« For Whom the Bell Polls | Main | The Politics of Abortion »

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Comments

larry kurtz

Control the courts, Dems: a vote against Kristi Noem is one click closer to wrenching the civil rights distribution being meted out by the Franco wing of the earth hater party and returning that power to the women of the 99%.

Donald Pay

Huh?

Let's talk about Republican policies regarding fetal health. Republicans could care less about the health of the fetus once the woman decides she isn't going to abort. In state after state Republican Governor's are taking away funds from agencies and programs that provide pre-natal care. They particularly cheer on efforts to overturn regulations that are geared to protection the health of the fetus, including limits to toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. Conservatives oppose what they call "nanny state regulations," such as alcohol and tobacco restrictions and warnings to protect expectant mothers. See, they want government so small they can drown your non-aborted child or fetus in the cesspool created by their fossil fuel funders. Yeah, when it comes to fetal personhood, they'll abandon that as soon as the first fetus sues the coal industry. Tort reform for for the benefit of Romeny's corporate "people" is much more important, you see, than the rights of a mother to have a normal moral and legal person.

By the way, the Supreme Court held that it was a woman's right to decide whether to abort, or did you miss that.

Bill Fleming

Who wrote this post?

Bill Fleming

Seems like the author's name used to appear along with the main post and has recently gone missing. New format? Software glitch?

Surely a concerned father has an interest in the development of his child in utero, but not on the same level as the mother. I suspect that is Obama's point. Hard to tell if the argument here is on the father's behalf or the State's, but in any case the post reminds me of the metaphorical description given in the following Q & A.

Q: Why is the difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' like bacon and eggs?
A. The hen is involved, the hog is committed.

But don't read too much into it, unless you want to get egg on your face.

Even the most apt metaphor only extends so far. ;^)

Stan Gibilisco

Larry, are you advocating an activist judiciary?

In an ideal political system, IMHO, no party would "control" the courts. The courts would interpret the laws as written, and that is all. The power of "control" over the law rests with the Legislature.

Of course our current Legislature is abdicating their responsibility, so we see the President taking up the slack with "edicts" and the courts moving in, human as they are, to fill a dangerous vacuum.

I agree, I do miss the bylines in the posts.

Stan Gibilisco

It's a strange culture where we can call a corporation a person, but a viable fetus, not.

larry kurtz

Until the call for a Constitutional Convention is raised, it's the best court money can buy, Stan.

Ken Blanchard

Donald: the question of how big government ought to be and who it ought to protect are not the same questions even if they are obviously connected. People who insist on banning soft drinks are trying to tell adults how they should live. People who think that government should protect unborn human beings are trying to save the life of an innocent person.

Bill: sorry, but I can't seem to get typepad to put the names back on. Unless you see someone else's name in the post, you can assume it's KB.

Stan: I love your comment, even if I cannot entirely agree with its logic. Corporations are artificial, legal persons. A fetus is a biological person. Whether it is a "natural person" in the legal sense is precisely the question at the heart of the controversy.

Donald Pay

So if the fossil fuel industry, KB and the Republican Party kill a fetus, that's not taking innocent life? In my opinion it is, and you should all be hung for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.