Thanks for replying. I sympathize with your hesitance in trying to define when human life begins, but it is not something that can be avoided. Whatever response you give, will have atleast one of its premises depend on the personhood or non-personhood of the unborn.

For example, you write, “But I know that women have a right to privacy and choice that outweighs the embryo’s rights until all but the end of the pregnancy“. But this response begs the question, which ‘women’ are you talking about? You certainly aren’t talking about the unborn ‘females’ choice, after all, that person also has a right to choice, and in abortion the mother is violating that persons choice to life, is she not?

In other words, the pro-lifer is appealing to the very same principle you are, they are saying that everybody’s rights end where another persons right begins, hence abortion is wrong.

But here, let me turn this around and ask you a question. Do you support or oppose child support laws? In other words, if a male has sex and impregnates a female, should he be required by state to pay child support for atleast the first 18 years of that child’s life? Assume for the moment that the male did everything he could to not impregnate her, he used condoms, he made sure she was on birth control, and every other reasonable precaution, yet she still got pregnant, should he still be required to pay child support laws?

If you say yes, than how is this any different than what the pro-lifers ask of the mother in abortion? In other words, because of the relationship of the male to the child - being the father of that child - the state has a right, indeed an obligation, to force the father to use a percentage of his hard work to pay for that child’s needs for atleast the first 18 years. Or, as Michael Levin states, “All child-support laws make the parental body an indirect resource for the child. If the father is a construction worker, the state will intervene unless some of his calories he expends lifting equipment go to providing food for his children”. The same is true of abortion, we are asking the mother to fulfill her parental obligation to that child, based on her relationship to that child.

In short, “What is really at stake is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the baby’s life. No one has an absolute unconditional right to a lifestyle. It is always governed by its effects on others. There are 1,000’s of restrictions on us including no-smoking provisions, noise and zoning ordinances, etc. “

To be honest, I’m not any more comfortable defining when an embryo becomes a person than Justice Blackmun was, so I’m not going to. Is it at conception? First heartbeat? First movements? Birth? I don’t know. But I know that women have a right to privacy and choice that outweighs the embryo’s rights until all but the end of the pregnancy.

Women have the right to be left alone from governmental intrusion into their decision, to exercise their right to privacy.

I believe that prolifers have a responsibility to do something to aid women who give birth instead of having an abortion, instead of condemning them. It is much the same as those people who don’t vote and then bitch for the next four years.

Good for prolifers for working to change adoption laws. It’s way too difficult to take in children who need loving, safe homes. But, don’t fault the abortion providers who are providing a desired service and earning “well into the six figure incomes by providing abortions”; after all, that’s just simple economics of supply and demand. [see your comment above]

~ LL

Thanks for chiming in, I’ve been trying to write and explain exactly what you said for some time now, but I’ve never been able to explain it as well as you did. Please, stick around.

RightWingLiberal,

In retrospect, I should have worded this post a bit differently than how I did, I admitted as much above.

However, with that said, I didn’t say that liberals want teenage girls to get abortions, I said liberals want teenage girls to get abortion without their parents permission. Which is, btw, a true statement.

Michael,

LOL @ making Senator Coburn cry.

I agree with you about Roberts, personally, I wish he would just come out and say he is for overturning Roe vs. Wade (assuming for the moment that he is for it, we can’t know for sure, and I have my doubts). His evasiveness gives the impression that one should be ashamed of wanting to overturn Roe vs Wade, instead, he should just come out and say he does, and give his reasons (it won’t ban abortion, but make it a states right issue, giving states the ability to vote on it, thereby having it decided through democratic means, as opposed to judicial tyranny…blah blah blah, you’ve heard me say all of this multiple times before).

I look forward to a national debate on this topic, but not some skewed version of the topic, instead I want it clearly stated what is truly at stake in Roe vs. Wade; which is not abortion itself, but who decides those moral issues for us.

No, I didn’t read the Justice Stevens statement on Kelo, but for the record, assuming for the moment that one would rule in favor of eminent domain based on an originalist (sometimes referred to as a strict constitutionalist) interpretation, than yes, I would be fine with that. Like I said before, I don’t pick and choose my cases, it is more on the merits of the judicial philosophy itself that I base my support. Afterall, there is a strong possibility that the legislative branch will do its job and write legislation that reverses atleast some parts of Kelo.

However, with that said, I am very skeptical of Steven’s statement, afterall he is a justice that clearly does not support the originalist judicial philosophy, and has in the past supported the ‘living constitution’ issues. So when you have all liberals - specifically the ones that reject the originalist judicial philosophy - voting in favor of Kelo, and all conservatives - specifically the ones that adhere to the originalist philosophy - voting against Kelo, you tend to put more weight in that, than Steven’s personal opinions.

You write,

Look, nobody other than the shareholders in the corporation and the city officials of New London want to displace these homeowners.

Did you watch Nancy Pelosi’s response to Kelo? It was sickening; she couldn’t stop defending Kelo, going on and on about what good will come because of it.

Modern day Democrats are a new breed Michael, historically I would have probably been Democrat just like you, but the ones in power now, are clearly different than the ones from history.

eddie,

First off, I want to say that I really appreciate you putting as much effort into your response as you did. While I may disagree with most of what you write, I still believe that you have made several good points. Again, thanks for taking this post seriously when the first appearance may not have given that impression. Now, to my response…

Supporting the judiciary as a protector of civil rights is a bit misleading; it was, afterall, the Supreme Court that gave us the Dred Scott case…

As far as abortion goes, sure, let’s discuss the personhood of the unborn child as adults. To get the ball rolling, let me say that I believe the unborn child is a person just like you and I for the simple reason that it differs from us in one, and only one, arbitrary way, it is at an earlier stage of development. Sure, because of its earlier stage of development it has different human capacities, but so does the infant compared to the adolescent, and so does the adolescent compared to the adult. In other words, if we acknowledge as ‘person’ a succession of outward forms after birth, there is no reason not to extend that courtesy before birth, since human life is a continuum from conception to natural death. By dividing personhood based on stage of development, we may have inadvertently created a new prejudice, “natalism.” And, like other prejudices such as sexism and racism, natalism emphasizes nonessential differences (”different stage of development”) in order to support a favored group (”the already born”).

As far as the rest of your post goes, I’ll let you have the last word, I don’t have enough energy to address that right now, so I’ll just pick my main hot spots, and maybe we can get to the rest later.

Kjerringa mot strommen,

No problem bud, come by atleast every three or four weeks, that is about the frequency with which I have these sudden spurts of emotion that push me to over generalize. Nothing but good times, and good convo, that is my philosophy.

Little Lulu,

Everything you say is true, provided that the unborn child is not a person. I admitted as much in my previous response to you, yet you refused to address that point. If, assuming for the moment, the unborn child is a person, than essentially what the mother is doing is murder, are you really advocating that the government shouldn’t enforce murder laws?

On the other hand, if you would like to discuss the merits behind the claim that the unborn child is a person, I am more than willing to do that, but you can’t simply assume that is the case in your response. To side step that point would be as insensitive as a pro-choice person during the slavery days responding with, “If you don’t like slavery, don’t own one, but don’t tell me what to do with my property”. Or to say, “I don’t think the government should interfere with private property”. The reason being that the pro-choicer with regard to slavery, like the pro-choicer with regard to abortion, is trying to side step the critical issue here, whether or not the slave and the unborn child are fully persons, for if they are, these type of responses don’t cut it.

As far as pro-lifers doing their part, you need to look no further than pregnancy centers, centers that are heavily run by pro-life workers. I’ve heard it said that there are now as many pregnancy centers as there are abortion centers. In addition, unlike abortion centers, the pregnancy centers are almost all run by charity, often by people who give up their time, money, and expertise in order to help the poor women in a difficult situation. In addition, it is pro-lifers, not pro-choice people, who are putting the most energy in changing the adoption laws, and removing some of the overly burdensome bureaucracy involved, and all of this out of their own pocket and energy, unlike abortion providers who could make well into the six figure incomes by providing abortions.

In addition, it is completely irrelevant whether or not pro-lifers adopt, or volunteer for pregnancy centers. If the unborn child is a person, it is already enough for them to fight for their right to life. To say that a pro-lifer must adopt these unborn children in order to be against abortion is about as reasonable as someone saying, say during the slavery debates, that in order to be against slavery you must be willing to feed, clothe, and educate the newly released slaves. Clearly the two are separate issues.

Again, this all centers on whether or not the unborn child is a person or not, a topic I am more than willing to discuss with you.

satya,

Okay, but I must warn you, it may be a bit, since I start school again on the 22nd, and may not have the time to participate like I originally thought. If you like, go ahead and post the response here, I’d like to see what you have to say.

Monkey,

I see religious expression, specifically things like the Ten Commandments (things that were gifts to the state, btw) and the pledge of allegiance, more as heritage issues than religious issues. Sure they have religious connotations, but they still represent a culture that is part of a great majority of American Citizens.

Legislation banning abortion is not the answer to solving unwanted pregnancies, and it violates the right to privacy. This is what I find so hypocritical about prolifers.
They say they want less federal governmental control until it comes to abortion, because abortion is so abhorrent, but when was the last time they took in a teenager who kept her baby or taught at a crisis pregnancy center?

If the citizens of your state decide that “your kind” must sit in the back of the bus and pass a law to such effect, will you peacefully obey that law or look to the courts to protect your “minority” rights?

* reproductive rights, they mean underage girls should get abortions without notifying their parents

This is a canard. If you want to discuss this issue as an adult, let’s debate the real difficult question, when does personhood begin (and more importantly when how wo we balance the rights of different persons). Using the example you have given would be like a liberal stating that if you support the Second Amendment and the NRA you believe in cop killer bullets and provided automatic weapons to criminals.

* equal pay for women, they mean government bureaucrats determining your pay

Your comments are simply off point. If a woman without any plans for a family does the same job as a man then by what principal of equality do you justify the “market place” deciding that because other women have families, this woman is not entitled to equal pay.

* environmental protection and worker rights, they mean the government has unlimited power to regulate private property and business

The constitution was written to protect individual rights. Are you suggesting that business and private property are more valuable than a human being (perhaps if this is so you might want to rethink your attitude with respect to reproductive rights).

* church-state separation, they mean your town can’t display a Menorah or Christmas crèche during the holidays

This is the one place where I feel a bright line must be drawn. Why for more than the first hundred years of our country’s existence, churches and religions felt very comfortable and secure in their place in society. There was no clamoring for “public displays”, for tax relief, for “faith based initiatives”. A person’s religious belief was simply left out of political calculations. It wasn’t until the fifty’s that the pledge of allegiance contained “God”. I find it very revealing, however, that you illustrate your disgust with the most trivial of issues. Perhaps I too think that someone bringing suit to prohibit tax payer land or other resources to be used to promote any particular or even multiple religions. However, I find more of a basis for such action than in the pronouncements of our present day born-again politicos stating the this is a “Christian nation”. I for one find that truly scary. If there should be one thing that all (especially conservatives) can agree on, it’s that a government should be strictly scrutinized and limited in any pronouncements or entanglements with religion. Keeping the peace and enforcing the laws are one thing. But dictating my morality and beliefs is another.

Bottom line, you rant with talking points and do not even consider any of the consequences of what you are saying. On the one hand you find government too intrusive (when it comes to protecting the environment or setting healthy work standards). But you feel that there is no problem with the government climbing in bed with you and telling you not only when, how and with whom you might want to touch or engage in sexual activities, but insist that the government has the ability to decide when a life begins or when it ends.

That is faith that goes beyond most religious beliefs.

I am as religious as any one I know. I still must wrestle with mysteries. But let’s not have the government proscribe the meaning of those mysteries. Religion should be about an individual’s struggle with the mysteries of life and a his/her attempt to be a good person.

Government should be about protecting individuals and providing for the common good.

End of story.

I agree with you on the separation of powers, but I see the problem from a different angle. Of late (since the decision to invade Iraq at least), the legislature is afraid or unwilling to take its share of the responsibility in decision making, preferring to defer to the President and his handlers.
As I recall, Jefferson said that in order for the popular vote to work, we need an informed electorate. Unfortunately, in spite of increased mass communication, the ability to be informed has decreased. As a journalist said of late, “we need Walter Kronkite and are left with Geraldo”. Sensationalism, marketing and spin have superceded responsible journalism. A serious problem we have in California – governance by initiative – does not result in a popular vote by an informed electorate since the self-interest of businesses can buy the vote through sinfully expensive public relations campaigns. The little guys may vote, but bases his/her vote on “information” gained from duplicitous T.V. ads.

Angelo, would you consider slavery a “sensibly regulated free market system” in its time? Rules certainly governed the system and prices were in line with demand. I would suggest that higher wages have often been gained by successful labor unions, not for performing the least desirable work. Cleaning bedsores, changing adult diapers, lifting and stooping, and respectfully treating patients who have lost their physical and mental capacities is backbreaking drudgery for which nurse’s aides are paid very little. Yet it is these angels we may all need at some point in our lives. Let’s face it – the free market system is broke.

What makes me feel that Judge Roberts is being evasive is that he expounds freely on non-contraversial cases like Kelo and Griswold that are likely to come before the court. Why not Roe v. Wade? I know he is not the only one who does it, but this whole exersize is pointless. We all know what will happen the committe will split 10-8, he will pass in the senate like 88-12 or something. Its all theater.

As far as Kelo. Did you read this summer that Justice Stevens said in a speech that he really wanted to rule in favor of Kelo, but he could not find the basis in his interpretation of the constitution, despite the fact that he knew it was unpopular and really despised being forced to give away property of a regular citizen to a wealthy corporation. I do not know enough about eminint domain laws to judge if his intrpretation is right, but wouldn’t his explanation be exactly what you are looking for in a judge. Someone who makes the decision strictly by the rule of law and constitution and not the party that he finds less offensive. Isn’t that the opposite of a judicial activist. So why are the judges being critisized as activists in this case?

Look, nobody other than the shareholders in the corporation and the city officials of New London want to displace these homeowners. Democrats especially, over history have sided with individual rights over the rights of corporations, thats why they fight for environmental regulations. However it is not a judges place to right the law, just to interpret it. If the legislators oare offended by the decision, they should do their job and right a law to protect against it. This is what Stevens said this summer and what Roberts said today. I agree with him there.