printAnother of my archaic titles (it hails from the Beatles’ “Come Together“).
Speaking at Notre Dame, “America’s leading Roman Catholic university,” President Obama called on the factions warring over abortion to come together and find common grounds.
“So let’s work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term.”
I agree. In their lyrics, the Beatles exhorted, “Come Together Right Now Over Me.” Make it, “Come Together Right Now Over the Constitution.”
There is no warrant in the constitution for or against abortion, adultery, homo-or hetero marriage, etc.
Quaint, I know, but to the federal government were delegated only limited and enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8):
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution 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.
Yet pro-life advocates want to force their way on the rest through a constitutional amendment. And pro-choice agitators wish to compel the country—and their countrymen who oppose the procedure—to pay for abortions.
Obama is no constitutional scholar although he is touted as one. But he should know that the Constitution proscribes his meddling and prescribes, via the brilliant Tenth Amendment, a perfectly good solution: Leave it to the states and the individuals concerned (and let them pay out-of pocket).
Would that pro-life types fussed as much over fully formed, innocent human beings (such as those who’ve perished in Iraq) as they do over fetuses. Republicans sure showed their contempt for life in their enthusiasim for the carnage visited on Iraqis.
Come to think of it, the culture of life never seems to extend beyond a claim of dominion over another human being’s body.
Update (May 19): I’ve posted this Iraq notice before, but judging from the letters received, retention is non-existent. So here goes again:
A note to the neoconservatives who frequent this site, and post their ill-formulated fulminations vis-a-vis the war on Iraq: That war is not going to be adjudicated again here, not ever. I chronicled the invasion of Iraq at great length, applying fact and every ounce of reason in my possession to repudiate and denounce that war crime. The case is closed! Neoconservative ideologues stand in the dock for aiding and abetting a war crime. The lazy neoconservative can read my archive on the topic. While I can imagine these ideologues urgently need to make peace with their maker, or consciences, for their role in a crime of such moral and material magnitude, they will not do so on my private property!
When asked by a non-Jew to relate all the Torah had to say while standing on one foot, Hillel replied, “Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do until you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.” – Similarly, the 28 words of the 10th Amendment encapsulate LIMITED government. Even some libertarians seem to want a Galactic Libertarian Order. I am distrustful of those who advocate some rightist, leftist, or libertarian Utopia to be imposed upon all mankind by gunpoint. Understanding that government consists of a limited set of powers for the purpose of securing our rights, one does not even need “special protection” for gun owners, pot smokers, gays, Moslems, etc. Sadly, most of this country believes in Messianic government, which allows their PARTICULAR freedom while everyone else obeys their cultural preferences. On the subject of “abortion for convenience”: like Ron Paul, I am morally opposed – – but if 50% of the people consider abortion as no more repugnant than clipping a toenail, I do not see how government can “solve” that moral problem. How, for example, can government stop a morning-after pill unless government inserts transmitters inside women?
One reason that pro-lifers seek a constitutional amendment is that the “pro-choice” Supreme Court in 1973 had rendered the 10th Amendment moot with respect to abortion. Thus, the only legal option left to the pro-lifers is an all or nothing approach–the constitutional amendment on the federal level. Before Roe v Wade, the issue of abortion was left to the states to decide–as it should of been left. Had the pro-choicers left well enough alone, there would have been a good chance that liberalized abortion laws would pass in all 50 states back in the 1970s. However, because of their high-handed legal approach, the pro-choicers have knocked over a hornet nest. The only solution that will reduce the rancor is for the court to overrule Roe v Wade and return the issue of abortion back to the states to decide. Unfortunately, I do not see this happening.
I believe Ilana was making the point that many who oppose abortion had no problem with our unjust, unconstitutional, and immoral Iraq invasion. She is right.
From this perspective, what meaning is there to the “culture of life” philosophy? What about all those Iraqi kids who will never be whole again because we bombed the cr** out of that country? And what about our own soldiers, some dead, some alive, some who live their lives in disability and will perhaps be forgotten, due to our “mandate” to spread “democracy”?
It doesn’t add up. I’m not quite sure what “pro-life” means. It surely didn’t apply to our actions in the Iraq War.
Barbara – allowing me a brief moment to act Catholic – everyone is “pro-life” provided you get to define what “life” is. If you believe that ____ is just “protoplasm”, then you are (of course) not really a murderer. Hell, if Dred Scott was a horse, the Dred Scott decision looks perfectly reasonable – who ever heard of a horse suing for his freedom.
[Guys and gals: I’m not wading into he abortion debate, although I have my opinion. Why die on that hill? Pope Myron can match wits with the formidable Ms. Grant, in private. Barbara, btw, is also a scientist. Only the best on BAB.]