Ace,

You hear that? That's the sound of another dollar going right down the toilet.

"...'self-determination' should guide decisions about abortion and school prayer and that in cases where scientific facts are disputed and religious beliefs vary, 'government should not act.'"

What an absolutely terrible argument. First of all, her "self-determination" approach to abortion pre-supposes that the interests of the child determining not to get aborted are not protectable -- which ignores the core issue of the debate, rather than providing a disciplined response to it.

Second, her "religious differences" rationale is fundamentally unsound, first of all because a Satanist can argue a) Satanism is areligion, b) Satanists believe in the ritual massacre of innocents, and therefore c) government should not intrude upon the rights of Satanists to massacre innocents. After all, aren't there "varied religious beliefs"? In addition, while it is true that many people object to abortion on religious grounds, there are also secular objections (kid has right not to have his limbs ripped out in utero, Roe improperly took the decision-making process out of the hands of democratically-elected representatives, etc.).

Meirs' reasoning therefore strikes me as at once ludicrously dismissive of opposing viewpoints, shallow, and pro-activism in a way that no conservative should ever be able to stomach.

Having a bad day? Read Miers's speech in its entirety. Wow. My current favorite line:

"We undeniable still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance."

And no, I didn't mistype anything.

Hugh and Beldar have their work cut out for them today.

Pretty muddleheaded stuff. This is rapidly becoming indefensible.

In addition, while it is true that many people object to abortion on religious grounds, there are also secular objections (kid has right not to have his limbs ripped out in utero, Roe improperly took the decision-making process out of the hands of democratically-elected representatives, etc.).

That's RIGHT, people.

There's no dispute to the SCIENTIFIC FACT that human DNA is fully formed in a fertilized egg within 24 hours of conception. It is also SCIENTIFIC FACT that the newly-formed cell/s exhibit life from the moment the egg is fertilized. Ergo, a fertilized egg is a living human within 24 hours of conception. Nothing religious about that.

Now, if you want to talk about rights, go ahead, but you can't get around scientific fact.

Anyone still on board the Miers train has taken a brain-fatal dose of Kool-Aid.

Reading that speech, I felt sorry for the poor bastards that had to listen to it.

What the hell is Bush thinking with this one?

Ace,
You consider yourself mildly pro-life but you think Roe is good public policy?

Don't kid yourself that Roe is some kind of "compromise" on abortion. It amounts to nothing more than de facto abortion on demand (see, for example, the overturning of PBA bans).

Ace: Roe v. Wade wasn't necessarily a bad decision in and of itself (I happen to think it was, but that's clouded by my moral judgement), it was a bad decision because it was and is not the pervue of the federal judiciary to decide that particular case. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow the federal government (in this case represented by the federal court system) to tell the states, "You have to allow this."

Once Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will not stop legal abortion, but it will send the decision to legalize or criminalize it back to where it properly belongs, and that's to the states.

No wonder why Bush likes her so much -- they're both equally inarticulate.

But seriously folks, Ace interpreted the point of Miers' speech to mean "as regards abortion, as people have differing beliefs, government should not pass laws restricting the procedure."

(Of course I know that Ace isn't making this claim.)

It is a common argument made by the pro-choicers. But I always looked at Roe as the Court passing law to allow rather than restrict a procedure that is deemed immoral by certain religions. So it appears, to some, that the Court did indeed take a side on a religious issue.

If the pro-choicers really want the government to not impose religious beliefs the Court should not have touched Roe. Which brings us back to individual states deciding on abortion and that's where it belongs.

No, I'm not saying the states have the right to make law imposing or denying religious beliefs, but then again, I am.

For instance, if the majority of people of Utah want to ban abortion, the elected officials who represent the people should ban abortion. If a resident of Utah doesn't agree with the ban, tough shit, move to California where it is legal. But you can't run to the Supreme Court and usurp the will of the people in Utah, it is simply un-American and against what the Founding Fathers had in mind when creating the role of the Federal government and establish the three branches of government. They never intended the Court to legislate Federal law and screw the states. And that is why Roe was a very bad decision.

"

Harriet took one look at Ace's withering commentary and quit on the spot.