--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > T'would seem we're about to see how much of a > > "feminist" Raunchy really is. Some Pro-Choice > > advocates are calling into question Sotomayor's > > stance on the right to abortion. At this point > > there seems to be no clear-cut evidence in her > > writing one way or another. > > I'm sure there will be many questions Sotomayor will > answer. We still don't know much about her. I'm crossing > my fingers that she at least supports Roe v. Wade.
I consider this a sane and balanced answer. > I can't imagine she would not. This I do not. Your lack of imagination reflects poorly only on yourself, not on Sotomayor. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss > > > > But isn't it an interesting test of just how > > "liberal" and "progressive" women like Raunchy > > really are? The thing I found most interesting > > in the article is that everyone has assumed > > that Obama (being Pro-Choice) would have picked > > a person whom he knew to agree with him. As it > > turns out, *he never asked the question*. > > What?!!! He never asked the question? What a fucking weasel! This is an equally unsane response in my opinion. It brings us back to previous arguments on this forum between those who are committed to reliance on axioms and those who are committed to "doing the right thing," as it appears to be the right thing at the time, even if that goes against an axiom they believe in generally. I am of the opinion that the former approach (relying on axioms or dogma or moral codes exclusively) is equivalent to fundamentalism. And that thus it is not a Good Thing. One of the things that I most admire in Obama is that he is *NOT* committed to axioms. He is a pragmatist, one whose action in the moment considers all of the factors impinging on the decision at that moment. Some of these factors are axioms that he holds to be true, but others *are* pragmatic, and if one is committed to the concept of "doing the right thing," I don't see how they can support the fundamentalist notion of "always following the axioms." For example, as I mentioned before in a dis- cussion with Edg, and as he replied to by ignoring it completely :-), what if you believe in a general axiom of "Thou shalt not kill?" Now imagine that you -- believing that -- find yourself in a position where you have the oppor- tunity to kill a terrorist just before he sets off a bomb that could kill hundreds or thousands of people. What's a believer in axioms to do? A believer in pragmatism and being "in the moment" would assess the situation from *all* sides. The believer in "axioms only" would probably cause the deaths of hundreds or thousands of people. I believe that Raunchy's characterization of Obama as a "weasel" for not asking Sotomayor what she would do in a theoretical situation reveals more about her than it does either Obama or Sotomayor. Raunchy, by saying this, is positioning herself *as* a fundamentalist, one who believes that it is acceptable and in fact a Good Thing to demand that the people one appoints to the Supreme Court believe in the same axioms that you do, and that they are prepared to act on those axioms, regard- less of other concerns that appear "in the moment" that a decision must be made. Obama is beyond that. My assessment of the man is that he does not allow such petty "You have to believe the things I believe and commit to doing them or you can't work for me" concerns to dictate his choices as to nominees for public office. My assessment of Obama is of a man who is *NOT* a fundamentalist, *NOT* a person who attaches himself to dogma and axioms, but one who seeks the "best possible solution" in the moment. That kind of person I trust with the reins of government. Someone who would only act on the basis of some deeply-held belief about the nature of reality and how one "should" act in every situation is IMO incapable of *seeing* reality. And that person I wouldn't trust with my dog, much less my government.
