Thursday, November 10, 2005


happycamper said... I find it kind of interesting that none of the
propisitions passed. Many of the votes were very close, but I am glad that most
of them didn't pass. I am sad that the abortion proposition didn't pass. I am
not yet a parent, but I do not understand how a parent would not want to vote in
favor of a proposition that would allow them to know about certain events that
are going on in their children's lives.

It would seem that the ads for the different propositions didn't have too many for the Vote Yes variety. And to the untrained eye (see: nearly all Americans) the ads can be persuasive. They are not trying to be necessarily accurate, just sensational or using "seductive" language.

Happycamper:The ads all talked about how there would be back alley abortions
if it passed, but nobody thought of the opposite consequence.

Scott Klusendorf had this article on how not to argue against prolifers. It is good (and a little long-but I highly recommend you at least browse it for solid pro life argumentation) He had this to say about the "back-alley abortion" defense:

So is the coat-hanger/back-alley argument[a bad argument], which
states that women will once again be forced to procure dangerous illegal
abortions if laws are passed protecting the unborn. Besides,
we are told, the
law can’t stop all abortions, so why not keep the practice legal
? But unless
you begin with the assumption that the unborn are not human, you are making the highly questionable claim that because
some people will die attempting
to kill others, the state should make it safe and legal for them
to do so.
Why should the law be faulted for making it tougher for one human being to take
the life of another, completely innocent one?
Should we legalize bank robbery
so it is safer for felons
? As abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren points out,
"The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not,
in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong
regardless of the consequences of forbidding it."
[32] Again, the issue isn't safety. The
issue is the status of the unborn.

Happy camper continues:

Maybe parents would support their children if they knew she was pregnant.
Maybe parents would get a clue and be a little more involved in their child's
life if they knew she was pregnant. It just seems illogical to not pass that

What you say may be true, but what Californians just told us is that parents DO NOT know better how to raise their children than the government. I think it is ridiculous because the proposition was that parents were simply notified. They did not even have to agree to it for the youth to still get an abortion. I thought Doug Tennapel's comment on this put it well.

I also thought it funny that the Unions used members' Union dues to fight a proposition that would have given Union members the right to not have their Union dues used to support a proposition or candidate they did not agree with. Good job, Unions.


No comments: