Some words about Terry Schiavo, pro-lifers, and other similar nonsense.
Ok, I've ranted before against the pro-lifers (basically the same crowd who are demanding Terry be kept alive) before on here. Listen up. Here's the deal on abortion and pro life stuff. This is all you need to know. You can comfortably disregard every other shred of information you've ever heard, or ever will hear, on this ridiculous issue, if you just take heed of the following primer.
First, abortion is legal. The United States Supreme Court has said so. Get over it. They aren't going to overturn Roe v. Wade. It's just not going to happen. And anyone who thinks it is, is an idiot at best, and a dangerously stupid individual at worst and probably should be locked up for their own safety as well as the safety of society at large.
Second, both sides of this issue, are idiots. Pro lifers want life to begin at conception, and anything else is unacceptable. They'll try every backhanded, devious, back door, seemingly innocent way to weasel their agenda in any kind of legislation they can. See our own unborn victims act, the previously mentioned Laci Peterson bill here in WV. Pro-choicers want to be able to abort fully viable, to term, fetuses as they are being pushed through the birth canal. Everything else, is unacceptable. And likewise, they'll try every trick in the book to push their agenda in legislation.
So you say, "Bingmanch, then what is the answer?" Well grasshopper, here's the answer. MODERATION. The Supreme Court drew a line. A nice, big, fat, visible, easily distinguishable line as to what's legal, and what's not. Neither side is happy with the line. And that's a good thing. But the sides are so damn blinded by their idiotic ideology, they can't see the forest for the trees. And consequently, we are subjected to propaganda from both sides ad nauseum. I see absolutely NO problem with the status quo. Each side gets PART of their agenda. The pro lifers get no partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions are severely limited, and the pro choicers get to have abortions up to the 2nd trimester. Compromise should be the name of the game, not ideological bickering. I just wish they'd both shut the hell up. Of course, as long as one side is going to be strident in their opposition to any concessions and demands total obliteration of the other side, the other side must do so as well, to balance the issue. So we are back at square one, stuck with two petulant screaming kids, and the inability to beat their asses to get them to shut the hell up. But the main point is, the compromise we have now, is the best possible one to give EACH side a fairly equal part of the pie. So, let's get on with other more important business as a country, mmmmmmmmkay?
All that said, today on 58 Live, Agnello (does that word mean "annoying" in Italian?) had some shrill huckster from the WVFL (West Virginians for Life). Evidently, they put their pro life flyers on some cars at a church somewhere back around the election. Evidently, according to this shrew from WVFL, they only put those flyers on "pro life" churches. Well, one church they put them on, wasn't pro life and was ministered by the wife of a House of Delegates candidate. The flyer had a "don't vote for Tom Campbell" directive on it because Campbell had a 73% pro choice voting record. Campbell is the candidate in question. The Gazette covered this.
This WVFL hack, and her gushing compatriot Agnello were on the radio this evening spouting off their "position." According to Agnello, putting flyers on cars, is OK, because (get this) it's done in the parking lot, not in the actual church. Well, I guess Agnello would have no problem with people coming down to the WCHS 580 parking lot and putting flyers on everyone's cars that said Agnello is a loudmouth hypocrite? What a tool this guy is.
But the shrew was unapologetic, unaccepting of any blame that their "process" for figuring out which churches are pro life or not, screwed up. No, she said "oh, we didn't do that. That must have been some 'local' members who did that on their own." What the hell? Just say "We made a mistake." Don't pawn it off on some "locals" and disavow your own responsibility. That's the same type of nonsense that made Mark Mcgwire look like a jackass last week. He wouldn't admit to his mistake. Own up to your subordinates crap, and at least you get points for being a stand up organization, as opposed to some cheapass, pass the buck type crew who never does anything wrong (even though the facts clearly show you did).
So, the abortion rant over, back to Terry Schiavo. The problem here is, the repubs are sticking their nose in a states' rights issue. Funny, the repubs are constantly busting the feds for sticking their noses into too many areas such as, "screw the Federal Department of Education, local school boards knows what's best," and other such things.
But when it comes to the pro life issue, they can't get their nose in the states' business fast enough. This case was heard by umpteen judges over fifteen years, and the conclusion was, let this poor lady go in peace.
What's next? If I die without a will, is the federal government going to step in and assert themselves as the final arbitrars of what's the proper distribution of my estate over the past rulings of the West Virginia Supreme Court? If not (and I don't *think* they would), then they don't need to be sticking their nose in this issue. Make no mistake, this move by Congress was PURE politics. Hell, some of those guys are so dumb, they'd probably never heard of Terry Shciavo until their toadies mentioned it to them over the weekend.
Lastly, I don't want to hear any "oh but those guys on death row get a federal appeal." That analogy is so stupid, it's almost beyond belief. Uh, the defendants on death row don't WANT to die. According to umpteen judges and 15 years worth of litigation, the State Courts of Florida, determined that Terry WANTS to die. Give her her wish. Also, Agnello showed his ignorance with this issue too, in that he claimed "well, there must be reasonable doubt as to her wishes." Uh, wrong again, Mr. Annoyingici. Reasonable doubt is a criminal standard. Civil standards of proof are preponderance of the evidence, and (most likely in this case) clear and convincing. So Mikey, go back to watching your Matlock reruns or wherever you get your legal information.