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

[Red Ranger]

The bottom line is this. The pro-life faction doesn't allow for any other decision a woman makes about her body. The pro-choice faction allows for all options, including having the child. So I'd rather be on that broader, more inclusive side than the more absolute side. Simple choice in my view!

The most effective pro-choice ad I ever saw was the one that had a bunch of stern-looking guys in suits with the heading, and I'm paraphrasing, "About 70% of pro-life people are men -- 100% of them will never be pregnant."

Let's put it another way, guys -- suppose women were in the majority in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and they, without concern for a man's ability to control his own body and reproductive choices, passed laws telling you how to control those affairs. I'm sure most of you pro-life guys would be spitting mad.

I'm just saying!

Red Ranger

 

[Amaris]

New to America, are you?

Ninth Amendment.

Tenth Amendment.

You do realize that neither of the amendments you posted have anything to do with what Meat Tenderizer was saying? In fact the 10th amendment directly supports the argument. That's the whole purpose of the enumerated powers, though the general welfare clause & the commerce clause have been taken to give a general power of legislation to Congress (something it was not originally intended).

Another recent arrival?

Meat Tenderizer said: "Anything that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden." This is the polar opposite of the American way, as stated (among other places) in the Ninth Amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything that is not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."

This is one of the things that made the establishment of the United States revolutionary; throughout history, in most, if not all, civilizations, the answer was assumed to be "no," unless someone in power condescended to say "yes." In the United States, the exact opposite is true. And this is not exactly some arcane secret either; it's common knowledge.

VERY common knowledge, I might add.


J.

 

[Michael Chris]

Very common incorrect knowledge. Yes, the federal government has greatly extended and implied powers compared to the founding intent (even Hamilton's), but there are still definitely limits on the actions of the government not having to do with the infringement of rights.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

Except that argument consists of a logical fallacy (the slippery slope).

Well, yes, but I didn't say it was my argument, now did I? I would prefer a lot more to be actually spelled out. It would make being flexible in an emergency or in new situations a bit of a pain, though, unless it were done just right.

I never said it was yours.

P.S. I find your signature offensive on a personal level. I don't expect you to change it, I just feel the need to mention it.

You are not the first person to have said that.

You do realize that neither of the amendments you posted have anything to do with what Meat Tenderizer was saying? In fact the 10th amendment directly supports the argument. That's the whole purpose of the enumerated powers, though the general welfare clause & the commerce clause have been taken to give a general power of legislation to Congress (something it was not originally intended).

Another recent arrival?

Meat Tenderizer said: "Anything that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden." This is the polar opposite of the American way, as stated (among other places) in the Ninth Amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything that is not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."

This is one of the things that made the establishment of the United States revolutionary; throughout history, in most, if not all, civilizations, the answer was assumed to be "no," unless someone in power condescended to say "yes." In the United States, the exact opposite is true. And this is not exactly some arcane secret either; it's common knowledge.

VERY common knowledge, I might add.


J.

The rights of the people are distinct from the powers of the government. This is something you must understand.

 

[Red Ranger]

I've noticed conservatives and liberals apply this principle of how much or how little government should do in a selective fashion. It all depends on what your priorities are.

Take a look at the stimulus package voted on today in the House of Representatives. Despite the fact President Obama and House Democrats made some concessions to try and win GOP support, not a single Republican voted for the bill! I know Obama wants to have a bi-partisan bill, but it appears the GOP is mired in its ideology. It will pass anyway, but it doesn't bode well for any Kumbaya moments in Washington.

Red Ranger

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

That is a non-sequitur. What do treaties have to do with anything we are discussing?

Treaties define relationships with foreign countries.

Which has no bearing on this discussion.

Unlimited construction of roads is allowed under the Constitution, and NASA would be Constitutional as long as it was a branch of one of the armed services.

It's not and I don't see either listed in any itemized allowances in the Constitution; therefore they are illegal.

Article 1, Section 8

"To Establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

There is the authority granted by the Constitution. There is no debate; it simply exists.

Also, the interstate highway system serves defense purposes as well.

As for NASA, it should not be allowed under the Constitution as it stands.

Where do you glean this information from? I already pointed out the tenth amendment. Where is the amendment backing up your position?

Er... what? Where do I get my information that the Government can't violate the Constitution and that Congressmen are elected to pass laws? Are you kidding?

No, where do you get your information that Congress can pass any law as long it does not violate specific rights delegated directly to the people in the Constitution. Where do you get the idea that Congress has powers other than what is granted by the Constitution? This is contrary to the Constitution's own wording, for all powers that are not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or people.

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Let's put it another way, guys -- suppose women were in the majority in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and they, without concern for a man's ability to control his own body and reproductive choices, passed laws telling you how to control those affairs. I'm sure most of you pro-life guys would be spitting mad.

Your analogy doesn't work unless there's another Human life at stake.

Which has no bearing on this discussion.

Except for the little part about eliminating foreign aid.

"To Establish Post Offices and post Roads;"

There is the authority granted by the Constitution. There is no debate; it simply exists.

Right, the interstate highway system was created to transport mail.

Also, the interstate highway system serves defense purposes as well.

And, um, let's see... it helps people to peacefully assemble, too.

As for NASA, it should not be allowed under the Constitution as it stands.

There you go. At least in this case, you're being consistent.

No, where do you get your information that Congress can pass any law as long it does not violate specific rights delegated directly to the people in the Constitution.

Jefferson, Hamilton et al.

 

[Michael Chris]

No, where do you get your information that Congress can pass any law as long it does not violate specific rights delegated directly to the people in the Constitution.

Jefferson, Hamilton et al.

Then you really should take a refresher course on both.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

Which has no bearing on this discussion.

Except for the little part about eliminating foreign aid.[/quote]

Refer to the relevant treaty then we will talk.

Right, the interstate highway system was created to transport mail.

Not the sole purpose, but it is quite usable for mail transportation.

And, um, let's see... it helps people to peacefully assemble, too.

Your sarcasm is unwanted.

As for NASA, it should not be allowed under the Constitution as it stands.

There you go. At least in this case, you're being consistent.

I always am.

No, where do you get your information that Congress can pass any law as long it does not violate specific rights delegated directly to the people in the Constitution.

Jefferson, Hamilton et al.

Provide some quotes, if you can.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Right, the interstate highway system was created to transport mail.

I doubt that the volume of mail that is moved by the postal services could be achieved without bulk carriers of some sort. Sea carriers are impractical for reaching inland destinations, and air carriers would consume a lot more fuel. Trains, or trucks and roads designed to handle them travelling pretty fast, are the logical means.

But actually, the interstate system was created primarily in pursuit of providing for the common defense, aka national security. It just happens to have a lot of other nifty uses.

(As an aside, did you know the WHOLE interstate system "only" cost 425 billion 2006-adjusted dollars? I hope we get something equally nice for the stimulus bill they're working on now. I'm afraid we've already seen that we won't for the TARP money. )

Curious: you would argue against the interstate system as unConstitutional. How about the Internet? Metaphorically, it is a "post road". Same question to Meat Tenderizer, or anyone else that wants to comment.

Your sarcasm is unwanted.

That was sarcasm? I took it literally. Facilitating peaceful assembly could be construed as a Constitutional imperative.

Doesn't really seem to help the rest of the argument, though, now that you mention it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Refer to the relevant treaty then we will talk.

Any one with a country that receives foreign aid will do.

Provide some quotes, if you can.

"National Bank." "Louisiana Purchase."

But actually, the interstate system was created primarily in pursuit of providing for the common defense, aka national security. It just happens to have a lot of other nifty uses.

So the man said, but I think it was primarily about commerce. Although he was pretty paranoid about the Russkies....

Curious: you would argue against the interstate system as unConstitutional. How about the Internet?

I wasn't; I was making a point about Implied Powers.

 

[Strider]

The bottom line is this. The pro-life faction doesn't allow for any other decision a woman makes about her body. The pro-choice faction allows for all options, including having the child. So I'd rather be on that broader, more inclusive side than the more absolute side. Simple choice in my view!

It would be broader and more inclusive to allow anybody to do anything they want at any time. What must be determined is whether or not said options are moral or just or in accordance to the society we want to create. I consider myself to be pro-choice about all kinds of things, but very few people would be pro-choice about letting other people choose to get drunk and drive a hundred miles an hour through the middle of town. We clearly recognize that some choices cannot or should not be made based on the consequences of those choices on others.

Is aborting a fetus one of those choices that should not be made? I believe so, because I believe an unborn child is more than just a part of the mother's body to be disposed of at will. You apparently disagree, which is understandable and I won't condemn you for it. That's the point on which we disagree, not on the question of whether people should have more choices. On the issue of choice, I think women should have access to all kinds of choices and options. Abortion is just something I don't believe should be a man's right or a woman's right, as I believe that it is taking away the life of another human being. I even oppose the death penalty on those grounds.

The most effective pro-choice ad I ever saw was the one that had a bunch of stern-looking guys in suits with the heading, and I'm paraphrasing, "About 70% of pro-life people are men -- 100% of them will never be pregnant."

You'll have to cite your sources there, and an ad isn't going to cut it.

Let's put it another way, guys -- suppose women were in the majority in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and they, without concern for a man's ability to control his own body and reproductive choices, passed laws telling you how to control those affairs. I'm sure most of you pro-life guys would be spitting mad.

I'm just saying!

Red Ranger

That's true. If we all agreed that without a doubt what was at issue was whether or not I should be allowed to control my body in a way that brings no harm to others, than yes I would be spitting mad. That is not the focus of the abortion debate. Put away your straw man and try to consider the pro-life position with the slightest bit of respect. If there's anything that the passionately pro-life and the passionately pro-choice share, it's a sincere passion for the lives and well-being of women and children. That's a foundation we can build on.

 

[T'Baio]

If there's anything that the passionately pro-life and the passionately pro-choice share, it's a sincere passion for the lives and well-being of women and children.

Really?

 

[Red Ranger]

^Strider,

I'll at least commend you for being consistent on being not only against abortion but the death penalty. That makes you unique. I'm on the opposite side of the fence -- I'm probably one of the few pro-choice, pro-death penalty liberals you'll ever meet.

The problem with the pro-life folks is that not only do they want to stop abortions -- a not completly unlaudable goal -- they also want to restrict or prohibit any information or services of a contraceptive nature, which includes funding for sex education, like the governor of Alaska (we see how well that worked for her daughter). It amounts to (mostly) men trying to force women to have children.

As it's the 21st century, women, as well as men, should be free to make their own decisons. One of the few things Ross Perot's running mate, Admiral Stockdale, said during that campaign in 1992 that made sense, bless his heart, was that it's a woman's business. Period.

Some people would argue that men masturbating is killing life, too. I'm sure there's some sect out there preaching that.

I stand by my statement that the pro-choice option, as implied by the word, means there are options.

Red Ranger

 

[Strider]

"National Bank." "Louisiana Purchase."

It's so funny you would mention Jefferson and Hamilton in the same breath like that and then use these two examples as evidence. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other. Jefferson hated the national bank and really agonized about the Louisiana Purchase precisely because he felt it to be an abuse of power by the executive. He was probably right, even though it was likely the best decision at the time. The fact is, you are using some pretty outstanding examples of departures from what many of the founders believed to be the Constitution's original intent.

Really?

Your apparent confusion only proves your own ignorance. That's okay, it's shared by plenty of people on both sides. Neither pro-lifers nor pro-choicers are monsters, just people who have a profound disagreement. As a demon pro-lifer, I assure you my passion in life isn't to keep down womankind. It is to help provide support and well-being to as many people as possible in a way that is in accordance with my values. This is true of every person who ever genuinely cared about someone besides themselves ever. You may disagree with our methods or our presuppositions, but don't doubt that we are trying to do good.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

Refer to the relevant treaty then we will talk.

Any one with a country that receives foreign aid will do.

Provide one that pertains to providing funds of a nature relating to abortion.

Provide some quotes, if you can.

"National Bank." "Louisiana Purchase."

There was great debate about the Constitutionality of the Nationa Bank at the time, but even Hamilton though the bank only existed to carry out the specifically delegated powers granted by Constitution by Congress.

The Louisiana Purchase was not Constitutional. Jefferson knew that.

But actually, the interstate system was created primarily in pursuit of providing for the common defense, aka national security. It just happens to have a lot of other nifty uses.

So the man said, but I think it was primarily about commerce. Although he was pretty paranoid about the Russkies....

What you think is irrelevant; the facts are paramount.

Curious: you would argue against the interstate system as unConstitutional. How about the Internet?

I wasn't; I was making a point about Implied Powers.

We don't need to use the vagueness of the implied powers to justify the building of roads.

 

[Strider]

I apologize, I feel like I'm hijacking this thread so let me answer Red Ranger then I'll take it easy.

^Strider,

I'll at least commend you for being consistent on being not only against abortion but the death penalty. That makes you unique.

Not exactly, but I understand what you're saying. A LOT of evangelical Christians think they can be pro-war and pro-death penalty but pro-life when it comes to abortion. That's a profoundly illogical position and I think that's why it gets a lot of press. I come from a non-denominational background and am planning to join the Catholic Church, in a small part because they seem to me to have a much more coherent philosophy of life. Most Catholics I've met express opposition to the taking of human life in any context, including the death penalty. I believe that human life has intrinsic value from conception to natural death and that it isn't our right to mess with that, no matter how much we might want to.

The problem with the pro-life folks is that not only do they want to stop abortions -- a not completly unlaudable goal -- they also want to restrict or prohibit any information or services of a contraceptive nature, which includes funding for sex education, like the governor of Alaska (we see how well that worked for her daughter). It amounts to (mostly) men trying to force women to have children.

Yeah, I don't like that either. Here's the thing, I think there's a lot of merit to the Catholic Church's idea of natural family planning and sexual morals and it's opposition to birth control. I think it's a philosophy that actually embraces and cherishes sexuality a great deal, but in a different way than 21st Century America would recognize. That said, in the real world it's just not going to work for everyone. A lot of people just flat out disagree with it or find it to be too demanding or whatever. You have every right to disagree. America isn't a Catholic/Christian nation and it never should be. The establishment clause is a wonderful thing. That's why I can't really oppose distributing condoms and making birth control available. However, understand that there's a not-altogether-misguided reason that many people oppose birth control. I disagree with them, but I do understand them.

As it's the 21st century, women, as well as men, should be free to make their own decisons. One of the few things Ross Perot's running mate, Admiral Stockdale, said during that campaign in 1992 that made sense, bless his heart, was that it's a woman's business. Period.

No one would disagree with you, least of all me. Of course, you wouldn't support a woman's right to kill her two-year-old child, right? I see a moral equivalence between killing a born child and an unborn child. I also believe the state has a right to interfere in cases of murder. You are free to disagree with one or both of these positions, but just know that this is where we disagree. I'm pretty feminist about most things. That's not the issue.

Some people would argue that men masturbating is killing life, too. I'm sure there's some sect out there preaching that.

I imagine that's the case. If that were true, women would be committing murder ever time they menstruated. I believe it's a combination of the sperm and egg that creates a new human life. If people want to think that jacking off=genocide, I guess that's their right.

I stand by my statement that the pro-choice option, as implied by the word, means there are options.

Red Ranger

Fair enough, for that you have my respect. One option for preventing a pregnancy is to kill both the mother and the fetus at the same time. Of course, we both detest that option so you're already okay with limiting some options. Where to set the limit is what we disagree on.

 

[Red Ranger]

I apologize, I feel like I'm hijacking this thread so let me answer Red Ranger then I'll take it easy.

^Strider,

I'll at least commend you for being consistent on being not only against abortion but the death penalty. That makes you unique.

Not exactly, but I understand what you're saying. A LOT of evangelical Christians think they can be pro-war and pro-death penalty but pro-life when it comes to abortion. That's a profoundly illogical position and I think that's why it gets a lot of press. I come from a non-denominational background and am planning to join the Catholic Church, in a small part because they seem to me to have a much more coherent philosophy of life. Most Catholics I've met express opposition to the taking of human life in any context, including the death penalty. I believe that human life has intrinsic value from conception to natural death and that it isn't our right to mess with that, no matter how much we might want to.

The problem with the pro-life folks is that not only do they want to stop abortions -- a not completly unlaudable goal -- they also want to restrict or prohibit any information or services of a contraceptive nature, which includes funding for sex education, like the governor of Alaska (we see how well that worked for her daughter). It amounts to (mostly) men trying to force women to have children.

Yeah, I don't like that either. Here's the thing, I think there's a lot of merit to the Catholic Church's idea of natural family planning and sexual morals and it's opposition to birth control. I think it's a philosophy that actually embraces and cherishes sexuality a great deal, but in a different way than 21st Century America would recognize. That said, in the real world it's just not going to work for everyone. A lot of people just flat out disagree with it or find it to be too demanding or whatever. You have every right to disagree. America isn't a Catholic/Christian nation and it never should be. The establishment clause is a wonderful thing. That's why I can't really oppose distributing condoms and making birth control available. However, understand that there's a not-altogether-misguided reason that many people oppose birth control. I disagree with them, but I do understand them.

No one would disagree with you, least of all me. Of course, you wouldn't support a woman's right to kill her two-year-old child, right? I see a moral equivalence between killing a born child and an unborn child. I also believe the state has a right to interfere in cases of murder. You are free to disagree with one or both of these positions, but just know that this is where we disagree. I'm pretty feminist about most things. That's not the issue.

Some people would argue that men masturbating is killing life, too. I'm sure there's some sect out there preaching that.

I imagine that's the case. If that were true, women would be committing murder ever time they menstruated. I believe it's a combination of the sperm and egg that creates a new human life. If people want to think that jacking off=genocide, I guess that's their right.

I stand by my statement that the pro-choice option, as implied by the word, means there are options.

Red Ranger

Fair enough, for that you have my respect. One option for preventing a pregnancy is to kill both the mother and the fetus at the same time. Of course, we both detest that option so you're already okay with limiting some options. Where to set the limit is what we disagree on.

Strider,

You're not hijacking the thread, because at the root is the pro-life/pro-choice debate. You are correct that there are options I wouldn't consider, like killing both the mother and the fetus.

Make no mistake, I don't like abortion. I would prefer that men and women use reliable contraceptives, not the somewhat unreliable method condoned by the Catholic Church like the rhythm method. But again, if that's what someone wants to use, who am I to stop them or dissuade them? It's a choice.

Nice to know you're not a woman-hating pro-lifer. As you well know, the same can't be said for some others who share your objection to abortion. And some of those folks won't even make an exception in the case of rape, incest, or threat of death to the mother.

I've also found that many folks on the other side, while promoting childbirth vs. abortion, tend to be the ones who want to cut funding for AFDC or other programs like that. In other words, "Have the baby. After that, you're on your own!"

Now, if only more folks with your values and tolerance vis-a-vis contraception existed on your side, we might have a more civilized debate, instead of extremist hate on both sides, or bombing of clinics where not only abortions but other family planning actitivities go on. I always wondered how killing doctors and other innocent people was in any way pro-life.

Red Ranger

 

[T'Baio]

Really?

Your apparent confusion only proves your own ignorance.

Your apparent presumption only proves your own arrogance.

 

[Strider]

Your apparent presumption only proves your own arrogance.

Touche. You're welcome to join the debate when and if you tire of one liners. I'm happy to listen.

@Red Ranger: My intent obviously isn't to solve the debate for good and always. The problem is that both sides tend to demonize the positions of the other, which is too bad. I hope I've presented a slightly more humane treatment of the pro-life position than you've heard before. At the same time, I'm always open to hearing what pro-choicers have to say. I understand that pro-choicers don't hate babies any more than I hate women. Not hardly. Finding solutions together is the only way we'll get out of this.

Edit:

I've also found that many folks on the other side, while promoting childbirth vs. abortion, tend to be the ones who want to cut funding for AFDC or other programs like that. In other words, "Have the baby. After that, you're on your own!"

And there's the key. I'm actually planning on visiting a pregnancy resource center soon to learn how they operate and what their needs are. I'd like to see a greater relationship between local churches and pregnancy resource centers in providing supplies, places to stay, etc. I'd like to start with my local parish and see where it goes. Supporting pregnant women is the best thing a pro-life person can do.

Now, if only more folks with your values and tolerance vis-a-vis contraception existed on your side, we might have a more civilized debate, instead of extremist hate on both sides, or bombing of clinics where not only abortions but other family planning actitivities go on. I always wondered how killing doctors and other innocent people was in any way pro-life.

Well there's two of us right here. I hate the extremism. I hate it when people kill the doctors and blow up the clinics. How you can claim to be pro-life while taking lives is entirely beyond me. This problem will be solved with talking, love, and a lot of hard work, not more killing.