Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Who's 'ideological'?

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said abortion opponents were driven by ideology, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., called the proposed changes "a very far-reaching intrusion into the lives of women."

The paragraph above is from THIS ARTICLE in which there's a lot of rich information like the White House is pleased senators are 'working together'...'together'? Without Republicans? That's a leftwinger's version of 'together'?!!

But the line from Feinstein struck me as very typical of what our media does, too.............Abortion opponents are driven by 'ideology" but the ones who don't mind abortion aren't idealogical? HOW's that? Is it so bad to be 'ideological'? Or is it only bad when it doesn't agree with the Left?

z

9 comments:

beamish said...

The Left isn't opposed to "ideology" in general, they have their own ideologies after all.

Their hangup with right-wing ideologies is in the conservative insistence that words mean specific things vs. the liberal insistence that words can mean anything.

highboy said...

Its about as idiotic as the argument against legislating morality, or being a faith based voter. No matter what your worldview or political leanings, you side on issues based on what you believe is moral. Period. When you vote, you vote on what you believe to be right or wrong. Period. Everyone does it. Its philosophically impossible not to.

Leticia said...

I find their definition of together rather vague when they exclude anyone with conservative values.

This obssession with executing the preborn is becoming more and more like a holocaust.

I truly pray that the Lord will protect those beautiful babies.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

How about this: here's Barbara Boxer comparing denying women abortion coverage like denying Viagra to men, except that with Viagra no one, oddly enough, gets killed.

BZ

Anonymous said...

There's too few Bachmans, Coulters, Ingrahms and Malkins in political office. These are women who should never been allowed the vote. They're a disgrace to many womens intelligence, logic and values...especially morality and family values. Especially the hag, scag, skank...Boxer. A deranged piece of excrement if there ever was one.

Z said...

BZ..Boxer can't tell the difference between Viagara and abortion......that's the type of woman voting FOR killing babes.

Anon...not thrilled with the way you said it but I'll defend to the death what you said :-)

highboy...I agree....

Leticia...we have to pray.

Beamish...it depends on what IS is.

Anonymous said...

I guess you can't win. If you stick to your beliefs, your opponents call you an idealogue. If you change, you're called a pragmatist and an opportunist.

I suppose we should be idealogues on values and pragmatists on means.

Kudos for highboy's comments on everybody doing it. Of course we vote for what we believe. How could it be otherwise? And as Robert Bork said, it is a fiction that we don't legislate morality. Indeed, we legislate little else.

The debate over the merits of being an idealogue remind me of a Bible verse. If I remember right, Paul told the Galatians it is fine to be a zealot, provided the cause is good.

tiob

highboy said...

anonymous: you remember correctly.

Z said...

tiob, excellent scripture there for this point. thanks very much