Ending the "Mexico City Policy" - Obama's Hope Begins

[RJDiogenes]

Well, I think it impossible to remove a religious person's religiousness from any discussion just as you would find it difficult to remove the non religious point of view from an atheist.

I'm talking about motivation. The reason abortion was illegal was the scientific realization that the invidual begins at conception; this was later adopted by the various churches. Today, despite 150 years of additional scientific evidence, opposition to abortion is considered by most people to be a supernatural belief.

I may not be understanding you correctly, but are you saying that there is a scientific rationalization as to when life begins now? I always thought that was really a matter of opinion

In the mid 1800s, actually; that's when enough medical knowledge had been accumulated to understand conception and the AMA issues its statement which led to modern abortion laws. That knowledge is now supported by a century and a half of further research, and modern investigational techniques such as ultrasound, molecular biology, genetics, et cetera. But somewhere along the way-- probably because religion generally takes a dim view of anything sexual or reproductive-- it became the common political paradigm that objections to abortion are based on supernatural beliefs and that the secular view supports abortion. Actually, the opposite is true.

 

[Augustus]

but isn't the phrase separation of church and state NOT ACTUALLY in the constitution?

Remember yesterday when I said a specific phrase doesn't have to be in the Constitution in order to be protected or outlawed by it as decided by later court decisions?

And isn't the only provision regarding religion that the congress should not establish a church as the state religion?

No, that's not the only thing. The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment say this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

... AN establishment OF religion..., not "THE establishment OF A religion."


As interpreted by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Starting post:::
This is why I decided to not got to law school
It is so subjective.
Supreme court cases from the 70's would not be decided the same way by today's courts. Which is one reason I don't like, but have to live with that "lemon test" regarding religion.

But I truly do not understand why a religion invalidates a point of view. I mean, let's simplify it. Let's say two people bring up a case regarding abortion and the one says I believe abortion is wrong, because of my religion. and the other says I believe abortion is ok, because of my life experiences, why is the one better than the other?

Or if it was reverse and you had the one say abortion is ok because of my religion and the other that says, my life experiences cause me believe that abortion is wrong.

I just don't see one view point being better than the other. A person's viewpoints are always influenced by something.

And with abortion it is that way. I mean the supreme court "found" the right to privacy somewhere in the constitution and used it to say that the states can't outlaw it. But really it is just a point of view.

 

[Augustus]

I'm talking about motivation. The reason abortion was illegal was the scientific realization that the invidual begins at conception; this was later adopted by the various churches. Today, despite 150 years of additional scientific evidence, opposition to abortion is considered by most people to be a supernatural belief.

I may not be understanding you correctly, but are you saying that there is a scientific rationalization as to when life begins now? I always thought that was really a matter of opinion

In the mid 1800s, actually; that's when enough medical knowledge had been accumulated to understand conception and the AMA issues its statement which led to modern abortion laws. That knowledge is now supported by a century and a half of further research, and modern investigational techniques such as ultrasound, molecular biology, genetics, et cetera. But somewhere along the way-- probably because religion generally takes a dim view of anything sexual or reproductive-- it became the common political paradigm that objections to abortion are based on supernatural beliefs and that the secular view supports abortion. Actually, the opposite is true.

OOOOOOH, I misread your previous statement.
Yeah, to me, it is hard to begin life begins much after the point of conception. But at the same time, that is not why I believe abortion is wrong.

 

[Noname Given]

.... but the purity rings were working so well!

Yep, just look at Bristol Pailin...oh, wait...

 

[T'Baio]

He did it! YAY!

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/01/23/obama-abortion.html

 

[Red Ranger]

I say, hooray for rationalism, not narrow-mindedness! I'm quite happy to see Obama reverse this ridiculous Bush policy, as well as reverse other ill-advised policies of the past eight years. Obama won, it's his turn. -- RR

 

[Gertch]

Woohoo! Obama gets to use taxpayer money to kill more kids. He's got a dusty cabinet position for any newborn that needs it.

Can't wait until he reverses Bush's Africian Aides aide. Just another of Bush's failed policies.

 

[sidious618]

I'm glad to see that he's following through on his promises.

 

[Red Ranger]

Woohoo! Obama gets to use taxpayer money to kill more kids. He's got a dusty cabinet position for any newborn that needs it.

Can't wait until he reverses Bush's Africian Aides aide. Just another of Bush's failed policies.

Careful, Gertch -- your sarcasm is showing, like a whore's thong. "Africian"? Oh, and your facile term, "Obamatism"? Sounds more like the absolutist philosopy of the not-so-dearly departed ex-President named George W. Bush. -- RR

 

[Red Ranger]

.... but the purity rings were working so well!

Yep, just look at Bristol Pailin...oh, wait...

John McCain and Sarah Palin did more to invalidate "abstinence-only" policies than a stack of Planned Parenthood brochures! -- RR

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

I say, hooray for rationalism, not narrow-mindedness! I'm quite happy to see Obama reverse this ridiculous Bush policy, as well as reverse other ill-advised policies of the past eight years. Obama won, it's his turn. -- RR

Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

 

[Red Ranger]

I say, hooray for rationalism, not narrow-mindedness! I'm quite happy to see Obama reverse this ridiculous Bush policy, as well as reverse other ill-advised policies of the past eight years. Obama won, it's his turn. -- RR

Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

The same reason my money's used to fund things I don't agree with, like Secret Service protection for George W. Bush. It's called democracy. You win some, you lose some, MT.

BTW, if you look carefully, these programs are not just abortion-only. They include discussing and providing all the family planning alternatives, including abortion, adoption, etc. Far more than Bush's old policy. So your money isn't just funding abortions.

Then again, that's typical conservative conclusion-jumping -- black and white, no shades of grey. Thanks for being predictable.

Red Ranger

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

I say, hooray for rationalism, not narrow-mindedness! I'm quite happy to see Obama reverse this ridiculous Bush policy, as well as reverse other ill-advised policies of the past eight years. Obama won, it's his turn. -- RR

2
Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

The same reason my money's used to fund things I don't agree with, like Secret Service protection for George W. Bush. It's called democracy. You win some, you lose some, MT.

BTW, if you look carefully, these programs are not just abortion-only. They include discussing and providing all the family planning alternatives, including abortion, adoption, etc. Far more than Bush's old policy. So your money isn't just funding abortions.

Then again, that's typical conservative conclusion-jumping -- black and white, no shades of grey. Thanks for being predictable.

Red Ranger

I don't care. That's not the government's job to be giving free handouts to other nations. Also, even if this money is used for good, it does not eliminate the fact that it is also being used for an immoral purpose.

I'm curious. Do you think Secret Service protection should be disallowed for all former Presidents, or just Bush?

 

[Red Ranger]

2
Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

The same reason my money's used to fund things I don't agree with, like Secret Service protection for George W. Bush. It's called democracy. You win some, you lose some, MT.

BTW, if you look carefully, these programs are not just abortion-only. They include discussing and providing all the family planning alternatives, including abortion, adoption, etc. Far more than Bush's old policy. So your money isn't just funding abortions.

Then again, that's typical conservative conclusion-jumping -- black and white, no shades of grey. Thanks for being predictable.

Red Ranger

I don't care. That's not the government's job to be giving free handouts to other nations. Also, even if this money is used for good, it does not eliminate the fact that it is also being used for an immoral purpose.

I'm curious. Do you think Secret Service protection should be disallowed for all former Presidents, or just Bush?

I think Obama was definitely onto something when he said in his inauguaration speech that what was more important is that government works, not whether it should be big or small.

Your tired thinking -- "government handouts, waaaah!" is part of the reason the Republicans lost in '08.

As for Secret Service protection: Yes, discontinue it for all ex-Presidents and let them hire private security firms, most of which are staffed by security experts. After all, all ex-presidents have a lot of money!

Think of it as an indirect stimulus to the economy -- discontinuing government protection and outsourcing it to the private sector would provide jobs! Isn't that part of your mantra, Meat Tenderizer?

And you are aware that Bush will lose Secret Service protection after a certain number of years?

Red Ranger

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

The same reason my money's used to fund things I don't agree with, like Secret Service protection for George W. Bush. It's called democracy. You win some, you lose some, MT.

BTW, if you look carefully, these programs are not just abortion-only. They include discussing and providing all the family planning alternatives, including abortion, adoption, etc. Far more than Bush's old policy. So your money isn't just funding abortions.

Then again, that's typical conservative conclusion-jumping -- black and white, no shades of grey. Thanks for being predictable.

Red Ranger

I don't care. That's not the government's job to be giving free handouts to other nations. Also, even if this money is used for good, it does not eliminate the fact that it is also being used for an immoral purpose.

I'm curious. Do you think Secret Service protection should be disallowed for all former Presidents, or just Bush?

I think Obama was definitely onto something when he said in his inauguaration speech that what was more important is that government works, not whether it should be big or small.

Your tired thinking -- "government handouts, waaaah!" is part of the reason the Republicans lost in '08.

Lofty rhetoric, but it signifies nothing.

As for Secret Service protection: Yes, discontinue it for all ex-Presidents and let them hire private security firms, most of which are staffed by security experts. After all, all ex-presidents have a lot of money!

Think of it as an indirect stimulus to the economy -- discontinuing government protection and outsourcing it to the private sector would provide jobs! Isn't that part of your mantra, Meat Tenderizer?

And you are aware that Bush will lose Secret Service protection after a certain number of years?

Red Ranger

It used to be for life, until it was changed back in 1997.

 

[Red Ranger]

I don't care. That's not the government's job to be giving free handouts to other nations. Also, even if this money is used for good, it does not eliminate the fact that it is also being used for an immoral purpose.

I'm curious. Do you think Secret Service protection should be disallowed for all former Presidents, or just Bush?

I think Obama was definitely onto something when he said in his inauguaration speech that what was more important is that government works, not whether it should be big or small.

Your tired thinking -- "government handouts, waaaah!" is part of the reason the Republicans lost in '08.

Lofty rhetoric, but it signifies nothing.

As for Secret Service protection: Yes, discontinue it for all ex-Presidents and let them hire private security firms, most of which are staffed by security experts. After all, all ex-presidents have a lot of money!

Think of it as an indirect stimulus to the economy -- discontinuing government protection and outsourcing it to the private sector would provide jobs! Isn't that part of your mantra, Meat Tenderizer?

And you are aware that Bush will lose Secret Service protection after a certain number of years?

Red Ranger

It used to be for life, until it was changed back in 1997.

Oh, you man the lofty rhetoric of "government is bad" that's been discredited? The difference in ending the Mexico City policy is that Obama's means more choices, while Bush's meant "my way of the highway." -- RR

 

[DAK]

Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

Why should my money be used to fund "faith based initiatives"? How many people were indoctrinated into christianity on my tax dollar because they fell on hard times and needed help? 'Cause we all know that help from a religious group comes with a price tag.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

Why should my money be used to fund "faith based initiatives"? How many people were indoctrinated into christianity on my tax dollar because they fell on hard times and needed help? 'Cause we all know that help from a religious group comes with a price tag.

That's a good question, but it is still a red herring.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

I think Obama was definitely onto something when he said in his inauguaration speech that what was more important is that government works, not whether it should be big or small.

Your tired thinking -- "government handouts, waaaah!" is part of the reason the Republicans lost in '08.

Lofty rhetoric, but it signifies nothing.

As for Secret Service protection: Yes, discontinue it for all ex-Presidents and let them hire private security firms, most of which are staffed by security experts. After all, all ex-presidents have a lot of money!

Think of it as an indirect stimulus to the economy -- discontinuing government protection and outsourcing it to the private sector would provide jobs! Isn't that part of your mantra, Meat Tenderizer?

And you are aware that Bush will lose Secret Service protection after a certain number of years?

Red Ranger

It used to be for life, until it was changed back in 1997.

Oh, you man the lofty rhetoric of "government is bad" that's been discredited? The difference in ending the Mexico City policy is that Obama's means more choices, while Bush's meant "my way of the highway." -- RR

I never said government was bad. But there are certain areas where it does not belong.

 

[Teelie]

Why should my money be used to fund abortion? Hardly constitutional.

Why should my money be used to fund "faith based initiatives"? How many people were indoctrinated into christianity on my tax dollar because they fell on hard times and needed help? 'Cause we all know that help from a religious group comes with a price tag.

That's a good question, but it is still a red herring.

Not really. If you want to play with the concept of the government being moral, then you have to accept that not everyone is going to agree what is moral. And not everyone agrees it's moral for the government to fund certain groups you find acceptable. Which I beleive is the basis of your argument.

Also, even if this money is used for good, it does not eliminate the fact that it is also being used for an immoral purpose.

Yup, that's what you're saying.