Lori Alexander Saw Lincoln, Somehow Makes It About Abortion

[GeoBQn]

Lori loved Lincoln and somehow makes slavery morally equivalent to abortion.

lorialexander.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-president-like-lincoln.html

People say the Democrats are the ones standing for the weak and helpless. Lincoln was a Republican and the Republicans were the ones fighting for the freedom of slaves, not the Democrats. The Democrats didn't believe slaves were equal to white men and shouldn't be treated as such. As I left the movie, I was weeping. How come the Democrats are the ones that continue to stand for evil?

Even two years is a long time in politics. The year 1865 might as well be another planet. The Republican party pretty much stopped concerning itself with the rights of African-Americans in the 1890's. It makes me think of when I was protesting in Madison, there was a man dressed as Abraham Lincoln and holding up a sign that said, "What have you done to my party?"

Abortion and slavery are wrong. Human life is precious and must be protected. We now have a president that doesn't believe a baby that is alive after a botched abortion should live. He even believes you can kill the baby just before it is born.

Abortion is not like slavery. Abortion is not like the Holocaust. Systematic racism and genocide are in no way equivalent to giving women the ability to make their own medical and personal decisions. If an abortion results in a live birth of a viable fetus, then doctors are bound by law to treat the baby as what it NOW is--a baby.

I will not speak evil of our president because the Bible tells me to speak evil of no man. I will tell you what he believes and why I disagree with him but I will never speak evil of him.

"I won't speak evil of our president. I will just tell you that he supports murder, which is evil." Therefore, by law of transitive property, you are speaking evil of him.

[Fargood]

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history knows the Republican party did almost a complete 180 from itself since Lincoln's time. Today's Repulican Party is an idealogical and spiritual descendant of the Confederacy.

[rock_girl]

Ew. There's something really offputting about Lori's comparing slavery to abortion given that her abortion-supporting president is hardly a pale shade of porcelain.

[lilwriter85]

Lori's posting on Lincoln was pretty much a fail. She doesn't see how the Republican Party changed over time. I agree with what the OP and Fargood said about how the Republican Party changed. Her comparing abortion to slavery is stupid. They are not the same things.

I was annoyed by the below quote from the posting.

I love my Democrat friends and relatives. I just wonder why they can't see this and what an evil practice abortion is to this nation and individual. {I do realize there are Democrats that are pro-life.} I pray that the Republican party will continue to stand up for life and the innocent.

Well Lori, there are also pro-choice Republicans.

If you go and see the movie, I just want to warn you that they do take God's name in vain which I don't like. From history, Lincoln was a deeply godly man but no mention of this is made in the movie. Let us pray for another president like Lincoln.

[lilwriter85]

I have noticed that Lori has started blogging more about pop culture and pop culture figures on her blog. I think she is trying to be a bit more hip, but she kind of fails though. Her fangirling of Taylor Swift made me laugh, because TS is not the innocent girl Lori thinks she is and Lori would probably disapprove of the some of the people Taylor hangs out with. Lori did a posting on Sharon Osbourne saying she wished she could have stayed home with her kids. I think when certain celebs say things that Lori's likes, she praises them without knowing their whole stories or backgrounds.

[keen23]

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history knows the Republican party did almost a complete 180 from itself since Lincoln's time. Today's Repulican Party is an idealogical and spiritual descendant of the Confederacy.

Exactly. Look at Strom Thurmond (well, not anymore, since he's dead). He was originally a Democrat, but the party changed so much that he turned Republican in the 1960's. It's shocking for someone from the current time period to consider that Strom was a Democrat when he first started out in politics.

[snarktastic]

How come the Democrats are the ones that continue to stand for evil?

Sorry, foreigner here, you'll have to help me.

How is introducing universal medical care evil exactly?

[thekate]

He may have been spiritual, but he wasn't really Christian, except perhaps nominally. He educated himself well in the Bible and used a lot of references in his speeches because that was common ground in 19th century America, but he never joined any church.

[Effie]

If Lori somehow thinks that people who are pro-choice do not value human life, then she is deluded. We respect life. All of it. Respecting life is about respecting personal autonomy, among other human rights. If a woman's request to terminate her pregnancy is not respected, then the principle of autonomy has been broken/violated.

I am of the opinion that it can't be morally justified to bring an unwanted child to this world. In those cases, abortion should be considered a “noble deedâ€. Having an abortion is not immoral or selfish - quite the contrary. I am definitely not saying that bringing a wanted child to this world is selfish or immoral. A wanted child could lead to the maximization of happiness (utilitarianism) for the involved social actors.

Let’s approach this issue from prioritarianism. How do you best give priority to the worse off? Is it really fair to bring an unwanted child to this world? What for? To prolong its misery? Considering how the world looks today, could not an abortion in fact be the best alternative for the fetus (the worse off)? What kind of well-being can we expect the future (unwanted) child to have (if we look at statistics from the foster care for example)?

I do think we should give priority to the people who are capable of holding preferences (preference utilitarianism), like a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy. The fetus is not yet able to hold preferences. The fetus's right to life is not yet a preference (the fetus lacks such self-awareness).

When it comes to negative utilitarianism, how would we best 'minimize pain' for the concerned/involved social actors? We can’t deny that we live in an overpopulated world. If we bring more people to this world, our action will indisputably lead to more suffering for more people. If we want our action to lead to the least amount of avoidable suffering for all, would not in fact an abortion be preferable?

[emmiedahl]

Exactly. Look at Strom Thurmond (well, not anymore, since he's dead). He was originally a Democrat, but the party changed so much that he turned Republican in the 1960's. It's shocking for someone from the current time period to consider that Strom was a Democrat when he first started out in politics.

I have tried to explain this to other people with Thurmond as an example. The Democrats and Republicans underwent an ideological switch in the mid-twentieth century. Margaret Sanger was a registered Republican. The Republican Bush family was huge in the development of Planned Parenthood. The parties are basically the opposite of what they once were. The real breaking point was the Civil Rights Amendment.

[Guest Anonymous]

I remember this sort of thing happening during the 2008 US election. There were some (pretty racist) Republican attempts to deter black people from voting for Barack Obama, saying 'Lincoln was a Republican' and 'Martin Luther King was a Republican'. To me, it encapsulates the very essence of the problem with extreme conservatives: They don't realise that the world has changed.

[Austin]

Anti-choicers portraying themselves as on par with the abolitionists is not a new schtick at all, and one of their favorite narratives. I've seen and heard this argument over and over again. Because enslaving and mistreating an actual sentient human being is exactly the same as having an abortion :roll:

As far as when the GOP stopped concerning themselves with African American issues, I have two words for the not-so-bright Lori: Southern Strategy.

It's more complex than that, of course, but she should at least look into that. Lee Atwater's own words on the matter just recently came to light:

X_8E3ENrKrQ

[Maggie Mae]

If Lori somehow thinks that people who are pro-choice do not value human life, then she is deluded. We respect life. All of it. Respecting life is about respecting personal autonomy, among other human rights. If a woman's request to terminate her pregnancy is not respected, then the principle of autonomy has been broken/violated.

I am of the opinion that it can't be morally justified to bring an unwanted child to this world. In those cases, abortion should be considered a “noble deedâ€. Having an abortion is not immoral or selfish - quite the contrary. I am definitely not saying that bringing a wanted child to this world is selfish or immoral. A wanted child could lead to the maximization of happiness (utilitarianism) for the involved social actors.

Let’s approach this issue from prioritarianism. How do you best give priority to the worse off? Is it really fair to bring an unwanted child to this world? What for? To prolong its misery? Considering how the world looks today, could not an abortion in fact be the best alternative for the fetus (the worse off)? What kind of well-being can we expect the future (unwanted) child to have (if we look at statistics from the foster care for example)?

I do think we should give priority to the people who are capable of holding preferences (preference utilitarianism), like a woman who wants to terminate her pregnancy. The fetus is not yet able to hold preferences. The fetus's right to life is not yet a preference (the fetus lacks such self-awareness).

When it comes to negative utilitarianism, how would we best 'minimize pain' for the concerned/involved social actors? We can’t deny that we live in an overpopulated world. If we bring more people to this world, our action will indisputably lead to more suffering for more people. If we want our action to lead to the least amount of avoidable suffering for all, would not in fact an abortion be preferable?

And something I've thought about since, oh, Catholic School, is the idea of putting God into the mix. Let's pretend that I believe a loving and just God, and that I believe that life on Earth is terrible, and that I believe in Heaven and all that Jazz. I also love my children as much as I'm expected to. Wouldn't the noblest thing to do would be an abortion? It spares the child from any pain and misery on earth, while guaranteeing him or her admittance into Heaven. Yes, it might be mortal sin on earth, but knowing that you are sparing your child from earth and sending him/her directly to Heaven makes the murder unselfish, especially when you know you are going to Hell for doing such a thing. However, no one was very interested in arguing my logic in school, they just sent me to the principal to pray because they thought I was being cheeky or whatever.

[Anxious Girl]

Lori, shut the fuck up, you attention-humper. I hate the people like you, that compare abortion to historical mass genocides and slavery. Actually read history. And you wonder why black people and Jews "may" (according to you and your agreers) to people of your ilk hate these types of comparisons. You can go kindly fuck yourself. :evil:

[slickcat79]

Since it was mentioned in another thread, I started reading Better Off Without Em: a Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession. I'm finding it a little disjointed, but it touches on all this stuff. The way that, in the South in particular, prevailing attitudes date back to the Civil War...the kind of racist, dogmatic views that started the Civil War still exist today. It talks about the switch from Democrat to Republican, and the sometimes hilarious amount of denial that people are in about history and race relations. Some people haven't learned a goddamn thing in 150 years.

[mpheels]

Since it was mentioned in another thread, I started reading Better Off Without Em: a Northern Manifesto for Southern Secession. I'm finding it a little disjointed, but it touches on all this stuff. The way that, in the South in particular, prevailing attitudes date back to the Civil War...the kind of racist, dogmatic views that started the Civil War still exist today. It talks about the switch from Democrat to Republican, and the sometimes hilarious amount of denial that people are in about history and race relations. Some people haven't learned a goddamn thing in 150 years.

As a liberal, urban, modern Southerner, I ask you to please read this (not broken, NY Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

Also, look at the county maps from the election. The cities of the South are just as liberal as those is the North, and Northern rural areas are just as conservative as Southern rural areas. The liberal/conservative divide is not clear cut North/South.

[Effie]

And something I've thought about since, oh, Catholic School, is the idea of putting God into the mix. Let's pretend that I believe a loving and just God, and that I believe that life on Earth is terrible, and that I believe in Heaven and all that Jazz. I also love my children as much as I'm expected to. Wouldn't the noblest thing to do would be an abortion? It spares the child from any pain and misery on earth, while guaranteeing him or her admittance into Heaven. Yes, it might be mortal sin on earth, but knowing that you are sparing your child from earth and sending him/her directly to Heaven makes the murder unselfish, especially when you know you are going to Hell for doing such a thing. However, no one was very interested in arguing my logic in school, they just sent me to the principal to pray because they thought I was being cheeky or whatever.

I think that's a good point! Too bad the teachers at your school couldn't see that. It sucks that they sent you to the principal just because you expressed your opinion/idea. :o The fact that you were able to question their narrow-minded view, proves you were able of critical thinking (while they were stuck in their polarized thinking).

[slickcat79]

As a liberal, urban, modern Southerner, I ask you to please read this (not broken, NY Times): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/opini ... .html?_r=0

Also, look at the county maps from the election. The cities of the South are just as liberal as those is the North, and Northern rural areas are just as conservative as Southern rural areas. The liberal/conservative divide is not clear cut North/South.

Um, we're from the same state. You don't have to tell me what it's like to be a liberal in the south. Even the article you linked admits that white southerners are slow to change and that the republican party dominates the region. I'm not blind to the nuance and I know that things are changing. But I feel like that's largely due to the influx of "Yankees", and it's not happening fast enough. I also hesitate to give too much credit to someone, like the person mentioned in the article, who just came to the realization that latinos actually contribute after working with them for years. Does he really deserve applause and cookies for that? I can't even sit through a Christmas dinner without racist remarks from my own family, and after Amendment 1 I was all too happy to leave.

[lilwriter85]

I wouldn't be surprised if Lori ends up promoting Ray Comfort's movie 180 where he compares abortion to the Holocaust.

[MamaJunebug]

I feel like I"m derailing the topic, mebbe I should start a new one: Has anyone heard conservatives say that to talk about the "civil rights" of gays in re: marriage is to discount the struggles for civil rights carried on by citizens of African descent?

One conservative said he'd love to hear from AA's as to their reactions to teh gheyz claiming their rights. Sounded to me like an attempt to set one group against another. Perhaps he didn't realize that there are homosexuals in the AA people group. I dunno.

[Guest Anonymous]

I feel like I"m derailing the topic, mebbe I should start a new one: Has anyone heard conservatives say that to talk about the "civil rights" of gays in re: marriage is to discount the struggles for civil rights carried on by citizens of African descent?

One conservative said he'd love to hear from AA's as to their reactions to teh gheyz claiming their rights. Sounded to me like an attempt to set one group against another. Perhaps he didn't realize that there are homosexuals in the AA people group. I dunno.

This is Ann Coulter making that point:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2012/09/2 ... for/190073

I find it truly maddening. Civil rights should belong to everybody. Black people needed a Civil Rights movement because their rights had been unfairly restricted. The fight for same-sex marriage is the same fight.

[patsymae]

Does this woman read history (ok, guess that's a rhetorical question). Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans advocated as a party for the abolition of slavery, much less for equality--Lincoln was very clear in his beliefs that black people were not equal to whites. The Emancipation Proclamation freed only those slaves in the Confederacy--states that rebelled against the Union--and slavery was still legal, and practiced, in Northern States. The EP was a tactic designed to tilt European support to the Union side.

That said, I have to add my voice to the chorus of people who are sick of having abortion equated with slavery or with the Holocaust--such incredible disrespect for the people who suffered under those atrocities and populations who still are affected.

[No Cure for Stupid]

Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of history knows the Republican party did almost a complete 180 from itself since Lincoln's time. Today's Repulican Party is an idealogical and spiritual descendant of the Confederacy.

That actually reminds me of my American History teacher in 2006. She talked about "Radical Repulicans" and added "I know, 'radical' and Republicans are sort of an oxymoron."

The funny thing is most Republicans now are, like was mentioned earlier, the spiritual descendents of the Confederacy. The red states are the same states that were enslaving people before the Civil War and still are.

[dramallama]

If human life is so fucking precious, why don't most so-called pro-lifers give a single shit about helping people survive post-birth? Making sure all those ex-fetuses have access to health care and education and enough food to eat and a roof over their heads and aren't killed in unnecessary wars? Even if that were the case I'd still be pro-choice because what goes on in my uterus is no one else's business, but at least there'd be some consistency and an actual basis to say they care about all human lives. But of course that won't happen, because it's not really about human life at all, it's about religion and the status of women and control. And it's disgusting and so, so blatant that I don't know how anyone doesn't recognize it for what it is right away.