As I read a news article this morning regarding President Obama's nominations for the Supreme Court, I was thinking about what vastly differently perspectives are held by "pro life" and "pro choice" individuals.Our President used the popular language of the day when he was quoted as saying:
"I think part of what our constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals have protection in their privacy, and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that,"
Translation = Women can have abortions if they choose since it's their bodies, and they have a right to privacy concerning this matter. Supreme Court nominees have a right to privacy as to their opinions concerning abortion as well.
I have no issues whatsoever with the concept of women who have had abortions having privacy. HIPAA laws ensure privacy regarding all medical records. However, I believe that where Supreme Court nominees stand on issues that are important to many Americans is another issue.
President Obama's comment "But I will say that I want somebody who will be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights. And that includes women's rights", leaves little doubt in my mind as to what kind of nominee he's really looking for even if he is claiming to not have a litmus test regarding abortion. Yet he wants to sound as if he'll choose the most qualified candidate to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens and that where this person stands on this issue will not matter. Of course it will matter.
How important do you think it is where the supreme court nominee stands regarding abortion? Who would you most like to see nominated? (Top Five picks discussed here)
9 comments:
I hope he nominates a 28 year old pro-choice fitness buff who lives to be a centenarian.
"I think part of what our constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals have protection in their privacy, and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that"
And if that female is a third trimester infant, viable outside the womb with only a thin layer of skin preventing her from being able to look you in the eye, then what?
Decent men and women will never, never accept the killing of innocents. This fact is lost upon the likes of Obama who supported a type of infanticide while in the Illinois state senate.
"Obama has this quote on his website:
Pam Sutherland … of … Illinois Planned Parenthood … told ABC News, "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive.' They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats. ..."
This is the mentality that we are dealing with here. Protecting children born alive after botched, late-term abortions is some type of political manuever. I spit on every one of them. Link
I can't comment about the nominees right now because I don't know too much about them.....yet.
But the thought of abortions, specifically third trimester abortions makes me literally sick to my stomach.
As a Supreme Court Justice, your opinion on any possible issue you could render a constituitional vote is not a matter of privacy. That argument doesn't hold water for nominees.
The trend has seen a number of conservative appointments lean left after being appointed to the bench. Scary thought if we see a left-leaning appointee from the start.
I'm not usually TOO concerned with politicians' stance on abortion since they have to jump thru a lot of hoops to change laws. However, I am concerned with the appointment of judges since they have a lot of power...especially since they have been ruling the county "from the bench" over the past handful of years. Shoot, they even have the power to say the Constitution is unconstitutional! I think the next nominee is extremely important...but I have a hunch Prez will appoint someone pro-abortion.
The issue of privacy on politically charged issues such as pro-baby murder is a moot point. The very nature of "public" office and appointments is that they are not private. We know when the president gets a colonoscopy so I think we're safe to ask someone their personal opinion on a matter.
Pro-choicers would like to make the issue of abortion about everything but a human life taken.
The double-minded madness is even more confusing when unborn babies are murdered and the murderer gets life? IE: Scott Peterson (CA)
http://fireandgrace.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion
So, yes, we must have impartial judges, and their opinion in these types of issue should be known during the confirmation hearings. If they are going to render opinions, then we should know their opinions.
What makes a bundle of cells a "human being" and how does one come to that conclusion? I've yet to hear a conclusive argument for that that doesn't rely on religious beliefs, and does take into account twins, cancer cells, etc.
Also, what would you all suggest as the punishment for a woman that undergoes an abortion?
@GCT - a bundle of cells -if you look at it like that, unless you see God's creativity and destiny in it, then I guess nothing. A mere amoeba. And you once told me the great value that you put on life because this is the only one that you believe in. Are you only referring to life outside the womb only?
I realize that knowing when life begins is above Obama's pay grade, but it not above mine. It begins at conception. By 11 weeks a fetus is formed, and fully recognizable with most systems functioning at some level.
The Bible is clear that those the commit murder should be put to death. I'll stick with the word.
And yes, all my moral arguments rely on the Bible - that is what Christianity is. There are a lot of folks that would like it to BE something else, but then the Bible would not be a moral standard and Christianity would be a farce. For those of real faith, it is not.
The problem with that is that then everyone can have a moral standard, and for those the support abortion and assisted suicide, there is no line.
As always, thanks for the debate.
My question was, "What makes a clump of cells a human?" Or, to phrase it another way, "What qualities must some entity possess in order to be aforded the title of human or at least be considered something worthy of being protected at all costs?"
We are not, however, simply talking about "life." Life doesn't begin at conception - it starts much, much earlier than that. We, however, have no prohibitions on killing "lifeforms" that don't meet certain criteria (although some draw the line in different places than others). But, it's not generally not considered murder if we kill a non-human, so the question is when does the fertilized egg become a "human" with all the rights and so forth, and further how do we balance the rights of the woman that is carrying this fertilized egg?
"And you once told me the great value that you put on life because this is the only one that you believe in. Are you only referring to life outside the womb only?"
Good question. The life that I understand and value is the one that I have the capacity to understand and value. Had I never been born, I would not have had this ability and no loss would have occurred. Surely, it would be lunacy to extend the idea that all life is sacred to all potential life is sacred, since then we'd all be murderers for doing anything that may hinder any new potential life.
"And yes, all my moral arguments rely on the Bible - that is what Christianity is. There are a lot of folks that would like it to BE something else, but then the Bible would not be a moral standard and Christianity would be a farce. For those of real faith, it is not."
Yet earlier Xians and Jews did not have the same prohibitions on abortion that modern Xians do and they used the same source material. Secondly, the morals that you claim you take from the Bible are due to your personal interpretation. In reality, your personal interpretation has to inform what you pull from the Bible, i.e. you don't receive your morals from the Bible at all, but impart them back onto the Bible.
"The problem with that is that then everyone can have a moral standard, and for those the support abortion and assisted suicide, there is no line."
This is simply not so. Sure, there are sociopaths out there that for whatever reason don't have a moral compass at all, but for the rest of us, we are a social animal, and it seems to be evolutionary implanted in us to observe some morality - which is what we see in all other social animals.
Post a Comment