Tarry for the Nonce

November 4, 2005

I Wasn’t Prepared for This

Filed under: News — lmwalker @ 10:28 am

Former president Jimmy Carter has actually made a statement with which I concur:

“I never have felt that any abortion should be committed — I think each abortion is the result of a series of errors,” he told reporters . . .

Mr. Carter said his party’s congressional leadership only hurts Democrats by making a rigid pro-abortion rights stand the criterion for assessing judicial nominees . . .

Democrats must “let the deeply religious people and the moderates on social issues like abortion feel that the Democratic party cares about them and understands them,” he said, adding that many Democrats, like him, “have some concern about, say, late-term abortions, where you kill a baby as it’s emerging from its mother’s womb.”

Pardon me while I recover myself from the floor . . .



  1. It is kind of alarming how the abortion issue is the central concern of so many people with respect to the Supreme Court nomination process.

    The odds of Roe v. Wade being overturned anytime soon are essentially zero, and the odds of abortion being outlawed across the land in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned are also small. So, I don’t see why everyone is so worked up about it…

    That said, Alito seems like a good judge, but, well… Carter usually seems like a reasonable man to me, so what do I know? đŸ™‚

    Comment by Troy — November 4, 2005 @ 11:54 am

  2. Kind of funny how abortion rights outweigh property rights now-a-days. Afterall, the states can come in and take your property, a protection under the constitution, and give that property to a private party. But they can’t outlaw abortion. WTF is up with that?!

    Comment by Andrew P. — November 4, 2005 @ 5:40 pm

  3. What’s the mystery? The principle that a person should be secure in the operation of her own body is more sacred than the principle of property rights. That’s why rape and buglary are not comparable crimes.

    (Obviously, my answer presumes that the fetus is not a full fledged person with rights of his own, which is the basis for abortions being legal. I’m not taking that position — just explaining why property rights are less respected than the right to abort a fetus.)

    Comment by Toly — November 5, 2005 @ 11:48 am

  4. What about the right of the abortee? I would think that in a Just Society, the rights of both lives would be equal. And, as we see in cases where a pregnant woman is murdered, they are. Whereas property rights do have less importance than life rights, the point is that this is about state’s rights. IMHO, there’s a major problem with the judicial system when a state can decide for itself how it wants to handle property rights, or the lack thereof; but cannot decide how it wants to handle life rights, or the lack thereof. Especially if it wants to protect its citizens vis-à-vis making something illegal that is harmful to its population, but considered protected under the Federal Government. Don’t forget that the states give up some of their sovereignty to be part of the Union. Unfortunately, we’re so far removed from a time when states had the right to secede from the union (which they still have, but its not like they have much of a choice), we don’t know what rights are really being given up. Would the states have given up their rights to be part of the Union had they known how corrupt and disturbingly irresponsible the Federal Government would become? I think not.

    Unless, of course, the property decision has set the stage for giving back to the states more rights than they have now (this did happen in the SC property rights ruling), which would be ideal, as the local government should have more power over the local jurisdiction than the federal government. So maybe this property ruling was a blessing in disguise and merely sets the stage for overturning Roe vs. Wade.

    We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This cannot be the case if the right to life is overruled by the right to liberty, as liberty must stem from life. Therefore, we are preventing the right to life of the child, but granting the liberty of the parent when we allow abortion, which violates our most basic right. It is more unjust than taking property and giving it to a third party, because what we are doing is saying that one person’s life is more important than another person’s life, under the law. This kind of thinking is very anti-American, and leads us to a point where ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

    To me, this indicates a major problem in the judicial system when a state’s rights over property protection outweigh a state’s rights over the protection of life, as it currently does.

    Comment by Andrew P. — November 5, 2005 @ 2:48 pm

  5. The principle that a person should be secure in the operation of her own body is more sacred than the principle of property rights.

    True. And – of course – the “Fetus: Person or Property” debate is the point where I part ways with most pro-choice folk.

    Still, I think Jimmy Carter has a point about expanding the Democrat perspective on reproductive rights to allow room for folks like Democrats for Life.

    Of course, I wouldn’t weep if those same folk ended up voting Republican.

    Comment by laura — November 5, 2005 @ 4:23 pm

  6. Score one for the good guys! I love it when the other team loses a player to us đŸ™‚

    Comment by Alistair A. — November 6, 2005 @ 8:49 am

  7. Best of the Web notes with amusement that Jimmy Carter is echoing Ann Coulter.

    Comment by laura — November 7, 2005 @ 4:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: