Roe v Wade

Too much time & divisive political energy & capital has been wasted surrounding the advocating & opposition to the U.S. Supreme court decision in Roe v Wade.
The pro & con advocates continue to spin their RWG daily during election cycles obscuring much more interesting subjects such as governing philosophy, economic strategy, war & the like. Women's politics have suffered because of tunnel vision on this one subject.  I have outlined my stand that abortion is none of the government's business & should likewise not be funded by taxpayer dollars & should be regarded as a lesser included part of the 1st amendment religious establishment clause. The rightness or wrongness of abortion can only be decided in one's heart since physically, no person or scientist can find the soul & spirit with instrumentation or logic. Most such arguments will ultimately find their roots in religions or atheisms (materialism).
What should we do (or not do) about Roe v Wade?
In one step not two change the constitution to incorporate abortion as only an individual right exclusive of interference of any government under the religious establishment clause of the 1st amendment. IANAL, but I suggest that the following principles must be incorporated in the changes:
  1. It is important that the new law not be seen as permission to have abortions such as Roe V Wade seems to be. Personal arguments suggesting that "it's legal so I can do it" should be discouraged.
  2. Governmental funds at any level should be prohibited for use for abortion including counseling.  If funds are needed they should be from the resources of private abortion advocates.
  3. The choice for an abortion is strictly between a woman & her moral resources such as God, morality, family etc & not governments but parental advice & counsel should be affirmed except in the case of incest.
  4. Alternatives such as adoption could be enumerated.
  5. Crafting the amendment or (possibly?) a Federal law should be put on a fast track in order to benefit the country's political process.
  6. Parental rights should be emphasized for minority women, but rape & incest complicate the rules. 
  7. Rules for doctors & abortion providers should be spelled out consistent with the Hippocratic Oath.
  8. (*NEW) - the logic underneath undecidability is that governments, science, technology & psychology are concerned with the empirical - that which occurs between birth & death.  Whether there exists some kind of human existence after death or before birth is the domain of religion (faith & beliefs or ??) which domain is separate according to the first amendment.
  9. (*NEW) - the man involved in a conception should have a voluntary participation right congruent with the woman's choice since only the woman can take an abortive action.

Any Others ??  

    

Tags

  1. abortion
  2. roe v wade

Comments


Seth says
Yes, making a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right of a woman to choose would be nice.  I just don't think such legislation has a chance of hell of ever making it through the long process necessary to change the constitution.  Voting citizens are just about equally divided on this issue (see chart from Gallup below).  How can you get a constitutional amendment in such a political climate? 




Seth says
I have no idea how you build in your subtle distinctions into a constitutional amendment - or for that matter what the distinction actually is from a practical perspective.   It seems to me that any kind of legislation must specifically allow or disallow specific actions.  Then to you seem to have a dual agenda here.  The first may (or may not - sometimes i can't tell) prohibit laws against abortion.  But there is another undertone in your agenda related to the woman's "conscience" which by your own principal of keeping the government out of matters of faith has no place in legislation.  As i understand it now, it's just confusion.

Personally i feel that whatever actions the government takes should have the positive effect of reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies and reducing the number of abortions.  Your legal change may be good and true and have fine moral intentions, yet end up having the opposite  effect on actual events.  That may have been the case with the current administration's policies  ... I've seen statistics quoted on both sides of that issue. 

Mark de LA says
Polls muddy the true state of the issue.  If you really asked the population if they are/are not in favor of abortions you get an entirely "against" result.  That's why the issue has been framed as "pro-choice" vs "pro-life". Poll results depend entirely on the exact questions asked & how the questioner asks the questions. What follows from poll taking further skews the results because the publisher wants or usually has a point of view & generalizes to get there.


Mark de LA says
M 2008-09-05 10:59:36 10432
There is a subtle distinction between guaranteeing the right to abortion & kicking the government out of the abortion business.  I have not quite communicated that distinction well yet & am just considering the mechanism to do that now.  It certainly won't happen before the election.  Constitutional amendments are rare & take a long time.

If you throw it back from being legal or a right to a true choice of the woman herself, then she can no longer absolve her conscience with the "it's legal" argument & must surely consult her faith in her religion (or lack thereof) & her peers & counselors consistent with the prohibition that none of them be governmental.

Mark de LA says
Seth: ... But there is another undertone in your agenda related to the woman's "conscience" which by your own principal of keeping the government out of matters of faith has no place in legislation.  As i understand it now, it's just confusion.
... this is a nuance or subtle distinction which is merely an argument for the law & won't be codified into it.  For those of us who are pro-life it is a horrible thought that a law or constitutional ammendment be passed that prohibits laws against abortion or makes abortion legal.  Instead, what I am proposing is returning the matter to chaos wholly depending upon the pregnant mother's individual choice however she decides to make that choice.  It is essentially between her & God.  No government of any kind is allowed inside except in special circumstances. Remember that even the right to freedom of speech is still not absolute.


Seth says
M 2008-09-05 12:07:06 10432
Seth: ... But there is another undertone in your agenda related to the woman's "conscience" which by your own principal of keeping the government out of matters of faith has no place in legislation.  As i understand it now, it's just confusion.
... this is a nuance or subtle distinction which is merely an argument for the law & won't be codified into it.  For those of us who are pro-life it is a horrible thought that a law or constitutional amendment be passed that prohibits laws against abortion or makes abortion legal.  Instead, what I am proposing is returning the matter to chaos wholly depending upon the pregnant mother's individual choice however she decides to make that choice.  It is essentially between her & God.  No government of any kind is allowed inside except in special circumstances. Remember that even the right to freedom of speech is still not absolute.

So would your amendment make abortion legal or not?

Mark de LA says
It would be not illegal & it would also be not governments' business. The point is without both of those requirements it's no different than it is now & we keep the RWG going.


Mark de LA says
There is another idea here as well.  The Tenth Amendment says:
source: ... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If I flow charted it I would say that making it not illegal gives the regulation back to the states.  But saying that it is not the business of any government (a la the first amendment) then reserves the right & consequences to the individual!



Mark de LA says
seth 2008-09-05 14:36:49 10432
M 2008-09-05 13:21:11 10432
It would be not illegal & it would also be not governments' business. The point is without both of those requirements it's no different than it is now & we keep the RWG going.

Sorry i still don't see the distinction, in practical terms, between Roe V Wade and your amendment.   It would be legal (not illegal = legal) and government could not pass laws against it (not government's business).  I'll admit that you can put wording in the constitution which will have that effect and still at the same time be more acceptable to pro-lifers.  But how, in practical terms, would your amendment change the situation we currently have with Roe V Wade?  I mean outside of the obvious paper change of burning legal abortion in the constitution.

Sounds to me like your are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I like my wording better! It may be legal in man's laws but I doubt that it is nearly so trivial in the eyes of God!

Mark de LA says
There are lots of things that are not illegal like a defense lawyer getting a rapist child molester off on a technicality (it's even his job), but is it a good idea?

Seth says
M 2008-09-06 11:12:07 10432
There are lots of things that are not illegal like a defense lawyer getting a rapist child molester off on a technicality (it's even his job), but is it a good idea?
Yes.   But you are making a revolutionary proposal here to actually try to legislate 3 categories, of action here:  legal, xor not legal, xor immoral.  Before you go down that path, me thinks you need to see where it leads.  Does it not lead to the very thing you decry:  letting the government involve itself with our personal choices re morality?

Mark de LA says
Politics may be the art of the possible, but leadership is the art of persuasion toward something which may seem impossible.  The often touted goal of going to the moon in a JFK speech (YouTube). Again, IANAL! I say that here are the specs. When the specs are put into iron clad legalese then we will have a good law. This is the conversation that proceeds that. Thanks for your participation.


Mark de LA says
Again, more inspirational JFK speeches, his inaugural addresses part 1 & part 2 on Youtube could be applied today to the context of the world and the country at this time!


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-09-06 11:34:14 10432
M 2008-09-06 11:12:07 10432
There are lots of things that are not illegal like a defense lawyer getting a rapist child molester off on a technicality (it's even his job), but is it a good idea?
Yes.   But you are making a revolutionary proposal here to actually try to legislate 3 categories, of action here:  legal, xor not legal, xor immoral.  Before you go down that path, me thinks you need to see where it leads.  Does it not lead to the very thing you decry:  letting the government involve itself with our personal choices re morality?
Seth, there is nothing in my screed which suggests legislating morality. I'm saying kick the government out of the abortion business because wisdom says that it can only be decided on the basis of an individual's morality.  Society as a whole just wants to fight about in the RWG. Long ago RvW made it about winning not logic or morals.  The Law is about what is written - it makes no judgements about whether something is asinine or not. Some Supreme court justice said that somewhere in my RvW research on stari decisis yesterday.

Mark de LA says
source: ... Roberts concluded that the age discrimination and detention in this case were constitutional, noting that "the question before us... is not whether these policies were a bad idea, but whether they violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.", language reminiscent of Justice Potter Stewart's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which Justice Stewart wrote, "We are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that, I cannot do."
...


Seth says
Well then to go further you need to write down a rough draft of the actual amendment.  "Kicking government out of the abortion business" is obviously not appropriate.  The other part, me thinks you need to address, is the practicality of actually getting such an amendment past all the state legislatures.  Also would you let RoeVWade get overturned prior to the passage of such a bill?  Politics is the art of the possible ... is your proposal possible? ... will it reduce abortions? ... will it reduce unwanted pregnancies?  Or is it just an idealized solution that can never happen in the real world?

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-09-08 07:54:16 10432
Yep as an elected official of the government it's none of Obama's business; ie "above his pay grade".  I though that was pretty much the stance of the author of this item.
Yep, a lot of people have one-half of the argument, but so far except here we have nobody in politics willing to go for the other half - no governmental funding, hands-off because it is a first amendment religious issue! no tax-payer $$$ either.
source: ...

Obama has come under fire for his vastly pro-abortion position, including supporting virtually unlimited abortions paid for at taxpayer expense. He has also tried to deflect criticism that he misrepresented his votes in the Illinois legislature against bills that would have stopped infanticides.

Obama has also promised activists with Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, that the first thing he would do as president is overturn every pro-life law in all 50 states.


...P.S. infanticide is NOT abortion & comes under the heading of murder.


Mark de LA says
It is interesting that Obama can put it so succinctly in his "It's above his paygrade" comment & controversy, but still wants governmental involvement via the party line. See this article.
source: ... In an interview with ABC News' "This Week" program on Sunday, Obama said he meant to say that he thinks the scientific question of the beginning of human life is a theological one that he can't answer.

...


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-09-12 13:50:39 10432
Just in case people still think that it is not a Republican goal to overturn Roe V Wade, here it is from the mouth of your won candidate.  Stari decisis will not protect this ruling from a clear Conservative majority on the court.  It has been a long standing agenda to kick this back to the states ... you have it here from the horses mouth.  But i don't think Woopie needs to worry about becomming a slave ... there already is an ammendment for that ... isn't there?
It's basically paranoia on your part.  The now Chief Justice Roberts has a majority; added that it was settled law during his confirmation(more than just stare decisis);  & it still hasn't happened. It is not likely to happen ; the court being independent & cherishing other ideals once appointed than those of the party that appointed the members.  Souter is a prime example.  I don't exactly get your vested interest unless you or your heirs are likely to become pregnant.



Seth says
You still do not accept that it has been a long standing agenda of conservative Republican presidents to stack the court such that eventually Roe V Wade will be overturned.   Now finally you have it in McCain's own words, yet you still deny this agenda. 

My own vested interest is to keep abortion as a woman's choice and not let it be the business of state governments.  I still find your agenda here oddly confusing.

Mark de LA says
seth 2008-09-12 14:21:10 10432
You still do not accept that it has been a long standing agenda of conservative Republican presidents to stack the court such that eventually Roe V Wade will be overturned.   Now finally you have it in McCain's own words, yet you still deny this agenda. 

My own vested interest is to keep abortion as a woman's choice and not let it be the business of state governments.  I still find your agenda here oddly confusing.
Yep, I still don't accept it. That's mostly liberal scare tactics to manipulate the female electorate.  That may be McCain's agenda, but he & or you will find that it is a lot harder to accomplish than promise.  I don't accept an interview on the View as anything except sensationalism & gums flapping.


Mark de LA says
seth 2008-09-14 08:35:09 10432
Those people who think that the Republican Conservative addenda to overturn Roe V Wade is  "basically liberal paranoia" should read this article by a professor at Harvard Law School.  I have pasted selected text from the article in the quote box below, but your really should read the entire article.  Any bolding emphasis is mine.
source: Boston Globe: The fate of Roe v. Wade and choice

Republican presidential candidate John McCain vows to "return the abortion question to the individual states" and then "to end abortion at the state level."  The new president will probably be in a position to appoint at least one and perhaps as many as three new justices. With an excellent chance to reconfigure the Supreme Court, McCain, if elected, might well be able to get what the antiabortion movement wants - and more fundamentally, numerous changes in other areas of constitutional law as well.

...some conservatives who speak of "strict construction," and of "legislating from the bench," have something quite radical in mind.

For them, these are code words. They seek to appoint judges who will overturn not merely Roe, but dozens of other past decisions. For example, they want judges to impose flat bans on affirmative action, to invalidate environmental regulations, to increase presidential power, and to reduce the separation of church and state. Some Republican appointees to the Supreme Court have already called for significant changes in constitutional law in these domains.

Does all this sound like "strict construction"? Actually there is an uncomfortably close overlap between the constitutional views of some recent Republican appointees to the federal judiciary and the political views of those on the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. There is a good chance that a newly constituted Supreme Court would entrench some of those views into constitutional law.

... we should not overlook a crucial point: The fate of Roe v. Wade, and of countless principles in constitutional law, is now hanging in the balance.

Be not confused in your thinking.  A vote for McCain is a vote to have government smack in the middle of reproductive choice
He who finds code words in everything he sees of conservatism should really seek treatment & meds for paranoia! Strict construction means exactly quit making up laws from the judicial bench. Law making is the province & constitutional dury of legislatures who must answer to the people by periodic elections.  An appointment for life can ignore the people. I think even Seth should be paranoid of such a thing. I would prefer no abortion rather than abortion at will (& infanticide) paid for at government expense. Kicking the government out of the abortion business is the best we can do at this time.  Here is an article on Top 10 reasons Obama voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act which should give us a clear idea of what Obama brings to the table.

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-01-10 08:59:02 10432
M 2012-01-10 07:44:34 10432
Unfortunately, some of the undecidability argument breaks down as it could equally be applied to capital punishment. 
Governments purview is between birth & death.  Before birth & after death belong to other beings in the Cosmos (if any).
That can be handled in a different item when I get  
All of your assertions are based upon your Faith ... eg when a person is born is a matter of Faith ... that Government has purview between birth & death (whatever that may be defined to be) is a matter of Faith.  Hence, i don't understand your point.
NONE of my arguments are based on faith.  Governments can only be concerned with what takes place between birth & death. They can confiscate all your money after you die, but they can't put you in jail afterwards.  They can prematurely terminate your birth but, that is about all they can do to fuck up anything pre-birth life (IF ANY). Nothing depends upon there being ANYTHING outside of normal birth & death. I state clearly that anything outside that is the domain of religions etc. The first amendment guarantees that to be a domain free of government interference. It is only hard to understand by the hard-headed, imho.


Mark de LA says
M 2008-10-19 15:38:19 10432
seth 2008-10-19 14:15:41 10432
M 2008-10-19 13:23:38 10432
source: ... To suggest - as some Catholics do - that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse," Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled "Little Murders."
...
Not everyone is so mesmerized as Obama acolytes - wake up! y'all.

Obama adopts policies with the objective of reducing abortions.  McCain has voted consistently against policies that have the objective of preventing unwanted pregnancies.  For me that does make Obama the pro-life candidate.
Yep! THAT's ABORTION.  Obama adopts policies which aid abortion.
source: ... President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
...I object to my taxpayer dollars being used for abortion here or in foreign countries. It is not the business of government to subsidise death mills.
source: ...

President Obama on Friday is expected to lift a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.


...
 probably needes the raw commodity to support his lifting of the ban on fetal stem-cell experimenatation. Since this item was written, there has been success in creating useful stem cells from other than unborn babies.


See Also

  1. Thought Means & Ends - the Good, Bad and the Ugly with 88 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  2. Thought about: Gallup: Will Abortion Issue Help or Hurt McCain? with 2 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  3. Thought Abortion is None of the Government's Business! with 2 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  4. Thought about: Partial Birth Abortion with 1 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  5. Thought Sarah Palin has Trig problems with 1 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  6. Thought War on Women - #WarOnBabies with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  7. Thought Imagine a War on Women - Democrats do! with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  8. Thought Obama Carries Abortion Rights all the Way to Infanticide with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  9. Thought Freedom of CHOICE with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  10. Thought Abortion not solvable by the Government with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  11. Thought Earth Week 2010 with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  12. Thought Abortion Postscript with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  13. Thought A Picture Saying More than the Words of Obama with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  14. Thought I Wonder if Wikileaks Would Handle the Release of the Video Tapes with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  15. Thought A simplified abortion argument with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  16. Thought Continued Debate (or NOT) with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  17. Thought My Grandfather's Son - Justice Thomas with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  18. Thought [title (6891)] with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".
  19. Thought Obamabortion! with 0 viewings related by tag "abortion".