As editor of the HLR, he would have had to edit his own paper, right? :) Anyway, a fetus suing his mother seems to be something that Obama wouldn’t ever consider, considering his attitude is that the child isn’t even human, deserving of continued life, if born alive after an abortion attempt. That blob of flesh that’s not a child in his opinion should not live IF his mother thinks otherwise. If she wants it dead, society should make it so. I don’t believe he wrote it. I believe it’s entirely possible that once people wondered why he never wrote anything, they found something they could attribute to him. Who believes that Harvard has a list of their anonymous articles and that, if so, they wouldn’t cover for him, anyway? They already cover for him, so ...
I don’t know if Obama wrote the Harvard Law Review abortion article or not. If you’re right and he wd have had no help w editing, then he didn’t write it. His grammar is atrocious—so much so that an abundance of grammatical errors is actually a hallmark of his writing.
I still believe that he had something to do w the article. Perhaps he only conceived the idea, and someone else executed it. But the idea itself is precisely Obama’s kind of cruel idiocy.
Look at what he did [providing he is the conceptualizer behind the article]. First, he set up a straw man, & that is an Obama trademark. Obama never actually cites real, legitimate arguments against any of his positions. Rather, he invariably substitutes a strawman, which he then demolishes like a toddler knocking down a tower of wooden blocks.
In this case the strawman is the idea that a baby’s ability to sue its mother has anything to do w its right to life. Who on earth thinks along these lines? The baby’s right to protection is exactly *because* it cannot protect itself. It is a small, helpless yet precious human life innately deserving of protection, as opposed to being expected—on penalty of death—to protect itself.
Secondly, consider the abject sadism of the ‘argument’. Picture Obama standing over the tortured corpse of an aborted baby. Barely able to hide his smirk, he says, ‘Well if you’d just been able, via third party, to successfully sue your mother, this wouldn’t have happened to you. It’s your own fault, you know; if you cd just have met that one basic requirement, you’d still be alive right now.’
I guess you almost have to know a Malignant Narcissist to grasp how much they enjoy this kind of thing. Victimizing the helpless makes them feel powerful [and they crave power] and then pretending to be compassionate adds the element of Sadism that makes their pleasure complete. I.e.: they love to taunt their victims w their own faux compassion: ‘Look, I tried to save you. It’s not my fault you cdn’t successfully sue your mother. The fault is entirely yours, but I tried. Really I did.’
Obama is just a very sick person. All Malignant Narcissists are. He/they are incapable of empathy. Added to which, exercising power—including, if not especially, life and death power—over others is only way they know of feeling strong & unthreatened. Yet it’s important to their self image to project a veneer of humanity. In this case, Obama can say, ‘I bent over backwards [one of his favorite expressions] to protect unborn babies. In the end I cdn’t do it because they don’t meet the most basic measures of personhood. Still I tried. In fact, I tried harder than most people, and that is a fact’.
So like I said, I don’t know if he wrote it or not. I just know it’s exactly like something he *wd* write, if grammar were not such a built in stumbling block. He is a merciless person who likes to think—& have others think—that he is actually kind & caring. In fact, he’s a psychopath, & never is that more obvious than when he’s coldly consigning babies to horrible deaths.
[Any liberals reading this post who disagree, consider this. Obama was the only Dem in IL who wanted to set babies born alive out w the soiled laundry, to die a pitiful & wretched death all alone, cold & uncomforted. Yes, he’s a ghoul. Deal w it.]