I am willing, but unfortunately my ability to put forth such an effort is currently curtailed by the necessity of fighting against people who want ot put a law on the books that would be counterproductive, damaging, and utterly useless (except on paper). If we ALL got on the same page and worked together to reduce unwanted pregnancies, we would see massive reductions in abortion rates without a single law needing to be passed. As long as we are fighting each other on this issue, nothing will get done. As soon as we start working together, we will have an impact.
Uh, no. a 30-year old constitutional judgement. The supreme court doesn't make laws...it interprets the constitutionality. Side Bar: Since prolifers want to overturn Roe V Wade, then doing so is a direct challenge of the constitution itself. If an outright ban on abortions ever passes (because the legislative and executive branch are both ultra-conservative), you bet your rear the Supreme court will eventually make a judgement on it. Hopefully ultra-conservatives have not stunk up the supreme court too. If 49% of the country votes Democrat, something is simply out of whack if all 3 branches of our government is represented by one party. That is EXACTLY what our forefathers were pretecting AGAINST from happening so the opinions of a some don't overrun the entire country...as in the topic...of abortion. Checks and Balances...right now, we don't have much as it is and the Repubs are working to remove what is left. but that is another thread.
krosfyah -- the Constitution means something different today than it did yesterday and it will tomorrow. it is no longer a truth...because it's been interpreted to mean virtually anything anyone wants it to mean. Roe v. Wade stems from the right to privacy, for example...a right that is NOT enumerated in the Constitution. Last I checked, the country is pretty split on abortion...it's damn close. And if a law passes then it's not some overriding many...it's our representative republic at work. Whether we like the results of that or not, these are the guy who have been elected. You're right that ultimately any such law will receive court scrutiny. More likely....I think it's far more likely this will end up being a state by state issue, as it was before. My Constitutional law professor was the most liberal person I've ever met. I loved here dearly, despite our differences. She was the daughter of a Jewish baker from Brooklyn. She was brilliant. She said she was sooo disappointed in the Roe decision, not for its outcome but in the basis used for supporting it. She said she and her friends were surprised it had lasted so long since it was such a poorly written opinion...on such feeble ground. She felt like eventually it would go back to being a decision left to each state, rather than to federal law, one way or the other.
I thought you were hinting at some amendment. Was the origianl Roe v. Wade ruling a challenge to the Constitution? I think not, so why do you want to exagerate this into one?
The basic principles of eqality and freedom are everlasting, however. The only changes to the constituion...that have lasted...have been amendments to sustain those principals. An abortion ban looks to place limits on Americans. That doesn't jive with me.
but it wasn't an amendment..it was a re-interpretation of the very same document. and in this case, reading in things based on premises that can't be found in the text.
Except as noted from early on in this thread there are many kids out there who don't get adopted or end up bouncing around in foster homes. We've also heard from even the most ardent pro-lifers that adoption is difficult and that pro-lifers shouldn't be expected to take on the burden of adopting unwanted children. THe other issue is costs. Who is going to pay for artificial wombs? WOuld it be the woman who didn't want to carry the child, a potential adoptive parent or the state? Even if we had the technology to create artificial wombs I imagine it would be a long time before they were cheap.
That sounds like a great program and if I think if more Pro-Lifers, and Pro-Choicers, acted that way I bet we could greatly reduce the need for abortion.
That is exactly the point of why a blanket ban on abortion will not work. If abortion were to be totally outlawed tomorrow that wouldn't change that there is still a huge demand for abortion and people will seek illegal ways to get them. This is an issue that I think compromise essential. I don't think a ban is good but neither is unfettered abortion. Reasonable people should be able to come to reasonable compromise but as long as the issue is so polarized and politicized its not going to happen.
The fact that one side doesn't recognize the humanity of the victims of abortion is a huge obstacle. Any ideas on how to overcome that?
Yes if the other side accepts that fact that their totalitarian dogmatic tactics are destroying freedom. But you're making my point for me. We can throw absolutists statements at each other but that's not going to resolve the issue. Each side has goals that given the present political climate are somewhat unrealistic and singleminded pursuit of them is making the situation more intractable. It might be a pipe dream but I do think reasonable agreement can happen. I think a start is working on reducing the causes of why women seek abortions. And no that's not mutually exclusive from working to end legal abortion but its one where you will find many on the pro-choice side willing to help.
Which side are you talking about? How about just doing what is right? I'll admit that that 9-week old may not be a human; I have no way of knowing for sure. Now will the pro-Choice side admit that that same 9-week may indeed be a human? I doubt they will becaues it casts aspersions upon their plans. But it is dishonest.
What is right is not an absolute truth. Don't you get it? One side thinks it is right because they are preserving life (and that might hold water if those same groups didn't support the death penalty and the Iraqi war...but that's an aside). Since the very question of life is what is at issue here, the other side defaults to the other side. 50% of the people are on this side and I can respect the opinion. The other side thinks it is right because it is preserving the basic principle of freedom that the American Constitution frames. The other 50% is on this side. The middle ground Sishir Chang outlines is a partial ban on abortions (which most Pro-Choice people I know can agree with) and more programs to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I beleive you'll have better results with this approach than a simple outright ban...only in one country on earth. That's my compromise...what is yours?
do you understand why one might justify killing a killer or killing in war before killing what they view as an innocent child? do you understand that there are people who are against the Iraqi war and against the death penalty...and also against abortion. here's an example of a group that might be home to some of those people: http://www.democratsforlife.org/
The Constitution is only a framework to ensure Americans can continue to enjoy basic principals of freedom and eqality. It is NOT actually law in the purest sense. Congress makes the actual laws. The Supreme Court simply ensures those laws conform to the Constituion's principals. Wow, do I really need to explain this? Maybe that's why you are having a hard time understanding this. So given that, the fact that NO ammendment was necessary should demonstrate to you how fundamentally unsound the idea is about eliminating rights from Americans really is. So again, we can accomplish the same results or even better results, if we act clearly within the bounds of the constituion. If we couldn't, then perhaps I'd support an ammendment.
If there weren't so many innocent, mentally challenged or otherwise contraversial elements about it (such as something like 75% of death row inmates is black), then perhaps I'd be more agreeable. Another example of Republic over-simplification. In a perfect world, I'd support the death penatly. But it isn't perfect. Regarding the war, are those people better off now than they were before? They are dying at a rate probably 10x over than the 5 years prior to the war. So how are we helping them again? If your principal is to error on the side of life, clearly that argument doesn't hold water here since it isn't clear that Iraq is better off. But we digress. I don't mean to open a new can...I'm just illustrating a point. I got a chuckle out of that. Yes, I'm not ONE BIT SURPRISED that there are democratic organizations that support all three. In fact, I'd expect it. But I'd be 100% surprised to know of any religious based and/or Republican groups that support all 3 ideas. However, I had not heard about this initiative before. As I read through it, I was more and more pleased!!! That is exactly what I'm talking about. Do you support the 95-10 Initiative? Without knowing more, I think it can be much more effective than an outright ban. But I'm sure it won't pass because there are folks on your side of the issue unwilling to compromise.
krosfyah -- lose the attitude. it's not necessary. you talked about "changes to the constitution" as "amendments to sustain principles." my point is that these are not amendments. you keep talking about the Constitution as if it's this big idea in the sky, with all knowing oracles on the court who help us see what is and isn't right. it's the very same document. there was no amendment to the constitution made to incorporate some new idea that people have a right to privacy which invalidates any law restricting abortion. it does not exist. the law was different before Roe...it's been changed since Roe...it will change again...for better or for worse, depending on your perspective. but to look at the constitution or the law as some objective force telling us what is real/true/right/pure/whatever is to miss Constituional history entirely. i wish that weren't the case. but it just is. the very "bounds of the Constitution" (your words) changes all the time.
Absolutely I support the 95-10 Initiative!!! Absolutely!!!! It's awesome!!! As for religious based groups that support all 3 ideas...check out the United Methodist Church...Presbyterian Church-USA..listen to the Pope...Lutheran Chruch...and that's just off the top of my head.
No I didn't, you did. All I said is we need to protect its basic principals. The fact that an ammendment wasn't needed is a testiment to the idea that its basic principals were being breached. Thats exactly right. You can view it like a big idea in the sky. The Constituion is only a framework. It doesn't spell out specific laws. The specific laws are interpreted based on the constitution. Yes, those interpretations can change...particularly if an extreme right-wing president further imparts his meek 51% majority win over the other 49% of Americans by drastically impacting yet another branch of the government. But enjoy it while it lasts because the pendulum will start swinging back soon. Any any interpretation that limits the freedoms on Americans, there will be a backlash. The law WILL change, definately. The the constitution isn't law. It's above that. Its uber-law. It will NOT change (much). It's interpretation may change as laws change...but the constitution is virtually static. The SPIRIT of the constitution is there to protect freedoms and eqaulity. That needs to be continually recognized in every decision we make.
1. Here is your post directly quoted from above: The basic principles of eqality and freedom are everlasting, however. The only changes to the constituion...that have lasted...have been amendments to sustain those principals. An abortion ban looks to place limits on Americans. That doesn't jive with me. That's what you said, Krosfyah. 2. you must have taken different Constitutional Law classes than I did...or I was absent the day they said it was static.
