Not too early is it? 2008 Presidential fun

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But in my examples, there were only benefits to Americans and no harm to any. So those kind of so-called "Christian" morals, I submit, are inappropriate to anyone who takes the presidential oath of office.

The belief that life in the womb is deserving of protection isn't necessarily a Christian one (it is common to many religions and I know several pro-life atheists), and to a large swath of people by allowing abortion you are forcing your morality on a human being (the aborted). The distinction between life worthy of protection and life not worthy of protection is a subjective moral one.

That's why it is a decision best left to our nation's deliberative body and neither the president nor the courts.

Torturing prisoners at Guantanamo also does no harm to any Americans.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, I picked a label. But I don't care which religion ... NO religion gets to choose who is an American. That is determined by the Constitution, and the Constitution ALONE.

And I believe the requirements are either being naturalized or being BORN in the United States of America. I could give two craps when Religion A or B or G for God says life starts ... the Constitution says you're not an American until you are BORN.

The oath the President takes is one to value the protection of Americans -- over non-Americans, if need be. Even if the President decides zygotes and fetusi are alive, he does not get to decide they are Americans. And so, by the morality I deem he is oathbound to, he must protect Americans' rights and lives and pursuits of happiness over those of Russians, Tasmanians, and embryos.



Is anyone here going to argue that fetusus can be Americans, or does the plain language of BORN state quite clearly what the requirement is? (I don't suppose a fetus can take any solemn oath, so there's no chance for one to become naturalized either, I'm afraid).



That takes care of stem cell research and reproductive rights.

But what about homosexuals? I believe the Constitution declares them Americans if they are born here or become naturalized, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference or hellbound horny desire. Since harm to any other single solitary American cannot be demonstrated in the face of gay marriage allowance .... it's the oathbound President's office-holding morality to protect their rights and not seek to deny them.


Is someone going to argue against the President's over-riding duty being to uphold his oath of office? Does that oath trump religious convictions and previous morals, or doesn't it?



.

[Alex]

So far as I know, it is illegal for me to murder a Canadian in the United States.

So far as I know, it is illegal for me to hang my dog by its tail and treat it like a pinata.

Why are their rights places above mine. I'm the American. They're not protected by our Constitution.

[Strangler Lewis]

The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process of law to persons. (Persons, it was understood at the time of the 14th amendment would include corporations.) In Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that fetuses are not "persons" and therefore have no life or liberty interest that the government should protect (even assuming that abortion could be deemed state action in some respect). Roe has nothing to do with citizenship or who is an American.

Dogs also are not people. Therefore, they are not protected under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This is not to say that states or localities cannot hold their own dog courts before deciding whether or not a dog should be put down.

As far as the "leave it to Congress" view, I'm not at all sure that Congress really has the power under the Constitution to pass laws prohibiting some or all abortions, private homosexual conduct, etc.

[Alex]

Of course Congress doesn't have that power because the Supreme Court enforced a moral decision that was in the process of being debated in this country. But if the Supreme Court changes their mind (which is why it is stupid that this was settled by the Supreme Court in the first place) then Congress will have the power and the SC won't have begun forcing a morality on us they'll have just changed which morality they want to force on us.

I don't really have a problem with the decision they made (I think life begins at conception and life gains protections at puberty), I have a problem with the fact that they made it.

There are many federal laws that protect "non persons" (I can't shoot my pet bald eagle by federal law) and it is a big push among segments of those "smart" progressives to extend due process to all kinds of entities that do not traditionally warrant it. And as the scope of due process increases it becomes increasingly awkward to exclude a fetus.

What I am arguing against is that somehow congress or the president could make any decision that is not forcing a morality on the nation.

My view is that, except in his capacity as commander-in-chief, the president should almost never be the one making such decisions. I am very much a proponent of a weak executive.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American.

Yes. I'm sorry I did not add that proviso and I caught that too late to edit. If you would like to add it since it is your quote I pulled kinda out of context feel free.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It's funny how different people do that to us. I really liked Huckabee when I watched it this morning.

Sorry I missed this earlier.

Did you admire Huckabee, then, when he refused to answer a point blank question about whether he would jail doctors providing abortions or women seeking them? Did you admire his manliness when - instead of saying whether he would or wouldn't - he ventured to opine what terrorists would do to all doctors and all women and Tim Russert for that matter?

Oh yes, quite likeable.



Yes, I know Huckabee had to declare his candidacy far earlier than he would have liked. Heheh, the last ex-governor of Arkansas to run for President didn't throw his hat into the ring till 4 months before the Iowa Caucuses. But this time out, the field is getting more crowded by the minute ... and if one wants to snap up some campaign talent and, of course, a successul share of donation money ... one has no time to waste.

But it would have been well before throwing himself on Meet the Press for Huckabee to have been prepared to back up his more controversial political positions ... or at the very least, to be able to duck a direct question with the minimal adroitness appropriate to even the least of politicians, much less a candidate for President.


Bah.

.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

With the proviso that fetal and zygote Americans aren't Americans at all .... because, when last I checked, you had to be alive to be an American.

I did not realize a unborn baby in the womb was dead.

How simple. Removes all the problems with abortions.

It breathes, it eats (albiet through the mother), it moves, grows and functions-

Gosh- I guess that's not life.

Oxygen- the great equalizer.

I did not realize that air and a 5-6 inch smoosh down the birth canal magically made you human and alive.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

There are many federal laws that protect "non persons" (I can't shoot my pet bald eagle by federal law)

Sure, but those could all be repealed tomorrow, and if the government decided to massacre all the eagles, not the due process clause or anything else in the U.S. Constitution could stop them. Perhaps it could be argued that the law was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, but I'm not sure who would have standing to make that claim. Maybe the Lorax.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

I did not realize a unborn baby in the womb was dead.

I did not ask if a fetus was dead, Nephythys. I asked if it had been born.

Can you answer that simple question with a yes or no, or are you going to duck the question as inartfully as Mike Huckabee?