Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush policy adviser would support jail for doctors who performed abortions

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:05 PM
Original message
Bush policy adviser would support jail for doctors who performed abortions
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/New_Bush_domestic_policy_adviser_said_0616.html

On a PBS program aired this weekend and taped in April, new Bush domestic policy adviser Karl Zinsmeister told the host that he would personally support doctors being jailed for performing abortions, RAW STORY has discovered.

Zinsmeister, President George W. Bush's newly appointed chief Domestic Policy Advisor, gave the interview prior to his White House appointment. Zinsmeister was appointed May 24.

Asked if he would "feel comfortable putting a doctor in jail for performing a procedure that a woman wants?" Zinsmeister said, "sure," while noting that he supported some limitations in cases of rape or incest.

...

ZINSMEISTER: Sure. No, again, I have a definition that had some exceptions for rape and incest where there could be real psychological damage to the mother. But yeah, Ben, I mean, you know, if a Ghanan immigrant wants to have a clitorectomy done by a doctor on his daughter, I would also send him to jail for that. There are places we have to draw lines and I don't pretend to, you know, have the only answer in this area. I understand that's a contentious area but I think the larger point that you have to have some boundaries is an important one. And my own preference is not to have these rules and these laws that externally oppress people, but instead incorporate these inside people, to have them decide for themselves that they would rather get married than have children without being married; to have them decide for themselves that they'd rather put their child up for adoption rather than have an abortion. You do that in a slow organic process by encouraging and teaching and leading people to try to make more socially constructive choices, and religion is a very important tool for doing that. It's, for instance, we know it's one of the best ways to get off of drugs; it's one of the best ways, one of the only ways that's had any affect in getting people form becoming repeat criminals when they get out of prison. You can't coerce this, you can't press people. It has to be sincere.



Two words for Mr. Spinmeister:


F U C K .. Y O U

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Sequoia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. and your brain washing religion too.
Religion is nothing more than the haves taking away from the have nots and making them think they're going to have a stupid estate in heaven. Be poor now, do as we say, and you might get to walk on the streets of gold, as my servant of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Without religion, good people would be doing good and evil people
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 04:51 PM by lindisfarne
would be doing evil, but it takes religion to get good people to do evil. -Steven Weinberg (not exact quote)

Interesting that ZINSMEISTER's advocating jail time for a completely legal procedure. It's quite inconsistent to claim that abortion is the taking of life, then say it's justified in the case of rape or incest, for the "psychological" wellbeing of the mother. We don't advocate the taking of life in any other situation for the "psychological wellbeing" of another.

So in fact, he doesn't view an embryo as equivalent to a life. In which case, abortion is *not* the taking of life, in his opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. In this quote at least he doesn't say it is
One can be against abortion but not feel it is exactly equivalent to taking a human life. I haven't a clue if he is such a person after reading just that quote. He may be, he may not be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. If an embryo isn't life, then removing it from the uterus isn't taking of
life. Abortion=Murder is the pro-life reason for outlawing abortion and is why they argue that the continued existence of the embryo trumps a woman's exclusive right to make decisions regarding her own body.

If one argues an embryo is something other than life, I can't see any argument being made for the continued existence of the embryo (=being against abortion) ever trumping a woman's exclusive right to make decisions regarding her own body.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. by calling it potential life
We restrict people's rights to do things with their own bodies all the time. I can't take illegal drugs, I can't sell sex, I can't offer my labor for under $5.15 an hour, and I until recently I couldn't even have sex with another male in many states. None of those cost lives, at least not directly. If ending life were the only reason we could regulate people's behavior with their bodies then many things would no longer be illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Sorry, I should have said "medical decisions" although I thought it was
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 06:53 PM by lindisfarne
quite clear. Many of the things you list are laws I disagree with: selling sex (I think it should be legal, taxed, and regulated to prevent disease transmission and protect sex workers who currently aren't protected); sex between any freely consenting adults should be legal ("consenting" and "adult" being the crucial conditions). As for illegal drugs: it depends on which illegal drug you're talking about. Some drugs (both prescription and illegal) are highly dangerous and one of the government's roles is to protect society. I won't argue that our drug laws couldn't use improvement, however.

The purpose of a minimum wage is also to protect labor. These laws need improvement as well - federal minimum wage needs to be increased dramatically, and our other laws regarding labor need to be revised so that actually protect the worker (and enforcement and penalties need to be increased as well).

Every egg in a woman's body is "potential for life" as is every sperm ("Every sperm is sacred, every sperm divine ..." So the "potential for life" argument falls apart really quick.

"a woman's exclusive right to make medical decisions regarding her own body"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. why should medical needs be given a trump?
Many users of illegal drugs, to name one example, would argue they do so for medical or other important reasons. It is hard to argue that society is protected by banning illegal drugs. Certainly individuals are protected from themselves but that is a quite different matter.

Again, we limit freedom, including medical decisions, all the time. I can't use medical marijuana, I can't use drugs not approved by the FDA, and several other things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I did say I don't agree with a lot of the illegal drug laws. If research
Edited on Fri Jun-16-06 08:14 PM by lindisfarne
shows a drug is effective, it should be approved for prescription use (for example, cocaine and morphine are). And I believe all drugs should be studied if there's reason to believe they may be effective (as there is for marijuana). Studies are being conducted in other countries regarding medical uses of marijuana. And even in the US, clever researchers are studying the effects of marijuana by recruiting marijuana users (although these studies would be much better controlled if researchers could supply marijuana to control for variations in marijuana available on the street).

Furthermore, a number of state laws allow marijuana use and the recent Supreme Court judgement did not negate these laws; it simply said that the feds could still enforce federal laws. So the federal laws are what need changing.

Meanwhile research coming from other countries is adding to the evidence showing that there are legitimate medical uses for marijuana. It goes without saying that the federal laws are greatly out of synch with what the public thinks should be the case.

Without a doubt, medical needs SHOULD be given a trump.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PWRinNY Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
4. The Handmaid's Tale gave me nightmares
Seems reality is catching right up to it. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueIris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-16-06 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
7. Of course. Fascist misogynists don't recognize logic (or shame).
I hope no one here is truly shocked by this "news."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC