a comment response...
A response to a comment posted (found in the post prior to this one) earlier regarding Obama’s vote on a partial birth abortion ban proposed in the Illinois State Senate.
To begin, this is certainly an emotionally charged issue for many and for quite a few the issue of abortion is central and the sole determining factor in choosing a public leader (or what they would surmise about a person in general based on that person’s stance on the issue). But for a little bit of perspective, I’d recommend checking out this site.
I, for one, never understood the rationality of choosing a candidate based on a solitary issue and then even going so far as to extrapolate opinions on a candidate’s ability to function in office, ability to lead or moral character from the one stance on an issue (some would even go so far as to think that a person who agrees with them on one issue must so obviously think and decide on other things like they do… which is stupefyingly presumptuous and, I don’t know, rather arrogant to think that they way you would decide on something should be the way all decisions should be made or that your decisions are the absolute right decisions). But even more perplexing is when the solitary issue is one that has no real material affect on that person’s life or the public official’s ability to deal with real issues that would affect that person’s life. Considering the complexities and concerns a person in public office faces and those of his or her constituency, what does a stance on abortion tell you about their take on Education? Economic policy? Tax policy? Energy policy? Foreign affairs? National Defense? Crime? Poverty? Immigration? Absolutely nothing. Those are issues that would be more germane to the public’s well being and of the children more than a woman’s choice to abort or not. The truth of the matter is that abortion is one of those issues that while important to debate and to monitor its function in our society ultimately serves no practical purpose in politics other than to obfuscate a politician’s real ability to address the practical issues facing an electorate (when the pro-life stance is made to be the only issue touted as a reason to vote). I’m sure some will say that’s harsh, inhumane, uncaring and uncivilized, but unless abortions can be proven to have a detrimental affect on society at large, in my opinion, it doesn’t deserve overriding consideration (note I said overriding, meaning consideration is due but not the end all be all of points to consider) especially when compared to other more tangible issues a candidate should be judged upon. Oh but it goes to the core of a person’s character and moral values! If their willingness to kill babies (or if we remove the hyperbole, allow or legislate the killing of babies) they can’t be trusted! Well there are plenty of examples of politicians that ran on a pro-life front that have proven far less honorable in character and moral fortitude so using an abortion stance isn’t the greatest barometer of character if you ask me. And that seems to be the crux of the argument proposed.
What Brian’s issue is how could anyone support someone that would deny a living, breathing, feeling baby medical attention when “born”. I don’t think anyone would if that were the case and the issue was as simple as that. I’ll address Brian’s understanding of the bill (SB1095 wasn’t quite the full text of the bills addressed, SB1093 was the major thrust of the issue, but SB1095 was the pressure point for sure) and then his interpreted contentions.
First, a full examination of the SB1095 (quoted below from the link provided by Brian):
SB1095 Engrossed LRB9206290REdv 1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.And let’s look at what an abortion technically is (according to wiki):
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:
6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words "person",
11 "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be
25 fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.
An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death. The spontaneous expulsion of a fetus or embryo before the 20th week of gestational age[1] is commonly known as a miscarriage.[2] Induced abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus by medical, surgical, or other means at any point during human pregnancy for therapeutic or elective reasons.Now, Brian asserts that the language of the bill is specific, overly specific in fact and limited in scope… “The law fully limits its scope to those who are born through induced or natural labor. And requires that they be treated as humans. It has nothing to do with the state pre-birth and is, in fact, overly specific about the description of birth.”
Um no, not actually “limiting” at all. Limited to induced or natural labor? Are there any other kinds of labor that are excluded? Manual? Hard? Excrutiating? Unnatural? (Unnatural, maybe, but I think that’s covered by “induced”) What else is there besides natural and unnatural?
According to the law referenced above, SB1095 did not limit its scope at all but in fact, as Senator Obama correctly argued, laid the ground work to ban all abortion. The first section on defining a “child” -
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.Any stage of development? That would span anywhere from conception to nine months, right? But then they’re only a “child” or “human being” if born alive. Well how does the law define born alive?
(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.That, right there, includes the very definition of abortion. Nevermind section C of the bill outright says even if the child was “born” due to an abortion it should be accorded human rights. The bill first says that a “child” is considered a child or full human being if it is born alive at any stage of development then says that being “born alive” is any expulsion from the womb regardless if it was natural, via surgery or even as a part of an abortion (and in case you missed it the first time, abortion is the expulsion or extraction of a fetus). You can see where this could be considered a ban an abortion if that definition was used (as it was intended in the requirement to provide medical attention to “born alive children” – SB1093).
Why might this be objectionable? Because right there the bill just provided a legal definition of a child starting at the moment of conception. As long as the child was “born” (basically being placed outside the womb) at any stage of development (from conception to full development, really more like the 27th week since in actuality NO abortions are undertaken after the 27th week, at least legally anyway, so there isn’t really that image of a fully formed baby being pulled out and killed that some like perpetuate) it is accorded full “rights”. Thus the baby should be accorded medical treatment to save it which kinda goes against the premise of why an abortion is being done in the first place. Now if I, no scholar, legal or otherwise, could interpret the law as such wouldn’t you think judiciaries and legislators would do so as well? And it’s not a large leap of logic to see where this could be construed as a ban on abortion especially when paired with SB1093.
Now to the points of contention… Brian asserts that Obama argues 1) By defining a birthed child as a "person" which he prefers to describe as a "previable fetus" equal protection would mean that abortion as a whole should be illegal and thus unconstitutional. and further elaborates, …the bill as I understand it refers to the act of birthing (fully outside the mother) as the point where the child becomes a citizen and assumes its natural rights.
Well, as I hope I pointed out above, the language of the bill essentially says that a birthed child is nothing more than a “child” removed from the womb, naturally or not. It does not really establish a reasonable point of when a child becomes a child. It includes the stages of a fertilized embro, a fetus, “previable” or “viable”, to a nearly fully formed child. In fact no point is established at all since it states “any stage in development”. And according to federal law (that Roe v. Wade thing) “viability” is the crux of when abortions would be considered legal. With the definition of viability, provided by Illinois’ senate bill, being considered “any stage of development” and full citizenship and natural rights accorded at any stage of development as long as its outside the womb you can see why Obama would argue that the law might be seen as regarding abortion as a whole illegal (since it would be illegal according to the proposed SB1093 bill to abort a child and then NOT provide it medical attention to keep it alive as soon as it left the womb) and rather unconstitutional since at some point a child or fetus is not viable, meaning it couldn’t really live with or without medical attention let alone develop naturally when removed from the womb (or “birthed” according to the proposed bill).
Point two, of course one would find it rather absurd to provide life saving medical treatment to an aborted fetus when the entire point of an abortion is to end the life of a “previable” child or fetus. It’s antithetical. What kind of bizarre law would that be to allow for the process of abortion, but once the process is completed one would then have to try to save the aborted child/fetus? THAT would be inhumane and cruel and certainly unconstitutional whether cruel and unusual punishment or going against the intent of an abortion and actually trying to save the aborted child/fetus which, in effect, is not allowing an abortion. Again, with point two, as with the main point of contention surrounding abortion or rather in particular “partial birth” abortion is when does life begin, when does a child become a child, when does a fetus or potential for life become fully realized.
And I think it’s this “partial birth” abortion issue that is cause for the recent uproar and more at the heart of SB1093. First, “partial birth” abortion is not a medical term. The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It’s a political term and as such, as it seems more and more the case these days sadly, is generally not firmly grounded in reality or fact and was designed to illicit emotional response rather than reasoned thought. According to a wiki article, “partial birth abortions” was meant to refer to a procedure called Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X), alternately known as "dilation and extraction," or D&X, and "intact D&E". A particularly gruesome method used for “late term” abortions (and as described by the witness nurse and/or physician). Now to bring it back to this particular discussion, to note, Obama voted “present” on these particular bills meaning he neither fully supported nor fully dismissed the bill (whether for political or personal reasons is debatable and could go on ad nauseam) but the fact is he didn’t outright reject the principles of the bills. And without getting into the debates (as mentioned by Obama in the transcript) prior to the bill being brought up for vote in the Senate I can see where Obama would have been able to reach a compromise based on his objections. If indeed the point of the bill was to limit the scope of “partial birth” or “late term” abortions and the manner in which they are conducted and the resulting treatment of the aborted fetus/child till its actual expiration (as it would seem given the nature of the testimony provided by the nurse and physician) then one would think the language used in the bill would be specific enough as to mention Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or intact D&X) or its variants or at the very least “partial birth” or “late term” abortion. And at the very least provide some sort of language speaking to “viability” when considering abortion procedures instead of broad language which does sound pretty much like saying a child is a viable fetus/child starting at the point of conception. But I suspect it was more an attempt to jump on the Federal government’s ruling on partial birth abortions as a way to get more restrictive abortion language put into law in Illinois. And as I’ve described, a law that would have been unconstitutional or as Obama said, “wouldn’t pass constitutional muster”. Whether or not you believe abortion is immoral, the legality of the Illinois bill presented when viewed through federal law and the Constitution would in fact have been considered unconstitutional had it gone to the Supreme Court.
Now, as you mentioned this is what I’ve drawn from the arguments you’ve presented and the evidence you’ve provided along with my own research on the subject. In my opinion, I think your analogy of abortion being tantamount to throwing fetuses on grenades (whether you’re actually conducting the abortion or discussing and voting on legislation about it) is a bit much, especially when presuming what either candidate would do. But if that’s how you feel and how strongly you oppose abortion and what you think of it, well that’s certainly your call and your freedom to do so. Like I’ve said, abortion is certainly an issue to keep tabs on, but I feel it’s a futile effort to completely ban a woman’s choice. And to use the topic as a single measure of a person’s character or ability to lead (without even fully understanding the reasoning behind their stance) well that’s just poor decision making in my opinion.
Brian, thank you for your input and I’ve considered what you’ve presented into my line of thought on Obama (I hope as evidenced by this rebuttal), but it hasn’t swayed my opinion of him, his character or his morals nor my vote.
»Comments (1)
Saturday, July 19, 2008
he never was superman
An important read on Obama.
The above reference is the New Yorker article on the political history of the man. Like many of ideologues that have drank fully from Obama's kool-aid, I became concerned and fractionally disappointed with some of the positions Obama had taken once hitting the general campaign trail. Yet my expectation had escaped the gravity of reality. After pouring over that article, I've level set my idealogy and expectation for Obama and now am firmly back on the Obama train because I've come to realize what he's attempting to do, what he's contending with (even outside of my own "liberal" bubble) and now understand a bit more about his politics, not mine.
I think the biggest insight on what is driving his political philosophy helped me get past my own, admittedly naive and presumptuous, notions of who I thought Obama should be versus what he's attempting to do.
"...if there was any maxim from community organizing that Obama lived by, it was the Realpolitik commandment of Saul Alinsky, the founding practitioner of community organizing, to operate in “the world as it is and not as we would like it to be."I think those who have become disheartened or disappointed with Obama should give the article a good read or two then sit back and really reflect on it and see where you land. You may feel worse off or better, but you should come away realizing he's still a far more superior option out of the choices we do have.
»Comments (2)
Monday, July 07, 2008
new ink
The short of it.
The really, really long of it... go here.
look what we can do
Wow. Congrats to Dara Torres! Another example of why I love the Summer Olympic season. While sports always continues year-round and great achievements are had at any time, there’s just something special when they occur during the hunt for Olympic glory. It’s always that much more impressive. I don’t know why, it just is. Plus there’s that whole transcending sport thing, when the whole world is captivated by the personification of human achievement vividly playing out before our eyes amongst the flashes of thousands of cameras and the chorus of exhilaration. Look what we can do indeed.
»Comments (1)