The Midnight News - Saturday March 7

Um, Obama ran as the "Abortion Candidate."

.
So why is it now related to dysfunction of the uterus ("hysterical") to now regard him as the "Abortion President ?"
.

---

by: Barron X @ Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 14:23:55 PM CST

Really?

I had not heard that before now.  Any links?

This movie has been rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and destruction

---

by: Pam Bennett @ Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 15:06:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No link, but yes, you did hear that before.

.
he repeated the "safe, legal and rare" mantra.  
He refuted the Constitutional "right to life."  

Oops.  My bad.  That's from the Declaration of Independence, which does not have the force of law.  
.

---

by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 04:30:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, he was labeled not self identified

 it would be more accurate to call Obama the Constitutional president.  Roe v. Wade prevails as the law of the land.  Being loyal to an oath of office which includes reaffirming the law of the land, including Roe, is praiseworthy.  

I don't think that there has been a constitutional challenge to the use of embryos  created outside the woman's body.  Roe v. Wade deals with the conflict between the rights of the woman and the right of the state to protect "developing life.' I don't believe that there has been any attempt to define what these embryo entities are.  Apparently, some form of property law applies...however, one wonders if a couple could sell the embryo....sperm and blood can be sold...women are "reimbursed" for the incovenience of donating eggs.....right now with the economy in a down turn, this could be a source of income for families.... Or, have I just made a modest proposal?

The most successful republican strategy over the last 15 years has been the abortion strategy.  No republican has ever had to vote yes or no on a HLA to the constitution which is the only way to outlaw abortion.  Not one single vote has ever been held in those legislative bodies where the repubs have had control....they talk, they posture, they  legislate around the edges...but have never ever voted to outlaw...if this were a marriage, the wife would still be a virgin.

the latest plan to promote a state by state life amendment is also brilliant because amendments to state constitutions can be brought about by petition, no state legislator has to vote on the amendments.  Attacking Obama for upholding the Consitution is just another example of republican hypocrisy, not hysteria.

---

by: dwyer @ Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 16:27:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

your "modest proposal" looks more modest than Jonny Swift's.

.
on the surface.

But delve a little deeper, and its the same.

..............

I agree on the hypocrisy of the GOP on this issue.  They pander and they wedge, but they won't go to the mat.  
That's one small part of why Christians and others who uphold the values in the Declaration are fleeing that party and flocking to the Constitution Party.  We're up 40% over 2 years ago.

My hope/ guess:  ACP will get 2 members elected to the US House in 2010.  Then it will either flame out, or bleed the GOP of support.  That will benefit the Dems short term, but benefit the Republic over the longer term.
.

---

by: Barron X @ Sun Mar 08, 2009 at 04:42:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Actually, Barron

at the time of the writing of the constitution and immediately after, abortion in the United States was NOT illegal but accepted, with abortion services prior to "quickening", the stage at which the mother can feel the baby move, commonly advertised.  The pre-quickening period roughly corresponds to the first trimester.  States started passing laws against abortion only well into 1800s.

http://www.theatlantic.com/iss...

---

by: BlueCat @ Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 11:24:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

good point.

.
one point where we disagree:
I think that our understanding of what constitutes human life has progressed since then.  
.  

---

by: Barron X @ Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 13:15:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Have you been picketing fertility clincs lately?

You know, the ones that throw out small clumps of fertilized egg cells? Do you propose to have those fertility clinics banned?  

Do you oppose the death penalty?

Do you support universal healthcare for all born children?

Do you support or oppose the idea of not helping to prevent aids in children for the express purpose of using their suffering to punish their mothers for carrying the aids virus?

Do you support or oppose bombing in areas where civilian casualties are unavoidable in wars of choice initiated according to the Bush doctrine?

Just wondering if you are truly pro-life or just anti-choice and not being snarky.  It's just that so many who oppose abortion could not possibly be described as pro-life based on any internally consistent set of views. You are generally pretty logical and well reasoned in your views.  

---

by: BlueCat @ Mon Mar 09, 2009 at 14:58:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'll give it a shot.

.
never picketed a fertility clinic.  I have joined in prayer vigils outside Planned Parenthood, but didn't harass customers or staff (unless my presence was harassing.)

I oppose the death penalty.  I think most who claim "pro-life" agree.  

I do not support universal healthcare for all children.  I do not support universal healthcare for all Americans and residents.  
I understand the term to mean that everyone is in basically the same government-run plan.  
I support a basic safety net for those with no coverage, but believe only those with the money to pay for it should get the frills like liposuction.  I strongly oppose spending over 50% of the entire healthcare expenditures on trying to stop aging and prolonging the lives of old people who are almost dead.  You're gonna die.  Get over it.

I do not agree that care should be withheld in order to cause children to contract HIV as a way of punishing wayward parents.  I have it on good Authority
("... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God ...")
that even Dave Schultheis is a sinner.  
I sure don't want Justice for myself.  I deserve death and punishment.  I want Mercy.  

In a just war, I can see myself supporting bombings that are expected to harm civilians IF military exigencies indicate that the injuries are worth the gains.  Pretty much any "collateral damage" is inflicted on a person created in God's image.  It's always bad.  But in war, there are bad choices and worse choices.
The Bush Doctrine, as I understand it, calls for inciting wars if it will help oneself win reelection.  I am hard-pressed to think of anything that would be justified in such a war, even burning fuel to just drive around.  

I am pro-Life, and so are you.  I've read enough of your posts to know that.  
Where we differ is in how we understand or what we understand to be growing in the womb of a pregnant Mom-to-be.  
I think it is a human being, created in partnership with God (even in cases of rape or incest.)  
You think of it as more of a potential human being, I think.  

I am also in favor of people having control over their lives and their bodies.  I know people will often choose badly, when given a choice.  But God's design is for us to have free will, and to be accountable for the choices we make.
It's just that, to me, abortion is killing a fellow human being.  So just as your rights to do what you want end at the tip of my nose, likewise you do not have a right to kill even your own child, who has his or her own set of rights.

But you're right.  To be consistent, I maybe ought to speak out against fertility clinics, which I don't do.  I would like to see them banned.  I just don't think that's ever going to happen, so I put my efforts into things I think I can actually affect.  
Like preventing the Iraq War from ever happening.
.  

---

by: Barron X @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 01:45:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Barron

Your answers show that you are truly pro-life and I respect your positions.  I disagree, though, that most who take the position against choice are also against the death penalty.This may well be true among Catholics (I know the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty) but among the non-Catholic Christian right, support for the death penalty, as well as for the Bush war doctrine, seems to be the norm.

I also believe that quality healthcare should be available to all in a system superior to our universal healthcare system by ER.  I believe we need a system that does not discourage health maintenance or encourage large segments of the population to forego healthcare until the only option is the emergency room and very expensive treatment for conditions that never had to become serious in the first place and for which we all pay, making healthcare more expensive for Americans while providing an inferior level of health nationally than is the case in any of our fellow developed western democracies  

A patchwork of independent for profit intermediaries whose sole motivation is charging as much and providing as little in benefits  will never bring us up to par.   Instead it has come to ration more severely, even barring people who have ever had a serious illness from affordable coverage forever, and involve more expensive layers of overhead than any single payer system in Europe or Canada, no matter what the case may have been in the past.   Today only the lucky few can take full advantage of the best, cutting edge portion of health care available here; those with great wealth and the shrinking number of those with great but affordable insurance plans.

These, of course, are issues on which well meaning,  well informed people may disagree and I appreciate very much the respect for my views and motives that you have shown me in your reply.  I very much return that respect and assumption of the best motives on your part.

---

by: BlueCat @ Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 14:16:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you both for an excellent discussion on a difficult topic.

For Barron X:  Where do you stand on the Constitution of the United States and its relationship to Roe v. Wade.

---

by: dwyer @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:04:01 PM CDT

For starters, I support the Constitution.

.
It could be improved, but it's done pretty good, so far.  

I actually like the Declaration of Independence even better, but they were created for 2 different purposes:
*** the first stated what we are about as a nation;
*** the second set up a framework of governance so that we could realize those values, form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about a "Right to Life," as far as I recall.  The Constitution is sort of the foundation of our system of laws, the basis of the system of laws, and every bit of it has the force of law and is law.  The Declaration is rather about aspirations and values.  

So, the Right to Life is not, to my knowledge, written into our system of laws, except to the extent that particular laws are written to protect that right.

........

Under our Constitutional system, decisions of the Supreme Court, and even of other courts, when issued to be cited as precedent, have the force of law - until overturned, either by a higher court (in the case of lower courts) or by legislation.    
As I understand it, Roe v. Wade posits a "Right to Privacy" and then a right to abortion in the first trimester.  
That is the law on a federal level.  

........

To me, that contradicts the value that every person has a right to life.  It hinges on who is a person.  I think Roe v. Wade decides, either implicitly or explicitly, that a product of conception gains personhood at 3 months.  

I'm torn over the "right to privacy" created or discerned by those activist jurists on the Roe v. Wade court.  I think that the idea of "America" entails a right to be left alone, which is a real break from the culture of Western Europe.  But without it, the court never could have reached its problematic (for me) position on abortion.  

I understand that the case law of the land says that abortion is legal.  This is supported by the Constitution.  I think it is a bad decision, and bad law, because it legalizes the denial of the right to life of an entire class of persons, and leads to their being killed.  Constitutionally, this is wrong because each individual member of the class (unborn) is entitled to due process before being deprived of life or their right to life.  

.....

In other words, "kick me."
.

---

by: Barron X @ Wed Mar 11, 2009 at 12:46:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Quite the contrary.

I think you state the legal framework well.  The follow up question then, is, of course, if you think that Roe was a bad decision and bad law, what are you doing to change it???

Or, is proclaiming your opinion simply enough? Or, if think it was decided wrongly and is indeed unconstitutional, do you claim a right to ignore it?

---

by: dwyer @ Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 21:09:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]