|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/17/2008 10:48:57 AM
|
|
|
rgod
Posts: 1776
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline
|
I've been wondering about this for a while and would like to ask some questions from people who have followed this more closely. A lot of people say that they vote republican because of their stance on abortion (well most of them - there are pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats too). However, since Roe vs. Wade was enacted in 1973, we've had four republican presidents - not counting Nixon - to make a grand total of 24 years out of 35 that the executive branch has been headed by the republicans. Granted, for many of those years there have been democrat-majority congresses - but we had a 10 year stretch (1995 - 2005) - four of which were under a sitting republican president. The main argument that I hear election after election is that voting republican will prevent liberal activist judges from taking the bench. Yet, even though 7 of the 9 current supreme court justices have been appointed by republican presidents, Roe vs. Wade has not been overturned - or even gutted significantly (from what I've read). So my question is, why is there an emphasis on combatting this issue in this way (aside from Executive Orders - which can be overturned during a subsequent president's term)? What other tactics for dealing with this have you found to be effective? And do you think that the legalization or banning of abortions should be a state's rights issue or a federal one? Why?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/17/2008 11:19:22 AM
|
|
|
Milliecat
Posts: 153
Joined: 11/13/2007
Status: offline
|
I think it should be a federal issue. I think that the chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned is not possible now. Bush 41 nominated a Jusice, who's name I can never remember. He wears the bow tie. Anyway, he was supposed to be a conservative Justice and he turned out to be very liberal. Justice Kennedy, the "swing" vote, is unpredictable. Conservatives only have Justices Thomas, Roberts, Scalia and I can't remember the other one just nominated recently. There wouldn't be enough votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. My facts are not exact because my memory is bad due to some medication, but the woman involved in Roe v. Wade, who wanted the abortion, testified before the Supreme Court to try to get them to vote again but she was turned down. She, I think, has become a Christian. She has cancer and who knows if she will recover and live long enough to see it overturned but many are discouraged now because the American people, especially younger ones, don't care about abortion. So now that Obama has been elected there is no chance of having more conservative Justices nominated. It looks like Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Had McCain won and nominated two conservative justices there might have been a chance, but now with the waning interest of the American people and Obama's election, the chances are pretty dim.
It is true that there are pro-choice Republicans but they would never be nominated for President. The Republican base would never support them.
There are pro-life Democrats but I would never trust that person as a Presidential nominee because the Democratic Party is to overpowering and too, just too pro-abortion. Planned Parenthood is in their pockets, not to mention, the women's groups.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/17/2008 11:29:39 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2006
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rgod
So my question is, why is there an emphasis on combatting this issue in this way (aside from Executive Orders - which can be overturned during a subsequent president's term)? What other tactics for dealing with this have you found to be effective? And do you think that the legalization or banning of abortions should be a state's rights issue or a federal one? Why?
Where do we have most other laws on murder on the books? And why is it that murder in one state is self-defense in another? By my Northeastern/Midwestern standards, there are a few people down in Texas and other Stand-your-Ground law states that get away with murder every year. In other cases where there are differences of opinion on what constitutes murder, there tends to be differences between the laws that different states have. Thus, it makes sense to let states decide on this issue, too.
quote:
I've been wondering about this for a while and would like to ask some questions from people who have followed this more closely. A lot of people say that they vote republican because of their stance on abortion (well most of them - there are pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats too).
I think there has to ultimately be an emphasis on strengthening the argument- especially in presenting it to people who are liberals and secular humanists on most issues.
In the next 50 years, we're going to see our understanding of what it means to be an adult human change shape a bit, and at the very least, anything with a functioning human brain should be considered to be alive and human. This includes people in hospitals, people getting various transplants, robots that can act human, and fetuses in the womb. The notion of "being born and having a beating heart" really doesn't cut it anymore.
This is going to mean some changes to what we consider living, but it's worth it- we need a more rigorous understanding of life to continue to have a moral and orderly society.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/17/2008 7:20:34 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 377
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
In the next 50 years, we're going to see our understanding of what it means to be an adult human change shape a bit, and at the very least, anything with a functioning human brain should be considered to be alive and human. This includes people in hospitals, people getting various transplants, robots that can act human, and fetuses in the womb. The notion of "being born and having a beating heart" really doesn't cut it anymore.
This is going to mean some changes to what we consider living, but it's worth it-we need a more rigorous understanding of life to continue to have a moral and orderly society.
Than you blessedinnyc. Very interesting assesment.
As far as the thread goes, I would have prefered that the Supreme Court to have come up with a different definition and application (the perameters) to the right to privacy arguement that they came up with in Roe v Wade. I believe it would have been far better for them to have left the banning/ legalization of abortion a medical decision with the right to privacy established to protect those that were directly affected by/ involved in such a medical proceedure.
However, they did not, and as a result we will apparently be forever locked into a confrontational approach to the issue by both sides.
At the very least, I would hope that if and when Roe v Wade ever be overturned (IMO is very doubtful) that the question of banning/ legalization be returned to the states.
< Message edited by leonfigg3 -- 11/17/2008 8:19:37 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/17/2008 7:53:18 PM
|
|
|
Milliecat
Posts: 153
Joined: 11/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: rgod
So my question is, why is there an emphasis on combatting this issue in this way (aside from Executive Orders - which can be overturned during a subsequent president's term)? What other tactics for dealing with this have you found to be effective? And do you think that the legalization or banning of abortions should be a state's rights issue or a federal one? Why?
Where do we have most other laws on murder on the books? And why is it that murder in one state is self-defense in another? By my Northeastern/Midwestern standards, there are a few people down in Texas and other Stand-your-Ground law states that get away with murder every year. In other cases where there are differences of opinion on what constitutes murder, there tends to be differences between the laws that different states have. Thus, it makes sense to let states decide on this issue, too.
quote:
I've been wondering about this for a while and would like to ask some questions from people who have followed this more closely. A lot of people say that they vote republican because of their stance on abortion (well most of them - there are pro-choice republicans and pro-life democrats too).
I think there has to ultimately be an emphasis on strengthening the argument- especially in presenting it to people who are liberals and secular humanists on most issues.
In the next 50 years, we're going to see our understanding of what it means to be an adult human change shape a bit, and at the very least, anything with a functioning human brain should be considered to be alive and human. This includes people in hospitals, people getting various transplants, robots that can act human, and fetuses in the womb. The notion of "being born and having a beating heart" really doesn't cut it anymore.
This is going to mean some changes to what we consider living, but it's worth it- we need a more rigorous understanding of life to continue to have a moral and orderly society.
The problem with it being a state decision is that people will simply travel to other states. For example, many people travel to Kansas City to Dr. Tiller the Baby Killer because late-term abortions are done there for $5000 each. There is much suspicion about that, because some of the women are not women at all, they are sometimes 12 or 13 and incest may be an issue. No one can be prosecuted because Tiller won't release any records.
You might be right about the changes that will take place in men's thinking in the future. Jesus told us about it in Matt. 24. I'm just so thankful that I know the truth and that my God never changes. Life will always begin at conception whether people want to accept that or not. It is simply fact. Just because people don't believe that doesn't make it untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/17/2008 11:48:12 PM
|
|
|
rgod
Posts: 1776
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline
|
This is so great. Thanks for all of the responses thus far. I've been thinking about abortion for a while - what I can do to best prevent any more from happening. I want to do some tangible things at the local level - because it seems to me that this is where I can make the greatest impact. Having never had an abortion or been pregnant, I don't think that I can really counsel women who have been through this, but I can at the very least lend financial support.
blessedinnyc - I am very intrigued about your statement on the question - what does it mean to be alive? A related question been gnawing at me ... I recently took a neuroscience course where we were approaching the question of the mind philosophically. Where does the mind begin and end? The extended mind thesis asks the question - is your mind entirely housed in your brain? Your brain and body (thinking about muscle memories)? What about technology - if someone creates an artificial neuron and inserts it into your brain - is that part of your mind? What about your blackberry? What about the day that the internet or other electronic device can be controlled by the mind (actually there is a researcher who has been able to do that already). So I agree that a lot of the definitions of what is life and what is not life is going to change. It is kind of like ... there is some sort of paradigm shift on the world's understanding of some very basic definitions is taking place ... and we need to be seeking the Lord on how to respond to this - otherwise we'll be answering questions that no one is asking anymore.
Milliecat - I thought a lot about that too. About people moving from state to state to get abortions. I just wondered if people were talking about this as some sort of intermediate step to the banning of abortion. I think that moving this issue to the state level might also make it a bit harder to fight as well because you are fighting on many fronts instead of just one. Also, why do you say that interest is waning on this issue? It seems like in the evangelical christian world at least, that it is still a "hot button" issue.
leonfigg3 - could you fill me in on the right to privacy argument in this context? I feel like I'm not understanding what you are saying fully. Thanks.
Aside from voting - what other kinds of strategies have you found to be effective in this fight? I'd also love to hear non-political reponses as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/18/2008 12:17:56 AM
|
|
|
upNORTder
Posts: 204
Joined: 7/20/2006
Status: offline
|
An amendment to the constitution would outlaw it in every state.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/18/2008 8:08:51 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3146
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
There is no doubt that life begins at conception. If those few cells are allowed to live a person develops. Those cells are the beginning of life.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/18/2008 5:24:30 PM
|
|
|
Dubya
Posts: 1017
Joined: 10/25/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SonInMe1
There is no doubt that life begins at conception. If those few cells are allowed to live a person develops. Those cells are the beginning of life.
I used to believe that until I began really listening to Washington Politicians.
I am now convinced that there is no life whatsoever in the halls of Congress... especially no intelligent life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/18/2008 6:27:50 PM
|
|
|
Milliecat
Posts: 153
Joined: 11/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rgod
This is so great. Thanks for all of the responses thus far. I've been thinking about abortion for a while - what I can do to best prevent any more from happening. I want to do some tangible things at the local level - because it seems to me that this is where I can make the greatest impact. Having never had an abortion or been pregnant, I don't think that I can really counsel women who have been through this, but I can at the very least lend financial support.
blessedinnyc - I am very intrigued about your statement on the question - what does it mean to be alive? A related question been gnawing at me ... I recently took a neuroscience course where we were approaching the question of the mind philosophically. Where does the mind begin and end? The extended mind thesis asks the question - is your mind entirely housed in your brain? Your brain and body (thinking about muscle memories)? What about technology - if someone creates an artificial neuron and inserts it into your brain - is that part of your mind? What about your blackberry? What about the day that the internet or other electronic device can be controlled by the mind (actually there is a researcher who has been able to do that already). So I agree that a lot of the definitions of what is life and what is not life is going to change. It is kind of like ... there is some sort of paradigm shift on the world's understanding of some very basic definitions is taking place ... and we need to be seeking the Lord on how to respond to this - otherwise we'll be answering questions that no one is asking anymore.
Milliecat - I thought a lot about that too. About people moving from state to state to get abortions. I just wondered if people were talking about this as some sort of intermediate step to the banning of abortion. I think that moving this issue to the state level might also make it a bit harder to fight as well because you are fighting on many fronts instead of just one. Also, why do you say that interest is waning on this issue? It seems like in the evangelical christian world at least, that it is still a "hot button" issue.
leonfigg3 - could you fill me in on the right to privacy argument in this context? I feel like I'm not understanding what you are saying fully. Thanks.
Aside from voting - what other kinds of strategies have you found to be effective in this fight? I'd also love to hear non-political reponses as well.
Well, it may be a hot button issue here but many Evangelicals knew that Barack Obama is strongly pro-abortion, having promised Planned Parenthood no limits on abortion, and is for partial birth abortion, and yet they voted for him anyway. Many here voted for him. The usual response is, "Well, there are other issues besides abortion...and I'm really against the war", etc. A friend's daughter told her no one cares about abortion anymore and her daughter is a believer. Many in my church voted for Obama in spite of, well, no names were mentioned but the church was urging a vote for life and against the fairness doctrine and the hate speech bill which would mean that ministers couldn't speak against homosexuality. It wouldn't take an Einstein to figure out who they were urging us to vote for. And yet many voted for Obama. I don't know what to think of it except that it may be a sign of the times, men's hearts growing cold.
I have a friend who goes to abortion clinics and stands outside. They don't say anything or harass anyone. They pray. And occasionally a woman will change her mind. I guess that would be my choice of how to help since there is not much hope in the government doing anything.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/18/2008 6:34:13 PM
|
|
|
Milliecat
Posts: 153
Joined: 11/13/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: upNORTder
An amendment to the constitution would outlaw it in every state.
How would an amendment be all that would be necessary? I know it is not actually a law that women can have abortions. It was simply a Supreme Court decision. I thought it had to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Well, an amendment would be an impossibility with this liberal Congress and Senate and now a Democratic President. Sorry to be so negative. It is just very discouraging. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/18/2008 8:55:38 PM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3146
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
I think its possible that sooner or later the government will require abortions. They do in China.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/19/2008 12:07:12 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2006
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
At the very least, I would hope that if and when Roe v Wade ever be overturned (IMO is very doubtful) that the question of banning/ legalization be returned to the states.
This makes a lot of sense. I agree that it shouldn't be done on the federal level. This would also have the very practical effect of allowing pregnant mothers who disagree with their state to vacation in another state and return without a pregnancy. I think that after the initial shock of the unwinding of Roe vs. Wade wore off, this might be a livable situation for those who view abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a fundamental right, and would probably reduce the backlash.
At the same time, there does need to be a nationwide discussion on what constitutes human life. Maybe it doesn't need to happen at the federal level, but it's a discussion that needs to happen.
If it is any consolation, Roe vs. Wade came out under a Republican president. There may be enough votes on the Supreme Court to attenuate it a bit even under a Democrat- assuming there's a state that's willing to test this by, say, making second trimester abortions illegal with exceptions only for pregnancies that threaten the mother's life or could cause long-term physical injury. Such a ban *might* get past Kennedy (and would certainly get past the four conservatives). More importantly, such a ban might be tolerated, if not accepted, by Democrats- us non-Bushies were already warned that if Alito was confirmed, it would mean abortions would be completely illegal and Bush could detain anyone he wanted to without a court order. This wouldn't be quite as bad as those dire predictions made out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/19/2008 12:49:45 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 2006
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rgod
blessedinnyc - I am very intrigued about your statement on the question - what does it mean to be alive? A related question been gnawing at me ... I recently took a neuroscience course where we were approaching the question of the mind philosophically. Where does the mind begin and end? The extended mind thesis asks the question - is your mind entirely housed in your brain? Your brain and body (thinking about muscle memories)? What about technology - if someone creates an artificial neuron and inserts it into your brain - is that part of your mind? What about your blackberry? What about the day that the internet or other electronic device can be controlled by the mind (actually there is a researcher who has been able to do that already). So I agree that a lot of the definitions of what is life and what is not life is going to change. It is kind of like ... there is some sort of paradigm shift on the world's understanding of some very basic definitions is taking place ... and we need to be seeking the Lord on how to respond to this - otherwise we'll be answering questions that no one is asking anymore.
I'm not sure we have all of the tools right now to answer that question, and at the same time, these kinds of technologies risk turning human beings into physical objects if we don't have the philosophical toolkit to approach them with. If a device is inserted in my cerebral cortex that makes me decide that I want to steal, and I go out and steal, and that device is then removed, have I sinned? Or was it the device that made me do it and no sin occurred? I think the philosophical foundation for answering these kinds of questions involves what it means to be a human person, and what constitutes a human person's brain.
This is a discussion that, IMHO, liberals will love. I say this because I voted for Howard Dean four years ago and still consider myself an intellectual liberal even if my views on abortion have shifted significantly and I've started moving more libertarian and/or conservative. Best of all, I think they'll be willing to participate and even make some concessions on this, because they know there's ultimately a limit to this argument- it only comes into effect after anywhere from five to thirteen weeks.
quote:
Milliecat - I thought a lot about that too. About people moving from state to state to get abortions. I just wondered if people were talking about this as some sort of intermediate step to the banning of abortion. I think that moving this issue to the state level might also make it a bit harder to fight as well because you are fighting on many fronts instead of just one. Also, why do you say that interest is waning on this issue? It seems like in the evangelical christian world at least, that it is still a "hot button" issue.
IMHO, the goal shouldn't be to make the issue "harder to fight" on a practical basis- the goal needs to be sustainable progress, and that starts with changing peoples' minds. I like the state-by-state idea because it can happen at a more personal and local level and gives people a better opportunity to be thoughtful. If stopping abortion is truly the right move, that will be reflected in the discussion, which will then be reflected in voters' minds, which will then be reflected in the referendum or vote. IMHO, it is a much more reassuring thing for Planned Parenthood to be afraid of the argument than it is for Planned Parenthood to be afraid of the money, volunteers, or spokespeople.
Thus, if we want sustainable change- by changing peoples' minds, the efforts need to get focused on the argument. If you are giving money to a Republican campaign effort because they are pro-life, you should be giving even more money to a pro-life think-tank that you think moderates and fair-minded liberals might be willing to hear out.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/19/2008 1:14:17 AM
|
|
|
still4gvn
Posts: 1536
Joined: 12/28/2005
From: just north of Seattle, WA
Status: offline
|
I think it is shifting to an argument whether we should have people who aren't economically useful. I've seen people discharged from hospitals who did not have adequate support to survive. WA just passed the law that allows assisted suicide. Having worked in med and psych fields, I expect this law will wind up being used on people who run out of insurance and can be influenced to give up on life rather than destitute their families. Mentally ill people wander the streets b/c of liberal laws against involuntary hospitalization and hospitals that don't want long term difficult patients on just medicaid. Babies are routinely killed. Until recently (Bush) they could be killed during the birth process by bashing their heads in.
Obama said that if one of his girls got pregnant, he wouldn't want her 'punished' with a baby. I find that mind set scary.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/19/2008 7:25:18 AM
|
|
|
rgod
Posts: 1776
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline
|
This is such a great discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to type out a more substantive response - I might be able to do it in a few days or so. I like the idea of trying to support think tanks that can really grapple with these issues and influence liberal and moderate intellectuals because liberal-minded intelligensia impact the rest of society. And lots of these people are open to thinking about these issues - if you can provide a cogent argument - or find ways to present it from different angles. I think that we'll really need this in the coming years as we wrestle with these very basic issues.
I also think still4gvn that you have a point concerning economic usefulness. I think this is already happening - societally-assigned value and worth that impacts whether your life is worth saving or not. I think this is one reason that I like the idea of universal healthcare - but I haven't looked deeply enough into that issue to really see how it can be enacted feasibly. But I don't want to take the thread off topic ... so I won't say anything more about that.
I agree though that it is winning the hearts and minds of people on this issue is a huge part of the answer; public support will end up influencing the way issues are framed - as well as public policy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/19/2008 7:42:03 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3146
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
When we let government decide who is socially acceptable..we get Hitler and Stalin.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/19/2008 7:55:10 AM
|
|
|
P31W
Posts: 2942
Joined: 6/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I think it is shifting to an argument whether we should have people who aren't economically useful.
BINGO BINGO BINGO
Where life begins and who is human or alive are nothing more than steps to this one "main objective" of a government that desires to grow and thrive. Who can feed themselves and ME [the government] and who cannot.
No job? Off with your head!!!!! Disabled? Off with your head!!!! Elderly? off with your head!!!!
What I find so very telling is the very people who turn to the government for help and vote these types of people into power are the very ones the government is going to one day "do away with".
If they desire to be greedy and live instead of doing the "patriotic thing" and giving up their life willfully the government will take it from them as the masses yell over their "greedy desire to live".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/26/2008 12:31:50 AM
|
|
|
rgod
Posts: 1776
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline
|
I don't know if I agree that the government's endorsement of who is socially acceptable or not will produce a Hitler or Stalin. Governments almost always enforce desireability to some extent - they are given the "power of the sword" as it says in the bible. There are people in every society that, because of their actions (i.e. murderers etc.) are deemed unacceptable and that governments must remove for the good of the society. But if I understand what you are getting at SonInMe, I think there is something about the foundation upon which the government makes these decisions. And as Christians, we are told not to judge people from a worldly point of view - but a spiritual one - every one has worth.
P31W, I don't agree that there is necessarily a link between a liberal government and one that will euthanize people who are not economically useful. While I think that SonInMe's mentioning China's abortion policy is a really good example, you could just as easily link the killing of people who are not economically useful to a conservative government. For example, lots of poor people die every year because they don't have access to medical treatments because they can't afford to pay for insurance (still4gvn talked a little bit about this in her post - but didn't use it in this context). I don't think that the disposing of people who aren't economically useful is necessarily tied to any one type of government philosophy. I think it is a bit deeper than that ... even the concept of economic usefulness is part of it - I think it has something to do with a pattern of thinking - if that makes sense.
So, the more I think about this, the more I agree with blessedinnyc that the future of this fight lies in the ways in which these basic issues are framed and defined - especially as technological and medical advances make our traditional definitions muddier. The question will be - how do we define life biblically when a new category of beings appear - as they will. I wouldn't be surprised if one day we have people who are more machine than natural human. So, what does that mean? Who will take the lead on interpreting those issues and who will frame it for the rest of the population? I think that sometimes as Christians, we tend to respond, respond, respond - which isn't bad - but I wonder if the Lord isn't calling us to be in the forefront in some of these things? Not doing what is evil or wrong - but being able to understand what is happening and to address issues so that they can be framed biblically from the very start.
< Message edited by rgod -- 11/26/2008 10:10:56 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/26/2008 12:46:49 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 393
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Looking at the ages of the Supreme Court justices, Barack Obama, even if he wins a second term in office, is unlikely to do much more than maintain the status quo regarding the political balance of the court. The three most likely judges to retire are all on the left, with perhaps only Scalia on the right a possible retiree (but he's already changed his mind about retiring once, so I expect him to go on, like the others, unless health becomes an issue).
So really, regarding the Roe vs Wade issue, conservatives will probably be no further away from overturning it (but no nearer) at the end of Obama's turn. Of course, after that, even if a Republican president gets elected, the next set of retirees are more likely to be conservative, so nothing could change then either!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/26/2008 3:28:54 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7605
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Looking at the ages of the Supreme Court justices, Barack Obama, even if he wins a second term in office, is unlikely to do much more than maintain the status quo regarding the political balance of the court. The three most likely judges to retire are all on the left, with perhaps only Scalia on the right a possible retiree (but he's already changed his mind about retiring once, so I expect him to go on, like the others, unless health becomes an issue).
So really, regarding the Roe vs Wade issue, conservatives will probably be no further away from overturning it (but no nearer) at the end of Obama's turn. Of course, after that, even if a Republican president gets elected, the next set of retirees are more likely to be conservative, so nothing could change then either!
Except Obama, with the help of the Demcratic congress is going to make the court obsolete with the passage of FOCA. Conservatives will not only be 'far away' from overturning it, but as the law of the land, it will have all the permenance of social security.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/26/2008 4:05:23 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 393
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Well, at least you won't need to lay the blame at the feet of those "activist judges".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/26/2008 11:46:01 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7605
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Well, at least you won't need to lay the blame at the feet of those "activist judges".
I don't really think it matters to the 40 million dead babies who is to blame.
_____________________________
Jack
I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
- C.S. Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: A question about elected officials and abortion - 11/26/2008 12:07:58 PM
|
|
|
womaninchrist
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
Abortion is a hot button issue because whether or not it remains legal - and why - plays into myriad other issues. Issues like assisted suicide, euthanasia (which is techically something very different than assisted suicide, since this is somone else making the decision to kill the disabled, ill or dying person), population control, birth control, forced birth control (like the often mentioned, though not necessarily here, suggestion that all receiving any form of government assistance should HAVE to use birth control or be sterilized), or even forced sterilization for those with various (mostly medical, but sometimes even educational or economic) conditions - and even the somewhat creative federal right to privacy (since a few decisions depend upon this "we think it's meant by the 9th Ammendment" right). So a lot of people on both political sides of the fence have an interest in how the fight over abortion plays out, whether or not any given individual actually is thinking about abortion itself.
I'd tend to agree with rgod however, that killing the "economically unviable" at least from what I've seen, has so far been a conservative idea while assisted suicide is a liberal idea. Population control is typically liberal while thinking those getting any aid or those with certain conditions should have to use birth control of be sterilized are usually conservative ideas.
As a side note, the handful of quietly pro-choice Republicans I've known aren't so much for abortion as they are for a right to privacy about one's body and scared about allowing the government any say over one's reproduction/reproductive rights and abilities in ANY way. Most of this last group hates abortion but is at least as scared of governmental laws over those parts of our lives and bodies.
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
