Saturday, October 28, 2006

Toby Nixon and Abortion

Toby Nixon (R) of the 45th Legislative District in Washington state is running for state senator to replace liberal republican pro-abortion senator Bill Finkbeiner.

Under what he calls "Abortion and Reproductive Health", Toby has this utterly strange, muddled, uninformed, and contradictory statment on his web site's issues page. Toby just happens to be a Mormon.
I am pro-life –- and if asked, would personally advise anyone against having an abortion except to save themselves from grave physical harm. But the public generally supports the Supreme Court’s decisions on women’s reproductive health. In respect for the will of the people, I do not seek to prohibit early term abortions. However, taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for any elective medical procedure, including abortion, but only in cases of medical necessity.

If the public generally supported the idea that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace...." and were "unwanted." would he respect the will of the people then?

As for the "reproductive health" jargon, Toby should know better. He attended the Susan B. Anthony List's seminar when they came to the Seattle area. He knows there is nothing healthy about abortion.

Just like with Dave Reichert and most of the democratic party for that matter, if you ain't got the money or the votes you ain't got a voice.


Anonymous said...

The fact is, Mary, there is no societal consensus on when an unborn child obtains the right to protection of its life by the state. Some people believe that happens at birth, some believe it happens at conception, and some believe it happens at some point in between, such as viability. I believe the closest we have to a societal consensus is that taking the life of an unborn child after it is viable should be a crime; this is reflected in the many laws around the country that punish the death of an unborn quick child as a separate crime from the assault or death of the mother.

As for who you should vote for, you have to decide for yourself: do you want to vote for Eric Oemig, who claims to be 100% pro-choice and is endorsed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood, or do you want to vote for me, who, while as a matter of public policy does not believe consensus exists today to treat abortion as a crime from the moment of conception, nevertheless supports such widely-supported measures as requiring parental consent for minors to receive abortions, opposes abortions after fetal viability unless necessary to save the mother from death or grave physical harm, and who opposes use of public funds for abortion except in cases of physical medical necessity? Which one of us -- Oemig or Nixon -- will get public policy closer to where you want it to be? If you will only ever vote for 100% pro-life candidates who will take a strident anti-abortion position, then you will continue to hand elections to 100% pro-choice candidates.

Christina Dunigan said...

Look at my evil influence! The Haun's Mill Massacre is becoming part of the prolife reference mindset!

Christina Dunigan said...

Rep. Nixon, taking a stand that it's okay to kill fetuses of a particular age isn't sitting on the fence. It's declaring them to be valueless. It's taking a stand that they don't deserve protection.

If the prolifers are wrong, and abortion doesn't kill a human being, what's the cost to society? A lot of women seriously put-upon and made to endure hardship to get abortions. Maybe some of them would even die -- though women are dying now from legal abortions. Let's for the sake of argument say that a dozen or so additional deaths per year would result.

If the prochoicers are wrong, and abortion really does kill a human being, then we're killing over a million innocent people a year.

If you have to choose a mistake, which is the safer error? An error that might cost a lot of hardship plus a dozen needless deaths? Or an error that costs over a million deaths a year?

Anonymous said...

I don't dispute what you say at all, Christina, but your personal convictions or mine are not the issue here. Politics is the art of the possible. Washington state is not going to enact a ban on abortions anytime soon. What else is achievable in the near term to reduce the number of abortions performed? I believe changing the law to require parental consent (or at least notification), to provide tax-funded abortions only when medically necessary, and to completely stop abortions after viability except to save the mother from grave physical harm, are achievable. Would not these be a step in the right direction? In the meantime, it is incumbent upon you and me and everyone who cares about innocent unborn life to continue to work to change the hearts and minds of those who do not yet share our view; the consensus necessary to change the law will not be brought about by force.

Anonymous said...

Toby, I can't emphasize enough how much I appreciate a legislator who will open himself to discussion, and how good much of your thinking is... on other issues. But your position on human life seems more like a negotiated political settlement. Allow me to comment on your comments:

1. “there is no societal consensus on when an unborn child obtains the right to protection of its life by the state” Toby, there was no societal consensus in Germany against Hitler. Your point is entirely irrelevant unless you begin with the assumption that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Mary’s illustration about the slaughter of innocent Mormons is directly to the point. No “societal consensus” one way or the other, certainly not the lack of one, can justify murder. And there is no lack of scientific evidence. Life begins at conception. The only way you can conclude any other way is by playing deceptive word games.
2. “some point in between, such as viability” Viability begins at conception. The fertilized egg is, at once, capable of life outside the mother, entirely independent of her. This is easily demonstrated because it happens all the time. Fertilized eggs are implanted in a woman who is not the mother. The child is, at the moment of conception, everything it will be, genetically, no matter which womb it is placed in. From that point on, its variable “differences” are environmental; things like nutrition. My nephew, a preemie, had open heart surgery weighing less than a pound. Today he could kick your ass. All children need help to stay alive. For years, well beyond gestation. A child is not capable of fully “independent” life outside the womb, of course, until at least until his early teens, when he has “developed” at least some employable value. I make that roughly the 612th week after conception. Of course some cultures developed a “societal consensus” that it was okay to kill such children.
3. Great argument can be made for a “societal consensus” for a giant welfare state, re-distributing wealth to “help the poor.” Is that how you’re determining your position on, say taxes and spending?
4. You’re clearly a better choice than Eric Oemig. I don’t think Mary was taking issue with your candidacy, just the irrationality of your arguments for equivocating on the inalienable right to life upon which our nation was founded.
5. “Politics is the art of the possible.” This is the fundamental animus of Democrat foreign policy. They begin by telling us what will happen or not in the future if we don’t follow their prescriptions using that clairvoyance that is necessary for politicians who don’t stand on principle. “Bush is creating terrorists” they say, magically. “It is only practical to get out.” “We can’t deport 12 million illegals,” they say. “We must have amnesty.” Ronald Reagan did so many things that weren’t possible it boggles the mind. But he was standing on what was right, not an amorphous “societal consensus.”
6. “tax-funded abortions only when medically necessary.” This is pure fiction, Toby. Abortion is never “medically necessary;” neither ectopic laparoscopy nor ectopic laparotomy is considered abortion. Even if it were, tax funding for the purpose is entirely beyond the pale as policy for an economic conservative, particularly one with libertarian pretentions. This is not the proper function of Government, unless you want to begin to guarantee food and housing as well.
7. “to save the mother from grave physical harm” again, you’re in medical fantasy land created by NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
8. “continue to work to change the hearts and minds” That is precisely what Mary’s article about your position is doing.
9. “will not be brought about by force” What on earth are you talking about? Who is trying to change minds by force? Uh, except the pharmacy board… and the supporters of 2661... and the supporters of thought crime laws?

Mary E. said...

Thank you Rep. Nixon for your comments. I hope to find some time to reply in more detail.
I do NOT wish to see Eric Oemig win. Among other things, I see an expansion of Planned Parenthood clinics into places where they don't currently exists if he wins.

Anonymous said...

To quote you, Rep. Toby Nixon... "Politics is the art of the possible."

What a comfortable phrase that is...would there be a possiblity that you would comprehend that human life is human life no matter how young, or how old? Your phrase is SO politically correct without any accountability.

The art of the possible - could it be that the possibilty of the end of abortion WOULD happen because people who knew it to be wrong stood up and stood against it? To say that a human being, upon fertilization until say, three months of life, is not of value and can be killed - well, are you standing for life or not? Is there a possiblity that that human life would, if left alone become a breathing human being say in about six months time?

Does it matter the 'societal' norms dictate this or that when it comes to murdering the most innocent of the human race?

I am currently reading Left to Tell, Discovering God Admidst the Rwandan Holocaust by Immaculee Ilibagiza. I highly recommend you read it and then come back and tell me that societal norms dictate this or that.

We have a holocaust going on in this country, only it is not something we can easily see - for one million babies and more are killed every year by your stance and other people's stance on human life.

I work with women
(and men, the fathers of the babies) who have undergone abortions - I invite you to come and talk with them - the anguish, the pain and the torture that they live through day in and day out until they understand and know the loving touch of a Merciful God and His forgiveness.

Rep. Toby Nixon, I am afraid that your phrase, " Politics is the art of the possible." leaves a lot to be desired for the unborn. Indeed, you seem to be hiding behind it.

You see, I permitted the holocaust to touch MY life when I was told that the possiblty of me finishing college was not going to happen if I continued my pregnancy. THAT, dear Representative was a lie and that lie, 37 years later is still a lie, but you and others like you in politics help to perpetuate that lie. You say that the least among us is not worthy to live - that there is a possibility that the least is not human. Well, I beg to differ with you. I will tell you that my child would have celebrated his birthday this past month. The art of that possiblity was quashed forever with the abortion.

The possiblity that you will be accountable to God for your stance on abortion is not just a possibility, it is a fact. We are all accountable and you, because you are in politics have a beautiful, God given opportunity to stand up for the least among us.

Rep. Toby Nixon, I invite you to come to a Silent No More Gathering - and listen to our stories - and then see our gentleness and no our force - no, you will only find the 'force' and the ugliness being screamed at us by extremist who do not want our stories told.

I pray God that no other woman will ever believe that she has to have an abortion because you did not make a difference, but perpetuated so many myths.

God Bless you - please reconsider your stance on the least among us...

Anonymous said...

Ah - Rep. Toby...did you go underground? I am really interested in knowing, as I am sure others are, in what your reply is to me and others who have blogged here...see - our votes do count and when you are silent, we dismiss you as you seem to dismiss the littlest among us.

Jonathan B said...

For the record, Eric Oemeg beat Toby Nixon in this election, by about 2700 votes.