Thursday, September 18, 2008

Ponnuru Raps Kmiec for Defending Obama's Born-Alive Vote

You knew it would eventually come to this, but Prof. Kmiec has now resorted to defending the absolutely indefensible. Fortunately, Ramesh Ponnuru slaps Kmiec around so I don't have to.

Labels: , , , ,

3 Comments:

At 9/18/2008 8:53 AM, Blogger Dale said...

Kmiec has eliminated all doubt as to his good faith and has joined the ranks of the enemy. He deserves our prayers, but he has sacrificed his integrity on the altar of his candidate. Tragic, yes, but he no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 
At 9/18/2008 11:11 AM, Anonymous crankycon said...

The fact that the man is publishing a book about his endorsement tells you all you need to know about his motivation.

Speaking of the book, how good could something produced in such a short time frame be? The man endorsed Ob'ma in what, late March? This thing had to be in final form by the end of August, at the latest. So we're talking about something thrown together in four months. Am I really supposed to take something put together so hurriedly seriously? No intellectually serious person could possibly stand behind such a shoddy end product, and there's no way it can be anything but shoddy.

 
At 9/20/2008 2:55 PM, Blogger Literacy-chic said...

The way Kmiec throws around the terms "pre-viable" and "post-viable" are particularly suspect. I wonder how many women who go into preterm labor and deliver babies who are premature by several weeks are advised to let their babies die with no medical attention? Many of the breakthroughs that have been made in the care of premature babies have necessarily occurred as doctors tried to save (i.e. offered medical attention to) babies that otherwise would have been considered "pre-viable." Who would define "pre-viability"? How arbitrary is that term with increasing medical technology? And how long would it be before health insurance companies were using that term to deny coverage to extremely pre-term babies who might--given medical advances--be given a chance for survival through expensive medical care? For that matter, how would a government-run Universal Health Care System regard "pre-viable" infants, or would that depend on whether that "pre-viable" infant was "wanted" or not?

Of course, that wasn't at all the point. Rather, the granting of constitutional rights to born-alive babies, whether viable or pre-viable, eliminates the debate over at what stage of viability (if any) a fetus becomes a person under the Constitution. Surely Kmiec realizes that, thus, his pre-viable/post-viable distinction is highly significant in discussions of this Act, but for different reasons than the ones he cites. What we really have is a red-herring disguised as a defense against a red-herring!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger