Obama thinks mothers have more rights than unborn children

[Thunder]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

Obama wants a new Supreme Court Justice who will respect privacy and personal freedom rights of women over their bodies.....which means he thinks women should have more rights than their unborn teenagers!!!

[Cleon]

women should have more rights than their unborn teenagers!!!

First, good.

Second, uh..."unborn teenagers?"

[headscratcher4]

You mean you object to giving a born, living, indipendent, sentient human being more rights than a potential human being in the form of a completely dependent fetus?

Should the "rights" of the fetus always take precedent in your opinion?

When do the existing rights of the mother get to over-ride the alleged "rights" of the fetus? Why?

[Aurelian]

Unborn teenagers, now that's a pregnancy that's too long, and well, babies have a few points on teenagers.

Looking forward to an answer to headscratcher's questions.

A.

[BenBurch]

I support abortion only until the 64th trimester!

[Leif Roar]

Obama wants a new Supreme Court Justice who will respect privacy and personal freedom rights of women over their bodies.....which means he thinks women should have more rights than their unborn teenagers!!!

He and every other person in favour of legalised abortion.

[Shalamar]

It'll just add fuel to the fire from the right wing nutjobs..

'Obama wants to kill our babies!' in 3.. 2.. 1..

[Upchurch]

What? Was that in the comments?

[Upchurch]

He and every other person in favour of legalised abortion.
I somehow doubt many people in favor of legalized abortion have ever considered the rights of unborn teenagers...

I know the subject has never crossed my mind.

[Darth Rotor]

I somehow doubt many people in favor of legalized abortion have ever considered the rights of unborn teenagers...

I know the subject has never crossed my mind.
When that good looking kid in your avatar photo becomes a teenager, you may begin to believe that a space alien has taken residence in your home.

Forewarned is forearmed ... :D

With that thought foremost in my mind, I assess the OP topic as follows:

perhaps this is an indirect method of defense against alien invasion, Obama style. :boggled:

DR

[Upchurch]

When that good looking kid in your avatar photo becomes a teenager, you may begin to believe that a space alien has taken residence in your home.
He's nearly two. I already think that from time to time.

But he's already been born. I'm fairly certain that isn't something you can undo. I know that isn't something my wife wouldn't agree to.

[Chris Hegarty]

I'm sure the cesspools of conservative "thought" are absolutely rabid about this, but I have a touch of Outrage Fatigue and can't bear to look. Regardless, it's good to see Obama be frank about this: women's rights are incredibly important, and instead of pussyfooting around the issue like many politicians, he's taken in (relatively) head-on.

[Chris Hegarty]

But he's already been born. I'm fairly certain that isn't something you can undo. I know that isn't something my wife wouldn't agree to.

That would probably take some painful equipment. You'd probably also be sleeping on the couch for the rest of your life.

[bluesjnr]

I honestly thought this was some kind of joke OP and I just didn't get it!

[Tricky]

Dammit, if that unborn fetus wants to smoke and drink and vote Republican, it has just as much right to do so as its mom!!

[Brainster]

Parky may have changed his nick, but the ridiculous posts continue unabated. I did have a chuckle about this part of the linked article:

President Barack Obama, treading carefully in the explosive arena of abortion and the Supreme Court, said Wednesday he will choose a nominee who pays heed to the rights of women and the privacy of their bodies. Yet he said he won't enforce any abortion rights "litmus tests."

There's a compound word for that, beginning with "bull".

Nobody, but nobody, questions the claim that women have more rights than their unborn children; for that matter, they have more rights than their born children. Of course, they do not have the right to kill their born children....

[DavidJames]

I am absolutely against abortion in the 39th trimester

[DavidJames]

Parky may have changed his nick, but the ridiculous posts continue unabated. I did have a chuckle about this part of the linked article:



There's a compound word for that, beginning with "bull".I am fundamentally against such a litmus test. I'm also fundamentally against letting the other side stack the deck. Obama should have every bit of non litmus tests as previous Republican presidents.

[uruk]

Dammit, if that unborn fetus wants to smoke and drink and vote Republican, it has just as much right to do so as its mom!!

That's pretty funny but there is only one right that is pertinate to an unborn child. That is the right to exist.

All other rights are useless to an unborn child.

The question should be; "Do the rights of the mother outwiegh the right for the unborn child to exist"?

The courts have pretty much already decided so the question is moot.

[Upchurch]

Personally, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I also believe in a small government that should keep its hands off my womb (and anyone else's).

So, which side am I on?

[quarky]

Hippy?

[Thunder]

Conservatives believe that women's freedom ends the day they get pregnant.

[fuelair]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_supreme_court

Obama wants a new Supreme Court Justice who will respect privacy and personal freedom rights of women over their bodies.....which means he thinks women should have more rights than their unborn teenagers!!!

And?

[fuelair]

I support abortion only until the 64th trimester!

I guess I could go with that limitation. To show I can be cooperative.:)

[Travis]

Conservatives believe that women's freedom ends the day they get pregnant.

Some do. My friends that are Republicans are also pro-choice. I'm sure there are others.

[Darth Rotor]

Dammit, if that unborn fetus wants to smoke and drink and vote Republican, it has just as much right to do so as its mom!!

Wait, a pregnant woman gets two votes? Unfair! Man can't get pregnant, so I vote against your suggestion! :D

My fall back position is to investigate a few well known cemetaries in Duvall and Jim Wells counties ...

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Personally, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I also believe in a small government that should keep its hands off my womb (and anyone else's).

So, which side am I on?

Mine. But if you have a womb, you need to hit Oprah. Millions await you!
(Won't someone think of the Benjamins?)

DR

[Upchurch]

if you have a womb

I keep it in a jar by the door.

[Lurker]

Wait, a pregnant woman gets two votes? Unfair! Man can't get pregnant, so I vote against your suggestion!

The pregnant woman only gets two votes if her unborn teenager is at least 18 years old. There are laws even unborn teenagers need to abide by.

[headscratcher4]

Conservatives believe that women's freedom ends the day they get pregnant.

Do they?

[Darth Rotor]

The pregnant woman only gets two votes if her unborn teenager is at least 18 years old.
I now better understand the term labor strife. :jaw-dropp
There are laws even unborn teenagers need to abide by.
Even in Columbia*.

BTW: That last sentence of yours is wonderful.







* = Reference to movie line in Romancing the Stone "There are schedules to be maintained, even in Colombia!"

[mortimer]

From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

[Thunder]

i would only support pro-life policies if the children of mothers forced to bring their children to term, were given free health care, free college education, and free child-care.

other than that...I'm pro-choice.

[rwguinn]

Do they?
Damn. You learn something every day. Here I've been conservative all my life, and I didn't know that I believed wimmins freedoms ended when they get pregnant...
What freedom do they need. I mean, when you're always barefooted and in the kitchen, what else do you need?

[WildCat]

I keep it in a jar by the door.
I'm pretty sure that's where Mrs. Duggar (http://www.duggarfamily.com/) keeps hers too.

[uruk]

Personally, I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I also believe in a small government that should keep its hands off my womb (and anyone else's).

So, which side am I on?

Come on! It's uter-US not uter-you.

[Skeptic]

Surely the issue isn't that persons should have more rights that potential persons -- such as fetuses -- but at what stage, and to what degree, does a developing fetus acquire the rights of a person. A newborn baby has all of them (except those dependent on age, e.g., it cannot vote), a just-fertilized egg, probably none or very few.

[Skeptic]

Do they?

Alas, in some cases, liberalism becomes not a political position, or a social view, but a religion with illogical dogma ("conservatives believe women's rights end when they get pregnant"), complete with its Messiah (Obama), devils (Israel, conservatives...), inherent logical contradictions (marching in favor of "human rights" with Islamists who would kill them as kaffirs if they could and despise human rights), and so on.

The same, of course, applies -- mutatis mutandis -- to some conservatives, who make conservatism not an economic of political policy but a TRUTH, but that's another issue.

The difference from religion is that while religious dogma, messiahs, and devils at least tend to remain constant, those snared by the liberal religion tend to replace their idols with new ones every decade or so. 20 years ago, for example, the illogical dogma was "communism is a success", the Messiah was Ted Kennedy, the devils were South Africa and McCarthy (needless to say, totally ignoring, say, Sudan and Beria), and they marched together with Stalinists, who would killed them as counterrevolutionary if they could and despised human rights.

But the belief that one is one of those tiny few who know the truth (until the truth expires and is replaced with another truth) and thus one of the elect remains constant.

[headscratcher4]

Surely the issue isn't that persons should have more rights that potential persons -- such as fetuses -- but at what stage, and to what degree, does a developing fetus acquire the rights of a person. A newborn baby has all of them (except those dependent on age, e.g., it cannot vote), a just-fertilized egg, probably none or very few.

Thus the imperfect balancing and logic of Roe v. Wade with respect to increasing protection of a fetus depending on the trimester.

[headscratcher4]

Alas, in some cases, liberalism becomes not a political position, or a social view, but a religion with illogical dogma ("conservatives believe women's rights end when they get pregnant"), complete with its Messiah (Obama), devils (Israel, conservatives...), inherent logical contradictions (marching in favor of "human rights" with Islamists who would kill them as kaffirs if they could and despise human rights), and so on.

The same, of course, applies -- mutatis mutandis -- to some conservatives, who make conservatism not an economic of political policy but a TRUTH, but that's another issue.

The difference from religion is that while religious dogma, messiahs, and devils at least tend to remain constant, those snared by the liberal religion tend to replace their idols with new ones every decade or so. 20 years ago, for example, the illogical dogma was "communism is a success", the Messiah was Ted Kennedy, the devils were South Africa and McCarthy (needless to say, totally ignoring, say, Sudan and Beria), and they marched together with Stalinists, who would killed them as counterrevolutionary if they could and despised human rights.

But the belief that one is one of those tiny few who know the truth (until the truth expires and is replaced with another truth) and thus one of the elect remains constant.


Well, fortunately for you, "conservatives" never engage in any sort of religous like dogmas. Yes, Palin, Cheney, Beck, O'Reily, Levin, Kristol, Limbaugh only deal in immutable facts and constants, are incapable of hypocracy or mistaken assumptions or illogical conclusions.

It always amuses me that so much of modern, intellectual conservatives -- NeoCons -- have their roots in Trotskism. When Irving Kristol lost his faith in one absolutist philosophy, he had to transfer it to an equally absolutist philosophy. And, to this day, while spouting bromides about conservatism, they employ tried and true Trotskist organizational and debating techniques.

I don't really know the point I'm trying to make...just the above quote has just enough truth to make me uncomfortable and more than enough intentional distortions to make me mad.

[willhaven]

Thus the imperfect balancing and logic of Roe v. Wade with respect to increasing protection of a fetus depending on the trimester.It's a sliding scale for just about everyone. At some stage of development, someone is likely to start believing that it's a being that has rights and is worth protecting.

[Skeptic]

Well, fortunately for you, "conservatives" never engage in any sort of religous like dogmas.

Er, from the very post you quoted:

The same, of course, applies -- mutatis mutandis -- to some conservatives, who make conservatism not an economic of political policy but a TRUTH, but that's another issue.

I didn't say conservatives never do that, in fact I said just the opposite, it's simply that here we're discussing a case of a liberal doing that.

[Skeptic]

Thus the imperfect balancing and logic of Roe v. Wade with respect to increasing protection of a fetus depending on the trimester.

Yes. I have criticism of that decision, but I don't deny that it was made in good faith.

By the way: Judaism's view is interesting. It considers the fetus a person from very early on, BUT a person who -- due to the danger to the woman -- is legally a "rodef", one who pursues with intent to kill, so that it is allowable to kill it to save the mother from death or serious injury.

So there is no equivalence made between the two. Perhaps this was actually a better way -- it avoids the vagueness of the "when a fetus becomes a person" while not claiming the two have equal rights.

[headscratcher4]

Er, from the very post you quoted:



I didn't say conservatives never do that, in fact I said just the opposite, it's simply that here we're discussing a case of a liberal doing that.

I hate to admit it...I am not proud of it, but I don't always read things as closely as I should. Won't be the last time I react before understanding the fullness of the point I am reacting to. My wife complains because essentail details sometime escape me. Fortunately, this one didnt involve me losing a deposit on hotel rooms. :) Mea Culpa Maxima.

[Skeptic]

What, you mean you misread the post of someone you politically disagree with? Never happened before on this forum to anybody, I'm shocked...

[headscratcher4]

What, you mean you misread the post of someone you politically disagree with? Never happened before on this forum to anybody, I'm shocked...

:) ... But I hope you know we don't always disagree...There's been more than one holocaust denier that we have vociferously been on the same side. I know, that's easy place to forge agreement but do know of my general respect for you and your positions...even when I am too blind to agree with them. ;)

[BenBurch]

I will observe that the LOUDEST conservatives are most often the ones with the extreme views. And obviously they appear to be the voice of conservatism to many Liberals.

[pgwenthold]

I will observe that the LOUDEST conservatives are most often the ones with the extreme views. And obviously they appear to be the voice of conservatism to many Liberals.

Um, if they are the ones that are doing most of the talking, then doesn't that make them the "voice," pretty much by definition? "Conservatives who don't speak up" aren't much of a voice, I would have to say.

I don't think you mean they are mistaken for the "voice" of conservatism, but that they are mistaken for the mainstream conservatism, or something like that.

[shadron]

By the time they're teenagers it's too late. The only remedy then is a cask with a bunghole, and a stopper.

[BenBurch]

Um, if they are the ones that are doing most of the talking, then doesn't that make them the "voice," pretty much by definition? "Conservatives who don't speak up" aren't much of a voice, I would have to say.

I don't think you mean they are mistaken for the "voice" of conservatism, but that they are mistaken for the mainstream conservatism, or something like that.

Just so.