Rick Perry Changes His Mind on Abortion — Does This Really Matter?
Via Hot Air, the lazy blogger’s gold mine of blogging material, comes news that Rick Perry has just changed his mind on abortion in the case of rape or incest. He’s against it:
Perry said the change came after seeing the “Gift of Life” film produced by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He told an audience of Iowans at Clark Electric Co-op in Osceola that he was moved by the story of a woman who introduced the film during a screening earlier this month in Des Moines.
“She said, ‘I am the product of rape.’ And she said ‘my life has worth,’” Perry said of his exchange with the woman. “It was a powerful moment.”…
[Pastor Joshua] Verwers said after the event that he was initially skeptical of Perry’s flip on the position but that the governor’s answer was “too perfect” and “sincere” to have come from anywhere but Perry’s own heart.
Although the natural tendency is to be skeptical, I think it is possible for people to change their minds on even important issues like this late in life. I can also see both sides of this difficult issue, having both met decent people who are the product of rape, and being acutely aware (mostly through my wife’s work) of people who are impregnated after a rape.
Ethically, the case for allowing the woman to choose after she is the victim of a violent crime is, to my way of thinking, clearly much stronger. Something very much akin to self-defense comes into play, and the prospect of the state denying a rape victim access to at least an early-term abortion will make many uncomfortable. On the other hand, I would like for people to have the chance to persuade even a rape victim to keep the baby. I don’t see where such pro-life measures should be prohibited — and they certainly have nothing to do with the Constitution.
Ultimately, Rick Perry’s personal opinion on abortion matters far less than the constitutional views of the justices he would appoint. A Rick Perry justice (or a Mitt Romney justice) would be far more likely to take a proper constitutionalist approach to such matters than, say, a justice appointed by Barack Obama.
CLIMBS ON SOAPBOX: If you care about the Constitution, always, always remember that virtually any Republican candidate will do better on Supreme Court appointments than Obama would.
If you don’t care about the Constitution, of course, then feel free to be petulant and stay home if you don’t get your way in the primaries.
CLIMBS DOWN FROM SOAPBOX . . . BUT KEEPS IT WITHIN REACH
What is needed more than the ability to get an abortion after a rape is having an informed public that knows that in any case of rape, that crime must be reported immediately. Most women who are raped, and report it immediately, also go through a surgical procedure (D & C) which would remove any fertilized egg and prevent pregnancy from continuing.
As incest and rape account for less than 1% of all abortions, and considering that in the case of rape the crime should be immediately reported, could have some bearing on Governor Perry changing his mind in these instances. He said that it was Huckabee’s film, recently viewed, that changed his mind.
retire05 (364b72) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:24 pmor a Mitt Romney justice) would be far more likely to take a proper constitutionalist approach to such matters than, say, a justice appointed by Barack Obama.
Evidence?
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:33 pmPetulant is exactly the right word, Patterico, soapbox or not.
On the topic of your post… I have long felt that we have become a “short attention span nation.” Thus, the only way we can look at a complex issue must fit on a bumper sticker. Sort of like Twitter.
So I see candidates often accused, usually with quotations, of a particular seemingly extreme statement. Then I see the whole speech or interchange in context, and it looks quite different.
To be sure, we are all about snappy facile post-modern snark (“clown car uteruses” come to mind), but the truth is more important.
Look at how well “Hope and Change” and “Yes, We Can!” became important, though both phrases are content free (just ask any Obama supporter to detail the definitions, particularly when juxtaposed with the performance of this President).
Regardless, we don’t simply face “Four More Years.” To borrow a phrase, we face “Four Worse Years” if we don’t get this crew out.
Thanks for letting me borrow that soapbox.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:34 pmOh, madawaskan….
Do you really think that Romney or Gingrich would nominate a “wise Latina”? Or someone who had been bloody part of their Health Care Cheerleading Program?
Let go of the H8, and focus on getting this crew out. Then you can push for perfection.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:35 pmSome dude was arguing with me that Mitt Romney would be our most Liberal nominee evah…hard to argue against that.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:36 pmDude I was a Giuliani supporter, please.
And you can’t make me take the Mitt Romney!
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:37 pmGosh, madawaskan…
It seems like four years ago, Romney was the most conservative nominee evah, according to Rush Limbaugh:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/05/rush-limbaugh-endorses-mitt-romney/
Of course, NOW Rush feels differently.
I wonder what he will think in 2016. If he is allowed to broadcast, that is.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:39 pmAnd Giuliani is more conservative than Romney, incidentally? Really?
Put down the bong, dude.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:40 pmNo a better fighter, more persuasive-didn’t cling to his RomneyCare like the last raft off the Titanic.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:41 pmLess arrogant,more in touch, a clearer thinker on National Security-a better opinion in regards to China particularly in the long term.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:42 pmRomney is Obama Lite or Obama White and in that set up we lose.
Might as well vote for the guy you think needs your affirmation-if you are the no account swing voter Jen Rubin wants us all to appeal to.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:43 pmGood people can disagree. But what do you think about his stands on abortion rights and gun ownership? Fred Thompson is unarguably a conservative, and he didn’t think much of the Mayor.
Again, the problem here is perfection.
I’m sorry that Guiliani dropped out in 2008; not much of a fighter in that respect, I conclude. Still, I wish he was running now. I think practically anyone is better than the gang in charge now. I know too many people who are actually claiming that Romney/Gingrich/Perry are unacceptable, even claiming (like the insanity in 2008) that they would make indistinguishable Supreme Court apppointments.
Oh, and I have never heard anyone suggest that Rudy Guiliani was a humble fellow.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:46 pmWow.
Okay, with all due respect, that is just plain silly. You set up a legal pad, sharpen a pencil, and you compare their voting records and public statements (of course, with Obama, you have to be careful, since he is both for and against a number of issues, like signing statements).
If they are the same, or even similar, you can make that kind of statement.
What you are doing now is telling me what you like. That is reasoning from the heart, not the head.
You are setting us up for “Four Worse Years.”
But whatevers.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:50 pmWell you’ve got me pegged all wrong as some Conservative Purist-simply because I asked for physical proof that Romney would do “X”.
All you have is Romney’s word-which isn’t known as some Paradigm of Consistency.
After Romney was elected to office in Massachusetts I get that his hands were tied pretty well but out of some 20 judges nominated during his tenure-he couldn’t manage to negotiate for one Conservative judge.
Given the fiasco in VA we probably lose that Senate seat. Bob Kerrey might come out of mothballs for the Nebraska seat, plus it looks like Connie Mack is fading for some damn reason in Florida- add to that the bases lack of enthusiasm for Romney and-it looks like we don’t get the Senate.
Looks Like Romney will have as many excuses to not nominate Conservative Supreme Court justices as he had for not getting a one by the Liberals in Massachusetts.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 12:59 pm13. ‘”You are setting us up for “Four Worse Years.” ‘
Begged question. Not a vote has been cast and you’ve already counted to victory in the general for Strap-on.
Johnson is running as Libertarian, Paul is running as Whatever, Trump or Bloomberg is running for American Elect, the No Labels ballot, on and on.
The appeal of Exalted Princess to the so-lib Indies seems to be where all the competition is yet you persist with the fantasy that he will bring in a liberal state or two. Which ones are they?
Memember Goldwater?
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:00 pmTell me how ObamaCare is not a primary plank in the current US economy and then tell me how I am suppose to have “faith” that Romney will do anything to get rid of that when he insists he was so fundamentally right with RomneyCare the blue print of ObamaCare.
That kind of arrogance is only matched by Obama this election cycle.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:03 pmI have to disagree that Romney would even pick strict Constitutionalists for the federal bench. According to a 2005 Boston Globe article (hardly a conservative newspaper):
“Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credential to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,. instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded “same-sex rights.”
Again, in 2005, the Globe reported:
“Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges 0or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.”
In all, Romney nominated 9 Republicans, 13 unenrolled (independent) and 14 Democrats to be judges or clerk magistrates. Excuse me, but nominating Republicans only 25% of the time is not being a conservative governor in my book.
retire05 (364b72) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:03 pmAnd if IIRC none of those judges were Pro-Life.
And that isn’t a primary issue for me-but I think Romney claims that it is for him-depending on which office he is wanting to acquire.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:12 pmActually, gary, I remember Ross Perot putting Clinton into the White House.
A couple of comments:
But we KNOW what Obama will do, and in fact, will double down. Do you think otherwise?
Furthermore, Rush Limbaugh thought highly of him four years ago. Right?
I do think (and so do many “good” conservatives) that states can experiment. “Romneycare” is an awful albatross to wear around one’s neck: if he rejects it on a national scale, he gets tagged with “flip-flopping.” If he defends the choice, then he isn’t a “real” conservative, and is “just like Obama.”
As for the rest, good luck with your perfection! Do you honestly believe that Gingrich would be elected? What I do not understand about conservatives is their lack of appreciation of the middle…which is where elections take place.
But here is the difference between us: when you characters get Obama reelected because of your “purity of essence” fetish, we will all be screwed. And you will not take responsibility for your role in helping it happen.
If I am wrong, and ANYONE but Obama gets elected, I will be celebrating. Happy. Because I recognize Job #1. And it ain’t purity of essence.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:13 pmmadawaskan, please be careful: Giuliani was not exactly pro-life. Remember?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:13 pmFinally, I am not a Romney fan. I want to see ANYONE but Obama win in 2012. But in trying to look up responses to some of the charges I see leveled here, I went looking (as I do when folks unfairly attack Newt Gingrich) around the internet. Romney’s own election campaign have arguments worth considering.
Which takes us back to my #3 post: few of us go looking for context. We just read what Mark Levin or Rush Limbaugh say.
By the way, has Limbaugh actually responded to the change in his point of view of Romney in 2008 versus today?
I’m not a fan of pundits, for this very reason.
But listen. Can we at least agree that just about ANYONE is better than this guy in the Oval Office now? Please?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:18 pmI said-it’s not my primary issue…
Just don’t sell me Romney’s a Conservative judge appointer-you’ve got no proof.
See I’m ghetto-or first generation ghetto I’m not going to fall for Romney’s three card Monty-on that-or the RomneyCare Founding Father will get rid of ObamaCare..
What else to you have? Is that all you’ve got?
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:20 pm“Excuse me, but nominating Republicans only 25% of the time is not being a conservative governor in my book.”
retire05 – Excuse me, but please explain the judicial nominating process in Massachusetts. Many uniformed folks assume it is the same as the federal process. It ain’t.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:21 pmomg-Mark Levin and Limbaugh…
Please tell me you aren’t that passive a thinker…
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:21 pmmadawaskan – So you flipped flopped from supporting a social lib, Giuliani, in 2008, to supporting a social con in 2012 and you want to blame the change in your position on Romney? That’s some clear thinking right there!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:23 pmI’m not a fan of pundits, for this very reason.
Oops sorry I missed this line.
I’m not telling you how i think or will vote-I am telling you that the mushy middle will see very little real difference entre Obama and Romney and they are going to vote for the black guy again-becasue all things being almost equal-the media will make them feel the need to feel like they aren’t racists and they’ll vote for the poor black guy that needs their vote.
all over again.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:25 pm“See I’m ghetto-or first generation ghetto”
madawaskan – Are you looking for a medal or a parade?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:26 pmRomney is a lying sack of you know what who hasn’t thought about the long term ramifications of his pandering on the China issue.
He’s scary as hell on that.
What happens to the bond market?
What happens to long term inflation?
How is that going to be good for an economy that is barely flat lining above recession as we speak?
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:27 pmHe’s a pandering politician with no consistent political philosophy.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:28 pmYes it does.
Tim Tebow isn’t a great football player but I still respect him for not surrendering to the left on his religious beliefs.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:28 pmdaleyrocks
So essentially all you have is ad hominem. Good to know.
madawaskan (89a442) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:30 pmmadawaskan just ignore him he is predictable in his ad hominems.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:33 pmmadawaskan – So you flipped flopped from supporting a social lib, Giuliani, in 2008, to supporting a social con in 2012 and you want to blame the change in your position on Romney? That’s some clear thinking right there!
Comment by daleyrocks
That’s his story and, by Gawd, the Sad Sack is sticking to it!
General Malaise (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:35 pmWhat judges was Romney supposed to nominate in MA? Reagan couldn’t even get Bork through with a GOP Senate. madawaskan is smoking something.
Gerald A (9d78e8) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:35 pmMichelle Obama is pretty?
Big butts are not pretty no matter the political party they belong too.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:38 pm#23, daleyrocks, perhaps you can explain to me the process in Taxachusetts that differs from the federal system of placing judicial appointments? It is my understanding that the MA governor nominates his choice, and then it is up to the legislature to approve, or disapprove, that choice. Is that incorrect? If so, how?
The fact is that Romney is NOT conservative except when he thinks he should be. He sticks his finger in the wind now, just as he did when running against Huckabee and McCain, and decides how conservative he will be depending on the crowd he is addressing. The only people who think Romney is conservative are the NY/DC beltway residents who are considered liberals by those Americans in flyover country.
retire05 (364b72) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:42 pmSanta blessed gulrud
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:43 pmseven pounds of back bacon
and five golden tukes
Here you go, a quick link.
http://www.massbar.org/legislative-activities/joint-bar-committee-/the-judicial-selection-process/the-judicial-nominating-commission-application-and-selection-process
felipe (2ec14c) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:44 pm“So essentially all you have is ad hominem. Good to know.”
madawaskan – ? I thought that’s exactly what you were engaging in with your pandering accusations.
According to many anybody but Romney supporters, a politician is never allowed to change his/her mind about abortion, hence the flip flopping charges against Romney on the issue. Now add a strike against Perry by the same standards.
You admit to supporting a socially liberal candidate for president in 2008, Mr. Sanctuary City, divorced and pro choice Rudy Giuliani. Now you claim to want a socially conservative candidate. You flipped flopped, not Mitt. Giuliani was a strange choice for Rick Perry to endorse in 2008 for someone claiming to be a social conservative.
Isn’t all the Perry campaign doing now pandering, primarily to social and religious conservatives? Gay bashing and restoring Christianity to the public square will win the day for Rick Perry? You think that wins over the mushy middle? Seriously?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:45 pmDohbiden’s hairplugs too tight again today.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:47 pmretire zero five
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:47 pmback from the dead or was it
gas caused to surface?
“That’s his story and, by Gawd, the Sad Sack is sticking to it!
Comment by General Malaise — 12/28/2011 @ 1:35 pm ”
General – Yes I am.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:48 pmI expect to see a lot of politicians, from both parties, going from “Pro Choice” to “Pro Life” in the not too distant future.
I happen to think that Abortion should be legal. I think that it involves killing something more than a bunch of cells, but less than something the State is justified in messing with folks to protect…and I realize this is a little strange of me and don’t expect much company in that opinion. I have become resigned, however, to expecting that Abortion will become either illegal, or legal in a very few states, because the people who claim to be pro-choice seem hell-bent on destroying their cause. There are a lot of examples, but the two most significant (as far as I can see, anyway) are their behavior and positions regarding late term abortions and parental notification.
Late term abortions just flat out look like infanticide. Regardless of what the medical and biological facts may be, aborting a fetus that complete LOOKS like child-murder. Tens of thousands of years of evolution (if you believe in evolution) and theology (if you believe in theology) make that repulsive on a very basic level. Defending it is political suicide. Now, there are times when committing political suicide for a principle is the right thing to do. I submit that this isn’t one of them. Accept an arbitrary cut off point, and then SHUT UP. Or kiss “abortion rights” goodbye, as you lose the PR battle.
Parental Notification is basic sense. No parent worthy of the name, and very few people who can imagine themselves as parents will accept the idea that the State should be able to bypass them on this. That leaves you with the nanny-staters and the fanatics, who are a PR disaster. If you won’t participate in writing the Parental Notification laws, you will have to deal with ones written by your opponents.
Aside: I find it hard, if not impossible, to imagine a situation that would justify obtaining an abortion for a minor without notifying her parents that would not be better dealt with by making her a ward of the court.
As things are going, it seems to me inevitable that state Parental Notification laws will be circumvented by Pro-Choice True Believers. This will involve transporting minors across state lines, for illegal and arguably immoral purposes …. in short a Man Act mess looking for an ambitious prosecutor, Also; an abortionist willing to perform an abortion on a minor without checking to make sure that the parents have been notified is likely to be a hack, and abortion isn’t safe anyway. Sooner or later, as politically fervent True Believers transport young ladies across state lines for abortions, one of the young ladies is going to die (either on the table, or of complications later). Then all hell with break loose.
I think that any politician capable of any real degree of foresight will be able to see this, soon. There are going to be a lot of rats abandoning the good ship Pro Choice.
C. S. P. Schofield (7ba8cb) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:52 pmSorry, I meant to give you the link for the Judicial selection process instead of a subsection of the process.
felipe (2ec14c) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:57 pmfelipe, the Romney E.O. that you provided was signed in 2006. The stats I gave were 2003-2005, prior to the E.O. 670.
retire05 (364b72) — 12/28/2011 @ 1:59 pmColonel Haiku, I have been recovering from surgery. But thanks for reminding me what a small minded person you are.
retire05 (364b72) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:01 pmI agree.
I never got an explanation of how it was okay to incinerate unborn babies in Tokyo in the 1940’s, merely because other people of their mothers’ ethnicity attacked Pearl Harbor, but killing unborn babies invading their mothers’ bodies in a literal sense is wrong.
Her life has as much worth as the surviving attackers of Pearl Harbor- or the unborn babies who survived the firebombing of Tokyo.
Natasha Jackson (64388b) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:02 pmThank you for pointing that out, retire.
felipe (2ec14c) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:03 pmfelipe, you’re quite welcome.
retire05 (364b72) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:05 pmRetire, I did not mean to provide the link to the E.O. – I just happened to be reading that page when I copied the link. Silly me.
felipe (2ec14c) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:07 pmrape babies are cute lil giggleboxes just like normal babies but sometimes people don’t want to bear children for their rapist, and I can definitely understand that
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:14 pmIndeed, Natasha, her life has as much worth as yours or mine.
felipe (2ec14c) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:17 pmSorry for going O/T, but it looks like teh Wenis wanted more than just chicks. Maybe we can get that Gennete(sp?), if teh Wenis wanted a batter on deck. Sounds like he was willing to do a little catching!
jhump (721840) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:22 pmrape babies are cute lil giggleboxes just like normal babies but sometimes people don’t want to bear children for their rapist, and I can definitely understand that
I can understand it too – very much so. However, doesn’t that cute lil gigglebox – who, by no choice of their own, was conceived in violence and anger – have the same worth, validity, and right to live as the baby conceived in love?
Do we distinguish worth of life and the right to live by circumstances of conception or by the simple inherent value every life, by default, holds?
Dana (4eca6e) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:29 pmI don’t think any of this is helpful.
It’s beyond the pale really and the pander isn’t helpful.
sarahW (b0e533) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:30 pmDana, I”m not even going to try to get you to understand there is someone else with skin in the game.
sarahW (b0e533) — 12/28/2011 @ 2:30 pmIt seems just a touch, forced,OTOH, this is just foolish;
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/28/romney-today-romneycare-is-fundamentally-conservative/
narciso (87e966) — 12/28/2011 @ 3:09 pmSurgery, retired guy? I see the removal of your charisma did nothing to improve your disposition.
Speaking of small-minded… how ’bout that Rick Perry!
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 3:12 pmWow, Colonel. That was really low: mocking someone recovering from surgery. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Chuck Bartowski (490c6f) — 12/28/2011 @ 3:21 pmNo, chuckster, the retired guy and I go way back. He’s a prince of a guy and, in any case, it was only a penile pump implant.
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 3:27 pmWhy do we add “or incest”?
If the woman is a minor, it is statutory rape.
If the woman is a consenting adult freely choosing who she wants to have sex with, why do we let her get an abortion and no one else? Is it the child is more likely to be genetically flawed? Is it just icky?
Tomhynes (78213a) — 12/28/2011 @ 3:30 pmTomhynes – Do you have any sisters?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:00 pm______________________________________________
Rick Perry has just changed his mind on abortion in the case of rape or incest.
So many people have become so liberal and permissive about this issue — where, for example, a majority of Californians don’t even care that a single, underaged pregnant girl is able to get an abortion without parental/guardian consent — that it’s become increasingly irrelevant and esoteric. Instead, this is the era when in order to show our humanity and decency, we must all bleed our hearts over the plight of the household pet, or animals in general. Fetuses, no. Fido or Kitty, yes.
Mark (411533) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:09 pmThis is such a complete non-issue.
Right now, in the U.S., abortion at any time for any reason is a constitutional right.
There is no possibility of changing this until at least one of the liberals (and Kennedy) retire from the SCotUS and are replaced by pro-life Justices.
There is considerable opposition even to restricting the most obnoxious practices, such as third-term and sex-selection abortions.
Post-rape and -incest abortions, the two most problematic cases, are unlikely to be restricted ever.
So Perry’s principles on this issue don’t matter at all.
It’s as if, in debating space policy, candidates were taking positions on whether a colony on Mars should be independent – when we can’t even reach the Moon.
Perry’s only reason for doing this has to be political – he’s hoping to catch the attention of the most rigid pro-lifers, who don’t get much love.
Rich Rostrom (155228) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:09 pmHow is this a flip flop? I really couldn’t give a rip about the issue itself, but all this did was move him from lifeydoodle to super lifeydoodle. Romney’s position on abortion is more of a flip flop. Oh, and Perry is stupid.
JD (318f81) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:14 pm“It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Rick Camus
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:17 pm“How is this a flip flop?”
JD – Perry previously in favor of a rape and incest exception for abortion. Now he has changed his mind and is against the exception. Simple.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:18 pm“Oh, and Perry is stupid.
Comment by JD — 12/28/2011 @ 4:14 pm”
Definitive
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:20 pm“Always go too far, because that’s where you’ll find Marfa”
― Rick Camus
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:22 pmGood god, Daley. Did you not understand the simple point I was trying to make?
JD (318f81) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:22 pm“Did you not understand the simple point I was trying to make?”
JD – I answered it very simply. According to many observers, candidates are not allowed to change their positions on abortion at all. The pastor quoted in the post was the person who called it a flip.
If people are going to create standards by which to hold candidates, they need to adhere to them when they affect their own candidate instead of someone they oppose.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:28 pmBut…but…daley! That’s different!
Besides, most people don’t want to read more than “sound bites.”
There are things that are MUCH more important than removing Obama from the White House, after all.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:30 pmJD – I don’t view it as a major point, but in Perry’s pandering to the religious right and other pro-life constituencies, some may view the flip flop as significant.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:31 pmBesides, most people don’t want to read more than “sound bites.”
Simon – Exactly, such as Romney calling what he with healthcare in Massachusetts conservative and then distorting that inside out, sideways, upside down and polka dot to mean that Romney believes ObamaCare is conservative.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:35 pmIt is a change of degree of lifeydoodle.. Whatevs. He is dumb.
JD (318f81) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:41 pmRemember, daley, how we get so tired of Teh Narrative from progressive Leftists? Turns out that some of the Conservatives do it too.
Lord forbid anyone actually, you know, read carefully or “own” prior statements or be consistent. Sort of like Limbaugh.
I guess it is another one of those “Outlaw” things I don’t understand.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 4:51 pmdaley–remember that governor candidate we had in IL, the team R one who almost won in 2010? Remember his stance on abortion? Remember how he was against it even in cases of rape and incest? Remember how moderate suburban women turned against him because of his “extreme” abortion position quite late in the race and how (by only a few votes) we ended up with an incompetent bumbling fool from team D as the governor of our pathetic, broke state?
I do remember, and I am sick of this issue playing such a front and center place in all campaigns from city council to POTUS. I am tired of it being exploited and used as a litmus test. Perry may have had a sincere private change of heart and I fully respect his right to have done so. But he has made a strategic political error in announcing it so publicly. He is officially toast as a national candidate now.
elissa (4959ae) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:07 pmI’ll give Perry the benefit of the doubt and grant that it was a heartfelt (as opposed to heartless) conversion. But I do agree with Elissa… not the smartest of moves. If he was sinking before, he’s headed to the seabed now.
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:16 pmNice comment, elissa, but Teh Narrative is always with us, in a nonpartisan fashion.
Purity of Essence uber alles. No matter the cost. No matter the outcome.
But at least those folks have their purity.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:21 pmCoulter… why it’s Romney:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-12-28.html
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:28 pmThis purity of essence nonsense is complete BS.
JD (318f81) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:28 pmGingrich blames campaign worker’s ‘fraud’ for missing Virginia ballot…
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/28/gingrich-campaign-workers-signature-fraud-cost-slot-on-virginia-ballot/
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:29 pmThis purity of essence nonsense is complete BS.
It sure is… tantamount to lemmings over the cliff.
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:30 pm“I am tired of it being exploited and used as a litmus test.”
elissa – I remember well, but born again and evangelical christians made up 60% of the 2008 Iowa caucus and Perry is trying to out pander Bachmann and Santorum.
I agree though that this and the gay bashing ads do not do much for him on the national stage.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:31 pmI don’t know, JD. I see a LOT of people with inflexible litmus tests, coupled with a remarkable level of nose-tilting certitude. I know it sounds insulting, but I am very, very worried about 2012. A syphilitic camel would be a better candidate in 2012 than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Sorry if I have offended you. But complete BS?
Not from what I see. But hey, I hope I’m wrong.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:31 pmDaleyrock not as tight as your head and Romney’s ass.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:32 pmWe won’t privatize Medicaid and Medicare until after we get the senate back and presidency.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:36 pmDohbiden – Kiss your mother with that mouth?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:37 pmIt is complete BS from both aspects, though neither side would admit it. One side is demanding that conservatives back a candidate that is, at best, conservative when convenient, or required. The other side is demanding people outside of what would be considered electable. Both are sling strategies.
JD (318f81) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:37 pmNot sling. Losing.
JD (318f81) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:38 pmEthically, I think you are missing the point. If a fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells and tissue, then yes, someone who has been victimized should be able to choose an abortion. Of course, the same logic would also apply to non-victims. If it’s not a person we are talking about, there is absolutely no case for forcing a woman to continue to be pregnant if she doesn’t want to be.
However, if ending that pregnancy is something akin to ending a person’s life, as many people believe, then ethically, it can’t be allowed to happen unless continuing the pregnancy threatens the women’s very life. Then and only then, a self defense argument would come into play.
Anon Y. Mous (cb1134) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:38 pmNatasha,
A good Christian, as I understand the term, might be against both the fire bombing of Tokyo and any abortions, ever.
I am not a Christian. I am an agnostic. I am also Pro-(legal) Abortion.
However, if you want to play the “hypocrite!” card, then I feel it is time somebody explained to me what possible explanation the Pro-Choice Doctrinaire Feminists can have for saying “Our bodies, our selves” and then NOT going ballistic over Communist China’s policy of forced abortions.
Other than truly olympian self absorption, narcissism, and hypocrisy, that is.
I really, deeply resent these people, who I believe are pissing away a major legal landmark. In any form of even mildly representative government snarking about the hypocrisy or stupidity of a growing body of opinion with which you disagree is a major tactical and strategic error. You have to find a way to change these people’s minds, and that isn’t a good way to do it.
C. S. P. Schofield (7ba8cb) — 12/28/2011 @ 5:43 pm19. “good luck with your perfection!”
An artless smear. Romney has no aspirations beyond competent management. He will not unite the Party let alone the Right because he can no more articulate Conservatism(the majority) than Perry.
We aren’t looking for perfection but adequacy, a leader not a manager.
Turn around, no one there? You ain’t leading.
gary gulrud (d88477) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:06 pm___________________________________________
By itself, Perry changing his tune about abortions is not so important that it represents a “woah” stumble for him. But combining that with his “you have no heart” comment several months ago, and, perhaps most deflating of all, his “senior moment,” when he couldn’t recall the name of a federal department he wanted to eliminate, adds up to quite a bit.
However, as a sign of just how much I dislike President “Goddamn America” — and of how I know he is innately, inherently, intrinsically an ultra-liberal — I’d still have no qualms about booting him out of the White House in favor of Rick Perry.
Mark (411533) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:08 pm“We aren’t looking for perfection but adequacy, a leader not a manager.
Turn around, no one there? You ain’t leading.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Don’t walk behind me; I may not lead. Don’t walk in front of me; I may not follow. Just walk beside me and we’ll break wind.”
― Bemidji Camus
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:25 pmHowever, as a sign of just how much I dislike President “Goddamn America” — and of how I know he is innately, inherently, intrinsically an ultra-liberal — I’d still have no qualms about booting him out of the White House in favor of Rick Perry.
Comment by Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes! Can I get an amen!
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:27 pmRight now, in the U.S., abortion at any time for any reason is a constitutional right.
There is no possibility of changing this until at least one of the liberals (and Kennedy) retire from the SCotUS and are replaced by pro-life Justices.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — 12/28/2011 @ 4:09 pm
Actually, that is not the case. All it would take to end abortion is for Congress to pass and the President to sign the bill that defines an unborn baby as a person. SCOTUS admitted as much in Roe v Wade.
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.
And they would also be protected under Amendment V: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Once the unborn is granted personhood by definition of law, abortion would be outlawed.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:41 pmAs awful as Bush Jr. was in many ways, Alito(nee Harriet Miers until we kicked a bit) and Roberts are way better than Kagan and Sotomayor.
We can quibble and argue now. Come November we will ahve to pull the GOP lever. Holding your nose while doing so, while unfortunate, might be a necessity.
Limited government/abortion rant; we’ve had 50+ years of Roe v. Wade. People’s hearts and minds are still split. As afootball game, it’s as if neither side can nudge the ball off the 50 through triple OT. Had we not had the judicial fiat of Roe, this issue would have rightlty been hashed out within and among the 50 state legislatures, as gay marriage is being hashed out now.It would’ve have ben messy, but that was the idea of a constitional federal republic. Instead of wasting energy demanding abolition of abortion(which will never happen) better to cut all government funding of it, limit it in the 3rd trimester and force people to take responsibility for their actions.
At least with conservative judges(spare Souter types) we will be spared judicial activists digging up new and exciting emanations and penumbras to expand govenment power into all aspects of out lives like Kelo. There may be no other good reason to vote for (Romney?) but it’s a very good reason nonetheless. I wish we had a choice that didn’t constitute a lesser of evils , but that’s the way this will play out.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Bugg (ea1809) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:48 pm“There are plenty of blatantly incorrect opinions about the Republican presidential primary floating around and some of them are perched in some rather prominent places (i.e. Nate Silver at the New York Times and Dick Morris at Fox News). But none that I have seen has been more obviously and dangerously flawed than John Hawkins’ column entitled “7 Reasons Why Mitt Romney’s Electability is a Myth,” which was recently posted at Townhall.
To be clear, it is not that there is no merit to any of his seven points. A couple of them are actually valid. What is so astonishingly silly about his analysis is that its entire premise is completely and fundamentally flawed.
Republican primary voters are not evaluating Romney’s “electability” in a vacuum. They are judging it instead in comparison to the relative electability of their other current options. And there is absolutely, positively, zero doubt that of the candidates who will be on the ballot (or in the case of Virginia, not so much), Mitt Romney has by far the best chance to beat President Obama in 2012.
So while Romney does clearly have “issues” in this department (for instance, I agree that being a Mormon will hurt more than help), to call his electability a “myth,” is like playing poker and mocking a hand of three Aces when your only other option is a pair of deuces.
Yes, the Romney “hand” can be beaten, but unlike those presented by everyone else in the race, at least it has a decent chance of winning…”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/romneys_electability.html
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Colonel Haiku (c26934) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:54 pmhttp://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/28/drama-bachmanns-iowa-chairman-endorses-ron-paul-three-hours-after-appearing-at-an-event-for-her/#comments
narciso (87e966) — 12/28/2011 @ 6:56 pmIn fact, if even one state were to pass legislation that defines an unborn baby as a person, that would probably end abortion in the US. The argument would be made under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution and thereby apply to all of the states.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:13 pmHi Stacy I know you don’t know me but I’m your dad. Nice to meet you.
OMG when did you get out of jail?
Just yesterday sorry I haven’t been able to be there for you like a father should.
That’s ok dad I understand… Mom explained it was all a consequence of the violent rape you committed.
Yup your mom is exactly right. But I’ve changed a lot since then. Hey did you just call me dad?
Of course silly you’re my dad! I love you! If you hadn’t viciously raped mom I would’ve never been born!
I love you too, sweetie.
*hugs*
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 12/28/2011 @ 7:26 pmUnfortunately, peedoffamerican, you’re not even close on what it would take to define a fetus as a person.
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:05 pmNo Icy, I cannot legally define a fetus as a person, but the US Congress and all of the 50 State Legislatures do possess the power to do so. All it takes is both houses of any State and signature by the governor of that State to make it so, or both houses of the USA and signature of the president. Fetus then being defined as a person would automatically be accorded all of the protections of both the law, and the US Constitution.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:15 pm“I love you too, sweetie.”
Mr. Feets – Cute story. I like that better than the ones about the fetuses what are all torn up over being aborted.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:17 pmThe SCOTUS in Roe v Wade said, I repeat, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:17 pmDaleyrocks?
Sorry but you need to get that looked at.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:21 pmSomething like this:
An unborn baby, otherwise known in medical terminology as a fetus, is hereby acknowledged to be a person. Medical Science having determined that said fetuses are unique individuals and not merely clumps of cells, said fetuses are hereby accorded all rights and protections under both the law and the US Constitution and considered to be citizens of the state and of the United States.
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:26 pmHell, even in Latin from which fetus comes is basically our word baby. The proponents of abortion used fetus instead of baby in order to make abortion sound less gruesome and more palatable.
Origin:
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:39 pm1350–1400; Middle English < Latin fētus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb.
peedoffamerican, I wish you were right, but unfortunately the SCOTUS decided otherwise. I suggest you read all of Roe v Wade. Because of the SCOTUS ruling in that case it will take a constitutional amendment to establish personhood for the unborn.
There are plenty of states with laws on the books (specifically for punishing the murder of the unborn) that define the unborn as either a “person” or as “a member of the species Homo Sapien”. These do not affect Roe v. Wade as Roe v. Wade ALSO mentions this part of the 14th Amendment:
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 8:56 pm1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
— In the eyes of the court it matters not whether a fetus is defined as “a person”, because being unborn affords them no protection under the Constitution. Therefore, ONLY a constitutional amendment (or a SCOTUS decision that reverses Roe v Wade) will establish the unborn as persons with constitutional protection.
I hate Ron Paul but unlike the other bureaucrats he doesn’t tell people what to do.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:04 pmI’m not pro-life per se, but I do become more uncomfortable with abortion the longer a pregnancy continues.
I split the issue right down the middle–I have no problem with a ban on abortions after the mid-point of a pregnancy. After the midway point, just have the kid and give it up for adoption, for Pete’s sake.
I get flack from the left and right on abortion, because I don’t view it in absolutist terms.
Am I being arbitrary? Sure. But a lot of public issues require lawmakers to draw an arbitrary line. Take the speed limit, for example. A lower speed limit would save lives, but it just isn’t feasible. No speed limit would be reckless.
norcal (17bd6f) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:09 pmTake your #106:
An unborn baby
, otherwise known in medical terminology as a fetus,is hereby acknowledged to be a person.Medical Science having determined that said fetuses are unique individuals and not merely clumps of cells, said fetusesand are hereby accorded all rights and protections under both the law and the US Constitution and considered to be citizens of the state and of the United States.— A cleaned up version of that would work as a proposed constitutional amendment. You do NOT want to include the parts I struck through; not unless you want to wade through endless 2nd Amendment-type arguments.
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:15 pmThe rich leftys who put their moneys overseas won’t need to worry about the bankruptcy of the country.
Those who keep their money here should worry.
Wanna get the ultraleft and their paleocons angry say Israel is planning on using WMDS against Indonesian children.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:16 pmNo we won’t fight for Israel leftys unless they are muslims than Obama will reach out to them.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:18 pmand their paleocon friends angry.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:18 pmThat is definitely incorrect. The nominations are submitted to the Governor’s Council, which is an 8-member elected body, not to the legislature. Since it is MA I assume that it was controlled by Ds, but I don’t know that for a fact.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:25 pmThe SCOTUS wrote, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment,” because the appellant argued that a fetus is LEGALLY not a person. The court even specified that a consensus medical opinion means nothing in terms of the rights or non-rights of the unborn. Personhood is established by changing the supreme law of the land to establish said personhood, period.
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:26 pmFor exactly the same reason that it was OK to incinerate born babies and small children and adults who were not serving in the Japanese armed forces; because that is what war is. We were at war with the Japanese nation; all of it, not just a select few. War is fought between nations, not between individuals, and all members of the enemy nation are the enemy, and thus it is legitimate to kill them so long as it advances the mission of winning the war. That has been the law of war for thousands of years, the Bible seems more than OK with it, and I see no reason why I should object.
When there is no state of war, it is no more legitimate to kill an unborn baby than it is to kill a newborn or a toddler in the same circumstances.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:34 pmRomney and the Governor’s Council:
“They go before something known as the Governor’s Council,” Romney said. “It consists of, I believe, seven members, all of whom are elected Democrats. And so to be able to get my appointments through, I had to have people of both parties. And the people I put forward, all were individuals who I vetted very carefully to make sure they would follow the rule of law.”
In fact, the Governor’s Council has nine members, including the lieutenant governor, who was a Republican under Romney, but not always counted by observers as a regular member of the council. The other members were Democrats during his administration. The council, under the state constitution, approves the governor’s appointments to judgeships and certain other posts.
Icy (17f7a5) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:34 pmI have an idea in order to stave off the economic collapse why not raise taxes on the rich so we can spend America into third worldism.
/Sarcasm off
Like I said those who want taxes on the rich raised are useful idiots who deserve the doom Obama gives them.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:40 pmReally? Why is that our job? What if the executioners are right?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:40 pm“The nominations are submitted to the Governor’s Council, which is an 8-member elected body, not to the legislature. Since it is MA I assume that it was controlled by Ds”
Milhouse – Correct. Criticizing Romney for not getting conservative judges appointed just represents more uniformed, bogus talking points from people who have not bothered to do any research. Par for the course for Romney critics.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:51 pmNot all of Romneys judges were conservatives but you would know that if you weren’t holed up in your Romney shrine you twerp.
Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 12/28/2011 @ 9:56 pmThat is so insane that nobody literate enough to formulate the sentence could possibly believe it. Would such a legislative declaration be a public act, a record, or judicial proceeding? You might as well claim that if one state were to pass a law redefining pi, all the bridges in all the other states would be obliged to fall down.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:02 pmYou might want to read this article by Ace:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/325141.php
The part about the desire by some, apparently, to “lose righteously” is worth thinking about. The whole article is worth reading and pondering.
YMMV.
Simon Jester (612676) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:04 pmIt did no such thing. It said:
It did not say that Congress and/or the President could make it so merely by saying so. The judiciary is not bound by factual statements by the other branches with which it disagrees.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:08 pmNo it won’t. All it will take is a new justice or two on the Court. There are now three or four votes on the Court to reverse Roe. If that can be increased to five then no amendment would be necessary.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:14 pmThat’s bullshit. The 14th amendment protects aliens too. “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So if it were established that foetuses are people then it wouldn’t matter whether they’re citizens; the 14th amendment would protect them anyway.
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:20 pmYou forget that the force used in self defense must be proportionate. To use deadly force you must be in danger of death or GBH. Having to carry a baby to term is neither.
The closest analogy I can think of goes like this: suppose you were to wake up in a hospital bed, and find that you’re hooked up to the five-year-old in the next bed. You’re told that his father kidnapped you because you match his rare blood type, and you will be stuck in that bed for the next nine months until his disease is cured. The father has already turned himself in, and has pleaded guilty to kidnapping. You’re free to unhook yourself and leave, but if you do so the child will immediately drop dead, as a direct result of your action. Are you legally entitled to do so? If you do, will you be charged with murder? Would you, as a prosecutor, charge that person with murder?
Here’s another thought experiment: Suppose you wake up one night to the sound of something crashing through your window. You find that it’s a drunk who’s stumbled into your house and spewed all over the floor. You prepare to evict him, but notice that there’s a blizzard outside, and if you throw him out into it he will definitely die before he could find any help. Then you hear that the storm is going to continue all week, and in the meantime he’s spewing again. Do your rights to evict a trespasser and to rid yourself of a nuisance still apply? Or does the fact that you can’t exercise those rights without killing him change things? If you were to pick him up and throw him out into the storm, and he were to expire as a result, would you be charged with murder?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:40 pmLoosen up those hair plugs Dohbiden.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/28/2011 @ 10:59 pmIsn’t it sad that the entire institution of the presidency has degenerated into a quasi-reliable mechanism for recommending the appointment of partisan jurists to the Senate, and nothing more? That all we can hope to rely on in our presidents – and all we can hope to accomplish with our votes – is some small increase in the initially minimal probability that a candidate will (if elected!) suggest the appointment of a jurist who won’t actively deface the Constitution?
And we’ve come to grips with the reality that everything else is window-dressing, that all electoral promises and stated ideals are complete and utter bullsh*t. And that only so that we can avoid facing the possibility that even that little hope-against-hope about the USSC is bullsh*t in the same vein.
We are in some trouble.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:10 amNo it won’t. All it will take is a new justice or two on the Court. There are now three or four votes on the Court to reverse Roe. If that can be increased to five then no amendment would be necessary.
Comment by Milhouse — 12/28/2011 @ 10:14 pm
— Yes, I noted that. Did you see? However, if the right case does not come before the court, or the right balance of justices is not in place, then the amendment process is there to be attempted.
Icy (711ae3) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:22 amNo, I didn’t, and still can’t find it; no doubt that is my failing. Where did you note it? Or did you just think it too obvious to need noting? In any case, we’re both arguing against POA’s bizarre notion that all it would take would be a declaration by Congress, or even one by a state.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:30 amNo, I didn’t, and still can’t find it; no doubt that is my failing. Where did you note it? Or did you just think it too obvious to need noting?
— Ahem, from post #108:
Therefore, ONLY a constitutional amendment (or a SCOTUS decision that reverses Roe v Wade) will establish the unborn as persons with constitutional protection.
In any case, we’re both arguing against POA’s bizarre notion that all it would take would be a declaration by Congress, or even one by a state.
Icy (711ae3) — 12/29/2011 @ 1:10 am— POA is seeking a quick and easy path to a desired solution.
Regardless of the legal status of a fetus as regards abortion, something has to be done about the absurd situation whereby someone who causes a woman to miscarry can be charged with the murder of a “child” that the woman has a legal right to abort. I’m not at all sure how widespread this idiocy is, but it exists, it has happened, and it needs to be addressed.
C. S. P. Schofield (d726e2) — 12/29/2011 @ 6:08 am“Isn’t it sad that the entire institution of the presidency has degenerated into a quasi-reliable mechanism for recommending the appointment of partisan jurists to the Senate, and nothing more?”
Leviticus – It is sad if you think that’s all there is to the institution anymore.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 12/29/2011 @ 7:30 amComment by C. S. P. Schofield — 12/29/2011 @ 6:08 am
It’s actually the reverse, since the right to abortion is a modern concept, and the idea that causing a miscarriage is a species of homicide has deep roots in the common law.
I suppose the reconciliation lies in the fact that only the woman has the right to end her pregnancy, and if anyone else interferes, it’s a criminal act of some kind.
JBS (cc1ec4) — 12/29/2011 @ 7:52 amThe self-defense argument comes into play because the fetus is literally invading the woman’s body.
Once again, how is it perfectly okay to incinerate perhaps hundreds of feti in Tokyo just because their mothers happen to be in a defended city in a country where some of its people attacked Pearl Harbor, but not okay to kill feti invading a woman’s body?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:13 amNOTE: I had posted as Natasha Jackson; I forgot to change the name from the last sockpuppet Friday.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:14 amWhat was the worth of unborn life in Tokyo, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki in 1945?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:16 amVery briefly as I have other things to do-
deaths in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki had very little to do with the deaths at Pearl harbor. They had to do with the deaths that would have been absorbed anyway by the Japanese and Allies if WW II was to end with the equivalent of Iwo Jima across all of the islands that comprised Japan.
That is a whole argument itself, but it is the correct argument to have anyway, I think.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 8:43 amWhich would justify proportionate force to evict it, but not deadly force. If you used deadly force to evict a trespasser, even a particularly noxious one, you’d be convicted of murder.
For the same reason that it’s perfectly OK to gun down enemy soldiers on sight, even in their sleep, or in the back while they’re running away, but it’s not OK for the police to do that to known criminals or members of criminal organisations. And for the same reason that prisoners of war, who haven’t even broken any laws, may be held indefinitely without trial, while criminal offenders must be tried and given a fixed sentence after which they must be released. War operates under different rules.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:15 amWar is fought between nations, not between individuals. The Japanese nation was our enemy, not just those individual members who happened to be in uniform.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:16 amAnd the only choices were bombing Japan and invading Japan?
How about, you know, stop fighting and killing the Japanese?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:18 amExactly. The War was not about punishing the Japanese for Pearl Harbour, any more than it was about punishing them for invading China, or about punishing the Germans for invading Poland. And the current war is not about punishing anyone for 11-Sep-2001. Those were the triggers for war, the cause of the war, but once war is declared it is about defeating the enemy wherever he is. The Vichy French did not bomb Pearl Harbour, but that didn’t stop us from invading North Africa.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:20 amYes, those were the only choices.
The only way that could have happened was for them to surrender, but they weren’t about to do that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:21 am133.Regardless of the legal status of a fetus as regards abortion, something has to be done about the absurd situation whereby someone who causes a woman to miscarry can be charged with the murder of a “child” that the woman has a legal right to abort. I’m not at all sure how widespread this idiocy is, but it exists, it has happened, and it needs to be addressed.
Comment by C. S. P. Schofield — 12/29/2011 @ 6:08 am
— Currently, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 21 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy (“any state of gestation,” “conception,” “fertilization” or “post-fertilization”)
Icy (d0c253) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:21 amThe only way that could have happened was for them to surrender, but they weren’t about to do that.
Or for us to surrender, which would please the Post-Modernists no end.
AD-RtR/OS! (140483) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:37 amThe fact that the invasion is within a human body justifies deadly force.
Legally or morally?
Legally, killing during war (including killing of unborn) operates under different rules from killing in other contexts, and abortion in reaction to rape-caused pregnancy also operates under rules different from abortion in other contexts.
Now of course we can, in theory, change the law to make it illegal, even in time of war, to “to gun down enemy soldiers on sight, even in their sleep, or in the back while they’re running away”, or to have an abortion to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape. In a practical and moral sense, I find it incongruous to tell some of our sons that they will go to prison if they refuse to kill to repel an invasion of a piece of land, while at the same time telling some of our daughters that they will go to prison if they kill to repel an invasion of their own bodies.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 9:53 amThrowing peedoffamerican a bone here; the Ron Paul sponsored Sanctity of Life Act:
Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 – Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term “person” include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.
There are, of course, a couple of glaring problems with this proposed legislation (beyond the fact that it has been introduced before and never made it through Congress); specifically:
Icy (d0c253) — 12/29/2011 @ 10:17 am— requires that the term “person” include all such human life flies directly in the face of the SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and it would be challenging, to say the least, to think that Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts would deny that the Constitution says what it says.
— Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases is something that A) is a very dangerous precedent to establish, and a threat to the separation of powers; and B) may not be possible when it comes to the SCOTUS anyway.
As awful as Bush often was and Romney may be,
Roberts + Alito > Sotomayor + Kagan
Bugg (ea1809) — 12/29/2011 @ 10:42 am“Leviticus – It is sad if you think that’s all there is to the institution anymore.”
– daleyrocks
It seems to be the line of reasoning advanced by Patterico for supporting most of these GOP candidates (particularly Romney) over Obama; see “Climbs on Soapbox” bit, which is a recurrent theme here, and an understandable one. I can think that there’s a lot more that a president *does*, but I don’t think there’s a lot more that a president can be *relied upon to do* (which was my main point, and there’s a big difference). My parents are flirting with the same logic – that the only reason for supporting Obama would be the nature of his Supreme Court appointments. I have mixed feelings about that logic – it strikes me as settling for something less than is owed.
Leviticus (dd1d7b) — 12/29/2011 @ 10:52 amLeviticus, I think we can rely on a Romney administration to actually submit a budget proposal to Congress — every year, as opposed to the current Occupier-in-Chief who is 0 for ’10, ’11 & ’12.
Icy (711ae3) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:11 pmIcy, who needs a budget when you can print more money? I just wish they’d let me try that too.
(Now attempting to remove tongue embedded in cheek).
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:26 pmYes, a human is required to be born to have natural-born American citizenship.
More importantly, defining a person as all human life has complications, to write the least. What, for example, do we make of organ donors? They are obviously alive if their organs were successfully transplanted. The cells in those organs have the same unique genetic code as they do, and they are clearly alive after a successful transplant. (A transplant would not be successful if the donor tissue was dead) Therefore, if those cells are alive, the organ donor is alive. And yet in many cases we treat people with living cells as legally dead.
Why was their surrender necessary for the fighting by Americans to stop? Could not the Americans have simply ceased all combat operations?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:35 pmHow about, you know, stop fighting and killing the Japanese
I don’t go for eating raw fish and I hear Japanese is a hard language to learn. For those reasons and knowing what the Japanese did to populations they conquered I would not have opted for surrendering to Japan.
I actually have a friend whose grandfather, a Dutch businessman, was executed/murdered by Japanese soldiers in front of his child (my friend’s father). As problematic as fighting the Japanese was, to surrender was moreso, as they thought it dishonorable to surrender and it made one less than human, hence it was easy to justify mistreating and killing POW’s.
Hmm, less than human. that seems pertinent to the discussion at hand.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:36 pmRe #153
Ask the Chinese of Nanking what happens if you do not defend yourself against/from attacking Japanese.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:39 pmYeah, those unborn babies in Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were “less than human”.
Abortion to terminate a rape-caused pregnancy is, in fact, treating the unborn exactly as a human would be treated. For if it is morally justified to kill humans who invade a piece of land, how much more justified is it to kill a human who invades the organs of another human?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:51 pmUnborn babies in Nanking, too.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:56 pmUnborn babies in Nanking, too.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 12:56 pmYeah.
I do note that if the Enola Gay crew had refused to drop that bomb, they would have ended up spending the next twenty years in Leavenworth, even if they proved that the bomb would have killed unborn babies. A government that would have done that has no business telling pregnant rape victims how to fight the invasion of their own bodies.
How ironic that the Code Pinkers are pretty much the only people with credibility to argue that the government should be able to force pregnant rape victims to give birth.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 1:05 pmAnd, like Clinton and Algore, you continue to ignore the difference between crime and war.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 1:18 pmAnd if Truman had decided not to drop the bombs, he would have deserved to be impeached and executed for treason.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 1:19 pmIf we are discussing legal terms, abortion to terminate a rape-caused pregnancy is legal. The firebombing of Tokyo was legal. Neither a girl who had an abortion to terminate a rape-caused pregnancy, nor a young man who flew the bombers that dropped incendiaries on Tokyo, were murderers.
Why should a girl or woman who got pregnant by rape be forced to carry the baby to term? The baby is clearly a foreign invader. She certainly has the moral right to resist the invasion. If she has a moral duty to submit to an invasion, why would not the United States of America have a moral duty to submit to an invasion, or at least a moral duty to not kill people outside the U.S.?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 12/29/2011 @ 1:27 pmI’m not discussing legal terms. I’m simply stating that your bringing in the analogy of the end of WW II, be it in Europe of the Pacific, is not a good analogy concerning abortion, no matter what the argument about abortion is. That’s all, one little itty bitty part to steer the dialogue in more worthwhile directions.
One question is whether abortion to end the unplanned/undesired pregnancy will do much in the long run to minimize the damage inflicted upon the woman. Some of the anecdotes earlier suggest that carrying the pregnancy to term and allowing the child their life is beneficial. There is a big difference between saying a pregnancy was unplanned and a child was unwanted. Many pregnancies have been “unplanned”, that does not mean that the resulting children were unwanted.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/29/2011 @ 2:32 pmAnd with that I bow out of this discussion, gave my 2 cents.
Anon Y. Mous:
I’m not sure it’s so simple. There is a well-worn series of debates that goes along these lines:
Let’s pretend a gunman was holding someone hostage, and demanded that you become his hostage for nine months. If you agree to that, he will let his hostage go, and will release you after nine months. If you do not agree, he will shoot his hostage today.
Assume you know he will keep his word either way.
Are you obligated to become his hostage? Most would say no. It would be a nice thing for you to do. But you are not obligated.
Now, being pregnant is obviously not quite the same as being held hostage in a house at gunpoint for nine months. But you see the basis of the analogy. The baby does indeed hold the woman hostage in some sense — affecting her body, her hormones, her appearance, her energy level, her emotions, and so forth — for a long period of time.
If she voluntarily had sex, I would say she consented to having her body held hostage in that manner.
If she was raped, that cannot be said.
So I don’t think the ethical argument is as black and white as you make it sound.
Patterico (1c6e81) — 12/29/2011 @ 3:13 pmI’d say you’re certainly not obligated to volunteer to become a hostage for someone else. But change the analogy. Say you’re already a hostage, and he says if you try to escape he’ll kill the other hostage. Are you permitted to escape? That’s a tougher one, isn’t it?
Still, I’d say yes, you are entitled to escape, because the gunman is a moral agent. If you escape and he fulfills his threat, that’s on him, not on you. So let’s change the analogy yet again. The gunman rigs you with an electronic monitoring device, and sets it up so that if you remove the device or leave the premises a bomb around his other hostage’s neck will blow up. He then goes off to Brazil, leaving you two in the house alone, with supplies to last nine months. Now if you escape you will be killing the other hostage. May you do so? I’d say no.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 12/29/2011 @ 3:23 pmPeople could rationally disagree about this hypo. It’s not a simple case of “if your life is not in danger then you may not kill another.”
To bring it back to reality: what if the rape victim’s health is endangered but not her life?
What if the pregnancy has a 1% chance of killing her? 10%? 50%?
And so on.
These are not easy questions.
Patterico (1c6e81) — 12/29/2011 @ 4:00 pmAnd the key point, to me, is that it matters whether the person in the hypo put themselves in the situation through their own actions.
Imagine each hypo, but now imagine that someone told the person they had the choice to go in the house knowing that the gunman was in there and that the hostage situation could happen. But it will feel good to go in the house.
Doesn’t that change the calculation you make in your head?
Patterico (1c6e81) — 12/29/2011 @ 4:02 pmand it’s too late baby now it’s too late
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/29/2011 @ 4:07 pmthough we really did try to make it
something inside has died and I can’t hide
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 12/29/2011 @ 4:07 pmand I just can’t fake it
Pro-choice means that everyone has the choice to allow or not allow a pregnancy to continue—especially in the case of rape or incest. Pro-life means that no one has the choice any longer—because it’s been given over to religious fanatics.
tadcf (ead2bd) — 12/31/2011 @ 4:55 amThank you for your idiocy, tadcf. We are all lesser for having read it.
JD (5e8dfe) — 12/31/2011 @ 6:50 amSummon the Billy Madison clip, recall that Obama thought it a waste of time, to save the lives of
narciso (87e966) — 12/31/2011 @ 7:12 ambabies that survived the abortionist’s ravages.
tadcf appears to be suffering from a brain injury. Perhaps (s)he was stabbed by a needle while in the womb, but survived to bring us such precious Bon Mots as the above.
Icy (826c59) — 12/31/2011 @ 1:18 pmBut it is that way in most cases, isn’t it? If you use deadly force in self-defence, and you weren’t in danger of death, grievous bodily harm, or rape, you will be convicted of murder. You’re the prosecutor; have I got that wrong? Would your department not charge someone in those circumstances?
Then what difference does it make that she was raped? The exact same question applies to any pregnant woman. And it must be judged the same way it would be in a normal case of lethal force used in self-defense. If someone killed another person to prevent a 1% chance of his being killed, would you charge him or let him go? What about 10% or 50%. That question has to be answered even without the abortion issue. And once you’ve answered it outside the context of abortion, you can simply apply the same answer within that context.
Not really. A person who’s in danger because she was foolish enough to walk down a dark alley in a bad part of town, still has the same right to self-defense that she would have had she woken up in bed to find an intruder attacking her. I don’t think you’d charge them differently, would you?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/1/2012 @ 12:35 am