Lieberman chatter
At the Pepsi Center yesterday, I heard chatter is growing louder that McCain will pick Lieberman as his running mate. I just checked with a couple of DailyKos bloggers and they agreed the rumor “is getting serious”.
The Committee for Justice blog reported this morning:
Amid press reports of John McCain notifying his running mate and Joe Lieberman rebuffing a request by Karl Rove to withdraw his name from VP consideration, RealClearPolitics concludes that “a lot of Republicans are nervous” that Lieberman is McCain’s pick. Republicans are concerned about Lieberman’s pro-choice stance and his weak record on judges. Since the abortion issue is almost entirely in the hands of the courts, Sen. Lieberman, if selected, could likely deflect much of the inevitable conservative criticism by making the following three pledges regarding judicial appointments…
1) he will play no role in picking judicial nominees in a McCain administration,
2) he will not run for president in the future (and thus will never nominate judges himself),
and most interestingly,
3) he will caucus with Senate Republicans for the remainder of the year, allowing Republicans to demand a Senate reorganization like the one that followed Sen. Jeffords’ 2001 defection from the GOP. That would make Arlen Specter chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Mitch McConnell Majority Leader, likely resulting in the confirmation of four pending appeals court nominees to the all-important Fourth and D.C. Circuits. Senate Democrats would be unwilling to risk the fate of Tom Daschle by filibustering nominees so close to an election.
We’re not betting any money on Lieberman being selected and making pledges, but the possibility of a Senate reorganization is too enticing to ignore.
The 4th Circuit is from whence Supreme nominees are generally chosen.
While the short-term temptation is, well, tempting, the long-term consequences of a social liberal whispering in McCain’s ear but more importantly 2nd in command – “a heartbeat away from the presidency” – makes the choice unacceptable.
If McCain does this, he has determined that the influx of disaffected Hillary and independent voters will outnumber the outflux of disaffected social conservatives.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The 4th Circuit is from when Supreme nominees are generally chosen.”
cite please. I know it’s known as a conservative circuit, but I don’t think any particular circuit is where nominees “generally” come from.
So, I did some research (which you could have done in about five minutes)
Alito-Third Circuit. Roberts–DC Circuit. Breyer-First Circuit. Ginsburg–DC Circuit. Thomas–DC Circuit. Souter–First Circuit. Kennedy–Ninth Circuit. Scalia–DC Circuit. O’Conner-AZ state courts. Stevens–Seventh Circuit. I could go on. I haven’t found any Justices appointed from the Fourth Circuit in the last 50 years.
If McCain chooses Lieberman..it will be the death of him.
Lieberman and McCain deserve each other. Go for it John!
If he picks Lieberman, he can kiss the presidency goodbye.
After Abraham Lincoln chose Democrat, Andrew Johnson to be his Vice President, Lincoln was assassinated. Then, President Johnson vetoed civil rights legislation for African-Americans, setting the stage for Jim Crow.
If McCain (a 72 year old) who bills himself as someone who observes that human rights begin at conception, were to choose a pro-abortionist as his presidential successor, it would be gross malfeasance and a betrayal of Republicans’ trust.
That should be grounds for RNC Delegates to vote for someone besides McCain on the convention floor.
I think this should be the message for the ticket:
We are Pro Life.
We are Pro War.
We love headlines like the one that came out today…
U.N. Finds Airstrike Killed 90 Afghans
Most of Fatalities In U.S.-Led Attack Said to Be Children
Wait a minute…McCain is 72.
Lieberman is 66. (He looks a lot older)
So if McCain dies or has a major stroke, Lieberman takes over.
What happens if Lieberman has a stroke or dies?
Then who takes over?
Please say it ain’t Hillary!
Mk, it would be the Speaker of the House. Pelosi.
That should be grounds for RNC Delegates to vote for someone besides McCain on the convention floor.
Posted by: Arlen Williams at August 28, 2008 1:17 PM
Yes! We need to make sure the RNC Delegates get that chance. It’s only fair. (and the only reason I can imagine for watching any of the RNC)
Remember the buzz is coming from the DNC. I think it is THEIR wish.
I was reading an article the other day by a Rabbi explaining that the Talmud specifically does not allow for killing even in the case of self defense. It was really interesting the way it was phrased. To boil it down un eqloquently….the Rabbi explained that the Talmud says that no life can be measured against another, so how can you claim that your life is of more important value than someone, even when that someone is trying to destroy you?
I dont agree exactly, but I find it interesting that they take the “no killing” stance so far.
Needless to say, they are anti-abortion. I wonder why Joe isnt and why so many Orthodox Jews are not?
I say it again: I cannot vote in conscience for a Pro-abortion candidate in any office! If its Lieberman, than I will write in Alan Keyes!
“Mk, it would be the Speaker of the House. Pelosi.
Posted by: Hal at August 28, 2008 1:28 PM”
You wish. She would be disqualified because she doesn’t know Catholic theology. ;)
It is too hard for me to take Lieberman seriously, he reminds me of the dad from that 80’s t.v. show ALF! I agree with the deacon also, it wil be Keyes all the way!
I thought that rumor was put to rest by the McCain camp as it was reported in LIfenews or something like that.
Hal, 12:50p: You’re right. I got confused and thought the 4th Circuit was the DC Circuit. Will fix.
Mk, it would be the Speaker of the House. Pelosi.
God Have Mercy on Us! I rather have *gag* Hillary!
Thanks Jill, didn’t mean to be snarky.
Mk, me too! (and after Speaker comes President Pro Tem of the Senate. I think that’s currently Robert Byrd.)
Becky! That’s too funny! I keep saying that McCain looks like Paul Simon! What a pair they’d make…
Um, yeah. I might have to bail on a McCain / Lieberman ticket. I don’t vote for pro-choicers. :(
HOLY MACKEREL! Byrd is 90 something! This could get interesting!
Naaman,
I believe this is called being between a rock and a hard place…to vote for Keyes or someone else is to give the election to Obama…to vote for McCain/Lieberman is to vote prochoice! Man, let’s just hope he picks someone young, healthy and pro life! Like Huckabee! Couldn’t you just watch him for hours? He’s hysterical!
Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
HA! HA! mk! that is funny!
I will not vote for a McCain/Lieberman ticket. If that is his pick, then he has abandoned us.
Peach Pit: Most of Fatalities In U.S.-Led Attack Said to Be Children
Apparently posted by someone who believes everything the U.N. reports of and from militant Muslims. (Report disputed by Americans.)
And speaking of war, why war against innocent children in the name of sex without consequences?
I would bet the farm against Lieberman. I bet McCain’s pick will be just fine with RTLs.
Lieberman is not just pro-choice. He is a cosponsor of FOCA.
MK, what do you mean by “this could get interesting”? You’re just learning about Sen. Byrd now for the first time? His name is on everything in West Virginia–highways, roads, wings of vacation resorts, buildings. He’s the nearest thing we have in the USA to Medieval European nobility.
I thought I just heard somewhere yesterday that Joe Lieberman stated he would never accept the nomination since he knows it would be disasterous for Repbulicans.
Did I read that here somewhere? Did I dream that up? Was it the MSM?? Was it during the convention coverage? Anyone else have the same info??
BTW,
Did anyone notice a huge difference in Michele Obama’s demeanor last night?
She must have gotten a huge attitude adjustment from someone in the Obama camp.
I guess I was a little nausiated watching Hillary so I can’t blame her if that was her problem. She sure had a smile on her face last night that she didn’t the night before.
I hope he picks Mitt…see what happens when Mitt tells everyone Jesus will reign part time from Independence Missouri…those will be good times…
mk wrote:
I believe this is called being between a rock and a hard place…to vote for Keyes or someone else is to give the election to Obama…to vote for McCain/Lieberman is to vote prochoice!
Ironic. On another thread, I just posted about pro-life Dems who support Obama. They’re putting party ahead of Life, and they don’t deserve to call themselves pro-life. Now I could be stuck in the same dilemma.
Here’s the way it would work for me….
Obama / Biden = pro-infanticide / pro-choice
McCain / Lieberman = pro-life / pro-choice
Now, the “top” of the ticket is vastly more important than the “bottom” of the ticket, so McCain’s support for life could outweigh Lieberman’s disdain for it. Maybe. And Obama’s pretty darned evil, so that might justify a vote for McCain / Lieberman. Maybe.
On the other hand, picking Lieberman as his running mate would be a loud & clear signal that McCain might not care as much about Life as he says he does. Actions matter more than words, and selecting a pro-choicer as your #2 guy sends a very bad message.
If only Lieberman weren’t pro-choice, I’d love it. Joe Lieberman has earned my respect by being willing to defy the Dems on Iraq. He cemented that respect by taking out Lamont during the primary and running as an independent. Furthermore, anyone who can infuriate the Kos Kidz as much as Lieberman … well, that makes me smile. :) But he’s still pro-choice.
No, voting for Lieberman doesn’t work for me. All of this other stuff smacks of rationalization. I can’t vote for a pro-choicer. I just can’t do it.
Senator McCain, please don’t do this. Pick someone else. Please.
I hope McCain picks Palin! VERY pro-life and a woman so she’d get the dissatisfied Hillary supporters.
“On the other hand, picking Lieberman as his running mate would be a loud & clear signal that McCain might not care as much about Life as he says he does.”
This is news to you? Of course he doesn’t care. Big time republicans like McCain and Bush don’t care about “life issues” they just like having the issues to exploit.
Hal,
Do you think Obama cares? No politician “really” cares that much. They want votes, but thats how the system works. We vote for the guy who at least pretends to care about we care about so that he will at least attempt to support our views.
If I were advising McCain I’d say Palin.
I think Obama care more about preserving the right to choose than McCain cares about eliminating it.
Hal bloviated:
This is news to you? Of course he doesn’t care. Big time republicans like McCain and Bush don’t care about “life issues” they just like having the issues to exploit.
Not this tired old line again….
I don’t doubt that there are some “pro-life” politicians who are just using us for votes, but that’s hardly a universal truth. Dubya is a particularly bad example of your argument.
While in office, President Bush has:
* shifted SCOTUS one vote closer to overturning Roe
* signed the partial-birth abortion ban, which is the first federal abortion ban ever
* held the line on embryonic stem-cell research, which certainly contributed to the IPSC breakthrough
* appointed other conservative judges to various courts
* issued executive orders to defend Life
* used his office to speak on behalf of the Culture of Life
Did Bush appreciate pro-life votes? Yeah, I’m sure he did. But he also earned those votes. Still unconvinced? I’ll let NARAL do the rest of the talking for me:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/bush-administration/
Anyway, there’s a logical error in your analysis. Don’t you usually claim that there’s a huge pro-choice majority in America? Aren’t pro-lifers supposedly out of the mainstream? If that’s so, then it would be a stupid politician indeed who would fake being pro-life just to court our votes….
fake pro-life to court conservative votes. McCain isn’t getting liberal votes anyway, and he’s in danger of losing conserative votes (Liberman for VP?). He has to take a pro-life position to have a chance.
Anyhow, you might be right about Bush. He is really bad on choice issues.
Hal “I think Obama care more about preserving the right to choose than McCain cares about eliminating it.”
Maybe, but not necessarily, and you are in no position to make even an educated guess about it really. Who knows what they are thinking? Maybe Obama secretly is pro-life but thinks it is in his best favor to push the extreme pro-choice line. Maybe McCain doesnt give a crap, or maybe he is radically pro-choice or pro-life.
I am sure that both are taking calculated stances. If anything Obama takes the more obviously calculated stances as witness in his often vague language.
“Who knows what they are thinking?”
You might be right again. However, I just find Obama to be very sincere, so I probably give him credit for being honest about his positions.
Hal, let me just say, are you freaking kidding me? Obama is about the least sincere politician I’ve ever seen. You’re obviously blinded by your own partisanship and unable to see your candidate for how he really is.
Perhaps you’re the one blinded by partisanship.
Obama is the real deal. That’s why you guys are flipping out.
No, dear Hal, Obama is hardly the “real deal” I’m not exactly a rank and file republican, and would vote for a truely pro-life democrat in a second. However, Obama is a liar and a cheater, and is clearly deceiving his base. Look, say you like him, but to imply he;s anything other thana particuarly charismatic, slimy politician is being disingenuous.
(sorry if this has lots ‘o typo’s, i’m nursing & typing!)
How can you say that, Hal? Obama hasn’t seen a noticeable bump in the polls, some in his party find his media fawning an “embarassment”, he can’t unify his party, concedes to make the majority of this convention about the Clintons, heck, even Carville is spouting out major frustration.
Earth to Hal…?
I’m just an average American who sees a politican of unsurpassed integrity and courage for the first time since RFK. I don’t know if he’ll win, but he deserves credit for leadership, decency, intelligence, judgment, and values. I know you don’t like his pro-choice position, fine. There’s no reason to call him a “slimy politician.” He connects with people. Even MCain is praising him tonight.
“unsurpassed integrity and courage”
Hal, where were you the past (oh I don’t know…year?) where we have shown that Obama lied about the BIAPA because he didn’t have the courage to be up-front with his reasoning.
Regardless of your position on the abortion issue, this was a blatant lie.
Also, you weren’t in Texas during the primary/cacus but the Obama camp was swirling with coruption. Explain how Obama lost the primary, yet won the cacus resulting in a 16 point differential. It’s statistically impossible for this to have happened, unless *ding ding ding* he cheated. And he did. Dear God, he did. People were stilling the delegate sheets, telling Clinton supporters the cacuses were over, “failing” to check to see if the cacus delegates had actually…you know…voted in the primary, and on and on.
The cacus fraud was most noticiable in Texas because of our stupid “Texas Two Step” primary system, but it is widely documented across America.
Let me put this as clearly as I can for you, Hal. I deeply, deeply disagree with Hillary Clinton’s stance on life issues, but after learning of Obama’s fraud I am certain that a fair primary was not held. Obama may be alot of things, but honest is not one of them.
Leadership: Where, pray tell? Community organizer? Doing what?
Intelligence: Intellectually, yes, I agree.
Judgement: Lord have mercy, where do I begin? Going on his Mideast/European tour showed a judgement deficit, IMO. Not stating unequivocally that the surge that he opposed has been successful, taking 4 days to get the Georgia/Russia issue straightened out in his head, not being able to stand down the Clintons before the Dem convention…I really don’t have all day.
Values: Even NARAL went neutral against his values. But then again, his and yours are of the same mold, so it’s not even worth arguing.
If I would give him credit for anything, it is for slipping past MSM scrutiny and landing the most-inexperienced-candidate-for-president-in-recent-history award.
Slimy? I wouldn’t go that far. Just not qualified.
“Regardless of your position on the abortion issue, this was a blatant lie.”
I’m not convinced it wasn’t a simple mistake over a minor and distant vote.
“Explain how Obama lost the primary, yet won the cacus resulting in a 16 point differential.”
That’s easy. Different people go to caucuses then vote in primary. Obama was much better than Clinton at motivating people to go to the caucus. Clinton got people to the polls.
The only thing unfair about Texas is the MSM pretending that Clinton won it simply because she won the primary.
Carder, Obama has been right on almost every issue. McCain and Bush, not so much. What’s wrong with his foreign tour, it was a great success. What was wrong wtih having the Clintons support him at the convention, it was powerful political theater. And, he knows that Iraq and Pakistan don’t share a border. Values? McCain doesn’t mind torture anymore. End of story.
Hal, it wasn’t a “mistake”. He flat out called US liars. Surely he wouldn’t make such a bold statement without actually, you know, reviewing his (short) voting record. He was asked about the bill again and again. He was the chairman of the committe. He *knew* how he voted, yet lied. And you’re sitting here plugging your ears because you don’t want to accept the truth.
Hal You HAD to vote in the primary to vote at the cacus. The way TX is set up, you vote in the primary and then come back later that night and cacus if you so choose. The percentages might have been a bit skewed, but it was *supposed* to be the same popluation cacusing as voting in primaries. Even if Obama was a magical unicorn, there wouldn’t be a 16 point spread…unless there was cheating afoot.
People ADMITTED that they they were NOT from the district that they were cacusing at, yet the MSM did nothing to cover these facts. Again, they were *NOT* checking to see if people had actually voted in the primaries, because voting records kept mysteriously vanishing,which obviously skewed results. Someone could, if they were so inclined, go to several precincts and cacus several times.
Look, Hal, this isn’t like “my little theory”, my mother was a precinct chair and saw all of this first hand. It was *not* a fair election, in was chaos. In fact, because of the, shall we say, “discrepancies” there is a movement to suspend the “texas two step” altogether.
Great success? The polls did NOT reflect that when he came back to the states?
He proved at Saddleback that he was not right on every issue. Again, how did the polls reflect his right-ness?
The Clintons deplored the guy. Just listen to Bill’s ‘Candidate X/Y discourse’ from just this past week, his venting that O. is a “Chicago Thug”…you MUST be glued to NBC to come up with this wish list.
If Obama had been gaining ground in the polls during these last few months, I would concede to your point, Hal. But the exact opposite has happened. McCain has slowly gained. Biden even helped Obama drop a point, for crying out loud.
End of that story.
Obama’s explainaton on his vote was an accurate explaination of an earlier vote. I can see getting mistaken about such things.
I can also easily imagine a 16 point spread, given that many people were willing to vote but not willing to commit to the time it takes to go to the caucus. Also, remember this is during Rush’s “operation chaos” so many of the “votes” for Hillary were Republicans and Dittoheads. They were probably unwilling to spend the night at the caucus for the sake of a few laughs on the show the next day.
I also would not call Obama slimy. And for those who do, it contradicts to some extent the conservative accusation that he is naive.
Carder, you wrote: “Most-inexperienced-candidate-in-history award” and called Obama “unqualified”. Did you vote for Texas-Gov GWBush over Al Gore? (I say Texas-Gov rather than Gov because the Governor’s Office of Texas is mostly symbolic, with less power and responsibility than any other state governor’s office.)
Obama’s first reaction to the Russia-Georgia thing was better than McCain’s. Caution rather than bluster. I haven’t really followed the evolution of Obama’s position but anyone who says Georgia’s gonna get to join NATO anytime soon is engaging in fantasy-politics.
Tim Pawlenty is who I think McCain is going to pick.
He’s canceled a bunch of appearances in the near future.
Hal, you don’t flat out call someone a liar if you are unsure of your vote. He had PLENTY of time to go back and look at his vote before he responded, but he didn’t. Yeah, freaking right.
Also, I think you are *vastly* over-estimating the republican role in Hillary’s win. I’ve lived in Texas for 10 years. I used to live smack dab between Dallas and Fort Worth and I personally spoke with many, many clinton supporters. They were PUMPED. My mother’s district is largely hispanic, and those people were literally *crying* about how thankful they were for Hillary Clinton. Now, I of course thought they were misguided, but the believed. The Clinton campaign pushed the “two-step” hard. Once the cacuses started, all hell broke lose. Obama delegates were literally STEALING the delegate sheets and writing in Obama. I could go on and on. Hal, you know there was NO WAY the cacus was fair, but just go ahead keep your blinders on.
SoMG, I don’t think he’s at all naive. I think he’s as slimy and conniving as they come.
Blah caucus (and I’m sure a plethora of other typo’s) I don’t know where my brain is today.
“I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations,” – John McCain, 1999.
what do you think McCain meant by “necessary?” Or “force”
Hal, what you point? That McCain has not always had a pro-life record? We all know that and have come to terms with it because he claims that he will further life causes. Will he? Who knows, but he is certainly not as rabidly pro-abortion as Obama.
If McCain will maintain the pro-life record of Bush, I will be happy.
I’m not shouting from the rooftops for McCain. He wasn’t my choice, but he has shown himself to be the best candidate for life for this election.
my point is Obama is more sincere than McCain. McCain has drifted from a rational approach to please the hard right.
“Necessary” would imply that abortion was no longer needed because of a growing acceptance of life and support for pregnant women. As for “force” I believe it is his misguided opinion that the currant social forces that back women into abortions would continue, and thus women would choose back alley abortions.
I think that the ramifications of overturning Roe V. Wade could be viewed by examining the abortive paterns of women in Ireland. Though many travel out of country (and many would travel out of state for abortion if roe v. wade were overturned) very few illegal abortions are reported. In fact, even those who are calling for legalized abortion note that there have not been reports of illegal abortions in the country since the 50’s. Now, I’m sure some *do* occur, especially since medical abortions are availible, but it seems it not a public health problem. Of course, the only statistics of these “back alley abortions” occuring is anticdotal stories from what I gather is the Irish version of PP.
Anyways, my point is that I think it is more prudent to look at a country such as Ireland for illegal abortion information than, say, Uganda.
Hal,
Just had to wheigh in on Obama. Have you honestly done your research to really understand how sincere this guy really is?
There have been so many dicrepencies in his life people have written books about it. He has literally plagiarized exerpts from speeches, lied about his voting record, aquired his home through a known Chicago slum lord who has just pled guilty on 16 counts of political influence peddling. Tony Rezko could be put away for the next 200 years. Nice associations
Where is Reverend Wright? How do you sit in someone’s church for 20 years and hear what he has to say, but don’t listen well enough to understand what he preaches?? He then completely distances himself from this guy since heproved to be a stain on his political career.
Bill Ayers? He calls bill Ayers a mainstream respectable guy?
Yikes Hal, wake up. Put the kool-aid down.
Needless to say, they are anti-abortion. I wonder why Joe isnt and why so many Orthodox Jews are not?
Oliver, Jewish tradition, which applied to those who wrote the Old Testament in the Bible, was viewing the human person as beginning with the first breath, after being born.
Not arguing, here, and I don’t know if it’s still that way for Orthodox Jews, but that would explain it.
Doug,
Talmudic “law” has opposed abortion, except when it threatens the mother’s life. I found another article after your reponse that seems to suggest that the phrase “threatens the mother’s life” is open to wide interpretation. However, it made it clear that “abortion on demand” is absolutely not supported.
Doug,
NEW YORK, August 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Eight years ago when Al Gore selected then-Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman as his Vice Presidential running mate, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical court formally excommunicated Lieberman over his stands on partial birth abortion and homosexuality. The excommunication is said to stand to this day….
Article continued at:
http://deaconforlife.blogspot.com/
Lauren, and Sandy…great posts!!!
Sandy, keep your right wing smeers about Obama to yourself please.
You don’t have to respect the man, but you should respect the office of Presidency he’s headed for.
Sandy, you speak the truth about Obama and his associations. Obama and his connections to groups that promote “community organinzing” base their strategies on Saul Alinsky’s writings and philosophy. He pushed for using the courts when you can’t accomplish your goals through legislation. The dedication in one of his first books was “to the first radical who challenged the establishment and won for himself a kingdom: Lucifer.” If that doesn’t make one’s blood run cold! That is the man ( S.Alinsky) that liberal Democrats such as Hilary and Barak base their political and philosophical foundations upon.
Hal,
These are not right wing smears. They are documented truths.
Talmudic “law” has opposed abortion, except when it threatens the mother’s life. I found another article after your reponse that seems to suggest that the phrase “threatens the mother’s life” is open to wide interpretation. However, it made it clear that “abortion on demand” is absolutely not supported.
Oliver, you had asked why so many Orthodox Jews are not anti-abortion, so I gave it a shot. I don’t know much about it. It does seem that things are flexible:
One case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except for its mother’s milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case. An abortion of the fetus, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
An abortion would be permissible if the woman was suicidal because of her pregnancy.
Jewish authorities differed in a case where a continued pregnancy would leave the mother permanently deaf. She obtained permission for an abortion from the Chief Rabbi of Israel.
Many Jewish authorities permit abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape, if needed in order save her great mental anguish.
Most authorities do not permit abortion in the event that the fetus is genetically defective or will probably pick up a disease from its mother. The rationale is that even though the child will be malformed, disabled, or diseased, it would still be formed in the image of the creator. Rabbi Eliezar Waldenberg is one authority who believes otherwise. He “allows first trimester abortion of a fetus which would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the end of the second trimester of gestation.”
An abortion is sometimes permitted if the woman suffers great emotional pain about the birth of a child who will experience health problems.
Abortions are not permitted for economic reasons, to avoid career inconveniences, or because the woman is unmarried.
In a very unusual case, a woman in New Jersey was pregnant with a hydroencephalic fetus. Its large head prevented a conventional delivery. The physician recommended a Caesarian section. But the woman asked for a D&X procedure on the grounds that the fetus’ life was doomed anyway and a C section would weaken her uterus for her next pregnancy. Her rabbinic authorities agreed.
…..
Janet: Eight years ago when Al Gore selected then-Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman as his Vice Presidential running mate, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbinical court formally excommunicated Lieberman over his stands on partial birth abortion and homosexuality. The excommunication is said to stand to this day….
Janet, things may have changed – here’s a reference to a Jewish legal text from the 2nd century A.D. (I’m thinking this is once abortion has been approved.)
“The legal text states that the fetus must be dismembered and removed limb by limb. However, if “the greater part” of the fetus had already been delivered, then the fetus could not be killed. This is based on the belief that the fetus only becomes a person after most of its body emerges from the birth canal. Before personhood has been reached, it may be necessary to “sacrifice a potential life in order to save a fully existent human life, i.e. the pregnant woman in labor.” After the forehead emerges from the birth canal, the fetus is regarded as a person. Neither the baby nor the mother can be killed to save the life of the other.”
Doug: “Oliver, you had asked why so many Orthodox Jews are not anti-abortion, so I gave it a shot. I don’t know much about it. It does seem that things are flexible:”
I said they were. If you look at the text you quoted you will see that abortion on demand is not excepted. You cannot abort because the child is deform, except in a few cases where the mother would suffer exceptional anguish from the caring of that child. Adoption solves that problem. You also cannot abort to further your career.
Most of the cases cited to support abortion are actually also included on most pro-life stances. For example, it is still a pro-life stance to allow abortion in the case of rape. It may not be universally excepted, but it is pro-life. Pro-choice, as most of the constituents will Im sure tell you, is letting the mother abort for whatever reason she wants. It is very clear that the Talmud does not support that in any way shape or form.
Oliver, agreed that in many situations the orthodox Jews are against abortion, from what we’ve now seen.
What I saw you say, though, was:
Needless to say, they are anti-abortion. I wonder why Joe isnt and why so many Orthodox Jews are not?
It looked to me like you were saying that Joe isn’t anti-abortion and that many Orthodox Jews also weren’t.
For example, it is still a pro-life stance to allow abortion in the case of rape.
O, I gotta say that IMO most pro-lifers on this blog will disagree with you.
In practice, among all Americans, even those who call themselves “pro-life,” I agree that there is a lot of support for allowing abortion in the case of rape, but on Jill’s blog the more extreme faction is heavily weighted.