October 27, 2004
Talking to Democrats about Abortion - The Missing Debate
A dog park liberal Democrat friend and I were wondering what could make it possible to debate abortion in a campaign. I e-mailed this to her:
Making meaningful debate possible by reconsidering Roe vs. Wade.
There is no facing abortion without a meaningful national debate. Unfortunately, Roe vs. Wade made debate trivial by removing the option of translating the debate into state or national policy. The Supreme Court, in effect, and in my opinion, created a fictitious right to privacy in order to implement an undebatable right to abortion. It removed the decision from the democratic process. In my opinion, the social disruption and piercing, cultural violation that single act of legalistic hubris created is a festering, malignant wound that will never heal, until the people have regained the right to make a popular, democratic choice about how the country should proceed on abortion.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade will not make abortions illegal; it will, however, make it possible for the people to choose what restrictions, if any, they want to impose on them. In the years preceding January 1973, before Roe vs. Wade was decided, several states had already liberalized abortion laws (California under Ronald Reagan was one of them.) There was a slowly developing movement in the country to use state law to implement a loosening of the stringent prohibitions on abortion that had been implemented in the previous century. There was no need to make abortion a constitutional right. There was a gradual, ongoing, and successful liberalization process in place.
There is, of course, a precedent for the Supreme Court to implement broad social policy, as an interpretation of the constitution. But it has to be careful when it does so. Brown vs Board of Education is an example that comes to mind. But Brown differs from Roe in one important respect; although both rulings resulted in considerable social upheaval, it was possible, indeed inevitable, that a broad consensus concerning the evil of racism would take root in the U.S. That consensus did develop, and Brown succeeded because it was transparently moral and coincided perfectly with the Judeo-Christian values that are embedded in American culture, even in today's much more secular world.
But Roe vs Wade lacks this imprimatur of any conceivable American consensus. Furthermore, it has no root in the fundamental values of the society to which it can reasonably point in justification of its purported objectives. This lack of democratic footing works to erode American society by violating a fundamental sense of national cooperation in deciding fundamental values. We Americans are a conservative people, not happily forced to make sudden, wrenching reversals of deeply held beliefs. Roe vs. Wade forced that wrenching reversal upon us, without the promise of a deeper, transcendent value to which we could look for inspiration, like we could with Brown.
Posted by Timothy M. Beckham at October 27, 2004 09:10 PMTimothy, you said.
“We Americans are a conservative people, not happily forced to make sudden, wrenching reversals of deeply held beliefs. Roe vs. Wade forced that wrenching reversal upon us, without the promise of a deeper, transcendent value to which we could look for inspiration, like we could with Brown.”
I would disagree, I would think that most Americans favor the middle ground.
As for you’re subject, I don’t belive that abortion should be used as a means of birth control. I don’t belive that a minor should be able to receive an abortion without a parents aproval. That said, I belive in a womans right to receive an abortion.
If I remember my civics class correctly once a case reaches the Supreme Court, that’s it.
Game over.
The conservitive right whines and moans about the rights of the unborn, but does nothing about the laws that restrict adoption. We still have, in this country, thousands of unadopted children. Who speaks for them?
The Supreme Court, in effect, and in my opinion, created a fictitious right to privacy […]
Could you please expand on this?
In my opinion, the social disruption and piercing, cultural violation that single act of legalistic hubris [Roe v Wade] created is a festering, malignant wound that will never heal, until the people have regained the right to make a popular, democratic choice about how the country should proceed on abortion.
This goes to the very heart of the issue for me. I don’t want to vote on it. I don’t think this is an issue of legislation but one of culture. I think most government intrusion into cultural choices of individuals a debasement of law (e.g. religion, sexual preference, drug use).
But Roe vs Wade lacks this imprimatur of any conceivable American consensus. Furthermore, it has no root in the fundamental values of the society to which it can reasonably point in justification of its purported objectives.
This is an opinion to your interpretation of what our society’s fundamental values and purported objectives are. Could you expand on these?
We Americans are a conservative people, not happily forced to make sudden, wrenching reversals of deeply held beliefs. Roe vs. Wade forced that wrenching reversal upon us, without the promise of a deeper, transcendent value to which we could look for inspiration, like we could with Brown.
None of my core beliefs are forced into any wrenching reversal by Roe v Wade. Somehow, I don’t think I’m alone in this sentiment. Your phrasing seems to imply a concerted opinion throughout America after you had previously noted that no consensus was conceivable. And I feel that my values in this matter are deep, transcendent, and inspirational.
Also, I am not of a conservative people. I am of a daring, innovative, and exploratory people. I welcome and enjoy epiphanies because I detest delusion and ignorance.
(Great post, by the way.)
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 27, 2004 11:04 PMIn case anybody might need a reference to Roe v Wade.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 27, 2004 11:13 PMIt is interesting how the right frames it’s arguments.
Abortion is morally wrong.
Abortion is wanton killing.
The revisionist Supreme court “created” the right to kill unborn children.
The Supreme Court unconstitutionally struck down State rights.
or if that is too harsh,
We should vote on Abortion.
The Constitution does not explicitly say we have a right to privacy, therefore it is the government’s right to impose the belief that a fertilized cell is a human being with full civil rights upon us.
Which is it? Morally wrong and evil or unconstitutional or something the majority should choose like a president?
Or maybe is it that we will forward the argument any way we can to get a foot in the door with no actual principles involved? Maybe it IS about imposing our beliefs on others after all.
Posted by: Greg at October 28, 2004 01:29 PMSounds alot like the gay marriage issue.
Guess whether or not states rights exist or not depends on which side of the issue you are on.
As long as we’re on the topic of abortion….
As liberals and Democrats fervently seek new voters and supporters through events, fund-raisers, direct mail and every other form of communication available, they achieve results minuscule in comparison to the loss of voters they suffer from their own abortion policies. It is a grim irony lost on them, for which they will pay dearly in elections to come.
Check out this article, “The Empty Cradle Will Rock”
~Smithers
**********
“Our success or failure is not in the hands of our leaders, it is in our hands.”
**********
I’m not a lawyer, but if I was, I could get RoeVwade overturned.
Correct me if I’m wrong :
In roeVwade the father wanted the child, the mother wanted to abort it.
The court ruled that it was totally up to the mother whether or not to have a child.
Am I right so far ? I think that was the basics of what it was about.
Enter Lawyer Beagle…I’m representing “john doe” in a child support case..he didn’t want the mother of his child to give birth to it..he wanted her to abort the child, and he has proof, she declined.
Now she wants support for that child, A lower court judge would agree , and orders “john Doe” to pay $500 a month in support.(happens everyday folks).
Lawyer Beagle appeals all the way to the S.C.
Your Honors :…How can a legal system say that A mother has the sole right to bring a child into the world, The father has no say or rights at all in that matter, and then order the father to pay for a child that he had no say in bringing into the world ?
Your Honors : One could argue that he had the right not to have sex with the mother, however, this isn’t a case of rape, and the mother also made that choice.
Your Honors : I can site case law all day that states: When someones rights have been taken a stripped away, the cant be held responcible, either legaly or monatarily.
Your Honors : If Mr. Doe has no rights as to whether or not the child is born, he cant be forced to pay for that child, for The court system to rule in any other manner, would be a classic case of…Taxation without represation !
Something like that.
As I said I’m not an attorney, but I’ll betcha a good attorney could argue on that basic idea, and stuff either child support, or Roe V Wade up some feminist group’s butt !
Posted by: Beagle at October 28, 2004 03:30 PMAlthough I do not like abortion, it is a necessary evil in our society. THE FREEWILL OF THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON in Our Country must stand as the Number One Foundation in Our Nation, Government, and Society. Otherwise, nothing else matters.
Why the Judeo-Christian wants our society to give up the God Given Right og Freewill goes against everthing that is thought in the Bible. Even God asked Abraham for the life of his child while Jesus told us not to judge others by our own standards for that would call us to be judged. No, the fact that this nation, America, is/was founded to give all mankind the “God of Nature” very own gifts of “Life, Liberty, and Persuit of Happiness. These rights lead to Our Revolution from England and therefore “We the People” will never give them up if we are truely Americans.
Beagle,
By the way, the individual right will win out in your case and if I’m not mistaken it has been ruled on by the lower federal courts.
Henry,
Who’s indivual rights ?
Lower courts cant overrule the USSC.
In the context that I presented, I dont think its ever been challanged to the USSC.
Don’t get me wrong, everyone should be responcible for supporting their children,however, abortion groups cant have it both ways.
Either a father has rights and responsablity or no rights and no responsablity.
You cant have both under current case law.
Henry
As an atheist, I have an honest question.
God gives us freewill. Survival is our most basic instinct.
Is it not wrong to deny, something that God created, the freewill to survive?
Are we not forcing the baby to give up its “God Given Right of Freewill” when it is just using that right to survive?
Its things like these that keep me from posting about abortion more often. Its very complex.
Posted by: kctim at October 28, 2004 04:42 PMTimothy,
That was an excellent, thought provoking post and I agree that given the pretext you’ve given, you could debate abortion in a campaign.
Beagle,
I agree wholeheartedly. If the father wants an abortion, but the wife refuses, they should sign an agreement where he gives up all rights and responsibilities.
I think the abortion issue is complex as well. If remember from our pregnancy, the baby is not capable of living on it’s own (outside the mother) until very late in the pregnancy. It’s not capable of surviving with support until around 24 weeks or so, I think. Seems like that would be a reasonable cutoff. At that point, you are killing a being that has the ability to be alive independent of the mother. I’m not into the potential thing. A fetus has the potential to be a person, but so does a single sperm, given the right conditions. Are we then to outlaw vasectomies?
I find a lot of the support on these issues fascinating. There’s no apparent reason, as far as I can tell, why there is a large set of people who all would come down on the same side of
1) abortion
2) death penalty
3) use of military force
4) economy
5) social programs
but we seem to have been herded quite nicely into two such groups. Just weird to me.
Dan
Posted by: Dan at October 28, 2004 05:30 PMDan
I attribute my high level of stress and hair loss to your two herd analogy.
I don’t know which fence to jump into.
1) abortion- I have liberal views on this
2) death penalty- I have conservative views on this
3) use of military force- I have Constitutionalist views on this
4) economy- I have Libertarian views on this
5) social programs- I have Libertarian views on this
I feel like a fish out of water when it comes to voting. A balding one at that!
Posted by: kctim at October 28, 2004 05:48 PMBeagle,
The short answer to your question is All Individual Rights. The Law of Nature from which we get our Laws of Nations and Society must look at a “Bill of Law” and make it so only the strongest of arguments are left standing the “Test of Time,” yet be able to Bend with the Change of the Times.” Thus the judges of the time will have the power to deal with the Intent of the Law in their rulings.
Will abortion every be eliminated from are society. Yes, just as soon as Our Society demands a medical way of doing it. The Morning After Pill is a good start.
kctim,
Did you noticed I refered to the “God of Nature” which is the same words Jefferson used in The Decleration of Independence. Self-Life, Liberty, and Presuit of Happiness has made this country what it is. Our forefathers changed what was Old World teachings that day which said all land and rights was granted by the government.
Kctim,
It is a very complex issue, one that I was trying to debate my point without interjecting any of my religous views on that.
Most times when we do that, the debate becomes a shouting match, however, to expand on the case you pointed out;
Lets say someone lives in surburbia, they love their gardening, rabbits take a big toll on the garden every year… you find a nest of baby rabbits under your shrub…How many here would stomp on them to prevent them from growing up ?…can you spell NONE !
But baby rabbits are cute…so are baby people to me!
How about shooting the mother rabbit right at the point she is giving birth?…the anwser would still likely be NONE!
But we dont kill the human mother right at the point of birth, just the child.
Ok…So you agree with stomping on the baby rabbits?, or do you reserve that for only people?
I’m not saying that you believe that Kctim, I’m just saying you are right, its very complex.
I support hunting, I do that every year, but not when animals are giving birth, or are close to that, not because I want more to shoot/eat, but because I feel that everyone and everything should be given a chance at life.
I elevate people far above animals, but many that believe in abortion feel opposite of my views, WTF is wrong with this picture?
It is a very complex issue, but one I would rather debate in legal terms.
Posted by: Beagle at October 28, 2004 06:24 PMBeagle,
I don’t believe the major division on abortion is about the “just as it is giving birth” stage of things. I think it is more common during the very beginning stage of pregnancy, and you didn’t include that in your analogy.
Also, by hunting, you are killing the mother rabbit, perhaps even just after she has given birth, perhaps as she is in early pregnancy.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing hunting, just saying that it affects your analogy.
Dan
Posted by: Dan at October 28, 2004 06:41 PMJust a bit of clarification. Although I have strong personal objections to abortion as a matter of principal, I tried in my post to focus on the untenable nature of Roe vs. Wade in a democratic society - not on the morality of abortion itself.
All debate that could lead to a national consensus on abortion, perhaps by finding some middle ground through the legislative process, has been pre-empted and trivialized by the Supreme Court. Pre-emption of this type runs the strong risk of being corrosive and destructive in a democratic society and can only succeed if the case is so morally compelling that it leads to a consensus, even without a national debate through traditional legislative channels.
Brown vs Board of Education was sufficiently morally compelling to succeed without a legislative requirement (although the Civil Rights Act did help a lot.) Abortion lacks that moral footing in our American traditions and has, accordingly, failed to inspire a legitimizing consensus.
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 28, 2004 07:24 PMDan,
You wrote;
“Also, by hunting, you are killing the mother rabbit, perhaps even just after she has given birth, perhaps as she is in early pregnancy.”
Hunting seasons are set up to avoid just that senario.
Posted by: Beagle at October 28, 2004 09:33 PMHenry,
By saying “ALL individual rights” you include the rights of the child ?
Posted by: Beagle at October 28, 2004 09:40 PM
Timothy,
I also would like the debate to be on legal, rather than moral grounds.
This is a long overdue debate between the right and left, but its also one that can only be had if we stick to the legal aspects of it.
Just my opinion.
Posted by: Beagle at October 28, 2004 10:30 PMBeagle,
Yes, “I did say All Individual Rights.” For All Laws of a Land most live in harmony with other laws and in the bounds of Human Nature. Which is why the two sides fighting over abortion is wrong on the Socialical Level.
Both sides want to agree that life beginings at conception, but can not back up their claim with medical fact.
Both sides only want to fight for one life, not all life which is affected by the action.
And both sides do not want to hear about the law of abortion being intergrated into our other socail laws over life and death.
Until we as a society change what we call death, life can not be at conception in Our America.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 28, 2004 10:41 PMInteresting arguments. But, returning to the issue of debating abortion in a campain - and in the most important political campain of them all - is this issue really this impotant?
I´m not saying it´s not important, I´m just shocked that hundreds of thousands of Americans will vote for a President who took their jobs, lowered their benefits, pollutes the environment (…) and singlehandedly managed to make the whole world hate the US.
So, in perspective: is the abortion issue really important enough to count more than all of these issues together?
Posted by: doerte at October 29, 2004 06:59 AMTimothy —
“That consensus did develop, and Brown succeeded because it was transparently moral and coincided perfectly with the Judeo-Christian values that are embedded in American culture, even in today’s much more secular world.”
I’m curious about this statement. It makes sense on a superficial level. However, as a legal issue, should American law have to coincide perfectly with the Judeo-Christian values?
I was reading through the Roe v. Wade case summary and this quote struck me as very pertinent:
“[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
How do you counter this legally?
Posted by: CER at October 29, 2004 08:49 AMDoerte —
“Is the abortion issue really important enough to count more than all of these issues together?”
Apparently so. I mean, considering that there is a group of people who felt it was appropriate to drive trucks around my city with fetuses on the side. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t want to deny them their right of free speech, but how is horrifying people (including children I might add) helping their cause?
Posted by: CER at October 29, 2004 08:55 AMCER,
You asked …
——————————————————————
“[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.”
How do you counter this legally?
————————————————————-
Actually, I’m not trying to make a legal argument. (Besides, I’m not a lawyer and couldn’t argue anything from a legal point of view.) My points are all philosophical and practical matters, more concerned with the democratic process than the finer points of how to justify Roe vs Wade in a legal sense.
My core concern is that in a democratic society, there has to be some consensus-building process around fundamental values. This usually takes the form of legislative debate, but it can come about through constitutional interpretation in the courts. However, the route of Supreme Court activism carries the additional burden that it must be sufficiently inspiring in its ethical/moral content to create consensus, even in the absence of public debate. This is the only way that I see for non-legislative means to achieve democratic legitimacy. Without this legitimizing force, an imposed right, such as the right to abortion, runs the high risk of becoming corrosive, divisive, and, ultimately, discrediting to the court itself.
Since Roe vs Wade has never attained the national consensus that was achieved in the case of Brown vs. Board of Education, Roe has failed and should be overturned or at least substantially revised.
As a final note, bear in mind that none of my arguments touch on the issue of the morality of abortion, per se. I am only presenting the argument that Roe vs Wade has failed in its burden to inspire a national consensus that would have given it democratic legitimacy.
Tim
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 29, 2004 10:03 AMTim —
I guess by legally, I was using your words from another post which attempted, as you say to remove the issue from a moral standpoint. I, in turn, am trying to remain above that as well.
However, I’m not sure you answered my question. Does there need to be a national consensus, if the Court remains faithful to the Constitution?
Posted by: CER at October 29, 2004 10:21 AMJoseph Briggs,
You asked …
——————————————————————-
Could you please expand on this?
In my opinion, the social disruption and piercing, cultural violation that single act of legalistic hubris [Roe v Wade] created is a festering, malignant wound that will never heal, until the people have regained the right to make a popular, democratic choice about how the country should proceed on abortion.
———————————————————————
Expansion of this thought is, as stated, strictly a matter of opinion.
I believe current opinion polls show the majority of Americans being in favor of some sort of control on abortion. I surmise that this is due, in large part, to their having a sense of abortion being ethically questionable, or at least too easily abused. We all know that there are no small number of Americans who regard abortion as being outright murder. There are probably many more moderate folks who just are squeamish about killing a fetus and want to be sure that, if it happens, there is a good reason for it. Roe vs Wade does not provide that option, particularly in the case of first and, for all practical purposes, second trimester abortions.
This situation does not describe anything resembling a national consensus in favor of abortion on demand. The central political problem is that the issue is not resolving in either direction - pro or con. It is simply sitting there festering.
I believe we need to take legislative steps that will put this issue behind us, for better or for worse. I don’t like abortion, but I don’t like more the erosive course this issue has taken in our country. The only way to deal with this legislatively is either to have Roe vs Wade reversed or modified or to pass a constitutional amendment. Both avenues require long times to implement, but I see no other recourse, given the rules of the American judicial and legislative process.
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 29, 2004 10:48 AMI am the “dog park liberal Democrat” that Tim has referred to in his posts. This got quite a discussion going and I had to post a response.
Tim, I don’t believe there actually was the kind of consensus that you talk about at the time of Brown v. Board. A consensus has grown since then, but at the time, it was very controversial. It was a landmark ruling that changed a practice that had been widely accepted throughout certain parts of our society. The country was very split over the issue. The consensus developed only later.
You also seem to be saying that the Supreme Court should determine whether there is a moral consensus in the country over an issue before deciding whether to take a case. I don’t think that’s the role of the court. The court is supposed to determine whether there is a significant matter of law that needs to be decided. That is what the court did in this case. You talk about the court artifically imposing a right as if it were a fact that this is what the court did. But there is widespread disagreement about this, too.
You want a consensus over this issue, but it is clear that there is no consensus in this country now. The country is extremely split over this issue. What if Roe v. Wade was overturned, we had a legislative debate about the issue, and the result was the same - that abortions are legal. Would that make you feel any better? There still would be no consensus. The results of a legislative debate would likely be a narrow win by one side or the other. Like the presidential election, it likely would be decided by a few votes, and we would be no closer to a consensus than we are now.
I agree with Joseph that we are not inherently a conservative people. Our history has been of exploration and daring and invention and a rewriting of the previous rules about how a country should be governed and how a country’s people should be allowed to live.
sue
Posted by: Sue Landry at October 29, 2004 10:48 AMBeagle
Thanks for the little story. I also prefer to debate on the legal aspect, but the religous view is what has me confused. On both sides of the issue.
You’ve got one side yelling “Thou shalt not kill” outside of clinics where babies are being murdered but they believe in the death penalty. You’ve got the other side outside of prisons yelling “Thou shalt not kill” when a murderer is being put to death, buth they believe in abortion. Hypocritical to me.
I believe in both in a way though. Although, since I understand the difference between murdering and killing, the pro-death penalty/anti-abortion side makes alittle more sense and is easier to understand sometimes.
As for the bunnies? Their animals and not humans. I’ve exterminated them before and will have to do it again probably.
Posted by: kctim at October 29, 2004 11:17 AMSue,
You said …
———————————————————
Tim, I don’t believe there actually was the kind of consensus that you talk about at the time of Brown v. Board. A consensus has grown since then, but at the time, it was very controversial. It was a landmark ruling that changed a practice that had been widely accepted throughout certain parts of our society. The country was very split over the issue. The consensus developed only later.
——————————————————————
You are right; there was no national consensus around Brown at the time of the ruling. But my point is that a consensus eventually grew in favor of the Brown decision, and it was that consensus that made Brown successful - not the the constitutional authority of the court. It was the moral strength of the decision and the willingness of the American people to be inspired and led by the court on the issue of racism that eventually made Brown successful.
No corresponding moral strength supports the right of abortion, and, accordingly, no national consensus has developed to support Roe vs. Wade. For that reason, in the case of Roe, the court has failed.
You also seem to be saying that the Supreme Court should determine whether there is a moral consensus in the country over an issue before deciding whether to take a case. I don’t think that’s the role of the court. The court is supposed to determine whether there is a significant matter of law that needs to be decided. That is what the court did in this case. You talk about the court artifically imposing a right as if it were a fact that this is what the court did. But there is widespread disagreement about this, too.
Obviously, the court cannot do a “consensus” check on the American populace, before issuing a decision, and I do not fault the court for taking a stab at making abortion a constitutional right in Roe vs Wade. My point is that they failed in the long run, because a consensus has never developed. This is one of those, “Why don’t you just admit you are wrong, and let’s try to find another way together?” sort of situations.
If the court doesn’t take a different tack and permit a legislative solution, the abortion issue will just fester and continue to divide our country - in a time of much-needed unity.
Tim
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 29, 2004 11:29 AMTimothy —
I believe you sidestepped Sue’s point, “What if Roe v. Wade was overturned … There still would be no consensus.”
Therefore, by your logic, they would be wrong again. If we moved it to a vote or the legislature, don’t you think the issue would be on the ballots every year? Like a smoking ban? How is that more uniting and less divisive?
Posted by: CER at October 29, 2004 11:36 AMSue,
You said …
You want a consensus over this issue, but it is clear that there is no consensus in this country now. The country is extremely split over this issue. What if Roe v. Wade was overturned, we had a legislative debate about the issue, and the result was the same - that abortions are legal. Would that make you feel any better? There still would be no consensus. The results of a legislative debate would likely be a narrow win by one side or the other. Like the presidential election, it likely would be decided by a few votes, and we would be no closer to a consensus than we are now.
Actually, a narrow legislative decision in either direction would make me happier. There would be in such a case at least the reassuring understanding that the decision arose from a context that was both formed and accountable to the American people. It would also be reviewable and adjustable over time. It would also probably represent something less than the absolute, almost totally extreme abortion-on-demand position that we have now.
Why would this be a bad thing? Even when I speak to Democrats on the issue of abortion, it is clear that there is a longing for a better solution, that abortion is sad choice. How much easier would it be for us as a country to work toward better choices, if we could do so together? But such an effort could only occur in a situation where divisions could be healed by debate and participation by all in deciding the ultimate place that abortion will have in America.
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 29, 2004 12:35 PMTimothy —
I agree that it would be nice if people could work together, but it doesn’t seem likely.
I think you’re right and abortion is a sad choice, however I am in support of keeping RvW as a protection against what I view as extremists on the other side.
For instance, one potential middle ground could be the Morning After Pill. The pill is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. However, from the Seattle">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apscience_story.asp?category=1500&slug=Morning%20After%20Teens”>Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “It also can thin the uterus lining, making it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant. That’s a major reason anti-abortion groups - from the American Life League to the Pro-Life Action League - are among emergency contraception’s main opponents.
While many in the medical field do not share their view, they see interfering with a fertilized egg as abortion.”
Emphasis mine. How can we have reasoned debate and participation when we can’t even agree on the terms?
Timothy,
My concern is whether you think what is fictitious about the right to privacy is the privacy itself or merely as it applies to abortion. Your opinion as to why you might feel it necessary to restrict what medical procedures a woman may privately engage in for the sake of her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is crucial to understanding your view on the issue. Your reference back to the idea that we must resolve this as a matter of law and democratic mandate circumvents the privacy issue and, for me, the entire justification for the anti-abortion plank in the Republican party platform. As I said, the primary issue here is whether abortion is some extraordinary matter of law that must be singled out and dealt with so specifically through legislation, above and beyond the prescriptions set out by Roe v Wade.
There are probably many more moderate folks who just are squeamish about killing a fetus and want to be sure that, if it happens, there is a good reason for it.
And their personal views are valid in and of themselves: as personal views. By trying to expand the power of these personal views into the realm of legislation, you are purporting that the opinions of some transient majority is equal to or greater than personal rights to privacy, which I do not believe is a justifiable position given what I see as the foundation of American values. It all goes back to the rights inherent of personhood. Given that the mother is a person and the unborn, by definition, is not, the matter as was ruled in Roe v Wade is adequately settled.
Your desire for a national consensus is natural and noble, but there is a difference between consensus and law. It is a very delicate distinction at times, and at those times we must tread most carefully.
And to address doerte’s doubt over this issue’s applicability to the campaign: I value John Kerry’s position on abortion. It is a strong, well-thought position that affirms the principles of our Constitution by separating his personal religious values from his legislative intentions. This demonstrates a basic respect for every single American. I feel that George Bush’s religious values and beliefs have encroached upon his legislative and policy intentions. I think this shows a basic disrespect and indifference to values and beliefs other than his own. This isn’t a primary issue in the debate, certainly, but it goes to character and how each would manage the office.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 29, 2004 01:34 PMFirst off..Welcome to watchblog Sue.
In my humble opinion, Roe V Wade did far more than make abortion legal, It stripped the father of any say or rights in the matter of childbirth/abortion, while leaving the father to “foot the bill” so to speak, ie; child support.
Perhaps I’m stupid, or I’m adding a twist to the issue that doesn’t really exist, but to me, in totally legal terms, that ruleing goes against many other laws on the books.
You can argue that once the father planted the “seed” in whe mother…the seed is living, growing, in the mother, and its her body and her choice what to do with that seed. She owns it so-to-speak. Many could agree with that in legal terms(not all).
Lets forget my “rabbits” senario, I’ll try again.
John raises very expencive trees on his property, the wind blows some of the seeds over on Mary’s property and they take root and grow.
John thinks the tree should belong to him because they were once his seeds. John wants to up-root the tree to use in whatever manner he wishs and sues Mary.
Mary contends that the seed from John’s tree ,once growing on her property belongs to her to do with as she wishs.
Most everyone would agree with Mary on this, and so does the judge. Mary is awarded full ownership of the tree and any other trees that grow in such manner. It becomes case law that Mary owns the seed and any trees that grow from them.
Now Mary sues John and says that she owns the seed/tree, but because it came from John’s tree he should pay for all the care of that tree(child support).
Everyone agrees with John on this matter, even the judge and tells Mary that she was awarded full ownership of the tree/seed, to do as she will, pluck it from the ground, raise it, whatever, but John lost all rights to the seed/tree when you were given full ownership, and has no obligation to pay anything. It becomes case law.
When you look at Roe V Wade/ child support together, it would seem that there is “a dead fish in the soup” and a legal arguement to be made in that context.
I’m just a hick, trying to advance the debate without interjecting religion or morality into it.
If I’m wrong, please explain where ?
Posted by: Beagle at October 29, 2004 01:40 PMCER,
Now you’ve asked about the right kind of stuff! This is where we start to work together!!
I agree that it would be nice if people could work together, but it doesn’t seem likely.
After so many years of pain and sorrow, strife and bitterness, it will not be easy. But, in my opinion, to not even try is too sad an option to consider. This is not a problem that we can approach without a clear understanding that we have only the most difficult of cultural adjustments ahead of us.
But to look on the bright side, if it were to prove possible that the left and the right could work this out to at least an acceptable middle ground, what then could we not work out in other areas? Abortion is so central to the liberal/feminist cause that it represents almost a defining stand. Likewise, on the right, abortion is the act that so challenges conservative values, particularly those that deal with religious ethics, that it can only be described in the most negative and moralistic of terms.
This situation is intrinsically divisive, corrosive, unstable and, ultimately, destructive of our nationhood. I don’t want America to be that way; do you?
I think you’re right and abortion is a sad choice, however I am in support of keeping RvW as a protection against what I view as extremists on the other side.
Let us on the moderate right deal with our extremists, and you deal with yours. I am serious. We in the middle have much more in common with each other than we have with the extremists in our own camps. The reason we are in this mess is because we let people with only one agenda set the rules. If we talk this through, with the ultimate objective of producing a workable compromise by legislative means, we will isolate the extremists and create a unified America that we moderates control and of which we can be proud. Doesn’t this make sense?
For instance, one potential middle ground could be the Morning After Pill. The pill is taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. However, from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, “It also can thin the uterus lining, making it difficult for a fertilized egg to implant. That’s a major reason anti-abortion groups - from the American Life League to the Pro-Life Action League - are among emergency contraception’s main opponents. While many in the medical field do not share their view, they see interfering with a fertilized egg as abortion.”Emphasis mine. How can we have reasoned debate and participation when we can’t even agree on the terms?
Again, the solution is legislative compromise. If the morning after pill is the answer, then so be it. I personally do not like the idea of an abortion by any means; but I am an American living with other Americans who have other opinions. If we live under a democratically debated law together, we can work it out. That’s what we’ve done throughout our history. Abortion is not so great an obstacle that we can’t work it out too. But everyone must agree that compromise is necessary (except, of course, the extremists.)
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 29, 2004 01:46 PMI had to comment on this issue . I am a Pro-Lifer . I know we all have our own views when it comes to abortion and a womans right to choose .
With that being said , the woman also had the choice to use protection or not doing something . When the woman made that choice . Where is personal responsibility for ones own actions . If she did not want to become pregnant then maybe she should not have gone to bed with someone to start with , or would have used protection .
I know women make choices every day on this issue . I had a friend who had a abortion and I can tell you what she went through after having one .
This friend would tell me she felt guilty and remorse for what she had done . She also told me she wished she had never had one . She also had trouble forgiving herself for having a abortion . I will never forget listening to her and hearing her cry and wishing that she had picked adoption instead . To this day she has a lot of problems and what she did years ago has never left her mind . She still regrets what she did all those years ago . She has never been the same since that happened either .
I am not condeming women who have this done . That is not for me to decide or judge someone on . I only know what I saw first hand from soneone sho did . I never did judge her for what she had done . I just tried to be there for her and listen and help in any way that I could . I do not regret being there for her and am still there for her . I can only say what I observed with my friend .
I do have to wonder where personal responsibility has gone . We are responsible for our own actions and stop blaming others for our actions . No one made anyone do anything , they choose to do so . I just think with that being said that a woman needs to be careful . I just think that if you are going to go to bed with someone then use protection if you do not want a baby . I just wish people would think about that before they go to bed with someone .
I can not and no one else can force a woman to not have a abortion . If she chooses to do that then she has to live with what she has done no one else .
Timothy —
No, I don’t want a divided America and yes, compromise is necessary but the problem I see is that I don’t think we can (either of us) reel in our respective extremes. Both sides believe they are completely right.
I don’t mean to point fingers, but did I mention the awful trucks in Columbus ALL this summer?
All this type of action does is further alienate the other side. Shouting “murderer” in someone’s face doesn’t incline them to reason with you. Nor does it give them the impression that if they give up the upper hand (which they currently have) they will be dealt with fairly.
Joseph,
You wrote:
My concern is whether you think what is fictitious about the right to privacy is the privacy itself or merely as it applies to abortion. Your opinion as to why you might feel it necessary to restrict what medical procedures a woman may privately engage in for the sake of her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is crucial to understanding your view on the issue. Your reference back to the idea that we must resolve this as a matter of law and democratic mandate circumvents the privacy issue and, for me, the entire justification for the anti-abortion plank in the Republican party platform. As I said, the primary issue here is whether abortion is some extraordinary matter of law that must be singled out and dealt with so specifically through legislation, above and beyond the prescriptions set out by Roe v Wade.
This is getting into legal distinctions that I am poorly equipped to handle. As far as the right to privacy is concerned on a philosophical level, I am very supportive of such a right. Legal wrangling about where it starts and where it ends would have to be, at least, partly political in nature, and that would be where abortion issues would be dealt with. It seems like abortion may be best handled as a special exception, especially since another entity, the fetus, is involved. The important point that I am trying to make is that these boundaries to privacy need to be legislatively defined, in order to insure a democratic process in dealing with this divisive issue.
And their personal views are valid in and of themselves: as personal views. By trying to expand the power of these personal views into the realm of legislation, you are purporting that the opinions of some transient majority is equal to or greater than personal rights to privacy, which I do not believe is a justifiable position given what I see as the foundation of American values. It all goes back to the rights inherent of personhood. Given that the mother is a person and the unborn, by definition, is not, the matter as was ruled in Roe v Wade is adequately settled.
This position may once have had the potential for being the legitimizing moral argument for an absolute right to abortion, but it has failed to create the consensus that would have made it successful. I’m seeing a nation well on the road to racial equality since Brown vs Board of Education but with almost no increase in the national support for abortion since Roe vs Wade. Instead, I see bitterness, division and polarization around abortion and a host of related values. We do not seem to be working toward reconciliation, and that tells me that we’ve got to start compromising. The only way to do that is legislatively, and Roe vs Wade obstructs that democratic option.
Posted by: Timothy M. Beckham at October 29, 2004 02:37 PMRiley,
Abortion is not always a matter of convenience or negligence. And what you might see as convenience others might see as necessity. What you see as negligence is most often transient circumstance. Even if I were to give credence to the idea that a significant portion of those who get abortions are irresponsible, this doesn’t justify legislation enforcing forfeiture of any personal freedoms from all of them as a preventative measure. Since this is an issue of guaranteed personal freedom yet there is a significant portion of the population who feel it necessary to regulate the behavior, the most government should be able to do is seek action against blatant offenders in response to a prosecutable incident or string of incidents.
The law, by consequence of its impetus, might evoke personal responsibility in criminals and the general population but this is not a principle objective such as civic order and redress for damages.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 29, 2004 04:56 PMTimothy said It seems like abortion may be best handled as a special exception, especially since another entity, the fetus, is involved. The important point that I am trying to make is that these boundaries to privacy need to be legislatively defined, in order to insure a democratic process in dealing with this divisive issue.
The law guarantees freedoms to natural born persons. This is a defined measure of a legally recognized entity. The idea of allowing the unspecified rights of an unborn entity to usurp the rights of an existing person with well-defined rights to exert private controls over her own personhood is a dubious encroachment by government. Since this does involve the public health and it had been addressed in a state-by-state manner that could have been seen as unequal implementation of justice, the Supreme Court took the case in order to resolve this disparity which resulted in further clarification of the nature of privacy rights in this matter. There isn’t anything more that makes this exceptional except populist opinion that asserts it is not only within the rights of a transient majority to rescind certain privacy rights of individuals as it applies to abortion, it is some moral duty.
This position may once have had the potential for being the legitimizing moral argument for an absolute right to abortion, but it has failed to create the consensus that would have made it successful.
Our founding documents may reference the endowment of rights by our creator but this does not imply that these rights are predicated on moral consensus. Obviously it would be preferred, but it isn’t a requirement.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at October 29, 2004 05:31 PMTimothy, I live in the South, in Texas to be exact. I grew up in Ohio. Trust me there is still plenty of bigotry and racism in this country.
The rise of the Republican party in the South is directly related to the Democratic support of civil rights.
Roe v. Wade did not, if you bother to read the decision, give absolute right to abortion.
When those who wish to ablish abortion take on the responisbility of caring for and raising unwanted, deformed and handicapped children while still considering the health effects and rights of the mother, then I will find their arguments compelling. Until then, it is simply rhetoric.
Posted by: Greg at October 29, 2004 08:13 PMThe conservitive right whines and moans about the rights of the unborn, but does nothing about the laws that restrict adoption. We still have, in this country, thousands of unadopted children. Who speaks for them?
I placed this in the very first post of this thread. It is probably off topic, I would like to expand on it.
The ability to adopt a child in this country is very restrictive, and rightly so. However the National Adoption Center states that right now there are 126,000 children on their roles waiting for adoption. Most of these children are older, or siblings, or minority or handicaped.
The right make much of their fight to have mothers not abort their babies and put them up for adoption. I guess that is fine for them to say but is the adoption rate going up?
“There has been no research showing that women are choosing to abort their children rather than place these children for adoption. Although the adoption rate has remained relatively steady, nationwide abortion rates have continued to decline since 1990. (Freundlich, 1998)”
“Experts point out that only a very small percentage of birth fathers historically have taken an active part in the decisions surrounding adoption, but some agencies report that in recent years, a quarter or more relinquishments have included active involvement of birth fathers. (Freundlich, 1998)”
This information was taken from Adoption.com
Let me take this around to the begining.
What are the actual statistics of fathers that sue to stop the abortion process? I would imagine it is pretty low.
The right would have you belive that babies that are adopted rather than aborted are snapped right up to good homes. I suppose that might be true if those babies are white or perfect.
Posted by: Rocky at October 30, 2004 03:50 PM
