PIERRE, S.D., Feb. 22 — Setting up South Dakota to become the first state in 14 years to start a direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade, lawmakers voted on Wednesday to outlaw nearly all abortions.Clearly, they're testing the waters - seeing if this Alito fellow is the anti-abortion ideologue they were all assured he would be. Even if he votes against Roe V. Wade, that will still work out to 5-4 upholding it.
...
After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators rejected pleas to add exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of the pregnant woman and instead voted, 23 to 12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save the woman's life.
They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.
I think, though, that any attempt to outlaw abortion all over again would be the political blunder of the new century. If they tried a stunt like that, heck, the Democrats might actually start winning.
Some years ago studies were done comparing birth rates before and after abortion was legalized. What they found was that birth rates did decline slightly, but not nearly as much as the number of abortions would indicate. The moral: women have abortions, whether it's legal or not. The only question is whether those abortions are safely administered.
My question to (most) pro-lifers is this: why don't you support all the programs that actually reduce abortion? Safe-sex education, universal health care, easily obtainable contraception.. are these worse than abortion, in your opnion? let me know.
8 comments:
Roe should be overturned for a number of reasons: For starters, it's awful law--and many legal scholars agree, even pro-abortion ones. The legal justification for Roe is built on the philosophy of law espoused by Holmes and your alma mater's namesake, Brandeis--the idea that law and morality are what the people (including judges) make it, and not based on a common law. The legal foundation for Roe is shakey at best.
Secondly, abortion should be illegal (in all cases except to save the life of the mother) because it's morally wrong. If you won't accept with complete certainty that a fetus is a human life, then at a minimum you must grant that the fetus' humanity is very likely, and that science is progressing towards that certainty.
Thirdly, abortion should be illegal because if the fetus is human then the government is obligated to protect that life from abortion just as it would protect an adult from "traditional" murder.
If the sole reasoning behind every law was whether people would follow it, we wouldn't have laws against murder, theft, or speeding--to name a few.
Well, Seth, let's consider this.
The idea that "law and morality are what the people (including judges) make it, and not based on a common law" is, as it happens, the only possible system of law and justice available to us. And, if common law is not made by people, who made it?
It seems to me that the argument about morality is better directed at the people for whom abortion is actually an issue - that is, pregnant women. Not everyone has the money or the personal freedom to make such a comfortably guiltless decision. It might interest you to know that about 1/3 of women who get abortions identify themselves as religious conservatives. When reality hits, it can make people realize that some hard decisions have to be made.
Why do you decide that a fetus a human life? I think that decision is better made by the person who is carrying said fetus inside of her than by you. It's been said, and I believe it: if you can't control your reproduction, you can't control your life." The abortion debate in this country is almost never about 'the sanctity of life' because the conservative movement has shown repeatedly that it is perfectly willing to lets tens of millions of people around the world die of war, famine, environmental damage, and disease because to solve such things might cost us money. Instead, it is about controlling women and making them subservient to the will of the state.
Finally, you did not even touch upon my question, which was: why not support policies which reduce abortions? Under Clinton, abortions went down. Under Bush, they're up. Does that make Clinton more pro-life than Bush? It is all very nice to about how much you care about human life, but in the end 'deeds, not words', you know.
While it is true that much of law is formed according to what the people want, the very foundation of our legal system itself is based on a "common law"--meaning that there is a natural law which all of us recognize and attempt to live by (or at least hold others to). Without such a moral and legal foundation (in other words, if morality is simply what we make it), the Holocaust was perfectly moral because it was legal. Some things are right regardless of what the law says, and vice versa.
Your point that "the argument about morality is better directed at the people for whom abortion is actually an issue - that is, pregnant women" is simply another manifestation of the moral relativism you espouse. True, the feelings of the people directly involved and implicated in a moral issue should be considered, but they are not the final arbiter of whether something is right or wrong.
"Why do you decide that a fetus a human life? I think that decision is better made by the person who is carrying said fetus inside of her than by you." So if you have an ear infection, and the doctor tells you you have an ear infection, but you "decide" for yourself that you don't have an ear infection, does that mean you don' t have one simply because you decide it is so? Loyal, that makes no sense.
If the fetus can be established as not human--simply a blob of tissue--then I fully agree with you that a woman should have control over her body. But if the fetus is human, it's not her body. That is why the humanity of the fetus is so critical to this issue. Not human=abortion is a non-issue. Human=abortion is murder.
The argument over conservatives' views on other "life issues" is irrelevant to this conversation. Are you really saying that if all conservatives agreed with you about condoms and war, famine and environmental issues, you would oppose abortion? These other topics are fine for another day, but they are irrelevant to the discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong.
Finally, I do support programs that reduce abortions: sex within marriage and crisic pregnancy centers which counsel unwed mothers, for example.
While it is true that much of law is formed according to what the people want, the very foundation of our legal system itself is based on a "common law"--meaning that there is a natural law which all of us recognize and attempt to live by (or at least hold others to). Without such a moral and legal foundation (in other words, if morality is simply what we make it), the Holocaust was perfectly moral because it was legal. Some things are right regardless of what the law says, and vice versa.
I never claimed that 'morality' had no bearing on the law; I only disputed your claim that 'common law' is somehow more moral than U.S. law because you, Seth, have decided what counts as 'common law'. But you get bonus points for bringing up the Holocaust, you prick.
Your point that "the argument about morality is better directed at the people for whom abortion is actually an issue - that is, pregnant women" is simply another manifestation of the moral relativism you espouse. True, the feelings of the people directly involved and implicated in a moral issue should be considered, but they are not the final arbiter of whether something is right or wrong.
Call it whatever you want, but it seems to me that 'moral relativism' is nothing more than the practical application of law and society, rather than the abstract application of whichever principles make you feel better.
f the fetus can be established as not human--simply a blob of tissue--then I fully agree with you that a woman should have control over her body. But if the fetus is human, it's not her body. That is why the humanity of the fetus is so critical to this issue. Not human=abortion is a non-issue. Human=abortion is murder.
Well, a fetus is not a person. It cannot think, it has no sense of itself, it cannot survive on its own, and for the first couple of months it doesn't even have a sex. If the destruction of any 'potential' life could be counted as a person, then it's murder to masturbate, have nocturnal emissions, have your period, or use birth control.
The argument over conservatives' views on other "life issues" is irrelevant to this conversation. Are you really saying that if all conservatives agreed with you about condoms and war, famine and environmental issues, you would oppose abortion? These other topics are fine for another day, but they are irrelevant to the discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong.
Them agreeing with me would be a step in the right direction - and it would certainly reduce abortions. And it speaks to the whole idea of the 'sanctity of human life' which you claim is at the center of this abortion issue.
Finally, I do support programs that reduce abortions: sex within marriage and crisic pregnancy centers which counsel unwed mothers, for example.
Head in the clouds. Never in the history of the world has such a standard been the norm. Every conservative politician has been pushing that agenda for the past 50 years, and all we get is more abortions.
Although you hadn't yet commented in this discussion on the source of morality, it has come up between us before, so I thought it relevant.
Ahh, I am glad to see you've granted that the humanity of the fetus is critical to the argument. A mutual friend makes a cogent point:
If there is even a possibility that the fetus is a child, we must react with restraint. The burden of proof is not on the pro-lifers to prove it is a human being, it is on the pro-choice movement to prove it is not. Intellectually honest individuals must grant that point.
You might be interested in this account of a conversation about abortion.
"Under Clinton, abortions went down. Under Bush, they're up." By the way, that's false.
Your links - except for the last one - did not work.
The statistics on abortion under Bush do not take into account a two important factors. First, the approval in 2000 of RU-486 and similar abortifacents, which spared women from having surgical abortions – which are the only kind the link talks about. It also does not include any mention of illegal abortions. Besides, if the abortion were declining, one would expect birth rates to go up. Not the case.
As for arguing that a fetus isn’t a human life, I don’t need to argue it, because you’ve already agreed. Consider: you support abortion when the mother’s life is at risk. If a fetus is equal to a person already born, does this make sense? Say Peter, through no fault or conscious action of his own, might cause the death of Paul – unless Peter were killed. Would we definitely kill one person to possibly save another?
Many opponents of abortion make exceptions in of rape and incest. Why? Are fetuses caused by rape not people? Are fetuses caused by incest not people because of the possibility of genetic defects? You don't agree with that, but many pro-lifers do. Any close examination of the ‘pro-life’ stance, and we see their claims fall apart.
As for morality, you have not in any way demonstrated what your idea of morality is, so I cannot comment on it.
That's odd. All the links worked for me when I clicked on them. Here they are in consecutive order:
http://standingupfornothing.blogspot.com/2005/08/source-of-truth-option-1-of-1.html
http://ericsjackson.blogspot.com/2005/11/scrap-roe.html
http://trentage.blogspot.com/2005/12/congressional-candidate-parades.html
As for me, I do not support abortion in the cases of rape or incest because I believe the fetus is human. As to the humanity of the fetus, I definitely do not agree with you. In a life-threatening birthing process, I would prefer that both baby and mother be saved. However, if it can be decided that one can survive, I support saving that life exclusively rather than trying to save both lives and yet losing both. Yes, this applies to both mother and baby. If it can be determined that the baby will likely live but not the mother, focus on saving the baby. And vice versa.
This is not about choosing which person to kill. It's about trying to save one life rather than lose two.
Post a Comment