Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Obama and Abortion

OBAMA'S JUST SAID THATABORTION IS BODILY INTEGRITY AND WOMEN ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THAT.... Oh, by the way...this was his response after having said that "abortion will not be a litmus test" in the selection of a Superior Court justice nominee. Right, Barack.....right.
z

34 comments:

Big Bubba said...

"Part of what our core Constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that," the president added. He said he is "somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction." Hussein as quoted @ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20003030-503544.html

Z said...

Sorry, Bubba, I wrote it down wrong when I heard it. Will delete that from my post.thanks.

Z said...

On the other hand, I didn't quote it, I put down the gist of it, the important part, and I'll keep it as is.
Thanks for the full quote and the link.

Brooke said...

The left, the party of institutionalized racism and Planned Parenthood eugenics. Of course Obama doesn't want women "punished with a baby."

See this.

Z said...

thanks, Brooke...one of the comments there said it shouldn't be called Pro CHOICE because they apparently don't think a CHOICE is an option...just get rid of it, after all, school's more important, right? (per that ad defacement)

it's a hubris that kind of sucks the air out of a country, this leftist belief that everything they say is correct....it's a little unthinking, a lot against American values, and pretty scared of losing control, I guess.

Steve Harkonnen said...

Any method of destroying a living creature or human is inhumane and evil.

Since abortion is a product of the left, all of them, therefore, are evil as well.

We need to start looking at all of them in an entirely different light and less of a kindler, gentler approach.

Anonymous said...

I wrote it down wrong but I'M STILL MAD ABOUT WHAT I THINK HE SAID BUT HE DIDN'T REALLY SAY!!! I'm so mad about that! Unfreakinbelievable.

Anonymous said...

I have always thought it a shame and a disgrace that what goes on inside a woman's vagina and uterus has become a legitimate topic for public discussion from any point of view.

What could POSSIBLY be more private than that?

On the other hand I have always favored mandatory sterilization for any woman who conceives children fully expecting the PUBLIC to foot the bill.

Perhaps we should revive the Chastity belt?

~ FreeThinke

Mustang said...

"Part of what our core Constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that,"

I guess my question is, if individuals are protected in their privacy, how can employers demand the extraction of bodily fluids to determine whether to hire, promote, or retain employees?

What about that part of the law requiring equal justice under the law? How shall an aborted fetus realize equal justice?

If a woman can abort a child, then why can’t a mother murder her toddler?

Leticia said...

When are they going to see the truth behind this erroneous lie! Abortion is murder, period.

No matter how small the baby is, there is life.

Libs call them under-developed fetuses or something to that effect, right? So, does that mean a two-year-old should be murdered because he is less developed than a four-year-old? They both have heart beats, feet, arms, legs, etc? There is life at conception, maybe less developed than a month old baby, but nevertheless, life.

Where does hypocrisy end?

Did I make any sense or should I elaborate more?

Z said...

" Anonymous said...
I wrote it down wrong but I'M STILL MAD ABOUT WHAT I THINK HE SAID BUT HE DIDN'T REALLY SAY!!! I'm so mad about that! Unfreakinbelievable."

Wow, people who LOVE OBAMA sure can't take nuance when it might smear THEIR GUY, can they!?
No, I wrote it down wrong but, as I explained thoroughly, the gist of it, I got. And ya, I'm still UNFREAKINBELIEVABLY mad at his remark, you bet. :-) What an odd comment! You REALLY didn't understand, or......just like to slam?

Leticia and Mustang....why can't everybody see this?

FT....that'll be the day!

FrogBurger said...

Picking or not picking my healthcare is bodily integrity as well.

Z said...

FrogBurger, it should be within our 'pursuit of happiness', that clause the LEft likes to use FOR government-run healthcare, but apparently that happiness only applies when THEY're happy.

Anonymous said...

""Part of what our core Constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that," the president added."

If this is true, and there is no legal standing to negate it, I'd like to take it one step further.

If, I, or anyone, am protected in my privacy and bodily integrity, how then can the government have anything to say about my healthcare, my medical insurance, or my doctor's ability and/or medical advice to give me the care he and I decide is best for my health or survival as a patient?

How can the government protect a woman's privacy regarding her bodily integrity, and invade her privacy regarding any medical procedure it regards unnecessary? Obviously this would apply to males too, not just women.

Roe V Wade established that a person's privacy was Constitutional. It established that bodily privacy was Constitutional and an individual has the right to choose what her/his medical treatment should be.

So, since that precedent was established, it seems to me, our privacy regarding our general health, is beyond the government's reach.

It seems to me, the government cannot mandate certain kinds of medical insurance, or any medical insurance, medical tests, medications, procedures, authority over doctors who perform this service via our privacy, etc.

It seems to me the government, in protecting our bodily privacy, has a duty to respect that right of privacy, and if that's the case, what the hell are they doing mandating Obamacare?

We either have a right to bodily privacy, or we don't. It can't be both.


Pris

Chuck said...

Z, only the right uses litmus' tests for abortion. The left brings in only the most educated jurists that have the proper respect for the US Constitution as a living document.

Anonymous said...

Z, The Roe V Wade ruling refers to the ninth and fourteenth amendments, amidst a lengthy opinion.

The IX Amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution of cetain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The XIV Amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within it's jursdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I know legal scholars have said this was a stretch to justify Roe V Wade, but, it did establish privacy to be Constitutional.

I'm not saying I agree with abortion, what I'm saying is,one can't support privacy as an exception. It seems to me, bodily privacy was established, and equal protection under the law applies to everyone, regardless of what medical, bodily privacy is involved.

Heck I'm not a lawyer, God knows, but this seems to me, to fly in the face of our government invading our right to choose anything to do with our bodies and what care we may choose.

Pris

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of the comments, but have to add we are supposed to be guaranteed "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Obviously we cannot be guaranteed happiness, itself, we can only "pursue" it, so count that out, BUT here's the rub:

Life (in the sense of safety and security) and Liberty are often at odds.

Which should we choose liberty or safety?

Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Liberty always implies RISK, and therefore, DANGER.

To paraphrase an adage: If you don't risk something, you can't gain anything.

I'm with Franklin -- and Patrick Henry. I think we must allow people to be both stupid and wrong, if we are to preserve the ideal of maximum freedom for the individual.

Where that might apply to how we deal with "women's issues," I'll have to let others sort out.

~ FreeThinke

Big Bubba said...

And that's the rub, proper respect for the Constitution as a living document. By definition people who believe that the Constitution is a "living document" are pseudo intellect progressive liberal mindless twits who do not have a clue about the Founding Fathers and the genius of their founding documents. Their religion is usually secular humanism. Secular humanists believe in the superiority of their intellect and morals vis a vis Judeo-Christianity. Yet another reason to take down the Founding Fathers and trivialize the Constitution as a "living document."

You don't need a litmus test to find that kind of lunacy. It is usually painfully obbious.

Anonymous said...

"Where that might apply to how we deal with "women's issues," I'll have to let others sort out."

FT, if this you said, applies to what I wrote, either I wasn't clear enough, which I think I was, or you didn't notice I wasn't referring to a "women's issue". I was referring to privacy regarding our bodies. Men and women.

Roe V Wade established privacy as Constitutional. The right to choose, applied to the body cannot be limited to women. Equal protection under the law means what it says.

I'm curious as to if this could be used to fight Obamacare. I said I know I'm not a lawyer, but this occurred to me a while back, and thought I'd see what others think.

Pris

William B. said...

If people here believe fetuses are living human beings, then why can't a pregnant woman declare her fetus as a deduction on her income taxes? Why must she wait until it is ex-utero?

Why does the law not do this? If a fetus is a human being, then it must have the same rights as an ex-utero human being from the time it is determined a woman is pregnant.

This is not the practice in any culture on the planet.

Can anyone explaine this?

Anonymous said...

It is difficult to determine whether William's question is serious, or idiotic. Heart beat means life. No heart beat, no life. What does this have to do with income tax liability? For crying out loud, 47% of the American people do not pay income taxes; does that mean they are fetuses? Give me a break.

Sam

beamish said...

If people here believe fetuses are living human beings, then why can't a pregnant woman declare her fetus as a deduction on her income taxes? Why must she wait until it is ex-utero?

A pregnancy takes 9 months, a year takes 12 months.

If the baby is born in the 3.5 months between January 1 and April 15th, the baby can be claimed as a dependent despite not being born in the taxable year.

If the baby is born later than April 15th, she'll get a full deduction on taxes for the current year despite the baby not being "ex-utero" for the full year.

Pre-natal care and maternity medical expenses are tax deductible as well, so your flippant question really is devoid of what we right-wingers like to call "thought."

Anonymous said...

Pris,

We posted almost simultaneously. I have to admit I hadn't read your remarks posted at 4:20 before I posted mine at 4:23.

I think we agree, although I'm not sure I see how the language in the amendment quoted guarantees us a right to privacy. Glad if it does, although with much too much specific information available about most of us all over the net "privacy" seems almost moot. Sadly, it may exist in theory but not in fact.

I have always wished this very sensitive issue had stayed out of the courts and remained within the jurisdiction of the Church, the family and the individual conscience of those directly involved.

That probably would have been the case if it were not for the hyper-aggressive tactics of the feminist movement, which, as most of us on the right realize, is not really concerned with women so much as the establishment of centralized power and the initiation of Marxian dialectics to supplant our Constitution. Feminism is but one of many "causes" used for that end.

My cousin, a very strong old-fashioned, pre-Vatican II Catholic, and a very good guy scares me, because to him only this ONE issue matters. No matter how good a candidate might be for the country as a whole, if he is not strongly anti-abortion, my cousin will not consider voting for him.

If enough people think that way, it will throw the election to "the enemy" every time. We MUST be pragmatic when it comes to politics, which is why I voted for McCain, even though I despised him as a candidate.

And so it goes...

~ FreeThinke

beamish said...

FT,

If Roe v. Wade were ever overturned, it would not necessarily end the legality of abortion, but rather return the issue to state legislatures (with accountable politicians) to decide.

Anonymous said...

Pris and Beamish,

I believe it would be much healthier for the country, and closer to the ideals of the Founders, if governmental power weakened and decentralized as much as possible.

I would support whatever we might use to overturn Obamacare, and undo many of the other grievous wrongs perpetrated by social activists in the names of "equality" and "fairness" for all.

I'm no lawyer either, Pris, but I like the sound of your idea. And Beamish, returning to the states the right to rule on abortion and many other issues would be a BIG step in the right direction.

In general the closer we get to LOCAL control the closer we probably would get to maximum liberty for each individual, although bullies and would-be tyrants exist on every conceivable level. Aggressive behavior seems to be part of the human condition.

Always problems no matter HOW we try to deal with things, but I always return to Jefferson who said, "The government t hat governs best governs least."

AMEN!

The last thing I would want for ANYONE is for Federal bureaucrats to take charge of OUR bodies. GEEEEZ!

~ FreeThinke

Z said...

"William B. said...
If people here believe fetuses are living human beings, then why can't a pregnant woman declare her fetus as a deduction on her income taxes?"

William, I hope you read Beamish's comments on tax deductible timing, etc. Plus, deductions are usually because you paid a lot out for that child...shoes, food, clothing, orthodontia, etc..so you get a deduction for that money spent........

By the way, more than the people "Here" believe a fetus is a viable human being....what were YOU in your mother's womb, just a blob in training to be a CAR? Those cells are becoming.....A HUMAN BEING.

Anonymous said...

YUP! The second the sperm hits the egg a human SOUL is conceived. Nothing to trifle with for sure.

~ FT

Anonymous said...

William B., Since you're so anxious for the law to apply to a fetus, you should know, if a pregnant woman is killed, and her fetus dies as a result, the murderer is charged with killing two human beings.

Frankly, why you need the state to recognize the existence of life, by law, shows just how far removed you are from humanity.

If you were a woman, and could carry a child until birth, you'd know you're wrong. All you had to do was ask your mother.


Pris

Brooke said...

Exactly what Pris just said.

As a mother of three, I could even tell that they had different personalities before they were born. Different kicks, sleeping patterns, ect.

Elmers Brother said...

apparently it doesn't apply to men because when I had my vasectomy I had to wait a month, get my wife's permission, have at least two children, go through counseling and be at least 32 years old

Elmers Brother said...

By the way, more than the people "Here" believe a fetus is a viable human being....what were YOU in your mother's womb, just a blob in training to be a CAR? Those cells are becoming.....A HUMAN BEING.

check the medical dictionarie...a 'fetus' is called an infant by the time the mother enters the second trimester

Elmers Brother said...

dictionaries

Anonymous said...

"As a mother of three, I could even tell that they had different personalities before they were born. Different kicks, sleeping patterns, ect."

Thanks Brooke, and exactly what you said above.

Pris

MK said...

This is the fellow who wanted abortion survivors to be killed off as well.

zero will only have a leftist scumbag who hates the unborn like himself installed. Any pretense of compromise will be just that, a pretense.