Redstate

(Why the taxpayer, of course!)

He's merely walking the line laid out by Great PseudoCatholic Mario Cuomo all those years ago, since followed devoutly by every moron raised Catholic who attends Mass sometimes for the pageantry but not the Faith, but is scared of losing (other nominally) Catholic voters, and more importantly, having their mothers yell at them.

In other words, he's a much more commanding and sober Ted Kennedy. Or if you prefer, a Dick Durbin infintely less likely to compare the troops to Nazis.

Took me a while to recognize you, neodanite. Hope things are going well in Iraq.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I could get the point that Rudy was making if he had said something about finding ways for private individuals, check off's from tax forms or something creative to fund abortions for poor women. Recognizing that some people have a great objection to their tax dollars supporting something they morally object to, but NO.

Let the Gods in Black Robes settle it, let people who disagree with abortion fund something they consider immoral through their tax dollars, yea that's a conservative position....in mid town Manhattan, not out in fly over country.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

This is actually the same view that the Southern Baptist Convention and other main-line Christain groups took for many years. Up until the mid-90s, although they were against abortion, the public line was that it was a woman's choice--albeit the wrong choice. Why? Because once the government start legislating morality, the ruling group's view of morality starts shading the law. Look at the debate over late-term and partial birth abortions. Who would have ever thought!

Not wrong at all, genius. Google "Mario Cuomo" + "Notre Dame" + abortion.

Further, your history, though not quite right on the substance, is off by a few years.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Y News

I checked your history here at RS, wonder if you registered just to Spin for Rudy or do you actually have an answer.

Here's the thing, if Rudy wants to represent a Pro Choice position in the Republican party, then let him do so. He's said as much recently, and it is who he is, an eastern Liberal Republican on social issues and a hawk on terrorism.

The party has moved away from that view and I know of no mainstream Republican outside of Rudy that "welcomes" gods in black robes deciding this issue for American society as Rudy does.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

For exposing the lies of the liberals about abortion.

Because they couldn't get the laws they wanted through the legislature, they handed off their "dirty work" to men who couldn't be voted out of office by the public: i.e. the Burger Court.

We're finally in a position where we can say good-bye to this abuse of judicial authority.

Rudy is not the guy to lead us to the promised land.

Here's a list of examples of your government "legislating morality":

Laws against drug possession
Laws against murder
Laws against prostitution
Laws against child pornography
Laws against practicing medicine without a license
Laws against driving while intoxicated
Laws against public nudity
Laws against incest

Do I have to go on?

Do you get the point?

Rather than discuss the assenine question of whether government should or shouldn't "legislate morality" let's get real and talk about WHEN and WHY government should or shouldn't legislate against specific acts.

I think that most people will agree that most abortions are done for convenience and to hide the irresponsibility of a woman/girl. Is that really worth 1 million deaths a year?

Shouldn't there be a law against that?

The argument that the government should not ban abortion (or presumably from your argument, even restrict it) because it is a woman's choice and the government should not "legislate morality" seems to me not to make sense. It is certainly the role of government to enact and enforce homicide laws -- making it illegal to kill an innocent person. Homicide laws obviously require the definition of a person. It is by no means obvious that the law should regard the onset of personhood as the point of birth (in fact, over 30 states have homicide laws that define a late-term fetus as a person [obviously not applying to abortion]. That's why the murder of the pregnant Laci Peterson was a DOUBLE murder). And a fetus an hour before delivery is physiologically and cognitively indistinguishable from a newborn baby, so a difficult burden of argument exists for anyone who contends that the former is not a person (with an inherent right to life) and the latter is a person. Regardless of what criteria the law has for personhood and the inherent right to life, and whatever point is chosen for legal purposes as the onset of personhood, the point is that some point must be chosen, and there is no reason to assume that it should be birth.

waste of valuable police resourses to go after consensual acts between adults. It doesn't work either it only creates criminals out of citizens who have harmed only themselves.
My main problem with it is the billions of dollars in tax money just flushed away each year on this crap.A large segment of the American people are going to use drugs, gamble, and hire the services of prostitutes whether it's legal or illegal.
I don't appreciate my tax money being wasted on consensual acts.Let God judge these people not us.

who is to say the government is moral or the arbiter?. Do you trust Hillary to tell us how to live? Yet, most people have bought into morality by threat of jail, this is why libertrians are a minority. The funny thing is that libertarians could be the most moral of all, but many will never get it.

I am guessing you support Paul? My problem with Paul is that he is so doctrinaire, he does not allow himself all options. His bashing the war in Iraq, while our troops are in the fight makes him unsuitable to be president. Yet, most of our candidates should take some of his ideas and learn from them.

Molon Labe!

can't win anyway however he brings some very good arguments to the table.

There are legitimate reasons to avoid a hard-line stance on the abortion issue, even if you are personally opposed to it. I tend to be on the left of most of the Republican Party on the issue, but largely on libertarian grounds. That being said, the obvious follow-up to Giuliani needs to be to outline a list of restrictions on abortion and see what he thinks of them. I don't quite favor banning abortion (even with the rape / incest / life of mother exceptions thrown in), but feel Roe should be overturned and that there are many common-sense elements that should be considered to try to reduce the rates of abortions in this country. However, what I've heard from Rudy, it seems as though he wouldn't go even that far, which is more than a bit of a problem to me. We'll see how this develops, but the life issue is a thorny one for Giuliani, and he is doing an exceptionally poor job of navigating around it.

"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Don't pollute this website by bringing them here.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Granted, they mainly used it as a smokescreen for avoiding mentioning Giuliani's anti-crime programs, although they did so in the context of class-based eugenics (still despicable, however).

That being said, Republicans aren't the party of eugenics, so any talk along those lines tends to die pretty quickly in these circles. Even if the conclusion is true, there's still a gulf between what ends up happening as an unintended consequence of a bad choice and advocating said bad choice as a matter of public policy.

"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."

'these' people refers to Rudy and the Freakonomics author.

I don't think race is the issue for these people, its about not forcing people to have and raise unwanted children

I'm sure. Given the thrust of the book and the arguments made in support, you'll have to pardon me if I note that the focus didn't seem to be on unwilling mothers, but rather on all the criminals they didn't spawn. Oh, and where they didn't spawn them, and the melanin content of the non-spawns.

I'm curious about one of your beliefs: "...All humans, as I've noted before, are scum ..." from your post 'In the End, We Are Limited'

Is that a statement or a question?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Didn't spawn because not born because unwanted - actually explicitly mentioned from what I recall. I don't have the book right now.

Question what does "...All humans, as I've noted before, are scum ..." mean from your point of reference?

It means all humans are scum (and that I've noted it before). Was it insufficiently explicit? Or are you asking what it means in a larger sense, or in context?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

The only rational basis upon which abortion can be opposed (even on a "personal" level) is that it represents the unjust taking of a human life. So, unless you're of the opinion that the government shouldn't stop people from killing other people (which is one hellafied libertarian position), you're just "doing the Cuomo" as far as I'm concerned.

Which is a nice way of saying that you're trying to claim a belief that you don't really have.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

The only rational basis upon which abortion can be opposed (even on a "personal" level) is that it represents the unjust taking of a human life.

I believe that's the only reasonable basis for wanting to criminalize it. In fact if somoene's moral belief is that abortion is the unjust taking of a human life, it's hard to reconcile that with opposing criminalization.

However there are other rational bases for opposing abortion on a personal level, even if they don't imply criminalizing it. Someone can believe that abortion is a subversion of God's will, or of a secular idea of the natural order. It's not irrational to personally oppose abortion merely because you consider it too icky. People with such personal objections to abortion can still reasonably object to criminalizing abortion if they don't view it as murder.

I don't like cosmetic breast augmentation surgery (leaving aside mastectomy patients). I think women who get it demean themselves, boob jobs generally don't look or feel good, I just think it's icky. If any woman was taking my advice, I'd tell her not to do it. But in the end, I think it has to be the woman's choice. If there was a third party victim involved, then I'd take a different position on it being her choice.

I don't think that basing one's opinion on one of the most controversial moral and political issues of the modern world on its ick-factor is exactly the height of rationality. And it remains unclear just what element of God's will or the natural order could be thought to have been violated by an abortion besides the fact that it is the taking of an innocent human life. Some basis of opposition well between ickiness and murder is needed for the Cuomo-Giuliani position to be considered even possibly rational, and there's plenty of reasons to be skeptical that such a basis exists.

Personally not caring much for something does not equate with hating it and finding it disgusting. Most rational people require a lot more reason to hate something than to simply dislike it. That is where your cosmetic surgery analogy falls apart. I think most cosmetic surgery is stupid and foolish, but I don't hate it and find it disgusting either.

I think when people who get into the "hate abortion but it should remain legal" position are either lying to us or lying to themselves. Either they don't feel that strongly about abortion - but think they should make noises to that effect (lying to us), or they feel that strongly about it because they know what it really represents but can't admit it because that would cause serious complications for their pro-choice views (lying to themselves).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Someone can believe that abortion is a subversion of God's will

Which, again, would be because it represents the taking uf a human life. There's not another religious basis for opposing it that I know of, and my undergrad major was in religion.

or of a secular idea of the natural order.

Which, again, is only sensical if the fetus is viewed as a human life.

It's not irrational to personally oppose abortion merely because you consider it too icky.

Actually, if your articulated basis for opposing abortion is that it's "icky," that's by definition irrational.

I don't like cosmetic breast augmentation surgery (leaving aside mastectomy patients). I think women who get it demean themselves, boob jobs generally don't look or feel good, I just think it's icky.

This stunningly inapposite analogy proves my point. You oppose breast implants because it offends your personal view of asthetics. However, because you're not crazy, you recognize that the government does not exist to enforce your view of the human aesthetic. Here, indeed, is a case where you can object to something on a basis which does not provide a legitimate impetus for government action.

It has nothing to do with abortion, for which there is no other possible basis of moral objection.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

[re "abortion is a subversion of God's will"]
Which, again, would be because it represents the taking uf a human life. There's not another religious basis for opposing it that I know of

Every Catholic of the non-cafeteria segment morally opposes contraception as a subversion of God's will, but as far I know they don't consider it a taking of human life, and most of them believe legally in the end it has to be the individual's choice. I don't share all those Popes' belief that contraception violates God's will, but there's no logical inconsistency between that belief and simultaneously believing contraception is not a taking of human life.

If it can be ratioanal for a Catholic to morally oppose contraception without believing it's a taking of human life, why is it irrational for someone to morally oppose abortion for similar reasons?

A Catholic can oppose, say, homosexuality on the grounds that it violates the natural order with respect to sexuality (I don't know if that's what Catholics think, just pointing out that another basis exists). When it comes to the question of abortion, however, even if one believes that God commands it, there is still an underlying basis for considering its wrongfulness. You'll have to ask a Catholic about their views on contraception, but the basis for opposing abortion is and must be that it represents the unjust taking of a human life.

I don't know why this is hard to understand. There are other reasons to oppose other things, but there's no explanation that's even possible for why abortion is wrong otherwise. For instance, you couldn't find a rational basis for morally opposing the removal of an easily excisable cancerous tumor, which is what abortion amounts to if the fetus is not a human life.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Your argument assumes that if your view of abortion as homicide constitutes a rational moral objection (where I agree), that rules out the possibility of any other rational objection. There's no basis for your premise that your objection to abortion is the only rational objection.

If it's not irrational for someone to believe contraception violates God's will or the natural order by not letting the process proceed to its natural conclusion (sex-> pregnancy->birth), while simultaneously believing it's not homicide (as "true" Catholics believe), what is the distinction about abortion that makes it irrational to oppose it on similar moral grounds?

The same simple question can be applied to your homosexual example. For someone who does not believe abortion is homicide, if it's not irrational to have a "natural order" moral objection to homosexual conduct, what is the distinction about abortion that makes it beyond the reach of rational "natural order" moral objections.

The prohibition on artificial birth control is significantly more complicated than y'all are doing justice (which is fine, as it's a jack of a threadjack, and neither of you claims to be doing it justice at any rate), but I did want to note that while it has some of the same root grounding as the prohibition on any kind of deliberate killing (with markedly few exceptions), it is not, in fact, a prohibition on killing per se.

The answer to your last question would bore the unholy silliness out of anyone reading it, so I'll leave you and Leon to thrash it out.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

I think I get it. One could believe, on the one hand, that, since humanity or life or whatever does not attach until birth or some time thereafter, abortion is not the taking of human life. And one could believe, on the other hand, that sex must be reserved for the purpose of procreation only and that, therefore, any form of birth control is wrong and even conceivably hateful, though not so much that it ought to be made illegal. There is no logical inconsistency between these two beliefs, however much they tend to be associated with different sorts of people.

Someone who holds these two beliefs simultaneously would, in fact, be driven to the position under discussion: He would oppose abortion because he thinks of it as a form of birth control rather than the taking of a human life, and therefore he would register his opposition personally rather than thinking it a legal or political matter.

If that's the case, then the question becomes, Does Giuliani hate condoms? If he does, then his position is honest and consistent, though rather idiosyncratic. If he does not, then we are still left wondering why he would hate abortion but not want it illegal.

Morally objecting to abortion doesn't logically require objecting to condoms.

The hypothetical case you describe in your first two paragraphs would be a logically consistent position, though unusual as you say. Where I believe you go wrong is in the assumption that for someone who doesn't believe abortion is murder, a "natural order" objection to contraception is a prerequisite for a natural order objection to abortion.

One rational reason for morally objecting to contraception would be the belief that the sequence sex->birth has a natural order value that should be respected. For such a person who objects to interfering with the natural causation between sex and birth, it would be hard to explain not objecting to abortion, since that interferes with the natural sex->birth order as surely as contraception.

However the converse doesn't apply. Someone could consider the natural order of pregnancy->birth as having moral value, but could believe the moral status begins at conception (oppose abortion), with no moral problem blocking the earlier sex->pregnancy sequence (condoms ok).

There are a lot of people who say they morally disapprove of abortion done for say sex selection or bad timing, but do approve of it for fetuses that would be born with severe disabilities. That doesn't sound logical for someone who thinks abortion is homicide, but is logical for someone who thinks you shouldn't mess with the natural order except for a very serious reason.

As for does Rudy hate condoms? Maybe, maybe not, irrelevant to this issue either way. Giuliani's muddled statements on abortion have opened him to valid attacks on his logical consistency. But the accusation here is grasping at straws, trying to assert an inherent contradiction between morally disapproving of abortion and not wanting to criminalize it. I don't know if Giuliani's made a statement that he believes a fetus is a human being in the moral sense; if so, that would be a valid case for this inconsistency accusation. In last night's debate, the best case for inconsistency was his federalist position on abortion right after saying he's ok either way whether Roe is overturned or not.

I don't think I was assuming the premise I think you thought I was assuming. (I think!) We might actually be pretty close to agreement on a number of points.

I didn't mean to imply that Giuliani hates condoms, or even that he would have the slightest objection to them (outside of the obvious sensitivity issues). I'm quite sure he has no such objections, and that Cuomo, Kerry, and the many others who take the "personally opposed" stance also find birth control unobjectionable. My point was only that such people could not use an objection to birth control as the basis for their merely personal opposition to abortion without also embracing other positions which they would probably find absurd—especially Giuliani, whose talking point is more than being mealy-mouthedly "personally opposed" to abortion but that he "hates" it. If I recall correctly, this was the only such basis that had specifically mentioned at that point in the conversation, which is why I picked up on it.

And neither did I mean to imply that this was the only conceivable specific basis for the position in question, but rather that no other had been suggested here (and that I couldn't think of one).

I find very intriguing your suggestion that someone might object to abortion on the basis of pregnancy->birth being a part of the natural order. I think that might meet the test of making the position in question logically consistent, though I'd have to think about it for a while. But the problem here is that I've never heard anyone say this or anything like this. It might be that I've just missed it, in which case I'd be delighted to see a version of the argument, if anyone knows of one. But if it hasn't been articulated, or is only rarely, then it cannot really explain in the usual way why these people take this position.

I'm sure there are other conceivable reasons for taking this position. But again, I have not heard them. Indeed, I find that the position in question is hardly ever put forth with any sort of explanation or anything approaching reasoning. Instead, it tends to be accompanied by a bunch of platitudes about how emotional the issue is and how reasonable people can disagree. All true, of course, but nothing we need to be told. This tendency leads me to suspect that it is not generally a reasoned position, but rather either a pander, the result of confusion, or the result of (quite understandably) mixed emotions.

The larger question here is, Why does Giuliani say that he hates abortion but doesn't want to outlaw it? Does he have philosophical reasons? Is he pandering (and hence lying about one half of his stated position)? Is he just confused? Or something else? There might be some philosophical reasons available to him, but unless he states what they are (and he has had plenty of opportunities), we cannot assume that there are any. (And his inconsistent federalism on the matter, which you rightly point out, leads us even further in that direction.) Therefore, I think, we must decide amongst the other options, none of which reflect particularly well upon him as a candidate.

I guess I did misunderstand your position, which may have been addressed to a misunderstanding of mine. I think the possible disagreement largely involves whether there's a rational basis for personally objecting to abortion if you don't consider it homicide and you don't object to contraception.

Instead, it ["personally oppose abortion"] tends to be accompanied by a bunch of platitudes about how emotional the issue is and how reasonable people can disagree. All true, of course, but nothing we need to be told. This tendency leads me to suspect that it is not generally a reasoned position, but rather either a pander, the result of confusion, or the result of (quite understandably) mixed emotions.

I basically agree with that. It may be that I'm more inclined to accept the idea that many decent and intelligent people's moral opinions include some that are "not generally a reasoned position," i.e. not logically derived from a basic principle like respecting the rights of others. Those intuitive moral beliefs may have a logical kernel, even if the precise logic was never explicitly thought out. I'd guess the pregnancy->birth "natural order" morality usually falls in that class.

I generally save the characterization of morally "irrational" for asserting moral beliefs that are logically in contradiction with each other.

There are many people who firmly believe that homosexual conduct between willing adults is immoral. Some think oral sex is immoral, even between a man and wife. There's no rational basis for that beyond an appeal to authority or a queezy feeling that it's wrong to violate the "natural order," enjoying the use of body parts for some purpose other than their evolutionary function. Some just get grossed out by the thought of it, and readily elevate that feeling to a moral belief.

I find it easier to sympathize with those who've gone through pregnancy with their spouse or seen the anxious anticipation of a pregnant relative, and feel immensely troubled at the idea someone would halt that process before what should be a joyous completion, even though they don't consider it homicide. I consider it very plausible that such a person could "hate" the idea of abortion, even when they don't want to criminalize it.

Someone might hate abortion and believe it's always the wrong choice (though not homicide), but still sympathize with a woman who's situation lead her to want one, and believe the decision should be hers. I'm pretty sure there are even some women who have abortions that would sincerely say they "hate" abortion, even though they're firmly convinced (before and after) that it's the right decision for them and their families.

So on the accusation that Giuliani doesn't have tightly a reasoned ethical basis for personally opposing abortion, I think that's probably right. I don't consider that a damning indictment of his mind or character, no different than millions of other Americans who don't consider abortion murder but still hate it.

What I am uncertain of is whether Giuliani is sincere about personally opposing abortion, or he's just saying it to pander. I believe he's probably sincere, but he is after all a politician so I can't rule out pandering. Actually it could be both: he sincerely hates abortion, but wouldn't be talking about it publicly except for political purposes.

I'm not insisting on tight reasoning. I'd be happy with any reasoning at all. Even if someone were to propose an absurd non sequitur like, "I am personally opposed to abortion because the sky is blue," then I would be able to point out that this was a complete non sequitur and the reasoning could possibly be tightened from there into something more substantial. But as the general debate currently stands, there is no "because" at all, and so there is no way for me or anyone else to understand their position, so that we might either convince them of the flaws in their position or else be convinced of the flaws in our own. Instead, we are driven to consider merely hypothetical lines of reasoning like those above, debating the merits of which, unless and until they are actually argued in the real world, probably serves no purpose.

Members of the general public might not have an obligation to lay out their reasoning on this matter or to engage in the sort of self-reflection that would bring this reasoning to light (though I wish they would, since I think it's sort of important), but I think that politicians should be held to a higher standard, since they are asking for our votes. We have the right to know what they intend to do on this or any other matter, and we have the right to evaluate whether or not they are being honest. Both of these, I think, require that the politician provide something like a rational basis for their position. (By "rational" here, by the way, I do not intend your sense of "logical consistency" (though that would be ideal, of course) but rather the mere presence of a line of reasoning, whose validity and the truth of whose premises can be independently evaluated by the voter. I suppose this difference was the cause of some of our previous misunderstandings.) Focus-group-tested talking points will not suffice for this; we need openness, honesty, and intellectual seriousness. Of course, I'm not naïve enough to expect that any serious presidential candidate will give us this, but I don't suppose the situation can be worsened by complaining about it.

There's a lot more I want to say here, but perhaps I should leave it at that, as I suspect my words will be huddling uncomfortably close to the right column at this point. However, I think my own reasoning has been tightened by this exchange, so thank you.

You can be of the opinion that abortion is disgusting, but not be so sure about the bio-ethics that you are willing to make that choice for others.

If you don't believe it is the termination of a life, how it is disgusting? What makes it any different than a biopsy or appendectomy? In that case it is just a clump of cells in the woman's body that she wishes to have removed.

If you do believe it is the termination of a life, how is it a problem to "make the choice for others" who would choose to end it? In that case an innocent being is being killed at the whim of another and is not being given any say in the matter.

The position is nonsensical.

However, Rudy's position on this point is logical as well, as the more consistent position than mine is that a legal medical procedure should not be denied to someone based on their ability to afford that procedure.

Actually his position is that women have a "constitutional right" to abortion and if that's the case, the government must fund it for those who cannot afford to exercise it on their own. So apparently we should be buying guns for everyone who can't afford one and TV spots for everyone who has something to say, but can't afford the cost.

Rudy has not proposed (AFAIK) making all sorts of legal medical procedures available at taxpayer expense. Liposuction is a legal procedure. Lasik is a legal procedure. Gender reassignment surgery is a legal procedure. Should the taxpayers be footing the bill for them?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...as much as I don't like it, the pro-death crowd has raised the matter to such a level that they feel that restrictions on abortion are tantamount to behavior modification, and will attempt to impose their own behavioral policies on those whom they see as impeding their "right" to irresponsible sexual behavior. Abortion has become so entrenched in certain circles of society that it might take generations to alter that. I'm not sure if we can roll back abortion all at once, but rather in small, slow steps. I guess my biggest hang-up is when I consider an unborn child a full person. I believe that life starts at conception, but have a hard time equating murder to something that can't survive on its own, even with the greatest medical intervention in the world. I still think it shouldn't be done, but more from a "preserve life" standpoint than an "abortion is murder" one (until a certain point, where I believe that it is). I guess that's where the whole debate gets thorny for me.

"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."

First question: Are all persons of equal value? If no, then you are on a very slippery slope. If yes goto #2.

Second Question: What are the differences between an embryo and and a newborn (or any other human)? There are only 4:

Size/Appearance - Are either of these valid criteria for saying someone is not a full person?

Level of Development - People are at various stages of development their whole life. Is that a reason for making someone not a full person?

Environment - This is obviously not a reason someone is not a person as it has nothing to do with who they are.

Degree of Dependency - Should this every be a criteria for determining who is a person? (think about sick, old, and disabled people)

So unless you can think of something else, I don't see any logical reason to say an embryo is not a full person.

I am opposed to abortion; I will celebrate the day R -v- W is overturned. If ever given the chance to vote on a state level ban on abortion I would very likely vote in favor (I do have some sympathy for the libertarian property rights argument against a ban). Though I clearly think that abortion is immoral in almost all cases, I can't quite accept the position that there is no difference between abortion and murder and I'm not convinced that the advocates of said position quite believe it either.

I've always wondered why, if their position was as unambiguous as they claimed it to be, there weren't (many, many) more clinics bombed or doctor's murdered. If there were a business in my city for instance which were murdering 20 3-year olds a day and there were somehow a law which allowed it, I would absolutely go in guns blazing. How could I possibly live with myself otherwise? How many of the people who draw no distinction between legal abortion and genocide would argue that hitler should have been dealt with through the ballot box.

I guess I'm just trying to say that for the vast majority of us the issue is too complicated to be persuaded by dogma from either side.

-exits

The reason people don't go into abortion clinics with guns blazing is because the people who oppose abortion are usually Christians who believe that God is the judge and/or they believe in law and order such that you can't just go around killing people for the same reason we can't have vigilantes.

I'm used to hearing that everybody who opposes abortion is somehow guilty because somebody else, somewhere, firebombed some clinic. Now we're getting flack for not firebombing clinics. I know you meant nothing malicious by this, but allow me to appreciate the irony.

It's about my decision to make this decision for others.

Put a bullet through a 30-year-old's head, I know that's murder. Kill a 10-week-old fetus, and that might or might not be murder. Even if I could be convinced that it's not murder, I don't have to like it. Public policy should not be determined by my squeamishness. Or your belief system, for that matter. That's what makes this such a thorny question.

As I've said, I respect the views of people who feel otherwise. And I don't expect agreement from people who are strongly pro-life -- as their position is ethically consistent and solid.

All of that said, it's not only possible, but extremely easy to be personally opposed to something without wanting to see that thing outlawed.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

> Public policy should not be determined by my squeamishness. Or >your belief system, for that matter. That's what makes this >such a thorny question.

what should public policy be based on then?

Let's suppose that a hypothetical person, Bob, doesn't think that black people are humans, and so he puts a bullet through a black person's head. You cool with respecting his right to make that choice? I mean, *you* might be sure that's a human, but he's not, and who are *you* to say?

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

I'll be the first to say I'm boxing outside my weight class talking this issue with you, Leon. And I thank you for your many thoughtful posts on life issues.

I guess all I'm saying is that because I'm not sure about the nature of prenatal life, I'm not willing to make the decision on behalf of somebody else. And that's whet we do when we make something a matter of public policy -- we decide that something is so important and so certain that we are willing to make choices for the entire society.

I see the importance. I don't see the certainty. I am willing to grant, as a matter of public policy, that the first few months of a pregnancy is an acceptable period during which a woman can make a decision about a pregnancy.

It's not a clean position, I know. It's just where my gut takes me. I can easily imagine on my judgment day somebody saying to me: You idiot, those were babies. I guess I'm saying I'm a bit agnostic when it comes to the idea of the miracle of life beginning at conception.

By the way, if I had a nickel to bet, I'd say that trimming abortion back to the early part of a pregnancy as close as we're going to get to banning abortion in this country in the near term, anyway. And it's a lot better than where the pro-lifers have taken us right now.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

Kill a 10-week-old fetus, and that might or might not be murder.

What is it then? Are we not intentionally ending a human life? Isn't that kind of the whole point of the operation? No doubt it makes everybody involved feel a lot better to deny that it is murder, but I'm not sure what else intentionally ending a human life without consent could be.

Put a bullet through a 30-year-old's head, I know that's murder.

And there are some that would not agree with you on this count, especially if the 30 year old you killed was someone they viewed as less than human because of race, religion, mental handicap, etc. I suppose we should also shouldn't try to impose our "belief system" on them and let them do as they wish, eh?

Public policy should not be determined by my squeamishness. Or your belief system, for that matter.

Well it is going to be determined by someone's "belief system." It is as the law stands, in fact. The "belief system" in use today simply places a higher value on convenience than on human life.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

It's well argued. I just think that there's enough of a conflict of ethics and ideology about the nature of the thing -- especially early on -- that I'm willing to leave the decision not so much between a woman and her doctor as between a woman and her conscience, or a woman and her maker.

--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.

...of allowing first trimester abortions would very likely end up as the compromise policy in many states if our black-robed masters would allow us rubes a say in the matter.

Do you trust McCain to put conservative judges on the bench?

I don't.

Do you trust McCain to fight for things like opening up northern Alaska for energy exploration?

I don't.

Do you trust McCain to put principle above popularity with the media?

I don't.

Every single Republican has an albatross this year, just as Bush did in 1999 and 2000 (drug questions).

But he who wins the hearts and minds of pro-lifers and other conservatives will become president. On that, you and I agree.

Rudy is dead wrong on the issue of public funding of abortions...full stop.

It's not a stance on this issue, base right or center right folks are comfortable with, and he's come out for it. It is an east coast liberal point of view plain and simple.

Rudy is now yesterday's news.

_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!

It would be the scrapping of one of the most egregious examples of judicial activism and judicial usurpation of power.
That alone would be a tremendous victory, and it would hopefully indicate that similarly bad precedent and decisions exemplified by Roe would not be forthcoming on other matters.

If the end result of returning abortion policy to the democratic process is that pro-choice policies still reign in large parts of the nation, then so be it. Its better for the people and their legislatures to make bad decisions on matters rightfully under their control than it is for judges to make the same bad decisions over matters they have no legitimate right to decide.

His position is that you and I should pay for women to get abortions if they can't or won't pay for it themselves.

Unacceptable.

The Rudy quote that bothered me was not this one.

I was troubled that Rudy mumbled something about how "if a strict constructionist voted to uphold Roe, that would be okay, too".

Rudy is playing word-games like no one else.

He uses Scalia, Alito, and Roberts as examples of "strict constructionists", then flip-flops by telling US that we don't know what a strict constructionist is. In Rudy's mind, you can see a right to abortion in the constitution and still be a "strict constructionist".

Why doesn't Rudy just say that he would put moderates on the Supreme Court? That's what he's saying when he uses his unique definition of "strict constructionist".

It's very hard to nail down what Rudy's position is on abortion.

He is both for and against the Hyde Amendment, which bans public funding of abortion.

He says, "leave it to the states" on abortion. Yet he has never suggested that his state ban, curtail, or even increase regulation of abortion.

He was NARAL's "man of the year" a few years ago. Now he's trying to slink away from his passionate embrace of abortion.

I'm not so sure about your assumption that "Roe won't be overturned anytime soon", but in any case, if it were overturned, and subsequently debates raged in every state in the union, it strikes me as odd to think, as I think you're suggesting, that a president would stay neutral on the issue, even though it was going to be decides at the state level. Is that what you think Rudy would do, just say "no comment"?

If he's President, Giuliani will have his hands full with the war, and fights over taxes, etc. That's what he sees as his job as chief exec of the federal government, not governor of some state.

It's pretty obvious Giuliani just wants the abortion debate out of his hair, and let the people in each state fight it out without dragging him into it. He has no incentive to antagonize people spouting opinions from the bully pulpit, which aren't going to persuade South Dakota or wherever to embrace his pro-choice position anyway.

What would be "in it for him"? Would he have not "incentive"?

I would like to think that, as a matter of conscience, if he "hates" abortion because he considers it tragic and immoral -- perhaps even the moral equivalent of mass murder -- then, if Roe is overturned and every state in our nation proceeds to debate whether or not to ban it, he would use the bully pulpit as president to at least give a speech or two urging the voters and legislators at the state level to ban it.

Alternatively, if he believes that a woman's "right to choose" is a fundamental individual liberty (and that an embryo/fetus should not be considered a person with an overriding right to life), then I would think that, as a matter of conscience, he would urge the preservation of that "right" at the state level.

Yes, a president has many very important things on which to focus that, arguably, fit his job description more explicitly, but the bully pulpit has always been a legitimate part of the job as well, and whether a president believes that some states are about to allow mass murder or that some states are about to infringe upon the individual liberties (albeit no longer viewed as rights if the Roe is overturned) and impose potentially great negative emotional, practical and physical consequences on a great number of women, the issue would seem to be worthy of that bully pulpit. To stay silent and neutral amid one of the greatest moral debates in our nation's history, with millions of lives and/or fundamental liberties at stake, would seem to be an abdication of presidential responsibility.

This reminds me of the ponytail guy in the 92 Bush-Clinton debate, saying the President was supposed to be like our father, and what was Bush going to do about whatever was bothering the guy. I really wish Bush had said "Look I've got sons, and you're not one of them. I'm the leader of your government and I'm your employee, but I'm not your father. Looking to the government to be your father is ridiculous."

The lives of Americans don't revolve around the federal government (and it should move toward an even smaller part of our lives than now). Not even all important politics revolves around the federal government. The people of Alabama, Connecticut, etc. are perfectly capable of conducting their debates about local laws without guidance from their all-wise leader in Washington.

I remember that ponytail idiot in that 1992 debate and his comment still makes me cringe -- just like the moronic woman who kept insisting that President H.W. Bush describe how the "deficit" (she meant the recession) had hurt him "personally" (as if the President might have gotten laid off or something). So we seem to have the same opinion of ponytail guy. But I simply disagree with you on the proper use of the bully pulpit. You apparently are on the other extreme from ponytail guy -- essentially you are saying that the President should keep his mouth shut on even profound moral issues facing the nation, with enormous consequences if decided one way or the other in each state -- or you are applying a double standard for this issue. If that is really your consistent belief, we just view the role of the president differently. But I have a feeling that you would not consistently take such a position across other issues of equal nature and magnitude. All we're talking about is, at minimum, as the issue were being fiercely debated in every state in the nation following a future overturning of Roe, the President making a speech or two encouraging Americans and state legislators to vote one way or the other on an issue that, depending on how it's decided in each given state, could lead to (in the President's opinion) mass murder of many thousands or millions of babies or unjust infringement of liberty and imposition of hardship on many thousands or millions of women. If you think that such an issue is not worthy of a President expressing an opinion and promoting (with as little as a speech or two, minimally) the solution he believes to be just, we just have a different view of the presidency and leadership in general.

is a good description for the role of the federal government generally and the President specifically. The fed's primary role is to keep us safe from enemies foreign and domestic. It's other roles are very specifically enumerated in the Constitution but people who want the fed to be their daddy, and in recent years, their mommy since daddies have become so unfashionable, have used the commerce and necessary and proper clauses to get the feds way, way, way too far into our lives and the purview of the states.

In Vino Veritas

Let's make a wager: if Roe v. Wade is overturned in the next 5 years, I'll pay you $100.

If not, you pay me.

Care to stake a bet on your claim?