Well, when he puts it that way…

…it is hard to disagree with the President.

This would be one of those things that you might want to share with the button below.

Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Well, when he puts it that way…

  1. Jim22 says:

    Thank you. I wish I knew how to give this video a wider audience.

  2. Randall says:

    So you rally around the Second Amendment as prohibiting gun control laws, but want the government to legislate religious ideology in violation of the First Amendment and to invade a woman’s right to privacy in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Are there any other amendments you care to callously disregard? Further, it is equally interesting that those against gun control are quick to point out that gun control legislation would only lead to back alley gun sales, but don’t think anti-abortion laws would do the same.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I fully support the separation of church and state and the right to privacy.

      I also support the right of human beings to not be murdered. The right to live is the right from which all other rights emanate and is, therefore, superior to all other rights. The right of one person to privacy never, ever overrides the right of another person to his or her life. Ever.

      • notamobster says:

        I agree. Primacy definitely goes to the right to live. Since Randall can’t definitively give a point in time when a life (in utero) is able to survive on it’s own, that child is entitled to it’s life, and no one else should ever be able to choose to end it, without just cause.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Any minute one of our non-religious Revoistas will show up and lend credibility to the argument that the pro-life position need not have any religious basis at all.

      Uke?

      • notamobster says:

        Neither of our arguments for life ever have anything to do with religion, but I get where you’re coming from.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          When I was in college back in the 1980s, I took a course called “Religion and Politics.” At that time I was an irreligious agnostic. I was, however, 100% pro-life even then and argued the pro-life position forcefully without the need for any religious justification whatsoever.

          Now that I am a Christian, however, it seems that I have lost the credibility among some to argue in support of the right-to-life from a natural rights foundation. I don’t know why that would be the case, but it seems to be.

  3. Randall says:

    The definition of “life” which you claim paramount is based on a religious definition handed down from the Pope. “Life begins at conception” IS inherently religious theology rather then medical or scientific fact. The balancing act that the United States Supreme Court found, weighing the interest of the mother with an unborn fetus is to define life as of viability. As such, the Justices of the Supreme Court found a woman has a privacy right under the 14th Amendment through the first trimester when a fetus does not have significant neurological development.

    The definition of life as beginning at conception is a religious definition and a religious principle. To deny the religious ideological nature of pro-life is to deny that water flows from thawing ice.

    I would further challenge all of the so-called “pro-lifers” and ask about your equal conviction to overturn the death penalty. The position stated above and further reiterated by others, ” The right to live is the right from which all other rights emanate and is, therefore, superior to all other rights,” certainly demands the same disdain for the death penalty as attributed to abortion. If the right to life is “primacy,” then that right should equally take primacy over a corporal right to retribution.

    Finally, I reiterate the other point which has been neglected. What would a ban on abortion accomplish? History is replete with the devastating effects anti-abortion laws. These laws do not end abortions, but merely end the safer and sanitary means by which abortions are accomplished.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Children survive after 6 months gestation. I have a friend with a son a son who is 21 who was born right at 6 months. Any abortion after 6 months is murder on its face.

      Once we establish that the unborn are human beings, it gets very, very difficult to draw a line as to when life begins. We know there is nothing about transiting the birth canal that makes us human.

      In any case, we have seen your little game before. It is a common tactic of those who want the right to kill others to declare that those whom they wish to kill are “subhuman.” In fact, it is the oldest trick in the book.

      • Randall says:

        The decision in Roe v. Wade takes the position your proscribe. The woman has an absolute right to terminate in her first trimester, the state has an absolute right to ban abortion in the third trimester, and restrictions can be placed on the second trimester. As you said, viability is clear after 6 months of gestation, and therefore, the law permits a ban in the third trimester.

        I and most do not call for an absolute right to terminate at any time to birth, I do support and follow the Supreme Court’s holding in Roe v. Wade based on viability and neurological development. While I do concede that “life” worth protecting begins before birth, I similarly maintain that life does not begin at conception. As such, a woman does have a right to terminate up to a certain point. While it is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment, I don’t disagree with your assessment that, at a minimum, the life in being must be found to exist by the third trimester.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “I would further challenge all of the so-called “pro-lifers” and ask about your equal conviction to overturn the death penalty.”

      Done. I oppose the death penalty and would gladly agree to end it for United States citizens.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “These laws do not end abortions, but merely end the safer and sanitary means by which abortions are accomplished.”

      Arson laws don’t end arson. Theft laws don’t end theft. Gun laws don’t end gun crimes. So what?

      • Randall says:

        The point is consistency of conviction and position. Since the articles preceding this one are on the subject of gun control, I merely make a plea for consistency of position.

  4. notamobster says:

    The definition of “life” which you claim paramount is based on a religious definition handed down from the Pope. “Life begins at conception” IS inherently religious theology rather then medical or scientific fact.

    Randall, you don’t know me, yet you claim to know the foundation of my views on liberty? Rather presumptuous, don’t you think?

    The balancing act that the United States Supreme Court found, weighing the interest of the mother with an unborn fetus is to define life as of viability. As such, the Justices of the Supreme Court found a woman has a privacy right under the 14th Amendment through the first trimester when a fetus does not have significant neurological development.

    That same court found that I can be charged a “tax” for not buying something. We’ll have to agree to disagree as to the fallibility of SCOTUS.

    The definition of life as beginning at conception is a religious definition and a religious principle. To deny the religious ideological nature of pro-life is to deny that water flows from thawing ice.

    Where did either of say that we believe ‘life begins at conception’, whether we do or don’t?

    I would further challenge all of the so-called “pro-lifers” and ask about your equal conviction to overturn the death penalty. The position stated above and further reiterated by others, ” The right to live is the right from which all other rights emanate and is, therefore, superior to all other rights,” certainly demands the same disdain for the death penalty as attributed to abortion. If the right to life is “primacy,” then that right should equally take primacy over a corporal right to retribution.

    You should look into selling your strawman to MGM. I hear they’re remaking the Wizard of Oz. I actually oppose the death penalty so try another one. Maybe I hate women and want them to die. Try that one.

    Finally, I reiterate the other point which has been neglected. What would a ban on abortion accomplish? History is replete with the devastating effects anti-abortion laws. These laws do not end abortions, but merely end the safer and sanitary means by which abortions are accomplished.

    Murder is illegal in all 50 states and the protectorates. People still murder. A ban on abortion would mean that at least some of the 30,000,000 black children murdered by abortion since Roe v Wade, would still be alive. Why you hate black people and want them to die, Randall?

    • Randall says:

      First, my appologies, I don’t know how to do the fancy quotations, but will do my best at making my direct responses clear.

      Original: The definition of “life” which you claim paramount is based on a religious definition handed down from the Pope. “Life begins at conception” IS inherently religious theology rather then medical or scientific fact.

      Response: Randall, you don’t know me, yet you claim to know the foundation of my views on liberty? Rather presumptuous, don’t you think?

      Reply: Rather presumptuous of you to believe that you are the originator of the pro-life movement, just has it is overly disingenuous to ignore the inherently and fundamentally religious nature of the definition of life at the time of conception. If, however, it is your position that life does not begin at conception, then you must acknowledge and concede that a full ban on abortion would violate the woman’s right to privacy without a counterbalancing right to life of the fetus as a right to life assumes “life”. There is not a call for an expansion of abortion rights, but to protect the rights of the woman before viability and significant neurological development of the fetus in accordance with Roe v. Wade.

      Original: The balancing act that the United States Supreme Court found, weighing the interest of the mother with an unborn fetus is to define life as of viability. As such, the Justices of the Supreme Court found a woman has a privacy right under the 14th Amendment through the first trimester when a fetus does not have significant neurological development.

      Response: That same court found that I can be charged a “tax” for not buying something. We’ll have to agree to disagree as to the fallibility of SCOTUS.

      Reply: While there is no question that the Supreme Court is fallible, the Court permitted “separate but equal” and internment camps, but the rationale of the Court certain does hold water.

      Original: The definition of life as beginning at conception is a religious definition and a religious principle. To deny the religious ideological nature of pro-life is to deny that water flows from thawing ice.

      Response:Where did either of say that we believe ‘life begins at conception’, whether we do or don’t?

      Reply: The debate over abortion lies with the definition of “life.” So-called “pro-life” advocates define life as beginning at conception, and so-call “pro-choice” advocates defining it as the time of viability between the second and third trimester. If you prescribe to protection of the future right to life, ie support full ban on abortion without defining life beginning at conception, then by your convictions, you must equally disdain and seek criminality for masturbation as wasting a semen without the opportunity for procreation would be to deny each semen the opportunity at becoming a life in being. In other words, I assume that by favoring full ban on abortions, including first trimester abortion, you believe in life beginning at conception. To find otherwise would be to decry you a hypocrite, which, as I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief, I do not have reason to believe to be the case.

      Original: I would further challenge all of the so-called “pro-lifers” and ask about your equal conviction to overturn the death penalty. The position stated above and further reiterated by others, ” The right to live is the right from which all other rights emanate and is, therefore, superior to all other rights,” certainly demands the same disdain for the death penalty as attributed to abortion. If the right to life is “primacy,” then that right should equally take primacy over a corporal right to retribution.

      Response: You should look into selling your strawman to MGM. I hear they’re remaking the Wizard of Oz. I actually oppose the death penalty so try another one. Maybe I hate women and want them to die. Try that one.

      Reply: I wish that more were like you. In my experience, I find that most that claim to be “pro-life” when it comes to abortion, take the hypocritical and antithetical position of supporting the death penalty. While I am pleased that this is not the case with you, in Texas, such hypocrisy is certainly the rule, rather then a mere exception.

      Original: Finally, I reiterate the other point which has been neglected. What would a ban on abortion accomplish? History is replete with the devastating effects anti-abortion laws. These laws do not end abortions, but merely end the safer and sanitary means by which abortions are accomplished.

      Response: Murder is illegal in all 50 states and the protectorates. People still murder. A ban on abortion would mean that at least some of the 30,000,000 black children murdered by abortion since Roe v Wade, would still be alive. Why you hate black people and want them to die, Randall?

      Reply: While I am certain your perceived claim of racism is meant in jest and as stated above, I do not define life as beginning at the moment of creation, and therefore, do not prescribe to “murder,” I would ask, how does the “pro-life” movement propose to care for the now 30 million unplanned and unwanted children? With education and social program spending under the chopping block, what exactly would you do for them?

      In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation for this civil discussion. The greatness of our country has always rested on the power and respect we give to achieving moderation of extreme views through education and civil discourse. While a discussion about abortion can be heated and quickly become that of ad hominen attacks, it is refreshing to see a legitimate discussion of positions with respect and appreciation. We do not have to agree with each other, but we should strive to learn and understand opposing views as we strive for fair compromise and moderation.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Why is it that so many who find the SCOTUS infallible on Roe v Wade acknowledge past mistakes like Dred Scott and complain yet today about Citizens United and Heller?

        Is SCOTUS infallible or not?

        • Randall says:

          No where do I attribute infallibility to the Supreme Court. It is fair, for social discourse, to discuss the legitimacy of each decision separately. Similarly, the errors of Plessey v. Ferguson do not alter the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. Further, distinction is made, for the sake of clarity, that the legitimacy of each decision is fair game for social discourse; however, it is NOT open for mere legislative challenge. The legislative body is bound by the terms of the Constitution and Constitutional findings of the Judicial branch. For the Legislature, either state or federal, to attempt to legislatively contravene the impact and import of Roe is to usurp more power the Constitutionally prescribed and is tantamount to tyranny of the legislature.

          • notamobster says:

            I agree with your assertions of legislative tyranny. The flaw in your argument is the 10th Amendment. While SCOTUS may find some protection inherent in the 14th Amendment with regard to Roe, the 10th Amendment trumps the ability of the Fed to involve itself in matters of the State unless arbitrating dispute, regulating commerce, or the like (exercising it’s enumerated powers).

          • R.D. Walker says:

            Nobody here is arguing that Roe v Wade be usurped by any means other an it be overturned by the Supreme Court.

            Since we agree that the Supreme Court is fallible, you should probably abandon your appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court in your defense of abortion.

      • notamobster says:

        1) The debate over abortion lies with the definition of “life.”

        2) So-called “pro-life” advocates define life as beginning at conception,

        3) …and so-call “pro-choice” advocates defining it as the time of viability between the second and third trimester.

        1) It certainly does, but as I stated (above) everyone doesn’t share the same definition. I can’t say with certainty, when “life” begins, with anymore authority than can you. Since we are unable to establish precisely when life begins, a government should never be able to sanction one’s ability to take another’s life w/out just cause.

        2) No, everyone doesn’t fit into a neat box with a convenient label. I argue the right to life based upon the natural rights of man. Nowhere will you ever find me arguing based on the Pope’s interpretation of anything.

        3) See above.

        Yes, the racist comment was said in jest. I was throwing out a strawman so we’d be closer to even. ;-)

        Your tactic of trying to lump in the views of conservatives in general (inre:spending), with this issue (abortion) is annoying. Don’t try to get me off topic by conflating the (admittedly related, but highly detail-intensive) issues.

        I’m not going into what would be required to maintain these children. If you want that, read my 2000+ posts. You’ll find my views repeated over & over.

        • Randall says:

          (1) I suppose we take similar but opposing views. While I may try to define “life” as beginning at viability, you are correct that there is not a date certain. However, we do know when there is not a reasonable expectation of viability and when there is not significant brain development, which is during the first trimester. Equally, there is a reasonable expectation of viability at the third trimester and significant brain development, and therefore, I would agree with a ban on abortion except when medically necessary to protect the life of the mother. The second trimester is a grey area, which I believe the Supreme Court noted in Roe. And to balance the two prospective rights, the SCOTUS permits restrictions to termination.

          (2) You will have to clarify your distinction between your the Catholic prescribed view that life begins at conception and your view of a natural right. I would surmise that the distinction is one of symantics rather then of perspective. While you may not believe your view to be derivitive of Vatican edict, it would seem your view to be in alignment with same.

          As this has been a very (refreshingly) civil discussion of an often uncivil topic, I will commit myself from refraining from diverting attention from the central issues as we have outlined.

          • R.D. Walker says:

            This is an “nonviable” five month old fetus. I don’t need anything other than this photo to know it is a human being.

            babytalk-fetus

          • R.D. Walker says:

            Allow me to quote famous atheist, Thomas Paine…

            “All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”
            ― Thomas Paine

            “Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself – that is my doctrine.”
            ― Thomas Paine

            “Natural rights are those which always appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness…”
            ― Thomas Paine

  5. Rockheim says:

    The “viability” argument amuses me to no end. Why? Because it’s a moving target. Children are born earlier and earlier every day now and thanks to advances in medical technology survive.
    So “viability” in 1973 is a vastly different animal than here in 2013. And I’ll make the predicition that viability today will look a great deal different than it does 20 years from now.
    So to take the “viability” position is to say that you not only have NO idea on when something as important as “life” begins but you’re willing to arbitrarily change it at a moments notice. AND as things progress it means that you will most likely find yourself aligned with those religous nutjobs at some point and time as medical technology advances.
    Tell me Randall.. What happens when it becomes medically possible to take a 11 week old child to term through technological intervention? What happens to “choice” then?

    Also of interest is that most people who are firm believers in “choice” and the “Viability” argument are also staunch supporters of people being charged with murder for assaulting or harming a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry.
    Is it a life or isn’t it?

    Also rejected is your assertion that since the Pope has taken a position on something that means that everyone who takes a simliar position is doing so for religous reasons or that it is a position steeped or originated in faith.

    Tell me Randall.. Do you beleive that the Earth is round? I know the Catholic church believes so. Doesn’t that make you a religous zealot and your position one rooted/based in religion?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “Tell me Randall.. Do you beleive that the Earth is round? I know the Catholic church believes so. Doesn’t that make you a religous zealot and your position one rooted/based in religion?

      Good point.

      • notamobster says:

        “…rooted/based in religion?”

        Beautifully stated, Rock. I can’t believe I’ve never thought of that. /facepalm!

        Randall – since there is no certain date of viability, I refuse to accept the ability of the state to sanction the taking of a life without just cause. I don’t know any other way to phrase it. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

        For the record, I do believe that life and all of the rights it imbues, emanate from our Creator.

        My views on abortion were actually developed when I was atheist/agnostic.

        I used to support the death penalty until, upon further inspection, I realized that it caused a logical deviation from my support for natural rights.

        Seeking, as I do, intellectual integrity and thus, consistency, I changed my ill-considered belief.

        I have always sought to not-only know what I believe, but why I believe it, and then to try and prove it wrong.

        My greatest (known) logical inconsistency is my faith in God and acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Lord & savior. My brain says no, but my heart says to accept it, so I do. I take it as an article of faith.

        You should stick around. We could have some good discussions.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          “My greatest (known) logical inconsistency is my faith in God and acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Lord & savior.”

          Me too. I don’t care.

  6. RUDE JUDE says:

    This is getting good. However, I must read it all in its entirety tomorrow as I have to go home and do not have time to get on my personal computer at home tonight. I, being a woman and all that am pro-life, could never have a baby (angry because so many can and still “f” it up). I am happy to know that so many men are interested in this topic. I think more men are pro-life than women, but that’s just me. I don’t have any stats on that but if it is true about men being more pro-life, I wonder why that is. That is all for now. Carry on.

  7. Uke says:

    Any minute one of our non-religious Revoistas will show up and lend credibility to the argument that the pro-life position need not have any religious basis at all.

    Uke?

    I hope you don’t mind, I just made a damn thread. My answer was getting too damn long.

    http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=91939

  8. BigJimTX says:

    The death penalty arguement from pro-choice folk has always amused me. So if you are pro-choice and against the death penalty, somehow they believe that they are on some sort of moral high ground compared to those that are pro-life and in favor of the death penalty. So killing babies and saving criminals is way better than killing criminals and saving babies? The one creature that pro-choice folk don’t get is that which values all life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *