« Lieberman continually amazes | Main | The Republicans may not control everything »

October 17, 2006




The legislation you mentioned has passed and it has been signed by the President. BTW, what is the difference, if there is any, between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party?

Thomas Williams

The Constitution has more of a faith influence in regards to abortion and homosexual marriage.


Thomas Williams

I meant to say the Constitution Party. I left the party word off by mistake.



Thanks, Thomas.


So it would seem that the constitution party is further away from the constitution itself... that is par for the course in this day and age when we have clear skies initiatives that promote pollution, and no child left behind initiatives that leave children behind, and...

Thomas Williams

I disagree CSM, we simply believe the Constitution as written and ammended through the years. We don't believe lifetime appointees who bring their own personal agendas to the bench should legislate. Precedent wasn't used in the Roe V. Wade decision. If Congress passes laws tha are constitutional they should be enforced if singed into law by a President or vetoed overridden if not. If we have to ammend the Constitution, which is how I believe abortion should have been approached, then you follow the process outlined in the Constitution. It is really that simple. Political groups now shop to find an agreeable judge (which should tell you something) to get around this process because they know that can't succeed the intended route.



"Precedent wasn't used in the Roe V. Wade decision."

I realize the 'Roe V. Wade decision' is rather is rather long. Consisting of more than a couple paragraphs, it is understandable that not everyone with have the mental discipline to completely read it. So it is not surprising that you rely on what you have been told about it. To me, though, it seems incredibly dishonest to make a statement like this when you obviously don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about.


The Constitution is a general document... what does "pursuit of happiness" mean? Without some interpretive yardstick...based on culture, times and needs the Constitution and Bill of Rights could become meaningless... issues like the environment? Issues like privacy... Hamilton and Jefferson would be shocked at what has happened to the concept of privacy under the Constitution. Yet considering technology what has and has not changed?

Thomas Williams

This why why we have Congress and the amendment process. The founders well understood the need for change. The fourth amendment, on which the "right to privacy" which was stretched to allow the interpretation in Roe V. Wade reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly desribing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This ammendment covers unlawful searches and seizures and the security of you and your things from government shall not be violated unless the government gets a warrant to search and is the crux of the current problems with the Patriot Act and the listenning into phone calls. It does nothing to define what is or is not a human being. I mean if a person can be charged with a double homicide when murdering a pregnant woman, in that instance an unborn child is considered a human being or you couldn't charge the perpetrator with the double homicide. The DNA of the unborn child is definitely unique as is his/her blood type from their parents. So, it is a stretch to declare in this one instance the unborn child isn't worth the time to determine if it deserves to live to preserve the mother's privacy. The essential question for me, is that unborn child with its unique DNA and blood type a human being? At what point does it deserve legal protection? Which leads to a follow on question at what point will a court decide I am no longer viable and decide I don't need protection? Not to mention the questions my faith thrusts into my thinking regarding this topic. So, yes I have studied the issue and think the court overreached and the matter (abortion) should have gone through the legislative or ammenment process.



Maybe you have 'have studied the issue' but I doubt it. My point was that you haven't been interested enough to read the actual decision. If you had been, you wouldn't be whining about lack of precedence.

"At what point does it deserve legal protection?"

The court went through this issue at considerable depth. It referenced, among other things, English common law and the writings of St Augustine. St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

You seem to want to jump from one flawed assumption to the next. I suspect that these assumptions are indeed thinking that your faith thrusts upon you. So, perhaps more to the point, who and what informs that faith?

Thomas Williams

Well, I disagree with them is what I am telling you. And my faith plays a large part in every decision I make. I disagree with St. Augustine as in Jermiah it tells us God knew us before we were placed in our mother's womb. And Catholic teaching is, I am not Catholic but agree with them here, that birth begins at conception. But we get away from my point of it should have gone through the appropriate process. The 4th ammendment is the crux upon which they based their decision and the privacy clause contained therein. I haven't read the decision in a while so, I will have to go back and reread that about English Common Law to refamilarize myself.


Yeah, right, you read it, then we can talk. ‘Til then I'll just speak to your deacon directly and we'll try to stick to the topic of neo-con intelligence.


Faith, hmmm? It is faith that will destroy us. There are people out there (some participating here no doubt) who have "faith" that the events in the book of Revelation will actually happen. It is looney birds like this who will be the undoing of the human race.


Why is it so hard to believe that Life begins at BIRTH?

We can ALL agree that one becomes a human being under our US Constitution when one takes one's first breath (as witnessed in the delivey room) and one gets one's BIRTH date.

And, for bible believers, in Gen. 2:7, it tells us that God, and God alone, gives breath.
Again, that is witnessed in the delivery room, on one's BIRTH day.

Just because someone believes -- "in their heart" -- that Life begins at conception doesn't mean that Life begins at conception.

I have no problem with someone believing that Life begins at conception.
I do have a problem when someone wants to make every other American believe that Life begins at conception, via our laws.

Let a woman choose to have a fertilized egg in her body or not.
When it's no longer in HER body, it will have breath, or it will not.
When the fertilized egg has breath, every law currently on the books in America protects it.


On the topic of abortion I sometimes find myself conflicted. Although I align myself almost completely with what Bev has stated here, I can at least sympathize with the other side of the issue. The bottom line is that no one can determine with pinpoint accuract the time at which life begins. Yes, the promise or potential for life begins at conception. And an actual living breathing person begins at birth. And somewhere along that continuum there is a point at which abortion becomes abhorent to me. So-called partial-birth abortion is nothing to cheer for. But this is me, and me, personally. You see, these things are subjective. And, as such, the reasonable thing to do is to allow each person to choose what they believe is best for themself and the fetus in their womb.

And what of the father? This is something that is almost never discussed. Yes, the woman has the burden of carrying the child and giving birth. And it IS her body. But there is an unfairness that comes about here for the man if he is truly interested in the future of his potential child. Should he be permitted to stop an abortion if it is what the mother wants, but not the father? Obviously, the other way around is not permitted (father forcing an abortion on the mother). But then we have the hypocrisy of the father being forced to pay child support - not that he shouldn't have to pay, but there is an element of unfairness here.

Anyway, I guess that was a long detour to take around the issue...


csm, how many times have you been faced with ANY of the decisions you have mentioned?

Please excuse me, friend, while I yell across the cosmos:

So, not necessarily directed at you, but why can't we just let the two people who have to make these very, very tough and unique decisions make them in the privacy of their very own lives?


Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed"

Who really cares what Augustine believed about abortion or a soul? Did he have medical equipment? Did he have videos of baby's screaming in pain as they were ripped from the womb? Did he have precedents of babies still alive after abortion only to be put to death by their executioner in a white robe.

Bottom line is none of us can prove when the child obtains the soul/spirit so any argument is only opinion. I know David speaks of God forming the child in the womb. Abortion proponents refuse to look at the medical evidence in fear that mothers will lose their right to end a life. Whats next, a mother refuses to feed a born child because it is her body and she should not be forced to feed the baby with her milk? I know children CAN survive outside the womb after 3 months. It is documented. Those involved in Roe vs. Wade now regret their paricipation in the case. That states a lot. The argument of taking a breath is bogus since many children are born and put on a ventilator to breath. Yes this child is still life. This argument about it being "the law" means nothing as well. Laws are quite often WRONG and laws CHANGE.


fcc- using the absurd extreme as an argument against something is just as bogus. If we use the same technique in the other direction we might well begin railing against the possibility that cancer surgery will be declared illegal because the cancer is a living part of your body, not an infection, but not under the regular control of your body, and therefore you don't have a choice about keeping it or not.

However, I am NOT seriously suggesting that this is what you are in favor of. Simply using the opposite extreme to show how rediculous the method of argument is.


"Who really cares what Augustine believed about abortion or a soul?"

Why do you believe that anyone really cares what you believe about abortion or a soul?


Yeah, this whole friggin' administration is "genius."

This just in:
"Failure would be a disaster for the entire region."

"We are open to dialogue."
I guess we're supposed to be impressed...

"I think there is much room for criticism..."
That might be the understatement of the century.

"...the solution to the hell and killings in Iraq..."
Mission Accomplished May 1, 2003???

What an lying bunch of incompetent idiots!!!

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Offering an unusually candid assessment of America's enterprise in Iraq, a senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq, but warned that failure in the violence-ridden Arab nation would be a disaster for the entire region.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the U.S. State Department, also said the United States was ready to talk with any Iraqi group — excluding Al Qaeda in Iraq — to reach national reconciliation in the country, wracked by widening sectarian strife as well as an enduring insurgency.

"We tried to do our best (in Iraq) but I think there is much room for criticism because, undoubtedly, there was arrogance and there was stupidity from the United States in Iraq," he said.

"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation," he said, speaking in Arabic from Washington. "The Iraqi government is convinced of this."


Gosh, this is really unbelievable.
In a different article, here's the decider-in-chief and his buffoon:

Bush, Rumsfeld Defend Strategy
By Ann Scott Tyson and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 21, 2006; Page A01

Speaking at a Washington fundraiser, Bush said the U.S. goal in Iraq "is clear and unchanging": creating a country that can govern and defend itself and "that will be an ally in the war against these extremists."

In a briefing later at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld played down the significance of fighting and sectarian violence that have erupted over the past few days outside Baghdad, as U.S. troops in Iraq suffer some of the highest monthly casualties since the 2003 invasion.


Ironically the Bishop of Hippo (Augustine) was a Platonist...believing in the ideal...he was not an Aristotelian... he arrived at being an idealist from being totally without ideals and in his own words...a sinner, an abject sinner at that. He established the road of the church at that time in makeing the "ideal" the Word.

To date I know OB/Gyn's who have done abortions, who now refuse to do them because they feel that life is there...pain is there. To protect the unborn fetus...is an idealist position not a pragmatic one...as Aristotle said use the "available means"..

Women make their choice. Who else should?


Yes, Bev, I think if you re-read what I wrote I did say, and I quote: "And, as such, the reasonable thing to do is to allow each person to choose what they believe is best for themself and the fetus in their womb." Meaning, I am fully pro-choice.


No, csm, I understand. Really. That's why *I* said back, "Not necessarily directed at you."
And, just to be fair, I have the same concerns you do.
My only point, for everyone, is that we don't know what we would do if we actually had these decisions before us.

I had a friend that had to have a late-term abortion, and it was an IMPOSSIBLE decision that they had to make.
Yet there are "loving" strangers who have called them "murderers" right to their faces.
How many people posting here actually KNOW someone who has a late-term abortion?

So, I'm just saying maybe we should just stay out of it. And I'm predicting you agree.

Thomas Williams

The justice used the 14th Amendment Section 1 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 its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas' definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point.

In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. 30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother's life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.

Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950's, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. 34 The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother's health. 35 Three States permitted abortions that were not "unlawfully" performed or that were not "without lawful justification," leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. 36 In the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, § 230.3, 37 set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205.

The 4th and 14th amendments are linked in the regard to the protection of privacy saving due process be followed in obtaining writs. I don't see how passing legislation to ban abortion is covered by thus but by tortous thinking. And in the decision laws had been passed through the democratic process to ban it as the process of passing laws is outlined in the Constitution. Reading the decision also tells the dispute over the need to place any limits on the procedure flows from when life is decided (quickening) to start. The AMA was against it at the time also, flowing from the Hippocratic Oath. The majority of the court chose to go with the distinction of the life of the mother without regard to the thinking of “quickening” and from what I can tell threw that part of the decision back to the States. I disagree with the decision. Simply put. Also, since the Roe decision medical advancement has made a “fetus” or unborn child viable at earlier and earlier points of development. We will disagree on this derf as do half the country. So, again this was legislation from the bench from my point of view.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Syndicate This Site

  • Add to My Yahoo!