Joe Biden (1942- ) is an American senator from the state of Delaware. In 2008 Barack Obama chose him to run as his vice president. Biden has been in the Senate since 1973, when Obama was just 11 and Biden himself only 30. Only six senators have been there longer.
Although he is from a small state, he has been in the Senate long enough to have risen to the top of some powerful committees, particularly the Foreign Relations Committee and the Judiciary Committee.
Biden helps to make up for some of Obama’s weaknesses:
- He has a great knowledge of foreign affairs, probably more than John McCain.
- He is a good debater. Obama is a great speaker but not as sharp a debater as Biden.
- He has been in Washington for over 30 years, so he knows how it works inside-out.
- He is a white Catholic with working-class roots in Pennsylvania – just the sort of people Obama needs but has trouble reaching.
- Biden is acceptable to the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party.
Biden’s mouth gets him into trouble sometimes:
- He said Obama was “articulate and bright and clean”, as if that is a surprising thing for a black man to be.
- He said of Delaware: “You cannot go into a Dunkin Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”
Biden ran for president himself in 2008 and 1988. He got nowhere in 2008. In 1988 he had to drop out after it came to light that he was copying parts of his speeches from Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party. A few months later Biden almost died of two brain aneurysms.
Among other things, Biden:
- Voted for the war in Iraq.
- Liked Reagan’s Evil Empire speech.
- Voted for the Patriot Act, giving the government powers to keep an eye on Americans.
- Favours abortion but not whole-heartedly: NARAL gives him a 60 out of a 100. (It gave Obama 100.)
- Opposed the Supreme Court confirmations of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and John Roberts – all of them Catholics who are against abortion.
Biden was the head of the Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas hearings in which he sat back and let Republicans go after Anita Hill. He was not particularly nice to her either from what I can remember.
He seems to be an honest public servant. He is one of the poorest senators, his net worth being between $100,000 and $150,000 (about 10,000 crowns). Many make their fortune before joining the Senate, but he has been there since he was 30. The money he makes from speaking he gives away to charity and he takes the Amtrak train home from work. His wife is a schoolteacher.
His first wife died in a car crash along with his one-year-old daughter right after he won his Senate seat. His two sons lived.
He is the son of a car salesman. He was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where he spent the first ten years of his life. He is Irish-American.
See also:
” Favours abortion but not whole-heartedly: NARAL gives him a 60 out of a 100. ”
i cant imagine what this means. if he opposed intact dilation and extraction would this warrant a less than “whole hearted” endorsement from the abortion enthusiasts over there at NARAL.
intact dilation and extraction:
” The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the ‘partial birth’ of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening[9], and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_evacuation
perhaps it is wise to be cautious before swallowing whole NARAL’s agenda.
LikeLike
I seem to recall Biden questioning Hill’s motive in testifying vs. Thomas. Hill of course was subpoenad by the Senate to testify. In other words, she was legally compelled to be there. She had no motive other than perhaps to comply with a valid order of the U.S. Senate, or perhaps to avoid jail for disobeying the subpoena. Yet the MSM reported Biden’s point without comment.
Yes, Rog, we know that D&E abortion is a gross-out procedure. You don’t need to get shrill. Either you agree with the position that there is a unique aspect in the mother/unborn child relationship, which unique aspect gives the mother, assuming sanity, to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, or you do not.
I recognize that many abortion supporters try to base their position on the issue of fetus viability, but in my mind that’s an intellectually dishonest argument, which becomes increasingly clear as medical technology inevitably advances the age of viability.
In my mind, you have to assume viability and then decide whether you agree that a mother should be able to terminate her pregnancy, or not. Given the almost universal occurrence of abortion, across virtually every religion, culture, nationality and ethnicity through recorded history, and regardless whether or not the laws of a particular country make it legal or illegal, it’s pretty easy to reach the conclusion that this is is a normal aspect of human reproduction.
At the most fundamental level, “morality” is based on norms of human behavior. Thus, for example, we define the killing of another human being as morally wrong — “murder” — in some circumstances, but not in others, such as in self defense. This is again almost universally the case.
I cite these examples because people who attempt to oppose abortion on a “morality” argument linked to the notion that it is a form of killing are also being intellectually dishonest. Virtually every society recognizes that, in some instances, killing is not immoral. The issue thus isn’t, “It’s killing and thus it’s wrong.” The issue must be, “Is a killing in this circumstance immoral?” This requires a frank discusssion of the circumstance.
Keep in mind also that it’s possible to be both pro choice and opposed to abortion, but not vice versa.
LikeLike
separate from questions of whether my comments are shrill, the question is not whether the procedure is, in your words “gross out”, but rather whether the woman rights to bodily autonomy extends to the evacuation of the contents of the cranium by suction in an effort to collapse the cranium and draw the now dead fetus out of the birth canal. the procedure itself is committed on the fetus for the purpose of killing the fetus itself. in other words does the parasite analogy of pregnancy and the inevitable justification of abortion of the parasite hold sway for all months of development of the fetus.
what you are saying is not whether the woman has the right to decide whether to continue the pregnancy, but that the woman and no one else on earth, including the father of the child, may decide whether to kill the fetus and that the killing of the fetus may be justified if the woman decides that this is what she and she alone wants. the term mother does not apply here as the baby is dead.
my question would be how did the woman, in particular instance in late term abortions, gain so much of an advantage over the vulnerable second party that she can decide that the vulnerable second party must die so that her lifestyle is not inconvenienced.
LikeLike
” At the most fundamental level, “morality” is based on norms of human behavior. Thus, for example, we define the killing of another human being as morally wrong — “murder” — in some circumstances, but not in others, such as in self defense. This is again almost universally the case. ”
the case of tammy skinner is revealing:
On the very day she was due to deliver, contractions began and sent her into a panic. Skinner drove to an auto dealer’s parking lot, took a gun and shot herself in the belly, killing her about-to-be born infant and seriously wounding herself.
Tammy Skinner committed premeditated murder.
The fact that the particular kind of premeditated murder she committed is one that legislators lack either the ability, will or courage to criminalize does not change the fact that this is what she did, and that it is wrong. Laws do not change what is right or wrong, only what society chooses or has the will to punish. Arguments that an unborn baby is not a “human life” on the day it is due to be delivered are disingenuous arguments of convenience defying logic, common sense, and science.
Now she no longer faces any criminal charges for shooting herself and her unborn child. She was found guilty of a misdemeanor for filing a false report to police, when she initially told officers a man had shot her.
since you were the one who introduced into the discussion the assertion that the morality argument is intellectually dishonest can you justify this behaviour in any way which would be intellectually honest.
this is the procedural equivalent of intact dilation and extraction abortion.
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/skinner.html
LikeLike
One can find extreme facts at both ends of the spectrum of this discussion. Bad facts make bad law, as they say. No matter what rule you pass, there will always be individual examples of people who violate the rule or otherwise engage in extreme or heinous behavior. Shooting one’s self in the abdomen with a firearm is hardly the abortion method of choice in any culture, though, in cultures with high levels of poverty, or unavailable health care, or oppressively patriarchal social structures (like some Muslim cultures), back-room abortions with knitting needles, coat hangars or other crude instruments are often the method of choice.
Again, your attempt to address the core issue with sensationalist examples misses the central point of the discussion.
LikeLike
Roger: thank you for your gruesome description of D&E. I did not find it shrill at all. But maybe that is because I think abortion is wrong except to save the life of the mother.
I also agree with you that what is right and wrong and what the law says are not always the same thing.
I also disagree with Blanc2 that you can determine what is right and wrong by what most human societies practise.
The simple counterexample in both cases is slavery.
Keeping slaves used to be quite common and it was once protected by American law. So to think that you can determine right and wrong by what the law says or by what most human societies do is pretty unsettling to me. It is, in the end, the same as saying “might makes right”.
LikeLike
Joe Biden did not get perfect marks from NARAL because he is against the government paying for abortions and is against late-term abortions.
LikeLike
WTF?
(https://youtu.be/tyh1dzNTTEI?t=26m)
LikeLike