Abortion and Politics

[Donald_Kirchner]

Stare decis is good when the decisons are not bone-headed and/or evil.  With Roe, you have a decision that bats a thousand in that regard.

Matt,

The principle is stare decisis, and it's not only good when we like the precedent.

[Matt Hummel]

Stare decis is good when the decisons are not bone-headed and/or evil.  With Roe, you have a decision that bats a thousand in that regard.

Matt,

The principle is stare decisis, and it's not only good when we like the precedent.

Don- Just to be sure- Are you saying that under no circumstances ever should a decison, having been made, be overturned?  Or are you saying that all things being equal, that decisions should stand- that to overturn a decison is, to use the political expression, the "nuclear option" only to exercised when there is no other recourse?

If your point is the former, then I am afraid we are in disagreement.  If your point is the later, then we are in agreement.  The next step with regards to Roe is whether or not it is time to excercise that option.

And to paraphrase my Church, I don't call Roe evil because I don't like it.  I don't like it because it is evil.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Don- Just to be sure- Are you saying that under no circumstances ever should a decison, having been made, be overturned? 

Matt,

I don't know where you ever came up with that idea. That's not stare decisis at all, and I don't know anyone who holds such a view. What I wrote was:

"Note that [stare decisis] does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so."

[Matt Hummel]

"Note that [stare decisis] does not bar the overturning of prior cases, as you point out took place with the three examples. The principle is that a court should not overturn its own precedent unless there is a strong reason to do so."

So we are in agreement as I thought.  My complaint is with those who hold up that laudable doctrine in defense of the indefensible.  They are SCOTUS fundamentalists at least with regards to this one particular case. That is what I am referring to.  Get them talking about  Citizen's United or Bush v. Gore and its "Burn baby burn!"

[Steverem]

Digging up this topic again in order to post this link: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media.

And I'll add a question myself to those individuals here on this board who in any way affiliate with the "pro-choice" moniker: Are you at any level uncomfortable with the direction and tone being taken by the Democratic Party in general, and the current administration specifically?  I know four years ago, the Obama campaign made a discernible effort to reach out to evangelicals, traditionally black denominations, Roman Catholics, and other Christians on matters such as poverty and environmental issues, while assuring them there was a place at the table for them on matters such as abortion, genetic research, and gay marriage.  The result was the best showing for a Democratic candidate among evangelicals since Jimmy Carter.  Now, the party has pretty much determined that there is no real place for a pro-life position in the upper reaches of the party, and that opposition to same-sex unions is tantamount to bigotry.  A number of prominent black church leaders have angrily recanted their support of Barack Obama, and even religious left cheerleaders like Jim Wallis seem to have cooled a bit.  If I'm a sincere, socially conservative Democrat, I would be feeling abandoned right now.  Is there still a place for a Bob Casey, Sr., or even someone like Sargent Shriver, in today's Democratic Party?

[George Erdner]

Digging up this topic again in order to post this link: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media.

And I'll add a question myself to those individuals here on this board who in any way affiliate with the "pro-choice" moniker: Are you at any level uncomfortable with the direction and tone being taken by the Democratic Party in general, and the current administration specifically?  I know four years ago, the Obama campaign made a discernible effort to reach out to evangelicals, traditionally black denominations, Roman Catholics, and other Christians on matters such as poverty and environmental issues, while assuring them there was a place at the table for them on matters such as abortion, genetic research, and gay marriage.  The result was the best showing for a Democratic candidate among evangelicals since Jimmy Carter.  Now, the party has pretty much determined that there is no real place for a pro-life position in the upper reaches of the party, and that opposition to same-sex unions is tantamount to bigotry.  A number of prominent black church leaders have angrily recanted their support of Barack Obama, and even religious left cheerleaders like Jim Wallis seem to have cooled a bit.  If I'm a sincere, socially conservative Democrat, I would be feeling abandoned right now.  Is there still a place for a Bob Casey, Sr., or even someone like Sargent Shriver, in today's Democratic Party?

I learned a long time ago that only the politicians who are elected to office actually have an opportunity to accomplish much of anything through the political process. I also learned a long time ago that the interconnection of all aspects of the economy and government need to be taken into account when attempting to lead the people. Leading, from the perspective of a politician, is usually a matter of persuasion. When attempting to persuade people, if one is simply a single-issue candidate, and seen by the voters as only interested in one issue, then one will only get the votes of that minority of voters who care only about that single issue.


The Democrat Party seems to have a firmer grasp on the semi-parliamentary nature of the American system. We might not select a chief executive from among the members of the legislature, but the legislative branch at both the state and federal levels does function along party lines. Just as a subject of HRH Elizabeth must vote for the party in order to vote for the PM they might want, a citizen of the US must vote for the party for Congress and the State Legislature in order to vote in favor of the party's platform and agenda. That means that maverick candidates who won't toe the party line have little chance running against the party machine in the primary elections, and therefore won't become the candidate in November. That's why there is no spot for an anti-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party, and there's also no spot for a pro-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much room for any candidate in the Democrat Party with a clearly defined, unambiguous position on any single issue.


I'm sure that there are many single-issue candidates in the Democrat Party who might be considering running for a legislative office in 2014. I'm also sure that unless their single-issue is something with very broad appeal across all demographic lines, they'll be defeated in the Spring primaries and won't be on the November ballot.


The GOP is a little different, but only because it lacks the entrenched "machine" leadership that the Democrat Party currently has. It used to have that sort of power, but no longer has it in any but a few, small areas.

[Steverem]

Digging up this topic again in order to post this link: 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate Is Never Asked By the Media.

And I'll add a question myself to those individuals here on this board who in any way affiliate with the "pro-choice" moniker: Are you at any level uncomfortable with the direction and tone being taken by the Democratic Party in general, and the current administration specifically?  I know four years ago, the Obama campaign made a discernible effort to reach out to evangelicals, traditionally black denominations, Roman Catholics, and other Christians on matters such as poverty and environmental issues, while assuring them there was a place at the table for them on matters such as abortion, genetic research, and gay marriage.  The result was the best showing for a Democratic candidate among evangelicals since Jimmy Carter.  Now, the party has pretty much determined that there is no real place for a pro-life position in the upper reaches of the party, and that opposition to same-sex unions is tantamount to bigotry.  A number of prominent black church leaders have angrily recanted their support of Barack Obama, and even religious left cheerleaders like Jim Wallis seem to have cooled a bit.  If I'm a sincere, socially conservative Democrat, I would be feeling abandoned right now.  Is there still a place for a Bob Casey, Sr., or even someone like Sargent Shriver, in today's Democratic Party?

I learned a long time ago that only the politicians who are elected to office actually have an opportunity to accomplish much of anything through the political process. I also learned a long time ago that the interconnection of all aspects of the economy and government need to be taken into account when attempting to lead the people. Leading, from the perspective of a politician, is usually a matter of persuasion. When attempting to persuade people, if one is simply a single-issue candidate, and seen by the voters as only interested in one issue, then one will only get the votes of that minority of voters who care only about that single issue.


The Democrat Party seems to have a firmer grasp on the semi-parliamentary nature of the American system. We might not select a chief executive from among the members of the legislature, but the legislative branch at both the state and federal levels does function along party lines. Just as a subject of HRH Elizabeth must vote for the party in order to vote for the PM they might want, a citizen of the US must vote for the party for Congress and the State Legislature in order to vote in favor of the party's platform and agenda. That means that maverick candidates who won't toe the party line have little chance running against the party machine in the primary elections, and therefore won't become the candidate in November. That's why there is no spot for an anti-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party, and there's also no spot for a pro-abortion, single-issue candidate in the Democrat Party. In fact, there doesn't seem to be much room for any candidate in the Democrat Party with a clearly defined, unambiguous position on any single issue.


I'm sure that there are many single-issue candidates in the Democrat Party who might be considering running for a legislative office in 2014. I'm also sure that unless their single-issue is something with very broad appeal across all demographic lines, they'll be defeated in the Spring primaries and won't be on the November ballot.


The GOP is a little different, but only because it lacks the entrenched "machine" leadership that the Democrat Party currently has. It used to have that sort of power, but no longer has it in any but a few, small areas.

I'm not talking about single-issue voting.  The religious voters targeted by the Obama campaign four years ago were selected specifically because they were committed to other issues besides the hot-button issues of abortion and gay marriage (environmental issues, justice reform, and poverty, for example).  Several articles were written at the time about the growing diversity and breadth of the evangelical voting bloc.  There is no indication that evangelicals are any less diverse now than they were four years ago.

The difference is that since 2008, there has been a notable shift in policy on social issues within the Democratic Party, taking an approach that has alienated many of those evangelicals who supported the Obama ticket.  Commercials referring to pro-life positions as "extreme," and inferring that those who hold them are misogynists can not sit well with those who honestly felt they were going to have a voice within this administration.  I simply want to know if those here who supported Obama in the last election but claim to be concerned with the "abortion as birth control" mentality aren't at least a little distressed with the Democrats' hard tack to the left on this issue.

[Norman Teigen]

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

[Matt Hummel]

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

Norman-

Thank you for posting what is exactly wrong with folks like Mr. Friedman and their Humpty Dumpty "liberalism."  I read it and the first thing I thought of was Lewis Carol and the great line- "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean."

SO let me show you how it works.  As a pro-life director, I am actually very much in favor of strict gun control laws.  There is too much violence in this nation, and too much of that violence is perpetrated with fire arms.  That is why I think that this nation should adopt the policy of Switzerland and mandate that every household contain at least one automatic weapon so that it can be defended.  Furthermore, I also think that when one applies for a drivers' license, one should be asked to apply for a concealed carry permit.  For the most part, the same strictures regarding licenses apply to handguns.  A little more paperwork, a little closer scrutiny, and there you are.  Statistical evidence indicates that in localities with concealed carry, violent crimes decrease. 

Our schools can be part of the training.  Make firearm safety part of physical education.  If we can teach kids to use a condom, we can teach them to use a Colt.

One wonders if the extreme acts of violence such as Aurora, VA Tech, etc., would be perpetrated if the malefactor realized that at least 50% of the adults in their immediate vicinity were locked and loaded and able to accurately put lead on target.  There is a reason that in the West wolves attack sheep, but not bears.

So that is why I call myself a strong proponent  of gun control.  I think every American who is able should 1) know how to use and maintain a firearm and 2) hit the x-ring, or at least CBM on the appropriate targets..

50 Million dead Norman.  Fifty. Million. Dead. And Friedman has the moral indecency to compare The Emperor of Manhattan and surrounding dependencies Mayor of New York's overreaching dietary micro-management with the work of the Sisters of Life and others directly engaged in helping women find a way out from the hellish Hobson's Choice that the current administration and the Democrat party are so keen to embrace. Speaking of choices, do I laugh, or vomit?

[carlvehse]

What Thomas Friedman claims is "pro-life" is not pro-life.

Furthermore Friedman pontificates: "I have no respect for someone who relies on voodoo science to declare that a woman’s body can distinguish a “legitimate” rape, but then declares — when 99 percent of all climate scientists conclude that climate change poses a danger to the sanctity of all life on the planet — that global warming is just a hoax."

First, no one, including Rep. Todd Akin (MO) claimed that "a woman’s body can distinguish a 'legitimate' rape."   That is only in delusion of Friedman and other liberals.

Second, science is not determined by a vote of scientists, but on confirmation of the reproducibility and predictability of experimental findings.

Third, there have been many times where a large majority of scientists have rejected the finding of some scientist, only to have it eventually recognized as valid.  There are the discoveries of Galileo, Thomas Young, Ole Roemer, Gregor Mendel,  Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Svante Arrhenius, and Victor Hess, to mention a few.  Of course, there have been other times when a claimed discovery fails to be substantiated; Pons and Fleischmann's "cold fusion" being one recent example.

More recently, concerning the so-called "global warming," there is this news article on evidence that any global warming stopped 16 years ago.   Such a claim awaits further confirmation.

[MaddogLutheran]

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

You may find that column pleasing, Mr. Teigen, but I find it dubious, bordering on insulting.  (Not you posting it here, because as others have already observed, it is useful to highlight such nonsense.)  Anytime a person such as Mr. Friedman has to resort to such re-definition, demagoguery is almost surely to follow.  He does not disappoint.  So much for civil discourse, if you rule "out of bounds" or illegitimate an opponent's sincerely held beliefs and cannot even fairly represent them when attempting to counter them.  Alinski rules remain in effect, I guess.

Sterling Spatz

[Steven Tibbetts]

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

How is it that someone who ridicules the idea that life is a gift from God gets to define what it means to be pro-life? 

[George Erdner]

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

How is it that someone who ridicules the idea that life is a gift from God gets to define what it means to be pro-life?

All it takes is convincing the people at the New York Times to hire you to make the call.

[Matt Hummel]

Norman-

I find this column by Wesley J. Smith (an estimable writer on Life issues) over at NRO as salutary palate cleanser after having swallowed the bilge that was Friedman's piece at the Times.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331835/tom-friedmans-ignorance-about-reproductive-biology-and-pro-lifers-wesley-j-smith#

Once more, Reagan's quote comes to mind “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.”

[Marshall_Hahn]

I am pleased to recommend this piece by Thomas Friedman on what it means to be pro-life.   

Norman Teigen, Layman
Evangelical Lutheran Synod

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/opinion/sunday/why-i-am-pro-life.html?_r=0

This is the same tired,old faulty argument that has been propagated for the last 40 years:
Thesis A:  "Pro-life" should mean supporting life at all stages, before birth AND after birth.
Thesis B:  Those who call themselves "pro-life" in the abortion debate are only interested in supporting life BEFORE birth and ignore the well-being of anyone after birth.
Conclusion:  Therefore "pro-life" advocates are hypocrites who have no moral standing to engage in the abortion debate.

There are so many holes in this argument that it is difficult to know where to start, but I would just point out two of the most glaring ones.
1)  Thesis B is demonstrably false.  The activities of the pro-life organizations such as Lutherans for Life, National Right to Life and others that advocate and work for the well-being of people at all stages of life put the lie to this accusation.
2)  If Friedman and others who put forth this argument truly believed Thesis A, then they would be opposing abortion every bit as much as the pro-life advocates they are arguing against. 

As I say, this argument is an old, tired one, which was never intended to bring any light to this controversy, but simply an attempt to score rhetorical points among those who wish to maintain their sense of moral superiortiy over the pro-life advocates.

Marshall Hahn