“I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS”

John Hinderaker on Obama’s comments commemorating the 39th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Superme Court decision: 

Obama’s proclamation was not widely noted, except in circles that take (as Scott put it long ago) the sacramental view of abortion. But I happened to read it, and was struck by this brazen bit of Obama BS:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.

If that doesn’t provoke hollow laughter, you haven’t been paying attention. Do President Obama and his fellow Democrats seriously believe that “government should not intrude on private family matters?” Let us count the ways! First, compare Obama’s declaration today with what he said when Michelle Obama announced her anti-childhood obesity project. Did you think that how much your kids weigh is a “private family matter,” in which “government should not intrude?” Don’t be silly:

I have set a goal to solve the problem of childhood obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach adulthood at a healthy weight. The first lady will lead a national public awareness effort to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity. She will encourage involvement by actors from every sector — the public, nonprofits, and private sectors, as well as parents and youth — to help support and amplify the work of the federal government in improving the health of our children.

So the future weight of your minor children is a “goal” of the federal government. Of course, that is just one example out of many. For example, do you think it is a “private family matter” whether you feed your children Cheerios and corn flakes for breakfast? Think again.

Is it an imposition on “private family matters” when a pediatrician cross-examines your child about whether you own a gun? The liberals don’t think so.

You might be so silly as to believe that teaching your children about sex is a “private family matter.” I won’t even bother to provide a link for this one.

The subject of Obama’s declaration was abortion. But suppose your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your even finding out about it: is that a government intrusion on “private family matters?” Sure, but one that liberals like Obama favor.

He’s got more and it’s well worth your time.

As is this excerpt of a most righteous rant on the same Obama quote from she who knows how to give righteous rants:

Rubens_saturnLet’s spell this out; let’s clarify this vague, euphemistic line, for the sake of transparency, shall we? Because this dual-mouthed president is all about transparency — he even won an award for it, which he received without press — the fulfillment of our daughter’s dreams lie in the freedom and ease with which a sucking hose or a scraping curette may introduce violence and slaughter within their wombs, at the very core of their beings, in order to shred their children to pieces. For this 100% NARAL-approved president who passed up every opportunity to show even a scintilla of mercy for a baby born alive during an attempted abortion, our daughter’s dreams depend on their being able to find someone who will burn their baby in utero, or shove a pair of scissors into the partially-delivered child’s skull, or toclose the lid on the garbage pail until the bothersome crying ends.

In Obama’s world, our daughter’s happiness depends upon having these options at their disposal, literally and figuratively. Because love, and the sneaky way it has of showing up whenever a baby is born and then complicating everything, (because it is meaningful and real) is an insufficient vehicle for the fulfillment of women, and their self-actualization.

Arise, daughters of America, and build your dreams upon the slaughter of your progeny;some say the fullness of our humanity was built upon the flesh and blood of one woman who said “yes” to a daunting and difficult proposal, but I say your fulfillment, your dreams and your future are better built upon the garbage heaps of “no” we’ve encouraged you to form out of your own flesh-and-blood in the empty landfills of government compassion, hope and change.

Because “yes we can,” is all about the hope and change that’s built on our emphatic “noes”. No, to life. No, to conscience. No, to compassion that is not mandated. No, to assistance givenby any but government. No, to any power greater than ourselves and our glorious government.

“I don’t want them punished with a baby”

Moloch couldn’t have said it more cunningly.

Nicely done.  So nicely and righteously done.

Yesterday I happened to stumble across a site I should’ve known is out there but was surprised nevertheless when I found it.

It’s called Catholics for Obama.  And there are other similar Catholic organizations. Many apparently having been out there since the 2008 campaign.

Listen, you can choose to support whomever you want.  It’s what America is known for.  

Freedom.

But as a Catholic who has somewhat recently re-embraced the faith of his childhood, as someone who has decided to return but not first without checking (hopefully thoughtfully) on what Catholics believe and what tenets of the faith to adhere to as best I can, I’m shaking my head.  

It’s next to impossible to understand how a Catholic could remain in support of someone who… well… speaks as cunningly as Moloch.

It simply does not compute.

Perhaps one of you Catholic Moloch supporters could leave a comment and enlighten me.

Perhaps.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 23, 2012.
Filed under Abortion, Barack Obama.
I blog more regularly at my own place where plain thoughts are delivered roughly. My about page gives you more on who I am.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
Up to 90% off top rated local fun!
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest

  • jim_m

    No surprise here.  As a state senator in Illinois obama fought not for abortion but to preserve the right to infanticide.  It took mere days once he left for the majority dem legislature and the dem Governor to pass the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

    obama isn’t just pro-abortion he is anti-life.  He stands far to the left of the far left.

  • ackwired

    I have heard that the central issue of Roe v Wade was privacy rights.  I don’t think that the supreme court had recognized a right to privacy before.  That may have been Obama’s point.  Nice job of identifying and listing the rights that the liberals would take away from us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

    You’ve got to be kidding me. Your example of government intrusion into family affairs, is the First Lady’s program to keep kids from getting fat???

    For crap’s sake, she doesn’t even have any official office. How are parents being **prevented with the force of government** from feeding children fat food? That’s the only thing that could reasonably compare with the government preventing women from getting abortions.

    Even if you’re pro-Life, you have to admit those two examples don’t map at all.

    As for what “liberals” allegedly want re:  guns – that’s got nothing to do with the current administration either! This administration has **expanded** gun rights, to a degree that has pissed off liberals.

    Ditto for Sex Ed. Any families who don’t want public education for their kids can go educate their kids quietly. Just like any people who don’t want to use federally-funded highways can take side roads.

    Can’t believe this guy is equating these examples, and that you guys are going for this.

    • jim_m

      Other than selling guns illegally to Mexican drug cartels, what exactly has this admin done to expand gun rights?  And why did obama then give assurances to the Brady’s that he was working on gun control “under the radar”?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        As noted previously, Obama expanded the right of people to carry guns into public parks. As for the other item you mentioned, please give me a link to that source because it’s not something I’ve heard before.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      “This administration has **expanded** gun rights, to a degree that has pissed off liberals.”

      Only if you call maintaining the laws the same ‘expanding’.  But then again, when a decline in a program’s automatic increase is seen as ‘cutting’ a program’s budget, it’s easy to understand your confusion.

      After all, if increasing a budget but less than expected is a cut – how can keeping things the same not be seen as expanding them?

      Truely, things are different inside the Beltway.  Up is down, North is South, and water runs uphill while unicorn droppings provide all the power we’ll ever need…

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        No, I’m referring specifically to the bill that Obama signed that allow people to have guns in public parks for the first time ever.

        I realize this fact doesn’t fit into convenient narratives about how Obama is such a radical anti-conservative. That’s probably why it always slips under the radar.

    • jim_m

      obama has not expanded gun rights.  Individual states have done so by passing concealed carry laws., but that has nothing to do with obama. 

      Question:  What pisses off the libs more?  That increased accessibility to legal carry has lead to decreased crime or that they can’t dictate to others how they are supposed to live? 

      For my part I vote for the former since increased crime gives the left additional reasons to exploit in their cause to control the lives of other people.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        The whole point behind the Assault Weapons Ban in the ’90s was emotional – they went after ‘ugly’ guns.  Rifles that were painted black, rifles that folks were buying surplus that had (gasp!) bayonette lugs with bayonettes attached!  Rifles that looked like military automatic weapons – but couldn’t be converted to continuous fire.

        It was a matter of style over substance.  Seriously, when was the last time you heard of a drive-by bayonetting?

        But reason wasn’t important – what WAS important was a demonstration of administrative control, showing just how a ban like that WOULD decrease crime and using it as a justification for other, more restrictive, legislative actions.

        Only thing was, the expected drop in crime didn’t occur.  It doesn’t really seem to register that folks who go through the already existing hoops to buy legally are pretty unlikely to be the ones who’ll use the weapons for crime.

        Does anyone else recall the hyperventilation of the left when Florida allowed concealed carry?  Supposedly there were going to be gunfights on the street… but crime went down.  And that’s happened in every jurisdiction where it’s allowed – crimes and robberies decreased.

        Yet look at the UK and Australia.  Ban guns, and assaults and robberies increase.  Funny, that – I’m sure there’s no possible correlation…

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

        No, you’re wrong. Obama HAS expanded gun rights at the Federal level. He signed into law the bill that allowed people to take guns into public parks for the first time ever – remember that?

        And even if both of the things you mentioned were true, they don’t bother this “lib” as I support the right of people to own and carry guns. 

        • EricSteel

          The law you are referring to was an amendment added to the Credit Card Act of 2009 and changed the way the Dept of Interior regulated guns carried into National Parks. All the new Law does is require the Dept of Interior to respect state gun carry laws and permits.

          It solves the problem where a person who has a State issued gun permit goes to a National Park, unknowingly violating Federal gun laws and gets arrested for a Federal crime. The new law forces the Dept of Interior simply to respect and be consistent with State gun laws. A person can still be arrested for carrying a gun to a national park without a permit.  So if you truly support the right of people to own and carry guns, then you should not have any problem with this law.

          Also, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the law.  It was not a standalone law that he supported and fought for, it was an amendment to a larger Bill concerning Credit Cards. The Amendment was added by Tom Coburn to the Credit Card Bill and received bipartisan approval from both houses of Congress. The only thing Obama did was sign the Bill and not veto the entire Credit Card Bill because of that one Amendment.

        • EricSteel

          The law you are referring to was an amendment added to the Credit Card Act of 2009 and changed the way the Dept of Interior regulated guns carried into National Parks. All the new Law does is require the Dept of Interior to respect state gun carry laws and permits.

          It solves the problem where a person who has a State issued gun permit goes to a National Park, unknowingly violating Federal gun laws and gets arrested for a Federal crime. The new law forces the Dept of Interior simply to respect and be consistent with State gun laws. A person can still be arrested for carrying a gun to a national park without a permit.  So if you truly support the right of people to own and carry guns, then you should not have any problem with this law.

          Also, Obama had absolutely nothing to do with the law.  It was not a standalone law that he supported and fought for, it was an amendment to a larger Bill concerning Credit Cards. The Amendment was added by Tom Coburn to the Credit Card Bill and received bipartisan approval from both houses of Congress. The only thing Obama did was sign the Bill and not veto the entire Credit Card Bill because of that one Amendment.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Did Obama sign it?

            Yes.

            Did it need Obama’s signature to become law?

            Yes.

            Did it expand gun rights?

            Yes.

            Therefore, Obama has expanded gun rights.

          • jim_m

            That’s a pretty lame assessment of the President standing for gun rights when it is obvious that he did so only because it was attached to another piece of legislation that he could not afford to veto.  Ask yourself if this had been a stand alone would he have signed it and the clear answer is no.

            obama does not now, nor has he ever supported gun rights. He did not do so as a community organizer.  He did not do so as a state senator or a US senator and he has not done so as President.

            If there is any question about where obama stands go to the Brady Campaign website and you will see that he is a big supporter of gun control.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Facts are facts. You have opinions for what Obama “might do” under different circumstances. And I can have my opinions. But what we can’t reasonably argue against are known facts.

            So it is a not only lame, but **factually innaccurate” assessment to say the President is AGAINST gun rights when he has EXPANDED them.

            If you would like to cite some sources that show Obama has done other things, please post them. Otherwise, facts stand stronger than non-fact-based opinion.

          • retired.military

            ” but **factually innaccurate” assessment to say the President is AGAINST gun rights when he has EXPANDED them.”

            Just because he expanded them doesnt mean that his isnt againt them. Using your argument you could argue that Bush 41 was for higher taxes when it is well known that he was against them.

            Using your logic you could say that people getting divorced were against marriage since they were ending theirs but the opposite is most likely true.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Just because he expanded them doesnt mean that his isnt againt them.

            Actually, it does mean that. Or at least it means the evidence leans that way. For you to assert Obama is against gun rights, you now have to present contrary evidence of things that Obama has done.

            In evidence vs. opinion, evidence should always win. Right?

            Using your argument you could argue that Bush 41 was for higher taxes
            when it is well known that he was against them.

            My logic would be accurate, because it measures words and how they correlate with deeds.

            Bush 41 SAID he was against higher taxes – but when push came to shove, he raised taxes.

          • EricSteel

            That is a lame cop out answer, worthy of the simplistic logic skills of a 5 year old.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Lol!!!

            Evidence and logic that proves you wrong is a “lame cop-out answer”. Ok….

            Sorry that you view evidence-based logic as childish. Since it’s such childish logic, feel free to prove it wrong.

          • EricSteel

            Your logic is on this is simplistic.  You assign all blame to Obama for a piece of legislation that he had no hand in creating or participation.  Your logic leaves out the entire House and Senate that did participate in the amendment. 

            So to me your logic is simplistic.  If that is how you want to play though, then I guess by your logic, then the failure of ARRA is solely Obama’s fault since he signed it into law.  If the SCOTUS overturns ANY part of Obamacare, then Obama is solely to blame because he signed it into law.  Cash for Clunkers was a bust, and since Obama signed it into law, its his fault.  I can keep going if you want. 

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            The logic of the situation is in fact very simple.

            Many conservatives have the opinion that Obama is against gun rights – and this opinion is not based on *any evidence*.

            In fact, the only evidence that I can find as to Obama’s concrete actions regarding gun rights, is that he expanded them.

            I don’t know where you’re getting “blame” from this. I am speaking purely of this unfounded opinion that Obama is against gun rights.

            Re: your “Cash for Clunkers” example – Obama signing it proves that he approved of that law. Whatever ARRA is, if Obama signed a law that passed it then Obama supported it. I say that without even knowing what it is.

  • herddog505

    If I was sufficiently debased as to support this disgusting, murderous “right”, I’d keep my damned mouth shut about it.

  • GarandFan

    Libs are always like to ask “What would Jesus do?”

    Strangely enough, they never ask that question when the topic of abortion comes up.

    As for Barry, the man excels at talking out of both sides of his mouth.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

      I’ve never heard that question asked. Here’s what Jesus would do:

      - Not throw the first stone.
      - Accept and love the couple in question no matter what they did.
      - In my opinion, accept their choice as their choice as long as the abortion occurs within the first 6 months of pregnancy – because at that point it’s a fetus, not a person.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

        Hi, Jb.  You write,

        …it’s a fetus, not a person.

        I think you’re making a category error.  The word “fetus” is not a type of life distinct from “baby” or “human being”; it is a name describing a stage of human development.  It is no different than saying adolescent, toddler, or senior.  One would not say, “That’s a toddler, not a human being (or baby).”

        Whether or not one may kill a human being in the earliest stages of development is the crux of the abortion debate.  The developing organism is human because it has the human genome.  It is a being because it is an existent.  Thus, the human “beingness” of the organism in question cannot be rationally denied.  Introducing developmental stage terminology cannot redefine a human being.

        Regards.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

          Your opinion is noted. I don’t think it’s a category error.

          The definition of human being is “Homo Sapiens” – literally, man who thinks.

          So a set of cells is not a human being until and unless it has a brain that can physically think like other human beings do.

          This distinction between “Human being” and “alive” is what’s important here.

          Fetuses don’t begin to have brain activity until after the beginning of the third trimester. Thus, an abortion before the third trimester is not killing a human being. It is halting the development of a living set of cells that could *become* a human being, which is sad – but it is not murder.

          Best, and thanks for engaging in a rational discussion of this.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

            Hello again, Jb.

            fetusthe young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

            We thus see the term “fetus” is directly related to development.  It doesn’t define a human being.

            Although I strongly disagree with your other points defending your position, the abortion debate itself is not the topic of this thread (my additional comments notwithstanding–I don’t think we should veer this thread too far away from the topic).  I am merely pointing out that using the term “fetus” in relation to defining a human being is a category error–your denial notwithstanding.  Said term is defined in relation to development, not genus (per above).

            Kind regards.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Fine, then. Where I have said “fetus”, please substitute “fetus during the first 2/3 of its development towards birth”.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

            jb, I’m glad it appears we’re getting closer, but mere substitution does not remove the error.  The term “fetus” bears no relevance to what is or isn’t a person.  It is logically indistinct from saying, “It’s a toddler, not a person.”  To say, “It’s a fetus during the first 2/3 of its development towards birth, not a person,” is just as mistaken as the previous error; it mixes categories.

            Personhood is another category and must be established by another line of reasoning (as you attempted to do above).  Although I think your argument is logically indefensible in other ways, we can defer analysis since it  will take us WAY off-topic.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            You are free to disagree, but I truly don’t understand your attempt to apply some “category violation” to my use of the word “fetus”.

            “Fetus” is the proper term to use for cells in **all vertebrate** development, and not merely human development. As your own quoted definition shows.

            Is a seed a plant? No. But it is a stage in the development of a plant. So why would it be **right** to say a seed is a plant, as opposed to saying it’s a stage in development towards being a plant?

            Is an egg a bird? No. But it is a stage in the development of a bird. So why would it be **right** to say an egg is a bird?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

            Because as I’ve stated repeatedly, which you appear to understand (if so, I cannot understand why you continue to disagree)–something’s development has no bearing on what it is.  It is fallacious to say that because something is a fetus it isn’t a person.  The word “person” isn’t defined by a developmental term.

            In itself, your error doesn’t defeat your ultimate argument that “choice” is morally permissible in certain stages of pregnancy.  It’s just bad terminology.  You are simply using the word incorrectly.  All you have to do is simply say, “Thanks for pointing that out.”  End of story.

            I take time here because it is used repeatedly as if it has logical force when in reality it confuses terminology.

            Again, something’s (choose any noun) development has no bearing on what it is (“it” cannot develop unless “it” is).  A partially completed blueprint is still a blueprint.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            “-something’s development has no bearing on what it is.

            Yes it does have bearing on it. Is a bunch of rock salt, ice and milk in a mixer ice cream? No.

            There you have it.

              It is fallacious to say that because something is a fetus it isn’t a person.  “

            No, you’re wrong. It is instead fallacious to say that because something will ONE DAY become a person, it is one now.

            Is an architectural blueprint for a house, a house? Obviously not.

            So is a seed a plant? Nope.

            Is a bird something more than a fertilized egg? Yes.

            There you have it.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

            You wouldn’t say “a seed is a plant,” or “an egg is a bird,” because a seed is a seed and an egg is an egg. You wouldn’t say a developing egg isn’t an egg. Once a bird’s egg is fertilized and develops into a “fetus,” it is no longer an egg; it is a developing bird. Likewise, once you have a developing human, it’s developmental stage doesn’t negate its humanity.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Once a bird’s egg is fertilized and develops into a “fetus” it is no longer an egg, it is a developing bird.

            No, it is a fertilized egg. It is different from an unfertilized egg – but it is still not a bird. It cannot do any of the things a bird can do and it doesn’t have any of the structures birds have, that are important to the definition of bird.

            Once it is far along enough in it’s development inside the egg, it becomes birdlike enough that it is considered a bird. It needn’t hatch all the way – but it is definitely closer to hatching than when it was initially laid before it is considered a bird.

            Likewise, once you have a developing human, it’s developmental stage doesn’t negate its humanity.

            Yes it does. A fertilized egg is not a human being. Any more than a car’s blueprint is a car. Or even an axle and tires without an engine.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

            Maybe our disagreement over the way I’m using the word “fetus” is a disagreement of how logical sets, subsets, and overlapping sets should be used.

            All sets are not the same.

            I’ll put it like this:

            1. any “something” that grows goes through some phases on the way to it’s final form – whether a human, bird, plant, car, house, planet. Each of these phases has a distinct name, which is a category, which is essentially a logical set.

            2. the different phases that the “something” goes through, are not always classified as being the same as the final form. In fact, these in-between phases **rarely** are classified as being essentially the same as the final form.

            So, the category / classification of “house” is distinct from the category “blueprints”. But houses still pass through *being* blueprints in their phase of their development.

            Not all blueprints are houses – **but all houses come from blueprints**.

            And so, the category / classification of “plant” is distinct from “seed”. But plants still pass through *being* seeds.

            These are overlapping sets. They have some common themes and aspects, and some key differences. These sets are thus linked but not identical, and not everything in one class necessarily belongs in the other class.

            3. And in the same way, I’m saying the category / classification of “person” is distinct from the classification “fetus”.

            Now we can both agree that other stages of development of “person” **are not** a different category or classification of person – they are subsets of the class “person”. Such as child, toddler, adult etc.

            And a different argumentyou could make, is that “fetus” is a subset of “person” instead – and show why my consideration of fetus being an overlapped set is wrong. And we can then bat that ball around.

            But that appears to be a different argument from where you’re going with the “category violation” thing.

            From what I see, your argument is that that a fetus *must be* considered the same as a “person”, because **Any** phase in **any** noun’s development **is always** considered identical with the final form.

            Which means there are no overlapping sets in development phases. Which is logically incorrect. Sets can be arranged in anyway we choose, and there is no inherent logical violation in having sets that overlap but not completely, and are distinct.

            “Fetus” and “person” MAY be the same in some key ways that make fetus a **subset** of the class “human” – but they also MAY NOT. And, in addition, they definitely **are** different classes, AKA sets, AKA categories.

            Else, why have different words for them, if not to make them distinct from each other?

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

            Good.  We’re getting closer (believe it or not).  I’ve gotta scoot because of other responsibilities.  I’ll reply below later on.  Thanks for the dialog.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

            Hello again, Jb.

            fetusthe young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

            We thus see the term “fetus” is directly related to development.  It doesn’t define a human being.

            Although I strongly disagree with your other points defending your position, the abortion debate itself is not the topic of this thread (my additional comments notwithstanding–I don’t think we should veer this thread too far away from the topic).  I am merely pointing out that using the term “fetus” in relation to defining a human being is a category error–your denial notwithstanding.  Said term is defined in relation to development, not genus (per above).

            Kind regards.

      • retired.military

        Actually God stated I know you even in the womb.  You presume much to speak for Jesus.

  • http://twitter.com/codekeyguy Dennis Skea

    to jb:
    “You CANNOT be Catholic and pro-Abortion”.  PERIOD.  Anyone who supports Obama is anti-life.  Church rules say a Catholic CANNOT support abortion or any politician who supports it.  You can support Obama all you want, BUT DON’T SAY YOU ARE A CATHOLIC.  Biden, Pelousy, Sebileous, ARE NOT CATHOLIC ANYMORE. They can return to the church by renouncing their pro-abortion views, and by going to confession. That is what Catholics do  Other than that, nothing.
    If you cannot accept the rules, don’t join the club.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

      Sure and fine.

      But that also means the Catholic Church isn’t entitled to any of MY tax money, AND it isn’t entitled to engage in non-religious public efforts that the state and federal government is rightly overseeing, such as adoption.

      So if the Catholic Church can’t accept those rules, then the government is absolutely right in kick the church out of ITS club.

      Wouldn’t you agree?

  • http://www.pohdiaries.com/ TWB

    Rick I saw this earlier and thought about doing a post, nice pick up. I don’t personally see how Obama and his ilk sleep at night.

  • TomInCali

    >This administration has **expanded** gun rights

    It’s more correct to say “gun rights have expanded under this administration”. Which doesn’t imply that Obama had anything to do with the expansion, but at least correctly notes that he hasn’t done anything that resulted in restricted gun rights.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

      Did Obama sign a law expanding gun rights?

      Yes.

      Then this administration expanded gun rights.

  • TomInCali

    >But then again, when a decline in a program’s automatic increase is seen
    as ‘cutting’ a program’s budget, it’s easy to understand your
    confusion.

    And Republicans’ confusion also. After all, when Obama announced reductions in defense budget increases last week, Republicans went nuts that he was “cutting” the defense budget. Nice double standard.

  • TomInCali

    >You’ve got to be kidding me. Your example of government intrusion into
    family affairs, is the First Lady’s program to keep kids from getting
    fat???

    Agreed, this is a ridiculous comparison. Comparing an attempt to outlaw a medical procedure (or even to discuss the procedure with your doctor) to “a national public awareness effort” on obesity. Ooh, scary!

  • retired.military

    I saw a news article last week.  A woman got arrested for getting her 10 year old son a tattoo.  I bet if she took her 10 year old daughter to get an abortion not only would she not get arrested but they wouldnt even bother to ask how the 10 year old got pregnant even though having sex with a 10 year old is against the law.

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    Obama’s right! Government should not intrude on private matters. Excuse me while I turn on a few more government mandated curly CFLs to see why my government mandated low flow toilet isn’t flushing properly!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

    Hello again, jb!  Since signing off, I wondered how to reply to your messages.  I’m normally a point-by-point person, but time simply doesn’t give me much wiggle room.  I think, however, we can “get there” with a truncated approach.  You write,

    Now we can both agree that other stages of development of “person” **are not** a different category or classification of person – they are subsets of the class “person”. Such as child, toddler, adult etc. 

    And a different argument you could make, is that “fetus” is a subset of “person” instead – and show why my consideration of fetus being an overlapped set is wrong. And we can then bat that ball around. 

    But that appears to be a different argument from where you’re going with the “category violation” thing.

    From what I see, your argument is that that a fetus *must be* considered the same as a “person”, because **Any** phase in **any** noun’s development **is always** considered identical with the final form.

    That is why I believe we’re getting closer.  You almost understand my position.  Since one of my initial replies employed the “toddler” example, it should have been clear that I do not believe “any noun’s development is always considered identical with the final form.”  An infant cannot speak, read, write or walk.  S/he cannot feed h/erself, s/he doesn’t have teeth, and she cannot reproduce.  Thus, a developing human being isn’t in h/er final form even though s/he is a person.  One should then see that once the minimum requirements of personhood are met (however that is defined), development consequent to meeting those standards has no bearing on personhood.  It is irrelevant whether one is a newborn, a toddler or an adolescent.  A person is a person irrespective of development.  That is why a partially completed blueprint is still a blueprint, and a partially completed house is still a house.

    Against this you have raised seed, egg, etc., objections.  These objections “work” for you because your definition of person does not include a fertilized egg; and if an egg, zygote, embryo, fetus, etc., are developmental stages of non-persons, then it follows the set of cells described by those terms cannot be deemed a person.  However, it is the definition of “person” that controls the analysis, not the stage of development.  Since you acknowledge development has no bearing on an already-existing person, it should then be easy to see it has no bearing on something you’ve already defined out of personhood.

    To illustrate:  A fertilized egg, zygote, embryo and fetus can describe the developmental stages of a chicken, but since a chicken does not have the human genome, it cannot be a human being at any stage of its existence.  Since having the human genome is obviously one of the requirements of being a human being, developmental status is irrelevant in that sense.  Saying, “It’s a (chicken) fetus, not a person,” is then manifestly incongruous.  Likewise, if personhood is actualized upon birth (not your position), then whatever occurs prior to birth (or whatever starting point one chooses) is irrelevant when it comes to defining a person.  Against this you may argue it is entirely permissible to say that (since, according to your standards, a fetus cannot be a person).  In addition to what I’ve written, the obvious problem with that reply is the person with whom you are debating will likely not agree with your definition.  From what little I’ve read of your posts, it appears you are a little more left of center than most of the participants here.  It is then likely many if not most participants will not accept your definition of “person.”  If that is the case, your “fetus-not-a-person” argument is a non-starter.  You are again logically compelled to defend your definition of person, for if person includes a fertilized human egg, then calling a fetus a non-person is inconsistent at best.

    For the above reasons (including other posts), I believe it is a category error to appeal to a developmental stage as you have done.

    This is really as truncated as I can make it.  If you reply, I may not be able to get back to you tomorrow.  I will be extremely busy.

    All the best…

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_425GVKQCLFZMQYYENR7CJBRDVA jb

      Good discussion, appreciated.

      OK, so:

      we agree that there are two kinds of interaction among sets here.

      1. Overlapping – the sets intersect, but have differences so that not all of one set is inside another set. This would be blueprints (of houses, specifically) vs. houses. A blueprint is a phase in the development of a house, but it is NOT a house, and a house is definitely not a blueprint.

      2. Subsets – the sets intersect, but all of one set are inside another set. Thus all infants are persons, but there are some persons who are not infants.

      And for further clarity, let’s say that there are two sets which are functionally identical – humans and persons. All persons are humans, and all humans are persons.

      Your contention is that fetuses are persons, because fetuses are a stage in the development of humans.

      My contention is that fetuses are not persons during the first 2/3 of their development, because they have not yet developed the key element of personhood – the physiological material needed to think conceptually.

      My concept of personhood is based on what separates humans from all other animals on earth. This is our capacity for conceptual thought. This is what separates us from chimpanzees, our closest physical cousins, with whom we share 96% of our DNA.

      (And let’s note separately that the power of conceptual thought is different than the power of speech. Speech is an expression of thought, but is not needed to think – in fact, neurologically, speech is the last phase of the formation of
      thoughts. It’s not where concepts are created, merely where concepts are
      *expressed*. That’s how you can have things “on the tip of your tongue”
      – know what you are thinking about but be unable to say it until your
      brain finds the right words to match the thought.)

      The concept of personhood as being based on having the human genome doesn’t work for me for two reasons:

      a) as previously stated, chimpanzees are 96% human. Does that mean that killing a harmless chimpanzee is 96% a murder? No. It would certainly be cruelty – to an animal. There is a threshold to be crossed – and that threshold is the capacity for human thought.

      b) The other reason the genome argument doesn’t work for me, is when it’s applied to other groups of cells besides fetuses. Here’s two examples:

      - A foot is a group of cells that has the human genome in it. Does that mean that disposing of an amputed limb is murder? No. A foot is a part of a human, and part of a person, but it is not by itself a human or a person.

      - A man has a car accident, and his entire body below the ribcage and his arms  must be cut away. The head and torso lives. Was the man killed? Obviously not – even though 85% of his body is gone.

      Clearly the mind matters – which is why the medical definition of death is the cessation of **brain activity**.

      Which is why a fetus is not a person until it develops the capacity for conceptual thought; and thus why abortion is not murder if it is ending the development of a group of cells that doesn’t have that capacity.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_F7QOSGWN4O43EO6OMRNXSJGFWA Scalia

        jb,

        I think we’re just about there.  I only have a few more observations.  You write,

        Your contention is that fetuses are persons, because fetuses are a stage in the development of humans.

        I guess you could say that, but I prefer to say a human fetus is a person because it fits my definition of a person.

        The concept of personhood as being based on having the human genome doesn’t work for me for two reasons…

        Just a slight quibble:  Recall I said, “Since having the human genome is obviously one of the requirements of being a human being…”

        The remainder of your post defends your definition of “person.”  I sincerely thank you for taking the time to do so.  However, as I stated above, to continue along that line will obligate us to turn this into a full-blown discussion of abortion.  Given my experience debating abortion, such an effort will be long and time-consuming.  I’ve done it before and will perhaps do it again down the road, but since that’s not really the topic of this thread, I’ll respectfully defer for now. My only real argument here was to point out the necessity of advancing one’s concept of “person,” not a stage of development. I think our discussion has demonstrated that.

        Thanks again for the vigorous dialog.  Hopefully we can “meet” again down the road.

        Kind regards…