[galveston]

This from the Susan B Anthony list:

The Obama Administration's roll-out of Department of Justice appointments has been like a greatest hits parade of abortion advocates.

The latest pro-abortion lawyer to go before the Senate for confirmation is the worst yet.

While it comes as no surprise that President Obama would nominate administration officials who share his pro-abortion beliefs, it is shocking that he would nominate someone as radical as Dawn Johnsen.

Here is a just a short list of Dawn Johnsen's pro-abortion record.

- Dawn Johnsen has worked for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project and she was the legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

- Johnsen has compared pregnancy to slavery. In 1989, she wrote that abortion restrictions such as the partial-birth abortion ban and parental notification laws result in “forced pregnancies,”which she claimed amounts to “involuntary servitude."

- She has argued that the government should strip the Catholic Church and other religious denominations of their tax exempt status because of their pro-life advocacy.

- She was heavily involved in the authorship of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would repeal every state and federal restriction on abortion and further enshrine abortion as the law of the land.

- In a paper given to mark the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, she said the first priority of the progressive agenda was to “focus on the courts as the vehicle of desired change.”

The Office of Legal Counsel advises the federal government on how to interpret policy, law, and regulations in light of the Constitution. In other words, Dawn Johnsen will determine the legal course of the entire government.

I see nothing bi-partisan here!

[excon]

Hello gal:

I'm sorry. Abortion in this country is legal. It should be no surprise that he appoints lawyers to the Justice Department who support the present law. As a matter of fact, it would be surprising if he appointed people to the Justice Department who DIDN'T believe in the law.

That's was what Gonzales did, and he STILL doesn't have a job after he disgraced himself like that.

excon

[NeedKarma]

Excon,

That's the correct answer, here you go:

[tomder55]

Abortion in this country is legal. It should be no surprise that he appoints lawyers to the Justice Department who support the present law.

She was heavily involved in the authorship of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would repeal every state and federal restriction on abortion and further enshrine abortion as the law of the land.

Ex what happened to your defense of federalism ?

[excon]

Ex what happened to your defense of federalism ?

Hello again, tom:

There are some things that are the states business and other things that aren't. One's civil rights, as guaranteed to us under the Constitution, aren't the states business.

excon

[tomder55]

What about the civil rights of the murdered baby ?

[NeedKarma]

what about the civil rights of the murdered baby ?

There is no murdered baby so the question is moot.

[excon]

what about the civil rights of the murdered baby ?

Hello again, tom:

Show me where they are in the Constitution, and I'll be right there with you.

But, this isn't about Roe v Wade. It's about using the Justice Department to forward a political philosophy...

It's true. Alberto Gonzales still doesn't know that what he did, isn't something he should have done. Apparently, you guys are STILL lost about stuff like that. I don't know why.

excon

[tomder55]

It's about using the Justice Department to forward a political philosophy...

Or SCOTUS imposing national solutions on what previously was a federalism issue. I contend that some kind of national consensus on this issue would've been achieved ,or closer to resolution, if Roe had not ruled on by SCOTUS .

Show me where they are in the Constitution, and I'll be right there with you

Ummm first words in the Preamble about the right to life.

Show me where taking another life is a civil right.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Roe v Wade isn't good law. But, it's better than what we had before.

Hard as it may be to believe, you're preaching to the choir.

Many of my political positions distinguish between how I, personally, would act, and how I want my government to act. This would be one of those.

excon

[Skell]

Show me where taking another life is a civil right.

You have no problem when your government takes anothers life on your behalf.

[tomder55]

Correct . When someone serves notice on society that he/she is a predator then I have no moral qualm with the death penalty because they have forfeited their right to life. Maybe that distinction escapes you because of relativism but to me there is a big difference between that person and the most innocent of society .

[speechlesstx]

Maybe by the end of the Obama years this writer will have his wish.

It's Time for an Abortion Pride Movement

Somehow, many supporters of abortion rights have been lulled into accepting the rhetoric that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” That may be good language for winning elections, but it does a profound disservice to the millions of women who have abortions in this nation each year. Abortions should be safe and legal. That goes without saying. But rare? Abortions should be as frequent or as infrequent as are unwanted pregnancies. I dream of the day when women are not afraid to walk the streets with pins reading, “I had an abortion and it was the right decision,” and when station wagons bear bumper-stickers announcing, “Thank me for having an abortion when I wasn’t ready to be a parent.” I admire those individuals who work to ensure a women’s right to choose. But choice is a merely a foundation. Ultimately, women—if they so desire—should feel comfortable expressing public pride in their brave and wise choices.

This "bioethicist" apparently thinks there should be one abortion for every unwanted pregnancy. And that my friends is why we should proceed with caution in endorsing such radical judges. Regardless of your view of abortion we should all be able to agree that the fewer the better, as opposed to the day when "Honk if you had an abortion" bumper stickers are something to be proud of.

[galveston]

There is no murdered baby so the question is moot.

This is only tangent to the OP, but since you brought it up, I want to say something.

You claim to have a lot of respect for science, but science does NOT support your statement. I have read posts where you called a baby a blob of cells.

From the moment of conceptiion, every cell has a purpose, is not misplaced. That is a human life, perfect and complete for that moment in its development. All it needs is time to become an adult.

How much time? We consider a person adult when they become 18 years old.

Shall we say it is OK to terminate that life at the age of 17 years? After all, it is not fully developed yet.

But we have Obama and his appointee calling for return to even partial birth abortion. Surely you do not think that is right, do you?

Babies move and respond to stimuli very early in the pregnancy. By the time life is felt by the mother, the brain is already being formed. At what point does the baby feel pain?

When the killer with the degree cuts that baby into pieces, does it feel anything?

When that baby comes to birth, and that doctor plunges scissors into its head and proceeds to vacuum the brain out, do you think it might hurt?

But of course as long as you can deceive yourself that it is just a blob of cells, you won't be disturbed.

[excon]

Hello Righty's:

Roe v Wade is NOT going to get overturned. If it EVER was going to be, it would have been in the dufus administration, while the court was 5 to 4.

But, that shot is LONG gone. It's time you got over it. Oh, you should keep on mentioning it as a wish list, kind of like I wish pot would be legal.

But, to expect that your views will get a hearing in the Obama administration, is like whistling Dixie.

excon

[speechlesstx]

But, to expect that your views will get a hearing in the Obama administration, is like whistling Dixie.

Gee, then he shouldn't have made so much about how "bipartisan" he would be if he had no intention of listening to us at all.

[excon]

Gee, then he shouldn't have made so much about how "bipartisan" he would be if he had no intention of listening to us at all.

Hello again, Steve:

No. YOU shouldn't make so much about it. I don't know why you think bipartisanship means voting for Republican stuff. It doesn't.

Certainly, the Republicans in congress aren't voting for any Democrat stuff.

Maybe the days of bipartisanship are gone. Oh well.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

No. YOU shouldn't make so much about it. I don't know why you think bipartisanship means voting for Republican stuff. It doesn't.

I'm still amazed at how quickly minds have changed since Jan. 20. Before that it was an OUTRAGE that the president didn't keep his promise of reaching across the aisle... now we should just sit down and shut up and not expect the president to keep his promises. Sorry, but it's still MY America, too, just like it was for the other side all those agonizing Bush years.

I think I've posted the definition of bipartisan twice now, so once more for posterity:

of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

I have never spoken from the position that bipartisan means "voting for Republican stuff," unlike the left who ALWAYS speaks of bipartisan from the position of voting for liberal stuff.

[ETWolverine]

Many of my political positions distinguish between how I, personally, would act, and how I want my government to act. This would be one of those.

That's a cop-out Excon, and you know it.

If something is wrong, then it is wrong, and whether it is done by the government or by individuals doesn't change that fact. It isn't wrong for individuals but right for the government. It's just wrong.

I believe that ponzi schemes are wrong. I believe they are wrong whether they are done by individuals (Bernie Madoff) or by the government (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid).

I believe that necessary killing in self defense or defense of others is RIGHT, whether done by an individual (Bernie Goetz) or by the government (cops and soldiers and capital punishment).

I believe that murdering babies is wrong, whether done by individuals (the Texas Mom murders) or by government sanction (abortion).

This whole concept of "I believe it is wrong but I grant others the right to do it" is just an excuse to not stand up for what I believe in. Its an excuse to back down from principals... or perhaps not have principals at all on this issue.

Elliot

[galveston]

Why, oh why is the right to life the domain of either political party?

Go ahead, then, ignore your conscience and kill off all those future taxpayers.

Then be prepared when the survivors (those not deleted) embrace your philosophy about life and pass laws to delete all you over the age of maybe 65.

After all, that would be fair wouldn't it? You delete those under the total age of 9 months and then you get deleted at age 65.

PS: Be sure to provide well for what little retirement you may get because there will be no younger generation able to help you.