Because Harriet Miers was on nobody’s Supreme Court short list, her surprise nomination to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Conner set off a mad rush to pigeonhole her politics and judicial philosophy. So when an offer came my way to talk to a longtime friend and colleague, I jumped at the chance, visions dancing in my head of scooping the MSM on the intimate details of Miers’ views on Roe v. Wade and other issues of the day.
Yeah… dream on.
Instead, what I got from attorney Tom Fitzpatrick was a heartfelt endorsement of Miers that is not likely to satisfy activists on either side of the political spectrum.
Fitzpatrick describes Miers as a “smart, cautious and capable lawyer” who will bring much needed “real life experience” to the bench. He pointed out that many of our finest Justices had never served as judges, and that Miers experience in local government and as a practicing attorney would likely temper her decisions: “Harriet understands the impact that judicial decisions have on people, businesses and local governments.”
But Fitzpatrick was most impressed by Miers’ personal and ongoing commitment to performing pro bono work, and her “stalwart leadership” in both the Dallas and Texas State Bar Associations in providing access to justice for the poor. In fact, the only remotely negative comment I could get out of Fitzpatrick was a fit of laughter at reports that Miers’ allegedly described President Bush as the most brilliant man she had ever met. Fitzpatrick says he does not share Miers’ opinion of the President’s intellect.
Neither do they share political philosophies. While Fitzpatrick describes Miers as a “traditional, conservative Republican,” he labels himself a “liberal Democrat.”
After 22 years in private practice, and five years as one of the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office’s top civil attorneys, Fitzpatrick was recently appointed Executive Director by Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon. He has served on the American Bar Association’s Board of Governors, representing the Northwest region, and as the WA State Bar Association’s representative to the ABA’s House of Delegates. It was there that he met and worked with Miers, with whom he has remained friends for over a decade.
Of course, the question everybody is itching to ask is where does Miers stand on Roe v. Wade… and alas, she and Fitzpatrick never directly discussed the issue. As has been widely reported, after the ABA House of Delegates voted to formally adopt a resolution in support of Roe, Miers led an unsuccessful effort to send the issue directly to members via a referendum. But Fitzpatrick points out that Miers’ campaign was conducted on behalf of the Texas State Bar Association, and that she objected to the resolution on grounds that it was not germane to the purposes of the ABA. While he seems to suspect that Miers is personally pro-life, Fitzpatrick believes that she is a “blank slate” on the legal issues surrounding abortion, and that her actions in the ABA or on behalf of corporate clients simply do not tell us one thing or another about her judicial philosophy.
While many wags on both the right and the left have ridiculed Miers’ qualifications, Fitzpatrick is confident that she’ll make an excellent justice… well… for a Republican. If this were a Democratic administration Fitzpatrick would expect and prefer a more liberal nominee, but he thinks Democrats are damn lucky to get somebody like Miers from a Bush appointment.
Looking back at the short list that Miers wasn’t on, it could have been worse. Much worse.
So far the Senate agrees:
http://thehill.com/thehill/exp...../gang.html
Mr. Cyncial has thus far stayed out of the early, emotional bruhaha except for saying “this is what we have Senate Hearings for”. I will continue to take a “wait-and-see” attitude on this and any other candidates. I will continue to expect MOST LEFTIST PINHEADS to attack anything and anyone Bush is for….like the robots they are. We will see & hear a lot of anecdotal evidence just like this…most likely more good than bad. I happen to think that a Supreme Court Justice does not need bench experience. I do not view the Supreme Court as some sort of “promotion”. Is Ms. Meiers the “best” candidate???? “Best” is quite subjective, don’t you think?? Kind of a straw-man as someone will always find some sort of flaw in a candidate that someone else might not have. You could never end the selection process if best meant “perfect”.
I look forward to watching the selection process unfold.
I really don’t get the fixation w/ Roe v Wade. Its certainly #1 for libs, but while righties get agitated on it, its not our #1 issue.
Why the fixation? Sex without consequences? We don’t need no stinking rules?
righton @ 3
It’s always about the sex for you guys, isn’t it? You cannot or will not see reproductice choice for what it is: a key to the empowerment and equality of women in our society. Roe v. Wade establishes not only the legality of abortion, it establishes that the reproductive decisions fo women are private and not subject to federal or state review, and the medical decisions between women and their doctors are likewise private and not issues for federal or state involvement. The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Women’s Association have all opposed obstacles that impair women’s access to safe and early abortion services. Medical professionals understand the serious health risks created by state-mandated obstacles to legal abortion.
The Griswold dcision affirming the rights of married persons to obtain and use contraception is similar. Attackers of reproductive rights are often anti-contraception as well. The freedom of women NOT to get pregnant is vital and arises fundamentally from their right to make private medical decisions.
Curtis;
You mean abortion is like the right to a tonsillectomy? Just a growth that happens? Why not fight then for the right to any personal medical procedure you want? Right to artificial heart, or nose job, or abortion?
Naw, I think its combo of libs liking their inner city abortion clinics (read eugenics) and also sex without consequences. Same pro-abortion folks are the ones who refuse to preach abstinence to hetero’s or (shiver me timbers) close the gay sex clubs..(aka aids farms)
Fitzpatrick describes Miers as a “smart, cautious and capable lawyer” who will bring much needed “real life experience” to the bench. He pointed out that many of our finest Justices had never served as judges, and that Miers experience in local government and as a practicing attorney would likely temper her decisions: “Harriet understands the impact that judicial decisions have on people, businesses and local governments.”
Amen to this perspective. I’ve been saying for a long time that the Court needs more justices with actual life experiences. I’m not ready to say that Miers is the right person for the job, but I’m not convinced that not having been a judge is a bad thing. Maybe she’ll be more modest and moderate on the bench than she would be otherwise, and that’s to her and our benefit.
I’m more concerned about her lack of constitutional law background.
It’s a tough decision, a Hobson’s choice. On the one hand it’s really good to see the Republicans implode on this one. Anything they dislike so much has to be good. And it’s possible we could have bitten the bullet because there are obviously much worse choices for Democrats. What if she pulled out and then he nominated somebody really bad?
On the other hand, he might get the rightwing conservative he wants, and still might have one other chance to appoint somebody. After this we can only pray to Buddha that the other justices stay healthy for 3 years!
http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog
Too weighty… You all forget who nominated her: A whiskey drinking [now as before] cardplaying Texas punk… Somebody who isn’t very intelligent but is very clever.
“Looking back at the short list that Miers wasn’t on, it could have been worse. Much worse.” That’s the point. You can hear the liar-in-chief chuckle:
“Take this one or I will propose somebody you will really hate.”
The shrub is in trouble. There are a half-dozen matters that could explode on his bunch of thieves and land in front of the Court. So he puts his groupie – what else do you call somebody who uses the phrase “the most brilliant man I have ever met” – on the court. If she recuses, the court is left hamstrung. If not… She doesn’t have to; it’s her call. She’s untouchable.
And they still have their anti private rights mole to dismantle Roe and who knows what else. With her on the Court, social justice is likely out of reach for the next twenty years, barring the good fortune of their destruction.
righton @ 5, once again, reaches into his wingnut’s bag-o-stereotypes and belches out:
“Naw, I think its combo of libs liking their inner city abortion clinics (read eugenics) and also sex without consequences. Same pro-abortion folks are the ones who refuse to preach abstinence to hetero’s or (shiver me timbers) close the gay sex clubs..(aka aids farms)”
Nice, righton. Once again, you have demonstrated that you live in your wingnut fantisy world, with no actual issues found in the real world.
He pointed out that many of our finest Justices had never served as judges
I just love when people refuse to source their references. It makes me think they’re hiding something.
Is it possible that this is his reference?
Is there another side to the issue that Fitzpatrick doesn’t want us to see? From the same article:
“. . . but what you look for in place of judicial experience is distinguished experience as a law professor or public official, and Miers really doesn’t have either of those two”
Don’t buy into this Republican spin bull shit. The conservatives WANT Meirs, don’t kid yourselves.
This BS about the right wingers being up in arms over her nomination is a smoke screen that is being orchestrated by the WH.
This is all about Roe v. Wade. This lady is an Evangelical Christian who lives her faith. Therefore, she’s obligated to vote to overturn Roe.
The irony of this battle is that if the neocons actually shape the nation into what they’ve been pursuing for the last 25 years, they’re not going to like it.
After all, Bush himself knocked up a girl in his early years and she got an abortion. Laura Bush, killed a former boyfriend in a fit of rage.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
@9: It’s worse than that. righton and his ilk don’t realize that this is the fighting front for the issue of privacy for all.
I don’t like Roe. I especially don’t like what it does to fathers’ rights. But the alternative is to accept that half of the human race is indentured to “society.”
This is going in entirely the wrong direction, back toward the evil past and the retrograde religious “values” and taboos it harbors. We need to move the other way: Absolute primacy of the private individual to indulge whatever behaviors that harm no other. Vice laws, suicide laws, gay rights, etc. are all in play. Even property rights are connected to this. It’s no accident the same court gives us Kelo and strikes down medical marijuana.
We have to once and for all affirm that for good or ill the individual is first and the state / society second. Otherwise, technology will soon make all privacy moot.
GBS
After all, Bush himself knocked up a girl in his early years and she got an abortion. Laura Bush, killed a former boyfriend in a fit of rage.
So, gbs, when did you stop having homosexual relations with six year old children?
This nomination is so cool. The nutjobs on here don’t know what to think — their hero nominated Miers, but most of the other right-wing wackos are furious about — I think it’s only a matter of time before Cynical’s and Righton’s heads explode!
righton #3 — what planet do you live on? definitely not earth
I tend to somewhat agree with Fitzpatrick if only because the extreme right seems about to implode over her nomination. Also caught a quick clip of Scalia and although restrained he wasn’t exactly jumping for joy either. Also agree with Goldy that it might be the best we can expect from this administration.
Ms. Meirs’ record is completely devoid of anything that would suggest that she is qualified to be a supreme court justice. First the obvious, she’s never been a judge and she’s never shown any sustained interest in constitutional issues. Second, her public service record consists of a short stint as a city counsel member in Dallas. What is remarkable about Ms. Meirs is her networking track record. She was active in the Texas Bar Association and she managed to get her self selected to the Texas Lottery Board and, ultimately as White House counsel. This begs the question, what “real life” expereince does she bring to the bench. She’s been a lawyer her entire adult life. As far as I can tell she has done nothing remarkable. She’s never served in the armed forces, she’s never worked outside of a law firm and she’s shown almost no commitment to public service (the Lottery Board?). At bottom, she’s a zero and a safe zero for the administration because they’ve had access to her for a while and presumably know exactly where she’s coming from. She should not be confirmed for the simple reason that she is not qualified.
Name me 1 successful Democrat who is clearly anti-abortion?
@ 12
What is it with conservatives that everything is reduced to “homosexual relations” in their rhetoric?
Ms Chickenhawk is infamous for it.
Is it repressed sexual desires on their part?
ray @15 — no committment to public service? I thought she had done a great deal of pro bono work? And the “real life” experience is a reference to the fact that she grew up poor and worked her way to her current position, which is the polar opposite of someone like John Roberts.
righton @ 16 – Ever hear of Senate minority leader Harry Reid? Man, you are a poster child for right-wing stupidity
Miers does sound like a fairly smart lawyer — to put this in context, believe me, I’ve met some stupid lawyers. Yes, it’s possible in this day and age for stupid people to get through 4 years of college and 3 years of law school, and still be stupid. (John Ashcroft, for example.)
@18
Roger Rabbit opposes abortion on moral and religious grounds — and RR is a Democrat! But Roger Rabbit doesn’t try to shove his personal moral or religious beliefs down other people’s throats. That’s one big difference (there are many others) between RR and the neo-fascists calling themselves Republicans.
I really don’t oppose abortion but I actually wish the SCOTUS would just overturn Roe already. There are so many more important issues in my opinion. I think the smart Republicans want to keep the status quo, however, because they know if Roe goes down, it would be disastrous for their party.
Righton and Cynical were hoping the Mayor of Mayberry would get the nod from “W”.
righton
Why not fight then for the right to any personal medical procedure you want? Right to artificial heart, or nose job, or abortion?
No one has yet tried to legislate against your right to fix that airplane hangar you call a nose. If they were to, I would certainly defend your right to surgically join the human race. I consider that a private medical decision as well.
Naw, I think its combo of libs liking their inner city abortion clinics (read eugenics) and also sex without consequences.
Sorry, but: huh? First, abortion recipients are overhwhelmingly white (about 60%). The disproportionality may have to do with poverty, or with other social pressures. I don’t really know. I’m sure you’re convincing a whole lot of black people the Democrats want their babies dead and the Republicans are their true friends. How does the saying go?: With friends like that…
If you want ot claim that “liberals” are interested in exterminating blacks, perhaps you could provide some direct support.
Second, sex has to have “consequences?” Why?
“Same pro-abortion folks are the ones who refuse to preach abstinence to hetero’s”
Because it doesn’t work. Duh.
close the gay sex clubs..(aka aids farms)
Wow. By “gay sex clubs,” you mean “nightclubs?” Because if you think we should close “places where people go to dance and soemtimes have sex,” that includes the straight joints. And hotels. And weddings.
Roger Rabbit @ 23
‘But Roger Rabbit doesn’t try to shove his personal moral or religious beliefs down other people’s throats.’
So rabbit thinks the unborn are persons, (glad to hear thatpart), but that society should stand by while they are killed? I will guess that the “moral and religious beliefs” would also have the rabbit frowning on parents killing their kids under 10. If that was decriminalized in the US would the rabbit care?
Dan B @ 12
‘But the alternative is to accept that half of the human race is indentured to “society.”‘
Better to be “indentured” than killed. The ‘fathers rights’ angle is better than nothing, if not extremely selfish in light of the true debate over abortion.
GBS @ 11
‘This BS about the right wingers being up in arms over her nomination is a smoke screen that is being orchestrated by the WH.’
I have actually heard that the early support by Reid and other dems was designed to sink Miers. I suppose there are tin hats that fit on both sides of ther isle.
The fact that many on the right actually agree with many on the left, either in support of or against Miers, providesa portal into the true goals of the left. For all of the criticism pointed at Bush and his “uniter, not a divider”, there has never been any desire on the left to unite.
The left’s true colors are showing so choose the kool-aid flavor carefully.
Mark @ 24
‘I think the smart Republicans want to keep the status quo..’
I would replace the word “smart” with “cunning” or devious”. There are some repubs who want RvW to stay to keep righties turning out. This is actually as disgusting as the dems using poverty and racial programs to keep the base angry and sheepish.
righton @ 14
‘Name me 1 successful Democrat who is clearly anti-abortion?’
This was too easy, as Mark @ 21 noted. Although Reid will never be invited to espouse his views in a public forum such as a Presidential convention, he is almost consistently anti-abortion.
The trick was to have them name three or four dems who do not tow the line.
No Wonder @ 29
Ha hahahahahahahahaha.
That’s the biggest lie ever told in politics. I’m a uniter, not a divider.
Ms Miers is not going to unite this country, you know it, I know it, Evangelicals know it, and soon, if confirmed, the whole country will know it.
Bush is the worst president ever. Get used to the moniker.
And if I’m wrong, name one thing George Bush has done exceedingly better than any other president. Just one.
Reply to 27
Why not? Society stands still while the American government kills people in the name of _________ (fill in blank .. e.g., oil, bananas, tin, etc.).
GBS –
“…name one thing George Bush has done exceedingly better than any other president. Just one.”
Run up the deficit…..
27 (continued)
Why should Republicans be the only ones allowed to turn a blind eye to killing? Why should you guys have a monopoly on everything?
Comment on 24
“I really don’t oppose abortion but I actually wish the SCOTUS would just overturn Roe already. There are so many more important issues in my opinion.”
Have you thought this through? I think not. Roe v. Wade prevents state legislatures from passing laws against abortion. If Roe is overturned, there will be abortion fights in every single one of the 50 state legislatures, every year, and not a damn thing else will ever get done. Legislators will spend all their time fighting over abortion, and no school or highway funding will ever get passed, no other laws will ever be enacted, and all across the country state governments will come to a complete standstill. Overturning Roe will mean chaos at the state level.
Goldy,
You MUST get the new blog software soon! I take a break from posting and Mark the Left Nut is back trying to pose as me.
So, to all you Righties that might have thought I’d lost my mind… the “Mark” you’ve been dealing with in this thread so far is the phony Lefty “Mark” (aka Mark the Left Nut).
Roger @ 36
The question, also brought up in many earlier threads, is whether or not Roe is good law.
Personally, I think abortion to a certain point should be legal and at will. After that point, it should only be to save the life of the mother.
I also think that the Left is fear-mongering when they say that the GOP would like nothing better than to outlaw abortion. I’d say the Left has much more of a pro-abortion litmus test than the Right does against it.
GBS @ 32
‘And if I’m wrong, name one thing George Bush has done exceedingly better than any other president. Just one.’
Although it may be a tie with Reagan, Bush has kept the lefties in a constant incoherent tiffy-fit, and chasing their tail for 5 years.
Roger Rabbit
Why not?
Just checking. I guess calling you the moral wabbit is not a good idea. I thought there was hope.
36
Legislators will spend all their time fighting over abortion, and no school or highway funding will ever get passed, no other laws will ever be enacted, and all across the country state governments will come to a complete standstill.
Lets overturn it quick. It is not only the right thing to do but accoring to Rabbit we would get less government. Killing two birds with one stone.
Hey, RUFUS, now about the use of the Filibuster by Republicans on feceral court appointments… you willing to be man enough to admit you were full of shit?
No? Good job Neo-Con Symp! Keep repeating the lies you hear on the Wingnut MSM. Good little Neo-Con Symp!
It would seem to me that the Senate’s charter is to approve or reject a candidate for the bench on the basis of competence for the job, and lack of gross conflicts or moral turpitude.
Ms. Meirs has enough legal credentials to qualify her under number one. However, she’s worked for George W. Bush for two decades, helped cover up his past transgressions to help him get elected governor and president, and has been at his right hand through his presidiency.
This woman has to be as dirty as a gas station toilet.
Wabbit: You guys already have a killing machine in place it’s called ABORTIONS. I and others have refered to studies where your side has killed off 4-6 million DONKS who could have voted for AL GORE! Just think if birthing was the official first choice of the donko-cratic party, you side may be in charge of all three branches. But then again most abortions happen in donk strongholds – the cities.
Looks like stuckonstupiddon is again promoting the mythical imaginary, whimsical Republican filibuster. Too bad stuckonstupiddon has no URL links to back up his worthless claim. I suppose providing links from the congressional record isn’t good enough for stuckonstupiddon. Remember stuckonstupiddon, you were determined to be delusional and in la-la land in east King County. Is that the Baring area? We’re waiting for proof of these filibusters.
Rabbit @24
Yes, I know you are right, and I have thought about it. And I think that is part of the reason overturning Roe would destroy the Rep. party. People would be furious and they would know who to blame.
Only a very small percentage of Americans care that much about ending abortion that they want everything else to stop in order for it to happen. Moderate Republicans and Independents would be seething.
Mark @ 45
It sounds like you are projecting support for abortion way beyond the left wing. Support for abortion is waning, and soon there will be a solid majority against all abortions, as opposed to only 2nd and 3rd trimester, partial birth, parental notification, etc. As science and medical technology advance it becomes even more obvious that the unborn child is a person, and should not be killed for reasons other than saving the mother’s life.
On the other hand, the DNA advances couple with new desires for “designer babies” may spur the abortion support. Beyond the current screening for disease and difficult illnesses used to cull babies, any discovery of genes for liberalism/conservatism, gayness, etc. will allow other “difficult” lifestyles from even getting a chance.
@ 39
Yeah, that’s exactly how I figured conservatives would respond, Bush is an unaccomplished leader and the best thing he can do is divide the country and not lead.
The other part of the equation is this: NO other conservative took up the challenge to defend Bush. Why?
He’s a loser and deep down in your subconscious mind you know I’m right.
Righton@5: Message From PacMan:
“I read your #5 answer and it struck a chord with me. Eugenics, that’s what the white liberal democrats (David, DJ, GBS, Goldy, Mr. X, Dr E., Loocy, et. al.) are doing to the poor inner city people. Kill enough of them so they can keep them under control. Damn, I forgot all about that plan Righton. Thanks for reminding me about eugenics population engineering. Then the “righteous indignation” of these lefties on HA around Bill Bennett’s remarks. Thanks Righton for clarifiying inner city abortion clinics. Not only are democrats killing off potential voters down the line, but they are also controlling my people’s population.” – Message from PacMan
Dan B.@8: You’ll shit your pants if she likes Israel, huh?
Curious George@34: The enemies fear the US again. We are not the paper tiger under Clinton. Did you see Lanny Davis on O’Reilly last night. “Well Clinton attacked Afghanistan.” With what Lanny; 32 cruise missles? Wow big attack!
GBS @ 47
‘He’s a loser and deep down in your subconscious mind you know I’m right.’
No, Bush has been a winner since 2000. I support almost all of his actions, the biggest exception being the run-away spending by Congress. He could have slowed it yet chose to pacify the lefties.
The list of Bush accomplishments is large and positive, yet all would be lost on you and the others on the HA team. The 2006 elections will either provide confirmation of that, or not. History, however, will be kind to Bush IF the terrorists and Middle eastern countries do not convince the lefties in the US to let down the guard. Time will tell, and if I am wrong I will admit it.
No Wonder @ 45
It is nice you have some kind of crystal ball to look into the future. Where do you get this stuff from? The most recent Gallup poll shows 54% of Americans support legal abortion under certain circumstances. Guess what the figure was the first year of the poll, in 1975? Um, 54%. The percent of Americans who want abortion illegal under all circumstances in 2005 is 21%. And in 1975? 22%. Yeah, No Wonder, lots of movement in these figures. Do you call yourself “No Wonder” because when we read your posts, we’re supposed to say “well no wonder, he’s not very bright, after all”
Mark @ 51
Going back to 1975 puts you back before abortion became more popular in the 80’s and 90’s. (Nice trick though.) There was something soothing to fence-sitters about “safe, legal and rare”. (They never explain why something that is OK should be rare.) The popularity of abortion has been headed down recently, and my speculation for why was in my comments. As appealing as it is to some to cull for the perfect hetero baby, those kinds of practices illustrate to the masses how cruel and inhumane abortion really is.
In the mean time we wait.
NO Wonder — Must be nice to live in your own little fantasy world where anything that disproves what you think is a “trick”. OK, how about the 1985 and 1995 Gallup poll on attitude toward abortion, during the time period you say abortion was wildly popular. Percent who think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances: 1985 — 55% and 1995 — 52%. Percent who think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances: 1985 — 21% and 1995 — 14%.
The numbers are remarkably consistent from 1975 to 2005. The percentage of people who think abortion should always be illegal did bottom out in the mid-90s, but it was still only 7% lower than it is today or was in the mid-80s.
Sorry to conclusively prove you wrong. Or maybe you’d like to suggest that the Gallup poll is partisan hogwash and you have your own polling that is much more accurate. Dimwit.
Mark @ 53
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbite.....bm?ID=6982
http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031106.html
Why would NARAL have to lie?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=42448
In the Outback:
http://www.theaustralian.news......02,00.html
pudd @ 48
I’m going to take umbrage at the post you forwarded from Pacman. Not only is he wrong on basically every account, he further makes an utterly reprehensible accusation — citing me (and others) specifically as somehow fostering and promoting a plan of “eugenics”.
A comment like this displays gross misinformation, intellectual dishonesty, or just plain stupidity — I don’t know which, but I hope it’s the former, since at least something can be done about it.
Now, let me tell you why he’s wrong. First, he assumes that all the people listed are white, liberal, and registered democrats — he can only be reasonably sure of the second. Then he imputes some imagined eugenics scheme to those people (and “white liberal democrats” in general). As if that fallacious reasoning weren’t enough, he goes on to assert that there is some sort of “population engineering” plan driven by a Nazist form of eugenics.
It’s at this point that I get personally offended, and simultaneously have to pull out the bullshit card. This is worse than some liberals calling conservatives Nazis (a pejorative that I think is both inaccurate and useless) — it ups the ante by ascribing one of the most hideous policies of the Nazis on an entire group of people.
It might be news to your friend, but abortion clinics and eugenics are not the same thing. They aren’t synonymous. Period. You don’t see thousands of people being marched at gunpoint into abortion clinics, only to emerge (in a grotesque paraphrase of Paul Celan) as a puff of ash. Anyone who would willingly attempt to conflate the two has, in my opinion, an incredibly flawed view of the world.
It might also be news to many conservatives reading this blog that many (if not most) liberals don’t support the act of abortion, but rather that it remains legal so as to allow people the freedom to choose whether an abortion is necessary. And therein lies one of the chief differences between conservatism and liberalism when broadly viewed: liberalism enshrines freedom of choice in general, whereas conservatism reserves such right to the priveledged few, who decide for the rest.
Let your buddy Pacman know he can go ahead and apologize for his remarks. Such disgusting suggestions deserve no less.
Dr. E-54
‘..but abortion clinics and eugenics are not the same thing.’
Agree. There is, however, results that would make any racist or righty eugenicist happy. And there is no good argument against the eugenic component of the early abortion supporters such as Margaret Sanger. The foundation is there now to not have any valid reasons why, in the future, women should not be able to cull babies if they are gay, liberal or conservative. (Assuming the key genes can be identified.) It may not be State-sponsored eugenics, yet many will think it to be just as disgusting.
‘..many (if not most) liberals don’t support the act of abortion, but rather that it remains legal so as to allow people the freedom to choose whether an abortion is necessary.’
Saying abortion is OK, even if you do not “support” it looks no different from the side that thinks the unborn child is a person. The whole “safe, legal and rare” wing has trouble with why it should be rare. If abortion is OK, safe, etc., and not killing anything of substance, there is no good reason for it to be rare. The slavery period in US history gave us similar a similar predicament. Slavery was legal, yet wrong. Again, there was dispute over the degree of personhood that should be attributed to the slaves. In-between the outright supporters and opponents of slavery were those that disagreed with slavery, yet thought others should have the right to own them or that the Sate should not make that decision.
‘…liberalism enshrines freedom of choice in general..’
Public schools, Social Security, Medicare, guns, private property / growth management.
‘…conservatism reserves such right to the priveledged few, who decide for the rest.’
Public schools, Social Security, Medicare, guns, private property / growth management.
55
“The foundation is there now to not have any valid reasons why, in the future, women should not be able to cull babies if they are gay, liberal or conservative. “
I think this is where counseling enters the picture. Providing women with a choice does not absolve them from taking responsibility for their actions. In any event, recent history has shown that making abortion illegal does not serve as an effective deterrent.
Saying abortion is OK, even if you do not “support” it looks no different from the side that thinks the unborn child is a person.
Without debating the ethics of aborting a fetus, which is a separate matter, I am not saying that abortion is okay, that it is a good thing, desirable, etc. I am saying that a true liberal would support the woman’s right to choose what would be best in the given situation. Beyond that, you’d then need to debate the concept of murder (i.e. not killing), and situate that discussion outside a purely Judeo-Christian ethical standpoint (since we do live in a secular democracy).
“Slavery was legal, yet wrong.
No argument with you there. But the comparison of abortion and slavery is not a good one: they deal with different things. The concept of owning a human being is different from that of terminating a fetus. I can’t really comment more on that, since the comparison doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m not sure what to make of your closing remarks, so I’ll leave them for now.
Dr. E @ 56
‘Providing women with a choice does not absolve them from taking responsibility for their actions.’
What responsibility? If “it” is not a person, anyone can kill it. (I think we have had this discussion before.) If the only valid criteria is a single person’s “choice”, how can the State dictate when that choice can be limited? Certainly not when the reason would be based on the genetic make-up of the child. (i.e. you cannot abort if the child has the “gay gene”.)
‘In any event, recent history has shown that making abortion illegal does not serve as an effective deterrent.’
There is plenty of data showing the same thing about murder. It is not about what laws can be effectively enforced, but what laws should be on the books to protect life.
‘I am not saying that abortion is okay’
If you support legal abortion it must be OK. If I supported the death penalty I would have to think it was OK, even if I personally do not condone it. If I thought it was wrong I would work to correct the laws, etc.
‘The concept of owning a human being is different from that of terminating a fetus.’
No, both are based on the concept of personhood. At somewhere less than a full person the slaves were not entitled to the same rights – life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you could even just imagine that the unborn child had the same rights as the mother, you might understand my view. If we take an extreme movement of the age of personhood to say, the age of 10 years the concept is clearer. All of the same reasons to “abort” a 9 year-old child could be made. I would hope that even most of the “pro-choice” advocates would see that as murder, be it done by the woman or a doctor.
‘I’m not sure what to make of your closing remarks..’
Sorry – was in a hurry. Just pointing out large long-term “liberal’ programs where the left suppresses choice and free will, while the right supports just the opposite.
Dr E. I haven’t heard from PacMan yet. Maybe he is thinking about what you said. He specifically said he respects you for what you said about racist lucite and how you brought up the Tacoma example. You sir are an exemplementary liberal. I do ask you one question. You said “It might also be news to many conservatives reading this blog that many (if not most) liberals don’t support the act of abortion, but rather that it remains legal so as to allow people the freedom to choose whether an abortion is necessary.” Where was your voice on animal hind parts when this topic is discussed every so often? This is news to many of us righties. You have the repugnant ones like dj and head-up-de-ass lucite who castigates anyone who questions abortions. I applaud your voice now, but I’d like to see it more in the future.
The responsibility I am speaking of is that of their actions and consequences. This begins with sex and continues with pregnancy. Abortion should not be used as means of birth control; if it becomes such, then there are probably larger societal/cultural issues that need to be dealt with. Again, I didn’t want to debate the ethics here, as that would take quite a while.
“There is plenty of data showing the same thing about murder. It is not about what laws can be effectively enforced, but what laws should be on the books to protect life.
This would be an ethical discussion of killing, i.e. killing vs. murder. I think we can only reasonably compare the two if we assume that abortion is murder. In a secular society, we would have to situate such a discussion outside of purely Judeo-Christian ethics (i.e. it can include Judeo-Christian ethical systems but not be limited to them).
“If you support legal abortion it must be OK.
Not exactly, because then abortion must be categorically just in all situations. I do not think that is so, but I also don’t think that abortion is categorically wrong in all situations. It seems to me that pro-life advocates often put the interests of the fetus ahead of that of the mother; this is why I can’t state that all abortions are wrong all the time, and for that reason, I would not want to advocate its criminalization.
“‘The concept of owning a human being is different from that of terminating a fetus.’ No, both are based on the concept of personhood.”
Yes, in that sense, you are right. But I don’t agree with the view of comparing the “living” (so to speak, i.e. those who have been born) with the unborn. An unborn fetus, for instance does not have the concept of the rights you mention; this is a slippery argument, to be sure, since one could then argue that infants don’t either. But I think this is very much a matter of degree.
As for your argument that long-term “liberal” programs, I think it’s worth distinguishing between liberalism as a political philosophy and the actions of democrats, many of whom really aren’t truly liberal. I think often there is the misconception that “liberals” create programs, like Social Security, for instance, that somehow remove choices from the population in general. Narrowly viewed, one could argue that, since I no longer have the SS money once it has been deducted from my paycheck, I’m not free to decide what to do with it — but that assumes that everyone would have some sort of plan. At the same time, however, liberals do believe in the preservation of the commons for the people, and the usage of the commonwealth for the betterment of society. This is why so many liberals are outraged by corporate cheating, say, by energy producers in the form of pollution (externalizing cost of production onto the public, thereby usurping the usage of the commons for their own profit), as well as why liberals often support the improvement of education, preservation/promotion of culture, extension of health care who could not otherwise afford it, etc.
59
Dunno, I must have missed those discussions. I really don’t think abortion is right in all cases, and insofar as it can be prevented, it should. I just don’t think that we need government to outlaw the practice entirely — the concept of legal, safe, and rare as I see it means that it should ideally be administered in the most rare of cases (rape, incest, etc.), and that (again, ideally) unwanted pregancies would be prevented through birth control or abstention (I’m not endorsing the abstinence-only ideology; it’s just one option).
I don’t think it should be so surprising, though — liberty, among other things, should mean that we get the freedom to choose. The difficulty often lies in the details: that a democracy is inherently a compromise, and that a standard that all (ideally — a majority, in practice) can be comfortable with should be sought.
Hello Dr. E.
I am breaking my rule and I will write you. Why, you have my respect. Put the bullshit card away. Some of my commentary was tongue-in cheek. Sorry if that offended you. Most of the abortions done today are for birth control and you know this. My problem is the Jesse Jackassons and Al NottoSharptons who will not preach to my people that they are killing off our race. So the eugenics comments were to show that when a black child is aborted another black life is snuffed. If you are of the abortion mindset, what else can I think about, even though it may seem macabre. That little black baby may have turned out to be a George Washington Carver, or a Benjamin Banneker. Google Black Inventors and choose your link.
Windie: Kiss my black ass. You are not in the league of Dr E. I do write Puddybud. You can kiss my BIG black ass! Yes, us black people have big black asses. Why? Because we had to run from the man in our early days and this trait is special to us! That’s why when women go black they don’t go back!!!
61
“That little black baby may have turned out to be a George Washington Carver, or a Benjamin Banneker.
Or August Wilson (RIP). Well, you’re absolutely right in your final comments, and I definitely agree with you in those conclusions.
I don’t know enough about the actual figures as to how many abortions per year are after-the-fact forms of birth control, but this is one of the things I specifically find wrong with the practice of abortion. It should never be viewed as a form of birth control — that’s the “rare” part of the equation, or at least what it means to me. I think that’s what it should mean. Like I said, I don’t like abortion, and in an ideal society it would only be used in the most extreme cases. We clearly don’t have an ideal society, but can at least try to work toward that. I don’t know enough about what Jackson and Sharpton are saying on this issue, but, to the extent that they aren’t addressing this message I’d agree that they are abdicating their responsibilities as both preachers and moral leaders.
Thanks for your explanation, by the way, I rescind my previous remarks.
Dr. E @ 60
‘I think we can only reasonably compare the two if we assume that abortion is murder.’
I only brought up the murder example in response to your “making abortion illegal does not serve as an effective deterrent”. Laws cannot be evaluated on the deterrent factor.
‘In a secular society, we would have to situate such a discussion outside of purely Judeo-Christian ethics..’
That is fine. The real point of contention is really the personhood of the unborn child. If “it” has the same rights as the rest of us the “secular” conclusion would end up the same as for any other person.
‘It seems to me that pro-life advocates often put the interests of the fetus ahead of that of the mother.’
That is a bit distorted. The pro-life position is that the unborn has the same rights as the mother, or any other person. The distortion is when people confuse the hierarchy of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” rights structure. The order of those rights is not random. The life of the unborn is more important than the liberty or pursuit of happiness of another person. If the life of the mother is endangered by the pregnacy, the pro-life position weighs her life and allows killing the child to save her life.
‘But I don’t agree with the view of comparing the “living” (so to speak, i.e. those who have been born) with the unborn.’
Again, the real point of disagreement is with the personhood of the unborn. Until there is agreement on that issue the downstream arguments, (mother’s liberty and pursuit of happiness, etc.), are irrelevant.
‘..this is a slippery argument, to be sure, since one could then argue that infants don’t either. But I think this is very much a matter of degree.’
The “matter of degree” is indeed a slippery argument. There are also many other people in our society that, like the unborn and infants, have no concept of their rights. (At least as far as we know.) The philosophical problem with the whole personhood issue is that non-persons can be killed by anyone. The degree of personhood you elude to is related to how the unborn slowly, or instantly become persons either at or before birth. If there is no definite point where this happens that point can be moved by concensus, judicial activism or by a dictator. Some societies, in fact, have moved this point up to the first two years of a child’s life.
‘..distinguishing between liberalism as a political philosophy and the actions of democrats.’
Agreed. Although I still have a lot of trouble with many of the nanny-state programs. I do not think many of them work as intended. Social Security and Medicare, for example, keep a lot of young people poor with the 15.3% tax. And the effective return is terrible, especially as we get to the 2-3 workers per retired benefactor – both sides will need to be squeezed even more. Here we have a program that is illegal if done in the private sector because it would be a Ponzi scheme.
Dr. E @ 62
‘It should never be viewed as a form of birth control..’
Why not?
64
Okay, I should have chosen my words better: contraception. As for your previous post, I largely agree with you, and you are exactly right: the whole matter hinges on the issue of “personhood”.
So Dr E. why isn’t the left preaching something other than abortion? Read the assinine commentary by many LEFTIST PINHEAD animal hind parts bloggers and how they got their clits and cocks in a bind over John Roberts replacing Sandra Day O’Connor. Goggle Horsesass and John Roberts. How many asses here look at the issue as you do? I doubt five would be counted. I won’t even begin to name certain names.