posted
Let me begin by saying I think that abortion is wrong - I do not think it is ethical to kill a human life unless you are pretty darn certain it is not a person with the associated rights. Let me add that, in spite of this, I think abortion should remain legal. It is neither my nor the government's job to decide the trickiest ethical questions for you.
Having said that, I have to disagree with Roe v. Wade for the simple reason that the court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not enforce what I (or they) think is right.
It seems to me that the abortion issue rests almost entirely on the question of when a human beings becomes a person, with the associated rights. If it does not happen until birth,then the fetus is clearly part of a woman's body, and thus falls under the realm of privacy. If that is the case then abortions cannot be regulated. On the other hand, if a person comes into existence the second of conception then the fetus is clearly a person, and thus has a right to life. And if it somehow happens gradually, and rights slowly accumulate, then abortions would become increasingly wrong as pregancy progresses.
Which of these does the Constitution say is true? The answer is none - the Constitution is silent on the matter. Even the Supreme Court agrees...
quote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Here the majority opinion is suggesting that the judiciary should not speculate when personhood begins - implying that the answer is not in the Constitution. So, if you agree with the court that it should not speculate on that question, and agree with me that the abortion issues depends fundamentally on that question, doesn't it also follow that the Court should not speculate on the correct answer to the abortion issue?
Yet, they have speculated - and have done so in a manner that seems so clearly arbitrary. They divided pregnancy into three trimesters - but why? Why not four quarters? Or two halves? There is no difinitive change that occurs after three months, so how could the Court have found something in the Constitution that suggests such a line? It seems to me that it is much more likely they did not, and just invented lines where THEY deemed best.
What is wrong with this? Look at the past three decades... Democracy has been shut down on the abortion issue. This is an important issue to many people, yet they cannot vote on it or decide anything about it, except through the most indirect routes - like altering the makeup of the Supreme Court, not funding certain programs, or perhaps blowing up abortion clinics. That is what happens when democracy shuts down on an issue that matters to people - they have to seek other, less democratic methods. This I believe the Supreme Court should leave the question of "When does personhood begin?" up to the people, when they have nothing in the Constitution to base a decision upon. Instead of deciding the unknown factor and drawing lines themselves, they should turn to the American voters and ask them for clarification, so they can make a ruling based in clear law. Abortion might be legal one year, illegal the next, and back to legal the next after, but at the very least it would be through the democratic process. At the very least the losing side could say they lost because more voters disagreed with them on the central question of when a fetus becomes a person. The Court's integrity would remain intact.
Disagree with me if you wish, but this is what I hope for in terms of the new Supreme Court and the abortion issue... Let America decide what a person is, and then the Supreme Court can apply laws accordingly.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue. The Court has to interpret the Constitution in every case, not just sometimes, but every time.
It's the nature of SCOTUS. It is their job.
And really, do we need a hodge-podge of laws that vary state to state? Then what? We make it illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion?
And if we have a national law regarding it, we would still have people challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court because the issue of which individual's rights are being protected will come up again.
I think your solution is just a resetting of the whole thing so we can go through it all over again.
It wasn't that much fun the first time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I do feel that the Supreme Court needs to revisit the issue.
While I am unashamedly pro-life, I do believe that our knowledge of fetal development and how early a child can be born in its developmental process with a chance of survival, are important factors that should be visited upon the issue.
When Roe v. Wade was decided, we simply did not have this information or the technology to promote the survival of extremely premature babies.
To not re-look Roe v. Wade is to thumb our noses at what we have learned so far. And it turns a blind eye to what is going on in neo-natal units around the country.
Edit to add: Note I am not suggesting we completely strike Roe v. Wade without review. I believe that wiser people than I should be the ones to decide this. Ones who both understand the law and the realities.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And really, do we need a hodge-podge of laws that vary state to state? Then what? We make it illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion?
Yes. Like crossing state lines to buy fireworks. Because the alternative is, like they did with Roe, to invent a "right to privacy" that entitles someone to buy any fireworks he or she wants, regardless of state law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue. The Court has to interpret the Constitution in every case, not just sometimes, but every time.
It's the nature of SCOTUS. It is their job.
Yep. And I can't wait until the court actually does interpret the Constitution with respect to this issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ive always thought that in a democratic country like ours, we dont need reasons to make laws for something we need reasons to make laws against it. If the argument is that the constitution doesnt say anything about abortion then shouldnt a de facto position on the issue make it legal?
Edit: I should have added, make it legal when we cannot decide on when exactly life begins.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I'm reasonably sure SCOTUS didn't invent the concept of three trimesters as stages of a pregnancy.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...so what happens when a zygote or embryo can be grown in a test tube? Does this ball of cells have the same rights as an adult?
Let me ask this, if the embryo storage facility was on fire, and a tech was passed out in the room, who would the rescuars save? The passed out tech, or the 1000s of embryos in frozen storage?
Posts: 54 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, given the US is a common-law country, it also the court's job to apply the common law (which may mean developing it, even to the point of creating new law) where the Constitution is silent on an issue.
I'm not saying that's what they did in Roe v Wade , not having read the case.
But the role of SCOTUS is not limited to applying and intepreting the Constitution.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me ask this, if the embryo storage facility was on fire, and a tech was passed out in the room, who would the rescuars save? The passed out tech, or the 1000s of embryos in forzen storage?
If the zygotes or embryos were actually being protected as they should be, they wouldn't be in frozen storage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, given the US is a common-law country, it also the court's job to apply the common law (which may mean developing it, even to the point of creating new law) where the Constitution is silent on an issue.
The essential difference is that an act of Congress can override any SCOTUS definition of common law. Not so with Constitutional interpretation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. It's the same here. (And in all common law countries with a written constitution, I presume).
Just pointing out that constitutional interpretation isn't the be all and end all of SCOTUS's role.
(Congress could amend the Constitution though, to make a meaning so clear that no ambiguity would exist, couldn't they?)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I never get to exercised about some of the incredibly ridiculous statutory interpretation that the Courts engage in. It's correctable.
To amend the Constitution requires 2/3 of each house plus 3/4 of all the state legislatures. Not practical.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, now I think of it I have noe idea what the method of constitutional amendment is in the US.
Here it's by referendum, and requires both a majority of states (4 of 6) and a majority of people to pass.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And lots of the states like to put the things to referendum instead of letting the legislature decide (in fact, I believe some states require it of themselves).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue.
It is not possible to apply the Constitution when it is silent on an issue. What it means to be silent is to say nothing, and if it says nothing then there is nothing to apply.
It IS possible to decide FOR the Constitution when the Constitution is silent on an issue, but why would we want the Supreme Court to do this? Having a nondemocratic court of legal experts deciding on how to interpret existing law is useful to ensure that that law is applied equally, fairly, and completely - which democratic bodies are not inclined to do. However, when you are asking it to deal with issues that have not been legistlated yet, it is essentially making the law - and I think one of the fundamental assumptions of our government is that law should be made in a democratic fashion, not be "experts". Thus I do not think it should not be the Court's job to address issues that the Constitution does not address.
quote:And if we have a national law regarding it, we would still have people challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court because the issue of which individual's rights are being protected will come up again.
I think your solution is just a resetting of the whole thing so we can go through it all over again.
Just because people want to challenge a law does not mean the Court should accept that challenge. It should only accept challenges to abortion laws if the Constitution does, in fact, assign rights that conflict with those laws. So, until such language is added to the Constitution, I think there is not (and never was) grounds for a challenge. It's a matter of turning down future appeals, or definitively declaring that the government must define personhood in the Constitution before the Supreme Court is going to strike down any more voted-upon abortion regulations.
The idea IS to reset it, but then to have legislative bodies decide what to do (either nationally or by state) rather than courts. If the people vote to allow the option of abortion, I will agree with them. And if they ban it, so be it. Either way at least it could be said that the people decided on when personhood begins, rather than nine justices.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is not possible to apply the Constitution when it is silent on an issue. What it means to be silent is to say nothing, and if it says nothing then there is nothing to apply.
That is the biggest load of cr#p I have ever heard. The consitution could not have mentioned MANY of teh issues before us today, because they were unthinkable back then. Not for moral reasons, or religious ones, but because the situations didn't exits back then.
The greatest strength we have is that the Constitution has room for growth, for change, not just in the actual language of it but in the way it is applied to modern day situations.
A body of law is not all created at once, it is based on a history of judgements...some good, some bad...and is ever evolving, as is our world.
It IS their job, plain and simple. And there are rights that are included in the Consitution that are in conflict with each other, which is why Roe vs Wade is such a difficult issue.
quote: However, when you are asking it to deal with issues that have not been legistlated yet, it is essentially making the law
And I repeat - the US remains a common law country.
The laws of contract, tort, equity and so on - all of these have been "made" to a certain extend by the Courts. Of course it is part of the role of the Court.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is the biggest load of cr#p I have ever heard. The consitution could not have mentioned MANY of teh issues before us today, because they were unthinkable back then. Not for moral reasons, or religious ones, but because the situations didn't exits back then.
The greatest strength we have is that the Constitution has room for growth, for change, not just in the actual language of it but in the way it is applied to modern day situations.
The way it is applied, yes. It is, of course, the Court's role to apply things the Constitution actually says in ways we didn't originally realize it applied. For instance, when creating the First Amendment, Congress may not have realized that it forbids the teaching of religious views in school, but that nevertheless was something that it did say, according to the court. That sort of thing is not what I was talking about - I was talking about "applying" the Constitution when it says NOTHING on a matter. If the Court could do that then it could do whatever it wants, deciding any issue it wants, from whether to attack Iraq to whether to raise taxes. It is only because we require the Court to find a basis for their reasoning in the Constitution that they are not all-powerful in their policy-making.
And again, why would we want it to be otherwise? If the Supreme Court simply declared abortion bad and unconstitutional without justifying that reasoning in Constitutional law, would you accept that as legitimate? Even if I disagree with them, the Court still at least attempts to argue that there IS language in the Constitution protecting the right. In Roe v. Wade, the Court definitely does not say "The Constitution is silent on this but we think it should be a right, so we declare it to be so." Instead it points, I believe, to the 14th amendment and suggests the answer is there.
quote:And I repeat - the US remains a common law country.
Yes, but common law should not supercede laws made by federal or state legislatures. It is only the Constitution that can do that. You can't declare an act of Congress unconstitutional just because common law has previously said otherwise - which is what the abortion issue is about doing.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Simply put, I don't think Roe v. Wade was interpreting the Constitution. And Casey, which is technically the controlling precedent now, punted on the issue of whether Roe was decided correctly and said, "It's been around 26 years, so we shouldn't change it."
I want to see a court recognize that the state has a compelling interest in protecting human life, and that the controversey surrounding the issue of when human life begins means that the bounds of that interest should generally be determined by the legislature.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I read this thread, I realized that I had never heard of a kerfuffle before (from Tante's post). So I looked it up: Kerfuffle (n) : a disorderly outburst or tumult; "they were amazed by the furious disturbance they had caused"
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with that, Dag. I think that the entire purpose if the Fedral government is to protect the rights of those who are members of it's society, and the Constitution says nothing about fetuses or the unborn...and it hass plenty t say on the rights of individuals who exist without question.
If there ever was a subject for SCOTUS, this would be it....the legal ramifications carry far past state lines.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then let them write an opinion that actually interprets the damn document instead of making crap up ouot of thin air.
You've grossly oversimplified the purpose of the federal constitution, too. It's main purpose is to define the powers of the federal government. The states are envisioned, even today, as sovereign entities who can exercise that sovereign power in any way except those ways specifically barred by the document. Those bars are of two types: things states can't do because they are reserved for the federal government (war, foreign policy, etc.) and things states can't do because they are reserved for the people (free speech, equal protection, right to counsel, etc.)
More importantly, the constitution guarantees that governments can do what the people want them to do, within the limits described above. Every single time SCOTUS strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it contracts this underlying, essential right.
As someone said, it's about balancing rights against each other. And the right of the people to enact the laws they wish in accordance with a republican form of government should be expressly taken into account every time the Court wants to strike down a law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
this comes pretty late, but I'd like to point out that the words "ball of cells" can be used to describe any organism and it really is not indicative of even the qualitative difference between a fetus and an infant (I'm not sure why the word "adult" ever got into the comparison?) and since the quantitative difference is largely a matter of location and ability to function... neither of which is very good grounds for denying something rights... I don't find the phrase very useful.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: and it has plenty to say on the rights of individuals who exist without question. (edit: typos corrected)
Is it safe to say that you disagree with Tresopax's "better safe than sorry" position?
Is a hunter who fires at something without being sure of his target negligent (civilly or criminally) if he hits a person... or is "well, I wasn't sure it was a human" a legitimate excuse here, too? If not, why the difference?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree with that, Dag. I think that the entire purpose if the Fedral government is to protect the rights of those who are members of it's society, and the Constitution says nothing about fetuses or the unborn...and it hass plenty t say on the rights of individuals who exist without question.
One question to which we do not yet have an answer, Kwea: are fetuses and the unborn individuals?
You must admit that the 'right to privacy' is not in the Constitution. It is implied very frequently, yes. But to my mind that means it makes less sense to apply it even further-since it is implied so often and not explicitly mentioned, don't you think there was a reason for that thunderous silence?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people in this thread are arguing from very idealistic positions. If abortion is formally illegalized, do any of you seriously think that women will stop having abortions?
If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Let me flip it over so you can see that....do you defend the rights of ants and spiders to live? Because they are orginisms as well? Lets not oversimplify each others arguments, OK?
I think that there are measurable effects to limiting a womans right to choose what happens to her body and her life...and I prefer to error on the side of something I KNOW to be human, and living, and viable.
At least legaly. I had a very seroius conversation with JenniK when we began seeing each other, where I gingerly brought up the subject of abortion. I said that while I would always respect her right to shoose if she got pregnant, I wanted her to realize how I flet about it personally.
I said that no matter how much I loved her, if she were to get pregnant and have an abortion, we would be finished once and for all. I would not condone it, and while I had no legal right to bar her from doing so if that was her choice, I DID have the right to stop dating a woman who had terminated my child.
She agreed with me wholeheartedly, thank God, and that was a huge issue. There are reasons I feel it is acceptable, and reasons I don't find acceptable...
But more than anything, I don't feel it is acceptable for me to force someone to carry a child to term, or to impose my will on them over something that private.
See? I am not a demon child killer;)....I just think the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the fetus, until it is born.
Dag, I am not a lawyer, but I am familiar with the case to some extent. I agree that it is a difficult case, and that the dicision has it's problems...but I think that I was spot on about the purpose of government. All of what you mention, the laws, precedents, defining Constitutionality...all of it is service of the people. The definitions have changed many times....giving right to women wasn't considred, to minorities.....
I am not drawing direct parellels, or setting up straw men here ( ), I am simply stating that there are a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't mention directally, but that can intefere with rights that are mentioned. There were whole catigories of people who weren't covered originally by the Constitution, as it was written.
I just don't think that fetuses should be, not at the cost of the mothers rights. Anything else is trying to impose your morality on others.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
Twinky, this is the precise postion of every pro-lifer I know. I am aware that there are people who will refuse to get abortions *even* to save the mother's life, but I have never heard of anyone wishing to make this law.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
This is actually what I advocate. I would consider physical harm to provide a justification as well as actual life-threatening situations.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am not drawing direct parellels, or setting up straw men here ( ), I am simply stating that there are a lot of things that the Constitution doesn't mention directally, but that can intefere with rights that are mentioned. There were whole catigories of people who weren't covered originally by the Constitution, as it was written.
I just don't think that fetuses should be, not at the cost of the mothers rights. Anything else is trying to impose your morality on others.
I'm not advocating that the Constitution be interpreted to grant rights to fetuses, although I would vote for such an amendment if it were well-drafted.
I am, instead, advocating that the Constitution not be interpreted to create a right that is just not present in the document. I'm aware situations change over time.
quote:All of what you mention, the laws, precedents, defining Constitutionality...all of it is service of the people.
And part of that service is the ability to govern ourselves in accordance with the majority's wishes, with limitations imposed to balance out rights of individuals.
quote:I just don't think that fetuses should be, not at the cost of the mothers rights. Anything else is trying to impose your morality on others.
The law is all about selecting which portions of morality should be enforced on others. For example, California enforces its moral view that women whould receive coverage for birth control pills from any employer who provides prescription coverage to its employees. The federal government enforces the moral view that employers should not make hiring decisions based on applicants' race. However, it currently allows employers to make hiring decisions based on applicants' sexual orientation.
The point is that these decisions are made by legislatures and executives directly responsible to the people. The Courts are a check on these decisions - one that, as a virtually unaccountable check, should be exercised with care.
seriously, though, I'm not sure I follow you on how I've set up a straw man? I was rather redcuing to the absurd... and I still think my point is valid -- if we don't know whether something is human, we need to be very careful about killing it.
Now, this is not to say that we never could. I think we'd both agree that the right to the life of a mother *does* supercede the right to life of a fetus.
The right to avoid being forced into a pregnancy by rape, statuatory rape, or incest? Well... I don't agree with abortion on these grounds (because I think the fetus *is* demonstrably human, but for the purposes of discussion we'll keep that question nebulous) but would happily accpet these limits as it would DRASTICALLY reduce the number of abortions (by a couple of orders of magnitude) and I can see some pretty important needs and rights for the mother here which can be difficult to weigh against the rights of a (again, for the purposes of argument)debatable creature.
But the right of a mother to erase a "mistake" at the cost of what is at least debatably a human life? That scale comes up clearly wanting... and this is where my example comes in-- if we aren't sure something is human, we don't kill it for matters of what ultimately come down to economic gain (referring to time, money and opportunity lost by the prgenancy).
as long as we're not oversimplifying Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the things that the Supreme Court is supposed to do is apply the Constitution especially WHEN it is silent on a specific issue. The Court has to interpret the Constitution in every case, not just sometimes, but every time.
It's the nature of SCOTUS. It is their job.
And really, do we need a hodge-podge of laws that vary state to state? Then what? We make it illegal to cross state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion?
And if we have a national law regarding it, we would still have people challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court because the issue of which individual's rights are being protected will come up again.
I think your solution is just a resetting of the whole thing so we can go through it all over again.
It wasn't that much fun the first time.
Something worth arguing with! And sometimes agreeing with.
If SCOTUS is to apply the Constitution, it would do well to actually apply it, rather than apply its own extra-Constitutional wishes. What the Constitution has to say on issues it doesn't explicitly mention: these are decided by the states (Amendment 10). The states' constitutions have this to say: laws are to be made by legislatures. So: federalism and democracy. Good things!
Hodgepodge of laws: this is a basic part of our form of government, called federalism. Maybe it's a bad idea (I don't think so), but it is the law.
There are other countries that have decided this democratically: most, if not all, of those in western Europe. Abortion is not a significant political issue in Europe, because it was decided by the people. Europe is a hodgepodge on this issue, all right, but it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. May we have democracy restored to this issue as well.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If abortion is formally illegalized, do any of you seriously think that women will stop having abortions?
If murder is formally illegalized, do you seriously think that people will stop killing other people?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a meaningless analogy. In fact, it is -- from a pro-life POV -- a synonymous situation.
I'm sure some women will still get abortions. But I think it's not unreasonable to assume that illegalizing abortion will in fact have an impact on its frequency; abortion is not, after all, nearly as universally popular as alcohol.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of people in this thread are arguing from very idealistic positions. If abortion is formally illegalized, do any of you seriously think that women will stop having abortions?
If you oppose abortion, what you should be advocating are very tight controls on who can have one and when -- for example, only in cases where the mother's life is threatened (with multiple corroborating medical opinions required) -- and not a complete ban.
How about I tell you what you should be advocating on political issues, then? We can pick one, if you'd like.
Just because something will not stop entirely due to criminalization is not sufficient reason to keep it legal-all laws are broken. By the argument implied by you, we should have no laws at all.
And for the record, the position you say pro-lifers should be advocating has been advocated many times in the past, in threads not about why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the paramaters of abortion and illegal murder are different. Drawing the analogy serves no purpose other than being inflammatory. I'm aware that this issue is important to Tom, but if he's going to quote me he may as well actually address my point the way you and Jim-Me [edit: and Rakeesh] did.
If abortion is completely banned, women will still get abortions. These abortions will necessarily be less safe. Therefore, by banning abortion we are needlessly endangering at least some of their lives. Banning murder does nothing of the kind. People won't "still get murders;" the notion is absurd. The analogy doesn't hold water.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom is just pointing out something Dag did earlier... that laws are about morality.
"You can't legislate morality", when taken in context, was a Judge's commentary that you don't make people good by passing laws... not at all that morality shouldn't affect law.
Really, he was saying kind of the opposite.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because the paramaters of abortion and illegal murder are different.
Specifically, if you illegalize abortion, it becomes illegal murder. Many murderers risk their lives to kill other people, and yet we do not make it safe and easy for murderers to kill their victims without risk, or under medical supervision; you can make the argument that we should, of course.
How are the parameters different?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the parameters are different enough that most people in the US don't think abortion is murder. Even many who are against it don't think abortion is murder, though they think it is also very bad.
Heck, Tom, iirc you're okay with abortion provided its early enough in the pregnancy; how are the parameters different then?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's say I tie my five-year-old son to a chair and pay some guy to kill him in front of me. Then I walk out into the street and get killed by a mugger who wants my wallet.
The first situation is analogous to abortion, the second is not. But when people think of murder, they think of the second. See why I think making the "abortion = murder" analogy serves no meaningful purpose in a discussion?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's say I tie my five-year-old son to a chair and pay some guy to kill him in front of me.
But the first situation is murder. The analogy isn't meaningless. It is, in fact, highly transformative. The fact that people are more likely to envision the second scenario as murder is exactly the attitude many pro-life people are trying to change.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just because something will not stop entirely due to criminalization is not sufficient reason to keep it legal-all laws are broken. By the argument implied by you, we should have no laws at all.
I have not said that abortion should be kept wholly legal; rather, I have said that pragmatic constraints should be added to any proposed abortion ban.
quote:And for the record, the position you say pro-lifers should be advocating has been advocated many times in the past, in threads not about why Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Jim-Me and Dagonee both pointed that out; it simply hadn't been said in this thread. Now it has. I'm satisfied. Finally, abortion bans are a likely consequence of Roe v. Wade being overturned, and certainly merit being part of the discussion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<-- waving bye bye
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
