I was just thinking If I could get some politician to propose some of these ideas publically it would probably end up making for some really funny SNL material.
I apologize if I upset you. I'm trying to understand your position. The whole part that, "a woman has full autonomy over her body" is NOT the state of the law in the United States with respect to abortion. Are you advocating changing that?? If you are, then I totally understand your line of thinking and your reason for using that rationale to support your position, generally. However, if you're satisfied with Roe and the state of the law with respect to abortion, then I don't get why you'd make the "a woman has full autonomy over her body" blanket statement in support of upholding the current law, which does not afford such absolutes. by the way....everything I just posted is absolutely discussing the arguments you "actually made." it was a direct response, by way of edit/copy, to your argument.
I don't accept abortion on demand. I'm not thrilled with it. But my concern isn't in changing laws...it's in changing people's minds and hearts about this. I'm not interested in demonizing anyone....I'm not interested in pointing fingers. I do find it curious that so few people seem to understand the state of the law they claim to be seeking to defend, though. I've run into that time and time and time and time again discussing this issue here.
As I understand it, most ProChoicers are trying to protect the status quo. Is the status quo not the state of the law? The Choice side isn't trying to introduce new legislation -- so while each layperson may not be able to articulate the nuances and legal jargon in a manner befitting a proper legal brief -- their concept that it's a woman's choice (at least for the first trimester) seems to be consistent with the state of the law. And you'll note I said 'accept' abortion, rather then 'support.' If you accept Roe, then, I think, you (very reluctantly and with much trepidation I imagine) accept abortion on demand in the first trimester. Albeit while working to convince women that it's the wrong choice. Am I wrong?
1. i hear ya. i just see all sorts of absolute blanket statements about a fetus being nothing more than a parasite relative to the woman's right to control her own body...and for 6 of the 9 months of a pregnancy that is NOT so under the law of the land/status quo that people say they're protecting. i think what people are arguing about in protecting here (from having had this discussion a bazillion times) is the absolute statement, and NOT the status quo/law of the land. and on more than one occassion when i've presented what the status quo/law of the land actually is the conversation has changed. 2. that's fair. i just don't believe the best way to resolve this issue from the standpoint i'm coming from is to demonize people who are facing terribly tough decisions. and laws don't change hearts.
You're right. As we bat this about we throw out all sorts of absolutes from the parasite analogy, to concept that women are simply incubators and that every sperm is sacred. It's much more complicated then that.
I'll attempt to distract this debate somewhat and try to generate some consensus on an issue that generally doesnt have much. I'm your standard "pro-choice" person so to speak. At the same time I dont care what your orientation on this issue is, this perpetual debate becomes so abstract and bloated that we almost divorce ourselves from understanding what an abortion is or even means to the mother. There are many reasons for this but as someone who would support abortion rights, I have to say Roe might be one of the worst supreme court decisions the court has ever made.It is one of the biggest reasons why this perpetual debate has occurred and why we have been subjected to the bombardment of this issue that has numbed us to the reality of abortion. Furthermore, we hear people talk a lot about judicial activism and generally I think most of that is fluff but Roe is probably one of the few examples where the legal reasoning was so twisted and convoluted that its pretty safe to call it an activist decision. Roe has caused serious problems. It took the issue out of the hands of people and politicians and reduced it to a political football. Politicians and citizens are free to make up whatever absurd rhetoric they want. After all they'll never ever have to vote on it. You see just ridiculous statements and inflated rhetoric from our politicians and why should they care. There's no incentive not to make this into a political issue. Overturning Roe would finally mean that every person on both sides would have to put their money where their mouth is and walk the walk. I guarantee if Roe got overturned most states would legalize abortion the next day but there would be an actually productive debate on the extent of when an abortion can occur during the birth cycle. I think the back alley abortion horror stories wouldnt happen if Roe got overturned because states would pass laws legalizing it pretty shortly. Instead we'd get informed and rational debates on abortion, instead of self-serving and extreme rhetoric from both sides that we get today. I think this notion that abortion can be banned entirely in this country just isnt a reality but a productive debate on the extent of abortion is not only possible but healthy. And that will only happen when Roe goes away.
Interesting you say that. My Constitutional Law professor agreed with you. She was absolutely the definition of the liberal law professor and she said when Roe came down she thought for sure it would be refined to the point of being stricken down for that very reason....because the logic of it was so twisted and "made up." She was deeply disappointed in that decision, despite being ADAMANTLY pro-choice. As an aside...I was far more politically conservative back when I was in law school. Many of you know that from my posts back then. And I had arguments with her quite a bit....but at the end of the day, she was so respectful of the difference of opinion and the people behind it. She and her late-husband are Jewish and they wrote beautiful articles on capital punishment and the misplacement of using the Torah to justify eye-for-eye justice. They are/were intensely peaceful people and my discussions with her in particular shaped a ton of my views and my own theology. Among the few treasured things I think I actually learned in law school was learning from her how to disagree without disrespect.
Good post and I agree Roe is a very problematic decision but I don't think the principal of a derived right to privacy is flawed and I think as we've seen medical technology advance a right to privacy of our own bodies is very important. Agree totally that one of the problems with Roe was that while this is a widely debated issue actually working it out legislatively has been limited. In a way I think this is one of the problems with gay marriage is that for a long time it was court driven when it probably shouldve been worked out legislatively. Being someone who does care about Federalism I also like the idea of it being left to the states to decide but can see a lot of problems with it. Many states would legalize abortion but many wouldn't. Consider that practically states like Wyoming, North and South Dakota don't have abortions since even though it is legal the culture has made it practically impossible. I thin you are also right that there might not be an epidemic of back alley abortions but I doubt the demand for abortions will decrease and there will be some level of underground. Again looking at the situation between North Dakota and Minnesota. If Abortion is banned outright in ND you will likely see many come to MN to have them, as is the case at the moment. At the sametime coming to MN isn't always practical so the situation now of having OB/GYN's travel to ND once a week will possibly still be done but underground along with something like an RU-486 black market. What will get really messy without a national standard though is in how strict the states right their abortion laws. For instance a state that writes a law saying abortion is murder what would they do if one of their citizens travels to another state and has an abortion. Would they arrest that person upon return? Would they try to extradite the doctor that performed the abortion?
It's all good. It seemed like you were trying to derail my argument to talk about the legal status quo of abortion. I'm actually quite familiar with abortion law starting with Roe and going forward from there. I don't agree with much of your characterization of the legal status quo, but that's not really what I wanted to discuss. There are aspects of the law I would like to see changed, like parental notification. Overall, though, it seems to me that the woman's health (or well-being) exceptions to abortion restrictions tend to be interpreted broadly enough to accomodate for any need a woman seeking an abortion might have. The importance of Roe is that it extended the right to privacy, established in Griswold v. Connecticut, to abortions, absent a compelling state interest. As for what constitutes a compelling state interest, Roe's standard is no longer case law. But you're not responding to my arguments. You're diverting the discussion to a legal one. Unfortunately, I have an interest in the law so I am easily suckered into such diversions.
I appreciate your response, and I was only going down the legal side to understand what your position was with respect to the value you shared. I agree entirely that the woman's health interpretation is VERY broadly construed....I disagree with it, because I think it's intellectually dishonest. If you're going to allow abortion on demand whenever and however, at least be honest enough to say it. (when I say "you" in that last sentence, I don't mean you, L'Scola!!! ) In all honesty, I'm not sure what I diverted from...was there a question I ignored??
The diversion was that you didn't even address my argument, except by saying that it was "utter fail" because it wasn't consistent with the legal status quo. My argument was that the question of a woman's autonomy over her own body is prior to any question of the personhood of the fetus, as shown by the analogy of the guy with the tubes strapped to him.
I don't have an argument for that. I'm hoping for a solution that respects both the value of the woman and the value of the fetus.
