Another blue-dog liberal turns traitor!

[Shapley]

So Shap, I will ask you a question, I believe that you are pro-life. Given that, and your stand on State's rights, you believe that it would be within the right of the state to allow (or deny) abortion. However, and correct me if I am wrong, you are against a woman's right to choose. If you believe that a group of voters can elect to allow abortion, then why should it not be the right of every woman to do so individually?

I believe that abortion is murder, and that a woman should not be allowed to 'vote' to murder her child any more than your neighbor should be allowed to 'vote' to murder you. I also believe that laws dealing with murder are State laws, not Federal ones, as they should be. The Federal government has stuck its' nose into the fray on occasion, mostly when the public is incensed at a particular verdict in a murder trial, and proceeded to retry (against the Constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy) suspects on Federal charges such as 'rights violations' or other fabricated excuses for holding Federal trials. They are completely wrong to do so, as I have said in the past. The Rodney King Beating Trial and the Supreme Court review of the Terri Schiavo are two prime examples. Both cases involved politicizaton of the court process, as the Federal government attempted to overturn a State Court decision, more as a matter of bowing to public opinion than as a matter of law. It was wrong, regardless of whether the State court delivered a correct verdict or not.

Back to the issue of abortion: if a State does not agree with me that it is murder, and decides to make it legal, that is not my issue. In my State, however, I would lobby and petition to ensure that it remains illegal.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

I should also point out that abortion was a States' issue prior to Roe v. Wade.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

My point though is that if you agree that it is a state's right to allow abortion, then why would it not be a woman's universal right to choose it. Doesn't make sense to me. Clearly, you have not excluded the concept in stating that a state can elect to allow it.

[Shapley]

My point though is that if you agree that it is a state's right to allow abortion, then why would it not be a woman's universal right to choose it.

I believe that the State has the right to extend the definition of 'person' to include unborn children. Having done that, that person may not be deprived of life except by due process. That is the same protection that is afforded to you or to me.

Various states allow life to be terminated. Self-defense, capital punishment, and to stop certain criminal activity are some examples of which life can be legally terminated. States would similarly be expected to determine the circumstances under which an abortion could legally occur. Some States may opt for 'abortion on demand' while others may completely prohibit it. That would be up to their legislators and their people to decide, as it was in the days before Roe v. Wade.

I don't consider it a 'right' to choose abortion, since abortion terminates the life of another. Nor can it be 'universal' since only about 50% of the universe would have that right. Why do you place the right of a woman to make one choice over the right of the baby to make a lifetime of choices? It seems to me that we cannot allow a 'right to choose' and a 'right to life' to coexist, since one infringes upon the other. We have to make a choice as to which 'right' we support, and I choose to support the right to life. I still believe the majority of the country (and the world) agrees with me. I also believe this is why 'abortion rights' advocates fight so fervently to prevent the matter from ever being allowed to be decided by vote.

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

]My point though is that if you agree that it is a state's right to allow abortion, then why would it not be a woman's universal right to choose it. Doesn't make sense to me. Clearly, you have not excluded the concept in stating that a state can elect to allow it.

While I disagree with Shap on whether abortion is murder, I do agree with him that enforcement of such opinions should be local rather than universal. Such a system would 1) give each person in the state a greater voice and influence over the rules under which he or she must abide and 2) assuming they are on the losing end of the decision, give them the ability to relocate to a region where their views are more mainstream.

As it is, we have do-gooders from the bible belt arguing with do-gooders from secular regions over how the common folk in the middle have to behave. The voice of the governed is not heard.

[Shapley]

While I disagree with Shap on whether abortion is murder

Actually, I shouldn't say that 'abortion is murder' since, as I've pointed out, the definition of 'murder' is a State issue as well. Properly, I should have said that 'abortion is killing' and that I believe the States should classify abortion without due process as 'murder'. Not all killing is murder, as I noted earlier. We allow killing to occur under specific circumstances. Such killings are subject to review before or after the process (by trial or inquest) to determine whether or not the killing is or was legally justifiable. Abortion would be no different, except that some States may choose to reduce 'due process' for abortion to a simple physicians' consultation.

I would still press my State legislature to equate it to murder, however.

V/R
Shapley

[analog]

There's a price for evertything.

To stop people from getting abortions you put government bureaucrats in between a woman (or too often a child) and her family doctor; you pay the price of privacy.

To maintain individual privacy you pay the price of an occasional "abortion of convenience".

What's the greater long term harm to society?
Probably the empowerment of busybodies. That's what allows a noble small government to grow into an all controlling monster.

[OperaTenor]

Back to the original topic.

It would seem Warner's putting his money where his mouth is:

7 Republican senators now support war debate

At least it'll get some open discussion now.

[Shapley]

Analog,

To stop people from getting abortions you put government bureaucrats in between a woman (or too often a child) and her family doctor; you pay the price of privacy.

It is, however, a fact that any human female conceived with the stain of original sin cannot produce a baby without the benefit of a male. We humans are not Komodo Dragons. It takes two to tango, so to speak.

That being said, I would argue that the future of the child the woman bears in her womb is a decision between more than a woman and her family doctor. Particularly so since the courts hold the male to be financially responsible for the child if it is carried to term. Somehow the idea has been established that the woman gets to determine whether or not the child has a future but, having decided to generously grant him one, the sperm donor becomes suddenly a factor, at least financially, in that future. Cases of rape and incest (a very small percentage of abortions performed are a result of either of those) notwithstanding, the child is a product of a man and a woman. Provided the copulation was consensual and legal, then the male should be represented in the decision-making process.

I also wonder what it is that makes us believe that a woman and a physician are alone qualified to make life or death decisions regarding a child. This is a particularly poignant question if you consider that the woman's judgement can be called into question if she failed to take measures to avoid a pregnancy she clearly did not want. We spend millions each year trying to teach people about the hazzards of unprotected sex, yet we are willing to place those who ignore the warnings in position to determine whether the product of their actions lives or dies. In addition, 'problem pregnancies' produce emotional reactions that could easily hamper a woman's judgement at this critical time. Are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the decision is not made under duress? Due process would seem to be warranted to ensure that the decision made is a proper one.

Many women do not consult their 'family physician' about these matters. In fact, a large percentage of them do not have a 'family physician'. Among the poor, the 'family physician' consulted is as often as not the physician who will perform the abortion. The woman will frequently have little, if any, prior knowledge of the physician, nor the physician of her. The physicians' financial stake in the potential abortion should be sufficient reason to recuse himself of any role in making the life-or-death decision, but it seldom does.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

...the woman's judgement can be called into question if she failed to take measures to avoid a pregnancy she clearly did not want... In addition, 'problem pregnancies' produce emotional reactions that could easily hamper a woman's judgement at this critical time. Are there sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the decision is not made under duress?

I'd like to formally protest the insinuation that decisions of which you disapprove are emotionally biased, made under duress, and are the product of poor judgement.

I'd also like to point out that right-to-choose does not mean that the choice is a foregone conclusion. If we're going to pull out religious dogma, I'll remind you that God gave us free will, including the ability to choose virtue or sin. Is your judgement better than God's?

[analog]

I think our difference is in degree not principle.

I also wonder what it is that makes us believe that a woman and a physician are alone qualified......

We school our doctors and hold them to codes of ethics and license them in every state and have in place checks on them for unethical things... I think they're capable of a level of judgement mature enough to pass for what one would reasonably call 'due process'...

The woman usually winds up raising the child so deserves the lion's share of the consideration. The guy ought to be involved if you can find him.

All that said it's always a tragic choice.
It cannot be sanitized by adding layers of paperwork.

We spend millions each year trying to teach people about the hazzards of unprotected sex, yet we are willing to place those who ignore the warnings in position to determine whether the product of their actions lives or dies.

As you say we've not yet got the potion for that ounce of prevention. Clearly fear hasn't worked. Choices get harder as they are postponed - the progression of abstinence, prevention, abortion, parenting... Hopefully even growing up fits in somewhere, reasonably concurrent with parenting.

It's an old, old dilemma. Maybe I need to brush up on my Hawthorne.

A.

Back to OT's topic ...... Let's hope it's a civil discourse. If Israel thinks we're pulling out leaving nothing between them and Iran, are they apt to make 'preemptive' action?
Never corner anything you don't want to bite.

[Shapley]

I'd like to formally protest the insinuation that decisions of which you disapprove are emotionally biased, made under duress, and are the product of poor judgement.

I haven't suggested that they are. I've merely proposed that a mechanism (due process) be established to provide some guarantee that they aren't.

Is your judgement better than God's?

No, which is why I insist on due process.

[Shapley]

I posted my piece above about physicians being qualified to make life-or-death decisions half in jest, as an effort to ignite a little life onto a very quiet bulletin board (it doesn't seem to have worked).

But, lo and behold, this article appeared yesterday on MSN:

1 in 7 doctors admit that their morals affect their medical decisions

Of course, I'm more concerned about the 1 in 7 whose lack of morals affects their decisions.

V/R
Shapley

[jamiebk]

I seek out doctors that share my general phlosophies. And, I usually get second opinions.

[OperaTenor]

Back to the original topic.

It would seem Warner's putting his money where his mouth is:

7 Republican senators now support war debate

At least it'll get some open discussion now.

What was that you guys were claiming about Warner?

[Shapley]

What was that you gujys were claiming about Warner?

Well, this gujy was claiming that he doesn't understand the real lesson of Vietnam. I stand by that claim, and didn't see anything in the link that says any different.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

What was that you gujys were claiming about Warner?

Well, this gujy was claiming that he doesn't understand the real lesson of Vietnam. I stand by that claim, and didn't see anything in the link that says any different.

V/R
Shapley

John Warner doesn't understand, but you do?



At least you have a perfect record, Shap.

[Shapley]

Warner Remembers Vietnam

"I regret that I was not more outspoken" during the Vietnam War, the former Navy secretary said in an interview in his Capitol Hill office. "The Army generals would come in, 'Just send in another five or ten thousand.' You know, month after month. Another ten or fifteen thousand. They thought they could win it. We kept surging in those years. It didn't work."

Warner was Navy Secretary from 1972-1974. This poses a problem for his 'memory', since we were reducing troops during that time. Our involvement ended in 1973. Nixon's 'escalation' during Warner's tenure involved increased bombing campaigns aiding the South Vietnamese ground troops. US troops strength had been reduced to about 130,000 by the beginning of 1972. PBS: Battlefield Vietnam

Warner may have learned a lesson of Vietnam, but if he did it seems to be as cloudy as his memory.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

That post was a bunch of revisionist construct, aka carp.

Warner doesn't give any refence to time frame in his quote in the article. He could've been talking about troop buildups during the Johnson administration for all you know.

Aside from the fact he was talking about Army generals, which, as a Navy officer, he has no official say over with regard to Army troop levels.

So, what's your point?

Al Franken is right. When the facts don't support your contention, you guys just make stuff up.

[Shapley]

During the buildup during the Johnson adminstration Warner was a private practice lawyer. He was appointed undersecretary by President Nixon in February 1969. Vietnam troop strength reached its maximum level in April 1969, based on troop commitments made prior to President Nixon's swearing in. Nixon began his "Vietnamizatin" policy shortly after assuming office, which included troop level reductions coupled with increased air and logistics support for South Vietnamese troops. The first troop withdrawals were announced in June of 1969, and they began about a month later. That's not revisionism, that is simple fact.

I'm not sure why the military would be approaching Mr. Warner at his private law office to request troop increases, unless he had inroads to the Johnson White House we didn't know about.

V/R
Shapley