Who is pro-life — really?

This evening, in synagogue, I will be offering prayers for the healing of Rep. Steve Scalise, critically wounded as he was playing softball on a field in Alexandria, Virginia, as well as others who were wounded.

But, I am tired of praying those prayers.

Can we talk about the bullets that entered his body, and have forced him to undergo a series of harrowing operations?

Those bullets came from a semiautomatic assault rifle. The shooters at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and the shooters at the mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., San Bernardino and Aurora used the same artillery.

In the words of Leana Wen, writing in The New York Times:

Trauma doctors and nurses who treated patients in these tragedies and medical examiners who investigated the aftermath, all commented on the unbelievable devastation resulting from the bullet wounds. Indeed, this is the intended consequence of assault rifles. They are designed to be weapons of war. The bullets they discharge don’t follow a straight line through the body; they fragment and explode, destroying as much living tissue as possible.

There are estimates that the annual society cost of gun violence exceeds $229 billion. What I see are the human costs, not only of death but also of survival. Because of spinal damage, my patients become paralyzed, unable to walk and sometimes unable to move anything from the neck down. Because of blood loss and infections, they have their leg bones removed and undergo limb amputations. Because of intestinal perforations, they wear colostomy bags to reroute feces to a bag over their skin. Many require multiple surgeries, followed by a lifetime of hospitalizations from antibiotic-resistant infections and chronic, unremitting pain. Some become addicted to painkillers; they face a downward spiral of unemployment and poverty, homelessness and hopelessness.

I can see why people might want pistols to protect themselves, especially in various urban areas (the thought has passed through my mind, as well).

Though I am not a fan of hunting, and espouse a religious tradition that abhors it, I understand why people might want to hunt.

But, what I cannot understand is why people need semiautomatic rifles, complete with over-the-top destructive ammo.

You want to stop a burglar? Fine. So would I.

A rifle to take into the Pennsylvania woods to kill deer?

Again – not my thing, but as my Yiddish speaking grandmother would have said: gei gezunt. Go in good health.

But, ammunition that liquefies bodily organs, and reduces bone to powder?

Why do we “need” that?

Do other kinds of ammo not effectively deter, stop, wound or even kill intruders?

Does a deer or a moose need to be deader?

Do other kinds of ammo not kill enough? Isn’t dead, well, dead?

Wait a second, Jeff. You said the word “need.” That is an emotional argument. It doesn’t matter what gun owners “need.” They have a right to bear arms.

Now, far be it from me to tell people that they cannot use their constitutional rights.

But, here is something that I know about rights. There is a rabbinic text that says that Jerusalem was destroyed “because people insisted on exercising the full extent of their rights.”

Interesting, huh?

In other words, there are “rights,” and there are “obligations.” Most conservatives that I know are usually farbrent (Yiddish for “burning up with passion”) in dismay over a rights-oriented society, in which people forget that there are also obligations.

I agree with them. That is the kind of world that I envision – a communitarian vision, in which people focus on their obligations to each other.

But, no. No talk of obligations to the general public, so that people might be safe. I have no expectations that this most recent shooting will significantly change the American conversation about guns. None. Even after a left-leaning miscreant deliberately shot at Republicans.

“But now that it overtakes you, it is too much; it reaches you, and you are unnerved.” (Job 4:5). The gun culture has now overtaken the Republicans; they are now its victims. They should be unnerved; apparently, they are not.

So, yes. I believe in rights.

You have a right to bear arms.

I have a right to live in safety.

Oh, one last thought.

It’s about that whole right to life thing.

Many conservative Republicans believe that fetuses have a right to life. Without getting into a lengthy discussion about abortion, I believe that they are right – certainly for fetuses beyond a certain gestation point, absent good reasons for abortion. We can talk about that another time.

But here is what I do not understand.

It seems to me that there are many people in this country who care more about tissue that is potential life – than about tissue, muscle, bone, and organs in live people who have already emerged from the womb.

So, who is really pro-life here?

Comments

  1. Murder is murder, Jeff… it really isn’t that complicated. Whether you take a life of an innocent unborn child at the hands of an abortion doctor, or you take the life of an innocent person by the bullets of a mad-man, you end up with murder.

    You’re ethics is really flawed. You provide exceptions to an abortion doctor who murdered an innocent child, while making a gun-owner who hasn’t killed anyone guilty by association.

    Maybe you need to re-open your Torah.

  2. Conservative Republicans are contradicting themselves but name an imperfect man-driven organization that doesn’t. If God isn’t at the core, you’ll be forever chasing your tail. “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23)

  3. “Pro-Life”. Is just an advertising slogan for woman hatred and slut shaming by political manipulators.

  4. I get the angst…I do…I do…I do. As a passionate conservative and supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I appreciate your argument. If I had greater trust in government I’d say, let’s pass a temporary provision whereby all weapons not deemed essential to both personal defense (handguns) and recreational hunting (standard rifles) be stored by a trusted 3rd party with no interest in the question…then wait. After a reasonable period, a measure of the results could be compiled statistically, and we could determine if it made any difference. Such a proposal is probably unwieldy, costly, and impractical…but I’d rather think outside the box in creative ways to address the problem than to adopt permanently restrictive measures that we can’t reverse which could have real world consequences in terms of government power. My proposal would really test the claim about criminals’ access to weapons despite the strictest protocols imposed on law abiding citizens. But the real solution is to reach the hearts and minds of people for whom the unproductive, unjust, evil, and violent inclinations that they seem to manifest, appear justified.

  5. You miss the plate by a mile.

  6. I get your point, but sometimes a soft answer takes the sting out of a forthright remark.

  7. In this situation, soft action has led to 46 years of complacency. Eventually the cry for justice to end abortion must supercede any peace with the apologists of injustice.

  8. Nope. That’s all it is, it ain’t nothing else.

  9. I very much appreciate this article, it makes good points. I would add that seeing how Republicans so butcher the Constitutional context of the 2nd Amendment in order to help some sell more guns, is it any wonder that they would not change their position on gun control laws even when they become shooting victims because of the current laws?

  10. Jewish law has always allowed abortion if the life or the health of the mother is at stake. This was the reading of the Torah by rabbis who were steeped in the Torah and had studied every single word.

  11. Yes, being Pro-Life is a euphemism for being Pro-Lash of courageous women who refuse to live according to the dictates of religious dominionists.

  12. “The cry for justice” as you put it, has left Doctors who provide abortions dead.

  13. Apples and oranges argument. Big difference in a human being tearing apart a defenseless child who is exhibiting no threat to another person and people having firearms for self-defense. But I’ll make you a deal. We outlaw abortion except in the case of saving the life of the mother because of a medical complication and I’ll support increasing legislation to limit firearms to those who have demonstrated they would likely use them to harm others.

  14. Then “Pro-choice” is just an advertising slogan to dehumanize a human being so that people can discard their unborn children.

  15. I see nothing courageous in the discarding of a human being because they are inconvenient or a burden.

  16. How about a “cry for humanity” and start seeing a child as an unborn human being who also has a right to life. Hopefully abortion is on the decline because people are seeing the overwhelming horror of these dead children and are starting to make the right and responsible choices to not abort. I hope for a day when the provision of abortion is rare and obsolete.

  17. Abortion is on the decline because unplanned pregnancy is on the decline. Take away accessible health care, and especially mandated coverage of the kind of contraceptives that are most effective, and abortions will go up again. Abortion will still occur even if made illegal.

    The solution is not to outlaw abortions – 69% don’t want Roe v Wade completely overturned and 59% believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

    We have fought this for years. Time for compromise from both sides. European countries have made workable limits based on 12, 16, 20 weeks, limiting abortions after that to cases to protect the mother, severe fetal defects, and sometimes still if rape/incest occurred.

    We also should work on better support for women who experience an unplanned pregnancy. That is is the trade-off for controlling what a woman does with her womb. Free health care, living stipend, food, clothing, shelter, pay for the birth and provide all this for up to six months, maybe a year, after the birth of the child.

    We can and should find a ground we can agree to stand on and focus on continuing to reduce the incidence of unplanned pregnancy.

  18. Most opponents of abortion don’t care about the child after its born. The House and now the Senate are cutting funding for healthcare for children. I agree with AFT45. The way to make abortions unnecessary is provide all women with birth control.

  19. Non sequitur. Plus, a fetus is not a “human being.”

  20. In a certain sense this is true. If one has a moral objection to abortion due to a concept other than the law’s, and the law’s of every nation everywhere throughout all time one is in no sense obligated to terminate a pregnancy, or for any other reason, in a just society.

  21. Some courts have declared a fetus a human being.

  22. Edited. Just because a law has been around for a long time doesn’t make it a moral law.

  23. And abortion doctors have killed 55,000,000+ babies since Roe v Wade. Now how many abortion docs have died?

  24. THE BIG LIE! Tsk tsk Liars never prosper. Watch yourself.

  25. True. However, precedence in jurisprudence is important. The antiabort groups have tried to present their case as a civil rights matter. However that is usually seen for the smokescreen that it is.

  26. No surprise there. A court in the cradle of the Confederacy is bound to make some cockeyed decisions considering who elects the judges there.

  27. You are warning me? I didn’t lie. I told the truth. It shows what you anti-choice people are really like. No one can disagree with you.

  28. And you prochoice people are heartless murderers of little in utero boys and girls. But you’re big and they are small. Might makes right Nietzche (sp?).

  29. “Warning” sure. Do you want people thinking you are a liar? Because telling lies will get you labeled “liar”.

  30. There you go again. Just because a disagree with you, I must be a “heartless murderer and a liar.” I am neither of those things. It is a woman’s right to choose for herself. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you are male, it’s none of your business to tell women in a difficulty situation.

  31. Except there are no children involved in abortion. Children are born. The conflation and inability to distinguish the difference in existence between born and unborn is a dishonest rhetorical element of the anti-abortion crowd.

    Outlawing abortion has a track record of not working for its intended purpose whatsoever. It endangers the lives and health of women, has been used to promote human trafficking and forced indentured status of young women.

    If you were really concerned with reducing abortion or making it something people won’t do, support easy and cheap access to effective contraception. That has been proven to lower abortion rates dramatically. But that also involves things like respect for the lives and choices of women. Something the anti-abortion crowd typically has contempt for.

  32. “I see nothing courageous in the discarding of a human being because they are inconvenient or a burden until after they are born.

    FTFY

  33. Its a human being, but it is not a person. People have autonomous existence separate from other people. One does not achieve personhood until birth. Until then it is silly to treat them as a separate autonomous being.

  34. And women seeking abortions either dead or maimed by hack doctors operating with a nod and wink by anti-abortion politicians.

  35. The desire to exercise control over women.

  36. Not at all. Alabama elected a crooked hack politician named Roy Moore as Chief Justice, he was removed from the Court for malfeasance, then he was elected Chief Justice again, then was removed for malfeasance again, and now he’s running for Governor, and has a good chance to win because all the christofascists regard him as a hero. As such he has a solid base whereas his opponents will split the anti-Moore vote in the Republican Primary. The Democrats don’t stand much of a chance, unless Moore is the Republican nominee and the anti-Moore Republicans will vote against him in the general election.

  37. Some of your points have merit. Not the one that the unborn human being is not a child.

    “The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them: that’s the essence of inhumanity.” — George Bernard Shaw

  38. No one is a “seperate autonomous being”. Every single human being is interdependent with other human beings. WE exist in society, networked dependent upon others who are in turn dependent upon us. Autonomous existence is an irrelevant argument.

  39. Just becuase you don’t believe (or perfer) it to not true that the interpretation is invalid when examining the empirical evidence for why many children are aborted. And there has been plenty of empirical evidence in this discussion that represents the “dehumanization” of an unborn human being.

  40. Pistols to protect ourselves, “especially in some urban areas?” Really? Or a rifle to shoot deer in Pennsylvania you add? Actually, how about a handgun to protect ourselves from meth addled people and heroin addicts who might break into our homes in rural Pennsylvania? PS: they might be white.

  41. So if I stop a woman from killing her 1 hour old newborn baby I’m a hero. But if I stop her from killing her 9 month old in utero baby I’m trying to control her body.

  42. You want to pretend that:
    1. You actually care about people and life in general
    2. That you can’t conceive any possible difference between the born and something physically attached and living inside a human being.

    Neither are credible.

    Your alleged concern for the unborn always involves contempt for the born. Especially women. Their lives in your view are subject to your whims and opinions. As if your property.

  43. That is dishonest nonsense to avoid the obvious. So in the most patronizingly simple way I will explain the concept which eludes you.

    After giving birth, a mother of can sleep, have a meal, defecate or go anywhere and not require having her baby present. She can leave the baby in the care of someone else. She doesn’t even have to survive childbirth for the baby to live.

    A pregnant woman can’t do any of the above. The fetus is with her at all times and cannot live without her bodily systems.

    There is no equivalence in existence between a fetus and any born person.

  44. I am confuse, men, care so much about life, like fetus. They should also care so much about their semen. Semen cannot live outside without being inside the vagina or anus.
    So, to my understanding, when men wasted the semen, they are killing the life over and over merciless and cruel.
    These conservative men ought to be pro-semen as well if they are pro-life. ban anyone from masturbating or wasting the life tragically on an executed platform: the tissue.
    The Semen has the right to life, the live inside the vagina or anus!!. that’s pro-life!!! If you disagree with that, then you are pro-fetus.

  45. You’d better correct Mayo Clinic then.They think in utero babies are children.

  46. The point of the 2nd Amendment isn’t hunting rights, it’s self-defense — both from others when the government fails or refuses to do its job, and from our government. Some guns are more useful for the first than the second, some the other way around. Either way, outside of obvious mental incapacity we don’t want the government involved in choosing who can own guns for the same reason you don’t want a fox guarding the henhouse.

  47. “They’re not pro-life. I’ll tell you what they are, they’re anti-woman. Anti-woman. They don’t like women.” — George Carlin

  48. Susan, you’re right except for one thing The only way to make abortions unnecessary is to somehow assist BOTH men and women in marshalling the determination to not have a child they either cannot–or don’t wish to, support with all the love and resources needed for that child to grow up to become the best he-or-she can be!

    The rest is merely details! Couples possessing the determination and motivation I’ve mentioned about can purchase a month’s worth of birth control pills for around $8 at WalMart!

  49. If you’re talking about the recent Alabama case, the case did not establish fetal personhood. Alabama has allowed wrongful death cases for fetal injury for some time. Even Roe v. Wade recognized that such claims were consistent with the right to abortion, as they are based on the “potentiality of life” the fetus has, not that the fetus is a person. The 2017 case involved the fetal personhood statute — not court case — contained in Alabama’s homicide law. The statute recognized fetuses as persons for the purpose of homicide charges, but contained a broad exception for medical negligence. In other words, a negligent OBGYN cannot be charged with involuntary manslaughter. The doctor in the 2017 case argued that the exception barred recovery by the mother, but the court rejected this.
    tl; dr: Wrongful death claims for fetal injury are really just another way of stating that the mother can sue for injury to her fetus. It does not establish personhood.

  50. The Torah rejects fetal personhood based on Exodus 21:22 et seq. I’m sure Rabbi Salkin is well acquainted with it. Maybe it’s you that needs to open the Torah.

  51. The issue was “human being” not personhood.

  52. but was this the case you were talking about?

  53. “It seems to me that there are many people in this country who care more about tissue that is potential life – than about tissue, muscle, bone, and organs in live people who have already emerged from the womb.” That “tissue” was created by a sperm that was alive enough to swim up to and enter the egg. It died after that?
    Anyone condoning shooting someone they don’t like has a problem.

  54. Why should that trouble you Spud? If they are so pro-murder, one would think people would be rejoicing, eh? It’s just another murder, after all….

  55. Yes. Chipping away at R. One little chunk at a time. Save the innocents.

  56. Sure it did. The ASC said an unborn child was entitled to legal protection. They established personhood.

  57. No they didn’t. They said that a mother can recover injuries to a fetus, viable or not, a doctrine that has existed for more than a decade in Alabama. It’s the Alabama legislature that established fetal personhood for the purposes of the criminal homicide statute.

  58. I agree with the overall sentiment of the article, but the fetus is not potential life. Take a peak at a 1960s dictionary. Using that logic can lead some to equate a fingernail with a potential life, as if it could become a fetus. It ignores Biology 101. The fetus is human from conception and nothing else.

  59. What is the difference between a baby born premature by a month and one not born yet, but at full-term? Answer: Virtually nothing other than religious heresay.

  60. Roe v. Wade was about population control, not women’s rights. Even its co-counsel, Mr Weddington, admitted it in a letter to President Clinton.

  61. The overwhelming number if abortions are done on fetii which cannot be prematurely born. One month can mean the difference between an abortion or dead woman.

    Late term abortions are done by mothers who intended to keep their pregnancy but need to terminate it to save their lives.

    Could be viable one month later is not viable now.

  62. Only pro murder in your eyes. I am concerned for the born. It is far more honest than pretending to be concerned for the unborn. But not really. It has more to do with being sanctimonious. Much like the compassion towards people whose souls you think are in peril. An excuse to act badly.

  63. You haven’t actually read the decision or understand the concept of women having control over their lives without your say so.

  64. Lifesitenews are fetus worshiping wingnuts. Their views mean nothing to me

  65. You did not understand my question.

  66. Doesn’t lessen the truth of the article.

  67. You were not making a coherent point.

    How about you simply acknowledge that as long as a fetus lives within a woman’s body and can’t survive until it can be born. Moreover acknowledge that until it can be born, it lives by her will alone. You can follow it up with recognizing you have no control over her will in the matter.

  68. Lessening a negative is still a negative. There is no truth to found there. Just a lot of fiction

  69. You’re not going to find very many abortions at all being performed that late in a term except to preserve the woman’s life and health. While in your silly fantasy and false equivalency you do not reveal how you would “stop” such, if you would by any means interfere with a person’s private medical decisions like that, it would indicate you are not a good person at all.

  70. Why don’t you answer my question instead of avoiding it?
    You pro-aborts use that kind of hypothetical questioning with pro-life people as well as your demeaning responses. But I know why you do it – and it doesn”t faze me at all. Lol. You know that if you give the answer that your logic requires you will be looked upon as a monster.

  71. No less so than Nancy “I don’t give a damn about abortion” Reagan, I’m sure. Your question does not compute and does not deserve an answer because it sets up a false equivalency and implausibility. I don’t care if the fetus fetishists think of me. If they want to off me like they did Dr. George Tiller and Dr. Bernard Slepien and others, you can bet my widow will donate the bulk of my meager estate to Southwind Clinic which Tiller founded.

  72. Just answer the hypothetical question. Or are you just an empty suit.
    And you have a way too high opinion of your own importance.

  73. It’s not a hypothetical question because it’s positing two unlikely outcomes with no relationship to one another which does not deserve an answer.

    Although my relation to Southwind is at present as a donor only, I have served as a clinic defender elsewhere and would again in a heartbeat if there was a facility close by. If you remember, a clinic defender died with the doctor he was escorting in the Pensecola terrorist attack and the defender’s wife was wounded. I realize I am small potatoes next to giant like Tiller but so was the receptionist shot by the terrorist Salvi in Massachusetts. I’m not afraid to die to protect women and their medical providers from the terrorism you romanticize. Next time I’m on duty I’m sure my license plate will be recorded by the terrorists but that’s a badge of honor.

  74. First time, violated the law with his ugly monument; the second time, instructed county clerks to ignore Obergefell contrary to the federal Supreme Court. His judicial record as a district judge was also corrupt, injecting his religious beliefs to deny a lesbian mother custody of his child and making intemperate remarks to her while on the bench.

  75. Let’s see that. You have access to President Clinton’s mail?

  76. I don’t care what NR thought.
    The question is simple: if I stop a pregnant woman from killing her in utero 9 month old baby am I trying to control her body?
    How hard is that question? Yes or no.

  77. If you are not her physician you are doing the devil’s work. it’s none of your freaking business.

  78. Well, everybody has an opinion. If your hero is someone who has twice disgraced himself resulting in losing his judicial bench for his malfeasance, interjected his personal prejudices into his rulings, and engaged in political theatre to advance himself, that says a lot about you.

  79. People who show contempt for the born, most notably those who get pregnant, have no standing to lecture others on dehumanization.

    Until you are willing to address the issues of women who make such choices, nobody has to give a crap about your alleged concern for the unborn.

    You are such a drama queen.

  80. It’s a longstanding nonsense meme. The Alexandria shooter was doing as you stated. Using his personal firearms to fight against what he perceived as the oppressive government. The pitfall to this line of thinking is who really gets to determine when the government has become oppressive? In every instance where this doctrine has been exercised, it has led to nastiness and attacks on society.

    Its a poor reading of the second amendment anyway. The purpose was for a paramilitary militia in service of the government. Unfortunately, in modern terms something akin to Latin American “death squads” or Saddam Hussein’s “fedayeen”.

  81. He stood up against liberal tyranny. And if he wanted to advance himself that probably wasn’t the best way to do it. And he wears his disgrace as a badge of honor. Too bad we don’t have more men like him willing to put their lives and careers on the line for liberty. The liberal iron boot will crush any and all who oppose it.

  82. You are so wrong. And the murder of innocent babies is everyone’s business. Your kind of thinking is no different than that which produced the
    Dred Scott decision.

  83. nope. Not proof. They must be baby murdering wingnuts! Also, Spud, you know I don’t open links…..you’re not quite a stranger but not yet.

  84. If only. Most liberals are all Rodney “Can’t we just get along?” and roll over for scumbags like Moore.

  85. This is the disconnect: Several million years of jurisprudence says otherwise. The fetus fetishists have tried to claim their cause is a civil rights matter but they seldom gain traction with rational people.

  86. Liberals would censor the constitution if it were being written today. Lol.

  87. Wrong. The abortion doc of Silent Scream fame quit doing abortions because of what he saw. I’d say he was a rational human being who knew abortions from the inside out – no pun intended.

  88. You got it partly right, but there was nothing “paramilitary” about the state militias — Congress was given authority to regulate them, and that was why the 2nd Amendment was needed — to make sure that Congress couldn’t use its regulatory power to disarm the state militias. But that original 2nd Amendment right is like the right to serve on juries, an individual right that is exercised in groups, and that means that the federal government cannot deny private citizens eligible for service in the general militia (which is almost all males of military age) access to light infantry weapons.

    But beyond that, we get to how the 2nd Amendment should be incorporated against the states. It’s an individual right so incorporation in some form is needed, just like with jury trials. One could plausibly argue that a constitutional right intended to protect state entities from federal interference shouldn’t be applied against the states, but that argument has already been rejected by the courts when they incorporated the Establishment Clause against the states. Which would mean that private militias now have constitutional protection where they might not have before.

    And beyond even that, there’s just what the Amenders and the people supporting them intended with the 14th Amendment when it came to the 2nd Amendment, because by the time it was ratified it was already clear that freed slaves were facing a vigilante backlash and needed the right to arm and protect themselves where their state and local governments might be unable or unwilling to protect them.

  89. Sure, he went where the money was. Still public opinion hasn’t changed despite 50 years of right-wing agitation.

  90. Get serious. That document is the number one thing keeping us from turning fascist.

  91. That’s the only answer allowed – got it.

  92. You don’t know much at all about liberals, that is obvious.

  93. Even lib jurists said Roe v Wade was a bad decision. 7 SCOTUS judges decided it incorrectly. How? By twisting the original intent of the constitution into what they wanted it to say. Disgusting.

    Ooops! had to change 5 to 7.

  94. Really? I contradict myself? Look below:

    Even many scholars sympathetic to the results of Roe have issued harsh criticisms of its legal reasoning. In the Yale Law Journal, eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, complained that Roe is “bad constitutional law, or rather … it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

    Below are criticisms of Roe from other supporters of legal abortion.

    “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

    “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

    “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General

    “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

    “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

    “In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor

    “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

    I’ve looked. I’ve never even seen the word “abortion” in the constitution.

  95. Alabama Supreme Court unanimously recognizes personhood of unborn children

    Abortion , Alabama Wrongful Death Act , Pre-Born , Supreme Court,

    January 4, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A unanimous opinion handed down the last day of 2016 by the Alabama Supreme Court is the latest in a growing body of state law extending personhood and the equal protection of the law to pre-born children in Alabama.

    The personhood of the pre-born from the moment of conception has now been recognized by the Supreme Court of Alabama as it relates to the Homicide Act, the chemical endangerment statute and the Wrongful Death Act.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/alabama-supreme-court-unanimously-recognizes-equal-protection-for-pre-born

  96. As usual, much ado about nothing. You claimed to know what liberals do and think, then said liberals disagree with Roe. Nothing in this thread is about Roe. Just more distraction and rhetoric signifying nothing.

  97. And yet you ignore the facts. No prob.

    Just quoted you libs who dislike Roe. Yet to protect their precious Roe, none of them think it should be overturned. I do know what libs think. I listen to the mainstream media. And I listen to the chatter from libs on this site.

  98. You said the libs hate it, then you contradicted yourself.

  99. Then let me be a little more clear: libs don’t like a “strict constructionist” view of the constitution. They do like a constitution they can interpret any way they want to. That’s how college freshman interpret poetry. To libs the ends justify the means. But in their more honest moments even libs admit Roe was bad law. But they are willing to live with it because it gave them what they wanted. And for Repubs to say “Well, it may be bad law, but it is the law,” is an abdication of their responsibility to get rid of bad law. That’s like saying “Well, Dred Scott may be bad law but its the law.”

    Fun fact: Roe v. Wade was decided by SCOTUS 7-2; Dred Scott Decision was decided by SCOTUS…wait for it…wait for it…you guessed it: 7-2. But that’s okay because SCOTUS is big and they were/are small.

  100. Thank you for providing a link to the actual decision. It, not Life Site News’s spin on it, controls what the court did. What I stated originally is correct. For decades, Alabama has allowed civil lawsuits on the basis of fetal injury. This is not a novel concept. Roe allowed it. Deep blue states like New York and Massachusetts allow it. In 1975, Alabama’s legislature passed an amendment to its criminal homicide statute defining “person” who is the victim of a homicide to include “an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.” This is less novel, but by no means unusual in the United States. The Alabama Supreme Court, about six years ago, reasoned that the homicide amendment meant it should reverse its previous rule that tort recovery for fetal deaths could only happen if the fetus was viable. What happened in the case decided at the end of 2016 (Stinnett v. Kennedy) was that the OBGYN argued an exception in the homicide statute prevented criminal prosecution for fetal deaths resulting from medical negligence. This, she reasoned, should bar civil recovery as well. The court rejected this argument, pointing out that just because criminal prosecution is barred does not mean a civil lawsuit is barred. That’s it. The court broke no new ground, made no grand announcement, didn’t even mention the word “personhood,” contrary to Life Site News’s first graf. That was left to the one of the specially concurring judges, who felt the need to invoke the “Creator God” in justifying the decision.

  101. Attempt to shift the argument. The issue of whether current support for children post birth is sufficient may play a role, but it is a whole different issue from ripping a child into small pieces for discarding of a human life.

  102. Certainly not in your mind. Convenient in that such dehumanizing is necessary in order to lay the fundamental principle to enable the discarding of a human life.

  103. And there is that. There is no discounting of the empirical data that African American children are disproportionately terminated through abortion.

  104. I cannot appreciate living human beings (the born) who terminate the lives of their fellow human beings for just being in the way, I don’t care if it is folks who advocate for abortion or radicalized Jihadists. Every single person has a right to life. That is the first and most fundamental freedom. There more we reject this first freedom, the more we look like animals and less like the top of the evolutionary tree.

  105. Not at all. It goes to the heart of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of your position. Somehow the weeping and gnashing of the teeth for compassion and humanity only applies to the unborn. Not to mothers or children. You are full of it.

    Your use of dramatic language and bullcrap emotional appeals is typical of an argument without any actual merit and a cover for your actual fairly loathsome attitude toward others. Why dont you devote a little bit of thought and consideration as to why women choose to have abortions in the first place. But that would entail treating them as human beings with lives that are not subject to your whim.

  106. “fundamental principle to enable the discarding of a human life.”

    Go eat a bag of M&Ms, you hypocrite. You discard women and children to pretend you care about the unborn. It’s why you avoid speaking about women. You show such contempt for them that you cut them out of the discussion altogether.

  107. Nobody is asking you. I don’t care whether you appreciate women who have abortions or not. Nobody is. What is important is that you understand that your opinions don’t entitle you to control others.

    You have contempt for women who make choices you don’t like and want to deny their existence and humanity because you feel so morally righteous. How infantile and narcissistic of you.

    You seem to forget that nobody is answerable to you on such matters. Your alleged concern for the unborn is a sham. A way to excuse hostility for women for not being under your control.

    I think you are a repugnant and immoral person. But the differences between us is that I am mature and adult enough to understand that such moral superiority doesn’t entitle me to make personal and intimate decisions for you. Your life is your own. A woman’s life is hers. A fetus isn’t in your body. You have no say in the matter nor does anyone need to care what your opinions are on such decisions.

  108. A fetus is not a human being? Need to brush up on your biology.

  109. Ironically, it is the same dehumanization which was necessary 200 years ago in order to make an argument for the legitimacy of slavery.

  110. And if it isn’t in there, it properly belongs to the states. Roe was judicial usurpation at its finest.

  111. by your reasoning then a tumor is a human being. Next.

  112. Overgeneralization and obfuscation. The Texas abortion restriction was bad law and deserved to be overturned. There was no rational reason for it. It violated the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments.

    You can make the argument Roe was a bad decision, but its’ result wasn’t. The Texas law needed to go.

  113. 55,000,000+ dead babies legally killed. If you think that’s ok then you are deluded. Isaiah the prophet said “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”

  114. Hell, it’s considerably more abortions than that, except a fetus is not a bay-bee. Abortion did not begin in 1973. It occurs at the same rate whether it is legal or illegal and it was only illegal about 100 years. Throughout human history, 1/4 to 1/3 of all pregnancies have ended in abortion. When it is at the lower amounts the economy is good. If you want less abortions, elect Democrats. It went way down when Obama was President and it will go way up under Trumpcare. it is you who is at risk of violating Isaiah’s maxim, not me. It is you who favors policies reducing women to slaves. You and your evil government has no right whatsoever to demand eminent domain over a woman’s body. I never said abortion was good. I said it’s none of your business. You have borne false witness against me but it is obvious you have poor character as you advocate fascism and named yourself after an evil fictional character.

  115. Lol! Good doesn’t come from evil. More evil comes from evil. Ask any woman who miscarries – she loses her baby not your disrespectful “bay-bee.” You certainly show your true colors with that insensitive slur. And I won’t dignify the rest of your ad hominem comments with a reply – your shrill whining I suspect is actually a covering for a guilty conscience. Try as you might you never will escape the humanity of those little aborted babies.

  116. Oh please. Spare us the maudlin drama queen antics. I have no guilt whatsoever about supporting a woman’s right to make her own decisions whatsoever. Anything otherwise is fascism. A fetus possesses no legal rights, nor has it ever, nor should it ever. It is you who denies humanity of people who are born and attempts to mask it with an emotional appeal to oppression.

  117. True to your MO you and your ilk use emotionally charged language to demonize those who disagree with you: oppression, fascism, no legal right etc etc. Lol. I get it. You think that makes you a superior debater – it doesn’t. It makes you predictable and in fact you are just a caricature of a typical sjw. Laughable.

  118. Hahahahaha – you just accused me of what you do.

  119. Interesting how different polls can yield different results on the same issue. My information is from a Pew Research Center reported here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/26/5-facts-about-abortion/

    Gallop notes this: “Also, as is the case today, more Americans typically have thought abortion should be completely legal than completely illegal.” I think Gallop asked an important question though in trying to get some idea about how acceptable some limitations would be. Limitations are more acceptable but totally banning abortion is still not what many people would accept.

    Many European countries have found a middle ground on abortion. It won’t satisfy the hardliners on either side of this issue but it provides a framework within which those countries seem to have avoided the politicization of the issue that we suffer from here. I think we need to work on a compromise that is similar.

Leave a Comment