Senator Reed Votes to Block a Bill Banning Late-term Abortions

[Vort]

And I can just image Brother/Senator Reed repeating that back to you "If you don't think my personal righteousness is good enough, that's fine, God will judge. If my comments/opinions are at variance with yours, that's life."

 

Are you willing to grant Brother/Senator Reed the same as you ask of us?

 

To be fair, Senator Reed's opinions and actions directly affect us and our society. He wields far more power to alter society than do we, and therefore his actions and stated opinions bear a great deal more scrutiny.

 

Though I am by no possible stretch of imagination a supporter of Harry Reid, I do agree that blatant disparagement of the man is counterproductive and harmful, especially regarding his personal worthiness (which is not our call to make). But that doesn't mean I think he is somehow above criticism. Much more than we, he is subject to minute criticism, especially when his actions contradict his espoused values. His openly dishonest disparagement of Mitt Romney, and his gloating about the results of those actions, is Exhibit 1 (of many).

[estradling75]

To be fair, Senator Reed's opinions and actions directly affect us and our society. He wields far more power to alter society than do we, and therefore his actions and stated opinions bear a great deal more scrutiny.

 

Though I am by no possible stretch of imagination a supporter of Harry Reid, I do agree that blatant disparagement of the man is counterproductive and harmful, especially regarding his personal worthiness (which is not our call to make). But that doesn't mean I think he is somehow above criticism. Much more than we, he is subject to minute criticism, especially when his actions contradict his espoused values. His openly dishonest disparagement of Mitt Romney, and his gloating about the results of those actions, is Exhibit 1 (of many).

 

 

Indeed... It is one thing to dislike the actions of the man...  It is quite another to correlate the churches lack of action (as far as we can tell) against him as a sign that the church itself is corrupt.  And to accuse anyone who speaks up in support of the church is also willing supporter of corruption (or the man's actions for that matter),

[cdowis]

Drinking alcohol will cause you to lose your temple recommend.

 

Question:

 

Do you believe that any Mormon Congressman in either State of Federal congress who did not support the State bans on alcohol as well as the 18th amendment should have lost their temple recommends?

 

Do you believe that any Mormon Federal Congressman who supported the 20th amendment should have lost their temple recommends?

Despite the official stance of the church, many prominent Utahns argued that repeal was inevitable and a better alternative than the gangsterism, bootlegging, bathtub gin production, speak-easies and other illegal activities that mushroomed under the ban.

 

Utah put the amendment over the top even though Heber J. Grant, then president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had urged church members not to support repeal, noting for example that highway deaths had decreased greatly during Prohibition.

The state held a special election on Nov. 7, 1933, to gauge Utah sentiment and set up a ratification process. In it, 99,943 votes were cast for repeal and 62,437 against.

At 3:33 p.m. on Dec. 5, 1933, the 21 members of Utah's Constitutional Convention unanimously endorsed the 21st Amendment — setting off what newspapers of the time described as drinking celebrations nationwide.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700259759/House-marks-Utahs-role-in-repealing-Prohibition.html?pg=all

 

A question for you ==>>

 

Do you see a difference in legalizing alcohol and legalizing the killing of pain capable 20 week old babies?

Edited September 29, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

 

Despite the official stance of the church, many prominent Utahns argued that repeal was inevitable and a better alternative than the gangsterism, bootlegging, bathtub gin production, speak-easies and other illegal activities that mushroomed under the ban.

 

Utah put the amendment over the top even though Heber J. Grant, then president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had urged church members not to support repeal, noting for example that highway deaths had decreased greatly during Prohibition.

The state held a special election on Nov. 7, 1933, to gauge Utah sentiment and set up a ratification process. In it, 99,943 votes were cast for repeal and 62,437 against.

At 3:33 p.m. on Dec. 5, 1933, the 21 members of Utah's Constitutional Convention unanimously endorsed the 21st Amendment — setting off what newspapers of the time described as drinking celebrations nationwide.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700259759/House-marks-Utahs-role-in-repealing-Prohibition.html?pg=all

 

 

 

Right.  Secular application of WoW is not as straightforward as covenants.

 

But you didn't answer the questions.

[cdowis]

No

[Guest]

No

 

Right.  Then on the same token, Reid's vote to filibuster has no bearing on his own personal beliefs on abortion and should have no impact on his temple recommend as Average Joe seem to indicate otherwise.

[Guest]

Okay, that said...

 

Here's my comments on this late-term abortion bill.

 

I don't put any responsibility on Reid for this at all.  This is completely and squarely in the GOP's inability to articulate the moral objection into proper law.

 

The law is stupid.  The law makes PAIN as the definition for LIFE.  This is so idiotic.  So, you're saying that a person who can't feel pain do not have life?  STUPID.  This is an inability of the GOP to articulate the proper position of life so much so that when scientists can't put a definitive science on when a baby is able to feel pain, it blows their life position to smithereens.

 

It is, therefore, very easy to filibuster such a bill that has a broken foundation.

 

The filibuster has nothing to do with life.  Rather, the filibuster prevented the bill from becoming a voting wedge that could sink the democrats in elections.  If I was a Congressman that has to vote on that stupid bill, I would want to throw that bill back to its creator so they can give me a better one to vote on.  Voting No on that bill signals a strong anti-life position even if the reason for my voting No on the stupid thing is because I don't agree that the capability of a fetus to feel pain determines its humanity.  So, if that stupid bill has to reach my desk for me to vote on, I'll have to vote Yes even if it's stupid.  So yes, filibuster is the proper action for this bill so that I won't have to be put in a position to vote for it.

[cdowis]

Right.  Then on the same token, Reid's vote to filibuster has no bearing on his own personal beliefs on abortion and should have no impact on his temple recommend as Average Joe seem to indicate otherwise.

 

Said nothing about a temple recommend. I am simply making a point that the day will come when we will personally have to give an accounting for our decisions, both inside and outside the church.  

 

Thinking that we can use the excuse "Church is church, and politics is politics" is an illusion.  I think that justifying one's effort to make such abortions legal will require his most eloquent rhetorical skills.

 

Perhaps he should begin preparing that speech now.  This is a project that may take many decades to complete, and he may run out of time.

Edited September 30, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

Said nothing about a temple recommend. I am simply making a point that the day will come when we will personally have to give an accounting for our decisions, both inside and outside the church.  

 

I didn't say YOU did.  I said Average Joe did.

 

 

 

Thinking that we can use the excuse "Church is church, and politics is politics" is an illusion.  I think that justifying one's effort to make such abortions legal will require his most eloquent rhetorical skills.

 

Perhaps he should begin preparing that speech now.  This is a project that may take many decades to complete, and he may run out of time.

 

Politics is politics, yes.  But really?  You have to vote YES on defining Life as Capable of Feeling Pain?  How does that have any semblance of anything related to what the Church teaches us?

 

No speech is necessary.  A stupid bill is a stupid bill and should be shot down.

 

Voting YES to this bill effectively ruins every chance you got of overturning Roe vs. Wade on the virtue of LIFE because from then on, Law has already deemed any fetus whose pain receptors have not been developed yet as not worth protecting.

 

But then, voting No to this bill effectively makes pro-life people lump you in with the pro-abortion folks and ruin your chances of ever winning an election on that platform.

 

Rock.  Hard Place.  All created by a naive voting public that can easily be manipulated by sound bites and symbolic actions of lawmakers who simply desire to be elected next term without any intention of solving real problems.  Welcome to the GOP.

Edited September 30, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

Let's see if we can help him out with his speech ==>>

 

Most merciful, gracious, loving, kind Father, you certainly know all things, and how many times I have stated in public that I am opposed to abortion.  It is a horrible practice.  And I see the law of stewardship as a very important principle.

 

I am the leader of a powerful political party, and I have certain responsibilities.  They expect a great deal from me, where I must show my leadership even when I am personally opposed.  In this case I actually did not vote FOR late-term abortions, only to slow down the process of passing a ban against it.

 

My party demanded a very difficult decision, and USING THE LAW OF STEWARDSHIP that we are taught in the temple and the scriptures, I did my DUTY to cast the vote that I did.

 

I am sure you would understand my situation, as a humble servant in your service, most merciful, kind, patient, loving, forgiving Father in Heaven.

---------

 

Any other suggestions?  

(Excuse me.   I'm feeling sick and disgusted)

Edited September 30, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

Let's see if we can help him out with his speech ==>>

 

<snip>

 

Any other suggestions?  

(Excuse me.   I'm feeling sick and disgusted)

 

 

I guess you never read any of my posts.

 

Oh well.

 

Just for your information... Harry Reid has a Pro-Life voting record including a pro-life vote on the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Ban.

 

Patrick Leahy, a 100% NARAL rated pro-life devout Roman Catholic democratic senator from Vermont ALSO voted to filibuster.

 

This Pain Capable Bill is nothing more but a symbolic vote designed to wedge partisan elections.  It doesn't solve problems.

Edited September 30, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

As I understand it, current Supreme Court case law has pretty much ruled out the sort of philosophical discussion of "life" that Anatess would prefer to see (except in a "viability" analysis).  That's why Senate Republicans are reduced to this talk about "pain".

 

I understand Reid was a moderate Dem when he was elected Majority/Minority leader--including as a pro-lifer--but I don't see that he's done much on the issue except rehash the party line and stonewall on the issue since he assumed his leadership post in the Senate.  I'm certainly happy to be proven wrong, though.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

As I understand it, current Supreme Court case law has pretty much ruled out the sort of philosophical discussion of "life" that Anatess would prefer to see (except in a "viability" analysis).  That's why Senate Republicans are reduced to this talk about "pain".

 

 

Supreme Court case laws has never ruled on the definition of life nor even attempted at such.  At the same time, US Congress has never voted on a bill definitively defining life that the SCOTUS can use for cases.

 

There is a bill currently being worked HR 1091 that defines life at conception.  Guess what... it's not going to go anywhere... Not even if Congress is 100% made up of GOP.

 

As it stands, the GOP still has not come up with a law that definitively defines when the Right to Life begins.

 

And as it stands, Reid - as a Mormon - is still on the right side of God with leaving the decision of life to a woman and her Bishop instead of to the government.  Therefore, Reid's very transparent action to prevent abortion from becoming an Election Wedge Issue still sits very squarely within the tenets of his Mormon Faith.  Only when his hand is forced for vote that he expresses his pro-life principles by virtue of law.

Edited September 30, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Not directly, but Roe dealt pretty directly with the question of "personhood" (see Section IX).  SCOTUS went on to rule that definitions of "life"--whatever they may be, and regardless of the institution that makes those definitions--are subject to the mother's right to privacy.  Under the existing analysis, the state's ability to limit late-term abortions comes from its right to protect potential life, which can trump the mother's privacy rights only at the beginning of the third trimester (under Roe) or, under the new-ish Casey analysis, once the fetus is "viable". 

 

Thus, under Roe and Casey, it doesn't matter whether or how Congress defines "life"; because the Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus at any stage of development--even 39 weeks--is not a "person".  Nothing Congress does will change that until this rotten, stinking corpse of case law is overruled.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Not directly, but Roe dealt pretty directly with the question of "personhood" (see Section IX).  SCOTUS went on to rule that definitions of "life"--whatever they may be, and regardless of the institution that makes those definitions--are subject to the mother's right to privacy.  Under the existing analysis, the state's ability to limit late-term abortions comes from its right to protect potential life, which can trump the mother's privacy rights only at the beginning of the third trimester (under Roe) or, under the new-ish Casey analysis, once the fetus is "viable". 

 

Thus, under Roe and Casey, it doesn't matter whether or how Congress defines "life"; because the Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus at any stage of development--even 39 weeks--is not a "person".  Nothing Congress does will change that until this rotten, stinking corpse of case law is overruled.

 

JAG, Congress makes Laws.  SCOTUS interprets them.  I don't understand how you have a Constitution of Equal Powers when Congress cannot make laws that the SCOTUS has to abide by.

 

In any case, Personhood laws fail everywhere it is tried - including the Philippines that is so Catholic that not only abortion is illegal, contraception is illegal.

 

And in any case, the fact remains that this Pain Bill is idiotic.

Edited September 30, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, Congress makes Laws.  SCOTUS interprets them.  I don't understand how you have a Constitution of Equal Powers when Congress cannot make laws that the SCOTUS has to abide by.

 

In theory, I agree with you.  And in theory, Congress does have the constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary--for example, they could pass an act saying that henceforward, the federal courts can't take any case involving abortion (or marriage, or some other pet issue).  But as far as I know, it's never been done; and I suspect that SCOTUS would react by nullifying the act--thus creating a constitutional crisis. 

 

Otherwise, I only see two ways around the situation: 

 

1)  Get the Court to change its ruling;or

2)  Get American political culture to the point where the other branches of government, at the highest levels, are willing to openly defy the US Supreme Court (a situation we haven't been in since the Jackson administration).

Edited September 30, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[cdowis]

This Pain Capable Bill is nothing more but a symbolic vote designed to wedge partisan elections.  It doesn't solve problems.

 

Thanks,  I'll include this in the speech.  It certainly will keep him from going to the bottom rung of the telestial kingdom, and perhaps notch it up to the terrestrial.

Edited October 1, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Thus, under Roe and Casey, it doesn't matter whether or how Congress defines "life"; because the Supreme Court has ruled that a fetus at any stage of development--even 39 weeks--is not a "person".  Nothing Congress does will change that until this rotten, stinking corpse of case law is overruled.

 

Ah, yes.  Reminds me of something called the Dredd Scott decision. 

 

Just a Guy suggests:

 

1)  Get the Court to change its ruling;

 

 

Anyway, of course case law will never be be changed, unless such a law is passed which is then appealed to the Supreme Court.based on NEW scientific evidence.

 

Does that make sense?  Or is that something that is "only symbolic".

 

.............a situation we haven't been in since the Jackson administration

 

We have someone who knows his history.  Sounds like the Huckabee solution.

Edited October 1, 2015 by cdowis

[Just_A_Guy]

Ah, yes.  Reminds me of something called the Dredd Scott decision.

 

The really funny thing (if you have a certain kind of sense of humor) is that at one point, without a hint of irony, the Roe opinion actually cites some case law that arose out of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Anyway, of course case law will never be be changed, unless such a law is passed which is then appealed to the Supreme Court.based on NEW scientific evidence.

 

Does that make sense?  Or is that something that is "only symbolic".

 

 

 

Scientific Evidence of what?  That a certain thing is capable of feeling pain?  Making this the basis of law establishes a very clear Personhood delineation that - those who can't feel pain is not a person.  Just a happy meal for the dehumanization of a fetus.

 

Therefore, a pro-lifer who do not want to make THAT the Personhood line should vote NO... yet, he has to vote YES because voting NO demonizes him to voters such as you... so, of course, even if he doesn't agree he'll have to vote YES, which makes this nothing but a symbolic vote.

Edited October 1, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

Anyway, a ban on abortion past 20-weeks is an easy sell in the current Congress.  It has more than 50% support in the Dem side and almost 100% on the Republican side.  20 weeks, no other "definition" necessary attached to pain but simply survival rates.  The youngest fetus on record that survived out of the womb is 21 weeks.  So, even if they take 21 weeks, that's an easy sell as there is empirical evidence.

 

But no... the GOP has to bungle this idiot bill up with pain capable mumbo and rape reporting requirements, etc...  Make it a straight-forward bill.  "We now have evidence that a 21 week old fetus can survive outside the womb - a fetus at 21 weeks is now a person with God-given rights to life".   At the same time, make a public show of funding specific health centers that support pregnant women to birth and adoption.

 

THEN GET THE VOTER BASE TO PRESSURE DEMS TO PREVENT A FILIBUSTER!  FIGHT FOR IT!

Edited October 1, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

Scientific Evidence of what?  That a certain thing is capable of feeling pain?  

 

 

"Thing"????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

Fortunately this forum has a blocking feature.  I was  about to say something to you that would get me kicked off this forum, so I will go to the bathroom, and throw up instead.  I have never been so disgusted in my life.

 

I have ten "things" which I call my grandchildren.  My youngest THING is two years old.  

 

Thank God that my daughter did not think she was a "certain thing", something to have a partial birth abortion, something to have her body parts sold  or disposed as biological waste.

Edited October 2, 2015 by cdowis

[cdowis]

For anyone who is interested.

 

I am logging off this forum, and not sure when I will be back.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

For anyone who is interested.

 

I am logging off this forum, and not sure when I will be back.

 

Sorry to hear that.  I hope you aren't leaving because of this thread (I confess to not following all of it).  I don't think that Anatess meant what you think she meant where you quoted her.  Did you see the thread where she expressed her disappointment about the Pope not speaking out more strongly against abortion?  

[Guest]

Sorry to hear that.  I hope you aren't leaving because of this thread (I confess to not following all of it).  I don't think that Anatess meant what you think she meant where you quoted her.  Did you see the thread where she expressed her disappointment about the Pope not speaking out more strongly against abortion?  

 

That's cdowis for ya.  If you disagree with him then you must be an evil... I don't really know what he thinks, just that you're evil.  He has some comprehension blockage when you disagree.  Interesting because he's big on apologetics.

 

I will bet you donuts that I'm the most Pro-Life person on this entire forum.  I hold by the Catholic viewpoint on abortion - Neither rape, incest, nor the life of the mother in danger is a valid reason for abortion - regardless of when the spirit joins the body.  I even started a thread here on why the exception for the life of the mother is not needed in legislation.