diogenes on May 24, 2009 at 4:36 PM

One can only hope. The recent statements by the Pope calling pro-lifers “religious extremists” is hardly encouraging.

If abortion is a right, why should this right be limited? If Barak believes sex is “sacred” or an act blessed by God, it follows from this reasoning that abortion is likewise a sacred right. Why in Obama’s thinking should we reduce the number of abortions. I understand why we should seek to reduce the number of traffic violations or tax cheats, but why should we seek to reduce the number of abortions if abortion is a right?

Will the voters EVER recognize Obama’s double speak on this issue?

At a White House meeting to find “common ground” on the abortion issue, an excruciatingly precise use of language has revealed the White House policy on reducing the number of abortions:
It’s YES to Obama’s “..let us work together to reduce t…

“Ma’am, you just said that you wish to reduce the need for abortions, but not abortions themselves, correct? As such, you are saying that your plan is to have abortions that are not needed.

Say that 1000 abortions are needed per day/week/month/whatever. You wish to reduce the ‘need’ for those abortions. Let’s say that you are successful, and the ‘need’ drops to, say, 800 abortions per whatever. However, since your _stated plan is to not reduce abortions_, you would still have 1000 abortions performed per time interval.

This means that, in this situation, you are clearly performing unneeded abortions. Since this is not rational, I can conclude one of three things.

1) Your policy are irrational.
2) You actually wish to reduce abortions, but do not wish to say so.
3) You do not wish to reduce abortions, which means you do not wish to reduce the need for them.

Which is it?”

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/open-your-hearts-and-minds-to-abortion.html

The point was made, however those that truly understand individual rights and personal responsibility as well as value life will understand the issue completely without coloring it with religion. Society in general is a very long way from coming to a consensus like that.

Lastly, to certain dummies out there….
When the phrase “legislate morality” is used, it doesn’t mean that you can’t make stupid laws all day long. What it means is that you cannot force morality into a person’s mind, soul, and being by simply passing a law. One would hope that eventually in an evolved, intelligent, moral society, a person would be responsible enough to never put themselves in a position where aborting a fetus would be an option, and then, an option that is so repugnant that it would be rejected before it was even considered. No LAW will ever do that for society.

I don’t think any of us will live long enough to see that though.

You cannot successfully legislate morality…

I call B.S. Every law is an attempt to “legislate morality” and to think otherwise is disingeneous at best and dissembling at worst.

Shall we take a fairly innocuous example? How about laws against speeding?

Why is speeding against the law? Because it’s dangerous. But it’s your body – why not allow you to take the risk if you choose (again, using that word ‘choice’)?

Well, because you have a good chance of harming or killing someone else in the process. Agree that preventing that is a good goal? I’m sure you do.

Now for the $64k question… why is preventing you from harming someone else a desirable goal? Could it be that we share a “value system” – a morality, if you will – that innocent human life is valuable and should be protected from the reckless acts of others? Bet it is.

OK, so, when we get to that point, we have agreed that our laws against speeding by definition an attempt to legislate morality.

Well, you might ask, why is your morality the one which should control? What makes yours ‘right’? Why can’t each of us choose (there’s that pesky word again) whether we wish to drive at a reckless speed or not? After all, it’s my car, isn’t it? Don’t I have a right to do what I want with my own car?

To which I answer, well, yeah – you can certanly choose to ignore traffic laws. Your choice, to be sure. But don’t expect to use that line of reasoning with a judge – unless you’re prepared to face the consequences. In other words, just because you can choose to disobey a law – which, as we’ve seen is the semantic equivilent of acting immorally, because the law itself is based on morality – does not make the act moral in and of itself.

The application to the case of abortion being “a woman’s choice of what to do with her own body” I leave as an excercise for the reader…

“Nuances” designed to avoid offending people who engage in immoral acts is just a lesser form of the above flaw in a society.

Having said that, we will never satisfy the abolutists on each side of this debate. Obama offers moderate rhetoric but clings bitterly to the most radical position on the left. George Bush spoke soothingly to the so-cons but never did much with that whole culture of life thing other than throw a few taxpayer dollars into abstinence promotion.

Clearly, the country would largely be OK with abortion with restrictions based on the culture of each state. Massachusetts would be different than Mississippi. Democracy in action, baby.

The problem is that the Supremes froze the debate in amber with an incredibly awful decision in 1972, and now we are tied up with the notion of stare decisis, which freezes these abominations forever.

And we are left with the abolutists yelling at each other across the widening chasm.

Seriously when I see people argue about sovereign rights of a woman to a body I really think they are frigging stupid and full of the Kool Aid. That type of talk is put out there by radical feminists. We have laws against prostitution, drug abuse, and suicide and those things harm no one but the person doing it to themselves. So please get real get off the aid and think for yourself idiot.

Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Agreed. The same argument about the rights of a woman to her body to justify the death of a baby could be used by a man to justify the rape of his victim. He has a right to do what he wishes with his body, doesn’t he? What does it matter that another person is being violated? The so-called right to privacy trumps all doesn’t it?

Obama advisor: “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions”

Barry Ovomit, the “Infanticide president.”

Water boarding bad – Killing babies good!

The mask slips?

You mean like in the “V” where we find out that our benevolent overlords are eating us?

are you saying Obama eats Babies? heh, would NOT surprise me at this point …no really…

-Wasteland Man.

Obama solves the Gitmo crisis by declaring enemy combatants to be fetuses.

win win

Mr. Joe on May 22, 2009 at 7:56 PM

I declare fetuses enemy combatants. Then the liberals would love them.