery:

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it. During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?”

So, um, Doctor...are you saying slaves FORCED themselves inside other people's bodies...wait...slave owners IMPRISONED slaves inside their bodies and forced them to...um...wait...WOMEN are ENSLAVING FETUSES!!!!

Every time Ben Carson attempts to speak on public policy or make historical analogies, he destroys his reputation.

The nutty statement(s) is coming from you, the poster. As a leftist you are trying way too hard and it's making you look foolish. Which of course is fine since I am an independent whose one big issue is individual freedom with no desire to live in an atmosphere of loyalty to one party/thought or else.

So I'm fine with you showing your course interpretation, which is no interpretation at all, it is merely an attempt to reach around your azz to scratch your nose in order to make some stupid political "gotcha".

BTW, I have no desire to live under the yoke of any extreme, left or right. However I do believe the middle class in our society means well. I do believe that inspirational, well intentioned politicians like Kennedy and Reagan have shown you can lead with head and heart. Like most independents, I just want to be left alone to pursue my goals of finishing raising my kids in a positive atmosphere, enjoying my old age, free of intimidation from any side.

 

[PotimusWillie]

On Meet The Press on Sunday, Carson said Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. He went on to compare abortion to slavery:

“Think about this. During slavery — and I know that one of those words you’re not supposed to say — but I’m saying it. During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?”

So, um, Doctor...are you saying slaves FORCED themselves inside other people's bodies...wait...slave owners IMPRISONED slaves inside their bodies and forced them to...um...wait...WOMEN are ENSLAVING FETUSES!!!!

Every time Ben Carson attempts to speak on public policy or make historical analogies, he destroys his reputation.

Glad we have a watchdog on Carson. Who is watching Clinton, Sanders and Biden?

Or are their reputations unaffected by quotes?

 

[FeralDawg]

Whitepug,
You're coming off really bad here like fcpup said. You're trying too hard
to be the Social Justice Warrior

 

[UgaTom]

I didn't miss the point. It is a poor analogy, and one which can easily be turned back on him: I would argue that the word "slavery" could equally apply to Dr. Carson when he insists that women and girls be forced to carry their pregnancies to term. A forced pregnancy is as equally repugnant as a forced abortion since both force a woman to do things to her body she does not wish to be done. That is the definition of slavery.

His analogy was meant for abortion in general, not specifically cases of rape/incest. Given that abortions for rape/incest account for somewhere around less than one-half of one-percent of all abortions, it's a valid analogy.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

If you do away with pro-choice, we're just going to bring back the pro-coat hanger crowd. I'm pro-don't care. As far as I see it, I don't have a dog in the fight. Besides, there's a long list of more important, pressing issues facing this country in the here & now. Let's successfully address that list before moving on to Roe v Wade - hell, maybe if we successfully address one of those issues, it might have a positive impact for those of you wanting to end pro-choice. Yes shitty welfare & education systems, I'm looking at you...

 

[HeulenHund2]

If you do away with pro-choice, we're just going to bring back the pro-coat hanger crowd. I'm pro-don't care. As far as I see it, I don't have a dog in the fight. Besides, there's a long list of more important, pressing issues facing this country in the here & now. Let's successfully address that list before moving on to Roe v Wade - hell, maybe if we successfully address one of those issues, it might have a positive impact for those of you wanting to end pro-choice. Yes shitty welfare & education systems, I'm looking at you...

How might education be reformed, please be somewhat specific. I agree there is an imperative to improve results, but every attempt to date has failed on the macro level.

 

[UgaTom]

If you do away with pro-choice, we're just going to bring back the pro-coat hanger crowd. I'm pro-don't care. As far as I see it, I don't have a dog in the fight. Besides, there's a long list of more important, pressing issues facing this country in the here & now. Let's successfully address that list before moving on to Roe v Wade - hell, maybe if we successfully address one of those issues, it might have a positive impact for those of you wanting to end pro-choice. Yes shitty welfare & education systems, I'm looking at you...

Recent gaffes regarding abortion (such as, women's bodies reject eggs that were fertilized due to rape) have taught the smart GOP candidates to stay away from the issue. It plays well to the people in Iowa, so candidates that really don't have much of a chance will play to it to try to gain traction in that state. Apparently not all Dems have realized that TEH WAR ON WIMMENZ!!!1! is pretty much played out.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

How might education be reformed, please be somewhat specific. I agree there is an imperative to improve results, but every attempt to date has failed on the macro level.

I'd say that the only plausible way to fix public education is to take the government out of the equation. Given the across-the-board failures, privatization is the best choice. You have to be able to properly evaluate, develop and incentivize teachers, with pay tied to measurable performance metrics. Furthermore, you have to kill the teachers union. They're just as culpable as the government in fostering a pulse-for-paycheck mentality.

 

[UgaTom]

I'd say that the only plausible way to fix public education is to take the government out of the equation. Given the across-the-board failures, privatization is the best choice. You have to be able to properly evaluate, develop and incentivize teachers, with pay tied to measurable performance metrics. Furthermore, you have to kill the teachers union. They're just as culpable as the government in fostering a pulse-for-paycheck mentality.

There are a lot of bad teachers and unions do what they can to deflect any scrutiny away from them, but to be fair, a lot of the problem lies in the homes of students. If you have a single parent who can't devote the time to a child's education that can be given in a two-parent home, there's not a hell of a lot a teacher can do about it. The single biggest thing that could be done to improve education would be to implement policies that would discourage single-parenthood. But since single-parenthood fosters dependency on gov't, you'll never see liberals get on board.

 

[HeulenHund2]

I'd say that the only plausible way to fix public education is to take the government out of the equation. Given the across-the-board failures, privatization is the best choice. You have to be able to properly evaluate, develop and incentivize teachers, with pay tied to measurable performance metrics. Furthermore, you have to kill the teachers union. They're just as culpable as the government in fostering a pulse-for-paycheck mentality.

I don't think privatizing education completely, or even predominantly is feasible. What We'd end up with IMO is an even worse system in developing the entire spectrum. We would end up with a caste system that reaches far beyond school grounds.

 

[HeulenHund2]

There are a lot of bad teachers and unions do what they can to deflect any scrutiny away from them, but to be fair, a lot of the problem lies in the homes of students. If you have a single parent who can't devote the time to a child's education that can be given in a two-parent home, there's not a hell of a lot a teacher can do about it. The single biggest thing that could be done to improve education would be to implement policies that would discourage single-parenthood. But since single-parenthood fosters dependency on gov't, you'll never see liberals get on board.

90% of the problem is in the non-school environment of kids IMO.
I would like to see a wide experiment in Catholic style schools where everybody dresses in unis and street/pop culture is removed as much as possible. No cell phones or other devices allowed. Computers could run only school materials, no internet allowed. Also adopt a no BS policy starting in 1st grade and extending thru 12th.
I have little doubt we would produce far better prepared adults in core education. My only concern would be the possibility of damping creative spirit. We can't lose that magic that creates the Steve Jobs and Steven Spelbergs of this country.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

There are a lot of bad teachers and unions do what they can to deflect any scrutiny away from them, but to be fair, a lot of the problem lies in the homes of students. If you have a single parent who can't devote the time to a child's education that can be given in a two-parent home, there's not a hell of a lot a teacher can do about it. The single biggest thing that could be done to improve education would be to implement policies that would discourage single-parenthood. But since single-parenthood fosters dependency on gov't, you'll never see liberals get on board.

There's some validity to what you have to say, but I'd say that's a gross generalization. My wife and I are both from single parent homes and have earned advanced degrees. I don't put it all on the single parent.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The US Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. What are you waiting for?

Could it possibly be the fact that anti-abortion advocates can't get a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate? Or could it be that anti-abortion advocates can't get two-thirds of State legislatures to call for a constitutional convention? Or both?

My opinion is that a large minority of Americans are pro-choice and your side would fail to obtain a Constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. I also believe your side doesn't have smart enough lawyers with the legal chops necessary to mount a challenge to Roe v. Wade.

And that's all it is...your opinion. Its certainly not fact. But we'll put you down as a Planned Parenthood supporter.

 

[gawga_dawg]

Not that I agree with him, but you missed the point of the analogy. He isn't comparing slaves to fetuses; he's comparing slave owners to people who support abortion. He's saying that in both cases, human beings are being defined as something less than human.

It's still another one of his insipid and idiotic comparisons, along with his many equally idiotic Nazi comparisons. Just shut the hell up Carson and talk about neurology instead.

 

[HeulenHund2]

There's some validity to what you have to say, but I'd say that's a gross generalization. My wife and I are both from single parent homes and have earned advanced degrees. I don't put it all on the single parent.

It's 90% environment, parents are a big part of environment.

 

[StoneColdKillerDawg]

It's 90% environment, parents are a big part of environment.

That's a great idea - in the 60's. The fact of the matter is, parents - for one reason or another - aren't as involved. As society changes, so must our methods of education. We can't respond to an evolving family dynamic with a static teaching methodology.