Thread: Please Help Keep This Person Out Of Washington

Originally Posted by gugi

Bruno, the president nominates the supreme court justices (they still have to get confirmed at legislation), and the abortion question is in their power (to move the decision to state level, or why not criminalize it on federal level). Few old people on the court right now, so it's expected that the next president will get to appoint some justices. Of course they all tell you there's no litmus test, but the fact that Lee and many others feel so strongly about who gets to nominate tells you that actualy there is an implicit litmus test.

I know how it works, but one of the amazing things is that the supreme judges seem to do a relatively good job of remaining impartial. I don't know if it is true or not, but I once read that supreme judges are observed not to have any special disposition towards the president who appointed them.

Originally Posted by gugi

How alive is a a fertilized egg is pretty settled, the question is at which point it gets its 'unalienable rights' under the US constitution.

That is the sticking point of course.
Personally I draw the line at the end of the first trimester, unless special circumstances are involved like life threatening condition of the mother or if the fetus develops a condition that pretty much guarantees a short life full of agony, like spina bifida combined with britle bone disease.
Btw this is going seriously off-topic so if anyone is intersted in continuing with this abortion tangent I'll split it off into a new thread.

Originally Posted by Bruno

No offense, but aren't there far more important things when deciding who gets to run the country? Like, how they actually plan to do it, or what the expectations are? Whether they can be trusted to try and get the economy to its feet, or if they are intelligent enough not to continue with the terrorist paranoia, or if they respect the constitution enough to prevent them from violating it openly?

None taken. No, I think doing everyone one can within the boundaries of the Constitution to defend the essential liberties of innocent residents of the US comes first and foremost in the Presidency (and nobody's liberty trumps another's.) What good is skillful manipulation of a "free" economy if a million members of the next generation are killed each year? There isn't a politician I trust to get the economy to its feet. The role of the President is to protect the people's liberties by enforcing the laws that have already been passed and by approving protective laws that Congress writes. Intelligent enough to recognize that defending that terrorism is a real threat ought to be a prerequisite too. Both McCain and Obama say they understand that. I don't know what you refer to by terrorist paranoia (maybe they are not smart enough?)

Originally Posted by Bruno

I am not going to open the debate on abortion here, but consider this:
a) supposing Obama is pro-choice (I haven't checked), that doesn't mean he is killing fetuses himself.
b) supposing McCain gets elected, it won't change a thing. Abortion is legal and it will stay legal unless you allow the president to outlaw it (which is a very un-republican thing to think).

So either way, the stance of the president on abortion is moot.
And as a good christian, Bush is also against abortion. Did that make him a better president? Did that make him respect the constitution?

I am not going to answer and debate questions on abortion here, but consider that Bush has not signed any major legislation to loosen the current restrictions on abortion and has appointed justices who do not appear to lean toward the judges who voted in favor of the final decision in Roe v Wade. The President can't outlaw abortion; he could support and sign a Constitutional Amendment to ban it, but the likelihood of that happening is far less than simply tipping the balance in the Supreme Court through justice appointments and waiting for another case come up through the courts allowing the Supreme Court to overturn it (as far as I understand it anyway)

Originally Posted by Bruno

Don't know.
Is it ever worth taking a life if there is a good chance that it is that of an innocent person?

I don't know, but I do know that the unborn are innocent without exception
But I guess you think it is:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Personally I draw the line at the end of the first trimester, unless special circumstances are involved like life threatening condition of the mother or if the fetus develops a condition that pretty much guarantees a short life full of agony, like spina bifida combined with britle bone disease.

Hey people people people let's get back on topic please. Talk about abortion elsewhere. This thread is strictly to bash Sarah Palin. Here, watch this video:
YouTube - Sarah Palin Family Meeting