Obama’s Next Supreme Court Appointment Will Not Be Pro-Life
Why do we play this silly dance every time?
President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and the privacy of their bodies. Yet he said he won’t enforce any abortion rights “litmus tests.”
Obama said it is “very important to me” that his court choice take women’s rights into account in interpreting the Constitution, his most expansive comments yet about how a woman’s right to choose will factor into his decision.
Obama is a pro-abortion president. He will appoint someone who also supports abortions. Pro-life presidents appoint pro-life people. It’s one of those consequences of elections. Of course no appointee is going to say exactly how they would rule on a particular case and the president isn’t going to ask them. But their position on abortion is certainly clear either way.
You seem to be conflating one’s position on abortion with one’s position about the right for someone to decide whether to have an abortion.
I can be against abortions, but still think people have the right to decide to have one under some circumstances.
Saying one has a right to do XX doesn’t mean you are necessarily pro-XX.
But I’m sure you recognize that difference, but choose to use more heated rhetoric instead.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 21, 2010 at 1911 hrs
Are abortions a good thing?
Do we want to have more or less of them?
I don’t believe in someone’s right to kill someone, therefore I think it shouldn’t be legal.
A justice and a supreme court justice at that - should understand that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 21, 2010 at 2028 hrs
Consider this:
Sally thinks trans-fats are bad for public health, increasing child obesity, increasing health care costs, etc. She is, essentially, against trans-fats
However, she is libertarian, and doesn’t think there should be laws banning people from enjoying trans-fats if they so wish. So, since she’s unwilling to legislate against people’s right to eat trans-fats, by Owen’s logic, she’s now pro trans-fat.
There’s a logical failure in there.
Take the emotions of abortion out of the equation and just look at the structure of his argument.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 21, 2010 at 2259 hrs
Are abortions a good thing?
Under certain circumstances. A woman should not be forced to die because someone decided to make abortions illegal and her pregnancy would kill her and her fetus. Anything other than that should be up to the woman and her doctor.
Do we want to have more or less of them?
Fewer. Of course that can be done effectively by improving access to a strong social safety net and birth control without interfering in someone else’s private decisions. I don’t expect zero to happen, even if we implement Nicolae Ceau?escu-type anti-abortion laws and have an inquest for every single alleged miscarriage. The question is how to best balance personal privacy and government interference.
I don’t believe in someone’s right to kill someone
Nor do I, but I also realize that abortion rights are not the right to kill someone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2010 at 0821 hrs
Free Lunch, that is so pathetically rationalized, its embarassing. An unborn baby, at any stage of development, is alive, and its human. Anyone who tries to argue any differently is being intellectually dishonest. I would have a lot more respect for the postion of people who support the right of women to kill their unborn baby if they would come out and call it what it is. At least then we could have an honest discussion about what it is we’re all talking about. Instead those that support it hide behind illogical arguements about when life begins, when a fetus can live on its own outside the womb, etc ... and all the other utterly ridiculous arguments designed to deflect attention away from what it is that’s really happening ... and it happens from the highest level of discussion (policy and political) right down to the operating room level, where doctors and nurses lie to perspective patients about what is inside them, where it’s at develomentally, and what the process entails, etc.
Posted by TD on April 22, 2010 at 1256 hrs
TD -
There is a long history in the law of distinguishing between babies and fetuses. Take it up with history.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2010 at 1301 hrs
The same people who think that abortion should be illegal under every circumstance (including rape, incest, and the life of the mother) are the same people who think a woman who has been raped should be denied emergency conception. These people are nuts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2010 at 1541 hrs
Free Lunch, I find it ironic that I never hear those that support Gay Marriage accept that argument as a reason for keeping marriage between a man and a woman.
As to your point itself, I don’t much care what history says ... quite frankly ... any more than what any organized religion says about it ...
Common sense tells us its a human life. The law, constructed by men, and therefore prone to the logical fallacy of man, may not classify it that way, but then thats a problem with the law and the people who created it. It doesn’t change the fundamental fact that its human life anymore than a law that declares that water isn’t wet would change the physical properties of water simply because the law says it should.
All I ask is that when discussing this, people quit hiding behind the abstract, like ‘Laws’, and ‘history’ and all the other nonsense and deal with what it is we’re really talking about. Killing a human life. But those that support the right to kill an unborn human life do not want to engage in this argument factually, because they know that its an argument that can not be justified.
Posted by TD on April 22, 2010 at 1605 hrs
TD -
How far are you willing to go with your supposed appeal to common sense?
1. Are you willing to force victims of rape to bear the child of the rapist?
2. Are you willing to force every woman who has a miscarriage to go through an inquest to make sure it was really a miscarriage?
3. Are you willing to force a woman to risk dying along with her baby for dangerous pregnancies?
4. Are you willing to put every woman who gets an abortion in prison for murder?
5. Are you willing to force a woman to bring to term a fetus that will die upon birth because of an identifiable developmental abnormality?
6. Do you know any women who would be willing to put up with all of these laws?
Our society has made the distinctions that it has made because it has not been willing to do these things.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2010 at 1922 hrs
“Free Lunch, I find it ironic that I never hear those that support Gay Marriage accept that argument as a reason for keeping marriage between a man and a woman.” Could it be because the “law” argument was based in science and the argument against gay marriage is of bigotry and/or separate but equal status?
I don’t actually think you know the difference between “fetus” and “baby”. This wouldn’t be the first time a conservative doesn’t know what a dictionary is or what it is used for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 22, 2010 at 2307 hrs
I see that you still don’t want to address my fundamental point, which is that no matter how many different distractions you attempt to create with talk of rape, incest, inquisitions and the semantics of fetus vs. baby, we are still talking about a human life. Until there is agreement on what it is we’re talking about being aborted, then it’s impossible to have a discussion about any of the related issues.
Posted by TD on April 22, 2010 at 2355 hrs
“...then it’s impossible to have a discussion about any of the related issues.” It is impossible because of the rules that you expect those who are pro-choice to follow. You expect us to accept YOUR definition of human life. This way, you are able to say you are willing to have a discussion about it by establishing un-attainable criteria. It would be like me saying, we can discuss religion if you admit God doesn’t exist.
How can it be a “human life” when it can not survive on its own for at least the first 6-8 weeks?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2010 at 0900 hrs
It can’t survive on its own when it’s born either (some would argue til they’re 26, apparently) ... it needs someone to feed it, clothe it, shelter it, etc. (and pay for its health insurance) It may no longer be attached to an umbilical chord, but it is no less dependent for survival outside the womb as it was inside. Based on that logic, can I assume you’re ok with killing infants too?
This is what I am talking about ... it is impossible to have a rational argument about what abortion is, because those that support it can’t rationally define human life. They create a fictional line in the sand (in your case ‘ability to live on it own’) to support their argument, which has no basis in any sort of logic or science.
Posted by TD on April 23, 2010 at 1404 hrs
“which has no basis in any sort of logic or science.” Maybe you don’t understand the words you are trying to use. When a baby is born, it can breath on its own. It is not dependent on its mother for oxygen anymore. If I followed your train of thought(I am not going to call it logic because that would insult logic), if the mother died while the baby was still in the womb, it would survive after the mother died.
How about a beating heart? That is usually the definition when something is alive. Is it alive when there is no beating heart?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 0904 hrs
So the ability to breath on one’s own is the definition of what life is? Pulling the plug on anyone on a ventilator who would be an inconvenience to those who have to care for them is ok in your book then I take it? Or, perhaps closer to point, how about premature babies that rely on a ventilator? ... Should Mom be able to tell the hospital to pull the plug at that point to, as a matter of personal choice?
Why do you choose breathing oxygen as the arbitrary point of life? Why not the ability to feed oneself? I mean, food is delivered via the umbilical chord. Once cut, the child still requires someone to feed it. Without that it dies. What makes oxygen so special? Is it because its convenient for your argument?
Human life begins when a fertilized egg implants. At that moment, its developmental path is set. Each stage from that point until death, weather inside our outside the womb, is a stage of human development. It is clearly alive ... and it is clearly human.
Posted by TD on April 26, 2010 at 1158 hrs
The most basic sign of life, whether human or of another species, is replication of cells. A fetus certainly has ceels that replicate, and as TD pointed out, it certainly is human. PLants neither breath (though they do respirate) nor do they have a beating heart, but they are certainly alive. You are trying to define ‘life’ in such a way to fit your needs for the argument you are trying to support, and your definition keeps coming up short.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 1310 hrs
There’s no question that sperm, eggs, blastocysts, embroyos or fetuses are alive. They are all part of the ongoing process of life that is billions of years old. There is not a start. just a separate continuation.
The question at hand is how the law should handle this. Biology is of no help here. Societies have had different answers over time, from strong proscriptions against birth control of any sort to widespread tolerance of infanticide. Saying “this is human life” does not answer the problem. It doesn’t even necessarily help understand it better.
Frankly, I think that the next time the Supreme Court has an abortion case, those justices who belong to a religious organization that forbids abortion and birth control and claims to be an independent nation should recuse themselves because of their conflict of interest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 1452 hrs
... fortunately for all of those unborn babies, both citizens and Supreme Court Justices having moral values based on religion is not only constitutional but favored by a majority of Americans…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 1524 hrs
It’s not a matter of weather it is helpful or not to define it as human life. It just is. You look for terms like ‘helpful’ because, again, you want to redefine what it is that is happening when an abortion occurs. It is an act that ends human life. You don’t want to call it that, because that makes your argument that you have no problem destroying human life difficult to defend. But basically what you have been dancing around coming out and saying is that you have no problem destroying innocent human life, so long as it meets some sort of arbitrary line you establish to make it palatable. You attempt remove the humanity by calling it a zygote, or embryo or some other term that attempts to pretend there is not a human life involved with that you wish to destroy (or legally allow to be destroyed). I’m guessing you think it makes it more palatable (or perhaps eases your own conscience). At least now I’ve gotten you now to acknowledge what you are advocating killing is living. Now that we’ve gotten you there, the next step is acknowledging that it is a human.
Posted by TD on April 26, 2010 at 1553 hrs
“The most basic sign of life, whether human or of another species, is replication of cells.” So where is your protest of all the viruses and bacteria that die everyday? They have cells that replicate.
“What makes oxygen so special? Is it because its convenient for your argument?” What about a beating heart? Did you avoid that because its convenient for your argument? When I go to the doctor, they check my pulse to see if I am alive.
So when the fertilized egg implants and then the mother has a miscarriage, is she then prosecuted for murder? Even if it wasn’t her fault? Or what of the woman that doesn’t know she is pregnant and does something that causes a miscarriage?
Your slope is slippery. Mine is not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 1559 hrs
Last time I checked, viruses and bacteria are are not human life, which is what we are talking about here. And a miscarriage is not an intentional taking of human life, it is an unfortuante accident or result of natural causes. Nice strawmen there liberal, but we are talking about abortion, a voluntary, intentional, pre-meditated act.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 1614 hrs
Another thing ... This is not a religious argument I am making. Not at all. Why do you assume that anyone that would be opposed to the killing of innocent human life, or would argue that the court reached the wrong conclusion in Roe v. Wade on constitutional grounds base those views exclusively on religious grounds?
Posted by TD on April 26, 2010 at 1619 hrs
Elovrich,
Our law has not treated fetuses in the same way that it treats those who have been born. You may not be happy with that fact, but it remains true.
It is not necessarily true that a miscarriage was not induced. They can be, either by intent or carelessness. While not completely reliable, there is a long history of potions, some highly dangerous to the woman taking them, that would induce miscarriage. They were used long before surgical abortions became a reasonably safe option. If you were to be successful in changing the law to what it appears you want: equating under the law fetuses and embryos with those who have been born, it is hard to see how you could avoid an inquest for every single pregnancy that terminated without a live birth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2010 at 1752 hrs
And yet td, you STILL avoid the whole “beating heart” questions. Interesting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2010 at 1227 hrs
“viruses and bacteria are are not human life” But your definition of life is cells reproducing.
This is what you said earlier, “The most basic sign of life, whether human or of another species, is replication of cells.”
“A fetus certainly has ceels that replicate, and as TD pointed out, it certainly is human.” When does a fetus become “human”? What defines a “human”?
Have fun with that slippery slope.
There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 27, 2010 at 1309 hrs
There’s more to being human than bearing a cell with the right collection of genes.
There is? What else would you think it takes to be human other than being descended from two humans? Or perhaps some of those collections of cells are simian? Feline? Canine?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2010 at 1124 hrs
It can’t be anything but human from the moment it implants ... from that point on its not like there is a point in the development process where it could potentially take the path to becoming something else like a zebra instead. Defining when it becomes human is a slippery slope only for people like ‘liberalsaves’ because the points they pick to call it ‘Human’ are arbitrary, and slope that puts them on leads them right down hill to the point of implantation.
Posted by TD on April 28, 2010 at 1250 hrs
Still waiting for an answer to this, “What about a beating heart? Did you avoid that because its convenient for your argument?”
Or how about, what defines a “human”? Are you telling me you would be able to identify traits in a fertilized cell that makes it human?
And this whole “life beings at implantation” is actually a lie. Are sperm alive before they fertilize an egg? It would be awfully hard for the egg to be fertilized if the sperm wasn’t alive. And what scientific evidence is there that proves life beings at implantation? If so, are you going to make it illegal for women to drink or smoke after they have sex since it takes some time to find that they may or may not be pregnant? Or would they have to submit urine samples in order to buy smokes or booze? And what about those miscarriages? Oh yeah, good luck there.
And no, “Defining when it becomes human is a slippery slope only for people like ‘liberalsaves’ because the points they pick to call it ‘Human’ are arbitrary, and slope that puts them on leads them right down hill to the point of implantation.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2010 at 1357 hrs
I may not be able to identify a fertilized egg as human, but there are those who can. The specific number and arrangement of chromosomes does that. A human sperm, and its egg counterpart do not gorw to be human in and of themselves, they carry only half of the requisite chromosomes.
A beating heart is a sign of a human that has developed to a certain stage, yes. But is it required for something to be defined as human? Again, if someones heart stops beating, do they cease to be human?
Face it, you cannot define a point in time after conception where a fetus magically tranforms to being human from having been something else, because it is human from the time it is conceived.
You keep asking about mothers who miscarry, or put their unborn at risk through their personal behaviors and ask if they should be prosecuted for murder. This is a false choice, a parent who fails to restrain their toddler and has a car accident, while negligent, is not guilty of murder. Nor would or should a mother who miscarries, no matter the reason because the foreseeable outcome of those actions is not the death of the fetus. The foreseeable, and inceidentally PLANNED outcome of an abortion is the death of the fetus
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2010 at 1607 hrs
Elovrich basically already said this, but I will echo it. The point at which a heart begins to beat is just one of the many stages of human development, both in the womb and out. The fact that a heart isn’t beating at the moment of implantation does not make it any less human, it simply hasn’t reached that stage of development yet.
Frankly I thought it was pretty obvious where I stood when I said life begins at implantation since that is BEFORE it develops a heart beat.
I am sympathetic to the argument that life begins at conception, but ultimately break from that line of thinking because a fertilized egg, in and of it self, cannot proceed through the full human developmental cycle without implanting.
Now back to the whole issue of a beating heart. Since you keep bringing it up, can I now assume this is this YOUR new arbitrary line in the sand? If not, why keep bringing it up?
Posted by TD on April 28, 2010 at 1817 hrs
ummm TD, isn’t implantation just another step in the developmental cycle?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 0729 hrs
Conception occurs all the time without progressing through the human developmental cycle. Implantation is the gateway to full human development. Without, fertilized eggs are simply that, with no pre-destined development path. Once implantation occurs though, the trajectory for development is established.
Posted by TD on April 29, 2010 at 0834 hrs
“If not, why keep bringing it up?” I kept bringing it up because you weren’t answering my question. When you go to the doctor, they don’t check to see if your cells are replicating, they check to see if your heart is beating. Which is my stance on abortion. I believe the term is viability. Your view is that at implantation, it is human. Does the egg have the traits of human life? Yes. But for you to say that an implanted egg up to the point of the fetus being viable is comparable to me is not being honest. You can say it is the beginning of human life if you want, but it is not a person.
“Nor would or should a mother who miscarries, no matter the reason because the foreseeable outcome of those actions is not the death of the fetus.” How do you know what one persons intention is? And how do you know what the foreseeable outcome is? There are so many things outside of a woman’s control that could cause her to miscarry.
What this whole discussion boils down to is choice. Or what opponents of choice call pro-abortion. I wish there were ZERO abortions, but I don’t see that ever happening. What you fail to accept is that if the option to have a legal abortion is taken off the table, it certainly does not mean there will be zero abortions. On top of that, why should someone have to have less choices based on someone else’s views?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2010 at 0907 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:08 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).