Colorado Right to Life's Bob Enyart advocates death penalty for women who get abortions.

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

Colorado Right to Life's Bob Enyart advocates death penalty for women who get abortions. · 6

Saydrah · 4680 days ago

Mr. Enyart apparently does not want this clip publicized, as he had a perfectly acceptable fair use of the clip removed from YouTube for "copyright infringement." He is representing an organization pushing a zygote personhood amendment in Colorado for 2012. This amendment has been introduced several times before, and each time its supporters steer clear of explaining exactly how they think women who choose abortion should be punished. Guess at least one of them has a clear opinion on the matter, but they're not crazy about light being shed on it.

(Disclosure: I blog for fun on the linked website and I know the owners casually.)

tweet · print · htmlmarkup tips · 0

thenewgreen · 4680 days ago · link ·

Disclosure: I'd be interested in reading your blog, if you're ever interested in sharing.

Also.... Mr. Enyart is insane !

+discuss+discuss

–

Saydrah · 4680 days ago · link ·

Ah, what's the harm, I suppose?

http://www.coloradopols.com/user/ProgressiveCowgirl

That one's mine -- it's more snark than seriousness, but I have a great deal of fun with it.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4680 days ago · link ·

Nice, thanks for sharing. I look forward to checking this out tonight!

+discuss+discuss

b_b · 4680 days ago · link ·

I don't get this absolutism that invariably accompanies the abortion debate. I get that morally, some people don't believe in abortion. I disagree, but fine; its a difference of opinion. Where I am lost is when one says abortion is wrong, end of story. Richard Land and Pat Robertson were all over the TV saying that the Iraq War met the Just War criteria back in 02-03, so their views on killing certainly aren't absolute. "But", they protest, "we're talking about the killing of innocents vs. a war against soldiers, most of whom are doubtlessly wretched sinners." Ok, again, fair enough. My question is on whose hands is the blood of the unborn that are collaterally killed in war? If we bomb a hospital and babies die, should the pilot who dropped the bombs be put to death for killing babies? The general who ordered the strike? The President himself? Does moral culpability cease to exist when an attack, although intentional, kills more than the intended targets? My point isn't to bring up old business about how stupid the Iraq war was. My point is to ask why is it ok to make pragmatic moral compromises sometimes, but not others? I think its untenable to say "I'm a moral absolutist", then make Real Politik style compromises when its convenient. Unless one is absolute absolutely, one's position is absolute nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4680 days ago · link ·

Absolutism on both sides is a problem. I can't understand how people can be cavalier in either direction. To pretend it's a simple issue is to lie. Have you seen a 3d ultrasound at 20 weeks? That's a little human being, calling it a fetus doesn't change the fact that it has hands and even looks "cute". Let's face it, we have a harder time killing "cute" things. But it couldn't live on it's own without it's host, therefore we say it's okay to "terminate" it. Let's face it, we're killing it.

Then, what about a girl that was rapped and gets pregnant? Should she be forced to endure 9 months of pregnancy? I don't think so.

Not an easy issue. But people don't like nuance, they like "right" and "wrong".

The real question here is why are the same people that are so adamantly opposed to abortion also opposed to birth control? What the fuck kind of sense does that make? That is plain and simple STUPID. This is when religion steps in and says, "Hi, I'm religion and I'm an idiot". Remember when you made a post and asked something to the effect of "what will people in the future be most shocked by when they see what we are currently doing?" I think the fact that we were opposed to birth control at all will be one of them. It should be mandatory once puberty sets in. Why the hell not?

+discuss+discuss

–

b_b · 4680 days ago · link ·

Opposed to birth control, and free prenatal care, and free early childhood education, and free healthcare for the child, and...you get my point. Its costs us a lot of money when people of no means have children. They should have that right, but they should have the right not to have a kid also. Full disclosure, I tend to be on the pro-abortion side (pro-choice is euphemism, and I don't like it), as I think its generally the lesser of two evils, but I can see the moral argument either way. What I can't abide is the hypocrisy that goes almost exclusively on the anti-abortion (pro-life is also euphemism) end. Pragmatic choices are made by everyone everyday. Why is this singular issue exempted?