A Pro-Life Argument Built Upon the Sands
By Maximos Posted in Life Issues | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (122) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I will not make so bold as to venture any predictions as to the future of the abortion issue in American politics. Well, not quite. I am, being a pessimistic sort of person, skeptical that all of the efforts of conservatives and pro-lifers to secure the nomination of certain types of jurists to the courts will eventuate in the results we expect - or merely hope. The law is a complicated thing - perhaps unnecessarily so, yet necessarily unnecessary, if my meaning may be grasped - filled with many idols. Public opinion is an uncertain thing, manifesting movement away from the sacred totem of Roe yet seemingly unbending in its attachment to unprincipled exceptions, such as those for rape and incest. Public opinion, alas, appears favourable towards that grim, Moloch-like (Because it combines the elements of both sacrifice and commerce, in which the Phoenicians excelled.) research involving the destruction of embryonic life, on forthrightly utilitarian grounds; and that research is an article of religion among its advocates largely because in its presuppositions, externalities, and ambitions, it reposes upon the substrate of the abortion culture. Inconstancy, thy name is democracy.
Read on . . .
Even so, I am willing to allow the optimists their due. In an essay published in the inaugural edition of The Critical this past Summer, The Abortion Moment (I, alas, cannot recall whether or where Ben may have posted this piece online..), Ben Domenech discusses the positive movement registered by recent polling on the subject, and the increasingly strident - and ghoulishly off-putting - rhetoric of the party of death, and writes:
The Abortion Moment is coming. It is almost upon us. And it has a great deal more to do with the Elizabeth Andersons (a young women whose mother Ben’s mother dissuaded from having an abortion sixteen years ago) of the world, the members of a generation who could just as easily not exist, than it does with courts and lawyers and C-SPAN cameras.
Should those inclined to a more optimistic assessment of the prospects of the pro-life cause be proven correct, I think that this will be the reason, that a great, subterranean shift in public opinion and sentiment will have be wrought over the years, and that this body of opinion will not forever be denied public expression in the law. And yet, one can enumerate all too many issues in our public life on which the preponderance of public opinion fails to move the political class to corresponding action. The moment for pointed political and legal advocacy has not yet passed.
In this vein, writing in the October issue of First Things, Hadley Arkes provides a synopsis of the legal background to, and potential outcomes of, the current challenge to the constitutionality of the federal partial-birth abortion ban, a ruling on which is pending. However, in the course of his disquisition, towards the end of a consideration of the potentially pivotal role of Justice Thomas in the eventual decision of the Court, Arkes delivers himself of the following precis of the attempt, on the part of some scholars within the pro-life ranks, to ground the pro-life argument in the logic of the Constitution:
Some of us in the pro-life ranks have sought to make an argument that runds back to the axioms of the Constitution and the separation of powers. It involves a slight reworking of an argument offered by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia (1821), and it may be condensed in this way: if the Supreme Court can articulate new rights under the Constitution - if it can find, in the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to an abortion - then th legislative branch must be able to act on the same clause in the Constitution in vindicating those same rights. And in filling them out, it may also mark their limits. Congress could plausibly say, for example, that whatever was established in Roe v. Wade, a right to abortion could never be taken to mean a freedom to kill a child at the very point of birth. What cannot be tenable, under the logic of this Constitution, is that the Court can articulate new rights - and the assign to itself a monopoly of the legislative power in shaping those rights.
If, I say, this is the legal and philosophical foundation of our argument against the abortion regime, we would be well advised to raise the white flag and adopt a stance of quietism on this momentous question, for this argument concedes everything of consequence to a usurpative judiciary, only to receive a rich recompense of political failure. The adoption of this argumentative strategy is unlikely to have offspring other than failure, on grounds both structural and, let it be said, mythological.
In precisely what sense this argument is a ’slight reworking’ of an argument advanced by Chief Justice Marshall in a case summarized as concerning the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review the proceedings of state criminal cases is a matter best left to lawyers and legal historians. What is salient insofar as the argument is invoked by pro-life advocates is that it is intended as a regrounding of the discourse surrounding a controverted subject in the foundational logic of the Constitution. How, though, can the discourse on the subject of abortion be brought back to the fundamentals of the Constitution when, by the nature of the case, the original act whereby abortion was constitutionalized was itself a corruption of the Constitution, an exercise, as anyone who has ever troubled to read Roe and the cases upon which it built, particularly Griswold, will recognize, in rank textual conjuration? If the Supreme Court can articulate new rights under the Constitution… - if, that is, the Supreme Court may arrogate to itself rights reserved to the people, namely, the right to amend the Constitution and to specify rights to be accorded protection thereunder, by acting through state and federal legislative bodies in accordance with a procedure detailed in the Constitution itself - then the legislative branch must be able to act on the same clause in the Constitution in vindicating those same rights, which, of course, do not actually exist under the actual Constitution, as indicated by the adjective, new, which is applied to them. The reason that the legislature must be permitted a role in vindicating and delimiting the grand conjurations of shifting majorities of the robed eminences of the Supreme Court is, of course, the separation of powers; without such a role for the legislature in acting upon the same clauses in the Constitution - upon which, strictly speaking, the Court, in the type of rulings here at issue, has not acted, inasmuch as the clauses of the Constitution possess determinate meanings which the Court violates in positing new, as in novel and hitherto unknown, rights - the Supreme Court becomes a de facto superlegislature, a privy council wielding as absolute a power as is conceivable under our system behind the facade of republican forms.
The argument from the sepration of powers possesses a certain plausibility: surely, it cannot be that under our system of government, an unelected body of jurists with life tenure should exercise any final authority over the meaning of our fundamental law; and so, as a matter of fidelity to the ‘logic’ of the Constitution, the legislature must be able to check the actions of that body. Nevertheless, the argument places the form of a government characterized by the separation of powers before the substance of the law, the process of intragovernmental balancing before the Constitution itself. For the argument invites us to accept the proposition that, under that Constitution, a Supreme Court which has purposed to violate the Constitution and exceed its own authority under the Constitution in order to vindicate rights not identified as such in that document, must, by the nature of the Constitutional system itself, accept limitations imposed upon the perpetuation of that violation by the legislature. That is to say, the argument asks us to accept that it is of the character of a usurpation of authority under the Constitution that it must be limited by the Constitution itself. Which, of course, is to say no more than that the Court, having exceeded its entrusted authority, must limit its illigitimate power when the legislature acts to place limits upon the usurpations of the Court, particularly when cases challenging the authority of the legislature so to act come before the Court. Succinctly stated, it is to say that a Court which acts as though there exist no limits upon its authority must yield to a countervailing authority, merely because it “must” observe the constitutional forms it has already purposed to violate. Which is to pass perilously close to speaking gibberish in the form of mere wishes and hopes.
This is the structural, logical flaw in what is proposed as the basis of much pro-life advocacy. It is a concession of the power, if nothing else, of the Court to alter the rules of the game, and an acceptance of those unjustly revised rules as the new groundrules going forward. Why, though, would a Court bent upon changing the rules, acting beyond the scope of its constitutional prerogatives, willingly limit itself merely because another branch of government has made utterance of its objections? There is another flaw, however, and it concerns the mythos which has been built up around the Court over the generations since the Second World War. That mythos depicts the Court as the guarantor of liberty, the protector of the rights of the people always liable to be trampled by factional passions expressed through the legislature, and it appeals to its great, dramatic narratives of redemption, beginning with cases such as Brown, which all but the staunchest of reactionaries accepts as legitimate. That mythos is not something that can be dislodged by talk of the separation of powers, for the myth itself posits, or at least presupposes, that the Court found it necessary to, ahem, fudge the separation of powers and the authority of the states in order to vindicate the rights of the people; and I would venture that the hold of this myth upon the public mind is stronger than many activists have reckoned. In fact, so deeply lodged in the public mind is this myth that even those who execrate certain of the rulings of the Court still hope to appeal to the Court to limit the scope of its rulings upon a number of controverted issues. They are asking the Court to limit its performance of a role with which the people are quite comfortable, generally speaking. The question of the Congress limiting jurisdiction seldom arises, and when it does, it is seldom accorded more than perfunctory attention. Still less does the possibility of declaring a naked act of usurpation null and void, and declining to carry it into effect.
Finally, there is the practical matter of the vast and metasticizing body of law and precedent, which ramifies throughout the system, and our society, in ways far more complex in the cases of privacy than we are likely willing to admit. Pro-life strategy has emphasized the nomination of a certain type of jurist to the Court, and it is at least plausible that jurists of that stripe might be disinclined to undertake the radical pruning of putrefying precedents necessary to any restoration of the meaning of the Constitution and the separation of powers. As Arkes observes at the conclusion of his essay,
…it has been confirmed now, in the circles of conservatives, that judges will show their fitness as judges by honoring a notion of law utterly detached from substantive judgments of right and wrong. The voters who have backed two Bushes and Reagan, expecting something dramatically different, may discover once again that the judicial world is fixed in a mold that will persistently break their hearts.
Asking the Court to accept real limitations upon its authority in areas of law where its precedents are long established and implicated in thousands of other cases and lesser precedents is perhaps to demand a bit much in the way of the requisite iconoclasm. Is it easier, in the long run, to play a game which depends upon persuading the Court to limit itself, or simply to defy the Court? The pro-life movement has gambled on the former; where the payoff is incalculable, but the probability of success all but imperceptible.
Originally posted at Enchiridion Militis.
This is all very nice, but probably a waste of time. Rather than continuing the endless splitting of legal hairs and running around in circles, pro-lifers should spend their time promoting birth control and other forms of pregnancy deterrance. Sadly, I expect that'll never happen because the vast majority of pro-lifers are so caught up in anger and/or steeped in a mind-set that teaches that sex is bad, that they have no idea how to actually achieve their goal. As long as you wallow in legal arguments, you will always have your view obstructed by the smoke screen of "a woman's right to privacy", and "it's my body".
First, let's ask ourselves what the true goal is, and why the opposition is against it. Second, let's ask if it is at all possible to find a path that will lead to achieving this goal that will significantly reduce the strength of the opposition.
We know what the real goal is: ending abortion. So, to borrow that oft-used phrase from another debate, "why do they hate us?" The answer always boils down to freeing women from having their lives dictated by their ability to bear offspring. Once a woman is pregnant, in their line of thinking, her life opportunities are altered, indeed substantially reduced (This is the stated opinion of the pro-abortion crowd). Naturally, this leads to personal freedom discussions and all that, which is where the legal stuff bogs down.
One key point that pro-lifers overlook is that the pro-abortion crowd - if we take them at their word - is that they are not, in fact, devotees of the procedure itself. In other words, women at Planned Parenthood do not sit around thinking up ways to get more women to abort. While there is no reason to engage them in any discussion about why pregnancy is bad for women, or why they are victims of nature or any of that nonsense, there is a very good reason to engage in a discussion of how to prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place.
Unfortunately, this is a discussion that pro-life leaders don't want to have. It's really a shame, because if the pro-life movement ever got together with them to work on ways of reducing the cause of unwanted pregnancies, the number of abortions would be substantially reduced. Unless you get away from proclaiming abstinence as the only solution, and stop limiting the distribution and implementation of various ways that prevent pregnancies, you won't reduce abortion. And any legal victory would always be one decision away from a setback.
So let's get real.
Not a request, not a suggestion. Quite a few pro-lifers post here, and you don't actually have the right to insult their beliefs, personalities or sexual mores. Just in case you were under the mistaken belief that you do.
Apologizing - and not a 'sorry if anyone was offended', either - would be a really good idea right now.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Pro-lifers should concede much of the philosophical ground they seek to defend, and in some cases openly endorse practices they regard as evil, in the wane hope that this sudden disarmament will melt the hearts of their opponents, or otherwise inflict a decisive blow against the culture of death.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
but which practices do you regard as evil? And are there any preventative practices which you do not? Other than celibacy, even after marriage?
I am not Catholic, but the Church teaches the truth when she forbids contraception. It is an evil. Notably, the Church does teach against birth control not as a matter of special revelation, but as a matter of general revelation or natural law -- in short, as a matter of reason.
I agree that reducing unwanted pregnancies is a laudable goal; but I cannot in good conscience join in any call to achieve this laudable goal by means of participation in evil.
We must return to the teaching of chastity.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Evil??
The prevention of STDs, AIDS, and unwanted pregnancy is evil??
What is evil is the Catholic Church telling Africans that condoms don't prevents AIDS. That is evil.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
program in Africa that works is one that stresses abstinence. The idea that condoms "prevents" STD's, AIDS and pregnancy is evil at worst and just plain stupid at best.
Like it or not, the ONLY real preventative for any of the above is, in fact, abstinence.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The most effective programs have been those that emphasized abstinence/monogamy and contraceptives together. I don't know why some people insists on making the two antithetical; they are no more at odds than using seat belts is at odds with responsible driving.
They limit the transmission rate.
I'm waiting on that cite. Consider this a countdown.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
It's not like you didn't have time.
Peddle the anti-Popish stuff elsewhere.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Here are the requested citations...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm
The Catholic Church does huge amounts of good in Africa and other third world nations. With that said, I think their position on condoms is completely misguided. The HIV infection rates in Africa are staggering. The Catholic Church should be doing everything in its power to fight the epidemic. They are not.
>One key point that pro-lifers overlook is that the pro-abortion crowd - if we take them at their word - is that they are not, in fact, devotees of the procedure itself.
This is utterly the most two faced comment I've ever seen. Why in the world would you be tempted to take people who talk about "family planning" and insist that partial birth abortion is a necessary procedure. Or a third trimester abortion.
Sorry, the folks you are talking about are simply not "people of good will" who have a different view about life. They are butchers for the sake of convenience. There is no common ground with those who advocate infanticide.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
but the original movement to legalize abortion was not about murder. To say that it was is false. They have certainly gone way beyond that, and I believe I have already characterized that as a smoke screen. But let's pretend just for the sake of argument, that cats and dogs slept together and a program was put into place that actually substantially reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies, thereby drastically reducing the number of potential abortion procedures. Do you seriously believe that Planned Parenthood would still focus single-mindedly on abortion, because the act itself is their true passion? Honestly?
There. Is it all better now?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Nor do I owe an apology to the Church. We're talking about ideas of birth control, not discussing any profound dogma.
We're talking about ideas of birth control, not discussing any profound dogma.
Google "Didache" and, afterward, "Humanae Vitae." You might also Google "Catechism of the Catholic Church" + "Birth Control."
Then get back to me.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
...pro-lifers should spend their time promoting birth control and other forms of pregnancy deterrance.
Uh, at the risk of sounding like an Opus Dei cooperator, you do realize there are very few "sanctified" methods of pregnancy avoidance, right? And here's a hint, artificial birth control is not among them. Just saying.
...the vast majority of pro-lifers are so caught up in anger and/or steeped in a mind-set that teaches that sex is bad...
To complete this lovely line of thought, all you needed to mention is how the vast majority of us were also buggered by Priests as youths. That would, of course, explain a great many things.
...the pro-abortion crowd - if we take them at their word...
Since their entire penumbra is built on a lie, I'm not so certain of the wisdom associated with taking them at their word now, but anyway...
...they are not, in fact, devotees of the procedure itself. In other words, women at Planned Parenthood do not sit around thinking up ways to get more women to abort.
Well, some 33-years of experience indicates otherwise - but who knows? I suppose they could instead just be sitting around trying to figure-out new and interesting ways to use aborted humans after they've done their part. Now that certainly makes me feel better!
...there is a very good reason to engage in a discussion of how to prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place.
Biology and human interactions for the better part of an epoch have told us precisely how to prevent women from getting pregnant. GIven that, what precisely are we to discuss?
So let's get real.
Some 30,000,000+ dead at the hands of abortionists could not be reached for comment as to your version of reality.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
of dead potential breathing humans. My version of reality also includes the understanding that this need not be the case. The only reason that Planned Parenthood has gone to the brink of proclaiming that killing newborns is just the rational next step is that they, too, are caught up in an illogical, endless circle of anger and misunderstanding. If you want to believe that they really just care about killing babies, be my guest. But seriously, if pro-abortionists didn't feel like they were cornered, they wouldn't go to such extremes. They can't get past their idea that an unwanted pregnancy is some from of oppression against which they must battle. This idea will not change because womens' lives are indeed affected, often negatively, by unwanted pregnancies. That won't change either. What can change is the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Preach abstinence in schools, and that any pre-marital sex is bad all you want. If you don't come up with alternatives, such as chemical sterilization (either temporary or permanent), you won't reduce the number of abortions. If you are offended by that, I'm sorry.
First of all, it was founded for the expressed purpose of getting abortion legalized so unborn minority babies could be killed. Check out Margaret Sanger.
Second, check out PP's income statement. Their money comes from exactly two places... Government funding and abortion.
Planned Parenthood, NARAL and their ilk are not caught up in anger misunderstanding. They are people without conscience or moral compass. They are butchers.
If you are offended by that, I could care less. The truth hurts.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
so don't make up your mind too fast about what is acceptable or what isn't. If you mean to define "artificial birth control" as any kind at all, then that may not be the correct interpretation.
"To complete this lovely line of thought, all you needed to mention is how the vast majority of us were also buggered by Priests as youths. That would, of course, explain a great many things."
Inappropriate. Many people of many different religions have indeed been taught that the sexual indulgance is wrong, or at least has only limited application. And other denominations besides Catholicism frown upon sexual activity outside of marriage, and some even on sex within marriage for any reason other than procreation.
"Well, some 33-years of experience indicates otherwise - but who knows? I suppose they could instead just be sitting around trying to figure-out new and interesting ways to use aborted humans after they've done their part."
If, in an ideal world, abstinence ruled the day, and all married couples carried all pregnancies to term, do you believe that the members of Planned Parenthood would go around trying to cause abortions anyway? Is the act itself the one true, original goal?
"Some 30,000,000+ dead at the hands of abortionists could not be reached for comment as to your version of reality."
So you would prefer that millions more die rather than aqueisce to a little birth control? What's more important: one religious tenet or life?
I think we need a reality check here: A commission to review an infallible teaching does not, ever, yield a new teaching.
Let's clarify a few things:
Were I a woman who needed hormonal therapy for my health, and were I to take birth control pills solely as a means by which to regulate that health, there would be no sin. Were I to use condoms purely to stop the spread of a disease, there may be no sin.
Were I to use birth control to interfere in the procreative process, I would sin.
Those right-wing U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops nutters just reaffirmed all this last week.
Benedict will be reviewing a document put to him by a prelate who favors the use of condoms to control the spread of AIDS. This does not mean that a new teaching, that contradicts some of the oldest of Christian teachings, is coming any minute now.
So, sorry: The Catholic teaching on the matter is and was closed. What you wrote was more than slightly insulting. I'm sorry.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
But let's see how the discussion goes about using condoms to prevent AIDS goes. In all seriousness, it would be interesting to discover how that may be permitted, and how a permissilbe situation would be defined.
Aside from all that, is this a purely Catholic website? Not all pro-lifers are Catholic, so a specifically Catholic position is not necessarily the only one allowed. However, if this discussion is only about Catholic views of birth control, then any legal discussion is also moot.
You're the one who felt free to expound on Catholic theology. I am correcting you. You're the one who felt it licit to take shots at that theology, rather than to argue the position without rancor. I am calling you a horse's rear for it.
Your position is hardly a unique one, and absent the jabs and the wanders into areas outside your understanding, would meet solid approval from many segments of the pro-life universe. Accordingly, consider doing without the shots and forays.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
If (I) mean to define "artificial birth control" as any kind at all...
I generally say what I mean - usually pretty clearly - as was the case here. NFP, seeing as how it actually contains the word "Natural", is a bit of a stretch to be classified as "artificial", eh?
As to the rest, you've already been to that woodshed, no need to go back.
Inappropriate.
Balderdash - and I call BS on this entire line of reasoning. For one thing, how one gets from "(teaching) that sexual indulgance is wrong" to "a mindset that teaches that sex is bad" is really quite a feat of logical jujitsu, and I can only think that where "caught-up in anger" applies to any of this must be known only to certain species of fish because I just don't get it.
If, in an ideal world... go around trying to cause abortions anyway?"
Well of course not. I'm sure they would be well along on some other productive line of work - like chairing women's studies departments at Wellesley College or somesuch.
Or perhaps protesting that all those pregnancies carried to term were simply a figmant of the oppressive male-dominated culture keeping otherwise out of control men and women from canoodling like rabbits. Because after all sex feels good, and if it feels good, it can never be wrong, right?
So you would prefer that millions more die ...
Well no. I would actually prefer that people demonstrate a little control over their baser urges and not act like dogs - but I suppose that's too much for which to hope.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
When you say people who don't share your morals are "acting like dogs", I don't find it surprising that people get the impression that you disapprove of sex. Just because someone likes to have sex, it doesn't make them a bad person.
We are talking about preventing abortions and you are talking about how people who like to have sex should be able to "control themselves".
Here is a simple question: If you could stop all unwanted pregnancies (and, hence, all abortions) right now by administering a safe, non-invasive, reversible birth control to all males and females of reproductive age, would you?
I mean, sure, it's not at all what he said, but only someone of your penetrating insight could reach that conclusion -- could peel back the veil, so to speak, and see the words behind the words. I really like the second sentence; it's absolutely stunning. The sentence that follows from that? Magnifique!
Here is a simple question: If you could stop all rape by administering a safe, non-invasive, reversible microchip on the skull of every human capable of sexual intercourse, would you?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Uh, I suppose I didn't explicitly state this, but the hypothetical universal contraceptive would be optional. (Though I would think that would be obvious since I said that it would only stop unwanted pregnancies.) If you want to have children or object to it for religious (or any other reasons for that matter) you don't take it. If you change your mind at a later date, you get it reversed. But it would be available, for free, to anyone and everyone.
Presto, the Pro-Life lobby instantly gets what they want. No more unwanted pregnancies = no more abortion. But you have to deal with the fact that people can now have all the sex they want without the possible "consequence" of an unwanted pregnancy.
It made a low approach over your head, but appears to have been unable to land. So sad.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Here is a simple question: If you could stop all unwanted pregnancies right now by administering a safe, non-invasive, reversible birth control to all males and females of reproductive age, would you favor banning abortion in all cases except rape and the life of the mother?
I would guess "no," since such devices already exist. People simply refuse to use them and take their chances, because they always have an easy way out. There's already an unbelievable array of contraceptives, including long term implantable options.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Actually, I would be OK with banning abortion if my hypothetical "perfect" contraceptive existed. It doesn't really, though. The only contraceptive that is 100% safe and effective is physical sterilization, and that isn't really reversible, so it isn't a good option for a young person that doesn't want to have children right now but still might want them in the future.
I actually consider myself to be pretty moderate when it comes to the abortion debate. In theory, I'd be OK with banning 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions right now.
Abortion (either surgical or chemical) is far from 100% safe and effective as well.
As for contraception... there are enough choices in contraception (and more being developed as we speak) that it is close enough to 100%... especially since most methods are not mutually exclusive. Someone who really wants to be safe can easily use 2 or 3 methods simultaneously if they feel the need to get the reliability up to 4 or 5 9s. Most don't. Many don't even bother with 1 method because they know they got a backup plan.
I could live with a compromise on the restriction side as well, because it's about the realistic political solution we'll have at our disposal, but we need to get Roe thrown out before any of that matters.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Here's a clue: when you start a troll-bait comment...
When you say people who don't share your morals are "acting like dogs"
... with by claiming as mine something I did not, in fact, say I find it hard to believe anyone with a 3rd-grade or higher education - that is, anyone who exceeds the mental capabilities of your average Kos commenter - will come away thinking you're anything other than a moron.
So go peddle your men of straw somewhere else.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
You said...
I would actually prefer that people demonstrate a little control over their baser urges and not act like dogs
I said...
When you say people who don't share your morals are "acting like dogs"
I'm not sure how I misrepresented what you said.
Do you, or do you not, think that it is bad for people to have sex out of wedlock and purely for pleasure, even if they themselves are satisfied with the situation and do not have any moral qualms about it?
The logic of the abortion regime is predicated upon a logic first limned in the development of contraceptive techniques and products, namely, that the teleology of the reproductive act may be disrupted or thwarted because people possess a "right" to evade the consequences of their actions. Contraception is nothing if it is not this, and abortion is merely a fail-safe "remedy" for that undesired, natural consequence of intercourse; sometimes, after all, contraceptive methods fail to achieve their intended effect, and abortion itself has come to be regarded as merely one more weapon in the contraceptive arsenal. The reason, therefore, that pro-life advocates are unlikely to begin advocating the tired, old nostrums of the 'family planning' movement is that to do so would be to concede the presuppositions of their philosophical and legal adversaries, to concede that there is something so transcendently important about having sex and not facing the natural consequences of the act, namely, children, that it justifies the attempt to evade those consequences by various means. Opposition to abortion would therefore become something of an outlier in their philosophy, an unprincipled exception to the general principle of the desirability of "sex without consequences", the logic of which is merely a particular instance of that dreary disorder of the modern world, the evasion of responsibility through the assertion of rights and privileges. If nothing else, the overall devolution of society in the past century has proven that the social order functions in an altogether superior fashion when people are more observant of their duties, and less solicitous of "rights" which are mere dissemblings of wants, and often disordered and unjust wants, at that.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
just like seat belts are responsible driving and a 401k is responsible planning for the future. I am, as always, appalled by people who regard children as a punishment for the "sin" of having sex. It is little wonder the Culture of Death has such an easy time of it when even the presumed pro-Lifers buy into such an axiom.
And now for some advice: FORGET CONTRACEPTION
Any attempt to link contraception to abortion is going to doom the pro-Life cause as utterly as Punic Carthage, Byzantine Constantinople or the Crusader's Jerusalem were doomed. Abortion is not about sex, and should never be linked to it. Abortion is about human life. If you forget that you will fail.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I am, as always, appalled by people who regard children as a punishment for the "sin" of having sex.
Who said such a ridiculous thing? No one here. Some of us might be provoked (as we were provoked in this thread argue contraception) to say something like "children are the astonishing blessing of the ineffable blessing of fertility."
FORGET CONTRACEPTION
I repeat: a rowdy commenter, who has since apologized, initiated the debate over contraception by launching into a harangue against pro-life folly. The debate has been carried on, as is frequently the case in these sorts of things, by additional rowdys whose magnanimity may be doubted.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
It does not follow from the fact that you might be able to define contraception in a certain manner, and logically distinguish it from something else that is obviously evil, that this exercise somehow establishes The Meaning of Contraception for an entire society. The social significance of contraception for moderns is simply the avoidance of the natural consequence of intercourse, namely, procreation; if anyone regards children as a sort of punishment for the alleged transgression - and it is beyond self-evident that moderns have an entire mythology of transgression as at once liberating and fraught with peril - of having sex, it is moderns, who by their schizophrenic attitudes towards sexuality (liberating and wonderful, especially when it occurs in contravention of the strictures of traditional moral norms, which are confining, and stifle the wholesomeness of natural goodness and feeling) and its natural issue, children (a burden that always threatens to supervene upon pleasure, as if the universe itself were defiled, or engaged in a conspiracy against us) disclose nothing so much as a collective bad conscience.
And this is, of course, why abortion just is about sex, and the misuse thereof. No one - at least outside of a number of rank pagans in the feminist movement - embraces abortion for the sheer delight to be had in the taking of human life, but rather because it is an essential means towards the removal of every last constraint upon the unfettered use and abuse of sexuality. In other words, abortion is about the absurdity, irresponsibility, and injustice of a national discourse centered upon phantasmic rights to pleasure without cost. Or, the extension of the psychology of the spoiled child into adulthood, and throughout society.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
Sadly, I expect that'll never happen because the vast majority of pro-lifers are so caught up in anger and/or steeped in a mind-set that teaches that sex is bad, that they have no idea how to actually achieve their goal.
This is just a stupid and inaccurate generalization. It's also about as accurate as if I said "The vast majority of pro-choicers are so caught up in their love of death and their belief that killing innocents is the answer to all of life's problems, that they have no idea how to actually achieve their goal."
In other words, women at Planned Parenthood do not sit around thinking up ways to get more women to abort. While there is no reason to engage them in any discussion about why pregnancy is bad for women, or why they are victims of nature or any of that nonsense, there is a very good reason to engage in a discussion of how to prevent women from getting pregnant in the first place.
Been there, done that. This isn't the 1860s. I'm sure more people know what a condom is, where to buy one, and how to use it than there are people who the current President of the United States is. The fact is, people do stupid things when it comes to sex. People take their chances knowing that there is always a way out if they get unlucky - abortion.
Imagine how many more HIV cases there would be in the US if HIV wasn't an incurable life-changing disease. You are already seeing more HIV infections because, thanks to advances in drugs, it is viewed by many as being a manageable as opposed to a death sentence.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
... buried alive under bad, bloated writing.
Some of us appreciate writing that shows some resistance to the infernal homogeneity of clever glibness and cheap sloganeering that plagues the style of our day.
_________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Should be able to appreciate the style.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Literacy is a dying art amongst the ignorant, feeble and those made erudite by reading bumper stickers.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
as to precisely which of those buried thoughts might be useful.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.-Reagan
of why proper sentence structure is important. Your inept attempt at humor makes less grammatical sense than anything in the essay.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
but I am not here to insult anyone's beliefs. As far as I can tell, the only people who might feel that I have offended their beliefs would be Catholics. However, if we all want to pretend that we can legislate Catholic doctrine, then by all means continue the legal debate. It won't work.
My point, which of course, is obscured by the emotional baggage, is that there is a way to achieve the one, single goal of pro-lifers, amongst whom I count myself. I do not believe that there is any intellectual facism here at RedState like there is at so may Leftist outlets, so I do not believe that in order for me to be a pro-lifer I must adhere to all tenets of the doctrine.
Having said that, Benedictus XVI is looking into ways that the Church might accept certain methods of birth control, so the book is not closed on which beliefs may yet be offended or not. The overriding emotionalism of the issue - the fundamental sanctity of human life - can get in the way of reason. If your goal is to end abortions, you will have a much greater chance at success in the US by doing as much as possible to end the unwanted pregnancies, rather than attempting to outlaw abortion.
Before about 1927, every Christian communion on earth forbade contraception. We have 1,900 years of Christian witness set against the last 80, which have not be exactly inspiring for their fidelity to Scripture and Tradition. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is virtually the only Christian institution to hold this line only speaks for her greatness.
__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
It is an argument designed to demonstrate that opposition to contraception is not exclusive to Catholics. In fact, endorsement of it is the rather exclusive domain of modernist Christianity.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Re: Before about 1927, every Christian communion on earth forbade contraception.
This is simply not true. Eastern Christinaity never followed Western Natural Law teaching in this area, but exercized what is called economia; each situation must be examined individually, for its intentions and results, before one can discern the morality of it.
(We are talking of course about birth control, not abortion, which the Eastern churches have also always condemned)
If indeed I have been actually corrected. Do you have a citation for this?
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
could certainly have led you to believe I was.
Here's my problem with what I see as your basic tenet, that "pro-choice" people are just concerned with birth control and are not necessarily "pro-abortion". First of all, IMO, the people who lead the pro-choice movement are not people of good will. They are single issue activists whose only reason for waking up in the morning is to make sure that women in the US retain the legal right to murder their unborn at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason. Think Kate Michelman.
If these people were interested in something other than that they would not fight so hard against things like parental notification and an end to partial birth abortion. PBA is nothing more than infanticide and in both of these instances PC activists are far outside the mainstream of America. Every recent poll, even polls conducted by NARAL, shows that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support limits on abortion and parental notification.
We already have government mandated sex ed classes in every high school in the US. (Probably in middle and elementary schools, I just don't know.) Condoms and birth control pills and devices are available everywhere, and in most cities and towns they are free if you are "poor".
Without reference to prohibitions or restrictions by the Catholic Church, which are utterly meaningless in the reality of sex ed in public schools, what more could we possibly do? Spend more money? I recently read where the feds are spending almost $300,000,000 on sex ed. I'm sure the states toss in state money as well.
At the end of the day, I think the best we are going to do is to have SCOTUS overturn Roe. That should happen not because abortion is bad (it is), but because Roe is bad law. When that happens, abortion will not be outlawed the issue will simply be returned to the States. Some states will outlaw most or all abortions, some will put varying degrees of restriction on abortion and some will do nothing or make their laws more liberal. I don't have the numbers, but I'm confident that the vast majority of abortions are performed in NY, CA, and IL. I don't see any of those states changing their laws to make getting an abortion more difficult.
In order to "outlaw" abortion, we would need a federal law or a constitutional amendment. Neither would get through the Senate, either would be filibustered to death. Even if an amendment managed to pass the Senate, the probability of it succeeding in the States is most likely zip. Pandora's Box is open, we can close the lid a little but it will never be fully shut.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"IMO, the people who lead the pro-choice movement are not people of good will. They are single issue activists whose only reason for waking up in the morning is to make sure that women in the US retain the legal right to murder their unborn at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason. Think Kate Michelman."
- but I submit that it wouldn't matter much if their opportunities for such acts were reduced.
"If these people were interested in something other than that they would not fight so hard against things like parental notification and an end to partial birth abortion."
Yes, but I think this is just the logical extension of their original misguided focus on an imagined right of a woman versus an imagined non-existence of the right of the unborn. It is, I agree, evidence of how far the depravity has gone.
"Every recent poll, even polls conducted by NARAL, shows that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY support limits on abortion and parental notification."
Yes, and well they should. But do Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of all forms of birth control, even within marriage? No, they do not.
Part of the problem with the issues in the Abortion Debate is that there really is a large *fuzzy* middle that has taken the position in favor of the RvW decision because they don't remember anything else (or didn't care if they were alive before RvW) and neither of the extremes (Abortion ban, no exemptions or completely wide open) seems right for them. In that respect "Safe, Legal & Rare" is viewed by many as an attempt at compromise from the pro-choice movement.
I'm not sure there are that many in the pro-choice movement who would say that they want to go beyond where RvW has been interpreted today, since RvW gave them pretty much everything they wanted at the time. Roughly 90% of abortions today are performed in the first 12 weeks and half of the remainder in the next 4 weeks, where, if necessary, the woman getting the abortion can simply give an incorrect date for the conception which is difficult if not impossible to challenge.
Viability and PBA arguments are having somewhat of an effect, but mostly by showing some effort to restrict RvW. At least at this point, neither argument deals with a significant number of abortions.
There is also a considerable gap, though many do not realize it between overturning RvW and a ban on abortion, simply because the ball has been moved so far down the field. I fully expect that even if RvW were overturned that a significant number of hard blue states would have state laws that would be essentially similar to the current RvW restrictions. In that category, I would put HI, CA, OR, WA, IL, MD, NJ, NY, RI, CT, MA and VT. These states represent a significant part of the US Population and are within easy driving distance of another decent size chunk. I don't see laws which would make crossing state lines to get an abortion illegal as workable, there is, IMO, too much law against the concept...
There are obvious variegated levels of debate or acceptability within the pro-life and pro-abortion arguments. exempli gratia the essay herein discusses varying levels of assent, notably regarding rape and incest. The difficulty and often error is the dispositive effect conglomeration and holistic consideration of personal and positive beliefs presents to that approach.
I have often thought it more concise to separate one’s private beliefs from public matters. This provides a more formidable means of articulating what one hopes to achieve as a matter of public policy and societal furtherance. To say, I am deeply and personally offended by the practice of abortion, considerate it murder and an overt failure to protect the most vulnerable amongst us is not divergent or irreconcilable with a practical public stance. That position can be a pragmatic approach to eliminating public monetary support, taxpayer funded advice and revocation of laws inconsistent with our Constitution. Essentially, this is the slow paced effect occurring since Roe v. Wade.
The melding of ones personal and public view often is used as a negative scare tactic or spurious accusation base against the promulgator. Why? Can one not view issues as a matter of private conscience; yet consider societal and legal boundaries when taken to societal action? Nonsense and therein lies the fealty with such specious approaches and argumentation. It is revealing of weak, counterintuitive argumentation which is based not on intellectually derived philosophical or factual conclusion, but personal emotions which are destructive to our culture and society.
If one says they support abortion, yet also state support for a culture of life and proliferation of our society it is sophism of the highest order. This is the manner in which most of the pro-abortion crowd has proceeded. Any attempt to limit or restrict abortion is met with the usual knee jerk lawsuits and civil liberties platitudes. It is not a Constitutional right for our Republic to provide abortions or counseling on such. In this country where a majority finds that practice ignominious, destructive to societal mores and an aberration of our obligation to protect this culture it is also demonstratively counter to our agreed basis for mutual existence.
Life is God’s most beautiful gift to us, for without his creation where would we be?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
My dog humps pillows. Why not sex because it feels good? Roe v. Wade is an intellectual travesty, but if the alternative were the regime some of these writers favor--by way of Rome around the time of Rerum Novarum--then not only is Roe's reversal vastly more unlikely, it's undesirable.
And because that has been the rationale behind contraception and abortion: all pleasure, no responsibility. And it brings ruination in its wake.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
Please, do expand. At length.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Watch it. Catholics are still fair game, along with the recently added Mormons, unlike others we could name ...
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
evangelicals, too.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
that's right I forget them "evil" evangelicals always plotting to get man to lead a better life and undermining the progressive secularists. How could I overlook them.
John
--------
Ethic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
promotes embarking on a Theocractic version of our Republic.
Your retort is great prattle but hardly the basis for any serious response. That is of course unless you consider the usual ominous, baseless Christian scare tactics some type of intellectual argumentation.
Go back to watching your dog and making Newton-esque observations. Perhaps it will lead you to question your existence a bit more seriously.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Does anyone posting here really imagine that a ban on abortion, under all circumstances, is achievable? Desirable? That sex for no better reason than sex is fun promotes the demise of the Republic? That children are the "natural" result of sex and that to use our intelligence to thwart that "natural" design promotes vice? That the sun revolves around the ear...oops, I gather that one's gotten a pass.
Puleeze don't make me think that Roe v. Wade represents the lesser of evils.
"That sex for no better reason than sex is fun" promotes the demise of manhood and womanhood, which eventually will result, if not in the demise of the Republic, surely in servitude.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
What exactly is the "demise of manhood and womanhood"?
Why can't sex just be something that people like to do for fun? People eat for fun. They go on extravagant vacations for fun. They hunt animals for fun. They play video games for fun.
Obviously, a person can have sex for the wrong reason and that would be a problem. But if a person is comfortable with themselves and their reason for having sex, who are you to say they are wrong?
The Genie is out of the bottle. I do believe that it is possible and desirable to enact significant restrictions on abortion however. Things like abortion after the first trimester, abortions performed on minors without parental consent, etc.
Sex for no better reason than sex is fun with a "partner" outside of marriage (as in traditional marriage - one man, one woman) certainly DOES pose a real threat to Republic. Sex represents the most intimate relationship one person can experience with another. Sex implies, or should imply, a commitment to your spouse and an enhanced level of responsibility within that relationship. Degrading that responsibility threatens society because people who choose to ignore this most intimate of responsibilities frequently ignore all of their responsibilities.
And Roe is the penultimate evil of a generation that embraced libertine behavior, abdication of personal responsibility, a life centered on the individual (if it feels good...), and a generation that seems to have a real problem finding a cause greater than feeling good. I personally believe that there is a special place in Hell for the men and women who brought this blight upon us and then perpetuated it for 30 million butchered children.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Sex for fun promotes the demise of manhood and womanhood? Sex outside of marriage leads people to ignore their responsibilities?
Sorry, but the logic escapes me. Surely there are better ways to realize "manhood" and "womanhood"--whatever those terms mean--and better ways to promote a sense of responsibility than by tying it all to sex. Though I suppose if one had to wait until marriage to experience sex, and then had to wonder whether the next coupling was going to produce yet another child, sex might assume an otherwise unlikely significance. Personally, it strikes me as a lot to ask of an act that's a lot of fun but for lasting significance hasn't a candle on what goes on in the mind.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Well, let me put it this way. If you want people like me, who detest Roe, to make common political cause with you, you probably better make a more persuasive case than you have that we should all embrace 19th century Christian morality--which appears to resemble 20th century muslim morality in its obsession with sex--or start coming at it from another direction.
about either Christian morality or Muslim morality the discussion would be pointless.
With respect to your opinion of Roe, if it's a priority to you then you have no choice but to make common political cause with me since the only other choices support both Roe and continued unlimited access to abortion.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
is a legal fact because of my age. I don't think any more definition should be necessary.
I know it's a tangent but I hear what you're saying.
I hope I do not give evidence of presumption when I say that I do set my own concept of manhood upon a firmer foundation that the whim of a legislative majority. Within living memory a boy became, as a "legal fact," a man at 18; now it is 21.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Re: Within living memory a boy became, as a "legal fact," a man at 18; now it is 21.
Can you expand on this, Paul? Other than alcohol sales I believe that the legal age of majority is still 18. Of course as a practical matter many young people do not become functional adults until much older than even 21.
it strikes me as a lot to ask of an act [sex] that's a lot of fun but for lasting significance hasn't a candle on what goes on in the mind.
I am the very last person to deny the importance of "what goes on in the mind"; but even that grand and noble adventure thinking, at its very peaks of grandeur and nobility, has yet to unleash upon the world new and unique immortal souls. No human mind, however potent or subtle, can reproduce itself and then bestoy upon that creation liberty.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
New ones are being invented all the time. Whats your point ? Is there anyone here posting that every sexual act has to result in procreation ?
I know my stand is very simple. Baby Killing is not a solution for irresponsibility. Thats it. There really is no defense on for the opposing view.
Who said anything about an absolute ban? That pleasure from sex will end the Republic?
How about addressing an actual argument?
Now, on the other hand, I have yet to find a child under a cabbage leaf -- which is a way of saying (1) yes, children result naturally from sex, and (2) if anyone here should be tossing around jokes about superstitious nonsense, it isn't you.
That segues, finally, into a note: The next shot you take at contemporary Catholic morality or theology is your last on this board. You've enjoyed as much slack as you're gonna get here, copine. Make use of it wisely.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
our sex education doesn't emphasize two plain truths about sex, that reproduction is what it's for, and it's fun because we wouldn't be compelled to do it otherwise. We also don't seem to tell our children enough about the emotional consequences they can expect in adolescence and young adulthood. Handing out condoms, saying we hope they work, just isn't adequate.
Obviously it's no accident that Planned Parenthood and the like take a different approach because "reproductive care" is big business. They're not interested in preventing conception in the first place.
Not sure at whom this last is directed. I've certainly taken no shots at Catholicism; as far as I know, the Church has made its peace with this secular state. I hope neither its adherents, nor any others, envision a change in that balance. Which is why I get nervous when I see a discussion of abortion politics transmute into slippery-slope arguments about contraception and sex outside of marriage. I don't want a theocracy--Christian, Muslim or any other--and if I thought I had to choose between keeping Roe or re-entering a world of anti-sodomy statutes, religious tests for office, and bans on contraception, it would be an easy choice. For me, and for millions of others. So those posters who seem to be going down that road are doing a disservice to the cause of getting rid of Roe, and restoring the Constitutional balance.
It can't be because I think it will do any good, because it won't; I know where this is going. Oh, well.
Not sure at whom this last is directed.
You. In the future, hit "Reply to This" to keep the comment thread going.
I've certainly taken no shots at Catholicism; as far as I know, the Church has made its peace with this secular state.
In order, every shot made about contraception, sex outside of marriage, and Rerum Novarum has by definition been aimed at modern Catholic theology; and I unfortunately see where your second clause is trending.
I hope neither its adherents, nor any others, envision a change in that balance.
Generally, they don't. The problem is that you advocate the idea that any secular law created by a religious inspiration is a per se expression of theocracy. This is not merely stupid, and doesn't merely undercut most of the core laws of this country, but also neatly accuses modern Catholics of being theocrats.
Which is why I get nervous when I see a discussion of abortion politics transmute into slippery-slope arguments about contraception and sex outside of marriage.
And thus, here we go.
I don't want a theocracy--Christian, Muslim or any other--and if I thought I had to choose between keeping Roe or re-entering a world of anti-sodomy statutes, religious tests for office, and bans on contraception, it would be an easy choice.
Do you actually understand what a theocracy is? I suspect you think you do, but you don't.
For me, and for millions of others. So those posters who seem to be going down that road are doing a disservice to the cause of getting rid of Roe, and restoring the Constitutional balance.
They might say the same of you.
No more Catholic shots. Period, full stop. Understood?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
"In order, every shot made about contraception, sex outside of marriage...has by definition been aimed at modern Catholic theology."
Well, I guess if your claim is that one can't discuss contraception or sex outside of marriage without implicating "modern Catholic theology," I was guilty after all, even though I wasn't the one to introduce those subjects into what started as a discussion of abortion policy. Sorry--this is too complicated for me.
the idea that an unborn child is still a human life, ought to be one even atheists can appreciate, if they're intellectually honest with themselves. Associating abortion with religion seems to be something pro-choice people do to evade the right-to-life argument.
Interspersing fallacious religious platitudes with unsupported opinion only succeeds in creating a non sequitur. That provides furtherance to theories you are only trying to resolve some personal issue under the guise of argumentation.
That may work in other places but is not suggested as a tactic for posting here. The general cure is to ban you. The wise would view these warnings as generosity, provided one wishes for longevity. Simply said; contribute substantively or don't post, the moderators have provided you more rope than others.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
...a discussion of abortion politics transmute...
The point of the blog is Roe, ie: abortion. The arguments about anything else are secondary and have nothing to do with Roe. Your feeble attempt to join to the two unrelated discussions are simply grasping at straws to cloud the issue of the constitutionality of Roe.
I don't want a theocracy...
You link overturning Roe with anti-sodomy statutes, religious tests for office and bans on contraception. That is a stretch so beyond credibility that it is laughable. And besides, please provide some evidence of a "religious test" at any time in the last 200 or so years of the Republic.
I'd really like to know how you think overturning Roe could possibly lead to any of the other horrible things you note.
And you really should spend some time reading up on Iran. Then you'll get an idea what a theocracy is, you obviously are clueless about it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Tweren't I linking overturning Roe to bans on contraception; if I thought the one presaged the other, as I've said, I'd favor keeping Roe. See #5, above:
"I am not Catholic, but the Church teaches the truth when she forbids contraception. It is an evil. Notably, the Church does teach against birth control not as a matter of special revelation, but as a matter of general revelation or natural law -- in short, as a matter of reason."
I've been warned, though, that I musn't challenge this view, lest by calling this non-Catholic's reasoning scarey I be thought disrespectful of "modern Catholic theology." Hey, I don't make the rules.
You don't like Roe but you are in love with results ?
In addition you assert that contraception is an evil but killing the children is not.
This afternoon I caught the news. There was a story about a woman that had microwaved her one month old infant. Would you care to tell me what profound difference one month makes ?
Especially since she can claim the microwave procedure was for the "health of the mother." Clearly she had mental problems, and I doubt a 1 month old baby was helping things at all. Seems like that's all the justification she needs.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"You don't like Roe but you are in love with results. In addition you assert that contraception is an evil but killing the children is not."
What are you talking about? Where do I indicate I "love" the results of Roe? Where did I say that "contraception is an evil"?
This is not difficult stuff: there are a lot of people who think Roe is an abomination because it invented a Constitutional right that doesn't exist in the Constitution, and thus represents a usurpation. I'm one of those people. What I think about abortion is irrelevent to what I think about Roe, though I happen to think that abortion should be legal, if only because it isn't going away, and criminalizing the behavior of otherwise law-abiding citizens has proven to be a mistake. I think we should have a flat rate income tax, but that doesn't mean I'd welcome a decision announcing that a flat rate was Constitutionally required. Roe implicates other values besides those relating to abortion.
The view you attribute to me regarding contraception must reflect a misreading. I think Griswold v. Connecticut is almost as wrongly decided as Roe, but I certainly don't think "contraception is an evil"; would that it were more widely practiced.
This is yours
"I am not Catholic, but the Church teaches the truth when she forbids contraception. It is an evil. Notably, the Church does teach against birth control not as a matter of special revelation, but as a matter of general revelation or natural law -- in short, as a matter of reason."
Your criminalization argument is specious. For victimless crimes its applicable. You can make it all day for narcotics , prostitution and gambling. It does not apply to serial killers which is what abortion doctors arguably are.
A corollary to your position would be if the supreme court came up with a decision that murder was universally a federal crime you would be upset because it was not explicitly listed in the constitution.
Roe is a problem because it subverts the constitution. It is a bigger problem because it subverts what was the common law and morality. It is perfectly clear that abortion on demand was never intended by the founders, the states, the legislatures, or the electorate.
The quote isn't from my post. I've no idea what you're talking about. Nor, I suspect, do you. There is no criminal common law in the US, so Roe couldn't "subvert" it. And whether abortion on demand was intended by the founders, etc. is irrelevent--without Roe, each legislature would be free to arrive at the abortion regime it desired. Most, I imagine, would permit some, but not all, abortions allowed under Roe. Few of us would be entirely happy with the results. That's our democracy. It works pretty well. Roe keeps it from working; that's part of Roe's iniquity.
or is there another lola5 ?
common law murder
http://www.lawnerds.com/testyourself/criminal_answer.html
As to debating the constitution stating thr intent of the authors as irrelevant is certinly novel
You are not a close reader. The quote is from the author of post #6, not me. I disagree with the quoted passage, as I made clear in post #88. I had nothing to do with post #4, and don't understand your reference.
There is no common law murder or other crime in American law; your cite doesn't say there is. If it did, it would be wrong, since we abolished common law crime years ago. If there isn't a statute, there isn't a crime.
I said nothing about "debating the constitution," nor did I suggest the intent of the authors would be irrelevent to such a debate. What I said was that A) Roe is wrong, B) the Constitution doesn't address the constitutionality of abortion one way or another, and C) in determining the law applicable to abortion, the views of the founders are in no way binding on contemporary legislatures--any more than their view of Sunday sales would be, or their notions of corporation law.
Griswold is "almost as wrong." Griswold is really the decision that invented the non-existent constitutional right and Roe just extended it. But yes, they are both horrible decisions.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
There's a slightly better argument for Griswold than that undergirding Roe; they aren't entirely on all fours. One can imagine a principled decision reversing Roe that leaves Griswold untouched--and politically, that might be a good idea. But I agree that they're both horrible decisions.
I believe the warning pertained to your pervasive inability to actually produce an intellectual argument on the subject at hand. Please don't patronize anyone by using this warning as an excuse to produce constructive dialogue absent sophism.
Your inept attempt at explaining Catholic doctrine and theological reasoning is evident even in this latest post. Try commenting on something you know next time. Passing off personal religious notions as some type of quasi philisophical examination never works with practitioners who are not pedestrian Catholics.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Anyone getting an abortion should have to take the contents home w/ them in a jar. I think that'd cut down on abortions in a hurry. Most people want out of sight, out of mind. Notice how they cannot discuss the real issue and they twist it and spin it to euphemisms like "choice".
I went to the BodyWorlds exhibition in St. Paul MN today and they had several unborn children at many ages as young as a few weeks and less than a half inch long. I'd like anyone to look me in the eye and tell me they are not humans and are just tissue. Nobody would dare do it.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
an exhibit that Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry has had for many years. Exhibited are numerous unborn children from the earliest embryonic stages to full term.
It's been years since I have been to that particular museum, but I still recall walking back and forth trying to draw the line as to when life begins. I could not.
My youngest son, who was around 15 at that time, accompanied me.
Your first paragraph is not farfetched either. I'd suggest that fence sitters on the abortion issue (there are some who will always resolutely support abortion) be steered to one of the many websites that have pictures of aborted children.
Here's a thought experiment for people enamoured of the "abortion slaughters the innocent" argument against Roe, and against abortion: let's stipulate that's true.
So what? How does that advance the anti-Roe case, or for that matter the argument against legalizing abortion? We accept that innocent life will be taken in the execution of virtually all our public policies. Wars take innocent life (on all sides). Every major construction project will cost innocent life. We couldn't act unless we're willing to trade innocent life for a goal. To the extent we think about it at all, we make trade-offs: so many must die to do X. We could dramatically lower the number killed on the roads, for example, but only by making cars prohibitively expensive, so we make the trade: so many dead so cars will be widelay acceptable.
Most people seem to think that an innocent life taken so a woman doesn't have to bear a child resulting from rape is a fair trade, an innocent life taken simply because a woman would find it convenient a far less fair trade. Out of such calculi, post Roe, will come our abortion laws. They will fit, philosophically, with a host of other laws. An absolutist approach has no hope.
First everday activities have no intent to murder. If you are building a bridge you are not trying to murder workers. Second people consent to be involved in the activities. Anyone walking high steel knows theres a risk.
War is much the same. The actions are aimed at those seeking to do harm. We do not cosider targeting of civilian targets to be propper. Civilians not wishing to support a regime may flee.
Where is your point ? That killing children for convienence is acceptable ? Why not adopt roman law that you could kill children up to 1 year old ?
Your reference to "intent to Murder" merely assumes the conclusion that abortion is murder. Under the law as it stands, and in the eyes of a majority of Americans (if polls are to be believed), it isn't. My point was that we differentiate between actions that cause the death of innocents, and murder, all the time. Line-drawing is the essence of civilization. I don't need to go from thinking it acceptable, if regretable, to abort a three month fetus resulting from a rape to thinking it fine to kill a one year old; I find the line easy to draw. I suspect most would. If you don't, perhaps you should consult your demons.
Why not outlaw that ?
Three month ? How bout 6 month ? how about 8 month 29 day ? How about we delay labor a week and kill it when we can find a doctor that will do the foul deed ? Why not leave it in a trash heap a month after birth or cook it in a microwave oven ?
What you don't seem to get is all the above are equivalent. Would you propose laws that make it legal to kill people as long as they are at home ?
How about solving the social security problem by killing people over 65 ? I mean they are inconvenient and often annoying. Sure it would be regrettable but lets face it we have to get on with life.
You know Religious people aren't quite human either. They consistently vote republican and keep harping on values, boy thats just so annoying. Lets round them up and put forks in their heads.
You find the line easy to draw fine. I hope you do when someone decides you are on the wrong side of it.
We're degenerating into silliness. I expect you draw lines all the time. It isn't that hard. You understand the difference between, say, exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph and by 100 mph. You probably distinguish between a burglar and an innocent interloper. You may even acknowledge that it makes sense to do a heart replacement on a 12 year old, but not on a 92 year old.
Even where we can't articulate distinctions, we can make them--and must, if we're to survive as civilized humans.
You have chosen to break off, and say "No distinctions when it comes to abortion--I'm an absolutust." Well, fine, but I assume you realize most people aren't, and that means that, in a regime without Roe, which you and I hope to see, citizens will be called upon to suggest the distinctions they think need to be made. And refusing to make them will not only not produce the result you want, it makes it more difficult to get rid of Roe.
Assume a fatal and debilitating neurological. This disease strikes people often in the prime of life and slowly destroys them and then kills them. The victims have been sold on the idea that a line of research will cure them. This research involves destroying children. Or better yet, the cure requires the dissection of infants to provide transplant material.
Sure I draw lines all the time. Sure civilization does as well. The distinguishing facet about those lines is choice. The person crossing the line has choice. The burglar entering my home has made a choice. If someone exceeds the speed limit that is their choice.
Would you please tell me what choice a baby has made that it should be horribly put to death ?
What choice did the Japanese children at Horoshima make? What choice has the raped woman made? What real choice has the 13 year old made? Much of life consists of picking between evils. I would not choose to sacrifice children to the possibility that it would save the life of victims of a neurological disease. I would permit a woman to choose to abort--kill, if you prefer--a ten-week fetus.
Look--it doesn't matter how one views abortion; the absolutist approach isn't viable, and never will be. And the perfect is the enemy of the good; if one wants Roe reversed, it's best not to argue that the next step is an absolute bar on abortion under all circumstances. At some point one making that argument assumes some responsibility for the fetuses that might not have been aborted had Roe's reversal not been forestalled by fear of the purists.
The people at Hiroshima made a choice to support their government. The choice a raped woman has is to raise the baby or give it up for adoption.
You wouldn't kill a child to prevent a disease but would for convenience ?
Also please stop ascribing an absolutist view to me. I will never be happy about abortion, but I can certainly see the need in cases of medical necessity.
No, the children killed at Hiroshima hadn't "made a choice to support their government"--that's ridiculous. I cited them precisely because the children killed in wars are as innocent--as undeserving of death--as a fetus. We dropped our bombs, knowing they would kill people utterly innocent of any offense against us, and powerless to influence events, because we deemed it the lesser of evils. I made this point to explain why I find the "abortion is the taking of innocent life which is murder" argument unpersuasive. Viz, we take innocent life to implement policy all the time; without more, it's a weak argument against abortion. The posters who follow seem to embrace it, but fail to suggest why it's any worse to "take innocent life" in the case of a fetus than it is in the many other cases in which we knowingly do so, to advance some social goal we deem a higher priority--like winning WW II.
But I did misunderstand your position, and I apologize for ascribing to you a position you don't hold. This leaves us not far apart on this issue, since we both loathe Roe, and I hope that our post-Roe legal regimes will reflect the view that we both apparently hold: that abortion must be legal in some circumstances, but that the law must reflect the moral disquietude abortion occasions in most of us. People will differ on the appropriate places to place impediments to abortion, but legislatures are good at brokering those differences.
But in the Hiroshima case the children's choice was made by their parents. Yes this is weak but whats the saying "Hard cases make bad law ?"
War is the only case you have presented where innocent life is taken to implement policy. Please note making a choice of who to save with limited resources is not the same as taking life.
Well, as I said, I think we do it all the time. And I thought you said you accepted the need for legal abortion to save the life of the mother--surely that's a case of taking innocent life to implement policy (it's not a choice of who to save with limited resources, it's a case of who to kill). But all I ever wanted to accomplish in this exchange was to clarify that one could be anti-Roe, while believing that abortion should (and certainly would) remain legal. I think you and I, at least, are there.
If you take a life of the unborn to save the life of the mother you are making a choice of who to save. This would be under the concept that you can't force someone to give up their life to save another.
And yes even if Roe does get stricken abortion will be legal somewhere in the country.
We always let this debate distort to the argument of choice. That is not the discussion to have. It is nothing more than a cheap substitute that skirts around the issue of murder or not.
The debate has to be where does life begin? Then all our laws, morals, right and wrong kick in to automatically preserve life. There are some reasonable choices on where to draw the line that are debatable. Fertilization, 1st heartbeat, 1st brainwave, ability to feel pain?, etc...
I again challenge any "pro choice" person to go look at fetuses at every stage and look in the mirror and ask yourself if you would feel good sucking it out and washing it down the drain. An abortion is not equivalent of removing a mole or getting liposuction.
It is tiring hearing arguments using rape as the reason to defend abortion. Try at least arguing the rule rather than the exception just once.
Anyone who is pro choice should disclose at what point they define life.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be a Democrat.
-CommonCents
The battle line is over how you treat human life. Is human life sacred. Is it important to treat human life as something special and wonderful. Are people in general beneficial or harmful ?
There are the self interested hedonists. They no longer care where life begins. They care about their personal preferences and the absolute right to live a life unburdened by the curse of children.
Then there are the liberals that have made a god out of popularized science. They view unborn children as a convenient reservoir of human tissue for experimentation. These are the same people that are so concerned about the unintended consequences of building a dam but have no concern about the consequences of playing with human life.
Its so horrendously simple. The question that these people need to answer is what makes them different enough from an 8 month fetus that they shouldn't be subjected to the same treatment.
I don't think that this is necessarily the case. You could define life to start at conception, but that doesn't automatically make the fetus inviolate.
There are plenty of situations where we, as a society, make value judgements that trade human life for something else, such as money or convenience. Innocents die in wars, but we sometimes decide that it is still worth going to war. People die from diseases, but we don't spend all of our money on researching cures. People die from hunger, but we don't force people who aren't starving to give up food to help them. There will always be a need to strike a balance between preserving life and other conflicting considerations.
In this particular instance, you are talking about forcing a woman to carry around a baby for 9 months, with all the physical, emotional and financial repurcussions that entails. You may think that is a fair tradeoff for the life of the fetus, but many people do not.
Well said. Those who announce that "life begins at conception" or "abortion is murder" apparently think these are dazzling, unanswerable ripostes; they are simply question-begging. Any analysis of abortion policy has to start with reality, and the reality is that most people, most places put a, say, ten week fetus on a different moral plane than a fully-formed, viable child. Gnashing one's teeth and insisting that this is wrong won't move the ball. Viewing fetuses in bottles won't either. Invocation of theological positions won't. Acknowledging that any post-Roe regime must accomodate a range of options regarding abortion, that track the real-world views of the majority, is a necessary step toward Roe's reversal. Roe is an abomination because it is a usurpation that thwarts American democracy; those who are unwilling to recognize what American democracy would demand absent Roe only delay the day when Roe joins its ideological cousin, the Dred Scott decision.
to be discussing unborn children preserved in bottles.
Many of us who see abortion as the greatest evil in our country believe that educating women and men is the best way to cause a decrease in abortions. Thus, the notion of recommending websites that have illustrations that show just how violent abortion is.
One may choose to describe these unborn children as masses of tissue, but I know better.
I also believe there will come a day when those who advocate for the destruction of life will have to answer for it.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.