Wednesday, April 18, 2007
|
|
Court OKs Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
12:06 PM
|
|
AP: The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. The opponents of the act "have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. The decision pitted the court's conservatives against its liberals,with President Bush's two appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority. It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case over how - not whether - to perform an abortion. Abortion rights groups have said the procedure sometimes is the safestfor a woman. They also said that such a ruling could threaten most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy, although government lawyers and others who favor the ban said there are alternate, more widely usedprocedures that remain legal. The outcome is likely to spur efforts at the state level to place more restrictions on abortions.
Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy made up the majority.Update: Oddly enough, there seem to be no statements on the NOW or NARAL sites yet.
The FRC blog has a pdf of the opinion.SCOTUSblog calls the decision "sweeping" and "barely qualified" in its affirmation of the partial-birth abortion ban of 2003, and reports that Ginsburg wrote the dissent, calling it an "alarming decision." In the course of her dissenting opinion, Ginsburg accused the majority of offering "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. She also denounced the Kennedy opinion for its use of "abortion doctor" to describe specialists who perform gynecological services, "unborn child" and "baby" to describe a fetus, and"preferences" based on "mere convenience" to describe the medical judgments of trained doctors. She also commented: "Ultimately, the Court admits that 'moral concerns' are at work, concerns that could yield prohibitions on any abortion." Yes, a messaging win like "baby" as opposed to "fetus" in the opinion is certain to rankle the pro-abortion lobby.
Update: Why did Kennedy write it?If the Chief Justice is in the majority, as Roberts was here, it falls to him to decide who’s responsible for writing the majority opinion.Kennedy probably got the call for two reasons: one, having an author of the Casey opinion put his name on today’s decision lends it a bit of extra authority, and two, since Kennedy is a fence sitter on this issue,Roberts wants to do what little he can to “lock him in” to anti-abortion precedent by making him as personally invested in it as possible. Update: McCain and Romney are first out with pro-decision statements.
Update: Here's Rudy's statement, which is somewhat less impassioned:"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it." Update: Feminist commentary: "We're f***ed."
|
|
|
|
|
Is you thinking anyone cares about what you think! |
|
|
If anyone is reading this and wants me to clearly demonstrate the absurdity of kurttrail's last comment, please let me know with a comment and I will be glad to do so. After the next couple of days, if I see no such request or other indication that others are following this, I'll stop checking regularly.(I'll probably check back at some point, but no particular time frame). |
|
"This key question of what should define personhood."
According to Alabama law - "(11) PERSON. A human being, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government, or a governmental instrumentality." - http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-1-2.htm
What don't you understand?
"I presented numerous state homicide laws"
Flat out lie! You presented summaries made up by some third party, not from the legislatures themselves!
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm is where you got these summaries from. You weren't even smart enough to actually look to see how legislatures defined the terms "person" or "unborn child."
So go ahead and feel all high and mighty about being an out & out liar, and someone who is ignorant about the definition of a legal "person" is. And I sure hope you enjoyed your filibustering filled with lies, illogic, and ignorance, because I certainly did! :-p |
|
There you have it folks, the power of denial in the face of clear evidence.
Kurttrail's central point was:
"In states that have adopted a fetalcide law, they haven't extended the definition of what a living human being is to include fetus."
He asked for proof:
"Please quote the fetalcide law that explicitly recognizes a fetus as a living human being."
I presented numerous state homicide laws in which (1) a fetus is explicitly recognized as a person in the context of these homicide laws (a "person", a "human being" or an "unborn child"), and that (2) explicitly consider killing the fetus to be murder (denial of which were the two central contentions of kurttrail within the narrow scope of the abortion issue that interest him), yet kurttrail insists that they are not doing so. How he can do so is a matter for psychologists, not me. But you've all gotten a good look at the confused or disingenuous debate tactics (and a sense, perhaps of the mental/psychological dynamics) of what I'll call the "kurttrail type". Needless to say, there is no end to a debate with such a type, any more than there is to an Abbot and Costello "Who's on First?" routine.
OK, looks like my work is done here. Unless someone else is out there and comments or wishes for me to comment further, I'm done. It's quite possible that no one else is following this dialogue at this point, and I've already proven kurttrail to be not only strangely limited in the scope of his interest in the issue (only interested in what the CURRENT legal definition of personhood) and dismissive of any discussion of the more important (and more interesting) central question of the issue (what the law SHOULD be, based on what criteria for personhood), but he is also plainly incorrect on the facts even within his narrow scope. There is no point in continuing this dialogue if kurttrail is the only one following it, because his brain is as impenetrable as it is dysfunctional (or he knows he's wrong but lacks the character to admit it or even the integrity not to deny it). But if someone else is indeed reading this and wishes to participate, please comment. I'll check back over the next couple of days to see if anyone has done so.
Lastly, excellent column by David Brooks in the NY Times today on the question of how we should define personhood, with the inherent right to life, which is obviously (well, obvious to anyone but kurttrail) at the heart of the abortion debate. http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/opinion/22brooks.html?hp His view is very similar to my own: that cognition is what should define personhood, and that prior to cognition that we can consider person-like, abortion should be legal, but thereafter abortion should be illegal except in "rare circumstances". (Toward the end of a pregnanacy, I would only include threat to the life of the mother as such circumstances).
This key question of what should define personhood and, in turn, what abortion laws should be, was also raised and discussed on today's Sunday morning talk shows. Transcripts (and perhaps free video) will become available on the web sites of those shows for anyone interested. |
|
According to Alabama Criminal Code:
"(11) PERSON. A human being, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government, or a governmental instrumentality." - http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/13A-1-2.htm
Is a corporation alive like you and me, possessing full Human Rights just because a law calls it a "PERSON?" No.
Why? One reason is that it cannot legally prove birth.
Can a Fetus get a Social Security #, or avail itself of its Second Ammmendment rights? Nope. Why? Because it cannot prove it is legally prove birth.
Calling a "fetus" a "person" doesn't "explicitly recognize a fetus as a living human being.
Again, what these feticide laws do is extend the definition of murder to a gestational humans. They did not extend full human rights to a fetus.
"UNBORN CHILD and FETUS. An individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth." - http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeofAlabama/1975/26-22-2.htm
Key phrase - until LIVE birth.
Can a fetus be charged with a crime? They could if one follows IrrationalGuy and equates feticide laws as extending life and full human rights to a fetus!
So yet again, feticide laws do not extend life, and thereby full Human Right to an "unborn" human.
So what do we have left to legally define life?
Beginning of life, at birth, with the Birth Certificate documenting that beginning of the life of a citizen. The death certificate documents the death of the citizen.
When states explicitly state that the "unborn" "person" is entitled to full Human Rights, and starts issuing Beginning of Life Certificates to zygotes, embryos, and/or fetuses, then give me a call. Until then, legal Life and all the joy and misery that brings is begins at birth. |
|
So what do we make of someone like kurttrail?
Kurttrail belittled any interest in the question that is at the heart of the abortion issue -- what constitutes personhood and, in turn, what the law SHOULD BE regarding abortion -- and insisted that the only area worth focusing on is current law. Then it turns out that even his chosen, narrow aspect of the issue, he has apparently pulled his supposed facts straight out of his a--. His assertion that no current laws recognize a fetus as a person turns out to be flat out wrong, since many states have laws that do so (some of which I listed previously).
Oh, and along the way, he repeatedly ridiculed the use of hypotheticals as a tool for discussing principles, which shows not only a lack of common sense but also complete ignorance of the importance and usefulness of hypotheticals in philisophical and legal discussion/debate for millennia. And he presumptuously assumed he knew my positions on other issues and mislabeled my position on the abortion issue, and disparagingly attributed our disagreement to some political perspective that he falsely assumed I had.
So what does such a person do now, particularly in a public forum in which it may be particularly embarrassing to admit he was wrong? Probably first he panics a bit and scrambles to find a way to deny the obvious. Not finding a legitimate refutation, he probably then tries to think of a way to shift focus to something else, either by pretending the question at hand were something different than it really was, or shifting to something else altogether. Of course, I can tell you what I would do: I would admit that I was wrong. But it takes character and integrity to admit that one was wrong, and not everyone has it.
Unfortunately, people who conduct themselves as kurttrail has are not as rare as would be ideal, and they exist on both/all sides of issues, right, left or other. So it's important for everyone to keep an eye out for this type, who insists on focussing narrowly, then presents false information, and above all, refuses to admit he's wrong even when it's as plain as day.
We shouldn't make the mistake of prematurely concluding that a participant in a discussion/debate is the kurttrail type (which is a mistake that is often made, and precludes legitimate discussion/debate that could have otherwise taken place among reasonable people), but at a certain point, recognizing this type can prevent or limit wasted time. I've wasted mine here so you may not have to when you encounter people behaving in this way. I just hope other eyes have been or will see this dialogue to so benefit. |
|
Needless to say, all the state laws cited in my previous comment show beyond any doubt that kurttrail is absolutely uninformed and incorrect when made the assertions below.
From kurttrail:
"In states that have adopted a fetalcide law, they haven't extended the definition of what a living human being is to include fetus."
"Please quote the fetalcide law that explicitly recognizes a fetus as a living human being."
|
|
First, kurttrail is embarrassing himself further by being presumptuous about my views on this issue and others. If he, or anyone, had read my initial comment on this page, it would be clear that niether the "pro-life" label nor the "pro-choice" label fits my position. And he has absolutely no idea what my views are on other issues (and apparently would be very surprised by some). But it is typical of those who have lost an argument in the most obvious way to engage in name-calling, and presumptuous name-calling at that.
Here's what kurttrail can't dance around as much as he'd like to. It's called logic, as represented in it's most basic form by a simple syllogism, which is really just an illustration of consistency among one's own statements (or lack thereof). For example:
Statement #1: All human beings are mammals.
Statement #2: Joe is a human being.
Therefore, we must conclude (Statement #3) that Joe is a mammal. That's not a matter of opinion. It's the only logical conclusion based on the statements (the premises) that preceded it.
Now let's apply that here:
#1: Many states (over thirty as of 1/07) have laws under which the killing of a fetus in some cases as murder.
#2: By definition, murder must involve the killing of a human being. (Killing any organism that is not a human being cannot be considered murder)
Therefore, (#3) many states consider a fetus in those cases to be a human being.
For kurttrail or anyone else to content that #3 above is false, he/she must contend that premise #1 and/or premise #2 is false. Again, that's not opinion, just logic.
Now, premise #1 is incontrovertible, since it's simply a statement of fact regarding current laws which can be easily demonstrated by a ten second Google search (for example: http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm ).
Premise #2 is true unless there is a new definition of murder. I did that ten second Google search of state fetal homicide laws (see link in paragraph above), and did find some instances in which some of those laws define homicide as the killing of either a person or fetus, BUT there were plenty of others that explicitly state that the fetus is regarded as a person. Below is a sampling (in alphabetical order by state) from the website of the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures. It will quickly become clear to all except possibly (heck, probably) kurttrail that these laws explicitly define the fetus as a human being (or "person" or "unborn child") in the context of these homicide laws. I have to admit that I am curious to see how kurttrail tries to weasel out of this one (the power of denial is quite strong, in some cases more powerful than reason, and, alternatively, some people simply cannot admit when they're wrong even when it becomes clear to them, so it's becoming a bit interesting from a psychological/sociological pespective to see the lengths to which kurttrail will persist rather than concede).
Alabama HB 19 (2006). Relates to the definition of person for the purpose of criminal homicide or assualts; defines person to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.
Ark. Stat. Ann. § 5.1.102(13) (B)(i)(a) defines "person" to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development. "Unborn child" means a living fetus of 12 weeks or greater gestation.
Fla. Chapter No. 2005-119 (2005) Relates to unlawful killing of an unborn quick child; includes death of said child under DUI manslaughter; makes killing of said child rather than killing of viable fetus vehicular homicide; provides that killing said child by injury to mother that would be murder in any degree if it resulted in death of mother is murder in same degree; provides that death of mother does not bar prosecution; relates to the Control Release Authority as regards parole and the Crimes Compensation Act.
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 782.09 defines murder as the willful killing of an unborn quick child, by any injury to the mother. The law also defines manslaughter.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 301/40-5 (9) pertains to reckless homicide or a reckless homicide of an unborn child.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 20 § 505/7 includes the following as criminal offenses: intentional homicide of an unborn child; voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child; involuntary manslaughter of an unborn child; reckless homicide of an unborn child.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 225 § 10/4.2 includes the following as criminal offenses: intentional homicide of an unborn child; voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child; involuntary manslaughter of an unborn child; reckless homicide of an unborn child.
Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 720 § 5/9-1.2, 5/9-2.1, and 5/9-3.2 defines the crimes of intentional homicide, manslaughter voluntary manslaugher and includes the killing of an unborn child in the definitions.
Ky. Rev. Stat. §507A.010, §507A.020, §507A.030, §507A.040, §507A.050. §507A.060 defines "person" and "unborn child". Defines fetals homocide in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and fourth degrees.
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:2 (7), (11) defines "person" as a human being from the moment of fertilization and implantation and also includes a body of persons, whether incorporated or not. "Unborn child" means any individual of the human species from fertilization and implantation until birth.
Me. Public Law No. 408 (2005) Creates the new crimes of murder, felony murder, assault, aggravated assault and elevated aggravated assault against an unborn child.
[Mass.] Commonwealth vs. Cass, 467 N.E.2d 1324 (Mass. 1984) rules that a viable fetus is within the ambit of the term "person" in the vehicular homicide statute.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.322 defines manslaughter as the willful killing of an unborn quick child by any injury to the mother of such child.
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.323 declares that any person who administers medicines, drugs or substances to any woman pregnant with a quick child or uses an instrument or other means, to destroy the child, is guilty of manslaughter.
N.D. Cent. Code, §§ 12.1-17.1-01 to 12.1-05 defines abortion, person and unborn child. The law defines the murder and manslaughter of an unborn child. The law states that a person is guilty of murder of an unborn child and provides penalties.
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01, et seq. defines aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault, felonious assault, aggravated assault, assault, negligent assault. The law applies to a person, defined as an "unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another."
[skipped a few states so I don't take up even more space]
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-214 and 39-13-215 defines "another" and "another person" as a viable fetus of a human being when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by the provisions of this part. The law defines reckless homicide as the reckless killing of another.
Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-5-201, et seq. declares that a person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child.
|
|
In states that have adopted a fetalcide law, they haven't extended the definition of what a living human being is to include fetus', what these state legislatures have done is expand the definition of what murder is.
Accepting your legal definition, Murder is "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law." In states with fetalcide laws, the definition of murder is now the killing of another human being or a human fetus under conditions specifically covered in law.
I don't expect IrrationalGuy or the rest of the anti-abortionists out there to understand the legal logic of all this, but hey, most of ya'll still think that Saddam was involved in 911 and had massive piles of WMDs in 2003, so whether you understand it or not doesn't really matter.
The legally interesting bit now is if a doctor does perform a partial-birth abortion in a state with fetalcide legislation on the books. Now there is a hypodoodle for you to ponder on, IrrationalGuy!
If that hypodoodle actually happens, then you MAY have the first medical abortion being considered an actual murder, but until that actually happens, it is merely legal speculation. |
|
"Kurttrail is saying that these fetal homicide laws, under which people who kill a fetus are convicted of MURDER, do not recognize the fetus as a human being"
Please quote the fetalcide law that explicitly recognizes a fetus as a living human being.
"Extending homicide laws to the fetus may mean that state legislatures were expanding the definition of a living human being to include the fetus"
Really? Then they wouldn't have just written a limited fetalcide law, but written a fetal human rights law, because then the fetalcide laws would be unnecessary, as the fetus would then be covered under existing homicide laws.
You see, legislative intent is not on your side. |
|
|
Typo correctin from my comment above. Should have read: "interest only in the current legal definition of a person rather than WHAT IT should be" |
|
Well, folks, there it is. Kurttrail is saying that these fetal homicide laws, under which people who kill a fetus are convicted of MURDER, do not recognize the fetus as a human being, despite the fact that inherent to the very definition of murder is the killing of a human being. To repeat, killing an organism can only be considered murder under the law if that organism is a human being (i.e. a person). If he disagrees with that statement, then he has a problem with the English language and the law. How does he explain the inexplicable contradiction of his assertion that murder can mean killing something other than a human being despite the fact that that is inherent in the very definition of murder? He doesn't, because he knows it's impossible and knows he's wrong. And it must be embarrassing because, after expressing such a limited, narrow interest in the whole abortion debate (interest only in the current legal definition of a person rather than one should be), he could not even get his facts right in that narrow area.
And he avoids addressing the contradiction explained above and makes an absurd attempt to continue sounding like he has a clue, saying:
"Second, that state legislatures felt it necessary to create special homicide laws for the "unborn" is really a tacit admission that a fetus is not yet a living human being, otherwise a fetus would already have been covered under existing homicide laws."
Well, that's just absurd. Extending homicide laws to the fetus may mean that state legislatures were expanding the definition of a living human being to include the fetus (i.e, perhaps PRIOR to these laws the law did not consider a fetus a human being, or the law was at least unclear on this question), but that doesn't change the fact that, by calling it murder now, these laws are, by definition, call the fetus in particular cases a human being. There's just no logical way around it, so don't let kurttrail shift around and spew double-talk just because he knows he's been caught in an inherent contradiction. If one can MURDER an organism that is not a human being, than we should all throw our dictionaries (and law books) out the window.
|
|
"Unborn" is a word used by the anti-women's rights crowd. Is that like the "Undead?" Vampires living off the blood of another?
;-) |
|
. . . . and why it is not the Holy Grail, but the Achilles Heal of Anti-Abortion Movement.
First, Fetalcide has almost nothing to to with Abortion.
Second, that state legislatures felt it necessary to create special homicide laws for the "unborn" is really a tacit admission that a fetus is not yet a living human being, otherwise a fetus would already have been covered under existing homicide laws.
Third, none of these state laws define "life" beginning inside the womb, nor do they change the fact that legally the birth certificate is the legal documentation denoting the beginning of one's life.
So, in fact, state fetalcide laws actually weakens the case that a fetus is the same as us living breathing already born human beings.
Thanks for finally bringing it up, IrrationalGuy! |
|
As noted, (1) state laws in many states in the U.S. consider the deliberate killing of a fetus to be murder in some cases. (2) Murder is, by definition, the deliberate killing of a person (also known as a human being) -- see legal definition below. Ergo, (3) these laws recognize the fetus in those cases as a person.
Legal definition of murder:
mur·der
Pronunciation[mur-der]
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Contrast the above with kurttrail's statement: "I have never said that the gov't doesn't have the right to define personhood, and in fact, I been arguing that the gov't does legally define that personhood begins with BIRTH! Do you get it now? No, I don't suppose you do."
|
|
|
Quick addition to my comment above. Since those state laws consider killing of a fetus in some cases to be murder, it cannot be said -- as kurttrail has -- that the state never recognizes a fetus as a person, since one can only murder a person. |
|
"laws don't include legal abortions as a homicide."
Everone thank kurttrail for pointing out to us that a legal act is not a crime.
Notice how he misrepresents his own position to narrow it to a self-evident tautology about mutually exclusive concepts (that a legal act is not a crime -- by definition, Perry Mason).
Hope anyone who saw his previous comments (pasted below) have seen mine tonight, since mine prove that the current law in many states considers the killing of a fetus to be murder, which of course presumes that there was a life and that a death has occurred. (Again, NOT that I wanted to end up focusing on current law here, but the facts should be set straight and a double-talker exposed). Below are from kurttrail's previous comments:
"According to the law, neither [an abortion nor a miscarriage] is even considered a death."
"With both a miscarriage & an abortion, neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued. Legally that means no life existed."
|
|
I wondered how long it would take you!
However, the laws don't include legal abortions as a homicide. |
|
"Your mother didn't mourn a "potential", she mourned a baby."
Do you know my mother?
"I pass no judgment on those who've had abortions but would only point them to the Cross for their healing."
LOL! That would be very judgmental if the woman was a Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, atheist . . . . |
|
|
Typo correction: I meant to say that kurttrail's MISREPRESENTATION of current law was even greater than I had thought. |
|
Boy, another minute of online search shows that kurttrail's representation of current law was even greater than I thought a moment ago. See article below (by Associated Press).
Double Murder Conviction for Man Who Helped Girlfriend Miscarry
Tuesday , June 07, 2005
LUFKIN, Texas —
A 19-year-old accused of causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry two fetuses by stepping on her stomach was convicted Monday of two counts of murder.
Gerardo Flores (search) received an automatic life sentence because prosecutors did not seek the death penalty, which was available under the state's 2003 fetus protection law.
Erica Basoria, 17, acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy; she could not be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.
Texas law defines an embryo or fetus as an "individual" and allows criminal prosecution or civil action for a preventable injury or death of a fetus. The law exempts health care providers who perform a legal medical procedure, such as an abortion.
|
|
Quick note re: my above comment. Not that CURRENT legal definitions are at the heart of discussion of the abortion issue (as opposed to what SHOULD be), but I don't want anyone to be misled on the law's current view of the fetus based on my comment above.
Apparently, I gave kurttrail too much credit (I guess since current law is the be-all-end-all of his interest in this issue, I was too quick to assume that he would get at least that correct). I just did a quick search (only took a couple of minutes) and it turns out that about half the states have "fetal homicide" laws and often charge killers of pregnant women with double-murder. Perhaps the most famous case was the recent conviction of Scott Peterson for the double-murder of his pregnant wife, Laci. So, while it may be true (I can't say for sure) that no abortions can currently be considered murder under the current law, killing a fetus can be and has been in successful prosecutions. |
|
First, my sincere sympathies regarding your miscarriage. I'd like to explore the issue of personhood with you (whether or not an embryo is a person), but, since I think you and I have different views and this issue may be painful for you, I don't wish to be insensitive. Let me know if you're comfortable discussing it.
I suggest you not waste time trying to engage kurttrail in a discussion of whether or not an embryo or fetus is a person. He is only interested in the current legal definition, not what should be the legal definition, nor the directly related philisophical question of what constitutes personhood. He says the current legal definition is post-birth, and he is probably correct (although if his implication is that current law does not presume a right to life of a fetus, he is wrong and is at best, inadvertently misleading readers). In any case, the grand total of all his commentary is the point that current law defines a person as post-birth, and therefore abortion is not currently considered murder under the law. That's it. He's probably correct, but I think you, I and the rest of the world discussing this issue are concerned with what the law should be, and he has explicitly said that he's not interested in that question, so again, I suggest not wasting your time.
Please let me know whether or not you wish to discuss the question of personhood. |
|
Your mother didn't mourn a "potential", she mourned a baby. I've miscarried too so know from whence I speak. Certainly, the siblings are not as impacted by the death of the pre-born as the parents would be, since they don't know him on the same level the mother does but nobody spends time mourning a "potential", and I'd bet my last dollar you never saw most of the tears your mother cried.
The women who regret their abortions do not regret mere "potential". They do not cry over a philosophy. They regret a real loss of life, and that's precisely why they feel so guilty. They wonder what that child would be doing were s/he alive today. They remember with cruel clarity the day they went to the abortionist. They remember the awful empty feeling they had afterwards-the same feeling your mother and I had after miscarrying but without the added guilt of having deliberately done away with the child.
I pass no judgment on those who've had abortions but would only point them to the Cross for their healing. Every woman I've ever known who has had an abortion has only found forgiveness and real peace in Christ. Lord knows the people at Planned Parenthood have only justifications, never healing, for the women whose psyches they hurt.
|
|
"I'm done correcting your misrepresentations, nonsequitors, and incapacity for rational discussion/debate"
Are you now addressing me or everybody else but me? ROFL!
How many times has it been that you've claimed to be "done" now? ;-)
"(not to mention the limitation of your interest to the most obvious and least important aspects of this issue)."
LOL! The legal view I present is so limited that you cannot rationally dispute them, hence you trying to change the topic to your hypodoodles.
"I could spend all day, day after day, correcting your erroneous assumptions and faulty logic (there are several candidates in your last major comment alone [not the clarification]), but it would be to no avail."
You have yet to correct anything about my legal views, so why should you start now!
Boy, do you sound defeated!
"As Bill O'Reilly (not a guy I like to watch much -- kind of mixes up points like you) would say, I'll (try to) give you the last word, and I'll try my best to not even look, lest I be drawn back in by my urge to correct nonsense, particularly when displayed in public with the potential to misguide others on either the issue in question or on the practice of rational discussion/debate in general."
IOW, you lack self-control, and what you can't see can't hurt you!
All one has to do is to see to what lengths you have gone to not to dispute my legal opinion, and have try to spin this debate to your hypodoodles, and they'll see how absolutely disingenuous & irrational you really are.
Your words and your actions betray you, IrrationalGuy.
I've "gotten on [your] nerves" to the point where you wish I could be retroactively aborted, IOW, murdered. Yes, you claim to be joking, but like Imus' joke reveals his underlying racism, your joke reveals how you really feel too.
You should really see some mental health professional, to help you better deal with your feelings of hate towards those who don't agree with you, and your admitted lack of self-control. |
|
"The notion that unborn life is merely "potential" is a philosophical stance."
It wasn't philosophical when my mother miscarried.
My potential brother was never to be my real living brother. |
|
I'm done correcting your misrepresentations, nonsequitors, and incapacity for rational discussion/debate (not to mention the limitation of your interest to the most obvious and least important aspects of this issue). I could spend all day, day after day, correcting your erroneous assumptions and faulty logic (there are several candidates in your last major comment alone [not the clarification]), but it would be to no avail. It reminds me of an expression: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the pig."
As Bill O'Reilly (not a guy I like to watch much -- kind of mixes up points like you) would say, I'll (try to) give you the last word, and I'll try my best to not even look, lest I be drawn back in by my urge to correct nonsense, particularly when displayed in public with the potential to misguide others on either the issue in question or on the practice of rational discussion/debate in general. For anyone else out there, if you want a good illustration on how to confuse points, misrepresent the comments of others, and employ faulty logic, check out Kurttrail's comments throughout his dialogue with me. |
|
"No, as it never was considered murder when all abortions were illegal, nor is it considered murder until this partial birth abortions ban law."
That should read, ". . . . nor is it considered murder *UNDER* this partial birth abortions ban law." |
|
"The only thing I can give you any credit for is enjoying South Park (your "Chewbacca" quote). Other than that, you're not worth more of my time."
And then you go on for 3 1/2 paragraphs! And you think you are rational?! ROFL!
"but it seems that you even your representation of the law is misleading inasmuch as Roe does not presume that a fetus has no right to life throughout the entire pregnancy."
Wasn't arguing Roe. I was answering two basic legal questions.
1) When does life begin legally?
At birth, with the birth certificate being the legal documentation of the beginning of one's life, just as the death certificate is the legal documentation of the end of one's life.
2) Is Abortion murder?
No, as it never was considered murder when all abortions were illegal, nor is it considered murder until this partial birth abortions ban law.
"your total lack of interest in the question of what the law SHOULD BE"
No, I have a lack of interest in what YOU think the law "SHOULD" be. But you don't understand the difference. How sad.
I think that birth is the start of life, and that is the way it legally is and SHOULD be.
There is absolutely no language in Roe that says life starts any earlier than birth.
"indeed your ill-placed condescension toward and disparaging of those who raise such questions"
LOL! Pot calling Kettle!
"you've gotten on my nerves"
Oh really? I couldn't tell! [/sarcasm]
That's because you've been fighting a losing battle. What has really gotten on your nerves is that I ain't falling for your bullsh*t. That I'm not dumb enough to play your "What if" hypodoodle game.
"And to be clear, this comment is for the benefit of other readers"
PMSL! That's why you use a form of the word "you," meaning me, kurttrail, over 15 times in your comment? Had you actually been addressing everyone but me, you would have referred to me in the third person, as in, "Kurt" and "he," instead of directing your comments to me.
Your disingenuousness throughout our conversation has been quite apparent, and really demonstrates just how loathsomely irrational you really are.
Oh and by the way, I was calling you Johnny Cochran. I'm the one discussing reality here, and you are the one trying to distract from reality with your hypodoodles.
"I'll try to resist commenting further despite the garbage I assume you'll be posting shortly, unless there's some amusement in it for me."
It will definitely amuse the sh*t out of me if you do reply yet again! :-p |
|
You asked for book, chapter and verse so here goes...
Luke 1.39-41: At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah's home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the BABY leapt in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Any mother can tell you that a baby still in utero does respond to the larger environment. For a different perspective on an unborn baby's responses to stimulus, view "The Silent Scream".
Jeremiah 1.5: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations".
Psalm 51.5: "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." King David obviously understood that his physical and spiritual life began AT CONCEPTION.
Psalm 139.13; "For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body".
Again, David notes that his life began "in secret", not yet known to his mother, that is, as a cluster of cells (unformed substance) that though not yet differentiated, were still completely all that David was. Just as an acorn is a complete oak tree, so that "unformed substance" was in David's case, as it is in all cases, including yours, completely human. Or do you think your life was defined as life only because your mother "wanted" you?
There is no question from a biological point of view that life indeed begins at conception. The notion that unborn life is merely "potential" is a philosophical stance. It's a religious question, if you will.
So, quote away from the Bible as to when a human is not a human, or is merely "potentially" human.
I won't hold my breath. |
|
The only thing I can give you any credit for is enjoying South Park (your "Chewbacca" quote). Other than that, you're not worth more of my time. And by the way, the only reason I commented further is because of your comment that "delving into the realm of hypotheticals never accomplishes anything", which was just so moronic I couldn't resist emphasizing the usefulness of hypotheticals for the benefit of anyone else who may have been following our dialogue.
OK, so you were only concerned with describing the law as it is, rather than what it should be, and you have no interest in the latter. I would thank you for at least seeking to educate others on current law, but it seems that you even your representation of the law is misleading inasmuch as Roe does not presume that a fetus has no right to life throughout the entire pregnancy.
But more importantly, your total lack of interest in the question of what the law SHOULD BE -- indeed your ill-placed condescension toward and disparaging of those who raise such questions -- shows, at best, an unfortunate detachment from society and the important issues before it. In fact, you're starting to make me think that, in some cases, RETROACTIVE abortion would be a good thing (just a joke -- yeah, you've gotten on my nerves, but I attribute it to cognitive limitations beyond your control rather than to malice).
And to be clear, this comment is for the benefit of other readers (Anyone out there, by the way?). I do not expect anything I say to penetrate your mind. Given that there don't seem to be too many eyeballs on our dialogue (if the lack of comments are any indication), I'll try to resist commenting further despite the garbage I assume you'll be posting shortly, unless there's some amusement in it for me. |
|
"OK, I'm done." - IrrationalGuy
I guess you weren't. ROFL! I just love it when people contradict themselves!
"Abstract hypotheticals can be an extremely useful tool for discussing principles, and have been used for millenia to do so."
But I wasn't discussing abstracts or principles. Just reality as it really is. Not what you think reality "SHOULD" be.
"But that's not something I'm going to spend time explaining and trying to convince you of."
Of course not! Because you know I see you hypodoodles for what they really are. Bullsh*t!
You have absolutely no argument that life doesn't legally begin at birth, in reality, therefore your only recourse is to continue arguing by trying to sucker me into a discussion about some imaginary reality that you think "SHOULD" be. Your hypodoodles.
I could care less what YOU think about when life "SHOULD" be considered to begin. That's your problem, not mine. Why, oh why would I want to discuss your imaginary reality as you think it "SHOULD" be, when I've already made my point in demonstrating reality as it really is?!
Basically, you can't argue against reality, so you are trying, but utterly failing, to use your hypodoodles to distract from reality as it really is. A kinda "Chewbacca Defense."
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! . . . . Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."
Are You Done Yet, IrrationalGuy? :-p |
|
|
Abstract hypotheticals can be an extremely useful tool for discussing principles, and have been used for millenia to do so. But that's not something I'm going to spend time explaining and trying to convince you of. |
|
Delving into the realm of hypotheticals never accomplishes anything.
All the best to you too. |
|
|
OK, I'm done. It's apparent that nothing will be accomplished from continuing this dialogue. I wish you the best. |
|
"I am asking what the legal standards SHOULD BE."
I should be a billionaire, let's talk about that fairy tale.
"the latter question is much more interesting and much more important."
That is your subjective opinion. I find discussing the legal realities of today much more interesting.
"If you're willing to discuss this question of what SHOULD be the legal definition of a person, with an inherent right to life"
Nope. I am willing only to discuss what the legal realities are, not some some debate about your subjective opinion about how anything SHOULD be in your vision of the future.
If I want to discus subjective SciFi, I prefer Star Trek to Star Wars!
"I hope you're not one of those people who can't handle abstract hypotheticals."
I can, but I choose not to discuss it.
You want to talk about the legal realities of today, fine. You want a subjective philosophical discussion about some imaginary or hypothetical future, please find someone else to play with. May I suggest you dig up Gene? |
|
Yes, we are talking about different things, apparently. You are talking mostly about current legal standards, and I am asking what the legal standards SHOULD BE. I don't think most or any people here are involved in litigation over the issue and seeking legal advice, so I think the latter question is much more interesting and much more important. Laws and even the Constitution can change, and interpretations of laws and constitutional provisions are, of course, debated and ruled upon, and even if that weren't the case -- if our laws were completely static and immune to change -- it would still be legitimate to ask if the laws should be as they are.
If you're willing to discuss this question of what SHOULD be the legal definition of a person, with an inherent right to life, then here's my question:
Although you, on the one hand, are mostly discussing what the law currently is, you have (finally) offered a reason why it should be as it is (or as you think it is -- as noted previously, Roe does not guarantee a right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy/development). You say that birth is an appropriate criterion for personhood because the fetus is physioligically dependent upon its "host".
First, your criterion means that even if the fetus had the same level and type of thoughts and emotions as you or I (well, it probably is close to you -- just kidding), you would still not consider it a person. So, hypothetically, if some fetus were stuck in the womb for years and continued to develop mentally to a point indistinguishable from the cognitive activity of, lets say, a four year-old, it still would not be a person. Or if somehow someone shrank you down and shoved you inside a woman's womb and hooked you up to her umbilical cord, you would no longer be a person. (And PLEASE don't come back and tell me my hypothetical is unrealistic and therefore not worthy of consideration; hypotheticals are useful for discussing principles, so use your imagination).
This criterion, of course, implies that if a person of any age were physiologically dependent on another person, the former would not be a person. Let me pose another hypothetical: If Joe and Bob are adult conjoined twins, and Joe would survive separation but Bob definitely would not because he is dependent upon Joe's internal organs, should Joe have the right to slice Bob off? Does Bob's dependence on Joe's organs make Bob a non-person? How does the fact that Bob is physiologically dependent make him less of a person? And PLEASE don't point out that the difference is that Bob has a birth certificate and is legally considered a person -- this is a question about what SHOULD be the criteria for personhood, and specifically about whether or not physiological dependence should be enough to disqualify an organism from personhood, regardless of cognitive capacity or any other characteristics.
I hope you're not one of those people who can't handle abstract hypotheticals. |
|
"First, for you to extract a clause from one of my sentences and represent it as the exact opposite of what I said is either very sloppy or disingenuous. I wrote that 'you may circle back and say that regardless of what YOU or any individual thinks defines personhood, the government has no right to impose that definition on everyone.'"
LOL! You were quite prepare to speak for me! It is you that is Meshugana!
I have never argued that "the government has no right to impose that definition on everyone." I just countered your original disingenuousness with your own words.
In other words, you just reaped what you have sown!
"Birth simply implies a change of location"
Wrong! Before birth, the fetus is dependent on its umbilical connection to its host. Birth is much more that a change of place, it is a transformation in a state of being! From being a physically dependent fetus into a separate individual through the birth process.
And legally this transformation is documented by the issuance of a Birth Certificate.
This is how the beginning of life is defined LEGALLY!
"PLEASE tell me your reason for thinking that that SHOULD be the case. Why should birth define personhood?"
When does a person become a citizen? Naturalization, or at BIRTH.
"By what criteria for personhood should we consider a fetus an hour before birth not a person and a baby immediately post-birth a person?"
When that fetus becomes a separate individual, unconnected from its host.
"I think what makes a person a person is some sufficient level of cognition"
That is your moral opinion, not a legal definition of the beginning of life.
"If your criterion is birth, and if a fetus immediately prior to birth is not substantially different cognitively than a newborn baby, then why should birth define personhood?"
Because that is the legal standard. And that is all I'm arguing. Legality, not morality.
I have no interest debating subjective moralities. That is as useless as arguing that my "God" is better than your "God."
If you really want a rational discussion, understand the difference between what you and I are talking about. I'm stating a legal argument, and you are trying, and failing, to turn this into some irrational moral debate. Until YOU realize that, all we will do here is talk circles around each other. |
|
First, for you to extract a clause from one of my sentences and represent it as the exact opposite of what I said is either very sloppy or disingenuous. I wrote that "you may circle back and say that regardless of what YOU or any individual thinks defines personhood, the government has no right to impose that definition on everyone." I then proceeded to explain why that assertion would be WRONG. So please don't reverse my meaning to set up a straw man to knock down.
Now back to substance. OK, so you agree that the government does and should define personhood, and you say that it defines personhood as beginning at birth. I ask once again -- PLEASE tell me your reason for thinking that that SHOULD be the case. Why should birth define personhood? Birth simply implies a change of location, but does not address what the organism (fetus or baby) is at all. By what criteria for personhood should we consider a fetus an hour before birth not a person and a baby immediately post-birth a person? Please answer this question.
As I've said, I think what makes a person a person is some sufficient level of cognition (thoughts and emotions), which is why I don't consider an embryo or pre-cognition fetus a person and why I am pro-choice up to at least the onset of brain activity, but if you have different criteria for personhood -- what you think the criteria SHOULD be -- I'd like to hear it. If your criterion is birth, and if a fetus immediately prior to birth is not substantially different cognitively than a newborn baby, then why should birth define personhood?
I'm just trying to have a reasonable discussion/debate here, but it's only possible if we directly address each other's questions, ok? I'm asking a simple straight-forward question above. Please answer it.
|
|
"I ask you again what do you think makes a person a person?"
Birth. The certificate is just the legal document.
"the government has no right to impose that definition on everyone."
Wrong. The gov't's definition is Birth. Hence the issuance of the Birth Certificate as the legal document.
You are the one circling.
I have never said that the gov't doesn't have the right to define personhood, and in fact, I been arguing that the gov't does legally define that personhood begins with BIRTH!
Do you get it now? No, I don't suppose you do. |
|
I'll try again, because you're not getting it. Let's say, just for the sake of argument that the government currently defines the onset of personhood for legal purposes as the point of birth (by the way, Roe does not guarantee a right to an abortion all way up to birth, but I'll leave that aside and assume your premise for the sake of argument). Now I ask you, even if post-birth is or were the current definition of a person, with the inherent right to life that a person has under the law, SHOULD that be the case? I assume that we agree that deliberately kiling a person (other than in self-defense or war) is murder, and that government has the responsibility to define what organisms are persons, so I ask you again what do you think makes a person a person? I assume that it must be something other than having a birth certificate -- if the government didn't provide birth certificates until people reached the age of 10, would you say that a 9 year-old is not a person?
Now, to anticipate a logically flawed response from you, you may circle back and say that regardless of what YOU or any individual thinks defines personhood, the government has no right to impose that definition on everyone. But we've already established that the government not only has the right to define personhood for legal purposes, but the obligation. I assume you are not suggesting that the government leave it up to every individual to define personhood and related right to life and legally kill anyone they don't regard as a person. So please don't ask me to go around in circles with you correcting your reasoning. |
|
A Birth Certificate is the legal document that establishes personhood.
Why are you making me repeat myself?
And to cut you off at the pass, and to repeat myself yet again, the legal document that establishes the end of personhood is the Death Certificate.
"And I presume that you would not want the government to let individuals decide their own morality on murder and be free to proceed as they see fit."
Sure, I believe that a person may decide their own morality, but that doesn't exempt them from being held responsible under the law.
The right to choose is wholly a personal thing. When your choice affects another LEGAL person, then that's were the law steps in. And as any RATIONAL human being can see, a fetus is not a considered a LEGAL person. |
|
|
The government (rightly) criminalizes murder, which is the deliberate killing of a person (other than in self-defense). Therefore, government MUST have a definition of "person". (So far this is just logic, not opinion, so I hope there's no disagreement so far.) And I presume that you would not want the government to let individuals decide their own morality on murder and be free to proceed as they see fit. So we're left with the same key question: What makes a person a person? Since you're the self-proclaimed master of succintness, how about an answer? |
|
I think I've covered that to death, pun sorta intended.
Notice I don't call my mothers miscarriage by any name other than "my potential brother." Human potential does not equate to personhood.
Even under this new "constitutional" law, a doctor is not considered a murderer by performing this procedure. They are considered an illegal abortionist.
Murder is a very specific criminal act, and no matter which way you want to twist it, abortion does not equal murder, legally. Morally, that is up to each individual to decide for themselves, not the government, and certainly morality isn't up to the majority. |
|
OK, that "SuccinctGuy" remark did make me chuckle, but I have to point out that sometimes it takes more than a couple of sentences to get beyond the kind of talking points and sound bites that each side typically hurls past the other.
Now, to be logical, if you're saying abortion is NOT murder, you must be saying that an embryo/fetus is not a person. What is it that, in your view, makes a person a person? I do not think it is location (within a womb or not), since that hardly has anything to do with what the fetus IS. I think what makes us persons is some level and type of cognition -- thoughts and emotions. Do you agree, and if not, what are your criteria for personhood? |
|
I wish you were SuccinctGuy.
I've been quite rational throughout.
Until the anti-choice crowd can get off their high horse and stop illogically equating abortion to murder, then no real rational debate can actually happen. |
|
The artifice of ethics is really in considering a fetus more than it really is, a potential life.
Why? Because until relatively recently in human history, most pregnancies ended in miscarriage or still birth. Only since the rise of modern medicine, have humans actually expected every pregnancy results in a human being born.
As for the right to choose one's end of life, I'm all for it, but when the gov't wants to take that choice away from the individual, then I'm against.
The moral slippery slope of allowing the STATE to choose these life & death decisions is actually on you who would force a woman not to be able to have an abortion. It would be you that will give the state the right to choose, instead of leaving that right to choose to the individual. |
|
Despite the widespread, perpetual debate over abortion, rational arguments are rare. Pure pro-choicers, pure pro-lifers and those advocating mixed approaches all typically present arguments that are logically flawed.
Pro-choice advocates often skirt the critical question of whether or not a fetus in a person, relying instead on arguments of personal freedom, economic hardship, birth defects, etc., none of which are valid if the fetus is a person. You can't "choose" to kill a person, except in self-defense (which, in this case, would be to save the life of the mother). For all the typical pro-choice arguments, ask a simple question: Under the same circumstances, would it be moral and should it be legal for a mother to kill a baby? If the answer is “no”, then, unless one is contending that the fetus is not a person, he/she is contradicting himself/herself. That is not opinion, but rather logic. If it’s ok to kill “A”, but not ok to kill “B”, than “A” must not be the same as “B”.
For example, should a poor woman have the right to abort a fetus if she cannot afford to raise a child? Well, if you’re not defining the fetus as a non-person, you are supposedly extending that right to murdering any other children she may already have. Wouldn’t a ban on abortion result in unsafe, back-alley abortions? Well, if the fetus is a person, then abortion is murder, and we don't make murder legal to make it safer for the murderer. Even the “my body” argument does not hold up to this scrutiny if the fetus is a person: Imagine if you or someone else, rather than the fetus, were attached to that woman’s umbilical cord and dependent on it to survive for the next several months. Assuming this condition is no threat to the life of the woman, does the “my body, my choice” argument hold water now? And so on. For any such arguments, simply replace "fetus" with "baby" or "child" and ask if the argument still holds. To be internally consistent -- i.e., logical -- one has to either assert that the fetus is not a person or that one should have the right to kill a person under the circumstances presented.
Pro-life advocates do focus on the central question of whether or not a fetus is a person, but they either refuse to admit that religious doctrine is the sole basis for their belief that a fetus -- or even a fertilized egg -- is a person, or they don't recognize that, as long as the U.S. is not a theocracy, their religious beliefs alone are an inadequate justification for denying choices to other Americans, particularly when such choices involve such heavy personal matters. By what possible criteria outside of scripture can a fertilized egg be considered a person, entitled to the same right to life as you and I?
Some pro-lifers add the argument that what makes abortion morally wrong and what should make it illegal is that abortion eliminates the future of a person, regardless of whether or not you agree that the fetus is itself a person yet, just as what makes any murder immoral is that it eliminates the future of a person. But if one accepts this argument that preventing future lives from emerging is the moral and legal equivalent to murder, than any of us who have practiced birth control – or, for that matter, any of us who do not spend every waking moment seeking to reproduce, and offering up our spouses for that purpose during our non-waking moments – is guilty of mass murder. Clearly, morally and legally, only existing persons can have the same right to live further that you and I enjoy. Moreover, a tadpole is not a frog and a caterpillar is not a butterfly simply because of their potential.
A bizarre hybrid position, obviously derived more from politics than principle, is advocacy of banning abortion with an exclusion for rape. Holders of this illogical position contend that the fetus is a person and therefore abortion is murder, but if this person were conceived via rape, then murdering this person should be legal. If this fetus is, as they contend, as much a person before birth as after, would these people give the mother the right to murder her child at any age due to the emotional pain of the rape that produced the child? Obviously not. This position is internally inconsistent, i.e., illogical.
Some take the seemingly convenient position of being pro-choice up to the point at which the fetus is viable outside the womb, and pro-life thereafter. This position, too, ignores the central question of whether or not the fetus is a person. To illustrate the absurdity of this position, if technology enables us to extract a fertilized egg or early embryo from a pregnant woman and implant it into another willing woman, and if the supply of would-be surragate mothers were abundant, would these people then favor a total ban on abortion? Conversely, if viability were not possible at any point in a pregnancy, would these people favor legality of any abortion well into the ninth month of pregnancy, even though the brain activity (the “mind”) of a fetus a day before birth is not substantially different from that of a newborn baby?
Which leads to the question: what makes a person a person? Clearly, it is the level and nature of our thoughts and emotions (specifically either current thoughts and emotions or, in the case of a person in a vegetative state, some potential for such capacity in the future). Therefore, a more rational approach to abortion law would ask at what point in fetal development the level and nature of brain activity is sufficient to qualify the fetus as a person. Before that point in development, a non-theocratic government would protect abortion rights absolutely. Beyond that point, abortion would, by definition, be murder (with the possible self-defense exception of saving the life of the mother). A rational debate would focus on what point should be chosen using that general criterion.
There would still be heated debate, but at least it would be rational, and at least it could be bracketed. For example, obviously a fetus with no brain activity would not qualify as a person (whether or not arms, legs, or other non-cognitive features are distinguishable), and, I assume that the brain activity of a fetus at some point toward the end of a pregnancy is not substantially different from that of a newborn baby, making it clearly a person with a right to life. The debate should focus on the most appropriate point between those extremes: What level and type of brain activity constitute person-like thought and emotion, and at what point in fetal development can such activity be reached?
Let the rational debate begin.
|
|
Like I posted earlier, you are in support of a subjective process of ethics in which the "value" of a human life is determined by human artiface. Overwhelming medical and biological evidence indicates that the "fetus" is a human being with unique DNA, growing tissue, and the ability to feel pain. Right now there are 10s of thousands of pre-mature babies which will grow to adulthood; yet, there are approximately 4,000 abortions done daily in this nation. Why one child is "marked for termination" and another isn't is totally determined by caprice of the mother. The womb has become very dangerous indeed. The violence visited upon the aborted child is unspeakable.
You can dress up your rational in fancy terminology and categories such as "legal definition of life", or various sophistries, but you may wish to consider where this will all end. A nation that visits such violence upon the most vulnerable is capable of anything. Look at Holland and Belgium and thier evolving euthanasia programs, or China and thier one child program. If you don't think the sick, handicapped and elderly are not next, well just don't get sick, handicapped or grow old. |
|
You mean there are 4 supposed learned (so-called) people at the top of their professional ladders that believe its OK to cut up a defenseless FULLY FORMED human being????????????
I agree with the feminist's statement at the end of the article when she says were f#@*ed. But its because we are de-volving from humanity. |
|
"Tell me this, since you profess to know so much about the law: under what circumstances is it LEGAL to cause the death of another living human?"
"None."
Ok. I'm wrong here. It is legal for the state to kill a murderer that has been found guilty by a jury of his/her peers, and all the rigamaroll of appeals and crap happens. It is legal to kill in self-defense. It is legal to kill someone if you are legally insane.
And only in Texas is it legal for a husband to kill a cheating wife, but not the other way around. ;-) |
|
"In some societies it has NOT been considered immoral to kill uwanted babies. Does that make it moral in your eyes?"
While a society may turn a blind eye to murdering babies, usually the FEMALE ones, that doesn't mean that it is legal. See China and India. Neither has laws allowing babies to be abandoned to death.
"The ONLY legal difference between killing a born baby versus killing an unborn one, is that the Supreme Court told the American public how they were *supposed* to view the matter. Which is why the 'right to abortion' is the only seriously-debated right in America."
LOL! Did that God guy kill my potential brother? If he did what a f*cking a-hole that God guy is! ;-)
Even when abortion was illegal is was never considered murder.
With both a miscarriage & an abortion, neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued. Legally that means no life existed.
"After the abortion, none of the processes of life were present. The 'fetus' was killed."
No, fetal growth was terminated.
"Tell me this, since you profess to know so much about the law: under what circumstances is it LEGAL to cause the death of another living human?"
None. A fetus is not a legally a "living human." It is a potential human. Like my potential brother that my mother miscarried.
"the abortion happened because one human being desired it and another executed it. Miscarriage happens because this is not a perfect world."
ROFL! That is your deluded opinion. Again, there is no legal difference since neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued in either case.
Oh, and when I see ya'll banding together to ban in vitro procedures that kill of many fertilized eggs in the process, give me a call. Those poor, poor post-conception, pre-fetal humans getting murdered all because "one human being desired it and another executed it."
And aren't most of you pro-fetal-lifers, pro-innocent-iraqi-deathers? |
|
"According to the law, neither is even considered a death"
And yet, only a scientifically-challenged person would say that abortion does not cause a death. Prior to the abortion procedure, the 'fetus' heart was beating, cells were carrying on cell division, brain activity was present. Perhaps the 'fetus' was sucking its thumb, kicking, responding to its mother's voice.
After the abortion, none of the processes of life were present. The 'fetus' was killed.
Don't play games. You understand this as well as anyone.
Further, you understand that the life that was ended by abortion did NOT belong to the mother (some might prefer the term 'host'?). The 'fetus' DNA is unique, clearly not a part of the mother's body, though completely dependent on the mother's good will for survival.
Tell me this, since you profess to know so much about the law: under what circumstances is it LEGAL to cause the death of another living human?
Because a 'fetus' IS alive, and it IS human. Period.
By the way, here is the difference between miscarriage and abortion: the abortion happened because one human being desired it and another executed it. Miscarriage happens because this is not a perfect world. |
|
The *reason*, and the only reason, it is legally considered murder to throw a baby into a trash bin is because a majority of our society considers it so, and insisted that the rule be incorporated into written law. In some societies it has NOT been considered immoral to kill uwanted babies. Does that make it moral in your eyes?
The ONLY legal difference between killing a born baby versus killing an unborn one, is that the Supreme Court told the American public how they were *supposed* to view the matter. Which is why the 'right to abortion' is the only seriously-debated right in America.
As for abortion not killing babies: what is the physical, psychological, cognitive difference between a 5 minute old baby, and one due to be born in 5 minutes? Or, for that matter, 5 days? |
|
between an abortion and a miscarriage.
According to Christians, one is murder, and one is "God's will."
According to the law, neither is even considered a death. No death certificate is issued in either case.
Is this a nation of laws, or a Christian nation. Let's hear all you strict constructionists answer that one!
My sister and I don't even know the date that my potential brother was miscarried by our mother, but we can damn sure tell you when our father died.
On the other side of the coin, my aunt gave up her first born daughter up for adoption. Long after my aunt died, my long lost cousin went searching for her birth mother, and she found a family. Tragically she died in an auto accident about a year later, but I was glad to have met her, as she was a real cool woman. I'm damn glad my aunt chose not to abort Connie, and decided to put her up for adoption instead.
I believe abortion should be as rare as possible, but I also believe that the gov't has no business in making a woman's choice for her either. |
|
|
What happened today is that the SCOTUS restored legislative authority to the legislative branch with regard to abortion. Finally! |
|
|
I couldn't agree with your comments about free speech more. Prior to this article I have commented before that freedom of speech was intended to protect the freedom of citizens to redress their government in both verbal and written form. It was not intended to protect pornography. It was not intended to protect vulgarity. It was not intended to protect art, dancing, flag burning, or any other expressions that society might regard as malevolent. Unfortunately, these expressions have been included within recent Supreme Court interpretations and it is for this reason that sanity must someday return to the court. |
|
When we stop treating "foetuses," as Ginsberg would call them as just so much cellular garbage, then we can begin recreating ourselves as a decent, humane, caring society. Until then, we can see one horror story after another on our daily news channel, stories that occur because some people (including the Va Tech shooter, Jessica Lunsford's killer, and, well, fill in the blanks) don't believe other people don't have any value.
steve |
|
As a woman, I'm thankful that the Supreme Court stepped up to protect women, both born AND unborn.
If you call yourself an actual feminist, step up for future women instead of going on and on about abortion on demand. You're only scarring women for the rest of their natural lives that way.
Don't liberals know what a D&X (partial birth abortion) entails? The abortionist, making sure the feet are at the uterine opening, pulls with foreceps until the head is still inside, cuts open the back of the head and sucks the brains out, then pulls the rest out. In case anyone doesn't believe me, pick up a medical textbook and look under "Reproduction." |
|
Anyone who criticizes Mary K. will be eaten -- alive -- by a Georgia bulldog. Here's part of what I wrote on my site today; come up and see me some time. :-) . . . and read the rest of my piece.
The Supreme Court has upheld the ban by Congress (actually, by the old Republican Congress) on partial-birth abortions. As seen below, Justice Ginsberg vigorously dissented from the majority. I vigorously dissent from Ginsberg, as you’ll see.
Ginsberg’s Comments
Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between pre-viability and post-viability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman’s health.I dissent from the Court's disposition. Retreating from prior rulings that abortion restrictions cannot be imposed absent an exception safeguarding a woman's health, the Court upholds an Act that surely would not survive under the close scrutiny that previously attended state-decreed limitations on a woman’s reproductive choices.
My Comments
"What is man that thou art mindful of him" said Micah in the OT. That's a darned good question, and one you won't see Justice Ginsberg tackling. The notion that the "Constitution" confers a right of abortion is laughable. Somehow the Supreme Court missed that for nearly 200 years -- pre Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court regularly insults our intelligence. For example, we hear from high courts that "nude dancing is a form of speech." No, it may be many things, but it is not speech as contained in the Constitution. If we as a society want to make nude dancing a form of speech -- or abortion a "protected" form of behavior -- then we need to amend the Constitution. We don't need to "interpret' it as if we were a bunch of college freshmen giving "our" reading of a John Donne poem.
Note Justice Goldberg citing the American College of Gynecology. Gee, what did they have to do with the Constitution? Oh, right, nothing.
|
|
Seems like Kurttrail was the assigned Liberal noise-maker for today's big news. At least, he/she/it got the attention that he/she/it wanted.
We in this country have got to be patient in waiting for what we want and deserve: the right for every human to be born and live in relative peace. We'll get there, even though the road is paved with dead babies in the name of "a woman's right to choose."
The word "Choose", to me, always meant an opportunity to opt between two courses of action or things---or among three or more. Where's the choice in abortion as promoted by the left? Their idea of a 'right to choose' offers no alternative to the murder of the fetus/baby. I say that no one has that right to kill a baby, especially in the horrible 'partial birth' abortion.
"But doesn't a woman have the right to control her own body!" I don't think that's the case here. The fetus/baby is not her body. The fetus/baby is not a mass of tissue. It is an independent, living body and soul. If any of you Liberals had ever looked at a baby in the womb---picture or movie---you would quickly drop your attitude. And furthermore, by becoming pregnant, the woman acquires the responsibility to care for the growing life in her womb.
By the way, I like the quote from the feminist press. That's the reason this whole question is on the table, isn't it? [I couldn't read anything at another site because your link is broken.]
I'm glad the Supreme Court has reached the sane center in political life. We need more decisions like this. |
|
|
You are doing a great job! |
|
I am sure the pro-abortion groups are throwing fits right and left! Just look at a few here, you would think the justices had pulled Roe v Wade right out from under their feet.
The only reason a woman would ever choose to have such a late term abortion is to deliver a dead baby. There is no medical reason ever for such a procedure. If those out there who clain to be so concerned about women, I would think they would be against this particular procedure because of the possible physical and pyschological consequences for the woman.
Maybe if those groups who are so "pro-woman" would start putting their money toward providing education, birth control, crisis pregnancy help, etc. instead of putting the money toward electing pro-abortion candidates, we might not have so many abortions.
The abortion without limits crowd is a bit amusing. They act as though the world is caving in around them if something threatens the right to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy because "abortion is a constitutional right." Well, that constitutional right is a bit dodgy in that "the right to privacy" is not actually found in the U. S. Constitution. The right to bear arms is (Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution). However, when was the last time you heard a pro-abortion activist say that gun rights should be unlimited? |
|
|
I'll take your comments to dissenter57 a step further. When was their ever a legislative action to repeal the many laws against abortion that were on the books prior to Roe v Wade? Roe removed the rule of law from this issue and made abortion legal as pronounced by 7 of 9 elitists on the Supreme Court. There has been no rule of law regarding this issue since Roe. This is a step in the right direction and I look forward to the day this issue is legislated rather than placed upon us by an oligarchy of the court. |
|
"Be careful what you wish for, religious nutters -- you might just get it. "
Boy, would I ever love to get it! BTW, where has the rule of law been discarded? There is a FEDERAL LAW on the books that has been upheld by SCOTUS that makes partial birth abortion, illegal. It is a crime morally, and now it is a crime legally. Hello, rule of law! |
|
|
Let me bend my elbow along with you. Cheers! |
|
|
Here's to life, my friend! |
|
I beg your pardon. Sanctimonious implies hypocrisy and I have seen nothing hypocritical of any of the comments supporting the decision today. As a matter of fact I am personally quite consistent on this matter and I can honestly say that of the two children I helped to conceive, one was born and to this day along with her children remain the light of my life. The other resulted in miscarriage. The miscarriage was the greatest tragedy of my life. More than thirty years later I still feel the pain of that life that was taken from us. I cannot imagine how anyone could purposely end the life of an innocent infant on the basis of convenience.
I cannot do a thing about the violence man commits upon man. I will fight and I will even kill to protect my family and to protect our liberty. There will always be evil in this world and I see no need to add an additional evil upon our world by the wholesale slaughter of children in the womb or worse, the slaughter of a viable child that is all but born except for the removal of the head from the birth canal.
As for your invitation to celebrate. Good idea. I don't mind if I do. |
|
those babies don't have the option of enlisting.
Don't think that people who support the reasons for going to war don't feel the loss of every soldier who is lost. I have a cousin who is currently serving and we are proud as heck of him. We pray for the troops' safety everyday. Get off your high horse. You've already chalked this up as a loss, and I don't think you've thought through the repercussions if your version of things pans out. |
|
|
|
"You said a couple of times that you favor the one already alive rather than the one with potential. This illustrates a severe deficit of understanding of biology. A seed is potential. An embryo is alive much more so, a baby is alive. This is absolute fact, not opinion. "
I didn't say that. You may be referring to someone else. In any case, I am with you all the way. You are preaching to the choir here. If you were referring to me, I am saying that partial birth abortion and throwing a baby into a dumpster are currently treated differently BY THE LAW. It is not right, but it is true. Like you, I believe they are equivalent and should be prosecuted as equal crimes. They are not, yet. I was only speaking of things as they currently stand, not as they ought to be. |
|
|
I am in, but many women I have talked to on this issue have said they would not sacrifice their babies' lives for their own. |
|
|
|
|
Blacks were at one time not considered deserving of the RIGHT to life according to the law. Christians of that time fought that battle as well, and won. It will happen again. |
|
|
You said a couple of times that you favor the one already alive rather than the one with potential. This illustrates a severe deficit of understanding of biology. A seed is potential. An embryo is alive much more so, a baby is alive. This is absolute fact, not opinion. Would you say that a baby kangaroo (a joey)is not alive while he is in the mothers pouch, alive when he is out and then not alive when he returns? The location of the baby relative to the mothers is arbitrary. Further, The idea of the mother being harmed by the delivery rather than the abortion is a pharce to say the least. |
|
I'm not sure why you just don't say I love abortions, and nothing anyone says will change that. Biology isn't on your side, as premature babies (some as young as 25 weeks) are birthed and kept alive through extraordinary means. I know of two children, now over 6 that were born this way. If their "value" as subjective as to be under the whims of a doctor or mother, why don't you just say so. A 25 week old fetus or even a 10 week old fetus isn't potential life.
Please, just admit that you are in league with the likes of Mengele or Himmler - there are some humans that don't deserve either life or the attendent constitutional protections.
And no, partial bith abortion is never needed in order to save a mother's life. Please admit that you are in league with those who wish to harvest organs and stem cells from pre-born children. You know, power to the powerful. If the child suffers unimaginable pain in the process, who cares, at least the child's pain goes to a good cause - the living. We do know that pre-born children suffer pain, as every pre-mature baby that is saved can attest.
We've become a society of civilized monsters.
|
|
In case anyone would like to qualify partial birth abortion as anything but infanticide or "murder" please read the ugly process below. This is what we are talking about.
Partial Birth Abortion Procedure
1. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby's leg with forceps.
2. The baby's leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
3. The abortionist delivers the baby's entire body, except for the head.
4. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby's skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole.
5. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child's brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
|
|
|
The difference in the eyes of the law lies in the penalty for the commission of the crime. In reality, they are the same thing divided by a technicality. (You have forgotten that partial birth abortion is a federal crime now. Partial birth abortionists henceforth are criminals.) |
|
That is his opinion. I don't believe in my opinions just because some dead guy held it as his opinion.
"What is the rationale for it?" I would assume for the health of the person that is already alive.
Personally, I'm less worried about this one procedure that was hardly ever practiced to begin with, than the slippery slope it represents.
Shoot me! I'm unarmed, a pacifist, and I favor the living over potential life! ;-) |
|
I lament the participation on our court of David Souter, appointed by GHW Bush with the belief he would add a reasonable voice to the court that was then packed with liberal elitists.
I lament the appointment of John Paul Stevens by Richard Nixon. He has been a constant liberal voice on the court and I am certain not what Nixon had in mind when he put him there.
I lament the appointment of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was appointed by Clinton and who was not opposed by republicans who then were a majority in the Senate. It was their belief that the president is entitled to a judge who would present an ideology similar to his. Theirs was only to review the judicial qualifications of the candidate, not the values or morality of the candidate. Unfortunately men like Kennedy, Biden, Schumer and Lahey don't play by the same rules.
I lament the appointment of Stephen Bryer to the Supreme Court, also a Clinton appointment. It seems Mr. Bryer is comfortable with the study and reference of foreign laws as he interprets the Constitution. It is more than apparent that Mr. Bryer is over his head when he debates men like Antonin Scalia about use of foreign law.
Have you taken the time to understand who these people are and ask yourself why you would prefer to live under an oligarchy composed of these men and women as opposed to a republic where the Congress and the state legislatures create the laws? |
|
|
you can do better than that. Your not a robot. We are talking big picture hear. If we passed a law making the sky red it has no effect on reality. What I am saying is that killing a baby is not morally right. I am wondering if you know what partial birth abortion is, you can use context clues or look it up. An analogy to your comment about murder vs. abortion is like saying one is speeding and the other is driving fast. |
|
...between partial birth abortion and throwing a baby in the dumpster.
One is an abortion, and the other is murder. |
|
|
My first thought was to insult you and your logic but I thought rather that I suggest you reread your posts and others and reconsider your position. While your doing so, ask yourself what the difference is between partial birth abortion and throwing a baby in the dumpster. Also you seem to equivocate being prolife means to be a bible thumper, and while I am a christian, I hate to beleive that atheism leads to such a cavalier attitude about the death of other human beings; is that honestly how you feel? |
|
"If it isn't a baby before birth, you're not pregnant."
Does it say that in the Bible? Book, Chapter, & Verse, please. |
|
"And while birth certificates are given to human beings, a birth certificate is not the standard for what constitutes a human being."
A birth certificate is the US legal standard for when life begins.
My mother's miscarriage was never issued a birth certificate.
"So are you saying that up until the time that the birth certificate is filed with the state, the baby is not really a baby? That could be a week or more, you know."
But the time of birth is documented on the legal document.
|
|
If it isn't a baby before birth, you're not pregnant.
Give it up, or are you one of those males who would rather be free to use women and leave them to deal with the consequences? That's the only reason I can think of as to why you'd be so concerned about women losing the "right" to suck her unborn baby's brains out... |
|
If the continuing the pregnancy truly is potentially harmful for the mother, she can have a c-section and move the child to a NICU. Live baby, live mommy. Been there, done that. Never once thought it would be better for me to kill the kid instead.
|
|
"but those people from other countries don't count as US citizens. "
So are you saying that up until the time that the birth certificate is filed with the state, the baby is not really a baby? That could be a week or more, you know. |
|
kurttrail,
You wrote,
**********************
"but those people from other countries don't count as US citizens."
**********************
kurttrail, buddy, you weren't debating the issue about what constitutes a U.S. citizen, rather, you were debating about what constitutes a HUMAN BEING.
And while birth certificates are given to human beings, a birth certificate is not the standard for what constitutes a human being.
Nobody had "birth certificates" a few centuries ago---does that mean nobody was a human being ? |
|
If we could just get one more judge (2 for insurance).
Finally we get a step in the right direction. Roe may be bad law but it sets a national policy on abortion and can be used to restrict abortion. The majority of voters want abortion restricted. |
|
but those people from other countries don't count as US citizens.
Now, don't conservatives usually balk when "Liberals" talk about what happens in other countries?
So Alex, my point still stands here in the US of A. |
|
"Gee, I didn't know that abortions killed babies. You see, all the babies I've seen had birth certificates."
I hate to break it to you, but there are places in the world where full grown adults have no birth certificates either. They must not count as real people either. |
|
|
Keeping goose-stepping along. Ya'll show that you are more loyal to party than to country! |
|
Gee, I didn't know that abortions killed babies. You see, all the babies I've seen had birth certificates.
"The myth that women are dying all over the place due to laws against abortion have been debunked many times over...give it up."
It hasn't been totally banned yet, like before Roe, when women did die. But hey, give you wackos some time! I'm sure ya'll want to take us back to the Dark Ages, when religion ruled all. |
|
Tdau1997 and Alex hit the nail on the head about supporting the GOP nominee no matter who it is.
Obviously, the fight against Islamic Jihad hangs in the balance, as does nominating judges.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of our brethren who inform us on these Townhall boards that if "Republican candidate X,Y,or Z" wins the nomination, they promise to stay home (!) on Election Day 2008---even if it means that Hillary or Obama or Johnny $400 Haircut might win.
Even Townhall's own Matt Lewis recently blogged that he could "never" support someone who holds one of Giuliani's positions.
My hope is that Matt was merely overstating things, as he has an occasional knack for doing.
Nontheless, it's rare in life that we ever get "100%" of what we want---including in a Presidential candidate.
To paraphrase what Ronald Reagan once said, "Someone who agrees with you 80% of the time is your ally, not your enemy."
|
|
|
You beat me to the punch. |
|
The myth that women are dying all over the place due to laws against abortion have been debunked many times over...give it up.
Btw, 50 million babies have been killed in this country...so I guess a group of "old men did make a decision that killed a woman" 25 million of them....in 1972.
|
|
In response to this Supreme Court decision, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said this "I am extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman's right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women."
Let no one from this day forward refer to Mr. Obama as a Christian or as a "moderate" on the abortion issue.
|
|
"Oh, I really hope no woman ever dies because of this decision made by five old men."
I hope no baby ever is killed because Roe vs. Wade was decided by five old male farts. Oh wait, my mistake, millions have already been killed already because of a decision made by these old male farts. |
|
I got bored with it.
But please feel free to critique it, but I should warn that it is NSFW.
http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/
If you are uncomfortable with criticism, then you could avoiding it by getting out of the blogging business, which is little more than critiquing others.
Or to put it in more misogynistic terms, "If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen, darlin'." ;-)
But too bad you focused on the critique of your blog post, rather than the real important issue. So I'll repeat it.
"Oh, I really hope no woman ever dies because of this decision made by five old men."
Yep, that's the real issue. Old male farts making unilateral decisions for women. But I guess that is truly a strict constructionist point of view, since the signers of the constitution were all men, and most, if not all, believed that woman was created unequal to man. |
|
|
People are busy. Some scan over cut-and-pasted news stories right back down to the blogger's writing, so I reiterated for those folks. Feel free to get your own blog and cut and paste and reiterate whatever you think it appropriate. I guarantee you I won't be coming around to bother critiquing it. |
|
|
Finally !! A b*tch-slap to the pro-death crowd. It is only a matter of time until all abortions are illegal world-wide. History will not treat the pro-death people kindly. Neither will God. |
|
What refreshing news this is! After a very depressing day, there is a glimmer of light in the darkness. Tdau1997, you are right, social conservatives need to keep their eye on the ball with regards to the presidency. Those who stay home because the candidate isn't perfect have no part in the party when things like this happen. This is an important victory. God Bless President Bush for his Supreme Court nominees.
|
|
"Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy made up the majority."
Really? Your main audience couldn't have figured that out by reading what you cut and pasted from the AP, that you needed to reiterate it?
". . . . Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion . . . . Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, siding with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia also were in the majority."
Maybe you should edit yourself and actually list the Justices that voted in the minority for the members of your audience who are Fox News viewers and wouldn't know who the other four Supreme Court Justices are.
Oh, I really hope no woman ever dies because of this decision made by five old men. |
|
have got to band together and support whoever wins the Republican primary even if the candidate isn't all they (we) wish. We cannot afford a scorched earth approach: "If my candidate doesn't get the nod, then let's have 4 years of crappy leadership. That'll show them."
I would trust that the Republican candidate would appoint a strict constructionalist, which is not what would happen with Hillary.
All that said, how in the world can (a learned) someone rationalize this dreaded procedure? |
|
|
|