grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, keeps palin on a tight leash

well by now most of you have probably seen palin's recent interview with katie couric. grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, did too and has since pulled even tighter on her leash to keep her from speaking in public. while joe biden was interviewed on almost every major news channel following friday's presidential debate, the grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, campaign did not allow palin to publicly comment on the debates.

well on saturday grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, decided to let palin out to get some pizza with her friends. palin invited the media along to show all of us that she eats pizza, just like you and me. unfortunately for grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, somebody dared to ask palin a question. and even more unfortunately, palin answered.

grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, once again had to send palin to her room to be grounded; and then had to go explain her naughty behavior to the press.

well it just looked bad for grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, to be doing all of the speaking on behalf of palin. afterall, palin was his pick for vice-president. if there is going to be one critical decision that he has made during the campaign that should reflect the type of judgment he has, it should be the very important decision he makes in choosing his vice-president.

so today grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, allowed palin to be interviewed about the mishap and speak for herself. . . sorta. grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, made sure that he was there for the interview with her leash on tight, just in case he needed to pull her back from opening her mouth too much. just watch how nervous he gets when she starts to speak, finally jumping in to speak for her when he feels she is incapable of doing it for herself. it reminds me of some poor lawyer desperately trying to cover and speak over his drunken celebrity.

i know all this talk of palin on a leash sounds sexist, but i can't help but feel that it best describes the type of control that grandpa mccain, a former prisoner of war, now wants (and perhaps needs) over palin.

ok. so maybe it isn't fair. we shouldn't expect to take what a candidate says to a voter seriously. right? we all know that voters are the people that candidates are least obligated to be honest with. if palin had been asked this question in a more serious prepared one-on-one interview with the media, she wouldn't have said the same thing. right?

right?

oh crap...

snl does it again!

last night tina fey once again reprised her role as sarah palin in a parody of palin's recent interview with katie couric. it is amazing how alike fey and palin can look.

i must admit though, fey's performance was a little mean. she makes palin look like a bumbling idiot.

here are a couple clips from the snl skit. enjoy!

a brief intermission

it's a bit late, but i needed to write something short before i finish a little more studying and go to sleep. i am writing a paper on eugene england's pacifist theology and just starting reading his collection of essays, making peace. i just wanted to quickly say that i have a testimony of the gospel of jesus christ. i have a testimony of the healing power of forgiveness - healing that comes both from being forgiven, but even more in forgiving. i am poor example of christ and could do so much better, but i am learning. if we could all have his compassion, his love, empathy, and understanding this would would be a much better place. too often we see the world and our relations with others through the lenses of revenge, retribution, and being right instead of the christ's lense of grace. our demands of justice blind us to the possibilities of mercy.

i need to do better. i need to strive harder to understand and eventually emulate that great love that christ has not only given me, but was so quick to give to those who in our eyes perhaps deserved it the least.

about seven years ago, a few days following the world trade center attacks my stake president, ed pinegar, got up in church and bore his testimont of christ's love. he bore a testimony of christ pleading with our father on behalf of the hijackers, to forgive them for the knew not what they did.

i can only hope to someday understand and have that love.

Mormons and Roe v. Wade - The Rape Exception

-Introduction
-Some of the Bare Facts
-When Does Life Begin?

For most Mormons (and yes I am making another generalization based off of my experience) legal exceptions ought to be made for abortions performed due to pregnancies that resulted from rape (or incest). This is of course related to the LDS Church's current moral and church-membership policy that abortions may be permissible under those circumstances and that it should be a decision left up to the woman. What most Mormons who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade do not know is that RvW centered around a woman's legal right to have an abortion for a pregnancy resulting from rape.

In 1970 under Texas law, the only abortion that could legally be performed was one to save the life of the mother. Abortions for rape, incest, severe defects, and even the health of the mother were all criminal offenses. Women you received these abortions (even if they went out of state to receive them) could be imprisoned. Roe v. Wade resulted when a Texan, "Jane Roe," claimed* to have become pregnant after being raped and desired to have an abortion.

So what about repealing Roe v. Wade, but making a legal exception for pregnancies that result from rape? There are three main problems with attempting to criminalize all abortions except for those done because of rape (and incest). (1) The exception would deny the necessary right to life that most pro-life moral arguments are based upon. (2) Such an exception is completely impractical and could not be implemented. And (3) a rape exception would increase mental, emotion, and physical violence among rape victims.

First, the rape exception denies the necessary right to life claim which is usually appealed to in pro-life arguments. If the unborn fetus has a necessary right to life, then why would its being conceived by rape cause it not to have that right? I so often here the appeal made that "this is a human being that has to be protected." If that is the case, how then does it being conceived by rape make it less than a human being? There seems to be three options available here: either all unborn fetuses possess a necessary right to life; all unborn fetuses do not possess this right; or all fetuses, except those conceived by rape or incest, have a necessary right to life. If we choose the first, then those conceived by rape ought to be protected as well. If we choose the second, then the appeal to a necessary right to life is lost. If we choose the third, then we have drawn a rather arbitrary line that renders the claim rather meaningless. If you someone is to argue that the unborn fetus has a necessary right to life, then that person cannot also argue for exceptions for rape (and vice versa).

Second, actually legislating a rape exception would be impractical. First, this would naturally result in an overwhelming increase in accusations of rape. If abortions were only legal for rape, then it is inevitable that we would find an increase of false rape accusations, as it would be seen as the only recourse that women have who wish to receive an abortion.* This increase of false rape accusation leads to the next reason why a legal exception for abortions due to rape is so impractical - the difficulty in proving rape. Will a court-order proving that a pregnancy did in fact result from rape be required before a woman could receive an abortion? If not, would women be required to prove after the abortion that they had in fact been raped? This is highly problematic because for most rapes, unless it was done by violently and/or by a complete stranger, it is nearly impossible to prove. When a high percentage of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, determining whether or not it was forced or consensual can be nearly impossible.

Finally, the rape exception would result in an increased amount of mental, emotional, and physical violence against rape victims. Because of the difficulty in proving rape, by the time most victims are able to prove that they were raped, they would already be late-term or have already given birth to the unwanted child. While the added stress of needing even more to prove their rape would increase the mental and emotional anguish they would incur, this could easily increase the displeasure they have in having to keep the pregnancy while their claim is being evaluated, which would in turn further increase their mental and emotional pain. Also, because of the aforementioned increase of false rape accusations, there would arise an increased need of proof that there was in fact a rape and that it was not consensual sex. The violent resistance that may provide this proof would go against the wisdom and fact that violent resistance to rape dramatically increases the violent abuse of the victim and often does not prevent the rape.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Norma McCorvey, also known as "Jane Roe," was unable to get the abortion and gave up her baby for adoption after it was born. She later claimed to have lied about the rape and became an ardent pro-life supporter.

letterman on mccain

in case you haven't heard, john SIDNEY mccain, a former prisoner of war, announced that he is going to suspend his campaign and wants to postpone friday's presidential debate as well as next week's vice-presidential debate so that he and and sarah palin, a woman, can have more time to memorize their answers. in the process mccain, a former prisoner of war, also canceled his appearance on dave letterman. dave was not happy.

this is from tonight's show.

palin and clinton's special non-partisan announcement

today the john SIDNEY mccain, a former prisoner of war, campaign claimed that the above snl skit was "sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance."

i could think of reasons to call it sexist, but to call it sexist because it plays off of palin's lack of knowledge?

whatever.

Mormons and Roe v. Wade - When Does Life Begin?

The fourteenth amendment guarantees the protection of life, liberties, and persons within the state. The big question in relation to abortion then is whether or not the unborne fetus is a living person because if the fetus is determined to be a living person, then that person would have the protection of life, rights, and liberties guaranteed by the constitution.

There are four main views of when the fetus becomes a living person:
1. At conception.
2. “Quickening” - when the fetus is felt moving (as early as 14 weeks).
3. Viability – when the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb (as early as 10 weeks).
4. Birth.

For most pro-life advocates, the argument is made that life begins at conception. For some this means the moment when the egg becomes fertilized; for others it is when the new embryo attaches itself to the uterus and the mother becomes biologically pregnant.

While “quickening” was once historically used as evidence of life, it has largely become abandoned because new ultrasound technology has shown that muscular movements occur from the beginning of their very development and whether or not the mother can sense this movement is rather arbitrary.

Viability was upheld in Roe v. Wade as a reliable measure of determining when the fetus is a person and provides individual states with the right to ban abortions after this point (except for those done to protect the life or health of the mother).

Birth is pretty much a given though the issue of partial-birth abortion complicates this. I will have another post devoted to this difficult procedure later.

Because 'quickening' has become obsolete and Roe v. Wade acknowledges viability as an adequate determiner of life, then whether or not life begins at conception is the primary question related to when life begins for those who wish to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The problem with basing abortion laws on the belief that life begins at conception is because that belief is a religious belief and our first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” To base a law on a religious belief is to establish a particular religious belief over another and is the very establishment of religion. This is the core of the matter. Our constitution (which in Mormonism was divinely inspired) specifically states that we cannot use our religious beliefs to construct laws which infringe on the rights of others. And that is what the belief that life begins at conception is – a religious belief.

Scientifically and philosophically, the idea that a clump of cells formed from a newly fertilized egg is a living person is difficult, if not impossible to make. For the first stages of development is not much different from a chunk of flesh ripped off my knee in a mountain biking accident. We would hardly consider that piece of flesh hanging by a layer of skin to be a living person. In later stages when the fetus has begun to develop organs and have a beating heart, we may emotionally and spiritually want to call it a living person, but that fetus is no different than that of a brain-dead car accident victim whose beating heart, lungs, and other organs are kept artificially 'alive' for donation by means of a life-support system. (So-called 'potential life' is a similar, but different issue which I'll discuss in another post.) Without scientific justification, the argument is left to religious beliefs which cannot be used to create laws – especially when those beliefs infringe on the rights of others.

This is complicated more when religious beliefs vary on when life begins. The common Christian view that life begins at conception was largely developed by Augustine in the 4th century whose views were largely based on the Aristotelian belief that human life was contained in the sperm of the father and that the mother was only fertile soil for planting that human life. Augustine took this further and argued that the whole of human society was seminally contained in Adam and that each male has the entirety of his progeny contained within him. This was the means by which original sin was continued and the reason why masturbation and birth control was prohibited. Any 'wasted' seed was in fact killing human life. Because the sperm itself was a human life, it growing in the newly impregnated mother was also a human life. While the beliefs underlying this argument for life at conception have somewhat faded, the conclusion remains the same for much of Christianity.

In Islam various interpreters have argued that life begins either at 'quickening' or something akin to viability. Several Jewish arguments go to the Genesis account where Adam is not a living person until he takes his first breath and God breathes spirit (breath) into him. From this they argue that life does not begin until the newborn takes its first breath.

And of course many are non-religious and don't have a religious argument for when a fetus is a living person.

For us Mormons, the 'official' Church has been explicit that there is no doctrine of when life begins. Brigham Young somewhat famously argued for 'quickening' though other church leaders and presidents have put forward everything from conception to the first breath.

With various religious and non-religious beliefs about when the fetus actually becomes a living person, it should be easily understood why that belief cannot be used to base a law.

Well if the belief that life begins at conception 'encompasses' all of the other beliefs, why not just use that? While this may seem to be the easy remedy, it still does not avoid the problem that such a law is telling another what they can or cannot do because of someone else's religious belief that they do not share. It would be no different than a law prohibiting the eating of pork because of Jewish and Islamic beliefs, contraception because of Catholic beliefs, or coffee based on our LDS beliefs. In matters of life and death we wouldn't want blood-transfusions and organ donations banned because of Jehovah's Witness beliefs, or even pacifist policies based on Quaker or Mennonite beliefs (no matter how much I would like that).

I have a religious belief that human-sacrifice is wrong and we are able to ban that. That human-sacrifice is wrong is not simply a religious belief. In our 'enlightened' society we have a pretty strong consensus that human sacrifice is wrong and should be outlawed. Furthermore, we are in complete agreement (besides crazies) that the person sacrificed in a human sacrifice is, in fact, a person. We need no religious beliefs to make the case that the victim is a human life that is guaranteed protection by the state.

reading comments for class: sterling m. mcmurrin - the theological foundations of the mormon religion

Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, 1965.

Loyd Ericson
Sept 11th 2008

Page 27 - “the finitism in the concept of God that follows necessarily from the denial of ultimate creation, a finitism that places Mormonism in a fundamental opposition to the absolutism that has been primary assumption of theological discussion throughout the history of Christian thought.”

I think this passage here gets to the heart of the reason why traditional Christians want to sat that Mormons are not Christians. Mormons have a completely and drastically different worldview and conception of God. The difference between our views of the Trinity are not the primary reason, but are entailments from this different conception of God. This is why social trinitarians mostly still hold that a Mormon social trinity is still different – because the underlying nature which holds social trinitarianism together is lacking in Mormon theology. For traditional Christianity, God is unembodied, immaterial, and absolute in all of his qualities. Traditional Christians are not just monotheistic because they only worship one God, but because there is logically only one God capable of existing to be worshiped. If God is absolutely omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnipresent (all-present), then there cannot exist a comparable being.

As McMurrin shows, the denial of creation ex nihilo and the physical embodiment of God entails that God is not absolutely omnipotent; nor is God omnipresent. Furthermore the embodiment of God denies the timelessness of God – a physical being in action can only act within time. The denial of these things implies that a being could logically exist that is more powerful than the being identified by Mormons as God. For traditional Christians such an idea is pretty much blasphemous.

For McMurrin, the finite nature of God is able to address the problem of evil in ways that traditional Christianity is unable – evil is something that God also struggles with (103). While most Mormons seem to accept a certain form of this because a relationship where both participants struggle can often strengthen the relationship, I do not see most Mormons whole-heartedly accepting this as such as struggle may also imply that God might also fail in this struggle. (If God could not possibly fail, it wouldn't seem to be much of a struggle). I think for most Mormons (I know Ostler argues this), a being which is not powerful enough to ensure victory is not worthy of worship.

Page 35 - “Finistic theology is not more popular among the Mormons than among others if they are judged by their typical sermons or rhetorical terminology. The word 'finite' stirs nothing in the soul of the worshipper. But 'infinite,' 'omnipotent,' and 'omniscient' are words made to order for the preacher and the popular writer. So Mormon theological writing and sermonizing are more often than not replete with the vocabulary of absolutism. But, like it or not, the Mormon theologian must sooner or later return to the finistic conception of God upon which both his technical theology and his theological myths are founded.”

While I agree with McMurrin, I don't see Mormonism (especially its leaders) returning any time soon to its finistic roots. One reason is because LDS scripture is full of absolute descriptions of God. While I think they are best read as language of praise and worship denoting the relative greatness of God, I think most Mormons tend to read these as absolute and accurate descriptions of God's essential nature. A second reason as to why I do not see Mormons returning to its finistic roots is the view of worship-worthy-ness of an absolute deity and the worship-worthy-less-ness of a less than absolute deity that underlies our western sentiments today. Finally, following the ecumenical approaches of Stephen E. Robinson, Robert L. Millet, and the LDS Church's public relations efforts to make Mormonism more traditional Christian friendly, the rhetoric of describing the nature of God within Mormonism and extending from Mormonism tends to strongly downplay the finistic nature of Mormon theology while further embracing a view of God that is more acceptable to Mormonism's Christian neighbors.

Mormons and Roe v. Wade - Some of the Bare Facts

The LDS position:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

The Republican party platform:

“We lament that judges have denied the people their right to set abortion policies...”

“Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. . . . At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life.”

Fourteenth Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Though the GOP (Republican) platform does not explicitly mention Roe v. Wade, it is fairly understood that the proposed amendment will do just that by defining an unborne fetus as a person.

John McCain:

“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”

“[Life begins at] the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate. And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That's my commitment. That's my commitment to you.”

Sarah Palin:

Wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Beliefs abortions should only be legal for life of mother.

“I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor's determination that the mother's life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent's life.”

Democratic Platform:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.
The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption programs.”

Barack Obama:

Supports Roe v. Wade.

Supports limited partial-birth abortion. (There will be a whole post later on this).

“One thing that I'm absolutely convinced of is that there is a moral and ethical element to this issue. And so I think anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue I think is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.
But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe versus Wade. And I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with these pastors or their spouses or their doctors and their family members.

"So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions? Because the fact is is that although we've had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down. And that, I think, is something that we have to ask ourselves.
Well, I am in favor, for example, of limits on late- term abortions if there is an exception for the mother's health. Now, from the perspective of those who, you know, are pro-life, I think they would consider that inadequate, and I respect their views. I mean, one of the things that I've always said is is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that because that is a core issue of faith for you.

What I can do is say, are there ways that we can work together to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies so that we actually are reducing the sense that women are seeking out abortions? And as an example of that, one of the things that I've talked about is, how do we provide the resources that allow women to make the choice to keep a child? You know, have we given them the health care that they need? Have we given them the support services they need? Have we given them the options of adoption that are necessary? That, I think, can make a genuine difference.”

Joe Biden:

Supports Roe v. Wade.

Voted for ban of partial-birth abortions.

(I know that it looks like I provided more text for Obama than McCain. I pulled the former quotes by both from the recent Saddleback forum. The statement by McCain was the entirety of his answer.

Roe v. Wade

All abortions must be performed in state-approved facilities.
Abortions for any reason should be legal until fetus reaches point of 'viability.'
Viability is the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb (usually some time before the third trimester).
Individual states get to determine with the aid of medical professionals at what point they believe viability begins. (For example in Utah viability has been determined to begin at 20 weeks).
States can place limitations and bans on abortion after their determined point of viability. However abortions for the life and health of the mother must remain in tact.

(I got lazy and decided not to link any of the sources. If you want any, I can provide them).

Mormons and Roe v. Wade - Introduction

In my experience I have found that for a majority of Mormons one of the key issues that guides their voting habit (to vote Republican) is the issue of abortion. They firmly believe that the Republican Party represents their moral views concerning abortion and vote based on the promise that is recycled every election year by the Republican Party to overturn Roe v. Wade – despite the fact that no Republican President, Congress, or majority of conservative judges has even attempted to do so. (Such as 2000-2006 which had all three).

This election year is no different. Sarah Palin, the new Republican nominee for Vice-President has been touted by her party as the pro-life candidate that conservatives want – though less public is her desire to see that all abortions besides those to protect the life and health of the mother be made illegal (including pregnancies due to rape and incest). She is so pro-life that her campaign as a mayor for a town of only 9,000 people centered around her stance on this issue and made a big deal of her opponent pro-choice stance.

In light of all of this, I have decided to write a series of several posts (and yes, I will actually finish these) about why Mormons in general are misguided when they vote based on their desire to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Not only is this a useless basis for a vote (as not Republican actually will overturn RvW), but I believe if Mormons actually knew more about Roe v Wade and what it does and does not do, they would find themselves on the Democratic end of supporting it, rather than fighting against it.

These posts will be largely based on discussions I have had with students at UVSC where I was able to teach an introductory Ethics and Values course for the last couple years. For a week or so, we would discuss RvW and the moral and legal issues of abortion. With more than 80% of my students being LDS, I would always find that most of them had a very different view of things after actually really thinking about it for the first time in their lives.

Because I plan for this to be a series of blog posts, I ask that you keep all comments directed at the particular issues that I address in each post. If you have an argument that I have not yet addressed, be patient as I will most likely address it in a later post. All comments that derail from the original post will be deleted. If at the end of all my posts, I have not addressed your argument, then feel free to post it on my final post.

john SIDNEYmccain, a former prisoner of war: a reformed maverick

i know it's another video. last week i posted obama's nomination video and in the spirit of bi-partisanship i felt i should also post the rnc's nomination video for john SIDNEY mccain, a former prisoner of war. enjoy.

name anything sarah palin has done, and she's done it.

i know i've been posting a lot of videos lately, but this was too good to not post. check out colbert's the word which begins about 3 minutes into the video. in a few days i'll be beginning a series of posts about abortion and why mormons are misguided in using it as a reason to vote republican.

tribute or fear propaganda? what do you think?

the following was shown as a 'tribute' during the republican national convention. what do you think?

barack obama - he completes us

this was just too awesomely funny to not post

the new pad

for all of those who have been asking about it, here is a brief tour of my new apartment

the last days of utah

here a are a few pics from my last days in the great state of utah. apparently the state has held up without me, but i'm not sure how long that will last.

miscellaneous pics with the boys and others

here are some random pics with my nephews and others that i took on my cell phone the last couple months.