Palin the Pro-Choice Candidate

Sarah Palin is pro-choice.

With all the political rhetoric and ideological shorthand being thrown around some people may have missed this. She believes that women should have the right to choose representatives close to home who can decide law and public policy, not nine judges in Washington picked by the President. She supports their right to choose, even if they choose differently than she would, since she would like women voters to exercise their right by choosing representatives who will protect all innocent human life.

That’s because she believes that women temporarily housed and fed inside someone else’s body should have the opportunity to spend their lives making all sorts of choices, even though all of them will make good choices and bad choices, and will have to live with the consequences of their choices. She holds the view that they should have those opportunities even if their father was a really bad person. Some people actually think that one man’s choice – even though that choice led to creation of their daughter’s life – should take away her right to ever make one. Fortunately Sarah Palin doesn’t hold such an extreme view. She doesn’t think a child should be punished for their parent’s crime, and especially not with the death penalty.

For those men or women who will have limited choices in life because their genes have limited some of their abilities, Sarah wants to protect their right to choose as well.

Sarah Palin also realises that everyone has their choices limited by law. Everyone that endangers innocent human life uses their body. She’s not pro-choice when it comes to gang violence. She’s not pro-choice when it comes to armed robbery. She’s not pro-choice when it comes to drunk driving (even though her husband was once charged with it 22 year ago, before they were married).

Some women are saying they want the government to keep its hands off their wombs. It seems to me that Mrs Palin is perfectly happy to keep the government’s hands (or anyone else’s for that matter) off their wombs. It’s only when someone starts putting their hands on it that anything bad happens. Sarah definitely has a hands-off policy when it comes to wombs. That’s the only way to protect the unique human life inside it.

Without a judge-imposed law, both Sarah Palin and Joe Biden know that there will be more women in the United States to make more choices. That’s why Joe Biden, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has opposed the appointment of judges who would limit their own perogative to choose for the American people. He knows that as many as half of the 4,000 people each day in America who permanently lose their right to choose are women. He knows that many women voters in many states will want to protect the right of every human to choose and he want to continue to keep them from having that right.

That’s why I’m supporting Sarah Palin – the pro-choice candidate.

Advertisements

17 Responses to “Palin the Pro-Choice Candidate”

  1. A.j. Says:

    Sarah Palin the new Washington insider:
    Knows how to hide emails, fire people you don’t like, hire lobbyists to get over $200mil in earmarks, flip flops, lies, and is under ethics investigation, a true member of the big boys club! She could be Bush with more religious zeal!

  2. sol Says:

    Though your comment is not actually related to the topic of the post, but just a chance to rattle off a laundry list of the attacks made on her by her enemies in just two weeks.

    I always find it remarkable that liberals try to pile on accusations of sleaze against the Repubicans and yet their collective political memory comes to a screeching halt at January 20, 2001. Everything before that is just a blur, including Clinton’s rush at the end to pardon all of his friends.

    There’s no surprise that after she got such a reputation for cleaning out corruption, a lot of people are motivated to try to find dirt to throw back. Combined with the desperate floundering of her current political opponents and their supports in the blogosphere, this has resulted in endless storms in teacups.

  3. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Sol, don’t get my started on Republican hypocricy or how much Clinton sucked.

    As for the topic at hand, it is known as “State’s Rights”. In case you forgot, such a belief was utterly and totally crushed by the federal government due to the fact that it was used to defend ethically repugnant positions.

    Quite honestly, you are doing double speak and excersicing an abysmal ignorance of American history. Anyone who actually was familiar with the sixties would never have listed something to the declarations by Southern racists.

  4. sol Says:

    Samuel,

    It seems to me you are unfamiliar with the 10th Amendment. That’s the last Amendment in the Bill of Rights – the one that gets forgotten a bit too easily:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    I can understand why you might think it has been crushed, as many constitutional scholars would agree that successive incarnations of the US Supreme Court have tried to take the teeth out of this bit of the Consitution in the gradual effort to concentrate federal power and particularly enable their own judicial activism.

    It is amazing, given my abysmal ignorance of American history, that I did so well in grad school, where my top papers in 19th century American history seminars were followed by my thesis area, the War Between the States.

    In other words, as a lawyer and a historian, I’m not very impressed with your attempt to talk down to me.

    I have to say you do present a unique argument that the abortion question should not be given back to the States because some Southern racists believed or believe in State’s Rights. This is a new twist on the logical fallacy popularly know as Reductio as Hitlerum. Should this be coined Reductio ad Southron?

  5. Samuel Skinner Says:


    You know usually people respond by saying that the arguments are differant or the cases are differant- this is the first time I have had someone admit they are using the same logic as the segregationists…. admitadly, you are claiming it is legal, but even if something is legal doesn’t make it moral.

    As it is,you also seem to have no clue what you are talking about. Lets read the amendment again:

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Let me point out the important part:

    “or to the people.”

    And that would be what the Supreme Court did. The choice of getting or not getting an abortion belongs to citizens and NOT the state governments.

    You may be a lawyer AND a historian, but you seem to have failed basic reading comprehension.

    As for reucto ad Southorn, why is this a fallacy? I am pointing out that when people attack the deciding individuals as “elitist”, “undemocratic” and “out of touch”, as well as “activist” it is in circumstances where they are doing things that are morally repugnant. Other nations may have differant histories, but in general defending states rights on the grounds of states rights is just as morally bankrupt as defending cultural “diversity” on the ground o f cultural diversity. After all, how dare unelected British courts tell their Muslim population what to do!

    So you either disagree with my example… in which case you are a hypocrite OR you agree, in which case you are evil.

    And before you strawman me, yes, excessive government power isn’t always good. This doesn’t happen to be a case of that though- they are removing a control on citizens!

  6. sol Says:

    Samuel,

    Trust me, I can’t strawman you because I haven’t found enough straw in any of your arguments to work with. I don’t think I’ve ever had a commenter who babbled so incoherently. I’ve had them be more abusive, but never so incoherent.

    First of all, I haven’t made any of the classical States’ Rights arguments. I’m not saying that they are wrong – simply unnecessary.

    Or maybe you are just an amazing Constitutional Law scholar. So amazing that you know what the Supreme Court did and they didn’t have a clue. As you said,

    Let me point out the important part:
    “or to the people.”
    And that would be what the Supreme Court did. The choice of getting or not getting an abortion belongs to citizens and NOT the state governments.

    How did the Roe Court invoke the Tenth Amendment and not even mention it anywhere in the opinion of the Court nor in any of the concurring or dissenting opinions? Roe is based entirely on reinterpretation of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, as the Court makes very plain.

    Then you just ramble on about how the idea of States’ Right is morally bankrupt because it was used by people you consider morally bankrupt. You just don’t get how fallacious that reasoning is, do you?

    I’d like to agree or disagree with your example so that you could cast me as either a hypocrite or evil (to give peace to your obviously troubled mind), but I honestly can’t figure out what your example is!

    The best I can sort out your jumble of words, it is morally repugnant to believe that a governmental entity other than the Supreme Court should decide the matter of the legality of killing unborn children. This is apparently because the Southern States believed that they, through their elected representatives, and not Mr Lincoln, should decide if that Peculiar Institution should be maintained (even though we now know through his writings and speeches that Mr Lincoln was not an abolitionist and was what would now be considered a racist – but that drifts away from the instant subject).

    The British courts and Muslim population thing is so far out there, I have no idea how to even comment on it.

    So I guess the point is that you failed at basic reading comprehension, because you failed to read the document as the legal document that it is, and with its context, and with actual reference to what the Supreme Court did.

    And go back and take Logic 101 again, please. Try hard to get a D this time.

  7. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Please tell me how my point doesn’t apply. After all, this is taking policy making power away from the state govs and giving it to citizens.

    I did confuse it with the 9th, but you still haven’t answered that point.

    And before you claim the federal government took that power, remember there is no other agency that could take power from the states and give them to the people.

    “Then you just ramble on about how the idea of States’ Right is morally bankrupt because it was used by people you consider morally bankrupt. You just don’t get how fallacious that reasoning is, do you?”

    It is a logical fallacy- but only if it is used to prove the truth of the matter. I am not using it for that- I am using it to show that has been used as a cover for morally reprehensible policies and this time nothing is differant. If they had a true argument, it woul be used- going to state’s rights is an admission they don’t.

    “The best I can sort out your jumble of words, it is morally repugnant to believe that a governmental entity other than the Supreme Court should decide the matter of the legality of killing unborn children.”

    They didn’t. They simply stated that laws prohibiting abortion are unconstitutional. You may not agree… except that is the power of the court. Its job IS to determine legality. The word you are looking for is morality, which it did not rule on.

    First of, the South wasn’t really democratic- notice how all the representatives are aristocrats? Rule of the people- hah! It was a plutocracy with slaves being the wealth. There were Union pockets in the Confederacy proper who fought on against those treasonous bastards.

    But, apparently you believe that it was wrong for the Union to make such a choice… okay. Tell me- would it be wrong to stop Hitler? He got in by a landslide!

    Lincoln was an abolitionist and a racist. Most of them were. He wanted the slaves free and out of the US (hopefully in Liberia). Of course, his opponents wanted the blacks in chains and fought a war for that reason, so Lincoln is the significantly whiter shade of grey in this case.

    The point about the Muslim example is that we DON’T have a democracy- we have a republic.

    I’ll say more tommorrow. Probably.

  8. Samuel Skinner Says:

    A new post- with 200% more coherancy.

    First point- the supreme court does not rule on morality. The Dred Scott decision is an excellent example of that. They rule on constitutionality… I’ll assume that was a typo on your part.

    Now, as for the 10th amendment, they had three alternatives in the Roe v Wade case:
    1) Declare that abortion is unconstitutional- federal government gets the power. After all, some states had legalized abortion at this time.
    2) Do nothing- it stays a state issue.
    3) Declare laws against abortion unconstitutional- it devolves to the people.

    Whenever you have a situation involving social policy, it falls under the tenth amendment… but since it doesn’t say if it should be state or people, the amendment is effectively useless.

    As for state’s rights and other “cultural diversity” things, what you may not realize is that they all come down to the same thing- a defense of morally bankrupt claims under the defense of “that would be interfering”. This is not a legal position, but a moral one. If you could advance an actual reason for state’s rights to be reinstutiuted- moral or legal, you would have a case. However, since ’54 states rights have been irrelevant to the Feds.

    It is worth noting that the South wasn’t democratic- for starters, blacks couldn’t vote. They couldn’t vote in the North… but they weren’t a plurality in the North. They are a host of other problems, but you can look them up or read about them. Of course, it isn’t surprising you empathize with them- “the good old days” and all that.

    I’d also like to point out that your title is misleading. You are using the technique of stealing the opposing slogans in order to force people to use a differant perspective. Nice. However, the phrase is supremely inappropriate.

    For starters, choice involves sapience- a factor embryos lack. They don’t get that latter.

    Living isn’t really a choice. After all, you can’t really stop- except with suicide and that isn’t an option.

    “For those men or women who will have limited choices in life because their genes have limited some of their abilities, Sarah wants to protect their right to choose as well.”

    She wouldn’t want to do stem cell research which could concievable make said individuals better.

    “She’s not pro-choice when it comes to gang violence. She’s not pro-choice when it comes to armed robbery. She’s not pro-choice when it comes to drunk driving”

    What does that mean? Are we getting a survellience net? Please tell me we are- I want cameras everywhere! Especially inside government offices.

    “Some women are saying they want the government to keep its hands off their wombs. It seems to me that Mrs Palin is perfectly happy to keep the government’s hands (or anyone else’s for that matter) off their wombs. It’s only when someone starts putting their hands on it that anything bad happens. Sarah definitely has a hands-off policy when it comes to wombs. That’s the only way to protect the unique human life inside it.”

    Last I checked the government isn’t providing abortion service- or forcing people to have them. You must live in China.

    I also thought we don’t protect people’s life because they are unique- or do twins count only half? Maybe we should count bread mold as 40%- that is how much they are like us!

    “Without a judge-imposed law”

    The judges didn’t pass any laws for this- they simply declared existing one null and void.

    Your use of the word “choice” is as double talky- what you are talking about is the removal of individual choice. As it is, no one is forcing people to have abortions. You wish to control that and make it so it is illegal.

  9. sol Says:

    Let me see if I can wade through all of this. . .

    The SCOTUS did not devolve the right to abortion to the people by declaring state statutes unconstitutional. Roe never suggested such a thing. Roe merely extended the Constitutional penumbra (an idea it created out of whole cloth) of the right to privacy it manufactured out of the Ninth Amendment in Griswold v. Connecticut. If it had devolved the right to the people, it would be saying that the people could choose to make abortion illegal, not choose whether or not to have an abortion. For this reason, the Tenth Amendment is almost never used by the courts.

    As it is the Court created a Constitutional right to have an abortion in the first trimester (another creation of the Court), thereafter reserving some legislative powers to the States.

    I still don’t understand why you keep going on and on about States’ Rights, since it isn’t or has ever been an issue in the abortion debate. The issues of which matters are within the jurisdiction of the several States (as abortion was entirely until 1973) and which matters were within the jurisdiction of the national government are in constant flux, more to do with interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    The whole ongoing thing about the South is irrelevant, regardless of whether you consider yourself to tarred me somehow, either because I’m a Republican or a Southerner. If it makes you feel superior somehow (a typical Yankee attitude, however undeserved it may be), I’m happy for you. But honestly, the matter of who could vote in the South at any particular time in its history has no relevance to the matter of whether abortion should be allowed or controlled by Roe and its progeny.

    My title is intentionally misleading for the very reasons you have sussed out. And I couldn’t give a toss that you think it is inappropriate. You should have found out by now that I’m not really swayed by the degree to which I’ve offended liberals.

    As it is now 3:00 am, I’ll pick up with this later.

  10. Samuel Skinner Says:

    I was under the impression “the people” meant that the power is dumped into the hands of citizens via the 9th amendment.

    As it is, the supreme court invented a whole new right. Like always. However, you seem to be arguing that the right should be devolved to independant locales… except that would result in cases where you could be a felon in one location and not in the next. Which would not work well.

    Except you are arguing that the judges were activists and meddled, etc. Technically that is populism. As it is, the judges actions were entirely constitutional- if you don’t like it, it is a problem with the American system. Yes, I know- the system sucks.

    I keep on bringing up states rights because you keep on saying “keep the government’s hand’s off” classic state’s right rhetoric. Combined with your tone, it seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

    Clarify what you think Palin would do, because there are only a copule options
    -Judgement on municipal level.
    -Judgement on state level
    -Judgement on federal level.
    -Judgement on personal level.

    Did any of this make sense? My brain is like cotton candy. Err… tommorrow.

  11. sol Says:

    The whether idea of judges inventing whole new rights is constitutional is one of the great questions of constitutional law. The system sucks because it wasn’t the way the system was designed to be.

    I am of the opinion that abortion should be a matter for the states, just as it was before Roe. Most criminal law is determined by the states. There are many situations where you can be a felon in one state and not in another. This is the view of most pro-lifers (not the federal Constitution life amendment). It seems clear to me that this is the Palin position.

    Keep the federal government’s hands off is the classic states rights position. Keep the government’s hands off is just libertarianism. However, even libertarians believe it is the responsibility of government to protect life. That’s why there are many pro-life libertarians.

    I didn’t mean to imply that I’m opposed to States’ Rights. Only that it isn’t applicable here.

  12. Samuel Skinner Says:

    So I wasn’t strawmanning- that really is states rights. Because you are arguing that the power should be devolved to the states.

    By definition anything the judges do is consititutuional. Of course, that doesn’t mean it happens- the president and congress have ignored the court. And there can be amendments to the constitution, fixing rulings. The system was designed to be like that- once you had Hamilton “interpreting” certain powers, there was no going back. The consititution is simply to vague to work unless people interpret it metaphorically.

    I find it funny the idea of devolving it to the states. What will happen? People will still get abortions- the rich will go out of state, and the poor… get screwed!

    The only thing devolving it to the states would do is make it harder for poor people in red states to get abortions.

    In addition, why should “moral issues” be a state problem? After all, the drug laws (which I oppose) are federal laws, as was prohibition.

    As for “libertarians believe responsibility to protect life”… :)… they don’t believe it when it comes to say, after you are born with health care. And, there are the anarcholibertarians who go ALL the way.

  13. sol Says:

    I disagree that the Constitution has to be interpreted metaphorically. I can see that this was the intent of the framers. If the Constitution doesn’t work literally, then there needs to be a new Constitution, not an attempt to pay lip service to it while making it say whatever an activist judge wants it to say.

    As for the results of devolving it to the States, I think you have way overplayed it. In most states, it is not that far to another state. It is not just rich people who can afford to drive 100 miles to kill a baby.

    Of course part of the idea is to make it hard for all people to get abortions. A baby saved is a baby saved, regardless of the socio-economic status of the mother. But you have come close to the real answer for stopped abortions: don’t get screwed. It is amazing how few abortions happen after not having sex.

    All legislation is morality. Laws says some things are right and some things are wrong. That’s morality. Most legislation that regulates personal behaviour is state, not federal, legislation. This includes most drug laws. The only drug laws that are federal are those related to trafficking across state or international lines.

    Prohibition was a rare exception.

  14. Samuel Skinner Says:

    It is impossible to write a document that covers all the duties of the government. Mostly because people will attempt to find loop holes or come up with problems that weren’t concieved of before hand. For example, the internet- does the government get to regulate it? How so?

    It is differant from previous mediums due to its anomity, porn, weapons specs, market place, foreigners, etc. And it would be inconcievable prior to ARPNET.

    Uh, no. Here is the 2004 election.

    Notice how the red and blue form a continuous block. More relevant is this
    http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/maps-and-charts/map.jsp?mapID=26
    THose are states that if Roe v Wade is tossed will have abortioned banned- the laws are still on the books.

    In addition for the ones that have bans, it is unlikely a red state is going to have alot of clinics- all the ones in South Dakota were closed for example.
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072402.html

    So you are going to have a situation where clinics are rarer and not available in certain locations. And travel is getting more expensive at the same time.

    And you are going to dump the problems upon the poor people. I swear- it is like you are TRYING to start a communist revolution. How much crap do you think poor people will take before they riot?

    And it is amazing how many women don’t get raped if they don’t leave their homes. Obvious the trick is to get women not to leave their homes.

    Maybe we should not give medical services to those injured in high risk sports. Or maybe we should let kids born to mothers over 40 go untreated if they have genetic disorders- they knew the risk!

    Sure, people have personal responsibilty… but society shares some of the burden to. It is like how the industrialists blamed the factory workers for the mishaps- they were lazy, or drunk, or tired. And yet, when they put in safeguards accidents dropped. The same goes for this and birth control.

    But apparently you don’t care about helping people- you want to hurt them, make them suffer. Fine. But don’t act so self righteous- these aren’t murders or people who commited a capital crime- they are people who did something because it feels good.

    I also find your stance hypocritical- you are against abortion because you are prolife… but the movement itself rails against socialized medicine and aid to kids, which would also save lives. Or for that matter, mandatory seat belt lives which follow the same bloody principle.

    You may be differant… but I doubt you are a totalitarian.

    All legislation is NOT morality. The governments actions are almost universally selfish- not exactly moral actions. We redid the school system, not because kids weren’t learning (which was the problem), but because we needed to keep up with the Soviets (or the Japanese). We built a highway system so we could move troops and commerce.

    “The only drug laws that are federal are those related to trafficking across state or international lines.”

    I live in California and I can say with absolute certainty that that line is utter BS. The state had a whole battle with the Feds over the right to have marijana legal here. Heck, meth is almost entirely home grown and it is illegal.

    Prohibiton wasn’t an exception- the current drug war is the same, but WORSE.

    As for working at a state level… nothing legally wrong, I just find it insane that absolute morality varies by locale.

  15. sol Says:

    A constitution is able to outline all of the duties of government. The problems or issues that may arise need not be addressed specifically, nor does this mean the document must become a metaphor.

    I don’t see how the Internet raises any sort of problem. Why is it not covered under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause?

    As for red and blue and abortion. . . You are right that abortions could become more difficult to acquire in many red states. That’s pretty much the idea. Abortion is murder and every abortion that can be prevented is a good result. I don’t care whether it is the child of a poor person or a rich person. I don’t think poor people should have the right to murder their children, just because rich people have more opportunities to do it.

    I do care about helping people. There are no more helpless people than the unborn. You can try to reclassify them or de-species them, but they are unborn human beings. They are genetically unique individuals who differ from the post-natal merely in terms of growth. They are smaller, more vulnerable human. The unborn who have been conceived by the poor have as much right to life as the unborn conceived by rich people.

    Their parents are not just people who did something that feels good. They are parents of a unique human being. And they are parents who are willfully killing that unique human being.

    I think you are generalising when you say “the movement” supports or opposes this or that, unrelated to the saving of unborn lives. Many pro-life people may also hold political views opposing socialised medicine, social welfare entitlements, or seat belt laws. I know people in this country who are quite socialist and also pro-life. I certainly don’t happen to be one of them, but they do exist.

    If you’ve read other bits of this blog, you will have seen my views on socialised medicine. It has nothing to do with being uncaring, but rather than it is inefficient, rations care, and leads to many more deaths from treatable diseases.

  16. Samuel Skinner Says:

    Except some things are fundamentally differant. For example, atomic weapons give thegovernment the ability to eliminate the human race in a couple of hours… well, just industrial civilization. This isn’t something that is considered in the constitution and the guidelines won’t work- see the fear over acopolytic individuals in the Oval Office.

    The future will make it worse- once you are in space, any tom, dick and harry can lob a rock at the planet, killing millions with ease… and it is hard to stop.

    The Interent isn’t covered in the commerce clause (this blog for intance isn’t a transaction… or child porn if it doesn’t charge money).

    Saying it is under the necesary and proper is the same as saying “we don’t have rules for it”.

    ” I don’t think poor people should have the right to murder their children, just because rich people have more opportunities to do it. ”

    So the rich are above the rules? Murder doesn’t apply to them?

    “I do care about helping people. There are no more helpless people than the unborn. You can try to reclassify them or de-species them, but they are unborn human beings. They are genetically unique individuals who differ from the post-natal merely in terms of growth. They are smaller, more vulnerable human. The unborn who have been conceived by the poor have as much right to life as the unborn conceived by rich people. ”

    Technically the same applies to a corpse. After all, it is human, unique, differs only in its state, totally vulnerable, etc.

    The reason we don’t give corpses rights isn’t “potential”- it is because they can’t feel anything anymore, they can’t think, etc. A baby can’t do anything of these things until it becomes a baby. Prior to that it is simply a fetus without an advanced nervous system.

    Uniqueness and potential aren’t justifications for preserving something- otherwise twins would be only worth half.

    The leaders of the pro-life movement do oppose those things. Some of their naive supporters might not- you can fill it the appropriate analogy.

    … right, which iswhy every other nation in the world uses it. And has lower infant mortality rates than the US. And spends less money on it.

    I like “rations care”… the current system does the same thing, but not based on need but ability to pay. ALL medical sytems do this- there is not an infinite amount of doctors. Econ 101.

  17. sol Says:

    What guidelines in the Constitution will not work in the nuclear age? You haven’t explained where you think it doesn’t or can’t apply to atomic weapons.

    I’m guessing you meant “apocalyptic”, though I don’t think this can be properly applied to individuals. If you mean the fear some people have (or at least feign) because President Bush believes the Bible and adheres to a particular interpretation of it, then I don’t see how this has caused the Constitution to fail or has restrained him the powers of his office as strictly constructed (or caused nuclear destruction).

    And I don’t get your point about any tom, dick, harry (or vladimir or jintao, for that matter) lobbing a rock at the earth. Perhaps it is hard to stop. What does this have to do with the efficacy of the Constitution? There are already entirely constitutional international space treaties. What else would you like that is not constitutitonal, or at least would have to be made constitutional by an activist Court?

    This blog is not a transaction, so I would agree that it is not covered by the Commerce Clause, except that it is being housed on a server in the United States and therefore crosses international boundaries. It could be argued that since I’m not paying for the service, it does not constitute commerce within the meaning of the clause. That would be open to interpretation.

    Child porn would be covered under the obscenity laws of both the sending and receiving jurisdictions. It could be argued that it would also be covered under the jurisdictions of any state with a server that holds, for any length of time, the digital images. Of course any of it that originates outside the United States could then be covered by federal law as well, but it needn’t be.

    Yes, the Necessary and Proper clause does say “we don’t have any rules for it”, but it also says, “that’s why we have Congress – to make rules that are within its delegated powers”.

    The rich are not above the rules. They simply have more opportunity to find a place where the rules do not apply. In any given jurisdiction, the rules apply equally to all.

    A corpse is not alive. There is no question that a fetus is alive. The only question is whether that particular life – or anyone in that particular stage of life – has rights.

    So as I understand it then, you draw the line between fetus and baby at the point when an advanced nervous system is functioning. When have you determined that this happens? I should point out that “fetus” is the medical term for any unborn child, so saying somone is “simply a fetus” is meaningless, unless you are demonstrating the scientific evidence that the “advanced nervous system” begins functioning at birth. Or do you hold Peter Singer’s view that there’s not real right to life even after birth?

    I don’t understand your view that twins only have half the uniqueness or potential of other people.

    In that most of the leaders of the pro-life movement would be considered social and fiscal conservatives, it makes sense that they would oppose things that are not socially or fiscally conservative.

    right, which iswhy every other nation in the world uses it

    I’m guessing you mean socialised medicine. I was shocked at the claim that the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the world, until I checked. According to Wikipedia, the US is ranked 163rd (1st being the worst) in infant mortality using UN data and 180th using the CIA Factbook.

    Of course I should have typed “rationed care”. There are not an infinite number of doctors, but we have had lots of doctors who could not get jobs because of cuts in the NHS. That means that what constitutes “need” becomes more and more restricted.

    By the way, socialised medicine does not mean that there isn’t private health care as well. The rich (or those working for companies that offer private health insurance) have no waiting lists and no rationing. Medical care is always available for a price. It’s just that medical insurance is not a standard benefit/opportunity in a country with socialised care. So it is still those who cannot afford to pay who lose out.

    Socialism, like communism, doesn’t make everyone equal. It just reduces the size of the elite who can get everything and increases the size of the unwashed masses, who should be happy to have anything. PoliSci 101.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: