Abortion is a faux, but hot button, issue, and both parties are exploiting it to the hilt.
For reasons I don't understand, the issue of abortion rights is a hot button issue in the Presidential campaign. There is little, if anything, the President can do either to criminalize or further to legalize abortion, as I pointed out in an article here last month. Sure, he (or she) can nominate Supreme Court justices, and some may be nominated during the next four years. However, that doesn't count for much, even if the President were successful in getting seated a Supreme Court justice whose views on abortion reflected his own,Supreme Court justices sometimes do not behave as either the President or the Senate contemplated that they would. They tend, in most cases, to look to the unique facts, the procedural context of the case, and the U.S. Constitution to make up their minds; when they don't, they should. That is their job.Their job is not to impose their own religious, political or even moral views on the rest of us. Nevertheless, abortion is a hot button issue.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Clavos
The Roman Church is NOT the one true Church.
No argument from me, Silas. As far as I'm concerned, ALL churches (and religions) are phony, man-made constructs.
But the Catholics believe (and teach their young) that theirs is.
27 - Silas Kain
Indeed, Clavos. The beginning of the end of Christianity is at hand and somehow I think Jesus Himself is happy about that!
28 - Daniel Miller
Clav(os)
Having skimmed the list, I now understand why our now twelve year old cat never got very far in learning her Kittyechism.
Dan(Miller)
29 - Baronius
Wow. I wish that every Catholic took his faith as seriously, and was as well-educated in it, as Dan and Clavos.
Jordan, the Church has varied over the years about the punishment appropriate for abortion, and about the question of when human life begins. Those are respectively a matter of discipline and of science. The church has never wavered about the matter of doctrine, that abortion is a serious sin.
Matters of discipline are gray areas, and a lot of latitude is granted to bishops. It's tough to tell if a person can be led back to the faith best by giving them wiggle room or telling them to step back in line. Matters of science are pretty widely up for debate; the only questions arise when they appear to contradict matters of faith and morals. Usually, they don't.
Dan, The Pope is considered to be infallible when he speaks authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. He's only done that twice, explicitly. But he has spoken on a lot of issues, often in union with Councils of Bishops.
30 - Baronius
Christopher - The question isn't which is more important, between war and the death penalty and abortion and euthanasia. It's that war and capital punishment, while frequently wrong, may be right. Abortion and euthanasia are never right.
Look at two common reasons for capital punishment, cold-blooded murder and writing articles against Putin. You can argue that the first one is justified. The second one is obviously immoral. Likewise, you can look at the 1939 German invasion of Poland as an immoral war, and the defense of Poland as a moral war. But Catholics believe that there's no moral abortion, no moral euthanasia.
I guess if you tallied up all the deaths in the world, there would be more caused by war than by abortion. Definitely more than by euthanasia. But morality isn't measured by statistics, and even the smallest wrong act should be labeled as such.
31 - Christopher Rose
To my way of thinking, from a moral or ethical perspective war and capital punishment are far worse than abortion or euthanasia.
Furthermore, Catholicism, like all faithist cults, has no moral authority of any kind, as it is based upon unproven theories and its leader has no more moral authority than anybody else. In fact, as the leader of a cruel deception, he has less.
32 - Matthew T. Sussman
The abortion issue in the election was not a planned one. The blogosphere basically fucked the election back in February with discussion of it without any protection, and the wedge issue has grown inside the womb of political debate ever since. With the issue being in the campaigns for seven months now, it is far too late to terminate the discussion. We could have done something about it back in May, but now we must deliver the subject up through election day and love it like it was our own.
33 - Clavos
Furthermore, Catholicism, like all faithist cults, has no moral authority of any kind...
Not for you or me, no. But there are tens of millions of people around the world for whom it is the moral authority.
Even in the USA, it's the largest single religion.
34 - Silas Kain
Matt, YOU are a genius. Best laugh I had all day. THANK YOU!
35 - Baronius
Gosh, Christopher, I failed to change all of your beliefs about the universe with a single comment on a message board. I didn't see that coming.
You said that you couldn't understand the Catholic position. I'm not trying to persuade you, just to explain my church's position. The most I hope for is to show that Catholicism is internally consistent. Its consistency with reality is outside my scope.
So go to the old concept of Justice. It is never just to harm an innocent person. It may be just to harm a guilty one. Can we agree on that? Note that I'm not saying that every guilty person need be harmed; I'm just saying that justice puts a greater burden on the guilty.
The fetus, whatever you believe it to be, isn't a guilty human life. If you believe it to be a life, it's innocent. The infirmed are innocent. Any killing of the innocent is wrong.
The guilty may be killed in self-defense. Society may defend itself against enemies from without or within. Self-defense against a foriegn enemy is called a just war. Self-defense against a domestic enemy is capital punishment.
In all four cases, the Catholic position is derived from a traditional understanding of justice.
36 - Dave Nalle
Are you citing Muslims, extremist Christians or extremist Jews here? That statement could apply to all of the above. So here's my open can of worms - there's no difference between a Nazi, Mr. Wexler, James Dobson or a Muslim extremist. It's the same game, just different game pieces.
So let's not tolerate ANY of them, Silas. That said, I still think that basically Islam is more destructive. There's no toleration of slavery and ritual murder in extremist Christianity or Judaism for all their other faults.
Now, to get back to the original issue here, I think we should start a movement to resist the ridiculousness of making non-issues like abortion the central focus of a campaign. I care deeply about a woman's right to choose. But it's still way less important than other issues which receive far less attention in the campaign and the media coverage of it. And I have to say that the same is true for health insurance, immigration and anything having to do with poverty in America. They're all bullshit. We have perfectly adequate systems to deal with all of them at least to the extent they need to be dealt with, and we ought to be focusing our attention on real issues.
Dave
37 - Silas Kain
I believe that the spiritual life of a human begins when the infant exits the womb and takes its first breath. I admit I may be wrong but I am comfortable in adhering to that belief. I also understand the other side of the coin where many would believe life begins at conception. And, that's OK as well. However, no individual in a free society has the right to impose those beliefs by law upon another. I think the decision handed down by SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade is a rational, well thought out opinion and should remain, period. Decisions on termination of a pregnancy within the parameters of Roe v. Wade should be made by one person, the mother. It's her body, her life, her decision. Of course they'll all say that it's between her and her doctor or her and her God. Sorry, that's fluff. It's a woman's individual decision and the issue should have no influence on the election of a President.
Insofar as Islam is concerned, Dave, I agree. Islam seems more destructive. And as with all religions, there are schisms which cause extremism. The three children of Abraham: Judaism, Christianity and Islam are like three brothers with a fierce sibling rivalry. They all want Daddy's ultimate approval and hunger for it because it seems like Daddy's been an absentee father for about 1,428 years.
38 - Christopher Rose
Clavos, well I never knew that so thanks for joining the debate. I have a lot of sympathy for those many millions of people, across all three strands of the montheism deception, who are the victims of that particular long con.
Baronius, I don't agree with your statements at all; not with regard to the basis of justice or how respect for life should be made manifold.
My point is that for an organisation that claims some kind of moral perspective and authority to be willing to interfere in the personal lives of individuals but be completely absent on matters such as war or capital punishment strikes me as offensive.
Abortion or euthanasia or inherently personal matters whereas war or state killing are much larger and more far reaching matters.
How typical of an ethically bankrupt organisation to avoid such important issues...
39 - Arch Conservative
"Caholicism, like all faithist cults, has no moral authority of any kind, as it is based upon unproven theories and its leader has no more moral authority than anybody else."
Correct me if I'm wrong but the last I checked the existence of a god has not been disproven which, by your logic, means that atheists and secualrists have no claim to moral authority over people of faith.
The simple fact is that the big bang theory and all of the other theories as to how anythign came to be in existence can no more be proven than the existence of a diety.
It's also obvious that most people of faith today do NOT belive that god and science are mutually exclusive concepts while most atheists do.
40 - Christopher Rose
Archie, not for the first time, your grasp of logic is flawed, which means you have things backwards.
There is no need to disprove the existence of gods. It is incumbent on the people who assert that there is a god to prove that it is so. That has never happened in all the 6,000 years or more this idea has been afflicting humanity.
There is actually evidence to support the big bang theory, but the important thing to note is that the supporters of this idea are calling it a theory, whereas the god con is put forward as fact with absolutely zero evidence.
41 - troll
when has moral authority had anything to do with proof and truth - ?
42 - Christopher Rose
Isn't that my point? If someone or some organisation is claiming a higher moral authority, it ought to be based on something of substance, not a fabrication.
43 - troll
not clear about the 'ought' thing...in some sense history is what it is
'There is only one science: the science of history' - K Marx
44 - Christopher Rose
History is full of lies. The monotheism lie is damaging humanity today. It is one lie that, precisely because of its ability to deceive so many so thoroughly, needs some substance behind it.
I don't like selective quotes taken out of context, they always seem designed to confuse the matter under discussion rather than illuminate it.
45 - troll
my apologies - I will avoid them in the future
46 - Christopher Rose
Oh no you won't...
47 - Daniel Miller
I wrote the article to suggest that abortion should have little if anything to do with the Presidential election because there is very little if anything a President can do to affect the issue, one way or another. I am not going to touch the subject on this thread again,for that reason, except to raise a theological question for Baronius. I may write another article, more broadly touching on the places of religion in politics and of politics in religion. It may well be beyond my capabilities, but I plan to give it a shot.
It had been my understanding that an important basis of Christianity, and not just Roman Catholicism, is the doctrine of original sin: since we are said to be descended from Adam after the Fall from Grace and not immaculately conceived, as Jesus is said to have been (apparently, the immaculate conception is so very important that it is one of the two doctrines upon which the Pope has spoken ex cathedra), we are "guilty" and require redemption. As I understand Roman Catholic doctrine, it is very important to baptize infants, to remove the taint of original sin; savages lacking this benefit are condemned to Hell or at least not to be admitted to Heaven. Hence, according to some Christian religions, Jesus made a pit stop in Hell on the way to Heaven to deal with this problem.Baronius, I do have one theological question for you. You state,
I don't offer this as an argument for or against abortion, or concerning when life begins. It just strikes me as inconsistent on the one hand to claim that a fetus is "innocent" and yet to suffer from original sin, for which the only cure is baptism absent which Hell or a state of more or less neutral suspension short of Heaven is assured. I would be interested in any clarification you might care to provide.
Dan(Miller)
48 - troll
with apologies to Dan and those interested in a serious theological discussion (and to prove Chris' correct):
"...a certain mode of production or industrial stage is always combined with a certain mode of cooperation or social stage and this mode of cooperation is itself a 'productive force'..." K Marx
supernaturalism and monotheism as a particular instance has evolved as an 'instrument' of production that results in individuals amenable to our present relations of production
hypothesis: change the relationship then the instrument will follow
49 - Christopher Rose
Dan, possibly a waste of time trying to use logic to disprove faithist dogma. Most faithists can't think straight.
troll, you proved me right twice over...
50 - troll
(...maybe even thrice)
51 - Christopher Rose
You're too kind!
52 - Daniel Miller
Christopher,
I am not trying to prove or disprove anything. I asked a question because I don't know the (an?) answer. There are a lot of people who are more knowledgeable than I am, and who are far better at rigorous logical analysis. The question I asked has been discussed within the Christian churches, and particularly within the Roman Catholic Church, for many centuries. My question was not frivolous, and I hope for a non-frivolous response.
Although I am an Agnostic/Atheist, I am interested in why Christians think as they do. Some of them, at least, are substantially more likely to provide reasoned analysis than, for example, communicants of the Church of Man Made Global Warming.
Dan(Miller)
53 - troll
Dan - as you seem to have no patience for frivolity and while we wait for Baronious or some other religious authority to weigh in - what stuck me when I first read this article was that while supremos do act in less than completely predictable ways you downplay the importance of the beliefs that they hold before their appointments which color their interpretations
what is the basis for the differences in decisions from say Thomas and Ginsberg and aren't these differences pretty much predictable - ?
the upcoming appointments will be critical to how the federal government treats abortion.....(which in my opinion is and in my ideal world would be a non-governmental issue altogether)
54 - Daniel Miller
Troll,
I have no problem with frivolity and have occasionally engaged in it myself. I seem to recall having written two or three attempts at satire here. I merely stated that my question was not frivolous, and that I hoped for a non-frivolous response.
I agree that there are significant philosophical differences between Justices Ginsberg and Thomas. Back when now Justice Ginsberg was a judge sitting on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, I argued several cases before her and found that she was both fair and intelligent (perhaps just a tad anal-retentive, but that is a characteristic of many judges). Her questions during oral argument were pertinent, and although her "liberal" leanings were rather clear, she was able to separate her personal ideologies from the cases before her, and did so. Sometimes she agreed with me, sometimes with the other side. I have no personal experience with Justice Thomas, and so can't comment from that perspective.
Any issue which comes before the Supreme Court has multiple facets -- the procedural context (often complicated and lengthy) in which it arises, the law (and the legislative history of that law) upon the basis of which the lower court decided, and (in some but far from all cases) Constitutional questions. Constitutional questions are decided only if there is no other way to dispose of the case, on other issues. These things are unique in just about every case, and are unknown and unknowable until a case actually arises. Even a justice who had strong personal feelings against abortion would have a difficult time getting to the question of whether an abortion case before the Court raised Constitutional questions if there were other bases for deciding. For a Supreme Court nominee to opine on how he would rule on an abortion case would be silly and would suggest his unfitness for the job. Sometimes silly questions of that sort are asked, but most Supreme Court nominees have sufficient good sense and acumen to avoid answering them.
I'm afraid that's the best I can do for now. We are about to have a thunderstorm, which means that I am about to turn my computer off. Experience suggests that this is the prudent thing to do.
Dan(Miller)
55 - troll
Dan - (when you return) - I'm not trying to trivialize matters but if there is some kind of a 'formal process' of getting to legal objectivity then my question above stands: where does the disagreement come from
an objective approach to a case can yield contradicting decisions depending on the judge...true - ?
(btw - I've read your humor and should have said that you seemed disinclined to frivolity on this thread)
56 - Baronius
Dan, excellent question. I'm sloppy with my terminology, half the time because I'm trying to make a point in a simple way, the other half because I don't know the proper terminology.
I'd say that we all share the moral failings of our species, and are collectively marred with original sin. Yes, that's guilt. But there's something redeemable about human beings. It doesn't serve justice to kill them as payback for their original sin.
It does serve justice to take back from the thief and to kill the killer - but we should always remember that mercy is as much of a virtue as justice. The Catholic Church teaches that it can be permissible to take a life in defense of yourself or another. On the societal level, that can mean killing a killer through legal channels. On the international level, that can mean fighting a war, if it's done for the right reasons and with the right methods. In a nutshell, there's a difference between the guilt from a specific act (which calls for justice) and the guilt from being in a state of sin (as we all are born into).
Do all unbaptized people burn in hell? Catholics never say that. We've been given an institutional system, the Church and the sacraments, that we can follow in order to attain heaven. We know it works. We don't know what else may work. God's mercy is not limited to the sacraments - like the thief who died next to Jesus wasn't baptized, but Jesus said that he'd attain heaven. But I'm not gambling with someone else's system when I know that the sacraments can work.
(My terminology shines again: saying that sacraments "work". Yikes. What I'm really talking about includes things like salvation and grace. I shouldn't talk about the sacraments like they're machinery. Of course, Christ can save anyone He wishes to, but the sacraments are an institutional means which aid us in the reception of God's mercy. That sounds better than "work".)
This comment is way too long already, especially for a tangent. But let me add that Mary was conceived without sin, which we call the Immaculate Conception. Adam, Eve, and Jesus were too.
57 - Baronius
Chris, the Catholic Church doesn't avoid issues of war and capital punishment. Not at all. But I suspect that's not what bothers you. From your comments, it seems that you're more bothered by the fact that they take a position on anything.
58 - Daniel Miller
Baronius,
I very much appreciate your response, but don't find it complete. Perhaps, if you have a chance, you might do me the kindness of asking your priest tomorrow or later at your convenience. (If there were a priest here with whom I could speak in English, I would love to have such a discussion with him. This is a very rural area, and there isn't one, as far as I know.) If your priest is a Jesuit, I am confident that he will have a more definitive answer -- although not necessarily one which I will find complete or persuasive either -- I have always admired the logical thought processes of the Jesuits, although not necessarily their morality to the same extent.
The question is a purely academic one for me, since I place no credence in either the concept of original sin or the immaculate conception; however, it seems to be one with which theologians have wrestled for a very long time. A related question, obviously, is at what point under Roman Catholic doctrine a fetus becomes "ensouled" and -- for that reason -- not subject to abortion. I understand, perhaps erroneously, that it occurs at some point subsequent to rather than at the moment of conception.
Thanks, Baronius. Now I have to try to supplement my earlier response to Troll, which he quite properly found at least equally incomplete.
Dan(Miller)
59 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, perhaps you could show us some evidence of the Catholic moral position with regard to war and capital punishment. I'm not aware of any personally, so it would be good to see.
I would have a modicum of respect for this outfit if they actually engaged with more important matters than people's personal life choices.
60 - Daniel Miller
Troll,
I'm still working on amplification of my earlier response. Unfortunately it is late for me; I am tired and not thinking as well as I should. First thing tomorrow, I promise.
Dan(Miller)
61 - troll
zero pressure Dan - I look forward to your comment
62 - Baronius
Chris - There's a branch of civics called the Just War theory. It describes the conditions under which a country may go to war, and the actions a country may take during war. It dates back to the Romans, and has been a steady stream of Catholic thought through the centuries. I could explain it myself, or cut and paste from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I choose the lazier:
---
Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.
The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
---
There is a similar history of debate about capital punishment. It's worth noting that the Catholic Church was the first institution to speak out against it in any way. I'd cut and paste some of it, but I'm less familiar with the theories.
63 - Pablo
"There is a similar history of debate about capital punishment. It's worth noting that the Catholic Church was the first institution to speak out against it in any way. I'd cut and paste some of it, but I'm less familiar with the theories."
That's mighty white of them Baronius, considering that they (the Catholic Church) tortured, maimed, burned at the stake, and killed millions of human beings. If I were a member of this cult, (I am not) I would spend the rest of my life begging the Lord for forgiveness for the sins of my faith. It is a bigger travesty than even the Nazis, of whom I abhor almost as much.
64 - Daniel Miller
Troll,
I apologize for my less than adequate response. This may be equally inadequate. Let me try to supplement it, with a preface: predicting whether a tropical depression will become a tropical storm and then a hurricane is a science, and there are lots of computer models. Often, the different models provide different solutions. Even the very best meteorologists have a tough time, and guess right infrequently, particularly in their long term (a week or so) guesses. The more precise they attempt to be, the greater the likely error. Human behavior does not affect the path or the progress of a storm, which eliminates many substantial complications. It is more difficult to predict events in which people are involved, particularly when the events attempted to be predicted won't occur in the near future. Predicting what a President will try to do to affect the outcome of a Supreme Court decision, in a matter not before the Court and likely to get there only after several years, in an unknown context, is pretty much a worthless exercise. Predicting whether he will succeed is even more chancy. Here's my shot at guessing whether a solidly anti-abortion President, trying very hard, could get Roe v. Wade reversed. I don't think he would be able to do so, but I've been wrong before and will be wrong again. I may well be wrong this time.
Roe v. Wade curtailed the rights of States to limit abortions, permitting them to continue to do so only in specified circumstances. It asserted Federal power, via the Fourteenth Amendment, to accomplish this. However, as far as I know, there is no Constitutional basis for Federal legislation in the abortion area, a point with which I have previously dealt.
Regardless of who wins the election, I don't see any significant chance of Roe v. Wade being modified, on a Constitution based analysis, to restore the power of the States in this area. As noted previously, there is a substantial disinclination at the Supreme Court to resolve Constitutional issues, and the Court has traditionally attempted to resolve such issues only as a last resort and when necessary. It has also been very reluctant to overturn its own decisions once made, particularly those of Constitutional significance and of recent vintage. Roe v. Wade is fairly recent precedent, and to hold that it was wrongly decided on Constitutional grounds and therefore improperly diminished the rights of the States to limit abortion would be a major stretch.
True, were staunch anti-abortionists to be seated on the Court, this might happen. However, I suspect that whoever wins the election, there will be a more than sufficient "liberal" pro-choice majority in the Senate, not to mention sufficient "liberal" opponents of States' rights, to block such an appointment. The Constitution does not state the number of justices who may sit on the Supreme Court, and FDR was able to get his way in grossly expanding the Commerce Clause by merely threatening to "pack" the Supreme Court. He didn't actually have to do it; he merely threatened to do so. President McCain could possibly try to do that, but it seems highly unlikely that he would or that if he did the threat would succeed. It would be a pretty empty threat, because actually packing the Supreme Court with additional anti-abortion pro-States' rights justices would seem to be even more difficult than getting a single anti-abortion - pro States' rights justice approved by the Senate.
On the other hand, Roe v. Wade was decided thirty-three years ago, and focused on medical issues in deciding whether legitimate State interests were involved in prohibiting or limiting abortion, rather than on the more complex and contentious (and essentially theological) question of when "life" begins. It sought to determine whether and to what extent a State may permissibly protect a pregnant woman from the dangers of abortion without infringing impermissibly on her Constitutional rights. The Court also considered at what point a fetus becomes "viable," thereby providing a State some legitimate interest in the fetus. Subsequent to "viability," a State may if it so elects restrict abortions to those necessary for the "life or health" (whatever those words mean) of the pregnant female.
I assume (but do not know) that the period during which abortions are medically safe for the pregnant woman is now longer. The Court (as now constituted or differently constituted) could, on medical rather than Constitutional grounds, decide that abortions later than the first trimester no longer present a significant danger to the pregnant female and that the States therefore have no legitimate interest in restricting abortion on demand to the first trimester, subject only to the interest in ensuring that sound medical procedures are used for the pregnant woman's benefit, as distinguished from for the benefit of the fetus. This would be difficult, because of the other medical considerations: the time at which viability occurs may now be earlier than it was thirty-three years ago, and States could therefore be deemed to have a legitimate interest in the well being of the fetus sooner. Similarly, medical science may have by now substantially reduced the hazard to the pregnant female of carrying to full term a fetus which, thirty-three years ago, would have endangered her health or life. These are factual, medical questions about three different but related issues, consistent answers to which could produce different and perhaps irreconcilable results. To attempt to predict those results would require both a very good crystal ball and knowledge concerning the precise facts of the case, neither of which I have. However, these are questions concerning which theology is or should be irrelevant and to decide which overturning Roe v. Wade on Constitutional grounds would be unnecessary. Presented with these factual/medical issues, the current Supreme Court, or a Court with new members, could go either way -- regardless of who might be the President or who might have got them on the Court.
For such questions to be presented to the Court, quite a few things would have to happen. Some State would have to pass a new law further limiting abortion on demand or prohibiting abortion regardless of the consequences to the life and health of the pregnant woman. That would be the easy part, since there are doubtless some States in which such legislation would be popular. Then, someone would have to contest the law; it would have to be someone with "standing" to do so, probably a pregnant woman (or several women) whose abortion rights had thereby been diminished. The case would have to make its way, rather slowly, up to the Supreme Court, overcoming numerous and substantial procedural hurdles along the way. Should the case actually be considered substantively by the Court, it would probably try very hard to avoid any Constitutional issues and decide the case on other grounds, probably the factual, medical ones suggested above. Here again, I seriously doubt that the composition of the Court would be dispositive.
Could I be wrong? Of course I could be. I very much favor States' rights, and much prefer pro-choice on the abortion issue. These are inconsistent goals. Unfortunately, I don't see any realistic likelihood that States' rights will make a come-back, and fortunately I see far less likelihood that the Supreme Court -- no matter how constituted -- will find a basis for prohibiting abortion regardless of State law. At most, my crystal ball suggests that it may, just may, permit the States further to limit abortion. And that is a very wild guess.
Dan(Miller)
65 - Baronius
Dan - Actually, the question of ensoulment isn't particularly related to the immorality of abortion. Remember that we see contraception as sinful, so by our standards we don't have to prove that the fertilized egg has a soul. Certainly, there's a difference in degree between preventing a being from being created and killing that being, but it's degrees of wrongness. That being said, the fertilized egg has a distinct human genetic code, so I see no problem labelling it a separate (if not separated) human life.
66 - Christopher Rose
Baronius, that is an interesting read although, after the first two sentences I get a little less clear exactly what it means.
I would agree that a just war could be fought but suspect that would mean the last certain just war the US fought would be WWII.
It is one thing to defend a just war however and another to oppose a regime starting one, like Germany for example. If the Pope speaks with the authority of god, which real catholic would dare reject such opposition.
I was unaware Catholicism had come out against capital punishment so early but, good as that was, where is the opposition to it now?
That leaves abortion and euthanasia and on those issues I definitely support the position that these are intensely personal and individual choices that ought not to concern the church or state. They are obviously easier targets for the church to tilt at than the "Big 2".
67 - troll
Dan - you've convinced me that I was wrong headed to think that members of the federal executive and/or judiciary would seriously consider decentralizing power
(btw - until the 2000 elections I was secure in the belief in the glacial nature of the the Court - not so sure any more)
68 - Daniel Miller
It seems that Speaker Pelosi has accepted an invitation to discuss her views on abortion with San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer, who described her views as being "in serious conflict" with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Speaker Pelosi had said "I’m a regular communicant, so [denial of communion] would be a severe blow to me."
Dan(Miller)
69 - troll
Dan - (off topic question) can you think of any issues/cases facing the Court where composition of the court would be dispositive - ?
70 - Daniel Miller
Troll,
I personally think that the Tenth Amendment has been given too little deference; however there is lots of precedent for doing just that and I am afraid that such will continue to be the case. There may be slight shifts here, but dramatic change seems unlikely.Very good question, and any answer which I can attempt has to be rather speculative. I think that basic legal philosophy on interpretation of the Constitution and laws (as distinguished from political or religious ideology) could and very well might make a legitimate difference. Is the Constitution to be interpreted as changing to keep up with societal norms, or even as changing to push society beyond those norms in a "desirable" direction, or is it to be interpreted more in light of which it actually says, what it meant when written and how it has been interpreted over a long period of time? Are the rights of the States to be accorded substantial deference, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment,
My "bottom line," is that there may be modest changes over time in modes of Constitutional interpretation, but that to expect substantial changes to occur over a short period would be unrealistic.
Dan(Miller)
71 - Daniel Miller
Here is an article claiming that Senator Biden has now been denounced by fifty-five Roman Catholic bishops for erroneously stating the Roman Catholic position on abortion and thereby leading good Roman Catholics astray. That does not bother me. The Roman Catholic Church has a strong theological position on abortion, and to go all wishy-washy when a Roman Catholic communicant publicly takes a contrary view would indicate a lack of sincerity. However, the article goes on to suggest that this may deny Senator Obama a substantial portion of the Roman Catholic vote.
I have no independent information on whether this is actually happening. Perhaps I should pay more attention to these outlets, but I don't. Life becomes unnecessarily complex when a non-issue such as abortion assumes an undeservedly high level of prominence in a Federal election.It is hardly my place to discuss whether the Roman Catholic Church should change its stance on abortion, or whether it should revise its policies to allow its communicants a bit more freedom of choice on abortion and other theological matters. Whether it should or not, it seems highly unlikely that it will do so anytime soon. I do think that Senator Biden should at least "talk the talk," and perhaps even "walk the walk," while proclaiming his loyalties to Roman Catholic doctrine. That's his problem, not mine, since I don't plan to vote for him or Senator Obama regardless of their different positions on abortion. I do plan to vote for Senator McCain and Governor Palin, despite my disagreement, particularly with Governor Palin, on what should be the abortion non-issue.
My concern is that "Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs. . . . [are spewing] a tsunami of rejection. . . .]" against any candidate running for any office in the United States on theological grounds. If true, it suggests a (to me) very offensive intrusion of theological doctrine into U.S. politics, where it should have no place at all.
I hope that we are not about to see a backlash reversion to the old "don't vote for JFK, because his allegiance is to Rome" ideas. That would be tragic for all of us, and not just Roman Catholics.
Dan(Miller)
72 - Cindy D
Yes, if you are going to believe in imaginary beings, the most important thing is that you act in accordance with your beliefs in imaginary beings, even if you believe they wish you to enforce your will on others.
Godfuckingforbid (interfux), that you believe what you believe and are fair enough not to impose your delusions on others, allowing others to live by what they believe.
Meanwhile, Palin is a liar, who tries to hide her communications from public scrutiny after she promises open government, hires her buddies and fires people that disagree with her (she calls people who disagree "haters" in her typical juvenile style), and overturns her constituency's votes to enforce her personal beliefs on her state.
She's the soccer-mom who hides scientific findings and fucks with people by having her minions tell them it'll cost 500K to get what should be free open information. Why? Because she is a devious fuck and will try to derail disbelievers aka disagreers any way she can (illegally if she can pull it off.)
Did I mention she's a SECRETIVE LIAR? But, I guess that she's acting in accordance with her beliefs.
Maybe she belongs to the Church of Fucking Secretive Liars Who Should Force Everyone to Live According to What We Believe.
Hey, if she belongs to that church then well, I guess she a saint!
73 - Daniel Miller
Cindy,
Just to clarify one point: I am an Agnostic/Atheist, as I have often said, and don't accept the theological teachings of any religious denomination.
As to Governor Palin, whom I like, I would be very interested in looking at any links you might care to provide to support your various assertions about her. Should they be accurate, I shall certainly consider changing my opinion.
Dan(Miller)
74 - Cindy D
Dan,
Yes, I know you are an agnostic/atheist.
Okay Dan. Here goes some evidence on my point about lying and secrecy. I'll give a little background, all of which should be contained in my references. If something's not, let me know and I'll get the reference.
The polar bear was put on the endangered species list. This was considered a watershed event because the Bush administration was forced by the court to release its decision and by law that decision has to be based only on scientific evidence not on economic impact. The polar bear is considered endangered due to the impact of global warming on its habitat, unlike other animals who are listed because of their declined numbers. This had the effect of forcing the Bush admin to make a decision that acknowledges global warming. Bush is still trying to reduce the protections the polar bear receives under the endangered species act, because it means accountability for government institutions who engage in activity that effect the polar bear.
I mention all this to point to the overwhelming legitimacy of the evidence. Even the Bush admin could not justify discounting it, when pressed by legal considerations.
Palin didn't want the Polar Bear on the endangered species list. It's going to be problematic for drilling, for a gas pipeline, for the oil industry, for big emissions producers. So, what does she do? She lies. She claims that the state's scientific research analysis does not support the listing. (But it does as is later revealed.) She refuses then to release the report of the state scientists, which she claims her position is based on, and attempts to block its release, for obvious reasons. She just lied about what it says. Instead Alaska wants to spend $2 million trying to hire scientists who would disagree with both the federal scientists and the Alaska state scientists (who are all in agreement--the polar bear is endangered by global warming).
Remember, the point is not about disagreement, it's about lying and trying to cover up lies because she disagrees.
E-mail reveals state dispute over polar bear listing. Biologists disagreed with administration.
Sarah Palin and Global Warming: Alaska Prof. Says Palin Misrepresented State Findings on Endangered Polar Bears…and Tried to Cover It Up
Legislature wants polar bear study. GLOBAL WARMING: Conference would seek dissenting views.
75 - Cindy D
Oh, just to support another comment I made for the thread, so others who don't read links might see more of the story.
In link number 2 you'll find the figure, close to $500k, that Prof. Rick Steiner was told he'd have to pay to get his information request processed--information he's requested under the Alaska Public Records Act.
He says it takes him 6 months of attempting to get the info to get to "no". They're not going to give him anything.
"They ultimately got an attorney general’s opinion that they would not release this one document that I wanted, which was the state science review, claiming that it was a deliberative pre-decisional document and they had executive privilege to do so." (link 2 , comment 74)
Mind you this is the document Palin lied about.
He then figures maybe it was filed with the federal fish and game department.
It turns out it was. He gets it through a federal freedom of information request.