Obama to target Bush executive orders in first days

posted at 9:38 am on November 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama wants to find ways to make his mark quickly in the opening days of his presidency and reverse the legacy of George W. Bush.  Obama will focus his efforts on the list of executive orders that shaped White House policy, reversing them quickly.  That does not require legislative approval, but it could bring the most contentious issues to the forefront immediately and create more polarization than post-partisanship (via Jazz Shaw):

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

One suggestion might even make sense, from a states-rights perspective.  Bush signed an EO blocking California from adopting its own emissions requirements for automobiles, apart from the federal CAFE standards.  That EO was a sop to the auto industry, but it defied federalism.  If Obama rolled back that EO, it would support the federalist principle of state sovereignty and weaken, however slightly, the Commerce Clause attack on it.

The other top two targets will enrage the pro-life lobby.  Obama plans to end the federal ban on funding for human embryonic stem-cell research (hEsc) and upend the Mexico City rule that forbids federal foreign aid to be used to promote abortion. He can expect a big controversy on both.

The hEsc order annoys researchers who can’t get money for their projects elsewhere, but that’s because the technology has surpassed hEsc.  Scientists have since developed plenipotentiary stem cells from adult tissue, ending the need to destroy embryos at all.  If hEsc really held out any promise apart from other technologies, it would not need federal funding at any rate — it would have private donors lining up to invest in it, as other stem-cell research does.

While American voters feel some ambiguity on abortion, they overwhelmingly do not want their tax dollars paying for or facilitating abortions.  The Mexico City rule forbade federal funds to be used to facilitate the acquisition of abortions by groups abroad, much as the Hyde Amendment prohibited federal funds to be used in the same manner domestically.  If Obama rescinds it, he can expect a great deal of outrage from pro-life groups and a reopening of the debate over the use of tax money to procure abortions anywhere.

These aren’t exactly low-hanging fruit, nor are they the acts of someone who professed to find middle ground between pro-life and pro-choice groups.  These are the acts of a pro-abortion absolutist, and they presage the sponsorship of Planned Parenthood’s Freedom of Choice Act.  So much for governing from the center.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7

Worst President-elect Ever.

Christien on November 9, 2008 at 5:58 PM

One suggestion might even make sense, from a states-rights perspective. Bush signed an EO blocking California from adopting its own emissions requirements for automobiles, apart from the federal CAFE standards. That EO was a sop to the auto industry, but it defied federalism. If Obama rolled back that EO, it would support the federalist principle of state sovereignty and weaken, however slightly, the Commerce Clause attack on it.

Except for one thing; the CA plan would have given them, or any state that so desires, virtual control over the auto and other industries. (They tried that with lawn mowers too but congress stopped that one.)

A company cannot make cars just for CA — and cars that Californians are willing to tolerate for the love of Gaia may not sell in the rest of the 49 or be profitable for the companies forced to manufacture them.

The CAFE EO is actually one area where the Commerce Clause actually applies.
David

LifeTrek on November 9, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Yes, because we have obviously been doing something else for the last 8 years.

Oh wait no – failed abstinence-only policies of the last 8 years. Time to try something new (like I dunno – maybe actually educating our children on the consequences of sex).

What a novel idea – education!

A Axe on November 9, 2008 at 5:22 PM

33% of abortions are on women in their mid 20s. 60% of women who have abortions have had one or more children. Exactly what kind of education would have served these women. We are not talking about children exclusively here. 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities. You can educate all you want, and we should, but the fact is, abortion has become a method of birth control in this country for many who are too lazy and/or irresponsible to prevent becoming pregnant.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM

Therefore I can not agree that abortion is essential to a woman’s “right to choose”, (except in the case of rape).

Sackett on November 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Let me help you (and others who say this) to stop parroting this evil phrase.

Short list of people who are the results of rape:

John Cox, 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate
Angelina Jolie’s adopted daughter Zahara
Faith Daniels — talk show host of the TV show Dateline
Tracy Carter Jennieve — daughter of actress Nell Carter
Traci Lords (Nora Kuzma) — former porn star

Go to this website, read it through, and then come back here and tell us that I have failed to change your mind.

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Coming soon to a country near you — rule by fiat — brought to you by “The One”.

Bill_M on November 9, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Would you at least vote to kill these babies in a human way and anesthetize them before they are ripped apart in their mother’s womb? after all, we have laws to dictate the humane treatment of animals. And would you vote to extend the right of the mothers to kill their babies until say, one year of age?

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Guess what. Hyperbole doesn’t improve your argument, so please stop trying. I am not voting to kill anything, and it’s intellectually dishonest to do so. Some people claim voting down smoking bans means that you are voting to kill smoker’s families, friends, and those around them by secondhand smoke. It’s intellectually dishonest pap, and it doesn’t work on people who look at these things objectively. I made my opinion on abortion known, and you utterly ignored it, else you wouldn’t have tried such elementary rhetoric. Go back and read, and then talk to me like an adult.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM

Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48 percent of them have had at least one previous abortion. I forgot to mention this above.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 6:21 PM

I’m coming late to this thread and haven’t had time to read through all of the comments, so forgive me if this has been said before in other ways. HA is a great place to meet like-minded folks, and to vent. But we need to stand up to this POS or he will get bolder and bolder as the years roll by (all 8 to 10, or maybe more).

Contact your senators and representatives NOW. If they are Republicans, remind them that we need them to stand up for us on some issues, not reach across the aisle to be b**** slapped. If they are the ones Rahm Emmanuel hand-picked to run as conservatives, remind them of this. And if they are hard-core leftists like Our Dear Leader, remind them that we are watching. I understand that an Executive Order doesn’t call for a vote. But these representatives–who are supposed to represent their constituents–can make it known that if Obama goes ahead with these heinous anti-life proposals, they will not stand with him on issues that do require a vote.

Next, all Catholics must put relentless pressure on the bishops of Biden, Pelosi and other cafeteria Catholics in public office. We did our best by not voting for the Baby Killer, but we lost. The ball is now in the bishops’ court. They have a moral obligation to counsel Biden and Pelosi about fundamental tenants of their faith. Privately remind them that excommunication is an option. Biden and Pelosi could put pressure on the POS-in-Chief if enough pressure was applied to them. What does it profit a man to gain the entire world if he loses his immortal soul.

Sorry this is long, but I’m fightin’ mad. We are at war, folks. Let’s roll.

BitterClinger on November 9, 2008 at 6:22 PM

If I may offer a cogent paradigm…

Claiming that abstinence is 100% successful in preventing pregnancy is the equivalent of saying that not eating is 100% successful in preventing obesity.

In both cases, instincts override your willpower in the right circumstances.

Another paradigm would be a person getting in a car. If you get in the car, and refuse to use a seatbelt because you say you are a good driver and will not crash, that’s your choice. I don’t expect to crash either, and even with a seatbelt on, there’s no guarantee I won’t be hurt or killed.

However, I have much better chances with the seatbelt on than with the person who doesn’t wear one. The same goes for those who use the pill or carry condoms versus those who practice abstinence. You can fantasize about things never happening to you all you want. They may still happen, and you will be surprised at how your primal urges take over.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Guess what. Hyperbole doesn’t improve your argument, so please stop trying. I am not voting to kill anything, and it’s intellectually dishonest to do so.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:20 PM

This is not hyperbole. You said you would vote to keep abortion legal. I am simply saying is that if you are going to vote to support the right to abort babies I would ask that at least you vote to make it humane. We do this even for animals, it’s the least we can do for humans. Explain to me how this is hyperbole. You pro-choice people have to blind yourselves to reality and suspend all logical thinking to be able to support the right to this atrocity.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Explain to me how this is hyperbole.

You pro-choice people have to blind yourselves to reality and suspend all logical thinking…
neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Was that irony intentional, or are you just that stupid?

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:40 PM

You pro-choice people have to blind yourselves to reality and suspend all logical thinking to be able to support the right to this atrocity.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:34 PM

Oh yeah! Tell the truth to the “if it feels good, me and my friends are gonna do it” crowd.

They are NOT conservatives. We will demand proper use of words in the New Republican Party.

Don’t like it? GYAO (Get Your A$$ Out)!

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:42 PM

Was that irony intentional, or are you just that stupid?

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Wow, what dazzling debating skills you have! Can’t say I blame you for that strategy though.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:44 PM

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:42 PM

I love Huckabee nuts like you. You’re in favor of all kinds of freedoms…well, except for abortions…and smoking…and eating fast food, at least without heavy taxes…and MSG…and alcohol (look how good that worked for you, Christian temperance movement)…and anything else you don’t like because you think you know what’s best for everyone else.

Almost like…liberals.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Wow, what dazzling debating skills you have! Can’t say I blame you for that strategy though.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:44 PM

It was a genuine question. You claimed to not be using hyperbole, and then proceeded to insult those who disagreed with you. Does Huck’s loss still sting?

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:46 PM

I love Huckabee nuts like you. You’re in favor of all kinds of freedoms…well, except for abortions…and smoking…and eating fast food, at least without heavy taxes…and MSG…and alcohol (look how good that worked for you, Christian temperance movement)…and anything else you don’t like because you think you know what’s best for everyone else.

Almost like…liberals.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:45 PM

Are you seriously lumping abortion in with those “freedoms?” Do you seriously consider abortion a freedom?

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 6:50 PM

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:46 PM

I don’t think you know what the word “hyperbole” means, do you use it often?

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Are you seriously lumping abortion in with those “freedoms?” Do you seriously consider abortion a freedom?

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Do you consider being able to smoke a freedom? Some don’t. Do you consider being able to eat what you want a freedom? Some don’t. Thanks to Mike Huckabee, those have been lumped together with abortion. Again, I don’t like abortion. However, some people don’t like SUVs, or plastic grocery bags, or certain words.

What I don’t like more than anything is the government telling me what I can or can’t do. Leave the choices to the masters of the government: the people. If the people vote to outlaw abortion in my state if Roe V. Wade is overturned, that won’t bother me. That will be the choice of the people, and that’s what I want to run this country.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

I don’t think you know what the word “hyperbole” means, do you use it often?

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Hyperbole is being a drama queen, which is what several people in this thread have done in making their arguments. It’s the same as an anti-gun advocate screeching about children blowing their heads off in tragic home accidents, or anti-smoking organizations like truth making vapid commercials filled with body bags, or environmentalists shrieking about the ozone layer depleting which, you might have noticed, we haven’t heard about in 15 years.

Saying I’m voting to kill children is hyperbole, because it’s intellectually dishonest. I’m voting to allow other people to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not. I already said that I am anti-abortion, which I thought would imply that I would never support someone I know having one, given my extrapolation on my feelings on the topic.

It’s designed to paint me as a killer, when I would do no such thing, any more than voting down a fast food tax makes me a murderer of fatasses who have downed Big Macs their entire lives and are now dying of clogged arteries.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM

If the people vote to outlaw abortion in my state if Roe V. Wade is overturned, that won’t bother me. That will be the choice of the people, and that’s what I want to run this country.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Then why didn’t you just say that the first time?

If Madison refers to a city in Wisconsin, I understand why you can be so maddeningly muddled. :)

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM

Then why didn’t you just say that the first time?

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM

*sigh* I did. That’s what federalism entails. People voting on an issue rather than seven or nine old lawyers deciding for everyone.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Do you consider being able to smoke a freedom? Some don’t. Do you consider being able to eat what you want a freedom? Some don’t. Thanks to Mike Huckabee, those have been lumped together with abortion. Again, I don’t like abortion. However, some people don’t like SUVs, or plastic grocery bags, or certain words.

What I don’t like more than anything is the government telling me what I can or can’t do. Leave the choices to the masters of the government: the people. If the people vote to outlaw abortion in my state if Roe V. Wade is overturned, that won’t bother me. That will be the choice of the people, and that’s what I want to run this country.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Yes, I do consider being able to smoke a freedom. Same with eating fast food. I do NOT include abortion in that group, though. I don’t know what Huckabee thinks. I am not a Huckabee person. Fred was my man until he dropped out. As for the rest of what you said, I don’t agree but at the risk of being called a drama queen, my thoughts have been laid out already. No need to repeat them. Abortion is not a cavalier subject.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Go to this website, read it through, and then come back here and tell us that I have failed to change your mind.

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Outlawing abortion in the first few weeks following rape won’t get a majority of votes in most states, if any. Holding that position as a Presidential candidate would cost votes.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 7:07 PM

Fred was my man until he dropped out.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Then you should have paid attention to his views on Roe V. Wade, because mine mirror them.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Saying I’m voting to kill children is hyperbole, because it’s intellectually dishonest.
MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM

You still have not gotten my point. Again I did not say that you are voting to kill children. I asked that if you are going to vote for people to have the freedom to do so, will you vote to make it humane?. I understand the position of not liking abortion but not wanting it to be made illegal. I did not mean to imply to that you like to kill children. One again, my point was that if we are going to support it, I wish we made it as painless as possible. I hope this clarifies it.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 7:10 PM

(OBAMA LIED UNBORN BABIES DIED) This is for all you libs that for the last 8 years said.Bush lied people died.

thmcbb on November 9, 2008 at 7:11 PM

Are you seriously lumping abortion in with those “freedoms?” Do you seriously consider abortion a freedom?

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 6:50 PM

Do you consider being able to smoke a freedom? Some don’t. Do you consider being able to eat what you want a freedom? Some don’t. Thanks to Mike Huckabee, those have been lumped together with abortion. Again, I don’t like abortion. However, some people don’t like SUVs, or plastic grocery bags, or certain words.

What I don’t like more than anything is the government telling me what I can or can’t do. Leave the choices to the masters of the government: the people. If the people vote to outlaw abortion in my state if Roe V. Wade is overturned, that won’t bother me. That will be the choice of the people, and that’s what I want to run this country.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:52 PM

Madison, are you trying to say that killing humans is right (or, at least, a privilege) the American citizen should possess?

If so, how do you square that with the Declaration which says that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable? It would seem you’re attempting to alienate the inalienable in a false claim to promote ‘freedom’.

You cannot retain your liberty if you do not retain life first. The right to life has primacy.

It’s not religious zealotry, it’s basic human rights. An embryo, a fetus, and a baby are all human and should likewise be protected.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:13 PM

You still have not gotten my point. Again I did not say that you are voting to kill children. I asked that if you are going to vote for people to have the freedom to do so, will you vote to make it humane?. I understand the position of not liking abortion but not wanting it to be made illegal. I did not mean to imply to that you like to kill children. One again, my point was that if we are going to support it, I wish we made it as painless as possible. I hope this clarifies it.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 7:10 PM

I apologize, then, for my misunderstanding.

On this note, I would actually say that I would not vote to improve abortions at all. Take this for what you will, but in my experience with the women I know who have gotten the abortions, they have found the clinics to be staffed with cold, insensitive nurses, and the process to leave them feeling like they went through an assembly line. I feel that this is entirely appropriate given what they are doing.

If they want to do this, I don’t want to make it a pleasant experience for them. The child is going to die either way, so the only “good” that can come out of it is perhaps the dissuasion of further abortions through the process itself. As I said, I believe in the choice to have an abortion, just as I believe in the choice to make lots of bad decisions. I just don’t want to make it easier for those people to live with those bad decisions.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:14 PM

Madison, are you trying to say that killing humans is right (or, at least, a privilege) the American citizen should possess?

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:13 PM

First, I never said it was a right. I said it was a freedom. Don’t conflate the two like many do.

Second, I’m not talking about killing humans. I’m talking about killing unborn fetuses. You say “killing humans” and you try to play the game of equating it with walking up to someone on the street and shooting them dead. That’s a game I won’t play, because it is hyperbole. Not even going to debate.

Third, I’ve made my position on abortion clear. This is not about my opinion of abortion being right or wrong. I make my own decisions on how I live my life. In the end, I want all of my American countrymen to be able to make the same decisions. End of story.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:20 PM

I would hope the Obama administration last only one term. But the mere fact that America has elected such a far-left Liberal really overshadows that hope.

galvestonian on November 9, 2008 at 7:21 PM

33% of abortions are on women in their mid 20s. 60% of women who have abortions have had one or more children. Exactly what kind of education would have served these women. We are not talking about children exclusively here. 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities. You can educate all you want, and we should, but the fact is, abortion has become a method of birth control in this country for many who are too lazy and/or irresponsible to prevent becoming pregnant.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 6:03 PM

Good job ruining the context.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html – 52% are YOUNGER than 25. That isn’t ‘mid 20s’ – that is specifically under 25. 8 years ago = 17 = right in high school where all they were being force-fed was ‘goooo abstinence!’ And this: “Teenagers obtain 20%”

Even more retarded is you whine about abortion rates, and then whine about these people should not have babies. Which one is it?

Man – give me the proper roots of conservatism – small government that stays the HELL OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE. Stop trying to dictate your damn morals on every one else.

A Axe on November 9, 2008 at 7:24 PM

Then you should have paid attention to his views on Roe V. Wade, because mine mirror them.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Are you talking about Fred Thompson? I paid especially close attention to his views on abortion because they mirrored MY own. He said Roe vs Wade was the worst supreme court deicision in 40 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/thompson-choice/

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Good job ruining the context.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html – 52% are YOUNGER than 25. That isn’t ‘mid 20s’ – that is specifically under 25. 8 years ago = 17 = right in high school where all they were being force-fed was ‘goooo abstinence!’ And this: “Teenagers obtain 20%”

Even more retarded is you whine about abortion rates, and then whine about these people should not have babies. Which one is it?

Man – give me the proper roots of conservatism – small government that stays the HELL OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE. Stop trying to dictate your damn morals on every one else.

A Axe on November 9, 2008 at 7:24 PM

I swear you make less sense with each and every post.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:30 PM

Madison, are you trying to say that killing humans is right (or, at least, a privilege) the American citizen should possess?

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:13 PM

First, I never said it was a right. I said it was a freedom. Don’t conflate the two like many do.

Second, I’m not talking about killing humans. I’m talking about killing unborn fetuses. You say “killing humans” and you try to play the game of equating it with walking up to someone on the street and shooting them dead. That’s a game I won’t play, because it is hyperbole. Not even going to debate.

Third, I’ve made my position on abortion clear. This is not about my opinion of abortion being right or wrong. I make my own decisions on how I live my life. In the end, I want all of my American countrymen to be able to make the same decisions. End of story.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:20 PM

So by hyperbole — you mean to say that you differentiate between classes of humanity… you make suppositions for yourself based upon arbitrary stages of age or development?

That’s not hyperbole, it’s just what you’ve stated. See, to me and a lot of others, it isn’t hyperbole to say that if it’s human, regardless of development or age, it it should be protected.

Hyperbole is exaggeration that isn’t meant to be taken literally, except, for me, I’m interpreting the right to life literally and not injecting a measure of arbitrary interpretation to the statement.

It’s not freedom to kill an unborn human. You cannot justify freedom by stripping away basic rights of others simply because they are voiceless and defenseless, or just not yet born. Not to mention, it has already been highlighted that some are born alive and left to die, either way, one is no more justified or a ‘right’ than the other.

It’s a big slippery slope you’re on if we govern that way.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM

It’s a big slippery slope you’re on if we govern that way.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM

I have often found that it is necessary for those who are prochoice to use a certain jargon or terminology when discussing abortion. It is never a child, a human or a life. It is a zygote, a mass of protoplasm, an unformed entity. In that way, it makes it easier to ensure that their level of comfort is not breached.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Impeach Obama NOW! Why wait until he can do any damage? (Oh yeah, I know you can’t impeach someone before they’ve actually done anything impeachable and certainly not before they’ve taken the oath of office, but doing so would only violate the Constitution and BO has already said that he thinks it is a very flawed document anyway so I say…Impeach away!)

nocomme1 on November 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Are you talking about Fred Thompson? I paid especially close attention to his views on abortion because they mirrored MY own. He said Roe vs Wade was the worst supreme court deicision in 40 years.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/15/thompson-choice/

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:29 PM

Yes. Which was why he wanted to overturn it. And he advocated turning over the legality of abortion to the states, so that the people could choose.

I’ve always thought that Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, that they usurped what had been the law in this country for 200 years, that it was a matter that should go back to the states. When you get back to the states, I think the states should have some leeway. I might vote against one approach, but I think the state ought to have it. And I would not be and never have been for a law that says, on the state level, if I were back in Tennessee voting on this…to criminalize a young woman….

- Fred Thompson

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM

It’s a big slippery slope you’re on if we govern that way.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM

I have often found that it is necessary for those who are prochoice to use a certain jargon or terminology when discussing abortion. It is never a child, a human or a life. It is a zygote, a mass of protoplasm, an unformed entity. In that way, it makes it easier to ensure that their level of comfort is not breached.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM

Agreed. I don’t know if that is Madison’s case or not.

Regardless, my embryo (which contains the ‘human’ designation in the definition) is 8 weeks old. It has a visible brain, heart, and spine already. It doesn’t get much more obvious than this that it is recognizably human and should be protected with basic human rights.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Impeach Obama NOW! Why wait until he can do any damage? (Oh yeah, I know you can’t impeach someone before they’ve actually done anything impeachable and certainly not before they’ve taken the oath of office, but doing so would only violate the Constitution and BO has already said that he thinks it is a very flawed document anyway so I say…Impeach away!)

nocomme1 on November 9, 2008 at 7:40 PM

…and the bolded part that you appear to not care about makes you even more of a lunatic than the Kucinich fans who want Bush impeached, but can’t even name what crimes he may have committed.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:45 PM

So by hyperbole — you mean to say that you differentiate between classes of humanity… you make suppositions for yourself based upon arbitrary stages of age or development?

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM

You see no difference between a person walking down the street, with a life and years behind them, and a fetus that has yet to leave its mother’s womb?

That’s where we differ. I have a feeling we won’t get past this difference of opinion. I have a couple of questions for you, though.

Should we charge pregnant women with crimes if they smoke or drink during pregnancy? Or eat crap food? Or any of the number of things that can endanger the child?

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:50 PM

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:42 PM

I think we have been talking around something here. You are talking about law. Fred Thompson believes Roe vs Wade should be overturned and the decisions made at the state level regarding law. He does not, however, believe in abortion. You are talking about his belief on law and I am talking about his personal belief on abortion. He’s been supported by the National Right to Life for over a decade. As the link says I posted, he has voted 100% prolife when in the senate. I do believe that you and I were talking about two separate things. I understand where you are coming from now, though. Thanks for the discussion. We will have to agree to disagree about our personal beliefs.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM

Agreed. I don’t know if that is Madison’s case or not.

Regardless, my embryo (which contains the ‘human’ designation in the definition) is 8 weeks old. It has a visible brain, heart, and spine already. It doesn’t get much more obvious than this that it is recognizably human and should be protected with basic human rights.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:44 PM

Congratulations, Fozzy. I am about to be a great-grandmother. Life is good.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:53 PM

Agreed. I don’t know if that is Madison’s case or not.
Regardless, my embryo (which contains the ‘human’ designation in the definition) is 8 weeks old. It has a visible brain, heart, and spine already. It doesn’t get much more obvious than this that it is recognizably human and should be protected with basic human rights.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:44 PM

I don’t believe it is in Madison’s case. I believe Madison feels abortion is a right, but not one he/she is particularly fond of. I hope I got that right.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:55 PM

I believe Madison feels abortion is a right

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:55 PM

If you can’t read, don’t claim to know what I think. I don’t care about your willful ignorance.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:59 PM

He does not, however, believe in abortion.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM

I don’t support abortion. Belief one way or another is irrelevant, as abortion exists, and is a fact. You’ve let your assumptions about “pro-choice” people blind you to what I’ve made clear.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 8:00 PM

I don’t support abortion. Belief one way or another is irrelevant, as abortion exists, and is a fact. You’ve let your assumptions about “pro-choice” people blind you to what I’ve made clear.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 8:00 PM

I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding but you haven’t made it clear to me. I was agreeing with Fozzy when I said that, so as not to lump you in with the others (we were talking about terminology). It is not my intention to claim to know what you think. I can only go by what you have written here. And yes, I can read. There is no reason to be so nasty. I extended the peace branch above. Or did you willfully miss that?

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 8:03 PM

Oh I DO hope that conservatives try and use the abortion issue via embryonic stem cell research to propel themselves to power in 2010, how wonderful. If this election has taught us anything it’s that the BHO camp is supremely confident and prepared on these kinds of culture-war issues. Much more so, then on the substance of his tax proposals.
….
DeathToMediaHacks on November 9, 2008 at 10:36 AM

Apparently the abortion issue worries you, as it should. Partial birth abortion is still hugely unpopular with the country at large, and Obama is on record supporting it, and the even more radical position of allowing viable babies to die if the abortion failed. These are not minor issues, and they will not just go away.

It seems the quality of trolls is slipping.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 8:05 PM

Glynn,

Yeah but the problem is that they are increasingly a vocal minority and their strident attacks (calling people baby killers, accusing Obama of infanticide) is doing nothing to further their ultimate goal, less abortions in America.

Here’s my question for the pro-lifers. Since Roe V. Wade has any Republican President caused a decrease in the number of abortions in this country? Why do people ignore the evidence that when you decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies, i.e. via contraception access and sex education, and instead push only on this issue of the act of abortion. If you REALLY think abortion is the ultimate sin then you should be infavor of a politician who explicitly says the number of abortions should be reduced and who points out that the best way to do that is to make sure there are as few unwanted pregnancies as possible. This strident moralistic tone does nothing to further your cause, in fact, it marginalizes you. Calm down.

DeathToMediaHacks on November 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Read that whole thing, and — would you believe it! Not a single reference to abortion taking a human life. Avoiding the subject?

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 8:11 PM

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 8:11 PM

Or avoiding the terminology!

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 8:13 PM

I extended the peace branch above. Or did you willfully miss that?

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 8:03 PM

When I wrote the post you are referring to, your 7:51 post had not yet shown up on my screen, a victim of my failure to refresh. Peace branch accepted.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 8:14 PM

When I wrote the post you are referring to, your 7:51 post had not yet shown up on my screen, a victim of my failure to refresh. Peace branch accepted.

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Thank you so much, sincerely.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 8:17 PM

Ed, I’ll ask you the same question I ask all of my liberal friends: What federal ban on hESC research??? I’ve looked high and low and all I can find are some fairly moderate restrictions on federal funding for hESC research. In fact, it was a Bush executive order that lifted Clinton’s total ban on federal funding.

withoutfeathers on November 9, 2008 at 8:22 PM

Apparently the abortion issue worries you, as it should. Partial birth abortion is still hugely unpopular with the country at large, and Obama is on record supporting it, and the even more radical position of allowing viable babies to die if the abortion failed. These are not minor issues, and they will not just go away.

It seems the quality of trolls is slipping.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 8:05 PM

I can’t understand why McCain didn’t go after Obama on his voting record regarding the Born Alive bill in Illinois and also the partial birth abortion.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 8:23 PM

It was a bloodless Marxist revolution and the mindless masses were duped, . . . get used to that, jackass.

rplat on November 9, 2008 at 11:09 AM

How elitist of you. I thought it was wrong to question the Democratic will of the people or to describe them as being “duped” by inconsequential things. Isn’t that, according to conservative dogma, exactly what Dem-Lib elitists did during the Bush years as they marveled as to how people could so “stupidly” vote for a “stupid” President. Obama won a larger margin of victory than Bush ever did, so your claims are even more doubly elitist.

Oh wait, it’s only elitism when you criticize Americans for voting Republican. Got it! Another partisan hack exposed.

DeathToMediaHacks on November 9, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Your education is failing you. We don’t have a democracy; we have a constitutional republic with some democratically elected positions. We depend on alert and educated voters, and we got a mass of people who apparently were not even curious about the person they voted for as president, given that he is probably the most secretive presidential candidate in at least a hundred years.

Face it: Voting for Obama was not a rational decision. There was nothing about him to suggest he was capable of being a good president. Just a whole lot of hope and change. The people who voted for him can’t even tell you what he’s going to change.

Still lots of fun: ask Obama supporters to name a substantive accomplishment.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 8:25 PM

So by hyperbole — you mean to say that you differentiate between classes of humanity… you make suppositions for yourself based upon arbitrary stages of age or development?

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 7:37 PM

You see no difference between a person walking down the street, with a life and years behind them, and a fetus that has yet to leave its mother’s womb?

That’s where we differ. I have a feeling we won’t get past this difference of opinion. I have a couple of questions for you, though.

Should we charge pregnant women with crimes if they smoke or drink during pregnancy? Or eat crap food? Or any of the number of things that can endanger the child?

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:50 PM

There is no difference in my mind. Murder is not acceptable whether the victim is 1, 10, or 100. The law doesn’t differentiate based upon age. Same should be true for all forms of abortion/homicide.

As far as smoking/drinking/dietary habits… There is an inherently greater responsibility when bearing an additional human life. If the mother is negligent in her responsibility there should be legal recourse. I’m not sure what determines negligence and what the penalties should be — it would be hard to prove in most cases — but just as you can’t allow genocide without consequences, you cannot allow the unborn to go similarly unprotected.

Now obviously, I’m not saying the diet should be this or that if they financially cannot support that lifestyle; however, common sense dictates that smoking, irresponsible drinking, or trauma to the womb can be detrimental to the health of the unborn life.

I don’t know that this is the point, however. It seems more like a rabbit trail meant to distract attention from the more heinous issue of deliberate killing of life with a knife or by salt burns. This is a death more gruesome than we offer when administering the death penalty for the most heinous of crimes. It is as bad as the Nazi gas chambers or being burned to death. It is unjust and they are unprotected and treated as worthless — and for what justification? Another person just felt like it.

Again, there appears to be no justifiable argument for the wishes of one to completely deny the rights of others — even to their death.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 8:27 PM

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/Othersconceivedinrape.html

platypus on November 9, 2008 at 6:04 PM

bump. awesome. didn’t know it was possible to knock another prop out from under the pro-death movement.

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Legalized assisted suicide in WA and OR now. This abortion debate isn’t just about abortion, is it? It is about whether you are especially fond of life or whether you are especially sick of living. Ask: is there meaning to life?
Wouldn’t it be merciful to spare a creature the chagrin of living this life that we so hate?

Liberal/existentialists don’t see any purpose to life. It is just a part of the mechanism of natural selection.

Conservatives value purpose driven life. They believe life is of the struggle and would have it no other way. Water never tastes so sweet as when one is sweating, dry-mouthed, and gasping for air at the top of a mountain.

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Legalized assisted suicide in WA and OR now. This abortion debate isn’t just about abortion, is it? It is about whether you are especially fond of life or whether you are especially sick of living. Ask: is there meaning to life?
Wouldn’t it be merciful to spare a creature the chagrin of living this life that we so hate?

Liberal/existentialists don’t see any purpose to life. It is just a part of the mechanism of natural selection.

Conservatives value purpose driven life. They believe life is of the struggle and would have it no other way. Water never tastes so sweet as when one is sweating, dry-mouthed, and gasping for air at the top of a mountain.

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 8:33 PM

This is why liberals always seethe and rage against conservatives, who according to studies are found to be happier… theirs is an ideology that cannot satisfy or bring happiness in life and certainly not death.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 8:37 PM

I swear you make less sense with each and every post.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 7:30 PM

I’m sorry – next time you make up a fact (33% of abortions are on women in their mid 20s) I’ll be sure not to call you out on your blatant lie.

A Axe on November 9, 2008 at 8:50 PM

if and when she thinks she ‘adult’ enough to have sex, she had better be ‘adult’ enough to pay the piper with whatever else may come her way…
At this point we can only pray that we have gotten though.

pcbedamned on November 9, 2008 at 1:26 PM

There is this amazing product called ‘condoms’. If only you social cons didn’t insist on imagining they don’t exist and kids won’t ever have sex.

A Axe on November 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM

Always touching to see someone have so much faith in a little piece of rubber.

Condoms fail. Figure an 8 percent failure rate. That sounds pretty good, right?

Now have sex 25 times. After all, you’re using condoms, so it’s safe, right? Logically, you would expect the condoms to fail twice.

Only takes once.

People who assume that using a condom will ensure never producing a pregnancy are doomed to disappointment.

People who pretend there’s no need to abstain, as long as you use a condom, contribute to unwanted pregnancies.

Which brings me back to you.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 9:05 PM

Saying I’m voting to kill children is hyperbole, because it’s intellectually dishonest. I’m voting to allow other people to choose whether they want to have an abortion or not. I already said that I am anti-abortion, which I thought would imply that I would never support someone I know having one, given my extrapolation on my feelings on the topic.
….
MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 6:57 PM

He’s got a point there. He is not voting to kill children. He is voting to allow others to kill children. That is, if they insist on doing it, anyway.

theregoestheneighborhood on November 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM

I’m sorry – next time you make up a fact (33% of abortions are on women in their mid 20s) I’ll be sure not to call you out on your blatant lie.

A Axe on November 9, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Please feel free not to answer me at all you malignant toad.

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 9:15 PM

old people go to canada to get meds and mexico to get medical treatments, dental work etc.

why should we not encourage young women to travel? Do libs want young women to stay home, avoid wetting the appetite with the desire for travel and expansion of soul? this is no more than an argument for convenience? abortion convenience?

it is quite clear that the laws of the US do not inhibit seniors from making choices outside the influence of the us.

What?

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 9:24 PM

AGEISM
am I allowed to use language like that on HA?

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 9:25 PM

There is nothing I support more strongly than reversing the evil Mexico City policy. I suppose there is even an upside to an Obama presidency.

thuja on November 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM

I think he looked scared and nervous at his presser. Then the Nancy Reagan joke. And now this, pay for abortions and harvest the cells for research when they are not even needed?

Hey America, you hired your groovy Poli Sci professor for the biggest job in the world. Good luck with that.

PattyJ on November 9, 2008 at 9:49 PM

There is nothing I support more strongly than reversing the evil Mexico City policy. I suppose there is even an upside to an Obama presidency.

thuja on November 9, 2008 at 9:34 PM

Are you serious!

Glynn on November 9, 2008 at 10:01 PM

So much for governing from the center.

Forgive me doing this, but I commend The Left for doing what they were elected to do. Govern from the left. I hate when Republican try to govern from the center as a show of magnanimity. It’s absurd at best, and a loser at worst. Obviously.

SouthernGent on November 9, 2008 at 10:05 PM

Should we charge pregnant women with crimes if they smoke or drink during pregnancy? Or eat crap food? Or any of the number of things that can endanger the child?

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:50 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do we charge mothers with crimes if they do it to their born children?

There’s a line we draw as to when personal decisions become the business of other people. If a mother chose to inject poison into her 1-year-old child’s heart to kill him/her because he/she costs too much money, would that be anybody else’s business? Why or why not?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:09 PM

MadisonConservative on November 9, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Madison…

The only difference between an “unborn fetus” and a “newborn infant” is time.

Are you then suggesting that people become more human with age?

Are you more human now than you were a few years ago? Are you more human now than when you were first born?

When did you become a human being? Is it different for everyone?

Did it happen at birth or before birth? If so, please tell me when.

If you cannot answer these questions, then I must suggest that it is because there is no answer beyond the obvious…that people are people regardless of how old they are.

And if that’s the case, whether someone is a senior citizen, a toddler or a fetus, they are human beings and deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I hope this was sufficiently hyperbole-free enough for your tastes.

powerpro on November 9, 2008 at 10:13 PM

A hypothetical question for the pro-aborts.

A woman is stranded on a deserted island with her newborn child. The only way the child can be fed is to breastfeed the child – allow the child to connect to her body for a time in order to receive sustenance. Would it be child neglect if she refused to feed her child?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:15 PM

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:15 PM

not a pro abort but I am qualified to answer for every sect. they will say that to survive it is good idea to roast the child on a spit. law of nature rules.
pro life would pray to God for rescue, and make due, perhaps build a tree house and hunt for food.

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 10:20 PM

anti-boomer at 10:20PM

Let’s further say that the woman has plenty of food for herself, just doesn’t like the idea of having to have a baby connected to her breast for a while. It slows her down too much. Does she have a moral or legal obligation to feed her child?

I’m in Nebraska. We have had a lot of teenage children left off by their parents because our safe haven law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of age. I know you’re not pro-abort, but for the pro-aborts out there: when does a parent not have a responsibility to take care of their child, and why?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:29 PM

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:29 PM

she should take it to the closest Nebraskan hospital.

no, I kinda like the law. as long as the system wants to destroy the family, the family should get a break from responsibilities like “taking care”, and feeding. seems like a logical progression.

anti-boomer on November 9, 2008 at 10:32 PM

A woman is stranded on a deserted island with her newborn child. The only way the child can be fed is to breastfeed the child – allow the child to connect to her body for a time in order to receive sustenance. Would it be child neglect if she refused to feed her child?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:15 PM

It would be, though in extreme survival conditions the normal laws of society don’t apply. In some cases cannibalism is accepted among sailors lost at sea, but that wouldn’t be an argument for it in normal society.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 10:46 PM

I’ll be learning to play the fiddle over the coming days and weeks so I’ll have something to do when stuff starts burning.

Being destroyed from the inside out.

Dorvillian on November 9, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Yeah. Emergencies are different.

Dedalus, would it be an invasion of her bodily privacy to require her to let the child latch on, if that was the only way she could feed her child?

What is so often touted is the idea that control of one’s own body is so sacred that not even parental responsibility can trump it legally. I’ve appreciated your input in the past and wonder how you feel about the two values when pitted against each other.

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM

What is so often touted is the idea that control of one’s own body is so sacred that not even parental responsibility can trump it legally. I’ve appreciated your input in the past and wonder how you feel about the two values when pitted against each other.

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Viability is a big deal to me. If a premature baby can survive after 28 weeks or so it strikes me as wrong for an abortion after that point. Whether it is in the womb or out of the womb doesn’t seem relevant to me.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Hey everyone. Before we worry about the killing of the unborn, we better worry about their plans for some of us already born. Buy more ammo.

bill30097 on November 9, 2008 at 11:03 PM

So much for any “honeymoon”.

This person may be YOUR president, but he damn sure ain’t MINE. I will ALWAYS respect the OFFICE, but NEVER the MAN in this case.

And I don’t give two shits who’s offended by this.

irongrampa on November 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Dedalus at 11:02

Survive for how long?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM

Conservative backlash 2010! Woo hoo!

Punchenko on November 9, 2008 at 11:20 PM

There’s a line we draw as to when personal decisions become the business of other people. If a mother chose to inject poison into her 1-year-old child’s heart to kill him/her because he/she costs too much money, would that be anybody else’s business? Why or why not?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:09 PM

Are you more human now than you were a few years ago? Are you more human now than when you were first born?

When did you become a human being? Is it different for everyone?

Did it happen at birth or before birth? If so, please tell me when.

If you cannot answer these questions, then I must suggest that it is because there is no answer beyond the obvious…that people are people regardless of how old they are.

powerpro on November 9, 2008 at 10:13 PM

This is why I believe I would need to suspend logical thinking to hold pro-choice beliefs. There are no answers to these questions that allow pro-choicers to reconcile (without a lot of mental gymnastics) their position, with the social mores they hold on other issues. Either we don’t know when we become human (above our pay grade) and they have to admit the possibility that abortion is destroying an innocent life (and I am sure most pro-choicers would in general accept the idea that if there is a possibility that an action might inflict extreme damage to another person then we should refrain from that action). Or they have to admit that abortion destroys a human life and assert that the mother’s right supersedes the baby’s right to life but then they have to come up with some convoluted rationalization to arbitrarily terminate the right of the mother to kill the baby once it is out of the womb (although Obama believes that a baby who is already out of the womb should be allowed to die if he got there as a result of a botched abortion instead of a normal delivery) or insert the issue of “viability” as if it somehow relieves us of our moral responsibility to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 11:22 PM

I heard that Obama is expected to issue Exective Orders defining “hate speech.”

angelat0763 on November 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM

What is so often touted is the idea that control of one’s own body is so sacred that not even parental responsibility can trump it legally. I’ve appreciated your input in the past and wonder how you feel about the two values when pitted against each other.

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM

Viability is a big deal to me. If a premature baby can survive after 28 weeks or so it strikes me as wrong for an abortion after that point. Whether it is in the womb or out of the womb doesn’t seem relevant to me.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM

How do you determine viability… a lot of partial-birth bans begin at 24 weeks but 22 week preemies survive all day long… viability does not work… the only what you know for certain if it’s viable is by testing on an individual basis which defeats the purpose.

For the record, there might be 10 people on earth, including Les Stroud and Bear Grylls that are viable without the assistance of another person. The argument of viability is entirely academic.

The founders were smart enough to understand that were endowed with these inalienable rights at the time of creation… conception… age and location respective to anyone else are irrelevant.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM

This person may be YOUR president, but he damn sure ain’t MINE. I will ALWAYS respect the OFFICE, but NEVER the MAN in this case.

And I don’t give two shits who’s offended by this.

irongrampa
on November 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM

irongrampa, you said it ALL! Thanks.
P.S. I’ve been AWOL since the election mugging. Just curious if ManlyRash has surfaced. I see a few people have said they were looking for him, so I just thought I’d ask. Should we put his picture on a milk carton? Anyone?

NightmareOnKStreet on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM

So much for any “honeymoon”.

This person may be YOUR president, but he damn sure ain’t MINE. I will ALWAYS respect the OFFICE, but NEVER the MAN in this case.

And I don’t give two shits who’s offended by this.

irongrampa on November 9, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I am right there with you! He is not MY president either….

sheebe on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Viability is a big deal to me. If a premature baby can survive after 28 weeks or so it strikes me as wrong for an abortion after that point. Whether it is in the womb or out of the womb doesn’t seem relevant to me.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM

Is viability the same for every premature baby or does it depend on a particular baby’s state of health, ethnic groups, family history, etc.? Should the point of viability be set arbitrarily as some kind of average? If so, isn’t it a given that some babies who were likely past the point of viability will be aborted anyway? would they have been denied the right to life due to them based on their own particular viability?

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Survive for how long?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM

The baby born at 28 weeks can survive and live through adulthood and into old age.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM

I heard that Obama is expected to issue Exective Orders defining “hate speech.”

angelat0763 on November 9, 2008 at 11:28 PM

The Dictator best not try it. Anyone? Who can we call to raise hell about this? Or, what can we do? Our Local so called Senators? Here in Ca. that would be a loss cause.

sheebe on November 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM

If so, isn’t it a given that some babies who were likely past the point of viability will be aborted anyway? would they have been denied the right to life due to them based on their own particular viability?

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 11:38 PM

I would set it at a point earlier than the first theoretical point of viability.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:42 PM

Survive for how long?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 11:19 PM

The baby born at 28 weeks can survive and live through adulthood and into old age.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:41 PM

so if you’re 27 weeks you’re screwed? not even given a chance?

this is the slippery slope of viability… death… without even being given a chance.

just drill right in the skull and suck out the brain… then crush it and dismember it so get it out of the birth canal.

i’m sure that’s reasonable…

question: has anyone commenting actually seen the baby after an abortion at any level of development or watched the procedures?

you just can’t go around stabbing people and sucking out their brains and then ripping their limbs off.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM

The founders were smart enough to understand that were endowed with these inalienable rights at the time of creation… conception… age and location respective to anyone else are irrelevant.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM

The founders didn’t define the moment of creation. I might be conception or it might be when the first brain waves fire up or it might be birth.

Viability isn’t a clear line and I’d set it earlier than when premies can currently survive. If technology advances the date could be move up. In the same sense as technology advances the length of life will increase as we push back against nature.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:48 PM

you just can’t go around stabbing people and sucking out their brains and then ripping their limbs off.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM

I’m in favor of moving the protection for the unborn up. If your point is that it is conception or bust, you are going to lose that proposition with the American voters.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Dedalus at 11:41PM

At 28 weeks it can survive if it’s put in an incubator, feeding tube, etc. It can’t survive on its own though. So you count a child viable if they can live through to adulthood with proper medical care?

Is that barring some other physical problem that would cause them to die young, like leukemia, or the little girl who had to have over half her brain removed at 16 weeks after birth (but is still living and learning and going to school now at age 5 – sweet!)? I mean, we’re all going to die sometime but that doesn’t mean we never lived or were never viable, right?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM

question: has anyone commenting actually seen the baby after an abortion at any level of development or watched the procedures?

you just can’t go around stabbing people and sucking out their brains and then ripping their limbs off.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM

I was called intellectually dishonest earlier for suggesting that if we are going to support the right of people to do this we should at least ask that some kind of anesthetic be provided for the baby.

neuquenguy on November 9, 2008 at 11:51 PM

The founders were smart enough to understand that were endowed with these inalienable rights at the time of creation… conception… age and location respective to anyone else are irrelevant.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:35 PM

The founders didn’t define the moment of creation. I might be conception or it might be when the first brain waves fire up or it might be birth.

Viability isn’t a clear line and I’d set it earlier than when premies can currently survive. If technology advances the date could be move up. In the same sense as technology advances the length of life will increase as we push back against nature.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:48 PM

Since the 1st century – life has been understood to begin at the moment of conception — or to rephrase… life is created at the moment of conception. It was and still is quite common knowledge despite the legions of people who believe it is above their pay grade to take note of the obvious.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:51 PM

I mean, we’re all going to die sometime but that doesn’t mean we never lived or were never viable, right?

justincase on November 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM

The question to me seems to be when is it a person rather than an organism that has the potential to become a person? If the law were to be set at the earliest point of brainwaves, that would make some sense. However, one would have to have deal with the practical matter of enforcement if it was before viability.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:54 PM

you just can’t go around stabbing people and sucking out their brains and then ripping their limbs off.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:46 PM

I’m in favor of moving the protection for the unborn up. If your point is that it is conception or bust, you are going to lose that proposition with the American voters.

dedalus on November 9, 2008 at 11:50 PM

allow me to take a moment to clarify…

i do not intend to square my view of life with the american voter nor do intend to win a proposition. the right to life is the preeminent right and those who disagree should would feel differently once the sword was put to their throat, or in this case, once the surgical scissors were set to puncture your skull.

i am on the side of every unborn child being given a chance at life and that is something that should require no degree of proposing to anyone in this nation.

Fozzy Bear on November 9, 2008 at 11:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6 7