Journal pudge's Journal: BornAliveTruth.org 10
In my previous post, last night, I mentioned the fact that Obama voted to keep infanticide legal. This morning I see that Politico writes about a new 527 group called BornAliveTruth.org. Here's their first ad, playing in Ohio and New Mexico.
Personally, I don't find the ad to be too powerful. I think most viewers will link it too closely to children who survived abortions but were not immediately born, and will disregard it because of that. I think it plays into the hands of Obama who wants to make this about abortion, instead of live births.
And I find the claim that "if Barack Obama had his way, I wouldn't be here" to be specious at best: Obama was not saying every born child resulting from botched abortions should be left to die, only that doctors should be allowed to let them die, and I see no evidence that Gianna Jessen's doctor chose to let her die, but was stopped because of any law.
What Obama voted for is horrific enough without misrepresenting it. I hope future advertisements from BornAliveTruth.org are more powerful and more accurate; if so, they may elicit a donation from me.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
I'm a bit happier (Score:2)
However, such an individual and state-level responsibility approach probably opens too many worm cans about other federal government tampering, which might explain the poor traction of the idea.
Left to the states, some would become baby abattoirs, and those who find infant murder acceptable would know where to go.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a bit happier with a Constitutional argument against federal government tampering with individuals, e.g. abortion.
Yeah, let's repeal the 13th Amendment!
(No, I am not going to stop using this argument, unless someone points out how it is illogical, which hasn't yet happened.)
Besides, this is not about abortion. These are live, newborn, infants, living without any connection to the mother for hours, and left to die.
Re: (Score:2)
And what I'm getting at is that the social issues are so deep and contentious that it's better to ask the question of whether they are Federal at all.
Back on the topic at hand, why are these cases not handled as murder, then? Lack of the almighty paperwork?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'm more in favor of repealing the 16th Amendment.
Well, duh.
And what I'm getting at is that the social issues are so deep and contentious that it's better to ask the question of whether they are Federal at all.
Yes, just like slavery.
Back on the topic at hand, why are these cases not handled as murder, then? Lack of the almighty paperwork?
Because the law was not defined as such. Explicitly, anyway: of course, you could argue that it should have covered these newborn infants without modification. But regardless, the law was changed to that effect, and Obama voted against that law. Here's the actual text of the law he voted to kill:
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just like slavery.
We're getting somewhere here.
My concern is more the government/individual relationship, not individual/individual relationships, such as slavery or murder that should be covered under criminal law.
I'm making the federalism argument from the 10th Amendment, not anything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just like slavery.
We're getting somewhere here.
My concern is more the government/individual relationship, not individual/individual relationships, such as slavery or murder that should be covered under criminal law.
Right, individual/individual relationships, like killing newborn babies.
Re: (Score:2)
Past the moral/emotional/spiritual/legal issues, I'm asking: how do we set about effecting a course change in society?
The best tactical approach I can think of is the simple Constitutional one. Everything else yields too much ground to the death merchants.
Reform the government away from the direction of micro-managing these aspects of individual lives, allow that some states are going to continue to support the unspeakable, and let the tree
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I hope you haven't mistaken me for defending the practice.
No, of course not. But you are incorrectly saying that abortion is not about harming innocent people, while slavery is.
The best tactical approach I can think of is the simple Constitutional one. Everything else yields too much ground to the death merchants.
Yes, but my constitutional one is not yours. Mine is the same as Lincoln's: amending the Constitution to prohibit the practice. This cannot happen overnight, as the 13th Amendment couldn't. It will take either a war (perish the thought) or gradual change in society.
Reform the government away from the direction of micro-managing these aspects of individual lives
That is not reform. The government exists to secure our rights, not to define them away.
Re: (Score:2)
But you are incorrectly saying that abortion is not about harming innocent people, while slavery is.
That would be a miscommunication. Slavery occurs where people are in the relatively steady state of 'life', whereas abortion involves the transient condition of gestation. For me, that's a difference that makes no difference whatsoever. However, I'm sadly confident that many would not agree. The most I am saying is that there is not a uniform opinion on the matter.
The government exists to secure our rights, not to define them away.
Right, but the government has local, state, and federal levels.
Briefly oversimplifying and considering the situation as a software modeling
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you are incorrectly saying that abortion is not about harming innocent people, while slavery is.
That would be a miscommunication. Slavery occurs where people are in the relatively steady state of 'life', whereas abortion involves the transient condition of gestation. For me, that's a difference that makes no difference whatsoever. However, I'm sadly confident that many would not agree. The most I am saying is that there is not a uniform opinion on the matter.
OK, but what you actually said is that slavery and murder are about people to other people, whereas abortion is about what one does to their own body.
The government exists to secure our rights, not to define them away.
Right, but the government has local, state, and federal levels.
And the federal government is the ultimate -- in our society -- guarantor of our individual liberties, and it makes no sense to me that it shouldn't therefore recognize who those individuals actually are.
Briefly oversimplifying and considering the situation as a software modeling task, the question would seem to be: at what level should various rights be secured?
Exactly, and it's obviously at the federal level.